To be fair, I've had the awkward "is he going for gimme five or handshake or claspshake or clasp-clasp-release-snap" uncertainty many times in my life. Jeb, a candidate I can relate to at last.
According to the received wisdom of Canada, the debate should be interpreted along the lines of a pile of dogs sniffing each others butts.
That little snarl of impotent, loser hatred on Bush's face in the second one really is amazing. If he isn't already out of the race someone could ensure it by spreading that little clip around as far as possible.
The link in 2 is pretty good - especially this bit:
Through the encounter, Trump interrupted Bush--and Bush allowed himself to be interrupted. Having interrupted, Trump--in an especially vicious masterstroke--then granted Bush permission to talk: "Go ahead." Bush compliantly went ahead.
I think he's off base a bit with the Fiorina analysis though. Yeah, Trump definitely came across as "the kind of boss who costs the company a sexual-harassment lawsuit," but that's not going to come as a revelation to anyone at all in the race. And I'm not convinced at all that Fiorina successfully walked the line between "simpering flattery of the men in the room" and "bitchy" that she'd need to to appeal to large parts of the Republican base. She was definitely aiming for dominance, sure, and if she was a man it would have absolutely worked. But I'm not convinced that the old white guy/ladies who have spent their lives not being uppity population is going to go for that.
So, Slate and the NRO are insisting that Trump totally imploded last night, but I didn't see that at all. Trump seemed to continue Trumping, while the other candidates alternated between being crazy, repulsive, and repulsively crazy. Is this just increasingly desperate attempts at wish fulfillment, or did Trump really screw up in ways that will affect his popularity?
3: Perhaps the only encouraging thing about the GOP primaries has been the revelation of just how thoroughly the republican base dislikes Jeb Bush.
I liked the video with the dog. Nobody explain why it is relevant to this thread so I don't hate the dog.
Slate and the NRO are insisting that Trump totally imploded last night
Consider how consistently wrong those two outlets are on any given topic.
Should a prototypical Slate article on Slate itself say "we get everything right" or "we get everything wrong"?
9
Oh yeah, they're mostly like reading the paper on opposite day. And the NRO has been shouting about Trump's imminent demise from day 1 of his candidacy. I just can't figure out why Slate would be so shouty about it, since as a media outlet they benefit from Trump, and I imagine in 5 or so articles on the debate they'd want to diversify their opinions to at least hedge their bets against being completely dead wrong.
I am going to be really, really stunned if Trump actually wins some primaries, much less the nomination. I refuse to pay attention, beyond the threads here, until it's all closer, but I just cannot believe the act is working for anyone.
8: I view linking it in this thread to be the internet/social media equivalent of a koan.
6/9/11: That and "well Carson is out of the race" seem equally insane to me. I mean, their analysis is basically "Well now that the voters have really seen who Trump is they'll drop him", which is what they've been saying every time he was in the news since June. I'd say that eventually they'd have to come to terms with the fact that that's his appeal, but let's be honest they won't.
I'm not convinced the debate will boost him that much higher, but I doubt it'll hurt him much - especially if they keep rerunning the clips of him sneering at Fiorina and humiliating Bush over and over again.
16 was me, though I think most people could have guessed that.
I don't get koans in general.
Joel does the directing, Ethan writes the screenplays.
12: I am wondering if this article may be close to getting how it will go down: "Not with a bang bit a whimper." The serious people are all looking for the bang starting with the McCain thing, but it may just be a process of slow disillusionment and dwindling enthusiasm. I agree that it is *extremely* unlikely that he makes it to where he even has a shot beyond the first few primaries.
16
Yeah that was my take. Trump still looks like an alpha male asshole, and that's basically why he's popular in the first place. I totally get why the NRO is foaming at the mouth over this, but Slate reads like they're getting paid by Reince Preibus. I get that they're usually wrong and stupid, but they're usually not wrong and stupid in such a weirdly focused, partisan way. Like, a real Slate pitch should be that Paul secretly won in an 11th dimensional chess strategy and Fiorina lost, or something contrarian like that.
MSM useless hatred comment #2967: Digby just tweeted: Cilizza just said that Fiorina's noxious lie about Planned Parenthood works for her because it sounds real. (on some fucking TV gabfest I assume, she did not have a link). Led me to look up his recap this morning: She stepped up to the big stage on Wednesday night and won this debate too. Her emotional call to a higher moral authority when talking about Planned Parenthood was the most affecting moment of the debate.
Fake but affecting.
12. If Trump performs seriously badly in the primaries, will he not go completely librarian-poo; and if he does, will this be more alarming or entertaining?
librarian-poo
Is this something I can safely google at work?
Also, people have been comparing Bush to Romney, but I think that's wrong in a key way. Bush is losing because he's getting bullied, and Republicans love bullies and hate their victims. I remember when it came out Romney had badly bullied a kid and school. I thought it would hurt Romney, but if anything it probably made him much more acceptable to the base. Now that Bush has been exposed as a victim, there is nothing he can do that doesn't look weak. If he ignores Trump, he's submitting, if he fights back, he looks thin skinned and flailing. Thinking more about it, Romney is more like a cross between Trump, Walker, and Kasich/Christie. He's was an uncharismatic (Walker) plutocrat bully (Trump) "moderate" from a blue state (Kasich/Christie). Interestingly, on personal qualities I think Romney could actually do pretty well in the 2016 primaries, provided his "moderateness" isn't too big of a liability.
23: Does it involve a Sarah Palin look alike? (Where's Knecht been?)
Trump's obnoxious asshole act is appealing to some and policy wise, once you strip away the immigrant stuff, he's less insane than most/all of the others, including on things like taxes, social security, healthcare that some Republican voters care about. Remember the tea party sign about "keep the government out of my Medicare." Also, his foreign policy shtick is "I'm a great negotiator" as opposed to the other candidates' "let's start a war with Putin as well as with Iran" so that also has some appeal as I think even some Repub primary voters may have buyers regret with respect to Iraq.
I've been questioning my own sanity and personal moral compass in terms of finding him less objectionable than most of the other Repub candidates.
Ok so I'm going to link to something I saw linked somewhere else and I'm not proud at having read it, but if we're talking about the Republican base in the primary, which we are, it's worth taking this reading of Trump and Fiorina seriously. TRIGGER WARNING: SCOTT ADAMS YES THAT ONE YES I KNOW.
And I'm going to come right out and agree that Fiorina's face was bothering me... When I say Fiorina's face bothers me, I am not referring to her looks in general. She looks fit, stylish, and attractive to me. But she does have what I call the angry wife face when she talks politics. Guys, you know the face, which is usually paired with a tone of disapproval. It is your greatest nightmare. It is the face that says you did not do a good job, at whatever.
I mean, this man is a disturbing misogynist and a lot of that analysis is hilarious*. But this sounds very plausible to me as a description of how a large chunk of the Republican base is going to react to the clashes between Fiorina and Trump.
*"For new readers, this is part of my series on Trump's skills as a persuader. I am analyzing events through the filter of my Master Wizard Hypothesis. The Master Wizard Hypothesis says that Trump is playing three-dimensional chess with a two-dimensional world and he will win the presidency in a landslide."
I just went to the farmer's market to get a snack from the German bakery that sells there. When I got to the counter the guy behind it was fielding a question about the bakery by gesturing to the sign with its name and asking the customer, "You got a google machine?" while making typing motions with his fingers. This proves that while he is in the coastal elite world, he is not of it; he is, rather, the salt of the earth.
When he handed me my Mohnstrudel the following dialogue took place:
HE: Donald Trump was just run over in the street and he's lying there bleeding. Can anyone help him?
I: No.
INCREDIBLY RUDE LADY NEXT TO ME: Is that true?
HE: No, but we can hope, right?
This little snippet of Bush in action in the photo line is great. (I actually did not realize how relatively tall as he is even absent the tippy-toes.)
Some of our very own commenters were saying things last night about Fiorina's blinking etc., this doesn't sound that different. Unnatural/uncanny valley body language turns people off.
Rewatching these clips I'm starting to wonder if she's had really extensive plastic surgery. There's just something weird about how she seems to be trying to move her head around and blink rather than have facial expressions. (Look especially at 1:25 for one of the most amazingly weird responses right before she delivers her good line. What is that?)
You're starting to wonder? She's had a lot of work done. Look up some old photos; she's barely recognizable.
The link in 2 is really quite good. Frum even manages a bit of on-the-veldt reasoning that hits the mark:
We remain primates, who seek from our pack-leaders qualities of both prudence and strength.
Of course, the "We" in that sentence refers to "Republicans."
I couldn't be more delighted by the Republican primaries. I haven't see the punishment fit the crime so closely in ages.
Trump's numbers aren't going to go down. Things have come full circle since Lee Atwater's famous quote about Republican electoral strategy, and now they are back to jumping up and down and yelling the N-word.
35: I'm glad you said that first. I've been reluctant to admit it out loud. It seems like a hideously privileged thing to say, given the way that Trump raises the specter of boxcar transportation for millions of people who aren't me.
Odds are, as NLAMAM says in 26, that Trump is the most reasonable Republican regarding economics, government services, Russia and Iran. But it's inevitable and appropriate that he is seen as grotesquely offensive by ogged and other Mexicans.
Rand Paul (and pretty much only Rand Paul) manages to sound sane when foreign policy comes up. That will, of course, doom him with Republican voters, who almost uniformly see foreign policy as a dick-measuring contest.
32: I think that's the result of Botox. Talking to someone with Botox does get into the real life uncanny valley. It's tolerable if they're just looking pretty (/gender neutral) but as soon as they do any thinking or emoting you start noticing how important the forehead muscles are to appearing sincere or human.
It's extensive enough that she must have had botox around her cheeks too. I guess the bizarre expression could be someone trying to smile without being able to use any muscles above their lips.
The we-can't-afford-it pushback to Trump's deportation plan will not go over well with those who support deportation.
29 is my favorite thing I've ever seen. Bush is the only one of these clowns who strikes me as even remotely possibly electable in a general election*, so seeing him struggle brings me joy.
* I used to feel that way about Walker, but not anymore.
If I had to bet, I'd pick John Kasich as the guy who benefits most from an early Bush implosion.
Full disclosure: I've watched none of these people on the TV.
29, 43: This is humorless of me, but I hate this kind of thing. Anybody looks stupid at some point or another, if you film them for a while. Can't we just stick to mocking these guys for the ridiculous things they say?
See. That earnest Ohioian shtick. It will play and donors will follow once they decide they need a new tool.
45: I sometimes suggest to students that they would be more rational on political issues if they got all their news from radio and text-based media. No pictures. They always respond vehemently that they don't really understand things until they see them. Like most things, this depresses me.
46; You're right. My stepdaughter was saying,"You're a goofy man!" this morning, so I had to explain to her that I'm an extremely serious man. The nurse overheard this, but misunderstood, and laughed.
48: Do you respond "What are you talking about? You understand nothing!!!!"?
librarian-poo
It's been a problem for me ever since I arrived here.
48: But don't Limbaugh and the other howling shock jocks thrive on radio to a much greater degree than on TV?
If you poo while on the clock, you not only get paid for your time, but you save on TP and water.
That isn't just for true for librarians.
OTOH it becomes harder to tell when quitting time rolls around.
You can always take work home with you.
Anybody looks stupid at some point or another, if you film them for a while.
That is an exceedingly inaccurate way to summarize what's happening in the link in 29. (Even though I agree it makes Bush look "stupid", if by by "stupid" you just mean desperate and pitiful.)
Kasich is reluctant to let poor people die if he can save them for free, and he doesn't show any other signs of being a bully. So he's disqualified - neither the base nor the oligarchs are going to come around for him.
And the idea that Trump is going to falter is based on the assumption that Republican electoral politics is run by oligarchs who shape the will of the people. The oligarchs don't like Trump, so Trump must go down.
This, of course, is very sensible, and it's still the way I'd bet.
But Trump is sui generis. What scandal can bring him down? Will he be ruined by saying something racist or sexist? By being incoherent? Apparently not.
Unlike, say, Jeb Bush, Trump's supporters really understand the guy. They know where he's coming from and they love him. Carson (and Fiorina) are more of a flavor-of-the-month kind of candidates - their purpose is to give Republicans cover for being racist and sexist. Pretty soon, as rob suggests in 36, a lot of those folks are going to discover that they no longer want or need any cover.
Right now, there seem to be three potential outcomes, in order of likelihood:
1. The oligarchy crushes Trump, but leaves enough fingerprints on the corpse to piss off the base.
2. Trump gets to the convention with a significant, but insufficient, number of delegates; he makes peace with the oligarchs, but nonetheless upstages the nominee at the convention.
3. Trump actually gets the nomination, and the oligarchs are forced to turn on him lest he actually become president.
No. 3, as unlikely as it is, gets a significant boost from the fact that the Republican establishment lacks anyone with the credibility of, say, Mitt Romney. If Jeb! is the nominee, the Republican base will stay home in droves.
Is he really on tiptoes, or just kind of jerking to attention?
Definitely on his toes. Look closely and you can clearly see his heels leave the ground.
58: No chance of 4 -- that Trump wins the nomination and makes peace with the oligarchs?
I think 58.2 -- 58.last argue against 58.1.
My assumption, which is not based on recent information and may over-rate the intelligence of the OG, is that the oligarchs will start jumping to an "electable" guy to avoid your three potential outcomes. If they do, it will have to be soon and I think maybe "expanded Medicare" might very soon be seen as a smaller "flaw" than it did in April.
60: I can't quite see -- doesn't the chyron cover his feet at the relevant moment?
I have a hard time believing that a Trump presidency would really be so bad for the oligarchs. I mean, he's pretty wealthy himself, after all, surely they have some common interests. What does he even want to do that they would supposedly dislike? Raise tax rates on hedge fund managers? I'm not sure that's not just campaign rhetoric, but even if he went so far as to propose a bill doing that, how hard would he push for it once it inevitably got held up in congress? I'm guessing not very hard.
63-- the soles of his shoes are just below.
64: God knows I don't know what I'm talking about, but which oligarchs matters. Not all rich people have their interests aligned, and it's possible that Trump's policies might not be good for the particular rich people who are mostly steering the Republican party. (I'm not being cagy about specifics here -- I really have no specific thoughts about how this might work out. It just seems generally plausible.)
64: I think the assumption is that a Trump nomination would not result in a Trump presidency. Women and minorities get to vote in the general election.
64: I agree with this mostly but there are two things that might cause the oligarchs concern --
1) his crazy rhetoric might force him towards crazy policies on immigrants -- and many oligarchs rely on this labor.
2) might be so incompetent that he'll mess up everything.
52: My intention with the argument is not to push one political line or another. I just think there is a good case to be made that images evoke too much emotional reaction and distract people with irrelevant evidence. The famous example here is that people who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought Nixon won, because they weren't distracted by the fact that he looked haggard on TV. The fact that it is Nixon who benefits from the more rational judgement in this particular case isn't the point.
I'm also thinking about things like this study by Josh Green and Elinor Amit indicating the evoking visual imagry makes people think in a more deontological fashion.
In the first OP video Trump looks like he swallowed Fiorina's fly.
I surprised Rubio hasn't moved the needle. Out of that field, he strikes me as the most electable in the general. But nobody even seems to notice him.
66: but really, who? He's not proposing any new regulations. (Certainly nothing on carbon.) he's not proposing serious new taxes. I have to believe most of his staff ands appointments would be business-friendly conservatives. I could buy that serious oligarchs view him as too much of a loose cannon (too much uncertainty, which in itself is bad). maybe employers who depend on migrant workers wouldn't like him, but they can't be thrilled with many of the republican candidates.
70 to 69.
If Trump gets the nomination, we might be looking at an amphibious takeover of lizard people territory.
I've also been wondering about who the establishment candidate is going to be.
Walker was supposed to be the backup candidate in case of an emergency, and no one in their right mind thinks he's even in the race anymore.
Bush was always the 'obviously it'll be Bush' candidate, but Trump has had his foot on Bush's neck for months now and while the money people are short sighted, dumb and nasty they aren't dumb enough not to realize that. I predict we'll see one or two more "withdrawing funding" or "staff switching to another campaign" news stories soon, followed by an immediate collapse as all the rats desert the sinking ship. It would probably have happened already if they hadn't tried to make Bush the inevitable candidate by creating a massive pool of money - there are some people who are going to take a serious hit when Bush disappears.
Rubio just isn't up to it. He reads of his flashcards well and all, and might be a good VP to complement someone else, but he'd be eaten alive in the general election - he looks young and comes off as someone who worked really hard on his oral report about why he should be president. Imagine anyone in the Democratic primary standing next to him...
At that point what is there - Christie?
So... Kasich? Or some kind of "if we own you mostly you can have (x)" deal with Cruz? Kasich has been getting "ooohh he's so moderate" blowjobs from the press for a while has benefits and downsides - love from the press is something they would really, really need, and as soon as possible before the bubble firmly seals itself around Trump. And Kasich does 'alpha male' better than most of the candidates up there. But he's starting very weak and having 'the-most-liberal-rino' getting the nod might actually be enough to consolidate the base around whichever loony is doing best at the time.
29 is fucking wonderful because Jeb! heard once that the taller presidential candidate always wins. Despite being the tallest in the line-up, he wants to be even taller in the picture, so he stands on tip-toe. Watching him actually work the 'be tall' strategy is amazing.
To be honest at this point I think the Republican power people's best move is just to take the hit, let the crazies have whoever they want, do their best to minimize the down-ticket damage, and hope that things turn sour by 2018/2020 and they can put one of their normal stealth-loonies in.
Kasich has been getting "ooohh he's so moderate" blowjobs from the press
He isn't really moderate at all. He's attacked unions here in Ohio using the same playbook that Walker used. The only reason he got reelected is the Democrats ran a scandal plagued candidate that no one liked.
77 - There is no one! Really! Fucking no one! Incredible as it seems, there is actually no one tolerable there to choose. This is the year Democrats should run the person they actually want.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Fox news providers and watchers, who brought this entirely onto themselves.
I still don't understand why Huckabee doesn't do better with the base or the oligarchs. Not a convincing enough bully for the base? Hasn't he apologized enough for his tax apostasy when he was governor years and years ago?
80: You're right, except that compared to this field, he's a moderate.
61: Gazing into my crystal ball, I say no chance.
Trump is to the Republican Party in 2015 what McGovern was to the Democratic Party in 1972. A great deal of the Republican machine would sit on its hands if Trump got the nomination.
64: Republican oligarchs have a "What's the matter with Kansas" issue of their own. Like Frank's Kansans, the oligarchs are absolutely willing to vote against their economic interests if there are bigger matters at stake. Trump has demonstrated that he can't be controlled by the oligarchs. Have the oligarchs ever endured such a candidate? They can at least do business with Hillary, though I suppose if Bernie gets the nomination, they might actually be motivated to back Trump.
80 - Yes! That's why they're so ridiculous about it. If he ends up getting knocked out of the race because he's too far to the left for everyone I am going to laugh really, really hard.
To be honest though I'm having trouble coming up with many situations where I don't at this point.
The famous example here is that people who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought Nixon won, because they weren't distracted by the fact that he looked haggard on TV.
The other famous example is when Reagan, surrounded by flags, would go on TV and say something ridiculous. The media would point out Reagan's ridiculousness, but the Reagan people always loved the coverage because the visuals conveyed the real message.
The only thing that really terrifies me is the thought of any of these people possibly winning a general election. I mean, I'm laughing at all of them... but what if most people aren't?
One of the best parts of all this is that as far as I can tell the best bet they would have had to take down Trump is just to draaaaag out the race in the hopes that he would just kind of peter out. He's pretty clearly a one-or-two issue candidate, and doesn't even seem interested in caring about any of the other issues. And in a few more months "Good grief man are you still on about that?" style attacks at the debates could start to undercut him a bit. And that way at least they could probably insist on proportional delegates in more of the primaries or something and make it to a brokered convention. But they set a primary schedule where they simply don't have enough time to do that!
84.2 is probably right, though. Eventually they'll have to just grit their teeth and hope that no one sees them not-really-supporting Trump, or at least not enough to really piss off his supporters.
87 - The trick is to laugh at them in a bleak nihilist 'we're all going to die some day so bring it on!' way, rather than a 'look at those clowns!' way.
29 is fucking wonderful because Jeb! heard once that the taller presidential candidate always wins. Despite being the tallest in the line-up, he wants to be even taller in the picture, so he stands on tip-toe. Watching him actually work the 'be tall' strategy is amazing.
I have trouble reading that much into it. They froze that image where he was at the apex, but it looked like he was going to fall back on his heels right after, so he couldn't have expected a still shot to catch it (and even if it did, it would have been obvious from video or full-height shots). More likely just a stretch/fidget, although maybe a little ego element of "Let's tower over Trump even more for a second, see how he likes it."
If it's Hillary vs. Trump, does Murdoch sit this one out? If not, whom does he support?
Oh, I absolutely believe oligarch money would pour in behind Hillary if Trump is the Republican candidate. (Even more than it already is, I mean.) And I don't think she would do anything in office that would make them regret that.
69: I just meant that radio seems to be perfectly amenable to appeals based on irrational adrenaline pumping.
Mumble mumble...something about radio being a "hot" medium...mumble mumble.
Maybe Marshall McLuhan will show up in this thread and tell me that I know nothing of his work.
One thing that I do worry about though is that it really looks like Trump enjoys the hell out of humiliating Bush*, and I'm totally willing to believe that the famously speculated about Clinton phone call involved Bill Clinton observing that Trump could really spend months making Bush look bad in the press. Trump pretty clearly hates Bush, so that might have been a substantial part of the appeal. If that went away the election could be less fun for him which would start to (slowly) drag him down. I doubt they're going to get to the point where they're willing to just kick Bush out of the race entirely in order to stop some of the bleeding in time though.
Also Megan is absolutely right about what Jeb is doing there. Look at his awkward self-consciousness right afterwards. He did it but he knows how stupid it is and he's trying to figure out if it counted as a victory against Trump.
*Who wouldn't!?
I just found out that Carly Fiorina graduated from the same high school here in Durham that Keegan just graduated from (though it was her 5th high school, including ones in Ghana and London). Weird.
Can someone remind me why Trump has such a mad-on for Jeb, anyway? Is it something to do with the whole Bush family?
They talked about having some conflict over a casino in Florida in the debate, so it could be a grudge about that. Or it could be that Trump really was/is a friend of the Clintons and the Bushes on either side of Bill Clinton probably weren't very friendly to them. Who knows? He really does seemed to have picked some targets though. Bush makes sense tactically but Rand Paul? I have no idea why he goes after him at each debate, aside from the fact that it's really funny.
Here we go - it does actually sound like the sort of thing that Trump would hold a grudge about.
68 et al
There's also (4), that no one is really sure if Trump is a conservative/Republican. He's suddenly come out relatively boilerplate on all the issues, but not so long ago he used to be pro choice, pro single payer health care, and a registered Democrat, among other things. If he were president, it's hard to know what sort of policies he would champion. Even though he's tacked right on a bunch of things, he's stayed populist enough to be far outside the Republican mainstream. At best he's a maverick, at worst he's really a Democratic mole, but one less predictable than the actual Democrat.
If I was an oligarch, I wouldn't be worrying about Sanders at all. The House is going to be Republican, and even if the Senate switches, the 60th Democratic vote is always going to be pretty centrist. So, there's no chance of legislation that does much at all to harm their interests. Judicial nominees will continue to be based on local patronage. And if there's a downturn in 2018, it'll be the Failure of Socialism.
97/8 -- Trump knows that the smart money is still on Jeb as the eventual nominee, and that taking him out removes the principal obstacle. I think it really is that simple: under the performance artist egomaniac, I'm presuming there's a reasonably intelligent poker player.
I'm spending the day on planes and in airports. Do people actually watch CNN?
I'd be worried about him - not because he'd get anything done that Clinton wouldn't, or anything, but because having someone espousing those views clearly win a big election would give them a credibility to the public in general that they've worked really hard to make sure they don't. The DC press can only scoff at silly, unserious ideas so far - eventually they'd at least have to describe them. As long as the debate is between 'moderate oligarch friendly policies' and 'fucking crazy right wing feudalism' then they're sitting pretty.
Wow, I don't know abou 101. Even if nothing got enacted, having the population of the country listen to Sanders say the sort of things that he says from the pulpit of the presidency for four years would have to be very uncomfortable for most oligarchs.
Someone should insert the phrase "ovaltine window" somewhere in 103/104
No. Don't try to fix it. It was a happy accident that improved a stupid term.
The DC press can only scoff at silly, unserious ideas so far - eventually they'd at least have to describe them.
I wish I believed this.
Willing suspension of disbelief might work.
I have to say the Hillary Clinton Debate Recap/Campaign Ad is well done.
Someone told me that Jeb was the closest thing to an adult Republican in the field. Wouldn't that be Kasich though?
109 - Only when he was president. And even then probably only in the vaguest of terms. But still it would be a very uncomfortable situation for the oligarchs no matter how little he accomplished.
The closest recent example would be Mitterrand, right? Who was inspiring but pretty thoroughly thwarted, IMU.
He was even less American than Ted Cruz.
The DC press can only scoff at silly, unserious ideas so far - eventually they'd at least have to describe them.
Can you cite an example of this?
101: Sanders can't do much damage to the oligarchs, but he can keep them from getting more tax cuts and whatnot. Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security all stay funded under Sanders. Fewer wars, etc. Plus, yes, the Overton Window. What's permissible to talk about in respectable company has already shifted noticeably, both because of Trump and Sanders.
What's permissible to talk about in respectable company has already shifted noticeably, both because of Trump and Sanders.
Not just in the US. In the past week there's been Corbyn elected Labour leader in the UK and the fall of Tony Abbot in the UK.
I assumed he was just having some fun in 29. He was asked about it on Fox and said he was trying to look over the photographers and see his wife. Video would show that to be very plausible.
Why? He already knows what she looks like.
121: Oh, Moby! Don't you know anything about love?
It's different for Lizard People
I'm waiting for the Wikipedia page to become more concise.
Boy, I thought people were kidding about this: https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/644542458735525888
125: Wow, that's impressively deranged. Surprised they didn't go all in and use the flight suit picture.
Boy, the people tweeting back at him don't seem especially receptive to his message.
Maybe he should have tweeted it standing on a pile of rubble.
Thing I learned today: Fiorina's father, Joseph Tyree Sneed was on the three-judge panel (along with fuckpig of multiple iniquities Davide Sentelle) that chose Ken Starr Jr. to replace Robert Fiske.
Would it be possible for even the most Dickensianly unsubtle of satirists to come up with a better name for a repugnantly right-wing judge than "Joseph Tyree Sneed"?
"Oleaginous J. McPlebhater"?
"Caiaphas Ponzi"?
If it's Hillary vs. Trump, does Murdoch sit this one out? If not, whom does he support?
Why wouldn't he support Clinton? He supported Blair although there were Tory candidates who looked like Solon compared to Trump.
Also, Alien 3 was set on a prison colony world called "Fiorina 161".
Carly Fiorina graduated from the same high school here in Durham that Keegan just graduated from.
Assume this was when her father was the Dean of Duke Law.
133: the fine institution that taught law to Richard Nixon.
I know some other people who went there. They seem fine.
133: Also Kenneth Starr. And Tucker Max. And me.
130 - it's actually Joseph Tyree Sneed III, which is obviously a modest improvement on an already magnificent name.
137: No, I'm older. I was there with local celebrity Claude Allen, who you might recall as Jesse Helms' spokesman, then a White House special assistant to W., and then a convicted shoplifter. We were in the same Legal Ethics class.
it's actually Joseph Tyree Sneed III
Of course it is. How could it not be?
Well there's certainly nothing disturbing to see here. I'm sure Trump's supporters are all upstanding, decent people deep down?
134: Funny, I never thought about Nixon going to Duke as anything other than trivia. In retrospect, fruitful cross-pollination between different geographic conceptions of institutional racism?
They played the clip in 143 on the radio this morning. I feel like the guy asking the question is a perfect example of the intersection between mentally ill levels of delusion and Fox News. It's the kind of intersection that leads to violence. Also Trump handled it sort of okay.
136.1: Yes, Sneed knew Starr from when Starr was a student, part of why he joined in pushing for him (in addition to bog standard Republican hackery). Just thinking about that whole episode 20+ years later boils my blood. After a brief spate of "hmm, this is a surprise and a little bit unseemly" articles, the press totally rolled over for the crazed liars.
Shockingly Starr is know a well-known rape-enabler as president of Baylor. (If nothing else, Whitewater at least blew up Starr's shot at the Supreme Court.)
Sneed was very conservative but not as straight up ideological or hacktastic as Sentelle. I believe his specialty before going to the bench was tax law. Anyhow, right wing but a non-idiot.
Right, Sentelle was the true asshole in that one--Sneed just also happened to have the connection to Starr.
I started to construct a comparison of Robert Fiske vs. Ken Starr on how they handled the investigation, but then stopped out of "WTF is wrong with me-ism".
Would it be possible for even the most Dickensianly unsubtle of satirists to come up with a better name for a repugnantly right-wing judge than "Joseph Tyree Sneed"?
It's tough. There was one named "Dozier Adolphus DeVane, Jr." in the 40s and 50s. Fellow mid-century southern Democrat "Francis Muir Scarlett" sounds pretty sinister. And there's one right now named "Jacques L. Weiner Jr."
143: Kevin Drum thinks maybe Trump's support will evaporate now that he is shown to be a racist.
No kidding:
[H]is latest howler at a town hall in New Hampshire--especially after his weak debate performance last night--might finally be his death knell.
I am dumbstruck by the number of smart people who have absolutely no grasp of the Trump phenomenon at all.
If Drum has a blind spot, it's that he doesn't really believe that there are unreasonable people out there.
150: Yes, I was puzzled by that too. This is a guy whose campaign took off when he said that Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists. How is it going to hurt him to be associated with anti-Muslim prejudice?
Fellow mid-century southern Democrat "Francis Muir Scarlett" sounds pretty sinister.
MARTIN: Oh! Patek Philippe, that's an evil name!
CAROLYN: Is it?
DOUGLAS: (evil voice) Patek Philippe? (normal voice) Well he's certainly not a goody. Not sure he's the supervillain though. Maybe he's a henchman.
MARTIN: Rolex?
DOUGLAS: That's the villain's pet robot.
MARTIN: Omega?
CAROLYN: That's his Doomsday device.
MARTIN: (desperately) Tag Heuer!
DOUGLAS: ...and there he is.
151: If that was his blind spot, he might just as well not be able to see at all. I would say he sometimes underestimates how unreasonable people can be.
Donald Trump really is doing a great job of reminding me why I spent large chunks of the 2000s wondering whether most of the big name political pundits had to have someone tie their shoes for them in the morning. The sad part is that a lot of the people making me wonder that now were the ones who weren't doing that before.
The absolute, complete, baffling refusal on the part of massive numbers of people who should know better* to acknowledge what the Republican party base is, in the face of overwhelming, undeniable evidence is just confusing. I mean, I get that there are some kind of polite/underplay-the-basically-the-nazis thing that's required, but that wouldn't result in the confusion about Trump. He's a big alpha-male bully type who says racist, nasty shit about people the Republican base hates. There's nothing remotely mysterious about his support, or why being Donald Trump in public doesn't hurt his image among people who really like seeing Donald Trump be Donald Trump in public.
*I mean, random people on the street who don't pay attention to politics and just assume everyone is nice or something, sure, though I have complaints there too. But these are supposedly people who pay attention to it as a career.
Also Trump handled it sort of okay.
No, he didn't. Yes, he kind of dismissed the guy, but also - "a lot of people are saying that" - validated the point of view. John McCain was able to handle something similar in a much classier way.
I was an opportunity for Trump to make the point that he is not hateful/crazy, and he demurred. And really, a guy running a campaign like he is should have a ready, practiced response for when your supporters go off the rails like that. That's the kind of response that McCain, as an experienced politician was able to have at the ready, but Trump, without that kind of political experience, was apparently unprepared to deal with.
151 It's a flaw but it's an endearing one.
To be honest, if Trump was as cynical as I am wanted to knock some of the "OMG Fiorina is so Dreeeeeamy" squealing out of the news setting up something like this wouldn't have been a bad idea. Now at least some bits of the news/political commentary is going to go back to being focused firmly on this shocking thing that shocks the people his supporters want him to shock.
158: https://twitter.com/danpfeiffer/status/644642535562866688
I was an opportunity for Trump to make the point that he is not hateful/crazy, and he demurred. And really, a guy running a campaign like he is should have a ready, practiced response for when your supporters go off the rails like that.
Spike, again, I just don't understand how smart people can be so clueless. What could possibly make you think that Trump lacked a ready, practiced response?
Your first sentence foreshadows the error in the second. Try it this way: It was an opportunity for Trump make the point that he is hateful/crazy, and he seized it.
Also Trump handled it sort of okay.
I watched the Today Show coverage this morning, and thought Trump was just brilliant.
The report was actually pretty well done. The hosts showed the footage with Trump being kind of dismissive but tolerant about his questioner, then showed how McCain flubbed a similar test of character eight years ago. McCain actually claimed that Obama was a Christian.
Granted, the Today Show tried to spin this negatively for Trump, but they had everything on camera, and people could see for themselves.
Then they covered Fiorina's remarks about how the Planned Parenthood tapes showed an aborted child being kept alive so that its organs could be harvested. And they reported both sides of the story: Hillary said this didn't happen. If only there was some way the network could have resolved this difference of opinion ...
It was an opportunity for Trump make the point that he is hateful/crazy, and he seized it.
I disagree. He's already got his hateful/crazy bonefides, and that's got him to the 27% or whatever support that it gets him, which is enough to lead the pack of howler monkeys that are running. But there is a ceiling on that, and he needs to expand beyond the hateful/crazy base and demonstrate that he is in some way thoughtful, or even "Presidential."
Yes, people who have already decided they are voting for him will support how he responded to that. But he's already got those people - he needs to figure out how to broaden the appeal.
then showed how McCain flubbed a similar test of character eight years ago. McCain actually claimed that Obama was a Christian.
I think you are referring to what I linked to in 156, but I would not say your characterization of it is accurate.
27% is a fun number, but if you think that's the line for xenophobes and racists in the Republican party you're out of your mind. Who do you think is supporting Cruz and Carson - calm rational people making reasoned policy judgments? Have you ever even heard of Fox News?
He doesn't need to broaden shit in the primary.
Also, yeah, McCain made a mistake. He did great with DC Pundits, which is fun, and he's still great friends with them. When he actually said that he was booed.
164 gets it right. It's 27% of the American population. (number originally based on the people who voted for Alan Keyes against Obama)
Maybe more like 87% of the Republican primary electorate.
The art of being a successful politician is allowing a large number people to project their own weird, idiosyncratic visions and aspirations onto you so as to become a totem. This, necessarily, means that you have to be skilled at being simultaneously meaningful-and-important-seeming and deliberately vague in particulars, so as to give people space for their projection. You need to have mastered the art of simultaneously giving different people different dog whistles. Obama is a master at this. But much of Trump's appeal comes from the same deliberate vagueness (he's a rebel -- against what, who knows exactly. But someone finally understands me and my resentment!) To the extent that he becomes identified with any specific wing of, or policy positions of, the Republican party (be it birther nonsense or any other very specific position or wing of the party) he loses. And, since he's not a professional politician, it seems very unlikely that he will be able to play the multiple-registers game, which is one among many reasons why he will neither be the nominee nor the President, IMO.
When he actually said that he was booed.
Maybe there was booing, but I didn't hear it in the link in 156. I heard applause.
And yeah, there are more than 27% racists xenophobes in the Republican party, but a recent CBS/NYT poll actually had Trump at 27%, which I found amusing.
Its true he could expand through picking off support from Carson/Cruz, but those guys aren't really a threat to him. Maybe one of them will be his VP. No, the only threat to him at this point comes from the direction of the establishment, which will eventually settle on somebody as a challenger to him - and will put some serious institutional effort into it. He needs to kill that movement as early as he can. He's already done a lot by kneecapping Bush, but there will be another.
The prophecy has been foretold. There will be Another, a Chosen One. The Last Establishment Warrior.
Although, you know, I'm actually skeptical of Trump's ability to appeal to to Carson voters. I assume Carson's main appeal is to religious conservatives who take their Jesus seriously, whereas the religious conservatives who support Trump are more interested in identity politics. I suspect that religious conservatives who take their Jesus seriously may actually have serious issues with Trump, on account of it being quite obvious that he doesn't actually take his Jesus seriously.
167 - If you add up the Carson/Cruz/Trump and Huckabee votes you clear 60% of the primary voters (and that's including the CBS/NYT poll that had him at 27% - a good five+ percent below the other polls in september).
If you add up the establishment candidates right now you're nowhere even close to a majority. And while I don't know if it's shifted in the last week or two, the breakdown on Trump's support before has never been based in any of the groups - there's some variation but all within a couple percent, and he was leading in each of them. I'm guessing Carson is pulling ahead on the Evangelical votes, at least. But Trump isn't a single-part-of-the-base candidate at all.
Someday, those who claim to have identified Peak Trump are going to be right - he can't go above 100% - but they've been persistently wrong to date. (See the "Comparing Surges" graph.)
What is the ceiling on the percentage of Republicans who consider "political correctness" their most salient issue? That's Trump's ceiling, and I don't think we know where it is yet.
But certainly Trump can't widen his support by endorsing the politically correct view that Obama is a Christian. He can only erode his existing support that way.
THAT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE A LOSER!
Are xenophobes necessarily racist?
They could just be misanthropes with a realistic understanding of politics.
Drum is also clueless about the Fiorina abortion tapes controversy. He says it's close enough to hear someone describe a medical procedure vs. personally witnessing it as far as driving outrage about abortion. I hope he's hired as an adviser for abortion protesters, they'll convert all their dead baby picture signs to witty slogans because clearly there's no difference in emotional impact.
Trump supporters aren't sheep and they're not being misled. They understand exactly where he's coming from. Unlike the establishment candidates, who have always been disappointments, Trump keeps living up to the hype.
The Trump supporters don't actually think Obama is a Muslim - or more to the point, they don't actually care whether Obama is a Muslim.
They just think it's very important that Obama be called a Muslim -- out loud and in public -- and to that end, they know we must create an environment of tolerance and understanding for people who wish to do so.
Sure, the Republican establishment and the media elites aren't going to be open-minded about this, but fuck them anyway. The more they attack, the more powerful Trump becomes.
He's like The Incredible Hulk. The madder Trump gets, the stronger Trump gets. Trump smash!
He says it's close enough to hear someone describe a medical procedure vs. personally witnessing it as far as driving outrage about abortion.
He's making two points - one about accuracy and one about impact.
You're addressing the point about impact, but Drum isn't comparing the description vs. witnessing. He's comparing one description vs. another description.
He's saying that Fiorina could have said "a witness described [awful details]," and that would have nearly the same impact as "the tape showed [awful details]."
In neither case is actual observation of the awful details an available alternative, and I think Drum gets the issue of impact right.
I don't think so, because she specifically called on Hillary etc. to watch the tape for themselves. It would have been ridiculous for Carly to say, "I challenge Hillary to listen to a person describe [awful details]."
No Republican gives a shit about whats actually on the tape. Hell, I don't even give a shit about whats actually on the tape. All that matters is what the tape represents.
Carly says the tape represents chopping up live babies. It doesn't really matter if that's technically accurate. People who agree that its what the tape represents will support Carly.
I think people are right about Fiorina's lying not making any difference. Even among the nastier right wing movements the Pro Life movement really is shockingly dishonest. Sometimes it's genuinely hard to find anything in what they're saying that's true, or even something false that the people who started that particular line don't know is false.*
She could probably say the same thing about the movie Titanic and they'd gleefully repeat it to each other and ignore anyone who pointed that that was a ludicrous lie. The idea (of Drum's) that very well respected knowledgeable political analysts like Drum approaching questions like with with a sophisticated understanding of what's going on is going to affect that by soberly reminding people that, in some sense, what she said is false to a certain degree though there are true aspects to it but on balance it's probably a bit misleading is, if anything, even dumber than all the people who now really really believe that that video that they watched repeatedly for the last two months has something in it that it clearly doesn't.
*There are lots of suckers who just repeat stuff because it's a really fun fantasy in which they're heroic awesome people not like those sluts. But the organizations that make up the stories for them aren't.
I'll also note that, as far as the evangelical loonies part of the Republican base goes, yes they're currently excited about Cruz/Carson more than anyone else. Also in 2012 they voted en masse for Romney; in 2008 they voted en masse for McCain; in 2004 they really really voted en masse for Bush; etc. None of those people from what I can remember were much more religious than Trump - and really only Bush even waved in the direction of it in any serious way.
They love Carson and Cruz right now, sure, but the religious right was never about religion in the first place so they'll definitely fall in for Trump if they see him as strong or a winner or a bully, and if they see him hating the right people.
Re: non-racist xenophobes
It's certainly possible to hate and fear certain foreigners without thinking they are inferior. Historically common, even.
They provided abortions on the Titanic but didn't include it in the movie but people falsely remember a scene where they did?
I remember watching the scene linked in 170 at the time, and thinking, "a bare minimum of honesty and decency, so what?" and now, in the present context, it makes McCain look like a paragon of virtue.
184 isn't really right about Romney. The Romneys are enormously influential in the LDS church, and he is clearly much more genuinely religious than Trump.
LDS is one of those demon worshipping cults that any reasonable evangelical would know must be eradicated at all costs, right?
You know, I was just thinking about how awful Trump's "I think I would get along very well with Vladimir Putin" line is.
First, its messed up because its probably true: those guys would get along great. But it super messed up that his voters really seem to admire Putin - like he's their Russian authoritarian fantasy boyfriend or something - and so Trump aligning himself with Putinism is a good thing in their eyes.
Presidential, because Vladimir Putin could have me fired.
This 2011 bit is being passed around as an example of Trump getting hilariously ripped by Obama.
But watch Trump, who is not only faced with a no-kidding alpha male in Obama, but an alpha male who has the stage and the microphone.
Literally any competent politician, sitting in the audience being made fun of, is going to laugh uproariously to show what a good sport he is. Not Trump. He's not visibly angry or anything, but he conveys a sense of mastery - this jester on stage can make fun of me, and maybe it's slightly amusing, but it's really kind of boring. Trump smiles politely and betrays no emotional affect whatsoever. He's in charge here.
First post-debate poll has Trump 36, Carson 12, Fiorina 10, everybody else in single digits among voters who watched the debate. Maybe that means that Trump supporters were more likely to watch the debate, but Drum's tipping point looks like it's not here yet.
The longer Trump's support holds up, the less entertained I am. It was great at first that such a disgraceful embarrassment was polling so well among Republican primary voters. But the joke isn't funny anymore, and his continued support is frankly unnerving.
I don't find it unnerving because it totally confirms my preexisting beliefs about the Republican base. I'm not more horrified by him than I was by GWBush or Dick Cheney. Or Mike Huckabee or Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin or Pat Robertson or Karl Rove or Steve King and I could go on and on.
I'm guessing Fiorina is having a 'press loves her' boost and within a month she'll be half of that unless she can find a way to end the Trump Show. Ten percent is about where she was during the high bits of August before she started to decline. I'm surprised by Carson's number though. I didn't think he did especially badly in the debate and I don't know what else would drag him down.
Also:
Thirty-six percent of registered voters who watched the debate said they would choose Trump, compared with 12 percent for Carson and 10 percent for Fiorina. Rubio placed fourth, at 9 percent, followed by 7 percent for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and 6 percent for Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R).
195: Right? Have people been paying attention the last 20 years? None of this should be a surprise.
And I'm with 195. Every time a Republican shows up in the news there's this confusion about "what is happening these people are crazy what is this?" but it's not like Trump is any crazier or any less serious than other Republican candidates. As long as he pulls off is 'having fun being a bully' thing and doesn't accidentally refuse to pick on someone the base hates he's going to remain in good standing.
I'm surprised by Carson's number though. I didn't think he did especially badly in the debate and I don't know what else would drag him down.
One of these candidates is not like the others...
Well, sure, but already? I figured he'd get a month or two more before they jumped ship. But maybe Fiorina is going to be the new flavor of the month until people realize that she's a woman and also probably a strange kind of robot.
I'm amused that none of the top three Republicans have ever held political office.
Carson's problem isn't that he's black. It's that he doesn't rant and call people names. It's a base motivated by anger and he's sedate.
I suspect this is also Scott Walker's problem. And when he tries to act aggressive, it just comes off as goofy. Like a guy who thinks Fonzie embodies cool.
I also sign on to 195, 197 and 198.
A similar point is well-made by rob in 36. The Republican elite has been dog-whistling for decades, but the message in a dog whistle is clear to anyone with the ears for it.
And now, quite naturally, people are offended that they have to tiptoe around certain subjects. Even I find it exhilarating that Trump just comes out and says it.
Listen to any Trump supporter for 30 seconds and you're going to hear the phrase "political correctness." Trump supporters are single-issue voters, and that's their issue.
It's funny. I'd been thinking that complaining about political correctness was itself a dog whistle. I guess it can be both a dog whistle and an expression of exasperation that one has to communicate in dog whistles.
I'm never really sure how self aware most people are when they use code like this. I'm confident plenty of people think "I'd like to say X, but I can't, so I'll just say Y." But I don't think anyone outside of campaign strategists say "Y is code for X. If we say Y, the people who agree with us will know what we are talking about."
I don't understand these theories of the Republican base that completely fail to explain why the last two nominees were McCain and Romney. In both races, the Republicans dated wild guys, before settling down with sober respectable types when it was time to get married. Why will this election be any different?
Because it didn't work the last two times and people are getting really frustrated.
206 -- Because it didn't work? Our side went with sober non-flashy in 88 and 04, for example, coming to the understanding that charisma is a real thing, and riding it for all it was worth in 92 and 08.
I do still think that JEB is the one to beat, but DT looks to me like he's really drawing blood. Maybe enough to kill the guy.
You know, I think pf is on to it, there. There probably a lot more people who like it that DT is willing to say 'cattle cars' than actually want to have cattle cars.
The reason for McCain and Romney is that both were established as candidates beforehand (see also: Hillary Clinton), and were basically in line for the candidacy. The base didn't really like it with McCain but he was warlike enough that it was close to hating him. They hated Romney until he was the candidate and his brazen lying endeared him to them.
Romney and McCain both beat out challengers for two reasons: the first is that by being the establishment candidates they ended up inheriting a large money-pool and network that they could use to drown out the other candidates. McCain especially was, after all, pre-Citizens United. The other value of the money was that it allowed them to really firmly establish a narrative where other candidates 'weren't really serious' because they didn't have the funds necessary to mount a real challenge. After Citizens United this didn't work as well, which is why the 2012 primary was so scattered and problematic. Romney was still the solid second place candidate almost the entire time as the various elements of the base tried to exert power of the others, which was possible given the number of crackpot billionaires throwing massive amounts of money behind their preferred candidates.
The second reason is that both Romney and McCain had media influence: everyone already knew that Romney and McCain were the candidates and all the stories were slanted that way, and for the large part other candidates got talked about in relation to either of them, not otherwise. In 2012 you heard a lot about whoever was on top at that moment, but you always also heard about Romney, for example. This means they were able to control the narrative of what was happening, which ended up with the Republican base (who, let's be honest here, are the sort of toadies who will always look to please whoever seems to be the most important person in the room).
The reason this election is different (maybe even different enough to have crazy/terrifying results) is that neither of these things apply as well. And especially because Trump is disrupting things enough that it looks like even if he flames out he leaves the establishment candidates broken apart to the point where it's not clear if they could seize on things anyway.
The Citizens United decision continues to make it difficult to impossible to strip people of their money or control the flow of it as well. This is especially bad when you have candidates who are openly identified with certain billionaires rather than nerds-know-it-but... cases like Santorum and Foster Friess. This time you have Walker who might as well wear a Koch Brothers decal on his suit and Trump who might as well wear a Trump decal on his suit, and probably would if someone suggested it. Trump is especially dangerous because he's openly announcing that he's his own backer which makes it clear that nothing is getting between him and himself. You could talk about people pressuring Friess to hedge his bets, or stop throwing money down a hole or something, but not Trump.
Also, possibly more importantly, Trump isn't just in the mind of the political journalism industry, he basically lives there right now (and has for months). They can talk about Trump V. Bush, or Trump V. Fiorina, or Trump V. Trump's Big Mouth, but they can't seem to talk about, e.g., Bush V. Walker or whether Cruz V. Carson or something, or if they do they can barely manage it for two or three days before Trump does something else to drag them back to him. (He is the ultimate shiny object for political journalists, who write about how they don't understand his support, and then write about how they don't understand how their constantly reporting on his being the frontrunner or the center of the race doesn't make him look weaker or like he's losing, and so on.) For all intents and purposes, right now, political journalists can talk about how Bush is inevitable or something but their real narrative deep down is that Trump is the winner, and that's probably 1/3 to 1/2 of his success and it's not going to stop easily or quickly - especially since every time they obsess about "is this the downfall of the great Trump, winner of polls and bane of the liberals?" it only gives him a temporary boost which then turns into a solid boost when they switch straight to "how is Trump so beloved by all!? why is he a Winner! when all the other candidates are losers!?" and so on.
Sure, Trump still isn't even-odds to win the primary - but at this point no one else is either. And unless someone finds a way to make him boring he's going to continue on his path while other candidates bump up as the Trump-Killer and then fall back down later when the next one shows up.
Oh, and anyone who thinks that at this point Bush's odds are better than Trump's odds is dreaming. He could still win, sure, but I don't think his odds are that great. The man is being eaten alive, and it's making him come off, probably accurately, as weak. That's something you can't recover from. He makes claims and then gets scared and backs off of them, picks fights and then loses them, etc.* You can't successfully argue that people should vote for you because you're going to win the primary (which was his selling point) when you're visibly losing very badly.
*This right here is maybe the biggest sin possible in the Republican primary. I mean, despite being a ludicrously poor fit for the Republican base he was an amazing liar and that was his selling point. He said something totally false, and when called on it confidently asserted that of course it wasn't false, and when called on it even more confidently asserted that of course he'd never said something like that don't be ridiculous, and gave everyone a big "and what are you going to do about it?" smile. Right now only Trump and Fiorina are doing much of this.
At a public event. Guy just introduced his daughter Reagan.
I understand what you're saying in 212; I think it's a little early to write off completely the value of on-the-ground organization and support, when it comes to votes being cast. We'll see if Bush keeps bleeding so badly, and Trump keeps up his game. Once Bush is fatally weakened, though, the nomination is Trump's to lose: neither Rubio nor Walker have anything like the kind of claim of entitlement that has been, as you say, the key to establishment candidates beating the outsiders.
If Trump doesn't kill Bush for the nomination, he's certainly killing him for the general.
This poll (which was linked to in apo's link in 193) has Bush with 6 percent, behind not just Trump and Carson, but also Fiorina, Cruz, and Rubio. (And his favorable/unfavorable numbers are somewhere around +4.) I'm not sure how seriously to take the poll - it came out really quickly - but if so that's a really bad place to be. He'll stay in the race until one of his big backers jumps ship to someone else and then it'll be rats on a sinking ship.
I think Bush's best bet right now would be to start and win a very public fight with someone who is not Trump or Carson. (I don't know about Carson, but his quiet/gentle thing could make a nasty attack backfire. Maybe not but it would be riskier.) It would be a big gamble - getting humiliated by the frontrunner is one thing, but by, I don't know, Christie would be an absolute death sentence. But he needs to do something to (1) make him look more butch (the press really tried to help after the debate! they did!), and (2) to give people something, anything, that is not "lookit Trump! holy cow!".
I suspect this is also Scott Walker's problem. And when he tries to act aggressive, it just comes off as goofy. Like a guy who thinks Fonzie embodies cool.
Which candidate was it last time that tried to jazz up his image by emphasizing the existence of "My knockout of a wife!"
"It's MILF thirty, so let's introduce my wonderful wife."
214: Once Bush is fatally weakened, though, the nomination is Trump's to lose: neither Rubio nor Walker have anything like the kind of claim of entitlement that has been, as you say, the key to establishment candidates beating the outsiders.
What's with Rubio not being taken seriously? By the base, I mean. I know he's not in line for ascendancy, and he comes across as way too young. Also, Kasich is frankly more mature, but is an asshole, not that anyone seems to notice.
Kasich ... is an asshole, not that anyone seems to notice
He is a mere star disappearing in the light of the sun.
210: That's definitely not true of McCain. At this point in 2008, he was third behind Fred Thompson and Guiliani, and tied with Romney. Nobody thought he was the establishment pick for nominee. My recollection at that point he gave up trying to prove his wingnut bonafides and started running as the moderate.
My general read on the primaries is that people like boring. In a contested race, the boring sober-seeming person wins, for both parties. I think part of Carson's appeal is that while he has literally no qualifications to be President, he comes across as sober and boring.
The Citizens United point is interesting. Back in the 60s and 70s, when running for President became very expensive but before meaningful campaign finance reform, you would see candidates like Goldwater and McGovern who would get completely annihilated in the general election. We may see a return to that.
206: Walt, I think you're behind the times. The question isn't about how will it turn out differently. The interesting question is: Why has it already turned out differently.
In the sense you're talking about - why would they go Trump this time when they went Romney-McCain before - well, I think there's something fairly close to a consensus that the most likely outcome is still that some Establishment savior asserts himself.
But there's genuine doubt this time in a way that there wasn't previously. McCain's most credible challenger was Romney, and Romney lacked a credible challenger at all. Trump is different.
And McCain and Romney were different. First, they hadn't been preceded by two Establishment Losers whose primary virtue (for the base) was electability. And they got beat by an inarticulate black liberal who openly hates America.
This time, the Establishment coughed up Jeb! (backed up by Walker, Rubio, Christie and Perry.) Was the Republican base ready to support the brother of two failed presidents, just because the Establishment told them to suck it up and fall in line?
Yes! You can see, amid the ruin of Jeb's campaign, that he had worked out how he was going to rewrite family history on the way to winning the nomination. The base just loves a guy with the stones to stand up and assert himself against reality itself, and they would have reconciled themselves to Jeb.
I don't think we'd be having this conversation absent Trump, who really is sui generis. He has invented a new kind of politics. It's going to take the Establishment some time to adjust, and there's no guarantee it will do so in time.
The only reason Carson gets any support is because he's black. Carson is the candidate for voters who want their leader to say nasty racist shit but want to be able to deflect accusations of racism.
A white Carson goes nowhere in the Republican Party.
The only reason Carson gets any support is because he's black.
Maybe you want to moderate this a bit? He was, after all, one of the best surgeons in the world, right? At least give him credit for being clean and articulate.
You're articulate. I'm not sure about clean because I never met you.
I suppose I don't know if you're articulate except I writing. Which, technically, is a different thing.
Regarding dog-whistling and political correctness, rob raises an interesting point in 205. I think there are two kinds of dog whistles: The ones that leaders use to talk to the rank-and-file, and the ones that the followers use to talk to themselves.
So, as Atwater might point out, you still can't use the n-word. But that's because a lot of people nowadays don't want to talk to themselves that way. They don't want to think of themselves as racists.
Carson is the leader of the self-dog-whistlers - the people who hate political correctness and feel the need to be politically correct about it. Racists find Carson comforting because, in their minds, there is literally nothing he can say that would cause them to reflect on their own racism. They support a black man. They can't be racists, ipso facto.
221 - But part of the money issue really is that people that far out could mostly be ignored because, without the Citizens United stuff, candidates really couldn't fight for as long. I remember that being the explanation for why 2012 was so hectic and messy - someone really couldn't just wait till it was closer to the actual primaries and then just surge in with money, because all the competitors could match it if their sugar daddies felt like it could also have been spending similar amounts the entire time up till then. (Also the second one is the bigger one for McCain anyway - the dude has got to be best friends with like half the press corps in DC for some reason.)
Also 223 has got to be true. Carson is definitely working that with his calm-half-asleep demeanor. You can tell he's one of the good ones, you know, not angry or violent or anything. If someone could prod him into reacting (and apparently at least at one point in his life he had a serious temper) his support would crater overnight.
He has invented a new kind of politics.
Not really. The Italians have had fascist media clowns for ages.
You're articulate. I'm not sure about clean because I never met you.
Thanks to that recent grooming threat I'm not willing to make any more assumptions along those lines at this blog.
In 2008, McCain was so strapped for cash in the primaries that he almost used public financing. Instead, he got a loan against the public financing money that would be, but hadn't yet been, paid out in the future and then, when the other Republican candidates had faded, he raked in the cash, repaid the loan, and formally opted out of public financing. The three people who pay attention to such things argued that putting up potential public financing money as collateral was the equivalent of actually using public financing money and that it was too late for him to opt out. The FEC disagreed.
Meanwhile, Obama was bringing in so much cash from large and small donors alike that people started saying public financing was no longer relevant because we were entering an era of small donor democracy, where politicians could afford to distance themselves from large donors, who haven't been heard from since.
224: To be clear: Carson gets support because he's a black man willing to provide cover for racists. I didn't mean to suggest that if Carson dropped out, his support would go to Obama.
Also deep down in a kind of self destructive curiosity, I kind of want to see the establishment pull out all the stops - including open manipulation and so on - for their best choice at this point, which I think is probably a Kasich/Rubio ticket and then get thoroughly destroyed anyway*. I doubt that, for all the speculating, Trump would put the effort into a third party candidacy. And I'm kind of curious to see just how frothing-at-the-mouth crazypants insane the Republican base would go at that point.
I mean, I know that this would be a Very Bad Thing because there's a really good chance that would get them to the very serious mass violence level. But it would really be something to see.
*And by HITLERY! Or an OPEN SOCIALIST!
232: and I'll be clear too. You asserted that one of the greatest surgeons in the world, a man who has demonstrable gifts that our society values, a man who also might serve as a perfect example of the way that success in the United States is based solely on merit*, is only popular with voters because of the color of his skin. I think that's wrong and, though I find Carson's politics disgusting, I think it's possible you're robbing him of due credit because he's black.
* This is bullshit, obviously, but it's a myth that matters a lot to Republicans.
I'm pretty sure that's the exact story that's giving cover to the racists, though.
It's not just "but I like that black guy!" Even most racists know that's not enough. But they've been justifying endless amounts of their racism by pretending that the problem they have isn't that someone is black, but that they're too lazy or dependent or violent or something, which is totally cultural. They want to have someone to point to and say "But see there's a counter example I like him - he's one of the good ones. I only like the bad ones." That stuff you list, along with the (yeah, bullshit) story is useful or worth something to them because he's black, and can play that role. (And he's openly saying the Clarence Thomas style stuff which is reinforcing their 'I'm not a racist but..' excuses.)
I'm pretty sure that's the exact story that's giving cover to the racists, though.
I am, as ever, parroting the GOP's talking points.
My point is this: Carson is among very best in the world at what he does, and what he does is valued by society (and, not that it matters, by me). If a white surgeon with the same policy profile, the same best-selling memoir to her or his credit, and the same professional standing entered the race, I'd expect that person to get at least a few votes.
PF probably didn't give Herman Cain due credit for running Godfather's Pizza back in 2012 either.
As would I. But maybe there's a more nuanced explanation a multi-causal explanation. He can be getting votes for the reasons you cite and also be giving cover to racists.
Taking the one poll at face value (which one should not, but for now anyhow), the three non-politicians have 58% of the vote and the 12 politicians account for 42%. This has to be a troubling scenario for the Republican Party leadership.
I can't eat their breakfast pizza anymore. Time before last I was in Omaha and had some. For probably unrelated reasons, I horked it up when I got to Pittsburgh.
It tasted pretty good and my son had the same with no ill effect and half the people in the house I just left had the same symptoms the days before I was at the airport.
239: that's precisely what I assume is happening.
243 to 241. The GOP establishment is breakfast pizza.
Ted Nugent is probably regretting not running.
240 - And it's even more troubling because among those 12 politicians are some that the party leadership would desperately like to have some kind of unsuspicious accident, running on the grounds that just because they're a politician doesn't mean they a sane rational one who doesn't yearn to destroy the world. And because Ted Cruz is one of them they make up a pretty big chunk of that block.
I didn't really care one way or the other when it people found out about it months ago, but now I really really really want to know what happened during that phone call he made to Bill Clinton.
I would expect a white Carson, with his somnambulant debate performances, to have Gilmore level popularity.
222: Dude, it's September. Nothing has turned out differently yet because nothing has turned out yet. Hermann Cain's spell as front-runner didn't even happen until November of 2011.
I think it was around now that he was trading off the lead with Romney. But at no point in that series of popup candidates did Romney ever drop very far - there were a few scattered polls where he was just a bit below twenty percent nationally, but they were spread out enough that they were probably outliers. In general he stayed healthily above twenty percent the entire time. So what's strange isn't that we're seeing a different thing entirely this year, it's that the closest thing we've got to a Romney in the race is Donald Trump. (If Carson really does drop down and Fiorina moves up into his position we'll be seeing basically the same thing we saw with Perry dropping and Cain moving up, at around the same time of the year.)
"The former governor said that he would improve relations with other countries as president. 'I know how to do this because, yes, I am a Bush,' he said, according to CNN."
I am skeptical of this strategy, but I guess he doesn't have much else left.
If Trump really does kill Bush for good I hope they give him a Nobel Peace Prize for saving the world from him, just like they did with Obama and his brother (and McCain).
234: I was talking about Carson's suppporters, not Carson. He has many virtues, as you point out, and one might imagine a constituency for the view that what we lack in the White House is sufficient knowledge of neurosurgery or whatever. But I'm going to hazard a guess that this is not what's going on here.
237, 239: Fair enough, I'll concede 224 entirely and agree with 248. I was too absolutist in my language. This is a multi-causal phenomenon, just as Eggplant says.
Romney got 6% of the black vote. There's...math...involved, but assuming most of those folks are now for Carson, he has built-in non-zero support. Also, this does a good job trying to explain the unique ways in which Carson appeals to some voters.
Carson has been a big role model for evangelicals for a long time. I think its a mistake to think of him as this year's Hermann Cain. I think a white evangelical with a biography like his would be doing better than he is.
I read his biography (published by the main evangelical publishing house Zondervan) as a kid over 20 years ago.
Hermann Cain
Best typo in the thread so far, or best subtle zinger?
Facebook is telling me that Fiorina has overtaken Trump in NH.
There was a VoterGravity poll that put her just above Trump (and had Carson dropping a bunch). It's an odd result, I think but New Hampshire is an odd state. I'm not sure how trustworthy those pollsters are though.
Voter Gravity doesn't seem to have a polling history from before this year, they're a GOP outfit, and the CEO seems to have a background in marketing rather than anything polling-related. I'd take that with a big grain of salt.
Oh, I know it's all static. And I'd guess that she's not so much gaining supporters from DT, and picking up some of what's bleeding out from the politicians. I'm even more skeptical of Fiorina mobilizing actual on the ground support than Trump doing it -- but making Trump a LOSER, even for an afternoon, is the kind of thing that ripples.
Speaking of LOSERS, the NYT is having too much fun in this one: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/montana-republican-leaders-shocked-to-find-moderates-in-their-ranks/
(We don't register by party, so when you show up to vote in the primary, you get to pick which party's ballot you want. Republicans in certain counties have gone to court to get this changed. Our Republican AG wants to be governor some day, and is putting up a fight. I'm having a hard time seeing Judge Morris buy it, or the Ninth Circuit.)
I read his biography (published by the main evangelical publishing house Zondervan) as a kid over 20 years ago.
So did I. That was when I lived in Baltimore, where it was required reading.
You know, Ben Carson is never going to be President. But there is an open Senate seat in Maryland that could have been his in 2016. The Democrats dodged a bullet that he didn't go for it.
Hey, Charley, I think you might find this interesting. It's quite well done, in my view, and reasonably well written.
Ben Carson is a brilliant surgeon; a committed weirdo-millenarian Christian; a soft-spoken paternal/avuncular doctor with a lovely bedside manner; and a right-wing kook. (He believes, for example, that income tax should be based on the "biblical" principle of "tithing"). Obviously the evangelicals are going to love him, regardless of race.
Trump just said he loves Muslims. For the first time I'm willing to go out on a limb here and say this may well mark the beginning of his decline. He may stillbrecover by saying a bunch of outrageous stuff in quick succession, but this strikes me as a fatal error.
I love the Muslims. I think they're great people. Some of them are classy. I know how to make deals with them.
I doubt this will hurt him one bit.
I know how to make deals with them.
Hang on, I know this one! You offer them a mutually beneficial proposition, and then negotiate the details. A lot like making deals with anybody, really.
I'm pretty sure he's also said he loves mexicans (so many work for him!) and women (look how pretty they are!). Unless he's doing something really different here it'll probably work the same way. If he comes off as intimidated or backing down then it'll definitely hurt him (I've seen reports trying really hard to give this impression - saying that he's been hiding and so on), if it comes off as a confident dismissive line then it won't hurt in the slightest.
268, 270: Yeah, this is essentially "I'm not racist but...", which is probably not a punchline among his supporters.
More reputable poll this morning says Trump 24, Fiorina 15, Carson 12, Rubio 11. So an overall 51-49 nonpolitician/politician split.
I love the Muslims. Hell I voted for one for President!
This would work.
272 - I'm really curious to find out if that result sticks around and/or is replicated generally. What makes me wonder is that the changes from previous polls looks almost exactly like the story the press was (very obviously) prepped to tell well before the debate. (Carson - boring! Fiorina - exciting and brilliant! Rubio - super great! Trump - is-this-the-end-of-zombie-Trump?) The last time they did that there was a move in that direction and then a week or two later it wore off and things resettled. But they seem even more aggressive this time, and definitely set up the debate in a smarter way, so it might stick. (Also it's Carson 14 - so it's a 53/47 split.)
I'm not convinced that either Fiorina or Rubio has any real sticking power though. No matter how much praise they give Rubio he still looks like a puppy. And Fiorina can only pull dominant-attacking-woman for so long before that's a turnoff for the base.
I really love that Walker's support is listed at zero, though, along with Lindsey Graham and Bobby Jindal. So great.
266/268 - I just saw the full quote and he goes all the way to "I have muslim friends:
"I have friends that are Muslims, they are great people, they are amazing people. And most Muslims, like most everything, they are fabulous people, but we certainly do have a problem. I mean, you have a problem throughout the world."
Yeah, I pretty much thought my 266 was wrong almost as soon as I hit post.
Carson has just come out on record that he also too hates Muslims.
Oh man I hope this is all building to a point where one of the candidates accuses another of being a secret muslim infiltrator.
Why not/ Muslim, Communist, what the hell's the difference if all you want is to keep the peons in line. They have no idea what either ideology involves and they care less, but anybody who was conscious before 1989 knows how the script goes: they may very well start accusing each other of being infiltrators.
Trump's already faced that accusation based on the phone call with Bill.
Islamic-Communo-Anarcho-Fascistic-Democrat
263: You know, Ben Carson is never going to be President. But there is an open Senate seat in Maryland that could have been his in 2016.
Really, you think Carson could have taken Mikulski's seat? Over Chris Van Hollen? If so, the MD electorate has changed more than I think it has.
272: The most notable result in that poll is that Bush drops from 3rd to 5th place after the recent debate, and Rubio leapt from a virtual non-entity two weeks ago to placing above Bush.* Of course these are all knee-jerk reactions to post debate chatter; I'll frankly be fascinated to see if Fiorina weathers the coming storm.
* Margin of error +/- 4.5 percentage points
Everyone knows that Rubio is a secret Islammunist!
The thing about Rubio and (more recently) Fiorina is that I strongly suspect both were being groomed for potential vice president nominations. Rubio because he's young and latino so young and latino people would suddenly decide to start voting for Republicans*, Fiorina because a woman can attack Clinton in ways that a man can't without being called sexist by PC liberals and also Clinton wouldn't have an advantage among women anymore because there would be another woman in the race.* I don't think either of them would be a good presidential candidate at all: Hillary Clinton would eat either one of them alive in a debate, at the very least.
I think this is likely to be close to the point of no return for Bush, though, and soon we're going to hear more than hints about his donors/general supporters looking for someone to jump to.
*No, obviously. But...
I do think that the release of this poll means that Trump needs to do something outrageous again - maybe start another fight with Bush? Something, anyway. Otherwise the press is going double down really hard on 'OMG Fiorina' and 'Trump is Losing' (which, unlike, 'is this going to be the end of Trump?' would actually cause him some trouble). Fiorina did push back against him with a pretty carefully written line during the debate, but I think a good nasty sexist line on Trump's part would probably help him more than harm him.*
*Maybe an add with photos of Fiorina looking especially bad with a voiceover of some of her really nasty sexist knocks on Boxer, followed by "Hey, She Said It Not Me" or something. Maybe even cut in with the video of her doing it at the beginning and end, to highlight just how much plastic surgery/hair dying/etc. she's done.
Actually, I think Trump is beginning to sober up: I heard his phone interview on one of the Sunday shows earlier, and it may be beginning to dawn on him that there's an actual 50 state campaign to be waged here. He's been sounding increasingly sober as time has gone on.
Really, you think Carson could have taken Mikulski's seat? Over Chris Van Hollen? If so, the MD electorate has changed more than I think it has.
Chris Van Hollen would have won in the DC suburbs, but Carson would dominate elsewhere. Carson has been venerated both in Baltimore, and within the Maryland black community for decades. That's 30% of the population right there, and he'd probably take 60% of it.