Why Progressives Should Vote For The Republican If Hillary Is Nominated

hillarywallstreetHillary Clinton is a Wall Street Democrat.

Her record as an advocate of Bill Clinton’s policies, her record as a US Senator, and her record as Secretary of State under Obama all bear testimony to her true political colors and philosophical leanings.

  • She supported NAFTA. She supported federal mandatory minimum sentencing, supported Bill’s massive prison construction projects, and supported the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which allowed states to ban marriage equality.
  • She pandered to the Jewish vote in New York with her votes to invade Iraq and for the fascist Patriot Act.
  • She took political bribes from the big banks, Wall Street, Monsanto.
  • As Secretary of State she laid the groundwork for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and until last month, considered it the “gold standard” of trade agreements.
  • She was part of the ill fated decision making process that has the US murdering civilians in the Middle East with our outrageous CIA drone strikes, with the destabilizing of Libya and Syria, protecting Saudi Arabia and squandering billions of dollars in military expenditures and aid, all lining the pockets of US arms manufacturers and defense contractors.
  • She proudly referred to herself as a “centrist” until “feeling the Bern.”

Now that Sanders has created a groundswell of support on the Democratic left, Hillary is redefining herself as a progressive and moving sharply left in her public pronouncements. She has come out against Keystone XL, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), in favor of some unspecified Wall Street “reform.”

Even so, the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic standard bearer and her election to the presidency would accomplish absolutely nothing in terms of enacting any of the progressive positions she now espouses, even if she has actually had a change of mind and is now a progressive at heart (a questionable proposition to most progressives).

That is because neither a President Clinton nor a President Sanders will be able to pursue a legislative agenda. While the Democrats will likely retake the US Senate, the House of Representatives will remain in the hands of Republicans. It will be four years of gridlock regardless of whom is elected.

The Republicans control the House because in 2010 they controlled enough statehouses to gerrymander congressional seats during reapportionment following the Census. The result is that more Republicans were sent to Washington as Members of Congress even though in the total vote for Congress, Democrats out polled Republicans.

Democrats won’t be able to undo the Republican gerrymandering until 2020.

The fight for the future of the political parties will be in the 2018 and 2020 campaigns.

If Democrats can re-take enough statehouses to redraw congressional districts fairly, the Republican Party will be finished as a national political party, and will be merely a regional right wing party, reduced to a few red states.

The Democratic Party will control both the House and the Senate until at least 2030, perhaps for a generation.

Which Democratic Party will show up for the 2020 elections? Will it be a tired and frustrated party attempting to defend an abysmal Clinton presidency? Will it be a party led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? Will it be an energized and dynamic party turning out to defeat a right wing incumbent?

The least successful scenario would be Democrats defending Clinton. It is difficult to envisage any such effort enthusing the Democratic rank-and-file to the degree necessary to impact state legislative races.

A Sanders presidency, however, would have been building toward a political revolution for his entire presidency, building constituencies far beyond those capable of being built by traditional Democratic operatives.

The likelihood, of course, is that Sanders will neither win the Democratic nomination nor be elected president. That is primarily due to the fact that almost the entire leadership of the Democratic Party is beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and has been bribed over the years by corporate interests and lobbyists. Sanders would end the the influence of such Democrats and end their careers.

Clinton and the establishment Democrats hope to appeal to progressives in the primaries and count on their unquestioned support in the general election, holding out the frightening prospect of a right wing Republican president as the reason to unify around Hillary.

The problem with that for progressives is that we will end up with Wall Street Democrats continuing to control the Democratic Party.

The Republicans and the Wall Street Democrats differ on social issues, but are in total agreement when it comes to capitalism and to corporate control of government.

In recent years Reagan, Pappy Bush, Clinton, W, and Obama all appointed industry lobbyists and executives to Departments and regulatory agencies that were responsible for overseeing the very industries the appointees came from.

There is a revolving door for bankers to go to Treasury, Big Ag hacks to be appointed to Agriculture and Interior, Wall Street insiders go to Commerce and Labor, Big Pharma lobbyists to the FDA, etc.

No matter who is president, corporate America runs the country.

Hillary Clinton will continue the policy of corporate control of government.

So what is the benefit to progressives of a President Hillary Clinton?

The argument that is compelling is that she would appoint better justices and judges than would a Republican.

But even that is hardly justification for throwing away the opportunity to turn the Democratic Party into a democratic socialist party.

With Wall Street Democrats like Hillary, the Democratic Party supports the death penalty. Opposes marijuana legalization. Opposes public financing of campaigns. Opposes GMO labeling.

With Sanders, the opposite will be true of the Democratic Party.

And that is exactly why progressives should work to defeat Hillary Clinton, both in the Democratic primaries and in the general election if she is nominated.

If Hillary and the establishment Democrats are defeated, Sanders, Warren, Grayson, and other true progressives will be able to lead the party into the future as a true leftist party.



Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.


26 thoughts on “Why Progressives Should Vote For The Republican If Hillary Is Nominated

  1. Pingback: FBI Appears to be Building Criminal Case Against Hillary | Armory of the Revolution

  2. A vote NOT for the Democratic nominee is a vote for another Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts, or Antonine Scalia on the Supreme Court. All other considerations pale in comparison to this threat.


    • The possibility of a Republican president appointing another Alito, Thomas, or Scalia is the threat Wall Street Democrats use in hopes of keeping Sanders voters on the reservation if Hillary is nominated.

      A Republican president may well appoint another reactionary strict constructionist to the Court. But the overwhelming likelihood is that the Democrats will control the Senate and could reject such an appointment.

      But even if the old boy network in the Senate were to prevail, our analysis of the risk of such an appointee being named to the Court should be weighed against the affect of Hillary and her cadre of establishment hacks controlling the Democratic Party.

      For the first time in history, the party has the possibility of becoming a democratic socialist party. We would be much closer to bringing that about if Sanders were to be nominated. But if Hillary is defeated, the left wing of the party will be poised to assert itself.

      The future of the party is its young people, a demographic that supports Bernie by upwards of 80%. The years of Wall Street control of the party are numbered. We hope to accelerate that timetable.

      Making the Democratic Party a democratic socialist party is my primary political objective. But the primary objective of most Democrats should be the future control of the House of Representatives, which will turn on which party controls the most state legislatures in 2020, when reapportionment of congressional seats occurs after the 2020 Census.

      Republicans currently hold a majority of House seats due to the gerrymandering of district lines by Republican controlled statehouses in 2010. If Republicans again hold a majority of states, the same control; of Congress will be extended until 2030.

      And that is the most likely result of Hillary winning the presidency.

      Hillary’s term will be mired in gridlock as has been Obama’s. The Republicans will continue to hold the House, Democrats will likely control the Senate. Nothing will be accomplished, and an unpopular and weak President Hillary Clinton will be seeking re-election in 2020. Even if she is re-elected, her coattails will be minimal, and she will not be able to affect the election of Democratic candidates for state legislative seats at the bottom of the ticket.

      For animal activists, the question of Hillary or a Republican is a moot one. We need only look at Obama’s record to see that a Wall Street Democrat will do nothing for the animals. Wild horses will continue to be rounded up and sent to slaughter, wolves will remain de-listed, Wildlife Services will continue to act like a wholly owned subsidiary of the cattle industry, Big Ag will continue to run slaughterlines at maximum speed, hunting, mining, and drilling will continue on federal land.

      Were Hillary to suddenly get religion and pledge to stop the roundups or abolish Wildlife Services, animal activists would have an incentive to elect her.

      And I would be leading the effort.


  3. I could understand voting for the Green Party if Hillary were nominated. But you are going to cast a “protest vote” anyways, why on earth would you vote for a Republican? That’s nuts.


    • Voting Green, Socialist, Humane, or any other third party will not ensure that Hillary is defeated. Our primary task must be gaining control of the Democratic Party. Whether the Republican or Hillary wins, we lose. But if the Republican wins, we have a much better chance of regaining the House in 2020 (for the reasons explained in the article), and the opportunity to capture the heart and soul of the party. Tactically, the Republican Party today is a right wing party because the Tea Party would not support more moderate Republican nominees. The Republican establishment has been forced to march to their beat. We should employ similar tactics to force the Democratic Party to the left.


    • Exactly, voting Republican is nuts! Even if we don’t vote for Hillary, there is NO WAY we should vote Republican. If we feel we can’t vote for Hillary, we should just vote Green.


      • Voting Green, Socialist, Humane, or any other third party will not ensure that Hillary is defeated. Our primary task must be gaining control of the Democratic Party. Whether the Republican or Hillary wins, we lose. But if the Republican wins, we have a much better chance of regaining the House in 2020 (for the reasons explained in the article), and the opportunity to capture the heart and soul of the party. Tactically, the Republican Party today is a right wing party because the Tea Party would not support more moderate Republican nominees. The Republican establishment has been forced to march to their beat. We should employ similar tactics to force the Democratic Party to the left.


  4. The writer never explained why progressives should vote Republican if Hillary is the candidate! The headline, and advice, is totally bogus. He even writes why Hillary would be better (appointing judges/justices) than a Republican, forgetting that a GOP president would give them absolute carte blanche, since they already run congress. So, do you actually have any reasons that would support why you titled this piece what you did?

    Liked by 1 person

    • A careful gleaning of the article would reveal both the logic of the title and the reasons proferred.

      I argue that there are three scenarios that could present themselves in 2018. Hillary could be president, Sanders couuld be president, or a Republican could be president. Of the three possibilities, a Clinton presidency would be the least desirable going into the 2018 off year elections. The best case scenario would be a Sanders presidency, although I think that unlikely. A Republican presidency would be more desirable than a Clinton presidency. The rationale is fairly easy to comprehend: Hillary’s presidency would be a disaster to defend at the polls. She will have accomplished zero due to Republican control of the House.

      To succeed in re-taking statehouses across the county, Democrats must be able to generate enthusiasm deep into the ticket.

      Were Sanders to be elected president. his coalition will extend far beyond traditional Democratis voters. Sanders is motivating students, young people, seniors, the poor, the working poor, and labor in ways not seen for generations.

      Sanders leading the Democrats into 2018 would be explosive in its potential.

      If Clinton is the incumbent, Democrats will fare worse than we did in 2014. Without Obama, there will be a substantially lower turnout among black voters. Add to this that Hillary has no coattails, nor will she in 2018. The 2018 elections will be a mirror of 2014, a disaster for Democrats.

      Our choices may well devolve into Hillary vs a Republican.

      Democrats will most likely win control of the Senate next year, a key assumption I make in this entire analysis. With control of the Senate, the worst nightmares of Republicans run amok will be checked.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Agreed. We all know Hillary is bad, but Republicans are bad too. Voting Republican makes no sense. If we want to go the “protest vote” direction, we should vote GREEN party, not Republican.


      • Voting Green, Socialist, Humane, or any other third party will not ensure that Hillary is defeated. Our primary task must be gaining control of the Democratic Party. Whether the Republican or Hillary wins, we lose. But if the Republican wins, we have a much better chance of regaining the House in 2020 (for the reasons explained in the article), and the opportunity to capture the heart and soul of the party. Tactically, the Republican Party today is a right wing party because the Tea Party would not support more moderate Republican nominees. The Republican establishment has been forced to march to their beat. We should employ similar tactics to force the Democratic Party to the left.


  5. According to that old saying, politics is the art of the possible.

    No “perfect” Bernie Sanders would never have gotten himself elected to anything anywhere in the US, much less so in the moderate to conservative state of Vermont. Candidates generally need to put together a majority to win office. Putting together a majority generally involves, at least effectively, brokering compromises between factions that might not otherwise share so many common interests.

    Yes, some politicians pander. But pandering doesn’t mean simply meeting the voters where they live – that would make everyone ever elected to any significant office a panderer.

    Sanders has my vote because he successfully leads his ordinary constituents, leads them from where he finds them and in good directions. By contrast Clinton seems to follow her powerful constituents in bad directions with respect to the needs of most of us and she does this by means of big money and lawyerly obfuscation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Vermont is hardly “Moderate to Conservative”. I grew up there, was born there, Around Chittenden County, where Burlington is, is the highest population density in the state, and it is VERY liberal in that area. Since you have such a strong liberal area, where Sanders was a very successful mayor, they can effectively choose the representation for the whole state. Along the I-89 corridor, liberalism reigns supreme, until you get north of Milton. The “Northeast Kingdom,” as the more remote northeast part of the state is know, IS quite conservative, as is the area around Rutland south towards Bennington, in the southwestern part of the state, but these areas ARE much more lightly populated. Just like with the United States as a whole, Conservative areas cover more GEOGRAPHY, but less POPULATION. This keeps Vermont as a solid Blue state, while New Hampshire, next door, with a true Moderate/Conservative population swings either way.


  6. I was for Bernie for sure until I found out his voting record on guns. He certainly can’t have a progressive view on Animal Advocacy if he is for hunting – for sport or otherwise. He needs some consciousness raising about animal advocacy and he needs to speak on that. so does Hillary. Especially we need Shelter Reform- desperately!!! The state of the shelters in this country is appalling! They represent State Sanctioned mass murder and animal cruelty! I have personal knowledge of this. We need someone who will elevate the value of our PETS, FARM ANIMALS, ETC. and RESPECT ALL LIFE, as ALL LIFE MATTERS AND EACH ONE MATTERS!


    • I totally agree. Sanders is not my ideal candidate. He isn’t vegan. He supports hunting. But the policies he advocates would save millions of animals. He opposes Big Ag, ag-gag laws, corporate welfare, agricultural subsidies. He wants to rein in Wall Street, which has a stranglehold on the US government. Sanders opposes having agriculture lobbyists appointed to positions in the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and Commerce. He opposes the entire system of lobbying by special interests and their bagmen.

      He has a 100% pro-animal voting record according to the Humane Society of the US.

      For animal activists, the status quo is the enemy. Politicians who accept bribes from Big Ag are unworthy of our votes.


      • NONE of the Presidential Candidates is vegan. And thank goddess for that! I’ve dealt with too much hatred and prejudice from vegans because I refuse to even adopt a vegetarian diet, let alone their extreme form. The majority of Americans are not vegan or vegetarian, and as President it will be his job to work for the majority.
        Remeber, too, that the majority of Vermonters ARE hunters, so he would never have gotten elected to higher office if he opposed that activity.As long as hunting, and eating meat are legal in this nation, a candidate opposing them is commiting political suicide. There is far too much at stake in a Presidential election to make that one issue the deciding factor unless it is the only issue separating two candidates.


    • I wouldn’t vote for anyone BUT Senator Sanders…he has stated his views on guns and explained why he voted down some of the bills..He is however, fine with making stricter gun laws, he is against people murdering other people, he is against the NRA..he doesn’t have his head shoved up their butts. You were NEVER going to vote for Senator Sanders, that’s such bs, I say that because if you really knew who he was, what hes done and where he wants to take this country, his hobbies do not define what his passions are for the middle class..one has nothing to do with the other.. I don’t know why you think that any one person, president or not is going to be able to do much about the gun problem we have in this country until the GOP stop enabling this barbarity to continue..Gun laws, just like womens rights are state run, different states have different laws..no one person is going to be able to stop the gun problem, don’t you think it would have been done by now if that were possible?
      I don’t know who you are leaning towards, I certainly hope its not Hillary, because she is so FOS when it comes to protecting this country from guns, just business as usual for HRC.



      Liked by 1 person

    • You cannot get elected in Vermont without supporting hunting. Pure, plain and simple. A majority of Vermonters ARE hunters. In many parts of this rural state, it’s of necessity to ensure your family has a sufficient supply of protiens.
      And not everyone agrees that hunting is bad, despite being a strong Progressive. As a dedicated carnivore (many vegetables actually make me very ill, and I cannot eat any wheat products) I understand that the human biology evolved to be omnivorous. That is a fact of nature. We can use our intelligence to decide which animals can be predated upon, and which should not. Obviously, any ntelligent animal, such as whales & dolphins, apes, and a few others are forbidden. Birds, cows and such, deer and their relatives, these animals are far less intelligent.
      Also, in Vermont, which is north of the natural range of the white tail deer, hunting to thin their population leads to less deer dying of starvation in the winter. These deer are only in this region because of the deforestation humans caused. They are not well adapted to the extreme winters Vermont experiences.
      Frankly, to decide on HUMAN politics because of considerations ONLY about animals puts human existence secondary to the animal’s existence. While having consideration for animal welfare, and animal rights SHOULD be part of the decision making process, it should ONLY be a part, not THE part. ONLY Sanders will push for Progressive Reforms for those things that affect us all, our nation, our communities, our planet. Weaken the Rightwing agenda and power base enough, we’ll have the strength, and the fiscal freedom in America to be able to take steps to make things better for animals too.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hunting is stupid in US modernity but that’s not a valid reason not to vote for someone. Be patient, the world is progressing. Bernie Sanders is the answer liberal’s have been looking for. Fifty years of unwavering service to mankind.


  7. While I no longer support Bernie Sanders the way I did in the past, I still see him as the far better choice to Hillary Rodham Clinton. I decided from the beginning of this campaign, to keep my vote open for anyone exept her.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.