Here
and
Now

opinions

Why Bernie Sanders can win the White House

36 Comments

Is Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) electable? As Sanders has surged in the polls, supporters of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are issuing increasingly dire warnings about his general election prospects.

On websites like Vox, many political scientists agree: He can't win. Millions of dollars in Republican ads, they insist, will paint him a socialist or a red. Americans aren't about to elect a Jewish socialist who still hasn't lost his Brooklyn accent.

It will be a debacle, critics predict, like Democratic Senator George McGovern's crushing 1972 loss, when the Democrats lost 48 states, or Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, buried by President Lyndon B Johnson's stunning landslide in 1964. It will set progressives back for decades.

Ironically, as Sanders rises in the polls and does better than expected, the alarms grow in volume and intensity. It verges on oxymoronic for Clinton and the party establishment to scorn as unelectable a candidate who is beating her at the ballot box.

Insurgent candidates face forbidding odds - but they don't always lose. In 1980, establishment Republicans issued much the same warnings about former California Governor Ronald Reagan, asserting he would be Goldwater redux. Moderate Republican John Anderson went so far as to mount a third party bid against him.

Reagan not only won, he led a re-alignment election. Republicans took control of the Senate, and launched, in Barack Obama's words, a transformative presidency that marked the end of the New Deal coalition and the beginning of the conservative era. (In 1984, Walter Mondale lost 49 states to incumbent President Reagan).

President Richard M Nixon and then Reagan built the conservative Republican majority coalition by splitting off so-called Reagan Democrats - largely white, disproportionately Southern, working-class men - from the Democratic Party. The GOP attracted these voters with talk of God, guns and skillful use of race-baiting politics, while waging a culture war against gays and women.

Sanders similarly may have the potential to expand the Democratic majority coalition by attracting blue-collar, white male voters back into the Democratic Party.

As Donald Trump's rise in the 2016 Republican primaries has shown, these blue-collar white male voters are restive. Trump has garnered significant support with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim diatribes. But he's also echoed Sanders by scorning the corruption of U.S. electoral politics, failed U.S. trade policies and endless wars without victory.

Sanders's passionate populism may gain him a hearing from these voters and potentially forge a far broader electoral majority coalition for Democrats.

Predicting whether Sanders is a Reagan or a Goldwater isn't easy. Polls that show him doing well in match-ups against potential Republican nominees are virtually meaningless. Sanders hasn't even introduced himself to most Americans and the Republican assault on him hasn't begun.

The assumption that he wins the nomination - against Clinton, who enjoys universal name recognition, the support of virtually the entire Democratic establishment, the best party operatives and all the money in the world - posits a stunning political rise. It would mean that Sanders makes significant inroads among minority voters, sustains the enthusiasm of the young and consolidates his support among middle- and lower-income Democrats.

As Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist from Emory University, has wisely noted, the fears of a Sanders electoral debacle may be overdone simply because the electorate is far more polarized now than when McGovern and Goldwater ran. The harsh negative partisanship of U.S. politics, the growth of segmented media and the rise of social media have all helped consolidate more ideologically cohesive voting blocks.

A Clinton candidacy, for example, will mobilize the Republican right, which loathes her nearly as much as they do Obama. The Republican nominee is most likely to push an extreme right-wing agenda that will help unify and mobilize the Democratic base, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.

The question of electability is generally a comparative one: Is Sanders more or less electable than Clinton? There's a natural tendency to assume that Clinton, the more moderate and experienced candidate, is presumptively more viable. But while Sanders has clear vulnerabilities, so does Clinton. She is burdened with significant baggage - Wall Street money, the smarmy Clinton Foundation fundraising, the email mess and more. Sanders has been the most courtly of opponents, but Republican attacks are and will be incessant and poisonous. Polls indicate Clinton already faces troubling doubts about her honesty.

Democrats go into the 2016 election cycle confident that they have a majority coalition: the young, people of color, unmarried women, and liberal professionals. If they show up in large numbers at the polls. Already, polls report an alarming "enthusiasm gap" between Democratic and Republican voters. Sanders has clearly electrified young people, whereas Clinton has not. Sanders won voters aged 17 to 29 by an astounding 84% to 14% in Iowa, and he enjoyed a similar margin in New Hampshire.

This is a troubling time, particularly for this new Democratic majority. The nation is still struggling to recover from what Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has begun calling the "long depression." Young people find themselves burdened with college debt, struggling with lousy job opportunities, inheriting a world of ceaseless war and catastrophic climate change. With wages stagnant and jobs insecure, Americans fear losing ground.

The alarming spread of drugs, suicide and declining life expectancy among white working-class men is only one measure of the scope of dismay. Growing movements - Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, the young Latino Dreamers, the "Fight for $15" campaign (referring to the hourly minimum wage) - reflect the growing demand for change. The hopes roused by Obama's historic election have largely run aground on Republican obstruction.

In this context, Sanders offers a clear and passionate vision. He indicts an economy rigged by and for the few, and a politics corrupted by big money. His calls for fundamental reforms: Medicare for all, tuition-free public college, a $15 minimum wage, fair taxes on the rich, breaking up big banks, remaking U.S. trade policies and meeting the challenge of climate change. He summons a "political revolution," of millions of people standing up to push politicians to respond. Sanders has walked the walk - funding his campaign with literally millions of small donations, spurning the creation of Super PACs to collect large and dark contributions from the wealthy and corporations.

Clinton dismisses Sanders's agenda as unrealistic. Former President Bill Clinton scorns it as a "cartoon." She's made herself the candidate of continuity by defending Obama's reforms, drawing distinctions mostly by being more hawkish on foreign policy. Hillary Clinton argues that progress can only come one step at a time - reaching out and seeking to find "slivers" of common ground with Republicans. She touts her experience and her skill at negotiating in back rooms to make progress.

In face of the Sanders challenge, Clinton increasingly sounded like the "No We Can't" candidate. As New York Times op-ed columnist Charles Blow, among many others, has argued, she has yet to show that she has a vision that can provide hope and inspiration and can mobilize voters. Yes, electing the first woman president would be historic - but thus far it has not been enough.

This is also a battle over what the Democratic coalition looks like, who Democrats are and whom they fight for. Clinton seeks to consolidate the current arrangement - collecting upscale professionals repelled by Republican social conservatism and linking them with unmarried women, people of color and the young. With financing from Hollywood, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, the party leads with its social liberalism linked to an established moderate economics. What Bill Clinton's New Democrats once worried were damaging wedge issues now play in Democrats favor.

Sanders seeks to consolidate a coalition based upon his core economic and political populism, without abandoning social liberalism. He recognizes that single women, people of color and the young are united largely by their need for fundamental economic and political reforms. The authenticity of his appeal - his willingness to call out America's rigged economy and corrupted politics - give him the possibility of reaching into the white blue-collar workers, who Trump has already shown are shunning establishment Republicans.

Hillary Clinton, of course, remains the prohibitive favorite to win the 2016 Democratic nomination. The argument about Sanders viability is, in some ways, a distraction. She has to show that she is viable electorally by laying out a vision and agenda that rouse energy among the Democratic base. If she does that, she could provide the best proof of Sanders' lack of viability by beating him.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Anybody that believably promises free stuff to everybody is going to get elected.

UNLESS the elections are rigged.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

UNLESS the elections are rigged.

Or unless the people aren't that stupid. There is no such thing as a free ride. Bernie will promise to tax the rich to buy votes from the poor. But then the rich will leave, as they have been doing, and the poor will see jobs, wages disappear, and prices go up. In the end, the poor will end up paying for Bernie's promises. But buy that time, Bernie will have served his terms, and built his library.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

If Hillary beats Bernie in the primaries, the general election is going to be a lot closer even if Trump wins the GOP primaries.

I'd vote for Bernie over Trump, but if both Hillary and Trump win their primaries I'd have to vote for 'neither'.

gaijinfo: UNLESS the elections are rigged.

Hillary's side already rigged some of the calls in the Iowa elections.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/02/new-details-revealed-about-alleged-clinton-campaign-voter-fraud-recount-now-possible-00767655.html

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If given the choice between Sanders and Trump, will have to choose Trump. Frankly it's a choice between which one is the lesser evil but will have to choose the one that'll stop taking my money to give to those that are not deserving.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

will have to choose the one that'll stop taking my money to give to those that are not deserving.

You're a millionaire?

4 ( +8 / -5 )

Let's not forget that Hillary tried this exact same trick with Obama, trying to cast him as the unrealistic choice even as it was obvious to everyone other than the Hillary Campaign that he was going to win the Democratic nod. It appears she thinks she's entitled to the White House, which is why her campaign is mysteriously connected to these lies about Bernie supporters: "real feminists must support the woman over any male candidate, women who support Bernie are just doing it to impress boys."

Of course, no one in the campaign has said any of these things in an official capacity. Just like her previous campaign's comments about Obama.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

We cant judge on Bernie unless he got a chance to make his promises real.He deserves having a chance.Hilary plays on being first woman president,it maybe historic,exciting,but for sure not enough to win presidency.Am not worried at all from Trump.He wont win,neither against Hilary,nor Sanders.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Democrats have almost no chance. After nearly 10 miserable years of Democrat caused misery, mistakes, wars started and the prophet Obama throwing the Democrats under the bus, all Republicans need to do is show up.

The Democrats are following the Obama disaster by anointing a bribe taking felon and a Marxist. If somehow Bernie beats Hillary there is no way Bernie will win the general election. Doing Obama on track Marxist steroids is not going to win anything.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

After nearly 10 miserable years of Democrat caused misery, mistakes, wars started and the prophet Obama throwing the Democrats under the bus, all Republicans need to do is show up.

And yet all polls show both Hillary and Bernie beating the main GOP candidate in the election.

If somehow Bernie beats Hillary there is no way Bernie will win the general election.

See above.

Seems that the Republicans need to do a little more than showing up. Some suggestions:

1) Drop the war against Mexicans

2) Drop the war against Muslims

3) Drop the war against Women

4) Drop the war against poor people

5) Drop the war against health care

6) Drop wars

7 ( +11 / -5 )

After nearly 10 miserable years of Democrat caused misery, mistakes, wars started and the prophet Obama throwing the Democrats under the bus, all Republicans need to do is show up.

You mean "misery" like ...

... taking an economy on the brink of collapse and turning it into one of the strongest in the world (unemployment rate when Obama was elected in 2008 - 7.1%; unemployment rate last month - 4.9%; +7.9 million jobs as of July 2015; S & P 500 at +177%, etc, etc.

... ending two wars (in Iraq and Afghanistan)

... Affordable Health Care Act (number of uninsured Americans dropped from 18% to 12.3% (11 million more adults now have insurance); projected savings over 15 years - $231 Billion

... sweeping financial industry reforms

... I could go on and on ....

3 ( +6 / -3 )

And yet all polls show both Hillary and Bernie beating the main GOP candidate in the election.

You mean the same polls which said Hillary would beat Sanders signincantly in Iowa and New Hampshire? Pardon me whilst I laugh my backside off.

Hillary and her supporters live in a dreamland where they believe she is loved and respected. In truth, Hillary is probably one of the most disliked women in America. That Sanders has beaten her in the first two primaries is not surprising at all to me. And the more people get to know Hillary, the more they are going to dislike her.

It looks like Hillary is getting the one-two punch that she got in the 2008 primaries, which was stolen from her by Obama. A facsimile of Obama's machine is behind Sanders, hence his early wins, despite polls to the contrary. The only thing I can give Hillary credit for is not being so dishonest as to try to pull the same trick. (For those who don't know what I am talking about, google the documentary "we will not be silenced 2008).

But Sanders' supporters are also living in a dreamland. Sanders will be 75 or so by election day, and most garden-variety democrats are not socialists, and not likely to come to the polls to support a socialist candidate. Bernie can try to tone down his rhetoric, but his opponents will replay every word he has said in his career. Were he to win, he would be commander-in-chief of an armed forces in which he would be considered too old to work at any level. True, bleeding-heart liberals will come out in droves to vote for him, but most democrats are not bleeding-heart liberals.

The election is for the republicans to lose, that fact is apparent when you look at how many candidates there are representing either party. The democrats have only two viable candidates; the most disliked woman in America, and a 74 year old socialist. Few other candidates are bothering to run for the democrat nomination because they see their chances of winning as too slim, and so do the financial powers-that-be.

On the other hand, we still have 5 candidates running on the republican side. They know which side is likely to win, and so do those who have the money.

The voters have a few questions and concerns to think about. America is now how many years into a recovery? A recovery which has seen a record number of people on welfare, a record number of people in part-time minimum wage, and a net workforce participation rate of under 63%, despite the garbage unemployment numbers put out by the administration. Racial tensions are higher than since the the 70's. Those who come out to vote are not going to be supporting the status-quo, in which many are still hurting. Hillary and Sanders are considered part of the current ruling party, fair or not, and the voters will likely not see either as agents of change.

The headline of the article says "can win", which means nothing. Hillary "can" win, Trump "can" win, another candidate "can" win. Any article which begins with "can", "may", or "could" is nothing but supposition and wishful thinking.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Well no, not really. For months everyone has been saying Bernie can't win. The article title is in response to that - yes he can.

I'll be quite surprised if he doesn't.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I love how the liberal readers here down vote comments which accurately reflect REALITY, but which they find politically inconvenient! How convenient! ("I don't agree, so I'll close my eyes to what is and keep dreaming what should be...")

Anyone reading the papers post-New Hampshire knows that the Clinton attack squad is now out in force, attacking Bernie for his pro-gun votes and for "not being there" for African Americans. How could one "progressive" be so cruel to another, when all either want to do is to build upon Obama's already wonderful Utopia where the new normal is best summed up in the liberal mantra: "Live (FOR) Free Or Die!?" Well, it's the Clintons we're talking about here.

Here come the "progressive" quotes which will kill Sanders in the end: White House Press Secretary Jay Carney: "I think the president has signaled while still remaining neutral that he supports Secretary Clinton's candidacy and would prefer to see her as the nominee."

From the Congressional Black Caucus: "It’s one thing to endorse (Clinton) and do nothing. It’s another thing to endorse and to go to work,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), chairman of the CBC PAC. The CBC plans to formally endorse Clinton for president, then disperse its African-American lawmakers to states where black voters are crucial, particularly in South Carolina’s Democratic primary on Feb. 27.

Meanwhile, "Hillary Clinton surrogates on Wednesday bashed Bernie Sanders as "absent" from the African-American community as the campaign looks to pivot away from a resounding defeat in New Hampshire. 'It’s good to have new friends but I would prefer to have TRUE friends,' Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters. 'Hillary Clinton has been a TRUE friend to the African-American community for more than 40 years. During that same period of time, Bernie Sanders has been largely 'MISSING IN ACTION.' Jeffries was joined by South Carolina Minority Leader J. Todd Rutherford, who announced his endorsement of Clinton on Wednesday."

How does Sanders respond to the increasingly vitriolic attacks from Kamp Klinton? By ignoring them-a noble if ultimately deadly campaign strategy. Hillary's playing hard ball, and by smashing Sanders in South Carolina and Nevada, she'll steal his thunder before Super Tuesday (which heavily focuses on southern states noted for their support of the Clinton family.) Bernie does has enough money and supporters of the "Live FOR Free or DIE" mantra to go the distance to the convention and be a thorn in her side, but I think we'll see a probable break out of support for Clinton, despite the wishes of all the down-voting Sanders supporters here at JT! Watch....

0 ( +4 / -3 )

Robert L Borosage advocating Bernie Sanders credibility is a wet liberalist scam.

This is the politics that lurks behind the cowardice of socialism. At it's toxic core, lurks pure envy. The qualitative definable difference is the so called rich, middle classes are punitively taxed for no other reason than to smother the life, drive, effort, skills of hard working poor to better themselves!! Ultimately the poor become poorer....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ultimately the poor become poorer....

You realize that the US has a ridiculously huge income disparity between the rich and poor, right? And that socialist countries don't have nearly the same disparity.

It amazes me how Americans right-wingers can make these blanket statements completely blind to how the world actually works.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Hi Strangerland, my only experience of the theory behind 'socialism' I believe Robert L Borosage and Bernie Sanders iare advocating, a throw back to the '80' is a Robert Shuman lecture, 'Southern European Socialism in the 1980s'....

http://www.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/EVENTS/events/2014/14-12-5-6-Florence-Conference.aspx

I feel, probably naively, that this gulf huge income disparity between the rich and poor, first and foremost can only start to be rectified through raising the aspirations/social mobility of the bottom 15%...Equal access to quality higher education. This idea/theory that governments can appease an impoverished generation by increasing the minimum wage is an illusion, contemptuous. My opinion of Mr Sanders is disparaging even though his heart may be in the right place.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Bernie Sanders is fine, but we need someone like Hillary to put all that aspiration into operation, and make that idealism realism !

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"This is the politics that lurks behind the cowardice of socialism. At it's toxic core, lurks pure envy."

Yawn. We aren't children here and don't need a childish lesson. On the one hand the rightists bring up the so predictable politics of envy and then go on to lambast the rich, 'Chardonnay-drinking socialists' as having the politics of the cool.

Why are some people so against the idea that a civilised country should have politicians who reflect diversity of opinion? Bernie Sanders reflects the views of many who haven't had too many too look to.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I feel, probably naively, that this gulf huge income disparity between the rich and poor, first and foremost can only start to be rectified through raising the aspirations/social mobility of the bottom 15%...Equal access to quality higher education.

You mean... through socialist movements?

This idea/theory that governments can appease an impoverished generation by increasing the minimum wage is an illusion, contemptuous.

It has nothing to do with appeasement, and everything to do with raising the overall quality of life for society. Who wants to live around a bunch of people who can't afford to survive, and have to resort to begging or crime, or just be impoverished, because they can't afford to live on their wages?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Ok fair enough Jimizo, evoking a 'sin', excuse my labored overused cliche, irritatingly childish imaybe, none the less, the inescapable part of modern society aspiration to raise the minimum wage is governments failure to address inequality.

Bernie Sanders offers the same sweeping, health, pension and benefit promises that Southern European states could not keep.

The theory that societies production must be evenly distributed, is the Greek conundrum. Little economic incentive to produce anything. That is ECB and the German Finance Minster harsh observation. Provoked the ultimate public humiliation, total economic capitulation of an entire nation state.

Basically Sanders populist rhetorical requiem is the same failed policy.

Hi Strangerland, I can relate politically to the socialist movements aspirations for equality in education, as well as a safety net to tackle impoverishment. Opportunity to a skilled trades training fund could help elevate low wages, that is not the total answer though.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

sangetsu: The only thing I can give Hillary credit for is not being so dishonest as to try to pull the same trick. (For those who don't know what I am talking about, google the documentary "we will not be silenced 2008). - See more at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/why-bernie-sanders-can-win-the-white-house#comment_2142957

It looks like she learned from it as a Clintonites were rigging the caucuses in Iowa last week.

There's nothing to say she didn't try the same back in 2008, either. The people composing 'We Will Not Be Silenced' may have been biased in her favor and unmotivated to look for fraud by her campaign.

http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/02/new-details-revealed-about-alleged-clinton-campaign-voter-fraud-recount-now-possible-00767655.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There's nothing to say she didn't try the same back in 2008, either. The people composing 'We Will Not Be Silenced' may have been biased in her favor and unmotivated to look for fraud by her campaign.

As an independent, I supported Hillary in 2000. I have never been a fan of hers, but Obama was weak amd inexperienced, and didn't have the necessary strength of character to be a good leader, he still doesn't. And there was no way I could support the likes of McCain and Palin.

Fraud always occurs in caucuses on both sides, it always has, but never to the extent which practiced by Obama's campaign. He likely knew little of what was going on, being painfully naive of life in the real world, but it did occur.

As I am still an independent, I can vote however I like. My anti-establishment vote will not go to Sanders; everything he so far plans to do will give the establishment even more money and power. I can no longer support Hillary, she is a compulsive liar, and egomaniac. So this time my support will go to the other side.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

First, let us be clear: Sanders has an uphill battle to win the Democratic primary. I'd say, at his point, he has a 15% chance of doing it. It is really an educated guess. Polling data is weak for Nevada and South Carolina. The betting markets I have grown to trust, which do a good job of 'predicting' the outcomes based on the moment, have him at 18% chance to win. We really have to wait until we see what happens in South Carolina.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, to win against HRC, Sanders must broaden his appeal beyond whites. It is that simple. So far, he has yet to do that.

South Carolina will give us a lot more insight into whether he can.

OK, that said, here are IMO the two reasons why Sanders can win the general:

Many Americans are not satisfied with the way things are going, and Sanders speaks to their concerns in a honest and convincing way.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Top two reasons why Sanders can't win the general:

He's a soshalist. Supposedly, this is a strike against him. The funny think, that is a feature of his, and not a bug. About half of Americans say they wouldnt' vote for a soshalist. I think, after hearing Sanders articulation of what that means in their lives, that number will go way down. So, heh, that ain't it.

Here one reason:

80% of Americans say they would not vote for an Atheist. Maybe that is true. If so, Sanders maybe has a problem. He says he believes in god, but is a secular Jew who is "not that into" organized religion. He never prays, and never beseeches the creator of the universe to take an interest in our affairs. [I like him for that. A lot] So, although he denies it, I think we all know he is an atheist. He will have to start throwing in God Bless America for the to appease the kindergartners, and I think he will, to get elected. But part of me hopes he comes out and admits it.

And the real reason why he will have a hard time winning the presidency: He is against Big Money and their bought politicians. BIg Money will pull out all stops to put a stop to this wiled eyed coot and his ca-razy ways. AMERICA!!!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt) is likely the best choice for Americans. Possessing a seriously clear minded analysis of where America is and where it needs to be, Sanders is also too far ahead in his goals but that does not make them unworthy or impossible.

Madame Clinton has attained the rare distinction that only uniquely intelligent and driven people attain. Madame Clinton is likely running as much to win as continue her devotion to raising women to equal status and opportunity.

Would Americans be poorly served by a Clinton-Sanders administration? Probably not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

About half of Americans say they wouldnt' vote for a soshalist

I've followed and liked sanders for over 15 years now, especially into the run-up of the 2nd Gulf war when he was the one of the few politicians who knew what was going on; the Big Lie. But even some on the left are still perpetuating the rights and Hilary's agenda by labeling him a socialist. Socialists don't believe in private property ownership. Sanders refers to himself as a democratic socialist, as should anyone who honestly supports him.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Socialists don't believe in private property ownership.

That's communism isn't it?

But I agree with your post.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

" don't believe in private property. "

Yep, Sanders is coming for your toothbrush. Be afraid. Be very afraid

0 ( +1 / -1 )

kcjapan: Madame Clinton has attained the rare distinction that only uniquely intelligent and driven people attain. Madame Clinton is likely running as much to win as continue her devotion to raising women to equal status and opportunity.

"Raising women to equal status and opportunity"?

Perpetrator in this case was a man, and victim was a 12-y-o girl. But why don't we hear about it?

http://freebeacon.com/politics/audio-hillary-clinton-speaks-of-defense-of-child-rapist-in-newly-unearthed-tapes/

(AUDIO) - Hillary Clinton Speaks of Defense of Child Rapist in Newly Unearthed Tapes - June 15, 2014

http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/08/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-apologize-for-laughing-about-12-year-old-rape-victim-she-maligned-in-court/

Hillary Clinton Refuses To Apologize For Laughing About 12-Year-Old Rape Victim She Maligned In Court - 07/08/2014

http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-tapes/

The Hillary Tapes - Clinton tells of defense of child rapist in newly unearthed recordings - June 15, 2014

... According to court documents, the prosecution’s case was based on testimony from the 12-year-old girl and the two male witnesses as well as on a “pair of men’s undershorts taken from the defendant herein.”

In a July 28, 1975, court affidavit, Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”

“I have also been told by an expert in child psychology that children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents in disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to exaggerate behavior,” Clinton said.

Clinton said the child had “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body” and that the girl “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

But the interview reveals that an error by the prosecution would render unnecessary these attacks on the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim. ...

“You know, what was sad about it,” Clinton told Reed, “was that the prosecutor had evidence, among which was [Taylor’s] underwear, which was bloody.”

Clinton wrote in Living History that she was able to win a plea deal for her client after she obtained forensic testimony that “cast doubt on the evidentiary value of semen and blood samples collected by the sheriff’s office.”

She did that by seizing on a missing link in the chain of evidence. According to Clinton’s interview, the prosecution lost track of its own forensic evidence after the testing was complete. ...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yep, Sanders is coming for your toothbrush. Be afraid. Be very afraid

A little shochu with your coffee this morning?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's communism isn't it?

Under Socialism is where the transfer from private to public ownership begins. It's a slow process(Marx). Communism is attained when all private property and businesses are controlled by the State, the final stage. That's one of the reasons why the Soviet Union experiment failed because Lenin/Stalin wanted to bypass Socialism ASAP and go straight to Communism.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

That doesn't really make sense though, socialism is not a transitory period, it's an economic/political philosophy. It may be between communism and capitalism, but it's not a transitory phase - it is what it is.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Well, that's my understanding. Marx's theory, basically, was that capitalism would eat itself and end up a communist state with socialism in between. How do you get there without transition?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Fizzbit

Marx's idea of the dictaorship of the proletariat isn't the same as democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders is careful to call himself a democratic socialist. In my country, the UK, these ideas were best expressed by people like Tony Benn who regarded democracy as the most radical idea in politics - the idea of those without power being given the power to remove a government without bloodshed. He famously called the idea of the utopian communist state an idea more suited to theological debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sanders is very clear of what he means when he calls himself a democratic socialist:

What they have in countries like Sweden.

Which has:

a strong regulation of industry, corporations and banks. Higher taxes on corporations, industry and banks

A strong societal commitment to equality of opportunity and a social safety net.

That it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

My take on, let's call it 'Sanders’s socialism', free higher education, comprehensive tax reform so the 'wealthy' make a so called 'fairer' contribution, political funding reform, increasing the minimum wage to reflect the relative cost of living matching private sector prevailing wage rates, and some form of universal health care system.

Theoretically a model of social justice. The system propping up this ideology, will be undermined by the basic deficiencies within policies of ridged inflexible central control of economic output begin to emerge. Tragically experienced in Europe, Ambitions/incentives under socialism are virtually nonexistent, the essence that shapes the economy of a nation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Jimizo

Marx's idea of the dictaorship of the proletariat isn't the same as democratic socialism

That's what I've been trying to say, but even some on the left still call him a socialist, and Clinton supporters will keep doing it, though I see Black sabby has seen the light.

Ambitions/incentives under socialism are virtually nonexistent, the essence that shapes the economy of a nation.

Socializing parts of the government at this point in the US is the only way. Big pharma, big medical and Wall Street have proven they are unable and unwilling to reform themselves and provide a service that the average consumer can afford. It's all about the shareholders. Obama caved and failed. Sanders won't, but he does have to fight the corporate media which is his biggest enemy.

Clinton dismisses Sanders’s agenda as unrealistic.

Of COURSE she does.....LOL

0 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites