Trump has no interest in doing any good for anybody. He is not interested in
“helping” you, us, the people, the country, the world, the environment, he is
not interested in helping anyone. He only wants to hurt *THEM*, whichever
“them” happens to be in his sights at any given moment: Muslims, immigrants,
Mexicans, women, foreigners, both the people and their governments, poor people
losers, fill in the blank, there are so many “thems” in Trumps world view.
This is what his supporters rally around. They share this desire to hurt, born
of resentment, hatred, prejudice, misplaced anger, envy, and they think that by
joining in, they’ll also be invited to join in the lifestyles they so envy,
those of the rich and famous, so to speak.
And, voila, the bandwagon of hate is rolling.
I also find it incredible that, all of a sudden, the Republican establishment,
beginning with that namby-pamby, ineffectual Romney is now in a panic to stop
the Donald. I know the Hitler analogy has been done to death, but there it is
again…just as so many in Europe, including so many Jews, did not take Hitler
seriously during his ascent, to power, they all said, he’s a madman, he’s a
joke, no one will take him seriously, he’ll never get elected, and we all know
where that led and where most of those people ended up, the same thing has
happened with Trump…when will we ever learn?
On Feb 29, 2016, at 9:58 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So what does this say about Democracy, how well it works, and how easily the
people can be influenced to vote against their own interest? He might
actually win. A lot of people really dislike Hillary personally and that is
the basis on which they vote, personal likes and dislikes.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Krugman
(Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 12:46 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump" good for Dems bad for America
people like Trump are intriguing to the working classes because of their
bravado and what they stand for. We had the same phenomenon in California
when the action hero was elected Governor. he had the same type of intrigue
and people wanted the action hero Schwarzenegger in office. just got back
from the state Democratic convention this week end.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump" good for Dems bad for America
I wonder how many members of the public, people like this author talk to
before writing their very knowledgeable sounding opinion pieces. Not that
I'm doing a scientific sample, but the less educated lower middle class
people with whom I come into contact, dislike Hillary personally, and they
are intrigued by Trump. They are unmoved by Ssanders. They never heeard of
Jill Stein.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles Krugman
(Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 7:09 AM
To: Blind Democracy
Subject: [blind-democracy] Trump" good for Dems bad for America
Trump: Good for Dems, Bad for America
By Peter Dreier
trump bad for americaWould having Donald Trump as the GOP nominee be good or
bad for the Democrats - or for the country?
On the one hand, I'm confident that either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders
could beat Trump relatively easily. Current polls show Sanders beating
Trump, and Clinton beating Trump (although by a narrower margin).
Over the course of the campaign, things could change, although even with all
of Trump's fortune, and that of the Koch brothers and other GOP donors, the
Dems will be able to hold their own in fundraising. Some corporate Dems
might go with Trump if Sanders gets the Democratic nod, but most of them
will probably stick with Sanders. During the campaign, many more outrageous
things will emerge about Trump's past and present - his womanizing, his bad
and corrupt business practices and bankruptcies, his lies about his past,
his chronic flip-flopping on issues, his ignorance of basic policy - than
will come out about either Clinton or Sanders.
After so many years in the national spotlight, Hillary has already been
thoroughly vetted. She has no skeletons in her closet we don't already know
about. No doubt Trump will try to resurrect the phony Whitewater scandal or
Vincent Foster's death, but it is unlikely they'll get much traction. He'll
bring up Bhenghazi and the emails, but by mid-summer the voters won't care.
Trump will call Clinton a "socialist," just as the Republicans, Tea Party,
and the Limbaugh lunatics and Fox News fanatics tried to pin that label on
Barack Obama for the past seven years. Ultra right-wing voters will believe
it, but most Americans will understand that, like Obama, she's a liberal,
not a socialist.
Sanders is a democratic socialist, so if he's the Democratic nominee, Trump
and the GOP billionaires boys club (Adelson, Koch brothers, etc) will spend
big bucks trying to defame him as a Communist, even though that's a very
different thing - in fact, the opposite thing - from a socialist. Recent
public opinion polls, however, suggest that such "red-baiting" tactics
aren't likely to work, since the McCarthy era and the Cold War have been
over for decades. Polls show that most Americans don't care about the
"socialist" label one way or another. In fact, a Pew survey found that
under-30 Americans have slightly more favorable attitudes toward socialism
than toward capitalism. And that poll was taken in December 2011, before
Sanders' campaign began injecting and popularizing the words "democratic
socialism" into the mainstream conservation. Young people today probably
identify socialism with Scandinavia's more livable societies rather than
with the authoritarian Communist countries like Russia and China.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, turnout among Republicans will likely plunge
because even many Republicans find Trump distasteful. They won't vote for
Hillary or Bernie, but they might stay home, even in the swing states
So Trump, the GOP, and the right-wing echo chamber (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh,
etc) will also try to define Sanders as a big-spending radical who will
raise taxes, promote "big government," and try to turn the United States
into Denmark or Sweden. (By the way, Forbes magazine ranked Denmark as the
#1 country for business. The United States ranked #18). In fact, polls show
that a vast majority of Americans actually agree with Sanders on most key
issues, even if they don't define themselves as democratic socialists. As I
explained in my article in American Prospect last summer, "Is Bernie Sanders
Too Radical for America?" Sanders is in sync with most Americans. The
respected writer David Cay Johnston said the same thing in his column last
week in the New York Daily News, "You Agree With Bernie Sanders (But You
Might Not Know It)."
If Trump is the GOP nominee, turnout among Republicans will likely plunge
because even many Republicans find Trump distasteful. They won't vote for
Hillary or Bernie, but they might stay home, even in the swing states, which
would help the Democrats running for Senate as well as Hillary or Bernie.
And turnout among Latinos, African Americans, and women (especially young
women) will increase because Trump has gone out of his way to offend those
groups.
I doubt that Trump can help Republicans win in the nine battleground Senate
races because his appeal is so narrow, although it will grow somewhat if
he's the GOP nominee. He'll increase turnout among right-wing zealots, but
they represent less than 10% of all voters and perhaps 25% to 30% of all
Republican voters. (Self-identified Republicans represent 26% of voters
compared with 44% who identify as independents and 29% as Democrats,
according to the latest Gallup Poll).
Many independent voters will likely be drawn to the polls to vote against
Trump, even if they aren't enthusiastic about either Clinton or Sanders.
Trump could fracture the GOP, which is good for Democrats. Looking
state-by-state, I don't see a path by which Trump gets 270 Electoral Votes
against either Clinton or Sanders.
But to Democrats salivating at the idea of running a candidate against
Trump, I say: Be careful what you wish for. You won't like the country that
Hillary or Bernie (hopefully with a Democratic majority in the Senate. which
will allow the Democratic president to appoint two, three or four Supreme
Court justices) will have to lead.
LA Progressive
Progressive Media Advocates
Home
Topics
Animal Rights
Climate Change
Economic Justice
Education Reform
Elections and Campaigns
Environment
Healthcare Reform
Immigration Reform
Labor
Law and Justice
LGBTQ
Progressive Issues
Social Justice / Racism
The Media
The Middle East
War and Peace
Authors
All Authors
Anthony Samad
Steve Hochstadt
Charles D. Hayes
David A. Love
Diane Lefer
Dick Price
Georgianne Nienaber
Jerry Drucker
John Peeler
Joseph Palermo
Tom Hall
Sharon Kyle
Sikivu Hutchinson
About Us
About Us / Copyright Info
New Media Workshops
Advertise
Events
Subscribe
LAP Live!
Trump: Good for Dems, Bad for America
By Peter Dreier
27
0
1
1
0
trump bad for americaWould having Donald Trump as the GOP nominee be good or
bad for the Democrats - or for the country?
On the one hand, I'm confident that either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders
could beat Trump relatively easily. Current polls show Sanders beating
Trump, and Clinton beating Trump (although by a narrower margin).
Over the course of the campaign, things could change, although even with all
of Trump's fortune, and that of the Koch brothers and other GOP donors, the
Dems will be able to hold their own in fundraising. Some corporate Dems
might go with Trump if Sanders gets the Democratic nod, but most of them
will probably stick with Sanders. During the campaign, many more outrageous
things will emerge about Trump's past and present - his womanizing, his bad
and corrupt business practices and bankruptcies, his lies about his past,
his chronic flip-flopping on issues, his ignorance of basic policy - than
will come out about either Clinton or Sanders.
After so many years in the national spotlight, Hillary has already been
thoroughly vetted. She has no skeletons in her closet we don't already know
about. No doubt Trump will try to resurrect the phony Whitewater scandal or
Vincent Foster's death, but it is unlikely they'll get much traction. He'll
bring up Bhenghazi and the emails, but by mid-summer the voters won't care.
Trump will call Clinton a "socialist," just as the Republicans, Tea Party,
and the Limbaugh lunatics and Fox News fanatics tried to pin that label on
Barack Obama for the past seven years. Ultra right-wing voters will believe
it, but most Americans will understand that, like Obama, she's a liberal,
not a socialist.
Sanders is a democratic socialist, so if he's the Democratic nominee, Trump
and the GOP billionaires boys club (Adelson, Koch brothers, etc) will spend
big bucks trying to defame him as a Communist, even though that's a very
different thing - in fact, the opposite thing - from a socialist. Recent
public opinion polls, however, suggest that such "red-baiting" tactics
aren't likely to work, since the McCarthy era and the Cold War have been
over for decades. Polls show that most Americans don't care about the
"socialist" label one way or another. In fact, a Pew survey found that
under-30 Americans have slightly more favorable attitudes toward socialism
than toward capitalism. And that poll was taken in December 2011, before
Sanders' campaign began injecting and popularizing the words "democratic
socialism" into the mainstream conservation. Young people today probably
identify socialism with Scandinavia's more livable societies rather than
with the authoritarian Communist countries like Russia and China.
If Trump is the GOP nominee, turnout among Republicans will likely plunge
because even many Republicans find Trump distasteful. They won't vote for
Hillary or Bernie, but they might stay home, even in the swing states
So Trump, the GOP, and the right-wing echo chamber (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh,
etc) will also try to define Sanders as a big-spending radical who will
raise taxes, promote "big government," and try to turn the United States
into Denmark or Sweden. (By the way,Forbes magazine rankedDenmark as the #1
country for business. The United States ranked #18). In fact, polls show
that a vast majority of Americans actually agree with Sanders on most key
issues, even if they don't define themselves as democratic socialists. As I
explained in my article in American Prospect last summer,"Is Bernie Sanders
Too Radical for America?" Sanders is in sync with most Americans. The
respected writer David Cay Johnston said the same thing in his column last
week in the New York Daily News, "You Agree With Bernie Sanders (But You
Might Not Know It)."
If Trump is the GOP nominee, turnout among Republicans will likely plunge
because even many Republicans find Trump distasteful. They won't vote for
Hillary or Bernie, but they might stay home, even in the swing states, which
would help the Democrats running for Senate as well as Hillary or Bernie.
And turnout among Latinos, African Americans, and women (especially young
women) will increase because Trump has gone out of his way to offend those
groups.
I doubt that Trump can help Republicans win in thenine battleground Senate
races because his appeal is so narrow, although it will grow somewhat if
he's the GOP nominee. He'll increase turnout among right-wing zealots, but
they represent less than 10% of all voters and perhaps 25% to 30% of all
Republican voters. (Self-identified Republicans represent 26% of voters
compared with 44% who identify as independents and 29% as Democrats,
according to the latest Gallup Poll).
Many independent voters will likely be drawn to the polls to vote against
Trump, even if they aren't enthusiastic about either Clinton or Sanders.
Trump could fracture the GOP, which is good for Democrats. Looking
state-by-state, I don't see a path by which Trump gets 270 Electoral Votes
against either Clinton or Sanders.
But to Democrats salivating at the idea of running a candidate against
Trump, I say: Be careful what you wish for. You won't like the country that
Hillary or Bernie (hopefully with a Democratic majority in the Senate. which
will allow the Democratic president to appoint two, three or four Supreme
Court justices) will have to lead.
In his 2004 novel, The Plot Against America, Philip Roth imagines that
aviator Charles Lindbergh defeats President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1940
election. Lindbergh was an anti-Semite, sympathetic to Adolph Hitler and the
Nazis, and an "America First" supporter who opposed U.S. entry into World
War 2. In Roth's novel, the Lindbergh presidency makes anti-semitism more
acceptable and catalyzes a wave of persecution against Jews and, one would
expect, Blacks and other minority groups.
Although I doubt that Trump can win the presidency, even in defeat, he would
be extremely dangerous for America, similar to Roth's counter-factual fears
about Lindbergh as a winning candidate.
If he wins the GOP nomination, he would have a huge megaphone to give
legitimacy to all the worst aspects of American culture and society,
including racism, sexism, nativism, xenophobia, vulgar nastiness,
indifference to policy nuances, and ignorance of basic economic and budget
realities. His very presence as the GOP standard-bearer would poison the
national political culture. He would provoke hatred - perhaps even physical
violence - against Muslims, Mexican immigrants, and women. His every
outrageous statement would be on the nightly news. He would get more media
coverage than either Clinton or Sanders, whose policy ideas would look dull
and un-newsworthy compared with Trump's daily bombastic comments. (Ted Cruz
is even more conservative than Trump, but he is less charismatic and
effective at dominating the media cycles and mobilizing public opinion).
The presidential debates would turn into wrestling matches, no matter how
much Clinton or Sanders try to steer the conversation to substantive issues.
Either Democrat would destroy Trump in a debate if the moderators could
contain Trump's bullying and force him to stick to the issues, but that's a
big "if."
The good side is that the debates would attract a huge TV audience and most
Americans (even a significant slice of Republicans) would realize that Trump
- even if he's on his best behavior - is not fit to be president. The bad
side is that the debates would attract a huge TV audience and a sizable
slice of Americans would identify with and cheer on Trump's incendiary
rhetoric, megalomania, and macho madness.
There are, of course, other scenarios.
.If Sanders or Trump are the nominees of their respective parties, New York
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has threatened to enter the presidential contest. (I
doubt Bloomberg would run for president if Clinton is the Democrats'
nominee). Could Bloomberg beat Sander and Trump by spending his fortune and
enlisting his corporate friends to bet on him?
.If Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or even Jeb Bush or John Kasich win the GOP
nomination, Trump might enter the race as an independent (third party)
candidate. That scenario would guarantee an even bigger Democratic victory
in November, since Trump would take votes away from the Republican
candidate.
.But what if Rubio, Cruz, Bush or Kasich get the GOP nob, Sanders wins the
Democratic nomination, and Trump runs as an independent? Would Bloomberg
enter the fray and make it a four-person race? There hasn't been a
presidential contest with four credible candidates since 1948, when
President Harry Truman (the Democrat), New York Governor Thomas Dewey
(Republican), former Democratic Vice President Henry Wallace (running on the
Progressive Party ticket), and Democratic South Carolina Governor Strom
Thurmond (running on the segregationist States Rights, or Dixiecrat, ticket)
vied for the White House. Truman won by a slim margin.
In a four-person race that included Trump, Bloomberg, Sanders and the GOP
nominee, all bets are off. Unlike the 1948 contest, I don't know if any of
them could get 270 Electoral Votes. If no candidate receives a majority of
Electoral Votes, then the House of Representatives elects the President from
the three Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes.
Given the likelihood that the House will remain in Republican hands after
November's election, that's not a pleasant scenario.
The most likely scenario: Either Sanders and Clinton will beat Trump. That
will mean that America will be in a better place, ready to address many of
our problems. But the residue of that presidential contest won't entirely
disappear. Trump will emerge from his losing campaign as a man on a mission
with a wounded ego and a large following.
peter dreierEven in defeat, Trump won't fade away, even if most Republicans
disown him for bringing the party down. With his money, his name
recognition, his ego, and his ability to attract media attention, he will
continue to whip up the most ugly aspects of our society, rub raw the sores
of hatred and discontent, and try to stymie Sanders or Clinton from making
any headway on their policy agendas. It won't be pretty.
Peter Dreier
https://www.laprogressive.com/trump-bad-for-america/?utm_source=LA+Progressi
ve+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4805f8c780-LAP_News_17April12&utm_medium=emai
ve+l&ut
m_term=0_9f184a8aad-4805f8c780-286696793
