Bernie Sanders 'Destroys' Donald Trump By 13 Points, 6 More Than Clinton. Here's Why

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivers a major policy address on Wall Street reform in New York on January
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders delivers a major policy address on Wall Street reform in New York on January 5, 2016. AFP PHOTO/KENA BETANCUR / AFP / KENA BETANCUR (Photo credit should read KENA BETANCUR/AFP/Getty Images)

According to a December 22, 2015 article in The Hill titled In blockbuster poll, Sanders destroys Trump by 13 points, Bernie Sanders would achieve a "landslide of epic proportions" against The Donald. The article explains that within "the new Quinnipiac poll, Clinton would defeat Trump by 7 percentage points... while the Sanders lead of 13 points would bring a landslide of epic proportions." In October, I wrote an article titled Bernie Sanders Defeats Trump By a Wider Margin Than Clinton in a General Election, when polls months ago dispelled the myth that Hillary Clinton could perform better than Sanders on a national stage.

As for why Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin, there are numerous reasons, however all of these explanations narrow down to one central theme in 2016. Because of Clinton's negative favorability ratings and ties to Trump, I explain why only Sanders can defeat him in this YouTube video.

If voters want a conservative on war, foreign policy, and Wall Street, they'll vote for a Republican, not a "moderate" Democrat with neoconservative advisers. This isn't the 90's and progressive values aren't a liability to the Democratic Party. Ending mass incarceration and wealth inequality are mainstream issues, and gay marriage is a right, despite the convenient evolution (Clinton opposed gay marriage up until 2013) of certain Democrats.

As for mass incarceration, Hillary Clinton accepted campaign donations from two major prison lobbyists, but will now apparently donate this money to charity. Because a moderate Democrat like Clinton needs to continually evolve from a conservative viewpoint to a progressive stance (I highlight why Clinton evolves so often in this YouTube segment), truly moderate voters, or conservative-leaning independents, would more likely choose Trump.

Voters want a genuine choice in 2016, not a hawkish Democrat who advocates sending U.S. ground troops to the Middle East, yet evolves on the statement within weeks. As a result, voters don't find Clinton's continual evolution on key topics a sign of trustworthiness.

72% of Independents, 59% of all Americans, and 71% of men do not view Hillary Clinton as "honest or trustworthy."

Interestingly, more women distrust Clinton (49%) than trust (44%) the former Secretary of State.

Being all things to everyone isn't a good way to differentiate yourself from a Republican, especially a billionaire like Trump who profits from keeping the status quo. Although the two are polar opposites in many ways, both President Obama and George W. Bush bailed out banks, sent troops to Iraq, deported illegal immigrants, and approved spending bills favorable to Wall Street. For a great many Americans, Clinton and Trump don't provide enough of a difference from Bush and Obama; the establishment hasn't seemed to move beyond the status quo on a number of key issues, from war to wealth inequality.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders offers a clear and distinct choice in 2016. If voters want to address structural issues leading to wealth inequality, for example, they'll choose Bernie Sanders, not Trump or a candidate POLITICO once referred to as Wall Street Republicans' dark secret. If establishment politics is to blame for many of the dilemmas we face as a nation, then only Bernie Sanders provides Americans with a genuine choice for president.

Nothing highlights this point better than the close ties shared by Clinton and Trump. A POLITICO article titled Donald Trump was for the Clintons before he was against them explains how both candidates have a long history with one another:

Trump now says Clinton had "no choice" but to attend his wedding because he donated money to her campaign...

But his record of praising both Clintons is voluminous...

Trump has been equally generous, if not altogether fawning, in his praise of Hillary Clinton...

After declining to enter the presidential race in 2012, Trump told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren that Clinton had done a great job as secretary of state.

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman," he said. "I am biased because I have known her for years...I really like her and her husband both a lot."

No doubt, Hillary Clinton the human being is a personable and warm person, however 2016 is about Clinton the politician.

Therefore, is a compliment from Trump a liability in 2016, or does Trump saying "I really like her and her husband a lot" bring more votes to Democrats?

If Trump is the fascist many Democrats and progressives view him to be, then his adulation of Clinton seems bizarre at best.

Also, what does Trump mean when saying the Clintons had "no choice" but to attend his wedding because of his campaign donations?

Speaking of Trump's donations to Clinton's campaigns, these contributions are explained in a POLITICO piece titled Trump has spent years courting Hillary and other Dems:

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner and former New York senator who had some say over policy that could have impacted Trump's vast business dealings, received donations from both him and son Donald Trump Jr. on separate occasions in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, according to state and federal disclosure records.

Trump has also been generous with the Clinton Foundation, donating at least $100,000, according to the non-profit.

She wasn't the only Democratic beneficiary of Trump's wealth. Trump donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and $20,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2006 cycle...

If you don't mind that Trump donated money to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaigns, or donated money to the Democratic Senatorial Committee, then you're the type of voter that establishment Democrats rely upon to justify Iraq votes and failed Libya bombings.

Can you imagine Trump donating money to Bernie Sanders, or playing golf with Vermont's Senator?

Finally, the utilization of race for political gain is not only a hallmark of Trump's ascent within the GOP, but also an inconvenient reality of Clinton's 2008 campaign against Obama. As stated by Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson in The New York Times, Clinton's 3:00 a.m. advertisement against Obama contained a "racist sub-message":

ON first watching Hillary Clinton's recent "It's 3 a.m." advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right...

I couldn't help but think of D. W. Griffith's "Birth of a Nation," the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan...

The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father -- or by stating that the danger was external terrorism...

It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.

Again, if you don't mind a politician using a "racist sub-message" or refraining from telling voters that Obama is a Christian (utilizing the Islamophobia of the day, hoping to garner votes), then you'll be voting Trump or Clinton in 2016.

In addition, Daunasia Yancey, the president of Boston's Black Lives Matter, referred to Hillary Clinton's racial justice record as "abysmal" during an interview with NPR:

YANCEY: I think that her record is abysmal (laughter). I think that her support of policies that have decimated black community - she talked a lot about her advocacy for children, for black children, for Latino children while simultaneously sending those children's parents to jail and, if we talk about the Juvenile Justice System, sending those children themselves to jail. And so it's kind of speaking out of both sides of her mouth in a way.

Again, if an "abysmal" racial justice record doesn't concern you, you'll be voting for Clinton or Trump.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders endorsed Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988; something establishment Democrats like Bill Clinton didn't do for fear of political fallout. As for Bernie Sanders and racial justice, Killer Mike explained in a recent Late Show appearance that "Bernie Sanders is the only politician who has consistently for 50 years taken that social justice platform into politics...we have an opportunity to elect someone who is directly out of the philosophy of King-ian non-violence."

I highlight why Bernie Sanders will become our next president in a recent appearance on The Thom Hartmann Program. As for what motivates me to write about Bernie Sanders, I explain my motivation in 60 seconds. If you hear people engaging in ad hominem attacks, while doing everything possible to circumvent my arguments, just show them this YouTube segment.