Monday, September 19, 2016

Protest Vote, November 2016: Saying “Yes” to Bernie, Decidedly “No” to Clinton and Trump!

This post was finally completed on June 9, 2016, after extensive criticism by my good friend and comrde Barry Finger, who pointed out some galring weaknesses in the original.  I then hoped to get it published, but that didn't happen--however, I think this piece does have considerable analytical and quantitiative merit, even if my prognostications at the time of writing were far too optimistic.  For one thing, I hadn't expected either the fervor with which Bernie Sanders would come out in support of Hillary Clinton after she clinched the nomination, nor the major collapse of the Bernie or Bust movement in wake of that (before long 90% of former Sanders supporters had expressed support for Hillary Clinton in November 2016).  Second, I hadn't predicted that the Trump/Clinton race would become so close, essentially neck-and-neck as i write now, September 19, 2016, with the inability of Clinton to clearly prevail over such as despicable candidate as Donald Trump.  And third, I had anticipated a larger showing for third-party candidates Jill Stein of the Greens, and Gary Johnson of the Libertarians, as protest vote.  However, recent polls as documented by Real Clear Politics given Stein only 1-6% of the electorate, and Johnson only 4-14%, far below what I had anticipated as of June 9.  Yet, I think my brakedown of numbers in the 2012 election and their projection on 2016 still is useful and informative, which is why I do not think this piece completely outdated and overtaken by events.  I also think my new "Biographical Note" at the end will be of interest to readers--GF


As an avid Bernie Sanders supporter and Bernie or Bust proponent who wanted to make sure my November 2016 vote counted, I checked recently with the Indiana Election Commission of the Indiana Secretary of State’s office on a Bernie Sanders write-in vote.  But what I got in response from Brad King, Co-Director of the Electoral Division, Indiana Secretary of State, was discouraging:  he wrote me back saying that Bernie Sanders had only until July 5 to submit paperwork declaring himself a write-in candidate (which is a deadline well before the Democratic Convention), that any declaration after that would not be recognized, and that, sans an official declaration of his presumptive availability as a write-in, no write-in votes for Bernie Sanders in Indiana would be counted at all, no matter how numerous.  My state of residence, Indiana, is one of 43 states that allow for write-ins, each with its own set of rules; and I would imagine that the response in terms of Indiana holds for the other 42—absent a declaration of write-in candidacy by Bernie Sanders, no write-in votes for him will be counted, even if quite numerous.  They will be ciphers, signifying nothing.  Nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.  So that road for registering a protest vote for Bernie is decidedly out. 

 

Of course, I’m assuming that he will not get the Democratic Presidential nomination, which appears likely, and that he will do what he’s always pledged, endorse Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee—which appears to be the most likely course, despite all the hard work, enthusiasm, and massive support shown for the Sanders’ candidacy, and the active resistance to his candidacy by the Democratic Establishment from Day One—although he has also said correctly he cannot dictate to his followers who to vote for.  Which opens up the second possibility for effectively registering a protest vote for Bernie, and decidedly rejecting the candidacies of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump:  voting third-party, but not necessarily limiting it to Jill Stein and the Greens. 

 

That is because a vote for the Libertarian Party could also register as a protest vote, given the specific circumstances of 2016; and I know it’s true here in Indiana, and I’m sure elsewhere, many Bernie supporters regard themselves as left-wing libertarians,[i] advocates of freedom and justice who oppose government repression, control and censorship on a variety of issues, and who are strong on so-called “social issues.”  These pro-Bernie forces may not necessarily be drawn to the Greens. 

 

But that has been one of the strengths of Bernie’s campaign—that, despite his calling his campaign and his movement one for “democratic socialism” from the beginning, his appeal has been so broad and extensive that he’s drawn in a lot of people who don’t identify with any part of the traditional left.  He has, in fact, built a popular base not just around disaffected Democrats and independents, or “inside/outside” socialist strategists, or people who would “naturally” be inclined to vote Green if Bernie were not available, but also forces considered more of the traditional center-right:  libertarians, of course, but also many self-styled Eisenhower or moderate Republicans, who are now openly disgusted with the far-right GOP that threw up for Presidential nomination the evangelical Christian fanatic Ted Cruz, and the clearly semi-fascistic demagogue Donald Trump.

 

Bernie’s appeal to a broad swath of the electorate on issues that concern them directly is a lot broader than that of the traditional US socialist or capitalism-critical left, so merely advocating a vote for Jill Stein and the Greens would leave out a lot of Bernie supporters and others who aren’t necessarily drawn to the Greens, but who are clearly disaffected enough not to vote for either Hillary or The Donald.  Would we want to leave them without a place to go?  After all, recent polls show that 58% of the potential electorate would not vote for Trump, while a third of Bernie Sanders supporters say they will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

 

That is why the organizing of a protest vote for disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters must be a lot broader, and more inclusive, than simply saying, cajoling, or advocating, “Vote for Jill Stein, Presidential candidate of the Green Party, as an alternative, since you can’t vote for Bernie Sanders.”  Not only for the reasons given above, but also because the Greens have done nothing to effectively appeal to disaffected Bernie supporters.  Stein and the Greens have assumed that disillusioned Bernie supporters will simply fall into their lap because they have nowhere else to go.  Wrong!  Already the Libertarians, and Libertarian-supporting publications such as Reason magazine, are making direct appeals to disaffected Bernie supporters to vote for the Libertarian Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, as an alternative.  As I’ve mentioned, since many Bernie supporters do see themselves as left-leaning libertarians, such appeals will have considerable traction. 

 

Further, despite the strong personality and admirable stance on the issues of Jill Stein personally (one would indeed be hard-put to distinguish any position on which she sharply disagrees with Sanders, even though she claims a vote for Sanders in the Democratic primaries is a de facto vote for Hillary, because all votes for Democrats are), the Green organization is in shambles.  Although around since the 1990s, the Greens have yet to establish themselves as a credible, as opposed to merely marginal, political force; and outside of California and New York, have effectively no organizational base.  Nor is that very likely to change, despite the commanding personal presence of Jill Stein.  In many states, there is no Green Party whatsoever, outside of a few individuals who call themselves Greens.  That is certainly true here in Indiana, where there isn’t even a party established, only the “presence” of an Indiana Green Party Facebook page that’s almost entirely ignored.  So organizing for an effective protest vote for Bernie and decidedly against Clinton and Trump is going to have to appeal far beyond those who might be inclined to vote Green.

 

Further, for a protest vote against Clinton and Trump to be effective, it’s going to have to attract far more than the paltry numbers for third-party candidates that has traditionally been the case.  This is borne out by an analysis of overall voter turnout and third-party/independent candidates’ Presidential votes in 2012.  From Statistic Brain,   http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/2012/, 218,959,000 U.S. citizens were eligible to vote; of these, 146,311,000 were registered to vote, and 126,144,000 actually did vote, or of those eligible to vote, only 57.5 % actually did—but that’s typical of U.S. elections, where voter turnout is among the lowest in the bourgeois-democratic world.  A somewhat different set of statistics on actual voter turnout in 2012, from the official tallies of CNN, http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/main/, shows that a total of 126,226,713 votes were cast for either Obama or Romney, of which Obama got 65,455,010 votes, or 51% of the total, to Romney’s 60,771,703 votes, or 47% of the total.  This accounts for 98% of the total votes cast in the Presidential race, leaving 2%, or 2,576,055 votes for third-party/independent candidates, of which the free-market fetishist Libertarians got half.  This is borne out also by Whiteout Press, http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/2012-general-election-presidential-results-for-all-candidates/, which gives the totals for Obama, Romney, and the top twelve third-party/independent candidates with 95% of the precincts counted.  Of these twelve, the Libertarians got the most, and actually topped the one million vote mark, with 1,275,176 votes.  Jill Stein of the Greens came in a distant second (only 36.8% of the Libertarian vote), at 469,572 votes.  The even-further-to-the-right-than-the-Libertarians Constitution Party came in third, with 122,378 votes, and fourth and fifth were two dissident left candidates who broke with the Greens, Roseanne Barr (star of the TV series Roseanne) of the Peace and Freedom Party, with 67,359 votes, and former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson (remember him?—now a trivia-question stumper!) of the Justice Party with 42,995 votes.  But this list of twelve doesn’t exhaust the list of all third-party/independent Presidential candidates, as it only reports those who got 12,000 or more votes, or 0.01% or more of the total votes cast.  So the Socialist Party didn’t make the list, as in 2012 it only garnered 4,428 votes nationwide, from the official record for all Presidential candidates of the Federal Election Commission (FEC)[ii].  http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012presgeresults.pdf

 

As is seen, third-party vote totals are generally dismally small, invariably well under the 3% threshold that historically has marked a “spoiler” Presidential candidate (though to be honest, neither Ralph Nader in 2000, nor Henry Wallace in 1948, even achieved 3% of the total Presidential vote,[iii] though they showed far better than left Presidential candidates have traditionally done after Eugene Debs garnered 6% of the vote in 1912).  However, 2016 could change that—and in doing so, give a real boost to the left.  The reason for that is, of course, the Bernie Sanders campaign, unconventional, blunt-spoken, vigorously raising the issues of economic inequality, corporate dominance, the erosion of the “middle class,” calling for a minimum wage of $15/hour, and other issues of concern, which has galvanized and excited people in a way rarely seen in U.S. politics.  Millions resonate with Bernie and the issues he’s raised so forcefully and aggressively.  That is why, even though he does trail Hillary Clinton in number of primary votes cast, he’s still garnered 9,957,889 votes as of May 17, according to Real Clear Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html, and has won 22 Democratic primaries.  If, as has regularly been noted, a third of Sanders supporters have declared they will not vote for Hillary Clinton, that gives 3,319,296 anti-Clinton votes just among primary voters, a greater number than the whole of those who for voted third-party/independent candidates in 2012!  Further, Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, is already polling nationally at 10% versus Clinton and Trump, according to an article on statistical pundit Nate Silver’s 538 website, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/.

 

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the most disliked major-party Presidential candidates who’ve ever run, according to numerous polls. The public considers them both untrustworthy by majority margins, and clearly they are both very unpopular among potential 2016 voters.  This means that the “plague on both your houses” vote in 2016, expressed in voting third parties, will likely be numerically significant; really, for the first time since the (decidedly non-left, unfortunately) George Wallace and Ross Perot campaigns of decades ago now.  This is an opening for the left that didn’t exist previously.

 

But it’s important for the left to realize that this won’t necessarily be a vote for Jill Stein, or even for Gary Johnson.  It will be a negative vote, a vote against the idea of having either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.  For the first time in a long while, a considerable sector of the US electorate is willing to break away from the “two-party shell game” the left has consistently railed against; only not much listened to previously.  As Lenin himself pointed out in January 1918, “Politics begin where the masses are, not where there are thousands, but millions.”  For the first time in a long while “millions” are willing to break with the two major-party Presidential candidates, not the mere “thousands” formerly willing to. 

 

The organizing task for the left, then, is to deepen this rift and encourage people to vote third-party of their choice (while, of course, favoring a vote for the Greens), in order to “send a message”—we will not settle for the “lesser of two evils,” we will not allow ourselves to be limited to a Hobson’s choice of either Clinton or Trump.  The Clinton campaign is already running scared on this issue, making fulsome noises that a Clinton Presidency is the only alternative to a Trump Presidency, and accusing the Sanders campaign of playing into Trump’s hands by its strong criticism of the policies and the politics of Hillary Clinton; and though much of the left would prefer that this protest vote be expressed in a vote for Jill Stein and the Greens, we of the left should realize that this same protest is also latent in a vote for the right-wing “free market” anarchists represented by Gary Johnson and the Libertarians.  Indeed, as I’ve already noted, many Sanders supporters consider themselves left-leaning libertarians rather than Greens.  A vote against both Trump and Clinton as expressed in a third-party vote for whatever such political party is already a potential gain for the left, and a major broadening of a constituency that will finally be receptive for a left-wing view, as certain libertarian support for Sanders has already demonstrated.  It is our task ahead to deepen this anti-Establishment sentiment by encouraging people to vote against the Democrats and Republicans, to vote for whatever third party they feel most comfortable in voting for (i.e., accepting their freedom of choice, while of course suggesting they vote Green), even if they are drawn to the Libertarians (as the myth of “competitive free market” as social panacea and guarantor of individual liberties still has significant hold on the American public).

 

This is but another illustration of the impact the Sanders campaign has had in opening possibilities for the left.  Already, Bernie Sanders is taking to new heights what can only be called class struggle within the Democratic Party itself:  his raising of fundamental economic and social issues, his endorsement of other progressive Democratic candidates, his demand for a progressive platform, and his insistence on the removal of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the Democratic National Committee.  No, things are not playing out according to the way the left has traditionally viewed unfolding class struggle; but it is playing out nonetheless.  The potential for a mass political grouping for a democratic socialist politics is now present—and a chance exists to finally rebuild that left politics of “millions” not merely “thousands” (or, all too often, only hundreds or even dozens) that hasn’t existed in the United States since the halcyon days of Socialist Party strength in the early 20th Century, or in the left upsurge of the 1930s. 

 

If we can avoid a sectarian divisiveness that insists the only way to express a protest vote is to vote for Jill Stein or some other clearly left party (marginalized as they may be), if we are willing to concentrate on building around that massive anti-Trump and anti-Clinton sentiment, if we are willing to consider that what is essentially a left (or potentially left) political viewpoint lies precisely in fomenting support for such a “negative” politics, we can now begin, in 2016, to lay the groundwork for a continuing, significant left political presence in U.S. life that will extend far beyond 2016.  For the first time in a long time we have that notable convergence—for not only is abstract, theoretical “history” on our side, but also, very significantly, math, numbers, are on our side.  This is the opening we have been waiting for; certainly encourage a vote for the Greens, but don’t automatically nay-say a vote for the Libertarians, or a vote for a marginalized Socialist Party or some other small left grouplet.  The size of the anti-Trump and anti-Clinton vote is what counts at present.

 

Realize here I am decidedly not stating that a vote for the Libertarians as a protest vote against both Clinton and Trump is the equivalent in power and political consciousness to a vote for the Greens.  In fact, what I wrote above should’ve made this clear, but a pointed discussion with a fellow socialist who claimed I was somehow stating that makes further clarification necessary.  By writing above that we socialists should “certainly encourage a vote for the Greens, but don’t automatically nay-say a vote for the Libertarians” does not place them politically on the same footing.  They aren’t in terms of political consciousness; however, there are likely to be, given the particular bent of U.S. politics which tends to favor the individualistic right over the left, many people who despise the idea of voting as the “lesser evil” either for Clinton or Trump, and will thus be drawn to the Libertarians as a protest vote. 

 

This is not “advocacy,” this is simple fact; it is simply fact that, while we of the left will properly deplore it, many people drawn to Bernie Sanders also consider themselves not “democratic socialists” as much as disgruntled left-leaning libertarians or even moderate Republicans!  Such people have already indicated in the polls that they want neither Clinton nor Trump, and they may well be more attracted to voting Libertarian as a protest over voting for the Greens.  Indeed, the 10% of the potential electorate already leaning Libertarian indicates this; and given the almost-1% of the vote the Libertarians garnered in 2012, 1,275,000 votes, it doesn’t take a math genius to realize that represented here is around 10 million potential voters. 

 

Indeed, it is realistic to expect that, in November 2016, the number of voters willing to vote third-party rather than vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could well be 20% or more of the electorate, significantly larger than the 14% of the electorate that supported Ross Perot in his first Presidential run.  Based on the numbers I cited above, the 2% of the electorate that was willing to vote third-party in 2012, some 2,576,000 voters, could increase by a factor of ten, which would bring this potential 2016 electorate to—25,760,000 voters!  Subtracting from this, and also multiplying by 10, the 2012 votes for the Libertarians and the Constitution party, which came to 1,397,554 (and multiplied by 10 and rounding, 13,397,500), still leaves 12,362,500 potential anti-Clinton and anti-Trump voters not drawn to voting for the two leading parties of the non-GOP right.  If, by the same reasoning, we note all those voters in 2012 who were willing to cast their for the Greens or for their two leading left rivals, the Peace and Freedom Party and the Justice Party, 579,926, and multiply that by a factor of 10 and rounding, we get 5,799,000 potentially left voters who are also clearly articulating they won’t vote for the “lesser of two evils” represented by Clinton and Trump![iv] 

 

Clearly, this is a textbook case of exactly what Lenin was talking about when he said “Politics begin…not where there are thousands, but millions” This is a potential constituency of numerical substance for further consciousness-raising and political activism by the left that hasn’t existed in a very long time—for the audience that will be receptive to left appeals just suddenly expanded mightily, thanks in large part to the Sanders campaign!

 

As for “not…nay-saying” the Libertarian vote, while certainly not advocating that people vote Libertarian, we of the left must realize that many of those in the U.S. who style themselves libertarian do so not out of allegiance to right-wing economics, but more out of concern for individual liberties and fear of repression, denial of basic rights, for racial minorities and women, non-heterosexual communities, and political dissidents.  After all, there are assuredly not a large number of people who have actually read the political platform of the Libertarian Party,[v] which is substantially to the right of the Republicans on basic economic issues.  Indeed, it is part of the “stealth strategy” of the Libertarian Party itself not to promote its economic agenda, but to present itself as a champion of individual liberties and freedom of choice. 

 

Further, much support even for Trump among the electorate, particularly among blue-collar workers, can be considered an addled form of economic populism based on erosion of economic security, stagnant wages, and corporate-friendly trade pacts that take U.S. jobs to foreign lands.  Indeed, the demagogic Trump has recently played into this sentiment by expressing his wish to turn the Republican Party into what he actually called a “workers party” based on economic nationalism, chauvinism against “foreigners,” and supposed protection of the social safety net!  In fact, there are among Trump supporters many who are also attracted to Bernie Sanders, and recent polls indicate that, while Hillary Clinton is running neck-and-neck against Donald Trump, or even losing to Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders handily beats Donald Trump as a Presidential candidate!  (But, unfortunately, will probably not get the Democratic Presidential nomination.)

 

Not only that; the Sanders forces are also now looking ahead to continuing the “political revolution” he calls for.  Already, coalitions of Sanders-supporting groups are forming and reaching out, and the Sanders campaign has the active endorsement and involvement of both the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and MoveOn, which were formerly as tied to the Democratic Party and its candidates as though they were Siamese twins.  Again, a substantive numerical base at least tacitly committed to continuing Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution” is already forming.  As yet, these coalitions and groups are not reaching out to the Greens; but then, the Greens aren’t doing much to reach out to Sanders supporters, either. 

 

Last, it should be pointedly noted that not voting is not a serious option.  People who don’t vote are not only ciphers, zeroes, in terms of electoral influence and expression, they are also defaulting to Trump and Clinton voters who will vote “on their behalf” due to their absence!

 

So does the class struggle in the U.S., 2016, unfold and deepen—but we must be aware, serendipitously, not through “socialist orthodoxy.”  All this together indicates for socialists the way here and now we can carry out Bernie Sanders’s “political revolution”—starting with an eye on the results for November 2016.

 

****

 

Biographical note:  George Fish is a socialist writer, union member (UFCW), and senior citizen receiving Social Security who must still work to support himself, living in Indianapolis.  He has published in New Politics, In These Times, Socialism and Democracy, Science and Society, Against the Current, and other left publications and websites.  He is also a member of Labor for Bernie and an enthusiastic proponent of Bernie or Bust.  A militant atheist, published poet, and Lenny Bruce/George Carlin-inspired stand-up comic, he can be contacted at georgefish666@yahoo.com.  (Yes, that is the Mark of the Beast from Revelation!)                   

 

 

 

 



[i] By using lower-case here and throughout I am distinguishing between those who consider themselves libertarian in political orientation, but not committed members or supporters of the Libertarian Party.  They lean toward, vote for, the Libertarian Party by default, not through clearly-articulated political understanding.  More on this difference below.
[ii] This official FEC report, dated January 17, 2013, lists a total of 26 third-party/independent Presidential candidates plus Obama and Romney, listed alphabetically by candidate’s last name without party affiliation.  Vote totals differ slightly in the FEC report from those given above for CNN and Whiteout Press without changing any of the rankings.
[iii] Nader received 2.74% of the vote, while Wallace garnered 2.4% of the vote, same percentage as Strom Thurmond gathered that year running for President on the segregationist States Rights Party, but with a higher vote total.
[iv] But this also understates the total potentially left protest vote, as it excludes those who might vote for the Socialist Party, or other small left parties that run Presidential candidates in 2016.  Further, it doesn’t take into account the increase in eligible voters due to population increase, or that because of the nature of the 2016 Presidential race, more people than previously may be drawn to vote rather than sit the election out.
[v] Or of any political party, be it Republican, Democrat, Green, Socialist, or any other.