Even the good, sympathetic stuff --
is marked by the wrong presuppositions.
Take for instance Steven W. Thrasher's piece in the Guardian, "If Hillary Clinton loses in November, it won't be Bernie Sanders' fault." Both the piece and its author are sympathetic, or at least it can be said that I am convinced that Thrasher is one of the good guys. However...
Start with the presupposition at the top. Thrasher is imagining Clinton losing. How? I keep seeing the same scenario. It's September and Clinton is down in the polls. Suddenly a tidal wave of money-fueled advertising sweeps over the swing states, and Donald Trump has no answer for it because he no longer has any money left. The tidal wave of advertising lasts for two months. Clinton wins the election.
None of this other rhetoric, including 538's prediction of a Trump win "if the election were held today," really has any bearing when you consider how likely this scenario will be. I have yet to read anyone predicting a Trump win who has anything to persuade me that the above scenario won't happen. So I can only conclude for now that Clinton will win in November, and that she will be our next President. We should, then, feel completely free from worrying that we will be blamed for Clinton's (not going to happen) loss, and go out to vote and campaign for Jill Stein in hopes she gets the 5% she will need for FEC funding in the future. Clinton's advertising budget will take care of everything for the good liberals who fear Trump, and Trump is not the type of guy with the sort of personal integrity that can bust an advertising budget of Clinton's scope. The winning tactic that you will see with Clinton in the coming months is the tactic that won re-election for Barack Obama four years ago.
Let's now scroll down past the whole "vice-presidential selection" thing, pretty much symbolism at this point, to this article's critique of Donald Trump.
Enter Trump. He has unified a rabid, dwindling and angry white electorate, so much so that if the election were held today, 538 predicts he’d win. Trump made a (probably foolhardy) move for Sanders’ voters. Still, those most threatened by Trump’s neo-fascism – people of color, queer people, the poor, workers and those who care about economic inequality - have been abandoned by the Democratic party and its nominee on economic justice.
It's really unclear at this point whether Trump actually believes in "neo-fascism," or if he's merely a blowhard with no manners using disgusting fascist etiquette. Much of what Trump has threatened to do is overblown hype about stuff the Democrats are doing already. Shaun King panics because Donald Trump is going to deport a lot of immigrants, while Barack Obama deports them at record rates as we speak. In all realism the most Donald Trump will be able to do, despite his overblown rhetoric, will be what Barack Obama is doing now, given the logistical difficulties of finding and deporting 12 million immigrants and the blowback he'll receive from the employers of these people. Let's proceed to the next Trump criticism of this piece:
Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises? Definitely. Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants and Muslims – pay the highest price? Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.
Now the anti-Trump people like to predict that a Trump Presidency will be the end of the world. It may in fact be quite bad, especially in that fantasy future in which it actually happens. Yet the constant use of hyperbole around a "fascist" candidate who isn't even one-tenth as organized as Hitler or Mussolini were, back in the day, should tip off critical thinkers to the fact that there's really no way of predicting what will happen in the future, and also to the fact that nobody seems to be able to do a serious comparison of Clinton versus Trump. "Oh we know FER SHER what's going to happen if Trump is elected." Uh-huh. Now Clinton's record is bad, and her syndicate is powerful, and Trump is a blowhard and small-time crook. One thing is likely, though: lower-class white Trump supporters will probably not regret voting for the President who decided to put Bill Clinton, famed spokesperson for the Peterson Foundation, in charge of the economy.
Let's move on to Thrasher's conclusion:
But I don’t know how any of the flaws of Trump can be explained to his supporters, especially when the Democratic party can’t offer an economic vision to their own angry voters. Indeed, the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their base been screaming at them to stop this.
All this appears to be quite true, yet I don't see the difficulty. When everyone is making stuff up, any explanation will do, and the more advertising money you have to back up that explanation, the better. And Clinton has more advertising money, by far.
Comments
I liked following you
Through all this. I lked it because it was a view through the coming months - these months ahead that are so ~uncertain ~. Who is to say what we will all see, soon enough, I guess. Brave new world ahead.
I personally Think Trump Would be Reagan II
Completely Full of Shit, Making Horrible Deals with Dictators that he then denies...
But only getting us involved in wars with people who didn't give him his cut.
And then remembered as a Saint by the Media, who created him in the first place.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
This is my reason for not
Voting Democrat. The democratic leaders get a pass on every thing they do. If anyone questions it the howling mob descends on them and drowns them out until they shut up. The republicans can't get away with much of anything that d doesn't involve war.
A problem with your scenario.
the problem I see is that Clinton's ads will have the opposite effect; the more people see them, the less they'll like her, and the more willing they'll be to pervent their thinking toward "Trump ain't so bad".
The ads will not be about Clinton.
Their effect will be to dissipate the population of "true believers" in Trump. It will all be coldly calculated with reference to past data on the effectiveness of attack advertising going back to 1986. Trump will pursue nothing of the sort, not having even lifted a finger in that direction.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
It sounds like ...
you're looking at things through the old lens. Many people have decried Trump and made prognostications (won't run, won't win any states, won't win the primary, won't be the nominee ...) that fell flat.
Negative ads against Trump in October are unlikely to be any more successful than the ones that have been run to date. The Washington Post and NY Times accuse him of treason with the Russians yet his poll numbers continue to rise.
I think people are so fed up with the broken system we have that they're ignoring the usual tactics and even doing the opposite of what the pundits and experts say. If you've spent much time around rebellious teenagers, you know that the best way to get them to do what you want is to order them to do the opposite.
Trump isn't running a real campaign.
And since the tactic I described worked in 2012 against stronger opposition, what do you have to show that it won't work now.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
Hi, Cassiodorus!
Hi, Cassiodorus!
While your prediction is both logical and likely, I'm wondering about some things, such as whether the American people really will again allow themselves to be enclosed in the corporate-controlled two-options-only-of-candidates mind-box they've been so carefully trapped in for so long - when there's everything, including even the near-term survival of life on the planet, at stake.
If Indies now form the largest voting group and are joined by a flood of departing Dems in predominately voting for the Green Party against both evils, while voting for the Dems is depressed, and Trump only appeals to a certain number of Republicans (leaving voter suppression of likely Indie-voters and cheating out of the equation for the moment) even assuming that Bernie is out of the Presidential picture, doesn't that indicate that President Jill Stein could indeed be a possibility, if the gap is sufficient that a Clinton win cannot be faked?
A large and growing number of people will not vote for Hillary, because they are aware of her pathological tendencies and corporate/billionaire dependencies and what a disaster she (and/or Trump, clearly both in the better-informed) would be, and they very sensibly refuse to ask for, often, either evil to be visited upon them, with more and more becoming aware that there actually is an alternative to the two-party trade-off scam in the non-corporate and independent Green Party.
Another point made by riverlover in another thread is that Bernie took a personal hit for an 'impossible' out and brilliantly escaped having to concede to Clinton or release his delegates to her by moving to suspend rules and have Clinton declared the nominee - thereby, I gather, leaving Bernie still technically in, or at least not out of, the candidacy.
Why do you suppose that there's such a flurry of posts about Bernie supposedly 'selling out' or 'being a coward' to try to get his supporters to jump ship if he's not still a danger to the corporate empire with its fangs poised over our throats globally? (And yeah, I know Jill was using that, which was not a good sign, but at least she's not a corporate lackey setting up for nuclear war and Mutual Assured Destruction with Russia and China, while willing to sacrifice any pretense of democracy in unconstitutionally offshoring domestic law in privately agreed corporate coups passed off as 'trade bills' - or trying to use the Presidency to become a crazed trillionaire sociopathic hazard to the world in his ego-bound, 'let's make a deal - where I keep extorting more for ME' kindergarten-insulting, hyper-sensitive, sue-crazy, rampantly-unlinked-to-reality-or-facts braggart ignorance. But this line of smear attack has been propaganda spread in the corporate Clinton-supporting and some once-progressive media, in defiance of a remarkably consistent life-time's record establishing Bernie's character and history.)
If they'd underestimated Bernie, there would not have been such epic levels of propaganda, voter suppression and cheating in the nomination.
There may be a unicorn up Bernie's sleeve yet. Maybe best to stay tuned to Wikileaks for promised information, walk softly and carry a big sign on the end of your pitchforks?
Unless, of course, internet will be shut down to ensure that those Hillary emails 'will never be released', as they've apparently claimed - ensuring mass meat-space gatherings and a high potential for riots by those determined to be heard by those determined to stifle them and to control the information they're permitted.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I"m not sure I get all of this.
But I like the tone. Anyway, Jill Stein? Last I heard her goal was 5% and FEC funding. I fully support the achievement of that goal.
I have no idea what Sanders is doing, unless it's what I think he's doing, which is to preserve what little power he's got so that he can go back to the Senate and be the amendment king once again.
I really don't know why people argue for the possibility of a Trump win. Wish-fulfillment is so Freudian. The point of declaring Trump out of the picture is to show that the Clinton forces have nothing on us, and that we are free to organize for Stein.
"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama
The combustible anti-establishment national sentiment
across the electorate is one big thing that's different from 2012. Also the widespread corruption exposed in the "better than Rs" DNC, which has turned off likely D voters already leery of Hillary Clinton. Thank you, #DNCLeaks. And in 2012 Obama still had some cred with a lot of D and D-leaning voters--and Romney obliged late in the season with his 47% comment. The sort of bombshell likely hiding in Clinton's Wall Street speeches.
Voters are fed up. They want change, big change, and they want it now--at least the good old (free) college try--not in imperceptible increments that give a little with one hand while taking away more with the other. No matter what Clinton says, she is not change. Same-old same-old just isn't working for too many people.
Voters would come to a Clinton-Trump duopoly GE largely aligned from the start with:
Clinton (party loyalist or omg Trump!),
Trump (down with the establishment! or omg Clinton!)
Stein (love ya, Bernie, but can't follow your call to defeat-Trump-vote-Clinton! Alternative: Bernie write-in),
Johnson (omg Clinton! but can't follow GOP call to defeat-Clinton-vote-Trump),
or Option E--none of the above/staying home.
I see relatively little movement among these groups, which are shaking out now, later in the GE season. But my crystal ball's cracked, so quien sabe, eh?
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
with all the electoral theft and "thumbs on the scale"
and now taking absolutely everything that Trump says (whether in jest/satire) and the media running it like it was policy making from a President's mouth... I don't understand why they just don't call the whole GE quits and crown Hillary now. Look at all the money that would be saved! Not that any of that would float down in our direction!
I truly have a gut feeling... still... that Trump isn't going to be running for Prez by the time November rolls around. I think that's why the RNC demanded he accept Pence as his VP. No matter whether Trump is there are not, the President's office and policies will be run by Pence, as dictated by the Republican leaders straight from mouths of the Koch brothers, and other high roller right wingers.
Well, if she does win...
...that is definitely one the possibilities that could ultimately account for it.
I generally agree that her best chance of winning will be if the corporate media continues to help her and if perhaps a majority of corporate donors throw a lot of big bucks at her campaign.
But I'm not certain that is going to happen. Something tells me that Trump will have no difficulty keeping up with her on $$, at least re: independent PAC spending.
They may not like a lot of what they are seeing in Trump, but at the end of the day, they will see that the side they are accustomed to identifying with has a real chance of winning the election and they know they would like to have some influence on the new administration.
And then you have to acknowledge Trump's demonstrated ability to ridicule those who seek to portray him negatively, especially when he is sharing the same stage with him. Bernie never went there with Hillary. Trump will rely on it entirely.
And then there are the votes of Bernie Sanders supporters. I just can't buy the idea that they can be persuaded in large numbers to fear Trump more than they fear Hillary.
There are some known unknowns here that are likely to determine the outcome. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out...
James Kroeger
More and more
I see this as a pre-planned good cop\bad cop scheme. The Billionaires have been grooming Clinton for years now. She was their choice in 2008 until a charactmatic young Senator interfered. In 2016 they left nothing to chance. By securing all the Superdelegates and political establishment before the primary even begins, they blunt any challengers. And just for good measure, they throw in Trump, to electrify the Republican wacko base and run interference for Clinton, ensuring her smooth installation.
I had thought for awhile now that Trump would just drop out when her path was clear.
But your scenario of his running out of money is probably closer to the truth. Although that is likely part of the plan and Trumps paycheck will be in the mail anyway.
Neither Russia nor China is our enemy.
Neither Iran nor Venezuela are threatening America.
Cuba is a dead horse, stop beating it.
Except
The finance industry and the pharmaceutical industry were in for Obama very early in the primaries. You could argue that somebody was greasing the skids well before that. Why the finance industry favored O over Hillary, the Senator from Wall Street, is one of the most fascinating questions in American political history. She spent the next 8 years making sure it wouldn't happen again.
I agree with you about the pre-planned good cop\bad cop scheme this time. I don't know whether Trump is aware of the game.
I like Thrasher's articles
Have to agree on the bit regarding the fear and terror of a Trump presidency however. Isn't is odd how terrified pro-Hillary people are of a Trump presidency, all the while we just got through a primary where the media and Clinton camp attacked the Sanders campaign for _never_ being able to realize their agenda?
Somehow Trump will realize every horror imaginable, while Sanders as president would never have been able to sign a single piece of progressive legislation that the majority of Americans support.
to them it's nothing but a tactic
They know they will only turn out the diehards if they campaign for her, so they have to build up this scary monster who is poised to win for the other side and march the nation into war as he marches every single immigrant across the Mexican border and shuts the gate forever. They have to instill fear into the masses or they will just stay home. So much more fearmongering to come until election time. It's by design.
In reality, Congress will block anything running against the oligarchy's interests, no matter who sits in the White House.
“The first duty of a man is to think for himself”
I think 15 years of living day-in and day-out
with all fear, all the time, everywhere, by anybody... as preached now by two different administrations has warped the minds of too many Americans.
Add to that police departments comprised of lots of former military police who are probably suffering PTSD with what they had to do to prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and are now hopped on steroids and trying to maintain with mood stabilizers and pain pills. Give these same former security police the same weapons they used "over there" to use on the American people as they see fit...
And then, for good measure, let corporations do as they will by stripping most jobs here in the U.S. and sending them overseas - while making the (near-former) employees train their replacements on pain of losing whatever crumbs the company will give them in severance benefits. No job security anywhere; no "good" jobs paying what they should be paying; higher paying jobs combined into one position, as is now so often done in the Tech field. (I'm sorry, but just because one can write code does NOT mean they're going to be a good hardware tech or customer service person. In fact, it usually means just the opposite!)
Yank people from their homes, throw them into the streets, and then raise rents so high they can't afford even those.
Ya know... I think a good case could be made that TPTB have engaged in emotional/mental torture on the American people for 15 years, along with a willing and complicit media.
Conform or else!!!!! We didn't do it in the 60's and 70's, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna do it in the 21st century!
Maybe
I think you describe the most likely scenario. But I don't believe it's nearly as certain as you do.
1. Hillary Clinton has under-performed expectations in every campaign she's been in.
2. Sovereign banks are propping up the global economy. All that money the fed is printing is bidding up the price of stocks. There's no reason to believe it will collapse before the election, but it's an unstable situation. Another bank bailout would be a game changer.
3. The 2012 analogy is flawed. Obama was an incumbent who achieved the nomination without a scratch. The anger now is greater by orders of magnitude and people are aware that they are not alone.
4. I don't know how well the fear argument will work this time. It's getting old. The harder establishment figures attack Trump, the better he does. It's not unusual for angry people to be willing to accept pain to inflict pain. Hillary's former firewall of hardworking white voters, having converted into bigoted misogyny, could well say, yeah Trump hurts me, but he's going to hurt you more. They could make the statement both to the 1% and to the people who lecture them on white privilege.
precisely. too many uncertainties at this point
i probably won't know who i will vote for until election day. right now it is neither Clinton nor Trump but, these days, anything could happen to throw the election one way or the other. we remember the economic meltdown in the months just preceding the election in 2008. same goes for 2016. shit could happen election day eve. we can only wait and see and that is my attitude right now.
For what it's worth
I've been doing some informal oppos research the last several months, while dining out with various groups of women in the Finger lakes region of New York. The election always comes up, briefly, and it's always scary Trump versus everywoman Hillary Clinton. The women are all "With Her" and when I bring up the corruption, emails, and warmongering, they look at me with blank stares, like Stepford wives. These women, all educated and with jobs, are oblivious about the real Hillary. All they see are the glitzy ads about Hill's mother and Trump's a scary lunatic, and have bought into the creaky "vast, right-wing conspiracy" lie they've been hearing for decades. Jill Stein and Bern might as well live in Siberia.
At some point you can't buy enough advertising to help her
I am not in the least worried, people know her, people don't like her, everyone sees through her, the more you flood the air trying to force people to like her, the more they will dislike her.
So go ahead moneybags, throw your money away, and make people on the fence so tired of hearing how great she is and how evil Trump is and you will push them off the fence and onto the other side.
She will lose. And I am going to enjoy it. At least up until the point Trump is sworn in. Need to see about a visa for New Zealand...that's about as far away as I can get.
____________________________________________________________________________
"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it. "
-Niccolo Machiavelli
"Sorry Hillary"
-TheJerry