Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Hillary Clinton should drop out, or the GOP could win

Simply put, Hillary Clinton will divide the Democratic base during the primary the same way Bernie Sanders would if he ran as an Independent in the general election; and it is Bernie who has a better chance of beating any GOP nominee in 2016 — not Hillary Clinton.

In the 2000 election, George W. Bush won the Electoral College following the recount in Florida. But Al Gore received more popular votes — about 540,000 more than Mr. Bush nationally, or about 0.5 percent of all votes cast across the country ... but as FiveThiryEight points out, the Electoral College can cause significant distortions in turnout and strategy.

Yet, if the 2016 presidential election were held tomorrow, and based solely on the popular vote, Senator Bernie Sanders could conceivably win by beating any GOP candidate; whereas, Hillary Clinton would most likely lose according to recent polls. And that's why, if polls results look the same this time next year, maybe Hillary should drop out — or risk giving the Republicans the White House.

At the Netroots convention, in her keynote speech Senator Elizabeth Warren said "the American people are Progressives." A recent Gallop Poll shows how people currently identify: 31% Democrat and 25% Republican — with the majority (41%) as Independents. Maybe these are the progressives, because President Obama and Hillary Clinton are not true "progressives" — despite their economically "populist" speeches.

But in the face of Bernie's immense popularity among "the American people", a majority of his Democratic cult-like colleagues still support Hillary (proving once again, that Congress cares not at all about the will of the people that they are supposed to represent —and another reason why their favorability ratings have been historically low.

Obama recently bragged that if he could run in 2016, he would win a third term. But according to the Washington Post, Obama is about as popular right now as he was at this time in 2011; his approval rating was only 45 percent in the latest poll — and the Democratic base is more passionate about him than Hillary Clinton [and the majority of all voters are more passionate about Bernie than Hillary] Paraphrased excerpts:

She knows that she needs the so-called Obama coalition to turn out in force next November, which is one reason she’s tacked to the left in recent months. Many of these voters, registered by the Obama campaign in 2008 or 2012, will only turn out for Hillary if they see a vote for her as a vote for a third Obama term.

A year ago [Hillary] Clinton criticized Obama for not taking more action in Syria. This prompted Obama allies to point out that Clinton, not Obama, voted to authorize the Iraq war in the first place. Hillary phoned Obama to say she had not meant “to attack him,” and her spokesman announced that she looked forward to “hugging it out” when they were both at Martha’s Vineyard a few days later. From the preternaturally cautious and calculating Clinton, watch for a continued balancing act. Now when she distances herself from Obama, it will be more implicit and subtle.

Her campaign leadership team is also stocked with Obama alumni who were still at the White House during this time last year. “I’m not running for my husband’s third term and I’m not running for Barack Obama’s third term,” she declared. In the very next breath, she added: “I’m running to continue the positive, results-oriented policies that both of them worked for.”

Here are just a few of the differences between "Third Way" (pro-corporate) Democrats like Obama and Hillary Clinton (the hardcore Democratic Party machine) and Progressive Democrats like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (who have values more similar to that of FDR):

  • Obama (and MAYBE Hillary) support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour — but Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren prefer $15.
  • Obama and Hillary are both very weak on the banks and their CEOs — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would truly reform them.
  • Obama and Hillary both "say" they support tax reform, but both know that with a GOP Congress, that's impossible (but they never say so.)
  • Obama (who supported chained-CPI) and Hillary claim they support Social Security, but never mention EXPANDING it — unlike Sanders and Warren.
  • Obama waffled on the Keystone pipeline, and Hillary refuses to comment, deferring to Obama — while Sanders and Warren stated publicly they are firmly against it.
  • Obama and Hillary both support fast-tracking bad trade deals — Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are firmly against these deals. (And why does Obama love Nike?. On May 12, 1998 Nike's CEO Phil Knight gave a speech at the National Press Club where he spoke of Nike’s reasons for moving factories out of the United States and into mainly third world low-paying countries in Asia that violate human rights.)

And for those of you who are deeply concerned about climate change: Rightly or wrongly, it's one thing to be just "concerned" — and for someone who supports the Keystone pipeline, it's quite another to be a total hypocrite about it. A new study concludes that sea levels will rise much faster than once thought — rising at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. And this could cost investors $4 trillion in assets. But for many who study climate change, Hillary Clinton’s proposal lacked the ambition and sense of urgency appropriate to the scale of the problem. James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years, said of Clinton's plan: “It’s just plain silly.”

Some skeptical voters have a feeling that, despite how much support Bernie Sanders has for president, the Democratic Party machine will use all their dirty tricks to make Hillary their official nominee — and Bernie knows he can't to run as an Independent, or risk splitting the Democratic vote and giving the White House to the GOP.

But what if the electoral college nominates Hillary Clinton, even when the popular vote shows Bernie as their favorite? All polls shows Bernie beating GOP candidates, but Hillary losing to them. Minorities (so far) prefer Hillary — maybe because they don’t really know what Bernie Sanders stands for, or even who he is. And the Democrats need minority votes to win the general election. But if Hillary drops out, we could probably presume they would vote for Bernie over someone else like Donald Trump or Jeb Bush.

The media (who mostly seems to prefer Hillary) hasn't helped Bernie's image, or given him as much exposure as Donald Trump. First it was: Bernie who? Then it was: Oh, the Socialist! Then it was: Sanders to run in democratic primary, but has little chance to win. Then it was: Sanders may move Hillary to the left. Then it was: Sanders draws large crowds throughout the country. Then it was: Sanders stands no chance against Hillary. Then it was: Sanders making a name for himself and doubling his approval ratings. Then it was: Sanders could take two primaries, but still not compete with Hillary.

But it seems that the more the media doubts, the more traction Bernie seems to gain. The big pro-Hillary corporate media and big businesses will do everything in their power to make sure Bernie is seen as a fringe candidate, while Hillary is supposedly "mainstream". But as Bernie has said, "Don't under-estimate me."

Now that Bernie poses a serious threat to Hillary and the GOP as a possible Democratic nominee, the media has been digging deep for a Bernie Sanders Story. The best "dirt" they could find to date was that his only biological son was born out of wedlock 46 years ago back in the 1960s (link, link, link). But compared to all the Louis Vuitton luggage that Hillary and Bill drag around with them, Bernie's fatherhood amounts to a simple carry-on bag.

But either way, with Hillary or Bernie as our president, no changes can come about with a GOP dominated Congress (or we would have seen more changes with Obama over the last 7 years) — but with a GOP president AND a GOP Congress, we’re all doomed. More Democrats need to turnout in mid-term elections to change the Congress as well.

But even with “Third Way” / pro-corporate Democrats dominating Congress and the White House, the real changes that the American people are seeking won’t be realized either (such as taxing the rich and corporations their fair share, raising the minimum wage to a "livable wage", etc.). That's why we need, not just Democrats in Congress and the White House, but PROGRESSIVE Democrats in Congress and the White House.

We would need 535 Bernie Sanders in Congress and an Elizabeth Warren as president — or 535 Elizabeth Warrens in Congress and a Bernie Sanders as president. But the last thing the top 0.01% wants is either Bernie or Liz in the White House (or in Congress). But with Liz AND Bernie (with either at the top or the bottom of a ticket), together they could have been invincible.

But if Hillary Clinton really wanted to do the nation and the majority of the American people a real big favor, she would drop out of the race and cede to Bernie. That way, at least the Democrats could keep the White House. If recent polls are any indication, the American PEOPLE (excluding the electoral college) don't want Hillary — they want someone like Bernie — including many Republicans.

And after all, who wants Bill Clinton in the White House for another 4 more years? It was Clinton who gave permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to China to offshore our jobs. It was Clinton who lowered the capital gains tax rate from 28% to 20% for the very rich — and it was Bill Clinton that deregulated the banks, causing the Great Recession (which Hillary said she won't reverse). It was Clinton's "reforming welfare" that disproportionately hurt people of color. And it was a Clinton who voted to make it harder for all "poor people" to alleviate their debt to banks by claiming bankruptcy — not to mention the deleted emails to hide details about foreign donations to the Clinton's Foundation while she was Secretary of State. And what about all the other past controversies that plague the Clintons? Do we really want 4 more years of that — another corrupt political dynasty that mostly favors the rich and well-connected corporations?

A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Elizabeth Warren, which is a vote for the American people — and not a vote for the bankers on Wall Street (Hillary's biggest campaign donors). The sooner Hillary drops out of the race, the better. She had her chance in 2008 and lost — the American people had already spoken then.

And the sooner Senator Elizabeth Warren endorses Senator Bernie Sanders, the better.


  1. And many Republicans, who might otherwise vote for Bernie, would vote for ANY Republican just to vote AGAINST Hillary if she were to become the Democratic nominee.

  2. The percentage of Americans who voted in the 2014 federal elections was the lowest in an off-presidential-year election since the start of this data series in 1978. The main reason for not voting: "Too busy or conflicting schedules".

    This should be viewed as an important policy goal to raise the voter turnout rate. Maybe changing the times and places when and where people can vote (If they're working two jobs to make ends meet, or having to care for children, this becomes a big problem for them ... as well as strict states' voter ID laws, etc.

    "As we endure the steady diet of polling data during the next 16 months of run-up to the November 2016 election, it's worth remembering the old truth that what matters isn't what's said to pollsters, but rather who actually turns out a casts a ballot."

    But if turnouts for campaign speeches is any indicator, then Bernie wins on that front as well.

  3. I fully agree HRC needs to fall on her sword and endorse Bernie. Also no HRC anywhere on the ticket. Too much baggage.