As recently reported, Secretary Clinton has posted yet another great fundraising haul for the final quarter of 2015. And she’s in great shape for 2016, reporting almost $38 million cash in hand for the long slog ahead. Senator Sanders also had a great result — if not for Hillary absolutely crushing it, the headline would be that the people-powered self-described Democratic socialist has roughly the same cash on hand as the top-two Republican fundraisers combined (Bernie’s $28.3 million on hand versus Cruz with $18.7 and Rubio's $10.4 million). The Democratic party is lucky to have two candidates doing so well at this stage of the game.
But there’s a storm cloud on the horizon. Political prediction markets are now giving Trump a 51% chance of winning the Republican nomination. And by all rights, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, that should be great, great news for the Democratic party. Trump is a terrible human being, and a terrible candidate, and he should be a complete anchor on the Republican party if they put him up.
So what’s the problem? Well, as he said he would, Trump is now spending his own money to campaign. His most powerful appeal has been that he’s not in anyone's pocket. If we end up with Clinton vs. Trump for the general election, Trump would be able to unleash that line of attack to potentially devastating effect. As stories will continue to come out about people giving millions of dollars to Super PACS supporting Clinton, not to mention the millions of dollars the Clinton family has raised from speaking fees, Clinton will be hard pressed to make an effective counter-argument.
Clinton’s argument for raising so much money is that she doesn’t want to unilaterally disarm against the Republicans. And it’s a fair argument — doing what Sanders has done carries huge risks. President Obama, while he was happy to build a campaign war chest from small donors, certainly continued to fundraise from large donors as well. But for better or worse, Clinton now has a vulnerability to Trump's self-funded argument. Because while she didn't unilaterally disarm, she opened herself up to anyone who can attack her for playing the game. There are only two candidates who can effectively make that charges - Donald Trump, and the Sanders campaign. Donald Trump cannot go after Bernie Sanders for being behold to Wall Street. He can and certainly would go after Hillary Clinton for that .
Look — Trump very well may not be the Republican nominee (I’ve certainly argued that he won't). And both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should both be able to, and God help us would, crush a hypothetical Trump campaign. All I am saying is this — we are choosing a candidate to put up against the Republicans. That Republican might be Trump. Bernie Sanders is effectively immune to Trump’s most effective line of attack. Hillary Clinton is completely exposed to his most effective line of attack. All other things being equal*, the most pragmatic and progressive thing to do would be support Bernie Sanders.
Here’s hoping for a massive turnout in Iowa, and a victory for democracy and the Democratic candidate in 2016. Good luck everybody tonight, and may the best woman or man win.
*(Of course all other things aren't equal, and Clinton supporters can point to “Democratic socialist" or “tax increase" or whatever else. Fair enough! Just not the point of this diary, which I think is a substantial point that can’t be brushed aside with “Your concern is noted”)
**Gotta focus on work for a while, but I’ll be back to respond to comments later.