March 21, 2016

A new NYT/CBS national poll has Trump up by 20 over Cruz, Clinton over Sanders by only 5.

The news is reported in a NYT article with the headline "Most Republicans Feel Embarrassed by Campaign, Poll Says."

Here's the part of the text that is the source of that "embarrassed":
Anxieties run higher among Republicans in large part because of the ferocious and at times juvenile nature of the insult-laden campaign, which has featured taunts over character and even manhood as much as serious policy debates. About six in 10 Republican primary voters say the overall tone of their party’s nomination fight has been more negative than in past campaigns, while only one in 10 Democratic primary voters hold the same view of their party’s campaign.

And 60 percent of Republican primary voters said the campaign had made them feel mostly embarrassed about their party, while only 13 percent of Democratic primary voters expressed that opinion.
I went into the PDF of the poll to get the "embarrassment" question. It's: "So far, do you think the Republican presidential campaign has made you feel MOSTLY proud of the Republican Party or MOSTLY embarrassed by the Republican Party?"

So "embarrassed" is the pollster's word and your only options were "embarrassed" or "proud." Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer that question. I don't have enough of a feeling of identity with a party to feel embarrassed or proud of it. It's not me. It's not my child.

But in any case, you can't figure out from the answer what is embarrassing the people who are embarrassed.  The NYT — in writing "ferocious... juvenile nature... insult-laden... taunts" — seems to assume it's Trump's manner of speaking.  But there are other things one might be embarrassed about — the way the elite insiders are disrespecting the people Trump is energizing, the failure of low-polling candidates to withdraw in time to let those with a chance build up sufficient support to balance Trump's fast start, or maybe just the way the media is continually advising them that they ought to be embarrassed.

156 comments:

Titus said...

Marla Maples is on DWTS and looks abs fierce!

Work it girl.

tits.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The only embarrassed party should be the Times for censoring significant coverage of a candidate who's only five points behind the alleged email deleter they endorsed.

SteveR said...

(A)lleged email deleter? Bernie says you should forget about that. Maybe focus on the Superdelegates instead.

mccullough said...

Sanders doesn't have any fight in the belly. He lost when he gave Hillary a pass on her private email server and didn't tie it to her lack of transparency and general disregard for the law. He could call her a liar as well but won't do that. He's done a good job of painting her as a handmaiden of Wall Street, but hasn't gone after her for her dishonesty and corruption. He looks like he wants to lose.

Laslo Spatula said...

" Personally, I wouldn't know how to answer that question. I don't have enough of a feeling of identity with a party to feel embarrassed or proud of it. It's not me. It's not my child. '

Love -- LOVE -- that Line. Loved it so much I thought it might have referenced a Dylan lyric, but my search came up dry.

Althouse and Clover, Over and Over.


I am Laslo.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well SteveR maybe you understand Democrats better than they understand themselves but it seems Bernie must know what he's doing if he's gotten this far against the anointed one and part of that means he has to be effective without being seen to be a bully. If you watch the Florida debate and at least a few before that you will see that he has skewered her as much as any Democratic audience needs to see her skewered. Try that stuff out in the general if you want and see if it gets any further, but the general is a different electorate.

buwaya said...

The current NYT is entirely a political organ, down to the entertainment and features sections.
Its intended for only one thing, and that isn't entertaining its remaining readership, whatever their political proclivities. Its owned and operated for the benefit of a political faction.
Treat it like Pravda. The old Kremlinologists should come out of retirement, they have a new subject.

Sebastian said...

"The NYT — in writing "ferocious... juvenile nature... insult-laden... taunts" — seems to assume" Save yourself time and pixels: The NYT in writing [silly BS about non-Progs] seems to assume [fill in suitably absurdly negative BS].

mccullough said...

Has Trump said anything as bad as Romney's 47% comment or Obama's bitter clingers comment? Both of those were said at private fundraisers but leaked out to the public. Both of those comments were appalling.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I love how Republicans like you seem to think you know what will be effective with a Democratic audience and what won't, mccullough. If it's so effective, then try it out in the general. In the meantime, I doubt you've watched any of their debates. He gets better and better and so does the momentum of his support. He came from 3% against a massively favored (and long-time favor granting) front-runner who never lost her front-runner status from even eight years ago. Wife of a president. And now he's neck and neck. Watch his best lines in the Florida debate. Totally crushed her. You guys need to learn about timing and not shooting your wad before the right moment. Not everything in politics is like another war in the Middle East that we can just launch whenever.

g2loq said...

The New York Times is a fifth column in the United States.

mccullough said...

R&B,

Calling Clinton dishonest and saying she disregards the law and doesn't want to be accountable to the public fits into Sanders themes. No one is saying he has to go after her for being Bill's attack dog against women who complained about him.

But Sanders won't go there. He lost to Hillary in the Midwest in close contests but he lost. He needs to make Hillary more radioactive. It won't work with blacks and Latinos but might work with whites over 45, who are voting for Hillary over Bernie. There aren't enough 18-44 year old whites in Dem primaries for Sanders to win.

Mark said...

That poll really is an embarrassment, but to the New York Times. They're not even trying to hide the bias these days.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Sanders may have been wrong not to drone on and on and on and on like Republicans do about emails but I'm inclined to think that it's one of those things he can be more effective with by leaving it dangling there while hammering over the Democrats' heads how corrupt she is with Wall Street. He is smashing her on that and has done great damage to how trustworthy she is perceived and if that gets their tribe to look further into her emails to make up their mind and turn on her, so be it. But in the meantime his attacks on her corrupt Wall Street connections and military belligerence are effective enough with that crowd. He gets more than enough mileage off of that. Those are the things that lose her trust with Democrats first before some technical and abstruse bit about using an email set up that was maybe a little bit shadier than the shady things that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did with their emails.

It's about effectiveness. Not satisfying your immediate, partisan emotional cravings.

Bernie's had decades in the Congress as a totally marginalized but vocal personality. And now is his time.

I think if nothing else, that's taught him a thing or two about timing. And not overplaying his hand.

mccullough said...

R&B,

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. The parties are too cult like for me. They don't address the major fiscal problems that I think are the most important issues facing the country. And the stuff each believe in seems either demonstrably false or very implausible.

Sanders is a nice guy and is refreshingly not corrupt. But he's an economic imbecile and his policies if enacted would be calamitous. It's not enough to have integrity. You actually have to understand shit, as well.

Michael K said...

Push polls are popular with the NY Times.

They also like tame Republicans who deplore bad manners in campaigning.

It is stunning to contemplate, particularly for those of us who are lifelong Republicans, but we now live in a time when the organizing principle that runs through the campaign of the Republican Party’s likely nominee isn’t adherence to a political philosophy — Mr. Trump has no discernible political philosophy — but an encouragement to political violence.

Mr. Trump’s supporters will dismiss this as hyperbole, but it is the only reasonable conclusion that his vivid, undisguised words allow for. As the examples pile up, we should not become inured to them. “I’d like to punch him in the face,” Mr. Trump said about a protester in Nevada. (“In the old days,” Mr. Trump fondly recalled, protesters would be “carried out in a stretcher.”)


That cannot be tolerated. If you can't lose in a genteel fashion, you don't belong in my party.

Punching back twice as hard is only permitted in that other party.

mccullough said...

All Sanders has to say is that Hillary set up a private email server as Secretary of State so that she and her top aides could conduct government business on her private server to evade open records laws. She didn't tell President Obama she as doing this and has embarrassed him with her reckless conduct.

Rhythm and Balls said...

But Sanders won't go there. He lost to Hillary in the Midwest in close contests but he lost. He needs to make Hillary more radioactive. It won't work with blacks and Latinos but might work with whites over 45, who are voting for Hillary over Bernie. There aren't enough 18-44 year old whites in Dem primaries for Sanders to win.

I don't see how this has any connection to emails being an effective tactic other than to keep emphasizing your implication he's not attacking her desperately enough.

Sanders has a great campaign. Very comprehensive, getting well-funded and with smart and very engaged volunteers. This despite the media's censorship of him as a serious candidate. I tend to assume they've studied all the angles on how to get her, and have gone with those that will be effective. Not just those that say, "ONE MORE THING! Oh SNAP, I FEEL GOOD SAYING THAT!"

The emails are the Republican thing. As with Ben Ghazi. Try them if you're lucky enough to run against her then. I doubt they will work, though. They haven't worked yet. Why are Republicans so blind to learning the difference between what they find satisfying and what the rest of the public finds compelling?

Amanda said...

McCullough,
Sanders won't "go there" because he won't hit below the belt. He may honestly believe Hillary's email issues were overblown and mostly manufactured by the right as a political tool against her. He won't play the part of bully like Trump would. I think he realizes that would not play well with Democrats across the board.

Michael said...

R&B

Bernie, like most progs, does not give a shit about the emails and the server and all that technical stuff. Its too bad because he could and should have made it a centerpiece of his campaign Rice and Powell did not exactly do the same thing as you could discover with a minimum of effort.

But you are correct in that progs generally give not one shit about our Secretary of State doing something that would have any CEO in business being given the heave ho. Sure, Jack, shoot off some emails on our strategic plan on your AOL account. Just don't mark them confidential and the competition wont bother to read them post hack.

Sanders, and you, might well have been surprised how even some wild eyed progs would be offended by her actions if he had bothered to hammer her instead of kissing her ass in the first debate. HA. BTW Bern you are under no circumstance going to be the VP so cut out the ass kissing.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's not enough to have integrity.

It's a damned good start.

Bernie would not get all of what he advocates and I think 1/3 of the way there would be good enough, with some minor and/or major tweaks here or there. But he is learning from the Republican playbook. You don't get what you want by demanding half measures. You demand ten times what you want and claim defeat when you only get a fraction of it. And then you keep rallying the people for more.

He is an effective part of turning the country away from the imploding party of being asleep at the deregulatory wheel of favors for billionaires, and we will see if can go even further than that. But it's good enough for now.

mccullough said...

Anyone donating to Sanders at this point is pissing away their money. He didn't win where he needed to because he can't attract enough older white votes. The rest of his campaign is feel good symbolism that will probably get Hillary to adopt a few of his policies in her general election platform that she will disregard the day after the election.

Henry said...

Cruz Clinton would definitely be a nightmare candidate.

mccullough said...

Sanders best chance is an indictment of Hillary, which seems unlikely. The FBI cares about her damn emails but the AG and Obama don't.

Henry said...

All Sanders has to say is that Hillary set up a private email server as Secretary of State so that she and her top aides could conduct government business on her private server to evade open records laws. She didn't tell President Obama she as doing this and has embarrassed him with her reckless conduct.

That's it? That's all he has to say? It only works if your wand has unicorn hair.

Amanda said...

Sanders wouldn't make Hillary's email issues a centerpiece of his campaign because he knows it was bullshit. Sanders is an honorable man, unlike Trump.

Rhythm and Balls said...

BTW Bern you are under no circumstance going to be the VP so cut out the ass kissing.

I don't think he wants to be. You are revealing yourself to be just as skewed by your bias as others.

He is chipping away at her and building momentum. You keep talking about the instinct to defend her and then projecting the cognitive dissonance of constantly assuming that some sort of Bernie the Rhetorical Superhero moment would have knocked her out in Round 1. You are being dramatic, just as the Republicans tend to be.

tim in vermont said...

He should have gone after her for Iraq, Syria, and yes, Libya. She lit the match for that refugee crisis.

But as for careless handling of intelligence assets that whole Valerie Plame thing was just an act, nobody thought they were serious.

Rhythm and Balls said...

OK now Tim's chiming in.

Any other Republican or generally conservative voter want to throw in their three cents on how to win a Democratic primary? While the only one to get as far against as entrenched a machine pol as Hillary is a freaking progressive?

Gosh I really wish more Republicans were giving their exalted Dick Morris insight into how to win over Democratic primary voters. We sure don't have enough of that.

Well, we do have the fact that the most conservative Democrats are totally in the pro-HIllary camp, so there's that.

Amanda said...

Tim, Sanders does go after her for her interventionist proclivities.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Is "Cruz Clinton" the guy who got that weird white stuff from his mouth all over the intern's dress?

mccullough said...

Sanders hits Hilary pretty hard on her military adventurism. Doesn't seem to phase her older white voters.

tim in vermont said...

No, I obviously have no idea how to appeal to Dem voters, since I can't tell when they are being sincere. Not that I thought they really cared about Plame. Scooter still in prison?

Alex said...

Can anyone explain me how rigged the polling must be to have Bernie leading Trump by 15 points? I mean come on, we haven't elected a socialist president since 2012!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Sanders hits Hilary pretty hard on her military adventurism. Doesn't seem to phase her older white voters.

Lol. But old white fuddy duddies know plenty about email security! (Allegedly).

Amanda said...

I doubt hardly any Republicans/ conservatives here watched even one Sanders Clinton debate. Granted, they weren't as entertaining as the Republican free for alls, but they were heavy on substance, which might be boring to those who have become accustomed to the Trump Show on a daily basis.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I cared about Plame. I found that episode despicable beyond measure.

But I think the whole country's already short attention was diverted at the time, though. A much bigger ruckus should have been made about that, IMO.

Not that it matters. In the end a criminal investigation led to heads rolling so at least it wasn't left as an offense people should think that they can get away with again.

mccullough said...

The emails don't have to be a centerpiece. He just needed to tie them in with her general disregard for the law and her disdain of transparency. She won't release her Wall Street transcripts because she is not transparent. Same reason she set up her private email server. He doesn't have to call her a criminal or say she should be in prison. He just has to tie it in to her general approach for secrecy and not wanting to be accountable to the public.

Michael K said...

"He should have gone after her for Iraq, Syria, and yes, Libya. She lit the match for that refugee crisis. "

The Democrats don't give a shit about foreign policy and haven't since Vietnam. They voted for the Iraq invasion because they thought the voters were angry about 9/11. Then they dropped it as soon as they could could. They were talking about "quagmire" in Afghanistan a week after Special Forces went in there.

Michael K said...

"her general disregard for the law "

Do you seriously think Democrats care about "regard for the law" as they attack cops and encourage rioters ?

Come on, now. This is 2016.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok, Amanda's right. None of these Democratic primary election experts saw the debate. Here's a recap on Florida. I"m sure there are others, and this tanless presenter's appearance is distracting. But again, you can find them if you want to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B77vB9Cx_tU

mccullough said...

I watched all the Dem debates and thought the substance was pretty insubstantial. It was amusing to watch Hillary mount a half hearted defense of capitalism and call Sanders proposals pie-in-the-sky, which they are. And Sanders did a good job of painting Hillary as a neoconservative on military intervention, which she is. And Bernie's denials that he wasn't running against Obama's and Bill's policies as much as he was W's were laughable.

Michael said...

Amanda

Do you think it would be ok for Apple engineers to email the specs for new Apple products to colleagues in another country using their personal AOL or GMAIL accounts?

I am curious about how naive you might be about technology and the dangers of sending sensitive business matters across non-secure systems.

Any business person doing what Clinton did would be fired. Why is the left so casual about this? It's weird.

Rhythm and Balls said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzYgt2Bjh4g

Take your pick.

Or just watch the whole thing.

Michael said...

R&B

I was being facetious. His ass kissing in the first debate was nauseating.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, that's one man's opinion, mccullough.

tim in vermont said...

ng so at least it wasn't left as an offense people should think that they can get away with again. - R&B

Of course Hillary didn't see it that way.

At least one of the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server contained extremely sensitive information identified by an intelligence agency as "HCS-O," which is the code used for reporting on human intelligence sources in ongoing operations, according to two sources not authorized to speak on the record.

mccullough said...

Sanders has done a good job identifying the problems and has forced Hillary to admit that the last 25 years have been pretty dismal. But his proposals are whack and she has done a good job of showing that. She is winning for a reason.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I was being facetious.

Really? That's clever. And to think how un-transparent you've been to me all this time.

Fabi said...

I watched large parts of three Democrat debates -- the first one and two others, after it had narrowed down to Clinton-Sanders. While I disagree with Bernie about 90% of the time on policy, the fact that he's still in the running doesn't surprise me one bit. His appeal is very natural and he's mostly sincere.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Of course Hillary didn't see it that way.

Your point?

Hillary's a natural-born criminal. Penalties and examples don't deter her.

The Plame affair trial was not about teaching some sort of lesson to Hillary.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, whatever. I saw the Florida debate and thought it was a good one. Relevantly speaking, he seems to make Hillary shake in her boots when she watches his responses to her attacks. I'm pretty sure he's scaring her more than any Republicans are, which is one of the only meaningfully relevant yardsticks we have by which to measure what's effective against her and what isn't.

Hagar said...

Newt Gingrich was on O'Reilly tonight and said that no way was he going to give Trump advice on how to run a campaign because what he sees Trump doing is something he just does not understand, but it is working wonderfully, and he would not want to spoil it.
That is coming close to saying he thinks Trump is smarter than he is, which is something, coming from Newtie.

Speaking of embarrassments, how about Obama shaking hands with Raoul Castro? The limp hand thing? The lineup under the mural of Che Guevara?
That last one should give rise to a lot of TV ads for a long time to come.

Fabi said...

One of the latter two I mentioned may have been a Town Hall and not an official debate. I don't exactly remember how they were labeled.

tim in vermont said...

OK, as long as you think people should have gone to prison for Plame, but not for her server malfeasance, I guess that's all well and good then.

mccullough said...

Hillary is beating Sanders and will continue to beat him among the Dem voters. The superdelegag issue is a sideshow. She is winning outright. But the GOP is kicking itself for not having super delegates.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Ok, as long as you think you're judge and jury over servers then I guess that's all well and good then.

Republicans like you are crazy, tim. As Bernie said, a process is in place. He's not the prosecutor and neither am I and neither are you and neither are any Republican. Your only point here is what? To pre-empt the investigation and pretend you have the authority to conclude it and make a citizen's arrest while on stage? Without even letting the investigation proceed to its conclusion. Too funny.

Keep talking about lawlessness and scofflaws by advertising your itchy trigger finger in ability to let a legal investigation proceed and conclude without interference, tim.

tim in vermont said...

Or more to the point, Democrat primary voters didn't really care about Plame, as clearly you do, R&B.

Hagar said...

Sandy the Burgler died a few weeks ago. A reminder of the human wreckage and indeed dead people left behind along Hillary!'s trail to fame and riches.

mccullough said...

What percent of US voters have any idea who Che Guevara is, much less could recognize him by his visage?

Evita was a popular musical but that was a long time ago.

tim in vermont said...

Keep talking about lawlessness and scofflaws by advertising your itchy trigger finger in ability to let a legal investigation proceed and conclude without interference, tim

Clearly the stuff was left unsecured. That is not even open to doubt. What is open for doubt is whether Obama will ignore the law by exercising "prosecutorial discretion" since it is a political appointee who will make the decision.

But I see now how you guys have set yourselves up to ignore this whole thing, while pretending to care about Plame.

Amanda said...

The commentariat here see themselves as Judge Dredds when it comes to Hillary Clinton. She has enough real negatives to keep me and others from voting for her over Sanders, why manufacture stuff? When it comes down to Hillary or Drumpf, it will be Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

mccullough said...

Sandy Berger and Petraeus each got a slap on the wrist, which was ridiculous. I can hardly blame Hillary for thinking she's going to skate since we don't hold the former head of the NSA or the head of the CIA accountable for their criminal misconduct.

Your \Master said...

I'll tell you why ppl are embarrassed with the republican party
...hint hint... it has to do with the GOP establishment attacking Trump
and whining that Ted Cruz is so un-favored by the majority of Americans.
....the people are embarrassed by the GOP antics towards against Trump
....when they should be attacking bernie the socialist, or hillary the criminal.

every time the libs/dnc/GOP attack trump... that will draw more people to him
because they realize the establishment... can't control Trump because he is self-funded ...and won't have to give them special favors.

....which of course, is why they prefer Ted Cruz, (and even marco rubio or jeb as their nominee) ...these people would be controlled by the elite on the GOP side and they can milk taxpayer money/special favors from said candidate for their support.

....so you see why Cruz ain't gonna win now, eh? unless the GOP outright tries to steal the nomination from Trump. ...that would be a very bad thing for the GOP over the long term though... ...and would cost the GOP the presidential election for likely another 8 yrs

think you could stand a hillary for 8 yrs... after 0bama?
ya, whatever you think of Trump.... Hillary is 100,000,000,000,000,000x worse.

tim in vermont said...

Sanders, why manufacture stuff?

Who's manufacturing stuff? If you don't read about it in Salon, or see it on one of the network newscasts, it didn't happen? Is the only stuff that really happens the stuff that is reported there?

tim in vermont said...

How is the Valerie Plame affair different? It's a simple question. Explain it to me.

jdniner said...

Government employees are not allowed to do email business on email accounts that can be hidden. Everything has to be recoverable and deliverable to the NYT in a redacted format. Governments buy hardware and software based on those rules. Leaders are the least exempt.

Fabi said...

I doubt that Hillary will be indicted -- Obama and Lynch lack the courage to prosecute their front runner -- but the intelligence community will get the message out regarding her compromises. I can't see her surviving that onslaught.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Clearly the stuff was left unsecured. That is not even open to doubt. What is open for doubt is whether Obama will ignore the law by exercising "prosecutorial discretion" since it is a political appointee who will make the decision.

I'm almost impressed by your future prediction skills as I am your knowledge of the law.

But I see now how you guys have set yourselves up to ignore this whole thing, while pretending to care about Plame.

Listen, vinegar bag. I get that you're really upset about living in a land where no one is above the law and even a political challenger to Hillary's candidacy can't get up and make the citizen's arrest on her that you're so prepared to do. But stop being a bitch and tell me what I do and do not care about. If Plame had come up as I might have thought it should in the 2004 then I couldn't have indicted Bush or Cheney over that, either. You are out of your gourd. You are effectively castigating Democrats for respecting that prosecutions are a process and that no political show can derail them. You've made your damn point about disqualifying Hillary over it, did you think Bush/Cheney should have been disqualified for Plame? A fucking process played out then, as one is playing out now, and you're too much of a jumpy and juvenile legal and political ignoramus to respect the fact that this is how the law works in America. You don't get to tell people they can't go on with their lives just because there is suspicion that a proceeding will find something that it hasn't concluded yet. Just get over yourselves already.

mccullough said...

Hillary admitted to the public she set up a private email server to conduct government business because it was convenient for her. She told the public that classified information wasn't in any of the emails she received or sent. After word got out that wasn't true, she changed her tune and said none of the emails were "marked confidential," which is irrelevant. Hillary's public statements are enough to sink her. Everyone can make their own conclusions just on her public statements.

Now she is clamming up about whether she wrote and sent any emails that contained top secret classified information. I'll take her word that she didn't mark the emails she wrote and sent as classified. Maybe she has no idea what classified information is. She could be that incompetent.

tim in vermont said...

I can't see her surviving that onslaught.

You've see her voters right here sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "LA LA LA." And these are the ones who actually bother to engage at all with conservatives. She will have no problem at all. It's all just theater with them about getting power, which is all they care about.

Amanda said...

"Who's manufacturing stuff"? Here's an example. Clinton made the Republicans in that 11 hour long hearing look like fools.

http://time.com/4055534/kevin-mccarthy-hillary-clinton-benghazi/

"Republicans have handed Hillary Clinton’s embattled campaign a gift after months of damage over the former Secretary of State’s use of a private email server.

Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader and a leading candidate to replace John Boehner as Speaker, credited the House Benghazi Committee with lowering Clinton’s poll numbers, a gaffe that undermines Republicans’ claim that the committee is a nonpartisan investigation.."

Michael K said...

"You are effectively castigating Democrats for respecting that prosecutions are a process and that no political show can derail them. "

Hilarious. The party that re-elected J Michael Curley from his prison cell is worried about process ?

Just hilarious.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Regrettably, there's no way on Earth Bern can wrest the Donk nomination from Hillary. Not unless he can transform himself into a clean, well-spoken, Black man. There isn't anyone who can keep Hillary out of the White House. The idea that she can govern by diktat from there is extremely doubtful, though. I'm betting that she gets more pushback than any president in American history.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Michael K sounds distracted. But he usually does. It's what helps him to keep avoiding the point.

tim in vermont said...

Hillary's candidacy can't get up and make the citizen's arrest on h

No, I am happy to let the process play out. What astonishes me is that this is the best candidate that the oldest political party in the oldest democracy could come up with. There is no legal right to be a candidate, she has no right to the nomination. Voting against somebody who is more than likely guilty is not taking the law into your own hands, it's voting. Jim Webb? What was that Maryland governor's name? Those guys could have been the nominee if you don't like Sanders. Why does it have to be Hillary? It's just a fuck you to America from the billionaire donors who chose Democratic nominees.

And, BTW, I am sure you would have accepted it if the Bush Justice Department had let the whole Plame thing go away.

mccullough said...

We can all be grateful that even the people who vote for Hillary don't trust her. She will be a weak president, which is what the constitution envisioned. The last 87 years of growing presidential power is enough to concern all of us.

Hagar said...

Sandy Berger was fined $50,000 and lost his law license. That is not a "slap on the wrist" for one of the eminent foreign policy "wise men" pundits. A safe birth as "scholar in residence" at that double-wide in Little Rock would not make up for it for Sandy Burger; he was not cut out to be a crook.

And Petraeus is not running for president, is he, which I think is mostly what that was about.
It should be remembered that Paula Broadwell had the necessary security clearance while she was working with him in Afghanistan, and in fact, what the diaries were about was mainly shared experiences. She was there. So it was a break of protocol, but not exposing national secrets to unknown outsiders and potential enemies like Hillary! did.

tim in vermont said...

Amanda, do you think that proves anything? If you do, explain why in logical terms.

To paraphrase a line from the movie The Big Short: "Just because I have an interest in the outcome doesn't mean I'm not right."

Amanda said...

"What astonishes me is that this is the best candidate that the oldest political party in the oldest democracy could come up with."

Sheesh Tim,

Look who Republicans are running, the only decent one in the bunch is Kasich, and most of you don't like him.

Fabi said...

@tim in vermont: There will be a core of liberals who couldn't care less about the classified documents, but I'm more interested in the middle and undecided voters who may find such compromises too much to forgive. A former DIA Director is already calling for her to drop out of the race, and as the investigation and grand juries wrap-up, it wouldn't surprise me to see more pressure of that nature. We live in interesting times.

tim in vermont said...

BTW, we told our billionaire donors to fuck off, and now they are royally pissed.

Bay Area Guy said...

I wasn't polled, but No, I'm not embarrassed by the Campaign. But I will be very unhappy if Hillary wins. This is a winnable election. The safe bet was Rubio, but the primary voters went for the riskier bet, Trump.

Todd Roberson said...

Neither of the Sanders apologists have addressed the most important point brought up so far by McCullough @7:42: the "economic imbecile" argument. Seems like an impediment for someone who ants to move forward a country that's racked up $20T in debt.

Sometime soon China and Saudi Arabia will no longer be interested in our little green pieces of paper or our bonds paying .125% (.00125) interest. Gonna be tough to pay for all that free college then.

Go!

Rhythm and Balls said...

What astonishes me is that this is the best candidate that the oldest political party in the oldest democracy could come up with.

Ok, well you're not the only one.

And, BTW, I am sure you would have accepted it if the Bush Justice Department had let the whole Plame thing go away.

That's not what's happening. Why are you so obsessed? Write a letter to Obama, for christ's sake. Write a letter to your RNC rep, to a lawyer, to the Justice Department, to the NH State Bar. Anyone. Does it ever occur to you that your fixation makes it less easy to take? People have a way of taking things more seriously when they know they're not coming from someone who fixates and ruminates and turns every other issue into that thing or who has a grudge.

I really am very sorry that I can't help you on your immediate and urgent need to arrest Hillary, tim. But I've provided a list of people who might care about it as much as you do, and have the authority/expertise to do something more. But I'm sure their answer won't be any more satisfying to you than mine has been. Oh, if only we could focus on the things that we can actually do something about. What a world it would be.

Amanda said...

Well Tim,
Those billionaire donors would be apoplectic if Sanders became President.

tim in vermont said...

We are not running a likely criminal who's subordinate has been given immunity to testify after taking the fifth and who doesn't give a shit about national security when weighed against her political needs.

Michael K said...

"If you do, explain why in logical terms. "

Please ! Don't expect a pig to explain why it likes muck. And eats slops.

tim in vermont said...

really am very sorry that I can't help you on your immediate and urgent need to arrest Hillary, tim.

There you go with your straw man again. Straw men make lousy crutches, but you seem to depend on yours.

Amanda said...

"Neither of the Sanders apologists have addressed the most important point brought up so far by McCullough @7:42: the "economic imbecile" argument. Seems like an impediment for someone who ants to move forward a country that's racked up $20T in debt.

Sometime soon China and Saudi Arabia will no longer be interested in our little green pieces of paper or our bonds paying .125% (.00125) interest. Gonna be tough to pay for all that free college then."

Trump's trade wars would be really brilliant, huh?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0317/The-Economist-says-Trump-presidency-would-threaten-global-economy

"The Economist says Trump presidency would threaten global economy

A leading global forecasting service has just ranked a Donald Trump presidency at No. 6 on a list of major threats to the global economy, somewhere between the utter collapse of the Chinese market and a new cold war between Russia and the West."

Amanda said...

Michael K,
Do you have some brain disorder? You seem to complain about others speaking dismissively and in a sneering manner. Man, listen to yourself, have you absolutely no self awareness? Maybe you feel the need to bash one of your grown liberal children again?

tim in vermont said...

Well, this is why Democrats don't care about the email servers. They don't care because it's inconvenient to their lust for power to care, and anybody who does care, for example, about the thousands of drowned refugees fleeing Libya and Syria? (The Farce that Launched a Thousand Ships) Or that she was careless with information entrusted to her in the highest confidence by the POTUS with Senate Confirmation, or that she charged Goldman Sachs a quarter million dollars to sweet talk them and promise them she was one of the boys and don't worry. That she made 130 million dollars that way, Nope, it's "LA LA LA LA LA"

Rhythm and Balls said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rhythm and Balls said...

Tim, it's hard to avoid attributing straw men to you when you ran out of legitimate points to make a long time ago.

All we're hearing now is, "Hillary's a criminal!" Yes, we've heard that for 25 years.

Grow up, get an indictment, commence a trial. But in the meantime, you're just going to have to get over the fact that folks have become tone-deaf to it. Especially when this latest one doesn't have the bite and punch that accusing her of murdering Vince Foster did.

It really sucks how people listen to you less and less when you belong to a party that has made a cottage industry out of unsuccessfully levying some of the most damnable (in their own minds) charges one could make in politics.

I'm sure you'll fail to grasp this point indefinitely.

Enjoy.

Todd Roberson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck said...

mccullough said...
Has Trump said anything as bad as Romney's 47% comment or Obama's bitter clingers comment? Both of those were said at private fundraisers but leaked out to the public. Both of those comments were appalling.


Oh, mccullough. Here are 31 of my favorites. 31 flavors, of ridiculously awful, outrageous, untrue and/or fraudulent things said by Trump. All 31 won't fit into a single comment. So here's 1) through 10) to start:


1) “(John McCain is) not a war hero…. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren’t captured.”

2) "I get called by a guy that can't buy a pair of pants, I get called names?" – Trump’s comment about paralyzed commentator Charles Krauthammer

3) “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” after talking about a poll showing Ben Carson was beating him in Iowa

4) "I'm not sure I have ever asked God's forgiveness. I don't bring God into that picture....When I go to church and when I drink my little wine and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of forgiveness. I do that as often as I can because I feel cleansed."

5) "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering." – Trump overestimates the number of people cheering after 911 by thousands and stuck with it even though he knew what he said wasn’t true


6) "(Obama) doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that."

7) “An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud.”

8) “I am embracing the issue, and I’m proud of the issue. I think somebody has to embrace it because, frankly, the people that are – and I don’t like the name ‘birther,’ because I think it’s very unfair and I think it’s very derogatory to a lot of very good people that happen to think that there’s a possibility that this man was not born in this country, and by the way, if that were true, you know it’s very interesting, if that were true, it’d be the greatest scam in the history of this country.”

9)) "You know, when (Ben Carson) says he went after his mother and wanted to hit her in the head with a hammer. That bothers me. I mean, that's pretty bad. I'm not saying anything other than pathological is a very serious disease. And he said he's pathological, somebody said he has pathological disease. It's in the book that he's got a pathological temper. That's a big problem because you don't cure that. You don't cure these people. You don't cure a child molester. There's no cure for it. Pathological, there's no cure for that."

10) “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, (Carly Fiorina’s) a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"

Chuck said...

31 Flavors of Trump Quotes, 11) through 21):


11) “You know, it really doesn’t matter what they write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

12) "You could see there was blood coming out of (Megyn Kelly's) eyes, blood coming out of her whatever."

13) “Beautiful, famous, successful, married – I’ve had them all, secretly, the world’s biggest names, but unlike Geraldo I don’t talk about it.” – From Trump’s “Think Big and Kick Ass”

14) “I don’t think Ivanka would do that [pose for Playboy], although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.”

15) "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families."

16) “We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet. We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people who really understand what’s happening and maybe, in some ways, closing that Internet up in some ways."

17) "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than America. … We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing." (2000)

18) “There’s many different ways (to fix health care), by the way. Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, ‘No, no, the lower 25 percent that can’t afford private.’ But...I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now....the government’s gonna pay for it.” – Trump still supporting single payer, government-run healthcare in 2015

19) “I identify more as a Democrat.” – (2004)

20) "I think Bush is probably the worst President in the history of the United States." (2007)

21) “Bush was a disaster for the country as well as for the Republican Party. Then he asked me about Barack Obama. I told him that Barack will need to be a great president because we’re in serious trouble as a country. It hasn’t been this way since 1929. So he doesn’t have much choice—he will simply have to be great, which he has a very good chance of being. What he has done is amazing. The fact that he accomplished what he has—in one year and against great odds—is truly phenomenal.” 2009

Chuck said...

31 Flavors of Trump Quotes, Numbers 22) through 31)

22) "(Michael Bloomberg is) a friend of mine. He's been an excellent mayor of New York City. He's a great guy and he means very well." (2013)

23) “I think pretty strongly that (Bill de Blasio will) end up being a good mayor, maybe a very good mayor and I don’t think he’s going to want to kill the golden goose. ...I think he’s a smart guy that knows what’s going on really big league and I think he is not going to want to destroy New York. I think he is going to want to make New York great.” (2013)

24) "(Hillary Clinton is) very talented, very smart. She's a friend of mine, so I'm a little prejudiced." (2007)

25) "I know Hillary and I think she’d make a great president or vice-president." – 2008

26) "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. I think sometimes a black may think they don't have an advantage or this and that... I've said on one occasion, even about myself, if I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage.) 1989

27) "Laziness is a trait in blacks." 1991

28) "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day." 1991

29) "My twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth."

30) "I think we should go much, much, much further than waterboarding... I read a story; should I tell you?... This is something you can read in history books... General Pershing... He caught 50 terrorists who did tremendous damage…and he took the 50 terrorists and he took 50 men and dipped 50 bullets in pig's blood. You heard about that? He took 50 bullets and dipped them in pig's blood [which is considered haram]. And he has his men load up their rifles and he lined up the 50 people and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person, he said, you go back to your people and you tell them what happened. And for 25 years there wasn't a problem." 2016

31) Three combined quotes. First, (Trump commenting to Meredith Viera that he "has people" in Hawaii, researching the Obama birth certificate); "Absolutely. And they cannot believe what they're finding." (Trump didn't say what they found. Trump did say that Obama's birth announcement appearing contemporaneously in two Honolulu was something that people did at the time to procure citizenship.) "Second; "I mean, I have my own theory on Obama. Someday I'll write a book. I'll do another book. It'll do very successfully." Third; "Just remember, the birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton in 2008. She was all in!"

mccullough said...

Chuck,

Thanks for the 31 quotes. Everyone can make up their own mind.

Amanda said...

Todd,
"Obscure" ? The Economist? And you say you're "Finance Professor"? I'm not impressed.

Freeman Hunt said...

What's the last time anyone of any political stripe felt really proud over a political thing? Bush at Ground Zero maybe? That was almost 15 years ago.

mccullough said...

I think Obama's remarks on the killing of a Bin Laden were very good. Interesting that W at ground zero and Obama on Bin Laden are the two that stick out most in my mind of positive presidential moments in recent history. Reagan's remarks on the 40th anniversary of D-Day also stick out.

Chuck said...

mccullough:

You asked. Literally, you asked for it. And now you've got it. The frustrating thing with Trump lies and Trump quotes is that there's always more. There's something new, or something that perhaps was forgotten, or things that are constantly unearthed. No normal person could produce such a string of outrages. You simply can't think of Trump as any sort of a normal person.

I've made up my mind. On the biggest pile of stinking, fetid quoted evidence I could ever imagine.

Gahrie said...

When it comes down to Hillary or Drumpf, it will be Hillary as the lesser of two evils.

There is not a a person, a being, in all of existence, including Satan, that could be compared to Hillary, that a fair person wouldn't say: "Yeah, she's even eviler than him".

Hillary is the 68 year old physical incarnation of evil and corruption stalking the Earth....

Gahrie said...

chuck:

Dude we get it. trump evil, yadda yadda yadda


Unfortunately you still don't.

Gahrie said...

What's the last time anyone of any political stripe felt really proud over a political thing?

I was proud that the Tea Party was the most peaceful protest in American history, and that the Tea Party members were so responsible that they left their protests and rallies with the area cleaner than when they got there.

Amanda said...

Gahrie, dude, I get it. Hillary scares the pants off of you, while you yawn at that list of Trump quotes. Cognitive dissonance in play here I see.

chickelit said...

Those quotes are just devastating, Chuck. You've turned me into a Jeb! supporter!

mccullough said...

This will be the first election that disdain of the other party's candidate is the major motivating factor of the voters. Majority of GOP don't like Trump and majority of Dems don't like Hillary. But each side really hates the other party's candidate.

Michael K said...

"I've made up my mind. On the biggest pile of stinking, fetid quoted evidence I could ever imagine."

You'll just love Hillary.

The graft is better,

Michael K said...

"
Michael K,
Do you have some brain disorder?"

Nope. Who are you and who pays you ?

traditionalguy said...

The strongest words ever spoken came out of Trump's mouth in his AIPAC speech tonight. You need to see it uncut and unspun by Media hacks.

Words like those do eternal harm to the Kingdom of Satan.

But then we are all embarrassed by strength. The NYT tells us so.

chickelit said...

Have you not heard of that mad man who often lit pixels in the early morning hours, ran to the marketplace of ideas, and cried incessantly: 'I seek GOP! I seek GOP!' -- As many of those who did not believe in GOP were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter and snark. 'Has it got lost?' asked one. 'Did it lose his way like a child?' asked another. 'Or is it hiding? Is it afraid of us? Has is gone on another junket? immigrated?' -- Thus they snarked and chortled.

The mad man jumped into their midst and flayed them with 31 quotes. 'Whither is GOP?' he cried; 'I will tell you. You have killed it -- you and not I.'

Saint Croix said...

What's striking to me is how the media has demonized Republicans for decades, My entire political life, the discussion has been, "Shut up, you racist sexist monster." And now it's finally true!

In 2008 the Democrats put forth an affirmative action candidate who was a very talented campaigner. But he was also very young and had not accomplished anything. And we were told, in a massive propaganda effort, that we had to vote for him. And many Americans voted for him, because of a sincere desire to be not-racist.

Barack Obama almost never talks about race. But he has a tremendous amount of racial animosity. He is, almost by definition, an affirmative action baby. Obama is an expert at manipulating people, and his race is one of the ways he manipulates people. He does so by never talking about his race, and simply receiving accolades for his skin color.

Obama is a racialist, if not a racist. To give just one example, he thinks Garland Merrick is a "moderate" nominee. He feels like he is reaching across the aisle, as best he can. "Look, I nominated one of you people!" That's how Obama thinks. Garland Merrick is his token white male, nominated for his white maleness. We even have racist people in the media tell us that Garland Merrick is "tough on crime." Look, there will be no more black riots! I'm sorry I caused all these black riots! I'm nominating one of you people, and he's tough on crime!

I do not give a rat's ass about the pigmentation of Garland Merrick. And if the Republicans need a reason to keep that man from office, you might start by asking him, and anybody in the media, if they know what a person is, and how they feel about stabbing a baby in the neck.

Which brings us to Marco Rubio. In 2016 the Republicans put forth an affirmative action candidate who was a very talented campaigner. But he was also very young and had not accomplished anything. And we were told, in a massive propaganda effort, that we had to vote for him.

And the Republican base called bullshit on this. They wanted an anti-Obama. But of course Marco Rubio is an anti-Obama. One merely has to reflect on Barack Obama's vacation in Cuba to see fundamental and important differences in Marco Rubio and Barack Obama. Substantively, Marco Rubio is the polar opposite of Barack Obama.

It's only superficially, or symbolically, that the two men are similar. Marco Rubio is a hopeful, aspirational candidate. And right now Republicans are recoiling against anything that stinks of hope or aspiration. Donald Trump is capable of saying the Cuban people are rapists and monsters and they need to be kept on their little island. He's also capable of saying that the Castros are great leaders, authorities, and he can deal with them. In this bizarre election, the Republican party is nominating Barack Obama's id, a racialist authoritarian. Except he's ruder and cruder and has white skin.

cubanbob said...

R & B I give you credit for you spirited defense of Hillary Clinton. However there is more than enough evidence in the public domain for Congress to impeach and remove her for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democrats are going to need an impeachment proof Congress if she manages get elected president. If she gets indicted the spaghetti hits the fan and it won't end with her. If the Obama DoJ doesn't indict it smells of corruption and there will be the inevitable leaks. As for the impeachment for all the talk after the election and inauguration for Hillary's win and the public's vote just remember every member of Congress that votes for impeachment and removal also won their election.

Chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
khesanh0802 said...

Chuck's Trump quotes are interesting. I agree with the majority of them. However I think that no one should be held responsible for a comment he made 25 years ago.

buwaya puti said...

The Economist was pretty good in its day.
The problems with its world view became apparent later, about the time I noticed the sort of want ads it carried, for the most part looking for academics to work in consultancies for international agencies. It took a while to put 2+2 together.
For that matter, so was Fortune, in Seligmans day.
Much less so later.

Chuck said...

traditionalguy said...
The strongest words ever spoken came out of Trump's mouth in his AIPAC speech tonight. You need to see it uncut and unspun by Media hacks.


I watched it. Live, uncut and unspun by Media hacks.

The crowd laughed at Trump.

The crowd audibly laughed at Trump, when Trump claimed that no one had studied the Iran nuclear deal, more than he had. No doubt, the AIPAC audience was filled with Jewish American and Israeli scholars who all knew full well that they -- not Trump -- were true experts on the deal, and that there isn't a chance in the world that Trump actually knew much about the deal, much less being able to credibly claim that he had studied it more than they had.

Here is video, stored on YouTube. It is imaginatively entitled, "AIPAC crowd laughs at Donald Trump when he says he's studied the Iran nuclear deal more than anyone."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q26-LAxOdzg

Look at Trump's goofy expression when he realizes that hundreds of people are laughing at him out loud.

Rhythm and Balls said...

R & B I give you credit for you spirited defense of Hillary Clinton.

It's a defense of basic legal procedure, you fool.

Actually, it's not even a defense. It's a goddamn explanation. Didn't any of you take civics? Are we living on a desert island?

However there is more than enough evidence in the public domain for Congress to impeach and remove her for high crimes and misdemeanors.

She's not in any office from which she could even be "removed".

What the hell is wrong with you, people? Is it any wonder that Republicans have left both the country and their party in shambles? They take pride in not only not knowing how government works, but in spreading that ignorance to their minions. It's a party that at every step proudly advertises how little it knows about what it's even supposed to be doing.

Terry said...

Saint Croix wrote . . .
"Barack Obama almost never talks about race. But he has a tremendous amount of racial animosity. He is, almost by definition, an affirmative action baby."
Obama has admitted in writing that he benefited from affirmative action as a college student:
I’d also like to add one personal note, in response to the letter from Mr. Jim Chen which was published in the October 26 issue of the RECORD, and which articulated broad objections to the Review’s general affirmative action policy. I respect Mr. Chen’s personal concern over the possible stigmatizing effects of affirmative action, and do not question the depth or sincerity of his feelings. I must say, however, that as someone who has undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action programs during my academic career, and as someone who may have benefited from the Law Review’s affirmative action policy when I was selected to join the Review last year, I have not personally felt stigmatized either within the broader law school community or as a staff member of the Review.

http://hlrecord.org/2008/10/record-retrospective-obama-on-affirmative-action/

Chuck said...

Speaking of AIPAC, I saw a small part of Hillary Clinton's speech, and listened to most of it on audio.

I'm a Republican, with little that is even charitable to say about Mrs. Clinton. And I have nothing good to say about Obama's handling of American-Israeli relations. What good is there, for anyone to say about that?

But Mrs. Clinton got rave reviews from a great many of her most devout critics for her speech at AIPAC; unlike Trump, no one laughed at her. Brendan Bordelon of the National Review reports:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433043/aipac-hillary-clinton-blasts-donald-trump-delights-crowd

chickelit said...

Look at Trump's goofy expression when he realizes that hundreds of people are laughing at him out loud.

That clip is open to interpretation. Notice that they laugh even harder when he reiterates that it's a bad dead -- something which they had applauded only moments earlier. Perhaps they were laughing with Mr. Trump rather than at Mr. Trump.

Anyways, the jokes on you: at least one of the Power Line guys liked Trump's speech and they are hard core #nevertrumpers like yourself.

Amanda said...

"The crowd laughed at Trump."

And Trump will make the US the laughingstock of the world.

"What the hell is wrong with you, people? Is it any wonder that Republicans have left both the country and their party in shambles?"

Nope.

mccullough said...

The greatest advantage the US has is that our major allies and major adversaries are even worse off than we are.

Terry said...

"And Trump will make the US the laughingstock of the world."
I can't think of a single country that has an opinion that I should care about as an American citizen. They are mostly poorly run dictatorships or crapholes that can't keep the frikkin' lights on. The European countries were all, with the exception of Britain, in thrall to fascism or Stalinism within living memory.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ Chuck

You are greatly off base re Trump at AIPAC. I watched the speech - and it seemed to me well-received and with many standing ovations.

Amanda said...

"I can't think of a single country that has an opinion that I should care about as an American citizen."

You're serious, aren't you? Yep, it's no wonder the conservative movement is in disarray.

StephenFearby said...

Ann Althouse wrote:

'And 60 percent of Republican primary voters said the campaign had made them feel mostly embarrassed about their party, while only 13 percent of Democratic primary voters expressed that opinion. I went into the PDF of the poll to get the "embarrassment" question. It's: "So far, do you think the Republican presidential campaign has made you feel MOSTLY proud of the Republican Party or MOSTLY embarrassed by the Republican Party?"'

This was a NY Times / CBS commissioned poll. One assumes an employee of at least one of sponsors initiated the question, which was approved by both sponsors as OK.

Of course it wasn't the "Republican Party" that embarrassed 60% of the responders. 60+ percent of Republican primary voters have chosen a candidate other than Donald Trump for many good reasons.

If Trump isn't the nominee, will this poll be updated? I don't think so.

Consider one of the two culprit sources of the question:

Public Editor's Journal
Were Changes to Sanders Article ‘Stealth Editing’?
By MARGARET SULLIVAN MARCH 17, 2016 8:00 AM

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/17/new-york-times-bernie-sanders-coverage-public-editor/?comments&_r=0#permid=17932209

One of the (currently) 943 comments, mirroring what buwaya said above ("...Its owned and operated for the benefit of a political faction. Treat it like Pravda. The old Kremlinologists should come out of retirement, they have a new subject.")

-----
'Just another example of a New York Times news story on political matters needing to be read like a Pravda article during the time of the USSR.

After subtracting the spin, it might be possible sometimes to get reliable information.

A.M. Rosenthal, managing editor of the Times 1970-77 and executive editor 1977-1988, chose to have the epitaph "He kept the paper straight" inscribed on his grave marker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._M._Rosenthal

Sadly, it hasn't been that way for a long time.'
-----

In 2012, before she was canned, former Executive Editor Jill Abramson presumed to have the same thought:

"...And Abramson's legacy? What does she hope people will think about her reign at the Times after it comes to and end?

'"I want people to say that I protected and expanded the depth and breadth of our news report," she said, "and some version of what [former Times executive editor] Abe Rosenthal said he wanted on his tombstone was that he kept the paper straight. It's not just the paper now, but I want them to think I kept the place straight."'

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/11/6694110/jill-abramsons-dream-epitaph-she-kept-new-york-times-straight

Only from a Orwellian perspective.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Trump a laughingstock? Nahhhh. He wanted to run for president with Oprah Winfrey as his vice president. Very serious guy.

chickelit said...

@buwaya puti: When I lived abroad in the 90s (CH and DE), I read The Economist every week -- it was my main link to the English-speaking print world then. Moving back to the States, I become a subscriber for several years. I noticed what you noticed around the same time. Glenn Reynolds noticed too.

I blame John Micklethwait, who became editor in 2006. He was succeeded in 2014 by Zanny Minton Beddoes. I haven't picked it up since the summer of last year at an airport. Thumbing through it, I didn't notice any difference from Micklethwait's heavy hand.

buwaya puti said...

"Laughing at the US" is an ancient passtime.
This has been going on since 1776, if not earlier.
They laughed at you then, and ever since, nonstop.
Even when you were busy saving some and flattening others.
Poor and hopeless people laugh at you, because what else are they going to do? It's like people who can't come up with the rent who laugh at Trump, for the same reasons.

Amanda said...

Puti,
The people who "can't come up with the rent" are the ones more likely to be taking Trump very seriously.

chickelit said...

Amanda wrote: The people who "can't come up with the rent" are the ones more likely to be taking Trump very seriously.

You mean people who have a woody for Guthrie?

chickelit said...

Rhythm and Balls said...Trump a laughingstock? Nahhhh. He wanted to run for president with Oprah Winfrey as his vice president.

Please don't spread that around. It's likely to damage Hillary's target demographic.

buwaya puti said...

Just because they laugh at you doesn't mean they don't take you seriously. Or that they oppose you. Consider WHY they are laughing. People are perverse, as are their reactions.

Amanda said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Amanda said...

Chickelit brings in the Woodie Guthrie/Trump connection, interesting story.

link

Will Kaufman, a professor of American literature and culture at the University of Central Lancashire, says he has discovered unpublished lyrics by Woody Guthrie, in which the folk singer denounced Fred Trump, Donald's father. The elder Trump happened to be Guthrie's landlord in the early 1950s.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Chuck links to The National Review to put down Trump. Garage links to DailyKos to put down Bush. Stalin links to Pravda to put down Trotsky. Is there anything more laughably intellectually bereft than argument by Internet proxy?

Amanda said...

That should be Woody, not "Woodie", for the spelling Nazis.

chickelit said...

@Amanda: Your spelling was just a Freudian slip on your part. Mine was word play. :)

Amanda said...

Thanks for the chuckle Chickelit.

Crazy Jane said...

Hillary lost me at the cattle futures, a straight-up $100,000 bribe, and nothing since has caused me to change my mind. The corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the destruction of Libya, now an IS HQ, are just icing on the cake.

That said, we are nearing 16 years of presidents who don't give a damn about the rancid metastasis of federal bureaucracy or its failure to perform in NOLA or after Hurricane Sandy or to fix shitty inner-city schools or to enforce trade rules against dumping or to answer for the poisoning of a pristine river in Colorado. They are the bosses of us all, and they don't do squat. As a member of the 1-2%, depending on the year, I'm tired of being castigated for all these failures, and extremely skeptical of the lame-sounding fixes that are only occasionally even offered up by the candidates or party apparatchiks whom we are expected to trust as our betters. To hell with them all.

I get why the Trump people and the Bernie people want serious change. I don't for the life of me know why anyone would vote for Cruz or Clinton. If I vote in November, it most likely will be for a third-party, none-of-the-above candidate.

My point of view is not particularly radical, but it effectively has been shut out of the process. I resent it.


Achilles said...

Some are discussing the email issue. What Clinton did with the server was a known no no. I had a TS/SCI clearance while I the army. If I had done even 1 time what she did thousands of times I would have been fired and kicked out of the unit. If I did what she did I would be in jail for life. The investigation would have taken a month at most and I would be in jail for life whether I cut a deal or not.

The only reason Clinton is not in jail for the rest of her life right now is she is a rich and powerful political figure. Period. Ask anyone in the Intel community and if they can be honest they will tell you that.

cubanbob said...

Rhythm and Balls said...
R & B I give you credit for you spirited defense of Hillary Clinton.

It's a defense of basic legal procedure, you fool.

Actually, it's not even a defense. It's a goddamn explanation. Didn't any of you take civics? Are we living on a desert island?

However there is more than enough evidence in the public domain for Congress to impeach and remove her for high crimes and misdemeanors.

She's not in any office from which she could even be "removed".

What the hell is wrong with you, people? Is it any wonder that Republicans have left both the country and their party in shambles? They take pride in not only not knowing how government works, but in spreading that ignorance to their minions. It's a party that at every step proudly advertises how little it knows about what it's even supposed to be doing.

3/21/16, 10:33 PM

The problem is what is wrong with you? When have you ever heard of a front runner candidate of one of the two major parties being the subject of a criminal investigation? I'm sure you would extend such consideration to a Republican front runner if the tables were reversed. As for impeachment she is dead on arrival as soon if she takes the oath of office. She would be one of the shortest serving presidents if by some horrible fluke she were to be elected. In the meantime speaking of political parties that are in shambles it isn't the Republican Party that is fielding a communist and a felonious traitor for president.

Qwinn said...

People, stop letting Amanda and R&B play you. They are desperate for Trump to win. He's the only human being alive with higher negative ratings than their two candidates. And they know that if they attack Trump, that'll just make you more likely to vote for him. That's the same reason the Left is protesting his speeches in the ways most guaranteed to piss people off (blocking traffic, etc.) and vote for Trump in retaliation. I'd actually be surprised if Trump wasn't in on it.

Vote Cruz. He's infinitely more likely to take the Establishment down. Trump will just buy it, or more likely IMO, throw it so his buddy Hillary can win.

rhhardin said...

The PC industry says you should be embarrassed by anybody mocking PC.

Largo said...

Michael said...
Amanda

Do you think it would be ok for Apple engineers to email the specs for new Apple products to colleagues in another country using their personal AOL or GMAIL accounts?


Michael, that strikes me a a very interesting comparison.

tim in vermont said...

Looks like ISIS just shook the exasketch.

tim in vermont said...

In other words, all of these numbers are now obsolete.

tim in vermont said...

Nobody will point out that this is blowback from Hillary's ham handed adventurism. Not even Bernie will get that specific.

tim in vermont said...

Without much fanfare, Obama has dramatically reversed his Iraq policy — sending thousands of troops back in the country after he declared the war over, engaging in ground combat despite initially promising that his strategy “will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.” Well, they’re on foreign soil, and they’re fighting.

And Obama is back in Iraq! I know it would have been better to not go into Iraq in the first place. But Obama got elected to manage the situation as it stood on inauguration day, to "play the ball where it lies," so to speak, and where the ball lay was in the sand trap, in Iraq. Obama and Hillary as SoS thought they could just take a mulligan and pretend that Iraq never happened.

The ME policy of which Hillary was a primary architect is a complete clusterfuck. Maybe in some alternate world where Iraq never happened, we can afford a fuckup like her as POTUS, but here in the real world, we need a president who can deal with the fact that Iraq did happen, that Hillary worked to destabilize Syria and Libya. Those are the new realities.

Brando said...

The e-mail thing is actually quite a big deal, and if Bernie Sanders doesn't get that then he's clueless. Even if he didn't think it was a big deal, it is his duty to raise the issue if for no other reason than to let Hillary put it to rest. Here's a simple question--why did she go to such lengths to route her e-mails outside the Dept of State system? To date she has not provided anything believable. No, the "I needed only one mobile phone" and "other Secretaries of State did this too" were not true, and not actually reasons either.

So of course that leaves us with the conclusion that she had some unsavory reason for it--perhaps doing private business through her public position, and keeping communications hidden from both the government and the public. All she can hope now is that enough people lose interest, and lo and behold this focus on Trump (who can't seem to hold a big rally without someone getting beaten up) is a godsend to her.

Typically a politician in Hillary's position and with her (lack of) skills would be toast. But a compliant DNC, chivalrous primary opponent, and clown show of an opposition party is all working splendidly to help the Clintons out of one more jam.

n.n said...

tim in vermont:

The Iraqi ceasefire was unsustainable. Hussein was not Gaddafi. He made no pretense of repentance or reform. Clinton could have addressed the issue. Instead, he punted the responsibility to Bush. Then Obama prematurely left the field, abandoning the people without a dictatorship or an honest broker to resolve centuries of class diversity.

Rhythm and Balls said...

That said, we are nearing 16 years of presidents who don't give a damn about the rancid metastasis of federal bureaucracy or its failure to perform in NOLA or after Hurricane Sandy or to fix shitty inner-city schools or to enforce trade rules against dumping or to answer for the poisoning of a pristine river in Colorado. They are the bosses of us all, and they don't do squat.

Surely more graft could fix this problem.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The problem is what is wrong with you? When have you ever heard of a front runner candidate of one of the two major parties being the subject of a criminal investigation?

The problem is have you ever heard how easy it is to tie up the political process with investigations? Your problem is you love to throw stones, no matter how wide they miss, how far off target they are. And then scream, "But a stone was cast!" You guys are addicted to changing democratic decisions with hearings. You care more about the appearance of things than about what the underlying reality ever reveals. So no, don't wait for it to conclude. RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Time to stop the Republican addiction to subverting democracy with endless kangaroo courts.

I'm sure you would extend such consideration to a Republican front runner if the tables were reversed.

Not really.

Republicans are never even serious about anything anyway, so who cares?

Trump filed bankruptcy four times. Still, let him run.

It's not my job to be a pretend judge for the people to follow - hoping to stop them from voting for bad, evil, lawless scoundrels. That's the RNC's job, remember?

As for impeachment she is dead on arrival as soon if she takes the oath of office.

OH f off, Carnac the Magnificent. If there were a hole in your head for every wrong prediction it would end up looking like a sieve.

She would be one of the shortest serving presidents if by some horrible fluke she were to be elected. In the meantime speaking of political parties that are in shambles it isn't the Republican Party that is fielding a communist and a felonious traitor for president.

The Republican party is done. That's objective reality. All the names and hatred of the will of the people and tu quoques in the world don't change that.