If you’re trying to choose between two candidates to represent the Democratic Party as their presidential nominee, there are some filters you can use to help you decide. I’ll just list out a few of them.
1. Is one more electable than the other?
a. because of their identity (region/age/gender/religion/race/ethnicity/sexual preference)
b. because of their record
c. because of their proposals
d. because of their ability/inability to unite the party
e. because of their ability/willingness to raise money
f. because of their potential to bring in new voters/get crossover votes
g. because of their willingness to play hardball and do whatever it takes
h. because their opponent will do more to energize the opposition?
2. Does one’s proposals and policies align more with your values than the other?
3. Does one have more relevant experiences than the other?
a. because they’ve had executive, cabinet level, or other managerial responsibilities, or more of them
b. because one has been at the center of power within the party for a long time and the other hasn’t
c. because one has a broader and more pertinent base of knowledge?
4. Does one seem to have better judgment than the other?
a. if they’ve differed on any big, contentious issues, who turned out to be right, or more nearly so?
b. has one ever made a really big error or offered advice that could have been catastrophic?
c. does either show a stronger tendency to learn from their mistakes?
5. How do you evaluate their moral character?
a. do they have a religious belief system that troubles you?
b. have they committed any serious ethical lapses?
c. are they consistent over time, when appropriate, or do they shift with the winds?
d. do you trust them to do what they say?
e. how honest do you think they are? What’s your estimate of their core integrity?
6. Can they govern?
a. have they governed effectively in the past, on any level?
b. do they understand how Congress works, and also how to get big, difficult bills through Congress?
c. how are their relationships with the media and on Capitol Hill?
d. what kind of powerful enemies and friends to they have?
7. Are their proposals and policies sound?
a. Irrespective of whether they can be implemented, do their policies make sense?
b. Are their policies aspirational or pragmatic and designed with a mind to a difficult Congress
c. How do you feel about their foreign policies, or the things they can do using executive power alone?
8. Finally, does either have a theory of the case for how the Democrats can break the deadlock in Congress and win back majorities on the local, state and federal level?
I think, if you’re honest, when you apply this test to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, you’ll see that they each “win” or look better on a lot of questions and “lose” or look worse on a lot, too.
If you’re like me, it’s almost split down the middle.
But there’s a big question in here, and it’s the first. Is one candidate more electable than the other?
If Hillary Clinton wins that argument, she’ll win the nomination easily. And, while this could change as more results come in during the primary or other shoes drop related to the email investigation, at the moment Clinton seems to have the better argument.
Sanders has an argument, too. But it’s much more theoretical. He says he can reshape the electorate by inspiring masses of new voters to participate and also by dominating among the youth vote in a way that Clinton cannot. If he keeps winning 80% of the under-30 vote in the more diverse states to come, we may have to start taking his theory very seriously. But, if he can’t convince people that he can actually win, all the areas where he’s strong look much less important.
In a real way, this battle over whether Sanders can or cannot win is the most important battle between these two candidates in terms of who will actually prevail. So, we should expect them to fight ferociously over this question. Fortunately, it will eventually become less of a he said/she said argument. If Sanders wins primaries by bringing out masses of new voters, winning crossovers and independents, and dominating among the youth vote, he’ll start to win people over to his theory of the case. If he can’t do that, and soon, the Democratic voters will go with what they see as the safer bet.
I don’t think many commenters will thank you for providing this rather lengthy list, Booman. You’re going to be attacked for allegedly undermining Sanders.
I get attacked every single time I write about the Democratic side of the this process.
It’s the price I pay to say anything at all.
Don’t worry about me.
I’m not worried about you, but I am grateful.
HRC fares pretty badly on the list in some areas to me. I think placing electibility as the first consideration actually undermines electability, but that is candidate agnostic.
It’s a brilliant thesis. Whoever wins, will win. Who can argue it?
can sanders bring in masses of new voters?
so far the answer is no.
the overall dem turnout as well as the youth turnout (17-29) in iowa was lower than in 2008.
also dem registrations are down.
the overall dem turnout as well as the youth turnout (17-29) in iowa was lower than in 2008.
Shouldn’t that have increased Clinton’s advantage to win since that demo didn’t favor her in ’08 or ’12?
btw — the ’08 caucus was held when colleges weren’t in session and that facilitated a higher youth turnout.
spin it any way you want but i dont see the revolution bernie is pushing and his supporters are claiming.
Then you are not looking.
I thought reports from IA said Bernie was energizing young voters? is it that he brought some young voters in, without him the dem turnout would have been disasterous?
Some numbers for you on DEM Iowa caucus attendance:
2000: 60,761
2004 – 124,221
2008 – 240,000 (approx) – prior 103,000; first time 137,000
2016 – 180,000 (approx) – prior 108,000; first time 72,000
The drop-off/drop-out numbers from one caucus to the next are high.
doesn’t help me. most important, how many of the 72,000 last week were Sanders, that was my question. if, most of them, then he is pulling in new voters and hrc isn’t [and what about 2012, what are the numbers? if she’s running as an ‘incumbent’ as her latest strategy seems to be, …]
Nobody knows. Remember they don’t even release the raw “votes” for the DEM caucuses. Only delegate percentages and working from that back to the total voters is fuzzy at best.
I did find something that broke down the “old” (not first time caucus voters) and new (first timers) for each of the 2008 candidates, but as those numbers were based on entry polls, they don’t line up with the final results.
Biden – 8% old; 2% new (final 0.9%)
Clinton – 24% old; 29% new (final 29.4%)
Edwards – 30% old; 18% new (final 29.7%)
Kucinich – 1% old; 1% new (final 1%)
Obama – 26% old; 41% new (final 37.5%)
Dodd – 2% old; 1% new (final 0)
Richardson – 7% old; 7% new (final 2.1%)
It’s possible that all of Clinton’s ’16 voters were “old” and Sanders got all the new voters. That would mean (very roughly) that 80% of the Obama and Edwards voters didn’t show up.
What was evident is that the number that showed up for Edwards in 2008 was more than 2004. How the Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt votes resorted is total guess work.
I attempted to guesstimate how the “old” (not first time caucus) voters in the 2008 caucus resorted from their positions in 2004. Sort of an exercise in futility because it’s completely unknown if the drop-off was natural attrition (deaths, moves, etc.) and evenly distributed or was there a disproportionate drop-off for one of the ’04 candidates. Plus the percentages given of “old” and “new” for Edwards didn’t add up.
It’s possible that all of Clinton’s 2016 votes were generated from “old” voters, those that caucused for her in 2008 plus a share of those that caucused for other candidates (Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson), and Sanders received a balance of the “olds” (approximately 15,000) and his remainder (approx 70,000) were all “new.”
yes, that’s what I’m thinking we need to know. also, according to fladem, young Bernie voters were turned away. students graduate, transfer, move [some get employment nearby of course] so some % of the Obama first time caucus attenders won’t have been around. I think the “Sanders bringing in new voters” concept hasn’t been tested. btw, re: my ongoing question about AA voters, Shaun King has this:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-african-american-firewall-clinton-insulting-article-1.
2521962
See my above response to mino. fladem did say that some younger voters didn’t end up participating, but while it isn’t unreasonable to assume that Sanders would have received most of their votes, we don’t know if their numbers were large. Another thing to keep in mind is that the delegate allocation to each individual caucus is based on votes in the prior election. Thus, a high caucus turnout for Sanders in certain precincts that didn’t have high turnout for Obama in ’12 would have been disadvantaged.
According to one Hillary worker, Hillary got Obama yuppies and Bernie got the worker bees that Hillary got in 2008 plus the youth.
That’s an interesting observation. But from the numbers, Hillary only added approximately 15,000 to her 2008 total. Edwards supporters from ’04 were still with him in ’08 (less natural attrition). In his case that was 4%/four years. I would think that Hillary’s ’08 supporters would be similarly loyal. Edwards’ ’08 support skewed “older” (not first time caucus voter) than Clinton’s; so, his “base” would have been more stable than hers.
(A fudge factor for that ’08 number would be the additional 6,000 (not included in the 65,000) she received when Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were not viable at various caucuses and Biden’s and Dodd’s support also skewed towards “older” voters. Less committed to Clinton but more likely to caucus.)
Clinton’s ’08, first choice vote (extrapolated from the delegate count — very imprecise but good enough for this illustration) was 25,000 “old” and 40,000 “new.”
Applying a 10%/four year attrition rate to “old” and 20%/four year to “new” for Hillary, only gets me to the ’16 aggregate old/new split if the ’08 “old” attrition rate for the other candidates is higher than 10%/four years and the ’08 “new” attrition rate is 100%. Regardless of how I slice and dice it, she didn’t do well in holding onto her ’08 voter base, didn’t energize the other ’08 “new” voters and potential ’16 “new” voters to show up, and relied on the Iowa DEM institutions to turn out the ’08 “old” voters, that without any ’08 or ’16 “new” voters, split 70/30 for Clinton/other. A ratio not too far off from the 2000 caucus results.
I guess the Iowa caucus is a “build it and they will come” voter landscape. Otherwise the local/state/national institutional DEM party wins in a landslide.
I agree with every word. Bernie is wonderful, but he has repeatedly said that he can not achieve his goals without a revolution, and a revolution requires more than fifty percent of Democrats. If he can make a strong showing among the more diverse states, then we will know that the country is at least open to the idea of sweeping changes. If he can’t convince a large percentage of Democrats to support his cause, then the time is not yet ripe. In that case, we elect Hillary and wait eight years while the younger voters become more powerful and defend their vision. I believe we will reach Bernie’s goals, so long as we don’t allow the GOP to kill the movement in its cradle, but I’m not sure we’re going to get there overnight. The Conservatives spent decades building their movement, and it left them with far more power than they deserve. We have to be willing to put in the time to build what we want. If Bernie can’t win this time, we have to see this moment as the beginning of something bigger.
I agree with a lot of what you say with a caveat.
Bernie is, indeed, presenting all US citizens with a vision that highlights at least some very salient financial & economic concerns. In particular, about how this country is being run detrimentally by the PTB in Wall St, especially. It’s a very important message.
I would love to believe that the message elaborated by Bernie could be “built on” should HRC win. That the DNC would, you know, actually (LOL) listen to the small fry, work with the proles to develop a platform and move forward into a better future with a more powerful Dem party.
Color me completely, utterly 110% skeptical that’ll ever happen. Look, they’ve tamed Howard Dean into being a shill for the 1%. Bernie may continue to attempt to broaden the populist message amongst real voting constituents who aren’t wealthy, should he not get the nomination. That said, who else, exactly, is going to do bupkiss??
Looks to me – as has been discussed here many times – that the current make up of the D-party is center right (at best) to completely rightwing NeoLiberal/Neo Cons, with a very few exceptions. And the DNC? Yeah ha ha.. they’re just not that into us, the rubes out there paying taxes. Just ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what she thinks of you and me! Oops you can’t bc Debbie’s certainly not paying any attention to what you and I want/think/believe/ whatever… we ain’t got the money, honey, to purchase her attention.
Just saying…
Bernie’s revolution is built on the belief that the people themselves still have the power to force the politicians to listen to us. If that is not true, then electing him would be useless, if not impossible. We have to build from the bottom up. We have to convince our neighbors before we convince the DNC. If we don’t have that ability, none of the rest of this matters.
Yes Indeed. And I think a reflection on the nature of political power is in order.
I think there’s too much moralizing about stuff like the paid wallstreet speeches. Political operators on the level of HRC are always trading in influence, and the question is not that she’s now “owned” by the banks, but can she get the better of the political transaction with the banks. And the answer to that comes down to, is there another political force that offsets wall street (i.e. the little people).
It makes me think of one of the most capable american politician of the 20th century: LBJ. There’s a man who never shrank from transactions of power; he was maybe the impurest of them all, and the most effective in promoting progressive goals.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Disagree to some extent. There is a lot to be said that citizens take cues from their leaders, particularly when the topic is ensnared by tribalism. Many people may not agree with Bernie today, but the second he’s the Democratic standard bearer, a lot of people will agree with him tomorrow out of sheer tribal loyalty (particularly if he wins).
I mean, just look at the issue of spying. Support for illegal and unwarranted spying has shot through the roof on the Democratic side simply because a Democrat occupies the White House. This is why it’s extremely dangerous for the GOP to be embracing Trump’s rhetoric, and why it makes me extremely uncomfortable to hope he wins the nomination as we’d be expected to win in a landslide. It is not ok that the GOP is wedded to these people, because it’s only going to get more extreme, and more, as the bar continues to lower as to what is considered “normal”. Torture is now a partisan topic. That is where we are.
I have no reason to believe this would not be true about whatever programs Sanders’ wishes to propose should he occupy the WH.
They might not deserve it, but they earned it. The ediface they built may have terrible ends but it is a thng to envy.
Anyhow I agree except I have no faith HRC can beat the GOP and I have no faith if she does well get any closer to revolution we need. Irrespective of any other qualities, she excells at party drestruction.
If she excels at party destruction, why is she so well loved by the party itself? The Democratic leaders, even those we generally respect and admire, have made their preference well known. Moreoever, Hillary actually won the popular vote in 2008, and still has a strong lead in national polling this year. Americans have watched her for twenty-five years, and chosen her as our most admired woman for twenty of them. We know who she is, and most of us still like her quite a lot.
Only won because Obama did not contest illegal contests, and notably loved by party leaders. Those who exist already at elite level.
In fact what I mean is that the institution of the democratic party was destroyed under her husband, we rebuilt it then allowed to wither again under Obama and as far as I can see she has offered nothing to revive it. Certainly not with what is going on with DWS.
Yes, I agree with you. We are very close to a political revolution in this country. Unfortunately, it is a conservative revolution. The republicans already control the majority of state houses, 5 of 9 supreme court seats, and have an unbreakable (in the near term) lock on the house of representatives. All they need is the presidency to implement vast, vast changes that the country and the planet will never recover from.
I know it’s unpleasant to say that this election is a defensive operation, that what we need to do is preserve the gains of the Obama presidency and maybe move the ball forward a few inches. It’s much nicer to pretend that we are on the verge of a massive left-wing uprising that will implement single payer and all sorts of wonderful things. But to think that this is likely is, to my mind, to live in a dream world. It is the error of the echo chamber–the failure to acknowledge that, yes, there really are a lot of conservatives and “moderates” out there, and they really don’t see the world the way we do.
That all makes me lean toward Hillary, despite the fact that I do like Bernie. That said, if Hillary can’t beat Bernie…well, maybe she is fatally flawed as a candidate.
I want Bernie’s dream, but I’m leaning towards Hillary myself, because I don’t believe Americans are prepared yet to fight for what we want. But I do believe we want liberals ideals. The polls show that we tend to support left policies when they are described without labels attached. Most people supported the things Obamacare did, even if they said they hated Obamacare itself, for example. And the younger voters are undeniably more liberals. As they become more active in the political world, they will affect change through sheer numbers. And seriously, even the Conservatives can’t stand the GOP right now, which weakens both. I think the evidence supports that liberal attitudes will soon become the norm. We just have to be willing to work beyond one campaign.
I can agree there are positives in Obamacare like Medicaid and pre existing conditions, but unless your company is paying the bills, it is far too expensive. So too with drugs. And it is not universal. Plus the inequality we face and have lived with for decades needs to end. As does the decade and a half of war. I understand the idea of holding back the conservatives and to protect the supreme court from more of their appointments. But I will need to think long and hard about voting for Hillary ( whom I think will win the nomination ), with more financialization of the economy and wars on the table. Maybe, but maybe not.
It’s not a matter of whether Obamacare has achieved all its goals. It hasn’t. The point is that Americans support those goals. Even those who describe themselves as Conservatives support those goals, so long as Obama’s name is not attached to them. We are a society that wants Democratic Socialism. We just don’t understand yet what that means.
If u mean the goal is Medicare for all that will never happen with Hillary and no political revolution. It just means we go on paying twice as much as any other major country with no hope of,change. Oh I forgot, incrementalism with a conservative congress anyone? She offers nothing, nothing at all beyond Supreme Court appointments and to tell the truth I am not real happy with those prospects either. But YMMV as always.
we should also be honest that single payer might not be the best solution to our healthcare problems.
Liberals/progressives have all latched onto it like a divining rod but there are big questions that single payer is the answer.
Yep, distressingly we’ve conflated the shared goal of “universal coverage” with “single payer”. The latter is one potential method to get us to the former, but it’s not the only way (many/most of the countries who have universal coverage aren’t single-payer). Cost control is similar in that it’s possible to achieve through other methods (nor is robust cost control a given, even in a single-payer system).
correct and most single payers aren’t even in the top 10 of countries health care results. Spain is #7 but all the other ones are down the list.
I think we should aim to improve for sure but maybe what France or Germany is doing would work better for us. Who knows? Progressives are stuck on single payer and conservatives are stuck on repealing Obamacare that we can’t even have the discussion
German system would be a marked improvement over the free for all we have now with networks and varying policies and reimbursements. Much better than the UK system. But the UK system is better than what we have now. And remember, that the South was allowed to opt out of expanded Medicaid, so the poor in the South STILL don’t have coverage unless they can eat thousand of dollars in deductibles which they can’t because they are POOR.
I completely understand and I’m not saying that single payer will not fix the access issue although it may not completely fix it. I’m just saying the data says it may not be the best system out of all of them
I’m listening. Meantime, Medicare seems to work pretty good. And with more cost controls would be even better. That’s why Medicare for all sure sounds like an improvement over the over insurance for profit motive.
First I want to say I don’t have the answer. I’m just saying that we should shoot higher. Here’s the most up to date WHO ratings, but they’re from 2000 so the US probably moved up a little after the ACA.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-t
he-worlds-health-systems/
Single Payer countries aren’t doing awesome, outside of Spain who is #7.
Sweden is #23, Canada is #30 & Denmark is #34. We’re #37 on this list BTW. It should be noted that Spain is only 85% single payer/15% private insurance.
I want to know why single payer isn’t working better in Sweden, Canada, & Denmark. I want to know if there is something France & Italy are doing that we could do here.
You’re right Medicare for All sounds good and may actually be better but how much better? Plus politically it scares the crap out of a lot of people and may require more political capital than we can muster for a while.
If we’re going to continue to change the system and I think we should. Shouldn’t we find out what the best systems do and see if we can do it too? If it turns out single payer is the best option then so be it but it’s not the slam dunk that everyone thinks it is.
2000 was the first and last WHO rating list. Unfortunately.
Bloomberg has an ongoing list which is pretty straightforward, cost vs life expectancy.
Most Efficient Health Care 2014: Countries
Booman Tribune ~ Comments ~ It All Comes Down to Electability
Well, Norway is in place 11.
Anyway, this is a much debated question in Sweden. In a talk I heard by the former chief health statistician in Sweden, he told about meetings with his equivalents in different west European countries. The common factor is that all citizens are – through state regulation – covered in one way or another. The systems are quite different both on payer and performer side with different mixes of private and public insurance models and also private and public performers, and different state/region division of labor in different states. His main conclusion was that there is no clearcut connection between the systems that dictate performance, or at least that their is no one best option, they all have strenghts and weaknesses. So what France and Italy does better needs not be in the model.
Actually looking at both the WHO table and the Bloomberg one, olive oil Europe (south) as a rule places better then butter Europe (north). So there could be such factors too.
Whatever the solution is, we need to see what works best and what would work for the US the best. Those 2 things might not be the same thing.
Taiwan pretty much copied Medicare.
Taiwan isn’t on any list since it’s technically part of China so it’s hard to measure what the impact is there of that decision.
Plus that doesn’t guarantee it’s the best solution for us. Again, we need to actually examine all the information and try to make a good decision.
The report is out of date for many nations health care systems to 2016
For example comparing France, Spain, Italy (#2 ranking in the WHO report you quoted) and the USA using statistics from the CIA “World Factbook”.
Health expenditures:
USA 17.1% of GDP (2013)
France 11.7% of GDP (2013)
Spain 8.9% of GDP (2013)
Italy 9.1% of GDP (2013)
Life expectancy at birth:
USA: 79.68 years
France: 81.75 years
Spain: 81.57 years
Italy: 82.12 years
Physicians density:
USA: 2.45 physicians/1,000 population (2011)
France: 3.19 physicians/1,000 population (2013)
Spain: 4.95 physicians/1,000 population (2012)
Italy: 3.76 physicians/1,000 population (2012)
Hospital bed density:
USA: 2.9 beds/1,000 population (2011)
France: 6.4 beds/1,000 population (2013)
Spain: 3.1 beds/1,000 population (2012)
Italy: 3.4 beds/1,000 population (2012)
Obesity – adult prevalence rate:
USA: 35% (2014)
France: 25.7% (2014)
Spain: 26.5% (2014)
Italy: 23.7% (2014)
Yes we need to improve, we spend more money to get fewer doctors, hospital beds, shorter lives, and are less healthy fatter people.
Our insurance industry and Wall Street profits off health care is doing much better that similar vulture capitalists in the three other countries.
lower healthcare outcomes: richer bankers ….
yea amurican exceptionalism,
Getting the profit motive ahead of patient health care is what dooms the USA health care system;
Reverse that paradigm, and we could have a much better system, Bernie is the candidate offering any concrete hope of doing that at the moment.
Getting the profit motive out of patient-doctor visits, IE removing insurance gate keepers who are ONLY looking at their bottom line will do much more.
But the large Insurance Carriers and HMOs hold too much political power thanks to legalised political bribery like citizens united and current campaign finance allows
thanks but that doesn’t really address my questions, I appreciate the effort though
It actually does, however like the other thread where you are attacking single payer, these facts don’t fit into the meme of your talking points, hence your attempt to dismiss them.
if you see this as attacking single payer then you’re not paying attention
I’m not playing from some kind of talking points list, I just don’t accept things because progressive purity trolls insist that I must to be a good progressive.
Insurance for profit is still there because Medicare only pays 80% of costs. The low income elderly STILL can’t afford to see a doctor or purchase their pills.
maybe the first step is making current Medicare cover all expenses for those over 65, eliminating the Medicare Gap insurance and then looking at our choice for the entire system
That would be good, but all the proposals I see are in the other direction. Increasing premiums, deductibles and co-pays and the ever popular “make everyone join a part C HMO” aka “HillaryCare”.
wonderfully and concisely argued.
And yet the establishment that HRC is a part of and that supports her so strongly they are trying to cut off the base at the knees are the ones that presided over this. Republican victories did not happen in a vacuum. Why are you so strong to put up a commander whose side has lost so well for years?
Indeed.
Among many requirements that could be listed, the most indispensable — the one the Revolution will never happen without — is simply: getting started.
The most reliable way to ensure the Revolution never happens is to never get started on it.
The most reliable way to never get started is to keep delaying getting started until, somehow, by some reading of tea leaves, the time is finally at some point deemed “ripe”.
If not now, when? If not us, who?
Bernie’s trying to get it started.
As someone who’s on the record that a Revolution is the only likely hope for saving our destructive culture from the path of unrelenting ecological destruction/degradation (among many other problems) that we are on, my position is, of course, “Let’s get started! Bring it on!”
As for this: “We have to be willing to put in the time to build what we want.”
That would be nice, if we had the time for that. We don’t. The situation is dire. The symptoms of ecological (and resulting cultural/civilizational) collapse that are already manifesting themselves are just the canary in the coal mine. Things will get much, much worse very fast in the trajectory we insist on clinging to. The status quo is not an option. (Nor are mere minor “improvements” from tinkering around the margins incrementally.)
I think this is a really good post, except I think Obama ‘got it started’. Sanders would not be remotely in the running without Obama’s accomplishments, which IMHO he does not get enough credit for. Obama made everything seem possible.
Transitional, not transformational.
.
I’m willing to give Obama quite a bit of credit for some positive things he accomplished. (OTOH, there’s keeping Bush’s police/national-security/surveillance state largely intact.)
Were they “revolutionary”? That seems a stretch to me.
My guess is history (if anything/anyone recognizable as historians manage to survive/emerge from the coming chaos) will judge him somewhere in the upper middle of the pack of presidents for effectiveness.
Getting started on a Revolution? Not so much.
(That said, even in the extremely unlikely, best-conceivable-scenario case of Bernie winning in a landslide that flips both houses of Congress, thereby maximizing his prospects of accomplishing the “political revolution” he advocates, I still doubt this would suffice to avert the catastrophic disturbances that are already in the pipeline. Maybe if his coattails extended to reducing GOPers and traitorous ConservaDems to a filibuster-disabled minority [which the Dems are not even remotely striving for]. But at this point, I’m guessing even something that relatively radical [which you’d have to be in a pipe dream to actually predict] would not suffice to save us from ourselves.)
This is why I’m a pessimist (though of course, to ourselves, we “pessimists” just look like the realists, and the resta y’all like a bunch of pollyannish optimists! We hope you’re more right than we are. But we doubt that!)
I honestly believe that the ‘police state’ that you speak of is what the VAST majority of Americans want. Obama (IMO) is reflecting the ‘mood’ of the country. I believe it’s Sanders who’s ‘soft’ foreign policy positions are politically untenable. So (IMO) I don’t hold it agains Clinton when she holds ‘tough’ stances.
I believe that it’s pretty much what everyone wants.
.
And you might well be right about that. All the more reason for “pessimism”.
completely agree
Really good post, tb92
.
thanks for the advice, booman, but for me, it’s Bernie all the way.
Or the state of the economy and price of gas or a “black swan” or “October surprise” in the weeks before the general election next November. Who here wants to project those factors and go record for their predicative powers?
At this point in time, it doesn’t appear that any of the potential GOP nominees are “electable.” If that’s correct, then it doesn’t matter who the Democrats nominate.
Over half the Democratic primary/caucus voters in 2008 couldn’t envision that Barack Obama was “electable.” Or perhaps that was just a cover for their own deep-seated racism. Personally, from the beginning of that campaign, I never made an “electability” argument for Obama over Clinton. Both seemed about as electable to me. The enthusiasm for Obama was higher, but translating that into votes to override racism didn’t seem like a strong enough factor to me that it would have made him more electable than Clinton.
In the early going of the 2008 election, a significant portion of DEM primary/caucus voters were adamant that Edwards was the most electable. B/C he was from a southern state (a long-standing electability argument among DEMs) and he was photogenic and more attractive than the other two leading candidates. Those that viewed him as a political lightweight with a sleazy quality did win the argument. But what if they hadn’t? Hello — President McCain.
If nothing “bad” happens between now and November, why would Clinton be more electable than Sanders? Well, I suppose one wouldn’t have to be concerned about the wholesale abandonment of the DEM nominee by DEM elites as did happen in 1972. OTOH, if serious economic issues break before November, Clinton wouldn’t be in as strong a position as Sanders.
Except that insanity came years too late for Gore and Kerry.
#2 through #8 are legitimate questions. #1 is not. I won’t attack anyone who favors Clinton based on #2 thru #8. I may, probably will, argue the merits, but I won’t attack. #1 says we should vote for any mobbed up corrupt asshole who can win. It says we should vote for Trump if ran as a Democrat. That is wrong! wrong! Wrong!
Besides, if a candidate is best on #2 through #8, they would be electable as others would agree. Unless you are saying that Progressives are a minority niche, so far out of the mainstream, that achieving our goals is hopeless, so just settle for electing a Democrat so we can benefit from the graft.
That is not an argument for voting for Nader. As you peruse points #2 through #8 he fails most of them, most crucially experience in elective office. He was not electable. Sanders is no Nader.
I think there’s another relevant criterion. Is one of the candidates more likely to lead to high turnout by the opposition party because of particularly strong feelings of antipathy toward the candidate?
I don’t see either of them as having much of a chance in the general election. Sanders, being a non-traditional candidate, is harder to peg, though. He could lose 49 states, and Clinton wouldn’t. On the other hand, I think he has a better chance (though still not a great chance) at winning.
Hmmm… guess I was just stating criterion 1h in a different form. Sorry.
Have we reached a state where incrementalism has become economic suicide?
“Incrementalism isn’t pragmatism. It isn’t a logical acceptance of the possible. It is the coercion of a population paralyzed by fear.” (Egberto Willies)
Or perhaps the state where neoliberalism dressed up as “pragmatic” incrementalism is past its “sell by” date.
Agreed. Well past its sell by date.
So.. Sanders must prove he is electable in order to win the nomination, but he must win the nomination to prove he is electable?
From a comment above:
Thus, Sanders isn’t electable.
(We’ll ignore that turnout in ’12 was down from ’08 and Obama still won. And we’ll ignore that with near 100% of the national DEM party and Iowa state and local DEM officials are all in with Clinton and turnout in the Iowa caucus was down from that of ’08. And guess we’ll have to assume that AA turnout in ’16 for Clinton will be similar to what it was in ’12 for Obama and higher than it was in ’08.)
Honestly? Marie3 is right.
Electability has two components:
If your opponent is not electable … by definition you are. I’m very wary of this argument, but really the Klown Kar Kavalcade is awesome in its ineptitude.
Cruz is ugly. In presence, attitude and language. I understand that this is a very non-policy argument, but that’s life in the big city. In the US, if you are not photogenic, you ain’t shit nationwide.
Trump as boxed himself into the “Bro Corner”. He has deliberately pissed off every single demographic that does not include the terms “white, angry and not very smart”.
Rubio is brown, foolish and looks like the dork you pushed around in grade school. Bubba won’t like him at all. Bubbettes will like him less. And this assumes he doesn’t drink anymore water on camera.
I don’t think the rest have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the nomination so whether or not they could win the general is a moot point.
I hope I’m right.
The only reason I won’t swear the GOP is non-electable is because I know they cheat. Since they do, we need to have enough of a lead that they can’t pull it off, and that brings us back to electability.
Your on a roll, aren’t you.
.
I hope you’re right too. But keep in mind that right this moment, there is almost certainly a commenter on a right wing website who is writing “Sanders is unelectable because he is a socialist, and Clinton is unelectable because she is an uncharismatic liar.”
I didn’t think that W was electable, but he got elected. Previous generations didn’t think that Reagan was electable, but he won in a landslide.
Rae, the RW Wurlitzer has spent the last 8 years convincing Bubba that Obama is a socialist.
Quite frankly, my brother (the one who voted against the Missouri Amendment to outlaw slavery in 1976) doesn’t give a tinker’s dam. His words “well, he ain’t black. But he is a jew. I don’t know …”
Not exactly the firebreathing, barn burning, rock’em sock’em response the R’s are going to need.
ot, observation – I missed the debate last week [work] but saw a clip yesterday; Hillary looked to me very unhealthy, puffy.
It all really comes down to one’s definition of the word “win,” Booman. If you take the term at its simplest level, it means “win the presidential election,” and perhaps further help other Dems win other elections.
But that is a very shortsighted definition. If HRC wins the election, she will undoubtedly continue most of the policies that have been in place under Obama. She will certainly bring a different style to the effort, but that’s just tactics. Her strategic goals will be the same. The same in foreign policy…which is quite obviously a total failure by any sane measurement… and the same in terms of domestic policy, including not attacking the corporate and financial entities that have cannibalized this country for the past 50+ years.
So…is an HRC presidency a “win?” For whom, exactly? For the DNC? For the corporate revolving door DC establishment. Yes. For the citizens of this country? Not so much, to say the least. Would all of the Republicans bed worse? Most likely. Is that a ‘win.” or is it simply a choice among a knockout, a TKO or a decision loss?
Sanders presents different problems. Is he “electable?” (Whatever that really means. Its real definition only comes at the end of an election.) And if he is elected, will he be able to get anything done? That’s another unanswerable question until he actually tries to get something done in in the Royal Court of Washington DC, and of course that means he has to get elected first.
Knotty questions, these. Knotty questions for knotty times.
In my opinion it is impossible to get that broader “win” with HRC. If she is elected, we still get a TKO or best case, a decision loss. The U.S. continues on its present course. If she loses? It’s a straight knockout.
Now…if Bernie is elected? A long shot, maybe, but take a good look at that Klown Kar of losers in contention on the RatPublican side. If he wins, there is at least hope for change, even if that change is 4 or 8 years of constant battle to try and get something done in DC. The bully pulpit has power on people’s minds. It does, if used right. And I believe a Sanders/Warren win would be the start of a real revolution in this country. As big or bigger than the New Deal.
You say:
No. The bigger question is this:
After all of the “splitting down the middle,” which candidate offers even the possibility of real change, and which will continue the failed neoliberal policies under which we have been living for nearly 8 years.
If it out that after being nominated Bernie Sanders is “unelectable? What then? I’ll tell you what. Whatever Republican is elected will have dug his own unelectable grave by 2020. That’s what. Why? Because things will get worse here. Much worse. More war. More surveillance. More poverty. More social unrest from people of color. More of everything negative that is going on now. And Bernie’s hopes will be the next wave.
There is no real “win” w/HRC. Just more of the same progessive loss.
Thus:
Jump off the cliff in the full belief that you will fall up.
That’s better than standing on a cliff waiting to be pushed over.
VAYA!!!
AG
How I see it the only option is to jump (as you illustrate it) and hope we land on our feet. If we land on our head, we have lost nothing because all the other options are dead ends (like the duo Hillary and Bill Clinton, who are both running for president, which needs to be openly acknowledged).
I’m very pessimistic right now. The Clintons will crush Sanders one way or the other and the Democratic power brokers and the fawning media will guffaw and hee-haw about how ridiculous the young people are who supported Bernie Sanders. His supporters will be treated like dirt by all of the Clintons’ proxies and all the knowledgable in-crowd, which now includes Paul Krugman (get that!). Sanders will assume the role of the white knight, as when he chivalrously said he’d enough of her emails, and support the Clintons. But his supporters will turn their backs. A bitter battle is on the horizon for the Democratic Party. The Clintons will lose because they have no clothes, like the famous Emperor, and will be laughed out of town.
The result: a complete Republican conservative takeover of the three branches of government and, of course, the infamous SCOTUS. I regret I can’t offer anything better because that’s how I see it.
More war is coming the stock-market rich are becoming very nervous, a definite economic tailspin will only reinforce the scenario I envisage. The hate-Russia and the Assad-must-go industries are sort of Obama’s sweets and fruit after his rather mediocre banquet of eight years. The Clintons want to provide the after-dinner entertainment when he’ll put on his red-and-black flannel shirt again and start the square dancing. I loathe all three Clintons because of their greed and idiotic vanity and arrogance.
maybe, Quentin.
But then again…maybe not.
You write:
You are saying that the same thing that happened to Dean. McGovern etc. will happen to Sanders. But…the mood of this entire country is much more angry than it has ever been over the past 30+ years. It’s anger that is directed at the government now, and it is most definitely not isolated to the “youth’ vote, the “minority” vote, and so on. It is a top -to-bottom anger, currently evincing itself in the support for Trump, Cruz and Sanders. This ain’t the old days anymore, due largely to the influence of digital media. The “Democratic power brokers and fawning media” are just now beginning to realize that they have lost their monopoly on information distribution…witness their so-far total failure to boot Trump and Sanders out of contention (Not that they haven’t tried.) …and as a result they are too scared to do much in the way guffawing and hee-hawing.
We shall see. You may be right. I hope that you are not. An unexpectedly strong showing in NH for Sanders, Trump or Cruz will be the final sign that the information worm has turned. the smart money…media money…will back a winner. The dumb money will go broke.
Watch.
AG
What’s interesting is that the media used two completely different strategies in their attempt to boot Trump and Sanders out of contention: overexposure for Trump silliness and blackout for Sanders.
They were pretty silly on Trump, too. “He’s a clown,” etc. They couldn’t black him out, though…he’s too telegenic and too talented an electronic hustler. Plus…he was making money for them. Still is.
Sanders is easier to black out, especially by superimposing the gigantic shadow of the whole Clinton machine over his…really very modest, at heart…”image.” However, his message seeped through and millions realized that he was speaking for their anger. The natural anger of people who have been had by an empty promises-filled suit in liberal’s clothing. Or in Adolph Reed Jr.’s words prophetic words (1996) regarding Obama:
We all have to do better. We are doing better…so far.
To paraphrase Butch II:
We hip to the shit, now.
Third time’s the charm.
I hope.
Like dat.
Later…
AG
Booman Tribune ~ It All Comes Down to Electability
Booman Tribune ~ It All Comes Down to Electability
So correct me if I am wrong, but does this not boil down to that the most electable candidate is (per definition) the one that wins?
But if that is the criteria one is using, why care about electability? If everyone just votes for whoever he or she (or undefined) wants to see elected (per 2-8), then one candidate will win, proving electability.
nature of defining “electability” that you point out, there’s the related ontological question of whether relative “electability” is even “knowable” (where’s Rummy when we “need” him?) outside applying the REAL test of holding an election.
So, yeah, in primaries vote your actual preference. Presumably, in the general, (especially in the current situation where the difference between the two nominees is sure to present a stark choice no matter who they are; and assuming you haven’t been so sucked into vituperation of the primary opponent that you nurse a self-defeating grudge into the general), if the nominee won over your preferred choice, he/she will still be a no-brainer relative to her/his general election opponent.
it’s kind of circular but not in a tautological sense.
the presumption of the majority is that Hillary is more electable.
most likely (barring scandal), this cannot be changed in any other way than Sanders demonstrating as well as possible that his theory of the case can work.
Since electability in a Democratic primary and the general election have no necessary connection, it’s not actually a matter of whoever wins wins.
“Since electability in a Democratic primary and the general election have no necessary connection . . . “
A number of commenters up thread have stated their belief that none of the Republican clowns is electable.
And that being the case, that either Dem candidate is electable by definition.
I almost get the feeling that you are afraid that Sanders is so inherently unelectable, that he would turn whatever loser the GOP nominates, into a winner.
Then you trot out all the reasons why Sanders is unelectable: socialist, Jew, too old, from the nation’s weirdest state . . .
Meanwhile, his campaign continues to set new records, and inspires a fervency completely beyond anything on the Clinton side, and while people keep desperately looking for analogies, there don’t seem to be any good ones short of, maybe, FDR 1932.
So, is Sanders electable? Well, if he CLEARLY were UNelectable, like, say, most if not all the Republicans, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The reason we’re even talking about it is that nobody really knows. It’s because it seems like he might be, and yet . . . and yet . . . nawww, come on.
Isn’t that what the primaries are designed to find out? So far, there’s only been one primary. And people are debating about that too. Did he win, did Hillary win? But the fact is — Sanders went from “hasn’t got a chance” in Iowa to “virtual tie.” To me, that’s a win. Just like Hillary went from, “piece o’ cake” to “What just happened?” But that’s just Iowa, “a rural state” where, as of 2010, 64% of the population was urban, a trend that has only been accelerating since then.
So next time you’re gazin into your crystal ball to find out whether Bernie Sanders is “electable”, please bear all the above in mind, and especially the fact that so far there’s only been one primary, which, for all intents and purposes, he won.
This may be the central point that divides us.
Not with any reliability. None of us can. Not even you, boo.
Because most/all the info most/all of us have available to us for applying any such test must first, necessarily (or it wouldn’t BE available to us) have made it through the filters of the Corporate Media and the chosen Narrative that the Villager herd is currently slavishly stampeding with.
Which means most/all that info is distorted by biased “filtration” to some degree, and sometimes extremely so. The textbook case for this is probably the Villagers’ intense and irrational dislike of Gore that resulted in “reporting” that focused on trivial idiocies like who they’d rather have a beer with, frequently misrepresented facts (aka “lied”) to keep the chosen Narrative propped up, and thereby clearly constituted journalistic malpractice, but kept Gee Dubya within election-stealing distance. (Bob Somerby’s Daily Howler is the go-to source for documentation, much of it in realtime, of all that; but see also Eric Boehlert, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, and David Brock, among others. (Hillary was right, not paranoid! The VRWC was — and is . . . ongoing — a very real thing.)
Especially when I read some of the most vituperative comments directed at Clinton here (or asides about Gore’s supposedly “incompetent campaign” or some such in 2000), I can’t help wondering to what degree some of my fellow travelers here at the Trib might be unaware of the extent to which their own views and conclusions may have been influenced by this history of media malpractice, whereby some blatant falsehoods have nevertheless become widely accepted as “fact” (or at best, CW).
For just one example (out of hundreds, if not thousands, possible), it’s now unquestioned CW in The Village media that Gore “lost” one or more debates via exaggerated “sighs”, aggressive [and, significantly, fact-based] refutations of Bush “factual” claims, and a “smartest-kid-in-the-class”, condescending “know-it-all” demeanor. Somerby documents how the sighs were “exaggerated” by electronic amplification and endless looped repetition by the malpracticing media; as well as that Gore in fact “won” that debate by the only valid measure, i.e., “instant” post-debate polling of people who had actually watched the debate! Which the malfeasant Corporate Media very effectively spun (by repetition and distorted emphasis on the above-mentioned CW “points”) into a complete flipping of the conclusion that Gore “won” the debate to its opposite in the minds of the majority of the electorate at large, most of whom had not seen the debate, but only (some of) the media’s extreme, spinning, trivialized, misdirected, distorted “coverage” of it.
All of which shit continues apace with new victims even as I type this. The Corporate Media routinely do the opposite of their responsibility to accurately inform us (that earned “the press”, unique among secular institutions, their own protective clause in the 1st Amendment). Instead, in the aggregate, they make us stupider.
None of us can escape the influence of this filtration role that the media appoint themselves to.
The best we can do is to be aware of this fact, and hence on guard against its influence.
In 2008 I was a very early Obama supporter at a time when many of those opposed to Hillary Clinton were coalescing around John Edwards (I live in North Carolina, so for me seeing Edwards as he first ran for the Senate was to know that he was a self-centered sleaze). I have been a huge fan of Sanders for years, but unlike in 2008 when I became convinced early on that Obama had the political tools and smarts to win the nomination and election, I have forced myself to resist Bernie (despite contributing to him), reconciling myself to the fact that only Hillary could win the election.
Now I think a tipping point is about to be reached: Sanders is winning at setting the terms of the discourse, and Clinton is reverting to an ineptitude as a politician very similar to what she showed in 2008. Her very worst instincts and character traits tend to come to the fore in political combat–I was briefly relieved by her stellar appearance before the Benghazi committee, but that was Hillary the lawyer. Hillary the politician is constantly demonstrating poor judgment and instincts–she was only effective in 2008 when, unbeknownst to many observers, Obama already had the race sewed up relatively early.
The tipping point, when her weaknesses as a politician overwhelm all the seeming advantages of money, establishment support and name ID, is at hand. If we’re not there yet, we may be within a matter of a few weeks: the astonishing point at which Bernie is, in fact, the more electable Democrat.
IMO at this stage of the election cycle, what Sanders has accomplished to date is far more impressive than where Obama was in ’08. Obama and Clinton began their ’08 campaigns five months earlier, Obama had a chunk of the DEM institutional support and big money donors from Wall St. and Hollywood, a DNC chair that remained impartial and followed the agreed upon rules, and he had been given a coveted speaker slot at the ’04 DEM convention. With no name, only a handful of debates with the first not until October, and barely a skeletal staff when he jumped in, he’s built a real campaign operation and made himself a viable candidate against one of the most formidable operations in modern electoral politics.
I don’t disagree at all about how extraordinary Sanders’ accomplishments are, and we’re not done yet. The conditions are in place for more to happen. The groundwork was laid by Howard Dean’s 2004 fundraising innovations, which were updated to an art form by Obama and are now, for Sanders, possibly the equal of any group of super pacs the entrenched powers can muster. The Dean campaign’s crash and burn also demonstrated for all to see the way in which the mainstream media puts its thumb on the scale, another lesson learned and exploited by the Obama team.
Additionally, Sanders is benefiting from what Occupy Wall Street did to alter the conversation, which receded into the background for awhile but never went away, and the fact that in this cycle, almost EVERYONE knows the mainstream media is not impartial, and we all, young people especially, have a rich array of news sources that aren’t so filtered. The Clintons are woefully out of step with the zeitgeist, and it’s possible that the moment was made for Sanders.
All true as well. But all knowledge and innovations, including tech, are cumulative. We could look back at Jerry Brown’s 1-800 donation hotline as a precursor to Dean’s internet fundraising. Democrats were never able to develop the GOP direct mail fundraising model to any appreciable extent. It expensive, old, outdated, but has worked extremely well for Ben Carson this time around if the only measure of success is dollars collected. Carson is #1 among the GOP candidates at almost $54 million, but he doesn’t have a campaign organization worth much.
Clinton and her team, including a large number hired from Obama’s, knew and have used all those ’08 tactics. Plus they cleared the field of potential competitors, leaving her to scoop up at least 75% of the organization, voters, and donors that Obama, Edwards had each put together on their own. Leaving 25% of the voters and individual donors and 5% of elected DEM officials and non-party institutional support on the table to be split among O’Malley and whoever else had the audacity to jump in was too insignificant to challenge her dominance.
It was a foolproof plan. Except for two things. A certain portion of Americans don’t like “coronations.” But there aren’t enough of them to worry about. The larger problem is that she and her team don’t know why she lost in ’08. They chalked it up to Obama having the better campaign operation. He did, and perhaps that was what gave him his winning margin. However, he was also the better candidate. Aspirational. Not well defined — but “hope and change” was good enough to beat “first woman POTUS. He didn’t campaign on being the first AA POTUS. All she’s added to her ’08 campaign is that she’s like Obama and will be the first woman.
David Axelrod today.
Wow, I’m shocked he said that given how many of his staffers went to Clinton. Of course, that could be the exact problem: solely out of self-interest. Indeed, if Clinton fails with the staff that he succeeded with, he’s gotta make sure he’s far from her wreckage, lest future clients start getting some ideas that he’s not that magical after all.
Foolproof, indeed. No coronations, she/they don’t know why she lost, and one more thing: she is deeply flawed as a politician. She doesn’t have the instinct for it, although those that know her almost invariably glowingly describe her personality outside of the spotlight. So often she says too much when she should keep it brief, while at other times she’s curt when she’d help herself more by offering a fuller explanation. She doesn’t seem to sense the rhythm of politics, so she can’t really dance.
Bernie is right that judgment is important. Hillary has cooked her own goose, well done I might add. Of her own free will, she put on that helmet and climbed into the tank for a long ride. This giant political miscalculation was her speaking for profit to the banking community for no other reason (or was it?) than to cash in while she was planning a run in 2016. This shows an astounding lack of judgment that she thought she could get away with this publicly reported activity without tipping her hand on what side of the inequality struggle she was really on.
To compound this lack of judgment she also made a Nixon style unforced error by having those speeches transcribed by a professional service. After Hillary trying to claim the progressive mantel Bernie asked the obvious question, what would compel an authentic progressive to take that kind of money from these people. He never asked the more important question of just what did she say to these people she was courting. That task was left to a debate moderator.
The release the transcripts question clearly knocked Hillary off balance as she answered, “We’ll look into it.” Her answer after consulting with Team Hillary was even more telling. “…Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them. We’ll all release them at the same time…if this is now going to be a new standard, then it should apply to everybody.” This sounds like something out of junior high school. The primary cycle is the only real time voters get a sense of the candidate’s judgment. She has cooked her own goose.
“If Sanders wins primaries by bringing out masses of new voters, winning crossovers and independents, and dominating among the youth vote, he’ll start to win people over to his theory of the case.”
Better than winning people over to his theory of the case; he wins the primaries making that theory a moot point.
“If he can’t do that, and soon, the Democratic voters will go with what they see as the safer bet.”
I’m amazed at how the goal posts keep moving. In spite of a Bernie media blackout, DNC limiting the debates and gaining endorsements of the entire Democratic establishment, Hillary has managed to blow a more that 40% lead in Iowa resulting in a tie, set to lose NH by a wide margin and blow a national 30 point lead to a dead heat. What happened to all those minorities that were ready for Hillary? A better question to ask is what will Hillary have to do and do soon to convince a person to vote for someone who shows a lack of judgment, someone they don’t like and someone they don’t trust? Maybe she could do something about those polls that show Bernie beating any Republican by a wider margin.
All those who are curious as to the quid-pro-quo aspect of Hillary’s massive speaking fees, need to read this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-mil
lion-in-speaking-fees/400067/
And if Bloomberg jumps into the race in the next month or so? He can wait to see how things go in the March primaries to make his decision. And if he sees the race swinging in Sanders’ favor and decides to run, who’s his voter base going to be? Mostly Clinton Democrats, I fear. Sure, it would be blackmail on Bloomberg’s part. Not fair at all. As though anything about politics is fair.
So I’d say Booman should have included the possibility of a Bloomberg candidacy in his electability rubric.
The Republican base is surely not going to vote for Bloomberg. His voters would be those remaining Republican “moderates” who don’t like anyone the GOP will put up, unless possibly Bush, Christie or Kasich. .
And business-minded Democrats who worry that Hillary’s swung too far to the left.
And some independents, but not that many.
What actual or even prospective Sanders voter would vote for Bloomberg? Hard to imagine.
The only poll I saw for this scenario had Bloomberg pulling from Bernie’s base.
Who can better add to the electoral map (and not just the electoral college map) to ensure that there is support from a wide variety of down-ticket offices to implement their agendas?
Electability means being so dominant that the entire frame of government shifts.
For Sanders, the question is the power to inspire that shift. For Clinton, the question is whether she indeed seeks a shift and if so what sort of shift.
For the Republicans, they want a candidate who can fix things without changing them (according to Marco Rubio).
How does continuation of DNC gentry’s domination add a single state legislature, governorship?
I assume “how they run/ ran their campaigns” goes under “record” but it should be a category by itself – it’s what we see of them managing a large scale operation – staffing, uncertainty, whatever. its’ something that was remarked about obama vs Hillary.