Image 01 Image 03

One BIG Difference Between Clinton and Trump

One BIG Difference Between Clinton and Trump

It may not be what you think

Republican Senator Ben Sasse has written an open letter to America. I agree with a great deal of it, but I wanted to take issue with something.

Here’s an excerpt:

In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”

With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.

Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?

Sasse goes on to suggest a non-Trump non-Hillary candidate (not himself, by the way), but he doesn’t say who that person should be.

I like the idea, but being unable (or unwilling) to name such a person is one of the problems. If one such person existed—if there was that much consensus between/among the factions in America today—that person would probably be running for president already, and succeeding. But the war between the parties, and the abominable choices we face, represent factions of Americans (not just parties) that are in ideological war with each other. The people’s elected representatives in Congress are reflections of a very real impasse, and it’s not just between two groups, it’s among many. Compromise? Compromise has been shunned and rejected by the voters, too, as representatives who are too moderate are driven from office.

I’m not saying it’s good or bad, I’m just pointing out that I don’t see a moderate electorate right now.

The other thing I want to point out is that Trump and Clinton have differing amounts of support from their respective party movers and shakers. Imagine, if you will, those smoke-filled rooms of yesteryear, composed of party leaders choosing their standard bearers with little or no input from voter primaries. Does anyone for a single moment believe that Donald Trump would have been the GOP choice under such conditions? I thought not. But Hillary Clinton would almost certainly have been the choice of the Democrats.

In other words, Clinton expresses the wishes of the leaders of her party, and Trump (who may not even really be “of” his party) does not appear to express the wishes of the leaders of the GOP. Of course, many people find that latter situation a feature rather than a bug.

What’s more—although I’m having trouble finding exact figures on this—Hillary Clinton also represents the choice of the majority of voters who have bothered to vote in the Democratic primaries, and Donald Trump does not represent the same for GOP voters. So even if the support for Hillary among Democrats is lukewarm, we can probably conclude that she is liked by more of her party’s voters than Trump is by his (although his actual supporters are often very excited about him and quite fervent in their support).

In sum, whoever Hillary is and whatever she is proposing to do is more in line with the wishes and principles of her own party than Donald Trump is in line with his. He is the protest candidate, the hostile-takeover candidate, and he is leading in spite of the party leadership—or, rather, in reaction to their perceived myriad failings—rather than because the party leaders would choose him as their nominee.

That is their dilemma. If they fall in with him and get on board, they are committing a form of suicide. And if they oppose him they’re doing the same thing (at least in the short term). This is most definitely not the dilemma the Democratic leaders face.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


inspectorudy | May 6, 2016 at 1:42 pm

This sounds like the need for the making of a novel called the “God Squad”. It is where there are so many people of power and influence that are corrupt or insane, that cannot be removed from their positions of power by elections, that an outside force is required. Hence the God Squad. An organization designed to “Remove” these traitorous/destructive non-Americans by any means necessary for the good of the country. We have two here in this story that would be at the top of the removal list in my imaginary novel. Then on to the SCOTUS! As a disclaimer, I am not advocating this course of action nor do I favor assassination, only thinking of this as a scenario for a new novel.

    Paul in reply to inspectorudy. | May 6, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Kinda like the movie “The Purge, Inside the Beltway Edition”

    JasonJay in reply to inspectorudy. | May 6, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    For every vigilante action there will be an equal opposite reaction.

    In the fictional world you describe, a Satan Squad would arise, and their take out targets would surely be different.

    Perhaps they could target each other – a prime motive for those hostilities would be determining which side was really Godlike and which Satanic.

Its Fear of the unknown vs fear of the Known

I plugged my nose and voted for Romney. I wasn’t happy with his Romneycare in his home state but for the most part he was economically conservative and he wasn’t after people’s guns.

The current candidate if we were to drop him into the Democratic primary would give Hillary and Sanders a run for their money.

We as voters are not without choice, and the reason I brought up Romney was that I saw my vote as being for Obama if I chose another candidate that was closer aligned with my values. That said I feel confident that I can vote for the Libertarian candidate (Gary Johnson) without having to worry about another piece of garbage benefiting from me voting this way.

If Gary Johnson is not on the ballot I will write in Cruz and if I can’t do that I will not vote for a presidential candidate.

It would tickle me pink to see the rise of a third party in America. I am sick of my current choices of lukewarm fascism or lukewarm communism. These are not choices.

    MarkSmith in reply to Shane. | May 6, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    Gary Johnson “I never exhaled,”. Give me a break. Saw Cheney just said he is supporting Trump. Hey, two heavy weights in my book, Sessions and Cheney. If Rumsfeld comes out for him it will be a trifecta in my book.

    rabidfox in reply to Shane. | May 8, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    Shane, don’t be a hypocrite and just cast your ballot for Hillary.

Hey, I know: let’s have the same old corruption and disregard of the taxpayers that we’ve had for decades! Vote for More of the Same!

I mean, you’d have to be crazy to want something different, wouldn’t you?

I’m with Mae West: “Between two evils, I always pick the one I never tried before.”

That open letter is weird. A Senator, huh? Must not show up for work very often, as he goes off the rails almost immediately, in Observation 1—

Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face.

That’s a hard one to swallow. I think they know exactly what the biggest issues are. And at least one party, and probably both, actually want to make them worse. They can’t find a solution (or what normal people would consider a solution) because they’re not looking for one. And that’s why even the party faithful (at least to the poor extent that we can measure such a thing by Primary votes) finally realize it. The Party candidate offerings are being rejected. Both parties have failed. We want something which works.

Of course the fundamental conflicts still remain, it’s just that neither party seems to have much to do with those conflicts any more.

The big fundamental conflicts right now? Free enterprise and nationalism vs communism and internationalism. Those are the conflicts the voters are interested in today, as we see by the candidates they are voting for; a high-flying, ultra-individualistic businessman, and a communist masquerading as a socialist who’s pretending to be a Democrat. A nice, clear-cut, well-defined choice. Too bad neither party wanted to offer anything so decisive.

The Dems will get their chosen candidate, because their system is rigged to do just that. But she’s not where the votes, or the future of the Democratic party, lie. The Repubs have just about failed to get their chosen candidate, but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet and I expect they’ll keep trying. On the other hand, nowadays the Republicans are the Surrender Party, so perhaps they’ve given up and will just surrender to Trump and start sucking up to him big time. That seems to be what the word “politics” means now.

Anyway … after Observation 1, I applied a bit of inductive logic and figured Sasse had little of interest to say, and skipped the rest of his letter.

The observation that Clinton is generally within Democratic party standards is spot on. The radical wing wants Sanders (and only because Warren is not running), the more moderate wing wants Clinton. But both are acceptable to Democrat voters, even if they prefer the other candidate. Not so with Republicans. Large part of party and large part of party base doesn’t want him.

And the other factor, not mentioned, is that Democrats are a lot more centralized. As a party, they are all about big overarching control of the state. They are less individualistic than Republicans, and thus more likely to follow party line.

If this election was predictable, Hillary can start renting trucks for move-in. But, it is not. All the factors that should’ve sunk Trump help him instead. The worse he acts, the happier his fans are. So, while he should lose general by any objective criteria, he should’ve lost primary as well. Which means we won’t know what will happen.

    Old0311 in reply to fwiffo. | May 6, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    Large part of the party base? Didn’t they vote? Will they vote for Hillary or stay home and let her be elected? Sounds to me like they may need a safe space like the college kiddies.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to fwiffo. | May 6, 2016 at 10:37 pm

    One of the main points cited by Neo is misleading, IMO.
    “Hillary Clinton also represents the choice of the majority of voters who have bothered to vote in the Democratic primaries, and Donald Trump does not represent the same for GOP voters.”
    By all measures, Repub turnout was strong, Dem turnout weak. The low percentage in the Trump victories is more a factor of there being, like, 17 candidates in the race. Once the list shortened to 3, the Trump victories got more massive.
    Sure, there are plenty of anti-Trumpers. There are plenty of Hillary-haters as well. The other points may be valid, but that one feels dodgy.

Haverwilde | May 6, 2016 at 3:08 pm

“nowadays the Republicans are the Surrender Party,…..”

They not only have surrendered but betrayed their base, and have worked actively to keep the pork trough full of money to benefit their billionaire masters.

It is that corruption that has fueled the rise of Trump. Every one of the anti-Trump cadre was owned or controlled by the donor class–even Cruz finally succumbed.

We saw what the establishment (GOP, Democrat, and MSM) did to the Tea Party folks. No normal group could rise in the stacked deck of the GOP. So we get Trump. For me I have to say: “thank God!”

The GOP establishment must be destroyed somehow. I thought a third party was the answer, but Trump has shown another way. At this time there is not a single outspoken republican that could appeal to the angry moderate/conservative who is paying attention.

Trump has high negatives, some even of his own making, but even those negatives pale when I compare them to the corruption, greed, and power hungry lunacy of the GOP establishment.

I will happily vote for Trump.

Those who try to compare him to fascists forget, that fascism is an complex political movement requiring strong support from the media, the extremely wealthy, and militarization of government bureaucracy–in other words we are currently being governed by the Obama fascist regime, and Hillary was a part of it, and will continue to foster it.

Trump is the only rational option, if you are concerned about fascists.

    MarkSmith in reply to Haverwilde. | May 6, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Was looking as some old youtubes on Trump back in the 80’s. His trade positions have not changed. I am impressed. Personally can’t stand the man, but when you look at who dislikes him, he looks like a Saint.

    When Jordon Belfort (Wolf of Wall Street) was complaining about him in his book I though wow. Trump has a way of getting under the skins of the “rich” that I like to see.

    Yea, the non-politician does not sound like a politician, but his handlers will take care of that.

    I am glad Trump is stirring things up. Maybe us “common people” will be heard. If not, nothing lost on the current bunch in office, so nothing to loose.

    MattMusson in reply to Haverwilde. | May 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    I am a white male citizen. The GOP treats me like I am stupid and takes me for granted. The Dems hate me.

    They can both go to hell and I am going to vote for Trump.

    ray in reply to Haverwilde. | May 6, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    I see no evidence that Cruz succumbed to the GOPe. Many of them succumbed to Cruz, near the end.

    Agree that we must destroy the GOPe. Ryan, McConnell, and their ilk have to go.

    I may have to vote against Hillary or Bernie, but I can’t support Trump.

JackRussellTerrierist | May 6, 2016 at 3:14 pm

I agree that the expediency of trying to defeat Hillary by voting for Trump is an abandonment of what had been the principles and platforms of the ‘pub party and are the principles and platform of the conservative/TEA Party movement.

Personally, I think it’s time for a new party, hopefully pulling conservatives, independents, and Libertarians into one tent with some power. Any ‘pubs who ever supported a ‘rat or Trump or Hillary need not apply.

    assemblerhead in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | May 6, 2016 at 3:20 pm


    This might be a good starting point : ( along the lines of … )

    More discussion is necessary, though.

      MarkSmith in reply to assemblerhead. | May 6, 2016 at 3:30 pm

      I looked,… gag me with a spoon. “Founding Father” religious views. Gees, Jefferson was a strong believer in that. Ha.

      If anything, I would shoot for the Federalist, but a bunch of losers high jacked that party and made it something that it is not.

    Yea, you and five other guys will be that party. That narrow minded view will get you the latest cult. Sorry, there are a bunch of us that are very conservative/Tea Party types that see a system that needs to be fixed. It looks like the only way to do that is break it. Trump is a useful tool for that. Feel the same about the Dems, which is why I am rootin for Bernie’s team to do that.

    Narrow minded thinking will just give the downstream votes to the Dems and THAT will only go farther against your cause.

    If you want change, you need to work the local aspect of it, or it never will get very far.

Disingenuous to say Trump is more unliked because of the lower percentage of primary votes he’s received. Hillary would have suffered from the same ‘problem’ had the Dems fielded more than two candidates, let alone a dozen. Not a logical conclusion to draw in my view. (For clarity, I’m NOT a Trumpist).

    DaMav in reply to Daiwa. | May 6, 2016 at 5:14 pm

    Exactly — an apples to oranges fallacy.

    Once the Repub field narrowed to 2-3 candidates, i.e. comparable to the Democrats, Trump raised his percent to well over 50%. The last seven primaries were mid 50’s to several over 60% Trump, which is a lot better than Clinton did.

BenS asse you are late for the party. Where was he when Jim Gilmore or Miss Lindsey needed an endorsement? Where were you BenS?

!7 other than Trump and he sits on his arse.

All I know about either one of them is what I’ve learned from the Liberal Media, so what does that tell you about ‘All I know’?

Pro-choice religious instruction from gods in the twilight zone, and their doctrines of [class] diversity, selective “=”, female chauvinism, anti-native policies, progressive wars, impulsive regime changes, liberal fiscal policies, and selective-child (a la “final solution”). Also, clinical cannibalism a.k.a. “planned parenthood”.

Say what you want about Trump’s style and political convictions, but he is a brilliant, strong man and a world-class tactician. He’s also honest in his dealings and personal relationships. (Amazing how no one – in all Trump’s years in public life – has anything bad to say about an experience with him personally.).

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt, talentless freak, who couldn’t find her way our of a paper douchebag.

Quite a difference.

    “Amazing how no one – in all Trump’s years in public life – has anything bad to say about an experience with him personally”

    A point I’ve made before, and of course, lost on the TDS crowd.

      Radegunda in reply to Barry. | May 7, 2016 at 12:02 am

      Trump requires everyone who works for him to sign an “airtight” nondisclosure agreement. He has boasted about how exceptionally strict it is. He is also known for trying to ruin people who criticize him or don’t give him what he wants.

      Haven’t you noticed how often he threatens to sue people? Or says they “shouldn’t be allowed” to say things even indirectly critical of him?

      I know someone well connected in New York who says that Trump is well known among his acquaintances for stiffing creditors and then challenging them to sue for the rest of what he owes them.

      It defies reason to suggest that someone who treats people as badly as Trump does in public is some kind of saint in private.

        Does that include his incredible family and ex-wives?

        No agreement not to talk is that airtight. Not in New York.

        The gossip in NY on Trump’s personal life is rather positive.

        The gossip everywhere on Clinton’s personal life is disgusting.

        Barry in reply to Radegunda. | May 7, 2016 at 10:19 pm

        “I know someone well connected in New York who says that Trump is well known among his acquaintances for stiffing creditors and then challenging them to sue for the rest of what he owes them.”

        I know someone well connected in New York who says that Radegunda is a liar.

      Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | May 7, 2016 at 10:28 am

      I have seen, read, and heard ample reports of people who’ve done business with Der Donald that all say he’s a lying, cheating, crapweasel of the worst kind.

      A lot of those were T-rump contractors, who will tell you that slow-pay/no-pay is the norm from Mr. Establishment.

      He’s known for his lying PR machine. He won’t even tell the truth about the number of floors in T=rump Tower.

      Funny question; if T-rump is so rich, why does he lie, cheat and steal for every dollar he can, at such risk?

      Take, for instance, the T-rump Tower agreement with Nuevo Ork that allowed the crony capitalist to build the thing in the first place. He promised the city that the lobby area would be a public space, and benches were installed.

      T-rump, in open breach of contract, had kiosks installed to sell some bling. Nickle and dime returns on a flagrant breach of contract from a guy who PRETENDS to be worth billions.

      The city enforced the contract and the kiosks are gone.

      Why “T-rump University” with it’s attendant YuuUUUUUGE risks?

        Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | May 7, 2016 at 10:21 pm

        I have seen, read, and heard ample reports of people who’ve done business with Ragspisser that all say he’s a lying, cheating, crapweasel of the worst kind.

“[Trump’s] also honest in his dealings…”, unless you were a Trump University student. If so, you were taken.

Clinton is sane and dishonest. Trump is mentally unhinged and dishonest.

Clinton couches her lies in lawyerly camouflage. Trump lies boldly, transparently, absurdly — but hey, “He’s Not PC!!”

Clinton has political convictions (most of which are flawed). Trump has none, except for his bloated self-regard. He’s already disavowing “his” position papers — though to be fair, he’s been doing that for months.

Clinton generally acts like an adult (though not an admirable one). Trump often acts like a superannuated child, and his fans say “He speaks for me!”

Clinton would do damage out of a bad ideology and corruption. Trump would do damage out of recklessness, selfishness, ignorance, tyrannical tendencies, and a belief that his brain is too great to need advice.

Trump’s narcissism is more extreme than Obama’s — which is obvious to a nondelusional viewer, including Sam Vaknin, an expert who’s been studying him for years (and, not being an American, he has no partisan stake in his devastating diagnosis):

Trumpsters have given the sane part of the country a lose-lose choice. But many of them have said they want to “blow the whole thing up” or “burn the place to the ground.” Which they have pretty nearly accomplished.

    “Clinton is sane and dishonest.”
    You lost it on your first point.

    “Trump’s narcissism is more extreme than Obama’s.”
    You lost it on your second point. Trump built an empire. Obama built zero: he’s a puppet for the sickest of the sick. Trump deserves his ego. Obama is a traitor, who put in motion a civil war in the US, as well as another world war. Trump built half of New York City.

kenoshamarge | May 7, 2016 at 8:54 am

Since to me the choice between Clinton and Trump is a choice between trash and garbage I cannot in all good conscience vote for either.

If the Libertarians have the good sense to nominate Austin Petersen I can and will happily vote for him. Otherwise the top of my ballot stays blank.