Quote:
Originally posted by Mike91
We already know Hillary will attach herself to any popular issue that favors her politically. This is not new information or surprising coming from her.
I don't really care what Hillary supports because deciding to support something now means nothing if you either haven't always supported it or are actually going to fight for it once you get elected. Talk is cheap (well considering where and how she gets her money, her talk ain't so cheap, but whatever).
Bernie is right when he says it's Hillary who has the electability problems because unless she goes against Trump, she's going to have a lot of problems against the republican candidate, especially if her email problem continues to grow.
But don't let me ruin the fun for the Little Hillsters.
|
Alright then, let's play that game. I came prepared today.
If you look at Hillary's voting record, you'll notice that she has quite the consistent record; an archive is available
here and a summary of the just 31 different votes between her and Sanders is available
here. According to
FiveThirtyEight and their sources, she's actually more liberal than 70% of the Democrats who shared her time in the Senate; she notably ranks as being just as liberal as Warren and nearly as much so as Sanders.
This is important because these are more tangible than public statements and offhand live comments, and should be more important than soundbites that indicate "flip flopping." There is an established and incredibly significant pattern shown in the actual data that indicates a very liberal stance on a myriad of issues and a more centrist approach to several others; there isn't much to suggest flip flopping. Additionally, though I can't find the article and will be working to, there's evidence to suggest that Hillary backs up her word far more often than not, so fearing her saying one thing publicly and doing another as President is a little bit nonsensical. Indeed, her reputation for flipping on the issues comes from a list of comparably few issues and MUST, as a rule to actually constitute flip-flopping, include things on which she only made statements and sometimes even expressed doubt about; almost none of them actually rely on voting record.
Here you'll find a list of just twenty two issues this entire century that even Republicans could label as a flip-flop, and many don't cut it when you actually research them.
As for flip-flopping in general, people too often fail to account for - or even criticize actively - the notion that a politician could evolve on the issues as the country does without seeking electoral support from it. One such example for Hillary, same-sex marriage, has actually seen unprecedented change in opinion that includes a LOT of people changing their minds, not just her or any other candidates. On some issues - namely gun violence and mass sentencing - she's become more liberal with time in the face of new events and changing ideas, and in the face of the party and the people also moving left on the issue. Often-times she has done it along with us rather than as a response. Most notably, she's recorded as having "flipped" on gun control, but has actually always been more liberal than Sanders on the issue. Think about that for a moment.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that she's the most consistent person on earth, but you have to account for a lot more variables here. Her five decades of involvement in politics, 48 years as a Democrat, mean she has one of the longest careers in the political world right now. She first rose to national prominence twenty four years ago as her husband was running, and during his term fought as hard for healthcare reform as most liberal politicians in 2009. Many of her flips are not only exaggerated in nature, but rely upon spoken word evidence other than voting record or actual actions, which is a rather dangerous way to look at these things.
Finally, just a little on the notion that what she says now doesn't matter: that is absolutely ridiculous. The difference in the ideas she and Sanders vocally support has immense influence upon the political world, reflect the things that they and elected Democrats will push hardest come 2017, and should absolutely be examined for their differences before voting. Her policies and positions in several cases receive more support not only from economists and experts, but also from the general voting public (and might I remind you, the opinion of the people a politician represents is traditionally seen as the opinion that should win). She has detailed plans, and will not turn on a dime - no Presidential candidate makes these promises and fails to attempt to pass them. On many issues both in this campaign and in general, she has never flipped and will not flip; where she has flipped she has a consistent trend toward the more liberal. Finally, I'll remind you - her voting record
is strong and does support her 2016 views.
All I'll say with regard to electability is this: she is better at debating than any Republican candidate, she is more representative of the greater American sentiment than any Republican, she is more experienced in the key issue of foreign policy than any Republican, and I'm very confident at this point that her email situation will not result in indictment. She will most certainly not face issues as major as people like to believe, and assuming Sanders is more electable on this basis or on the bases of GE polls (not you, just in general) is dangerous and fallacious.
I know what I support, who I support, and whether I can trust Hillary to accurately represent my views in the White House.
He continues to gain momentum everywhere. Iowa is the one place his momentum has stalled but that doesn't necessarily mean his base won't show up to caucus tomorrow.
