Monday Open Thread [2.1.2016]
IOWA—Emerson: Clinton 51, Sanders 43, O’Malley 4
NEW HAMPSHIRE—CNN/WMUR: Sanders 57, Clinton 34, O’Malley 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE—Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald: Sanders 57, Clinton 37
IOWA—Emerson: Trump 27, Cruz 26, Rubio 22, Huckabee 5, Kasich 4, Bush 4, Carson 3, Paul 3, Christie 3, Fiorina 2, Santorum 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE—CNN/WMUR: Trump 30, Cruz 12, Rubio 11, Kasich 9, Christie 8, Bush 6, Fiorina 4, Carson 3, Paul 3, Huckabee 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE—Franklin Pierce University-Boston Herald: Trump 38, Cruz 13, Rubio 10, Bush 10, Kasich 8, Christie 5, Paul 5, Fiorina 5
There are three possible outcomes tonight for the GOP:
Trump wins, but Rubio does better than expected. This is the outcome the GOP establishment wants because it effectively sets up a Trump vs. Rubio battle for the rest of the primary season. If Cruz ends up finishing third, it’s hard to see him being much of a factor the rest of the way. The unknown is whether a Trump victory will dominated media coverage making Rubio’s better than expected result a mere footnote.
Cruz wins, with Trump in second. Though Trump has led in nearly all the recent polls, many expect that Cruz has a better “ground game” and can make the race close. If Cruz wins, he’ll almost certainly be competitive in South Carolina and the “SEC primary” on March 1. The unknown is how Trump will react if he loses a race most expect him to win. The media coverage of a Trump loss will be very interesting.
Trump wins, but Rubio doesn’t do well. This would energize the other so-called “establishment” candidates in New Hampshire and beyond. It could also prolong the winnowing process. The unknown is whether the establishment moves quickly to choose between Trump or Cruz or keeps waiting for someone else to emerge.
Fox News committing an act of journalism. It is simply amazing, after all these years, that the GOP has not come up with a better answer to what happens after they repeal Obamacare. And that is because the answer is: people will lose their health insurance and they will not get it back.
Politico asks what happens if Trump loses Iowa: “On Monday, after months of denouncing rivals and critics as ‘losers,’ the man who has promised ‘so much winning’ America ‘will get bored with winning’ and who has broken every conventional campaign rule on his improbable rise to the top of the GOP field will face his first real electoral test. Finally, there will be quantifiable results. Though the latest polls suggest otherwise, Trump might lose. And if it doesn’t happen in Iowa, maybe it will in New Hampshire, or South Carolina, or Nevada, or in any of the many primaries to come over the next frenzied few months. And if that happens?”
“He will deny and distort and belittle his critics and change the subject. He will say that he won. He always has.”
Rick Perlstein, who has written groundbreaking books on the rise modern conservatism, told Slate that Donald Trump may be remaking the Republican party.
Said Perlstein: “If there’s one thing that I thought I knew, it is that basically the ideas and the institutions that were born through the Goldwater movement were a backbone of this conservative takeover of the Republican Party. Donald Trump is perhaps most interesting in his lack of connections to that entire world. The first sign that something very different was happening was when he basically rejected Fox News, threw them over the side, and had no interest in kowtowing to them.”
Ron Brownstein: “Like a previously undiscovered earthquake fault, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is threatening to fracture the Republican electoral coalition along new lines. In the process he could disrupt both the demographic and geographic alignments that have defined previous races for the GOP nomination—and scramble the assumptions of his rivals about the coalitions they believed could power them to victory.”
Ed Kilgore on the state of the races in Iowa:
The Democratic race is close enough that there’s considerable suspense about the results. A Clinton win would likely squelch all the recent buzz about Sanders and the lip-licking anticipation among Republicans and media types alike that he might win the first two states and send Team Hillary into a 2008-style tailspin. Sanders would likely still be favored in New Hampshire, where he’s been leading by double-digits in recent polls, but the pressure would shift to his camp. A Sanders upset in Iowa would put the race right back where it was a couple of weeks ago, with Bernie fans looking for signs of post-New Hampshire momentum but otherwise feeling fine.
On the Republican side, there are two conflicting dynamics: Cruz’s highly reputed get-out-the-vote organization versus Trump supporters’ enthusiasm; and the leakage in Cruz’s zeppelin in recent days as he’s been pounded by everyone in sight, culminating in a very shaky debate performance Thursday night. Many establishment Republicans are hoping for a third dynamic: a last-minute burst for Rubio that was not detected by Selzer.
The good news for Rubio (even if the “surge” does not materialize) is that he is likely to finish far, far ahead of his rivals in the so-called “Establishment Republican Lane:” Kasich, Bush and Christie. So if anyone gets a “bump” going into New Hampshire, it’s Marco, and Cruz’s late struggles in Iowa could give Rubio a boost as well.
National Review on what the GOP Turnout numbers will indicate: “Four years ago, a record-breaking number of Iowans — 121,503 — participated in the Republican caucuses. If turnout exceeds 135,000 this year, GOP insiders agree, it will be an indication that Donald Trump has attracted a significant number of new voters to the caucuses. And if the increase is even more drastic — say, upwards of 150,000, which some Republicans believe is possible — then Trump will likely win.”
“But if turnout is below 135,000, Iowa will be Ted Cruz’s to lose, for two reasons: Firstly, both public and internal polling shows that Cruz’s supporters are, by and large, veterans of the caucus process, meaning their support can be counted on no matter what. Secondly, the Cruz campaign has poured massive resources into a field operation to successfully identify, persuade, and recruit voters.”
A whole lot of expectations setting going on. First, Donald Trumpsaid “he would like to win the Iowa Caucuses, but that he doesn’t believe his campaign has to win the first primary state in the country to remain successful.” Said Trump: “No, I don’t have to win it. And right now, you and I are sitting in New Hampshire. And as you know, I have a very substantial lead in New Hampshire. But I think it would be really good to win Iowa.”
Marco Rubio “tried to cast his campaign as the Republican primary’s underdog on Sunday, saying it does not have the polling numbers of Ted Cruz’s campaign or the financial backing of Jeb Bush’s super PAC network.” Said Rubio: “Ted Cruz is clearly the front-runner going into tomorrow night. He has 10,000 volunteers on the ground. We know it’s a tough hill to climb, but we feel very positive about our campaign.”
Donald Trump has weighed in on who he believes will win Super Bowl 50 between the Panthers and the Broncos. Trump was asked on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ who he likes in the Super Bowl this year. Here’s what Trump had to say via The Charlotte Observer.
“Well, your Carolina team is sort of a hot team. And the quarterback’s doing great. I very much have always liked Peyton Manning. Hes a very good guy. I know him. And he’s a very, very good guy. So I have to go with the person I know and I like [Denver Broncos]. I like the other team. I think the other team looks fantastic. Probably, they would be favored by something. But I’ll stick with Peyton because he’s a very good guy.”
Color me shocked that Trump would pick a team led by Peyton Manning over a team led by Cam Newton.
Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed a new book out this week: Buyer’s Remorse: How Obama Let Progressives Down by Bill Press. Yeah, that’s smart. Attack a sitting Democratic President is beloved by Democrats while running to succeed him in a Democratic primary. Hillary is going to destroy him with this, and rightfully so. How does Bernie Sanders propose to win the Democratic Primary without Obama voters? Yeah, he will win the purist progressives who were disappointed by Obama, but he already has them. But he will piss off Obama voters like me who are more pragmatic.
One day before the Iowa caucuses, a former paid employee of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign has alleged that she and other women were discriminated against and paid less than male staffers in the same positions. On Sunday, The New York Times published a story featuring testimony from former Trump field organizer Elizabeth Mae Davidson, who worked for the campaign in Davenport, Iowa, before being fired last month. Davidson reportedly filed a complaint on Thursday with the Davenport Civil Rights Commission over alleged discrimination. From the Times:
[Davidson] said in a discrimination complaint that men doing the same jobs were paid more and were allowed to plan and speak at rallies, while her requests to do so were ignored. She also said that when she and a young female volunteer met Mr. Trump at a rally last summer, he told them, “You guys could do a lot of damage,” referring to their looks.
Paul Krugman: “Even among those who don’t believe in the phony scandals, there is, as there was in 2008, a desire for someone new, who they imagine won’t bring out all that ugliness. But of course they’re wrong: if Sanders is the nominee, it will take around 30 seconds before Fox News is nonstop coverage of the terrible things he supposedly did when younger. Don’t say there’s nothing there: a propaganda machine that could turn John Kerry into a coward can turn a nice guy from Brooklyn into a monstrously flawed specimen of humanity in no time at all.”
Moments that are made for magazine writers: Cruz bus stuck in the mud on the eve of Iowa https://t.co/OS6dc6zDeI
— Phil Elliott (@Philip_Elliott) January 31, 2016
Ed Kilgore senses confidence in Hillary’s final rally speech last night:
If there’s any nervousness on Team Clinton about what’s happening tomorrow tonight, you couldn’t tell it from HRC’s speech, which sounds like it could be aimed at a broader audience. It’s a persuasion speech as much as a mobilization speech. Yeah, she does mention the support of Barney Frank (who has campaigned for her in Iowa) and Paul Krugman as evidence of her plans to reign in Wall Street, but again, it’s all pretty relaxed. … [T]he event spoke loudly of a confident candidate and campaign that’s ready to move on. We’ll soon know if that is hubris.
I spoke earlier about how Trump, Cruz and Rubio were managing the expectation game. We also have tells from the candidates themselves about how the campaign is going. Ed Kilgore says the Clinton campaign reeks of confidence. Margaret Hartmann on the Bernie Sanders campaign:
Over the weekend, Sanders began running a new ad in Iowa that hints Clinton is too influenced by Wall Street. And after famously declaring, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” at October’s debate, he took a different stance when Jake Tapper raised the issue on CNN’s State of the Union. “I think this is a very serious issue,” Sanders said. “I think there is a legal process right now taking place.”
In some ways Clinton and Sanders have switched tactics in the final days before voting in Iowa. As New York’s Ed Kilgore reported, a confident Clinton tried to fire up supporters by discussing a raft of progressive policy proposals on Sunday in Des Moines. Meanwhile, the final Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics poll showed Clinton three points ahead of Sanders in Iowa, and the Washington Post reports that a “visibly agitated” Sanders complained about Clinton hitting him on gun control and reproductive rights. “Those are inaccuracies, and we can do better than that,” he said. “Secretary Clinton and I have differences of opinion. Let’s debate those differences of opinion, but let’s not go around distorting a record that I am very proud of.”
That tells of a campaign that is behind.
Hey, Happy Black History month, which, unsurprisingly, is the shortest month of the year.
Some Black History from the Facebook page Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness:”
“If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can’t believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done – the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There’s so much more to say on this topic and it’s a shame that more people aren’t saying it. I think it’s time we have that conversation.”
But Hillary is the most “electable,” which apparently is what matters most.
I am very pleased with Disappointed.
@Disappointed: Not being a Democrat, I hate to tell you this, but unfortunately, Hillary is the most “electable,” which apparently is what matters most is actually the case, this year and almost every year. When it comes to the Presidency, if you belong to one of the major parties it really is not about protest votes, about raising issues, or about anything else … except winning. You have to be in the office to achieve anything at all (or, at least, to avoid the other side achieving anything if it controls Congress).
I can completely agree that Hillary and the Clinton legacy are something that simply won’t withstand the test of time in terms of the original Clinton administration’s record on many issues, but the only other option is gambling on Bernie, and the Democratic Party simply isn’t going to do that because Hillary vs the GOP field represents a lay-up or at least a six-foot jumper, while Bernie in the General is somewhere around the 3-point line. Doable, but as I have come painfully to realize, why would you gamble with the Presidency?
The alternatives are pretty stark: a Trump Presidency represents a disaster so profound that Ross Perot looked like a statesman in comparison, and Nixon’s paranoia wouldn’t even have moved the needle. No matter how bad the Clinton legacy/connections to the reduction of ADFC to TANF, or cosy relations to big banks, or militaristic foreign policy sound to me or millions of others, we’ve reached the point where “corruption as usual” beats “death of a nation.”
So what’s the remedy for corruption as usual? Is there one? Are we not suppose to make arguments now because this is the best we can do? It’s a lost cause, I suppose. We’re doomed either way.
People seem to want to always put this in a pragmatic political context. I don’t. This country needs a vocal faction arguing these issues. The economy is built for the growth of overleveraged corporations with regular citizens as the safety net. Think about that… That’s the system Clinton wants to work within. That’s the pragmatic approach.
Look, I’ll accept that that is the binary political decision: corruption or collapse. But I think people should be a bit more honest. The pragmatic vote is for corruption. The preaching about how Sanders supporters don’t understand politics and need to be taught the ramifications is a fucking insult. I’d respect the HRC argument more if it explicitly accepted what Prof Newton wrote. It’s a vote for corruption.
The economy is built for the growth of overleveraged corporations with regular citizens as the safety net.
While this is true, this changes when there is President with a working Congress that can change this status quo. One person won’t do this alone, which is the fallacy of the Bernie argument. (Said as someone who has written checks to Bernie.) It just repeats the Barack Obama Magic Negro BS and continues to ignore how your government works. There is no Green Lantern Theory of government — it took Presidents in collusion with Congress to get us here and it will take them both to get us out. And don’t give me any magic leadership bull, either. Because if that is your fallback, you have no idea the composition of the current House of Representatives.
I feel like it is easier for Republican idealists to get things done as president. GOP members of congress are actually afraid their voters will fire them if they don’t do what they want. A president Trump, in control of a loud, rabid mob could do this.
Democrats, meanwhile, keep electing Carney.
Hostile Congress. Green Lantern Theory! Change is unrealistic…
Any more cable news/political blog catch phrases? Were you playing a game to see how may hack political cliques you could stuff into a half dozen sentences? If so, well done. Personally I feel like I’m have a nightmare and I left Meet The Press on the TV as I fell asleep.
And of course the little insult at the end that Sanders supporters don’t understand the make-up of the US House. That’s always the coup de grâce.
Just say that you plan to vote for continued corruption because… politics. I will accept it and never mention it again.
OK. As long as you just say that you plan to vote for the King of America, because…you’ve decided that this is what the US Constitution should say if it wasn’t so corrupt.
OR — you can actually address the points instead of providing more reason to believe that you are much better at attitude than actual informed debate.
Dorian, I plan to vote for continued corruption in the General Election because I will not vote for a fascism. It is a risk calculation, plain and simple. My children and my fellow citizens have far more to lose if fascism wins. Read Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here” sometime.
The time to take over the Democratic Party (something not yet achieved even in Delaware, one of the supposedly most “liberal” states in the US) is between elections, not during one.
I don’t understand your comment. So pardon me if this doesn’t answer it. The King of America thing threw me because I have no idea what that means in this context.
The point is I’m not arguing this in a pragmatic political context. I wrote that above already. I’m arguing this from a philosophical standpoint. I disagree with Clinton political economic philosophy. I also disagree with Clinton’s foreign policy philosophy.
Moreover I think Prof Newton’s “death of nation” is hyperbolic. If a hypothetical President Sanders can’t get radical policies implemented how does a hypothetical President Trump or Cruz do it? The establishment GOP Members of Congress despise those two guys as well… The argument of a opposition Congress works in both directions here.
I actually agree that most if not all of the Sanders policy proposals wouldn’t be immediately achievable. I don’t care. He is making the correct argument so I support it because it’s right.
By the way, stringing political jargon together into sentences isn’t debate. I think we both have attitude, I just write better and have more interesting ideas.
Fair enough, Steve. Like I said, I think the death of nation is a bit of an exaggeration, but I take your point.
Ultimately, I will likely vote for HRC. Not that it’ll matter. I think DE’s three Electoral votes are in the bag as usual.
I just take real exception to the idea of people trying to excuse their vote for more corruption or worse try to pretend that that isn’t what it is. You were courageous enough to state it clearly and I respect that. As long as that is the argument and people tell the truth I’m cool with it. But don’t give me bullshit political talk and jargon about how politics works. It’s not clever. It’s just condescending and silly.
If a hypothetical President Sanders can’t get radical policies implemented how does a hypothetical President Trump or Cruz do it?
Seriously? Do you even remember BushCo? They get them passed because the GOP falls into line. Sharper and quicker than Dems ever do. Because getting their agenda done is more important to them than governing. And because once there is momentum on a bad idea, there are always Dems who will support it.
But then, what else can you expect from someone who is more invested in (imperfectly) observing his own own superiority and brilliance than in the actual chessboard in front of him?
Chessboard. That’s funny. It’s also funny how you think GW Bush is equivalent to a hypothetical President Cruz or Trump. I guess we’re just suppose to assume that based on your conjecture. Well, I don’t accept the premise. You make propositions based on your intuition only.
The idea that a radical President Trump will be able to institute fascism, but a radical President Sanders has no chance of implementing socialism makes very little sense.
Have you heard Lindsey Graham talk about Trump and Cruz? You think establishment Republicans in the Senate like Graham and McCain, or ones with a Libertarian bent like Rand Paul are going to fall in line with Trump or Cruz? I see absolutely no evidence that that’s true.
This is why I take a small issue with Prof Newton’s argument also. On one hand we idealistic idiots are to learn the lesson that big change never comes and politics only allows for very small gradual change. Unless it’s a hypothetical President Trump or Cruz. Then everything will change in two years. It’s smells a bit like fear-mongering to me.
The idea that a radical President Trump will be able to institute fascism, but a radical President Sanders has no chance of implementing socialism makes very little sense.
Of course it doesn’t. Because the fact that there is a Congress who gets a say is always missing for those of you with more self regard than information.
So you agreed with what I wrote then insulted me? Bizarre…
Look we both hold our own intellectual capacities in high regard. You’re a very confident person. Fine. Do you really think you have a better grasp of “information?”
Cassandra – you’re a predictable jargon machine. I’m aware of every argument you make. Nothing you write is novel or adds anything interesting or useful. One could hypnotize herself on the same ideas on MSNBC every night or just scan the Politics section of the Huffington Post. Everyone knows what you’ll say before you say it. It requires very little reflection and convinces nobody except for those already convinced.
I may be arrogant, but I’m not an intellectual bore.
DG, I see your point on a fascist Trump VS a Socialist Sanders….. The only issue i have with it is that a Republican president can get Dems to do what they want (like Hillary VOTING FOR THE IRAQ WAR) But a Dem president with a huge mandate …. like say, Obama…. cant even get Dems to do the right thing… like Carper on Health Care.
There’s too much (recent) evidence to suggest that a Fascist republican would have no problem at all instituting their agenda….. Their agenda also benefits the military industrial complex, where a socialist president and policies would only benefit “normal” people who dont matter to the establishment.
Even though I am voting and volunteering for Sanders, I have no misconceptions about what would happen if he is president. Dems arent going to take back the house, and even if they DO, it will be with spineless cowards like Carney and DINOs like DWS. It would essentially be a feel-good election, the best of the feelings revolving around ending the Clinton dynasty and avoiding Trump…. and the SCOTUS would be safe for a while.
I also have total faith that the GOP will fall in line. I’ve given up on finding a floor to the depths they will sink.
I’m willing to make this bet right now.. John McCain will endorse the GOP nominee, whoever it is, by July. If i’m wrong, i’ll buy the first 5 people who remind me about it drinks at the next Drinking Liberally. A fellow commenter who knows who I am will save this comment for posterity just in case I have to pony up.
In the last 50 years whenever the Democratic Tribe has nominated the “most electable” candidate, they have lost (with the exception of Clinton’s 2d term and the 2000 stolen election).
The electoral college advantage that the Democratic Tribe has today based on demographics is even bigger than 2012. They have only lost the popular vote once since 1988 (with the more “electable” John Kerry). So the Democratic candidate will win in November, whether it be Sanders or Clinton.
But it seems “electability” trumps policy for both Republican and Democratic Voters.
I understand the argument, ben, and it’s fair enough. My criticism of it is that it’s speculative and while it doesn’t reek of fear-mongering there is a slight odor of it there that turns me off.
My arguments have been philosophical. I understand the politics just fine. Pretending that I just don’t ‘get it’ and offering all the patronizing and sanctimonious constitutional lessons is very dumb and completely beside the point in a philosophical/theoretical context.
To dismiss the entire enterprise out of hand for political reasons before the full case is made is pretty shady business in my view.
heh you said “trumps”
I guess the REAL outcome of this election will be to replace that word with something that wont mean “spectacular failure that causes the nation’s mouth-froth racists to identify themselves”.
A hypothetical conversation in 2017
“Hey, did you see that Klan rally where they all took off their hoods and everyone got identified and fired from their jobs?”
“yeah, they totally Trumped themselves”
ben – I’m holding you to that. 🙂
fair enough. I too am very put off by the “it will be very hard, so let’s not even try” argument that dominates the Clinton folks. To me, her entire candidacy revolves around NOT replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg with Sarah Palin. That is all she has going for her…. and while that will TOTALLY be enough to get my vote in November, (again, while i am one of those idiot millenials working for Bernie, i know how this came is played) I think it’s a pathetic way to run for office.
You know, I’ve been quite clear that I like both candidates. That said, I’m getting really tired of being told if I vote for Hillary I’m voting for corruption. Is that really the message? We have two strong candidates. And if you’re wondering why I haven’t really felt the Bern… well, Bernie supporters aren’t doing their candidate any favors. And yes, I called out Obama and Hillary supporters in 2008 for the very same thing.
I’ve written on another thread that I see Donald Trump having problems with Congress. But Ben makes the point about Republican lockstep, complete with Dems assisting. Bernie and Hillary will face the same thing, so the question is… which one would have a better chance at some success with Congress?
Because you can’t have this discussion without factoring in Congress.
Sometimes, Pandora, the truth hurts. Prof Newton stepped up & was honest. I sincerely respect that. Perhaps you should reflect on his argument. It’s just not what you want to hear, but the structure that lead to the economic collapse in 2008 is a structure Clinton happily maintained & still supports.
Of course nothing can be done about it, political change being so gradual and all. And you know, those pesky Republicans in Congress… paging Jonathan Chait… maybe he can help us understand.
Um… well… okay
I may be arrogant, but I’m not an intellectual bore.
You are an arrogant anti-intellectual bore. One with more attitude than information. The usual hipster pretender thing. Mistaking a fairly lazy cynicism with some superior virtue that only you can see.
But then, you knew I was going to say that.
@Dorian Gray–the cheesy part of your answers is that you don’t wish to be lectured, but you are incredibly comfortable lecturing everybody else. Take this, for example:
Moreover I think Prof Newton’s “death of nation” is hyperbolic. If a hypothetical President Sanders can’t get radical policies implemented how does a hypothetical President Trump or Cruz do it? The establishment GOP Members of Congress despise those two guys as well… The argument of a opposition Congress works in both directions here.
That paragraph is pretty much the epitome of “Dorian doesn’t get it.” A Trump presidency comes accompanied by GOP majorities in both houses–it doesn’t happen any other way. A Sanders presidency, not so much.
You’re speaking of hyperbole when we have a candidate encouraging people to “rough up” protesters, who says he could shoot somebody and not lose votes, and so on. The only way I don’t get the death of something very precious is if you can make the case that Trump doesn’t believe anything that he is saying. Giving somebody of the Trump personality–who owes literally no one if he gets elected–the codes to America’s nukes, the authority over America’s military and federal law enforcement forces … that’s some scary shit way beyond even Dubya. The fact that you dismiss that is troubling.
The fact that you think you’re the only person in the house capable of philosophic analysis is amusing. But since you are the only one who can do it, go ahead: tell us what a Trump presidency with GOP majorities in Congress would look like in terms of financial protections, corporatism, foreign policy, immigration policy, LGBT rights, abortion rights … I’m waiting to hear exactly how you think Trump will moderate either his rhetoric or his objectives once in office. Enlighten us. Or else STFU with the “don’t lecture me” bullshit.
I don’t think I’m the only one capable of this level of discourse. I just think Cassandra clearly isn’t. Her ideas are predictable garbage. No value whatever.
I think the idea that Trump will win the nomination (still a long road). Then win the general elections (even longer) and then at the same time ride a wave of, I guess we’d call them neofascists or something, new members of Congress sweeping out moderate-ish establishment Republicans like Graham, McCain, Paul, etc. is a way longer leap than you make it out to be.
That being said, I agree that Trump is a very scary political figure. I just think you’re making assumptions on top of assumptions worrying that much about it. To say at this stage that the hypothetical is so scary that one shouldn’t even support a candidate like Sanders because he’s “unelectable” (another assumption) has a bitter wisp of fear-mongering.
And I agreed with and appreciated your characterization of HRC as “continued corruption.”
That is all.
Oh wait, by the way…, Steve, how many of these do we need to read before it becomes an issue:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/02/the-college-where-martin-luther-king-is-problematic.html
Sanders speaks to my issues like no one in my voting life
I found this post kind of interesting (and slightly freightening from the Reichstag standpoint).
http://mcfd2016.blogspot.com/2016/01/nate-silver-is-wrong-about-donald-trump.html
It is an analysis using game theory to analyze Trump and his opponents from a game theory standpoint.
I don’t think I’m the only one capable of this level of discourse. I just think Cassandra clearly isn’t. Her ideas are predictable garbage. No value whatever.
What’s hilarious here is that DD has pretty much the same ideas and apparently his ideas are not garbage. Still — here you are with the usual preening bullshit, still trying to convince someone that the preening = intellectual firepower. What I’m *actually* guilty of is noticing the little man behind the curtain. So here’s the deal — when the little man behind the curtain stops being a cheesy bore, I’ll stop noticing, ok?
But you probably knew I would say that, too.
LG, that article was interesting. I didn’t think that Trump would last this far at the beginning, either. But what no one counted on ( and neither does this Game Theory guy) was voter sentiment this round. Both Trump and Sanders are capturing a solid segment of voters who are pretty mad that the system no longer works for them. Trump plays it for the angry white guy/gal who is pretty much angry that their privileges just don’t get them as far as they used to. Sanders plays to younger white people who are pretty clear that the system isn’t meant to work for them. Trump doesn’t think he needs to speak to anyone outside of his angry white guy/gal cohort, and Sanders clearly wants to have a bigger tent coalition and can’t find a good way there. Both of these candidates have tapped into something quite real, even though they both approach root causes and solutions quite differently.