October 30, 2016

"Who's right?" — someone asked me when she saw the results of my "Who is Althouse voting for?" poll.

Here's yesterday's post with the poll, and here's how the poll results look right now:



The "Who's right?" question came over on Facebook — where I talk to a limited audience and keep the settings on private. I answered the question over there, so let me quote myself so you can read what I said:
I may not ever say. What's in it for me to say? I'm proud of myself for blogging so much without it being apparent (or without making a decision, as the case may be). Why should I spoil it with a clunky, boring announcement? You might say, these questions can't be answered without knowing what my answer would be.
And:
Note that the total of the 3 third party candidates is larger than the pro-Hillary number. By the way, I believe the reason Clinton is outpolling Trump here is that a lot of my blog readers loathe Hillary and are annoyed to think that I'll vote for her — despite all the negative blogging I've done — because I can't resist being part of the occasion of electing the first woman President — even though I've never said I'm into that and have often expressed dismay that the first woman President should be someone who leveraged her career on her husband.

137 comments:

MayBee said...

I can't really care who you vote for. I don't even know who I'm going to vote for.

REI said...

34% takes a three way race. The latest FBI action may be the trigger that causes a Hillary collapse.

The only ticket that can stop Trump is Johnson/Weld, and Hillary has set the stage for an LP surge by focusing almost entirely on how unacceptable Trump is.

If she slips a lot in the next few days, will the MSM start promoting Johnson/Weld as the non-Trump savior.

These are strange times, it can happen.

Big Mike said...

Can a person who is not on Facebook and would rather have burning cactus spines stuffed under his fingernails than to join Facebook look at your Facebook post?

Just askin'

rhhardin said...

I'm proud of myself for blogging so much without it being apparent (or without making a decision, as the case may be).

It's just being a woman.

Guys abstract, girls complexify.

rhhardin said...

She's Always a Woman

Birkel said...

In 2008 you told people the shameful truth.

Why is this time different?

Mick said...

Well the "law prof" voted for the Usurper so I guess she could be dumb enough to vote for the Crooked Old Lady.
Repeal the 19th and 26th Amendments.

tim in vermont said...

Guys abstract, girls complexify

It's like the two songs about different sides of the same breakup between Joan Baez and Bob Dylan.

Don't Think Twice and Diamonds and Rust. Baez even comments on it in the song: "You were so good with words... and keeping things vague." Men think of abstraction as a deeper truth, women see it as vagueness.

Amexpat said...

I may not ever say. What's in it for me to say?

Keeping your reputation for being bold and fearless. Someone not cowed by Madison lefties nor by some of your ardent alt right commenters.

Tommy Duncan said...

Does this topic showcase male/female diversity?

Is male/female diversity a bad thing?

Curious George said...

"Big Mike said...
Can a person who is not on Facebook and would rather have burning cactus spines stuffed under his fingernails than to join Facebook look at your Facebook post?

Just askin'"

Dude, she quoted herself here on the post. You deserve the burning cactus spines.

AprilApple said...

I'm hoping ABC.

Ann Althouse said...

@tim

That made me go read "Diamonds and Rust," which, unlike "Don't Think Twice," is not etched on my brain. I don't know which is more abstract or complex, but Baez is straining to be poetic and it's painful. Also "A couple of light years ago" — hyperbole is one thing, but get your science terms right.

traditionalguy said...

Make Althouse Blogspot Great Again. Cruel neutrality
Is such brutality.

AprilApple said...

Interesting vote spread. Looks like a potential outcome for the national election.

AprilApple said...

It's funny the obsession men have over one female and her vote.

tshanks78 said...

People are still ignoring the art of persuasion. The choice isn't even ours to make anymore. We have been persuaded. We want a Trunp victory because we cannot look away. We want to be entertained.

Lyle said...

I voted that you will vote for Trump, although I think you may write in that third-party Mormon guy. The Mormon guy is the only person you haven't poohed poohed, I think (I could have missed that though).

Have fun voting regardless!

tim in vermont said...

hyperbole is one thing, but get your science terms right.

Yeah, that one should have gotten her poetic license revoked. But I have always liked that song otherwise. Maybe it was just a good time in my life, listening to it on vinyl.

I just think that her version has a lot more specifics about the relationship. The hotel outside Washington Square, the blue eyes, the "unwashed phenomenon," etc... Whereas his specifics "Once loved a woman, a child I'm told" and "I gave her my heart but she wanted my soul" aren't really that specific to one person, though if you know about their relationship, they can be said to apply to her.

Laslo Spatula said...

I'm not necessarily interested in who Althouse votes for.

I enjoy her day-by-day takes on the Circus, and don't need to know which elephant she prefers.

Elephant in the Circus sense, not the Republican icon sense, of course.

Though for some her vote will always be The Elephant in the Room.

I do not need to see the Elephant Man.

I am not an animal, I am a human being.

I am Laslo.



tim in vermont said...

"My poetry was lousy you said."

I thought she was speaking to Dylan, but it turns out it was Althouse!

ngtrains said...


as I think about it, I'm with Laslo - (never thought that would be true)

I'd rather it kept being a mystery

Birkel said...

AprilApple:

Althouse asked her readers to vote. How does that make the compliant readers obsessed?

Chuck voted for McCain, one imagines. Longtime Republicans would. Althouse voted for Obama. Longtime collectivists would.

Both deserve their respective shame.

Eleanor said...

Your vote is your vote. It's private, and you should keep it that way.

Big Mike said...

@Curious George, I may be a mathematician, but I can read the English language. Even English as written by a lawyer. But it might be fun to go over there and sneak a peek from time to time. Or not.

TA said...

I voted Clinton in the poll. I think it's pretty obvious she's the only one with the minimal suite of skills and experience needed to do the job. As best I understand Althouse, that would be bottom line for her, even if she finds Clinton distasteful in many respects.

Amadeus 48 said...

To quote the great Camille Paglia:
"Sometimes 'No' means 'Not yet'. Sometimes 'No' means 'Too soon'. Sometimes 'No' means 'Keep tring and maybe yes.' "
Althouse has pretty much described her thinking. She doesn't want to say yet, and maybe never will...but maybe she will if we keep trying.
These are great tactics for keeping us engaged, fascinated, enthralled.
Life is like high school.

Kevin said...

But wait, I tuned in today to specifically read, "How Hillary Lost Me".

Where you go from there I have no idea.

AprilApple said...

At this point, Obama vote-shaming is old, Birkel. Besides, (and I might be wrong because I'm not really paying close memory attention) - but didn't Ann vote for Romney?

Though - I'm all for shaming Clinton voters. All. For. It.

Joshua Mize said...

Is it correct that it's not apparent? Some percentage of your readers correctly answered the question, so it was apparent to them.

David Begley said...

What's the answer?

Ann is a tease. Evil woman from that ELO song that I have not reviewed in some time.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...on Facebook — where I talk to a limited audience and keep the settings on private.

Is that so that you can separate your public positions and your private positions? Is there some foundation we can donate to in order to be included in this limited audience?

Maybe I'll just wait until all of your Facebook posts are available on Wikileaks.

Robert Cook said...

As much as I may detest any given candidates in any given election, I don't care or get irate at people over who they vote for. It's not my business, and we all have the right to vote for the candidates we prefer, and for our own reasons. I don't think people who vote for candidates I consider detestable have malevolent intent or desire bad outcomes, quite the contrary. I just think they show mistaken judgment.

Rusty said...

Honest to god, Althouse, I don't give a shit. Just vote.But only once.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can a person who is not on Facebook and would rather have burning cactus spines stuffed under his fingernails than to join Facebook look at your Facebook post?"

No, that's why I said "Facebook — where I talk to a limited audience and keep the settings on private." Unlike my son John, who uses Facebook in part the way I use this blog and has a public setting, I only use Facebook to interact with people I've friended and — with a few very old exceptions — I don't friend people I don't know in real life. It's basically just family, personal friends, and a few colleagues in the law school milieu. And I mostly use my account so I can see and comment on what those people put up. If there's anything that might be interesting to this blog's readers, I tend to make a post like this one.

Writ Small said...

In 2008 you told people the shameful truth.

Why is this time different?


It wasn't that shameful in 2008. Obama was a charming guy full of imagined promise. Only in hindsight was he clearly a mistake. This year, everyone running is obviously terrible with the possible exception of McMuffin. But because it would be irresponsible to elect someone with so little vetting, he is only credible as a protest vote.

To those who think Ann is definitely voting Hillary, you are delusional. Althouse was concerned about the percent of Trump vs. Hillary negative stories appearing on the major network evening news programs, but if someone did a similar analysis of Althouse's own posts, he or she would find vastly more positive Trump posts than Clinton ones. There are probably more anti-anti-Trump posts than combined anti-anti-Hillary and outright positive Hillary ones. If you only looked at posts related to polls and predictions, you would find that often when there were good polls for Trump, Althouse blogged it, but each time the polls dropped for Trump, Althouse found other topics to promote.

Is Althouse going to vote for Trump? There are a couple of things that would lead one to think so, but there is a lot of countervailing evidence. Even though Althouse has written massive numbers of posts defending Trump and criticizing his attackers, there are other explanations for this that don't mean outright support. For one, she fell in love with her own prediction of a "preference cascade" for Trump. Thus, many of her defenses of Trump could be said to be defending this prediction more than the man himself. On the other hand, she wouldn't have made such a prediction if she didn't see things to like in Trump. Then again, she could have been seeing many of her commenters warm to the guy, which gave her early insight she figured her elite-bubbled colleagues were missing.

Now, it's very clear Althouse identifies, I would say over-identifies, with Trump. Trump speaks without a filter and says unconventional things. He is a bit full of himself, although in a very charming way. He is loathe to apologize and sees admitting fault as something people will use against him. Many elites look down on Trump for class reasons, and Althouse has personal reasons for resenting that kind of attitude. All of these connections explain why Althouse would be inclined to defend Trump, but defending is not the same as supporting.

When the Access Hollywood tapes were revealed, Althouse more or less announced she could not support the man. She also revealingly talked about voting Johnson instead, but quickly dismissed him as non-serious. For those people who think Althouse is going to vote for Hillary, what more evidence do you need that she is not in the running? As time has passed since the "grab 'em by the pussy" revelation, Althouse has slowly reverted to her prior stance of criticizing the people who go too far in their attacks on Trump, but I believe she will not vote for him.

If I had to guess, I would say she is going to go the protest route with either Johnson or McMullin, but that very well could be me projecting my own views.

Ann Althouse said...

"Keeping your reputation for being bold and fearless. Someone not cowed by Madison lefties nor by some of your ardent alt right commenters."

What would I have to be thinking of saying that would come across as bold and fearless? You're making some big assumptions.

By not endorsing anyone, I reinforce the reputation for cruel neutrality. Your inability to see who I'm voting for enhances a reputation I care a lot about. What's the argument that I'd get a bigger reputation boost by spelling out some thinking about which way to mark the ballot?

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

As much as I may detest any given candidates in any given election, I don't care or get irate at people over who they vote for. It's not my business...

Anyone who votes for a candidate that promises to hit me over the head and take my stuff makes it my business.

Ken B said...

Those who care can scroll back on the other thread to my "only safe prediction". Spot on so far.

Sebastian said...

"By not endorsing anyone, I reinforce the reputation for cruel neutrality. Your inability to see who I'm voting for enhances a reputation I care a lot about." This is not "clunky and boring"?

dreams said...

"Honest to god, Althouse, I don't give a shit. Just vote.But only once."

Yeah, it doesn't matter, an individual's vote is a vote to satisfy the individual. I'm worried about all those dead Dems and illegals voting.

Michael K said...

I was driving up to LA last night to have dinner with my daughter. A car in front of me had a hand lettered sign in the back window (SUV, of course) that said "I voted for Evan Mcmullin."

I thought it was an excellent example of virtue signaling. It was a BMW SUV from Orange County and who goes to that much trouble to make a hand made sign unless they want to boast about virtue ?

I also saw my second Trump sign, in Santa Monica, of all places.

The BMW also had a license plate frame that said "Alumni of CSUF" which is the Cal State Fullerton college, a very down market place to brag about. The Trump sign was on another expensive car, which is most of what you see in Santa Monica.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Ann may be smart not to tell us. Esp. if she votes for Crooked Hillary. She is right that her commenters here tend to skew a little to the right, and the Hillary Hatred sometimes is almost palatable. How can you take seriously anyone who claims to be middle of the road, but puts gender politics above naked corruption on an industrial level? The closer to the election we get, the more information we get about what has been going on for at least the last eight years behind the scenes with the First Crime Family. We found out last week from WikiLeaks and Doug Band (a close advisor to Bill Clinton while he was President, and head of closely allied consulting firm Teneo) how closely tied together CGI was to the millions they made making speeches. If you wanted foundation money, you would hire a Clinton to make a speech. Etc. If she actually admits to voting for Clinton, esp. after voting for Obama and Gore (if I remember correctly), I think that a lot of people are going to suspect that she is, deep down, really a Madison liberal, and not the centrist that she portrays herself to be.

I say this, having stayed with her after her nonsensical vote for Obama in 2008. I will probably stay this time too - but it will be easier to do so if she doesn't admit to voting for the most corrupt major party candidate in maybe the last century or so.

AprilApple said...

Cook is all in for the Crook.

cubanbob said...

Unless she already early voted Ann can't say with an absolute certainty who she is voting for. People have been known to change their minds at the moment of casting their vote.

Ann for fun and games, please tell us after the election who you voted for and why.

samsondale said...

Ann, I hope that, when you listened to Diamonds and Rust, you went to your copy of Unleashed in the East and played the great Judas Priest version.

HT said...

Who the hell is she voting for?

Just say it. This is dope.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I think it was the commenter who calls herself deborah who responded to a bunch of other commenters criticizing Althouse for being so full of herself by saying: "And yet she continues to fascinate some."

Steve Uhr said...

Since you often say that a non-vote is as legitimate and as worthy of respect as a vote, I'm surprised that was not an option. Of course, that it isn't an option doesn't mean that isn't what you will do. A trick question.

From a business perspective not saying is prob. a smart move. Whatever you say would probably lose you some of your audience.

AprilApple said...

The media continue to distort the Doug Band story. (Media lies include - reporting that Doug Band relationship was merely more glorious donations for the wondrous generous and charitable Clinton Foundation!)

The wikileaks admissions reveal Band helped Bill Clinton secure millions of dollars in donations that were personal enrichment for Bill Clinton - not the "foundation."

MSNBC morning Joe lets the truth flag fly free.


Barry Dauphin said...

Perhaps cruel neutrality would be not voting. That wasn't one of the choices on the pole though.

Johannes Paulsen said...

No. I think you're voting for Hillary because you don't like Trump (which is also clear from your blogging,) and as a law professor you're too subconsciously invested in the system as-it-is to consider voting for Johnson, McMullin or (especially) Stein.

HT said...

Anyone listen to CSPAN today? Ann Coulter was on and then a nice sounding white man who’s the head cheerleader for the Senate Reps. Very interesting!!

(Oh and before I forget, congratulations to your football team! Leave it to a bama fan to acknowledge what a huge win that was for you and us. Too bad the other games against the undefeateds could not have given us more breathing room as well.)

Ann Coulter is an attack monkey, but on immigration, she was right on, and echoed what I have been feeling for at least 10 years - that we need a chance to catch our breath and assimilate the newcombers who’ve been arriving at breakneck speed as she put it. (Oh, and having so many here who aren't citizens really degrades civic life.) She also called out the 2 parties and the reasons they rely on immigrants over Americans. About damn time!!!!!!! And then the man from the senate republicans was saying something else obvious, that the time is coming for Democrats as well on the immigration issue (well duh). His portion was recorded before the FBI thing.

FWIW, Ann does not fascinate me, that’s one thing I like about her!

HT said...

Ann Althouse I mean to say.

Robert Cook said...

"Cook is all in for the Crook."

Hahaha! Boy, have you got it wrong. I've made it known here many times I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Robert Cook said...

By the way, which crook do you mean? The Democrat or the Republican?

AprilApple said...

Cook - my apologies.

AprilApple said...

LOL - OK good. Jill Stein it is.

Achilles said...

Ann is a politician in training. Is Ann contemplating running for office in her retirement? The first thing you have to do to run for office is learn how to pedal vagary. Who you voted for in this election is going to be disqualifying for many future voters no matter who you vote for. Best not have any ardent readers stomp off and disappear because of who she votes for!

And yes if you vote for Hillary and I find out I will leave. There is nothing for it and I am not going to be missed by a person who could vote for Hillary. But I don't think you will vote for her. You saw through obama the second time and Hillary is far more transparent than obama.

This election is a cause for sadness and the only salvation will be if the DNC is thouroughly investigated and the corruption is coded out. This country needs an honest opposition party. The Bernie supporters are the only honest people in the democrat party.

HT said...

Good news! There is no democrat party.

Bay Area Guy said...

It's a good, smart and honorable move by Althouse. Think about it:

1. Many of the right wing Commentariat here (i.e., the Deplorables) probably want Ann to come out for Trump. It would make many of them (us?) momentarily feel good.

2. But above any particular loyalty to a particular candidate, Althouse remains loyal to a particular cause: that is, preserving a forum for the free exchange of ideas, however outrageous, colorful, right wing, or out of step with the general march towards collectivism and groupthink at our major universities.

3. That type of loyalty is sufficient, regardless of whom she votes for.

4. The mere fact that she, an Academic, has been highly scrupulous and critical of Hillary, and is not coming out for her, is a good thing.

5. Yes, we'd like more Left of Center types to be more like Camille Paglia, but her schtick is unique, as is Althouse's, both of which are valuable and effective.

Vote Trump-Pence in 2016 - because the alternative (Hillary/Bill/Huma/Weiner) is worse for the country!

Curious George said...

"Big Mike said...
@Curious George, I may be a mathematician, but I can read the English language. Even English as written by a lawyer. But it might be fun to go over there and sneak a peek from time to time. Or not."

That's not what you indicated. You said "look at your Facebook post."

Hagar said...

AA for some reason did not have a line for "None of them!"

Achilles said...

"MSNBC morning Joe lets the truth flag fly free."

Was that this morning?

If so the media is cutting the Clintons loose and setting them up to take the fall. It will be the Clintons corruption that lost not the ideology or political party. They are going to try to save as much of the machinery as possible.

Achilles said...

"2. But above any particular loyalty to a particular candidate, Althouse remains loyal to a particular cause: that is, preserving a forum for the free exchange of ideas, however outrageous, colorful, right wing, or out of step with the general march towards collectivism and groupthink at our major universities."

You can't fake neutrality. The press tries but the only people who are fooled want to be fooled.

I don't want Ann to say who she is voting for because she would lose readers here. We already have a hard enough time getting intelligent leftists to post here.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Let's say we all followed Althouse, voted for Bob Dylan, and he won. Would he accept?

AllenS said...

I'm voting for Trump. I don't care who anyone else votes for. However, if you don't vote for Trump then you are a commie, hate children, small animals, and want to starve to death senior citizens.

rhhardin said...

"A couple of light years ago" — hyperbole is one thing, but get your science terms right.

It's fine as it is. It gets in distance and time both. But a couple only.

HT said...

That type of loyalty is sufficient, regardless of whom she votes for.

I agree that the "forum" is more important than the person she actually votes for, without a doubt, but I'd still like to know, and don't appreciate being baited like that.

4. The mere fact that she, an Academic, has been highly scrupulous and critical of Hillary, and is not coming out for her, is a good thing.

5. Yes, we'd like more Left of Center types to be more like Camille Paglia, but her schtick is unique, as is Althouse's, both of which are valuable and effective.


The tone ("we" this and "we" that) is interesting, and to me underscores a sense of entitlement.

AprilApple said...

Achilles - No - that was a few days ago before the new FBI re-opening.

Sadly, the Band story has been smothered.

Big Mike said...

@Curious George, I know hardly anything about how Facebook works. As a designer of secure information systems since the late 1970s what I mostly know about it is how insecure it is and much personal information you expose to Zuckerburg's decidedly left of center minions.

Anyway the Professor's answer is "not."

rhhardin said...

It's funny the obsession men have over one female and her vote.

Obsession with women is wired in.

Her vote is a problem because she's a moron and has large numbers behind her. Else there would be no male-female split in voting.

Leave national issues to the men, thanks.

Pookie Number 2 said...

We already have a hard enough time getting intelligent leftists to post here.

Too easy.

Balfegor said...

I guessed Clinton II, but I wouldn't assign a high certainty value to that. And I don't think it's because Clinton II is a woman -- one of the healthy things about Clinton II becoming the nominee is that although her surrogates have desperately tried to make this into an election about the first female president, she's been a major player on the political scene so long (24 years) that people have come to think of her as a normal politician. Unlike Obama, she can't serve as the blank-sheet onto which people project their juvenile fantasies. She is herself: Hillary Clinton.

But my guess is that our hostess, while she might find Trump appealing or amusing in some ways, is not going to be comfortable with his pattern of groping women. Long before this campaign, she has highlighted the irony of feminists rising up to support sexual harassment king Bill Clinton. And the WikiLeaks scandal has revealed that Clinton II is not, at heart, an extremist whacko, in contrast to the sort of people who comprise the base of her party today. And I think that opens up some space to find Clinton II acceptable, despite her personal failings, her charmless affect, and her dishonesty.

So that's what made me guess Clinton II.

cyrus83 said...

The distaste for both Trump and Clinton as candidates has turned up too many times to make me thing you'd vote for either of them, which is why I went third party on the poll. However, I've never really seen much support indicated for anybody, so it's a crapshoot on that score. I was mildly surprised SMOD didn't show up as a poll choice.

Birkel said...

AprilApple:

One imagines you would be less sanguine forgiving the support of Chamberlain, for example. He was feckless and led the British into conflict.

One imagines you would be less sanguine about support of the Viet Cong. Jane Fonda has never been forgiven and for good reason.

I criticize those who voted for Obama because he has brought us into armed conflict. His fecklessness has encouraged our enemies at home and abroad. He has impoverished his own people. He has subverted the institutions that supported separation of power and limited government intrusion into the private sphere.

Tell me what world leaders -- of those who have brought their nations closer to armed conflict, who have lowered the standard of living of the median citizen, who have subverted the institutions of the nation -- would you ask current critics to avoid criticizing in the future?

Do you have a list?

Birkel said...

Writ Small:

You are decidedly wrong. I accurately predicted economic malaise and foreign misadventures. I accurately predicted increases in government intrusion into private lives. I accurately predicted that net neutrality would be an effort to silence critics of collectivism. I accurately predicted a health care takeover and the attendant failures that breed calls for a complete government takeover of all health insurance markets.

You weren't paying attention or do not understand collectivists.

Obama giving Hillary the finger during a debate... there's your "I won" charm, right there.

You were a dupe if you believe any of what you wrote above.

Mada Gasper said...

Superb column by Derb.

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-vs-the-real-nuts-the-gop-uniparty-establishment/

320Busdriver said...

Writ Small's large 9:19 post seems the most comprehensive, and I would argue accurate, analysis of this subject. I agree with everything it says which is why I also guessed the Professor would vote for McMullin.

I don't know what it says that the poll winner is Clinton.

I think it might be rigged.

Birkel said...

Writ Small above: "
It wasn't that shameful in 2008. Obama was a charming guy full of imagined promise. Only in hindsight was he clearly a mistake. This year, everyone running is obviously terrible with the possible exception of McMuffin.
"

So many were wrong about the imagined promise of a neophyte in 2008? But this year it is obvious that somebody without a record will be terrible?

Did your crystal ball finally come back from the crystal ball repair shop?

My agreement that the most likely outcome will be terrible does not justify the assuredness with which you make your prediction.

robother said...

I'm getting the impression we have successfully suppressed Ann's vote.

AprilApple said...

Birkel- Obama is a disaster. I think plenty of people realized as much in 2012, but not enough to edge us over the margin of fraud.

History has a lot of monsters. You betcha.

320Busdriver said...

@Birkel
To rehabilitate myself, I do not agree with WS first paragraph, but I don't pretend that I knew at the time how utterly awful this president would be. But I am glad that I never considered voting for him. In fact, over the last few days my thoughts have centered on the fact that I blame his rotten and miniscule leadership skills for the chaos we are experiencing. It is only with his disinterested, or one might argue corrupt leadership that you could have a SOS who would defy the law to shield all communications from the light of day and he would find out about it in the news. And that is just a smidgen of the rot he has perpetrated. History will not be kind.

Birkel said...

AprilApple:

And how did so many people miss what was obvious in 2008? Do you think the assumptions they made about what they hoped should have been questioned a little more thoroughly? Anybody who did not understand in 2008 was a fool. Obama fooled them.

320Busdriver:

Neither do I pretend. You can check these very archives to see how clearly I saw what would come. I quit sending the "I told you so" notes to some acquaintances, careful always to send the "I told you so" from the exact E-mail conversation where I had in fact told them exactly so, complete with a link to a news article from a source they would trust. It's not hard to see what is coming from Leftists. The Japanese "Lost Decade" is where we are. The Japanese are in the 27th year of a "Lost Decade".

Search my handle and Japanese Lost Decade if you care.

HT said...

"I blame his rotten and miniscule leadership skills for the chaos we are experiencing."

And what of Trump's leadership skills? Can you give me specific examples of his leadership he has exhibited recently?

Writ Small said...

@Birkel

The body of my post was not a response to your comments. I was just using it as a jumping off point to other things I wanted to write about. I thought you raised an interesting point in noting that Althouse has not always been so cagey about her voting choices.

@Michael K.

Your comments about virtue signalling remind me that there are all kinds signaling. Donald Trump, for instance, regularly reminds people where he went to college. I believe Trump thinks it impresses people, but to me it suggests something else entirely.

rcocean said...

Anyone who votes for Hillary is voting for corruption, lies, and sexual harassment.

rcocean said...

"I believe Trump thinks it impresses people, but to me it suggests something else entirely."

Funny, that you would impute your stupidity onto a billionaire with high IQ.

Amexpat said...

What would I have to be thinking of saying that would come across as bold and fearless? You're making some big assumptions.

Since you live in a swing state, I'm assuming that you're not going to throw away your vote and that you will deal with the real choice before you (as you did by voting for Cruz to stop Trump in the primary). You'd catch a lot of flak for publicly choosing either Trump or HRC - flak from your commenters if you choose HRC, as you did for choosing Obama in 2008, or from the "educated class" for choosing Trump.

What's the argument that I'd get a bigger reputation boost by spelling out some thinking about which way to mark the ballot?

When I first starting reading your blog in 2004, I associated you with Robert Conrad in the Everyready Battery commercials. Instead of daring people to knock the battery off your shoulder, you'd dare anyone to challenge a position you took. I admired the guts to do that. Since you've always spelled out your thinking for your choices in all the presidential elections since this blog has started, without inhibiting you from practicing a "cruel neutrality", it appears to me that you don't want to shoulder the battering that you'll get by making a public choice.

Birkel said...

HT:
Can you please point to any leadership Hillary Clinton has shown that has not led to disaster? One example will suffice to gain you some credence. Just one.

320Busdriver said...

Birkel
Will do, my phrasing was not intended as a perjorative fwiw. It's been an expensive lesson, hopefully he has helped to make the case for a smaller, less intrusive federal government for some. As I type Sharyl Attkisson's show is detailing Obamacare failure. A perfect example of how his lack of leadership and disinterest could allow a program that does not work to be forced upon us.

HT
Trump was not my first choice, not by a long shot, but he's what we have. He has much more leadership experience than Obama had when he took office. I did not plan on voting for him until recently. I had proposed on this blog a while back that he should come out in favor of congressional term limits which he later did along with several anti corruption proposals related to lobbying. Can he get that accomplished? I hope so. I voted for Trump on thursday. Hillary has proven she prefers to operate in the dark while she holds office. Thats never acceptable in my view.

HT said...

What are the specific leadership skills Trump has shown recently that pertain to the job of president (political or diplomatic)? Surely there are instances where he has had to lead people in his campaign, volunteers, supporters. What are they?

Birkel said...

Proven disaster < Potential disaster

That is the equation for this election, HT. That You will not name an achievement of Hillary Clinton is telling.

Just one in her long career as a 'public servant ' (READ: criminal conspirator) should be easy enough.

320Busdriver said...

Lets point to Trumps choice for VP. Do you think Pence a better choice than say Palin? I think his choice of Kelly Ann Conway was another good decision.

Obama chose Larry Summers for the NEC and Rahm Emmanuel for WHCOS, both of which he had to flush quickly because they were running roughshod over him and his attempts to find his feet early on. Neophyte is an appropriate term.

Michael K said...

Donald Trump, for instance, regularly reminds people where he went to college. I believe Trump thinks it impresses people, but to me it suggests something else entirely.

I can't imagine what you would think significant about that. I had not noticed it but I do not watch his speeches.

He has lots of accomplishments in a tough business.

HT said...

Thanks for responding BusDriver. Those are good examples. Do you have others? I am not really into comparing him with anyone like Hillary, bc as I have said a thousand times on here before, I do not like Hillary. But Trump is a newbie to government and politics, and I'd like to know what people think are his leadership skills.


________
1<2 reads one is less than two, BTW.

Birkel said...

Proven disaster < Potential disaster

1<2 reads one is less than two, BTW.

Hillary Clinton < Donald Trump

________
Do you grok why I think you are a troll?

HT said...

Don't say grok.

Birkel said...

HT:
"...I'd like to know what people think are his leadership skills."

Trolls do not understand why other people so quickly grok their troll status.

Robert Cook said...

"I criticize those who voted for Obama because he has brought us into armed conflict. His fecklessness has encouraged our enemies at home and abroad."

Those who voted for Obama surely believed either of his opponents (in 2008 and 2012) were worse. In the first case, they had every reason to believe this, as he ran on a campaign of ending his predecessor's policies and practices; in the second case, they simply deluded themselves, as the supporters of Trump and Clinton today delude themselves regarding their candidate's virtues and intentions to work for our collective greater good. (Even in the first election, for those paying attenttion, Obama gave away that he would in no way be beholden to his own promises and, therefore, not beholden to us.)

Obama continued and expanded upon America's aggressive wars that Bush/Cheney started. Our military provcations have aroused and created enemies abroad, as well as further inciting those who were our enemies previously.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook: "...delude themselves regarding their candidate's virtues and intentions to work for our collective greater good."

Communists just can't help themselves, can they?

I expect everybody in all situations to work to be motivated by their own personal interests. It never crosses my mind that anybody would work for the 'collective greater good' because it cannot be known.

Rather, I expect people to respond to the incentives they foresee, on average, and any benefit to others is incidental on the way toward achieving their own personal interests.

Communists are idiots who deny human nature.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook: "Our military provcations have aroused and created enemies abroad, as well as further inciting those who were our enemies previously." (emphasis in original(

You typed provocation but did not understand the word. Weakness is the greatest provocation.

Communists are idiots.

Michael K said...

In the first case, they had every reason to believe this, as he ran on a campaign of ending his predecessor's policies and practices;

And that worked so well.

Robert Cook said...

"I expect everybody in all situations to work to be motivated by their own personal interests. It never crosses my mind that anybody would work for the 'collective greater good' because it cannot be known."

Ah, but the President of the United States is not supposed to be working for his or her own personal interests, right? He or she is hired by us to supervise the management of our affairs. (I'm speaking theoretically, of course.) We do not vote for presidents with the expectation that they will work for their own personal interests. The "greater good" is that which the American people make known to be what they need or want. It is maximizing the general prosperity and improving the general conditions of life for the population as a whole. We're not talking about making a paradise, but simply solving, to the extent possible, the common problems that beset any society.

Robert Cook said...

"And that worked so well."

Right: he lied.

Robert Cook said...

"Weakness is the greatest provocation."

We're hardly displaying "weakness." Rather, we're showing ourselves to be a brutally violent nation. We remain, as Martin Luther King said in 1968, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."

Titus said...

You know you don't have to vote for any candidate Helen.

just say no.

tits
grab em by the pussy

Fen said...

Unlike others, I *am* interested in how Althouse votes.

A university law professor voting for Hillary, who is above the Rule of Law, would tell me much about how corrupt our educators have become.

And I'm sure she has peers at UW, law professors that intend to vote Hillary or already have. I wish she could ask them to explain why they support someone who is above the law.

Achilles said...

Blogger HT said...
But Trump is a newbie to government and politics, and I'd like to know what people think are his leadership skills.

He has managed extraordinarily large projects, and many of them, that require the organization of thousands of people in an industry that requires efficiency and results.

This is infinitely better demonstration of leadership than anything any politician has shown much less Hillary.

Achilles said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...
"Weakness is the greatest provocation."

We're hardly displaying "weakness." Rather, we're showing ourselves to be a brutally violent nation. We remain, as Martin Luther King said in 1968, "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world."

You are not this stupid. You know that Syria and Russia have killed more people in Aleppo in the last year than the US military has killed in the last 20.

Being deliberately dishonest is not cool.

cubanbob said...

Writ Small said...
@Birkel

The body of my post was not a response to your comments. I was just using it as a jumping off point to other things I wanted to write about. I thought you raised an interesting point in noting that Althouse has not always been so cagey about her voting choices.

@Michael K.

Your comments about virtue signalling remind me that there are all kinds signaling. Donald Trump, for instance, regularly reminds people where he went to college. I believe Trump thinks it impresses people, but to me it suggests something else entirely."

Hey! I'm paying a fortune to put my younger daughter through UPenn/Wharton. Are you implying I'm a fool? As rocean said the man has made himself a billionaire. How many average IQ people even if given ten or twenty million to start with can turn that into several billion dollars? By the way, for whatever it's worth, my daughter is somewhat cagey about telling people where she is studying. She finds that people are impressed and are a bit defensive when she tells them she's in an Ivy. She just doesn't like being a braggart. So I'll give you that (braggart) about Trump. Still his daughter Tiffany who graduated this summer lived in the same apartment complex as my daughter. Not they were real friends but they knew each other and my daughter told me Trump's kid seems like a nice kid, not arrogant so I give Trump and his ex Marla credit for being good parents.

cubanbob said...

HT said...
Thanks for responding BusDriver. Those are good examples. Do you have others? I am not really into comparing him with anyone like Hillary, bc as I have said a thousand times on here before, I do not like Hillary. But Trump is a newbie to government and politics, and I'd like to know what people think are his leadership skills."

Thing is that while politically Trump is a newbie he has a clean slate to start with whereas Hillary has to unlearn all of her negatives to even begin to start fresh. And that is even if we can overlook her criminality. Trump isn't great, he just isn't Hillary and that in of itself is a vast improvement over what the Democrats are offering.

Michael K said...

You are not this stupid. You know that Syria and Russia have killed more people in Aleppo in the last year than the US military has killed in the last 20.

Are you sure ?

Cookie seems sincere but that is not enough. There is a level of stupidity that has nothing to do with IQ. Jill Stein is, I"m sure, quite intelligent.

Remember the UC, Irvine professor of psychiatry a few years ago who sent millions to a Nigerian scam?

I'm sure he was intelligent, too.

HT said...

Cubanbob. I am looking for what I asked because I think it would help the conversation, not to be convinced of the worthiness and rationale of a Trump vote, which I have read two thousand times already and is telling me nothing new. I'm after a fresh perspective that may be illumanative. spelling. Thanks.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook: Ah, but the President of the United States is not supposed to be working for his or her own personal interests, right? He or she is hired by us to supervise the management of our affairs. (I'm speaking theoretically, of course.) We do not vote for presidents with the expectation that they will work for their own personal interests. The "greater good" is that which the American people make known to be what they need or want. It is maximizing the general prosperity and improving the general conditions of life for the population as a whole. We're not talking about making a paradise, but simply solving, to the extent possible, the common problems that beset any society.

A more comprehensive example of foolishness cannot be found.

Birkel said...

HT:

You are trolling, poorly. Perhaps you would care to have a conversation with lifelong Republican Chuck, who also supports Hillary Clinton.

Bruce Hayden said...

Frankly, I would rather have a Wharton graduate, than a Yale Law grad running the country. Though, I think that Harvard Business School (GW Bush and Romney) is even better. Having been through both business and law schools, I can attest that law school is one of the worst places to train for the Presidency. And, yes, we have seen over the last almost 8 years how poorly even the best law schools train people, as Obama has shown himself almost incapable of managing himself out of a paper bag. Everything is perception, and everything else seems to be run by people he appointed, but never bothered to supervise.

Fen said...

HT: "I'd like to know what people think are his leadership skills."

Achilles: "He has managed extraordinarily large projects, and many of them, that require the organization of thousands of people in an industry that requires efficiency and results. This is infinitely better demonstration of leadership than anything any politician has shown much less Hillary."

Yup. His leadership style is to surround himself with experts and listen to their advice. Very much like the War Room in Sorkin's West Wing.

And you won't have to donate $5 mil to his "foundation" to get on his schedule.

Fen said...

Robert Cook: " It is maximizing the general prosperity and improving the general conditions of life for the population as a whole."

So you support rescuing Iraqi women from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? Oh, you just mean the 1% - the Americans that are so spoiled they chant "we got our Liberty, screw you little brown people. WE are the 99%".

Robert Cook said...

"A more comprehensive example of foolishness cannot be found."

So you say, but you haven't demonstrated anything foolish in the statement.

Fen said...

See? Its another tell. Your side claims to be about "helping" the poor, but what you really mean is helping yourselves to other people's hard earned money.

If Trump decided to tax you 75% to feed Africa, you would freak.

Fen said...

"but you haven't demonstrated anything foolish in the statement."

Pretty sure I just did. Its that mushroom cloud a few posts up.

Robert Cook said...

"So you support rescuing Iraqi women from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers?"

That doesn't fall under the President's responsibilities to the American population.

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

I won't bother to reinvent the wheel when The Federalist Papers do an excellent job revealing your foolishness. Throw in some Wealth of Nations and you are lost completely.

Your Marxism prevents any of my pearls be thrown in front of you, swine.

Birkel said...

What clause(s) of The Constitution of The United States describe the responsibilities of a president?

Valentine Smith said...

AA still doesn't know for whom she will vote. As a public figure, she's in a bind. To vote for the corrupt HillyBilly would reveal such an extreme example of Bad Faith for a law professor that any future claims to cruel neutrality would be nullified by that choice. OTOH, a vote for the vulgar and sexually aggressive Trump would be a betrayal to both feminism and her social standing (class). She will vote for neither HillyBilly nor Trump. The field, as it were, is problematic. Stein is a one-trick pony, Johnson too only basically ignorant. I have no idea who McMullin is except for his obvious descent from an apostate.

Valentine Smith said...

Oh. I forgot. AA will vote for HillyBilly and publicly claim none of the above.

Robert Cook said...

"You are not this stupid. You know that Syria and Russia have killed more people in Aleppo in the last year than the US military has killed in the last 20."

I don't know this.

Achilles said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...

"So you say, but you haven't demonstrated anything foolish in the statement."

You are being deliberately dishonest on this thread. You refuse to acknowledge it

You have an opportunity to elect someone who is removing the neocons from the Republican Party root and branch. You are not taking it. You are being deliberately dishonest about everything.

Writ Small said...

@cubanbob

My beef is not with people who go to prestigious schools. I have worked with a lot of great people over the years who came out of these places. My beef is with the "signallers" who never miss an opportunity to work it into a conversation. But I am never put off by people who brag about their kids, so congrats on your Daughter's success.

With respect to Trump's kids, I agree they have turned out well. However, you have to appreciate the irony that people often praise Trump for raising kids that behave nothing like him.

Robert Cook said...

"You are being deliberately dishonest on this thread. You refuse to acknowledge it

"You have an opportunity to elect someone who is removing the neocons from the Republican Party root and branch. You are not taking it. You are being deliberately dishonest about everything."


I think you're having a little temper tantrum.

Sebastian said...

Of course I am a cynical cynic and don't assume that the morality of law matters to law professors but it is still slightly shocking to realize that someone like AA might even contemplate voting for the unindicted felon.

Birkel said...

What clause(s) of The Constitution of The United States describe the responsibilities of a president?

Asking for a friend, Robert Cook.

Robert Cook said...

Article 2, Sections 2 through 3.

Jonathan Graehl said...

MAGA

Birkel said...

Robert Cook:

Great! Now tell me the specific language that makes this assertion true:

The president's job is maximizing the general prosperity and improving the general conditions of life for the population as a whole.

Robert Cook said...

There is no such language. In fact, the language of the Constitution provides virtually no specific job responsibilities for the President, aside from being Commander in Chief in times of war, making treaties, and in making various appointments, nominations, etc. It seems designed to be largely a ceremonial position, as described. But, as is true of many jobs, the job description is a starting point, and the job itself is defined by the persons who hold it and the problems they must engage with.

For good or ill, the President's job, over time, has become much more than the language of the Constitution describes. As I said, we expect the president to "supervise the management of our affairs." Given his veto power, he can help shape the laws that are passed by Congress. Given his bully pulpit, (not to mention his deal-making capacity behind the scenes), he can influence ways Congress attends to the problems of the nation. As the head of his party, he can lead his party members in Congress to shape legislation he desires or approves of. As per Section 3 of Article 2, "He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient...". He can, when the two houses are in disagreement with each other, even "adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper...".

In short, with few specifically defined job responsibilities, he can do much to affect the state of the union, hopefully to positive effect. Given this, the people do expect him to attend to "maximizing the general prosperity and improving the general conditions of life for the population as a whole."

It is the degree to which any president succeeds or fails in these endeavors that may determine whether a sitting president is re-elected for more than one term.