Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

I confess i dont read all this thread. Not even posters I respect, like David, as opposed to the petty ones.
Or petty one actually.

Aw, thanks. You're such a sweet guy.

[drogulus]

     Countdown to Impeachment: World Series Edition

     Is Clinton a true Cubs fan? GOP accuses Hillary of jumping on World Series bandwagon

The GOP isn't buying the authenticity of Clinton's enthusiasm. On Tuesday, the Republican National Committee published an extensive opposition-research file accusing Clinton of being a "bandwagon" Cubs fan.

"With the Cubs headed to their first World Series since 1945, Hillary Clinton is jumping on Chicago's bandwagon," the RNC said. "But like with every other matter, Hillary Clinton switches allegiance with sports teams like positions on issues."

     Repubs keep trying to convince us they are insane, and almost effortlessly they succeed. Perhaps they are revealing our introspective blind spots.

     I followed the link to the GOP website:

     Yankees? Cubs? Mets? Bandwagon Fan Hillary Clinton Literally Has A Public And Private Favorite Baseball Team

     Either I have nothing better to do, or the Repubs have nothing better, or both. Therefore, what could be better than this? No, really, we want to know.
     

[Karl Henning]

     Countdown to Impeachment

My confidence is extremely low that our snypsss will see this at all, but here goes.

With voters trying to decide if they should ticket split and voters generally wondering if the GOP has lost its sanity, this is an idiotic thing to say for multiple reasons.

First, the Benghazi, Libya, investigation turned out to be a bust and an embarrassment. Recall how Hillary Clinton flicked lint off her jacket, an apt metaphor for her triumph over ham-handed inquisitors. Oh yes, let's repeat that!

Second, announcing before a president even takes office that you plan on immediately conducting one inquest after another smacks of bad faith and irresponsible partisanship. Perhaps Republicans do not understand that one of the things voters hate about Washington pols is their insistence on criminalizing politics. The vindictive tit-for-tat is likely once again to make Republicans look obstructionist and unserious.

Emphasis up there mine.

Jason Chaffetz blows it

[Karl Henning]

Gosh, and it isn't like regular citizens jump on a World Series bandwagon!

[Karl Henning]

Jason Chaffetz blows it

Oh, aye, indeed:

Finally, Chaffetz's timing stinks. Republicans are desperately trying to argue they aren't like the unhinged Trump who calls his opponent "Crooked Hillary" and threatens to "lock her up." Here comes Chaffetz to announce, nope, the Republicans pretty much want to do the same thing.

Chaffetz may have pulled his endorsement from Trump but he has not shed the Trump mind-set that is leading the GOP into the political wilderness.

[Brian]

Chaffetz makes the 6th member of congress to un-endorse and un-support Trump after the "Grab her by the pussy" video, then turn around a few weeks later and re-endorse/re-support him.

[Karl Henning]

Chaffetz makes the 6th member of congress to un-endorse and un-support Trump after the "Grab her by the pussy" video, then turn around a few weeks later and re-endorse/re-support him.

There has got to be a revolving door ad in there . . . .

[San Antone]

My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Repbulican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.

Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine.  Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Repbulican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.

Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.

[Karl Henning]

... With all that said, Trump's chances of winning the election haven't improved very much in our forecast. His odds are 15 percent in our polls-only forecast, not appreciably changed from 13 percent a week ago, and 16 percent in our polls-plus forecast, as compared with 15 percent last week. That's because the modest gains Trump has made are partly offset by time running off the clock, and the number of undecided voters declining.

So then: Democrats have nothing to worry about, right? Nope, we wouldn't say that, either. The race could easily tighten further. And our forecast gives Trump better odds than most other models because it accounts for the possibility of a systemic polling error, a greater risk than people may assume. A 16 percent chance of a Trump presidency isn't nothing — as we've pointed out before, it's about the same as the chances of losing a "game" of Russian roulette. And 15 percent is about the same chance we gave the San Antonio Spurs of beating the Golden State Warriors last night — the Spurs won by 29 points.

[Karl Henning]

My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Republican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.

Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine.  Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Republican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.

Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.

You may be right.  And to be sure, Romney, the Bush family, and many conservatives had undermining El Tupé's candidacy plainly in view.  But your suggestion that it would all have somehow been all right if they had fallen in line (which was the strong-arm tack taken in Cleveland) might well have worked for a normal candidate, and not for El Tupé, who ain't a normal candidate (which, we agree, is why so many of his following believe in him).

It is quaint now to reflect, isn't it, how the idea behind having all the candidates pledge that they would support the eventual GOP nominee, was an effort to make El Tupé one of the pack, and make him somehow governable.  And even then, his schtick was, "I assure you that I will support the nominee 100%.  If I'm the nominee."

[San Antone]

You may be right.  And to be sure, Romney, the Bush family, and many conservatives had undermining El Tupé's candidacy plainly in view.  But your suggestion that it would all have somehow been all right if they had fallen in line (which was the strong-arm tack taken in Cleveland) might well have worked for a normal candidate, and not for El Tupé, who ain't a normal candidate (which, we agree, is why so many of his following believe in him).

It is quaint now to reflect, isn't it, how the idea behind having all the candidates pledge that they would support the eventual GOP nominee, was an effort to make El Tupé one of the pack, and make him somehow governable.  And even then, his schtick was, "I assure you that I will support the nominee 100%.  If I'm the nominee."

You're right Trump is not a normal candidate.  And that is why he was so popular among those voters who have felt under-represented and betrayed by the "powers-that-be", both Democrats and Republicans.  Those Republicans who felt they just had to repudiate Trump added their names to those who the voters identified as part of the problem.  These Dump Trump Republicans were seen as attempting to protect their stature among the elite political establishment while ignoring the message the voters, not just Republican voters either, were sending them.

They wasted an opportunity to re-brand the Repbulican party (which it desparately needs) and to broaden its base by their ego-driven opposition.

[San Antone]

An article which highlights what I was pointing out (which I did not even see before posting previously):

GOP Rode Waves of Populism Until They Crashed the Party

Why did so many other supposedly smart politicians not see Mr. Trump's soldiers gathering?

"It really is the elitism," says Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia. The attitude of many in the party was "we're smart, and they're stupid, and we'll just feed them abortion and guns," he says. "It didn't have to be this way."

[Brian]

My feeling is that these Republicans who did not endorse or un-endorsed Trump undermined his candidacy and the Repbulican party's chances down ticket and created a self-fulfilling prophecy.  And it is not limited to elected officials, but includes Mitt Romney, George Will, William Kristol and the Bush family among others.

Had they either simply kept quiet or said something like "I will support the nominee of my party" they would have focused Trump's campaign against the true opposition, Clinton and the Democratic machine.  Instead they offered him another target, the elites within the Repbulican party, which watered down his message and caused disunity within the ranks and electorate.

Short-sighted and tactically-challenged on their parts.

This would be a good point if political tactics and Machiavellian study of the accumulation of power was everything. But not supporting Trump, for Romney, Kasich, etc. (not Cruz or Chaffetz), was a moral decision, borne of the belief that he is a menace, and that his overt racism, sexism, authoritarianism, disregard for rule of law, disregard for policymakers, history of serial sexual assault, etc., was not just bad for the party's image, but also just bad in general.

They wasted an opportunity to re-brand the Repbulican party (which it desparately needs) and to broaden its base by their ego-driven opposition.

I think an attempt to re-brand the party along Trumpian lines - ie, overtly hostile to the needs of women and racial minorities, and hostile to educated people - would inevitably shrink the party rather than grow it. Look at how Trump has worked out for the party; instead of pulling in 47-49% of the vote, as in 2008-2016, Trump is now sitting at around 38-40%.

If the Republican Party is to re-brand successfully, it will involve:
1. rescinding its "big government" interventionist views on social issues
2. emphasizing financial responsibility on the part of the government, including the need for higher overall tax revenue and tough judgments on entitlements
3. restructuring priorities and developing serious plans in education to create the "equality of opportunity" Irving Kristol defined as American
4. embracing a pro-business and pro-innovation approach to addressing climate and infrastructure problems
5. addressing immigration issues in a way that does not restrict the party's appeal to old white people

[The new erato]

In its 144-year history, The Yale Record has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president. In fact, we have never endorsed any candidate for president. This is, in part, due to our strong commitment to being a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization, which mandates that we are "absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

This year's presidential election is highly unusual, but ultimately no different: The Yale Record believes both candidates to be equally un-endorsable, due to our faithful compliance with the tax code.

In particular, we do not endorse Hillary Clinton's exemplary leadership during her 30 years in the public eye. We do not support her impressive commitment to serving and improving this country—a commitment to which she has dedicated her entire professional career. Because of unambiguous tax law, we do not encourage you to support the most qualified presidential candidate in modern American history, nor do we encourage all citizens to shatter the glass ceiling once and for all by electing Secretary Clinton on November 8.

http://yalerecord.org/2016/10/26/the-yale-record-does-not-endorse-hillary-clinton/

[drogulus]

     

     Vote Forgainst Trump/Pence 2016!

[San Antone]

This would be a good point if political tactics and Machiavellian study of the accumulation of power was everything. But not supporting Trump, for Romney, Kasich, etc. (not Cruz or Chaffetz), was a moral decision, borne of the belief that he is a menace, and that his overt racism, sexism, authoritarianism, disregard for rule of law, disregard for policymakers, history of serial sexual assault, etc., was not just bad for the party's image, but also just bad in general.

I think an attempt to re-brand the party along Trumpian lines - ie, overtly hostile to the needs of women and racial minorities, and hostile to educated people - would inevitably shrink the party rather than grow it. Look at how Trump has worked out for the party; instead of pulling in 47-49% of the vote, as in 2008-2016, Trump is now sitting at around 38-40%.

If the Republican Party is to re-brand successfully, it will involve:
1. rescinding its "big government" interventionist views on social issues
2. emphasizing financial responsibility on the part of the government, including the need for higher overall tax revenue and tough judgments on entitlements
3. restructuring priorities and developing serious plans in education to create the "equality of opportunity" Irving Kristol defined as American
4. embracing a pro-business and pro-innovation approach to addressing climate and infrastructure problems
5. addressing immigration issues in a way that does not restrict the party's appeal to old white people

Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents.  You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:

* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).

* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.

* Addressing defects in exisiting trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.

* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to  inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).

And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.

[Mahlerian]

     Countdown to Impeachment: World Series Edition

     Is Clinton a true Cubs fan? GOP accuses Hillary of jumping on World Series bandwagon

The GOP isn't buying the authenticity of Clinton's enthusiasm. On Tuesday, the Republican National Committee published an extensive opposition-research file accusing Clinton of being a "bandwagon" Cubs fan.

"With the Cubs headed to their first World Series since 1945, Hillary Clinton is jumping on Chicago's bandwagon," the RNC said. "But like with every other matter, Hillary Clinton switches allegiance with sports teams like positions on issues."

     Repubs keep trying to convince us they are insane, and almost effortlessly they succeed. Perhaps they are revealing our introspective blind spots.

     I followed the link to the GOP website:

     Yankees? Cubs? Mets? Bandwagon Fan Hillary Clinton Literally Has A Public And Private Favorite Baseball Team

     Either I have nothing better to do, or the Repubs have nothing better, or both. Therefore, what could be better than this? No, really, we want to know.
   

This reads like an Onion article....

[snyprrr]

... if it isn't a conspiracy theory, it probably isn't for you?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, yea, I know...

     

     Vote Forgainst Trump/Pence 2016!

If T gets in, WWIII starts in three years; if H gets in, it starts in three days

There has got to be a revolving door ad in there . . . .

sore lips and knees contingent- lol- "Republicans",... just LOL... what a bunch of controlled opposition... let the whole GOP vote for Cankles, PLEASE!!!! Gingrich... oh, just pleeeeeeeez... I'm just sorry you folks can't say the same about the others, who are just the same, sad.

(can we get that Charlton Heston PlanetoftheApes laugh gif here?)

[Karl Henning]

Well, I would agree with you if I did not think you and those you cite entirely misunderstand what the Trump candidacy represents.  You are confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign, which were:

* Securing the border by enforcing existing laws and building some kind of border barrier and dealing justly with immigrants both legal and illegal (which does not mean rewarding those who jumped the line).

* Lowering business taxes and removing regulatory obstacles which would allow US companies to become more profitable which translates into more and better jobs.

* Addressing defects in existing trade deals by exercising withdrawal clauses if necessary and re-negotiating them, which also will grow jobs.

* Appeal to a broad swath of voters on issues concerning individual liberties, as well as, how the political system deals ineffectively with problems stemming from racial inequality (starting with bringing jobs to  inner cities), expensive education (establishing alternatives to the 4-year college degree), social issues (stop trying to enforce some idea of morality through government), health care (not just insurance, but the actual delivery of care).

And a whole host of other issues which have been swept under the carpet for years by the political class in Washington who are happy to raise funds and get reelected without ever doing any thing really for the good of the country.

You can write of "confusing some of his worst rhetoric with the overarching themes of his campaign," but he is the campaign, so his worst rhetoric is the campaign.  You've created a fantasy campaign by unrealistically sanitizing it of the toxin.  But, the nominee is the toxin.

You raise good points, and we disagree or agree to a varying extent on this or that point.  But El Tupé's candidacy was never about ideas or policy;  and how could it have been, when one minute he says one thing, and he may not even have reached the period of that sentence before he contradicts it.

Any of the real candidates might have made this a campaign of those policies and ideas; but then, you don't have much respect for any of the real candidates (and I am not saying you are wrong, there).

[Karl Henning]

An article which highlights what I was pointing out (which I did not even see before posting previously):

GOP Rode Waves of Populism Until They Crashed the Party

This is an important theme, and we've touched on it more than once before.