It also requires Clinton not to be the candidate, and it kind of takes something drastic to bring her down hard, like her dying or being arrested or named in the next batch of Panama Papers.
But she won't be in the Panama Papers because she uses laws in Deleware for her shell companies, not Mossack Fonseca.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/five-clinton-shell-companies-established-in-del.-report/article/2588147

Bernie would certainly be an exciting president and would probably do lots of good stuff for the American people, but as a European I think I still prefer Hillary. She seems to be a lot more experienced when it comes to what matters for me. She is very competent when it comes to foreign and world affairs. I trust her a lot more when it comes to handle the dictator in Kremlin in an appropriate way. Bernie seems weak in this area and that may be dangerous. So I go for the safe card, Hillary.

If Hillary's actions towards Libya and Honduras reflect competency in foreign affairs, then we really haven't learned from our mistakes.

In what sense have you been impressed by the way Hillary has handled Russia? I had the distinct impression you felt that Russia has been doing whatever it damn well likes for the past decade, and making the world a less good place because of it?

Hillary has botched basically every foreign affair she's been in charge of.

As a European, I lean heavily towards Bernie.

Carry on, I just couldn't find the Daily Political Bias Reminder Thread.

As the foreign minister Hillary expressed her anger in public when Putin invaded, occupied and annexed the Crimean peninsula. That impressed on me at least.

Maybe she was running already then and had left the administration.

Hillary is great at capturing political moments for the purpose of her own political elevation.

If condemning that annexation is all it takes to be good at foreign affairs, a completely random American is likely to meet your requirements.

It's not exactly bold. Saying 'bad Putin' was the mainstream reaction.

She did not just say "bad Putin" in qn ordinary diplomatic way. She was outrageous. Much better!

She likes to cackle when people die. I guess this is a good trait if you're a fan of Swedish war profiteers and hate people in Crimea.

I wonder if any of European countries have been able to explain to Crimeans why they think their self determination is irrelevant and why Europe wishes they would all have the chance to get slaughtered by Kiev.

peterlund: If the U. S. had said more than 'bad Putin', there could have been a diplomatic solution that avoided bloodshed (or even a domestic solution before then within the Ukrainian political diorama). The State Department instead chose to wildly misrepresent the Russian point of view and level of involvement, which suffocated dialogue and encouraged open Russian intervention.

In any case, Hillary was not at the tip of the spear since she had already left the State Department months before the Ukraine protests started.

No way the USA is ever going to elect a "democratic socialist" lol.

ND: It is so close! And that's only with a year-long campaign.

I've recently heard noise about getting Gen. Matthis to run third party. Thoughts on this?

If Americans can elect Barack Hussein Obama, they can elect a lot of different people.

Clinton as Sec. of State had to back Obama's waffling.

Of course Sanders can win. The trouble is, a lot of people will be de-mobilized if he does win. He doesn't realize it, because he's a good person, but he is functioning as a co-opting force on the American left, or at least, is in danger of functioning that way in the long run.

I am however optimistic that a renewal of left ideology in the United States can be bolstered by his successes, whether he wins or not. I think things are starting to come together for leftists in the United States, though quite slowly - look where we started from.

Fuck Bernie the Commie.

"As the foreign minister Hillary expressed her anger in public when Putin invaded, occupied and annexed the Crimean peninsula."

Yeah, but she didn't DO anything about it.

Is leon descending into self-parody?

All I can say is that the US economy would probably backtrack if Sanders became president. I'm not saying that any of the other candidates are better than Bernie, because they're all equally shitty, but it has been stated that government spending would increase 40% under a Sanders presidency. As an American, I don't particularly care for higher tax rates.

I think I remember an instance when Americans rebelled because of high taxes. Gosh, when was that?

You're telling me the rallying cry in the 1760s was 'No taxation'? Seems incomplete somehow.

Also, if you can predict what happens to the economy when Sanders becomes president, that's better than most people, so I'd like to see the backing.

It's not too difficult, is it? The stock market will take a hit because of Bernie's reputation, and then recover again once people notice the distinct lack of red flags flying from the Whitehouse and revolutionaries farting in the offices of Wall Street. The economy will likely grow a tad slower overall than under Clinton because of Bernie's dislike of free trade, maybe a fraction of a percent or so.

That's about it, really.

Ignoring the many positive effects of course.

What positive effects? Bernie will make a lot of exciting speeches and then find out he can actually change very little, like Obama.

Bernie has the best record out of any of them at passing and compromising with legislation. That won't help him as POTUS because the Republicans will do the same thing they're doing to Obama and refuse to do their jobs (and for whatever reason not get voted out for it) no matter how much he tries to compromise with them, but the same would be the case for the others as well.