No Socialist Analysis here, Miriam. Just good old Jarvis Logic.
First, Washington is seldom out of the Democratic column. I'd have to
look up the last time we went for a Republican president...maybe Bush
Senior,
And the last Republican Governor only served one term. Back in the
60's we did have Dan Evans as a three term governor, but he was rather
middle of the road. He may have been our last Republican senator,
too. So we still fly under the flag with the Jackass on it.
But here's the thing about voting for either of the two protected
parties. At the top, neither has the working classes needs on their
agenda. Both have succumbed to the gold of the Ruling Class. Both
existing parties began life as representing the Common Citizen. Both
followed the tune being played by the Master's Pipers. While my
people were busy tending to their fields, laboring in the factories,
the mines and the forests, the Landed Gentry slipped in and took
political control. They did not do this through joining the existing
parties. Instead, they bought the spineless, weaklings, and poured
money into advertising promoting these Marionettes, spinning half
truths and bare faced lies.
They dangled before us the promise of riches and freedom. And we
bought the fantasy. And to set the hook, the Ruling Class allowed us
to believe we had choices. We could vote for one of two hand picked
candidates. Like in the old wrestling matches, one played the "good
guy" while the other was the "villain". And, depending upon our mood
of the day, we always went for the, "Lesser of two evils".
Now I am not some hysterical doomer and gloomer crying, "The sky is
falling in!" But I do read history and look back through the growing
number of years that I have lived in this Land of the Free and the
Home of the Brave. And I can see that despite our voting in the
lesser of two evils more often than we voted in Evil, we have lost
ground. From the high water mark of the 40's, 50's and 60's, we began
sliding back toward the grim times of Hoover, Coolidge, Harding and
beyond into the horror days in the 1880's and 1890's.
Have you noticed how we have been cut from the herd? We used to stand
more or less in solidarity. We had organized labor and guilds and
fraternal organizations and churches, where we would gather and
discuss events, and join forces with like thinking people. And we
would make modest gains, thinking each time that this was the
beginning of the "good times". But if we did not guard these gains
constantly, they were slowly dissolved, and we had to mount another
attack.
We are not being good stewards of democracy. Our public schools are
in retreat, our Medicare and Social Security are under constant
attack. Our privacy is no longer private. We've gone over the list
before, so I'll stop there. Yes, we do still have it better than our
great grandparents living in the 1880's and 1920's. But that is a sad
comparison. Compared to the mid 1940's through the late 1970's we are
in far worse shape.
I faithfully voted for the lesser of the two evils(Democrats) from
1956 until 2012, when I voted for Jill Stein. Oh yes, I did take time
out to vote once for Ralph Nader. What I have gained from my loyal
support is nothing. So far I have lost about $58 thousand on the
property we believed would be a retirement cushion, an probably 80 or
90 thousand dollars on the house we live in, if we put it on the
market now. Our children are all living at a less affluent level than
we lived at their ages. Their children's education is going to
bankrupt them. I'm not saying that there are improvements, but even
such areas as women's rights are being whittled away. And I weep for
our Gay, Lesbian, bisexual and transvestite citizens who are under
constant attack by mad dog, mindless murderers.
When I was a boy, I could hop a bus to down town Seattle at the age of
9, take a several block walk to the YMCA for my weekly swimming
lesson, and return home well after 9:00 P.M. with never a thought for
my safety. Today, little boys are as vulnerable as are little girls.
At 81, I am constantly receiving calls from scam artists trying to
sneak their hands into my bank account. My heart breaks for those who
are my age but no longer have the ability to understand when they are
being fleeced...until well after the fact.
I keep thinking that we should put as much effort into curbing the
Terrorists living here, as we are putting into drones and other tools
of murder. But then I think, "if we did as poorly at stopping
homeland terror, as we do overseas, we'd be better off not trying."
So Miriam, the bottom line for me is that this corporate capitalist
oligarchy is not going to get better. At some point we must stop
supporting the lesser of two evils and begin the hard work of building
a new system. Look, if we think Trump is the nation's worst
nightmare, what will the next monster look like? Remember when we
thought that George Bush the Lesser was the ultimate bumbling evil
one?
So, enough of this. You and I will each do what we believe is in the
best interest of our People. We each feel that we are on the right
track. Probably we could poll this list and find a whole bunch of
different positions, by people who are as committed to the working
class as we are.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
OK. First, the point is, Is Washington in the Democratic column, the
Republican column, or a swing state. If it traditionally votes for one of
the parties, all of its electoral votes will go to that party. It doesn't
matter that some folks may vote for the other party. Their votes don't
count. It doesn't matter. They may as well stay home or vote for any
alternative. All of the electoral votes will go to the party for whom the
majority of people always vote.
That being the case, we can all imagine the slide toward hell with Hillary
as President. But would you please, for just a few minutes, try to imagine
the consequences of Trump being President. Try reading Never Enough which
is on BARD or The Making of Trump which is on Bookshare, because the usual
socialist analysis which you are applying to this situation is inapplicable
in the case of Trump. It isn't a question of his politics, nor of the stuff
you hear on TV. If you are still thinking that it doesn't make any
difference because the ruling class rules both parties, then you are still
not understanding what kind of a person Trump is and how he functions. I'm
not telling you who to vote for. I'm saying that you have to stop applying
your usual analysis to this situation. I, personally, am voting Green
because I live in New York and have the luxury of voting my conscience. I
want to support any movement which has a chance of challenging the status
quo and moving us away from the two corporate parties. But if I were living
in a swing state as Joe is, I'd vote for Clinton because if Trump wins the
Presidency, life for us, and particularly for people more vulnerable than
you or I, will become radically worse, very fast, plus, the opportunity to
build a humane alternative to what we have, will have been radically
diminished.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 11:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil
Voting)
Miriam,
Washington State currently has a Democratic governor an two Senators who
are
both Democrats and Women. I think the state legislature is still more
Democrat than Republican. But I know of many folks who plan to vote for
Trump as a demonstration of their frustration over a wide range of
grievances. But all that being said, my decision to not vote for Trump or
Clinton is based on my belief that we are in for hard times under either.
Voting for Clinton will only buy us eight more years of a slow
disintegration of our "middle class". I fully expect Clinton to walk away
with victory in her grubby little hands, and once in office I expect to
find
her "agreeing" with her campaign promises, but explaining why, "now is not
the time". There will be no
15 dollar and hour minimum wage, no expansion of Medicare or Social
Security, TPP will probably pass, and very likely a new sudden collapse of
our struggling economy. And of course with her strong love of Persons of
Color, we can expect her to shed tears as she does nothing to curb the
growing Prison Slaves. With her bent toward an even stronger military, her
promise of rebuilding our bridges and highways will, along with rebuilding
our public education and our inner cities, will be pie in the sky.
Clinton is pronounced as the candidate with proven experience. This is
absolutely the Gospel Truth. She knows how to survive within a highly
cutthroat system. And she knows how to look the Public in the eye, and
lie.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/12/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,
I'm not voting for her either. But I live in New York, a state that
will vote Democratic. If your state always votes Democratic or
Republican, except in landslides, which this election won't be, those
points don't apply to you.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:09 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser
Evil
Voting)
Miriam,
My old clock just struck ten P.M. and I am feeling rather mindless.
So as I struggle off to bed I will pause long enough to thank you for
the points you made...or pointed out, and I will try hard to think of
how I will disagree with some of them. I believe that my position of
digging in my heels may not be the right one, but it is *MY right one.
I simply can't vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll blame my father's
successful indoctrination when I was but a wee innocent lad.
For now, Good Night.
Carl Jarvis(Yawn!)
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Carl,an individual.
The points in that article that I found useful were that:
1. They applied to people who live in states where the vote could go
either way, not to people in states where the majority of people
always votes for one party or the other because in those states, all
of the electoral votes go to the majority party, no matter what you
do as
2. But where your individual vote may have meaning, a Trump
presidency with all of its repercussions will do the most damage to
the most vulnerable people, minorities, the poor, LBGT people, and
the disabled. So it is incumbent on you to prevent a Republican
Presidency. In a swing state, making what feels like a moral choice
may make you feel comfortable, but its effects will have hurtful
consequences.
3. Voting for Hillary doesn't imply that you support her or what she
stands for, and it doesn't prevent you from allying yourself with
activists who are working toward the goals that are meaningful. It is
only a practdical step to take in order to allow some space for the
social movements in which you believe, to function.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:02 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser
Evil
Voting)
Hi Miriam,
I did read the earlier post. It does not help me, if by saying "help
me" I am suggesting I might see value in going with the lesser of two
evils. We are in this insane presidential race exactly because we
have continued to go with the Lesser of Two Evils. At some point in
time we will need to agree that this method is not gaining us
anything but a slower slide down the Razor's Edge. I have come to a
place that I cannot believe Clinton's promises anymore than I do
Trump's. Now I am at an age where my energies are diminished to a
point of ineffectiveness, my only avenue open is resistance.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/10/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I posted a much more cogent article on this subject before this one.posed by the far right.
It had to do with strategic voting for the lesser of two evils and I
think it's important to read it and not to dismiss its arguments
lightly.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:48 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser
Evil
Voting)
How long, oh Lord, how long do we continue voting for the lesser of
two evils, and ending up with Evil? Personally, I think we've come
too far down this gilded Freeway to turn it back into an old country
lane. But you know?
if folks want another attempt to work with the lessor of two evils,
then Hillary Clinton is your wish come true.
I know I'm getting old when 9:40 PM. Tuesday evening feels like
midnight Friday.
Carl Jarvis
On 8/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
Excerpt: "Among the elements of the weak form of democracy
enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to
pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or
non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our
capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda
served by establishment politicians."
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting) By John Halle and
Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky's Website
09 August 16
Preamble:
Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the
constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for
the left in that any form of participation or non participation
appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a
serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment
politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard
as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson's choice,
namely the so-called "lesser evil" voting strategy or LEV. Simply
put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for
the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all.
In competitive "swing" states, where you must, one votes for the
"lesser evil" Democrat.
Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain
background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first
is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes
in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the
"electoral extravaganza" should be regarded as provisional. This is
most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by
citing the claim that Clinton's foreign policy could pose a more
serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump's
foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that
that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a
discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this
is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to
require a vote for Trump, though it's a bit hard to know whether
those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.
Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the
ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as
the "politics of moral witness." Generally associated with the
religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they
reject LEV on the grounds that "a lesser of two evils is still
evil." Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the
point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be
challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of
individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on
its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The
basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take
responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions
for others are a far more
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that thewith the establishment.
politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from
narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh
than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said,
those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed "moral"
basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not
be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.
A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to
the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually
deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change.
It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so
in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote
capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting.
Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of
having made their peace
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness
that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a
cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the
peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the
Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six
years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also
a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate
collapse during the backlash decades to follow.
The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting
the dominance of the political system under the management of the
two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with
a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the
recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible
suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also
function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment
center, which, now in opposition can posture as the "reasonable"
alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will
undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders
campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the
dangers
posed by the far right.A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition iselectoral cycle.
that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental
to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the
left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in
political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the
movement which now seems to be materializing.
Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system
recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the
left from actions which have the potential to be effective in
advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations
committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest,
but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The
left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the
LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not
timed to the national
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personalpretenses.
self-expression
or
moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party
candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system
designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2. The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be
(if
in a contested "swing state") to marginally increase or decrease
the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3. One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global
warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of
environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other
developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the
combination of which could, in four years, take us to a
catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11
million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of
supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his
rallies, stated his "openness to using nuclear weapons", supports a
ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards "the police in this
country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood" while having
"done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order." Trump has also
pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the
rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare "safety
net" despite
with it, as they must.
4. The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies
and
attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed
populations has a high probability of being significantly greater
than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5. Should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a
vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, "swing"
state.
6. However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win
based
on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the
accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to
be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7. Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who
will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges
to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it.
They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream
media channels with the result that many of those who would
otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a
convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political
establishment rather than breaking
important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.
8. Conclusion: by dismissing a "lesser evil" electoral logic and
thereby increasing the potential for Clinton's defeat the left will
undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be
attempting to achieve.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (photo: Getty Images)
https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-votin
g
/
h ttps:/
/chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/
An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting) By John Halle and
Noam Chomsky, Noam Chomsky's Website
09 August 16
reamble:
Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the
constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for
the left in that any form of participation or non participation
appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a
serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment
politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard
as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson's choice,
namely the so-called "lesser evil" voting strategy or LEV. Simply
put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for
the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all.
In competitive "swing" states, where you must, one votes for the
"lesser evil" Democrat.
Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain
background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first
is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes
in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the
"electoral extravaganza" should be regarded as provisional. This is
most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by
citing the claim that Clinton's foreign policy could pose a more
serious menace than that of Trump.
In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump's
foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that
that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a
discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this
is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to
require a vote for Trump, though it's a bit hard to know whether
those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.
Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the
ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as
the "politics of moral witness." Generally associated with the
religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they
reject LEV on the grounds that "a lesser of two evils is still
evil." Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the
point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be
challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of
individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on
its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The
basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take
responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions
for others are a far more
While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that thewith the establishment.
politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from
narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh
than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said,
those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed "moral"
basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not
be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.
A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to
the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually
deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change.
It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so
in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote
capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting.
Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of
having made their peace
Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness
that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a
cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the
peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the
Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six
years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also
a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate
collapse during the backlash decades to follow.
The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting
the dominance of the political system under the management of the
two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with
a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the
recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible
suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also
function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment
center, which, now in opposition can posture as the "reasonable"
alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will
undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders
campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the
dangers
A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition iselectoral cycle.
that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental
to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the
left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in
political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the
movement which now seems to be materializing.
Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system
recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the
left from actions which have the potential to be effective in
advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations
committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest,
but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The
left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the
LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not
timed to the national
1. Voting should not be viewed as a form of personalpretenses.
self-expression
or
moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party
candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system
designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.
2. The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be
(if
in a contested "swing state") to marginally increase or decrease
the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.
3. One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global
warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of
environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other
developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the
combination of which could, in four years, take us to a
catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11
million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of
supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his
rallies, stated his "openness to using nuclear weapons", supports a
ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards "the police in this
country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood" while having
"done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order." Trump has also
pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the
rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare "safety
net" despite
4. The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policieswith it, as they must.
and
attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed
populations has a high probability of being significantly greater
than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.
5. Should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a
vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, "swing"
state.
6. However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win
based
on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the
accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to
be most victimized by a Trump administration.
7. Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who
will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges
to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it.
They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream
media channels with the result that many of those who would
otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a
convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political
establishment rather than breaking
8. Conclusion: by dismissing a "lesser evil" electoral logic and
thereby increasing the potential for Clinton's defeat the left will
undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be
attempting to achieve.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
