US Voters Face a Difficult Choice

Donate

Loading the player...

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: southfront@list.ru or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The upcoming elections are unique in US political life. One of the candidates is, for the first time, a woman. The other candidate had never stood for election for any public post, and has defeated his party’s professional politicians. Both potential presidents are noted for their scandalous reputations. This state of affairs is a symptom of the US electoral system, the bias of official institutions, and the population’s willingness to risk radical solutions. The voters, however, are in a difficult situation since they will have to make a choice between two very bad candidates.

Party conventions will soon nominate both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton (Trump already nominated). What baggage are Trump and Clinton carrying following the primaries? Trump had an impressive run, receiving 1542 delegates out of 2472, with 1237 required for nomination. Ted Cruz, who came second (with 559 delegates) dropped out of the race in May.

During the Democratic Party convention, 4765 delegates will cast their votes. Clinton needs more than half, or at least 2383 votes. 2220 are already guaranteed, plus 592 superdelegates who are not obligated to vote for her but it is highly unlikely they would vote for anyone else. At this point, we can be certain she will be the nominee.

According to opinion surveys, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 5-10%. In one poll, 47% favored Clinton, while 40% favored Trump. In addition, 5% plan to vote for someone else, 6% are undecided, and 2% don’t intend to vote or refused to answer. Therefore, even a small change can launch Trump into the lead.

However, he would first need to overcome intra-party divisions, which he will most likely succeed in doing. Naturally, one can expect all manner of surprises from the upcoming convention, but the party elite will hardly be able to implement its treacherous plan to overthrow the billionaire in the name of “anyone but Trump.” Thus far, no plot against Trump has succeeded. He has literally out-Trumped them.

It is evident there exists a sizable GOP faction opposed to the New York magnate. They want the rules committee to allow the delegates to vote “their conscience”, rather than in accordance with the will of their states’ voters. This scenario is not very plausible. The GOP lacks an alternative to Trump—had one existed, it would have been presented to voters already. Secondly, nominating someone else would inevitably lead to GOP defeat because people who voted for Trump during primaries will simply stay home in November. Thirdly, any discussion of removing Trump would further weaken the declining GOP bloc by showing the absence of political unity on the eve of an election.

It would appear, however, that Trump has made an important step toward reconciliation with the GOP establishment. After the primaries, he replaced his campaign manager, 42-year-old Corey Lewandowski, with the scandal-prone Paul Manafort who, back in the day, was an advisor not only to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, but also such luminaries as Somali dictator Siyad Barre, Zair’s president-for-life Mobutu Sese Seko and Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Manafort has spent his whole life working for GOP candidates, has good ties within the party, and is appreciated and valued there. Trump probably wants to use Manafort’s abilities in order to prevent a split right before the convention, and wants to establish mutually beneficial cooperation.

Showing flexibility and willingness to negotiate helped Trump win over the “undecideds”, given Clinton’s continuing scandals. It’s obvious that, in spite of her guaranteed nomination, her position is fragile. She struggled during the primaries, winning 29 states against 21 won by Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders. Her modest opponent offered tough competition and mobilized millions of disaffected voters using his fiery liberal rhetoric, not allowing his heiress competitor to try on the crown before the final vote was counted. Clinton had to change her position on a number of issues after Sanders’ criticism of US inequality resonated with millions of voters.

Her constant scandals are also destabilizing the ranks of her potential supporters. The entire executive branch and corporate media establishment is being employed to keep her afloat. Any other candidate who suffered such irretrievable damage to her reputation following scandals associated with Middle Eastern Monarchies financing the various Clinton Foundations (while Hillary was the Secretary of State), the case of the sale of Uranium One from which Hillary, apparently, received a “commission,” plus her mishandling of classified information on a large scale. However, since the current administration is backing Hillary to the hilt, she still remains the nominee. The Justice Department recently ended the probe into her emails and her private email servers. Obama already endorsed Hillary’s candidacy, though he was expected to do so later in the race.

Many Americans were outraged that Clinton came to the campaign rally where the endorsement was made on Obama’s presidential plane, which is a violation of campaign laws in any law-abiding country. In Europe, a candidate would simply have to resign the candidacy and then leave political life for a long period of time. But in the current political situation in the US, the “right” candidate can get away with almost anything thanks to an intentional lack of media and government oversight, which is provoking protest activity among average citizens.

In reality, both Trump and Clinton are being promoted by current political and financial elites who have steered the country into, if not a crisis, then definitely a pre-crisis situation. They have provoked the worsening of the international situation, the growth of crime and terrorism inside the US, the growth of unemployment and the worsening of citizen’s welfare. That is the primary reason the “socialist” Sanders won in 21 states and also why many Sanders supporters are now flocking to Green Party candidate Jill Stein now that Sanders has thrown in his lot with Clinton.

On the other hand, many believe that Trump spent his entire business career fighting against big banks—this is, after all, what a real estate developer does. Clinton, on the other hand, has been their favored candidate for well over a decade, dating to her term in the US Senate, where she represented New York—the biggest US financial hub. Likewise most of Trump’s primary opponents came from the globalist faction of the GOP, with many of them currently openly advertising their willingness to shift loyalties and to align themselves with Clinton. By the same token, many Sanders voters, who are predominantly anti-globalist, will almost certainly vote for Trump in November. So the battle lines are drawn: globalism versus economic nationalism, and Trump’s potential electorate resembles that of the Brexit Leave voting population. Especially amid the fact, that Sanders is now supporting Clinton despite the all previous rhetoric.

One should also not prejudge the US elite preferences. After all, in spite of all the predictions to the contrary, Brexit appears to be on track which suggests that a sizable chunk of the British financial elite prefers a return to economic independence. Clinton offers the continuation of policies that have been in place since the early 1990s: economic expansion through market penetration and dominance, until every country on the planet is inextricably woven into the web of US-based corporations, by force if necessary. But that approach is beginning to fail economically. While these policies still have widespread support, the fact that Brexit is taking place and Trump is about to become the GOP nominee indicate the elites are entertaining a major change in policies that would end the post-Cold War “New World Order” and lead to the return of economic nationalism. In other words, Clinton is supported by the military industrial complex, oil and gas companies, the Wall Street and the world’s virtual space cartel. Trump is representative of the national industrial corporations aimed on the home consumption and export of civil industrial production.

The majority of voters disapprove of both candidates. Recent ABC News and Washington Post polls showed that 60% of US citizens disapprove of Trump, while 53% disapprove of Clinton. It is an unprecedented result since 1984, when such polls started to be taken. It would seem US voters will go to vote not for, but against a candidate this time around. At the same time, 44% of Americans say they would vote for a third party candidate. Clinton continues to lead in a one-on-one match-up against Trump, but the gap has closed in spite of all her campaign advantages. One can expect a heated campaign, bold slogans, and fiery speeches, which are all part of the US election show. But, in spite of the two candidates’ unattractiveness and the inconsistent US electoral system, Trump is likely than Clinton to deliver the changes the voters want. But will he be able to satisfy the hopes of his voters once he becomes president? Will the US elites allow him to do that?

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • michaelrivero

    It’s not a difficult choice at all!

    Hillary: Cattle Futures trades, travel office firings, Whitewater, Castle Grande, Flowerwood, China-gate, Utah-gate, Benghazi fiasco, lying to Congress under oath, exposing US secrets on a private server with weaker security than Ashley Madison, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, “lost” $6 billion from the State Department while Secretary of State, etc. etc. etc. etc.

    Trump: Made the illegal immigrants feel bad!

    • FT

      What do you think of Trump moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? Not even the Zionist US thinks its part of Israel.

      • michaelrivero

        Both candidates kowtow to Israel, so it’s a push.

        Let’s focus on the differences.

        Hillary is under three Federal Investigations right now.

        Trump, none.

        • FT

          Personally, I think the Israeli issue is the only one that matters – the Zionists have us by the balls. They control our banks and media, and both candidates will make the current situation even worse.

          The best thing to do is vote for a 3rd party and not another “kosher” candidate like Trump or Hilary. We must not fall for their trap.

          • michaelrivero

            You have a very narrow focus.

            Personally, I think it is far more important to confirm that Hillary was selling US secrets to foreign governments using her weak email server (Wikileaks has released a list of 28000 emails marked as classified found on her server) and using her Foundation to collect and launder the payments. The Clinton pulled that same scam back in 1996.

            Given that both the Bushes and Clinton were tangled up in Iran-Contra gun and drug running, it is time to expose to what degree drug-money has corrupted the government.

            Back during prohibition, those who traded in illicit substances had enough money to buy their way into the highest levels of government. That’s where the Kennedy dynasty came from, as just one example.

            Has it happened again? Has the War on Drugs given the drug lords enough cash to buy their way into the top levels of our government?

            If so, that explains why they are all so terrified of a Trump Presidency. He could expose and tear down the whole stinking racket!

          • Lets put it this way. Hillary is the only one the Zionist want.
            And the Zionist have done everything to stop the Trump train!
            Also, Trumps own words in the video below prove he is an anti-Zionist.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw

      • Percival

        Republican candidates are forced to say this to appease AIPAC and the Zionist donors. It never happens.

  • George Washington

    Excellent in-depth coverage. This is indeed a sad year for America :(

    I am one of those who will be forced to vote for a third party or not at all.

  • slorter

    There is a choice vote for a third party!

    • Percival

      That means Hillary and WWIII.

      • slorter

        Neocons control both parties if they want war seriously you would get it from Republicans and Democrats. The illusion of choice! Fear really keeps people from making decisions!

        • Percival

          The neocons have fought Trump tooth and nail and posted columns about how the whole world will be destroyed if he is elected. They unleashed their propaganda machine MSM last June and have not let up one second. Kristol, Podhoretz, Rubin, Kagan, all of them have called Trump a Nazi and worse for saying we need to put America First, instead of nation building and spreading “democracy”. Hell, he even said on a nationally televised debate to Jeb Bush’s face in Bush country, South Carolina, that GWB and his masters “lied about WMD. They knew there were none and they lied.” This is an unprecedented move. He has said we were better off if our politicians went to the beach 15 years ago instead of waging the phony War on Terror. This is big. He is now officially the nominee. I voted for Trump after not voting since Buchanan in ’00. He is for real when he says that NATO is obsolete and that we don’t need to be intervening in the ME. I’m giving him a shot. We KNOW where Hillary stands for sure.

          • slorter

            Well to me they are both corporate con artists. The political process is rigged and the system of corporate power, which Clinton and Trump will not alter, will continue to be ignored. The American people deserve better than these two selections by the corporate sector it will never happen till they make it happen!

          • Percival

            The donors have forsaken Trump. He spent $50 million of his own money in the primaries and didn’t take a dime from the usual suspects; just regular people chipping in. He didn’t even solicit campaign donations until recently. The neocon establishment spent something like $70 million to stop Trump with negative ads. In the Florida primary, They ran 60,000 negative ads against him! As the video showed, he beat 17 corporate sponsored, oligarchy approved puppets. He didn’t have to run for President, but saw how rigged the system was. He may be looking for donors now, but I am very optimistic. I think you will be very pleased with President Trump!

          • slorter

            well I do hope your optimism is realized!

  • B&cakes

    Not a difficult choice at all, especially for those of us following Southfront and who understand the Syrian conflict and its implications.

    Hillary represents the same neocons who destroyed Iraq and Libya and have been flooding Jihadis into Syria. She was the top Democrat supporter of the Iraq war, and the main architect of the destruction of Libya by NATO and jihadists. She serves Saudi and neocon interests and if elected she will escalate American involvement in Syria on the side of ISIS/Al Qaeda, even at the risk of provoking a devastating war with Russia. She represents war, genocide, and imperialism. Her invasion of Syria and Iran could very well spark WWIII.

    Trump on the other hand has said he would rather work with Putin against our common enemy of islamist terrorism, and wants to reign in NATO to de-escalate tensions and avoid conflict. He has been consistently against neocon warmongering in the Middle East and would likely bring peace and stability by working with Russia to restore the Assad government.

    • Thank you for the interesting opinion. Producing this video, we aimed to be neutral. However, it’s clear that any content is produced by people. If you want provide an opinion(analysis) on the topic, you can contact SF via info@southfront.org

    • FT

      Both Hilary and Trump serve their Zionist masters. Our policies will be written in Tel Aviv if you fall for this jewish Zionist election.

      Southfront is right, both candidates are terrible and voting 3rd party is what any smart and sane person would do.

  • Clinton will be president

    Good article, though some polls seem to show a more even-matched race between Clinton and Trump.

    Some commentators elsewhere believe that Trump will have to portray Clinton as a race baiter if he wants to gain a certain lead over her. A race baiter she is, the only problem with that is Michael Pence, Trump’s VP pick, has already made clear that he is against what he termed negative campaigning.

    So, if Trump does not portray Clinton as a race baiter for fear of loosing Pence, she will likely win.

    WW III will follow not long thereafter.

  • FT

    Its basically garbage vs trash.

    I will vote for a 3rd party.

  • Tony B.

    There is no choice for Americans. Hasn’t been one for a long time. The money men simply tell their media how they want the vote count to look and the media obeys. Votes are meaningless. For at least two decades they have planned for Hillary. It will be given to her. And she will do what they want, one act of which is to establish martial law over the people, disarm them and fill the FEMA camps and/or the millions of coffins now stashed around the country with those who won’t remain sheep.

  • It’s a simple choice really: don’t vote. Your vote isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The DNC rigging proved that (again).

    • ShermanTMcCoy

      If voting really could change anything, it would be illegal.

  • ShermanTMcCoy

    HRC—>Putin is Hitler!
    DJT—->”I think Putin is a man with whom I can do business.”
    HRC—>Continued warmongering and threatening of nuclear-armed Russia.
    DJT—->Wouldn’t it be great if the US and Russia could get together to stop ISIS?”

    It’s pretty damned simple. I’d prefer my children be able to gather mushrooms in the forest, instead of being forced to cower in the Metro from the mushroom clouds.