Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

"... one click closer to an outcome once thought unfathomable"

[Todd]

That's the state which brought forth the Bundys, right? 

What's wrong with the Bundys?

[Brian]

Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont.  0:)

[Gurn Blanston]

Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont.  0:)

I knew he couldn't be all bad... 

[Karl Henning]

Ted Bundy was born in Burlington, Vermont.  0:)

But does he feel the Bern?

[Todd]

But does he feel the Bern?

Ever since 1989.

[Pat B]

My God, Trump has taken Nevada with 46%, practically doubling Cruz and Rubio. The country has lost its mind.

It's the Republican Party, not the country, and they have been heading this general direction for a while. In hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.

Personally, I don't find Rubio or Cruz any less unappealing than Trump.

[Todd]

In hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.

Except Trump isn't anti-government.  He will and does advocate a variety of policies that horrify small government types - eg, no entitlement reform, punitive tariffs, an unknown but not exactly small-government health care revision.  He's a right wing populist. 

[geralmar]

I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972.

I wish I were Canadian.

[Gurn Blanston]

I have voted in every Presidential election since 1972.

Ditto

I wish I were Canadian.

Ditto

[Brian]

It's the Republican Party, not the country, and they have been heading this general direction for a while. In hindsight, the ascent of Trump looks like a natural step on the Rs' anti-government crusade of the past few decades.

Personally, I don't find Rubio or Cruz any less unappealing than Trump.

Thank you for this.

I would only support a Republican if they met three very basic minimum requirements.
1. Treating opponents with civility, as if they were decent human beings.
2. Acknowledging that government does have an important function to play in society, and (relatedly) that there are some necessary domestic services which can best, or only, be provided by a government.
3. Acknowledging the necessity of action to prevent climate catastrophe.

This is a very basic minimum but a minimum which the party's candidates universally fail.

EDIT: added "domestic" to point #2

[Pat B]

Except Trump isn't anti-government.  He will and does advocate a variety of policies that horrify small government types - eg, no entitlement reform, punitive tariffs, an unknown but not exactly small-government health care revision.  He's a right wing populist.

Yes, but regardless of his position on various issues, part of his shtick is not knowing or caring how government actually works. Maybe he's planning to implement everything via executive action, which is very popular with Rs as long as the president is one of them. But even that won't convince Mexico to build us a border wall.

[Pat B]

Thank you for this.

I would only support a Republican if they met three very basic minimum requirements.
1. Treating opponents with civility, as if they were decent human beings.
2. Acknowledging that government does have an important function to play in society, and (relatedly) that there are some necessary domestic services which can best, or only, be provided by a government.
3. Acknowledging the necessity of action to prevent climate catastrophe.

This is a very basic minimum but a minimum which the party's candidates universally fail.

I started to type that "universally" was an exaggeration, then I looked at Kasich's primary results.

[(poco) Sforzando]

But even that won't convince Mexico to build us a border wall.

The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.

[Karl Henning]

The idea is that we are to build the wall, and Mexico will pay for it. Fat luck trying to collect.

Just you watch him!

Perhaps the central irony of his campaign:  He's touting himself as a sharp, successful businessman;  but he doesn't much sound like even an intelligent businessman.

[Todd]

but he doesn't much sound like even an intelligent businessman.

That's part of the appeal.  He wants to appeal to people who are ignored, or who feel as though they are ignored.  From his Nevada victory speech:

"We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated. We're the smartest people, we're the most loyal people, and you know what I'm happy about? Because I've been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics—46%, No. 1 one with Hispanics. I'm really happy about that."  (Bold added.)

Another blurb from the same speech: "[Don Trump, Jr] loves the rifle stuff. This is serious rifle. This is serious NRA, both of them, both of them. We love the Second Amendment folks. Nobody loves it more than us, so just remember that."

Trump's shamelessness and cynicism at times almost takes my breath away.  As easily as one could view Trump as the logical conclusion of Republican anti-government bias, one could also view his candidacy as the logical outcome in a society that exalts celebrity, news cycles that rely on meaningless sound-bites and false or manipulated crises and controversies, and has an electorate more enamored of new cell phones than politics.  And the irony here is that for all the hand-wringing over Citizens United and his wealth, Trump has spent less than some of his rivals.

Sometimes I wonder if he has a camera crew following him around, filming the behind the scenes activity, for some post-election reality TV special, to air shortly after a loss, or after his Presidency ends. 

[Florestan]

after his Presidency ends.

Is there any possibvility that he might really get elected?

[Karl Henning]

Is there any possibility that he might really get elected?

All bets are off.

If Hillary is really "the inevitable" Democratic Party nominee, and runs against El Tupé . . . there are analysts who feel that her negatives among not only the general electorate, but even among Democrats, suffice to tip the general election in El Tupé's favor.  That is an absolutely awful thought.  But is it a possibility?  Certainly.

[drogulus]

 
    The Sanders Case for More Spending and Faster Growth

     I don't support Sanders, he's a flawed proponent of the causes I do support. His revolution from below doesn't depend on the fate of his candidacy. Just as Repubs are fed up with how their party fails to act in accordance with what it ostensibly believes, Dems are fed up, too, with a liberal party that compromises with itself because no one else will play ball. If Clintonian triangulation gets no better results that it has managed to get, shouldn't we try a little harder to go full FDR? I think so, and I think the perceived unpopularity of liberalism as program is being confused with liberalism as label, IOW tying the liberal brand to center right economics (Obama's "run out of dollars" gambit) has sullied the reputation of economic liberalism gratuitously. To me it looks like both parties wrap themselves in their social messages to protect themselves from their own economic policies.

[North Star]

All bets are off.

If Hillary is really "the inevitable" Democratic Party nominee, and runs against El Tupé . . . there are analysts who feel that her negatives among not only the general electorate, but even among Democrats, suffice to tip the general election in El Tupé's favor.  That is an absolutely awful thought.  But is it a possibility?  Certainly.

And if Sanders would get the nod, would the scenario of Trump winning be any less likely?