Languish.org

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 04, 2015, 02:47:35 AM
If there's one thing worse than anime, it's reality tv.

Quote from: Martinus on August 04, 2015, 02:51:30 AM
I'd vote for Sanders if he was running against pretty much every candidate. :P

Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2015, 09:49:53 AM
Might as well be "Who would you vote if the 2016 election is Chewbacca vs. Grima Wormtongue" :)

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 09:50:38 AM
Chewie Duh.

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 03:31:17 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 04, 2015, 02:47:35 AM
If there's one thing worse than anime, it's reality tv.

Ouch man.

Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2015, 09:49:53 AM
I refuse to vote in this poll since this primary election outcome is pure fantasy.

Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
I want one of those Trump "Make America Great Again" hats.

Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2015, 10:24:27 AM

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 03:31:17 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 04, 2015, 02:47:35 AM
If there's one thing worse than anime, it's reality tv.

Ouch man.

Don't worry.  My brother makes up for it by watching every second of every reality show set in Alaska.

Quote from: viper37 on August 04, 2015, 12:25:21 PM

Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2015, 09:49:53 AM
I refuse to vote in this poll since this primary election outcome is pure fantasy.

I supposed people were reacting the same when some actor decided to become President. ;)

Quote from: derspiess on August 04, 2015, 10:22:58 AM
I want one of those Trump "Make America Great Again" hats.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2015, 02:54:00 PM
Would you vote for Sanders if the Republican nominee were Mao Tse Tung?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 04, 2015, 10:02:29 AM

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 09:50:38 AM
Chewie Duh.

No kidding. Cal, you need to put a little more thought in your fantasy hypotheticals.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 04, 2015, 04:51:33 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 04, 2015, 10:02:29 AM

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 09:50:38 AM
Chewie Duh.

No kidding. Cal, you need to put a little more thought in your fantasy hypotheticals.

Now lets not be too hasty. Grima actually has some government experiences and could eventually learn English. Neither of those are true for Chewie.

Quote from: grumbler on August 04, 2015, 03:01:11 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 04, 2015, 02:54:00 PM
Would you vote for Sanders if the Republican nominee were Mao Tse Tung?

Or Che?

QuoteI am the person who wrote that piece dismissing The Donald as even a semi-serious candidate for the presidency. My reasoning was pretty straightforward: Trump was regarded incredibly negatively by Republican voters. Twenty-three percent of GOP voters had a favorable opinion of Trump in a May Washington Post-ABC News poll, while 65 percent viewed him negatively. Eleven percent of Republicans felt strongly favorably toward Trump; 43 percent felt strongly negatively.

And then, opinions about Trump among Republicans totally flipped.

That same Post-ABC poll that showed Trump at 23/65 in his favorable/unfavorable ratings among Republicans in May suddenly revealed an absolutely unprecedented change in Trump's favor in July. In that latter (and later) poll, 57 percent of Republicans viewed Trump favorably, while 40 percent regarded him unfavorably.

That same sort of change was happening in other polls too. In June, a Fox News poll showed that almost six in 10 Republicans (59 percent) would never vote for Trump under any circumstances. In a Fox News survey released Monday night, that number was down to 33 percent. It's not great that one in three Republicans say they would never vote for you. But, it's a whole hell of a lot better than if 60 percent said it.

Why did I miss Trump's appeal so badly? Simply put: I had NEVER EVER seen a reversal in how people perceive a candidate who is as well known as Trump -- much less a reversal in such a short period of time. I based my conclusion that Trump would never be a relevant player in the Republican primary fight on the ideas that once people 1) know you and 2) don't like you, you can't change those twin realities much.

That was 100 percent true. Until Donald Trump proved it (and me) wrong.

Point taken. Never say "never" in politics. Thanks for reminding me of that old adage, Donald.

Quote
I figure anyone who watched he Star Wars Holiday Special would probably vote Wormtongue.

Quote from: katmai on August 04, 2015, 09:50:38 AM
Chewie Duh.

Quote from: Caliga on August 05, 2015, 02:01:03 PM
Hopefully the speeches would be capped with random people getting their arms ripped off too.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 06, 2015, 12:57:38 AM
Americans here are 12 to 5 in favor of Sanders, that's about 71.6% to 29.4%.

Quote from: Caliga on August 04, 2015, 09:49:53 AM

Might as well be "Who would you vote if the 2016 election is Chewbacca vs. Grima Wormtongue" :)

Quote from: Lettow77 on August 07, 2015, 07:14:27 PM
But really, what does Grima Wormtongue's base look like?

Quote from: Norgy on August 08, 2015, 07:25:44 AM
If Languish were the US, Sanders would walk the election, it seems.  :hmm:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2015, 10:03:30 PM
Just saw on CNN that Sanders is leading Clinton in New Hampshire and the lattest GOP poll has Trump with 22%, Carson with 14% and everyone else under double digits. He was also ranked as having the best chance in the general election.

It's happening!

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 12, 2015, 10:03:30 PM
Just saw on CNN that Sanders is leading Clinton in New Hampshire and the lattest GOP poll has Trump with 22%, Carson with 14% and everyone else under double digits. He was also ranked as having the best chance in the general election.

It's happening!

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2015, 11:26:03 AM

Quote from: Norgy on August 08, 2015, 07:25:44 AM
If Languish were the US, Sanders would walk the election, it seems.  :hmm:

One would hope a senator could beat a clown. Granted most senators are clowns but still.

Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2015, 07:14:14 AM

Quote from: Valmy on August 10, 2015, 11:26:03 AM

Quote from: Norgy on August 08, 2015, 07:25:44 AM
If Languish were the US, Sanders would walk the election, it seems.  :hmm:

One would hope a senator could beat a clown. Granted most senators are clowns but still.

Life imitates Languish.

QuoteIt's become fashionable on the left to sneer at the very sound of Donald Trump's name; Bernie Sanders more or less captured the mood when he dismissed Trump as "an embarrassment" in a recent interview. But there is one contingent of liberals who take a very different view. They believe, cheerfully, that Trump is nothing less than the second coming—of campaign finance reform.

One of them is Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, arguably the country's leading proponent of reform, who said the greatest entertainer in politics has done so much to jazz up an otherwise eye-glazing issue that Lessig himself would consider running on the same ticket with Trump as a third-party candidate.

"Donald Trump is the biggest gift to the movement for reform since the Supreme Court gave us Citizens United," said Lessig in a recent interview, referring to the court decision that riled up liberals by granting essentially unlimited campaign contributions from corporate entities. "What he's saying is absolutely correct, the absolute truth. He has pulled back the curtain."

As pundits search for the source of Trump's resilient appeal, reformers say they've long known the answer: the constant emphasis on how his staggering wealth immunizes him from insider influence. It has arguably now become the campaign's most salient theme. "I don't need anybody's money. I'm using my own money," Trump scoffed at his campaign announcement in June. A month later, he told the Wall Street Journal, "When you give [contributions], they do whatever the hell you want them to do." And primary voters seem spellbound. "The guys who want to give me a million—I said, forget it. Who cares?" Trump recently told a rapt audience. "All of the money that's going to Hillary, and Jeb, and Scott and Marco? They're totally controlled. Totally."

The drubbing has only continued, and many share the sentiment that Trump has become an educator, if accidentally, on campaign finance. "In the course of explaining his many political contributions, he's made the same points the reformers have made: that this is a pay-to-play system, that people put their money in and expect to get results," said Trevor Potter, founding president of the Campaign Legal Center and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission during the Clinton administration. David Donnelly, president of the nonpartisan group Every Voice, a leading nonprofit that advocates for campaign finance laws, agreed. "What Trump is saying is the truth because he can afford to say it," said Donnelly. "A lot of the other candidates don't feel like they can afford to say it, because they'd bite the hand that feeds."

To be sure, Trump is no reformer, and his contemptuous reminders that he deigns to buy off national pols is meant simply to emphasize how his acquisition of playthings—helicopters, women, and yes, politicians—is part of the Trumpian worldview of how ceaselessly cool it is to be rich. Yet like a roulette ball landing on their number, reformers can't help but seize on how Trump's irreverent approach to politics has coincidentally highlighted one small sliver of reality: theirs.

"It always helps to have celebrities and reality TV stars talking about an issue. To that degree, I will grant him that he has raised its visibility," said Miles Rappaport, the national president of the good-government advocacy group Common Cause. Rappaport emphasized his aversion to Trump's actual politics before acknowledging, "In a way, I'm glad he's raised these issues and spoken on them. And the truth is that he is emblematic of the problem itself."

So enamored are some reformers with Trump's truth-telling invective that Lessig, who announced this month that he is considering a run for president to highlight the issue, told POLITICO Magazine he would not rule out a third party run with Trump should the opportunity arise. (A spokesperson for Trump could not be reached for comment.)

"I'll make a promise," Lessig later added. "If Trump said he was going to do one thing and fix this corrupted system, then go back to his life as an entertainment figure, I absolutely would link up with Donald Trump."

Small wonder: Trump's manifold quips on money and politics now resemble something like a cross between Sorkinesque soliloquies from The West Wing and the ring-strutting trash talk of a professional wrestler. "The lobbyists will come and see me. But I don't give a shit about lobbyists, OK?" Trump hollered at a New Hampshire event in May, to a standing ovation. This month in Iowa, Trump told a supportive crowd that Jeb Bush "is a puppet to his donors." He's taken to social media to continue the drubbing:


Then came the debates, where Trump cleverly positioned satellite candidates around Planet Donald by recounting how he had purchased their fealty. "You know, most of the people on this stage I've given ... a lot of money," Trump said, adding, "I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them, and they are there for me. And that's a broken system."

"I was listening to the debate, and I'm saying—Trump is giving our message!" chuckled the left-leaning pollster Stan Greenberg. "Trump is essentially giving a big public education about how money corrupts the process."

For one, Trump may have unlocked a riddle that has vexed reformers for years: how to stir up sex appeal around an issue about as titillating as watching paint peel on the side of a Wisconsin barn. Analysts have noted—even before he entered the race—that Trump's bombastic insistence that he can't be purchased amounts to political heroin for the GOP's demographic bread and butter: white, typically working-class voters without a college degree. In some sense, the appeal behind reform is hardly a Balkanized one, with overwhelming majorities polled in both parties rejecting the Citizens United decision. But in Trump's case, Greenberg notes that few issues ignite the raw fury of his voters quite like the trenchant belief that Washington politics is accountable to those who wield checks rather than those who cast votes. "Trump has correctly read Greenberg's polls, or someone else's polls," said Potter. "A big piece of that is the money-in-politics problem. And he's using it to attack the system for his own electoral advantage."

"That explains why there's so much amazing support for Trump," added Lessig. "Americans are willing to put up with his outrageous views because they look at this guy and say, Holy crap. Here it is. A politician not beholden to these crony funders. That's the gift."

Greenberg said the data back up Lessig's analysis. "Voters aren't stupid," he said. "They've lived through two billion-dollar cycles paid for by these big interests." Greenberg described focus group results in which he tested a hypothesis: How much trust could candidates gain just by proposing election reform? In a series of messages, he cycled campaign finance to the front of the candidate's pitch. "If you present your reform agenda first, then support for your economic plan rises 12-13 points higher," Greenberg said. "But people need to hear the reform agenda first."

It appears they already have. In the wake of Trump's recent success, nearly every reformer who spoke with POLITICO Magazine predicted with confidence that 2016 would be the first cycle in which campaign finance plays a central role. But the billionaire may still have a few pleasant surprises left to hand reformers.

"Trump has never been on the receiving end of an attack ad," observed Donnelly, noting Trump's notoriously sensitive ego. "When super PAC ads begin to fly, let's see what happens with his messaging about money and politics." He added, "He'll have something to say, not just about the content, but the system that allows them to propagate."

This week, questions have emerged about Trump's willingness to live up to his incorruptible campaign aura, with a potential pro-Donald super PAC on the way. And at a campaign rally this week that resembled a scene from a 19th-century American revivalist ceremony, Trump appeared to be toying with the issue, whipping supporters into a frenzied chorus as he recounted how a lobbyist offered to donate $5 million to his campaign. Trump playfully asked the crowd, "Should I rethink it?" "NO!" they roared back with glee.

Indeed, Trump has yet to propose any concrete solutions of his own, Potter and other reformers note—but has only held himself up as immune to corruption on account of his billionaire status. But that itself only underlines the outstanding issue, Potter said. "His view of the solution is: Elect me, because I can afford to self-finance. That's not a solution. That's part of the problem," he said. Yet reformers agreed that Trump—or rather, his voters—show little sign of cooling off. Said Potter, "He's tapped into a significant protest vote."

Quote from: Berkut on August 27, 2015, 02:14:38 AM
I've said for some time that arguments about health care, foreign policy, immigration, social services, etc., etc., are all just re-arranging deck chairs on a sinking ship, and what is sinking the ship is the corruption of our system by money.

Trump is illuminating that in a way no other candidate has - hell, with the exception of Sanders, all the rest ARE the problem.

That alone makes his shit flinging antics worth the price of admission.

Quote from: Drakken on August 27, 2015, 08:30:14 AM
So the Donald is now the new American Gracchus? Hope he won't end the same. :hmm:

Quote from: Drakken on August 27, 2015, 08:30:14 AM
So the Donald is now the new American Gracchus? Hope he won't end the same. :hmm:

Quote from: Martinus on August 27, 2015, 12:23:01 PM
Didn' Gracchus die in his 30s?

Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2015, 09:39:04 AM

Quote from: Drakken on August 27, 2015, 08:30:14 AM
So the Donald is now the new American Gracchus? Hope he won't end the same. :hmm:

:huh:  He is the American Sulla.  Sanders isn't quite Gracci-left, but he's a hell of a lot closer than Trump.

Quote from: Drakken on August 27, 2015, 12:33:35 PM
But Trump would be considered and is considered a traitor to his class in Republican circles. Sanders is not.  :hmm:

It isn't even sure the Gracchi brothers were commies, either. What we do know is that both were not above using the mob to further their own political ends, and the hell be done with the Senate. Promising land reform, when most veterans were coming back from war to see their lands bought in absentia and toiled by slave workers instead, isn't exactly promising Babouvist-like communism.

Quote from: Valmy on August 27, 2015, 12:47:26 PM
To be fair simply being in favor of reforming which togas the Tribunes wore at the popular assemblies would label you a dangerous radical who needs to be assassinated before he crowns himself king in those days.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2015, 08:06:00 AM
IIRC polls show Sanders beating Trump by 7 points, not quite a landslide but pretty decisive.

Quote from: Habbaku on August 27, 2015, 05:27:40 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 27, 2015, 08:06:00 AM
IIRC polls show Sanders beating Trump by 7 points, not quite a landslide but pretty decisive.

What is the cutoff for a landslide these days?

Quote from: Habbaku on August 27, 2015, 05:32:57 PM
So, 60-40?  Seems a little too high a bar.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 27, 2015, 05:41:55 PM
Biden does better against Trump than Hillary does. Hillary better than Sanders.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

I think Joe might run after all.

Quote from: Phillip V on August 27, 2015, 06:02:24 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.onionstatic.com%2Fonion%2F5113%2F6%2F16x9%2F800.jpg&hash=e4621faf1bdcaf0b3821b88ee198486d49fc046e)

Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2015, 06:33:16 PM
Jim Webb to the rescue!

Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2015, 06:13:33 PM
If these two monkeys are the final two, we in trouble.

Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2015, 07:15:32 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2015, 06:13:33 PM
If these two monkeys are the final two, we in trouble.

Why is Sanders a monkey?  :huh:

Quote from: Habbaku on August 27, 2015, 05:32:57 PM
So, 60-40?  Seems a little too high a bar.

Quote from: DGuller on August 27, 2015, 07:15:32 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on August 27, 2015, 06:13:33 PM
If these two monkeys are the final two, we in trouble.

Why is Sanders a monkey?  :huh:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2015, 01:08:39 AM
45-40 is good, but the distribution could still mean an EC loss.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 27, 2015, 06:38:33 PM

Quote from: grumbler on August 27, 2015, 06:33:16 PM
Jim Webb to the rescue!

We'll be lucky if he's still in the race by the time I get to caucus. Still, anything could happen.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 10:45:36 AM
Is Webb actually in the race, or are people just fantasizing about him being in the race?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
https://www.webb2016.com/jim-webb-announces-candidacy-for-president/

QuoteEvents

There are no upcoming events at this time.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
https://www.webb2016.com/jim-webb-announces-candidacy-for-president/

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 28, 2015, 03:36:33 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
https://www.webb2016.com/jim-webb-announces-candidacy-for-president/

QuoteEvents

There are no upcoming events at this time.

Quote from: celedhring on August 28, 2015, 03:39:39 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 28, 2015, 03:26:43 PM
https://www.webb2016.com/jim-webb-announces-candidacy-for-president/

I like most of what I read, am I missing something? Could get behind this fellow.

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2015, 04:43:40 PM
He doesn't sound like the kind of person who should in the real world, be president then. Principles? WTF?

Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2015, 05:02:49 PM

Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2015, 04:43:40 PM
He doesn't sound like the kind of person who should in the real world, be president then. Principles? WTF?

That's true if you don't believe in principles. Principles are for suckers, right?

Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2015, 04:36:51 PM


In other words, he is the kind of guy Raz would hate, and so the kind of guy I like.  He and Jim Harbaugh would get along great.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:14:51 PM
They're definitely not for effective politicians operating in somewhat corrupt systems.

Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2015, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:14:51 PM
They're definitely not for effective politicians operating in somewhat corrupt systems.

Webb got all but one of his sponsored bills passed by the Senate and enacted into law.  If that is ineffective, I don't know what "effective politicians operating in somewhat corrupt systems" means.

Quote from: grumbler on August 28, 2015, 05:30:51 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:14:51 PM
They're definitely not for effective politicians operating in somewhat corrupt systems.

Webb got all but one of his sponsored bills passed by the Senate and enacted into law.  If that is ineffective, I don't know what "effective politicians operating in somewhat corrupt systems" means.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:34:13 PM
What I do know is that he has no events scheduled.  Maybe he should've been less principled, run for re-election, and thus not be completely forgotten about by 90% of American public. 

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2015, 05:11:44 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

John McCain in 2000?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 29, 2015, 12:34:06 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2015, 05:11:44 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

John McCain in 2000?

Teddy Kennedy 1980.

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2015, 01:10:07 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

Yeah, the Republican primary in 2012.  Also, if you were watching Bill Maher you were almost certainly watching the wrong show.  Goddamn anti-vaxers.

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
In lighter news, the anti-Christie PAC has been driven out of business due to heavy competition from Chris Christie.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 29, 2015, 05:34:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
In lighter news, the anti-Christie PAC has been driven out of business due to heavy competition from Chris Christie.

Any specifics?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2015, 07:23:18 PM
Latest Iowa poll - Hillary 37, Sanders 30, Biden 14

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 29, 2015, 05:14:17 AM
Howard Dean in '04.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2015, 05:11:44 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

John McCain in 2000?

QuoteCan the Republican Party Survive Trump?

The GOP frontrunner's surprising staying power has inspired soul-searching and agony among party elites.

What is happening to the Republican Party? I put that question to Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina and basement-dwelling presidential candidate, who was getting ready to hold a campaign event in Hooksett, New Hampshire. "Well, the front-runner is crazy," Graham said.

He was referring, of course, to Donald Trump, the GOP's seemingly unstoppable chart-topper, who has survived outrage after outrage that would have ruined a conventional candidate. He commands, on average, double the support, among potential Republican primary voters, of his nearest challenger. Graham—who is running in 15th place—calls him "a huckster billionaire whose political ideas are gibberish." And while he expects voters eventually to come to their senses, he said, "I think a certain amount of damage has been done already."

As Trump evinces surprising staying power atop the Republican field, nervous party members increasingly fret that he is hurting the image of the GOP and damaging its eventual nominee—who most assume will not be Trump. The most obvious problem is Trump's outspoken opposition to immigration and immigrants, which has offended Hispanics—a fast-growing voter demographic the party can't afford to lose ground with—and dragged other candidates into a discussion of inflammatory ideas like ending birthright citizenship.

But many Republican strategists, donors, and officeholders fret that the harm goes deeper than a single voting bloc. Trump's candidacy has blasted open the GOP's longstanding fault lines at a time when the party hoped for unity. His gleeful, attention-hogging boorishness—and the large crowds that have cheered it—cements a popular image of the party as standing for reactionary anger rather than constructive policies. As Democrats jeer that Trump has merely laid bare the true soul of the GOP, some Republicans wonder, with considerable anguish, whether they're right. As the conservative writer Ben Domenech asked in an essay in The Federalist last week, "Are Republicans for freedom or white identity politics?"

"There is a faction that would actually rather burn down the entire Republican Party in hopes they can rebuild it in their image," Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican admaker, told me. For his outspoken antagonism to Trump, including an op-ed calling Trump voters "Hillary's new best friends," Wilson has received a deluge of bile from Trump's army of Internet trolls; his family has been threatened and his clients have been harassed. He worries that the party is on the brink of falling apart. "There's got to be either a reconciliation or a division," he said. "There's still a greater fraction of people who are limited-government conservatives than people motivated by the personality cult of Donald Trump."

The Trump drama, Wilson and others note, comes at a time when the probable Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, is struggling with image problems, a protracted scandal, and her own party's divisions—but the focus on Trump has prevented Republicans from capitalizing on Clinton's troubles. "He's framing up a scenario where the election in the fall doesn't become a referendum on the tenure of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but on the Republican positions advanced by Donald Trump—which are not particularly Republican, and not particularly conservative," Wilson said.

But the establishment feels embattled—and helpless. A Politico survey of Republican insiders in Iowa and New Hampshire, published Friday, found 70 percent saying Trump's immigration plan was harmful to the party's image. "He's solidly put an anchor around the neck of our party, and we'll sink because of it," one Iowa Republican said. The right's leading writers—George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Barone—have excoriated Trump, to seemingly no avail. Trump doesn't need them; he has his own cheering section in the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Breitbart.com. Trump's rise has highlighted the distance between the Republican establishment that favors cutting Social Security, increasing immigration, and expanding free trade, and the party base that, like Trump, wants the opposite.

Many analysts blamed Mitt Romney's 2012 loss on his rightward tack on immigration during the primaries, when he urged "self-deportation." That was a major conclusion of the Republican National Committee's postmortem report after Romney's loss. "In 2012 we were talking about electrified fences and self-deportation; in 2016 we're talking about birthright citizenship and forced, mass deportation," Peter Wehner, a former aide to George W. Bush, told me. "That's not a step in the right direction, and we're doing that because of Trump."

Party elites can already envision the attack ads of sad-eyed children being torn from their parents. The harsh immigration rhetoric doesn't only offend Latino voters, they say—it hurts the party with other minority groups, with moderates and independents, with young voters and with women. And as other candidates have been pushed to take sides on Trump's plans, they, too, have wandered into problematic territory. Several have said they agree with parts of his immigration agenda.

Even Graham, a longtime proponent of immigration reform, has said he would consider ending birthright citizenship, though he told me any changes would be aimed at the small group of "birth tourists" and would not apply to current citizens. But Graham said Trump's immigration proposals were "offensive." "If he is the voice and face of the Republican party, I think our allies are shaking their heads and our enemies are licking their chops," he said.

Graham has not hesitated to call out Trump; another lagging candidate, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, has also criticized him. Many of the others have scolded him for one offensive comment or another—whether it's the one about Mexicans, or the one about John McCain, or the one about Megyn Kelly. In general, however, the other candidates seem afraid of provoking Trump, whether because they don't want to lose his supporters or because they fear the mogul's talent for devastating insults. (Graham's tangle with Trump led the famously luddite senator to replace his old flip phone with an iPhone, which he refers to as "the most positive thing to come out of this campaign so far.")

Last week, Jeb Bush signaled a major shift in strategy when he went on the offensive against Trump, criticizing him as insufficiently conservative; Bush's allied super PAC flew a plane over Trump's Alabama rally on Friday trailing a banner reading "TRUMP 4 HIGHER TAXES, JEB 4 PREZ." Some Bush allies cheered his courage in taking on Trump, while others worry Bush may damage or diminish himself in the process. Bush's offensive represents the first sustained effort to run a conventional political campaign against Trump; the GOP establishment is watching closely to see if such tactics can succeed, or whether Trump will again prove immune to the normal rules of politics.

In the (possibly apocryphal) past, there would have been a smoke-filled room where the GOP grandees could meet and hatch a plan to excommunicate Trump. His success, and the inability to stop him, speaks to the weakness of the party establishment in the time of the Tea Party. These days, the counter-establishment devoted to attacking Republican incumbents often seems better organized than the establishment it harasses. (Early on, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus tried calling Trump and asking him to back off; the tactic backfired.)

For Trump, the establishment's indigestion is simply evidence he's doing something right. Roger Stone, the ex-Trump strategist who remains devoted to the cause, said Americans are looking for a candidate who doesn't kowtow to the conventional wisdom. "Voters don't trust career politicians, Congress, the elite media—they think they're all in bed with the political establishment, and in many cases they're right," Stone said.

The Beltway freakout that Trump has inspired proves his ability to shake up the system, Stone added. "I think what they're really upset about is that if he got elected they'd be out of a job, since they're in the lobbying revolving door," said Stone, himself a former lobbyist. "They can't buy him; they can't influence him in the traditional Washington ways. He'll be a truly independent president, and I don't think that's something the Republican establishment wants."

Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2015, 01:47:03 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 29, 2015, 05:11:44 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2015, 04:05:40 AM
Maybe I am watching the wrong shows (e.g. Bill Maher) and following wrong people on Facebook, but it seems to me Bernie Sanders is getting more and more coverage and more and more people speak about him as a possible Democratic candidate.

So my question to you guys is: have there been many other cases in recent years (say the last 20 years) where there was initially a similar momentum behind a potential Democratic nominee but in the end he just crashed and burned (absent of a scandal)? I am not talking about the presumed front runner being actually over taken by a challenger (as this is what happened with Clinton and Obama) but rather a likely challenger appearing, gaining ground and then actually losing out the nomination.

John McCain in 2000?

Wasn't aware McCain tried to get the Democratic nomination in 2000. Boy was that a U-turn he did.

Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2015, 06:40:26 AM
True - I was just being bitchy. I guess McCain's example is a very good one since he was to Republicans what Sanders is to Democrats (although wasnt he running against the sitting President? If so it makes it apples and oranges).

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 30, 2015, 07:51:59 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2015, 06:40:26 AM
True - I was just being bitchy. I guess McCain's example is a very good one since he was to Republicans what Sanders is to Democrats (although wasnt he running against the sitting President? If so it makes it apples and oranges).

No, 2000 was a rare election where there was no incumbent.

Quote from: Tyr on August 30, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
How many presidents get the full 2 terms?

Quote from: Tyr on August 30, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
How many presidents get the full 2 terms?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2015, 01:31:03 PM

Quote from: Tyr on August 30, 2015, 12:44:57 PM
How many presidents get the full 2 terms?

Carter, Bush Sr., and the two second stringers Truman and LBJ didn't have 2 full terms.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2015, 12:18:50 PM
Timmy, we have one at least every 8 years.

Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2015, 01:55:54 PM
Wait is Krauthammer considered the voice of reason and respectability in the Republican Party? Oh dear.

Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2015, 01:55:54 PM
Wait is Krauthammer considered the voice of reason and respectability in the Republican Party? Oh dear.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2015, 03:02:43 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2015, 01:55:54 PM
Wait is Krauthammer considered the voice of reason and respectability in the Republican Party? Oh dear.

He went a little bonkers during GW2.

Quote from: mongers on August 30, 2015, 03:00:02 PM
One things for sure , if he wins, European bewilderment will massively trump that over either Bush or Reagan.

Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2015, 06:40:26 AM
True - I was just being bitchy. I guess McCain's example is a very good one since he was to Republicans what Sanders is to Democrats (although wasnt he running against the sitting President? If so it makes it apples and oranges).

Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Up until today, I haven't really listened to Trump, ever.  I read about what he said, but I never watched his delivery. 

I have to say, watching Trump speak is quite a fascination show.  The guy is clearly very intelligent, and is crazy like a fox.  I can definitely see why people would be falling for him, even if every other person in Trump's position would long be disqualified for his Democrat past and maybe even present.

Quote from: mongers on August 30, 2015, 09:14:04 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Up until today, I haven't really listened to Trump, ever.  I read about what he said, but I never watched his delivery. 

I have to say, watching Trump speak is quite a fascination show.  The guy is clearly very intelligent, and is crazy like a fox.  I can definitely see why people would be falling for him, even if every other person in Trump's position would long be disqualified for his Democrat past and maybe even present.

Is he a demagogue?  :unsure:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 30, 2015, 06:13:39 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 30, 2015, 03:00:02 PM
One things for sure , if he wins, European bewilderment will massively trump that over either Bush or Reagan.

How is he any different than Silvio?  His political style is practically European.

Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Up until today, I haven't really listened to Trump, ever.  I read about what he said, but I never watched his delivery. 

I have to say, watching Trump speak is quite a fascination show.  The guy is clearly very intelligent, and is crazy like a fox.  I can definitely see why people would be falling for him, even if every other person in Trump's position would long be disqualified for his Democrat past and maybe even present.

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 12:10:20 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 30, 2015, 06:13:39 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 30, 2015, 03:00:02 PM
One things for sure , if he wins, European bewilderment will massively trump that over either Bush or Reagan.

How is he any different than Silvio?  His political style is practically European.

You are an idiot.

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 04:23:21 AM
Maybe you haven't realised but Silvio was not elected the leader of Europe. Saying that Silvio is somehow representative for Europe is like saying Sarah Palin as a governor of Alaska is representative for US leaders. It was a fluke. Most of Europe is nothing like Italy and holds Italy and its political system in contempt.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2015, 12:15:51 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Up until today, I haven't really listened to Trump, ever.  I read about what he said, but I never watched his delivery. 

I have to say, watching Trump speak is quite a fascination show.  The guy is clearly very intelligent, and is crazy like a fox.  I can definitely see why people would be falling for him, even if every other person in Trump's position would long be disqualified for his Democrat past and maybe even present.

I think the exact opposite.  I think he's crazy like a shrubbery.  He's never had anyone around him who's job it was to tell him what he was doing is wrong.  He's never associated with anyone who disagreed with him.  His randomly generated thougts have simply managed to bring to light a hitherto unkown demographic, the white conservative nihiist.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on August 29, 2015, 12:34:06 PM
Teddy Kennedy 1980.

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 04:23:21 AM
Maybe you haven't realised but Silvio was not elected the leader of Europe. Saying that Silvio is somehow representative for Europe is like saying Sarah Palin as a governor of Alaska is representative for US leaders. It was a fluke. Most of Europe is nothing like Italy and holds Italy and its political system in contempt.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 31, 2015, 05:26:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 04:23:21 AM
Maybe you haven't realised but Silvio was not elected the leader of Europe. Saying that Silvio is somehow representative for Europe is like saying Sarah Palin as a governor of Alaska is representative for US leaders. It was a fluke. Most of Europe is nothing like Italy and holds Italy and its political system in contempt.

Italy is major nation state, surely it deserves a comparison to a state like Florida or Illinois.

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 01:06:27 PM
The relationship between France and Germany is closer to that of the US and Mexico than to that of Florida and Illinois, though.

Quote from: Valmy on August 31, 2015, 01:10:09 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 01:06:27 PM
The relationship between France and Germany is closer to that of the US and Mexico than to that of Florida and Illinois, though.

Jean-Marie Le Pen came in second for President much. The French will understand.

Fortunately no wildly bigoted people have ever been leaders of Germany so I can see why they would be puzzled.

Quote from: viper37 on August 31, 2015, 12:46:29 PM

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 04:23:21 AM
Maybe you haven't realised but Silvio was not elected the leader of Europe. Saying that Silvio is somehow representative for Europe is like saying Sarah Palin as a governor of Alaska is representative for US leaders. It was a fluke. Most of Europe is nothing like Italy and holds Italy and its political system in contempt.

compared to the present bunch, she looks like a Nobel prizer winner.

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:31:15 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

:frusty:

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
According to the latest Iowa poll, the top 3 are Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  :hmm: It's not until fourth place that you get, oh crap, Cruz.  Oy vey.

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:38:16 PM
Rubio--he may be a guy to watch longer term, but what a time to be hispanic after Trump outs them as rapists.

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Nothing will trump that, true.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2015, 12:15:51 AM

Quote from: DGuller on August 30, 2015, 08:53:03 PM
Up until today, I haven't really listened to Trump, ever.  I read about what he said, but I never watched his delivery. 

I have to say, watching Trump speak is quite a fascination show.  The guy is clearly very intelligent, and is crazy like a fox.  I can definitely see why people would be falling for him, even if every other person in Trump's position would long be disqualified for his Democrat past and maybe even present.

I think the exact opposite.  I think he's crazy like a shrubbery.  He's never had anyone around him who's job it was to tell him what he was doing is wrong.  He's never associated with anyone who disagreed with him.  His randomly generated thougts have simply managed to bring to light a hitherto unkown demographic, the white conservative nihiist.

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 03:06:04 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny. :mellow:

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 03:29:13 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 03:06:04 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny. :mellow:

Oh, no, the bad quality of puns is making Beeb fiorious! :o

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 03:06:04 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny. :mellow:

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 03:09:24 PM
[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2015, 03:44:10 PM

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 03:06:04 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 02:53:31 PM

Quote from: Syt on August 31, 2015, 02:43:56 PM

Quote from: mongers on August 31, 2015, 01:31:13 PM
Is Trump beyond the Palin?

I'm looking forward to an Hillaryous campaign. :)

Nothing will trump that, true.

Using Trump for trump isn't a pun, and isn't remotely funny. :mellow:

Did DGuller's pun Rubio the wrong way?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2015, 03:51:01 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 03:09:24 PM
[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2015, 03:51:01 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 03:09:24 PM
[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 04:26:00 PM


My thought was "how many more financial irregularities does Trump need to have"?

How many businesses have gone bankrupt?  And while Trump liked to spin that as "reorganization", a bankruptcy means that creditors don't get paid.  Trump's hasn't paid an awful lot of creditors out there.

Quote

August 31, 2015 9:29 AM
Waking Up With the Republican Establishment Nightmare
By Ed Kilgore

The appearance of an Ann Selzer Iowa Poll (cosponsored by the Des Moines Register and Bloomberg Politics) over the weekend must have felt for Establishment Republicans like the cliched moment in cheesy fiction where one wakes up from a nightmare only to realize it's real. It's helpful to understand that Selzer's polls represent sort of the gold standard of state polling—up there with California's Field Poll and the Marquette Law School polls in Wisconsin. They are difficult to write off as outliers.

So the Iowa Poll's confirmation of the upside-down nature of the GOP presidential contest, with the assumed front-runners badly trailing people who have never accomplished a thing in politics, has to be pretty shocking to people who are in denial about it all. As will be widely noted, the three candidates who have never held elected office—Trump, Carson and Fiorina—together come in at 46% in the horse race portion of the Iowa Poll, while the early presumed front-runners—Walker, Bush and Rubio—pull a booming 20%. Do second-place preferences hide some big potential turnaround for the former big boys? Nope: Trump, Carson and Fiorina together get 34% as second choices, while Walker, Bush and Rubio get 21%.

How about the favorable-unfavorable ratios? Reflecting other polls, the single most shocking change since the last Iowa Poll in May is Trump's improvement in favorability ratios from 27/63 to 61/35. I mean, that just doesn't happen, but it did.

Ben Carson's favorability ratio is at a near unanimous 79/8, which makes you wonder if people are really listening to the Crazy beneath his happy-talk about unity and common sense. If they are, that's scary.

Perhaps the most fascinating number, however, is Scott Walker's favorability ratio of 71/15, about the same as when he was killing it in Iowa earlier this year. He's now in something of the same boat as Rubio, Mr. High Favorability, Low Horse Race (67/20 in this poll, tied for fifth in the preference vote with Jeb Bush). And then there's Bush, whose favorability ratio in Iowa remains underwater (40/45), as does that of once-terrifying Rand Paul (39/49) and the desperately floundering Chris Christie (29/59) and RINO pariah Lindsey Graham (15/59).

One other set of numbers for the Republicans is worth noting: asked if any of the candidates outside their first and second preferences are people they could never support, likely caucusgoers expressed significantly more antipathy to John Kasich (40% could never support him) and Jeb Bush (39%) than to Donald Trump (29%) or Ted Cruz (24%).

Yeah, it's still early, and of course, in Iowa grassroots organization matters more than popularity. Moreover, as Nancy LeTourneau pointed out yesterday, the "silly season" of August is about to be replaced by a September full of real news and actual drama in Washington. September will not be "about" Donald Trump.

But I dunno: two big September issues, the Iran Nuclear Deal and the fight over Planned Parenthood funding, are almost certainly going to produce fresh evidence of the inability of Republicans in Congress to "keep their promises" to the conservative activist rank-and-file of the GOP, the fuel for the "outsider" surge in the GOP presidential field. The next debates, on September 16, will come right before that new proof Establishment impotence begins to sink in. If somebody other than Trump's going to shake up the field again, it needs to start happening then. I'd say September looks like Cruz Country.

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 05:21:10 PM
I really don't understand the bankruptcy argument against Trump.  That is a possibility in business, that's the whole reason we have limited liability corporations.  There is a reason that corporate bonds pay more than federal treasuries.  As long as you're not pulling stunts like embezzling borrowed money with excessive dividends, there is really no moral or ethical argument against Trump's bankruptcies.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 10:34:38 PM
Bleh.  I spent the last eight years telling people that the Democratic party isn't a socialist party and then this bastard is going to fuck it all up. <_<  More realistically, he doesn't have a party.  What kind of allies can he be expected to have in Congress?

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 10:34:38 PM
More realistically, he doesn't have a party.  What kind of allies can he be expected to have in Congress?

Quote from: Martinus on August 30, 2015, 03:11:40 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 30, 2015, 03:02:43 PM

Quote from: Valmy on August 30, 2015, 01:55:54 PM
Wait is Krauthammer considered the voice of reason and respectability in the Republican Party? Oh dear.

He went a little bonkers during GW2.

Well, many people were upset about certain conditions not stacking, so...

Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2015, 04:26:00 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 31, 2015, 03:51:01 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 03:09:24 PM
[I can't help but think that a lot of the press and at least some of his followers just have a morbid curiosity in seeing how far this will go and how bad the crash will be.  Prediction:  There will be a bimbo on the side and some financial irregularities which will be revealed that will result in him going completely bonkers on the air.

His entire public persona is built on the aquisiton of bimbos.  His comment about Princess Diana's death was "I wish I had dated her."   He's on record as saying he would bang his daughter if she weren't his daughter.

I similarly doubt that we're going to discover that he hasn't been paying his taxes for the last 5 years.

He'll fail because his negatives are too high.

My thought was "how many more financial irregularities does Trump need to have"?

How many businesses have gone bankrupt?  And while Trump liked to spin that as "reorganization", a bankruptcy means that creditors don't get paid.  Trump's hasn't paid an awful lot of creditors out there.

QuoteOMG Trump and Palin are a team now! As foretold in ‪#‎Revelations‬

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2015, 02:13:41 AM
Bill Maher is the antichrist of funny.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2015, 02:43:30 AM
OK, I mean humor anti-matter.  If he and humor were ever to exist in the same space existence would cease.

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 10:34:38 PM
Bleh.  I spent the last eight years telling people that the Democratic party isn't a socialist party and then this bastard is going to fuck it all up. <_<  More realistically, he doesn't have a party.  What kind of allies can he be expected to have in Congress?

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
According to the latest Iowa poll, the top 3 are Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  :hmm: It's not until fourth place that you get, oh crap, Cruz.  Oy vey.

Fiorina doesn't seem to be crazy. Just a failed CEO with no compelling case to be president.

This is what happens when your establishment candidates are:

Bush--no one wants another Bush, at times it seems including the candidate
Walker--seems to have been infected with the crazy virus recently, which is in heavy circulation during republican primaries
Rubio--he may be a guy to watch longer term, but what a time to be hispanic after Trump outs them as rapists.
Perry--I had some reason why he isn't a strong candidate, but I can't think of it. Oops.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 10:07:28 AM
Perry Having criminal charges for abuse of office pending tends to put a damper on a presidential campaign.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 10:07:28 AM
Bush -Do we really want 41,43, and 45 to all be Bushes?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
According to the latest Iowa poll, the top 3 are Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  :hmm: It's not until fourth place that you get, oh crap, Cruz.  Oy vey.

Fiorina doesn't seem to be crazy. Just a failed CEO with no compelling case to be president.

This is what happens when your establishment candidates are:

Bush--no one wants another Bush, at times it seems including the candidate
Walker--seems to have been infected with the crazy virus recently, which is in heavy circulation during republican primaries
Rubio--he may be a guy to watch longer term, but what a time to be hispanic after Trump outs them as rapists.
Perry--I had some reason why he isn't a strong candidate, but I can't think of it. Oops.

Bush	Do we really want 41,43, and 45 to all be Bushes?
Walker	It's not new- it's just finally getting national attention that if you say "public sector union" in the mirror 3 times, Walker will magically appear, frothing at the mouth.  Even the Koch brothers know better than to blatantly go after unions in a national election cycle.
Rubio	:blink: There's nothing establishment about Rubio.  He rode the Tea Party wave, just like Cruz.  He's slightly less mouth-frothy, but not once you bring up Cuba.
Perry	Having criminal charges for abuse of office pending tends to put a damper on a presidential campaign.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2015, 10:59:08 AM
The first Bush wasn't _that_ bad.

Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2015, 12:34:42 PM
He was a thousand points of light.

Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2015, 12:32:35 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2015, 10:59:08 AM
The first Bush wasn't _that_ bad.

Bush 41 was a damn fine President. :ultra:

Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2015, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2015, 12:34:42 PM
He was a thousand points of light.

He was is a god-damn war hero.

Edit: he's not dead.

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:26:38 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
According to the latest Iowa poll, the top 3 are Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  :hmm: It's not until fourth place that you get, oh crap, Cruz.  Oy vey.

Fiorina doesn't seem to be crazy. Just a failed CEO with no compelling case to be president.

This is what happens when your establishment candidates are:

Bush--no one wants another Bush, at times it seems including the candidate
Walker--seems to have been infected with the crazy virus recently, which is in heavy circulation during republican primaries
Rubio--he may be a guy to watch longer term, but what a time to be hispanic after Trump outs them as rapists.
Perry--I had some reason why he isn't a strong candidate, but I can't think of it. Oops.

Bush	Do we really want 41,43, and 45 to all be Bushes?
Walker	It's not new- it's just finally getting national attention that if you say "public sector union" in the mirror 3 times, Walker will magically appear, frothing at the mouth.  Even the Koch brothers know better than to blatantly go after unions in a national election cycle.
Rubio	:blink: There's nothing establishment about Rubio.  He rode the Tea Party wave, just like Cruz.  He's slightly less mouth-frothy, but not once you bring up Cuba.
Perry	Having criminal charges for abuse of office pending tends to put a damper on a presidential campaign.

What a bizarre conversation. :wacko:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2015, 11:05:59 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 10:34:38 PM
More realistically, he doesn't have a party.  What kind of allies can he be expected to have in Congress?

If Democratic primary voters choose him, I'm sure Congressional democrats will fall in line.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 12:46:22 PM
:D

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2015, 09:41:41 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on August 31, 2015, 10:34:38 PM
Bleh.  I spent the last eight years telling people that the Democratic party isn't a socialist party and then this bastard is going to fuck it all up. <_<  More realistically, he doesn't have a party.  What kind of allies can he be expected to have in Congress?

So...you were wrong?

Anyway, Bernie is only a Democrat because it's convenient to run for President that way. Same with Trump and the GOP.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2015, 02:43:30 AM
OK, I mean humor anti-matter.  If he and humor were ever to exist in the same space existence would cease.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 12:52:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 12:46:22 PM
:D

Shush, you.

Right, I forgot this is Languish- where every conversation is an argument, and one can't simply add something extra without having it picked apart as a potential counterargument. <_<

The only points I was actually refuting were that Walker was ever sane when it came to unions, and that Rubio should be considered an "establishment" candidate.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 01:15:19 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 12:52:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 12:46:22 PM
:D

Shush, you.

Right, I forgot this is Languish- where every conversation is an argument, and one can't simply add something extra without having it picked apart as a potential counterargument. <_<

The only points I was actually refuting were that Walker was ever sane when it came to unions, and that Rubio should be considered an "establishment" candidate.

No read yours like it is lines of dialogue.

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 01:33:54 PM
DOSE LIPS

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 01, 2015, 01:25:21 PM
Bush Sr. was a damn fine president.

He's also the perfect rebuttal to the complaint from the Hillary camp that it's sexist to call her shrill.  Bush Sr. got ragged on constantly for talking like a weenie.

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 01:15:19 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 12:52:24 PM

Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2015, 12:46:22 PM
:D

Shush, you.

Right, I forgot this is Languish- where every conversation is an argument, and one can't simply add something extra without having it picked apart as a potential counterargument. <_<

The only points I was actually refuting were that Walker was ever sane when it came to unions, and that Rubio should be considered an "establishment" candidate.

No read yours like it is lines of dialogue.

Quote

Donald Trump Is the Favorite to Win the Republican Primary


By Brian Beutler  @brianbeutler

The hopeful case for Republicans concerned about Donald Trump's persistent lead goes something like this:

At this point in the last Republican primary, Rick Perry was pulling away from Mitt Romney. He briefly opened up a 10-point lead, and then just as quickly gave way to pizza magnate Herman Cain, who in turn gave way to Newt Gingrich, and so it went until Romney cleaned up in the end. Yes, Romney polled better than Jeb Bush is currently polling, but Romney was pretty much alone among establishmentarian candidates, while Bush is splitting that share of the primary electorate with two or three other candidates. Likewise, in 2012, the reactionary share of the vote was about the same as it is now—larger than the establishment share—but it wasn't enough to win then, and it won't be enough to win this time around.

The differences between the 2012 and 2016 fields makes this rosy scenario hard to envision. Which is why Republicans are having a harder and harder time articulating scenarios in which Trump becomes a non-issue before the primaries, for reasons that don't involve nativist GOP voters undergoing a sudden, collective epiphany.

For this race to play out like the last one did would require a series of increasingly unlikely assumptions to come to pass:

1) That the establishmentarian field winnows sooner than later.

In past cycles, the eventual nominee has benefited from consolidating the establishmentarian vote early. Today, Bush is splitting that vote with Marco Rubio and John Kasich and probably to some extent with Scott Walker, none of whom is likely to exit the race anytime soon.

2) Trump fades.

Trump does not appear to be an extinguishable threat, the way Perry, Cain, and Gingrich were. Trump might have hit his ceiling, but there's nothing in the offing right now that promises to drag him back down. If Ben Carson surges, that's not going to be at Trump's expense. It will be at the expense of the rest of the field.

3) As conservative also-rans drop out, their supporters break for establishment candidates, rather than for Trump.

This seemed plausible earlier in the race, but Trump is now not only leading the field, but he's also polling well as a second-choice candidate, along with Carson and Rubio. As the field narrows, these candidates will be likeliest to benefit. If Trump never collapses, Republicans will have to count on primary voters to coalesce around someone preferable. But it isn't clear that Carson's actually preferable, and it also isn't clear that Carson's and Walker's and Ted Cruz's and Mike Huckabee's supporters would break for Bush or even Rubio over Trump, after traveling so far with candidates who promised to meaningfully challenge their own party's establishment.

Short of sabotaging Trump by changing the rules in the middle of the race, which would risk driving him to mount an independent candidacy, the race itself will have to take on a completely new character for Trump to lose steam. Otherwise, he will win.

QuoteDonald Trump Is the Favorite to Win the Republican Primary

Quote from: alfred russel on September 01, 2015, 10:13:10 PM
I stand by my predictions from earlier:

Republican nomination: will not be Trump. His negatives are too high. Ultimately republicans won't nominate someone who will be a major liability in the general election.

Democratic nomination: will not be Sanders. They won't nominate someone associated with socialism. Hillary is the favorite, but I think a weak one--if she falters, I bet someone like O'Malley takes it from her.

Quote from: The Brain on September 01, 2015, 12:26:38 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2015, 10:07:28 AM

Quote from: alfred russel on August 31, 2015, 02:38:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on August 31, 2015, 12:32:35 PM
According to the latest Iowa poll, the top 3 are Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.  :hmm: It's not until fourth place that you get, oh crap, Cruz.  Oy vey.

Fiorina doesn't seem to be crazy. Just a failed CEO with no compelling case to be president.

This is what happens when your establishment candidates are:

Bush--no one wants another Bush, at times it seems including the candidate
Walker--seems to have been infected with the crazy virus recently, which is in heavy circulation during republican primaries
Rubio--he may be a guy to watch longer term, but what a time to be hispanic after Trump outs them as rapists.
Perry--I had some reason why he isn't a strong candidate, but I can't think of it. Oops.

Bush	Do we really want 41,43, and 45 to all be Bushes?
Walker	It's not new- it's just finally getting national attention that if you say "public sector union" in the mirror 3 times, Walker will magically appear, frothing at the mouth.  Even the Koch brothers know better than to blatantly go after unions in a national election cycle.
Rubio	:blink: There's nothing establishment about Rubio.  He rode the Tea Party wave, just like Cruz.  He's slightly less mouth-frothy, but not once you bring up Cuba.
Perry	Having criminal charges for abuse of office pending tends to put a damper on a presidential campaign.

What a bizarre conversation. :wacko:

Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2015, 09:52:08 PM
The New Republic said it Dorsey. When has it ever been wrong before?

QuoteDonald Trump's Napoleon Moment
How America's "fatalists" drive the billionaire's seemingly unstoppable momentum.

By DONALD DEVINE • August 27, 2015

Patrick Buchanan gets right to the core of the phenomenon called Donald Trump with his headline, "The Rebirth of Nationalism."

Because of America's two-party system and the dominance of individualistic libertarians and social conservatives in one party and left-egalitarians and interest-group liberals in the other, we forget the basics. As the late great political scientist Aaron Wildavsky taught us years ago there are four fundamental political types: egalitarians, individualists, social conservatives, and—the ones we forget about—what he called "fatalists."

We tend to forget the fatalists because they tend not to vote. They view the world as foreign, chaotic, ephemeral, dangerous, on the edge of falling into bedlam. He used the analogy that their world is like a marble rolling unsteadily on a glass surface, rolling and pitching who knows where. Government has some control but is run by an untouchable, all-powerful elite acting in its own interest. Such a world can only be tamed by something enormously powerful and masterful, and only during a crisis. Then a strong central government supported by angry, patriotic nationalists and led by a popular Napoleon on his white horse can arrest the anarchy. Trump's autobiography is titled Think Big and Kick Ass.

Buchanan tapped into the same world—although with vastly more intellect and subtlety—but he learned Wildavsky's lesson. Fatalists do not vote, except perhaps enough to win a primary or two, and the elite strike back hard. It is difficult to sustain the anger, although Buchanan came closer than many remember. Trump may turn out to be more fortunate since popular resentment has risen to a boil this time. Bernie Sanders taps into it too, and when fatalists do vote they might go for either party. But the Vermont socialist has no horse; Trump has billions and the celebrity, willingness, and audacity to ride them.

Pollster Frank Luntz came reeling out of one of his distinctive focus groups the other day crying "my legs are shaking" from seeing the depth of commitment of the Trump supporters he interviewed at the session. "I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don't realize how the grassroots have abandoned them. Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn't listening to their grassroots." He even showed the audience unflattering images of and statements by Trump meant to turn them off. It did not work. At the end they were more committed than at the beginning.

Political analyst Tom Charles Huston predicts the establishment Republican presidential candidates will sputter—Trump quipped Jeb Bush puts his audiences to sleep—and the business "donor class" elite will desert them, happy to support Hillary or Joe Biden to advance their crony capitalism rather than moving to a conservative with an edge who might be able to confront Trump—and them.

If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it is difficult to see any opponent who could rally South Carolina two weeks later, or Nevada. Then on March 1 a half-dozen Southern states with many fatalists (remember Huey Long) will split the opponent's ranks further. On March 15 Bush could be ousted by Marco Rubio in Florida, with John Kasich winning by a smaller than expected margin in Ohio. Trump could win by losing, saying they were only favorite sons. No one would be left anyway. If he wins either state, it is all over.

So what was impossible a few weeks ago now becomes a real possibility.

The willfully blind establishment in Italy did not think Benito Mussolini or even Silvio Berlusconi could win, either; both succeeded because the reasonable right floundered. The latter became prime minister three times. How does President Trump sound? Or President Hillary?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2015, 12:58:46 AM

If Trump wins Iowa and New Hampshire, it is difficult to see any opponent who could rally South Carolina two weeks later, or Nevada. Then on March 1 a half-dozen Southern states with many fatalists (remember Huey Long) will split the opponent's ranks further. On March 15 Bush could be ousted by Marco Rubio in Florida, with John Kasich winning by a smaller than expected margin in Ohio. Trump could win by losing, saying they were only favorite sons. No one would be left anyway. If he wins either state, it is all over.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
How does President Trump sound? Or President Hillary?

Quote from: celedhring on September 02, 2015, 03:25:55 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
How does President Trump sound? Or President Hillary?

Shouldn't it be "President Clinton"?  :huh: Of course that would break the article's half-baked closing statement.

Quote(remember Huey Long)

Quote from: The Brain on September 02, 2015, 09:02:34 AM

No, was he in the news?

QuotePPP's newest national poll finds Donald Trump just continuing to grow
his lead over the GOP field. He is at 29% to 15% for Ben Carson, 9% for Jeb Bush, 8%
for Carly Fiorina, 7% for Marco Rubio, 6% each for Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and 5%
each for Mike Huckabee and Scott Walker.

QuoteHas the Republican Establishment Created a Monster?

They wrote big checks to Jeb Bush before they knew what type of candidate he would be. Now he may become the spoiler they fear.

By Jim Newell

Last fall, when Jeb Bush was still mulling a bid for the presidency, Bloomberg Politics reported on what was considered then—and is still considered now—Bush's greatest advantage as a presidential candidate: His ability to separate wealthy donors from vast sums of money quickly. "Unlike his competitors," the thinking went, "Bush could lure donors off the fence in a hurry, without undergoing a hazing trial to test skill and stability."

That is precisely what happened. Instants after announcing over the winter that he was "seriously considering the possibility of running for president," Bush and his team set up the Right to Rise PAC and super PAC to serve as cash receptacles for eager GOP establishment donors. The money rolled in, and by July the super PAC announced that it had met its goal of raising more than $100 million in the first six months of the year. The popular former governor of Florida, who hadn't run for office since his 2002 re-election bid, was able to take it to the bank based on his family's success at winning presidential nominations and his ability to flatter the right crowds at events like the Wall Street Journal CEO Council. And indeed, he was able to bypass a thorough vetting of his aptitude for a presidential run en route to this fortune.

Because it's clear right now that "a hazing trial to test skill and stability" was exactly what wealthy establishment Republican donors should have subjected Bush to before opening their checkbooks. It's not a matter of sunk costs. The very wealthy, by their standards, can still buy politics on the cheap: losing a million bucks on a lemon of a candidate won't send them to the poor house. But by imbuing the Bush operation with more primary cash than has ever been seen, they have already ensured that the Bush campaign—even a clumsy, poll-trailing Bush campaign—can go deep into the 2016 primary calendar. Unless Bush can really turn his image around, that means that the process of settling on an establishment candidate will play out far longer than the party may prefer—and perhaps even throw the nomination to the dreaded "outsider" candidate of the establishment's worst nightmares. Go ahead, fellas: Clutch those pearls.

Had Bush undergone the hazing trial from which over-exuberant donors exempted him, red flags would have been flying all over the place. He is gaffe-prone. He struggles to opine coherently on the most obvious question for which he's had years to prepare. He speaks, in the words of his great foil Donald Trump, in a "low-energy" manner. His last name remains Bush, a problem for both his primary and general elections prospects.

All of these flaws are reflected in his polling numbers, which aren't the most important metric to look at this early, as well as his fundamentals. Seemingly each new polling of favorability, a rough way of considering a candidate's ceiling of support, shows Bush in horrendous shape. A Public Policy Polling national survey of Republican voters released Tuesday pins Bush near the middle of the pack in support (as in, 20 or so points behind Trump), and near the bottom of the pack in net favorability. His 39–42 negative favorability rating is among the worst in the field, surpassed in dislike only by candidates such as Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Rand Paul whose viability was always limited. (Meanwhile Trump, whose unfavorables only a few months ago soared into the 60s or even 70s, now finds himself with a solid 56–30 rating.)

You know who is well liked? Sen. Marco Rubio, the notoriously amnesty-curious junior senator from Florida. While still low in overall support, Rubio's slow-and-steady, mostly gaffe-free campaign has left him in prime position to surge once various other early flirtations have expired. PPP's survey finds Rubio's favorable-unfavorable at 58–24, the second best margin behind only Ben Carson, who will face extraordinary scrutiny if his nascent surge lasts much longer. This is only the latest survey in a long string of them that reflects the fond feelings Republican voters have for Rubio, a candidate who's been through the wringer of conservative furor and lived not just to tell about it, but to thrive.

It's almost like Rubio is shaping into a fine presidential candidate, acceptable to conservatives and moderates alike, who could compete gamely in a general election. It's almost like Rubio ... what's a way of putting this? ... has undergone a hazing trial to test his skill and stability and passed, with plenty of room to grow after the Summer of Trump and all of the silly, early dabbling that comes with that.

Rubio's problem—and perhaps soon a problem for the GOP establishment and the Republican Party writ large—is that Bush will face no financial pressure to leave the scene. These donors made the mistake of paying the contractor in full before he'd begun the job. In no way can Bush be ruled out as the nominee. But we're definitely at the point where he cannot simply wait for the other candidates to cancel each other out, McCain-style, and have their support matriculate to him as the only acceptable option. Bush will have to find some way to go from an unpopular politician to a moderately popular politician.

Let's say that he's unable to pull off that difficult task. He'd still be well-known and well-liked enough among a modest segment of party to retain 10 or 20 percent support—just enough to prevent Rubio (or the always-discussed, never-realized white knight) from reaching escape velocity. We race past Super Tuesday at the beginning of March and reach the latter end of the calendar when state primary rules switch from proportional to winner-take-all delegate allocation. Jeb and his super PAC still have bushels of money and figure they might as well stick around and hope something changes, because why not? He and Rubio split up the moderates. Trump either doesn't blow up or retains enough support to take those winner-take-all states on his own, or he does blow up, and a figure like Cruz successfully coalesces the anti-establishment vote.

These are the problems that GOP establishment donors created by throwing million-dollar checks at Bush before seeing if anyone liked him or he was up to the task on the campaign trail. Thus far he has failed in both regards. But he still has all that loot and, much like his brother once said about the political capital he'd accumulated, he intends to spend it. Perhaps his Bush family WASP instincts will kick in and, like a gentleman, he'll call it quits early if things aren't working out, instructing his super PAC from then on to devote its resources to Rubio. Or maybe his Bush family "destroy everyone!" instincts will override the WASP side, and he'll fight—and fight nasty—until the bitter end.

The establishment invested heavily in Bush early to avoid the lengthy, damaging primary fight of the 2012 cycle. In doing so, they may well have created a far longer process, with far more dangerous results.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 02, 2015, 11:19:00 PM
Will Bush and his giant campaign warchest doom Republican attempts to coalesce around an establishment figure, throwing the election to an outsider like Trump or Carson? Seems plausible.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/jeb_bush_s_millions_will_keep_his_struggling_campaign_going_did_republican.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/jeb_bush_s_millions_will_keep_his_struggling_campaign_going_did_republican.html)

Quote from: Kleves on September 05, 2015, 08:54:59 AM
Probably more like America's Mussolini.

QuoteIt's Time to Discuss Donald Trump's Running Mate

Could it be Oprah, Jesse Ventura or Roger Ailes?

By Matt Latimer

09/06/15, 08:29 AM EDT

They still haven't figured out Donald Trump.

GOP leaders thought they'd outfox the frontrunner-they-don't-want by making him sign a mafia-style "loyalty" pledge to the GOP. He signed it, no problem. And why not? The Republican Party isn't exactly the Sopranos. What are they going to do if he breaks the pledge anyway? Break his thumbs?

In return, the geniuses behind this idea have now forced every other GOP contender to vow support for Trump if he wins the nomination—along with whoever he chooses as his running mate. Which begs a fun and fascinating question: Just who would that running mate be?

Too soon to envision a Trump ticket, you say? Well, why should that stop us? After all, America has had to endure a year or more of earnest speculation among DC pundits about a potential Bush or Clinton White House—vision quests that are literally putting voters to sleep.

So what exactly would GOP nominee Trump do? We know, of course, what the ever-predictable professional political class would advise: that Trump pick someone with considerable Washington experience to balance the ticket. Maybe a solid Midwestern senator like Rob Portman. Or someone who can help solve his alleged problems with "the women," like a Kelly Ayotte or maybe a Nikki Haley. He might, they'd suggest, pick a safe, calming choice—like some of the more establishment-approved Republicans he'd just run against. A Jeb Bush or a John Kasich or a Marco Rubio.

We also know what Trump would do with that advice—deep-six it faster than the Republican majority in Congress repealed Obamacare, cut spending, and halted the Iran deal. (Oh wait—they haven't done any of those things, which is why Trump is where he is today. ) Trump wouldn't saddle himself with someone who he thinks is part of the problem in Washington. And one can't imagine him selecting one of the "losers" and "no-talents" he'd just defeated, much less any of those who ran campaign ads against him.

So far the only guidance we've gotten from Trump about who he'd have in mind as a running mate is the (seemingly) preposterous suggestion of Oprah Winfrey—which he later said was a joke. That was followed by his unlikely mention of billionaire investor Carl Icahn for a high-level post in his Cabinet.

Trump is of course notoriously unpredictable—part of his apparent allure—but those names do tell us something. Call it Trump's unwritten rules for whom he'd select for jobs in DC. And they actually aren't that bad:

#1. Someone who does not want the job.
#2. Someone who does not need the job.
#3. Someone he considers a "success" – I,e, very rich.
#4. Someone who is not a career politician (See Rules 1-3).

Which leaves us with a veritable Noah's Ark of celebrities, billionaires, and celebrity-billionaires. Below is a list of the current odds for The Donald's Number Two (set by no one with any knowledge of odds-setting):

Oprah Winfrey (Odds: A Kajillion billion million quadrazillion to 1.) As exciting as it would be to watch Vice President Winfrey teach a Master Class on being your truest self in the Rose Garden or handing out free Honda Civics to everyone on the White House staff ("You get a car! You get a car! You get a car!"), this one's not gonna happen, plain and simple. The vice presidency is too small for Her Greatness. Though Trump might have a shot with Gayle King.

Roger Ailes (50,000 to 1.) These alleged "good friends" are seemingly less so by the day. In any event, a Trump-Ailes ticket might actually give Media Matters a moment of such manic frenzy that it would fold in on itself and create a black hole in the center of the earth. So maybe it'd be worth it.

Jesse Ventura (1,000 to 1). The former Minnesota governor and outspoken critic of both political parties might have had the inside track, but he broke a cardinal rule. He made it clear he wanted the job. That almost certainly doomed him.

Ben Carson (100–1). The likeable presidential candidate and accomplished neurosurgeon might be one of the few candidates Trump might actually consider – former Trump advisor Roger Stone seems to think so, provided he doesn't criticize him too harshly as they fight for the lead in Iowa. But can't you hear Trump's announcement? "Being president doesn't take a brain surgeon. On second thought, maybe it does."

Ann Coulter (50-1). Could Sharknado be a premonition? She's been an assertive Trump backer and introduced him recently in Iowa. And imagine the spectacle. The route from Rodeo Drive to the Canadian border would be packed with fleeing celebrities in their limos – in the greatest exodus since the Old Testament.

[Odds that a Trump-Coulter ticket would cause Charles Krauthammer to quit politics altogether – EVEN.]

Ted Cruz (20-1). The outspoken Texas senator is popular with the party base and is famously supportive of Trump. But he might have more fun as Senate Majority Leader—after a Trump nomination makes Mitch McConnell's head explode.

Howard Stern (12-1). The popular radio personality is on friendly terms with Trump and has a large and loyal following. Also he's flirted with political office before. Baba Booey for Attorney General?

Kevin O'Leary (3-1). One of the stars of the greatest pro-capitalism show on earth today, Shark Tank, ABC's "Mr. Wonderful" has offered some admiring comments of Trump, loves money, and makes no apologies for same. But two rich white guys with hair issues on the same ticket? It's crazy enough to be exactly what a guy like Trump would want.

Tom Brady (Even). Handsome, likeable, young, a Trump friend—a guy who will do what it takes to win. Or at least has a "general awareness" of what it takes.

And the frontrunner ....

Mark Cuban (1-2). Another Shark Tank billionaire – with a very large B – who's praised Trump publicly, has nothing to lose, and has become increasingly unspoken about his politics.

Together these guys could do a lot of damage which, depending on your view of Washington, may not be such a bad thing.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
...use videotape obtained from prohibited spying to prepare for games...

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
... are you going to admit that Tom Brady has less than perfect judgment, as shown by when he decided to have the footballs deflated, use videotape obtained from prohibited spying to prepare for games, and generally act like a prima donna?

Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2015, 01:11:08 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 11:53:48 AM
... are you going to admit that Tom Brady has less than perfect judgment, as shown by when he decided to have the footballs deflated, use videotape obtained from prohibited spying to prepare for games, and generally act like a prima donna?

So you"re saying that Brady is just like Ken Dorsey, except successful?

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
Plus Dorsey was the starting quarterback of a national championship college team an a Rose Bowl co-MVP.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
Plus Dorsey was the starting quarterback of a national championship college team an a Rose Bowl co-MVP.

Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2015, 05:19:18 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
Plus Dorsey was the starting quarterback of a national championship college team an a Rose Bowl co-MVP.

Wow.  That certainly trumps being the starting quarterback of four national championship NFL teams and three Super Bowl MVPs.  :(

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
but all those Super Bowl wins are tainted by Spygate and Deflategate. :(

Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2015, 05:37:30 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
but all those Super Bowl wins are tainted by Spygate and Deflategate. :(

Maybe to the righteous knights of justice and propriety like the Miami Hurricanes.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:33:06 PM

Quote from: grumbler on September 06, 2015, 05:19:18 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:02:36 PM
Plus Dorsey was the starting quarterback of a national championship college team an a Rose Bowl co-MVP.

Wow.  That certainly trumps being the starting quarterback of four national championship NFL teams and three Super Bowl MVPs.  :(

I don't think it does.  :hmm:

It is really unfortunate for Brady that he is such an NFL talent, but all those Super Bowl wins are tainted by Spygate and Deflategate. :(

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2015, 05:39:48 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2015, 05:37:30 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
but all those Super Bowl wins are tainted by Spygate and Deflategate. :(

Maybe to the righteous knights of justice and propriety like the Miami Hurricanes.

Oh snap! :face:

Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2015, 05:37:30 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
but all those Super Bowl wins are tainted by Spygate and Deflategate. :(

Maybe to the righteous knights of justice and propriety like the Miami Hurricanes.

Quote from: alfred russel on September 06, 2015, 06:07:36 PM
Well, I also am a Notre Dame grad, so depending on the moment I may be a stickler for tradition horrified by this new rock n roll fad (and unaware it has been replaced by hip hop).

QuoteSanders Surges Past Clinton in New Hampshire, Closes Gap in Iowa

By Daniel Politi

Sen. Bernie Sanders is getting a big payoff from his efforts to try to woo disenchanted progressive Democrats, bounding past Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire by nine points, according to the latest NBC News/Marist poll. Support in the state for the independent senator has surged to 41 percent of Democratic voters, compared to Clinton's 32 percent. And the numbers are even worse for Clinton when the Biden effect is taken into consideration. Vice President Joe Biden, who has yet to announce his candidacy, has 16 percent support in New Hampshire. If his candidacy is removed from the options presented to Democratic voters, Sanders' lead grows to 11 points—49 percent to 38 percent. The numbers show Clinton and Sanders have basically flipped positions from July, when the NBC/Marist poll put the former secretary of state ahead by 10 points with 42 percent.

In Iowa, Clinton remains on top, but her lead has been narrowed sharply, dropping from a 24-point margin in July to an 11-point advantage. In the new poll, she pulled 38 percent support, compared to 27 percent for Sanders. 

Despite the tightening polls, the Democratic contest continues to be a rather diplomatic affair, with both Clinton and Sanders basically refusing to criticize each other on the campaign trail, points out the Washington Post.

On the Republican side, the NBC/Marist poll shows how the GOP contest in Iowa has become a race between Donald Trump and Ben Carson, with the rest of the candidates basically falling into oblivion. Trump leads in Iowa with 29 percent compared to Carson's 22 percent. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, enjoys a measly 6 percent support, and all the other candidates have 5 percent or less. That is quite the change in fortune for Scott Walker, who enjoyed 19 percent support in July, and now is only backed by 5 percent of the state's Republican voters. In New Hampshire, Trump is also ahead with 28 percent, followed by John Kasich at 12 percent, Carson at 11 percent, and Bush at 8 percent.

QuoteThe Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia

The rise of Trump obliterates all other issues — campaign 2016 is now almost entirely about race

BY MATT TAIBBI September 4, 2015

ABC News published an intriguing poll the other day, one that spelled out a growing racial divide:

"Nonwhites see Trump negatively by a vast 17-79 percent... That said, whites are the majority group – 64 percent of the adult population – and they now divide evenly on Trump, 48-49 percent, favorable-unfavorable. Clinton, by contrast, is far more unpopular than Trump among whites, 34-65 percent. So while racial and ethnic polarization is on the rise in views of Trump, it remains even higher for Clinton."

The Republicans already lost virtually the entire black vote (scoring just 4 percent and 6 percent of black voters the last two elections). Now, by pushing toward the nomination a candidate whose brilliant plan to "make America great again" is to build a giant wall to keep out Mexican rapists, they're headed the same route with Hispanics. That's a steep fall for a party that won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote as recently as 2004.


Trump's supporters are people who are tired of being told they have to be part of some kind of coalition in order to have a political voice. They particularly hate being lectured about alienating minorities, especially by members of their own party.

Just a few weeks ago, for instance, establishment GOP spokesghoul George Will spent a whole column haranguing readers about how Trump was ruining his party's chances for victory. He noted that Mitt Romney might have won in 2012 if he'd pulled even slightly more than 27 percent of the Hispanic vote.

Will blasted Trump's giant wall idea and even ridiculed the candidate's deportation plan by comparing Trump to Hitler:

"The big costs, in decades and dollars (hundreds of billions), of Trump's project could be reduced if, say, the targets were required to sew yellow patches on their clothing to advertise their coming expulsion."

It's not clear how forcing 11 million people to wear yellow patches saves money, but whatever. However it was supposed to be taken, the shock argument didn't work.


A few days later, in a rare episode of National Review-on-National Review crime, blogger Ramesh Ponnuru blasted Will for his hysterics. He argued Romney wouldn't have won even with a 45 percent bump in the Hispanic vote. "He needed more votes, obviously," Ponnuru wrote, "but he didn't need more Hispanic votes in particular."

Ponnuru was echoing an idea already expressed by the conservative commentariat. Hack-among-hacks Byron York said the same thing in the Washington Examiner back in 2013. He argued that even 70 percent of the Hispanic vote wouldn't have helped Romney, whose more serious problem "was that Romney was not able to connect with white voters who were so turned off... that they abandoned the GOP."

Rush Limbaugh bought what York was selling, arguing that Romney didn't lose because he failed to convince Hispanic voters that Republicans "like 'em."

"The difference-maker was, a lot of white voters stayed home," Rush said.

Anyway, the night after Ponnuru ran his brief blog post a week and a half ago, Trump had Univision anchor Jorge Ramos tossed from a press conference in Dubuque, Iowa, sneering at him to "siddown" and "go back to Univision."



Conservative blogs and social media commentators cheered Trump's decision to have "butthurt" Jorge Ramos "deported" from the press conference, thereby turning the whole thing into another brilliant piece of symbolic political theater for the Donald.

Whether or not it's true that a Republican candidate can win the White House with a minus-51 percent net unfavorable rating among Hispanic voters (Trump's well-earned current number) is sort of beside the point. The point is that Trump clearly feels he can afford to flip off the Hispanic community and win with a whites-only strategy. And his supporters are loving the idea that he's trying.

The decision by huge masses of Republican voters to defy D.C.-thinkfluencer types like George Will and throw in with a carnival act like Trump is no small thing. For the first time in a generation, Republican voters are taking their destiny into their own hands.

In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. Everyone inside the Beltway knows this. The Republican voters themselves are the only ones who never saw it.


Elections are about a lot of things, but at the highest level, they're about money. The people who sponsor election campaigns, who pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the candidates' charter jets and TV ads and 25-piece marching bands, those people have concrete needs.

They want tax breaks, federal contracts, regulatory relief, cheap financing, free security for shipping lanes, antitrust waivers and dozens of other things.

They mostly don't care about abortion or gay marriage or school vouchers or any of the social issues the rest of us spend our time arguing about. It's about money for them, and as far as that goes, the CEO class has had a brilliantly winning electoral strategy for a generation.

They donate heavily to both parties, essentially hiring two different sets of politicians to market their needs to the population. The Republicans give them everything that they want, while the Democrats only give them mostly everything.

They get everything from the Republicans because you don't have to make a single concession to a Republican voter.


Donald Trump on Why He Hopes Kanye Runs for President »
All you have to do to secure a Republican vote is show lots of pictures of gay people kissing or black kids with their pants pulled down or Mexican babies at an emergency room. Then you push forward some dingbat like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin to reassure everyone that the Republican Party knows who the real Americans are. Call it the "Rove 1-2."


That's literally all it's taken to secure decades of Republican votes, a few patriotic words and a little over-the-pants rubbing. Policywise, a typical Republican voter never even asks a politician to go to second base.

While we always got free trade agreements and wars and bailouts and mass deregulation of industry and lots of other stuff the donors definitely wanted, we didn't get Roe v. Wade overturned or prayer in schools or balanced budgets or censorship of movies and video games or any of a dozen other things Republican voters said they wanted.

While it's certainly been fun laughing about the lunacies of people like Bachmann and John Ashcroft and Ted Cruz, who see the face of Jesus in every tree stump and believe the globalist left is planning to abolish golf courses and force country-dwellers to live in city apartments lit by energy-efficient light bulbs, the truth is that the voters they represented have been irrelevant for decades.

At least on the Democratic side there was that 5-10 percent of industry policy demands that voters occasionally rejected, putting a tiny dent in what otherwise has been a pretty smoothly running oligarchy.


Now that's over. Trump has pulled all of those previously irrelevant voters completely out of pocket. In a development that has to horrify the donors who run the GOP, the candidate Trump espouses some truly populist policy beliefs, including stern warnings about the dire consequences companies will face under a Trump presidency if they ship American jobs to Mexico and China.

All that energy the party devoted for decades telling middle American voters that protectionism was invented by Satan and Karl Marx during a poker game in Brussels in the mid-1840s, that just disappeared in a puff of smoke.

And all that money the Republican kingmakers funneled into Fox and Clear Channel over the years, making sure that their voters stayed focused on ACORN and immigrant-transmitted measles and the New Black Panthers (has anyone ever actually seen a New Black Panther? Ever?) instead of, say, the complete disappearance of the manufacturing sector or the mass theft of their retirement income, all of that's now backing up on them.

The party worked the cattle in their pen into such a dither that now they won't rest until they get the giant wall that real-life, as-seen-on-TV billionaire Donald Trump promises will save them from all those measles-infected rapists pouring over the border.


Not far under the surface of Trump's candidacy lurks a powerful current of Internet conspiracy theory that's a good two or three degrees loonier than even the most far-out Tea Party paranoia. Gone are the salad days when red-staters merely worried about Barack Obama inviting UN tanks to mass on the borders of Lubbock.

Trump supporters have gone next-level, obsessed with gooney-bird fantasies about "white genocide," a global plan to exterminate white people by sending waves of third-world immigrants across American and European borders to settle and intermarry.

The white-power nerds pushing this stuff don't like the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) and prefer "cuckservative," a term that's a mix of "cuckold" and "conservative." kind and sensitive person is also a porn term that refers to a white guy who gets off on watching his wife take it from (usually) a black man. A kind and sensitive person is therefore a kind of desexualized race traitor.

So you can see why the Internet lights up when Donald Trump tosses Jorge Ramos from a presser and tells him "mine's bigger than yours" (Trump was referring to his heart, but again, whatever). All of Trump's constant bragging about his money and his poll numbers and his virility speak directly to this surprisingly vibrant middle American fantasy about a castrated white America struggling to re-grow its mojo.

Republicans won middle American votes for years by taking advantage of the fact that their voters didn't know the difference between an elitist and the actual elite, between a snob and an oligarch. They made sure their voters' idea of an elitist was Sean Penn hanging out with Hugo Chavez, instead of a Wall Street bank financing the construction of Chinese factories.


Trump similarly is scoring points with voters who don't know the difference between feeling sorry for themselves and actually being victims. We live in a society that is changing for a lot of reasons, and some of those changes feel annoying to certain kinds of people, particularly older white folks who don't like language-policing and other aspects of political correctness.

But as basketball star turned pundit Kareem Abdul-Jabbar pointed out earlier this week, PC isn't a new thing, or even a thing at all. It's just an "emotional challenge every generation has had to go through." We get older, our kids correct our bad habits, it happens.

Not to Trump's supporters. They've turned some minor cultural changes into a vast conspiracy of white victimhood. They're eating up Trump's "Make America Great Again" theme (which one supporter hilariously explained must be his true goal, because "it's on his hat"), because it's a fantasy tale of a once-great culture ruined by an invasion of mongrel criminals.

For reasons that are, again, obvious to everyone but Republican voters, this "woe is us" narrative is never to fly with the rest of the country, including especially (one imagines) the nonwhite population. Few sane people are going to waste a vote on a sob story about how rough things have gotten for white people. But Trump supporters are clinging to this fantasy far more fiercely than red-state voters were ever clinging to guns or religion.

That leaves us facing a future in which national elections will no longer be decided by ideas, but by numbers. It will be a turnout battle between people who believe in a multicultural vision for the country, and those who don't.


Every other issue, from taxes to surveillance to war to jobs to education, will take a distant back seat to this ongoing, moronic referendum on white victimhood. And there's nothing any of us can do about it except wait it out, and wonder if our politics only gets dumber from here.

Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2015, 10:23:12 PM
So, 43% for Sanders and barely 18% for Trump.
This is why I don't come to Languish that frequently anymore. The country is falling in pieces due to 0bama's and his minions' mismanagement and people here still think socialism is a viable option.

Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2015, 10:23:12 PM
So, 43% for Sanders and barely 18% for Trump.
This is why I don't come to Languish that frequently anymore. The country is falling in pieces due to 0bama's and his minions' mismanagement and people here still think socialism is a viable option.

Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2015, 10:58:45 PM
And I have no idea what you are talking about the country falling to pieces. Everything seems fine to me.

Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2015, 10:28:28 PM
Wow Timmay, that article from Rolling Balls is the worst hit piece i have read in while. Full of lies and populist manipulation just in the first two paragraphs.

QuoteABC News published an intriguing poll the other day, one that spelled out a growing racial divide:

"Nonwhites see Trump negatively by a vast 17-79 percent... That said, whites are the majority group – 64 percent of the adult population – and they now divide evenly on Trump, 48-49 percent, favorable-unfavorable. Clinton, by contrast, is far more unpopular than Trump among whites, 34-65 percent. So while racial and ethnic polarization is on the rise in views of Trump, it remains even higher for Clinton."

The Republicans already lost virtually the entire black vote (scoring just 4 percent and 6 percent of black voters the last two elections). Now, by pushing toward the nomination a candidate whose brilliant plan to "make America great again" is to build a giant wall to keep out Mexican rapists, they're headed the same route with Hispanics. That's a steep fall for a party that won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote as recently as 2004.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 07, 2015, 12:42:15 AM
No kidding. Race not mattering at all, what a horrible sentiment.  :wacko:

Quote from: Ancient Demon on September 07, 2015, 12:07:53 AM
Ideally race wouldn't matter at all, but if it's acceptable for PoC to vote based on whatever favours their race more, I'm not sure it's worse for more white people to do so as well. The white guilt phase of race relations will eventually come to an end one way or another.

Quote from: Siege on September 06, 2015, 10:23:12 PM
So, 43% for Sanders and barely 18% for Trump.
This is why I don't come to Languish that frequently anymore. The country is falling in pieces due to 0bama's and his minions' mismanagement and people here still think socialism is a viable option.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 08, 2015, 07:05:15 AM
The shit gets crazier by the week :wacko:

(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-09-04/trump1.png)

(https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-09-04/trump4.png)

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 07:32:53 AMIt would take a pretty crazy amount of race based oppression inflicted on me and my family before I started voting based on race. Just saying.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 08, 2015, 11:03:18 AM
Whether you're putting all your eggs in the basket of the government or the free market, you're still naively putting your faith in a potentially capricious higher power.  This is why I'm a centrist and stick to fiscal conservatism in the strictest sense of "what will cost us the least amount of money."  Mercenary, sure, but I trust the market as much as I trust an intrusive government (i.e. not much).

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2015, 01:25:46 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 08, 2015, 11:03:18 AM
Whether you're putting all your eggs in the basket of the government or the free market, you're still naively putting your faith in a potentially capricious higher power.  This is why I'm a centrist and stick to fiscal conservatism in the strictest sense of "what will cost us the least amount of money."  Mercenary, sure, but I trust the market as much as I trust an intrusive government (i.e. not much).

"Faith" in the market doesn't require any positive belief in a higher power, rather the belief that individualistic, atomistic actors are acting in their own self interest.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2015, 01:25:46 PM
"Faith" in the market doesn't require any positive belief in a higher power, rather the belief that individualistic, atomistic actors are acting in their own self interest.

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 02:34:07 PM
I do not really trust the actors to do that. If they did everybody wouldn't own consumer crap and instead bank all their money...and then the economy would collapse.

Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2015, 02:38:19 PM

Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2015, 02:34:07 PM
I do not really trust the actors to do that. If they did everybody wouldn't own consumer crap and instead bank all their money...and then the economy would collapse.

Why would banking all of their money and starving to death be in someone's best interests?

For that matter, why is consumption "crap?"

Quote from: garbon on September 08, 2015, 03:01:17 PM
I have to shop till I drop to feed my soul. :Embarrass:

Quote
2016 Election   11:11 AM Sep 9, 2015

Stop Comparing Donald Trump And Bernie Sanders

By Nate Silver


A lot of people are linking the candidacies of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump under headings like "populist" and "anti-establishment." Most of these comparisons are too cute for their own good — not only because it's too early to come to many conclusions about the campaign, but also because Trump and Sanders are fundamentally different breeds of candidates who are situated very differently in their respective nomination races.

You can call both "outsiders." But if you're a Democrat, Sanders is your eccentric uncle: He has his own quirks, but he's part of the family. If you're a Republican, Trump is as familial as the vacuum salesman knocking on your door.

Consider the following. We'll start with some of the more superficial differences between Sanders and Trump and work our way to the more important ones.

1. Trump is "winning" (for now), and Sanders isn't. There are lots of reasons to suspect that Trump will fall from his position atop the GOP polls sooner or later, but he'd be a favorite to win a hypothetical national primary held today. Sanders, by contrast, trails Hillary Clinton by about 20 percentage points in national polls that include Joe Biden, and by 30 points in polls that don't.

2. Sanders is campaigning on substantive policy positions, and Trump is largely campaigning on the force of his personality. I'm not sure this assertion requires a lot of proof, but if you need some, check out the candidates' websites. Sanders's lists dozens of specific policy proposals across a wide range of issues; Trump's details his position on just one, immigration.

Screen Shot 2015-09-08 at 8.55.00 PM

3. Sanders is a career politician; Trump isn't. Let's not neglect this obvious one. Bernie Sanders has been in Congress since 1991, making him one of the most senior members of Congress; Trump has never officially run a political campaign before.

4. Trump is getting considerably more media attention. Trump is a perpetual attention machine who gets a disproportionate amount of media coverage — as much as the rest of the GOP field combined. Sanders hasn't been ignored by the press, which wants a horse race between Sanders (or Biden, or anyone!!!) and Clinton. Still, Sanders's media coverage has been paltry compared with Trump's. According to Yahoo News, Trump has received about 35,000 media "hits" in the past month, compared with about 9,000 for Sanders. For comparison, Clinton has had 18,000 hits over the same period, and Jeb Bush has had 14,000.

5. Sanders has a much better "ground game." Trump, in addition to his ubiquity on television, has some semblance of a campaign operation. But Sanders's organization is much larger and more experienced.

6. Sanders holds policy positions of a typical liberal Democrat; Trump's are all over the place. While Sanders doesn't officially call himself a Democrat — a fact that might annoy Democratic elites — he takes policy positions that are consistent with those of Democrats in Congress. In the previous Congress (113th), Sanders voted the same as liberal Democratic senators Barbara Boxer, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Sherrod Brown 95 percent of the time or more.(1) He voted with party leader Harry Reid 91 percent of the time and the expressed position of President Obama(2) 93 percent of the time. He also voted with Clinton 93 percent of the time when the two were in the Senate together.

Here are the senators Sanders voted with most and least often in the 113th Congress, according to Voteview.org:

SENATOR  MOST OFTEN  SENATOR LEAST OFTEN


Boxer (CA) 96.2% Manchin (WV) 82.1%
Markey (MA) 95.9 Baucus (MT) 87.4
Booker (NJ) 95.8 Pryor (AR) 87.6
Cantwell (WA) 95.8 Donnelly (IN) 89.9
Leahy (VT) 95.7 Hagan (NC) 90.0
Gillibrand (NY) 95.7 Heitkamp (ND) 90.2
Brown (OH) 95.7 Lautenberg (NJ) 90.6
Hirono (HI) 95.4 Tester (MT) 90.6
Menendez (NJ) 95.4 Landrieu (LA) 90.6
Stabenow (MI) 95.4 Reid (NV) 91.4

Trump's positions are harder to pin down — and he doesn't have a voting record to evaluate — but he has far more profound potential differences with the Republican orthodoxy on major issues ranging from taxation to health care to reproductive rights.

7. Sanders's support divides fairly clearly along ideological and demographic lines; Trump's doesn't. So far, Sanders has won a lot of support from white liberals — which helps him in Iowa and New Hampshire — but not so much from white moderates or non-white Democrats. Each of these groups represents about a third of the Democratic primary electorate nationally, so this makes Sanders's path to the Democratic nomination fairly easily to analyze; he'll be viable only to the extent that he gains support among the other two groups.

Trump's support, by contrast, is fairly evenly spread across a range of demographic and ideological groups that appear in Republican polls. He doesn't do especially well (or especially poorly) with "tea party" voters, for instance. There are a variety of ways to interpret this — perhaps, even, the "Trumpen proletariat" is a group all its own.

8. Sanders's candidacy has clear historical precedents; they're less obvious for Trump. Even the most formidable-seeming front-runners haven't won their nominations without some semblance of a fight. Clinton's position relative to Sanders is analogous to the one Al Gore held against Bill Bradley in the 2000 Democratic primary. Sanders's campaign also has parallels to liberal stalwarts from Howard Dean to Eugene McCarthy; these candidates can have an impact on the race, but they usually don't win the nomination.

Trump has some commonalities also: to "bandwagon" candidates like Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain; to media-savvy, factional candidates like Pat Buchanan; and to self-funded candidates like Steve Forbes. None of those candidates, however, was as openly hostile to their party as Trump is with Republicans.

9. Trump is running against a field of 16 candidates; Sanders is running against one overwhelming front-runner. Trump is also in new territory in another respect. There's never been a Republican nomination race — or for that matter a Democratic one — with so many declared candidates. Most of the Republicans are not tokenish candidates either. All but Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have served as senators or governors before, many of them in highly populous states.

This unprecedented volume of candidates helps Trump in various ways. For instance, it increases the value of differentiating yourself from the field. Unorthodox or even unpopular policy positions may help you win a faction of the Republican electorate, even if it makes you less popular within your party overall. That faction may be enough to carry the plurality in polls, leading to favorable media coverage and then creating a virtuous cycle that attracts some bandwagon voters.

Meanwhile, the abundance of candidates seems to have resulted in the Republican establishment holding off on throwing its support to any one candidate, either through endorsements or in the money race.

The Democratic establishment, by contrast, has never been so united behind any non-incumbent candidate as they are with Clinton.

10. Trump is a much greater threat to his party establishment. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that Sanders is as threatening to the Democratic establishment as Trump is to the Republican one. Sanders's policy positions, as I've mentioned, are about 95 percent the same as those of a typical liberal Democrat in Congress. And where they diverge, they push Democrats further to the left in a fairly predictable way,(3) acting as a "supersized" or slightly exaggerated version of the Democratic agenda. Indeed, while Sanders lacks support from elected Democratic officials, he has some backing from other influential constituencies within the party, such as some labor unions and liberal media outlets.

Why, then, have so few Democrats officially endorsed Sanders? First, because Clinton is extremely popular with both elite and rank-and-file Democrats. Her relative lack of competition is a sign of strength, not weakness — she won the "invisible primary" stage of the campaign. Second, because Democrats are right to be concerned about the general election prospects for Sanders, a 74-year-old self-described socialist. Third, because Sanders's agenda is hostile to moneyed interests within the Democratic Party.

But if Sanders eventually overtook Clinton, the establishment might resign itself to the prospect of nominating him. There are some loose precedents for candidates like Sanders winning their nominations, especially George McGovern in 1972 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. If you're going to sacrifice a presidential election — and Sanders would be unlikely to prevail next November(4) — you'd at least like to shift the window of discourse in your party's preferred direction.

A Trump nomination would be more of an existential threat to the Republican establishment. He bucks the establishment's consensus on issues as fundamental to the GOP as taxation and health care, and he's wobbly on abortion. Splitting with the party on any one of those issues might ordinarily disqualify a candidate. Trump potentially destabilizes the Republicans' "three-legged stool": The coalition of fiscal, social and national security conservatives have dominated the party since 1980 or so. But on the issue on which Trump is most conservative — immigration — establishment Republicans worry that he might be so reactionary as to cause long-term damage to the party brand.

Meanwhile, Trump has picked fights with sacred cows like the Club for Growth and Fox News. Most of the conservative media — from the National Review to RedState to Glenn Beck — is anti-Trump.

In certain respects, Trump is engaged in an attempted "hostile takeover" of the Republican Party. Because the downside of nominating him might be so enormous — lasting beyond a single election — the GOP establishment may fight to the death to prevent him from being chosen, even at the price of a brokered convention and a fractured party base.

What Sanders and Trump have in common is they're both unlikely to be nominated. (If I were laying odds, I'd put either one at something like 15-1 or 20-1 against.) But it's for different reasons. Sanders is losing now, but if he eventually overtakes Clinton — and if Biden fails to come to the establishment's rescue — his position might become more viable. Trump is nominally winning, but the GOP race is much more volatile. And if he doesn't lose steam on his own accord, the Republican establishment will use every tool at its disposal to stop him.


Footnotes

1.This calculation is based on roll call votes in which both Sanders and the other Democratic senator voted yea or nay, excluding those in which either one missed the vote.  ^
2.According to the DW-Nominate methodology for classifying the president's position.  ^
3.In contrast, consider the odd mix of radical and reactionary positions that Jeremy Corbyn has in the U.K.  ^
4.Unless, perhaps, he faced off against Trump!  ^

Quote from:  Winston ChurchillThe best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Quote

I tailgated with drunk Donald Trump fans at Iowa-Iowa State so you don't have to

By Kevin Trahan  @k_trahan  on Sep 13, 2015, 9:42a  19   

eet CYCLONE. We'll call him that because he would not tell me his name. He wore a white shirt with faded red and yellow stripes and a bright Iowa State-colored tie. His hair was spiked up with hair gel, and he reeked of booze.

And he was one of the main attractions at the biggest political and athletic event in the state of Iowa this week: a college football tailgate with Donald Trump. Once CYCLONE was done drunkenly harassing a fellow Iowa State fan for "not having a job," I asked him for an interview.

CYCLONE: "NO!"

ME: "Why?"

CYCLONE: "You're a Democrat. I can tell."

ME: "How can you tell?"

CYCLONE: "Because you're wearing a plaid shirt. You're a Democrat, aren't you?"

ME: "Yeah."

CYCLONE: "Yeah, go back to Univision!"

"I like him," I joked.

"I don't," CYCLONE's father replied.

Iowa and Iowa State fans don't get along when this week comes around. But for the other 51 weeks, these are neighbors, co-workers and friends, who often find common ground on politics, even when they can't on football. And the Trump Tailgate did manage to bring some rivals together for the common causes of Trump, for or against.

Meet HAWKEYE. He was more amicable than CYCLONE, but under the advice of his less-drunk friends, he would likewise not tell me his name. He wore an Iowa polo and a signature Trump "Make America Great Again" hat, with a Coors Light in hand. I asked him why he supported Trump, and he gave the standard response: Trump's not politically correct, he's a good businessman, he's not afraid of anyone, etc.

Then he leaned in and said, "To be honest, man, we're just here to get fucked up."

Getting fucked up is really the whole point of football if you're an Iowa or Iowa State fan. The football isn't fun, but the drinking is. And heated arguing is what a political event is supposed to be about.

Iowans, living in a tone-setting battleground state, are used to having bits of everyday life interjected with politics. Candidates go to the state fair and admire the butter cow. They go to that one restaurant in town, the one people don't really go to, the one that's still a staple because it was 50 years ago. These are safe and boring photo ops.

A Trump Tailgate is neither of those things. It pits two opinionated groups against each other, plus drinking for hours on end. There were no promotional photos, no meet-and-greets with fans too inebriated to participate.

Sadly, this was not a tailgate just for Trump. It was run by the Republican Party of Story County, but there was only one reason anyone was there.

"Tell that scrub to get to the side. We've got Trump coming!" said one guy when Wisconsin governor Scott Walker appeared. Another yelled at the balding candidate about Rogaine. One woman, a self-described Republican, had no idea who Walker was, and the only semi-excited person was a drunk man who told his daughter to shake "Mike Walker's" hand.

If there's anyone who had to really hate this tailgate (booze wasn't provided by the GOP, of course, so it's only a tailgate because of its surroundings), it was the campaign workers. They're unpaid, mostly college students, and live in constant fear that whatever they say will ruin their candidate's campaign.

Like the two guys in Jeb! shirts. A curious Hawkeye fan made the mistake of asking about Bush, and after listening for a good five minutes, the fan thought he'd figured it out.

"So he's the anti-Trump," he said.

"NOOOOOOOOOO," the campaigners screamed in horror.

There were were the Mike Huckabros. They had their hair combed nicely, wore button-downs and looked terrified of what they were witnessing. They were from Georgia, the only information they were willing to share.

There was a small, vocal group of protestors, led mostly by students against Trump. The ever-drunker crowd mocked them more and more. A middle-aged man in a Cyclones shirt to a protestor in non-team clothing:

"You don't support a candidate. You support an idea. An idea can't run. How about Deez Nuts? He comes from Iowa."

"Yeah, that's great," the protestor replied.

Said student protestor Michelle Ramos, "I have to work Saturdays. I'm not a big tailgater. I love my team. Go State or whatever, but I have to work to be able to go to school here."

The drunk crowd showed up later, but at the beginning, there was actually a number of Trump supporters milling about — "all dudes," much to one reporter's chagrin — and defending their renegade leader. Tyler Steiner and Jake Rudeen, both ISU students, wore blue Trump shirts.

"I'm a big fan of his one-liners," Steiner said.

Joining Steiner and Rudeen was their roommate, Ray Washington. But he wasn't there to support anybody.

"I know Trump's gonna have fun," he said.

★★★

About 45 minutes before Trump's scheduled arrival, the crowd had multiplied to quadruple digits. We stood around the Field of Dreams-inspired backdrop for two hours, where increasingly inebriated fans exchanged ideas.
•"I love to look at (FOX's Megyn Kelly), but now I see her true inner side."
•"I don't (support Trump) at all. I just like trolling people. I'm drunk. I love trolling people."
•"I won't vote for him, but I'm gonna shake his hand so I might be on his show some day. What's his show called?"
•One drunk fan who nearly fell into Walker and had a "Don't Make A (Democrat Donkey) Out Of Yourself" shirt on.
•This shirt: [Just say no to Hillary]

The mob was more akin to a group of fans ready to rush the field after a big win than it was to any political setting. Drunk fans stumbled over each other, moving around in hope of getting in front of the one small audio speaker. I asked one veteran political reporter from Washington, DC., whether she had ever seen a rally with supporters this drunk.

"Not this early," she said.

Fans broke out into cheers and sat on shoulders and truck beds, hoping to spot the hero of the hour. Angst set in: was The Donald really going to show? An event organizer told the crowd that it would be half-an-hour to four hours, since a crowd this big was now a security threat. Some dispersed.

Trump wasn't going to show up to his own tailgate.

But as I came back around the bend, I was nearly run over by a stampede of cheering fans and media members. There he was, emerging from the stadium, wearing a tieless suit and a camo "Make America Great Again" hat. Despite being mobbed for autographs and handshakes, he marched through the Jack Trice Stadium parking lots.

The speech lasted less than a minute. It was the most vanilla of any candidate's. It touched on no issues, and he asked no questions, other than whom everyone was cheering for. It was a christening, not a stump speech.

Once he stepped down from his throne, he beelined for a waiting SUV.

"I touched him!" yelled one girl, telling anyone who would listen. Trump actually showed up. To a tailgate basically in his honor. At the Iowa-Iowa State game. To cheer with a bunch of drunk fans.

No matter our politics, there's one thing we can all agree on: this sure as hell has never happened before.

Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2015, 09:49:54 AM
College Football is a wonderful thing  :cry:

I wonder if David Cameron ever goes drinking with soccer hooligans.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 15, 2015, 12:08:58 AM
Woo! America! :punk:

Quote
Party Rules to Streamline Race May Backfire for G.O.P.


By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JONATHAN MARTIN
SEPTEMBER 19, 2015

LOS ANGELES — When gloomy Republican Party leaders regrouped after President Obama's 2012 re-election, they were intent on enhancing the party's chances of winning back the White House. The result: new rules to head off a prolonged and divisive nomination fight, and to make certain the Republican standard-bearer is not pulled too far to the right before Election Day.

But as the sprawling class of 2016 Republican presidential candidates tumbled out of their chaotic second debate last week, it was increasingly clear that those rule changes — from limiting the number of debates to adjusting how delegates are allocated — had failed to bring to the nominating process the order and speed that party leaders had craved.

In interviews, Republican leaders and strategists said that rather than having a presumptive nominee by early 2016, who could turn to the tasks of raising money and making the case against the Democratic candidates, it was doubtful that a candidate would be in place before late spring — or even before Republicans gather for their convention in Cleveland in July.

And they said they were increasingly convinced that Donald J. Trump could exploit openings created by the party's revised rules to capture the nomination or, short of that, to amass enough delegates to be a power broker at the convention.


"You've got a set of unintended consequences that weren't planned for," said Richard F. Hohlt, a Republican donor and Washington lobbyist. "So it's going to be harder for a candidate to get to the magic number, which could open up the process to a convention situation."


To some extent, this reflects forces beyond the party's control. Conservative activists have shown little appetite for Republicans who play by traditional rules. They, and the right-tilting candidates they are supporting, may be in even less of a mood to acquiesce at a time when Republican leaders in Washington, despite controlling both houses in Congress, have been unable to stop or even slow Mr. Obama's nuclear accord with Iran, and are struggling in their bid to deny funding to Planned Parenthood.

More than ever, too, the party is grappling with campaign finance laws that allow candidates with wealthy private backers, such as former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, to stay in the race even if they do poorly in early nominating contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But the evolving Republican landscape also suggests that the party's changes, like squeezing primaries into a shorter period in hopes that one candidate would break through, are proving no match for a field this big and rambunctious, powered by the forces of populism and anger at Washington, and financed by wealthy benefactors.


As a result, the campaigns are preparing for a marathon delegate battle, and have begun building organizations in territories as far-flung as Guam and American Samoa. An adviser to Mr. Cruz's campaign, Dennis Lennox, has island-hopped through the Pacific this month, discussing local issues like the airfares between Honolulu and Pago Pago, in search of a stray delegate who might support the senator. And on a conference call with donors the morning after Wednesday's debate, Danny Diaz, the manager for Mr. Bush's campaign, ran down its operations in states well beyond New Hampshire and Iowa, according to a participant on the call.

The prospect of a long and contentious nomination fight is only one reason for concern. The three-hour debate, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library near here, suggested that Republican leaders had yet to realize their hope of keeping primary contenders from moving far to the right, complicating a general election bid, as happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The candidates staked out conservative positions on a variety of topics — immigration, abortion, same-sex marriage and vaccinations for children — that, if appealing in such early Republican states as Iowa and South Carolina, could prove problematic in a general election.

In the starkest sign of how unsettled the situation is, what once seemed unthinkable — that Mr. Trump could win the Republican nomination — is being treated by many within the Republican establishment as a serious possibility. And one reason his candidacy seems strong is a change by the party in hopes of ending the process earlier: making it possible for states to hold contests in which the winner receives all the delegates, rather than a share based on the vote, starting March 15, two weeks earlier than in the last cycle. Ten states have said they will do so.

If Mr. Trump draws one-third of the Republican primary vote, as recent polls suggest he will, that could be enough to win in a crowded field. After March 15, he could begin amassing all the delegates in a given state even if he carried it with only a third of the vote. And the later it gets, the harder it becomes for a lead in delegates to be overcome, with fewer state contests remaining in which trailing candidates can attempt comebacks.

"Somebody like Trump, who is operating in a crowded field, could put this contest away early if the crowd doesn't thin out," said Eric Fehrnstrom, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Romney.

Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Senator John McCain of Arizona when he ran for president in 2008, said Mr. Trump could also be helped by the fact that candidates like Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, with thinner financial resources and therefore likelier to run out of money, are, like Mr. Trump, political outsiders. So their supporters would be more inclined to fall in behind Mr. Trump than, say, Mr. Bush or Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

"There is a bubble of delusion among Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., with regard to their parties' respective nominating processes," Mr. Schmidt said. "There is no magic date upon which the air will come out of the Donald Trump balloon. The notion that Donald Trump cannot be the Republican nominee is completely and totally wrong."

The Republican rule changes reflected the lessons learned from Mr. Romney's defeat, after a long primary fight left him short of money and pulled to the right on issues, weakening him among undecided voters when he faced Mr. Obama. The party compressed its nominating calendar to try to make the process end sooner, limited the number of debates, moved the convention to July from August, barred all but the traditional early nominating states from holding contests until March and shortened the period in which states could hold primaries or caucuses that award delegates proportionally.


But this was a remedy for a very different campaign from the one now being waged. With 15 candidates in the field, and Mr. Trump at the center of the action, the debates have become ratings bonanzas for the networks and drawn record-setting viewership. And many states, eager to play a more influential role, seized the opportunity to schedule their nominating contests earlier. Eight states in the conservative-dominated South, where insurgent candidates like Mr. Trump could do well, have created a Super Tuesday on March 1, when delegates must still be awarded proportionally.

"It's going to go on for a while," said Karl Rove, a Republican strategist, noting how many delegates will have been distributed after the March 1 contests. "What happens if you have 30 percent of delegates already allocated and nobody has more than 25 percent of them?"

In Washington, some longtime Republican hands have begun conversations about how to handle a race that could last through the last day of voting on June 7, when five states representing about 15 percent of all delegates, including California and New Jersey, cast their ballots.

Republicans say the unpredictable Mr. Trump's intentions are difficult to discern, speculating that he may not be willing to endure a monthslong delegate chase, and it remains unclear whether he has the organization to pull off any delegate wins.

But the fact that discussions about such arcane matters as bound versus unbound delegates are already taking place underscores the potential for chaos.

It also represents a grudging concession that Mr. Trump may not fade from the scene — and that even if he ultimately loses, he is likely to have enough delegates to be a force at the convention.

"There's a growing sense that Donald is going to be in the final four," said Phil Musser, a Republican strategist. "That means Donald with delegates. And Donald with delegates means an enhanced ability to shape the race."

Some Republicans still wince when recalling how Pat Buchanan's 1992 challenge to President George Bush resulted in his winning a prime-time speaking slot at the convention that renominated Mr. Bush.

"And that set the tone for the election," Mr. Hohlt recalled of Mr. Buchanan's fiery speech. "Do we end up again in one of those kinds of deals?"

QuoteAs the summer of Donald Trump came to its end — and the prospect of a springtime for Trump no longer seemed like a gag — the quest to explain the billionaire's runaway clown car went into overdrive. How could a crass, bigoted bully with a narcissistic-personality disorder and policy views bordering on gibberish "defy political gravity," dominate the national stage, make monkeys out of pundits and pollsters, and pose an existential threat to one of America's two major parties?

Of course, it was the news media's fault: The Washington Post charted the correlation between Trump's national polling numbers and his disproportionate press coverage. Or maybe the public was to blame: Op-ed writers dusted off their sermons about Americans' childish infatuation with celebrities and reality television. Or perhaps Trump was just the GOP's answer to the "outsider" Bernie Sanders — even though Sanders, unlike Trump, has a coherent ideology and has spent nearly a quarter-century of his so-called outsider's career in Congress. Still others riffled through historical precedents, from the third-party run of the cranky billionaire Ross Perot back to Huey Long and Father Charles Coughlin, the radio-savvy populist demagogues of the Great Depression. Or might Trump be the reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy (per the Times' Thomas Friedman), Hugo Chávez (the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens), or that avatar of white-racist resentment, George Wallace (George Will)? The historian Richard Hofstadter's Goldwater-era essay on "the paranoid style" in American politics was once again in vogue.

In the midst of all the hand-wringing from conservatives and liberals alike, Politico convened a panel of historians to adjudicate. Two authoritative chroniclers of 20th-century American populism and race, Alan Brinkley of Columbia and David Blight of Yale, dismissed the parallels. Brinkley, the author of the definitive book on Long and Coughlin (Voices of Protest), said Trump was a first in American politics, a presidential candidate with no "belief system other than the certainty that anything he says is right." Blight said Trump's "real antecedents are in Mark Twain" — in other words, fictional characters, and funny ones.

There is indeed a lighter way to look at Trump's rise and his impact on the country. Far from being an apocalyptic harbinger of the end-times, it's possible that his buffoonery poses no lasting danger. Quite the contrary: His unexpected monopoly of center stage may well be the best thing to happen to our politics since the arrival of Barack Obama.


In the short time since Trump declared his candidacy, he has performed a public service by exposing, however crudely and at times inadvertently, the posturings of both the Republicans and the Democrats and the foolishness and obsolescence of much of the political culture they share. He is, as many say, making a mockery of the entire political process with his bull-in-a-china-shop antics. But the mockery in this case may be overdue, highly warranted, and ultimately a spur to reform rather than the crime against civic order that has scandalized those who see him, in the words of the former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, as "dangerous to democracy."

Trump may be injecting American democracy with steroids. No one, after all, is arguing that the debates among the GOP presidential contenders would be drawing remotely their Game of Thrones-scale audiences if the marquee stars were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker. When most of the field — minus Trump — appeared ahead of the first debate at a New Hampshire forum broadcast on C-SPAN, it caused little more stir than a soporific pageant of congressional backbenchers addressing the empty floor of the House. Without Trump, even a relatively tame Trump, would anyone have sat through even a third of the three-hour-plus trainwreck that CNN passed off as the second debate?

What has made him more entertaining than his peers is not his superficial similarities to any historical analogues or his shopworn celebrity. His passport to political stardom has been his uncanny resemblance to a provocative fictional comic archetype that has been an invigorating staple of American movies since Vietnam and Watergate ushered in wholesale disillusionment with Washington four decades ago. That character is a direct descendant of Twain's 19th-century confidence men: the unhinged charlatan who decides to blow up the system by running for office — often the presidency — on a platform of outrageous pronouncements and boorish behavior. Trump has taken that role, the antithesis of the idealist politicians enshrined by Frank Capra and Aaron Sorkin, and run with it. He bestrides our current political landscape like the reincarnation not of Joe McCarthy (that would be Ted Cruz) but of Jay Billington Bulworth.

Trump's shenanigans sometimes seem to be lifted directly from the eponymous 1998 movie, in which Warren Beatty plays a senator from California who abandons his scripted bromides to take up harsh truth-telling in rap: "Wells Fargo and Citibank, you're really very dear / Loan billions to Mexico and never have to fear / 'Cause taxpayers take it in the rear." Bulworth insults the moderators of a television debate, addresses his Hollywood donors as "big Jews," and infuriates a black constituent by telling her he'll ignore her unless she shells out to his campaign. Larry King, cast as himself, books him on his show because "people are sick and tired of all this baloney" and crave an unplugged politician who calls Washington "a disaster."

Trump also sounds like Hal Phillip Walker, the unseen candidate of the "Replacement Party" whose campaign aphorisms percolate throughout Robert Altman's post-Watergate state-of-the-union comic epic, Nashville (1975). His platform includes eliminating farm subsides, taxing churches, banning lawyers from government, and jettisoning the national anthem because "nobody knows the words, nobody can sing it, nobody understands it." (Francis Scott Key was a lawyer.) In résumé and beliefs, Trump is even closer to the insurgent candidate played by Tim Robbins and reviled as "a crypto-fascist clown" in the mockumentary Bob Roberts (1992) — a self-congratulatory right-wing Wall Street success story, beauty-pageant aficionado, and folksinging star whose emblematic song is titled "Retake America." Give Trump time, and we may yet find him quoting the accidental president played by Chris Rock in Head of State (2003): "If America was a woman, she would be a big-tittied woman. Everybody loves a big-tittied woman!"

Thanks to Trump, this character has leaped off the screen into real life, like the Hollywood leading man in Woody Allen's The Purple Rose of Cairo. As a human torpedo blasting through the 2016 campaign, Trump can inflict more damage, satirical and otherwise, than any fictional prototype ever could. In his great comic novel of 1959, The Magic Christian, Terry Southern anticipated just the kind of ruckus a Trump could make. Southern's protagonist is a billionaire named Guy Grand who spends his fortune on elaborate pranks to disrupt almost every sector of American life — law enforcement, advertising, newspapers, movies, television, sports, the space program. Like Trump, he operates on the premise that everyone can be bought. In one typical venture, he pays the actor playing "an amiable old physician" on a live network medical drama a million bucks to stop in mid-surgery and tell the audience that if he speaks "one more line of this drivel," he'll "vomit right into that incision I've made." The network, FCC, and press go into a tizzy until viewers, hoping to see more such outrages, start rewarding the show with record ratings.

There have already been some modest precedents for Trump's real-life prank — most recently, Stephen Colbert, who staged a brief stunt run for president in 2007. The comic Pat Paulsen, a Smothers Brothers acolyte, ran for president intermittently from 1968 into the '90s, aiming to call attention to the absurdity of politics. His first run was under the banner of the STAG (Straight Talking American Government) Party; later, he ran consecutively as a Republican and a Democrat. ("I like to mix it up," he explained.) Paulsen came in a (very) distant second to Bill Clinton in the 1996 New Hampshire primary, one of four primaries where he qualified for the ballot that year. But a judge threw him off the ballot in California, declaring, "I do not want to reduce the campaign for an important office like president of the United States to some kind of farce."

Some kind of farce, nonetheless, is just what the modern presidential campaign has devolved into. By calling attention to that sorry state of affairs 24/7, Trump's impersonation of a crypto-fascist clown is delivering the most persuasively bipartisan message of 2016.


Trump lacks the comic chops of a Colbert or Paulsen, and, unlike the screenwriters of movies like Bulworth and Nashville, he is witless. His instrument of humor is the bitch-slap, blunt and cruel — Don Rickles dumbed down to the schoolyard. But when he hits a worthy target and exerts himself beyond his usual repertoire of lazy epithets (Loser! Dope! Slob!), he is funny, in part because his one-liners have the ring of truth. When Eric Cantor endorsed Jeb Bush, Trump asked, "Who wants the endorsement of a guy who lost in perhaps the greatest upset in the history of Congress?" When Trump's presidential rivals attended a David and Charles Koch retreat, he tweeted: "I wish good luck to all of the Republican candidates that traveled to California to beg for money etc. from the Koch brothers. Puppets?" Twitter inspires his best material, as does Bush. Among Trump's many Bush put-downs is this classic: "Why would you pay a man $1.3 million a year for a no-show job at Lehman Brothers — which, when it folded, almost took the world with it?" The exclamation point in Bush's sad campaign logo, JEB!, has effectively been downsized to a semicolon by Trump's insistence on affixing the modifier "low-energy" to his name every chance he gets.

The most significant Trump insult thus far is the one that heralded his hostile takeover of the GOP. The target was Reince Priebus, the overmatched Republican National Committee chairman. Following the debacle of 2012, Priebus had vowed that his party would reach out to minorities and curb the xenophobic and misogynist invective that drives away the voters without whom it cannot win national elections. When Trump lampooned John McCain's sacred record as a POW as gleefully as Republicans had Swift Boated John Kerry, the chairman saw his best-laid plans for a "big tent" GOP imperiled by an unauthorized sideshow. "Party donors," no doubt with his blessing, let it be known to the Washington Post that, in a lengthy phone conversation, he had persuaded Trump to "tone it down." Hardly had the story surfaced when Trump shot it down: He said Priebus's call had been brief and flattering, and that he hadn't agreed to change a thing. As Priebus beat a hasty retreat, Trump joked that manipulating him wasn't exactly like "dealing with a five-star Army general." Soon the chastened chairman was proclaiming Trump a "net positive" for his party. When Trump deigned to sign a faux legal document pledging not to run as a third-party candidate, Priebus had to show up at Trump Tower to bear witness, like a lackey summoned to an audience with the boss. That "pledge" served Trump's immediate goal of securing his spot on primary ballots, but come next year it will carry no more weight than a certificate from the now-defunct Trump University.

Trump's ability to reduce the head of his adopted party to a comic functionary out of a Gilbert-and-Sullivan operetta is typical of his remarkable success in exposing Republican weakness and hypocrisy. The party Establishment has been trying to erect a firewall against the onslaught by claiming, as George Will has it, that Trump is a "counterfeit" Republican and that even "the assumption that today's Trumpites are Republicans is unsubstantiated and implausible." Thus voters should discount Trump's "bimbo" tweets, anti-immigration fulminations, and rants about Mexican "rapists" as a wild man's ravings that don't represent a party that reveres women, welcomes immigrants, and loves Hispanics. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, in its own effort to inoculate the GOP from Trump, disparages him as a "casino magnate" — an epithet it doesn't hurl at Sheldon Adelson, the still-bigger casino magnate who serves as sugar daddy to the neocon hawks the Journal favors.

Trump does take heretical economic positions for a Republican — "The hedge-fund guys are getting away with murder!" — but on the matters of race, women, and immigration that threaten the GOP's future viability in nonwhite, non-male America, he is at one with his party's base. What he does so rudely is call the GOP's bluff by saying loudly, unambiguously, and repeatedly the ugly things that other Republican politicians try to camouflage in innuendo, focus-group-tested euphemisms, and consultantspeak.

In reality, Trump's most noxious views have not only been defended by conservative stars like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and late summer's No. 1 best-selling nonfiction author, the radio host Mark Levin, but also by the ostensibly more "mainstream" Republican candidates. Trump is picking up where his vocal fan Sarah Palin left off and is for that reason by far the favored candidate of tea-party Republicans, according to a Labor Day CNN-ORC poll. Take Trump's peddling of "birtherism," for instance. It's been a right-wing cause since well before he took it up; even Mitt Romney dipped into that racist well in 2012. It took a village of birthers to get Republicans to the point where only 29 percent of them now believe that Obama was born in America (and 54 percent identify him as a Muslim), according to an August survey by Public Policy Polling. Far from being a fake Republican, Trump speaks for the party's overwhelming majority.

Charles Krauthammer, another conservative apoplectic about Trump's potential to sabotage the GOP's 2016 chances, is arguing that Trump's incendiary immigration stand is also counterfeit Republicanism — an aberrational "policy innovation." The only problem is that Cruz, Walker, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson have all supported Trump's "policy innovation" calling for an end to the "birthright citizenship" guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. In Pew's latest survey on the issue — taken in May, before Trump was in the race — 47 percent of Republicans agreed as well. Even more Republicans (62 percent) support building a wall along the Mexican border (as does Krauthammer), much as they did in 2012 when Herman Cain did Trump one better by proposing an "electrified fence." Trump's draconian call for deporting illegal immigrants en masse is also genuine, not counterfeit, Republicanism. Romney had not only argued for "self-deportation" in his last presidential campaign but in 2008 had called for newly arrived illegal immigrants to be deported immediately and for the rest to be given just enough time "to organize their affairs and go home."

With women, too, Trump embarrasses the GOP by saying in public what "real" Republicans keep private. The telling moment in the Fox News debate was not when Megyn Kelly called him out for slurring women as "fat pigs" and "dogs" but the cheers from the audience at Trump's retort, in which he directed those same epithets at Rosie O'Donnell. (No one onstage protested.) When Trump attacked Kelly the next day in language that seemed to refer to menstruation, most of his GOP rivals made a show of rallying around Kelly. But the party's real stand on the sanctity of female biology had been encapsulated in the debate by Walker's and Marco Rubio's endorsement of a ban on abortions for women who have been raped or risk dying in childbirth. No wonder Trump's bloodying of Kelly gave him another uptick in polls of Republican voters.

Republican potentates can't fight back against him because the party's base has his back. He's ensnared the GOP Establishment in a classic Catch-22: It wants Trump voters — it can't win elections without them — but doesn't want Trump calling attention to what those voters actually believe. Poor Bush, once the Establishment's great legacy hope, is so ill-equipped to pander to the base that he outdid Trump in defending the nativist term anchor babies by applying it to Asians as well as Mexicans. (Bush also started mimicking Trump's vilification of hedge-fund managers.) The candidates who have gone after Trump with the greatest gusto — Graham, Paul, Carly Fiorina, Jindal, George Pataki — have been so low in the polls they had nothing to lose. (Even so, all except Fiorina have fallen farther after doing so — or, in Rick Perry's case, fallen out of the race altogether.) The others were painfully slow to challenge him. That cowardice was foretold in June when most of the presidential field waited days to take a stand against the Confederate flag following the Charleston massacre. If they're afraid to come out against slavery a century after Appomattox, it only follows that they'd cower before a billionaire who insults his male adversaries' manhood as reflexively as he attacks women's looks. As Steve Schmidt, the 2008 McCain campaign manager, has said, Trump had all but emasculated Bush by the time Bush belatedly started fighting back. In the second debate, Fiorina finished the job by counterpunching Trump with more vigor than Bush could muster.


All of this should make Democrats feel pretty confident about 2016. A couple of conspiracy theorists on the right have speculated that Trump is a Hillary Clinton plant. But Trump has hurt Clinton too. Her penchant for dodging controversial questions — fracking, the Keystone pipeline, the Trans-Pacific trade pact — looks still worse when contrasted with Trump's shoot-from-the-hip decisiveness. Even when asked to name her favorite ice-cream flavor during a July appearance at a New Hampshire Dairy Twirl, she could do no better than "I like nearly everything."

It's not a coincidence that the Joe Biden buzz heated up just as Trump started taking off. The difference between Clinton's and Biden's views is negligible, but some Democrats may be in the market for a candidate of their own who will wander off the reservation and say anything in the echt Trump manner. Yesterday's "gaffes" are today's authenticity. Whatever happens with Biden, the Clinton campaign seems oblivious to the possibility that Trump is a double-edged sword, exposing her weaknesses even as he undermines the GOP. When he boasted in the Fox News debate that the Clintons had no choice but to attend his last wedding because he had given them money, he reduced the cloudy questions about transactions between the Clinton Foundation and its donors to a primal quid pro quo that any voter can understand.

As the Trump fallout has rained down on Clinton, so it has on the news media and political pros who keep writing his premature obituary. He has been dismissed as a lackluster also-ran in both debates — compared to the "impressive" Fiorina, Rubio, John Kasich, whoever. No one seems to have considered that more Republican primary voters may have cared about Tom Brady's endorsement of Trump hours before the CNN debate than the substance of the event itself. Throughout, Trump's rise has been accompanied by a veritable "Dewey Defeats Truman" festival. After the McCain smackdown in July, political analysts at the Times, the Washington Post, and CNN all declared that he had reached a "turning point" presaging his demise. The Times'version of this consensus ran as a column in "The Upshot," the paper's rubric for data-driven reporting. It argued that because Republican "elites" had been outraged by the incident, it would "probably mark the moment when Trump's candidacy went from boom to bust." This conclusion ultimately proved no more predictive than the ostensibly data-driven Literary Digest poll proclaiming Alf Landon the certain victor over FDR in 1936. Given the hostility of the GOP base to elites in general and McCain in particular (unless he's on a ticket with Palin), it was a better-than-even bet that Trump's numbers would go up, as they did.

An "Upshot" entry almost two weeks after the Fox News debate dug in further: "The Most Important Story in the G.O.P. Race Isn't About Donald Trump." The more important story, it turned out, was the relative "boomlets" for the not-Trump candidates. But Trump continued to be the most important story, not least because of how he kept drowning out the supposed boomlets of the other candidates. Trump, we've been told, is sucking the oxygen out of a GOP contest whose other contenders constitute a "deep bench of talent" (the Times) and "an embarrassment of riches" (Peggy Noonan). But Trump is the oxygen of the GOP race, and that deep bench's embarrassing inability to compete with him is another important story. Even so, guardians of journalistic propriety (and some readers) have implored the upscale press to resist emulating cable news and stop paying Trump so much attention. Some journalists who condescended to write about him have asked forgiveness for momentarily forsaking sober policy debate and stooping so low. The Huffington Post announced it was relegating Trump coverage to the Entertainment section.

That summer of denial is now kaput, but many of the press's usual empirical tools are impotent against Trump. Columnists and editorial writers across the political spectrum can keep preaching to their own choirs about how vile he is, but they are not likely being read, let alone heeded, by Trump fans. Diligent analyses of his policy inconsistencies are built on a false premise because Trump has almost no policies, just ad hoc opinions that by his own account he forms mainly by reading newspapersor watching Sunday talk shows. When writers for both the Times and Journal op-ed pages analyzed Trumponomics, they produced the same verdict: Nothing Trump said added up. Kimberley Strassel, a conservative columnist at the Journal who regards the Republican field as "teeming with serious candidates," has complained that Trump is "not policy knowledgeable." That's for sure. You won't catch him following the example of "serious" candidates like Fiorina, Rubio, and Walker, who regurgitate the boilerplate drilled into them by foreign-policy tutors. Why bother, Trump explains, since "one of the problems with foreign policy is it changes on a daily basis." Such thinking, or anti-thinking, may not win over anyone at the Aspen Institute or the American Enterprise Institute, but does anyone seriously doubt that it plays to much of the Republican-primary electorate? That's precisely what is spooking conservatives like Strassel.


What's exhilarating, even joyous, about Trump has nothing to do with his alternately rancid and nonsensical positions on policy. It's that he's exposing the phoniness of our politicians and the corruption of our political process by defying the protocols of the whole game. He skips small-scale meet-and-greets in primary-state living rooms and diners. He turned down an invitation to appear at the influential freshman senator Joni Ernst's hog roast in Iowa. He routinely denigrates sacred GOP cows like Karl Rove and the Club for Growth. He has blown off the most powerful newspapers in the crucial early states of Iowa (the Des Moines Register) and New Hampshire (the Union-Leader) and paid no political price for it. Yet he is overall far more accessible to the press than most candidates — most conspicuously Clinton — which in turn saves him from having to buy television ad time.

It's as if Trump were performing a running burlesque of the absurd but intractable conventions of presidential campaigns in real time. His impact on our politics post-2016 could be as serious as he is not. Unsurprisingly, the shrewdest description of the Trump show's appeal has come from an actor, Owen Wilson. "You can't help but get a kick out of him," he told the Daily Beast, "and I think part of it is we're so used to politicians on both sides sounding like actors at press junkets — it's sort of by rote, and they say all the right things. So here's somebody who's not following that script. It's like when Charlie Sheen was doing that stuff." As Wilson says, for all the efforts to dismiss Trump as an entertainer, in truth it's his opponents who are more likely to be playacting, reciting their politically correct and cautious lines by rote. The political market for improvisational candor is as large as it was after Vietnam and Watergate, and right now Trump pretty much has a monopoly on it.

He also makes a sport of humiliating high-end campaign gurus. When Sam Clovis, a powerful Evangelical conservative activist in Iowa, jumped from the cratering Perry to Trump in August, it seemed weird. Despite saying things like "I'm strongly into the Bible," Trump barely pretends to practice any religion. The Des Moines Register soon published excerpts from emails written just five weeks earlier (supplied by Perry allies) in which Clovis had questioned Trump's "moral center" and lack of "foundation in Christ" and praised Perry for calling Trump "a cancer on conservatism." But, like Guy Grand in The Magic Christian, Trump figured correctly that money spoke louder than Christ to Clovis. He was no less shrewd in bringing the focus-group entrepreneur Frank Luntz to heel. After Luntz convened a negative post-debate panel on Fox News that, in Luntz's view, signaled "the destruction" of Trump's campaign, Trump showered him with ridicule. Luntz soon did a Priebus-style about-face and convened a new panel that amounted to a Trump lovefest. One participant praised Trump for not mouthing "that crap" that's been "pushed to us for the past 40 years." It's unclear if Luntz was aware of the irony of his having been a major (and highly compensated) pusher of "that crap," starting with his role in contriving the poll-shaped pablum of Newt Gingrich's bogus "Contract With America."

A perfect paradigm of how lame old-school, top-heavy campaigns can be was crystallized by a single story on the front page of the Times the day after Labor Day. Its headline said it all: "Clinton Aides Set New Focus for Campaign — A More Personal Tone of Humor and Heart." By announcing this "new focus" to the Times, which included "new efforts to bring spontaneity" to a candidacy that "sometimes seems wooden," these strategists were at once boasting of their own (supposed) political smarts and denigrating their candidate, who implicitly was presented as incapable of being human without their direction and scripts. Hilariously enough, the article straight-facedly cited as expert opinion the former Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom — whose stewardship of the most wooden candidate in modern memory has apparently vanished into a memory hole — to hammer home the moral that "what matters is you appear genuine."

We also learned from this piece that Clinton would soon offer "a more contrite tone" when discussing her email woes, because a focus group "revealed that voters wanted to hear directly from Mrs. Clinton" about it. The aides, who gave the Times "extensive interviews," clearly thought that this story was a plus for their candidate, and maybe the candidate did, too, since she didn't fire them on the spot. They all seemed unaware of the downside of portraying Clinton as someone who delegated her "heart" to political operatives and her calibration of contrition to a focus group. By offering a stark contrast to such artifice, the spontaneous, unscripted Trump is challenging the validity and value of the high-priced campaign strategists, consultants, and pollsters who dominate our politics, shape journalistic coverage, and persuade even substantial candidates to outsource their souls to focus groups and image doctors. That brand of politics has had a winning run ever since the young television producer Roger Ailes used his media wiles to create a "new Nixon" in 1968. But in the wake of Trump's "unprofessional" candidacy, many of the late-20th-century accoutrements of presidential campaigns, often tone-deaf and counterproductive in a new era where social media breeds insurgencies like Obama's, Trump's and Sanders's, could be swept away — particularly if Clinton's campaign collapses.

Another change Trump may bring about is a GOP rethinking of its embrace of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision unleashing unlimited campaign contributions. Citizens United was supposed to be a weapon wielded mainly against Democrats, but Trump is using it as a club to bludgeon Republicans. "I'm using my own money," he said when announcing his candidacy. "I'm not using lobbyists, I'm not using donors. I don't care. I'm really rich." By Washington etiquette, it's a no-no for a presidential candidate to gloat about his wealth. Especially if you're a wealthy Republican, it's axiomatic that you follow the George H.W. Bush template of pretending to savor pork rinds. But Trump has made a virtue of flaunting his fortune and glitzy lifestyle — and not just because that's the authentic Trump. His self-funding campaign may make him more effective than any Democrat in turning Citizens United into a political albatross for those who are enslaved to it.

Having no Citizens United–enabled political-action committee frees him to remind voters daily that his Republican adversaries are bought and paid for by anonymous wealthy donors. The notion of a billionaire playing this populist card may seem counterintuitive, but paradoxically Trump's populism is enhanced by the source of his own billions. His signature business, real-estate development, is concrete, literally so: He builds big things, thus visibly creating jobs, and stamps his name on them in uppercase gold lest anyone forget (even when he hasn't actually built them and doesn't actually own them). This instantly separates him from the "hedge-fund guys" and all the other unpopular one percenters who trade in intangible and suspect financial "products," facilitate the outsourcing of American jobs, and underwrite much of the Republican presidential field and party infrastructure, to some of the Republican-primary electorate's dismay. The simplicity and transparency of Trump's campaign funding are going to make it harder for his rivals — and perhaps future presidential candidates — to defend their dependence on shadowy, plutocratic, and politically toxic PAC donors.


The best news about Trump is that he is wreaking this havoc on the status quo while having no chance of ascending to the presidency. You can't win the Electoral College in 2016 by driving away women, Hispanics, blacks, and Asian-Americans, no matter how large the margins you pile up in deep-red states. Republicans who have started fretting that he'd perform as Barry Goldwater did on Election Day in 1964 have good reason to worry.

But Goldwater won the nomination in the first place by rallying a disaffected hard-right base that caught the GOP Establishment by surprise, much as the remnants of that Establishment were blindsided by Ronald Reagan's insurgency that almost denied the nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976. Trump's ascent, like the Goldwater and Reagan rebellions, makes it less likely that the divide between the GOP's angriest grassroots and the party elites who write the checks will be papered over in 2016, as it was by the time the 2008 and 2012 Republican conventions came to order.

Probable as it may be that Trump's poll numbers will fade and that he will flame out before the Republicans convene in Cleveland in July, it's not a sure thing. If the best his intraparty adversaries can come up with as dragon slayers are his fellow outsiders — the joyless scold Fiorina, who presided over the firing of 30,000 Hewlett-Packard workers (a bounteous gift to Democratic attack ads), or the low-low-energy Carson, who has never run anything except an operating room — that means they have no plan. And thanks to another unintended consequence of the GOP's Citizens United "victory," the PACs it enables will keep hopeless presidential candidates financially afloat no matter how poorly they are faring in polls and primaries, thereby crippling the party's ability to unite early behind a single anti-Trump alternative. In a worst-case scenario, the GOP could reach the spring stretch with the party's one somebody still ahead of a splintered field of nobodies.

By then, Trump's Establishment nemeses, those who march to the beat of the Journal editorial page and Krauthammer and Will, will be manning the backroom battle stations and writing big checks to bring him down. The specter of a brokered Republican convention loomed briefly in 2012, when Romney was slow to lock up the nomination. Should such a scenario rear up again in 2016, the Koch brothers, no fans of Trump, could be at the center of the action. Whatever happens, there will be blood. The one thing Trump never does is go quietly, and neither will his followers. As Ross Douthat, a reform conservative, wrote in August, Trump has tapped into the populist resentments of middle-class voters who view the GOP and the elites who run it as tools of "moneyed interests." If the Republicans "find a way to crush Trump without adapting to his message," he added, the pressure of that resentment will keep building within the party, and "when it bursts, the GOP as we know it may go with it."

Even if this drama does not play out to the convention, the Trump campaign has already made a difference. Far from being a threat to democracy or a freak show unworthy of serious coverage, it matters because it's taking a much-needed wrecking ball to some of what has made our sterile politics and dysfunctional government as bankrupt as Trump's Atlantic City casinos. If that's entertainment, so be it. If Hillary Clinton's campaign or the Republican Party is reduced to rubble along the way, we can live with it. Trump will not make America great again, but there's at least a chance that the chaos he sows will clear the way for those who can.


*This article appears in the September 21, 2015 issue of New York Magazine.

Quote
Sep 20, 2015 @ 08:42 PM 56,348 views

Zogby Poll: Trump Widens Lead After GOP Debate

No one besides Donald Trump has broken away from the pack. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)

Real estate mogul Trump has widened his lead to 20 points in a brand new Zogby Analytics poll taken after the second Republican presidential debate. The new poll of 405 likely Republican primary/caucus voters nationwide with a margin of sampling error of +/- 5.0 percentage points, conducted September 18-19, shows Mr. Trump with 33% (up 2 points from his pre-debate 31%). In second place is neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson who actually dropped 3 points to 13%. Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, widely considered to be the big winner in the debate, moved up from just 2% last week to 7% and fourth place in the new poll – just 2 points behind former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's 9% (which is exactly where he was last week).

Texas Senator Ted Cruz moves up a point to 5%, followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, and Ohio Governor John Kasich all tied at 4%. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who by many accounts, had a good debate night, stayed at 3%.

The biggest losers in the post-debate poll – besides Dr. Carson's drop – were Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker who fell from 5% to 2% and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who polled 2% (down from 4%).

Mr. Trump's lead is across the board, among most major sub-groups – 36% among men, 30% with women, 30% Republicans, 39% independents, 29% moderates, and 31% conservatives.

Dr. Carson's best showings were among Republicans 14%, and conservatives 16%. Mrs. Fiorina did better among men (9%) than women (5%) and Republicans 8% than independents (5%). Mr. Bush scored 10% with women, 8% with men, 12% moderates, but just 6% among conservatives.

The poll was conducted in the middle of controversies regarding negative attitudes toward Muslims expressed by both Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson. Mrs. Fiorina gained the most traction from the debate but no one besides Mr. Trump has broken away from the pack.

QuoteDonald Trump is America's mad prophet: How he's ushering in a terrifying new age of politics

Trump's influence is finally becoming clear. While we laugh at his buffoonery, he's changing the rules of the game
Heather Digby Parton


We deal in illusions, man! None of it is true! But you people sit there, day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds... We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion! — Howard Beale, "Network"


So far, this presidential cycle has been one for the books. The 1992 cycle featured a similar dynamic with a wealthy outsider running as a third party candidate and capturing the imagination of the press and the people alike. That race also featured generational change, petty sex scandals, an incumbent surprisingly in free-fall from a recent high of 90 percent approval and a right-wing nativist exciting a fairly large segment of the right wing over immigration. It was a roller coaster of a race in which the third party candidate, Ross Perot, of course, even dropped out after the Democratic convention, saying that the Democratic Party was "revitalized" and then joined up again a few months later.

And while the 2000 race was fairly predictably dull throughout, the aftermath was a doozy and the Sarah Palin addition to the 2008 GOP ticket didn't exactly usher in a staid political campaign of ideas. So, it's not fair to say that a weird presidential race is unprecedented,  but this one is undoubtedly one of the weirdest, at least on the Republican side.

We have had entertainers run for office before, Ronald Reagan being the most obvious example. But he had spent decades as an expressly political figure and had been Governor of California before venturing into presidential politics as a candidate; he ran as a serious ideological political leader of a movement and a party. Arnold Schwarzenegger was an international movie star who ran in a bizarre off year California recall election but he had long been associated with Republican politics, was married to a scion of the Kennedy family and had been mentioned as a candidate for Governor many times in the past. Sarah Palin was always more entertainer than politician, and she rapidly made the transition to reality TV star after quitting her job as Governor after two years. But Donald Trump is the first current TV star to run for president and actually run his campaign as a reality TV show. And this is something we really haven't seen before.

When a recent Rolling Stone profile of Trump was released, the press went wild with a couple of outrageous quotes, one about Fiorina's looks and another about how attractive he finds his daughter. These are creepy, off-color comments at best and ended up accruing to Fiorina's benefit in the CNN debate, where she deftly turned it back on him. But the article had another series of quotes the media didn't mention which show some intriguing insights into Trump's strategy:


"I thought I'd have spent $10 million on ads, when so far I've spent zero. I'm on TV so much, it'd be stupid to advertise. Besides, the shows are more effective than ads."

He's right, isn't he? Ads can have an effect.  But getting the chance to talk for hours at a time, uninterrupted, on all three networks is much more valuable.

He admits that you have to build a team on the ground and says he's got "huge, phenomenal" teams staffing up the first seven states. But he adds:


"I know that costs money, but I've got this, believe me. Remember: The two biggest costs in a presidential run are ads and transportation. Well, I own two planes and a Sikorsky chopper, so I'd say I'm pretty well covered there, wouldn't you?"

The article goes on to speculate just how much money Trump can really afford to spend and while it's surely enough, the question remains if he wants to spend it. His history suggests that one of the business lessons he's learned over the years is not to expose his own fortune to too much risk. So we'll see if he ever actually starts writing big checks. But it's his insight into the world of TV and how to manipulate it that's truly interesting.

I think there is probably a lot of handwringing going on behind the scenes at the news networks over their Trump coverage. Some serious journalists undoubtedly think it's insane to spend so much time covering his every bizarre utterance. But the people who look at the ratings obviously see something different. The first Republican debate drew 24 million viewers. The second drew 22 million.(This article from CNN Money explains that the drop off from the first is not because of less interest but because the debate was 3 hours long compared to 2.) Primary debates at this point in the 2011-2012 campaign cycle averaged 4 to 5 million viewers each. And nobody doubts that the reason people are tuning in to primary politics in such vast numbers so early in the cycle is because of one reason and one reason only: Donald Trump.

And as Michael Wolff wrote in this piece for the Hollywood Reporter, however he shakes out for the GOP, there's simply no doubt that Trump has brought big bucks to television this summer. But it's a mixed blessing for the network that created Republican TV:


[E]ven with such additional riches at Fox, the network suddenly finds itself in a deeply unsettled world. Trump is not one more product or reflection of the Fox News media philosophy and of its hold on the Republican party. Rather, Trump is the first Republican in the Fox age, who — in a weird sort of justice that liberal Fox haters might come to rue — threatens to break the network's hold on the Republican party and the discipline it has imposed on it. At best, Trump negotiates with Fox on an equal footing. Arguably, he dominates it, demanding it dance to his tune.

And dance to his tune they have done. We've never seen Roger Ailes so pliable before in the face of a Republican candidate who defies his power. But he has a big problem he's never had before. Wolff points out that up until now Fox has defined the GOP brand and maintained a strong hold on its identity but Trump may be breaking that dominance:


Disorientingly, Trump is as much the candidate of CNN as he is of Fox, as much a friend of CNN chief Jeff Zucker as he is of Fox's Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly, as much a golden goose for Zucker as for Ailes. Indeed, Zucker's star rises at CNN and within its parent Time Warner along with Trump's. It is, of course, Zucker who, while running NBC, commissioned The Apprentice and its offshoots, transforming Trump from a local New York personality to national phenomenon. (Piers Morgan, the former CNN host who regularly had Trump as one of his highest-rated guests, was a winner of Celebrity Apprentice.)

Interesting, no?

So Trump is playing Fox and CNN off of each other and getting so much free airtime in the process he has no need to run any ads. But with the ratings bonanza he's creating, these news networks have no complaints about that. It is a very mutually beneficial arrangement.

As Wolff says:


Trump is less like a traditional Republican candidate than he is like the missing Malaysian Airlines plane. He's the kind of news event that CNN has, in the Zucker era, become best at covering — the news event that can fill the vacuum of endless cable time, with no details too small, no rehash too repetitive. Such stories require no secret political and culture language. Rather, you just keep the camera trained on what's in front of you. Trump provides his own narrative and talking points.

In this, Trump, beyond politics, offers new hope for the news business.

At this stage of the electoral process the Donald Trump campaign is literally a live reality TV show that is being shown on several different networks at once, all of whom are making a bundle from it. And in the process, he is breaking down the system that's been dominating TV news for the past 20 years.

That may actually be good news, depending on how this all ends. The political media, particularly on TV, has largely been a disaster for decades now and it's not showing any sign of improvement. In fact, they seem to retreating to an earlier age, before Fox became dominant and the establishment press was obsessed by manufactured GOP scandals. Trump is doing something different and they have not yet fully caught on to what it is.

None of this means that Trump's not a real candidate, far from it. It may just mean that he's a new political paradigm, a celebrity politician who brings new found riches and power to the media conglomerates by being a dangerous highwire act from which nobody can look away.

Wolff notes that this may be the first time in a couple of decades that we have a candidate who breaks down the media silos and reaches into the general viewing population. He hypothesizes that with politics polarized and the most engaged citizens dividing more neatly within the two parties and squeezing the political audience into a much smaller universe than ever before, perhaps this represents a sort of new "center" of millions of people who are drawn in by the drama. As he writes, everyone's riveted to the show, asking each other:


"Will he self-destruct? And how? And who will he take with him? Or, even more astounding, will he go the distance and blow up everybody in his way? That's news. That's a story. That's television."

It is. And it's possible that going forward it's also politics, which is a much more scary proposition. For democracy to work, it requires at least a baseline level of rational understanding of what politics does. The Trump paradigm has no use for that.

This was foreseen by the brilliant screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky exactly 40 years ago in his classic film "Network." But even he didn't see the possibility that Howard Beale would actually be a very slick operator with tremendous fame and fortune who played the networks off of each other for ratings and profits. Maybe Trump really is the best deal-maker the world has ever known after all.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 22, 2015, 01:26:57 AM
He's really a diabolical mastermind! :o

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/donald_trump_is_americas_mad_prophet_how_hes_ushering_in_a_terrifying_new_age_of_politics/

QuoteDonald Trump........

Quote from: lustindarkness on September 23, 2015, 02:29:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 22, 2015, 01:26:57 AM
He's really a diabolical mastermind! :o

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/donald_trump_is_americas_mad_prophet_how_hes_ushering_in_a_terrifying_new_age_of_politics/

QuoteDonald Trump........

Yet, today he said he will not appear on FOX anymore because they have not treated him fairly. I bet FOX News is shitting bricks now.

Quote from: lustindarkness on September 23, 2015, 02:29:45 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 22, 2015, 01:26:57 AM
He's really a diabolical mastermind! :o

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/donald_trump_is_americas_mad_prophet_how_hes_ushering_in_a_terrifying_new_age_of_politics/

QuoteDonald Trump........

Yet, today he said he will not appear on FOX anymore because they have not treated him fairly. I bet FOX News is shitting bricks now.

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 04:59:01 PM
Wow.

God Damn America.

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 04:59:01 PM
Wow.

God Damn America.

Quote from: Legbiter on January 21, 2016, 05:27:47 PM
Guess that Palin endorsement paid off for Trump in Iowa. It's almost like he has a plan and knows what he's doing.  :hmm:

Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
I dunno - I remember when the polls said Ross Perot was going to win the 1992 election.

Still a lot of voting to go, and the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire DON'T usually go on to be the nominee.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 05:34:03 PM

Quote from: Barrister on January 21, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
I dunno - I remember when the polls said Ross Perot was going to win the 1992 election.

Still a lot of voting to go, and the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire DON'T usually go on to be the nominee.

If he hadn't flaked out and pulled out before going back in, he might have.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 05:24:06 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 04:59:01 PM
Wow.

God Damn America.

I thought you were French? Sanders might be far left here, but he'd be a centrist over there.

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 05:38:27 PM
Anyway Sanders lacks the political connections or talent to do any of the things he wants to do and he certainly could never get the votes to increase government revenues to fund them. His election would be a disaster.

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 05:40:40 PM
Yeah (and not saying he was a disaster by any stretch) but didn't we already have a recent president without political connections?

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 05:48:22 PM

Quote from: garbon on January 21, 2016, 05:40:40 PM
Yeah (and not saying he was a disaster by any stretch) but didn't we already have a recent president without political connections?

Yeah but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Still was pretty ineffectual.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 05:24:06 PM
I thought you were French?

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 05:38:27 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 05:24:06 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 21, 2016, 04:59:01 PM
Wow.

God Damn America.

I thought you were French? Sanders might be far left here, but he'd be a centrist over there.

Yeah and Mussolini might be a brutal dictator in Italy but he would be a gentle bunny rabbit in Russia. But Italy is not Russia so...

Anyway Sanders lacks the political connections or talent to do any of the things he wants to do and he certainly could never get the votes to increase government revenues to fund them. His election would be a disaster.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 06:33:01 PM
If politicians of Sanders ilk can run a western country without running it into the ground, I see no reason to believe that he can't do the same.  Politicians of Trump's ilk don't have nearly as good a record.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 06:33:01 PM
If politicians of Sanders ilk can run a western country without running it into the ground, I see no reason to believe that he can't do the same.  Politicians of Trump's ilk don't have nearly as good a record.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 07:01:07 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 06:33:01 PM
If politicians of Sanders ilk can run a western country without running it into the ground, I see no reason to believe that he can't do the same.  Politicians of Trump's ilk don't have nearly as good a record.

Plenty of western countries have been run into the ground by politicians of Sanders' ilk.

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2016, 08:33:40 PM
What countries do you have in mind?

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2016, 08:33:40 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 07:01:07 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 21, 2016, 06:33:01 PM
If politicians of Sanders ilk can run a western country without running it into the ground, I see no reason to believe that he can't do the same.  Politicians of Trump's ilk don't have nearly as good a record.

Plenty of western countries have been run into the ground by politicians of Sanders' ilk.

What countries do you have in mind?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 08:47:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2016, 08:33:40 PM
What countries do you have in mind?

Most of Latin America at some point or another.  Big chunks of Europe, to lesser and greater degrees.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 08:53:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 08:47:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2016, 08:33:40 PM
What countries do you have in mind?

Most of Latin America at some point or another.  Big chunks of Europe, to lesser and greater degrees.

You were asked which western countries you meant and you fall back on Latin America? 

Ouch.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 10:08:40 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 08:53:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 21, 2016, 08:47:50 PM

Quote from: Jacob on January 21, 2016, 08:33:40 PM
What countries do you have in mind?

Most of Latin America at some point or another.  Big chunks of Europe, to lesser and greater degrees.

You were asked which western countries you meant and you fall back on Latin America? 

Ouch.

They certainly aren't eastern. You are holding Yi to an unfair standard. On the one hand he is being asked to report places turned into basket cases by left wing politics, and on the other hand is criticized for presumably picking a place of basket cases.

It is worth remembering that for instance Argentina had one of the highest per capita incomes in the world--higher than most of Western Europe--in parts of the early 20th century.

Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
I don't think bringing up Latin American countries was fair.  I don't think many people consider them western.  For whatever reason, western has grown to mean western Europe + US + Canada.

That said, while there aren't many, if any, Venezuela stories in western countries, plenty of western countries had experienced long periods of malaise due to dabbling too far into leftist economic policies.  We may have over-corrected in the last few decades, but let's not forget that there was something to correct in the first place.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:31:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
I don't think bringing up Latin American countries was fair.  I don't think many people consider them western.  For whatever reason, western has grown to mean western Europe + US + Canada.

That said, while there aren't many, if any, Venezuela stories in western countries, plenty of western countries had experienced long periods of malaise due to dabbling too far into leftist economic policies.  We may have over-corrected in the last few decades, but let's not forget that there was something to correct in the first place.

That is a very limited definition of the western world, and it is confined to some of the most wealthy first world countries in the world--ie, the countries that generally haven't been run into the ground by anyone.

Your definition excludes from the western world not just latin america, but also much of europe. Latin America seems perfectly reasonable to include imo--they primarily speak european languages, and have significant european ancestry and culture (especially in the case of the country I was highlighting--Argentina). Also, they are in the western hemisphere, which seems kind of relevant. At the least people shouldn't be jumping down Yi's throat for considering Latin America western. If you wanted him to confine himself to western europe, the US, and Canada, that should have been made clear to him.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:31:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
I don't think bringing up Latin American countries was fair.  I don't think many people consider them western.  For whatever reason, western has grown to mean western Europe + US + Canada.

That said, while there aren't many, if any, Venezuela stories in western countries, plenty of western countries had experienced long periods of malaise due to dabbling too far into leftist economic policies.  We may have over-corrected in the last few decades, but let's not forget that there was something to correct in the first place.

That is a very limited definition of the western world, and it is confined to some of the most wealthy first world countries in the world--ie, the countries that generally haven't been run into the ground by anyone.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:35:08 PM

Ok, so when we talk about the west we will be sure to remember you immediately think  - El Salvador

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:40:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:35:08 PM

Ok, so when we talk about the west we will be sure to remember you immediately think  - El Salvador

I rarely think about El Salvador in any context.

But you really don't think of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil as western countries?

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 12:05:36 AM
Latin America is culturally tied to Spain and Portugal, aren't those in Western Europe? What about the Caribbean? Surely the Dutch island possessions are western...and if they are why wouldn't Haiti and the Dominican Republic?

Quote from: DGuller on January 21, 2016, 11:58:52 PM
I think the most widely understood grouping is that of Cold War era NATO countries plus a couple of more countries that were not part of NATO for idiosyncratic reasons.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2016, 12:10:25 AM
"The West" is not a construction primarily based on geography. It includes Australia and not the Caribbean.

QuoteWe're all culturally tied to each other if you look back far enough.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 22, 2016, 01:23:59 AM
When I say "the west", western europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand are definitely in.  Central America and the Caribbean countries are definitely out.  Eastern Europe, Russia and Latin America are borderline cases that may or may not be included, depending whether their inclusion will help my argument or not  :P

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 01:33:44 AM
This is how Huntington divided civilizations. His work may have been flawed, but he was probably more knowledgeable on the subject than anyone here:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Clash_of_Civilizations_mapn2.png/800px-Clash_of_Civilizations_mapn2.png)

Quote from: Jaron on January 22, 2016, 03:07:28 AM
there should be lots of Latin American dots all over US now :P

Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2016, 03:10:28 AM

Quote from: Jaron on January 22, 2016, 03:07:28 AM
there should be lots of Latin American dots all over US now :P

TMI :x

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 22, 2016, 03:10:48 AM
I'm kinda curious about the Hindus in Guyana.

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 01:41:34 AM
Also parts of Surinam, Guyana, and French Guiana are part of Africa  :huh:

Quote from: Jaron on January 22, 2016, 03:07:28 AM
there should be lots of Latin American dots all over US now :P

Quote from: Jaron on January 22, 2016, 03:07:28 AM
there should be lots of Latin American dots all over US now :P

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 22, 2016, 05:13:57 AM

Quote from: Jaron on January 22, 2016, 03:07:28 AM
there should be lots of Latin American dots all over US now :P

Nah, we turn the kids into Tims and Jarons.  :P

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 01:33:44 AM
This is how Huntington divided civilizations. His work may have been flawed, but he was probably more knowledgeable on the subject than anyone here:

Quote from: alfred russel on January 22, 2016, 09:42:09 AM

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 01:33:44 AM
This is how Huntington divided civilizations. His work may have been flawed, but he was probably more knowledgeable on the subject than anyone here:

Obviously if you are going to include all those groups, Latin America is going to fall into the "Latin American" cultural grouping. I don't think the dispute is whether there is a cultural connection between the countries of Latin America (and to an extent Portugal and Spain), but whether that subgrouping should be included as western.

My point of view is that a grouping that leaves Greece outside of the western cultural grouping is a bit too granular.

Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2016, 01:49:44 AM
:lol:
In Asia: "Sinic", "Buddhist", "Japanese", ...
In non-Islamic Africa: "African"

Quote from: Martinus on January 22, 2016, 10:02:45 AM


I think you guys are underestimating the Latin vs. Orthodox divide. Ancient Greece was definitely a part of the Western civilization, modern not so much.

Quote from: alfred russel on January 21, 2016, 11:40:11 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 21, 2016, 11:35:08 PM

Ok, so when we talk about the west we will be sure to remember you immediately think  - El Salvador

I rarely think about El Salvador in any context.

But you really don't think of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil as western countries?

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 09:59:22 AM
Well right...are Portugal and Brazil not part of the same civilization? That seems weird no?

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:53:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 09:59:22 AM
Well right...are Portugal and Brazil not part of the same civilization? That seems weird no?

If we are going to count colonizers then is South Africa "Western"?

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 12:01:55 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 11:53:02 AM

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 09:59:22 AM
Well right...are Portugal and Brazil not part of the same civilization? That seems weird no?

If we are going to count colonizers then is South Africa "Western"?

So the United States and Canada are not "Western" then? And I think the reasons that South Africa and Brazil are different situations are obvious.

Quote from: crazy canuck on January 22, 2016, 12:07:34 PM
Sometimes you dont actually read the thread before posting, so I will assume you are not wilfully taking me out of context.  Go back to what I said is considered Western.  And really are you just arguing for shits and giggles or do you actually think of Brazil when people refer to Western countries.

Quote from: Valmy on January 22, 2016, 12:42:47 PM

I do indeed think that and have stated so numerous times in the many times we have had this exact conversation in the past.

Quote from: Razgovory on January 22, 2016, 12:51:14 PM
You could solve this problem by considering Spain, Portugal and Italy as Southern European rather then Western European.

Quote from: celedhring on January 22, 2016, 03:11:52 PM
I guess the fact that I'm Catalan skews things a bit, but I don't feel culturally closer to, say, Argentina than to the rest of Western Europe.  :hmm:

Love Messi tho.