Clinton's problem isn't Sanders, it's Clinton

[Redstreak 6,653]

No matter what you think about Hillary Clinton as the presidential primaries wind down, there is one undeniable fact that lingers in the background. Despite having had enormous advantages from the start of the campaign—no serious competition from within the party, solid support from national party leaders, a massive war chest and a nationwide grassroots network built over the course of decades in national politics—Clinton has struggled to put away a 74-year-old Jewish socialist who has had almost no establishment support.

 

Say whatever you want about Clinton’s lengthy résumé—and her credentials are indeed impressive—her performance this primary season is hardly indicative of a strong candidate.

 

Indeed, Clinton concedes that she’s not a natural politician, lacking the charm of her husband or the charisma of Barack Obama. But what should be troubling to those who hope to see a Democrat in the White House next year is that Clinton seems to suggest that this weakness isn’t problematic, that her résumé and policy-wonk reputation will be enough to carry her on Election Day.

 

Maybe. But don’t be too sure.

 

Look no further than the 2000 election, when another policy-wonk Democrat with little charm or charisma—Al Gore—failed to ride his impressive credentials to the White House. Gore, a two-term vice president with prior lengthy service in both the Senate and House, lost to an anti-intellectual GOP opponent with no Washington experience. Sound familiar?

 

Many Democrats are having difficulty accepting the fact that Clinton, despite her résumé, is a weak politician. In this state of denial, their defense of Clinton becomes aggressive, as they lash out at Bernie Sanders for staying in the race, implying that Clinton has earned the right to glide to the finish line unopposed.

 

A prime example of this Clinton-entitlement mentality can be found in a recent Boston Globe column by Michael A. Cohen, entitled “Bernie Sanders declares war on reality.” Cohen insists that Sanders is “illogical, self-serving, hypocritical” and “intellectually dishonest” in trying win the nomination by swaying superdelegates away from Clinton. “Instead of coming to grips with the overwhelming evidence that Democratic primary voters prefer Hillary Clinton to be the party’s 2016 presidential nominee,” Cohen writes, “Sanders continues to create his own political reality.”

 

Unfortunately, Cohen ignores the fact that the “overwhelming evidence” isn’t strong enough to allow Clinton to claim the nomination with pledged delegates alone. Had the evidence been so overwhelming, courting superdelegates would be irrelevant. Because Clinton has been far from dominating in the primaries and caucuses, the true “political reality” is that she will need superdelegate support to secure the nomination. Fortunately for Clinton, she appears to have the support of an overwhelming majority of superdelegates, but those allegiances can change up until the time of the convention vote, so Sanders is alive as long as the race comes down to a fight over them.

 

Sanders has correctly criticized the superdelegate system as undemocratic, but there is nothing hypocritical or illogical in his continuing the fight within that system. To denounce the rules of a race does not preclude a candidate from competing within those flawed rules. With party insiders having disproportionate power as superdelegates, the system tips the scales strongly in Clinton’s favor, as Cohen surely knows, yet he still cries foul at Sanders pressing on within that system.

 

Such specious arguments not only distract from the uncomfortable reality that Clinton is an extremely vulnerable candidate, they also fail to recognize that the Sanders campaign represents an agenda that is fundamentally different from Clinton’s. This is not a debate between two candidates with slight differences in substance or style, but of two vastly disparate philosophical views.

 

Even if Sanders loses the nomination contest, which at this point appears likely, he represents an egalitarian, democratic vision that is highly skeptical of corporate power and the neoliberalism that Clinton represents. This agenda has resonated, fueling a surprisingly strong campaign that has energized many, especially younger voters, and those supporters expect that their message will be carried all the way to the convention. For Sanders, stopping the fight at this point would be senseless.

 

Clinton herself has the tact to refrain from urging Sanders to exit. She instead is doing the smart thing by basically ignoring him and focusing on Donald Trump and the general election. Still, there can be no doubt that she would love to be in Trump’s position, having no opponents remaining with any mathematical chance of seizing the nomination.

 

The fact that she’s not in such a position, and that her race for the Democratic nomination continues to be pestered by an old lefty who has served three decades in politics without even registering as a Democrat, should be a grave concern for her and her supporters. Although her credentials are strong, her candidacy isn’t—and blaming that on Sanders would be nothing but a form of denial.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/14/this_is_one_weak_nominee_hillary_clintons_problem_isnt_bernie_sanders_its_hillary_clinton/

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

This article says nothing meaningful about Hillary herself other than she lacks charisma 

It's attacking a writer's opinion, the media, super delegates, and the DNC all while claiming that Clinton is vulnerable without actually discussing that  

What about the fact that she has the popular vote and makes up for her lack of charisma with actually being a sane person  

Omg  

[Goosey 3,017]

1 minute ago, LebaneseDude said:

What about the fact that she has the popular vote and makes up for her lack of charisma with actually being a sane person  

The point is valid, though. She's winning the popular vote because the alternative is a self-described socialist. On her own merits she is not a well-liked candidate... and that's her fault.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

5 minutes ago, Goosey said:

The point is valid, though. She's winning the popular vote because the alternative is a self-described socialist. On her own merits she is not a well-liked candidate... and that's her fault.

She's not "well-liked" for a slew of reasons that have nothing to do with her charisma, but rather her long history in the US political process.

People don't like Trump any more than they like Clinton, and those that claim that Bernie is liked more are ignorant of the fact that he has barely faced any negative ads yet.

If you doubt the impact of those negative ads, then just look at how Clinton is perceived today.

She's still overwhelmingly liked by the base that matters, which are self-described Democrats and minorities. She's liked well enough by independents, if not loved. She only needs those to win. She's still massively hated by the GOP because of her career, but it seems up to 3x as many of them are willing to vote for her as opposed to people in the Democratic party are willing to vote for Trump.

Take that as you will.

[Redstreak 6,653]

6 minutes ago, Goosey said:

The point is valid, though. She's winning the popular vote because the alternative is a self-described socialist. On her own merits she is not a well-liked candidate... and that's her fault.

I mean let's not forget that she has decades of name recognition as her main support. If she was about equal with Sanders in that regard her policy positions would NOT be putting her anywhere near where she is.

[StarstruckIllusion 53,564]

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Redstreak said:

I mean let's not forget that she has decades of name recognition as her main support. If she was about equal with Sanders in that regard her policy positions would NOT be putting her anywhere near where she is.

... implying her having name recognition is always a good thing  

People have already formed their opinions on her after being 30 years in the media. They have not on Sanders.

...the grass is greener...

[Redstreak 6,653]

Just now, LebaneseDude said:

... implying her having name recognition is always a good thing  

People have already formed their opinions on her. They have not on Sanders.

Actually they have, that's why people find him far more trustworthy  

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 hours ago, Redstreak said:

Actually they have, that's why people find him far more trustworthy  

No, they have not, because unlike Clinton who has been in the public eye regarding both her actions and the media, they do not have much information on Sanders yet.

There's a treasure trove of crap that has not been publicized, from his recent 700 page donation violations to his anti-American leanings during his youth.

Trump will make sure to change that opinion if he were to become the nominee.

Fortunately for you Sanders won't though, so he'll get to keep his Sainthood intact as Hillary refrains from pulling ads against him and Trump continues to support him running because of how it benefits him.

And if you think those ads won't make a difference, just look at Clinton and see the impact. It took the outrage spawned from one innocuous witty retort "I suppose I could stay home and bake cookies" when challenged by people who disapproved of her active life as a First Lady (as opposed to being a flower pot) to set her on the path to being less transparent and distrusting the media.