“Chelsea Clinton gave birth to a son this weekend. Unfortunately, due to his young age, he’s a Sanders supporter.” –Seth Meyers
“Congrats to Chelsea Clinton, who welcomed her second child over the weekend. After the birth, Bill brought flowers, while Hillary brought a focus group to help name the baby.” –Jimmy Fallon
“At a meeting with nearly 1,000 evangelical leaders today, Donald Trump told the attendees that Hillary Clinton is not worthy of their prayers. Although I’m pretty sure Hillary’s prayers were already answered when Trump won the GOP nomination.” –Seth Meyers
“According to the Social Security Administration, the most popular baby names in 2016 are Noah and Emma. Least popular baby names? Donald and Hillary.” –Jimmy Fallon
I have seen estimates and polls with a wide range of numbers as to how many of those of us who voted for Sanders will vote for Clinton. The latest is a poll from Bloomberg which shows that only 55 percent will vote for Clinton:
June 14th Bloomberg Politics national poll of likely voters in November’s election found that barely half of those who favored Sanders — 55 percent — plan to vote for Clinton. Instead, 22 percent say they’ll vote for Trump, while 18 percent favor Libertarian Gary Johnson. “I’m a registered Democrat, but I cannot bring myself to vote for another establishment politician like Hillary,” says Laura Armes, a 43-year-old homemaker from Beeville, Texas, who participated in the Bloomberg poll and plans to vote for Trump. “I don’t agree with a lot of what Trump says. But he won’t owe anybody. What you see is what you get.”
Conversations with two dozen Sanders supporters revealed a lingering distrust of Clinton as too establishment-friendly, hawkish or untrustworthy. As some Sanders fans see it, the primary was not a simple preference for purity over pragmatism, but a moral choice between an honest figure and someone whom they consider fundamentally corrupted by the ways of Washington. Sanders has fed these perceptions throughout his campaign, which is one reason he’s having a hard time coming around to an endorsement.
Voters like Armes, who says she’ll “definitely” vote in November, highlight the difficulty Clinton faces in unifying her party. Clinton’s paltry support among Sanders voters could still grow, as his disheartened fans process the hard-fought primary campaign. But the Bloomberg poll found that only 5 percent of Sanders supporters who don’t currently back Clinton would consider doing so in the future.
Eric Brooks, 52, a community organizer in San Francisco, won’t be among them. “I will absolutely never vote for Clinton,” says Brooks, a Sanders supporter who participated in the Bloomberg poll. Although Brooks indicated in the poll that he’ll support Johnson, that is not his intention. “I’d be okay voting for Johnson as a protest vote,” says Brooks. “But as a Green Party member, I’m going to vote for [Green Party candidate] Jill Stein. If you care about the climate, like I do, it makes a lot of sense strategically to vote for Stein, because she could get five percent, which has implications for the Green Party getting federal funding.”
One flaw is that the poll didn’t include presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein, who was mentioned by one of those interviewed. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson is left as the third party alternative. As Hit and Run points out, “Read any profile of the Libertarian nominee, and chances are you’ll get to a part where he points out that the ISideWith site says Sanders is the rival candidate he agrees with the most.” While there is tremendous overlap between Sanders and Johnson on social and foreign policy, Stein would be closer on economic policy.
It is not surprising at this point that about half of Sanders supporters are more reluctant to consider voting for Clinton. Most likely the majority of those who typically vote Democratic will wind up voting for Clinton, even if they have to hold their nose. Sanders supporters who voted in Democratic primaries this year but don’t typically vote Democratic will be less likely to stick with the party. Plus it is an oversimplification to call everyone who opposes Clinton a Sanders supporter as if this is the only thing which defines us. I voted for Sanders this year for the same reasons I voted for Obama against Clinton eight years ago–and these are essentially the same reasons I opposed George Bush.
There is little doubt that some of those who now say they will not vote for Clinton will change their minds before the election, but those who have not voted Democratic in the past are far less likely to. There is a much larger ideological gap between many Sanders supporters and Clinton than is normally seen in a nomination battle. Nominating Clinton as opposed to Sanders is a monumental loss to the Democratic Party long term as they lose the opportunity to bring in many independent and younger voters.
There is the possibility that it might not matter short term. While Clinton will have problems with more liberal and many independent voters, she does benefit from running against Donald Trump, who so far has run a rather inept general election campaign. Plus Clinton could make up for the loss of these voters by bringing in more Republican votes. As long as a Republican doesn’t consider abortion a litmus test, and isn’t a tea party extremist, a neoconservative DLC Democrat such as Clinton is rather close to traditional Republican beliefs.
If Trump continues to self-destruct as he has the past couple of weeks, Hillary Clinton could very well be come the top choice of Republicans. Just today, Brent Scowcroft former adviser to both Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush endorsed Clinton. This follows the recent endorsement from Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush. Other neoconservatives, such as Robert Kagan, had previously supported Clinton, not finding Trump to be hawkish enough for their tastes.
Of course, while Clinton very well could defeat Trump without support from the left, we have to wonder what type of Democratic Party we will be left with, especially considering how far right the Clintons moved the party the last time they were in control. As Sophia A. McClennen pointed out at Salon last week, the side effect of Clinton’s nomination has been to transform Democrats into “new” Republicans.
Despite running what is probably the most inept campaign ever by a major party candidate, Donald Trump remains within five points of Hillary Clinton in the latest CNN/ORC Poll. The fact remains that most people, for good reason, do not like either candidate. As CNN put it, “When asked whether they would be excited by a Trump or Clinton presidency, fewer than 3-in-10 muster that level of enthusiasm for either.” Bernie Sanders is seen favorably by 59 percent, compared with 41 percent for Clinton and 38 percent for Trump.
While Clinton hopes her attacks on Trump’s economic views will change things, a majority believe Trump could handle the economy better than Clinton. Clinton is seen as stronger on foreign policy, but Trump is seen as stronger on terrorism. Neither is seen as honest, but more see Clinton as dishonest than Trump:
The poll finds Clinton widely viewed as having the better temperament for the presidency (56% say so vs. 32% who feel Trump is temperamentally better-suited for the White House), while Trump has picked up some ground over Clinton when voters are asked who is more honest and trustworthy (45% say Trump, 37% Clinton, a near reversal since March). But still, 17% say they see neither candidate as honest and trustworthy.
Trump has problems related to his racism and xenophobia, while 59 percent see Clinton’s violations of policy and dishonesty surrounding her private email server when Secretary of State as a negative indicator of her character and ability to serve as president:
About two-thirds say the way Trump talks about race and ethnicity is an important indicator of his character and ability to serve as president. On Clinton’s handling of her email as secretary of state, about two-thirds now say she did something wrong by using a personal email address and home-based server to handle her communications, up from about half in March of last year when the story first came to light. Likewise, 6-in-10 now say they see her handling of email as an indicator of her character and ability to serve as president, up from about half in March of last year.
As I noted above, Bernie Sanders is seen in the most favorable light, far surpassing Clinton and Trump. The major third party candidates are receiving some support but remain far behind in the poll, with Gary Johnson, now the Libertarian Party official nominee, at nine percent and presumptive Green Party nominee at seven percent.
If Donald Trump can remain within five points of Clinton despite all his recent blunders and the lack of a real campaign structure, his election remains a real possibility should Clinton be hurt by further bad news or legal action. Democrats who are making so much noise about how we must fall in line behind Clinton due to the horrors of a Trump presidency should be pushing for Sanders to be the nominee if they are really sincere in desiring to ensure that Donald Trump doesn’t become president.
The above video has gone viral in which an eight-grader used his graduation speech to give impersonations of Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. As Bernie Sanders, he praised his school: “As far as schools go, TMS is in the top one half of one half of one percent of schools in the entire country.” The eight minute video is worth watching.
Orphan Black concluded its fourth season and has been renewed for one final season. The finale did feel like the midst of a two season arc, with cliff hangers for multiple characters, along with the end for Evie. The simplification of the season (at least by the standards of previous seasons) did work, with this season a big improvement over the third season. While they continued with the overall mythology of the show, including showing much more about Beth, there were far fewer organizations to keep straight.
Previously we went through what could have been a never-ending sequence of having a season deal with one shadowy organization, only to find that there was another one behind it. Ending next season probably means that the Neolutionists will be the final one we have to deal with, and P.T. Westmoreland just might actually be the person behind it. For now we know he built Rachel’s eye and is “the man behind the curtain. The man who wrote the book over a century ago.” Of course, as Mrs. S explained to Sarah, “There’s always a bloody board.” There was little talk of Proletheans, Topside or Dyad this season, and we were down to just one Castor clone.
There was an increase in Leda clones. with a lot of Beth being seen in flashbacks, the introduction of MK, and an expanded role for Krystal Goderitch. In the finale, Tatiana Maslany even played Sarah impersonating Krystal, impersonating a reporter for TMZ. Krystal both understands little and has figured out key points during her independent investigations. She is oblivious to being a clone, even denying that Sarah looks the same as her: “Even if you could drag a comb through that hair, she’s like a seven on a good day and I’ve been told I’m a 10.”
Krystal’s theory of the conspiracy is surprisingly close to the truth, if not for her confused view that it involves the cosmetics industry: “Hold on tight, cause this is very confusing. This is about human experiments and two factions fighting to control them. So we have Estee Lauder, okay, and then we have this Swedish company called Neolution.” She had the important information that Delphine is alive and that Van Lier was involved:
So, Dr. Van Lier is absolutely Neolution because he, like, showed up out nowhere with all this medical gear right after that French doctor was shot, okay, and then they, like, took her off in a van. So Van Lier, like knew my name, which was super freaky and I will never forget his face because he was so pissed at me for being there. And because he definitely had teenage acne. I could tell. No question.
Other highlights of the later episodes in the season was Helena returning in time to rescue Alison and Donnie, shooting their captor in the neck with an arrow. Rachel has once again become purely evil, plotting to take over everything, but did take a break with Ferdinand. Ira, the sole Castor clone of the season, got a good line:
Ira: Who is this?
Rachel: He’s just a toy.
Ira: He has his socks on.
Rachel: What do you want, Ira?
Plus the season ended with Cosima appearing to finally having the cure.
TV line discussed the finale with executive producer Graeme Manson. Here is a portion:
TVLINE | This felt like one of the show’s darkest and most twisted episodes to date. Was that the intention going into the finale?
It was probably our darkest season, certainly since the first. Obviously, we had Krystal. We’re never all dark. But what Sarah was going through this year was a dark journey. We thought it really had to pay off, and we knew it wasn’t going to be a pleasant climax to the season – but is it ever?
TVLINE | What note do you hope the finale leaves viewers on heading into Season 5, then?
We love a nice note of, “WTF?” with a smattering of, “How the hell are we going to get out of that?” We’ve thrown open this door of P.T. Westmoreland, and we’ve spent some time on this island. We’re very excited to explore that world. Sarah and all the clones, including Rachel, they’ve really done a lot to climb that pyramid. Now, what are we going to find at the top?
TVLINE | Quite a few characters were left in jeopardy at the end of the finale: Cosima, Sarah, Susan Duncan, even Mrs. S and Kira. Who should we be most worried about?
We have to be worried about everyone equally. But Sarah’s got two main issues: She came to the island to rescue Cosima, and now Kira is a hostage back with Mrs. S. So Sarah’s got two huge concerns, not to mention she’s pretty beat up and bleeding.
TVLINE | That confrontation between Sarah and Rachel was so intense, almost like a horror-movie thriller with the monster getting loose.
[Co-creator/director] John [Fawcett] and myself – particularly John – really love the horror and the visceral horror. It’s part of what we do. We love mashups on the show. We love mixing tones. That horror element that you’re talking about is really one that we can pull off well with everything that Tatiana [Maslany] does. Sarah vs. Rachel, too, is bringing us back to our earlier seasons, where Rachel came out of the woodwork and was Sarah’s real nemesis. Moving forward, we have narrowed it back down to clone vs. clone. I’m very interested in exploring that nemesis relationship.
TVLINE | Rachel has never been the warmest or sanest person. But it really felt like she cracked in this episode. What sent her over the edge?
On a deep psychological level, her hatred of Sarah is because Sarah has had so many of the things that Rachel has not had. Sarah has freedom, whereas Rachel has been ordained to be who she is more than any of the other clones. Sarah has perhaps a slightly dysfunctional but certainly a nurturing family, a chosen family. And Sarah has the love of her sisters. This is the root of Rachel’s jealousy and bitterness and true hatred. It’s a self-hatred at its core.
Mr. Robot, the surprise hit from last summer, returns on July 13. If I wasn’t behind on so many other shows, this is one series which I would really like to re-watch before going into the second season. Definitely watch it if you haven’t. It is now available for streaming on Amazon Prime and with the USA Network app.
Collider interviewed the stars. Here is the start of the interview, with major spoilers present (which will probably not sound very coherent) for those who have not seen the first season:
Collider: Christian, now that everybody is in on what’s going on . . .
CHRISTIAN SLATER: I love that you think that.
. . . at least as far as who your character is, does that chance your approach to things?
SLATER: I always looked at it as though I was as real as Elliot imagined me to be, and that was pretty real. I am there as his partner, as his protector, and as his enemy. I’m there sometimes for the right reasons and sometimes for the wrong reasons. It’s a continual struggle between the two of us. It turns into a real psychological journey for Elliot.
Rami, things must be a bit different in Season 2, now that Elliot is more aware of what’s actually going on in his life. Does it feel different for you, as an actor?
RAMI MALEK: It changes him, entirely. It gave me heart palpitations because when you do something that people respond to, and then you start altering the blueprint for what worked, it’s pretty fear-inducing. But sometimes, you have to do that, in order to push the boundaries. For this character and story to be as provocative as it was in the first season, we can’t rest on our laurels. You really have to just take some more risks and chances that I don’t think are for the sake of just taking risks and being different. They’re grounded in the story that Sam [Esmail] has created, with the trajectory and arc of all of these characters. I happened to know where he was headed this season, so I took some big changes and I think the audience will be rewarded by them. Maybe they’ll end up on the editing floor, but that remains to be seen.
As an actor who’s been in this business a long time, and had ups and downs, what’s it like to get such great scripts, every week?
SLATER: It’s great, getting the scripts and working with somebody like Sam Esmail, who is such a great leader. He’s just so prepared and there’s so much attention to detail. And then, you add Rami Malek to the mix, and Carly Chaikin and Portia Doubleday. And in Season 2, we have Joey Badass and Craig Robinson, who are amazing. To get to play a character like this, there’s so much freedom and fun with it that it’s very exciting.
You’ve known what the twists and turns were with this, from the very beginning. Were you ever bummed that you were in on it?
SLATER: No, I liked being in on it. I felt in on it, from the get-go. When I read the pilot, there was something so mysterious about the guy that it made me very suspicious. And then, when I went and met with Sam and asked him about it, he asked me if I really wanted to know. I said, “Yes,” so he told me. And then, he told me more details and revealed the relationship that I have with Elliot. I think that helped to add a deeper layer, across the board, throughout the whole season. So, it was great to know.
The 2016 presidential election already looks like it should be an unusual one, with the Republicans likely to nominate a racist and xenophobic reality host star with shocking lack of understanding of the issues, and the Democrats breaking pattern in probably nominating a candidate who is both ultra-hawkish and quite conservative on First Amendment issues. It might get even weirder, with Cory Michael Smith who plays Edward Nigma, on Gotham, saying next season will parallel the election:
Gotham, like many superhero stories, is a parallel of today’s society, of what happens every day. And in the third season, in the fall, when the United States will stand preparing to face one of the most important presidential elections in their history, even Gotham will address in parallel the issue.
I certainly could see Donald Trump as a super-villain. Sample trailer above. If only we had Batman, or at least Jim Gordon, to save us from the real candidates.
Doctor Who now qualifies to be nominated for Emmy Award now that BBC America has joined the BBC as a co-producer. Variety reports:
BBC America’s “Doctor Who” has been submitted for Emmy consideration for the first time ever. Now that the American cabler has come aboard as a co-producer, the venerable Brit series is finally eligible for consideration. Although it was not submitted as a drama series, star Peter Capaldi is on the lead actor ballot, showrunner Steven Moffat and director Rachel Talalay are on the writing and directing ballots for the episode “Heaven Sent” and the series is a possible nominee for costumes, production design, prosthetic makeup, and visual effects.
The show has not been nominated in the best dramatic series category, where it would be up against quite strong competition in a category where genre shows do not do well.
The CW network has released the premier dates for their shows, which continues to be dominated by genre next fall:
October 4 (Tuesday) The Flash No Tomorrow
October 5 (Wednesday) Arrow Frequency
October 10 (Monday) Supergirl
October 13 (Thursday) DC’s Legends of Tomorrow Supernatural
October 17 (Monday) Jane the Virgin
October 21 (Friday) The Vampire Diaries Crazy Ex-Girlfriend
The 100 and iZombie will be starting in the winter.
Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies, was killed in a freak auto accident today. The New York Times reports:
Anton Yelchin, a charismatic actor best known for playing Chekov in the new “Star Trek” films, died early on Sunday in a car accident in Los Angeles. He was 27.
His death was confirmed by his publicist, Jennifer Allen.
Mr. Yelchin was struck by his own car as it rolled backward down his driveway in Studio City, the police said. The car pinned Mr. Yelchin against a brick mailbox pillar and a security fence.
He had left the car momentarily, but the police did not say why he was behind it when it started rolling.
He was on his way to meet friends for a rehearsal, the police said. When he didn’t show up, the group came to his home and found him dead.
Mr. Yelchin began his career as a child with roles in independent films and on television before breaking out in films like the crime thriller “Alpha Dog” and the teenage comedy “Charlie Bartlett.” His biggest role had been as Pavel Chekov, navigator of the Starship Enterprise, in the rebooted “Star Trek” films, the third of which, “Star Trek Beyond,” is to be released in July.
More at TMZ , which also linked to this video of the Best of Chekov:
Officials with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania told Mayor Kenney in a letter Wednesday that recent statements by city lawyers “seem to be setting the City up for conflict with protesters during the Democratic National Convention.”
The letter noted that the ACLU has met regularly with city officials involved in planning for the DNC, an event expected to attract tens of thousands of delegates and protesters July 24-28.
“We are concerned that the City Law Department seems to have walked back several statements made earlier about how the City would accommodate protest during the DNC,” the ACLU wrote in the letter. “The new positions … raise serious First Amendment issues.”
Protest leaders are expected to meet with the city in a closed-door meeting Thursday, and topics like marching on public streets and sleeping overnight at impromptu campsites in city parks are up for discussion. Last week, NBC10.com reported that campsites in South Jersey are already filling up with pro-Bernie Sanders.
As many as 30,000 protesters could flood FDR Park, across the street from the Wells Fargo Center in South Philadelphia, during the entire week in July.
Their treatment at the park is among the concerns cited by the ACLU in their letter to Kenney.
The ACLU of Pennsylvania sent a letter to Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney today asking him to clarify the city’s position on protest activity during the Democratic National Convention. The letter is in response to recent statements by the city’s law department that contradict previous promises not to interfere with protesters.
“We are very troubled that the city seems to be walking back from its previous position of fully accommodating protest during the Democratic National Convention,” said Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “With the eyes of the country – and the world -on Philadelphia during the DNC, there is no better time to show respect for the fundamentally American tradition of peacefully expressing dissent. We hope Mayor Kenney will commit to ensuring that as many protesters as possible will have their voices heard.”
The issues raised in the letter include the city’s new proposal to prohibit all marches on Broad Street and those taking place during rush hour; the city’s plan for handling protesters demonstrating without permits, and fencing around FDR Park, where many protests will be held.
The feeling among many Sanders supporters is that while Donald Trump talks about building walls, Hillary Clinton is building walls–with there being even more serious examples of Hillary Clinton doing what Donald Trump so far has just talked about.
Hopefully this is just the start of a movement to put pressure on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party if Clinton is elected president. While unexpected events could still change matters, Clinton’s election is looking increasingly likely as Donald Trump has shown no ability so far to pivot from attracting right wing extremists to win the GOP nomination to a general election campaign. Like during the Vietnam War when both parties were at fault, the election of Hillary Clinton would be a tremendous victory for the supporters of neoconservative interventionism and for oligarchy, with both major parties supporting expansion of the warfare and surveillance state.
“The NRA on Friday endorsed Donald Trump for president. I guess that reaffirms their commitment to absolutely zero background checks.” –Seth Meyers
“Hillary Clinton said yesterday that she would like to see the FBI investigation of her emails wrapped up. Hillary then said, ‘Or deleted, whatever is easiest.'” –Conan O’Brien
“Donald Trump tweeted that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be ‘four more years of stupidity.’ As opposed to a Trump presidency, which would be one year of stupidity followed by three years of war with Mexico.” –Conan O’Brien
“Meanwhile, Trump says that he’s narrowed his list of candidates down to four or five. Though, if it’s a woman, she’ll definitely be a 10.” –Stephen Colbertt
“Despite her promises to be tough on Wall Street, a new report has found that groups supporting Hillary Clinton have received $25 million from the financial industry using so-called shadow banks. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has received a new waffle iron for opening a savings account.” –Seth Meyers
“And last night he shocked the world when he gave his victory speech using a teleprompter. A teleprompter. This from a guy who got this far by shouting whatever comes into his mind. Trump using a teleprompter is like the Flash calling an Uber, Aquaman taking a ferry, or Bernie Sanders using a comb.” –Stephen Colbert
“NASA scientists have discovered over 1,200 planets that are possibly habitable — where humans could live. In other words, if Donald Trump does become president, Canada’s not your only option.” –Conan O’Brien
“One of the ways that Trump is treating the convention like a reality show is holding off announcing his running mate. As one Trumpling said, ‘Announcing the vice-presidential nominee before the convention is like announcing the winner of ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ before the final show is on the air.’ It’s an apt metaphor, because this year’s Republican convention will be the series finale of America.” –Stephen Colbert
“The latest polls show Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 12 points nationally. I guess she’s getting some traction from her new slogan, ‘Come with me, if you want to live.'” –Seth Meyers
The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll confirms what we already knew–Americans are unhappy with the thought of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton being the major party nominees. Trump is doing the worse, which is no surprise considering that he continued his racist rants after becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, with his statements on policy also remaining incoherent. In a binary political race, we would expect that if one candidate becomes less popular, their opponent would become more popular. Instead, Hillary Clinton’s favorability also continues to decline:
Seven in 10 Americans see Donald Trump unfavorably in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, up 10 points in just the past month to a new high since he announced his candidacy for president. But Hillary Clinton reached a new high for unfavorability as well, 55 percent.
The results mark the striking challenges facing both candidates, cementing their position as the two most unpopular presumptive major party nominees for president in ABC News/Washington Post polling dating to 1984.
While unlikely, it is not too late for either party to choose a more suitable candidate now that we have seen how badly the primary process has failed. There has been speculation that the Republicans might write convention rules to allow this. With the party leaders opposing Trump, and many of Trump’s delegates not personally in favor of Trump, it is possible that a majority would support rules which eliminate bound delegates and allow all to vote as they choose. Another possibility could be to require a super-majority on the first ballot and leave delegates free to vote as they choose on subsequent ballots. The Republicans face two major problems if they try this–the wrath of those who really do support Trump, and the lack of a clear replacement.
The Democratic Party is less likely to change their nominee unless forced to by outside forces (such as an indictment of Hillary Clinton). After all, Clinton is supported by the party establishment, and party rules are written to promote a conservative Democrat such as Clinton over an insurgent candidate such as Sanders. While they are unlikely to dump Clinton at the convention, there are many strong reasons to do so. As Sophia McClennen has pointed out, Clinton, with both her policies and tactics, is transforming the Democratic Party into another version of the Republicans. Dave Chandler has made an excellent list of reasons why Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president.
While Clinton now has taken a lead over Trump in the traditional presidential polls, Rasmussen found that more people would rather go out for a beer with Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. Even ignoring the pro-Republican house effect at Rasmussen, I’m not surprised. Trump probably would be more entertaining to go out drinking with, but there are limits as to how much of him people can take. Near equal numbers of people would have either candidate over for dinner.
With the nominees of both parties being so incredibly awful, this might be the year to try to break the monopoly the major political parties have held since Abraham Lincoln was elected president as a third party candidate. With cynicism about the corrupt political system reaching a boiling point, as described by Connor Lynch, more voters might be willing to look at alternatives. Young voters, who are not tied to either political party, are probably the most willing to consider third party candidates. The International Business Times questions whether young Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, and how many might vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. A few of us older voters are thinking the same way:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past year, you know that young people love Sanders. Here’s exactly how much: During the primary season, more than 70 percent of Democratic voters under 30 supported the Vermont senator, Vox reported earlier this month. Individual states’ numbers are even more impressive. In Illinois, 86 percent of young voters chose him over Clinton, an Illinois native. In Ohio, 81 percent did, according to U.S. News and World Report…
For Sanders supporters who have decried Clinton as a warmonger, stooge of Wall Street and corrupt career politician, that means it’s time to either fall in line with most Democrats or look elsewhere…
“What happens is people forget in the fall,” Williamson said. “Democrats vote for the Democrats and Republicans vote for the Republicans.”
But anecdotal evidence suggests that might not prove true for the millennial generation, half of which identifies as independent and thousands of whom are first-time voters who don’t have strong party loyalty. In the YouGov poll, 32 percent of Sanders supporters under 30 said they’d choose a third-party option if the senator didn’t make the ballot…
History has proven that young people’s votes matter: In 2012, for example, at least 80 electoral votes were dependent upon voters under 30, according to Circle data. Without the youth vote, the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, which supported Obama that year, would have gone red. Mitt Romney could have become president.
Clinton very well might still win due to fear of a Trump presidency, and there are huge obstacles for a third party candidate. The record unpopularity of the major party candidates, the growing number of independent voters, and the impact of the internet on both fund raising and growing support, make the chances better than ever before. Having the right candidate is essential, and many Sanders supporters are now hoping that Sanders will continue his campaign until November, with the goal to try win and not just be a Nader-style spoiler.
While Donald Trump’sdisregard for civil liberties in response to terrorism has been rather obvious, one sad fact about the 2016 election is that Hillary Clinton isn’t much better. Mediaite points out a serious flaw in her views in response to a tweet from Clinton from earlier today: “If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.”
If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn’t be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
Clinton’s proposal and others like it have met with criticism from civil libertarians and legal scholars, who argue that you cannot constitutionally deny citizens their rights without proving that they are guilty in a trial. “We generally don’t take away rights based on suspicion” is how UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh puts it.
Clinton evidently disagrees, likely believing that we as a society ought to be wary of anyone being investigated by the feds, even in the absence of a conviction. At the very least, she seems to think we should ask pointed questions of those the federal government believes put the national security of the United States at risk through their actions.
Of course, Clinton’s comments come after the Orlando shooting Sunday morning, carried out by a perpetrator who was investigated by federal authorities but then removed from watch lists. So even if the federal government stops investigating a suspect, we may have to act on the assumption they broke the law anyway.
America has an appalling, unconscionable, and unparalleled gun violence problem. The federal government has proven able in the past to pass gun safety laws—like rigorous licensing requirements and comprehensive backgrounds checks—that have proven to be quite effective at reducing gun violence. Much, much more can and should be done. For example, the federal government should also promptly repeal the outrageously unjust law that protects gun sellers across the country from legal liability when they negligently sell firearms to unqualified purchasers. And Congress should forbid manufacturers from selling weapons of war—guns that have no plausible purpose other than to slaughter vast numbers of humans in as short a time as possible.
What Congress, or the next president, should not do, however, is forbid individuals on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from purchasing firearms. The problem here is largely one of precedent: The Supreme Court has said private gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. It has also ruled that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right” under the 14th Amendment as a component of the “liberty” protected by the due process clause. As I explained in December:
The Supreme Court’s ahistorical, atextual reading of the Second and 14th Amendments as guarantors of an individual right to bear arms may be deeply flawed. But limiting any right, no matter how specious, based on undisclosed, mistake-ridden lists is even more unsound. The Constitution is anchored by the promise of due process; so long as gun ownership is considered an aspect of liberty, the government must not revoke it unilaterally, with no opportunity for appeal. Civil libertarians should push to abolish the terror watch lists, not expand their reach.
If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.
This is hardly the only civil liberties problem with regards to Hillary Clinton. During the 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton was the only Democrat who refused to sign a pledge to restore Constitutional liberties. All the Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, also refused to sign. She introduced legislation to make flag burning in protest a felony while in the Senate, and has used language quite similar to Donald Trump in showing a lack of respect for freedom of speech.
There is a special irony with Clinton equating being under FBI investigation with guilt here, considering that Clinton herself is under FBI investigation on other matters. By this logic, Clinton being under investigation should by itself be sufficient grounds to deny her the Democratic nomination. Of course it is much more reasonable to deny someone the nomination to be president than to deny civil liberties to large numbers of people. There has already been plenty revealed about her actions as Secretary of State which should disqualify her from consideration.
The conventional wisdom has been that Donald Trump would benefit in the presidential race were there were to be a terrorist attack or economic downturn. In the aftermath of the attack in Orlando, that will probably be revised. Trump might still benefit from economic problems, with a majority trusting Trump over Clinton on the economy. It is too soon to have any polling, but it is hard to see Trump benefiting from his post-Orlando comments, including his speech today, which sounds much better in the original German.
Trump was already doing poorly since he clinched the nomination, with his campaign limited to attacks on other Republicans and racist attacks on judges. His statements over the last couple of days might have doomed him to a landslide loss. I fear that when Trump said, “The bottom line is that the only reason the killer was in America in the first place was because we allowed his family to come here” he really does see every Muslim immigrant as being a future terrorist.
Trump has tried to place the blame on both Obama and Clinton for the attack. He is correct in criticizing Clinton’s Libya policy for the spread of terrorism in the region, and her views on Syria were almost as insane as Trump’s foreign policy. However, Trump is being selective in looking at Libya and Syria, while ignoring Iraq, where both the Republicans and Clinton were wrong. While these policies did make matters worse in the middle east, it is premature to connect this to the lone terrorist in Orlando without clearer knowledge of his views and motivation.
More importantly, while again he is right to condemn Clinton’s Libya and Syria positions, he has hardly been consistent, and Trump’s position here is also quite dangerous. As David Ignatius and William Saleton have pointed out, Trump’s attack on Islam plays right into the hands of terrorists–as George Bush did when he attacked Iraq. From Saleton’s article:
Trump also reinforces ISIS’s message that the campaign against it is a war against Islam. His ban on entry to the United States would apply to all Muslims, not just to radicals or supporters of terrorism. Three months ago, Trump declared that “Islam hates us” and refused to distinguish radical Muslims from Muslims in general, arguing that “it’s very hard to separate because you don’t know who is who.” On Friday, just before the Orlando attack, he told an audience of conservative Christians that he would “defend Christian Americans” and clamp down on the influx of “Syrian refugees.”
n short, Trump would undercut everything that’s working against ISIS: Muslim governments that have joined our military campaign, clerics who are articulating moderate Islam, ministries and activists who are working online to discredit jihadism. He would help ISIS obtain the weapons it needs most: overseas recruits who are willing to kill people in their own countries. He would make another Orlando more likely.
Trump thinks his policy of “vigilance” against domestic Muslims would protect us. But that, too, serves the enemy’s agenda. In its Ramadan message, ISIS urged its sympathizers in the West to wage jihad in their own countries, “to make examples of the crusaders, day and night, scaring them and terrorizing them, until every neighbor fears his neighbor.” That’s the purpose of the attacks in Fort Hood, Boston, San Bernardino, and Orlando: to terrorize us, to polarize us, to make every neighbor fear his neighbor.
So far, the terrorists haven’t succeeded. But Trump might.
I continue to fear how a war monger like Hillary Clinton might respond to a terrorist attack as president. There is also the question of how significant it is that Hillary Clinton has taken another step to the right of Barack Obama, at least in her terminology. In other words, Hillary Clinton is the neocon in this race, and is the candidate representing the usual Republican view. Donald Trump is looking like something even scarier.
Bernie Sanders had a more sensible response, which also demonstrated the limitations to Chuck Todd’s world view. While not very likely, I am still holding out hope that both parties come to their senses at their conventions, as opposed to leaving us with what might be the worst election choice ever.