2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFormer NJ GOP Gov Whitman: "If Trump is GOP nominee, I'm voting Clinton"
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/02/whitman_scorches_christie_over_trump_prefers_hilla.htmlGov. Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump is giving many people in New Jersey indigestion, but none more than former Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican who has watched in horror as her party drifted rightward for the last decade.
.
.
.
First, she says she's planning to vote for Hillary Clinton if Trump gets the nod. She's keeping her options open, in case we find out something new and horrible about Hillary. But that's her plan now:
"You'll see a lot of Republicans do that," Whitman told me. "We don't want to. But I know I won't vote for Trump."
.
.
.
"I am ashamed that Christie would endorse anyone who has employed the kind of hate mongering and racism that Trump has," she said. "I would have thought being from a diverse state would have given him more awareness and compassion."
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)His endorsement came on the heels of David KKK Duke's.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)They'll still get all the plutocracy and war they desire.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Thank you in advance.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)I wish every wish you wish comes true for every " my Republican friend, relative, co-worker, fill in the blank loves Bernie" thread and post we have been regaled with here.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)President Obama received 6% of the GOP vote in 012. If HRC can push that toward ten that would be awesome.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)DeGreg
(72 posts)From the day Trump entered the race, I was suspicious...
...that our "one party system," or The Establishment, is way way ahead of us, the popular voters, and they have done their homeworkand then some. Trump's function has been to drive folks to vote for Hillary all along because that's what The Establishment wantsan Establishment President.
It doesn't matter (too much) who or which partyall the money men are happy, The Establishment President always watches out for their interests, as opposed to the interests of the citizens of The United States.
Why do you think the Rs ran a clown car of candidates (other than for a taste of the massive cash flow)?
The Establishment has long pulled off the Illusion of Choice and they always pretty much get what they want; how else did we end up here?
Unfortunately for the Establishmentthis election might be stripping the Illusion bareit is plain to see The Establishment is the umbrella party for Rs and Ds of the right stripe. Sure Rs and Ds want to control the money ball, and the power ball, their pals stand to make a bit more money than the other team, if their party's quarterback wins, but the money still flows all the way around (and out of the pockets of you and me).
When a former governor, a Republican, says she might have to vote for Clinton, what she's really saying is "I have to vote for The Establishment Candidate," in order to preserve the status-quo, the way things are, to keep the money flowing where it always has.
So, hindsight ought to be 20-20, but it's embarrassing to look back at yourself, so most don't do it. What do we see? Hillary Clinton transformed into a Republican right before our eyesand the Democratic Party and voters too, somehow being okay with the transformation, and getting by on denial.
So, while Whitman worries about a Trump President, to the point of saying, well, I'd vote for Hillary, if Trump get the nomination-- that says a lot about our supposed two party system. It ought to tell you something. Conversely, the conundrum for so-called Democrats, who are faced with a choice between Bernie or Hillary and are imagining a Trump nomination, end up with this: "The only Republican I'd ever vote for is Hillary Clinton."
Whitman might say the same thing, but it would be a Freudian slip.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The point your'e trying to make includes putting words in my mouth; I need to say.
I have not voted for a president in 49 years...with Mr Sanders, this is the first time I have been able to stomach participating in The Illusion of Choice. I have registered Democrat just in time to help Bernie in my primary (and will immediately switch to Ind. afterwards. I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton because she has proved herself to be a part (if not a champion) of an Establishment that has no interest in changing. Her leadership does not change that, it reinforces the way things are.
Bernie represents a "real" choice, and the possibility (not a "guarantee" of changing a government that does not want to change.
If I were to have a little fun using your equivalencies, I might do this:
Anyone who supports Bernie, regardless of political party = good
Anyone who votes of Hillary, regardless of political party = fooled (again).
It's kinda fun, but I'll stop there.
If you're okay with The Establishment then be okay with The Establishment, but by definition there will be no change that does not include pretty much keeping things (the money flow, war, defense spending, etc.,) the way they are. You might get a paper umbrella in your drink, but it will still taste like the same old screwdriver.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)oasis
(49,460 posts)differences with the Bush the Usurper back in the day.