I don’t normally single out any one particular political blogger – especially for an entire (long) article – but there is one whose writing is so awful I’ve been compelled to hopefully expose this fool for what he is. You see, H.A. Goodman calls himself a “Bernie Sanders only” supporter – except he doesn’t even seem to be that. More than anything, he’s simply anti-Hillary Clinton. It’s gotten to a point that his agenda against her has become so absurd, his writing isn’t even credible. He’s every bit the anti-Clinton propagandist that you’ll find on any number of conservative blogs.
Take for instance this article published on December 2, 2015 declaring that 14 percent of Democrats won’t vote for Hillary Clinton. Despite this piece being written in December, he cites polling numbers from September, October and as far back as June – when he damn well should know that there are updated polling statistics out there that debunk the premise for this entire article. The latest CBS poll that dealt with this metric from 11/10 (the poll they did in early December didn’t ask this question) shows that the number of Democrats who “would not” vote for Clinton shrank from 14 percent, to 9 percent. Which is actually a lower number than the percentage of people who said they would not support Sanders (12 percent). Not only that, but Clinton beat Sanders in voters who would “enthusiastically” support her by a margin of 43-35 percent.
So, Goodman claims that Clinton is “unelectable” since 14 percent of Democrats wouldn’t vote for her (based on outdated numbers) – wouldn’t that mean Sanders, at 12 percent in the newest polling numbers, is essentially just as “unelectable”?
Furthermore, if you’re going to build an argument that “14 percent of Democrats won’t support Clinton,” you can’t ignore that a Gallup poll from the summer (the most recent one they’ve done) said that 41 percent of Democrats wouldn’t support a socialist.
That article is just one of many that are inherently flawed due to the fact that he cherry picks which polls he wants to use to support whatever point he’s trying to make, even if he knows the numbers he’s presenting as “fact” are no longer current.
Then there’s his article following the most recent Democratic debate where he insinuated that Clinton’s stances on foreign policy issues wouldn’t likely be any different than Donald Trump. That’s easily one of the most absurd things I’ve ever read. He also claimed that Sanders “won the debate” – like he does after every single debate – even though following the first two debates Clinton’s lead over Sanders grew – with most experts not expecting any big changes in the polls following a third debate where all three candidates performed well.
And, once again, he used old polling numbers (one set from as far back as August) to try to attack Clinton.
He also went on to compare 2008 with this year since, you know, Barack Obama came back to beat Clinton, without recognizing that:
- No two elections are the same – just ask Rick Santorum, who’s polling at around pocket lint right now after coming in second to Mitt Romney in 2012. Yes, Rick Santorum won 11 states in that primary before eventually losing out to Romney.
- By this time in 2007, Obama was surging whereas Sanders hasn’t gained on Clinton nationally in months.
Let me go ahead and make a “prediction” of my own: H.A. Goodman will predict that Sanders “wins” every single debate in which he’s a participant.
Goodman probably also won’t mention much about Sanders’ continued defense of the $1.2 trillion F-35, a project that’s been deemed as one of the biggest wastes of money in Pentagon history. In fact, it’s the most expensive defense project in history.
Why does Sanders seemingly inexplicably defend such a wasteful military spending project – when he’s called out defense contractors and lobbyists – especially one that will cost taxpayers over $1 trillion?
Well, that’s simple: Because it has created jobs in his home state.
For the record, the F-35 project – consisting of one fighter jet – will ultimately cost just slightly less than the entire Iraq War.
While I think Bernie Sanders is genuinely a good guy, let’s not kid ourselves by ignoring the fact that he is, in fact, a career politician. He has no problem pandering to certain groups of people if it will earn him votes, even if the majority of the rest of the country is left paying the price.
But sadly, H.A. Goodman’s absurdity is seemingly endless.
Here’s one where he declares – and I’m not joking – that Clinton is going to finish third in Iowa, behind Martin O’Malley. For the record, Clinton currently leads by 15 points in Iowa over Sanders (51-36) and leads O’Malley by 47 points (52-5). H.A. Goodman claims that in just over a month, Clinton is going to fall to third place. There’s a partisan agenda, then there’s absolute idiocy. Goodman claiming that Clinton is going to finish third in Iowa goes even beyond idiocy.
To put into perspective how absurd this guy really is, here’s a list of headlines for a few of his
pieces of propaganda articles:
- The Only Way to Destroy ISIS is With a Bernie Sanders Presidency
- Atlanta’s Killer Mike Just Helped Bernie Sanders Win the White House in 2016 (November 25, 2015)
- Why Rapper Killer Mike’s Endorsement of Bernie Sanders Spells Trouble for Hillary Clinton (July 17, 2015)
- Yes, Bernie Sanders Defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Debate. Here’s Why
- Yes, Polling Trajectory Shows Bernie Sanders Defeating Hillary Clinton and Winning the Democratic Nomination
- 10 Reasons Bernie Sanders Will Overtake Hillary Clinton in National Polls Before the Iowa Caucus
- It’s Official — Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats
- 10 Reasons I’m Only Voting for Bernie Sanders and Will Not Support Hillary Clinton
- Why Bernie Sanders Has Already Won the Democratic Debates
- Almost Every Major Poll Shows Bernie Sanders Challenging or Defeating Clinton and Republicans. Here’s Why
- If Nixon had email, he’d have been just like Hillary Clinton
- I wouldn’t vote for Dick Cheney, so I won’t vote for Hillary Clinton: An unrepentant only-Sanders voter fires back at critics
I could go on and on… and on. In fact, if you want to see just how many anti-Clinton articles Goodman has written – mostly in just the last few months – go here.
Keep in mind that almost every “pro-Sanders” article he writes (though most of these supposedly pro-Sanders articles are filled with nothing but anti-Clinton rhetoric) is loaded with outdated polling numbers and other misleading rhetoric which does nothing to actually help Bernie Sanders get elected.
I would also like to point out that essentially everything he’s predicted or claimed would happen – didn’t.
In July, he declared that Killer Mike’s endorsement of Sanders was “trouble” for Clinton, a claim he double-downed on just last month – yet Clinton’s lead over Sanders is larger now than it has been in months.
The seemingly endless list of “predictions” or “matter-of-fact” stances based on outdated polling information, his own personal bias against Clinton, or just pure nonsense – is almost literally breathtaking. How he’s allowed to write for such large websites like Salon, The Huffington Post and The Hill, in my opinion, is mind-boggling.
Ask yourself, as someone who should care about being factually informed by people who’ve proven fairly reliable over the years, how many times does someone have to be flat-out wrong about numerous predictions before you would deem them no longer credible?
Take for instance this article written on October 5, 2015 where Goodman declared that superdelegates will choose Sanders over Clinton. That sounds great if you’re a Sanders supporter! The problem is, it’s complete nonsense. In fact, just over a month later a report came out indicating that Clinton had already secured over half of the Democratic superdelegates.
Then there’s this comically titled piece, Hillary Clinton is on wrong side of everything: Stop telling me I have to vote for her because of the Supreme Court.
You heard that right, folks. Hillary Clinton isn’t on the wrong side of some things, or even a lot of things – she’s on the wrong side of everything. Yes, the woman who supports gay rights, raising the minimum wage, paid leave for families, same-sex marriage – she’s on the wrong side of everything according to H.A. Goodman.
That’s the sort of absurd partisan hyperbole that you find on Breitbart, WND or Drudge.
Of course, there’s a catch to all of this: H.A. Goodman doesn’t really seem to be “pro-Sanders.” In fact, based on what I’ve seen, the only reason why he seems to have jumped on the Sanders bandwagon is because he’s the only formidable challenger to Clinton. Here’s an article written back in March where he hypes up Elizabeth Warren (who had said repeatedly – for years – that she wasn’t going to run… and I accurately predicted she wouldn’t) and Martin O’Malley. Yes, back in March, Goodman also predicted that O’Malley would be a formidable challenger to Clinton. You know, the guy polling around 4 percent nationally right now.
How can someone who claims to be such an ardent supporter of Sanders not even mention the senator from Vermont in an article written just over a month before Sanders declared his candidacy – when almost everyone already knew he was going to run? You would think if Goodman thought Sanders was so fantastic he would have been pushing for him back then. Instead, it seems Goodman only declared himself a “Sanders supporter” when he deemed Sanders the greatest threat to defeat Clinton.
The truth is, while Goodman might support Sanders on some level, he really just seems to hate Clinton. That’s evident by his obsession with writing more anti-Clinton articles than most conservatives have over the last few months, most based at least in some part on blatantly inaccurate and misleading information.
This guy claims that Hillary Clinton is a racist because of one single campaign ad from 2008 – that isn’t remotely racist. But because there was one op-ed written about it at the time, he’s going to label Hillary Clinton a racist.
Oh, but there’s more. You see, while he tries to play it down now, Goodman once proudly declared he would vote for Rand Paul. In fact, just about a year ago he wrote I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here is Why. He also wrote Why President Rand Paul Will Keep America Safer Than Bush, Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Now, forgive me, but I have a little trouble buying into the credibility of a supposed “liberal” who claims to be a “life-long Democrat” who fairly recently advocated voting for Rand Paul.
While I would shred how ridiculous his support of Paul was, I don’t have to. An article published by Daily Kos titled Rand Paul Puff-Piece by H.A. Goodman is Intellectually Dishonest absolutely crushes Goodman’s weak, misinformed and agenda-driven articles about why he thinks the Kentucky senator is so wonderful.
In fact, Goodman’s propaganda has apparently made him a bit of a “celebrity” on Reddit. In the Sanders for President subreddit there was a call to ban Goodman articles for being worthless fluff pieces that actually hurt Sanders.
As the original poster wrote:
We should be realistic instead of spamming this sub with worthless H.A. Goodman articles. He’s optimistic to the point of delusion, everything he writes is worthless reposted fluff that refuses to acknowledge that while, yes, Bernie’s doing surprisingly well, he’s still FAR behind nationally and if any of us are honest, we know that he’s not where he would prefer to be. He needs to do well in early primary states, which he’s thankfully doing so far. But his victory is far from guaranteed, and frankly it’s not a stretch to say he’s not in a winning position right now.
Goodman is a distraction, reading his articles is living in a bubble and refusing to accept that Clinton does have more money, better organized and active supporters – from canvassers to phonebankers and so on – and her endorsement list is longer and more impressive.
Again, this was posted in a pro-Sanders subreddit. Clearly, I’m not the only one who thinks his writing is based on delusions and misinformation rather than facts or reality.
And that’s the truth of it, writers like H.A. Goodman are hurting Bernie Sanders. If you’re someone who thinks Sanders should be our next president, there’s plenty of factual information out there to use to state your case. You shouldn’t have to use ridiculously sensationalized predictions or outdated polling data like Goodman frequently does.
If you’re pro-Sanders, that’s great. But if you’re going to support a candidate – any candidate – that support should be based on reality, a place in which H.A. Goodman rarely seems to dwell.
I’m sure plenty of pro-Sanders folks who come across this article will defend Goodman, slam me as a “shill for Clinton” and it won’t make a bit of difference in what they think. That’s part of the problem. If you want to support Bernie Sanders, that’s wonderful. Please, just make sure your support is based on facts, not propaganda. Sure, what H.A. Goodman writes plays right into the hands of what many Sanders supporters want to hear – but that doesn’t make what he’s saying factual or, in turn, helpful. Especially considering the long list of “predictions” he’s made that haven’t remotely come true.
I’ll tell you what though folks, what bothers me most is how he blatantly uses old polling data when he damn well should know that much newer numbers exist. Not only does that negate any point he’s trying to make in some of these articles, but it’s unethical as hell.
What good would it be for me to write an article today based on Trump’s polling numbers from the June CNN/ORC poll when he was only getting 12 percent of the vote and Jeb Bush was the leading candidate at 19 percent? Would it make any sense for me to argue that Bush is a stronger candidate than Trump based on months old numbers that are no longer valid? No, it wouldn’t.
But that’s exactly what Goodman does in many of his “pro-Sanders” articles.
The truth of the matter is, unlike “liberals” such as H.A. Goodman who seem fine with letting Republicans win in 2016 – I’m not. If Clinton wins the nomination, I’ll be pushing for her just as hard as I will if Sanders is the nominee. My long-term goal – as should be the goal of everyone on the left – is to ensure that Republicans don’t win back the presidency next year.
I’m not sure this country can survive that. With fascism taking over the GOP, Democrats/progressives/liberals can’t allow Republicans to have complete power over our government. We cannot allow Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or any of these other radicals to become our next president.
We must all eventually come together to make damn sure no matter who wins the Democratic nomination, that person becomes our next president with a Congress that can at least attempt to get positive things accomplished.
Not only is control over the Supreme Court for the next 20-30 years up for grabs (putting women’s rights, same-sex marriage and religious freedom in jeopardy), but practically all the progress we’ve been fighting for over these last few years could very well be undone almost instantly. A Republican winning the White House in 2016 would set this nation back decades to a point we may never be able to fully recover from.
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- This is a Major Reason Why Republicans Often Deny Truth, Facts, and Reality - November 16, 2017
- Kellyanne Conway Melts Down After Fox & Friends Asks Her About Roy Moore (Video) - November 16, 2017
- It’s Important to Understand the Alt-Right’s Endgame - November 16, 2017