Who Would Really Be The Corporate President?


hrc-and-trumpLet’s analyze which candidate will continue Wall Street control of government. Let’s look at this presidential election in terms of what will happen if each is elected.

To do so we need to apply some reason, an understanding of political history, and a dash of common sense.

The party in the White House has lost every midterm election for the past half century. There is no doubt it will happen again in 2018. It is the most important consideration of this election cycle, as reapportionment in 2020 is dependent upon the 2018 and 2020 state races. Thirty two governorships are up in 2018. Those will almost certainly determine the makeup of those states’ legislative chambers. Additionally, some measure of effect will be made by the presidential contenders in 2020.

Consider what happens if Hillary is elected this year:

Republicans take the 2018 midterms by storm. They will certainly do better than they did in 2014 when they swept the midterms and most state races. Hillary will be the 2020 nominee, almost guaranteeing that no Democratic gains will be made down ballot, whether she wins or loses a re-election bid. Republicans will control reapportionment after the 2020 Census, and will gerrymander the House to assure Republican control until 2032. Win or lose in 2020, Democrats will not be able to nominate a true progressive until 2024. Even if we take back the Senate in 2016, and hold it in 2020 and 2022, the House is lost to Democrats for another decade.

Consider what happens if Trump is elected this year:

Democrats will sweep the 2018 midterms, and likely retake enough statehouses and legislative chambers to control 2020 reapportionment. Democrats will draw congressional districts that will assure Democratic majorities in the House until the 2030 Census. With Hillary out of the way, Democrats will nominate and likely elect a true progressive in 2020. Even if we do not succeed in retaking the Senate in 2016, we most assuredly will in 2018. The great likelihood is that Democrats will control the White House and both houses of Congress by 2022.

The concern expressed by many should Trump assume office is the makeup of SCOTUS. His first appointment will replace the deceased Scalia, in effect making us no worse off than we were a few months ago. Whether other vacancies open is problematical. However, there is little doubt that either Trump or Hillary will appoint capitalist Wall Street jurists to the Court, with varying positions on social issues. An enlightening example of how even Democratic appointees are tools of the oligarchy was the recent unanimous decision to overturn the corruption conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, in effect giving a green light to political bribery and influence peddling.

Clinton rhetoric and establishment propaganda aside, there is no risk that any of Trump’s controversial positions will ever reach his desk from a divided Congress. No border wall, no mass deportations (at least none more aggressive than Obama’s have been), none of the ludicrous fantasies contained in the Republican platform.

The risks of a Trump presidency are in the minds of easily deluded liberals.

The benefit of a Trump presidency will be the re-invention of the Democratic party.

The Democrats will no longer be a war party or a tool of Wall Street.

It will be a progressive party.

But it will not happen if Hillary is president.

Hillary will cost the progressive movement at least ten years. Ten years of killing in foreign wars. Ten years of uninsured people in America suffering and dying. Ten years of unfair trade deals, of Americans out of work, of more factories closing. Ten years of Wall Street further destroying the middle class. Ten years of the oligarchy consolidating its power.

Ten years of corporate rule seems a very steep price to pay for the novelty of a woman president.



6 thoughts on “Who Would Really Be The Corporate President?

  1. Are you saying that Donald Trump and his moron hunting sons have the capacity to care about anyone but themselves, much less animals?


    • I am saying that the effect of a Trump presidency would benefit animals far more than would a Hillary presidency. It has nothing to do with the Trumps caring about animals. It has to do with his pledge to break our trade deals and that Democrats would sweep the 2018 midterms, assuring Democratic control of reapportionment in 2020.


  2. This could work out exactly, the way of your analysis, of the past election cycles have worked out, but the future does not always, unfold as it has, in the past. The universe is in constant change and so is the planet and it’s inhabitants. Granted, politics is an old game, with the game changing much less, than it’s players, but look at the Arab Spring, as an example of of regime change. The dynamics of new players can change the outcome of the old game. Maybe, we here in the US, are less revolutionary, than other parts of the world, but change is inevitable. Trump is evidence, of that necessary change and cleansing, in the Republican Party. Now, if we can only get that, in the Democratic Party, sooner rather than later.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Jill Stein would NOT be a corporate president. Why don’t you consider her in your analysis of the political scene?

    Voting is People Power that Kicks Corporate America out of Congress VoterNinja.com


    • I wish Jill Stein were a major contender for president. I wish her views were held by the majority of Americans. But she isn’t, and they aren’t.
      She and the Greens barely register on the public’s radar.
      She is polling in the low single digits.
      For Jill to receive a single electoral vote would defy all known laws of political physics.
      In an analysis of the presidential race, Jill Stein, and Gary Johnson of the Libertarians, are each siphoning votes from Hillary in a larger proportion than they are Trump.
      To that extent, they are both extremely critical to the outcome of contests in swing states. An example can be seen in Johnson’s recent poor performance in an interview with Chris Mathews where he could not cite a single world leader he respected. Johnson’s poll numbers slipped and Hillary’s increased by a similar 1%.


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.