Are we having fun yet?: election and post-election predictions
Time keeps chugging along.
And so we’ve arrived here, at the day before the big big day. We’ve run out of time to convince each other of anything.
Who will win the presidency? Who will win the Senate? On that first question, I’ll just get lazy for a change, and let Jonah Goldberg say it for me:
…[I]t looks like Trump might actually win, though I still very much doubt it. I doubt it for all the pundity kinds of reasons that pundits pundify about. So, let’s just leave all that there.
On the other hand, things certainly look better for him than anyone could have imagined prior to Jim Comey’s October surprise and all that’s followed…
Hillary Clinton deserves to lose, and I don’t know a serious political observer who doesn’t think she’d be down double digits in the polls if she were running against a standard Republican.
And that’s an important point. All of the reasons Trump is doing well now have almost nothing to do with him…
…Donald Trump didn’t force Comey to cough up a hairball on the nation’s doorstep eleven days before the election. He certainly didn’t make Hillary Clinton the spectacularly horrible candidate she is, or force her to set up her secret server…
Trump says he has nothing to do with the WikiLeaks disclosures that have eaten away at the thin and spotty veneer of Hillary’s credibility…
Nor did Donald Trump create the problems with Obamacare…
I will say, however, that if Trump wins, even his most ardent Never Trump opponents…must restart the clock and give him some benefit of the doubt…
Behind the scenes, Trump’s Republican backers insist that they will be able to manage and steer Trump toward positive ends…I am profoundly dubious of this…Character is destiny, and given his character we can predict what the destiny of the Trump presidency would be. But we all owe it to the country to give him his shot. I will be delighted to be proven wrong. But given that I actually believe the things I believe in, I don’t have high hopes.
Indeed.
What about the Senate? It’s exceedingly important, and exceedingly close as well. The safer bet is that if Hillary wins the Senate will go Democratic, and if Trump wins it will go Republican, but it seems nothing is the least bit safe this year. In fact, just as I believe Hillary has an edge in the fight for the presidency, I believe Democrats have a slight edge for the Senate, if only because I tend to be a pessimist and because in previous years the Democrats always seem to win the squeakers, by hook or by crook.
These prospects disturb me very greatly, for reasons I’m sure I don’t have to explain.
One prediction I’ll make that I think is a fairly safe one, though, is that whatever happens, the reaction of the more hard-core Trump supporters will be anger. You’d think it would be joy if Trump wins, and of course there will be quite a bit joy. But there will also be a lot of crowing and “I told you so’s,” a lot of retribution and accusations of insufficient cooperation from everyone else, a lot of rage at anyone on the right who dared to stand in Trump’s way. I don’t think this will come directly from Trump himself, necessarily. But I think it will come from many of his most fervent followers (just to be crystal clear, I’m not saying any of this about the group I call the reluctant Trump supporters).
And if Trump loses, there will be even greater anger from his hard-core followers. That is when the stab in the back* [see NOTE below] accusation will be spread far and wide, amplified and magnified.
Either way, I don’t see the war on the right ending. I see it continuing and growing worse, if possible, whoever becomes president.
The only way I see any healing occurring is if the winner—Trump or Hillary—ends up being a much better president for everyone than has been predicted by me, and by all that person’s detractors.
Gird your loins for tomorrow—and not just tomorrow, either.
[* NOTE: Some history of the phrase.]
I’m becoming a big Jonah Goldberg fan. That line about Comey coughing up a hairball on the nation’s doorstep made me laugh.
Too bad that over the past 9 days the DOJ and the White House shamed Comey into re-ingesting the hairball.
“We’re setting sail to the place on the map
From which no one has ever returned…
Save me, save me from tomorrow
I don’t want to sail on this ship of fools
I want to run and hide.”
Ship of Fools by World Party
It will take an unknown number of days for this terrible assault of criminality and buffoonery to fade away no matter who wins. Ship of fools perfectly describes the choices the primary voters gave us. Sigh.
Over this interminably long election process I’ve come up with a three lines that summarize how I view Trump and Clinton.
He’s crass. She’s corrupt.
He lies because he likes to. She lies because she has to.
He is temperamentally unfit to be president. She is ethically unfit.
I see little possibility for healing. As each sides desires are diametrically opposed. And that doesn’t even consider the factions on each side. Then there’s the strategic investment the Left has in continuing to attack, undermine and fundamentally transform our society’s cultural norms.
The Left has long been conducting an undeclared war upon American society. They’re not going to stop… until they’re stopped (and there’s only one way to stop ideological fanatics) and because they’re using our very institutions against us, no constitutional mechanism exists to stop them from operating as a disloyal opposition.
The brutal reality we face is that half the American people support a criminal enterprise that has infiltrated and captured control of our institutions and is using them to incrementally abolish individual liberty.
Republicans had a duty to elect a serious candidate. They failed.
Though I could not caution all,
I still might warn a few:
Don’t lend your hand to raise no flag
atop no ship of fools.
–Robert Hunter / Grateful Dead, “Ship of Fools”
Your mileage may vary.
neo writes, “in previous years the Democrats always seem to win the squeakers, by hook or by crook.”
Seems more and more apparent that it’s by crook. N’est-ce pas?
On Friday, a lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by ‘Katie Johnson’ was dramatically dropped
Speculation that the suit was dropped because of threats or a pay-off by Trump went viral
But DailyMail.com has learned that the claims against Trump were fiction
‘Katie Johnson’s’ shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April
She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
Before that, she told her story to DailyMail.com
Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow
Somehow I thought there was at least one more October/November surprise to go.
Unless you count Comey’s “Never mind!” on the resurrected emails scandal.
Henry Scuoteguazza:
Well, I disagree.
As I’ve said many times before, these summaries don’t reflect the complexity of the situation, and are reductionistic.
Just as one example, I think there’s plenty of evidence that Trump is also corrupt and ethically unfit.
Your mileage may differ on that, but I’ve written at length about why I think so. The real question is who is most corrupt and unfit, and who is in the end more dangerous to the US.
Reasonable people can differ on the answer to that question.
Tears, idle tears, I know not what they mean,
Tears from the depth of some divine despair
Rise in the heart, and gather in the eyes,
In looking on principled opportunity lost,
And thinking of the days that are to come.
@huxley – it was Comey’s mom”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0
Big Maq,
Thanks for a bit of levity. Unfortunately, there is nothing humorous about this election or the state of affairs in this once proud republic. Our precinct polling place is 3 blocks from our house, it will seem a long journey to vote our usual straight (R) ticket. Ship of fools.
My father and my 9 uncles who fought in the European and Pacific theaters would be gravely disappointed to learn of our current sad situation. Ship of fools.
From Megan McArdle: Two Words to End All Consideration of Voting for Trump
Worth a read by anyone still undecided.
@parker – yes, levity, as in dark humor, but my sentiment is this…
If clinton wins, I won’t be cheering whatsoever.
To me, it would be like mourning after having to put down a sick pet.
http://neoneocon.com/2016/11/03/hillary-its-the-chaos-stupid/#comment-1860511
Getting back on track will be ever harder than it was before, and I’m not sure we have a party that can stay united. I’d like to think so, but I really don’t know how it will all play out.
Yep, I was thinking of Emily Litella!
James Comey’s Arc:
Obi-Wan James Comey: “Only you can save us!”
Jamie Commella: “Never mind.”
@Ann – thanks for the link.
McArdle certainly addresses a point I’ve been trying to make, about the volatility of risk associated with trump, using a vivid example.
“(trump is) fascinated by the possibility of using nuclear weapons. He told John Dickerson that when it comes to their use, “You want to be unpredictable.” …
But the possibility of a nuclear exchange is so devastating that even a tiny probability, multiplied by the scale of the destruction, dwarfs any negative outcome on any other issue.“
Many value this “unpredictability” (and related qualities) in trump, but under value the downside effect this would have.
I am very, very, VERY reluctantly voting for Trump. But I hold out hope that his better self will grow into the job if he wins. And, he might… though Clinton will still likely take the prize. But this season has been so strange and he has so many passionate supporters at those rallies and — she’s so unpopular and corrupt that he might just pull it off. He does stand for change, which is good. But — he’s Donald Trump! Enough said.
Still I will hope for the best if he wins and frankly, even if she wins. We need some healing and positive things happening going forward.
I need to pay more attention to all the innumerable seeming California ballot propositions tonight since I need to vote on those also. Otherwise, I’m voting GOP all down the ticket and hoping that helps but in California, except for Orange County and a spot here and there — the GOP is pretty much a losing party. I hope any rifts this election opened up will be healed soon too but — I do feel generally pessimistic.
We are in for “interesting times” no matter what!
Ann
McArdle suffers from that malady that so often burdens the intelligent but shallow thinker. She fails to apprehend that appeasement is an invitation to aggression. Emasculating the ‘sheepdogs’ guarantees that the sheep (those incapable of defending themselves) will have a fateful meeting with the wolf pack.
It’s true that Hillary will not get us into a nuclear war. It’s also true that those who, out of fear trade security for liberty will fail to gain the former and lose the latter. I doubt you’re going to enjoy your coming dhimmitude Ann but at least you’ll have richly earned it.
Big Maq,
That interpretation of Trump words certainly gives pause. McCardle links to an MSNBC interview in which Trump said “TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to take cards off the table. I would never do that. [allow an enemy to know that nuclear retaliation is off the table]The last person to press that button would be me. Hey, I’m the one that didn’t want to go into Iraq from the beginning. The last person that wants to play the nuclear card believe me is me. But you can never take cards off the table either from a moral stand – from any standpoint and certainly from a negotiating standpoint.”
That clarifying statement was conveniently left out…
US and NATO doctrine for the entire cold war was that if the Soviets launched a tank invasion of Western Europe, the use of tactical nuke’s would be unavoidable and would absolutely be used. This was often mentioned in print. Trump is I believe referring to that circumstance. Putin may not be a communist but he still has plenty of those tanks.
Same thing at the S. & N. Korean border.
It is Obama and his successor Clinton that will allow us to be nuked and not respond, Obama having already publicly said so, which under a democrat, guarantees that sooner or later we will be nuked because when the enemy knows that the consequence will not match the aggression, it encourages that behavior.
“The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table.
We have to [be able to] negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. (Cuban Missile Crisis?) The last person – I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it. Donald Trump
Ann:
Thank you for the post. I have already voted for neither of them.
For all the burn-it-all-downers what is hotter than a thermonuclear match? The white hot intensity of their intellects. Not.
It seems possible to me that if Trump performs poorly, Trumpism may disappear. There will be a 5% of crazies in the party, sure, and they’ll make noise about things being rigged. Many of Trump’s faithful will cease to be involved in politics. (Losses hurt. Newbies have no idea how badly they hurt.) Trump will find himself with a lot fewer followers whether he continues in political involvement out of spite or moves on to Trump Swimming Pools and Trump Watches. The Republican Party will defang his camp by taking up one of his issues. Probably trade. Minority support is going to be so awful tomorrow that the GOP is going to run away from immigration (at least out loud, although paradoxically they’re going to step up on the issue legislatively). I’m not swearing it’s going to happen, but a big Rubio win or something interesting in Louisiana, and all of a sudden Trump isn’t the story any more.
McArdle suffers from that malady that so often burdens the intelligent but shallow thinker. She fails to apprehend …
GB: Translation: You disagree with McArdle.
I find McArdle a solid thinker. She knows what she knows and she gets it right mostly, which gives her full marks in my book.
Your argument has its logic — I like the sheepdog/sheep/wolf story — but if Trump isn’t a sheepdog but an impulsive, vindictive nutter as some of us see him, Trump might not invite aggression, but one fine day might also fire off something hot because, dammit, someone said he had small hands.
I have a deep feeling of revulsion when it comes to djt and hrc. But the idea that djt’s clueless bluster would lead to nuclear war if he wins, strikes me as absurd. Trump is ignorant of many things that one would expect a would be POTUS to understand, but he is not a nihilist. He is just another demagogue that rivals bho’s bluster and hyperbole. But then, the shrew queen is likewise over the top.
I can’t understand how anyone can vote for Hillary. We know – for a fact – that she is a criminal who has not been charged. The private email server is the easy case. Comey laid it out. We later learn that 4-5 foreign countries hacked her server. Big problem.
But the criminal activity that really, really upsets me are the bribes she took from foreign countries and the likes of GS. So she gets a close question and we know she will favor her donors over the American people. She will do something for the Saudis that will really hurt us as a country. It is certain.
I find this inexplicable. A clear criminal as President.
Tonight she has a rally in front of Independence Hall. The place where Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Madison and Jefferson founded this country. They are all spinning in their graves. Puke.
But the idea that djt’s clueless bluster would lead to nuclear war if he wins, strikes me as absurd.
parker: Well, we disagree.
I wouldn’t soften Trump’s behavior to “clueless bluster.” For instance, Trump didn’t brag about how easy a woman might be, he reached between her legs and grabbed her.
I’m on record here saying Trump is more than halfway to a psychopath. I understand others don’t see him that way. But I can’t help but notice they inevitably go for a soft blurry focus when it comes to Trump’s horribleness.
I can’t understand how anyone can vote for Hillary.
Cornhead: You do know, as far as I can tell, no commenter here is voting for Hillary?
In any event, since almost everyone in my family and most of my old friends are voting for Hillary, I say that’s a failure of your ability to understand something close to half of America.
They are not bad people. They don’t read both sides, as we do, but they are not uninformed either.
They buy into the liberal narrative of steady progress. The hard stance of conservatives repels them. Trump validates every terrible thought they’ve had about conservatives.
They felt good about voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012. They don’t feel good about voting for Hillary but the alternative is the orange-haired troglodyte preaching hate.
If you put yourself in their shoes, it’s not hard to understand how they would vote for Hilllary.
Is it “a soft blurry focus” or is it Trump Derangement Symptom?
Or both?
GB: neo has made the point in innumerable posts how Trump supporters just won’t look Trump’s behavior square in the eye but call it “uncouth” or such.
Reply to the point I made specifically. Was the infamous Trump recording a matter of “clueless bluster” or sexual assault?
Cornhead:
Try this thought experiment.
Imagine that, although you think Hillary Clinton is an awful person and Trump is an awful person, you actually were a liberal Democrat who agreed with Hillary’s stated policies rather than a conservative who agrees with most of Trump’s stated policies. Since Hillary is running against Trump, would you not go with Hillary, the awful person who at least agrees with you?
Isn’t that more or less what a lot of reluctant Trump supporters are doing, in reverse? I see one as a mirror image of the other, and have no difficulty imagining why a person would make either decision, depending on whether that person was a Trump-voting conservative or a Hillary-voting liberal.
No they are not bad people, they are instead willfully blind. And in that willful blindness lies their uninformed ignorance. Which they cling to tightly having bought into the premise that their worthiness is dependent upon faithfulness to political correctness.
The irony exceeds the Shakespearean, attaining literally a biblical level of self-deceit. Never has the Ship of Fools had so many passengers. Never have so many been the architects of their own destruction.
Wish I had the time to pull quotes from trump wrt nuclear weapons, since he has said many things that can be taken many ways. He absolutely was not consistent in claiming he wouldn’t be first use. He said related things that sound like he might be inclined to use them. And, he has no qualms wrt nuclear proliferation.
I don’t believe he’d be suicidal, but I do think he could mishandle the situation such that it quickly escalates to a hair trigger standoff, just by how he “negotiates” and gets easily “offended”.
On the flipside, he might be so full of bluster that it opens the door to Russia, China, Iran and N Korea to get aggressive about their desired expansions. And, then what?
The core problem is that we just don’t know, and what is presented to us is “unpredictable”, as he said he wants to be.
There is a price to be paid for the choice of “unpredictability”, whether it is clear or not at the time of the choice.
I’ve often recommended the Mike Nichols film, “Primary Colors,” to my conservative friends who don’t understand liberals. In it John Travolta plays a likeable, idealistic horndog, obviously based upon Bill Clinton. Emma Thompson plays Hillary.
Watch the film you should see the beautiful seduction of liberals. neo called it “circle dancing” in one of her best early posts.
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2005/03/dancing-in-ring-response-to-query.html
I’ve been in that circle and I loved it. I felt I had been expelled from the Garden of Eden when I was forced to leave after 9-11.
I’m not arguing liberals are right, far from it, just that it is an appealing, winning formula.
If you are an ordinary citizen, unlike us freaks furiously typing out our great thoughts on blogs, it’s a good enough approximation to reality to base one’s vote on tomorrow.
PS. Three or four of the early episodes of “West Wing” will also work.
huxley,
Both, at least if you posit that you can assault the willing. Let me ask you, can you envision Trump grabbing neo between her legs and getting away with it? I can’t. Trump stated that the women he made sexual advances to, welcomed it. I suspect that to be true, since if it were untrue, he would have repeatedly gone over the line and had it blown up in his face long before now. Weiner is a perfect example of a male whose passions are in control of him, which is what you imply Trump to be.
And I’m referring to those who will vote for Trump who are revolted by an extremist alt-r POV.
Re: Trump and nuclear war.
Frankly I doubt Trump on some stupid vindictive whim — like torching his presidential campaign by attacking an overweight ex-beauty queen in 2 AM tweets — would press The Button and bomb Everything.
However, we have nuclear weapons down to a warhead a squad could launch and do Hiroshima-level damage.
Trump doesn’t have to be suicidal for that. But such a precedent would change everything for the worse.
Big Maq,
So Hillary who supports Obama foreign policies will NOT open the door to further aggression by Russia, China, Iran and N. Korea?
GB: You are not answering my question but resorting to the “she wore a mini-dress and expected it” defense.
Again, was Trump’s behavior “clueless bluster” or sexual assault?
I’m saying it went beyond verbalization to action. If you want to rationalize it as she “welcomed it,” it still wasn’t verbal. It was action, just like launching 20 kiloton device — although not everything in our arsenal.
Liberty Wolf:
We’re all just making the best decisions we can in this dismal election
Interesting times, indeed!
huxley,
Haven’t seen the film but readily accept the idea that seduction is appealing. It’s been going on since the Garden. All seduction is based on what we want to believe, i.e. and the serpent said to Eve, “You will not certainly die…”
Billions of people play the lotto every year based on the same falsehood, “You will not certainly lose…”
GB: Of course seduction is appealing. It wouldn’t be seduction if it weren’t.
My point, however, was for conservatives to understand contemporary liberals. Not to agree with them, but understand them, as Cornhead clearly does not.
Furthermore, I would say in 2016 Trump conservatives showed themselves to be the same sort of people succumbing to seduction because there was an appealing narrative that made them feel good.
And Donald will not certainly be as bad as Hillary ….because “we” know. Seduction indeed.
huxley,
I did answer your question, you just don’t like it. Crude bluster to talk about it. Sexual aggressiveness and sexual assault are diffrentiated by whether it is welcomed. A ‘stolen kiss’ may be either and what determines which it is, is whether it is welcomed. Remember Halle Berry and Adrian Brody at the academy awards? Trump indicated that in permitting it, they were welcoming that sexual aggression, if… the man had the stones to go for it . Crude? Yes of course, but assault only if the woman objected.
OM,
I have repeatedly said that I expect Trump to be bad for the country. While hoping that he turns out to be better than my expectations. But I am NOT relying on hope. I am relying on history, that repeatedly demonstrates that the Francos and Pinochets are less destructive in the long run, than those who lead us to the Collective.
GB: In my book if you grab a woman’s crotch, it’s not clueless bluster, it’s action.
That’s my position and you just don’t like it.
If you want to make up a story about how she welcomed it, I say BS because in Trump’s own recounting, she rejected him and his advances.
“How Teens In The Balkans Are Duping Trump Supporters With Fake News”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.sbDLmb420e#.xaMR4gV8Xw
If these teens can make money doing this, think of the much bigger incentives that are motivating some of the messages we are getting from “conservative” media.
Neo
I get your point. If one is a liberal, one votes for Hillary. And then there is the “we need a historic first woman president” voter. One of my sisters is that way.
Intellectually I can see why many people will vote for Hillary, but another part of me can’t begin to comprehend putting a known criminal in as President.
I know if Hillary wins, it will be a sad day for America. I will be sick.
But for myself, I reported the truth and made my opinion known here and at Power Line. I did my duty.
Neo has done a great job too along with many here. We had a rigorous conversation about our country’s future and it was conducted at a high level.
Adding one thing. I think the campaign genuinely changed Trump for the better. I think he is now sincere in the idea that he would be working for the American people.
My mind always goes back to the unnecessary death of Sarah Root at the hands of a drunk illegal alien about five miles from where I am sitting now. It makes me want to cry and I am not an emotional guy. If Hillarywins, the crime wave will continue and get worse in all parts of America.
The “worse for the country” argument rests on the hope that one is only splattered with bovine excrement and not gored by the bovine. A matter of perspective and positioning. But history also shows that a bull in a china shop is not good for customer or good for the shopkeeper.
People who unilaterally take nuclear weapons off the table have no understanding of the term ‘credible deterrence’. We won the cold war because they were convinced we would use our weapons if necessary. If your enemy is absolutely convinced you will never use them then they have lost their ability to deter the enemy from using theirs.
If you absolutely will not use them and you tell the enemy then there’s no reason to have them. Just disarm and allow the enemy to walk right in. It is unimaginably stupid in this world to convince the evildoers that you will not, under any circumstances, use any weapons in your arsenal. It may be politically correct to do so but it’s stupid in the extreme. That’s one thing I learned from 20 years in the military and attendance at Air Command and Staff College. The strongest military in the world is useless if it has no credibility.
Huxley,
You, like the rest of us are sometimes wrong. djt as Dr. Strangelove does not compute. Bluster and buffoonery do not lead to action. In my experience bluster ends up leading to the exact opposite. Confronted by a real alpha male people like djt whimper, turn belly up, and piss themselves. Bullies eventually meet someone who stands up to them and is prepared to slam their ass to the ground. Obviously djt has not yet confronted such a situation. But the world is full of people who are more than willing to slam him down if he is POTUS.
“Trump validates every terrible thought they’ve had about conservatives.”
Remember what some of us said a long time ago … Trump was just a Democrat pretending to be a Republican by playing out what lefties think conservatives believe.
Trump is arguably the worst and most unelectable among all who set out for the GOP spot this year. I wish anyone else would have won. That said, I will not cast a vote that benefits Hillary Clinton, who should never be allowed anywhere near classified material ever, ever again. That includes wasting a vote on any candidate with zero chance of winning.
In my job, I would have been fired for doing any one of the many things she is known to have done regarding the emails and server. Whether she is too stupid to learn new software, too stubborn to bother or is mainly motivated to hide her criminal enterprise is immaterial. The idea of her being president, and getting access to even more valuable information to hand over to every other nation and electronic miscreant on the planet galls me to no end.
Irv,
Not sure whee to begin, but taking nukes of the table is not the issue. Nukes are always on the table when appropriate. Personally, I would nuke Mecca just to show them the consequences of insulting the great satan. Other than a lack of ambition, that is why I will never be POTUS. 😉
I’m willing to go out on a limb and predict a Trump victory. 2-3% plurality in the popular vote, with 290-300 electoral votes. If it happens, it’ll come from the Rust Belt. Trump will get all the Romney states plus Florida, Iowa, Ohio and the Second CD of Maine. Pennsylvania will be the swing state and I think he’ll pull it off, narrowly, by early Wednesday morning. Further, I’ll buy into his Michigan gamut and predict he takes that state too. He *might* also take New Hampshire. If I’m adding correctly, that’ll put him at an even 300.
The Western states of Nevada and Colorado will remain just out of reach for Trump. Egg McMuffin will fall flat in Utah, getting under 15% of the vote. What is Aleppo? will get no more than 3% nationwide.
The Senate will be either 51-49 GOP or 50-50 with Vice President Pence breaking the tie. Ayotte and Kirk are both pretty worthless and will both lose. I like Johnson but he might be a goner too. Rubio and Burr will win. Not sure about Toomey.
GOP loses about eight House seats to retain a comfortable majority. But, with a Trump win, Ryan’s future is very much uncertain.
Eagerly awaiting the scorn and guffaws.
As I’ve said before the Democrats have been the natural party of government since 1932, just as the Republicans were from the civil war to the great depression. I think the Democrats are out of ideas and if Hillary wins she will be the Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover of her party. To remain ruthlessly positive for a moment Trump has given the Republican establishment a wake up call – me too Republicanism is backing a losing horse – what some call the Blue Model. Someone is going to figure out how to catalyse a new majority on the cadaver of that Blue Model. If you add those who have had it with the establishment together – the supporters of Sanders and Trump you have a clear majority. It just doesn’t add up in the old right left polarity. It added up in 2008 when Obama held out hope and change and delivered Goldman Sachs, nuclear Iran, DESH in Iraq and Syria, and chaos in Africa and so on. The Republicans now have the opportunity to offer a new vision or go out of business. A new party may have to emerge as the Republican party did at the time of the Civil War. Whigs anyone? A final note from here in Australia: I have never liked Assange but his interview with John Pilger is worth watching. I felt that captivity has matured him and strengthened him and he gets a lot of things right in the interview.
WRT Trump and nukes, I believe that someone would see to it that Trump had a Harry Reid type exercise accident if Trump was thought to be really endangering us. We can only hope that Trump’s advisors and cabinet are smart enough to threaten him behind closeed doors when he gets carried away and that they are smart enough to formulate sensible policies in a way that doesn’t make Trump look bad. Trump is definitely one who loves the limelight and hates the detail work, so we have to pray for a good team that can manage him–if he is elected.
Hillary would surround herself with total sycophants, so her opposition will have to come from outside and it will have to threaten her reputation among her core support groups.
Kim Strassel as an article at WSJ today describing how Republican state AGs are trying to organize to oppose federal overreach. She mentions recent successes they have had. I see this as very hopeful, not only because of specific successes, but also it will help make people aware of the importance of subsidiarity. Maybe Republicans will be able to continue their Scott Walker type successes and will elect more competent people at local levels. Only this will convince the people that they don’t need Uncle Sam to solve all their problems. Only this will convince the Dem base that mindless adhering to dreams of te last century doesn’t improve their lives.
I think that Mr. Trump has a good chance of winning the election. I think that more negative information will continue to come out about Hillary Clinton, with everything from corruption to her physical health. And I believe the real anger is on the side of the Left, who will act on it, regardless of the election’s outcome.
Aside. Yesterday an OWH reporter tweeted that 5% of the public school population this year are refugees; mostly from Syria and the Congo. But for the refugees, OPS would be down 5%.
Syria and Congo are in chaos due to Obama’s inability to deal with radical Islam.
Fundamental transformation.
Neo, you said, “As I’ve said many times before, these summaries don’t reflect the complexity of the situation, and are reductionistic.” I don’t disagree with the reductionist and over simplifying aspects of a summary like mine. This is the shortest way I can explain how I feel about the candidates when talking with people about the election.
As you know, we normally don’t get the opportunity to fully explain our positions in casual conversations whereas you can explain in more detail in blog posts, as you have done. (I’ve read many of them.)
I agree there is overlap in the characteristics of Trump and Clinton. I distilled my conclusions into these three lines because they’re like headlines. If the reader/listener wants to find out the full story in a civil discussion (which is rare!) then I’d be glad to explain to them how I reached those conclusions.
GB – “Trump stated that the women he made sexual advances to, welcomed it.”
[Sound of Bill slamming his head into his keyboard]
I think 10+ of them came out and said he sexually assaulted them.
One of the most disillusioning things of 2016 has been conservatives, the theoretically “family values” party, come out in support of this guy, this handsy guy, this guy who presses women against the wall and sticks his tongue down their throat. “They wanted it”
But wait, Bill – it’s their word against his. He said-she said.
His word is worthless, as has been demonstrated over and over again.
Gee, I wonder why the Republican party isn’t doing that great with women? What could it be?
Stop.
Irv – “If you absolutely will not use them and you tell the enemy then there’s no reason to have them. Just disarm and allow the enemy to walk right in. It is unimaginably stupid in this world to convince the evildoers that you will not, under any circumstances, use any weapons in your arsenal. It may be politically correct to do so but it’s stupid in the extreme. “
Two things. I don’t think anyone on either side has ever publicly pronounced that they will never under any circumstances use nukes.
Secondly, the problem with Trump is that he is pro-proliferation. Now we have even more countries with nukes, and we have no control whatsoever over what they will do.
Wasn’t everyone here all mad about the Iran deal because it gave Iran a path to developing a nuclear weapon, rather than shutting down that capacity? That was always my concern. Nuclear proliferation.
Ackler: “Eagerly awaiting the scorn and guffaws.”
Not at all. For me there is no “win” in this election. I do have a desire to see the alt-right thugs, Trumpism, anti-semites and neo-nazis, racists like Ann Coulter (she tweeted today that if voter eligibility was determined by having at least 4 grandparents who were born in the US Trump would win in a landslide.) be obliterated and get my party back, so on the off chance Trump loses I’ll have that small comfort. But I won’t be happy, gloating or crowing, because the price of that his Hillary.
Because the Republican party is incredibly, earth-shakingly stupid.
Anyone get the sense that Bill Belichick sounds remarkably like trump?
““Congratulations on a tremendous campaign. You have dealt with an unbelievable slanted and negative media and have come out beautifully. You’ve proved to be the ultimate competitor and fighter. Your leadership is amazing. I have always had tremendous respect for you, but the toughness and perseverance you have displayed over the past year is remarkable. Hopefully tomorrow’s elections results will give the opportunity to Make America Great Again. Best wishes for great results tomorrow, Bill Belichick.””
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-tom-brady-bill-belichick-endorsement-2016-11
Bellichick confirms he wrote it.
Perhaps trump would do better running for football coach?
Incidentally, it is not unusual, for endorsements, to write the text for the endorser and they “sign off” on it.
I recommend this piece by Matt Continetti as a way of focusing conservatives on a key legitimate populist concern:
http://freebeacon.com/columns/next-republican-agenda/
The lack of a center-left NeverHillary counterpart to the center-right NeverTrump indicates that conservatives are the last line to restore America’s political health.
The critical need for the post-election is the same critical need since the Left began its Gramscian march: conservatives must collectively adopt sufficiently competitive activism in their own right, independent of the GOP, and must stop passing the buck on the activist game to the GOP. Not limited to a party as such, but a full-spectrum social movement.
Conservatives cannot and should not oppose populism – We The People implies a populist dynamic is intrinsic in US civil society. There is a built-in democratic check in US governance, and activism is the power of the people.
Competitive conservative activism implies an integral populist focus that reclaims legitimate populist concerns from the exploitation of alt-Right and Left activists.
@Eric – thanks!
Never read Conrad (not enough time to even find all these sources, let alone follow up on them), but the bit from Continetti about his argument is, in part, one of the ones I have been making – that technology and trade have benefited us greatly, but (as should be expected) the winners and losers change from the status quo, and the least skilled and risk averse were the ones least prepared.
The questions for conservatism is how to we deal with that?
Conrad has some ideas that are probably worth exploring more.
Just on a hunch, today may be a good day to think about the people and place called Swiss (Schweizer, Suisse, Sverrero, Svizzer) and Switzerland, along with their history (and aren’t we Americans glad we don’t have to learn that in grammar school?).
“Why so politically cranky?”, we can ask them. And then ask the follow-on question, “Why so politically needy?”
We can tentatively guess their answers: “First, we’re human (and hill people to boot), and second, for cryin’ out loud, what’s up with the tautologies? Are you Americans retarded?: It’s politics, which is always needy (and cranky) . . . and then we’re landlocked on high ground, surrounded and outnumbered.”
On the other hand, we could turn to Edward Said’s Orientalism in order to contemplate where America appears to be headed politically, unfortunately — having been fundamentally transformed — thanks in part to PresidentPseudonym, who drank in identity politics at Said’s knee. To name PresPseudo, however, cannot be to let the Americans who put him in office off the hook for their choice. They bought this multicultural bullshit: now they’re going to have to wear it.
Doesn’t Derangement Syndrome work both ways? Can’t a candidate drive some people to deranged opposition, and some others to deranged support?
Eric,
He makes the argument that protectionism can’t come at the expense of productivity. I think American workers, especially non-union workers are as or more productive than any in the world, so I assume he is making the case that we can’t allow protectionism (saving American jobs) into a sort of privileged status, though his argument is different from a “save American jobs” argument.
There may be near unlimited capital on the investor side, but one of the problems with a consumer based economy is the consumer is constantly running up against their debt limit. Once the consumer’s credit cards are maxed, spending stops.
That’s one of the reasons we need to do what we can to save better paying manufacturing jobs. Those displaced semi-skilled and skilled trades probably aren’t the workers he envisions in our information economy, and that’s part of the problem.
That’s certainly the problem with low-skilled immigrants now.
I don’t think his argument favoring “balanced trade” as opposed to “free trade” is exactly the same as “fair trade” arguments, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Some suggestions Conard makes are similar to Trump’s positions.
One of the libertarian free trade arguments is that it doesn’t matter that money is flowing out of the country, at some point the money will re-enter in the form of asset acquisitions. Just like the Japanese spent money buying land and other assets in the 1990’s, the Chinese are using their new found wealth buying real estate in Seattle. They have moved down to Seattle after British Columbia instituted a 15% real estate tax to slow the overheated real estate market.
One of the arguments against supporting Trump, was discounting the critical nature of this election, with the assumption that we can overcome the excesses of the left at some future date.
Now, I know I’ve been arguing that each election was critical, that voting for the Republican candidate (with nose held) was that important, for the last few election cycles.
2008 was critical. The left had put up a marxist cipher who spoke eloquently, though his eloquence masked a disdain for most of what America stood for.
And the left marched on.
2012 was critical. It was our chance to stop, or at least check the onslaught of the progressives. Obama by this time had been unmasked as to his marxist roots.
And the left marched on.
So here again, in 2016, the same argument, and the same unwillingness to follow the progression.
Bill has made the argument we just need a better message to win over the immigrant community. I remember conservatives making the identical argument after the 2008 election, though by the 2012 election there was beginning to be some disillusionment that the GOP establishment was up to the task of making those arguments, or even wanted to.
But maybe there just are no arguments– no amount of convincing. Immigrants and minorities that move to a conservative position do so after reality hits them broadside. They work hard, get ahead and find the government is an equal opportunity taker.
The better argument against Trump is simply his con-artist form, together with his effective and singular understanding of the virtue of con-artistry: that the marks demand to be taken. The marks work for the confidence man, not against him. Beyond that one needn’t go.
You, like the rest of us are sometimes wrong. djt as Dr. Strangelove does not compute. Bluster and buffoonery do not lead to action
parker: I make no claims to infallibility. I provided support for my judgment of Trump, but I understand others don’t see Trump as I do.
However, as I’ve said, glossing over the catalog of Trump’s poor judgment, narcissism, impulsiveness, sexual assault, fraud, mendacity, ignorance and so on as mere “bluster and buffoonery” does not compute at all. Those things often do lead action, usually ill-considered.
“Bluster and buffoonery” is not why Megan McArdle worries about giving the keys to our nuclear arsenal to Trump and likewise not why Max Boot is voting for Clinton.
Trump is losing to the worst Democratic candidate in 150 years because of Trump’s poor choices and poor character. Not because of his bluster.
10 Prominent Business Leaders Supporting Donald Trump
Steve Forbes
Carl Icahn
Peter Thiel (Pay-Pal)
Rupert Murdoch
John Paulson (hedge fund Paulson & Co.)
Steve Wynn
Kenneth Langone (co-founder Home Depot)
Brian France (Nascar)
Sheldon Adelson
Jack Welch
I was surprised about Jack Welch. He’s a neverHillary Trump supporter.
I still see Trump losing decisively today, though not by a landslide.
To win Trump must basically get votes Romney didn’t. I don’t see where those votes come from — certainly not from women and minorities. I don’t believe there is a hidden cache of millions of working class whites who were either Dems or non-voters which Trump can tap to make the difference.
I suspect this evening will go like 2012. Key states like Florida and North Carolina will fall sooner than expected. There will still be plenty of races to watch and votes to count but Trump’s fragile path to 270 electoral votes will become impossible.
Brexit effect. Trump wins.
“Jack Welch, the former GE chief and longtime Republican supporter, told CNBC on Tuesday he’s voting for Donald Trump because he likes the real estate mogul’s policies on tax reform, government regulations and national security more than those of Hillary Clinton.”
“”I have no ax to grind with the Clintons. … I’m supporting an agenda. It’s Donald Trump’s agenda, and I’m for it,” he said. “I like starting here, and fighting like hell for it, because I know it will grow the economy 4 percent-plus.” – CNBC interview
Jack Welch, another one of those duped pro Trump supporters.
I was mistaken though, he’s not neverHillary, he’s pro Trump.
But then a few weeks later later:
Jack Welch is listed in wiki as a Republican.
Are you guys just wearing your game faces on election day or are you genuinely optimistic about Trump’s chances?
In 2012 Romeny hit his stride in the last few weeks and led for a while. Obama somehow hit the afterburners and shot past him on election day.
Those of us who were optimistic about Romney four years ago had decent reasons.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
However, compare the the Clinton / Trump graph from RCP today:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Not much comparison to Romney’s position going into the home stretch.
The fact that Welch withdrew his support as a result of the Bush tape makes a larger point.
Welch didn’t withdraw his support because of all the scurrilous claims made on this blog, but for his uncouth behavior.
Previously I was pressing Neo about that, but dropped it because it’s irrelevant what the pundit class thinks, other than to the extent they influence voter– it was the voters, who previous to the release of the infamous tape, were supporting Trump, but because of his “uncouth” behavior distanced themselves.
Like myself, they reflected on the situation, and in most instances decided his flawed character wasn’t sufficient reason to ignore the larger issues facing the country– issues that will only be exacerbated by a Hillary presidency, that and her utter corruption.
How do polls measure the intensity of the disgust felt by voters to what is becoming the ruling class?
I’m optimistic because of Brexit.
“To win Trump must basically get votes Romney didn’t.” – huxley
Alternatively, clinton’s crowd collapses and doesn’t make it to the poles, despite her campaign’s superior GOTV operation.
To me that is the REAL deal breaker, given the high undecideds remaining, and the historically high negatives these two candidates represent.
Brian E:
Welch is not “the pundit class” as a whole. He’s not even a pundit. Nor does he hold office. I’ve never even heard of him before.
I never said that no one objected solely to Trump’s “uncouthness.” In fact, I believe I took pains to mention that I assumed there was someone who did (and I was talking about pundits and politicians, not private citizens—of course there are some people who feel that way among the latter group). But generally it is not true that that was the main objection of pundits and politicians, and yet I read over and over and over from Trump supporters that it was.
What’s more, the Bush tapes do not just represent “uncouthness.” They represent something worse than that, although it’s certainly congruent with “uncouthness.”
I would have to study the exact trajectory of Welch’s objections to understand whether his main gripe was “uncouthness.” I have to go out, and will be busy today and don’t have time to do it. But I repeat that I would imagine that there are people whose main or even only objection to Trump was his “uncouthness.” But those people would be rarities.
It all depends on the size of the hidden vote like it did in Brexit. I don’t think there’s any hidden vote for Clinton at all. It’s the politically correct thing to do to say you’re for her. I think whatever hidden vote there is, it will be for Trump. I have no idea how large it is but I certainly hope it’s significant.
I’m buoyed by the thought of union members who’ve seen their jobs disappear overseas, by minorities trapped failed inner city schools and by legal immigrants who see unvetted terrorists and the refuse from their home countries walking in. I understand that’s not everybody but it seems that way to many at the bottom.
Neo,
I must not have made myself clear.
Jack Welch is the former CEO of GE, very much not of the pundit class.
My point was, while you and others in the ‘pundit class’, have very broad, detailed objections to Trump, that matters less than the reaction that voters had to the release of the Bush tape.
You were already opposed to Trump. Welch was not. He like a lot of supporters were repulsed by his comments and dropped his support based on those “uncouth” comments.
Argumentum ad verecundiam is still a thing, believe it or not. Lists of well known names are countered with lists of other well known names, none of that amounting to a politico-electorally informed hill of fart-producing beans . . . or worse, precisely amounting to an air of flatulence produced gases.
Neo and others here and made the case that Trump is unfit to be president for many reasons.
The extreme position suggests he may be a psychopath, probably is a sociopath, most likely a sexual predator and that’s just his personal faults.
But, his policies are conservative. His SC choices would be better. He’s less likely to engage in a shooting war than Hillary while re-building the strength of our military.
These are pluses to most people.
But there are these nagging attacks on his character.
I don’t think Neo personally knows Trump and I suspect none of the commenters do either. Your opinions have been formed possibly by skewed news reports, personal bias, or political bias.
How do you counter that? By the personal testimony of respected people who can vouch for his character. That’s he’s not the things you say he is.
Now, obviously the Bush tape made being a character witness harder.
But these business leaders can still vouch for Trump’s business acumen, his expertise demonstrated when he was called to testify before Congress.
His children appear to be grounded, even though Trump has been through several divorces which could have done lasting damage to his children. That is a plus.
I need someone I trust to vouch for him. Since I want to vote for him anyway, that, for most people, will be enough.
Sure, fine. Just don’t look at the harmony between “want to vote for him” and the marks’ demands that the con-artist give them what they desire, with his obliging agreement to do just that on the stump. His acts, his deeds, his life-long ways of doing are then all nicely thrown in the wastebasket. Out with the old, in with the new.
When I hear from folks like O’Reilly and Guiliani, among many others, whose personal moral standards I respect, who have known him for 30 years and are very familiar with him, I have a tendency to trust them more than the biased news reports or statements from people who have agendas. I understand the evidence against him but I also understand the power, ruthlessness and the lack of standards of the left, the media and the elite. I’ll take a chance on him rather than the guaranteed continued and accelerated destruction of the country under her.