I support Hillary over Bernie.

1. She is a stronger general election candidate.  All of her negatives are priced into her favorability levels, which frankly aren’t that great, but should be sufficient to defeat her Republican opponent.  I’m much less certain about how Bernie will hold up as a newcomer in a nasty battle with the Republicans.  Bernie’s favorability ratings have a lot of room to move down when attack ads commence.
2. With the House certain to stay in Republican hands, her executive branch experience will be the key to defending the core achievements of the Obama Administration, making incremental progress in Congress, and adopting regulations.

Ezra Klein has an excellent piece entitled Hillary Clinton And The Audacity of Political Realism.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10858464/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-political-realism

I very much agree with his argument that Hillary offers incremental pragmatism and why that’s the vision for today’s environment.  From Klein:

This is Hillary Clinton’s political philosophy in a nutshell. It is the hard-won lessons of a politician who had a front-row seat to both Bill Clinton’s impeachment and Barack Obama’s release of his longform birth certificate. It’s the conclusion of someone who has tried to win change amidst Democratic and Republican Congresses, who has worked out of the White House and out of the Capitol, who has watched disagreement and polarization prove intractable, who has seen grand plans die amidst gridlock.

Clinton’s theory of change is probably analytically correct, and it’s well-suited to a world in which Republicans will almost certainly continue to control the House, and so a Democratic president will have to grind out victories of compromise in Congress and of bureaucratic mastery through executive action.

Klein contrasts this with Bernie’s views:

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders’s visions of politics is simple, and it is stark. Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe you can change hearts. Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe you need to change hearts.

In Sanders’s view, there’s something akin to a populist silent majority lurking in America — a majority that already agrees with liberals but that’s been alienated by Democrats who give in to wealthy interests and compromise their principles.

I’m extremely skeptical of Bernie’s “silent majority of liberals.”  I’m equally skeptical of how he will achieve “political revolution” to get his program enacted despite a Republican Congress.  Klein also has good links to pieces by Paul Krugman and Jonathan Chait.

Bottom line, Hillary’s skills and vision are a better fit for this time.  Moreover, because she is battle tested, she is a stronger general election candidate. Electing a Democratic President is critical for maintaining current law and policy against a Republican Congress and for controlling appointments to the federal judiciary.

All of the above was on my mind today before this evening’s debate and separate Trump event.  I only caught a bit of the opening during my drive home and some of the end.  I agree with Josh Marshall’s piece today arguing that Trump’s decision to skip the debate is risky, but may pay off in once again demonstrating to his supporters that he is a winner and that he sets the rules.  We’ll know more on Monday.

 

 

In a nutshell, I think Trump is a better general election candidate for the Republicans than Cruz.

Trump.  He is a buffoon, an insensitive jerk, a showman, but ideologically flexible.  He has a good sense of what downscale (non college-educated) white Republican voters want to hear.  He appears to have mastered twitter (I don’t even have an account.)  Like Palin, he appeals to voters who feel aggrieved (perhaps a future post about the aggrieved).  If he were to become the Republican nominee, his goal would be to win.  Being a winner is big part of his schtick, appealing to losers by saying they can win with him.  (An interesting question is how he will keep that argument going if he finishes 2nd in Iowa, but that is a separate issue.) Upon winning the nomination, he can change his message and move toward the center, certainly more so than Cruz.  He would have some cross over appeal in a general election to the relatively small set of downscale whites who still vote for Democrats at the federal level.  All that said, Trump would be a weak Republican nominee.  He has done his best to offend every element of the Obama coalition of minorities and college-educated whites.  That coalition, barring an economic downturn, should best Trump.  Although certainly no more than a 30 percent probability, I can imagine Trump winning the general election. I cannot imagine the same for Cruz.

Cruz.  Cruz would be an even worse nominee for the Republicans.  He is an Ivy League educated ideologue.  He cares much more about being faithful to his conservative principles than being loved or liked by voters or colleagues.  (As many others have documented, he is despised by his follow Republican senators.)  His hardline conservative positions are indelible.  He would have little ability, and absolutely zero interest, in tacking toward the middle for purposes of winning the general election.  Put another way, he would prefer losing to compromising his principles.  I see his ceiling in the general election at no better than 45 percent.

Trump is the exact opposite.  Winning is his only goal.  He has no principles, so compromise and message changing would come naturally.  For these reasons, Trump is the better General election candidate.  That said, Trump would be significantly weaker than any of the candidates in the “establishment” lane (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Christie).