the spanish anarchists were faced with a choice between hitler and stalin, and they picked stalin. stalin then killed them by the thousands. all objective evidence would have suggested that stalin was the lesser evil, here.
what i'm arguing is that we're in a situation where the logic of a lesser evil collapses, and we're stuck with two equally sized and equally unacceptable evils - both of which necessitate immediate revolutionary action. if you're arguing you should vote for clinton to stop trump, you're back to trying to argue that stalin is preferable to hitler.
sanders is actually right. it's not just empty rhetoric. the spectre of a clinton presidency is no more acceptable than that of a trump presidency. there needs to be a stronger reaction than just voting for clinton and going home.
this is the breaking point.
-
if it's trump v clinton, i vote for a general strike.
polling for general election matchups right now is very preliminary. my questions remain hypothetical.
but, i'd be interested to see some polling of a three-way race: sanders, trump, clinton. if we consider that sanders is beating trump by 20 points, in multiple key swing states, how much of that goes to clinton if she runs? that language was chosen consciously.
i'm just wondering if something like this is reasonable, somewhere like michigan:
- sanders: 40
- trump: 35
- clinton: 25
the flip of that is that clinton could beat trump with evangelicals, opening up weird results like the following, somewhere like missouri, where clinton/sanders and trump/cruz both split. as missouri tends to split general elections, let's give them each 25%.
clinton: 25 (base) + 15 (cruz) = 40
trump: 25 (base) + 10 (cruz) = 35
sanders: 25
i would not advise taking any of this seriously until at least labour day. but a little bit of introductory polling may be useful for everybody.
-
it's just hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube, with sanders. and that's a good thing. but it means some polling on the hypothetical is useful.
-
and....clinton has already tried to appeal to the christian conservative vote, which there is quite a bit of in the democratic party base. she's a politician. she'll do what she thinks she needs to do to win. if trump is the nominee (and he is) then it opens up a vacuum on the christian right that she will pounce on. and, the gays will be thrown under the bus - the christian right is a far larger and far more stable voting block to integrate into her base of southern conservative minorities.
-
i know that what i'm saying is going to upset or confuse some people. but, you simply haven't been paying attention. this is precisely why she creates such a horrible reaction in the left-wing grassroots - she'd sell her own husband down the creek for the right endorsement, and all the smart people fully grasp that.
-
so, this logic that you're voting for her to stop the christian right?
hillary clinton is the christian right.
-
and, if trump wins (and he will), that's going to be a big aspect of the election. she won't beat him with working class whites. her best strategy is to beat him on the right.