I'm UK-based and in the past month I've been on 4 different conferences and met 5 Americans, 3 of whom were here visiting and 2 of whom had moved to the UK permanently.

Naturally, American politics came up as a conversation topic, and the one thing that stood out between all 5 people I met, was that they were all opposed to Hillary Clinton getting the Democratic nomination.

More interestingly, this feeling seemed to cut across the political divide.

2 of the people I met would be described as "swing voters". One of these 2 openly described herself as such, saying that she loved and has twice voted Obama but would not vote and never has voted for a Clinton (she voted for all the Bushes at all times -- which seemed an odd choice coupled with Obama) and said she'd rather see Joe Biden get the nomination and would then vote for him. The other said she previously Republican, referencing Reagan, but then has always voted Democrat, but was vehemently against Hillary, even though she loved Bill; and was adamant that it must not be another Clinton, not only for the name but because she was "untrustworthy" and that she'd rather see "Biden, Sanders, or even Fiorina, anyone but Hillary" (at which point she coughed and said 'oh and of course Trump' to which we all laughed).

2 others were Democrats and both of them also said they'd rather Hillary not get the nomination; both were rooting for Bernie Sanders and were excited by the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had just won here in the UK.

The other person I spoke to was a Republican voter, who always was vehemently opposed to Hillary Clinton, perhaps more obviously, but was also anguished with the GOP's options.

The media here focuses so much attention on Hillary Clinton, it was really interesting to hear 5 consecutive people (and very different people) all share very similar views on the potential Clinton clincher.

Anyone but whatever clown the GOP feels is qualified to run the country.

I still don't really see why someone would vote twice for George Bush II and then vote twice for Obama and remain proud in both choices. They're so, so different.

Anyone but trump...

I think Donald Trump would be extremely dangerous.

She has a nice face.

While Clinton is a powerhouse in regards to experience with policy, and the public is highly aware of this (hence Republicans don't want her winning the primary), this makes the caricature of a politician. Most Americans that I'm aware of having a distaste of Clinton would describe her as untrustworthy, myself included. I think Stephen Colbert has this spot on when he bashes her on the Late Show. She's the sort that would do anything to win an election, and her political views conveniently change with the general tide of public opinion (a reason to see her as untrustworthy, you don't know if you're electing someone who will even have the same views a few years down the line as when you sought her to be elected, her focus groups for this being the butt of so many jokes), and her being obviously and easily puppeteered by the aristocracy doesn't lend to the notion that you're electing her, but rather whoever gives her how much ever money. That last bit is why Sanders (and to some degree even Trump) are as popular as is currently the case.
Bill was on the Late Show and was asked why Sanders is doing so well, to which he responded that the Democrats see Republicans with Trump moving further right, so they want to go further left. This is probably because he doesn't want to call his wife untrustworthy on national television.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html

For example, her position on the above.

I like her over Sanders

How exactly is Hilary Clinton a "powerhouse in regards to experience with policy"? She served 1 full term in the Senate plus 2 years of another term with no notable policy accomplishments to her name and then several years as a below average Secretary of State in particular mishandling the Benghazi situation. Her most famous foray into the policy world was her healthcare push during her husband's first term which failed so miserably it cost his party control of Congress and ushered in the Newt Gingrich Speakership. The media narrative that she is an experienced and accomplished politician is a joke.

Having experience with policy =/= making great political decisions.

Anyone but Clinton, Bush, O'Malley, Biden, Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Huckabee, etc etc etc

Sanders squeaks by as an acceptable choice. I will vote in this election cycle, for Sanders. If he is knocked out in the primaries, I will not vote in the general presidential election. Fuck that noise, they can all go to hell.

If Bernie Sanders only squeaks by as acceptable, you are quite a bit more selfish than I thought. He is primed to make some great statements and turn the tide in a direction it hasn't gone since the anti-trust era. Not even FDR set himself up to accomplish the things that Bernie is trying to accomplish.

You do realize that Occupy Wall Street runs a smear campaign against politicians simply because of their occupation, do you not? Bernie is one of the best choices we have had in a long time and he has more momentum than any other candidate that dared to stray beyond (Bill) Clinton's left-central moderate stances in my lifetime.

Bernie Sanders is not perfect but he's by far the best of the candidates on offer.

If Donald Trump becomes the next PotUSA (you yanks like your political acronyms, I notice) then I won't know whether to laugh or cry.

But also, yeah, not Hilary, goodness me, no. She is a career politician completely lacking principles. She has *some* political skill and is now a relatively experienced player of the game. The media like people like that, because the media also like to play the game. But she has no substance and would not bring the radical change that America could bloody well do with (and which Obama, for the most part, has not achieved either).

I feel like Trump would end up styling himself much like a dictator. He likes to get things done his way, and he really only sees himself as fit to make policy. He likes the way Putin runs things in Russia. On the bright side, money wouldn't play the same role in politics.

I like Sanders, but damnit I don't want an 80% tax. I wanna keep 80% of my money!

JamesYanik:

1. Are you currently in the top tax bracket?
2. On what basis do you define "your money"?

@TrPrado: "money wouldn't play the same role in politics"

That's interesting. Do you mean you think that, since Trump is so wealthy himself, he wouldn't be swayed by offers of financial support (because he doesn't need it) ?

He's funding his own campaign. He's made fun of people for taking that financial support, calling them puppets.

Interesting. There is occasionally an argument made, in the UK, for example, that politicians ought to be paid much higher salaries by the state, exactly for this reason - to ensure they can't be "bought". It's not a popular argument here at the moment, but I have heard it.

My political instincts are middle of the road/soft left (Liberal Democrat/Labour in UK terms) but I respect any politician who does a good job for his constituents (all of them, not just the ones who voted for him). Too many politicians are in it for themselves, which is just fuels the support for people like Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage who style themselves as sort of "non-politicians".

I find the whole Republican slate pretty repulsive with Trump the worst of them. The Democrats are politically closer to me but, apart from Clinton, I do not know enough about them to express a preference. As for Clinton herself, I see the issue with changing positions (but is that always a bad thing?) but she is the one I would choose today (if I had a vote).

Hillary's a cunt.

Singapore has a system for paying politicians, especially ministers, salaries that are comparable to senior roles in business. The country is #7 on Transparency International's Corruption Index (UK is #14, US is #17) but it is impossible to say that there is a direct cause and effect between the two things.

I do worry that higher salaries would encourage even more career politicians but on the other hand I can see that some people might be put off by salaries that are lower than they could get in another job.

What I would like to see is an end to the outside jobs (consultancy, directorships, etc.) that many UK Tories use to top up their income. Being an MP should be a full time job.

It doesn't matter because the National Enquirer say Hillary will be dead in 6 months. She's got a long list of health problems including brain tumors.

That might explain Trump.

@bo

pffft. Who said anything about Occupy Wall Street? I think for myself. Sander is, yes, far and away the best option we have had for president in a long time. He is still extremely far from what I actually believe in. But the huge gulf between him and his pack of baboon and bootlicker competitors is wide enough to get me to vote for his old cranky ass lol.

He too is a product of Washington, in his own way, and most of our disagreements stem from that. He is too willing to rely on policy and legislation to achieve needed social change. As long as we have a government like this one, I'd rather a man like him at its head. But we need a different kind of government altogether imo.

Also he doesn't seem to be much of an internationalist, which is hugely disappointing for me. In essence, his positions happen to be extremely good a lot of the time, but his theoretical underpinnings are almost nonexistent. A self-consistent leftist will also be an internationalist. A self-consistent leftist will also not be such a statist. That's my opinion though, I know I'm in a lonely corner there. But like I said, I'm voting for him, so calm down. I even donated to his campaign.

I think for instance that he may have a pretty dangerous foreign policy. In aggregate probably it wont be much more damaging than the foreign policy we have been existing under since the 80s, but in its own way I think it too would be damaging.

Basically he seems like an isolationist. I could be a bigger fanboy I guess and hope he would just get a really smart secretary of state, but I wont hold my breath.

Thucy: Damn, how far left ARE you, exactly?
diplomat: "Being an MP should be a full time job." I, unlike most Americans, agree with that sentiment.

Of course he is a product of Washington, but find me a way in which you can compare him to another politican (besides Angus King) in Washington, and for every one, I'll find you 10 ways that he is revolutionarily different. The fact that you and the few who still hold hope in your full-scale overthrow type of revolution where you swap out our government for something - or nothing - else continue to condemn Bernie Sanders for taking on the political structure from the inside out, implying that you have to be some kind of outsider in order to do this, and growing a type of grassroots movement within the existing political spectrum, one that can make a huge impact today and tomorrow rather than a small impact today and become a laughingstock tomorrow, is abhorrent.

It is selfish, really, what a lot of people say. Here comes a guy who has proven since the 1980s in small town Vermont of all places his willingness and undying drive to help those who have been starved out by the system they are forced to live under and who need the help the most, and yet they're still finding ways to shit on him even though they themselves claim to fight for the same ideals. Every person who is too far left for Bernie Sanders are selfish pricks that would rather throw away a chance for real change and improvement, as marginal and gradual as it may be, so that they can continue to spew nonsense and continue to hope they might someday be proven right. They're willing to put people's lives and livelihoods on the line simply for the sake of their own message. That is just as bad as any big business corporate executive making a bajillion dollars a year hiking up the price of prescription pills as he sees fit or laying off thousands of employees in order to keep (or increase) his or her own bonus.

I'm glad you're voting for Bernie Sanders, because everyone who feels any sense of empathy for the massively underprivileged "middle" class in America should. I see rants every day from a select few people trying to find some reason not to like the guy and it's not even possible, yet they try. I can't figure out for the life of me how, perfect or not, the fact that he has a legitimate chance to win the primary on the backs of actual people isn't almost some sort of godsend.

I like Bernie Sanders and I hope he keeps gaining steam. I don't know how he would fare in a general election though. Granted, it's still early, but as of this point I'm skeptical.

I just really, really, really want the Republicans to lose another presidential election so that they will (hopefully) no longer be able to deny what a cancer the Tea Party has been for them and start the purge. I will vote for whatever Democrat has the best chances of making that happen.