According to CBS News, an alarming percentage of Democrats either won’t vote for Hillary Clinton or would only support her nomination to prevent a Republican from winning:
Just under half of Democratic primary voters nationwide say they would enthusiastically support Clinton if she became the party’s nominee. Twenty-seven percent would support her with some reservations and another 11 percent would only back her because she is the nominee. Fourteen percent would not support her in a general election.
When under half of Democrats would “enthusiastically support” Clinton and 27% would only do so “because she is the nominee,” even Democrats planning to vote for the former Secretary of State hold reservations.
Then, there are 14% who will not support her in a general election; this figure could easily increase. Also, not only will a sizable percentage of Democrats refuse to vote for Clinton, but 57% of Americans find Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.”
In addition, Clinton’s negative favorability ratings in 9 out of 10 national polls make her unelectable as a candidate in a general election. If you can name a presidential candidate in American history who voters both didn’t trust and didn’t like, I’d love to hear the name.
Furthermore, recent polls showing Clinton ahead of Sanders by an astronomical figure target primarily landline telephones and also highlight the fact that even the landline telephone respondents don’t trust or admire Clinton. Even in positive polls, there’s enough evidence to show that Clinton is simply unelectable in a general election, and I explain why in this YouTube video.
The truth is that Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton in a general election. As for Iowa and New Hampshire, according to an October 5, 2015 NBC News article titled Sanders Outperforms Clinton in General Election Matchups in IA, NH, recent polls show Bernie Sanders more than capable of winning a general election:
Hillary Clinton has always been viewed as the Democrats’ best general-election candidate. But new NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist polls of Iowa and New Hampshire show that Bernie Sanders outperforms Clinton in those two general-election battleground states.
Also, in almost every poll, the same people who say they’d vote for Clinton if the election were today are also the same people who state they don’t trust Clinton; I explain this in a recent article.
For the record, I have a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton and admire her attempt at healthcare in the ’90s. If the Hillary Clinton of the early ’90s were around today, then I wouldn’t have been quoted in a recent MassLive.com article titled Hillary Clinton’s new foe: the left.
Had Clinton not evolved towards Republican viewpoints on war, foreign policy, Wall Street, and other issues, I wouldn’t have been quoted by The Wall Street Journal regarding my views on a Sanders/Warren ticket or by the American Military University on why Bernie Sanders won the Democratic debate.
Sadly, I also wouldn’t have been banned from Reddit. However, this is 2016 and I explain in this YouTube video why I’m only voting for Bernie Sanders and why I will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump.
When I wrote in The Cleveland Plain Dealer that Bernie Sanders Can Win, Sanders was at 21% support in the Democratic primary. Sanders is now at 31% support and polling trajectory shows him winning the Democratic nomination. And no, Biden votes shouldn’t all go to Clinton.
Therefore, below are 10 reasons I’m only voting for Bernie Sanders in 2016, and will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump.
- The Iraq War. Sanders was on the right side of history. Bernie Sanders voted against the Iraq War, using the same intelligence reports as Clinton and Bush. He also foreshadowed the dire consequences of Iraq. In contrast, Hillary Clinton voted for Iraq and now calls her vote a “mistake.”
In 2005, Senator Clinton even said the “insurgency is failing” after a visit to Iraq.
Mass shootings are happening under President Obama, so gun violence can only be solved by Congress, not the president. However, Senators can’t send troops abroad unilaterally, but a president can bomb anywhere and deploy troops at will, without Congressional approval. The AUMF gives the president a certain time period to engage in war and send troops anywhere, without Congressional approval.
Regardless of her neoconservative outlook on war and foreign policy, certain “Facebook Liberals” who hate Bush but love Hillary also forget that Clinton and Bush aren’t very different in terms of foreign policy.
As Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The New York Times, “It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration.”
President Obama just sent Americans to Syria, and might even send more American soldiers in the near future. There’s no doubt President Hillary Clinton would send more Americans to the Middle East.
I’m not certain we need a president who jokes, “We came, we saw, he died,” and then helps usher a devastating civil war in Libya with her decision to oust a dictator.
You can hear Secretary of State Clinton utter the words in this CBS News segment.
- The Keystone XL Pipeline. Bernie Sanders has always been against Keystone XL.Keystone XL may threaten water acquirers that irrigate much of the U.S. We know President Sanders will continue President Obama’s vetoes of Keystone XL. Clinton was once inclined to support Keystone. She has now evolved, along with a number of other issues. I simply do not trust President Clinton to veto Keystone legislation.
- Euphemisms. Bernie Sanders never uses euphemisms. I trust Bernie because he speaks clearly; English is a means to communicate, not shield from criticism. Clinton, on the other hand, lives by euphemism and I explain why Orwell would vote for Bernie Sanders in a recent YouTube segment. From a “witch hunt” to wiping a server used out of “convenience” with a “cloth,” too many words are used to hide the truth.
- One candidate is the Charles Darwin of politics.The other is Bernie Sanders. Clinton always evolves; usually following Bernie’s lead on issues. I wouldn’t sign a contract with an “evolving” clause, nor would I want a president who continually evolves based upon reasons unknown to the average voter.
- Presidential powers. On war and foreign policy, I want a Democrat, not a Republican. I explain this viewpoint in a recent article. Sanders is the Democrat on foreign policy, while Clinton is another Republican in 2016.
- The TPP. Sanders has always been against the TPP. Clinton supported it 45 times, but now says she’s against it. As POLITIFACT states, “It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clinton’s reversal as a Full Flop.”
- Clinton’s 3:00 a.m. ad and Racism. Bernie Sanders has a comprehensive racial justice platform. Clinton’s 3:00 a.m. ad in 2008 had a “racist sub-message”according to one Harvard sociologist.
- I want a Democrat in the White House.I don’t want a moderate Republican on Wall Street, or a neocon pertaining to war.
- The DNC needs to end its fear of being too progressive. I’ll only vote for Sanders because progressive politics are mainstream. This isn’t 1972 and Nixon is no longer with us, unless you equate Clinton to Richard Nixon.
- Bernie Sanders is a “once in a lifetime candidate.”Clinton represents establishment politics. If you’re not voting for Sanders in 2016, don’t everagain complain about Wall Street, perpetual wars, or money in politics.
Americans need a choice in our democracy. 43% of American voters are independent, so allegiance towards political party is quickly becoming a thing of the past. I want an honest progressive, not a Republican, which is why I will not support Trump or Clinton. Bernie Sanders will win the presidency in 2016 because there are millions of people like me, and I’ll no longer be intimidated by the phrase, “You can’t let a Republican win!” Sanders has enough votes to win a general election according to the polls and President Bernie Sanders will be a transformative figure in U.S. history.
Originally posted in The Huffington Post.