She is the embodiment of the Washington political class in a year of rising antiestablishment anger. She struggles to project authenticity at a time when voters hunger for that quality in their candidates. She has a lengthy résumé in public life at a time when many voters seem to have devalued experience in government. She symbolizes continuity when many voters are demanding change.
It seemed unimaginable that a Clinton, particularly a Clinton who could become the first female president in U.S. history, could be overshadowed in a political campaign this year, and yet that’s currently the case. Trump and Trumpism loom over the entire country. His candidacy is the talk everywhere, for better and worse.
Sanders also creates his own energy force with an unabashedly liberal, big-government agenda that brings cheers from the progressive wing of the party. He has tapped into pent-up frustration on the left that has proved to be a potent force.
That's opinion, not fact. Sanders doesn't energize me at all, let alone inspire me. During every debate, Hillary has been outgoing, confident, easy to understand, positive and inspiring. The prospect of Sanders being President leaves me with a sinking feeling Government will come to a standstill. He's too polarizing, just like Trump, only he's at the other end of the spectrum. In the long run, I don't think the American people will elect either one of them.
While I agree with many of Sanders' position on issues, I think he really only cares about campaign finance and Wall St., neither of which are important to me. During the debates, he's stooped over except when he talks about those issues. Sanders does not energize me. He reminds me of your aging grandpa. Would I vote for him if nominated? Of course. But I'd rather vote for Hillary.
As for Trump being the center of conversation, who cares? Where is the evidence that being a hot topic around the water cooler or on Twitter or CNN for that matter translates into votes or impacts or increases a candidate's chance of being elected?
Trump and Sanders are both outliers. The media's fawning over them creates a picture in my mind of two overweight kids on a playground see-saw - balancing each other out as they sit on opposite ends. One goes up, the other goes down. Both land with a thud.
What matters is what happens at the voting booth, not on TV and online. Other than the privileged, the media, and those with too much time on their hands, I think most people, particularly those with young children, are focused on their daily lives and making ends meet. They are not going to vote for President based on who's trending on Twitter or late night talk shows.
Sanders may well win Iowa or New Hampshire, but I doubt he'll end up winning the nomination. As for Trump, even if he wins the Republican nomination, I really don't see him winning the presidency. I doubt Americans will vote for Trump for President just because he's outrageous.
I cannot picture Sanders as President of the United States. I don't think he's particularly qualified or interested in too many aspects of the job. I don't think he's sufficiently well-rounded. He strikes me as too stubborn, and I think he'll create total gridlock in Congress. Nothing will get passed.
People seem to be latching onto him and Trump because they offer easy outlets for venting frustration. But at the end of the day, I doubt most people want a a complainer or whiner in the White House. All those two do is criticize, criticize and criticize. I hope that when it comes time to vote, people will think about both who has a concrete plan on important issues that meshes with their own and will change their lives for the better -- and who has a better chance of implementing his or her plan if elected. To me, neither Sanders (with his unoriginal and overused message of change) nor Trump with his fanatical boasts that he can do better than anyone else, is that candidate.
No candidate is going to change the course of American politics in one election cycle. Washington is where the action is, and candidates who claim to be outsiders who will change the culture of Washington if they get elected are dreaming and pulling your leg.
In other Sanders news, he's doing an about face on immunity for gun manufacturers. Why? My view: it's politically expedient and will wield off expected attacks from Hillary that he's too soft on gun control. There's also little downside. Supporters of immunity for gun manufacturers are mostly Republicans and Second Amendment supporters, who wouldn't vote for him anyway. Did he really change his mind on the issue or is it a vote - getting switch? Sounds like the latter to me. More politics as usual, only this time it's from Sanders who has claimed to be beyond politics as usual.
The reality is all serious candidates end up beholden to politics as usual, otherwise they can't win. The system is what it is, and while it may change over decades or generations, it's not going to change in one election cycle. So pocket the hope and change, and vote for the candidate who is likely to actually get things passed a divided Congress.
The minor differences on issues between Hillary and Sanders are immaterial and pointless hair-splitting. It seems to me only one of them has a prayer for getting any part of a progressive plan through Congress, and that's Hillary, not Sanders. It's precisely because of Hillary's experience and decades at the heart of Washington politics that she is more likely to navigate her policies through Congress. That experience is a reason to support her. It's nothing to hold against her, despite the bias of the media which has promoted that meme.
Malcontents like Sanders and Trump (and they both come off as malcontents to me) never win, they just feel good after getting things off their chest. I applaud Sanders for raising the consciousness of the American people on a host of important progressive issues, but I think he has zero chance of implementing them if elected. In another decade, hopefully his ideas will be mainstream and he'll get the credit he deserves for them. But in 2016, I don't think Sanders has a chance of successfully navigating his policies through a divided Congress or implementing any significant change in policy. Hillary has both the navigational skills and experience, and I think will command enough respect to implement at least some of her policy changes. In my view, voting for Sanders may be a feel-good vote, but it will also be a futile one. Democrats can do better, and the better candidate is right in front of their noses.
As for Trump, he's nothing more than a fuse lit at both ends. If nominated, the only way he won't burn out with voters before the election is if the alternative is just as polarizing, just at the other end of the spectrum, e.g., Sanders.
Feel free to disagree, I know many, if not most readers will. That's fine, just be civil and avoid name-calling and personal insults (to me, other commenters and the candidates) in your comments if you want them to stay up.
