I’m sorry, I really don’t feel this is at all an accurate comment. I don’t find Sanders’s record much more impressive, if it’s more impressive at all.
Yep, exactly. This election I would qualify as a swing voter, sorta, I’m a lifelong Republican who unless Sanders is nominated is going to vote Democrat. There are people on the middle and right side of the spectrum who are not super enthused to vote for a potential Republican crazy person, but who aren’t willing to vote for a socialist, either. Socialist is only being used positively in the news right now, not negatively. Once the Republicans, through $1b-2bn of election spending, link the word “socialism” with “largest tax increases in the history of the Republic”, and can use the plan Sanders own campaign puts out to prove that, I’ll eat my shoes if the word socialist doesn’t become much less popular.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and was an American political hero only a few rungs below Washington, Sanders isn’t that.
The only time Hillary has stood for elected office, she won.
To me the problem is if Bernie is as his supporters say–a genuine idealist, I don’t want him as President. The idea of an uncompromising person in the White House is a bad one. The pro-Sanders people are borderline akin to the Tea Party Republicans who have destroyed my party–by making it so that if you compromise with the opposition you’re likely to be primaried out of office, this has literally ruined not just my party but Congress itself.
If Bernie is as he says–I’d hate him in the Oval Office, a guy who at least tries to compromise (although he’s often lacked a dance partner) like Obama is 1000x better than an idealogue who doesn’t.
If he does compromise–and he’s apparently done that, for example by being pro-gun in Vermont and now he’s tried to step back away from that, and for some of his votes on nonsense amendments that have to be seen as anti-immigrant (like the one prohibiting the government from “tipping off” the Mexican government about Minutemen activity, like I said, a nonsense vote but one he participated in), to his linking immigration to lower wages (a position he is not repeating now because it doesn’t play with Latinos) then explain to me how he isn’t just a politician? Note, I don’t see a problem with politicians who compromise, that’s the Berniebots.
Sanders is a liberal Jew bucking the system establishment, rejecting the influence of the wealthy and powerful and focusing on the needs of the poor and neglected with a devoted following of fervent believers. Sounds pretty Christian if you ask me.
At some point you have to pivot from ideologue to governance. Heavy on the ideology thin on the governance to support that ideology is what I “feel” from Bernie Sanders. But even to the purists, I don’t see how his dumping of waste on the poorest of poor or voting against the Brady bill 5 times is socially responsible.
In contrast, I see a lot of pragmatism from Mrs. Clinton especially when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable. Perhaps she hasn’t been a standard bearer for one ideology because it makes more sense to reach across the aisle instead. There is no mistaking that Her record is that of protecting children. The mothers of the BLM fallen children are with her. Given Bernie and Hillary’s records, for me it’s going to be Clinton more willing to roll up her sleeves about Flint and other such disasters.
This is not to say there isn’t a place for Ideology. Ideology served Bernie well about the Iraq war. Not only was he right, he sensed the neo-cons were taking over the agenda and his strong voice was there to halt it. Hillary’s pragmatic vote for the war was a mistake, and she’s said so. She unfortunately believed the Bush Administration when they said they would wait for Hans Blix’s report. That was a condition of congressional approval. When the administration went in without the report it was a betrayal that she has to live with. It’s a betrayal that Joe Biden would have had to carry as well if he stood for election. Given the naked right wing agenda of the GOP this time around it’s doubtful she’d be fooled again.
If you don’t count primaries.
In my statement you could not, since primaries are not campaigns for elected office, they’re campaigns for nomination to run for elected office.
Yes, your statement was successfully calibrated to give a technically-correct positive spin on Clinton’s electoral history. Congratulations.
Technically correct is the best kind of correct, but it’s also not “that much” of a technicality. There’s a material and substantive difference between primary electorates and general electorates.
I’ll also point out I can name quite a few Democrats who have lost the Presidency by being too liberal, I can’t name one who lost it for being too conservative/centrist (post-19th century, I don’t like to delve into the conservative/liberal divide with guys like Stephen Douglas or Sam Tilden).
Nevertheless, as I think you know perfectly well, virtually everyone would call what is going on now, and what happened in early 2008 before the conventions, “campaigns for the Presidency,” an elected office. Clinton, her staff and website, describe her right now as a “candidate for President,” without needing to parse the distinction from a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President.
I can’t name any Democrat since 1988–anyone in the last quarter century–who lost by being too liberal. Gore lost for being too conservative (hi, Nader voters!), and also for being in a stupid electoral college system; Kerry lost for being too incompetent at answering Swiftboaters. Claims that he was ultra-liberal are gross exaggerations.
Well maybe to you 1988 is a lifetime ago but I had been voting in elections for over a decade by then. McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, before McGovern Adlai Stevenson 2x against Dwight. Gore didn’t lose for being too conservative, and he probably didn’t lose because of Nader voters. He lost because people in Florida got confused by the ballot that was designed either to intentionally hurt Gore or was designed by imbeciles, and made it easy to accidentally vote for Buchanan when you wanted to vote for Gore.
It’s easy to go after the Nader supporters if you were pro-Gore, but it’s real obvious from how Buchanan got better results in liberal counties in Florida than make any rational sense, that a lot of Gore voters were simply confused. So in terms of influencing voters, I think Gore actually won in 2000–he won the popular vote and I firmly believe more Floridians woke up that morning intending to vote for Gore than for Bush. I think some of them messed up. FWIW I still think it was right for Bush to win the presidency, our elections have to put the man who won the votes into office, and I think more people actually voted for Bush, even if only because some Gore voters accidentally voted for Buchanan.
Gore also probably lost because he ran a dumb campaign, he probably could’ve won a few other states if he had been more willing to utilize Clinton. There were a few close loss Gore states where Clinton had through the roof approval ratings, but Gore was so desperate to separate himself from the Clinton presidency that he never was willing to fully use Bill.
Its horrible if you are losing all your thoughtful voters. If your base responds more to Rush Glenn beck and Donald Trump than to George Will or Irving Kristol, then you are in trouble.
Winning 14 elections without party support isn’t more impressive than winning 2 as a Democrat in a deep blue state? To repeat myself: Clinton has never won an election in which she wasn’t heavily favored from the start, and has lost an election in which she was heavily favored from the start, neither of which are true of Sanders. Also – Sanders has defeated a Republican incumbent in the past, Clinton hasn’t.
Wow, Bernie was once arguably on the wrong side of an environmental issue? Guess we’ll just have to vote for the woman who supported the Keystone Pipeline instead!
Except for the Iraqi children who she voted to murder.
Wow. That’s really fucking comforting. She *probably *won’t be fooled by Republican lies again. When did “pragmatic” become a synonym for “cowardly”? How nice that she gets to live with it. Too bad about all the Iraqis who had to die for her approval ratings, but they probably weren’t big donors anyway.
I do not find your spin on this compelling. Sanders has won, and lost, in one of the deepest of deep blue states. Clinton has won in a deep blue state and, if we are counting primaries, has won and lost in a variety of colors of states.
None of this adds up, for me, with some sort of “Clinton can’t win. Sanders can!” arithmetic.
And, as I am reminded by other posts, none of this touches on the point of the thread, which is that if Sanders is not nominated you no longer have the option to vote for him and his electability is no longer of interest. Then it comes down to voting for Clinton, voting for someone else, or not voting. Whether Clinton has lost a primary in the past should have, I would hope, very little bearing on how one should vote if she is the nominee.
4 of Sanders’ 6 losses were his first, while he was basically in a protest party where he couldn’t have possibly been expected to win. I think it’s fair to say he is the more experienced and reliable campaigner.
Just as a point of clarification, it wasn’t just Texas, it was South Carolina too that Vermont sent its nuclear waste. So this was a pretty far reaching effect
And what about his opposition to the Kennedy-McCain Bill that included the Guest Worker program for farm workers in 2007 but only a few years later he supported legislation that had the same Guest worker concerns for Vermont dairy workers?
Keystone? Hillary said no.
Iraq. That war is on a lot of people’s hands.