Bernie Sanders the alternative to Hillary C.

[Billy T]

From more than a million small contributors, Bernie has paid for his first brief commercial (now on local TV in Iowa & New Hamshire):
See it at:

 

[Bowser]

I think a person is a fool if they vote for Hillary. Sanders might be a dreamer, but at least he's in your corner...

 

[Billy T]

24 states closing their borders to desperate people is not only un American, it is a disgrace. Further more it is handing a victory to the terrorists. We should be like the French who actually suffered - Tell the terrorists we will continue to hold our America values, symbolized by Lady Liberty, holding her touch high in NY harbor. BTW she was gift from the French, who hold to their values, despite Nazi occupation and other things worse than 130 killed.

Mostly Republican states (Only one Democratic one have been intimidated, I think) and almost all Republican candidates for POTUS, quickly abandoned the America / Lady Liberty POV: "Give me your tired ... wanting to breath free air."

I have not heard Clinton's views, but Bernie Sanders is standing tall and proud with Lady Liberty not building security walls. Read this: https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/yahoo-news-live-bernie-sanders-154421767.html and watch at least one of the videos there. One of 33 minutes opens automatically at start of the link and if you want to call yourself a serious, well-informed, vote you need to watch it all - There is a real alternative to more of the same making: the middle class shrink and the wealth move ever more concnetratedly in to the hands of the top 1% - they get 58% of all the nation's income, lets not have it become 2/3 with "more of the same."

Of course ALL immigrants need to be "vetted." The process is already taking on average 18 months. I forget, perhaps it was Franklin who said: Those who give up their freedom for security, will soon have neither" (or words to that effect).

 

[joepistole]

I agree that the U.S. can learn from Norway. I think our schools are sub-par in large measure. Standards for teachers aren't particularly high.


Many math teachers are better at math than at teaching. Many foreign language teachers aren't actually fluent in the language they are teaching.


Education and health care for everyone, it seems to me, is the place to start. The U.S. will never have the homogenous population of Norway but a uniformly healthy and educated population would go a long way in that regard.

I agree with most of that. But I think we need to recognize there is great variation in the quality of public education in America. Unlike many countries, the US has a decentralized educational system. Education in the US is largely a local issue. Local governments independently decide what will be taught; who will teach it; when they will teach it; and how they will teach it.


When I lived in Ohio and my kids were in school, the suburbs where we lived had very good public schools whereas schools in urban areas spent twice the money per student and received failing grades on state standardized tests. Urban schools were just horrific and that is a function of the school board. Some of what those crappy school boards tolerated was in my opinion, intolerable (e.g. stranding kids at schools without transportation and notifying parents).


We like to generalize. But in doing so, we ignore some very important details. I think the problem lies in local control and local funding. However, politically, that’s probably a nonstarter, especially with Republicans.

 

[Billy T]

I iked Joepisole's post 84. I have been making the point he makes in last paragraph many times for five years or more. Poor education in poor neighborhood might be eventually eliminated if wealth were being return from the 1% who have hoarded most of it now and pre college level students might apply themself more, if they knew college was free as Bernie wants it to be, instead of out of their fnancial reach. Here is recent example (post 1112 in part here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...r-more-worse-news.105212/page-56#post-3318916 ):

... I spoke of the Americans voting for representatives that promise the most "goodies" now, with the bill sent to later generations. Just as Alexis de Tocqueville did more than 180 years ago in Democracy in America. I put this problem down mainly to the poor quality of pre-college education most American kids get (in contrast to the education in Scandinavia).

My first wife was a Norwegian elementary teacher and I have been there at least a dozen times so do know of the one, zero cost difference that makes Norwegians both beter educated and better citizens, concerned for future generations of Norwegians and the health & education of all:

In Norway (and most if not all of Scandinavia) when students finish the first grade, both they and the same teacher move up together for the next grade. Etc. thru graduation from elementary school. This simple no cost difference from US schools has an enormous benefit.

First, there is no passing a problem child on to the next grade teacher as you are the next grade teacher too. If Johnny can't read or do math, there is no passing him on to the next teacher. All know who is responsible - no ducking / hiding responsibilities, as in US schools.

Secondly, at the start of every grade after the first the teacher on day one, knows her students well. She knows, for example John is two grades ahead in math but having trouble with his foreign language (All will be fluent in three, two not Norwegian, languages by eight grade). But Jane, who already has mastered three by fourth grade is a half a grade behind in math. So teacher can on some days have them helping each other in the back of the class room during say knitting class (even the boys take that).

Thirdly, thus educating the class is a mutual group project and responsibility - all learn at an earlier age to help each other - take responsibility for the welfare of others. Later in life, they still think it completely proper, correct and DESIRABLE to pay ~50% of their income in taxes so ALL have good education and health opportunities.

That "zero cost" better path is not taken* in the US and that has made all the difference! Why Norwegians would never spend their oil and gas wealth income on only the current generation, not even to lower their current taxes (Alaskans have negative tax - each man, woman and child gets $1900 from the government, with none set aside for generations not yet born.)

* American egos are too swollen to lean from others. Same reason why per capita medical services cost more than twice as much as in Scandinavia, yet they have three years greater life expectancy. Same reason why US on a per capital bases has about 25 times more citizens in jail, at per capita cost greater than Ivy League university tuition! etc.

Almost all of the US's major problems (including shrinking middle class and extreme wealth concentration), fundamentally stem from poor education that does not socialize its population to make them good citizens, concerned more with the future and less with how to get more "goodies now" without current tax increases.[/QUOTE]

 

[Billy T]

In addition to Bernie S. "standing tall and proud with lady liberity" (see post 83) Obama has done the same, twice in speaches within the last 24 hours.

 

[Billy T]

Sanders offers a hard target to reduce carbon pollution beyond the current administration, vowing to cut emissions 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050. To achieve that, he would mandate emitters pay for the amount of greenhouse gases they pump into the air -- a policy that remains immovable in Congress.*

In the sweeping 16-page plan, Sanders lays out an agenda that would repeal fossil fuel industry subsidies; dedicate funding toward a clean-energy workforce of 10 million jobs; ban oil, coal, and gas lobbyists from working in the White House; and return billions to the communities hit hardest by the transition to cleaner energy sources and extreme weather tied to climate change.

“Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans,” Sanders said in a statement. “CEO’s are raking in record profits while climate change ravages our planet and our people -- all because the wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change.”

* Sanders wants to cure the "problem of the commons" - Fact that it is to individuals benefit to exploit the commons but society as a whole is damaged. Name comes from historic practic of holding some pasture in common, so landless poor would have pasture for their cow. Far too many cows were put into the commons, and it was over grazed so no cow there did well.

We have the same problem today with the common air. Every polluter gets some benefit (cost saving) by polluting the air we all breath. So much so that at present rate of CO2 release, for free, Earth may become uninhabital in a few deades. Sanders wants to charge for what the polluters now get for free. - The right to dump CO2, and other Green House Gases into the air. Charging for doing so is only way to limit that air polution to a level nature can process.

A few decades ago, the Rhine River was so polluted by dumped chemical toxins that few fish could live in it and you could not safely eat those that did, due to the heavy metal poisions like mercury in their bodies. Germany stopped trying to prevent this pollution by making it illegal. Instead they said: Ok, dump what you want into the Rhine, but here is the table of charges. Now people can again swim in the Rhine and catch fish to eat there.

Sanders has the correct approach to US's "problem of the commons."

 

[Bowser]

Sanders is the only runner who has a consistent stand through the years. Hillary? whichever way the wind blows. Trump? He's the Clinton spoiler playing Republican, though it should be noted that his popularity shows what many are thinking.

 

[Billy T]

{in Iowa}
Among those younger than 45, Sanders bests Clinton 59 percent to 27 percent. And among those who say they plan to attend their first caucus, he leads 52 percent to 34 percent. Clinton wins with older Democrats (56 percent to 26 percent) and women (49 percent to 32 percent). Both candidates remain popular with Democrats in the state. Eighty-nine percent said they view Sanders favorably, while 86 percent said the same of the former secretary of state.

Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley received just four percent support.

If O'Malley can hold his supporters together and deliver them to either S or C, he can name the winner in Iowa; but possibly more important is the weather. Few, is any of Clinton supporters would walk thru a bad cold storm for her but Sander's enthusiastic young supporter would walk thru a blizzard for him.

 

[Billy T]

Sanders is 2nd only to big mouth Trump in gaining status in polls / dollar spent. They are extremes in average campaign contribution. Lots of little ones for Bernie and mainly self funded Trump.

 

[sculptor]

What can a president do the diminish the corporatization of the USA?
Would both Sanders and Trump use the commander in chief role to end the military adventurism?
Would both or either seek to diminish the power of lobbyist?

 

[origin]

I have a very staunch republican friend who told me he was for Trump, which really wasn't that surprising. He then told me that if Trump is not the nominee for president he would probably vote for Sanders! I was floored. I asked how that could possibly be and he said he liked Sanders consistant stand. I am sure I was looking at him like he had a hole in his head and he said Sanders isn't a democrat really, he is an independent so he felt he could vote for him.

This has got to be one of the craziest election cycles I have ever seen...

By the way, my friend and I almost never talk politics because we are polar opposites - er, we were or whatever....

 

[Billy T]

... Would both or either seek to diminish the power of lobbyist?

Anybody's guess what Trump would do - on matters that were important to him, he might become a lobbyist! He can afford to bribe a few Congressmen to vote his way.

On Bernie, he surely will try to return government to the people & end it be bought by the rich to server their interest. The question is, as Hillary has asked, can he get masses of new young voters to give him the Congress that will make it possible for US to be more like a Scandinavia country - end the military industrial complex* Ike warned about, use the saving (plus new tax on short term stock trading and a higher one on automated machine trades and their spoofing,** etc.) to fund free education and quality heath care for ALL, not just the wealthy.

* The military industrial complex collects from tax payers, more that the next 16 largest military expenditures of other countries.
** Placing big buy order, that drives price up which is canceled in a fraction of second after they sold at the higher price – humans can not reacts as fast as these trading machines can with their high speed connections direct to the markets.

 

[joepistole]

What can a president do the diminish the corporatization of the USA?

Good question, he can attempt to lead congress and the nation to do just that. But he cannot pass the legislation required to accomplish that goal. That is within congress's bailiwick. He or she can lead congress and the nation. If a Democrat is elected, I don't see Republicans given how right wing entertainers like Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, et lia will oppose anything Democrats attempt. It's what they have done for the last 7 years and unfortunately I don't see that changing any time soon.

Would both Sanders and Trump use the commander in chief role to end the military adventurism?

Given Sander's background, I don't see Sanders pursuing military adventurism. That crosses his grain. Trump, well that's another story. I don't know what Trump would do. He has certainly rattled the sabre rattling. I suspect he would if he thought it would yield him some sort of political advantage.

Would both or either seek to diminish the power of lobbyist?

Sanders would definitely attempt to diminish the power of lobbyists. But I don't think he would be successful. He will try and he will fail. I think Hillary will make the attempt as well, but her attempts will unfortunately be far less dramatic and less sweeping. But she probably faces better odds of success.

I find it difficult to believe Trump will even attempt to diminish the power of lobbyists. Trump has benefited far too much from lobbyists over the years. I seriously doubt he would kill the goose who lays the golden eggs. He is far too smart for that.

The only way we will be able to change the roll of lobbyists and special interest money is to amend the US Constitution, we can thank Scalia and his fellow Republican Supremes for that (e.g. Citizens United).

 

[sculptor]

The only way we will be able to change the roll of lobbyists and special interest money is to amend the US Constitution, we can thank Scalia and his fellow Republican Supremes for that (e.g. Citizens United).

I cannot imagine our millionaire's congress doing anything that would interfere with their gravy train.
Also difficult to imagine the Roberts court hearing anything that might overturn citizens united.

How much leeway would either have with executive orders?

........................

The military industrial complex collects from tax payers, more that the next 16 largest military expenditures of other countries.

They are like an octopus with tentacles(pieces of equipment manufactured) in as many congressional districts as is possible.

 

[joepistole]

I cannot imagine our millionaire's congress doing anything that would interfere with their gravy train.
Also difficult to imagine the Roberts court hearing anything that might overturn citizens united.

I agree. The people of this country will need to demand it in no uncertain terms and they will have to persist. It certainly will not be easy.

How much leeway would either have with executive orders?

Little to none, Obama attempted to use executive orders to curb the influence of special interests when he took office. But they and virtually no effect. His executive orders only applied to the executive branch of government. The real power is in the legislative branch where laws are made and money is spent and the POTUS cannot the rules for congress. This is going to take an amendment to the Constitution.

They are like an octopus with tentacles(pieces of equipment manufactured) in as many congressional districts as is possible.

I agree. I think it is one of the most important problems facing the nation, and it isn't getting much attention.

 

[Billy T]

BE SURE to hear Bernie sing, his short (15 second) folk song starting at 1:40 in video at:

Watch short video:

and

Bernie may not become POTUS, but already he has won his revolution. Post Bernie's USA is changed, even Clinton has changed.

 

[Billy T]

BE SURE to hear Bernie sing, his short (15 second) folk song starting at 1:40 in video below:
Video is bigger and louder in the prior post.

.... Bernie may not become POTUS, but already he has won his revolution. Post Bernie's USA is changed, even Clinton has changed.

Bloomberg agrees with my bold text above:

Democrats would enjoy an advantage in national elections because the major demographic groups that make up their coalition (young people, minorities, and single white women) were all growing as a percentage of the electorate, while the groups that Republicans rely on (married white people and seniors) weren’t keeping pace.

The important thing to understand is that Sanders is a vehicle, not the catalyst, for the increasing liberalism of the Democratic electorate. No one should make the mistake of assuming that just because he’ll go away, the agenda he speaks for will, too. “Sanders isn’t just a flash in the pan,” say Teixeira. “His success indicates something much deeper. For better or for worse, the Democratic Party is a party in flux and moving in a more progressive direction.

Trump is not destroying the Republican party - only speeding the death of a dying party.

 

[Tiassa]

A'ight, I'm In

​

Generally speaking, I've been ducking the Democratic nomination contest. Truth told, I can back either candidate in the general.

Nor is that actually any secret, as my prior foray↗ into the question revealed.

Yet as the contest has shaped up the way it has, it's also true I've held pen and tongue alike regarding the chatter that it is finally time for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to end his campaign.

It's hard to back that line, though; the Democrats are putting on a hell of a show this year.

Three factors, though, move me to make the obvious endorsement, that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee. We knew about my opinion, but like I said, three factors:

(1) Markos Moulitsas ― Despite enthusiastic, even vicious, support for Bernie Sanders' campaign throughout the Daily Kos community, site founder Markos Moulitsas↱ published an op-ed in The Hill yesterday, calling on Bernie Sanders to end his campaign. The Vermont Socialist "would have to win nearly 60 percent of delegates in the remaining states just to tie her", Moulitsas notes. "That's just not going to happen."

(2) The Stranger ― Local weekly The Stranger saw its staff huddle together earlier this week; the Stranger Election Control Board↱ emerged today with its recommendation: "You must caucus for Hillary."

(3) Rolling Stone ― Jann S. Wenner↱, publisher of the iconic pop culture magazine, offered a powerful endorsement today, backing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton: "I have been to the revolution before," Wenner writes. "It ain't happening."​

These are all outlooks that tend more liberal than centrist, more revolutionary than Establishment. And these are all familiar calculations: While the Sanders platform sounds inviting, this is simply not the year for such a risk.

While the Kos says nothing to disparage Sanders' platform, his recommendation is based on the delegate math and the priority of defeating the conservative spectre that now looms over the nation with greater menace than most of us have ever witnessed. And while Party unity might well be its own question, Moulitsas also observes a question of dignity:

Sanders adviser Tad Devine said after Sanders’s 0-5 performance last Tuesday. “The factors superdelegates will take into consideration include who’s won more pledged delegates ... but also who’s gotten stronger, not weaker, over the course of primaries, and who matches up best against Donald Trump or whoever the Republican nominee is.”

In short, the Sanders campaign is now making the same argument it was decrying just a few months ago — that Democratic superdelegates should subvert the choice of the Democratic electorate to hand the nomination to the primary loser. It was an absurd argument when Clinton made it in 2008, and it’s no less absurd today. And if anyone was a beneficiary of such usurpation of the will of the voters, it certainly wouldn’t be an outsider like Sanders.​

The Stranger, known for queer revolutionary liberalism verging on raised to deliberately obnoxious pitch, offers a wisely calculated gamble:

At a time when the American right is captivated by a dangerous, racist demagogue with zero political experience, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only Democratic candidate with the ability to take him down and the backing of a diverse coalition that actually looks like the America that Donald Trump wants to deport, degrade, and dismiss ....

.... Yeah, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont talks a good revolutionary game. But his failure to rally a diverse coalition, his history of selling out certain liberal ideals for political expediency, and his peddling of unrealistic promises make him wrong for this political moment.​

Wenner, of Rolling Stone, offers the most thorough consideration of the three. Here's a question: Who here can tell me the what-happened-to-the-auto-industry story? No, not the twenty-first century bailout, but the decline of Detroit? There is a basic sketch, and once upon a time it was the conservative pitch against unions, beacuse, well, in the Republican world it is absolutely inexcusable to blame corporate executives for the decisions they make; if they run the company into the ground, it must be someone else's fault.

It's just a little detail along the way.

The strength of Wenn's endorsement is its eye to history; where some complain of this or that vote in one's Senate history, others might nod, acknowledge it was a bad decision, and remind of the circumstances at the time. Those who would ignore history demand nothing more than someone else behaving the way the one expects for the sake of convenience right now.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency in modern times, as was Al Gore. We cannot forget what happened when Gore lost and George W. Bush was elected and became arguably one of the worst presidents in American history. The votes cast for the fantasy of Ralph Nader were enough to cost Gore the presidency. Imagine what a similar calculation would do to this country if a "protest vote" were to put the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court all in the hands of the extreme right wing that now controls the Republican Party.

Clinton not only has the experience and achievements as first lady, senator and secretary of state, but a commitment to social justice and human rights that began for her as a young woman. She was one of those college students in the Sixties who threw herself into the passionate causes of those times, and she continues to do so today ....

.... I keep hearing questions surface about her honesty and trustworthiness, but where is the basis in reality or in facts? This is the lingering haze of coordinated GOP smear campaigns against the Clintons — and President Obama — all of which have come up empty, including the Benghazi/e-mail whirlwind, which after seven GOP-led congressional investigations has turned up zilch.

Battlefield experience is hard-won, and with it comes mistakes but also wisdom. Clinton's vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq 14 years ago was a huge error, one that many made, but not one that constitutes a disqualification on some ideological purity test.​

The whole thing is worth a read, but will raise the ire of many Bernie backers:

You get a sense of "authenticity" when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity, which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.​

Wenner's endorsement is about as much a culmination of my own concerns, watching this race, as I expect to get. Indeed, it is more than I expected to hear until the postmortem regarding why not Bernie.

Politics is a rough game, and has been throughout American history. Idealism and honesty are crucial qualities for me, but I also want someone with experience who knows how to fight hard. It's about social and economic justice and who gets the benefits and spoils of our society, and those who have them now are not about to let go of their share just because it's the right thing to do. And Clinton is a tough, thoroughly tested fighter.​

And in the end, it is easy enough to suggest, as Wenn does, that both candidates "come out on the side of the angels", but he also posits that Democratic voters have a clear choice in front of them: "This is not the time in history for a 'protest vote'".

This is the cycle we've waited for my entire life. Not the ugliness of the GOP contest itself, but if that's how it goes, that is a conservative choice. But for whatever reason―the leading contenders being ignorance of or apathy toward history, to the one, and basic misogyny to the other―we now have a movement afoot telling us to walk away from this chance and take an even bigger risk.

This is not our year for that. I really, really wish it was, but there is something much bigger at stake.
____________________

Notes:

Moulitsas, Markos. "Is it game over for Sanders?". The Hill. 22 March 2016. TheHill.com. 23 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1q2UJsR

Stranger Staff. "Support the Real Progressive". The Stranger. 23 March 2016. TheStranger.com. 23 March 2016. http://bit.ly/1UHAtcV

Wenner, Jann S. "Hillary Clinton for President". Rolling Stone. 23 March 2016. RollingStone.com. 23 March 2016. http://rol.st/1Rl6GmD

 

[iceaura]

The danger here is that the Clinton supporters have become borderline delusional about the weakness of their candidate. The idea that one should support Clinton because she has the better chance of beating Trump is without basis in any evidence whatsoever -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-...-primary-race-ill-prove-to-you_b_9528076.html

The whole thing is worth a read, but will raise the ire of many Bernie backers:

You get a sense of "authenticity" when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity, which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders.

Look, it's true you can fool some people all of the time, but you better be sure of exactly why you think any large number of voters is going to credit Clinton with "speaking honestly about what change requires" when she delivers her empty homilies and campaign rhetoric about somehow (she doesn't say how) building on what has not, by and large, actually been accomplished, to achieve what will not, by and large, be much good.

Because it isn't reality based, this attitude of hers, this rhetorical presumption of tested competence and clear-eyed realism and solutions that stand a chance of working. It depends on fooling people.

And I have nothing but respect for what Obama has accomplished, under the circumstances. But that accomplishment is largely negative - he held the place together, under siege. That is not going to look like accomplishment for another four years. It's not even going to last. And he did it without caving on absolutely everything, which has been Clinton's MO for her entire career as a "liberal".

Just to run over what was mentioned: Health care costs have not been reined in, fracking and ethanol have expanded far faster than clean energy, the economy is plateaued in the mud for most voters, civil rights advances have been despite (rather than because of) Clinton's idea of "incremental", and what change really requires is probably no more same old transactional capitulation and retrenchment of the Clinton variety.

Obamacare is basically what the Republican Party was offering, gratis, in 1993. The numbers didn't add up then, they don't add up now. It's not incremental progress when it's not progress, ok?

This is the cycle we've waited for my entire life. Not the ugliness of the GOP contest itself, but if that's how it goes, that is a conservative choice. But for whatever reason―the leading contenders being ignorance of or apathy toward history, to the one, and basic misogyny to the other―we now have a movement afoot telling us to walk away from this chance and take an even bigger risk.

This is not our year for that. I really, really wish it was, but there is something much bigger at stake.

The idea that Clinton is a safer bet, a smaller risk, is without support in the larger world. There is no reason to think that Clinton is more capable, more likely to achieve anything anyone wants, or less likely to lose the general election, than Sanders. Your perception of this choice as between a less desirable but more likely outcome and a more desirable but less likely outcome is misled and misleading.

This is the cycle we've feared since 1980. Yes. And you are proposing putting up, against the rise of the fascist demagogue we have been fearing, a candidate who has been handed her ass in debates being scheduled and presented and moderated and reported on by her major supporters as much for her advantage as possible (the DNC head, Time Warner, and Comcast, are major Clinton backers), who has yet to convincingly win a head-to-head (no early voting or other purely name recognition effects) open primary or caucus against a 74 year old owly looking Jewish socialist, who has thirty years of bad decision baggage and keeps adding to it, and who has the highest negative ratings of any major American politician except her likely November opponent - who will use his to gain votes.

"Idealism and honesty are crucial qualities for me, but I also want someone with experience who knows how to fight hard. It's about social and economic justice and who gets the benefits and spoils of our society, and those who have them now are not about to let go of their share just because it's the right thing to do. And Clinton is a tough, thoroughly tested fighter"

And the results of that testing are clear: she's a quitter and a loser, in matters of social or economic justice. Either that or just a sucker. Or - and this is my guess - a rightwing authoritarian acting by nature.

From a liberal pov, she has folded on every single gut check, hardnosed, put up or shut up confrontation she has faced, politically. She has fought hard for nothing of liberal value, and traded away most of what was worth fighting for in exchange for the favor of thugs and the benevolence of the wealthy and the promises of the corrupt.

And this is visible. The American public has to be fooled and distracted to not know this. Are you sure you can do that, all the way from now until November?