September 21, 2016

"There’s never been a time where he’s talked for longer than 30 seconds where he’s managed to say anything."

"He just says nothing. He’ll say the same empty phrases over and over again, and I think it will become obvious after an hour and a half."

Said Claire McCaskill, one of many Democrats quoted in a Politico article titled "Democrats' debate advice to Clinton: Let Trump screw up."

So that's the strategy they want Trump to believe will be Hillary's strategy. She should sit back and calmly wait for him to ruin himself. Isn't that the disastrous strategy President Obama used in his first debate with Mitt Romney? And it would be worse for Hillary Clinton, because of all the talk about her health and age and tiredness.

I'm going to assume she has a different plan, that she'll come out fighting vigorously and hope Trump has chosen the strategy of just being boringly "presidential."

But that's only something she can do if she's physically up for it. I'm having a little trouble picturing her standing up for 90 minutes — between 9 and 10:30 at night — looking alert and speaking with spirit and passion, deftly picking up on Trump's flaws, and driving home her superiority.

In fact, if you gave me the right odds, I'd bet money that she'll withdraw from Monday's debate. Yes, it would look weak to say that darned pneumonia is back and my doctors insist that I rest. (Her doctors could be like Trump's lawyers: He'd show us those tax returns but his lawyers forbid it.) That plays into Trump's recent game — "Hillary Clinton is taking the day off again, she needs the rest. Sleep well Hillary – see you at the debate!" — but what a calamity to go out on that stage with 100 million people watching and falter and crumble.

146 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

"I'm having a little trouble picturing her standing up for 90 minutes — between 9 and 10:30 at might — and looking alert and speaking with spirit and passion, picking up on Trump's flaws and driving home her superiority."

"at might": a good typo. Or was it?

Bob Ellison said...

I'll give you 3:2 odds (I pay 3, you pay 2) that Hillary will not withdraw. She is probably feeling a little desperate to show strength, even at the risk of flailing in the debate.

WisRich said...

Why do think she was off yesterday, cancelled a fundraiser, only one appearance today, and then off the grid until Monday Night's debate.

That's a lot of convalescence and she needs it.

Jim said...

If she were to collapse, God forbid, he will rush over and help her to her feet. Landslide.

Brando said...

I have no idea what the candidates' respective strategies would be--Trump I would guess would go for the "happy warrior" vibe to counteract the "angry nut" image and assure his "soft" support that he's up to the job; Hillary I would guess will try for the "policy wonk" vibe while also needling Trump to get him to blow up. But then, who knows--their advisers could be driving them in any direction.

But Althouse suggests without foundation that Hillary will bow out because she couldn't stand there for 90 minutes? Is this based on the recent pneumonia or is this just more fantasizing from the Trumpist corner? Hillary managed to stay standing through her primary debates and if anything Trump was the one who seemed sheepish and tired near the end of his primary debates.

Neither is going to bow out of any of them, barring some major unexpected medical disaster. Too much is at stake in this close election, and looking "weak" by backing out would be too much of a risk for both of them.

AJ Lynch said...

Hillary may withdraw? That is a bold prediction Althouse- I'll give you 20-1 odds and bet you $1.00.

David Begley said...

Whoah! Bold call by Althouse.

Hillary did cancel a fundraiser in NC yesterday.

tcrosse said...

Waiting for Trump to destroy himself was the tactic of those other 16 Republicans in the primaries. How did that work for Jeb!?

Brando said...

"I'll give you 3:2 odds (I pay 3, you pay 2) that Hillary will not withdraw. She is probably feeling a little desperate to show strength, even at the risk of flailing in the debate."

I'd even give longer odds. Even if she flails, so what? Her supporters aren't going to decide to vote Trump. And the 15% or so that are just pissed Johnson and Stein aren't invited are at worst just going to stay with their candidates.

I think like all debates, each side will insist they "won" and it won't make any difference. But not showing up will--in the candidates' estimation--look weak. They'll wheel out puppets if they have to.

WisRich said...

"I'm having a little trouble picturing her standing up for 90 minutes"

Are we sure they'll be standing?

I went to the Commission of Presidential Debates website to see the format of the debate. In their prior debate format descriptions, they explicitly say the candidates will be at a podium.

This year? The format description is silent on whether the candidates will be standing or sitting.

Bill Peschel said...

Poor Claire. She really thinks she can go up against a New Yorker when death's on the line.

Er, I mean, Trump's been a presence there since the '80s, maneuvering for and against business rivals and the media. Now, he's given several long speeches that have been surprisingly well-received.

Her attempt at creating the impression that Hillary will let Trump be Trump is pretty pathetic. LBJ would snort in contempt.

rehajm said...

Isn't that the disastrous strategy President Obama used in his first debate with Mitt Romney?...I'm going to assume she has a different plan, that she'll come out fighting vigorously and hope Trump has chosen the strategy of just being boringly "presidential."

Obama had a comfortable lead in the polls going into the first debate. Traditional strategy says you should try to look presidential, avoid cheap shots don't take risks.

This week for some (suspicious?) reason there's a dearth of swing state polls in CO WI MI NH PA. If we do get some and they look like OH's latest it means Hillary will have lost the EC lead and will have to attack.

If she can show up...

Freder Frederson said...

The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things. Trump is a moron who has no idea what he is doing.

WisRich said...

rehajm said...
"This week for some (suspicious?) reason there's a dearth of swing state polls in CO WI MI NH PA. If we do get some and they look like OH's latest it means Hillary will have lost the EC lead and will have to attack. "

Marquette comes out with their new Wisconsin poll at 12:15pm today.


Ignorance is Bliss said...

I expect Hillary to be healthy and energetic, rational, reasonable, honest, and presidential.

( Why give her the benefit of low expectations? The way people are talking if she makes it through the debate without lapsing into a coma or having a seizure, she will be able to claim victory. )

Original Mike said...

"In fact, if you gave me the right odds, I'd bet money that she'll withdraw from Monday's debate."

But @Unknown assured us, time and time again, that Trump would be the one to withdraw.

MadisonMan said...

Claire McCaskill womansplains Trump.

Sebastian said...

@FF: "The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things. Trump is a moron who has no idea what he is doing." True, Trump is not polished and knows nothing--but he knows what he is doing. It may be the only thing he knows. Of course, Romney's intellectual and moral superiority didn't help him in the face of binders full of women and that dog on his car. Progs will smear anyone for any reason at any time. Romney let them. Trump is running as the FU candidate, and that he knows.

Temujin said...

"He just says nothing. He’ll say the same empty phrases over and over again, and I think it will become obvious after an hour and a half."

Honestly, I thought the quote was about Obama. I've felt that about him since the early days of 2007 when people were fainting over what I thought were trite platitudes one would expect to hear in a high school speech. He still does it. Did it this week at the UN. He talks...and nothing is said.

Hillary is more of a curiosity. Whereas Obama seems to think what he's saying is heavy- he believes it, I don't get the feeling that Hillary believes a word that she's saying. It's just...the script. And if she doesn't believe it, how do they expect us to believe it?

Amadeus 48 said...

Freder--I think you are 100% right, and that it is about 50-50 that Trump will win the election. Where will we go from there?

Original Mike said...

I think it's clear there's something wrong with her. Most concerning, she had no motor control during her 9/11 collapse. She looked doped up the other day on her plane. She cancelled a fund raiser last night with no explanation.

Question: Say she gets into the White House and it's then revealed she has epilepsy, Parkinson's, or whatever. What are the consequences to the people around her who aided in the cover up?

Curious George said...

Jesus Christ Claire McCaskill is a dumbass http://bcove.me/lrzre3qz


Fred Rawlings said...

She needs a doctor induced rest.
She looks worse than my aunt who died at 93 this year from a stroke.
I bet everybody in america knows an old lady in her 80's that has a better countenance than Hillary. Hell i saw hundreds of them on the cruise ship i went on this summer.
This contest is killing her. Whether she wins or loses, i think Hillary is going to have a stroke in the next four years.

Bob Boyd said...

Have you ever seen video of Ferrari's Formula One pit crew in action? That's how I picture Hillary's handlers during the breaks.

Change the diaper, shoot her full of drugs, touch up her face and Boom! back out there in ten seconds flat.
At least that's how it went in debate prep. If the red light comes back on during a diaper change...well I think that would benefit Trump.

David Begley said...

Original Mike

Given your hypo, she should be impeached. Fraud on the voter by non-disclosure of a material fact. That's a political high crime.

Althouse will work on the House impeachment committee. And blog it.

AllenS said...

There's another photo around from Monday when Hillary was to give a speech to a small audience at Temple University and she had to be helped up the stairs.

Her health appears to be getting worse.

JPS said...

Freder:

"The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things."

Another difference is that Romney actually cared whether what he was saying was correct. Trump doesn't give a damn, as long as it works in the moment.

PB said...

All they need is for someone to turn on a strobe light and - BINGO - seizure!

JPS said...

Bob Boyd:

"Have you ever seen video of Ferrari's Formula One pit crew in action? That's how I picture Hillary's handlers during the breaks.

"Change the diaper, shoot her full of drugs, touch up her face and Boom!"

Ever see "Flight"? I picture them more like Don Cheadle and Bruce Greenwood right before the pivotal hearing.

MadisonMan said...

I think it's clear there's something wrong with her

I'm almost certain but not quite. I would like to know, for example, why, when a person with pneumonia collapses she isn't taken to the ER, but to her daughter's apartment, from which she walks 90 minutes later, seemingly recovered.

But your question is a good one: If something is wrong with her now, and people know, and there's a Conspiracy of silence, what happens? What excuse can they give that won't sound insultingly patronizing.

o/t: Loving the weather this morning, but it's making it so dark!

Mike said...

The headline led me to believe we would be dissecting Obama's last condescending lecture at the UN. But the Empty Phrase Queen's minions were talking Trump, eh? How cute to announce a new strategy. Why just a day or so ago all the minions were all she's gonna needle him and he won't be able to resist going ballistic when she gets under his skin.

I guess like the candidate itself that launched a thousand reboots, her strategerists are throwing whatever they can at Trump pre-debate to what, intimidate him? By saying "we';ll let him talk"? What idiots she has around her! What stupid freaking plan is it to lket The Donald talk all he wants?

They dismiss the fact he's been on TV for 15 years and he has mastered the art of coming across on the small screen to their own peril. He follows the KISS method as he did all during the primaries. He has a few key issues, which he repeats and he does NOT elaborate beyond restating them in very simple terms. He KEEPS it simple. Meanwhile we can expect the same wordcloud tactic Hillary uses in her fake "press conferences" where, like gas in an enclosed space, her answers expand to take up as much volume as possible while providing no content. Zero. She's as good at saying nothing as the current occupant. And her shit just ain't selling.

Geez I hope she shows up. And has a irresistible tickle in that strangely collared throat of hers.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Romney did well in the first debate because Obama was expecting to get blasted over his total absence regarding Benghazi. Even Obama didn't think he'd be allowed to get away with that one but he underestimated the mendacity and slavishness of his own media enablers.
It's a fantasy to think Hillary will miss a debate and I'm sure her handlers can come up with the right chemical cocktail to get her through it.
Regardless of how she does, the media will praise her and lash out at Trump. Same as always.

rehajm said...

Marquette comes out with their new Wisconsin poll at 12:15pm today.

Thanks WisRich!

grimson said...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I expect Hillary to be healthy and energetic, rational, reasonable, honest, and presidential.

Well, certainly well-medicated.

rhhardin said...

The need an official referee to count to ten after she collapses.

LakeLevel said...

Original Mike: "What are the consequences to the people around her who aided in the cover up?"

Consequences? She's a Clinton. They don't do consequences. If she wins, she won't be up to the job, but no matter, Bill et al will be doing the work and the press will dutifully cover it up.

Big Mike said...

Clinton will be on amphetamines; she'll make it through the 90 minutes -- barely -- with the aid of moderator Lester Holt.

As usual McCaskill doesn't know what she's talking about. Trump will have facts and figures handy, and I agree that he will project (or attempt to project) that "happy warrior fighting for the working men and women" persona.

Lester Holt as moderator is an interesting factor. On the one hand, he's a registered Republican who lives in New York City. On the other hand, he saw what happened to Matt Lauer.

We live in interesting times.

Curious George said...

"Original Mike said...

Question: Say she gets into the White House and it's then revealed she has epilepsy, Parkinson's, or whatever. What are the consequences to the people around her who aided in the cover up?"

I think it's important to directly ask her is she has Parkinson's, or some other neurological disorder. Forget these vague "How is your health?" questions. You know how Clinton's spin answers. "Well, my health was good for someone who has Parkinson's!"

The press won't ask, Trump needs to put it out there.

LawGuy5000 said...

"if you gave me the right odds, I'd bet money...". Pretty specious, huh? Isn't that true of nearly anything? Are we talking closer to 5 to 1 or 100 to 1?


"I'm having a little trouble picturing her standing up for 90 minutes — between 9 and 10:30 at night — looking alert and speaking with spirit and passion, deftly picking up on Trump's flaws, and driving home her superiority."

I have no trouble picturing this. If you saw her during the Bengazi hearings you would have little doubt that she could make it through the debate at full strength. Yes she was sitting and it was before the pneumonia, but it was much longer.

We will see who is right.

sunsong said...

Hillary will be there and she will be fine! A better question is which Trump will show up?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

She can't skip the debate any more than Trump could drop out in August.

William said...

If Hillary collapsed and lay there twitching for an hour and a half, the press would still pronounce her the winner. They would say that the vitality and frequency of her twitches demonstrated her vibrant health and that the clogged gutturals emanating from her mouth were witty rejoinders to Trump's ignorant insults. There's no way that the press pronounces Trump the winner of this debate.

AJ Lynch said...

I read a bio story on Lester Holt and he claimed he still irons his own shirts. That sounded like BS to me.

Mike said...

1. I'd like to see Trump compare/contrast his executive experience with hers. She only has SOS and the Clinton Crime Syndicate to cite and one of those was an utter failure (apparently everyone who reported to Hillary was lousy at securing info and doing anything but shaking down foreigners for cash) and the other is unable to even appear like a normal "charitable" foundation. Meanwhile he has 40 years experience running a large organization, hiring good people and supervising them, completing projects, making a profit. She's got none of that, and it cuts against the "no experience" meme her camp keeps trying to use. All her experience is failure related. He just opened a shiny new hotel in DC and is campaigning every day.

2. The whole "we're gonna needle him until he blows" trial balloon was fanciful and too ironic to be tried IRL. Really? The same woman who lapses into a death stare coma at events when she sees protesters? THAT Hillary was going to get under Don's skin? I think his street smarts will go a long way toward making her lose composure. Sure she will trot out her lies, damned lies and statistics to bolster her case. But every time he redirects back to RESULTS she's going to lock up like rigor mortis (i.e. see 9/11 video of her "stumble").

3. Viewers will see a 2-on-1 contest, and root for the underdog. The media will be unable to resist the temptation to candycrowley Trump and he will attack them for their bias when it happens. This opens up a whole lot of territory for Trump to explore: no MSM news outlet curious enough about the server to dig into that story deeply, all the "how was your weekend" kind of questions she gets in her latest "press conferences," no MSM ever ask about Huma's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, no MSM ever examines how many Jefferson-Jackson dinners Hillary hosted in racist Arkansas nor her support for the confederate flag there nor her association with known admitted Klan segregationists and her effusive praise for their "wisdom" when she was a senator, and there's plenty more. He will have the opportunity to indict the MSM along with her record. Viewers don't like an unfair fight, for the most part.

WisRich said...

Curious George said...

"I think it's important to directly ask her is she has Parkinson's, or some other neurological disorder. Forget these vague "How is your health?" questions. You know how Clinton's spin answers. "Well, my health was good for someone who has Parkinson's!"

The press won't ask, Trump needs to put it out there."


It is truly amazing how incurious the press is when it comes to her health. It's like some perverse version of "Don't ask, Don't tell". They don't want to ask because they're afraid of the truth they may uncover.

Unknown said...

Hillary's health is a major issue. I don't know that she will handle the 90 minutes. Sure, with enough drugs she'll not collapse. But I have to think that if she is on that much medication it will impact her thinking ability, or what's left of it.

She's been looking like death warmed over lately, and her eyes are starting to go crossways. And that's stating a fact, not hyperbole. She canceled a fundraiser, and for a Clinton to cancel a fundraiser, there must be something seriously wrong.

She'll last through the first half hour, no doubt. But after that? Who knows? Her health is clearly deteriorating rapidly.

--Vance

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Her campaign is sinking like a rock. She can't afford to miss the debate.

I'm guessing they want to make her appear to be as sick as possible before the debate.
That's the reason they've cancelled some appearances. This will lower expectations. Then BAM!, she appears at the debate as a normal, seemingly healthy human being and is announced the winner just for showing up. I can almost see the headlines now.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

but what a calamity to go out on that stage with 100 million people watching and falter and crumble.

This is what I am hoping for. I have popcorn (Orville Redenbacher,sea salt and butter ready for the event!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I think that, at the end of the debate both candidates should have to provide both a blood and a urine sample, to test for performance enhancing substances.

damikesc said...

Trump cannot lose the debate. He only has to show that he's not going to nuke the world the moment he has the chance. They've painted him as such an imbecile and oaf that he cannot help but look good in comparison to their rhetoric.

Likewise, "The most qualified person to ever run for the White House" cannot possibly live up to their absurd belief in her.

I just wonder what the Dems will do if she loses. The party's obsession, for 24 years, has been protecting the Clintons.

The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things

Really? I thought he was an evil plutocrat who gave women cancer.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

Dr Feelgood can keep her on her feet for hours if the price is right, calling David Brock...

holdfast said...

He’ll say the same empty phrases over and over again - so if you add an insane smirk, you get the Joe Biden approach!

David said...

" I'm having a little trouble picturing her standing up for 90 minutes — between 9 and 10:30 at night — looking alert and speaking with spirit and passion, deftly picking up on Trump's flaws, and driving home her superiority.'

Low expectations are to her benefit. I expect her to rise to the occasion, perhaps with a little chemical assist. She's actually pretty good at this kind of stuff.

But the pressure on her is yuge. She screws this up an she's in big, big trouble.

I find presidential debates excruciating to watch. Who's on MNF next week?

Left Bank of the Charles said...

How about this: Hillary waits until the afternoon of the debate and then announces that as she is not fully recovered she is sending Tim Kaine to debate Trump in her place. Does Trump cancel? Does he debate Kaine? Does he send Pence?

Amadeus 48 said...

I think the Clinton campaign believes it just needs to get through the next fifty+ days.

If she wins, the Dems are in for four more years. Some coterie of Dem panjandrums will run the executive branch with Hillary or Timmie as a figurehead and in 2020 there will be some bright new face (Have you ever really considered Corey Booker? 95% of African-American votes, baby! He's Obama with brains). HRC will just be a bad (but revered--she bravely gave her all in the face of adversity and illness) memory.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Does Trump cancel? Does he debate Kaine? Does he send Pence?

He graciously offers to postpone the debate due to her serious health issues. That would be a big lose for Hillary.

MadisonMan said...

Clinton will be on amphetamines

If she says the line Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up amphetamines after a stumble, I will applaud her.

Big Mike said...

@Left Bank, he sends Pence to meet Kaine and announces that he'll meet Hillary in Farmville.

Mike said...

I do find it strange that "incurious" was the insult the press and opinion set always used against GWB. Now they all fit that description moreso than any candidate. They just have no curiosity about Hillary's health, or penchant for secrecy that borders on the clinically paranoid, or whether the latest explanation flumonia is even true, or why she refused security requests in Benghazi, or how she reconciles her "war on women" narrative with her lifelong enabling of a serial woman abuser, or why the goddamn Rose Law Firm records showed up in her possession the day after the statute of limitations ran out, or why exactly was she an "un-indicted co-conspirator" in the Whitewater affair, or how she ended up failing the bar exam twice, or exactly when she changed from "marriage between a man and woman is the bedrock foundation of our society" in defense of DOMA to her position now, or even how the economics would work for all the free crap she's promising those millennials (who failed to show at her millennial rally yesterday).

Yes, mighty curious how incurious they are!

CWJ said...

Claire McCaskill is an interesting case. She was one of the first major players to jump ship and endorse Obama in 2008. If she thought she'd be amply rewarded for the risk, this Kansas City resident never saw it. Four years later when she looked to lose her senate seat, she brilliantly engineered the nomination of Akin as her opponent. She easily won reelection. Initially, I thought the rise of Trump might have been taken directly out of her playbook.

I think she's a cipher as far as Missouri is concerned, but she's being a good soldier this election cycle. I wonder if it will be enough for Hillary to forgive her for 2008.

Mac McConnell said...

MadisonMan said...
"I think it's clear there's something wrong with her

I'm almost certain but not quite. I would like to know, for example, why, when a person with pneumonia collapses she isn't taken to the ER, but to her daughter's apartment, from which she walks 90 minutes later, seemingly recovered."

Besides once being a crack $600,000 a year journalist Chelsea unbeknownst to the public is also a amature EMT.

Crooked Hillary will show up at the debate and dry hump the wonk horse, trying to catch Trump in an Aleppo moment with specifics. All Trump has to do is say "Jesus with all that knowledge how did you and Obama fuck up the Middle East so bad when you were in power? Oh yes, probably because your total disregard for national security."

FYI, Claire is my Senator, she is a say anything lying hag, a Hillary clone.

Bad Lieutenant said...

For everbody who thinks Trump is devoid of content:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg23164/html/CHRG-109shrg23164.htm

Birkel said...

Why does anybody continue to pretend to believe Hillary has pneumonia?

Anybody who repeats that lie is a fool, a shill or both.

dbp said...

I think either Hillary has been playing possum these last few weeks and will wow everyone with her vigor at the debate. Or she will find some way to make the debate not happen--she will try to make it look like this is Trump's fault, of course.

Bad Lieutenant said...

There's always "and," Birkel. The Parkinson's or whatever, if that is it, may create a swallowing disorder leading her to aspirate swallowed food/drink/saliva which could cause pneumonia.

If you're saying pneumonia as the explanation for all her symptoms is a farce, +ONE MEELION.

Roy Lofquist said...

“The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent.”
~~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Clinton campaign and the media do seem to be a bit perplexed of late. They don't know whether to defecate of go blind.

How about this as a tactic? Trump gives one sentence simple answers and turns it back over to Hillary. Her mellifluous voice and fine feel for the pulse of the electorate should make her shine. And make her think. You know, like keeping the 10 vital swing thoughts in mind on the first tee.

Bruce Hayden said...

Right now, I think that Crooked and her campaign are in a box. They would love to cancel, but can't. But her health, under the stress of campaigning, is too bad to trust that she can stand for 90 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one debate were sitting, but at least one would have to be standing. He can operate in either mode, though I expect that he prefers standing, since his height is an advantage against other men. The problem for him standing is the appearance of bullying, exploiting which with Rick Lazlio was part of how she won her Senate seat. But, by now, with her health a growing campaign issue, I don't see the master deal maker unconditionally surrendering this advantage for all three debates. Maybe willing to give it up on the first one, if they are trying to find an excuse to bail.

I find the a Candy Crawley question interesting. On the one hand, it would give him someone besides Crooked Hillary to bully, and, if it were obvious, like it was with Crowley and Romney, going after the moderator would be popular with a lot of viewers. But he wasn't the instigator during the Republican debates, and only seemed to jump onboard when it seemed like he was being left behind. His natural inclination seems to me to be to expect biased reporters and moderators, and figure that he can out talk them. Should be interesting.

Finally as to the Benghazi hearing. There she was sitting down. The Dems on the panel, who alternated with Republicans, spent their time protecting her and when actually asking her questions, asked very soft ones. She was given plenty of time to rest up for it, and it wasn't in the midst of a hard campaign, where the cumulative effect on her health seems to be greatly exaggerating her problems in this area.

FullMoon said...

Latest incident was Hillary's left eye out of sync with her right during speech on Monday. Then, she cancels Tuesday.

Would be great if Trump bought air time immediately before debate to show montage of her being caught lying . Sniper fire a favorite to begin, end with contrasting FBI statement with hers regarding email. Throw in energized Hillary contrasted with her being dragged into van..

Meeeea said...

She'll show. And as someone said above, that in itself will have them declaring her the winner. What a strong woman!

And no, IMHO Trump should not ask about her health at the debate. He would be villified by the MSM and feminists (males included) for asking such a "sexist" question. I can see it now--they will claim it is akin to asking a woman if she is PMSing. (Personally, I think any question is appropriate, if she and her adoring supporters think she is presidential material, they need to buck up and not be so touchy on male/female issues.)

But speaking of male/female issues, where he will get hammered is on the abortion issue. He made a mistake hiring Dannelson (sp?) as his "pro life" advisor. He needs to just acknowledge that realistically Roe / Casey will not be overturned, but that he will begin the process of strengthening conscience and religious exemptions, curb public funding to PP and divert some of it to pregnancy care centers (especially targeting women that are seeking late term abortions (a majority are against abortion after 7 months)), enact a federally required, detailed consent form for donating aborted fetuses (a check box for each part, tissue, blood etc. Eyeballs? Ovaries? Penis? Skin? Brains? Fingernails?) that lists the potential uses of the body, including kidneys being grafted onto mice for them to lug around and grow them, etc., and a way to ensure those that decline know the body is not taken (maybe mini incinerators where the woman can drop her dead kid in herself, that way at least she has some peace of mind that her child will not be recreated nor parts regenerated by labs.)

Mac McConnell said...

Bad Lieutenant thanks for the link. Trump's testimony before the committee was refreshing, not the BS wonkish testimony of a bureaucrat.

Paddy O said...

"They don't want to ask because they're afraid of the truth they may uncover."

Or because they already know.

mockturtle said...

Roy Lofquist suggested: And make her think. You know, like keeping the 10 vital swing thoughts in mind on the first tee.

Great idea! And, as a former golfer, I know whereof you speak.

Martin said...

Waiting for the other guy to fatally hurt himself is a very weak strategy. If he was prone to doing that, you wouldn't be facing him in the first place. It could happen, but seems unlikely, and if that's the best you have, you don't have much.

WisRich said...

Paddy O said...
"They don't want to ask because they're afraid of the truth they may uncover."

Or because they already know.

9/21/16, 10:13 AM

Your right. I wan't being cynical enough.

Mac McConnell said...

Just wondering if the race riots in Charlotte will have an impact on the polls in NC.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

David Begley said...

Hillary did cancel a fundraiser in NC yesterday.

Probably due to the BLM riot in Charlotte last night.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article103009432.html

Hillary!'s support in NC largely comes from the transplants in the major cities. I suspect there weren't many who trying to make it up from Charlotte to Chapel Hill for the fundraiser.

Trump did much better last night because he was campaigning in Eastern NC which is largely rural.

John said...

Blogger Fred Rawlings said...

Whether she wins or loses, i think Hillary is going to have a stroke in the next four years.

You mean another stroke, don't you?

Her doctors, back in 2012 when she fell, said she had a stroke. They didn't use the "S" word, they called it a Cerebral Venous Thrombosis (CVT) which is the $1.98 phrase for stroke.

There is some video of her at her Philadephia speech Tuesday where her eyes were out of control. One looking right, the other looking left. Very scary looking. Immediately after that she cancelled all further appearances.

John Henry

Original Mike said...

"Probably due to the BLM riot in Charlotte last night."

I believe the fund raiser was in the afternoon (it was something like "Lunch with Hillary"). Do you have information to the contrary?

John said...

North,

She cancelled before the shooting took place. She had no prior knowledge that there was going to be trouble in Charlotte.

Or did she? Are you saying that BLM or someone gave her a heads up that they would be rioting last night?

John Henry

MaxedOutMama said...

I think that she is resting up and that she'll come out vigorously. Whether the voters like what she has to say is another matter entirely, but I do believe she will speak with at least superficial coherence, fluency and conviction.

I think the adventures in random Islamic violence over the weekend left a lot of average people truly pissed off at their government. The claims about not knowing motive, etc. They look ridiculous as the facts come out. What the heck does the press secretary's claim about "winning the narrative war with ISIS" even MEAN? Really? It's beginning to look like Homeland Security is the "Jayvee Team" in this conflict.

The onus is on her to have a plan to cope with what is actually happening. She needs to think that out. Trying to ride on Obama's coattails on this issue is really going to hurt her.

We'll see. Monday is a few short days away.

cubanbob said...

She will be there. She will be standing. She will do her usual fact-free bullshit with a straight face. She will get the softball questions. Anyone want to bet different? Trump will get the loaded questions based on bullshit premises along with the moderator cum interrogator helping out Hillary. Anyone want to bet different? The only thing is can Trump stay on time and on target when first peeling back the bullshit premise of the question and then eviscerate the moderator as a DNC shill? That folks is what the show will really be about.

Bruce Hayden said...

To be a conspiracy theorist, why wouldn't she have had advanced notice? Apparently, a lot of the BLM stuff is funded by George Soros, who has also been a major contributor to Media Matters, which, coincidentally has hired Clinton family hatchet man Sid Blumenthal in the past. Connect the dots. Note - I am not saying that she did have advance notice, but rather that it is possible that she could have. Obviously, if she had had that advanced knowledge, she would have had a moral obligation to inform the local, state, and federal authorities......

Ann Althouse said...

"The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things. Trump is a moron who has no idea what he is doing."

Or you have no idea what he's doing.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Original Mike said...

I believe the fund raiser was in the afternoon (it was something like "Lunch with Hillary"). Do you have information to the contrary?

No, pure speculation. But at this point who knows.

Original Mike said...

"But at this point who knows."

But we do know it wasn't because of the riot. Unless Hillary's a time traveler.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Ann has a good point. Either Trump is an idiot who just lucked into possibly winning the Presidency in Nov, or he really isn't that stupid, but rather knows what he is doing here, and those who honestly accuse him of being stupid are the ones missing the obvious - that he actually does know what he is doing, has a plan, and is executing it fairly well. My feelings on this, as a #NeverCrookedHillary partisan is the latter. Or, possibly that he is decently smart, is skilled in handling the media, and has good instincts here.

Bad Lieutenant said...

This woman is seriously ill. They have been fighting whatever is her disease, and they are losing.

Cleveland Clinic says:

http://my.clevelandclinic.org/services/cole-eye/diseases-conditions/hic-crossed-eyes-strabismus


Adults can also experience strabismus. Most commonly, ocular misalignment in adults is due to stroke, but it can also occur from physical trauma or from a childhood strabismus that was not treated or was improperly treated. Strabismus in adults can be treated in a variety of ways, including observation, patching, prism glasses, and/or surgery.



What causes strabismus?
The most common cause of strabismus is heredity; about 30 percent of children with strabismus have a family member with a similar problem. When strabismus is not hereditary, there is usually no specific reason to explain why it occurs.

Other conditions associated with strabismus include:

Cerebral palsy (40-60 percent of these patients are affected)
Down syndrome (20-60 percent of these patients are affected)<--LOL (sorry)
Hydrocephalus (a congenital disease that results in a buildup of fluid inside the skull, damaging the brain)<--is the the same thing as swelled head?
Brain tumors<--my private suspicion
Uncorrected farsightedness
Stroke (the leading cause of strabismus in adults)<--obviously
Head injuries, which can damage the area of the brain responsible for control of eye movement, the nerves that control eye movement, and the eye muscles<--duh
Neurological (nervous system) problems
Graves' disease (overproduction of thyroid hormone)<--known

Is this what Mickey Kaus calls over-determined? It's a wonder she even has eyes!

Bad Lieutenant said...

Or, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC505143/

Acute onset concomitant esotropia: when is it a sign of serious neurological disease?


Bad Lieutenant said...

She has head MRIs, fresh ones.

Fact. Her physicians would be remiss if there weren't.

I want to see them.

I want everybody to see them. I'd love to know what my cousin would make of them. Or you, Dr. K.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Note, they do not mention Parkinson's.

Michael said...

I love the hysteria building on the left. We see it here. Trump is a loser. Trump doesn't know what he's doing. Etc.

Trump meanwhile has beaten out a dozen contenders, is worth a lot of money and has been under a microscope for over a year and the "dirt" on him is not much.

Hysteria. Building.

Freder Frederson said...

Or you have no idea what he's doing.

So, he is intentionally presenting himself as clueless and proposing impossible policies (build a wall and have Mexico pay for it, restore law and order in the first hour, deport somewhere between 2 and 11 million people, "secret" plan to defeat ISIS, commit war crimes and torture people, etc.) as some kind of ploy?

You are really in deep, aren't you?

Michael said...

Hillary will come out swinging, helped along by 1,000 units of amphetamine.

Michael said...

Freder Frederson

Free, free, free. Hillary will give it to you free. Not clueless.

Trump is merely proposing to enforce the law. Clueless.

mockturtle said...

Romney is a polished politician

And that is the last thing this country needs right now.

Freder Frederson said...

And using Foundation funds to pay business debts and bribe politicians was a stroke of genius.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Freder Frederson said...
And using Foundation funds to pay business debts and bribe politicians was a stroke of genius.

9/21/16, 12:09 PM

I'm sure the Clintons would say so.

...or did you not mean the Clinton Foundation scheme?

Freder Frederson said...

I'm sure the Clintons would say so.

Where is the evidence this has happened. Please provide a link.

Annie said...

Hillary won't withdraw. She knows she has the media and the debate monitors on her side to do what they can to trip up Trump.
The only thing Hillary needs to do is try her best to stay upright until election night. If she wins, all she cares about is the title; instead of golfing eight years away like Obama, they'll put her in a room somewhere where she can nap and continue to sell access at increased prices for her Crime Family Foundation. She'll either retain the person running things now, Valerie Jarrett, or allow Huma and Blumenthal to stay on as proxy.

Yancey Ward said...

At this point, she only withdraws from the debate if she dies, and her instructions are probably to wheel her out there anyway.

A month ago, there was a good chance she would find a pretext to dodge the debates, but after the near face plant on the 11th was caught on video, that avenue was closed immediately.

I will make a prediction, Clinton sits through the debate for 90% of the time.

Harold said...

Freder Frederson said...
The difference between Romney and Trump is that Romney is a polished politician who actually knew things. Trump is a moron who has no idea what he is doing.


Every 4 years since I was a kid, and I'm 61, the mantra has been the Republican is a moron.

Just a sample of things named after Trump: Trump Taj Mahal, Trump World Tower, The Trump Building, Trump Ocean Club International Hotel and Tower, Trump Parc and Trump Parc East, Trump International Golf Links and Hotel Ireland, Trump National Doral Miami, Trump Steaks, and Trump: The Game.

And thought Trump doesn't drink, and never has according to stories, there's Trump Winery and Trump Super Premium Vodka that he makes money off. Not bad for a moron.

Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, corrupt alcoholic enabler of her sexual predator husband has the following things named after her: Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport. What did she have to do with it? Absolutely nothing. But, politicians get taxpayer funded and taxpayer supported things named after them for forcibly extracting money from taxpayers, not for putting together the plans, coordinating financing, getting investors to invest, then building.

Her husband has something named else because of him, but not named after him. "Hey, I received a Monica today!" Anyone not know what that means?

So, Trump's a moron in the eyes of Democrats. Nothing new there. Nothing true there, as usual.

And then there's Ivana, Marla, and Melania. IMHO, morons don't end up with wives like them. And, the ex-wives say good things about him. Ex-wives don't say good things about moron ex-husbands. Anyone want to deny that?

Yancey Ward said...

You could probably find a comment from Freder four years ago that said the difference between Romney and McCain was that Romney was a moron who didn't know anything.

james conrad said...

In fact, if you gave me the right odds, I'd bet money that she'll withdraw from Monday's debate.

Dang girl, CALM DOWN! ain't gonna happen. That would really be the end for hillary if that were to occur, an MIA prez just isn't gonna cut it.

John said...

Freder,

Why do you think Mexico won't pay for the wall if President Trump decides that they should?

Are you that stupid?

I doubt that Mexico will write a check for the billion$ but that is not the only way to get them to pay.

Mexicans in the US send huge, cumulatively, remittances home. A small tax on them would raise billions.

We import almost 300mm barrels of oil a year from Mexico. Perhaps a $1-2 tariff could pay for the wall.

Many countries charge a fee to enter and/or to leave. Dominican Republic charges (or used to, its been a few years) $10 to enter and another $10 to leave. US$ only, please. We have tens or hundreds of thousands who cross legally into the US each day to work, shop etc. Charge each 50 cents or a dollar.

Maybe we could get them to write a check. Someone, perhaps Scott Adams, suggested that President Trump might offer any Mexican with a college degree or a useful skill permanent residence in the US and a path to citizenship. Mexico would not be able to stand the brain drain and might pay to build the wall or build it themselves.

There are other creative solutions that could be used as well.

Do you really think President Trump couldn't get Mexico to pay for the wall?

John Henry

Bruce Hayden said...

I agree that Crooked's face plant on 9/11 made her withdrawing from the debates highly unlikely. Better to wheel her out there, highly medicated and hope for the best. If I were a drinker, or a better, I think the better bets would be what she has in her ear, whether she has her hair down over her ears this time, whether she takes overlong bathroom breaks, and whether she spazzes out or collapses. Should be interesting.

John said...

Yancey,

You say that they might wheel her out even if she dies. I am not sure whether or not you are serious but it is a possibility.

There is some talk of a Crooked Hilary body double. Perhaps even speaking in her place at public events. See videos on YouTube of purported greenscreen at the Greensboro rally on 9/15.

If she dies, how will we know? If they put a body double out at the debate, how will we know?

I think Trump should demand that both of them submit DNA samples on stage.

John Henry

cubanbob said...

I'm sure in Freder's alternative reality Hillary's graft, criminality and treason don't exist.

Speaking of fantasies, what's Hillary going to do? Send up space shuttles with huge nets to collect all that cash from heaven to give everyone free this and free that? because that's the only way she can pay for all the gimmee dats Democrats promise. Makes Trump's getting the Mexican's to pay for the wall look absolutely possible.

Freder Frederson said...

Do you really think President Trump couldn't get Mexico to pay for the wall?

I really do believe that President Trump will not be able to make Mexico pay for the wall. He claims (contrary to what the Mexican president said) that they didn't even discuss it.

If he tries, he will just look like the idiot he is and severely damage the international standing of the U.S.

Michael said...

Freder

Can you not read? A tax on outbound remittances to Mexico will pay for the wall without the government of Mexico having a say in it. They could charge a reciprocal tax on payments from Mexico to the U.S. but I somehow don't think that will be tit for tat.

Chuck said...

"In fact, if you gave me the right odds, I'd bet money that she'll withdraw from Monday's debate."

That is a very uncharacteristically badly-conceived sentence from the wonderfully careful keyboard of Professor Althouse.

If you gave me the right odds, I will bet that I will win the Mega Millions lottery. Those odds would be about 300 million to 1. And I would like to bet one dollar.

What, exactly, are your odds on a Hillary pullout? Maybe we can get a little action on that. And how much do I need to bet?

Joe said...

Romney lost. To Obama.

Yet he's now the example to follow? Seriously?

Brando said...

"Do you really think President Trump couldn't get Mexico to pay for the wall?"

Technically speaking, yes you could tack on a tax for every phone call made to Mexico or an import duty on everything coming in from Mexico and then say that that money is really Mexico paying for the wall. Or even (if you grant the federal government enough power) track and confiscate direct payments between the U.S. and Mexico. It's not really the Mexican government paying it, but Americans (and also Mexicans living in America) paying it, but in theory it taxes commerce between the two countries to pay for a wall.

Are there downsides to doing this? Besides poisoning our relationship with one of our biggest trading partners (a feature, not a bug, for those who see us as only losers in international trade), and leading to such payments being made through intermediaries (Canada, for example) it would probably hurt Mexico's economy as well as our own. This is all assuming he has congressional approval (and we know how good Congress is on agreeing on things) and survives court challenges.

But who are we kidding? Are you really counting on Trump keeping that promise? Of course he's going to renege on it. As he says, "everything is negotiable" and his supporters will love him just the same.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck, Brando says I should treat you like a human being, so here, let me try.

You seem to scoff at the notion that Hillary would withdraw from the debates. This seems to suggest you think that:

a, Hillary Clinton is well and healthy, or thinks she can feign being so, and has no concerns for a risk of some failure of nerve or sinew that would gut her campaign

b, she could not come up with an excuse that would be plausible to people who would be inclined to accept excuses from Hillary Clinton

c, withdrawal from the debate would be damaging not to say catastrophic for Hillary Clinton, outweighing the risk of a, above

d, even if she seizes, strokes, soils herself, has coughing fits, chokes, faints, or dies on stage, she will help her campaign by doing so, vs not debating

May I ask you which of these do you believe to be true? All, some, one, none? Additionally, is something relevant which I have not mentioned?

In your answer, kindly spend as little time as possible on the perfidies of Donald Trump.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brando,

it would probably hurt Mexico's economy

1. Why do you care?

2. Why wouldn't that be a factor in negotiations, that would encourage Mexico to pay for the wall?

mockturtle said...

According to a chart on Wikipedia [from USAID], we gave Mexico $419.94 million in 2013 in military and economic assistance. I'll bet a wall could at least be started with that.

Michael said...

Why would taxing outbound remittances be worse on Mexico than on the U.S. which is not receiving the benefit of those dollars being spent here and which also may well be untaxed. One or both,

Not a particularly good negotiating strategy to begin with the idea that the other side might be hurt by our winning.

Michael said...

Mexico received something on the order of 25 Billion Dollars in remittances. Can a wall be built with 15% of that? 5? Or 1% over five years or ten?

Jonathan Graehl said...

Can you imagine, short of a state of emergency, not showing up for a debate, or showing up 30 minutes late? Wouldn't it look like you're effectively conceding?

Brando said...

"it would probably hurt Mexico's economy

1. Why do you care?"

Only insofar as a crashed Mexican economy would absolutely have a negative effect on ours, due to not just the number of illegals that would stream north (assuming we don't have perfect border security right away, or ever, frankly) but with the business we do with them. Maybe we can say "immediately militarize the border, and shoot to kill" and "anyone doing business with Mexico, screw 'em" but I think the former will simply not happen, and the latter would reverberate across our entire economy. Maybe that price is worth whatever we save on getting Mexico to pay, but that is a cost we have to consider. Which is why I don't think Trump would seriously try it.

"2. Why wouldn't that be a factor in negotiations, that would encourage Mexico to pay for the wall?"

That's the theory, anyway--but imagine if another country tried using that sort of leverage on us. I figure we'd call their bluff, as the stain on our national honor would outweigh the economic damage. (For the same reason a lot of people may be willing to take on the costs I outline above, for the sake of restoring our honor by making Mexico pay for the wall).

Brando said...

"Chuck, Brando says I should treat you like a human being, so here, let me try."

I don't know Chuck and can't speak for him, but I do think this blog comment section is better than most when it allows us to debate with strangers over these issues. I've at least found good insights from some of those who disagree with me, and it makes it worth the time. But if we instead go down that road of just insulting each other, it can get hilarious for a while but then lose a certain something (like comments on some youtube clips).

I don't know what happened to Crack Emcee--I wonder if he's somewhere else telling everyone how racist they are.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brando,

--Only insofar as a crashed Mexican economy would absolutely have a negative effect on ours,

Curiously, the negative effect of things on the US doesn't seem to affect Mexican policy. (Nor does Mexico seem to worry about the negative effect of, e.g., abusing Central/South American immigrants into Mexico, or for that matter, problematic Americans or even Mexicans.)

That is the kind of asymmetry up with which Trump will not put.

--we'd call their bluff, as the stain on our national honor

Um? What did you just say? Go back and think about that. I'm sure you mean something more sensible than what that sounded like.

--I don't know Chuck and can't speak for him

Frankly given your apparent agreement on Donald Trump, I daresay he'd trust you to pinch-hit for him. I'm afraid I find him a little infuriating lately. He is beyond reason. Also I sense deception, and that REALLY makes me mad. And, I consider him to have renounced all courtesy, no need to rehash that. But at your urging I will try.

readering said...

There's only once precedent for not showing up for a scheduled debate--Trump. And it cost him the Iowa caucuses.

Chuck said...

Bad Lieutenant:

Nice to see you standing up for Althouse. Looks like you're my man since she is not replying right now. What do you want to bet, that Hillary withdraws from the first debate?

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


I guess Althouse didn't watch any of the Democratic debates. Clinton debated Sanders for 90 minutes and seemed perefecrtly fine, even shaking hands with the audience members afterwards. More likely Trump will implode on that stage and go poof,

Birkel said...

Not fair to bet with Chuck about Clinton's plans. As a big supporter of Clinton, Chuck has an unfair advantage.

Birkel said...

Unknown:
I wonder what you would have said on September 10th about the likelihood of Clinton freezing, stumbling, falling and generally looking sickly.

Wait. No I don't. I already know.

Unknown said...

It's obvious Althouse has been influenced by her readership after all these years of blogging. Let's hear no more talk of her being a liberal, as it's obvious that she is as much a Trumpist as the majority of the commentariat here. What a shocking disappointment from someone who I considered an intelligent well rounded blogger at one time.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chuck, I had a long, well crafted reply, hit post, and the vagaries of mobile computing ate it.

Suffice it to say that I think, and hope, they'll dope her up and shove her out on the stage. I expect her to do vs Trump about as well as she did vs Obama.

Stakes? My best friend is dead so who would I share a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle 23 with? I would suggest, then, dinner and drinks at winner's choice of restaurant in winner's city.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Unknown,

What a shocking disappointment from someone who I considered an intelligent well rounded blogger at one time.
9/21/16, 4:49 PM


Curious: What effect, if any, do you expect your remarks to have on the good professor? And, having been so disillusioned, what will you do next?

CWJ said...

Brando,

I can always count on you to have a nominally reasoned reply. Your 3:00PM comment is typical. I'll address the second half first. "...imagine if another country tried using that sort of leverage on us." Countries do that all the time. I don't have to imagine it. Companies, countries, and people adapt accordingly. Assuming a stain on our national honor with an equally assumed overreaction is a bit melodramatic.

So back to your first point. Are you saying that there is no level of tax we could put on USA to Mexico remittances that would not tank the Mexican economy? You went from "hurt" to "crashed" awfully quickly. In fact I'm uncertain how such a tax crashes the Mexican economy in the first place. I surely see how it makes the entrenched Mexican politicos uncomfortable as it hurts an important safety valve stopping political unrest. I believe such a tax would destabilize the country politically before it "crashed" the economy. That would be the fear that Trump may have tapped.

hombre said...

If Hillary shows up and lasts through the debate, she should be required to take a drug test.

hombre said...

Unknown said...
"It's obvious Althouse has been influenced by her readership after all these years of blogging."

Maybe it has more to do with you Dems fielding a candidate who has failed during the past quarter century to demonstrate competence at anything but grifting.

First Lady: Failed to keep her dog on the porch.
Senator: Voted for the Iraq War; nothing else notable.
Sec. Of State notable failures: Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, ISIS, Russia, China, UK, Israel.

Net worth 1998-2016: From $0 to $100+ million.

richardsson said...

It would not surprise me to see her withdraw from the debates. I don't think they're telling us the truth about her health. If she had any real friends, I think they should have told her running for President was a mistake. That weird balloon drop take at the convention and the head bobbing incident with the reporters made it clear to me that she is no longer in control of her own body.

Bad Lieutenant said...

And Chuck, now that I look farther back and see what inspired you, I believe c, a little bit of b, and a tiny bit of d.

Also a, to the point that they may be able to prop her up like El Cid, but risky, very risky.

Did you care to meet me on this ground or not?

Bad Lieutenant said...

And richardsson, what makes you think that the Clintons have friends? But I guess you were just throwing it out there.

wildswan said...

She will debate but I think her body is worn out beyond what drugs can fix easily. Getting tired is different when you are older. You don't snap back. And the campaign has tired Hillary out, I think. It's just an opinion but I feel I recognize that toiling walk from this spring after I moved house and spent days keeping-up with 20-year-old helpers. It comes with feeling sick with fatigue and it doesn't go away in day or a week. And I never got pneumonia or dehydration (Thank you, Gatorade) or had to suddenly wear blue glasses. I did not have a seizure. But I was tired in a way I've never felt before and used to toil about in this old-person way. And if I had had to think about debating Donald Trump in front of 100 million people - something that Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and others found hard...

It comes down to whether they have been shooting her full of drugs to keep her going since the campaign began, in which case she could be used to the drugs and need higher levels. But higher levels could impair thinking or even be dangerous. Now what.

Mac McConnell said...

JFK was functioning meth head, why not Hillary?

Brando said...

"Curiously, the negative effect of things on the US doesn't seem to affect Mexican policy."

And look where it's got Mexico--not exactly a country I want to emulate. Not that we need to always be afraid that harming Mexico will cost us, but we at least have to take those costs into consideration when we're weighing policy. It's not just "upside only."

"Um? What did you just say? Go back and think about that. I'm sure you mean something more sensible than what that sounded like."

What I mean is that politically, the appearance of weakness in the face of what we perceive as an insult to our national honor can force us to even do things that will hurt us more than the "less honorable alternative".

"Frankly given your apparent agreement on Donald Trump, I daresay he'd trust you to pinch-hit for him. I'm afraid I find him a little infuriating lately. He is beyond reason. Also I sense deception, and that REALLY makes me mad. And, I consider him to have renounced all courtesy, no need to rehash that. But at your urging I will try."

Well, I haven't read all his posts--from what I gather, he cant' stand Trump (and I don't trust Trump at all) but I did see a few times he said he'd still vote for him. Agree with him or not, it seems Chuck represents a not-insignificant number of the people Trump counts on to vote for him (people who don't like him, but see Hillary as the greater evil). If he's deceitful or discourteous (and he may have been--when I'm late to the comment sections I usually don't go over the earlier ones) he deserves to be called out for it. Likewise, if I come across that way I should be called out for it too--if I want to just rip on people I can sign on to the Washington Post comment boards (which don't take long to get ugly).

"I'll address the second half first. "...imagine if another country tried using that sort of leverage on us." Countries do that all the time. I don't have to imagine it. Companies, countries, and people adapt accordingly. Assuming a stain on our national honor with an equally assumed overreaction is a bit melodramatic."

Melodramatic, maybe--I guess my point (as noted above) is that when using leverage on another country, it can be dicey as anything seen by them as stomping on their sovereignty will be politically intolerable for their leaders (as it would be for us). Sure, we (and they) use leverage--we usually try to be subtle for that reason, as no one can sell it to their support base (whether in a democracy or dictatorship) that they're just rolling over. It can even make them go against their rational interest. Sort of like the old saying, "millions for war, not a penny for tribute".

"So back to your first point. Are you saying that there is no level of tax we could put on USA to Mexico remittances that would not tank the Mexican economy? You went from "hurt" to "crashed" awfully quickly. In fact I'm uncertain how such a tax crashes the Mexican economy in the first place. I surely see how it makes the entrenched Mexican politicos uncomfortable as it hurts an important safety valve stopping political unrest. I believe such a tax would destabilize the country politically before it "crashed" the economy. That would be the fear that Trump may have tapped."

I guess it's a question of degree, isn't it? We could certainly impose some tax on commerce (remittances, trade or even travel) low enough to not force people to stop completely, or find ways around it. Of course, that only gets "Mexico" to pay for it to the extent we define "Mexico" not as their government but as all private business between the countries.

Bad Lieutenant said...

GM Brando.

-Mexico is committing a number of bad acts, not least of which is running their country so badly (feel free to offer other adjectives) that they need to use the border as a safety valve. Ultimately the solution to the root cause would be to invade ans replace the Mexican government. However THEN you get into the national honor thing, or at least the national ego. Thankless and unfeasible, I should think. But not so hot for the ruling elite either. This is the BATNA.

Bad Lieutenant said...

As for my "Um" Obama has been swallowing insults to the national honor downright years, when he hasn't supplied them.

Brando said...

"-Mexico is committing a number of bad acts, not least of which is running their country so badly (feel free to offer other adjectives) that they need to use the border as a safety valve. Ultimately the solution to the root cause would be to invade ans replace the Mexican government. However THEN you get into the national honor thing, or at least the national ego. Thankless and unfeasible, I should think. But not so hot for the ruling elite either. This is the BATNA."

Yeah, we missed our chance to take the rest of it during the Mexican War (largely thanks to a single anti-slavery diplomat! Considering slavery would have gone anyway, a missed opportunity).

"As for my "Um" Obama has been swallowing insults to the national honor downright years, when he hasn't supplied them."

Ah--got it.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Brando, is there something in your latest to respond to, or were you just clearing your throat?

Brando said...

"Brando, is there something in your latest to respond to, or were you just clearing your throat?"

Not really anything to respond to--I don't really disagree about that.

Brando said...

I mean, in my last post I wasn't really disagreeing with your previous remark. It just reminded me of that tidbit from the Mexican War.

Chuck said...

So, what -- now -- are the odds that Hillary will pull out of the first Presidential debate of 2016?

She showed up. Looked healthy and fit. And gave Donald Trump and exceptionally tough time.

Is this a case of Professor Althouse's curious Trump affinity getting the better of her judgment?