September 28, 2016

"Who do you want to be president? The answer may say less about Donald or Hillary and more about which Simpson character you identify with — Bart or Lisa?"

Writes BYU polisci prof Richard Davis, author of "The Liberal Soul: Applying the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Politics."

Davis is reacting to the debate, which I was just saying had me thinking about the archetypes of the brother and the sister. The post of mine bounced off something written by a Catholic priest, who'd gotten into talking about Hillary in terms of Nurse Ratched. In the comments, Lyssa suggested, taking into account my brother/sister idea, that Bart and Lisa Simpson might be the better comparison. No one roots for Nurse Ratched, but we do root for Lisa Simpson. Meade texted me the link to Professor Davis's piece. So we move from the musings of the Catholic priest to the Mormon professor, who says:
For better-educated, professional Americans, the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is reassuring. She will continue many of Obama’s policies, seek to improve relations with other nations, and stand up to Vladimir Putin. She will not make outrageous statements, offend people or challenge the status quo.

Those Americans shudder at the idea of a Donald Trump presidency. They wonder why anyone would want to put a Bart Simpson-like character in the White House running the government. The result would be disaster.

However, for other Americans — those who feel isolated and left behind by economic and social change — a Lisa Simpson-like president would be distant, out of touch, and more of the same. Yes, Hillary Clinton would be dedicated to doing a good job. But, in their view, she would not make life better for them because she doesn’t speak for or relate to them.
IN THE COMMENTS: TosaGuy takes the position that people don't like Lisa, not anymore.

101 comments:

TosaGuy said...

No one likes Lisa.

TosaGuy said...

Ten seconds of googling saved me from writing this paragraph:

"During the classic era, Lisa Simpson used to be one of my favourite characters, she was definitely the one I respected the most. What made Lisa so great is that even though she was very mature for her age, she was still a child. “Mr Lisa Goes to Washington” is a great example of this because we see American politics through the eyes of an 8 year old girl and not a pretentious twat. One of the best aspects of Lisa’s personality was that deep down she cared for her family and would try to apologise when she did something wrong. I liked the fact that she could admit her mistakes, since it made her more likeable. Classic Lisa could even be an inspiration to some people. However, then things started going downhill. From about Season 10, Lisa became a slightly more annoying eco-warrior but for the most part her characterisation in the Scully era was still solid. “Lisa the Tree Hugger” deals with Lisa struggling to be away from her family while still protecting the environment. But the late Jean era is where things just take a turn for the worst. From around Season 18, Lisa became really annoying and unlikeable. She was going around protesting all the time, thinking that she was always right and acting like a know-it-all. She no longer felt like a child. Lisa shouldn’t be running around throwing red paint at people, it just doesn’t feel like something an 8 year old would do. She also seems to be acting a lot more smug these days, in “Pranks and Greens”, all she does is walk around saying “loser” in the most annoying way possible. Lisa shouldn’t be used as the annoying liberal character and I feel the depth she once had has now disappeared. Before, she respected adults, but now she thinks she’s on a higher pedestal than the rest of the world. And I think she needs to get knocked down a peg."

Michael K said...

If you are making a killing in the stock market, Hillary would be more of the same, until of course the crash,.

Why change ?

How many does that make ?

rehajm said...

The better educated professional Americans (and big political donors) I associate with seem sickened by Clinton morality.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

So, now the theory is that folks are drawn to DJT because they think he'll make life better for them because he has a Bart Simpson way of relating/speaking?

I'm not sure if this or the theory that DJT supporters are not motivated by facts (the Dilbert effect) is more insulting to these folks who vote for DJT.

Can someone come up with theories that say these folks are competent and they know what they're doing, based on reality and facts*?

*Where facts are concerned you'd need to, for example, come up w/ better econ jabber than the official stuff coming out of the DJT camp:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/09/26/donald_trump_s_economic_plan_is_still_god_awful.html

Comanche Voter said...

My better educated professional friends (and fellow lawyers) get their lace curtain Irish (and in some cases Catholic) panties in a twist at that vulgar fellow Trump. I look at them and shake my head. They really don't know much about the Deplorable lower classes--and frankly they could care less. It's tough living out here in Los Angeles liberal land.

traditionalguy said...

Trump is for Americans. Hillary is for Saudi OIl sheiks. Money talks in ClintonLand.

rehajm said...

The answer says more about which Simpsons character you identify with - Kang or Kodos:

It's true we're aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!

Brando said...

Nobody roots for Lisa Simpson. She is merely there to provide a straight man foil for Bart and Homer.

Though I note Bart was nearly elected class president, and lost to Martin Prince (the nerd) because he never made sure that his friends actually voted. Are you implying that Trump is going to crash due to a poor ground game?

Comanche Voter said...

Ah yes PB and J asks whether those ignorant Deplorables are "competent and know what they are doing, based on reality and facts".


Poor dumb bastards don't know what's good for them. What they do know is that they don't like what they've got, and Nurse Ratched just looks like more of the Same Old Same Old.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

"Trump is for Americans. Hillary is for Saudi OIl sheiks. Money talks in ClintonLand."

ClintonLand must suck at math. Much more dough in America.

Virgil Hilts said...

Eleanor Iselin is a better compare.
Neither Nurse Ratched nor Lisa would have destroyed hard drives with a hammer, nor participated so distastefully in Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Chinagate, Fostergate, Emailgate, Pardongate, selling Lincoln's Bedroom, Web Hubble's socks, Cattle Futuresgate, Bimbo demonization, Benghazi, Clinton RICO Foundation, rigging the DNC, etc., etc.

Kathryn51 said...

For better-educated, professional Americans, the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is reassuring.

What utter bullshit. Better-educated, professional Americans (I self-identify) are disgusted by her corruption, her flagrant flaunting of any pretense to behave ethically, her thirst for power and her greed.

Have never watched TheSimpsons - is it a show popular with the "better-educated, professional Americans" ???

Once written, twice... said...

Ann, you are rooting for Trump because you are intellectually the targeted audience for reality TV. Luckily only a minority of the country views this important election through that prism.

Bricap said...

I would have thought Trump was Nelson Muntz.

Not sure about HRC being Lisa, as Lisa doesn't have a politician's instinct, but it's probably closer than anything else I can think of from the show.

Who gets to be Milhous?

retail lawyer said...

I am a better-educated, professional American and the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is horrifying. She ruins everything she is associated with, except the US Senate, where she was only 1%.

Gahrie said...

Yes, Hillary Clinton would be dedicated to doing a good job.

Says who?

I'm betting she will be a disaster....

Nonapod said...

Supercilious nonsense like this is a big part of the reason that many people on the left are so despised.

Liberals love portraying themselves as enlightened, superior, well reasoned, and educated. They seethe with disdain at the rubes, but are puzzled why the people whom they disdain don't love them.

Sebastian said...

"She will continue many of Obama’s policies, seek to improve relations with other nations, and stand up to Vladimir Putin. She will not make outrageous statements, offend people or challenge the status quo." Hillary "reset" Clinton will stand up to Vlad? Continuing O's policies is "reassuring"? Not challenging the status quo is inoffensive?

"Yes, Hillary Clinton would be dedicated to doing a good job." Say what?

William said...

I understand that Marge Simpson has come out for Hillary. Maybe someone with better computer skills can dig up her PSA......It's depressing to be a Trump supporter. Every musician, novelist, movie star, even cartoon character that you like considers you deplorable and some kind of proto Nazi.

Gahrie said...

Who gets to be Milhous

Chuckles the troll.

cubanbob said...

When the country had a smaller population we had better candidates. The larger the population the less capable pool of candidates we seem to have. Odd thing.

If Trump wins, he might turn the White House into a residence by Trump. If Hillary wins it's a given the White House (or at least the Lincoln bedroom) will be turned into a B & B for high roller donors.

Is it too much to ask that our potential leaders aren't cartoon characters as well as not being felonious traitors? And in the case of first spouses, having federal police officers not having to be pimps on the side?

Big Mike said...

I disagree with TosaGuy -- I liked Lisa -- but I am voting for Trump, for pretty much the same reasons given by retail lawyer and Nonapod.

Martin said...

I think this model of "professional, educated Clinton supporter" versus "losers for Trump" is way overdone. Just speaking for myself, but I am far from unique, I have a Master's degree and 40+ years of state and municipal government experience with 5 different employers, as an analyst, grant manager, executive, and analyst/program manager, a low 6-figure income, live in a university community, and am fairly widely and deeply read in not only my own field but history, especially military and diplomatic history, economics, business strategy, finance and social policy, and am not ignorant in science and psychology.

Trump concerns me, but I have dealt with his type--big-city real estate developer--and he is not all that unusual; maybe a developer on steroids, but a familiar type. He is not ready for the Presidency (but, who ever is?) but if elected he will cram like hell and by the time he is inaugurated he will be as ready as most ever were. Because, to him, the most important thing is to succeed and be seen to succeed, and he will do whatever he thinks it takes to not only win this race, but to be seen as a successful President. As for Trump's temperament, yes, a concern, but I have seen people reinvent their outward personae to fit a new job, I have even done in myself, and I have little doubt that if Trump sees the need (which I think he will), he can do so.

Clinton utterly appalls me... not just her dishonesty and savage nature (always for personal gain, NOT diplomatic dissembling or regretfully having to do tough things for raison d'etat), but her proven record of incompetence at everything she has ever been involved in, except her own enrichment. HillaryCare, supporting the Iraq War (which Trump did NOT do, he was very ambivalent-- and he was not in any position where it mattered or where he spent a lot of time on it, anyway), one of the worst SecState's we ever had--everything she has touched in the public sphere, she has left worse than she found it. Her ambition is to crush anyone who opposes her; her policy positions bear no relation to helping anybody, they are just means to garner votes and she will cast them aside without a second thought when options of greater personal benefit present themselves.

And, she is the quintessential member of the bipartisan "establishment" that has screwed everything up so badly that the GOP produced Trump and the Democrats would have produced Sanders had it been a fair fight.

cubanbob said...

Blogger retail lawyer said...
I am a better-educated, professional American and the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is horrifying. She ruins everything she is associated with, except the US Senate, where she was only 1%.

9/28/16, 12:38 PM"

How small does the turd in the milk tank have to be before it's small enough not to ruin the milk?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

" If Hillary wins it's a given the White House (or at least the Lincoln bedroom) will be turned into a B & B for high roller donors."

If the Clintons had more business sense they could have had a huge jump start on Airbnb. Making dough by coordinating the rental of properties you don't now. The pieces were there. They just didn't think big enough.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

now should be own

Curious George said...

"...and stand up to Vladimir Putin."

She can't even stand up for a 9/11 ceremony.

buwaya said...

You should be voting for Trump because of Oswald Spengler.
He would probably have explained Trump as a would-be Stilicho or Aetius, a leader against the inevitable trend of decline.

Michael K said...

"Much more dough in America."

She has that already. More. "I want some more !"

I'm with Martin. I have three degrees, two graduate and spend a lot of time reading history.

I am not worried about Trump at all.

Read Codevilla's piece on the election.

In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.

Yes. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

traditionalguy said...

Yes, PB&J. Clintonland is totally addicted to money given to it by foreigners who want to control the USA. And the Patriarch Soros is still as foreign of a foreigners as it gets . And through Clinton he controls more of the government in the USA than anyone.

Meanwhile the power of the old Bush Family's gang is dead in the GOP now, and another Donald named Rumsfeld has lead many of its survivors to join Trump's team.





Paddy O said...

Bart and Lisa are bad analogies. Neither of the candidates are like either of them. Hillary certainly isn't like Lisa.

We're really choosing to vote for Krusty the Clown or Mayor Quimby.

Oso Negro said...

BULLSHIT. Lisa Simpson has morals and a conscience.

rhhardin said...

The Hillary person lacks character development.

Brando said...

"We're really choosing to vote for Krusty the Clown or Mayor Quimby."

That's way too on the mark. Good lord.

mezzrow said...

When Hillary can blow a Bari Sax like Gerry Mulligan, this will get traction. She's no Lisa.

As a sax player, Bill Clinton is a savvy politician...

Friedrich Engels' Barber said...

NO! We think Hillary has failed at everything she has tried, and we don't want to waste years of our lives as part of her next failures. She should never have been promoted to anything beyond Senior Analyst - oh, that's right, she wasn't.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

" have three degrees, two graduate and spend a lot of time reading history."

And yet you can't explain how the official DJT white paper on economics that I linked to further up thread could be so full of errors that you'd hope relatively low level econ students wouldn't have made them? Presumably the education that is required for doctoring does actually help to effectively do the job. That is I'm not sure Joe the Plumber should be stepping in for Doc-stab-you-in-your-belt-buckle. And, of course doc Ben probably shouldn't be guessing about pipe sizes, pitches, clean outs and vents.

Expertise in one area doesn't carry over to everything. And particular expertise is necessary in the real world, this is why I can't understand how the DJT official white paper on economics can be so full of lameness. I guess that folks who support DJT just hope that he'd do better in the future, but then we're back to the irrational-motivation-argument. It seems unavoidable w/ DJT.

Unknown said...

I wish Trump or someone would go back to basic principles: we have a choice between slavery and freedom. Trump is for freedom, Clinton and the left are for slavery. Perhaps a better term would be aristocracy.

Lately in my local rag, the leftists are strongly arguing the idea that a business license means you forfeit the 1st Amendment. As a business person, you no longer have any rights. They rail against Citizens United; they bitterly rail against the very idea that a business owner can say "No" to a LGBT person, for instance.

They want to tax churches, etc. And they always, always want to raise taxes on businesses. Plus, who can forget the "You didn't build that!" that Obama and Warren preach? The idea is that government has a right to your economic proceeds, and they decide how much you should be allowed to keep.

But what does that all mean? The government is now the slave master: They decide what you can and cannot do; they decide how much you can keep of your earnings. You cannot speak or disagree with what they deem is appropriate.
Oh, the government promises to provide health care and suchlike, but then, so did "responsible" slave owners pre-civil war. Also, in theory the nobility was supposed to care for the peasantry in their possession.

This election is a choice between "do we want to bring back the nobility, our 'betters' on the left who will care for us peasants as long as we do what they tell us to" or the alternative, "We are free men and women who are responsible for our own selves."

--Vance

buwaya said...

Michael,

I agree. Codevilla has been very pessimistic for a very long time, and its only recently that I have been agreeing with him. There is no reform possible any longer.

The current system is terminally corrupt. History is running very fast in this modern world. The US has skipped straight past a few centuries of political development in two-three decades. What seemed resilient and self-repairing in 1988 is brittle, crumbling and self-repair is completely non-functional in 2016.

Gahrie said...


We're really choosing to vote for Krusty the Clown or Mayor Quimby.


This.

Hillary is Krusty of course.

320Busdriver said...

Look at the neophyte president we've survived for the last decade. He's provided little leadership in things that matter, unless you value a federal government weoponized for his adversaries. Then you might say he has done a good job.

But, at least we survived.

The legislative branch is broken. Hard. That's where our fate lies. We might not survive that.

Lyssa said...

Just for the record, I said in my post that there's no one who doesn't root against Lisa. Which is a terrible multi-negative, but my point is, I agree with TosaGuy. Even when Lisa is clearly right, she is annoying, and Bart is far more fun.

buwaya said...

PB&J -

I'll bite - amateur economist here, but I have an MBA (Finance) so it probably counts for something.

- Your link is to a diatribe on Slate by a certain Weissman -

- His complaints are judgement calls that he inflates in a hyperbolical manner-
Re the Pierce&Schott 2014 paper for instance - I hang out on the Federal Reserve sites, they have such lovely data - I HAVE read Pierce&Schott - one of several versions.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201404/201404pap.pdf

Yes it DOES say, these things being as usual short of simple conclusions, therefore weasel worded, that many (and though unknown if a majority, a very large number) of US manufacturing job losses are due to Chinese competition as a result of trade policy.
Weissman goes into a rage about this assumption of certainty in a case where the authors are unwilling to state certainty. It is a ridiculous and pettifogging complaint.

I note the conclusion:

"Having established a strong link between trade policy and US employment outcomes.."

Yes it does, just look at the bloody thing.

- On regulation - He complains that the research this is based on is partisan from partisan groups, and claims that it has been refuted - however, this refutation was done by the opposed partisan groups. This is also beside the point. The argument is largely about scale, not direction. If this is a valid complaint about economic analysis then every economic/budgetary argument in the last 50 years fails grossly on the question of scale (I have also spent half a life playing with CBO data).

I also can tell you (though I wont as it will ID real people) that some important economic/business function staffing has switched from 70/30 functional/office to 40/60 over the last 20 years. Thats what we see on the ground, and its mainly because of the mix of regulatory compliance/oversight/reporting/liability growth.

All in all - read the thing carefully will you? This Slate thing by Williamson is a submission by a lawyer for the other side, with no signs of objectivity.

damikesc said...

When did people EVER like Lisa? She was always sanctimonious as hell on the show with a dearth of common sense.

And yet you can't explain how the official DJT white paper on economics that I linked to further up thread could be so full of errors that you'd hope relatively low level econ students wouldn't have made them?

Given that she is running, how does HER policies compare?

Well, ignoring that she HAS no policies. Platitudes ain't policies.

buwaya said...

Weissman not Williamson.

William Chadwick said...

"For better-educated, professional Americans, the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is reassuring." Not if you've read THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.

Birches said...

Yeah, Lisa centric episodes are usually the worst of the bunch, though I do love Lisa the Vegetarian and Lisa goes to Washington.

AReasonableMan said...

I agree with up thread comments that Clinton does not resemble Lisa. Lisa is a cool nerd, she plays Jazz saxophone. There is nothing cool about Clinton. She is stiff and awkward. It is like comparing Nixon to Lisa. This being said, Nixon was an above average president in terms of competency, if we ignore all the lying and impeachment problems.

Michael K said...

And yet you can't explain how the official DJT white paper on economics that I linked to further up thread could be so full of errors

And why would I want to ?

Who are you ?

My point was that a lot of educated people, most of those I know, are sick to death of the corruption and malicious use of the bureaucracy on political enemies.

Most of us preferred someone else but Trump is all we have. Probably few politicians are reckless enough to offend the "donor class" that is riding the Deep State to riches..

One small indicator that occurs to me as I am a sailor. The size of racing yachts and pleasure yachts has increased exponentially the past 50 years. The 12 meter was the high end racing yacht for the America's Cup in 1954.

Now we have multiple J-Boats that are 20 times the cost of a 12 meter. Something is going on.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Martin said...

I think this model of "professional, educated Clinton supporter" versus "losers for Trump" is way overdone.

I agree. I have an undergrad degree, and am working on a Master's, both from top-ten schools in my field. I have 25 years experience in industry, from federal defense department contrat work to working for a German company, from working for IBM to working for a dozen-person start-up. I don't know who these left-behind, angry, isolated Trump supporters are. They are not any of the Trump supporters I've ever come across.

I've been told Trump is a fear-monger, yet the only people I've come across who express fear this election cycle are liberal.

PB said...

The chrony capitalists who've made their down payment on future Clinton actions and policies will be happy, somewhat, until she turns against them, or rather her departments and agencies that will file legal actions against companies only to settle out of court for massive payments that include "donations" to more liberal causes. To them it'll just be a cost of doing business and the executives will still reap billions.

Freeman Hunt said...

Better educated should probably now be thought of as distinct from better papered. Credentials don't mean what they used to.

Bill Peschel said...

Well, buwayu has pretty much settled the hash of that economic paper.

Let me add this:

* We've had pretty high inflation for the past eight years, particularly in food, health care, and college educations. The latter two are clear, but my wife does the grocery shopping every week, and we've seen portions declining. Smaller cans and smaller packages. That's hidden inflation.

* The idea of "stimulating" our way out of a recession is pure nonsense. Learning why involves understand that people don't need stuff. Our basic needs are already taken care of. We've gone into debt to get more stuff.

Stimulating the economy doesn't reduce the debt load. People can take on only so much debt and they stop buying until they can pay it off. It's like coming across an exhausted marathoner collapsed during a race and stimulating him with a car battery. The guy ain't gonna run faster.

* One of the biggest arguments against free trade comes from dealing with nations that don't follow free-trade rules. China brutally exploits its workers, which means our companies benefit from cheap products, but they never build the middle-class market of a size that we can sell to. And that's not counting their phony-baloney currency that's rigged.

* Our ballooning college debt has prevented the next generation from buying homes and everything that goes along with it. The "average" as Megan McArdle reminds us, is "only" $33K. However, that's only counting loans that are given solely for tuition debt. I'm in the middle of getting my son ready for college, and we have been told repeatedly (apart from the mostly-lie that "a degree is an investment") that you can tap private lenders and your mortgage line of credit to pay for college. Is that counted? I seriously doubt it.

* Then there's the ballooning cost of regulation under the Obama regime. Every new federal rule and expansion of existing rules demands that businesses hire staff to handle it. It also closes off small businesses with good ideas from getting into those fields (which big corporations don't mind).

* And don't forget The Big Short: the 2008-09 crash caused by Clinton dumping the Glass-Stegall Act. Instead of jailing the bankers to helped cause the crash, Obama protected them and Congress passed the Dodd-Frank bill (instead of re-instituting Glass Stegall), the regulations for which is even now only 2/3rds written and intentionally designed to be confusing (just like Obamacare, not coincidentally) (Source: "Listen Liberal")

So whatever faults Trump's economic plays may have (and remember buwayu's counter-blast above), it's the conventional economic wisdom that's kept us in this mess in the first place.

I'll be voting for Trump, reluctantly, but there anyway. And I'm a college graduate (UNC, Journalism BA).

Roy Jacobsen said...

I like to think of myself as better educated and professional, and let me tell you, it ain't anything to brag about. I've met plenty of "better educated and professional" fools. (Freely admitting that I might be one too.)

Be that as it may, as a "better educated and professional" person, I shudder at the prospect of a Clinton presidency.

tim maguire said...

There's far too much certainty in Davis's views. Are the people he's writing about really so sure they understand a Hillary or Trump presidency? As sure as they were about an Obama presidency?

A good reminder that the smart set quite often focusses its smarts on fooling itself.

gadfly said...

So the educated, but devout, Mormon professor wants to take the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints straight down a liberal political path by supporting Hillary as a cartoon character? I thought that Mormons were center to right leaning Republicans. Obviously. I am incapable of seriously doing the cartoon comparison thingy.

If I have to pick person in real life most like the candidates, there is no question that Donald Trump mimics his buddy, Howard Stern - right down to closely replicating Stern's destruction of meaningful competitors, such as John DeBella, by any means available.

Hillary is tougher to do. Nurse Rached is an easy pick except the figment of Ken Kesey's opium-assisted imagination doesn't count, I am left to say that Hillary Rodham knows no equal when it comes to being a conniving, untruthful bitch with only self-enrichment as her motivation in life.

buwaya said...

The ballooning student debt is just a more-visible sign of excessive college costs, largely driven by government policies also.
In our case for instance we have paid the whole thing for all the kids (almost done !) out of our (wife and I) income. That's a huge (and how) pile of money sent to the University of California that wasn't spent on other things, such as an inheritance or business capital. No debt, but costly regardless.

Hagar said...

I don't want Clinton, Inc. back in the White House.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

gadfly-

I loved DeBella and the morning zoo in high school in the late '80s. I was very disappointed in Philly when Stern took the top spot.

Freeman Hunt said...

What if you don't identify with any of them, but you like Homer best? That must mean you're for Johnson.

Joe said...

What would Jesus do?

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

Many Christians really don't agree with that including, apparently, a professor at BYU.

Static Ping said...

I find it disturbing that educated Americans who find an extremely corrupt, very unlikable, very blackmailable, obviously in poor health, proven repeated failure to be "reassuring." I can understand them seeing her as more reassuring than Trump, perhaps, but in the same way that 1.1 is larger than 1.0. It's not the usual use of the word. Then again, I never lived through a country in the process of falling apart, so maybe stalling for a few more years while they enjoy theirs is reassuring. Antioch on the Potomac.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Buwaya,

You did not dispute anything that was written in that piece. In fact, you even relied on the piece's forthrightness yourself. You cherry picked the details, which were included because the writer was intellectually honest and gave a full accounting, which you liked, and then you seemed to think that nobody would notice that you left a devastating, specific, fact based take down of DJT's white paper standing.

Good stuff.

Static Ping said...

I'm also confused why Richard Davis thinks that Hillary discussed issues. As Ace likes to repeat, the Clintons talk about issues without actually saying anything, and the "smart" people somehow do not notice empty rhetoric when they hear it.

tim in vermont said...

I never could stand social justice warrior Lisa, which is why I never watch the show anymore. Last time I peaked in on it, they were having the religious guy joining the Occupy movement.

tim in vermont said...

You cherry picked the details, which were included because the writer was intellectually honest...

In other words, it isn't the slam dunk you implied. This is like when Politifact allows as to how some conservative has a point, but then gives them four Pinocchios anyway.

tim in vermont said...

What if you don't identify with any of them, but you like Homer best? That must mean you're for Johnson.

That's two laugh out louds in two days from you Freeman.

Clyde said...

Hillary Clinton is less like Lisa Simpson and more like the Joker from the Batman series. Electing her as president would be like electing the Joker as mayor of Gotham City. That's the vital question for this year's election: Do you WANT to put a criminal in charge of our government? A sizeable conscience-less percentage of America says "Yes!"

MadisonMan said...

For better-educated, professional Americans, the idea of Hillary Clinton taking the reins of government is reassuring.

What a horribly condescending sentence.

People not liking Lisa: Because Lisa has changed, or because the people have? I enjoyed the Simpsons a lot more 25 years ago than now. But I'm 25 years older now. That changes things.

dreams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

TinV,

It is a slam dunk, because it's fact based. That's the point.

It doesn't use trickery, manipulation and errors to cook the books. It uses facts to point out how the DJT white paper contained trickery, manipulation and errors. It literally picks apart how the DJT thing deviated from reality. It's a good thing that the piece precisely laid out how the DJT paper was wrong, for some reason Buwaya, getting it completely backwards, can't grasp that it's a good thing that the piece was precise and truthful rather than hyped and manipulative.

dreams said...

"Can someone come up with theories that say these folks are competent and they know what they're doing, based on reality and facts*?

*Where facts are concerned you'd need to, for example, come up w/ better econ jabber than the official stuff coming out of the DJT camp:"

I have a lot more respect for Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross than I do for a business and economics correspondent at Slate.

FYI, Wilbur Ross is a billionaire and I like Peter Navarro too.

"Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. is an American investor known for restructuring failed companies in industries such as steel, coal, telecommunications, foreign investment and textiles. He specializes in leveraged buyouts and distressed businesses. As of August 2014, Forbes"

Gahrie said...

Hillary is tougher to do.

I call her Cruella de Ville.

buwaya said...

PBandJ -

He (Weissman) did NOT give a full accounting. He did not state that the dispute re Pierce&Schott was a question of scale - and that the scale was regardless enormous in any case. He dismissed the validity of the argument entirely - the precise scale could not be determined, therefore it doesn't exist. That's like denying there is a bull in the china shop because its unclear whether it is a 1-ton or a 2-ton bull. That is dishonest.
And he did not link Pierce&Schott. I knew where to look for it.

On the matter of regulation - lets take one cite Crain&Crain (several reports), let us take one of his cites "refuting" Crain&Crain, Copelan (CRS) 2011 - Copeland questions Crain&Crains estimates on the matter of SCALE,
http://www.progressivereform.org/articles/CRS_Crain_and_Crain.pdf
and the scale argument is in the range of 30%-70% of Crain&Crains estimates in that paper. Well, 30-70% of an enormous sum is still an enormous sum. But Weissman treats it as if it didn't exist. If someone is accused of murdering fifty people is then only charged with murdering twenty-five, therefore he must be innocent? Weissman is arguing dishonestly.

On the question of uncertainty - the Trump side makes a budget argument with various claims. This is, or was, done regularly in the past by incoming and current administrations and vetted allegedly without partisan interest by the CBO. There is an absolutely horrible track record of accuracy in these things. Weissman should know this.

tim in vermont said...

It is a slam dunk, because it's fact based. That's the point

Slam dunk, with qualifications, same as Michael Jordan used to do them.

tim in vermont said...

You are kind of a sloppy thinker, PB&J.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Buwaya,

I'd encourage folks to read it for themselves, rather than hearing your bull murdering recap.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Put differently,

Buwaya doesn't say that the piece doesn't prove the DJT white paper was full of errors, Buwaya says "that DJT paper could have been even more full of errors." Somehow that's supposed to distract us from the fact that the DJT paper was full of errors.

Funny stuff.

tcrosse said...

People say they don't want Trump to get his hands on the Nuclear Codes. But Hillary has a record of being careless with classified information. If she had them she'd probably have Huma post them on her Facebook wall for the sake of convenience.

buwaya said...

PB&J -

No bulls were murdered in my recap. They are standing around, not too happily, in china shops, and we don't know yet what is going to go down.

And you, my dear fellow, are not following the controversy. These things are all very similar. Its a formula.

The way these things go - someone (A) does a study trying to estimate something everyone knows is bloody well going on. These fuzzy economic things are not easy to estimate.

Someone else (B) says the estimate is on to something but has problems and may not be as big as estimated (this is the nature of all the contrary papers cited).

A politician (C) (Trump and co.) cites (A) in support of something. Politician (D) cites (B), alleging that (B) makes whatever (A) came up with worthless, no good, lies, etc.

The only liar here is politician (D), mischaracterizing the significance of (A) and the nature of (B). That (D) is your pal at Slate.

You are (E), and I don't think you are following any of the above.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

You are (E), and I don't think you are following any of the above.

You're trying to trick me because you always know I always pick (C) on multiple choice questions.

buwaya said...

"Buwaya doesn't say that the piece doesn't prove the DJT white paper was full of errors,"

No, I say that the DJT white paper may or may not be full of "errors", but there is no way to know what they are. The white paper is based on several other papers that may have errors, and so may the papers cited complaining about the first papers. This stuff is fuzzy and uncertain by nature. Its placing a bet on the roulette wheel. The nature of these things is that they are guesstimates and are rarely accurate, they do a poor job of predicting outcomes. Obamas budget estimates certainly were in that category.

However, the DJT white paper brings up important matters that are acknowledged to be significant even by their actual critics.

Why you think the DJT one is something special in this category would be interesting to know. I know why the Slate guy was hysterical about it, thats his job to be hysterical about Trump. If he were honest he would be in a constant state of hysterics about every economic/budget forecast ever.

More, the Slate fellow dismisses the important matters brought up in the DJT paper. That is simply dishonest.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Buwaya,

You can say that economic studies aren't handed down from God (that seems plausible), but that still doesn't excuse taking our mortal studies and mistaking or manipulating what they say so you can create a DJT white paper. So, that Slate lawyer's still got you beat.






Douglas said...

I'm voting for SMOD2016-his campaign promise is to end all carbon-based life on the Earth.

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
One small indicator that occurs to me as I am a sailor. The size of racing yachts and pleasure yachts has increased exponentially the past 50 years. The 12 meter was the high end racing yacht for the America's Cup in 1954.

Now we have multiple J-Boats that are 20 times the cost of a 12 meter. Something is going on.


Much the same is true for cabin cruisers. Back in the 50's and 60's average families could afford small cabin cruisers. A big cabin cruiser was a 40ft boat. Now mega yachts are common and average families can rarely afford cabin cruisers.

The NYT times even ran an idiotic piece on this particular trend arguing, well its not all bad, the same number of people are now employed building boats, just many fewer boats that are vastly more luxurious. The problem with this reasoning is that boating has become restricted to a very rich group. Also, the boat building industry has lost much of its consumer base making it more dependent on a much smaller population and are therefore more vulnerable to reversals in the stock market, among other things.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Oh, PBJ, buwaya is on a level of quality so far above you that you should just stop fighting and ask him to explain more, so that you might learn something. The difference between you and God is that God doesn't think that He is an engineer.

Gadfly,

I am left to say that Hillary Rodham knows no equal when it comes to being a conniving, untruthful bitch with only self-enrichment as her motivation in life.
9/28/16, 2:51 PM

So your only way of keeping her out office is to vote for Trump. I know you don't like him, but do you like her better? As you say, she has not her equal for malicious venality.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

The difference between you and God is that God doesn't think that He is an engineer.

So, according to you, this is the only difference between the big guy upstairs and me.

I guess I can see how he wouldn't think he's an engineer. But, I've got to imagine there are some other differences too.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Does that work, in your circles?

Bad Lieutenant said...

The original joke is, what's the difference between God and an engineer? God doesn't think he's an engineer.

You are an engineer, right?

(you can also substitute pilots, doctors, for engineers)

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

BL,

I did get that.

But, it seemed like fun to run w/ it a little.

buwaya said...

"You can say that economic studies aren't handed down from God (that seems plausible), but that still doesn't excuse taking our mortal studies and mistaking or manipulating what they say so you can create a DJT white paper. So, that Slate lawyer's still got you beat."

Every candidate/administration has to come up with economic and fiscal policies addressing whatever it is they find important. Whats important to them vs whats important to their opponents is that sort of thing called an "issue" which is what politics is supposedly all about.

The Slate-lawyer problem is that, basically, Trump makes a budget forecast and he doesn't like it (he is of course paid not to like it). There really is no way to tell if the HRC or Obama ones are better. You can do something like play the CBO game and place bets on what the budget and deficit situation is, and who called it closest at the then of FY2018, 2019, etc. (I was running these games for a decade).

On the "issues"
- Trumps paper says that China trade policy is a big deal for manufacturing employment, and he cites a pretty damn good paper backing that. If its estimate is even a fraction as large as it seems (and that's the only quibble) its still a big deal and still backs Trump.
- On regulation, ditto.

Static Ping said...

For the record, they tested the "bull in the china shop" story on Mythbusters. Surprisingly, bulls can be very agile creatures and do have an aversion of crashing into things when they do not have to. In their tests the bull only crashed into something once, and that was more of an accidental sideswipe that "bull smash!"

Of course, when I am considering 1 ton and 2 ton bulls, my main concern is the quantity and quality of the steak.

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Buwaya,

While it's all fun and games for you to keep repeating that economic studies are imperfect. It still is not unnoticed that you've not justified taking these imperfect studies and manipulating/mistaking their findings so that the DJT folks could puff up a white paper.

If it's so easy and SOP to cook the books so that data and studies say whatever you want, isn't it troubling that the DJT folks couldn't get to the answers they wanted w/ that SOP process? They a had to go further than deriving supporting studies, they needed to misstate/manipulate the findings of studies because that's the only way the could get where they wanted to go.

Your point that it's easy/common to derive economic studies that say whatever folks want, only amplifies how lame it was for the DJT folks when they had to go even further by misstating/manipulating the findings because no findings could be created to support DJT's policies.

Quaestor said...

However, for other Americans... a Lisa Simpson-like president would be distant, out of touch, and more of the same. Yes, Hillary Clinton would be dedicated to doing a good job. But, in their view, she would not make life better for them because she doesn’t speak for or relate to them.

The phrase ten pounds of shit in a five pound sack could never described a passage of prose more aptly. Those who oppose Hillary have NO confidence she would be dedicated to doing a good job, which they logically surmise from her past performance. They do not trust her because of her demonstrably mendacity and carelessness with matters of national security. They DO NOT consider her "distant, out of touch" anymore than than those words described Boss Tweed or Huey Long.

Not only is this entire article a malodorous heap of manure, it's clumsy, jejune manure to boot. Clinton partisans ought to be at least somewhat conversant with the facts, seeing as how they so serenely adopt a self-adulatory tone.

I though professors were supposed to be smart. BYU ought to demand their money back.

Quaestor said...

ClintonLand must suck at math.

Probably true. But like all nouveau riche grafters the Clintons clutch reflexively at the low-hanging fruit.

buwaya said...

"isn't it troubling that the DJT folks couldn't get to the answers they wanted w/ that SOP process? "

But they did get what they wanted. I don't see the problem. That some other studies complain about about the studies they did use, also SOP. This is part of the perpetual floating economic policy catfight.

Whats the manipulation? They cite Crain&Crain straight up. They grab a plausible number (no better or worse than any other) out of Pierce&Schott, and etc. SOP.

Fair enough for budget and economy SWAG. You think any of this is done, by anyone, with some sort of rigor? Wanna play the CBO game?

PBandJ_Ombudsman said...

Buwaya,

I'm sure you'd agree that we've both repeated our POVs re that subject enough.

So, moving on. Speaking of CBO games, do you think it's good for them to use dynamic scoring to even further expand the range of calculable outcomes for particular policy proposals?

[BTW, that's a rhetorical question. I already know your answer.]

buwaya puti said...

I assume you mean for Federal budget forecasts. No, I dont think it makes any significant difference. It just requires extra effort in economic forecasting, even weird stuff like financial and property market forecasts in order to predict capital gains collections. Good luck. Static analysis will always be wrong, just more predictably wrong.

As for policy analysis, worse yet. It will be SWAG city, and duelling SWAGs all over. And we will have new categories of SWAGers for hire who will give whomever whatever they pay for.

The best policy analysis is no analysis - just a basic philosophy of not oppressing people with demands and complication.

Freeman Hunt said...

If you like Mr. Burns best, you're alt-right.

Bricap said...

Thinking about this more...

Lisa is Elizabeth Warren. She's way too idealistic to be HRC.

Principal Skinner is Gov. Kasich. Uncanny resemblance.

Milhous is Ted Cruz. Everything's coming up Milhous.

Bart is Gary Johnson. He doesn't know where Aleppo is, either. And you know he's a few years away from reefer madness.

Mayor Quimby is Bill Clinton. Imagine him saying "Ich bin ein Springfielder."

Nelson Muntz is still Donald Trump. Haha!

Who plays HRC? Edna Krabappel? Seems like a stretch there.