I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, ok? It’s, like, incredible.
And his audience laughs?
Now that is chilling. The man thinks he’s above the law.
Of course, if he did shoot somebody in the middle of 5th Avenue, he might not lose any voters, but he’d be arrested and tried, right?
Right? Tell me he’d go to jail for a crime.
Please.
We put Leona Helmsley in jail for much less.
Yeah, but she was an uppity woman.
I’ve never heard a candidate condemn their constituents so roundly.
White? Check.
Conservative? Check.
Straight? Check.
Cis-gendered? Check.
Rich? Check.
Christian? Check.
Yeah, he’d be out on bail in fifteen minutes and the DA would come up with some excuse to not bring charges. And then join the Trump campaign.
And the neo-brownshirts cheering him? He Godwins himself.
Trump knows he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning the general election. The republican nomination, perhaps. But the general election, definitely not. He does NOT want to lose. So he’s doing everything in his power to take a dive, to intentionally shed support because of his controversial positions, and not lose to somebody else outright in an election.
And by now he knows he has a very real chance of winning the republican nomination. And if he does, he knows he will lose the general election in November. He will do everything in his power to make sure he doesn’t win the republican nomination in such a way that he can avoid being a “loser”. (e.g. the public just isn’t ready for his controversial positions).
Funny thing is, the GOP created a monster, and Trump’s rhetoric to date has made it grow to unimaginable size. I expect Trump to get increasingly outrageous until he finally goes too far even for the trailer park crowd. And that’s going to be pretty outrageous.
If the FBI put MLK and Viola Liuzzo on their COINTELPRO watch list, I expect they’d get even better mileage out of monitoring Trump and his supporters.
Trump thinks he’s a cop, now?
Wasn’t this the line, more or less, boasted by the mob boss in Batman Begins?
I don’t know…if he shot Ted Cruz, it might actually improve things a bit.
Give Trump a concealed weapon with a light trigger and see if he shoots his own ass off.
Defining “Trump”:
Salon link
Cross posted from the Moments of Political Madness thread.
Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian, says that on 5th avenue, he probably wouldn’t lose any voters, but in a trailer park he probably would.
I had something to say about Trump but cannot think of what it was, now that Lynna, OM has overcome my senses, and my desire to speak to the Trumping…. “bung blast, rump ripper” indeed! Let us don our gas masks and face American democracy! (Isn’t there a control on my television to deal with excess gas?)
@#5, rogerfirth
Will people stop saying things like this, please? This is the kind of thing people were saying about Bush in 1999. Heck, six months ago, everyone was saying “Trump doesn’t have a chance of getting the Republican nomination” and now he’s the frontrunner with the GOP establishment starting to fall in line because they can’t stand Cruz.
Any Republican stands a chance at winning. If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, she will drive away a big chunk of the Democratic base and simultaneously fire up the Republicans to the point where they will rise from their deathbeds and walk twenty miles through six feet of snow to vote against her, which will absolutely maximize their turnout. And that’s as things stand now — the Republicans have 20 years of stored-up anti-Clinton propaganda they’re just waiting to unleash. (To say nothing of the fact that Clinton is now the subject of two FBI investigations over various questionable activities — the Republicans have latched onto made-up scandals, but she is very far from scandal-free.) Current polls already have her losing to Cruz, and not beating Trump by very much; after the propaganda assault begins she will become a sure loser.
At this point they might, but that’s in part because he scares the right people and not that he did that.
you know he might be right!
his voters are so much into see and hearing what they want to hear and see things they want to see them that he can literally sell horse shit cigarettes and people will by them. He can say or do anything he wants and he will still get the votes. History has already shown that people will vote for the avowed conservative and their slogans again and again and even support their legislative programs of no taxes and cutting the budget on services over and over and still blame the “liberals” for governments failure to deliver the help they want.
really sad and frightening
uncle frogy
Did people really think Bush was unelectable in 1999-2000? I lived in West Virginia at the time, and in that part of the country his election almost felt inevitable…I lost track of how many hitherto-Democratic voters I was surrounded by who bent over backwards to shower him with accolades and attention because he checked all the boxes on their fetish list (oh, he’s affable, likes us simple country folk gun-huntin’ in the woods and l-o-v-e-s our coal!) and they were convinced that their god wanted them to and would be angry with them if they didn’t.
(I left WV eight years later…the sheer amount of fear and BS I went through there is a big reason why I’m an angry atheist today.)
He’d use the affluenza defense, which in his case almost seems plausible. And if that didn’t work he could put on a big cowboy hat, ride a white stallion, fly the flag and claim he did it in the name of the People against a tyrannical government. The police would then negotiate with him. Politely.
On the plus side, it does look like he doesn’t know how to fire a gun… so there’s that?
Maybe Donald will shoot himself in the foot while his foot is in his mouth .. or has that already happened?
If the victim was a White, cis/het, middle or upper class, politically conservative Christian man… then maybe.
That doesn’t really help, does it?
That his consequence-free murder scenario is met with creepily sycophantic laughter is the worst part of it. I can’t help but feel that he has an audience full of willing helpers all too eager to stamp the jackboot down on the necks of everyone else should he ever get the chance to create his Trump-topia.
Not sure how we know what Trump knows…hell, I’m not sure Trump knows anything. I figure like most of Hollywood he’s tweaking most of the time. But Trump planning his own downfall so he won’t “lose” sounds a bit too much like conspiracy theory.
Speculation. When I look in my crystal ball, I see she will drive away some, and she will pull in some. I suspect many Bernie supporters will support her in the general election to stop any of the scary Republican candidates.
This is probably the first statement Trump’s made that Politifact won’t rate “Pants on Fire.”
Unfortunately, displaying such stupidity won’t cost votes, as we’ve seen before:
Or maybe Trump has forgotten his own words about the mythical “good guy with a gun”:
No, I’m not advocating that someone shoot him. Trump is the one advocating such things.
@17 Andrew T
I’m with you. I was living in Texas at the time and he was never considered a joke. Those of us in liberal Austin thought he was a very serious and very terrifying contender. I remember staying up all night trying to figure out what was going on in Florida, which of course wasn’t decided for months. The guy was the governor of Texas and had legitimacy and donors due to his father, who was obnoxiously conservative, but makes Republicans of today seem like psychopaths.
@#17, Andrew T.
When he hadn’t won the nomination yet, yes. And for a little while after that. You happened to live in a Red State, so you may not have realized it, but Democrats in blue states were initially ecstatic that Bush was the nominee because he was so obviously stupid and unqualified and out of touch and therefore — ha ha ha! — the Republican base would refuse to vote for him. Sound familiar?
@#23, robro
Polls are showing that a large chunk, enough to be significant, of Sanders supporters won’t go for her, they’ll go for the Green party or stay home. (And, speaking as a Sanders supporter, I can vouch that at least some of us will do this.) And as for Independents: most of them are either utterly moronic — vote based on identity politics or appearance or familiarity of names — and can be swayed by exactly the kind of extraordinarily stupid commercials the GOP will be bringing to bear, which will be absolutely inescapable starting from five minutes after she gets the nomination up until a week after the election, or else feel that the major parties are insufficiently pure (which means they’re not going to go for Clinton, regardless of which party they think isn’t pure enough).
Not only would he not be arrested and tried, he would announce George Zimmerman as his running mate.
I should be horrified by this. Hell, by the last year and more of this political circus.
But I’m not. There’s no horror left. It feels like I’ve jeepered my last creeper and all that’s left is a hysterical, Joker-esque laughter. Is this what a computer feels like when it experiences an underflow error?
It’s like these lunatics have wanted the end times to come so badly they’ve manufactured it. I’ve resigned myself to being essentially an NPC in an extremely dark comedy-horror game, with all that that entails.
Speaking as a Sanders supporter, I will not vote for Clinton.
The last time we were asked to vote for a Clinton on the grounds that he was better than the alternative, he bombed a pharmaceutical plant, slashed the welfare state, and removed the last shreds of financial regulations, setting the stage for the current economic depression— and then the party that spawned him told that us we had to vote for Obama and his mass spying, endless wars, torture of political prisoners, and assassination of US citizens because the alternative was “worse.”
Exactly how far do the Democrats need to go before seemingly-sensible people won’t vote for them on the grounds that the alternative is “worse?”
Unfortunately, if he does shoot himself in the foot, he’ll probably take his head off.
Sadly, he is most probably correct. His fanbase has not been deterred by his racist rants or even him saying his fanbase are morons. In fact, both seem to have increased his fanbase. The fact that his poll numbers keep increasing regardless of the brainfarts he expels is [euphemistically] disheartening.
What’s worse is there seems to be a positive feedback loop in process. T says something outrageous, poll numbers increase, making him try to be more outrageous, where poll numbers increase again. Not only are increasing poll numbers making him get more outrageous, being outrageous causes increasing poll numbers.
Initially, it was possible to see him as just gaming the system, to show how ridiculous it is. It soon became apparent that he has moved out of that mode, into becoming embedded and not just a parodist.
ugh, so it seems he’s correct, that at this point, he could walk into the street and shoot somebody and even when LEOs incarcerate him, his poll results just may increase.
Part of his success is a “message” to the status quo system. I share total frustration at having to vote for a professional politician (party irrelevant). So having a high profile buffoon who targets lambasting the conventional may gain some “street cred”. However, Trump is not just an anti-politician but a self-promoting egotist. Not just anti-establishment but an omni-destruction agent. Sanders is a more pragmatic anti-establishment, which may account for his recent surge among “millenials”.
It’s fun to think Trump is trying to tank himself, but it is yukky to see that it aint happenin. no matter how awful he brainfarts his poll results increase. >>>> depressing
written @30:
FTFY
Here’s the nightmare scenario:
Bernie Sanders as the Democratic candidate
Any of the Republicans (esp. Trump or Cruz)
Michael Bloomberg as an independent
Bloomberg strikes me as a candidate out of the Nelson Rockefeller Republican mold: Socially liberal but fiscally conservative. Add to that an East-coast, intellectual cachet. An independent candidate has almost zero chance of getting elected these days. Bloomberg would siphon off Democratic voters uncomfortable with Sander’s far-left, socialistic leaning. Result: Republican White House w/ Republican congress.
@33: When was anyone asked to vote for Bush on the grounds that he was “better than the alternative?” The point of my post seems to have eluded you.
@34: Sanders isn’t even that far to the left. Clinton alienating Democrats by spouting neocon bullshit is a much greater risk than Sanders alienating Democrats by campaigning on core Democratic values. An independent Bloomberg candidacy seems unlikely; that it would draw Democratic voters seems unlikelier still. Historically, Democrats have not had a problem with losing votes to conservative independent candidates.
I’ve heard people suggest this before, but I don’t understand how it could possibly make sense. He decides to tank his chances with Republicans by appealing to racism, sexism and islamophobia? And when that fails and he gets more and more popular, he try the same tactics but even harder?
If he wanted Republicans not to vote for him, he’d say things like “No more guns” or “Abortions for everyone” or “Maybe African-Americans have some valid grievances against society, and we shouldn’t just dismiss their claims out of hand”, or he’ll appoint a disabled black lesbian to be his running mate. The one thing he’s done that might possibly alienate his base is when he denigrated McCain’s military record
Regarding the electability of Trump:
Usually overlooked, the NSDAP was on the decline before the 2nd 1932 Reichstag elections with voters being disappointed with their performance after being voted in in local/regional (?) elections.
What they did was to revamp their image. Before, their image was connected with uniforms, paramilitary groups (SA, SS) and Saalschlachten (meeting hall battles, violence among paramilitary groups of political parties was a common occurrence and part of the reasons that discredited the Weimar Republic for many voters who were struggling to survive).
During the election campaigns they presented a reasonable, civilian, conservative face and they spent an enormous amount of effort and money on campaigning (Hitler über Deutschland (Hitler over Germany)). The result is history :-(
I see Trump’s chance in first getting the Republican’s nomination by doing what he does now and then turning all respectably conservative to appeal to a wider range of voters. We already know that he has a certain fondness for Hitler and he probably knows about the 1932/1933 campaigns.
Why do you love rethuglicans making SCOTUS appointments do much? That is what will happen if a democrat doesn’t win, a SCOTUS full of Scalias. Other items are at play. Think about everything.
Or, with Clinton, we could get a SCOTUS full of Thomases. A choice between a slow slide to the right and a headlong sprint isn’t a good choice.
To expand your metaphor – a slide can be steered and gives you better chance and more time to avert disaser than a headlong sprint does.
Clinton is not ideal and perhaps not as good as you would like her to be, but if the alternative is Hitler, ehm, Trump, then there is a choice.
Trump would be a disaster for the whole world. A man like that with the command of US military, and we have cold war back and things might get hot wery quickly.
It’s odd how, when we’re criticizing such and such a candidate, we say “they voted for the Iraq war” or whatever they voted for that was stupid, damaging, and reflects badly on their choices. Then, a large percentage of people console themselves that they “had to vote for the lesser of two evils” on a presidential choice.
Jake Harban @ 30:
Ok.
So: Trump or Cruz, who’s you alternative pick to Sanders?
(“No-one” is not a viable answer, BTW. Someone will be in the White House.)
– – – –
Marcus Ranum @ 41:
And isn’t it odd, how if we ever make a mistake in voting, we don’t consider ourselves incompetent at voting for the rest of our life.
I mean, I don’t, personally.
On a less snarky note, admitting that one voted for the lesser of two evils is self-criticism, just as admitting that a candidate voted for the Iraq war is criticism.
In partial response to comment 14, in which Vicar says that Hillary Clinton is the subject of two FBI investigations. Looking carefully at the details will show you that that statement is not correct. You are missing some of the nuance in the situation(s), and you are sounding like Jeb Bush and Fox News.
Jeb Bush recently provided details concerning his news sources:
Media Matters link
The facts do not agree with Jeb. The FBI is investigating the handling of Clinton’s email but is NOT investigating Clinton herself. Fox News has claimed for some time, and continues to claim, that Clinton herself is being investigated. Carly Fiorina proffered the same lie in the most recent Republican debate.
More explanation of the facts:
Daily News Bin Link
Politifact link.
I’m sure there are many ways in which you can object to Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, but saying that she is the subject of two FBI investigations is not one of them.
My understanding of Trump’s statement is that he wouldn’t lose a voter even if he did something clearly criminal — nowhere in that clip does he imply he wouldn’t go to jail. He’d get dragged off … and he wouldn’t lose a voter (although: can you run for office from jail?)
Its been done.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio didn’t like Trump’s claim about shooting someone.
Talking Points Memo link
Trump is right. He wouldn’t lose any of “his” voters because they don’t care what he says or does so long as it’s greatly entertaining and loud. Look how quickly the religious test dropped away from Trump. Family values, gone. His voters don’t care. Trump’s voters are angry about “something” and so long as Trump is angry, too, that’s all that matters. The big question is: how many of those angry people will actually vote and will they outvote the sane people?
In the Last Action Hero universe, he would.
So, all we need is a magic ticket.
Nerd@45: I find the parallels between that time and now to be unsettling. Nobody’s getting 10 years for pacifism right now, but it wouldn’t take much.
re 35:
I seem to recall W doing exactly that, saying he was better than the alternative (Gore). Maybe I heard that as a subtext to the swift boat attack on Gore.
You seem to have missed MY point, of correcting your list of complaints about Hilary’s husband. The economy did very well under B Clinton, so much that one of our deficits flipped over. Maybe welfare recipients declined, not because they were booted off, like W did, but because they got scooped up by the growing economy. W took the gains from C, and immediately spent them on war, and restoring the deficit to a drain on the economy. Transforming individual welfare into corporate welfare.
re “slide”:
analogy time::: America is Titanic. There is an iceberg up ahead. One candidate says we should ram it head on, the other candidate proposes bearing to the side, Given the bulk of the ship, steering is physically only a “suggestion”, the modification to the current course is, at best, only slight. Isn’t it better to at least try to avoid collision rather than slam into it?
To further the analogy: when kayaking on choppy water, it is best to paddle directly into a wave rather than aim parallel. Imagine advisers to the captain, saying the iceberg is just a big wave of water, and like kayaking, it is best to slam directly into it rather than stay alongside. “The iceberg is just water” they’ll keep shouting, silencing those who try to discuss the distinction of solid water vs liquid water.
What blgmnts at #37 is overlooking it this, Hitler was not elected chancellor. He was appointed to that position be Hindenburg (To whom Hitler lost when he ran for president months earlier.) at the behest of Franz von Papen. Hitler then took control of the Reichstag when he used the SA and SS to beat up and keep out the socialists and communists and thus rig the election.
Sorry, I get sick of this “Nazis were elected” crap. They were not. After Hitler was released from prison, they gave the appearance of playing by the rules until they saw the moment to take over,
Also, until further notice, who can only call the orange bigot a right wing authoritarian populist. He says racist things and has no problem with retweeting neo-nazis and neo-confederalists but this is more a case of an unchallenged egoist waving about things that pumps up his own ego than expressing his own beliefs. And that is bad enough. This is giving the the bigots a venue where they are treated as if they have a legitimate opinion.
@ #30
“Speaking as a Sanders supporter, I will not vote for Clinton.”
What a clever strategy. Help Trump get elected, that should work out well.
@#50, slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem))
Neither Clinton nor Bush nor Reagan had much to do with the economy doing so well under Clinton. The economy was doing well because of the fruition of basic research in computer technology in the 1960s and 1970s — AT&T and Xerox and Apple and (to a much lesser extent) Microsoft*. Clinton, like Bush and Reagan before him, thought that selling off the fruits of that government-funded research to private hands was a great idea (that’s one of the tenets of the DLC, in fact, of which Clinton was the chair before his presidency — and of which Hillary would still be a member if the group were not ostensibly dismantled). If you want to credit a Democrat for the boom in the 1990s, you’ll have to go back at least as far as Carter, and he wasn’t exactly a big proponent of it, either. In fact, your argument is the weakest possible one for Clinton, because on actual economic issues, DLC Democrats are closer to Republicans than on any other aspect of governance.
*Microsoft invented nothing whatsoever, basically stealing Apple’s work**, but since they were in the U.S., from the standpoint of economic gain they were okay. Ethically, not so much.
**Windows users — and, sometimes, Linux users when trying to bash Apple — like to pretend that Apple stole their GUI from Xerox, but this is just an outright lie. Not only did Apple pay Xerox for the right to use anything they saw at their famous tour of the Xerox research labs, but the Xerox GUI was at that time almost laughably primitive. Among other things Apple invented which have now become ubiquitous: overlapping windows, standardized GUI controls, GUI filesystem management, and the whole concept of “open” and “save” dialog boxes. The Xerox GUI had one program running in a half-screen “window” which could not be moved, and used a traditional CLI to do filesystem management and launch programs. Without Apple, Windows would not have been possible at all — and Microsoft paid nobody anything, not Apple, not Xerox — nobody.
@#53: tomh
If the Democratic Party chooses to deliberately make itself unquestionably and officially right-of-center — which is what the nomination of Hillary Clinton will mean, should it happen — then why would you blame people who detest right-of-center politicians for not voting for them? If lactose intolerance was becoming prevalent, and the Dean milk company refused to diversify and then went out of business, would you blame people who were literally being caused pain by their products for not running out and buying more milk to keep the company afloat?
The Democrats made the decision, by way of the DLC and the “New Democrats” in the 1980s, to move as far as possible to the right. This strategy has been utterly disastrous — it’s the real reason the Republicans have gone so completely off-the-rails; not only do they have no real resistance from the Democrats, but in order to differentiate themselves from the suddenly-right-wing Democrats they have to push ever-farther to the right. It is definitely the case that the Democrats are now, in terms of policy, more or less what the Republicans were under Carter. Why would you be surprised that traditional Democrats would object to this and refuse to vote? (And why do you Clinton supporters insist on playing Chicken? If you’re really so concerned with the future of the SCOTUS that you think everyone has a moral duty to avoid letting a Republican become president in 2016, why aren’t you giving up on Clinton, who can’t necessarily win, to go with Sanders who apparently can? You people are either insincere with the scare tactics, or you’re terribly foolish. Either way, it’s not a selling point for your candidate.)
A friend of mine told me about a conversation she had with a lady lawyer at her gym. The lawyer said that she likes Trump because “He makes me laugh”. When my friend tried to point out some of the very serious results of Trump being elected, the lawyer simply refused to carry on the conversation because she said “It’s obvious that you don’t like Trump, but I do.”
This from a supposedly well educated person!
For those of you who are worried about Hillary – Have you really looked at what The Clinton Foundation has been doing for women and children, in this country and around the world? I can’t help but think that Hillary will be profoundly influenced by this and will try to do as much as she can with women and children in mind. I think that she would appoint Supreme Court justices with this in mind, too.
I don’t know why she hasn’t brought up the work of The Clinton Foundation in speeches or debates. That is definitely what has influenced me to support her campaign.
@51 Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen
Yes, the Nazis where elected: They won a substantial number of seats in the Reichstag just as other parties won their seats. The Reichskanzler (which is roughly the equivalent to the USA-President) was then selected though some process within the Reichstag/Reichspräsident (that is a couple of chapters of itself, proper democratic processes where practically dead at the time).
Yes, Hitler basically did a coup d’etat. And almost everybody went along: Judges, police, civil servants, all those who only followed orders who where essential in Hitler’s success. Years later the Reichsbahn (railway) would take pride in running their trains into extermination camps on time.
If the NSDAP hadn’t already had a substantial number of seats in the Reichstag they wouldn’t have had the numbers to successfully pull that off. And it is irrelevant to the question whether Trump can turn around and pretend to be all respectably conservative or not.
@ #55
Clinton is not my candidate, I prefer Sanders. But if Clinton is nominated, I won’t sit at home like a petulant child and watch Trump get elected. You’re a traditional Democrat? Bully for you. I’ve voted straight Dem for 45 years, I see no reason to change because my preferred candidate doesn’t get nominated.
The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) @ 55:
None of this is incorrect.
…because the way to help keep the country from being taken over by right-wing jackbooted thugs is not to avoid voting for their opposition. In fact, not voting for their opposition is the second best way to ensure their election.
But, ok, let’s ask the question: Trump or Cruz?
In the event that Sanders fails, which one of those would you prefer over Clinton? As I noted above, “Nobody” is not a functional response – somebody is going to be in the oval office.
I’m in favor of Sanders, going to vote for him in the primary, going to vote for him in the general if I can. I hope to hell he wins. But if he doesn’t make it, I’ll damn well be voting for Clinton because I can’t in good conscience support Trump or Cruz.
slithey tove (twas brillig (stevem)) @ 50
This is far from true. The TANF legislation allowed states to find new and exciting ways to deny benefits to poor families. The number of children in poverty didn’t decrease significantly but the number of children receiving welfare did.
http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/50_fig2.jpg
The biggest net effect was that states could shift federal block grant funds to child protective services and foster care, freeing up state funds for ‘more important’ needs.
blgmnts, the Nazi’s were never a majority party and Hitler never won an election. In fact, they lost seats in the Reichstag just before Hitler was appointed chancellor. When Fritz van Papen talked Hindenburg into appointing appointing Hitler with himself as vice-chancellor, it was with the idea to show up the Nazis. “You think you can rule? Here you go.” Van Papen assumed that he would be able to control Hitler. This gave Hitler the chance to destroy Wiemar Germany, something that pretty much everyone already wanted to do.
Also, it was not just numbers of seats in the Reichstag, it was also banning, beating up and murdering the leftist member of the Reichstag so the the coalition conservative/Nazi government could rubber stamp what Hitler wanted. Even with that, it still also took a constitutional crisis, The Reichstag Fire, and the death of Hindenburg for Hitler to consolidate his power.
While the Nazis took advantage of the electoral process , they were not voted into power. I hate this idea as much as I hate conservatives who claim that Obama is a fascist. It shows a lack of understanding of the facts.
The orange bigot is a right wing authoritarian populist and the harm he is doing is bring fascist and neo-confederalist talking points into the mainstream. And while the orange bigot has some fans who have attacked people in his name, he does not have a large paramilitary organization that attacks leftists at will.
I am not American, so take this with a grain of salt, but while I have no love for Clinton, I would vote for her in an election against someone like Trump or Cruz. Having them win would be awful. Clinton winning is not going to be wonderful, but I’d rather have that. I would love see the Democrats move left, but I don’t think that lesson will be learned, even if Clinton wins the nomination, and everyone refuses to vote for her, letting Trump or Cruz win.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I think if people want to see change, they have to focus on working from the ground up. Focus on getting real progressive people in local, state, and congressional elections. Congress, as it stands, will stymie any plans for real change. It is a disaster. Yet no one ever seems to care about those elections, with midterm turnouts hovering around 40%, and primary turnouts are under 20%, at least that is what I saw while doing some quick research. I knew turnout was bad, but that was shocking. No wonder the same old candidates keep winning, and nothing ever changes. It seems there is painfully little pressure to move to the left, and little effort being made to make that happen.
He seems open to the idea though and may be working on rectifying this lapse.
I live on the other side of the Atlantic, but Trumps gives me the willies.
If wazzock trum-prat really were in 5th Ave with an intention to shoot someone, he would not be standing there with a pistol, he’d have hired minions in a tank with emblazoned on it in pseudo-classy gold lettering.
re 61:
good history lesson of facts.
yet blgmnts is metaphorically correct. while not technically elected, the N@zis maintained a wide ranging support among the citizens. It wasn’t entirely out of fear of the people in charge. There was plenty of tacit enthusiasm or they would not have gotten so far.
ack. imagination fails to see any other way for the gnatsees to have gotten that far without some kind of support from the plebes.
tomh @ 58: Are you sure you’re not a Republican? Voting based on tribal identity is a very Republican thing to do; here on the D side of the aisle, we tend to vote based on actual politics, including abandoning a party when it fails to uphold our interests.
Anri @ 59:
Neither. It looks like someone else has come down with Ballot Blindness and can only see the false trichotomy of “vote Democratic, vote Republican, or stay home.” There are inevitably other candidates on the ballot. Often, some of them actually represent my interests.
@ 66 Jake Harban
” here on the D side of the aisle, we tend to vote based on actual politics, including abandoning a party when it fails to uphold our interests.”
That’s very funny, are you sure you speak for all Democrats? Abandoning the party is what got Reagan elected, you must be very proud of that. Actually, I vote for the least objectionable candidate, which in my lifetime has always been a Democrat. The alternative would be to vote for the most objectionable candidate, or, in your case, I guess, to vote third party or not at all. In that case you’re simply helping the most objectionable candidate win, so it’s a distinction without a difference. Good job.
Yet.
America doesn’t exactly have a shortage of well-armed brown-shirts-to-be.
Jake Harban @ 66:
I can represent your interests, too, sitting at my computer and typing on freethought blogs – which is exactly as much influence a zero-chance third-party candidate has when they fail to win. So, vote for me – why not? I’ll head up the Friendship Party, with Rarity as my running mate.
So, given that we’re narrowing the field of people getting into the Oval to people who might actually make it, if Sanders fails, and since you don’t want Clinton, who do you want in office? Trump or Cruz? ‘Cause that’s your actual real-world choice here. One of those four people.
Notice I’m not asking who’ll you’ll vote for, I’m asking who you want for President if Sanders doesn’t make it?
Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen @ 61:
Unless, of course, he makes it into the Oval, at which point he’ll by far and away the largest actual military organization on the planet at his legal beck and call.
No, I don’t think he’ll use the US Air Force to nuke Topeka – but let me try to draw a real-life parallel: do you think Trump, if he got in to the White House, would show more care and restraint in the use of domestic authority than Nixon? Or less?
Just printed out application forms for the Redhead and myself for Vote By Mail in the 3/15 primary here in IL. Participation in elections is very important.
My congressional district voted in a Democrat for the first time in many, many years in 2012. In 2014, a rethug was (re)elected due to lower turnout. I hope it will swing back this year, but it can’t happen if progressives don’t show up and vote for the viable (electable) Democratic candidate, and not the non-viable Green candidate.
Anri, you missed my point. Hitler used his paramilitary organizations (The SA and the SS.) in his bid to seize power. My point was about how he came to power, not what harm the orange bigot will do when in power. All I was doing was debunking a silly comparison. So, please refrain from asking me what harm the orange bigot could do if he were president.
I both am disgusted that a sizable minority of the US population support this person and fear what harm he could cause if he were in The White House. Even with that, I refuse to give in to a false comparison of how Hitler came to power.
@tomh 67:
I said “tend to.”
Supporting the party no matter what is what got us into the current state, where the Democrat is well to the right of Reagan and the Republican is further right still. You must be very proud of that.
In 2012, Obama endorsed mass spying, endless wars, torture, and persecuting the whistleblowers who reported on these crimes while granting sweeping immunity to the people who committed them.
Jill Stein did not do those things. Are you seriously trying to claim that the “least objectionable candidate” was Obama?
Yes, that is indeed a list of options. “Vote third party” seems to stand out as the obvious choice— out of “vote for a candidate you oppose, vote for another candidate you oppose, vote for a candidate you support, or don’t vote” I would tend to hope that “vote for a candidate you support” is the option most people would take.
In that case you’re simply helping the most objectionable candidate win, so it’s a distinction without a difference. Good job.
That’s some rather backwards logic— voting third party constitutes support for the Republicans, but voting Democratic does not constitute support for the Democrats. Or were you claiming you support Obama’s wars, torture, and spying?
If, in 2024, you were offered the choice between a Republican who supported the mass murder of anyone not white, cis/het, and Christian and a Democrat who supported the mass deportation of anyone not white, cis/het, and Christian, would you still insist on voting Democratic? Exactly how far to the right do the Democrats need to go before you’ll stop supporting them solely for being the “lesser evil?”
@Anri 69:
You aren’t running. You aren’t on the ballot. Last time I checked, Jill Stein was on the ballot in all 50 states in 2012, and actually had a campaign (such as it was) that advocated the issues people care about.
Are you claiming that votes for third parties are not actually counted? That if a third party were to win a majority of the votes, some authority would simply appoint the runner-up as President? Because this claim that third parties are excluded from consideration a priori seems to be an article of faith among the Democratic Religion, but no one has ever bothered to present any actual evidence for it.
Trump or Cruz? ‘Cause that’s your actual real-world choice here. One of those four people.
Notice I’m not asking who’ll you’ll vote for, I’m asking who you want for President if Sanders doesn’t make it?
If Cruz wins the Democratic nomination, would you support him or Trump?
And frankly, what’s the point of making a distinction between who one “votes for” and who one “supports?” Is that part of the cognitive dissonance you create when you vote for candidates you oppose?
I’ll ask you too— exactly how far do the Democrats need to go before you’ll stop supporting them? You already support torture, mass spying, endless wars, persecution of whistleblowers, and free giveaways to the oligarchy; what else is there?
Oops, that last quote is in italic instead of blockquote. Sorry.
Janine the Jackbooted Emotion Queen @ 72:
Gotcha, I did indeed misunderstand you. Thanks for setting me straight.
As you say, the process by which Hitler came to power and the process by which Trump would come to power – if he does so (shudder) are totally different.
@ #73
Oh, please. A vote for a Democrat cancels out a vote for Trump. A vote for a third party candidate scores a vote for Trump. If you haven’t noticed, this is a two party system. It may salve your conscience to vote third party, but if you don’t realize it just helps Trump get elected, you need to get in touch with reality.
Jake Harban @ 73:
Can’t help but notice you still haven’t answered the question: of the four people that might actually win the upcoming general, who is your second choice for the office? I’ve answered it. It’s your turn.
You can write me in, and I promise I’ll be just as good an Executive when not elected as Jill would when not elected.
Which she won’t be.
Please list the last time a third party candidate won in the general election.
There’s your evidence.
Is he going to? In your opinion, that is.
If you think not, your question is bullshit, and I think you know that.
If you think so, than you are so out of touch with reality no-one should listen to your opinion on political matters.
But hell, if you’re actually unsure, check it yourself – call up the Cruz campaign and ask if the candidate would consider running as a Democrat.
What answer do you think you’ll get?
My god, it is, thank you for your armchair diagnosis, I feel better already.
The answer is that I am willing to support Sanders, in terms of doing campaign work, talking to people, publicly demonstrating my desire for him to be elected. I am willing to vote for Clinton, but not do these other things.
In refusing to vote for a Democrat, I am making every single Republican vote a little bit more valuable. That’s supporting Republicans without voting for them.
Enough of a point for you?
You mean aside from immigration, LGBT rights, abortion, avoiding becoming an international laughingstock, and some vague semblance of a social safety net?
Why, nothing at all.
You make a good point, though. No candidate running as a Democrat is worth my vote.
… hey, wait a sec…!
@tomh 76:
So you’re claiming that a vote for a third party is actually registered as a vote for Trump? That if the vote totals are 30 for Trump, 40 for Clinton, and 50 for Stein then Trump will win 80-40?
If you haven’t noticed, this is a two party system.
This isn’t actually evidence. You’re just reiterating the standard retort: “I believe on faith that only a Democrat or a Republican can win, so my mind is closed to any other possibilities.”
It may salve your conscience to vote third party, but if you don’t realize it just helps Trump get elected, you need to get in touch with reality.
You’re the one who’s out of touch with reality. A vote for Stein cancels out a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton would not. Clinton is unelectable; vote for her and you might as well have stayed home.
Vote for a third party, who is pretty much guaranteed to NOT win because there is absolutely NOT a majority or even significant minority of people who will vote third party, *does* help trump get elected. Candidates have lost elections due to third-party voters, leaving the ‘greater evil’ to win the election.
I will absolutely be voting for the democratic candidate, because I want the party that considers me to be an ACTUAL PERSON, and that has an actual chance of winning, to win. If I don’t, then I’ve effectively sided with the party that wants me to be a walking incubator.
You are clearly in an alternate dimension if you truly think that the way our voting system is currently set up will have a third party victory. Please come back to *this* dimension.
Your question is based on a false premise and is therefore irrelevant.
Again, you’re just reiterating the same line: “Because I believe on faith that Stein can’t possibly win, she is excluded a priori.”
Please list the last time a woman won the general election. There’s your evidence that Clinton can’t possibly win, so you can exclude her from consideration.
No, but the idea that someone of Obama’s beliefs could win the Democratic nomination just 20 years ago would have been equally absurd.
If you support Democrats no matter what they do, you may end up arguing we need to support someone of Cruz’s beliefs in 2036 because they’re less evil than the Republican candidate.
How does voting for Clinton not support her? You’re claiming that you will enthusiastically support Sanders and reluctantly support Clinton, but you will support both.
In refusing to support the Green party, you are making every single Republican vote a little bit more valuable, thus supporting them without voting for them.
Obama is at most tepid on immigration and apathetic on abortion, he fought for DADT and DOMA until the bitter end, he has fought every attempt to expand the social safety net, and if you think he hasn’t made us an international laughingstock, then you are sorely mistaken.
Once again, you have dodged my question. I asked you if there was any limit to how far the Democrats could go before you’d stop supporting them. You support torture of political prisoners and a massive surveillance state already and consider it worthwhile as long as the social safety net is threadbare rather than nonexistent. What about in 2036, when the Democratic candidate wants to repeal the last remnants of the safety net while the Republican candidate wants to bring back workhouses and debt slavery?
This video might help you understand, Jake.
It’s the same line, this time phrased as a self-fulfilling prophecy: “Most people believe third parties can’t win, so they don’t vote for third parties. Therefore, third parties can’t win because most people won’t vote for them.”
Except that voting for the lesser evil makes both the lesser evil and the greater evil more evil next time. The Democrats have been consistently marching to the right and every time you vote for them anyway, you endorse that march.
I’m afraid that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans consider you a person. The Republicans consider you a walking incubator; the Democrats consider you a bargaining chip to be sold to the Republicans for some meaningless “concessions.”
Exactly what aspect of the voting process precludes a third party victory? Are third party votes not counted? Are third parties who win a majority simply excluded from office? Does the Constitution specify that only a candidate endorsed by either the Republican or Democratic party establishment can hold office? Or are you simply defining “the voting system” as including the substantial number of people who vote for the “lesser evil” and then wonder why the government is evil?
@81 Rowan: Yes, I’m very much aware of the problems with FPTP voting, and the end of a two-party system is impossible without changing the voting rules.
However, both the Democrats and the Republicans are considerably farther to the right of the typical American voter base. As such, one should expect the Greens to win an easy majority while the Democrats and Republicans fight over conservative voters (barring someone like Sanders pulling the Democrats back to the center). If, given the choice between Trump, Clinton, and Stein, a majority of the voters are closer to Stein than any other candidate, Stein should win even in a FPTP system.
The orange bigot retweet two more neo-nazis.
So this means that either the orange bigot has no problem with neo-nazis or he is unable to hire someone smart enough to avoid doing this in his name.
@ Jake Harban
In my opinion, with First Past the Post, high-level elections are the wrong the time to try to pull parties to the left (either with 3rd party vote or abstention). That’s how the world got Bush. Trudeau promised during campaigning that, if he was elected, it would be our last FPTP election in Canada.
I’ve been voting for quite a while and my first consideration is always whether a right-wing candidate has a shot of winning where I live* and, if so, what other candidate has the best shot at beating them. And we already have a moderately healthy multi-party system. If Trump or Cruz wins by a few percent, 3rd party and absentee voters will have earned a big middle finger from the world; possibly even worse than it was with Bush. It sucks that strategic voting is needed, but it’s the reality of the current system.
Spend the time you have left trying to get Sanders nominated (I’d be happy to see that, too) but, if it doesn’t work, do what needs to be done and spend the next four years campaigning for a replacement for FPTP or some other reform that will actually make a difference.
* We elect local candidates and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes prime minister.
Jake Harban @ 80:
Ah.
Well, I assume you have data showing that Stein has a better chance of securing election than Clinton. Multiple polls showing Stein well ahead of Clinton, for example, delegate lists, that kind of thing.
Or even with Clinton.
Or more than… let’s say… twice the margin of error in any given poll.
I’m assuming also that you can show this by linking to it. I’ll not only retract my premise if you can show it to be false, I’ll apologize profusely.
I’ll let you decide what to do if you can’t refute my premise.
No, I believe that she will not win because I am not aware of any polls on analysis showing her to be a serious contender for frontrunner. As I said above, you no doubt have many sources showing otherwise, and I’ll be happy to eat a big ol’ pile of crow when you link to them.
Hell, I’ll apologize to you if you can show a Green Party candidate ever taking 10% of the vote in a national election.
(Is 10% good enough to win the general?)
Good point. Of course, we could just ask people if they’d vote for her.
I wonder if anyone has ever thought to do that this election cycle yet…?
Probably not. ‘Cause then we’d have actual data to discuss.
Well, given the fact that we’re talking about neither the previous campaign or candidate, nor the 2036 campaign and candidate, I’ll answer with my own pulled-out-of-my-ass hypothetical and say I will vote for Princess Celestia in 2036, because she’s very wise and knows how to run a country.
We could address the present campaign and choice of candidates, but where’s the fun in that?
Oh, sorry, I thought you asked me what the distinction I drew between just voting for a candidate and actually supporting them meant. Did I misunderstand your question? Because I delineated the distinction pretty well, I thought.
And the very first election in which you can deliver a viable Green Party candidate who gets 30% – nah, let’s say 20% – in any national poll, your argument will have some sort of meaning. At that point, I will have to consider that candidate as a viable alternative. Until that time, I don’t have to.
2 quick questions:
1) are we discussing the current election or the last one? One of us appears confused, I dunno, maybe it’s me.
2) are you honestly having trouble telling the positions of Clinton apart from Trump and Cruz on the issues I mentioned?
Yes, there is a limit.
We’re not there yet.
We’re also not voting on the 2036 candidates, either. Or can you link to their polling data to support your arguments…?
@ Anri # 86.
I would totally vote for Princess Celestia.
@ Jake Harban
“A vote for Stein cancels out a vote for Trump. A vote for Clinton would not.”
I want to live in your universe. Is the sky green there?
@85:
Third party voting is hardly equivalent to abstention. If too many Democrats defected to the Green Party, it might let Trump or Cruz into the White House (for two years) but it’d also send an unmissable message that the Democrats had better move to the left— and if they don’t, they will be the third party with no chance of winning in the future. Someone who fails to vote doesn’t register anything about why, and sends no message.
The problem is that the US has reached the point where it’s really not “strategic” anymore. Voting for Kerry over Bush is a sensible decision; voting for Obama over McCain was justifiable, but when it came to Obama vs. Romney there was no longer any difference— except, of course, that because Obama is perceived as the left edge of the debate, it gave the Republicans leave to run further to the right and opened the door for Trump and Cruz.
@86:
OK, I think I see the source of your confusion. You’re unable to think beyond the immediate term; you fail to understand that this election sets the stage for the next election, so you’re unable to see the dangerous trend of both parties running to the right. Try comparing Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Trump on the Republican side and Carter to (Bill) Clinton to Obama on the Democratic side. Ask yourself why this trend has not been stopped even as both parties abandoned the center, and consider what might happen after four years under (Hillary) Clinton, where letting Wall Street write the laws is considered the liberal viewpoint.
Once again, you have dodged my question. I asked you if there was any limit to how far the Democrats could go before you’d stop supporting them. You said:
However, you did not elaborate on where this limit might lie, leading me to suspect that it’s a mirage always hovering off to the right of the current location of the Democratic Party.
@88:
Looks like the point of my comment sailed right over your head.
So, this is my sixth year of living under a government composed of the greater of two evils. I am not enjoying it. I wasn’t wild on Brown, and Miliband, frankly, was a wet sock in human form, and, no matter who got elected, there were going to be cuts, because the global economy has been kinda screwy for [what feels like] the past decade, but I’d rather be struggling under a labour government with a depressing leadership than suffering under a tory one with vile leadership. Under the tories (technically, they were in coalition with the lib dems for the first five of years, but the lib dems had no teeth, so, under the tories) we’ve seen rocketing poverty and increases in food banks, we’ve seen utter disdain for the working poor, targeted welfare cuts against those who are too sick to work, agitation to opt out of the more inconvenient aspects of the human rights act, and we’re facing a real threat of leaving the European Union before the next general election. (I’m not a fan of the EU, I think it needs serious reform, but leaving it will be bad for us economically, politically, and culturally, so here’s hoping the electorate who were foolish enough to vote in the party of “fuck the people” will be thoughtful when it comes to that vote… fuck my life.)
In no way do I think I wouldn’t be complaining about a labour government if they’d been elected – we’re living in bad economic times, and things were always going to be tight – but I wouldn’t be making these complaints. Our foreign policy would still be shit, we’d still be a capitalist nation, selling our people to corporations who go to great lengths to avoid paying any taxes here and probably anywhere else, but at least the most desperately in need among our citizens would have some kind of support, instead of being tossed aside by a government who doesn’t recognise the humanity of any except the obscenely rich.
Although, credit where it’s due, it was Cameron’s government that finally made same sex marriage a thing in the UK. So yay for that. Although I suspect that would’ve happened no matter who was in power. Should’ve happened sooner, of course, but it happened when it did.
Anyway, long story short, I’m not glad that the UK electorate has, for the past two elections, been composed of a significant number of people who were willing to let the greater evil win the election because the lesser evil was insufficiently pure. Brown was crap (though he had redeeming features), Miliband clearly had a spine made of rubber bands (though I didn’t mind his politics so much), and I have some serious doubts about Corbyn’s chances of making it to the next election as party leader, as well as some concerns about his woolier edges (love the beard, though), but Cameron has been toxic, and Osborne (who looks like the next conservative leader) may actually be enough to convince me that the devil is real (fuck me, but those eyes… fuck!) and I am desperate to not live through a half decade or more with him as my premier. So even if we have the second coming of Blair up for PMship next election, I’m voting for the lesser evil.
It’s very easy, after a decade of living under the lesser evil, to notice that it’s still evil, but holy fuck, you need to remember just how bad the greater evil is. Just because they’re both evil, that doesn’t mean that one isn’t significantly worse than the other… and this is a Brit talking – our right wing is only a little way to the right of your left. I honestly don’t know how Americans cope with their right wing. It gives me nightmares, just thinking about it.
truth is not always comfortable
uncle frogy
Athywren – yes to practically everything you just said.
Jake Harban, #80
It’s not on faith. It’s on pretty solid evidence and reasonable assumption (i.e. actually looking at how much support she has and looking at the trend of previous elections).
You know how Stein did previously and you know she wouldn’t win again. One of these two individuals will be president in 2017: the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate. And that’s not based on faith.
Having a nice platform is not the same thing as having a chance of being president. I could run on the most awesomely progressive platform. You’d be an ass to vote for me.
Jake Harban @ 89:
But – just so there’s no confusion if we pursue this line of reasoning – Green party turnout one election cycle has no bearing whatsoever on Green party turnout on the next, or any further election cycle, right?
That’s a trend we can – indeed must – ignore, because reasons, yes?
You have utterly failed to address questioning of your claims that Clinton is unelectable, while Stein is. Until you do that, I see no reason to question my premise, or to take your opinions about politics seriously.
Really, I kinda thought you had something.
No, I didn’t dodge your question with my answer. You asked a yes/no question, and I answered yes. If you wanted me to elaborate (and I did, slightly), you could have asked that but didn’t. Don’t blame me if I answer the question you asked rather than the question you wanted to ask but didn’t.
To follow up, the answer to “how far” is that I don’t know off the top of my head. It’s a complex subject, and not something I can answer without actual examples. I am deeply unhappy with many things currently going on the Democratic party, which is no secret. I’m truly sorry if you don’t like that answer, but it’s honest.
I will say that if I ever get to the point where I can’t vote for either candidate in a two-party system, I’ll probably leave the country. That might very well be cowardly, but I’m too old to try to lead a revolution.
But there’s a relatively simple resolution to this problem: in the current system, simply vote for the best candidate in each election.
There are these things called primaries. Vote for your favored candidate in them. In the Minnesota caucuses, I’ll be voting for Sanders.
After the primaries, the field will have changed. Your favorite candidate may have dropped out, may even be throwing their support to a different candidate. You adjust your vote accordingly.
It’s silly to insist that you will vote for Candidate X in the November election. X may not be on the ballot. X may be asking everyone to vote for Y. X may be coopted as the vice presidential candidate for Y. X may be promised a cabinet position by Donald Trump. Who knows? Be flexible.
This is only a concern if there is a split, and X decides to run as an independent. Then we have to argue for voting against your favored candidate, because doing so my allow Z to win, and Z is an asshole. But in that case I might actually have a little sympathy for someone saying X is best, and I’m gonna vote for them — that at least is a pure position of integrity. It may not be pragmatic.
But I’m not going to worry about it until I see how the slate shapes up this spring.
Shorter Jake Harban: “Dense idealogue is dense”.
@ #89
The only point is, if you truly believe that Stein has a chance to win and Clinton does not, then you have a serious disconnect from reality.
@Jake Harban,
Didn’t this happen, more or less, in 2000? Nader got the most votes of any Green Party presidential candidate ever. Gore didn’t actually lose, but he didn’t make it into the White House—and he would have made it with the votes that went to Nader, electoral shenanigans or no.
Did the Democratic Party take this as an unmissable message that they needed to move to the left? Not as far as I noticed. Has the Democratic Party moved to the left after losing any presidential election in the last 35 years: Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry? I don’t think they have.
Conversely, Bernie Sanders is AFAIK one of the most liberal Democratic presidential candidates to get a significant amount of popular support in recent decades. And when did he pop up? Now, after two wins by Obama.
So I really don’t see how you’d conclude that punishing the Democrats with another loss will send them running to appease angry progressives. If anything, it seems slightly more likely that they move a teensy bit toward the left when they win, because they’re not as worried about losing those all-important moderates.
…really? No significant difference between Obama and Romney? Really?
I’m just going to leave this here:
https://shadowproof.com/2008/02/25/your-mumia-sweatshirt-wont-get-you-into-heaven-anymore/
Late to the party, but maybe Jake and others can have a look at this:
http://www.shakesville.com/2016/01/the-inherent-misogyny-of-sanders.html
Point 1: Sanders is not quite as anti-establishment as you would like to think. Why doesn’t he run as an independent candidate? He happily uses the opportunities the Democratic party offers when it suits him, and attacks the other Democrats as “establishment” when it suits him.
Point 2 (the biggest point of the linked article): “Sanders calls Clinton emblematic of an establishment that has never even allowed a woman to be seated at the head of the table.”
Also, do read the comments, like this one about the mismatch between things people like about Sanders but dislike about Clinton. Are you sure that you judge Clinton on the exact same merits that you afford Sanders? Neither candidate is perfect (as Melissa McEwan also points out – no need to bash her as a die-hard Clinton supporter), but you owe them to be honest about their shortcomings as well. Placing all your hopes on a “Sanders or die” strategy helps nobody.