Hillary Raises The Electability Question Again-- And The Polls Respond

The Clinton Machine is back to the inevitability argument which has served her so poorly in the past. And now, when they're not using the same ugly gun smears against Bernie that they used against Obama in 2008, they're pushing a corollary of inevitability: electability. But that's back-firing inherit too. Watch this ad she's running in Iowa this week. The first two-thirds are perfectly fine. And then... there she goes again...



"Who's the one candidate who can stop them? Hillary Clinton, tested, tough. To stop them, stand with her." Really? When it comes to elections, she hasn't been tested much at all. In 2000, she was a Democratic novelty/celebrity candidate in New York against an unknown, hapless Long Island congressman, Rick Lazio, who got into the race at the last minute, and, predictably, she trounced him 3,747,310 (55.3%) to 2,915,730 (43.0). Federal regulatory agencies never overtly interfere with elections but somehow the SEC caused a scandal for Lazio by asking him to turn over documents related to his stock option trading at Quick & Reilly. Nothing ever came of it but it left voters with the impression Lazio is a crook. After a dull, play-it-safe 6 years in the Senate, she ran for reelection and her opponent was the completely unknown, outspokenly homophobic ex-mayor of Yonkers, who had been term-limited out of office. He ran a radio ad during the campaign whining that the NRSC wouldn't help him beat Hillary. She raised $51,567,732 for the campaign and he raised $5,849,610, while dozens of outside groups spent another $17 million boosting her and basically got a few contributions from Republican Party organizations in other states and anti-gay groups. Club for Growth donated $253.

And then came the 2008 primary. She failed that test against a half-term, not very well-known senator with a funny name. So... not avery good argument. In fact, despite her blustery claims that only she can beat the scary Republicans, virtually all the polling shows the exact opposite. Not only does Bernie fare better than she does against every Republican, he beats all of them and she doesn't.

The big poll release yesterday was from Marist (NBC/Wall Street Journal). Aside from showing the race in both Iowa and New Hampshire neck-and-neck-- Hillary 3 points ahead in Iowa, Bernie 4 points ahead in New Hampshire-- there was the little matter of match-ups with the likely Republican nominees. Not good news for whomever in Hillaryland decided it push the electability issue this week. Bernie is clearly the more electable candidate.

In Iowa Bernie leads Trumpf 51-38%, excellent progress since October when Bernie was just beating Trump 48-43. Hillary would also beat Trump in Iowa, but not with nearly as large a margin. She'd score 48% to his 40% against him, a relief, since in the October poll he was leading her 48-41%.

Similar situation with Ted Cruz is Iowa. Bernie beats him 47-42%. But Cruz beats Hillary 47-43%. This should have alarm bells ringing for Democrats who understand what Ted Cruz is all about. But remember, Bernie beats him by 5 points but Cruz beats Hillary by 4 points. There are some voters out there-- for whatever reason-- who just will not vote for an establishment candidate like her.

And it's actually worse for her against Rubio. Rubio ties Bernie, 44-44%, not great news. But Rubio has a big lead on Hillary. He beats her 47-42%. Electability is not a good argument for Hillary, unless she really wants Bernie to win.

And the story is no better for her in New Hampshire. She beats Trumpf 45-44%, much worse than she did against him in the October poll when she led 48-45%. But don't worry, Bernie pulverizes Trumpf 56-37%, much better than he did in the October poll when he was "only" beating Trumpf 52-42%. These are very significant numbers. Hillary is way to risky a bet for Democrats if she can't even do better than a dead heat with Donald Trump in New Hampshire!

Bernie also approaches landslide territory against Cruz, beating him 55-36%, while Cruz again beats Hillary, this time 48-44%. Rubio? Bernie puts him away handily-- 50% to 41%. But Rubio's margin against Hillary is horrifying. He would beat her 52-40%. All these figures are for registered voters and if Democratic voters want to make sure that first part of Hillary's TV ad is never realized, they should forget about voting for her in the primary and do what they know is the right thing to do anyway-- elect Bernie Sanders president.

She can role out and orchestrate every hack shill in the book to pretend Bernie is an NRA candidate but no one with an IQ over 80 could possibly believe that and it's just another example of the kind of ugly gutter politics the Clintons are so disliked for. She tried the exact same thing on Barack Obama and it failed and her campaign failed.

This ActBlue page is a place where you can contribute to Bernie's campaign and-- if you'd like to-- to the congressional candidates who have endorsed him and are running on similar issues and principles, from Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison, co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, to Tim Canova, the Florida law professor and activist taking on duplicitous Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

UPDATE: Vultures Circling

Because of the weakness Hillary is showing in the polls, Wall Street is thinking of backing another Democrat to stop Bernie, who, obviously would be their worst nightmare. Names mentioned this morning: Biden, Kerry and Bloomberg.