June 29, 2016

Will Brexit tip American voters to Trump?

Today, we see the first poll data that post-dates the Brexit results — partially post-dates. The referendum took place on June 23rd and we knew the result beginning June 24th, so 4 of the 7 days covered in this new Quinnipiac poll (PDF) took a reading of Americans who could have been influenced by seeing how the British voted:



As the pollster puts it: "Democrat Hillary Clinton has 42 percent to Republican Donald Trump’s 40 percent – too close to call – as American voters say neither candidate would be a good president and that the campaign has increased hatred and prejudice in the nation...."
“It would be difficult to imagine a less flattering from-the-gut reaction to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “This is where we are. Voters find themselves in the middle of a mean-spirited, scorched earth campaign between two candidates they don’t like. And they don’t think either candidate would be a good president.”
That's one way to look at it. These nasty people are fighting too hard and too dirty and that's off-putting to us Americans, who like harmony and niceness. In the end, we're not going to vote for the more likeable person, so it's not going to be an election like 2008 or 2012 or 2004 or 2000 or 1996 or 1992 or — I can't believe how far back this goes! — 1988 or 1984 or 1980 or 1976. America will have to grow up and vote for somebody we just don't like. Most of us anyway. I know some people love Trump. I even personally know at least one person who actually really loves Hillary.

And then I was reading this Bernie Sanders op-ed in The NYT, "Democrats Need to Wake Up," and the wake-up call, for Bernie, is Brexit: "Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could." He says: "The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change."

That would seem to point straight at Trump, but of course, Bernie Sanders is not going to do that. He quickly cautions us not to go there:
But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message....

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.
What are these people supposed to do? How could Hillary Clinton possibly "wake up" into a believable new response?

91 comments:

damikesc said...

Like the press will care. They'd say "The smartest woman ever just got smarter!!!"

David Hampton said...

The world is at war with radical islam. This not the time for a British Neville Chamberlain or Vichy, France types. We need a Churchill or Margaret Thatcher who identifies the enemy and does something kinetic about the problem. Cocktail party wienies might be good for snacking but they are not productive in addressing an implacable enemy busily shooting and blowing up our airports and soft targets. Grow a pair and choose Trump. Their will be cocktail parties galore after we drive a stake through Daes, Isis/Isil/al qaeda, and the mullahs who radicalize muslim mosques. A terrorist who votes democratic is still a terrorist. Suck it up and deal with it.

Curious George said...

So Bernie wants change via doing the same thing. Got it.

Patrick said...

Shorter Bernie: "Vote against globalization! But not for that guy against globalization because I don't like his tone!"

james conrad said...

I think this election will be decided in the debate, much as the the contest was in 1980. If Trump comes off as reasonable and not the wing nut portrayed in the MSM narrative, it's likely the election result will be similar. Hillary is in a bad spot here, just like 2008, she is not a change agent voters are looking for.

rehajm said...

Striking a nerve isn't the same as offering effective policy solutions.

rehajm said...

This one's tough since there isn't a candidate most leftie women want to blow.

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

Brexit won't. The issues that drove Brexit may well give the win to Trump.

tim in vermont said...

Round 'em up, put 'em in reservations, somewhere in Jesusland, and put them on the dole.

Crimso said...

"The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change."

This statement may or may not be true (how much of this system is due to government?). But listening to Sanders on economics is as wise as listening to a homeopath on what you should do about your cancer.

Crimso said...

"I think this election will be decided in the debate, much as the the contest was in 1980."

All Hillary needs is a Candy Crowley. I'm certain someone will step up.

damikesc said...

I think this election will be decided in the debate, much as the the contest was in 1980.

Not accurate. For most of 1980, Reagan's numbers were rising and Carter's were dropping. The debate didn't start that.

This one's tough since there isn't a candidate most leftie women want to blow.

Even worse, as a major fan of blowjobs, there isn't a leftie woman I'd want to blow me.

This statement may or may not be true (how much of this system is due to government?).

Statement is true. His policy prescription is terrible.

M Jordan said...

Brexit doesn't help Trump, it reveals underground forces for Trump. Just as Margaret Thatcher's shocking win in 1979 was a harbinger for Ronald Reagan's equally surprising rise, Brexit shows a populist turn happening worldwide. It's real, it's deep, and it's going to sweep Trump into office.

tim in vermont said...

The problem is with Scots Irish culture that would rather have some kind of meaningful work, than be on the dole, and it is cheaper to send that meaningful work overseas so that we can all be "richer."

Virgil Hilts said...

James Conrad - some of us have predicted that HC will not agree to debate DT. I think Bill O'Reilly was the first prominent person to predict this a few months ago. But he also predicted in May that such a debate would be most watched political event in history. If race is truly tight after the conventions, maybe HC team will decide that her best shot is if DT cannot control himself in the debates and once again makes a complete orange mess of himself. If HC thinks she is leading by 10 points then I do not see her agreeing to debate. A series of new debates would give DT a chance to appear reasonable, calm and presidential (making some forget what an a-hole he was in GOP debates). Why should HC give DT a chance to redefine himself. A tricky calculus.

Johnathan Birks said...

I think Brexit was one convulsion in an epileptic fit. By November there will have been several others.
Nobody "has to" vote for Trump or Hillary if (as seems generally the case) he or she doesn't like either and questions either's capability to be president. Ordinarily I'd say this could be a historically low turnout, but pro- and anti-Trump hysteria is too great for that. Hey, I know: let's find a third person, who espouses positions I can actually get behind, preferably one who's actually held elective office before! Where can we find someone like that?

tim in vermont said...

Or you could seriously shake up the two party system by voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. If either or both get 5%, the qualify for matching funds next time around, and it will be hard to keep them out of debates.

Matthew Sablan said...

I doubt it'll impact either way very much. Americans don't care THAT much about other countries, even when the media tells us to.

cubanbob said...

M Jordan said...
Brexit doesn't help Trump, it reveals underground forces for Trump. Just as Margaret Thatcher's shocking win in 1979 was a harbinger for Ronald Reagan's equally surprising rise, Brexit shows a populist turn happening worldwide. It's real, it's deep, and it's going to sweep Trump into office.

6/29/16, 7:35 AM"

Well said. What remains to be seen is the effect on downstream elections.

tim in vermont said...

We live in a fucking kakistocracy.

AJ Lynch said...

Rejahm: "Striking a nerve isn't the same as offering effective policy solutions."

I don't think any president has been elected because he offered effective policy solutions. Most winners offered a general grand vision but leave for later the hard work and details of how to get there.

I think yesterday Trump gave too many details which gives the Dems and their media operatives much to pick apart. He should simply focus on his outsider status and offer a few big soundbites that encapsulate his MAGA.

Comanche Voter said...

Unlike Pauline Kael who didn't actually know anyone! who voted for Nixon in 68 (so she couldn't fathom how he won the election) I actually know someone who is excited about voting for Hillary. He's a gay activist and vagina voter who is thrilled at the opportunity to elect our first female President. Well okay--if that's what floats his boat. I would have thought he might have learned from his experience in helping elect our first black President.

MadisonMan said...

The people I know who are enthusiastic for Hillary are 40something women who don't have daughters.

Terry said...

Blogger tim in vermont said...

The problem is with Scots Irish culture that would rather have some kind of meaningful work, than be on the dole . . .

*Note that this does not include actual scots & irish people living in Scotland and Ireland.

Paul said...

"All Hillary needs is a Candy Crowley. I'm certain someone will step up."

You'd also need a doofus like Romney to stand there utterly flummoxed and unable to respond.

Brando said...

Those poll results seem about right--both candidates polling at 42 or lower, as most Americans really can't stand either of these putrid choices. A lot of people will decide one is simply too horrible and vote for the other that they also cannot stand, but I can't blame anyone for saying "screw this noise" and going third party or staying home. This isn't like "ugh, Carter or Ford?" It's more like "ugh, stabbed or poisoned?"

Brexit might be a wash for Trump. On the one hand, if it causes economic disaster here, that helps the "out" party (as it did in 2008) if Trump could avoid saying something stupid and stay on message (a tall order). On the other, watching the stock market tank and this orange baboon gloat over it shouldn't go over well to the middle class watching their 401(k)s take a hit, and if England takes a dive economically the guy who cheered on what precipitated it won't look good to the voters he needs to win over.

Paul said...

November is a long way off. Polls now are meaningless.

rehajm said...

Brexit might be a wash for Trump. On the one hand, if it causes economic disaster here...

Where are you, exactly?

grackle said...

… her best shot is if DT cannot control himself in the debates and once again makes a complete orange mess of himself … what an a-hole he was in GOP debates …

The out-of-control a-hole Trump’s poll numbers and share of the primary vote went up after each debate. I do not see Trump changing his debate style after all that success.

Or you could seriously shake up the two party system by voting for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. If either or both get 5%, the qualify for matching funds next time around, and it will be hard to keep them out of debates.

So far, adding the two long shots into a 4-candidate race has them either siphoning off evenly from both Trump and Clinton or taking slightly more votes from Clinton:

Quinnipiac University released a poll on Wednesday showing a general election toss-up, with Clinton holding a slight four point edge over Trump, 45-41. When third party candidates Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein were added, Clinton’s edge dropped to two points, 40-38. Johnson captured 5 percent, while Stein earned 3 percent.

http://tinyurl.com/jhvqsbf

EDH said...

A little context on those close poll numbers, linked by Instapundit.

Team Clinton Spent $26M on Battleground Ads in June. Trump Spent $0

Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to dominate the presidential battleground-state airwaves, outspending Donald Trump and pro-Trump groups this month, $26 million to $0, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta.

For the week, it's $7.5 million to $0 in the eight battlegrounds of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. And when you add future ad reservations, it's $140 million to $0.

In these battleground states, the Clinton campaign has spent nearly $9 million in ads this month, while affiliated outside groups like the pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA have chipped in an additional $17 million.

The sole pro-Trump advertiser, Rebuilding America Now, has aired commercials on national cable TV, not in the battlegrounds - at a price tag of $1.2 million so far.

walter said...

Blogger Curious George said...
So Bernie wants change via doing the same thing. Got it.
--
Or..more of the same. More "free" stuff.
Shrinking pie? Carve out a larger slice.

n.n said...

Redistributive change (i.e. bribes) and liberal doses of opiates (i.e. conscience, reality suppressants) may still be an effective strategy to maintain the status quo. Well, that, combined with executive decrees, judicial overrides, regulatory legislation, and institutional threats should be sufficient to progress anti-American policies.

grackle said...

The Morning Joes were a bit less confident this AM. The fly in their champagne is the new Quinnipiac poll which has Trump pulling even with Clinton.

http://tinyurl.com/htzfucq

This Trump supporter doesn’t want him to peak too early. I think if he gets too far ahead before the Democrat convention it’ll be Indictment City for Clinton and a sub rushed into the game – Uncle Biden, Pocahontas, whoever they think has a chance to win.

An indictment, BTW, that I believe would be detrimental to America and probably destined to be unsuccessful. Should it happen, I think President Trump would do well to squelch it as an olive branch to the Democrats or maybe use it as a negotiating tool to get some meaningful legislation passed.

AprilApple said...

Bernie is a fraud is he backs Hillary. and he will.

Gusty Winds said...

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are both sellouts and will actively support Hillary and all the Wall Street money they claim to despise in their fake socialist efforts.

Being able to throw around empty accusations of race, bigotry, sexism, and xenophobia are more important to their political futures than anything they might accomplish in support of the working class.



Michael said...

"But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment"

But Bernie doesn't seem to see that flinging around demagogy and bigotry has lost its sting and in fact has begun a red flag to the fed up masses. And "anti-immigrant" is somehow meant to say its OK for illegal immigration which is another red flag. Normal people would like to be treated with the respect that is due someone who knows the difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. And conflating the two is part of the reason the progs are losing.

Michael said...

And maybe 5% of the public knows what "Brexit" means.

AprilApple said...

Trump isn't spending money because - that is the big plan. win the primary, trash the GOPe and hand it to his old pal Hillary.

Gusty Winds said...

Virgil Hilts said...
- some of us have predicted that HC will not agree to debate DT. I think Bill O'Reilly was the first prominent person to predict this a few months ago.

I'd say it's 50/50 right now.

I would expect her to play the victim card and say she is not going to debate a bully. If I were in her campaign, I would have a hard time finding the advantage to putting her on stage next to Trump. And her's is a campaign with a strategy of the less exposure the better.

If she can't take unprepared questions from reporters, how is she going to handle Trump?

But on the other hand, if she can't debate Trump, how does she then claim to be able to deal with other tough situations?

Warren played the victim card yesterday on The View, rather than address her false claims of Native American heritage for career advancement. Of course the ladies on The View let her get away with it.

Trump is right about daring Clinton to make Warren her VP choice.

walter said...

Hey..don't be so so cynical.

Big Mike said...

Hillary got an earful when she went down to coal country and tried to rally the UAW rank and file. She suggested that maybe we could retrain all the coal miners to be computer programmers, apparently not realizing that Zuckerberg and other big time donors to her campaign are actively trying to replace American programmers with much less expensive H1B visa holders.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I watched a rerun of The Big Bang Theory last night. It was the one where Penny and Sheldon test some psychology claim that doing certain stuff together will make them fall in love. They don't, but they do attain a greater intimacy.

Sheldon tells Penny he admires her ability to get along with people and to read minds.

That struck me as very stupid and I was reminded of that episode of Star Trek TOS where the space probe thingie scans Uhura's head-bone and concludes something like: "A mass of conflicting impulses."

Anyway, the point of all this is to say that the idiom of reading another person's mind is another way to say that you can predict the future and I haven't the slightest fucking idea whether Brexit will "tip American voters to Trump" and neither does anybody else.

Paul said...

"Trump isn't spending money because - that is the big plan. win the primary, trash the GOPe and hand it to his old pal Hillary."

I didn't think there was anybody left still so stuck on stupid as to believe this.

Congratulations.

Original Mike said...

"Brexit might be a wash for Trump. On the one hand, if it causes economic disaster here, that helps the "out" party (as it did in 2008) if Trump could avoid saying something stupid and stay on message (a tall order). On the other, watching the stock market tank and this orange baboon gloat over it shouldn't go over well to the middle class watching their 401(k)s take a hit,"

Through yesterday, and including last week's run up before the vote, the S&P has "tanked" about 1.5%. Number could be a little off, I did it in my head, but so far Brexit has been a nothingburger for the U.S. market. Not so great for the Greek market, however.

dreams said...

The terrorist attacks will help Trump too because we can't just continue with more of the same in dealing with our enemies.

Big Mike said...

@walter, what I think Trump is asking that ex-president is whether he wouldn't mind taking his hand off Trump's wife's ass and stop looking down her cleavage.

damikesc said...

Through yesterday, and including last week's run up before the vote, the S&P has "tanked" about 1.5%. Number could be a little off, I did it in my head, but so far Brexit has been a nothingburger for the U.S. market. Not so great for the Greek market, however.

What I don't get is how the Brexit can harm the UK's credit rating...but has no bearing on the EU's. The UK is one of the stronger financial members. How can losing that have no impact?

dreams said...

Brexit is a good indicator of how voters are likely to vote and another example of how bad the polls are given the politically correct atmosphere. Most people don't consider themselves to be racist and don't like being made to feel that they are, so they give the politically correct answer.

damikesc said...

Being able to throw around empty accusations of race, bigotry, sexism, and xenophobia are more important to their political futures than anything they might accomplish in support of the working class.

Assuming facts not in evidence. I've seen nothing out of either that indicate much of a shit being given for the working class.

bagoh20 said...

Most of the people of the world are more than willing to do the work that needs done and do it for less money and security than Americans are. That is the problem of globalization. Improvements in transportation and logistics have made that easy as it's gonna get now. Still, distance, time, and flexibility give local producers a slim advantage in most industries. If not for the growing burden placed on domestic production by government regulations and incentive to sloth that advantage would be enough. We cannot avoid globalization living on a globe with modern communications. We could however mostly eliminate it as a problem for us with less government and less support of people who can work, but refuse to. Nearly half of the people in the country do not get up each day and contribute something of value to the rest. They instead burden the the other half who do. That is our problem and the problem of most western nations. We don't try - we bitch that it's too hard and unfair. Trump says he's gonna do something about that, although his natural inclination and history seem to show he would be soft on it. Hillary on the other hand seems unable to even grasp the concept of less government as a good thing. I hate them both, but of the two, the choice is clear.

Original Mike said...

@damikesc - I think credit ratings of countries are more political than financial (see Mark Zandi, Moody's).

walter said...

Big Mike said...
@walter, what I think Trump is asking that ex-president is whether he wouldn't mind taking his hand off Trump's wife's ass and stop looking down her cleavage.
--
Heh..yeah..that was the most positive still from Trump/'s selling off of Melania's fine day I could find.

damikesc said...

@damikesc - I think credit ratings of countries are more political than financial (see Mark Zandi, Moody's).

My assumption as well....also seeing how badly they shat the bed with Enron, my faith in credit ratings companies is awfully low.

Achilles said...

It won't tip new voters. It will be part of a preference cascade. Even the polls with 40% democrats and 25% republicans are showing a close race now. This is not a close race.

I just hope we get to the conventions before they yank Hillary.

Brando said...

"Through yesterday, and including last week's run up before the vote, the S&P has "tanked" about 1.5%. Number could be a little off, I did it in my head, but so far Brexit has been a nothingburger for the U.S. market. Not so great for the Greek market, however."

We'll see how it plays out--the initial reaction was bad for the U.S. stocks, but that may bounce back. Ultimately if the U.S. stays out of recession this year, Hillary retains the edge.

FWBuff said...

"But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment"

Why does Sanders use "demagogy" instead of "demagoguery"? It is an odd word-choice that makes him seem disdainfully out-of-touch when his goal is to convince others that they should listen to his advice because he is especially in-tune with a large portion of the base. It grates on my ear like Obama's saying "ISIL" instead of "ISIS".

Original Mike said...

"We'll see how it plays out--the initial reaction was bad for the U.S. stocks, but that may bounce back."

The point is, it already has bounced back. But yes, hard to see the future is.

grackle said...

Ann Coulter has this theory:

A significant portion of pro-Trumpers are people who haven’t voted before or haven’t voted for years. But the pollsters can only sample from registered voters or likely voters and it is difficult to poll likely voters.

All the pollsters have methods to identify likely voters but here is Gallup’s assessment of the difficulties:

The validity of setting a threshold based on a specific estimated turnout among the voting age population (VAP) or voter eligible population (VEP) is less clear than it was in the past, particularly given real-world changes in voting, such as early voting and decreases in survey participation rates.

http://tinyurl.com/2coloca

In PollsterSpeech Gallup is acknowledging, albeit as obtusely as possible and blaming it on secondary issues, that identifying likely voters is a hit or miss situation.

BTW, we do not see Coulter on TV these days. I’m thinking her favoring Trump and being very good at puncturing the anti-Trumpsters’ bullshit might have something to do with her scarcity.

Laura Ingraham was on the Special Report panel with George Will a day or so ago and she put Will in his place. I doubt we will see her on another Special Report panel anytime soon. At about the 3:50 mark she shows Will up for the idiot he is.

http://tinyurl.com/h2hzthf

Yancey Ward said...

I will predict as some above have that Hillary won't debate Trump.

Sanders is still trying to win the nomination- his essay has to be read with that in mind.

Paul said...

"At about the 3:50 mark she shows Will up for the idiot he is."

Not mentioned is Hillary's promise of citizenship for illegals and their families increasing the ranks of of democrat voters by potentially tens of millions. How are the Republicans gonna bounce back from that George?

Original Mike said...

When was the last time the two candidates did not debate?

Michael K said...

Brexit doesn't help Trump, it reveals underground forces for Trump. Just as Margaret Thatcher's shocking win in 1979 was a harbinger for Ronald Reagan's equally surprising rise,

Yes. Also, much of the market decline after Brexit is a result of a rise anticipating a "Remain" result.

We will see more terrorist attacks and I am concerned about Cleveland being a target during the Convention.

Every attack makes Trump's point about security.

The Preference Cascade rolls on.

Brando said...

"When was the last time the two candidates did not debate?"

1972.

dreams said...

"At about the 3:50 mark she shows Will up for the idiot he is."

She also corrected the liberal Mara Liasson who said that Trump was against free trade. Liberals are always bragging about how nuanced they are but they don't allow any nuance for the Republicans/conservatives, such hypocrites.

Original Mike said...

44 years. I don't see how Hillary refusing to debate is tenable. Not saying she wouldn't do it, but the optics would be awful.

Michael K said...

I think she may try to avoid debates as she did with Sanders. I doubt she will be able to do so but desperation may be a factor.

walter said...

Blogger Michael K said...
I think she may try to avoid debates as she did with Sanders.
--
..and as Trump did. Trump doesn't avoid debates, he backs out.

Original Mike said...

"..and as Trump did. Trump doesn't avoid debates, he backs out."

Trump debated plenty of times. Frankly, I don't think his debate performances were very good. Hillary may mop the floor with him.

dreams said...

If Hillary doesn't want to debate, the liberal media will explain to to us why it isn't necessary and that its even a good thing since Trump is a racist thug or whatever.

dreams said...

"Trump debated plenty of times. Frankly, I don't think his debate performances were very good. Hillary may mop the floor with him."

Trump might not have won on the debating points but the voters thought he won and that is what ultimately matters.

Brando said...

"44 years. I don't see how Hillary refusing to debate is tenable. Not saying she wouldn't do it, but the optics would be awful."

It would look bad, though if I were her advisor and believed a debate would be all risk and no reward (not sure that's their calculation--Trump can make a fool of himself in debates, and the general election format and audience is very different from that of the primaries, so they may think Hillary can gain from the debate) all I'd have to do is haggle with the Trump campaign over the rules, and ultimately say that the two sides could not agree on debate rules. Doesn't matter if that's true--anti-Trumpers could easily believe Trump insisted on something crazy that no sane person would agree to (the Trumpers would deny it, and would be correct, but then they already are for Trump so it wouldn't matter).

Original Mike said...

"Trump might not have won on the debating points but the voters thought he won and that is what ultimately matters."

He was competing against multiple opponents. It's different when there is one.

Brando said...

"Trump might not have won on the debating points but the voters thought he won and that is what ultimately matters."

The general election debate isn't the same animal--a one-on-one contest with more candidate screen time (and remember--near the end of each debate, Trump tended to get tired and less controlled), and an opponent who isn't trying not to alienate your core supporters. Plus, they're playing to a general election audience rather than a Republican electorate. If I were advising Trump, I'd be suggesting a very different approach to the fall debates compared to the primary debates.

dreams said...

"He was competing against multiple opponents. It's different when there is one."

Trump is a winner and Hillary is a loser, I'm going to go with the winner. Regardless, time will tell.

Paul said...

I can't see Trump losing a debate with Hillary. She's stiff, scripted, and about the most target rich candidate one can imagine.

Original Mike said...

"I can't see Trump losing a debate with Hillary. She's stiff, scripted, and about the most target rich candidate one can imagine."

Trump's debate style of spewing insults may not play as well in the general as it did in the primary.

Michael K said...

I can't see Trump losing a debate with Hillary. She's stiff, scripted, and about the most target rich candidate one can imagine.

I agree. She is stiff and will not get away easy like she did with Lazio.

"Trump's debate style of spewing insults may not play as well in the general as it did in the primary."

You guys are all still talking about earlier in the year, He seems to be a quick learner and is getting better all the time but those who hate him can't see that.

We'll see.

Original Mike said...

I don't hate him, MK. And I desperately want Hillary denied the White House. But, My God, some of his behavior is unacceptable (in my book, obviously). As to whether or not he's getting better, and whether that would take some of the shine off for his supporters, you're right. We'll see.

james conrad said...

On the debate, it is A MUST these days, part of the election process since 1960. I don't see Hillary avoiding them, maybe limiting them to 2 but, i see the largest TV audience in the history of presidential debates coming up after the conventions.

Qwinn said...

Let me know when Trump apologizes - and I mean, PROFUSELY - for accusing Ted Cruz's father of participating in the Kennedy assassination right before the Indiana primary. Till then, extremely unlikely I will vote for him.

Some things are unforgivable even with contrition. This isn't one of those. But forgivable *without* contrition? Screw that.

Brando said...

"Some things are unforgivable even with contrition. This isn't one of those. But forgivable *without* contrition? Screw that."

I wouldn't count on that. Trump, who considers himself a "strong Christian" (which is why the IRS keeps auditing him, don't you know) has often said he never has anything to atone for. I wouldn't hold your breath.

"You guys are all still talking about earlier in the year, He seems to be a quick learner and is getting better all the time but those who hate him can't see that."

As someone who has detested Hillary since the '90s, I've very much wanted to like anyone running against her, and I've been trying to find something positive about Trump (and on occasions when he's been right, I've admitted as much). But he keeps finding new lows, and sticking true to form as a charlatan and cretin. I'd really like to see him improve to the point where I can see him differently, but it's almost July and he keeps staying true to form.

That doesn't mean I've changed my mind about Hillary, but jeez, give us some option! There's a lot of us anti-Hillarys out there and the GOP should have had this year in the bag.

Original Mike said...

"the GOP should have had this year in the bag."

The economy sucks, our foreign relations are in shambles, terrorism is on the rise, and Hillary is an awful candidate. Republicans screwed the pooch.

Brando said...

"The economy sucks, our foreign relations are in shambles, terrorism is on the rise, and Hillary is an awful candidate. Republicans screwed the pooch."

Pretty much, though I'd disagree about the economy compared to 2008 or even 2012 (which is what voters will look at). But when this campaign started, Obama's approvals were underwater and the three term itch was working in the GOP favor. They might have overcome the demographics and electoral advantages of the Dems, and won a victory by greater than Bush's 2004 margins.

And a convincing win against her, coupled with the likely holding of both Houses of Congress could have been an opportunity for the GOP to be held to their promises, and possibly convert a generation of voters into the conservative ranks. The opportunity was there after the Obama hangover.

David said...

And what is the alternative to a "Global" economy? Non-global? Regional? National?

The economy is global because we live on a globe. China imports 80% of their iron or and a large percentage of their coal. Then they export and consume steel. They consume about 8 times as much as they export. The US exports iron ore and coal to China (when the enviros and Nimbys allow it.) We import steel from China. Would we like China, which has been consuming half of the world's steel supply per year, to cut it to 20%? That would kill China's economy. What happens when China's economy is destroyed. Almost inevitably, a war, its seems to me.

There is no going back from a "Global" economy unless we want (literally) war, famine and depression. There is, however, a way to go back from international regulatory systems. And national regulatory systems that try to herd us into conduct the bureaucrats and their lobbyists find appropriate. We will make a great mistake if we confuse globalism with regulatory excess. What we need most is increasing personal and economic freedom. You can't have that while outlawing (as a practical or legal matter) international trade.

Brando said...

"There is no going back from a "Global" economy unless we want (literally) war, famine and depression. There is, however, a way to go back from international regulatory systems. And national regulatory systems that try to herd us into conduct the bureaucrats and their lobbyists find appropriate. We will make a great mistake if we confuse globalism with regulatory excess. What we need most is increasing personal and economic freedom. You can't have that while outlawing (as a practical or legal matter) international trade."

Agreed--closing us out from trade is no solution to the very real effects of trade (which frankly are overstated--most of the job loss effects we see have to do with tech advances, not foreign competition). These aren't just things that benefit "elites" but workers across all parts of the economy, as well as consumers and it means more than just "cheap Wal-Mart t-shirts" but also medical technology, food, etc. These benefits aren't as obvious as the sight of a closed factory, but are still very real.

That doesn't mean every trade deal is always great, or that foreign actors aren't doing things we should combat (e.g., currency manipulation, IP violations) but this Trump-Sanders ideology (which Clinton seems to be signing onto) is a big step back and if it ever came to anything, would make us a lot poorer as a country.

Michael K said...

"Republicans screwed the pooch."

That long predates Trump. He is the result, not the cause.

Had the GOP Congress acted after taking the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2012, we would not see this rage against the GOPe.

Angelo Codevilla described the problem in 2010.

When this majority discovered that virtually no one in a position of power in either party or with a national voice would take their objections seriously, that decisions about their money were being made in bipartisan backroom deals with interested parties, and that the laws on these matters were being voted by people who had not read them, the term “political class” came into use. Then, after those in power changed their plans from buying toxic assets to buying up equity in banks and major industries but refused to explain why, when they reasserted their right to decide ad hoc on these and so many other matters, supposing them to be beyond the general public’s understanding, the American people started referring to those in and around government as the “ruling class.” And in fact Republican and Democratic office holders and their retinues show a similar presumption to dominate and fewer differences in tastes, habits, opinions, and sources of income among one another than between both and the rest of the country. They think, look, and act as a class.

Brexit and Trump are reactive events. The people trust NO ONE in politics. I think there are a few who are trustworthy. One was Tom Coburn and I was disappointed that he has such antipathy to Trump. Trump needs good advice.

Another one is Sessions and he is on the inside helping. I don't trust Newt Gingrich but he can be a help although he is too old to be VP.

Jim Webb might still be an interesting VP choice.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Everything out of Bezos' WashPo on this election is dishonest garbage as far as I'm concerned. He bought the thing to put his thumb on the scale, period. Smarter than spending money to rent a politician: buy a formerly respectable paper. It worked for oligarch Carlos Slim and his 20% in NYT.

Original Mike said...

"I think there are a few who are trustworthy. One was Tom Coburn and I was disappointed that he has such antipathy to Trump. Trump needs good advice."

I have tons of respect for Coburn, and therefore have to respect his opinion of Trump.

narciso said...

ah coburn, you remember the last high profile fellow he befriended, obama, you know how he handled that relationship, as an excuse not to abandon bill ayers,

Michael K said...

It's possible that Coburn, an honorable man, has trouble recognizing and identifying con men. Obama certainly is. Maybe having been burned once, he is against anyone who resembles Obama in his appeal. Trump does resemble him in his "change" message.

tim in vermont said...

So refusing to debate will be one more "Hillary is like Nixon" story, another clear sign that her dedicated trolls will ignore.