1. Goldwater sounds irresponsible in the things he says during the campaign. This applies to pretty much all of the GOP candidates, but not to Clinton or Sanders.
2. Those who are advising Goldwater are a concern. Applies to Most of the GOP candidates (though interestingly, possibly not Trump). Also applies to Hillary if you assume that those who are giving her money are also advising her. Does not apply to Bernie.
3. Goldwater keeps changing his statements and doesn't mean the things that he is saying. Applies easily to most of the GOP (I'd argue Kasich is mostly saying what he believes). Applies to Hillary, who will say whatever it takes or change any position she has to in order to get elected. Does not apply to Bernie.
4. Goldwater is hawkish when it comes to foreign policy. Absolutely true for the GOP candidates. Could be applied to Hillary based on her (understandable at the time) support for the War in Iraq and her stated policies for dealing with the Middle East (which are close to the drone war Obama is waging). Does not apply to Bernie.
5. The main argument for Goldwater is to vote based on party unity instead of ideology. This is going to be used as the argument to vote for Trump if he becomes the GOP candidate, despite his many policy differences with the party. It's also the roots of the Hillary strategy of "vote for Hillary, or the Republicans win" and "Bernie is unelectable", despite the fact that he is the only progressive candidate in the race.
So, yes. Were I in Bernie's campaign, this would be one of the most effective ways to describe why I'd vote Bernie rather than Hillary.
I think the concern was, for want of a better term, 'looniness' or fringe-stuff. Hillary might be too friendly with Wall Street for our tastes, and she might be too hawkish for our tastes, but this is not the extreme stuff of fighting an unprovoked war, as was the case in Vietnam. I suppose I could be too anti-Republican in this case, but I really think they are in a different camp, and the only kind of fringe-like associations that are tied to Hillary are some of the old charges about being too much a devotee of Saul Alinsky.
On the other hand, I suppose a Red Stater would say that such Alinsky associations on Hillary's part and the quasi-socialism of Bernie make them the true fringe candidates - too far left for Real America. Though, even in these terms, Hillary's right-of-centerness makes her perhaps the most middle-of-America candidate on the ballot.
It should be a huge concern for Democrats that I am a lifelong Republican, and Clinton is the candidate whose positions most closely match mine. Of course, I also know that she won't actually do any of the things she says she'll do, but she is running as a moderate Republican.
I don't think Hillary is running as a moderate Republican anymore than John Kasich is running as a moderate Democrat.
From Five Thirty Eight (Nate Silver's website) Hillary Clinton Was Liberal, Hillary Clinton Is Liberal:
"To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising. Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members - he was not more liberal than Clinton. Hillary Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.... Overall, the “liberal Clinton” isn’t a new phenomenon. Given her support for liberal positions in the past and the support that liberals have given her, it shouldn’t be surprising that Clinton is staking out liberal positions to start the 2016 campaign."
1. Goldwater sounds irresponsible in the things he says during the campaign.
This applies to pretty much all of the GOP candidates, but not to Clinton or Sanders.
2. Those who are advising Goldwater are a concern.
Applies to Most of the GOP candidates (though interestingly, possibly not Trump). Also applies to Hillary if you assume that those who are giving her money are also advising her. Does not apply to Bernie.
3. Goldwater keeps changing his statements and doesn't mean the things that he is saying.
Applies easily to most of the GOP (I'd argue Kasich is mostly saying what he believes). Applies to Hillary, who will say whatever it takes or change any position she has to in order to get elected. Does not apply to Bernie.
4. Goldwater is hawkish when it comes to foreign policy.
Absolutely true for the GOP candidates. Could be applied to Hillary based on her (understandable at the time) support for the War in Iraq and her stated policies for dealing with the Middle East (which are close to the drone war Obama is waging). Does not apply to Bernie.
5. The main argument for Goldwater is to vote based on party unity instead of ideology.
This is going to be used as the argument to vote for Trump if he becomes the GOP candidate, despite his many policy differences with the party. It's also the roots of the Hillary strategy of "vote for Hillary, or the Republicans win" and "Bernie is unelectable", despite the fact that he is the only progressive candidate in the race.
So, yes. Were I in Bernie's campaign, this would be one of the most effective ways to describe why I'd vote Bernie rather than Hillary.
Reply
On the other hand, I suppose a Red Stater would say that such Alinsky associations on Hillary's part and the quasi-socialism of Bernie make them the true fringe candidates - too far left for Real America. Though, even in these terms, Hillary's right-of-centerness makes her perhaps the most middle-of-America candidate on the ballot.
Reply
Reply
From Five Thirty Eight (Nate Silver's website)
Hillary Clinton Was Liberal, Hillary Clinton Is Liberal:
"To see how these different issues fit together to form an overall political ideology, we usually use three metrics: one based on congressional voting record, one based on public statements and one based on fundraising. Clinton was one of the most liberal members during her time in the Senate. According to an analysis of roll call votes by Voteview, Clinton’s record was more liberal than 70 percent of Democrats in her final term in the Senate. She was more liberal than 85 percent of all members. Her 2008 rival in the Democratic presidential primary, Barack Obama, was nearby with a record more liberal than 82 percent of all members - he was not more liberal than Clinton. Hillary Clinton also has a history of very liberal public statements. Clinton rates as a “hard core liberal” per the OnTheIssues.org scale. She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders. And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal,” Clinton again was rated as more liberal than Obama.... Overall, the “liberal Clinton” isn’t a new phenomenon. Given her support for liberal positions in the past and the support that liberals have given her, it shouldn’t be surprising that Clinton is staking out liberal positions to start the 2016 campaign."
Source: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/
Reply
Leave a comment