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and their projection on 2016 still is useful and informative, which is why I do not think this piece completely outdated and overtaken by events.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.
