First, I was provided with a set of links about some issues with Sanders: his supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters; his campaign has suggested or stated that he had endorsements he didn't have; a Super PAC has raised nearly $1m to spend supporting him; he voted in favor of spending bills related to Iraq and Afghanistan. The person providing me the links was, of course, a Clinton supporter, and was suggesting that this made her doubt him and what he supports. Now, admittedly, I have not done my thorough research on each of these items, but here's some things to consider:
- His supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters - This is unfortunate, but as I mentioned in my last post, I'm much more concerned with the politician than his/her supporters. The article said that this wouldn't normally be of great concern because the rationale Sanders uses for his being able to push things forward if he's elected is that his supporters will be a tidal wave, a political revolution, and therefore what they're like is vitally important. O.k., but if all his supporters were being this nasty, there would be significantly more news about it. A quick couple searches does not pull in the number of reports that I would expect if this was a wide-scale issue.
- His campaign has been shifty by suggesting/stating that he has received endorsements he hasn't. O.k., this is a fair problem to raise. That said.... really? A Clinton supporter is going to complain about someone being dishonest and shifty? I mean, not for nothing, but ... a Clinton supporter? I mean, o.k., but, wow.
- A Super PAC has raised $2.3m to support Sanders. O.k., let's start with some numbers, shall we? Clinton's outside support, as of the end of January, have raised $48m (roughly 20 times as much as those supporting Sanders), and spent $12m (roughly 10 times as much as those supporting Sanders). Let's move on from that to discuss not just that the amounts are dwarfed, but that the money coming into these support groups is from vastly different sources. The Super PAC supporting Sanders mostly gets small donations from middle class workers (it's National Nurses United... yep, it's a nurses union). The Super PACs supporting Clinton get most of their money from very large donations (98% of the money raised in the second half of 2015 for Priorities USA Action was in the form of $100,000+ donations... I don't think most nurses have that kind of spare cash). To be perfectly honest, I don't really have a problem with a politician having a Super PAC while saying they're in favor of removing Super PACs from politics... provided they have a history of being in support of political finance reform... but I also feel like the Super PACs in this race are in line with the fundraising the campaigns are doing themselves. Sanders' campaign is getting predominantly small donations while Clinton's is getting larger donations. So... long story short, Sanders has the support of a Super PAC which in turn is supported by working people... Clinton has the support of much larger Super PACs which are in turn supported by much richer people. Thus, the argument point is awared to Sanders.
- Sanders voted in favor of spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I haven't looked into this very closely, but I know he voted against going to war in the first place. My feeling is that once you're at war, voting in support of the spending bills is acceptable. Furthermore, are we really talking about how it's a problem that Sanders supported war? Really? This from someone supporting Clinton? Clinton, the war hawk? REALLY? O.k., well, if I'm in favor of trying to do everything we can to maintain peace, and I am, why would I vote for a war hawk over someone who supported some war spending bills but has been a vocal opponent to wars in general?!?
I'd also like to point out Clinton's own 2 points against Sanders:
- Clinton says Sanders won't be able to get what he wants accomplished but she knows how to get things done. First off, as First Lady, she couldn't get health care reform done. Secondly, she's viciously hated by Republicans and this leads me to believe that she would have a harder time getting more conservative things done than Sanders would getting somewhat liberal things done.
- In response to Sanders saying she was the establishment candidate, Clinton said that Sanders is the only person that could label her as an establishment candidate because she's a woman running to be the first female President of the US. Well, let's compare the two candidates on the Democratic side then, shall we? One has a ton of support from establishment players in the party, the other doesn't. One has been in the lead and the DNC has been scheduling debates at times that people wouldn't get to see the two face off. One is moderate, the other is somewhat extreme left wing. Without knowing that the "one" in each of these statements is female, it's very clear that the "one" is the establishment candidate. I'm sorry, I don't care that she's a woman. That is NOT sufficient reason to vote for her nor is it reason enough to believe that she's not the establishment candidate between the two of them. Hell, the first comment, that one about most of the political players supporting her, that one element is enough to indicate she's the establishment candidate. Give me a break.
No comments:
Post a Comment