A liberal case for Donald Trump: The lesser of two evils is not at all clear in 2016

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

26 Responses

  1. Burt Likko says:

    I’m not buying it.

    Electing Donald Trump isn’t a rejection of the oligarchy. It’s an overt transfer of power to an oligarch.

    As for the rest, it’s speculation at best. Hopeful speculation in the face of thin clues cherry-picked for palliative power.

    The article really ought to be: “If you love stasis in government, then Trump won’t be so bad because everyone hates him so count on lots of vetoes and overrides.” Which, come to think of it, suggests that at least as probable a result of a trump presidency will be stronger, more disciplined parties (and thus even more gridlock if Congress is split).Report

  2. Kolohe says:

    There are a vanishingly small set of circumstances, probably none at all, where Trump wins but the Senate goes to the Dems.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Kolohe says:

      I wonder, though, about Hillary winning and the Senate staying in Republican hands. I get e-mail from the Bennett campaign in Colorado — the tone certainly strikes me that they’re running scared. Udall’s tone two years ago was the same, and he lost badly.

      If I’m betting, Hillary finally gets the gold ring — and discovers that it’s brass, because Congress gives her nothing and she’s relegated to being an administrative caretaker…Report

    • El Muneco in reply to Kolohe says:

      There were two chances – slim and none – of Clinton having enough coattails to take the Senate from Rubio, Kasich, or Bush. Cruz, for all his faults, would have the Evangelical base fully on board, and if there’s one thing those guys do, it’s enforcing attendance and discipline within the group. Trump annoying people is pretty much the only reason we’re even talking about the Senate being in play, and if he doesn’t annoy enough people to lose, it’s not really a factor then, is it?

      And the reason some of us here have been saying for a while here that Trump might be the least-worst in terms of actual policy is not because there’s anything there for liberals (or moderates) to love, it’s the difference between “signs pretty much every bad idea Congress sends him” and “actively suggests to Congress ideas that would be even worse”.Report

    • North in reply to Kolohe says:

      Agreed, any world where Trump of all things manages to somehow beat Hillary is going to have a GOP senate.Report

  3. LeeEsq says:

    Most liberals actually prefer Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. She might be a on the hawkish side and bro-liberal in her economics but she doesn’t engage in populist race baiting like Donad Trump. She has a better track record on supporting liberal policy and knows politics and administration.Report

  4. Autolukos says:

    Salon: yesterday’s hot takes, today.Report

  5. aaron david says:

    This Salon, do they have a newsletter I could subscribe to? Their ideas are… Interesting…Report

    • Looking at it the other way,, there’s a lot of advantage to conservatives if Hillary is elected. She’ll be hobbled by a GOP House and having at most a slim margin in the Senate, and a resounding Trump loss should make it clear that:

      1. Insurgencies against the party establishment don’t work, and
      2. Hillary won only because of a weak opponent. Her negatives should make her extremely vulnerable in 2020.

      So, clearly, each side should try to throw this year’s election.Report

      • The Trumpists are already laying the groundwork for an “If we lose in November it’s because we were betrayed by the establishment” explanation.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

          Which is different than Romney or McCain’s losses?

          Aside from the fact that Trump can use that excuse ,instead of being the primary example and target.Report

          • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

            The main difference is that for 2016 they may have a point, depending on the extent to which the party players do withhold or temper their support.Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Morat20 says:

            2008 and 2012 are “Because we didn’t nominate a real conservative.” 2016 will be “We nominated a real conservative but the Establishment sabotaged him.” (1964, by the way is “The country had been traumatized and didn’t want another change so soon, or Goldwater would have won by a landslide.”)

            On the liberal side, 2000 is “You can’t beat a Republican when he gets 100% of the black vote.”Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    I am not buying this essay. The term BernieBro might be overly used and abused but this is the kind of article that provides heat to the Bernie Bro argument. The guy seems absolutely loathe to vote for HRC and he seems to do so from a position of white, male privilege. Donald Trump is not better unless you think you can ride out the storm. And the reason for doing that is because you are a straight dude.Report