A Presidential Contest of Deplorables: The Current Status of the Election

Eric Zuesse

This news-report will be short but important:

One major-Party U.S. Presidential candidate is so gross that his answer when the radio host Howard Stern said the individual’s daughter is “a piece of a**” was that she has “always been very voluptuous”; his competitor is so warmongering that she says “I am advocating the no-fly zone”, which means that she wants the U.S. to warn Syria and Russia that if they don’t stop flying their warplanes over Syria, the U.S. will shoot down those warplanes. (That’s what a “no-fly zone” means.)

Which of these two candidates presents the bigger likelihood of starting World War III as the U.S. President — of starting a war against Russia?

Which of these two candidates has drawn more media-criticism and lost the more voter-support, as a consequence of these two revelations — the grossness of the one, and the warmongeringness of the other, candidate?

According to current polls, it seems extremely likely that the next President of the U.S. will be announcing a no-fly zone — ordering Syria and Russia to stop bombing ISIS and/or certain other jihadists in Syria (such as Al Qaeda in Syria). What will happen if Russia ignores the warning, and continues bombing all jihadist groups there, including the ones that the U.S. and Sauds have been arming and will be warning Syria and Russia not to bomb? Do U.S. voters care what would happen? Do they even think about what would happen? These Americans are obligated to produce these decisions, but not all of them will do that.

America’s voters will, in fact, be making those decisions, answering those questions, by no later than Election Day, November 8th. But other Americans will abstain, and will simply let the Americans who do participate, make these decisions, which all Americans, and all the world, will have to live with, if not die from. How patriotic will the non-participants — the people who won’t make a choice between the two deplorables — be? How unpatriotic will they be? How intelligent will the non-participants be? How stupid will they be?

Will the people who vote for a third-party candidate — someone who stands no realistic chance of winning even a single one of the 50 states in the Electoral College — belong in the category of Americans who make a choice, or instead in the category of Americans who decline to choose?

Sometimes, news-reporting consists of clarifying what the issues are in an upcoming election. Those are the issues in the current contest for the White House. On the one side is a gross person. On the other side is a warmongering person. The deadline for making this choice will be November 8th.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    How intelligent will the non-participants be?

    refusing to participate in an obviously corrupt coronation is one’s civic duty. those who lack intelligence will proceed to the polls, deluding themselves into believing that voting on a diebold machine with no paper trail and fractional vote totals is ‘democracy’.

    what do zuesse and soros dread the most? empty voting booths.


    1) a successful boycott2016 would reveal obvious fraud in key precincts, such as is detailed here and here (Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers)
    2) a successful boycott would negate any attempt by clinton to claim a ‘mandate from the electorate’.
    3) a successful boycott would be the final nail in the coffin for the lesser-evil/two-party framework, which zuesse has milked endlessly, through thousands of paragraphs during his entire sad tenure here. he will no longer be able to argue that progressives are morally superior, or that ‘science’ proves that conservatives are racist. (how exactly does one measure racism?)

    empty polls are what coulter/moore/chomsky/zuesse/soros fear the most. let’s give them all a proper, scary halloween and refuse to participate.

    ps: did the hundreds of thousands of sanders voters whose votes were left uncounted, then shredded receive any ‘democratic’ representation? or were we just treated to the ‘appearance’ of an election?

    • cstahnke

      Well put, however I agree with both of you. Many possible truths exist here and it is up to each of us to find our own approach. This is the world we live in where very little is as it seems, as not just democracy but our entire social fabric has been hacked, repackaged and hacked again by a variety of forces seen and unseen. In short, this is our hallucinatory moment in history, our acid-trip into a science fiction story consisting of all of Philip K. DIck’s fantasies and nightmares at once.

  • Silverado

    On the one side we have a non-politician and non-warmonger. And on the other side we have a criminal and a warmongering person all wrapped into one. The choice between the two will be an easy one come November 8th.

    • Eric Zuesse

      Thanks for understanding. So many of my readers do not, though I try to write as clearly as possible.

      • paul

        I think you are very clear. Good ole sheep dog. I’d almost begun to believe that you weren’t a Democratic Party stooge after all!

    • TruthTime

      Except Pence is against everything Trump says. Trump will be co-opted, there is simply no question there. People are being played hard. And Bill Clinton will go back to playing golf with Trump, laughing at the gullible plebs. I guess no one remembers Reagan/Bush, in which the criminal Bush was the real controller of that Presidency. The choice is that there is no choice this election.

      I have been a registered green for 2 decades and I will not succumb to fear-mongering of Factionalism Political Nonsense. There are 5 candidate s on the ballot, not 2.

  • WillDippel

    Here is an interesting look back at Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign strategy:


    It’s interesting to see that her chief campaign strategist wanted her to be “as likeable as possible”.

  • Kansas_Voter

    I live in a solid-red state so Trump (or any republican Presidential candidate) will probably win my state, but I’m still not sure who I should vote for. My vote for President won’t count for anything other than being an additional digit in a column of numbers, but I’m beginning to think that a Trump vote would be a louder protest message than a vote for Jill Stein. The DNC and Clinton supporters can just ignore all Stein voters as people who would have never voted for her anyway, but if Trump wins some states big or actually wins it would be much more of a F-U to them. I’m hoping that all of the mudslinging and insults going back and forth will turn off enough people that voter turnout will be low enough that Trump can win, but no matter who is the next President, they’ll be hated by over 50% of Americans and seen as an illegitimate President by an even higher percentage, so I hope that on November 9th we can start the discussion about who will be the next President, because neither of these a-holes are going to win a second term. Each one is weak and hated enough to lose a primary challenge from their own party, so no matter who “wins” they’ll be a one-term loser.

    • Eric Zuesse

      “a Trump vote would be a louder protest message than a vote for Jill Stein.”

      Yes, because a vote for Jill Stein = 0 for both Clinton and Trump, whereas a vote for Trump = 1 for Trump and 0 for Clinton, thus increases Trump’s chance of becoming President.

      A vote for Jill Stein does nothing to increase Stein’s chance of winning, since she’s not a possible winner. A vote for her is no vote at all; it’s only moralistic masturbation, nothing that bears real-world fruit. It’s not a political action; it’s a non-vote.

      People who complain that Trump is terrible, are fools because the alternative is definitely worse: an evil scheming war-mongerer is vastly worse than a mere incompetent.

      Furthermore, the billionaires are virtually united behind Clinton, and so a President Trump might really mean it when he promises to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her for possible criminal prosecution. If he does that, then finally there will be accountability at the very top of American government — something that has never yet occurred and that would be a real breakthrough. Regardless of what the outcome would be, it would be better than the total non-accountability at the top — which is the nation’s basic problem.

  • paul

    Trump is not a better choice than Clinton. His frequent changes of direction have made it clear that he will go where the establishment wind blows if he is in office, not that we really needed that demonstration. Trump comes from the same ‘elite’ that Clinton comes from. If they want war, he will deliver a war perhaps more credibly than Clinton (just as Obama delivered war more credibly – Nobel Prize even! – than Bush).

    The best outcome from this election would be a strong showing by Jill Stein. This would begin to show, to itself, the unself-conscious vast majority that wants a change of direction. It would be the beginning of a populist progressive power block which, if it gets any foothold, will grow, fast. The progressive populist majority will begin to see itself in the political picture if that happens and it will be seen by others. A tide will gather and its power will have to be reckoned with right away.

    A strong showing by Jill Stein would change everything.

    But you know that don’t you you good good good sheepdog?

  • TruthTime

    Another third party bashing as usual from Eric. A vote for a Republican or a Democrat makes one complicit. The equivalent of voting FOR Corruption with the explicit permission of, “please lie to me some more, please.”

    Eric. Perhaps you’ll get it someday when it all comes crashing down. The Republican and Democratic parties are dead.

  • Oct 12, 2016 The Libertarian Angle: The Second Presidential Debate

    FFF president Jacob Hornberger and Richard Ebeling talk about the second presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.


  • Army of Addicts

    I agree with him strongly about the trade deals.

    Trump has serious issues which will be aired out in the press, as president, and could destroy his presidency. Clinton’s issues, on the other hand, will never see the light of day, if she has anything to say about it. She’ll keep us looking over our shoulders for 4 years.

    Anything but the NWO.

    Anyone but Clinton.

  • Huh?