Posted on 01/18/2016 1:25:14 PM PST by presidio9
The Democrats who are pushing Bernie Sanders are dangerously naïve. Because Sanders has a shot at beating Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, and because some polls show him running better against the GOP candidates than she does, they imagine he could actually win the White House.
He can't. Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and others who predict that the Republicans would win at least 40 states against Sanders, are right.
Let's remember that Bill Clinton didn't win in Iowa or New Hampshire in 1992.* And that the Republicans haven't laid a glove on Sanders (because they want him to win) while eviscerating Hillary Clinton in the most strident terms for months. In other words, while the negative case against Hillary has been on full display, no one has actually gone negative on Bernie.
While polling shows Clinton with a big lead over Sanders nationally, it’s still way past time for the so-called progressive Democrats to wake up. What's most at stake is not health care, foreign policy, the economy, environmental regulation and civil rights - although all of them are certainly at stake. The big issue that should be driving Democrats to rally around Clinton is the United States Supreme Court.
She Lays Out the Case. As Clinton herself argued in an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe the other day:
In the past two decades alone, [the Supreme Court] effectively declared George W. Bush president, significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act, and opened the door to a flood of unaccountable money in our politics. It also made same-sex marriage legal nationwide, preserved the Affordable Care Act not once but twice, and ensured equal access to education for women…
On Election Day, three of the current justices will be over 80 years old, which is past the court’s average retirement age. The next president could easily appoint more than one justice. That makes this a make-or-break moment - for the court and our country.
As president (and a lawyer and former law professor), I'll appoint justices who will protect the constitutional principles of liberty and equality for all, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or political viewpoint; make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests; and protect citizens' right to vote, rather than billionaires' right to buy elections.
Republicans running for president have a different view. They see this election as an opportunity to pack the courts with jurists who will turn back the clock. Marco Rubio says he wants "more Scalias" on the Court - justices who would rule against marriage equality and roll back a woman’s right to choose. Ted Cruz says his judges will be "rock-ribbed conservatives." Chris Christie says that if the court were filled with his type of judge, they would have ruled against the Affordable Care Act and marriage equality.
Vital Issues on the Line.
On abortion rights, organized labor, voting rights, environmental policy, affirmative action, civil rights, health care, political reform and so much more, a Supreme Court with perhaps three more right-wing jurists could – and likely would – utterly destroy the hopes and dreams of moderate, centrist, liberal and progressive Americans, of women, minorities, gays and lesbians, the working class, poor and dispossessed.
Hillary Clinton could actually win the presidency against any of the Republicans now in the race. Every possible negative against her has already been aired and the GOP keeps dreaming up new - often fatuous - charges, like that she "enabled" Bill Clinton's penchant for hitting on women other than his wife.
While women, blacks, Latinos, working people and other vital voting blocs will rally to Clinton, what happens to Bernie when the GOP argues that he's a left-wing, big-spending, appeasing, socialist out to destroy the free-market system, appropriate your property, crush your business and steal your wallet? He will tank.
With Donald Trump or Ted Cruz as their standard bearer versus Hillary Clinton, the Democrats have a good shot at winning back the Senate and cutting into the Republican House majority, in addition to holding onto the White House for another eight years. No matter what polls say now, the negative campaign against the Republican nominee has not yet been launched. Moreover, winning the presidency is a state-by-state process in which women, blacks, Latinos and other key constituencies will matter enormously in big states with lots of electoral votes.
The stakes are too high to be dabbling with a cranky old white guy with a Brooklyn accent, wild hands and socialist baggage.
Any rational person who is determined to keep out of the White House whatever whack job the Republicans nominate, and who tuned into last night's debate and saw Bernie ranting as he channeled Larry David channeling Bernie, understands the plain fact that Hillary is by far the strongest pick the Dems can make and the only Democrat running who is qualified to be president.
Should you need further convincing, check out this excellent piece by Matthew Yglesias, who goes beyond Bernie’s’ pandering-to-progressives sound bites to look closely at the details of his health care and other policy proposals. Cliff's Notes version: there aren't many.
* Here’s the historical footnote: In '92, Tom Harkin won Iowa and Paul Tsongas won New Hampshire. Jerry Brown then won Maine and Bob Kerrey won South Dakota. On March 3, Bill Clinton won Georgia, but lost Colorado to Brown lost Idaho and Minnesota to Harkin and he lost Maryland, Utah and Washington to Tsongas. Hillary people (and national news media), get a grip.]
Hillary promises an email server in every house!!
So much poopie, so little time...
Republicans by definition are the subject of negative press, courtesy of our partisan press. Clinton would be fighting back more vigorously if she could.
Hillary's positives are not going to go up, especially with Trump willing to get in her face (a scary metaphor but you know what I mean).
So instead Democrats should invest in a corrupt old white woman who is only considered a viable candidate because her last name is Clinton?
B
They love Bernie because they’re just like them. The author’s argument for Hillary is absurd. As if Bernie would pack the courts with anything other than left wing activist loons? Bring on Bernie so that they have to TRY and defend his crazy ass.
They both are. Sorry Cali but the 1990s tame media days of the Clinton Presidency are long long gone. The Left can not control the message with their tame lap dog media today. Trying to potion Clinton as being to the right of Sanders is a fools effort.
"He can win against the Democrats" is not an operant consideration in the Republican primary process (my dog could beat Hillary or Sanders). Hence, we really are at liberty to nominate a true and proven conservative.
The original Operation Chaos was a waste of time for one reason: In 2008, Hillary Clinton's opponent did not run an honest campaign.
We know now that Barak Obama was the most progressive man to occupy the White House since in 60 year (and perhaps ever). But he ran as a "uniter" and "a different kind of politician," not a socialist.
Even though Sanders will ultimately lose the nomination, he is extremely useful. The longer he stays in the campaign, the more Hillary Clinton is forced to be honest about her own socialist beliefs.
So I guess the point is we should attack Bernie? Seems kind of unsporting to me. Old commie nutters aren’t exactly fair game. But I guess I can....
(unfortunately, this one also applies to the current Republican frontrunner)
I am reminded of exactly this time four years ago when the consensus on this website was that Barak Obama was an incredibly flawed candidate, due to the sluggish economy, the unpopularity of Obamacare, and his foreign policy disasters (that would be exacerbated by Benghazi later in the year).
One third of the voters in this country would vote for your dog over Hillary or Sanders. One third would vote for Hillary or Sanders. One third do not pay much attention to politics, but do spend a lot more time watching the Kardashians and Dr, Phil than they do watching FOX News. Virtually none of them read anything, much less anything particularly conservative.
His argument for Hillary is that Bernie can’t win the GE so a GOP President would be making the Supreme Court picks, and he’s right, it would take epic F ups by the GOP for Sanders to be viable in November.
For this reason Bernie will not be allowed to win the nomination, they will prevent it.
I predict that if Sanders were the nominee, some of the people currently supporting Trump in the GOP primary would be drawn to Sanders for being even more angry.
I am sick and tired of corporate whores who screw the American middle class taxpayer who has paid in blood for the defense of "American interests," the taxpayer who has endured the regulations and dilution of their assets by the Fed, both to make overseas investments more competitive.
Sure, some of the non-conservatives digging on Trump’s “outsider”ism would go for Bernie.
But he’d lose many more swing voters.
As much as we hate Obama, he has mainstream appeal that Sanders simply does not. And he was elected in a bad year for the GOP and then reelected (it’s hard to beat an incumbent President).
Oh no, I agree that Trump would beat Sanders badly.
I guess my point, and its not an original one, is that Trump may not be a genuinely conservative as some of the people on this website seem to think.
I will still vote for him willingly, but I scratch my head at some of the attacks his fans throw around at people who dare to support another candidate on this website.
As far as I'm concerned, each of the top three contenders have significant negatives, but the critical outcome is first and foremost that Hillary Clinton is never president of the United States.
Yea, but how many of that last third is going to put down the crack/meth, bong, and haul their sorry asses out of mommas basement, to go to the polls?
Hillary’s dried up vagina isn’t going to motivate them, and Burnie is an old dead white guy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.