The Choice Between Sanders and Clinton

[DaveT]

I have been a member of this board for more than a decade, but I have not posted all that much. In 1972, at age 19, I organized my precinct for George McGovern and was a delegate to the Texas State Democratic Convention. From then until now, a recurring theme in the Democratic Primaries is the tension between ideological affinity and what was usually called "electability." Carter vs. Udall. Carter vs. Ted Kennedy. Bill Clinton vs. Harkin. Gore vs. Bradley. Dean vs. Kerry. Hillary Clinton vs. Obama. And now Sanders vs. Hillary Clinton.

Every election, I have favored the more progressive candidate, but I have always enthusiastically and energetically supported the nominee. This led me to argue against supporters of Ralph Nader, and against the purists who maintain that they won't vote for the lesser of two evils. I remember an internet argument with a Green Party advocate who said that he would only vote for somebody he would be proud to vote for. I still think that guy was an idiot.

And, even now, as I have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is not the more electable candidate, and that her Presidency will probably be an utter disaster for our country and our party -- the current GOP is so insane and horrifying, I will vote for her.



I am baffled by the overwhelming majority of Hillary supporting posts on this board. It seems to me there are two logical rationales for voting for her.

1. You do not agree with Sanders' policy proposals. If you don't want to see Single Payer or Tuition for All and the other items on his wish list, you should definitely vote for Clinton rather than Sanders.

2. You do not believe that Sanders' can win or you do not believe that he could ever get anything enacted. If in your most sober judgment, you really believe that America will not support Sanders, you should vote for Clinton.


Very few posts are based on the first rationale. Most are variation on the second -- and a very troubling percentage of them are nothing more than taunting. My personal favorite is some nice member of this Board offering to bet their life on the inevitability of Hillary Clinton winning.

Vote for me because I am going to win is a very weird appeal.

Rather than recite a prediction as though it were a fact, I would like to hear some actual analysis of why you think that. I thought that Dean was far more electable than Kerry and he turned into a truly lousy candidate. And Hillary does NOT have an impressive electoral track record. She killed the Democratic Brand in 1994 and delivered us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. In 2008, as so many Sanders supporters repeat so often, she had the same kind of lead over Obama in 2007 that she has now in the utterly meaningless polls this autumn.

Since the record cannot sustain any faith in Hillary's charm on the campaign trail, I can't help thinking that all this taunting is not about how great a candidate you think she is, but rather a belief that our party's Franklin Roosevelt legacy can't win an election.


All of the Hillary supporters I know are in that camp.

I find it sad.

[Thinkingabout]

1. I do not like Sanders proposal to tax incomes to provide free health care to the 1% since the the

1% do not have wages. We were told he was going to tax the rich and this turns out to be taking away from those who earns wages and gives to the rich, this Robin Hood in reverse.

[cui bono]

24. Well that's quite a stretch!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

116. It's quite amusing how Clinton's supporters are spinning this

like little spiders

[zalinda]

35. The proposed tax comes out to be

about $1.58 a week. Believe me, many people would rather pay $1.58 a week rather that $200 a month for health care. And that $200 a month, does not guarantee that you can afford to go to a doctor, it only will kick in after a $5000 deductible.

Z

[brooklynite]

54. "I want Bill Gates to have free health care" -- Howard Dean

Let me add that most of the 1%ers you seem to dislike (I know a number of them -- all solidly liberal) have salaries as well.

[Fumesucker]

56. I want you to have free healthcare

[Thinkingabout]

64. I guess Romney having free health care is just what this nation needs

[TIME TO PANIC]

77. I'm fine with the 1% having free health care if the 99% does too.

Health care should be a right for everyone.

[Thinkingabout]

78. Must not dislike the 1% as much as others, hell let's stop collecting any tax from the 1%.

[TIME TO PANIC]

83. They will pay for their health care by increased taxes.

I only dislike those in the 1% who have rigged the system for their own gain at expense of the poor and middle class.

[Thinkingabout]

85. Let's extend your statement some, I dislike any group who rigs the system for their gain at the

Expense of the poor and middle class which is exactly what will happen if Sanders tax increase occurs.

[TIME TO PANIC]

87. the taxes will go to programs that make life more affordable for the poor and middle class.

will be getting more bang for our buck.

[Thinkingabout]

100. Good, let's extend the programs to pay for everyone's bills.

[Fairgo]

84. Non sequitor

Here's another:

Hey, the unemployment rate among house pets is 100% I suppose you want to give them health care too?

[Thinkingabout]

86. I am not one trying to provide people with health insurance, please address this

To those who thinks it is good to tax the poor and middle class to provide the health insurance for everyone. In a world where there is a premium paid to cover individuals then the burden is shared, the unemployed may just have to get a minimum wage job as I have and pay their health care coverage, don't subject me to pay for those who do not have incomes.

[Punkingal]

90. +1

[JaneyVee]

2. 3. Hillary is supremely qualified.

[cui bono]

25. Empty rhetoric. You fail to state why.

[Thinkingabout]

28. YES!!!!

[Ned_Devine]

42. These "Hillary is supremely qualified" posts are funny because...

...it lets you know they didn't even read the article. And if they did...oh, what am I doing? Why bother trying to analyze it? Just let them keep proving us right.

[daleanime]

46. +1

[Bread and Circus]

3. best post I have read in the last day or two. thanks.

[lovemydog]

9. +1

[w0nderer]

4. i find it sad

a living wage for all
supporting healthcare for all
a roof over everyone's head
food on the table (more than 2000 calories per person)
...this
...is considered
...extreme left
...in the US
not center
nor slightly left of center
EXTREME SOCIACOMMIEMOTHAF**KA left!?

not like your political spectrum changed since FDR..nu uh!

[jwirr]

11. It depends on how you are looking at that spectrum. If you

are looking at it from the viewpoint of the south it has. Much of the south is red and that is where Hillary is coming from. She sees that the spectrum has turned because she started her political career as Bill's wife in the south where most states think red now.

But what she is missing is that the majority of the people in the US still like social security, medicaid and medicare. They still like FDR. The creators of the DLC convinced politicians that they had to move closer to the center to win and that was true in the south - although that did not even help the Democrats in the south. Yet they follow the line as if all of America was red.

But people are not really that dumb. Especially not the kids. We have been watching all of the money that used to make things here work go to an endless war based on lies. We have watched the trickle down theory move the money upwards for the last 40 years. We have watched the Rs disrupt the congress for many years and get nothing that is needed done. We have watched good jobs move overseas with the help of our own government for the last 40 years.

Voters are not dumb - I do not believe that anyone who has been awake the last 40 years does not know that these ideas do not work. We need change and I do not see anyone other than Bernie offering that.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. However, when Hillary was in Arkansas, it was a deep blue state

in everything but presidential elections. For example, at the time she left the state in 1992, Arkansas had had only 6 years of Republican governors since Reconstruction (although, admittedly, a fairly progressive Republican was governor for 4 of those years). And the state had just elected its first Republican US Senator since Reconstruction. Two or 3 of the state's 4 representatives were Democrats. And Democrats held most of the state positions below governor as well, and controlled the legislature.

[jwirr]

19. But my guess is that many of those local Dems were more

conservative than their northern counterparts. What I am trying to say is that Democrats can get elected in the south but usually not extremely liberal Democrats. It is very much the same in NW IA (S. Kings district) and western Nebraska. I lived there and liberal was and is suspect. It is why you see blue dog dems voting very close to the center because they will be voted out if they do not. To me that is what the DLC was all about.

If I am wrong I am sorry but that has been my experience.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. We had some good liberals when Hillary was in the state

For example, Dale Bumpers as US Senator, and David (not Mark) Pryor as governor and US Senator. I met and corresponded with both and they were much more liberal than most of today's Democratic senators. Heck, even Bill was a bit liberal when he first started out.

[w0nderer]

16. i'm actually

watching from a mostly (originally) European (Nordic) perspective

but from a grandfather (russian imperial navy) who kept saying..read left and right and in 3 countries at least or you get no information


and jwirr i do support B (if i could vote for him i would (immigration law forbids it)), that's part of why i'm here(at du) and why i do a lot of 'irl work' to get votes out for B and 'D' in general

and i'm noticing it in the younger generations (heck i'm proud to notice it in my stepkids)

it's sad to notice that people don't get that 'for your best' <<what they are voting against


jwirr

[jwirr]

21. Thank you and I am very glad you are here on DU helping

us with the fight. Hugs right back at you.

[w0nderer]

26. :-)

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Er, she's from Chicago.

[elleng]

5. It's a choice among 3, and the Iowa youth today like Martin O'Malley a lot.

Statewide #iowayouthcaucus results for Democrats: @BernieSanders 53%, @MartinOMalley 24% @HillaryClinton 15% #iacaucus #caucus101

[jwirr]

13. Yeah, congrats to O'Malley for his win there. I used to vote

in those high school elections. I was one of four Democrats that voted for Stevenson. The rest of our high school voted for Eisenhower. NW IA.

[elleng]

14. Thanks.

That's very cool, jwirr!

[lovemydog]

31. Thanks for sharing that elleng.

I love younger people who are politically engaged. I can understand why many like Martin O'Malley!

[elleng]

32. You're welcome, lovemydog.

Gotta get the word out!

[lovemydog]

34. Keep on doing it!

You've helped open my eyes to how strong a candidate he is. It's nice seeing many younger people in Iowa feel the same. For some reason I'm picturing younger people in Iowa from both the O'Malley and Sanders campaigns getting along well with each other. And forming alliances and friendships that will help push this country in a better direction! I hope they will with Clinton campaign folks too.

[elleng]

36. Good to hear,

and I do wish the rest of the country had such involved processes. Iowa and NH may be the only states where significant numbers of people actually know what's going on.

[redwitch]

117. I loved the coverage of the Iowa caucus in '08.

I watched everything about it could and found it totally riveting. I agree with you in wishing every state got that many people engaged in the process. Are the Iowa and NH percentages of voters higher than many other states?

[Maedhros]

6. Based upon policy and track record, for liberals/progressives there really isn't a choice:

Sanders is hands-down the superior candidate.

But Hillary's supporters don't care about policy or track record. They are voting for a personality.

[RobertEarl]

7. I am confused?

You state:
"...her Presidency will probably be an utter disaster for our country and our party -- the current GOP is so insane and horrifying, I will vote for her. "

But the rest of your post seems to say you will not vote for her?

Otherwise nice post. The gist is that H> is just more of the same of regressive-ism that infects the body politic. That Sanders presents a change, a real change and real progress.

Sanders can win this election... both the primary and the general. His appeal is wide and his heart is in the right place. He is the kind of president we have all been hoping to see.

[cui bono]

27. Yes, that is confusing. n/t

[BlueStateLib]

8. So Hillary's is responsible for the 1994 democratic loss

So who is responsible for the 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 democratic presidental loss

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. He is referring to the mid terms...

Democrats lost seats in the 66, 78, 94, 010, and 012 mid terms. Who was responsible for that?

You can go back to FDR and find Democrats losing seats in mid terms...There might be an exception or two. Somebody else can do the research.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. Democrats have lost seats in nearly every mid-term when a Democrat was in the White House

since the Taft era.

Two exceptions: 1934, and 1998.
During that time, Republicans have made a net gain of seats in only one mid-term when they controlled the White House: 2002

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The GOP has had some rough mid terms too

Off the top of my head

74
82
06

I also read that the GOP lost more seats at every level under Ike than under any other eight year span in history.

[Art_from_Ark]

23. '74 was the aftermath of Watergate

'82 was the midst of a terrible recession
'06 was just plain disgust with Bush

and '54 may have been a backlash against McCarthyism.

[reallygosh]

12. DaveT

You have very eloquently told the kids to go to bed.

Bravo!

[colsohlibgal]

17. Better Than Dreadful Is No Longer Tolerable For Many Of Us

I want to vote enthusiastically for someone who reflects my US and world view. That is undeniably Bernie and my second choice would be O'Malley. I just cannot go with the corporate/third way wing anymore.

I guess the intrepid Hillary operatives/defenders can or just like the idea of voting for Hillary.

[moobu2]

29. Bernie Sanders is completely unelectable

even less so than George McGovern was so I don't see the point in even worrying about him any more than absolutely necessary. I'm not voting for my spiritual representative anyway.

[lovemydog]

33. I don't know about that.

I don't think he will win the primaries. But that still wouldn't be a reason for me not to vote for him. Same in the general election. I just don't have a crystal ball. Long ago I stopped trying to second-guess about that kind of stuff.

I"m more concerned with the inclusiveness (or lack thereof) of the democratic party going forward. What kind of party will we be? What policy positions will be quite clear to the American people. Will we reject genuinely liberal policies or will we include them?

If I took a wild guess, I'd say that with the right circumstances any of the three current nominees for the democratic party nomination can be elected President. I haven't looked at tons of polls but from the little I've seen the poll numbers seem to point in that direction too. The republican candidates this time around stink. In terms of presidential elections, if the republican brand were a product on the shelves it would be tainted dog food made of artificial chemicals.

Another point. What if serious health issue caused Hillary to drop out of the race. That would dramatically change the equation. As far as I'm concerned the people will speak at the primaries. Before them it's all mere speculation. In my opinion.

[moobu2]

38. One thing about the polls for the general election.

No one has been attacking Bernie Sanders at all because everybody assumes Bernie isn't going to be the nominee. Bernie Sanders is getting a free ride (even support) from the press and the GOP while the press, the GOP, Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been relentlessly attacking Hillary Clinton for months and months and months. If they're successful in weakening Hillary enough so that Bernie Sanders got elected in the primary, all that would change. Once they think Bernie Sanders could be the D nominee they'll eat him alive. I doubt he could win a state and he would perform worse than George McGovern did when he won 16 electoral votes. Bernie Sanders is just not presidential material. His poll numbers are artificially high at this point.

[lovemydog]

41. Fair point.

I disagree but fair point.

[Live and Learn]

79. Ridiculous. Almost anyone could win against the clowns the Repugs are running. Unless...

a major scandal broke out. I wonder which candidate that is more likely to happen to.

[moobu2]

91. You better hope it isnt Hillary Clinton because Bernie isn't electable.

The only reason Bernie Sanders is polling as well as he is is because everybody has been ignoring him so far. That would change if he were to become the nominee.

[Live and Learn]

92. Really? That is what some thought about Vermont yet, he won handily.

Who made you the resident expert on who is electable anyway?

[moobu2]

93. I'm always right. trust me.

[Live and Learn]

94. I would never trust anyone that said they were always right. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

101. "Borrack is clearly unelectable in the GE"- moobu2, Mon Mar-24-08 08:27 AM

From the thread titled "electoral-vote.com: Obama vs McCain (he loses) Hillary vs McCain (she wins) maps now up."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5230028

Same month: "Like you Barack supporters haven’t spewed the same RW talking points about Hillary you could hear from those same assholes. Since this OP is about hypocrisy this is the perfect place for your comments."

And: "Yup and Barack wants to call everybody else out on the slightest comment about race."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5082319

[neverforget]

105. Bwaahhaaa! Great find!

[lovemydog]

30. Thanks for one of the best posts I've read here in a long while.

I share your interest in politics and your idealism about what our party can and should be. I too have always voted for the most progressive candidate available on every ballot: local, State and federal. It makes sense to me that some of the most politically leftist people are interested in supporting a Sanders nomination because he has the track record and the policy proposals that place him as the most liberal or most leftist candidate running today. And he was fighting for these policies way back when liberal or leftist was considered a dirty word, even among mainstream democrats.

I think a lot of O'Malley and Clinton supporters would argue that their candidate's policies are also progressive. They may also suggest that they also have a higher chance of success in terms of both electability and results. That may be true. It may not be. None of us will ever know for certain.

My fallback position is to go with who I've determined is the most progressive candidate, not only in terms of what may be accomplished but also in terms of what they choose to speak about and what that means to our country. So I've voted for people like Jackson, Dean and Obama in primaries, regardless of poll numbers. That's why my default position keeps going back to Sanders. I believe in his words and deeds he is the most left of our current candidates. What's made it tougher for me personally is that I've seen a lot of ugliness and ugly accusation made on this board, ones I disagree with vehemently. But my fallback position is to vote for my candidate in spite of, not because of, some of his or her most over the top supporters.

Do you - or anyone else reading - have any experience with this? If so I'd love to hear your views on it. This is the first time I've been involved with a primary season on a message board. Is this type of thing pretty standard in the past, even before the days of the internet? I assume so because I love reading history and I've read a lot about the democratic conventions in 1968 and 1972. The divisions between the old guard and the new left appear to have been very deep and emotional.

I too will support our democratic candidate for President. And I don't dislike Hillary as much as you, or as much as a lot of other folks here. I can and do respect those who support her here, particularly the ones who do so without disparaging or spreading slander toward the other candidates and / or their supporters.

My hope is that a broad new generation of people engage in the political process because of good experiences on message boards and / or in the campaigns of all three of our candidates. The way that so many great people came out of the McGovern and Chisholm and Udall and Kennedy and Jackson, Dean and Obama campaigns. And encourage one another to participate and vote and be involved with their present and future. I credit the Sanders candidacy and campaign with bringing that exciting enthusiasm toward politics and I trust that the younger folks especially will carry that idealism forward and also listen to older folks and people of different colors or genders or sexual orientations who have been around the block for wisdom and guidance too. And not disparage other people on the left so brutally, but concentrate their attacks toward the right wing in this country, which is horribly wrong and has been for over a century.

Because your post is thoughtful, I felt like it merits a longer reply. I hope you or someone else here reads it, lol. I like running into these kinds of posts here at DU. Thanks.

[zalinda]

39. This is what is missing in most of the discussions

on who's electable. Neither party can win without the Independents, and I'm betting more Independents changed to Democrat just so they could vote for Bernie in the primary. I know I did. And the Independents have a lot of Democrats who say "the party left me". Would they vote for Hillary? We know that the Republicans won't. And, if Trump is in the picture, he may get enough 'leaners' who will Reagan the vote.


Republicans 28%
Democrats 30%
Independents 39%

Republicans including leaners 42%
Democrats including leaners 44%


http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx


Z

[lovemydog]

45. Fair point.

I happen to agree with this too! A few more things in terms of food for thought. The country has changed a lot since the days McGovern lost 49 States. I think Sanders could hold on to the blue States that Obama won.

It's a fair certainty the republicans are going to put up a candidate that's repulsive to the majority of voters in blue States. We have the internet now to debunk stupid propaganda about Sanders. Back in the days of Nixon winning 49 States many people (not my parents!) viewed Nixon as 'presidential.' I don't think the majority of voters now, especially in the blue States, would view Donald Trump or Ben Carson or Jeb Bush or Carly Fiorina as 'presidential' vis a vis Sanders.

[hill2016]

37. ok what about this reason

Sanders has never been honest with his supporters where the money to pay for his platform will come from. It's always the rich or the financial speculators. Always somebody else. Notice he has NEVER been specific about how he is going to raise revenues. And by specific I mean hard numbers e.g. precise tax rates, revenues, etc.

He was asked point blank in the last debate what the highest tax rate would be under his proposal. He hasn't quite worked it out yet, which to me is simply incredulous that he has been running on a platform of taxing the rich for months and hasn't even worked out that basic detail yet. To me that suggests he knows the maths doesn't add up and he's just being dishonest by refusing to discuss that.

His own home state of Vermont couldn't fund single payer which to me suggests that (1) he doesn't have any kind of bully pulpit/influence there or (2) he didn't care enough to actually use it there.

Do Sanders supporters support him because they think somebody else will be paying for his platform? Would they still support him if they faced significant tax increases to fund his platform?

Look at what happened to ACA. All the young millennials thought it was a great plan and supported it, until they realized out that they were the ones (the "young invincibles&quot who were supposed to pay into the system to subsidize the older/sicker people. Then what happens? They realize that it's not worth it for them and they as a group enroll less than expected. Which is now causing lots of problems in the individual market as the sicker/older ones are costing more than expected without the younger/healthier ones to support.

Same thing could apply here. A lot of people who support Sanders might have second thoughts if they have to pay significantly more in taxes for his platform. And by not releasing any details to have a full public policy debate I think he is being very dishonest.

To be sure, I like parts of his platform. I think there's a lot of administrative waste in the insurance system but at the same time there needs to be a way to prevent people from abusing health care resources. Calling an ambulance for a ride to the hospital, going to the ER for routine stuff are huge waste of resources that the system cannot afford.

Free college for everyone is unworkable and laughable. Countries which try it have strict admission criteria. Lots of unanswered questions such as: who qualifies? Is it merit based, in which case what about minority students? Are there limits on how long you can stay in college, what kind of degree you can pursue, what grades you need to keep?

With Sanders, everything's black and white. Clinton understands that the world is complex and that you need to co-opt people who have differing views from you (especially with her experience as SoS) and gets nuance.

So in short, lots of promises but nothing concrete/specific both on how to pay for it and what are the limits whether it's free college or a single payer system.

[BlueCaliDem]

47. Excellent post, hill2016!

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Fumesucker]

59. This was predicted right here on DU many times

And it was the left saying it, the pragmatic moderate centrists were in the bag for the ACA and poo pooed any criticism including this.

Look at what happened to ACA. All the young millennials thought it was a great plan and supported it, until they realized out that they were the ones (the "young invincibles&quot who were supposed to pay into the system to subsidize the older/sicker people. Then what happens? They realize that it's not worth it for them and they as a group enroll less than expected. Which is now causing lots of problems in the individual market as the sicker/older ones are costing more than expected without the younger/healthier ones to support.

[redstateblues]

96. Excellent post

[pacalo]

40. Bernie Sanders is our once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote in another FDR.

I can't wrap my head around any Democrat being opposed to this rare opportunity.

[Samantha]

49. I totally agree with you

That's it.

Sam

[ibegurpard]

43. love it!

Well said! I know and speak to Hillary supporters in real life all the time that could run circles around half the people spewing useless garbage on this board.

[840high]

44. No hesitation for me - Bernie. Thank you.

[zentrum]

48. What a well reasoned and cogently written

….post. I really appreciate the thoughtfulness.

I too think, that if she's the final candidate, she will win only because the country is too freaked out by the republican alternative ——and the democratic party by now should be offering more than that. I also agree, that her presidency will not be a a successful one, for a variety of complicated reasons mostly having to do with her baggage, her character and the hatred she arouses in the opposition, unlike Bernie. It will be a media/beghazi-like series of investigations for four years and the country will really suffer because of it. She had her chance. I wish she had it in her to step aside.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

50. "Vote for me because I am going to win is a very weird appeal."

Kinda like a McDonalds sign saying how many burgers they've sold.

This is a sales campaign for them.

[brooklynite]

57. Vote for me even though I'll probably lose is equally wierd

What is the value of supporting a candidate's positions, if the candidate can't get elected to implement them.

There's a reason Dennis Kucinich isn't President today.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

66. That logic gave us President Kerry.

[brooklynite]

67. It might have later on...

Howard Dean pretty much crashed and burned on his own; unable to covert his rally crowds into voters

[Spitfire of ATJ]

69. The media killed his campaign.

[brooklynite]

71. Care to defend that comment?

Remember, the "Dean Scream" happened AFTER his mediocre third place finish in Iowa.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. This may shock you but many nominees come from behind....

Remember Paul Tsongas?

[LibDemAlways]

51. A couple of weeks ago I posted that

it would be a good idea for the pro Hillary contingent on here to provide the specific reasons she deserves our votes -- in other words list her positives. All I received in reply was a bunch of nonsense accusing me of making threats. Since when is asking the supporters of a political candidate to explain the reasons for their support akin to making a threat?

You seem to be asking the same thing I did. Good luck with that.

[CharlotteVale]

52. Not only is it a very weird appeal, but

I think it is totally wrong. Hillary simply can't win against a real Republican no matter how much she tries to sound like one.

[RiverLover]

55. This is one of the best OPs I've read at DU.

Last edited Fri Nov 20, 2015, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Thank you, DaveT.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. Another attack on Hillary Clinton and her supporters (SIGH)

She is eminently qualified to be president of the United States by dint of experience, temperament, and record of achievement.

-First Lady of Arkansas
-First Lady Of the United States
-Two term senator from one of the most populous and most heterogeneous states in the nation
-Secretary of State

She has offered detailed positions for this campaign on

-criminal justice reform
-immigration reform
-climate change
-financial reform
-combating terrorism
-gun control

She and her husband have worked tirelessly for the Democratic party since they were wet behind the ears field organizers for George McGovern in 1972 registering Mexicans in southwest Texas to vote.


See, I was able to make my case without denigrating Senator Sanders or the other members of our community.

[BootinUp]

60. Opinions vary Dave.

I find it interesting that you brought up McGovern and some of the past history and then go on to indicate that you think only your view could possibly be valid.

[DaveT]

65. Why do you think Hillary is a good candidate?

To correct the misunderstanding you got from my post, I do not think my point of view is the only valid one. I am sincerely interested in hearing the rationale for other points of view.

When I read snappy, dismissive and substance free posts like yours, it makes me sad.

[sibelian]

61. CAKE or DEATH?

Cake, please.

[in_cog_ni_to]

62. Taunting is all they have.

She's not a Progressive, so they can't tout her Progressive agenda. She's a warmonger whose BFF's on Wall St. Destroyed our economy to the tune of $12.8 TRILLION (OUR tax dollars), she supports Prisons for Profits and actually takes money from their lobbyists, she supports the TPP, the XL PIPELINE, Corporate tax loopholes, she voted for the IWR, SHE, as SOS, gave us ISIS, she doesn't support tuition free state universities, she doesn't support Universal Healthcare, she voted for the bankruptcy bill, she won't reinstate Glass-Steagall and she supports FRACKING!

I mean, come on! How could anyone claim she's Progressive and defend THAT record? They can't, so they resort to recycling their 1,000,002 memes everyday, 24/7. They have NOTHING. NOTHING.

[RiverLover]

63. Kick!

For sound reasoning.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Why do you think Bernie Sanders will be a good president?

And saying that he totally represents your views is NOT a good answer.

[DaveT]

70. Fair question.

He's been a public servant at the local, state a Federal level. He has a strategy for using the bully pulpit to persuade the citizenry to support the legislation he proposes which I expected from Pesident Obama and was disappointed.

Sanders is everything that Rodham Clinton is not. He is consistent. He always takes the high road and he does not race bait. He is not a war monger.

I have heard him discuss public policy on the radio for more than a decade, and he has a command of public policy issues that no other politician exceeds.

Experience, political skill and character.

And he is right on most of the really important issues of our depraved political era.

[Ron Green]

72. Not only this excellent list, but he will deliver, from the White House, the truth about

the bought system that has brought us to this unbearable point.

[DCBob]

74. There are a bunch of reasons to support Hillary but..

the main reason I believe most people are supporting her is that she is probably the most qualified, most prepared, most ready-on-day-one candidate ever to run for the Office of President.

[DaveT]

75. No, that was Poppy Bush.

Your post begs a question that I am asking with this thread -- Qualified at what?

Could you flesh out that assertion, please?

[DCBob]

98. Her resume is packed with relevant experience and qualifications.

Here is a brief summary..

• Graduate of Yale Law School, where she was one of just 27 women in her graduating class.
  
• Young lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund where she worked to help enact legislation to help children with disabilities in Massachusetts.
  
• Lawyer for the Congressional Committee investigating President Nixon.
  
• First Lady of Arkansas where she worked to improve educational standards and health care access for the people of Arkansas.
  
• First Lady of United States during where she worked to reform our health care system and helped create the Children's Health Insurance Program. Here is where she learned what Republicans are capable of doing when faced with a strong intelligent aggressive woman.
  
• U.S. Senator for New York, probably the most diverse, complex and important state in the country.. economically, financially, politically, and diplomatically. While Senator she worked to secure funding to rebuild New York and fought to provide health care for first responders who were contaminated at Ground Zero. Also helped to expanded TRICARE so that members of the Reserves and National Guard and their families could get better access to health care.
  
• Ran for President in 2008 where she learned the hard way what it takes to win.
  
• Served as Secretary of State for 4 years. She was instrumental in starting to restore America’s standing in the world. She helped build a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war. She also was a forceful champion for human rights, internet freedom, and rights and opportunities for women and girls, LGBT people and young people all around the globe.
  

[redstateblues]

97. Spot on

[ucrdem]

106. That too.

Uber-bland launch video aside, she seems to have been working hard on this campaign for some time and will be ready and then some on day one.

[Depaysement]

76. I think it comes down to a simple slogan

New Deal or No Deal

[UglyGreed]

80. K/R

[Rose Siding]

81. "She killed the Democratic Brand in 1994 and delivered us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich."

"She killed the Democratic Brand in 1994 and delivered us Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich."

Some people don't know that. Me, for instance.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[DaveT]

88. A good question

Let's start with what wiki says about the Clinton health care proposals of 1993-4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

The Clinton health care plan, known officially as the Health Security Act and unofficially nicknamed "Hillarycare" (after First Lady Hillary Clinton) by its detractors, was a 1993 healthcare reform package proposed by the administration of President Bill Clinton and closely associated with the chair of the task force devising the plan, First Lady of the United States Hillary Rodham Clinton.

/snip/

Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, a plan which ultimately backfired amid the barrage of fire from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity. By September 1994, the final compromise Democratic bill was declared dead by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell[citation needed].

/snip/

Hillary Rodham Clinton's leading role in this project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse.[2][3] This unusual decision by President Clinton to put his wife in charge of the project has been attributed to several factors, such as the President's desire to emphasize his personal commitment to the enterprise.[3]

/snip/

The 1994 mid-term election became, in the opinion of one media observer, a "referendum on big government – Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape."[22] In that 1994 election, the Republican revolution, led by Newt Gingrich, gave the GOP control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1954, ending prospects for a Clinton-sponsored health care overhaul. Comprehensive health care reform in the United States was not seriously considered or enacted by Congress until Barack Obama's election in 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution

The Republican Revolution, Revolution of '94 or Gingrich Revolution refers to the Republican Party (GOP) success in the 1994 U.S. midterm elections,[1] which resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. The day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, becoming a Republican.

Rather than campaigning independently in each district, Republican candidates chose to rally behind a single national program and message fronted by Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich. They alleged Clinton was not the New Democrat he claimed he was during his 1992 campaign, but was a "tax and spend" liberal. The Republicans offered an alternative to Clinton's policies in the form of the Contract with America.[2]

Let me add my own recollections of the era. Bill Clinton won the election of 1992, and there was a strong consensus for national health care. Harry Truman had originally put the idea in play; Ted Kennedy argued for it for decades -- and almost everybody assumed that it would be a reality. Then, we got to see Hillary's political skill in action . . . .

Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House and he was famous for this aphorism: "All politics is local." Newt Gingrich, with a ton of help from Rush Limbaugh turned that upside down in 1994 and they effectively nationalized the election, with a nation wide campaign based specifically on attacking the arrogance and secrecy of the First Lady.

In my home state of Texas in 1994, our great Governor, Ann Richards, was up for re-election against George W. Bush. On election day, Richards had an approval rating of about 60% -- but Shrub beat her by about eight points as part of the Republican Revolution that was organized around attacking Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Rose Siding]

89. Makes you wonder why Ann and now Cecily loved/love her so much.

Since it was all her fault Richards lost because Limbaugh, pharma, and the gop defeated a health care plan. They must have forgiven her for costing Ann that election since Hillary spoke at Ann's memorial in 2006 and now Cecily is working for HC's campaign in Iowa.

I too remember how much irrational hatred was generated by that detailed plan -that she was tasked to sell to Congress, not the public as the wiki page states. Ironically, establishment Democrats in Congress were a main foil. There was also one deceptive commercial I remember that was credited, in large part for its loss.

Here it is, Harry and Louise, remember?-

And I don't know who the one "media observer" in the wiki blurb could be but it is a safe bet that this had more to do with the 94 mid-term results than anything Hillary did:

Contract with America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

I think you might be giving Hillary a whole lot more power and influence than she really had in those years. I'm glad you explained your reasoning. Thank you, but I don't agree at all.

[DaveT]

95. I just related the facts.

Hillary tried and failed to persuade the country to support what was HER handiwork -- the Health Care Plan itself. Whether Ann or anybody else liked her has nothing to do with the point at hand. Hillary supporters keep asserting that she is an inevitable victor. I cited her spectacular failure in 1993-4 as support for my claim that she does not have a good track record in partisan politics -- in fact it is bad.

It is certainly reasonable to disagree with my overarching statement that she was the only one responsible for the debacle at the polls. I think my formulation is accurate, but I concede that it is debatable. Nit picking my wiki source does not really mean much -- if you want to continue this debate I will dig up extensive quotes from the era to show what a gift to the GOP it was for WJ Clinton to put this person with such poor political skills in charge of his most important legislative initiative.

What is not debatable is that she was given responsibility for "selling" the plan to the public and she got clobbered. Yes she was facing a lot of opposition and almost all of it was fraudulent and paid for by the same institutions that are now helping to finance her Presidential campaign. I sincerely believe that she learned the wrong lesson from that experience. Rather than fight money she now serves money.

That undeniable failure of her salesmanship, by itself, does not prove that she stinks as a politician now. But it does prove exactly what I said -- she has a bad track record in partisan politics.




Incidentally, I will also concede that she is a better politician now than she was then -- just not the juggernaut that her supporters on this board so relentlessly and so childishly keep asserting.

[Autumn]

99. I support Bernie, Hillary is a nice enough person but if I had to support a Clinton I would

rather support Bill.

[earthside]

102. If the election isn't about the economy, Democrats will lose.

Take away all the polling and strategizing, the punditry and positioning ... Democrats have to have a nominee for President who talks about average folks and their economic situation and has proposals that they think will help them.

If the 2016 election veers off into foreign policy or social issues, Democrats are going to lose.

So, though the Hillary partisans may criticize Sen. Sanders for talking about the economy to the exclusion of other issues, that is the ultimate winning formula.

I absolutely believe that Democrats can lose the 2016 elections. Mrs. Clinton, in the end, is going to be perceived as an Obama third term and as the candidate of gender identity and she will lose.

Sanders has the potential to change the game with a message of economic populism. It is that simple, in my estimation.

[cantbeserious]

103. Bernie Supporter - The Clinton's Wrought The DLC And Third-Way - Hence - No Vote From This Citizen

eom

[ucrdem]

104. 3. Sanders is perfectly poised to wreck Dem chances in 2016.

The problem isn't his policies, which are fine campaign slogans, though not much more than talking points. The problem is that his constituency is just big enough to sink Clinton if he decides to run third party, or if the nomination fight gets really ugly and his supporters stay home on Nov. 8. That's the problem.

[DaveT]

108. You think the threat of Bernie Supporters Staying Home

is a reason to vote for Clinton? Good luck with that argument.

[ucrdem]

109. It's a reason for Sanders to vote for Clinton, yes.

IOW if he tries to take his marbles and go home or go 3rd party -- and there will be lots of pressure and fine reasons to persuade him to -- that will be a problem. Not insurmountable necessarily, but still a problem.

[Agnosticsherbet]

107. Franklin Roosevelt isnt' running. Sadly, he died on April 12, 1945....

He was a great liberal who created some of the great liberal safety net programs.

But he is dead.

He led us well through one of the most destructive and deadly wars in our history. As a War President, he stands shoulder to shoulder with Lincoln and Wilson.

But he is dead.

I will not be voting for FDR. I wish I could.

My job is to vote for he person who will be the best Representative in the Executive Branch in 2016. His records on gun Control, and specifically his vote against the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act may have been good for Vermont. It was wrong for the US, and very wrong for the twenty-first century. His vote to immunize corporate gun manufacturers is such an odd not in his history of railing against corporations that I must assume it was a heart felt stand about guns. Those two choices were the reason I ceased to support Sanders and the an important part of why I think he is not the best representative.

I think free Tuition for All and Single Payer are great programs, but his way of going about it are doomed to failure in in 2016. Both of those are programs with a high price tag, and American voters, sadly, can be trusted to vote against price tags. Vermont tried and failed because the pocket book sacred the voters. Congress will not pass his wish list because their voters will balk at the pocket book and because a considerable majority in Congress, and their voters, are simply opposed to those programs.

In the US, we have a history of creating programs that are not very good and making them better overtime. Check out Social Security at the link.
Social Security: Summary of Major Changes in the Cash Benefits Program
Yes, I don't think he can win, but that is not a why I do not support him.

His central focus on economic justice ignores major problems in our society. There are deep problems caused by institutionalized racism that will not be solved by economic Justice. Yes, he did improve his message because "Black Lives Matter" made it an issue. But it has not changed fundamentally his economic platform. We need to fix the deep problems in this country, and I don't think he can do that.

Finally, Sanders has also spoke several times about his ability to work with Republicans. The Clinton Administration and the Obama Administration has proven that Republicans in the modern age will not work with Democrats. One of my biggest criticism of President Obama is that it took him so long to realize that Republicans would not work with him to govern. Bill Clinton frustrated Republicans because he used "Triangulation" to take issues they supported and restate them for the center and the left. Republicans learned from Clinton, and when Obama was elected, even when he supported their own policies and ideas, they refused to accept them. I prefer a little more reality when a modern politician talks about the other side.

[DaveT]

110. So Sanders isn't liberal enough for you?

On Guns? If his votes in the Senate and his public position on guns are deal breakers for you, OK. But it gives the game away when Hillary supporters hit this meme. On every other issue on the table, their premise is that Bernie is out of step with the voters, and that Clintonesque Triangulation is more "competent." But on the one issue where she has a more liberal position, they say he is just too far off the progressive reservation to vote for.

Special pleading like that I have seen on the internet since the days of Sore Loserman. And that is the subtext of this thread. The pro-Hillary arguments are all like that -- rationalizations after the fact that do not fit any coherent body of thought, just what helps the side "win."


You think Clinton will do something meaningful about racism and Sanders will not? I disagree vehemently with that assertion, and I request that you explain why you think so.


Certainly you have me dead to rights on the FDR reference. He is dead. And people like Hillary Clinton are dedicated to make sure nothing like him ever comes back. I think you realized that I was referring to his "legacy" and it is clear that you and your candidate both firmly believe that his "legacy" of using the Federal Government to roll back the power of Big Business cannot possibly win an election.

I have two responses to that basic line of Clinton argumentation:

1. The electorate today is ready to vote for the Sanders wish list, even if it means higher taxes. Taxes have been cut far too much and although I doubt very many average citizens would phrase it that way I do, there is no choice for us but to raise taxes. The basic Social Contract of Democratic Socialism is that you pay taxes to get vital public service. If you truly believe that our citizenry is inherently so afraid of taxes that they can never be raised again, I suggest you join the Republican Party where you belong.

2. Instead of you just asserting that Sanders' campaign to revive the New Deal can't win, please spell out why. If it is just your faith in anti-tax argumentation to support your position, we can agree to disagree and I'll see you at the Democratic Convention. If you have other arguments for why you think the public will not support Sanders agenda, please advise.




Final note -- I get that California is a blue state. But we recently passed a tax increase proposed by Governor Jerry Brown, and our state budget crisis has been resolved. I just want to remind you that Proposition 13 started in California. We started the long campaign to cut taxes, and now we have started the reversal of that idea which has GONE WAY TOO FAR. Just this week, your candidate jumped on the Howard Jarvis band wagon and I am keen to know what you think about a Democrat running for office on the idea that taxes are too high in 2015.

[Agnosticsherbet]

111. Go back and read what I wrote again. Don't read between the lines. Don't add things.

It is insulting to have things thrown into my face that I did not write. It is a common tactic in discussion here. Stick to the facts.

1. I see no evidence that the electorate is ready to nominate Sanders. If they do, I will vote for him in November 2016. He will not get my vote for the reasons I stated, which have nothing to do with his electability. But there is no evidence of that the electorate will rise up. We will know by the end of March.

2. Sander's promises are just Obama's "Hope and change." He needs a congress to legislate that, and there isn't one. He doesn't have a plan for that. He even thinks Republicans will work with him. Obama tried that. It didn't work. Maybe by 2021, if Democrats turn out and retake the states in 2020 after the census, maybe.

California is a blue state: California passed a tax increase because we controlled the State Senate and House by a large margin. It was our state legislature that raised taxes and created beneficial legislation. The Governor doesn't have the power to do that. He can only ask. Before we changed the way we create voting districts, and primaries, nothing was done because Republicans controlled the legislature. The only reason Brown has managed to do a great job is because Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate, and Democrats won it. That took a major change in the way we draw up electoral districts (For which you can thank ballot initiatives) and a change in the way we do primaries. Fortunately, Republican attempts to get the SCOTUS to throw that out failed.

This idea that Sanders or Obama or Clinton or any governor or President can do it alone is a fantasy. The idea that Republicans will work with Sanders or any Democratic President at this time in history is a fantasy.

As a matter of fact, I don't think a President Clinton will get anything done. Republicans already are lining to impeach her. They are not going to get behind a Clinton Presidency no matter what progressives think.

But a President Clinton or Sanders or O'Malley is preferable to any Republican.

And as to taxes, Bill Clinton raised taxes. Hillary Clinton is a politician that understands that most Americans will not vote to have their taxes raised. She is trying to be elected, not run a revolution.

The only way we will get to single payer is by modifying the ACA, a slow process that will take a decade. The public option is a good start on that, if we can get a Congress that will pass that modification. I won't hold my breath.

As much as Americans want college to be cheaper, the majority will not vote to have their taxes raised to do it. Now, if we pass a bill that changes the way it is publicly financed, and do something to fix the disaster of debt our system perpetrated on the young, they will vote for that, as long as the cost is not prohibitive.

[DaveT]

113. Its a funny thing about putting words in the other person's mouth

It does look like I misunderstood you and I don't disagree with most of what you had to say here.

Nevertheless I have to admonish you -- Don't throw something in my face that I didn't write.

I never said anything about an uprising. What the hell does that mean? Obama won a landslide in 2008 and was re-elected by a healthy margin in 2012, with a horrible economy and a non-crazy opponent. That would not have happened in the 1990s or at any time in our history. It is a different electorate today.

It is fine to point out errors in my reasoning, and it is certainly expected that you might disagree with my analysis. But DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH OR I WILL RESORT TO THE SECOND PERSON IMPERATIVE -- AND ESCALATE TO ALL-CAPS.

And don't make me go to bold.


Seriously, my apologies for misreading you.

[Agnosticsherbet]

115. Please go to bold, and all Caps.

It's just a font.

[DaveT]

112. Too late to edit but

There is a draftsmanship error in my opening post that makes it look like I plan to vote for Hillary in the primary. In context, I'm sure most readers figured out that ambiguous passage when I say I will vote for her -- I meant I would vote for her if she is he nominee. I am a Sanders supporter.


Thank you to all who responded to the thread. I found the discussion interesting.

[mythology]

114. I think Sanders plans are mostly undefined in how he's going to pay for them

He didn't list what his proposed highest marginal tax rate would be because he hasn't figured it out.

He has proposed a free public university plan that, in my opinion, would absolutely destroy public universities by mandating that each state would get the same amount per student over time. That incentivizes states to contribute less money and disadvantages states like New York or California where the cost of living is higher.

His protection of gun dealers who repeatedly have guns they sell wind up in crimes is really a bad idea.

I think his decision to not use super pacs is admirable, but a really bad idea for the general election.

I get that it's hard to pin down numbers and that even if you could, those plans wouldn't survive entirely intact. This is true for any president.

And Hillary and O'Malley also have things I disagree with them on. That said, I'll gladly vote for any of the three of them as they have relatively mild policy disagreements with each other and that pales in comparison to the differences between any of them and any of the buffoons in the Republican primary.