Carson has 26%, Trump 22%. The very quiet man is beating the very noisy man.
The distant third is Rubio with 8%, and Bush and Fiorina are dragging closely after him, each with 7%. Paul, Cruz, Huckabee, Kasich slog along in a dreary pack under the embarrassing number 4.
Did you realize there's another debate tomorrow? What's the best thing that could happen, I wonder. After Hillary Clinton's big week, last week, powered by the weakness of Republicans, what can these characters do this week to give nonGOP fans a sense that anything should or could change the trajectory toward Hillary Clinton's seemingly inevitable victory a year from now?
I'm picturing Trump blustering, Carson murmuring, and everyone else boring the pants off us. Will they — should they — attack each other or is it time to demonstrate that they have what it takes to stop Hillary? If the latter, what can they do that won't remind us of how ineffectual the Benghazi committee was in revealing her to be undeserving of the public's trust?
IN THE COMMENTS: People are accusing me of having somehow suddenly become a Hillary supporter. I respond:
Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win. You are in a dream world in which the practicalities of winning don't matter. I'm trying to wake you up. If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about.After some defense of my use of the word "blithering" and more push back about my supposed in-the-tankedness for Hillary, I say:
I think Hillary is and should be beatable. I just don't see the Republicans getting it together to do that. I think that's what Jeb realizes and why he's blithering that he's got "a lot of really cool things" he could do other than run for President. With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously. That's what I see down the road, and nobody who's complaining about my telling you that is saying anything that makes me think the situation is going to get better for Republicans.
पोस्ट्स
१६६ टिप्पण्या:
You should start writing Hillary!! because you seem to think her way to the White House is strewn with nothing but rose petals.
Republicans (I didn't know there was a debate, which should suprise no one) should simply do what they've been doing -- trying to distinguish themselves from each other. It's a mistake to craft your message in reaction to what someone else does.
Dear God are you in the tank for her. And then in 2020, you'll be expressing regret at how fucking terrible she is.
Trump will throw in the sponge.
It's not rocket surgery.
"how ineffectual"
They revealed her as an undeserving liar. They were ineffectual in that they failed to get the mainstream media to deliver the news.
What will it take? Video footage of Hillary shooting Vince Foster?
Good God, Althouse. Have you started listening to sports-talk radio?
Althouse has a serious girl crush. Yuck.
Vagina uber alles.
If the latter, what can they do that won't remind us of how ineffectual the Benghazi committee was in revealing her to be undeserving of the public's trust?
They can stay focused on undoing what Obama has done at home and abroad. They can remind voters that Hillary will not change Obama policy.* That should keep things going. Someone up there needs to seriously implode like Lincoln Chafee did. It's time to sift and winnow instead of shifting and whining.
______________
*Of course she will change Obama policy and for the worse. She just can't say that now.
BDNYC said...
Althouse has a serious girl crush. Yuck.
I noticed that too. It's gross sounding. I think she's doing it for effect, though.
Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win. You are in a dream world in which the practicalities of winning don't matter. I'm trying to wake you up. If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about.
damikesc said...
Dear God are you in the tank for her. And then in 2020, you'll be expressing regret at how fucking terrible she is.
My Tea Party leaves say that Althouse would like to see Rubio do better. But she fails to grasp why he and Bush aren't doing so well.
@BDNYC: Like I said, she's doing it for effect. She just admitted it.
Carly will absolutely blast Hillary. She will be unrelenting in her attacks.
Why don't you and Hillary! get married and be done with it. Sheesh!
Deluded?
You're not hitting Hillary hard. You're writing a lot about the GOP candidates, mostly in hateful terms ("I'm picturing Trump blustering, Carson murmuring, and everyone else boring the pants off us.")
Not much about the other GOP runners. Not much about Hillary being a lying jerk who shouldn't be let near the oval office.
Althouse is in the tank for Hillary.
Ann Althouse said...
Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win. You are in a dream world in which the practicalities of winning don't matter. I'm trying to wake you up. If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about.
Don't listen to her, it's a trap. You will end up with RINOs forever.
...and I think you meant "blathering". "Blithering" sounds good, though, I'll admit.
"I'm picturing Trump blustering, Carson murmuring, and everyone else boring the pants off us."
The eight-percent-and-under crowd is going to be getting desperate.
No doubt they all have a one-line zinger prepared for them and ready, to be used whether or not it fits the topic on hand.
That'll do it.
I am Laslo.
Wow. Garage and ARM made me genuinely laugh today.
To the majority of the commentariat: You're being lied to here, and not just by Hillary!
It's not malicious. It's ... fun?
Wow. People draw the most logical inference from the post and get blasted for being delusional.
Wow. People draw the most logical inference from the post and get blasted for being delusional.
If there wasn't a track record of this all-too-common interaction, I would agree with you.
Rand Paul needs to either get out and be a full-time Senator or jump in and be the freedom, liberty and small-g-focused candidate that draws a major distinction from all of the other big-g Republicans on the stage (which is all of them except perhaps Cruz, but I'm not sure.)
He's probably better off in the Senate anyway.
...and everyone else boring the pants off us
This one's on CNBC, and the theme is supposed to focus on economic issues, which means a Snoozefest for many people. Since CNBC leans left it will be the CNBC commentators asking the candidates how much higher marginal tax rates need to be, where's your big government spending plan to revive GDP growth, which Democrat polices are you adopting to solve inequality, etc.
There will be no discussion of Hillary if CNBC has it's way. It's time to move on...
Carson is the American Nelson Mandela.
I don't think Ann is expressing admiration or approval of Hillary. I think she's saying that if things continue as they now seem to be headed, like it or not, Hillary will be our next President. I certainly don't like it one bit, and these days I disagree with Ann more often than I agree with her on most things -- but on this, I fear that she's absolutely right.
Assuming Trump really is finally running out of stream, this is when things will get interesting. It's tough to know for sure though, as we all know people have been predicting Trumps demise for months now. But if Trump does start to drop off, I'm uncertain what that will mean for Carson in the long term.
Carson is the American Nelson Mandela.
He's friendly with dictators?
"No doubt they all have a one-line zinger prepared for them and ready, to be used whether or not it fits the topic on hand."
Suggestions:
"Hillary is convinced of Global Warming because the ice in her glass of vodka seems to be melting faster than before."
"I just don't see Ben Carson as President. However, I will gladly vote for him to be Hillary's personal brain surgeon."
"I don't believe Hillary is a bad person. Of course, this belief would be easier if she didn't surround herself with so many flying monkeys."
"Hillary stands by her country like she stands by her Man. America, you might not want to wash that dress."
"Less than twenty percent of the money the Clinton Foundation collects for charity actually makes it to the charities. And she promises just that kind of efficiency with her tax plans for America."
Something like that.
I am Laslo.
Online dictionaries present "to blather" as a noun, meaning generally to speak as an idiot who knows little or nothing of what he speaks. "Blithering" comes mostly from "blithering idiot". Some beer companies and other idiots have stepped up to the word. I can't find a clear first reference. It might be an Irish pronunciation thing.
*"to blather" as a verb
Seems like onomatopoeia (my favorite word).
Go Republican Hillbillies!
Concern Trolls alert alert alert.
OWT, try to step up. If you are trying for parody, you're not getting there.
AReasonableMan said...
Ann Althouse said...
Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win. You are in a dream world in which the practicalities of winning don't matter. I'm trying to wake you up. If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about.
Don't listen to her, it's a trap. You will end up with RINOs forever.
10/27/15, 8:49 AM "
God help me but for once I agree with you. RINOs forever, aghh!...why drink lite beer?, might as well well drink the full flavored beer.No point in diluting the poison a small amount.
Dear Professor - your pronouncement that Hillary "won" the presidency last week is sticking in throats.
@Laslo: With the mood the country's in, I think a bit of stand up comedy would help any of the Republican candidates tomorrow. Trump and Rubio are best suited to pull this off.
I can not fathom why the GOP agrees to any debates run by the major networks. They should be controlling the format, the moderators and the time-slotting. If the networks won't play, stream it over the internet. Crap, get with the damn times already.
Letting the MSM host any GOP debates is like having a slut walk in Iran. You are going to get mobbed, violated, and stoned to death all to the cheers of the crowd...
"...and I think you meant "blathering". "Blithering" sounds good, though, I'll admit."
Look it up.
Blithering and blathering mean exactly the same thing, though blathering is more common and blithering is almost always used with idiot. Blithering seems harsher because one feels the presence of "idiot" even when it isn't there. That's why it "sounds good."
I don't get the sense Althouse is a Hillary fan, only that she is accepting--quite reasonably--that the GOP is set to blow this one again.
What I'd like to see at the debate is some--any--candidate articulate some answer to the Democrats' usual refrain about inequality, higher taxes and freebies as a way of getting our sluggish economy to improve but more importantly to enable hardworking people to find more opportunities to get ahead. Rubio is usually good at this in the big picture, but if he can do something newsworthy that would be something. It'd also be nice to see someone fight Trump on Trump's level. Keep it entertaining!
This one's on CNBC, and the theme is supposed to focus on economic issues, which means a Snoozefest for many people. Since CNBC leans left it will be the CNBC commentators asking the candidates how much higher marginal tax rates need to be, where's your big government spending plan to revive GDP growth, which Democrat polices are you adopting to solve inequality, etc.
I think it's time for a new tack.
Tax Hollywood heavily and insist on massive corporate accounting oversight given how fraudulent Hollywood is with that (didn't Hollywood accountants claim that Star Wars didn't make money?). 10% surtax on every Blu-ray, DVD, or PPV movie bought/rented.
Tax entertainment heavily. 10% surtax on all CD's and music downloads off any music service. Entertainment wants people to pay their fair share --- so make them do so.
Tax university endowments at capital gains rates.
Tax international remittances heavily.
Do away with corporate income taxes (since they don't pay them, consumers do) in exchange for massive corrections on IP law. It will stop them leaving for "better environments" since nobody else has a corporate tax rate that low.
Cut subsidies to green energy by 50% and then 10% a year after that.
Cut corn subsidies by 50% and then 10% a year after that.
Do away with tax exempt political groups. Period. Since conservative groups have a bitch of a time being approved, NOBODY gets them.
"I think she's saying that if things continue as they now seem to be headed, like it or not, Hillary will be our next President." Yeah - but where is she getting that from? That she will be the nominee, that's obvious. But polls don't show that she has an advantage in the general election. 538 seems to consider that a toss-up, and I don't see any point in assuming otherwise.
As Red Skelton proved to the American people, the time for seriousness is right after you make people laugh. It's highly effective and works like a tonic.
Why would Cruz drop out, he's got all the primary states cover with a ground game and organization. It's already paid for till the convention and he's first or second with money on hand, in the bank.
I looked it up before I commented. I don't blither.
Will Rogers was another genius at heaping comedy on serious matters. These days, political talent is expected to entertain.
No doubt Mrs. Clinton is a skillful speaker and politician, even if she got here by marriage. A good debate performance and a boring committee hearing doesn't change that, one way or the other.
No one will remember the Benghazi committee a year from now, except those who picked sides long ago based on their party affiliation. The election will be based on other factors. She'll still probably win 53/47, but not because of Benghazi.
Interestingly enough "blither" is a variant of the older word "blether" (and that's not a misspelling of "blather"). The OED defines blither as "To talk nonsense" and gives these 3 historical examples:
1868 F. P. Verney Stone Edge i, What did the imp come blitherin' and botherin' there for?
1903 J. K. Jerome Tea-table Talk i. 20 If he was to blither, it was only fair that she should bleat back.
1921 Blackwood's Mag. Oct. 455/1 The inevitable pasty-faced babu waddled up, blithering about the delay.
"Blather" also developed out of "blether." It is defined in the OED as "To talk foolishly, talk nonsense." Here are the historical examples:
1825 J. T. Brockett Gloss. North Country Words (at cited word), He blathers and talks, is a common phrase where much is said to little purpose. A person of this kind is..styled a blathering hash.
1891 R. Kipling Light that Failed iv. 59 If you were only a mass of blathering vanity,..I wouldn't mind.
1892 Cassell's Family Mag. Dec. 11/1 Hold your tongues, you blathering idiots.
1900 Cent. Mag. Feb. 504/1 Morland had a blathering contempt for nobility and society.
1951 ‘J. Wyndham’ Day of Triffids i. 15 Gentlemanly tones which blathered about this ‘magnificent spectacle’ and ‘unique phenomenon’.
Bill said...
No doubt Mrs. Clinton is a skillful speaker and politician, even if she got here by marriage.
The other Bill might say Hillary's oration skills were wanting.
Will they — should they — attack each other or is it time to demonstrate that they have what it take to stop Hillary?
In the previous debates, the moderators incited the candidates to attack each other -- especially to attack Trump.
It will be interesting to see whether the moderators in any of the future debates will provide an opportunity for the candidates to discuss the issues.
If I were a monitor, I would pose an issue -- for example, unemployment -- and then give each candidate equal-time turns to state his own position on the issue and then to respond briefly to the other candidates' statements. However, I don't expect that any such debate ever will be conducted by the media stars when the candidates are Republicans.
Trump does not have to demonstrate that he will attack Clinton. His attacks on his Republican opponents already have demonstrated that he will attack her personally, continually and aggressively.
The quality that Trump must demonstrate is a mastery of the issues. He better start studying position papers, honing his speeches and really answering issue questions. He has been able to wing it amusingly with some success until now.
If Trump wins the Republican nomination and subsequently debates Clinton, then the moderators will try to embarrass him by asking wonkish policy questions -- agricultural price supports, hospital reimbursements, consumer price indexes, etc. -- for which Clinton will be forewarned to prepare.
Anyway, if Trump does become the Republican candidate, I expect that he will flip all the Rust Belt states into the Republican Party. If he indeed does so, he might win the Presidency, no matter what dumb statements he makes.
Linguists are not exactly rocket scientists. They have all kinds of crap stored in their flash drives.
Blather, blither, and blether are almost certainly pretty much the same word.
But that's not why we came to this discussion. How, again, do you defend your attempt to make Hillary Clinton seem like a Presidential candidate and not the lying jerk she obviously is?
" If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about."
Yes, anyone who does not recognize the brilliance of this Hillary! supporter is just "part of the problem."
The reason why the polls are the way they are, in my opinion, is that most GOP voters are, like me, not answering the poll questions everywhere about "who do you favor?" I don't know yet. If I were a Trump or Carson supporter, I would answer that way. The rest of us mostly ignore the polls so far.
I have sent money to Carley and wish she was higher in the polls but I have not "voted" for her in one of those polls. I'm not ready to decide.
I do think Ann is in the tank for Hillary! even though she is the worst person to be this close to the American presidency since Aaron Burr.
""I think she's saying that if things continue as they now seem to be headed, like it or not, Hillary will be our next President." Yeah - but where is she getting that from? That she will be the nominee, that's obvious. But polls don't show that she has an advantage in the general election. 538 seems to consider that a toss-up, and I don't see any point in assuming otherwise."
The point is to get serious about trying to win instead of indulging in ridiculous fantasies about overruling Roe v. Wade or deporting 11 million people.
As Red Skelton proved to the American people, the time for seriousness is right after you make people laugh. It's highly effective and works like a tonic.
For example, Hillary was able to cackle and say that right after the hearings she drank beer and ate indian food. This made her supporters laugh and then she intoned "I am honest." They believed her.
If any of the candidates "bore the pants off of us" without our consent, it is a sexual crime.
I see what Althouse did there.
If you look back in the 11+ years of this blog's archive, you can see that I'm not at all one of Hillary's fans. I didn't vote for her in the '08 primary. (I voted for Obama.) And I've been quite suspicious and cutting toward her over the years. Check the archive. You won't find support for Hillary.
Unless Obama indicts her (and make no mistake, that's his decision and it will have nothing to do with the law), she's going to win. She has 60% negatives but a very loyal base. She doesn't win in a 2-way race with those negatives but she does win a 3-way race. And Trump will likely run as a third party candidate if he doesn't win the GOP nomination. Regardless of what we actually want, Althouse is right. God save the Republic.
The point is to get serious about trying to win instead of indulging in ridiculous fantasies about overruling Roe v. Wade or deporting 11 million people.
Can you imagine a President who harps about every gun crime to the point of want to confiscate millions and millions of guns? Even CC ones? It's pretty easy to do.
The overruling Roe v. Wade is your projected fantasy -- a response to Fiorina's legitimate concern about parting out human beings. As I recall you basically called her a liar.
Hillary, Bernie and Obama want to take guns away from Americans. Over 300 million guns. Confiscation, like in Australia, is the goal.
Meanwhile, deporting (the completely fictitious number of) 11 million illegals is completely impossible. Violates the laws of physics, or something.
Explain why it is unlikely and I would agree. Keep pretending at impossibility and I will continue to believe you wish it so.
She'll still probably win 53/47
I disagree with this -- I wouldn't bet on it (yet) because the Republicans could put up a real awful Candidate to run against her. But a better guess would be she wins 47.7% to 47.6%
Here's the weak points where a competent GOP nominee can take on Hillary:
1) moderates--many will be turned off by her newfound populist leftism. An attractive alternative that seeks to reduce the deficit with spending cuts and revenue neutral tax reform and regulatory reform can have appeal with these people, provided they don't get the impression the GOP is full of extremists. The extremist charge is what Hillary is counting on.
2) blacks and hispanics--Hillary has long been a statist when it comes to civil liberties and criminal justice reform. A candidate who can take a libertarian tack on this while coupling it with a message of economic development in poor neighborhoods could cut the Democratic lead among these groups. Also poke holes in her newfound leftism--if she cannot be trusted, it may decrease turnout from her favor.
3) women--do we really want the first woman president to be someone who got there just because of who she married, and played the gender card so clumsily she may as well have said "now slam, I play gender card!"? Focus on her role in trashing Clinton's female critics--where was she when Carville called Paula Jones trailer trash for complaining about Clinton sexually harassing her? How about Kathleen Wiley? Juanita Broaderick--was Ms. Broaderick lying? It would help if this charge came from female spokesmen--sure, it's tokenism but that's the media game. Optics count.
4) Extensive attacks on her record of supporting ill-conceived wars and economic policies that are no longer so popular among Democrats. This won't get Democrats to vote GOP, but it may depress turnout. Why bother going to vote for this woman when she sells you out?
Ann Althouse said, "The point is to get serious about trying to win instead of indulging in ridiculous fantasies about overruling Roe v. Wade or deporting 11 million people."
Hey, Professor, you've got a leftist parody on the brain.
Rightists aren't living in that world. We don't put guns in the cribs with our babies and dream about killing Kermit Gosnell. We don't even dream about doing the nasty with Kermit the Frog.
You're wading in leftist fantasy.
I don't care how many years you've failed to support Hillary. I failed to support Hillary longer than that. You're running a blog that tries to highlight the issues. You're doing a bad job of that lately.
She has 60% negatives but a very loyal base.
I don't see it.
I'm here in the Soviet of Seattle, and I still see bumper stickers proclaiming "Obama 2012", but I don't see any "Hillary" stickers. It might be early, but bumper sticker people are usually the bleeding edge of stupid.
I do see "Bernie" bumper stickers.
"Hillary Clinton's big week, last week, powered by the weakness of Republicans"
I think you mean "powered by the servility of the media."
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
"The point is to get serious about trying to win instead of indulging in ridiculous fantasies about overruling Roe v. Wade or deporting 11 million people."
That really depends on whether the point of this election is to win so that you can accomplish something (or prevent something from being accomplished to you), or a way to send a social signal. The Dems seem to be far more strategic than the Republicans about this--they get animated during their primaries, but they seem less willing to hobble their candidates than the GOP voters do.
BTW, thinking women should not be able to deliver a live baby and that doctors can then withdraw care is quite a bit different than repealing Roe v Wade. I stand firmly against post-birth abortion.
How about you, Althouse?
Do you support the Obama position on post-delivery abortion?
"I think you mean "powered by the servility of the media." "
Sure, but why should the GOP keep playing into that part? You'd think after fifty years of railing about how the media is out to get you, they'd figure out how to frustrate the media's best efforts.
For example, the Planned Parenthood hearings--first, why hold them at all if you can't get the controversial videos? Second, if you're going to grill the female head of an organization that does a lot more than just provide abortions--and is fairly popular among moderates--and you intend to change this, why not use competent female lawyers for the questioning, rather than preening old congressmen? You're already losing in the optics before anyone looks at what's being said. Not fair, sure, but hell, we know by now how this works.
I think Hillary is and should be beatable. I just don't see the Republicans getting it together to do that. I think that's what Jeb realizes and why he's blithering that he's got "a lot of really cool things" he could do other than run for President. With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously. That's what I see down the road, and nobody who's complaining about my telling you that is saying anything that makes me think the situation is going to get better for Republicans.
Re: Bumper Stickers.
I also see more Bernie stickers than Hillary ones -- the Hillary ones (I'm Ready for Hillary! is the most common, as I recall) have been around for a while though.
It's funny. You think we have rediculous fantasies of controlling our border and keeping children from being murdered. They are rediculous because I suppose you believe there is no way we are going to change the minds of the American public to get behind these issues (or the lefts caricature of them anyway which shows just how moderate you really are) and yet, you do the same thing. You mock us here and pretend as though you can convince us to see the light.
Maybe you should give up on your rediculous fantasies, professor.
As for me, I'm going to stick by my principles and go down swinging. I suspect you will as well.
So nobody with the insatiable will to power can win? That's what your latest comment comes down to.
*without the insatiable will to power
Amazing voters aren't more turned on by fake videos, pointless investigations, and the promise of mass deportations.
Fake videos...like the Planned Parenthood ones?
Pointless investigations...like the Benghazi ones?
Promise of mass deportations...well, you've got me there. Trump is an idiot.
MadisonMan said...
She'll still probably win 53/47
I disagree with this -- I wouldn't bet on it (yet) because the Republicans could put up a real awful Candidate to run against her. But a better guess would be she wins 47.7% to 47.6%
10/27/15, 9:44 AM
Well if history is any indicator, she will win by just enough manufactured votes as needed. There will be double/triple votes, dead people voting, illegals voting, heck even dogs and cats will vote. The Dem/Chicago machine will manufacture whatever number of votes it takes. Likely with black panthers "assisting" at poling stations, the MSM calling Red states as early as possible for Hillary! to further suppress turnout, and Dem operatives slashing tires and other vandalism. If this week has shown nothing else, it is that Law is dead and the Dems/MSM will do whatever it takes to drag Hillary!'s rotting body over the finish line. She simply MUST be the next President [unless someone else offers Obama a higher bid - then he will crush her]...
I just don't see a Hillary victory, nor do I consider it inevitable. The GOP could field a potato against her & it would win.
Also, I'm not a fan of "now-quiet" Carson, who has a history of thuggery. People can change a little bit, but basic tendencies & mindsets remain.
If the candidates in the sub-four percent category truly supported the party, they would bow out. Bush and Cruz have tons of money and it means little. The longer support remains so widely dispersed, the harder it will be for Republicans to coalesce around their candidate.
As I predicted, Trump support bleeds away slowly and never returns. It will never be greater than where it was at around 30%. Carson, on the other hand, has more staying power. He is more of a problem to Bush, Rubio, et. al.
Carson is the quiet man, but describing him as murmuring is an inapt description. He can be quite succinct while still talking in a slow monotone.
"Amazing voters aren't more turned on by fake videos, pointless investigations, and the promise of mass deportations."
The LIV in person !
"Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win. You are in a dream world in which the practicalities of winning don't matter. I'm trying to wake you up. If you are going to just say things like Wow, Althouse is in the tank for Hillary, then you are part of the problem you are blithering about."
Well defended.
"I think Hillary is and should be beatable. I just don't see the Republicans getting it together to do that. I think that's what Jeb realizes and why he's blithering that he's got "a lot of really cool things" he could do other than run for President. With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously. That's what I see down the road, and nobody who's complaining about my telling you that is saying anything that makes me think the situation is going to get better for Republicans."
Right, no normal voters would take seriously the party that controls both houses of Congress, most governorships, and most state legislatures. It's just not normal.
Nor is it normal for a party to run two Hispanics, one black surgeon, one Indian-American nerd, two accomplished business execs (one female), and the most successful governor of the most important state. It's just not normal.
On the other hand, normal voters wil find nothing weird about a party whose ostensible candidate's main accomplishment is flying around the world and whose runner-up is a democratic socialist promising trillions of new spending. It's just normal.
And you know what, you are actually right.
It might not matter to people who are against illegal immigration and bloated government if Hillary wins since they would get the same with a Rubio or Jeb or Kasich. Their support for any candidate might be about what they believe and supporting that candidate is the way to show that strong belief. There are only her ways, as well, such as not being involved in society and telling your children not to join the military or to distrust others, etc. They can also cheat on their taxes and other things that undermine the functioning of the federal government. Society depends on these people playing by the rules, but they don't have to. You can't throw 30 million people into jail for tax evasion.
"I just don't see a Hillary victory, nor do I consider it inevitable. The GOP could field a potato against her & it would win."
A potato would do a better job against Hillary than the typical GOP candidate. Hillary can scare minorities and moderates and women away from voting for the GOP but probably not scare them over a potato.
The comments above are missing the point--as long as the narrative is "GOP candidate wants to prevent rape victims from getting abortions" rather than "Dem candidate wants federal funding to support late term abortions for any reason" they're going to turn off moderates and women. As long as the narrative is "GOP candidate favors reducing minority voter turnout" rather than "Dems oppose any attempts to verify voters at polls", they're going to turn off minorities. Until you change the narrative, the Dems easily cobble together coalitions that secure them the 270 electoral votes they need.
The GOP now has to fight desperately to win back VA, FL and OH, and still pick up somewhere else--and all those purple states have gotten much harder to win since Bush did it in 2004. I think the GOP is going to become an exclusively congressional party. It has everything to do with where the voters live and who they are appealing to.
Cruz has raised a lot of money and spent it slowly. That, to me, is a sign of his conservatism. I believe Cruz is conservative in his core.
Bush has spent money as quickly as (or perhaps faster than) he raised it. This is a sign of his fundamental non-conservatism.
The idea that the money on hand means the same thing for the two men escapes me.
"It might not matter to people who are against illegal immigration and bloated government if Hillary wins since they would get the same with a Rubio or Jeb or Kasich."
We'll probably never be able to test your theory, but I highly doubt in their worst day any of those guys would go nearly as far as Hillary plans to, simply because they could only win with the support of people who would scream bloody murder if they inched in that direction, while Hillary has already written off the votes of immigration reform opponents. She has also signaled that she is willing to go around Congress and use her executive authority in ways Obama hasn't yet. The only hope you have of her not going that far is her history of throwing supporters under the bus, and she may do that with Hispanics and immigration reformists.
I think odds are against us every finding out what Bush, Rubio or Kasich would do--I have a strong feeling we're going to find out what Hillary does.
Coming in late for the discussion so this may have already been pointed out by another commenter above. Trump is a unique problem for the Republican in that ( with a recent exception of Ben Carson's sudden surge), no one can seem to catch fire and generate any excitement among the GOP electorate. And everyone knows that if Trump Is the nominee then Hilary will cruise to the White House essentially unopposed likely with greater than 350 electoral votes. Still can't help but suspect that that has been his primary motive all along
I don't think Obama will permit Hillary! to succeed him.
Hillary should be a shoe in for the Democratic nomination and completely unelectable in the general. What's happening on the Republican side is frustrating--we've been waiting for years for this clash of serious people with serous philosophies and instead we got a clown car.
But I think the most likely outcome is that Trump disappears when people notice he never got on the primary ballot in any of these states he's been leading in, Carson has already peaked and may be a broker coming into the convention, but he won't be the nominee. Instead the field will whinny down to 2 or 3 serious candidates (Cruz, Rubio, and maybe Fiorina), who will rise in the polls as others drop out. Then the Republicans will get a perfectly decent ticket that will beat Hillary in the general despite the media full court press to get her in the White House.
When she loses despite every dirty trick the media throws down at us, the media's turn will come. The billionaires will stop propping them up, and people will tune them out in even greater numbers so that they'll barely exist when Cruz's second term comes to a close.
Hagar said...I don't think Obama will permit Hillary! to succeed him.
Remember Biden's "won't run" speech? That was the sound of Obama endorsing Clinton.
Or Trump.
Ann, people read your post and figure you're in the tank for Hillary because you are pushing the exact same narrative as the MSM, which is that she "won" the Benghazi hearings and that she's "inevitable". That only helps Hillary, and you are in fact helping her by parroting the media's absurd spin.
The issue here is a media so craven it would make Stalin green with envy. What Republicans say and do makes no difference at all under those circumstances. You seem to think Republicans are required to overcome media bias and if they fail, that's the real problem. As if it's normal and perfectly appropriate that the media is in the tank for her, and conservatives just have to be better. One wonders why feminists aren't expected to just accept the higher standards supposedly expected of women.
And Slow Joe is still available if called upon to save the party if, or when, Hillary! is tripped up.
Tim--you're pointing out the outcome I'd most like to see. People like Hillary and Trump (who would benefit just by losing to her, don't worry he'll explain why he's still a winner it's his gift) should not benefit from the vapid shamelessness that animates them.
However, there's a good chance that someone unelectable like Trump could get nominated simply by hanging in there and winning pluralities and sucking up media attention. This may just be the year that the GOP gives up completely.
And beyond that, much as I find Hillary deplorable there's just way too many people in the country who find the GOP worse. They see teh GOP as extremists, bigots and lunatics, and the party does what it can to play the part at every turn. It doesn't help that the media laps it up. All Hillary has to do is start with the 240 or so electoral votes the Dems always get, then add a few states like Florida and Ohio and it's over.
As a Blatherer from way back, I resent the mockery of my style by the Phrase, Blah, blah, blah."
Drudge has used it over and over...and it's Hurtful. Substituting Blitherer is really the same thing. Shame!
I seriously cannot see Hillary winning the votes she will need unless the GOP runs crown prince Bush III. And if Trump runs the Bush Family will have to suddenly switch to Democrat. Trump would enjoy that.
When she loses despite every dirty trick the media throws down at us, the media's turn will come. The billionaires will stop propping them up, and people will tune them out in even greater numbers so that they'll barely exist when Cruz's second term comes to a close.
I'd love a Cruz win.
I also wish the donors for the GOP would be wise and follow Instapundit's advice of buying up media properties. Buy women's magazines. Buy pop culture mags.
I'd also somebody to point out that it is amazing that Progressives can refer to a brain surgeon as being dumb because he is black.
Congratulations, trad! The first step is to acknowledge that you have a problem.
Did Carson really say that he used to hit people with hammers as a kid? Not sure if that was the Onion or not. (Post-Google: Yes, he did. Jesus, people. It also directly contradicts his somnambulic personality, which I guess was the point.)
My republican mother still didn't know who he was until I told her the hammer story and that he had passed Trump in the polls. I also told her he originated new surgical techniques. Her response was "How does being a doctor qualify him?" (She formerly worked in the medical industry.)
If Hillary is the candidate she will vote for her.
Lovely, the Republican leadership is trying to pass a 2 year budget.
See, THIS is why Trump is doing so well. Because the party is fucking useless.
Fuck it, let Hillary win. These pathetic losers don't deserve anybody's vote.
Tim Maguire asks the right question: "Is Trump even on the ballots?"
I would like to know a single accomplishment of Hillary. Can anybody give me a single example?
Althouse once wrote "I have a vagina and I vote". Enough said.
*Meek monotone voice*
When I was young I used to beat people with bricks and hammers. I once tried to stab someone. Fortunately I found a career that I can stab people, over and over again. With delicate, but razor sharp knives. It's a beautiful thing.
Let's assume the broad middle will find the Republican candidate "weird". If that is so, it is very likely that the same middle will find Hillary "weird". So then the question becomes "do I vote for the weird candidate who is untrustworthy because she is a liar, or do I vote for the weird candidate who is not a lair."
"we've been waiting for years for this clash of serious people with serous philosophies and instead we got a clown car. "
No, we have an enraged base that likes the fact that Trump brought up some unmentionable topics and made them part of th debate. I don't like Trump and have doubts about Carson and his depth of thinking about policy.
We are in odd times in this country and are nowhere near the trouble that Europe is in right now but it is coming here. We have a lawless president and a candidate with 47% support in the country who is a female Aaron Burr.
The GOP candidates are the best we have and I hope one will rise to the top and be serious. I am very pessimistic however about turning the country around without a revolution. I saw Romney as Necker in 1783. Necker was dismissed and Romney lost the election. Six years after Necker was dismissed....
"I would like to know a single accomplishment of Hillary. Can anybody give me a single example?"
According to her debate response, she is a woman so that's her accomplishment.
I can add a few more though--encouraged Obama to intervene in Libya and pull support from Mubarak in Egypt, which is why both countries are more peaceful and less dangerous than before. She helped her family's influence buying scheme. She helped destroy the reputations of any woman accusing her husband of harassment or rape, and would have wrecked Monica Lewinsky's rep if it weren't for the blue dress.
I guess that's about it. She's basically backtracked on everything else.
Ann Althouse said...
"With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously."
What are we supposed to take seriously? Jeb Bush?
What people can't do here is accept Ann'd paradigm and they don't understand how affects her worldview. Ann lives in a bubble. She has ultimate job security and she makes solid 6 figures. She lives in a neighborhood where the only immigrants she sees are the occasional housekeeper or lawnmower. There is no wage deflation on campus. She doesn't even talk to people who make less than $100,000 a year except to ask them to take out the trash or clean her windows.
When you start seeing colleges have to cut costs and replacing her kind with H1B Professors from India, who would probably do a better job at a far lower cost, she will start to notice. When she loses tenure and has to negotiate for her salary she will notice. When she has to train her replacement she will notice. When property values in her community fall and people start stealing things off her back porch she will notice. When her neighbors house gets robbed she will notice.
The electorate is not going to accept a DC parasite who wants to destroy the middle class. 71% of WORKING americans made less than $50,000 last year. Over 100 million more aren't even in the workforce. Hillary is going to get destroyed. The next president is going to investigate the goings on of this current administration and people are going to jail. Trump has them in a cold sweat because he would love to be the candidate that threw a former sec state in jail.
This poll is garbage. The establishment is working it's wiles. As soon as another candidate doubles ratings for a debate let me know.
garage mahal said...
"*Meek monotone voice*
When I was young I used to beat people with bricks and hammers. I once tried to stab someone. Fortunately I found a career that I can stab people, over and over again. With delicate, but razor sharp knives. It's a beautiful thing."
You are a racist piece of shit.
Well, I think the good Professor wins this thread. Here's why -- the issue isn't whether AA is in the tank for Hillary. Even if she was, so what?
Clearly, AA is a swing voter, who has voted for and is open to voting for moderate Republicans for President.
The issue is whether AA is part of a substantial block of voters (5 million? 10 million?) and, if so, who on the GOP side can persuade this block to vote for him/her, over Hillary?
If you honestly think Trump will get this block en route to a general election victory, or can win the general election, without this block, great, say so. Myself, I doubt it.
"No, we have an enraged base that likes the fact that Trump brought up some unmentionable topics and made them part of th debate. I don't like Trump and have doubts about Carson and his depth of thinking about policy."
I have to take issue with this fiction that immigration was a non-subject before Trump came around. Just because he repeats it does not make it true--the man will say any line of bull that suits him and change tack when convenient (notice he "doesn't care about polls" now that Carson is pulling ahead--before polls were his gold standard for why no one should listen to "loser" candidates!).
Immigration was absolutely a major issue in the 2012 race, and Romney took a hard line which Trump lamented after Romney lost (the "self-deportation" comments). Rick Perry was chastized for saying anti-immigration rhetoric was heartless. And Obama campaigned on his mini-DREAM Act, and later suggested he would use executive orders to get his reforms (those are in the courts right now).
So yes, it's long been an issue, there's a lot of debate in the GOP over it (the Dems seem mostly pro-reform, though I suspect a lot of union voters are less thrilled with it). Trump is just latching on to the issue and tapping into that and a strong sense that the GOP is not working for its constituency. That's not to say the problem isn't there, but to say that Trump is the farthest thing from a solution to it.
SOJO said...
Her response was "How does being a doctor qualify him?" (She formerly worked in the medical industry.)
10/27/15, 11:56 AM
Tell her he is more qualified than a "community organizer" and that if she does not vote for him (if he is the nominee) that she is a racist.
If you honestly think Trump will get this block en route to a general election victory, or can win the general election, without this block, great, say so. Myself, I doubt it.
I would vote for Trump over Hillary. Easily. I'm at least as swingvoterish as Althouse. Claims I.
I wish one of them would borrow from Davy Crockett's stump speech, words to the effect, "I can run faster, jump higher, and walk farther than any other candidate. I also tell better lies than these other guys."
BayAreaGuy,
I would submit getting 99% turnout of conservatives (like Democrats voted for Obama) is better than disparaging conservatives in the hope of gaining the middle.
The Central Voter theorem is faulty.
If Hillary is the candidate she will vote for her.
Not sure how your mother has a label of "Republican", then.
The issue is whether AA is part of a substantial block of voters (5 million? 10 million?) and, if so, who on the GOP side can persuade this block to vote for him/her, over Hillary?
Romney won independents comfortably.
Didn't do so well.
It's all about the base now.
So yes, it's long been an issue, there's a lot of debate in the GOP over it (the Dems seem mostly pro-reform, though I suspect a lot of union voters are less thrilled with it). Trump is just latching on to the issue and tapping into that and a strong sense that the GOP is not working for its constituency. That's not to say the problem isn't there, but to say that Trump is the farthest thing from a solution to it.
He's also discussed giving them visas after deportation, which seems pointless.
Ken, that's Trump in a nutshell.
Brando: The comments above are missing the point--as long as the narrative is "GOP candidate wants to prevent rape victims from getting abortions" rather than "Dem candidate wants federal funding to support late term abortions for any reason" they're going to turn off moderates and women. As long as the narrative is "GOP candidate favors reducing minority voter turnout" rather than "Dems oppose any attempts to verify voters at polls", they're going to turn off minorities. Until you change the narrative, the Dems easily cobble together coalitions that secure them the 270 electoral votes they need.
If you succeeded in "changing the narrative" such that women who vote Democrat no longer believe that the Republicans are waging a "war on women", and that minorities who vote Democrat don't think the Republicans were trying to suppress minority voter turnout, they would still vote for Democrats. The idea that they really want what the 'pubs are offering, the 'pubs just aren't getting their message out, is ludicrous. They vote Dem because they prefer the Dem agenda.
The GOP now has to fight desperately to win back VA, FL and OH, and still pick up somewhere else--and all those purple states have gotten much harder to win since Bush did it in 2004.
Gee, wonder what's changed in VA, FL, OH, and those other places that have caused them to go all purple-y? The Dems must have seized control of the Teh Narrative when you weren't looking! Yeah, that's it.
@MadisonMan
I, too, would vote for Trump over Hillary -- in a heartbeat.
I think the problem may lie though with a block of Conservative voters who would not vote for say, Jeb or Rubio over Hillary, because...Boehner! (I jest here:)
"Romney won independents comfortably."
"Independents" is not the same thing as "moderates". Many right-leaning (and left-leaning) voters prefer to tell pollsters they're "independent" as they don't want to identify with a party--and in many cases, are actually not registered with a party. In VA, for instance, they don't register voters by party so technically every voter there is "independent". The important question is how did Romney do with moderates as measured by objective criteria.
"He's also discussed giving them visas after deportation, which seems pointless."
My sense is if Trump somehow became president, he would "solve" the problem by declaring that most illegals voluntarily went back to where they came from out of fear of what he would do to them, and voila, problem solved. It wouldn't be out of character for him.
"They vote Dem because they prefer the Dem agenda."
Many do, and many are turned off by what they perceive of the GOP agenda. Polls show late term abortion is just as unpopular as abortion bans with no exceptions, and yet how many questions does Hillary get re: her abortion position compared to her GOP counterparts?
"Gee, wonder what's changed in VA, FL, OH, and those other places that have caused them to go all purple-y? The Dems must have seized control of the Teh Narrative when you weren't looking! Yeah, that's it."
Hilarious, yet not the case. VA and FL had a large influx of blue staters moving to previously red states. Northern VA and Southern FL have much larger populations of the sort of suburban moderates and liberals that made those areas ripe ground for the Dems, plus plenty of Hispanic and (for VA) Asian immigrants who lean to the Democrats.
Not sure what you're arguing with me about though, my point is that the GOP is at a big disadvantage in this and future presidential contests.
"Immigration was absolutely a major issue in the 2012 race, "
I agree that Romney brought the topic up but, as he did in other areas, he backed away after the left raised a fuss about "self deportation."
It's a bigger issue now because of Obama's lawless actions and because of the crisis in Europe which is being ignored by the US media but which is coming here. We will see much more of cases like this.
An Illinois jury awarded $240,000 in damages and back pay to two former truck drivers who claimed religious discrimination when they were fired in 2009 after refusing to make beer deliveries.
A jury was convened to determine damages after US District Court Judge James E. Shadid ruled in favor of Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale when Star Transport admitted liability in March.
And this case. Muslim clerk refuses to sell pork.
Not to mention "Sanctuary city crime."
Michael K,
"And this case. Muslim clerk refuses to sell pork."
You do realize that this took place in Britain, right?
Muslims and Christians coming together cakes and oork. It's a circle.
Eh, I don't see what could go wrong with importing another 10-15M hard working immigrants over the next 10 years or so. The Chamber of Commerce and establishment Republicans keep pointing out that most of the immigrants are socially conservative, religious, etc, so they must--the just must!--be natural Republican voters.
It IS funny what we end up talking about, though, isn't it? I remember when it seemed like a crisis of unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants streaming in over the border, but a few weeks later I couldn't find any news stories about that at all. I guess it all worked out--most of them were released to some family members in the US, I think, and I'm sure everyone came to subsequent status hearings, etc.
Hey, like the problems at the VA! I mean, I haven't heard too much about that lately, either, so it probably worked itself out. Maybe the Obama admin dropped some serious hashtags to wrap things up.
Other than stories hammering the Repubs over their Benghazi hearings I haven't read too much about Libya, and coverage of Egypt and Syria is mostly just about what Russia's doing (being led into a super-duper trap by Smart Diplomacy, apparently), so those places must be better now, too.
Oh yeah, sorry, back to the Republican's craving for abortion restrictions (they probably want to outlaw tampons!), mass deportation, and the like. Lost my place for a moment, there.
Birkel said...
Tim Maguire asks the right question: "Is Trump even on the ballots?"
I would like to know a single accomplishment of Hillary. Can anybody give me a single example?
I can. She advocated for and helped to accomplish the destabilization of Libya, leading to a massive influx of diversity into and throughout Europe creating a vibrant and never seen before scenario. See also, indirectly, Poland.
Diversity is not only our strength but, thanks in part to The Vagina, Europe is sharing the benefits too.
I think Hillary is and should be beatable. I just don't see the Republicans getting it together to do that. ... With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously. That's what I see down the road, and nobody who's complaining about my telling you that is saying anything that makes me think the situation is going to get better for Republicans.
@Althouse, I think you're overthinking it. You need to take a look at my lengthy comment at the end of the "Hillary won it" thread. She's an abnormally weak candidate, with lots of opportunities for missteps between now and November 2016.
I think you are looking at a Republican party whose nomination process has been wildly distorted by Trump, and the distortion is magnified by the press. I think things will settle down -- Trump may win Iowa, or he may not. Winning Iowa takes organizational skill, not high poll numbers. Someone with a strong organization in Iowa probably will kick Trump's butt.
It doesn't help that Trump, again magnified by the press, (1) shoots from the lip with little aforethought, and (2) doesn't mind violating Reagan's "eleventh commandment" by slinging mud at his fellow Republicans, wounding the eventual winner if it isn't him (and inviting mud in return, wounding him). But we'll see how long Trump lasts. Certainly I have no plans to vote for him in next year's primary, I don't care if the only other being on the primary ballot is Beelzebub.
In recent weeks the party preference on Real Clear Politics has shifted from its long-time Democrat lead to a 1% Republican lead; this is unusual. Also, Carson beats Hillary by a good margin in the one-on-one matchups, and Bush beats her by a small margin. It's still true that Republicans have a much better field of candidates, that three terms for one party is unusual, and that when the general campaign comes after the primaries, lots of questions about the Clinton Foundation and the emails will be put before voters in swing states.
I have to disclose that I am usually wrong in my political estimation, but isn't there a good argument that Hillary is not going to win?
Brando: "They vote Dem because they prefer the Dem agenda."
Many do, and many are turned off by what they perceive of the GOP agenda.
Fine. Go right on thinking that the GOP can win if they can just wrest control of their branding from the Dem master-minds.
Polls show late term abortion is just as unpopular as abortion bans with no exceptions, and yet how many questions does Hillary get re: her abortion position compared to her GOP counterparts?
If you gave this a little thought, it would be obvious to you that there is more than one plausible explanation for why a voter's views on, say, late-term abortion, do not translate into a vote against someone who disagrees with their views on that issue. At least one or two of these are waaaay more plausible than assuming that, golly, they've just been kept in the dark about Hillary Clinton's views on late-term abortion by the press.
Hilarious, yet not the case.
Remind me not to do irony or sarcasm with you, Brando.
VA and FL had a large influx of blue staters moving to previously red states. Northern VA and Southern FL have much larger populations of the sort of suburban moderates and liberals that made those areas ripe ground for the Dems, plus plenty of Hispanic and (for VA) Asian immigrants who lean to the Democrats.
If only we could get the word out to them about Hillary's views on abortion! (Ooops, just forgot my reminder!)
Not sure what you're arguing with me about though, my point is that the GOP is at a big disadvantage in this and future presidential contests.
Whoa, ya think?
(Damn, did it again.)
"You do realize that this took place in Britain, right?"
I missed that but the same thing happened in Minnesota last year. I thought it was the same case.
AA is a swing voter, who has voted for and is open to voting for moderate Republicans for President.
I'm a swing voter, who has voted for and is open to voting for moderate Democrats for President. Unfortunately, Jim Webb dropped out and Hillary is swinging to the left of Bernie Sanders.
What is a voter like me to do?
Anybody who watched the Democratic Debate had to notice how non-moderate the Democrats are right now.
MayBee said...
Anybody who watched the Democratic Debate had to notice how non-moderate the Democrats are right now.
10/27/15, 2:52 PM
Sorry but that just CAN'T be! We are repeatedly told by everybody that is anybody that the Democrats in this race are "mainstream", are moderate and that it is the Republicans that are extreme! It must be so and anyone that says otherwise is a neo-Nazi, fascist, gun loving, racist, meat eating, homophobic, trans hating, rapist, reactionary, anti-immigration, puppy hating, bigot. It just MUST be so! I read it on the internet...
"A weird party that normal people won't take seriously" is what I see when I see Hillary supported by the Dems. Go figure. And people take that lying corruptocrat Hillary pretty seriously, which is amazing to me.
@MayBee
I'm a swing voter, who has voted for and is open to voting for moderate Democrats for President. Unfortunately, Jim Webb dropped out and Hillary is swinging to the left of Bernie Sanders.
What is a voter like me to do?
Tough call. I always liked Webb, Zell Miller, even Joe Lieberman on some things. If they were the face of the Democrat party, I'd probably still be a Democrat.
I'd suggest you vote for a more moderate Republican in the primary, like Rubio.
An interesting question for the Prof would be: If the election was tomorrow, and was between 1.)Clinton and Carson or 2.)Clinton and Republican X how do you think you would vote, and why?
I think the real questions are HOW and WHY are Carson and Trump at the top? I guess I sort of get why Trump is since he makes a lot of noise and such but Carson is a very green candidate. I mean like, yikes! green. I find it tough to believe that the establishment is hated so much by the GOP voters [or poll takers] that Carson would be on top. Are Rubio and Bush THAT bad? Really?
Ann faces the problem any lawyer faces, more so in my experience with clients who are not paying for the lawyer's services, when bringing bad news to a client. She identifies a problem and appraises the client of the problem and its likely, unpalatable outcome. The client explodes in rage because she is supposed to be representing him and how dare she tell him he might be in serious trouble.
@Matt
I think the real questions are HOW and WHY are Carson and Trump at the top?
A combination of factors:
1. A significant portion of GOP voters are mad at the establishment
2. The other 17 candidates are splintering their vote
3. Both Carson & Trump are extremely successful men in their fields (surgery, development), which is attractive to a lot of people.
I agree with Bay Area Guy.
I don;t know who I will vote for. I want to see how they do. I was a Walker guy but he is out.
Anybody is better than the Democrats Aaron Burr in a pants suit.
With the normal candidates crumpling, you're left with a weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously.
Oh Ann! You're so cute when you're totally oblivious! This party has been weird for decades. And probably for decades before that. They were weird when Buckley promised to banish them of the "kooks" that usually prevail amongst them. They were weird before that, when they wanted - oh so badly - to bring down FDR. They were weird ever since they ran another guy against Teddy Roosevelt.
And they were weird despite how genteel Mr. Reagan tried to make the rest of them seem. All the while, his soft, nearly senile but still somehow reassuring voice, yet just cranky enough against the crumbling threat of Soviet, imperialist totalitarianism, just barely audible above the throng of wackiness supporting him as they clamored for school prayer, state control of a woman's uterus, a neglect of infrastructure and of the poor. Wacky, kooky priorities that they think will save them today (and with a heavy dose of American Military Global Government to boot) - no matter how many Americans want nothing to do with that.
So they run on personalities. Did you actually think they could run on policies! Ha hah aha. That's why Jedediah is cooked. The policies no longer sell! Better get a treacly sweet guy (who doesn't mind you getting gunned down) or a belligerent billionaire to run the show. These are the split personalities of the Republican party. The policies no longer matter to them.
But they do to the people.
Oh well. I'm sure you'll find some way to keep deluding yourself into finding a way to further dumb down and tune out the intellectually bankrupted policy discussion on the right. Somehow, just somehow! Republicans can win yet another one on tactics and irrelevant personal attacks/paeans alone! We can hope!
Way to go, Michael K! Making the case for a campaign based on whether Muslims should sell pork! You go, girl. Saving Western civilization without any of your fellow American ingrates realizing it! Someday America will thank you for making the country safe for pork again. The country will make a statue out of you holding up a hock of Honeybaked ham. Immortalized forever in bronze for the priorities that will save America.
We are in odd times in this country...
Which is a great case for voting in one of those oddballs from the Republican party.
"Vote Republican! An oddball in office to steer the course in odd times."
I can see it now.
So winning.
The argument Althouse makes rests on a notion of "weirdness". But she has yet to come up with an argument that shows why a great number of moderates in the middle will not consider Hillary to be "weird", very "weird".
That's what I see down the road, and nobody who's complaining about my telling you that is saying anything that makes me think the situation is going to get better for Republicans.
Why not? The actual vote happens in little over a year. The Presidential election cycle is ridiculously drawn out, considering how much faster and strong information flow can be today. The best that can be said about Hillary's committee appearance is that she didn't look mentally impaired. Because that was an improvement over recent performance everybody treats it as a win. That's pretty shaky ground to be on.
Trump's shtick wears thin over time as well. Carson is currently the beneficiary of that I think. Carson wouldn't be my first choice, but the head-in-the-ground Dems are fooling themselves if they think the public will buy the commonly-hurled insults when directed his way. He's not an idiot. He's not corrupt. He isn't beholden to any special interests. It will be interesting in a disgusting sort of way to see the Democrats get all racist on him. (See: Clarence Thomas.) Still, he's massively underqualified, which will hurt him with responsible voters.
I don't think Jeb will bounce back; the only big negative about him is his name, but frankly I'm tired of dynastic politics. If the Kennedy, Bush, and Clinton clans never produced another national-stage politician for the rest of my lifetime I'd die a little happier.
Trump's end-game is to run as an Independent and siphon off enough votes to assure Hillary!'s election. Hillary!'s end-game is to skate on the thin ice of her past transgressions and ingrained flaws over the finish line.
In the end I don't think she can do that, and that she'll lose to Rubio or Cruz. But if she can hold it together and stay out of rehab, then she'll be our next President. And unfortunately we'll deserve it.
"...weird party that normal voters won't be able to take seriously."
sick burn
A jeb candidacy ensures a Hillary win. That is why people don't want him.
To say only Jeb is normal is ridiculous.
Hillary is not normal. she's a crook, a sociopath and a liar.
Normalizing hillary and buying into that lie just proves the believer bought the media's manipulation.
The whole idea that Carson or Rubio are oddballs compared to the power-addicted Clintons - what is that?
The media eating your brain.
@ Qwinn
The issue here is a media so craven it would make Stalin green with envy. What Republicans say and do makes no difference at all under those circumstances. You seem to think Republicans are required to overcome media bias and if they fail, that's the real problem. As if it's normal and perfectly appropriate that the media is in the tank for her, and conservatives just have to be better. ...
This
Like
Why is it that every debate is just a pack of left-leaning or full-on left faux "journalists" asking questions.
Why do democrats need a constant media crutch?
that is 'speaking truth to power' except if it's a democrats then you have the case of John Harwood,
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/27/cnbcs-john-harwood-has-no-business-moderating-a-gop-presidential-debate/
I was listening to ABC news on the radio today. It was all opinion masquerading as journalism. the opinions of the ABC "journalist" were ALL very negative on all the GOP candidates. What a surprise. Stalin would be jealous.
why would you willingly do that, not that Clear Channel is much better, they'll have a great exposition of some topic, and then at the quarter break, you have the usual minitrue bulletin.
The ONLY reason the Democrats are contenders is major media support.
That you think mainstream GOP candidates are "weird", as opposed to a kooky, unreconstructed 1960s commie/socialist whacko, or a corrupt, control freak, totalitarian, sociopathic woman says more about you than anything else.
"Immortalized forever in bronze for the priorities that will save America."
Is the evening shift at McDonalds over already ?
I think Althouse fails to see the other side of the Obama election coin. If he and/or The Harridan can get elected anyone can get elected. All bets are off since the Clinton presidency lowered the bar.
It's a year until the next election. And the country hasn't as yet begun to reap what the Obama foreign policy has sown. There will be much more bloodshed in the ME, Southwest, and East Asia. And when Americans see Europe go up in flames don't bet on those 11 million avoiding repatriation.
The Chicoms know which party will never extend confrontation in the South China Sea. I can hear the big 0 now, "so what if China controls the trade routes, so what if it violates UN treaties. It is their sphere of influence and interest, you know." Took him at least a year to send a gunship to concretely demonstrate America's commitment to open sea lanes. Why? Well maybe he's not really all that committed. The entire world has taken the measure of the "man" and proceeds accordingly.
Now he'll only have to draw a red line and we'll now for sure the shit is about to hit the fan.
Achilles said... Trump has them in a cold sweat because he would love to be the candidate that threw a former sec state in jail.
10/27/15, 12:18 PM
Oh no, absolutely not. Achilles, Trump is a friend of the Clinton's- In Celebrity speak: A Close Personal Friend. Bill and Hills came to The Donald's wedding when he married his last wife. Witness Trump slamming the GOP for the latest Benghazi hearing: Hills did awesome, very presidential, and it looked like a set-up... That's your GOP leader there. I guess with so many McCain/Graham/Kasich/Boehner-republicans these days, Trump, being a rich white man just like the progressive stereotype, seems like he is a present-day republican. But he's not a republican, he's not going to support any conservative agendas or stand up for conservative principles. He's gonna deport them out the front door, and stand there and hold the back door open- He just admitted that. He's as smug and slick a liar and as phony as Bill Clinton himself. He's as cheap and shallow and as narcissistic as Obama himself. Trump is a democrat, and god forbid, should he be elected president, he will govern like a progressive democrat and crony capitalist. Flush Trump.
"I didn't vote for her in the '08 primary. (I voted for Obama.)"
I read that as "I didn't support Hitler, I was for Stalin" Supporting the international socialist over the national socialist is Ann's default political position. That was actually a choice many good Germans were making in the 1930s.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Those who think I'm dedicated to Hillary are seriously deluded. Your delusion is part of a syndrome that is going to help her win.
Honestly Althouse. You've read the people that are likely to vote for her or Bernie here. Do you honestly think there are that many stupid people in this country? I mean c'mon. Hillary makes Trump look positively scoutlike. The Republicans have a brain surgeon for chrisakes and the dems have....................Bernie Sanders. The choice between, "I have a vagina!" and "Free Stuff!". Who votes for that shit?
Maybe the dems should recruit Rubio.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा