October 10, 2016
And that's why I don't live-blog debates anymore.
It took me 3 and a half hours to write about last night's 90-minute debate. That was with a transcript, so I didn't have to transcribe my own quotes. And I was trying to write as fast as I could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245"The only bright spot in this whole election is that we did soundly reject Jeb Bush."
I didn't think Bush was any great shakes, but him being in office would have (a) ended the Clinton dynasty and (b) at least offered some hope of conservative policies. Now, our best hope is playing defense.
"Ravens vs Redskins broadcast would cover almost all of Virginia and parts of PA."
On the Baltimore stations? I didn't figure they had that much reach (though maybe a bit of PA). And doesn't a political ad get sold per affiliate, rather than go to both affiliates?
"A lot of these bed-wetting, hand-wringing Republicans — they're not afraid Donald Trump is gonna lose. They're scared to death he's gonna win," Huckabee told Megyn Kelly. "And if he wins, he's going to mess up the neat little package of fun they have because they all play to the donor class, and Donald Trump is coming to make big changes in the way that these institutions go."
Do you seriously think all that would end with Trump in the White House? I mean truly believe that donors, PACs, lobbyists, etc. would not be just as much in business with him in power as otherwise? I haven't even heard him propose one thing that would actually threaten their business. (And I don't mean pushing substantive policies that they substantively oppose--because that in fact helps them stay in business--I mean an actual reform that would ruin the business of lobbying).
I am going to write this again: if "expanding the tent" of Republican politics is somehow supposed to mean including folks who specifically want to demolish that party, then I have to wonder just how stupid those wishful-thinkers are.
The GOP is DEAD in terms of ever winning the White House again. I, personally, don't give a shit if they keep Congress. I'll vote Democrat so at least I can back a winner once in a while. We saw George W. Bush obliterate the concept of small government while "conservatives" applauded. The Bush family has destroyed the party...and we're supposed to take their acolytes seriously?
"Expanding the tent" doesn't mean expanding it so far that it extends to the guys wearing loincloths with knives between their teeth, all dancing around a fire, such that the tent we simply wanted to expand now catches fire and burns to the ground.
Let's keep the tent tight enough so that the Dems win the WH forever. MUCH better plan.
But remember, once the Trump dust settles--Hillary is still very unpopular, very scandaled, and she lacks political skill. If she wins, it'll be because she's not Trump, not because any large constituency wants her to be president. As a result, she will be embattled and mistrusted from day one, and almost certain to fail at whatever she tries. The GOP will be positioned to gain against her and hamstring her presidency, and possibly impeach her.
She also has the press and bureaucracy completely in her back pocket, the new tradition of an AG so politicized that Dems cannot be charged with crimes, and the ability to name Justices.
The country, if Hillary is elected, won't be worth saving.
I have said so before, Brando, and I completely agree with you. After a massive anti-Clinton midterm election in 2018, giving the GOP massive majorities in both houses of congress. Impeachment in 2019.
BWA HA HA!
Really?
OK, you will get zero Dem votes for that. Literally zero. They will never vote to punish a Democrat. So, it'll be ALL on the GOP.
You think you'll get Snowe to vote to remove the first female President? No, you won't.
Murkowski? No chance.
McCain? Fuck no.
Graham? Hell no.
You'll get, best case scenario, about 55 GOP votes if the GOP somehow gets 67 seats. Guess what the means? The "coup d'état" --- and yes, the media will portray it as such as they did when it happened to Bill --- will "fail" and it'll be time for repurcussions.
The GOP can't even get a motion passed to impeach the head of the IRS, whose crimes are obvious and blatant because they know not one single Dem will vote to convict. And because the GOP, honestly, doesn't care.
How large of a majority do you really think exists?
Trump fans will convince themselves that Jeb or Marco would have done even worse. They have to tell themselves this, because the reality of this train wreck is too much for them to accept responsibility for. But it's clear as day what is going on.
Jeb was a non-starter. Nobody wanted him from the moment he announced. Rubio was a terrible debater as well.
The Trump News Network will be cheering GOP Congressmen, as they conduct hearings on Clinton misconduct. Of course, they will also be whining about how they got screwed in 2016 by a biased media and disloyal Republicans. And of course, Trump will continue to say ever-more outlandish things which a network executive (including a good one like Roger Ailes) would never say in public.
And the same Trump supporters you disdain --- well, you'll need their vote to win. And they are not going to listen to the same people who happily called them bigots and sexists then saying "Vote for our loser". It won't happen.
Brando - word on the street is that Trump voters are so angry, they are now vowing to vote for democrat on the down ticket. The DNC media are loving this.
I will vote Dem against Lindsay Graham. No need to be loyal.
I didn't think Bush was any great shakes, but him being in office would have (a) ended the Clinton dynasty and (b) at least offered some hope of conservative policies.
The Bushes have never governed politically before. I don't expect Jeb would be any different. And given how many Bushes have decided to support Hillary, their family is dead to me.
Blogger AprilApple said...
Brando
"it's an outrage that she may be on track to win decisively when the Clintons should be pounded into history. "
"An outrage, indeed. This whole episode with Trump has been an exercise in delusion and futility."
And the futility is being provided by you.
When we deployed we were second guessed and called baby killers by a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks who sat on useless moral principles, benefitted from our actions, and undermined everything we did. Paul Ryan is the new Hanoi Jane. You people are backstabbing cowards. We are trying to defeat Hillary. Trump is an imperfect vessel but so are we. We did awful things to win our wars and you were happy to live behind that curtain.
Now when the going gets tough and it is your turn to fight you people bitch and moan like pussies. You people keep nominating losers and are happy when some "republican " gets the chance to expand government instead of the democrats. Worthless.
Brando
If he's not actually working for her, he's doing an excellent job acting like he is. If I were her adviser, I couldn't have picked a better foil to save her bacon.
No doubt!
Achilles - calm down. Your candidate is the back-stabber here. Those of us pointing it out, and just pointing it out.
Achilles - calm down. Your candidate is the back-stabber here. Those of us pointing it out, ARE just pointing it out.
*fixed*
Chuck
Trump is a result of GOPe's fleckless leadership, the Bushes , the Ryans of the Republican party have shown their true colors and shit in the face of the paroles that elected them. They more than any Republicans by their actions and words have lit the match to this revolt. This election was this nation's last chance at sending the Progressives back to the waste lands before the immigrants population passes 15% who 99.9% tribally vote for socialism.
"Do you seriously think all that would end with Trump in the White House? I mean truly believe that donors, PACs, lobbyists, etc. would not be just as much in business with him in power as otherwise? I haven't even heard him propose one thing that would actually threaten their business. "
He has proposed elimination of the EPA, DOE, DOE, among other things.
Most importantly he has proposed appointing a special investigator to start digging. Once a legitimate investigation starts and what they have been doing gets oxygen we would have a chance.
I'm cool with Trump as prez. He needs to do it. I cannot do it for him.
Somehow if we don't applaud him, even when he's screwing up, we are all traitors.
If you want Trump to win - do something positive to help drag him across the finish line.
McConnell -
Sending in a huge buffoonish inarticulate New York Liberal playboy was not the answer either.
AprilApple
Well Done
Blogger AprilApple said...
"Achilles - calm down. Your candidate is the back-stabber here. Those of us pointing it out, ARE just pointing it out.
*fixed*"
You are so full of shit. You are covering up your own cowardice by accusing us of "backstabbing " what exactly? Was it the republicans turn at the trough? You are delusional if you think the government/media team would let anyone get elected who would threaten them. They will let a Bush through every now and then or a sellout like Rubio who they know will keep the gravy train rolling. But no real deviation from course.
Those "swing" voters see democrats defending their candidate. They see "republicans " hand wringing and attacking theirs. Trump is up against the entire aristocracy and you just don't have the guts to fight. You are the coward sitting on the couch while others do the fighting and you poop out your 20/20 hindsight every now and then.
Worthless.
"You'll get, best case scenario, about 55 GOP votes if the GOP somehow gets 67 seats. Guess what the means? The "coup d'état" --- and yes, the media will portray it as such as they did when it happened to Bill --- will "fail" and it'll be time for repurcussions."
That's why public opinion is essential to that. No Dem will cross the aisle, and a lot of squishy Republicans won't impeach, if a solid majority of their voters opposes it. Regardless of the merits.
" Jeb was a non-starter. Nobody wanted him from the moment he announced. Rubio was a terrible debater as well."
In an election against someone as unpopular as Hillary, even those two could have beaten her.
"And the same Trump supporters you disdain --- well, you'll need their vote to win. And they are not going to listen to the same people who happily called them bigots and sexists then saying "Vote for our loser". It won't happen."
It goes both ways. And what prominent Republicans actually called the voters themselves bigots and sexists? The farthest I've seen them go is calling out specific statements Trump made.
"When we deployed we were second guessed and called baby killers by a bunch of arm chair quarterbacks who sat on useless moral principles, benefitted from our actions, and undermined everything we did."
I don't know who called you that but don't go conflating me with them. You're doing exactly what the people you criticized do.
"Paul Ryan is the new Hanoi Jane. You people are backstabbing cowards. We are trying to defeat Hillary. Trump is an imperfect vessel but so are we. We did awful things to win our wars and you were happy to live behind that curtain."
Backstabbing? Your legs must be tired from that leap of logic. How am I, some nobody commenter, undermining your imperfect vessel? If he loses, he loses on his own merits. No one has an obligation to put aside their reservations about a grossly unqualified person running for president, simply because you think every rip on him from anywhere in the universe undermines him. As for trying to defeat Hillary, Trump's more prominent critics (more prominent than me, anyway) tried to warn everyone about what a mess he would be, and surprise surprise, he was true to form. But now it's their (and my?) fault for not just pretending this guy isn't a disaster?
"Now when the going gets tough and it is your turn to fight you people bitch and moan like pussies. You people keep nominating losers and are happy when some "republican " gets the chance to expand government instead of the democrats. Worthless."
Thank you for exaggerating my influence over the GOP, but that's really too much. Like anyone else in GOP primaries, I vote for who I think would best advance my preferences for less government, rule of law, individual rights and steady, wise leadership--as well as who could realistically win the general election. The GOP has often nominated imperfect vessels. If you're upset they lose a lot, consider why that is--hint, it's not because the one thing they needed to win was a scandal-machine who would alienate a bigger majority of the electorate than Hillary FREAKING Clinton.
But as I noted above, I don't expect you to learn from that. You advance instead the backstabber theory, which was exactly my point. Thank you for proving my case.
AprilApple
I'm a Cruz guy, but I support the one the Republican and Democrat crossover paroles nominated. I have more disdain for the elites than working people and the disadvantaged. Besides sometimes a wrecking ball is needed, it's like core aerating a lawn, destroys it in the short term.
Brando, if Hillary kills somebody on camera, you wont get higher than 58% approval for conviction since a Republican might benefit.
It is funny watching the Jeb/Rubio supporters wax nostalgic about a republican president. Maybe they could retire and be best buddies with the Clintons and Obamas after they are done being "conservative " and passing all those "small government " reforms and vote for democrats in the future. That hasn't happened before amrite?
But at least republicans won!
"He has proposed elimination of the EPA, DOE, DOE, among other things."
Putting aside whether President Trump would actually do these things--he will not, but let's go with the hypothetical--that would do nothing to harm lobbyists. First, the congressional acts necessary to eliminate those departments would cause a huge swell of lobbying. Second, even if successful, eliminating those departments would not mean the end of federal involvement (or more important for lobbyists, the POSSIBILITY of federal involvement, which is what they'll be lobbying for and against, both in congress, the media, and the executive branch).
The lobbyists are here to stay, particularly because government is as large and intrusive as it is.
"Brando, if Hillary kills somebody on camera, you wont get higher than 58% approval for conviction since a Republican might benefit."
Any scenario you can imagine, the one thing that would mean successful impeachment and removal is public opinion. Congress is a creature of it and is led by it.
"It is funny watching the Jeb/Rubio supporters wax nostalgic about a republican president. Maybe they could retire and be best buddies with the Clintons and Obamas after they are done being "conservative " and passing all those "small government " reforms and vote for democrats in the future. That hasn't happened before amrite?"
Achilles, you sure got my number. What I really want is a big-government Republican (not Trump though, a different big government Republican) who will give the farm away to the left, apologize for anything that isn't PC, and keep special interests in charge. Unfortunately Trump threatens my cushy ill-gotten way of life, so I have to try and defeat him, and the best way to do that is by posting comments on Althouse's blog.
Achilles - re-read this and try to understand. I know it's difficult.
Brando brings the reality:
"Backstabbing? Your legs must be tired from that leap of logic. How am I, some nobody commenter, undermining your imperfect vessel? If he loses, he loses on his own merits. No one has an obligation to put aside their reservations about a grossly unqualified person running for president, simply because you think every rip on him from anywhere in the universe undermines him. As for trying to defeat Hillary, Trump's more prominent critics (more prominent than me, anyway) tried to warn everyone about what a mess he would be, and surprise surprise, he was true to form. But now it's their (and my?) fault for not just pretending this guy isn't a disaster?"
"Backstabbing? Your legs must be tired from that leap of logic. How am I, some nobody commenter, undermining your imperfect vessel? If he loses, he loses on his own merits. No one has an obligation to put aside their reservations about a grossly unqualified person running for president, simply because you think every rip on him from anywhere in the universe undermines him."
Have you seen a single democrat denounce Hillary? During the primary Sanders refused to talk about the damn emails. Even now after it was clear he got the shaft no democrat will say a negative word about Hillary.
We are in a fight and the other side is doing everything they can to win. You want to sit there and say it isn't your fault we nominated a slouch. They support their candidates unreservedly.
They are going to win because they try and they all fight. We will lose if you are constantly nattering about how awful a candidate we have. We know he is awful. We all are. Now stop whining and help out.
MacMconnell
I'm a Cruz guy, but I support the one the Republican and Democrat crossover paroles nominated. I have more disdain for the elites than working people and the disadvantaged. Besides sometimes a wrecking ball is needed, it's like core aerating a lawn, destroys it in the short term.
I'm a ..." I just want to beat Hillary and it should be easy" - gal.
We've been firing on our own for a long time now. I don't think it's working.
"Achilles - re-read this and try to understand. I know it's difficult."
No it isn't. Democrats support their candidate no matter what. Republicans don't. Democrats are united. Enough republicans want to keep the gravy train rolling or puss out that we are not united.
I just put you in the puss out group.
Blogger damikesc said...
"I have said so before, Brando, and I completely agree with you. After a massive anti-Clinton midterm election in 2018, giving the GOP massive majorities in both houses of congress. Impeachment in 2019."
BWA HA HA!
Really?
OK, you will get zero Dem votes for that. Literally zero. They will never vote to punish a Democrat. So, it'll be ALL on the GOP.
You think you'll get Snowe to vote to remove the first female President? No, you won't.
Murkowski? No chance.
McCain? Fuck no.
Graham? Hell no.
You'll get, best case scenario, about 55 GOP votes if the GOP somehow gets 67 seats. Guess what the means? The "coup d'état" --- and yes, the media will portray it as such as they did when it happened to Bill --- will "fail" and it'll be time for repurcussions.
The GOP can't even get a motion passed to impeach the head of the IRS, whose crimes are obvious and blatant because they know not one single Dem will vote to convict. And because the GOP, honestly, doesn't care.
How large of a majority do you really think exists?
You dork. You phony. You ignoramus.
Olympia Snowe isn't even in the Senate anymore. She left in 2013. You need to pay more attention in this class.
Lindsey Graham was one of the House impeachment managers (prosecutors) in 1998-99. You can damn well bet that he'd do it again, except that now he gets to vote on guilt.
John McCain voted guilty in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. He'd do it again if called upon to do so.
"The GOP can't even get a motion passed to impeach the head of the IRS..." Just wait until the lame duck.
You really don't have to do much debating with educated political observers, do you?
"Have you seen a single democrat denounce Hillary? During the primary Sanders refused to talk about the damn emails. Even now after it was clear he got the shaft no democrat will say a negative word about Hillary."
It is true that Bernie didn't hit her as hard as he could have (Dems generally don't get as nasty as Republicans do towards their own in primaries) but then I don't recall Hillary getting as nasty with him as Trump did with his own primary opponents. (Maybe I missed where Hillary tweeted out an unflattering photo of Bernie's wife, and accused his dad of helping to kill JFK). But more importantly, as soon as Bernie was beat, Hillary went out of her way to woo him and his supporters. Even then, there are a lot of Bernie supporters who aren't backing her--either going third party or staying home.
What has Trump done instead? When he's not threatening and insulting the very people he wants to endorse him (great tactic, by the way) he has also done very little to appeal beyond his "AlwaysTrump" base.
Now, he still has most of those conservative votes anyway, simply because he's running against Hillary--you've seen a lot of the justifications represented here in this blog comment section. Sure, some "endorsers" are backing off, but if you thought McCain and Ayotte's endorsement were the essential thing keeping Trump's chances afloat, you're nuts.
Take a moment from blaming conservatives (who are mostly going to grudgingly vote Trump anyway, but will still vote) for the loss you fear, and instead ask yourself--could Trump himself be to blame for this? Could he have handled any of this better than he did?
Chick, are you actually considering yourself educated, you fucking clown?
"The lobbyists are here to stay, particularly because government is as large and intrusive as it is."
Because they are ex-politicians.
"You really don't have to do much debating with educated political observers, do you?"
I think damikesc's point still stands though, that a lot of GOP officeholders wouldn't vote to impeach in a lot of circumstances. I think the most important circumstance is where the public stands. I was impressed that so many Republicans still did vote for impeachment and removal in '98/'99 considering how unpopular that move was.
The media is where that battle will be fought. And the media is a lot more splintered and internet based than it used to be. Doesn't mean the GOP would win that round, but if they lose they'll have themselves to blame.
Brando @ 10:45.
This.
"Because they are ex-politicians."
That, but it's also just demand. Every interest from a group of concerned citizens to a sophisticated collection of businesses wants to influence an ever more powerful government in its functions, and as long as that need exists the lobbyists will prosper. Also, government (from a congressional legislative assistant to agency functionaries) relies on lobbyists for a lot of the know-how they rely on in creating legislation and regulations. That should say something about a government getting its nose into things it shouldn't, but there you have it.
Trump supporters ignore logic and name-call. Always a good sign.
Hey - Lets try to keep the House and Senate. Even after you lecture us on -- "Look how dedicated and loyal the Democrats are, and why can't we be that way too?"
damikesc said...
Chick, are you actually considering yourself educated, you fucking clown?
More than you, dipshit. You thought Olympia Snowe was still a U.S. Senator.
AprilApple
"We've been firing on our own for a long time now. I don't think it's working."
That's why the match has been lit on the Republican Party. Not that it has different wings so much, it's that they don't join force except for centrist candidates, what we once called Rockefeller candidates.
To be honest, the Republicans can't win, they don't fight like Democrats. Hillary was never beatable, the press wouldn't let it happen. Remember Obama was "beatable", Hillary will be Obama on steroids, Trump would have been successful if he accomplished 2% of what he promised.
Mac McConnell:
Wrong. Obama was most probably unbeatable, thanks to the unprecedented African-American turnout, voting about 97% Democrat, in 2008 and 2012.
Hillary was beatable, by any decent Republican.
The only way the Republicans can redeem themselves is if Trump wins, otherwise light the match.
Hillary is beatable.
But if we do not beat her, it is probably over for a long time. She will institutionalize her corruption and that means corrupting and overwhelming the voting system with so much fraud, the GOP really will be dead. Even if that brings you some form of satisfaction - it is a reality. and YOU don't have to lift a finger to help!
"Hillary was never beatable, the press wouldn't let it happen. Remember Obama was "beatable","
I think you have this wrong--Obama was somewhat "beatable" but he had a lot of advantages in 2012 that Hillary doesn't, and beating him would have been a much steeper hill to climb. That Romney got as close as he did was surprising, all things considered.
Hillary though is very beatable, sort of a tired mule being dragged over the finish line. She entered her nomination winded from the Bernie fight, and proved a poor campaigner. A competent candidate would be leading her by nearly ten points.
Remember, take Trump out of the equation and we'd be marveling that the Dems nominated someone with underwater approval ratings, terrible likability scores, and hilariously awful scores on "trust". She's only ahead because of her opponent who has taken the focus off of her. The media didn't have to make him do that, either.
Blogger AprilApple said...
"I'm a ..." I just want to beat Hillary and it should be easy" - gal.
We've been firing on our own for a long time now. I don't think it's working."
But you still do it. But your issue isn't trump. You are afraid of falling in general and would rather be seen as not trying rather than trying and failing.
The last WSJ/NBC poll that showed Hillary up 11 was administered and "interpreted" by 2 people who directly work for Hillary Clinton.
All of the "conservatives" bitching about Trump being a bad candidate need to figure out who they are and what we are up against. It wouldn't matter who we put up there. Look up who John Harwood is.
If you people don't get a clue we lose the republic.
Chick, you think the GOP has a shot at 60+ seats in the Senate. Please enlighten us further.
Remember, take Trump out of the equation and we'd be marveling that the Dems nominated someone with underwater approval ratings, terrible likability scores, and hilariously awful scores on "trust". She's only ahead because of her opponent who has taken the focus off of her. The media didn't have to make him do that, either.
That assumes that they'd have paid attention to her otherwise, and there is little evidence of that based on history.
Let's revisit Obama v McCain. McCain was a shit campaigner...but then he was forced to deal with a "scandal" of people in his AUDIENCE allegedly cheering Clinton's heart attack, when audio proved the opposite. Then there was the allegation that somebody advocated killing Obama in one of his rallies, which was also disproven. He was accused of an affair based on nothing. Then came Andrew Sullivan becoming a forensic OB/GYN for Palin's son, Trig. CNN declared that they'd not discuss Rev Wright further really early on in the campaign. McCain even chastised his supporters for not being nice enough to Obama.
All of these ridiculous bullshit "issues" and literally none of it was caused by the candidate.
Romney was accused of not paying taxes. Of cancelling a guy's insurance and his wife got cancer. Of allegedly beating up a kid who was gay in high school (the gay dude, of course, denied it happened...but the media didn't care). We heard reporters on an open mic planning to insure that Romney had to answer questions they'd never ask Obama -- who was President at the time. He had to answer for Trump's Birther nonsense...oddly, Dems are never asked to answer for the idiocy of their candidates. He had to answer that nobody was proposing to ban birth control based on a question from an impartial former staffer for the Clintons.
Did Romney cause ANY of that? No, he did not.
"Did Romney cause ANY of that? No, he did not."
Many media organs will play unfair to upend the GOP--that's a given. And there's plenty of conservative media to counteract that (for example, you were able to see through a lot of that, I gather, because you had access to other news sources that could debunk it--that wasn't so much the case thirty years ago).
But my point is that the media doesn't even have to TRY with Trump, because he's always there happy to court the controversy and take the focus off of Clinton. She gets an e-mail scandal, he decides a Mexican judge is too Mexican for him. Did the media make him say that? Did they put those words in his mouth?
damikesc said...
Chick, you think the GOP has a shot at 60+ seats in the Senate. Please enlighten us further.
It is a pure guess, nothing more.
The guess is generally based on:
1) The GOP holds a majority after the 2016 election, and uses it (House and Senate) to harass President Hillary Clinton and investigate her corruption and scandals.
2) The country gets more and more pissed off though 2017 and into the fall of 2018, with NeverTrump and FormerTrump types all coming together, united against Mrs. Clinton...
3) ...Resulting in a 2010-type midterm in 2018. Wherein Republicans get to 60 Senate votes or very close.
I should add; the 2018 midterms will be another historically bad setup for the Democrats. I am going to link to what I think is a very useful Wikipedia page for the 2018 Midterm Senate elections. Whatever the Republicans have after this terrible year -- say, 52 seats -- they could very realistically take eight seats in 2018.
3)
Dammit, I screwed up on adding the Wikipedia link. Sorry.
Here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2018
Post a Comment