2016 Republican Presidential Clown Car Begins!
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
What Voters Want, and Other Notes
An interesting note arises in Digby's↱ consideration of David Frum's reflections on Donald Trump, and that has to do with what Bret Stephens said to Fareed Zakaria.
Got all that?
(Boldface accent added)
It's one of those interesting intersections of reality. Stephens has a certain degree of a point, and it's not so far from my own occasional reminders that we cannot wholly separate voters from the governments they elect. However, one need not be a pundit proper to recognize that telling voters they cannot ever have something they want right now is a functionally difficult proposition.
And Republicans ought to know; they've spent decades stoking these expectations. Consider the Gay Fray; conservatives have spent longer than a newly-eligible voter's lifetime commiserating with Republican Party leaders about how their constitutional rights are violated by not being allowed to violate the constitution.
So, yeah, I get what he means, that this ugly streak in our politics "be so decisively rebuked that the Republican party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way shape or form".
But, well, you know ... seriously?
"Forever learn their lesson"? "That they cannot"?
Uh-huh.
So, if that's the basic principle, what is the appropriate political manner of saying it?
That question, of course, sets aside the basic reality that nothing is forever.
Just, you know, telling voters that they cannot.
Pretty much all of us get the point, but, yeah.
Talking to voters like that pretty much means they'll do it again, just to spite you, and then again because by then it feels normal.
To the one, that means it's up to the rest of us to keep these blocs in check when they assert themselves like this.
To the other, it's one thing to talk revolution, transformation, restoration, enlightenment, rennaisance, whatever, again, all over, and so on, but think for a moment what that involves.
All that is required to purge this from our culture is a generation without it.
Yeah. That shiver. That was real. You're not wrong about that. Indeed, that's the problem.
Everything else is longer, of course. Still, though, better than trying to use brutality to purge brutality. But the point is intended to reinforce the problematic prospect of telling voters where to stuff it.
Republicans might well have a long obligation, now, to deal with this. Okay, sure, they have an obligation, but come on, they're Republicans, so, yeah, good luck with that. But all the long roads demand not only that we not give over to the temptation, but more particularly that we not entertain it at all. Isolation is inevitable; these are people who feel alienated and oppressed by a lack of superiority under law.
In any case, much caution seems in order when telling voters what they cannot have, regardless of the merit in the point.
____________________
Notes:
Digby Parton, Heather. "'The clan leader of white Americans': Conservative David Frum perfectly explains how the disintegration of the GOP has created Trump". Salon. 1 June 2016. Salon.com. 1 June 2016. http://bit.ly/284kv1p
An interesting note arises in Digby's↱ consideration of David Frum's reflections on Donald Trump, and that has to do with what Bret Stephens said to Fareed Zakaria.
Got all that?
There are mainstream Republicans who are opting out, more than people may realize. The Stop Trump Movement boasts some major players in the GOP scene, people like Mitt Romney, George Will, Erick Erickson, David Brooks and Glenn Beck to name just a few. Some are attempting to salvage their futures by contending that Trump is unacceptable only because he is a traitor to conservatism, which he is in some ways although that is hardly the primary case against him. The more valiant among them take the threat of Trump seriously and are willing to admit the truth, such as Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal who told Fareed Zakaria over the weekend:
I most certainly will not vote for Donald Trump. I will vote for the least left wing opponent to Donald Trump and I will want to make a vote that will make sure he is the biggest loser in presidential history since Alf Landon or going back further. It's important that Donald Trump and what he represents, this "ethnic conservatism or populism" be so decisively rebuked that the Republican party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way shape or form.
(Boldface accent added)
It's one of those interesting intersections of reality. Stephens has a certain degree of a point, and it's not so far from my own occasional reminders that we cannot wholly separate voters from the governments they elect. However, one need not be a pundit proper to recognize that telling voters they cannot ever have something they want right now is a functionally difficult proposition.
And Republicans ought to know; they've spent decades stoking these expectations. Consider the Gay Fray; conservatives have spent longer than a newly-eligible voter's lifetime commiserating with Republican Party leaders about how their constitutional rights are violated by not being allowed to violate the constitution.
So, yeah, I get what he means, that this ugly streak in our politics "be so decisively rebuked that the Republican party and Republican voters will forever learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way shape or form".
But, well, you know ... seriously?
"Forever learn their lesson"? "That they cannot"?
Uh-huh.
So, if that's the basic principle, what is the appropriate political manner of saying it?
That question, of course, sets aside the basic reality that nothing is forever.
Just, you know, telling voters that they cannot.
Pretty much all of us get the point, but, yeah.
Talking to voters like that pretty much means they'll do it again, just to spite you, and then again because by then it feels normal.
To the one, that means it's up to the rest of us to keep these blocs in check when they assert themselves like this.
To the other, it's one thing to talk revolution, transformation, restoration, enlightenment, rennaisance, whatever, again, all over, and so on, but think for a moment what that involves.
All that is required to purge this from our culture is a generation without it.
Yeah. That shiver. That was real. You're not wrong about that. Indeed, that's the problem.
Everything else is longer, of course. Still, though, better than trying to use brutality to purge brutality. But the point is intended to reinforce the problematic prospect of telling voters where to stuff it.
Republicans might well have a long obligation, now, to deal with this. Okay, sure, they have an obligation, but come on, they're Republicans, so, yeah, good luck with that. But all the long roads demand not only that we not give over to the temptation, but more particularly that we not entertain it at all. Isolation is inevitable; these are people who feel alienated and oppressed by a lack of superiority under law.
In any case, much caution seems in order when telling voters what they cannot have, regardless of the merit in the point.
____________________
Notes:
Digby Parton, Heather. "'The clan leader of white Americans': Conservative David Frum perfectly explains how the disintegration of the GOP has created Trump". Salon. 1 June 2016. Salon.com. 1 June 2016. http://bit.ly/284kv1p
Ten bucks says that guy voted for W. Twice. And Palin.
So what does he actually mean, by this vague notion of "unqualified"?
I can tell him right now what will happen if all the Trump voters do learn that the Republican Party will never welcome anyone like Trump ever again: the Republican Party will cease to be a major political Party. That's their base - that and the Taliban wannabes from Evangelicatown, whiteside suburb.
Trump is Reagan, without the personal dignity and demeanor but with somewhat more raw intelligence. He's not housebroken, but he's got the common touch the Reps missed in people like Romney. He's another Great Communicator. He fits right in. As the Reagan era continues in the Republican Party, the interesting question is why they are so bothered by this guy - granted he's a funhouse mirror, a bit distorted, but he's far from alien to them.
Last edited:
Trump is no Reagan.
The Divine Sticky Keyboard
Oh, come on, an elite media star with political ambition stoking the worst of human instincts and whose best prospect as president is being a puppet?
It is perhaps interesting that Reagan was called the Great Communicator. Consider what that represents. Reagan was a pretentious, lying asshole in a masculine, jingoistic tradition that saw a smug but quick-tempered John Wayne character as the height of legendary American heroism. In other words, what made Reagan "great" was that for an asshole, he was good enough at the routine that down-home, Middle American supremacist values cheered at the thought that he was their asshole.
I remember the time of disparaging women for being bonbon hoovering soap-opera watching couch potatoes with too many high-minded ideas. Replace bonbons with Slim Jims, soap operas with WWE, and women in general with white men in particular, and you pretty much have the heart of Donald Trump's identity politic.
They're easy marks.
Besides, these are Republicans we're talking about. You know, there was some controversy over how fast the Catholic Church canonized Teresa; it still tastes bitter to think that Francis canonized Junipero Serra. But in the Conservative Church, they've already canonized Ronald Magnus, and in the present cycle, as Republicans roll into the Trump camp at an astounding eighty-five percent↱ support, we have no reason to start picking Donald's canonical name except for the obvious, which is that he won't be president.
Still, though, Saint Donald Bestus? How about, Saint Donald Awesomus? Saint Donald Deus? That would probably be best. Then they can fulfill their mass gay rape fantasies by imagining a Heaven in which divine destiny means blissfully sucking Donny Deus until eternity comes, and then comes again.
There you go: Saint Donald Moneyshotus.
____________________
Notes:
Frum, David. "The Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy". The Atlantic. 31 May 2016. TheAtlantic.com. 1 June 2016. http://theatln.tc/25z2kPi
Joepistole said:
Oh, come on, an elite media star with political ambition stoking the worst of human instincts and whose best prospect as president is being a puppet?
It is perhaps interesting that Reagan was called the Great Communicator. Consider what that represents. Reagan was a pretentious, lying asshole in a masculine, jingoistic tradition that saw a smug but quick-tempered John Wayne character as the height of legendary American heroism. In other words, what made Reagan "great" was that for an asshole, he was good enough at the routine that down-home, Middle American supremacist values cheered at the thought that he was their asshole.
I remember the time of disparaging women for being bonbon hoovering soap-opera watching couch potatoes with too many high-minded ideas. Replace bonbons with Slim Jims, soap operas with WWE, and women in general with white men in particular, and you pretty much have the heart of Donald Trump's identity politic.
They're easy marks.
Besides, these are Republicans we're talking about. You know, there was some controversy over how fast the Catholic Church canonized Teresa; it still tastes bitter to think that Francis canonized Junipero Serra. But in the Conservative Church, they've already canonized Ronald Magnus, and in the present cycle, as Republicans roll into the Trump camp at an astounding eighty-five percent↱ support, we have no reason to start picking Donald's canonical name except for the obvious, which is that he won't be president.
Still, though, Saint Donald Bestus? How about, Saint Donald Awesomus? Saint Donald Deus? That would probably be best. Then they can fulfill their mass gay rape fantasies by imagining a Heaven in which divine destiny means blissfully sucking Donny Deus until eternity comes, and then comes again.
There you go: Saint Donald Moneyshotus.
____________________
Notes:
Frum, David. "The Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy". The Atlantic. 31 May 2016. TheAtlantic.com. 1 June 2016. http://theatln.tc/25z2kPi
The Donald's businesses are paying a high price for his political adventures. I wouldn't be surprised if he files for bankruptcy again. Revenues at his golf courses and hotels are down big time. The damage he has done to his brand is huge and that damage won't be repaired anytime soon.
Better hope that isn't just wishful thinking - because Reagan mopped the floor with a conservative rightwing business-friendly Democrat with a variable southern accent and an electoral base in the black community. Running as an incumbent President after experience as a Governor. The best qualified candidate in the field, very intelligent, running on competence in policy.
Here's the results: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1980
Target Market
But he's rebranding. How much can he fleece this sector for?
There are, of course, any number of considerations about the testimony of these former employees, but while the American way often prescribes a no conviction, nothing wrong attitude, the fact remains that Mr. Trump's business career is notorious.
The juxtaposition here is soft marks. Legitimate business or fraud, soft marks are desired.
I wonder what his actual speculation on this sector looks like. All he has to say is that the damage to his brand is a conspiracy, and they'll believe him.
How much money can he take these people for? Suddenly the idea of buying iHeartRadio↑ doesn't seem so silly.
____________________
Notes:
Barbaro, Michael and Steve Eder. "Former Trump University Workers Call the School a 'Lie' and a 'Scheme' in Testimony". The New York Times. 31 May 2016. NYTimes.com. 1 June 2016. http://nyti.ms/1WxKuul
Joepistole said:
But he's rebranding. How much can he fleece this sector for?
In blunt testimony revealed on Tuesday, former managers of Trump University, the for-profit school started by Donald J. Trump, portray it as an unscrupulous business that relied on high-pressure sales tactics, employed unqualified instructors, made deceptive claims and exploited vulnerable students willing to pay tens of thousands for Mr. Trump's insights.
One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future. He watched with disgust, he said, as a fellow Trump University salesman persuaded the couple to purchase the class anyway.
"I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme," Mr. Schnackenberg wrote in his testimony, "and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money."
(Barbaro and Eder↱)
One sales manager for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, recounted how he was reprimanded for not pushing a financially struggling couple hard enough to sign up for a $35,000 real estate class, despite his conclusion that it would endanger their economic future. He watched with disgust, he said, as a fellow Trump University salesman persuaded the couple to purchase the class anyway.
"I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme," Mr. Schnackenberg wrote in his testimony, "and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money."
(Barbaro and Eder↱)
There are, of course, any number of considerations about the testimony of these former employees, but while the American way often prescribes a no conviction, nothing wrong attitude, the fact remains that Mr. Trump's business career is notorious.
The juxtaposition here is soft marks. Legitimate business or fraud, soft marks are desired.
I wonder what his actual speculation on this sector looks like. All he has to say is that the damage to his brand is a conspiracy, and they'll believe him.
How much money can he take these people for? Suddenly the idea of buying iHeartRadio↑ doesn't seem so silly.
____________________
Notes:
Barbaro, Michael and Steve Eder. "Former Trump University Workers Call the School a 'Lie' and a 'Scheme' in Testimony". The New York Times. 31 May 2016. NYTimes.com. 1 June 2016. http://nyti.ms/1WxKuul
douwd20
Registered Senior Member
Reagan was charismatic, Trump isn't. I'm just not impressed by egotistical boasting, and I don't think most Americans are either.
Oh, really, and where is the basis for that assertion? Trump is probably at the highest point in his polling numbers, because he has secured his party's nomination. And Hillary is a probably at her lowest point because she hasn't secured her party's nomination. Until now, Trump has only competed in Republican circles. Only a small fraction of Republicans have voted and only a small fraction of that fraction has voted for Trump. But it was enough to make Trump the nominee. That was the easy part for Trump. Now things get more difficult for him.
And in truth, Trump is more similar to Palin. He's a slightly smarter version of Palin. He loves to toss the red meat Republicans so adore. Going forward, it will be much more difficult for Trump. He now faces a much more discerning electorate.
Maybe. But that would be a complete reversal of every historical and established trend we have involving those two candidates.joe said:
Meanwhile, Trump's Party nomination garnering was at the beginning a much more difficult task than Clinton's - few outside of the intransigent and cynical Left gave him much chance of success, and he had many more and more severe obstacles to overcome. So his relative success (compare with Clinton's continuing if greatly diminishing struggles) as a measure of his capabilities is worrisome, if you don't think he'd make a good President.
OH...and where are those trends?
Actually, it wasn't. It was probably the easiest. None of the candidates took him seriously, until it was too late. The press didn't think he would run, and once he did run his fellow candidates and the press expected he would quickly self destruct. Well, much to their chagrin he didn't self destruct. They all failed to understand the Trump phenomena. The Republican base isn't very sophisticated or well informed. They don't care and are probably totally unaware of Trumps positions and contradictions. From now forward, Trump will be receiving much more critical scrutiny from the press and anyone who isn't a Republican.
douwd20
Registered Senior Member
When was that, do you think - the moment when they started taking him seriously, but it was too late? Was it when he took three of the four February votes, losing only Iowa and a close second there, picking up 20 - 40 % of the vote in a field of 17 candidates? Was it Super Tuesday, when he won 7 of 11 contests outright and a strong second (once third) in the other four (which included Cruz's home state, in which Cruz did not break 50% and polled to effectively tie or even lose a two man race)?joe said:
Or was it after he had been leading by double digits in the polls for three solid months, lapping the entire field except for Ben Carson (who was going nowhere in the long run), say around October of 2015? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
There were some people who did take him seriously, btw - very seriously. They did "understand the Trump phenomena" (sic, and brilliant plural), having been watching them for many years now. They were perhaps sarcastic, in their descriptions of the media coverage and the Republican Party, talking about breaking out the popcorn and watching Trump demolish the little punditocracy playhouse that their TV had become, but they were also alarmed.
It's one thing to warn people about the monster they are making. It's another to see it walk out of the castle and survey its prospects. The selling of the invasion of Iraq may turn out to have been merely a preliminary.
But the point here is this: there are some people who have a track record of being right about Donald Trump's candidacy, from the beginning. They have been right about the journalism, the Party behavior, the reactions, the fate of the saviors such as Jeb and Marco, the whole shot. So maybe they are worth a listen now, eh? And they say this: Trump can beat Clinton in November. He can win this thing. In fact, right now the odds are in his favor. There isn't going to be any enlightenment via the US media, any effective "scrutiny", any sudden incursion of sane and rational political discourse in a media environment that banished reality based analysis in favor of "both sides" theater of the absurd long ago. And in a bullshit "both sides" battle, the best bullshitter has the best chance.
That noted, there is a ray of hope. Trump is thin skinned. He can be needled. Clinton does bray, which is not the best for needling, but to the extent she can learn to modulate her voice even a little (as Trump has been doing right along, with telling effect), her thicker skin gives her a possible edge. If Clinton can coax an explosion out of the guy on a big enough stage, she can get him to take himself down. That is a realistic possibility.
The thing is, that piece could have, should have, been written thirty years ago. It talks about this stuff as if it were new with Trump, some kind of recent development. And if you don't know where it came from again and where it's headed again, your odds of handling it go way down.
Last edited:
t
The point is I was one of those people who have been right about The Donald. Can The Donald win? It's possible. But is it likely? No. What works for the Republican base doesn't work for the nation at large, and that's the same problem Romney faced.
Uh, no, not if you thought the problem was that none of the candidates took him seriously "until it was too late".joe said:
That was the media's problem, maybe, but the candidates were in it from jump. They were running against Trump, primarily, all of them, from the summer of 2015 on. The last four months of the campaign leading into the primaries was all Trump all the time. Each "establishment" anointed candidate in turn was measured primarily by how they did against Trump. The big news from the Iowa caucus, the very first one, was that Trump finished second and Rubio didn't do too badly against him - they were already running against him, each one. That Rubio got beat by Cruz was comparatively minor. The only "too late" moment in the Party was when they realized ( and my guess is during the opening ceremonies on the very first debate stage, if not sooner) that they didn't have a legitimate candidate for President in the entire Party - they had nothin', Trump was somethin', and you can't beat somethin' with nothin'.
And not if you think he's only a little bit smarter and not much better informed than Palin.
He knows what he needs to know, he's not going to be surprised and flummoxed by "gotcha" questions, and he's not going to babble in public.
Romney never had the Republican base - what he had worked for the Republican financiers, not the base.joe said:
Trump has the base, and almost the entire Hillary-hate vote on top of that. That's upwards of 40% of the likely voters. If he gets a share of the anti-abortion Hispanic and other ethnic vote, corrals some union vote via Clinton's trade deal history, and makes a personal connection with the military and the vets (a lot of women, there), he's not far from the brass ring. Can he be prevented from doing that?
Last edited: