It seems a consensus is building around Hillary Clinton.
Rolling Stone shares my concerns about "Feeling the Bern":
Anger is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope. Anger is too narrow to motivate a majority of voters, and it does not make a case for the ability and experience to govern. I believe that extreme economic inequality, the vast redistribution of wealth to the top one percent — indeed, to the top one percent of the one percent — is the defining issue of our times. Within that issue, almost all issues of social injustice can be seen, none more so than climate change, which can be boiled down to the rights of mankind against the oligarchy that owns oil, coal and vast holdings of dirty energy, and those who profit from their use.
And this:
When I consider what's in their hearts, I think both Clinton and Sanders come out on the side of the angels; but when I compare their achievements in the past decades, the choice is clear. This is not the time in history for a "protest vote."
Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders. The voters who have rallied to Sanders during the primaries are not enough to generate a Democratic majority in November. Clinton will certainly bring them along, and add them to the broad coalition that Democrats have put together in the past to take the presidency, as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
I continue to believe Bernie should stick with the run as long as he can. He's actually helping shape a clear message for the party and for Hillary...however time isn't on his side. Nor is the delegate count.
I am Frank Chow and I approved this message
2 comments:
This is plainly wrong:
"Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders. The voters who have rallied to Sanders during the primaries are not enough to generate a Democratic majority in November. Clinton will certainly bring them along, and add them to the broad coalition that Democrats have put together in the past to take the presidency, as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama."
If you look at the actual demographics of the voters that have been showing up and who they vote for, Sanders is the one who's got strong appeal among independents. Those independents aren't going to be easy for Clinton to appeal to in the general. To give a sense of what's flawed in his logic, which is more likely: that Clinton swings Texas or that Sanders swings Colorado and Michigan?
In the end though it probably doesn't matter. Clinton is likely to take the nomination and that will get solidified shortly after New York votes unless something dramatic happens. Then we can spend the next few months keeping our fingers crossed that the Republicans continue to be a shit show and that Clinton doesn't get indicted.
What makes you believe that Clinton would get indicted? If the GOP had something, they would've done something. They've been trying to destroy the Clintons for decades.
Post a Comment