Clinton or Sanders

[AFTT47]

Taking money from corporations, and listening to the "elite" instead of the people.

Do you really think ANYONE running for President isn't "elite?"

[Chad32]

I know Wall Street likes Hillary more than Bernie.

[Whateverist]

I would rather have either over the a Republican. That said:

Hilary is much more the right Democrat at the right time than Sanders IMHO. Here's my reasoning:

Sanders champions ideas which may be plausibly implemented 3 or 4 elections from now but not now. I'm amazed he even talks about single-payer health plans now when the admittedly-flawed AHCA has drawn the incredible resistance it has. Its like when Bill Clinton managed to push his "Don't ask, Don't tell policy for gays in the military in 1993. The gays were disappointed but the military members were horrified to go that far. Trust me, I was a member of the US Air Force at the time. There is no way he could have gotten openly-gay members of the military legally serving at that time. He went as far as he could realistically go. That's the way Hillary is on things like higher minimum wage. Sometimes you have to take baby steps or not take steps at all. Sanders is off the rails, going after things which are totally unrealistic. He would simply waste time.

Hillary has MUCH more chops on foreign policy. Obviously, she has much more experience having served 4 years as Secretary of State. It's very important IMHO. Sanders is completely out of his league here. He doesn't look to me to be even interested. Populism is his main thing. He's a one-trick pony. He's a good advocate for the people but not well-rounded enough to be a serious candidate for President IMHO.

Hilary is more electable. I don't care what the present polls say. If Sanders is nominated, the Republicans will crucify him over the socialist thing. This isn't the 50s but it's close enough. The socialist label will cost him enough swing votes to be fatal - maybe even against Trump. Why do you think the Republicans have been so nice on Sanders? It's for the same reason our side has hardly attacked Trump: They want him to be nominated because he's the easier opponent.

Hilary is strong. Yes, she's a bitch. I wouldn't want to live with her. But that's not the issue here. Most people would be happy to belly-up to a bar with George W Bush because he's an amiable guy whether you agree with his politics or not. That is even more true with Barack Obama who is even more charismatic. But that doesn't get it done in the oval office. It's good to be the most powerful person in the world but it's brutal too. It takes a degree of ruthlessness to do the job. Hilary has it while Sanders (and Obama, I'm afraid) does not.

Hillary is a woman. This is more my personal liberal social opinion than other things but I think we need to have a woman in charge. It's great that we had a black man as President but blacks are less than 15% of the American population. Women are 50%. It's high time a woman gets the top spot. We're wasting the talents of 50% of the population because of antiquated stereotypes. Let Hilary show that women are as capable as men. Maybe then, we can double our productivity here in the US by better using ALL of our talents. It sucks and it's embarrassing and unconscionable that we're wasting 15% of our population of blacks but it's even worse that we're wasting half of our population of women. IMHO, we really need a female President.

I was right there with you not that long ago.  Since then I've become less sure that Bernie can't be elected.  My doubt is based on thinking about how disgusted people are with politics as usual.  Look how well both Sanders and Trump are doing.  The desire for change may off set the traditional fogies who would never vote for someone who calls themselves any kind of socialist.  I honestly don't know any more.  That being the case, I'd hate to hold back on a chance to move a more progressive domestic agenda forward.  I know, I feel a little reckless.

[GrandizerII]

Taking money from corporations, and listening to the "elite" instead of the people.

Do you really think ANYONE running for President isn't "elite?"

I do. And that's because when people talk about "elite", they are usually also referring to a certain attitude typical among the elite rather than just some position within society or whatever.

[Whateverist]

Still leaves me wondering, are you hoping he'll figure out a way to accomplish his fine ambitions through the establishment or were you hoping he'd appoint himself emperor and just decree his whole agenda.  If you see the establishment as something that must be negotiated with skill, you could reasonably prefer Hillary.  But whatever.  I hope the Bern wins too but I'm not expecting any magic if he does.  Hopefully he won't be woefully ineffective.

The last thing we need is another Southern redneck POTUS, especially one from Arkansas.  It's time to kick the Clintons to the curb just like the Bush's.

Meh.  She has just played the game by the old rules in order to get into power to do what little is possible and prevent the horror of another GOP administration.

[bennyboy]

I probably won't vote for either of them, although either looks much better than Donald Trump.

I have much more respect for Sanders and think he's the more honest of the two.  I see Hillary Clinton as basically a criminal.  

I've always voted GOP, given that I was a fundamentalist Christian up to about 3 months ago, but my mind has changed enough in a short span of time that I don't think I can vote for any of the Repukelicans.... maybe Kasich... maybe.  But, I don't even agree with him on everything.  It would be nice if there was an attractive option, but I just keep weighing who looks the least dangerous.

Every vote NOT cast for the Democrats is a vote for Trump.  Remember that.

[bennyboy]

I was right there with you not that long ago.  Since then I've become less sure that Bernie can't be elected.  My doubt is based on thinking about how disgusted people are with politics as usual.  Look how well both Sanders and Trump are doing.  The desire for change may off set the traditional fogies who would never vote for someone who calls themselves any kind of socialist.  I honestly don't know any more.  That being the case, I'd hate to hold back on a chance to move a more progressive domestic agenda forward.  I know, I feel a little reckless.

Sanders polls well against Trump, better I think than Hillary does.

[bennyboy]

Taking money from corporations, and listening to the "elite" instead of the people.

Do you really think ANYONE running for President isn't "elite?"

It doesn't matter who's "elite."  It matters whether they are puppets or not.  Bernie and Trump are clearly not puppets, and that's why they've boomed in popularity.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I probably won't vote for either of them, although either looks much better than Donald Trump.

I have much more respect for Sanders and think he's the more honest of the two.  I see Hillary Clinton as basically a criminal.  

I've always voted GOP, given that I was a fundamentalist Christian up to about 3 months ago, but my mind has changed enough in a short span of time that I don't think I can vote for any of the Repukelicans.... maybe Kasich... maybe.  But, I don't even agree with him on everything.  It would be nice if there was an attractive option, but I just keep weighing who looks the least dangerous.

Every vote NOT cast for the Democrats is a vote for Trump.  Remember that.

All votes are not equal in Presidential elections.  In the current situation the only vaotes that matter are those in the Blue States, primarily the Dem votes.

[AFTT47]

I would rather have either over the a Republican. That said:

Hilary is much more the right Democrat at the right time than Sanders IMHO. Here's my reasoning:

Sanders champions ideas which may be plausibly implemented 3 or 4 elections from now but not now. I'm amazed he even talks about single-payer health plans now when the admittedly-flawed AHCA has drawn the incredible resistance it has. Its like when Bill Clinton managed to push his "Don't ask, Don't tell policy for gays in the military in 1993. The gays were disappointed but the military members were horrified to go that far. Trust me, I was a member of the US Air Force at the time. There is no way he could have gotten openly-gay members of the military legally serving at that time. He went as far as he could realistically go. That's the way Hillary is on things like higher minimum wage. Sometimes you have to take baby steps or not take steps at all. Sanders is off the rails, going after things which are totally unrealistic. He would simply waste time.

Hillary has MUCH more chops on foreign policy. Obviously, she has much more experience having served 4 years as Secretary of State. It's very important IMHO. Sanders is completely out of his league here. He doesn't look to me to be even interested. Populism is his main thing. He's a one-trick pony. He's a good advocate for the people but not well-rounded enough to be a serious candidate for President IMHO.

Hilary is more electable. I don't care what the present polls say. If Sanders is nominated, the Republicans will crucify him over the socialist thing. This isn't the 50s but it's close enough. The socialist label will cost him enough swing votes to be fatal - maybe even against Trump. Why do you think the Republicans have been so nice on Sanders? It's for the same reason our side has hardly attacked Trump: They want him to be nominated because he's the easier opponent.

Hilary is strong. Yes, she's a bitch. I wouldn't want to live with her. But that's not the issue here. Most people would be happy to belly-up to a bar with George W Bush because he's an amiable guy whether you agree with his politics or not. That is even more true with Barack Obama who is even more charismatic. But that doesn't get it done in the oval office. It's good to be the most powerful person in the world but it's brutal too. It takes a degree of ruthlessness to do the job. Hilary has it while Sanders (and Obama, I'm afraid) does not.

Hillary is a woman. This is more my personal liberal social opinion than other things but I think we need to have a woman in charge. It's great that we had a black man as President but blacks are less than 15% of the American population. Women are 50%. It's high time a woman gets the top spot. We're wasting the talents of 50% of the population because of antiquated stereotypes. Let Hilary show that women are as capable as men. Maybe then, we can double our productivity here in the US by better using ALL of our talents. It sucks and it's embarrassing and unconscionable that we're wasting 15% of our population of blacks but it's even worse that we're wasting half of our population of women. IMHO, we really need a female President.

I was right there with you not that long ago.  Since then I've become less sure that Bernie can't be elected.  My doubt is based on thinking about how disgusted people are with politics as usual.  Look how well both Sanders and Trump are doing.  The desire for change may off set the traditional fogies who would never vote for someone who calls themselves any kind of socialist.  I honestly don't know any more.  That being the case, I'd hate to hold back on a chance to move a more progressive domestic agenda forward.  I know, I feel a little reckless.

I hear you. We're definitely seeing the disgust you speak of on the Republican side. I guess you could say that makes them progressive. I would welcome a leftist revolution too but I don't see it as realistic at the present time. I would rather see a moderate leftist like Hillary win the election rather than a radical leftist like Bernie lose it.