A couple of questions have come into my Tumblr ASK thingy recently. If you’re interested in what I’m thinking about the election, keep reading. If not, please enjoy this picture I took of the clock in my kitchen. I think it’s neat.
About Tim Kaine as Hillary Clinton’s VP pick:
I wanted someone more liberal, and someone who was more unambiguously antiwar.
But that’s who I wanted at the top of the ticket, and I didn’t get that, either.
I don’t know too much about him, but people I know and trust who do know lots about him — even Sanders supporters — think he’s a good choice.
Ultimately, it just doesn’t matter to me. The reality of this election is thatwe can choose between a disappointing Democrat and the end of the world. (Unless you’re in a deep deep deep blue or deep deep red state,voting for a third party is irresponsible this time around, given the stakes for the election, in my opinion. Younger me would have argued fiercely against that. Younger me voted for Nader, and look how that turned out.)
What’s really, really, really important is that Democrats take back the Senate, so people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown and Al Franken are in leadership positions. We need to get as many strong progressives in congress, and in our state and local governments, as we can, to ensure that Clinton’s neocon foreign policy instincts and fealty to Wall Street are held in check as much as possible. It’s really important to get as much of the House back as possible, to neuter the Tea Party and force whatever is left of traditional Republicans (like, the non-insane ones who aren’t in the Trump or Cruz wing of the party) to compromise and actually get shit done. Most important of all, Trump has to be defeated in an historical landslide. He needs to be humiliated, and he needs to take as much of his party down with him as possible.
I remember in 2004 how shitty I thought Kerry was, and what a terrible candidate he was. But I remember feeling like America needed to show the world and ourselves that Bush was an anomaly, that Bush was installed by SCOTUS, and when we were given a choice, we rejected him. It was really, really bad when America basically reaffirmed that the Bush/Cheney reign of terror was A-OK with us, and I believe it’s one of the reasons, if not thereason that not a single person was ever held accountable for the Iraq War lies.
So we have another chance this year, and we have to loudly and unambiguously say that We, The People, totally reject the fascist, nativist, white nationalist cult of personality that is Donald Trump.
So Kaine is safe. Kaine is boring. Kaine says that Hillary Clinton takes the votes of the liberal wing of the party for granted. Kaine says that the Clintons are stuck in the 90s and always will be. And all of that is disappointing to me, but it ultimately doesn’t matter because the stakes in this election are as high as they’ve ever been. If Trump is elected, America will never recover. We can’t allow that to happen, and voting for Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine is the best way to do that.
—
Have you seen Michael Moore’s post about how Trump is going to win, and if so, your thoughts?
It’s a useful call to arms that everyone who is #BernieOrBust needs to hear and think about.
I’ve made it really clear that Bernie Sanders is who I wanted for my president, and I did what I could to make that happen … but he didn’t get the nomination, and now my realistic choice is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
I think Michael Moore is right about Hillary not exciting young people the way President Obama did and does. It’s now our job to help everyone who is upset and disappointed and thinking about staying home to realize that we’re going to need every single vote we can get to defeat and utterly demolish and humiliate Donald Trump and everything he stands for.
I don’t like that Clinton is a warmonger. I don’t like that she’s too close to Wall Street. I don’t like that she and her campaign were condescending and dismissive of Millennials during the primaries.
But none of that changes the reality we are facing: it’s Clinton or Trump. I understand that younger voters don’t remember the 2000 election when SCOTUS installed Bush, and I understand that younger voters who were in elementary school during his disastrous presidency were effectively insulated from it because they were kids. I was *exactly* that kid in 2000 when I voted for Nader, because Bush was an asshole and Gore was a terrible candidate.
But if I could get my vote back now, I’d build the time machine with my own hands. Think of the millions of people who have died because of Bush. Think of the destruction of our climate that is now a total crisis, because Bush and his administration did nothing to address it. Think of how much horrible debt college students have, because Bush put people who just wanted to take their money away from them into positions of power. Think about the militarization of our police, which began under Bush.
President Obama did everything he could to roll back the damage Bush and Cheney did to our country and the world, and we aren’t even halfway to where we need to be. I don’t know how much President Clinton will work to continue rolling it back, but even if she keeps it in the same place, that’s better for our country and the world than what will happen under a President Trump.
If you, like me, wanted Bernie Sanders to be our president, if you, like me, believe in his revolution, if you, like me, believe that we have to make America work for the 99%, then your choice in this election is Hillary Clinton.
She’s not perfect. She’s not my first choice, or even in my top five choices. But she is the choice I have if I want to protect my country and my children from Donald Trump.
So that’s why, even though I still Feel the Bern, I’m With Her.
Discover more from WIL WHEATON dot NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As always, so wonderfully articulated. Thanks for sharing.
tough but true, thanks for telling it like it is.
“What’s really, really, really important is that Democrats take back the Senate, so people like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and
Sherrod Brown and Al Franken are in leadership positions.”
Exactly this, Wil. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. With the Supreme Court nominations that will likely happen in the next four years, it is imperative that a Democrat take the office.
Thank you. Well said.
Interesting that you use 2000 as your warning; for me the closer comparison is still 1968, when the kids who got “Clean for Gene” wouldn’t vote for Humphrey and we got Richard Nixon instead. I guess I’m a different generation, but it’s the same concept, and even worse this time.
So thanks for saying what you’ve said.
Well written, I have been making the exact same points: Clinton’s not great, but Trump would be so much worse.
I’m so dejected about the Bernie situation and I still hold out hope that by some miracle during the DNC, something will happen this week to change the “inevitable”. I feel guilty about considering withholding my vote all together in this election, which I have never considered doing my entire life (I am nearing age 50), in an effort to watch all the Bernie naysayers and apathetic jerks suffer. Ugh!
That is exactly what must NOT happen! Dump Trump!
I have usually felt that my vote was a tepid endorsement of a candidate, but this year, it is absolutely a vote against the other candidate!
Then as someone desperately terrified of what happens if Trump is elected, I ask you to remember those of us actively and by policy hated by the R camp and thus Trump. I am a trans lesbian. Their platform explicitly calls for me to habe my civil rights stripped, and if possible put into ‘conversion therapy’, which is exactly what you would imagine political reeducation to be. Torture. Electroshock therapy. And even if it doesn’t go that far,mexpect scotus recommendations that will reinforce citizens united, north carolina style discrimination laws, climaye denialism, religion back in schools, abortion bans, etc, etc. please dont let a desire for the schadenfreude of these idiotd getting their comeuppance derail you from protecting those who ARE doing the right thing and fear for their safety.
I’m no fan of Hillary, but I find this spot on. I can’t disagree with anything critical of Hillary, but I feel in my gut Trump will be much, much worse. I don’t see the point of voting 3rd party in our current system. I’m not too big to vote for Hillary when the stakes are this high.
Articulate and timely. Thank you for sharing!
At this point in the election, I’m incredibly disappointed in the top line pick on both sides, irritated that New York refuses to let unaffiliated voters into the primary vote, and just short of terrified of all of the unknowns of Trump’s true plans.
I’m trying to just ignore the presidential pick and look closer to home, at local, state and federal elections. The one’s that probably have more of an effect on our day-to-day lives, and can check to power of either President.
Unfortunately, I can’t find a great source for local races! Our local coverage is almost exclusively about the national race. Is there a “sidewith.org” for the lower races?
Try https://ballotpedia.org. If you enter your zip code it will take you to a page that contains the elections and other ballot measures relevant to your area. Towards the upper right there is a drop down for ‘View different election’. Selecting 11/08/2016 should display some of what you’re looking for. I hope this helps and best regards. JT
Check your state government website, particularly the Secretary of State, who’s charged with overseeing elections and certifying votes. The deadlines for local elections may not have passed yet, so not all the candidates are necessarily finalized. Look up the candidates’ themselves– most have websites and/or Facebook pages (and do you really want to vote for someone who in 2016 doesn’t?). You can also contact your town or county Democratic and Republican committees and get information from them. The good thing about local races is that while the press may not be covering the races, the candidates themselves are much easier to get a hold of.
Hear hear. Very well spoken, and I think the more people who vociferously promoted Bernie we get saying things like this, the better chance we have in November. Thank you for writing.
For what it’s worth: There a lot of us in Canada that hope you do “What’s really, really, really important” as well.
Well said.
I see what you’re saying, Wil, and I agree with your outcome that Trump must be defeated, and Congress must be retaken by the Democrats. That said, I am disappointed in one thing. What you are saying is basically what the Clinton backers have said for months: Support Hillary, or the world burns. I have had exactly one (1) Clinton supporter tell me a good reason as to why they back her that doesn’t fall back onto fear of the Boogeyman.
Yes, Trump sucks, and would be a disastrous President. But shouldn’t Clinton and her backers at least make a token effort at unifying the party with her thoughts and policies, as opposed to fear mongering? All that has done with Bernie fans I know, including myself, is make us feel she has nothing to offer at all but fear of the Enemy, which is exactly what we’re told Trump is selling us.
I’m not buying that from anyone. Bernie won my vote by telling me what he wanted to do as President. Clinton tells us what horrors will occur if Trump is elected. This makes her about as useful at Party Unification as a slice of day-old processed cheese product.
I’ll be watching the DNC convention this week to see if Clinton actually bothers to try to bring the party together under her leadership, but as it stands now, I don’t see any leadership from her at all.
I’m a Clinton supporter, and I’ve been telling anyone who will listen why I am supporting her, not just voting against Trump. I was around for the first Clinton presidency. (Heck. I liked Ike). She worked for children and families then. She tried to get universal health care then. And was told to go back into the kitchen. (I’m paraphrasing here). Yes, Bill was a horndog. But that’s besides the point. Joe, was she your senator from NY? Then you wouldn’t have seen what she did when she was the Senator from NY. She helped rebuild NYC after what happened there. Then when she lost the election in ’08, and she became Sec. State, she went around as Pres. Obama’s right hand woman, to all the different countries, doing deals that don’t make the news, but make nation elbow-rubbing go smoothly. No, it doesn’t make the news. But it tries to make the world go round. Yup. I voted for Bernie in the primary, because I wanted him to have a seat at the platform table. Knowing he’d not get the nomination. That she would. And I knew I’d be voting for Her in the General Election. Didn’t know who she’d be up against. Did not know she’d be up against the biggest turdstain the world has seen since 1933. I’ve been paying attention. Have you?
The Democratic platform is more progressive than it’s ever been. Remember, at the beginning of Bernie’s campaign he didn’t think he could win. What he want to accomplish was to move Hillary to the Left, and he did, with the help of his supporters. That’s pretty big. Especially since the Dems have been slowly moving Right for the last 30 years or so.
And while yes, her tweets have been a lot about “Trump is scary” she also talks about fixing immigration so there’s actually a path to citizenship for people who aren’t Canadian. She’s come around (mostly) to Bernie’s way of thinking on college money. And, she’s better than him on women’s issues (I’m a woman with a teen daughter, it’s a huge issue for me).
Overall, Hillary is good at coalition building and listening to the smart people in the room and I think we’ll see more of that going forward.
She’s better on guns, too!
While some better-articulated positions from the Dems are to be hoped for, I honestly think that treating the notion of a Trump presidency as some kind of abstract disaster is a position of privilege. So is voting for a third-party candidate as a protest vote (unless your state is really, really solid one way or the other).
I’m straight, white, upper-middle-class, and female. Except for the steps I know Trump/Pence and a Republican Congress would take to remove my personal autonomy (Roe v Wade), I know I’d be mostly insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency, at least at first. There are plenty of people who don’t have that insulation — immigrants (undocumented or not), Muslims, GLBT folks, and those who are just now getting health care — and so I’m supporting Hillary regardless of my generally independent leanings.
Yes, absolutely. I believe she and her team have begun to do that. First, we have the most progressive platform in history, and just last night Bernie announced that Clinton pledged to adopt what is essentially his position on student loans and student debt.
FWIW, I wouldn’t feel this sense of urgency against Bush or Rubio or even Cruz. Trump is not just a dangerous person, he is the head of an incredibly dangerous movement that must be killed RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
Why do you believe that Clinton hasn’t made a “token effort” at unification? What would that effort look like, to you? I doubt Elizabeth Warren wanted the VP slot (she’s made it clear she feels most useful in Congress…and she’s correct). I doubt Bernie Sanders wanted the VP slot. Clinton and the Democratic Party have adopted the majority of Bernie’s platform in recognition of the movement he spurred.
What else do you want?
This is a good point. My politics don’t place me into one of the established parties (and I dislike their existence at all). But the idea that a person can be like Trump and get this far is … disastrous. I agree with a lot of the points you’ve made.
I would like to know how to get rid of lobbying and these political parties. How bad does it have to get to make some real changes? The candidates are the worst I’ve ever seen by a large margin. For better or worse (not an endorsement) I believe Perot would win this election if this were his first showing. Some of us are desperate for some changes; I just don’t know how to get past the apathy. This should be the election cycle that breaks the camel’s back but it seems like less people care than ever before. Anyway, thanks for the words.
Please look at your 2nd and 3rd sentences and try to see their logical connection (when considered at a “macro” level, i.e. forest not tree).
Then electoral college is corrupt.
It affirms to the world-at-large that the United States is not a democracy.
Popular votes mean nothing.
State Senator George C.Edwards said this:
“The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.”
Your vote means nothing in a presidential election.
A constitutional premise known as the Virginia Plan called for the Congress to elect the president.
Slavery had an impact on the decision in 1787 to prevent the common voter from choosing the president, the suggestion by John Madison being that suffrage in the South would make votes meaningless from the region.
The president, to this day, is chosen by 538 people.
Not the nation.
Until the electoral college is abolished the United States will never become a democracy.
God please I hope the United States never becomes a democracy. Ever hear of “tyranny of the majority”? We’re a democratic constitutional republic, by design, and that is just fine by me. The movement towards direct election of senators and the president, without an alternative to the ‘first past the post’ selection method, is what has gotten us into this horrible divisive adversarial binary mode where ideology trumps pragmatism and nothing gets done.
Ideology over pragmatism ?
There’s nothing ideological about majority rule, nor anything pragmatic about dismissing and ignoring your vote.
Tyranny of the majority ?
That’s when someone gets beaten up by muggers in an alley.
A republic and a democracy are essential the same bird.
They’re each political systems in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them.
People of the republic. People of the democracy.
Not 538 electors who make the decision.
Each one of the 538 electors constitute a fractional monocracy, a piece of the pie of a government in which the Electorate becomes an absolute dictator not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition.
Both democracy and republic are government by the people or, usually, their elected representatives. The incredibly important but subtle distinction is that a republic enshrines limitations on what the government is allowed to do. A democracy does not. A republic allows us, with clear heads, to set limits on what we can do in those times when panic grips us and drives us to irrational extremes. A democracy does what the people will it to do, with no such boundaries.
Tyranny of the majority is what we had to — and continue to have to — overcome in order to pass civil rights legislation. I’m not saying that a majority of us want oppression to continue. A small minority actively want oppression to continue. A somewhat larger minority actively want oppression to end. The vast majority haven’t been personally affected; they don’t care and won’t change.
You would have a good point about the fractional monocracy of the electoral college, but for the fact that the 538 electors are themselves elected representatives. The founders of this nation devised a system where one body of the legislature was elected directly, while the other legislative body and the head of the executive were elected by a smaller group of domain experts. These domain experts in turn were elected directly by the people. The electoral college is still a representative system: an indirect and layered one. Indirect representation is a good thing, not a bad thing.
For the most part, we’ve torn all that down already. The loss of that expertise, the filter provided by indirect representation, has led directly to Trump’s candidacy today. Trump is a candidate not because people think he knows how to govern, but because they are dissatisfied with the government and want it to change. I myself, while not a Trump supporter, am dissatisfied with the government and want it to change. Very few of us have thought rationally at length about what that change will actually look like. This election is being driven by feelings not by facts. All elections are driven more by feelings than by facts.
The glaring flaw of any democratically flavored system, ours included, is that most people have no idea how to govern. Nor should we. We have other important matters to attend to. That is why we elect representatives, with the hope that they will have or gain some expertise in the workings of government.
Government isn’t working well because our direct election system takes focus away from governing in favor of electioneering; our 50%+1 selection strategy drives our elections to bimodal extremism. How could it do otherwise?
The domain experts of government now are not our representatives. They are the employees of government: people that are not elected, whose beliefs and responsibilities are largely unknown to the citizenry, who have no accountability to the people.
The stupidity of the electoral college is not that it exists, but that we’ve flattened this hierarchy such that electors serve only to distort the proportions of what would otherwise be a direct majority vote between bimodal extremes. The real problem here is not the distorted proportions, but the bimodal extremes.
I think that rather than tear it down, we ought to restore and renew the electoral college. We should cease voting (in)directly for the head of the executive. Let the people elect representatives with expertise in the workings of government to choose a president from a pool containing more than 2 viable candidates. Maybe this would help dispel the myth of president as elected king and bring more focus onto the larger bodies of government that are capable of proportionally representing the people. We give the president way too much power and attention. Further we should repeal the 17th amendment and cease voting directly for senators. Let our representatives from state government fill these offices from their own number again.
In fact, as long as we’re amending the constitution to fix the electoral college, why not directly elect a ‘king’ in addition to indirectly electing a president as head of the executive? Similar to the British monarch, but with an democratic American spin, this figurehead would be elected to represent us on the stage of the world. They would lead us by example and rousing rhetoric to do the great things we are capable of when united. But they would not have access to the nuclear codes nor domain over the executive functions of government.
In the real world of what is actually possible, we desperately need a system to combat the tendency towards bimodal extremism that naturally falls out of our 50%+1 selection process. It does not require a constitutional amendment to alter the selection process used by your municipality, your state. Lobby your representatives to implement a ranked choice voting system.
Except in a lot of ways we are set up for “Tyranny of the Majority” anyway. It potentially takes only 11 states to win the presidency, since if the 11 most populous states went for the same candidate that would reach the required votes. And because only 2 states aren’t “winner take all” (Maine and Nebraska), your vote only determines how your state goes. If you were on the losing end in your state you have no effective say in the presidency.
Here’s an interesting exercise. If ALL registered voters voted, and voted for only one of two candidates, you could win the electoral college with 27.2% of the popular vote (win the 11 most populous states by 1 vote each). You would not have to get a single vote anywhere else.
And those numbers can get worse when you realize you only have to win a plurality, not a majority, if there are more than two candidates. And not all voters vote.
Admittedly what are the odds of all 11 states voting the same way? Slim. But that the possibility exists is concerning.
And then it gets even worse when you consider that there is NO federal requirement for electors to vote the way their state went. Some states have passed laws to deal with unfaithful electors (since they took a pledge), but that has no impact on the federal vote. In short, you might get in trouble with your state but your changed vote stands. There have been 82 electors who changed their vote on their own accord.
If you did go to a straight popular vote, you would also have to make it a majority, not a plurality. Set up a default runoff system if no candidate wins a majority. You can even build it into the initial ballots.
Does this give more weight to states with a larger population? Yes and no. For example, Texas makes up about 8% of the population, and only 7% of the electoral vote, so that would seem to indicate yes. But because of the “winner take all” policy in place, currently, ALL 7% of Texas’ electoral votes go for one candidate. So it has one big impact on one candidate. Going to popular vote means the individual votes of other matter more because they aren’t wasted.
I entirely agree that we ought to have a default runoff system with ranked choice voting, in the vast majority of elections.
Pedantically, the fact that 11 states could decide the president given only 27.2% of the population would be a tyranny of the minority. If tyranny indeed it be.
The President is not supposed to represent the people; the President is supposed to represent the country. The Senate is supposed to represent the states. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people.
I think it is highly unfortunate that W.R.Hearst and W.J.Bryan (among others) managed to convince us that the President and the Senate should also represent the people. I think this shift has utterly broken the checks and balances that the founders wrote into our system, replacing them with extreme bipolar divisiveness.
I do not believe that the majority of citizens– myself included! — have the requisite knowledge to choose the best candidate to represent the country. I do not believe that the two-party primary system is a good way to winnow the field. I believe the fact that an elector can ‘betray’ their voters is a feature not a bug.
It is by design that the President is not elected by a direct popular vote; I think an indirect vote for President is a good design. The problem with the electoral college is not that it represents an indirect vote for President. The problem with the electoral college is that it presents a facade of a direct vote for president, but subtly behind the scenes you’re electing some unknown anonymous person to carry your vote. You don’t know who this person is, you don’t know their values, you have no kind of trust relationship with this person.
I am arguing that we do away with voting for a specific President entirely. Instead, we should vote for a specific elector, whose job is to go to the electoral college convention, where a President is chosen by consensus. An individual elector could say “I pledge to cast my vote for candidate X” during their campaign; they could say “I pledge to cast my vote along with political party P”; they could say “I am not beholden to any individual or party, but these N things are what I’m going to look for in a candidate.”
The primary job of a politician ought to be governing, not electioneering. In an election year, candidates spend the majority of their time doing something that is not their damn job. Even in an off year, politicians spend a significant amount of time doing something that is not their damn job.
Another advantage of the electoral college system as it exists today, lacking RCV/IRV: voters living in a true blue or true red state can ignore the “a vote for [3rd-party candidate] is a vote for [wrong candidate]” rhetoric and cast their vote according to their true conscience. They can be secure in the knowledge that their last choice will remain their state’s last choice, that their second choice will most likely be their state’s first choice. In a direct popular vote system, every state is a swing state, and 3rd party candidates would never have any chance on the national stage. Even upon the occasion of a split in one of the top two parties, as happened with the elder Roosevelt and as might be happening today, the new party rises from the rubble of the old, not from fertile new ground.
I just saw this post from Hank Green: http://edwardspoonhands.com/post/148006547020/hank-you-seem-excited-to-vote-for-hillary-could
I, too, want(ed) Bernie. I won’t be staying home, though. It’s important to me that Trump NOT win and set this country back light years. I agree that fear-mongering alone won’t work, though. Clinton needs to articulate her plans, not run on a platform of fear. Hank Green’s post lists some things I like about Clinton, too. I don’t know that they’re all true, or just more “spin”—I haven’t done the research. At least it’s a list I can use to find some positives about a candidate I’m having a hard time getting behind.
I encourage everyone reading and posting here to check out the link and share it if you feel to.
I had hoped you would at least mention the other option that DOES exist in the form of Gary Johnson and William Weld. As fed up as I am with politics in general I am more fed up with this mentality that we only have two choices and we need to pick the lesser evil when they are both steaming piles of crap. The libertarian ticket is almost at the 15% threshold that gets them into the debates that are bought and paid for by the “big two” and they’ve done that with minimal money and little to no help. Imagine what they could do with more support? I just want them in the debates and then at least people can see the three options that exist in prime time and make their decisions.
I am beyond fed up with the completely broken and crooked system in Washington and now is the time to fix that, that fix is NOT either of these 2 running. Do your research, vote for who you believe in don’t just fall into the lesser evil nonsense.
Sorry — but “pick the lesser evil” is not nonsense when Gary Johnson and William Weld have less than a snowball’s chance in hell of actually being elected president. You said yourself that, despite being close, they haven’t even hit the threshold to be involved in the debates, where if they did make it in, they would stand there being ignored by moderators giving precedence to the two candidates that most of the rest of country are taking seriously.
You may not like the fact that that’s true, and I sympathize with your anger over that, but political/media reality in this country is what it is, and the fact remains that either a Democrat or a Republican will be president after November. Voting for a 3rd party is at best, wasting a vote, and at worst, actively contributing to “pulling” votes from candidates that otherwise have a shot. 3rd parties in this country have a very, very long way to go before any of that will change — wishful thinking and “I almost got in to the debates” isn’t going to cut it.
Great, so Johnson will get his 15%, Clinton her 40%, and Trump his 42%, and we’ll have WWIII earlier than expected, and then cockroaches will finish off our bodies and the wind will blow our ashes away and nobody will ever have to know of the embarrassment which was humanity at its end.
Hillary Clinton isn’t evil. She’s a career politician who is a product of that system. Like I said, she isn’t my first choice. Donald Trump, however, is evil. He’s evil by every single measure you can possibly consider.
I totally get the emotional desire to vote third party, so you can vote for someone you totally believe in. I’ve done that, and if it were anyone other than Trump, I’d probably do it again. But Trump isn’t normal, his supporters aren’t normal, and the fascist, nationalist, cult-of-personality movement he is leading is a significant and real danger to our country, and the world.
Next election will be another version of Trump, those supporters aren’t going away and if nothing else they will probably come back stronger after losing this election in my opinion. You are talking about people that have these core beliefs and those aren’t going to change especially given who they are backing. While I hate the man I honestly don’t fear him in office enough to give up on the best chance we have to actually impact the corrupt two party system.
To some Hilary might not be evil, to others she’s just as or more evil than Trump…I just used the phrase cause I hear it mentioned all the time during elections and especially this one.
“Hillary Clinton isn’t evil.”
I cannot agree with you here. I’m a Bernie supporter. I’m deeply disappointed in anyone (including Bernie himself) who could support Hillary. She’s a part of the worst corruption I’ve known in my life. She lies to get what she wants, and I do not trust her to support anything but the banks. TPP, Citizens United, and big banks are her real platform.
I’m also a former Republican, so there’s that. But I won’t be supporting Trump either. Trump is a narcissist with no real experience or skill at managing, which is his BEST qualification for the office.
Of the two, I honestly think Hillary will be worse for the country. Trump may have worse policies, but I don’t expect him to be able to get anything done. Both the Dems and the GOP will block him. If Hillary wins, she’ll probably get what she wants, which will just be more corruption and oligarchy.
I’ll vote third party. I’ll vote Bernie if he’s on the ticket. It won’t prevent either Trump or Hillary from winning, but it will voice my true opinion. If everyone actually did that, we wouldn’t be in this position in the first place, and I’d rather be the person who does what is right than does what is less wrong.
And no, I’m not a teenager. I’m not a first time voter. I’m 42, and this is probably the most important election of my life. Unfortunately, too many people like you will vote against someone, instead of voting for someone.
You may be 42, but your reasoning is a naive and very dangerous false equivalence. I pray that doesn’t have to be proved to you and others of similar “reasoning” by result.
It’s sad that folks see Tim Kaine as boring, because (take it from a Virginian) he is definitely not boring. He’s one righteous dude and is an excellent choice for Hillary’s Veep.
Some points:
– Has repeatedly publically stood up for GLBT rights in Virginia when it would have been far politically safer not to.
– Speaks fluent Spanish (because of mission work in Honduras), and has given the first (and so far the only) Senate floor speech in Spanish: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/06/12/191010737/with-a-speech-in-spanish-tim-kaine-makes-senate-history
– Ran a legal practice specializing in fair housing practices (representing people who have been denied housing), and has taught legal ethics on the subject as well as being recognized as a national authority. This civil rights cred led to his appointment as mayor of Richmond, VA, and he’s given a lot of credit for revitalization of that city.
– Is an observant Catholic who is personally opposed to abortion, but has the full endorsement of Planned Parenthood because he is strongly pro-choice.
Yes, there are some areas in which he could be more liberal, but when it comes to looking out for the disadvantaged, Kaine has really solid progressive cred.
Absolutely right. We have to vote like adults who understand the consequences of our actions. Bernie’s movement will continue, but we all have to live in the real world. A President Drumpf will set us back at least a generation, primarily because he will get to name two or three Justices to the Supreme Court, to say nothing of the impact to our domestic and foreign affairs during his time in office. This election cannot be a Hobson’s choice for voters: Bernie or Bust. Hillary is not perfect, but then we’ve never had a perfect choice. As if there was such a thing as a perfect President…
“…primarily because he will get to name two or three Justices to the Supreme Court”.. This is the key thing to understand. There’s no way that the winning candidate is not going to get to appoint AT LEAST two candidates to the court, and no realistic way for them to stay blocked the whole term. How important do people see this issue? Senator Jeff Flake (R – AZ) said that he and some others (he didn’t name them) have already decided that they would move to confirm Garland (President Obama’s choice) IF Clinton wins the election. In short, they are more concerned about Clinton’s selections than the one currently in front of them.
Of course, I wouldn’t be totally surprised if President Obama withdraws Garland if Clinton wins. He can use their argument: The next President should be the one picking the Justice.
This is spot on. This is, I think, exactly what people need to hear. Not just Bernie supporters, (and I count myself among that number), but independents, moderates and even whatever is left in the “sanity” wing of the Republican party.
I think the progressive movement in this country needs to take a step back and remember that Rome wasn’t built in a day. I think they also need to remember that in the end, Rome was sacked and destroyed by barbarians. Despite not winning the nomination, Bernie Sanders has had a profound effect on American politics, including being instrumental in shifting the Democratic party platform further to the left than it’s ever been.
Is that total victory? No — but it’s a win, and it’s a win that has pushed progressive politics to center stage in America in a way that hasn’t been seen in a very long time — if ever. Progressives may not have the White House — yet — but that day is coming. In the meantime, we have to actively work against losing the ground that has been gained. We have to defeat the barbarians at the gate. Say what you will about Hilary — actively dislike her even, but by any objective measure, it’s clear that she will do far less damage to the progressive cause than Donald Trump will.
If you are a hardcore Bernie supporter, I totally understand the disappointment, and even the disillusionment that comes from being “defeated” by a political system as twisted and rigged as they one we’re currently dealing with. I understand how easy it is to want to throw up your hands and say “fuck it” — but if you really believe in Bernie and his cause, you have to believe that what we’re fighting for is bigger than this election — but it does include doing the right thing this election, and that is to vote, in whatever way necessary, to defeat Donald Trump. As much as we might want to vote 3rd party as a means of protest and “doing the right thing”, that kind of action on a large scale will only serve to bolster Trump’s chances, and we can’t afford that.
So — hold your nose, vote for Hilary, then vote for progressive candidates underneath her…this year, and in two years….and in 4…and so on. That’s how real change really happens.
Quite astute of you Mr. Wheaton. I had intended not to vote this election (as a Bernie or Buster) but your words may have shifted me slightly closer to a vote for ‘Not Trump’.
Thank you, that was spot on. The stakes are incredibly high in this election, in fact they are so high that I’d rather go back to the 90s than the 30s. I am terrified about the prospect of him making the US even more of a plutocracy than it already is. I am terrified that he might be picking several judges for SCOTUS, thusly rolling back the progress we made by making the ability to marry the one you love a fundamental right (2014) and maybe even invalidating Lawrence v. Texas (2003). And lastly, I am absolutely terrified that a President Trump might plunge the world into WWIII.
Very well said!
Wil, I frequently disagree with you, but always respect what you have to say. That said, I believe that your vote for Nader was far and away the correct choice to make, regardless of the consequences. As a firm believer that the two party monopoly is the root cause of most of the problems with the politics in our nation, the saying ‘The lesser of two evils still results in evil’ is never more true than in this election. I don’t care in what state someone is voting, if someone is voting against someone winning when there is a candidate more aligned with their political views, they are voting for failure. If one finds oneself more aligned with Stein or Johnson, and they vote for Hillary because they’re afraid of Trump, we lose as a nation. Thank you so much for sharing your views with those of us that follow…articulate, reasoned views, even (or especially) when they don’t directly align with me, help me to understand different perspectives. Ignore the idiots who say ‘Shut up’, and keep talking.
Best,
JMR
Particularly since 10 times as many Floridian registered Democrats voted for Bush than any Floridian voted for Nader. Nader did not spoil the 2000 election. A lackluster Democratic candidate, poor organization, and the Supreme Court spoiled the 2000 election.
“Regardless of the consequences” is the dangerous flaw in this type of reasoning. Can you find no historical example of consequences at all that would caveat that point in your thinking? Use your best imagination.
John Adams said:
There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
Wil, have you heard of Ranked Choice/Instant Runoff voting? I would love to see more people like you with boosted signals championing this movement. As far as I can tell it’s the only way we can escape the binary party system and get true representation in government.
IF you are with her, well Benghazi for you! you will be chillin’ with Vince foster soon enough, and that other guy who died from an “aspirin overdose”. ever notice how;
1. a secret private server (lied about, illegal as F!)
2. Classified information distributed via e-mail (Lied about, Fing Treason!)
3. over 30,000 e-mails get deleted (and lied about, and lied about deleting them)
4. covering for a serial rapist husband.
is just swept under the rug for Hi-LIAR-ry…
while her “friends” are going to jail?
And you want to be “with her”…
there is a bigger picture here!
watch “Dark Legacy” and check out the photos of C.I.A. director Bush at the book depository…
Research human experimentation and find out that BOTH parties authorize experiments to be done to Americans and more. look at the fascist coup attempt by Prescott bush. Read the documented presidential executive orders, read the patriot act and the NDAA; compare those to the steps taken after the Reichstag fire.
Look up operation paperclip and the connections to the founding of the C.I.A. and a dozen other crooked alphabet agencies. look at the governmental budgets and count the “civilian psyop” funds.
And you still believe in political parties?
The majority of OBAMA’s STAFF are BUSH STAFF!
universal healthcare became MANDATORY INSURANCE.
Nope, all the change did was make the poor poorer.
Political parties are meaningless. Kerry and Bush are both Skull and Bones.
Bill Richardson was the guy who helped steal nuclear secrets, so that Charlie tree would funnel china’s espionage pay into Clinton’s candidacy.
We live in “1984.” Robot-bombs kill “suspects”, camera drones everywhere, TV’s with cameras that watch you, the “proletariat” has been replaced by the “precariat” and to top it all off – plans to chip human beings.
it isn’t a conspiracy theory any more. it isn’t crazy because it is happening, right now. WAKE UP!
the LAST THING WE NEED IS AN INSIDER. we need someone who has never been in political office to end the fed, end the cia, end nsa, end nro, end dia, end doE, end the six corporations that control all media in the usa, end Monsanto, end the 800 bio-weapon labs in the usa, end the irs, bring all of our military back into the 50 states. END all our foreign aid, end goldman sachs and wall street. Get justice for the victims of MK ULTRA, RADIATION, and VACCINE A. we need someone who will destroy the conspiracies by actually TELLING THE TRUTH. Saddly, NO ONE will do all this.
you wanna vote for Hillary? why not vacation in jones town? I hear the Kool-Aid is nice!
DRINK UP! you brain dead zombies.
Here, here… also, it’s ironic that someone from Star Trek is talking about building a time machine…..
I will vote for Clinton the same way I’d choose to have an appendectomy. Because the options are so much, much worse.
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER Trump. There is no such thing as a good fascist.
“…Hillary not exciting young people the way President Obama did and does…”
First off, youth (18-30) has never turned out in good numbers. That age group tends to talk a good game if and when there’s a candidate that ‘excites’ them but loses interest if that candidate doesn’t get the nomination.
Second, I’m just a little tired of that age group wanting things to be exciting and engaging or they can’t be bothered. A few months ago I was driving to Portland and listening to an NPR reporter talking to some college age Sanders supporters…. when asked if they’d come out to vote if he got the nomination they replied they would… “if it was easy.” REALLY? If it’s not easy enough, they wouldn’t even VOTE? Voting is the minimum effort we should expect of any citizen. It’s filling out a ballot and mailing it in or, in states where you have in person voting spending maybe an hour or so and going a bit out of your way that day to vote. If you can’t be bothered to do that then I don’t want to hear about your take on national issues. NOTE: this isn’t a millennial thing. It’s just how that age group tends to act – it was equally true of that group when it was Boomers and Gen X.
Quit insisting on excitement and that everything has to be your way or else. Grow up (that’s right, I said it…) and realize that sometimes compromise is needed and in fact can be the path toward your eventual goal. Too often, I see people, especially youth, walk away if they don’t get what they want. We don’t have the luxury of being self-absorbed this time. Want polices like those that Sanders advocated? Trump doesn’t. Hillary at least will be open to being persuaded by Warren, Franken, Sanders and the like, ESPECIALLY if the voters who follow them help her into office. If you sit on the sidelines though and she still wins? You have no influence. People help those who have helped them. They also remember who could have helped them, but didn’t.
Until recently I would have agreed with you, Wil. Trump is worse. I’m just not so sure about that now. If everyone who wanted to see Bernie as candidate would vote for the Green party, yes, they’d still lose, and Trump would win. But it would change the political landscape in the US. Suddenly there’d be another choice. There may even be more voters for the Green party than for the Democrats, and wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing? Suddenly during the next elections there are 3 parties, and the Green party would have a choice of replacing the Democrats. At the point where the Green party gets more votes in polls than the Democrats, it can quickly shift towards the Green party.
Short term it will either be a small victory for Clinton or for Trump… I’m leaning towards the latter. But if Trump wins, it gives America the chance for a significant change towards the better, and it punishes the Democrats for being so goddamn arrogant.
In Europe, there are sometimes new parties. At first they aren’t taken seriously. At first people say, if you vote for them, you vote for the enemy. Better to vote for the party that stands a chance to win. But over time, they do get voters, they do get stronger, and eventually they may even replace the established parties. The winner takes it all system in the US makes it harder, but it may also accelerate everything once critical mass is reached.
You will survive 4 years of Trump, especially if the rest of the government will stay in his way whenever he wants to do something stupid. America can recover. He might be the best thing that could happen to progressives… mid to long term.
It’s not just 4 years of Trump, though. It’s 30+ years of the Supreme Court justices he nominates, the disastrous foreign policy decisions he enacts, the legitimization of hate he represents… All of that. Your kids, or the kids of those you love, will be the ones having to deal with the fallout of a Trump presidency. And I don’t trust that “the rest of the government will stand in his way”, at all, given the way the Republican establishment has rolled over – he could do one hell of a lot of damage.
Plus, if you’re poor, of color, GLBT, an immigrant, or female – it gets that much worse. A friend of mine put it very well that the people being most vocal about enduring a Trump presidency are those accustomed to thinking of themselves as the protagonists of their own stories, and taking for granted that they wil come out on top. I’m very much in favor of long term thinking, but in this case I’m voting in favor of my friends’ survival.
The U.S. really will not survive even one year of Trump. That’s the problem. Even if I’m only 1% probability of being right about that. Existential threats really are a qualitatively different thing.
I always appreciate thoughtful political discussion that doesn’t just descend into hysteria and hyperbole. Thank you for sharing your views.
This year I’ve been thinking a lot about idealism and pragmatism, which have often seemed to be viciously at odds on the Democratic side. I believe we need them both. Without pragmatism, idealism goes nowhere. But without idealism, pragmatism does not know where to go.
“Hold your nose and vote for Hilary”, is the phrase I’ve heard. The idea the that Trump is the end of the world is histrionic. Trump would have many challenges to his policies. It’s no guarantee any candidate’s statements would come true. Remember when Bush became more Eco-friendly than Gore. Wow, that so never happened.
I see an outsider vs the establishment, but the establishment has been running things quite badly for most of the country and this is a correction. Ignore the majority of people for long enough and traditionally non-voting people well step up and say something.
The real blame for our candidate selection can be laid on at the feet of the leadership of both parties. It’s obvious Trump wasn’t supposed to win, but the mass of other candidates were really terrible. And Dems setup Hilary and cheated Bernie. She’s been integral to the Democrat party so long you can’t find someone who didn’t work for her. The leadership of both parties needs to be cleaned out.
SCOTUS did pick the president and that’s abominable. Those judges should have retired or been pressured to retire.
The electoral college is unnecessary and anti-democratic. Almost all other elections here are based on number of votes. The Presidency is an oddity.
In one of the rare times I disagree with you, Wil, I am not disappointed but excited to vote for Hillary Clinton this November. This article made me really think about the role of a politician: http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
I am bad at verbalizing my thoughts, so hopefully this is understandable and taken in kindness: I think that as a country we have decided that all things a politician does are bad. If someone changes their position on an issue, they are a flip-flopper or doing it for political expediency. If they work with the other side on a issue, they are stabbing their constituency in the back. The only time a politician is regarded as doing well is if they stay ideologically pure. But as the past decade has shown on the Republican side, this is what leads to a constant stream of obstructions and shutdowns. While you may disagree, I viewed Sanders as too ideologically pure on our side leading to a similar government style on the left, which I think would lead to the same issues on our side.
The article talks about some of the different needs for political leadership of consensus building, compromise, and simply listening to others. I think that Hillary will do all of these other things very well. I know, and think it is a good thing(!), that she will disappoint my liberal viewpoint at times (such as picking Kaine over a more progressive candidate). Instead of pushing each side further apart on ideological terms, I really hope and believe that Clinton will try to bring the two sides closer and have them work together. As a liberal, all of the above means little if it does not start from a liberal perspective, but although I have some reservations about her prior political stances, I do believe she now believes in a pretty progressive platform.
Anyway, thanks for all that you do. Your openness about anxiety/depression has made me much more confident in talking about my issues with those in my life.
I’m going to be honest, Wil…I’m scared. I’m scared for our country if a person like Trump is elected. I teach 6th graders in a public school (in TX, don’t get me started) and listening to them (around the primaries) talk about how they would vote for Trump but the REASONS why made me afraid. (I acknowledge that most of their talk is mimicking the familial opinions) The biggest reason was, get this, because he wasn’t afraid to speak his mind and tell people what he thought. I liken Trump to a very long, horrible multi-episode version of The Jerry Springer Show: “I can say what I want and fuck you if you don’t like what I have to say”. Remember the Phil Collins video with the Ronald and Nancy Reagan puppets – Land of Confusion? That one scene where he wakes up and presses the proverbial “red button” seems eerily ominous and foreboding.
Bernie never had a chance. Sorry people. I know this will make you angrier, but Hillary had more organization and money early on. It was over on Super Tuesday. Bernie and all of you supporters deserve big props for coming back and making it interesting. AND, Bernie was good for Hillary because she wanted to stay centrist (Bill’s winning strategy) and Bernie pushed her to the left, got a seat at the platform table, which helped make the platform very progressive. That’s all good. But, Bernie couldn’t reach minorities and Hillary did. Bernie hit the 1% -99%, minimum wage and single payer buttons over and over without the nagging discussion of how you get there. And that’s where he sounded like the Great Pumpkin. Bernie has been effective at pointing out the problems, but I never heard the solutions. The presidency is not some white wizard position where you wink at a butterfly and get single payer. It cost Dems the house to get the ACA in 2010. Hillary has been a policy wonk for 25 years, and she will be able, I think, to get bills passed. If WE go vote for her. Sit on your ass in November and you could get an ass for president come January. Vote for Stein or Johnson, same thing. This is important, you have to know that it’s not primary VOTERS who choose candidates. It’s the parties. The parties pick the candidate. It is rigged. It has always been rigged. It’s always been ugly. The difference now is that social media (and the Russians) has allowed everyone to see how ugly, sneaky, underhanded the process really is. The primaries/caucuses help elect delegates to make this process of choosing easier for the party heads. It’s high stakes. Sorry, now you know. It’s the VOTERS who then vote and elect the candidate they think is better. This will be either Clinton or Trump. So, Bernie fans. That’s what it is. Now, put on your big boy/girl pants and go vote for the best candidate in November. Hillary Clinton.
You know, while I ‘get’ that Hillary has a lot of negative reaction, some deserved, some not, I do not understand why there’s a reported lack of enthusiasm for the FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT! Wow! I’m excited over that. I will cry on Thursday when she gives her nomination acceptance speech. I cried when Geraldine Ferraro accepted the nom for Vice President. This is HUGE (oops, to inadvertently borrow a word) and historic and, given the choice: historic first woman president vs historically unqualified (oh… there are so many negatives to list here) candidate of the Tea Party fringe… how can we NOT be “with her”?
Personally, I’d rather the first woman president wasn’t a warmongering corporate shill in Monsanto’s pocket. I’d like a woman president that I don’t have to be ashamed of, and I’m EMBARRASSED to be the same gender as Hillary Clinton.
Because I couldn’t care less about what’s between a persons legs? I’m more concerned with what’s between their ears, and what’s between both candidates ears scares the crap out of me. Still hoping for a Bernie miracle, but not holding my breath. Well, not holding it yet. Still trying to decide if I’m holding it to hit the Clinton button or the voting my conscious and hitting the Jill Stein button…
Unless you’re in a swing state, the nature of the Electoral College means your vote for either of the two main candidates is well near impossible to tip the outcome in any way. In those cases, voting for a third party will make MORE of a difference (and not put us at any more risk of Trump winning, no matter what the ‘vote for the lesser evil’ fallacy says). Voting third party gives that party more legitimacy, can force the establishment to put them on later ballots, and prompt the major parties to consider adopting views from third parties. I’ve been trying to tell people that if you’re an ex-Bernie supporter, consider Jill Stein. If you’re Republican-leaning who hates Trump, take a look at the Libertarian party’s Gary Johnson. This article debunks the whole ‘lesser evil’ voting strategy fairly well.
http://truthinmedia.com/donegan-debunking-the-lesser-of-two-evils-voting-strategy/
The definition of “swing state” is more fluid than ever. I live in Illinois, long thought to be an unassailable Democrat stronghold, yet outside money (mostly from New York) bought the last governor’s race for a rich Republican. Rest assured that there are no “sure things” when it comes to individual states. EVERY vote will count in EVERY state due to the influence of Big Corporate Money in elections now. A vote for a third-party candidate is not sane, not safe.
If you’re not in a swing state, your vote won’t make much difference if you throw it at one of the ‘big two’. Vote for who your beliefs best match. Voting for the ‘least abhorrent’ candidate is what got us into this!
Many spot on points, but don’t get caught in the Bush Derangement Syndrome trap. Police militarization has been happening long before the Bush administration, and lets also not forget that our two current picks were all for war, until it got bloody, at which point they all scattered like roaches and made a bunch of silly excuses how they were never for it, even when the record shows they were.
Either way this will be an interesting election, but I honestly expect more of the same, as in not much different from the last 3 administrations. Get involved in stupid conflicts, spend lots of money on nothing, shut down the congress every 2 years when the party control changes etc, etc, etc. Successful politics has always been about striking bargains and taking acceptable losses to get concessions. When we find ourselves in the situation where somebody is getting everything they want with no opposition, THEN we will have real problems.
Either way, the US will persevere and evolve into something better tan it was, we always do. We don’t always get it right the first 10 times, but we eventually do.
Thank you! And I think as you hear more from him, Tim Kaine will grow on you–he’s more progressive in many ways than Hillary, and choosing him also gives us a good chance to take back the senate, which will put the progressives you named above into leadership positions.
Another Canadian here that thinks that Trump is probably the worst person to elect. I can’t agree with one of the previous posters who suggested he would be blocked every step of the way. That may be true with your system, but why would you ever want to chance that, or elect someone so intolerable? How he got to where he is, is beyond me. Years ago, Canada made the mistake of voting for Harper (or rather, against the liberal party), who could be debated as the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history – but much like Trump, his campaign was above the rest. (All we hear about in the news is the next shitty thing that Trump said – I wouldn’t be surprised if the Urban dictionary doesn’t already include some “Trumpisms”). Having said that, our two countries trade an incredible amount of coin, so we rely on you guys, to a great extent, to make the best decision possible. The best candidate was Sanders, but it is hard to instil a following when you are not very charismatic. We learned the hard way by voting against the Liberals here, and allowing a horrible leader to be elected, so don’t presume to do the same and be a better country for it. A woman president would be an enormous step for the USA, though…anyways, good luck brothers.
Wow am I glad to hear you take this position, Wil. In a perfect world, I’d be hardline Green Party because businesses currently have very little economic incentive to protect the world in which they live, leading to the mother of all “free-rider” problems that could result in an extinction-level event.
But if you really feel that Hillary Clinton isn’t in your top five candidates, you’re likely underestimating her. Repetition programs people, and the fringe right (and fringe left, for that matter) have repeated disingenuous Hillary slurs so many times and in so many ways that even we have come to believe them at some level. Make the time to reclaim your objectivity by rigorously separating fact from smear and I believe your estimation of her will rise significantly.
In any case, Bernie was a great candidate, but the scope of changes he wanted to make would have mired him in backlash. We should be pissed about that because it alludes to a systemic problem in the way society is organized and rewarded. But societal change is not an idealistic landslide, it’s a million little blows, each one of which is paid for dearly, and politics is a knife-fight in a phone booth. It’s not ideal, but at least in this country, the “good guys” get a knife too. Hillary is smart, she knows the terrain, and she has an incredibly well qualified personal advisor for a husband. Kasich and Kaine were her strongest VP picks and she chose one of them. Moreover, she foreshadowed that she chose a VP that could be president because I believe she’ll do one term and hand over the reigns.
Four years of Hillary and eight years of Kaine would force the Republican party, to rebuild itself into a centrist economics-focused civil-rights-friendly science-friendly party. The farther left we go, the more polarized the right becomes. The only way to re-boot the Republican party into a functioning political body so we can achieve a balanced political system that serves the American people, is to beat the right by winning the center again and again and again and again until they get the friggin message, eject their fringe, and go back to being a political party instead of a nationalistic-war/quasi-religious party.
I can’t agree. Unless you’re in a swing state, your vote is not going to make any difference at all in November… at least not between the two major parties who have things sewn up between them. The oligarchy WANTS Clinton in, and knew the people would never swallow her unless her opposition was abhorrent enough that they could force people into voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’. She’ll bend over backwards for corporate interests because that’s what she is – a corporate shill.
I highly suggest reading this article, which does a good job of explaining how the Electoral College means that, unless you are in a swing state, your individual vote will not make a difference if you vote for Clinton OR Trump. However, if you DO vote for a third party candidate and they get over certain percentages, it makes them get put on later ballots… upsetting the two-party gridlock and potentially doing something to prevent the whole ‘I have to vote for the lesser evil’ thing from recurring practically every election year. This one might be the worst, but it’s hardly a new thing.
http://truthinmedia.com/donegan-debunking-the-lesser-of-two-evils-voting-strategy/
And if you’d prefer a more mainstream source, there’s this from CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/third-party-candidate-options-robby-soave/
Sadly, neither one mentions Jill Stein from the Green Party, who I intend to vote for, and who might be a good choice for those who supported Bernie. I suggest disgruntled Republican-leaning voters have a look at the current Libertarian candidate.
Right now, registered Independents outnumber both Democrats and Republicans. It’s past time they reformed or died out. And, heck, if Trump somehow manages to win this debacle? Then maybe the USA doesn’t deserve to recover.
Seems like more people are reconsidering the question of the ballot or the bullet. Not in a violence vs nonviolence sort of way but in questioning the whole damn system. It’s not surprising that neither candidate has much to offer and is running on a “the other guy would be worse” platform (that’s all the RNC was, and liberal press organs are pretty much the same). It’s a lack of imagination by the political class who at the same time is also trying to seize on the almost apocalyptic urgency many of us feel. I’m personal tired of the too little too lates of the Dems and instead think our strength is in the streets.
Nice, but Al Franken is batshitcrazee. No soup for him!
But where can we read more about the clock?
Ditto, I have one just like it in my kitchen. Wil, has great taste !
Well said Wil. One mistake though. We as a country WILL survive either Trump or Clinton. No matter which one wins, we the American people lose. Being a Californian, my vote does not count as California is a Democratic state. Although I am a good Republican, I shall not cast a vote for President. I will vote the down ballot and pray that in 2020 in a country of 300+ million people, we can find a better crop of people to represent us.
I, too, do not live in a swing state (WV). Instead of not voting at all, since you’re Republican, I suggest you take a look at the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson. Voting for third parties DOES have an effect as it gives them more legitimacy, and forces the major parties to take notice or even (heaven forbid, from their perspective) actually list them on ballots. I’ll be voting for Jill Stein, myself… and then bunkering down for a rough four years whichever of the two main candidates should win.
I’ve voted in 6 Presidential elections and I’ve never voted for anyone with an R or D after their name. As the years have gone by, the criticism has been shifting from “you are wasting your vote” to “you will ruin the country!” We are still here and there has yet to be an election where changing my vote would have made any difference (and I voted in Florida in 2000). It comes from both sides. Four years ago, doom and gloom were predicted if I “let Obama win” OR if I “let Romney win.” The same is true today for BOTH Clinton and Trump.
I suggest going somewhere like isidewith.com and see who you agree with most and vote for them. Voting for people we disagree is how we got into this mess. Personally, at isidewith, I come in at 97% Johnson, 83% Stein, (77% Sanders), 58% Clinton and 58% Trump.
Johnson/Weld 2016!
Thanks for that page! I’m definitely spreading the word (95% Jill Stein here). Unless you’re in a swing state, the whole ‘if you vote third party, the worst candidate might win’ argument is an often repeated load of dung. Voting for a third party will do more to shake up politics than voting for either of the big two in most states!
As each of us in the U.S. are pulling that lever (or pushing the touchscreen, etc.), ask yourself — now that you’ve decided to voted “against” a terrible person, what sort of political monster will be presented to scare you into voting against your best interests in 2020?
I’ve thought much the same thing. The oligarchy would love Hillary in office, as she’s a corporate shill who will do whatever they want. But they’d never manage to get her in there unless she was running against someone even more abhorrent. And so we have Trump… My mother’s of the firm opinion that the only real difference between them is gender. I’m more of the opinion that Hillary is smart enough to play to what people want to hear (I wouldn’t trust her to deliver on a word of it) while Trump doesn’t often censor whatever pops out of his mouth (and we can just hope Congress, the House, and basic constitutional law will impede him from delivering on a word of it). I’m bunkering down for a rough four years no matter which of them wins this sham of an election.
Now all I can do is wonder if he took that picture 31 & 1/2 minutes after noon or midnight…
Well stated Wil…..thank you for being honest and forthright, and thank you for actually caring about what kind of future this country may have. Like so many other people I am frustrated by this election, but I have voted for enough years now to realize that every President will get something done no matter how bad they are, so you have to consider what you want the next 4 years to look like. I cannot in good conscience sit back and do nothing to stop Trump from being elected, because he WILL be putting in Supreme Court Justices if he is President and if Congress continues strongly Republican he actually could do some of the things he proposes—I’m not willing to just hand those chances over to him. Hillary has some serious issues but not everything that is out there about Hillary is true or complete, take time to look some of it up, and at least she is more likely to be on the side of some of the causes many of us care about than Trump would ever be. Why be willing to throw away so much of what Obama has accomplished? Both of my parents were immigrants to this country. My father escaped from the Nazis. Would Trump have even let them into this country?
I’m voting libertarian.