From Kurt Sperry comment on Naked Capitalism: It's Trump. or Bernie

[Proserpina]

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/200pm-water-cooler-1222015.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

The only scenario I can see Trump potentially actually winning is a Trump-Clinton head to head. Mostly because if Clinton is the nominee, Democratic voter turnout is likely to be at a historic low. This will not only potentially put Trump in the WH (one shudders to think), but means all the down ticket races will be dominated by the GOP as well, so you are likely to see commanding majorities for the Republicans in not only the Congress, but in local and state assemblies and governorships as well right down to dogcatcher. Hillary’s negatives are likely to hand the whole enchilada to the Republicans. If Sanders is the nominee, the polling looks like having the exact opposite effect–large voter turnouts, a lot of crossover and independent voters (now the largest single category of voters) bleeding off support for the Republican slates and the Republicans likely to suffer huge losses at all levels. Sanders-Trump head to head is a landslide for Sanders in every poll I’ve seen. To borrow a meme the corporate Democrats always like to use to sugar coat their poo sandwiches, “Think of the Supreme Court!”

There is also the matter of corruption, which is currently a huge existential threat to the whole American democratic process. Hillary’s donor list is a rogue’s gallery of ultra-wealthy special interests who have to an alarming degree captured the machineries of both legacy parties. This frightens me more than even the prospect of a Trump administration. I don’t believe for a second she will ever bite the hand that feeds her, even if doing so would clearly be in the national interest. A Clinton administration, like most administrations, will work for her donors above all else. Whatever you might think of Trump, he has almost no monetary support–and therefore no allegiance to–Wall St. and the largely stateless multinationals who dominate American party politics. Trump has spoken favorably about Wall St. and banking regulation, about universal single-payer health care, about his staunch opposition to the TPP and associated multilateral trade deals. Assuming Trump doesn’t torch off WWIII or race wars, he as president is likely to be more progressive on significant areas of policy that are important to me than either his Republican rivals or Clinton. He is right wing on cultural and identity politics issues no doubt, just as Hillary is often left wing on those issues, but those issues aren’t as important to me as the larger issue of the corruption of the entire political process by moneyed interests.

I won’t under *any* circumstances vote for anyone whose donor list is filled with big contributions from Wall St. financial institutions, multinational corporations, private corrections ghouls, health insurance companies who should not even be allowed to exist, cable monopolies etc. etc.

Read this list of Clinton’s top campaign donors:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

and compare it to Trump’s donor list, both in terms of who is giving and the amounts given:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00023864

Trump owes those special interests–even those who have contributed to his campaign–almost literally nothing.

[Doctor_J]

1. that's pretty much my view to a tee

Except I won't vote for trump under any circumstances either. I believe that nominating Clinton will be a disaster for the party.

[Nay]

10. I've generally stayed out of this whole ghoulish election mess due to the

fact I'm not going to convince anybody of anything, but I agree with you.

[tecelote]

2. This article coupled with this video...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017313104

Shows how important it is to get someone with integrity into office.

[Locrian]

3. great post

It's stunning to think that the organization most responsible for holding back a HUGE step forward in the direction of progressive democracy is.... the democratic party. Their desire to appoint the anointed one over the better, most winnable candidate is sickening.

[FlatBaroque]

4. This fact right here

Hillary’s donor list is a rogue’s gallery of ultra-wealthy special interests who have to an alarming degree captured the machineries of both legacy parties.

should disqualify her from even being considered.

[Betty Karlson]

5. K&R for exposure. This needs to be understood.

And it needs to be remembered with every vote cast in the primary. Electability is a huge thing. Clinton doesn't have much of that huge thing. Having majorities in Senate and House is a huge thing. Clinton has practically negative tailcoats.

If you care about the Democratic Party, a primary vote for Sanders is a vote for congressional majorities and the white house in the GE.

[Thespian2]

6. What we do not see in these compilations

is the millions funnelled to both Clintons, either in out-right payments for a brief speech or dinner party, or donations to their foundation...since I live in Canada, I am well aware that TD bank and CIBC paid the 1%er at least a half million dollars for a few hours of her time...Well, she did have to jet all the way to Canada...

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Kicked, recced and bkmkd. n/t

[raouldukelives]

8. That is how I see it as well.

I have gotten a few Trump supporters to actually listen to Bernie with favorable impressions and left others with promises to really listen to him the next time there is a a debate.

Sadly, they will not listen to Hillary. If anything, conservatives even seem more against her today then they were in 2008.
That way leads only to a vast chamber of horrors for them.

It scares me because a couple conservatives I got to vote for Obama are now leaning towards Trump. They won't come right out and say it but I know once they get in that booth.

If it is Clinton or Trump? It's done.

[Divernan]

9. Talk about negative, toxic, coat tails - she's got them

From the U.S. Congress to state governorships to local and state assemblies down to dog catcher, it will be a bloodbath for Democratic candidates down ticket from her. This has already been pointed out numerous times on DU. The bottom line from the OP's link:

(I)f Clinton is the nominee, Democratic voter turnout is likely to be at a historic low. This will not only potentially put Trump in the WH (one shudders to think), but means all the down ticket races will be dominated by the GOP as well, so you are likely to see commanding majorities for the Republicans in not only the Congress, but in local and state assemblies and governorships as well right down to dogcatcher. Hillary’s negatives are likely to hand the whole enchilada to the Republicans.

[Fawke Em]

11. Ooohhh... perfect timing!

I'm "discussing" the merits of Sanders over Hillary on Facebook right now with a Hillbot. They've got all the corporate talking points (and are getting crushed by Bernie supporters, I might add).

This link will come in handy.

[AzDar]

12. Seems pretty obvious to me: if we don't choose the BEST, we'll end up with the WORST.

[Hepburn]

13. She's one of the 1%.

She has grossly huge negatives.

I do believe there is no chance for her taking the GE.

[Beartracks]

14. Clinton > historically low Dem turnout > GOP sweeps nat'l & state elections.

That's my biggest fear right there.

And not only could Democratic voters turn out in historically LOW numbers if Clinton is the nominee; it's a sure bet that Republican voters will turn out in record HIGH numbers just to make sure she doesn't win.

And, yes, the result of this scenario is yuuuuge down-ticket wins for the GOP/Tea Party in state-houses and municipalities, too.

========================

[blackspade]

15. Kurt Sperry is a fucking idiot if he thinks that Trump would be better than Clinton.

I was with him in the excerpt until the pro Trump bullshit started to flow.
Clinton may be a corporatist beholden to her big money donors, but there will be at least some forward movement on social issues.
Trump is a fascist pure and simple. A racist jingoist hate monger who is a big money donor himself, so Kurt Sperry is fucking kidding himself if he thinks that Trump will side with the poor, working classes and the middle classes against the corporatists.

[zalinda]

16. He may be all that you say he is

but, many people will vote for Trump just because he isn't part of the DC establishment. I'm not even sure if he is even being honest on his views, or just working the repubs. He is definitely not a nice guy when it comes to business, how he is in his personal life is any one's guess.

I still am sort of under the impression that this run for the Presidency is all an act. But, maybe now his ego is taking over. He has been a Democrat until of late, so who knows. I had thought that he started his run to help Hillary, but now I don't know.

Z

[blackspade]

18. Are you really that ambivalent about Trump?

And how is he not "part of the DC establishment?" He is a big money donor, and he knows all the players in DC and interacts with them frequently.
He is a corporate scumbag.
Clinton may not be awesome, but she is a whole order of acceptability higher that Trump.

[zalinda]

20. I don't like him but

that doesn't mean others don't. He is apparently good enough friends with Bill and Hillary to be invited to their daughter's wedding, as well as the Clintons being invited to Trump's children's weddings.

Outside the DC establishment is big this election, or haven't you noticed. Why do you think Carson is even polling? And, if a miracle happens and Hillary wins, she won't the next time. People have had enough of politics as usual. Obama was the hope and change guy, but very little changed. Middle class people are now being effected and they are not happy, the poor have been rumbling for years.

Some people may think that a 'successful' businessman is what is needed to turn this country around.

Z

[Ed Suspicious]

17. He won't "side with the poor, etc." He'll play their fear of the other straight to victory never

having to show his plutocratic face.

[blackspade]

19. Exactly.

He is a fascist plutocrat in anti-establishment clothing.

[Fawke Em]

21. I don't think he said he thinks Trump is better.

He was pointing out that Trump has his own money and isn't beholding to donors on the level Clinton is, which is true. I don't find that pointing out that millionaire Trump can fund himself (and he gets shittons of free media) is pro-Trump - it's just truth.

Where did Sperry say (at least in this posting) that Trump is better?

[blackspade]

22. This part:

"Assuming Trump doesn’t torch off WWIII or race wars, he as president is likely to be more progressive on significant areas of policy that are important to me than either his Republican rivals or Clinton. He is right wing on cultural and identity politics issues no doubt, just as Hillary is often left wing on those issues, but those issues aren’t as important to me as the larger issue of the corruption of the entire political process by moneyed interests."

He is a fascist big money plutocrat already. Sperry is deluding himself if he thinks that Trump will do anything at all about "the larger issue of the corruption of the entire political process by moneyed interests."
Trump is a conman playing large numbers of people for fools. He is not a stealth FDR ready to stick it to the ruling class.

[Fawke Em]

23. I guess I don't read it that way.

I read it that Trump isn't that great, but he's not as beholden as Clinton, which is faint praise.

[blackspade]

25. Given that he is from among the group of people that Clinton is beholden too.....

That is faint praise indeed.
I guess it skips the middle man....

[Fawke Em]

28. Hahahaha!

Good point!

[Proserpina]

24. The lesser of two evils....is STILL evil

and that wasn't a ringing endorsement for Trump, merely expressing the possibility of a silver lining to the huge clouds over our heads, if WWIII doesn't break out.

I expect with Hillary in charge, WWIII is a given, if past performance is any guide...

[blackspade]

26. Except that between the two Clinton is the lesser, not Trump.

[Proserpina]

27. Not proven, and no way to test your theory.

[blackspade]

29. Really?

That is the angle your working here?
That Trump could be better than Clinton?
No. Not even close. No theory needed.

[Proserpina]

30. He's a total unknown in politics

We know his business history, his marriage history, but how would he deal with the country's business? One can make guesses, but with Hillary, there's documented facts. And they aren't pretty facts, nor particularly successful by any definition.

[blackspade]

31. Unbelievable that you would even defend choosing Trump.

We have a lot of knowledge about what he says he will do, most of which are horrific.
He is oligarch scum and a fascist, that much is obvious.

I never conceived that a member of DU would defend him even over Clinton. Disgusting.

[Proserpina]

32. I am not defending anyone. I am pointing out your prejudice in the absence of any data

and you can keep your spew to yourself.

[blackspade]

33. Prejudice against Trump? Really?

You're fucking right I do!
He is a scumbag that should never have access to the levers of power.
And I'll 'spew' all I want against him and his idiot supporters here on a Democratic website.

[Vincardog]

34. Why give tRump a chance by running Clinton?

[blackspade]

35. I don't plan on it.

But insinuating that Trump would be better is crazy.