The Problem with Hilary
March 1, 2016
After the results from
Super Tuesday came in, numerous writers from the Washington Post, New York
Times and Wall Street Journal declared that Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump
would be the eventual presidential nominees for their parties. Several even
went further to note that Bernie Sandersí revolution for social and financial
justice has failed. As Mark Twain once retorted regarding his own early
obituary, reports of the demise of the Sandersí campaign have been greatly
Letís look at the numbers.
Fivethirtyeight.com polling analysis the day before indicated that Hilary would
win ten of the eleven states up for grabs Ė only Sandersí home state of Vermont
would go his way Ė with Oklahoma the only state in which they werenít at least
94% certain of the outcome. What actually happened was quite different: in
addition to Vermont, Sanders resoundingly won Colorado, Oklahoma and Minnesota and nearly won Massachusetts as well. Thatís not exactly a
convincing showing for Clinton.
In fact, Sanders showing was as good or better than Obamaís was in 2008. How did that turn out?
Additionally, in the
states she did win, the outcome was heavily dependent on the African-American
vote.† Clinton has rightly aligned herself with
President Obamaís record, something Democrats should
have been doing since he was first inaugurated in 2009 Ė and that has played
well with African-American voters. But itís not like they donít like Sanders
message. In fact, when polled about the things Sanders stands for but without a
candidatesí name attached, they are overwhelmingly in favor. If the general
election came down to a contest between Sanders and any GOP candidate, they
would overwhelmingly favor Sanders. Their votes last night were as much an
affirmation of Obamaís record as it was a vote for Clinton.
Current polling indicates
that Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, but that she would not
defeat Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz in the general election. She would defeat Donald
Trump by double digits. This is due, for whatever reason, to the fact that Clinton has one of the
biggest negative reactions among voters of any candidate in recent memory. The
only candidate who inspires an even bigger negative reaction is Donald Trump.
That doesnít bode well for swaying undecided voters. Interestingly, that same
polling indicates that Bernie Sanders would defeat all Republican opponents by
significant margins, including an even greater margin over Trump than Clinton.
Sandersí message is
focused and direct; itís hard to pin down what Clinton is advocating for her presidency.
During his 2008 campaign, Obama made several clear
promised to get the economy going again after it lay in ruins from the Bush
promised to get US troops out of Iraq
due to a war he voted against,
promised to close Guantanamo
and end torture,
promised to repeal the Bush tax cuts,
promised to codify universal health care.
These were the focus of
his campaign and of the more than 500 campaign promises he made, heís fulfilled
45% of them according to Politifact, and compromised
on about 20% more. The point is that there were clear needs that needed to be
addressed Ė troops occupying two countries, an economy in shambles, a desperate
need for health care reform and a need to improve Americaís profile abroad Ė
and he gave his solutions in campaign speeches. Clintonís message was the same then as it is
now: how and why she is qualified. She still hasnít offered a vision of what America
will look like after her presidency. That is a huge problem for a presidential
candidate, especially one whom a lot of people simply donít like.
The biggest problem facing
today, without question, is income inequality. Some might insist it is climate
change and that is definitely an existential threat to mankind. But the force
behind the anti-climate change movement is the money-ed interests who benefit
from fossil fuel consumption and deterioration of the environment. Almost all
of the money that is spent on debunking climate change comes from them and they
just happen to be one of the primary beneficiaries of income inequality. Clean
energy doesnít get nearly the subsidy fossil fuel does. Wall Street invests
heavily in the companies that have the regulatory advantages and right now,
fossil fuels have all the cards in that regard. Take the advantage away from
fossil fuels and Wall Street, and the anti-climate change industry wonít have
any money to spend on think tanks, advertising and hucksters posing as
scientists that tell people that climate change is not a real thing, or that we
are currently in a hiatus.
What has Clinton offered as solutions? She offers
nothing on income inequality because much of her donor support comes from the
very people who have benefited from that inequality. She says something needs
to be done about climate change but has she suggested anything original to
deter the biggest polluters? Obama won because he
identified the problems that concerned people most and he offered solutions.
understands what the problems are but she is so imbedded with the culprits how
can she possibly campaign against their interests?
For example, one of
Clintonís closest political allies and biggest supporters, DNC Chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz, has made a concerted effort, along with congressional
Republicans, to eviscerate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureauís ability
to regulate banks and the payday loan industry. It doesnít require much
imagination to understand how much regulation on the financial industry would
be supported by a Clinton
presidency. Not only does she appear not interested in reforming the industry
that nearly broke the world economy eight years ago and is increasing the
inequality gap, but she and her supporters are actively trying to encourage its
So which candidate is the
one most likely to enact meaningful reforms? Sanders, whose message is focused
on income inequality and climate change, or Clinton, who has no focus to her
message and has received millions in speaking fees from the very people who are
the source of the problem?
Clinton has tried to paint Sanders as someone incapable of
doing anything about campaign finance reform because heís too idealistic, but
why would someone who has benefited so abundantly under the current system do
anything about it once sheís obtained the highest prize, especially if she
wants a second term? She would have absolutely no incentive to change. It is
one thing to be ďincapableĒ of doing something and quite another to be
unwilling. Personally, I donít believe Sanders would be incapable, any more
than Teddy Roosevelt was about breaking up the monopolies, or FDR was about
getting the nation back on its feet during the Depression or LBJ was in
instituting his Great Society reforms.†
Each had a vision, just like Sanders does. How it gets done is up to his
skill as a politician once he has the power, not before he gets it.
Speaking of which, another
knock against Sanders and/or a supposed advantage Clinton has is this notion that he would not
be able to gather a consensus in support of his agenda. But what makes anyone
could do better?† Is she someone the Republicans
like? Is she someone they greatly respect? If the answer is no, then she is no
better situated to be a unifying president than Sanders. She tried her hand at
policy making with her effort to implement a single payer healthcare system
under her husbandís administration. The Wikipedia
page that details that effort might as well have a photo of the Hindenburg in
And then there is the
common perception that she is disingenuous. Scandals have followed her and her
husband throughout their careers, even on this most recent Super Tuesday. In Massachusetts, where the race was surprisingly close,
Bill Clinton visited a polling station in Boston.
Massachusetts law stipulates that no
campaigning can be done within 150 feet of a polling station and Bill was not
eligible to vote in that state. So why was he in the polling station? He
claimed he was thanking the volunteers. Unfortunately, his security
requirements also just happened to shut down the polling station for a couple
of hours. The final tally in the state showed that the difference was about
25,000 votes. Itís highly doubtful the shut down prevented too many people from
voting in a contest where the result was so close, but why invite speculation
with behavior that is clearly against the voting laws of that state?
Add to this the scheduling
of the democratic debates Ė there have been very few and when they have
occurred they have been on weeknights, which generally garner fewer viewers Ė
and itís evident that the Clinton/DNC machine is not interested in an honest
discussion of the issues.
America has always been a progressive country. We were the
first one that stated in our laws that the people are capable of electing
competent leaders, and for the leaders to voluntarily step down without shame.
We were the first one to welcome people from other countries. We were the first
one to institute protections for basic human rights. It seems like we donít do
that kind of thing anymore. Now we are the first to incarcerate. Now we are the
first to bomb or send troops. It is time for America to make up the moral ground
we have lost and to step forward into world leadership again, to make the human
race better, not just Americans.
The only way to do that is
to radically change the way our system is operating. Change, especially radical
change, is not part of Clintonís
message. Increasingly, though, people are becoming aware of the one candidate
who does advocate it. Thatís not something thatís going to diminish over the
next few months. That is a huge problem for Clinton, even after her ďsuperĒ Tuesday.