Greens get CNN town hall for August 17

The Libertarians, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, held their second one just last night, and now the party of the progressive people are getting theirs, in two weeks.

CNN announced Wednesday it will host one of its town hall events with the Green Party's presumptive presidential nominee Jill Stein and her presumptive running mate, Ajamu Baraka.

The hour-long event will be held on Wednesday, August 17 at 9:00 p.m. ET. The event will broadcast live on CNN, CNN International, CNN en Espanol and online via CNNgo.

Libertarians draw from Clinton to some small degree greater than Jill Stein does in recent polling.  One more thing for nervous Clinton folks to be concerned with.  If somebody happens to post something about Libs "siphoning" from Dems, I'll have to feature it in the Daily Jackass.

Meanwhile, here's a mathematical analysis of how to not waste your vote.

Follow me on Twitter @PDiddie or watch this space for developments from the Greens' presidential nominating convention, opening today at U of H.

Yes, Trump is terrible (but the next Republican will be worse)

And speaking of shitty, why isn't Hillary beating Drumpf by a greater margin?  (That's a rhetorical question, most of us -- even Erick Erickson -- already know why.)

By any conventional standard, Donald Trump just blundered through the worst three days of any presidential candidate in living memory.

Showing a characteristic refusal to back down from a fight, Trump took the almost unthinkable step of publicly escalating a feud with the parents of fallen US solider, Capt. Humayun Khan, who blasted Trump at last week's Democratic convention as unfit for the presidency.

And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin wouldn't make a military move into Ukraine -- even though Putin has already done that by seizing the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

In any normal political campaign, these stumbles would hobble Trump's ability to pass the fabled commander in chief test, in which Americans take their measure of a candidate and decide whether he is fit to lead them.

But no one needs reminding that 2016 is not a conventional political year.

The Republican Party is NOT imploding, but they are having an existential crisis.  Let's admit it: this cycle wouldn't be much different if Ted Cruz was the nominee.  I agree with this guy's premise (but not his rationale -- "Free trade GOOD!"), who says that the GOP has to lose this year so that they can win in 2020.

There is a Simpsons episode where two aliens, Kang and Kodos, invade our planet and scheme to take charge by abducting and impersonating the two US presidential candidates.

They are discovered before polling day, but this does not prevent their triumph.  Kodos declares: “It’s true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it?  It’s a two party system; you have to vote for one of us”.  One plucky man says: “I believe I’ll vote for a third party candidate”.  But Kang responds witheringly: “Go ahead, throw your vote away!”

No, seriously.

The key dividing line in the United States (has) little to do with Republican vs. Democrat, rich vs. poor, or liberal vs. conservative. To explode these conventional oppositions, it would take a billionaire Republican populist, who had once been a solid Democrat and who offered a political program that mixed together liberal and conservative ideas, conspiracy theories and racial animus, but above all else exhortations [...] to rise up and retake the country. Indeed, the triumph of Trump in the Republican primaries -- based, in part, on his appeal to former white working-class Democrats and independents, his fierce attacks on mainstream Republicans, and his flouting of what passes for conventional wisdom about electability -- sent the pundits back to their think tanks to figure out what on earth was happening with American voters.

Trump was, they concluded, sui generis, a peculiar mutation of the American political system generated by the unholy coupling of reality television and the Tea Party revolt. But Trump is not, in fact, a sport of nature. He reflects trends taking place around the world. He is, in many ways, just a mouthpiece ... 

Trump won't be able to overcome his raging ego, narcissism, or lack of emotional maturity (Clinton was spot on when she said he can be baited with a Tweet), and that's before you consider his hideous bigotry and highly questionable business dealings.  He's quite the fraud, but he'll fail, and the GOP nominee next go-round will not make his rookie mistakes.

Cruz is taking copious notes, and Paul Ryan can surely put a shinier coat of lacquer on his own neo-fascism to fool enough people disgusted with Hillary's presidency four years from now.  And that dynamic will hold irrespective of how well the Greens and Libertarians can do in the next cycle, after what portends to be a banner year in 2016.

This cycle is unprecedented but reasonably predictable.  Twenty twenty?  Not so much.

Scattershooting more donkeys

-- Your Daily Jackass is John Cobarruvias of Bay Area Houston.  Previous jacks and jennets are here, here, and here.  John was a runaway winner based on his command -- he's reliving his days as an Aggie Cadet -- that can be countered simply enough with "No, we must not".

The difference between Clinton and Trump is the degree to which you would prefer a war-mongering corporatist who might be a sociopath versus an actual sociopath.  You know what they say about voting for a Democrat pretending to be a Republican running against an actual Republican: people go for the real thing every time.  It is, as most of us know, questionable as to whether Drumpf is an actual Republican, and that's causing an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance on the right.

If a Jackass of the 2016 Cycle is eventually awarded, John's got a strong lead on the rest of the herd (or drove, or pace).

Jackasses on deck : "Repeat after me", and "Why Berners should be good losers".

-- Amaju Baraka is Jill Stein's running mate.  If you have to ask, "who?" then you qualify for enlightenment.  Don't forget that fear is the path to the Dark Side.

-- More debunking of the anti-vax smear of Stein by the scummiest of Democrats.

I support preventative health care as a human right (including vaccines), now let's discuss why the DNC rejected universal health care.

— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) July 30, 2016

Time to Move On, Donks?

That's all I have time for.  Follow me on Twitter (@PDiddie) for Green convention updates, daily recaps in this space, and whatever winds up on the Texas Green Party Facebook page.

Debating Blue vs. Green with SCOTUS as backdrop

Ed. note: As this post was being composed, Jill Stein has selected human rights activist Ajamu Baraka to be her vice-presidential running mate.  More on that later.

I don't want to be harsh every single day for the next three months to all of these binary thinkers, but I need to point out how often they use the same threadbare logic.

-- Ben Jealous debated Jill Stein on Democracy Now (you may recall he was a Sanders supporter up to last week) and the tropes he employed were, in order, "Trump", "privilege", "George W. Bush in 2000", and "Greens need to start at the bottom", all of which have been debunked in these pages in recent days.

Jealous also referenced at the end a mashup of 'pie in the sky' and Nader.  ('Pie in the sky' is one of John Coby's old standbys; he's earned future Daily Jackass consideration with his 'pinch your nose because you must'.)

-- Robert Reich and Chris Hedges had the same faceoff in the same venue, and Reich went Trump, "Supreme Court", "wait until next cycle", and followed that with Hillary's own faux pas, which riffed off Ted Cruz at the RNC's 'vote your conscience'.

These debates would be very instructive for those who still have an open mind as to whether to vote for Clinton or Stein.  There are always going to be certain understandings -- biases -- that each person listens or reads with, so in that sense there are very few true undecideds.  The arguments against Stein, as Jealous and Reich demonstrate, are always rooted in the same handful of lame rebuttals.

Let's examine one that rarely gets scrutiny: the SCOTUS premise, beaten like a rug previously here but this time we take a look from a more nuanced perspective.  In 2000, Barbra Streisand hosted a gala fundraiser for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in Los Angeles and raised what at the time was reported as a record-breaking amount of money, $5.1 million.  I remember watching at least part of the event, though not live, perhaps on YouTube or as part of some other documentary some years later.  Tommy Lee Jones, Gore's old college roommate, did the introductions.  Streisand and several other prominent artists of the time performed, and Barbra gave a short speech, calling for Gore's election to "reform campaign finance regulations, strengthen gun control laws, improve education and healthcare, safeguard a woman's right to choose, and control homophobia".

Isn't it fascinating how little things change in our presidential politics?

Streisand's brief mention of the Supreme Court's importance in the 2000 election was direct and blunt (I can still see her holding up her fingers with a determined look on her face): "The first three reasons to vote for Al Gore are the Supreme Court... the Supreme Court... and the Supreme Court."  You can read the rest here.

At the beginning of this primary season about a year ago, I polled a handful of Democratic activists about their choice for nominee and why, and a couple of them, sadly, named 'Clinton, because of the Supreme Court'.  Leaving aside the question of picking a party nominee on this uncareful logic, it seems obvious even to your average Democrat fifth-grader that electing a Democrat and not a Republican because of the SCOTUS makes sense for the same reason that it does for a Republican to vote for a Republican instead of a Democrat.

Having cleared that up, let's return again to the year 2000 and Gore and W. Bush and the infamous circumstances that occurred in Florida that year.  The myth that Ralph Nader is to blame for the outcome has been thoroughly refuted, but let's look closer at the numbers laid out by Jim Hightower in the oft-cited Salon piece from November 27, 2000 -- a full two weeks before Gore actually quit, on December 12.  Bold emphasis is mine.

Now it gets really ugly for the Gore campaign, for there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Hello. If Gore had taken even 1 percent of these Democrats from Bush, Nader’s votes wouldn’t have mattered. Second, liberals. Sheesh. Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. 

If the Supreme Court was such a vital part of the message to Democrats to elect Gore, why did over 300,000 registered Florida Democrats vote for Bush instead?  Did they miss the memo?  Did they defy the exhortations of thousands of their fellow Democrats, from Barbra Streisand on down?  Were they just, as so many people have delighted in saying about Florida Democrats in 2000, stupid?

What about those 191K who self-identify as 'liberal" Democrats?  What in the world was going on inside those people's brains?

I've not been able to track down -- in a decade of searching -- a single solitary response from the Blame Nader crowd, or anybody else for that matter, as to why these folks cast a ballot for Bush and not Gore.  I know they've never been appropriately held to account for Gore's defeat, while Nader's 90,000 or so votes always are.  Which begs the next question: how is it that Nader's votes are assumed to belong to Democrats, when more than triple that number of Ds can run off the reservation and vote Republican without consequence?  Whatever conclusions we might draw, one thing seems certain: "SCOTUS" was obviously not an important enough reason for them to vote for their own party's nominee, no matter what Barbra Streisand said.

(Sidebar: "SCOTUS" is a tenuous argument also because so many Justices have not turned out to be the "slam dunks" John Sununu, to use one example, predicted David Souter would be.  Hillary Clinton will likely appoint judges whom she believes most closely resemble her own mushy middle, corporate-styled centrism: Merrick Garland, Sri Srinivasan, Amy Klobuchar.  We're more likely to see those political types grow more conservative than liberal as the years pass.)

I suspect to the chagrin of Hillary supporters everywhere that history may be repeating itself in 2016.  It might be that the old and tired arguments to vote for the moderate Democrat against the freak-right fascist might carry even less weight than they have in elections past.  Let's establish clearly that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for all of us, irrespective of our class and/or privilege.

But it is still not a good enough reason for progressive Democrats -- who have been bullied and defrauded from start to finish in the just-completed primary -- to abandon their principles, pinch their noses, and avert disaster on behalf of others.  If Clinton is to win the Sanders bloc, she's going to have to do so without the standard guilt and shaming.  She and her supporters are going to have to come up with some more intelligent reasons for people to vote for her.

I don't see it happening, but they have a few final shots at it.  If they want to take them, that is.