2016 is 1980 All Over Again

[IMPress Polly]

Economic malaise. A sitting Democratic president broadly viewed as weak and ineffectual concerning foreign affairs amidst a perceived crisis thereof. A doomed, but powerful challenge to the Democratic Party establishment from a left wing Senator that goes all the way to the convention floor, creating a rift in the party that only grows wider for the rest of the year, with many disgruntled (white) labor voters switching to the Republican camp. A former left wing Democrat and career entertainer viewed as too polarizing and inexperienced to win the White House acquires the presidential nomination of the rival Republican Party and then goes on to win both the contest and the hearts and minds of a generation of Americans, even while briefly driving away a section of its libertarian supporters, who go instead for a third party candidate.

That's right, I'm talking about the American presidential election of 1980. And of 2016. There are some differences between the current American election cycle and that of 36 years ago that redefine its ideological contours in some important ways, but the above is the essence of both in my observation.

Not that the current Republican frontrunner is per se another Ronald Reagan. On the contrary, where Reagan was the dictionary definition of and represented the political ascendancy of that grouping we know as neoconservatives, Trump largely represents the defeat thereof in the Republican Party, at least at the presidential level. Trump represents what some call third positionism and what the Europeans call far right nationalism or quasi-fascism: an anti-globalization worldview that's experienced a revival this century and revolves around opposing immigration and foreign trade while advocating military brinkmanship, thus establishing an all-around hostile relationship toward the rest of the world community from every angle possible. Neither, conversely, can the Democratic front-runner (and pretty inevitable nominee) be seen of the same generally diplomacy-oriented mold as Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was in 1980. There are, hence, some important differences. However, the essential thing I'm talking about here is process. The basic logic of this election cycle is the same as that of 1980.

While I'll concede to having alternated back and forth in my forecasts of who would win this election cycle, I've recently come to the realization that the process arguments for Clinton winning the general election hold little weight. They hinge on the idea that, in nomination, Clinton will unite the Democratic Party in the same way that Obama did after that hotly contested nominating fight in 2008. That is unlikely. First of all, the ideological divide between Sanders voters and Clinton voters in 2016 is a great deal larger than that between Obama voters and Clinton voters in 2008. Second, the 2008 contest on the Democratic side wrapped up well before the party convention, giving the proceedings on the floor a general feeling of unanimity that will not be present this time around. Third, the only real reason Obama did manage to win the 2008 contest was because an economic crash occurring on the watch of a sitting Republican president intervened two months before election day, previous to which McCain had started polling ahead of Obama. For basic structural reasons (e.g. the sitting president this time around is a Democrat), any repeat of that decisive scenario is impossible in the current cycle. And finally, a Clinton victory depends on Mrs. Clinton doing something she has never been able to at any point so far in her political career: reverse a polling trend. Most polls as of this month already show her trailing her Republican opponent, so she would have to reverse that trend in order to win in November, but has never demonstrated the ability to reverse a polling trend before ever.

Furthermore, in point of fact it is NOT just Republican voters rallying around their nominee at present. Take a look at this headline I've seen recently: "Pennsylvania Dems Weigh Voting GOP". Pennsylvania has not gone for the Republican Party at the presidential level in this century. What's the source of the Democrats' emerging problems in this hitherto fairly reliable bastion? White working class voters...i.e. "the Reagan Democrats", as they say. These voters are attracted to Trump on a fundamental ideological basis: they agree with his contempt for immigrants (who are "stealing their jobs" and all) and with his opposition to foreign trade, which has, in fact, driven many of these people out of the American middle (i.e. property-owning) class an into the low-income category by way of corporate outsourcing, conveniently to countries that have weaker labor laws, particularly over the last two decades. Given this two-pronged support for both of Trump's main issues, it's difficult for me to imagine how a (largely) pro-immigration fair-trader like Hillary Clinton will win them back.

It's worth adding that many of these voters are also voting along gender lines. While much has been said about Trump's problems with women (which are indeed apparent), perhaps more should be said about the fact that Clinton has a larger shortage of male voters than Trump does of female voters. Many of the very things that tend to turn women off conversely tend to appeal to men. In this sense, Trump actively appeals to men on a regular basis. Since the Indiana contest, he has been running primarily against Hillary Clinton's gender, claiming that she's a sort affirmative action case (at least in the sense of how conservatives see affirmative action anyway); someone who has never really earned her political success, but rather has simply had it handed to her for being a woman. "She wouldn't have 5% if she were a man", he proclaims (an argument which I think the simple facts that 1) more than 80% of Congress is still male, and 2) there has never been either a female president or a major party female presidential nominee in American history before firmly establish as complete and utter bullshit) just before veering into men's rights activist territory, alleging that "she screams" all the time (fact check: she has yet to "scream" once) and complaining that "we're afraid to raise our voices to a woman".

His campaign chair, Manafort, likewise has recently offered that Trump is unlikely to choose a female running mate because "it would be viewed as pandering". The candidate quickly damage controlled that, but it was out there long enough for his supporters to get the message, and it seems to be one that helps him with men. (I'll try to resist remarking on Trump's allegations that Hillary Clinton is metaphysically responsible for her husband's affairs, but rest assured that they fit into this same mold quite well.)

Indeed, Mr. Trump has even run against and defeated his male opponents on a masculinist basis, essentially casting them all as shall we say less than 'real men'. "Low-energy." "Little." "Not tough." Etc. The subtext is there: I am a man's man, therefore you should vote for me. Playing the man card thus has so far proven a lot more effective than Clinton and the Democrats or anyone else (Ted Cruz, etc.) attempting to critique his obviously biased gender politics. Trump is tapping into a wave of masculinism that has surfaced online in the last decade, but remains largely untapped in the political arena.

Clinton tries to establish traction with male voters with her somewhat hawkish foreign policy ideas (no-fly zone in Syria, etc.), her aggressive-sounding-yet-forgettable campaign slogan ("Fighting for us"), and futile attempts at giving 'rousing' speeches that actually just come off as robotic and fake because that's not the real her. Hillary Clinton should learn that she's at her best, and liked the best, when she talks authentically, which is in a more intimate, conversational tone. I don't think she's going to learn that lesson. When you put this together with just being a woman and a feminist, you can see the sources of her problems with male voters. In connection to 1980...well I think you can gather that Reagan won that election partially on the basis of appealing to, you know, rugged, manly toughness and sticking it to the hitherto ascendant women's movement as well, stalling its advance for a decade. Similar times in this area too is my point.

Clinton also enters this contest with some cultural disadvantages just for being a woman. For example, why do voters trust Clinton less than Trump when organizations like PolitiFact dedicated to gauging the factual accuracy of candidate's statements on the campaign trail give her their highest score for honesty of all 23 candidates who've run in this cycle and Trump their very lowest of all? Stereotypes about women being less honest than men carry over into the political arena as well. I don't know what can be done to overcome that problem.

ANYWAY...yes I know, a month ago I was making just the opposite election forecast based upon Mr. Trump's unprecedentedly poor favorability numbers and early surveys of voters in individual states. I still don't think that my conclusions were irrational at the time. In April, after all, Trump was an historically unprecedented 43 points underwater in terms of favorability, with just 24% of the voting population saying they liked him and 67% saying they disliked him, for example. Since that time, he has closed that 43 point gap to about 16 or 18 points. One major national poll even shows him enjoying a higher favorability rating than Hillary Clinton now (although it is so far an outlier in that particular sense). As of mid-April, talk about a brokered Republican convention was rampant (far more so than talk of a contested Democratic contention), and it went to the highest levels. I suspect few people would have predicted that such a dramatic reversal of direction in the campaign would have occurred in such a short period of time.

I guess what I'm trying to communicate to Democrats and progressives here is that if you're not worried about the outcome of this election, you should be. While Democrats may retain the loyalty of the genuinely poor, of the majority of women, and of people of color broadly, all a certain terrifying candidate has to do to surmount those issues is acquire around 70% of white voters instead of his party's usual 60%, and there's mounting evidence that that's entirely within the realm of possibility. Trump may be a career con artist, a dangerous pathological liar, and a xenophobic hack with no directly political past to examine and grade (hence why he gets away with everything), but that doesn't mean he can't win. At all. He's winning right now, in fact! Can this situation be changed? It's possible, but not likely. The bottom line is that the Democrats have to find ways of appealing to working class white men: a group they have, as a matter of fact, largely neglected for the last 40 years. Let me suggest the adoption of a protectionist trade policy above all, along with getting far more serious about the protection and advancement of labor unions in this country, perhaps with calls for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act for example.

One could also win a larger share of this group by abandoning feminism and social egalitarianism more broadly and adopting more anti-immigrant stances, but I don't think that's a healthy basis of appeal for obvious reasons both moral and practical (i.e. it's wrong and it would also destroy the party's existing coalition rather than expanding it). But appealing more stridently to economic populism (without blowing up the Democratic Party, fellow Bernie fans!) is key to winning at least a section of working class white men back over. Otherwise, it appears to me that what happened in the Republican nominating contest will be replicated in the general election contest. And that will not be good. Or okay.

I'm trying not to sound alarmist here, but...from where I'm sitting, we are in a long, dark political tunnel with no light on the other side. Let's do something about that before it's too late, shall we? There isn't an awful lot of time left, you know?

(I'm now going to cheat and name a bunch of people I'd actually like to get the thoughts of on this topic rather than just the usual lynch mob that follows me around from thread to thread: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308) @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) )

[Peter1469]

Reagan was not a neocon. He never occupied any nation and forced democracy on them. He was a foreign policy realist.

[PolWatch]

Trump has succeeded in fanning anger in a lot of people. He has thrown out enough targets (women/immigrants/Obama) to attract every angry person in the nation. If we only look at the numbers of people voting in the primaries, he should win the general election. I have been looking up stats about primary voters and it appears that historically repubs turn out for primaries in greater numbers than dems. The numbers also don't support Trump's claim to be growing the GOP membership. I don't think we can make any predictions for the general election based on number of voters in the primaries. The general election turnout will depend on how long voters will be motivated by anger. In spite of some people believing most voters are idiots, I don't. I think most Americans take the right to vote very seriously. Eventually, they will want to hear serious plans for the problems facing the nation.

Now, to the subject of Trump & the female voter. Every report I have found shows Trump to be unattractive, if not downright repulsive, to the majority of female voters. This gender reaction crosses party lines. Even though Clinton scores low on likeability, she is less hated than Trump. Women may not turn out to vote for Clinton but they also won't turn out to vote for Trump. Trump seems to think her support of Bill Clinton, in spite of his past, turns women off. I don't think it does. He doesn't realize that some of the female voters have faced similar situations (including HIS ex-wives) and understand that marriages are not black/white situations. Every time he ridicules her actions in that situation, he is ridiculing every woman that has faced the same situation. Current stats show that to be appx 60% of the population.....the estimated number of marriages that have faced adultery by one partner or the other.

I started this election season thinking it would be a cake-walk for the GOP. Obama has some very vocal critics on both sides of the aisle. Repubs & dems are disappointed in his presidency, reflected in low approval ratings. Historically, the White Houses changes hands every 8 years. I also believed Clinton was the throw-away candidate. Since the GOP was expected to win, she could be rewarded for years of party loyalty. The dems would bide their time and be grooming new candidates for 2020. What happened? The GOP has taken the NRA to heart and carefully, accurately, shot their own feet at every opportunity. Voters are faced with a party that can't even bring their own party together but want to say they can bring the nation together? The dems are facing similar with the Sanders/Clinton situation but it has not caused the huge rift that the repubs are facing. I believe Sanders will eventually unite his supporters with the Clinton camp.....while some high profile repubs are still unable to support Trump.

I don't think Trump will win....but this year is a crap shoot, so who knows?

PS: The repub party rules say that the delegates are not required to vote for the candidate that won the primary. They can vote their own conscience. The only time this was different was when Reagan was trying to win the candidacy against Ford. The GOP changed the rules but that change has since expired.

[OGIS]

I have a couple of minor, unimportant disagreements, but, overall, a very good analysis.

>>>"...rather than just the usual lynch mob that follows me around from thread to thread..."

Are you referring to our conservative friends?

[Peter1469]

Women hate Hillary too.

What are they going to do? Sit home and not vote?

[hanger4]

I have a couple of minor, unimportant disagreements, but, overall, a very good analysis.

>>>"...rather than just the usual lynch mob that follows me around from thread to thread..."

Are you referring to our conservative friends?

It's full of false equivalencies. Pointing them out makes you part of a lynch mob.

[IMPress Polly]

hanger4 wrote:
It's full of false equivalencies. Pointing them out makes you part of a lynch mob.

I wasn't referring to you or to disagreement in the abstract. :rollseyes:

[The Xl]

Trump is going to probably win, and for many of the reasons you stated. I have an issue with your assertion that Hillary is perceived as unlikable and dishonest because she's a female, she's perceived as unlikable because she's fake, she's the face of the establishment, she's completely disingenuous and insincere, and she doesn't have the charisma that other politicians who lie and get away with it have. I'm also skeptical as politifact as a source.

People know that she represents the big bankers, the military industrial complex, etc. She's going to be the 5th term of Bush Obama. People are waking up to it, it's why you see people perceived as outsiders like Sanders and Trump doing historically well. It's why you see people reject the Clintons and Cruz's. It's why establishment cronies like Jeb Bush couldn't even get out of the starting block.

[IMPress Polly]

The Xl wrote:
Trump is going to probably win, and for many of the reasons you stated. I have an issue with your assertion that Hillary is perceived as unlikable and dishonest because she's a female, she's perceived as unlikable because she's fake, she's the face of the establishment, she's completely disingenuous and insincere, and she doesn't have the charisma that other politicians who lie and get away with it have. I'm also skeptical as politifact as a source.

At least I have a source rather than just my personal opinions. :wink:


People know that she represents the big bankers, the military industrial complex, etc. She's going to be the 5th term of Bush Obama. People are waking up to it, it's why you see people perceived as outsiders like Sanders and Trump doing historically well. It's why you see people reject the Clintons and Cruz's. It's why establishment cronies like Jeb Bush couldn't even get out of the starting block.

I could say something about Mr. Trump's financial advisors being a bunch of hedge fund managers, about the Super PACs he too is now connecting himself to and who's funding them, about the fact that there's little doubt he'll raise more money from corporate America than Clinton, about the fact that the latest ABC/Washington Post survey finds Clinton to be trusted more with the plight of working class people than Trump by a 10 point margin, about the fact that the same poll also finds Trump to be more sympathetic to the corporate elite by a 10 point margin as well, about the fact that he himself is part of financial aristocracy doing the buying of politicians, about the fact that he probably doesn't pay any taxes, about the fact that he has, in the course of this campaign, proposed on multiple occasions to actively lower wages for working people, and much, much more, but I suspect that you might not be listening. My point though is that not all poor and working class people are specifically white men and that the aggregate opinion of Trump is that he's more of an economic elitist than his likely Democratic rival, precisely because it's the truth.

The real question here in my mind is whether a 10 point gap in these key categories is large enough for Clinton to pull off a victory because that's a substantially smaller gap on class issues than existed between Obama and Romney in 2012, for example. I suspect it's too small a gap to be decisive and that's a big part of what worries me. The Democrats need to do more to distinguish themselves in this area. Bernie Sanders has shown a way you can do that: by not aligning with a Super PAC and instead fielding a genuinely populist, anti-corporate agenda, not just more communitarian middle-of-the-roadism that's contented to largely ignore the realities of class grievances and class struggle.


OGIS wrote:
I have a couple of minor, unimportant disagreements, but, overall, a very good analysis.

>>>"...rather than just the usual lynch mob that follows me around from thread to thread..."

Are you referring to our conservative friends?

I'm referring to a subset of them. Naming names may not be productive though.

[Chris]

One, Trump can't be defeated with feminist rhetoric, and that seems to be the crux of your argument.

Two, you can win arguments by simply poisoning the well of discussion.

[AZ Jim]

Well, thank you Polly for taking the time to so eloquently stating your beliefs. As you know I am getting on in years so I worry when confronted by a lengthy post with the prospect of passing on before being able to finishing it. I did make it through with your post. Polly, this election has me scratching my mostly bald head. I have been voting since Eisenhower, seen many crazy events in the subsequent elections, but I have never seen an election where there are so many potential voters wholly motivated by sheer hatred as is the case now. Those who share reasons for selecting their targets for either their vote or hatred seem to be mostly doing so due based upon the internet images of the candidate or subject of hate. Most take the words of some blog and assume them to be true.
Yesterday we were able to view a post by what appears to be a mentally disturbed person who was so full of rage he could barely type. He threw every charge into his sea of wrath he could. Obviously misinformed, he rambled on. These people will go vote on America's future in November. When Trump announced his candidacy I felt the election was over and that we were going to elect Clinton. I saw, and still see Trump as a joke with no chance at all. How wrong was I? 180 degrees wrong. (not about his being a joke however).
I can only accurately state my reasons for how I vote, not others. Anger and frustration seems to have (pardon this) "trumped" logic and even the survival instinct in this "lynch crowd". How many other times have we faced a general election where so many used the word hate in connection with a candidate.
I wish I could do a better job articulating my thoughts on this and I appreciate you asking me to do so but I fear I fail beyond this humble opinion. PS remove the mass media contained in the internet and we would have an entirely different ballgame.

[AeonPax]

`
`
Thanks for the mention Polly. You are a very convincing writer, however, I am unswayed by it. I'll give at least three reasons.
`


1) This election is no longer about just two or three people it's also about the duopoly that is called by some, the Republicrat party. There are two sides to that coin. The for-profit Democrats and Republicans whom have been for decades, putting their own self-interest before the citizens. Party before country. No more.

2) The Democrats have sold out the liberals and progressives for profit, an example; Top Democrats Ally With Oil and Gas Industry to Fight Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures (https://theintercept.com/2016/05/21/top-democrats-ally-with-oil-and-gas-industry-to-fight-colorado-anti-fracking-ballot-measures/) Hillarys' connections with the banks and wall street are self-obvious.

3) The two supposed main candidates in this election cycle, can be compared to two equally, as bacteria ridden, piles of shit. I'm not voting for shit.



`
PS - I was born in 82.

[AZ Jim]

`
`
Thanks for the mention Polly. You are a very convincing writer, however, I am unswayed by it. I'll give at least three reasons.
`


1) This election is no longer about just two or three people it's also about the duopoly that is called by some, the Republicrat party. There are two sides to that coin. The for-profit Democrats and Republicans whom have been for decades, putting their own self-interest before the citizens. Party before country. No more.

2) The Democrats have sold out the liberals and progressives for profit, an example; Top Democrats Ally With Oil and Gas Industry to Fight Colorado Anti-Fracking Ballot Measures (https://theintercept.com/2016/05/21/top-democrats-ally-with-oil-and-gas-industry-to-fight-colorado-anti-fracking-ballot-measures/) Hillarys' connections with the banks and wall street are self-obvious.

3) The two supposed main candidates in this election cycle, can be compared to two equally, as bacteria ridden, piles of shit. I'm not voting for shit.



`
PS - I was born in 82.Sometimes the "lesser of evils" is better than letting others choose YOUR future.

[Common]

Polly made a great comparison between 1980 election and todays. The difference was Reagan was a politician and had the backing of the party and didnt have the negatives trump have.

America is in as much disarray politicially as it was in the 60s. Both parties have gone to the extreme. Obamas democrats have gone far far progressive left and The teaparty far right has gone to far for the rich and religious.

The fight this election is for middle class worker. Who turns their stomach the least will be the winner.

I personally believe Trump will lose, he will lose because of his lack of structure as far as ground game and support within states. The gop not fully supporting him because they are afraid they will lose their good thing with trump. He mouth will help him lose and his reputation.

Then theres the media in total out to behead him, too many barriers to overcome as I see it. The left has already perpetrated their phony magic, that anyone who is for trump is a straight white racist, a religious fanatice who wears white hoods in their spare time and has a swastika tatooed on both cheeks of their ass. NONESENSE.

The bulk of trumps supporters are the WORKING CLASS lower middleclass workers who have lost jobs or hanging on by a thread. Mothers Fathers, parents that dont like what they see around them and the dregradation of morals. 76% of americans believe our Morals have degraded in this country. Police, firemen, teachers, Union workers. They are for trump because they have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.

There are some that are racists yes, theres a whole bunch of democrats that are racists.

Theres nothing republican about trump except for the R in front of his name. Hes is my only alternative to the far left and right that I cant stand

[AZ Jim]

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) I challenge your comment about the media being "out to behead" Trump. They have given him more "air time" than I could have imagined. If it were not for that exposure he would not have even won the nomination over his original competition. He couldn't make a move without copious coverage. It kept his name on the front page. His TV reality show helped a lot as well.

[Common]

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) I challenge your comment about the media being "out to behead" Trump. They have given him more "air time" than I could have imagined. If it were not for that exposure he would not have even won the nomination over his original competition. He couldn't make a move without copious coverage. It kept his name on the front page.

You being a liberal dont even notice how much oxygen hillary has. You cant find a good article on trump anywhere in the mainstream media. The mainstream media has been protecting hillary totally on benghazi and the emails. Just now some on the left are starting to realize what a fraud she is and mentioning it.

Jim you are quite old enough to know and you should be honest enough to admit the mainstream media has always been liberal and has mostly liberal anchors and hosts.

[Chris]

Sometimes the "lesser of evils" is better than letting others choose YOUR future.

So you're voting for Trump then. Had you figured for a Hillary follower.

[Common Sense]

Reagan was not a neocon. He never occupied any nation and forced democracy on them. He was a foreign policy realist.

Grenada? By proxy Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador?

[AZ Jim]

So you're voting for Trump then. Had you figured for a Hillary follower. Cute Chris....

[AZ Jim]

You being a liberal dont even notice how much oxygen hillary has. You cant find a good article on trump anywhere in the mainstream media. The mainstream media has been protecting hillary totally on benghazi and the emails. Just now some on the left are starting to realize what a fraud she is and mentioning it.

Jim you are quite old enough to know and you should be honest enough to admit the mainstream media has always been liberal and has mostly liberal anchors and hosts.I readily agree historically most media has been liberal (mostly print), but the publicity received by Trump (good and bad) made him a brand name and it made his competition within the Republicans take a off stage position. His publicity is how he got the nomination. His reality TV show also brought attention to him.

[Common Sense]

I hate to say it, but I'm making the call. Trump will be the next president.

You get the leaders you deserve I guess. Good luck with that.

[AZ Jim]

I hate to say it, but I'm making the call. Trump will be the next president.

You get the leaders you deserve I guess. Good luck with that.At this point I can only cast my ballot but I hope you are wrong.

[OGIS]

Cute Chris....

He is, that.

[IMPress Polly]

A word on false equivalencies:

Some of the more belligerent Sanders voters have a tendency to offer false equivalencies. You may not think there's a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Trump, but I think the working poor would notice a big difference between $12 an hour and a minimum wage lower than the current one, for example. I'll bet that tens of millions of them would likewise notice whether or not they still had health insurance. I think half the nation's Latino population would notice the difference between their family members remaining in this country with them and not. I'll bet Muslim Americans will notice whether they're still free to practice their religion or not. I'll likewise bet you'll notice whether there's an Environmental Protection Agency around to enforce prohibitions against smog in the air and toxic chemicals in the water. I'll bet you'd notice the difference between having paid family leave and not. And I'll sure the hell bet you'd notice the difference in the composition of the Supreme Court and what it will accordingly stand for for the next generation! I know that I, as a teacher, can easily tell the difference between Clinton's proposed education policy (which amounts to largely reversing the current, terrible one) and Trump's proposal to abolish the Department of Education (i.e. federal funding for public schools) and accelerate the privatization of the public school system.

False equivalencies suck. You know there's a choice. It may not be an inspiring as many of us would like, but don't be stupid. There will be more elections in which to fight for the heart of the Democratic Party.

[Chris]

I hate to say it, but I'm making the call. Trump will be the next president.

You get the leaders you deserve I guess. Good luck with that.


"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

[Chris]

Cute Chris....

:angel12:

[Common Sense]

At this point I can only cast my ballot but I hope you are wrong.

Oh, I hope I'm wrong as well.

[Green Arrow]

Let me start by saying, IMPress Polly, that as always, I appreciate the level of thought and care you put into your posts and your political decisions. It's something that is all too rare in American politics these days and I find it very refreshing. I also appreciate that you sought out my opinion on this.

Before I get into that, I just want to "set the record straight" on some things first. To start with, let me just point out that I would agree completely with your post...if I believed everything that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth. I do not. I don't believe for a second that 2016 Donald Trump is the real Donald Trump. It's not. The real Donald Trump is cold and calculating and an expert strategist at manipulating people and media sources to expand his own wealth. If the GOP rise of 2010 had never happened and all of the GOP's gains in local and state government and in Congress were instead the Democrats' gains, Donald Trump would still be a Democrat. That's right, I said still, because that's what Donald Trump was prior to 2010...a Democrat. Even as late as 2015, Trump was talking up how great of a president Barack Obama is and how wonderful of a person and a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was. Even today Trump's positions are surprisingly liberal for a candidate derided as a neo-fascist nationalist.

Here's the explanation. The establishment has two factions: economic establishment and political establishment. The economic establishment controls the political establishment. Donald Trump is economic establishment, Hillary Clinton is political establishment. Notice that the political establishment has pretty soundly trashed Donald Trump. Why, if the political establishment is controlled by the economic establishment? Because for over a century, the economic establishment has relied on the political establishment to enact and enforce their will over national events. The political establishment, in return for this servitude, receives a paycheck and positions of power. Donald Trump breaks that relationship, because if a member of the economic establishment can actually win high-profile national elections like the presidency, then they have no more reason to continue handing out massive checks to the political establishment.

Now, most of the people reading this (including probably yourself, Polly) are probably thinking, "Well, that's just kook conspiracy theory talk." I'd agree with you...except all of this is verifiable truth. Donald Trump openly boasted about buying politicians, including most of the Republican candidates that shared the stage with him, and none of them denied it, with a couple openly asking for more! He's even boasted of buying off Hillary Clinton herself, and she too never denied it. And why would she? It's the truth. There are pictures, REAL pictures, of the Trumps at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, yukking it up with Bill and Hillary. Plus, you also have Hillary's record of giving high-priced speeches on Wall Street, defending Wall Street in Congress, the State Department, and the Democratic primary, and helping outsourcing corporations outsource jobs in New York. And now, seeing Trump's success, fellow billionaire Mark Cuban has openly considered running for president in a future election cycle or even being Trump's or Clinton's VP (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/mark-cuban-open-being-trump-or-clinton-s-vp-n578241) this cycle.

With that, let me just say that considering these factors, I agree with you that Donald Trump is a threat to American democracy and will hasten our descent into oligarchy.

The problem is, so will Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not to the extreme of Donald Trump, but let's be honest, you can't boil down all of Hillary's unfavorables to her being a woman. Hillary's gender is not even remotely an issue for me, what is an issue for me with Hillary is all the stuff I mentioned before, but also her support of the Iraq War, her destruction of Libya and near-destruction of Syria (jury's still out on whether that will also turn into the unmitigated disaster of Libya), her torching of relations with Russia, and other foreign policy failures. Beyond that, there are also personal failures that can't be ignored. I don't believe she killed Vince Foster, I don't believe she personally helped Bill rape women, I don't believe Benghazi was some evil plot of hers to kill Americans and injure our national security. However, in her own testimony on Benghazi, she admitted she went to bed while the Benghazi crisis was still ongoing and her private email server, while probably not a crime, still put our national security at risk and all in the name of her personal convenience. These are serious judgment issues that I cannot, in good conscience, put in the Oval Office, where bad judgment can cause even greater problems.

All of this is to say that I will not support Trump OR Clinton. I have no reason to. Both are fundamentally dishonest, corrupt opportunists that will sell America to the highest bidders. Furthermore, our electoral system makes our votes entirely meaningless anyway, unless we live in swing states. I could vote for Bob the Builder and Trump will still win Tennessee, and you could vote for Dora the Explora and Hillary will still win Vermont. So, vote for whichever candidate doesn't turn your stomach and let the chips fall where they may.

[Chris]

But Hillary is in the top 0.1% and thus part of the economic establishment. She's also long been part of the political establishment. Trump too, he was considered as GHW Bush running mate, he's been pals with the Clinton long time, he will become the establishment. They're all part of the oligarchic establishment.

[Peter1469]

Reagan was an outsider. The GOP establishment hated him.


Polly made a great comparison between 1980 election and todays. The difference was Reagan was a politician and had the backing of the party and didnt have the negatives trump have.

America is in as much disarray politicially as it was in the 60s. Both parties have gone to the extreme. Obamas democrats have gone far far progressive left and The teaparty far right has gone to far for the rich and religious.

The fight this election is for middle class worker. Who turns their stomach the least will be the winner.

I personally believe Trump will lose, he will lose because of his lack of structure as far as ground game and support within states. The gop not fully supporting him because they are afraid they will lose their good thing with trump. He mouth will help him lose and his reputation.

Then theres the media in total out to behead him, too many barriers to overcome as I see it. The left has already perpetrated their phony magic, that anyone who is for trump is a straight white racist, a religious fanatice who wears white hoods in their spare time and has a swastika tatooed on both cheeks of their ass. NONESENSE.

The bulk of trumps supporters are the WORKING CLASS lower middleclass workers who have lost jobs or hanging on by a thread. Mothers Fathers, parents that dont like what they see around them and the dregradation of morals. 76% of americans believe our Morals have degraded in this country. Police, firemen, teachers, Union workers. They are for trump because they have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.

There are some that are racists yes, theres a whole bunch of democrats that are racists.

Theres nothing republican about trump except for the R in front of his name. Hes is my only alternative to the far left and right that I cant stand

[Peter1469]

Grenada? By proxy Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador?

Zero occupations in that list.

Sleep through school?

[Peter1469]

$15 min wage is on the table, not $12. And the difference between $15 and what we have today is robotics.


A word on false equivalencies:

Some of the more belligerent Sanders voters have a tendency to offer false equivalencies. You may not think there's a dime's worth of difference between Clinton and Trump, but I think the working poor would notice a big difference between $12 an hour and a minimum wage lower than the current one, for example. I'll bet that tens of millions of them would likewise notice whether or not they still had health insurance. I think half the nation's Latino population would notice the difference between their family members remaining in this country with them and not. I'll bet Muslim Americans will notice whether they're still free to practice their religion or not. I'll likewise bet you'll notice whether there's an Environmental Protection Agency around to enforce prohibitions against smog in the air and toxic chemicals in the water. I'll bet you'd notice the difference between having paid family leave and not. And I'll sure the hell bet you'd notice the difference in the composition of the Supreme Court and what it will accordingly stand for for the next generation! I know that I, as a teacher, can easily tell the difference between Clinton's proposed education policy (which amounts to largely reversing the current, terrible one) and Trump's proposal to abolish the Department of Education (i.e. federal funding for public schools) and accelerate the privatization of the public school system.

False equivalencies suck. You know there's a choice. It may not be an inspiring as many of us would like, but don't be stupid. There will be more elections in which to fight for the heart of the Democratic Party.

[Green Arrow]

But Hillary is in the top 0.1% and thus part of the economic establishment.

No. The economic establishment is about more than wealth. It's specifically non-politicians that actively buy politicians.


They're all part of the oligarchic establishment.

That's what I said.

[The Xl]

Voting for Hillary Clinton is keeping the current status quo forward. Trump may wind up sucking and all that, but he's clearly turned the system on it's head. Based on that and the potential fallout from it, he's the better candidate by a mile, especially considering his opponents record and her backers.

[Green Arrow]

Voting for Hillary Clinton is keeping the current status quo forward. Trump may wind up sucking and all that, but he's clearly turned the system on it's head. Based on that and the potential fallout from it, he's the better candidate by a mile, especially considering his opponents record and her backers.

He's only turned the system on its head because if he wins, it will set a dangerous precedent that the bankers and their ilk can run for office themselves, directly, instead of acting through politicians.

[TrueBlue]

Women hate Hillary too.

What are they going to do? Sit home and not vote?
Well if that's so, then women need to start affixing a large fluffy pillow on their rear right where they sit down because they're sure going to need it should Trump get into office! Women, you'll be feeling that Hard KICK right on that spot before you know it and he'll think nothing of it. Get ready gals if you don't plan on supporting Hillary Clinton who can actually help you because she understands you and has been there too.

[birddog]

He's only turned the system on its head because if he wins, it will set a dangerous precedent that the bankers and their ilk can run for office themselves, directly, instead of acting through politicians.


I hope your tongue is firmly implanted in your cheek, or my only response would be :smiley_ROFLMAO::smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Peter1469]

Well if that's so, then women need to start affixing a large fluffy pillow on their rear right where they sit down because they're sure going to need it should Trump get into office! Women, you'll be feeling that Hard KICK right on that spot before you know it and he'll think nothing of it. Get ready gals if you don't plan on supporting Hillary Clinton who can actually help you because she understands you and has been there too.

:wink:

[Common Sense]

Zero occupations in that list.

Sleep through school?

The US occupied Grenada until it handed over. The others were proxies.

The point is that Reagan was very much an interventionist.

[Peter1469]

The US occupied Grenada until it handed over. The others were proxies.

The point is that Reagan was very much an interventionist.

We didn't occupy the place in the classic meaning of the term and in the meaning of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether Reagan was an "interventionist" or not is not relevant to the discussion about whether he was a neocon on not. He was most certainly not a neocon.

Realists intervene fast and hard when vital national interests are at state.

[Common Sense]

We didn't occupy the place in the classic meaning of the term and in the meaning of the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether Reagan was an "interventionist" or not is not relevant to the discussion about whether he was a neocon on not. He was most certainly not a neocon.

Realists intervene fast and hard when vital national interests are at state.

...and then fund wars with Cocaine and the profits from selling Iran missiles. Realist.

[Peter1469]

...and then fund wars with Cocaine and the profits from selling Iran missiles. Realist.

That is not an accurate description. Reagan was fighting communism and didn't want it in Latin America.

[The Xl]

He's only turned the system on its head because if he wins, it will set a dangerous precedent that the bankers and their ilk can run for office themselves, directly, instead of acting through politicians.

Nothing suggests that. Bankers don't have the charisma and intangibles to do it, that's why they use proxies. They hate him anyway. Even if he's bad, he's rouge. That's a plus in this sad state of the country.

[TrueBlue]

@IMPress Polly you ask for my opinion and I'm glad to offer it to you and all others.

These are times when Americans are hearing what they want to hear because they think it is a balm to their ears what Trump is saying. But it is not. It is easy to want to believe what the presumptive Republican nominee wants for you to hear but it is quite another thing to truly embrace his message deep in your heart and believe that it rings 100% true for you.

Trump may have some men convinced that he is the picture of perfection plus and that Hillary is, after all, just a woman facing (unfounded) accusations as she has with Benghazi that yielded no pleasurable results to Republicans that they were gleefully hoping for. But those who see him as the miraculous panacea have it wrong. He is a well-trained Hollywood celebrity with great experience in how to sound believable much as an actor has been trained to do in order to sound convincing. A good actor might even be able to sell you a bridge if you truly want to believe his message and he presents it to you with great force and passion. But is that what you really want? Someone with a faux message to the country that he is going to do this and to do that, much like Sanders is saying he would do. The fact of the matter is that neither would be able to accomplish or achieve much with a Republican majority in Congress or otherwise. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has worked quite well with Republicans and has a measured approach to her proposals. She is not promising the world to Americans knowing that she would not be able to give it to them. She is using her great political experience and savvy to calibrate what she is offering every step of the way.

Trump, by comparison, is all about Dividing. Clinton is about Uniting! We do not need a man who has already greatly insulted the very people whom we need in order to continue to prosper in America. People like Women, Mexicans, Muslims and others. We need one who truly understands the plight of minorities as well as the Middle Class, the Poor, the Elderly such as Senior Citizens, Veterans, Women and Children. That is why we need Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The grass may look greener on the other side when you are looking at Trump with rose-colored glasses but take them off and face reality. You can't take the chance at handing the White House keys to him for fear of what he would do should he receive that infamous 3:00 AM call to inform him that some foreign country had just shot some of our people. Trump would be liable to enter quickly into war with that country and possibly bring upon us World War III while Clinton would reassess the situation carefully and then try to work diplomatically with that country to analyze the situation and derive at a logical conclusion and approach as to what to do next. You can better believe that he would order tons of bombs as the only answer to a situation that while grave could nevertheless be approached with a much cooler head instead of from being hot under the collar about the incident. We do not need to make enemies of our friends in foreign countries. As the world's greatest nation, we need to unite with others not cause divisions that can be avoided through a more placated approach.

Compared to Republicans, Democrats have proven time and time and again that they are much better at handling the economy than are Republicans. We need to also examine which political party truly cares about Americans. Republicans say they are the ones but have they truly proven that to you? Be honest and ask yourself that question. Realizing that the vast majority of citizens of these United States are not rich by a long shot, having a Republican take the White House would unequivocally bring farther disaster to most families. When you are down and out of work and need to put food on the table for your family as well as for yourself while you are out looking for work, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle would be rather quick to blame you for your lack of work and push you down farther and father into the ground when you are already down rather than offer you a helping hand as the Democrats do. And if you don't believe that could ever happen to you, think again!

People who are retired such as Senior Citizens who have little to no income would suffer the most under a Republican president followed by Women, Children, Minorities, those who are ill and many other groups. Republicans would much rather see you suffer and not lend you a hand than to have to reach out with compassion and realize that hard times have fallen on you and give you a hand when you're down as is the humane thing to do. Democrats do not see you as being in the way as the other party does. They see you as viable human beings who go through hard times unless you are independently wealthy and they care about your well-being and would not leave you all alone during the time of your most need.

So while men may see Trump as their candidate, they have to see the overall picture if they are truly thinking straight and about their future and that of their family members. They need to envision a celebrity who is Mega-Wealthy, worth Billions of dollars who routinely boasts about how rich he is when speaking to people vs. one who speaks about the issues facing Americans that she is willing to confront and help ameliorate. That is Hillary Clinton and her agenda.

The choice is clear. One can contribute to their own demise by voting for Trump who has nothing but division to offer the country and its people or you can support a great lady who has been there just like you and who knows of your struggles and is more than willing to do something about it to lift you out of that situation and make you feel your own self-worth through better jobs, conditions, and practical pay.

You have the choice to confront a downward slope with Trump until you fall deep into an abyss, unless you are super wealthy. Or you can support a lady who has vast political experience and practicality when meeting situations of importance to the American people. It will ultimately affect you and your family which way you choose to go. One way gets you nothing but headaches and heartaches by going with Trump. But supporting Clinton assures that you will always have a place at the table and your concerns will be heard and acted upon in a logical manner and not with hate, rancor and division from one whose wealth makes him look down upon the people he should fairly represent.

To promise people the world like Trump and Sanders like to do may seem like music to many an ear. But words are cheap. What truly matters is whether they would be able to bring their agenda to fruition especially when facing a Republican Congress. I think not. Neither man would be able to carry out much of anything in the long run. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, has a great track record of working with Republicans in Congress and is well liked by many of them so much so that top people in the GOP have informed us that they would much prefer to vote for Hillary Clinton than for Trump. That is very telling and speaks volumes as to whom they consider to be best for America and its people! And the very fact that Hillary would engage her husband, the former president, to help out with the economy, something he is well-versed in doing and has done successfully would be a great asset to the Democratic Party! So indeed the choice is clear. Pick a man from the other political party who could produce nothing but question marks all over your head or a lady who could produce smiles and exclamation points as she goes on to prove to you that she can truly handle not only America's economy but also be able to deal with foreign matters in a very experienced and profound manner and with great diplomacy. Think about all of that as it behooves you greatly in deciding whether to support Billionaire Trump, if you're independently wealthy, or Hillary Clinton if you're not rich and are just like the rest of us.

Let's not raise the white flag over America for foreign countries to see with Trump. Let's keep "Old Glory" waving high and proud always with Hillary Clinton!

[TrueBlue]

:wink:
Darn right! :)

[hanger4]

@IMPress Polly you ask for my opinion and I'm glad to offer it to you and all others.

These are times when Americans are hearing what they want to hear because they think it is a balm to their ears what Trump is saying. But it is not. It is easy to want to believe what the presumptive Republican nominee wants for you to hear but it is quite another thing to truly embrace his message deep in your heart and believe that it rings 100% true for you.

Trump may have some men convinced that he is the picture of perfection plus and that Hillary is, after all, just a woman facing (unfounded) accusations as she has with Benghazi that yielded no pleasurable results to Republicans that they were gleefully hoping for. But those who see him as the miraculous panacea have it wrong. He is a well-trained Hollywood celebrity with great experience in how to sound believable much as an actor has been trained to do in order to sound convincing. A good actor might even be able to sell you a bridge if you truly want to believe his message and he presents it to you with great force and passion. But is that what you really want? Someone with a faux message to the country that he is going to do this and to do that, much like Sanders is saying he would do. The fact of the matter is that neither would be able to accomplish or achieve much with a Republican majority in Congress or otherwise. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has worked quite well with Republicans and has a measured approach to her proposals. She is not promising the world to Americans knowing that she would not be able to give it to them. She is using her great political experience and savvy to calibrate what she is offering every step of the way.

Trump, by comparison, is all about Dividing. Clinton is about Uniting! We do not need a man who has already greatly insulted the very people whom we need in order to continue to prosper in America. People like Women, Mexicans, Muslims and others. We need one who truly understands the plight of minorities as well as the Middle Class, the Poor, the Elderly such as Senior Citizens, Veterans, Women and Children. That is why we need Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The grass may look greener on the other side when you are looking at Trump with rose-colored glasses but take them off and face reality. You can't take the chance at handing the White House keys to him for fear of what he would do should he receive that infamous 3:00 AM call to inform him that some foreign country had just shot some of our people. Trump would be liable to enter quickly into war with that country and possibly bring upon us World War III while Clinton would reassess the situation carefully and then try to work diplomatically with that country to analyze the situation and derive at a logical conclusion and approach as to what to do next. You can better believe that he would order tons of bombs as the only answer to a situation that while grave could nevertheless be approached with a much cooler head instead of from being hot under the collar about the incident. We do not need to make enemies of our friends in foreign countries. As the world's greatest nation, we need to unite with others not cause divisions that can be avoided through a more placated approach.

Compared to Republicans, Democrats have proven time and time and again that they are much better at handling the economy than are Republicans. We need to also examine which political party truly cares about Americans. Republicans say they are the ones but have they truly proven that to you? Be honest and ask yourself that question. Realizing that the vast majority of citizens of these United States are not rich by a long shot, having a Republican take the White House would unequivocally bring farther disaster to most families. When you are down and out of work and need to put food on the table for your family as well as for yourself while you are out looking for work, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle would be rather quick to blame you for your lack of work and push you down farther and father into the ground when you are already down rather than offer you a helping hand as the Democrats do. And if you don't believe that could ever happen to you, think again!

People who are retired such as Senior Citizens who have little to no income would suffer the most under a Republican president followed by Women, Children, Minorities, those who are ill and many other groups. Republicans would much rather see you suffer and not lend you a hand than to have to reach out with compassion and realize that hard times have fallen on you and give you a hand when you're down as is the humane thing to do. Democrats do not see you as being in the way as the other party does. They see you as viable human beings who go through hard times unless you are independently wealthy and they care about your well-being and would not leave you all alone during the time of your most need.

So while men may see Trump as their candidate, they have to see the overall picture if they are truly thinking straight and about their future and that of their family members. They need to envision a celebrity who is Mega-Wealthy, worth Billions of dollars who routinely boasts about how rich he is when speaking to people vs. one who speaks about the issues facing Americans that she is willing to confront and help ameliorate. That is Hillary Clinton and her agenda.

The choice is clear. One can contribute to their own demise by voting for Trump who has nothing but division to offer the country and its people or you can support a great lady who has been there just like you and who knows of your struggles and is more than willing to do something about it to lift you out of that situation and make you feel your own self-worth through better jobs, conditions, and practical pay.

You have the choice to confront a downward slope with Trump until you fall deep into an abyss, unless you are super wealthy. Or you can support a lady who has vast political experience and practicality when meeting situations of importance to the American people. It will ultimately affect you and your family which way you choose to go. One way gets you nothing but headaches and heartaches by going with Trump. But supporting Clinton assures that you will always have a place at the table and your concerns will be heard and acted upon in a logical manner and not with hate, rancor and division from one whose wealth makes him look down upon the people he should fairly represent.

To promise people the world like Trump and Sanders like to do may seem like music to many an ear. But words are cheap. What truly matters is whether they would be able to bring their agenda to fruition especially when facing a Republican Congress. I think not. Neither man would be able to carry out much of anything in the long run. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, has a great track record of working with Republicans in Congress and is well liked by many of them so much so that top people in the GOP have informed us that they would much prefer to vote for Hillary Clinton than for Trump. That is very telling and speaks volumes as to whom they consider to be best for America and its people! And the very fact that Hillary would engage her husband, the former president, to help out with the economy, something he is well-versed in doing and has done successfully would be a great asset to the Democratic Party! So indeed the choice is clear. Pick a man from the other political party who could produce nothing but question marks all over your head or a lady who could produce smiles and exclamation points as she goes on to prove to you that she can truly handle not only America's economy but also be able to deal with foreign matters in a very experienced and profound manner and with great diplomacy. Think about all of that as it behooves you greatly in deciding whether to support Billionaire Trump, if you're independently wealthy, or Hillary Clinton if you're not rich and are just like the rest of us.

Let's not raise the white flag over America for foreign countries to see with Trump. Let's keep "Old Glory" waving high and proud always with Hillary Clinton!

"Hillary is, after all, just a woman facing (unfounded) accusations"

Ignoring the IG investigative report (security review) does not allow you plausible deniability TrueBlue

[Tahuyaman]

@Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659) I challenge your comment about the media being "out to behead" Trump. They have given him more "air time" than I could have imagined. If it were not for that exposure he would not have even won the nomination over his original competition. He couldn't make a move without copious coverage. It kept his name on the front page. His TV reality show helped a lot as well.

They have given him more air time. They are trying to destroy him and he's beating them like a drum. It's embarrassing.

[Mac-7]

@IMPress Polly you ask for my opinion and I'm glad to offer it to you and all others.

These are times when Americans are hearing what they want to hear because they think it is a balm to their ears what Trump is saying. But it is not. It is easy to want to believe what the presumptive Republican nominee wants for you to hear but it is quite another thing to truly embrace his message deep in your heart and believe that it rings 100% true for you.

Trump may have some men convinced that he is the picture of perfection plus and that Hillary is, after all, just a woman facing (unfounded) accusations as she has with Benghazi that yielded no pleasurable results to Republicans that they were gleefully hoping for. But those who see him as the miraculous panacea have it wrong. He is a well-trained Hollywood celebrity with great experience in how to sound believable much as an actor has been trained to do in order to sound convincing. A good actor might even be able to sell you a bridge if you truly want to believe his message and he presents it to you with great force and passion. But is that what you really want? Someone with a faux message to the country that he is going to do this and to do that, much like Sanders is saying he would do. The fact of the matter is that neither would be able to accomplish or achieve much with a Republican majority in Congress or otherwise. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has worked quite well with Republicans and has a measured approach to her proposals. She is not promising the world to Americans knowing that she would not be able to give it to them. She is using her great political experience and savvy to calibrate what she is offering every step of the way.

Trump, by comparison, is all about Dividing. Clinton is about Uniting! We do not need a man who has already greatly insulted the very people whom we need in order to continue to prosper in America. People like Women, Mexicans, Muslims and others. We need one who truly understands the plight of minorities as well as the Middle Class, the Poor, the Elderly such as Senior Citizens, Veterans, Women and Children. That is why we need Hillary Clinton in the White House.

The grass may look greener on the other side when you are looking at Trump with rose-colored glasses but take them off and face reality. You can't take the chance at handing the White House keys to him for fear of what he would do should he receive that infamous 3:00 AM call to inform him that some foreign country had just shot some of our people. Trump would be liable to enter quickly into war with that country and possibly bring upon us World War III while Clinton would reassess the situation carefully and then try to work diplomatically with that country to analyze the situation and derive at a logical conclusion and approach as to what to do next. You can better believe that he would order tons of bombs as the only answer to a situation that while grave could nevertheless be approached with a much cooler head instead of from being hot under the collar about the incident. We do not need to make enemies of our friends in foreign countries. As the world's greatest nation, we need to unite with others not cause divisions that can be avoided through a more placated approach.

Compared to Republicans, Democrats have proven time and time and again that they are much better at handling the economy than are Republicans. We need to also examine which political party truly cares about Americans. Republicans say they are the ones but have they truly proven that to you? Be honest and ask yourself that question. Realizing that the vast majority of citizens of these United States are not rich by a long shot, having a Republican take the White House would unequivocally bring farther disaster to most families. When you are down and out of work and need to put food on the table for your family as well as for yourself while you are out looking for work, our friends on the opposite side of the aisle would be rather quick to blame you for your lack of work and push you down farther and father into the ground when you are already down rather than offer you a helping hand as the Democrats do. And if you don't believe that could ever happen to you, think again!

People who are retired such as Senior Citizens who have little to no income would suffer the most under a Republican president followed by Women, Children, Minorities, those who are ill and many other groups. Republicans would much rather see you suffer and not lend you a hand than to have to reach out with compassion and realize that hard times have fallen on you and give you a hand when you're down as is the humane thing to do. Democrats do not see you as being in the way as the other party does. They see you as viable human beings who go through hard times unless you are independently wealthy and they care about your well-being and would not leave you all alone during the time of your most need.

So while men may see Trump as their candidate, they have to see the overall picture if they are truly thinking straight and about their future and that of their family members. They need to envision a celebrity who is Mega-Wealthy, worth Billions of dollars who routinely boasts about how rich he is when speaking to people vs. one who speaks about the issues facing Americans that she is willing to confront and help ameliorate. That is Hillary Clinton and her agenda.

The choice is clear. One can contribute to their own demise by voting for Trump who has nothing but division to offer the country and its people or you can support a great lady who has been there just like you and who knows of your struggles and is more than willing to do something about it to lift you out of that situation and make you feel your own self-worth through better jobs, conditions, and practical pay.

You have the choice to confront a downward slope with Trump until you fall deep into an abyss, unless you are super wealthy. Or you can support a lady who has vast political experience and practicality when meeting situations of importance to the American people. It will ultimately affect you and your family which way you choose to go. One way gets you nothing but headaches and heartaches by going with Trump. But supporting Clinton assures that you will always have a place at the table and your concerns will be heard and acted upon in a logical manner and not with hate, rancor and division from one whose wealth makes him look down upon the people he should fairly represent.

To promise people the world like Trump and Sanders like to do may seem like music to many an ear. But words are cheap. What truly matters is whether they would be able to bring their agenda to fruition especially when facing a Republican Congress. I think not. Neither man would be able to carry out much of anything in the long run. Hillary Clinton, by comparison, has a great track record of working with Republicans in Congress and is well liked by many of them so much so that top people in the GOP have informed us that they would much prefer to vote for Hillary Clinton than for Trump. That is very telling and speaks volumes as to whom they consider to be best for America and its people! And the very fact that Hillary would engage her husband, the former president, to help out with the economy, something he is well-versed in doing and has done successfully would be a great asset to the Democratic Party! So indeed the choice is clear. Pick a man from the other political party who could produce nothing but question marks all over your head or a lady who could produce smiles and exclamation points as she goes on to prove to you that she can truly handle not only America's economy but also be able to deal with foreign matters in a very experienced and profound manner and with great diplomacy. Think about all of that as it behooves you greatly in deciding whether to support Billionaire Trump, if you're independently wealthy, or Hillary Clinton if you're not rich and are just like the rest of us.

Let's not raise the white flag over America for foreign countries to see with Trump. Let's keep "Old Glory" waving high and proud always with Hillary Clinton!

I understand that I am not welcome on this thread but trueblue is.

so I'll make my remarks brief before you ban me.

your liberal friend rates Trump as "rehearsed" whereas she thinks Hillary is sincere.

in her mind anything trump tells us is a lie

Or, if he really means it he's a bigot or worse.

I think TrueBlue is a good example of the typical hillary supporter who is delusional at best.

trump is not perfect and no one ever said he was.

but he managed to understand the key issues that most worry the most voters while hillary and jeb bush didnt.

Americans want a stop to illegal immigration and the outsourcing of jobs.

Its just that simple.

as others pointed out no one hates hillary because she is a woman but instead because her ideas and basic assumptions about the world are stupid.

[IMPress Polly]

PolWatch wrote:
In spite of some people believing most voters are idiots, I don't. I think most Americans take the right to vote very seriously. Eventually, they will want to hear serious plans for the problems facing the nation.

My view is that most voters are low-information voters, much like how most moviegoers are casual moviegoers, not cinephiles who go see new pictures every week like me, and like how most video gamers are casual gamers, not careful followers of the scene like me, and like how most athletes are not professionals, etc. It's just like anything else: most people are casual followers and casual participants, I think. Most people who get involved in politics only follow its proceedings carefully in the last two months or so leading up to an election and really don't know much beyond that. That's how it seems to me anyway. I do think that many of them will want to hear serious plans at that point.

That said, I also think we must recognize that this is, to an extraordinary degree, a year of hostility toward intellectualism. That's important because I observe that elections tend to go in favor of candidates who exemplify the core demand of the times in their persona. For example, after Watergate, people felt like American politics were dirty and corrupt and accordingly elected a relatively obscure pastor because he was seen as representing cleanliness and purity. Four years later, cleanliness and purity had led to a general perception of weakness, so the nation demanded a "stronger" president and elected a macho, macho man type who played the role of rough and tumble cowboys in the movies. And on down the line like this we could go. In 2008, for example, we elected a president we perceived as smart and measured because our sitting president at the time was broadly seen as having been too stupid and reckless.

Much of Hillary Clinton's problem is that she (mostly anyway) represents the continuation of that 'smart and measured' dynamic, but finds herself running in a year when intellectualism and measuredness has clearly become unpopular after eight years of economic malaise and perceived foreign policy weakness. Incrementalism generates little enthusiasm today. People want results. Because most have not seen positive results in their lives from the last eight years of policy formation, in the minds of Americans today broadly, intellectualism means calculating and manipulating. It means dishonesty, to which the cure is emotionalism because that ostensibly represents purity of heart. 'Authenticity' and 'passion' are the fashionable watchwords of today. Not using a teleprompter indicates righteous indignation at the plight of ordinary working people. This is the general thought pattern today among both the young and the old. You can gather to what outcome it leads.


Now, to the subject of Trump & the female voter. Every report I have found shows Trump to be unattractive, if not downright repulsive, to the majority of female voters. This gender reaction crosses party lines. Even though Clinton scores low on likeability, she is less hated than Trump. Women may not turn out to vote for Clinton but they also won't turn out to vote for Trump. Trump seems to think her support of Bill Clinton, in spite of his past, turns women off. I don't think it does. He doesn't realize that some of the female voters have faced similar situations (including HIS ex-wives) and understand that marriages are not black/white situations. Every time he ridicules her actions in that situation, he is ridiculing every woman that has faced the same situation. Current stats show that to be appx 60% of the population.....the estimated number of marriages that have faced adultery by one partner or the other.

I agree with all this, but there's also another gender issue not often discussed and which worries me: the fact that, in spite of the fact that a large majority of women are turned off by Trump and his attitude, nevertheless Trump enjoys more support among women than Clinton does among men.


Voters are faced with a party that can't even bring their own party together but want to say they can bring the nation together? The dems are facing similar with the Sanders/Clinton situation but it has not caused the huge rift that the repubs are facing. I believe Sanders will eventually unite his supporters with the Clinton camp.....while some high profile repubs are still unable to support Trump.

I wish I could agree with this assessment. Unfortunately though, when I look at the survey data that now says 84% of Republicans will be willing to vote for Trump in the fall and observe that the supposedly massive rebellion of Never Trumpers in Congress actually consists of just four members of the House of Representatives and two Senators, I can't help but feel that their might just be some ratings-driven exaggeration in the press accounts concerning the amount of division that actually exists in the Republican Party. Now by contrast, if we look at the Democratic side of the race, that appears to be headed all the way to the convention floor; something that hasn't happened since 1980 (and we all know how well that worked out in the end). I'll add that I never saw physical violence break out between supporters of Trump and those of Cruz. But we're seeing the Democratic nominating contest getting reduced to outbursts of physical violence now. This does not give me great hope for party unity in the fall.

Bottom line: I think there's every rational reason for every progressive-minded person to be terrified!


Green Arrow wrote:
Let me start by saying, @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), that as always, I appreciate the level of thought and care you put into your posts and your political decisions. It's something that is all too rare in American politics these days and I find it very refreshing. I also appreciate that you sought out my opinion on this.

Flattery will get you everywhere! :grin:

Likewise I greatly appreciate the amount of effort you put into your reply!


The establishment has two factions: economic establishment and political establishment. The economic establishment controls the political establishment. Donald Trump is economic establishment, Hillary Clinton is political establishment. Notice that the political establishment has pretty soundly trashed Donald Trump. Why, if the political establishment is controlled by the economic establishment? Because for over a century, the economic establishment has relied on the political establishment to enact and enforce their will over national events. The political establishment, in return for this servitude, receives a paycheck and positions of power. Donald Trump breaks that relationship, because if a member of the economic establishment can actually win high-profile national elections like the presidency, then they have no more reason to continue handing out massive checks to the political establishment.

Now, most of the people reading this (including probably yourself, Polly) are probably thinking, "Well, that's just kook conspiracy theory talk." I'd agree with you...except all of this is verifiable truth. Donald Trump openly boasted about buying politicians, including most of the Republican candidates that shared the stage with him, and none of them denied it, with a couple openly asking for more! He's even boasted of buying off Hillary Clinton herself, and she too never denied it. And why would she? It's the truth. There are pictures, REAL pictures, of the Trumps at Chelsea Clinton's wedding, yukking it up with Bill and Hillary. Plus, you also have Hillary's record of giving high-priced speeches on Wall Street, defending Wall Street in Congress, the State Department, and the Democratic primary, and helping outsourcing corporations outsource jobs in New York. And now, seeing Trump's success, fellow billionaire Mark Cuban has openly considered running for president in a future election cycle or even being Trump's or Clinton's VP (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/mark-cuban-open-being-trump-or-clinton-s-vp-n578241) this cycle.

What are you talking about? As you may recall, I'm the one who originally advanced a theory very much resembling the one you describe here on this message board as far back as August, going as far as to include the video footage you're referencing. Remember? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/48813-The-First-Republican-Non-Debate-My-Thoughts) I believe you got this perspective from me in the first place is my point, so I don't know why you now believe I disagree with it in essence. :wink:

Now as to your particular variation on this theory, the whole "economic establishment vs. political establishment" perspective broadly resembles a Marxist outlook (take it from me), but, like Marxism itself, is a little on the simplistic and mechanical side. In reality, Washington has lots of Wall Street people and other capitalists seated in Congress, not just confined to the lobbying stuff. Washington isn't just a bunch of career politicians with no outside connections. There are also politicians who's careers are solely funded by capitalists, those who's careers are only partially funded by capitalists, and those who's careers are not funded by capitalists at all, and there are many different degrees within each of the broad categories. To sum up my own view, while you know good and well which of these categories I respect the most, ultimately, if a politician is more financially dependent on working people than they are on the capitalist class, they are not necessarily all bad, to my way of thinking anyway.


Even today Trump's positions are surprisingly liberal for a candidate derided as a neo-fascist nationalist.

Please tell me you're not as deluded as the next person I'll respond to just because you're an ex-Republican!

Look, Trump takes a small handful of "moderate" economic stances like calling for a new stimulus package while also advocating almost unbelievably huge tax cuts for the wealthy and one of the more extreme budget austerity regimes of any Republican who ran. He mixes this handful of "moderate" economic views, however, with social views that are so fanatical and extreme that they had previously been considered politically unpalatable at the presidential level in this country. He's actually broken new ground in terms of hostility toward immigrants in particular, as well as in the area of religious discrimination, open embrace of all forms of torture, and in many more areas. These are not moderate, liberal, or rational views.

In Europe, these sorts of views are, in fact, common among those political groupings like the French National Front, the British National Party, Golden Dawn of Greece, etc., who there are referred to as far right and quasi-fascist. All these sorts of groups embrace a combination of left wing economic views (well to the left of Trump's, i.e. anti-austerity and sometimes socialist) and extreme social conservativism, particularly in the area of hostility toward immigrants. That is the worldview of the modern fascist. Trump's version, by contrast, doesn't qualify as even economically left wing. And by the way, a lot of those aforementioned European ultra-nationalist parties I just mentioned are endorsing Trump's presidential bid. That's not a coincidence. It's called ideological alignment.

Just trying to educate you on what modern fascism actually looks like so you can recognize it when it's right in front of your face. And no it is not just me or the political left that calls him that. You may have noticed in the course of the campaign that even some of Trump's Republican opponents used that term to describe him. When you quote Mussolini on your Twitter feed and are supported by a bunch of quasi-fascist parties in Europe and by most of the American white supremacist movement and people of all political alignments seem to think you're a fascist, it might just be because there's some truth to the idea that you have some fascistic tendencies.

Trump is NOT a normal candidate and I'm very much against the legitimizing and normalizing of him. This should not be accepted as just the new normal or frankly partially justified and defended with false equivalencies.


The problem is, so will Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not to the extreme of Donald Trump, but let's be honest, you can't boil down all of Hillary's unfavorables to her being a woman.

Actually, considering that her husband's favorability rating is almost twice as high despite the fact that, nearest I can tell, they embrace pretty much the same set of politics and that Bill's ethical record isn't exactly cleaner, I think it most certainly can be.


Hillary's gender is not even remotely an issue for me, what is an issue for me with Hillary is all the stuff I mentioned before, but also her support of the Iraq War, her destruction of Libya and near-destruction of Syria (jury's still out on whether that will also turn into the unmitigated disaster of Libya), her torching of relations with Russia, and other foreign policy failures.

Since you've said that Jill Stein would be your back-up option if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the Democratic nomination, I believe you. Gender obviously wasn't decisive in terms of how I voted either. However, I don't believe the people who plan to vote for Trump as their back-up option when they claim gender isn't a motivating factor in their decision (as far as I'm concerned, you cannot support Trump without being a misogynist), and that group is several times larger than the group whose back-up option is Stein.

[IMPress Polly]

Green Arrow wrote:
Furthermore, our electoral system makes our votes entirely meaningless anyway, unless we live in swing states. I could vote for Bob the Builder and Trump will still win Tennessee, and you could vote for Dora the Explora and Hillary will still win Vermont. So, vote for whichever candidate doesn't turn your stomach and let the chips fall where they may.

It's for precisely this reason that I'm holding out the option of voting for Stein myself: because it's a protest vote that would register here in my state and because it might be safe to cast one. However, to be perfectly truthful, I do now worry about the possibility of this election becoming a blow-out in the worst possible sense, to which end...who knows at this date what will qualify as a swing state by November? I can't make my final decision until closer in. However, if I decide to cast a protest ballot for Stein, I will not press that upon others because I definitely understand voters in swing states wanting to cast Clinton votes, if only to prevent the worst possible candidate from attaining the White House.


Common wrote:
Then theres the media in total out to behead him, too many barriers to overcome as I see it. The left has already perpetrated their phony magic, that anyone who is for trump is a straight white racist, a religious fanatice who wears white hoods in their spare time and has a swastika tatooed on both cheeks of their ass. NONESENSE.

The bulk of trumps supporters are the WORKING CLASS lower middleclass workers who have lost jobs or hanging on by a thread. Mothers Fathers, parents that dont like what they see around them and the dregradation of morals. 76% of americans believe our Morals have degraded in this country. Police, firemen, teachers, Union workers. They are for trump because they have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO.

There are some that are racists yes, theres a whole bunch of democrats that are racists.

Theres nothing republican about trump except for the R in front of his name. Hes is my only alternative to the far left and right that I cant stand

You've tried to sell me recently on the idea that you're a political moderate. I don't think you realize just how much of a rightist you actually are. Here you're describing Trump as a moderate and Clinton a radical leftist. Likewise I've seen you describe Politico as being in the bag for the left. (For anyone who doesn't know, Politico is the political world's equivalent of the National Enquirer.) As someone who actually is a radical leftist, I'm here to tell you that these are deluded beliefs. You're so far to the right that ordinary centrists seem like socialist revolutionaries to you.

Just trying to make you aware of the far right bubble that you're living in.


TrueBlue wrote:
A good actor might even be able to sell you a bridge if you truly want to believe his message and he presents it to you with great force and passion. But is that what you really want? Someone with a faux message to the country that he is going to do this and to do that, much like Sanders is saying he would do. The fact of the matter is that neither [Trump or Sanders] would be able to accomplish or achieve much with a Republican majority in Congress or otherwise. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has worked quite well with Republicans and has a measured approach to her proposals. She is not promising the world to Americans knowing that she would not be able to give it to them.


Peter wrote:
$15 min wage is on the table, not $12. And the difference between $15 and what we have today is robotics.

Peter: Actually, $12 vs. $15 has been a real subject of debate between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders supports the full $15 an hour minimum wage, while Clinton has said that she'd only back a $15 an hour minimum wage if she had a Democratic Congress to work with and that otherwise she would call for a $12 an hour minimum wage. Either would be the highest minimum wage we've ever had in this country's history even after you adjust for inflation, but only $15 an hour qualifies as a LIVING wage, i.e. corresponds to an above-poverty level of income for all full-time workers. I trust you can figure out which side of that argument I'm on.

TrueBlue: I can't speak for Trump on this because he really is a pathological liar as far as I can tell. But concerning the idea that Sanders is too and/or that he'd be a less effective negotiator than Clinton would in the White House, let me disagree strongly with that.

Clinton stakes out positions like this on the grounds that they're "realistic". That just goes to show how little they know about effective negotiating. You can't open a bid with your final offer and rationally expect to get it! Instead, if you want to get as much as you can, you open without offering concessions because, when you're bartering, you're inevitably going to be negotiated downward. Taking this minimum wage debate we're discussing for example, if you start out demanding $15 an hour then by the time the dust has cleared you might be down to $12 an hour, but if your opening bid was $12 an hour, you might wind up settling for $9 or $10 or $11 instead at the end of the day because the perception of what constitutes a moderate and reasonable compromise is different when your first demand is a weaker one. You might call this the art of the deal. :wink: Seriously though, I wish more Democrats did understand how to aggressively negotiate, considering that the Republicans seem to understand it quite well.


Tahuyaman wrote:
They have given him more air time. They are trying to destroy him and he's beating them like a drum. It's embarrassing.

Pffffffhahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!

You act as if Mr. Trump doesn't actively strive to be the headline news of every single day! You can't blame him: he's a media person himself. He knows how to manipulate it to his advantage and that strategy has worked out pretty well for him so far. The Democratic candidates would die for a comparable amount of air time.

[Peter1469]

Peter: Actually, $12 vs. $15 has been a real subject of debate between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders supports the full $15 an hour minimum wage, while Clinton has said that she'd only back a $15 an hour minimum wage if she had a Democratic Congress to work with and that otherwise she would call for a $12 an hour minimum wage. Either would be the highest minimum wage we've ever had in this country's history even after you adjust for inflation, but only $15 an hour qualifies as a LIVING wage, i.e. corresponds to an above-poverty level of income for all full-time workers. I trust you can figure out which side of that argument I'm on.






I am not against a minimum wage. I am against a high federal one-size fits all minimum wage. $15 an hour is not a "living wage" here in DC. But in much of the country it is too high and will hurt the unskilled.

[Tahuyaman]

Tahuyaman wrote:


They have given him more air time. They are trying to destroy him and he's beating





Pffffffhahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!

You act as if Mr. Trump doesn't actively strive to be the headline news of every single day! You can't blame him: he's a media person himself. He knows how to manipulate it to his advantage and that strategy has worked out pretty well for him so far. The Democratic candidates would die for a comparable amount of air time.


In their zeal to destroy him, he's leading them by the nose.

[Ethereal]

I appreciate the thoughtful tone of your posts. However, I disagree vehemently with some of the premises you've asserted.


Not that the current Republican frontrunner is per se another Ronald Reagan. On the contrary, where Reagan was the dictionary definition of and represented the political ascendancy of that grouping we know as neoconservatives...
This seems plausible on the surface, but I think if you delve into the Reagan Presidency and get past the superficial partisan narratives, you will see that Reagan was not particularly loved by neocons and that his foreign policy was actually quite reserved and reasonable (relatively speaking). There are even some theories that the neocons were responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan.

Granted, his rhetoric was often times mocking and even hostile towards the Soviet Union in public, but behind closed doors, I believe Reagan had a very good working relationship with his Soviet counterparts.

And, indeed, the Cold War largely came to an end during Reagan's Presidency.


Trump largely represents the defeat thereof in the Republican Party, at least at the presidential level. Trump represents what some call third positionism and what the Europeans call far right nationalism or quasi-fascism: an anti-globalization worldview that's experienced a revival this century and revolves around opposing immigration and foreign trade while advocating military brinkmanship, thus establishing an all-around hostile relationship toward the rest of the world community from every angle possible.
I couldn't disagree more with the latter part of this argument.

Certainly, Trump is brash and nationalistic in his foreign policy views, but the idea that he promotes "brinkmanship" or "hostile" relationships towards "the rest of the world community" is completely of base in my opinion.

This is especially true when his foreign policy ideology is viewed in a comparative sense to the extreme aggression, hostility, and arrogance that characterizes the foreign policy of someone like Hillary Clinton who has been substantially involved in virtually every single aggressive foreign policy initiative in the past fifteen years.

Hillary Clinton has taken part in the destruction of at least five countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Her crimes against humanity are beyond measure at this point. It's simply unbelievable to me that any self-avowed "leftist" could support one of the most imperialist candidates in American history.


His campaign chair, Manafort, likewise has recently offered that Trump is unlikely to choose a female running mate because "it would be viewed as pandering". The candidate quickly damage controlled that, but it was out there long enough for his supporters to get the message, and it seems to be one that helps him with men. (I'll try to resist remarking on Trump's allegations that Hillary Clinton is metaphysically responsible for her husband's affairs, but rest assured that they fit into this same mold quite well.)

This is somewhat tangential, but I don't think Trump and his supporters are trying to say Hillary is responsible for his husband's affairs.

In fact, I don't think anyone is particularly concerned with his affairs at all.

It's the allegations of rape and sexual assault that people take issue with.

And my personal opinion is that those allegations are credible and likely to be true.

I believe Bill Clinton is a sexual predator and that Hillary was materially involved in the cover-up of his crimes.

I will concede that this is only my personal opinion, but it's an opinion shared by many Americans, and I doubt that the Clinton machine can do much to change that.


Clinton tries to establish traction with male voters with her somewhat hawkish foreign policy ideas (no-fly zone in Syria, etc.)...

Somewhat hawkish!

Polly, really!


Clinton also enters this contest with some cultural disadvantages just for being a woman. For example, why do voters trust Clinton less than Trump when organizations like PolitiFact dedicated to gauging the factual accuracy of candidate's statements on the campaign trail give her their highest score for honesty of all 23 candidates who've run in this cycle and Trump their very lowest of all? Stereotypes about women being less honest than men carry over into the political arena as well. I don't know what can be done to overcome that problem.

Because PolitiFact is not the overriding determinant in most people's minds of how trustworthy a candidate is, nor should they be.

The simple fact of the matter is that many Americans have been observing Clinton for years and know on an intuitive level that she is incredibly dishonest and untrustworthy.

Trump, on the other hand, is relatively novel in terms of his political career, and his presentation comes off as genuine, even if his particular statements are often times wildly inconsistent or inaccurate.

So why does that matter to voters?

Because they can relate to it!

Most people I know in my personal life are not political and philosophical scholars or intellectuals.

Inconsistencies are baked into most people's worldview (this forum is a good example of that), so it's hard for them to dismiss someone purely on that basis.

So, yes, Trump is inconsistent and not terribly accurate. But neither are most people. What they do appreciate about him is his apparent willingness to openly speak his mind instead of vomiting forth prepackaged, pre-polled, PC soundbites.


ANYWAY...yes I know, a month ago I was making just the opposite election forecast based upon Mr. Trump's unprecedentedly poor favorability numbers and early surveys of voters in individual states. I still don't think that my conclusions were irrational at the time. In April, after all, Trump was an historically unprecedented 43 points underwater in terms of favorability, with just 24% of the voting population saying they liked him and 67% saying they disliked him, for example. Since that time, he has closed that 43 point gap to about 16 or 18 points. One major national poll even shows him enjoying a higher favorability rating than Hillary Clinton now (although it is so far an outlier in that particular sense). As of mid-April, talk about a brokered Republican convention was rampant (far more so than talk of a contested Democratic contention), and it went to the highest levels. I suspect few people would have predicted that such a dramatic reversal of direction in the campaign would have occurred in such a short period of time.

I guess what I'm trying to communicate to Democrats and progressives here is that if you're not worried about the outcome of this election, you should be. While Democrats may retain the loyalty of the genuinely poor, of the majority of women, and of people of color broadly, all a certain terrifying candidate has to do to surmount those issues is acquire around 70% of white voters instead of his party's usual 60%, and there's mounting evidence that that's entirely within the realm of possibility. Trump may be a career con artist, a dangerous pathological liar, and a xenophobic hack with no directly political past to examine and grade (hence why he gets away with everything), but that doesn't mean he can't win. At all. He's winning right now, in fact! Can this situation be changed? It's possible, but not likely. The bottom line is that the Democrats have to find ways of appealing to working class white men: a group they have, as a matter of fact, largely neglected for the last 40 years. Let me suggest the adoption of a protectionist trade policy above all, along with getting far more serious about the protection and advancement of labor unions in this country, perhaps with calls for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act for example.

One could also win a larger share of this group by abandoning feminism and social egalitarianism more broadly and adopting more anti-immigrant stances, but I don't think that's a healthy basis of appeal for obvious reasons both moral and practical (i.e. it's wrong and it would also destroy the party's existing coalition rather than expanding it). But appealing more stridently to economic populism (without blowing up the Democratic Party, fellow Bernie fans!) is key to winning at least a section of working class white men back over. Otherwise, it appears to me that what happened in the Republican nominating contest will be replicated in the general election contest. And that will not be good. Or okay.

I'm trying not to sound alarmist here, but...from where I'm sitting, we are in a long, dark political tunnel with no light on the other side. Let's do something about that before it's too late, shall we? There isn't an awful lot of time left, you know?

(I'm now going to cheat and name a bunch of people I'd actually like to get the thoughts of on this topic rather than just the usual lynch mob that follows me around from thread to thread: @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) @Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) @AeonPax (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1715) @TrueBlue (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1308) @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870) @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @The Xl (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=865) @AZ Jim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1901) )

Barring some catastrophe in the Trump campaign, this trend is unlikely to be reversed.

Hillary Clinton is reviled by too many Americans and there is almost nothing that can change that.

And it's not because she's a woman.

It's because she richly deserves to be reviled.

Trump, on the other hand, seems like a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stultified and corrupt political system.

I told my friend the other day that one of the reasons I "like" Trump is because he's making a mockery of the political system and the political process.

I like that because I've ALWAYS considered the political system and process to be a mockery, even since I was a young child.

Intuitively, I sensed they were almost all phonies, liars, and crooks.

Now Trump is making that more apparent.

And that is a good thing, even if you don't agree with his rhetoric.

[Ethereal]

Trump is going to probably win, and for many of the reasons you stated. I have an issue with your assertion that Hillary is perceived as unlikable and dishonest because she's a female, she's perceived as unlikable because she's fake, she's the face of the establishment, she's completely disingenuous and insincere, and she doesn't have the charisma that other politicians who lie and get away with it have. I'm also skeptical as politifact as a source.

People know that she represents the big bankers, the military industrial complex, etc. She's going to be the 5th term of Bush Obama. People are waking up to it, it's why you see people perceived as outsiders like Sanders and Trump doing historically well. It's why you see people reject the Clintons and Cruz's. It's why establishment cronies like Jeb Bush couldn't even get out of the starting block.

:thumbsup:

[OGIS]

....This seems plausible on the surface, but I think if you delve into the Reagan Presidency and get past the superficial partisan narratives, you will see that Reagan was not particularly loved by neocons and that his foreign policy was actually quite reserved and reasonable (relatively speaking). There are even some theories that the neocons were responsible for the assassination attempt on Reagan.

Haven't heard that one for quite a few years now, but yeah, it is vaguely plausible. I think that various groups and individuals in the US are no more and no less capable than in any other nation of using assassination as a political tool.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office

1 William Henry Harrison [1841][QUOTE]
On March 26, 1841, William Henry Harrison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Harrison) became ill with a cold. According to the prevailing medical misconception of that time, it was believed that his illness was directly caused by the bad weather at his inauguration; however, Harrison's illness did not arise until more than three weeks after the event. The cold worsened, rapidly turning to pneumonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia) and pleurisy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleurisy).

Long acting poison?

2 Zachary Taylor [1849-1850]

The cause of Zachary Taylor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Taylor)'s death has not been fully established.[19] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office#cite_note-history-19) On July 4, 1850, Taylor was known to have consumed copious amounts of ice water, cold milk, green apples, and cherries after attending holiday celebrations and the laying of the cornerstone of the Washington Monument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument).[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office#cite_note-20) That same evening, he became severely ill with an unknown digestive ailment. Doctors used popular treatments of the time. Taylor died in the White House at 10:35 p.m. on July 9, five days after becoming ill.[21] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office#cite_note-21) Contemporary reports listed the cause of death as "bilious diarrhea, or a bilious cholera"

So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ?

3 Abraham Lincoln [1861-1865]

Nothing needed here.

4 James A. Garfield [1881]

Ditto.


5 William McKinley [1897-1901]

Ditto.

6 Warren G. Harding [1921-1923]

Warren G. Harding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding) died from a sudden heart attack in his hotel suite while visiting San Francisco at around 7:35 p.m. on August 2, 1923. His death quickly led to theories that he had been poisoned[61] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office#cite_note-death-61) or committed suicide. Suicide appears unlikely, since Harding was planning for a second term election. Rumors of poisoning were fueled, in part, by a book called The Strange Death of President Harding, in which the author (convicted criminal, former Ohio Gang member, and detective Gaston Means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_Means), hired by Mrs. Harding to investigate Warren Harding and his mistress) suggested that Mrs. Harding had poisoned her husband after learning of his infidelity. Mrs. Harding's refusal to allow an autopsy on President Harding only added to the speculation. According to the physicians attending Harding, however, the symptoms in the days prior to his death all pointed to congestive heart failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestive_heart_failure). Harding's biographer, Samuel H. Adams, concluded that "Warren G. Harding died a natural death which, in any case, could not have been long postponed".

7 Franklin D. Roosevelt [1933-1945]

On March 29, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) went to the Little White House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_White_House) at Warm Springs, Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warm_Springs,_Georgia), to rest before his anticipated appearance at the founding conference of the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations). On the afternoon of April 12, Roosevelt said, "I have a terrific pain in the back of my head." He then slumped forward in his chair, unconscious, and was carried into his bedroom. The president's attending cardiologist, Dr. Howard Bruenn, diagnosed a massive cerebral hemorrhage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_hemorrhage) (stroke).[64] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_died_i n_office#cite_note-64) At 3:35 pm that day, Roosevelt died without regaining consciousness. As Allen Drury (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Drury) later said, “so ended an era, and so began another.” After Roosevelt's death, an editorial by The New York Times declared, "Men will thank God on their knees a hundred years from now that Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House".

I do wonder, though, if it might not have been an assassination by either of the Axis powers. There was certainly motive. Or, for that matter, the survivors of the Business Plot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot) might have done it.

8 John F. Kennedy [1961-1963]

Again, nothing needed.


So out of eight Presidents who have died in office, four have been definitely assassinations and three somewhat questionable (four, if you buy FDR as an assassination).


Granted, his rhetoric was often times mocking and even hostile towards the Soviet Union in public, but behind closed doors, I believe Reagan had a very good working relationship with his Soviet counterparts.


And, indeed, the Cold War largely came to an end during Reagan's Presidency.

I've always believed that there was a "personal" component to Reagan's hard-on for the Soviets. If you remember, he was President of SAG from 1947 through 1960. I think the "evil empire" animosity was more than rhetoric, and that something happened during the SAG period to create it. Might even have been personal threats.


Ronald Reagan

August 11, 1941, 7046 Hollywood Blvd- Warner Bros. contract player, Ronald Reagan, attended his first Board meeting as an alternate for Heather Angel. His then-wife, actress Jane Wyman, was elected to the Board over a year later. World War II put Reagan's Guild involvement in a holding pattern, but he resumed as a Board alternate in February 1946, first for Rex Ingram, then Boris Karloff. In September, 1946, he was elected 3rd Vice-President, and would so impress the Board of Directors during the often-violent Conference of Studio Unions (CSU) strikes, that he'd move up to the Guild Presidency in six months.

At the March 10, 1947 Board meeting, resignations were accepted from President Robert Montgomery and six officers/Board members: James Cagney, Franchot Tone, Dick Powell, Harpo Marx, John Garfield, and Dennis O'Keefe, due to the Guild's new "conflict of interest" addition to the bylaws, recently voted in by the Guild membership. Gene Kelly nominated the absent Ronald Reagan for President. Kelly & George Murphy were nominated too, but Reagan won. Half-way through the meeting, Reagan - who had been at an American Veterans Committee meeting - arrived and was informed of the honor! He would serve a total of seven presidential terms, including six one-year terms elected by the membership in November 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1959. Issues - Guild, national, and international - during Reagan's presidencies and board terms, 1946 - 1960, were among the most vast and complicated in the Guild's history, including, in addition to the CSU strikes: the Guild's first entirely new contract since 1937; passage of the labor-weakening Taft-Hartley act; the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings and the blacklist era; a severe decline in Hollywood film production, largely caused by both the exploding popularity of television and the 1948 "Paramount decree" which would bring an end to the "studio system"; the fall of mainland China to communism; the explosion of an atomic bomb by the Soviet Union; the Korean War; jurisdictional struggles over television; the MCA waiver; the Guild's first three strikes (1952-53, 1955, and 1960); the first residuals for filmed television programs; first residuals for films sold to television; and the creation of the pension and health plan. In 1950, his future wife, actress Nancy Davis (whom he would marry on March 4, 1952), joined the Board, first as a replacement, and would serve with him for nearly 10 years. In June 1960, Reagan resigned his Guild Presidency, and Nancy's Board resignation followed in July. After leaving acting, Ronald Reagan embarked on the most successful political career of any actor in history: two four-year terms as Governor of California, from 1966-1974, and election in 1980 for the first of two terms as President of the United States. Ronald Reagan died on June 5, 2004 and is interred on the grounds of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. There are several official websites, including:....

https://www.sagaftra.org/ronald-reagan

[OGIS]

goddamnit, can't get the nested quotes right.

[Ethereal]

Haven't heard that one for quite a few years now, but yeah, it is vaguely plausible. I think that various groups and individuals in the US are no more and no less capable than in any other nation of using assassination as a political tool.

Even looking back on the imagery of his Presidency, you can sense a real rapport between Reagan and Gorbachev.

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/files-reagan-gorbachev.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

http://rednova8.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/reagan-and-gorbachev.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/register-herald.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/9f/09f86a02-e46b-11e5-8c00-1b90e7207ad9/56dd864871aa1.image.jpg?resize=540%2C415

I personally believe that Reagan was a peacemaker behind the scenes and that the neocons hated him for it. They didn't want the Cold War to end, ever.


So out of eight Presidents who have died in office, four have been definitely assassinations and three somewhat questionable (four, if you buy FDR as an assassination).

And there was the attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson. Many theorize this was the work of the banking cartel.

[Ethereal]

With that, let me just say that considering these factors, I agree with you that Donald Trump is a threat to American democracy and will hasten our descent into oligarchy.

The problem is, so will Hillary Clinton. Perhaps not to the extreme of Donald Trump...

I was with you until this point.

Why would anyone believe that Trump is more "extreme" in his supposedly anti-democratic, pro-oligarchy stance than someone like Hillary Clinton?

Keep in mind, this is a purely comparative standard, so we must judge his "extremity" in that regard relative to Hillary Clinton and not some absolute standard of democracy.

And relatively speaking, Trump is like Bakunin compared to Hillary.

She has supported virtually every substantial corporatist and militarist (or do I repeat myself?) policy in the past 15 years, even longer if you count her time as Bill's henchwoman.

I fail to see how Trump could do any worse, especially when he has made substantive critiques of the bipartisan consensus on aggressive, arrogant imperialist foreign policy.

Some will claim he was pandering, but how does one "pander" to Republicans by taking a LESS aggressive stance on foreign policy?

Long story short, Hillary Clinton has caused the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people.

Trump has caused the deaths of none.

I think on that basis alone Trump is far less "extreme" than Hillary.

[Ethereal]

...near-destruction of Syria (jury's still out on whether that will also turn into the unmitigated disaster of Libya)...

The worst refugee crisis since WWII and over 400,000 dead people seems to fit the criteria of an unmitigated disaster, not to mention the widespread insinuation and proliferation of ISIS and AQ into Syria.

[Peter1469]

I think that you are correct.

Even looking back on the imagery of his Presidency, you can sense a real rapport between Reagan and Gorbachev.

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/files-reagan-gorbachev.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

http://rednova8.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/reagan-and-gorbachev.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/register-herald.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/9f/09f86a02-e46b-11e5-8c00-1b90e7207ad9/56dd864871aa1.image.jpg?resize=540%2C415

I personally believe that Reagan was a peacemaker behind the scenes and that the neocons hated him for it. They didn't want the Cold War to end, ever.



And there was the attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson. Many theorize this was the work of the banking cartel.

[OGIS]

Even looking back on the imagery of his Presidency, you can sense a real rapport between Reagan and Gorbachev.

https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/files-reagan-gorbachev.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

http://rednova8.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/reagan-and-gorbachev.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/register-herald.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/9f/09f86a02-e46b-11e5-8c00-1b90e7207ad9/56dd864871aa1.image.jpg?resize=540%2C415

I personally believe that Reagan was a peacemaker behind the scenes and that the neocons hated him for it. They didn't want the Cold War to end, ever.

Agreed. Like I said, I think there was a SAG-related personal issue involved. It would have prompted/powered Reagan's embracing of militant anti-communism, but that would have been tempered by Reagan's natural good-natured inclinations. And acting ability.

And your Andrew Jackson ref is spot on.[/QUOTE]