******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
On 8/19/16 12:17 PM, Clay Claiborne wrote:
Just to be clear. If Trump would win because Clinton was one vote short,
would you still refuse to vote for her?
I don't deal in hypotheticals.
More to the point, I am for a left party in the USA. I have been ever
since I left the Trotskyist movement in 1979. I worked closely with
Peter Camejo in 1981 to start something called the North Star Network
that would serve as a catalyst for such a party.
Peter ended up as a key figure in the Green Party and my interest in the
Greens has a lot to do with being Peter's disciple for all practical
purposes. So you are talking about a political history going back over
I continue along this path, as my involvement with the North Star
website would indicate. That supersedes just about everything, including
Stein and Baraka's unwise statements on Syria, his much worse than hers.
The left party itself is not the vanguard party that will be necessary
to overthrow American capitalism. It is simply a step in that direction.
Right now American electoral politics is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
the Democratic-Republican Party--two factions of the same bourgeois
party. You can get an idea of how this operates from simply observing
that Koch brothers operatives served on the governing body of the
Democratic Leadership Council--the corporatist entity that was designed
to suppress all liberal tendencies in the DP. Hillary Clinton, Bill
Clinton, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman, Sam Nunn and Dick Gephardt were key
figures in the DLC. So what kind of electoral system do we have when the
Koch brothers have a role in the DLC? The whole thing is a sham.
Finally, isn't it time to recognize that the Trump campaign is toast?
The numbers are devastating:
NY Times, August 19 2016
Donald Trump’s Crucial Pillar of Support, White Men, Shows Weakness
By JEREMY W. PETERS
Donald J. Trump’s support among white men, the linchpin of his
presidential campaign, is showing surprising signs of weakness that
could foreclose his only remaining path to victory in November.
If not reversed, the trend could materialize into one of the most
unanticipated developments of the 2016 presidential campaign: That
Hillary Clinton, the first woman at the head of a major party ticket and
a divisive figure unpopular with many men, ends up narrowing the gender
gap that has been a constant of American presidential elections for decades.
Surveys of voters nationwide and in battleground states conducted over
the last two weeks showed that Mr. Trump was even with or below where
Mitt Romney, the Republican Party nominee four years ago, was with white
men when he won that demographic by an overwhelming 27 percentage points.
For Mr. Trump, who has staked much of his legitimacy as a candidate on
his strength in the polls, the numbers are a dose of cold, dangerous
math. If he does not perform any better than Mr. Romney did with white
men, he will almost certainly be unable to rally the millions of
disaffected white voters he says will propel him to the White House.
All along, one of the central questions of the election has been whether
there are enough white men who will turn out to vote to lift Mr. Trump
to victory. And there may be enough, demographers and pollsters said.
But for now it appears that after a ceaseless stream of provocations,
insults and reckless remarks, Mr. Trump has damaged himself
significantly with the one demographic that stands as a bulwark to a
“If you set out to design a strategy to produce the lowest popular vote
possible in the new American electorate of 2016, you would be
hard-pressed to do a better job than Donald Trump has,” said Whit Ayres,
a pollster who has advised Republican presidential and Senate candidates
for more than 25 years. “This is an electoral disaster waiting to happen.”
There are still nearly three months before Election Day, ample time to
shift the dynamics of the race. But the question that Republicans inside
and outside the Trump campaign are asking is whether or not the damage
Mr. Trump has caused himself over the last few weeks is irreparable.
Interviews with voters found that Mr. Trump’s increasingly outlandish
behavior was rubbing many in his key voting bloc the wrong way. “I liked
Trump until he opened his mouth,” said Phil Kinney, a retired middle
school administrator and a Republican from Bethlehem, Pa. The recent
string of attacks Mr. Trump has unleashed, particularly his criticism of
the family of a Muslim soldier killed in Iraq, left Mr. Kinney
disappointed. Faced with the choice of voting for Mr. Trump or Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Kinney said he may just stay home.
Two national polls conducted this month have Mrs. Clinton catching up to
Mr. Trump among men over all. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows
Mrs. Clinton with 43 percent support among men to his 42 percent. A
Bloomberg Politics survey put Mr. Trump with a low-single-digit lead
among men, according to the pollster who conducted the survey, Ann Selzer.
Mr. Romney relied on his 27-point edge among white men to carry the male
vote over all, but Mr. Trump is even more reliant on them because of how
poorly he performs with nonwhite voters. If Mr. Trump is only doing as
well or worse than Mr. Romney did with white men, he will never make up
the votes he is losing among women and nonwhites.
Mr. Trump’s troubles with white men do not end there. The data reveal a
huge gap in those who have a college education and those who do not. As
Mr. Trump saw in the Republican primaries, he is most vulnerable with
white men who have a college education or higher. Mr. Romney won that
group, which votes at a higher rate than those without college degrees,
by 21 points. Recent national polls have put Mr. Trump’s support with
them far lower.
“We’re looking at a margin among college-educated white men for him
that’s less than half what Romney won,” said Gary Langer, an independent
pollster who conducted an ABC News/Washington Post survey this month
that showed Mr. Trump losing over all to Mrs. Clinton. “And that is
problematic for Trump given his need to appeal to whites.”
Mr. Trump’s difficulties with men are symptoms of a larger
vulnerability: disapproval that runs deeply through many segments and
subgroups of the voting population.
Self-identified Republicans, white women, the wealthy and well-educated
people of all races are turning their backs on him. Two national polls
have recently put his support from African-Americans at an astonishing 1
percent. Separate Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist surveys in Ohio
and Pennsylvania from July found that zero percent of black voters said
they planned to vote for him. The latest poll of Latinos, conducted
within the last week by Fox News, had Mr. Trump with just 20 percent
support, below the 27 percent that Mr. Romney received in 2012.
Even under the rosiest projections of white turnout, Mr. Trump would
still lose the popular vote if his poll numbers among whites do not
William H. Frey, a demographics expert with the Brookings Institution, a
nonpartisan think tank, conducted several simulations that tried to
determine how much the turnout among white men without college
educations would have to increase for Mr. Trump to win. He used the most
recent ABC News/Washington Post poll of registered voters that had Mrs.
Clinton beating Mr. Trump in a nationwide two-way race, 50 percent to 42
percent. It was among the better polls for Mr. Trump lately.
Mr. Frey tested different turnout assumptions, including improbably
optimistic ones, like if 99 percent of white, non-college-educated men
turned out to vote. None of the chain of events produced a Trump victory.
In fact, even if virtually all of the white, non-college-educated men
eligible to vote did so, Mr. Frey found, Mrs. Clinton would still win
the popular vote by 1.1 million.
And Mr. Frey said he did not account for the expected growth in Hispanic
turnout. “Once you build that in,” he said, “it’s even worse for Trump.”
By not appealing more broadly to African-Americans, Hispanics and other
minority groups, Mr. Trump is precariously reliant on a segment of the
population that is a shrinking portion of the electorate.
White voters were 88 percent of the electorate in the 1980 election, a
figure that has declined a few percentage points every four years since
then. By 2012, the white vote was down to 72 percent. Most estimates for
2016 put it at or below 70 percent.
And if Mr. Trump keeps alienating more of them like Gary Williams, a
lifelong Republican and small-business owner from Lexington, Tenn., his
base will continue to shrink. “He cusses in front of women and children
and everybody else. He’s not a Christian. Everything about him makes me
sick,” Mr. Williams said in an interview. He plans to vote for Mrs.
Clinton or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate.
An especially worrisome problem for Mr. Trump lies in some of the white,
heavily blue-collar states he hopes to put in play, like Ohio. Mr. Trump
is nearly tied there with Mrs. Clinton among men, with 42 percent to her
41 percent, according to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Marist poll
conducted the first week of August.
Illustrating just how much Mr. Trump’s deterioration with men puts him
in an electoral hole, Mr. Romney won men in Ohio by seven percentage
points four years ago. But that was still not enough. President Obama
won the state, capturing 51 percent of the vote to Mr. Romney’s 48 percent.
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: