Thanks for linking this article @doctorow
This moment seems so completely inexplicable to so many people, the clarity Greenwald offers is really valuable.
The traditional left is dead. We need to build an international anti-capitalist movement against neoliberalism.
It’s almost like telling people to “Hold your nose and vote for Hillary” was a bad idea. I think once you hold your nose - well you can’t smell the stink any longer - that includes all the stink around Trump apparently.
I agree. It wouldn’t have taken that much of a swing to swing this the other way…
: )
I think I used another part of Charles Stross’ take on the US results somewhere on BBS already, but whatever
Seeing Angela Merkel as the defender of the free world is kind of weird, but that's where we're going.I spare you the following "unless the AfD" part...
Well, let’s use the data for voting-age participation from FEC reports then. With links and bolded when higher than 2016’s estimated 52.1%:
NB: Page numbers are page numbers of the report. They may not fully match with the PDF page count.
2012, page 5: 54.87%
2008, page 5: 58.23%
2004, page 5: 56.70%
That’s 3 already, and we’re not yet anywhere close to 1968. Continuing on, we get:
2000: 51.21%
1996: 49.00%
1992, page 9: 55.24%
1988, page 15: 50.15%
1984, page 15: 53.27%
At which point the reports stop. If you have a link to others covering elections from before 1982, by all means share. But so far it matches my comment that:
Speak for yourself. I voted for Sanders, and I talked him up all the time as well.
That’s unfortunately all I could do. My impact was nothing compared to those who shunted the debates off until times when nobody could watch them, and wasted his time asking bullshit racist questions about Cuba and the Soviet Union and Communism.
Don’t give me that “the debates are on YouTube and the positions are available on the candidate’s website” crap either. Most people have neither the interest nor the energy to do that. They hate politics, they hate this silly ridiculous 2-year horse race, and I don’t blame them in the slightest.
Where did you get 52.1%? I can’t find the reference.
It’s a calculation based on Elect Project’s estimated numbers:
[quote=“cah, post:103, topic:89110, full:true”]While Elect Project provides that data for 2012-2000, the column for 2016 is blank. Thankfully they’ve still provided us with the absolute number for voting-age population for 2016, so we can calculate it:
Most people have neither the interest nor the energy to do that.
Right. And so anybody but the 15% who got off their asses and voted in the primary have no business complaining about their choices.
The opportunity to pick better candidates is right there waiting. It takes an hour. But people don’t do it. And then they complain what other people picked for them.
Cool. Thanks for taking the time to do all that. I take back what I said about it being the 3rd highest.
I was just pushing back on @LearnedCoward using a wikipedia article that didn’t update the source numbers as more ballots came in. The number will still probably go up slightly, but I doubt it would even hit 1984 numbers 
Oh, and this is the source of the older data (as presented though wikipedia):
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
Not so fast… capitalists like me might be just as reprehensible, in your eyes, as racists. But just as Obama accepted the votes of anti-white racists in order to achieve his non-racist goals, you might want to consider taking my vote, too.
Are our differences more important than achieving our shared goals? I won’t do things to advance a purely anti-capitalist agenda, but I will fervently (and financially) support any effort to oppose neoliberalism and sensibly regulate the marketplace.
I can’t pass anybody’s purity tests. But diversity is strength. You need me, and I need you.
When the DNC actively worked against his campaign and the media either ignored Sanders or painted him as an unelectable kook, what other outcome could there have been?
Even your own source said your third-highest since 1968 bullcrap wasn’t even close to true. I can’t find anything that even lends support to what you said, and you admit to fabricating that 10% voter increase in PA number. You’re just lying to all of us to push your own agenda.
And vice versa. “HE’S A SOCIALIST!!” Would have been the rallying cry instead of “BENGHAZI EMAILS!!”
You are being mighty presumptive to assume that those who complain aren’t the ones doing the voting.
Please link to polling which shows how many people changed their minds based on anything the DNC said or did.
You are being mighty presumptive to assume that those who complain aren’t the ones doing the voting.
I encourage you to read what I wrote. Here, I’ll make it easy:
And so anybody but the 15% who got off their asses and voted in the primary have no business complaining about their choices.
I said my source, I used the election pages on Wikipedia - which used the 56.whatever number for 2016 and the FEC numbers for the years prior until before 1984 where it uses the numbers I linked to above. I also said I was mistaken twice.
What you don’t seem to grasp is that the Wikipedia article you linked hadn’t been updated as it’s source updated. I posted the source data that the Wikipedia user has filled in the article, and since you posted it not only has the numbers changed but the reference to the number did too.
So, no agenda just a lot of bad data that is still fluid.
And the upcoming Austrian rerun.
Wow.
Persecution complex, much?
Everyone’s in a shitty mood right now, yo; but telling other people what they think & feel ain’t cool.
There isn’t any one factor or any one source to blame for this current clusterfuck; it’s lots of mitigating circumstances.
Blame won’t help us survive this horrid shite; neither will lashing out at each other.
