“The election is about a year away,” Salon editors must be saying. “We need arguments about why progressives should throw the election to the Republicans.” “Get us Matt Stoller.” “Mr. Stoller is on vacation.” “From what?” “Beats me.” “Well, get us his store-brand equivalent.” “How about H.A. Goodman?” “Uh…sure.”
Furthermore, recent polls showing Clinton ahead of Sanders by an astronomical figure target primarily landline telephones and also highlight the fact that even the landline telephone respondents don’t trust or admire Clinton. Even in positive polls, there’s enough evidence to show that Clinton is simply unelectable in a general election, and I explain why in this YouTube video.
Do you want to watch a FASCINATING Youtube video in which a brogressive hack UNSKEWS the polls? Trust me, you do not.
The truth is that Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton in a general election.
The truth is that head-to-head polls at this early date mean nothing. But, anyway, dumb arguments about why people should support Sanders in the primary are harmless. Dumb arguments about why progressives shouldn’t support the wrong Democratic nominee in the general are another story. And they don’t get much sillier than these:
For the record, I have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton and admire her attempt at healthcare in the ’90s. If the Hillary Clinton of the early ’90s were around today, then I wouldn’t have been quoted in a recent MassLive.com article titled Hillary Clinton’s new foe: the left.
If this wasn’t one of the silliest things I’ve heard since “Barack Obama singing Hillary Clinton’s heath care proposal from 2008 into law shows that Barack Obama is far to the right of Hillary Clinton,” I wouldn’t have written a post on the Lawyers, Guns and Money weblog called “Cool Story, Brogressive.” The fact that the preservation of comprehensive heath care reform is one of the many things at stake in this election and Hillary Clinton favors its preservation just makes this extra stupid.
Goodman has ten reasons why progressives should not support Clinton when she wins the nomination. They often involve more links to YouTube segments. They are all terrible. (Some are perfectly reasonable reasons to support Sanders in the primary; all are stupid as reasons not to support Clinton in the general.) For example:
One candidate is the Charles Darwin of politics. The other is Bernie Sanders. Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie’s lead on issues. I wouldn’t sign a contract with an “evolving” clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter.
Having Bernie Sanders on the ticket would be great. Someone who usually follows Bernie Sanders would not be. Fascinating!
Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad and Racism. Bernie Sanders has a comprehensive racial justice platform. Clinton’s 3 a.m. ad in 2008 had a “racist sub-message” according to one Harvard sociologist.
“If getting Ted Cruz in the White House is the price we have to pay for an ad from 2008 one sociologist found racist, I’m willing to let other people pay it.”
I want a Democrat in the White House. I don’t want a moderate Republican on Wall Street, or a neocon pertaining to war.
Clinton would not be a “Republican in the White House” by the standards of 1970, let alone 2015. But the argument is extra idiotic when you’re willing to accept having an ultra-wingnutty Republican in the White House rather than having to settle for Hillary Clinton.
But wait: Goodman doesn’t just implicitly support ultra-wingnutty Republicans over Clinton. He explicitly supports them:
I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president.
If you thought the first top-ten list was bad, get a load of this:
Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn’t want to dismantle Social Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, “I’m for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can’t help themselves.” I don’t ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism.
Uh, saying you’re in favor of a safety net while advancing policies that will gut it is in fact that the classic Republican playbook. At any rate, the Real Rand Paul favors a balanced budget amendment combined with massive upper-class tax cuts, stripping millions of people of their access to healthcare, and, er, cutting Social Security benefits. But he uses the word “safety net” so really he’s to the left of Hillary Clinton!
And now, the punchline:
Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another.
I think we’ve reached the “further commentary would be superfluous” part of the exercise.