I voted for Hillary, unenthusiastically, and begrudgingly.
She is not the evil person the right has spent the last 30 years making her out to be.
I think she could have been a decent president.
She was not my candidate of choice. I am one of those silly people who liked Martin O’Malley, who in a different era, should have been a fine and strong candidate. I liked what Bernie had to say, but I also didn’t feel he would have been an effective president.
The people wanted a Revolution, and when the Democrats failed to offer the Bernie Revolution, they went with the Trump Revolution.
I am a firm believer Bernie would have beaten Trump.
I also don’t think it was his socialist message that would have done it, but his populist, outsider appeal.
Recently, Ex-FBI head James Comey tweeted the following and caused a stir:
This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that “Ambition must … counteract ambition.” All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall. Policy differences don’t matter right now. History has its eyes on us.
— James Comey (@Comey) July 18, 2018
I don’t think Comey is wrong. I think the far left is overly optimistic of their chances, and are more likely to split the vote, and toss the race back to the Republicans and Trump. Shudder…sigh…
If we had Ranked Choice Voting for President, the Democratic Socialists could run as far and as hard as they could, and let the voters sort it out, without jeopardizing splitting the party.
But without Ranked Choice Voting for President, the spoiler effect is all too real.
The 1 in 10 Bernie voters who split for Trump, were enough to sway the election, and let’s mention the Democrat voters who came out for Obama, but stayed home for Clinton.
I will be glad to be wrong, but I don’t believe America will vote for a Progressive Socialist in great enough numbers to win.
In Maine, even using Ranked Choice Voting, the Progressives and Socialist leaning candidates for Governor were beaten by two moderate Democrats.
The Democrats lost because Hillary was a weak candidate at best, not because she wasn’t a socialist.
She was able to win in the Senate because she carpet bagged her way into a virtually no lose Blue electorate.
If she was supposed to have been president, she should have been able to beat Obama the first time around. He was a relatively unknown senator whose claim to fame was giving a speech at the convention.
The Democratic party establishment took a one time loser, and made her a two time loser (and dragged us down with her.)
It was not Hillary’s “turn”. Politics doesn’t work in “turns”. It works in inspiring, motivating, and bringing out voters to vote. She was uninspiring to most Americans.
You can blame the Russians, Republican control of redistricting and gerrymandering, and the electoral college, all contributed to the loss, but the fact of the matter is, she ran a poor campaign, and after 30 years in the public eye, people already had a well formed opinion of her and too many were uninspired by her.
Beating “team Red” (ironically, now with the traditional and modern sense of “Red”) is most important this time around.
Moderates and leftists can duke it out afterwards, but to fail to come to compromise and consensus is akin to asking for more Trump and the Republicans.
I for one call upon Independents, Moderates, Liberals, and non-bamboozled Republicans and right wingers, to support candidates who show they have the broadest appeal.
I call upon those candidates who fail to energize voters, and have poor poll numbers, to drop out and support the candidate in the race that appears to have the best chance of defeating the “red” candidates.
In Maine, we have seen what happens when the majority splits itself into smaller minorities than the other side has.
Let’s turn the page, and after winning, then fight for the ideology of choice.
Winning is more important at this point in history, than a protest vote.
In the meantime, let’s keep advocating and pushing for systems like Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice Voting, so that we the voters have the tools to truly pick better candidates, especially when the two dominant parties are not offering us candidates we want to vote for, instead of only against.