In a well-reasoned feature article, and again during the Feb. 29 airing of the BradCast,* Nathan J. Robinson, editor of Current Affairs, forcefully argues that a Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump "matchup is highly likely to be an unmitigated disaster."
Every one of Clinton’s (considerable) weaknesses plays to every one of Trump’s strengths, whereas every one of Trump’s (few) weaknesses plays to every one of Sanders’s strengths. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, running Clinton against Trump is a disastrous, suicidal proposition.
The most intriguing feature of Robinson's analysis is that he gives due consideration to polls that suggest that, Bernie Sanders does better than Clinton at beating Trump but swiftly shunts these head-to-head polls aside. "Sanders’s entire campaign success is a caution against placing too much weight on early polling." Instead, Robinson points to Clinton's massive political baggage that raises serious questions about her integrity.
Those play into Trump's strength:
Trump’s political dominance is highly dependent on his idiosyncratic, audacious method of campaigning. He deals almost entirely in amusing, outrageous, below-the-belt personal attacks, and is skilled at turning public discussions away from the issues and toward personalities.
In those instances where right-wing attacks have lacked substance, as occurred over the course of the disgraceful GOP effort to entrap her over the course of the 11-hour Benghazi hearing, the former Secretary of State demonstrated an ability to hold her own. But, as Robinson notes, and as revealed by this video, there are a broad array of issues where her inconsistencies and sordid ties to corporate wealth and power are a distinct liability.
Robinson takes issue with the Clinton campaign's insistence that Hillary is a "tried and tested" candidate. To the contrary, he believes she's a "dreadful candidate" who "makes constant missteps and never realizes things have gone wrong until it's too late."
In Hillary Clinton's 'artful smear' an artful dodge, I cited a classic example of that.
Clinton went into the New Hampshire debate still smarting from her surprisingly inept performance at the Nov. 14, 2015 CBS Democratic Debate. Previously, she had been caught flat-footed. Sanders and CBS moderator John Dickerson raised questions about her receipt of millions of dollars from Wall Street in campaign donations and "speaking fees." Clinton responded with what Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilly described as "a non-sequitur" -- 9/11.
Trump's core weakness, according to Robinson, is his profound ignorance on the issues -- a weakness that can be minimized, if not eliminated, by forcing Hillary Clinton to be constantly responding to his personal attacks.
Trump is an attention-craving parasite, and such creatures are powerful only when indulged and paid attention to. Clinton will be forced to pay attention to Trump because of his constant evocation of her scandals.
Robinson understates Sanders's strength in noting that "none of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie." Indeed, Robinson erred when he lumped the easily dismissed candidate preference polls with polls showing that Bernie Sanders is the only candidate in either party with "a net-positive favorability rating." Those polls reveal that where large numbers of Americans question both Clinton and Trump's veracity, Sanders's integrity is beyond reproach. Even John McCain (R-AZ) conceded that while he strongly disagrees with him on policy, "Bernie Sanders is an honest man...and his word is good."
Bernie's aversion to going negative, his ability to remain focused on issues during debates and the uplifting messages, such as the one reflected by his America ad, make him the ideal Democratic candidate to oppose Trump, according to Robinson.