The Quinnipiac poll also identifies other questionable beliefs of Democrats who support Clinton, which beliefs also tend to skew Democrats' electability calculations against Sanders.
The most startling difference between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters is that, by 81% to 6%, more Clinton supporters think the "right experience" and, by 70%-24%, that being a "strong leader," is an important attribute for a presidential candidate in this election. Lower ratios of Clinton supporters compared to Sanders' think attributes like values, honesty, and authentic "caring" about the majority are important.
It seems to be irrelevant to her supporters that Clinton's large attributed advantage on the scale of experience (96% to 68%) and leadership (91% to 68%) neglects the reality that Sanders, without exaggerating his resume, has far more actual on-the-ground experience in a greater variety of government offices than Clinton; that he has experience winning countless elections compared to Clinton's two practically uncontested dynastic coronations as Senator from the safe Democratic seat of New York; and that he was a successful mayor compared to Clinton's total lack of elected executive experience. By all accounts, which could become a factor in the general election, Clinton was an unsuccessful Secretary of State. This was her only "leadership" job to date (where she led primarily in the field of frequent flying, often to visit new friends and funders of Bill ), aside from leading the healthcare reform effort to defeat during the "feculent decade" of the Clinton presidency.
Fact-checking these preconceived differences is important for fairly making an assessment of the comparative risk to their electability from unanticipated weaknesses of the candidates that might arise after the nomination. These are intangible factors that polls do not capture well. As a highly seasoned campaigner, Sanders is unlikely to make major mistakes. Given the number and frequency of his numerous election contests it is unlikely that Sanders has any skeletons left in a closet somewhere likely to surprise the Party after it is too late for them to change horses. He is not a Carson, Cruz or Rubio fresh on the scene, inveigling us to take another chance on appearances and shallow slogans, as Obama succeeded in doing. Nor is Clinton. But unlike the old war horse Sanders she does have major corruption scandals percolating just beneath the current agenda of the mass media. And unlike Clinton, Sanders certainly has no unpredictable spousal issues likely to erupt all over his campaign without warning. As a Sanders supporter put it, "Bernie lacks the baggage that Clinton has been dragging around with her."
Compared to Clinton's potential problems, the only real outstanding campaign issues facing Sanders are substantive: whether he will be able to persuade his natural ally, the still uncommitted Elizabeth Warren, to join his campaign, if not his ticket, and whether the media will begin to tell the truth about his being significantly more electable than Clinton due to his appeal to Independents. Sanders himself describes the anti-democratic conduct to be expected from a plutocratic media after repeal of fairness regulation. "ABC's news program has spent 81 minutes on Trump and only 20 seconds talking about us. NBC Nightly News only spent 2.9 minutes covering our campaign. CBS? They spent six minutes. The point is: our political revolution certainly will not be televised."
That the leading candidate in the polls cannot get heard on the public's own airwaves is a scandal that should cause FCC licenses (pdf) to be revoked or at least modified. President Sanders could appoint FCC commissioners who would make such reforms, and could also veto attempts by a corrupt Congress to prevent them.
Well, actually, that is not the entire list. There is that other emerging question about Sanders' lack of a precise credible strategy to accomplish his paramount goal, getting private money out of politics, or as one prominent writer charged, he has "no idea what really needs to be done" about plutocracy. But that is a question for another day. (See this author's forthcoming The Amendment Diversion: How Clinton, the Democrats, and Even Sanders Distract Attention from Effective Strategies for Too Much Money in Politics by Promoting Futile Remedies).
Finally, the complaint from the strategically-challenged left that Sanders has not diverted his energies to directly fight the most invincible conduits of money in politics, the MIC, AIPAC and the NRA, rather than focusing energies on draining the swamp of systemic corruption in which they all swim, carries little weight. The strategic objective that Sanders' campaign targets is recovering democracy along the polity axis, not throwing oneself into the futile task in a corrupt system of trying to achieve any particular incremental reform along the policy axis that is most firmly opposed by plutocrats. Such critics misunderstand the two-axis political world they inhabit which Sanders does give every indication of understanding.
(PART 2: The Obama Factor)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
