Have we finally reached the Tuesday that's going to end this bizarrely prolonged primary season? How soundly crushed do Bernie and Ted need to be for us to get out of this phase and onto the grisly business of choosing between 2 candidates most of us are never going to like?
I'm ready to move on to the stark reality that we've been staving off for so long. Put away your tattered dreams, America, and look at what you've done. It's Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, God help us.
How did that happen? Come, let's live in the world where we have to face that question. Put aside the denial that reeks of last year when we distracted ourselves endlessly with the thought that things that have happened can't possibly happen. Think about the Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton conflict in the context of an America where Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton happened.
I have no idea what we are to do in this place where we find ourselves, but I want to hear from people who have processed the reality that what has happened has happened. Don't waste my time with explanations of why Donald Trump cannot win. That's the sort of thing commentators have been saying for 10 months as Donald Trump been doing something new, something we've never seen before, so I don't want more assurances based on past elections about why someone like him cannot win. We haven't seen someone like him before. I don't think the commenters have begun to understand what he has done, so they are in no position to explain why he cannot do something else.
Here's Andrew Sullivan — emerging after a gloomy retreat from political commentary — to display his angry face on MSNBC and enact the old melodrama Donald Trump Is Racist and Fascist:
"He is a dangerous neofascist and he is using reality television and the media in a way that is leaving the rest of us in the dust. And it's terrifying to watch."
At least Sullivan recognizes that his defense is antiquated.
३ मे, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७६ टिप्पण्या:
Meh.. Trump vs. Hillary, it is not the end of the world. I don't understand why these two are any less than the ones that we have elected before or those that were running and squashed (or those who refuse to face reality) in the primary process. OTH, Trump would be better than Cruz or Kasich and Hillary would be better than Bernie.
Anyone who uses the word "asshole" on a television talk show has run out of ideas, and the capability of creating new ideas.
Besides that, why do they all have to talk at the same time? My hearing range isn't wide enough to selectively hear each of these morons.
Ann, I suggest you change your name to None Ofthe Above and the country will write you in by an unprecedented landslide. The Electoral College is a problem though.
Andrew Sullivan finally has a new bogeyman.
Andrew for HIllary. Andrew likes his corruption with a D after it.
On the Trump side ( note did not say Republican side) it goes to the put down and vilification of the Tea Party by the Republican elites. It just seems that for the most part the Republican that get elected turn out to be Democrats. It may be Hillary for the Dems, but remember just how far Bernie has gotten. They elect people who then turn on them too. No one is listening to the average voter on either side.
AA submits a question that I have considered: How did we get here? Trump v. Clinton.
Actually an easy answer.
For the GOP, a big minority wanted an outsider. A large field allowed Trump to take the lead. His dominance of media allowed him to win. I can't stress enough how much Trump's celebrity and the large field helped him.
For the Dems, Hillary is the inevitable. She is the historic first woman president. She is a celebrity.
But I remained convinced Biden will be the nominee. The email criminal issue is too big. At some point she is out and Obama pardons her and her entire crew.
The tired old tried and true liberal/leftist attacks are not gonna work this time. The fear from the media that they will not able to destroy Trump is palpable. Explaining away Hillary's baggage is going to be very difficult and a lot of work this time. I predict you will actually start to see some broadcast reports that are favorable to Trump.
If Sullivan doesn't want to hear himself saying "President Trump" next year then he and like-minded Democrats need to figure out how they put up a candidate that isn't either Hillary or Bernie.
Maybe if Donald Trump becomes president we'll finally find out whether the United States is really a covert military dictatorship.
Trump might be an a-hole, but Hillary is a criminal.
Andrew Sullivan is not as sharp as he used to be.
Time to ramp up production of the "Trump that Bitch!" T-shirts, hats, baby bibs and dog sweaters.
Sullivan should try strapping on a tool belt and fixing something. Or maybe standing at a backdoor with a clipboard in the rain receiving a load. Or perhaps juggling schedules of people with real commitments. He's out of touch.
"I don't think the commenters have begun to understand what he has done" True, but the Trump phenomenon is less about what he has done than about what others have and haven't done. He has gestured toward running before, and hasn't change his public persona much. What's new is how it resonates. A substantial portion of the GOP electorate wanted to express serious discontent, was sick and tired of PC restraint, and craved a form of nationalist populism rather than the usual conservative positions. Trump met that demand. The "GOPe" failed to grasp the mood of a big part of the base, did not oppose O enough, and came across as clueless and condescending, fueling the discontent. Non-Trump candidates other than Cruz ran amateurishly and scared, divided the anti-Trump opposition, and failed to take him him on for real until it was too late--not clear if it would have mattered.
Trump and Clinton are the candidate's we deserve.
chickelit said...
Sullivan should try strapping on a tool belt and fixing something. Or maybe standing at a backdoor with a clipboard in the rain receiving a load.
I think he may have, but only in sexual role-play.
"AA submits a question that I have considered: How did we get here?"
I have been Thinking about this for almost a year.
Maybe it is one manifestation of the Principle Agent Problem.
A world where Angela Merkel feels compelled to accept millions of migrants for Europe even to the detriment of Germany and where president Obama feels he can sign major international treaties with Iran without reference to Congress is an unstable world locked in a game that is no longer transparent. Who do politicians work for? It creates a world of dubious loyalties and unpredictable coalitions.
Last December, I was doubtful about his ability to get past the elites.
am not a Trump supporter but I am intrigued at the steady progress he is making toward success. I have been a fan of Angelo Codevilla’s characterization of America’s Ruling Class.
The recent collapse of Republican Congressional resistance to the left’s political agenda as noted in the surrender of Paul Ryan to the Democrats in the budget, has aggravated the Republican base and its frustration.
It is certainly an interesting year.
It's an interesting phenomena that Clinton's position as the Dem nominee is a direct result of Democrat power brokers. The Clinton Machine is effective and powerful. She only lost last time due to the perfect strom of an articulate Black man whom the media loved, a bungled appraoch to the nomination as she assumed it would be handed to her, and being Hillary, a not-inspiring persona. This time around, Bernie was not enough to overcome her poor persona and her FBI investigation, and she did not make the same mistake as last time with the primaries, so only 2 legs of the stool were in play.
Trump, winning is also due to Democrats. The disaffected Republicans are tired of the past milquetoast R candidates and the constant tearing down of thier values by the Democrats and the Media enablers. Trump proved that one does not have to sumbit to PC nonsense, and that had emboldened the bitter-clingers and all the other marginalized "racist" Americans. Additinally, there are the Dems who crossed over for Trump becuase Hillary and Bernie were tacking too far left on traditional values issues.
So, we can mostly lay the blame on Democrats for producing Hillary and Trump, but the Republican establishment let it happen.
We have learned that the primary system is not a reflection of the will of the rank and file, and it certainly not the mechanism for producing the most effective managers, just the people who are the best at all the worst things needed for good governance.
We got here in spite of all the mockery of Trump and Hillary. Bono, Dilbert, and The Prof believe that mockery deflates insanity. Maybe not.
Short of citizenship for all the illegals living here in Texas, I will not vote for Trump and be at peace with my conscience. Hillary can't win my state! Thank God for voter ID!
Trump's success has forced me to confront that most/many Republicans don't have the commitment I do to limited government and free markets. I share the frustration that the political class seems to be in the game for power and prestige (and probably money) instead of principle. Trump's success tells me that frustration is greater and more widely spread than I realized and even stronger with others than with me.
I am appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency. But not as appalled as I am with the prospect of a Hillary one. A few election cycles ago, I criticized the GOP candidate for something, and a relative wondered whether I would vote for the Democrat. I promised I would vote for the Republican candidate for so long as he was short of Lucifer incarnate. I still hold that view, not from any commitment to the GOP as such but from aversion to the leftism of the Democrats. Experience since that exchange has deepened my conviction.
We did get here, didn't we? I remember Ann commenting on one of David Axelrod's first performances as press secretary with "God help us all". That has been my mantra for these 7 dark years. We have drastically decreased the competence of government to carry out its tasks while increasing the role government plays. The institutions cannot do their job. Both parties appear to be incompetent. The Democratic coalition of children, minorities, unions, single women, graduate degree holders, and welfare recipients (including government employees) is showing such strain that the only person capable of holding it together is the aesthetic disaster and criminal that is Hillary, while political correctness and demographics has knocked the Republicans back on their heals. Celebrities are staking out positions on bathroom access! The regime has disappointed its constituency and enraged its "enemies". The center cannot hold.
Chris Clizza of WaPo shows how easy it is for Hillary to win this in the Electoral College. She wins the West Coast, North East and FL.
Pettifogger said I promised I would vote for the Republican candidate for so long as he was short of Lucifer incarnate.
"Lyin Ted!"
Boehner will drink to that...(maybe a bit of text too)
The thing is, whoever wins will be presiding over the economic collapse of the US.
We are currently running a $500 billion deficit, adding to a $19 Trillion debt, and a $102 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities.
Puerto Rico is set to fail even before the election.
Pettifogger:
"Trump's success has forced me to confront that most/many Republicans don't have the commitment I do to limited government and free markets."
No, they don't. And not just rank-and-file Republicans, but elected officials, who are split between those who genuinely believe in limited government and free markets, and those who are just fine with a meddlesome and growing federal government as long as they're the ones running it.
I can't really blame the Trumpsters for looking at that latter group, and saying, You're asking me to do without government help. Not your buddies, but me. To hell with you.
That's not a defense of shades-wearing-douchebag's performance yesterday, of which I am sure he is very proud.
I lost all respect for anything Andrew Sullivan had to say when he went ballistic on the Palin family accusing them of covering up the real maternity of Trig, the baby with Down Syndrome. He's a bigger asshole than Trump.
His neofascist accusation is just panicked hyperbole.
David Begley said...
AA submits a question that I have considered: How did we get here?
I blame 'strategic' voting.
Trump's appeal is less about increasing income inequality and more about decreasing income mobility.
Some great insights in this article.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/trump-vs-the-new-class/
Hillary benefits, as most Dem presidential candidates do, from the demonization of Republicans. No matter who the Dem is running against, the alternative is always portrayed as the nuttiest right winger in the history of nutty right wingers. The thinking is pretty much "This is how Nazi Germany started, so yeah, Hillary sucks but she's better than the alternative." Even when the candidate is a well-known moderate (McCain, Romney), he's portrayed as a dangerous wacko. So Dems hold their nose and pull the lever for candidates like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.
Trump: Republican voters in the last two elections preferred having Obama is president to voting for establishment, moderate candidates. if they were liberals and had pulled the same thing going back to 2008, Bernie Sanders would have the Dem nomination tied up right now. The type of true believer they want (Cruz, Rand Paul, Santorum, etc.) doesn't have a chance in a general election but they vote their conscience, for better or worse.
Now they get Trump, who is likely to govern as a moderate Republican, at best. I'm not sure they really care. I think he has a lot of support from people who don't normally vote Republican, or maybe who don't vote at all, and I think his support among conservatives is a more about giving a middle finger to the GOP establishment than any delusion that he's going to go to bat for them.
As for me, I sat the primary out and will sit out the general election as well. Have fun, suckers!
The media won't allow an open election, where candidates are evenly vetted based on their qualifications and plans if elected.
This is the result. Not a surprising outcome of Obama being elected twice.
How did this happen? Are you kidding? Our society has devolved to a point where "trigger words" send young adults fleeing for "safe spaces" to hide. Or to pick up on a recurring obsession with this site, where the self indulgent, adolescent musings of Lena Dunham merit commentary. In other words, we've become unhinged from reality so we tune into an erzatz reality. Ergo, Trump and Clinton.
This is what happens after we begin to think like children...we begin to act like children, bleating the never ending refrain of "I want, I want, give me, give me". Volo ergo sum.
When I hear an American candidate say things like:
"The State is but a vessel & it is the People that fills it."
or
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
then I'll start worrying about "neofascism".
When I do hear phrases like the above, there will be a better than even chance I'll be hearing them out of the mouth of a Democrat.
It's interesting that Glenn Reynolds' column today about the collapse of complex societies, links to a book that is ten years old and still very high priced.
That suggests to me that people are reading it and the message resonates in Obama's America.
Richard Fernandez, as usual, is on the case.
Sooner or later it would come to grief, which it duly did.
The same calculation must apply to the giant bureaucracies that pretend to rule the world. At first glance there is nothing seemingly more formidable than the interlocking shield wall of public institutions and public sector unions. One writer argued that JFK was "the real killer of Laquan McDonald" because he first authorized public employee unions and "police unions make it impossible to get rid of bad-apple cops". Camelot had created a Frankenstein monster able to run roughshod over everything.
Yet it's a monster which just can't seem to do much. For example the Washington Metro, the pride of the nation's capital, is collapsing. Once "it was a rail system of the future. Then, reality set in."
Nothing the government does works anymore. World War II was messy and wasteful but we won. We lost Vietnam and, thanks to Obama, we also lost Iraq.
It's almost amusing to see Obama boast about our energy independence when fracking was opposed by all right thinking leftists, including Obama.
I think we may be past the inflection point but maybe Trump will pull off a miracle.
Well, one of the two will have to lose, and when they do, everyone can look squarely at their fans and boosters and enablers and say "despite [Trump/Hillary] being woefully corrupt and unqualified and widely despised, you managed to nominate the one person that voters judged worse--you blew your chance."
No one will accept that now--they all think their guy/girl is inevitable, but someone will be in for a rude awakening.
How did it happen? For the Dems, it was institutional rot that allowed them to settle on such a nothing candidate and clear the field for her. For the GOP, it was an inability to settle on an alternative while the party is so fractured. Cruz fans and Kasich fans and Bush fans and Paul fans could not coalesce around a single candidate, so Trump had an opening, helped by compliant media and an out-of-control Left that created a backlash.
Trump is reflective of the culture-- more polarized, cruder, more influenced by style than substance and angry.
Given Trump's proclamations of executive fiat on issues like immigration and security, there would be one upside to his election. The Supreme Court would suddenly find new reasons to tamp down executive overreach and strike a new balance between the legislative branch-- of course at the expense of increased Court power, so that tempers one's enthusiasm a bit.
I'll support Trump, try and convince my co-workers that he will have positive benefits (mostly from the argument that he can't be any worse than a Clinton presidency)-- but as many problems as the country faces the election is about the political balance of the Supreme Court.
I'm trusting Trump's promise to appoint a conservative justice. With a Hillary election the court will swing even more sympathetic to a unilateral executive-- especially when the decisions are progressive/socialist in nature.
This election season has been the best Especially the GOP side. The networks have made so much money off the debates. Each state feels they actually have input including California. The journolists have had unending election coverage of the race, And it has been a real race. Tension over all these months.
Now we get also possible tension that the nominating convention may become real nominating conventions.
Now as to Trump versus Clinton. That I have expected for over 9 months. He will win and then we get years of thinking how terrible he is.
As to racist and fascist We in the conservationist , Tea Party and the GOP have been accused of that so much it really has no effect . IT frees people to be real racists and fascists since the shame is nothing anymore.
The Democrats have pushed identity politics and racist divisive politics so much that when that gets adopted by whites and others The Democrats will regret started that battle.
We live in interesting times
This just in: Donald Trump faked Sarah Palin's pregnancy.
coupe:
500 billion deficit is a lie. The year-over-year debt increase is over a trillion.
Accounting gimmicks cannot change reality.
Will the True Conservatives please stop bleating about free markets, as if Trump Supporters don't care about liberty and common sense economics?
The whole point, and Trump says this repeatedly, is that free trade is great, but it has to be fair, and you have to have cunning leaders who won't let it be taken advantage of.
Do any of you truecons actually think we have free trade with China? You ignore the problem in favor of doctrine, as if China will suddenly see the light and stop robbing our industry blind.
I get the endless arguments about how free global trade helps profit margins and lowers prices, but what if, God forbid, war did break out, and our manufacturing is mostly in other countries?
You say Trump is dangerous. You're projecting. Your naive, idealistic fantasies are dangerous. A pragmatist like Trump is exactly what we need right now. It's time for the professional talkers to sit down and shut up. You have failed.
Farmer, 10:16:
"No matter who the Dem is running against, the alternative is always portrayed as the nuttiest right winger in the history of nutty right wingers."
My sister, who used to be conservative and has gone angry left, posted to Facebook a picture of Barry Goldwater, captioned with some lines from him in the 90s warning about what a bunch of nuts had taken over the Republican party.
As a rule I stay far from politics on Facebook, but I made an exception to post the 1964 little-girl-picking-flower-petals commercial in response.
Bret Baier had a Labour Member of Parliament on his show and it struck me that on trade, the lady was way right of either the Democrat or the Republican Congressional establishments.
I think these comprehensive "free trade" agreements between blocs of nations must really mean big-time opportunities for graft.
("Free trade" is free trade between individuals (including corporate "individuals); "Free Trade" organized by governments, not to mention organizaions of governments, is a contradiction in terms.)
So we have a NEO-Communist versus a NEO-Facist. That's the race. In reality, they're both crony-capitalists. It seems to me we're ripe third party run right down the middle - maybe even the liberty middle.
Donald Trump could quite easily win. Before you take any current polls to heart, consider how poorly they've done in some of the primaries this year already. Additionally, consider that with all the invective - and actual violence - shown by his opponents, many people who will support him simply don't care to tell anyone about it.
Donald Trump isn't being supported because he's racist. For one thing, all the reports by people who actually know him and work for him are that he's NOT racist and supports women, "people of color", etc. in his enterprises. No, he's being supported because he wants to actually enforce the immigration laws - which is NOT racist - and the GOP, which claimed it would in order to win the 2014 mid-terms, then proceeded to fail to do so.
Of course, a failure of politicians to do what they promised they'd do when they got into office is why we're seeing Sen. Sanders as well. People have figured out that the main mission of the Establishment in both parties is to rule, not serve, and to preserve their own positions.
Jeopardy Tournament of Teachers is on. Last night I was struck by the teachers on the show being struck dumb by quite basic questions on American and world history; whether ancient or quite recent.
If Star Trek was real, Donald Trump would be trying to strike deals with the Ferengi. He is not a racist.
The baseball writer Bill James had this nailed back in 1999. That year Rafael Palmeiro won the Gold Glove for best defensive American League first baseman. This was despite the fact that he was hurt most of the season and only played 28 games in the field (out of a possible 162). Therefore, he was clearly not the best first baseman in the American League, and, for that matter, not the best first baseman on his own team. To quote the The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract:
The Gold Glove is decided by what could be called an unconstrained plurality, meaning:
1. A voter can vote for anybody.
2. If the top vote-getter gets 15% of the vote, he wins, the same as if he had received 80%.
A voting structure like this is an open invitation to an eccentric outcome. If the United States were to use a system like this to elect the President, the absolute certain result would be that , within a few elections, someone like David Duke, Donald Trump, or Warren Beatty would be elected President.
Normally the primaries are not an unconstrained plurality, but the there were too many Republican candidates so Trump could win big in states where he only had 30%-40% of the vote. By the time the field winnowed, he had a big lead. If it was Cruz and Trump or Rubio and Trump or Kasich and Trump, Trump almost certainly loses. Well, maybe not Kasich.
(In the case of Palmeiro, the problem was the voters were extremely lazy, so they just voted for whomever won last year. First base is a difficult position to gauge defense since there are essentially no numbers.)
It is difficult to take Sullivan's opinion of Trump the Fascist seriously. He supported Obama who thinks the Rule of Law is an inconvenience. The current President is a proto-fascist so I'm not sure why he would be shocked.
Hillary's support and opposition is baked in. It won't change. To your question yesterday on whether we want the new and exciting or the safe and old, I think that's up to Trump. As in, this election is not Trump vs. Hillary, but Trump vs. not Trump.
Can Trump convince people who don't want to vote for him that he's stable enough not to be a thorough disaster? If yes, then he will win. If no, then Hillary will be awarded the oval office by default.
People talk about that WW II started when Hitler, whom they absurdly compare to Trump, got into power in Germany.
Reflect on how WW II ended - with 10,000's and 100,000 of 18 - 22 year old young men storming beaches in France and dying like flies so that the survivors could engage in warfare across Europe to defeat his army. Can you really see the children of today doing that? The ones who need to cower in a hole to protect their sensitive psyches when a conservative speaker comes to their campus? How will those people EVER become functioning adults?
How did we get here with Trump?
1) Telling people that Carbon is a pollutant.
2) Turning our Universities into censorship centers of the left
3) Shoving political correctness down everyone’s throat for the last 25 years
4) Accusing millions of people who aren’t racist, of being racist.
5) Accusing millions of men who love their wives, daughters, and mothers of being sexist.
6) Applying feminist protection to only women of the left.
7) John Roberts
8) Wars that didn’t work.
9) Maintaining a purposefully porous border so Dems could import cheap votes and business cheap labor.
10) The arrogance of the Media.
11) The damage done to our children’s (millennial) generation through a warped public education system, and the massive debt required to attend bloated universities.
12) Ending the dynasty of both the Bush and Clinton families.
13) The absolute shocked look on the Gov’t face (Clintons and Bush 43) when the housing market crashed by making banks loan large sums of money to people who could/would never pay it back.
14) Paul Ryan and Republicans preaching the national debt was out of control and doing NOTHING to fight for its diminishment.
15) The View
16) Passing an ‘affordable’ care act, that isn’t affordable.
17) Hyperbole
Last summer when Trump started calling out people as douchebags, it worked because they are actually douchebags. It had such a ring of truth.
In many ways Trump the sanest person in the field. At least we can see his wealth. Not all of it is perfect, but at least there are buildings to show for it. Unlike Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Al Gore, and the Clintons who have spent their lives in ‘public service’ and you can’t see a damn thing they’ve ever sold other than influence.
Trump is a ‘fuck all ya’ll’ vote. Feels like it’s about time.
And don’t kid yourself. The panic is because Trump can win. Good.
In many other times, a Trump would have been sidelined early, but a lot of conditions came together to enable his rise this cycle.
1) Economic insecurity. China has a near inexhaustible supply of cheap labor. Companies can relocate manufacturing at will and automation continues apace. Manual labor jobs are being taken by illegal immigrants. None of that spells security, and so people are open to a hail Mary pass.
2) Republican civil war. The last presidential loss was a death knell for the argument of playing it safe. Technological isolation means we block ourselves off from those completely different from us and fight over small differences with our allies.
3) Cheerleader effect. We thought we had a great field of Republicans this cycle. If we averaged things out and took the best qualities from each candidate, sure. Individually, there was no one without deep, exploitable flaws.
4) Assuming history would repeat a third time. The successful strategy of the last two cycles was a kind of last man standing approach where you played reasonably nice at let the early fighters take each other out. That strategy was played by Cruz and Rubio, but it merely made those two among the last credible candidates to be eliminated.
5) Obama's "America is the problem" ideology. To the extent that elections are correctives to the problems of the prior administration, Trump most emotionally counters the Obama years.
6) Trump is interesting. Being a reality TV star without a filter means the media cannot help but give Trump hours upon hours of exposure each day.
7) Trump has the "every man" appeal. Trump's doesn't come across as overly smart and his motivations don't seem lofty. His supporters don't feel looked down upon, and that is an increasing issue as our society stratifies.
That's not even all of it, and most of those things will still be in effect when he goes up against Hillary.
As to Hillary, the Democrats nominated and the country elected a man twice who is extremely divisive and thinks the Constitution is a speed bump. Frankly, Hillary is an upgrade.
Hey..the "Fuck all ya’ll" T-shirt might outsell "Trump that Bitch!"
It wasn't so certain that Trump would lose the nomination before, and it isn't so certain he will win now. The odds have changed, but it is not over, because at most Donald Trump looks like he might clear 1237 by only a small margin, and that means also he could get less than expected later. It isn't quite over.
Interestingly, CBS This Morning said today that while before it looked like the Republican Party might have a contested convention, now it's more likely now the Democratic Party will have one.
How did it happen?
We have rules where it is difficult for new candidates to jump in in the middle of a race, and it is too easy for candidates to drop out. Even though there were a lot of candidates, there still were not enough and even though they didn't drop out so fast, they still dropped out.
And the biggest thing was there was no way to draft someone, or to vote Uncommitted in a way that meant None of the Above (with a definite point of view)
And there was no strong competition in the Democratic Party. It really is a hard sell for a candidate so far to the left as Bernie Sanders to carry all the anti-or non-Hillary vote. Still, there's a little hope, should he win California by a large margin. He might even start winning again today. At least he might make it look contested and force Hillary to pick a more probably non-criminal vice president.
The Republican candidates besides Donald Trump really weren't that good. Cruz had nothing going for him besides being a more moderate or squishy Donald Trump and that didn't work. Ted Cruz also did not defer to Kasich east of the Mississippi. Another thing is that Rubio dropped out after losing Florida. He was doing very well in other east coast states. Kasich barely won Ohio and only because of strategic voting.
But I still don't say it is over. What can save the Republican Party from Trump is John Kasich winning the New Jersey primary without the distraction of Ted Cruz. While New Jersey is also a closed primary state, like all the east coast states that voted on April 19 and April 26, indepedents can change their registration to a party registration at the polls, according to this site:
http://voteforbernie.org/
The Republican Party also isn't so small in New Jersey. But opposition to Donald Trump would have to be intense.
We also have yet to see the possibility of third party candidates, and how they will do ina general election. It needs to be fairly prominent mainstream figure.
The Republican Party can still split into Cruz (or alternative) and Trump camps with no candidate being on all 50 state ballots. It might depend also on a careful selection of states. The election might then be thrown into the House of Representatives.
I don't think you can say that all the craziest or surprising things have yet happened in this election.
Personally, I'm looking forward to Whitehouse spokeperson Andrea Tantoras.
http://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Purple6/v4/2d/fb/ec/2dfbecdd-3017-5731-9388-a18a674899f9/mzl.gwdzfulr.png
It will be yuuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggge!
Not everyone is benefiting from free trade and unlimited low-skilled immigration. Those people are usually also the people getting killed the endless wars we now seem to be engaged in (or their kids.)
The response of from the people who do benefit from those things and whose kids aren't getting killed or maimed to democratize cultures were child rape is sanctioned?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3205551/Decorated-Green-Beret-kicked-U-S-Special-Forces-shoving-Afghan-police-officer-raped-boy-12-beat-mother-reported-crime.html
"Bunch of losing losers. I wish they would take their meth and die!"
Usually delivered with a huge dose of condescension from people who flatter themselves as being the enlightened ones as they eagerly exploit Mexicans and Chinese and the peasants in every other 3rd world country they can.
Their response when queried about a more equitable deal? Bromides about comparative advantage and assurances that the people who are undercutting their wages will, one day, learn to vote to keep in power the people who are screwing both groups over.
Predicting that a populist would arise in this situation was equivalent to predicting that if you release a rock in midair, it will drop to the ground.
98% of people, maybe even 99%, who use the word "fascist" have no idea what it means. They have no idea of the socialist ideology of Mussolini's Italian Fascist Party (note the caps)
There should be a ban on the use of the word unless the user has at least read Mussolini's 1936 book "The Doctrine of Fascism". It's available online for free and should not take anyone more than an hour or so to read.
There are other books written contemporaneously that will explain what Fascism is. Or even a bio of Mussolini. There are several good ones.
Once you have investigated what Fascism was, then, and only then, can you tell me Donald Trump is a fascist or neo-fascist or any other kind of fascist.
Otherwise, STFU.
And if you do still want to call Trump a fascist, I will expect you to explain how he is a fascist.
John Henry
Could be Drudge and Breitbart being so deep in the TrumpTank helped.
Andrew Sullivan A/K/A Rawmuslglutes?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010606105110/milkyloads.tripod.com/bareback/index.html
That Andrew Sullivan?
NSFW
John Henry
I think a lot of Trump's success is due to him being the only one who did not appear to be in constant fear of saying the wrong thing. I don't know if this is some grand strategy he cooked up from the start, something he lucked into because he started the campaign not expecting it to go very far, thus had nothing to lose, or if that is a fundamental part of his personality and he could not have campaigned any other way.
Where is Yogi Berra when the country so desperately needs an update to his immortal, "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Maybe something like, "Can't we vote against them both?"
Hagar said...
I think these comprehensive "free trade" agreements between blocs of nations must really mean big-time opportunities for graft.
I can't think of a better reason for the "agreements" to be "secret".
I find myself reflecting on the fact that eras of enlightened government are rare in the human epoch. An era of enlightened democratic leadership is not more likely than an era of enlightened monarchy, and may even be more rare, as succeeding generations of politicians grub for treasure at public expense.
I am sickened as I contemplate Trump vs. Clinton. Disaster or disaster. I am more sickened that I live among a plurality of people who can possibly be pleased by either choice. I wish Texas would go ahead and secede. I have lost my taste for what the United States has become.
How did that happen?
How did this happen? Golly gee, how did this happen?
Where's the mystery? It was entirely predictable. And yet some people - like Andrew Sullivan, that silly ass - would rather double-down on the stupidest "explanations" available than hold themselves and their ideas responsible for any of it. The West has been living in an ideological fantasyland for the last half-century.
Does anyone else notice how "dumber and dumber" all the bien-pensants are sounding? It's been trending that way for years, but it's really striking now. Not just panties-in-a-twist, not just hysterical, not just flailing and butthurt, not just "out of ideas", as coupe correctly notes above, but flat-out uninformed and unintelligent? High-school-essay depth of understanding and analysis. I realize that punditry is not a calling for the world's deepest thinkers, but geez, people.
Blogger Hagar said...
Jeopardy Tournament of Teachers is on. Last night I was struck by the teachers on the show being struck dumb by quite basic questions on American and world history; whether ancient or quite recent.
That is because most teachers in the US go to Schools of Education. There they learn how to teach math but no math. They learn how to teach English but no English. There they learn how to teach science but no science. And so on.
Ed schools are mostly for folks that can't get into community colleges.
The amazing thing is that as bad as our teacher education system is the teachers that come out of it are not worse than they are.
John Henry
"Put away you tattered dreams, America, and look at what you've done." Now even Ann is unconsciously emulating Hillary, lapsing into Ebonics dialect to address her blogging public. Ann Althouse: keeping it real in da house.
Two choices can both be bad but they both cannot be worse. There are a lot of safeguards and redundancies built into the system. I don't think either candidate will take America over the cliff......,,Trump appears to be the riskier candidate. He's capable of taking the turn too fast and rolling the car. Hillary appears to be the safer candidate in that she will pull the car to the side of the road, put the hood up, and watch as the air leaks out of the tires. From appearances, she looks to be the safer candidate, but such appearances are deceiving. She is a serial murderer who will kill anyone who pulls off to help her. She will drug and poison him. Then she will chop up his body and pickle and poison his dismembered body. Then she will feed that dismembered, poisoned body to the poor man's children. Then after his children have died, she will kill the kids' little puppy......All things considered, I think Trump is the better choice, but he's far from optimum.
ARM said ...
I blame 'strategic' voting.
Funniest thing ARM has posted here. Well played.
Blogger Fernandinande said...
I can't think of a better reason for the "agreements" to be "secret".
The problem is that they are not "free trade" treaties. We don't need any treaties for free trade. Anytime there is a treaty, it means non-free trade.
And if it is a secret treaty, just bend over, grab your ankles and hope they at least have the decency to use a little bit of spit first.
BOHICA
John Henry
RonF:
"Can you really see the children of today doing [what had to be done to win WWII]?"
Yes, I can.
"The ones who need to cower in a hole to protect their sensitive psyches when a conservative speaker comes to their campus?"
No, not them. Other children of today, who you don't see in the news, who are disciplined, yet creative; determined, and too busy to engage in the tantrums that have you worried.
I won't ask you to trust me, but I know plenty of them, in the Army and in academia (I am lucky enough to straddle the two). I give thanks for them.
I want to see the three eat the same cheesesteak sandwich while answering questions.
Time for some clarifying metrics.
Oops..that sounds like sharing a sandwich...eating their own.
And don't get me wrong - there's so much stupid out there, I'm tempted to despair. But I resist the temptation to ascribe it to the children of today, as there's enough to make any group look bad if you zero in and start singling out examples.
eLocke: Funniest thing ARM has posted here. Well played.
Second. ARM has been on a droll-roll lately.
"Sloppy John!"
We have been due for a political realignment ever since Obama was elected. You have to start in 2008. Any Democrat would have beaten any Republican that year. I blame that on Bush for a variety of reasons but different subject.
Obama was elected in 2008. He said everything progressives wanted to hear. Then he shoved obamacare through in 2010. His own party didn't want it. Obamacare makes everyone unhappy. Conservatives won a landslide in off year elections.
The largest majorities Republicans had in centuries. And nothing happened. Nothing changed. Obama got his budgets passed. Obamacare was implemented in the most pathetic and failed ways possible. Remember the website fiasco? Repeal of obamacare polls above 60%.
2012. Obamacare is massively unpopular. People have started losing their insurance. The Healthcare markets are an absolute failure. What do the Republicans do? What does the GOPe do?
They force the nomination of Mitt Romney. The guy who wrote, passed, and implemented obamacare.
The base clearly wanted anyone else. The donors spent obscene amounts in a primary trashing every other candidate. This was the pivotal event. The NRO was calling all the newt supporters the same names as they call trump supporters today.
Then Mitt lost.
We gave them majorities in the house and Senate again in 2014. Continuing resolutions. Iran treaty. Gang of 8.
Now the realignment is here and Trump is giving voice to it. This is America First vs. Globalism. The new political reality is hillary represents open borders, big banks and corporate self interest. Hillary is the poster child for DC insiders. She has the added bonus of voting for every war in the last 2 decades.
Democrats are going to lose a lot of blue collar voters. They are going to pick up the neocons. Of all of the defining issues you could pick it will be TPP that most clearly divides the 2 parties.
We got here because elitists went full Nietzsche on everything. Why be concerned with facts when reality cannot be truly known and everything is merely the sum of empty perceptions?
JPS, I hope you are 100% correct.
Gusty Winds:
Your list is mostly okay with me, with just a few dubious exceptions.
The thing that I want clear, is that of your legitimate complaints, about 98% of them are laid squarely at the feet of Democrats, and the people who have done the most work and the best work to articulate the countering arguments are the same principled reform conservatives who are leading the Anti-Trump campaign.
Anglelyne said...
High-school-essay depth of understanding and analysis.
Unfair characterization! Many students, such as myself, copied their HS essays from the finest sources.
Achilles:
You really need to tell me who the best Republican nominee in 2012 should have been.
Mike Huckabee?
Ron Paul?
Meet Gingrich?
Rick Santorum?
Turns out Cruz's father was friends with Oswald, and fled to Canada...
"Newt"
Auto-correct needs to die.
coupe said...
Turns out Cruz's father was friends with Oswald, and fled to Canada...
Then all his children are guilty as hell.
I'm a Californian, so it doesn't matter who I vote for. Clinton will carry the state. Sanders might carry the state, if a miracle happens and he gets the nomination. And there's no way I'd vote for either Clinton or Trump. I expect I'll vote for the Libertarian nominee; that's what I did in 2012.
I'm inclined to think that neither "fascist" nor even "nationalist" captures what Trump is running on. He looks to me to be a populist, in the vein of Andrew Jackson or William Jennings Bryan. The nationalism is a phase of the populism rather than a primary. Of course that's not praise; I consider Jackson in the running for most unspeakable US president ever, ahead of FDR and neck and neck with Wilson.
But anyway, while the outcome is probably Clinton vs. Trump, my choices as a voter are not so limited.
Hil had a classic Clintonian moment with the rightsized coal miner. Depends on what the meaning of "out of work" means.
"Aides said they knew coming to the region could produce tough conversations like this one, but felt it was important to address this issue head-on."
Uh..yeah... More like head on a platter.
If only Donald and Hillary could make a pact to take the month of August off. We get to enjoy our summer, and they can return on Labor Day spray-tanned, rested and ready for two months of unmitigated nastiness.
"Turns out Cruz's father was friends with Oswald, and fled to Canada..."
It'll be so nice to have a president who gets his news from the National Enquirer. I hope he forms a task force to help find the Amazing Bat Boy!
"But anyway, while the outcome is probably Clinton vs. Trump, my choices as a voter are not so limited."
We blue staters can take solace that our votes don't really matter, so you can just go with any choice you like and not worry about helping one or the other win. Just sit back and watch the next four years of hilarious incompetence and disappointed supporters.
Rusty said...Then all his children are guilty as hell.
Only the natural born Canadian citizen ones.
" 'He is a dangerous neofascist....' "
This is perfect; just perfect.
For decades post-WWII American Conservatives have been protesting that Hitler was as much of a Progressive Socialist as any of the Left's heroes; now we get to look forward to going through it all over again with Donald Trump.
Hopefully there will be a very low turnout. Neither of them deserve any sort of mandate.
(I continue to believe that t least one of them won't be the nominee, maybe both.)
I never worry about my vote in Presidential elections. Turns out they never even open the absentee ballots unless there is a tie.
Since I maintain a residence in Oregon I can keep my Oregon drivers license, and car plates (save beaucoup bucks); although it does strangle my vote.
Not to worry though, as I'm on welfare (military pension and social security). Why vote when everyone wants to throw money at you?
Well, as I see it, we are faced with the choice of voting to become a corrupt banana republic (Clinton) or voting to take a flying leap into the unknown (Trump).
It seems to me that the better choice is to take the flying leap, but a certain level of anxiety has set in, and I don't think it's going to abate.
I still preserve some hope that the Dems won't do this. The GOP will, because look at Cruz. I have to admit I would prefer Trump over Cruz. Cruz is more of a flying leap than Trump by far. Trump at least has his nose to the wind and is used to dodging disaster.
I think that if we are faced with Clinton v Trump that Trump wins, and oddly enough it is largely due to Black Lives Matter, accusation-makes-males-guilty-of-rape, microagressions, Halloween costume guidelines at the Ivies, etc. I think most adults, left and right, perceive that the the elite academic/political culture is doomed to fail, and don't want to go down with it.
I base the above theory on the reaction at Democratic Underground to various reports of such risible events. It is quite, quite negative. That's about as leftish a group as one can get.
As for Clinton, the problem is not just the corruption, although that is a very frightening problem. Her term as Sec of State also displayed a level of incompetence on the world stage that frightens me. She is supremely competent at grifting and levering power for money, but beyond that, she appears a boob.
Now, if it were Sanders v Trump I think Sanders would have a real chance.
Assuming it's over tonight and Trump is the nominee then in the November the election really is between New School Democrats-Communists and Old School Democrats-Populists. My money is on the Old School Democrat.
If Trump wins the silver lining is Clinton Crime Combine is finally purged and the Communist Wing is marginalized which one hopes produces a saner party. On the Republican side the go-along and get along gang of moderates-the more competent administrators of the Welfare State take a beating. For a guy who all to many thought started out as a joke he isn't doing all that bad. Four years of Trump shitting on the PC crowd has a value that can't be quantified but is immensely satisfying. While I'm hoping for Teddy I'm getting ready for Donnie.
Brando: I hope he forms a task force to help find the Amazing Bat Boy!
The truth..is out there. When he's found, he gets his own bathrooms.
Anyone would be an improvement over Obama so stop whining liberals and supposedly elite conservative Republicans.
All it takes is an Eidetic memory, an intellect better than a chess grand master surrounded by insanely loyal people incapable of fighting with each other because each absolutely owns their own domain because there’s no reason to pay for two when one great mind should be enough to fill any seat. Where they know they have their bosses’ absolute loyalty which they return in kind. Oh my. Where's my popcorn? This should be entertaining. Imagine that weapon turning on Ms. C, no dummy herself but too proud to ask for help. And pTb placing his best opponents into that same Gatling gun with who are too smart not to adopt the same behaviors of their new cohorts. Easy to do since your pTb has invested all that time getting to know them better than they know themselves, as he always does with new hires, even making a “Blink” decision. Better to choose wisely upfront than the 10x required to clean up later. Both establishments should grab their knees and kiss their @sses goodbye. Because that team has to take all out all the establishments now (GOPe and DEMe) to be able to make the Zealand Miracle appear here. Why invent while a solution exists? your pTb doesn't like to work that hard. Give me smart lazy generals. They are awesome. Especially when they have killer wives to distract the company I’m having an argument with. Like LBJ concluding difficult negotiations in Loo as the air gets more and more foul. With accompanying, shall we say, music, having prepared with bowl after bowl of Texas been chili with a great Texas stake the night before. Before handing out some walking-around-cash from his special safe, filled by Treasury every Monday. Great fun. Time to clean the dust out of my macroscope.
Achilles:
You really need to tell me who the best Republican nominee in 2012 should have been.
Mike Huckabee?
Ron Paul?
Meet Gingrich?
Rick Santorum?
Since it appears that you believe that the loss was inevitable. Any of them. At least then we could have had an actual debate about Obamacare.
If Romney was the "least bad option" of a bad bunch, (who I voted for by the way) then why should any voter bother supporting the Republican nominee.
Nobody supports a political party strictly on principle.
Political parties are supposed to offer some benefit to their supporters, that is represent their interests. That is how political parties work. The Democrat party stopped doing that for the working and middle-class whites, so those people moved to the Republican party because it claimed it would represent them.
However, it has become apparent that the Republican party does not represent their interests and in fact that it is disdainful of them and considers them dupes at best. So they have shifted their support to someone who at least claims to support their interests and does not look like someone has shoved a turd under his nose when he addresses them.
Shocking!
Sullivan is over the top. Yes, Trump has authoritarian tendencies, but the truly frightening fascism in America today, if that is what to call it, is coming from groups on the left that literally seek to shut down free speech and political action. Not just on college campuses, but in the administrative system (destruction of due process when it comes to sexual harassment cases), the effort to stifle climate change skeptics via suits and federal intimidation, to BLM demonization, to actual thuggery by ANTI-Trump protesters. I revile Trump myself - and Ted Cruz as well. But I know of very few instances on the right where actual ability to even speak one's mind is not only thwarted by mob protests, but is celebrated.
"On the Republican side the go-along and get along gang of moderates-the more competent administrators of the Welfare State take a beating." Why? Drumpf is in favor of keeping entitlements and raising taxes. As far as I know, he has expressed no criticism of the welfare state at all. Of course, he also favors amnesty; once they get around the wall, the Dem-lite and GOPe should get along fine.
At least Cruz will be able to tend to his many mistresses...
As for what Trump has done, as you claim, it isn't much. Trump is where he is because of two things - sales skills and reality perception.
To understand Trump one must merely view the brass balls clip from Glengarry Glen Ross four or five times. Attention, Interest, Decision, Action. Always Be Closing. That's what you are seeing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H68eCEWKb7M
What Trump is selling is the promise of a political culture that has some chance of success. It really is that simple. When he started this, the country's attention was already on our political/academic culture. The customers were already on the lot.
This election is about different conceptions of reality rather than political parties. I agree with the commenter who observed that Trump is an old-school Democrat. He is. But the country did quite well with them, and the economic difficulties we are in mandate that we can't pull the rug out from under people.
Drumpf is in favor of keeping entitlements and raising taxes.
Yes, Drumpf is in favor of raising taxes on people who his supporters believe are benefiting from the same status quo that is screwing them over and don't want to lose what little income they currently have.
Once again.
Shocking!
"I think a lot of Trump's success is due to him being the only one who did not appear to be in constant fear of saying the wrong thing. "
Yes, and he speaks for the people who have been marginalized by both left and right.
"I won't ask you to trust me, but I know plenty of them, in the Army and in academia (I am lucky enough to straddle the two). I give thanks for them."
I agree with JPS. I see those kids every week when I interview recruits. I had lunch with my wife's grandson last weekend. He is 25 and, with his uncle, they run a very, very successful car restoration business. They work with tools and their hands. No college degree, although the uncle has one.
There are lots o successful yung men in this country but you don;t see them in Los Angeles or New York, mostly. And you certainly don't see them in elite colleges.
MaxedOutMama wins the thread.
I don't know why so many are so afraid of Trump. As always, he will deliver so much less than he promises, and he is certainly less hawkish than Hillary. He will be an ineffectual President, if elected, while Hillary could be very dangerous, as she is Wall Street's choice, and she is firmly in the Madeline Albright camp of believing "the price is worth it" (to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents to achieve the "greater" end...whatever it may be).
More proof that our two party system is not just dead, but rotting in the sun. No good change will come of it, but much bad may.
Has everyone seen the picture of the regulations passed last year (two stacks about 36" high, another about 12" high) vs the laws congress passed and the president has signed in to law (a stack about 3" high). Yeah...doesn't matter anymore who we send to congress or the WH. The Bureaucracy is so entrenched that there's no turning it back until it all just collapses on itself.
So it's really beyond me why everyone gets so uptight about the election. The damage was done years and years ago by both parties.
Ron Winkleheimer;
Until this year, it was never hard for me to vote for a Republican. I think Mitt Romney was a great candidate. A good man; a moral one; a smart one. The best President we never had. I don't understand how all of the current Trump supporters failed to turn out in the 135% range, the same way that Obama voters did.
McCain was a good man too; I can disagree with him on campaign finance reform and on some immigration compromises, and still easily vote for him if the choice was Obama.
I am always amazed at complaints about Republicans not nominating good presidential candidates. Liberals complain that the Republican Party has drifted so far to the right that even Reagan couldn't get elected. The Tea Party crowd complains that Republicans continually make the mistake of nominating establishment moderates who can't motivate the base.
I just think that most voters are dumb, lacking in principles outside of narrow self-interest, and with limited information.
Chuck pretty much says it all: "I just think that most voters are dumb, lacking in principles outside of narrow self-interest, and with limited information."
The ability to reproduce has trumped (no pun intended) the ability to think critically. Moral relativism has eroded Judeo-Christian morality and the mediaswine purvey political ideology, not facts.
I think Trump is winning because he got onto new issues that people really care about - the millions out of the labor force WHILE border laws are abandoned; the millions underemployed or uberized WHILE Obama/GOPe claim that globalization is good for jobs and the economy has recovered. No effort made to help these people INSTEAD Clinton/GOPe call them non-PC-racist-rednecks-we don't-bother-about-or-help-because-we are-too good-to-help-you-s--ts. Sanders is attracting the same group in terms of the underlying issue except that being young they think student-loan-forgiveness would solve the problem of not having a good job to pay for the loan. The problem is that you don't have a job, kids - the rest is talk.
It's interesting that the Republicans are going to nominate their populist and the Democrats are not.
But how do you process this? I sank into a deep political depression when I finally concluded that for the above reasons it would be Trump vs. Hillary. It just all seemed like something going on very far away in an unknown country. Yet I kept thinking of the words - "Cry, the beloved country"
"I just think that most voters are dumb, lacking in principles outside of narrow self-interest, and with limited information."
Just think--Trump came out today giving credence to a National Enquirer story that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, and at no point are his supporters taking a step back and saying "wait, maybe this guy really is nuts..."
We scoffed at the notion that Kanye West would run for president in 2020. Now I'm wondering if he might be a step up. He's at least self-made.
"But how do you process this? I sank into a deep political depression when I finally concluded that for the above reasons it would be Trump vs. Hillary. It just all seemed like something going on very far away in an unknown country. Yet I kept thinking of the words - "Cry, the beloved country""
Oh, it wont' be that bad. The military won't listen to President Trump when he tells them to test the nukes out on Moscow because of some zombie invasion he heard about, and Hillary will pretty much do nothing but get her cronies richer. We can gear up for President Kanye in four years.
Robert,
Might be true. But given his litigious reflex and prior statements, could be some "interesting times" in terms of executive orders etc. But you know..as long as the overreach is for "the right reason"...
Maybe he would surprise..(I haven't watched his mind work outside the campaign much) but hard to imagine him suddenly abandoning his weird ADD-esque inability to stay on topic.
I think it would come down to who advises him.
I just think that most voters are dumb, lacking in principles outside of narrow self-interest, and with limited information.I think Mitt Romney was a great candidate. A good man; a moral one; a smart one.
Who didn't get elected. Not. Even. Close.
But who was sold as the electable candidate. The. Electable. One.
So by any objective standard, Romney was not a good candidate. But supporting him seems to have tickled your ego. So now we have Trump. Cause and effect.
As for Romney's goodness, morality, and smarts? I'm not voting for the Pope. I want someone who agrees with me on most of the issues I think are important and can effectively fight for me. I don't expect to win every time, but I'm going to need somebody to throw me a bone occasionally.
Politics is not about elevating the morals of the nation, its about allocating resources and securing rights among disparate, competing factions.
"Can you really see the children of today doing [what had to be done to win WWII]?"
Yes, I can."
I agree. There are tons of amazing kids out there. What breaks my heart is the tons of so-so kids who will never get an opportunity to be something better because of the shitty economy and crappy schools.
This election cycle has taught me one thing, conservatives are just as interested in virtue signaling as liberals.
You know, if enough people are insisting Donald Trump is a neofascist then maybe he is ya know?
Show of hands--who actually wanted to hear from Andrew Sullivan again? Bueller?
Geez, if Trump is to blame for having to see Excitable Andy in the news again...
Of course let us know when Donald Trump plans to gin up a world war over Danzig.
Brando, the public radio program "On the Media" concluded its satirical report on the Donald Trump presidency with a nod to President-elect Guy Fieri.
Sebastian said...
"On the Republican side the go-along and get along gang of moderates-the more competent administrators of the Welfare State take a beating." Why? Drumpf is in favor of keeping entitlements and raising taxes. As far as I know, he has expressed no criticism of the welfare state at all. Of course, he also favors amnesty; once they get around the wall, the Dem-lite and GOPe should get along fine.
5/3/16, 12:08 PM
The GOPe Moderate Republicans are giving the voters a choice between an Old School Democrat and a New School Grifter Anti-White Male Champagne Communist Criminal Democrat. One of the Democrats is going to win.
Brando, the public radio program "On the Media" concluded its satirical report on the Donald Trump presidency with a nod to President-elect Guy Fieri.
Well as long as your part of the smart set. Above the fray and all that.
"But who was sold as the electable candidate. The. Electable. One."
Was one of Romney's rivals more electable than him in 2012? If so, which one?
And close may only count in horseshoes and hand grenades, but in politics if "electability" means nothing then we may as well discuss what color unicorn we'd like--we certainly won't be winning anything. A better point is that people are often wrong about who is and isn't "electable"--but not that "electable" doesn't matter.
Ron Winkleheimer :
I hope that your "virtue signaling" comment was aimed at me.
There is really no better description for my position, and my efforts, than virtue signaling. To wit; I have no constructive role, vis a vis Trump. I'd like to see him foiled, and hurt. But that is just out if personal animus. My only substantive aim is to separate Republicans from Trump, and Trump from Republicans.
The height of my virtue signaling is that I will likely vote for Trump, if he is the only choice, so as to avoid any claim from disappointed Trumpkins in November that I was an establishment Republican who failed the Party's nominee.
Virtue signaling is pretty much all that I am doing in regard to Trump.
I thank you for mentioning it.
And Obama had a lot going in his direction in 2012--a united Democratic party (no primary opposition), a smart campaign operation to maximize turnout, an improving economy, and bin Laden dead. Republicans convinced that he was "easy to beat" were delusional. And Romney came out of that primary greatly weakened by attacks from his rivals--like Newt who tried out the "vulture capitalist" crap that Obama would use. The fact that Romney kept it within five points should be to his credit.
But if you think Santorum, Newt or "9-9-9" could have done better, I'd be happy to hear that theory.
Was one of Romney's rivals more electable than him in 2012? If so, which one?
Apparently all of them judging by Romney's performance.
Isn't all internet commentary "virtue signaling"? Everyone thinks they have the right of it, and that their comments are speaking to that. Unless of course you're a troll. I guess a troll isn't signaling anything but their boredom.
"Apparently all of them judging by Romney's performance."
You think no one could have done worse than losing to a relatively popular incumbent by 5 points? That each of these guys who actually lose to "terrible candidate Romney" in the primaries should have done much better than him in the general, if only they got nominated?
I hope that your "virtue signaling" comment was aimed at me.
Actually, no. Not you in particular.
Believe it or not, I am not a big fan of Trump.
But the actions of those that oppose Trump have pretty much convinced me that politics is not their vocation. Name calling and moralizing, you bet.
Actually swaying people to their side with good old fashioned political horse trading and acknowledging that you have disparate interests and some negotiations may be in order, where they actually give up something so that their opponents don't feel like they are in a death match, nope.
Ron I wish there were some way I could satisfy you about my own lack of education, information and knowledge, if that would stand me in good stead with the Republican Party of the future.
Isn't all internet commentary "virtue signaling"?
No.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=virtue+signalling
So Ron I have just got to hook you up with the Tea Party Trumpists who are so profoundly angry at Congressional Republicans for making too many deals with Democrats and mostly Obama.
"It's Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, God help us."
Blame it on the establishment elite of both parties. For reasons only they, with their Ivy league "smarts", can understand, they decided this election was to be Bush vs. Clinton, part 2.
The GOP establishment bigwigs, with the self-assured arrogance of the elite, screwed themselves by ignoring their base which was telling them they did not want another Bush. Early on, the GOP should've spent their money and influence backing an appealing "anyone-but-Bush" candidate. Instead they wasted time pushing Bush, and disastrously dismissing Trump as a joke. Trump very quickly took control away from the GOP elite, by turning the debates into a (ahem) cock-fight, that he could dominate by crowing the loudest. And the free airtime provided by the networks, who every day made it all about the wonder that was Trump, turned Trump into a folk hero of sorts to those who feel marginalized by the party and media elite. He became the man who stands up to the PC police and wins; the "superman" whose superpower is that media disapproval only makes him stronger.
While the party and media elite were busy running their mouths and getting high on the smell of their own breath, Trump was the only candidate in tune enough to accurately read the populace. If any of the other GOP, or even Dem candidates, had had the smarts and the guts to jump on the immigration and trade issues like Trump did, they might be leading the polls. But these complex issues scare the pants off most politicians for many reasons, not the least of which is because you need to tread lightly or risk being slapped down by the PC police.
On the other side, the self-proclaimed "smarter" elite in the Dem establishment dragged out the tired, aging, potential felon Hillary, fresh off her failures as Sec. of State, who, if not for super-delegates, might have lost all delegates to an equally aged, former 60s-radical commie like Sanders. Her lackluster performance against Sanders just shows how unlikable and unwanted she is, even to her own party. Is she really the best the Dem. elite has to offer? She's like a big "FU" from the Democratic elite to America.
Is it any surprise then that we have as her opponent a man like Trump, who can best be described as the corresponding "FU back at ya" from the overlooked Americans in "flyover country"?
Ron I wish there were some way I could satisfy you about my own lack of education, information and knowledge, if that would stand me in good stead with the Republican Party of the future.
See, that is virtue signaling.
"Sigh, I'm just so much smarter than all those other people."
Might be perfectly true, does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. In fact, its counter-productive.
The path to stopping Trump wasn't pointing out what stupid suckers his supporters were.
Perhaps taking his supporters concerns seriously might have worked, but then you would have had to admit they had valid points. And for some reason that wasn't an option.
"More proof that our two party system is not just dead, but rotting in the sun. No good change will come of it, but much bad may.'
Your problem isn't the two party system, whatever its condition, but that in the face of the power of the unelected state machine, plus its private appurtenances, normal politics is irrelevant.
The Federal and other governments plus all the interest groups and those who feed from the regulations and those who depend on rents from the state are the greatest powers in the land. A sludge-monster with a million minds, so ultimately no mind at all, a monster of entropy paralyzing, dissolving and digesting everything that sinks into it.
So Ron I have just got to hook you up with the Tea Party Trumpists who are so profoundly angry at Congressional Republicans for making too many deals with Democrats and mostly Obama.
What part of "fight effectively" and "throw me a bone" didn't you get.
I mean, Congressional Republicans could have at least tried to get something for rolling over on Obamacare.
I'm just saying for the record here that, at least, on the democratic side - it's not over!
"Perhaps taking his supporters concerns seriously might have worked, but then you would have had to admit they had valid points. And for some reason that wasn't an option."
I am still amazed by this. Out of the - what, 12, 18? - candidates on the stages nine months ago, none but Trump could address what the public - or a lot of the public- were concerned about. Even when it was obvious that Trump was getting genuine support, nobody really followed him. Even when it should have been apparent to the professional focus group operators. Frank Luntz's public reported focus group results half a year ago would have been the same as the private ones of so many well funded campaigns.
Someday someone in the professional side of politics will say why.
"I'm just saying for the record here that, at least, on the democratic side - it's not over!"
Seems to be over, barring an accident or an indictment. Sanders doesn't have the numbers and no prospect of even being a spoiler for a brokered convention.
No, Ron; it was your sneering dismissal of my comment about one funny line on a public radio program.
See, Ron; I'm a counter-puncher. A counter-puncher. I counter-punch. People punch me; I punch back much harder. I've built an incredible reputation on this comments page. Probably the best reputation in the history of this comments page. A fantastic reputation, that is only going to get better. Such a fabulous reputation that it'll make your head spin. You will say to me, "Stop it! Your reputation is so powerful! It's more powerful than Donald Trump's powerful Twitter!"
Sad.
#Trumped
"I am always amazed at complaints about Republicans not nominating good presidential candidates."
I know you are. Romney would have been a good president but he was not that good a candidate. He was weak in debates and allowed Candy Crowley to sabotage him in a way that Rudy Giuliani would not have and certainly Trump would not have allowed. The election day GOTV effort collapsed.
Your slur of the voters is, of course, an indication of your bootlicker status to the donor class.
I've been depressed all day thinking about tonight's results. Black Tuesday indeed.
No, Ron; it was your sneering dismissal of my comment about one funny line on a public radio program.
You are correct on that. I apologize.
The Donald is an effect not a cause.
As far as I can see, Sanders needs nearly every non-super delegate still at large just to get to 50% of the non-super delegates (I assume if the balance tilts to Sanders many if not most of the "supers" will switch).
Clinton just needs a bit over half of the still available delegates.
Michael K:
Lol! After the post-Trump reconstruction of the Republican Party, I assure you that I will join the faction that has donors. Because any other faction(s) will not survive.
"Donor class." Lmao.
@Chuck
But you still don't get it.
Insulting Donald Trump may make you feel superior, but it still looks like he is going to be the Republican nominee. I have no love for Trump, nor enmity. He's just a guy running for the Republican nomination to be its candidate for POTUS.
Just like I didn't have any particular love for Romney. I wasn't "proud" to vote for Romney. Nor was I ashamed. He was the guy that won the nomination from the party that was most closely aligned with what I perceived to be my interests. (Though they were pretty far from it by then, but not as bad as the other party.)
My identity is not tied up in a particular political party. Most peoples' aren't.
Insulting Donald Trump does NOT make me feel superior. It is just too easy, to give me any superiority. Insulting Trump only makes me feel good.
Lol! After the post-Trump reconstruction of the Republican Party, I assure you that I will join the faction that has donors. Because any other faction(s) will not survive.
Just exactly what is this reconstruction going to look like. Inner and outer party where we Proles are put in our proper place?
Thank you comrade O'Brien.
Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance
Don't get me wrong, I when I consider my interests, it is not a purely economical calculation. My interests encompass moral and cultural values as well. As do most people. Nobody is a purely economical animal.
"My identity is not tied up in a particular political party. Most peoples' aren't."
I know and neither is mine but Chuck ???
"This election cycle has taught me one thing, conservatives are just as interested in virtue signaling as liberals.
And just as dishonest and nasty.
But I remained convinced Biden will be the nominee. The email criminal issue is too big. At some point she is out and Obama pardons her and her entire crew.
Pure fantasy. Hillary will never be indicted. If it was going to happen it would have already occurred. Hillary knows where the skeletons are buried. Besides, laws are for the little people.
How did Trump happen? It’s a long list but I’ll try to pare it down.
Voters are tired of Obama, having had enough of the progressive Messiah. Voters crave an opposite of Obama. Trump is the polar opposite of Obama.
Obama is not patriotic. Trump is patriotic.
Obama dislikes capitalism. Trump is a premier capitalist.
Obama underfunds the military. Trump wants to expand the military.
Obama is PC to the point of verbal constipation. Trump is the Ex-Lax.
Obama defers to our enemies, insults our allies. Trump defers to no one.
Obama wants to allow China to continue China’s trade war against the USA. Trump wants to stop it. Ditto Japan and Mexico.
Obama is cool. Trump is hot.
Obama is chained to a teleprompter. Trump is not.
Obama is married to an ordinary-looking woman. Trump is not.
Obama is satisfied that America can “absorb” terror attacks and that ISIS is no big deal. Trump worries publicly about the safety and well-being of Americans and wants to defeat ISIS.
Obama wants to bring in a lot of Middle-Eastern refugees who could have terrorists infiltrating their ranks. Trump does not.
There are other reasons but these will do for now.
"Insulting Donald Trump does NOT make me feel superior. It is just too easy, to give me any superiority. Insulting Trump only makes me feel good."
And to the objective observer provides evidence that you are a king sized asshole and about the most boring stuck on stupid commenter here.
"My identity is not tied up in a particular political party. Most peoples' aren't."
It's wise not to be--look at how well it's worked for black voters over the years.
Both parties are due for a split, but it may happen sooner with the GOP. The fissures between economic libertarians and religious voters, "law and order" types with social libertarians, nativists and conservatives, neocons and interventionists--they've existed for a while and it's gotten more difficult over time to hold it together. This year is just aggravating it more than usual.
It's not necessarily a bad thing if they split, too--separate parties that can sometimes form legislative coalitions (and break from them when necessary) could be more potent than a diluted mass that tries to be all things to all people, often just pissing everyone off at the same time.
"Pure fantasy. Hillary will never be indicted. If it was going to happen it would have already occurred. Hillary knows where the skeletons are buried. Besides, laws are for the little people."
I've got to agree. I don't know why they didn't indict, but I would think if it was going to happen it would have happened already.
From Obama's perspective, if there was something there, and it doesn't reflect directly on him (and I'm not sure how her server issue directly involves him) he'd sooner have it out in the open, and if it takes her down, it does so with enough time to nominate someone else. He has no loyalty to the CLintons (nor should he) and to try and cover this up and risk himself doesn't make sense.
You answered your own question.
Trump is where he is because a large part of the country is stick and tired of Ivy League Elites in the media calling them SEXIST RACIST for sharing nationalist sentiments that have been the norm throughout human history, across all cultures, including every non-white culture around today. He's our glorious middle finger who, as a bonus, might also do some good. He's also the only candidate who doesn't equate a president serving the interests of America, first, being synonymous with Hitler. Which is a staggering situation to be in, but there you go.
Hilary is where she is because it would be SEXIST to deny her another shot at coronation despite her merits.
It's not necessarily a bad thing if they split, too--separate parties that can sometimes form legislative coalitions (and break from them when necessary) could be more potent than a diluted mass that tries to be all things to all people, often just pissing everyone off at the same time.
The conventional wisdom was that a third party could not form in the U.S. because underserved polities would eventually be adopted by either the Republican or Democrat party thus enhancing their coalition. Of course, this assumed that one of the parties would want the polity in their coalition. We seem to have reached a situation where both parties are unwilling to serve the interests of a large portion of the American electorate.
Interesting times.
It's obvious why Hillary is the Democratic nominee: the Democratic party establishment and her place in it as a former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, as well as her innate personal ambition, determination and intelligence. And Sanders is a socialist.
The big question for most people is how did Donald Trump manage to wangle his way into the Republican party nomination? The answers seem determined by your perception of the candidate. I have a positive perception so here’s mine:
1. It's America, anything is possible. He’s an inspiration for people: if you want it, go for it. He has the talent, resources, and the willingness to work hard, so why not? Better yet, he’s running and winning even though the political establishment said he couldn’t win. That’s leadership. Trump might even inspire other talented and accomplished people to seek political office and service. A bonus.
2. Patriotism. Patriotic citizens are sick of the sentiments of those like the immigrant "a**hole Andrew Sullivan" who believes that the US is doing better than other countries and therefore doesn't have the right to put Americans first. He's a citizen? Do we really want people who come here but don’t like us? Yuck.
Patriotic citizens also are repudiating the practice of kowtowing to thugs and their intimidation, riots and destructive so called demonstrations for peace and justice. Do we want leaders who are too pc to confront that? No.
Patriotic citizens are also repudiating the elites’ liberal phony guilt, exemplified by President Obama himself, who joked the other night he was rehearsing his material for speeches he’ll be giving next year at Goldman Sachs. It was a joke, but not really. We’ve been told he’s staying in DC so his youngest can stay and finish high school, i.e., a very elite private school. How noble. He’s probably already working on his book tour for his next memoir right now. He’s going to be so busy traveling and giving speeches, raking in the cash, there’s no point in moving now. As a “nigga” Obama did alright for himself, as Larry Wilmore said. So much for improving the lives of African Americans or reducing racial tensions.
As a patriot, Trump is actually a less pretentious and phony man. He’s not running for the most powerful office in the nation to raise his own fortunes, while ostensibly appealing to the less advantaged, or appealing to those calling for smaller government and conservatism but eventually generously serving their special interest donors at the government trough.
3. Barack Obama was sold as a "President of the World" type figure, but that turned out to be president of the multinational corporate world and he stood by while we witnessed the expansion of the wealth gap. And as a Nobel Peace Prize winner he stood by and we witnessed the growth and spread of violent Islamic terrorism, thanks in part to his foolish decisions and philosophies. His belief about how to treat enemies as friends and friends as enemies and his style of passivity has proved to many that American leadership and the image of strength is actually necessary. Trump emphatically insists on the importance of a strong US in the world and he doesn’t look or act like a wimp mouthing the words.
Note that none of these reasons have anything to do with racism, sexism, or loss of manufacturing jobs by white males, which says to me that Trump has much broader appeal than the media class is willing to acknowledge.
Brando said...
"Pure fantasy. Hillary will never be indicted. If it was going to happen it would have already occurred. Hillary knows where the skeletons are buried. Besides, laws are for the little people."
I've got to agree. I don't know why they didn't indict, but I would think if it was going to happen it would have happened already."
I suspect the FBI has realized that it's just not Hillary and some of henchmen they caught. They must have evidence that points to a number of people in the Administration and Obama. I don't think they know how the narrow what they have just to Clinton and her minions.
@R. Chatt
I tend to stress Trump's economic populism, but I agree with you on the cultural aspects as well.
There is a video on youtube.com from cracked.com where a young guy denounce Hoosiers (A movie about an under dog basketball team from a small town in the 1950s) as racist because people in the 1950s were racists and we shouldn't be making celebratory movies about people in the 1950s who were racists.
I am not making this up.
Undoubtedly, by today's standards most people back then were racist.
And apparently, that is all you need to know.
I suspect someone has some Daddy issues.
People are starting to rebel against this sort of nonsense.
As for Clinton, the problem is not just the corruption, although that is a very frightening problem. Her term as Sec of State also displayed a level of incompetence on the world stage that frightens me. She is supremely competent at grifting and levering power for money, but beyond that, she appears a boob.
This, in spades. She is also vindictive. She uses power to punish. And she never admits to her mistakes. Instead, she blames others and punishes them if she can. She would be a disaster of an order we have never seen here.
The situation, as I analysis it, is that we finally have the failure of the elitist/technocratic paradigm of ruling. Coming out of WWII, we accepted an assumption that the best rulers would be those with the correct education at the correct schools who lived in the correct places. How this survived MacNamara I am not sure. But it did. This has produced a division in the country. Those who can be in charge and the rest of the country. While this elite was just running things, it could keep going. Especially if it produced a better life for the rest. But two things have happened. First, the elite is no longer producing the economic benefit. But more importantly, the elite is now driving the culture. While the economy was good, people would ignore it. Let the coasts address it, it does not matter to us. But for the last 8 years the economy has not worked for them. And then during this same period, hoi polloi found they are losing the culture war. Same-sex marriage and a lot of other issues are seen as loses and imposition. And this administration is the worst on this in history. They used to be the, at least, the backbone of America-so portrayed in movies, etc. But now they feel that they are losing everything. Trump calls to these people and says, by implication, that he will fight these forces for their way of life. No one else is offering this. It is not just economics but cultural. The problem is that the GOP is deeply imbedded in this elitism paradigm and has been unable to recognize the cultural aspect. The "right" tends to be very ideological or evangelical. That is not the Archie Bunker set. They feel left out of the country and think they have found someone who will move the country to a place where they will belong again.
@DougWeber
Who would have guessed that reading people out of the electorate wouldn't work.
"I suspect the FBI has realized that it's just not Hillary and some of henchmen they caught. They must have evidence that points to a number of people in the Administration and Obama. I don't think they know how the narrow what they have just to Clinton and her minions."
Possible--but it would have to be something very bad for Obama personally to risk stamping down an investigation (considering how easy it is for a disgruntled FBI or DOJ attorney to leak). Maybe they're taking it very slow, considering the sensitivity. But if Obama himself is clean (at least from direct involvement) then I cannot believe he would risk himself by intervening in this on Hillary's behalf. I can see him letting her go under the bus.
Why Donald Trump v. Hillary Clinton? Yes, it feels very strange. The Democrats are now the status quo party. They may not be entirely happy with Obama but he served his masters well and they expect Hillary to do the same. She is certain to keep their paydays safe and it's HER TURN. The rent seekers in the Democratic Party unabashedly expect a continuation of their paydays.
After Reagan, the Republicans became a status quo party. "Daddy Bush" as Carville calls him handed much of Reagan's legacy back to the Democrats. The House GOP briefly prospered under Gingrich in reaction to Clinton. But gradually their voters came to think that the Republican politicians were all talk and no action. Worse yet, the Republican Presidential Nomination became like duffers on the golf course, each loser teeing off before the next worse loser. First there was Dole, who lost the election on the night of the 1996 State of the Union speech. Of course W was elected and served two shaky terms. Then it was McCain, then Romney. Each of the establishment losers got HIS TURN. Meanwhile, the voters began to wonder how it was they kept getting these loser nominees.
This time the Republican voters have had enough. No more screwing the base to please the fat cats. No more go along, get along (which is a phrase coined by a Democrat Speaker, Sam Rayburn.) No more playing the game by the Democrat's rules. They have chosen Trump as their champion so far. I wouldn't dare predict his fate for now. With the economy and international politics unraveling, I don't think anyone knows how this will turn out.
"It's not necessarily a bad thing if they split, too--separate parties that can sometimes form legislative coalitions (and break from them when necessary) could be more potent than a diluted mass that tries to be all things to all people, often just pissing everyone off at the same time."
There will not ever be 3 parties. There will always be 2. They will just be different than they are today.
They will be America First republicans vs. Open Borders Globalist democrats.
George Will and the Bush family will find a happy place with the globalists. Free trade interventionism "immigration reform" will be fine for them. They live in gated communities.
The republicans are going to be nationalist. No more moral preening with american soldiers lives. Immigration policy that resembles Canada's. Trade negotiation that more resembles China's. Actual free trade will go two ways or it wont happen.
The marginalized groups will be the socons and break up the banks millennials.
What exactly is Trump's claim to have some understanding of "flyover country"?
He has homes in Manhattan, and Palm Beach. He owns luxury private golf clubs in New York, New Jersey, Florida and on the California coast. He is not involved in ANY American manufacturing concern. He has retailed some consumer products; virtually all of them were manufactured in China.
Trump was born to personal wealth, he went to eastern private schools, and got a four-year degree from an Ivy League school.
Trump's only claim to commonality is that he does not have the good manners that most privileged Ivy Leaguers and country club Republicans have. Trump has the manners of someone who grew up in poverty without moral guidance and without any good examples.
I hated to even write that last sentence that way, because good manners need not be a matter of breeding or education, and often aren't. I expect good manners from everyone, and there's actually a good reason to expect good manners and kindness from people in poverty. So in comparing Trump's boorish manners to poor people, I expect I have to some extent slandered poor people. I wish there were another way to illustrate Trump's poverty of manners and civility.
Trump’s strategy is to run against Obama-ism. Using these skirmishes and battles with the GOP stand-ins as practice, Trump has sharpened his skills for the coming campaign against Hillary – who politically and metaphorically has served as Obama’s mother-figure, a loving but occasionally admonishing Mommy with her own room in her son’s house. And Trump can always count on son Obama’s and Mommy’s well-meaning, eager to please MSM allies to overreach. Let’s all watch while the MSM overreaches with the National Enquirer photo.
Let me be clear. The National Enquirer photo and article are ridiculous. The man next to Oswald has zero chance of being Cruz’s father. The National Enquirer is not a “pro-Trump tabloid.” The National Enquirer is a pro-tabloid sales tabloid. CNN is not a pro-Trump cable. CNN is a pro-ratings cable.
Notice Trump’s choice of words as quoted by CBS. At no point does he say the senior Cruz was involved in the assassination. But the MSM is going to claim he did say that. The MSM is going to report about this starting with the assumption that Trump said something that Trump did not say.
Let’s all put on our thinking caps and use our imaginations to imagine IF the man in the photo was actually proven to be Cruz’s father. How would we react? I believe we would react much the same as Trump is reacting. Puzzlement. Amazement. “How could it happen?” we might ask ourselves.
When asked for a response to Fox running a clip of Cruz’s father’s denunciation of Trump:
"You know, his father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being -- you know, shot," Trump told "Fox and Friends" Tuesday. "I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous. What is this? … Right prior to his being shot and nobody even brings it up. I mean, they don't even talk about that. That was reported and nobody talks about it."
http://tinyurl.com/hwuvr6e
http://tinyurl.com/zeyx2ce
All Trump has to do is a little implication – he knows the MSM/Dems/#neverTrumpers will do the rest. They can’t help themselves.
"It's Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton, God help us." "I have no idea what we are to do in this place where we find ourselves, but I want to hear from people who have processed the reality that what has happened has happened."
How did Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton happen? What are we to do? Where are we? These questions seem to reflect some preconceived points of view on the part of the questioner. I'd like to know more about Professor Althouse's point of view before weighing in.
One quarter of America is Jacksonian. During the past decade, elites of both parties decided that they despised Jacksonian America as racist and sexist despite its egalitarian ethos.
A Jacksonian Democrat runs for president as a Republican in 2016, and the Republican leadership is shocked that a third to one half of the primary voters voted for him. They had nowhere else to go- one quarter of the electorate! Jacksonian America cannot be ignored or scorned for long.
Lesson: You could erase Andrew Jackson's name from every town and marker in America, but he is still the Godzilla of American democratic politics. 1828 wasn't that long ago.
This isn't about Trump or Hillary.
It's about us.
How'd we get here?
We built this shit.
I'm looking' at you, Baby Boomers.
"What exactly is Trump's claim to have some understanding of "flyover country"?"
I think it was probably an accident and he found that his issues were widely popular. Maybe he talks to workmen in his properties. I don't know.
The fact is that he hit a chord and then took off.
Harding did not want Coolidge as VP. The Boston Police Strike hit a chord.
I bet Trump wins a majority of the (legal) Hispanic vote in the fall and forty percent of the African Americans. Why? Because working Americans of all races care about more and better employment opportunities more than anything else. Hillary can play identity politics til the cows come home. This election is about class issues, not race or gender.
"One quarter of America is Jacksonian."
I don't know where you get your statistic, but, if true, it's damning.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा