Would ANYONE on DU suggest a Trump presidency is better or the same as HRC?

[cloudythescribbler]

I am a total Bernie supporter, one who strongly favored him running -- and running AS A DEMOCRAT IN THE PRIMARIES -- even before he declared, and have supported him including with multiple (modest) donations since day 1. I also support Bernie in his apparent position that after fighting as hard as possible for the nomination, and in the process getting as many delegates as possible so as to maximize leverage at the Convention, and SURELY in some form continuing his autonomous progressive movement efforts beyond the November elections no matter who wins -- he would support Hillary if she is the nominee

There are I know many, including on DU (from the sound of it, a higher percentage on DU than among Bernie supporters generally) who insist on "Bernie or Bust", not supporting Hillary no matter what.

This raises the question -- particularly pointed for those who have the opportunity to cast votes in swing states -- would a Trump presidency REALLY not be any worse for the country, and for progressive politics in the US, than Hillary? Really? As for the argument that a Trump presidency would make the pendulum swing way to the left, beyond neoliberalism and into the arms of progressives, this "radical perversity" is belied by history. When Nixon was leading in 1968 polls, Leonard Bernstein predicted that a Nixon presidency would bring on the revolution. We got Jimmy Carter instead. Some said the same about Reagan -- again no dice. And the disaster of the W presidency was followed by a neoliberal only slightly more progressive than the Clinton presidency. So where's that pendulum?

I am particularly interested in ANY DUers from swing states who do NOT think that a Trump presidency would be no worse than HRC for America or for progressives

29 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A Trump presidency, however bad for America it might be, would be BETTER for progressives than HRC
	2 (7%)
	A Trump presidency, WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE from an HRC presidency, from a progressive standpoint
	1 (3%)
	A Trump presidency WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR AMERICA AND FOR PROGRESSIVES
	18 (62%)
	A Trump presidency is JUST WHAT AMERICA NEEDS
	0 (0%)
	Other (w/comments please)
	8 (28%)
	4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. If votes were hidden you would get a more accurate picture.

Votes used to be hidden. A young man was tased at a Kerry event. This sparked a plethora of tasing threads. There was a poll that asked " Should Nancy Pelosi be tased?" There were lots of yeses, smh. After that votes were public.

[azurnoir]

6. They were never hidden from admins in any incarnation of DU

votes being public is part of DU3 transparency

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I know that. But they were hidden from other members.

[azurnoir]

9. Admins could deal with votes in polls that were particularly egregious

I've been told by a very long time DUer about a poll on Holocaust denial where those that indicated that they indeed were Holocaust deniers were banned

[Logical]

43. I think you're wrong, I'm a bernie supporter but Trump is insane. Nt

[stone space]

36. 53% of this DU poll openly support Zimmerman.

Even with public voting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172164331

Of course, the title is designed to attract a certain demographic, and repel others, so the list of names is not exactly a random sample.

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Trump would be much worse a President than HRC

At the same time, both would be disastrous for progressives as they are both right-wing (to varying degrees) politicians. But that's the political system we have.

[Lizzie Poppet]

3. It's a mixed bag...

Clinton is more progressive on social issues (that don't matter to Wall Street...), and her brief Senate record confirms this. That record is the only reliable evidence, as I trust most realize that her statements to that effect are about as reliable as a 70's Fiat. As long as the corporate bottom line isn't involved, I generally trust her on these issues and the same cannot be said for Trump.

On economic issues, Trump is indeed actually a bit to the left of Clinton...particularly in areas like free trade. He may very well be less likely to involve us in pointless, discretionary wars, a particularly weak area for her.

I don't trust either any farther than I could throw them in matters like fracking, climate change, and other environmental issues.

[Skink]

4. Hillary honed her voting record during the Bush years

Not difficult to pretend to be liberal when the other side has a rubber stamp.

[Adrahil]

19. Today Trump said he wanted to eliminate the Federal minimum wage. You were saying? NT

[JaneyVee]

20. A mixed bag??? Wake up. ASAP.

He is a nightmare for American trade and American foreign policy.

[dchill]

51. Sigh. But so is Hillary.

Sorry to say.

[anigbrowl]

24. Trump is not to the left of Clinton

Being against trade is not a left-wing position. Trump is just marketing xenophobia and saying that any trade deal is bad for America because foreigners. If you think this means he's to the left of Clinton economically then you are woefully ignorant.

[Nay]

5. I didn't vote, but I think there is an increasing sense of desperation in the

progressive/democratic/liberal faction. Indeed, where IS the pendulum when the Republicans wreck the place, no one seems to notice, and nothing swings left, EVER? And when distracting social issues (abortion, etc.) keep many voters voting for Repubs even as those same voters end up in cardboard boxes beneath the underpasses? What exactly has to happen for an awakening to occur?

IMO, some people are thinking the long game and some the short game. No one will deny that if you are playing the short game, Clinton is your candidate. Maybe we'll get some faint liberal stuff, maybe we won't get the worst TPP ever, etc. But few to none of the problems this country is suffering will be addressed in any meaningful way. It will, in short, be business as usual.

If you are playing the long game (and not the long game that says "over generations we can incrementalize the biggest gains&quot , an in-your-face demonstration of what the Republicans truly represent, via a Trump presidency, can possibly act as a wakeup call that will happen no other way. Is it possible that the American people will decide they like fascism if he's in office? Sure. It's happened to countries that were a whole lot more educated than we are. But it could also act as a catalyst for total change in the other direction which, frankly, is desperately needed.

But who knows. I personally think that the true problems the world faces (essentially, environmental destruction) will never be addressed by either party or any meaningful faction of Americans in time to save much of anything, so it's all a moot point to me at this juncture. And never forget that the 1% are playing the longest game, which is to eliminate the useless eaters and have a verdant planet for themselves. That will have its own problems, but because the 1% think they are perfect and supremely qualified to be on the top of the heap, they just don't see it coming.

[senz]

16. Thoughtful comment. I hadn't heard the phrase "useless eaters" before

and so did a web search and now see that I should have known about it. Most sources attribute it to Henry Kissinger, although there are a couple of websites denying he had anything to do with it.

Terrible, sad food for thought (no pun intended, as I learned that mass starvation is one of the plans for useless eaters.) Of course both front runners are 1%, and I SERIOUSLY doubt either of them would give a shit what happens the "useless eaters" of the world.

How sad that we are being asked to choose between them.

Thank you for this post. Please post more and let me know when you do. The Internet is educational.

[CentralCoaster]

7. It's been suggested that Trump win = Democratic Congress sooner.

I think the post cited what happened two years into Clinton and Obama's first terms, that we lost one or both houses of congress.

The general premise, I believe, is that the voters as a mass like our branches split, not all one party.

Things change, however, and if that doesn't work we'd be screwed.

Other opinions are that we are screwed either way and hopeless without something approaching a breakdown or revolution, and that we'll get to that point sooner with a crazy president than with a convincing DINO.

I'm not subscribing to any of the above philosophies, but I think there's a stripe of validity to both of them.

The best thing by far is to elect progressive up and down tickets.

Sanders is the only one running who fits that description.

[Joob]

10. I have faith in people

Trump just says what he thinks is right.
If it's against people I believe progressive people in unity can shut it down rather easily.

Hillary has smart lawyer talk and will lie
If it's against the people, not everyone would know it. Hell, Hillary's supporters prove it everyday
It would be much harder to fight against her since "progressives" defend her, thus half our fighting force is gone..

And yes, I think she'll try to pass horrible trade deals and judging from her past foreign experience, and her stance on a No Fly Zone in Syria, that we'd be sending in troops for the wrong reasons and possibility for war.

Half progressives defend Hillary. Even though she clearly has stances that are not progressive. She is much more dangerous.

[cloudythescribbler]

14. A Neoliberal Democrat COULD be a mobilizer for the (relatively) progressive Democrats in opposition

But it requires a serious initiative taken by progressives, of the sort that never happened under Bill Clinton, and has really only has happened under Obama with the Black Lives Matter movement, which focuses on police/criminal justice system and not the whole range of issues (including climate eg) that is needed. Bernie's candidacy and intentions provide that opening -- and would be the greatest contribution his candidacy has made if he fully pursues it, and successfully.

It is true that Hillary has the support of "half-progressives" (an interesting term) but also of many who are progressive but who support her, even though I strongly support Sanders for that very reason. If there were a mobilized serious progressive opposition already in existence under an HRC Administration, I think it would be very appealing to many who did support her, perhaps thinking, eg that she would be a stronger candidate against the GOP -- despite what all the polls have been saying, not just at first, but even now.

[JaneyVee]

21. Bernie has plenty of non progressive stances too.

[rock]

11. Substitute SBS for HRC in the choices

Same answer. (I don't believe I really have to say what it is.)

[thesquanderer]

12. Whether Trump would be a disaster may depend on whether you're thinking short term or long term.

Short term, it would be a terrible presidency. But if we survive it, long term, it could be good for Dems. In effect, it could mark the end of the Republican party as we know it.

From a progressive perspective, it's also a mix. He's arguably more progressive on trade and in being less of a hawk compared to Hillary, though Hillary is more progressive overall. At least based on what each of the candidates is saying at the moment, which is always subject to change!

But the biggest reason to not vote for Trump is that he's basically insane. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027814785

[JaneyVee]

22. On what planet is Trump more "progressive" on trade and war???

Please cite your explanation. He is advocating trade wars and war crimes.

[thesquanderer]

41. I did say "arguably," it's not clear cut, but what I mean is...

...on trade, Trump opposes TPP and NAFTA, which many liberals do as well. Hillary waffles, but is more often seen as generally being supportive of these. On war, he is at least trying to come off a less hawkish. From http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html?_r=0

On some foreign policy issues, the roles are reversed for the candidates and their parties. It’s Hillary the Hawk against Donald the Quasi-Dove.
...
The prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea.

He can sound belligerent, of course, saying that he would bomb the expletive-deleted out of ISIS and that he would think up new and imaginative ways to torture terrorists and kill their families.

But he says that in most cases he would rather do the art of the deal than shock and awe.

“Unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct,” he said in his maiden foreign policy speech in Washington last week, adding, “A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength.”

These Kumbaya lines had the neocons leaping into Hillary’s muscular embrace.

No doubt he has said stupid thing about both trade and war, as he has about, well, pretty much everything. Still, he can arguably run to Hillary's left on some issues.

[Maedhros]

31. Another silver lining: liberals would start opposing authoritarian overreach again.

For example, prior to the Obama Administration, Democrats strongly opposed warrantless NSA surveillance. Then Obama took the oath of office, and Democrats pivoted and supported warrantless NSA surveillance.



The same behavior was observed with respect to foreign military action: Democrats opposed Bush's war against Iraq based upon lies about WMD, but overwhelmingly supported Obama's war against Libya based upon lies about genocide.

If Hillary is elected, we can expect Democrats to continue supporting drone violence, foreign wars based on bullshit, destruction of freedom of the press, and erosion of civil rights because they have shown in the past that their opposition to these things is based on who is doing them. Republicans are soundly criticized, Democrats get a pass.

If Trump is elected, he will do horrible things (as would Hillary) - but we can hope to see Democrats once again flip over to opposition of these things, rather than acquiescence to them. The growing populist progressive movement will have something to push against, and it will grow.

[XemaSab]

13. Democracy gives us a choice / of which machine to vote with

or choose which brand of razor blade / you'd rather cut your throat with.

[HereSince1628]

15. The same? No. But unappealing in different ways? Ya, that's the nature of 'lesser of two evils'

bargain that's been pushed for over a year now.

[Zorra]

17. Nominate Bernie, and we won't have to worry about Trump or Clinton at all. nt

[baldguy]

18. Would they? They already have!

[font color="#FFFFFF"]If DUs admins had any integrity they'd immediately ban anyone that even hinted at not supporting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton.[/font]

[cloudythescribbler]

23. kick

[99Forever]

25. Either would be a disaster for America.

Just in different ways. Depends on which poison you prefer.

I prefer neither.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. A Trump presidency would be an existential threat

and a possible extinction event. Hillary would be an annoying speed bump on the road to a reasonably progressive society but even though she's a bellicose neocon, I don't see her starting WWIII. Trump, on the other hand, might be inclined to let loose with the ICBMs if he believes some other head of state dissed his hair.

[Maedhros]

32. "Extinction event" seems to be reaching a bit too far.

Trump's own party is working against him. His ability to follow up his incendiary rhetoric with effective action is very limited.

We know for a fact that our own candidates build a platform of lies that they do not even attempt to implement when in office (e.g. Obama's campaign promises to attempt Single Payer, to be the most transparent Administration in history, etc.). It follows that Trump is playing to the crowd as well. Do you seriously think that he will build a wall on the Mexican border? It won't even be attempted, if for no other reason than Corporate America needs its undocumented cheap labor to exploit.

Trumps bark is worse than his bite.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. Trump is a loose cannon. I know there are some things he can't possibly do,

like wall off Mexico. That's impossible, financially and logistically, and Congress would have to approve the money - which they won't. But he's so erratic and such a megalomaniac that it's entirely possible he could get us into a serious disagreement with another problematic, volatile government (e.g., North Korea or Iran) that could eventually lead to something very, very bad.

[Maedhros]

40. To be honest, so could Hillary.

I'm not saying that a Trump Presidency isn't problematic, but let's not be paralyzed by fear of it.

[imari362]

27. The Same

"lesser of two evils" = "evil"

"slow walk or fast walk to hell" = ends up in "hell"[/b

[Vattel]

28. Clinton is worse than Sanders on immigration, but better than Trump by a mile.

Immigrant rights is my number one issue and so that disqualifies Trump. Military policy is my number two issue and I don't know who is apt to be worse. I guess I would prefer Clinton's hawkishness to Trump's batshit crazy. Sanders is vastly superior to both on military issues.

[elana i am]

29. this is where us progressives are in a quandary

trump is a douchebag and a clown and has questionable ethics. he is dangerous on the social issues and some of the economic issues. clinton has ethics issues too and is way too corporatist for my taste. she is dangerous on some of the economic issues as well. and she is also dangerous when it comes to foreign policy and war.

trying to get us progressives to express a distinction between the two is like expecting us to pick between maybe having a border wall come to fruition, or women losing the right to choose, versus more war and regime change or never getting the 1% to pay their share of the taxes and watching the middle class continue to decline into poverty.

nope, i say it's a distinction without a difference. degrees of awfulness does not a convicing argument make. i wouldn't vote for either of them for dog catcher.

i will say this for the donald though... he's got the right ideas on trade and on war, two of my biggest pet issues. but i don't vote for repugs. ever.

[Califonz]

30. Oh boy another poll!

Good thing we have a secret ballot here, unlike totalitarian countries.

[B Calm]

33. Yawn. . .

[JPnoodleman]

34. Trumps presidency would be the ultimate wildcard...

Hillary I know to be corrupt, and likely to serve the interests of big banks and professional class technocratic nonsense that will conveniently enrich the technocrats and impoverish everyone THEY deem expendable.

Trump is? Idk what he is. His every action is often a strange contradiction. Trump does seem to resonate with voters long abandoned by the DNC, namely the working class and working class whites whom today's technocrats have deemed obsolete and worthless.

idk what Trump would honestly do. Its anyones guess, because his motives are hard to read. Hillary on the other hand I know EXACTLY what she will do, and it isn't good.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. This is flypaper. nt

[mindem]

37. It is difficult to tell

Hillary is just beginning her bait and switch, a real eye opener is on the way.

[senz]

45. Yes, it's getting interesting.

[cloudythescribbler]

39. another kick

[Logical]

42. As a Bernie supporter, I'm fine with banning anyone who answered one or two

[senz]

44. Might make more sense to ban those who want to trap DUers with polls.

Mean-spirited practice.

[Logical]

46. I don't give a shit, if you think Trump is the same as Hillary don't let the door hit you in the as

[senz]

47. Do you even try to live up to your username?

It's a worthy goal, so don't give up.

[Logical]

48. It is logical to say Hillary=trump means you are a fucking nut Job! Nt

[senz]

50. Where do you get that crap from?

Cool it with the verbal abuse, sparky.

[obamanut2012]

54. Logical is a devoted Bernie supporter

(Logical -- I mean that in a sincere, positive way)

So, why are you being snarky with him?

[LanternWaste]

56. Get on top of it and see what you can do then... otherwise, you're merely advertising petulance.

Get on top of it and see what you can do then... otherwise, you're merely advertising petulance.

[Logical]

57. Hey, its my stalker! Missed you. nt

[workinclasszero]

49. Herr Trump is already selling out the working class saps that gave him the nomination!

Says he wants to kill the minimum wage law altogether and give a big tax cut to the rich!!

SUCKERS!

If Trump gets elected America is **uked!!!!

[bigwillq]

52. Not convinced either one would be good for America

Sure, Hillary would be better than Trump on most issues, but I just don't feel Hillary is the right person to lead this country at this time. For the record, not sure Bernie is either. Don't think any of the major candidates are all that great.

[cloudythescribbler]

53. question isn't whether any or all candidates are "good", but is HRC likely to be as bad as Trump? Nt

[bigwillq]

55. Possibly

Not sure. Time will tell. I just don't trust her (or Trump). Bad choices, both of them, imo.

[cloudythescribbler]

58. yet another kick

[cloudythescribbler]

59. and again

[Orsino]

60. I find it hard to imagine anything Trump could do better.

He could probably be tricked into making some progressive promise, and maybe he could be maneuvered into doubling down--but he'd just flip-flop the next day.

He's got nothing we want.

[cloudythescribbler]

61. my views exactly & succinctly -- yet WHY are some progressives not able to see this?