Home | About | Donate

Why Must the Trump Alternative be Self-Satisfied, Complacent Democrats?


#1

Why Must the Trump Alternative be Self-Satisfied, Complacent Democrats?

Thomas Frank

The year of our discontent rolls on, and now it is Indiana that hands victory to the insurgent Senator Bernie Sanders and the protectionist demagogue Donald Trump.


#2

Bernie supporter here. But I agree with you that a lot of Dems are self-satisfied. That's one of our main complaints against Hillary supporters.

By the way, check Bernie out. His proposals are a lot more rational that the media sometimes portrays them.

Peace.


#3

It constantly amazes me how establishment Democrats like Clinton et all failed to predict voter anger and dissatisfaction and the rise of Bernie Sanders. It shows just how completely out of touch, callous and indifferent they are to the needs of their constituency. Even at this point, with Sanders having won so many states and large numbers of voters, these establishment Democrats continue to belittle Bernie Sanders and his followers with jokes and snarky comments. Thanks to the party establishment, "Let them eat cake" is very much in style.


#4

The Democrats are not complacent. They are not pleased that they do not control the Senate or the House. They are also not pleased that they have governors in only 20 states and do not control that many state legislatures. The Democrats are very frustrated that at every turn they are blocked by the Republicans. They are also frustrated that for 40 years the conservatives have had a majority on the Supreme Court. Thomas Frank completely misrepresents what the Democrats are about as if the few things they have accomplished are all they actually wanted to accomplish. Of course the Democrats are glad that the electoral college now favors them but winning the presidency can only lead to very limited accomplishments of goals. The Democrats are a party that has been largely frustrated since 1980 and sees no real end to this frustration as progress on a number of fronts has been severely limited and in many cases actually reversed.


#6

Democrats had control of both houses and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate
and still couldn't pass a public option in the ACA. That has nothing to do with the
Republicans. The ACA has no provision for dental care costs which can easily run into
tens of thousands of dollars. . Again, nothing to do with the Republicans. Everything to do
with Democrat connections to insurance and pharm companies and their reliance
on campaign contributions. Whether the ACA is able to control health care costs, time will tell.


#7

Frank writes:
"Absent some terrorist attack... or some FBI action on the Clinton email scandal... or some outrageous act of reasonableness by Trump himself, the blowhard is going to lose."

Frank way undersells the level of disgust that USans hold toward Clinton. If Trump were not in the race, Clinton polls as the most despised major-party candidate in my lifetime. i was born when Eisenhower was president.

And if Clinton does secure the Dem party nomination, you can count on plenty of "outrageous reasonableness" from the Trump campaign.

And, the Sanders campaign can still wreck the Clinton campaign. Aside from the clear strengths of his campaign, there is plenty of time for some of her many skeletons to parade across front pages and pundit programs. It's only a question of there being factions within the power elite who get wise to the many reasons she is a great albatross around the DNC's neck.


#9

I can't bring myself to vote Trump, but that may be the best case anyone voting for him as put forth.


#10

methinks Frank supports Bernie.


#11

Thank you, Mr. Frank! Feel the Bern!


#12

Thomas Frank demonstrates yet again that he is one of the best pundits on the left.


#13

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#14

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#15

Actually I've been toying with the idea of voting for Trump, although it's still too early to say.

I've argued many times with lesser evilists about the need to vote for third party candidates (I have voted Green several times, even writing them in if necessary). I've explained again and again that voting lesser evil only guarantees that the evil keeps getting worse every 4 years. It's gotten now to the point where the evil and the lesser evil have actually traded places. And, I may finally heed the advice given to me by these lesser evilists, but this time it will be to vote AGAINST the corporate Democrat.


#17

He said in a speech in Seattle, in response to a question, "I interviewed
Bernie in 2014, and I think he’s a great man, I think he’s a real statesman. I
really admire him, and I plan to vote for him when we have our primaries in
Maryland."


#19

Thanks!


#20

You can always write in Bernie, if he's not the nominee.


#23

Will do. Pretty sure I've seen a write in line before. Just sealed and stamped my ballot. :O)


#24

Robert Reich noted the same smugness on the part of the Party establishment a couple of years back: somehow demographics will magically return them to power, and they can keep on lining their pockets with corporate bribes--I mean "donations." More than her Corporatist philosophy, what has really turned me against Slick Hillary and the Party bosses is the rampant voting fraud which has characterized the Democratic primaries; the Republican primaries, ironically, have been remarkably free of this--which is why Trump has managed to win. I won't go into all the evidence for official party malfeasance regarding voting; if Clinton supporters want to think it is "sour grapes" so be it, the evidence is out there for anybody to see.

Even though Hillary will likely still not have a majority of committed delegates even with her massive electronic hacking, bogus absentee ballots, voter disenfranchisement, and assorted other dirty tricks, the media has already had the coronation before California and the other remaining primaries have ben held. I keep hearing the mantra that she is "the lesser of two evils." Well after more than thirty years of having hold my nose when I go to the polls, I'm pretty much fed up with the Dems fielding party hacks and Neo-Liberal DINOs instead of a real alternative to the Republican Corporatists.

In essence, the Democrats are saying to us, which would you prefer, Hitler or Mussolini? In this case, I am not convinced that Trump isn't the Mussolini alternative. In any case, the "lesser of two evils" argument is really a form of political extortion. If Bernie Sanders is denied the nomination, I think a substantial part of America will be ready to consider something that hasn't happened since 1860: a genuine multi-party electoral system. It is too late for the 2016 elections, but if all the Bernie supporters turn their dissatisfaction into action, real change can come--will come--in 2020. It is an absolute certainty that on the Republican side, if Trump is denied, his blue collar supporters, as misguided as they may be, will also be ready to abandon the establishment party for one that will roll back the bogus "free" trade deals and be committed to creating American jobs, not outsourcing them!


#26

wow. i will look into. Thank you!


#28

Yes. Why not? I just signed the petition. Run as an Independent, Bernie. We need our own party. The Dems are never going to support us. Why should they? They don't want a Revolution. They will lie through their teeth and promise to support us so we'll shut up and give them our votes. And it will be business as usual.