Don't buy the spin that Bernie and Hillary are 92% alike on the issues.

[merrily]

Some talking head yesterday mentioned having just received a message that Hillary and Sanders voted alike 92% of the time when in the Senate. Just mentioned it out of absolutely nowhere and then immediately went on to something else.

I doubt that the Sanders campaign distributed that message to media. I don't know if it came from the Hillary campaign. I do know her DU supporters have been trying here to say "no real differences " since at least early May. (That may have been a response to the April 29 poll showing 90% of DU would vote for Sanders over Hillary.)

This 92% congruity in Senate votes message is probably technically accurate, but nonetheless very misleading. Why?

In the Senate, Bernie and Hillary were both in the Democratic Caucus voting against the Republican Caucus. No surprise that they both voted with the Democratic Caucus most of the time. A lot of Senate votes are not even substantive, about on the level of proclaiming national ice cream sundae day or expressing appreciation. Moreover the Senate is a very conservative body in the first instance. The only thing interesting to know, IMO, would be which votes comprised the 8% difference between Bernie and Hillary in the Senate.

Passing that: The biggest policy differences between Sanders and Hillary probably show up in Bernie's House votes, when Hillary was either First Lady or in the Senate, NOT when they were both in the Senate together: Bernie voted against Poppy's invasion of Iraq, against Dimson's invasion of Iraq, against DOMA, against DADT against repeal of Glass Steagall and so on. She was on the opposite side of all that, either expressly, by Senate vote or by choosing to associate herself in 2008 with her husband's record.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778412 ; http://www.democraticunderground.com/128033139 ; http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8899

I don't really care what percentage of votes the above comprises. Each of these events loomed large in the history of this country. Sanders was on the right side of that history. Neither Clinton was.

Bottom line: do not be deceived. As Bernie says over and over, he and Hillary disagree on many issues. I believe him and I have found that to be true myself over the months that I have been looking into his stands.

Going forward, I want the guy who was pro equal rights for everyone, including members of the GLBT community, who predicted exactly what would happen after repeal of Glass Steagall, who all along has said war should be the very last course of action, etc.

ETA: I should have noted originally that Bernie and Hillary were only in the Senate together from January 2007 to January 2009--and Hillary was probably absent a good bit of that time due to her primary campaign and preparing to become Secretary of State.

[djean111]

1. Thank you. It is the votes they DIFFERED on that are important.

Statistics - spun out of context. And they think no one can check or will check. I think I will repeat your OP over at reddit later, if you don't mind. The gist of it.

[merrily]

3. Please do.

[azmom]

2. She is owned. Enough said.

[cprise]

20. She really is an Incumbent of sorts

Bill repeatedly made statements to the effect that Hillary was a co-president. A lot of those nasty decisions that Bill made in the 90s were initiated of defended by Hillary.

[billhicks76]

22. Hillary And Jeb are 92% Alike On The Issues

[merrily]

25. Yes. Originally, some of her supporters on this board tried to

set up rules eliminating entire areas from discussion on the ground discussing them would be sexist. Among those areas was her husband. I don't remember the exact wording. I disagreed and did an OP discussing why. The link to that Op is in the OP of this thread. But yes, the "co-Presidency" was part of that OP.

[cprise]

31. Agreed. That was an attempt to conceal her culpability. eom

[cascadiance]

4. 92% alike on the issues that the corporate media is allowed to talk about that is...

If you include other issues that they fire people like Ed Schultz for talking about (The TPP, etc.), then there's a lot more where they are different!

[merrily]

5. Even though she negotiated TPP and referred to it in her book as "the gold standard," she is now

saying that she won't tell us her position on TPP until after she's president.

Take that in slowly.

1. These are not the droids you're looking for and you have no clue of her history re: TPP; and

2. It's okay to run for President and tell voters you'll let them know what your positions are after they vote.

[SoapBox]

7. That's right...

What the heck was that...she shrugged and said that it was Obama's "thing" to deal with.

How can non-billionaire Hillbots support that kind of garbage?

[merrily]

8. Let me guess:

It was classy of her not to interfere between Obama and Congress while the thing is under consideration--oh, wait--was that Keystone?

Now I'm not sure. Dang.

Anyway it's none of the voters' business where she stand on either one. So there.

[zeemike]

21. We are supposed to pay attention to what she says now.

Not what she did then as if our memory has failed us...or that she has evolved as soon as she started to run for president.
If we buy that then there is a proverbial bridge in New York for sale at a good price.

[merrily]

29. Well, about TPP, either you have amnesia about the "gold standard"

comment, or she has evolved into "I'm not telling."

[SoapBox]

6. OMG!

I absolutely understand what you are saying.

Since about last weekend, I've heard things on the idiot box and thought huh?

The one that really stuck in my head was an implication the HRC's newly announced education plan...she was first and that Bernie was just following along. What!?!?

And I'll bet more of this will come, if Bernie is for it, she was for it first crap will be there.

Thank goodness he's talking to thousands and thousands of voting Americans directly while she has tea parties with billionaires and Hillionaires.

[cascadiance]

10. And they'll always talk about Bernie's EARLIER work LATER to prove it!...

... that she's the "first" to take a stance on something (when it is the first stance THAT IS COVERED by the media that is the real distinction!)

[merrily]

30. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Today, I posted a video from 1991, Bernie's first year in

Congress. He opposes Poppy's invasion of Iraq and talks about other things the money could be used for. Providing education was one of them, but I didn't pay attention to the exact words because I didn't know anyone was claiming Hillary was first. Hillary wasn't even first before Obama, who proposed free tuition for junior college quite a while back. I don't know that he did anything other than mention it, but he did mention it.

[winter is coming]

9. I've heard that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

Although looking at the GOP makes me wonder whether that's an average figure.

[merrily]

13. And 3% with Neanderthals, making 101%. I wonder whatever happened to good old homo sapiens.

But, I am not sure what that has to do with the OP.

ETA: Ok, now I got it. Delayed reaction. Sorry.

[SheilaT]

11. I suspect that once

there's been a debate or two, people will clearly understand the difference between the two.

[merrily]

32. Funny thing: at least one study has shown that people believe most what they heard first.

[merrily]

15. Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of thing no one should have to discuss in this group.

Besides that, it has nothing to do with the OP.

This is a question you should be asking someone in GD: P.

You should self delete your post.

[SylviaD]

38. Okay. n/t

[merrily]

17. Please don't engage. The question is OT and does not even belong in this group, let

alone on this thread. Bad enough our discussions get derailed everywhere else on the board. I refuse to put up with it here.

They'd never put up with that kind of disruption in the Hillary Group from one of us--and rightly so, IMO.

I stay out of GD: P as much as possible, just not to deal with this kind of thing.

There is no reason he or she can't ask that question in GD: P.

This is intentional disruption.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. You are right.. sorry. n/t

[merrily]

19. Whew. Thank you so much.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. Hehe.. feel free to correct me anytime

I can always use a little constructive criticism.

[merrily]

40. It was more like begging than criticism, but if

it's correction you want

[zeemike]

28. Wow you are right and I answered it.

So now I will deleat.

[merrily]

43. No worries, but thanks.

[SylviaD]

37. It was not intentional. I am sorry. n/t

[MissDeeds]

26. You should delete your post

It doesn't belong here, and I'm sure you were aware of that when posting it.

[SylviaD]

35. I was not. n/t

[MissDeeds]

39. Well you are now.

You should delete your post. It doesn't belong in the Bernie Sanders group - a safe haven for Sanders supporters.

[SylviaD]

41. Already done. n/t

[smokey nj]

33. Bernie can win. You have given offense.

You showed horrible form posting this response in the Bernie Sanders Group. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[MissDeeds]

34. Yep

It ticks me off that some Bernie supporters, in their own group, deleted their posts in response to the HRC troll while the offending post is still here.

WTH is up with that?????????????

[merrily]

44. Those who deleted were kindly trying to respond to my plea not to engage. I did not want

a full blown back and forth to derail the thread. But the intruding post should have been deleted quickly.

[SylviaD]

36. I apologize. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

14. Human and Chimpanzee DNA are ~96% alike.

Bernie and Hillary voting records being 92% alike is believable to me. Many are procedural votes anyways.

It is that 8% difference that is important.

[Jack Rabbit]

23. I don't buy it either

How do you quantify "The Issues"? What's 92% of "The Issues"?

OK, it means they don't differ significantly on civil rights for racial minorities, women or gays, at least not when compared to their Republican counterparts.

Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton differ fundamentally on trade, industry and finance. Contrary to the way "The Issues" are usually divvied up, where civil rights and health care are "social" issues and the matters names a sentence back are "economic" issues, for 2016 there are no economic issues. Trade, industry and banking have become social issues. We think of them that way now because if corporations were actual people, as their apologists say they are, they would be diagnosed as sociopaths. A sociopath is a psychopath whose behavior is to act in ways the demonstrate no concern for the health and well being of the community at large. A psychopath might act in ways that do harm to people as individuals. Jeffrey Dahmer was a psychopath. An individual who mounts a coal burner on his pick up is a sociopath. A corporate executive who professes to deny climate science and takes no responsibility for the greenhouse gases he dumps into the atmosphere is a sociopath.

Here, Mrs. Clinton has a history of corporate friendly votes and taking corporate friendly positions on issue. Specifically, she has called criticism of Wall Street "foolish" and has indicated through an aide whom she didn't repudiate that she would not reimpose the Glass-Steagall Act. Senator Sanders makes criticism of Wall Street a campaign centerpiece, has said that not only would he revive Glass-Steagall but would take ant-trust measures against the Big Banks and break them up.

These are huge issues and are more than 92% of my total thoughts concerning who should be the next president. I believe that Wall Street behavior is out of control and that the current gaggle of free trade deals will so further harm to Americans who have been greatly harmed already. Senator Sanders opposes these deals while Mrs. Clinton, who has supported similar measures in the past, is determined to say nothing.

[merrily]

42. The talking's head's comment did not give me much to go on.

However, it was about the number of times that they voted the same way while in the Senate. That was only two years, Jan 2007-Jan 2009, a fact I should have noted in the OP. I'll edit.

[Jack Rabbit]

45. My point is that it really doesn't matter

A bunch of those vote could have resolutions in favor of Mom and apple pie. Even Jesse Helms would support that and Bernie would vote with him. Does that mean the Bernie and Helms vote the same way most of the time? No. It really doesn't tell us anything.

Would Bernie and Jesse Helms voted the same way on the Voting Rights Act of 1965? I seriously doubt it. But Bernie and Hillary would have.

[merrily]

46. Exactly.

[dreamnightwind]

47. good explanation

They're clearly two very distinct candidates with different views on how this country should function, and different views on what the relationship between corporation and government should be, and what the relationship between normal citizens and wealthy ones should be.

As to the corporations as sociopaths, interesting point. I hate to agree (seems over the top) but it seems at least somewhat accurate. Their concern for the community at large is mostly limited to what they can extract from it, and they use the selfish corporate charter bit about maximizing profits for their shareholders as justification for that. I've seen refutation about the literal truth of the maximizing profits mandate, so I don't know if it is completely true, but it certainly is a guiding principle for most corporations. And since they're corporations, they define "self" as their board members and shareholders, viewing the greater community as external (food, prey, resources, other corporations as competitors, merger candidates or take-over opportunities) and their own employees not much different than we view the microbiotic bacterial colonies that each of us is host to.

Like any top-tier predator, they need to be kept in check or they will ruin everything. Sanders understands that, I don''t think Clinton does.

[dreamnightwind]

48. Thanks for pushing back on this, Merrily!

Pisses me off to no end. This is a clear choice, not an Obama - Clinton distinction where the differences are splitting hairs.

Sadly there is no clear metric to distinguish who a candidate is and what they will do and fight for. Voting records are not enough, they are allowed by their party leader to change their votes after the vote outcome becomes clear but before the vote goes final. I remember the first time I saw this happening on C-Span, blew my mind, at first I thought I didn't understand what I was seeing, eventually I realized that's the game the parties play with their votes, it allows them to cynically position themselves when it doesn't effect the legislation's ultimate outcome.

Another part of it is the votes that actually happen are so narrowly defined (the reforms Sanders will work toward are not even allowed to be voted on for the most part), and poison pills are put in bills so a legislator may reject an otherwise sound bill based on the poison bills, then get called on it later for not supporting the issue the bill was supposedly about (I've watched Sanders explain some of his votes that were about exactly that).

So it leaves us judging candidates by what their life and political histories demonstrate, and parsing expedience from conviction during campaigns. Sanders and Clinton are very different, they view the world differently and they inhabit it differently.

I've been amazed at some recent polling showing that voters overwhelmingly prefer Clinton on foreign policy. Maybe it had something to do with the way the question was phrased, or maybe people don't go much deeper than "she was Secretary of State and has that experience". Foreign policy is one of my major differences with Clinton, way too much of a hawk for my taste. I wish Sanders would spend more time making this distinction, attack her perceived "strength" and show how it is really an area where Sanders is the better choice.

The other such area was voters believed Clinton would be better at working with Republicans. I think that needs work from the Sanders campaign, too. The intersections where Hillary and Republicans will get things done are not likely to be ones favorable to most citizens, only wealthy ones. I think Sanders has good skills for finding and working on narrow areas of agreement with Republicans where they can actually do things that benefit working Americans. And beyond that, he will do a lot of good fighting losing battles, where the issue is honestly and forcefully explained to the people and the ground will be prepared for future progress.

[merrily]

49. wonderful post, dreamnightwind. Thank you.

A very famous example of what your post says: This is about Johnson, then either Senate majority leader or Senate minority leader:

Caro (author of a 2 volume biography of LBJ.) explains what Johnson would do if a vote was held in which he was narrowly short of victory. He would walk across the floor to a Senator, whisper to him, and the Senator would then rise, say his vote had been incorrectly recorded and change it. He goes on: "Sometimes Johnson would not even bother to walk across the floor. Once he yelled across the well: 'Change your vote, Allen!' The Senator from Delaware did not immediately respond, so Johnson yelled again, in a shout heard, in the words of one writer, by 'more than eighty Senators and the galleries': 'Change your vote, Allen.' Allen changed his vote."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4728419/The-perfect-personality-for-politics.html

That kind of thing is the reason I sometimes squint at the ayes and nays of a close vote, like Amash-Conyers. Which Democrats voted in the way likely to be unpopular with liberals? Are they retiring? How safe are their seats? How junior are they? Which Republicans voted with a majority of the Democrats?

The point you make that many things Sanders tried for were not allowed to come to a vote is excellent. I wish I had made it in the OP.

Foreign policy. I bet quite a few think, "She was Secretary of State. That must be her strong suit." I bet, if you ask them to name something she accomplished while Secretary of State, they'd be hard pressed to name something.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779243

I wonder if their votes would flip to Sanders if you mention that he urged his fellow members of the House to vote against the invasion, while she urged her fellow Senators to vote for it.

As far as working with Republicans, Bernie's working across the aisle with McCain became a case study at the Brookings Institute and a number of Republican Senators have praised him for just that ability.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027637

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128030707


I don't know if that's true of Hillary. If it's any indication, I don't know of a single bill or amendment that she wrote that became law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779238

[eridani]

50. And then there's the issue that the good stuff never makes it out of committee

Single payer health care, $15/hr minimum wage, etc.

[merrily]

51. Very true.

That cuts both ways also.

You can put up a bill because you really want it to pass.

or

If you are sure it's never going to make it out of committee, you can put up a bill that would piss off your biggest donors no end but would please your constituents no end and have it both ways.

The big donors know how the game is played much better than John and Jane Q. Voter.