PORTLAND, MAINE—Somehow, my press credentialing e-mails from the Trump campaign keep getting blown off the porch of the Intertoobz.
Charles Pierce reads like he is a reasonably intelligent fellow who has lived a few years, made some bucks, and gotten the thrill of seeing his byline in the LA and New York Times as well as Esquire magazine. He reads like he doesn't have an angry bone in his body. As such he is an unreliable witness to what is going on in election year 2016.
The nation is angry. White males are angry at what they perceive as their diminishing influence over things.
Black men are angry at seeing their brothers and children gunned down and nothing much being done about it.
Women are angry at men for having had the responsibility for steering the ship of state and wonder how one of their own could possibly do a worse job than their predecessors.
Bernie supporters are angry at his betrayal and breaking of promises to them after "feelin the Bern".
Cops are angry at becoming targets for ambush set ups in the performance of their duties.
Many other ordinary folks are angry at the condescending attitude of the news media towards its audience as it reports on Election 2016.
Anger knows no logic. Anger knows no rationality. Anger does not care what others think of it or how ridiculous it appears to those not engaged in such illogical, irrational, nonintellectual emotion. They at least have a vote and in their anger they will use that vote to express that anger.
Together they compose a giant army of disaffected voters who see their vote as the ultimate protest against a country that, to their way of angry reckoning, has gone wrong. The more that smart, well-informed, talented, and successful people like Charles Pierce snarkily portray them as loony tunes, the more justified and settled it makes their anger seem.
The greatest beneficiary of this anger will not be Trump or Clinton, it will be Gary Johnson and Bill Weld on the Libertarian ticket and Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka on the Green Party ticket. Together these folks can siphon off enough potential supporters of Queen Hillary and The Donald to possibly throw the election into the House of Representatives because nobody has a majority of electors.
As Rachel Maddow asked, what was Trump doing in Maine, a traditionally blue state he is almost sure to lose, when he is trailing is a number of critical swing states. Maine is a great vacation state in the summer but shouldn't Trump be speaking in places like Ohio if he wants to win the election? Who were these Trump supporters at the rally? I guess people who listen to Howard Stern, bikers, gun enthusiasts, white supremacists, anti-Muslim types, and so forth.
What brought these Trump supporters out to waste the day waiting for Trump? I doubt that they are as shallow as they are made out to be, and though they may be misinformed about some current events, I think the concerns which led them to support Trump are probably worth understanding
We already know that we are supposed to disdain and mock Trump supporters; the media tells us so.
Contrary to the images of seaside cottages and yachts, Maine is actually a poor rust-beltish state like Ohio or West Virginia or western Pennsylvania.
Erie, Pennsylvania comes to mind - there is this clique of rich "summering" sailing-yachters at the Presque-Isle bay marinas, but the rest of the city is the largely abandoned GE locomotive works, other rusting factories, and abandoned homes - basically resembling a flat Johnstown.
In order for that to happen either the Greens or Libertarians would have to actually win some states. Nobody is expecting Johnson or Stein to get 33 percent in any state. The only exception is Maine and Nebraska which split their electoral votes - which would only amount to 2 or 2 electoral votes at very most for Stein or Johnson.
But if a presidential candidate did fail to get 270 votes, the president would be picked by the US House in a one vote per congressional delegation - i.e. one vote per state. Considering that the majority of states outside of the handful of populous ones are pretty hard-core right wing, it is unlikely that the selected president would be an improvement over the current sorry candidates and likely worse.
Although the cited Warren affirmative action accusations are pure fiction, Bill Clinton's speeches before and after Obama's 2008 nomination confirm that the Clintons and Obamas were at odds in 2008 and the rift continues today, albeit toned down.
Recall Bill Clinton's pre-caucus speech in Spokane WA on March 21. 2016 where he said "vote for Hillary to repair the damage of the past eight years".
Yes, but I don't think that Obama was worrying about being assassinated by Clinton...
Just consider that one year ago nobody gave either The Donald or Bernie Sanders a chance of making any impact. Given the state of the US electorate a whole lot can happen in the next three months or so. A very long shot, yes, but by no means impossible.
I'm just sayin'
Ignorance is bliss...don't confuse them with facts as their minds are made up. They get their "news" from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, David Horowitz, and Glenn Beck and consider that rubbish as the gospel. Their favorite newspaper/magazine that they read as they are checking out in line at the grocery store is The Globe or The National Enquirer.
Interesting how the T fans inside the auditorium spending/wasting six hours waiting for their messiah make disparaging remarks about the protestor(s) outside being out of work....
LMAO .... "Paul LePage, the human bowling jacket who is the governor of Maine."
If Sen. Sanders had taken up Dr. Stein's offer it is very much more likely the presidential election would be going to be decided in Congress. Another reply to your post here seems correct about the unlikeness of the Stein and Johnson candidacies somehow being able to bring that about. And what could have resulted for the Sanders-Stein scenario would be this: The corporate Democrats and Republicans would get together to elect Hillary Clinton - and rid themselves of both Sanders and Trump! So they would think - as if that kind of interfering nuisance to their hegemony over American politics could after everything this year be ended forever as represented in two personalities of the moment.
My feeling (not only mine) is that the real "3rd party" threat to the present two major parties, or duopoly, is what the late Sen. Paul Wellstone called the "Democratic Wing of the democratic party" (my spelling). It's come out of a 30 year defeatist depression because of the unexpected success of Bernie Sanders' exploitation of the primary system and the potent infiltration of independents (formally and informally) into party ranks. His "political revolution" that started there like "the shot heard round the world" of yore, will by 2018-2020 have liberated the party of Jefferson's Democracy and FDR's New Deal from the usurping Clinton/DNC corporatist wing or, I think more likely, split off in 2020 to form a new Independents Party that can draw in Greens and other progressive/left parties, and even Libertarians of the right for a time, to save this country. Ralph Nader would call this "the convergence", which he and other public-spirited citizens have been working on facilitating. It's something We the Sovereign People must hope and trust is finally coming about. I do not believe what our democracy faces can be saved from other than by a coming together of the great majority of us in these next several years. Concerning that, I'd like to see Bernie Sanders redeem his reputation among those of us now so disappointed in him, to justify the great hope he inspired, with the things he's organizing now to elect more progressives to Congress as well as state and local offices.
See, you are making my point. Your reasoning is sanely logical, ideologically correct (for CD anyway) and simply out of touch for what is taking place among a growing and significant number of the electorate and shows no sign of abating over the next few months till election day.
On that day organized money will ensconce its courtesans in positions of power (to obstruct of to enact it makes no difference to organized money so long as they stay in power). Hopes will once again be dashed on the rocks of privilege and power--no matter who takes which elective office