[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Beat Donald Trump This morning, I read a fantastic article by Nathan J. Robinson in Current Affairs titled: Unless the Democrats Run Sanders, a Trump Nomination Means a Trump Presidency. Several months ago, I would have disagreed with this statement, but today I think its entirely accurate. One thing Clinton supporters remain in complete denial about (other than the fact most Americans who dont identify as Democrats find her to be somewhere in between untrustworthy and criminal), is that a significant number of Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. Forget the fact that I know a few personally, Ive noticed several interviews with voters who proclaim Sanders to be their first choice but Trump their second. Are they just saying this or do they mean it? I think a lot them mean it. Mr. Robinsons article is a brilliant deep dive into what a real life Trump vs. Clinton matchup would look like, not what clueless beltway wonks want it to look it. What emerges is a convincing case that the only person who could stand up to Trump and defeat him in November is Bernie Sanders. I agree. So without further ado, here are a few excerpts: Instinctively, Hillary Clinton has long seemed by far the more electable of the two Democratic candidates. She is, after all, an experienced, pragmatic moderate, whereas Sanders is a raving, arm-flapping elderly Jewish socialist from Vermont. Clinton is simply closer to the American mainstream, thus she is more attractive to a broader swath of voters. Sanders campaigners have grown used to hearing the heavy-hearted lament I like Bernie, I just dont think he can win. And in typical previous American elections, this would be perfectly accurate. But this is far from a typical previous American election. And recently, everything about the electability calculus has changed, due to one simple fact: Donald Trump is likely to be the Republican nominee for President. Given this reality, every Democratic strategic question must operate not on the basis of abstract electability against a hypothetical candidate, but specific electability against the actual Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Here, a Clinton match-up is highly likely to be an unmitigated electoral disaster, whereas a Sanders candidacy stands a far better chance. Every one of Clintons (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trumps strengths, whereas every one of Trumps (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanderss strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition. Her supporters insist that she has already been tried and tested against all the attacks that can be thrown at her. But this is not the case; she has never been subjected to the full brunt of attacks that come in a general presidential election. Bernie Sanders has ignored most tabloid dirt, treating it as a sensationalist distraction from real issues (Enough with the damned emails!) But for Donald Trump, sensationalist distractions are the whole game. He will attempt to crucify her. And it is very, very likely that he will succeed. This campaigning style makes Hillary Clinton Donald Trumps dream opponent. She gives him an endless amount to work with. The emails, Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraq, the Lewinsky scandal, Chinagate, Travelgate, the missing law firm records, Jeffrey Epstein, Kissinger, Marc Rich, Haiti, Clinton Foundation tax errors, Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest, We were broke when we left the White House, Goldman Sachs
There is enough material in Hillary Clintons background for Donald Trump to run with six times over. Even a skilled campaigner would have a very difficult time parrying such endless attacks by Trump. Even the best campaigner would find it impossible to draw attention back to actual substantive policy issues, and would spend their every moment on the defensive. But Hillary Clinton is neither the best campaigner nor even a skilled one. In fact, she is a dreadful campaigner. She may be a skilled policymaker, but on the campaign trail she makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until its too late. Everyone knows this. Even among Democratic party operatives, shes acknowledged as awkward and uninspiring on the stump, carrying Bills baggage with none of Bills warmth. New York magazine described her failing to demonstrate the most elementary political skills, much less those learned at Toastmasters or Dale Carnegie. Last year the White House was panicking at her levels of electoral incompetence, her questionable decisionmaking, and her inclination for taking sleazy shortcuts. More recently, noting Sanderss catch-up in the polls, The Washington Posts Jennifer Rubin said that she was a rotten candidate whose attacks on Sanders made no sense, and that at some point, you cannot blame the national mood or a poor staff or a brilliant opponent for Hillary Clintons campaign woes. Yet in a race against Trump, Hillary will be handicapped not only by her feeble campaigning skills, but the fact that she will have a sour national mood, a poor staff, and a brilliant opponent. Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clintons track record as a campaigner. Study how the 08 campaign was handled, and how this one has gone. Assess her strengths and weaknesses with as little bias or prejudice as possible. Then picture the race against Trump, and think about how it will unfold. Its easy to see that Trump has every single advantage. Because the Republican primary will be over, he can come at her from both right and left as he pleases. As the candidate who thundered against the Iraq War at the Republican debate, he can taunt Clinton over her support for it. He will paint her as a member of the corrupt political establishment, and will even offer proof: Well, I know you can buy politicians, because I bought Senator Clinton. I gave her money, she came to my wedding. He can make it appear that Hillary Clinton can be bought, that he cant, and that he is in charge. Its also hard to defend against, because it appears to be partly true. Any denial looks like a lie, thus making Hillarys situation look even worse. And then, when she stumbles, he will mock her as incompetent. Charges of misogyny against Trump wont work. He is going to fill the press with the rape and harassment allegations against Bill Clinton and Hillarys role in discrediting the victims (something that made even Lena Dunham deeply queasy.) He can always remind people that Hillary Clinton referred to Monica Lewinsky as a narcissistic loony toon. Furthermore, since Trump is not an anti-Planned Parenthood zealot (being the only one willing to stick up for womens health in a room full of Republicans), it will be hard for Clinton to paint him as the usual anti-feminist right-winger. Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clintons sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue: She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. Ive never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies shes told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadnt even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. Thats four lies, I said Id give you three. You cant even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesnt even say she hasnt lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar. Trump will bob, weave, jab, and hook. He wont let up. And because Clinton actually has lied, and actually did vote for the Iraq War, and actually is hyper-cosy with Wall Street, and actually does change her positions based on expediency, all she can do is issue further implausible denials, which will further embolden Trump. Nor does she have a single offensive weapon at her disposal, since every legitimate criticism of Trumps background (inconsistent political positions, shady financial dealings, pattern of deception) is equally applicable to Clinton, and he knows how to make such things slide off him, whereas she does not. Heres another example. If Hillary tries to hit Trump on his Mexican/Muslims comments, Trump can accurately point out she called inner city blacks super predators. Nor are the demographics going to be as favorable to Clinton as she thinks. Trumps populism will have huge resonance among the white working class in both red and blue states; he might even peel away her black support. And Trump has already proven false the prediction that he would alienate Evangelicals through his vulgarity and his self-deification. Democrats are insistently repeating their belief that a Trump nomination will mobilize liberals to head to the polls like never before, but with nobody particularly enthusiastic for Clintons candidacy, its not implausible that a large number of people will find both options so unappealing that they stay home. Yep, many Sanders supporters will never vote for Hillary. In fact, more than a few will vote for Trump. Trumps various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trumps standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesnt like oligarchy, hes a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and thats pretty much all there is to it. Contrast that with the above-noted list of juicy Clinton tidbits. Trump cant clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of Americas poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if hes belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal. Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals. She will attempt to go after him. She will, in other words, feed the troll. Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isnt even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trumps bait, because Sanders doesnt even care to listen to anything thats not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanderss commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans. Putting such genuine dignity and good feeling against Trumps race-baiting clownishness will be like finally pouring water on the Wicked Witch. Hillary Clinton cannot do this; with her, the campaign will inevitably descend into the gutter, and the unstoppable bloated Trump menace will continue to grow ever larger. Of course, the American people are still jittery about socialism. But theyre less jittery than they used to be, and Bernie does a good job portraying socialism as being about little more than paid family leave and sick days (a debatable proposition, but one beside the point.) His policies are popular and appeal to the prevailing national sentiment. Its a risk, certainly. But the Soviet Union bogeyman is long gone, and everyone gets called a socialist these days no matter what their politics. Its possible that swing voters dislike socialism more than they dislike Hillary Clinton, but in a time of economic discontent one probably shouldnt bet on it. But even if it was correct to say that Sanders was starting to lose (instead of progressively losing less and less), this should only motivate all Democrats to work harder to make sure he is nominated. Ones support for Sanders should increase in direct proportion to ones fear of Trump. And if Trump is the nominee, Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race and throw her every ounce of energy into supporting Sanders. If this does not occur, the resulting consequences for Muslims and Mexican immigrants of a Trump presidency will be fully the responsibility of Clinton and the Democratic Party. To run a candidate who cant win, or who is a very high-risk proposition, is to recklessly play with the lives of millions of people. So much depends on stopping Trump; a principled defeat will mean nothing to the deported, or to those being roughed up by Trumps goon squads or executed with pigs blood-dipped bullets. Trump vs. Clinton will appear to most Americans as a choice between something new and risky, and something old and corrupt. In 2016, who do you think the public will choose? If Democrats foolishly nominate Hillary Clinton, they will be the only ones to blame for a Trump Presidency. For related articles, see: Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton on Freedom of Speech A Side By Side Comparison The REAL Donald Trump A Fascinating Interview of the Man from 1990 Trump Sides with the FBI Against Apple; On Torture Proclaims Water Boarding Is Fine but Not Tough Enough Donald Trump the Demagogue A New Low Hillary Clinton Claims 9/11 is the Reason Shes Owned by Wall Street Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Haha "Muslim and Mexican immigrants"
I'm inclined to agree. General election night might be one of the most entertaining ever in that regard. But the US and corrupt systems being what they are, I'm not sure I trust things to go as I would otherwise consider inevitable.
I just might have to re-register to vote this fall. I had planned on not voting again, but.....................Trump. :p #4. To: X-15, Rotara, christine (#3) Al Sharpton says if Donald wins, he might have to leave the country. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/al-sharpton-might-get-out-of-here-if-trump- wins/article/2584260 The Truth of 911 Shall Set You Free From The Lie #5. To: Horse (#4) I said the same thing about fObama. And left. lol
#6. To: christine (#0) Wrong, in fact that statement is rather stupid. Trumper is NOT peddling GOODIES, were he to do so he would lose white Americans.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|