May 4, 2016

And now we can stop asking why he's still in.

Kasich is out.

169 comments:

The Cracker Emcee said...

That was fast. His reality check must have cleared.

Jonathan Silber said...

Little-known fact about Kasich: he's the son of a mailman.

Amexpat said...

Johnny we hardly knew ye.

traditionalguy said...

Good. Kasich running has always been a fary tale that had no purpose, except maybe to get Kasich some time off from being a Governor and a husband in Ohio.He need a break.

Tank said...

Now that there is no Rep race, will the media cover Clinton/Sanders 24/7 like a real race?

tim maguire said...

I thought he should have given it one more primary, just to see how many Cruz voters he picks up. But, oh well.

I Callahan said...

I thought he should have given it one more primary, just to see how many Cruz voters he picks up. But, oh well.

I think he was consulted by the party that it'd be better if he just suspended the campaign. The GOP has a lot of fences to mend between here and August, and it'd be better if there were no more people running.

David Begley said...

Only about three months too late.

Franklin said...

What a jerk.

Cruz has a weird-looking face, but he was unapologetically conservative - to the point that it severely damaged his relationships with colleagues. I admire that about him.

Kasich is just an asshole that wanted to play spoiler. And he's only "The Good Republican" in the primary. Look what the media did to Mitt Romney - turned him into a bully that cut gay kids' hair and gave his employees cancer. Kasich would be come the gravest threat to America since Nazi-ism (which by the way he seems to be rather fond of, we'd be reminded nightly on NBC, CBS, and ABC).

Hope the GOP drops Kasich like a bag of dirt for enabling Trump, and then watch him switch parties like those scumbags Snarlin Arlin or Turncoat Crist.

Simon said...

He's accomplished his mission. Why would he stay in? He's acted like a bought and paid for tool of Trump for at least a month. So now the only question is, do I affirmatively vote for Hillary Clinton, or write in someone else? Because the optimal result for conservatives and libertarians is that Trump loses fifty states and every Republican who doesn't explicitly reject him loses their job too. We either throw out these invaders or we burn the party to the ground lest it fall into their hands.

Simon said...

Tank said...
"Now that there is no Rep race, will the media cover Clinton/Sanders 24/7 like a real race?"

There is no Clinton/Sanders race. Hillary Clinton won the Presidency yesterday.

So thanks for that, Trumpkins. And when I say "thanks"...

eric said...

Except she hasn't won, has she?

As for Kasich, I felt sorta bad for him. Yesterday he said he wasn't quitting. Then shortly afterward, Cruz quit. I think he was like, "Ooops, I should have quit first. Didn't see that coming!"

I Callahan said...

Simon - still butthurt, I see.

We'll see if Clinton wins or not - it's not nearly as set in stone as you think it is. But if she does, your kind will be the most culpable.

Simon said...

eric said...
"Except she hasn't won, has she?"

Yes, she has. There is no conceivable scenario in which Trump comes close. There's nothing that he can do to change that. Half the GOP—the part that doesn't want to mutiny and join the hostile boarding party—will refuse to support Trump, and if he's lucky he'll only lose forty states. That's a shame, because it ought to be fifty.

We've lost. The only question left is whether we want to tar ourselves by association with this con-man, this vile piece of shit who is hostile to everything we always said we believed, and the answer to that is no, not a fucking chance, no way, not ever, under no circumstances.

Donald Trump is not a Republican, and if he is, I'm not.

Simon said...

I Callahan said...
"We'll see if Clinton wins or not - it's not nearly as set in stone as you think it is. But if she does, your kind will be the most culpable."

No, the people who nominated a LIBERAL and then expected CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERTARIANS to rally around him are the ones to blame for getting her elected. Boarders and mutineers—there is a reckoning coming, and there'll be no mercy. If you voted for Trump, don't even expect a tip out of me.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

It would be highly entertaining if Trump lost one of the last primaries now that he has no opponents.

eric said...

Simon,

You're upset and shouting and cursing at us. You're not thinking rationally. At this point, I can understand your anger and dismay. It sucks to lose and your guy lost.

But the fact that you're trying to mileage out of a Hillary win before she has even won speaks volumes. If you're so confident she will win, why insist upon it now, instead of waiting until it actually happens? Doing it now means you might look like a fool later.

Oh, it's because you're upset and want us to be upset too. Because Trump.

Static Ping said...

Simon, for the record, the Republican Party may not be the same Republican Party by the next cycle. Also, possibly the Democratic Party may not be the same Democratic Party either, though if Hillary wins they may try to hold it together for a little while longer. The coalitions are fractured, which is why the Republican leaders have seemingly wanted to screw over their base at every convenient moment. Trump isn't the cause, he is the effect.

As to the election scenario, if you asked me last year I would agree with your assessment. Last year I would also say that Trump would not make a serious run for the nomination and would probably be out by New Hampshire, assuming he didn't drop out before the primaries began. I have no frame of reference for this election. I could believe Trump could lose 40 states, win 40 states, or anywhere in between. Interesting times.

Paddy O said...

"your kind will be the most culpable..."

I get Trump supporters. I get those who don't support Trump. What I don't get is why Trump supporters, people whose goal was to blow up the party, blame others when the party is blown up. If you blow up a party, it's not the fault of the people who don't want to attend if the party isn't successful.

It's like rioters who tear up the city and wonder why businesses don't want to invest in locations in their neighborhoods.

Simon said...

eric said...
"You're not thinking rationally."

Not true. The ones thinking irrationally are the people who, against ALL known and conceivable evidence, think that a conservative/libertarian party should nominate a liberal con-man, that conservatives would stand behind him, or that he could possibly win in the fall. He's dogmeat. Clinton is going to cut him to pieces, and our imperative is to make sure that when the boat he's tried to lash to ours sinks, it doesn't take us with him. You do that by cutting the knots and repelling the boarders, not starting a mutiny to join the boarders.

"At this point, I can understand your anger and dismay."

Yes, the end of the Republic is a thing worth getting angry about. Good point.

"But the fact that you're trying to mileage out of a Hillary win before she has even won speaks volumes. If you're so confident she will win, why insist upon it now, instead of waiting until it actually happens? Doing it now means you might look like a fool later."

Because we have to now make choices about what we do. If there was actually a serious chance that Trump could win, we might actually have to face the questions that some collaborators want it to be: We might have to ask, "are you going to vote for abortion on demand, or roll the dice with Trump? Are you going to vote for a liberal SCOTUS for a generation, or roll the dice with Trump? Are you going to vote to not nuke Chicago over an insulting tweet, or roll the dice with Trump?" You know, those sorts of questions, in which we actually have to asses whether Hillary is better or worse than rolling the dice on Trump. But in fact, that isn't the question. There is ZERO chance of Trump winning—none whatsoever. It won't even be close. So the question is instead, how can we best rebuild the conservative movement and can we forge a new conservative/libertarian coalition? And the absolute LAST thing that we ought to do is touch the tar-baby Trump and associate ourselves for NO GOOD REASON) with his shitshow.

It's like watching the fall of SHIELD all over again. We had all these people we thought were loyal members of SHIELD, just quirky, and it turned out they were HYDRA all along.

I Callahan said...

I get Trump supporters. I get those who don't support Trump. What I don't get is why Trump supporters, people whose goal was to blow up the party, blame others when the party is blown up. If you blow up a party, it's not the fault of the people who don't want to attend if the party isn't successful.

For the record, I voted for Cruz, with no apologies, and he was my choice til the end. Unfortunately, the end was yesterday.

That said - I get both sides too. But you give Trump supporters short shrift if you limit their motivations to "blowing up the GOP". Trump is the first to at least talk about immigration and jobs going outside the U.S. Why can't people at least give Americans some credit for thinking in their self interest? It's what Americans have always done.

As for your rioters comparison - the rioters still don't care; it's the non-rioting "captives" in those neighborhoods who are complaining that businesses don't want to invest. And I can't blame them for feeling that way. So oddly enough, your comparison works, but not in the way you expected.

Simon said...

Static Ping said...
"Simon, for the record, the Republican Party may not be the same Republican Party by the next cycle. Also, possibly the Democratic Party may not be the same Democratic Party either, though if Hillary wins they may try to hold it together for a little while longer. The coalitions are fractured, which is why the Republican leaders have seemingly wanted to screw over their base at every convenient moment. Trump isn't the cause, he is the effect."

Yep. What's abundantly clear is that Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, but an enormous minority of the Democratic Party WANT the Democratic Party to be what Sanders is.

Donald Trump is similar. He isn't a Republican (put a pin in that for a moment), but he has revealed that a significant minority of the Republican Party WANT the Republican Party to be what Trump is.

The Democrats will go that way, because the difference between Sanders and Clinton is of degree and tone, not kind. The question is whether the GOP will do likewise is more difficult to call.

And again, if Trump is a Republican—and it's hard to say that he isn't when he's the nominee—I'm not. Conservatives and Libertarians need to walk away from this catastrophe, make very clear to everyone in America that we're no part of it and that he doesn't speak for us, and then we either take the party back or burn it to the ground without trace, lest the valuable infrastructure we built fall into the hands of the boarders and mutineers.

Balfegor said...

Re: Simon:

We either throw out these invaders or we burn the party to the ground lest it fall into their hands.

I think "burn the [Republican] party to the ground" is, at this point, a victory condition for both Trump supporters and Trump opponents, and it is therefore by far the most likely denouement. We'll see what grows from the ashes!

Michael said...

So now the talk is that he absolutely must be the VP because that is the only way, the only possible way period, that Trump can win the presidency because he must, absolutely positively must win Ohio. Must. This is the opinion of the pundits who have been wrong about every single aspect of this primary on both the Dem and Repub side. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The evangelical theory was bullshit. The creaking rust belt theory was bullshit. The women vote was bullshit. The pundits have gotten every molecule of this wrong. Wrong.

Simon said...

Balfegor said...
'I think "burn the [Republican] party to the ground" is, at this point, a victory condition for both Trump supporters and Trump opponents, and it is therefore by far the most likely denouement. We'll see what grows from the ashes!'

I hope at least two parties. Say what you like about the respective virtues of HYDRA and SHIELD, but they are different organizations with different values. They don't belong together. Let the crass, populist, nativist boobs have their protectionist big-government party; I don't oppose their right to exist. What offends me is their attempt to board and take control of my small-government party. What offends me is their attempt to foist on us a vile, immoral charlatan, a con-man who neither knows anything about nor has any interest in the things for which the party has stood.

In the last three years, I've watched helplessly as first my Church and now my party have been taken over by hostile forces with beliefs and agendas antithetical and repugnant to the things for which I thought we stood. I can't leave the Catholic Church, but I can sure as heck leave the frakking Republican party, and if it isn't the coalition of conservatives and libertarians I had thought it to be, I want nothing to do with it. I don't mind hitching my wagon to libertarians, but the Trump people? Never.

#NeverTrump.

CStanley said...

@I Callahan-
The problem is that there is no reason to think that Trump talking about those issues correlates with him taking any positive action on those issues. And when pressed on that, Trump supporters invariably say that they really don't care, they are just enjoying that he makes the establishment heads explode or that it all needs to be exposed, or that they just want someone who isn't afraid to say what they have been thinking for a long time.

So no, it isn't really possible that anyone is thinkng of their own self interests or that they are different from rioters who want to burn it all down.

AllenS said...

Simon, please, if Trump isn't your perfect candidate, then don't vote for him. He's not the only Presidential candidate running for POTUS. There are 1,712 people running for President this year. Here is a list of them. You should be able to find one that you like --

Your link to the perfect candidate

Spare us your misery.


walter said...

Kasich eats it

Paddy O'pined: What I don't get is why Trump supporters, people whose goal was to blow up the party, blame others when the party is blown up.

What? Not jumping at the invitation to this new flavor of abusive relationship?
The party just bumped into a door..really..just a door.
Now.."with all due respect"..unify!

buwaya said...

Ahem,
Simon,

Let me tell the story of Jaime Cardinal Sin.
Once my chieftain, my Archbishop, whose masses I attended a hundred times.
A man of God, and the greatest politician in Asia, once upon a time.
We had a dictator to get rid of, and the time had come.
So he organized the opposition, its program, its strategy and its tactics,
behind the scenes of course.
He knew that it would take everyone available to do the job, regardless of family, tribe and region, of ideology or reputation, of ancient grudges. Everyone was to be in, no-one was to be out.
So we had tycoons and film-makers and nuns, farmers and landowners, tribesmen and lowlanders, rebels and soldiers, old government cronies and business executives and bureaucrats and students, communists and conservatives. Cardinal Sin welded them together, mediated their quarrels, made space for all, and he led them to victory, by, one by one, taking everyone away from the other side until all the dictator had left was his household and a single province.

He took the ancient lesson to heart, that politics is addition.
There are no "tar babies". There are no lepers.

Tank said...

Simon said...

eric said...
"You're not thinking rationally."

Not true. The ones thinking irrationally are the people who, against ALL known and conceivable evidence, think that a conservative/libertarian party...


That party does not exist. Occasionally in rhetoric, but not in action. That is why both Trump and Cruz did so well.

Simon said...

AllenS said...
"Simon, please, if Trump isn't your perfect candidate"

Right, right, Trump isn't my idea of a "perfect candidate," in the same way that being fed slowly and feet-first through a log-shredder isn't my idea of a "perfect date." Trump cannot and will not be President of the United States, and what is far worse is that he is tarring me and conservatives and conservatism by association. Everything that is associated with the Republican Party will now be associated with its vile POS nominee unless we explicitly, repeatedly, and loudly condemn him.

khesanh0802 said...

Simon, I sympathize with your anger, it is no fun to lose when you care so much. If you wish to hand the election to Hillary, if it makes you feel more pure, you have every right. Will Hillary nominate Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court? Never! Will Trump? He certainly might. Will Hillary attempt to reform Obamacare? Unlikely. Will Trump? There's a good chance that he might. Will Hillary reverse the decline in our Defense capabilities? Unlikely. Will Trump? Very likely. Are you getting my drift? To support Hillary guarantees that things you hate will happen. To support Trump means that things you favor may happen. It's not a great choice, but a clear one. Take your football and go home, but I think that's a mistake.

AllenS said...

Simon, act like a man. Quit your fucking whining.

Michael said...

Simon

"Conservatives and Libertarians need to walk away from this catastrophe, make very clear to everyone in America that we're no part of it and that he doesn't speak for us, and then we either take the party back or burn it to the ground without trace, lest the valuable infrastructure we built fall into the hands of the boarders and mutineers."

Horse shit. You want a virtue pin? Wear your Cruz button. Or buy a V for Virtue pin. Wear it proudly. Because this is the exact same bull shit that got us where we are. Dismissing the millions of voters who disagree with you, millions of people who call themselves Republicans but who, in your book, are not pure enough. Not sanctified. You are fundamentally calling them idiots, low brows, bad thinkers, bad choosers. Well, Simon, your little loser crew can join the loser crew of the Republican establishment. Be pure together while the new two or three supreme court justices make your purity purer still.

How about losing with grace and getting with the program?

PS: You would not make anything "clear" to America. Nothing.

Simon said...

AllenS said...
"Simon, act like a man. Quit your fucking whining."

And there it is, people. That kind of troglodyte misogynist bullshit that floats just below the surface of the Trumpkins when it doesn't float on the surface. That didn't take long.

buwaya said...

" lest the valuable infrastructure we built'

And what is that "infrastructure"?
This is politics, that infrastructure is people.
If you lose people then you have nothing.
If the people decide to follow Trump then what is there to "preserve"?

MikeR said...

Okay, enough already. Trump was my least favorite nominee, but he is the presumptive nominee. All us Republicans need to support him. Let's finish up our tantrums and get on with it.

Alexander said...

The time for healing must now begin. If I recall correctly, there was a big hullabaloo about how Trump needed to SIGN THE PLEDGE. Which he did. Because that was super, duper important and all the other cool conservatives were doing it.

There's not room on the Trump train for everybody, but there is room for anybody. Choo-choo all aboard, no more stops until we make America great again!

Simon said...

khesanh0802 said...
"Simon, I sympathize with your anger, it is no fun to lose when you care so much. If you wish to hand the election to Hillary, if it makes you feel more pure, you have every right."

I don't know how much clearer I can make this: I couldn't hand the election to Hillary if I wanted to. The Trump people have already done that; it's over. We've lost. She wins forty states on a bad day, fifty with a tailwind. The hypotheticals you pose are moot because he will not win; you might as well speculate about whom President Kasich might have fancied for his cabinet. The choice is not between Trump or Clinton, it's how do we rebuild under President Clinton and how much harm do we permit Trump to do to the barque of Buckley (so to speak) in the meantime.

Simon said...

Alexander said...
"The time for healing must now begin."

Go fuck yourself. The healing begins when we throw you people out of our party or burn it to the ground to make sure that you can't use it against us. There is no healing or rapprochement here; you're delusional if you think there will be. Conservatives and libertarians are NOT going to get behind a boorish big-government liberal con-man. Forget it.

#NeverTrump

gerry said...

So the question is instead, how can we best rebuild the conservative movement and can we forge a new conservative/libertarian coalition?

The GOPe killed the conservative movement long before Trump came along. And, sadly, I think the conservative movement cannot be rebuilt, and there can never be a new conservative/libertarian coalition. To have a coalition requires compromise.

But then again I am an old man.

Alexander said...

You already threw us out, Simon. Along with John Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, and every other conservative that was thrown out in the bid to make the party respectable at the Georgetown dinner parties.

You tried to deny us a platform in the party, so we went and built our own.

Then one day you turned around, and realized you had thrown out so much of the party... that those on the outside of the ramparts owned it.

The offer to come back home won't last forever. Have fun in the wilderness.

#NeverStumped

shiloh said...

"Okay, enough already. Trump was my least favorite nominee, but he is the presumptive nominee. All us Republicans need to support him. Let's finish up our tantrums and get on with it."

Kumbaya!

buwaya said...

" The healing begins when we throw you people out of our party or burn it to the ground to make sure that you can't use it against us"

Who is "us"?
Who is "you"?
What is "our party"?
Who is in "our party"?

Again, consider the proper attitude for successful politics. The more friends you have the better.

Michael said...

Simon

You don't seem to know what misogynist means.

Alexander said...

No, no, buwaya, screaming and raging impotently is hallmark GOPe. "We'll fight you on the beaches!" has to be exclaimed so that the followup of "Well we tried fellas, next time!" can be convincingly appealing to donors.

I disagree with Simon, but can't fault a guy for reacting the only way he knows how.

And anyway, "Your wing of the party doesn't like him but better than Hillary" has been battle cry for a quarter-century. I have no doubt that no that it's *his* wing of the party, he will prove to be the bigger man and chow down on the shit sandwich he used to tell everyone else to swallow.

gerry said...

Simon said Go fuck yourself.

Where did you get your favicon? I just want to appreciate the irony as deeply as I can.

Alexander said...

Oh good, we're going to play another round of, "Trump has a ceiling of X% that he can't possibly break!"

It was hilarious the first time, am looking forward to round two.

Paul said...

"Oh good, we're going to play another round of, "Trump has a ceiling of X% that he can't possibly break!"

It was hilarious the first time, am looking forward to round two."

Exactly. These fools never learn. They are at the whim of their unbalanced emotions.

Just like liberals.

TCom said...

Hey Simon, did you try to burn the party down when Mitt Romney was the nominee? Boy, did I have to hold MY nose. But I still did it. Now, you want to burn it all down because you didn't get your way.

The conservative intelligentsia is addicted to mass immigration and global free trade, and they've ran a con on you to get you to hate the one man who is willing to call out the internationalist order.

You act like the Republican party is YOURS and if you don't like the decision of other Republicans, you'll burn the house down so we all lose.

And you call Trump childish. Anyway, what you don't understand is that Trump changing the narrative and pulling it right must happen before anything else can be accomplished. Your precious conservatives have done nothing but fail at changing the narrative for decades. Along comes Trump, he does it in a few months. How much more worthless could conservatives be? They conserve NOTHING.

There's a reason True Conservatives lost this time, too. They're worthless, ineffective, they don't care about our industry leaving, they don't really care about illegal immigration. Cruz was down at the border handing out teddy bears.

Time to try something different. The people have had no voice in this country for a very long time. Why does serving the will of the people for once rile you so, to the point where you'll elect Hillary? Certainly seems to me that 'conservatives'in govt prefer to compromise with pieces of trash like Hillary than compromise with the actual public. Isn't that sad?

AllenS said...

Simon said...
Go fuck yourself.

And there it is, people. That kind of troglodyte misogynist bullshit that floats just below the surface of the anti-Trumpkins when it doesn't float on the surface. That didn't take long.

Brando said...

Kasich dropping out now is odd only in that his cause was just as hopeless a month ago as it is today. Does he just feel that he looks more crazy sticking it out now that Cruz dropped out? It's not as though there was any scenario where he'd get the nomination.

Though it's possible he was hoping for a contested nomination so he could offer his delegates to Trump (if Trump was below 1237) in exchange for a VP nod. That's the only strategy that made sense at that point.

Now let's see if the GOP unites the Trump and anti-Trump factions. Judging from the comments above, I wouldn't bet on that.

Was it this bad four years ago? I recall it being pretty bad but it didn't seem this bad.

On the plus side, the odds of President Hillary being impeached are pretty good. Something she and her husband will have in common!

I Callahan said...

The problem is that there is no reason to think that Trump talking about those issues correlates with him taking any positive action on those issues. And when pressed on that, Trump supporters invariably say that they really don't care, they are just enjoying that he makes the establishment heads explode or that it all needs to be exposed, or that they just want someone who isn't afraid to say what they have been thinking for a long time. So no, it isn't really possible that anyone is thinkng of their own self interests or that they are different from rioters who want to burn it all down.

Sorry - not buying that. I think you're referring to the Trump supporters who argue on these boards. It sounds pretty elitist, to say the least.

I live in Michigan, where the people here are pissed because the auto companies have shrunk. These people have every reason to believe their self interest is at stake when companies ship jobs overseas. Your geographical area may be different.

Alexander said...

Kasich dropped out now because he was only in the race to keep Ohio's delegates from Trump (which would have gone to Trump had he dropped out.)

Now that Cruz is out, Kasich doesn't have to hold them in reserve.

I Callahan said...

First:

"You're not thinking rationally."

Not true


Then:

Go fuck yourself.

That didn't take long...

buwaya said...

"Was it this bad four years ago? I recall it being pretty bad but it didn't seem this bad."

I was on Freerepublic then (2012), and still am.
Its nowhere near as bad now as far as I can tell.
It was pretty bad then.

amielalune said...

TCom:

That was beautifully and eloquently stated. Thank you.

Paul said...

"Now let's see if the GOP unites the Trump and anti-Trump factions. Judging from the comments above, I wouldn't bet on that."

There are a few crazies like this Simon idiot but you can already see movement towards consolidation. Trump's favorabilty-unfavorability numbers will change a lot between now and November. Just a few weeks ago it was all about Cruz's momentum and Trump's floundering.

Brando said...

"You act like the Republican party is YOURS and if you don't like the decision of other Republicans, you'll burn the house down so we all lose."

Everyone who considers themselves a Republican (as a voter, or registered, or has any stake in it) thinks of it as their own, and to some extent they're right. But whether to abandon it because it goes in a direction they don't like (e.g., pro-choice Republicans upset in the '80s about its pro-life direction) or grudgingly accept it as the better option (like conservatives who didn't much care for Romney but rallied to him anyway) is just a question of degree. If you consider yourself a Republican (I don't know if you are) then ask yourself--could the party ever do anything to lose you? Maybe you rallied to Romney, but what if they nominated someone you could stand even less?

I don't know what most anti-Trump Republicans will do this fall--what's clear is right now a very large number of them are not getting in line. Maybe that changes after a couple months--maybe Trump will reach out to them, maybe some will decide Hillary is just too much--and maybe if they don't get into line it won't matter if Trump somehow finds support elsewhere. But I don't see "hey you have to do this for party unity" as a very effective argument. Everyone's only as loyal as they see the party working for them.

CStanley said...

I Callahan, I still stand by my first statement. I don't think it's very rational to think Trump can bring back those jobs. I'm not inclined to call people stupid, but at best this is emotion "trumping" reason.

So at best, the Trump coalition consists of some people who believe he'll do things he's incapable of doing, and the rest who arent expecting anything constructive but are instead cheering for destruction. I'm not sure it matters much what the relatibve numbers of the two groups are.

Alexander said...

The reality is, the factions already have coalesced to a large degree. Unless you really think that Trump will put up higher numbers in the Northeast than the South.

Had Rhode Island or Connecticut had their primaries six weeks earlier, Trump would have won 35% or so. His string of absolute majorities have more to do with primary voters sending message that they don't want a brokered convention and will back him than a magic surge among New England republicans for a big, beautiful wall.

Tank said...

Simon is restrained compared to how Mark Levin will sound on the radio tonight.

Trump has ruined Levin's show; he is now unlistenable.

Brando said...

"There are a few crazies like this Simon idiot but you can already see movement towards consolidation. Trump's favorabilty-unfavorability numbers will change a lot between now and November. Just a few weeks ago it was all about Cruz's momentum and Trump's floundering."

I think there will be a lot of consolidation, though how much is hard to say this early. Just like a lot of Hillary haters on the Left are going to rally around her. Voters are a lot more lock step than they used to be.

Also, I noticed that Hillary is doing pretty much nothing to try and convince anyone right of center (or even just center) that she wants their votes. Part of it is because she stupidly thinks she still needs leftist votes from Sanders. If she loses (which I still think is a longshot for demographic reasons) that will be one of the key reasons.

traditionalguy said...

The news reminds me of the story told in the film Patton.

Eight weeks after D-Day and a useless stalemate in Normandy, Patton gets the Nomination. The Wehrmacht knows the talent they are facing in Patton's leadership and tactics of the Third Army and The Fourth armored Division and they say damn and shake in their boots not knowing how to stop the Allies' breakout and race across France to Berlin that will win the war. They have to stop Patton before they lose the war.

Meanwhile the Allies' Army under Eisenhower, Bradly and Montgomery knows the same thing and they say Damn, that is just the wild General who Patton shoots from the hip and whose winning so easily makes us look bad. They have to stop Patton before he wins the war.

tim in vermont said...

I did not support Trump, but I will vote for him on account of I care more for my country than the Republican Party.

Brando said...

"I don't think it's very rational to think Trump can bring back those jobs."

He definitely won't, because no one can. Those jobs are gone because of automation and efficiency. It makes it no less painful for those out of work (or underemployed) but there's nothing we can do to bring "those" jobs back. At best we can try to make the economy create more jobs in other sectors less affected.

"So at best, the Trump coalition consists of some people who believe he'll do things he's incapable of doing, and the rest who arent expecting anything constructive but are instead cheering for destruction. I'm not sure it matters much what the relatibve numbers of the two groups are."

I'd throw in another faction of Trump supporters who believe he's actually a moderate conservative and this whole campaign has been an act to play the electorate. I don't agree with that theory, but I think a lot of Republicans will convince themselves of that and figure they can influence him once in office.

holdfast said...

Okay, enough already. Trump was my least favorite nominee, but he is the presumptive nominee. All us Republicans need to support him. Let's finish up our tantrums and get on with it.

Can I have a week of heavy drinking instead of the tantrum?


Seriously, Trump was pretty much my last choice (well, maybe Christie or Carson - unsurprisingly, the folks who first jumped to Trump . . . ), but we're six months out and while I don't like Trump's chances against Hillary, 6 months is forever in politics. And I REALLY don't like America's chances of surviving a Hillary administration.

Hmmm . . . I think I am in the Bargaining stage now.

J. D. said...

At his best, Kasich was a rowboat in the shipping lanes, who tied himself to a cruise ship when his oars fell overboard. When the cruise ship sank, it was just a matter of time before he went under as well.

tim in vermont said...

If automation is wiping out so many jobs, maybe a slow down to immigration makes sense? Naah!

AllenS said...

CStanley said...
I Callahan, I still stand by my first statement. I don't think it's very rational to think Trump can bring back those jobs.

Maybe he can't, but maybe he can stop the exodus of those jobs overseas.

Fabi said...

Need a hug, Simon? I can probably round up some crayons, too.

Simon said...


MikeR said...
"Okay, enough already. Trump was my least favorite nominee, but he is the presumptive nominee. All us Republicans need to support him. Let's finish up our tantrums and get on with it."

That's cute, but like countless former Republicans, I'm no longer a Republican. My membership of the GOP: August 31, 2004 - May 3, 2016. I'm done, I'm out, and I will never again vote for any Republican candidate unless they explicitly disavow Trump, Trumpism, and Trumpkins. I will support conservative and libertarian candidates if and when the GOP sees fit to nominate them, but I'm never voting party-line ever again. Period.

If you want to stay aboard the burning barge, enjoy it while it lasts, but realize that this is your last opportunity to ask for help being fished out of the river. If you stay aboard past today, we'll leave you to drown.

Alexander said...
"You already threw us out, Simon. Along with John Derbyshire, Ann Coulter, and every other conservative that was thrown out in the bid to make the party respectable at the Georgetown dinner parties."

You're mistaking me for a moderate.

"The offer to come back home won't last forever. "

Consider it rejected out of hand. Whatever it is that you think is "home" is not somewhere I ever want to be or ever want to be associated with.

TCom said...
"Hey Simon, did you try to burn the party down when Mitt Romney was the nominee? Boy, did I have to hold MY nose. But I still did it. Now, you want to burn it all down because you didn't get your way."

No, I held my nose and voted for the moderate, because although he was far more moderate than I am, my disagreements with him were political. Trump is something else entirely. Trump isn't someone with whom I disagree on politics, he is an opponent of politics, a repudiation of civilization, of the very presupposition of reason upon which civilization and politics are built. And with his hand on the nuclear button, he is an existential threat to the human race, which is, again, why he cannot and will not ever be President.

"what you don't understand is that Trump changing the narrative and pulling it right must happen before anything else can be accomplished. "

No, what you don't understand is that the changes that Trump has made to the narrative are not conservative. He's pulled it toward a crass, populist, nativist, protectionist garbage that has nothing to do with any recognizable form of conservatism. If you think he's made the conversation more conservative, all you're doing is confessing that you've no idea what conservatism is.

Brando said...
"I don't know what most anti-Trump Republicans will do this fall--what's clear is right now a very large number of them are not getting in line. Maybe that changes after a couple months...."

It doesn't. It won't. #NeverTrump. What part of "never" is confusing? Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever will I vote for Donald Trump or accept any conflation of me or my views with him and his schtick. N.E.V.E.R. Is that clear enough? And if you think I'm the only one, you are delusional.

D.E. Cloutier said...

"Political thought must develop, even on the Conservative side." - Attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881), British Conservative prime minister

Simon said...

Brando said...
"'So at best, the Trump coalition consists of some people who believe he'll do things he's incapable of doing, and the rest who arent expecting anything constructive but are instead cheering for destruction. I'm not sure it matters much what the relatibve numbers of the two groups are.' I'd throw in another faction of Trump supporters who believe he's actually a moderate conservative and this whole campaign has been an act to play the electorate."

So "dumb, dumber, and dumber-er," then?

Meade said...

I'll probably end up voting for someone who actually, you know, wants my vote. And that seems to rule out Trump.

Gusty Winds said...

One month ago, Wisconsin couldn't quit fondling itself for propping up a Socialist, and following radio talk show hosts down a path of #nevertrump strategic voting in order to open the convention and nominate Paul Ryan; the pretend savior of the self-declared sane.

Now Trump has closed out his opponents for the GOP nomination, and Hillary can't get Sanders to go away. He's like a head cold. She might be the one facing a contested convention.

Hey, maybe the Dems could nominate Paul Ryan.

It's going to be fun watching Charlie Sykes, Stephen Hayes, George Will, and Jonah Goldberg throw tantrums while prominent Republicans like John McCain and Scott Walker hop on the Trump train.

All Aboard!!!!! hahahahahahahhahaha!!!! ayeayeayaeyaeaye.....

Meade said...

If Rubio (or even Romney) runs third party (with Kasich as his running mate?) I can see voting for him. In what so far looks like an election of "Anti's," Rubio could end up being the only "Pro". In that scenario, I'd be happy to see all the Hillary and Trump voters go to their wedding and marry each other.

Simon said...

Meade said...
"If Rubio (or even Romney) runs third party (with Kasich as his running mate?) I can see voting for him. In what so far looks like an election of "Anti's," Rubio could end up being the only "Pro". In that scenario, I'd be happy to see all the Hillary and Trump voters go to their wedding and marry each other."

If I had to bet, there will be at least one alternative candidate—Kristol was talking about this on the latest TWS podcast—and if not, bet on a write-in campaign. (It won't be Kasich! My goodness.) The question is whether #NeverTrump can find such a candidate, persuade them to run, and coalesce around them, and whether it can be made formal in sufficient time as to get on the ballot.

But what isn't going to happen is "getting aboard the Trump Train," which is an apt metaphor if you just picture the trains in Schindler's List.

BrianE said...

I would like to remind folks that this election is about one thing-- the next Supreme Court justice.
It's not about immigration, or over regulation, or the looming debt crisis, or how Obamacare is dragging healthcare into crisis or the many other problems we face.
If the Supreme Court becomes the leftist bastion of progressive thought, and it will only take one more Sotomayer to tip the court.
That damage will be permanent.

The idea that if Hillary is elected the Senate will confirm Garland (who is plenty statist) is nonsense. At the point Hillary is elected the Democrats will block Garland and take their chances that the media can push through a more leftist nominee.

Now that the Supreme Court is the third political branch of government-- one that we only get to vote for every 10 years or so, and then only obliquely, this election is critical.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Simon,
None of your BS about "it's already too late, blah, blah, blah." Yes or no: you would rather have President HC than President DT?

jr565 said...

So, my guess is he is Trump's VP nom. Despite all the protestations that was his goal all along. And, it might actually work to soften Trump a bit. The reasonable Repub joined the ticket. So how bad could he really be?

I hate them both, and particularly hate Trump. But at this point, at least he's not Hillary.

Brando said...

"It doesn't. It won't. #NeverTrump. What part of "never" is confusing? Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever will I vote for Donald Trump or accept any conflation of me or my views with him and his schtick. N.E.V.E.R. Is that clear enough? And if you think I'm the only one, you are delusional."

Oh, I don't think you're the only one. And I think as well as the numbers what matters is the intensity--how likely can Trump bring any of those people back into the fold? From his actions over the past year, I wouldn't bet much on it.

The "anti-Trump" element on the right and middle will be interesting to watch--these people currently fall into the "no Trump, no Hillary" group and (so far) Hillary doesn't seem interested in winning them over (or at least keeping them from drifting towards Trump). And Trump doesn't seem much like a unifier. The fate of that group will be a key post mortem after the November election.



Paul said...

"You're mistaking me for a moderate."

Ho ho that's rich. You are the right wing equivalent of the left wing crazy ass moonbat. No one could possibly consider you moderate.

Take your ball and go home and pout. No one cares. You don't matter and your fellow juvenile tantrum throwing "conservatives" won't matter either. The only ones on a burning barge are you assholes and good riddance.

Brando said...

"The idea that if Hillary is elected the Senate will confirm Garland (who is plenty statist) is nonsense. At the point Hillary is elected the Democrats will block Garland and take their chances that the media can push through a more leftist nominee."

I have a feeling a year from now we'll be talking about how dumb the Senate GOPers were to not immediately confirm Garland, considering what will be passed by them by President Hillary with Schumer ending the filibuster. Maybe another Sotomayor.

And that's just the start. Kennedy and Ginsburg will be due next.

Qwinn said...

I'm mostly in agreement with Simon. It *is* over. As far as I'm concerned now, the outcome in November doesn't matter much.

We all know what the cons to a Hillary presidency are. But what about the pros?

1) Republicans in Congress will oppose everything she does, hands down. I don't see even the GOPe compromising with her. On the other hand, when Trump proposes a shit socialism sandwich, as we all know he will, all the Democrats will of course vote for it because it's a shit socialism sandwich, and enough Pubs will as well because (R). It happened with Bush, repeatedly, it's WAY more likely with Trump.

2) Cruz was the only conservative committed enough to *possibly* prevent the post-Obama deluge, and frankly, it is probably inevitable anyway. There's no way in hell Trump will even slow it down. The only difference at this point is who will get the blame. Let it be on Obama and Hillary. If it's Trump, we conservatives will get all the blame from the media for everything the guy we loathe and disagree with on every subject does. Screw that. The media will distort everything anyway, but I see no gain in making it so absurdly easy for them.

3) Because Trump said this: "Wow, Lyin' Ted Cruz really went wacko today. Made all sorts of crazy charges. Can't function under pressure - not very presidential. Sad!" while simultaneously trying to tie Ted Cruz's father to LEE FUCKING HARVEY FUCKING OSWALD. So, no. Fuck Trump. Never Trump. I'll vote downticket, and maybe Gary Johnson for the Presidential, but everything else aside, this here, this point # 3, means he can kiss my ass forever.

jr565 said...

"Wolf Blitzer: CNN has just confirmed, John Kasich, the Ohio governor, he’s dropping out as well. You’re the only one left right now.


Trump: That’s good. You’re just telling me this for the first time about John and that’s good. I think John’s doing the right thing.

Wolf: Ohio, you know, is an important state, no Republican has ever been elected President of the United States without winning Ohio.

Trump: Well, I think John will be very… I’ve had a good relationship with John…

Wolf: He’s got a lot of government experience in Congress, as a governor…

Trump: I think John will be very helpful with Ohio, even as a governor.

Wolf: He says he doesn’t want to be a Vice President.

Trump: Well, that could be. I mean, he said that.

Wolf: Would he be someone you’d be interested in vetting?

Trump: There’s… I’d be interested in vetting John. I like John. I’ve had a good relationship with John. I’ve gotten along with him well."


So, yes, John Kasich is certainly no Trumps shortlist. Would he do it? I think he would> That's why he's stuck in this long and tried staying above the fray.

Fabi said...

It could be Kasich, and that would be okay, jr565. I would have liked it to be Cruz, but I'll take a wild guess that it probably won't happen.

Gusty Winds said...

Meade said... If Rubio (or even Romney) runs third party (with Kasich as his running mate?)I can see voting for him.

I'd imaging Kasich is on Trump's shortlist for VP. Rubio would take the spot too if offered.

If Romney rears his head again it'll only be to help get a Democrat elected for the second time in four years. Romney lost an election he should have won. Trump is going to win an election he is supposed to lose.

At this point, what 'principled conservative' wants to be the guy to step in and oppose Trump third party in the general? He just took out 17 of the GOP's best.

It would be like the throwing one more mediocre ninja at Bruce Lee.

Qwinn said...

"Ho ho that's rich. You are the right wing equivalent of the left wing crazy ass moonbat. No one could possibly consider you moderate."

And it wasn't "right wing moonbats" who dumped Coulter or Derbyshire, which was the point he was answering. It was the moderates who dumped them. So your reply really makes no sense whatsoever.

Simon said...

BrianE said:
"I would like to remind folks that this election is about one thing-- the next Supreme Court justice."

No, it WAS about that. But instead we figured we'd throw that away and, by nominating Trump, toss the keys to Hillary. It's done. It's over. You can kiss the court goodby for a generation; just as the last spasm of this populist garbage cost us our best shot in 1992, it's happened again.

exhelodrvr1 said...
'Simon, None of your BS about "it's already too late, blah, blah, blah." Yes or no: you would rather have President HC than President DT?'

1) It makes no difference because she's going to crush him, and 2), yes, I would not only rather HC than DT, I will vote for HC if that is, in my judgment, the best way to screw DT and his vile minions. The only way that we can hope to rebuild the conservative movement after this disaster is to make sure that Trump is as completely destroyed in the fall as is humanly possible, and to make absolutely and unambiguously clear to all Americans that that toxic assclown does not now nor ever has (nor ever will) speak for us. President Hillary Clinton is a far better outcome for the conservative movement than America getting the idea that as GOP nominee, Trump speaks for conservatives.

Also, I don't have to worry that Hillary will start World War 3, or nuke Chicago because someone tweeted some lese majeste comment about his royal Donaldness.

But again: It's all moot because even if you could persuade us to come along, Trump still looses handily. My goal is now to make sure that he loses by the widest possible margin and that America sees very clearly that he doesn't speak for me or my governing philosophy, such that after they reject him, we will have some shot of getting their attention within the generation or three it's going to take to recover from the Trumpkin wound.

Meade said...

My ideal 3rd party ticket is Walker/Rubio.

We could name our new party the POR (Party of Reagan).

jr565 said...

"The "anti-Trump" element on the right and middle will be interesting to watch--these people currently fall into the "no Trump, no Hillary" group and (so far) Hillary doesn't seem interested in winning them over (or at least keeping them from drifting towards Trump). And Trump doesn't seem much like a unifier. The fate of that group will be a key post mortem after the November election."

He's so not a unifier that when the people hired him told him he has to start acting more presidential he demoted them. I dont see how he does unify the Ted Cruz repubs if he doesnt make the outreach.
Saying Cruz's dad was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in the morning and then saying "he put on a good fight" in the evening is not exactly reconciliation. He even said "i dont know if he likes me" Gee, do you think Donald?

I'm seriously trying to not be Never Trump,because I know that means Hillary ultimately. However, he is not making it easy.

I almost think the Never Trumpers should view him as the lesser of two evils to Hillary. Fight like hell to get him in, and then act as the opposition partyto him whenever he proposes anything that isn't completely Conservative. Any of his hair brained ideas (which are most of them) shut him down by being the same party of no they tried to be under Obama.

However, he doesn't make it easy since he can't seem to reconcile or admit he is wrong. He has a lot of negatives among hispanics. He could turn that around so easily by simply saying "If you think I'm racist I blame my overstating of the case. I was, perhaps too broad with my brush when I painted Mexicans as being rapists. What I meant, was MANY of people coming to the US are criminals. I didnt mean ALL, obviously. and I aim to be a president to all americans, regardless of their race and/skin tone. illegal immigration hurst all Americans" In other words, he is letting his critics frame him as a racist. Defend the position by clarifying. Its not hard.

Yet, he seems incapable of doing so. And as such he becomes the racist candidate. He can keep saying the minorities like him all he wants, but if he doesn't change the frame of the debate there are an awful lot who will say he is the caricature.

So, if he can't fix his rep, should I fight for him by giving him my vote? I dont know that he deserves it. the only thing I know is that HIlllary is worse.

Simon said...

Brando said...
"And Trump doesn't seem much like a unifier."

Jonah Goldberg noted last year: "If you want to know what Hillary Clinton would be like as president, you’re seeing it right now. There is no other Hillary. This is her." It's the same thing with Trump. It's not an act, it's not a strategy; this is Trump. He has been and can only continue to be who he is, and he will continue to behave the way he has behaved thusfar because it's just who he is. And the majority of Republicans find that horrifying and unacceptable, and you'd better believe that independents and Democrats find it even more so. He loses forty states on a good day. Let's get it to fifty.

Qwinn said...
"The only difference at this point is who will get the blame. Let it be on Obama and Hillary. If it's Trump, we conservatives will get all the blame from the media for everything the guy we loathe and disagree with on every subject does."

So much this. 100%. It would be intolerable to be blamed for the failure of a bad idea that I find repugnant and opposed simply because he happens to have the same letter after his name that I have after mine. "Don't come crying to me that No Child Left Behind didn't work! I was against it!" "But Bush! He's a Republican! So are you! It's a millstone around your neck!" Grr. Well, not any more. An independent as of last night.

buwaya said...

"It would be like the throwing one more mediocre ninja at Bruce Lee."

That's pretty much it.

"And it wasn't "right wing moonbats" who dumped Coulter or Derbyshire,'

But the NRO that did this were mainstream Republicans, acceptable, even admired by most.
They don't like Trump though.

However, Derbyshire and Coulter, too far right for NRO, do like Trump.
The political alignments are spinning.

Meade said...

I'll be back in a while. Gotta hop on my bike now and ride up to the Capitol, see if I can get a quick meeting with Scott.

Simon said...

jr565 said...
"I'm seriously trying to not be Never Trump,because I know that means Hillary ultimately. However, he is not making it easy. "

But here's the thing: There is no ultimately. It means Hillary for four years, but that's going to happen anyway, okay? So the question then becomes, okay, how can we rebuild for 2020? For 2024? Anything tied to Trump is going to be radioactive, it's like a swastika, you can argue that it had some other meaning but that symbol will be deadly toxic for 10,000 years. Same thing: Anything that is associated with Trump is never electable in America again, certainly not in the lifetime of anyone drawing breath today. It's going to be like being for segregation. The only way conservatism can compete is if conservatives make absolutely clear that Trump isn't us, we aren't him, and he have nothing to do with him, and we are absolutely as opposed to him as any other civilized human being. And the only way that the GOP can survive as a vehicle for any kind of idea is if a sufficient number of Republicans similarly reject Trump—loudly, publicly, explicitly, and repeatedly, every day from now down to the general. Otherwise they'll be wiped out and the party will vanish into the ashcan of history along with the people who supported Jim Crow.

AllenS said...

Ah, Meade, maybe you weren't paying attention, but Walker ran already and few people voted for him. What on earth makes you think anyone would vote for him now?

buwaya said...

" President Hillary Clinton is a far better outcome for the conservative movement than America getting the idea that as GOP nominee, Trump speaks for conservatives. '

Does the public actually care how "conservatives" define themselves?
Seems rather, well, unrealistic. Thats not a factor anywhere but a few rather specialized publications, like NRO. There are very few people into such theological disputes.
The public, or a very large part of it, is primed to vote Trump. A huge number already have.
It seems a bit eccentric to hate all those voters.
Its like hating the tide, or the sky.

buwaya said...

"I'll be back in a while. Gotta hop on my bike now and ride up to the Capitol, see if I can get a quick meeting with Scott."

Say hi for me.

Gusty Winds said...

The #nevertrump conservative journalists like George Will can remain #nevertrump without risk. Charlie Sykes can blow himself in his one man studio about how principled he is compared to Trump supporters.

But the GOP politicians are in a different situation. They actually need Trump voters to maintain their current offices. Look at John McCain. If he wants to get re-elected in Arizona this year, he's going to have to back Trump.

Walker and Rubio with both fall in line. They may be rooting for a Trump defeat so the door might open for them in 2020, but it does nothing for them to re-enter the fray in 2016 other than to play the unification game to defeat Hillary.

Trump is going to win the general election. None of these politicians are going to want to be outside of that circle and cast into the wilderness.

Meade said...

"Walker ran already and few people voted for him. What on earth makes you think anyone would vote for him now?"

As of now, 90% of the electorate hasn't voted at all. We're 6 months and 6 days from Election Day. A lot could happen.

Paco Wové said...

"...is going to be radioactive, it's like a swastika, you can argue that it had some other meaning but that symbol will be deadly toxic for 10,000 years...never electable in America again, certainly not in the lifetime of anyone drawing breath today. It's going to be like being for segregation."

This is fascinating to watch. It's like he's getting high huffing on his own fumes.

Brando said...

"Republicans in Congress will oppose everything she does, hands down. I don't see even the GOPe compromising with her. On the other hand, when Trump proposes a shit socialism sandwich, as we all know he will, all the Democrats will of course vote for it because it's a shit socialism sandwich, and enough Pubs will as well because (R). It happened with Bush, repeatedly, it's WAY more likely with Trump."

Good point--though I'd add that while Trump and Hillary are both likely to be terrible presidents, the former is likely to reflect on the GOP (after all, he's their nominee) and the latter will reflect poorly on Democrats. That'll affect other races, and subsequent presidential elections. Perhaps partisans of both parties are in the rare position of being better off if their nominee loses this year.

"while simultaneously trying to tie Ted Cruz's father to LEE FUCKING HARVEY FUCKING OSWALD."

But on the plus side, if Trump became president he may have the FBI finally investigate whether Obama's birth certificate on the grassy knoll is giving babies autism.

buwaya said...

'But on the plus side, if Trump became president he may have the FBI finally investigate whether Obama's birth certificate on the grassy knoll is giving babies autism.'

Nobody's really come clean on Area 51 either. I'm sure Trump would like to know.

'and the latter will reflect poorly on Democrats'

Never! If the last 7 years haven't reflected poorly on Democrats, whats Clinton got to worry about?

Simon said...

Gusty Winds said...
"But the GOP politicians are in a different situation. They actually need Trump voters to maintain their current offices."

This is true but incomplete. They are in a different situation, and they can't publicly distance themselves from Trump without losing the Trumpkins, whose votes they need in order to win. But nor can they not publicly distance themselves from Trump, without losing conservatives and libertarians, whose votes they ALSO need in order to win. They have two courses of action available to them, no third, and either course loses them the election; their choices are political death with honor (condemn Trump) or political death with dishonor (hug Trump). When we tried to explain to you earlier this year that nominating Trump would destroy the downticket races, this is what we were trying to explain to you: The Democrats are going to destroy us because you've now placed our officeholders in a Kobayashi Maru test.

"Walker and Rubio with both fall in line. They may be rooting for a Trump defeat so the door might open for them in 2020, but it does nothing for them to re-enter the fray in 2016 other than to play the unification game to defeat Hillary."

Don't count on it.

"Trump is going to win the general election. None of these politicians are going to want to be outside of that circle and cast into the wilderness."

You're delusional. You're like a friend of mine who called me back towards the bitter end of the 2008 campaign and excitedly told me that it was going to be okay, that the fix was in: Ted Nugent, he breathlessly (and utterly seriously) proclaimed, had endorsed McCain. Needless to say, Mr. Nugent's intervention did not change much (if anything) about the dismal dynamics of the race.

Paul said...

"So your reply really makes no sense whatsoever."

Please. The man is an hysterical freak. He's been screaming and cursing like a little girl for days. Too weak to discipline himself and too stupid to be embarrassed. Until this year I didn't think "conservatives" had this level of childishness in them. Now I see all rigid ideologues share a similar unhealthy emotional profile. I want nothing to do with any of them, left or right. They can all hang themselves and the planet would be better off as far as I'm concerned.

Paul said...

"Republicans in Congress will oppose everything she does, hands down. I don't see even the GOPe compromising with her."

You mean like they have with Obama?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Simon said...What offends me is their attempt to board and take control of my small-government party

*cough cough*Medicare Part D *cough cough* Dept of Homeland Security *cough cough* No Child Left Behind *cough cough*
The Republican party hasn't been pro small government for quite a while. I agree it's disheartening (to say the least) that so many people who consider themselves Republicans no longer feel the need to even pay lip service to the ideal of small government (which I have to believe one could not do and also vote for Trump), but there it is--reality.

BrianE said...I would like to remind folks that this election is about one thing-- the next Supreme Court justice.
It's not about immigration, or over regulation, or the looming debt crisis, or how Obamacare is dragging healthcare into crisis or the many other problems we face.
If the Supreme Court becomes the leftist bastion of progressive thought, and it will only take one more Sotomayer to tip the court.
That damage will be permanent.


Yes, correct: and yes, it will.

mccullough said...

The GOP hasn't been a small government party since Calvin Coolidge. Conservatism is mostly an attitude reinforced by symbolic gestures and terms like "small government."

Gusty Winds said...

Simon said...You're delusional.

Here a realclearpolitics link of Ann Coulter being laughed at by Bill Maher's audience for suggesting Trump could win the GOP Nominations. June 2015.

This has nothing to do with Ted Nugent. I think Hillary was a sure bet against any of the standard GOP field that the media would have pummeled. It will turn out, that from the beginning, Trump was the only one that could beat her.

Nonapod said...

Unless Hillary is indited, I suspect she'll win in November. And that will probably mean the end of the Republican party as we know it. The Trump naysayers will absolutely despise and eviscerate the Trump supporters for costing us what could have been a slam-dunk election. All of which will fracture the party severely.

The only thing that could repair the rift will be an absolutely abysmal Hillary presidency that's rife with thievery, corruption, economic collapse, and a nightmarish foreign policy. It could get so bad that even many liberals will start looking towards Republicans for help as the only adults in the room in 2020. There will be pain.

mccullough said...

The GOP also hasn't been pro-America since Reagan.

Michael K said...

Simon badly needs an intervention.

" if he's lucky he'll only lose forty states. That's a shame, because it ought to be fifty. "

Are you employed by Congress or one of the parties ? Are you a lobbyist ?

Do you know any Trump supporters ? I do and I don't particularly like the guy but this is a revolution and they get messy.

Maybe Ryan should have written 12 appropriations bills and had them debated and passed by last fall. That's called "Normal procedure."

Why didn't it happen ?

You'll love Hillary although I'm not sure she will even be the nominee.

shiloh said...

Kasich, the free trader, voted for NAFTA so that would take away the jobs issue. Plus he's as exciting as a dead turtle, apologies to turtles.

Trump needs, dare I say, a game changer.

Then the question of who wants to be associated with Trump kinda narrows down the field. Maybe a general, except that Trump is clueless re: the military.

Oh what a tangled web we weave ...

mccullough said...

W. was the end of the GOP. It should be obvious by now that he hastened its demise

mccullough said...

If Trump's loss takes down Paul Ryan, then it's all good.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Qwinn said...1) Republicans in Congress will oppose everything she does, hands down. I don't see even the GOPe compromising with her.

That's assuming there are any/enough Republicans left in Congress. Do you think the Dems are going to be at all interested in upholding traditions/manners/procedural decorum when doing so limits their power in any way? Does anyone believe the Dems will honor a filibuster or not "go nuclear" in any number of other ways if they win a majority?

2) Cruz was the only conservative committed enough to *possibly* prevent the post-Obama deluge, and frankly, it is probably inevitable anyway. There's no way in hell Trump will even slow it down. The only difference at this point is who will get the blame.

Qwinn, come on. You know who'll get the blame. We all know who'll get the blame. It's 2016 and the Left is still talking about what a mess that terrible George W Bush left for super genius lightworker Obama. You can't, at this late date, still believe the Media will accurately blame the Left for the Left's failures, can you?? The blue state model is crumbling and that fall will accelerate, but that FACT will do nothing to change the Media's attitude nor their bias. It won't ever be bad enough for them to be honest, Qwinn. Did Rick Synder bankrupt Flint, MI? Doesn't matter, he's to blame for that city's woes. That's the model, man, and that ain't changin'.

Saint Croix said...

Kasich says this:

"I am in until Donald Trump hits the magic number."

I thought at the time, wow, what a weird way to phrase it. And I assumed that he was talking about electoral votes.

No. He was talking about money. "Pay me and I will drop out." And Trump hits the magic number.

I don't know if that's a crime, but it ought to be. You fucking weasel.

shiloh said...

On the other hand, speaking of "dynamic/exciting" vp candidates, Sherrod Brown voted against NAFTA.

Sydney said...

I know a lot of people who dislike Donald Trump and say they would never vote for him. And yet, I still have the gut feeling that he is the only candidate that has a chance to beat Hillary.

Simon said...

HoodlumDoodlum said...
"*cough cough*Medicare Part D *cough cough* Dept of Homeland Security *cough cough* No Child Left Behind *cough cough*
The Republican party hasn't been pro small government for quite a while."

Yes, those are great examples of the problem, which is why I used one of them as an example in my earlier comment. When Democrats enact stupid, liberal policies, Republicans can readily assail them. When Republicans enact stupid, liberal policies, Republicans are chary and lack credibility.

Fabi said...

Anyone who supported Cruz up until yesterday but will now vote for Hillary is an absolute fucking moron. Quit being a pussy, Simon -- you're embarrassing yourself.

Simon said...

Michael K said...
"Simon badly needs an intervention."

That's funny, I was just thinking that I need a drink, so—maybe?

"Are you employed by Congress or one of the parties ? Are you a lobbyist?"

Respectively: No; no, and if I had been employed by the GOP yesterday I would have resigned last night; and no, beyond the sense in which anyone who writes to their congressman is lobbying.

"Do you know any Trump supporters ?

I have made abundantly clear that if you voted for Trump, I don't want to know you any more. Block, unfriend, done.

"I do and I don't particularly like the guy but this is a revolution and they get messy.

Wow! Imagine that! Can you imagine a worse sales pitch to a conservative than "it's a revolution"? Seriously? Do you understand anything about us? Revolution is the thing that we strive to avoid! The foundational text of the movement is Burke's flaying of the French revolution!

"You'll love Hillary although I'm not sure she will even be the nominee."

Wow, doubly-delusional; fascinating. I know Bernie supporters who can't let go of that fantasy no matter what the numbers say.

Simon said...

Fabi said...
"Anyone who supported Cruz up until yesterday but will now vote for Hillary is an absolute fucking moron. Quit being a pussy, Simon -- you're embarrassing yourself."

The best outcome for conservatives of the 2016 cycle would have been President Cruz. The second-best outcome is certainly not President Trump—and even if it were, it isn't happening. For all the reasons given upthread, disassociating this shitshow from conservatism is out best possible shot if we want to have any hope of coming back from the wilderness. I detest the idea of a Clinton presidency, because unlike the Trump morons, I know exactly what that means, but because of the choice they forced on the GOP, it is now the optimal outcome. Sometimes the best you can hope for is still really fucking bleak.

mccullough said...

Looks like there aren't many conservatives voting in the GOP primaries, much less in the United States. There are probably still more conservatives than libertarians, for now.

Simon said...

Also, note more of that stock troglodyte misogyny—and no, Althouse, Fabi doesn't mean by that metaphor that I'm like a domestic cat, he's comparing me to a vagina. Which is really a compliment, when you think about it, because vaginae are interesting, subtle, and fun, but because these gynophobic pricks are terrified of women, that's their go-to insult. It's really quite revealing. Personally I'd far rather be compared to a vagina than support a dick, but maybe that's because I have healthy relationships with women, I dunno.

Gusty Winds said...

Nonapod said...Unless Hillary is indited, I suspect she'll win in November. And that will probably mean the end of the Republican party as we know it.

Last night was the end of the Republican Party as we know it. So that already happened.

We are all forgetting that Hillary has not yet shaken Bernie off her heals. Trump will get stronger over the next month. Just wait till after the Megyn Kelly interview.

The Democrat Super delegates that we rightly assume are bought and paid for, may start getting nervous prior to the convention. I think this is going to be interesting because Bernie and his voters don't seem to be going away at the moment.

Bernie says he is now going to fight to flip the Super delegates and that the Democrat convention will be contested. I don't think he's bullshitting.

Simon said...

mccullough said...
"Looks like there aren't many conservatives voting in the GOP primaries, much less in the United States. There are probably still more conservatives than libertarians, for now."

Watch for the libertarian party to swell dramatically.

(Okay, fine, that was another cheap genitalia joke, but I swear that was the last for now.)

buwaya said...

"I have made abundantly clear that if you voted for Trump, I don't want to know you any more. Block, unfriend, done."

This is, sadly, fairly common and quite fanatical. The personal is the political into absurdity.
Me, I've been married to a Democrat for, ahem, several decades now.
Yes, really, it is possible.

Qwinn said...

"Qwinn, come on. You know who'll get the blame. We all know who'll get the blame. It's 2016 and the Left is still talking about what a mess that terrible George W Bush left for super genius lightworker Obama. You can't, at this late date, still believe the Media will accurately blame the Left for the Left's failures, can you?? "

You did read the *rest* of the paragraph you were responding to before answering, I hope? Because I acknowledged and answered this point.

Simon said...

buwaya said...
"This is, sadly, fairly common and quite fanatical. The personal is the political into absurdity."

No no no. Letting political disputes become personal? Couldn't agree more. People should never break up relationships based on mere political disagreement. But Trump has nothing to do with politics. As I said upthread, Trump isn't someone with whom I disagree on politics, a political opponent, he is an opponent of politics, a repudiation of civilization, of the very presupposition of reason upon which civilization and politics are built. And with his hand on the nuclear button, he is an existential threat to the human race, which is, again, why he cannot and will not ever be President. An oncologist can be friends with a mechanic, but not with cancer. Voting for Trump is not taking a political viewpoint, it's an inchoate act of mindless brutality.

buwaya said...

Sanders doesn't have enough elected delegates still outstanding to be able to get to a majority.

Clinton probably will, she just needs a bit over half.
The superdelegates would probably flip to correspond to a majority of actual delegates.
It will be a hard sell for Sanders to persuade superdelegates to override an elected majority - unless Clinton really does self destruct.
The Trump-Clinton polls will be very important now.

Wilbur said...

I've seen sore losers in my day, but he takes the blue ribbon.

Simon said...

buwaya said...
"The Trump-Clinton polls will be very important now."

You mean like this one, released Wednesday, showing Clinton ahead of Trump 54 to 41? And that's before the Clinton machine and her bought-and-paid-for MSM surrogates have really gone to work on him. By the time they're done, he'll be in the low thirties and he will, as I said, lose forty plus states. He's dogfood, and, you know, boy, I'm going to try to feel really bad about that. Not, you know, a lot. But still. He's a human being, and I don't envy him what's about to happen to him.

Fabi said...

Calling someone a pussy is now considered misogyny? That's fascinating, Simon. I thought I was just calling you an emotional wimp -- now with fifty percent more SJW wannabe!

Qwinn said...

"But the NRO that did this were mainstream Republicans, acceptable, even admired by most. They don't like Trump though."

By "mainstream", you mean "moderate", so you're making my point for me. I think Rich Lowry was the one who tossed them, and no, he's not all that admired. I still like most of the NRO crowd even now though, as long as they're not pushing for open borders, which they seem to have stopped doing lately, thank God.

I read somewhere that it was actually Coulter who got Trump to make a big deal about immigration, to stunning success. It may simply be that his taking her advice is what's gotten her support. I'd be amused if Trump made Coulter his veep choice, but not a chance. Trump won the Republican nomination by mouthing vaguely non-liberal bromides (before reversing them 8 hours later), now that he's won the nomination, I fully expect him to go harder left than Sanders.

buwaya said...

"Trump isn't someone with whom I disagree on politics, a political opponent, he is an opponent of politics, a repudiation of civilization, of the very presupposition of reason upon which civilization and politics are built."

This is also absurd. Trump is a man, one who has been doing business, having children, marrying women (even his exes dont seem to hate him. Much), hiring people (who seem very loyal), in all a very ordinary sort of billionaire, other than being rather flamboyant and loquacious. There are no murders, massacres, exterminations, towers of skulls, or even unreturned library books in his record. This is not Genghis Trump, Timur-i-Trump or Attila the Trump. He's not even Trumpolini. At worst he may be a Berlustrumpi, without the mistresses that are much too young for him.

Qwinn said...

And the truly scary thing is, if you support the 2nd Amendment, your best choice left at this point is the Sandinista supporting Socialist. Cause we have Trump on record in 2012 tweeting that "Obama spoke for all of us" when Obama called for more gun control after the Newtown shootings.

Simon said...

Fabi said...
"Calling someone a pussy is now considered misogyny? That's fascinating, Simon. I thought I was just calling you an emotional wimp -- now with fifty percent more SJW wannabe!"

No, that your go-to insult is to compare someone to the feminine is misogyny, and if the best you can do is accuse me of being an SJW—man, that's just a pitiful reach.

Buwaya, if you don't see in Trump's consistent behavior throughout the campaign what I've described, there's no hope for you. It'd be like trying to explain the concept of color to a blind man.

Qwinn said...
"[W]e have Trump on record in 2012 tweeting that 'Obama spoke for all of us' when Obama called for more gun control after the Newtown shootings."

But remember: We're the ones betraying the conservative cause because we refuse to look the other way on sins like this by the gun-grabbing, corrupt, liberal, short-fingered moron whom the GOP just nominated. Why can't we just get with the program, huh?

Fabi said...

Holy fuck, Simon, it's not literal and it's not misogyny. Quit being a vagina.

Michael said...

Simon

Dear, you troll poorly, you really do. If you are going to pretend to be a winger you should do better with the language and the thought of the winger.

Show me a poll that has been right these nine months?

Oh, and you think that it did not occur to the many opponents Trump has had to face that one of them might, just might, have done a little opposition research? And let loose with their double secret findings? Or do you think only Hillary is in possession of these vicious facts?

You are a bit overwrought in your concern, Simon.

Jeff said...

Simon is at least partly right: Trump is going to lose, and lose badly. Most likely he will also cost the Republicans the Senate.

How many people who voted for Obama in 2012 are going to vote for Trump in 2016? Very few, I wager. And now ask yourself, how many Romney 2012 voters are going to vote for Trump? My guess is no more than 75 or 80 percent. Trump is not going to get black, Asian or Hispanic votes. He may get half of the white vote, but not much more than that. Add it up and it looks like a 20 point win for Hillary.

And no, she is not going to be indicted, whether she should be or not. Do you think an administration that uses the IRS to punish political opponents and runs guns to drug dealers to try make the case for gun control is going to indict their own nominee? Get real.

Where Simon is wrong is in saying that the Republicans are the party of small government. This is clearly not true. They are a party of small government rhetoric, but they've never followed through on it in any substantial way.

buwaya said...

The biggest danger for Trump is that the TV shows will stop having him on - i.e., when they start sacrificing ratings in order to deny him a platform.

Since most of these networks are really political assets and not businesses in themselves, they could well do that, if the word comes down.

That would be far worse than any scandals they may try to pin on him.

Simon said...

Michael said...
“If you are going to pretend to be a winger you should do better with the language and the thought of the winger.”

Buwaya said: "The Trump-Clinton polls will be very important now." So I gave him (her? Don’t know which, sorry) the most recent Trump-Clinton poll, and , big surprise, Trump is underwater.

“Show me a poll that has been right these nine months?”

Without bothering to look any up, it hasn’t seemed to me that the polling has been off: To the contrary, the polling has been dismissed because no one could believe that Trump polled so high, and then he has proven the polls right by performing at that level or better. Take Indiana this week: Polls came out showing him trouncing Cruz. We all dismissed it because we couldn’t believe it. But it was right. So is polling off this year? You tell me!

“You are a bit overwrought in your concern, Simon.”

The end of the republic deserves fireworks.

Fabi said...

Obama -- a gifted campaigner -- had a seven point victory over McCain and a four point victory over Romney, but the most inept retail politician in memory is going to beat Trump by 20 points? Lulz

Simon said...

Jeff said...
"Where Simon is wrong is in saying that the Republicans are the party of small government. This is clearly not true. They are a party of small government rhetoric, but they've never followed through on it in any substantial way."

And that is precisely why we should have repudiated the establishment hacks and nominated Carly, Cruz, or both. The establishment's failure to live up to our ideals is cause to change politicians, not ideals.

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michael said...

Simon

Dear man, we survived 8 years of Obama. We are very resilient.

The polls have been wrong consistently. Do you believe that the polls or the pundits have called the insurgent Sanders campaign? They have not.

It might comfort you to look to the past to figure out this election but doing so will disappoint. The old metrics are of zero value now and only Trump seems to recognize that. You are as stumped and clueless about this as Bob Sieiffer. LOL.

Simon said...

Michael, this isn't my first rodeo. I heard these same delusional fantasies in 2008 and especially 2012; "oh, you can't trust the polling data, it's biased, it's wrong, we're in a new era, it's wildly understating the true support out there for Romney. Buuuut, it turned out that the polls were right and we just really wanted them to be wrong—just like this year. We really, really wanted the polls showing Trump prevailing to be wrong, and whaddyaknow? Si non oportet, ergo non est.

Michael said...

Simon

Not 2008 and not 2012. That is the point. This is, in fact, your first rodeo in 2016.

Christopher said...

I'm curious, could the various Trump fans here please tell me which states get flipped? Which states that voted Democrat in 2012 are going to go Republican this year?

Simon said...

Christopher said...
"I'm curious, could the various Trump fans here please tell me which states get flipped? Which states that voted Democrat in 2012 are going to go Republican this year?"

Look, you've got to realize, it's gonna, you'll be surprised how many states, it's gonna be really amazing and a lot of people will be very surprised how well I do, and could we perhaps go round the room? I like to know who I'm talking to, the people are so beautiful, in this country, you know this country, I've made a lot of money. So okay? Does that answer your question? Next.

jr565 said...

Simon wrote:
But here's the thing: There is no ultimately. It means Hillary for four years, but that's going to happen anyway, okay? So the question then becomes, okay, how can we rebuild for 2020? For 2024? Anything tied to Trump is going to be radioactive, it's like a swastika, you can argue that it had some other meaning but that symbol will be deadly toxic for 10,000 years.

I think you're overstating it. Sure, he sucks as a candidate. HOwever, he can salvage this somewhat by clarifying his positions in a palatable way. And if he were to win, he'd at least be moldable as a "republican". I don't have evidence that he is doing this.
After winning he doubles down on the "Cruz's dad has ties to Lee Harvey Oswald" so I dont really think he gets that he's supposed to actually try to bring people to him and not alienate them further.
But in theory, at any rate, he could win, and then be beholden to repubs who will not let him get away with his agenda. I would almost like to see that just to have the Trumpkins pull their hair out.
He's so stubborn he is not going to go for reconciliation, and so those who are sitting on the fence are going to have to eitehr save this election for him by eating the biggest shit sandwich in the history of shit sandwiches, or let the election go. And that may not be something we should actually want.
If we have to eat a shit sandwhic though we should at least get a candidate that we can put over a barrel, as oppose to one that puts US over a barrel.

jr565 said...

Jeff wrote:
How many people who voted for Obama in 2012 are going to vote for Trump in 2016? Very few, I wager. And now ask yourself, how many Romney 2012 voters are going to vote for Trump? My guess is no more than 75 or 80 percent. Trump is not going to get black, Asian or Hispanic votes. He may get half of the white vote, but not much more than that. Add it up and it looks like a 20 point win for Hillary.
Trump called Romney a loser for losing the last election. If he gets trounced in a way Romney never did, can you imagine the degree to which we will insult both him AND the Trumpkins who foisted this on us? He is going to be the laughing stock of the country.
So, he BETTER start acting nice and kissing as much as as possible in an attempt to mend fences, because its HIS reputation on the line.
But if he thinks he can do it alone, go for it Donald. I'll be laughing at you, when you do worse than Walter Mondale.

AllenS said...

Listen to Van Jones talk about why he thinks that Trump can, and possibly will be POTUS, and remember when you are watching this, Van Jones hates Trump, which makes this episode so interesting.

Van Jones

AllenS said...

Scroll down for video

Meade said...

AllenS argues for Hillary by appeal to the authority of Van Jones. Pigs must be flying.

AllenS said...

I'm making no argument for Hillary, Meade, explain yourself.

wildswan said...

The basics don't go away

About 90 million people are not looking for work, or under employed or uberized. They won't go away; whoever wins has to deal with them.

Chicago is so underwater on its pension funds that raising taxes from 3.5 % to 9 % won't save it. That won't go away. It isn't the only Democrat run city like that

Obama has damaged the black community - they are poorer than when he came to power, unemployment is higher, the inner city schools are worse. The lunch program reform has resulted in poor kids getting 30% less protein. And the birth rate has fallen below replacement level. If this had been done by Republicans or by a business there would be immediate reform. There won't be reform because it was done by Democrats but the problem won't go away.

Administrators are trying to run the country through regulations that people don't agree with and the country isn't well run. That won't go away.

Maybe the neverevers will burn the Republican party down, maybe it will fail totally at the election. The problems will still be here and still getting bigger under any Democrat. And have to be solved. So there will be an alternative party and it would be better if it evolved from what exists.

But how many feel like Simon? - there won't be much evolution going on among them. Would it be better to form a small pure group and expand it? But will the new pure party be pro-life? No answers, but these questions won't go away either.

Meade said...

You mean he's arguing for Tump? Or who? Jill Stein?

wildswan said...

I stand with Governor Walker. That's my position and always has been.

Phil 3:14 said...

"And again, if Trump is a Republican—and it's hard to say that he isn't when he's the nominee—I'm not. "

Exactly.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Why aren't Trump haters making investments since they know the future, for certain without any possible exception? You people don't a need a DeLorean and scientists to invent time travel, SO BET YOUR HOME AND EVERY LAST DIME YOU CAN BEGBORROWSTEAL.

Even little kids understand that having perfect knowledge others lack, or refuse to see because they are stupid and dumb and junk, can earn you power and influence to actually change the world as opposed to whatever it is you are doing now.

Does your genius extend beyond "don't get mad get even?"

Getting filthy rich and powerful and becoming able to transform the world at your whim seems to be a good enough type of even, ain't it?

Guildofcannonballs said...

I wonder what other perfect predictions others know will absolutely become reality because they know all, every conceivable in fact (as in Jesus) event, dear dear men, that could potentially transpire?

Just how big of a list am I ignorant of that others are not, especially after they tried opening my eyes repeatedly yet I would not allow myself the gift of sight?

I certainly do not know the GOP is conservative nationally yet others seem very assured it's fact.

I agree with "less statist sometimes" than the Democratic party, yet that isn't any definition of conservative I am aware of.

Kyzernick said...

Simon,

Nobody cares for your whining, you mewling quim. Go back to whatever gutter you crawled out of. Did a priest named Donald molest you at some point?

Nichevo said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Achilles said...

We will be fighting to save our country from the left, hillary, and the make America Mexico crowd.

Simon and the other angry people will know what side they should be on. Some will be too cowardly to do it though. If conservatives go pout in the third party corner they will be irrelevant for a generation no matter who wins.

Simon said...

Achilles said...
"Simon and the other angry people will know what side they should be on."

I'll be on the side of "stop Donald Trump," because I'll be damned if that barge-fire's going to drag conservatives down with it.

We're looking at a "for God's sake, Donald, vote for Hillary and make it unanimous" election. She wins forty states and Trump doesn't get over forty percent in most of them. I'll remind you if this on the morning of November 9 if you like—you know, when you finally have the reality in front of you, but before you've hatched some insane conspiracy theory about how the election was stolen.

Simon said...

Kyzernick said...
"Nobody cares for your whining, you mewling quim."

Props for an excellent Loki reference.