It’s finally election day here in Pennsylvania. I’ll head to the polls soon and cast two difficult votes. The one most people care about is for the presidency, but there is also a hotly-contested Senate primary today between John Fetterman, Katie McGinty, and Joe Sestak. I’d like to say that I’m pleasantly surprised to have five candidates to choose from who all have real strengths.
There was probably never any chance that I’d vote for Clinton over Sanders, but she’s run an excellent campaign so far, she’s running much closer to an Obama Democrat than a traditional New Democrat in the mold of her husband, and I’ve grown much more comfortable with her over time. The main reason that I’ll vote against her isn’t anything she’s done poorly in the campaign. It’s simply my inability to trust her foreign policy instincts. I could get past her Iraq War vote. I got past John Kerry’s Iraq War vote twelve years ago. But I can’t get past her policy recommendations for Syria, Libya and Iran while she was Secretary of State. This remains the chief reason why this election season has made me so miserable, because I haven’t been able to endorse or wholeheartedly support anyone.
My vote for Sanders is really a vote for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and a vote for a more restrained and cautious foreign policy. I don’t actually think Sanders is well-suited for the office of the presidency, and I think he’d probably be an enormous failure in the job. In fact, if I actually got to choose one of them to be president, I might choose Clinton. But my vote is for a delegate to the convention, not for president, and I want my delegate to be a progressive.
In the Senate race, I really support John Fetterman, who I think would be an absolutely fascinating senator. If elected, I think he’d quickly become one of the most compelling progressive voices in the country. Unfortunately, he’s polling 25 points behind McGinty and Sestak who are in close to a dead heat. McGinty was trailing until very recently, but an endorsement from Barack Obama seems to have boosted her into a small lead. This is an easy choice for me, and I’ll be going with McGinty. A lot of progressives are concerned that she facilitated fracking in our state when she served as the Environmental commissioner in Ed Rendell’s administration. They also point out that she seems to have benefitted financially from building relationships with the energy industry. Against that, she got started working on the environment with Al Gore, and she’s worked to promote clean and renewable energy. She’s endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and by Oceans Champions. She’s also endorsed by every major labor union in the state, including AFSCME, the SEIU, United Steelworkers, and the state AFL-CIO.
Joe Sestak has a lot of strengths, too, and I’d say that most progressives I know who aren’t supporting Fetterman are supporting Sestak. My main objection to Sestak is a little quirky and personal, but he’s a tyrant with his staff. Maybe it’s his background as an admiral, but the people who tried to work for him have nothing nice to say about the experience. That’s a character flaw for me, and it makes me disinclined to vote for him. Having said that, if you care more about how a politician votes than how he treats his staff, you might like Sestak better than McGinty. I think Sestak would be a slightly more reliable Democrat, although McGinty might make up for it by being a much better coalition builder. I think she’d get along with her colleagues very well. I can’t say that I believe that about Sestak.
To be honest, I won’t be 100% sure who I’ll vote for in this race until I get in the booth. I just know that it won’t be Sestak.
Like you, I cast my lot with Bernie for the reasons you set forth. The main difference is that Hillary’s speech to AIPAC was for me a freak out moment. After that, I just couldn’t bring myself to support her in the primary.
But now that Sanders is making noises about not supporting Clinton when she’s the nominee, I’m regretting my earlier vote. Honestly, it’s hard to vote for either of these two in a primary.
That said, I will vote and campaign for either in the general election because all the Republicans are bat-shit crazy.
I wish there was a way to gamble on the number of new countries Hillary will bomb as president (so, other than Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, am I missing any?). I say at least one, probably two.
Some of Obama’s best work has been in foreign policy: withdrawing (mostly) from Iraq, dealing with Iran (a huge achievement), getting a (inadequate, toothless, but still better than nothing) climate deal. New START with Russia. Hard to see Hillary doing those things. Happy to be wrong, but Hillary is a well-known member of the “Doing Stupid Shit” school of foreign policy. Of course, the Obama administration has plenty of bloody and horrifying clusterfucks on it’s record. The Surge in Afghanistan. Pretty much anything even remotely connected to our dear allies Israel and the KSA…
My policy recommendation would be for the US to just get the fuck out of the Middle East. Maybe sit out a couple decades.
Now that nominee Clinton is pretty much a fact, I’m getting the heebie jeebies foreign policy wise. It would be great if Sanders could extract some dovish commitments from Clinton, but it’s really hard to do and his focus is domestic.
Maybe Sanders could call for a War Tax, an automatic tax increase to pay for any new US foreign adventures
Or for Kerry to stay on as SecState
Kerry would be a great choice to remain at State, but (1) would he want to continue on in the Clinton administration and (2) would Clinton want him to stay?
It appears that she has already been hard at work assembling her own shadow national security team, and I’m not sure how Kerry fits in with that group:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-28/clinton-quietly-building-her-own-national-security-council
"The groups report up to the campaign’s senior foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, who was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and director of policy planning when she was secretary of state. Day-to-day management is also handled by Sullivan’s deputy, Laura Rosenberger, who worked at Clinton’s State Department and on Barack Obama’s National Security Council staff.
In addition to the working groups, Sullivan relies on a somewhat separate group of senior former officials who have more frequent interaction with the campaign leadership and Clinton herself. Many of these advisers aren’t publicly affiliated with the campaign because they have leadership roles with organizations that have not endorsed any candidate for president.
But sources close to the campaign told me that Clinton, Sullivan and campaign chairman John Podesta are in regular contact with former National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Other former top officials include Michelle Flournoy, who was undersecretary of defense for policy; Kurt Campbell, who was assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific; and Nicholas Burns, who was undersecretary of state for political affairs. One source close to the campaign described the interactions as "studiously informal but regular."
I voted for Clinton here in CT. Your concerns with her mirror my own, and Bernie seems like a nice enough guy and a good progressive, but I too think he might actually be a disaster as president due to his lack of executive experience and the possibility that he would fumble out of the gate and never get his act together after that. Clinton’s shortcomings in foreign policy are apparent but are not make or break for me.
I went for McGinty. My heart said Fetterman but given that it’s a close race among the frontrunners, I didn’t want to see the Pennsylvania Democrats go down the Coakley road.
You probably saw this:
Why I blame Bernie Sanders for John Fetterman’s low poll numbers :
I saw some other articles about how Fetterman is doing the real work of what Sanders just talks about. The challenge for Fetterman is that he’s just getting started so he doesn’t have the ability to go up against two far better known opponents without help.
It’s this sort of thing about Sanders that makes me very skeptical of him — the only way a Sanders presidency would be able to do even a single thing he’s promised is for the senate to have 20 Fettermans, not zero. Sanders doesn’t seem to get that.
I had planned originally to vote for him here in CA when the time comes for the same reason as you Martin. But I can’t do it any more. I’m no fan of Clinton, and spent too much time working for Obama in 2007/2008 to get over her behavior from them easily, but with each passing day I am more comfortable with her as president.
I thought about it, but I decided not to pick at that scab. I really don’t want to pick on Sanders’ shortcomings at this point. You have to understand, it’s painful for me to have to stand aside from my progressive brothers and sisters who poured their hearts into this campaign.
Two things in response
1. I don’t think Sanders ever expected when he announced his run it would last as long as it ddi or that he would have such success at raising money from small contributors. I believe he jumped in the race to push a progressive agenda and move Hillary somewhat left. I don’t think it’s a fair criticism of him to have not anticipated he would be able to have any success at this level re: fundraising from small donors.
2. Sanders has begun to raise money for progressive candidates:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-progressives-fundraising-221887
I also expect that he will, after the primaries are over, convert his fundraising efforts toward promoting candidates that share his values. To have expected his bottom-up rag-tag campaign to be as organized as the Clintons on this point is asking a bit much, imo, especially since she sits on piles of Super Pac money, and has coordinated with the DNC since at least last summer when Sanders was seen as a sideshow fringe candidate.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clinton-puts-tight-grip-on-dnc-wallet-119748
That’s all fine, Steve, but it basically validates my whole position from the beginning, which was that his campaign didn’t have a damn chance and didn’t take itself seriously enough for me to take it seriously and put my time, effort, or credibility into backing them as viable.
Remember, I limited myself to cautioning people about irrational exuberance. I kept my opinion of him to myself for months and months, usually choosing not to say anything until people accused me of ignoring his campaign and its successes.
But he didn’t come to win, so I didn’t treat him as anything more than a message candidate. He’ll get my vote, and he’ll get some gratitude from me, too. But I’m glad I never encouraged anyone to actually believe. It would have been dishonest and only contributed to people’s frustration and disillusionment.
And yet you continue to see no connection between your lack of real support for Sanders and the fact that he is behind.
Let me ask you a serious question: what harm would it have done you to have been a vocal supporter of Sanders? You could have even made a statement along the lines of it being a long shot. But to give this weak, I’m voting for him but he has no chance statement, and to repeat it over and over and over again, seems pointless. Except to bash those Sanders supporters that were enthusiastic.
I’m not claiming your voice alone would have changed the primary, but I have heard this claim from many Sanders “supporters”. Like you they have done little to nothing in making a case for Sanders.
I’d almost rather people like you said you were Clinton supporters; it might have actually helped.
I don’t want to speak for Booman but it appears from his comments and this post that his support from Sanders was soft at best and more of a preference than a full throated support of the candidate.
If that’s the case then I don’t see how him saying Sanders doesn’t have a chance as he has basically for 2 years is bashing Sanders supporters especially when it’s clear that Sanders himself didn’t really drive a campaign to win.
Just saying a fact and Booman’s case often backing with polling or other data isn’t bashing especially of supporters.
Perhaps; but it’s still jarring to see some of the criticism he would level against Sanders and his supports (which at times appeared a bit petty) to be immediately followed by stating he was a Sanders supporter.
2 years? Sanders formally announcement his intent to run for president about 11 months ago. Anything said before is not really relevant to this discussion.
True, but his tone at times has been. I’ve already gone down this road and won’t again, but he did more than just post data.
no he didn’t his job is to analyze the data and he wants to win
I read a lot of his comments as caution to Sanders supporters to not too far out over their skis especially since Sanders didn’t seem to ever really think he could win
Enjoy the “Obama Democrat” version of Hillary she’s retailing now. Because after the convention, she’s going to stampede towards her “New Democrat” comfort zone like a starving hyena discovering a fresh carcass.
I’m not sure that anyone denies that, really. Or maybe they do? I can’t tell anymore, what with the defenses of Kissinger and the scoffing at single payer healthcare and the dismissal of even the perception of corruption when Big Money humps Big Politics. I guess we’re in for four years of ‘this is the best of all possible worlds/show me the votes!’
That said, I understand the Clinton support. I’m going to vote for Sanders, but if I could wave a wand, I’m not sure which one I’d pick. Because I’m doing pretty well for myself at the moment, and fuck everyone else. I’d rather not rock the boat if I might get splashed.
I understand Clinton support too. I just don’t understand enthusiastic Clinton support.
UH HUH
UH HUH
Why are my lips pursed reading this?
………………….
Brand New Congress: 535 progressive candidates, 1 ticket
Some of the technology activists who were key to the Dean, Obama and Sanders campaign have a new, audacious program: they’re going to run 535 bipartisan candidates for office in the 2016 election, backed by a single website for fundraising, grassroots organizing and messages, based on Bernie Sanders’ political platform.
A recurring criticism of Sanders’ platform is that without a Congress and state-level governments to support him, President Sanders would just be one voice (albeit a powerful one). This hasn’t escaped the attention of activists who worked on the campaign. With Brand New Congress, progressives will have the chance to work together, across the country, in solidarity, to replace the incumbents who owe their jobs to the rich and powerful with new entrants who owe their jobs to the people and have sworn to fight for “a unified economic, social justice, and climate change platform.”
Someone should tell them that all 100 senators are not on the ballot in any given election season.
Not sure they were saying they would run 535 all the same year, Martin.
Like term limits, replace professionals with amateurs. You know, like you would with your doctor, lawyer, plumber,electrician…
I would agree that limiting choices to people who have no experience in office is not a wise move. There are many progressive office holders around the country. I know one personally who sits on the Rochester City School Board whose day job is as a nurse.
The people elected without experience will have to depend on “the dreaded lobbyists” to inform them on what they’re voting on. Good luck with that!
Hey, we agree on this too, Voice!!
Hey! Does that make five? Or six?
I think we need a second hand now…
Martin, FYI, Vox article disagrees with you on Sestak, says he is better candidate than McGinty:
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/26/11479708/pennsylvania-senate-democrat-primary
She doesn’t actually say Sestak is better. She just explains why a lot of powerful Democrats are pissed at him.
That’s not my problem with him, as I explained. He doesn’t show a basic human respect for his staff who treats like shit.
For me, I don’t trust you if you do that.
He’d probably vote the way I want more often than McGinty, but I don’t care.
For me, it’s between McGinty and Fetterman.
Luckily we don’t vote here until May 7 when I will vote for Clinton. I was quite perturbed by Sander’s lack of willingness to support the Democratic nominee without conditions, as expressed last night in his town hall event. I actually don’t expect him to do anything to bring “his people” into the fold, a very dangerous prospect for the general. Many here in my county are planning a write-in in the general. Some Bernie (I call him Saint Bernard) supporters are soliciting pledges never to vote for Hillary if Bernie isn’t the nominee. For me, this is a disqualification for him.
In addition, though I have never met her, the folks who I know who have met her, rave about her intelligence, sincerity, and hard work. As a former New Yorker, I know that when she had a chance to just be a figurehead in the Senate as a former first lady, she instead took the job very seriously, was infinitely better prepared than most senators, respected her rather lowly place in the Senate, had respect for the institution.
It’s easy to nit-pick things you don’t like about a candidate. For instance, I can criticize Bernie for being too old, for being a recent convert to the Democratic Party, for being a delegate to other parties, for really seeing the world’s woes as all stemming from economic conditions, and for failing to put forward realistic/cost-effective plans for achieving what seems like nice (but pie-in-the-sky) goals.
I could make a list about Clinton too, and many of you here have adequately done that already.
Still, I believe there is no one in the country who knows what it means to be president better than Hillary Clinton (other than past presidents). If folks are concerned about her foreign policy hawkishness, which is becoming a meme, then it’s incumbent on you all (and me too) to shout loudly when those issues arise.
My vote will go to Clinton.
Saint Bernard, like the dog breed, haha, get it?
For the most part, what you have stated comes down to personal preference and opinion; no issue at all with that.
The item that I do object to is the the next to last paragraph when you state that we need to shout loudly when hawkish issues arise. But at that point it will be to late. For examples of this look at all the anti-war protests that happened under Bush II and Obama. People yelled loudly and were either ignored, told to STFU, or worse.
So your response to the issue isn’t so much a solution as a hand wave to ignore it until it happens.
If the numbers are big enough, then the voices will be heard. If you want to be heard, you have to organize. It won’t be too late. I’d even speculate that the campaign has made Hillary more cautious. But really the bottom line of all this is that it’s a complicated world, that decision-makers have more info than we do, and that there are often no good choices but only a sense that something should be done. Being president is not about absolutism. It’s about being president for all the people with all their disparate views.
I think too many people forget this. Once your POTUS you represent EVERYONE, even those that voted against you. Even bankers. Obama got this. He tried.
One facet that might influence this is foreign affairs. The POTUS is representing American interests, so it might imbed that in his thinking on domestic issues.
Republicans can’t seem to get this. That’s a weakness, not a strength.
.
But Obama didn’t try to represent everyone, or if he did he failed miserably. You mention the bankers. So please explain to me if he represented everyone, why the financial institutions were made whole (with few exceptions) and very few people were helped? If nothing else, seer numbers should have dictated the average citizen got just as much, if not more help, than the banks.
Once again, I see very little evidence that the POTUS represents everyone; these days the office cares primarily about those that have power and money, and then the average person.
The DNC doesn’t really get it either; they are just better at throwing bread crumbs to the masses and using enough PR spin to make everyone think it is the best they can get.
He didn’t fail miserably. He failed in the way you wanted. After initially bailing out the bank he tried to get relief for homeowners (HARP). He got huge tax breaks through for the middle class, got unemployment insurance extended many times, cars for clunkers, got the stimulus (lots of jobs with that), and then created a climate for millions of new jobs and economic growth. There is a whole other world out there that fared much worse and still is struggling, instituting negative rates, etc. So to say that he failed is a mischaracterization, in my mind. There was a mistake, I believe, and that was to force the banks who were rescued to stop foreclosures or to lower the principal of the debt they held in residences. Fannie and Freddie too. There was some pretty strong resistance to those moves everywhere. Moral hazard and all that.
No, he failed on the merits; this has nothing to do with what I wanted. He bailed out the banks and failed to follow up with any criminal prosecutions. He went after weak remedies for homeowners, and the administration then failed to get the word out that such plans existed. The huge tax break went to the wrong people, most of the people who needed them got little to no help in this area. There were many plans, most of them complicated and poorly communicated. But he failed to push for mortgage cram-downs and direct methods of financial help.
The stimulus had very little to do with job growth. Additionally, most of the new jobs created have been low paying jobs, many of them not even full time. And the current unemployment number that everyone keeps going on about fails to count those who have been out of work for a prolonged period of time or who have stopped looking completely. Furthermore, many of the unemployment benefits come with strings attached, which make it hard for the people in need to actually qualify.
I feel that it is completely fair to characterize this as a failure. While I agree the president has few tools to change the overall economy, in this case there were specific issues where most of the country was hurting, and the solutions provided to the people were half-baked at best. While at the same time, the financial institutions, which caused the crash in the first place, were essentially made whole. How is that not a failure?
just for the record the bailout was passed under Bush, plus the bailouts were necessary, now do I wish there had been more done for homeowners? I do but a lot of that resistance came from the GOP which when he came to power still had enough to filibuster everything
In theory this great, however recent events do not support your statement. The anti-war demonstrations I mentioned had big enough numbers, the voices were loud enough. People were told to STFU.
And I’m sorry, but I feel that the excuse of the “decision-makers have more info than we do” is BS, especially if they withhold such information making it impossible for average citizens to know what is really going on. Lying to the American public has been more the rule than the exception over the past several decades. So why should anyone just trust that they have information that would justify their actions? This is just another way to avoid dealing with hard questions that are raised when going to war.
So you are telling me that Bush II and Obama really cared about all the views of the American people and acted accordingly? If so, I see no evidence of this.
Folks in the 60s protested and got political change (in LBJ not running again). There’s lot of evidence of folks protesting and changing the system. But it takes more than marching in the streets or shouting outside Mitch McConnell’s window. Many years of hard work go into political change. (see Women’s suffrage, abolition of slavery, etc.) This is an instant gratification world right now. Communication (and organization) can fly fast. So if you feel the urge for unlimited transparency (so that you can know what the CIA knows or what the DOD knows, etc.) and with that knowledge want to stop war, then start working towards that in whatever way you can. Be aware, just because you feel you’re on the right side of things doesn’t mean that others who oppose you aren’t equally sure of themselves and willing to stand in your way.
But this is exactly what Bernie has been calling for this entire time. When asked how he would achieve his lofty goals, he said he would get the populace to force the Congress to go along with him. It’s a lovely idea, but as you stated, it usually doesn’t work.
If this is a reply to me, I agree, it doesn’t usually work. But it sometimes does. And as I stated above, it’s usually the result of years of effort on many different fronts, not just protesting. It involves writing about it, convincing others, telling personal narratives, a bit of luck, organization, compromising one’s ideals to some degree to engage support, deciding on appropriate means to the end, and so on. Our most recent example of the failure and futility of doing it any other way is OFA. The idea was fine but the organization that got Obama elected dissipated once he was in office. Sanders supporters now have a chance, with lots of names and perhaps available money, to prove OFA a one-off and to make a viable organization on the left. But we are a fickle group. We can’t keep a progressive/left radio station on the air. We don’t tell our story very well. We don’t have a Frank Luntz who can crystalize our message into a terrific soundbite. (eg. Why is avoiding unions called “Right to Work”?) So I’m absolutely certain that there are many talented folks out there working for the Sanders campaign, officially and unofficially, who can bring the necessary talents. It’s up to Sanders, to some degree, to keep them excited and to continue to organize them. How he does that will be a challenge to his skill, his interest, perhaps his energy. We’ll see.
Boo, your sentiments mimic mine, but I will be voting for HRC. Her proclivity towards militarism is my biggest concern, but with Sanders and Warren in the Senate–Sanders chair of the budget committee–I am hopeful she will be kept in check. As enticed by Sanders message as I was for a minute, I think he’d be a weak general election candidate. There’s a ton of his background that was not exposed in the primary that Republicans would be happy to exploit. This is not to say HRC is awesome or a sure win, but it was clear to me early on who all my Republican family members and friends preferred to face–Sanders. As much as I hate citing William Saleton, he notes aspects about Sanders that Republicans would propagate (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/polls_say_bernie_is_more_electable_
than_hillary_don_t_believe_them.html). Bernie getting bogged down in a battle to justify his past, while the media eats it up, is exactly what Republicans would aim for. OTOH, the fact that Clinton avoided this stuff showed me she had class enough not to destroy a potential Democratic candidate.
I was always going to vote Dem in the general though, so Bernie or Hillary had my vote.
I respect your reasoning.
To be clear, I’m voting for a delegate to the convention, not for a candidate. Clinton is already the nominee, so my choice has nothing to do with who I think would make a better president and is entirely based on who I want to represent me at the convention.
Hear that on the delegate thing. Guess it shows how difficult it can be to separate a primary from a general. Count me as one mixed things up in that respect.
BTW- my 21-year old stepson just dropped by. He will vote for the first time ever today. He told me that he has yet to meet a single Clinton supporter his age, that he doesn’t like her any better than Trump, that she’s totally unlikable and a gigantic liar.
I set him straight on who’s a gigantic liar (Trump, Cruz, Romney), but that’s the news from the ground in Pennsylvania from the youth vote.
This is a common meme, as I’m sure you know. Big issue (as I stated above) is how Bernie is going to turn this around. He has been characterizing her as corrupted, or at least corruptible. This doesn’t bode well with idealistic youth who want pure politicians. His suggesting that “she has to go to them” isn’t totally wrong, but it’s not the whole answer. He, as a “leader” who is running under the Democratic banner, has an obligation, I believe, to do everything he can, including eating crow, to bring his people around.
While the GOP is worse, is it your position Clinton is not a gigantic liar as well?
And since she is running against Sanders right now, compared to him she is a gigantic liar.
It’s all a matter of perspective.
except haven’t independent fact checkers basically call her the most honest candidate in the field even slight more than Sanders? I’m pretty sure I saw that, if I thought it would matter I’m sure I could look it up.
I agree with your assessment of our 2 Presidential candidates almost exactly. But I will be voting for Clinton, because I think I should vote for the person who will do the job best. Nonetheless, I am not only really glad that Sanders ran, but I’m really glad that he did as well as he did.
I guess that folks like me are counting on folks like you to send her the message, and folks like you are counting on folks like me to put the best person in office! What a fascinating election season this has been.
On the Senate primary: I’ve concluded that Joe Sestak is basically the Ted Cruz of the Democratic Party. He’s accomplished and smart, and he’s right on all the issues, but he’s apparently such an incredible asshole that everyone in the Democratic Party hates him. In addition to the fact that he’s awful to his staff, I think that point would make him a much less effective Senator. So I’m going with McGinty.
For me the Senate race is more important. If Toomey is reelected in 2016, he is likely reelected for 12 years.
I had thought about “strategic” voting but John Fetterman earned my vote with his views and his approach in expressing those views.
That’s how you earn my support ($$$) and then my vote.
Boo, I want to thank you for maintaining a reality based space here. You stuck to the facts despite how few wanted to hear them and the accusation that were hurled as a result. I learned about both candidates here and was able to trust that you were telling the truth as best you could. This blog was a safe place to be despite the disagreements, and that is a testament to the intelligence and reason of the people you attract.