If Hillary Wins, Democrats Lose. Seriously. Here’s Why

hrc2

For all the ad hominems and bombast directed toward Hillary Clinton by the Republican field, on substantive issues of military belligerence and interventionism in the affairs of foreign countries, there is little difference between Hillary and the Republicans.

Same goes for such issues as political campaign financing, lobbyists, Wall Street, breaking up the too big to fail banks, and the appointment of industry hacks to departments, regulatory agencies, and even cabinet positions which oversee their very industries,

On most issues, such as immigration reform, women’s reproductive health, national healthcare, voting rights, expanding rights for the LGBT community, etc, Hillary is the far more attractive candidate to Democrats.

So, what’s the problem?

Apart from the power to appoint justices and judges, and to issue temporary executive orders, neither Hillary nor a Republican president can accomplish anything with a deadlocked Congress.

The Democrats are poised to retake the Senate in 2016. The Republicans are guaranteed to hold the House.

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives exists because Republicans controlled the majority of statehouses and governor’s mansions after the 2010 Census, and were able to reapportion Congressional Districts by the odious practice of gerrymandering (drawing district boundaries to ensure control by Republicans).

Congressional reapportionment occurs every ten years. The districts will not change until after the 2020 Census, which means Republicans will control the House until Hillary (or the Republican) seeks re-election for a second term.

Now imagine the political environment in which a President Hillary would lead the ticket in contests for state legislatures and governorships across the country, states that are must wins for Democrats if we are to control congressional reapportionment.

Even a popular president has limited coattails. But an unpopular one has virtually none.

Four years of a presidency that will be as stymied as has been Obama’s second term is unlikely to be popular in 2020. And defending an unproductive and unpopular incumbent will be a burden on both the president’s re-election and winning statehouses.

Basically, both the Republicans and the Democrats would likely do better in 2020 if they are not defending an incumbent president.

The Democrats will have the additional problem of having to defend Obama’s eight years in addition to Hillary’s four, and to make a credible case why Americans should extend Democratic control of the White House to a 16 year run, the longest run since it was held by FDR and Truman from 1932 to 1952.

If the Republicans keep a majority of chambers and governors, they will be able to draw Congressional districts which will give them control of the house for another decade.

If the Democrats run against a Republican incumbent in 2020, they will likely win the White House as well as ensure enough Democratic statehouse victories to end Republican gerrymandering of the House.

But the most important by-product of Hillary losing the presidential race to the Republican would be the opportunity afforded to Democratic progressives to take over the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has been controlled by Wall Street since Woodrow Wilson was president. Every Democratic president since has been a Wall Street Democrat.

On economic policy and support of Wall Street and corporate America, Wall Street Democrats are indistinguishable from Republicans. They are free to differ on social policies in which Wall Street has no stake, but they are in lock-step with the capitalists who finance both parties and control the government no matter who is in office.

A threat to that system is currently sweeping in from the left wing of the Democrats with the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

If Sanders manages to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency in 2016, the entire analysis above is invalid!

Sanders would have no more success than would Hillary in the face of a Republican controlled House, but Sanders’ presidency would be spent in furthering his political revolution, substantially growing the party with new young recruits, the disenfranchised poor and working poor, and re-invigorating leftists who have been frozen out of Democratic influence for decades.

A Sanders re-election campaign would be unlike any in recent memory. And it would bring out all those new, idealistic, and enthusiastic voters in 2020.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders could not be more stark.

Hillary is a capitalist. Bernie is not.

While Hillary’s public pronouncements sound very much like Bernie’s, their political and economic differences are profound.

When push comes to shove, Hillary will back Wall Street and the oligarchy. She is one of them. She raises millions of dollars from them. Her husband was their president. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George W, and every president in modern times has appointed industry lobbyists and executives to positions in their administrations which oversaw those very industries.

There is no indication that Hillary would act differently. Her record certainly suggests that she is quite comfortable with Wall Street lobbyists.

Given that she has raised millions of dollars from Wall Street lobbyists, Monsanto, Big Oil, Big Banks, etc, it is reasonable to question her allegiances.

Sanders could change the future of the Democratic Party for generations. And would have a much better chance of securing the House for Democrats in 2020.

My choice for president in 2016 is Bernie Sanders.

I have no use for the Republicans, but abhorrent as they are, Hillary would be a worse choice for Democrats.

 

 

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

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “If Hillary Wins, Democrats Lose. Seriously. Here’s Why

  1. Pingback: If Hillary Wins, Democrats Lose. Seriously. Here’s Why | Armory of the Revolution | John Oliver Mason

  2. It might be too late to save our planet now, but to save it, we must act immediately. We need the non-violent political revolution that Bernie Sanders suggests, in which everybody stands up and expresses indignation with their votes.

    As a progressive MIT-educated physicist with a family, I’m gravely concerned about the lack of enough environmental and energy reforms in our very wealthy country. Congress, the media and voters have not taken stock of the world’s environmental reality and we have not lead the world enough by example. The Paris Accord is a beginning, and President Obama deserves credit amid Republican obstructions, but at the end of the Paris Accord negotiations, the US was simply not aggressive in proportion to our relative wealth, power and carbon footprint.

    We cannot allow decades to pass before we fully phase out old technologies which pollute our land, water and air. Our health and planet must be our top priority, rather than the profits of oil, gas and coal companies and industries dependent on oil, gas and coal. We already do subsidize many farmers to allow some of their lands to lie fallow periodically to improve soil. Perhaps we can temporarily subsidize oil, gas and coal companies to incentivize them all to switch to clean green energy technologies. If the US Congress could pass such legislation, it’s possible that the UN and the World Bank would agree to incentivize all other countries.

    It is very significant that Bernie Sanders simply doesn’t accept financial support from wealthy individuals, corporations nor SuperPacs. Such SuperPac funding can taint the integrity of any political candidate who accepts it, so it should be illegal. The expectation is that all SuperPac money is re-paid by candidates in other ways, like undisclosed reciprocal favors providing unfair preference, unfair advantages, unique opportunities or discrimination. Hopefully, it’ll become illegal under the terms of campaign finance reform. Hillary Clinton and most of the Republicans have centrist, conservative roots, and they also accept SuperPac financiers, too.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. A couple of more common and well known examples of people who help others regularly who have never experienced the plight of who they help are priests who do marriage counseling and male OB/GYN’s.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Definitely wrong about categorizing all animal welfare people into a single group. Maybe for you, that is how you feel, but far from the truth fie everyone. For me, I am much more open minded, and I see multiple issues relating to many people, including animals. No issue is more important than another.

    Like

    • Therein is the fundamental difference between animal rights advocates and others. We believe that all sentient life is equally valuable and precious, all life worth protecting. While a holocaust continues against animals, while 10,000 are murdered per SECOND on slaughterhouse floors, while humans continue to enslave, exploit, and kill our fellow Earthlings, the petty concerns of people about taxes, discrimination, abortion, immigration, etc, are laughable.

      To consider ANY human issues of importance, absent slavery and the death penalty, is absurd to those who champion the enslaved and the murdered animal victims of our political, legal, and economic systems.

      Like

      • Your opinion, of course, but wrong to categorize people in that narrow way. That is reality. All lives matter and are important, not just one group or type.

        Like

      • Animal rights advocates are advocates for universal rights. We oppose all oppression, all inequality, all exploitation of anyone. Advocates for most oppressed groups are oblivious to the plights of others, and almost all are blind to the Animal Holocaust and the genocide of animals. Indeed, most people are complicit in the murders of animals all the while bemoaning one injustice or another.

        Remember these immortal words: “In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they’re the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought.-”
        Isaac Bashevis Singer

        Like

      • You dont need to experience being a victim to be compassionate towards victims. If you have compassion and empathy, you can feel their pain and work to help. That is like saying only parents know how to raise children or a breeder knows how to breeder, which is all false. A person who is very good at being empathetic and compassionate and knowledgeable, can also help.

        Like

      • That is certainly true. But it is also certainly rare. Examples of those who are not would be everyone who chooses to support Hillary even though her positions will kill millions more animals than would Trump’s.

        Like

      • Actually common examples are counselors and psychologists and any type of professionals in that realm of assistance. They have a high level of education and compassion and empathy. You don’t have to be a victim to help or a parent to help raise kids or a breeder to know how to put an intact pair of male and female together.

        Like

  5. Armory of the Revolution will be launching a campaign to convince the Democratic nominee to pledge to end wild horse round ups and to abolish Wildlife Services, the Department of Agriculture agency which kills millions of wild animals annually for the cattle industry.

    If Bernie is the nominee, I am confident he would take such positions. If Hillary is the nominee I have grave reservations that she will.

    Our campaign will urge animal activists to vote Republican if Hillary refuses to take those pro-animal positions.

    Like

      • Armory of the Revolution will be launching a campaign to convince the Democratic nominee to pledge to end wild horse round ups and to abolish Wildlife Services, the Department of Agriculture agency which kills millions of wild animals annually for the cattle industry.

        If Bernie is the nominee, I am confident he would take such positions. If Hillary is the nominee I have grave reservations that she will.

        Our campaign will urge animal activists to vote Republican if Hillary refuses to take those pro-animal positions.

        Like

  6. Pingback: If Hillary Wins, Democrats Lose. Seriously. Here’s Why | carlantoine

  7. ☆First line, wrong use of “their”.
    You should change it to “there” Their refers to people, there kind of refers to place or thing, (you can remember that, because the word “here” is part of the word). The other homonyms which is in this grouping is “they’re”. This one is easier because you know the apostrophe means that a letter is missing, in this case, the “a”, as in “they are” which is shortened to they’re. I just want your site to look more professional!

    Like

    • This blog is dedicated to Animal Rights, to the eradication of animal suffering, and to building a political and social climate which will be more favorable to those goals than now exists.

      To that end we call out conservatives, Republicans, Wall Street Democrats, and any other apologists for corporate control of government. Capitalism is responsible for almost all the human inflicted animal suffering on Earth. The most obvious culprits are the slaughter industries, the factory farms, the feedlot concentration camps. Sixty billion innocent animals are murdered by capitalists every year.

      It is impossible to advocate for animal welfare and to logically be a capitalist. Or to be a conservative. Capitalism and its conservative apologists are the enemies of animals. Caring about animals and being a conservative Republican or a Wall Street Democrat is as nonsensical as working for the welfare of German Jews and supporting Hitler at the same time.

      Like

      • Again, where is the connection in your post to animal welfare? There isn’t a word of animal welfare anywhere in it. Where is the connection to this particular post and animal welfare?

        Like

      • This post is aimed at bolstering the left wing of the Democratic party. Wall Street Democrats have controlled the party since Woodrow Wilson. Clinton and her ilk are supportive of the continuing anti-animal policies of the current and previous administrations. Under W and Obama, conservatives have controlled the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Energy, etc. They murder millions of wild animals each year for the cattle industry, they round up and imprison wild horses, they kill and main dolphins and whales, they block any reforms in the slaughter industries.

        Anything we can do to defeat conservative Republicans and Wall Street Democrats is in service to animals.

        This is not rocket science.

        Like

      • Well, it sounds like you are unable to live in any society on earth today. I think even ISIS and Russia and Cuba would turn you away. I hear that there are some distant planets looking for new inhabitants. Check with NASA for their next rocket.

        Like

      • Your questions and comments suggest you are concerned about animal welfare. If that is the case, my question to you is what is more important to you than ending animal suffering and murder?

        Do you understand the primary causes of animal suffering? Do you believe animals have as much right to be here as you have? Do you realize that the Animal Holocaust is increasing in magnitude?

        Your sarcastic observation that I am unable to live in any society is comparable to saying a freedom fighter has no place in a dictatorship.

        Have you read the following article? If not, please do so. I would be interested in your reaction.

        Animal Rights Advocates are Almost a Separate Species

        Like

      • If you had seen Hillary’s speech last night, you would have heard her say that we don’t live in a single issue society. There are many, many important issues, and the best person can work on them all, not just one.
        There isn’t a need to be a freedom fighter in your own society where there is no war.
        The best person knows how to work with a variety of people and work on issues that affect many people, and not fight with people who you aren’t at war with.

        Like

      • There is most assuredly a war. A war on animals. Or haven’t you been paying attention?

        How many animals would have to be murdered over and above the now 10,000 per second that now are slaughtered for you to think there might be a problem?

        Hillary Clinton is a mouthpiece for the interests that exploit and murder animals and for the capitalist system which destroys the environment and impoverishes the world. Hillary’s pontifications about not being a single issue candidate are laughable. She is the quintessential single issue candidate. Her issue is she wants to be president. And she will say and do anything to win.

        Like

  8. Someone said “there are very few ppl. as gifted at lying as Hilary Clinton and if you vote for her you should sue your brain for non support.”……It made me laugh!

    Liked by 2 people

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s