2016 U.S. Presidential election

756 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
Apr 20 2016 21:34

she won rochester tho very narrowly, 1 percent or something like that, whereas she won the Bronx by more than 2 to 1. Sanders won 50 of New York's 62 counties. Since delegates are apportioned in New York by congressional district his actual percent of delegates will be higher than his vote.

but the generational polarization is just incredible. seems as tho the increasing impoverishment of the working class -- destruction of future prospects -- under neoliberalism, especially since the financial crash, is effecting popular consciousness in dramatic ways.

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
May 2 2016 15:05

I would agree with your sentiment, I think Americans are forced to choose how to stabilize their dying empire. Trump is a wild shot in the dark, but his xenophobic isolationism offers a tempting security blanket while Clinton is like a lieutenant who takes over a leaking ship. I feel that the capitalists are only betting on who can keep America a superpower for longer. And personally, I don't think Sanders is a quack. But he is a doctor working on a corpse. We need community, not a more democratic capitalism.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 4 2016 03:34
Quote:
I think Americans are forced to choose how to stabilize their dying empire.

I have no idea what the fuck this means. Do you actually think most Americans think about 'the empire"?

At any rate, Cruz has now dropped out of the race & it seems that Trump is going to be the Repub candidate. Barring some extremely implausible Sanders super victory in California, Clinton will be the Dem nominee. This is a case where "lesser evil" has no meaning whatsoever. Clinton is the ultimate corporate capitalist warhawk. Nobody knows what Trump really believes, but it's likely the corporate & media elite will pile on Clinton to destroy Trump in November. Meanwhile it's also likely we'll see historically low voter turnout since both Trump & Clinton are roundly hated.

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
May 4 2016 06:31

I think that they do, but not in the same way a politician. Which explains why "Make America great again" doesn't mean simply improve the domestic situation. Of course my comment was just a comment, and I said they are forced to choose, since elections are just that. Trump however is definitely a symptom of imperial decline.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
May 4 2016 11:31
The Pigeon wrote:
I think that they do, but not in the same way a politician. Which explains why "Make America great again" doesn't mean simply improve the domestic situation. Of course my comment was just a comment, and I said they are forced to choose, since elections are just that. Trump however is definitely a symptom of imperial decline.

Other than Trump's candidacy, what other evidence do you see that leads you to conclude this is a period of "imperial decline"?

I mean your assertion is nothing but a different wording of Trump's "Make America Great Again." Leads us to the question "Exactly when was 'America' ever great?" on the one hand; and on the other exactly what constitutes this "decline"? Trade deficits? China?

What exactly is specific to the US, to its "empire," and to the decline of that "empire" in contrast to a specific period of "empire?"

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
May 4 2016 19:45
syndicalistcat wrote:
This is a case where "lesser evil" has no meaning whatsoever.

spot-on

Tyrion's picture
Tyrion
Offline
Joined: 12-04-13
May 4 2016 20:29
syndicalistcat wrote:
This is a case where "lesser evil" has no meaning whatsoever.

While I'm not one to encourage anti-Trump popular fronts, I'm not sure this is totally accurate. Trump's candidacy, let alone a victory in November, looks significantly more likely to engender racial pogroms here than a Clinton victory. We're already seeing this at his rallies, which have become an exciting opportunity for his supporters to assault and scream slurs at protesters in general and people of color in particular.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 5 2016 06:00

Trump's foreign policy politics, to the extent he can be taken to stand for anything, is to the left of Hillary. Hillary is a total gung ho warhawk, major backer of "regime change". But it's hard to really know what either of them would do since both of them have flip flopped back and forth. Doug H.'s book on Hillary basically says that opportunism and military/imperalist hawkishness are the constants with her. Diana Johnstene's book "Queen of Chaos" also documents at length the hawkishness and imperalist enthusiasms of Hillary.

Sanders, for his part, also has a pro-imperialist record, backing things like Obama's "kill list" & drone wars.

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
May 5 2016 06:22

What's with RT's endorsement of Sanders?

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 5 2016 06:43

RT?

The Pigeon's picture
The Pigeon
Offline
Joined: 16-06-15
May 5 2016 06:51

Russia Today
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm5i6Vhu8b0

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 5 2016 07:11

well they didn't exactly endorse him in that segment, tho they seem to be sympathetic to him.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 5 2016 23:11

duplicate

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
May 5 2016 09:37
The Pigeon wrote:
What's with RT's endorsement of Sanders?

It's the external propaganda arm of the government so it's probably either because they'd prefer to have him in charge or just to stir things up for fun.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
May 5 2016 16:39

RT seems to "support" anyone at odds with mainstream western politics. So you'll see sympathetic treatment of both the far right and minority parties on the far (capitalist) left depending on the presenter or programme.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 6 2016 02:42

If we look at the way this is going to play out in November, in a Clinton versus Trump election, I think the more progressive voters will be pressured to vote for Clinton out of fear of Trump. Even with low voter turnout, I think Trump is going down. I mean, here's someone despised by 70 percent of the population. The globalist corporate elite do not like the attacks on the trade regime & Bush's Iraq war and other remarks that make Trump an unreliable executive for their global "management" regime, in which the executive branch of federal state has had an increasingly powerful role. So there will be a general push among elites & media for Clinton. She will also garner 90 percent of black vote & similar percentages of Latino & Muslim voters, and large majority of women, plus environmentalists, LGBT community, etc.

I think it quite possible Jill Stein will triple or quadruple her vote over 2012 but I think Clinton will still win.

x359594's picture
x359594
Offline
Joined: 16-08-08
May 8 2016 03:59

Clinton's current crap about selling Women's Cards, her pandering on BLM, her phony opposition to NAFTA like agreements, her drum beating for Netanyahu, ain't gonna cut it in much of the Great Flyover. She has strong support among African-Americans and Latinos but otherwise she is the candidate of older yellow dog Dems living in retirement homes and smug professional class BMW club officers who also don't give two shits about the working poor.

At this juncture, it is easy to state with moral certainty that a full 40% of the potential Democratic electorate including Dem-leaning independents have rejected her. I cannot remember in my lifetime a nominee of any party that had such high internal negatives. It's not even clear that Trump's negatives among Republicans are as high as Clinton's among Dems. Spooked by Donald Trump, many of those Sanders voters will reluctantly pull the lever for her in November. Many will not, no matter what Sanders does or says during the summer and fall.

Anyway you cut it, the Democratic Party establishment is a discredited, hollowed out relic of the neo-liberal wave set off by Carter and consolidated under Bill Clinton. It's a losing formula when the Walton family alone --worth 140 billion dollars-- has more wealth than the aggregate of the 150 million poorest Americans. Hillary might win, will probably win, she might even win big. But I would not put a nickel on her chances. Anybody who thinks that it is impossible for Trump to EXPAND the Republican base much deeper among a forgotten, mostly despised and very disgruntled white working class is whistling past the graveyard.

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 8 2016 18:06

I agree with X359594 about how intensely disliked & discredited Clinton is. Also, I think it is very unclear what the outcome of this presidential election will be. Doesn't matter what the polls say. Even tho the odds favor Clinton, it's no sure thing. Polls currently give the Libertarians 11 percent...defections from the Republicans in this case, but, again, this poll may express current feelings but not clear what will actually happen. Just how big will be the vote for Jill Stein, the probable Green party candidate (who is significantly more anti-capitalist & anti-imperialist than Sanders)? She is very likely to double or triple her vote of 2012 but that isn't saying much. She only got about 0.4 percent of the vote in 2012.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 15 2016 21:53

In other example of the bizarro world this election season has been, Sanders just endorsed an IWW campaign in Portland.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
May 16 2016 02:26
Juan Conatz wrote:
In other example of the bizarro world this election season has been, Sanders just endorsed an IWW campaign in Portland.

Sanders must be loving that shit.

How're the workers/the branch feeling about it?

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 16 2016 02:29
Chilli Sauce wrote:
How're the workers/the branch feeling about it?

Other than I see that the campaign has been promoting the endorsement on Facebook, I'm not sure.

drakeberkman
Offline
Joined: 16-01-15
May 16 2016 15:48
Juan Conatz wrote:
Other than I see that the campaign has been promoting the endorsement on Facebook, I'm not sure.

I've noticed a lot of people sharing the BWU post on Facebook quoting a disclaimer stating that the endorsement is appreciated, but the IWW doesn't support or endorse any political candidate or campaign.

I've yet to figure out what the actual source of the quote is though.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
May 16 2016 17:30

Clearly, if the Dems wanted to put up the strongest candidate against Trump or any Republican, it would be Sanders. But they don't want to do that; they don't even want to give his supporters any representation on the platform/policy committees at the convention-- he offered 45 nominees for the 75 positions, if IIRC, and the DNC chose 3 of the 45.

Quote:
Trump to EXPAND the Republican base much deeper among a forgotten, mostly despised and very disgruntled white working class is whistling past the graveyard.

Well, maybe, but I question how much support Trump actually has among white workers. And I don't think he's going to be able to both expand what support he has and garner the support of the "establishment" Republicans.

He will clearly have to play the race/immigration card that much harder and more frequently to appeal to the white petty bourgeoisie, declassed elements-- elements that might have had connections to the working class before Reagan and Volcker rode in and took care of the dispersal of industries in the US among small towns, rural areas, agricultural centers-- but there isn't much of a connection left 35 years on.

Anyway-- yeah, if the Dems wanted to clinch a victory they'd nominate Sanders-- but they don't-- property is thicker than blood.

OliverTwister's picture
OliverTwister
Offline
Joined: 10-10-05
May 16 2016 17:48
drakeberkman wrote:
Juan Conatz wrote:
Other than I see that the campaign has been promoting the endorsement on Facebook, I'm not sure.

I've noticed a lot of people sharing the BWU post on Facebook quoting a disclaimer stating that the endorsement is appreciated, but the IWW doesn't support or endorse any political candidate or campaign.

I've yet to figure out what the actual source of the quote is though.

https://berniesanders.com/sanders-applauds-burgerville-unionizing-efforts/

syndicalistcat's picture
syndicalistcat
Offline
Joined: 2-11-06
May 16 2016 19:15

No endorsement of Sanders from me of course but i'll mention, as another strangeness of this campaign, Sanders has been doing all sorts of events with Native Americans, on reservations and off, talking about need for keeping past promises, making a new relationship with the native population, addressing the real problems of poverty and so on on reservations. I can't recall any major American presidential candidate before talking about making amends to the native population like this. Of course Native Americans are actually a significant minority in a number of western states (6.6 percent in Montana, 13 percent in New Mexico), so can be a factor in upcoming primaries.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 21 2016 00:28
OliverTwister wrote:
drakeberkman wrote:
Juan Conatz wrote:
Other than I see that the campaign has been promoting the endorsement on Facebook, I'm not sure.

I've noticed a lot of people sharing the BWU post on Facebook quoting a disclaimer stating that the endorsement is appreciated, but the IWW doesn't support or endorse any political candidate or campaign.

I've yet to figure out what the actual source of the quote is though.

https://berniesanders.com/sanders-applauds-burgerville-unionizing-efforts/

I think drake is asking about the quote related to "the IWW doesn't support or endorse any political candidate or campaign".

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 21 2016 00:38

Viewpoint Magazine, which I'm generally a fan of and have spent hours reformatting into the library, put out an article about how the landscape has been so changed by the Sanders campaign, with many self-identified socialists created that the radical left needs to take the opportunities offered and unite "all of these new socialists into an autonomous revolutionary organization."

klas batalo's picture
klas batalo
Offline
Joined: 5-07-09
May 23 2016 03:29

they also say that autonomous rev org needs to work within the state (as well as outside it)

Reddebrek's picture
Reddebrek
Offline
Joined: 4-01-12
May 25 2016 21:33

The Burgerville campaign was covered by the Young Turks, whom I believe are backing Sanders.

The workers in the interview do a pretty good job of handling the interview and even start to talk about the economic system as a whole and the need for workers to come together. Then they get cut off for Liberal Paternalism and a bizarre longing for some mythical purer past.

I think this video shows the fundamental differences between Liberal reformism and revolution. When the hosts start talking about "the system" its clearly about political procedure, whereas the Burgerville employees were talking about the economic relationships. Though to be fair the bloke on the left does touch on profit disparity, but then the dominant of the trio quickly stirs it back.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
May 30 2016 02:10

While there was at least one another New York Times article that took up the question of Trump and fascism, today there was one which relates it to the rise of the far right in Europe.

Last week, Trump finally got enough delegates to clinch the GOP nomination. So all that talk about a contested convention, with various maneuvers...doubtful any of that will happen.

The main talk now is whether establishment conservatives, and the PACs and funders associated with them, will support him.

Also last week, Sanders and Trump briefly agreed to a debate before Trump backed out.

Topic locked