Billary Clinton has about a two-thirds chance of winning the presidency on Tuesday, per fivethirtyeight.com. Although she bests El Trumpo in the nationwide polls by no more than around 5 percentage points, Billary leads him in the number of electoral votes that she’s likely to garner, and thus her chance of winning the White House is considerably higher than is his.
If I were told that tests showed that I had a 35 percent chance of having terminal cancer, I’d be concerned, sure, but I’d also look at the other 65 percent and feel pretty good about that.
Similarly, per fivethirtyeight.com right now, two days before the presidential election, Der Fuhrer Donald Trump has around a 35 percent chance of winning the election.
Real Clear Politics’ average of nationwide polls right now has Billary Clinton at only 2.2 percentage points ahead of Trump, 44.9 percent to 42.7 percent (with Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson at just under 5 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, for whom I’ve already voted by mail, at just under 2 percent).
The Huffington Post’s average of nationwide polls right now has Billary at 4.6 percentage points ahead of Trump, 46.2 percent to 41.6 percent (and with Johnson at 5.3 percent and Stein not even represented).
Most of this tightening in the polls is due, I surmise, to members of the Repugnican Tea Party coming to The Donald to prevent a President Billary, much as so many of Billary’s voters aren’t voting for her nearly as much as they’re voting against Trump.
Indeed, this has been a major hate-fuck election, with the apparent majority of American voters voting their hatred and their fears more than anything else.
I never got sucked into that fear. Last night I watched Bill Maher’s latest show in which he yet again over-seriously shilled for Billary, as did his guests, all of them repeating the tired bullshit line that refusing to vote for Billary is to vote for Trump.
Again, that wholly depends upon which state you vote in. If you live in a solidly blue state, as I do (California), you certainly don’t have to vote for Billary. She’s going to win your state no matter fucking what. And if you live in a solidly red state, Trump’s going to win your state anyway, so if you don’t want to vote for Billary, then don’t.
If you live in Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Arizona or Georgia — the 14 states that fivethirtyeight.com says are most likely to swing the election, in that order — then by all means take an anti-depressant and an anti-emetic and hold your nose and vote for Billary to prevent The Great Orange Fascist from winning your state and thus perhaps the White House.
I don’t hold it against anyone who lives in one of the purplish states voting for Billary, but when I’m told — usually by quite comfortable limousine liberals like Bill Maher and Michael Moore* — that I have no choice but to vote for Billary, that makes me want to vote for her even less. (Well, again, I already vote for Jill Stein, and I would do it again, but the point is that to tell me that I must do something, that I have no choice in the matter, is a sure-fire way to make me want to do that thing even less than I already didn’t want to do it.)
Don’t at all get me wrong; of course I don’t want a President Trump.
That said, I don’t think that a President Donald J. Trump could survive a full year in office without going the way of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy.
But even if some patriot didn’t use a Second-Amendment remedy to take care of the Fascist in Chief, I’m at least somewhat with Susan Sarandon on this: Things might have to get really bad under another right-wing demagogue** in order for the majority of Americans to realize that they fucked up big-time by yet again passing over Bernie Sanders or his ilk.***
P.S. If it makes you feel better, The New York Times, where fivethirtyeight.com’s Nate Silver got his start, right now says that Trump’s chances of winning on Tuesday are only 16 percent to Billary’s 84 percent.
The Times also right now gives the Democrats a 53 percent chance of taking back the U.S. Senate.
P.P.S. Although he’s garnering only about 5 percent in the polls right now, I’d love to know how much of Trump’s support Gary Johnson has siphoned and how much of Billary’s he has siphoned. As the Libertarian Party is definitely right of center, I have to surmise that Johnson has taken more of Trump’s support than Billary’s.
Given that Billary isn’t even at 50 percent in the polls, I expect her to win, but on a plurality (that is, with 40-something percent), and it strikes me that perhaps we can thank Johnson for having prevented a Trump victory…
*Last night I also watched Moore’s very recent “Michael Moore in TrumpLand,” which is a disappointingly largely unfunny and quite pathetic last-minute paean to Billary. It’s quite unconvincing, because Moore tells us that he’s never voted for her, that he supported Barack Obama in 2008 and Bernie Sanders this year (as did I), yet he unsuccessfully tries to sell us on her anyway, going against everything that he’s ever stood for.
I’ll always hold a special place in my heart for Moore, but he’s lost his touch. His shtick largely remains stuck in the 1990s, much like Billary’s.
**We survived the unelected “President” George W. Bush, if barely, but Gee Dubya was Abraham Fucking Lincoln compared to Donald J. Trump.
***Of course Susan Sarandon, who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party presidential primary battle, has been savaged by the Billarybots, such as Slate.com’s resident Billarybot Michelle Goldberg, who called Sarandon “a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line,” conveniently wholly ignoring the fact that most of Billary’s Hollywood-celebrity supporters are rich white people with nothing on the line.
But at least Goldberg, as blindly obedient as her support for Billary always has been, fleshes out the thinking on this. She notes:
What Sarandon is voicing is the old Leninist idea of “heightening the contradictions,” which holds that social conditions need to get worse in order to inspire the revolution that will make them better. In this way of thinking, the real enemy of progress is incremental reform that would render the status quo tolerable.
Indeed, the political tactic of the Clintonista, Democratic-in-name-only presidents — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and the aspiring president Billary — hasn’t been pushing progressivism, but has been a slow, grinding, soul-crushing, centrist-to-center-right incrementalism in which the socioeconomic status quo barely fucking budges.
Under this DINO incrementalism, lip service is paid frequently to certain interest groups (women, non-whites, non-heterosexuals, et. al.), but, remarkably, year after year after year after year after year, nothing ever really changes, not significantly. Our day-to-lives continue to get worse, not better. We continue to lose ground and we never make up for the ground that we have lost.
Goldberg perhaps unwittingly brings up this unpleasant fact, at least indirectly, but then Goldberg launches into this:
[This anti-incrementalism] was the position of the German Communists in the early 1930s, who refused to ally with the Social Democrats, proclaiming: “After Hitler, our turn!”
A similar — if less deadly — assumption underlay Ralph Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign, for which Sarandon served as co-chair of the national steering committee. George W. Bush, Nader argued then, could serve as a “provocateur,” awakening the power of the left. “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur,” said Nader. “It would mobilize us.”
Billary Clinton certainly is an anesthetizer, as Obama has been, and Bill Clinton before him, and it is true that the philosophy that shit really has to hit rock-bottom before it can get better — which human nature and history time and time again have proved to be true — is indeed risky. It’s possible that after shit really has hit rock-bottom it never will rise again.
But the only difference between the rock-bottom that chronically-insufficient-to-our-problems incrementalism inevitably takes us to and the rock-bottom that the it-has-to-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better philosophy might take us to is the length of time that it takes to get there. And while chronically-insufficient-to-our-problems incrementalism leads to destruction that is pretty fucking assured (albeit more slowly), the it-has-to-get-worse-before-it-can-get-better approach might, just might, actually lead us to The Promised Land.
But Goldberg’s comparison of Susan Sarandon’s and Ralph Nader’s proclamations that things perhaps have to get worse before they can get better to what happened in Nazi Germany is hyperbolic and unfair.
But, of course, the intent there, I think, is the same: Let’s blame the German Communists for Nazism instead of the German citizens who supported Nazism, and let’s blame Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, Susan Sarandon and other supporters of the Green Party and of actual progressivism instead of the American citizens who support Der Fuhrer Trump.
The actual left always is a convenient punching bag for the pathetic failures of the masses, including the Billary-supporting liberals (whom I define as faux-progressive sellouts, whether they can afford to be carted around in a a limousine or not).
(Sarandon, by the way, unsurprisingly has said that she’s voting for Jill Stein. Sarandon apparently isn’t worried about being in the minority, and, if she’s like me — and apparently she is — the more that she’s told that she must vote for the pro-corporate, anti-populist, pandering sellout, the less likely she is going to do so.
My presidential voting history since 2000, by the way, is this: Ralph Nader, Green Party, 2000 [I never have regretted that vote; of course Democrat Al Gore won my state of California anyway]; John Kerry, Democratic Party, 2004 [I don’t really regret that vote, but Kerry should have run a stronger campaign, including having had defended himself against the lying “swiftboaters” and not having had all of that unspent campaign cash at the end of the fairly close election]; Barack Obama, Democratic Party, 2008 [as I’ve noted many times before, Obama really punk’d us progressives, and I do regret that vote; I really fell for his “hope” and “change” bullshit]; and Jill Stein, Green Party, 2012 and 2016 [no fucking regrets whatsofuckingever, as not only did I vote my conscience both times, but Democratic presidential candidates take California and all of its 55 electoral votes anyway].)