Reasons Which Have Little to Do With Sanders’ Debating Skills

Edit: Because some people were more concerned with ‘winning’ debates and Hillary ‘holding her own’. Let me say to them that Hillary is a fantastic debater, but it is becoming plainly more and more obvious that she can’t squarely beat someone who is universally considered not as skilled. There is certainly more at play than debating skills alone. And speaking of scientific polling, Sanders HAS in fact won more post-debate focus groups and polls than Clinton, from the 1st debate onwards itself. This is DailyKos, STOP reading the mainstream media! And finally, where in the world am i talking about ‘who won’?  

1. False Turns to the Left Don’t Work

Historically one of the greatest strengths of the Clinton campaign has been its flip-flopping. In primaries, the Clinton campaign can veer sharply to the Left on several issues, helping confuse and confound the voter into going along with the name-recognition and lip-service to left-wing or welfarist causes. This has led to the decimation of many an opponent. The problem arises against Sanders because Sanders has been a true progressive all his life. Hillary Clinton can shift to the left on three out of ten issues. Perhaps on four out of ten issues, if three doesn’t work. However, it is impossible for Hillary to shift to the left on ten out of ten issues, where Sanders and most of the Democratic electorate are. And if Hillary attempts, even if to just fool the electorate, to go left on more than 5/10 issues, her corporate donations will stop and we will witness the bankruptcy of the biggest political campaign machine in modern history.

2.  Hillary Has Never Faced Such An Opponent Before

Hillary Clinton has never faced an opponent who outdid her on her key USPs (unique selling points). Sanders has more ‘experience’ than her in elected office. Sanders can ‘get things done’ better than her, as evidenced by the fact that Sanders passed the highest amount of successful amendments to bills in Congress. Also, by being the most popular Senator among one’s own constituents and getting even 25% of the Republican vote in Vermont, as well as by his strong showings in Iowa (0.25% behind) and New Hampshire (tsunami victory), Hillary’s electability myth has been shattered. Further, his record as a feminist as well as his participation in the Civil Rights movement takes away what was once a Clinton-only preserve at the top of the political pyramid (Obama, of course, breached this equation in 2007-8). Let us not understate the fact that Hillary has never faced an opponent both more experience than her and with more integrity than her (here Obama, who the Clinton campaign has called a ‘rookie Senator, did stand a chance, on the latter variable). Most of her attacks on Sanders glance off him like he’s waterproof.

3. No More Dirt

Hillary has literally exhausted her bag of ‘attacks’. There are no more ‘dirty secrets’ to put out of a hat like a rabbit. In fact, this should cause the GOP some worry. There is literally nothing the Republicans can throw at Bernie Sanders that the Clinton campaign and its surrogates (John Podesta, Claire MacCaskill, Robby Mook, David Brock, Madelein Albright and Gloria Steinem) haven’t already put into play, quite unsuccessfully, against Sanders. This includes his age (74), his being a socialist (turned out no one cares), raising the spectre of taxes and tying it to the Sanders campaign, the matter of how he’s going to pay for his proposed policies, of him being anti-Obama, him being for ‘big’ government, and of him being a weak Commander-In-Chief. Sanders’ lifetime honesty, personal austerity, genuine compassion, lack of power-hungriness and voting record makes him a nightmare for Republicans seeking to dig up dirt on him.

4. The Brand Ain’t Hip Anymore

This is not an insight, but a mere observation. If Hillary Clinton was genuinely a strong candidate who spoke for the majority of Democratic voters, Bernie Sanders would have simply not done well at all! Her history of flip-flops, her denial of her mistakes, and the Third Way/DLC neoconservative agenda that she and her husband stood for are plain in the eyes of most young voters. The Internet is not a very forgiving place. Hillary stood a better chance of winning after a Bush presidency than after two Obama terms. Bush made Obama successfully seem like a progressive, rather than the liberal the latter was. A candidate battered by scandals, with a history of disappointing and betraying the ideals of her own party’s base, would make for the least appealing piece of fruit at a grocery store. Who would buy it?

5. Sanders Sticks to the Issues

Quite frankly, never before has a presidential candidate been as keen to speak about the issues, to accurately address the queries directed at them, than Sanders. The primary of 2007 had been a wish-wash of candidates avoiding addressing specific policy or ideological questions. It had been about which candidate was packaged better. Fast forward to 2016: Hillary has been made to attack Wall Street, to explain her connections to corporate donors from the private prison, pharma, fossil fuel and finance sectors, as well as donations to the Clinton Foundation and her paid speeches at Goldman Sachs. One example: when confronted with her closeness to Wall Street, in one debate she claimed to ask the heads of private finance to ‘cut it out’, in another she invoked 9/11 (!!!) to justify her closeness to big finance, and in yet another she ended up pointing out that even Obama had taken money from the same companies. To top it all: she claimed she took the hefty payment of over $200,000 per speech because “that’s what they offered”. The conversation has turned to providing economic rights to citizens in every realm: healthcare, jobs, debt, housing and education. This is a conversation that would put any establishment Democrat candidate at political unease. Further, in an attempt to push the conversation back into what she sees as her ballpark, Clinton has exposed just how neo-conservative her foreign policy is, by default making Sanders the candidate for peace. She even touted Henry Kissinger’s endorsement!

6. Not the Only New Yorker

The New York candidate has always been a powerful figure in American history. They’re always debate-ready, are ‘likeable’, appear to have the know-how to handle Washington, are excellent at fundraising and have a good TV persona. The problem here is that there are two other New Yorkers – Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, both of whom are seen as more authentic than her, in addition to Sanders being seen as more honest and trustworthy than her. In fact, the Clinton campaign refused the Sanders’ campaign’s challenge to hold a debate in Brooklyn. While only Clinton represented New York as an elected official, her back-footed game brings into question the amount of support she has in her own political heartland.