U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, appears at a news conference in Washington, D.C., today. A new poll for the first time shows him beating Billary Clinton in the pivotal early state of Iowa, albeit within the poll’s margin of error. He wasn’t supposed to ever do even that well against the “inevitable” Billary, on whom he has been maintaining a solid lead in the also-pivotal early state of New Hampshire already.
For the first time, Bernie Sanders has taken a lead over Billary Clinton on the first-in-the-nation-to-weigh-in state of Iowa (the Iowa caucuses are on February 1). True, his lead is within the margin of error – he polled at 41 percent to Billary’s 40 percent – but still, it is the strongest that he has polled thus far in Iowa. A series of recent polls already has him leading Billary well outside of the margin of error in the second-to-weigh-in state of New Hampshire (the New Hampshire primary is on February 9).
Team Billary is under the assumption – or at least wants the rest of us to believe – that Billary can lose both Iowa and New Hampshire yet still win the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
The only Democrat who won the party’s presidential nomination without having won, that is, come in at No. 1 in at least Iowa or New Hampshire, was Bill Clinton, in 1992. Since the Democratic Party went to its current system of selecting its presidential candidate in 1976, the he-Clinton remains the only candidate who did not win Iowa or New Hampshire yet still won the party’s presidential nomination.
Bill Clinton had come in at third place in Iowa and second place in New Hampshire in 1992, so his eventual win of the nomination perhaps was a statistical outlier, but it was not shocking.
Can Billary – if she doesn’t come in at first place in Iowa or New Hampshire in February – repeat her hubby’s 1992 performance?
In 1992, the Clintons were unknown to the majority of the nation. Bill Clinton was fresh back then. Since then, The Mountain of Clinton Baggage has only grown, and Billary Clinton never has been as popular as has been her spouse. She’s always only ever been a cheaper knock-off of him.
Perhaps it goes back, at least in part, to the fact that before Billary, no former first lady ever had sought the White House herself; perhaps this is considered (fairly or unfairly) by some if not even most Americans to be an unseemly thing to do.
But the No. 1 factor that is harming Billary is Billary. She is unlikeable. She comes across as wooden and insincere, as cold and calculating – because she very apparently is – and whether it’s “fair” or not, superficial factors harm her, such as her voice, which aptly has been compared to the sounds of fingernails on a chalkboard. Unlike Elizabeth Warren, for example, who comes across as wise and reassuring (the strong, good mother archetype – an actual pit bull with lipstick), Billary comes across as shrill and self-serving (the shrieking harpy, the bad mother archetype).
As far as her record is concerned, human (well, we think she’s human) weather vane Billary’s politically (mis)calculated October 2002 vote for the Vietraq War in the U.S. Senate (Sanders wisely voted against the war in the U.S. House of Representatives) is reason enough to keep her from ever occupying the Oval Office.
Team Billary’s plan, the media have reported, is to be able to lose Iowa and New Hampshire to Bernie Sanders but then come back resoundingly on “Super Tuesday,” which is March 1, when a dozen states will hold caucuses and primary elections. (Only four states hold primaries and causes in February: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, in that chronological order.)
This “comeback plan” assumes that E-mailgate won’t continue to take its toll on Billary between now and “Super Tuesday,” but expect unflattering Billary-related news to roll in over the coming months – the Repugnican-Tea-Party-controlled Congress really wants to talk to the man whom Billary paid to set up her home-brewed e-mail server, and Billary is scheduled to testify again before Congress regarding Benghazi next month, for instance – and expect this news to remind us of what it means to have a scandal/“scandal”-magnet Clinton in the White House.
Don’t get me entirely wrong; Benghazigate is mostly bullshit, and it’s interesting that the same Repugnican Tea Party traitors who never have cared about the more than 4,000 of our troops killed in the illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War suddenly care so much about the lives of four Americans in the Middle East, but nonetheless, what Billary faces now that her husband did not face in 1992, when he eked out a victory in the Democratic Party presidential primary season, was Clinton Fatigue.
Will the Democratic and left-leaning primary-season voters still be able to surmount Clinton Fatigue and make Billary the nominee if she doesn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire?
Or will Billary implode if she doesn’t win Iowa or New Hampshire? Will she bleed out fatally, as voters suddenly finally realize how weak a presidential candidate she truly, actually is?
My money would be on the latter.
And as I’ve noted, it’s awfully interesting that the conventional-“wisdom” pundits and the Clintonistas assert, when winning Iowa alone gives a big boost to a candidate — the last time that the Democratic winner of Iowa didn’t go on to become the party’s presidential nominee was in 1992 (which was an odd year for the Democratic presidential race in general) — that Bernie Sanders might win both Iowa and New Hampshire yet still not win the nomination.
In the meantime, my dream ticket for 2016 would be Bernie Sanders and his fellow U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren. The No. 2 spot would position Warren nicely to be president of the United States of America after President Sanders.
We’re long overdue for our first female president, but our first female president should not be the dynastic, center-right, Democrat-in-name-only Billary Clinton.