top of page

Post-Election Analysis & Plan of Action

First let's discuss the election. In hindsight, it seems very clear that the DNC messed this up BIGLY time. (In fact, Fuck the DNC. Seem harsh? Keep reading) They didn't realize the intense dissatisfaction out there, and put up the quintessential establishment candidate in Clinton vs. a populist like Trump. It cost them the election when it absolutely didn't have to.

(Edit: I'm sure some of you are questioning my choice of "them" when it seems like I'm a Democrat so it should be "us". I'm consciously not a registered Democrat. I want to lower taxes and cut spending (cut defense spending huge, raise retirement age, less subsidies, and more...). I don't identify with the Democrat party. It's insanity to me that I find myself agreeing more with Democrats and voting for them. I've gotten in to this in a previous blog article, but I feel forced to take the Democrat side in most elections simply because of issue agreement, despite the fact there are a number of things I disagree with them about. But seeing as how theoretically I'm libertarian (with some Green tendencies), and am generally for decentralization of power, laissez-faire solutions... I refuse to register Democrat even if it means I don't get to vote in Primaries. And I really wish there was a different, better option... something like a Green Libertarian.)

The argument during the primaries that Clinton was more electable than Sanders couldn't have been any more wrong. (#BIGLY facepalm) Sanders would have also appealed to all the disaffected who wanted to throw a brick in the window, unlike Clinton. Because Sanders was throwing a brick with a plan and with virtue. The man has had the same message for decades, and a record as spotless as they come with no corruption or shadiness. One of the biggest reasons Clinton lost was people weren't excited to vote for her, and she did not get out the vote. Some people were REALLY excited about Sanders, like youth, and for sure he would of gotten out the vote more with the youth.

The bad word in this election wasn't socialist - it was corruption / establishment.

Bernie would of waltzed in as the squeaky clean candidate with a plan for the working man and been able to shine a light on Trump's long history of corrupt/shady business deals (something that didn't work for Clinton because of her rep). So now, Sanders is also anti-establishment (like Trump) AND he's the moral/virtuous one (unlike Trump). It's a clear win. Sanders was against the Iraq War from day 1, no flip-flopping. Sanders was also massively favored over Trump in polls during the primaries, much more so than Clinton. Like the last scene from The Usual Suspects, on election night as I saw Hillary losing, all these pieces fell together and I just tweeted it out, "Sanders would of beaten Trump handily (wins Michigan and Wisconsin 4 sure). Democrats can blame themselves if this doesn't work out." I'm watching her lose Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and I know Sanders would of carried these states.

Looking back, it's so painfully obvious that this is true. The DNC couldn't really have fucked this up any more. Their bad judgment of supporting Clinton (to the point of possibly cheating Sanders) in the primaries not only cost progressives the Presidency, but cost Democratic seats in the House and Senate as well. Clinton was an establishment candidate with a reputation for corruption. They didn't see that Hillary wasn't the right candidate for the job (the job of WINNING the presidency - not doing it) this year. It was not a qualification thing or a gender thing. It was a populist thing. If every super delegate had supported Sanders instead of Hillary - he would of won the Dem primary and then the Presidency. But the DNC and all the Dem idiots who kept talking about how Hillary was more electable - they all couldn't have been more wrong. The DNC messed it up for Democrats, but also for everyone else who votes for that fucking party because we basically feel we don't have another option. And now which party is the one splintering? (oh how the narrative has changed) Lost the presidency, minority in House/Senate, 31RNC-18DNC governors, 68/99 state legislature chambers. The DNC is absolutely pathetic. And we all now have to live with the consequences.

Those consequences, for me, are very, very clear. In my last blog post, my top 2 reasons for voting for Clinton were the Supreme Court & Climate Change. Let's look at this...

With Climate Change, I just saw that Trump picked Myron Ebell to head the EPA transition team (and soon maybe the EPA?). He happens to be a Global Warming skeptic, who disagrees with Obama signing the Paris Agreement. Here's an article about this:

This is a very important issue for everyone. If you know that, good for you. If you think I'm wrong, then please read this:

I spent a long time writing it and finding good sources to help make my claims / back up my claims. It covers the important bases in establishing that global warming is happening, that humans are likely the cause, what the effects will be, and why we should do something about it. It links a bunch of great websites and videos to learn all about the topic as well.

We were making steps forward, and it looks like Trump's administration is going to burn all that down and probably go backwards.

This got me pretty annoyed earlier today, and I decided to donate to a couple charities. I briefly did some research and found a couple charities:

They seemed like good charities and when I looked them up on Charity Navigator they passed the test. Check them out and let's DO SOMETHING since clearly it's more important now then ever.

With the Supreme Court, it looks like the Republicans just got rewarded for obstructing a Supreme Court Justice for nearly a year. This is unprecedented in the history of our nation. Really this is unconstitutional, and borderline treasonous, and the wimpy DEMS just let them get away with it. Now, they lost the election and Trump will get to fill the vacancy (and likely more!!). The Supreme Court will be conservative for most of the rest of our lifetimes.

A conservative Supreme Court won't overturn Citizens United (among many many other things I don't like) and it really bothered me today, and when I was watching this video:

When Cenk (of The Young Turks) says, "What's not coming to the rescue? The Democratic Party. They are not coming to the rescue. They are a bunch of pathetic losers who are groveling to their donors for what's next." - it fucking spoke to me. You know why? Because I just saw it happen. I decided to do something about Citizens United and money in politics. It looks like this Wolf PAC is a great idea.

Here's "the plan", lifted from their website

To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution. There are only 2 ways to amend our Constitution: (1) Go through Congress (single digit approval rating) or (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendment proposing convention.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our Federal Government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a sufficient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money, and might actually do what 96% of the country wants - take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

So I joined up. And I hope you should to. This isn't a red/blue issue. In fact, many Republicans supporting Trump were talking more about this than Democrats were. But this has ALWAYS been one of my biggest issues. I've gone on and on about 1) eliminating Citizens United, 2) term limits for Congress, 3) independent commission drawing district lines to change previously gerrymandered districts and prevent future gerrymandering.

Just in case you haven't thought about these issues...

Citizens United says corporations are people and can give unlimited amounts to political campaigns. People are people, corporations aren't. If this is a problem for you, try this thought out by Rick Sebren, "If you ever want to ask yourself why corporations are not people try this. What is the moral obligation of an individual? Now what is the moral obligation of a corporation?" People and corporations are different, and corporations should not have this undue ability to influence politics. The government is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE... and should be serving the best interests of people - not corporations. It is hypocrisy of the highest order that "conservative judges" who are supposedly for judicial restraint ruled in favor of Citizens United. It is a serious exercise of judicial activism to somehow interpret that the constitution claims that corporations are people. Now I believe the constitution is a living document, and that it needs to be interpreted in the context of our times. So I am fine with judicial activism (Despite being ok with this philosophy, I disagree with the way in which the activism was applied in this case) BUT, the hypocritical irony is that those who wrote and defend the Citizens United ruling are for a strict interpretation of the constitution and judicial restraint... yet showed none of it when they wanted to make this ruling.

Besides the fact that having an independent commission draw district lines is fair, and the party in power shouldn't have the power to do this for obvious reasons appealing to justice/fairness... gerrymandered "safe" districts always elect extremely partisan politicians who never want to compromise... in fact, compromising is a bad for them as then they will be lambasted in the next election by someone coming in on the more extreme side of them from their own party. This extreme partisanship in the house has been turning the house in to a gridlocked, unfunctional mess. So this is a great idea for theoretical AND practical reasons.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Brian Rast
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square
bottom of page