Who is more electable??

Dear Friends,

One of the arguments I hear all the time about why I should support Secretary Clinton instead of Senator Sanders is that she can win the general election and he cannot.  I disagree with that argument.  In fact I think a very strong case can be made that Senator Sanders can win and that Secretary Clinton cannot win.

While the polls are not the best way to analyze who is more electable, they do provide some insights. Real Clear Politics provides a very helpful service in compiling all the major polls.  I strongly recommend that you visit their website (here) because the information is very interesting and available in lots of formats.  In the average of the polls they follow for March through the 22nd, here are some interesting averages,

Clinton beats Trump on average by 11.2 percentage points
Sanders beats Trump on average by 17.5 percentage points
In both cases, the spread increased in March.

But it is also important to consider what happens if the stop Trump movement is successful.
Clinton beats Cruz on average by 2.9 percentage points (well within the margin of error)
Sanders beats Cruz on average by 8.4 percentage points
Whereas Clinton's lead over Cruz has dropped during 2016, Sanders' lead over Cruz has widened considerably.

With respect to the Democratic nomination, the average of the polls in March so far give Clinton a 9 percentage point lead over Sanders but that is down from 24 percentage points at the beginning of 2016.

The truth is that the more people find out about Senator Sanders, and the more they hear and understand his message, the more popular he is and the better he does against all other candidates, Democratic and Republican.  In addition, Senator Sanders is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating.  According to the averages on Real Clear Politics for March, here are the results:

Sanders      Favorable  48.7%  Unfavorable  41.3%   +7.4
Clinton       Favorable  40.7%  Unfavorable  53.9%  -13.2
Cruz           Favorable  33.4%  Unfavorable  51.0%  -17.6
Trump        Favorable  30.4%  Unfavorable  63.2%  -32.8

The latest polls indicate that perhaps Donald Trump is beginning to lose ground, but we have heard that before, so who knows.  Also the latest Democratic nomination poll shows Sanders ahead of Clinton by 1 percentage point.  The daily and weekly variations among polls should not receive too much weight but the overall direction is important.  Also so far in this election cycle, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders tend to out perform the polls.

So if you believe in polls, it is clear that Bernie Sanders is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has won 14 states by more than 1 percentage point and 4 by 1 percentage point or less.  Nine of the 14 states are very red states.  Trump has won 12 of those states as well, and all but 3 of those states are very red states.  The only two states that Trump has not won that Clinton won were Texas (home of Cruz) and Ohio (home of Kasich).  So the states where Clinton performs well are states that have been won by Trump and are overwhelmingly red states.  So it is impossible to say that Clinton has demonstrated that she can win against Trump based on her current performance.

Sanders has won 11 states.  Of those states, the Republicans have not yet had a primary/caucus in 2 of them.  In the nine states that have voted, Cruz has won 5, Trump has won 3 and Rubio won 1.  Six of the 11 states that Sanders won went for Obama in 2012, 2 of which are on the list of the closest races in 2012.  The results so far suggest that Sanders would win the traditionally blue states and be apt to win the close states that went for Obama last time.  If anything, this analysis says that Sanders has a better chance of winning the general election than Clinton does, but the analysis is far from certain.

There is a lot of talk about Sanders supporters who say they will vote for Trump rather than Clinton if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.  Clinton supporters attribute this position to the privilege of those Sanders supporters.  This allegation is yet another example of Clinton supporters and others in the "Establishment" not understanding the anti-establishment sentiment that exists in this country.

For the last 30 years at least, the middle class has lost ground while the rich and powerful have gained incredible wealth and power.  Many Sanders supporters are active in the political process today because they are tired of the status quo and are appalled at the inequality, in all respects, in this country.  They did not become involved to fight for a Democrat or a Republican.  They became involved to get rid of the "Establishment" and make big changes to the status quo.

It is not showing white privilege or any other kind of privilege for these voters to say that the most important thing is to get rid of the status quo.  These voters will not vote for Clinton because she represents the Democratic Establishment.  They might vote for Trump just to get rid of the "Establishment" or they might just drop out of politics.   I disagree with that approach and will most certainly vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, but to tell those voters that they are rejecting Clinton because of their privilege is not only wrong, it is stupid and offensive, particularly if you want their vote.

I believe the reason that Sanders does better against Trump and Cruz than Clinton does is that these voters will stay involved and vote for Sanders rather than either Trump or Cruz.  If, however, their choice is Clinton or either terrible Trump or Cruz, they will either vote for the terrible person or they will just drop out.  This result will be even more certain if Clinton wins the nomination and then moves to the right during the general election campaign.  Certainly her history of positions suggests that she has only moved left because of pressure from the success of the Sanders campaign.  If she wins the nomination, moves to the right and continues to denigrate Sanders supporters by calling them uninformed, sexist, naive and now privileged, she will surely lose their support and votes.

Neither Trump nor Cruz is actually crazy.  They are fighting for the Republican nomination now.  They will run a different race once they get the nomination.  Cruz is an ideologue who will have trouble changing his positions but can probably change his demeanor.  Trump has no scruples so he will change to whatever he thinks will win.  He will certainly try to become less awful as a general election candidate and who knows what positions he will take.  He might even try to make himself look normal, as difficult as that is to believe right now.  If he does that, Clinton will have an even more difficult time defeating him because she will sound like the pot calling the kettle black if she criticizes Trump for changing positions. Sanders, on the other hand, has not changed his positions and  will be able to call Trump on his change in positions without fear of hearing the same back.

The nomination of the Democratic candidate for President is a long way off and much can change.  While it is true that Senator Sanders has an uphill battle, that has always been the case.  The Democratic Establishment, the media, the elites and the general establishment are all against him, but together we can overcome all of that and have a Presidential nominee and a President that will change this country and who will make us proud.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal

Racism

Dear Friends,

We hear a lot about institutional racism in the United States, but it is primarily in connection with the racism against minorities in the United States.  Every time there is a terrorist attack somewhere in the world, I am reminded of how deep, broad and insidious racism is in the United States.  Of course a terrorist attack in the United States gets our full attention for days on end.  A terrorist attack in Europe also gets our full attention for days.  But as this cartoon I saw in the Minneapolis StarTribune this morning illustrates, terrorist attacks in other places (read places where the majority of the population is not white) get very little media coverage.

I was struck by this headline on the PRI website today (here), "Since Paris, there have been hundreds of terrorist attacks — many that have gone unnoticed".  Even the headline is rather racist, because I am quite sure those attacks were noticed where they occurred. The article shows a map of almost 20 major attacks and specifically lists 11 after the Paris attacks in November but before the Brussels attacks.  I am embarrassed to admit that I really did not know anything about these attacks other than the one in San Bernardino.

It is not just the media who demonstrate their racism by the coverage (or lack thereof) of terrorist attacks, it is our own politicians.  After the Brussels attacks, President Obama and all of the candidates for President in both parties made statements of solidarity with the people of Belgium.  I do not recall seeing any similar statements about the others on this list except for San Bernardino.

Only when we see all people as human, understand our similarities and celebrate our differences will the world be free of racism.  For now, a start would be to treat all terrorist attacks the same way we treat those against primarily white populations.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal