Why I Support Hillary Clinton (show me where I am wrong)

[Savannahmann]

57. Your second reason is why we want a Democrat.

Really, any Democrat. So there, Hillary is no more attractive than any other. In fact, Hillary is worse than many others.

For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Hillary has won a huge landslide. Any logical thought process would show that Hillary would win a squeaker of a victory at best. But what the hell, a win is a win. The Republicans will still hold a majority in the Senate unless we win at least five seats. Looking at it, I figure three seats are possible, other than that we would need some pretty heavy duty coat tails to pick up those last two seats to make it a fifty fifty house with the VP as the Tiebreaker. Improbable is a very weak word.

But even if we do, the Republicans pick up more seats in the midterms, and again take control of the Senate. That means we won't have the House at all, and we may hold the Senate for no more than two years. So what kind of Supreme Court Justice can you nominate for a Senate that is that close to approve? Obviously you aren't going to nominate a Ginsberg. You're going to nominate a Kennedy, a moderate who switches sides often. If it is a Republican Majority Senate, which is far more likely, then the White House will have to put forth a full frontal assault in the media to pressure the Senate to confirm a Kennedy in lieu of another Alito.

Now, what is the one thing that is true about the Clinton's? Scandals always follow them. So figure Hillary will have if we are very lucky, six months before the scandals start to distract and weaken her. After that, the chances of a Kennedy getting confirmed become more and more unlikely. The chances that she'll be willing to fight to push a confirmation through of a left wing Justice like Ginsberg drop dramatically as time go by. Basically, after the first week, it just isn't going to happen.

Now, to your first point. Warren would be the first Female Potus. Palin would be the first female POTUS. That moron from South Carolina would be the first female POTUS if she was elected. The question is what do we want from that first Female? If it is merely her gender, than we're making the same mistake of identity politics that failed us in 2014 when we campaigned almost exclusively on the War on Women. Women did not turn out to vote for us in record numbers. They did not turn out to vote for our female candidates in winning numbers for the most part. The only women it seemed to help was Joni Ernst and Mia Love. In other words, Republicans.

So your idea that women would turn out in record numbers and support Hillary is not demonstrable by history. Your argument that it's time for the honor of the first female being elected, and that Hillary should have that honor is questionable. Your argument about the supreme court is accurate in that it identifies the probability of a nominee, but short sighted given the realities of the Senate Confirmation.

Things working against you and Hillary. Issues. Issues is what gave the election to the Republicans in 2014. It's how they won. They at least pretended to pay attention to issues. On far too many issues Hillary sounds a lot like them. A pro war pro big business pro free trade politician who supports the NSA spying on me and thee, the PATRIOT ACT, and Fast Track trade authority so Congress can shut up and pass the trade deals like they are supposed to.

Those issues will not garner the turnout we need to win the election. Hillary is on the wrong side of almost every populist issue, and that makes her a very bad candidate. Sure, she's got name recognition right now in the polling. But guess what, so do the Kardashian's. That doesn't mean I want them for the Presidency.