Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

The scary thing is that Karl may be right; the demographic you describe, the Trumpians, are unable to see past their myopic world view. And as Scott Adams was saying in that video, Trump is so good at what he does that he might be able to sway enough of the electorate to get through the process. After all, if there is one thing we have learned in recent elections, it isn't how good I am, it's how bad I can make YOU appear to be. And Trump is damn sure good at that.

Back in the 1990's somewhere, I gave up even the pretense of being emotionally invested in this shit. I always vote, but I know it isn't worth any more than the vice-presidency (i.e. - a bucket of warm spit), and so at best I can say that I am eternally hopeful that we won't screw the pooch until after I am dead...

Most analyses of Trump's poll numbers are based on a false premise: that people who say they are for Trump actually want him elected.
Most are nowhere near deciding on who they actually want as president; their declared preference is based on other considerations than a sober assessment of the man's suitability.
Saying "Trump" now sends a message, that's all. Lots of messages are being sent: "I hate the GOP leadership", "We need to do something about uncontrolled immigration", "I'm sick of PC doublespeak" are just a few.
Polls this early do not reflect an intent to vote. Now perhaps ypu think I'm way wrong here. If so you can cite the results of the Giuliani-Clinton presidential election against me.

[Ken B]

We heard it from Miss Alabama first: GOP should be 'absolutely terrified' of Trump

Actually, you heard the from me months ago.

[Karl Henning]

Actually, you heard the from me months ago.

No doubt.  The tiara is a help, I think.

[Karl Henning]

Most analyses of Trump's poll numbers are based on a false premise: that people who say they are for Trump actually want him elected.

Most are nowhere near deciding on who they actually want as president; their declared preference is based on other considerations than a sober assessment of the man's suitability.

Spot on . . . but, no, that's not how the yammerers are discussing them.

Just watched a talking head speaking of Bernie's disinclination to attack Hillary, and his penchant for, erm, talking issues (even if, as we know, on the fuzzy side) as if they were Bad Things because, gasp, it won't make a big ratings draw of the debates.  Had the unseemly look of someone who just wants a food fight . . . .

[Brian]

Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?

[Gurn Blanston]

Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?

Well, there is me... 

[Todd]

I always vote

I don't.  In fact, it is one of my rules to never vote for unopposed candidates, though that only happens in local elections.  (I doubt the US will ever see another Washington or Monroe at the national level.)  I may write in a presidential candidate on next year's ballot. 

Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?

Right wing and left wing populism both favor economic nationalism.  Politicians must pander to their bases, who are most active now.  As November 2016 approaches, I suspect the two main candidates, whoever they may be, will have an altered outlook on the matter.

[Ken B]

Very frustrated with literally everyone running for president now since they all oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Is there anybody who supports the damn thing? Is there anybody advised by economists at all?

Hillary was for it before she was against it.
Surely there are *some* republicans for it? Surely?

Sorry for calling you Shirley.

[Daverz]

Is there anybody advised by economists at all?

Krugthulu on TPP:

I've described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don't share the intense dislike of many progressives, I've seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that.

What I know so far: pharma is mad because the extension of property rights in biologics is much shorter than it wanted, tobacco is mad because it has been carved out of the dispute settlement deal, and Rs in general are mad because the labor protection stuff is stronger than expected. All of these are good things from my point of view. I'll need to do much more homework once the details are clearer.

But it's interesting that what we're seeing so far is a harsh backlash from the right against these improvements. I find myself thinking of Grossman and Helpman's work on the political economy of free trade agreements, in which they conclude, based on a highly stylized but nonetheless interesting model of special interest politics, that

An FTA is most likely to politically viable exactly when it would be socially harmful.

The TPP looks better than it did, which infuriates much of Congress.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Trade agreements seem to usually be about protecting corporate interests rather than anything resembling free trade.

[Todd]

Trade agreements seem to usually be about protecting corporate interests rather than anything resembling free trade.

As a Progressive sort (whole or partial), what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?

[Daverz]

As a Progressive sort (whole or partial), what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?

Small "p" progressive.  The capital "P" Progressives were a late 19th, early 20th-Century political movement that I associate with bastards like Woodrow Wilson.  I prefer to identify as a liberal in the US context.

[Todd]

I prefer to identify as a liberal in the US context.

OK, as a small-l liberal, what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require? 

[Daverz]

OK, as a small-l liberal, what type of trade arrangements, if any, do you support, and what type of regulatory structures would your preferred solutions require?

Trade agreements that are actually trade agreements.   This one just has "Trade" in the title.   Created in an open and transparent manner with no "fast track" monkey business.    As for regulation, a transparent enforcement process that's not tilted in favor of corporate interests and that does not give those interests a veto-point over national labor and environmental laws.

[Todd]

Trade agreements that are actually trade agreements.

What would a trade agreement that is "actually" a trade agreement look like?

[drogulus]

 

     And now, the latest in the Mommy Dearest Rises From The Grave Saga!

     1) Only a Democrat could stop Hillary from being the next President.

     2) Biden sits in front of the teevee and is like "Oh shit....". He only runs if a path is open and it isn't. Bye Joe, I always liked you.

     3) Who rescues the Repubs after the Trump fizzle? Who will be standing that can battle Hillary for the center 20% of voters and win the majority of them?

     4) There is the "$200 dress on a wire coat hanger" problem. Hillary is liked but not well liked. This is widely thought to be important, and is widely wrong.

[Todd]

     1) Only a Democrat could stop Hillary from being the next President.

Not necessarily true.  If criminal charges are brought regarding the email server situation, that could kill her campaign.  The probability of that is exceedingly low, of course. 

Republicans need to coalesce around an electable candidate - Kasich or Rubio at this point since Bush evidently can't campaign - soon if they want to have a chance. 

Republicans may soon need to shift focus to maintaining control of Congress so as to kill as many Clinton initiatives as possible in the event she wins.  As long as there is divided government, all will be well.  SCOTUS nominations would make for especially entertaining politics.

[Karl Henning]

     3) Who rescues the Repubs after the Trump fizzle?

What if there is no fizzle, and no rescue?

[San Antone]

I was most impressed by Jim Webb.

[drogulus]

Republicans need to coalesce around an electable candidate

     Mitt Romney isn't running. He'd at least have a chance.

     The Republicans are doomed. This has been coming for some time. Here's an idea. Republican radicalism is not the cause of their existential crisis. I know it looks like that, but it isn't. No, the radical shift represents Republicans running out of time to enact a conservative agenda before demographics moves so far against them gerrymandering can't sustain them. It isn't all malice and stupidity, it's that and a seed of realism as well. The party might disappear in the next 20 years.

    "If you want a vision of the future, imagine Louie Gohmert stamping on human intelligence - forever."

      Not even the Inner Party could handle that level of inhumanity. The phenomenon is wider and deeper than isolated instances of Gohmertism and caribou warming oil pipelines.

     

I was most impressed by Jim Webb.

     He probably doesn't share your view right now.

[Todd]

The Republicans are doomed.

Perhaps, but that looks more like wishful thinking on your part than a meaningful prognostication.  Demographic trends are well known by everyone.  And let's not forget that it is the Republicans who have two Hispanics, and an African American, and a woman all running for the top job right now, whereas the Democrats have four white guys and one woman with a lot of baggage and a famous white dude for a husband.  Also keep in mind that demographic trends project evil (non-Hispanic) white people to lose majority status around mid-century, but even then they will be the largest single group with a 20 point (not percent) advantage over Hispanics, who include some white folks in their numbers.  That leaves an immense amount of room for divide and conquer politics.  Your dream of a single party state may be deferred a while longer than you hope.