Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

And, of course. eight years ago we might have read Instead of ushering in a new era of race equality, Obama's presidency could become a referendum on a black man as POTUS.

Think sexism against Hillary Clinton is bad? Wait until she wins.

[Zeus]

Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump.  There is a saying "you reap what you sow" − and the GOP sure got what they deserve. The GOP needs to find a way to move away from a "Fox News" mentality toward a more substantial engagement with the issues. Otherwise their carefully cultivated army of zombies will be available for the next showman/demogogue to hijack.

[zamyrabyrd]

And, of course. eight years ago we might have read Instead of ushering in a new era of race equality, Obama's presidency could become a referendum on a black man as POTUS.
Think sexism against Hillary Clinton is bad? Wait until she wins.

After Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Teresa May, Sarah Palin, Condoleeza Rice, etc., why should anyone be surprised at a woman in office, with or without pantsuits? Sexism is a tired old card, like racism, worn out from being passed around too often.

[San Antone]

Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump.  There is a saying "you reap what you sow" − and the GOP sure got what they deserve. The GOP needs to find a way to move away from a "Fox News" mentality toward a more substantial engagement with the issues. Otherwise their carefully cultivated army of zombies will be available for the next showman/demogogue to hijack.

You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy.  I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory.  But elites have been put on notice.  If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate. 

I only hope more in the Democratic/Liberal machine think like you.

[Karl Henning]

Soon the Trump candidacy will just be a bad memory, like the OJ Simpson trial:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#now

However, the GOP ought to do some soul-searching to figure out how their party got co-opted by a charlatan like Trump.

You say that, and yet, here are intelligent fellow GMG-ers who genuinely think El Tupé preferable to any of the other 16 contenders.

[Zeus]

There are no "elites" running the show behind the scenes − this is just another loaded phrase, good for soundbites on Fox.

If there were elites to worry about, they would look like Trump.  Living like billionaires in glass towers and fancy private planes, living a privileged, pampered, and deeply immoral lifestyle − funded in part by inherited money, and in part by cheating creditors, skirting the tax laws, setting up phony foundations, etc.

They would probably be so spoiled that once they decide to engage in public service they think they are entitled to become president at once, despite zero experience and zero good ideas. They would think they could just buy an election, and repeatedly lie to the public − denying on Tuesday what they said on Monday, over and over again.

Moreover, once in office, they would quickly loot the government, passing tax breaks that only benefit themselves and their friends, over-charging the government for services provided by their companies, etc. They would even find ways of cheating their donors!

Trump is certainly one of the world's biggest egoists and liars.  You can remain fooled by him if you want.  Thankfully, the gullible are a shrinking minority.

[Zeus]

I have to give Trump credit on one point though.

As a complainer, Trump is right to complain about global trade imbalances.  No one else in US politics has focused on the issue, and on this one point Trump has a point. What's more, it is a very important point.

The problem is that Trump has no clue how to fix the problem. He's more likely than not to make things worse. Moreover, with his bombastic style, who knows what kind of damage he could do in the meantime. He is not the kind of person you can trust to fix the problem.

The larger issue, which Trump only partly understands, is that the international monetary system is deeply flawed. Some countries are benefiting from persistent trade surpluses while others suffer from persistent deficits.  History shows that when large imbalances persist long enough, eventually the international trading and monetary system breaks down. Sooner or later, persistent losers choose not to keep playing the game. They turn inwards towards autarky instead. The period from 1920 to 1940 is full of examples of this phenomenon.

Who are the persistent losers under the current international system? The US and UK (also Greece and maybe Portugal within the Eurozone).  Where are weird things happening in politics? The US and the UK. I don't think this is just a coincidence. Even the worm turns sooner or later.

[Jo498]

How can the US be a loser in the system if they get far more stuff from China, Germany etc. than they export? If you think in terms of real products they are among the biggest winners. This is probably a main reason why the imbalances still "work" somehow.

[Karl Henning]

One irony about El Tupé supporters complaining about "mainstream media bias" is, that the mainstream media gave El Tupé yuuuge free coverage at the outset, which benefited his campaign greatly.  (Oh, it's only "bias" if there is commentary critical of El Tupé, check.)

Another is:

Republicans are paying the price for their addiction to their own media

[Zeus]

How can the US be a loser in the system if they get far more stuff from China, Germany etc. than they export? If you think in terms of real products they are among the biggest winners.

Good question.

When you run an external surplus, you enjoy both a trade surplus and a financial surplus. You export more than you import and simultaneously, your trading partner owes you more and more money (or equivalently you buy an increasing pile of their financial assets).

Net exports boost effective demand for your producers. Producers produce more and simultaneously make more profits. Stronger demand and profits encourages further investment in production capacity, allowing you to boost your overall competitiveness as a supplier. The strong get stronger. Simultaneously, higher output boosts labor demand, creating jobs, reducing unemployment.

Meanwhile, your rising pile of external wealth helps to stabilize your economy, removes your dependence on foreign creditors, and leads to rising prestige and power in international relations.

In terms of the US versus China, the US gains a larger pile of consumables − DVD players, and the like. But at the cost of declining wealth, an eroding production base, and higher unemployment. Meanwhile China benefits from increasing wealth, a more competitive production base, and more jobs. The benefits the US receives are ephemeral; but the benefits China receives are lasting and self-reinforcing.

Amazingly, it is not so difficult to "peg" a trade surplus. In fact the procedure is not so different from pegging an exchange rate. However, a pegged surplus is much more stable and beneficial. China and others have figured out this important component of "export-led development". Meanwhile the US is getting badly beaten in a great currency game it doesn't even understand.

[Brian]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H. L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun
26 July 1920

Already happened, 16 years in a row!

As painfully wrong as he is about everything else, ZB was very nearly right about this one. Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan combined for 12 years of moronitude in office. The result was a war.

Since then, it's hard to identify 12, let alone 16, consecutive years of "downright morons"; Harding certainly qualifies, but Coolidge and Hoover's moronitude was by omission, rather than action; Nixon was too cunning and accomplished to really qualify; and even G.W. Bush was well-intentioned and occasionally effective. And most intelligent critics of Obama would argue that his problem was the exact opposite of being a moron.

[Florestan]

elites have been put on notice.

Excellent article, thanks for posting.

[Karl Henning]

One irony about El Tupé supporters complaining about "mainstream media bias" is, that the mainstream media gave El Tupé yuuuge free coverage at the outset, which benefited his campaign greatly.  (Oh, it's only "bias" if there is commentary critical of El Tupé, check.)

Another is:

Republicans are paying the price for their addiction to their own media

You can and should blame Trump for believing so much of the nonsense that is spouted by the alternative media, but the deeper problem is with the outlets themselves. The right wing has created its own echo chamber which is increasingly disconnected from reality. There are millions of Americans who share Trump's outré beliefs — which helps to explain why his presidential campaign has done better than expected.

[Karl Henning]

You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy.  I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory.  But elites have been put on notice.  If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate. 

I only hope more in the Democratic/Liberal machine think like you.

Ah, it's the other guys who are in the machine.

As to the notice, I read that even earlier in another mainstream media source:

Elitism won't defeat Trumpism

[Karl Henning]

The combination of Trump business record (increasingly seen as glitzy but not successful and not run according to legal and business norms) and his policies (protectionism, anti-immigrant, fiscally reckless) make him an unacceptable choice for many business owners who honor their commitments, pay suppliers, treat employees with respect and function in the global economy.

[Karl Henning]

Donald Trump did a practice town hall last night. It didn't go well.

Updated by Matthew Yglesias  @mattyglesias  matt@vox.com Oct 7, 2016, 9:30a

In the first presidential debate, Donald Trump treated us to the spectacle of a man too lazy, undisciplined, and over-confident to bother preparing for an important moment.

So ahead of the second debate, Trump's team is trying to get him to take it more seriously. For instance, Thursday night in New Hampshire they had Trump do an event in the town hall format rather than his usual rallies.

And it seems like it was a total disaster.

According to news reports, the following things happened:

• Rather than take questions from undecided voters, Trump had conservative radio host Howie Carr ask the questions on behalf of members of a handpicked crowd of Trump supporters.
• Trump observed that Hispanics in Nevada like to be referred to as Latinos.
• Trump launched into various attacks on Nate Silver, Illinois Republican Sen. Mark Kirk, and CNBC's John Harwood.
• Trump pandered to the New England crowd by telling them he was rooting for the Red Sox in their ongoing playoff matchup against the Cleveland Indians, even though ultimately pandering to Ohio voters is more important, and Trump is supposed to be a Yankees fan.
• After saying he would take 20 questions, Trump only sat through 12 — making the whole event last just 30 minutes rather than the 90 he is going to need to stay focused for on Sunday.
• Trump disavowed the previous week and a half's worth of complaints about the microphone at the previous debate, and now says (accurately): "It wasn't that the mike didn't work."
• Trump pronounced himself very disappointed with the performance of FBI Director James Comey, a Republican and former George W. Bush administration figure who has long commanded bipartisan respect on Capitol Hill.
• Trump put a two-minute countdown clock on the stage to try to keep himself to the time limit he'll have on Sunday's debate, but repeatedly blew through it.

Obviously we won't know what happens until we watch the debate on Sunday. Maybe Trump will do great. Maybe Trump has been doing secret preparation and the apparently sloppy New Hampshire performance was part of a disinformation campaign to lower expectations.

But at least on the surface it looks like what we're seeing is that Trump is who we thought he is — a guy with undeniable charisma and television skills who is simply averse to the boring work of preparation and thinking things through. It's a bad quality in a presidential candidate, but a potentially disastrous one in an actual president.

[zamyrabyrd]

As painfully wrong as he is about everything else, ZB was very nearly right about this one. Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan combined for 12 years of moronitude in office. The result was a war.

Buzzer, not a "he"! 

Since then, it's hard to identify 12, let alone 16, consecutive years of "downright morons"; Harding certainly qualifies, but Coolidge and Hoover's moronitude was by omission, rather than action; Nixon was too cunning and accomplished to really qualify; and even G.W. Bush was well-intentioned and occasionally effective. And most intelligent critics of Obama would argue that his problem was the exact opposite of being a moron.

You have a point. Cunning is not moronic. But only morons would spend tax money like there is no tomorrow.

[Pat B]

You have entirely missed the point of the Trump candidacy.  I reccognize that the odds are very much against a Trump victory.  But elites have been put on notice.  If the Republican party has learned anything it is that business as usual has become toxic to a large swath of the American electorate. 

But if the Republican Party learned anything from 2012 it was that they needed to be a lot more inclusive, which suggests that the Republican Party is not very good at learning.

If Trump loses to the least popular D candidate in decades, I'm not sure that "more candidates like Trump" should be the lesson for Rs anyway.

Barring a Trump win, my guess is that their 2020 nominee will be somebody like Tom Cotton.

[Brian]

Buzzer, not a "he"! 

Whoops! I'm very sorry. I make poor assumptions 

You have a point. Cunning is not moronic. But only morons would spend tax money like there is no tomorrow.

Hmm...that's gotta be at least several dozen presidents, by your definition...

[Karl Henning]

Takes a genius to book a $1 billion loss though