Home | About | Donate

The Great Repudiation


#1

The Great Repudiation

Robert Freeman

If ever there was a repudiation of "The Establishment," this was it.

The most patently unqualified, the most offensive, personally odious presidential candidate in American history has just been elected president. The Groper in Chief.

This is not so much an embrace of Donald Trump—his negatives were even higher than Hillary Clinton's—as it is a repudiation of everything Establishment for the past two decades, especially Clinton, the living embodiment of Everything Establishment.


#2

As horrified as I am, I hope this will be the death knell for the Corporate Democrats and the birth of a legitimate progressive opposition party.


#3

Our only hope is that Trump's unfulfilled promises causes a rejection of him from the workers in the rural and rust states and that the Democrats do not shift rightwards to re-capture voters.

Will Elizabeth Warren be the first female president of the USA in 2020?


#6

Russ Feingold lost, man. Bernie campaigned with him and he's nearly as progressive as Bernie. Rural white voters came out. The left was divided as is typical and got beat.


#8

The most telling comment I've read over the course of the last few days was this:

"The only problem is that he is the system."

The Man in the Mirror

Yet many of the comments in this article about Trump's win are true enough.

Honestly, this turn of events feels right.

At long last America has said:

ENOUGH !!!

But if George Monbiot is correct, i.e., if 'Trump is the system', then what?

I imagine that pipeline will now go under the Missouri at Standing Rock, but in truth, we will all have to wait and see, I suppose?

Or - is it possible we have just passed some milepost on the way to something better?

Are we soul-surfers now at the bottom of the wave?

Or can things get even worse - a lot worse?


#9

Things can always get worse.


#10

Well, the Fourth Reich is certainly following in the footsteps of the Third Reich.
* Hopefully, it is getting very near its own "Poland."
* The only difference is that, when the world had enough and went to war with Hitler's Reich, Germany didn't have the ability to totally destroy the world.
* Trump's Reich does have that ability and it is insane enough to use it.
* I fear we will all have a very short part, unless We the People refuse to accept this insanity and resist from within.
* After I voted today, I watched V for Vendetta again. It made a lot of sense. Then, after the film, I looked to see which fuehrer had won and it was the Mussolini wannabe.
R.I.P.
;-})


#11

I'd rather not have another 4 years of Trump which is what the result would be. Surely the Democratic Party has someone in their ranks who isn't a former Republican and would make an acceptable Presidential nominee? If not then are they even a viable vessel for any type of progressive movement?


#12

It's called "coat tails". Or in this case reverse coat tails. When there is a strong showing for the Presidential candidate down ticket races gain support for that party. The reverse is true for weak candidates.

While I certainly wouldn't call Trump a strong candidate he did get the support that helped down ticket Republicans. This had been expected to happen since the Democratic Party Convention. There isn't any surprise here that Democrats took a hard hit because of their choice of nominee for the Presidency. It was predicted and expected.


#13

Remember Iraq? Syria? Libya? Ukraine?


#14

Yes, this was a repudiation of the establishment, but let's face the facts: Hillary was an horrendous candidate - on the order of Coakley (sp?) who lost Ted Kennedy's seat in 2010, in her corruption that was somewhere on the Nixonian spectrum, and entitlement that was on the order of those Masters of the Universe who felt they deserved that the taxpayer pay them for the bonuses they had lost for bankrupting their employers in 2008.

Maybe I am basking in the greatness of my Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, but I think that the quaint notion of honor & integrity is a winning formula in 2020. (Maybe we can get JBE to go for it then!)


#15

Maybe, maybe not. I will grant you this: Hillary wasn't the right candidate for the mood of the country.


#16

Keep pushing that argument, but it is just dead wrong. The top of the ticket matters. Droves of people came out to defeat Clinton (not to elect Trump) because she was such an odious candidate. Feingold was collateral damage.

Had the DNC not shoved Ms Clinton down our throats, we would not be coughing up an orange hairball this morning.

Hopefully, your incorrect analysis does not take hold and we can clean out all the corporate DLC shills and reboot the party. Or, we can accept your nonsense and lose another few elections.


#17

Now let us begin to build the backlash.


#18

Man, more people voted for her in the primary than him. It happens. Voters could have rejected her, but they didn't.


#19

Did you read the Wikileaks emails about how the process was slanted towards her? I can talk your ear off about the primaries, but it was not a fair fight and she used her insider connections to throw the contest to her.

The only person to blame for a Trump presidency is Clinton.

The only way to stop a 2nd Trump term is to clean house in the DNC, stop whoring ourselves out to large donors and go back to a truly progressive agenda.

But, i am old enough to not have any real hope that will happen - instead we will talk about how Jill Stein was the real culprit or white racists or the media or ........


#20

I saw a rundown of voters, and it looks like Trump won with fewer voters than Mitt Romney. Also, Clinton won the popular vote, so it's not as if she didn't get a majority. The problem is where voters are located. Basically, in shrinking white states that tend more rural, she did not do as well. I say this because, if we elected our president based on who got the most votes, she'd win. But we don't. This also indicates that she wasn't as rejected as we are saying.


#21

Do you really think that she was a strong candidate?

People generally came out to vote against her or against him. Her entire campaign was "he's worse" and his campaign was "she's corrupt".

The populate vote argument is a red herring. She lost because people rejected the DLC-led democratic party. Trump won the working class rust belt because he railed against the trade deals that Clinton pushed through, amonst other faux-populist measures, while she defended the status quo.

Time to shake things up in the democrats and drop the disastrous direction of the past 26 years - go back to being new deal democrats and watch the voters come back to us.


#22

Bullshit. Voters were disenfranchised and polling places screwed up. Dirty tricks won the day but lost the country.


#23

I don't disagree with you on the trade deals element. But, she and Bernie developed a pretty progressive platform, one she never backed away from. That said, you are right, many were voting to prevent Trump taking the presidency. I count myself in that number. She was not an inspiring candidate and the polls showed voters did not trust her.