I want every Republican to support Hillary

I got into a bit of a Twitter thing with my old friend Glenn Greenwald. (And I do consider Glenn a friend, even if we don’t agree on everything — he does important work, fearlessly.) Glenn expressed concern that Hillary Clinton is now garnering support from notable Republicans, such as prominent neo-conservative Robert Kagan.

Hillary also recently won the support of Brent Scowcroft, who was the national security adviser under President Ford and H.W. Bush.

Glenn, and other liberals (I received a number of tweets from others), have a problem with that.

by default 2016-06-23 at 5.31.43 PM

As I tweeted, I hope every Republican abandons Donald Trump and votes for Hillary Clinton. And I hope they give her money, and tell their friends to give her money.

Why? Let’s start with this wonderfully succinct tweet from Jon Lipe:

by default 2016-06-23 at 5.43.23 PM

And I’d expand on that:

  • More Rs for Hillary ->
  • More $ for Hillary ->
  • More ads for Hillary ->
  • More depressed GOP donations, water-cooler talk, and election turnout ->
  • More GOTV (get out the vote efforts on election day) for Hillary ->
  • More votes for Hillary ->
  • More votes for down-ticket Dems ->
  • More Dems in the 115th Congress ->
  • More progressive legislation.

You win elections with votes and (in America) money. I want as much as possible of each for my candidates and my party. And short of a modern-day Hitler, I’d be hard-pressed to care where either comes from.

This disdain for GOP votes poses a particularly interesting conundrum for Sanders supporters, as Bernie Sanders himself made clear in late December 2015 that he was interested in wooing Trump supporters — and you really don’t get much worse than Trump supporters:

by default 2016-06-23 at 5.56.41 PM

Here’s more from Buzzfeed:

by default 2016-06-23 at 6.01.32 PM

On the Sunday after Christmas, Sanders made that pitch directly in an appearance on a morning news show.

“For his working class and middle class support, we can make the case that if we really want to address the issues that people are concerned about,” Sanders said. “We need policies that bring us together, that take on the greed of Wall Street the greed of corporate America and create a middle class that works for all of us rather than an economy that works just for a few.”

In New Hampshire, where Sanders remains in the lead according to public polling averages, Sanders campaign strategists genuinely believe they can win over some Trump supporters by speaking to their economic angst.

And Sanders was right then, just as Clinton is now. You don’t win elections by putting stringent purity tests on who can vote for you. Ronald Reagan, when questioned about some of his more extreme supporters, would reply something to the effect of “you’re voting for me, I’m not voting for you.”

Ironically, Bernie Sanders and his supporters are especially proud of getting non-traditionally-Democratic voters (i.e., independents and even Republicans) to vote for Bernie in the primaries. We kept hearing about how open primaries were better than closed primaries, because open ones permit everyone to participate and support our candidates. This notion that we’re now going to pick and choose which “everyone” we like and which we don’t runs counter to that welcoming message.

Also problematic, how would you implement such a policy? Only voters who have never voted Republican can vote for Hillary (or Bernie, for that matter), and everyone else can take a hike? Or is it okay if you voted for Mitt Romney, but not for Ronald Reagan? Where do you draw the line?

Of course, there’s an ironic side to all of this as well. We keep claiming that Republicans are evil, and we keep demanding that voters stop supporting them, but then when the voters finally listen and support us instead, we get all NIMBY about it.

Which way is it — do we want people to stop voting Republican or not?

Back to my twitter discussion with Glenn Greenwald. Glenn seemed to suggest that Republicans are supporting Hillary because she’s really a (or her policies are really) Republican. I responded that maybe, just maybe, they’re supporting her simply because they know that the alternative, Donald Trump, will destroy their party and their country.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I’d do the same.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis — Win a pony! (not really)


Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

55 Responses to “I want every Republican to support Hillary”

  1. churl says:

    Your last few lines explain exactly how McGovern lost.

  2. AmehcaFirst! says:

    they make Perfect the enemy of Good

  3. TheAngryFag says:

    Then why did you bring up what he did?

  4. TampaZeke says:

    In case you were unaware, Bill Clinton isn’t running for President. What he did and didn’t do has no bearing on the current election.

  5. TheAngryFag says:

    Clinton at least tried in regards to the crap-storm that DADT turned out to be. But DOMA falls squarely on his shoulders and he has no excuse to weasel out of it. Even George Stephanopoulos admitted that the Defense of Marriage Act was in-line with Bill Clinton’s stated position on the issue. He could have refused to sign it as a matter of principal since his stance on Gay Marriage at the time was directly conflicting with his other public stance against gay discrimination. There was even a radio ad touting DOMA that ran in the south during his re-election.

  6. TheAngryFag says:

    The point is he promised to do it and then he made up excuse after excuse to delay it. He even refused to use his power, the one he has as Commander-in-Chief, to block people from being thrown out. So Obama and the DNC at large was more than happy to take our money yet never wanted to do anything to actually earn it since we helped put them in office.

    Hence why Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project as well as John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay all called for shutting down the DNC’s GayTM. They called it the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” boycott.

    And it wasn’t over this one issue either. There have been a whole host of slights, insults, and inaction towards the LGBT community by Obama and the Democrats in general. I won’t list them all here but you can read for yourself at http://aravosis.wpengine.com/2009/11/dont-ask-dont-give.html

  7. TampaZeke says:

    The Democratic platform this year definitely shows a seismic shift to the left.

  8. TampaZeke says:

    She was a New England Republican, which is an entirely different breed from most GOPers.

  9. TampaZeke says:

    As a former Republican who defected about 25 years ago I think you’re absolutely right. Making the initial move is the hardest part. It’s amazing how quickly your whole political viewpoint can change once you reconsider your first position change. Once the first belief goes down it’s like a dam breaks and reason flows freely. I can’t believe some of the things I used to believe having been born, raised and marinated in the Republican cult for my first 25 years.

  10. TampaZeke says:

    He DID end DADT so what’s your point?

  11. TampaZeke says:

    You clearly aren’t old enough to remember how it worked out for Clinton when his first move in office was to open military service to lesbians and gays. It set off a huge anti-gay backlash that ended in DADT and severely hampered him for the rest of his terms.

    I think Obama did things just right. It wasn’t quick enough for personal taste but it was as quick as it could have been done in an effective way.

  12. cleos_mom says:

    The purity ponies will destroy the world yet.

  13. Forrest Welsh says:

    Yeah right dude. 4-8 more years of being lied to? No thanks. I’m not political but at least Trump lets me keep my 2nd Amendment and won’t promote illegal Immigration. I like my rights and my cities. I’m not blaming all mexicans, but you guys take over neighborhoods and make them dirty and dangerous. Even my mexican co workers (from Sacramento) say they would never live in a mexican neighborhood cause of their kids

  14. michtom says:

    GG is NOT a libertarian. He’s a civil-libertarian. VERY different.

  15. Rainbird says:

    Excellent! This will allow progressive democrats to vote for Jill Stein worry free.

  16. quax says:

    Does Glen consider himself liberal? Always thought of him more as a libertarian who unlike the Paul crowd takes the citizens’ liberties uncompromisingly serious.

  17. TheAngryFag says:

    He promised to end DADT. Then gave the run-around on it feeding lines like “He has to think about re-election” and crap like that.

  18. AmehcaFirst! says:

    Did Obama promise to do every little thing gays wanted when elected?
    He did more of gay people than no one before and yes, that IS TOO a lot!

  19. AmehcaFirst! says:

    Twilight? yes ,the first black president should’ve gone full gay from day one!!! That wouldv’e worked SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO well.

    Twilight doesn’t matter. What matters is that it got done.

    The number of gays that died because Obama didn’t declare an all out love fest for gays, compared to the number of all people that died because they didnt have health care is is like ZERO to millions.

  20. AmehcaFirst! says:

    What’s wrong with blocking ridiculous racist and homophobic, mysoginist comments?

  21. AmehcaFirst! says:

    Glenn Greenwald is a bit of a vindictive bitch who hasnt got laid in years. Perhaps impotent?

  22. Bill_Perdue says:

    it’s his life.

  23. RepubAnon says:

    Perhaps the “Reagan Democrats” will become “Hillary Republicans.”

    We need Bernie’s bunch to keep pushing the Democratic Party back to its roots – but we also need to elect whoever the Democrats nominate for President. The trick isn’t to give up, it’s to keep those serious primary challenges coming.

  24. Houndentenor says:

    I was thinking of actual Congressmen and Senators who switched parties in the 80s and 90s, but yes. That Reagan Democrat voting block mostly never went back to the Democrats and are probably the core of the Tea Party movement.

  25. 2karmanot says:

    Bingo

  26. hiker_sf says:

    Still at war with commenters. Kiind of sad, really.

  27. ComradeRutherford says:

    No, I’m fine with Republicans supporting Hillary, she is, after all, much more of a Republican than a Democrat.

  28. Moderator4 says:

    Phil in FLL, nobody else can tell which commenters you have blocked, except you.

  29. Hue-Man says:

    I was taking a break from Brexit and saw this. No one in Canada is saying “Shame on Liberals for allowing a Conservative to set up a “MinCome” pilot project”.

    “Ontario’s [Liberal] provincial government has appointed [former Senator Hugh] Segal — former chief of staff to [Conservative] Prime Minister Brian Mulroney — as an advisor on the design and
    implementation of its basic income pilot project.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/24/hugh-segal-basic-income-ontario_n_10658764.html

    Segal’s motivation doesn’t affect whether or not he does a good job:

    “For Segal, part of the appeal of a basic income is that it would
    replace an entire patchwork of social services — potentially including
    welfare, unemployment insurance or seniors’ pensions — that can be
    costly to deliver.

    It would end “micromanagement by provincial civil servants” and would raise the dignity of low-income citizens, he argues. The advantage is that it will eliminate the “judgmental” aspect
    of social services — government bureaucrats deciding if you qualify for a
    particular benefit.”

  30. Houndentenor says:

    And they were right to call for that. It worked, too. But my point was that every group has always had to do that with politicians. They make promises and often forget them as soon as the words leave their mouths. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.

  31. TheAngryFag says:

    True, but if you say “If elected I will…” and you walk into the presidency with a Democrat-controlled congress, not to mention authority as commander-in-chief, you can use it. Instead he pussyfooted around. Hence why John, Pam, and co called for the “GayTM” to be shut down.

  32. heimaey says:

    All we’ve had are moderate centrist on the left for years. I do understand how compromise works I just want to draw the line in the sand further left.

  33. Hue-Man says:

    “Reagan Democrats” and many of them remained with the GOP.

  34. Houndentenor says:

    Neither party can maintain a majority without moderates. This idea of party purity has created the gridlock mess that plagues our country. Yes, that means not all Democrats are going to vote how you like every time. The alternative is a Republican majority in which nothing you want ever comes up for a vote. Compromise is not a dirty word and sometimes you have to accept that getting half of what you want is better than getting nothing at all.

  35. Houndentenor says:

    Some people seem to think that winning an election is the end result. it’s not. It’s just the beginning. it’s not enough to get the people you want in office. Then you have to work to get them to accomplish anything. It has always been that way and always will be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is dangerously naive.

  36. Houndentenor says:

    Republicans built a majority in the US by getting conservative Democrats to switch parties. There were quite a few that changed party affiliation through the 80s and 90s. They’d have never had those majorities without them. So why is it a problem for Democrats to do the same. Plenty of Republicans are unhappy about the dangerous turn their party has taken and I certainly welcome their support in electing Clinton and other Democrats in 2016 and beyond. It’s insane to reject them.

  37. Phil in FLL says:

    Trump is indeed depressing the Republican vote and causing defections among Republicans. More votes for the Democratic ticket endangers Republican victory. Gee, I wonder who’s going to be pissed off about that. (See the commenter named “This commenter is blocked” further downthread.) I admit that I like my browser saving my Disqus password and automatically logging me in. That convenience means I am spared the details of comments by any blocked commenter (although there’s only one such commenter). I have a notion that Disqus is going to become VERY popular.

  38. Hue-Man says:

    Democrats should be encouraging Republicans to vote Hillary and vote Democratic Party for all contested races in Congress and in the States. They should be warmly welcomed.

    It’s like a faction of the “Gay Community” that talks outreach then slaps Republicans in the face when they do support LGBT causes. For some, no amount of washing will ever remove the spots of once having been a Republican; it’s almost McCarthyesque.

    What is the objective? Elect a Democratic President, take over control of the House and Senate, and defeat Tea Party candidates in every state race. Having Republican voters stay home is good but not as good as voting for Democrats!

  39. TheAngryFag says:

    Yup. Clinton v Sanders is quickly becoming the Democrats’ version of Goldwater v Rockefeller. We also have seen what happened to the Republican party when they went into that slow death spiral they’re so fond of. For Democrats it’ll be much quicker since there’s no one left to grab onto but progressives.

  40. TheAngryFag says:

    Only in the twilight of his presidency. I remember when John & Joe from here as well as Pam Spaulding from Pam’s House Blend boycotted donating to the DNC because Obama refused to carry through his promise about ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and allowing gays to serve openly in the military because he kept passing the ball around.

  41. MyrddinWilt says:

    Doesn’t much matter if I am right or not.

    If the Clinton camp comes to the same conclusion I have, and I am pretty sure that they will, they won’t bother with the usual tack right after the primary and they will tack left instead. Make Warren the veep pick, etc.

    Warren is a partisan and she is considered left wing. But she is undeniably a pragmatist. There is absolutely nothing she says that gives a hint of her not knowing what she is talking about or being an ideologue. Not unless you are one yourself.

  42. Badgerite says:

    President Obama just designated Stonewall as a national monument. That’s kinda “fierce”.

  43. Badgerite says:

    Hope you are right. The current faction in charge of the GOP at this moment is what we used to call the “fringe”. They are one step away from clinically certifiable.

  44. MyrddinWilt says:

    I think people completely misunderstand the reason most Republicans vote R. It isn’t because they want Republican policies, it is because they don’t consider the proposals being made by the Democrats to be practical combined with tribal loyalty.

    The Republicans fleeing the Trump Republican party are fleeing because they can see that his proposal to build a wall out of frozen unicorn farts and make Mexico provide the unicorns is utter nonsense. They still think raising the minimum wage is going to be a job killer but it isn’t as obviously stupid as Trump’s policy platform.

    This isn’t going to be a normal election. Normally the Democrat moves right after the primaries and the Republican moves left. They scale back the promises made to their base. This time Trump hasn’t actually got a meaningful policy platform and Clinton is offering the pragmatic status quo plus some pragmatic progressive advances.

    Do you really think the defecting R’s are going to demand triangulation on social issues? I rather think not, repudiation of Trump and Trumpism is what they are about. Defecting R’s are likely to support progressive social policy than the average Democratic voter. Defecting R’s are not going to stand in the way of a new civil rights act, an Equal Rights amendment, making LGBT discrimination illegal.

    Defecting R’s are not going to complain about continuing programs for solar and wind generation. They are not going to complain about forcing the Koch brothers to clean up their pollution. A solid majority of them is for gun control.

  45. Badgerite says:

    Well, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until 1994 or 96. ( Forget which. ) She is currently one of the leaders of the progressive movement. So. Scowcroft was at least not the walking disaster that was Donald Rumsfeld at Defense and GW in the presidency and Darth Cheney in the ‘Vice’
    Presidency.
    You never get 100% of what you want in a Democracy. I’d say we’re doing a damned site better than Brazil is right at the moment.

  46. Moderator4 says:

    We are still learning the ins and outs, ourselves.
    It is supposed to block that commenter for you on all Disqus websites (theoretically), but bear in mind that this is a new feature for Disqus, and there may still be some bugs to work out.

  47. Amwatching2c says:

    Just block yourself.

  48. Tulle Christensen says:

    O/T I am now confused, I thought if you blocked someone on Disqus at one website it would be true for all Disqus websites, is this not true??

  49. Webster says:

  50. heimaey says:

    Yes I think the analysis here is flawed in that people don’t want conservatives coming over to a liberal party not because they don’t want to win, but because they want it to remain liberal. So while it’s good that it helps defeat the Republicans, it, at the same time, just reinforces the idea that the Dems are abandoning their progressive ideals more and more.

  51. Bill_Perdue says:

    She’s a rebranded Republican.

    “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.” Obama, in an interview with Noticias Univision 23. ABC News, 12 15 2012
    http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080.

    Democrats are literally stampeding to the right.

    They are, without exception,

    a party of predatory war mongers (and some are war criminals),

    a party opposed to the Bill of Rights (NDAA, FISA, Paytriot Act),

    a party of racists like the Clintons and those who pander to them like Obama,

    a party of people who refuse to pass ENDA,

    a party committed to denying working people healthcare, free education all the way and interest free home and auto loans, a party committed to austerity, busting unions and pauperizing workers
    and a party committed to ensuring the rule of the rich.

  52. Bill_Perdue says:

    You won’t have to wait long. Democrats are now leaping to the right. Very little distinguishes them from their Republican brothers and sisters.

  53. heimaey says:

    The fact that she’s so appealing to Republicans is a sign that she really just *is* one of them, which has been the complaint on the left for a long time. There is a big political shift going on and I guarantee you in 10-15 years we’ll look back at HRC as the first of a new breed of conservatives.

© 2019 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS