This article is chock full of talking points, but doesn't attempt to prove any of the claims made. Worse, a lot of the points made are demonstrably false.
Bernie and Trump "would have contested the election on nearly equal footing" -- what does this even mean? Is the point here that both candidates are outsiders? In a year where voters are looking for an outsider, isn't this really a disadvantage to Hillary?
"Sanders would have been an easy target because of his Democratic Socialism." -- what the Republicans (and, apparently, the DNC) don't know (or are ignoring, in the hopes that the echo chamber will do their work for them) is that the electorate is primed for a Democratic Socialist. "Socialist" used to be a death knell for a Democratic candidate, but that's not the case anymore.
"Neither one of them has ever served in the Executive Branch or has foreign policy experience." -- It's misleading to say Trump and Sanders have comparable experience; Sanders has been in government for decades. He's even had executive experience, as a Mayor. Granted, the scale is different, but it's disingenuous to say that he has no experience as a head of government. I'll concede that he doesn't have foreign policy experience. Much like many of our past presidents (i.e. Obama). What he does have is a verifiable record of being on the right side of these issues (i.e. the Iraq War). Unlike both Trump and Hillary.
"She understands how Republicans fight, and most importantly, she knows how to beat them at their own game." -- the problem is that she will be playing the same game! Bernie is playing a different game, one that the Republicans can't win!
"Clinton is battle tested" -- I keep hearing this one. What are you referring to? The fact that the Republicans have been slamming Clinton for decades? Isn't that a disadvantage? Isn't that apparent in her historically low (and falling) unfavorability numbers? Also, when has Clinton been "tested"? What campaigns has she won against Republicans? As far as I know, the only elected position she's won is Senator of NY, where she essentially ran unopposed.
The writing is on the wall here. Hillary Clinton is a historically bad candidate, running against a candidate who has broken all predictions. When one says "The Sanders campaign and supporters point to the hypothetical national matchup polls, but those results are hypothetical," one ignores actual facts. The very same kind of facts that the punditry previously ignored, leading them to announce with authority that Trump would never win the nomination, and the Bernie would never win a state. You may argue that those polls don't reflect future events, but they do reflect current sentiments, and they unequivocally demonstrate that Hillary faces a tough battle.
What will be the argument that Hillary uses against Trump? I agree with her points here, but what makes you think they'll affect Trump supporters? Won't they just keep seeing her as a lying establishment candidate? Whereas, there is ample evidence that a lot of independents would vote for Bernie before they'll vote for Hillary. That would make a big dent in Trump's numbers.
Just saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Hillary is demonstrably a flawed candidate. There is evidence that she will have a tough time beating Trump. These statements are based on facts. Saying "ignore the facts, look how good I think she sounds, she'll win for sure" is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.
= new reply since forum marked as read