Althouse: The poll question I'd like to ask.

September 23, 2016

The poll question I'd like to ask.

72 comments:

Hagar said...: The next president will preside over a period when both political parties are falling apart before re-forming. It is difficult to see any possibility of a shining performance under those conditions.; 9/23/16, 8:26 AM
Luke Lea said...: Trump maybe good, maybe bad. Hillary, generally rather bad. I bet most commenters would vote that way. Try it.; 9/23/16, 8:26 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Bad question. Basically without knowing who gets elected all you can guess now is that the President will be a fair haired blue eyed white American. If it is Clinton it will be the boot on the human face. If it is Trump it will be something else.

To boot or not to boot? That is the question.; 9/23/16, 8:28 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/23/16, 8:29 AM
Sebastian said...: It does depend on who wins. A Hill victory means one thing, regardless of her actual actions in office: nothing matters anymore. Not corruption, not rape, not money in politics, not law-breaking, not lying. Nothing, except power itself. It will be proof positive, as if any were needed, that American politics has been corrupted entirely. That is why a Hiil victory will be an utter disaster, and a Trump victory "generally bad" at worst.; 9/23/16, 8:33 AM
Real American said...: Trump has some upside. Hillary will be a lying crook.; 9/23/16, 8:34 AM
Quaestor said...: The response options are basically Whaddya want on your shit sandwich? The smart reply, which isn't offered, is I don't want a shit sandwich.; 9/23/16, 8:44 AM
bleh said...: Hillary - rather bad, but likely not catastrophic

Trump - who the hell knows?

Trump could be genuinely transformational, in a good way, or he could spark trade wars and shooting wars his first year in office. One thing I know for sure is a victory by him would be very unsettling for people who need to feel unsettled.; 9/23/16, 8:45 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Quaestor said...
"The smart reply, which isn't offered, is I don't want a shit sandwich."

You will never be a leader of dung beetles.

I am The Replacement Laslo.; 9/23/16, 8:47 AM
traditionalguy said...: Hillary's victory would slow walk into a Kaine Administration, but first there will be a test to see whether Huma and Bill can hide her out and mask her severe decision making disability while they deliver her messages. At least, there will be no press conferences.

But Trump's victory will put the USA on steroids and speed. Hang on.; 9/23/16, 8:51 AM
bagoh20 said...: If they are good for the nation, they will be very unpopular among the 47%, who are large portions of both candidates' support.; 9/23/16, 8:51 AM
SayAahh said...: It depends on what your definition of "good" and "bad" are.
Cui bono; 9/23/16, 8:53 AM
bagoh20 said...: Personal responsibility is the thing this nation needs most and requiring more of that is not what most people vote for either right or left.; 9/23/16, 8:53 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: I can't answer the question.

I mean, if Donald Trump gets elected, he'll make America great again. That sounds pretty good.

But I can't find out whether Hillary Clinton has an official campaign slogan, so I really can't know how we'd all end up.; 9/23/16, 8:55 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: bagoh20 said...
"Personal responsibility is the thing this nation needs most and requiring more of that is not what most people vote for either right or left."

THe Average Voter reponds: You cannot pay me enough to take personal responsibility.

Something like that.

I am The Replacement Laslo.; 9/23/16, 8:55 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Just because I so thoroughly enjoy what Trump does to all these shitheads, his Presidency will be great.

I hope he stiffs everyone on the self-felatting correspondence dinner.; 9/23/16, 8:56 AM
bagoh20 said...: The question I'd like asked is "What department of the federal government would you agree eliminate?"; 9/23/16, 8:56 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: bagoh20 said...
"The question I'd like asked is "What department of the federal government would you agree eliminate?"

You're going the wrong way.

We will need a new department: The Department of Elimination.

The Deplorables ain't gonna just eliminate themselves.

I am The Replacement Laslo.; 9/23/16, 8:59 AM
Chuck said...: I'd be really curious to see a straight-up poll of the Althouse readership on who they want to win. It won't be anything like a scientific, predictive national or state poll. It would only be useful, to gauge the Althouse readership. I'd be interested to see what that looks like.

Didn't Althouse do something like that during primary season, trying to explore the nature of any support for Trump? I do recall one where the questions were so loaded to suit Ann's own curiosities (and it is her blog, after all) that it was almost unanswerable for me.; 9/23/16, 9:03 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Hey, whose party dress was worse than Betty's?; 9/23/16, 9:04 AM
tcrosse said...: Quaestor said...
"The smart reply, which isn't offered, is I don't want a shit sandwich."

But that's what you're going to get, like it or not. Enjoy.
My question: how is Canada going to absorb all those show-biz has-beens if
Trump wins ?; 9/23/16, 9:04 AM
bagoh20 said...: We do need a Department of Elimination. It's budget would be 10% of whatever budget items it eliminates, plus a department-wide bonus for every employee when a law is sunsetted or revoked. A bureaucratic immune system that seeks out disease and eliminates it like a bunch of white blood cells. It's one department whose work would really never be finished. If it managed to eliminate the need for itself, the employees split 10 years of budget and retire.; 9/23/16, 9:07 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Bad Lieutenant said..."If it is Clinton it will be the boot on the human face."

Just be grateful Hillary never wears a skirt.; 9/23/16, 9:08 AM
bagoh20 said...: Hillary is a shit sandwich piled high in the display case. Trump is brown paper bag that says shit sandwich on it, but you can't be sure, and we made the menu ourselves. What a country!; 9/23/16, 9:10 AM
Witness said...: "We do need a Department of Elimination. It's budget would be 10% of whatever budget items it eliminates, plus a department-wide bonus for every employee when a law is sunsetted or revoked. A bureaucratic immune system that seeks out disease and eliminates it like a bunch of white blood cells. It's one department whose work would really never be finished. If it managed to eliminate the need for itself, the employees split 10 years of budget and retire."

I once read a story of a software company that was trying to improve the software quality, so it offered a system of bonuses for fixing bugs.

It was a bad idea for the same reason this is.; 9/23/16, 9:11 AM
Chuck said...: My appraisal, in order of (my) expected likelihood:

1) Clinton wins, has a chaotic presidency, and it is national gridlock for four years. Bad, but not the worst outcome.

2) Clinton wins, has an effective (for Democrats) presidency and wields large national impact. Bad, on policy grounds.

3) Trump wins, has a chaotic presidency, and amid national gridlock and Democrat obstructionism, loses the Republican congressional majorities in midterms. Bad; perhaps the worst outcome of all.

4) Trump wins, has an effective (for him) presidency, wields historic national impact, and changes the face of Republicanism from conservatism to a kind of libertarian/authoritarian populism. Bad; not the worst but close to it.; 9/23/16, 9:12 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Trump maybe good, maybe bad. Hillary, generally rather bad. I bet most commenters would vote that way. Try it."

The whole point of the poll and my interest in doing it is forbidding you to break it into 2 questions.; 9/23/16, 9:13 AM
Matt Sablan said...: "My question: how is Canada going to absorb all those show-biz has-beens if Trump wins?"

-- The same way they did when Bush won.; 9/23/16, 9:14 AM
bagoh20 said...: "It was a bad idea for the same reason this is."

And that reason is?

Long term successful business or ones that successfully turn around from failure do exactly this. The most effective and efficient way to improve any system, especially bureaucracy, is to ask: do we even need this? over and over.; 9/23/16, 9:17 AM
Matt Sablan said...: Honestly, my thoughts are this: Generally bad, but for different reasons.

The worst domestic policies that Trump has will, as always, be checked by the media, Supreme Court and Congress. His foreign policy will -- like most presidents -- revert somewhat to the mean with fiddling here and there. Even Obama isn't that much different -- and where he is, it is easily shifted back. Anything terrible Trump does will be fixed or mitigated by the next administration.

Clinton's worsts will be like what happened to the Department of State, but throughout the Executive Branch. We don't know how long it'll take State to get back all the good will it has lost. However, her domestic policy is much less likely to be checked -- except possibly by a Republican Congress acting as a stop gap like with Obama.

So, it matters what you consider worse. I'm still undecided. Unfortunately not playing is not a winning move in this game.; 9/23/16, 9:18 AM
F said...: Nearly 90% -- 90% -- of your respondents think the next president will be so-so or worse. We're a pessimistic lot, aren't we?; 9/23/16, 9:22 AM
bagoh20 said...: " libertarian/authoritarian populism.".

Forced liberty. It does need to be forced in the same way a mother forces her chicks out of the nest.; 9/23/16, 9:25 AM
Hagar said...: I think the debate Monday is going to be a mess. If they had any sense, all parties would agree to cancel it, but they can't, since no one trusts any of the others to share the blame for for the cancellation.
But Lester Holt is going to be torn apart from all sides, even if he does the best job ever as a moderator, and no one is interested in anything positive either candidate might have to say; all we are looking for is something that might be declared a fatal misstep for the candidate uttering it.

Not sure why this is apposite to this thread, but somehow feel like it is.; 9/23/16, 9:28 AM
rehajm said...: I'm optimistic. If we manage to survive post election bedwetting either will be superior to current administration.; 9/23/16, 9:28 AM
southcentralpa said...: I'm with Luke Lea. Trump 50% chance average, 25% great, 25% crappy

Clinton 100% chance of disaster (people forget Ooo-go Chavez was originally elected); 9/23/16, 9:31 AM
A to the C said...: Really enjoying the comments here.
In my opinion, these are the two worst candidates in a presidential election that I've ever seen. It seems like they have taken turns showcasing their individual lack of fitness for the job, with Hillary taking the lead over the last few weeks in highlighting her awfulness as a prospective POTUS.
Whoever wins, I have a feeling things might get very weird. I just hope it's at least an entertaining type of weird, and not a "Christ, why didn't I ever stock up on weaponry and bottled water?" type of weird.; 9/23/16, 9:32 AM
bagoh20 said...: "... no one is interested in anything positive either candidate might have to say; all we are looking for is something that might be declared a fatal misstep for the candidate uttering it."

I suppose this is true of many, but I'm hoping to see Trump display some new direction, new ideas, new vision for this country. He needs to hit her where it hurts some, but he needs to show how he would bring real change. That would be the best way to put Hillary down, since like most Dems, she is entirely incapable of thinking outside the box. She's a living dinosaur, and that's her biggest weakness with independents.; 9/23/16, 9:45 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Ann Althouse said...

The whole point of the poll and my interest in doing it is forbidding you to break it into 2 questions.
9/23/16, 9:13 AM

What do you mean?; 9/23/16, 9:50 AM
cubanbob said...: F said...
Nearly 90% -- 90% -- of your respondents think the next president will be so-so or worse. We're a pessimistic lot, aren't we?

9/23/16, 9:22 AM"

No, just grounded in reality. Next.

Chuck nice cherry picking. Of course you manage to overlook that next president will nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. So tell us o wise one, you think Trump's nominations will be the same type of mindset as Hillary's?

Hagar I pity poor Lester Holt.; 9/23/16, 9:51 AM
mockturtle said...: Trump is an unknown quantity but he has expressed his objection to our Middle East involvements and nation-building efforts. With Hillary, we can expect more of the same lame and horrendously expensive operations we got with the last two administrations.

Someone earlier used the term 'transformative' in regard to Trump's potential. To me, he represents some hope for common sense in foreign policy and a slow unraveling of crony capitalism. Hillary represents the worst political values.

Most importantly, Trump wants to strengthen and protect America. Hillary only wants to strengthen and protect herself.; 9/23/16, 9:56 AM
Patrick said...: The next President will be a single term president.; 9/23/16, 9:56 AM
Birkel said...: ...wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.; 9/23/16, 9:58 AM
Nonapod said...: My feeling is that either way we're going to be heading into a rough period over the next few years. There are things happening in the world, with the economy, and with our culture in general that go beyond anything a US President could hope deal with. And I think that either candidate is going to be hamstrung as a President for different reasons anyway.

I believe that no matter who wins, race relations will continue to deteriorate and we'll continue to have more lone wolf style terrorist attacks.

If Hillary Clinton ends up winning, she's more than likely end up not having the support of a majority of Americans on many things she may be interested in trying to achieve. The scales have fallen from most peoples eyes regarding the Clintons. She'll end up being a rather ineffectual President.

If Donald Trump wins, he'll also have a hard time getting much done because he will have relentless scrutiny of a Media that will suddenly be interested in doing its job. He'll be assailed at every turn. And he also suffers from the fact that a large portion of Americans greatly dislike and mistrust him (even more than most Presidents of an opposing party).

Ultimately we're talking about two candidates who have serious public trust issues. Leaders who don't have the trust of those they lead aren't able to effectively... lead.; 9/23/16, 9:58 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I think the trends are probably irreversible at this point, so I think the next president is likely to be viewed as a failure regardless of who wins. Whatever hope there is, however, rests with Trump, not Clinton.; 9/23/16, 10:12 AM
Chuck said...: cubanbob said...
...
Chuck nice cherry picking. Of course you manage to overlook that next president will nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. So tell us o wise one, you think Trump's nominations will be the same type of mindset as Hillary's?

A Hillary, nominating federal judges is a guaranteed disaster. One of the worst episodes in modern American history. [Wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.]

Trump, I expect, with close to zero knowledge of the judiciary, would be handed a list of nominees prepared for him by Republican staff lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Then the question becomes who can get confirmed. And whether Trump would make judicial confirmations a political priority over crazy shit like a border wall or foreign/domestic auto plant taxes. And how would deal-maker Donald Trump use whatever political capital that he possessed.

There are real questions with Trump; with Hillary it is absolutely guaranteed to be horrific. [Wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.]; 9/23/16, 10:13 AM
mockturtle said...: I agree with those who believe the SCOTUS appointments are the really monumental issue in this election. The long-term effects will far outlast the terms of a President.; 9/23/16, 10:19 AM
Yancey Ward said...: And, so, who are you voting for, Chuck?; 9/23/16, 10:22 AM
boycat said...: FWIW, there is a Main Street that runs through Skokie.; 9/23/16, 10:27 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Blogger Chuck said...
My appraisal, in order of (my) expected likelihood:
9/23/16, 9:12 AM

that by any logical process he should vote for and support Hillary Clinton for President.

Since he's such a logical, high functioning sort, that is undoubtedly what he is doing, will do, and has been doing.

Ergo: Chuck supports and has always supported Democrat Hillary Clinton for President.

Thanks for clearing that up, Chuck. Your true face is ugly, but so was the mask.; 9/23/16, 10:29 AM
Birkel said...: Truth is better, Chuck.

Append that closing on every statement for maximum truth, you lifelong Republican who supports Hillary Clinton.; 9/23/16, 10:36 AM
Ambrose said...: One takeaway from the Obama administration is that the country is surprisingly resilient.; 9/23/16, 10:38 AM
Birkel said...: Ambrose,

This society is eating the seed corn.; 9/23/16, 10:46 AM
buwaya said...: You are screwed by the laws of history. No Trump is going to repeal them. All his enemies also aren't causes in themselves, merely symptoms of the inevitable process, the opportunistic infections of old age.; 9/23/16, 11:02 AM
ALP said...: PSA: if you have not read Christopher Hitchen's book "No One Left To Lie To" - now is the perfect time. You won't be sorry.; 9/23/16, 11:03 AM
dreams said...: Trump is going to win and its not going to be close.; 9/23/16, 11:03 AM
Etienne said...: I don't think it matters who will be President. I don't think the Constitution will survive another four years.

Once the Internet crashes, there will be no way for the world to funnel their money into US Banks, and as US banks dry up, the world economy ends.

After two weeks, Somalia will seem like a resort.; 9/23/16, 11:10 AM
Etienne said...: I knew it was over when they started emptying the Ogallala Aquifer to grow corn for our cars.; 9/23/16, 11:12 AM
cubanbob said...: Blogger Chuck said...
cubanbob said...
...
Chuck nice cherry picking. Of course you manage to overlook that next president will nominate one or more Supreme Court justices. So tell us o wise one, you think Trump's nominations will be the same type of mindset as Hillary's?

A Hillary, nominating federal judges is a guaranteed disaster. One of the worst episodes in modern American history. [Wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.]

Trump, I expect, with close to zero knowledge of the judiciary, would be handed a list of nominees prepared for him by Republican staff lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Then the question becomes who can get confirmed. And whether Trump would make judicial confirmations a political priority over crazy shit like a border wall or foreign/domestic auto plant taxes. And how would deal-maker Donald Trump use whatever political capital that he possessed.

There are real questions with Trump; with Hillary it is absolutely guaranteed to be horrific. [Wrote Chuck, the Hillary Clinton supporter.]"

Chuck you really don't get Trump's style and way of operating. He is of the opinion (as expressed to me by my dad) that it is reasonable to be unreasonable (provided you know when to stop). I have relatives who have been Trump contractors and that is how he operates. He makes a deal then constantly renegotiate the deal until the contractor resistance isn't worth overcoming. The guy is relentless. Irritating as hell for the contractors but not enough to not keep doing business with him. That is his life experience, it has served him well and that is how he will probably govern if elected. Any list of judges given to him by Senate Republicans by default is better than any possible nominee by the Democrats. As for the rest of your screed, he will use them as negotiating tactics to extract concessions. The only upside to running trade deficits is that the other side has more to lose than you do. By the way, Mexico is building a wall of sorts to keep Central Americans out.; 9/23/16, 11:16 AM
Chuck said...: Yancey Ward said...
And, so, who are you voting for, Chuck?

I will probably vote as I have in each of the last several general elections. Michigan, under a current federal court injunction, has restored "straight ticket" voting. (We Republicans passed a law to end it; it then went to litigation.*)

I will in all likelihood vote a straight Republican ballot. It will be an effective vote for Trump, without my having to check the box next to his name.

*We wanted to end straight ticket voting because more than 70% of Detroit and Flint voters vote a Democratic ticket, as their churches and unions have schooled them. That distorts the normal voting results, where lower-ballot races get fewer votes. Straight ticket votes put votes into all of those contests.

So, to simplify; while Michigan elects a Republican governor, say, or Republican state house and senate races go Republican, many ordinary voters leave races for things like the State Board of Education or the University of Michigan Board of Regents blank, because they don't know the names or what they stand for. Meanwhile, thousands of black Democrats in Detroit, Pontiac and Flint are casting straight ticket ballots that effectively vote all of those offices without fail.

And we end up with Democrat supermajorities on education boards, etc.; 9/23/16, 11:21 AM
Big Mike said...: I used to think that Dumbocrats used the alleged threat to overturn Roe v. Wade the way parents with weak parenting skills used the threat of the bogeyman to keep their kids in line. However the casual way Hillary Clinton is suggesting that her Supreme Court nominees can overturn Heller and Citizens United makes me wonder whether Roe v. Wade shouldn't be in play after all.

Right now it looks like the Dumbocrat position is stare decisis for social conservatives but not stare decisis for left wingers.; 9/23/16, 11:26 AM
Chuck said...: Big Mike said...
I used to think that Dumbocrats used the alleged threat to overturn Roe v. Wade the way parents with weak parenting skills used the threat of the bogeyman to keep their kids in line. However the casual way Hillary Clinton is suggesting that her Supreme Court nominees can overturn Heller and Citizens United makes me wonder whether Roe v. Wade shouldn't be in play after all.

Right now it looks like the Dumbocrat position is stare decisis for social conservatives but not stare decisis for left wingers.

Well said!!!!

You want to add Obergefell?

Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal; it would let states decide the issue.

Overturning Obergefell wouldn't make same-sex marriage illegal; it would let states decide the issue.; 9/23/16, 11:32 AM
Rusty said...: My answer is conditional.; 9/23/16, 12:03 PM
mockturtle said...: Chuck rightly affirmed: Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't make abortion illegal; it would let states decide the issue.

Overturning Obergefell wouldn't make same-sex marriage illegal; it would let states decide the issue.

As well they should. Our founders would be horrified that states have so little autonomy but are expected to fund the ridiculous dispensations from the Feds. I would hope that at least some of the federal power grab is reversible, including public education, which has deteriorated badly since falling under federal control.; 9/23/16, 1:39 PM
Known Unknown said...: I try to make it largely irrelevant to my life who occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I take care of my own business, and my family, no matter what.; 9/23/16, 1:55 PM
Clyde said...: I'm a "glass-is-three-quarters-empty" kind of guy myself, so I went with "rather bad."; 9/23/16, 4:37 PM
PB said...: That's the problem with polls with questions and choices like that, they really tell you nothing.

If you think Obama has weaponized the government into a partisan army during his time, just wait until Hillary gets elected.

Putin wants Hillary to be elected. He'll continue to run roughshod over US interests and I'm betting things will escalate in the Middle East. Iran now has too much cash to let the opportunity go to waste.; 9/23/16, 4:41 PM
Gospace said...: Patrick said...
The next President will be a single term president.

If she is elected, the next two presidents will fill out one term. She's not healthy enough to make through one.; 9/23/16, 8:46 PM
Larry Sheldon said...: No available answer.

If she (or her replacement) wins, I am predicting disaster and last days.

If Trump wins I am mor optimistic that I have been in decades.; 9/23/16, 9:48 PM
PackerBronco said...: "Maybe good. Maybe bad. Depends on a lot of things."

What weak-a** wimps responded that way??; 9/23/16, 11:06 PM
PackerBronco said...: My prediction: It's not going to be close but I have no idea who's going to win.; 9/23/16, 11:08 PM
Peter J Barban said...: If it's Clinton, it will be terrible, worse than Obama. (Same terrible policies as Obama but with much worse corruption. If it is Trump, it may be good or bad. Probably worse than Bush, but better than Carter and Obama. Hopefully, as good as Reagan. Ironically, Trump could be Bill Clinton with worse press and a hotter wife.; 9/24/16, 5:08 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Packer, that was my way of refusing Ann's premise. Maybe good maybe bad means, if Trump wins maybe good, if Hillary wins definitely bad.; 9/24/16, 3:04 PM