The 2016 election is the most important in many years. The next president will make at least three Supreme Court appointments and thus affect the direction of the country for the foreseeable future. This is why the last person the Democrats should be considering is Hillary Clinton.
She is not very effective at campaigning. Some may disagree because she is sassy and delivers her soundbites well, but that is not what I mean by effective. I mean her capacity to rise in the polls via campaigning. She has never done it.
In her first race for the U.S. Senate in New York, she started with support from 58 percent or so, mostly due to her name recognition. She finished at exactly the same place. About the same thing happened in her Senate re-election
In 2008, she was leading Barack Obama by 40 points when the race began. We know how that ended.
Digital Access For Only $0.99
For the most comprehensive local coverage, subscribe today.
Come the 2016 election, she was leading Bernie Sanders by a substantial margin and 90 percent of her lead evaporated.
She also has the dubious honor of being the most untrustworthy politician in the country.
Despite endorsing her, Sanders is still seeking the nomination at the convention this week, giving Democrats the unusual opportunity of nominating a candidate who cannot lose the general election. Yet, everything indicates that they are preparing to nominate a much weaker candidate whose chance at victory is slim at best.
This is unprecedented in U.S. politics. The only explanation is that they fear so much the changes that Sanders will bring that they would rather risk losing the White House (to Trump of all people) than facing those changes.
The Democratic National Committee’s preference for an establishment candidate, when it has a real secure winner with Sanders, is even more surprising given that in 2016 people will vote for change.
They already have. During the primaries approximately 60 percent of voters voted for change. There is no reason to think it will be any different in the general election. In fact, there may be even more people voting for change in November because there were many independents who could not vote in the primaries. Clearly most of these independents will vote for change.
A vote for change is what happened in the Brexit. U.S. mainstream media construed it as the result of racism and xenophobia but in actuality the British people have endured austerity measures — defunding of education, health care and social services — to the point that they wanted that to end.
On occasions people may vote against their self interest. Exiting the EU may not have been what really worked best for the British people, but it was the only option for change they were given.
We may have the same situation in the U.S. Trump does not represent the change that people need but if he is the only option for change on the ballot, people may just do it. No matter how much the Democrats try to scare us with Trump, the people who have chosen change will not be deterred. The arrogance of the Democratic National Committee in telling people how to vote, instead of nominating a candidate people like, is sure to backfire on Election Day.
The Bernie or Bust movement is far stronger than the DNC cares to acknowledge. As Victor Hugo said in “Les Miserables”: “One cannot resist an idea whose time has come.”
Presenting an establishment candidate who embodies everything that people hate about politicians, in an election that will be decided by voters who want change is far more than foolhardy, it is suicidal.