Why Starbucks' Howard Schultz Has Zero Chance Of Getting Elected - Only Getting Dotard Re-elected

Amazingly, Americans continue to be enchanted with third party candidates and their chances of reaching the presidency despite the fact our voting system virtually renders it an impossibility. WSJ columnist William Galston, for example, observed in his recent column (Jan. 30, p. A17):

"Last September, I and two other members of the bipartisan Voter Study Group assessed voters' appetite for an alternative to the two established parties.  Though 68 percent said they'd like another option, they didn't agree on what it should be."

In other words, the choices split to the left (of the Dems) and to the right (of the Republicans), as well as the perceived dead center, i.e. between left and right "extremes". Most interesting, Galston adds:

"Support for a candidacy of the center amonnted to about 22 percent of the electorate. not enough to carry a single state."

This is sobering and shows the immense difficulty of  electing a third party candidate - whether of more left, center, or more right, gaining any traction in the U.S. electoral system.  One reason for that is that our system of voting is skewed toward a majority of votes for the winner.  This is in turn skewed by the Electoral College - where a minority popular vote winner can still claim top prize as Trump did in 2016. (Based on snaring 77,000 votes in 3 key states: WI, MI and PA).  

The usual reason offered for the existence of the Electoral College is to give smaller, less populous states some leverage in national elections. The real reason is that the Founders designed it to protect slave -owning states from having their will thwarted by more populous non-slave states.  The issue ought to have been settled in the Civil War, but the Electoral College continued as the anachronism it is today.  (Of course some Founders, like Alexander Hamilton, argued for the Electoral College to be the final barrier against a populist demagogue becoming president. Well, we saw how that worked out.)

Anyway, it is clear or should be that the only way a third party candidate would stand a chance is to adopt a preferential voting system that departs from binary (A or B) choices. Instead,  one has a ranked system such as illustrated below, which we also use in Mensa to elect officers. It is also used in one form or other in other nations.  As my late German friend Kurt Braun explained to me in 1985, "The Greens in Germany would never have stood a chance of seating so many in the Reichstag" i.e. without preference voting.




This ballot example (from Wikipedia)  shows five choices - which could be five  presidential candidates in a primary. The voter - instead of being asked to vote one OR another, is asked to rank 3 in the order of preference.  When all votes are finally tallied - say 100,000 - the candidate registering the highest frequency, highest rank (or 2nd highest in 2nd rank if tied for first) is declared the winner. In such an election scenario it is possible to conceive of a third party candidate (say Mary Hill) at least gaining enough leverage to take an election. (E.g. John Citizen:  25,000 "1's,  33, 000 "2's, 42,000 "3's";   Mary Hill:  25,000 "1's",  45,000 "2's",  30,000 "3's".)  Mary Hill  is awarded the victory because though tied with John Citizen for No. 1 rank, she bested him with 12,000 more 2nd rank votes.

I believe it is fairly easy to also see that such a voting method would also essentially eliminate "tied" election results such as we have seen in assorted national elections and ever since Bush v. Gore in 2000.  Thus, the No. 2 rank higher frequency emerges as an automatic tiebreaker. No need for recounts- hand or machine, hanging chads or screaming mobs outside of voting stations while recounts are performed. Easy peasy.

So why isn't this more rational system employed? Because - the argument goes - it would be too costly and complicated to overhaul the existing binary, winner take all system.

All of this is relevant now as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has announced his third party candidacy and the Dems are livid, as they should be. As William Galston put it (ibid.):

"Starbucks former CEO has no shot at the presidency and could help Trump win."

Indeed, he could well do that just as Jill Stein did in 2016 when she siphoned just enough votes off from Hillary Clinton in three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) to enable Trump to grab 77,000 for an electoral college win.    This despite Dan Henninger's codswallop (Jan. 31, p. 17, 'The State of Trump's Union'):

"He (Trump) won in 2016 in part because so many people voted against Hillary Clinton."

Actually, Henny, nearly THREE million more voted for Hillary than Dotard. What really happened is that too many nincompoops decided to toss their franchise away in the three "Brexit" states by voting for Jill Stein.  Not that Jill isn't a proper firebrand and amiable  - but she didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning given our current binary voting system.

Henninger, in his inimitable distorting style, then goes on to bloviate about Democrats and the Left in "hysteria over an outlier like Howard Schultz."   No, not because Schultz is an outlier - like Jill Stein was- but because like Ms. Stein he could siphon just enough moderate Dem votes to get the piece of filth and traitor re-elected. Which would be a national catastrophe.  But, of course, Henninger is such a DOtard suckup it's doubtful this aspect would register. Presumably he'd be just fine with 4 more years of Trump's antic, including" shutdowns if he doesn't get his way, hobnobbing in secret meets with Vlad, and dissing his own intelligence agencies. (Why Sen. Chuck Schumer recently called for an "intervention" by the intel group.)


Worse, as NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg noted three nights ago on 'All In' Schultz doesn't even have a platform, a stance or an agenda. He just wants to be the "third choice" and maybe the "anti- Dem" - so like too many rich guys on the right  with more ego than brains - wants to stir up a shitstorm against Medicare for All and higher taxes. . (The proposed program now facing a propaganda blitz in the reactionary media and also the corporate owned set.)

The best advice for Schultzy?  Don;t event think of carrying through with this farce, and forever being labeled an accessory after the fact if this traitor Trump is re-elected. As Mr. Galston put it in his "open letter" to Schultz:

"Even if you could win, there's no reason to believe you would be an effective president."

But as I wrote, Schultz won't win - there's no universe in which he does-   especially with a binary winner take all system. But he could and very well might be the unknown that get Traitor Trump re-elected, with all that implies.

See also:

Howard Schultz

Howard Schultz Is a Presidential Candidate Only Late Capitalism Could Produce

And:

The Disaster of Howard Schultz

by Robert Reich | January 31, 2019 - 7:31am | permalink

Excerpt:

"His message is without substance (he uses empty catchphrases like “silent majority” and “common sense solutions”) and his policy proposals are zilch. When asked by John Dickerson on CBS This Morning what his “big idea” was, Schultz declared: “The big idea is very simple: to unite the country. For us to come together. To do everything we can to realize that the promise of America is for everyone.” To the extent Schultz has defined his candidacy, it’s focused on what he’s against—for example, Democratic proposals to raise taxes and provide Medicare for All .

Preventing A Second Trump Term Only Requires Electoral College Fine Tuning By A Few States.

"Yeah! I'm gonna win in 2020 too, once I get my deplorables back on board!"

In earlier posts I had bruited the use of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution or impeachment to rid ourselves of the malignancy we currently have occupying the White House. I even advocated the abolition of the Electoral College which most of us know won't happen anytime soon. But there is another way, one that is actually more faithful to the Founders' will and also which would be much more practical in ridding ourselves of any conceivable 2nd Trump term.

Let's begin first with a basic statistical fact pertaining to Trump's winning the three "Brexit states" (MI, PA and WI) and how this catapulted the maggot into office. In those three states - which would normally have been blue-  Dotard  amassed 46 Electoral College votes. Note that his cumulative winning popular edge was a bare 107,000 - or enough to maybe just fill the LA Coliseum. Had Hillary Clinton won those three states she'd have garnered 278 electoral votes to win the 2016 election.

But this still misses a more fundamental point, including the media overemphasis on  HRC winning the popular vote by about 3 million. That is, in retrospect,  we see that the Electoral College itself   did not function properly even according to its own logic.  Never mind my earlier (still serious) objections to the Electoral College failing to properly assess an unqualified candidate and allowing him to ascend to the highest office. I referred to this as permitting a "mischief of faction".

No, what I am all about here is that despite everything said about Hillary's reasons (see her book, 'What Happened') for losing the 2016 election, insufficient attention has been paid to the basic fact of an Electoral College malfunction in specific states.  There were 6 states in which Trump won without a majority because there were more than two candidates on the ballot. Without Jill Stein and Gary Johnson's names on the ballot, Clinton might have received more votes than Trump in some of these six states. If she had done so in just Florida and either Pennsylvania, Michigan, or North Carolina, that would have been enough for her to win the White House.

What this means is that Donnie Dotard technically achieved an Electoral College victory without genuinely receiving the support of the electorates in the states responsible for his Electoral College win. But this is exact the opposite of what the creators of the Electoral College had in mind.

This point is germane because there is little  realistic chance of replacing the Electoral College with something different, but there isn’t. And meanwhile, it blinds us to the problem that in 2016, the Electoral College did not function properly even according to its own logic. As long as we are stuck with the Electoral College, we should make it operate as intended.

Here's the skinny:  the Founding Fathers believed each state should ensure that a candidate must not receive its Electoral College votes without support from a majority of its voters. States initially complied with this expectation, because a) it was rational, and b) it issued from the very advice of the Founders.  So who would declare it absurd? . In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for example, if no candidate won a majority of the popular vote, the legislature would appoint the state’s electors. New Hampshire then switched to a runoff, in which voters cast a second round of ballots if no candidate received a majority in the first round.

In other words, states went the proverbial extra mile to assure one and all that the candidate to be awarded its electoral votes had attained a majority of the votes.  The Founders  understood that an election with multiple candidates (like the 4 in 2016) might produce a winner with under 50% of the votes. But this was an outcome they wanted to avoid, which explains why they insisted that to win a candidate had to receive a majority, and not merely a plurality, of  the votes cast.  If no candidate hit that threshold, then s/he needed to get the support of a majority, and not merely a plurality, of state delegations in the House of Representatives.

None of that transpired in the 2016 election. Trump won with only bare pluralities in those 6 states but still snatched all their electoral votes. That was not cricket, not one bit.  How did we end up with this travesty. this violation of the Founders' will? Well, over time the states adopted a mutation of the original premise, i.e. they.moved to allow a presidential candidate all of a state’s Electoral College votes with only a plurality of popular  votes. This was not only a serious mistake and corruption of the original system but grossly inconsistent with the architects' original vision.

What does it mean?

Just that that state electoral laws must be changed before 2020, lest the maggot in chief somehow squeak through again by horrendous happenstance, or voter apathy.  That requires fixing the state laws that implement the Electoral College system.   Some nervous Nellies may wring their hands and whine "it's impossible!" at the prospect, but not so fast.

The good news is that each state already has the constitutional power to adjust its applicable laws, without the need for a constitutional amendment or some sort of multi-state compact that would not take effect until enough states sign on. In truth, if just a couple of states  (FL, PA) had adopted the necessary fix before last year, Clinton might well be president now.

Conclusion? Forget the 25th amendment getting Trump out, we want his whole cabal out. Also, forget the Electors abiding strictly by their conscience to prevent mischief of faction. That has about as much chance occurring as aliens from Tau Ceti's sixth planet kidnapping Trump and doing  a long overdue lobotomy.

NO, the evident solution is for states to fix their electoral process to ensure it is once more consonant with the Founders will: NO candidate gets all of its electoral votes any more unless he or she wins a majority of the popular vote.

Jill Stein's Recount Efforts Were Doomed From the Get Go Thanks To Paperless Machines

Image showing primitive electronic voting machines in Pennsylvania. Jill Stein - defeated by the machines before she could start a recount

It turns out, as many of us suspected, that Green Party candidate Jill Stein's recount efforts were doomed from the start. This may have had much to do with the dubious quality of the voting machines in Pennsylvania  one of 3 states she targeted for recounts. Recall Stein’s bid to recount votes in Pennsylvania was shot down by a federal judge on Dec. 12. The argument was that she'd produced no evidence of hacking - which suspicion she cited as a basis for recount.

The judge wrote in his opinion:

"Suspicion of a ‘hacked’ Pennsylvania election borders on the irrational"

But  this statement is predicated on the assumption of  some rigorous and consistent standard of tabulation accuracy, which we know doesn't exist with these paperless electronic machines. For any who gullibly believe these antiquated machines are as good as paper ballots, I invite you to take a gander at the machine below showing vote switching (from 2012) in action, e.g. at: http://wonkette.com/488754/watch-this-pennsylvania-voting-machine-hilariously-refuse-to-accept-a-vote-for-barack-obama

 So it turns out that in retrospect the judge was right for the wrong reasons, i.e. there was no way to cross check the electronic counts using paper records - so it was therefore "irrational" to try. Thus,  in the case of Pennsylvania, any absence of evidence of hacking may have been part and parcel of the age and type of machines used. Thus, the use of antiquated electronic voting machines (see graphic) ensured there'd be almost no chance of detecting potential fraud or error in the vote — there was basically nothing to recount, i.e. independent of the electronic tally.

If Pennsylvania was the only state featuring such relic means of counting votes it would be bad enough. But according to a piece in The Denver Post yesterday (p. 13A, 'Vulnerable Votes - Rigging Disruption') this isn't so. Pennsylvania is one of 11 states where the majority of voters use antiquated machines that store votes electronically, without printed ballots or other paper-based backups that could be used to double-check the balloting. Hence, there’s almost no way to know if they’ve accurately recorded individual votes — or if anyone tampered with the count.

Should we just naively assume machines like these work properly and the votes are accurate. Absolutely not! That sort of cavalier, laissez faire attitude is more the modus operandi of Banana Republics. People's eyes may glaze over at the subject of voting technology (or lack of it) but this is important. If the validity of our elections is undermined by the machines we use to tabulate votes, then we are all living in a fool's paradise.  How so? 

Daniel Lopresti, chairman of the Lehigh University computer-science department, puts it in this perspective (quoted in the Post piece):

"What you’re hoping for is some evidence that was left, some degree of clumsiness or carelessness, a belief by the individual that we won’t dig quite that deep"   But "an infected machine could do anything you can imagine" according to analyst Dan Wallach, "It could flip votes from one candidate to another. It could delete votes. It could cast write-in votes for Mickey Mouse for president.”  See one of the antics in its repertoire in the preceding link.

The brute fact is that more than 80 percent of Pennsylvanians who voted Nov. 8 cast their ballots on such machines, according to VotePA, a nonprofit seeking their replacement. A Stein recount would, in the words of VotePA’s Marybeth Kuznik, a veteran election judge, essentially have amounted to this: “You go to the computer and you say, ‘OK, computer, you counted this a week-and-a-half ago. Were you right the first time?'”

Is this any way to determine the next leader of the free world? Putatively the most powerful leadership position on the planet with the capacity to obliterate all human life under specific conditions?  I would hope enough sane, rational people are left to answer a resounding, 'NO!'

ADVERTISING

ADVERTISING

inRead invented by Teads

inRead invented by Teads

Moreover, as reported in the same article, these paperless digital voting machines, used by roughly 1 in 5 U.S. voters last month, present some of the most glaring security dangers. For example,  like many electronic voting machines, they are vulnerable to hacking. But other machines typically leave a paper trail that could be manually checked. The paperless digital machines open the door to potential election rigging that might not ever be detected.  In other words, in the wrong hands, they can lead to the election of a tyrant or other manner of demagogue.

This is why as far back as April  Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman  warned of a covert effort in Repub states to steal this year's election, see   The Flip & Strip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft (www.freepress.org / www.solartopia.org),

What’s more, the prevalence of such zombie machines  magnifies other risks in the election system, such as the possibility that hackers might compromise the computers that tally votes, by making failures or attacks harder to catch.  Quoting Barbara Simons, a former IBM researcher and co-author of “Broken Ballots" (ibid.):

“If I were going to hack this election, I would go for the paperless machines because they are so hard to check. In fact, we have a history of the unlearned lessons of flawed U.S. voting technology."

Why don't we learn the lessons? Are we too damned dumb. too complacent or too inept? Or maybe we are quite satisfied with just the veneer of democracy as comic George Carlin once put it (but in a much more colorful format via a comparison of four yearly episodes of "jerking off").

The  Post article noted that the U.S. voting system is "a loosely regulated, locally managed patchwork of more than 3,000 jurisdictions overseen by the states, employing more than two dozen types of machinery from 15 manufacturers."  This hodge podge of methodologies, not to mention superimposed voter ID regulations, is an invitation to the disenfranchisement of millions.

Meanwhile, election officials across the nation insist  they take great care to secure their machines from tampering. They claim they are locked away when not in use and sealed to prevent tampering.
They also maintain that all that makes national elections very difficult to steal without getting caught.

But difficult is not impossible.  Expert Dan S. Wallach and his colleagues believe a crafty team of pros could strike surgically, focusing on select counties in a few battleground states where “a small nudge might be decisive."

As a battleground state with paperless voting machines, Pennsylvania would be a perfect candidate. In affidavits for the recount. Computer scientist J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan laid out how attackers could conduct a successful hack (ibid.):

—Probe election offices well in advance to determine how to break into computers.

—After identifying battleground states, infect voting machines in targeted counties with malware that would shift a small percentage of the vote to a desired candidate.

—After silently altering electronic tallies, erase digital tracks to leave no trace.

Also pointing out that just because the machines aren’t on the internet doesn’t mean they can’t be hacked. Election workers could be duped or bribed into installing malware that sat dormant until Election Day. Locks could be picked to gain access to the machines, seals compromised with razor blades and acetone. Studies by Halderman, Wallach and others proved years ago that it’s possible to infect voting machines in an entire precinct via the compact flash cards used to load electronic ballots.

Jill Stein's Green Party lawyers seeking the Pennsylvania recount called the state’s election system “a national disgrace” in a federal lawsuit, noting that many states outlaw paperless voting.   The most outrageous aspect of the whole thing is it could all boil down to a lack of money, or rather willingness to ensure the nation's voting systems are on a par with those - say in Germany.

According to Edgardo Cortes, the  PA state elections commissioner( ibid.):

“The federal money is not there and in most instances state money is not being made available, either.  So the entire cost is falling to local governments.”

Any person who doesn't believe this to be disgraceful has no right referring to himself as a citizen. Because a citizen, above all, attends to the machinery of government and is committed to its integrity. He doesn't belittle it or dismiss it when it's convenient, say when his party or candidate wins.

On an objective and rational level, just as Congress earlier delivered a death blow to punch cards, it should also outlaw paperless touchscreen voting machines and pay for their replacement. This according to Andrew Appel, a Princeton University computer scientist quoted in the Post article.

Bottom line: Until we collectively get our act together we can't be sure of any election outcome, and the very act of "certification" becomes a lame joke.

See also

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/70375/we-finally-reached-the-closing-chapter-of-our-flawed-and-corrupted-electoral-process-trumps-presid

The White House Needs To Shut Up About Election Recount

Depiction of Obama from 2011 when he was ready to cave on Social Security (COLA) cuts, like he wants to cave on recounts now. But we need leaders with balls, not appeasing wimps.

It is incredible that now,  with Hillary Clinton backing the election recounts in three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania),  the White House wants to interject its two cents that "the American people have spoken" and Hillary and Jill Stein need to put a halt to it. (This according to the UK Guardian yesterday). No fucking way, not with what's on the line. It is especially incredible to many that Obama - clearly the source of these statements - given he hates conflict,  could so easily be ready to see his legacy ripped apart step by step. Hell, Obama's White House ought to be the first on board to support these recounts given all the irregularities reported, including provisional ballots not being counted.

It isn't just a matter of the pitiful political IQ Trump brings to the table, accentuated yesterday with a series of petulant tweets at the level of a dyspeptic 3-year old: "Very unfair! No Way! This is a Green Party scam to fill up their coffers!!"    It's particularly choice Trump is squealing like a stuck pig given he'd be the first in line to do recounts- and in all the states he lost - if the situation was reversed. Oh, and here's the kicker showing this splenetic blowhard pretender fails the reality test for President:

"I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally!"

Seriously,  Sherlock? In fact, as numerous credible sources including Politifact have shown,  there isn't a scintilla of evidence for this off the wall claim. A claim which merely shows Trump  - now nicknamed 'Donald Dump'  by the Left - belongs more in a rubber room at Bellevue than the Oval Office.

By now, everyone not living under a rock is aware of the  outbreaks of bigotry and racist violence perpetrated on innocents in the wake of Trump's aberrational  electoral vote "victory". Many of us worried, and it's now been vindicated with over 1,000 reports to the Southern Poverty Law Center, that the troglodytes and knuckle draggers would interpret the Trump electoral college win (he didn't win the popular vote) as license to commit all manner of hate crimes and  domestic terrorism. We have now seen this reprehensible behavior in spades.

Now include on top of that the "abominables row" of cabinet and other agency picks (which David Axelrod has called the "Monster's Ball") and you can understand why millions of sane citizens are terrified. Ryan Holmes of Chicago, quoted in yesterday's Denver Post (p. 4B) said:

"I am frightened of what's to come. Sad and less hopeful of the future."

That sentiment is shared by nearly 53 percent of the populace who saw their votes flushed down the toilet because GOP gubernators had been gaming their electronic voting systems since at least April,, as originally reported by Bob Fritakis and Harvey Wasserman ('The Fix May Already Be In For GOP To Steal The 2016 Election') As they noted in part:

There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny. In fact, they are beyond all independent monitoring altogether. In many key swing states (including Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona) GOP governors and secretaries of state will have a free hand to flip the vote count to whatever they want it to be without detection or accountability. This could turn control of our government over to the GOP come November, as it did in 2000 and 2004.

Obama and his White House, meanwhile, appear to be oblivious - given their response to the recounts - that the nation's voting majority are aghast as Trump has made appalling decisions in staffing his administration.  This includes appointing racist bomb thrower Steven Bannon to be a "strategist" and appointing  pro-Confederate Jeff Sessions as Attorney General.  The cast of "abominables" changes almost hour to hour but one thing has been established, these inveterate assholes will hurl this country back at least 50 years, demolishing most advances made with tears, sweat, toil and grit. The "Dump" menagerie includes the likes of climate denier Myron Ebell, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/11/trump-appoints-denier-loser-looneytune.html

Whose staffing of the EPA and other agencies will burn up all our climate change regs in a monster coal pit fire.

Then there is the screwball Betsy DeVos that has been appointed to Education Secretary who is dedicated to converting U.S. public schools into vast educational ghettoes- where resources amount to string and cellotape and only poor kids are found.

As Matthew Rosza of salon.com has written:

"DeVos, is a woman who never went to public school, nor sent her children to public school, nor worked for public schools. She does, however, come from a wealthy family that has donated millions to the Republican Party. And she would be terrible for public education in this country"

Adding:

"DeVos also serves on the board of the Acton Institute, which merges corporate interests with dominion theology, or the belief that Christians should take control of political and social institutions. Earlier this month, the Acton Institute published a blog post titled, “Bring back child labor: Work is a gift our kids can handle.”.


Bring back child labor?  This derelict nut case is to be in charge of public education and one can imagine her replacing education with child labor for  6 hours a day at all public schools under the rubric "they will learn by doing".  No wonder so many are appalled, including that the hijacking of the Supreme Court could easily bring back back room abortions ....or coat hangars.

Trump, by his very picks,  is not about unifying this nation but rending it asunder with his reckless decision making and arrogance. The fool needs to be stopped, and short of the state electors coming to their senses on December 19th to cast the electoral ballots, we need this recount to do the job.

This despite the media - including the so-called liberal- already mounting a campaign to normalize Trump and his fascist pool of anti-government degenerates.. 

The last thing needed in this mix is the White House adding its two cents to try to make this election appear normal and Trump being the "choice of most Americans". (See link at bottom which skewers this nonsense.)  No, a majority of us didn't make that choice at all, so don't perturb the results with verbal effluent and snide PR. In a genuine democracy - which doesn't depend on an artificial anachronism - Hillary Clinton would now be President Elect by virtue of a 2.4 million popular vote win.  That outcome is still possible, no matter what Donald Dump barks on his Twitter, if these recounts are done faithfully, including all the provisional ballots.

Let Trump tweet until he's hysterical with rage, he merely proves each day how unfit he is for the job.. Since he wants so desperately to keep his fingers in the 73 odd outposts of the Trump empire maybe it's best he do that, since he clearly doesn't wish to devote 100 percent of time and energy to being a President. Especially for ALL the people!

As for the White House, it ought to be cheering Jill Stein's efforts, given that her success - especially in overturning the electoral vote totals- will ensure Obama of retaining his legacy, policies - including Obamacare.   If those policies and legacy mean anything to him he will now put a sock in it, as they say, regarding Stein's (and now Clinton's) recount efforts.

See also:  "The Voters Rejected Trump":

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/jack-lessenberry/70081/the-voters-rejected-trump

And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/70121/trump-campaign-and-gop-allies-in-full-legal-panic-as-recounts-could-create-electoral-college-crisi

YES! Let The Election Recounts Begin In Three States!

Former Green candidate Jill Stein, has raised more than $4 million to do election recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Americans, by and large, are too gullible and accepting of democratic process - and despite painting themselves as fierce "patriots" - they often fall short where the rubber meets the road. I am talking here about the basic processes for electing our highest officials including for President - an office that arguably is the most powerful on Earth.  Such an election is particularly critical if the capture of the Presidency, for example, represents the final linchpin in one party having total control of government. Hence, by its appointments  (including Supreme Court) and agendas it can then literally affect the lives of tens of millions for good or ill. If the wrong person gets in, sneaks in, really by failure of election processes, it can mean upending the lives of a majority of citizens.

Author Greg Palast, who investigated the 2000 fake Florida (Choicepoint) voter felon rolls, has noted the stark consequences:

"No way around it, this is one frightening moment.  Decades of progress created with sweat and determination face destruction.  Within the next six months, we may see the Voting Rights Act repealed—and civil rights set back 50 years; the entirety of our environmental protection laws burnt in a coal pit; police cruelty made our urban policy; the Education Department closed to give billionaires a tax holiday; and a howling anti-Semite as White House Senior Counselor.."

In respect of this 2016 Presidential election, many critical eyes - not just on the left - have looked askance at what has transpired, especially in view of the Supreme Court's torpedoing of voter protections hitherto assured under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  But beyond those issues, there is the one that overshadows the use of electronic voting machines and whether, indeed, they can be trusted in giving reliable results.

For any who gullibly believe Diebold machines - for example- are as good as paper ballots, I invite you to take a gander at the machine below showing vote switching (from 2012) in action, e.g. at: http://wonkette.com/488754/watch-this-pennsylvania-voting-machine-hilariously-refuse-to-accept-a-vote-for-barack-obama

Arguably, if the total election results had been much closer, a much narrower margin for Obama, it is quite conceivable the 2012 election could have been stolen. The narrower margins would have made election theft more successful, effective.

The incident shown in the link was not unusual, or exceptional. On Nov. 6, 2012, at  precisely 8.30 a.m. Mountain time, wifey and I stared spellbound while watching KOAA-TV, as the newscaster noted two electronic machines in Adams County had 'switched' voters' choices for President - from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney! Like smart citizens who check their grocery receipts for errors after each purchase, the voters checked their paper printouts and sure enough.....there on the paper was 'Mitt Romney (R)- Paul Ryan(VP)' instead of 'Barack Obama(D)- Joe Biden (VP)'. The voters complained and precinct specialists attempted to replicate the errors, but to no avail.  However, they then performed the legit fail -safe action (demanded) of taking the machines out of commission.

Had the Colorado electoral vote total been determined by those voting machine differences, Colorado would have gone for Romney instead of Obama. THAT is why electoral processes need to be examined especially in close, nail biter elections. It is stupid to just say "Well, the election is over, deal with it!". No, uh uh, not when so many millions of lives are at stake in terms of their life quality.
This is why I am vexed and impatient by people why assert we need to "move on" or those like Kellyanne Conway saying HRC voters "can't accept the results of this election". Yes, they can- IF it is fair.

Recall that back on April 19, I warned of a possible heist using electronic voting machines in Repub states, i.e. states in which Republican governors had control of the voting stations, regulations, accessibility etc. The header of my post was 'The Fix May Already Be In For Gooprs to Steal the 2016 Election'. Therein I cited a blog post by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman  on smirkingchimp.com:

There are two things we all need to know about the upcoming 2016 election:

1. Millions of likely Democratic voters have already been stripped from the voter rolls in critical states like Ohio. The key reporting on this has been done by the great Greg Palast, who has shown that a computer program coordinated by the Republican secretary of state of Kansas is being used in some two dozen states to steal from a substantial percentage of the citizenry their right to vote. The raw numbers are high enough that they could have a significant impact on the presidential, US Senate, House and many other elections this fall. The ACLU has now sued Jon Husted, Ohio’s secretary of state, over the stripping of two million citizens from Ohio's voter rolls.

2. There is no way to verify the official tally on the electronic machines on which the majority of Americans will vote this fall. Nearly all the machines are a decade old, most are controlled by a single company (ES&S, owned by Warren Buffett) and the courts have ruled that the software is proprietary, making the vote counts beyond public scrutiny. In fact, they are beyond all independent monitoring altogether. In many key swing states (including Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Arizona) GOP governors and secretaries of state will have a free hand to flip the vote count to whatever they want it to be without detection or accountability. This could turn control of our government over to the GOP come November, as it did in 2000 and 2004.

These two critical markers of the upcoming national election were at center stage in their upcoming report :  The Flip & Strip Selection of 2016: Five Jim Crows and Electronic Election Theft (www.freepress.org / www.solartopia.org),

In the wake of the historical findings and proof that electronic voting machines CAN switch votes and given the close (as well as suspicious)  results in three industrial states - two of which flipped, and one still close to call - it boggles the mind the media is in such a rush to foreclose the election. This is why Jill Stein merits kudos for undertaking a task that Hillary wouldn't. This despite Hillary getting hundreds of millions of bucks in campaign donations more than Stein.  But obviously, the Clinton campaign is more invested in the "optics" of looking graceful in defeat and honorable - despite the fact many more (2.2. million at last count) voted for her and therefore over 62.5 million stand to have their votes trashed in the dumpster of history. (Even as our nation risks having its reputation and integrity trashed by a Trump administration.)

I applaud Stein's efforts, as everyone should,  and that basically means doing a very simple thing in the three states noted: comparing the electronic vote results with the paper ballot records.  If the totals square off with each other and whatever differential doesn't lead to a reversal in the state's electoral votes, then fine and dandy. award that state's electoral votes to Trump. If not, then no, you can't do that.

As for Hillary, she's being urged by many to officially request a recount in those states. But don't hold your breath, it was far easier for her campaign to grab donated money for the initial run than to protect the integrity of the results after the fact. Also, according to a UK Guardian report "several senior Democrats are said to be intensely reluctant to suggest there were irregularities in the result because Clinton and her team criticized Trump so sharply during the campaign for claiming that the election would be “rigged” against him."

Yes, and well, don't you think if the situation was reversed Trump would be calling for recounts now, and in more than 3 states? Again, it doesn't pay to be faux honorable or gracious when so much is on the line. Hillary needs to drop the pretense of just silently accepting the loss and come out fighting like she besieged her voters to do for her in her 'Stronger Together' campaign.

At the same time, according to the same report, others have spoken publicly, including the sister of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s closest aide who pointed out. “A shift of just 55,000 Trump votes to Hillary in PA, MI & WI is all that is needed to win,” Heba Abedin said on Facebook, urging people to call the justice department to request an audit.

Again, this issue goes beyond the claims of "Russian hacking" which I doubt was responsible. It is more a matter of investigating whether the electronic votes cast via Diebold, ES & S voting machines were "true" and not switched. Also, that all the voters (especially African Americans) in key states who tried to vote - including using provisional ballots - were allowed to do so.

Update:  Ted Olson Pitches Hissy Fit Over Recount:

Yep, the same dolt and hired hack who represented Bush Jr, in Bush v. Gore, now claims (TIME. Dec. 12, p. 18) "Jill Stein's recounts are destructive to democracy".. But how can a process that validates democratic choice be destructive to it? This is total nonsense but we shouldn't be surprised by such loopy logic from a guy who insisted the FLA recounts in 2000, were against "equal treatment" for his client.  He also bitched and moaned about Stein being a "bit player" and yet demanding recounts. Sorry, Roscoe, that is what the STATE laws allow- for any candidate no matter what the % of votes! Seems like this punk just can't handle true democracy.

What I'd like to see instead is an uproar over the refusal of official to do recounts of African -American votes in Michigan, see e.g

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/70158/michigan-election-officials-refuse-to-recount-thousands-of-ballots-in-states-communities-of-color

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/70016/recount-or-bust-its-the-only-way-to-verify-who-won-the-2016-election


Excerpt:

Any functioning democracy should involve the verification of the vote. That, in this case, involves a recount process. The candidates who are on the ballot in Michigan and Wisconsin can call for the recount. In Pennsylvania, it’s voters who can. It doesn’t have to be the runner-up candidate. Third-party candidates can call for the recounts in Michigan and Wisconsin. And three voters per county in Pennsylvania can call for them. There were serious concerns leading up to the election about the vulnerability of our voting systems. There were anomalies that occurred on Election Day and all those give rise to the basis of why we make sure we verify the vote.

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/jill-stein-election-recount-fund-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania

Should An Author Be Held Responsible For Mass Shootings?

The news (New York Times, Sunday, p. 1) that the 18-year old German -Iranian mass shooter was in possession of the book, 'Why Kids Kill: Inside The Minds Of Mass Shooters', has again triggered questions of whether the author (Peter Langman) must somehow share responsibility.   The perpetrator in Munich, like the Columbine killers he idolized, evidently was bullied like they were and also suffered from depression.

Like the psychotic Colorado killer Karl Pierson, German authorities in Munich found the gunman had been bullied, and seemed to have few friends. No link to religious extremism or Islamic State zealots have been found.

Alas, the book by Langman was also found in the possession of Arapahoe High School student Karl Pierson, an honor student who shot to death a fellow student, Claire Davis. Pierson barged into the school hallway armed with a shotgun and Molotov cocktails. He was angry and looking for a debate coach with whom he wished to settle a score.  He fired a blast that struck Claire in the face at point blank range and sent her into a coma, dying after lingering unconscious for a week. Friends and family prayed that she'd come out of it - but that didn't happen..  Pierson wrote in his diary that he was psychopathic with a superiority complex.  According to author Langman: “I think he was right and correctly identified himself as a psychopathic personality from my book.”

However, is a coincidental profiling of oneself from the subject matter of a book on mass shooters  enough to impute blame to the author? Probably not. And Langman himself has made it clear he gave absolutely no details concerning techniques or strategy, nor did he deliver gory details.
 

But this may not matter in the end, because a certain niche of intelligent potential shooters can become obsessed and ensnared with their own divergent psychological manifestations. Then  - with self diagnosis - these misfits often end up analogizing themselves to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the infamous Columbine killers.
 

In a Mother Jones analysis of Langman's book from 2012, it appeared that many school shooters had become mesmerized by the story of Klebold and Harris. The Colorado duo's violent actions then formed the template for dozens of subsequent shootings. In particular, the pair's sense of isolation, plus the relentless bullying they endured from the jocks at Columbine High School. Add in their single-minded objective to deliver payback to those who they believed tortured them and the nefarious stage was set.
 

Thus, the MJ conclusion was that this template might be taken to heart by others, even if no particular strategies were given, or gory details.  But Langman himself has downplayed the bullying aspect though he wasn't specific on causes, noting in a UK Guardian piece (7/23):

“Sometimes there’s a revenge factor. Sometimes they are full of rage and lashing out against the world.  Sometimes they are wanting to make a name for themselves. As a nobody, they see the only way to be a somebody is get international recognition for killing people.”
 

Well, the inverted fame may also be a part, but it could also be that certain beliefs arising from the Columbine template are also in play. Also there is no gainsaying the fact that since Columbine the two killers have emerged as the "anti-heroes" of a misshapen death cult that idolizes the pair. The MJ  article noted other mass killers have been obsessed with the Columbine attack, drawing on a wealth of information in books and movies, fan websites dedicated to the shooters, and even a Broadway show. 

In this super-heated environment of self-absorption and  lunacy a single author can hardly be blamed for the dastardly acts of a series of misfits entranced by Columbine's killers.

Sue Klebold - Dylan's mother -  has even said she still receives mail from young women across the country professing their love for her son.  Twisted? For sure, but again if true - and there's no reason to doubt Mrs. Klebold - it might also help explain the ongoing demented fascination with the whole Columbine incident and why its infectious memes continue to generate offshoot killings. As for Mrs. Klebold, in her recent book  A Mother’s Reckoning,  she leans to the idea her son suffered from a "brain disease"

An alternative explanation has been advanced by Tahir Rahman, a forensic psychiatrist at University of Missouri. In his recent paper he argues for the need to examine "the extreme overvalued belief"  This term was coined originally by Carl Wernicke, a German neuropsychiatrist. He used it to describe ideas that dominate a person's mind causing non-delusional but extreme behaviors. Anorexia nervosa has been cited as one example in which extreme beliefs of body image dominate minds. (To the point of starvation.).

The same can be said for racists, anti-Semites, anti-Muslims,  psychotic anti-liberals or any person gripped with hatred toward a target group. (Often because of his own lack of adequate information, knowledge).  Most don't act out in violence, reach for an AR-15 and shoot twenty people. But those who become fixated on the misshapen justification of their hate can and do.  Thus, we beheld the demented Orlando mass shooter acting out his overvalued ideas, just as we also saw  the confused, alienated teen in Munich doing the same. .


The danger of all such overvalued beliefs is their propensity to become amplified by the possessor,  fulminating in the mind until the beliefs dominate. For example, the belief that Obama is a Muslim and is guilty of aiding the cause of radical Islam in some weird way.  It is difficult to deal with these people because their beliefs are magnified out of rational proportions, and tied to emotional over-investment. This disposition is also associated with an abnormal personality, e.g. the schizoid type or submerged personality manifested by James Holmes. .

As an example, Eric Harris idolized Hitler, and felt the human race was totally worthless. Being a hostage to such beliefs, then having them confirmed by being picked on by jocks, led him to conclude the only solution was to annihilate as many fellow students as possible.  This led to joining forces with Dylan Klebold to kill 13 and injure dozens more on Hitler's birthday (April 20) in 1999.

The danger of Trumpism now is sowing many more minds with such hateful, overvalued beliefs, in this case centering on white superiority and ridding the nation of immigrants, gays, and liberals ("libtards").   This morning, while grabbing a quick breakfast at McDonald's I even overheard three local wingnuts complaining loudly about no American flags seen at the DNC. One said: "What do you expect from these Muslim lovers? And they haven't even mentioned the word 'Isis' yet!"  Another fed into the first guy's overvalued idea by asserting: "Yeah, and they have a fence all around their Convention center but don't want Trump to build a wall!"

Could I have interjected reason with these guys? Not likely! Short of a brain transplant I'd have had no more success than trying to convince a denier like Kort Patterson of the reality of man-made global warming.  Reason and evidence simply play no role for the brain committed to an overvalued idea.

Hillary Clinton clearly has her serious defects  and disadvantages but may be the only "antidote"  to preventing a nation based on extreme overvalued beliefs. Kind of like using the toxins delivered via chemotherapy to eliminate a cancer.

Or, mayhap we need a "political physician" as Jill Stein describes herself, to clean house of these nasty overvalued, extreme memes warping the minds of so many of our citizens. People might wish to watch Dr. Stein's extemp speech to Sanders and other supporters outside the Wells Fargo center, e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTG67z0yUag


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/68284/no-sociopaths-in-the-white-house-i-m-with-jill-stein

Greens' Jill Stein: Right About Bernie's Movement Having "No Place" In Democratic Party?

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein, making a play and plea for Sanders' supporter to come on board.

I was astonished to read in the online Washington Post last night (after the Convention) that Jill Stein was in Philly and making pronouncements outside the Wells Fargo Center to the effect that Bernie's supporters ought to give up on the Democrats.  Jill Stein, of course, is the Green Party candidate for President and she basically said that the Democrats' own actions (including the disgusting  DNC emails) showed that there was no place for a movement such as Bernie's. She then made the case that the more natural place  for "Berners" was with the Greens.

This is a reasonable issue to examine so let's do so. First, IF there is a real place for Sanders' left political movement in the Dem party would they have done everything possible - from the email content and super delegate system- to derail his campaign? I do not believe so! Hence, check off one solid debate point for Ms. Stein.

Next, IF there is a real place for Bernie's energetic supporters in the formal Dem party would Hillary have moved to the center right and named a Neoliberal Wall Street crony as Veep? The answer again must be 'No'.   In fact, I am convinced the naming of Kaine as Clinton's VP pick, a guy known to be against just about every progressive initiative and position, shows the formal Dem Party has zero use for Bernie's people - never mind all the inflated rhetoric last night.

Let's now take a trip back along memory lane to see how and why this distrust of the left emerged and even reached a pinnacle of disrespect during the first Obama term when his aide Rahm Emmanuel sat down with liberals and referred to them as "fucking retarded" for not fully getting behind the Prez' Neolib agenda. See e.g.
https://shadowproof.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

Real liberals have hated him ever since and also seen Obama for what he really is, a Neoliberal in the disguise of a liberal.

Back to the Democratic Party's genesis of distrust for liberals. This likely commenced with the McGovern presidency in 1972, when the Ds made a big bet and lost to Nixon. They vowed never again to be put in such a position, just as after Mondale's drubbing in 1984 by Reagan led them to confect the center right mutation known as the Democratic Leadership Council, i.e. "New Dems" (read Neoliberal Dems).

To do an end run around future true liberal candidates they implemented a gaming of election rules as well as creation of a "super delegate" system to put a final imprimatur on any "outsider".  True liberals then took stock and decided not to be railroaded by fear ever again. Hence, when Gore showed he disdained liberals by picking the odious neocon Joe Lieberman as running mate in 2000, the most diehard liberals either stayed home or voted Ralph Nader. They are still blamed for "handing the election to Bush" despite the facts that: 1) more than 200,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in Florida (vastly more than the 57,000 who voted Nader) and 2) Jeb Bush himself knocked over 100,000 black voters off the voting rolls using Choicepoint listing them as felons.

But these election mutations have been minor compared to the rapid move of the entire D Party to the Right which I discussed before, e.g. in my post of May 31. wherein I cited a quote by Noam Chomsky:

“There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicans—and that used to be pretty accurate, but it’s not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but there’s only one faction, and it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right,”

Chomsky's insights are spot on, and as I've posted before, the only reason some perceive me as a Marxist Socialist or "communist" (as opposed to FDR-JFK style liberal) today is because: 1) Their own positions have shifted radically right and 2) they're unaware how the political spectrum shift has been warped by propaganda, revisionist history. (Such as the Rightist trope that JFK was "really a cold warrior" and 'fiscal conservative' when all the evidence indicates this is balderdash,

The Dem mutation toward corporate elitism began when they embraced Neoliberalism via the Democratic Leadership Council  (DLC) in the Reagan era, and 'Fix the Debt' by 2010.  The Party effectively became Republican lite – though they've always tried to make us believe they’re the 2^nd coming of a new progressivism. Which is humbug.

Obama, far from being a true liberal, is merely the latest exponent of this Republican lite thinking, as evidenced by his earlier backing of cuts to Social Security, his support of the TPP, and - his proposal for Medicare cuts (putting more of the expense burden on beneficiaries) in his last budget proposal.

But people, most, are not fooled. I don't know - as I told Janice - whether the fear of Trump will scare enough Sanders' supporters into "getting Dem religion" but Hillary and the Dems certainly haven't helped themselves. Also, as we saw last night with the outpouring of raw emotion for Sanders, when you rope in millions of people - many new to the political system - beware of catching them "on fire" because at the end you may not be able to put all of it out.

The dilemma for the Dems is what to do about Bernie's movement and supporters. If they disrespect them like Emmanuel did then look for them indeed to take their passions to the Greens. Whether they will in this election - pulling the lever for Jill Stein - remains to be seen. A lot depends on how Hillary and her new Veep conduct themselves in the coming weeks and what they say. As one Sanders' supporter put it in the comments following a NY Times piece:

 'Hillary needs to change her policies to cater for them or lose them. It's as simple and fair as that. And yes I know the Trump arguments all too well. But Hillary, if you want Bernie supporters votes, they don't come automatically based on fear of Trump being the alternative. You are going to have to earn those votes with progressive policies (like banning fracking and other critical environmental issues), just as Bernie had to earn his votes."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/linn-washington/68263/clintonville-reflects-true-horror-of-poverty-in-us-green-party-s-stein-walks-with-poor-while-democr

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/68252/hillary-s-strategy-snub-liberal-democrats-move-right-to-nab-anti-trump-republicans

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/68262/dnc-now-less-popular-than-atheism

The 'Last Hurrah' - Hillary Prevails But Neoliberalism Is The Real Winner

Hillary basks in her historical achievement - a win once again for Neoliberalism.

"The Republican and Democratic parties are both impediments to improving life for the average American. The parties exist only to further the fortunes of party politicians, their puppet masters and the wealthy elites who fund them."  - Commenter on The Financial Times yesterday.

"There's a difference between progressive morality, which is great, and the progressive mindset, which is half OK and half awful." - George Lakoff quoted in Jan. 31, 2014, UK Guardian article.

The above comments are germane as we learned late last night Hillary Rodham Clinton had locked up the Democratic nomination, thereby catapulting herself into American history: becoming the first woman nominee for a major political party. (N.B. The Green Party's Jill Stein is already that party's nominee - but the Greens are a minority party).

Hillary and her devout surrogates (including Sen. Barbara Boxer in an MSNBC spot last night before the election returns began) have maintained she is a "progressive", has a "progressive platform" and Bernie now needs to sign on to ensure a "progressive future". But the problem arises when one compares Hillary's actions, proposals to actual progressive principles. In each case, she doesn't measure up, for example embracing higher taxes as a way to move forward, in health care, infrastructure repair etc. - Hillary demurs, insisting on no tax increases for the middle class. Yet the middle class in poll after poll wants their benefits preserved, not cut.

Thus, to assert one is progressive without actually adhering to progressive actions or principles is an example of framing. In this case a core Neoliberal is using framing to appear as a progressive to secure a victory - first in the primaries, and now in the general election.

Lakoff in his book,  Communicating Our American Values and Vision, gives this summary: "Framing is not primarily about politics or political messaging or communication. It is far more fundamental than that: frames are the mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality – and sometimes to create what we take to be reality. But frames do have an enormous bearing on politics … they structure our ideas and concepts, they shape the way we reason … For the most part, our use of frames is unconscious and automatic."

So, basically, in saying the “progressive mindset is half OK and half awful” Lakoff is  asserting that mock progressives have seized the stage and prevented the genuine progressive from forging a coherent, unified mental structure from which to advance progressive platforms. . Why not? Because Neoliberals have been the ones to co-opt the progressive message, in terms of rhetoric and framing, not action. Neoliberalism last night -using the blinder of gender triumphalism - has again outfoxed millions into catapulting it into the catbird seat. Yes, now "women can do anything" and "little girls can dream big" (as per an HRC tweet) but make no mistake Neoliberalism secured the real triumph.

 Let's examine the basis in more depth including that most voters do not grasp what Neoliberalism is and hence are likely to confuse it with progressivism or genuine liberalism. So, unless they do the heavy lifting of comparing a candidate's rhetoric with actual proposals, actions and they will be "framed" into making the wrong choice: Voting for a Neoliberal when they think they are voting for a progressive.

It is, indeed,  arguable that even a diehard libertarian - who believes he or she is committed to firm libertarian principles- is actually parroting Neoliberal codswallop. The same can be said for modern Dems who fancy themselves classical liberals but are really Neoliberals. As for the Republicans, hell, they've been trapped in the Neoliberal orbit since Ronnie Raygun, given it also depends on military security and fomenting crises to make gains.

The problem with the Neoliberal, pro -free market idiom is that it denies the most basic security for the majority of citizens. In this way it feeds economic inequality while it rewards the speculator and banker class. These in turn help to corrupt the political class via unregulated campaign contributions and pouring in tons of money disguised as "speech". Ignoring all of this ignores why Hillary has become the Dem standard bearer instead of Bernie Sanders:  she is committed to the extension of Neoliberalism and its sister, American exceptionalism.  The Dem party in fact is all in for Neoliberalism so why would they have any more use at all for FDR or JFK-style classical liberalism?

But see, too many people allow their eyes to glaze or roll over when confronted by what they mistakenly believe is political jargon - whether "deep state", "deep politics",  "Neoliberalism" or "New world order". I'm convinced that at root this occurs because too many citizens lack a political ideology. They instead allow themselves to be buffeted this way and that by a corporate media that has no interest whatsoever in informing them concerning political issues and realities. It had more invested in framing and hence Lakoff's objections.

Salon.com writer Anis Shivani has pointed out in a recent piece: "this curious silence, this looking away from ideology, is exactly what has been happening for a quarter century, since neoliberalism, already under way since the early 1970s, got turbocharged by the Democratic party under the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and Bill Clinton. We live under an ideology that has not been widely named or defined!"

By contrast, a person with a core ideology (as I have) instantly recognizes Neoliberalism for what it is - as I have from when it first reared its ugly head.  I knew immediately it was emphatically not the same as classical liberalism and hence all efforts to ape liberalism or progressivism were doomed to fail - in my mind. Why are too many Americans mindfucked into voting for Neoliberals and against their own interests? Well, because it hasn't been defined or widely named so its framing has the ability to misdirect millions.  Citizens' perceptions thus become deformed before they're even aware what's happening. Jay Bookman aptly noted('The New World Disorder Evident Here, Abroad', in The Baltimore Sun, December 15, 1997):

"The global economy has been constructed on the premise that government guarantees of security and protection must be avoided at all costs, because they discourage personal initiative. In times of crisis, however, that premise cannot be sustained politically. In times of trouble it is human nature to seek security and protection and to be drawn toward those who promise to provide it. That is how men such as Adolf Hitler, and Vladimir Ilyich Lenin came to power, with disastrous consequences."

This description of the New World Neoliberal Order is exactly why Neoliberalism must not be carelessly conflated with classical liberalism.The latter had at its root a belief that social protections and insurance had to exist for the most vulnerable, and markets must not be allowed to ride roughshod over basic human security needs.  Shivani, indeed, reinforces Bookman's take in writing:

"Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged

Which, of course, is a veritable atrocity because humans - not just the richest-  yearn for security, starting with the economic. Why do you think most of the millions of refugees are fleeing into Europe? Yes many are seeking to escape political turmoil and war, but more than half are fleeing simply to secure an improvement in their economic status. By contrast to classical liberalism as Shivani has put it:

"Neoliberalism has been more successful than most past ideologies in redefining subjectivity, in making people alter their sense of themselves, their personhood, their identities, their hopes and expectations and dreams and idealizations."

Thus, deprived of basic security - even in their jobs - no surprise that so many Americans have now redefined themselves as gig artists running from one "gig" to another whether via Uber, Task Rabbit, or whatever their chosen gig umbrella may be. Totally temporary work, paying no benefits and having no profound ability to alter their lives economically. As Shivani adds, the resignation of being  a permanent temp, whether adjunct prof on food stamps, Task Rabbit jobber or Uber driver who can't even afford an AirBnB shack- leads to alteration of identity and permanent state of mind fuck. It also leads to ever higher rates of suicide in all age groups from 18-26 to 27-35, to 36- 49, to 50- 68,  69-74 as reported in the (June) AARP Bulletin, 'Suicide Rates Soar to 30-Year High After Financial Crisis', p. 4. . The Bulletin pins these increased rates on a "sense of financial despair and hopelessness" present since the 2008 financial crisis - which, of course, was triggered by Neoliberal market excess pertaining to credit default swaps and bundling them into securities  (mainly CDOs) rated 'AAA'.

Shivani adds:

"neoliberalism is the final completion of capitalism’s long-nascent project, in that the desire to transform everything—every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet—in its image had not been realized to the same extent by any preceding ideology"

Take the case of the Ukraine, where the unrest two years ago was fomented by U.S. Neoliberals and their neocon sidekicks,  driving NATO expansion to the east. The cover story sold was that the "people wanted freedom". Transl,:  being aligned with the EU and the West. The truth is that having gone that route they've become economic slaves to the Neoliberal  Economic Order and are now in a state of permanent debt to it. Indeed, the delivery of IMF and EU funds has seen as one of the first offsets the proposed cutting of all public pensions and abolition of all rigid price controls, as well as painful cuts to public subsidies. Those Ukrainians who pined for "freedom" would have been better served to have pondered FDR's famous words:

"Necessitous men cannot be free men."

Also no surprise when we visited Hungary last year, the tour guide (for a tour through Budapest) confided to me during our luncheon dining experience: "Yes, we threw off the yoke of communism, but we're now serving our capitalist masters. I have to work two tours a day seven days a  week just to make rent and food for my family."


And looked before they leaped into the Neoliberal Abyss (which they might have asked EU Sovereign debt victim Greece about). Perhaps the most impacting and relevant observation made by Shivani is:

"neoliberalism thrives on prompting crisis after crisis, and has proven more adept than previous ideologies at exploiting these crises to its benefit, which then makes the situation worse, so that each succeeding crisis only erodes the power of the working class and makes the wealthy wealthier. There is a certain self-fulfilling aura to neoliberalism, couched in the jargon of economic orthodoxy, that has remained immune from political criticism, because of the dogma that was perpetuated—by Margaret Thatcher and her acolytes—that There Is No Alternative (TINA)."

Why do you suppose Hillary, now Dem standard bearer, remains averse to disclosing her Wall Street speeches, e.g. to the Neolib speculators at Goldman Sachs? It's because these speculators are dedicated to the spread of market ideology and making the wealthy wealthier. How else can Neolib pols remain in power and keep getting money for campaigns? How else can the speculators gain favors from the pols once they're elected? It's a vicious cycle.  But make no mistake Hillary will play the 'first woman president in history" card to the hilt to blind followers and others to the Neoliberalisn underpinning her policies.

Nevertheless, Hillary still has to become first woman President to fulfill her ultimate aspirations and those of millions of women across the nation who vicariously identify with her struggle. But as an op-ed in yesterday's NY Times noted, to accomplish this she will almost certainly need Bernie's supporters. The op-ed maintains she will need to do the following to get most on board:

1- Come clean about her Wall Street speeches, releasing the full transcripts.

2- Cease being dodgy about her wrongdoing in respect to having a separate email server. Admit that she's wrong, instead of using the incessant, transparent excuses which sensible people (real progressives) can easily see through. 

In a way it's ludicrous to those of us who are classical liberals, because Hillary was among the first and most outspoken wanting to hang Ed Snowden out to dry for his "security transgressions"  and yet she appears ready to walk away from her own unscathed.

The Times doesn't mention a 3rd one, and it's kind of been in the undercurrents, but I'd also like to see warhawk Hill renounce using military force unless it's a case of genuine national security threat. No more Iraq -type invasions, say for Syria, Iran or the Crimea, in other words.

Do all that and she might, I say might, get Bernie's supporters to turn out and become 45th President of these United States.

But that will require Hillary cone clean and renounce the Neoliberal framing and obfuscation. A small price to pay for later success, but the question remains whether she can do it. Let us say time will tell and until then the 'jury is out".

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/henry-giroux/67565/anti-politics-and-the-plague-of-disorientation-welcome-to-the-age-of-trump