Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Brian]

No, one only has to pass by this 5th Avenue shrine to vulgar narcissism (not to mention anxiety about the size of one's equipment) to realize that The Donald is a born and bred New Yawker (which makes it all the more fascinating that he is now the perceived savior of right-wingers who as a rule don't think New Yorkers are "real Americans"):

I mean, if somebody handed me $1000 and told me to go eat at Jean-Georges, I would absolutely go.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I mean, if somebody handed me $1000 and told me to go eat at Jean-Georges, I would absolutely go.

You would, I hope, invite me along? I'm sure if we order the least expensive things on the menu we could get out for $500 apiece.

Actually, J-G is located not in the 5th Avenue Tower but in the Trump Hotel on the West Side at Columbus Circle. You don't think The Donald would be content with littering the Manhattan skyline with just one monument to himself? I have not eaten at J-G myself, but I have been inside the 5th Avenue location many times, because for all its silly glitter The Donald is such a master of noblesse oblige, offering the hoi polloi one of the few spots in midtown with public restrooms.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Good column by Timothy Egan in today's New York Times (quoted entire in case you don't subscribe). Note the use of the word "sociopath," for which I was treated with howls of derision here from the usual suspects. I was right then, and Egan is right now:

They will remember, a century from now, who stood up to the tyrant Donald Trump and who found it expedient to throw out the most basic American values — the "Vichy Republicans," as the historian Ken Burns called them in his Stanford commencement speech.

The shrug from Mitch McConnell, the twisted explanation of Paul Ryan, who said Trump is a racist and a xenophobe, but he's ours — party before country. As well, the duck-and-hide Republicans, so quick to whip out their pocket copy of the Constitution, now nowhere to be seen when the foundation of that same document is under assault by the man carrying their banner.

They will remember, in classrooms and seminars, those who wrote Trump off as entertainment, a freak show and ratings spike, before he tried to muscle a free press, and came for you — using a page from another tyrant, Vladimir Putin, admired by the homegrown monster.

As well, they will call out the enablers. In the run-up to the presidential primary season, few candidates received more favorable press coverage than Donald Trump, the Shorenstein Center at Harvard's Kennedy School found. The watchdogs were in on the ride. Sure, he's a know-nothing and fraud, incapable of processing information or getting through a day without a half-dozen lies — but it's just a role. Get a load of Ted Cruz's wife! Heidi Klum is no longer a 10! And when he talks like a fascist, when he uses the America First slogan adopted by Nazi sympathizers in this country in the 1930s, it's all for play, you see. He is historically illiterate, so the rest of us must be as well.

They will remember, in a week that gave us a scary peek into the heart of American darkness, how the civil ties that bind a nation of people from all nations could be shredded. The blood from the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, no less a battlefield than Shiloh or Bull Run, was not yet dry when Trump was congratulating himself — a sleep-deprived narcissist on a morning me high. The worst mass shooting in American history was not about the murder of everyday people; it was about him: "Appreciate the congrats for being right."

They will hang their heads in sorrow at the time when the man leading the party of Lincoln suggested that a sitting president was a traitor, somehow sympathetic to Islamic nihilists who slaughter innocent Americans. Trump implied it. Then he banned a newspaper for its headline about it.   

He wasn't finished, this 70-year-old with the temperament of a 7-year-old. He made no rousing call for unity and courage, no plea for a partisan pause. He said the president must resign, as if it wasn't an assault rifle easily obtained by a New York-born fanatic that killed 49 people, but the American commander in chief. He compared the nation to a terminally ill patient. All is lost. For good measure, he suggested that our soldiers were thieves.

It comes in such waves, the preposterous lies, the breaches in honor, from this man who wants to use high office to attack his enemies in civil court, who would apply a religious test to fellow citizens, whose mass deportation plan would likely round up the parents of some of the Latinos killed in Orlando. And because it comes in such waves, there is no time to process it all. Was it just a few weeks ago that he attacked a federal judge, hearing a case in which Trump is accused of fraud on a mass scale, because of the judge's ethnic heritage?

They will also remember the Republicans who did not look the other way. Mitt Romney and Meg Whitman and the Bush family showed more decency in a day than Trump has in a lifetime.

"Man up," wrote the Republican strategist Rick Wilson. "Show courage. Say what's in your hearts; he's insane. He's poison. He's doomed. He's killing the party."

The American public, for once, seems to get him. While Republican Party leaders cower or remain silent, voters by a 2-1 margin in polls conducted this week disapprove of the way Trump acted in a crisis. He's disliked by nearly 70 percent of the people, which only makes you wonder about the other 30 percent.
 
"There comes a time when I — and you — can no longer remain neutral, silent," said Burns at Stanford last Sunday, the morning we all awoke to news of the slaughter in Florida. "For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and characters of candidates who were clearly qualified. That's not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified."

In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?

[Florestan]

Somebody please illuminate me: at the time he started his campaign, was Trump a registered member of the Republican Party?

[Brian]

Somebody please illuminate me: at the time he started his campaign, was Trump a registered member of the Republican Party?

According to these scanned registration documents, Trump has changed parties numerous times, most recently becoming a Republican in 2012.

[Florestan]

According to these scanned registration documents, Trump has changed parties numerous times, most recently becoming a Republican in 2012.

Okay, thanks.

Next question(s): can really any member of the GOP, or of the Democratic Party for that matter, run for nomination? Are there no prior mandatory qualifications at all?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Next question(s): can really any member of the GOP, or of the Democratic Party for that matter, run for nomination? Are there no prior mandatory qualifications at all?

Absolutely! The Constitution mandates only the following exemptions:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Which means that Trump is eligible, I am eligible, Brian at this time is not, you are not, and one's membership or not in either major party is irrelevant. Presidential ballots always, in addition to the real players, list any number of junk candidates from other parties who usually have little chance of making an impact, let alone winning.

[Florestan]

Absolutely! The Constitution mandates only the following exemptions:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Which means that Trump is eligible, I am eligible, Brian at this time is not, you are not, and one's membership or not in either major party is irrelevant.

Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?

You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?

[Gurn Blanston]

Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?

You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?

I would point out here that this is not the only possible list of qualifications.

I don't have time to look up all the rules and numerous exceptions, but in order to be able to have your name on the ballot in a primary, in most states anyway, you have to be a registered member of that party by a certain date. There was a big push to keep Bernie Sanders off the New Hampshire Primary ballot because it was asserted that he was not a registered Democrat by a certain date.

So the thing is, you may well be eligible to be President, as Poco says, but you won't get there if your name can't get on the ballot. Another one of the beauties of the Primary system.

[Brian]

You would, I hope, invite me along? I'm sure if we order the least expensive things on the menu we could get out for $500 apiece.

Actually, J-G is located not in the 5th Avenue Tower but in the Trump Hotel on the West Side at Columbus Circle.

Whoops! Too many Trump buildings to keep track of.

As far as sociopathy - the other common media diagnosis of narcissistic personality was certainly on display when I saw him last night. His main stump speech is a bizarre thing; much of it now consists of recapping his previous successes and bragging about how he has defied the odds. He talked about the media saying his "ceiling" was only 30% of the vote; he talked about getting updated poll numbers and how happy he was each time; he spent so long (10+ minutes) narrating the story of Coach Bobby Knight's endorsement that, halfway through the endorsement story, he sidebarred to mention that America has the highest taxes in the world (false) and that Hillary will raise your taxes by 50% (dubious). And then he said "okay, back to Bobby," as if that was the important thing.

Which, of course, it was. This is a cult of personality. Trump made no attempt to connect his bragging to his audience. It wasn't like he'd say, "Our poll numbers kept rising because of the support of people like you." He never used his personal stories to pivot to something of audience interest. Instead, it was just, well...he likes talking about his own successes. That's all.

And the audience is there for that. The "Trump! Trump! Trump!" chant is used to indicate to security where a protester is, so the protester can be removed; but the chant also serves an important rhetorical/symbolic purpose, an essential part of the rhythm of Trump's speech. Trump embraces that rhythm, using the protesters to stop, pepper in a few jokes, praise his crowd effusively (gotta butter 'em up), and then return to the rambling subject. By the way, whenever any of the opening speakers mentioned his name, they used his full name - Donald J. Trump - and the crowd chanted the full name right along, J. and all. The contents of those opening speeches couldn't have been more explicit about how essential Trump's persona, wealth, and general self are to his campaign - it's not about issues, it's about Trump.

By the way, the opening speakers were unimpressive minor functionaries, though one spoke with the fiery style of a great Baptist preacher. Another was an Asian-American immigrant, and the friend who came with me, also Asian-American, dwelled on this a lot afterwards. Usually at this point you'd expect a major surrogate to speak for Trump, like one of Texas's congressmen or senators or its governor. But the event was chaotically organized at the last minute (thus the small dance hall venue) and Trump has not met with strong support among Republicans, even here in TX.

P.S. Some of his policy comments were downright bizarre. You can see them on my Twitter link above. He decried our subsidization of the Japanese military and said maybe North Korea is none of our business and we shouldn't be helping them with Kim. He said that we have battered old fighter jets while we send brand new warplanes to our enemies (??). He railed against the Iraq War twice, to a silent room, because many Texans fought there; he also took a moment to praise gay bars as a "sanctuary" for the "LGBT community," which also left the crowd obviously confused.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?

You are eligible. Could you have tried your chances for the Republican nomination, even if you were not a registered Republican and your personal agenda were to destroy the GOP from within?

I'll leave that agenda to Donald Trump. I don't know all the details, but I think you need a certain number of signatures by a certain deadline to be placed on the ballot for each state's primary or caucus. (I see Gurn has covered this while I was typing.) I doubt any record of loyalty is specifically required, but there is a tradition at party conventions of various states nominating "favorite sons" (never of course "favorite daughters"), that is, honorific nominations just for show, or to express personal appreciation.

[Ken B]

Oh, stop pretending you don't know what I mean. It's really stale.

I'm not pretending. You are misunderstanding. Trump built a *brand*. It has made him a lot of money, and brought him a prominence he doesn't deserve. The brand has his name only because his name is a good one for the purpose. If his name were Assman or Pickle or even Drumpf it wouldn't be the name of the company. And it's a brand built around glitz, flash, bling, yuuuuge. It's not the only such brand.  Is this
as shrine to Mr Riviera's vulgar narcissism? 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Whoops! Too many Trump buildings to keep track of.

That's only New York. Don't forget Chicago, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Toronto, Dubai, doubtless more. The guy has as many eponymous towers as Carson Cooman has opus numbers.

Supposedly Greg Abbott had a "scheduling" problem last night. Of course, why he - that is, Donald J. Trump - would campaign at all in a state with an RGB code of 255-0-0 is beyond me other than narcissism. I suppose he gets props for his remark on the gay bars; let's see if he keeps that up when he realizes it won't fly in red America.

[Ken B]

That's only New York. Don't forget Chicago, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Vancouver, Toronto, Dubai, doubtless more. The guy has as many eponymous towers as Carson Cooman has opus numbers.

Supposedly Greg Abbott had a "scheduling" problem last night. Of course, why he - that is, Donald J. Trump - would campaign at all in a state with an RGB code of 255-0-0 is beyond me other than narcissism. I suppose he gets props for his remark on the gay bars; let's see if he keeps that up when he realizes it won't fly in red America.

Good thing Mr Hilton isn't running.

Same point. Trump uses the name of his brand. It's his name, as it was his father's when he owned the brand, because "Trump" is a good name for the kind of brand. That being a sufficient explanation, no other convenient to your politics as it may be need be entertained.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Good thing Mr Hilton isn't running.

Same point. Trump uses the name of his brand. It's his name, as it was his father's when he owned the brand, because "Trump" is a good name for the kind of brand. That being a sufficient explanation, no other convenient to your politics as it may be need be entertained.

A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

P.S. Some of his policy comments were downright bizarre. You can see them on my Twitter link above. He decried our subsidization of the Japanese military and said maybe North Korea is none of our business and we shouldn't be helping them with Kim. He said that we have battered old fighter jets while we send brand new warplanes to our enemies (??). He railed against the Iraq War twice, to a silent room, because many Texans fought there; he also took a moment to praise gay bars as a "sanctuary" for the "LGBT community," which also left the crowd obviously confused.

It's funny you describe these comments as "bizarre." With the exception of "battered old fighter jets" (which I know nothing about), all of them strike me as quite sensible.

Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.

That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.

[Madiel]

Okay and logical when it comes to mere eligibility. But how can anyone run for the nomination of a specific party, who has not a recorded history of being a devoted member / sympathizer of that party?

You clearly haven't met enough politicians. Some of them will say and do all sorts of things in order to get into a position of power, and some of them will hang off the coattails of anyone who looks like a winner. They don't care about how they or their "team" win, they care about winning.

Personally I have an extremely low view of one of my Senators, not because of his policies (though I don't love them) but because of his naked ambition. He started in the local assembly, running for the district where it was easiest to get a seat (I won't bore you with the details of Australian Capital Territory electoral law, but one district was mathematically easier). It was not the district he was actually from. He was actually from the district I live in.

After he became leader of the Opposition in the local assembly, he worked out a strategy where a big vote for his party in this district was his best shot at winning government. He then announced he was transferring to this district for the next election, and the campaign had an explicit flavour of "hey guys, I'm from here! Grew up here, raised my family here, wouldn't it be awesome to finally have a Chief Minister who was from here? I'm committed to representing YOU!"

And it tended to work. He secured the highest vote for his party in this district for a very long time, possibly ever. Across the whole of the Territory, though, his party lost by an incredibly tiny margin.

So then what happened? After all the rhetoric about how keen he was to finally represent his home district after all these years of representing some other place, he quit the assembly about 2 months later, to focus on ousting the Senator from his own party. Think Tea Party candidate running against an established Republican for the party's nomination, and you'll get some of the flavour. He succeeded. He is now one of our Senators, and I wouldn't vote for him in a month of Sundays because it's clear he stands for nothing other than his own success.

Of course, it's not just Trump. Clinton became a New York Senator rather than an Arkansas one because of the prospects it offered. But hey, change location, change party, all of it is fundamentally about whether it improves the politician's own prospects of power.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm not pretending. You are misunderstanding. Trump built a *brand*. It has made him a lot of money, and brought him a prominence he doesn't deserve. The brand has his name only because his name is a good one for the purpose. If his name were Assman or Pickle or even Drumpf it wouldn't be the name of the company. And it's a brand built around glitz, flash, bling, yuuuuge. It's not the only such brand.  Is this
as shrine to Mr Riviera's vulgar narcissism? 

The Riviera was closed last year and reduce to ruble just some days ago...

[Ken B]

It's funny you describe these comments as "bizarre." With the exception of "battered old fighter jets" (which I know nothing about), all of them strike me as quite sensible.

Also, his views on the Iraq War have been known for a while. I can't imagine Texans are unaware of them.

That said, I'm probably switching my vote to Johnson/Weld. Trump is too erratic and narcissistic to be the consistent Peace Candidate.

On most issues I like J/W more than either part of Trumpary. I usually spurn third parties, but this time ...
The one thing I *do* want is divided government.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

On most issues I like J/W more than either part of Trumpary. I usually spurn third parties, but this time ...
The one thing I *do* want is divided government.

I did one of those "I Side With" questionnaires (www.isidewith.com), and my top 2 were Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson. Bernie's out, so that leaves Gary I guess.

Third parties usually get my vote anyway. I think I have only ever voted once for the candidate that actually won.