Home | About | Donate

We Could’ve Avoided President Donald Trump. Now, We Must Learn the Lessons


We Could’ve Avoided President Donald Trump. Now, We Must Learn the Lessons

Rebecca Solnit

he road to President Trump was long and bumpy. There were many turns not taken, countless alternative routes that would have spared us this outcome. Instead, we kept going, corruption, infighting and sheer obliviousness stopping us changing course.

What could have been different? There are a thousand possibilities. You could start with the long decay of the US news media into a branch of the entertainment industry, primed to seize on Trump’s celebrity. A wiser society would have demanded better, resisted more vocally, criticised more intelligently.


This author, seems to imply that Hillary Clintons form of Corrupt Oligarchic NeoLiberal War Mongering would have saved us all. I disagree. She also implies that the Democratic Party Establishment can be saved or reformed. Well, maybe in another 30 years when they're all dead, but I wouldn't even bet on that. Political corruption is so firmly entrenched in the Two-party Duopoly you would need a Hydrogen Bomb to clean it all up. Hey, I think I'm on to something here.


There is indeed no known 12 step program that will give the Democratic Party an opportunity to shake its corporate money addiction. If you consider that the Democratic Party holds fewer elected seats nationwide than it has since Coolidge was POTUS is it accurate to say that the Party has hit rock bottom ? Addicts' chances for recovery generally improve if they survive rock bottom.

Contrary to the revisionist history Solnit presents in this article, Hillary Clinton WAS running against Bernie Sanders in the primary, NOT against Donald Trump. Recall that there were at least 15 other GOP primary candidates running when the primaries started and by no metric was Trump running against the Democrats prior to May 2016.

Not to mention that polls through the primary season confirmed that Sanders would do better than Clinton against Trump and most other GOP candidates in the general election. Those polls, of course were dismissed by Solnit and other self styled "adults in the room" who serially labeled Sanders' voters as naive children.


This has to be one of the most distorted and misdirected articles I have read on the failure of the Democratic Party and its administration. Every poll before the nomination showed that Bernie would have defeated Donald, but the Party hierarchy were determined that Bernie would not get the nomination. But even if they wanted to ensure Clinton would be on the ticket they still had options for presenting a viable alternative to Trump. It was obvious that Clinton was on the nose to the bulk of the Democratic supporters, as is evidenced from the attendance and support for Bernie so, why didn't the party offer a Clinton/Sanders ticket? That would have been a shoe in. Even a Clinton/Warren ticket would have been far preferable to the one the hierarchy settled on.
But what is the explanation for the claims that the popular vote went to Clinton, but they lost seats in both the H of R and the Senate? If the popular vote was so strong why was Congress handed over to the Republicans?
On top of that, irrespective of who leaked the email from the Democratic executive, the leaker wasn't the problem - it was what was divulged in those emails and the deliberate sabotage of Bernie's campaign that really turned the tables on Clinton. The final contest really came down to choosing between two of the worst candidates on offer, and it became a choice between Clinton's history of warmongering and corruption and Trumps bravado and questionable business ethics.


Ever since the 1985 formation of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) the Party's highest priority has been to sustain corporate money flow. Winning elections is way down the priority list.

The Clintons and Obamas are two of the best corporate money magnets the Party has ever had so why would they allow geese that lay the golden eggs to not be nominated ?


Please stop with the Russian meddling, or else show some evidence. Just because a bunch of Deep State securocrats say it, doesn't make it true. The Democrats are using it as an excuse for their own failures. And maybe to get us in the mood for another war.


Yes, we certainly could have avoided the Republican stranglehold on the US federal and most state governments had we not bought the Lesser Evil Gambit with Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton, and all the rest. If the people now horrified by Trump (and not sufficiently horrified by the Republican Congress) had worked for and voted for Sanders we wouldn't be where we are now. Above all, what's holding us back politically is the trap of the corporate duopoly. (Of course, what's behind that is the fact that corporations and the uberwealthy are where all the interchangeable commodities of power and money are, and what's behind that is the psychological affliction that inhabits all of us in varying degrees and ways.) Two things become ever more clear to me: we won't solve this until enough people to treat it recognize the essential psychological nature of our problem, and we have to pile into the minimum wage movement to make sure the minimum wage is also the maximum wage.


Oh please, enough with the "foreign intervention" and other diversionary excuses BS! Yes the MSM is worthless, and "we" could have avoided the trump regime but WE were sabotaged by decades of Dem party hack sellouts from the Clintons to Obama, and their culture of collusion and cowardice!

HRC was perhaps the only candidate trump could have beaten - despised for countless excellent reasons and foisted on America by the corrupt establishment dems! It was "her turn" and she was "a woman" - blind political stupidity enamored with wealth made HRC the candidate, not Bernie Sanders, and all Americans lost because of her arrogance and ambition, and big-money corruption by the DINO dem machine!

Bernie Sanders was sabotaged and betrayed by Dems, including John Lewis, and now we ALL will pay the very stiff price!


Another perspective: The gods of US politics stuck us with two candidates who were deeply opposed by much of their own voting bases (interestingly, for many of the same reasons). The election could have gone either way. In the end, Clinton won the majority of the popular vote, Trump won the Electoral College vote (fifth or sixth time in our history that the candidate with the most votes didn't get elected).

The lessons haven't been learned. On Monday, our more fortunate will punch in at work, and the less fortunate will spend another day trying to scrape together enough food and shelter to survive another day. What we won't discuss is the fact that the proverbial masses have been so deeply divided and subdivided and pitted against each other by class and race, making a powerful People's push-back impossible this time.


There's one of the "catches." In real life, not everyone is able to work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s, and the liberal bourgeoisie never looked back at the ugly consequences.

Liberals make a point of stating that they stand ONLY with those who are fortunate enough to currently have jobs. This is where I part ways with them. I reject the very notion that only those who are of current use to employers/the corporate state are deserving of the most basic human rights (UN's UDHR) of food and shelter.


Bernie was not sabotaged and betrayed. That's just stupid. He lost because he didn't get enough votes, including here in California where newspaper coverage was heavily tilted to horse race polls. Had he started early, like Obama, and connected with more voters in primary states where he needed Democratic constituencies on his side, things might be different. If he cultivated the support of his colleagues in Congress, some with whom he worked for years, like Obama did, things might be different. Had his campaign been better organized--I witnessed how haphazard it was here in California with my own eyes--things might be different. But he didn't do those things and he made some big mistakes. That happens.


That was going to be my comment - I would add a reference to the "Democratic" Party's Pied Piper Strategy from April 2015 where it was the policy to elevate Republican candidates such as Donald Trump to be "leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously" (Wikileaks). The two other wunderkinder that were recommended for support by the DNC were Ted Cruz and Ben Carson! From March 2016 the DNC promoted solely Trump, as he was the only Republican candidate Hillary was "sure" to beat ("even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even money bet to beat" Hillary) (again from Wikileaks - a DNC advisor's opinion - March 2016).


What is the matter with your? You think mass annihilation is something to be flippant about? We already have a stupendous light weight as President who probably would get a kick out of your remark. Deadly no-funny.


So, big money, manipulating popular exposure/media/debates, cronyism, lies, had little to do - in your estimation - with Bernie's loss. Really!? With respect to organization, Bernie's team outdid Clinton's in Washington state.


This is one of many nonsense articles from this pseudo liberal writer. Again and again, without solid arguments she tries to convince us about the Clinton's value and superiority and about the Russian nonsense spin story. Please CD, enough of her. She should do her homework and read credible sources about this Russian make up story rather than regurgitate the official propaganda.


All the major polls showed and we could see with our own eyes - that the very large enthusiastic, excited crowds following Bernie, made him the highly probable winner in the run for president of the US. However, Hillary was forced down our throats, whether the majority of us wanted her or not and the result: Trump won. It's too late now, so I stifle my anger and move on.


The hell are you talking about? Bernie didn't get covered initially because that's what always happens until the insurgent starts winning. When California rolled around, he was on the news all the time (rallies) and the papers seemed to cater to the close horse race polls, ignoring the more accurate ones showing Clinton tromping him. More than that, reviews of Hillary's coverage show she was covered in a way more negative tone than any other candidate. Bernie gained just as much from being not-Hillary as she lost from Clinton Rules coverage.


If he got more votes, he would have won. He didn't. it would have been nice, but he made mistakes in his campaign and didn't connect with important democratic constituencies. Had he done more of what Obama did in 2008--start earlier, cultivate his colleagues in Congress, and frankly, not make an egotistical ass of himself by screaming at them later when it was too late and he was well aware of the Superdelegate rules from the beginning--then things would likely be different. After all, Obama beat Hillary; he got more votes. Was he "forced down our throats" too?

Bernie ain't a holy man, he's a politician, one who lost just like other politicians have. Why is it so hard to admit that?




The biggest mistake Bernie ever made was trusting the Democratic Party Establishment.