Thanks a lot Indiana.
The race for the delegate count is effectively over. Trump will almost certainly gain the numbers he needs to win on a first ballot – if everyone cooperates in Cleveland.
Odds are pretty good that over the next few weeks most of the #NeverTrump holdouts will surrender. Expect to see a string of comments that start with, “but, Hillary…”
However, there’s still a possibility that a cluster of Trump’s putative delegates will refuse to cooperate on the convention floor. The vast majority of delegates assigned to Trump on a first ballot would rather eat a live frog than vote for him. There’s no sheriff who can force people into line at the convention. We’ll see. Then again, frog can be tasty if properly prepared.
I won’t be going along. If Trump is the nominee and the Republican Party in Illinois lines up behind him, then that’s the end of this Lifer’s term. I’ll resign my precinct position and move on. Time to start thinking of a new name for a blog, or a new interest to absorb my brain cycles.
Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.
GOPLifer 
Speculation about Trump’s VP. If I had to make a guess, I’d say Niki Haley but don’t know if she would shred her political future and accept….I think most on this list will have the same dilemma….except Carson and maybe the general.
http://thehill.com/news/campaign/278773-trumps-vp-top-10-contenders
If I understand correctly, she said she’d support tht enominee but that she wasn’t interested in VP already
Lifer, here is one Republican’s rationale for sticking with the GOP. Maybe it will resonate with you.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/i_hate_donald_trump_but_i_m_not_leaving_the_republican_party.html
“Until then, however, I’m going to stay and fight. I won’t vote for Donald Trump, and if Mitt Romney ran for president as a third-party candidate, I’d vote for him with pride. But in the long term, I’m sticking with the party. There is no guarantee that anti-Trump conservatives like myself will succeed in winning the party’s future. But the only way we’re certain to lose is if we give up now, precisely when the party needs us most. ”
That sounds like a kindred spirit. The blog could be RogueRebublican or RepublicanRebel if you go that route- my party has made a grave mistake and getting in line for the sake of unity isn’t an option.
Of course, if those rational members of the Republican Party had held their leadership to a higher standard all along, they wouldn’t be in this mess…..just sayin’. The cow’s out the barn now so the only point in staying is to re-build the party sans religious and racist members. Do they have the courage to walk away from this part of their base and will they commit to governing through consensus? Recognizing that they (like the Dems who have done a better job due to their big tent) need to purge radicalism and embrace common sense governing? Get away from the vitriol, hyperbole and speak honestly? Allow – nay – encourage independent thinking within their membership? Quash groups like the Freedom Caucus and get back to the serious process of making government work for the people – all of the people?
Get off the woman control. Practice “true” individual liberty by allowing it? I could go on and on…
Here’s a prime example of the obstructionism practiced by Republican leadership during O’s tenure. That it was done to not only make it more difficult for his administration to have the leadership within that is needed to function is obvious. What is less obvious (to some) is that there is a deliberate stand on opposing any nominees so that key positions can be filled with conservatives. Either way, what it’s done (either through truncating budgets so they can’t staff adequately) is to stymie the efficiency of the governing process.
Let me ask all to imagine what could have been achieved in our country in the last seven years for the benefit of our people if the Republican Party had worked with Democrats even minimally? The selfishness leaves me cold. From day one, McConnell and the core leadership has obstructed the twice elected president in every conceivable manner. I don’t feel sorry for the Republican Party at all. The members who now are so upset because of a Donald Trump have made their bed and it’s time to lay in it. Rebuild – sure, but if they haven’t learned anything and don’t make changes to be responsible in their political choices, the party can die for all I care. A two-party system is important but it will need to look completely different than it has. Responsible members have got to step up and make major changes in party policy or this whole experience will have taught them nothing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/05/mitch-mcconnells-senate-is-confirming-very-very-few-presidential-nominees/?wpisrc=fl_powerpost
The 2 GOP ex-Presentents refuse to endorse the presumptive nominee:
http://theweek.com/5things/622515/bush-41-bush-43-are-not-planning-endorsing-donald-trump
Fascinating. I’d like to the the fly in the voting booth with them. Would they vote for HRC secretly?
Not that surprising. Bush Sr. isn’t that far away from the Clintons politically anyway. Dubya respects Muslims and Mexicans.
And that, incidentally, is why a section of Sanders, especially younger voters, hate Clinton
“Hate” Clinton? Come on. Please explain that comment, Pseudo.
Chris,
I turned 18 in 2004. Angry at the War in Iraq and ‘those dumb Republicans’ and other such things, I thought #NeverBush in its own temporal slang of however the hell I spoke or expressed Internet memes back then. My point is I went into the election “Against Bush”, not ‘for’ anybody in particular.
The Democrats ran Kerry. Now over time I’ve gotten a little bit more familiar with Kerry but I do regret voting for him. Today I might have or might not have based on who he’s against, but back then I voted for him because I was AGAINST Bush.
Why does that matter? Because Kerry was never run as an actual politician or platform. He was only run as “Not Bush.” In fact, he was SO “Not Bush” that people explicitly attempted to define how he could provide the things we perceived we ‘needed’ (in quotes) from Bush (such as military experience, overseas or otherwise) while insisting that he was really quite different. A losing debate, because when your only debate is, “Not that guy!” that guy gets to choose the argument and the argument will favor him.
So Kerry lost.
Then Obama came along. I was surprised he won, but I was also equally happy to vote FOR him. And I did vote FOR him, and to be perfectly, straightforwardly honest, he pretty much did exactly what I expected him to and a little bit better. I am certainly not one of those progressives who thought we’d be shooting unicorn rainbows out of our butts now that all war and poverty has been eliminated from the planet, and those dang ol’ dastardly corporations finally removed from power so that we can frolic in our GMO free range fields, but I did like the dude (and will miss him).
Then 2010 came along and a governor I don’t like got voted into my state. More on that in a bit. The important part is that I voted for someone who lost but the people who voted for my governor weren’t voting ‘against’ anyone. Based off of my memory of the whole thing, both sides were voting ‘for’ somebody.
2012 comes along and the GOP runs Romney. And what I find remarkable about that race is that Romney never came across as Romney. The whole thing was “Not Obama” (or Nobama for you who prefer wearing your political opinions on bumper stickers and teeshirts). And again they did this, “Well he’s Not Obama, which means he has all the things that we ‘need’, in quotes, from Obama, like for instance the ACA.” They never ran an actual person with an idea, they ran a Not Obama, and thus in a choice between Obama and Not Obama you’re gonna choose Obama.
2014 comes along and the opposition to my state’s governor ran, literally and holistically, with no further comment, on the campaign “Not Her.” He lost, because of course he did.
Then this whole #NeverTrump movement came along, and again what struck me about it wasn’t that they were trying to coalesce against Trump, but that they had no options to. There was no real person in the mix, there was only the Not Trump.
Thus, in my very short and admittedly anecdotal history of politics, I can state pretty strongly that there is no checkbox on any ballot that says “AGAINST” this candidate or that candidate. There’s no way to vote “NOT” a person.
I really wanted to see a contested convention, because I’m a curious robot. But I’m really not surprised that the GOP got tired and eventually sucked it up to vote Trump, because the Not Trump options held no political appeal either.
There’s no political value in being “Not [candidate]”. You have to be your own candidate and meaningfully represent something. That’s not to say all proxy Not Candidates aren’t their own people: Kerry and Romney, in retrospect, have their own value. Their actual value, however, was beside the point in the platform they ran in.
Well I made a mistake this year and planned to vote ‘Against Trump.’ Woops. Forgot my own lessons. And here’s where this community comes in.
After the Not Bush fiasco, I did do some soul searching and determined that I wasn’t very fond of the ‘lesser of two evils’ argument and that I would take the time to vote the candidate I truly actually really thought was the better choice considering the selection and situation. It’s been a hard mindset to keep, but it’s served me well.
And that is what I would recommend. To not despair the Republican party or disparage the future. Your job, should you choose to accept it, is literally go through the list of active candidates this upcoming November and select the one you frankly think will do the best job. End of story.
This isn’t even telling you to vote for Clinton. Vote for Johnson, if you think he’ll be good. Or Jill Stein, if you really want 80% taxes on all wealth above 100k.
But don’t ‘leave’ any parties. Parties are just a checkmark on a voter registration form, homeboy. My Republican registration entitles me to selecting some candidates for state senator positions and a county treasurer position. Your principles transcend the ballot.
Last but not least, I get the impression based off of your blog that you have some local political capital. I would be curious if ‘leaving’ meant throwing that away. I mean, where there’s a power vacuum, there may be opportunity. I don’t see why you can’t be a voice of future candidacies, stating exactly what you say in your ‘What is a _____’ pages, in order to use the platform and infrastructure that exists to spread your message wider.
I don’t see why this has to be the end of being a ‘lifer’. Seems like a great starting point, to me.
A few thoughts, formdib:
First, there are a few states that actually offer a “none of the above” box. I’ve often wished it was mandatory for all states but guess it would be so embarrassing for both parties that it won’t.
Second, a vote for or against is still your vote. Not voting is also a choice but not one that I support unless a person really doesn’t know who or what they are voting for….of course, they could still vote “party”, which is what many conservatives have done for years.
Third, states that have closed primaries don’t offer the kind of flexibility that an individual who crosses party lines and votes the person wants. In TX, where I live, you don’t have much choice on the Dem side so I do my dead level best to participate by voting either “against” someone I really can’t stand, or “for” someone who I feel is either competent or the lessor of the evils.
I realize your post was directed to Lifer, but wanted to chime in with these thoughts.
Eh, Lifer and crew.
I’m just saying ‘not something’ is not a platform the way a platform is, but I am compelled by the idea of having a ‘none of the above’ option. If I recall correctly, it’s included on Australian ballots.
I think you recall incorrectly. I’ve been voting in Australian elections for more than 30 years, and never seen or heard of a “none of the above” option. What we do have is preferential voting (aka single transferable vote, aka Australian system); instead of marking your preferred candidate only, you rank all candidates in order 1, 2, 3, and so on as required. If no-one receives a majority of 1s, or first preferences, the candidate with the fewest first preferences is eliminated, and their votes assigned to the voters’ second preferences. If still no majority, the candidate with fewest votes (be they first or second preferences) is eliminated, and their votes assigned to the highest-ranked candidate not yet eliminated. Eventually someone gets a majority; when there’s only two candidates left, if not before.
I think this helps keep the main parties’ candidates more mainstream; any vote for a crazy (on left or right) is almost always eliminated, and ends up with one or other of the main parties. Plenty of people vote for a minor party first (I’ve done it myself) as a protest or something, but the vote’s not wasted because it ends up with someone you’re also happy to see elected. You can also make sure whoever you dislike most is ranked last, so they’ll never get your vote.
We also have Saturday voting, and easy voting in advance (e.g. for Jews or others who can’t or won’t vote that day, or if you’ll be interstate or overseas), and you can vote in any polling place in your state. Registration is easy and free, and once done you stay registered until you move – the electoral commission does periodic audits of households to verify who lives there and that their records are accurate; as much to get anyone on who isn’t as to get off anyone who shouldn’t. Mobile polling places go to hospitals, nursing homes etc. I guess the general thinking is that voting is your right (as well as compulsory), so it’s the government’s job to make it happen, preferably easily. It’s not perfect, but seems better than what a lot of the US has to deal with, and most people seem to think it works pretty well.
Didn’t start out to make this so long – it got away from me.
That was most interesting, JK. It is obvious that Australia “wants” its people to vote and makes it as easy as possible. What type of identification is required to vote?
Also, the preferential voting method has a cost benefit. Run off elections such as is the case in America, are expensive. The preferential system would eliminate the need for this.
Thanks for the explanation. America can learn a great deal from other countries – if we didn’t think we knew all the answers (-;
At the polling place, you front up, give your name & address, state that you haven’t voted previously in the election & you’re given the ballot paper(s). Your name is marked off the roll, and after the elections the rolls are compared to make sure you haven’t double voted – if you have, big trouble. I’ve never heard of anyone being prosecuted for doing so; everyone knows you’d be caught, so what’s the use for one extra vote?
O, k…what is “fronting up”?
Turn up, arrive, get there … sorry, I didn’t realise that was Aussie slang.
“Down Under” is a whole new world, JK (-; Fun!
Thank you so much for your explanation, JK. I’m glad you were here to give some direct insight. I definitely wasn’t sure about posting my recall and coming across like an ignoramus because I didn’t have time to do a quick second tab fact check. Hence the hedge.
And by the way, your description of the process sounds like sleeping between 800 thread sheets versus our unprocessed raw cotton bedstuffing (vague historical implications intentional).
That sounds like what we call “instant runoff voting”, and IIRC it’s done on a local level in some places in the US. I’m all for it becoming more widespread. I gave to wonder how this GOP race might have turned out with it. One of the things that helped Trump was that you had several GOPe choices (Rubio, Jeb!, Walker, Christie), several “real conservative” choices (Cruz, Perry, Santorum, Carson, etc), and a bunch of others, and any opposing blocs to Trump are too diluted.
I think it’s a great idea, Fly, but it would not allow the party to “control” the process….ha ha
I am a 61 year old white male Democrat from Louisiana (dying breed here). Been reading your blog for about a year and a half. Though I don’t always agree with you, I find your posts informative, thoughtful, and insightful. So I hope you choose to ride out the storm and continue this blog.
Hi Michael from a fellow Louisianian! How is your new Democratic Governor Edwards doing? Living in TX is just about the same as living in LA from a Democrat’s point of view…Don’t lose hope…keep voting!
Hello 1mime Jindal’s gone and we didn’t get Vitter so there’s that. Governor Edwards built a chicken coop at the governor’s mansion with his own money which was kind of cool. He seems to be trying to right the ship but with a republican legislature it is tough going.
Lived in Galveston some thirty years ago, Texas did not seem as crazy then. Different time, different country.
I’d have to sift through the roster for the LA Legislature but if I did, I’m sure I’d see many former Democrats who are now Repubs. LA politics has always been interesting and fluid….I’ll bet if Edwards does a good job as governor that you’ll see a quiet awakening of the Democratic constituency….they’re out there…I’m related to many of them (-;
Sexual slavery isalive and well in America.
And it’s all cool because their Christian. Man, do we ever need an atheist in the oval office, if only to start destroying the myth that evangelicals are somehow some moral authority in America.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/duggar-cult-founder-plans-kansas-retreat-to-set-up-arranged-marriages-for-teen-girls/
RobA – As my buddy Sam Harris says, you can be a Muslim or about any goofy religion you can name, and be elected president of these United States. An atheist doesn’t have a chance in hell. (And likely won’t in our lifetimes.)
I don’t understand what merely having an atheist in the oval office will accomplish. Atheists can be just as dogmatic, close-minded, and authoritarian as any Biblical literalist Christian out there. I’ve read enough postings by self-identified atheists and visited their websites enough times to see this. It is not that we need “an atheist” in the Oval Office, we need an intelligent, open-minded, compassionate, and presidential person regardless of their religious beliefs. We will need someone who will follow and apply the rule of law of this country to their decision making and not the rule of law of God(s) or “Magical Science.” That is who we need, not some dogmatic freak show.
I think most people agree with you. Religion isn’t important unless they want jesus to drive the bus….Most people respect faith, they just don’t respect demagogues lurking behind their faith.
Piety, humility and personal strength supported by whatever religion/faith – and I mean whatever – is where the sum is worth more than the parts.
Mime – Out of curiosity, would you please tell me your definition of ‘faith’?
Thanks!,
Faith: Trust or confidence or belief in someone or something other than oneself.
And, Fifty, yours?
Belief in something on bad or no evidence. Wish thinking.
This is a character trait not really suitable for public officials, to my mind.
BTW: I believe you exist because I have pretty good evidence of it. I would say your existence is ‘highly likely’. So I guess, that’s a belief in someone ‘other than myself’, but I wouldn’t call it ‘faith’.
That’s good parsing, Fifty. I think you got my drift. Religion and politics do not mix in my world view….which is, admittedly, more secular than most people’s.
‘Parsing’, eh? I hope you’re in reference to my grammar as opposed to my rhetoric! ,; -). As to ” most people” – well, they think the Bible is the unedited word of the creator of the universe who is concerned whether I say, ” godammit”. They also think that astrology should be taught with astronomy – er sorry, ‘intelligent design’ should be taught along side evolution in our public schools. Well, I’m sorry, such people desirve neither my time nor consideration. They have phuked up the conservative party in this country – nearly single-handed – and can go directly to hell, ( figuratively speaking, of course), as far as I’m concerned. And ChiTown Liberal needs to read the definition of ‘dogma’, too.
Well, Fifty…..we agree again (-; As I get older and more ornery, I have to confess that religious hypocrites piss me off more than just about any other category. And, man, there’s a lot of them out there. How’s Canada?
And BTW, I do know how to spell deserve. I hate thumb typing…
It’s great, thanks! Got out for the first time on the Bonneville today under sunny, 65 degree skies. Made pulled pork enchiladas, (for Cinco de Mayo), for our neighbors, with chilies and other stuff in the comal, and brewed the first all-grain batch of beer. Busy day. Hope you’re well too, mime.
Can’t complain (altho I do frequently)….Actually, weather here in Houston metro area has been very nice….low humidity/blue skies…guess all that yucky weather cleaned out the atmosphere. Love BBQ pulled pork sandwiches….not a beer drinker tho – never liked the taste which is a shame since so many people take such pleasure in a fine beer. I didn’t realize beer could be brewed/fermented/whatever (ignorant lassie) so quickly….
Well, the mashing, lautering, and boiling only takes a few hours. The fermentation and conditioning takes a couple of weeks to months, depending on the style. My ales are good to go a few weeks from brew day.
How very personally satisfying, Fifty. It’s like gardening, in a way – planting the seeds or small plant and watching it grow and thrive and bloom. You make me wish I liked beer!
I know that grief etiquette means I should wait a little while longer before suggesting something to replace your beloved party, but I sincerely think you would like the Democratic party. And even as a Bernie supporter, I’d say our party needs guys like you.
Every one of the principles you laid out for your ideal Republican party, are currently espoused by the Democratic party. While there are certainly disagreements, the core of the party, ever since Bill Clinton, is socially liberal and economically moderate. Even such bedrocks of liberal Democrats like support for unions is (much to my chagrin 🙂 ) not ironclad. Just look at the fact that Obama never pushed for card check when he had 60% of Congress at the beginning of his term.
More importantly, we’re willing to debate those policies and principles from a foundation in the reality-based world, which I think has been your biggest frustration with the Republican party. Heck, your articles on police and other public sector unions impeding disciplining police violence have convinced me and changed my previous views on public sector unions. That type of back-and-forth is not at all uncommon among Democrats. We actually like it and view it as an important way to improve our positions (which is why we read your blog).
Even you once mentioned after watching one of the democratic debates that you were amazed how focused Clinton and Sanders were on debating policy rather than hurling insults. Don’t be so surprised! The Democratic party is far closer to your positions than the current Republican party, and I think you’d be far more effective trying to change the Dem party for the better. At some point, another party will take over the role of opposition (they always do, while the Dem party manages to survive and change).
Launch proxy-attack 1:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/3/11585412/elizabeth-warren-donald-trump-indiana-primary/in/11341991
As proxy attacks go, that was pretty devastating.
A Clinton/Warren ticket would be impressive. The beauty of it is, although both are eminently qualified, Trump wouldn’t be able to stop himself from crying “THE WOMAN CARD!!” the whole race, which would destroy him with women even more.
The way Trump talks, just BEING a woman while seeking office is som e sort of dirty trick.
Good news. Now, on to TN, MS, and the other states that leapt on this bandwagon. What a waste of time for our Justice Division to have to deal with….Of course, it means their resources are taken from other areas that may be of greater interest to conservatives.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/us/north-carolina-transgender-law-challenge/index.html
Chris, I have some good beer and will fire up the grill for surf and turf if you need consultation. I grill a mean piece of fish and the steak is not bad either. Got some Deschutes cold and ready.
https://www.deschutesbrewery.com/
If Chris isn’t feeling “loved” about now, I would be surprised! SHHH, we won’t tell anyone that we’re mostly Democrats (-:
You are invited also 1mime, and any else who happens to be in the neighborhood.
Sounds lovely….wish I could (-: The food could only be enhanced by your company, my friend! (Like my steaks med-rare and my fish flaky.)
A good read that breaks down how truly impossible it is for Trump to win.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/donald_trump_isn_t_going_to_be_president.html
Don’t get me wrong, I want Hillary and her team to be deadly serious about Trump. But if I were a betting man, ID bet everything I own that he won’t even get close.
Remember, even if you put a lot of faith in the quality of his GOP opponents (I don’t) it’s easy to forget, they never REALLY attacked him. They all just cleared their own lanes (establishment, outsider, libertarian etc) on the erroneous assumption that Trump would falter and they’d pick up his supporters. The general will be a totally different dynamic.
Also, there appears that there will be a small but vocal never Trump movement that will likely prevent millions from voting for Trump. He would have no chance even with a unified GOP behind him, and he won’t even have closer to that
From the article:
“The idea of Trump as a plausible winner is rooted in the same error that drove pundits to discount and dismiss him as late as the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. Then, observers saw the polls—which accurately showed his appeal to a cross-section of Republican voters—but refused to believe them. It was unthinkable that a field of ostensibly talented candidates would fail to stop Trump before he gained traction”
He’s totally right. Everyone saw the polls showing a significant slice of the GOP supported Trump and they refused to believe them. Now, the same ppl (understandably not wanting to be wrong twice) are making the same error: looking at the polls that suggest he has no chance….and refusing to believe them.
Another perspective:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/04/3-reasons-donald-trump-can-win-against-hillary-clinton/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_fix
Mr. Ladd, I always enjoy your insightful viewpoint. Honestly, if you want a not-crazy moderate as your president, Hillary is not a bad choice. Perhaps not your ideal choice. Hell she’s *nobody’s* ideal choice. But at least she can be trusted with the nuclear launch codes.
And then there was one.
Just saw on Vox.com that Kasich is out.
A little more terror to go with your lunch- 16 years of Trump??????
http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/622357/donald-trump-thinks-hell-president-16-years
Politicians misspeak all the time, but with this guy, I’m betting it’s ignorance.
Trump – 16 years? Maybe it’s ignorance; maybe he fancies himself as the next FDR………..
Can’t say I’m surprised, but part of me thought Kasich would’ve at least tried to hang on if for nothing else than to try and draw a clear distinction between himself, as the only one left, and Trump.
I thought he would stay in to try to set himself up as the ‘second place’ candidate this year, and also develop some ground infrastructure in the remaining states for 2020.
Just keep writing, I love radical pragmatism.
Probably see more of this. Already, I’m sure Trurtles is wishing he hadn’t taken such an uncompromising position.
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/04/republicans-confirm-merrick-garland-asap./?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Kinda hard to explain that “let the people decide” thing without looking like a total partisan hack putting yourself ahead of the country.
Obama doesn’t get nearly the credit he deserves for his political savvy. Garland was exactly the right pick.
There’s a moral to Turtle’s story for sure.
McConnell is certainly a political asshat, but surely he must be feeling that f*** it itch right about now. It would’ve been one thing to give on Garland before and give Trump more ammunition to fire up the grassroots, but now? What’s a turtle to do when it’s looking over the edge of the political abyss?
I look forward to the excuses he would have to create. Just put in more effort this time, please!!
Turtle will not yield. His ego will not allow it – screw anything else, it’s all about him.
” Garland is not a great choice, but he is not a terrible one, either.”
Not great from the perspective of someone pining for another Scalia, but if you want someone with a stellar record, a reputation for being fair and thoughtful and rigorous, who gets rave reviews from colleagues, and would do his job with excellence, Garland IS a great pick. That his nomination also trolls the GOP obstructionists is just the sweet, sweet icing on the cake. While he is a decade older than what is currently usual, if his health is good, he could still be on the bench in his 80s.
Like the author, I also hope Garland’s nomination is not withdrawn, but for different reasons. He doesn’t deserve to be treated that way, so I hope Obama is a man of honor and sticks with his choice.
“Not Scalia” is the supercalifragilisticexpialidocious choice
I think our male jurists on SCOTUS can look to the diminutive RBG for inspiration on longevity and intellectual acuity. She’s amazing. Garland will be wonderful.
I for one will miss Barack Obama. Just watched “vintage Obama” address the audience in Flint, MI. If you have an opportunity to watch his address – don’t miss it.
The thing is, the GOPb no longer cares about policies. They don’t care HOW you’re going to do something , just that you sound convincing when you say it.
It’s why “repeal obamacare!” Was and is a rallying cry, even though anybody with a passing knowledge of how laws are passed would know that was impossible while Obama was still in office.
For this crowd, Trump’s lack of anything remotely resembling a coherent policy was a good thing. Or at least, not a bad thing. This is the bass the GOP cultivated.
For the rest of the country though, policies DO matter. That’s why Trump has no chance. Theres 30% of the country that thinks he’s the best thing ever and nothing you or he can say will change that. The other 70% thinks he’s an absolute buffoon who will demand to hear policy explanations that make sense.
It just so happens that the 30% are the ones who’ve already voted for him, giving the mirage of strength.
Latest polls show him down against Hill by double digits. And I’m going to make a prediction that it never gets as close as single digits.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/poll-trump-hillary-clinton-222780?lo=ap_a2
I said a while ago that once these two face off, Trump is going to start far behind, and only fall further behind as the race goes on. I’m more sure of that then ever.
And remember, he’s only really been in the lead so far. That’s what he knows. His entire message of a winning strongman just doesn’t make sense when he’s down 10+ points. And his frustration at his inability to close that gap will reveal some really unappealing character flaws as his insecurities come on full display
I should also mention: what about money? One of Trump’s main talking points was “I’m self funding”.
Is he going to self fund his presidential campaign? I don’t see it, unless he wants to run zero ads while Hill pounds him with ad after ad all over the country.
And if he takes donor money (which he likely will) Hillary is going to crush him on it. Again and again.
” if you lie about something so fundamental to your campaign, Donald, what else are you lying about? Have you told your followers yet that you aren’t REALLY going to build that wall?”
The Hill speaks to the “money” question that Trump will need…at least $1B for each candidate for President….Heck, John McCain, even Susan Collins are saying they’ll support Trump….Republicans really have a hate thing for HRC. This is one reason Bernie supporters feel he would be more effective against the Don.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278769-shellshocked-gop-donors-begin-to-give-trump-a-second-look
Rob, I hope you are right, but I’m not convinced.
“For the rest of the country though, policies DO matter. That’s why Trump has no chance. Theres 30% of the country that thinks he’s the best thing ever and nothing you or he can say will change that. The other 70% thinks he’s an absolute buffoon who will demand to hear policy explanations that make sense.”
Let’s remember this is a country that voted for W twice.
As a country, it has been a long while since we demanded policy answers that make sense. Bernie’s policies make little fiscal sense, and there is no realistic plan for “breaking up the big banks”, and Bernie is adored.
What position would Hillary have to take that would make you vote for Trump?
Hillary comes out in October and says, “You know, I’ve thought a lot about this since Chelsea had her baby, and I cannot in good conscious support abortion-on-demand rights. We need to put some sincere reasonable restrictions on abortion and do everything we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion.”
Hillary comes out and says, “You know, we probably need to bomb some people” – well, she has already said that.
I would be pissed at Hillary, but at the end of the day, I’m thinking, “She’s still better than the GOP on most issues.”
Those folks who voted for Romney aren’t going to vote for Clinton because Trump says a few things that they don’t agree with. The only hope is that they stay home and don’t vote, and the thing that makes me pessimistic about that is that Hillary Clinton is easily the most disliked political figure over the past 30 years.
Chris, I’m surprised that someone as perspicacious as you isn’t celebrating the real news here. What has ended, once and for all, is the GOP As We Knew It. This is the very outcome you’ve been warning about (and hoping for) for years, and now it’s here.
I’ve been reading Jane Mayer’s excellent “Dark Money,” which explains more about how the GOP got to be what it is than any book I’ve ever read. It documents the way in which the Koch Brothers rounded up a bunch of other rich folks, spent tens of billions of dollars, and over the course of 40+ years created modern conservatism out of whole cloth. Along the way, they also destroyed the party that you and I both mourn — the party of decent, self-sufficient, modest Americans with charitable values and a sense of proportion about what was possible through government.
The radicalism we’ve seen has its genesis in the entire Kochtopus of interlocking think tanks, professorates, pundits and authors, lawyers and judges, and elected officials who have been trying to take us back to the 19th century. The culture wars were ginned up pretty much entirely to distract Americans from the real goal, which the Koch oligopoly knew we’d never accept — the utter dismantling of all regulation, all taxation, and all democratic process. Mayer documents this in considerable detail.
This is the moment that their reign ends. Their 40-year plan has failed; their billions have been wasted. Americans, even most Republicans, have seen where this goes and are actively rejecting the whole worldview. Trump is the agent of this destruction, the harbinger of the end of this long and shameful chapter of GOP history. He’s terrifying, no doubt; but his followers love him for at least a few reasons I find heartening. He’s saying out loud that transpeople in bathrooms, gay marriage, and Planned Parenthood are not as important as the fact that people can’t find work. He’s finally convinced Americans that the GOP really does intend to end Social Security as we know it (a 2012 DNC focus group found that Republican voters literally refused to believe that their party leaders meant to do this, even when read the Ryan Budget; that denial seems to be lifting now). He and Bernie, together, probably signal that we’re at the end of the line with the politics of airbrushed, photoshopped, tightly-managed candidates who are congenitally incapable of telling it like it is.
As a result, the deep fractures in the senior GOP leadership are busting wide open today. All these decades, they’ve known what the party line is, and who was paying the bills and calling the shots. And now they’re stuck with a candidate who didn’t come out of that machine, and doesn’t give a shit what Dave and Chuck think. They have no idea what comes next; but for the first time, they know they are no longer in control.
This is the moment the wheels come off. It’s no time to leave — things are just getting interesting. The threats are real, as they always are when a tight system collapses into chaos. But the opportunities for the deep change you’ve been writing about and hoping for have also never been closer.
There is NOTHING to celebrate here.
Do you really think Trump is loved by for his “positions” (which change daily) on Planned Parenthood, transgender rights, etc.? He is loved because he validates scapegoating immigrants, the Chinese, Muslims, and whoever else his supporters want to blame for their very real problems.
I remember how shocked I was when Jean-Marie Le Pen rose to popularity in France back in the 80s. Now we’ve opened the door to an American version of the same.
Finding the silver lining in Trump was what got the GOP in trouble. Dems can’t make the same mistake.
Great post Sara. Without doubt, the entire GOP platform has been to abolish regulations (both the good and bad) and taxation. Everything else, literally everything, has been sleight of hand to convince the rubes to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The end of that era is something to be celebrated, not feared.
Also, kudos for ‘perspicacious’. You’ve got the best words. Very bigly. Did you go to Wharton?
By that very same token though, Sara, why would the Kochs and those like them feel that they should just go quietly into the night why they watch everything that they’ve spend decades building come crashing down around them? Even as we watch whatever it is rise out of the ashes of the Age of Trump, a near vicious care and concern needs to be given that these interests don’t plant the seeds of future corruption and make this whole venture an exercise in futility.
In all seriousness, a so-called victory is only ever as good as its follow through.
Thanks for talking about the book Dark Money. Just down loaded it.
MassDem, you’re right: he’s out front, loud and proud with the ugly. Which is a whole lot better (and more interesting!) than the dog whistling they’ve done since Nixon. The base is tired of the dog whistle. They want red meat, served fresh and hot at a big public table. And the whole rest of the country is gagging while watching them devour it.
This, too, is a win.
And Ryan: the same holds true for the Kochs and their friends. They will thrash mightily; but the ultimate inside, behind-the-scenes players are now being forced to do their dirty business out where everyone can see them. Trump is not inclined to help them hide; and while he may not call them out by name, he’s got zero reason to support their party line unless he thinks there’s something in it for him.
As of yesterday, the fight for the future Chris has been predicting has finally burst into wide open warfare. It’s going to be one ugly battle, no doubt — but that’s precisely why people like Lifer need to stick around. If they abandon the field, it’s far more likely something really awful will happen.
Trump and his supporters represent the toxic end of the party — but they are the *end of the party*, and this is a prime moment to discredit them, too. (I’ve seen some really good analysis by Nate Silver suggesting that Trump has a hard ceiling of support that probably cannot possibly ever top 30% of the voters.) When he loses, there’s going to be a big void waiting to be filled. Trump will move on to his next con; Cruz will assume his turn will come in 2020 but will be astonished by how fast Americans stopped giving a shit about culture wars (seriously, Trump is proving that that is OVER); and the Kochs will be standing there empty-handed, with a few scruffy Tea Partiers that will be all that’s left to show for their decades of investment.
What happens next is up to whoever is organized and disciplined enough to seize the moment. It could be the Kochs — but they are old guys, sclerotic in their single-minded devotion to a now-dead story and very unlikely to be able to make the pivot. I have no idea what comes next — but it might be a good idea to start scanning the horizon for emergent possibilities.
Sara, I sincerely hope you are right in your predictions. I’m afraid that Trump being the standard bearer of a major political party will normalize his behavior rather than discredit it.
Will the GOPe repudiate him? Once they get over the shock of him being the nominee, I doubt it. Republicans still control the House (which won’t change), and although they might lose the Senate for two years, in 2018 the GOP is favored to retake it. I’d bet that Trump actually could care less about doing the job of the President if he wins; he’ll sign any old cr*p the GOP Congress sends him if it’s popular with the base. Not to mention what he would do to SCOTUS, which will be packed with Scalia wannabes recommended by the GOPe. If we’re lucky, his sister will advise him instead.
The Dem party survived the upheaval of the 60s; the GOP will survive this.
Sara, I truly hope that you are correct that the forthcoming defeat will prompt the GOP to begin the process of reform. Sadly, I am not as confident as you. I believe that the defeat will be blamed on Trump and then the GOP will double down on their present policy of obstructionism and “Ayn Randian” economics. That worked in 2010 and again in 2014. My feeling is that several electoral cycles will be required, prompt reform. In my earlier post, I said two or three, after rethinking it I actually believe that four or more may be required. If the election of 2018 is utterly lost, then the concept of reform, may begin to sink in. We’ll have to wait and see. But I really do not think this forthcoming defeat will prompt any rethinking. See my post above.
Just for you Chris,
I forgot my dedication to “The Fallen”
For Cruz, “How soon is now?” by The Smiths. For he is human, and needs to be loved. (probably)
Kasich didn’t poll high enough to get his own song.
Hey there! I’m a life-long Democrat and I thoroughly enjoy reading your website. So much so, that I even tell my liberal friends (even my lefty-loony ones) to read you. I have found almost all of your postings to be insightful and thought provoking. It is so rare to find someone online who will constructively criticize both liberals and conservatives. We desperately need more of that as I see so many respectable liberal bastions turning into the Fox News and/or Brietbart of the Left (i.e. The Nation and Salon.com). Whatever you do, please keep writing and at least post where your next venture will take you if you do give up on the GOP. This country needs a functioning conservative party and Republicans like you are the ones who need to rebuild it.
Good point. There is nothing inherently Conservative about extremism or echobchambers.
It just so happens that the vast majority of extremism has been on the right the past few decades. We must be vigilant not to let that become the norm on the left, or what happened to the right will happen to the left.
Totally agree, ChiTown Lib. Chris, if you leave the GOP, I hope you’ll be part of work to build a new, healthy conservative party.
Chris,
It would be a shame if you stopped blogging. This is one of the few sane places on the Internet where one can have a civil conversation. There should be plenty to discuss between now and November as the GOP ponders and adjusts to its new reality.
I think the convention will still be a doozy. My main questions will be how many elected GOP officials will show up? How many will support Trump? How many will defect and support Hillary? Will there be a delegate rebellion?
OK…this is crazy, but hear me out.
Trump is the most socially progressive GOP candidate in a while (Romney/McCain may not have been true believer conservatives, but they at least pretended).
Trump doesn’t care about gay issues, Planned Parenthood, or abortion, and only brings them up because he knows he has to in a GOP primary. He seems to have somewhat less than current views on women, but I think you could get him to agree to an equal pay act (hey, if a woman is a great as me, she should get paid like me).
His views on immigration are no different than the views of every GOP presidential candidate for the last decade. He just has indelicate language to describe it.
So, come July, Trump and Christie start campaigning on a business friendly, socially ambivalent platform.
“Hey, the democrats are screwing you guys, and we are going to fix the economy so that you have it better. Our economy is weak, and you feel it. After eight years, our military and our country are weak, and you feel that too. You think Hillary is going to change that? Hillary is the opposite of hope and change. Hillary is the same pathetic mess we’ve been in.
Whether gay people get married or not is not going to help you pay your mortgage and get your car fixed. Frankly, I don’t care if gay people get married. They probably should, but it doesn’t really affect me, and arguing about just means we aren’t focused on creating jobs and helping the American people.
We don’t like abortion, but nobody likes abortion. Women, families, and doctors can figure out what to do with that better that some fat-cat Washington insider who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The Democrats, the people in Washington, they don’t trust you to make decisions and they don’t fight for you. We trust you, we fight for you, and we are going to do everything we can to make the country work for you.”
__________________________
I think this could work. He’ll have to work on his messaging a bit to get through to women voters, but an abortion-ambivalent position could help with that.
If they come out as marijuana-ambivalent (sure, if the states want it, more power to them) and willing to look at drug laws (our drug laws are a mess and pretty stupid – we want to prosecute the dealers and the pushers, not the college kid smoking in his dorm), then maybe that opens a few new voters to them.
Maybe an aggressive, macho, “screw all this social crap and focus on business” message resonates.
While I agree a business friendly, socially ambivalent campaign would have a shot at beating Hillary, are we not forgetting that Trump just clearly doesn’t understand how the world works?
This is a guy whose foreign policy speech was widely panned by experts as incomprehensible nonsense. Who thinks “I’m gonna defeat ISIS, but it’s a secret” is a credible policy. A guy who wants America to be “unpredictable”?
The man is clearly incompetent, and that is obvious to the 80% of Americans not in the GOP echo chamber.
Have we forgotten that his tax plan will blow an $11 trillion (with a T) hole in the budget, according to the non partisan tax center?
The slate of GOP candidates was too conrpomised to even touch on that, because ALL of their tax plans were more or less just as bad, with their tax cuts for the rich. Did you even hear ONE of them being it up? Hillary certainly will. Again, and again, and again.
How is putting the country in $11 trillion deficit good for business?
Remember, he’s got nowhere to hide in the debates against Hillary. There aren’t 3, 5, 7, 10+ other ppl on that stage.
Trump beat up on a bunch of 11 year olds. That doesn’t make him qualified to fight in the UFC.
And as soon as you start explaining a tax plan, deficits, debt, and a non-partisan tax center, you put 30% of the electorate asleep, and Trump starts talking about all the horrible deals you have done with China and around the world, and that he is going to do better deals that boost our economy so that people actually are earning more money, and that will help with taxes.
Then, he’s going to say:
“And we aren’t going to go running around wasting our tax dollars fighting bad wars in places we shouldn’t be, and Hillary is the person who voted for and oversaw all these bad wars for the past 15 years. I knew we didn’t need to go into Iraq the way we did. Our guys went in there and kicked butt, but the people in Washington were stupid.
I knew that. You knew that. Everyone knew that, but the people in Washington, and Obama, and Hillary wasted our money and made us the laughing stock around the world. That is going to change with me as president. We are going to have the best military, and when we use it, we are going do destroy whatever we use it against. None of this politically correct war crap. If you mess with us, you are going to be destroyed.
With Hillary as Secretary of State, you had people all over the world laughing at us, burning our flags, and attacking us. No one wants that going forward, and Hillary would just make it worse. I will fix that.”
It would certainly “help” if the media did their due diligence and if the disappointed (make that incredulous) moderate Republicans stood up and spoke out.
“And as soon as you start explaining a tax plan, deficits, debt, and a non-partisan tax center, you put 30% ”
I agree with that Homer. But I also think that 30% that doesn’t care about that stuff is probably roughly the exact same ppl that just voted Trump to the GOP nom.
The other 70% want to hear details, and they give non partisan economist groups and other experts a lot of credibility.
The crowd that thinks Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo are great programming and that real life is just a reality show won’t care about fancy words like “deficit” or “think tank”. That’s still thankfully a minority though.
Rob, I’m old and probably too cynical, but your comment that…
“The other 70% want to hear details, and they give non partisan economist groups and other experts a lot of credibility.”…
suggests that either or I have wildly incorrect perceptions of what the American people want.
I think my argument might be that 30%-35% of people on both sides of the political spectrum have not and do not do much soul searching or analysis regarding their political affiliation.
Maybe there is 30% to 40% that do care about policy, but some of those folks care about standard GOP policies and do not care for standard Democrat policies.
Trump got to where he is now by appealing to people’s racist and sexist impulses. That’s the long and short of it. The other GOP candidates didn’t want to call him out on his BS because they hoped to get his supporters.
Clinton needs to find a way to make this election a referendum on people’s humanity and decency.
Homer – Are you trying to feel better about keeping your promise?
I’m in Texas, so I know that my promise to vote for Trump (or a turnip) makes no difference.
I just think that hitting Trump is like nailing jello to the wall.
It is hard to do, and at various points in time, he’s going to hit Hillary from the right and from the left.
Targeting Bernie supporters – “Look, my friends are New York bankers. These are the sharks that Hillary is secretly meeting with and making back-room deals. You think these guys care about your job and helping the middle class? Hillary is in with them, giving private speeches that she won’t release. These guys are sharks, and Hillary is playing right in their hands. These guys don’t like Hillary. They think she’s a joke, but they will use her to get what they want. And she is going to go right along with them to continue hurting the middle class. I’m going to make the economy better for everyone.”
Houston, that’s an intriguing strategy, but could he really do that without losing the people who brought him to the dance?
I appreciate you Lifer. Thanks for educating me and I sure hope keep your blog even if you rename it. I have in the past been very politically active. If the GOP shatters I may get back in the arena and now retired have a ton more of time.
This is all fascinating, jaw dropping stuff. The American experiment began with liberty AND equality, now we’ve devolved into two separate political parties, liberty OR equality.
Come on. The right wing stands for “liberty” all right. Unless you take “liberty” to mean the liberty to choose the person you want to marry, the liberty to decide if and when you want children, the liberty to use the bathroom corresponding to your gender without being arrested,the liberty to have your child attend a well funded public school without being indoctrinated in the Christian faith.
When Republicans say “liberty” it just means that everyone has the freedom to behave exactly as they want, providing they want to behave as a white straight Bible thumping male who doesn’t want to pay taxes and doesn’t want to help out anyone less fortunate then they are.
The GOP is far more authoritarian then it is libertarian.
I don’t quite agree, Rob. The right wing stands for “liberty”…Whose? In my view, everything currently happening on the right is all about individual rights, no real interest in “common good” unless it’s our massive defense apparatus….Democracy is the vehicle for “liberty”. Below that big umbrella stands government and politics – in that order. Each party coops the parts of democracy that suit their agenda. We know what the right has chosen.
I think I’ve made this comment before, or something similar, but there’s another lesson here. Cruz has been the only “true believer” conservative in this race for some time. The only one prattling on about god and country, abortion, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms and the other evangelical red meat. And he just got whacked by a guy who doesn’t give a damn about any of that. Playing the “real conservative” card, Cruz got 28% of the total vote – in the GOP primary. The GOP has spent decades playing up issues that simply do not matter, even to most of their own voters. The lesson they should learn from this is that they need to expel the evangelicals (or, at least the narrow and divisive issues that they think motivate them) and concentrate on being a fiscally responsible party of economic opportunity (for everyone, not just the 1%). Will they learn this lesson? I’m not optimistic.
While the GOP hacks off the religious wing of their party, maybe they should also consider removing the racists….which….might be harder….but, the distilled remainder would be a strong, principled, rational party.
Exactly, JG. You *and* have been saying this for quire some time. An explanation I got some time back from Chris was that the primary process, including the grass-roots, organizations are, by there nature well to the right, (or left) of the philosophical spectrum depending on of whom we speak. Thus the religious right is over represented at this point in the process. Well, what’s up with this 28% then? Fact is that the thumpers are not only over represented in the primaries, but in the public perception of the party as well. They have the biggest mouths. (Well, besides Trump, I guess.) The GOP would do very well to dump them, as you say. This is the way forward.
Chris – I understand things are easier said than done, but it is extremely difficult to understand why the party tolerates this neck-bending albatross, and has for so long. I just don’t get it.
Federalist party, anyone?
Lifer! There! Business! Capitalism! Trade! Growth! HAMILTON!
It’s perfect!
Lifer, I have to say as a 71 year old registered Republican who has not been able to vote the party in years, all this is just amazing. No one would have written a book like this and not have been laughed at!
One must wonder what shape this country would be in now if only the Republican Party was productive and not just the tool of the wealthy, the “Just say NO!” party!
Bernie Sanders last night talked about the wealth of the Walton family, worth 148 billion $. What Bernie left out was that every single Republican presidential candidate wanted to give the Waltons and every other billionaire more big tax breaks on top of the ones they already have.
Just read the below article. This about says it all. I like the best is :
“Once a figure has been accepted as a friendly member of their tribe, there is no level of absurdity to which he can stoop that would discredit him.”
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/trump-has-won-and-the-republican-party-is-broken.html
Love your blog! I hope you keep going!
I could certainly be misreading the tea leaves, but though Lifer is very much in favor of smaller government and a market driven economy, he is wonderfully balanced in that he also cares about and recognizes the need for social balance. That makes it more difficult for him to overlook the narrow hypocrisy of the right while he still agrees “in principle” with their economic theories. For anyone who is intelligent and humane, there will never be simple choices.
OK, à propos of nothing (except Florida’s Gov. Scott wanting CA companies to move to FL because their minimum wage is lower) can you imagine the right wing shitstorm if California’s Gov. Brown went to North Carolina to attract LGBT friendly businesses?
Fox News would have a complete breakdown for months.
Tea Party angst:
http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/05/02/i-lied-to-myself-for-years/
How many will refuse to vote Trump?
I think that the most interesting thing about that was them noting that they agreed with people 70% of the time, but the other 30% was just vile, idiotic bullshit…
The problem is that when you look at a lot of those people, you realize that they don’t generally agree with you on the other 70%, either. They’re just crazy people whose views happen to align with yours.
SJWs may seem socially progressive on some issues, but they’re utterly batshit people. The fact that they are ostensibly on “my side” doesn’t mean they’re actually on my side; they’re not. They’re just crazy people who happen to be opposed to racism, sexism, and homophobia (well, until their personal delusions make those inconvenient). And that last bit really says it all, honestly.
The same applies to the protesters who try and block people from entering or leaving Trump rallies.
I think it is a very rude awakening for many people when they realize that the people who seemed to be agreeing with them weren’t actually agreeing with them, they just happened to have their crazy aligned in the same direction as you. They were never principled; they never really understood what they were supporting, and indeed, may well have ONLY supported it out of sheer tribalism.
A lot of people aren’t really lucid. The lights are on, but no one is home, as they say.
Never think that just because someone agrees with you about a policy position that they’re sane as a result. They may not be.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of people also live in a delusional world of mirrors.
Look at the people in the posts there who are angry at Rove for telling them to hide their conservatism, instead of explaining it.
Rove did it because his goal was to win, not to be principled. The reality is that Rove knew full well what explaining their views would do: drive people away.
Agreed, SJW is tea party of the left. Not as extensive or as powerful but they are gaining momentum.
I don’t see any evidence of that antimule, other then that perhaps it’s reported more lately.
There is nobody I know becoming more accepting of the sjw set. On the contrary, I’m seeing a backlash against things like safe spaces and trigger warnings and the like.
And I’ve yet to hear ANY of that outside of academia.
Let’s talk when corporations start implenting “trigger warning” policies.
Man Occupy wasn’t even the Tea party of the left, and you’re going to try slotting in some campus activists instead? Call me when SJWs manage to secure top-down funding and primary some Dem pols.
The politics of crazy…
Chris, my condolences on your existential crisis. I’ve read your posts over the last few years with great interest – you certainly think about these issues more deeply than I and I have learned a great deal. Over the last few months you’ve seemed like someone in a long tunnel, desperate to believe the faint light ahead is daylight. Alas, it was the oncoming train.
You are right that you are not alone. My mother has literally never voted for a Democrat for president, not since her first vote was cast for Barry Goldwater. She said she won’t vote for Trump (she’ll likely not vote or vote for a third party). Her thoughts about why are not as sophisticated as yours.
There is a way ahead for rational thinking people who seek logical and efficient answers to our eminently solvable problems. It will not be called “Democrats” or “Republicans”, because they are too calcified and beholden to special interests to make the leaps necessary. Perhaps as an independent you will be better places to influence people on both sides – you have done an excellent job of that here. I will look forward to hearing your thoughts about how we can all rise from these ashes.
Perhaps thinking there is a way ahead for reasonable people is my own light at the end of the tunnel, but I go back to Winston Churchill’s infamous observation that “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they’ve tried everything else.” If Trump v. Clinton is not “everything else” then I don’t want to know where we have left to go.
Good post. Maybe we are seeing the start of the end of two party politics. There is a huge hurdle to overcome to break through the calcification in the system and I don’t think we are close to being there yet, but we are definitely moving in that direction. To one of Chris’ earlier posts, are we likely to be happier after we break the system, or should we try to fix this one.
Nobody knows the answer, some people think this system’s achievable high point is too low to keep us as the dominant power for the rest of the Century. Others think the chaos of a multi party system would cause a more severe form of calcification.
I don’t know the answer. Do you?
The Democrats understand the importance of being a big tent party. As long as they understand the importance of that, the Democrats will survive and be a major power. If the Republicans fracture, then the only real way to gain power will be to join the Democrats.
Frankly, if the sane Republicans join the Democrats, it will further stabilize the Democratic party and push it more towards the center.
It will also be pretty much the end of two party politics, and the genesis of a new coalition – the Coalition of the Sane, which will probably dominate until the South is dead.
Once the South’s culture is gone – and frankly, it is dying horribly right now – we’ll see another fracturing of the parties, probably regenerating a left/right economic split, with both parties being lead by liberals again, until the next cycle.
It is interesting to note that the Democrats have somehow always managed to survive while the other party in our system hasn’t.
I really don’t think it means an entire system change is coming. America is set up as a two part system. When one dies or implodes, a la the Whigs, and probably the GOP, it doesn’t mean an entire overhaul of the system is coming.
It just means that another will rise to take its place. The GOP replaced the Whigs. Now something will replace the GOP.
Remember, a large fire is often beneficial for a forest. It clears out the Deadwood.
Hey Lifer, long time reader, first time commenter here. I just want to say that your measured, rational approach to conservatism as well as cognizance of the rapid rate of change in the digital age has been balm for this liberal since the bloodbath of 2014.
Based on your reaction to today’s events, I’m guessing you hoped for a contested convention. But to what end? Cruz getting the nod in the second wave of voting? The GOPe picking a sacrificial lamb like Romney?
I’m sure the reality of Trump all but cinching the nomination smarts, even if you could see it coming. Hell, it’s a shock to pretty much everyone with half a functioning brain cell. But you’ve been prognosticating about (and, unless I’ve read you wrong) hoping for a party crackup for who knows how long. Won’t Trump being the de-facto nominee speed that process along? Whatever happened to the idea of rebuilding a sane, modern conservative coalition from the rubble of the GOP?
I sincerely hope you don’t pack it in entirely. Although, if this godawful election really is too much of a drain on your mental health, I wouldn’t blame you for pulling a Sullivan.
The good folks at 538 are already talking about how well the Democrats will do in the Senate and House elections in a Hillary thumping Trump election, and there are lots of folks here who seem to think Hillary has this sewn up before the contest even starts.
At the beginning, not even the most cynical among us felt Trump had a chance in the GOP primaries. He was just running to further enhance his celebrity status. All of the GOP money and support were going to other people, and Trump was generally ignored or laughed at.
Trump has dispatched well-funded establishment Republicans, young minority Republicans, super-conservative Republicans, and christian Republicans, and withstood a huge onslaught of anti-Trump campaigning and money.
This feels like a classic case of “misunderestimating”, and it feels like we are doing it again.
All spring, many kept thinking, “well surely the GOP is going to stop this silliness and get back to doing something normal”, and I’m fearing a discussion in September of, “Surely the American people will come to their senses and stop this” as Trump has a five point lead on Clinton.
There is no conventional strategy for taking on Trump.
Does Hillary generally ignore him as a buffoon and spend her time talking about policy? That was a disaster for a dozen GOP candidates as Trump dominates every news cycle for weeks and weeks.
Does Hillary directly attack Trump for being a buffoon? That didn’t work well for Bush or Rubio, and then Hillary also has to deal with the overly-predictable “shrill” commentary after she starts attacking Trump.
Hillary takes the high road and no one cares. Hillary gets down in the mud, and Trump has proven he likes playing in the mud and has more experience doing it.
In 1992, an odd election and a very different kind of candidate turned a generation of GOP states blue.
An absolutely unpredictable candidate with unconventional support may just be the thing that pokes a few holes into a Blue Wall in 2016.
Now you did it. These kids are going to have nightmares for sure!!
A few of us old geezers, too, unarmed !
“Hillary takes the high road and no one cares. Hillary gets down in the mud, and Trump has proven he likes playing in the mud and has more experience doing it.”
I’d say that she can’t let Trump dictate the terms. She needs to get the Dem base out, big time, which includes as many Bernie supporters as possible. Her advantage is that she’s actually qualified- that’s her major message. Some of us will care if she’s the adult in the room. I suppose the question is whether enough people will care.
If it where Obama vs Trump this time, I think Obama would have been quite good at keeping cool and just letting Trump damage himself. Maybe he’ll give HRC some advice about that.
Also, what do the Cruz voters do? Are they really going to back Trump? There’s some real animosity between those two groups.
Yeah, couple daddy Cruz in the am with the Kennedy shooter, then laud him in the victory lap….Don’t think too many Cruz supporters are gonna roll over on this pile of BS.
There were a half dozen GOP candidates more qualified than Trump. Being the adult in the room did not seem to matter.
That’s true…Jeb! tried to remain dignified, on topic, and above the fray and he got et up. I think H’s best line is to stay cool and laugh at him as much as she can….we’ve seen that he has a very thin skin…when Rubio needled him. Key is to keep the humor genuine.
Hillary needs to respond to Trump’s misogyny with gentle mocking. Her campaign started offering (well, selling) “Woman’s Cards” last week. She needs to not respond to his basest taunts except with statements like, “Does this sound like the president you want?” or “Can you imagine him talking to Angela Merkel like this?'” and the like. Mostly she just needs to run her own race and let proxies take down Donald.
“There were a half dozen GOP candidates more qualified than Trump. Being the adult in the room did not seem to matter.”
True, but we’ve got a very different pool of voters now. I think you are absolutely correct in that it’s a bad idea to think this will be easy or inevitable for Hillary. Obama knew how to get under Trump’s skin. I think more of that is key. Nobody’s changing the minds of the diehard Trumpkins. But there aren’t enough of them. It’s what does the GOPe type or Bernie Bro or evangelical or complacent Dem who might misunderestimateTrump do? Do they vote for Hillary (+1) or at least not vote Trump (+1/2)?
Actually, Trump’s popular vote may end up being one of the largest ever for a Republican primary nominee, per the pundits on MSNBC tonight. Also, as we’ve noted many times on this blog, Republicans are out-voting Dems in the preliminaries…that “HAS” to change in the general.
JG…I think “let the proxies” take down Trump might be the key.
The GOP candidates didn’t do much of that (unless you count Romney but no one was paying attention to Romney) except in Wisconsin, where Trump lost badly.
Clinton will have a (male) VP candidate and campaign spokespeople on camera every day doing some attacking, while she gets to employ gentle dismissive mocking.
The fear of that strategy is that Trump so thoroughly dominates that media attention (as he has for the past several months) that Hillary’s proxies can’t break through and only Hillary on the attack gets noticed. If that is the case, then the media is only covering the mudslinging spectacle, and I would hate to bet against Trump in a mudslinging contest.
If they’re slinging mud, H wins the t-shirt contest….with her “Rubenesque” figure (-;
Hillary will have staggering resources behind her. I don’t mean letting her VP fight this battle, I mean that SuperPACs and other groups will carpet bomb the airways in key states with targeted messages. In Florida, Trump’s assholery comments about Hispanics. Ohio can expect to be pummeled by Trump’s “Made in China” labels. In Virginia, just imagine months of “highlights” of Trump guest appearances on Howard Stern.
Never count your money while sitting at the table (thanks to objv for the reference), but HRC has a very strong hand right now.
As this campaign drags on, somehow I can’t imagine the GOPe and their donor base coming out hard for Trump. It’s probably all most of them can do to consider voting for them. Oh, they’ll go through the motions, but, really? Speak “for” Trump? Of course, I count myself as one who didn’t take him seriously from the get-go…but, these establishment folks, they’re cut out of a different cloth….much as they still want to win, I just can’t see them putting their hearts into this campaign for Trump.
JG…I have no doubt you are right, and Trump has provided a tremendous amount of fodder for a negative campaign ad.
However, there is precious little research to suggest that negative campaign ads have much of an effect. The data show that negative ads are more memorable than positive ads, but there is no evidence that they have very little effect on actual voting.
I guess conceivably an absolute tidal wave of negative ads could work, but I’m not sure how “negative” the ads are when Trump himself is actively and happily doubling down on the message.
Plus, we get to go the next six months hoping various economic bubbles don’t burst (middle class gets screwed by Democrats), no terrorist attacks occur (Hillary/Obama weak), and no middle eastern nation devolves into chaos (Hillary’s weak).
Still, I’m happier with a Trump candidacy than a Cruz candidacy. I’ll take a 45% chance of President Trump over a 25% chance of a President Cruz.
Your three-way scenario – financial crisis, attacks, world calamity – of them, I think the latter two work better for H than T. Trump “might” win the economic vote but there is no way Hillary won’t be perceived as the experienced, safe choice with a foreign calamity. (FWIW, I’ll bet foreign leaders feel the same way…)
As for negative ads – who here will ever forget the “swift boat” ads that sunk Kerry’s campaign? Didn’t matter they weren’t true – there was just “enough” linkage that it worked for Repubs. Of course, W didn’t need any negative ads against O – his being Black was sufficient.
“Still, I’m happier with a Trump candidacy than a Cruz candidacy. I’ll take a 45% chance of President Trump over a 25% chance of a President Cruz.”
I have some bizarre mixed feelings over all this. Good riddance to Cruz, but no way I’m delighting in Trump as the likely pick.
I actually thought that Teddy would stick it out until Cleveland. I’ll keep that day job.
And that ‘s what I am afraid of as well, Homer. I can’t even imagine how ugly Trump is going to get and even if H keeps her cool (which she has shown she can do), does this work? We have six months to go. In a way, it’s good that Bernie is going to stay in the race. It will force Trump to work against both possibilities….that will “blunt” his attacks but the main focus will still be H. Trump is so unconventional that one wonders if a candidate as conventional as H can steel herself for what’s ahead….I’d like to think that he will do himself in, but I don’t think we can count on that.
Hillary has to fight the good fight and let her proxies bit Trump in the mud pit. You know he can’t let a personal insult go – exploit that and have him defending the size of his fingers. Then is there is some momentous international event (like the Paris attack) Hillary will have a record of substance vs. a record of insult trading.
Yeah, the real trick with Trump is to belittle him in a way that makes him overreact. The dude dishes it out but really can’t take it.
TBH, making him out to be some sort of faux-rich person – a pretender – might be a good trick. The dude is very sensitive about being seen as rich and powerful, and depicting him instead as a sleazy conman in a suit would likely make him go ballistic.
My point the other day on Trump-Clinton and Trump-Sanders. How do you get people to stop listening to Trump’s “politically incorrect” outrageousness, and make him sound like the crazy person that he is?
A different set of voters in the general election than those in the Republican primary. I think we will have a couple completely different election in the general.
You’re giving waaaaaaaay too much credit to Trump.
The GOP has cultivated a party of unthinking bots who only recognize buzzwords without understand the meaning (how many rank and file Republicans REALLY know anything whatsoever abkyt Benghazi other then that it “proves” Hillary is the lyingest liar ever?). A base like this is easily hijacked by a snake oil salesmen, someone with all flash and no substance.
Remember, the only votes he’s gotten so far are from Republican PRIMARY voters. Hardly a proper representation of society at large.
When you’ve whittled your party down to an extremely niche group not at all representative of the overall country, you are making yourself extremely vulnerable to a grifter like Trump to come in and steal it.
Trump was able to mop the floor with the GOP field because not one of them really understood the base of their own party. The fact that Trump won has nothing to do with wbo strong Trump is,and everything to do with how weak the slate of GOP’ers was.
And the old rules are changing. Money is not nearly so important as it used to be. It’s nice, sure, but if your message isn’t resonating, no amount of money will help.
Trump’s message was resonating among GOP primary voters. It will not among the general.
Hillary’s strategy is easy. Don’t treat Trump like he’s a serious candidate, because he isn’t. She needs to insist and insist and insist that he explain policies. ANY policies. Because he hasn’t yet.
Thinking Trump is somehow this dangerous political genius capable of winning the general is like me thinking I’m this brilliant golfer capable of beating Jordan Speith because I beat my buddies in a round last weekend. One does not follow the other.
Likewise, the GOP has become so sick, so disaeased, so dysfunctional, that winning the GOP primary means nothing about the ability to win the general. In fact, it basically precludes it.
I would say at this present time, any candidate CAPABLE of winning the GOP primary is INCAPABLE of winning the general. Full stop.
“like me thinking I’m this brilliant golfer capable of beating Jordan Speith because I beat my buddies in a round last weekend. ”
Your problem Rob? You just need to work harder!
Lifer, I am so sorry. I hope you don’t completely give up on reforming your party, but you may need a break for now. I’ve enjoyed your blog; thank you so much for the commentary.
This is for you:
My contribution to the songfest:
“You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
Know when to fold ’em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj4nJ1YEAp4
Lifer, I’ve enjoyed the blog as well. Even if you leave the GOP, I hope you continue the blog.
Looks like I’ll be voting for Kasich on June 7. (Instead of taking the Gambler’s advice.)
… well, it looks like a won’t be voting for Kasich on June 7.
Kasich’ withdrawal speech was inspiring. He seems to be a good man. Hopefully, there will be another place for him to contribute. For what it’s worth, if I had to vote Republican, that’s who I would have voted for as well.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ
In Montreal tonight, which turns out to be a really nice place. Kinda gets you thinking…
Thanks for all the supportive comments. Got a lot to think about over the coming months.
For better or worse, there are millions of other Republicans left in a similar situation. Over the past two weeks I’ve started hearing from a lot of Republicans who are finally investigating political alternatives. Wheels are turning. Finally.
I’ll be on some very long flights over the coming weeks. Lots of time to work through questions. Time to think.
Libertarian Party? Is that a possibility?
Center for Politics Post: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-fall-outlook-fear-and-loathing-on-the-2016-campaign-trail/
Last I checked, the Libertarian party were a bunch of whackjobs.
If you want to make a sane person party, you really need to do something new. Frankly, most parties have little apparatus anyway, so starting a new one is probably no worse off than hijacking an existing one.
Though really, joining the Democrats and trying to pull on them is probably a more effective strategy than trying to build a third party.
We’ll all be pulling for you and thinking of you. Maybe it’s time for some well deserved respite from everything that has been roiling politics here. Time for family, work, self.
Do they have a true conservative party in Canada?
Nah. The Conservative party would slot center left in the US.
I wish you good thinking, Chris, and I am sure that whatever position you come to will be well thought out and intelligently arrived at.
I remember once sitting at a cricket game and listening to my father and uncle talk about the ethics of supporting a corrupt country versus leavng it.
My father maintained that remaining inside a state which has turned to evil will only strengthen it, and the only responsible choice is to leave.
My uncle maintained that such a state cannot be reformed if all the good people leave it, and the responsible choice is to stay and fight.
As for myself, I maintained that in my opinion there is no shame in treason: if you believe that your state is evil and must fall, the easiest way to do that is from within.
I’ve been lurking on your blog for a year or so, though I’ve never felt the need to post before. It makes me surprisingly sad to read that you’re thinking of packing it in; after reading your nuanced, historically influenced take on issues of the day, pundits I used to like somehow fall short. As I’ve grown older, I’ve become less interested in the issues themselves, possibly because the political atmosphere has become increasingly boorish over the past few years, and more interested in the shared history and psychology which leads people to their political views. Your blog has been fascinating in that respect; upon discovering it, I stayed up much too late one night reading all of your old posts.
I hope you’ll keep writing in some form; you have a unique and valuable perspective on our society. Though, I understand the impulse, given how ugly things have gotten.
As it happens, I live just on the other side of the border from Montreal. If you’re in the neighborhood again, it’d be a crying shame if you had to pay for your own drinks. Just saying. 🙂
Ah, free drinks. Finally all these years of blogging may be about to pay off. If I had caught that comment while I was sitting in the airport (five hour delay) I might have broken free.
My summary of the GOP primary season:
Well, Tracey, you get to watch one of the ugliest presidential campaigns in memory. Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders has just announced how encouraged he is and that he believes he has a narrow road to victory which he plans to fight for. HRC will not only have to watch her right flank – she will also have to watch Bernie on her left. IF she wins the nomination – which would have been a slam dunk if she had won IN, she is going to go into office exhausted. I worry about all our candidates in this respect. Running for office on a national level is grueling, and there is precious little time between Nov and Jan to re-group.
From here on out, the race is a three-some……
You know, 1mime, I believe Trump will concentrate on poaching Bernie voters. I’ve been thinking a lot about how Trump fits into the GOP clade. I’ve concluded that his closest analog is Teddy Roosevelt: Trump is populist, nativist, iconoclastic, and in many ways progressivist – not unlike TR. I have a sneaking hunch your candidate is fixin’ to run into a electoral buzzsaw. Time will tell.
My candidate – HRC or BS? Either way, I’m voting Democrat, Tracy. Not voting is not an option for me.
“Surely, you can’t be serious”
“I am. And don’t call me Shirley”
Roger, Roger!
I’m not much for waxing philosophical, but I feel that Ted Kennedy’s words should ring true for all Republicans who feel like tonight has come across like a sucker punch to the gut:
“For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.”
True, I can’t claim to understand what it must feel like, but try to get some sleep and just let your mind work it all out for you, okay, Lifer? Where there’s the will to never give up, a path forward will always open up in front of you.
NO! Don’t stop writing!
I wonder what all the other reasonable people are doing…not Dem I suppose, but where are they going? Maybe libertarian? You’d be a weird sort of moderate libertarian who doesn’t quite hate government…maybe a new party?
“I won’t be going along. If Trump is the nominee and the Republican Party in Illinois lines up behind him, then that’s the end of this Lifer’s term. I’ll resign my precinct position and move on. Time to start thinking of a new name for a blog, or a new interest to absorb my brain cycles.”
Ouch.
Sorry to hear that Chris.
What I can’t understand is why many conservatives/moderate Republicans/technocrats in the party are ready to throw in the towel (even at this dispiriting moment) in opposing Trump.
Many of them still vehemently oppose abortion despite the long odds of overturning laws that make abortion permissible in this country.
Doesn’t a Trump candidacy (or heavens forbid presidency!) pose a similar level of abject horror?
Even if Trump wins and they hope to be on his campaign’s good side, what do they think they are going to gain?
I for one wouldn’t want to curry favor with a crocodile in the pathetic hope he will eat me last.
“I for one wouldn’t want to curry favor with a crocodile in the pathetic hope he will eat me last.”
I think this is far worse and it’s better to be eaten 1st:
Hey Chris, I extend my sympathies to you and others of your political stripe. The short-fingered vulgarian has taken your party. I’m thinking of a post you did some years back, about how the party probably had to hit rock bottom (like the drunk waking up in a ditch after the mother of all benders) before the reform could start. Methinks this is that moment in the ditch.
But please, keep blogging, but it under X-GOPLifer, or WhigLifer, or HamiltonRox, or any other moniker.
I remember waking in ditch. I’ll never forget the farmers face, while checking his mail, having a young man in blazer and tie sit up in the weeds across from his mailbox. I assume he also still tells the story.
Is this the same guy who restored an old bar (-;
Yep, when I awoke, I thought I might be in heaven. The sun was shining, a gentle breeze caught the tops of the tall grass and a Red Wing Blackbird was calling. Then I realized I had puked on my tie and blazer and I didn’t know where I was or how to get to my friends house, who had left me in my stupor the previous night.
When Repubs finally kill off the US Postal Service, you’ll have one fond memory to share of how the mail came to your rescue!
Re unarmedand unafraid’s experience of waking in a ditch, and the more generalized form of that experience described here, A. E. Housman has some advice:
Oh I have been to Ludlow fair
And left my necktie God knows where,
And carried half way home, or near,
Pints and quarts of Ludlow beer:
Then the world seemed none so bad,
And I myself a sterling lad;
And down in lovely muck I’ve lain,
Happy till I woke again.
Then I saw the morning sky:
Heigho, the tale was all a lie;
The world, it was the old world yet,
I was I, my things were wet,
And nothing now remained to do
But begin the game anew.
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/poetry/poems/terence.html
I was thinking about this just today. I was initially hopeful that this situation might arise, but upon further reflection I think that in order for this to be the GOP’s wake-up-in-a-ditch moment Cruz, not Trump, would have had to clinch the nomination.
By all accounts, Everybody Hates Ted Cruz.(TM) A large part of what made it impossible for Cruz to dislodge Trump is the simple fact that since he joined the Senate he has methodically alienated every single potential ally with the possible exception of fellow cuckoo-bird Mike Lee. Most importantly, Cruz would also have almost certainly gone down to flaming defeat in November. And most importantly, Cruz’s entire brand is based upon being the Ur-conservative firebrand Republican. He rode the Tea Party wave directly into the Capitol and he has worked hard to make sure there are no challengers to his Purity Prince crown.
As has amply been pointed out upthread, Trump is … heterodox, to put it mildly. Here’s where the GOP’s ‘out’ lies.
When Hillary stomps Trump like a slow-moving roach, once again all the usual suspects in the party can (and will), once again, stand up and declaim loudly that The Reason Trump Lost is because he wasn’t a Real True Conservative, and if the GOP wishes to win in 2020 they need to make sure their nominee is.
Conservatism cannot fail, after all, it can only be failed.
A Cruz nomination, followed by a humiliating Cruz defeat, changes this equation. A GOP that has to autopsy a party that goes down to flaming defeat behind the dictionary definition of a 21st century Real True Conservative will have to come to very different conclusions than a GOP that has to autopsy a party that suffers the defeat of a crypto-liberal crank and obvious crazy person.
So we’re bound to be back in this place in four years, clucking our tongues over whichever dumpster fire Republican voters manage to cough up next time. Unless Trump’s defeat is so total that the Republican Party is on the way to join the Whigs and we’re dealing with some weird splinter group, which I’m not sure is any better of a situation as far as the overall health of the nation goes.
Interesting times, as the Chinese say.
Cruz has suspended his campaign. I think Kasich is asleep.
As an aside, I’d humbly request you keep a blog open. This is the only place I’ve found that actually causes me to find fresh perspectives on a weekly basis and where the consistent commenters are cordial when they disagree.
So, WHIGlifer or bust, I hope you stuck around.
Hangin’ John
By the way, I’d dispute one assertion you made a while back – that people can’t be persuaded to vote against their own interests. As an economist, my first take would be yes, that’s true, but in this case I believe it’s provably false.
The evidence is in the vast amounts of money the very rich owners of the GOP spend on propaganda obviously aimed at persuading (mainly low-info) voters to support tax cuts for the wealthy, sabotage of public education, reversals of safety, enviro, and anti-monopoly regulations, and on and on. This has been going on for decades, so is it plausible that the obscenely rich – who if nothing else are good at accumulating and not wasting their cash – would continue this spending if it didn’t work?
Your other explanations for the emergence of Trump voters are persuasive, but yes, people can be convinced to vote against their own interests. It happens all the time. I might go further and suggest that _most_ political propaganda is for exactly that purpose. After all, who needs convincing to vote FOR her/his own interests?
People do not vote against their own self interests. If you think you have found an exception to this, perhaps you should reevaluate what their interests are.
People do it all the time. The main reason why is that they don’t always understand what their own self interests are.
Is that complicated by the fact that they are low-information voters or that they are used to accepting authoritarian messages and messengers such as conservatives project?
Oh, they know what their self interests are. Maybe it’s subconscious on their part, and maybe you and I can’t (or don’t want to) understand what they are, but Chris has posted plenty of suggestions about what drives the blue collar GOP voters and it ain’t pretty.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with this parable:
A man comes to the doctor and says, “Doctor, everything hurts when I touch it!”
“Hm, let me take a look at you.” The doctor glances over the man. “Does it hurt when you touch your nose?”
The man lited his finger to touch his nose. “Ouch! Yes!”
“How about your ear?”
The man reaches up to touch his ear. “Ow! That too.”
“Your chest?”
The man pokes himself in the chest. “Owwww. Come on doc! Like I said, everything hurts! Come on, don’t you have any idea what’s wrong?”
The doctor nods his head sagely. “Yes. You’ve got a broken finger.”
—–
When people suggest that folks don’t vote in their own best self-interest, they do not generally mean that the people are literally voting against their perceived self-interest.
Rather, they are suggesting that people vote against their own self-interest because they don’t really understand what is going on.
They have a broken finger, but they think the whole world hurts.
If people truly voted in their own self-interest, we wouldn’t see things like Flint, Michigan, where the people continually elected corrupt, incompetent politicians until the state had to take it over – but of course, the state, too, was run by corrupt, incompetent politicians.
But these were people these folks had voted for.
They had thought that voting for these people was in their self-interest, but it clearly wasn’t.
The same is true of any mismanaged democratic state or country – if your country is run by a bunch of idiots, it is because the people did a shitty job of choosing their leadership.
You cannot have shitty leadership unless people aren’t actually voting in their own self-interest.
The problem is that people often BELIEVE they are voting in their own self-interest, but they are really *bad* at understanding what their own self-interest even IS. It isn’t that they don’t know that they want to get more money, or have a stable job, or whatever, but what they don’t understand are the underlying factors which are holding them back. Thus, they blame immigrants, when the real problem is that they live in a community too small to attract work, or live in a state where strong protectionist policies for unions makes it so that no factory wants to open or operate there.
The people who hold up the signs “Don’t cut Medicare to pay for socialized medicine” are clearly idiots, because Medicare IS socialized medicine.
Assuming that the people vote in their own self-interest is problematic, not because people don’t try to vote in their own self-interest, but that many people are too stupid, ignorant, or uneducated to really understand what policies truly lie in their own self-interest.
Puerto Rico’s present debt crisis is another great example – the people voted for people who kept borrowing more and more money, until it got to the point where no one would lend them money anymore. Now, Puerto Rico is in deep trouble. Puerto Rico being so deep in debt that they are shutting down a lot of government services or sharply curtailing them is NOT in the self-interest of the people on the island. And yet, people voted for the people who implemented these policies.
It isn’t that the people there weren’t voting in their own self-interest, but that they were incapable of recognizing that borrowing limitless amounts of money and driving the government to bankruptcy was not in their self-interest.
That explains the low information voters, but the rest? Delusional, stupid or angry.
Or call it misassigned priorities. The KY gubernatorial election is a prime example. Beven comes out and plainly says during his campaign that he wants to scrap the state health exchange. Poor people with serious health problems voted for him anyway. Some of them said it was because of his stand against gay marriage, even though there was nothing he would be able to do about it. So it looks like they think that’s going to help get them into heaven, and if they’re cut off of health services, they might be right. I’ll confess that I can’t feel much sympathy for the people who voted that way and are now upset about the prospect of losing health insurance. You made you choice, you can deal with the consequences.
I sympathize, Chris, and I respect your maintaining your standards. Better late than never. My dad went through the same process some years ago, and that was the first time I heard “I didn’t leave them, they left me.”
If it’s any consolation, exgoplifer.com is still available…
In any case, I hope you’ll continue blogging. You’ve become one of my favorite political writers, even though it’s been a long time since I could stomach voting for ANY R candidate, and I forward your posts to friends all the time.
GOPe in full fledged meltdown mode.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/03/trump-rolls-to-victory-the-great-separation-begins/?postshare=2551462320789440&tid=ss_tw
It was only ever a matter of seeing just how the Republican Party would finally break apart and now we know. Interesting times we live in.
For the past couple of weeks, was there ever any reality-based doubt that Trump would win Indiana? Polls, though occasionally wrong, were all in favor of the Donald, except one odd outlier. I hope GOPLifer continues to write and blog about current affairs, as he is very insightful amd imbued with common sense. And I hope a lot of moderate Republicans and independents will vote for Clinton, even though they may remain close-mouthed about it. Trump would simply be madly dangerous, not to mention embarrassing to the world.
Selfishly, I hope you keep the blog. Rename it whatever you like. Too few places for insightful and concise discussion of facts and data. This gay democrat born and raised in NYC signed up because in the first article I read you defined my voting pattern (it still makes me laugh). I do vote for Dems at the top of the ticket but Bloomberg for Mayor (3 times) and Pataki for Governor. I stayed because you talk about real things…things that matter in an Republic and there really are too few places to do that without it degenerating into name calling. This tide will surge and recede and the Republican party will retrieve itself or perhaps break. I see it happening in my “party” just in a slower and less organized way than yours…as usual. You write with passion and vision so I doubt you’ll really leave the cause…maybe just rename it?
Была́ не была́ (Russian saying…”whatever happens…happens)
Hi Chris,– lifelong Democrat here who found your blog some time ago, and really enjoy reading your posts. Frankly your positions are ones I almost totally agree with, but for most of my lifetime have felt that the Republican party has represented less than the Democratic Party. As I have read your posts, especially over the last 4 years, I’ve always asked myself “how can he remain a hopeful Republican?”
The party you aspire to has been dead for a looong time, and this primary season has only been the final public revelation of what Republican politics and appeals have been for the last 20 years. I’m all-in for a fiscally-reasonable, socially-liberal party, that isn’t the party of Ayn Rand, but alas there is no party representing those views.
Yet.
I hope you will continue blogging, no matter what. You bring a lot to the table, and as a foreigner I would hate to lose your window into what the hell is going on in America. And I would argue that, although Trump is terrible, his victory is not all bad. Consider:
(1) Supply-side Jesus is finished. Ted Cruz tried the old “let’s talk about old-timey religion so we can get elected and then cut taxes for the rich”, and failed miserably. Trump is a nutjob but at least he is a secular nutjob.
(2) Arguably, libertarians are finished, too. Wall Street has lost control over the Republican party. Trump has won by essentially advocating protectionism. Although his actual policy is stupid to nonexistent, the fact that the voters are open to government intervention might pave the road for something better, like Basic Income.
(3) Hillary is going to win. She is far from great, but at lest she is will keep the crazy out for the next four years.
Cruz victory would just mean more of the same crap, only tried harder next time. Am I wrong?
Unfortunately, antimule, most conservatives (at least the ones running the country) are secular nutjobs. Some wear two hats – religious nutjobs – as well….But, essentially, I agree…Trump would keep the wheels on the bus and wouldn’t expect Jesus to drive it.
I think another benefit is Trump hurts down eRepublicans more then Cruz would
Well, it’s said that everyone has their limits, and it looks like you’ve reached yours (depending on how you define “the Republican Party in Illinois lines up behind him”). Question; what would you have done/will you do if Cruz had won/manages to wangle the nomination? At this distance, I’d have thought that he was at least as contrary to your values as Trump.
Lifer has stated more than once that he could not vote for either GOP candidate and would be voting for the person he felt was highly qualified: Hillary Clinton…..
Thanks, I’d forgotten that part; I’d only remembered him saying that he’d vote for HRC over Trump. The questions then are (1) how many otherwise GOP voters do likewise; i.e. how badly will Trump lose?, and (2) how much flow on will there be down the ballot, to the Senate, House, state offices etc.?
JK, the unfavorables are just about equal for Trump and Clinton, or will be by election time. Most of the pundits are stating that Trump has a 50/50 chance – that he doesn’t have to sell himself, just destroy H so that her base stays home. GOTV is where it’s going to all come down.
I have really enjoyed your commentary. I frequently share under the rubric of ‘my favorite rational Republican.’ Please don’t leave us hanging – this thing has to play out.
You certainly don’t need to resign your position. You should work even harder to reform the party from within.
Second, since I posted way back in July of 2015 that Trump’s campaign wouldn’t collapse until the November 9th, 2016, after he loses, does that mean I’m the winner as soon as he gets the nomination? I mean, his campaign is officially over on November 9th, as he’s already either won or lost the general election by then.
Ahem…I had the Trump collapse in February 2017, so right now, I’m still looking pretty good.
His campaign ends whether he is elected President, loses to Clinton, or appoints himself First Citizen, by November 9th, 2016.
Yikes
I gave Hoosiers more credit than that.
Glad to hear where you are drawing the line.
Naming contest for alternative party?
Or just rename the blog – “Republican Holdout” maybe? Or “Make the GoP Great Again”? 😏
Make the GoP Great Again — (painful laugh) —
Phoenix Party?
Rise from the ashes
-The Whig Party
-Modern Whig Party (already exists)
-Lincoln-Roosevelt League
-Progressive Party (might be misleading)
-Hamiltonian Party
-Bull Moose Party
I would hate to see you resign from your precinct but would selfishly hope that you would continue blogging. I cannot see you leaving the political commentary arena but, I certainly understand and empathize with your disgust and disappointment if the worst happens. Maybe your new focus could be on what a “new” party might look like. Who knows? You might just start a quiet revolution.