Fwd: why many Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary could be another epic example of blowback

My thoughts on the electoral revolution . . . 

---

From: "Timothy Kubal" <tkubal@csufresno.edu>
To: "
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 11:48:10 AM
Subject: Re: why many Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary could be another epic example of blowback

The ongoing success of the Sanders revolution has sparked a dilemma in his supporters between two choices: The principled choice of voting for the revolution, and the strategic choice of supporting the (presumptive) party nominee.

     

The Sanders campaign is a revolution-in-the-making.  The question is how to channel this movement into something important and powerful.

The movement has already brought important political issues to the fore and exercised a great deal of unrealized power by creating valuable networks that can then be realized in later movement campaigns.  

But the most electoral power the Sanders revolution has if it can't win the nomination is through agenda setting and the more powerful exercise of power: initiating blowback, which is the unintended negative consequences of political action. 

 Blowback is a sociological term that has become popularized.   In elections, a popular type of blowback is the negative unintended consequence of vote splitting.  

Some vote splitting is inevitable given the principled beliefs induced during the nominating process; its not surprising to see supporters saying they will write-in Bernie on the ballot.   It is surprising to see some Sanders supporters resorting to aggression and sexism against Clinton and her supporters, and inducing fears of a schism in the Democratic Party. 

If Clinton wins the nomination, it is likely that Sanders will back Clinton, at least to some degree.   

Regardless of the directions given by Sanders, will the principled Sanders supporters put strategy above principle and support Clinton?  

Its likely that a sizable minority will not vote for Clinton, thus splitting the Democratic Party vote.

Perhaps its too much to expect principled voters to prioritize strategic consequences above principle, but still most will likely have a nagging question in the back of their minds,

 What are the consequences if we cast a principled vote rather than a strategic one? 

Principled voters are not blind to history.  As they consider advocating principle over strategy, they likely remember the 2000 election when Nader supporters felt it was their time to convince everyone to stand for their principles and abandon the Democratic Party ticket rather than vote for Gore.  With such a close election, its obvious that the Nader revolution split the vote and had the unintended consequence of turning the election.  There were ongoing unintended consequences.  Presumably a Democrat would have have had a different military reaction to 9/11, or a different economic response to the recession. 

 The Sanders revolution seeks to gain and exercise power.  Without an electoral victory, the revolution is left to exercise electoral power, and at this point there are basically two choices to exercise electoral power:  There is far more power in vote splitting than agenda setting, and the stronger the revolutionary campaign, the more likely they will exercise power through vote splitting rather than just agenda setting.  

 If the Sanders voters follow issue principles rather than national strategy, the revolution certainly could backfire, ensure the election of Trump, and serve as another epic example of blowback.  

This type of blowback has occurred repeatedly in U.S. presidential elections.

Sanders could serve the same function as Nader in 2000 who helped elect Bush, or Ross Perot, who helped elect Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, or George Wallace who helped elect Nixon in 1968.

 Trump could have served as the spoiler candidate in 2016 that helped elect Hillary Clinton the same way Perot -- another billionaire business outsider -- helped Bill Clinton, but somehow Trump won the nomination. 

If we had already moved to a system of ranked voting or instant runoff voting (as Sanders has endorsed), the Sanders revolution would have had a better chance competing without such serious blowback.  

Some blowback may be inevitable, but we can't pretend that this blowback was unforeseen -- we all know the power of the Sanders revolution is constrained by the structure of the current electoral system, which pushes electoral revolutions unable to garner the party endorsement into an agent of blowback through vote splitting.  

In our electoral system, revolutionary successes too often are transformed into Pyrrhic victories.  

The high potential for blowback is the driving force behind the dilemma currently faced by this electoral revolution.  While the dilemma ultimately  may not be solved until the November election, many choices will occur by the end of the primaries in less than 1 month. 

Tim

---

From: "denny kubal" <jdkubal@aol.com>
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 7:34:48 AM
Subject: Fwd:why many Bernie supporters won't vote for Hillary

this is from a friend and organizer, neighbor and volunteer for Bernie.   I think in the end, Bernie will campaign for and support Hillary.   if that happens, many will follow Bernie's lead and vote Hillary, even though she has many flaws as he points out in his memo attached.

dk

Denny Kubal

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Todd

Sent: Wed, May 18, 2016 10:03 am
Subject: Meeting and discussion on where we go next

To All BernieSupporters:

With each of theprimaries making history the path for Bernie is getting more narrow,even as he wins or ties like he did in Kentucky.  This is creating agreat dilemma for me and I want to share my thoughts.

I joined the"revolution" with Bernie because of what he believes in and whatI want to whole country to work towards.   My dilemma is that if Ms.Clinton wins the nomination, who do I vote for.  Well in 2012 I didnot agree with President Obama on some very key policies andtherefore I wrote in Bernie Sanders as my choice for president.  Ibelieve that is what I will do in the November election if he doesnot get nominated.

The standardresponse to that is "it would enable Mr. Trump to be elected." This is where I become a person of principle not of the party.  Ihave many reasons for not voting for Ms. Clinton and I have attachedthem below.  But I interpret "Bernie's Revolution" as a matterof principle.  I want to believe that he is not yielding to Ms.Clinton, because he does not share much of what she stands for, thathe is fighting to oppose.  I actually will be disappointed if he doessupport Ms. Clinton at the convention.

I am frustrated thatBernie is not doing better than he is.  But "Rome was not built ina day."  And for me it is less important to "join" the partythan it is to vote on my principles.  A major issue is campaignfinance reform.  Sec. Clinton is able to pull this off because of herSuper Pac's and the clout she carries with the establishment thathas corralled the Super Delegates.  This along with the media notwilling to understand the significance of the "Revolution"thereby not giving the coverage to Bernie and his supporters neededand deserved.

Am I giving up andturning the country over to Mr. Trump.  Well there are a lot ofpeople that believe in him, just as I believe in Bernie.  I think Iam more right than they are but I am not willing to compromise on mybeliefs to vote for Ms. Clinton.

To end I want toshare my ray of hope that I still hold for Bernie.  I would support awrite-in campaign for his becoming president.  My belief is that ifwe supporters of Bernie would vote for him .  In addition people thatdo not like Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump would consider joining the"revolution" and vote for Bernie.  It may be a long shot but itwould make a statement.

I am going to talkabout it at our Brown County for Bernie meeting tonight at thelibrary or send me your response. 7 PM tonight Wed.  Brown County library.

Bill Todd