Like Bernie Sanders, I believe that our political system is broken and that our economic system is rigged for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. People who make their money from investments are faring far better than people who make their money from wages. Our government needs serious reform and it needs it now. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Hillary Clinton is the candidate best suited to bring that type of reform.
Sanders has driven the message of the campaign but he can’t likely carry it to the White House because he can’t get there. It may be the year of outsiders in primaries, but it’s not likely the year of the outsider in the general election. It almost never is.
The United States is a centrist nation and centrist candidates for president usually win. Over the last hundred years, Ronald Reagan was the only exception to this rule—and by today’s standards, he looks like a raging moderate. Ideas may be driven from the ideological left or right, but they are implemented by candidates who adopt them, not the people who promote them.
The most progressive policies enacted in this country during the 20th century came from establishment presidential candidates who were frequently derided by the left side of the Democratic Party. The New Deal didn’t come from an outsider. It came from an establishment patrician guy who was Governor of New York and Assistant Secretary of the Navy and vilified by much of the left and right until World War II.
The Great Society programs that gave us Medicare and Medicaid were brought to us by a Southern redneck who did what he believed was right instead of what he thought was politically expedient. The same man gave us the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. He almost certainly would have opposed those policies had he still been in the Senate but he was unleashed by the power of the presidency.
And finally, the current president, who is frequently criticized by his left flank, will be seen as transformative 20 years from now. He’ll be known as the president who led the way to universal health care and he will get credit for transforming our country from an economy fueled by fossil fuels to one run by clean energy. Finally, he’ll be known as the president that kept us from getting more deeply embroiled in Middle Eastern conflicts. Unlike his critics from the left today, history will not judge those as small, partial, or minor achievements.
Hillary Clinton knows that this is the final stop in her career. With no more elections to run, she’s free to create her own legacy. I doubt she will be thinking small. And as the first woman president, she’ll have the political capital for major accomplishments, especially with a Democratic Senate and possibly House.
Nothing will happen, though, if a Democrat doesn’t win in November. I have no doubt that Clinton can beat Trump. I’m less sure about Sanders. Despite the enthusiasm of the Sanders supporters, Clinton has won 60% of the votes cast in the Democratic primary so far and she’s won with a traditional Democratic coalition of minority and women voters. Her voters are older and less vocal but no less passionate about supporting her. They’re also more reliable general election voters. She’s losing younger primary voters but a recent poll shows she wins them 52%-19% against Trump. With numbers like that, she’s not dependent on a huge turnout of younger voters to win the general.
Sanders and Trump have tapped into a vocal and angry part of the electorate that might make up majorities in a few areas, but don’t reflect the sentiment of the voters who decide most elections. Those voters are less engaged, less ideological, and more cautious. They aren’t looking for radical change. In November, they’ll vote for Clinton over Trump because, even if they don’t love her, she’s the safer choice. I don’t know how they would vote in Sanders verses Trump. The stakes are too high to find out.
Thomas Mills is the founder and publisher of PoliticsNC.com. Before beginning PoliticsNC, Thomas spent twenty years as a political and public affairs consultant. Learn more >
Hillary’s extra 2.5 million primary votes, so far, count for something in the democratic party.
On Thursday, March 24th, Ann Selzer of Selzer & Co, in DeMoines, Iowa, released her latest poll for Bloomberg. She is recognized as America’s best pollster, which is why Bloomberg uses her to poll regularly.
She has just declared that Hillary Clinton has plunged from an original 54 point lead with Democrats to trailing Bernie by 1%..
Bernie Sanders now leads Hillary with Democrats 49% to 48% with 3% not sure.
Selzer reports that “trust issues are at the heart of the flip.” America will not elect a President it cannot trust.
Now that Democrats are increasingly turning to Bernie as the only honest candidate left standing–and bolstered by Independent and younger voters who are overwhelmingly for him–Bernie will win the Presidential Election in November. All it takes is for Clinton supporters like Thomas Mills to understand that the vast majority of AMERICANS want to go forward TOGETHER with a President who will govern with heart and head–not “Political Expediency.” We’re done with choosing the lesser of two evils. We deserve better than that. So, Mr. Mills, please revise your thinking and replace your reverence for “Party and Power” with “America First.”
Clinton has never reformed anything, nor has she tried to. The last Clinton administration wasn’t awful for the professional class (at least right away–although I might argue that the Communications Act helped to end writing as a profession) but it was murder on the working class and the poor. Her support for welfare reform and the crime bill were lousy. Her husband’s repeal of Glass Steagall set the recession in motion, and her own stated refusal to reinstate it is allowing the fattest financial institutions ever greater gluttony. Her turn around on universal healthcare after receiving millions from the health care industry is clearly a problem. Her claim that she would make improvements to Obamacare without explaining how, when it is currently being dismantled by states and by the health insurance industry is inexplicable–Honestly Sanders intention to kick the insurance industry out is far more practical a solution, no matter what the fight required to do it. Her interventionist decisions in Libya and in Honduras were absolute failures. Thomas’ argument here seems to be that she will be great because she has never ever been great before, and since she’s pretty much at the end of her career, she’s got nothing else sell out for now. I keep insisting to myself that I’ll vote for her if I have to, but the more I hear shallow, or bizarre, or uninformed, or incredibly cynical arguments from her supporters, the more unable I feel to do it. It is her ardent supporters driving me toward the “Bernie or Bust” crowd.
Yes, all of the Wall Street banks were laundering money for the drug cartels, and several have been successfully prosecuted for such, including Wachovia and HSBC. The global banks still are the financial services arm of the cartels, since nobody went to jail for providing these services to organized crime.
Drug cartel money was the only thing keeping the economy functioning in 2008 (and probably the main component of banking profit from 2001-2008).
Hillary took, and takes, money from these people – Sanders wants to shut them down.
Here’s a good article that also shows that nothing ever changes:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/21/drug-cartels-banks-hsbc-money-laundering
All of her advisers are aware of this. You always background your own candidate as thoroughly as your opponents. She, and her campaign, are corrupt, perhaps not legally, but in every other sense of the word.
I admire Bernie and will vote for him if he is the nominee, but some of his supporters on this site seem like the same kind of low information cult voters who support Trump. Endorsed by Cheney? Drug cartels? C’mon, get in touch with reality. I think Hillary would be a much more effective President than Bernie. Wall Street is going to remain an important part of our economic engine for a long time to come, so someone like Hillary who can reform it from inside the system is preferable to someone like Bernie who mainly just vilifies Wall Street for every ill in our country. Tom has it right, the far left of the Democratic Party (+ the Kennedy group) hated Lyndon Johnson but he may have been the most effective reformer of all.
Lyndon Johnson hated the Kennedys, but after the murder of JFK, RFK stayed on as AG for a year under Johnson. Johnson, for all of his shortcomings, adapted many of Robert’s ideas into Medicaid and Medicare and the Civil Rights Bill. I would like to have seen an RFK presidency; we would not be the nation we are now if that had happened. I identify as an RFK democrat, and the ideas that Bernie is laying out are almost exactly the democratic plank in the elections of 60, 64, and 68. Of course, they lost the plank in 68 when HHH decided to run and continue the war. If Johnson had not been so misguided by some of his handlers he could have stopped the war and been re-elected. And I really get upset when people say that it was JFK who started the Viet Nam war; Eisenhower put troops there in 1954. I believe that Hillary will continue business as usual if she gets selected.
I am proudly a (Southern) Yellow Dog Democrat. I simply do not vote for anyone or anything other than Democrats. I am NOT a centrist. I am-was a 60s -70s activist. Yes I am old…one of those entitlement people if you will.
I am a proud liberal. I do not trust Hillary Clinton any further than I can tie her and Bill together an toss them over the Harnett County line. So I will take my ID to the polls in November( I prefer my passport) and vote a straight Democratic ticket save one. Mr Mills in this instance you have made a wrong call.
One thing clear is that Hillary Clinton can be pressured to take better positions. Equally clear is that whatever improvements we’ve seen from Clinton have come from pressure by Bernie Sanders’ primary challenge. So, it stands to reason that if we want to see more improvements by Clinton, Sanders should not even consider getting out of the race but should keep up the pressure all the way to the convention.
If the convention ends up nominating Clinton, she should ask Sanders to be her running-mate — with the understanding that he would cap off his career with a single term as vice president. He would, after all, be 79 in 2020. If Clinton decides to run for a second term, she should ask Elizabeth Warren to be her vice president. But if at 73 Clinton does not want a second term, Democrats should nominate Warren for president.
Elizabeth Warren was my preferred candidate. She opted not to run. I don’t think the country can survive four more years of business as usual. I think Warren, or Sanders, would have coattails and possibly turn both houses of congress because they represent hope for people who have been getting screwed to the wall since 1981.
Hillary Clinton is an establishment insider and a republican neo-con war hawk. As SOS she brought into her department two of the most notorious republican war Hawks in the country: Robert Kagan and Victoria Neuland. Her candidacy has been endorsed by none other than neo-con war criminal Darth Cheney. Her mentor was war criminal Henry Kissinger. I strongly question her personal integrity. I find Trump a much lesser evil and if Sanders is denied the Democratic nomination I will vote for Trump.
Talk about jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Trump is a fascist circa Hitler and Mousalini. Life under Trump would be a series of hate crimes.
Sounds like what my Mother used to tell me was “cutting off my nose despite my face.” FYI, Dick Cheney has not endorsed Hillary Clinton. Bernie has compared her to Dick Cheney, but I suspect Cheney would suffer another heart attack before endorsing Clinton. (However, I do like the “Darth” part. Very apt for Cheney.)
She’s a huge fan and admirer of Henry Kissinger. She supported a coup d’etat in Honduras as Secretary of State, voted for the Iraq War, voted for the Patriot Act. Neither she, nor her husband, nor her daughter nor son-in-law served or are serving in the military. They were all of age when this country was and is at war. I can’t support someone who clearly values their own life above mine and expects to lead. That’s not what leaders do.
So Fetzer, you prefer Trump the draft-dodger or Bernie the draft-dodger or Kasich the draft-dodger or Cruz the draft-dodger over Hillary–who, as a woman, was not subject to the draft during the Vietnam War, and would not be today, since women are still not required to register?
Bernie supports disabled veterans. Hillary manufactures disabled veterans but doesn’t support us. That’s evidenced by her support for Bowles-Simpson. Neither I nor my fellow veterans consider our veteran’s benefits to be “entitlements”. I might vote for Trump. Some particularly dense people seem only capable of learning from pain. I think the people who run the DNC and support Clinton are such people. Denying them the power and wealth they expect for themselves makes it very tempting to vote for Trump.
Bernie was almost 23 years old when the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred in August 1964. He applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old (past 26) to be drafted. Although he opposed the war, Bernie has never criticized those who fought and has been a strong supporter of veterans’ benefits.
Tom seems to have left out the voters like me who will not vote for either of the presidential candidates-no matter what the party because we do not see a sensible leader in any of the candidates. For the first time since 1972 I will not vote for my president. Such a sad commentary on the quality of people who run for political office today.
I probably would vote for Trump over Hillary because he would wreck Wall Street and I doubt he or congress would bail out the big banks again. A lot of Wall Street executives and bankers should be doing life terms in federal Supermax prisons for doing the same thing Usama bin Laden did, attempting to destroy the US economy. The only way I can be certain that those criminals will learn is if they’re allowed to crash and burn. It would have been better for the American people if the justice department had prosecuted them. That might sound harsh but they need to be punished. Too bad the American people didn’t demand they be prosecuted before the statute of limitations had run. They’ve all laundered money for drug cartels and have signed civil settlements with the US Department of Justice acknowledging that they’ve done so. Clinton has been taking bribes from these people. They’ve acknowledged being money launderers for drug cartels. She takes money from them. I’m not going to vote for a presidential candidate with financial ties to drug cartels. It may be legal but it is still corruption.
Me neither, Fetzer. They stole 27 trillion dollars from the fed when it was called the Bank Bailout, and we have never received any of it back. And it continued under Obama. Sometimes I let my mind wander and I imagine what would happen if about 20 of those extremely wealthy people were found hanging from those beautiful lamp poles on Wall Street. I am not advocating that this happen; far better we tax them. But would that send a message that we have had enough of this single-minded greed that has sucked the life out of money for people to earn and make a living off of.
I have to concur with Tom , I believe his analysis of the situation is informed and realistic . I wish the majority of my fellow Americans were like the commenters here , unfortunately I don’t believe that to be the case . What I don’t like is the vilification of Hilliary , sell-out , liar , etc . While she is more establishment than Bernie ,she is headed in the right direction, but if anybody thinks that any candidate can restructure capitalism within the next four years , all I can say is , if you know how that can be achieved , you need to be running for the office. By the way Tom , I am glad you are running for office.
The only reason Hillary is “headed in the right direction” is because Sanders has put her on the defensive over and over. She was for the Canadian pipeline, she has just recently backed off from her support of the TPP (and how do we know that she won’t sell us out and push for it, just like Obama has done), and she was quiet about other policies important to the middle/lower classes until Bernie pushed her. The one thing about Hillary for anyone who has followed her is that we can’t trust her. I don’t know who backs the dems who have run for office since Reagan, but except for Bill Clinton’s first term, we have had to choose people who have leaned to the right to win. Except Obama, and he sounded too liberal to be true, and he wasn’t. Bernie deserves this chance, and so does this nation.
Wow, Thomas, your well-reasoned essay in support of Clinton over Sanders appears to have fallen on deaf ears from Bernie’s hardcore supporters. They appear unalterably opposed to Hillary’s candidacy. Seems those who support Bernie are just as emotional and irrational as Trump’s minions.
There is no doubt that Hillary will win the Democrat nomination, but many Sanders’ followers are in denial at this point in the process. How can you be sure they will come around to vote for Hillary next November? The young college age crowd is much more likely to sit out they election if Bernie is not treated more respectively by the Democrat establishment.
If Sanders losing is the will of the American people then so be it. However, the voter fraud and theft at the ballot box committed by the Clinton campaign is unethical and totally unacceptable in a real Democracy. I am unwilling to lose my voting rights to anyone.
While I find Mills opinions well-written, they clearly are not well-reasoned. One cannot bemoan that our political system is “broken” and “rigged” and then over and over again endorse one of the breakers and riggers. Hillary is certainly in that camp!
I am not one of “the young college-age crowd” and, as a septuagenarian don’t consider myself “as emotional or irrational” as so many of Trump’s followers. Nor will I withhold my support from the Democratic nominee, even if it is Clinton. But just like Ebrun, I would hope the Democratic establishment …including Thomas Mills…treat Bernie Sanders with respect and fairness.
Well, Thomas, you kind of showed us your cards in the last article when you acknowledged that the system is rigged and it’s okay with you. Reminds me of Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman saying “What, me worry?”
Not very inspiring, I’m afraid.
Sorry, but that kind of “moderation” isn’t the middle the voters want to find and I don’t think you’ll get much traction in a political campaign in 2016 by unabashedly buying into the corruption. It is a perfect fit, however, with the Clinton campaign. Good luck with that one.
Hillary is more interested in preserving the power of Wall Street than in forwarding the Progressive agenda. The two are mutually exclusive, no matter how much Hillary pretends otherwise.
If Capitalism is going to survive, then the process of financialization must be reversed. We can have Capitalism, or we can have a transcendently powerful Wall Street, but we cannot have both.
Hillary is incapable of acknowledging this reality, let alone dealing with it.
In the arena of analogies – Trump is FDR, the patrician rebel; Sanders is LBJ, trying to do the right thing; and Clinton is Hoover, with no new agenda, just letting “the process play out”.
Mills flits to and fro, wanting more progressiveness and instantly fearful to let go the hand of the neoliberals and Democrat chicken hawks. Upper class Democrats (i.e. rich folks and Lillian’s folks) from the reactionary faction (Hunt et al) have long determined to control the Party and instead have essentially killed it off, leaving a shell with some struggling folks who do not have a fundamental clue what to do or where to go — Mills has been a cheerleader for these bluedogs and centrists, none of whom give one flying damn about the “people” and committed to providing solace for the massive losses of the part 10-12 years to people who did not deserve office in first place. It is not going to turn out well at all! And now there seems to be evidence that NCDP folks have worked to favor certain national candidates, Clinton and work against Sanders — on purpose. That would square with the conduct I have come to expect from the crowd in the white barn in Raleigh. So, Mills, enjoy your spoils and quit whining – you chose sides and you will lose. Just quit whining and acting like you are a progressive or liberal – you will never be – just a spoiled white guy.
Some recent General Election Polls (from Real Clear Politics):
Trump vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 53, Trump 41 (Clinton +12)
Trump vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 58, Trump 38 (Sanders +20)
Cruz vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Clinton 48, Cruz 48 (Tie)
Cruz vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 55, Cruz 42 (Sanders +13)
Kasich vs. Clinton CNN/ORC Kasich 51, Clinton 45 (Kasich +6)
Kasich vs. Sanders CNN/ORC Sanders 51, Kasich 45 (Sanders +6)
Trump vs. Clinton CBS/NYT Clinton 50, Trump 40 (Clinton +10)
Trump vs. Sanders CBS/NYT Sanders 53, Trump 38 (Sanders +15)
Mr Mills, I believe you have “drank the Kool Aid”. How can we fix a broken system by someone who is big player in that system and whose campaign is funded by the very people who want to keep it “broken”? The old expression about the Fox minding the hen house applies here. I can only think that you have bought the very system you have observed isn’t working for the people as the truth.
As I’ve written before, Mr. Mills is self-righteous in his defense of Clinton and her overwhelming ties to Wall Street. He is also two-faced in agreeing with Sanders that our political system is broken while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that Clinton is party to the very problems in the system he also denounces. There is nothing approaching “progressive” in such a stance!
I don’t think Hillary is a reformer. She followed Bush into the Iraq war. If Sanders wasn’t forcing the issue, would she even think about reform?
If Sanders were the Democratic candidate, this would indeed be “the year of the outsider in the general election” because outsiders would be all that is left.
More importantly, you are discounting the unreasonable enmity many people feel for Hillary Clinton. I know at least one person (not me) who is otherwise rational who would vote for Sanders over Trump but would vote for Trump over Clinton. I know no one who has said he or she would vote for Clinton over Trump but Trump over Sanders. I imagine there are some anti-Semitic people who would fall in that category, but I haven’t heard them say so.
Sanders is a stronger candidate against Trump than Clinton is because Sanders would get more votes than Clinton would. The people who would vote for Clinton over Trump would also vote for Sanders over Trump but the reverse isn’t universally true. Sanders would get out more of the vote. Many Sanders supporters either won’t vote if Clinton is the nominee or will vote for a third-party candidate. Consequently, Sanders would have more votes for him than Clinton would have for her in the general election.
Of course, I am discounting the female factor. If Republican women would secretly vote for Clinton over Trump then my analysis is badly flawed.
No way will Clinton end up with 60% of the primary vote. In addition Sanders trails her by 4% in national polls. In addition your article is not timely as Sanders won two out of three last night and will win the next four straight. Further Sanders beats all Republican candidates in the general election far worse than Clinton. Clintonites like you want Sanders to fold. Why? He can still win. That is a far more piercing question than who is more centrist.
Absolutely true. The main challenge Bernie has is negative reporting. It isn’t Hillary or Trump, it’s the “sold out” press following the money. The numbers don’t add up. How could they call an election with only 15% of the results in and thousands of people still on line waiting to vote only to be told their registration is flawed??? They were given provisional ballots counted by who?
Fraud rings loud and true throughout the Clinton campaign. There are eye witnesses to bear this out should you bother to be a real reporter of the news and take his further.
Thank you.
IMHO, the Democratic Party, while light years better than the GOP, has lost its nerve when it comes to its treatment of its two candidates. The party has adopted a “play it safe,” go with the pragmatic and predictable Clinton versus Sanders who personifies what the Democratic Party SHOULD be all about. Our country cannot go where we NEED to go in the time we have to get there without a visionary leader. “Incrementalism” makes sense when things are going well; when things are not going well, we need someone with the courage AND the vision to plot a new course. The party does not seem to grasp this fact.
Amen. Very well said. Our party lost it’s way during Bill Clinton’ second term.
Thomas, as a candidate himself, is reaping the whirlwind for endorsing another candidate opposed in the primary. While he knows that this is a bad tactic, he justifies his actions by the need to keep controversy going in his blog. It is a bad decision if he expects losing party members to support him in November.