All other things being equal (and, of course, they aren’t) the following should be the end of the debate over who would be a better Democratic nominee for president.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday rejected the notion that he lacks foreign policy competence in comparison with Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and again leaned heavily on his opposition to the Iraq war as evidence of his superior judgment.
Sanders met with The Des Moines Register’s editorial board Thursday afternoon and was asked what he’s done to prove his foreign policy mettle.
“How many hours do we have? I don’t want to take you into the new year,” Sanders joked. “How do I answer that? What was the most important vote cast in the modern history of America on foreign affairs? Yeah, it was Iraq,” Sanders said. “What does Hillary Clinton have to do to convince you that she has significant foreign policy judgment? She cast a vote for the war. I cast a vote against the war.”
People choose to support the Democratic Party over the Republican Party for a whole host of reasons, and foreign policy judgment is just one of them. But, in a president, it is probably the most important consideration, or should be.
Still, even if you are convinced of Bernie Sanders’s superior foreign policy judgment, you might have other reasons that outweigh that factor. Perhaps you believe that Clinton would win the presidency but Sanders would not. Or maybe you think that Sanders could eke out a narrow victory that would leave DC gridlocked but Clinton has the potential to win a landslide that would help the Democrats regain control of the Senate and maybe even the House.
Maybe you are willing to give Clinton a mulligan on her pro-Iraq War vote and otherwise think that her foreign policy is more realistic and better-suited to keeping the country safe.
Maybe you just don’t think there’s much difference between them and you’re prefer to see a woman in the Oval Office for the first time.
My point is that you can make an argument that the vote on the war in Iraq is the alpha and the omega of the whole question, but that isn’t going to be the sole consideration for most people.
Perceived electability and potential coattails are major considerations. Making the safer choice in light of the obvious downsides of a Republican president will influence many Democratic voters.
For Sanders to break through, he needs to do more than talk about the war in Iraq.
Distinguishing himself on Wall Street helps create a contrast so that people can see that there’s a real choice between them, but that alone won’t be enough either.
What Democrats need to see is why they should take a risk on Bernie. Being an avowed enemy of Wall Street makes him appear less electable, unless you don’t give corporate America any credit for being able to protect their interests, fight back, and shape the media environment.
There’s no substitute for winning primaries if you want to prove you’re electable, but even this is of limited predictive value when considering Bernie’s chances in a general election. The most helpful thing for Sanders would be consistent head-to-head polling that shows him doing as well or better than Clinton in match-ups with Republican candidates.
But I think another factor that would help is if he could demonstrate that he would be able to bring some people into his cabinet that people know and trust. He just seems isolated and on his own island. We don’t elect presidents so much as we elect organizations. Who would Bernie bring with him to run the Treasury Department or Defense or the CIA?
If he could demonstrate that he has anyone behind him, that would make him look less like a protest candidate and more like a real alternative.
To be fair, I’d like to see the same thing from Republican candidates not named “Jeb.” Their collective failure to do this also makes them seem like cannon fodder for Team Clinton.
This is part of why she looks like such a juggernaut at the moment.
