Would a Trump defeat have a marked down-ballot effect?
Paul Mirengoff tackles the question, and his answer is maybe not, but it depends how huge the defeat is.
Personally, I’ve never quite understood down-ballot effects, although I acknowledge that they most definitely exist. I have no problem splitting my vote, or going to the polls whether or not I care about the biggest races or even whether there’s a big race at all. But I also am aware I’m not exactly typical of much of anybody, and that psychologically speaking it makes sense to be more motivated to vote when there’s enthusiasm for the top of the ticket.
Mirengoff writes (citing an article on the subject by Charlie Cook):
First, there aren’t that many competitive races for House seats. Second, voter doubts about Hillary Clinton and the desire to check her power as president will, in Cook’s view, likely rein in a down ballot effect. The Democrats may well win the Senate, but probably not because of Donald Trump.
There’s a third reason why a Trump defeat might not spill over. As Cook suggests, traditional Republican voters who don’t support Trump are likely to turn out in large numbers to try to make sure Hillary has to deal with a Republican Congress. They might also be joined by folks who usually don’t vote but are inspired to by Trump.
Sounds plausible, but (as Mirengoff later adds) it may depend on the size of the Trump defeat. The bigger the defeat, the worse it will be for the other GOP candidates.
I suppose that’s true. But to me it still seems possible that a big defeat will cause even more people to come out and elect more Republicans to Congress in an effort to thwart Hillary’s power as president. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking on my part, but it’s a possibility that has some logic to it.
Why are we talking about a big Trump defeat? Because that’s the way it looks (and has looked to me for quite some time), and there are now only three months to go till the election. In fact, one of the reasons (not the only one, but perhaps the biggest one) I spent the primaries arguing so desperately against a Trump nomination was that I have always seen him as a sure loser in the general.
That wasn’t just based on a hunch, either, although that was indeed what my gut told me. It was based on evidence in the polls that not only was Trump unlikely to win, but that he would be the worst of all the GOP candidates against Hillary, and that anyone who said otherwise was hopefully spinning the evidence (see this for one of many posts of mine on the subject).
Now, I don’t usually make such bold predictions about election outcomes, but as early as August of 2015 I saw Trump as a very possible GOP nomination winner. See for example this post, which I wrote on August 22, 2015:
From the start of Trump’s rise in the polls I’ve taken him very seriously as a phenomenon. I haven’t understood those who casually asserted “He’s never going to win the nomination.” I’ve long thought he could…
So already, only about two months into the process, I had “long thought” Trump could win the nomination. But I never thought he could win the general, and that was a source of great turmoil for me as I watched him gain ground and I began to realize he was the almost inevitable nominee and the almost inevitable loser to Hillary Clinton.
That’s why during the primaries I saw every vote for the abominable Trump—however well-intentioned the voter might be—as a vote enabling the abominable Hillary. And now, when I am told by Trump supporters that not voting for the abominable Trump is a vote for the abominable Hillary, I confess I sometimes feel like telling those who voted for Trump long ago, when there were other excellent GOP choices available in the primaries: you should have thought of that earlier.
Yes, yes, it’s all water over the dam, don’t look back, we must deal with the situation as it is now. But that situation seems a tragic one, and I keep thinking it didn’t have to be this way.
The closest I ever came to revising my prediction that Trump’s loss to Hillary was inevitable was during a brief period post-RNC when Trump was doing well in the polls, and I revised Trump’s chances of winning to 1 in 3 (unfortunately, I can’t find the link to that post or comment, but that’s my recollection of the figure I picked at that point). Now I’d say I’m back to maybe 1 in 20, and that’s being kind to him.
For a Republican to become president, some combination of the following things must happen, preferably all of them but absolutely at least one:
(1) hold the base and get the vast majority of the Republican votes, preferably above 90%
(2) get a majority of Independents’ votes
(3) get some Democrats’ votes, more than 10%
I see no evidence that Trump has done any of these things, according to the polls I’ve read. Nor was he doing them consistently earlier.
Wishful thinking has driven the Trump voters from the start—both as to his chances, and about who he is and what he’s about. So I’ll add some wishful thinking of my own: I hope I’m wrong on both scores. I hope he beats Hillary and (this is an all-important part) that he’s a far far better man, and president, than I think he is or would be.
As I wrote to my cousin April 7:
I do believe we will look back at the Trump campaign as the most suicidal moment in recent American political history.
Barring miracles, Trump will cement in place Obama’s legacy.
I understand the anger and I agree Trump is right about some things, but he is entirely the wrong candidate and he guarantees defeat at a supremely strategic juncture.
I can’t believe what a perfect storm of a disaster Donald Trump has been.
My cousin dismissed my email as a rant and I decided to back off.
huxley:
I very much share the sentiments in your email to your cousin, and have felt this way since last August.
Interesting that your cousin dismissed it as a “rant.” Does calling something a rant mean it’s not valid in terms of substance? Of course not, but people like to act as though it does, if they happen to disagree with it.
I won’t make any predictions–I learned my lesson during the primaries this year–but I hope that Trump loses and loses big. I think this is the only way that the Republican Party can be rescued. If Trump wins, it will continue to be the Trump Party for at least four years and probably forever.
Wooly Bully:
Trouble is I don’t think that will rescue the GOP—or conservatism—at all. Until perhaps another generation, unless the Clinton presidency and the Court she appoints, as well as her immigration policy, has changed the country to permanent leftism/liberalism.
I’m of a mind to not only not vote for Trump (that’s assured) but alsi to not vote for GOP office holders who spinelessly endorsed him.
Stupid party…
Neo: Maybe not, but if Trump wins, it’s his party. And not mine. I’ve been a Republican a lot longer than Trump has, and I want my party back. And I’ll cry if I want to.
Bill:
I don’t know whether you’ve read this post of mine on that topic, but I suggest you take a look.
I think it’s counter-productive to take revenge or to punish by enabling the election of something even worse.
Bill:
I don’t know whether you’ve read this post of mine on that topic, but I suggest you take a look.
I also think it’s counter-productive to take revenge or to punish by enabling the election of something even worse.
I’m not at all convinced that he’ll lose, but if Trump loses, it’s all going to fall apart, not immediately but inevitably. Nor will it matter who we elect down-ballot because the game will in effect be lost. Though surely many will fight on determined to “leave it all on the field”. Incognizant of their actions having raised them to prominance on the Left’s ‘radar’ and thus making them the first ‘nails’ that the Left will hammer down.
If he wins… who knows?
There’s one way in which Trump might already be hurting the down ballot races that’s not mentioned above. I remember reading a while back (a month or two ago, iirc) that because Trump’s campaign was so underfunded (because he’d basically ignored anything and everything involving the nuts and bolts of the campaign – like fund-raising), the RNC was going to be forced to put a much larger amount of funds into his campaign. In ordinary circumstances, those funds would have gone to down ballot races instead.
So Trump’s campaign might mean that some down ballot races end up underfunded, and are unable to get the word out via paid advertisements, and end up losing a close race.
Wolly Bully,
Are you at base, a Republican or a Conservative?
If a republican, don’t worry, even if Trump wins, you’ll get your party back. As VP Pence is to Trump, as G. Bush Sr. was to Reagan. Pence will cave to political correctness, as surely as Bush Sr. did…
But if you’re a conservative, the GOP abandoned you long ago and your tears, long past due.
I look at the 538 site everyday; its track record of predicting elections is very good. Right now Trump is so far under water it’s ridiculous. 538 has the odds of HRC winning at around 87%!!! Trump right now would get about 130 electoral votes at best.
Unless something drastic happens (HRC has one of her seizures in full public view), there’s no sense worrying about Trump being elected. Say hello to Her Majesty Queen Hillary.
Three months to go until the election: that’s a nice thought. Of course, two years after that, the next campaign begins. But still I don’t think I’ll mind it as much as this one.
“Why are we talking about a big Trump defeat? Because that’s the way it looks . . . .” [Neo]
I still can’t help but wonder if we are all trying to judge the depth of the pond by looking at its surface.
This morning Ann Althouse reported a tweet by Jake Tapper:
Clearly a single anecdote doe not make a trend, but IMO it is not hard to see the possibility of an underlying preference cascade. Again I say possibility.
Another article I read this AM drew a parallel with Minnesotans electing Jesse Ventura as their governor (sorry, didn’t note the source and couldn’t find it). The point made was that even though Minnesota has the reputation of an upscale, intelligent, progressive state, Ventura was not elected because he was seen as some sort of Rhodes scholar or state savior, but because in the isolation and the privacy of the voting booth it was an opportunity for Minnesotans to “stick it to the man” (“the man” being mismanaged establishmentarian government).
Will such a preference cascade materialize? Are they even predictable (IMO, No, they are not). At any rate, we’ll find out in November.
This is the year conventional wisdom & the track record of the prognosticators has lost the plot…and has proven itself almost useless.
Precisely because “the GOP abandoned you long ago” (HT Geoffrey Britain) Trump’s chances of winning are greater than any of us think. Certainly greater than any of those who for the last 14 months have scoffed at his candidacy.
physicsguy wrote:
Even in such event (i.e., an obvious seizure in public view), Hillary’s support would strengthen if just out of sympathy. Hillary would have to voluntarily withdraw for her health to make a difference.
T quoted Ann Althouse’s presentation of Jake Tapper’s tweet:
Heck, I can be overheard complaining about Trump’s repeated foot-in-mouth feats, and I’m voting for him.
CLINTON DELENDA EST!
John Guilfoyle Said:
“This is the year conventional wisdom & the track record of the prognosticators has lost the plot…and has proven itself almost useless.”
Except in the case of Paul Ryan, which came out exactly as the non-Trump supporters expected.
The GOPe will not soul-search in the case of a Trump loss, and if they do they will come to the wrong conclusions just as they did after 2012.
It is Trump supporters who must do the soul-searching if Trump loses. I’m not sure that the hardcore members are up to that task, being as partial as they are to scapegoating, rationalization, and conspiracy theories.
Well, GB I think you illustrate why there is concern about the down ballot. It is more than possible that as Trump’s defeat becomes obvious, many who identify themselves as conservatives, but not Republicans will just stay home. (I won’t bother to point out that Trump’s history reveals him to be the least Conservative of all, except for his recent rhetoric.)
I suspect that there are those who will even take perverse satisfaction from the fact that the GOPE is torn asunder. At least until they feel the full wrath of a HRC Administration allied with a Dimocrat Senate (and House?). Regardless, they will blame the debacle on others for not covering for Trump’s pitiful performance as a candidate. I have already read complaints that the establishment did not get behind Trump; and I chuckle ironically, as I think about how Trump has trashed them from the first.
There is no particular reason at this point in arguing about the relationship between Republicans and Conservatives. Folks who do not see that the GOP is the only defense against an even greater lurch to the left, are not going to change their minds. As well it does no good to point out that politics are never more than the art of the possible; and that with such a divided country the possibilities are quite limited.
So, I won’t try to make any of those arguments.
John Guilfoyle:
I see you as whistling past the graveyard.
And in fact, conventional wisdom is often correct.
So far, my track record on Trump is very very good. Except for the first few weeks of his campaign, I took the possibility of his nomination extremely seriously and feared it for just the reasons that have come to pass so far.
Overall, it just seems that as leader of the “GOP Brand” trump’s election performance will have some affect down the line for other GOP candidates. A bigger loss probably is a good indicator that we can expect a bigger impact.
Doubt that the GOP candidates who continue to ride the fence on trump would be able to differentiate themselves much from trump. Only those actively distancing themselves could hope to avoid a down-ballot impact, imho.
The real question is the Senate, which was already known to be touch and go before trump even entered the race. Having just a little bit of down-ballot effect might be enough to tip the scales against a GOP majority there – and with it any hope at blocking or mitigating poor SCOTUS nominees, among other things.
If a republican, don’t worry, even if Trump wins, you’ll get your party back. As VP Pence is to Trump, as G. Bush Sr. was to Reagan. Pence will cave to political correctness, as surely as Bush Sr. did…
GB: Except if Trump wins, you can bet that, whatever else he may do, he will indulge his huge appetite for vengeance by destroying as many conservatives as he can who opposed him.
Furthermore, it’s going to take a long time, maybe a generation, for the Republican Party to live down surrendering its principles to a loud, ignorant, con-man, strongman who sure the heck sounds like a bigoted wacko half the time. You can bet that the Democrats and the media aren’t going to let Republicans walk away from Trump nor the nation to forget about him.
Lastly, the wounds from the pro/con Trump divide will haunt the Republican Party for some time. If Trump loses, you can bet Trump and his supporters will blame other Republicans most of all.
Numbers are what elections are about. Especially in the swing states. According to the present numbers HRC has 190 electoral votes in the bag and Trump 163. The swing states or “battle ground” states this year are:Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. It’s a larger number than usual because the normally Democrat rust belt is in play and some reliable GOP states such as Arizona and Georgia are as well. The campaign efforts for both campaigns are key in those states. The other states are essentially out of play.
If Trump can win in Wisconsin (10), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20), and Florida (29) plus one other state, he will have over 270. None of that is impossible, especially considering the avalanche of evidence of corruption by HRC that is presently being uncovered. Her improper/criminal e-mails while SOS, lying to Congress (that charge has been referred to the FIBI), the pay to play efforts while SOS, the Clinton Foundation corruption, her past callous defense of a rapist, and more are all going to continue to plague her. Additionally, there are questions about her health, possible new terror attacks, and more foreign affairs kerfuffles that could play into Trump’s hands.
The Olympics are on right now. People are on vacation, fishing, going to the beach, etc. In other words a majority of people aren’t paying much attention to the elections. Although I have heard that Florida residents are getting sick of seeing anti-Trump commercials during every ad space on TV.
Labor Day signals the real beginning of the campaign for the independents and the disinterested. September and October are the key months.
I’m no way predicting a Trump win. I’m trying to point out that it isn’t over until the Fat Lady sings and the time remaining is an eon in electioneering terms.
It’s still very important for all Republicans to vote, especially for the down ballot candidates. Remember what it was like from 2008 to 2010 with an all Democrat government? Remember porkulus? Remember Obamacare? Remember the Cash for clinkers act? Remember the Dodd- Frank financial reform act? Remember and at least admit that there has been less damaging legislation since we got a House majority. The Senate majority hasn’t helped that much because it isn’t big enough. We need to elect more Senators. So get out and vote no matter who you support at the top of the ticket.
Whoops, my mistake. My math was all fouled up on counting the delegates that Trump needs. I was using HRC’s number of 190 electoral votes. (Slap’s forehead in disgust!) He needs 107 and the states I mentioned would give him 75 electoral votes. He could get the other 32 + in Georgia (16), Arizona (11), and Virginia (13). Those aren’t the only possibilities, just an example. A steeper hill to climb but still possible. Obviously Clinton has the advantage and is favored. I just wanted to point out that it’s not exactly over yet.
Sure, it’s important to vote down-ballot but many discouraged Republicans won’t. I sure hope Trump’s numbers won’t seal the fate of the Senate too.
Trump may still win. But at this point only a fool believes Trump will pivot to presidential and run a sensible campaign.
It will take external events, perhaps a Hillary health crisis because it seems people have already accepted she’s a particularly corrupt, lying politician but it doesn’t bother them as much as voting for Wacko Trump, which would be the Trump name for Trump if he were running against himself.
Or we could lose a city to Muslim terrorism. That would seal the deal for a Trump victory, though maybe not if Trump’s numbers drop much further.
To the trump supporters here who INSIST that he is so much better than clinton… watch…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg
It is not “media bias” – it is trump’s own words, side by side.
Anyone who says they “know” anything about what trump is really gong to do if elected is blowing smoke, or inhaling it deeply.
.
Every “bad joke” or other “ambiguous”, but potentially controversial, statement that the biased media will eat up, takes away that much more from each GOP down ticket candidate who has to provide their own response to it. Credibility is wearing thin on even the most ardent top level GOP trump supporters explaining this stuff away.
The old adage, “when your have to explain it you are losing”, applies even down-ticket, as that is time not spent on getting their own message out.
“Heck, I can be overheard complaining about Trump’s repeated foot-in-mouth feats, and I’m voting for him.” [IRA @ 4:43]
This exactly makes my point, that those who disparage Trump are not necessarily refusing to vote for him. How does one count them in the polls?
But I do most certainly agree with Clinton delenda est.
“it’s going to take a long time, maybe a generation, for the Republican Party to live down surrendering its principles to a loud, ignorant, con-man, strongman . . . .” [Huxley @ 5:49]
The Republican party surrendered its principles when it morphed into Democrat-Lite and failed to offer even token resistance to Obama. Huxley, if you are correct then the Republican party is doomed (by its own hand) whatever the outcome because with a Hillary win “. . . it’s going to take a long time, maybe a generation, for the Republican Party to live down surrendering its principles . . . ” and this has nothing to do with the Dems not letting anyone forget about Trump.
@JJ – read your analysis, but vodkapundit has a good analysis about a month ago…
https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/07/05/wargaming-the-electoral-college-39/?singlepage=true
And the numbers look even more in clinton’s favor today…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html
Moving from 210 including leaners to 256 – 14 short of 270 to win.
That means trump would have to run the table on all the swing states. How likely is that?
Anyway, the ONLY thing we can truly say is that these are all snapshots in time.
This is probably the most volatile election in our lifetimes, largely because of the huge net negatives on BOTH candidates.
“The Republican party surrendered its principles when it morphed into Democrat-Lite” – T
Love it when the answer justifying trump’s candidacy is about how Dem-like the rest of the GOP were. NOT! Absolutely no recognition there that trump may well be left of clinton on many issues.
Of course the GOP were weak, but to say they “failed to offer token resistance to Obama” is just factually wrong. Neo can probably route you to a few of her articles discussing this false proposition.
And we are to believe that people who offer this kind of discussion either as an argument for trump or as a break down of some criticism of trump, are “reluctantly” supporting trump?
Oh and then there’s the “secret handshake” with delenda est. Rather hokey, and not in the nice VTech kind of way.
Ignosce, quod est cacas taurum
huxley,
Yes, Trump may seek vengeance or he may decide to forgive but not forget, ready to react if given further reason.
What ‘principles’ will the GOP have surrendered? Support for open borders? Support for massive work visas? Support for Muslim migration? Support for TPP? Support for Common Core? Support for ever greater debt? Support for biological males using female facilities? Support for Obama’s ‘deal’ with Iran? What principles do you share with the Republican party, as demonstrated by their actions?
Big Maq,
An exclusive focus upon personality that ignores larger and more basic factors is an example of winning a battle but losing the war. It is the logistical nature of the resources at the command of an opponent, that in war, determine the threat level.
The Left is a far greater threat to the republic, than is the alt-right.
Aren’t you worrying about the leaders, while ignoring the army’s at their back?
Neo:
“I see you as whistling past the graveyard.” That’s actually pretty funny seeing that within the last week you were still scratching around looking for a “viable alternative” knowing full well that’s a fool’s errand.
My only point is that the unpredictables and the unforeseens loom larger than any conventional wisdom precisely because we have an unidicted criminal on the D side & Trump on the R.
Trump may not win 1 state. But he just might run the table convincingly like he did the primaries.
And as T rightly noted: “The Republican party surrendered its principles when it morphed into Democrat-Lite and failed to offer even token resistance to Obama.” and I’d add played nice with Hillary.
Hence Trump & HRC. Sow the wind & reap all the whirlwind that follows.
The Republican party surrendered its principles when it morphed into Democrat-Lite and failed to offer even token resistance to Obama.
T: So it may seem to you, though not to me. I consider this trope a skewed distortion of reality, in which disappointments are heightened to mountains and accomplishments minimized to nothing.
In any event I was addressing how the rest of the country views the Republican Party, which has little to do with the teeth-gnashing of some towards Paul Ryan et al.
For who knows how long the rest of America will look at the Republican Party and see Wacko Trump and remember all his weird, bigoted soundbites, whether out of context or not. They won’t believe any Republican claims to principles or the Constitution, and to an extent they will be correct.
I sure can’t square the circle between all the high dudgeon I hear from those who complain about the Republican Party surrendering its principles and then flocking to Trump, a man of no principles beyond ego and money
I guess this was just a jape to catch the ill-informed: Big Maq: “To the trump supporters here who INSIST that he is so much better than clinton… watch…”
Save yourself the time (although going back thirty years on a public person can be amusing). All one needs to know to easily evaluate this offering is the fact that Hillary was a Goldwater Girl. Equally relevant.
If you find yourself in the position of arguing Trump is better than Hillary with someone who cares enough to think about it, you might try: “Make a list of the terrible things that the Demediacratic Party is saying that Trump might do as President. Then look at what Obama and Hillary have actually done.” At least Trump offers some hope.
“The Left is a far greater threat to the republic, than is the alt-right. “ – GB
Just saying so doesn’t make it so.
Much of your case rests with the assumption that “all is lost” within these next four years if clinton wins.
Then you even believe that trump WILL be authoritarian, if not an outright dictator, and, with that, also believe that situation is “more easily recovered from” than what clinton would bring.
Your case is overwrought on the clinton side, and inexplicably wishful on the trump side – (a dictatorship is recoverable from???).
Not sure what you foresee to be in that stump of a “republik” that you think will be remain if all that you believe of trump were true, but I want none of that. We will ALL be on the losing side of that scenario.
I think an plausible case can be made for trump, but you are well far away from that point. Many of us already have good reason to not support clinton.
If you want to convince anyone who isn’t already blindly for trump, you have to get much closer to reality, just as a starting point.
I like huxley’s term … high dudgeon. Explains the hyperbole.
@notherbob – strawman – much of that wasn’t “30 years ago”, anyway.
However, trump does have a history of saying many things contrary to his sudden recent (and seemingly daily) change of opinion. That video captures sufficient recent examples of such reversals to make the case.
That you cannot admit that is a problem IS the problem.
But, but, …. Hillary!!! is not a valid response.
So far the trump support discussion here has been almost ENTIRELY “Not clinton”.
Any positive support for what trump will bring is sorely muted here, and has yet to overcome one of the core issues with trump – why should anyone believe him?
Big Maq 9@7:41),
You need to learn to stop making assumptions when you read text, especially mine. When I want to say something I will say it outright–no need to give people who like to read between the lines fodder to misinterpret more than they already do.
I’ll type slowly this time, maybe that will help.
That comment about the Republican’s being Dem-Lite in NO way implied that Trump was a conservative. In fact I said exactly that (that Trump was not conservative) in a comment yesterday on a former thread.
IMO, IRRESPECTIVE OF TRUMP’S CANDIDACY (did you get that?), the establishment Republican party has sold its constituency right down the river. It campaigned on stopping (or at least presenting an obstacle) to Obama’s Progressive policies. First they needed control of the house. They were given that. Then there excuse was they didn’t control the senate. They were then given that. Then they simply became political eunuchs because (again IMO) they were more concerned with their perception by the public (and re-election?) than with any fundamental principals.
Now, to Trump’s candidacy (did you get THAT?). I have repeatedly stated that my position is the necessary defeat of Hillary Clinton. I have never (get that?) directly or indirectly justified Trump’s candidacy as a conservative. That candidacy is irrespective of Republican fecklessness, although such fecklessness may have catalyzed it.
As for your “secret handshake,” you seem to be even less perspicacious that I initial assumed. The phrase has been in common usage for several years on this very site by several commenters, including Neo herself.
[edited for content by n-n]
“Trump may not win 1 state. But he just might run the table convincingly like he did the primaries.” – John G
Aside from one statement contradicting the other…
trump’s plurality largely until the last man pulled out is not my definition of “convincingly”.
That would be more in the realm of a consistent 60% of the vote throughout the nomination process.
I sure can’t square the circle between all the high dudgeon I hear from those who complain about the Republican Party surrendering its principles and then flocking to Trump, a man of no principles beyond ego and money.” [Huxley @7:50]
Let me refer you to my comment to Bill (Neo’s thread, August 8, Predicting the Future: Another post. . .); my comment August 9th, @2:10 PM.
I re-state that my support for Trump is simply due to the fact the next president will be either the Republican or Democrat nominee. IMO, and I strongly believe this, is that voting for a third party or a write in is purposeless displacement activity in this election cycle.
People find it hard to understand how voters with conservative principles can support Trump. Well, neither of the choices we’ve been given are conservative. Let me explain with a short narrative. Many years ago my son’s baseball team was playing a team from out-of-town. They were poorly prepared and my son’s team was walking away with the game (the score at the 5th inning was something like 15 to 1). As a spectator, I was talking to the other team on the sidelines, really nice kids all, and I told them that it must be tough to play under that duress. One player responded with the following thought: “We know we can’t win, so we’ve changed the objective of the game. In every inning what we’re trying to do now is keep that inning scoreless.”
IMO it’s a similar thought to this election. I can’t vote conservatively for president because their is no conservative nominee. My personal goal is to do what I can to keep Clinton out of office and take my chances with Trump. As IRA wrote above, Clinton delenda est (secret handshake, though. Don’t let Big Maq see).
I hope this helps clarify the confusion.
I am inclined not to vote for any Republican that does not support Trump. He is the nominee. So I guess my stance would affect down ballot candidates. And further more, I would stop being a Republican. I am not alone on these sentiments. For those of you above that are cry about “your party” you forget that it is my and others like me party too. You want us to go away, so maybe we just might do that.
Enjoy Hillary and her SC appointment. Choke on it.
Typing slowly IN A L L C A P S doesn’t help make a joke any funnier.
J.J.
I agree about the importance of down ballot voting and trying to succeed electing conservatives. The trope that only Trump can prevent the disaster and catastrophe of 2016, so why bother voting, is quite foolish and not logical, maybe even a denial of reality (cause and effect).
Big Maq: “However, trump does have a history of saying many things contrary to his sudden recent (and seemingly daily) change of opinion. That video captures sufficient recent [Recent? Look at his hair!] examples of such reversals to make the case. That you cannot admit that is a problem IS the problem.”
I cannot decide between “strawman argument”; and Big Maq is a naif”; in considering your point. Are you seriously saying that someone running for office can be held to a standard of saying exactly what they have said for the last 30 years about any given issue (FLASH: Issues change, requiring adjustments) (Additional FLASH: people change) (Additional FLASH: the world changes). ??????? And yes, Hillary is the answer to why vote for Trump. Just for ducks, where do you think the Republicans who vote for Hillary will be under her administration? They will have to give money to her Foundation to even get access.
Big Maq @ 8:45,
“Just saying so doesn’t make it so”
You’re labeling history, personal opinion.
How many has the alt-right sent to the gulags, to the killing fields? What ideology does the alt-right promote, what narrative? How many students does it indoctrinate into its memes and narrative? How far has it progressed in its March through America’s Institutions? How much propagandistic media does it control? How many celebrities flock to its banner? What percentage within the federal bureaucracies, courts and Congress owe their fealty to it? I could go on but no doubt you get the point.
All of my case rests upon the conclusion that, as a society, we have run out of ruin, not because all Americans have lost their moral compass but because enough have, which in a representative democracy is a bit more than half and more than half of America champion either Trump or Clinton.
quad erat demonstrandum…
Historical fact demonstrates that there is a greater possibility of recovery from a fascist authoritarian regime than from a Marxist one. Franco – Spain VS Castro – Cuba.
All the gains the Left has made and you call presenting it as evidence as “overwrought” & “hyperbole”. Do you honestly imagine that the founders would even recognize the society that has ‘evolved’ from what they birthed?
Yes, we are all losers in the scenario I paint and the cup from which we are being forced to drink. And, we all want none of that but that is what we have and therein lies your denial.
Neo – The arithmetic is somewhat worse for a Republican presidential candidate than you appear to be assuming.
Basic, fundamental fact about American politics: More Americans identify as Democrats than Republicans. That’s been true since the 1930s, though the parties were almost tied when GWB was most popular.
Right now the Democrats have about a 7 point edge. (Those who want exact numbers can find some at pollster.com.)
Because of that Democratic advantage, a Republican presidential candidate could do all three of the things you mention — and still lose. (It has been a while since I checked the numbers, but I believe Mitt Romney did all three things in 2012.)
That doesn’t mean Republicans can’t wn; they won in 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004, but that they have less margin for error than the Democrats.
At least Trump offers some hope.
I’m not seeing it. Aside from the fact that he lies as easily as he breathes and so we can’t trust him on anything, how will the Republicans/conservatives ever set the record straight on things like Iraq with him in the White House as their supposed leader espousing Democratic talking points?
For those who think Trump is going to win: You can get very favorable odds in the betting markets right now. Betfair gives him about a 20 percent chance to win, for example.
You can bet legally at the Iowa business school market, or you might be able to pay for a couple of trips to Europe with a few bets there. (Consult a lawyer on the legalities before making your reservations.)
John Guilfoyle:
I have never been sanguine about the chances of even finding a better third-party alternative, much less of that person winning.
“Whistling past the graveyard” is a phrase with two meanings, the first somewhat positive and the second somewhat negative:
If I am indeed whistling past the graveyard when I discuss the remote, longshot possibility of a viable third-party alternative, I own up to that first definition.
When I said that you were whistling past the graveyard, I was thinking of when you wrote “Trump’s chances of winning are greater than any of us think.” I think that statement of yours somewhat fits both the first and the second definition of the phrase, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call you “clueless.” However, I do NOT think there’s any evidence for saying that Trump’s chances of winning are greater than any of us think. I’ve always thought he had some chance, but not a good one, and his chances appear to have gotten much much worse lately, to the point of being very distant.
And by the way, I have not been scoffing at his candidacy; as I wrote earlier, I have taken it very seriously and taken his chances of being nominated very seriously almost from the start.
Jim Miller:
I understand that a Republican can do all three things and still lose. But what I was trying to say was that a Republican could not win without doing at least one of them and preferably all three.
In other words, necessary but not sufficient.
Big Maq…your reading comprehension is slipping. I gave you two contradictory alternatives. One OR the other MIGHT occur. Clearly they are mutually exclusive, but one or the other MIGHT happen. Of course SMOD could happen too although that seems unlikely at this point.
Trump finished the primaries with 1700+ delegates. The mathematics of his getting there is irrelevant. Polls closed. Votes counted. He got the nomination. No one else was close. That COULD happen in November.
A good number of folks are betting it WON’T. I’m open to the possibility that it might and anyone who is SURE that it WON’T…well go place your bets. I think we’re in crazy times & there’s a bunch we just don’t know yet. So I keep hoping the calculus eventually adds up in such a way that keeps HRC out of the White House which means Trump wins.
Once again opinion is history and contrary assessment of facts is denial, with some Latin thrown in as a bonus.
Somehow the eastern Europeans managed to escape from 45 years of leftist Soviet thralldom. It’s illogical that they would have wanted to leave it given the totality of control that their former masters had over education, the arts, the judiciary, the prisons, the military. But you get my point, I’m sure.
Alt-right fascistic? OH my! They haven’t had their day in the sun yet. That’s hyperbole. /s
lynndh:
Let’s take your statement point by point.
I am inclined not to vote for any Republican that does not support Trump. He is the nominee. So I guess my stance would affect down ballot candidates. And further more, I would stop being a Republican.
I believe that you have already stopped being a Republican, if in fact you ever were. You are a Trump supporter who wants to take some sort of revenge on the Republican Party. Apparently you don’t mind if the Democrats take control of Congress, if the GOP is insufficiently supportive of your presidential candidate.
For those of you above that are cry about “your party” you forget that it is my and others like me party too. You want us to go away, so maybe we just might do that.
I don’t really think it’s anyone’s party—not mine, not yours, not any one group’s. That’s not what a political party is unless it is an extremely small and narrow one. As I wrote earlier, you have already left the party. And it’s really quite an interesting (and not at all laudable) approach to political persuasion to use threats to take your ball and go home if people don’t follow your dictates and your preferences. Not really the American way, is it?
Enjoy Hillary and her SC appointment. Choke on it.
Lovely sentiment. Endearing, really. Makes a person really eager to join whatever party you’re a member of.
@T – “failed to offer even token resistance to Obama”
Now you talk about what the GOP campaigned on, and the expectation they set.
So, you are are now saying the GOP are to blame for your overblown expectation vs the reality of what they could deliver on, without also having the POTUS in GOP hands?
You might have something to debate there, but, now, are you walking that (false) point, on lacking even token resistance, back?
That was the point I was responding to, after all. That’s the one I call bullsh*t on.
.
You didn’t actually say you are supporting trump. True. But come now, you are indeed attempting to make some kind of case for trump.
You take a point with huxley. He’s pretty clear he doesn’t think trump is acceptable.
But if that wasn’t sufficiently clear on what your viewpoint is, you say “clinton delenda est”. Where I’ve seen “delenda est” (first exposure was at Breitbart) most used are by commenters who sound much closer to alt-r than “reluctant” trump voters. (Btw, Neo used it once that I can find re: Perry’s campaign and the left’s reaction to it – not exactly the same kind of context – and, yes, left radicals use it too)
http://neoneocon.com/2011/08/16/perry-delenda-est/
.
I think I understood your point correctly…
You express a (false) point about the GOP’s lack of even a token resistance. But resistance to what? Presumably you mean that as a criticism that they did not stand strong for conservative principles (“morphed into Dem-lite”), as that is their branding and platform – it was an ideological point, right? Not just some issue with “our team losing”?
My point… There is irony in criticizing the GOP for not being sufficiently / strongly conservative, yet being for a candidate who (perhaps deeply) lacks that, to oppose another because of her similar deficiency.
.
“When I want to say something I will say it outright—no need to give people who like to read between the lines fodder to misinterpret”
So, come on. Say it outright – what is your case for trump?
Don’t tip toe around with falsifiable counterpoints to those who are critical of trump and then use arguably alt-r signalling.
Neo: “However, I do NOT think there’s any evidence for saying that Trump’s chances of winning are greater than any of us think.”
Wait! What about the October Surprise email release that kills Hillary’s chances? So, you say, enough people move to a third party to stop Trump. Maybe, but neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have released their oppo research on the third party candidates, which they could if there is time. Can Kaine take it? Won’t he be tarred with the same Hillary brush? So far the leaking of the emails has been just enough to carry the news cycle (very clever) and the timing will no doubt be calculated to keep Hillary from resigning in time. Perhaps I am wrong.
T:
Please see this, this, this, and this.
For those who want to do some back-of-the-envelope thinking, here are some rough numbers:
Democrats, 37 per cent
independents, 33 percent
Republicans, 30 percent
There are complexities, far too many for a blog comment, but that’s enough to get you started figuring out how to get to 50 percent.
“All the gains the Left has made and you call presenting it as evidence as “overwrought” & “hyperbole”.” – GB
It is your projection to the future that is overwrought, not what has happened so far, that I am speaking of.
The Q in Q.E.D. is “quod”. You proved nothing with that preceding paragraph.
Two points, gathered from your several posts I’ve read, as a picture is coming clearer:
1) You see a society already lost, so it seems you are arguing the flip side – why bother retaining it? I wasn’t addressing current state, but, yep, that’s overwrought too.
2) You see a difference where there is little difference. A dictatorship in any form (be it originating from the left or right) is extremely difficult and costly across many dimensions to extricate from.
Seems to me your time would be better spent trying to address today’s problems and trying to get us headed in the right direction than in a push for a destructive force with some fantasy hope that all ends well, or that in any way, shape, or form is “better” on the back end than where we are today.
To me that puts you squarely in the “burn it all down” crowd rather than the “reluctant” trump supporter.
“Big Maq…your reading comprehension is slipping.” – John G
You are WRONG!
My reading comprehension SUCKED on that one.
I still don’t think trump’s win in the nomination process was so “convincing”.
But, if you are making a statement on what it might be like in the POTUS race, yep, a trump win might be just as “convincing”.
Despite the polls, there is just too much volatility given how many just don’t find either appealing, for any confidence that trump won’t win.
And now my writing SUCKS…
meant “for any confidence that trump can’t win.”
Odds are not in his favor. Maybe approx same odds of a clinton landslide.
I’ve made it clear that I advocate third party, but that only works if enough people decide neither of the two candidates are acceptable.
There is hard core support for each that won’t change, but there is a sizable number of people who absolutely don’t like either – may be enough to stop any from reaching 270 – will enough people move to third party, will they just stay home, or will they write in someone else?
Big Maq,
“So, you are are now saying the GOP are to blame for your overblown expectation vs the reality of what they could deliver on, without also having the POTUS in GOP hands?”
No I’m not saying that at all and my expectation was not overblown at all. I’m saying that they failed to attempt even token resistance; they failed to attempt even failed resistance (the Merrick Garland SCOTUS appointment being at least one notable exception which may come back to haunt the Senate if Hillary wins inNovember). Your charge of “overblown expectation” really drives home John Guilfoyle’s comment about reading comprehension.
“You didn’t actually say you are supporting trump. True. But come now, you are indeed attempting to make some kind of case for trump.”
Once again, a reading comprehension problem. I’m merely stating my position. I’m making no case for Trump other than the fact that either he or Hillary will be our next president. You condescend to people who say that, claiming that the only case they has for Trump is that he’s not Hillary. So what? Since there are no other choices at this time your desire for any other justification and the need for any such justification is moot, and the condescension arising from it is uncalled for.
“. . . “clinton delenda est”. Where I’ve seen “delenda est” (first exposure was at Breitbart) most used are by commenters who sound much closer to alt-r than “reluctant”
and
So, come on. Say it outright — what is your case for trump?”
First, I refer you back to my immediately preceding comment. Second I refer you to my comment to Huxley above (@ 9:37 PM). Third I refer you to the comment cited within that text [(Neo’s thread, August 8, Predicting the Future: Another post. . .); my comment there on August 9th, @2:10 PM]. It’s all there. I’m not repeating it. (**see also below)
“There is irony in criticizing the GOP for not being sufficiently / strongly conservative, yet being for a candidate who (perhaps deeply) lacks that, to oppose another because of her similar deficiency.“
This seems to be the real crux of the matter. I have drawn your ire because in criticizing the GOP for not being conservative enough I still hypocritically support a candidate who is even less conservative than the Dem-Lite party? If this is your argument it’s a clear indication that you just don’t get it.
There can be no ideological purity at the presidential election level because it has been removed from the equation; it is, unfortunately, like being adrift in a rowboat, having only a hammer and saying that we should be making the case for oars. Our next president will be Hillary or Trump. It’s tautological; pick one. Picking neither of the above will not change those facts on the ground Vote for Hillary because one despises Trump? Vote for Johnson, Stein or McMullin who have absolutely no chance whatsoever of winning? For many people the fact that Trump is not Hillary, in this particular cycle, must be enough (at least given the current state of affairs–which admittedly could change).
I’ll work to elect the most conservative non-Democrat in down-ticket offices for which I can vote, but for the president, my choice has been winnowed to Trump or Hillary. So you see, under those circumstances, the case I’m making is not pro-Trump, if anything it’s anti-Hillary because that is the choice that was thrust upon the electorate this year.
**BTW the phrase originated during the Punic wars between Rome and Carthage. The Carthaginians were besting Rome illustrious army. In the second Punic war Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants and threatened Rome in its very homeland. The Romans came to absolutely hate Carthage and the phrase Carthago delenda est was popularized especially by Cato the Elder who became known for ending all of his orations (whether they pertained to Carthage or not) with that phrase. You might have seen it first in Breitbart, but by then it was already ~2300 years old.
OM,
Historical facts are not personal opinion, no matter how repetitively you assert them to be. Denial of the relevance of historical facts that support a position is not “contrary assessment of facts”.
The Eastern Europeans did NOT escape Soviet domination. The Soviet Union collapsed and withdrew. That too is historical fact and a perfect example of how you attempt to arrive at an unsubstantiated “contrary assessment of facts”.
I’ve never disputed that the alt-right has fascist elements in it. What I am stating is that the alt-right has neither the resources that the Left commands nor is it even close to where the Left stands in the advancement of its agenda.
The alt-r has no ideology. It has no organized forces working in coordination to accomplish it’s goals. It has few in Congress sympathetic to its aims. It has no media to promote it. No schools to educate it’s non-existent memes. It has no narrative. It has but too things; its bombastic mouthpiece Trump and a small subset of pissed off Americans.
Which is WHY it is not nearly the threat that the Left presents.
I just watched ( DVR’d) Megyn Kelly (Charles Krauthammer). [Faux News to those who don’t know to whom I am referring.] I usually do not agree with him, but when he said the incredible stupidity of the Clintons leaving this email trail when they knew she was going to run for President is hard to believe, I had to agree. So stupid that I have trouble believing that they did it. That would mean that their protestations, despite the evident facts, they are guilt-free are true. OK
And maybe that will be good enough for the millennials and those who sleep-walked through Bill’s “I did not have sex with that woman” episode that led to his resignation from the Bar for lying under oath. He did incredibly stupid things and got away with it. Just take the ego you ascribe to Trump, put it on Bill and see if you don’t get the same clear picture I have. That is why they think have a chance of getting away with the Clinton Foundation now. It is extremely hard to get one’s head around that anyone would attempt such a thing and then run for President. One’s brain says: “Only in the movies could this happen.”
That’s what we thought before the cigar.
Yep, lots of hyperbole because the end is nigh. The end of Trump’s candidacy, that is.
It’s too late now for Trump to change his spots, and the attempts to whitewash him are as idiotic as trying to “rebrand” Hillary. As if 30 years of her malfeasance wasn’t enough evidence for the public.
The idle threats of leaving the party just illustrate that Trump’s campaign has been an elaborate revenge fantasy for some people.
(the threats are idle because if you’re determined to act this way, WE DON’T WANT YOU IN THE PARTY)
These people need to 1) calm down, 2) realize that although the country will be worse off, this isn’t “the end,” and 3) realize that Hillary was elected because they backed a clown.
Next time, 3 simple rules:
1) No squishes
2) No assholes
3) No incompetents
If we follow those rules for the next candidate, we’ll be fine.
“. . . when [Charles Krauthammer] said the incredible stupidity of the Clintons leaving this email trail when they knew she was going to run for President is hard to believe . . . .” [notherbob2 @ 1:03].
I agree. but such miscalculations are made all the time. And the more unimpeded one’s success, the more untouchable one believes s/he is: Al Capone; the Japanese Empire (Pearl Harbor); Hitler at Stalingrad; John “Teflon Don” Gotti; Bernie Madoff; Martha Stewart . . . the list goes on and on.
“Next time, 3 simple rules:
1) No squishes
2) No assholes
3) No incompetents
If we follow those rules for the next candidate, we’ll be fine.” [MattSE@ 1:12]
Well that pretty much eliminates everybody.
Sorry Neo, but I have been a Republican for a very long time. Have you?
Revenge? Maybe I am tired of voting for Republicans for National office and then having them turn into Democrats.
Yes I am angry. Angry that Hillary will be President. Do you really believe that any of the other 16 or so also rans would have defeated her? They would have been torn apart by the press too.
Look at Romney and what happened to him when we ran.
Do I like Trump? NO, but he is our Bastard.
This cycle, candidates who met those 3 criteria (IMO):
Fiorina, Cruz, Carson, Rand Paul, Jindal.
Christie and Huckabee were borderline on the squish and asshole fronts. Santorum, Walker, and Perry maybe on the squish.
That’s 5 good candidates, and 5 okay candidates. All of them were better than Trump, but his supporters were out for vulgarity and revenge.
Those misplaced priorities are why they’re going to lose.
“Maybe I am tired of voting for Republicans for National office and then having them turn into Democrats.”
You picked a hell of a bad candidate, then.
“Yes I am angry. Angry that Hillary will be President.”
No, you were angry before that. That’s why you voted for Trump, and let your emotions rule you.
“Do you really believe that any of the other 16 or so also rans would have defeated her?”
I just named 5 that would’ve done a lot better than Trump; maybe 10. Of course, that all would depend on Trump supporters acting mature about Trump losing in the primaries, so maybe not.
“Do I like Trump? NO, but he is our Bastard.”
That’s exactly what they said about Chavez in Venezuela. Bastards have a way of turning on people.
“It is your projection to the future that is overwrought, not what has happened so far” Big Maq
Our present is… the descendent of our past and, the parent of our future. Just as a ‘parent’ cannot pass on ‘DNA’ that it doesn’t possess, so too cannot a grievously divided, fractured society… pass on the consensus needed to heal itself.
Yes, it is “quod”, my tablet keeps ‘self-correcting’, it’s “a pain where a pill can’t reach”. When premise, extending logic and conclusion are all consistent, the case for the position has been demonstrated.
I see a society nearly lost. Self-evident truths are always worth preserving, to the extent that they can be and that is why, when forced to choose between an authoritarian and an Alinsky acolyte, I choose the one least likely to obstruct the preservation of those self-evident truths. And yes, it will be difficult to rise from the ashes, which is why I suggest seizing whatever advantage we can find.
That you purport to find little difference between the authoritarian and the marxist can only be ascribed to willful blindness.
Matt_SE,
Your five candidates never could have won the election, even had Trump never opened his pie hole.
Fiorina: poor resume
Cruz: a strict constitutionalist and too religious
Carson: irrelevant resume
Paul Rand ???
Jindal: couldn’t “get out of the gate”
FYI, Fiorina and Cruz greatly impressed me, yet they never had a chance with such a fractured electorate
Matt_SE: You endorsed Senator Rand Paul as meeting your criteria. I put him at the top for integrity too. When so many Republicans up for re-election in Blue States are finking out on the Party’s standard bearer, Senator Paul stood up today and very clearly stated his position that Hillary should go to jail and never be considered for Commander-in-Chief. One could, I suppose, still watch him do it somewhere (O’Reilly re-runs, on line, etc.). His speech makes Trump look like an amateur. Great speech. He thinks further disclosure of emails will convict Hillary of lying to Congress (he showed her lying in the famous green “What Difference Does It Make” dress). Great TV – will he be right?
Y’all realize that all these remarks are being noted on your permanent record, don’t you?
Actually, if you factor a seriously damaged Hillary, (October surprise) and any of the other candidates, it doesn’t seem so far fetched one could win against her under those conditions.
However, there was or is no way to see that future.
Big Maq:
“That you purport to find little difference between the authoritarian and the marxist can only be ascribed to willful blindness.”
I did’t realize that we were all blind, good thing we have the Cyclops (GB) to lead us onto the path of “wisdom.” Ref. “In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”
But no Latin this time, sad. /s
OM,
“None so deaf as those who will not hear. None so blind, as those who will not see.” Matthew Henry
“Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish!” Euripedes
@T
You continue to push the falsehood that the GOP didn’t even provide “token resistance”.
Completely false, and why I called you out. It is not a reading comprehension issue whatsoever.
Dude, you claim victim status wrt being condescended to. I’m not condescending, I am challenging you to “outright” make your case.
So, “(I’m) merely stating my position” – well your “position” was pretty clear already with “clinton delenda est”, but that is not the challenge I’m putting forth.
“So what?” “trump is not clinton” is not sufficient, that’s what.
Since you are not willing to recognize the (shall we say) hyperbole of your views on the GOP, how far does trump have to go before you give up “take my chances with Trump”?
Are you advocating GB’s rationale that even a dictator is better?
What is YOUR (not “other people’s”) limiting principle(s)?
Big Maq,
You skirt the real issue–yet gain. If not Trump, then who?
As for the “hyperbole” regarding the GOPs “token” resistance . . . okay, I’m listening. In the last eight years just what has the GOP done to counteract or slow the Gramscian march through the institutions and Obama’s own executive overreach? Make your case.
GB:
Watch the Cyclops scenes in “Brother Where Art Thou” they are a hoot. It may be too low brow for your tastes.
But then you have to lead all the others here who are blind. Such a burden. Tell us what the elephant really is when you figure that out, too.
I see it as GB does. As I’ve stated many times in these Trump threads, my vote for him is a vote for the Constitution in a “Hail Mary”, hope that the hostile Press, Congress and Supreme Court (aided greatly by the voting public) will rediscover their intended role in the framework that is our Republic. Hillary (any Democrat President) would operate in the same rogue fashion with the approval of the useful idiots that surround us. I join GB in hoping that I am wrong because I care about my children and grandchildren but reality is, and I believe that this is true:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
Our amorality as a culture will be the death sentence of our Republic. We are outnumbered, but I do believe in the mercy and grace of God and for me that is the real “Hail, Mary.”
Matt SE, never had a chance to vote for Trump. Here in CO the caucus were non binding, and in them I voiced support for Cruz. By then my preferred candidate Walker had dropped out.
Your equating Trump to Chavez? Really?
As I just read in another blog commenter, the Dems coalesce around their B—h.
Ad Hominin attacks on my maturity get you no where, Sonny Boy.
@T
If BOTH trump and clinton are unacceptable, it behooves us to look at an alternative.
BTW, I DO realize the problem with leadership in the GOP, I just don’t ascribe to them as actively choosing to prostrate themselves before Obama. I see many things the Dems did to circumvent the deliberation process (e.g. not bringing the budget to the Senate floor for a vote, locking in the $1T+ deficit spending for a few years), and the GOP options limited, not to excuse their poor strategy and communication.
Frankly, all this becomes crucial wrt the size and scope of the federal government. We all ask the government to do more, and then get flabbergasted when those at the top appear tone deaf to our concerns. This is symptomatic of a continuing centralization of power in DC, and the incentives that creates. trump and clinton, both promise to accelerate the barrel along that same path.
I’m choosing Libertarian at the top and GOP down ticket.
If most everyone is stuck in the binary paradigm of trump or clinton, then that is going to be the result.
If neither are acceptable, a critical point, there is another choice.
There is enough dissatisfaction (revulsion?) with either candidate that there is a window of opportunity to keep both from reaching the 270 ec votes.
We may still come out with trump or clinton, but there cannot then be any interpretation that they have any kind of “mandate”, and that is about as good as we can expect in this election, imho.
” We are outnumbered, but I do believe in the mercy and grace of God and for me that is the real “Hail, Mary.”” – Sharon W
2000+ years ago, did we get a trump-like character to deliver us from evil?
Why, then, choose to back such a person in the hopes that is G0d’s plan this time around?
If trump is not acceptable to us, maybe we should stand for what we think it right rather than compromise for a hoped for “Hail Mary”.
Actually Big Maq, the OT is loaded with stories of God’s judgment resulting in unholy oppressors. For me personally that would describe the current administration and the evil it has wrought in our midst. I know we deserve it; with the full-blown approval of our government (only nation that allows abortion up to time of birth), 50 M + unborn babies slaughtered in the womb, a place that should be the safest sanctuary on earth. I don’t pretend that we somehow look “holy” in the eyes of God with such blood on our hands. At the same time, the wheat grows among the tares, so God is merciful. We have a choice of 2 fools, IMO. There is a possibility with the one that we will again find our way to the structure for liberty that was bequeathed to us by way of wisdom and sacrifice of those that came before us. I claim no personal worthiness for such blessing. The price was paid by others.
Big Maq–Since you asked for specifics about the GOP not coming through, I offer this:
In a July 2012 interview with conservative talk radio host Mark Levin, then-House Budget Chairman Ryan said, “We can always use reconciliation, which has always been our plan and is our plan.”
Ryan went on to say, “What I tell people at home is I think we can get 85 percent of it for sure repealed through reconciliation.”
Post election, the GOP only went after 2% of Obamacare via reconciliation. Noted: A far cry from the promised 85% while running for election.
The 82 comments on this thread indicate to me that emotions are really being stretched to flirting with nonsense.
I’m taking a break from y’all for a while.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/
Maybe there is still an America after all.
Biq Maq,
“I see many things the Dems did to circumvent the deliberation process . . . . and the GOP options limited, not to excuse their poor strategy and communication.”
That is the equivalent of saying something like: “John Smith is a great general and a master tactician. He would be even better if he could win at least one battle.” Their poor strategy and communication is what it’s all about. Their like job candidates promising excellence in the interview (to get elected) and producing mediocrity (at best) on the job. That the Dems are an obstacle to overcome is exactly the reason they were elected; overcome those obstacles when possible and make a good faith effort. You have substantiated my so-called hyperbole and my point.
“I’m choosing Libertarian at the top and GOP down ticket.”
No one would argue that this is not your right, having done so myself with Ross Perot in 1992. However that still doesn’t counteract the fact the Johnson, Stein or McMullin have very little name recognition, no perceptible ground game to speak of and very little money. Now I am also willing to allow that this election cycle has been so crazy and unpredictable that anything could possibly happen. I offer, however, that any choice other than the binary is displacement activity (see my August 2009 comment).
“We may still come out with trump or clinton, but there cannot then be any interpretation that they have any kind of “mandate”, and that is about as good as we can expect in this election, imho.”
No argument there, but so what? I don’t hear anyone saying now that simply winning in November will be a madnate In reality it’s been a long time since any president could claim an electoral mandate but, of course, they do it all the time, and the Dems will do it with a victory of a single vote.
. . .
theirthey’re like job candidates . . .sorry.
As I wrote at Powerline, Cooke’s hope is wishful thinking, and Neo in her level-headed way pinpoints the issue:
The lack of self-awareness in many NeverTrumpers in the Republican Party is staggering to me. They imagine a world in which 99% of the voters who might have supported a generic candidate other than Trump will show up to vote anyway if Trump’s support is, let’s say, 95%+ instead, and will faithfully split the ticket. This is fantasy– people doing the punditry- the Cookes, the Mirengoffs, and the commenters on their sites- are atypical like Neo, and shockingly so. The majority of the voting base for the Republican Party are not politically active for the most part, and only really actively participate on Election Day- most of their political consumption is passive.
If Trump does lose by more than 5%- it won’t largely be because normal Republicans split the ticket against him- it will be because normal Republicans stayed home because they felt the election was lost, and one of the reasons they felt that way was because many Republican pundits told them they wouldn’t vote for Trump, implying Trump couldn’t thus win.
Again, I say it to you- you have one last chance here- if Clinton wins, there will be no revival in 2020. By the time she runs for reelection, she will have at least 5 million newly registered new citizens eligible to vote, and vote they will. In 2024, it will be 10 million more.
Sharon W:
The GOP repealed Obamacare 100% through reconciliation.
I wrote several posts about this: this and this, for example.
The bill that they sent to the president’s desk both repealed Obamacare (in its entirety, as far as I can ascertain) and defunded Planned Parenthood.
Obama vetoed it.
Please read all the links in this comment.
T:
See my comment to Sharon W. right above this one.
But I also responded to you quite a while ago, with this comment of mine in the present thread, and so far it appears you have either not seen it or you have ignored it.
Thank you, Neo. I will do that after work, this evening.
Yancey Ward:
I agree that no alternative at this point is likely to fire up the troops and get out the GOP vote. Those who detest Trump may decide not to vote, and/or not to vote for GOP candidates in order to punish the entire group. And a third-party or other alternative candidate is hampered from bringing out any but the very-determined more activist protest vote, who will split the ticket but are probably not all that numerous.
If there were a candidate who had good name recognition and was an attractive alternative I think there was a point where such a candidate could have succeeded, in this very strange year. After all, Perot got about 20% of the vote with two far more attractive candidates than this year’s. But I think that time has passed at this point.
Neo,
Not ignoring. Did not see it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
And this hope that most Republican held districts are non-competitive overlooks something- the Democrats held the majority just 6 years ago in what is mostly the same districts minus the minor changes from the last census. It doesn’t take much turnout differential to change the House in just those districts where the incumbent won in 2014 by less than 20% of the vote at that time.
@T – Hardly “substantiated” your point!
You are deliberate in a falsehood to describe the situation. I don’t ascribe to that falsehood. Neo provided several arguments to “substantiate” that viewpoint as false.
Now you change it up (again, but this time trying to equate it) as “poor strategy and communication” is “what it is all about”. You didn’t say that originally.
Even still, to take on that point, their poor strategy and communication cannot be “what it is all about” – if trump is your choice. He’s turning out to be poor on both counts, and one cannot argue that it wasn’t foreseeable. The red flags were there all along.
Overcoming obstacles in “good faith” should not rely on repeating falsehoods, and ignoring red flags.
The question put to you is what are your limiting principles wrt opposition to clinton?
You refer me to your Aug 2009 without providing the courtesy of a link about some “displacement activity”. Not sure that would answer the question posed anyway.
The very notion that you can accept anything in opposition of another unacceptable choice is false.
Bottom line is, and always will be, you either find trump acceptable, or clinton acceptable, and if not on either, you have no choice but to look elsewhere.
The only question is what is your threshold of acceptability regarding trump, what is a step too far?
So in the aftermath of checking Neo’s links, I admit that my GOP criticism was probably overly strident, but I still submit that it is not without merit.
Results aside (I recognize the limitations of an obstructionist and corrupt Dem party) I still submit that the GOP has little activity to show for the support it has received from its constituency. The Merrick Garland appointment is a case in point. How much ink was used discussing whether or not the Senate (McConnell, in fact) would eventually cave on the appointment? The fact that such criticism was even raised speaks volume about the party’s reputation (it is to their credit that they did not reverse that decision). and where did that skepticism come from? It was not cut from whole cloth but grew as the result of years of GOP acquiescence. In fact, I have read on several occasions the criticism that the GOP has perfected being the minority party even when it holds the majority.
It seems to me, from my distance, that the GOP still envisions politics as a gentlemen’s game where one has in common with the other party the best interests of our country. They have long forgotten (or never internalized) Charles Krauthammer’s observation that Republicans think the Democrats are wrong, but the Democrats think the Republicans are evil.
Thus Trump. For better or worse, he has proven himself to be a street brawler who is not unwilling to play the fool to achieve the results he seeks and who can oftentimes out-Alinsky the Alinskyites. IMO that is why so many of the gentlemen politicians dislike him; he’s like the uncultured relative who shows up at the formal dinner and behaves as though he’s in a saloon. In other words, he performs just like an activist liberal and he is clearly not of the bien pensant.
And that’s why the liberals fear him. They can fight the gentlemen politician’s and win because those Marquess of Queensbury’s rules insure that the right will have at least one arm tied behind it’s back. They are bullies and they pick easy targets
Trump will have none of this. IMO he’s being very calculating about what he is doing most of the time (see his recent interview with Hugh Hewitt), but I readily admit that a calculated strategy is not ipso facto a winning strategy. The extent of his success will be knon this November.
Geoffrey Britain:
Your statements about how all those candidates could not have won was pulled out of thin air. In fact, most of them did significantly better—and consistently better over time—matched up against Hillary Clinton in all the polls. And in fact, Trump did consistently worse against her than every other one of the candidates about whom head-to-head polls with Hillary were conducted.
I wrote a number of posts about that fact at the time it was happening, during the primaries.
lynndh:
To answer your question—I’m not a Republican, have never said I was, don’t ever intend to be, and don’t speak of Republicans as “my party.”
Nor (unlike you) do I threaten people who don’t vote as I do, or tell them to “choke on it.” It’s Trump-supporting trolls such as you who come onto blogs to tell people that. You may be a late and/or reluctant Trump supporter, but if so you’ve certainly made up in obnoxiousness and rudeness for lost time.
I don’t belong to any party. My political philosophy is basically conservative, although not strictly in every respect, with a dose of libertarian thrown into the mix.
Trump may be your bastard, but he sure isn’t mine.
And yes indeed, I actually think most of the other candidates would have done much better against Hillary than Trump is doing. He consistently did worse than each of them did against her in polls, and he has far far higher negatives. In fact, I think he may have been one of the few of all the GOP candidates who wouldn’t have beaten her.
What’s more, you mention that those candidates would have been criticized by the MSM, as are all Republicans. So what? That’s a given; I agree, and most people here agree. But that doesn’t mean that those candidates couldn’t have beaten her, she’s that weak a candidate. The MSM has been biased against Republicans for decades (including the Reagan years) and Republicans have won the presidency several times.
For what it is worth…I think T has the right of it in his last post. Where was this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/
when we were still interested in what original Trumpets were thinking?
I agree with the part that discounts the (Democrat talking point) theory that underemployed or unemployed blue collar types are the base. I think that people who believe in preserving the American Dream are the base. The study sort of hints at that, but won’t confirm it.
@notherbob – thanks for the link
Can’t say I see that same “hint”. That “American Dream” can mean many things to many different people, and the authors are attempting to find the core measurable factors that explain the possible motivation to support for trump.
The prime factor they seem to be pointing to is the economic prospects of one’s progeny. That is interesting as it is those same progeny who largely were motivated to support sanders.
From the data the authors have assembled, it seems they conclude that trump is missing the mark on his messaging nowadays…
“Trump’s prescriptions – tariffs on imported goods, restrictions on immigration and mass deportation – seem disconnected from his voters’ real problems.”
@ lynndh:
“You[‘re] equating Trump to Chavez? Really?”
Yes, really. That’s why I did it.
And I wasn’t exactly equating the two, but more illustrating a general point: things can always get worse. People who say otherwise don’t have good imaginations or understanding of history.
Therefore, it’s silly to try and use it as an argument.
GB:
“The blind are reputed to possess sensitivities compensatin’ for their lack o’ sight, even to the point of developin’ paranormal psychic powers. Now clearly, seein’ into the future would fall neatly into that category. It’s not so surprising then, that an organism, deprived of its earthly vision…” – Ulysses Everett McGill (Odysseus)
Brother Where Art Thou
So remember when you get onto the willful blindness trope, I will be laughing.
Neo, you said
Nor (unlike you) do I threaten people who don’t vote as I do, or tell them to “choke on it.” It’s Trump-supporting trolls such as you who come onto blogs to tell people that. You may be a late and/or reluctant Trump supporter, but if so you’ve certainly made up in obnoxiousness and rudeness for lost time.
Ok, did not and do not consider “choke on it” a threat, or is there something else you consider a threat? Don’t consider myself a troll, just making comment and standing my ground. And as to obnoxiousness and rudeness, there is more than enough of that here to go around.
Matt, your comment about not understanding history – guess your are right and I will return my two degrees in history to my former university.
The First rule of holes, when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
lynndh:
Most of the obnoxiousness and rudeness here has been provided by you. Your very first comment in this thread went like this:
Most of that comment is a threat—not a threat to commit violence to the person, of course, but a threat that if a person doesn’t vote as you wish in supporting Trump (not on any other issues; just on that one issue, support of Trump) you will punish that person by taking your ball and going home. If the person is a candidate, you will not vote for that person, even if the person is otherwise the best candidate for the job, even if a Democrat should end up winning. If that person is someone on this blog or elsewhere who is a member of the GOP and thinks of it as his/her party and supposedly wants you to “go away,” (your term; I don’t actually see anyone saying anything of the sort prior to your remark), you are threatening to go away (presumably from voting for GOP candidates, thus facilitating the election of Democrats) . Then you add, just in case it wasn’t clear, the thought that these people you’re addressing on the blog should “choke on it”—meaning to choke on the Hillary SCOTUS appointments and apparently by extension the Hillary presidency.
“Choke on it” is an extremely rude and aggressive thing to say, by the way (I’m sure you already knew that, although you don’t seem to have acknowledged it). No one had said anything like that to you or to anyone else prior to your saying it in this thread.
Just a quick update regarding my tirade on this thread about the GOP as feckless Democrat-lite.
As I noted (8/10 @ 2:15 pm above), while my comments may have been strident (yes there were some cases of pushback), just where does that impression come from?
John Fund (H/TScott Johnson at Powerline) provides one answer to that question:
And this, in a Republican-dominated Congress even after said Congress was petitioned by Civil Rights Commissioners Peter Kirsanow and Gail Heriot to NOT award a budget increase.
Granted this is a single instance, but just how many more lie buried in the daily workings of govt? Remember, those people who work for the government, even up to the levels of Congress, the White House and the Cabinet do so because in at least some way they like (or at least, don’t mind) working for the government.
The link to Fund’s essay:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438922/
This, of course, goes back to Biq Maq’s confusion about why I would be voting for Trump. Simply because, as I have maintained all along, Johnson, Stein or McMullin can not win. So my vote in the swing-state of Pennsylvania is, IMO, better placed as an anti-Hillary vote than any pro-ideology statement about limited government.
I re-state that my support for Trump is simply due to the fact the next president will be either the Republican or Democrat nominee. IMO, and I strongly believe this, is that voting for a third party or a write in is purposeless displacement activity in this election cycle.
T: I don’t know you. I’m not sure what to make of your comments. You wrote earlier:
The party??!! Quite frankly, to Hell with the party. Any disrespect the Republican party receives it has earned.
This goes beyond a dispassionate NeverHillary position. It is the general “to Hell” with the GOP animus which elected Trump in the primaries, even though he’s been mostly a no-hoper to defeat Hillary from the beginning.
Today it is even more clear Trump is not only unfit for the office, he’s also not a viable candidate to win other than spreading one’s arms, looking to the sky and saying, “It could happen!”
While I agree a third-party route is pointless, it’s not too late for Trump to step down and let Mike Pence carry the ball. As I read the tea leaves from the news, such discussions are taking place behind closed GOP doors. And, to return to the topic, the RNC is already discussing cutting off Trump’s funds in favor of down-ticket candidates.
Of course the RNC can’t force Trump to step down, but they can twist his arm, and those of us on the outside can express our wishes that he do so.
I doubt Trump can be motivated by the good of the country or the good of the party. But if it becomes clear that he could lose and be called a loser, that might work.
“To Hell with the Republican Party”
I must ask what political entity will realistically fight the progressive juggernaut after Hillary wins, as seems most likely.
When I expressed my concern to my Trump friend that Trump would destroy the GOP. He wasn’t fazed. He said, “Things can’t get any worse.”
This bothered me. Of course things can get worse. Much worse. Any reading of history or the current news shows how much worse things can get. Venezuela, for instance.
The problem with the Binary Choice is that it omits all context and any reference to the future beyond losing to Hillary is bad.
Trump is not the last, best hope of the United States. Far from it. This election is not a Binary Choice between Trump and 1984. Life will go on in the US if and when Trump loses.
My thinking about Trump, since I realized he was going to win the nomination, has been about the back-end of 2016 — what can be done to minimize the Trump disaster and how best prepare to resist Pres. Hillary.
Huxley,
See my comment immediately preceding yours.
It also explains the frustration giving rise to my “To Hell with the party,” because I have come to the conclusion that, while certainly not supporting small govt, I am doubting that as an organization the Republican party does even favors limited government (see the John Fund article as one case in point).
As for Pence, I don’t see how any such change can be beneficial this late in the electoral game. The problem with Republican nominees, including (especially) McCain and Romney is that, regardless of their ideological bona fides, they can’t or won’t really fight; it is too ungentlemanly (IMO). Also, unlike Trump who rightfully IMO, sees the media as a primary adversary, the Republicans either ignore that or dismiss it as something they can do nothing about. Trump recognizes the media is Hillary’s first line of defense.
For example here is the listing on the home page of Fox News as I write this:
My little knowledge of Pence, although favorable, puts him in the McCain/Romney categories (again, I’m not arguing conservative bonafides here).
Now I do see two equally plausible alternatives to a Pence ticket.
The first is that this kind of panic response is rearranging the deck chairs and once again speaks to the Republican party as the Stupid party.
The second is that with Trump so thoroughly having exposed the media as he has over the last year, that the sudden entrance of a more statesmanlike conservative could, electorally, be a welcome breath of fresh air in this campaign cycle.
Truthfully, I always thought that a Trump under some control would make a better vice-president than president since the vice-president is often seen in the role of an attack dog for the administration, something that Trump can do very well.
Neo, since this by now an “old” comment thread you may not see this.
You said “Choke on it” is an extremely rude and aggressive thing to say, by the way (I’m sure you already knew that, although you don’t seem to have acknowledged it).
Sorry I do not see it as rude and aggressive. You do and are offend. How do I say this – I wished to make my displeasure known that there are some commenters dismissing Hillary and the SC appointments as meaning nothing when they say they will not vote for Trump while being Republican. That makes me angry, and I said what I said. Intent was not to offend you but I did.
As to down ballot voting, I have seen too many times that I vote for a Republican and when they get to national office seem to forget that they are the honorable opposition party. Do I wish that there was more real cooperation in Washington – Yes.
I am biased in that for me I cannot see any Democrat as being the best candidate. I used to vote a split ticket, but after Pat Schroder (may have misspelled her name) I gave up on Democrats in CO. There are certainly a lot of Republicans I don’t vote for either. I do not like the far Right. Generally, I am kind of a live and let live kind of a guy. Evidently, that has not come through in my comments. Maybe too much TV news.
Have a good day. I do like and generally enjoy your blog.
PS Yes I too hope that Trump would be better President than he might be. I do know what kind of President Hillary would be.
lynndh:
I accept that you didn’t mean to be rude and aggressive. But it puzzles me—it really puzzles me—that it is not clear to you that “choke on it” is rude and aggressive.
It is. Look up the word “choke” if you don’t think so.
Nor are people here unconcerned about Hillary appointing justices. They either don’t think Trump would appoint better ones, or they think his negatives are so very very great, and the danger he represents in terms of his unhinged temperament so large, that it overrides the Hillary danger (which is also considerable).
It would be good if you were to stop ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you.
@T – re: comments to Aug 12, 2:15 “the GOP has little activity to show for the support it has received” – agree, as mentioned, the GOP were weak.
You still characterize it as “acquiescence” – and that still overstates the case, even if less strident, as it assumes an intent rather than an ability. As mentioned, I’d ascribe it to leadership (e.g. strategy and communication) against the limits of the boundaries they must operate within. I also see incentives at play that are inherent in a government with such a large scope of power.
But, essentially, you are driving at a case that they didn’t sufficiently stand up for conservative principles in the face of a leftward push by the Dems (most recent example you highlighted – the DOE OCR budget increase). Correct?
.
So, following from those arguments, the answer at moving forward must be a candidate who embodies two qualities (among others):
1) A base of conservative principles, with the goal of implementing conservative policies.
2) An ability to provide that leadership and deliver on that/those goals.
.
Re: The first quality. You don’t mention anything on the first wrt trump. But that is critical, as it answers the “Why?”.
No matter how good a leader is, if they are not even clear that their goal is to deliver on those principles (and provide sufficient detail to be credible), then what has been gained?
What can you say it is that trump is going to deliver?
.
Re: The second quality, you diagnose the problem as the GOP behaving like “gentlemen” who lock themselves into the “Queensbury’s rules” with “one arm tied behind (their) back”.
You provide lots of discussion about how different trump is from that model – “a street brawler who is not unwilling to play the fool” who “out-Alinsky the Alinskyites … just like an activist liberal”.
This is all a slippery slope of an argument that is rather debatable, imho.
However, you do recognize that trump’s “calculated strategy is not ipso facto a winning strategy” (“strategy” might be attributing a bit too much to trump’s behavior, imho).
You still don’t mention anything about his ability to deliver on those conservative policies – is “street brawler” all there is to it?
You still didn’t answer what your limiting principle is on your support of anyone just to oppose clinton? Are all the “street brawler” tactics fair game? What is a step too far?
.
Frankly, thus far, your arguments, with its emphasis on the value of a “street brawler”, with little recognition of the downside impact, nor defined limitations, seem more like a cathartic “revenge at all costs” oriented one than one in favor of positively getting our principles implemented.
@T – forgot to mention your link is broken, it should be…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438922/republicans-fund-political-correctness-czars-office-civil-rights
@ lynndh:
The exchange:
You: “Do I like Trump? NO, but he is our Bastard.”
Me: “That’s exactly what they said about Chavez in Venezuela. Bastards have a way of turning on people.”
You: “Your equating Trump to Chavez? Really?”
Me: “…things can always get worse. People who say otherwise don’t have good imaginations or understanding of history.”
You: “Matt, your comment about not understanding history — guess your are right and I will return my two degrees in history to my former university.”
If you have two history degrees but don’t understand that bastards have a way of turning on people (their supporters, actually), then I would suggest you ask your alma mater for a refund.
BTW, notice that it was YOU who defined Trump as a bastard. You just forgot to notice what that implies.
@ neo-neocon:
“…If that person is someone on this blog or elsewhere who is a member of the GOP and thinks of it as his/her party and supposedly wants you to “go away,” (your term; I don’t actually see anyone saying anything of the sort prior to your remark)…”
Half correct.
If Trump supporters are willing to recognize where they went wrong, I’d love to join them in a coalition against the GOPe. If not, then I absolutely want people like lynndh to “go away.”
First off, (to anyone who is still following this thread) sorry for the length of this post..
Big Maq,
I keep responding to your comments because you seem to be asking me to clarify my positions. I make no argument or debate to change your mine, and you certainly have not changed mine. Yes, I am set on the binary. This is true. On January 20th, 2017 it will be either the Republican or the Democrat who will be sworn in barring any unforeseen and catastrophic event.
So let me respond now, working backwards from the end of your post.
. . . your arguments, with its emphasis on the value of a “street brawler”, with little recognition of the downside impact, nor defined limitations, seem more like a cathartic “revenge at all costs” oriented one than one in favor of positively getting our principles implemented.
With regard to street brawling, yes, but that ire is directed at the media. I want to see the ability of the MSM to controlling the national dialogue crushed underfoot (I won’t hold my breath). Only Gingrich, Cruz and Trump take on the MSM in meaningful ways (Fiorina had great potential, but it was never allowed to fully materialize). Trump, not Fiorina, not Walker, not Cruz, is the choice we’ve been given, and as I have said said, IMO he is campaigning against the media as much as (or more) than against Hillary at this point in time.
As for the Trump downside, I am less concerned about a Trump downside than about a Hllary downside because too many people, especially MSM, are in such opposition to Trump. As (if) he gets bolder, the MSM will act as a congressional whip to turn public sentiment against him. Even a feckless congress will find it easy to oppose him because the political wind will be at their back. Not so with Hillary; as with Obama, I can only expect that the MSM will continue to aid and abet Hillary as they have with Obama (I’m sure you saw my 11:43 comment above). Under such circumstances even a very bold and highly organized conservative congress will find it difficult offer serious opposition.
Now, you will say that on one hand I want Trump to decimate the media but on the other hand I expect them to control him. The explanation is that I don’t expect that Trump can turn the media into palace eunuchs; even if that could happen, it’s hardly something that would occur in a single election cycle or perhaps even in a generation. I see no contradiction there.
As for implementing conservative principles, I don’t see that happening this cycle at all, so IMO it’s a moot point. If Trump proves to be especially liberal as you believe, but the alternative is Clinton, well, that becomes a non-issue in my vote-casting decision.
You still didn’t answer what your limiting principle is on your support of anyone just to oppose clinton?
One has not yet appeared in this election cycle. I’ll know it when I see it.
that trump’s “calculated strategy is not ipso facto a winning strategy” (“strategy” might be attributing a bit too much to trump’s behavior, imho).
You may be correct, perhaps not. We just don’t know. I offer this except from Paul Solotaroff’s Rolling Stone article:
Link:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trump-seriously-20150909
Remember that an antagonistic media is showing us Trump in the worst possible light that they can manufacture. Remember Romney’s giving people cancer, his “magic underwear,” the bullying haircut, the dog on top of the car? Well, they have gone exponential with Trump. But, yes, it still might be attributing too much to him to call it a strategy.
In short, I don’t know how genuine or disingenuous Trump is being at any point in this campaign. I can hope that he might govern as a Scoop Jackson Democrat which I could live with. If he were to govern as a Clinton, well no loss there because that is my only alternative.
Also, living in a swing state (Pennsylvania) I don’t believe that I have the luxury of an ideological vote.
And one final note, I subscribe to Milton Friedman’s admonition:
IMO that is one reason that Trump’s attempt to undermine an essentially leftist media is important. As a successful businessman, I suspect (yes it’s just a suspicion, but I am a successful businessman myself) that Trump is more open to advice than the iideologue Hillary Clinton who, tom me, embodies C.S. Lewis’ omnipotent moral busybody.
@T – so we have established that neither clinton nor trump will implement conservative principled policies.
What will trump deliver? Your sole hope for trump is that he “decimate the media”? Do you really mean to go that far? Hardly conservative, and has serious impact for a free society itself.
.
Limiting principle? You nicely side stepped the question on limiting principle (in supporting any candidate in opposition to clinton) by saying “one has not yet appeared – I’ll know it when I see it”.
And that is where the core problem is.
There really isn’t an objective basis to judge who has the potential to be more harmful, if the limits are not defined?
If the objective really is “decimating the media”, the limits evidently have great latitude.
Yet, curiously, there must be some recognition that trump has potential to exceed some kind of limit, given the expressed assumption that the MSM, Dems will serve as a “check” on trump, because they can move the political wind to which congress (including the feckless GOP) moves. However, if the media maintained such power, how does trump get elected in the first place?
Of course, you recognize the contradiction and caveat that by saying it would take two or several election cycles to achieve the “decimation”.
You then declare this as no contradiction!! Huh?
Short of demonstrating you have some special expertise here to go by, it is far from obvious, and rather counter intuitive how this can be.
.
You may choose to side step the limitations question and employ fanciful assumptions to convince yourself, but it is far from convincing nor comforting for anyone else who has serious questions about trump.
You say you don’t want to convince others, yet, you come here and post comments favorable to trump, justifying a vote for trump. Why?
Big Maq,
“so we have established that neither clinton nor trump will implement conservative principled policies.”
Nope. We haven’t established that at all. IMO Clinton won’t; Trump may or may not–it remains to be seen.
“There really isn’t an objective basis to judge who has the potential to be more harmful, if the limits are not defined?”
That is absolutely correct; there isn’t any real objective basis. I never said otherwise and the entire discussion of this thread has been opinion; individual opinions based upon the l”ay of the land” as our hostess and the numerous commenters see it. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. There is no absolute for the future that either I, you, or anyone else here can define. Even my own reliance on the Republican-Democrat binary allows for the possibility of a black swan event.
You say you don’t want to convince others, yet, you come here and post comments favorable to trump, justifying a vote for trump. Why?
So if my intention isn’t forensic (in the debate sense) then I should shut up? If I register an opinion I am duty bound to argue to change someone else’s position? I come here and post comments because I choose to be part of the discussion. Sometimes I debate, sometimes I do not. I have stated my position. That you adopt my position, or refute it, is not your only choice. You are free to glean ideas from it or to simply ignore it as well.
I still haven’t quite ascertained if you are actively searching for ideas, if you are being adversarial because we do not agree, or as with some leftists I’ve debated in the past, if you are nit-picking adversarial points just to see how long a circular discussion can be kept running. That we have exchanged thoughts this long is an indication that I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but the discussion seems to have become pointless. At the very least, we seem to have two different aims. As I said in an earlier comment, at the very least we seem to be speaking past each other.
I, for myself, have stated my position, and occasionally repeated its components in several different ways so I have nothing more to add.
“Trump may or may not—it remains to be seen.” – T
Okay, then it seems you are completely unsure of what trump will deliver, good or bad.
You only “hope” he delivers on one thing – “decimating the media” – something you don’t deny as intending the literal meaning of, when challenged. So, one wonders if you are arguing at all from a position of shared conservative principle.
.
“There is no absolute for the future that either I, you, or anyone else here can define”
It is true that metaphysically, we cannot foresee the future, with unknown unknowns, and known unknowns, and such.
“…there isn’t any real objective basis…”
But, we can see facts on the ground to lead us to understand the range of possibilities before us. To say it is but an opinion not based on any objective fact is itself a circular cop out.
“…the entire discussion of this thread has been opinion”
Just an opinion?
It seems that it is a moral relativism you are then effectively arguing. Who’s then to say anyone’s opinion is not correct – the left can be just as correct as any one of us. Not too far from that is a might makes right argument – which seems to be where you are leaning, if “decimating the media” is what you desire.
.
“If I register an opinion (am I) duty bound to argue to change someone else’s position(?)… the discussion seems to have become pointless”
You, and anyone else, are certainly free to express whatever opinion you care to. Not sure the value in expressing an opinion here just for the sake of expressing one.
Be that as it may, however, this discussion has NOT been “pointless” whatsoever.
.
“I still haven’t quite ascertained if you are actively searching for ideas…we seem to have two different aims”
I WANT to be convinced that trump isn’t what I make him out to be.
I WANT to see if there really is a solid argument to support him.
I WANT a solid rationale to why he if FAR from being as or more harmful than clinton.
Why?
I DO see how bad clinton is and can be, and, by default, I’d MUCH rather have a GOP candidate win the race for POTUS.
.
I was rather SHOCKED at the level of support for trump out the gate, as it did seem like there was consensus on conservative principles on our side of the aisle (evidently camouflaged with all the yells of “RINO!!!” in years prior).
trump was the least conservative, pro forma, of any GOP candidate in generations, but he did have an opportunity, during the course of his campaign, to prove he’s credibly changed.
He hasn’t, on both counts.
I am rather disappointed to see that “reluctant” trump supporters seem just as willing to compromise apparently to nearly the same degree, and giving short shrift to the potential downside on trump – in short, many have no limits on what is acceptable in trump for the sake of a win over clinton.
And, if one holds conservative principles, that surely cannot be the case. And, yes, that is mho.
And, if the response to the questions I ask cannot be convincing to me, I’m betting other readers, for whom “not clinton” is not an open license for anything, may well come to the same conclusion that arguments in favor of trump just really cannot stand on their own.
Then, just maybe, they take another look at the potential downside with trump and ask themselves if it really, truly is worth the risk, especially in light of the limited upside that they may “hope” exists.