How Did We Get Such a Terrible Nominee?

The party candidate isn’t true to its basic principles, lies, is ruthless, breaks the law and has record-high disapproval ratings in the polls. How the hell did America’s oldest political party wind up with such a terrible candidate? Easy: they plotted and schemed.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

20 thoughts on “How Did We Get Such a Terrible Nominee?

  1. From everything Trump has said and done, he would be an unmitigated disaster on domestic policy, while Billary would be a slightly mitigated disaster.

    On foreign policy, Trump has contradicted himself so much one has to go by which stands he repeated more than others. And right now Trump is being soundly castigated for saying: a) it was wrong to overthrow Saddam and Qadhafi, which allowed the Daesh and other violent jihadists to overrun large parts of Iraq and Libya. Wrong! (Just ask Friedman, Cohen, Tom the Dancing, Bug, etc., etc.). Secretary Clinton helped transform Iraq and Libya from impoverished dictatorships where the poor people were all miserable and being brutalised into peaceful and prosperous democracies where everyone is eternally grateful to the US and Secretary Clinton. Obviously, the likes of Friedman, et al, know what they’re talking about, so Trump must be lying. (Please don’t ask Iraqis or Libyans, what do those ignorant savages know? Trust Friedman.); and b) Trump says we need to work with Assad and Putin to fight terrorism. Again, Friedman, Cohen, Krugman, et al assure us that is completely wrong. Every jihadist was sent by Putin and Assad (from Camp Bucca) to justify their murder of 300,000 innocents. The way to fight terrorism is to liberate both Syria and Russia. And Billary will manage to liberate both at minimal cost in US dollars and lives, while Trump would allow the two evil dictators to continue massacring innocents and sending jihadists to attack Western countries!

    Basically, voting 3rd party has strange, unpredictable effects. I voted for Perot, and wish I’d voted for Bush, sr, who was (very slightly) less of a problem than Bill. I STILL think Perot would have been better than Bush, sr or Bill, but my vote for Perot helped put Bill in the White House.

    • «The way to fight terrorism is to liberate both Syria and Russia. And Billary will manage to liberate both at minimal cost in US dollars and lives, while Trump would allow the two evil dictators to continue massacring innocents and sending jihadists to attack Western countries!»

      You’ve convinced me, Michael – it’s Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton for me ! If only I had the franchise in your great country, leader of the free world (and no doubt, defender of the faith, as well), I’d help to put her over the top !… 😉

      Henri

  2. So let’s recap. DWS gets caught using the DNC as a mechanism to support one candidate over another during the nomination. Here’s what HRC said: “There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie–which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states. I look forward to campaigning with Debbie in Florida and helping her in her re-election bid.”

    Have we all got this? DWS gets caught breaking the rules so badly that she is forced to resign (albeit in a mostly pointless fashion as all the real work is done once the convention ends) and what’s the first thing HRC does?

    HRC finds DWS a job AND promises to help DWS keep her elected position. It sounds like the Catholic Church’s way of handling “problems” doesn’t it?

    I simply cannot vote for HRC. If that means sitting out the election, fine. I’m done. It’s no longer a matter of “potayto, potahto.” It simply is too much hypocrisy to swallow anymore.

    • «I simply cannot vote for HRC. If that means sitting out the election, fine. I’m done.» But why, alex_the_tired- would not voting for Ms Clinton – and presumably not for Mr Trump, as well – mean «sitting out the election» ? Pardon a bystander like myself for commenting on your internal matters (although the choices made in your country affect, alas,all of us throughout the entire world), but surely in that shining city on a hill in which you live, there do exist other alternatives than voting a Democratic or Republican ticket or refusing to vote at all ?…

      Henri

      • Voting for “third” parties does have one real-world effect. It scares the Hell out of the duopolists.

        Presidential candidates typically win by a few percentage points of the popular vote. If that single-digit percentage of the electorate vote a different direction, that may be enough to throw the election to the other side.

        That’s why the GOP kowtows to the Koolaid Party.

      • The song-and-dance is always the same: “Voting for a third party” is a wasted vote.

        Just think of this: If the disillusioned Republicans and the disillusioned

        Democrats got behind that third party, the 3rd-party candidate just might actually win the White House.

        Speaking for myself, I’m going Green and voting for Jill Stein. Hopefully, a number of others will do likewise.

        🙂

      • This is an interesting discussion on Jill Stein and ‘third’ parties.

        I have, myself, criticized the Greens for putting so much effort into the Presidential race when we have zero Green congress critters, and very few office holders at the state level. They need to build up a following before they have any real chance at POTUS.

        I’m probably voting for Jill myself, but as I said above it’s more about the message than any real hope of election.

      • «Votes for third parties have been relegated to the realm of symbolism to an even greater extent than voting for one of the R D duopoly.» Glenn, I didn’t remember any such conclusion in the article by Professors Gilens and Page, so I’ve now reread it, but still was unable to find any specific reference to this issue there. Perhaps you could enlighten me ?…

        The article does, however, come with one seemingly robust conclusion that should give rise to reflection among all interested in government of, by, and for the people (to coin a phrase) :

        «Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy,our analyses suggest that majorities of the American
        public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then
        America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.»

        Henri

      • «The song-and-dance is always the same: “Voting for a third party” is a wasted vote.» And a vote for a candidate from either of the two major parties in the US is a vote to preserve an utterly corrupt system. Not sure, however, that one can sing and dance to this melody in a minor key….

        Henri

      • “analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts”

        Next, they will investigate other unsolved mysteries such as “Is water wet?”

      • «Next, they will investigate other unsolved mysteries such as “Is water wet?”» Now, now, CrazyH, you know very well that only conspiracy theorists believe that water is wet, no matter what deluded academics say. Statements of that type are obviously in the same class as that other noted conspiracy theory concerning anthropogenic global warming…. 😉

        Henri

  3. The New York Times has been saying since ’15 that it is unpatriotic for anyone to run against Billary, by far the best qualified person EVER to run for president. That guy who told the truth about chopping some kind of tree (apple? orange? loquat?) will no longer make it into the history books after Billary. (Actually, I fear there is a real chance that might be the case.) Sanders will endorse Billary tonight, and ask all the people who voted for him to vote for Billary in what is expected to be a drastic contrast with the Cruz speech (but it’s not clear that he’ll convince very many of them). Bloomberg will also urge everyone to vote for Billary. P. J. O’ Roarke urged everyone to vote for Billary.

    The author of Dilbert and Michael Moore both think Trump will win in a landslide, but, since Trump is only courting angry, white men, it’s not clear where that landslide will come from.

    Fivethirtyeight says the polls aren’t really predictive until the end of August.

    I wonder if Fox News will believe all those biased polls this year that they had the good sense to reject in ’12, including that biased poll with completely wrong results on 6 Nov.

    • Well, Michael, it would indeed be quite a story if in his convention speech, Mr Sanders were to urge people to vote their conscience…. 😉

      Henri

      • I would that Bernie might urge his supporters to vote for the only remaining progressive candidate, Jill Stein of the Green Party.
        I know it ain’t gonna happen.
        My prediction is that his supporters will stay at home on election day and throw the advantage to the Donald. 🙁

  4. Have you seen the leaked emails yet? The DNC has been caught red-handed supporting one candidate over another. Maybe we should adopt a totalitarian approach where the government tells the people who the president will be. The results would be the same, but it would be cheaper and less annoying than campaign “season”

    • « Maybe we should adopt a totalitarian approach where the government tells the people who the president will be.» «We» as in «We, the People», or «we» as in «we, the campaign contributors/buyers» ?….

      You needn’t bother answering the question, which was mainly rhetorical….

      Henri

  5. The placard says it all ; that Hillary arrow is pointing directly to the right. The only thing missing from the place at the right of the poster to which the arrow points is a mushroom cloud….

    We – you in the US and we in the rest of the world – have been had, and it would take a resignation of an entirely different dignity than that of Debbie Wasserman Schultz to make things right….

    Alas, not gonna happen….

    Henri

Leave a Reply