General News Sen. Sanders more electable than Hillary

No Hilary is too powerful. She spoke for 11 hours at Benghazi and the plan was to destroy her and she made herself look better. She is undefeatable she will not lose!

 

I think a lot of people are desperate to see a female president, but I'd advise caution over celebrating that. We have only had one female Prime Minister, and she was arguably the worst, and inflicted the most damage - most of you probably know who she is. Entire towns and villages celebrated her death, people burnt effigies of her, she is that despised. The effects of her harmful policies are still felt in large parts of the country.

 

The fact that Hilary is willing to let people die and then spend 11 hours desperately trying to cover her ass for it is not a good thing. I can tell you with 100% certainty that Benghazi has not earned Hilary any sort of political favor.

 

This thread reminds me of 2008, When people said Hillary was going to win the democratic nomination, And that Obama isn't electable. We all know how that turned out.

 

I not only remember who this female Prime Minister was, but I remember when she was in office.

It did seem sort of neat at the time having a woman in a position like that. Or it was neat until I learned more about her...

It seems like it would be a mistake for us to support Hillary Clinton mainly because she's a woman. The important question: who is the best choice for the office?

It is, alone, a huge achievement that women are actually now seen as viable candidates. This is a huge change. I recall a counselor in my junior high who told me honestly that she hoped for a woman Vice President. She could not see any possibility of a woman ever getting directly elected to the Presidency. (I'm not sure if she felt the Vice President would need to assume office. Or if she felt it would be a huge step that would, one day, open the door for a woman President.)

This counselor is no longer living--she in fact died less than a year later. But since that conversation, we've had 2 candidates on election day who had a woman Vice President pick. (Mondale and McCain. Admittedly...Sarah Palin was a terrible choice, but in a way progressive for a party that tends to emphasize rich white men). Neither won, of course. But the last cycle and this cycle we actually have had women running for the Presidency, and Hillary Clinton--even if I'm not her #1 fan--is more than viable.

---------- Post added 13th Jan 2016 at 12:11 AM ----------

And investigations are nothing new for the Clintons. One thing I vividly remember from Bill Clinton's time were investigations and allegations of shady conduct... Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, and let us not forget dear old Monica Lewinsky... I don't remember all the details of the above. And I'm sure that politics were a major influence--attempt to destroy Bill Clinton. But...it's a bit disturbing nonetheless.

 

Make America great again! (!)(!)(!)

 

This thread has basically become a pissing contest.

 

I noted Sanders is ahead in the polls in both NH and Iowa, according the the NYT...

I'll have to say: Hillary is running a very anemic campaign, making many of the mistakes she did last time, and simply assuming she'll win. Where's the passion? This is the time when her campaign needs to be firing on all cylinders, and it's sounding like it's about to blow a gasket.

I'll vote for her if she is the nominee against any Republican, but geez, Louise...her campaign isn't the most inspiring, even with major media outlets in her corner, crowing about her inevitability.

 

Maybe this sounds cynical, but I have to think big corporate owned media has an interest in seeing her win, because if a Democrat wins, she's the best for corporate America.

 

Of the two major parties, Sanders is the only candidate I'd vote for. I have issues with him, too, but at least he's not a neo-liberal or a proto-fascist.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm voting for Mimi Soltysik of the Socialist Party. Of course he can't win, but, to paraphrase Eugene Debs, I'd rather vote for what I want and not get it than vote for what I don't want and get it.

 

I'm kinda the same. It's actually very wierd for me to have a candidate from either major party that I'm even remotely content with for any election.

 

Hillary is barely above Ted Cruz and Donald Trump in the polls for New Hampshire and Iowa. Bernie Sanders is way ahead of them both. Hillary would lose in a general election, but Bernie could win. A lot of Moderate Democrats and Independents like Bernie. Too many of them have distrust in Hillary. Bernie is also almost past Hillary in the national polls. He's currently leading in New Hampshire and on the verge of passing her in Iowa. Bernie is more electable... if the DNC is smart, they'll choose Bernie to be the candidate.


Coincidentally, January 2008 was the time when Obama passed Clinton in the polls. Bernie is almost about to pass her. Within the past 3 days, Bernie jumped up like 5 points and Hillary went down like 5 points.

Just look at how quickly it changed from January 9th to January 12th.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Now look at 2008. Obama jumped up 10 points in January and was able to pass Clinton when she was at about 45 points (she's currently at about 48 points)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

 

Being a libertarian socialist, it's the same for me. Sanders is just within the boundary of where I'd consider it "acceptable" to vote for someone. I can't give him my full, uncritical support, but he's much better than the other candidates, even if he isn't a socialist. I don't expect that there will ever be another Democratic candidate I can support even critically.

---------- Post added 13th Jan 2016 at 05:11 PM ----------

Social democrats are a "lunatic fringe"? I'd hate to hear what you think of actual left wingers...