I Don't Care if You're "Bernie or Bust"

I actually found this gem on Facebook. I think they can't spell.

It's the end of another long, drawn-out Democratic nominating process. Feelings are hurt. People are tired of it. The Presidential general election looms, and both sides feel like they deserve the nomination. One side is clearly ahead, and so the other wants the super-delegates to tilt things their way. Stupid things are being said all over. We've all seen this before, provided we were alive in 2008. It shouldn't be shocking to us.

Bernie Sanders is behind and will lose the nomination. Some of his supporters are very angry about that, and are saying it's "Bernie or Bust." They've taken to calling Hillary Clinton names like "Hitlery" or "Hiliary" and other ridiculous, childish names. They want to tell us repeatedly they will never back her. They want us to know they are serious. I have a message for them- we hear you, and we believe you. We just don't care.

Let's start with the obvious- there is always a "or bust" crowd at this stage in the game. Remember the PUMA's? They made a lot of noise, got no concessions at all, and ended up irrelevant. The psychology of any "or bust" crowd is that the threat of them not being on board for the nominee is so dangerous to the party and the nominee that the party will capitulate and give them what they want. It's essentially trying to over-rule majorities by being louder. No one is going to give in to that. We aren't a party run by any group of childish people on the losing side, whether it was 2008 or 2016.

Let's also address the threat of what you are saying as a "buster." You are under the impression that your are a quantifiable enough group that we will lose because of you. It's possible, but how probable it is could be debatable. Bernie has received about 10.5 million votes so far. I'm going to give him another 2.5 million (thanks to California for a chunk of that), for math's purposes. Right now, Sanders supporters are behaving similarly to Clinton's backers in 2008, in that about a third of them are saying they will not back Hillary. Besides the fact that most of them did come around in 2008, if we assume these numbers hold, Bernie would cost Hillary about 4.33 million votes. If Bernie's backers end up mostly behaving like Hillary's did in 2008, he'd cost her about 2 million votes. The first number would turn the Presidential election into a very close affair, though Clinton would still have a chance to win. The second number would probably just cost her some of the strength of her mandate. Yes, these votes matter, and Democrats are better off with them, than without them. No, even at the maximum end, they don't make it impossible for her to win.

Then there's the idea that somehow or other this is "teaching the Democrats a lesson," and that it would open the door to a more progressive party in the future. First, the only way a boycott of Hillary gets anyone's attention is if she loses as a result, and even then, I doubt that the reaction of Hillary supporters and "establishment" Democrats would be to want to welcome you into the party. Second, historically a Democratic loss has lead to a more centrist Democratic Party. Sure, we got Dukakis, McGovern, and Stephenson as nominees after Democratic defeats, but in each case the next Democrat to win was a more "mainstream" political figure- Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton. Even Barack Obama comes more out of the mainstream of American political discourse, even though he was the response to the ultra-conservative Bush Presidency. In short, a boycott doesn't get anyone's attention, and a Clinton loss doesn't mean we're going to have a nominee in 2020 that is quoting from Marx. Generally speaking in American politics, you only can move governing leaders from being inside the tent, as that's where the conversations happen. Establishing that you aren't a part of the party probably means the party doesn't care about you anymore.

In short, I'm skeptical that the "Bernie or Bust" movement is the force it's acting like it is, and even if it is, I don't think it's going about this in a constructive manner, for themselves. LGBT activists brought President Obama around by being inside of his tent, and he ended up being the best President they've ever had for their interest group issues. Womens' groups didn't take their ball and go home when Hillary lost in 2008, they supported President Obama and got Lilly Ledbetter right out the gate. The Occupy Movement on the other hand has largely stayed away from electoral politics, and we have yet to see the kind of massive income inequality-fixing legislation they want. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Beyond this though, I really don't care if you're "Bernie or Bust." I am not taking you as being especially "principled" for being that, I'm actually taking you as a less-serious actor. This crowd seems to want to tell us all the time about how committed they are to not backing Secretary Clinton, and I actually believe some of the folks on the internet all day saying so. I just don't care. I voted for Hillary, and I want her to be the nominee. You can say all day that you think she's corrupt, an "oligarch," or any other negative things you would like, I just don't agree with them. Neither do most of her voters. Neither do her delegates to the convention. Here's the kicker though- neither do the super-delegates. This line of attack hasn't worked, and we're not all going to wake up on July 25th and see your light. I'm sorry, but no. If you want to be "Bernie or Bust," so be it, that is your right. You can vote your conscience, I'm not going to think any differently about you for it (I'm already skeptical of you just for saying you'd do this). I just don't want to hear it anymore. Take that noise elsewhere. For all the reasons above, I don't care. We're not going to hand the nomination that Hillary won over to the Bernie campaign. It's just not how this is going down.

Sorry, not sorry.