Hillary, The Least Electable Of All The Other Democratic Candidates

However counter-intuitive this statement may seem, any fan of hers, who does not want a Republican in the White House, will have to come to terms with the probability that Hillary is the most unelectable among all Democratic candidates.

Furthermore, even if she were to win (which would probably only happen if the Republican nominee is unelectable as well), she would have a very difficult time leading the nation.

Being a former fan of Bill Clinton, an article such as this is difficult to write.

However, the reasons are clear, simple and most importantly based only on generally accepted facts, regardless of one’s political affiliation.

In order to fully appreciate these reasons, it is important to see Hillary herself in the most favorable light practicable and assume that every positive description given by her supporters is true.

This means, for argument’s sake, that we must assume all negative allegations regarding her are false, all her scandals are completely unfounded, she is honest, transparent, and trustworthy and all her ideas are well thought out and would be most beneficial to the country.

Hillary is a follower, not a leader – Even the most militant supporters of Hillary would be hard pressed to find many if any ideas she has espoused which were contrary to public opinion at the time.

Furthermore, it cannot be disputed that many of her opinions have changed when they ceased becoming popular. One example would be her opinion on the « sanctity » and « fundamental bedrock principal » of marriage between a man and a woman. As most people know, this principal of hers which she saw as being one of the « founding foundational institutions of history, humanity and civilization » completely reversed in 2013, soon after it was evident that popular opinion no longer shared that point of view.

Such a profile contrasts greatly with someone like Bernie Sanders who had fought for gay rights since the early 1980s and for minorities since the early 1960s when neither were at all popular.

Of course, it is possible that all of her opinions are sincere. The same may be said for her change of mind regarding allegedly steadfast held beliefs.

Of course, for purposes of argument, it is important to assume that both are true.

In that light, it shows her as being someone who follows public opinion rather than leading it.

In other words, she comes out clearly as being more of a follower than a leader.

Consequently, in the very least, she can in no way be seen as being a visionary, a characteristic which is fundamental for leading a country through the future.

Apparent Coronation by the DNC – Whether Hillary liked it or not, there is no question that the DNC not so subtly hinted at its enormous preference for her as the nominee, in complete disregard for the electorate.

This is shown by several actions : non encouragement for other people to run, lowering the number of debates by over 75% from the last primary thus robbing its own electorate of better knowledge regarding the issues of all the candidates, prohibiting any other debates …

Many people, Republicans, Independents, and even Democrats see this as being a coronation process which is contrary to fundamental principles of democracy.

In that regard, if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination on such apparent unfair terms, this will contribute to rendering her chances of winning over Republican voters next to impossible. Furthermore, this can push most swing voters and even some Democrats to the point of not only of abstaining from voting but actually voting Republican.

All the Republicans would have to do in the general election is put the right spin, something at which they excel.

Of course Hillary may be very bothered by such favoritism. And again, for sake of argument, it is important to assume that she is. All the same, this would be irrelevant since she hasn’t been very vocal either way.

Profound Lack of Trust – The Quinnipiac University Survey, which publicized the findings showing that the first three words people associated with Hillary (liar, dishonest and untrustworthy), is well known.

Hillary’s defenders have pointed out that the study was misleading in the sense that the only reason none of the positive associations made it to the top three was due to the fact that they were much more varied. To put it another way, the negative associations tended to center around these three words.

As stated at the beginning, for the purposes of this article, it is important to take these allegations as being true.

In that respect, we should look closely at the significance of these three negative word associations themselves.

Indeed, all three of them mean one thing: a profound lack of trust.

In other words, the obvious inference from this survey is that the negative opinions people have of Hillary overwhelmingly center around this a lack of trust.

Again we must assume that Hillary is in reality honest, transparent, and trustworthy, which she may well be.

Many negative traits that public opinion has wrongly attributed to politicians can and have been overcome albeit with hard work and a good strategy.

If a candidate lacks name recognition, this can be overcome with the right PR team.

If a candidate lacks experience, this negative trait can be overcome also by turning it into a positive trait. For example, we saw Obama overcome both of these hurdles.

If a candidate has ideas which are seen as being too extreme, this can be overcome by constantly giving interviews and defending one’s ideas. We are seeing this now with Bernie Sanders and his “socialist” (albeit social-democratic) positions who actually got 25% of the Republican vote in Vermont and who’s poll numbers have risen a great deal nationwide in just a few months.

The list goes on.

However, trust is whole other ball game. Indeed, once this is lost, it is difficult to recover, even if such loss was unjustified.

In other words, if trust is the main issue voters have with Hillary (as her proponents claim), it is unlikely that her approval ratings will improve much even if she is nominated. In fact they will more likely go down.

Consequently, even if we are to assume that Hillary is in reality honest, transparent, and trustworthy, all the money and PR work in the world would only sway a very small percentage, if at all, of the vast number of people (Republicans, Independents and even many Democrats) who presently see her as being otherwise.

It is undisputed that Hillary’s approval rating is not only well below 50%, but also is below her disapproval rating.

Since those figures will more likely go down than up, it will be very difficult to win an election against an electable Republican, if she is indeed nominated.

Scandals – There is no question that Hillary is riddled with more scandals regarding legally questionable acts than all the other Democratic candidates, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, all serious female candidates past and present for president and vice president combined. This would include Sarah Palin, Geladine Ferraro and Carly Fiona.

The fact that she is threatened with a possible indictment is all the more disturbing.

Of course, we need hypothesize that Hillary does not warrant any of this, which may well be the case.

Notwithstanding such a hypothesis, the mere existence of so many scandals (some which at least appear alarming) would not only compromise her ability to win over Independents and Republicans, but would even discourage many Democrats from voting her way.

Limited effect of the “first female president” factor

Of course, it would be unfair to discuss the electability, or lack thereof, of Hillary without at least mentioning the “first female president” factor.

Indeed many people, whether they admit it or not, put a great deal of importance electing a female president in the name of female empowerment, even sometimes to the point of letting it override all other factors.

However, in all likelihood, the overwhelming majority of people who would give such favoritism to Hillary are limited to the Democratic party.

In that regard, there is little chance that Hillary’s gender would save her from the above-mentioned factors to any significant extent in the general election.

Although it is a digression, it is interesting to delve a bit deeper on this subject of female empowerment.

In this regard, it is important to ask the question: what is the one characteristic which indisputably distinguishes Hillary from all other female candidates for president or vice president in the history of the USA who had (or presently has the potential of having) more than a million votes? For the record, these people are Geraldine Ferraro, Winona LaDuke, Sarah Palin, and Carly Fiorina.

The answer is the following: only Hillary would have never have achieved anywhere near the same amount of name recognition presently she has but for her husband.

This begs the question if it really furthers female empowerment to have the first female president also be the only serious female candidate ever who got an overwhelming jump start simply from marrying the right man.

Is that really an appropriate message, however subtle it may appear?

In that light, would it not be more appropriate to elect someone like Carly Fiona who did not ride to success on a man’s coattails?

To conclude, it is more than understandable that voters will often put a great deal of emphasis on the actual chances of a candidate becoming president and leading the country. This of course is why a less desirable candidate is often chosen.

Unfortunately in this election, Democrats seem to be confusing name recognition and a moderate position on the political spectrum with electability. Furthermore, electability within the Democratic Party is often associated with electability in the general election.

Although the subject of electability is very tentacular and unpredictable, it is very difficult for me to conceive of these are two fatal mistakes, if the Democrats actually nominate Hillary, not resulting in a loss of the White House: unless of course if the Republicans nominee is also unelectable.

In short, if Democrats wish to raise their chances of keeping the White House as much as possible, they must nominate any of the other candidates.

Indeed, a vote for Hillary is counterproductive to say the least.