Reading your editorial “You do the math this season,” I had to remind myself that it was April 1. I laughed, because that piece read exactly like a satirical article, whether or not that was the intent.
I have made my choice, and it was ridiculously easy. If Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the nominees, of course I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton, not because I like her but rather because I can’t imagine the irreparable harm a Trump presidency would do to the United States.
If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and someone other than Trump wins the GOP nomination, then for the first time in my over-40 years of voting, I’ll stay home during a national election as Clinton will be a shoo-in.
Here’s why.
On a practical level, I have received many communications from the Sanders campaign, and no communications from the Clinton campaign, even though I have been a registered Democrat since 1972.
Kind of hard to support someone who has ignored your existence.
I am also attracted to the fact that Bernie Sanders is employing a people-powered campaign fueled by millions of individual contributions.
As in 2008, Clinton is employing a network of rich contributors, and employing the DNC machine, run by a person heavily involved in her unsuccessful 2008 campaign.
It is very telling that when she drew 250 supporters to a rally in Wisconsin, Sanders was attracting 7,000 supporters to a rally he had in Wisconsin. This is a pattern which has been repeated nationwide.
People do not like to be spoon-fed who they should support.
Fear and ignorance are no way to run a campaign, yet it is a method employed by Clinton.
It should be noted that in the 2008 contest, at this point, Clinton found herself in a similar situation with Barack Obama. The math was indicating a victory over President Obama was extremely unlikely. Yet she did not withdraw from the contest until June.
Using that precedent, Sanders should be offered the same courtesy. He has many supporters who deserve this accommodation.
Clinton is not the worst candidate, but she is flawed. Let’s face it: she is running on brand familiarity more than on her accomplishments. She has made many questionable decisions in her tenure as a public servant. The length of her public career is eclipsed by Sanders by many years, and Sanders’ record of public service equals Clinton’s record for sure.
Many voters, including myself, are greatly offended by her sense of entitlement and inevitability. Political service is not a reward. It must be earned.
I would question how many of the IDS’s editorial board were actually able to vote the first time Clinton ran, in 2008. The tactics she is employing are the same.
As they say, “Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me.”
Richard Cleary
Bloomington, Ind.
