Written by Tom Herman   

ARE DEMOCRATS OUT OF THEIR MINDS?
By Tom Herman

There is a deception of epic proportions abroad in this country. A secret is being carefully kept, though the truth is in plain view for anyone who cares to look. It is this: Bernie Sanders is the most popular and most electable candidate running for president. Virtually everything we read and hear speaks otherwise. But I would witness for reason in the face of vast disinformation.

I have no doubt there are many Democrats who admire Hillary Clinton and genuinely think she is the best candidate running for the presidency of the United States. But I also think a great many people are favoring her for spurious reasons which, if looked at rationally, would decrease her support tremendously. What I believe is happening is that Democrats are voting against their own best interests—often unknowingly—and, in many cases, even against the promptings of their hearts. My views are based on what I have read, on close following of polls and also on countless conversations with Democrats I meet as a volunteer for Bernie Sanders' campaign.

We are witnessing an interesting state of affairs. We have a Democrat (Bernie Sanders) who is beating all the Republican candidates in head to head polls. We have another Democrat (Hillary Clinton), who is faring less well, indeed is losing to some of the same Republicans. In the February 29 CNN poll, both candidates beat Trump—Hillary by 8 points, Bernie by 12 points. Against Cruz, Hillary loses by a point, while Bernie wins by 17 points. And against Rubio, Hillary loses by 3 points and Bernie wins by 8 points. Bernie Sanders is thus nationally the most electable candidate running.

He is also the only candidate among them that has a positive net favorability rating. That is, he is the only candidate that more people like than dislike. He has a +13 net approval rating. Hillary, on the other hand, has a net favorability rating of -13. (Figures from 3/3/16 Huffington Post.) That means that Sanders is a full 25% ahead of her in favorability among the American electorate. Not only that, but if you look at the graphs, you see that Clinton's disapproval is heading sharply upward and her approval downward. In Sanders graph, on the other hand, the directions are reversed. His approval continues to grow over time.

Note how this tracks with the head to head polls. It is true that in the figures cited above, Hillary does beat Trump (though not the other Republicans). But that is because nationally—among Republicans, independents and Democrats, Donald Trump's net favorability rating is even lower than Hillary's. It is -19. With his very favorable rating, Sanders beats Trump by a larger margin and beats all the other Republicans as well. With the inclusion of the independent vote, i.e. the full electorate, Bernie's true electability is demonstrated, matching his high performance in favorability ratings. People vote for candidates they like and trust.

Yet Clinton leads in most of the Democratic polls, meaning they are rallying around the candidate more likely to lose to Republicans. I will try to explain why this is so. I will try to show that in a great many cases the reasons Democrats support Hillary over Bernie are bogus, fabricated out of their own projected fears, or manufactured by the DNC and the constant propaganda of the corporate media. And the really sad part, is that a huge number of these pro-Hillary Democrats actually prefer Bernie. So what are the reasons so many Democrats are still clutching tightly onto Hillary Clinton?

The Top Bad Reasons Democrats Support Hillary

Bad Reason #1: “She has the best chance of winning.”

We have already seen that according to the polls, this is false. Of course there are those who would explain away the polls by saying that whereas Hillary has been subjected to vetting for decades, Bernie, a newcomer to the spotlight, is in for real trouble as time goes on. But how then do you explain the fact that Hillary, after all these many years, continues to go down in favorability at a precipitous rate, and Bernie, who is much better known than he was a year ago, continues to rise?

Remember that when we speak of favorability we are speaking of ALL voters. Among Democrats it is another story. Many, many Democrats are sticking with Hillary—or reverting to Hillary—out of a kind of terror of losing to the Republicans in November.

“Think of the Supreme Court,” they say, in trepidation. They confess, with definite regret in their voices, “I love what Bernie says, but. . .” they trail off.
“But what?” I ask.
“But Bernie can't win: he's Jewish, he's old, he's a democratic socialist. They won't vote for him.” “Who are 'they?'”
“All those people out there. They don't like Jews. They don't like old people. They don't like socialists.” People believe these canards because they are not familiar with the polls, which indicate that the people—“they”—don't seem to care! According to poll after poll, they'd rather vote for Sanders than Trump. They'd rather vote for Sanders than Cruz. They'd rather vote for Sanders than Rubio.

So Democrats have a candidate they like a lot, who is better equipped to win in November, but many still won't vote for him. Independents vote for him in large numbers. But Democrats are afraid of him. This is an interesting state of affairs: The independents are more progressive than the Democrats.

Bad reason #2: She's a woman.

Okay, this is not a totally bad reason to support Hillary! Having a woman president is long overdue and would be a landmark in sexual equality. Personally, I was one of many who petitioned Elizabeth Warren to run for the presidency. But it was not because she was a woman that I pushed for this. It was because she is a true progressive and Hillary is not. Until the other day I thought there was just one reason why someone might vote strictly on the basis of sex. If you believe that of all the many concerns facing America, having a woman in the Oval Office is the most compelling, then I have to concede that you have found your candidate.

But the other day, I was talking to my tax consultant, a woman who is supporting Hillary strictly because she is a woman—I don't think she even likes Hillary very much—and I said “So, you think this is the most important thing facing the country, right now?” “No!” she said. “It's the most important thing to ME.” And she added: “I'm 59 years old and I may never get another chance to elect a woman president.”

So if you fall into the category of people who are voting for Clinton over Bernie solely because you want to see a woman become President of the United States before you die, then you are most likely unreachable by any kind of logical persuasion. So I will move on.


Bad reason #3: She has the most experience.

Wait, experience is good, isn't it? You would think so, but look at any leader of any country. They all have experience! Stalin had experience. Sadaam Hussein had experience. I don't mean to compare Hillary to notorious despots, but I do want to demonstrate that experience is a neutral term; it doesn't automatically bode well. Obviously, if you've been in a position of power, you've had experience. But what did you do with that power? The New York Times just came out with a lengthy two-part piece about the U.S. role in Libya. Obama was hesitant to invade. It was largely due to the influence of Hillary Clinton that we did so. Hillary is smart and she works hard. But she is not wise. As to the effects of our invasion, I quote the NYTimes (2/27/16):

“The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed
state and a terrorist haven. . .”

“The looting of Colonel Qaddafi's vast weapons arsenals during the intervention has fed the
Syrian Civil War, empowered terrorist and criminal groups from Nigeria to Sinai and
destabilized Mali where Islamist militants stormed a Radisson Hotel in November and killed 20
people.”

“A growing trade in humans has sent a quarter-million refugees north across the Mediterranean,
with hundreds drowning en route. A civil war in Libya has left the country with two rival gov-
ernments, cities in ruins and more than 4,000 dead.

Hillary does not seem to take seriously the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or, as Senator Sanders has put it, “Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change.” And this segues easily into the subject of her pro Iraq War vote. Armed with the same information as Senator Clinton, Sanders not only voted against the resolution, but also predicted the sort of chaos that would develop in the region as the result of our invasion. The prophetic accuracy of his warnings has been borne out to this day and ongoing.

In other words, “experience” can be overrated. Judgment, on the other hand, is a much more valuable quality, and in that, Bernie has the advantage. Besides, with all the talk of Hillary's experience, the impression is given that Bernie lacks experience. He is now serving his second term in the U.S. Senate, preceded by 16 years in the House, all the time dealing with affairs both foreign and domestic. Before that he served four terms as mayor of Burlington, Vermont. While it is true that Hillary has more “hands on” experience in international diplomacy, that is hardly a prerequisite for being an effective president. The majority of presidents, including Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy—not to mention Bill Clinton, himself—had no previous active experience in foreign affairs before taking office.

BAD REASON #4: YOU ALREADY KNOW HILLARY AND YOU DON'T KNOW BERNIE

It may surprise some readers that there are people who have no idea who Bernie is, much less what he stands for. I know this is true because I still meet people on the street who stare blankly when I mention his name. Given the enormous disparity of support among African Americans for Hillary over Bernie in the South, I believe this is a great problem there.

Much has been said about Bernie's inability to connect with African Americans. In fact, some of his most ardent supporters are black, including philosopher and academic Cornel West, rap singer Killer Mike, former Ohio state Senator Nina Turner, and former NAACP head, Ben Jealous. Erica Garner, daughter of Eric Garner, who died at the hands of police, is also an active supporter. Among people I meet on the street, some of Bernie's most vocal and exuberant fans are also black. The disconnect is not about Bernie's inability to connect with the majority of African Americans. It has more to do with two things: they already know Hillary and they don't know Bernie.

A recent L.A. Times article captures this fact in its headline: “South Carolina black voters say they know Hillary Clinton well enough to pass on Bernie Sanders.” One woman is quoted as saying, “I'm not up on all of them, I'm just up on the one I want” (Clinton) “and the one I don't want.” (Donald Trump.) In other words, they like Hillary and believe they have no reason to look at an alternative.

African Americans, like all Americans, have the right to choose the person they think best represents their values. Perhaps many have thoroughly examined the record and have found Clinton to be that person. But given Bernie Sanders' lifelong commitment to racial and social justice and his impressive proposals to help the poor and middle class (e.g. free public university tuition, $15 minimum wage) and to radically reform the criminal justice system, it seems to me that there is evidence he has not been given due consideration.

Beyond this, I think some of the enthusiasm many blacks feel for Clinton may be misplaced. Bill Clinton's crime legislation caused many more black men to be incarcerated and his welfare reform threw some of the poorest blacks off of needed assistance. Many believe Clinton's legacy was a net loss for African Americans. A lot of the affection felt for Bill Clinton may have more to do with his personal style—his affability and his ease around black people—than the actual effects of his policies.
Be that as it may, the point is that unless the relative merits of the two present candidates have actually been compared, a vote for Clinton is not well-founded.

BAD REASON #5: BERNIE IS NOT REALISTIC
The argument is that given Republican intransigence in Congress, Sanders proposals are too grand, and have no hope of being passed. What is being said here is that it is impossible for America to be any better than it is. But this is patently untrue. We no longer have slaves. Women can vote. Gay people can get married. We receive social security checks when we retire. All of these things were considered wildly radical at one time, impossible to achieve—and yet some people with REAL audacity of hope took on impossible odds and won. Time after time. Bernie's policies are actually far less radical than were the ones I have listed. Universal health care, free public education—these are things that civilized countries all over the world have had for many years. What is NOT realistic is to begin with the idea of incrementalism. If you begin as an incrementalist the needle isn't going to move very much. Instead, begin with a grand vision and work toward achieving that. Think big. Go for what is right. Bernie's goals are only unachievable if you expect him to accomplish them by himself. The challenge Bernie offers is for us to become part of the change we want to see. That is the most radical part of his vision. And it is indeed a radical idea. It is called democracy!

Fellow Americans, I believe that Bernie Sanders is the most compelling, popular and electable candidate running for president. He is also the most honest, courageous and compassionate. The more people know about him the more they like him. That is why his approval rating among his constituents—83%—is the highest of all U.S. Senators. Do not discard this golden opportunity for America on specious grounds, or because of unfounded concerns. Your misapprehensions may cost us the election.