Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 07:47 PM Nov 2016

Noam Chomsky: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a bad mistake

BRAD REED
25 NOV 2016 AT 13:47 ET

Legendary linguist and activist Noam Chomsky thinks that progressives and left-wingers who didn’t want to vote for Hillary Clinton this year have badly miscalculated — and will now pay a very dear price.

The Huffington Post notes that in an interview with Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Chomsky reiterated his position that people on the left should have supported Clinton’s White House bid, if only as a means to stop Donald Trump from getting elected.

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left. “Zizek makes a terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

more
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Noam Chomsky: Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a bad mistake (Original Post) DonViejo Nov 2016 OP
Gee ya think nt doc03 Nov 2016 #1
Might have helped if he had made MineralMan Nov 2016 #2
Credit where credit is due quaker bill Nov 2016 #4
What did get well-publicized, though, were all the attacks MineralMan Nov 2016 #9
Exactly. They booed at the convention. LisaL Nov 2016 #10
I'll take no pleasure from their eventual realization, though. MineralMan Nov 2016 #11
I agree that we will pay dearly. quaker bill Nov 2016 #20
They had a chance to stand up to fascism BainsBane Nov 2016 #3
Slavoj Zizek doesn't have a leg to stand on. LiberalFighter Nov 2016 #5
how are they progressive ? JI7 Nov 2016 #6
exactly. tandem5 Nov 2016 #24
BOBS liquid diamond Nov 2016 #7
And really, this shouldn't even need explaining, but hey. nt VulgarPoet Nov 2016 #8
Vote shaming doesn't work. ZX86 Nov 2016 #12
I am sure President Trump will whip them into shape. LisaL Nov 2016 #13
Unfortunately ZX86 Nov 2016 #14
So are you blaming people who voted in the primary for Hillary? treestar Nov 2016 #16
People and voters don't lose elections. Candidates and parties lose elections. ZX86 Nov 2016 #17
We the People and all that treestar Nov 2016 #18
That doesn't make any sense. BzaDem Nov 2016 #21
Bernie could never have won...his policies are too radically left for swing voting moderates NoGoodNamesLeft Nov 2016 #19
Bernie couldn't have won? ZX86 Nov 2016 #23
It works pretty well after 4 years of predictable consequences. BzaDem Nov 2016 #22
Yes there are times when if you think you are picking treestar Nov 2016 #15

quaker bill

(8,224 posts)
4. Credit where credit is due
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 10:12 PM
Nov 2016

he did make the point quite strongly well before the election. I sent links to all my BOB friends. True it did not help enough.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
9. What did get well-publicized, though, were all the attacks
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 10:53 AM
Nov 2016

on Hillary Clinton from the left. Some were quite vicious. They spread like wildfire. Then, when some of those same people realized that the President might be Donald Trump, they provided some sort of weak support for voting for Clinton. That got very little circulation online.

Even after the convention, when Hillary was clearly the winner of the nomination, the attacks continued. Hillary Clinton lost in several states through people skipping the presidential race on their ballot or voting for a third party candidate. If you look at the margins for Trump in several states, that is abundantly clear.

I'm beyond anger on this at this point. Disgust is a more apt description. We are going to pay very, very dearly for what we did to a woman who would have been an excellent President. More dearly than anyone can imagine, I expect.

LisaL

(44,973 posts)
10. Exactly. They booed at the convention.
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 10:59 AM
Nov 2016

Then apparently some either stayed home or wrote in Bugs Bunny. I suppose now they have the president of their dreams.

MineralMan

(146,317 posts)
11. I'll take no pleasure from their eventual realization, though.
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 11:03 AM
Nov 2016

I will remind them, however, from time to time, when they decry something Trump has just done. Like Anonymous, I do not forget.

If this is the future of the Democratic Party and its chances of regaining power, then, I'll be relieved when my time here is done.

I'm embarrassed for people who should be the ones who are embarrassed. I hope their privilege carries them through what is coming down the road. For many who never stopped fighting Clinton, though, not enough privilege exists on the planet to compensate for their folly. They will eventual realize what they have done.

quaker bill

(8,224 posts)
20. I agree that we will pay dearly.
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 08:43 PM
Nov 2016

I do not buy that the "left" had all that much to do with the defeat in the final analysis.

I think Hillary had it in her power to put WI, MI, and PA away. She lost focus on her limits as a candidate and spent far too much time and $ in FL and NC. They even wandered into GA and AZ a bit.

Hillary has been good for 48% of the vote since 2008. I have been saying this since the primaries in 2008. She got +/-48.1%. She needed to focus like a laser on making that a winning margin. Getting out just 100,000 more votes in the right places and she would be worrying about transition right now. She focused on the long drives when she needed to sink the short putts.

LiberalFighter

(50,942 posts)
5. Slavoj Zizek doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Fri Nov 25, 2016, 10:27 PM
Nov 2016

Considering he doesn't live in the United States and doesn't won't suffer any direct consequences of the result.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
12. Vote shaming doesn't work.
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 11:10 AM
Nov 2016

Political parties who refuse to field candidates that can win elections make the bad mistakes. There is no legal obligation for any citizen to vote for our candidates or vote at all. Vote shaming them doesn't earn their support. It alienates them. The, "Hey you fucking moron, vote for me!" is not a winning recipe.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
16. So are you blaming people who voted in the primary for Hillary?
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 01:55 PM
Nov 2016

She certainly had a better shot than Bernie did.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
17. People and voters don't lose elections. Candidates and parties lose elections.
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 02:56 PM
Nov 2016

Blaming voters for elections you didn't win is like losing sports teams blaming their losses on the scores the failed to make. It's the job of candidates and parties to win elections.

The issue isn't who didn't vote for you. It's why they didn't vote you.

Also there is no empirical evidence that HRC had a better shot than Bernie. In fact available evidence indicates the opposite.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
21. That doesn't make any sense.
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 03:12 AM
Nov 2016

Voters are the one that choose our president -- not candidates, and not parties. No one forced anyone to vote for Trump, or against Clinton. They did so out of their own free will, presumably because they prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency. The result of the election is on them, quite literally by definition.

 

NoGoodNamesLeft

(2,056 posts)
19. Bernie could never have won...his policies are too radically left for swing voting moderates
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 07:10 PM
Nov 2016

And without those voters he could never have won. And THAT is exactly why the super delegates and DNC did all they could for Hillary. She was the best candidate. Now Bernie is forever soiled because of those of his supporters who did not support the nominee. There are many people who WILL suffer terribly under Trump. Some minorities are already being targeted. If those "BOBs" think all those people will ever get behind Bernie for president again they are kidding themselves.

ZX86

(1,428 posts)
23. Bernie couldn't have won?
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 03:34 AM
Nov 2016

He's just too far out there. But the acceptable standard of behavior like an orange clown, con man, POW hating, pussy grabber who mocks the handicapped? Well that's just pure kind of apple pie Americanism that every citizen is proud to support!

Give me a break. If you're saying an experienced U.S. Senator who earned millions of votes and filled stadiums from coast to coast had no chance against a vulgarian game show host we should just all give up now because it's over.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
22. It works pretty well after 4 years of predictable consequences.
Sun Nov 27, 2016, 03:18 AM
Nov 2016

In 2004, Nader's support was 10 times less than it was in 2000, despite the Democratic party running an Iraq War supporter.

Why? Because sometimes, it takes 4 years of watching everything they hold dear be swept away, before one un-blinds themselves from reality.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
15. Yes there are times when if you think you are picking
Sat Nov 26, 2016, 01:55 PM
Nov 2016

the lesser of two evils, that is still the thing to do. Why end up with the worse of the two evils?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Noam Chomsky: Progressive...