Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

If Biden can avoid saying something irredeemable (not saying that I necessarily fancy the chances), even his occasion minor gaffes may well work to his advantage:  they reinforce how genuine and humane he is, which is exactly the contrast one wants against the machinist control-freakdom which is Hillary 2016.  Anyway, a broader field (not so many as the 17 Republicans, thank you very much) may work to Bernie's advantage.

[(poco) Sforzando]

If Biden can avoid saying something irredeemable (not saying that I necessarily fancy the chances), even his occasion minor gaffes may well work to his advantage:  they reinforce how genuine and humane he is, which is exactly the contrast one wants against the machinist control-freakdom which is Hillary 2016.  Anyway, a broader field (not so many as the 17 Republicans, thank you very much) may work to Bernie's advantage.

I wish Biden had decided sooner, since Hillary is proving herself increasingly untrustworthy. But it doesn't matter. It's going to be The Donald all the way. Haven't you read the definitive pronouncements by the Ultimate Seer on That Other Board? Just as Trump manages to alienate the Latino population more and more (witness his disastrous encounter with the powerful and popular Jorge Ramos of Univision), the Seer informs us that:

"People are put off by his somewhat crass demeanor -- I get that, but ultimately that isn't his appeal at all (and isn't why anyone will vote for him). The analysts who think it is and try to defeat and discredit him by attacking his unconventional character or demeanor are likely to watch him go all the way to White House in a landslide victory."

[Karl Henning]

I wish Biden had decided sooner, since Hillary is proving herself increasingly untrustworthy. But it doesn't matter. It's going to be The Donald all the way. Haven't you read the definitive pronouncements by the Ultimate Seer on That Other Board? Just as Trump manages to alienate the Latino population more and more (witness his disastrous encounter with the powerful and popular Jorge Ramos of Univision), the Seer informs us that:

"People are put off by his somewhat crass demeanor -- I get that, but ultimately that isn't his appeal at all (and isn't why anyone will vote for him). The analysts who think it is and try to defeat and discredit him by attacking his unconventional character or demeanor are likely to watch him go all the way to White House in a landslide victory."

I Guess There Are People Who Actually Think Like That Dept.

[drogulus]

     The most entertaining candidate early on is not the one that wins the nomination. Winners approximate what Krugman calls Very Serious Persons. It's an expansive standard that reaches as far as Biden, just.

     How do dull candidates win? Most people vote for VSPs is how. Most people don't vote for entertainers. Factor in as well that journalists need entertainers. I saw Trump speaking on CNN. People watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.

[Karl Henning]

"Biden probably won't beat Clinton. He should run anyway."

[Brian]

People watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.

This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.

[(poco) Sforzando]

     The most entertaining candidate early on is not the one that wins the nomination. Winners approximate what Krugman calls Very Serious Persons. It's an expansive standard that reaches as far as Biden, just.

     How do dull candidates win? Most people vote for VSPs is how. Most people don't vote for entertainers. Factor in as well that journalists need entertainers. I saw Trump speaking on CNN. People watch CNN to see Bourdain or watch disasters as they happen. Trump is some of both.

I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.

[(poco) Sforzando]

This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.

Perhaps, but considering all the insults he's leveled he should be able to take it as well as (ahem) dish it.
http://www.grubstreet.com/2011/08/anthony-bourdain-food-network-quotes.html

(For the record, when dealing with a slob like Guy Fieri, the man who can't pronounce his own name, or a dingbat like Rachael Ray, he's being much too kind.)

(Edited to make comment on Guy Fietti more insulting.)

[Karl Henning]

I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.

Yes.

[drogulus]

This might be the cruelest insult anybody's ever leveled at Anthony Bourdain.

     Not at all, I'm on his wavelength. I only wish I could be as entertainingly fucked up as he is. It's rare gift.

[Ken B]

I don't disagree, but for a junk candidate (compare Herman Cain) the endlessly sociopathic, self-congratulating Trump is remarkably tenacious.

Yes. But look at it this way. Sometimes people just feel the need to throw a stone at those they feel mistreat or ignore them. Trump is the stone GOP voters are throwing at the GOP.

This could be very serious indeed for the Republicans. In Canada a similar revulsion to the establishment Conservative Party, which founded the country in fact, a quarter century ago led to a fissure, a protest party, and oblivion in the election (they won 2 seats total). Plus there are Tea-Party discontents in the GOP.

In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose. I'm not giving odds yet though.

[drogulus]

In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose. I'm not giving odds yet though.

     I don't think this matters as much in this cycle as it has in the past because of the widespread belief that the out party has chosen to side against not just the President but the country that voted for him twice.

     Not that that would change the minds of the Republican base to any great extent, but to a small extent it already has, giving Trump more running room (for awhile) to do more damage.

     The dogs that do not bark are having a big effect by their silence. That could change, of course, but at present I have to think that in the deep recesses of the Republican mind a middle of the road Dem is not a bad option, good enough not to vote against.

     I expect support for Kasich to grow, because he has less room to make up to get to the middle. He counts as a VSP, and therefore acceptable to independents, the sort of people who like who David Brooks and Thomas Friedman like.

[Karl Henning]

In many ways the election should be the Republicans' to lose.

Yes, not only because of the prevailing anti-incumbency winds, but because, if (heaven forfend) Hillary is the nominee, she is at best a polarizing figure

[lisa needs braces]

The only reason Trump is leading is because he's the only one tapping into the population's resentments about illegal immigration and changing demographics. The Democrats don't seem to care about this sentiment, and Republicans only give lip service to it while secretly preferring the interests of the Chamber of Commerce for low wages (which are served by illegal immigration). It's a fallacy that Trump is only sustaining high polling because of his entertaining personality and not because he's taking positions that have been deemed as taboo and illegitimate by political elites but which are emotionally held by much of the population. We have a fundamental zero-sum clash of interests. A regular middle class American might think "I don't see the United States as basically one big economy. I see it as a culture, a peoplehood, and I don't like what mass illegal immigration is doing to the demographics of my country." And East Coast establishment types give no fucks about this sentiment.

[lisa needs braces]

The people are picking up on the hypocrisy of political elites. Here's Thomas Friedman's latest column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/thomas-friedman-bonfire-of-the-assets-with-trump-lighting-matches.html

It's very easy for the likes of Thomas Friedman and Chuck Schumer to have these sort of sentiments because they both have an ethnically exclusive backup country in the form of Israel.

[Karl Henning]

The only reason Trump is leading is because he's the only one tapping into the population's resentments about illegal immigration and changing demographics. The Democrats don't seem to care about this sentiment, and Republicans only give lip service to it while secretly preferring the interests of the Chamber of Commerce for low wages (which are served by illegal immigration). It's a fallacy that Trump is only sustaining high polling because of his entertaining personality and not because he's taking positions that have been deemed as taboo and illegitimate by political elites but which are emotionally held by much of the population.

I think you have actually argued for Trump being essentially a circus act;  and it is nothing really new . . . it's the "T (for Tantrum) Party" warmed over.  The people who would vote for Trump either don't get or don't care that his whole act is double-speak.  He bullies a Latino journo, and then claims "I am no bully";  he decries Megan Kelly for being nasty (which she wasn't) and, in spite of nasty being how we shouldn't be, he carpet-bombs Twitter with nasty tweets about her.  There simply isn't enough of a fourth-grade-mentality portion of the electorate for Trump to infest the Oval Office.

[Karl Henning]

[...]

There's no obvious ideological or demographic component in his voter base, after all. He gets a degree of support from all parts of the GOP spectrum. That means that to some extent, it is Trump's personality that is the core of his appeal. And that personality is nothing if not pugnacious.

That's what Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared to find, anyway. He assembled a group of avowed Trump supporters in his D.C.-area office for a focus group on Monday night. According to an account of the focus group in Time magazine, the Trumpians generally espoused a "we're not going to take it anymore" anger.

"They believed Washington politicians and the Republican Party had repeatedly misled them, and that the country is going down the tubes. They looked for relief in Trump," writes Time's Sam Frizell.

Mr. Luntz showed the group clips of Trump's unbridled attacks. For instance, they saw Trump describe comedian Rosie O'Donnell as having a "fat, ugly face." But that did not give them pause, apparently.

"At the end of the session, the vast majority said they liked Trump more than when they walked in," according to Mr. Frizell.

Perhaps they equate Trump's eagerness for conflict with power. Specifically, he's like a cartoon superhero, writes Dartmouth political scientist Brendan Nyhan. Trump promises to wipe away intractable problems with the application of nothing but willpower – an attitude that Professor Nyhan has dubbed the "Green Lantern theory of the presidency."

[...]

Of course, the "Green Lantern theory of the presidency" rather echoes my observation about fourth-grade-mentality, doesn't it? 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2015/0825/Attack-against-Megyn-Kelly-could-hint-at-core-of-Donald-Trump-s-appeal

[lisa needs braces]

I think you have actually argued for Trump being essentially a circus act;  and it is nothing really new . . . it's the "T (for Tantrum) Party" warmed over.  The people who would vote for Trump either don't get or don't care that his whole act is double-speak.  He bullies a Latino journo, and then claims "I am no bully";  he decries Megan Kelly for being nasty (which she wasn't) and, in spite of nasty being how we shouldn't be, he carpet-bombs Twitter with nasty tweets about her.  There simply isn't enough of a fourth-grade-mentality portion of the electorate for Trump to infest the Oval Office.

Trump is a result of elites of either party not doing anything about uncontrolled illegal immigration. You can try to discredit him for his antics against certain reporters (and it could be argued that those reporters take hostile attitude towards him (even the Fox News one) due to their dislike of the political positions he's assuming, so all Trump is doing is returning hostility directed at him) but this is just to avoid granting legitimacy to the political positions Trump is assuming. Trump is taping into the same political mood that ousted Eric Cantor, who was being groomed to be a future Republican House Speaker after Boehner.

[Karl Henning]

You can try to discredit him for his antics against certain reporters (and it could be argued that those reporters take hostile attitude towards him (even the Fox News one) due to their dislike of the political positions he's assuming

No, that is not the case at all.  Making insulting, personal, sexist remarks to women is not "a political positions he's assumed," it is a behavioral question which is a legitimate concern for the electorate.  So, no, you aren't addressing the point, and you're just thumping the Trump tub.

And, in so doing, quite neatly illustrating the shortcomings of Trump's methods.

[lisa needs braces]

No, that is not the case at all.  Making insulting, personal, sexist remarks to women is not "a political positions he's assumed," it is a behavioral question which is a legitimate concern for the electorate.  So, no, you aren't addressing the point, and you're just thumping the Trump tub.

And, in so doing, quite neatly illustrating the shortcomings of Trump's methods.

Yes, it should say something about the political current Trump is tapping into that he's polling so well despite the nasty elements of his character. You are eliding the fact he's tapping into some legitimate issues. The elites of both parties are hoping that emphasizing his character flaws will overwhelm the populism which he's ignited and for which neither party seems to care for.