Hillary Clinton is the better candidate to take on Trump (LA Times)

[applegrove]

Hillary Clinton is the better candidate to take on Trump

The LA Times Editorial Board

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-hillary-california-20160603-snap-story.html

"SNIP................



That is a long-shot campaign even if Sanders finishes first in California, not because the nomination process is rigged in Clinton’s favor -- it isn’t – but because she has been more successful in appealing to voters. She has dominated the primaries, amassing 3 million more votes than Sanders (who has fared much better in caucuses) and she leads in pledged delegates. For that reason, some argue that Sanders supporters in this state should resign themselves to the inevitable and vote for Clinton on Tuesday.


We don’t agree. Voters should choose the candidate they consider best qualified. This page has endorsed Clinton not because she is more likely to win the nomination but because she is vastly better prepared than Sanders for the presidency.

We say that with full recognition that Sanders has captured the imagination of many Democrats with his articulate attacks on economic inequality and his talk of a political revolution. He can take credit for pressing Clinton to champion the interests of those who have been left behind in this economy.

But Clinton is not only more knowledgeable about domestic and international affairs than Sanders, but also more likely to achieve objectives they have in common. Her speech last week on foreign policy in San Diego -- in which she skillfully skewered Trump for his ignorance and recklessness -- was a reminder of the breadth of her understanding of international affairs. On domestic policy, her positions on issues such as healthcare and financial regulation are less utopian than what Sanders has proposed but also more realistic.



.................SNIP"

[NV Whino]

1. 😜

[grossproffit]

2. As my husband would say, DUH!

[RichVRichV]

3. I find it funny that an article claiming Hillary is the better candidate to take on Trump leaves

out the elephant in the room, Independent voters. Not one mention of them in the article.

Independents made up 38 million and 34 million votes in the 2008 and 2012 general election respectively. That's more than 10 times the difference between Hillary and Bernie in this primary. Bernie consistently beats Hillary among Independents by a 70-30 margin. He consistently beats Trump by more than 10 points among the group. Hillary consistently loses this group to Trump by double digit margins.


President Obama proved you can win the general election while losing the Independent vote. But he only lost the Independents by 5 points in 2012 and won by 4 overall on a very strong Democratic base turnout. So far the party is fractured behind Hillary and she's not exactly inspiring. So good luck overcoming very poor turnout by Independents (who strongly don't trust her) with a stronger than usual Democratic base turnout.


Saying Hillary won the Democratic primary is an understandable claim. Saying she is the stronger candidate to take on Trump in the general at this point is bordering on delusional. There is not one bit of evidence to back it up, and an ever growing mountain of evidence to disprove it.