August 11, 2016

"Finally, do not discount the electorate’s ability to be mischievous or underestimate how [m]any millions fancy themselves as closet anarchists once they draw the curtain and are all alone in the voting booth."

"It’s one of the few places left in society where there are no security cameras, no listening devices, no spouses, no kids, no boss, no cops, there’s not even a friggin’ time limit. You can take as long as you need in there and no one can make you do anything. You can push the button and vote a straight party line, or you can write in Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. There are no rules. And because of that, and the anger that so many have toward a broken political system, millions are going to vote for Trump not because they agree with him, not because they like his bigotry or ego, but just because they can. Just because it will upset the apple cart and make mommy and daddy mad. And in the same way like when you’re standing on the edge of Niagara Falls and your mind wonders for a moment what would that feel like to go over that thing, a lot of people are going to love being in the position of puppetmaster and plunking down for Trump just to see what that might look like. Remember back in the ‘90s when the people of Minnesota elected a professional wrestler as their governor? They didn’t do this because they’re stupid or thought that Jesse Ventura was some sort of statesman or political intellectual. They did so just because they could. Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country. It is also filled with people who have a dark sense of humor — and voting for Ventura was their version of a good practical joke on a sick political system. This is going to happen again with Trump."

From "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win," by Michael Moore. This was published a week and a half ago, so maybe it's obsolete by now, what with Hillary being so up in the polls. But I only got around to reading the whole thing a few days ago, and it keeps coming to mind, so I wanted to share it. Whether you agree with all the points or not and whether you love or loathe Michael Moore, it's very entertainingly written. In fact, Moore is compelling in a very similar way to Trump, and when you see that, you'll realize that The Jesse Ventura Effect is alive and kicking... in your crazy American pop-culture heart.

104 comments:

Fernandinande said...

Michael Moore proves that you don't have to be beautiful or intelligent to get rich in Hollywood if you're dishonest enough.

David Begley said...

I agree with Moore. As I recall that MN election there were a large number of people who never vote who voted in that election. The WWE crowd.

A full 70% of the country think we are on the wrong track. Hillary represents the status quo. Trump blows up the system.

Mike said...

maybe it's obsolete by now, what with Hillary being so up in the polls

This is a strange comment for being this early in the cycle. Dukakis was way up. Carter was way up. I'm not concerned with all the wild polling now. I really believe the "Wilder Effect" or a version of the "shy Tory" effect is being manifested in polls right now. All the long term trends (anti-politician feelings, anti-Washington in particular, year of the outsider, rejection of in-party attempts to extend power from 8 to 12 years) point to an electorate poised to clean house, not give in to The Inevitable.

Of course the vessel carrying this change matters. He can defeat himself, but I don't believe Her can beat Donald.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Moore is compelling in a very similar way to Trump, . . .

Which might go a long way toward explaining why I find neither of them even so much as remotely interesting, no less compelling.

Mick said...

Mike said...
"maybe it's obsolete by now, what with Hillary being so up in the polls

This is a strange comment for being this early in the cycle. Dukakis was way up. Carter was way up. I'm not concerned with all the wild polling now".


The polls are Bullshit, the polls mean nothing, the polls are lies. Trump in a Landslide.

Mick said...

I was at the Sunrise Fla. rally where trump said "Obama created ISIS and Hillary helped" (of course he was correct). He was on fire. He even used charts, like H. Ross Perot, only better. Was VERY ON POINT. He will wipe the floor with that criminal coughing old bitch. LANDSLIDE. 12K people there, and fired up. HRC cannot fill a high school gym with sleeping old ladies. The polls ARE LIES.

Chuck said...

Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota with 37% of the vote, in a bitterly-split three-way race with Norm Coleman (who became a U.S. Senator) and Skip Humphrey (HHH's son). It was a freak election.

Now, I get it that there are a lot of mouth-breather morons in the electorate. The proof of that is how many people go to Michael Moore movies, and how many voted for Trump in the Republican primaries.

But they are not a national electorate majority. Even though Hillary Clinton is as pure Democrat (my metaphor for pure evil) as it gets, and deserves defeat.

LOL; what must be going through the thick heads of the Trumpkins as Michael Moore declares a Trump victory as likely. (There may be a cohort of Trump/Moore fans, now that I think about it.)

And of course, Michael Moore is certainly voting for Mrs. Clinton and supporting Democrats.

MadisonMan said...

I'd like to believe Moore, as I think Hillary is a very very bad Leader -- unless she's getting something out of it for herself.

He writes well, but not persuasively. I don't think Moore has his fingers on the heartbeat of the electorate.

Todd said...

I have to wonder how "honest" the (any) polls are as (and I know this is not empirical evidence) no one I know [myself included] ever answers any polls. We have caller ID and only answer the phone if we know who is calling. We avoid the public poll takers like they have contact leprosy. So how many people do the poll takers have to contact before they actually reach a "reasonable" number of respondents and is there an inadvertent skewing of the polls as they are more likely answered by people that don't mind or actively want to answer polls?

Does this lead to any sort of selection bias?

Just asking...

Chuck said...

Mick said...
I was at the Sunrise Fla. rally where trump said "Obama created ISIS and Hillary helped" (of course he was correct). He was on fire. He even used charts, like H. Ross Perot, only better. Was VERY ON POINT. He will wipe the floor with that criminal coughing old bitch. LANDSLIDE. 12K people there, and fired up. HRC cannot fill a high school gym with sleeping old ladies. The polls ARE LIES.


The problem, Mick, is that those people will need photo i.d. to vote, and can't vote with past felony convictions. So that's a major issue for your numbers.

dreams said...

And just remember the polls can't measure turn out. I think Trump voters are more motivated than crooked Hillary voters.

Mick said...

Can the "law prof" vote for someone "so uncivil" from her perch in the Ivory Tower of academia? Afterall, she, a supposed "law prof" voted for the usurper Hussein Obama, probably because he seemed to be a "clean black man" (in the words of Biden) who appeared civil and well spoken, but is the devil incarnate, and the destroyer of America, and by the way not even eligible. Now that man (?) has attacked every fiber of American life, and is actively supporting and promoting the invasion of America by diseased third worlders, yet she still pleads for "civility". HRC and Obama will be exposed by Trump as the enemies of America they are.

JHapp said...

Moore thinks most people are just like him, a mischievous anarchist. He is wrong.

Mick said...

Mick said...
I was at the Sunrise Fla. rally where trump said "Obama created ISIS and Hillary helped" (of course he was correct). He was on fire. He even used charts, like H. Ross Perot, only better. Was VERY ON POINT. He will wipe the floor with that criminal coughing old bitch. LANDSLIDE. 12K people there, and fired up. HRC cannot fill a high school gym with sleeping old ladies. The polls ARE LIES.


"The problem, Mick, is that those people will need photo i.d. to vote, and can't vote with past felony convictions. So that's a major issue for your numbers."

Dream on-- those people were real Americans, the silent majority. They hate the media, the criminals in government, and the Ivory Tower of academia. Trump is so far ahead that the Diebold criminals will not be able to fix the election. Landslide.

Nonapod said...

Not sure if I've ever actually read something Michael Moore has written or sat through one of his awful, demonstrably dishonest movies. But dumbass may have a point here though. One thing is certain above all else during this weird election season: Many, many people are very angry with The Establishment in this country. They feel the whole damn system is corrupt from the top down. They may have differing viewpoints about how it's corrupt and what or who the possible solutions are, but they all feel that they've been taken advantage of. And Trump can be looked at as a big middle finger to this system.

Whether that means that Trump will ultimately prevail despite the polls and despite himself remains to be seen. But whether he ends up winning or not, one can only hope that the people that make up The Establishment will actually learn something. That's probably wishful thinking, I know, but I'm an optimist at heart.

DougWeber said...

Ventura is not the only example. Schwartzenegger is another example of the phenomenon. Note neither of these was an incompetent governor. Nor was either a great one. This results in more power in the legislature because the governor does not have the traditional relationship with the pols and so cannot pull in favors and the legislators do not feel the need to keep in the governor's good graces.

Curious George said...

This is nothing more than a "Get out the vote" piece.

Brando said...

"Which might go a long way toward explaining why I find neither of them even so much as remotely interesting, no less compelling."

Amen to that. Not even sure why Moore is opposed to Trump--they share a lot of opinions and thought processes.

I will give this much to Moore--he's right about a part of that. Hillary's weakness gives Trump a chance where he would otherwise be in a far deeper hole. She still polls below 50% most of the time, and while a big chunk of the electorate wants nothing to do with Trump, they can't stomach voting for her either. The race isn't over.

"Does this lead to any sort of selection bias?"

It can, but it's baked into their methodology (just like a lot of people only have cell phones and don't answer calls they don't recognize, or even intentionally lie to pollsters for kicks). Still, despite some hiccups (e.g., Michigan Democratic primary this year) the polls have been pretty accurate.

Bobby said...

Todd,

"I have to wonder how "honest" the (any) polls are as (and I know this is not empirical evidence) no one I know [myself included] ever answers any polls. We have caller ID and only answer the phone if we know who is calling. We avoid the public poll takers like they have contact leprosy. So how many people do the poll takers have to contact before they actually reach a "reasonable" number of respondents and is there an inadvertent skewing of the polls as they are more likely answered by people that don't mind or actively want to answer polls?

Does this lead to any sort of selection bias?

Just asking...
"

I wonder the same thing and believe that, on some level, it has to have an effect. However, this precise question (and others quite like it) was/were raised for the 2008 presidential election, when Silver's model correctly predicted the outcome of 49 of 50 states. They were raised again for the 2012 presidential election, when Silver's model nonetheless correctly predicted the outcome of all 50 states. And they were raised during the 2016 Republican and Democratic primaries, when Silver's polls-only model correctly predicted 52 of 57 contests (his polls-plus model went 51-for-57). So while I agree that there has to be some bias, it would be difficult (though not impossible) to claim that what you describe is creating significant bias.

I would caution Trump supporters (I am not one of them) against reflexively dismissing the data simply because it does not conform to what they very much want to believe. This is what many commenters on this very blog did in 2012, and they were subsequently saddened to find that the polls were right, Silver was right, and Obama was coasting to re-election. That said, if one can derive three more months of psychological comfort by holding on to what they desperately want to believe (or, as Achilles does, by being confident that Wikileaks leaks will take down Hillary- though, interestingly enough, just a few months ago he had the same hopes about the FBI doing that job) before Hillary wins the election and becomes our next President, then who am I to say that's bad? It's not my style, but then I'm a registered Libertarian, so I've long ago come to grips with what this election (and the others before it) will yield.

Brando said...

"Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota with 37% of the vote, in a bitterly-split three-way race with Norm Coleman (who became a U.S. Senator) and Skip Humphrey (HHH's son). It was a freak election."

Not only that, but Ventura did not arouse the level of hatred (fair or not) that Trump has aroused against him.

But as you say, Trump's best chance here would be if one of the third party candidates did very well in siphoning off Hillary votes. If he needs over half the electorate to support him, it's very hard, if not impossible, for him to win. But if he just needs to get close to 40% in most states (because say a third party candidate is doing over 30%) then he could certainly pull it off.

If Trump really wanted to win (a questionable proposition all things considered) he would try to fund the Jill Stein campaign or some other third party candidate, to get them to take away Hillary votes.

rhhardin said...

It's not anger. It's a vote against what doesn't work.

It's a principal/agent problem. The agent eventually starts working in his own interest instead of what he's hired to do, instead of in addition to.

Tommy Duncan said...

I live in Minnesota. The Ventura votes were "he can't be any worse than the clowns the Republicans and Democrats have offered us" protest votes. People thought he might actually bring change, but he wasn't smart enough to know how to restructure the system. The Minnesota establishment just dug in their heels to oppose him.

A Ventura election is no longer possible in Minnesota. The Democrat machine is too strong to allow it. The Democrat's ability to manipulate the vote count in Minneapolis/St Paul/Duluth is now legendary. They own local government and are able to manufacture votes as needed. Plus, the Democrats and the local media are indistinguishable.

Brando said...

"
I would caution Trump supporters (I am not one of them) against reflexively dismissing the data simply because it does not conform to what they very much want to believe. This is what many commenters on this very blog did in 2012, and they were subsequently saddened to find that the polls were right, Silver was right, and Obama was coasting to re-election. That said, if one can derive three more months of psychological comfort by holding on to what they desperately want to believe (or, as Achilles does, by being confident that Wikileaks leaks will take down Hillary- though, interestingly enough, just a few months ago he had the same hopes about the FBI doing that job) before Hillary wins the election and becomes our next President, then who am I to say that's bad? It's not my style, but then I'm a registered Libertarian, so I've long ago come to grips with what this election (and the others before it) will yield."

It's one thing for supporters (like the people on this site) to comfort themselves that the polls are wrong the Trump is going to crush Hillary this fall. No harm in giving yourself a few months comfort before the inevitable. But if Team Trump is actually believing this crap (which I believe Team Romney did in their similar case four years ago) then that's political malpractice. If you're fighting with poor info, you're going to make all sorts of mistakes (like campaigning in non-swing states, which they've already done).

dreams said...

Some recent history, remember Brexit. The elites cried wolf and were claiming to be right when the stock market had a two day sell-off.

320Busdriver said...

Yesterdays Marquette poll in WI affirms that Trump is in real trouble here, and it's getting worse for him. Worse yet is Foolsgold is beating Johnson. FL AND TX look better every day.

dustbunny said...

I lived in Minnesota during that election and Ventura won because people were pissed that the two establishment candidates were so lame but also because of a couple of ads broadcast at the end of the campaign. They were created by a local ad man and the reaction was huge. The one I remember had Ventura posed nude as Rodin's thinker with Ventura's voice-over delivering his deep thoughts. Dark Minnesota humor indeed.

EsoxLucius said...

This would be a good time to mention Where to Invade Next (2015), Moore's European tour of society we can learn from that (surprise) were invented right here in the good u. s. of a.

coupe said...

Sometimes you despise a person so much, that you won't read anything they write.

This is only human nature, but it is very low-level brain response. Similar to averting your eyes when you know your kid is going to smash right into the mailbox with their skateboard.

Michael Moore is an "avert your eyes person" in more ways than one. First, you have to get over the fact he is ugly. Then you have to get over the fact that he is a tool, and about 20 "get-overs" later, you finally might actually read what he writes.

This is very high level brain activity, and I decided about 5 years ago, that I would need drugs to get to that level.

OK, I need to mow the lawn (operate machinery), so no drugs until after lunch...

TosaGuy said...

"I live in Minnesota. The Ventura votes were "he can't be any worse than the clowns the Republicans and Democrats have offered us" protest votes. People thought he might actually bring change, but he wasn't smart enough to know how to restructure the system. The Minnesota establishment just dug in their heels to oppose him.

A Ventura election is no longer possible in Minnesota. The Democrat machine is too strong to allow it. The Democrat's ability to manipulate the vote count in Minneapolis/St Paul/Duluth is now legendary. They own local government and are able to manufacture votes as needed. Plus, the Democrats and the local media are indistinguishable."

I am a MN native and agree with you. The MN GOP is inept and the DFL is a corrupt political machine filled with guilty white liberals like your governor. However, the lily white elected DFL is going to change because right now there are only three minority legislators in a body of 201. This will change because on Tuesday two long-time DFL incumbents lost to minority challengers. I expect this to become a trend in the Twin Cities most urban districts. At some point, guilty white liberals who currently pay alot of lipservice will resent losing elections and elected power.

Bob Boyd said...

Even if you hate him, voting Trump makes more logical sense than voting Clinton.

Trump would be 4 years of a guy you don't like saying dumb things and causing some degree of turmoil in DC. But his agenda will be frustrated at every turn by Congress (whether Democrat or Republican controlled), the courts, the media and the career bureaucracy.
Trump = short term pain.

Clinton means long term pain and possibly changing our political system into something else entirely. She will radically alter the the Supreme Court for many years. She would not be restrained by a Democrat controlled Congress. A Republican controlled Congress will have little power when the SC sides with Hillary's agenda. The courts, who have repeatedly restrained Obama's overreach, would no longer be a check on Hillary. The media will cheer lead for her all the way and the Career bureaucracy is made up almost entirely of Democrat public employee union members.
Hillary is a much riskier vote.


Matthew Sablan said...

So the new defense is the same as the old.

The ideas won't lose; the people are too stupid to accept our ideas.

Unknown said...

I have enough faith in humanity and the American people to believe that wouldn't happen, but go right on thinking that Trump could be winning in the hearts and minds of the multitudes of secret anarchists. I recall the face of Carl Rove on Fox the night of the 2012 election, he simply could not believe Obama had won again, Megyn Kelley had a man ready to have a nervous breakdown on her set. I suspect it will be the same for the Trumpists here on election night.

Unknown said...

no way trump wins any of the Wisconsin or iowa, etc. he needs to focus on florida, ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, north Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, arizona

don't get suckered into spending time in Utah or Kansas.

David said...

I don't think Ventura was this far behind in the polls. And if I recall correctly, a significant element of the press treated him as a droll curiosity not a threat to your children and puppies.

The press is making it impossible for Trump to be elected. It took them a while, and they needed help from Trump himself in the effort, but they are well on their way to the goal.

Todd said...

Brando said...

8/11/16, 9:22 AM


Yep. As I have said before, I don't think there is any way that Trump can garner enough actual votes to beat out the Hillary fraud votes enough to win. Think it was bad for Romney where many districts went 100% for Obama? We will have lots of places going 125% or more for Hillary. The dead will be voting 3, 4 or more times. Semi-trailers full of absentee ballots will show up (when needed). The Black Panthers will ensure that only the "right" people get into the polling places.

Hillary! will be in office for 8 years (if her health holds up) and by then the Dems will have so changed things enough that we will be in for 50 years of Dem Presidents or until they just change to a dictatorship. Whichever comes first.

Sebastian said...

"In fact, Moore is compelling in a very similar way to Trump" In their inimitable buffoonish way.

"don't get suckered into spending time in Utah or Kansas" But it would be nice to have a GOP candidate who can take Utah for granted.

Polling and poli sci prediction models have been very good in recent iterations. This time the models favor GOP (time for a change!) and of course the polls spell disaster, a sign of how bad a candidate Trump is.

coupe said...

I watched the secret police tackle some girl at the Clinton rally yesterday.

She kept right on talking, and after they removed the girl she said: "...and some people get a little carried away. Have you noticed that?"

As they "carried" her away. Cruel joke.

Then the kicker line while the peoples brains were distracted, she said "But I get carried away thinking about all the jobs we are going to create."

Which sounds impossible, because Obama has done none of that, and she has pledged to continue the Obama legacy, such that it is.

How in the hell can she increase jobs when she has pledged to increase taxes and give trade preference to foreign markets?

Am I just confused?

320Busdriver said...

IMHO without term limits for those in DC it's as Ann C said: "Adios America."

These two disgusting candidates are the true embodiment of whats wrong with our politics.

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."

Unknown said...

Trump is "compelling"? Scott Adams is Svengali to some people.... I guess.

Unknown said...

Obama is "the founder of ISIS". Such a compelling idea.

Unknown said...

Coupe,
The girl was a PETA protester charging at the stage. What should the Secret Service have done?

eric said...

Today on Jake Tappers Twitter,

Overheard at gym, two older women complaining about various Trump comments, convo ends with "but I am still voting for him." "Oh me too"

dreams said...

"Today on Jake Tappers Twitter,

Overheard at gym, two older women complaining about various Trump comments, convo ends with "but I am still voting for him." "Oh me too""

I think Trump's going to win, we'll see.

Peter said...

Polls have been less accurate since the demise of landline phones, and, although it seems reasonable to assume people are more likely to be embarrassed to admit they'll vote for Trump than to admit they'll vote for Clinton, how would/could a poll provide a measure of this?

dreams said...

"Obama is "the founder of ISIS". Such a compelling idea."

No Obama, no ISIS.

Todd said...

coupe said...

Am I just confused?

8/11/16, 9:48 AM


Nope. The only way a President can create jobs is if they happen to start their own business and hire people. Other than that, the best they can hope for is to get out of the way (i.e. reduce regulations and taxes) to allow businesses the flexibility to expand/start-up and create more jobs.

The worst they can do is exactly what they have been doing. Creating more regulations, changing existing laws and regulations, increase taxes, and selectively enforce all of the above.

dreams said...

Polls can't measure turn out either.

Nonapod said...

I'll offer a counterpoint to Moore's argument about voters being secret anarchists.

For most people, selecting a president seems to be more about feeling than rational thought. This is especially true for the so called swing voters in the critical states. They have been and continue to be the ultimate deciders in all our presidential elections for decades now. Most of them don't have the drive, desire, or time to actually research all the histories and intricacies of politics to develop any kind of personal political ideology and then select the candidate who is more congruent with that ideology. Consequently they really on feelings about candidates to determine their choice.

This is one of the big reasons that, baring any sort of crazy unknown event, I believe Hillary will most likely win. Because human nature prefers the known to the unknown. That's not to say that Trump is unknown, just that his presidency is an unknown in most peoples minds. I think people have a pretty good idea (or believe they do) of what a Clinton presidency would look like. It's more set in their minds. A clear majority of people don't trust her and are at least somewhat aware of her failings, but they still will end up voting for her despite that because they'll feel she'll offer some sense of stability.

Unknown said...

if there is a bog minority turnout, Clinton wins big just like Obama. Obama underpolled in 2012 and overperformed. when I went to early voting site, the 95% of the voters were minorities. no way he could lose. same thing for Hillary.

machine said...

No IRAQ invasion, no ISIS...fify


so Moore wrong every time but this one...compelling

eric said...

Blogger dreams said...
Polls can't measure turn out either.


They assume it as part of their model. Polls I'm seeing are generally Dems +10 and women +8. So, they are assuming Dems will vote in greater numbers than Reps by 10% and women will turn out in greater numbers over men by 8%.

Thorley Winston said...

The girl was a PETA protester charging at the stage. What should the Secret Service have done?

Emptied a full clip into her center of mass and billed her estate / family for the cost of the bullets.


Fabi said...

Real Republican Chuck calls Trump's primary voters "mouth breathing morons". You do realize that you'll need their votes in future elections, don't you?

Terry said...

Blogger machine said...
No IRAQ invasion, no ISIS...fify
so Moore wrong every time but this one...compelling


But notice how he is wrong. For a self-described 'man of the people', Moore doesn't trust the people. He believes that the voting box is a dangerous place for progressivism. Sanders is another person who calls himself a small-d democrat who trusts the elites more than the people.
Neither Moore nor Sanders shares or even respects the opinions of the vast majority of Americans on a host issues that affect them, such as affirmative action, immigration, and gun ownership.

Sam L. said...

Michael Moore is not a public "intellectual" nor a person I trust.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

From his 5 Ways To Make Sure Trump Loses:

"2. From today until November 8, you are in the French Resistance."

"4. Hillary must slyly stick Trump with a comedy shiv during the debates."

Larry J said...

Bob Boyd said...
Even if you hate him, voting Trump makes more logical sense than voting Clinton.


I don't really like Trump and didn't vote for him in my state's primary. But he isn't Hillary Clinton and that will have to do. Keeping her from getting to fill the current and future supreme court vacancies (along with hundreds of other federal judicial vacancies) is enough reason for me to vote for Trump. As a side benefit, should she lose, there's the prospect of never having to hear her irritating voice again. That would be gravy.

Chuck said...

Fabi said...
Real Republican Chuck calls Trump's primary voters "mouth breathing morons". You do realize that you'll need their votes in future elections, don't you?


Of course. And I will tell those voters, "It is the Republican, or Elizabeth Warren. It is the Republican, or Cory Booker. It is the Republican, or Chelsea Clinton. It is the Republican, or Kamala Harris. You choose."

And thank you, Fabi, for quoting me correctly. That I specified Trump's primary voters. Because there really is no explaining those votes, and those voters really are out of any main stream of Republican thought. They can vote Republican in the future, if they want to. But first, they have to take the hit for this outrageously bad nomination. I am not going to make anything easy for them. There will be a great many people who will vote for Trump as the Lesser of Two Evils and I sympathize with them. I may be one of them, although I cannot imagine casting that vote myself.

Brando said...

"Real Republican Chuck calls Trump's primary voters "mouth breathing morons". You do realize that you'll need their votes in future elections, don't you?"

Everyone's going to have to get along eventually unless you want to enter an era of permanent Democratic dominance. Trumpites constantly calling Trumpskeptics "cuckservatives" or "elitist sissies" or what have you, and Trumpskeptics calling Trumpites morons and pea brains may all be fun right now, but in the meantime look at how the Dems have woven a group of swampies, faux feminists, pajama boys, racialists, and assorted nuts into a workable majority that turns out in elections far better than it figures out how to govern our cities.

If the nativists and the free marketers can't ever reconcile, then it's time to split up and form separate parties. Maybe they'll do a better job opposing the Dems separately than trying to pretend to be of the same ideology.

Brando said...

"And thank you, Fabi, for quoting me correctly. That I specified Trump's primary voters. Because there really is no explaining those votes, and those voters really are out of any main stream of Republican thought. They can vote Republican in the future, if they want to. But first, they have to take the hit for this outrageously bad nomination. I am not going to make anything easy for them. There will be a great many people who will vote for Trump as the Lesser of Two Evils and I sympathize with them. I may be one of them, although I cannot imagine casting that vote myself."

Chuck, if you think any early Trump supporter (distinguished from a reluctant "better than Hillary" Trump supporter) is going to own up to nominating the one person Hillary has a good chance of beating this year, you're fooling yourself. They're convinced Trump has electoral magic, that changes all the rules and that the only thing that could cause his loss is Republican turncoats refusing to vote for him this November (because of course it's never the candidate's fault for writing off a key part of the GOP coalition--everyone has to just get in line you see). This blame game is going to continue long after November.

traditionalguy said...

Joe Buck had a show last night where he went over the highlights and low lights of Bret Farve's career with Bret commenting in person.

Trump reminds me of a NYC bred version of Bret Farve's QB career, but running for President. Like Farve, he knows how to win and he doesn't plan to quit. And the combined Clinton/Bush/Obama guys and their private armies of Donors and paid for Media scum are not going to knock his ass out of this game.

Chuck said...

Brando, you and I see so much the same way; I am reluctant to disagree with you.

But there is scan evidence of any coming Republican catastrophe. We own more state houses than ever. I think that a Clinton win in 2016 will produce a whirlwind backlash in 2020, which is the next decennial redistricting year. We will gerrymander state Dems out of existence, continuing what the Tea Party helped start in 2010. And as a result, we will create a semi-permanent majority in the House, reaching far into the 21st century.

I agree with you that success has a thousand fathers and defeat is an orphan. It will be hard to find True Trumpists after November. But thanks to the internet, it is mostly all recorded. Jeff Lord, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter :(, Laura Ingraham :(, and I can't even recall who-all right now, will have hell to pay. We already know who are the commenters on this blog who will have to answer for supporting Trump. (And just think of how many there will be, who will say, "But I voted for Cruz! I didn't support Trump in the primary!")

Chuck said...

"scant," not "scan"

Fabi said...

I know quite a few "regular Republicans" who voted for Trump in the primary, Chuck. I think you're doing a tremendous disservice to them and their support -- voting, donating, and volunteering -- and there's still time to quell the antipathy you so frequently express.

Original Mike said...

"Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country."

He's clearly never talked to gopher hockey fans.

Mick said...


Hillary Clinton rally in Iowa yesterday.

https://twitter.com/weh8hillary/status/763502459096399872/photo/1

Trump rally in Fla. yesterday

https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP/status/763527956606091264/photo/1

Of course the media is lying... because they lie.

Bobby said...

Fabi,

"there's still time to quell the antipathy you so frequently express."

There is still time, but thus far Trump and his supporters have made insufficient effort to do this. As Brando frequently points out, their attitude appears to be more of 'I don't care about your reservations- we won, now you have an obligation to get on my team!' They don't seem to recognize that it's the obligation of the candidate to win over disgruntled or undecided voters.

It's still early, but it's getting late.

Brando said...

"But there is scan evidence of any coming Republican catastrophe. We own more state houses than ever. I think that a Clinton win in 2016 will produce a whirlwind backlash in 2020, which is the next decennial redistricting year. We will gerrymander state Dems out of existence, continuing what the Tea Party helped start in 2010. And as a result, we will create a semi-permanent majority in the House, reaching far into the 21st century."

A lot of that success is precarious, though, particularly if the party is facing a real split. Those gerrymandered districts were drawn to get small majorities (e.g., 51% of the vote) in enough districts to hold Congress, but in a wave election or with enough defections from nativists (or free marketers) a lot of them can flip. That's the fear this election--if Trump drags down enough GOPers by even a few points, it could render a lot of safe districts unsafe.

Plus, if growing segments of the population come out of this thinking Republicans have no use for them, those sentiments can permanently turn them off. GOP never recovered from 1964 among black voters, and now any black GOP votes are a statistical blip.

Real American said...

basically

Brando said...

"Minnesota is one of the smartest states in the country."

Is that a dog whistle, considering how white Minnesota is?

Hate crime!

Brando said...

"I think you're doing a tremendous disservice to them and their support -- voting, donating, and volunteering -- and there's still time to quell the antipathy you so frequently express."

Trump doesn't have a whole lot of time left to do this. I know--there's still a lot more to say about Ted Cruz's father. But if he could find just a little time to appeal to Republicans, it could erase some of that gap.

I don't think Hillary's a political genius, but even she quickly sucked up to the Sanders Swampies, and now she has time to try and win over moderate Republicans.

And they may be fluke polls, but if she's in a dead heat in Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona, Trump doesn't have a lot of avenues for victory.

Mick said...

Bobby said...
Fabi,



"It's still early, but it's getting late."

What part of "media lies" do you not understand? Trump wins in a Landslide. He will wipe the floor with that old corrupt bitch.

Unknown said...

Chuck, please. The only thing worse in your mind than Trump winning would have been Cruz.

Hillary Clinton is an existential threat to the nation. She is openly campaigning on gutting the Constitution. What makes you think you can "Vote Hillary now, and Republican in 2020?" There won't BE an election in 2020.

Or if there is, we won't have a chance. The first thing Hillary will do is legalize 30 million illegal hispanics. Then she will import tens of millions of Muslims.

Exactly what is your strategy for 2020 to beat 40 million new dependent voters? Plus, Hillary will pack the Court with people who will overturn Citizens United and make criticizing Hillary Clinton and Democrats illegal. So you cannot run ads; you cannot even say that Hillary is doing something wrong. Well, you can, as long as you like jail.

Hillary wants to confiscate all weapons. And do you think once Hillary does that that the camps are far behind? She swore that Republicans are her greatest enemy... and she has zero problems killing people. What do you think she has planned for you, Chuck? Think she's going to let anyone run against her with a chance of winning? Not on your life.

So tell me again that Trump is the greatest threat ever. I voted for Cruz, I live in Utah, and we despise the man. But Trump is not the threat that Hillary is. Hillary wants me dead. She wants you dead, Chuck. Trump doesn't. So why do you want Hillary so badly?

--Vance

Bobby said...

Brando,

"Plus, if growing segments of the population come out of this thinking Republicans have no use for them, those sentiments can permanently turn them off. GOP never recovered from 1964 among black voters, and now any black GOP votes are a statistical blip."

This is the concern that "The Establishment" have had from day one of this election cycle, and which has been largely ignored by Trump and his supporters- that essentially Trump is going to "permanently" turn off Latino and women voters to the Republican Party. Only time will tell who, if anyone, turns out to be correct about that.

Bobby said...

Mick,

If you give me the right odds, I would love to place a wager on it.

Brando said...

"This is the concern that "The Establishment" have had from day one of this election cycle, and which has been largely ignored by Trump and his supporters- that essentially Trump is going to "permanently" turn off Latino and women voters to the Republican Party. Only time will tell who, if anyone, turns out to be correct about that."

They figure the "hidden" white working class will come out in big enough numbers to give them one more big win. The problem is that first, those voters already migrated to the GOP (Romney won them by over 20%), second, people who don't turn out usually don't turn out because of a variety of reasons that don't have anything to do with the candidates (e.g., work schedules, not thinking it makes a difference in their lives), and third, that group of voters is shrinking as a percentage of the population. The two fastest growing racial groups in this country are Asians and HIspanics, both of whom have been shifting to the Dems. Writing them off, even if Trump somehow wins this year, will mean long term disaster if those groups go the way of the black vote (as opposed to say, the Catholic vote, which is now split). As one of the "autopsy" writers said, once someone feels like you don't want them in the country, they're not even going to bother listening to anything else you have to say.

Brando said...

"If you give me the right odds, I would love to place a wager on it."

You know, a lot of us have differing opinions on how this election will turn out--maybe the week after Labor Day we can all post our predictions in a single thread--a prediction thread--including what we assume for national vote percentages, tossup states won, or any other surprises down the ballot.

Todd said...

Bobby said...

There is still time, but thus far Trump and his supporters have made insufficient effort to do this. As Brando frequently points out, their attitude appears to be more of 'I don't care about your reservations- we won, now you have an obligation to get on my team!' They don't seem to recognize that it's the obligation of the candidate to win over disgruntled or undecided voters.

It's still early, but it's getting late.

8/11/16, 12:04 PM


Sorry but that sounds exactly like what the RNC has been doing for the last few election cycles. "Here is our guy now go vote for him cause what else you gonado? Vote for the Dem?" That gets real old real fast. The Tea folks tried to turn the tide and they were attached from all sides. Now their behavior has resulted in trump. Their answer? Same as their prior answers "You are the problem, not us, get back in line." Well screw them. THEY created Trump and now we ALL have to suffer and all they do is double-down on stupid...

mockturtle said...

I don't think Moore has his fingers on the heartbeat of the electorate.

No, he has them up his ass, as usual.

Todd said...

mockturtle said...
I don't think Moore has his fingers on the heartbeat of the electorate.

No, he has them up his ass, as usual.

8/11/16, 12:34 PM


And pies, he has them in pies. Don't forget the pies...

Fabi said...

Sounds like a new theory to me, Bobby -- with Romney and McCain it was shut up and vote. I have no recollection that either of those candidates or their supporters did any of the things you "demand" this cycle.

dreams said...

"You know, a lot of us have differing opinions on how this election will turn out--maybe the week after Labor Day we can all post our predictions in a single thread--a prediction thread--including what we assume for national vote percentages, tossup states won, or any other surprises down the ballot."

That's a good idea, I like it.

Freeman Hunt said...

Heh. I heard this conversation juat the other day.

"You're not voting for him."
"I might!"
"Why? Why would you vote for him?"
"Because I'm tired of people telling me I can't."
"That's not a reason."
"To stick it to The Man!"

As American a sentiment as there ever was. Gives me faith. (Not because of Trump but because of that wonderful, undying American revulsion to being bossed.)

Bobby said...

Todd, Fabi,

Yeah, I was in Iraq, so admittedly I did not pay that close attention to the 2008 race. However, my understanding is that McCain selected Palin at least in part to appeal to disgruntled conservatives. One could argue that Trump did something similar in selecting Pence, but why it's not working with conservatives this time might suggest that Trump is further from the views of conservative Republicans than was McCain. Or something entirely different, I don't know- I'm not well-versed in contemporary US politics.

Again, I'm a registered Libertarian, and so I have no interest in defending the Republican "Establishment" (which, I have found, seems to mean different things to different people). But, in my opinion, if voters won't support any given candidate, it's the fault of that candidate in not winning them over. No candidate is ever "owed" votes from anyone.

dreams said...

"As a side benefit, should she lose, there's the prospect of never having to hear her irritating voice again. That would be gravy."

Lets defeat Crooked Hillary so she can go home and sleep. Trump said in his speech today that she makes a ten minute speech and then goes home and sleeps.

Brando said...

"Sorry but that sounds exactly like what the RNC has been doing for the last few election cycles. "Here is our guy now go vote for him cause what else you gonado? Vote for the Dem?" That gets real old real fast."

I get your sentiment, but let's be fair here--first, while I'm sure some people you conversed with at the time said something to the effect of "vote for McCain/Romney, he's the best of bad options and tough tits if you don't like them", I recall both of them spent a lot of time (and political capital) trying to win over the right. They may not have been convincing (considering Romney's history with Romneycare and being pro-choice, and McCain's history with McCain Feingold etc.) but there was no doubt they were appealing to the Right and valued the support of the Right. I don't get the sense Trump even understands the "free market" types (or the religious right, for that matter) let alone cares for their vote. And he spends a lot of time attacking and insulting other Republicans--I don't remember McCain or Romney doing that during their campaigns.

But second, even if that were the case, it doesn't change the simple math that you need a majority. So Romney didn't do enough to win over voters like you last time? Well, he didn't win either, did he? Why adopt a posture that's going to win over fewer voters than the last guy who lost?

mockturtle said...

@Freeman Hunt ""To stick it to The Man!"

IMO, one of the best reasons to vote for Trump is to stick it to the Media. Wouldn't the aftermath of a Trump victory be splendid?

Brando said...

"That's a good idea, I like it."

Sounds good--maybe we can convince Ann Althouse to put up a post day after Labor Day where we could all put in our predictions and revisit after the election.

Jonathan Graehl said...

Agree that Moore's writing is decent. I can't respect him, though. He won't support the populist candidate who wants to keep manufacturing in the US. After "Roger and Me". Sounds like he's become a typical lazy liberal.

Todd said...

Brando said...

8/11/16, 12:56 PM


Oh I get it. I do understand. I am NOT a Trump guy. Not at all. He was not [as someone else said] even in my top 10. I WILL vote for him though because I feel I have to be able to tell myself I tried. Heck, I would crawl over broken glass to keep Hillary! out of the WH. I just get tired of being handed a shit-sandwich every 4 years and being told it is really a PB&J so eat up...

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

P.P.S. And frail...

Brando said...

"Oh I get it. I do understand. I am NOT a Trump guy. Not at all. He was not [as someone else said] even in my top 10. I WILL vote for him though because I feel I have to be able to tell myself I tried. Heck, I would crawl over broken glass to keep Hillary! out of the WH. I just get tired of being handed a shit-sandwich every 4 years and being told it is really a PB&J so eat up..."

We're all pretty tired of the shit sandwiches! I guess I'd just like them to throw in some horseradish every now and then to mask the taste. In that sense, if Trump could at least pretend to give a crap about the rest of us and what we care about, we might be able to stomach it better. I just don't think he cares about winning.

"P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?"

She might be in very bad shape--there were reports that her doctor's "bill of good health" was prepared by someone who didn't really treat her.

Fabi said...

@Bobby -- another way to say it is: I've always looked at both candidates and figured it out for myself. Yes, there are occasionally a few "other" candidates to consider, but keeping Hillary out is the overriding issue for me this time.

p.s.: if you were in Iraq on deployment, I'm grateful for your service. Thank you.

EsoxLucius said...

Chuck, I have to disagree. Republicans have done all they can with redistricting and voter id, boxed themselves in with the twilighters by running against latins, muslims, and any other growing demographic, and loose their "poorly educated" base when Trump slinks away in November, I think they cease being a national party and become fodder for any blowhard who wants their ten minutes of fame. The key will be Texas which, like the nation as a whole, had more house democratic voters than republican in 2014, but was gerrymandered the other way, will probably turn blue, giving democrats the three largest states and a lock on the electoral college. Then, the country looks like California, with some increasingly right wing pockets in Orange county or the valley, but Democrats in charge of growing surpluses and steady growth. In time that will change as well, the civil war gave us almost uninterrupted republican power for eighty years but, right now I don't see that occurs

EsoxLucius said...

Also, can we PLEASE lay off the "women are cranky and shrill" sexist comments for awhile? I'm sure some of you had mothers once.

Terry said...

"I think they cease being a national party and become fodder for any blowhard who wants their ten minutes of fame."
The Democrats currently control one of the three branches of the federal government. Republicans control a majority of state governorships and state legislatures. Republican state level control is at a post New Deal high.
States, BTW, are much more small-d democratic than the federal government.

khesanh0802 said...

I don't like Michael Moore much, but I sure as hell hope he is right.

khesanh0802 said...

Todd @ 1339 "I WILL vote for him though because I feel I have to be able to tell myself I tried. Heck, I would crawl over broken glass to keep Hillary! out of the WH" Absolutely!

EsoxLucius said...

Terry:
the verb "cease" is in the future tense. Please read before you write.

Chuck said...

Vance you are going to have to show everybody where I ever suggested that I would support, or even vote for, Mrs. Clinton. Don't waste too much time on it; you can't.

And you can't run me down with any "lesser of evils" bullshit to get me to vote for Trump. At least not so far. My vote is there for Trump, if he can win it. Trump has already nailed down the shithead vote. Now, he ought to be trying to win the Republicans-with-graduate-degrees vote. But not only is he not making any attempt; he is actively insulting our intelligence on a daily basis.

Mountain Maven said...

Remember when Tom Bradley was ahead in the polls in the CA guv race and lost? Could happen in November.

Anthony said...

For now. . . . . .

mikee said...

There may be 5 or 10 or 100,000 reasons Trump could win, but Hillary has only one reason, and it (like the hedgehog's trick) is the best of all: she already has the election stolen.

Prepare to get what Hillary thinks we deserve, because we ARE gonna get it, good and hard.

EsoxLucius said...

mikee:
you forget the real reason hillary is winning, and that's she's not a toxic gas bag insulting gold star parents and insinuating the president is in league with muslim terrorists. glad to help you out.

Unknown said...

The real reason is that while she is far worse, she has the liberal world covering for her. It helps.