As many of us are aware, there has become a rift here on the Daily Kos and in the Democratic Party. It should be noted upfront that I am not a Democrat. I do not believe in a 2-party system and, therefore, refuse to ascribe to one. I tell you that for the sake of full disclosure. I do ask that anyone who responds keep it civil (we've all seen the vitriol in comments lately). This is simply my explanation of why the Democrats should nominate Bernie over Hillary if they want to seal the deal on the White House.
Let's first speak of the higher numbers that support Bernie over the GOP. Hillary does not have these numbers. If Bernie gets the nomination, Democrats holding the White House is almost guaranteed. I say “almost” because, frankly, anything can happen... but according to the polls (for what they're worth), Bernie will take it. Whether Hillary will or not is up in the air. In addition, Bernie won the “Western Illinois University Mock Election”. While it may be speculative, it’s also historically extremely accurate.
That brings us to the second point: The reason why Bernie has a much better chance of taking the White House than Hillary. Bernie has the support of Independents such as myself who are here for Bernie only and will not vote for Hillary. I see a lot of Hillary's supporters condemning those of us who will not vote for Hillary. They say that we will be throwing away our votes and guaranteeing a GOP election. I've been called a tea-bagger and a Libertarian all because I believe I have the right to exercise my voting rights... to vote for who I think is better for the country. The irony is this... who is throwing away their vote? If Democrats were to support Bernie for the nomination, they then solidify hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of votes for the democratic party and that statement of an alleged guarantee for the GOP becomes absolutely moot. If they nominate Hillary, those votes are no longer available. There are many of us who just view Hillary as too conservative on far too many issues. Democrats have the opportunity to pull in large numbers of voters they may not have otherwise received and should look at the situation objectively to realize that fact. Remember... most Democrats are bound by their party. Independents are not. So you're not going to lose any democratic votes by nominating Bernie, but again, you will lose them by nominating Hillary.
Third, I often hear the reason for supporting Hillary is that people want to see the first female president. Well, frankly, I would love that. But I sincerely feel that Hillary is not that woman. Please take a step back and look at the grand scheme of things. Hillary's positions on a lot of the issues only recently changed (when she noticed the support Bernie was getting). She switched her positions to more closely match Bernie's.
Pointing out Clinton's record is also a necessity as she tries to adopt Sanders' platform. The former Secretary of State is apparently following the old advice of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Since her own moderate policies have not excited Democrats, she has stolen the positions of Bernie Sanders and claimed them as a natural "evolution" of her earlier positions. This cheap trick, sadly, has worked. Pundits have claimed that, as a result, both Sanders and Clinton would be perfectly acceptableDemocratic nominees. By highlighting Clinton's record, Sanders is asserting that she is no substitute for his populist and progressive brand of politics.
(bold — my emphasis)
While Bernie is campaigning the issues, Hillary is campaigning the poll numbers. I don't mean that as an attack. It's just what seems to be happening. If we want a more progressive country, then we need the more progressive candidate. That candidate is, without a doubt, Bernie Sanders.
Finally, let's discuss experience. Many are saying that Hillary is more experienced than Bernie. That is not exactly true. Bernie has been in politics for forty-plus years. For the entirety of that time, he has been consistent and has always been a champion for civil rights, not wavering even once, and has successful experience “reaching across the aisle”. In addition, he has never, in all his years, run a smear campaign or a single negative ad whereas Hillary has accused Bernie of sexism and racism. That speaks volumes. He exclaims the ideals that many Democrats claim to want. Here's the opportunity. With that said, there is one field where Hillary does, in fact, have more experience. That field is foreign policy. However, regarding foreign policy, Hillary supported the war in Iraq, supported NAFTA, was opposed to gay marriage, supports the TPP, and is a supporter of Wallstreet (and then invokes 9/11 as an excuse). Where has any of that gotten us? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when nominating the next President of the United States. These are very important questions. What do you want more? A better country where the gap of inequality is greatly diminished, we have free healthcare, and free education; or a first female president?