I don’t like how the thread turned into something else, but I don’t think explaining why I was pro-Sanders to someone who was curious about the motives of pro-Sanders supporters is the same as being anti-Hillary.
I am surprised that so many people said points 2, 3 and 4 of my OP were the reasons they like Hillary. I would’ve thought point 1 would have some appeal to people.
Me too. It isn’t that I think she is great or I think it is important that we have a female President, I just honestly think she is the best moderate Republican candidate in the race. Yes, I know, she bills herself differently these days but she started out as an old-school moderate Republican in college and didn’t change her affiliation until she married Bill. I seriously doubt she really changed her core beliefs that much and it isn’t like Bill is a flaming liberal either.
She is painful to listen to because her lack of charisma but I think she is the best choice for the administrative parts of the job. She can hire more inspiring people through her extensive networks to help her with the leadership parts.
I think that’s in large part a combination of three factors. First, that was the time when Republican obstructionism really started gaining traction. Second, there’s the whole Lewinsky thing, and more than just because the Prez got a little nookie on the side. And third, this is a different world since 9/11.
It wasn’t just the gas lines - industrial job loss was huge as that space both automated and globalized. Inflation went through the roof. Interest rates were high - which created its own kind of housing bubble.
I don’t think Bill of the 1990’s and Hillary are positively linked in most people’s minds. The mid to late 90’s were good and I thought that Bill Clinton was a good President that benefited from good fortune as well. During the first campaign, they tried to present themselves as “co-presidents” but that didn’t play well so it was dropped quickly. Both of them were rocked by scandals (Whitewater, the Lewinsky affair and conspiracy theories about Vincent Foster’s death) that were instigated by Republicans and beaten into the ground. It was distracting at best but no one ended up looking especially good.
I think most people feel that Bill and Hillary Clinton are in a political partnership to gain power but they don’t have a marriage the same way that most people do. I also think that once she gains true power on her own, she will do exactly what she wants without regard to her business partner.
That’s pretty much my sense of it, although they are both very intelligent people, and that’s an attraction in itself. I don’t think Bill will be as much of an advisor as Hillary was when he was President.
Not even close to “almost tied”. 62% vs 43%. Sanders has a outside chance, no more. In fact Kucinich has a better shot, since he could be a compromise candidate if it goes to a second vote.
I think Clinton has a better chance of being elected. I think she will be devious and hard-core enough to get things done in a GOP controlled Congress. She knows where the skeletons are and wont be afraid to play the GOP factions against each other. More pragmatic. You need pragmatic vs the GOP.
I do like many of Sanders ideas, but the chance of getting them thru a GOP controlled Congress is nil. Not to mention Sanders supporters are working hard to make sure the GOP retains control of the Senate, which I find puzzling.
I’ve said it before - I think she was always the brains but that he is better at sales.
Your position is very similar to mine, although I phrased mine differently.
The big difference may be that I give a very high priority to putting a Democrat in the White House. (Are you willing to give the GOP victory in November if that’s the price for supporting Sanders?) Hillary may be far to the right of Sanders, but Kasich is far FAR to the right of Hillary (and Cruz much farther still). If only for the sake of SCOTUS nominations, it’s essential that the Democrats retain the White House.
Point 1 to me is asking if people are just kind of foolishly nostalgic.
I didn’t interpret it that way. The country did start going to shit in many ways around the end of the Clinton years.
[ul]
[li]Economic inequality is much worse[/li][li]Health care costs 3x more than it did in the 90s (and is only a little better). Lots of people are facing health care bankruptcy and lack of access to services. [/li][li]The 90s created 20+ million jobs, job growth since has been anemic[/li][li]The true nature of oligarchy and plutocracy is much more obvious now[/li][li]The GOP is even more dysfunctional[/li][li]Media is even more of an echo chamber on both sides[/li][li]9/11[/li][li]War on terror and in iraq[/li][li]Bush jr[/li][li]economic collapse of 2008[/li][li]Constant dog whistle attacks on the first black president[/li][li]America’s reputation hitting the shitter (then getting a bit better with Obama)[/li][/ul]
I can see why some people would feel a sense of nostalgia for a decade before all this stuff happened.
And I consider such nostalgia foolish.
I guess I’m ‘progressive’ in this strict sense, although I’m generally (and pretty obviously) moderate overall. I don’t think nostalgia/returning to ‘better times’ is a good strategy. The world changes, and people and institutions need to change with it. Thinking that what worked 20 or 30 or 50 years ago will work again is backwards to my mind. It’s devolution instead of evolution.
That doesn’t mean that ‘bad’ changes can’t or shouldn’t be undone, though.
It is odd that they see so little value in getting Democrats elected or helping Dem incumbents retain their seats. This is on display today in criticism of the “George Clooney fundraiser”—the Sanders-fan narrative is 'oh, how awful that so much money will be raised; it’s so corrupt and bad and wrong!’ They seem completely indifferent to the fact that a big chunk of what the Clinton side is raising is going to support down-ticket Democrats.
(So, yeah, in response to the OP: another reason to prefer Hillary in the primary is that she actually IS raising money in support of the campaign efforts of other Democrats. Bernie, by contrast, is raising money only for himself.)
Nitpick: That was done to protest a tax cut. (One which favored the British East India Company and threatened to put colonial tea merchants and teahouses out of business.)
So name some nostalgia that ain’t.
Those are euphemisms for smugglers. Black-marketing highly-taxed imports from Britain was a major source of income for a crucial group of Boston merchants, who were about to lose that business. That’s why they staged the original Tea Party - yes, it was even more astroturfish than the current self-styled version.
Much to the satisfaction of its base, I’m sure.
Any one political office has a limited range of power. But making the economy better is not outside the power of government as such.
Those government policies came down to deregulation of the financial sector (and not, e.g., government making home-buying too easy for the purchasers). I don’t think Sanders is ignoring that.