By James A. Kidney
The big knock against nominating Bernie Sanders for president is that he is “unelectable.” “Do you want to repeat 1972 when George McGovern got creamed?” is the chant. “Do you want a Scalia clone on the Supreme Court?” is another. If Sanders is nominated, so this reasoning goes, the GOP will win, no matter who the Republicans nominate. Nominating Hillary, these folks also contend, is a much surer lock on another four or eight years of the presidency. The current numbers do not support this conclusion.
It is not surprising that Sanders is viewed by many as a weak candidate. He is (1) in his mid-70s, (2) a self-proclaimed Social Democrat, (3) Jewish (though not very devout), (4) disheveled (though he has neatened up his appearance over time), (5) not supported by the Democratic Party Establishment and (6) lacks Clinton’s foreign policy credentials.
Now that Sanders has lost the Nevada caucuses, the (5) Establishment is roaring that Hillary Clinton has a lock on the nomination. This is so although Sanders came within 5 percent of destroying what was once a 20 percent lead by Clinton in Nevada and beat Clinton by 20 percent in New Hampshire. They tied in the Iowa caucuses.
Although the score is 1-1-1, Clinton’s coronation is assured, we are told. Only the Republicans have a contest, these folks say, which Donald Trump is winning.