55% of Sanders Voters Plan to Vote for Clinton
A June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson.
How many of the 45% are simply NeverClinton? If presented with a better option would they not take a look? Do they actually want Trump or Johnson?
A new Bloomberg Politics national poll shows Clinton leading Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters in November's election, with 55 percent of those polled saying they could never vote for the real-estate developer and TV personality.
Trump will get a bounce after his convention, Clinton will get a bounce after hers (assuming she is nominated, of course). The national numbers today aren't that significant. Also, bear in mind Clinton's strength in the South, which will deliver her zero electoral votes. That means she is that much weaker in the must-win states.
Comments
#NeverClinton
#NeverTrump
The MSM is gleeful over Trump's lack of campaign cash. Yet all willfully ignore the fact that he hasn't needed any cash. They have given him all the free airtime he needs. This election will come down to three or four swing states. All Trump needs to do is convince enough independents to stay home so that his brainwashed white trash coalition can swing the election in his favor.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Trump hasn't needed cash --
against Republicans, about fifteen of them running separately and against each other as I recall. This time around, however, he's got a single opponent who's sucking down all his former opponents' cash supplies (not to mention her own), and he has to appeal to the whole electorate, not just Republicans. But Trump's problem is not just cash.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/2...
Trump isn't just broke -- he's not even running a campaign. And the RNC isn't going to bail him out on this one:
The "omigod Trump!" people (I'm not saying you're one of them) already look like a joke. Donald Trump is the entertainment world's gift to the Clinton Foundation. He swept the Republicans out of the way so his good friend Hillary Clinton could have the Presidency she's always wanted.
On the positive side, maybe this is the year the Jill Stein campaign can make 5% and the Green Party can qualify for Federal funding.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
His campaign will be extremely negative
And mostly waged through the tabloids. He will simply feed whatever he wants to get out there through the National Enquirer. The MSM will the dutifully repeat it for several news cycles. All he needs to do is pound on Hillary's negatives in hopes of keeping turnout low.
Hillary has paid millions for Internet forum comments, Trump doesn't need to...his cultist followers will do it for free.
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Never Trump AND Never Clinton. From my POV.
I seriously can't understand how any former Sanders supporter could even THINK of supporting Trump. It boggles the mind.
It's kinda like the weirdness in Florida in 2000. Exit poles said nearly 200,000 self-described "liberals" voted for Bush, with 308,000 Dems doing this total.
My own politics are waaaay to the left of liberal, but it makes no sense to me for liberals to choose Bush over Gore. If they didn't want to vote for the Dem, then Nader made the most sense, not Bush. Those of us to the left of Nader and the Dems might pick him as a protest vote. Or a further left candidate, if she or he were on the ballot. But Bush?
And now, Trump?
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
There's a misconception among many Sanders supporters
that Trump is the lesser evil, that's the only way to explain their temptation to vote Trump. From my analysis that isn't true, I think both are comparably evil in their own ways and the fact that it really doesn't matter at this point in the big scheme of things makes voting for President at all a futile and maybe even detrimental effort imo.
They're also forgetting that Trump won't be alone.
If Trump wins the presidency, that enables the entire GOP agenda, too. That lets Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell finally achieve their goals. That let's them put one to three more hard-core right-wingers on SCOTUS as well as their economic, surveillance and war policies, etc.
Why would any Sanders supporter want this? Unless their support for Sanders was nothing more than "voter chaos" to help elect Republicans. As in, actual Republicans who wanted to divide and conquer.
To me, conscientious opposition to the duopoly, which I support, doesn't mean voting for the duopoly. Voting for Trump is exactly that.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I think that many Sanders supporters believe a Trump
presidency is the only sure way of destroying the duopoly that has a stranglehold on our government. The Repubs are pretty well done already. The Dem Party and the Clinton's would also be eliminated as a threat to democracy if Trump gets in. We only have one party rule at the moment, the Corporate Party of America. Clinton will just as surely enable the Republican wing agenda to be fulfilled.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Not seeing the logic in that at all.
Yes, we essentially have one party rule.
But by electing Trump, it will continue, not die. His interests align with the interests of money, of capitalism, of corporatism, of the duopoly itself. I don't see anywhere where they diverge.
Also not getting how the Dems will be eliminated as a threat to democracy. That would take full democracy, including the economy, with the people owning the means of production, too . . . which is even more anathema to Trump and the GOP than it is to Clinton and the Dems. Both are opposed to democracy. Both are opposed to public ownership of the means of production. So how is the election of either of them going to help American democracy?
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Hmm...
And surely you see that Hillary Clinton's interests align with the interests of money, of capitalism, of corporatism, and of the duopoly itself, do you not?
You see, it's not that we're not saying Trump isn't bad; it's that Clinton is actually just as bad, if not worse...
...and if she is, then why wouldn't it make sense to take down at least one leg of the duopoly, with a realistic chance of then being able to use that platform to better articulate the case against The Oligarchy?
Attaching the stigma of LOSERS to the Clinton reputation within the Dem Party is an extremely valuable prize that we can still snatch from The Oligarchy even if Bernie's efforts to get nominated ultimately fail...
James Kroeger
Don't even bother bringing up the SC
Going to be right-wingers no matter if it's Trump or Clinton.
Yep.
"Even though we disagreed on nearly everything, I always kind of liked Justice Scalia." Bill Clinton.
Change is the end result of all true learning. ~ Leo Buscaglia
I think other people forget that HRC
will be supporting the Republican agenda also. We might get a few crumbs while she sells the rest of our economy and privacy out, but that is it. Anyone who does not understand that HRC's policies will benefit only those who bought her are not paying attention.
War policies? Do you really want HRC near the Big Red Button? Obama is having the nukes updated for her, not to mention placing troops around Russia as we speak. The economy? 58% of all wealth will not be enough for the 1% and HRC will make sure they get whatever they want. Hint: She plans a bit of nepotism by putting Bill in charge of the economy. Other than the bubble that came along to make him look good, it has been a disaster. Surveillance? She wants to imprison Snowden, and has said that she would like to increase the powers of those who are spuing on us now. Remember this is the person who signed the Patriot Act twice.
Unfortunately the only win-win possible in this election is voting for Trump and voting and supporting every single progressive first, Democrat second for every single office for which there is a vote.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Nonsense...
I sincerely hope you youngsters do not make the same mistake I did when I voted for Ross Perot. That stupid mistake is directly responsible for the mess we are in now with this Hildebeast running for President. All I did was throw a vote to Billy Jeff and if I knew then what I know now, I would have voted to keep him out. I didn't understand that then, the same way people voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson don't understand that any vote other than Trump helps that proven liar and criminal become President. At least Trump will take much of the corruption out of the system and lay the groundwork for a third party to have a chance in future elections. A Hildebeast Presidency will fortify and further entrench the corruption. Trump is the only answer here...
It's very doubtful your vote for Perot elected Clinton.
Never Clinton
But I know a few people that think that a vote for Trump is like two votes against Clinton.
Myself, I would rather see the Green party get a foothold. I was a fan of the Greens in 2000 and no, it did not matter here in CA. Just like Clinton votes in deep south red states primaries, Trump votes in CA don't matter in the GE, but a strong 5%++ showing for the Green agenda would be a big start. The Federal funding would put pressure on big time.
Remember that tiny plants can lift slabs of concrete. Tiny shoots of Green can make a difference.
Never give up. Never surrender.
Vote Green Party: Jill 2*16
Expect that number to rise as the Fear Trump campaign proceeds.
The left historically is just as likely as any other group to succumb to irrational fear-based voting. It's part of the reason Democrats keep shifting right without any accountability. As long as they're just plausibly better than the GOP alternative the fearful will help carry them over the threshold.
Actually, the left is far less likely to be irrational.
We've had umpteen studies about the hard-wired difference between lefty and righty brains. The science tells us that right-wingers are far more likely to act on fear and paranoia; far more likely to be authoritarians or follow them; far more likely to think and act selfishly; and far less likely to empathize with others.
Lefties are far more likely to act on the basis of evidence, facts and new evidence when it appears.
So far, I haven't seen those studies tied to recent studies about religious indoctrination, but that, too, should be considered. We know that children raised "Christian" or "Muslim" tend to be meaner and more selfish.
Of course, there are exceptions, obviously. The above studies deal with aggregates, and don't claim to be predictive for individuals.
But it's just not true that left and right are equal when it comes to acting on fear, etc. etc.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I used to think this was true
But goings on at TOP and other places have me questioning the idea
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
We shouldn't assume those people are on the left.
That's my take, anyway.
I think the food fight between Sanders and Clinton supporters exposed a fault line, from left to right. It exposed the fact that a large number of Democrats are actually right-wing. Generally speaking, not as far to the right as Republicans. But center-right.
The Democratic Establishment is "conservative," in reality. They're really where the Republican party used to be, but generally without the bigotry.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Let me agree with you here. The union movement,
after the left unions were red-baited out of the AFL-CIO, was led by the conservative trade unions, not the industrial unions. The poorly kept secret was that union members voted no more than 60% for Democrats. So what you're saying is true in my experience: a large number of Democrats are definately center-right, expecially regarding foreign policy.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
Plenty of bigotry in the Democratic party
This is another one of those Democrats aren't like Republicans party supporter belief-isms which is tacitly false.
Democratic bigotry just disguises itself a little better.
Um. No. Given that I'm not a Dem or a Republican, that's . . .
not what this is. I'm saying this as someone looking in on the duopoly well to its left.
I think it's pretty clear that the Dems have done a much better job of making racists, homophobes and misogynists unwelcome in their party. They've done a much better job of making xenophobes unwelcome. The GOP often try to make them welcome -- if not directly, then indirectly.
This is relative, of course. It's not a statement of some ultimate good. It's a comparison between the two parties that make up the one Money Party.
Where I most fault the Dems is on the absence of a class critique. This is every bit as necessary as the one on race, gender, sexuality, etc. etc. IMO, it's actually more so. Because it's our class system, our system of economic apartheid, which fuels and empowers the bigotry.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
They've done a better job of fooling people.
They do have their own bigotry. The measuring stick you choose to use just won't register it. Being able to fool more people is fine. The Dems have done a better job in that respect, in also getting people to vote against their own best interests, just like Republicans do.
That's what the single party system in America is supposed to do, and given both parties are loyal to business - the bigotry is the same in both, it just seems to come in different flavors.
The Republicans are just more honest about their bigotry and how they care nothing about the working class and poor. Democrats do a hood job of pretending to have a big tent, and then screwing over the people they should be representing.
We disagree.
And I don't appreciate this:
" The measuring stick you choose to use just won't register it."
I happen to be a pretty perspicacious fellow, with a very good antenna for this sort of thing. From my observation, the Dems do a better job on race, sexuality, gender, etc. etc. Better than the GOP. Again, that's not to say they are "good" on the issue. Just better than the GOP.
There is no equilibrium in American politics, and it's a mistake to assume so, IMO. Both parties aren't the same on the sub-issues, even though they work for the same masters. They just aren't. They have vastly different constituencies, with very different agendas. Yes, their masters find ways to shape all of this for capitalist and corporate ends. But they're still coming from different places on these issues. One need only look at the divide between the parties on the subject of "reverse racism" to see this. An overwhelming majority of Democrats sees "racism" as a major problem, with "reverse racism" barely causing a ripple. An overwhelming majority of Republicans sees "reverse racism" as a much, much bigger problem than "racism".
And roughly 25% of Trump supporters said we never should have freed the slaves. Think about it. That same percentage supports flying the Confederate flag. Majorities favor banning all Muslims, and pluralities support banning gay people. That's not the case for Dems.
They're not the same.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Whatever.
Democrats just PRETEND to be better
and not racist, but when you have a Democrat who's willing to "end welfare as we know it" while the entire party goes along with that? That's a damned good dog whistle there too, isn't it. Sure, the Democrats love them some women, children, gays, brown people, etc. but when it comes to the economy they too respond very well to those little silent cues. Remember now, main stream Dems were celebrating that "fix" to policy too, until we started to see the results and have become aware of them after reading blogs such as these. You DON'T hear that discussion at all on the MSM.
When the Democrat creates Three Strikes laws and YUGE sentencing disparities between a "white middle class" crime and a "black ghetto superpredator" and the whole party is in agreement with that? Knowing the disparity and still passing that law?
No, Democrats have played a very good game with their trickery. I've said it before and I will say it again - just look at the fear the Tea Party itself generated in many Democrats, who pulled that lever for anything with a big D behind its name, all in the name of beating the Tea Party, and then electing a ConservaDem who's actual policies are no better? I'm guilty of that last too, up until this blatantly and openly rigged "election" we just went through, I see through that ploy too. I would not be surprised at all to find out Billy Bob's fingerprints are part of that astroturf movement too. I know, bordering on CT here, but that's just how cynical I've become.
IF the Democrats were to ever truly bring economic policy into the argument you might have a point, but the fact that they USE race, gender, "identity politics" to avoid that very important part of the discussions of race and gender inequality is simply too damned transparent now to not see through it. They just have different branding now, underneath all that, they're neo-liberal warmongers and they want their share of the spoils. And apparently, they no longer give even one little tiny shit that we see it. But those of us who do see it are in the minority in this country, and the Democrats will do all they can do to keep it that way.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Some perspective
The numbers may be different but the effects are not becasue while one group talks about being racist, the other has actions that prove they are.
From The Hill 3/2016:
Bill Clinton's crime bill and welfare reform bill as well as the escalation of the War on Drugs--all lobbied for by HRC--enacted some of the most racist federal legislation in many decades. Trump talks about bans on Muslims; HRC bombs them. The Clintons also lobbied (HRC: "marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman") for and signed DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
No, they've done a better PR job.
And I say this as a person speaking far to the left of both of them as well as a person who has seen up close how poorly non-whites are served by both parties. Democrats are not any better than Republicans on this matter either, except when viewed from the very narrow perspective that covert is better than overt.
I'm on the "far left" as well, light years away from the Dems.
I look at them from the outside. Not as one of them. But as an ardent anticapitalist, egalitarian, small "d" democrat and libertarian socialist.
It's not my party. I despise both wings of the duopoly.
But I think any objective look at the two parties which unfortunately dominant American politics clearly shows the Dems are better on matters of race, sexuality, gender and bigotry in general. And for the third time in this thread, this is a comparison between the parties, not a statement of their ultimate goodness or virtuousness on these or any other issues. I disagree with them about MOST things. Strongly.
At no time in our political history have our political parties been the same on all sub-issues. For the billionth time, yes, they work for the same bosses. But they're not the same on all issues.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
The TOPpers aren't lefties!
Markos spent much effort, time and money to make sure of that. And he got it.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
With the exception of the very excellent anticapitalist meetup.
And a few other sub-groups.
But I won't go back, and will add to the ACM here instead.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Agreed. "Actually, the left is far less likely to be irrational"
But when the lesser evil Clinton can only campaign on Trump being the greater evil, there isn't anything left to vote for. Only against. Thus the lesser evil paradigm continues and the whole spectrum shits ever rightward leaving us eventually at my sig line.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
We agree about that, too.
I hope someday we get the choice between several good and great candidates someday, from multiple parties or coalitions, instead of the usual horrifically bad, and a little less horrifically bad.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
We can vote for Jill Stein and the Green Party
Hillary and Donald are not the only two choices on the ballot and since I do not believe in "lesser evil voting", I am free to vote for Jill Stein, a candidate I am happy to support.
Strategic voting leads to unhappiness and disillusionment for far too many of those who practice it.
Imagine how many more votes Jill Stein would get if people just voted for the candidate whose politics and ethics they liked the most.
Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.
If only we had evidence that Hillary is better than Bernie.
But there's nothing there to fear!
Please see the comment above and read the accompanying WaPo article.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I can see not voting for Hillary. I won't. But Trump?
That's nuts.
He's a fascist. At least he plays one on TV and pushes for fascist policies.
I'll be voting for Jill Stein, not Hillary. But, IMO, anyone who votes for Trump, especially if they were Sanders' supporters, is . . . . to be gentle . . . massively confused.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
IMO, anyone who votes for
Do tell...
War and peace issues are as important to me as defeating the Oligarchy. Hillary Clinton scares me far more than Donald Trump does in this vital area.
Is this enough for you to explain to me what my confusion is?
James Kroeger
War and peace are vitally important to me as well.
I'm seriously antiwar, anti-empire, pro-peace. Which is why I could never vote for Trump. He preaches violence at his rallies. He seeks to ban all Muslims from America, and has talked about shutting down all mosques, and singling Muslims out for surveillance. He's called all Mexicans rapists, and whips up his crowd into a frenzy with Nazi-like rhetoric, scapegoating powerless undocumented workers, immigrants, refugees and minorities in general.
He has retweeted Neo-Nazi texts. He has said we should nuke other countries to fight terrorism, and that includes Europe. He has appeared several times on the Alex Jones show, a monster of a human being and conspiracy theorist, who believes Sandy Hook was a false flag op.
Again, to be gentle, anyone who votes for Trump is seriously confused.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
We frown upon...
making judgements of other folks personal choices here at c99p, gently stated or not.
It was meant in general, sparked by the stats.
By that 22% figure. It was not directed at anyone personally, and I was surprised when James responded the way he did. It was not directed at him.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Magicsister
Then why didn't you shut down magicsister a few days ago when she screamed "bullshit" at comments I made about Bernie's campaign, twice??? For a moment I thought I was mistakenly back at TOP. Even emailed the administrator about it. She's mentally unbalanced, stroke or no stroke. I've never experienced anything like it, even on Dkos.
I didn't see it...
show me a link.
But I did see this:
How are you any better?
If things pan out as expected
come November not voting for Clinton will increase Trumps chance of becoming POTUS. That is the bald fact.
Disclaimer: I do not know how I will go on this - depends upon what happens between now and November I guess. I do know that I won't be voting for Hillary. I do accept the fact that this decision alone favors a Trump presidency and that is for me to live with.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire
My candidates of choice for 2016
vs.
Trump is an entertainer.
He admitted a long time ago that he was making stuff up to please Republicans. You can find out what a "WWE heel" looks like by watching WWE Raw or WWE Smackdown! Here's the role with which Donald Trump is the most familiar:
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
True. But do you trust him not to act on what he's promised his
devoted followers?
I don't.
I definitely don't want Clinton as president. But Trump would be worse. I can't in good conscience vote for either of them.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Nearly all of what Trump has "promised" --
is either stuff that has already happened, or an extension of stuff going on now. But I don't need to trust Trump to know that he won't be our next President. When Clinton goes after him he'll have no machinery to strike back. Sure, it matters that his opponent has a ton of negatives -- but not enough to overcome the hole he's dug for himself. Have you looked at the size of that thing?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Same color, two shades.
I get what you're saying about Trump being apparently worse. He is definitely a scary character. But really, in my opinion there are only shades of nuance between them. They're old friends, so one can only assume (and conclude with confidence based on actual facts available) that they think mostly alike. That's not always true, but in this case I believe it is. And as a person thinks, so too does that person act.
Some examples.
Lack of empathy: Clinton laughed at the killing of a dictator on tv. She stated that the refugee children of Honduras should be returned to "send a message" to their parents. Were their parents even alive still to welcome them home? We may never know. But she didn't care about that.
Racism: Superpredators, welfare reform, three strikes laws. The 3 AM phone call, the photo of Barack in traditional dress, which sparked the birther movement. Taken up by old pal Donald, against whom she's supposedly now running.
Falsehoods and double speak (pandering): Praising the great work of the Reagans, of all people, in addressing the AIDS crisis. The Wall Street speeches that supposedly don't influence her policy. Yeah, right.
Hawkishness: No need to elaborate here.
Actually, her gleeful self-congratulatory tone in defending a child rapist... That was as disturbing as anything I've heard from Trump's word hole. Not more, or less, just AS. Two different shades of the same color.
I've no doubt that Trump would act on his words given the opportunity, or at least would get his hordes of brainwashed dimwits to do it for him. So I can't vote for him. HRC, on the other hand, has already acted on her words, and continues to do so. Massive election fraud is just one example of how, once in office, she would rule with an iron fist -- no matter what the people want, because she doesn't care what we want. So I can't vote for her, either. What point is there in debating which of them is worse than the other? Either one would be a total disaster. Yeah, totally agreed that Bernie folks threatening to vote for Trump seems counterproductive, to put it mildly.
It's Stein for me, or a write in if possible, or worst case, boycott of the vote. That's assuming Bernie doesn't walk into the convention with chests full of election fraud documentation, demanding a recount right then and there.
Well, one can always dream...
Change is the end result of all true learning. ~ Leo Buscaglia
Trump panders to his audience
and he knows his audience - he's an entertainer, reality show celebrity, and a large % of the voting public like what he says. Just like the Clintons, saying what ever will get them votes.
I can't imagine Trump allowing David Brock to speak on his behalf. Nor can I imagine him "triangulating" or following advice of Dick Morris.
I fear businessman Trump much less than I fear criminal clintons. The clinton's have used every ounce of their collective power to wield control, gather sycophants, accumulate MONEY, to continue, gathering power, control, more money. Crucially important to get the Democratic party out of clinton control if we want any chance for reform.
Also think Trump is much less likely to go to war, than Killer Clintons. Much less.
Hillary is a hawk. But Trump's rhetoric is even more hawkish.
And this:
Hasn't Trump done the same, regarding the accumulation of money, power, more money, more power? Is he any less criminal in his actions? I don't think so.
Again, I don't want either of them anywhere near the White House. But Trump is clearly worse, IMO.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I disagree about Trump being worse than hrc.
She's already done what everyone fears Herr Drumpf will do. There is no way hrc should be allowed near the WH now or ever.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
She's shut down all mosques and banned Muslims from entry?
She's put up a wall to keep Mexicans out? She's nuked countries in the "GWOT"?
She's retweeted Nazi propaganda and whipped up her followers into hatefests against undocumented workers, immigrants and refugees?
Have you read the surveys detailing the beliefs of Trump supporters? Strong majorities favor banning Muslims and gay people from America. Roughly 25% said we never should have freed slaves after the Civil War. He attracts American white supremacists in droves, and bigots in general.
As bad as Hillary is on so many counts, that's not her thing. She's basically a center-right Republican without the bigotry. Trump is a Bircher in training.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
He hasn't
done any of the things in your header and first paragraph.
She, on the other hand, has not built any walls, but she has supported them. She, on the other hand, has not banned Muslims - she's just had them killed. By the millions.
Drumpf has nothing but hot air and bad business decisions on his record. She has the blood of nations on hers. And she says she wants to go into Syria and do regime change and kill more people. Bringing her - excuse me, us - into direct conflict with Russia. And there are your nukes.
I can not, in good conscience, vote for either. But I do think that she is the one to fear, more so than herr Drumpf.
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
I was responding to this:
"She's already done what everyone fears Herr Drumpf will do."
The question wasn't what Trump has done. He hasn't been in the position to do that yet. The question was what will he do once he obtains that power.
The quote said that Clinton had already accomplished what people fear Trump will, once in office. I responded to that.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Gotcha!
Trigger-happy me jumped the gun again.
BTW, although I don't quite agree with your reasoning, this essay is, well... well reasoned! Thanks for it and the discussion it has prompted.
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
Sorry - I guess I just think you are overreacting.
That's just me and I must be misreading your comments. hrc is infinitely worse than Herr Drumpf. I realize you don't agree - that's just you, which is all well and good. We disagree on who is worse, but I won't vote for either - no holding my nose ever again.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It looks like you thought I supported her. I don't.
Unless I misread you, you assumed I wanted to vote for Clinton. No way. I couldn't in good conscience do that.
Will be voting for Stein, as mentioned. As I did in 2012.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
You are correct.
At first read, I thought you meant you were holding your nose and voting for her. I realize you are not, but if you were, I'd accept it because it's your vote to do with as you choose. Of course, I had to chime in with what an awful choice that would be - not to argue, but to whine - because I believe it is time for all of us to send the establishment and oligarchy a message that we're just not going to go there anymore. We want a country that works for all of us.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Thanks, RA. We agree.
And I appreciate your civility in this discussion.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I'd much rather be civil than fight.
I hate how fighting/arguing makes my body feel. I don't believe it's healthy. It's one of the reasons I cannot go to TOP anymore (although I did go to the BNR this morning because nomandates asked nicely
). I'm just happy we got here in a pleasant way. 
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Voting for Stein too
but one thing I want to criticize about the who is worse argument. What I don't see being mentioned is efficacy. Out of the two of them, who do you see actually being able to have the bad shit associated with them enacted? Personally, I see HRC being the only one able to get the worst of what we can expect of her to get passed. Trump just doesn't have the support in either party, and the few things he could have support for from the republicans wouldn't stand up in a court case (like the mosque shutdown and muslim ban ideas).
And sure, the republicans may get some of their crap through under trump. I don't really expect anything different if clinton were in charge though. She never left the republican camp beyond the letter she decided to wear on her jacket.
None of the outrageous stuff that Trump has said will ever
come to pass if he were president. The military has already said they wouldn't do his bidding if for instance he wanted to nuke somebody. A Trump presidency would actually give the other two branches of government a reason to do their jobs. Part of which is keeping the executive branch in check. When it comes to matters of unnecessary death, Clinton will prove to be worse. I agree with you though and I will be voting for Stein if she is on the ballot and writing Bernie in otherwise.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Clinton would be far more effective
and thus more dangerous in practice. Trump would be more dangerous in rhetoric, but is too incompetent to accomplish much.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
How is Trump's rhetoric more hawkish?
Follow-up: how is what he says he'd do (which isn't consistent day to day) worse than what Hillary has already done and already has policies to double-down on?
Again, she is a hawk. She is all too ready to go to war.
But she hasn't talked about nuking other countries. Trump has. And he includes Europe.
She hasn't talked about banning Muslims, shutting down mosques, or singling them out for special Nazi-like surveillance.
Trump thinks we were ripped off in the Iran deal, and repeatedly lies about what we supposed gave up. We gave up nothing. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if he confronted them militarily to take back what we never lost in the first place: their own assets we had frozen.
His rhetoric, in all of his rallies, is overheated and fascist. Hillary's isn't. I think she is very likely to take us to war, but I think Trump definitely will.
Don't want either of them. But Trump is worse in my view.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
He bloviates.
She lies. Who is worse?
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
Trump lies far more often. It's not close.
And, yes, Clinton is a liar.
And Trump tends to lie in order to spark hatred against the powerless, against minorities, against blacks and Muslims.
Like how he supposedly saw "thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheering on 9/11."
Does Clinton lie to spark that kind of hatred?
Again, this is a case of two rotten candidates. Too rotten choices. I won't vote for either. But Trump is worse. No question in my mind about that.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Good point
Clinton lies to cover up her nastiness. Drumpf lies to spur on hatred in others, having learned that by doing so he increases his popularity.
Well said. I respect your opinion.
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
Thanks, Jim.
We agree, and it's good to find common ground.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
A bloviater is much more entertaining than a joyless liar
Both of them lie but there is a certain joie de vivre with bloviating.
Beware the bullshit factories.
She hasn't talked about nuking other countries?
Sure she has. In 2008 she blustered about how we'd "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nukes.
I think both Clinton and Trump are dangerous and I won't vote for either of them. I also think comparisons of "she's worse" or "he's worse" are also dangerous and I see no reason to make those comparisons.
Beat in the USA.
I stand corrected.
That is a truly despicable statement from HRC.
Made all the more despicable by the fact that Israel is far more likely to nuke Iran, with its two hundred plus warheads . . . . compared with, um, zero, for Iran.
I really despise the duopoly's relationship with the Israeli government, which seems to always be right wing these days. They might as well just make it the 51st state and end the charade.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Cat forbid!
Cat forbid! I want nothing to do with Nathan-Yahoo and his ilk having any legal say in governing us, thank you very much!!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I wasn't being serious, of course.
Just making a statement of desperation with regard to the relationship.
It's bizarre. It's "Israel, right or wrong," far more than their own country. I don't think they espouse even a fraction as much blind loyalty to America as they do for Israel's government.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
I knew that.
I agree. The term incestuous comes to mind, all too readily!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I think such comparisons are used by folks to justify
Lesser of evilism in their votes. It isn't really a high quality way to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of one versus the other. Much better is to simply compare their policies (or reasonable inferences of policies based on rhetoric and past action, subject to the disclaimer that it's basically a guess) and interpret them from the point of view of one's policy priorities.
How does that rationale apply to Jill Stein voters?
It doesn't.
As in, one can compare and contrast the two major party candidates and STILL vote for third party candidates. One can note the "lesser or two evils" matchup and STILL vote outside the duopoly. That has been my general way of doing things for sometime now.
I voted for Stein in 2012, for instance, but I still thought about the commonalities and differences between Obama and Romney, the Dems and the GOP. Tragically, the two parties loom so large in this country, it's kinda tough to ignore them, much as I wish I could.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Clinton is a far more intelligent and organized criminal
than Trump could ever hope to be. We can go over the evidence if you'd like.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Trump has never used his
Trump has never used his wealth, or power, or position to kill innocent women and children, to overthrow elected officials, or to enrich himself by selling the hardware to make war against impoverished, innocent people. His inflammatory rhetoric is at least consistent, where Clintons will say and do whatever necessary to appease the audience at hand. The media covered the ugly heavy handedness of Trump attitudes, and violence at his rallies, but barely a word from the MSM about Hillary's goons evicting dissenting voices at her campaign events. She and GWB use the same methods to avoid being challenged publicly, and then we are all very quick to call the Drumpf thin skinned.
There is no doubt he is an enormous smelly orifice, but he is an innocent in comparison to what lies in Hillary's mind, heart and soul.
It is called spite.
One can argue about who and how many are gettng spited, but there is no doubt it is a double tap on Hillary. -1 Hillary + 1 Trump = -2 Hillary.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Is Hillary better than Trump when it comes to fascism?
I am most likely voting for Stein. However, I don't live in a purple state, so my vote will not matter. If I lived in a purple state, I might vote for Trump. I am lucky that I don't have to make that choice.
I bet she can bring that down
at the convention.
Trump's Cash Problem
First of all, Trump needs less cash. He's a master at getting free exposure, and that isn't going to change. He might only need two thirds the money Clinton will for media buys.
Secondly, rumor has it that the Republicans will try to push him out at the convention. Why would a big donor invest in him before then? The Republicans go first this cycle. Once Trump locks up the nomination I'm sure money will flow, if not directly into his campaign (where Trump can siphon it off) then to the party and SuperPACs.
Third, even if the party decides to cut him loose, they still need a GOTV organization for down ticket races. The party will set that up and pay for it, and Trump will benefit. Which, I'm sure, is his plan.
And, let's face it, if he had $100 million right now he would just piss it away since he doesn't know what's he's doing in a campaign, or steal it which he seems to have a real talent for.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Albert Bartlett
"A species that is hurtling toward extinction has no business promoting slow incremental change." -- Caitlin Johnstone
I might vote for Hillary
I'll stick my neck out in this crowd and admit it. It would be extremely distasteful to have to do that but I would consider it.
I am a strong Bernie supporter. I have given him a load of $$. I agree with him that Trump needs to be defeated. For many reasons.
I am in a swing state where my vote acutally might mean something. I will check polling closely this Oct/Nov and if Hillary is leading well, I don't have to vote for her.
In the next 4 years there could be 2 to 3 Supreme Court appointees. You can spin it all you want that it doesn't matter whether Trump or Hillary appoints them, but I would strongly disagree.
One of my biggest concerns is climate. Hillary is not any where near what I would like to see, but Trump would be disastrous.
Correct about Climate Change and SCOTUS.
Hillary, for all of her massive flaws, is likely to be less horrible for the environment than Trump (but still horrible), and to nominate better judges to SCOTUS.
I hate the idea of another Clinton presidency. But it's yet one more "lesser of two evils" matchup.
I can't in good conscience vote for Clinton. But, for me, voting for Trump is unthinkable.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
There is no evidence that I know of
that suggests that Clinton will be less horrible for the environment than Trump.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-...
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Or for SCOTUS, except if one is considering only one or two
issues (abortion, CU) and takes Hillary at her word.
There is every indication she's likely to nominate persons supportive of her police state agenda, and that are even less liberal than the moderates Obama has appointed. At best it might be considered a tie on the issue of SCOTUS.
hrc will nominate corporatists to the SCOTUS.
Please remember - if Obama nominated the likes of Merrick Garland, hrc will nominate a Jamie Dimon-type person. They are stacking the deck. Please realize that Herr Drumpf and hrc are no different - they are working for the same oligarchy. The oligarchy will have it's way with either person. Vote hrc if you must, but she will be worse than Herr Drumpf - who may not end up as the nominee, anyway. There are loads of scenarios still to play out. Bernie could still be our nominee. I refuse to throw that towel into the fire at this time.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Oh, I know they work for the same Oligarchy.
That's why it makes no sense to vote for either of them, which is why I'll be voting for Jill Stein, as I did in 2012.
But how does someone oppose the Oligarchy by supporting Trump, an actual oligarch?
And I agree about the Garland choice. Just the usual Democratic (DLC) triangulation. The only way to "balance" things on SCOTUS is to elect people to the left of liberal, to match far right Republicans. Even liberals won't balance things, and Obama chose a centrist.
There is in me an anarchy and frightful disorder. Creating makes me die a thousand deaths, because it means making order, and my entire being rebels against order. But without it I would die, scattered to the winds.
-- Albert Camus
Pages