In an article in yesterday’s New York Times by Jonathan Martin, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill said, “The Republicans won’t touch [Bernie Sanders] because they can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle.” Here is a link:
www.nytimes.com/...
And, in an article by Kasie Hunt of NBC News, McCaskill said, “I think it would be absolutely impossible for a self-declared socialist to win states like Missouri. And you’ve got to win states like Missouri if you want to win the presidency. States like Indiana, states like Ohio, states like Pennsylvania. It is very hard I think for most Americans to see how socialism would cure the problems that we are facing right now.” Here is a link:
www.nbcnews.com/...
First, it is true that, in general, “Republicans won’t touch Sanders” during the Democratic nomination process because they believe it would be easier for the Republican nominee for president to win the presidency if Sanders were the Democratic nominee than if Clinton is? I have my doubts. I have already seen some very strong—and in some cases unfair—criticism of Sanders, especially recently. Donald Trump has called Sanders “Crazy Bernie” and Bill O’Reilly had a segment on Sanders in which O’Reilly suggested that Sanders should not be elected president because Sanders is a “socialist.” Here is a link
mediamatters.org/...
But I think McCaskill’s basic point is that Clinton would be more likely to win a presidential election in 2016 than Sanders would and that, therefore, it is important for people to support and vote for Clinton during the campaign for the Democratic nomination. But is McCaskill right that Clinton would be more likely to win a general election for president in 2016 than Sanders? It’s hard to say. Sanders has often been polling comparably—and in some cases better than Clinton—when each is pitted against the various leading Republican candidates for president in hypothetical general elections matchups. For instance, in a recent poll of New Hampshire voters, Clinton is beating Trump 48 percent to 39 percent (9 point difference) and losing to Marco Rubio 45 percent to 44 percent; whereas Sanders is beating Trump 57 percent to 34 percent (23 point difference) and beating Rubio 55 percent to 37 percent (18 point difference). Here is a link:
cola.unh.edu/...
In Florida, Clinton is losing to Trump 47 to 44 and is tied with Rubio 46 to 46; Sanders is losing to Trump 47 percent to 44 percent and losing to Rubio 47 percent to 42. Here is a link:
business.fau.edu/...
In North Carolina, Clinton is losing to Trump 45 to 43 and losing to Rubio 47 to 42. Sanders is losing to Trump 44 to 43 and losing to Rubio 43 to 39. Here is a link:
www.publicpolicypolling.com/...
In a general election matchup of the U.S. is a whole (not just a specific state), Clinton is defeating Trump 51 to 41 and Sanders is defeating Trump 54 to 39. Here is a link:
www.scribd.com/...
Finally, in another general election matchup of the U.S. as a whole, Clinton is defeating Trump 47 to 40 and Sanders is defeating Trump 51 to 38. Here is a link:
www.quinnipiac.edu/…
Although it’s hard to know how much predictive value these kinds of polls have so far away from a general election, these polls probably are the best evidence we have at the moment of how the most likely nominees from one party would fair against the most likely nominees from the other party, because fairly large samples of people that are fairly representative of the states as a whole where the polls are done—or of the nation as a whole—are actually asked how they would vote. And how people say they would vote nine or ten months from a given date is often how they end of voting on that date. So, I question whether Clinton would be more likely to win a general election for president in 2016 than Sanders would. And even if Clinton would, in fact, be more likely to do so, it seems that she would be only a little more likely to do so. It’s not as if, in these hypothetical match-ups against Republicans, Clinton is winning 75 percent to 25 percent and Sanders is losing 25 percent to 75 percent.
Also, according to Nate Silver, Sanders is the only candidate currently running for president from either party who has a positive favorability rating. Sanders is + 3. Clinton is -11. Here is a link:
fivethirtyeight.com/...
Silver has suggested that the data shows that favorability ratings are at least somewhat causally connected—or at least correlated—to electability.
Moreover, electability shouldn’t be the only consideration we weigh when deciding who to support in a primary. For instance, in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson might have been more electable in a general election for president than Eugene McCarthy and yet the later’s position on the Vietnam War was far superior. And, in the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, one should have, prima facie, voted for McCarthy. When deciding who to support in a primary, people should consider the candidates’ political records and platforms in addition to their electability in the general election. Their records and platforms tend to be connected to how they actually govern. For instance, Bill Clinton’s centrist platform was comparable to how he actually governed as president. FDR’s liberal and good record (as governor of New York) and his platform when he ran for president was comparable to how he governed as president. Barack Obama’s fairly liberal and good record and platform was comparable to how he governed as president.
And, overall, Sanders’ record and platform are better—when judged in terms of reasonable and progressive values—than those of Clinton. For instance, Sanders’ economic stimulus is 3.6 times larger than hers, his health care plan probably is better than hers, he opposes capital punishment, he favors raising the minimum wage by a more reasonable amount (at least on a trial-basis), his plan for making college more affordable is better, he favors legalizing marijuana, and he seems more committed to a foreign policy based on diplomacy and soft power. In addition, I believe Sanders favors having the U.S. join the International Criminal Court, and I’m confident that Clinton opposes it; at least she has in the past.
Sanders’ political record is also, overall, better than Clinton’s. For instance, she voted for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He voted against it. She also voted for a Jesse Helms-sponsored amendment that essentially prohibited the U.S. from cooperating with the International Criminal Court in any way. Here is a link to information on this vote by Clinton:
www.commondreams.org/...
Sanders voted against the amendment. Sanders also opposed the Persian Gulf War. I believe she supported it. He voted against DOMA. I believe she was in favor of DOMA at the time it was voted into law.
However, it is possible that, in general, Clinton’s proposals and ideas would have a better chance of being enacted and implemented the four to eight years after she would be inaugurated as president than would Sanders’ proposals and ideas. For instance, her health care ideas probably would have a better chance of becoming law in the four to eight years after she would be inaugurated than his Medicare-for-all plan. And this might be the best reason to support Clinton over Sanders for the Democratic nomination. But many of her ideas would be unlikely to be enacted, at least early in her administration. Republicans very likely would still control the U.S. House for at least the first two years after the next president is inaugurated and probably for the first four years after the next president is inaugurated, and the vast majority of the Republicans in the U.S. House would be resistant to most, if not all, of her domestic agenda. For instance, how likely is it that a Republican-controlled Congress would pass the economic stimulus that Clinton favors—$275 billion over five years?
Maybe a number of Clinton’s proposals would have a reasonably good chance of being enacted if she is president for eight years. Perhaps both the U.S. House and Senate will become Democratic over that time. However, if Sanders were president for eight years, the House and Senate also could become Democratic during that time. And then he could get some of his agenda through. And, overall, his agenda is better than hers.
In addition, in foreign affairs, where the president would have significant power, Clinton’s record and policy ideas are, overall, less good than those of Sanders. For instance, he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and seems more committed to resolve conflict non-militarily, for instance, he seems less eager to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. There also is evidence from Clinton’s emails that have been released and from her book Hard Choices that, as Secretary of State, Clinton supported the center-right led coup in Honduras rather than democratically-elected president Manual Zelaya. Here is a link:
www.commondreams.org/...
According to a passage in Hard Choices, Clinton wrote: “We strategized on a plan to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.”
Zelaya was a democratically-elected president. He was removed by a coup. The U.S. should have taken steps—especially through the Organization of American states instead of through U.S.-dominated talks mediated in Costa Rica by Oscar Arias—to have him restored to power so that he could complete his term as president. It is important that the U.S. not be undermining democracy. In fact, it is vitally important that we be supporting democratic movements. And we should do so by using diplomacy and soft power, very rarely through military intervention.
Moreover, it is more important to support the candidate with the better platform and political record than the one whose ideas may have a slightly better chance of becoming law if the one whose ideas have a slightly better chance of becoming law are ideas that are significantly less good than those of the other candidate. For instance, when Obama ran against Clinton for president, the former had a better record and platform. For instance, he was more willing to meet with foreign leaders from countries with deeply flawed regimes. And it was important to support Obama over Clinton in 2008. And, overall, Clinton’s ideas are significantly less good than Sanders’. For instance, according to her website, her health care plan would “lower out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles.” But she doesn’t say how she would do that. And, under the Affordable Care Act, it would be hard to do that, because there are not easy ways to prohibit insurance companies from charging high premiums and co-pays. For one thing, it’s important for insurance companies to make a profit. So, they are likely to continue to increase costs for consumers in order to increase the likelihood that they will make a higher profit.
In contrast, Sanders’ platform is quite good. For instance, I think Medicare, or something like it, should be an option available to every U.S. citizen, not just people 65 and older. Although I worry that Sanders’ plan would prohibit people from buying or selling private health insurance and prohibit employer-sponsored insurance, perhaps he could be convinced to allow people to buy and sell private health insurance and allow employers to offer employer-sponsored insurance. Or, perhaps Congress could convince him to change his plan to allow people to buy and sell private health insurance. Having both private and public options increases the choices that people have reason to value and could help the least well-off.