So, can Trump win the whole thing?
I think it’s safe to say that we will be likely to revisit this topic many, many times again, and that the answer may vary over time as events shape up in this crazy, crazy, crazy (mad mad mad mad) campaign season.
But my short answer is: of course he can. Never say never.
I think it highly unlikely, though, for the very simple reason that too many people cannot stand him. Some find his policies abominable, some his character, and some both. Fact is, though, that a lot of people hate Hillary, too (and I mean that literally: a lot of people hate both of them). The real question is who is more hated and whose presidency would be more feared, as well as whose supporters (and they each have a considerable number of those, too) are most devoted and especially most numerous. This is a campaign when the phrase “the lesser of two evils” seems literally true, but it’s more difficult than in most cases to decide who really would be the lesser.
People who say that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have devoted supporters are living in a bubble that doesn’t interface with the territory I inhabit. In other words, I know people who’ve been wearing Hillary buttons since last spring. And there’s no one who hasn’t lived in a cave for thirty years who would be so dumb as to say there aren’t Trump supporters and that many are extremely devoted.
The MSM has hardly begun to carry Hillary’s water the way it undoubtedly will. The Democrats have not unleashed more than a small percentage of their ammunition against him. Nor has Trump started the major attacks on Hillary of which he’s fully capable. I predict we are in for a campaign season so dirty that we’ll end up like Lady Macbeth doubting if all the water in the ocean can wash us clean. And the interesting thing is that this time, to dig up dirt, one doesn’t have to look far or even to lie, although these mendacious candidates almost undoubtedly will each lie often and eagerly.
As for me and who I’ll vote for, I have no idea. It won’t be Hillary, but can I bring myself to vote for Trump? I’ve answered previously that I’ll probably wait till it’s extremely close to the election to decide, and that I think my final decision might even happen in the voting booth. I still feel that way.
An awful thought just struck me. Trump looses in 2016. Spends 3 years whining about the unfairness of it all and the runs again in 2020. Aaargh!
2 things:
1) How long before Trump invokes the name “Vince Foster?” That will be my barometer for when the gloves are truly off.
2) Along the theory that the Democrats have done over the last 8 years every nefarious thing they accused W. of doing in the 8 before that, I’m expecting if we have a win by either Trump or Hillary under indictment, Obama is going to find some method to either invalidate the election results or “indefinitely” put the transition on hold and remain as president beyond January 20.
Hot Air is reporting that Trump was on TV this morning defending his comments about Cruz’s father. He is not a gracious victor.
expat…
Basic negotiating… real estate style.
Never, ever, ever, admit you’re wrong or wrong-headed.
Never ‘get reasonable.’
This is THE winning gambit in all real estate dealings.
All of the top wolves use this stance.
So let him sell a golf course.
blert…
And it’s why Trump is an asshole who I will never vote for. I don’t care how you try to rationalize it.
Expat:
Leopard meet spots. He is something, not a good something.
expat:
Of course he’s not a gracious victor.
Trump has a multi-faceted character problem and multiple character defects that are very serious. I write “problem” and “defects,” but he (and many of his admirers) see this as a feature rather than a bug.
He also (and I might write a post on this some day) is an actual—not pretend but actual—conspiracy nut of various kinds.
The MSM is going to bite their tongues until the GOP nomination is fatalized.
Then a Niagara of ‘revelations’ damning to Trump will ooze forth.
Figure the MSM to paint Trump as corrupt as Hillary, no different than Hillary, yet a wild-man.
But, for the most part, the Leftist faction will simply deny Donald air time.
He doesn’t have the war chest to buy remotely enough air time.
He’s run his campaign on the ultra-cheap from the start.
Living in a very red state that will undoubtedly go for Trump, I don’t really have to do any conscience-wrestling about not voting for him and thus enabling a Hillary win. I had been figuring I just wouldn’t vote, but now I think maybe I’ll vote for the libertarian candidate as a protest.
Eric J, thing 1: wow, yeah. I never say anything about it because it gets you written off as a nut, but I still think that business was very fishy.
expat Says:
May 4th, 2016 at 4:32 pm
So let him sell a golf course.
&&&&
Curiously, Trump only rarely lets go of a property.
He’s an accumulator.
This is a ‘tell’ that he’ll grow government — probably like topsy — more along the lines of FDR — and just as unpredictably.
This is in studied contrast to Barry Soetoro – the un-FDR – as virtually all of Barry’s initiatives reverse FDR legacies.
He’s 180’d FDR so many times — you can predict where Barry is going.
The policy tally is long.
War
Immigration
Social Security
Electrification
Trade
Culture
Oratory
Foreign relations
Internal security
Industrialization
&
Unions
( Cutting through the bull, it’s impossible to have a successful union movement while the nation is flooded with excess ‘talent.’
( Flooded labor markets established the union movement in the 19th Century.
( H1-b is just such a flooding. The imported serfs have no idea of how expensive it is to live in Silicon Valley. So their pay ends up not being remotely spectacular — compared to what was expected in the home country. ( India, mostly, it’s their command of English — better than alternate serfs. )
The People have spoken… damn their eyes.
Trump has proven that he can fight hard, and fight dirty, when he wants to. Will the gloves come off against Hillary? I certainly hope so.
“Bread and circuses”. We’re literally seeing that now — free food and free entertainment. Hillary promises free goodies, Trump promises 24×7 reality TV. (Here the advantage is to Trump — he’s entertaining us NOW.)
Sigh. The election year started out looking so GOOD for the Republicans…
Even though it will be painful, my vote will have to go to Trump, unless by some miracle a viable alternative surfaces.
Who knows? I have quoted Otto Von Bismarck; (paraphrasing now from memory) “There is a provenance that protects drunkards, idiots, children and the United States of America”. Blessed Provenance, please don’t fail us in our hour of need
Looking Back On How Donald Trump Beat Hillary Clinton – Kurt Schlichter
I don’t know what blert does for a living, but it isn’t real estate. Most of Trump’s actual developments are condos, so there’s no accumulation at all. The bulk of his income these days is actually from a sort of licensing/consulting/franchising business he has, whereby other developers build condos, and the Trump organization advises them and allows the condos to be marketed under the Trump name in return for a share of the proceeds. Trump has bought and sold any number of New York buildings, including the GM building.
And negotiating styles vary a lot among New York developers. I can assure you, them as knows don’t tell, them as has don’t show, and them as stay out of the papers get better interest rates than Trump.
vanderleun,
I read that Schlichter essay and I think it is nonsense. But want troubles me the most is what will happen in the senate races with the donald as nominee, and the SCOTUS if hrc or djt win in November.
Howver, I remain of the opinion that the donald will be a YUGE loser in the fall. But right now djt is 184 delegates short of 1237. So he may be presumptive but he ain’t the nominee yet. Its like baseball, it ain’t over until its over.
parker, vanderleun:
Essays like that are mostly good for entertainment. It’s a sort of political science fiction. Perhaps correct, perhaps not, but to me at this point largely irrelevant because so very very speculative.
No one has a clue what will happen. We all have our opinions, and mine is that Trump is highly unlikely to win. I could change that opinion as events unfold.
Hillary is so bad, there few who as president would be worse for America. Since Trump is not among them, and is among the many who would as president be much, much better for America than would Hillary, I will vote for Trump.
Stated another way, I believe that the differences between Trump and Hillary are such that it does matter who wins.
FYI, my favorites were Carly, Walker and Perry, and Trump came in 17th on my list.
The probability of trump winning is too small to be seen with the naked eye. Even if by some miracle he did win, it’s not relevant: we’re doomed.
Ira:
I’m always rather surprised when people state that Trump would not be worse for America than Hillary Clinton as though it’s some sort of self-evident and unchallengable truism. I don’t see it that way at all, although I tend to think it’s probably true.
See this, for example.
It’ll be like the voting for prom queen scene in Mean Girls:
Voter #1: I’m voting for Clinton because she has years of experience in government corruption and deceit.
Voter #2: I’m voting for Trump because he financed Clinton’s years of experience in government corruption and deceit to his personal advantage.
They both made a ton of money pushing America under the bus.
That is a very good article by David French. I will not taint myself by voting for Trump. Maybe it is easier for me to say this because my state has turned blue, but it has, so I don’t have to worry about it. Neither of my senators is up this year, my liberal congressman will be easily re-elected. If a libertarian candidate is on the ballot, I will vote for that candidate. Otherwise I will stay home because the only other things on the ballot will be bond issues that the fools in my county always approve overwhelmingly
I too expect that we will revisit this subject so much that we will all be thoroughly sick of it.
Anyone in a deeply blue or red state can feel free to vote for another alternative candidate. Anyone in a swing state who fails to vote for Trump is voting for Hillary.
I think that Trump can win and I’m sure he can also derail his own campaign. ‘Wild card’ events may well be decisive.
Absent fiscal collapse or a terrorist nuclear attack, I don’t give credence to the scenario that “Obama is going to find some method to either invalidate the election results or “indefinitely” put the transition on hold and remain as president beyond January 20.” Martial law is the only means by which he could accomplish that and he would need bipartisan support and the cooperation of the US Military. Which has not yet been corrupted to the extent, where they will support a coup.
blert,
No possibility that Trump may already have secretly secured the funding he will need? No possibility that the media may find it impossible to not cover Trump?
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure, that just ain’t so.” – Mark Twain
vanderleun,
Interesting, possible though requiring a level of rhetorical ju jitsu that Trump has been, at best spotty on. On a few points, a bit of a stretch. If Trump is elected, many will through 20/20 hindsight, assert it to have been obvious. If he loses in a landslide, most will say it was predictable and Trump’s supporters will construct excuses. People mostly believe what they want to believe.
The one issue that could be the most damaging to Trump is the “football.” I have already seen two pundits on FBN say that he is too volatile and weak on foreign policy knowledge to be allowed anywhere the near the launch codes.
I see this as an idea that the HRC camp will seek to exploit ala the “Daisy” adds of the Goldwater/LBJ campaign. That was powerful stuff that allowed a crooked boor liberal to defeat a gentleman conservative.
People who know Trump personally claim he is totally different when one on one with him. That he’s charming, sensible, funny, etc. When will he show that side of himself to the voting public?
Maybe never.
K L Smith: there may still be some further down ballot or referendums that may need your vote.
I live in Illinois which has a 99.3% likelihood of going blue.
However Sen. Kirk(R-kinda) is locked in a tight battle with Rep. Duckworth. My Congressman is a D and will be re-elected. He isn’t that bad though.
There are some State Representatives and Senators who could use my vote.
It is just that the top-line probably won’t get my check mark this time around. Nor that it mattered in 2008 or 2012.
In my opinion there a few things that are worse than the cancer-on-society that is a corrupt PUBLIC official, on an level. Hillary has always been corrupt, either as the wife of a public official or as a public official herself.
As bad as Trump might have been (including perhaps taking advantage of public officials’ willingness to be corrupted), he has not been a public official.
With Hillary, we know there is no depth to which she will not sink. Her scapegoating of the essentially defenseless author of the “Mohammad video” is just one example of her vileness as a public official.
The likelihood is remote that anyone else, including Trump, would be that bad.
Good thing Trump’s now his supporter’s problem. They’ll have to deal with him.
What about the other factions? Good question. Time to get your prophetic crystal balls out. Because this is one of those bifurcating historical timelines.
With Hillary, we know there is no depth to which she will not sink. Her scapegoating of the essentially defenseless author of the “Mohammad video” is just one example of her vileness as a public official.
The Left has dictators a thousand times worse than Hussein, Hillary, and Trump combined.
Do people really believe they can save this continent just by replacing one Dear Leader with another? How easily they underestimate the true power of the Leftist alliance. As usual.
I live in Colorado, straight up purple country. Trying to maybe look at something positive…If there was ever a year where a 3rd party candidate had a prayer of winning, this is it. I may very soon find myself working on Gary Johnson’s campaign. I’m convinced, maybe wrongly, that a large majority of people in the US believe that government fails at most everything it tries. Given that, I think it might be plausible to convince people to vote for a person who believes in small, limited government. He backs term limits, a BIG issue for me. He’s a huge fiscal conservative. I dunno, maybe this is the year. For me anyway, better than either Trump or Clinton. (Before anyone says “he’ll NEVER win” I’ll remind you that until very recently many of us said the same of Trump.)
Ira, I firmly believe that Trump is every bit as vile and corrupt as Hillary, I also firmly believe that his whole “Cruz’s father was hanging with Lee Harvey Oswald” thing is proof that he has no limits to the depths he’ll go either.
Ira:
Sorry, but that’s really really illogical.
Donald Trump has been at least as corrupt as Hillary if not worse, in the private domain as well as his personal life. He is itching to get the power of being a public office holder of the highest office in the land. The evidence is he would be at least as bad as she and has no shame about it, either. At least Hillary knows something about the Constitution; he knows next to nothing and cares less.
I fail to understand how the fact that he hasn’t held office till now has any relevance in terms of what he would do with the office and the power inherent in it, if elected.
You write:
Take a look at my posts on Trump and what he did in Scotland to the people who he thought ruined the view from his golf course. He did this as a private businessman, both in using government power against them, and also in verbally harassing and insulting them publicly in the vilest of terms. The man is dangerous, and he’s done as much damage as he could as a private person within the boundaries of the law. So let’s just give him practically unlimited power!
KL – I’m with Tuvea on this. I live in Maryland. I don’t expect my vote to matter, but every once in a while a Hogan or someone will sneak through. Besides, your vote will affect the statistics. When the GOP tries to figure out what went wrong after this mess is over, they’re going to notice that the Republican dog catcher candidate in my district got at least one more vote than the Republican presidential candidate.
“The one issue that could be the most damaging to Trump is the “football.” I have already seen two pundits on FBN say that he is too volatile and weak on foreign policy knowledge to be allowed anywhere the near the launch codes.”J.J.
All Trump has to say is that they said the same thing about Reagan and documented proof of that is easily obtainable. Then add, the danger with Hillary is not that she’d act precipitously but that they know she won’t act at all. Our enemies learned that, when she didn’t act in Benghazi. Note that while only Obama could act, the LIVs won’t give that fact even a passing thought.
When the press reacts, just say ‘she’s already proven when the 3am call comes in, she’ll be awol’, Hillary abandoned our men to keep her lies from exposure, our men died to keep her secrets.
“neo-neocon Says:
May 4th, 2016 at 5:32 pm
parker, vanderleun:
Essays like that are mostly good for entertainment. It’s a sort of political science fiction. Perhaps correct, perhaps not, but to me at this point largely irrelevant because so very very speculative.”
Always true. Obviously so. But risk free since if he does win it will be seen as prescient with the details forgotten. If he does not win it will be as forgotten as it will be by tomorrow morning.
For me, the nuclear issue is real. In fact it’s the most important issue for me. (If you haven’t read Herman Kahn’s little book, now would be a good time.)
The risk of nuclear war has grown under Obama. Not all of the increase is his fault, but some of it is.
I rate the Hillary bad on this issue, and the Donald very bad.
So, unless there is some chance my vote will count — unlikely here in Washington state — I plan to cast a protest vote.
————————————————————-
On golf courses and Trump’s real estate deals: Joe Nocera has a striking column on what happened when Trump bought a private golf course in Florida. The course required members to put down hefty deposits, 200K as I recall, to join. They got that money back after 20 or 30 years, or could ask for it back sooner.
If they asked for it back, that put them on a waiting list, which was controlled by how many new folks put down their secutiry deposits.
When Trump took over, he basically took the deposit money of the people on the waiting list — and dared them to sue him. Some decided that it was better to take half in settlements; others are suing.
Oh, and Nocera has evidence that the golf course is doing worse, financially, under Trump.
(You can probably find a link to the column fairly quickly if you search my site on “Nocera”.)
Geoffrey Britain:
“They” may have said it about Reagan (I’d like you to provide some documentation, because I don’t remember that—although I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t recall it and couldn’t find anything on it just now when I Googled it). But I bet what they said was quite different and based on different things. My guess is that it was based on the fact that Reagan was tough on Communism, not on the fact that he was an impulsive, characterless, untrustworthy human being. What’s more, Trump has demonstrated those characteristics for all to see—whether or not it’s really an act, he does appear unbalanced and to be a loose cannon, emotionally speaking. Reagan never appeared that way.
Here’s the Nocera column I mentioned: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/sports/golf/at-trump-club-in-florida-some-members-want-their-money-back.html?_r=0
Nocera has done at least two other devastating columns on Trump, one on how he killed the USFL, and another on how he had lost on so many big real estate deals.
He can win.
“The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
Neo:
The man is dangerous…So let’s just give him practically unlimited power!
Exactly, that is the crux of it. I have other reasons to withhold my vote, but that one is prime.
Ted Cruz emotional take down of Trump yesterday very clearly laid out the reasons he’s dangerous. Why didn’t we see this side of Cruz earlier? I know, it wouldn’t have mattered anyway, but still…
Nick: unfortunately, Trump is no Larry Hogan. Good candidate facing mediocre opposition in a non-presidential year election. Being a changer, I was never a solid Repiblican party member. The Dems left me and the other party isn’t quite earning my undying loyalty.
Trump in Omaha this Friday.
I will submit to Power Line.
Tom: I’m afraid most of our fellow citizens think the government fails because it doesn’t spend enough money. Some others think cutting spending on shrimp on treadmills studies will make a difference while leaving entitlement programs untouched. It is very difficult to take things away from people. It’s why Obama was willing to lose the House to pass Obamacare. It would become permanent, or a Trojan horse for full govt takeover, and the House could be won back later.
Neo-neocon,
I agree with all your criticisms of Trump.
That being said, we ACTUALLY KNOW that Hillary has violated her oath of office as secretary of state. That oath is essentially as follows (emphasis added by me):
So, as bad a person as Trump has been, he has not violated an oath of office.
Will he be as corrupt as Hillary? I doubt it.
Am I concerned that I might be wrong? Of course. But Hillary is sooooooo bad, I think that’s unlikely.
vanderleun, at 5:06 pm, linked to the Schlichter essay:
“Looking Back On How Donald Trump Beat Hillary Clinton — Kurt Schlichter”
Almost had me convinced, vanderleun, almost had me convinced — like Landlord Neo’s convincing April 1st posts — until Schlichter managed to mention “Governor Justin Bieber (R-CA)”.
— — — — —
*NOT*! [ smile ]
Ira:
He has not violated an oath of office—but that’s only because he never took one.
I’m not just being cute here—I just see the point you’re trying to make as meaningless sophistry. I assume you’re trying to assure yourself that Trump is marginally better than Hillary because of this oath thing, but I don’t see it.
The only oath Trump ever took was his marriage vows, and he violated those and bragged about it, if it’s oath-keeping vs. oath-breaking that’s the issue for you.
Cornhead:
You are a patient and courageous man.
I can’t listen to any of them at this point, or to any cable news or other news. I only want to read it, not watch it or listen.
Neo-neocon,
If the choice were given to me is as follows:
A. Trump
B. Hillary
C. Send a message by (i) voting for a not-a-chance-in-hell third party candidate or (ii) not voting,
I would pick A, because Hillary is that bad.
The last time it probably didn’t matter who we selected was the Ford-Carter election.
It does matter this time because Hillary IS THAT VILE a public servant.
Ira:
And Trump is that vile a person. I actually think his behavior and his character are worse than hers, and that he is more emotionally unstable. It’s not an easy thing to judge at a distance, however.
I think once the media turns itself loose on Mr. Trump, he won’t know what hit him. They will fling him into the ditch so fast his orange head will spin, and the most evil woman in the US will become President.
Neo — your reply to Ira raised an ethical issue: I think we can all agree that, in a non-corrupt system, both the briber and the bribee are equally corrupt. But in a corrupt system, where the bribee(s) demands the bribe in order to let anything be done, it seems to me that bribee is the more culpable party.
So, for example, Trump should be seen as less corrupt than Hillary, because he paid her $100,000 (excuse me, her campaign) to ensure that she would return his phone calls, knowing that at some point he would have to call her to get some government approval or something that only comes when you have clout. Similarly, the Russian billionaire who paid her $100 million (excuse me, the Clinton Foundation) to get her approval for his buying the last uranium mine in the US, is less corrupt than she is for demanding it.
I’m not committed to this idea, I’m just sounding it out for discussion purposes.
The Libertarian Party is a principled protest. They now have a more republican candidate than the Republicans.
Your vote is your choice, but Gary Johnson:
1. Vetoed more legislation than any other governor in the same time period.
2. Pushed fiscal conservatism in a a Democratic state.
3. Was re-elected in a Democratic state while fighting for smaller government
https://garyjohnson2016.com/
“…once the media turns itself loose on Mr. Trump, he won’t know what hit him….”
Perhaps.
If people still pay attention to it.
Could it be that their time has come and gone? And that no one will pay attention to their yappings and distortions and lies?
Well, one can dream….
Barry Meislin- The media gave Trump approximately $2 billion worth of TV time. He never would have come close to the nomination without that boost.
So, yes, people do pay attention to the media.
(That’s not my fault. I have been advising people for decades to avoid TV if they want to be well informed. I am pleased to see that neo is reading, rather than watching. That’s more evidence, not that we needed any, of how smart she is.)
SCOTTtheBADGER:
“I think once the media turns itself loose on Mr. Trump, he won’t know what hit him. They will fling him into the ditch so fast his orange head will spin”
That front of the Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game is primarily for Trump-front alt-Right activists to cover, not the Trump campaign proper.
The Trump-front alt-Right activists are the essential competitive difference that gives Trump a chance in the general election that the GOP-proper candidates did not have.
It remains to be seen whether and how Trump’s ‘jayvee’ activist allies will elevate their game to rise to the needs of the competition at the next level versus the varsity Democrat-front Left. The McCain and Romney campaigns didn’t rise to the challenge because they couldn’t: the aversion to activism on the Right left the GOP candidates bereft of the necessary activist support to compete effectively versus the Obama/Democrat-front Left.
The Trump campaign has been a joke by traditional electoral standards, but he won the GOP nomination because where participatory politics subsume electoral politics, the Trump phenomenon has exploited the gaping market inefficiency on the Right with an essential activist component. In other words, a core pillar of Trump’s appeal is the basic sense by discontented people on the Right that, unlike previous Republican presidential candidates, Trump is bringing a(n activist) gun to a(n activist) gun fight. Thus, unlike 2012, the Trump phenomenon might just compete for real versus the social activist movement that’s chiefly responsible for Obama’s victory.
On the Right in a polarized setting, enough GOP constituency will rally to vote against the Democrat with #NeverHillary and/or the anti-establishment ‘throw da bums out’ sentiment, or to vote for Trump as an Obama-like ‘hope and change’ blank slate on which they’ll rationalize the possibility of their particular preferred social cultural/economic/technocratic/political reform. In a polarized setting, the Trump campaign will only need to offer suggestions of carrots to draw enough votes from the Republicans who’ve opposed Trump in the GOP nomination race.
As salesmen like Trump and competitive social activists understand, people is people: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
On the Left, the activist task of redefining, chipping away, and re-arranging constituency from the Democratic orbit to the alternative Trump orbit will be a lot harder than it was for Trump-front alt-Right activists to plunder the defenseless and decaying GOP orbit. Where the GOP was left defenseless by an activism-averse Right, the Democrats have a robust Left activist guard defending their turf.
But harder does not mean impossible. Ivy League pro-military campus activists shocked the elite campus leftists who had taken for granted their supremacy on their supposed home turf.
Activism is the power of the people that works for anyone for any cause. And against anyone for any cause. In the activist game, insurgency is the inherently stronger position. Asymmetrical competition – insurgency – is an activist specialty. Which is to say, counter-activism is a different kind of game, and Democrat-front Left activists are not accustomed to an activist challenge from a Republican presidential campaign. Thus, the varsity Democrat-front Left might discover to their dismay in the general election that their counter-activism falls short versus a ‘jayvee’ Trump-front activist insurgency. It’s not a given nor even likely the Trump-front alt-Right will upset the Democrat-front Left – this iteration. But an upset is possible because insurgent upsets are what activism is designed to do.
Then consider this dark-horse possibility: Left activists crossing over to the Trump phenomenon.
Keep in mind that the alt-Right has an agenda for which the Trump candidacy is instrument, not purpose. In other words, they’re using Trump (and Trump is using them), but they’re not loyal subordinates to Trump.
By the same token, how loyal is the Left actually to Clinton and the Democrats? We assume they’re on the same team because Democrats like Clinton pander to the Left, which has largely taken over the Democrats like the alt-Right is moving to take over the GOP.
But we’ve also speculated about an overlap between the alt-Right and the Left, especially concerning foreign, eg, Russian, origin and influence, mirrored in Trump’s pro-Russian views
As such, it’s possible that factions of Left activists, who perhaps have double-hatted as alt-Right activists, will determine their agenda is furthered by expanding the Trump phenomenon in general and the attendant political hierarchy if Trump wins the White House in particular.
If Trump’s activist support is boosted and Clinton’s activist support is weakened by Left activist defections for the general election, it becomes a new game altogether because the Democratic constituency is conditioned to follow the winners of the activist game, which are usually Left activists.
Agree with Ira.
Hillary is a criminal. Trump is many things, but not a criminal.
I could see Hillary selling us out for a billion or two. Peanuts.
Thanks Richard Saunders and Cornhead for expressing my points more elegantly than I did.
Thanks VL for the Gary Johnson suggestion. However, as I noted, I’d rather avoid having Hillary as president than merely send a message.
It’s great to have a front seat at the fall of civilizations across the globe. I believe I missed the last times that happened in the 20th and 7th centuries AD, as well as the various ones in BC