"Vote for me, or the party can't win!"

[Bernin4U]

Isn't it kind of unprecedented, for any party to take this approach?

Isn't it then unreasonable to have a problem with those who have a problem with it?

[HassleCat]

1. Not at all

Every candidate I can remember proposes that he or he will do better against the opposition party.

[Cleita]

2. Yeah. I also keep hearing from that wing of the Dem Party, "it's her time".

Not for me it isn't. It's Bernie's time IMHO. Bernie can get the votes in the general election that won't go to the other candidates, no matter what.

[SandersDem]

3. Check recent general Election Polls

and you will see Bernie performs better against all Rs. That argument for HRC no longer flies, in fact I am sure that should she get the nomination, we will lose the general.

[99th_Monkey]

4. This ^ fact is not well enough known, nor often enough repeated

I still keep hearing about how "Hillary MUST win the Primary, or else the US will be 'doomed'
to unspeakable RW horrors after the GE". And this crap often goes unchallenged, but not if I can help
it ..

[peacebird]

8. If she gets the nom, we lose the general election.

[Bernin4U]

11. Personally, I think either can win

While arguments can be made for which of them is stronger, the real problem are the assumptions that have been laid out before any argument.

The repubs outright suck. Both Bernie and Hillary are strong enough candidates to win.

Yet we have the ABSOLUTE LOSER, DWS, continuing her campaign for HRC, this time from the inside.

And they're taking the ch!ckensh!t approach of, we better rig the game, and not take any chances. Hey, let's make the primaries little more than an exhibition match, so we can put all our energy into the general.

The Clinton campaign imploded in 08, and DWS is doing it again.

Trying to put the fix in, with the idea to help your side easily coast into the finals, is the worst thing you could do. It shows that you're a coward. That you don't believe in your candidate enough to win in a fair fight.

It creates two huge issues (as a big NHL fan, so please accept the analogy).

1. Trying to get to the Finals while avoiding the fight along the way is a losing strategy.

You only get to the Stanley Cup Finals by building upon every game you played before. In NHL, the Finals are sometimes called "a season within a season". Detractors will chide it for being way too long, which (relative to all other pro sports) is a reasonable complaint. Fans love it, because it's an epic war, requiring you to win 16 huge battles.

Now, if you were somehow able to circumvent all of the season, all of the playoffs, and go straight from exhibitions to the finals, how do you think your team would do? You'd be creamed, right? You'd have no prayer.

Going to battle and winning in a good, honest fight is what makes you stronger. If you don't win, then so be it. The other team has proven themselves. Trying to avoid the fight, so that you may "live to see another day" may keep you alive, but it only makes you weaker. If you want to compete in the finals, you do that by battling and winning, at least as much as your opponent did.


2. A clean win to a hard, fair fight is how you get your opponents' support. Anything less only serves to alienate them.

It's all about the small battles. A smart team never looks further than their next game. Put up a good, honest fight, and both sides will respect and support you.

If you want your opponent's respect, you don't do it by beating them with a win at any cost approach. You do it by playing tough but fair. If you put up an epic battle to win a series, the fans of both sides will hugely appreciate it. And have tons of respect for both teams. Even if it's not your team that wins, you'll have way more appreciation for the other team. Whereas if you feel they won by playing dirty, you'll hate them and hope they get destroyed.

[Bernin4U]

5. To be clear

I'm talking about the party itself.

It's one thing for a candidate or their supporters to say it. They can say whatever they want.

But for (the officials of) a party to get entirely behind one candidate, and treat the others as token (or maybe backups?), with no real intention of supporting them, from the onset? I'm sorry, that's called "my way, or the highway" and I reject it.

Bernie ran as a D, so as not to split the vote. The flip side of that is, if he's not given equal treatment, it becomes meaningless.

You don't get to sign a star player to your team, who you know will destroy you to try to play against them, if your only plan is to keep them on the bench.

[kacekwl]

6. I believe Bernie 's approach is

Vote for me so the country and the people can win.

[MisterP]

9. for 2014 they basically sent out flyers saying "we're boned, better luck next time"

and of course every time they lose they blame the voters for not responding to such a marvelous rallying-cry

[HereSince1628]

10. It's the argument New Dems have used to cage the left for 2 decades

It does feel like it's origins should be found in Stockholm syndrome, but we won't brook that sort of talk on DU because, you know, it pushes against the envelope of the TOS.

"Winning is everything" can't be challenged and it has been expressed in many quotable quotes from leading New Dems.

[eridani]

12. Who can win is dependent on a whole bunch of unpredictable variables

How crappy is the Republican? Will the TPP pass with substantial Democratic support? If so, we're hosed with Hillary and have a good chance with Bernie.

Clinton could win if the Republican is sufficiently shitty. But I'll admit that it makes me feel really tired to think of working to elect her, and then the day after the election start organizing against her administration. (Unlike many, I did not miss her Pete Peterson dogwhistle on Social Security.)