Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[krtek a houby]

How is promoting your preferred candidate the same thing as "rigging" an election?

Maybe it's more like that harmless hasbara phenomenom.

 

[J Ed]

Manipulated elections

Hillary Clinton needs to answer for her actions in Honduras and Haiti

If there was anything refreshing about Wednesday’s Democratic debate in Miami, it was that for once, questions on foreign affairs centered on a region other than the Middle East, China or Russia. Debate moderators asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton tough questions on child deportations, as well as their policies on Cuba and Puerto Rico. Referring to the influx of unaccompanied minors, Sanders had this to say:

Honduras and that region of the world may be the most violent region in our hemisphere. Gang lords, vicious people torturing people, doing horrible things to families. Children fled that part of the world to try, try, try, try, maybe, to meet up with their family members in this country, taking a route that was horrific, trying to start a new life. Secretary Clinton did not support those children coming into this country. I did.

Sanders has a point — Clinton is on record saying deporting children would send a “responsible message” to families to deter them from coming into the United States. But when it comes to Honduras, Sanders as well as the moderators missed a key opportunity to bring up Clinton’s record in Central America and the Caribbean, and specifically how her State Department’s role in undemocratic regime changes has contributed to violence and political instability in Honduras and Haiti today.

In November 2008, then-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya called for for a poll on a nonbinding national referendum to draft a new constitution, drawing the ire of the military, the Supreme Court and the opposition, which alleged that Zelaya wanted to end the term limits that prevented him from running again. In June 2009, Zelaya was overthrown by the military — held at gunpoint, he was forced to fly to a U.S military base in his pajamas. The United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS) called the ouster a military coup, but the White House and Clinton’s State Department were loath to call it such — despite the fact that a cable from the Honduran Embassy said, “The Embassy perspective is that there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and national congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup.”

Instead of condemning the figures behind the uprising, suspending support to the illegitimate government of Zelaya’s successor, Roberto Micheletti, and demanding a restoration of the democratically elected Zelaya, Secretary Clinton decided to move on. In her memoir “Hard Choices,” Clinton wrote that after the coup, she went about hatching a plan with other leaders in the region “to restore order in Honduras and ensure that free and fair elections could be held quickly and legitimately, which would render the question of Zelaya moot.” The United States pushed for elections, and in November 2009, despite a boycott by opposition leaders and international observers, elections were orchestrated by the same figures behind Zelaya’s ouster.

Since the coup, violence and assassinations, as well as persecutions of journalists and social justice advocates, have skyrocketed in Honduras. Last week’s high-profile murder of the Goldman prize-winning indigenous leader and environmental activist Berta Caceres is yet another tragic example of the abhorrent human rights record in Honduras under the government that came to power via the 2009 coup. Between 2010 and 2014, 101 environmental activists have been killed in Honduras, according to Global Witness. Clinton’s camp has said that allegations about her role in the 2009 coup are “nonsense.”

What about Clinton’s record in Haiti?

Naturally, Miami was a fitting setting for a debate that focused on immigration and the Latino vote. However, considering that Wednesday’s debate was held in a state that is home to nearly half of the United States’ Haitian population, the debate was a missed opportunity to ask Clinton serious questions about her actions and policies in Haiti, a country where she and her family have wielded immense power and influence over the course of the past two decades.

This time, the scene is Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, in January 2011. Though the uprisings in Egypt were in full swing, then-Secretary of State Clinton paid a personal visit to Haiti shortly after the first round of the country’s presidential election, on Nov. 28, 2010. It quickly became clear that the pop singer-turned-candidate Michel Martelly, whom The Post in 2002 characterized as “favorite of the thugs who worked on behalf of the hated Duvalier family dictatorship before its 1986 collapse,” was Washington’s pick to win. Though the voting was badly marred by irregularities (the United States had pushed for quick polls), the OAS went even further and declared — without evidence — that Martelly had qualified for the final round over the incumbent party’s candidate. Rather than rerun the preliminary round and let the Haitian people choose, Clinton reportedly pressured then-President René Préval with the loss of U.S. and international aid unless the election results were changed to fit the OAS’s recommendation.



Préval’s electoral commission backed down, and Martelly won an election with only 25 percent turnout. Fast-forward to today, and Haiti is still in the grips of political crisis. In Martelly’s four years in office, Haiti never held a election, and as terms ran out on parliament members, only 11 elected officials were left in the country. A New York Times article documented the criminal activities of his friends and aides, who had been charged with crimes ranging from kidnapping to rape, murder and drug trafficking. Martelly stepped down at the end of this term in February amid violent rallies for his removal and disputed election results, without a successor in place. The country has postponed its elections yet again, and fresh political standoffs are underway, despite the United States spending $30 million on Haiti’s elections.

Jonathan Katz, former Associated Press correspondent in Haiti and author of “The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster,” had this to say in an interview about Clinton’s record in Haiti:

“There’s nowhere Clinton had more influence or respect when she became Secretary of State than in Haiti, and it was clear that she planned to use that to make Haiti the proving ground for her vision of American power. By now I’d imagine she was expecting to constantly be pointing to Haiti on the campaign trail as one of the great successes of her diplomatic career. Instead it’s one of her biggest disappointments by nearly any measure, with the wreckage of the Martelly administration she played a larger role than anyone in installing being the biggest and latest example.”

Manolia Charlotin, a Haitian journalist based in New York, said Clinton’s actions should draw questions as to how Clinton would act should she become president: “What does that mean as to her approach to foreign policy? To have a secretary of state visit a country, to make a stop, and as a result of that meeting, you have an illegal selection of leaders? How does that decision promote the American views of democracy?”

In both Honduras and Haiti, Clinton chose to shy away from letting each country’s voters choose their leaders when the going got tough. American voters, the people of Honduras, the people of Haiti and anyone who cares about democracy and human rights should know whether Clinton as president would be a promoter of such values.

 

[J Ed]

Have any liberal pundits suggested investigating Trump's birth certificate yet?

 

[Treacle Toes]

Have any liberal pundits suggested investigating Trump's birth certificate yet?

 

[J Ed]

No, America, it wasn't Russia: You did it to Yourself

The headlines scream, “Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House” and “Obama orders review of Russian Hacking during Presidential campaign.”

I don’t doubt that the Russian Federation employs hackers and PR people to influence public opinion and even election outcomes in other countries. So does the United States of America. But I am skeptical that anything the Russians did caused Donald Trump to be president.

It wasn’t like Trump was a Manchurian Candidate, a stealth plant in the US body politic who would only be operationalized once elected.

Trump was in plain view. He had all along been in plain view. His hatred for uppity or “nasty” women, his racism, his prickliness, his narcissism, his rich white boy arrogance and entitlement (apparently even to strange women and other men’s wives), his cronyism and his fundamental dishonesty were on display 24/7 during some 18 months of the campaign, and it wasn’t as though he were an unknown quantity before that.

Americans voted for him anyway. Slightly more Americans voted for him than for a respectable person like Mitt Romney. No Russians were holding a gun to their heads. And they knew, or should have known, what they were getting.

By a “black swan” fluke, a few tens of thousands of the Trump voters were distributed differently, state by state, than the McCain and Romney voters; and in some key states like Michigan Sec. Clinton did not do as well as Obama had, even if she was beloved in California and New York.

One of the cleverest things Trump said during the campaign was directed to African-American voters, asking what they had to lose by challenging the status quo and voting for him. It was a trick, of course, and they have everything to lose, both because the Republican Party’s economic policies aim to help rich people at the expense of workers and most African-Americans are working class, and because the GOP since Nixon has connived at attracting a white racist constituency, and succeeded.

But despite the dishonesty of the quip (which did not fool African-Americans one little bit), that kind of thinking appears to have been widespread. In some states, as many as 14 percent of the white working class deserted the Democratic Party compared to the previous two elections, and, worse, 21 percent of white working class voters who used to vote for Obama just stayed home. They weren’t being irrational. Things have been bad for them and they haven’t participated in the recovery after 2008 the way the stock market has. Their death rates have even increased.

Nor did any Russian hacking related to Wikileaks, if that is what happened, prove decisive. Clinton’s own polling people found the big turning point was when she called Trump voters a “basket of deplorables.” Americans don’t like being talked down to, and had already gotten rid of Romney for the same sin. The spectacle of Clinton taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech to the people who put them out of their homes in 2008-9 also turned many of them off so that they stayed home, while another section of them decided to take a chance on Trump. He will screw them over, but from their point of view, they worried that she might have, as well. Trump was promising to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs via protectionism, whereas everyone understood that Sec. Clinton’s first instinct was to do TPP and send more jobs to Asia.

So it was Clinton’s public persona and public positions that hurt her and depressed Democratic turnout in places like Detroit and Flint, not anything in Wikileaks (can anyone name even one newsworthy email?) Or on the other hand it was Neofascist disinformation campaigns like spiritcooking and pizzagate. It wasn’t anything as rational as a Putin sting.

No, America had its eyes wide open. The Republican Party, the usual 61 million, voted for Trump, despite his vulgar talk and vulgar style of life. Since the GOP is mostly the party of Protestant whites plus about 40 million Catholics who think they are white, nobody over there too much minded the racism against minorities. There were some defections among the white Protestant married women from the GOP (either stay-at-homes or aisle-crossers) and there were some defections among the white working class from the Democratic Party. But those two may well have just cancelled each other out.

The GOP voted for a champion of the business classes, which Trump will be, in spades. And that is what everyone should expect. There is nothing surprising about it. The GOP wins nationally when it can add to its base of small and large businesspeople and farmers and exurbanites, and Trump managed to attract a few tens of thousands of other sorts of people in the districts where it happened to matter.

Russia doesn’t enter into it.

 

[J Ed]

Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign cost a record $1.2B | New York Post

Hillary Clinton and her supporters spent a record $1.2 billion for her losing presidential campaign — twice as much as the winner, Donald Trump, according to the latest records.

This is interesting because of how big the disparity is. Several candidates who have raised less than their opponents have won in the past, but none have won with anything near as little as half their opponent's money. Another one for the 'most incompetent campaign in recent history' file.

1960
John F. Kennedy: $9.8 million
Richard Nixon: $10.1 million

1964
Lyndon Johnson: $8.8 million
Barry Goldwater: $16 million

1968
Hubert Humphrey: $11.6 million
Richard Nixon: $25.4 million

1972
George McGovern: $30 million
Richard Nixon: $61.4 million

1976
Jimmy Carter: $33.4 million
Gerald Ford: $35.8 million

1980 Jimmy Carter: $49 million
Ronald Reagan: $57.7 million

1984
Walter Mondale: $66.7 million
Ronald Reagan: $67.5 million

1988
Michael Dukakis: $77.3 million
George H.W. Bush: $80 million

1992
George H.W. Bush: $92.6 million
Bill Clinton: $92.9 million

1996
Bill Clinton: $108.5 million
Bob Dole: $110.2 million

2000
Al Gore: $127.1 million
George W. Bush: $172.1 million

2004
John Kerry: $328.5 million
George W. Bush: $367.2 million

2008
John McCain: $350.1 million
Barack Obama: $745.7 million

 

[weltweit]

Staggering amounts of money, just staggering.

eta: esp how much Hilary spent this time, to lose.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Seems legit.

 

[Treacle Toes]

 

[squirrelp]

How is promoting your preferred candidate the same thing as "rigging" an election?

I think they are actually trying to suggest that the Russians hacked the vote.

You couldn't make it up

 

[squirrelp]

oh, seems they aren't saying that, it's the same propaganda about the DNC hack again.

 

[maomao]

Of course the US have never tried to influence an election in another country. Oh no.

 

[Yossarian]

No, America, it wasn't Russia: You did it to Yourself

Russian interference probably didn't swing it, though the "You did it to yourself" narrative does kind of sidestep the fact that there was a lot of voter suppression and intimidation going on.

As terrible a candidate as she was, Clinton managed to get more votes than any presidential candidate in history whose name wasn't Barack Obama. Seems like she might have won the Electoral College as well if it wasn't for things like Wisconsin's voter ID law and Trump telling his supporters to monitor polling places in Democratic-leaning parts of swing states - Clinton voters weren't particularly enthusiastic to begin with, I wouldn't be surprised if the possibility of gun-toting crazies hanging around polling places put quite a few of them off voting.

 

[J Ed]

Russian interference probably didn't swing it, though the "You did it to yourself" narrative does kind of sidestep the fact that there was a lot of voter suppression and intimidation going on.

Where is this verifiable evidence that Russia was even involved? Even if, and that's a big if, they were then the content of those e-mails was not created by the FSB, that corruption came from the actions and history of the Clinton camp.

if it wasn't for things like Wisconsin's voter ID law

Or if she had actually campaigned in that state.

 

[Yossarian]

Or if she had actually campaigned in that state.

A little from column A, a little from column B - she deserved to lose Wisconsin for not turning up there, even after Bernie Sanders won the state. But that doesn't mean the Republican authorities there and elsewhere should be let off the hook for voter suppression, nor that the role of racist thugs or the threat thereof should be ignored, which seems to be what's happening now.

 

[J Ed]

A little from column A, a little from column B - she deserved to lose Wisconsin for not turning up there, even after Bernie Sanders won the state. But that doesn't mean the Republican authorities there and elsewhere should be let off the hook for voter suppression, nor that the role of racist thugs or the threat thereof should be ignored, which seems to be what's happening now.

Unfortunately the failures of the electoral system, including racist voter suppression, are sort of baked into US elections. It's not like the Clinton camp was unaware of that.

 

[Yossarian]

Where is this verifiable evidence that Russia was even involved? Even if, and that's a big if, they were then the content of those e-mails was not created by the FSB, that corruption came from the actions and history of the Clinton camp.

The evidence supposedly comes from CIA sources talking to the AP, Washington Post, etc - not outlets whose word should be taken as gospel, granted, but sources I'd consider more reliable than Donald Trump or Julian Assange.

 

[J Ed]

The evidence supposedly comes from CIA sources talking to the AP, Washington Post, etc - not outlets whose word should be taken as gospel, granted, but sources I'd consider more reliable than Donald Trump or Julian Assange.

Anonymous comment from an agency with a history of lying to newspapers who have a history of uncritically repeating those lies as fact.

 

[Yossarian]

Unfortunately the failures of the electoral system, including racist voter suppression, are sort of baked into US elections. It's not like the Clinton camp was unaware of that.

So things like racist voter suppression are just "sort of baked into" things, while Clinton's failure to reach out to white evangelical voters, where she might have been able to improve her margins by maybe 5%, are an issue that needs to be looked at?

If you're OK with giant turds being sort of baked into things, I will not be visiting your bakery anytime soon.

Clinton was a terrible candidate, as I almost feel obligated to acknowledge every time I post about the election, but there a lot of factors beyond her failures that need to be considered when looking at her election loss, including fake news, probable Russian shenanigans, the racist voter ID policies that Republicans don't even bother denying, FBI fuckery, Trump's almost unprecedented encouragement of polling place thuggery, and the Electoral College system that turned losers like George W. Bush and Donald Trump into winners.

Bernie Sanders also seems to be getting a free pass. If he had been able to persuade black voters in Southern states to vote for him in the Democratic primaries, he might be president now. The fact that they didn't might be his fault, not Hillary Clinton's.

 

[mwgdrwg]

Of course the US have never tried to influence an election in another country. Oh no.

Heh. Obama directly tried to influence the Brexit and Scottish independence vote, for starters.

 

[J Ed]

So things like racist voter suppression are just "sort of baked into" things, while Clinton's failure to reach out to white evangelical voters, where she might have been able to improve her margins by maybe 5%, are an issue that needs to be looked at?

If you're OK with giant turds being sort of baked into things, I will not be visiting your bakery anytime soon.

I'm not 'OK' with it at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

Heh. Obama directly tried to influence the Brexit and Scottish independence vote, for starters.

Who was elected in those votes?

 

[Yossarian]

I'm not 'OK' with it at all.

Fair enough, these must be awful times for activists who actually live in states like Wisconsin - do they deal with the metaphorical knife in their back first, the metaphorical cancer in their systems, or the non-metaphorical illnesses that they might have to rely on TrumpCare to take care of?

 

[Pickman's model]

Hillary Clinton’s losing campaign cost a record $1.2B | New York Post



This is interesting because of how big the disparity is. Several candidates who have raised less than their opponents have won in the past, but none have won with anything near as little as half their opponent's money. Another one for the 'most incompetent campaign in recent history' file.

1960
John F. Kennedy: $9.8 million
Richard Nixon: $10.1 million

1964
Lyndon Johnson: $8.8 million
Barry Goldwater: $16 million

1968
Hubert Humphrey: $11.6 million
Richard Nixon: $25.4 million

1972
George McGovern: $30 million
Richard Nixon: $61.4 million

1976
Jimmy Carter: $33.4 million
Gerald Ford: $35.8 million

1980 Jimmy Carter: $49 million
Ronald Reagan: $57.7 million

1984
Walter Mondale: $66.7 million
Ronald Reagan: $67.5 million

1988
Michael Dukakis: $77.3 million
George H.W. Bush: $80 million

1992
George H.W. Bush: $92.6 million
Bill Clinton: $92.9 million

1996
Bill Clinton: $108.5 million
Bob Dole: $110.2 million

2000
Al Gore: $127.1 million
George W. Bush: $172.1 million

2004
John Kerry: $328.5 million
George W. Bush: $367.2 million

2008
John McCain: $350.1 million
Barack Obama: $745.7 million

Er 8.8 a little more than half of 16 (1964)

 

[mwgdrwg]

Who was elected in those votes?

King Farage.

e2a: Now I think about it, Theresa May is Prime Minister because of those votes.

 

[Pickman's model]

King Farage.

Of all the names that have ever been, only one has never and will never grace a monarch: there will never be a king nigel

 

[maomao]

Of all the names that have ever been, only one has never and will never grace a monarch: there will never be a king nigel

Obviously not a reader of Sonic the Hedgehog comic's.

 

[Pickman's model]

Obviously not a reader of Sonic the Hedgehog comic's.

No king nigel outside the pages of fiction

 

[Yossarian]

Anonymous comment from an agency with a history of lying to newspapers who have a history of uncritically repeating those lies as fact.

This could also been seen as a case of the press doing its job, something which is likely to become even more important in the US over the next few years.

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

No king nigel outside the pages of fiction

There's one in St Lucia.....