If Non Sanders Democratic Nominees Can’t Convince Voters To Vote For Them Isn’t That Bad?

In 2008 15% of Clinton primary voters for McCain. They united under the term PUMAs (Party Unity, My Ass.)

Because people seem to have no memory, the nastiness of the 2008 primary has been forgotten. At one point Clinton was pilloried for supposedly suggesting that Obama should be assassinated, for example. (No, she didn’t say anything close to that.)

Anyway, in 2016, 12% of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump, which is, well, less than the 15% of PUMAs voting for McCain.

Now there’s a poll showing that 26% of voters considering Bernie might not vote Democrat if Bernie isn’t the nominee.

This is apparently a bad thing, according to the screeching.

Except, of course, it isn’t.

What it indicates is that Sanders is able to motivate people who wouldn’t necessarily vote Democrat otherwise. In the 2016 primaries the pattern was that, in fact, Sanders tended to win Independents, and Clinton won Democrats.

And all polling showed that Sanders, had he been the nominee, would outperform Clinton against Trump.

Makes sense, doesn’t it, if he’s able to convince non Democrats to vote for him?

On an ethical level, no one owes the Democrats or Republicans or any candidate their vote automatically.

Represent their interests, convince them you do so.

EARN their vote. If non-Bernie candidates can’t do that, perhaps they shouldn’t be the nominee?

The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.