Can we have a rational discussion on the Clinton v. Sanders issue?

[brooklynite]

There has been a lot of back and forth about Clinton's ability to win in 2016. There has been very little about Sander's ability beyond "He inspires me, so he would inspire others".

Note- I'm not addressing whether you like either candidate: merely whether you think they can win the election.

I would frame the Clinton argument as follows:

1. Her public profile as First Lady to a Popular President, Democratic US Senator, and high-profile Secretary of State to another popular US President.

2. Her support for mainstream Democratic policy positions (pro choice, pro gay rights, pro progressive taxation, pro health care, anti SS privatization, etc.)

3. Her past performance running in a national campaign (racking up 17 million Primary votes against a very popular and well organized opponent in 2008).

4. Her ability to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to run nationwide.

5. Her RECURRING polling superiority over every likely Republican opponent.

So, with respect to Senator Sanders, what are the core arguments people can make as to why he would be a viable candidate?

[msongs]

1. Sanders is not a democrat nt

[HERVEPA]

7. Bull. For all intents and purposes he is. And would run as one in the primary.

And would not be a third party spoiler.
So why not cut the crap. You can support Hillary without doing that.

[Agschmid]

2. I'm going to revisit this.

[DanTex]

3. I doubt he would be a viable candidate. He is definitely more liberal than Hillary,

but he won't be able to win the GE. He also won't be able to win the primary, for many of the same reasons. He doesn't have fundraising capability, and for a substantial portion of the US population, the word "socialist" means "Stalin".

[truebluegreen]

44. "He doesn't have fundraising capability..."

In other words, the money boyz primary is first, and in the end more important. That's not a good reason, to me, to pick Hillary.

also, FWIW, the word "socialism" doesn't have nearly the impact it had, despite all the efforts of the money boyz to maintain the fear...except of course to the 47% (!) who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

[Vinca]

4. Bernie is my first choice, but I doubt he's a viable candidate. It's a shame.

That said, I would love to have him run for the purpose of dragging Hillary to the left a bit. She can win . . . there's no doubt in my mind. But will she win as a Democrat or a moderate Republican?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. Link to the latest PPP poll cussed, discussed, and re-cussed by both sides.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22515.pdf"

This is their conclusion from one poll.

Clinton also remains dominant in the Democratic Primary field. 54% of the party's voters want her to be their candidate to 16%for Joe Biden, 12% for Elizabeth Warren, 5% for Bernie Sanders, 2% for Jim Webb, and 1% for martin O'Malley.

If that poll is accurate, it is a stark comment on electability.

[upaloopa]

6. I look at the total electorate to decide if

someone can win an election. I know repubs will not vote for Clinton or Sanders.
Now that leaves independents and Dems.
Hillary is leading there.
I see voting for Sanders a throw away vote. I like him and wish his ideals were what the election was going to be about. I think Hillary will be a lot like Obama in 2008. She will talk your head off about the middle class and income inequality but in the end she won't effect those issues much.
Sanders is more truthful but he will not be the nominee.
So for me I will be voting against the repub candidate and hope Hillary has enough coat tails to win back Congress.

[Agschmid]

14. I think we have to define if we mean primary or GE...

A vote for Bernie (if he runs) in the primary is absolutely not a throwaway vote...

In the GE if he isn't the candidate we are on the same page.

[upaloopa]

18. I voted for Jesse Jackson in the California

primary a long time ago. I knew he would not win but I was hoping to keep in in the running. So I guess voting for Sanders in a primary is a good idea.

[Agschmid]

21. It sure could be, if he runs.

[Fumesucker]

8. Bernie doesn't look "Presidential"

That's in addition to all the other negatives, no money to speak of, the bias against "socialist" and so on..

Elizabeth Warren on the other hand I think does look "Presidental" and Hillary somewhat less so but considerably more so than Bernie.

Yes, I know it's a totally vapid thing to base a vote on but Vapid R US in America.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I don't believe he can win but demographics being what they are I believe he would do better ...

I don't believe he can win but demographics being what they are I believe he would do better than some of his detractors suggest.

On the other hand to many rank and file Democrats "socialist" is a pejorative that would turn many of them off, even though they support many "socialist" programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, Food Stamps, et cetera in principle.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. IWR vote: Clinton Yea. Sanders Nay.

[brooklynite]

11. Are you saying that voters will hold that against her?

I don't recall any substantial backlash against Kerry in 2004 or Clinton in 2008.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I'm a voter and I do.

[Agschmid]

15. Did you hold it against Biden?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Yes.

[brooklynite]

16. Fair enough---not the point of the thread

[Dems to Win]

26. Since 2002, no Dem who voted Yes on the Iraq War has won the presidency

Kerry didn't win in 2004, Clinton didn't win in 2008. Voters had something against them.

My reasons for supporting Obama in the 2008 primary: He had not voted for the travesty of the Iraq War, and I didn't think that Hillary could win.

Those reasons still hold today. I believe that enough strong opponents of the Iraq War will decline to vote for Hillary (not that they will vote for Jeb, but they'll leave it blank) that she will lose. No matter what the polls say today.

[brooklynite]

33. ...and no candidate who supported Marijuana decriminalization has won the presidency...

...I'd submit you're cherry-picking data unless you have specific results that prove the issue was a deciding vote.

FWIW - I seem to recall that George Bush was a big proponent of the Iraq War.

[Dems to Win]

39. Polls show Repubs support the war, Dems don't.

Repubs enthusiastically went to the polls to vote for a pres who waged war. Democrats, who mostly opposed the war, were asked to go to the polls and vote for someone who had voted in the Senate to authorize the war. Much tougher sell.

For the Democrats to win, it's all about turnout. We need people to be enthusiastic and come to the polls in great numbers. We're going to be tacking against the wind to try to get Dems and lefties to go the polls in huge numbers to vote for someone who authorized the war.

I know someone in real life who absolutely won't vote for anyone who authorized the historic, epic ongoing disaster of the Iraq War. No pleas from me about the Supreme Court or other issues will budge her one iota. She's a normally reliable Dem voter in a swing state. My gut is telling me that the Democrats can't win the presidency without her vote, and others like her.

[brooklynite]

40. Voters re-elected Obama post-Libya

...which plenty of people here said made him as much a war-monger as Bush.

[truebluegreen]

45. And he won with a smaller margin.

One wonders why.

[Cosmic Kitten]

62. Republicans will blame the Libya fiasco on SoS Clinton?

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Sanders is not a Democrat...end of discussion.

[brooklynite]

17. Disagree

Sanders could run as a Democrat in the Primary or run as an Independent in the General. In either case, supporters should be able to make an argument as to his electability.

[Armstead]

24. He doesn't have national winning viability becaude of the propaganda and sheep-like mentality

But he a damn good politician -- he is so popular in Vermoint (among the whole spectrum) that the GOP never even bothers to try and run anyone against him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. Disagree all you want...UNLESS he becomes a Democrat...he cannot join the primary...

and even if he does....he is still a Johnny Come Lately....he is not electable and you know it...

and are YOU willing to bet a Republican Presidency (while the Reps have the Senate and the House) on it?

[brooklynite]

58. Um, I'm the Hillary Clinton supporter...

My point is that IF you support Sanders, as an democrat or an Independent, you should be able to explain how he wins.

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. Okay that IS a good point...

and in that case I would LOVE to see that actually answered. Because I don't think his supporters understand strategy. He is not a magician either....He is just their Hero Du Jour...and they think he walks on water...As if...if only he becomes a Democrat...all the other Democrats...just roll over and get out of his way....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. He's an un-Democrat who voted against Bush's war. Unlike another candidate(D) who did.

[NCTraveler]

19. His viability in the current atmosphere can't really be argued in my opinion.

But in order for people such as Sanders to become viable, they must start running in the primaries. I also believe it would keep the conversation in our primaries very honest and on topic. I do think Sanders would be much different in a primary than Kucinich. It would be great for our party to have him in the primary, as a viable candidate or not.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

20. posting now to read later. thanks. n/t

[Armstead]

22. He won't get the nomination -- BUT HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and we need some f'in Truth

The truth is pretty damn simple. The wealthy and powerful have gotten far too wealthy and powerful, at the expense of everyone else. And they have hijacked the political system of BOTH parties.

It's not rocket science, but it does not get said enough, and political solutions certyainly are not acted on enough -- or even acknowledged by what passes for political discourse.

Sanders tells that unvarnished truth.

Clinton is a waffler insider. She'll only take any kind of remotely economic populist position if it has been thorough;y poll-tested, waterd down and sanitized.

[DescendantOfMany]

23. Right ideas.

Wrong package.

Charisma is just as important as policy stances.

[Man from Pickens]

25. I'd frame the counterargument as follows

point 1:

a) Being married to a powerful man as a means of career advancement is not the image of feminism that Hillary wants to project, even though that is the actual truth of her own life. Hard to capitalize on that one.
b) If you knew the full story about how she became a US Senator you would understand this is not a point to her credit. See: Lowey, Nita.
c) as Secretary of State, her main accomplishment was single-handedly forging a war in Libya, leaving the nation in utter chaos to this day.

point 2: Hillary's support for any position is proportional only to the level at which it furthers her ambition. Where the rubber meets the road, she cannot be depended on. Over time she has been firmly on one side, then the other, of several of those issues.

point 3: She was a consensus-inevitable candidate with every possible advantage in 2008 and she lost to a virtual unknown. Her 2008 campaign ranks with the last Cantor primary as historically bad campaigns by favorites.

point 4: She can raise all that money because she is tied at the hip to Wall Street, which has corrupted our political and financial systems to the point of crisis. Taking that money makes her unqualified to address some of the most serious issues our country has right now.

point 5: She had massive polling superiority in 2007 as well, and here we are. Polls change and the consistent pattern with Hillary is that the more voters think about her the less they like her. She has never won a competitive race in her life, ever.


Hillary is straight-up suicide for the Democratic Party. It's so obvious where this path takes us.

[Dems to Win]

30. +1. And don't forget Honduras

Hillary's support for the right wing military coup in Honduras is what I most remember from her time as SOS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. " Polls change and the consistent pattern with Hillary is that the more voters think about her..."

" Polls change and the consistent pattern with Hillary is that the more voters think about her the less they like her..."


Is that why she received 55% of the vote in her first Senate race and 67% of the vote in her second Senate race?

[Man from Pickens]

34. yep

Read up on that 2006 Senate race - Hillary basically didn't even have to run a campaign because the opposition was so bad. It kept her out of the news and raised her numbers significantly. Then in 2007 when she started campaigning for President, she started from that high plateau and dropped consistently as voters got more and more exposure to her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. The nation is polarized. Any national politician is going to divide the electorate...

The nation is polarized. Any national politician is likely going to divide the electorate roughly down the middle... Ironically Bill Clinton is the nation's most popular nationally known politician, ergo:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx

[truebluegreen]

46. +2

[Bluenorthwest]

27. The rational discussion you seek is called 'The Democratic Primary'. It's a great thing, and it does

for more than simply winnow out the contenders and deliver a nominee. The entire subject of candidate 'viability' is demonstrated only in an actual election process and can not be determined in advance or 'on paper' as Hillary's own 08 candidacy proved. It's fun conversation, but that's all it is.

[Dems to Win]

28. "Sanders" A good name, unconnected to any recent president

Low turnout elections are won by the Repubs. I can't imagine a more surefire recipe for a historically low turnout election than a Clinton - Bush mashup. Disgusted anti-dynasty voters will stay home in droves. If Dems want to win, we MUST find Someone Else!

[Rex]

29. I have to agree with some here, I don't know if he can win the big enchillada.

Too many in America are still scared of the S word and the GOP will use it to no end if he is the candidate. If the GOP media can destroy Howard Deans reputation, what can they do to Bernie? And Dean has a lot more name recognition. Look what the assholes did to John Kerry in 2004 and it worked.

[TheKentuckian]

63. They use it to no end constantly and regardless of economics.

The Republicans will call him a Socialist is a worthless concern, virtually nothing will slow it down much less stop it.

Look at how they slung the charge at Obama and nobody cared.

[karynnj]

31. You make a very good case for HRC - why make this a contest with Sanders?

I understand that many people actively for Clinton, resent many people arguing that they will have to hold their noses. I get how annoying that is when what you see is an unusually good candidate. I understand because I was there in 2004 once the nominee was chosen.

However, Hillary Clinton IS a really overwhelming favorite to win the primaries. Why not just let the primaries happen. If Bernie runs, Bernie runs. From the polling numbers, this is kind of like people demanding to know what case could be made for Kuchinich in 2004 or 2008 from the legions here who supported him.

I think that your points - especially the second and fifth are points that move people like me, who do not hate Clinton, but have for various reasons cooled on her to accept her because she is a reasonable candidate, who is clearly very likely to win. I think the point that will happen is when she begins to run the boards in the primaries. At that point, I think many of us who are neither attacking or supporting her will rally around her as the nominee.

As for now, when you are holding a hand with all the aces, and most honor cards, why do you feel the need to prematurely end the hopes of people hoping for much weaker candidates? In the long run, Hillary Clinton will need the much smaller groups of people now supporting the alternatives.

[brooklynite]

38. Sigh.....

Once again, a discussion on political prospects on a political website is interpreted as an "inevitability" argument.

I do not trumpet Hillary Clinton as "inevitable". I do not object to an open Primary. In that setting, I do believe that discussing the merits of each candidate are a reasonable subject for discussion.

The reason I compare to Sanders is that he is the one of two names promoted most by anti-Hillary folks who actually might run. Warren will not, period.

As for "ending the hopes of people hopping for much weaker candidates"? I deal with politics in the real world. If people can develop a framework as to why their candidate is viable, what I believe and say shouldn't matter. If they can't perhaps they should look for another candidate.

[Dems to Win]

35. In Hillary's trial run as President, she failed to reform health care

As First Lady, she was placed in charge of health care reform. She assembled a task force that met in secret to develop an incredibly complex plan, but couldn't even get her plan out of committee in the Democrat-controlled House. After two years, the Repubs took over in the mid-term elections and the issue died. We had to wait 20 more years for Obama to run and win and pass and sign health care reform.

When so many people had lost their wits from fear after 9/11, Hillary lost hers, too. She voted for the Patriot Act, the Afghanistan War and the drone war, and the Iraq War. Our beloved country needs someone who can maintain their calm and wisdom in tough times. In her most important votes as a senator, Hillary failed to be a wise leader.

I will support Bernie if he runs (as a Democrat) or Warren if she runs. But I truly believe that the BEST choice for our party is Congresswoman Barbara Lee. She has a proven record of wisdom and is a prophetic voice on all the important issues facing us. I know it won't happen, but I do think that if she could get fair press coverage of her views and record, Americans would vote for her as president. Polls show Americans DO agree with her (and Bernie) on the issues, but too many Americans are scared of the words 'socialist' or 'liberal.'

[think]

36. Sanders calls out corporations who practice in his words "legalized tax fraud"

In other words companies that utilize sneaky legislation, loopholes, and other chicanery to avoid paying US taxes.

Many of these companies get the full benefit of having their overseas financial interests protected around the world by our military yet are too damn stingy to pay their fair share. This is big reason our military budget costs so much.

Corporations need to quit rigging the system and Bernie Sanders will work to make sure there is a regulatory framework to protect American citizens from corporate overreach.

As CEOs seek tax cuts, senator slams corporate tax haven use
BY DAVID LAWDER / WASHINGTON / Wed Feb 18, 2015 4:52pm EST

(Reuters) - Senator Bernie Sanders lashed out on Wednesday at widespread use of offshore tax havens by U.S. companies, and the liberal independent targeted a group that represents CEOs of big corporations and wants corporate taxes lowered.

Sanders, top opposition member on the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, released a report decrying what he called "legalized tax fraud." It showed that 111 of the 201 member companies of the Business Roundtable are sheltering more than $1 trillion in profits overseas, where they are not subject to U.S. taxes.

Using the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens, these companies have saved more than $280 billion in tax liabilities, Sanders concluded in the report...

Full article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/18/us-usa-tax-havens-idUSKBN0LM27Q20150218

Link to the actual report (There is a list of corporations and many include information on the extent to which they go to keep from paying taxes:

http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/_cache/files/1b714994-7903-4a80-bb5e-47b6544d515d/legalized-tax-fraud.pdf

As far as other issues go Bernie Sanders is generally spot on in regards to healthcare, protecting the middle class; women's, LBGT , & civil rights; the environment, wages etc etc.

[brooklynite]

41. And if Sanders loses the election, how does he deal with this abuse?

And do you expect that the Republican will?

[think]

61. Probably nothing will happen no matter who's elected but the process must start. Those who idly sit

by and ignore the obvious are wasting our future.

America needs to come to grips with military spending and loss tax revenue as well as all budgetary agendas as times are changing fast and our political system is stuck in oligarchy speed...

JMO...

[Dems to Win]

42. Hillary's high profile husband may prevent her from winning

As a feminist, I'm not at all excited about Hillary Clinton as the first woman president.

When I voted for Obama, I knew that I was also voting for Michelle Obama to become the First Lady, and I was quite pleased about that. Six plus years later and I still have positive feelings about the First Lady and First Grandma and First Daughters, and it's a factor in my positive feelings toward President Obama, in spite of some policy disagreements with him. Michelle has done a great job encouraging American children to eat right and get some exercise, and it's actually shown up in improved childhood obesity stats. Good job, Michelle. And I smile when I see a pic of Sasha in a Tshirt with a big peace sign, or a pic of the First Grandma joining the family at the Christmas tree.

When I vote for Hillary, assuming she's the nominee (and I will), it will be with disgust at the idea of Bill Clinton returning to the White House as first horndog, and no joy at the thought of a couple of hedge fund sharks as first daughter and son-in-law. I'm sure the first grandbaby will be a cutie, though, so there's that.

Returning Bill Clinton to the White House as First Gentleman will not be a feminist triumph. Polls might show that young feminists are excited today to vote for Hillary, but they are too young to have lived through the Lewinsky saga. If Hillary is the nominee, the right wing will make sure the story is rehashed fully.

As a professional woman not much older than Lewinsky, Clinton's behavior was quite troubling and wrong to me at the time. I didn't believe it was worthy of impeachment, but it was sexual harassment. The power differential between Clinton and Lewinsky made that relationship all kinds of wrong, and it was incumbent on Clinton to say No, no matter if Lewinsky was 100% willing.

The best evidence that the relationship was wrong and abusive is the fact that Bill is now considered a respected former president, rolling in money and prestige, while Lewinsky has never been able to find a job or a boyfriend. The Clinton machine threw Lewinsky to the wolves. Of course, the Republican wolves have plenty to be ashamed of, too.

No, Hillary was not, and is not, responsible for Bill's behavior. But a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill as First Gentleman. I can imagine a lot of young feminists, after a full airing of that old laundry, might feel a little bit of hesitation when it actually comes time to vote. They might decide to wait for a better candidate to come along to be the first woman president and first gentleman, since they will see themselves as having lots more elections to vote in.

Bill's horndog days are not behind him, as made clear by testimony in the ongoing Epstein underage sex slave court case brought by three victims. The depositions publicized have made clear that Bill did not have sex with the underage victims, but he did party with men who were doing so, while surrounded by his own entourage of women. Who knows what might continue to drip out of that court case, just in time for the election.

I don't want to send this message to young girls: Any girl can grow up to be President -- just find and marry a man who can be president first. Once you're First Lady, your party will sweep all opposition from your path (bye-bye Nita Lowey) so you can waltz into a Senate seat (who cares what state you used to live in, just pick an open seat), and you'll be on your way back to the White House.

This feminist would be thrilled to see Barbara Lee, or Elizabeth Warren, or Janet Napolitano, or many others be our first female president. I won't be so enthusiastic about a Hillary victory if she manages to pull it off, which I doubt.

[brooklynite]

43. You think something that happened 20 years ago will be relevant to most voters?

I think Bill Clinton has long-since rebuilt his reputation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair...

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair don't try to convince somebody something is true when their whole world view depends on them believing it isn't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. Hillary Clinton is a lot more than an appendage Of Bill Clinton.

It's akin to arguing Bill was Adam and Hillary was Eve and she was formed from his rib. Prior to even meeting Bill she was a young law student at the nation's most prestigious university. She was on the path to greatness, we don't know on what stage that might have been...

[LynneSin]

48. Here are my two issues with Sanders

First he has to run as a Democrat. I'm going to be pissed as hell if the left gets split in 2016 and 40% of the vote gives us one of those clowns from the GOP the White House. Just look at what happened the last two governor elections in Maine! I think Sanders said if he runs it would be as a Democrat and I am good with that.

But my second issue is a serious concern and that is Bernie Sander's age. I know I am the one who started the 'don't make sexist comments about Hillary thread' but hear me out. Age is a legitimate concern because in the end we all die and the older someone is the greater the risk. And the only reason I have not started the 'Biden for President' DU club is the same reason - not just Biden's age but his health history. (And to be fair I am not making fun of Bernie because of his age!)

Consider this - oldest President inaugurated was Ronald Reagan and he was just shy of 70. And during Reagan's second term I don't think he was anything more than a figurehead with Nancy and Dick Cheney running the country. As of today Bernie Sander's is 73.5 (Biden is 72). Even McCain, whom many felt was on the edge of too old was 71 on Election Day 2008. So yes, I have to ask if Bernie is someone who would be able to serve until he was 83 years old.

Does this mean I wouldn't vote for Bernie? Heck no. But just like my Hillary post it means I like to keep my options open. Sander's is an amazing guy that much I do know. But if he gets the nom the I hope he picks wisely his VP!

[randys1]

51. I am a supporter of Bernie, but I think his biggest obstacle other than money, it is

stamina.

I really believe Hillary is ready, experienced with this stuff, and able to withstand the horrific, unbelievably HARD grind that a presidential campaign is.

I love Bernie and will work for him, but I dont know if he can do that.

[arcane1]

52. I'm less likely to believe Sanders is lying to me.

That's important.

[peacebird]

57. I'm more likely to trust that Bernie is looking out for me than HRC is...

[HereSince1628]

55. It really ISN'T one personality vs another. It is one way of naming problems vs another.

HRC is a very well positioned candidate for the right-side of the democratic party.

\\The question is do the problems that need solving need solutions from the right-side of the party?

Sanders isn't a democrat, but he names problems that resonate with a significant number of democrats who don't live Rahm Emmanuel like lives on the right side of the party

Why can't we have a discussion about THE PROBLEMS and then walk away knowing what expertise we want a candidate to have?

[peacebird]

56. HRC is also a warhawk, pushing TPP, pro corporation, and a Clinton - in case you forgot R's despise

Clintons as much as black Presidents

[dilby]

60. Sanders would make a great President and that is why he will never be one.

The people who get elected are the ones who will polish the knobs of special interest groups. Sanders reminds me a lot of Kucinich, both would be amazing Presidents however neither of them would be able to stand against the special interests groups that would fight hard against them.