Will Republicans really nominate Trump?

Would you rather be run over by a truck or dropped off a cliff? That’s more or less the dilemma facing Republicans at the convention next month.

Republicans do not have to accept Trump as the nominee. Changing the convention rules, organizing a walkout, or other strategies would doom Trump’s nomination. There is no enthusiasm for Donald Trump among Republican insiders or even among his assigned delegates. All that’s needed to stop the nomination would be a leadership figure supporting and organizing the effort.

The problem isn’t whether Republicans could stop Trump. The problem is how you cope with the long-term damage wrought by that choice. Damned if you do…

Stopping Trump would require serious Republican political figures to endorse moves that would compromise the legitimacy of the primary process, perhaps beyond repair. Exorcising Trump could only be accomplished by a fantastically undemocratic intervention by a fantastically unpopular group of political figures, which would frustrate the will of an angry, semi-literate mob. Sounds great, right?

On the other hand, placing Donald Trump at the top of the party’s ticket will split the GOP and finish off its already tenuous national relevance. Polls already suggest that Utah might be competitive in a Presidential race for the first time ever. The same dynamic impacting Utah, with conservative Republicans shearing off to support Libertarians, could put other red states including Texas in play. Nominating a different candidate in 2020 will not eliminate that legacy.

Since the party failed to repudiate Trump when it could have mattered (and in fact it still hasn’t), the only means left to stop him would be explosive. Republicans can watch the party implode in a more or less controlled demolition at their own hands, or let Trump do it. Both choices leave the GOP in rubble.

As damaging as a contested convention would be, it would probably leave the party better positioned to rebuild than if we hand the wrecking ball to Trump. However, acknowledging that situation would require a degree of sobriety, courage, pragmatism, and vision that no prominent Republicans have yet displayed.

No matter how severe the consequences, party leaders are unlikely to pass up an opportunity to do nothing. There is probably only one major Republican figure willing to blow up the convention to stop Donald Trump – Ted Cruz. He has been eerily silent. Unless Cruz has a card he’s planning to play, chances are the party will take the coward’s way out, letting Trump place his smarmy brand over Lincoln’s banner.

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.

Posted in Uncategorized
273 comments on “Will Republicans really nominate Trump?
  1. 1mime says:

    I know many find Salon too biased in their commentary, but the journal is capable of good work. It is fact that this Congress has more millionaire members than any other. Certainly there is benefit to “we the citizens” when our leadership is well educated and smart. I confess to wanting more….the ability to “relate” to ordinary people and possession of genuine concern for those who may not be so fortunate as they are. I believe these qualities build wisdom and humility. Is our Congress a mirror of the best in America? Or, simply the most fortunate in America? And, how does this impact the governing process and policies of our nation?

    http://www.salon.com/2016/06/12/the_real_masters_of_the_universe_the_astounding_influence_lawyers_have_on_u_s_government_and_policy/?source=newsletter

  2. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    If Trudeau’s argument for legalizing marijuana sounds suspiciously Republican (the good kind, not the batshit crazy kind) to you, you’re not alone. Best wishes to your efforts, Mr. Prime Minister.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/justin-trudeau-makes-surprising-case-165023866.html

  3. Rob Ambrose says:

    Hmmmm…..maybe THIS is why Trump seemed to be making such blatantly stupid and damaging accusations re: the judge?

    When he released the playbook (coincidentally the same time the “Mexican judge” stuff started) maybe Trump started to worry he’d release the depo. And maybe – considering Trump was under oath under threat if perjury – there’s some really damaging stuff on that depo that he calculated was worse then his racist attacks.

    So maybe he figured if he could get ahead of it, call the judges impartiality into question, he might influence the judge to NOT release the depos, knowing that judges typically seek to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

    I don’t think it’ll work, and it’s a huge risk, but if my theory is right, there must be some really shitty stuff on there for Trump to calcualte that even this unlikely ploy was worth it on the chance it could keep them sealed.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/media-joins-forces-and-asks-court-to-unseal-trumps-video-depositions-in-university-fraud-case/

    • flypusher says:

      This all pure speculation on my part, but that’s one of the joys of screwing around on the Internet.

      My hypothesis: Trump is no where near as wealthy as he claims, and his biggest fear is proof of that coming out. That not to say that’s he not rich, but rather I wouldn’t be shocked if his net worth is well under a billion. Look at how he raged at the press when they called him on his charitable donations to veterans’ groups. I would bet that donation sucked up a pretty big chunk of his liquid assets. He won’t release his tax returns, which while not required by law, is pretty much a standard practice in politics. We all know about his multiple bankruptcies and now we’re hearing stories about him stiffing people who did contract work for him. I would also bet he’d have a hard time launching any legit real estate ventures these days; he’s got to have a very toxic reputation. From what I can see he’s making $ by selling the brand- his name on buildings, his “The Apprentice” TV show, and of course, Trump “University”. If anything skeevy about the latter comes into the sunlight, I think his brand is pretty much ruined. That’s the thing he fears most, and he is just too stupid and egotistical to have thought this out before deciding to run. The pass he got in the primary segment of the race and the moral cowardice of prominent GOPers like Ryan and McConnell and Christie and Rubio and Gingrich and etc. no doubt boosted his delusions. But anyone who runs for President goes under an electron microscope. If you have skeletons in your closet (and let’s face it, pretty much everyone whi gets to positions of power does), they will be discovered. Your best best is to disclose early, and move on while the dusts settles.

    • 1mime says:

      I feel the same concern, rob. Drumpf may be playing chess here. Boxing in the judge thereby making it difficult for him to release the video deposition which I have refs will be highly damaging. This is because his facial commentary and ad lib remarks are far more damaging than simple copy can portray. Plus, this would provide invaluable fodder for campaign ads.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I think (hope) it won’t work Mime. Curiel has done nothing whatsoever to meet the standard of a conflict of interest. If he’s acted appropriately this whole time (and everything we know suggests he has) he need not fear Trumps bullying.

        By any objective measure, it is entirely appropriate and serves the public interest to release deposition tapes from a fraud case involving a potential presidential nominee.

        And frankly, if the judge releases it and really damning stuff is found, nobody is going to focus on “the judge is bias” meme. The ends will clearly justify the means.

      • flypusher says:

        Trump’s lawyers on this case have no complaints. Of course, these people are the ones with actual skin in this game. Accusing the judge of bias without offering proof is a great way to ruin a legal career.

      • I rather suspect that anyone who’s willing to vote for Trump is not going to be swayed by something as small and insignificant as a fact.

      • 1mime says:

        Drumpf supporters may not be swayed by “fact” but some could be swayed by his demeanor….He is openly derisive in his gestures and facial expressions which may hurt him….key word being “may”. The best we might hope for is that his “base” will just.not.vote. Of course, there are many Dems who may be similarly predisposed in their decision to vote for HRC.

        I watched HRC’ address to Planned Parenthood this week. It was presented with great calm, sensitivity, and genuineness. This intelligent, thoughtful address demonstrated her poise, leadership and knowledge in an area that will be significant to her female base and, I suspect, a major issue in the campaign. This was a different Hillary Clinton than we usually see. I recommend viewing it as a measure of how a President Clinton will handle difficult issues.

        http://www.c-span.org/video/?410914-1/hillary-clinton-addresses-planned-parenthood-action-fund

    • texan5142 says:

      My hope for humanity has died a little bit in this election cycle. That people still support this grifter is mind boggling. The education system in the country has a long way to go. There must be lead pipes all over this nation polluting minds.

    • 1mime says:

      An interesting “aside” to the Drumpf video deposition saga: Several news outlets (major ones) have filed FOI to gain access to the video deposition…..guess who’s not on board? FOX…..why does that not surprise me?

  4. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    Onto modestly less political news, about Gawker filing for bankruptcy…

    This whole affair reeks of contemptible bullshit. Other than the sheer exercise of power for the sheer exercise of power, I haven’t the faintest idea what this asshole Thiel funded this suit for. To err on the pessimistic side of things, one might presume that Thiel’s VC buddies lined up behind him as their personal weapon with which to take down Gawker for an article that sought to expose their hypocrisy on sexual orientation.

    However this came about, Gawker is on the way out and this sets a disturbing template for how other powerful individuals could seek retribution against media that they don’t like.

    http://www.wired.com/2016/06/gawkers-bankruptcy-free-press-dies-one-vc-time/

    • flypusher says:

      I haven’t delved into all the details, but didn’t Gawker supply the rope to hang themselves by posting that Hulk Hogan sex tape? That seems to me to be crossing the line in reporting celebrity gossip.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Kind of my point below, Fly.

        As petty as it is that Thiel would fund this for a decaxes old beef, the fact is, money doesn’t allow one to lie in court, or present false evidence. Gawker left themselves open to this by publishing a story that a reasonable jury could convict on.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      It stinks and it’s petty and it’s ugly…..but I’m not so worried about what this means for a free press as some are.

      Frankly, any journalist doing proper journalism, using industry best practices and ethical codes of conduct (which ALL journalists should be doing at all times) need not fear even a billion dollars utilized against them in a lawsuit.

      Money won’t make a legal story illegal. Of course money is a huge asset in a lawsuit, but even with all the money in the world, if the journalist you’re suing wrote an unimpeachable story, you’re not going to win.

      And if it becomes an issue that journos don’t even wrote stories when they’re right because they can’t even afford to fight the lawsuit, it seems easy enough for journalists to band together and purchase group insurance for just such a scenario, no different from the way docs must buy malpractice insurance.

    • 1mime says:

      Mother Jones fought off a very time consuming, expensive lawsuit from a billionaire contributor to the Romney campaign. Remember MJ broke the 47% remark by Romney. This litigation was their punishment it is thought. They had to sink over $2M in legal costs as the state where the lawsuit was initiated didn’t allow recovery of defense costs. They could have demurred, but they took a stand for free press and to oppose billionaire heavy handed suppression of truth. Look up the suit under MJ lawsuit. Note they won but at great expense. Small publications and individuals can’t always fight off scurrilous attacks, even when they are right.

    • antimule says:

      Good thing, IMHO. I am left leaning, but Gawker is awful.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I don’t mind it. Salon is the worst in my mind. Brutal, click baity headlines, and too much blue meat for the masses.

        I like my media with a leftward slant, but can do without the demonization. It’s too similar to right wing tactics. When critiquing the right wing, it’s beat tobatick to facts, a dose of snark, and let the eighties make your case for you.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Eighties = righties

  5. vikinghou says:

    I just watched the latest episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. During a discussion concerning Trump’s candidacy, one of the panelists had an interesting observation. People who haven’t shared in the economic recovery support Trump in a manner analogous to buying a lottery ticket. They’ll vote for him in the hope that their lives may change for the better. They know the status quo isn’t working for them, so maybe Trump can change things. If not, they’re no worse off.

    • Sir Magpie De Crow says:

      Well, the Donald is calling Elizabeth Warren “Pocahontas”… again.

      48 hours. That walking pile of bile, stupidity and racist farts couldn’t play it straight for 48 f***ing hours. Paul Ryan just maybe the most brilliant naive fool to ever to lead the House Republicans. Long may the current party leadership (an all-star league of craven hacks) marinate in the waste water of this sad spectacle.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        This whole notion floated by some Republicans that you can cajole Trump and force him to capitulate if you stand united, cross your arms over your chest and say that you’ll withhold your support (looking at you, Joe Scarborough) is such bullshit. Trump didn’t become the Republican nominee by locking down Republican support. He spit in Republicans’ faces and took their support by force.

        Going down that path means forfeiting this election cycle and handing both the presidency and the Senate, and maybe the House, to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. And a Republican Party obsessed with short-term political gain would never do that.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Ryan, it’s insane isn’t it? It’s not even like Trumps a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He’s a wolf in Wolf’s clothing. He never hid what he was. He told us all what he was going to do, and the GOP decided to stick around on the chance he MIGHT change, even though it’s clear he wasn’t.

        This isn’t even like the battered women believing her husband’s apologies every time, before it happens again. This is the woman whose husband says “yeah, I’m not sorry and I’m probably going to hit you again” and the woman saying to herself “well, he didn’t say he WOULD hit me again. He said he PROBABLY wouldn’t. I’m sure it’ll never happen again”. And then being surprised when he does it again.

    • 1mime says:

      First, I wish they would have “shared” in the economic recovery. Likely, there were multiple reasons they didn’t…..changing economy meaning their job “type” is becoming obsolete, or, slow return of jobs which was certainly not helped by the refusal of the Repubs to approve a jobs program.

      Still, if this group feels they will suffer no harm as a result of Drumpf being elected, that is their most grievous misjudgment. Their opportunities will lessen as a result of his election. Part of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps involves brutal honesty. Deluding oneself achieves nothing but delayed reality.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Indeed Mime. Nobody is calling Trump supporters dumb or stupid because of their grivances. I think their grievances are totally legit. Why ppl are calling them dumb and stupid is because if those ARE your grievances, supporting a two bit huckster, a known con artist who cares about nobody but himself is, frankly, dumb and stupid.

  6. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    Damn, that’s one helluva swing in just about a week. Wonder what the polls in October will look like?

    http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283086-poll-clinton-holds-11-point-lead-over-trump

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      I doubt they’ll ever be less then a double digit lead for HRC. The GOP thinks Trump can just “get back on message” and everything will be cool. They don’t understand that ppl don’t care if he manages to stop being racist (which he probably can’t anyways). They know he’s already racist, and that doesn’t just go away in a weekend.

      • 1mime says:

        There are not enough words to express my disgust at those who say they stand for faith and then support someone like Drumpf. It reinforces every religious cynical bone in my body.

        http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283071-evangelicals-give-trump-stamp-of-approval

      • flypusher says:

        http://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11868028/evangelicals-nevertrump

        No doubt that conservative Christians have a dilemma. The author of this essay is at least sticking to his principles, and I can respect that even though I would disagree with him on many issues. A close family member once told me that she would never vote for someone who was not Christian. If she somehow rationalizes voting for Trump and tells me about it, I don’t think I’ll able to avoid invoking this past statement. Trump is the embodiment of at least 5 of the 7 deadly sins. He is not a Christian and he only cares about Christian values if he sees a way to use them to his advantage. It’s situations like these that separate the wheat from the chaff- anybody can stick to principles during the good times.

      • rulezero says:

        No, no. Not get back on message. Get back on script. That’s the word Mitch McConnell used. “Script.”

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Fly, the religious right is so far gone they don’t even realize supporting Trump unequivocally confirms what many have long suspected: that the religious right is more about using religion as a truncheon to beat and discriminate against those different from them. They show their hearts are filled with hatred.

        Any objective assesment of Donald Trumps actions/words/history vs say, Barrack Obama’s would lead one to conclude that Obama is, by far, the closest embodiment to Jesus own teachings. And yet Obama is the hated Kenyan Muslim despised by the religious right and Trump is teir hero.

        If there’s a better way for a group to further marginalize themselves from cultural relevance, I can’t think of many.

  7. Bobo Amerigo says:

    How much of today’s inequality is the result of welfare reform in the 90s?

    Marketplace.org has a series of programs on what block-grant welfare funds from the feds is actually spent on by the states.

    Their data appears to show more families live in poverty now but a smaller proportion receive a core benefit, such as cash assistance, work assistance and child care.

    They’ve also found varied non-core programs funded by welfare dollars. Today’s broadcast discussed how welfare dollars are used for tuition assistance in a private college, even if students’ families make over $100K. Students who receive the scholarship money aren’t aware of its source.

    http://features.marketplace.org/yourstateonwelfare/

    An earlier broadcast said some consultants regard welfare block grant money as ‘pretty money’ because the requirements for using it are so scant.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Whoa whoa, wait a minute. Are you telling me that giving the uktra rich more money by cutting their taxes and paying for it by taking money from the poor leads to more wealth inequality?

      Do the Republicans know this? I’m sure they’ll change their platform immediately.

      GET ME PAUL RYAN ON THE PHONE!

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        So Rob, has Paul Ryan called you back?

        I hear he attempted to introduce last week some anti-poverty ideas but pretty much got crowded out by Rump’s behavior.

        Republicans are flat out out of anything honorable.

  8. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    As Trump continues taking the proverbial jackhammer to the crumbling structure that was once the Republican Party, a sitting US Senator (a Republican, of course), effectively, asks an audience to pray for the president’s death.

    Goodness, however did Trump manage to slip through this impregnable wall of moral and civil prestige?

    http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902822/perdue-obama-psalm-days-few

    • flypusher says:

      All that good old fashioned Christian love and forgiveness. Even if Obama really was a horrible monster who deserved all that, how fair is that to wish such terrible things on his innocent children??

      What odds will you give me that no GOPer criticizes this guy the way they tore into Trump? I think this is worse. Trump spewed his racist garbage against Curiel in mere anger over a ruling not going his way. This Senator is trying to dress up his hate in Christian respectability.

      • 1mime says:

        Come on, fly, using piety to mask hate and bigotry is SOP for the hard right. They just have gotten away with it. Dems need to get in the fight, just as warren said and did. Gloves off.

    • 1mime says:

      Gee, if Perdue is one of the “nice” guys, I am soo in the correct political party! Georgia is ripe for change- just as their next door neighbor – AL. It’s time that what comes around, go around. It is obvious that these hard right Repubs have no intention of changing, but are flummoxed that they’ve been exposed for what they really are.

      • flypusher says:

        That’s one of Twitter’s redeeming features- much easier to document this crap and let the people know. This has been under the national radar too long.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      To be fair fly, I believe it was Jesus who said:

      “And woe to you who ensure the poor receive health care. He shall be put to death, for he is an abomination. Blessed be the tax cutters, for they shall inherit the Earth”

      (I’m paraphrasing)

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      That’s appalling.

      • flypusher says:

        And his spokeswoman blames the media for reporting it.

        I have to wonder if Senator Hater has actually even bothered to read that entire verse he cited. I’m betting no.

    • vikinghou says:

      Would a visit from the Secret Service be in order? Some crazy person might be incited to take Perdue’s citation of the psalm as a call to action.

    • I never thought i would see the time a sitting US senator was so emboldened he thought he could pray, in public, for the death of a President!

      If the Republicans do not like Obama, they will have a heart attack when Hillary takes office. Obama is mild mannered compared to the Clintons!

      and I bet when Trumpy looses he will not go quietly into the night! He will hang around inspiring his followers with all sorts of rubbish as the so called “leader” of the GOP! And he will bring with him all sorts of Trumpy Wannabees! Each trying to out Trump the others!

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I think when Trump loses, he’ll blame the GOP and go on a mission to make them pay for it.

        He’s going to HAVE to blame somebody. His ego won’t allow to admit to himself that he lost.

  9. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    Oh sure, that’s just what we need in Congress, an army of Sandernistas to pull the Democratic Party to the extreme left just like Tea Partiers and the Freedom Caucus did to the right.

    *HEAD. SMASH. DESK.*

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/628877/why-bernie-sanders-should-build-tea-party-left

    • 1mime says:

      Boy, just what is needed: more polorization!

      The most interesting suggestions I have heard for Bernie’s role is that he inspire a movement at the state and local level. IOW, retake state legislatures and gubernatorial positions. How? Groom quality candidates from within the younger population and make policy changes from the ground up. That’s exactly what republic have done so successfully. It’s time to beat them at the grassroots level. Millennials are inspired and engaged. Tap that energy , channel and inform them and actively enlist them in the revolution that Bernie has successfully started.

    • formdib says:

      I was actually going to post an overly long rant about how I’m seeing this happening! I got cold feet because the couple-three times I’ve tried to point out that my ‘progressive’ friends are starting to sound full on wingnut crankjob people’ve kept telling me, “They’ll come around.”

      No, no they won’t. Here’s my overly long rant:

      Their behavior over this last primary has devolved to being reminiscent of rightwing crankery. Observing it up close has put me on the side of Lifer’s notion that the Politics of Crazy are, in fact, starting to grab hold of the left wing. It’s not just because they exist (and have for some time), it’s the fact that Bernie lit the fuse up their ass to become active enough to start forcing their weight around. Behaviors they exhibit correlative to wingnuttery are as follows:

      > Cannot conceive that their man has lost due through any legitimate means. The only understandable reason they can conceive that Hillary has won the primary is by stealing it. They ‘believe’ he has won, so information otherwise is false.

      > All explanations to the contrary are lies by the ‘mainstream media’ or misinformed ignorance of gullible ‘kneejerk liberals’ who have been brainwashed by the machine and lack ‘true progressive values’ and ‘ideological purity’. (Note: all flying quotations used in this rant are actual phrase snippets of things I’ve heard them say or write.)

      > They know this because they have crafted a hermetically sealed echo chamber of ‘citizen journalist’ blogs like USUncut and The Young Turks, and the only reason I’m even able to see what they’re up to is because I don’t talk politics, otherwise they’ve banned or ‘defriended’ anyone who disagrees from them from every social network they inhabit. Any and all disagreement is considered an attack on their identity, rather than a disagreement of policy.

      > They’re bigots in their own way. Largely consisting of white, male, younger people, I’ve heard them literally call for ‘deep level education’ for black people, Hispanics, and women who are ‘voting against their own interests’ by supporting Hillary. It’s not enough to say that maybe those demographics may be un- or misinformed (as other less crazy Bernouts have proffered), but the mere fact that they could have been taken by Hillary’s scam generally means their mindset is not to be trusted until it’s ‘educated in reality.’

      > They are calling for full on obstructionism at every level. First with Bernie, to have him contest the convention AND THEN run as an independent, but a lot of them are also talking about other ways to obstruct and otherwise stall the democratic process entirely. The lightest and most reasonable example of this is saying that each and every primary must be replaced with caucuses (because Bernie did much better with caucuses). The most extreme contains references to ‘making our point with guns and guillotines’. (To be fair, that last guy has always been an anarchist punk so I’ve kind of learned to blow his opinion off. It’s the posts of support and encouragement by others that bothers me.)

      This is not the behavior or statement of people who are going to ‘come around’. They’ve let their wishful thinking and echo chamber devolve into full on persecution complex, and the fact that 13 million Democrats disagreed with them one cycle is so casually intolerable to them to believe that they’ve declared the end of democracy itself. This is not the type of thinking that leads to compromise or listening. They’ve ceased talking and have begun to yell.

      I watched Republicans do the same thing in 2009. It lead to the Tea Party. What’s even worse this time around is that I see it among friends, and I still don’t even feel comfortable challenging their statements, as they get really, really upset.

      • formdib says:

        Oh, I forgot to add:

        A lot of the ‘come around’ argument, both here and elsewhere (like FiveThirtyEight), argues that once Bernie and other progressives start working with Clinton, so will these wingnuts.

        Nope. They’ve already gotten really angry at Elizabeth Warren for ‘selling out’ and feel Bernie’s talk with Obama was really Obama just yelling at him to ‘get into line’. They’ve promised to vote for Trump, Gary Johnson, or frequently Jill Stein because they ‘refuse to act outside their principles.’

        They are not going to come around. They’re too self-righteous for that.

      • duncancairncross says:

        “They’ve already gotten really angry at Elizabeth Warren for ‘selling out’ ”

        Are “They” real actual followers of Bernie or is this where the Koch money is going?

      • 1mime says:

        i doubt any of the Sanderistas would have affinity for the Kochs….most millennials are big on the environment, which the Kochs are decidedly not.

      • formdib says:

        Duncan, unless you can find evidence that the Koch brothers are spending money on pro-Bernie groups, I do not think this is the case.

        Last I saw of the Kochs, they were basically sitting out this election: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/koch-brothers-wont-donate-republican-national-convention

        Charles Koch wrote an interesting article for the Wall Street Journal with former New York city mayor Bloomberg about the violation of free speech by campus social justice warriors though: http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-free-speech-matters-on-campus-1463093280

      • Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

        Form – I know those folks are out there, but I suspect that a large number of them have never voted and probably won’t vote this time either.

        So far, you cannot tweet your vote.

        The difference between the goofy left and the Tea Party right is age, time, and commitment. The TP folks were committed and put in the time to do what they needed to do to take some power.

        Bernie’s supporters mostly are younger, and at least a few of them are getting their first taste of disappointment, and thus want to either take their ball and go home or burn the whole thing down. This is not true of all Bernie supporters by any means, but a fair chunk I suspect.

        I also suspect they’ll take their ball and go home because burning the whole thing down takes time and energy beyond tweeting.

      • formdib says:

        “The difference between the goofy left and the Tea Party right is age, time, and commitment. ”

        Ah, but that’s actually part of my point.

        I grew up with these people. I’ve watched as their high school sloganism has developed into this. That’s why I’m saying that Bernie ‘lit the fuse in their ass.’ All they needed was a loud yelling dude to ignite their activism, and now they’re whole-hog. They took their try and when they lost, it showed the system was broken rather than their opinion was minority.

        Now they’re definitely talking all the Tea Party points — find the down-ballot zealots, organize, incrementally take their places, and then obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

        What I’m saying is that they’re going to do the exact opposite of taking the ball home. They’ve decided their in to win, so they’ll destroy the field if they don’t get their way.

        Time will tell, I guess. But I’m leaning more toward advancing wingnuttery.

      • 1mime says:

        Time will help formdib. Bernie has a responsibility to make certain they do. There is a radical element in this group, for sure, but there are many (like my son) who will vote FOR Hillary. We need Bernie’s supporters but I submit that they need Hillary just as much. They’ll come to realize this as this race evolves. Find some new buds, formdib (-;

      • formdib says:

        Well I don’t want to make the impression that all of my friends are Bernhards and also that all Bernie supporters are wingnuts. I’m talking about a specific subgroup that’s been activated.

        Also, as much as I rant and rave, I take pride in the fact that I have Trump supporters, Bernouts, Hillary shills, and everything in between in my friends’ group. I think one of the biggest issues with bipolarization is echo chambers and the lack of working in between groups.

        The reason I’m angry about the Bernouts is because I don’t feel comfortable talking to them about other options, even ones that could be helpful in getting them to achieve what they want (or what I perceive they want). If I don’t feel comfortable talking to them AND they cut off everyone else who disagrees, their thinking will become increasingly unhealthy and yeah, I could stand to lose friendships over it.

        In the meantime, it’s all Mona Lisa smile while their explanations of how to deal with bankers increasingly involves images of guns and guillotines.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Form, where is the evidence of this? Where are the super PAC’s dedictaed to left wing misinformation, the elected “left wing tea parties” who reject empiricism in favor of ideological purity tests. Where is the left wing talk radio whipping the masses into a frenzy?

        You can’t just base your take on internet comment sections. There is no actual, real life evidence to support your theory.

      • formdib says:

        Rob, re: “Where are the super PAC’s dedictaed to left wing misinformation, the elected “left wing tea parties” who reject empiricism in favor of ideological purity tests. Where is the left wing talk radio whipping the masses into a frenzy?

        You can’t just base your take on internet comment sections. There is no actual, real life evidence to support your theory.”

        I’m not taking this from Internet comment sections. These range from people I know to the people they associate with. I’m watching them discuss amongst themselves.

        So, with regard to PACs and think tanks, that’s pretty much the next step they’ve been discussing to take. I don’t know if it will actually happen, if they can even collectivize coherently enough to maintain a structured ‘revolution’. But I do know that down-ballot pressure is top of mind for the future of the movement. So at least they’ve learned a bit of pragmatism and a long view, even if it’s in support of their myopia.

        Anyway, the rest they obviously have. The reason they don’t have a radio station is because nobody listens to radio anymore. They have podcasts, blogs, and ‘citizen journalists’. They have US Uncut, The Young Turks, AJ+, and Now This.

        And of course the major issue of echo chamber is the tendency to talk amongst themselves. With modern social networking, it’s very easy to create a Facebook group, subreddit, or message board where they can share information amongst themselves that confirms their own beliefs. This is not in any way unique to leftists — we pretty much all do it, in our own way — but the point is that instead of being contained to such, now they tend to amass and spill out their memes and opinion editorials in a deluge to anyone who disagrees. This is something about Internet socializing in general that needs to mature somehow, but I’m not sure how to do it or if it’s possible.

        Anyway my point really devolves down to something maybe more banal than the rant is worth: a non-trivial number of people I’ve been observing during this election season have cast aside all pretense to judgment and rationality and started arguing and debating in disturbing, dialog destructive ways. A lot of these people are people I’ve used to be able to have generally decent debate with before and have outright stopped listening or making sense. Since I’m watching this in real time, I’m disturbed about where this is going.

        May my worries be merely temporary.

      • 1mime says:

        Formdib, I think the 7 steps of grief is a good model to apply to your associates. They appear to be in stage 3, anger and bargaining. The good news is that the road curves mostly up from there – “if” they follow the typical model. Of course, they might not, but odds are as this campaign treks on, Drumpf will reveal to all how totally unworthy he is of the office of POTUS, and HRC will make more and more sense as the alternative.

        If they are “smart” and pragmatic, they can use the ensuing 4 years to build exactly the groundswell they seek. What younger people sometimes lack is patience and the ability to accept disappointment. I promise you, aging teaches that in spades.

      • formdib says:

        1mime, where are the Republicans in the 7 stages of grief that’ve lead to the Orange One?

      • Tom D says:

        I take formdib’s concern seriously. The left has a recent track record of being more reality-based than the right, but if you look further back in history there are obviously some examples of left-wing nuttiness getting pretty bad.

        I think the left can take some useful tactical lessons from the tea party right (such as the importance of always showing up to vote, and using primaries to remove unreliable legislators who represent safe seats), but I would hate to see the left become as unhinged and detached from reality as the right has been lately. Only time will tell if the Bernie-or-bust phenomenon is a bout of temporary insanity or something worse.

        And if it’s the latter, then I’ll have to admit that Chris saw it coming.

      • JeffAtWolfcreek says:

        FormD, Where is your sense of proportion??? RightWingNuts are the problem (and have been for twenty years – this didn’t start yesterday). They are ripping the country apart, not the Sandernistas. The house is on fire and your worried about the water running in the upstairs bathroom. Really?

      • formdib says:

        Jeff,

        I like your analogy, I actually laughed (in a good way).

        If I were to take that analogy, the issue isn’t that this is a different issue affecting the burning house, but the same one. What I see that’s disturbing me about the Bernouts isn’t what they’re arguing for, but HOW THEY’RE ARGUING. It’s form and function how denialism and fundamentalism work on the right wing.

        Maybe I’m subscribing too much to Horseshoe Theory of Politics, but if you think about the fact that human beings are not too different from each other in terms of behavior and cognitive bias, then it’s easy to see how the same behaviors and cognitive biases can be built to support oppositional positions.

        Example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/09/anarchists-for-donald-trump-let-the-empire-burn.html

        Good response to that example: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/leftists_for_trump_what_is_to_be_done_about_these_insufferable_nihilists.html

        Subtitle: “Politics is not about your personal catharsis.”

        So my analogy is, if the United States is a house with the right wing burning down, the smoldering on the left could constitute a backdraft effect from a door that Bernie opened.

      • Creigh says:

        I’m a pretty hardcore Bernie guy, but

        – I don’t believe he lost because Hillary stole the election. I do
        believe that the Democratic party has lost its way as the left-wing
        party, partly because any rational Republican has left that party
        (sorry, Lifer!) and now the Democrats are now effectively controlled
        by the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

        – I’ve never heard of USUncut, have seen clips of TYT a couple of
        times. But I do spend a lot of time thinking about economics and
        economic policy, and I do see enough misinformation broadcast – which
        just happens to align with certain political viewpoints – to believe
        that it is not unintentional. (Clearly, the news readers who actually
        make most of these statements don’t have any idea whether they’re
        right or wrong, but the ‘right people’ make these arguments, so that’s
        all that matters)

        – I do believe that large number of people, not all minorities, are
        voting against their economic interests. Seeing through the
        misinformation mentioned above is not easy due to the prevalence of
        conventional viewpoints and lack of any depth of education in
        economics. A good example of this is 30 or 40 years of propaganda
        saying that a healthy economy is essential to a strong middle class,
        and therefore we must cut rich people’s taxes. I believe the obverse
        is true: without a healthy middle class a strong economy is
        impossible, and having 1% of the people hoard all the money isn’t the
        way to get there.

        – I don’t call for obstruction on any level. I will vote for Hillary
        and plan to donate to her campaign ($27).

        – I don’t know anybody who fits your description. A Bernie voter I was
        talking to just today idolizes Elizabeth Warren. I personally don’t
        know that much about her, but she seems to be mad at the right people.

        I worry about Hillary’s history of hawkishness in foreign policy, and
        her coziness with corporatists and finance. These people, by and
        large, do not have your interests or mine in mind.

        I’m unbelievably pleased that Bernie Sanders did as well as he did. I
        hope that the Democratic party takes the right lesson from the success
        of a messy-haired socialist with no big donor or institutional support
        – namely that lots of people are tired of just being allowed to have
        what corporations are willing to let them have. I hope that people
        keep demanding more than just scraps that fall from the table. I hope
        Bernie keeps pushing on this. I think what he’s been pushing has
        inconvenienced and annoyed the Democratic establishment, but their
        comfort is no concern of mine, and I don’t believe it has hurt
        Hillary’s election chances.

        Incidentally, what has amazed me so far is that Donald Trump hasn’t
        hardly attacked Hillary at all along those lines. What he’s done so
        far seems lame – bringing up Vince Foster and emails?? Maybe I just
        don’t understand politics…

      • 1mime says:

        Stay tuned on Drumps’s attacks on H. The Repubs are “keeping their powder dry”…..probably still hoping they can coerce an indictment of her on the email thing. Drumpf hasn’t officially launched his fundraising efforts thought with Adelson behind him, he alone may be enough. H’s only got $30 M (‘only’….did I just say that?)….

      • formdib says:

        Creigh, thank you for your perspective. I want to state for the record that I was fine with Bernie winning if he managed it and would have supported him. There’s a few major disagreements I have with him but I know the biggest areas he’d have little opportunity to pass.

        My problem really isn’t with the candidate, it’s with a small subset of his followers. I’ve prevaricated between being concerned and dismissive of them, and after watching their behavior change from wishful thinking to full on denial to now a form of persecution complex, I’ve decided they’re better taken seriously and watched than dismissed.

        Or as my grandmother used to say, “Better to be a pessimist and pleasantly surprised than an optimist and severely disappointed.”

      • moslerfan says:

        The “how to deal with bankers without using guns and guillotines” definitely needs some work from Bernie’s side. The key is to not let the bankers keep rewards and pass off risk. The Fed is increasing capital requirements for some banks; that increases the pad that banks use to cover losses before the Fed itself (or worse yet, appropriated bailout money) needs to step in. Bankers should also be required to keep loans that they originate on their books (“originate and hold”) instead of passing them off (“originate and sell”). This incentivizes banks to keep their underwriting on the up and up. There is a public purpose in having properly underwritten bank credit available, and there is a public purpose in having a central bank (the Fed, in our case) acting as a lender of last resort to ensure availability of credit to creditworthy borrowers. There is no public purpose in having banks pass off mortgages or other consumer loans on a secondary market.

      • formdib says:

        Moslerfan,

        which is where Senator Warren comes in. She’s doing the work of dealing with bankers without guns and guillotines, and the leftists are ready to disown her merely for endorsing Hillary Clinton. They aren’t even arguing that Warren is bad at her job or should do better, she fell out of favor with them merely by association of someone they don’t like! That’s a sure sign of anything of their inability to handle basic matters of administration.

      • duncancairncross says:

        I am highly unconvinced about these strident “Lefties” I suspect they consist of a small number of basement warriors and a large number of paid GOP shills

      • formdib says:

        Duncan, I’m not talking about message board warriors but people I actually know and associate with. I’ve watched them go from people I could typically talk general policy with to full on ideologues, and it’s somewhat personally disconcerting as well as politically.

      • 1mime says:

        Formdib, I am 72 years old and have observed men and women with whom I grew up morph into people with political beliefs which are very different than my own. That is despite the fact that we are the same age, grew up under extremely similar circumstances. It’s difficult enough to accept much less try to explain. How many times on this very blog have I read commentators state a very similar experience. It’s like we live in two different worlds. And, that is sadly true.

        BTW, to answer your question as to what stage Repubs are in, I would say it is “denial”.

      • 1mime says:

        Mosler, may I nominate you Secretary of Treasury under HRC?

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Form, but your evidence is just anecdotal. It’s confirmation bias. I’m a Bernie supporter, and most of my friends (at least the political ones) are Bernie supporters. And to a man/woman every conversation I’ve ever had with them has been of the “Bernie would be great, but Hillary is way, way better then any Republican ”

        I mean, perhaps your right your experience is closer to what’s really going on then mine. But perhaps mine is closer to what’s real then yours, there’s really no way to know until November (or at least the polls closer to November).

        That’s why I’m looking for actual, real life evidence (the super PAC’s, the left wing radio, the words from Democrat officials etc) before I think this is actually a thing.

        Of course there are nutcases on the left. There always has been and always will be. My experience up to now remains that the nuts are still firmly stuck on the fringes. There is no significant number of nihilists I’m seeing willing to let Trump be Pres just because their preferred candidate didn’t win.

        Remember, there was a “significant” #NeverObama movement after he won the nom. And then, of course, they all voted for Obama. And that was against Romney, a far, far, far more palatable choice then Trump for most ppl.

        This is just what happens in the immediate aftermath of highly emotional primaries.

        Sanders has all butbsaud he’s going to do everything he can to ensure Trump loses. He also knows Hillary is the nominee. Connect the dots and hes going to come out and endorse Hillary and urge his supporters to get behind her. He specifically said he looks forward to working with Hillary Clinton to defeat Trump.

        The left will be fine. There will not be any appreciable number of Bernie voters who vote for Trump.

      • formdib says:

        Alright Rob, I’ll take your word for it. But the echo chamber of anti-Hillary leftist engagement isn’t going away any time soon, and if they show willingness to throw even Elizabeth Warren under the bus, it may show they’re increasing dedication to ideological purity over pragmatic compromise.

        Time will tell and I’m okay with being wrong if it turns out I’m overreacting.

      • 1mime says:

        I think the best we can hope for with those Bernie supporters who are angry and so disappointed is that they will moderate their feelings with time. Absent that, we will have to hope that they will channel their anger into some type of positive action. As you note, there are some who won’t be able to make this transition. They likely would have had a rather short fuse regardless….The campaign will go on with them or without them.

    • flypusher says:

      Give credit where credit is due-Chris called this one.

    • duncancairncross says:

      Hi Ryan
      “an army of Sandernistas to pull the Democratic Party to the extreme left”

      As far as I can see they are trying to pull the Democrats FROM the right to somewhere about the middle

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Duncan, yup. The Dem establishment is currently around center right to every other modern nation in the world. This “extreme left pull” is simply progressives trying to get their party establishment back to a reasonable center left position.

  10. vikinghou says:

    Here is a NYT article with interactive graphics showing the increasing polarization of the American electorate. The data are organized by race, age, sex, geographic location and educational attainment. You can search and learn how people with your profile voted (turnout and party). Most of the data are from the 2012 election.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/10/upshot/voting-habits-turnout-partisanship.html

    For example, I’m a white male, age 45–64, living in Texas and having a postgraduate degree. Only 27% of my group voted Democratic. Geography was the main determinant. Not surprisingly, voters with my profile who live in the South are the least supportive of Democrats. Voters with my profile who live in the Northeast and Pacific Coast vote strongly Democratic. The most Democratic location was Washington DC, where 83% of men like me voted Democratic.

    Try it out and see how your peers voted.

    • johngalt says:

      Apparently you are my peer, since I’m the identical demographic. Interesting because I spend most days surrounded by mostly white people with post-graduate degrees living in Texas and none of them vote GOP. Nor do any of the ones (less white, younger) who are studying for post-graduate degrees.

      • vikinghou says:

        JG,

        It may be a function of profession. My work is in the oil industry, and I can assure you that my colleagues there who fit my profile are almost all rapid Republicans. I rarely if ever discuss politics with them.

      • flypusher says:

        My iPhone is having a hard time with that link, but I can guess the result. I’m exactly like you guys, except for being female. It would be interesting to have a further breakdown by what subject you studied for your advanced degree. GOP scientists are becoming rarer than hen’s teeth.

        (My silly autocorrect tried to make that “Jeb’s teeth”)

      • johngalt says:

        Right, an I’m an academic scientist (degree is in genetics and I’m a microbiologist). Conservatives in academic science are hard to find. Ironically, they’re much more common amongst our cousins in medicine.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      How was turnout among your peers?

      My category is: Hispanic/Woman/45-64/College/Texas

      68% Voted
      53% Democrat

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      I’m a believer that universal laws of physics are just that: universal.

      To that end, the 2nd law of thermodynamics States for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As humans belong are part of the physical world, it stands to reason that plays in human dynamics as well.

      I’m not saying it’s right or good, but is it any surprise when one of the major parties goes way to the right, that there will be natural inclination for the left to move further left?

      I also believe in free will and we can overcome that natural tendency. But it’s not surprising.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Shit, I meant 3rd law. My bad Newton.

      • flypusher says:

        I think you mean Newton’s 3rd Law.

      • flypusher says:

        But there’s definitely a whole lot of extra disorder being created.

      • Tom D says:

        ***is it any surprise when one of the major parties goes way to the right, that there will be natural inclination for the left to move further left?***

        In the 1980s the GOP moved to the right, and the Dems responded by also moving to the right with the whole DLC/Clinton/Third Way thing. In the 2000s the GOP kept on moving to the right and the Dems moved somewhat to the left.

        I think the rise of the Democratic left (what Howard Dean called the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party) was mainly driven by dissatisfaction with the results of the centrist compromises of the 1990s.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Fly, I’ve actually got the mathematical formula for entropy tatooed across my chest. It blends in with the rest (I’ve got quite a few) so most ppl prob wouldn’t notice it, but it satisfies my inner nerd.

  11. flypusher says:

    The theme of this cycle’s GOP nominating process is cognitive dissonance. On that note, I give you this:

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/629135/trumpism-intellectuals

    The ret-conning is mind blowing. To avoid getting sucked down that rabbit hole, always remember this- Trump is in it for Trump. That is his true motivation behind everything he says and does.

    • formdib says:

      The theme of this cycle is cognitive dissonance. The left wing is going full on crank as we speak. I’m watching it happen in real time.

    • I can not see warren as VP! First, two women! Even two extremely qualified women as these two, it would be too different! second, mass has a Republican governor. he would appoint a republican. I think hillary needs a qualified male who can bring her a state she needs!

      • flypusher says:

        Warren will be most effective in the Senate.

      • 1mime says:

        Agree. Give Warren a powerful position and let ‘er rip! We need her in the Senate.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yeah those are good points. Warren and Bernie heading up influential committees, with HRC in the White House with her signing pen at the ready could do some real damage. The good kind of damage.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        I think Warren is more powerful in the senate. I hope she stays there to sit on committees that regulate banks and other financiers.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      I’ve never thought that Warren, much as I like her, to be a good pick for VP. She would outshine Clinton too much. Keep her in the Senate and on the campaign trail where she can be most effective.

  12. flypusher says:

    Another GOPer tries to have it both ways:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/marco-rubio-donald-trump-nuclear-codes_us_575a156de4b0e39a28ad2fe4?tbqb64se2365vobt9

    I’d like to believe that this is satire, because it’s downright scary how many people in elected offices are reality impaired. Listen up, Little Marco. When you endorse someone for President, you endorse them for ALL Presidential duties and responsibilities. There is no “I’m okay with you having veto power and making judicial nominations, but the nuclear codes are right out!!!!!!!!!” All or nothing. If you can’t trust him with the nuclear codes, the only sane conclusion is that you can’t endorse him. You seem to have sold your brain along with your soul.

  13. Rob Ambrose says:

    Holy hell. Is anybody catching this Warren speech on CNN? If not im sure itll be replayed many timrs. What a coherent, logical and totally devastating takedown of Trump.

    I’m loving it.

    • 1mime says:

      Isn’t she sumthin! Passionate intelligence.

    • Ken says:

      Do people still use the phrase “Barn Burner” ? cause thats what she did. She lit Trump up in that room. Don’t know how they will cut it but I expect to see parts of that in an ad in the future. She also had an interesting interview on Rachel Maddow tonight, by that I mean she made an emphatic statement about her readiness for the Commander in Chief role at the end of the interview.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        She’s looking and sounding very vice presidential lately.

      • 1mime says:

        I watched both programs, and I have to say that I think she was sort of “trapped” into her response to the question on her readiness to be commander in chief. I highly respect her intellect and her judgement which should allow her to function carefully and appropriately in any official capacity. Goodness knows we’ve had legions of unqualified VPs (Dan Quayle comes to mind….). Personally, I still think and hope Clinton will select Bacerra who is even more experienced and will better represent a growing Hispanic population. Also, I don’t think America is ready for a two-female ticket just yet…and, we really need Warren to keep her Senate position. I’d be happier with her considering a run in 2020…..

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Mime I read somewhere that Reid is working on a plan to allow her seat stay vacant until a special election is called, in case she was rapped for VP

      • 1mime says:

        I love warren, but hope she stays a senator. She’ll be invaluable on the banking committee under democratic leadership.

      • flypusher says:

        I also want her to be the new majority leader.

    • Griffin says:

      (sigh) Why couldn’t Warren run for President…

    • way2gosassy says:

      She absolutely set his ass and the Republicans on fire and trashed the fire extinguisher.

      • 1mime says:

        No whining or demur attitude this gal! She’s direct, passionate, and sooo smart. It’s about time the Dems get some fire in their gut.

    • vikinghou says:

      This morning on Morning Joe the panel observed that, suddenly, Hillary has a formidable stable of advocates to support her campaign effort—Elizabeth Warren, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Barack & Michelle Obama. Who do the Republicans have???

  14. Tom D says:

    Poll says 65% of Republicans do not think that Trump’s remarks about Judge Curiel were racist.
    https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/06/08/slim-majority-americans-trump-comments-racist/

    This is who Republicans are now. Trump legitimately represents the views of a majority of Republicans; his nomination wasn’t an accident.

    The numbers for Americans overall: 51% thought the remarks were racist, 32% thought they weren’t. So, really, there are way too many Americans who wouldn’t recognize racism if it bit them in the ass. But Republicans are significantly worse than Dems and independents.

    • 1mime says:

      Not one of them could legitimately say drumpf’s remarks were at all appropriate or presidential. Of course they were intended to be insulting.

  15. 1mime says:

    Once again, CA leads……….whether this is overturned or not, at least there are stirrings of sentiment and courage in the gun issue. For those gun rightists who believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, this ruling will at least provoke/provide more discussion of that basis.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-concealed-carry-20160609-snap-story.html?utm_source=nl-politics-daily-060916

  16. flypusher says:

    Matt Bai delves into Trump’s psyche (so you don’t have to):

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-hole-within-donald-trump-000000238.html

    Some very should-be-obvious but still very good points in this piece. Expecting Trump to change is delusional. If all his previous antics didn’t clue you in, the meltdown over Judge Curiel should have been the wake up call. Yes, he toned it down after a major backlash, but he gives no one any reason to believe that he understands WHY that was wrong. If he can’t grok why he’ll do it again. And again. And again……..

    The sooner you unendorse him GOPers, the less damage you will do to your political careers. He can’t change. He won’t change.

    Outstanding column, Mr. Bai!!

    • texan5142 says:

      Some of the GOPers are just like Trump.

      http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/senator-tom-cotton-led-block-cassandra-butts-ambassador-nomination

      [H]e explained that he knew that she was a close friend of Obama’s—the two first encountered each other on a line for financial-aid forms at Harvard Law School, where they were classmates—and that blocking her was a way to inflict special pain on the president.

      “No, Cotton kept this hold for two reasons. The first is that he is a nasty, small-minded, arrogant, repugnant, self-righteous, testosterone-fueled warmongering jackhole with an over-inflated sense of his own value both to the nation’s political process and humanity in general.”

      • flypusher says:

        At least Cotton is more honest in his obstruction than that jerk McConnell. He’s not insulting our intelligence with poorly constructed lies.

      • 1mime says:

        Sorry, to accord the term “honest” to Cotton in any respect bothers me….the man is without any sense of shame. If anything, he is Drumpf’s precursor personality, which is not a compliment.

        Cotton is not alone in blocking appointments out of spite. The pitiful David Vitter has been blocking this nomination over his “principled” objection to the ACA for months. And Vitter and Cotton are probably not alone…they’re just the only ones we know about.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/09/democrats-take-aim-at-gop-sen-david-vitter-for-hamstringing-agency-leadership-after-chinese-hack/?wpisrc=fl_powerpost

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Well, the honorable and proper way for Republicans to have kept Trump from getting the nomination would have been for the majority of primary voters to have shown support for another candidate, for someone more mainstream. As it stands, the majority of Republican voters went for Trump, and I doubt those voters are made up solely of the semi-literate, the so-called base. There had to have been a good number of literate voters supporting Trump as well for him to have gotten to this stage.

      • johngalt says:

        It is worth noting that Trump did not win a majority of GOP primary voters, he won a plurality. Even running essentially uncontested for the last month, Cruz, Rubio and Kasich combined for almost 2 million more votes than Trump. This is not to say that Trump didn’t win the nomination, but there were more votes against him than for him.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        John Galt, thanks for clearing that up. So, the problem was that all those votes against Trump were divvied up among the other candidates — too many opposing candidates — instead of the opposing vote consolidated toward one candidate. Too many aspirants from the start, and too many remaining toward the end, each waiting in the wings to be the one to take over once Trump was gone, except that by so many of them remaining for so long and dividing the votes, they essentially handed the nomination to Trump.

      • duncancairncross says:

        IMHO the problem was not – too many candidates – but that the other candidates were all terrible!!

      • 1mime says:

        I don’t agree, Duncan, with the exception of Cruz who I believe is dangerous. No, I think Lifer hit the nail on the head by stating that Trump found the political “sweet spot”….and is slick enough to cultivate the mood of many Americans, just as Sanders has done on the left.

        If Drumpf weren’t such a despicable candidate/person, the havoc he has wreaked upon the GOP would be much sweeter. He has exposed the Republican Party for what it really is, and the establishment doesn’t know how to deal with anyone in “their” party who doesn’t toe the line. Same with Sanders, although I really believe that most of his platform is reflective of priorities of the broad swath of America. In Drumpf’s case, he is selling snake oil to those who have given up any hope that the GOP or anyone (other than the “one” who is telling them what they want to hear) understands their concerns. Drumpf is all about “pitch” and nothing about “substance”. The other R candidates at least made an effort to put some thought into their policy proposals. They simply were running the right race at the wrong point in history.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        tutta, which is why everyone hates on first past the post

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Pseudo, I’m sorry but I don’t understand your comment.

      • Cotton would make a perfect VP for Trumpy!

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Tutta, first past the post voting basically means the traditional one person one vote system, and the person with the votes wins. There are about a bazillion other voting systems with their own pros and cons.

        Here’s a neat little series covering a tiny bit of this topic.

        Politics in the Animal Kingdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638

        If you wanna learn more, you could look for voting systems on Wikipedia, and lose a few hours there…

      • johngalt says:

        Tutt, “first past the post” is politico slang for a voting system in which everyone gets a single vote and the candidate with the most votes, even if not a majority, wins. Imagine if, rather than a party primary to choose nominees for, say a race for Congress, all interested candidates threw their hat into the ring for a general election in a heavily Democratic district and five Democrats and one Republican declare their candidacy. The GOP candidate gets 25% of the vote, while the five Dems get 10-20% each. In this system the GOP candidate wins even though 75% of the votes went to Democrats. On a national basis, our presidential primary is a bit like this.

        There are several alternatives. One is to insist the winner get 50%+1 vote and if nobody does, there is a run-off. Another is to allow voters to indicate a “second choice” in which the lowest vote-getter is eliminated and his/her votes are distributed to whomever the voter indicated as the 2nd choice. Then repeat until only two candidates are left, one of whom will have a majority. Multiple member districts are another option – imagine Texas’s 30-something Congressional districts reduced to 10, each of which elects three representatives.

        It’s unlikely Trump emerges from any of these alternatives as the nominee.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thanks. I had never heard it referred to as that.

      • 1mime says:

        And the second reason ? (-;

    • A friend just sent me this. David Duke defending Trumpy! Good Grief! This is going to be a \very long summer!!

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/david-duke-trump-judge-224121

  17. Pseudoperson Randomian says:

    I’ll be frank. The idea of dumping a candidate, even if that candidate is Trump, is terrifying. Even more terrifying than Trump himself.

    The further understand, where I’m coming from, one of my best friends is a brown Indian-American woman who happened to be in NYC during and after 9/11. Getting harassed everyday is no joke. The kind of hate that Trump is legitimizing is very likely hurt someone like her, even just as collateral – not to mention there have been isolated incidents of violence against Sikhs, Brazilians and a Spaniard.

    However, Trump did win the Republican primary, even with the might of the media and the establishment standing against him. Even if the political parties are private, they currently are a quasilegal regular part of the American democratic process. Dumping Trump now will lead to violence. People expect the political process to work fairly – and dumping Trump will just give ammo to “patriots” to do something stupid with the gun collection they’ve built up, all the legal nuance be damned. They’ve been losing the culture war, and the economy without white supremacy’s leaving them behind. The party they trusted to reverse this course, has failed. It has finally elected the candidate they really wanted – someone who speaks their concerns and positions and feelings straight, without all the cloak and dagger dog whistling. Dumping Trump now will basically signal to them that both parties have abandoned them, and they’ll consider it to be a betrayal of democracy. And they have a lot of guns.

    And that’s really dangerous for Muslims, or Mexicans or someone like my friend.

    There be monsters.

    • Stephen says:

      I lived through the sixities. People were concern about civil war happening during that time. Thank God for moderates like paster King. Because of them that did not happen. Remember all those other people are also armed. Being from the deep south and growing up in the White working class culture I can say most of us are not that bat sh*t crazy. If Madame President helps make their situation better many of them may realize we are in it together and good things happen with unity. Real racial reconciliation could start.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Like I’ve mentioned in my reply to tutta below, I don’t think there’ll be a huge number of people taking up arms and rebelling or something.

        But it takes only a few people to do something stupid.

        Look at it another way. *Controversy ahead*.
        Conservative Muslims make up only a proportion of all Muslims. Out of this group, a far smaller number are actual Islamists (I.e. supporters of political Islam – idea that government must be as defined in Islamic law), and out of that group, a very tiny miniscule number of people are actual jihadists (which I define as people willing to use violence to achieve political Islam).

      • flypusher says:

        “But it takes only a few people to do something stupid.”

        Indeed. Oklahoma City won’t forget that.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      You make an interesting point, because the view of ultra conservatives is that violence is the absolute last resort, to be used only if the right to free speech and the right to vote are lost. So, if their vote is cast aside, even if only during the primary process, this would be the ultimate violation. It wouldn’t just be about Trump specifically.

      However, since their right to free speech would still be intact, I expect to see more coming from that angle, angry letters to members of Congress, and not actual violence.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        Yes, there’ll be lots of that too.

        But just remember only a few people need to something stupid, like those militants in Oregon, or the concerns about Jade helm. One of the most interesting things Ive read is that they consider themselves to be true patriots – and that most people support them (except maybe the libtards), but aren’t saying anything because of PC oppression or something. Trump is giving them a voice and an audience. People already predisposed to that already have a bunch of conspiracy theories. Can you imagine what the Alex Jones sphere will do to rule up the nutters?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Actually, what I find most terrifying is not that Trump might win, or that there might be civil unrest, but the dangerous precedent that would be set if a bunch of party elders see it fit to cast aside the vote of the people, no matter who those people are. It could just as easily happen to your vote or my vote.

      • Pseudoperson Randomian says:

        That too.

        I was just a tiny bit more concerned about immediate consequences.

        I do have to wonder though. How crazy is it that the only reason we even have more than two real choices is because two private entities deign to let the proles have a say in who becomes POTUS.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Pseudo, check out this recent article in Newsweek. It’s a much broader view of the issue of voter suppression:

        http://www.newsweek.com/2016/05/13/american-democracy-electorate-voters-election-2016-donald-trump-454655.html

    • It seems to me Trump attracted the very same people on which the Republican party has based it’s success. less educated, lower income earning, Fox News watching, media hating, Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones listening, old angry white males who do not believe in science, global warming, Obama’s birthplace or religion but do believe Sarah Palin would make a top notch Vice President, You betcha!

      If the party tells these people their vote doesn’t count and loose their support, the Republicans can hold their next primary in a telephone booth!

    • pir says:

      Yes, I believe that is the real conundrum for principled Republicans — nominate somebody who does not stand for Republican principles, or subvert the process. Either is dangerous, but IMO the latter is generally more so, because principles matter beyond temporary setbacks. Though it might depend on the candidate, for me personally; my principles don’t necessarily survive all contact with the enemy. I mean, Hitler was elected because he very carefully manipulated the system, while never having the intention to honour the system after being elected. When confronted with that type of person, what do you do?

      There have been numerous attempts to paint Trump with the fascism brush, but I personally think he’s not comparable; he is just a garden variety authoritarian. He doesn’t hold fascist principles — heck, I am hard pressed to know whether he has any principles at all. He appeals to the lowest common denominator grievance collector; if those people looked at him carefully, they’d realize he is part of the problem, not the solution.This would-be emperor has no clothes.

      So IMO the Republicans would be wise to allow Trump’s nomination to go forward. He will be defeated by HRC, the Senate will probably return to Dem hands, and that will be that. The biggest problem in that for Republicans is the loss of the Supreme Court. Frankly, I see the hatred of HRC from the right as ridiculous — she is not an extreme leftist; far from it. Actual Neocons like her! The far left has much more reason to hate her than the right. The House will remain in Republican hands. So they get 4 more years of a Clinton, BFD. They can just obstruct her at every step — which is of course part of the reason why so many people see government as not functioning well these days, but far be it from me to expect any improvement there, since Clinton isn’t a uniting force. And in 4 years, Republicans can try again, and maybe use that time to get their act together. Or continue as before; probably more likely.

      While undermining the nomination of Trump with procedural shenanigans is, as you pointed out, a very dangerous endeavour with possible long-term repercussions. If at least Cruz had stuck it out, there would be another candidate to potentially unite behind — but then again, Cruz wasn’t exactly well-liked, so that didn’t happen when it should have already happened during the primary; everyone was out for their own interest.

      The whole US Presidential election setup is a very undemocratic system. I surmise that was the purpose, but this is one of the ugly downsides; you might get stuck with a candidate who is unpalatable to the majority of the party AND the country. Even if he were to win (say, Clinton gets indicted at the 11th hour), as long as he doesn’t do anything drastic (how would he do that; govern solely by executive order?), history will just see him as another chapter of “worst presidents ever”.

  18. A Non Mouse says:

    At this point, the best option for the GOP might be to withdraw from the ballot and not run a candidate at all for the presidency, just focus on the down-ballot races. It would allow them to address their internal mess out of the spotlight, to some degree, and perhaps regroup with an effective candidate for 2020.

    I have an ulterior motive in suggesting this, though: During the run-up to the 2012 election, I jokingly suggested to a friend that, the next presidential election, the GOP would be so bitterly divided that they wouldn’t manage to get a candidate on the ballot. If they actually do it, I’m going to look pretty clever — I could probably even parlay it into a free beer. 😛

  19. tuttabellamia says:

    I’m sure I’ve made it clear that I can’t stand Mr. Trump, but I am taken aback by Lifer’s suggestion that the will of the people be cast aside just like that, that not honoring the results of the primaries is a viable option if it prevents a Trump victory, and that any Republican politician who doesn’t move to seize the nomination from Mr. Trump is a coward.

    Mr. Trump has won the requisite number of delegates fair and square, and the will of the people must be respected, I don’t care whether the people who support him are semi-literate, quasi-literate, or completely illiterate. That attitude smacks of pure classicism.

    • Paul B says:

      Is there no limit to this, though? If you felt a candidate was truly dangerous if given actual political power, then shouldn’t the party attempt to prevent their rise to power?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Paul, you mention limits, and we could look at it from another perspective. This would set a dangerous precedent, with the establishment casting aside the will of the voters and removing anyone who doesn’t suit the elders’ fancy for any reason under the sun. What if the voters happen to nominate a minority, and the establishment decides that candidate is not acceptable? Is there no limit to what the establishment would be able to do?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The will of the voters should take precedence over the will of the establishment. Otherwise, why even bother to vote at all? We all might as well stay home and let the political bigwigs make all our decisions for us.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        And if Mr. Trump is truly dangerous, the way to prevent his rise to power is to vote for his opponent, Mrs. Clinton. Voting is the key.

      • texan5142 says:

        “would set a dangerous precedent, with the establishment casting aside the will of the voters”

        The will of the people want more gun control.
        The will of the people want higher taxes on the wealthy.
        The will of the people want an infrastructure program/investment.
        The will of the people want the petulant GOP controlled congress to do its job.
        The will of the people want …etc.

        The establishment cast aside the will of the people all the time for a select few. This is one time in history that the will of a few select voters should be cast aside for the safety and sanity of the American public at large.

      • texan5142 says:

        “The will of the voters should take precedence over the will of the establishment. ”

        Tell that to congress.

      • Tom D says:

        ***The will of the people want more gun control.
        The will of the people want higher taxes on the wealthy.
        The will of the people want an infrastructure program/investment.***

        If “the people” really truly want those things, they can get them by voting for Democrats to control Congress. When people don’t bother to vote, they can hardly be surprised to find politicians ignoring their preferences.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Texan, all good points, but to address this particular point:

        “the will of a few select voters should be cast aside for the safety and sanity of the American public at large.”

        The best way to cast aside the will of Trump supporters is to vote for Mrs. Clinton, don’t you think? That’s a much cleaner and more honest way of going about it.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Republican voters usually have a higher turnout than Democrats, and this has nothing to do with voter suppression (more like Democratic voter self-suppression, or apathy). So it should come as no surprise that the Republican philosophy of governance would win out so often.

      • Paul,

        No! The party is the people who belong to it. If the Republicans are a bunch of people who can not/do not think, attracted to racists, then those who are not of that ilk should leave. All Trump has said is what Republicans have been saying for years, only trump came out and actually left all subtlety behind.

        afterall, remember John McCain’s TV ad 6 years ago, “Build the dang wall!” Almost a Trump quote excapt trump says mexico will pay for it!

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      To be fair though, primaries are internal elections out on by private clubs run according to whatever rules the club wants to put in place. They are not official, government elections which obviously need specific rules enforced by the authority of the state.

      You could have a Beard Party where the person with the longest beard at the convention gets the nom if you wanted. The legal protections guaranteed by the constitution only kicks in during the actual elections.

      Primaries are a relatively new phenomenon. 100 years ago, the convention determined the candidate.

      Now, the wisdom of doing what Chris suggests is certainly debatable among members of that particular club. Whether it’s good for their clubs future or not is a decision they’ll have to debate. But its not an assault on democracy or fair elections or anything like that, although it certainly seems like that.

    • Ken says:

      Primaries are relatively recent, I think prior to 1964 candidates were nominated at the convention so we have historical precedent for “the party apparatchniks” deciding the candidate. We have Super Delegates in the democratic party to make sure no one nutty gets past the door. I think the bigger pity is there isn’t anyone with a profile in courage within the republican party to pull that emergency cord to stop the train.

    • flypusher says:

      There are no good solutions here. But if the GOP decides that overturning the will of the primary voters would do more harm than good (and Tutta makes some valid points on that), the best they can do is give up on the White House this year and focus down ballot. Don’t endorse Trump at a minimum. If you’re feeling rebellious enough, do what Kirk did and name the alternative candidate you will vote for. If you tend more towards invertebrate, dodge the question. Don’t talk about Trump, don’t even be in the same state with him if you can help it.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        It also irks my populist bone, the suggestion that the will of a “semi-literate mob” should be cast aside, as if only the will of the highly intelligent should be respected.

      • flypusher says:

        There no foolproof system here. In this case the will of the people has resulted in an spectacularly unqualified candidate. The GOP had chances to stop him within the current rules, but no one had the guts and integrity to do so. People like McConnell saying that it’s all about winning the White House and Paul Ryan saying that he could get his agenda passed under Trump is stupid, delusional crazy talk. They are better off in the short term with the Hamiltonian option-a politcal opponent in HRC in the White House who they can oppose without restraint or reservations. But they have straight-jacketed themselves with a misguided form of party loyalty-a corrupted form that looks only at short term gains and tolerates no dissent, not even principled constructive dissent. The GOP needs more people in influential places to stand up and say “NO! Trump is unqualified and I won’t vote for him” and be prepared to stand up to the backlash.

  20. Rob Ambrose says:

    Poor Trump, he’s really getting eviscerated lately.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/09/elizabeth-warren-to-call-donald-trump-a-nasty-loud-thin-skinned-fraud/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_warrentrump-614a-top%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

    Finding out winning the nomination of the party of racists (obviously not all Republicans are racist. But most racists are Republicans) is not quite the same as winning the general.

    And it’s still early June. I don’t know how his fragile psyche is going to stand up to this kind of barrage for 6 months. He only seems to thrive under adulation. Anything less and he starts to fall apart.

    • From Vox.com: Looks like not just Lifer is looking for a way out:-))! Personally I hope Trump stays in and gets the nomination. The country badly needs a strong, logical, thinking party on both the left and the right to counter each other and find solutions to our problems. We all here think that! Trump going down this rabbit hole in the long run hopefully will help the Republicans get out from under their demons.

      At least that’s my hope!

      http://www.vox.com/2016/3/24/11295380/republican-convention-rules-trump-delegates

      • flypusher says:

        Similar commentary from The Week:

        http://theweek.com/articles/628791/republicans-theres-still-time-ditch-donald-trump

        Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. A tactical retreat is necessary here, but political operatives are like Hitler with Stalingrad- never, ever give up an inch of the ground you hold, no matter what, no exceptions!! I’d like to be a fly on the wall for some of those party strategy meetings. If they aren’t admitting in private what a bad spot they are in, they will go the way of the Whigs.

      • johngalt says:

        Exactly, fly. If they go with Trump, there are a lot of Republicans who simply won’t vote for him, and they lose. If they go nuclear, and nominate someone else, there are a lot of GOP primary voters who will rightly feel disenfranchised, like the system is screwing them again, and they won’t vote, so they lose.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Indeed. The GOP needs to understand 2016 is lost. A strategic retreat, in the form of dumping Trump, may possibly at least keep intact the IDEA of the Republican party enough to rebuild after their defeat.

        If they stck with Trump though, the GOP gets razed to the ground, it’s fields plowed under with salt, and the establishment needs to start over from scratch, probably in the form of a new party (as the old GOP will become the party of Trumpism) and they will be out of relevance for decades probably.

      • Tom D says:

        ***If they stck with Trump though, the GOP gets razed to the ground, it’s fields plowed under with salt***

        I don’t see any evidence for this. They’ll probably still hold at least the House if not the Senate, plus many state governments. And they’ll probably retake the Senate in 2018 if they lose it in 2016. (Everyone seems to say the 2018 map is very favorable to them.) And they’ll be right back with a very different candidate for president in 2020 (since almost any possible candidate would be very different).

    • formdib says:

      Just a note that it’s weird to read an article that says things like, ‘Warren will say,’ ‘she intends to say,’ ‘she will also mention’…

      Like, at this point consider the speech a PR release and write another speech.

  21. Houston-Stay-At-Homer says:

    I think Lifer’s proposal would be a spectacularly bad idea.

    Essentially the GOP is a private organization that is not part of the government and can make up its own rules whenever it wants, but subverting the will of the people who voted in fair and free elections seems like a bad idea.

    I know we have the electoral college that could essentially do the same thing in the general election, but again, it seems like a very bad idea.

    I also wonder if any number of state GOP entities (and private citizens) could sue the RNC for the cost/expense of putting on the primaries whose results were ignored.

    The RNC certainly has the ability or right to do whatever it wants with the rules and at the convention, but in today’s litigious environment, I suspect there would be a flood of lawsuits.

    Regarding whether Hillary is indicted:
    A) I doubt it happens
    B) Being charged of something (led by a group of party zealots for political gain) does not mean you are convicted of something.

    Without hesitation, I would vote for an indicted Hillary over Trump. If we had evidence of Hillary actively selling secrets to our enemies, I would be voting for Biden (sorry folks, I still don’t think it would be Bernie) over Trump.

    Regarding the Senate and House:
    There is no way the Democrats can sweep enough House elections to take the majority. The Democrats should do well this year, but way too many of those seats are in deep red GOP areas, and they’ll stay GOP this year regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. The Democrats will gain ground, but they won’t catch up (making Paul Ryan the most powerful man in the government).

    There are only maybe 10 or 12 Senate seats that will be competitive, regardless again of who is at the top of the ticket. The Democrats may even lose one or two of those seats. All of the stars would have to align for the Democrats to catch enough breaks to win all of those. Trump may be the star alignment that allows the Democrats to do well, but “doing well” would be picking up five (maybe seven at the top) seats.

    As you think about my astute analyses above, please remember I have not gotten a single thing wrong about this election over the past several months — oh wait, I’ve been wrong about everything.

    • 1mime says:

      Homer, how’s that day job going for ya? You really have a gift for gab, my friend (-;

      But, as long as we’re playing the “what if” game here…..Suppose Dems take the presidency and majority control of the Senate…and, pick up enough seats in the House to make life a little more difficult for Repubs…..We’re talking baby steps in the House, but big old steps in the Senate. For one thing, there’s SCOTUS. Then there are appointments within government that have been languishing forever due to GOP obstruction. It might be very interesting to see how well these departments could function if they were allowed to operate. Of course, the GOP would still control the budget process, but with a smaller majority, life would get a little more difficult for them.

      What I want to see happen in the House is the dissolution of the Freedom Caucus. This group of 40 men are more dangerous than the entire Republican membership. There are court challenges in many states that are nipping away at the gerrymandered districts that have protected Republican candidates. Force these people to earn their seats – force them to compete….of course this requires the Dems to field capable candidates as well. It’s going to be a long slog to return the U.S. House to a functioning body, but if Hastert can be eliminated, Norquist locked in a closet, and Dems play some serious hardball, it may be able to be done in H’s term. We can only hope, right?

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        The Senate and presidency would be enough to fundamentally alter the course the countries been on for years. Look for an unprecedented flurry of judicual appointments (all Liberal) and a pretty quick change to a functioning government. I think ppl forgot that government historically passes fairly significant laws on a somewhat regular basis. Similar to what happened in Canada after 10 years of conservative governance, I expect a flurry if laws passed in what seems like a relatively short time.

        I believe that societal progress moves at a more or less predetermined pace. If you had a functioning government, passing laws regularly, it would happen on a slow, steady, gradual pace. But if you block that progress for 5, 10, 15 years, when the machinery of government finally moves again (as it surely will) you will see a much quicker pace of change, very similar to economic theories about pent up demand. Social progress is relentless, if a little slow, and if you block it for a period of time, it will make up for lost time when it begins again.

        It happened in the 60’s and it’s about to happen again.

    • flypusher says:

      The current Senate breakdown:

      54 GOP
      45 Dem
      1 Indy

      If the Dems flip 4 seats, and Bernie plays ball, they get control. 5 or more seats and their control is secure. That is very doable with 10-12 competitive races. Kirk in IL and Johnson in WI are very likely toast.

      The House difference is around 30. I agree that the Dems gain, but they don’t flip the House. The one unfortunate side effect is that the House Frredom Caucus becomes a proportionally larger faction of the GOP House ranks. Ryan is in for a very aggravating 2 years. I wish the Hastert Rule would go to the toxic waste dump, but I suspect the GOP will double down here.

      I’ll predict that the Dems get the Presidency and flip the Senate, and that Ryan will need lots of hypertension meds.

  22. Pseudoperson Randomian says:

    None of the incentives to dump trump are in place. All of the most enthusiastic voters – the ones that turn up for local, mid-term and other non-presidential elections, are the ones that are already supporting Trump. This is the result of a very long process of indoctrination and bubble reinforcement that fox and talk radio have engaged in.

    It’s just that this has progressed far enough that the “wink-wink” dog whistle is no longer necessary to win the GOP nomination. Trump is not a disruption. He is the logical continuation of 2012

    Most of the GOP will attempt to ride that wave, no matter how mad some of them might be because the playbook is now undeniably out in the open, and no matter how shocked many of the sane ones are that the nutty racist fringe is far, far larger than even leftist accusations

  23. flypusher says:

    For your horrified amusement:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-08/trump-says-no-reason-to-raise-1-billion-for-campaign

    Oh yeah, Trump’s got this all under control. Everything’s going according to plan. But seriously who would really want to be his running mate? Christie, Newt, and Perry would jump at it, I guess.

  24. But none of you would have any trouble if Hillary is indicted. You would still vote for her right ? Just play along. If she is indicted would you vote for her ?

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Well, let’s see… on the one hand we have an exceptionally qualified candidate who faces the exceedingly unlikely odds of being indicted over a so-called ‘scandal’ in which national security wasn’t compromised and, to the best of our knowledge, no one was hurt. On the other hand, we have someone so thin-skinned that he feels compelled to yearly document the size of his fingers because some magazine riffed him it for years ago.

      Now who would I feel more comfortable giving the nuclear codes to? Yeesh, I haven’t had a decision this difficult since deciding whether or not to put that extra slice of pepperoni on my pizza. 😦

      • So you don’t think that Shrillery used a personal Email server because she could not have anyone knowing she used her position as Sec. Of State to receive money for favors. Well I can understand why you would think that cause after all it’s not like the Clintons have any financial misdeeds in the past. Ryan you have proved my point that some people are just damn stupid to vote. Do what’s left of our Republic a favor and stay home and comb your back on election night.

      • flypusher says:

        “Do what’s left of our Republic a favor and stay home and comb your back on election night.”

        Hey, I think Trump is lurking in our forum. Sounds like his maturity level.

      • Fair Economist says:

        The emails have been released (apart from the stuff retroactively classified years after it was sent.) There’s no bribery or corruption. There’s not going to be an indictment for Hillary doing the same thing that all the previous SecStates had done.

      • TheMeansAreTheEnd says:

        Given the large number of Republicans (including Palin) who admitted to using off-site email systems to hide their actions & evade accountability (and who did NOT release the emails), the right-wing attacks on Clinton for her email server are more than usually hypocritical.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        “used a personal Email server because she could not have anyone knowing she used her position as Sec. Of State to receive money for favors.”

        Very true. Just like it’s likely that Donald Trump isnt releasing his tax returns because they show that he funds ISIS and AL Qaeda. I mean, that’s the game were playing here right? Take one known fact, and then extrapolating that (with absolutely no evidence, mind you) to a conclusion with no basis in reality but which matches up nicely with our ideological bias.

        I don’t know for sure Trumps not funding terrorism. It’s possible. And just as reasonable as your suggestion.

        If she received money for favors, the FBI will arrest her for it. That’s what the investigation is about. But considering theyve said they don’t expect criminal charges, I don’t see that as likely.

        But I’m sure an intellectual midget such as yourself will just deflect the usual way when facts don’t line up with your hopes and dreams: just blame the corrupt FBI who is covering up the evidence, and also suppressing the photos they have of Hillary bathing in puppies blood and eating children.

      • Creigh says:

        There is a wonderful essay attributed to Aristotle ([Aristotle], On Trolling), “translated” by Rachel Barney of the University of Toronto. It ends this way:

        ” Hence the saying, ‘Trolls not to be fed.’ But though everyone knows this, everyone does it; for the desire to be right on the internet is natural and present to all.”

        The wole essay is delightful and worth reading here: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S2053447716000099

      • sciprojguy says:

        Mr Robtoy, when the first sentence in your post uses the term “Shrillery” it detracts from the limited credibility that attaches to the bullet points you pasted together. If you could dig up an actual indictment (where you need facts and evidence of intent rather than Fox News judges opining for air time) it might buttress your case. Otherwise, I agree with Lifer – Hillary Clinton is the only remotely qualified person who ran a presidential race in either party this cycle.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        Just gonna say a couple of things and then I’ll leave you to stew in your own self-indulgent delusions of how Hillary is, in any realistically conceivable way, worse than Trump…

        Hillary is, in this election, the single most qualified candidate to be President of the United States come January, 2017. She is, very likely, the most vetted candidate in modern political history. Republicans have thrown everything, including the rhetorical kitchen sink at her and she’s still standing. Whatever you think of her, she’s strong. Even Republicans who vehemently oppose (like Newt Gingrich and Lindsey Graham) her candidacy admit that much. She’s strong and she can handle the job.

        Republicans spent hour after endless hour trying to bring her down on Benghazi. Even with that and all the time in the world to push her into every conceivable corner they could think of, she came out the winner and made them all look like fools. If there was anything that could’ve sunk her on that, it would’ve come out. Game, set, match.

        It’s the same with the so-called e-mail scandal. Stew over it all you want. There will be no indictment and there was never any reason for one. That you need to dwell on such nonsense reflects far more on you than it does me. Just sayin’

        Finally, Trump is, absolutely, capitalizing on the grievances of, overwhelming, old white guys who feels that the country doesn’t work for them anymore. Perhaps that includes you, maybe it doesn’t. Either way, if you still choose to throw in your lot with Trump despite knowing that, feel free to try to insult and degrade me all you want. I take no insult from one with the relevant moral standing of a rotting carcass on the side of the road.

        You have a nice day now. 🙂

    • unarmedandunafraid says:

      I’d like to play. Interesting brain game. I am not sure what circumstances would cause me choose Trump over Clinton. What would the indictment say? What would be the specific charges? Are we talking selling secrets to Kim Jong Il?

      • I didn’t say chose Trump over H Rodent Clinton. If she is indicted for selling favors to foreign countries for money would you still support her. And please don’t be like that dumbass Ryan who would drink her bath water no matter what she did.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        If she’s indicted for selling favors she’ll be arrested. There is no evidence, or even any allegations of this though, outside of the tinfoil hat wearing, Alex Jones listening, Illuminati fearing crowd.

        In the real world where the adults live, this allegation hasn’t even been made by anyone with any credibility.

    • flypusher says:

      What exactly do think think HRC is likely to get indicted for? Exactly what laws are you accusing her of breaking?

      In the highly unlikely event she did get indicted (and I say unlikely, given how long this has dragged on with no such results), I suspect that the Dems would have grounds to come up with a replacement candidate. Unless through some unexpected rift in the time-space continuum they pick Lyndon LaRouche, that person is going to be better than Trump. Hell, even an indicted Clinton is better than Trump, for the reasons Ryan mentioned. If I must, I’ll take a competent crook over the unqualified, ignorant, short-tempered, spoiled brat who can’t grok why he’s taking heat for his latest racist statements.

      • piranha says:

        I’m not on Bruce’s side — hint, Bruce: If you can’t manage to show enough adult sense to refer to Presidential candidates by their actual names, and treat other people in the discussion with some basic courtesy, a forum in which those things are valued is probably not the right place for you.

        I’m not a rabid Clinton hater. Benghazi was so much bullshit. The amount of taxpayer’s money wasted on Republican witch hunts is ludicrous.

        But Clinton could conceivably have broken several laws in regard to her email server:
        1. putting classified information into an unclassified context
        2. exposing national secrets through gross negligence
        3. destruction of government information
        4. violating FOIA

        I think it’s pretty obvious that she violated FOIA. But you don’t get indicted for that. You can get fired if you’re a government employee, but she isn’t. She’d get reprimanded. BFD. This pisses me off, because she willfully thwarted FOIA, the server was basically designed to do that, and FOIA is incredibly important so that we can keep an eye on our public servants. I think this is a horrible trait in a President, to feel that she has the right to keep information from us.

        That she put classified information on a non-classified server is also obvious by now, and she lied about it originally — what she’s said morphed from “there was no classified information on my server” to “there was no information marked classified on my server”, and we know that isn’t relevant; she was the authority to have marked it if it needed marking. She made some noise about “how information was retroactively classified and how information is often overclassified”, which is true, and from what little I have been able to deduce, no big secrets got out — but that doesn’t mean she could decide all on her own not to honour the classification process. And if your President doesn’t listen to the NSA, that’s not really a safe attitude. IMO she got lucky if she didn’t get hacked. She was incompetent in that regard.

        Whether she destroyed government information will come out of the FBI examining the deleted data on her email server. She stated under oath that she turned over all work-related email, but afterwards several emails were found that she had not turned over, so this one is open, and while she weasel worded the statement under oath, that might be a problem for her. This is the area where conspiracy theorists make the most hay, since she supposedly hid nefarious Clinton Foundation / State Department stuff here, but frankly, even if such dealings went on, I don’t think there is written evidence for it. They’re just not that stupid.

        The most weighty concern of all is whether she exposed national secrets. I wonder whether we will ever know, because, being secrets, we can’t be told what those might have been, just like we don’t get to see the classified emails. We do know that her server wasn’t even encrypted for 3 months, so the danger was clearly there. I’m kinda curious what will come of the deposition of the Romanian hacker.

        Is she a competent crook? I’d say so. There has always been smoke in everything the Republicans have used as fodder for their persecution of the Clintons, but there’s just never been enough to file charges, and people have thrown themselves under the bus to protect them. I think history will not view the Clintons kindly, though it’s not like their style of soft corruption is rare in government.

        Trump is just as corrupt though, and he’s not very competent, nor as intelligent, and he has no particular ethos of public service. So if the choice came down between the two, and somebody held a gun to my head to make me vote, I’d pick HRC. It chafes a lot though that these would be the only choices. I like Bernie Sanders in large part because he’s not corrupt.

    • 1mime says:

      Bruce, opposing views are always welcome on this site…..but we all make an effort to be civil. Insulting other commentators isn’t going to win arguments. Stick to facts and cut the crap.

    • johngalt says:

      Bruce, you will find that the level of discussion here is slightly beyond 3rd grade recess, although comparing that to your silly name-calling might insult the 3rd graders.

      To answer your question: in a contest versus Donald Trump, if HRC were to have a heart attack two weeks before the election, I would vote for her corpse, and prop it up in the Oval Office “Weekend at Bernie’s”-style. At least that would do no harm. Trump is the single most unqualified and unsuitable person to be nominated for the leadership of a major country in history.

      • flypusher says:

        “…. if HRC were to have a heart attack two weeks before the election, I would vote for her corpse, and prop it up in the Oval Office “Weekend at Bernie’s”-style. At least that would do no harm.”

        Applause!!

        I just may be stealing that line if any conservative family member tries to pressure me on politics!!

      • Turtles Run says:

        JG

        That was certainly one of the best images I have had in a long time.

  25. johngalt says:

    “There is probably only one major Republican figure willing to blow up the convention to stop Donald Trump – Ted Cruz. He has been eerily silent.”

    Indeed. But think about his motivations. Cruz wants to be president, like a little girl wants that puppy in the window, with every fiber of his being, except Crus thinks he would be better at loving that puppy than anyone else, part hubris, part psychotic stalker. He can make a go at the GOP convention, but this would require a palace coup of biblical proportions. He needs allies, of which he has few, to overturn long-established convention rules. If he loses, he’s walked himself further out the plank. If he bides his time, Trump can immolate himself in a blaze of glory, taking the GOP up in flames with him. But Cruz doesn’t give a rat’s behind about the GOP, as his actions in the Senate make clear; he only cares about himself. So Cruz lets the GOP go to hell, and the country too (in his mind) under four years of the boringly competent leadership Hillary will likely offer. Then his messianic story comes to fruition as he emerges from the desert to save humanity in 2020. Why screw that up by jumping the pooch in Cleveland?

    • flypusher says:

      Anybody else up for boring competence?

    • 1mime says:

      “A palace coup of biblical proportions…” Well, Cruz is the “anointed one”…per poppy…Nothing he would do will change my view that as repulsive a candidate as Trump is, Cruz is more dangerous – to the nation….Trump more dangerous to the GOP. Of course, I’m voting for the boring one so it’s quite possible my opinion is partisan. I think the Republican Party is getting exactly what it deserves…sort of like those pounds that show up when we indulge in too many sweet indulgences….There’s a price to pay and it is Drumpf.

      The irony of this whole scenario is that as the Democratic ads start raining down showing the don as his own worst enemy, it will make the GOP squirm more and more….how much can they take? We know the GOP can dish it out, but, now that they’ve got to live with the monster they’ve created, can they go the distance?

  26. Tom D says:

    ***placing Donald Trump at the top of the party’s ticket will split the GOP and finish off its already tenuous national relevance… Nominating a different candidate in 2020 will not eliminate that legacy.***

    I would love to believe this, but I find myself doubting it. Goldwater got crushed in ’64; Nixon won in ’68. McGovern got stomped in ’72; Carter won in ’76. Dukakis was trounced in ’88; Clinton won in ’92. GWB became massively unpopular so that the Dems took Congress in ’06 and the presidency in ’08; the GOP took Congress right back in ’10. The public seems to have a really short memory. It would be unprecedented, as far as I know, if (assuming Trump is the nominee and loses this year) the public were to continue to hold Trump against the GOP in future elections.

    I wish this weren’t true, because I think Trump offers an unusually clear example of what’s wrong with the GOP in general (including racism, disdain for education and expertise, disregard of facts whenever they’re inconvenient, macho love of violence for the sake of violence, the belief that rich people are better than everyone else, sexism, and bigotry against non-Christians while being shallow in the actual practice of Christianity). But history seems to indicate that the GOP will be the Party of Trump only until Trump loses, after which the voters will move along and consider the 2020 nominee on his own perceived merits. The 2020 GOP nominee will, in all likelihood, be someone who possesses many of the same bad qualities as Trump, but who is a more professional politician and better at controlling his image.

    For the GOP to really grow up and become the kind of party that would never nominate a person like Trump (or like Palin, or like GWB), I predict it will take a generational shift plus a long losing streak – something comparable to the Dems’ long period of being out of the White House between ’68 and ’92 (except for Carter’s one unsuccessful term). That period produced the so-called New Democrats, who really were “Republican lite” in many ways. A similar movement could conceivably arise on the Republican side, but only if a lot of Republican politicians come to believe that the only way to win is to move to the center. (It’s not clear to me that this belief is even true; appealing to one’s base rather than to the center often seems like a pretty effective strategy.)

    • Tom Merritt says:

      I basically agree that for the Republican Party to reform a long period of being out of power will be required, similar to the period that the Democrats went through. Unfortunately, with the present tendency for the Republicans to win the off-year elections, they will continue with the same policies that they are presently following for some time. The Democrats did retain the House until 1994, so there was a similar dynamic at work for them.

      Also I believe that the Republican Congressional Leaders fully expect to lose this election, including the presidency and the Senate. They are hoping to retain the House. They are supporting Trump because they feel that they will be in a better position following the election to rebuild the party, continue with the extremely reactionary (Randian) policies that they are following and nominate a more electable politician in 2020. That way they hope they can avoid a serious split in the party. The plans that they have are being made clear by the series of policy papers that Ryan and the House are preparing

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        >] “The plans that they have are being made clear by the series of policy papers that Ryan and the House are preparing”

        I’m sure the media will be a collective group of eager beavers to tout Ryan’s repackaged proposals of tax cuts, block grants and ambiguous reform. Goodness, whatever could be more exciting and get higher ratings than that?

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Continually hanging Trump as an albatross around Republicans’ neck hardly matter in the big scheme of things. Barring an absolute collapse on Democrats’ part, Republicans have no chance at the White House and their hold on Congress, particularly the House, grows weaker and weaker as the share of the white vote declines and gerrymandering either gets overturned in the courts or districts become more competitive.

      Republicans’ appeals to the politics of white supremacy have run their course and now it’s time to pay the price. If the GOP doesn’t get its collective shit together, they face political extinction.

      • Ryan do us all a favor and stop with your Republicans bad Democrats good bullshit. How old are you ? Doesn’t it get cramped in that basement. Go out get some sunshine and play in the middle of a very busy interstate and leave these discussions to grown ups.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        You’re out of your league here. This isn’t a typical insult forum. We discuss ideas, and you’re expected to back them up intellectually.

        People on both sides have been doing this here for years. Those that can’t keep up intellectually (and it seems you’re one) don’t last long.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        Flattering though I find your repeated adolescent attempts to come after me, Bruce, I take refuge in the idea of competing ideas and ideals, not petty insults thrown back and forth like we’re on Facebook or Youtube.

        Furthermore, I actually quite like Republicans, contrary to your smarmy assertion. I admire Teddy Roosevelt quite a bit, as I do Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and others. I have disagreements with them all in some respects, surely enough, but they’re all worthy of respect and serious consideration.

        Had you actually bothered to inquire about my views beforehand, perhaps you might’ve avoided looking like a fool just now. Do yourself a favor and grow up. I take no interest nor satisfaction in an easy target like yourself.

  27. E says:

    I’m convinced Trump is going to drop out. He’s had it easy so far, the press hasn’t really asked too many hard questions and most of the GOP either didn’t take him seriously or was too afraid of him to take him on. He’s now going to have the Democrats pummeling him non-stop. They are not going to let issues drop, and they are going to be digging up so much dirt on this man that the networks will have non-stop breaking news.

    Just look at what’s been going on in the last couple weeks. His meltdown over the media on the donations to the veterans group. The beating he’s taking over his remarks on Curiel. The beating he’s taking over his response to his remarks on Curiel. The dump of public documents in the Trump U case. We’ve now got the AP and some other organizations uncovering evidence that he bribed two two state attorney generals with campaign donations in exchange for them dropping Trump U investigations.

    The man is thin-skinned, lacks discipline, and has no campaign infrastructure or sophisticated PR team. He’s a narcissist and arguably a hedonist. He’s never going to be able to withstand what is now going to be in store for him. There will come a day when he gets tired of the attacks, and takes his ball and goes home. He’ll blame the media, the GOP and everyone but himself.

    If the GOP is lucky, this will happen before the convention.

    • flypusher says:

      So maybe the Dems need to pace themselves a bit. They don’t want him to quit too soon.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I had that thought, mildly alarmed that he was imploding too soon, in time to get a different candidate.

        But really, who are they going to get? Nobody with any interest in their political future would agree to it. There’s a solid 30-40% of Republicans who would view that as the ultimate betrayal. Millions would stay home on election day .

      • Turtles Run says:

        Rob

        I do not see Trump imploding yet. Sure he has had a couple of bad weeks but these things go in cycles. There are no real alternatives now for the GOP and the media is not going to want a boring news cycle in a Presidential election. Trump will come back either through good news of his own or anther bad news cycle for HRC.

  28. texan5142 says:

    The Donalds little black book must have some serious shit on these guys.

  29. Chris D. says:

    “…sobriety, courage, pragmatism, and vision…”

    Say, what? I cannot believe how well you have performed the mental gymnastics necessary to convince yourself that Trump is not the logical (though extreme) creation and extension of FOXNews-GOP trends going back to at least 1994. He is no more anti-immigrant, racist, or fool-hardy in his economic policies (can anyone say “The Laffer Curve”) than the establishment GOP (read: Dixiecrat-Objectivist-Evangelical alliance) as a whole. And, I’m talking nationwide. I grew up in IN and live in NC. There are some differences in the flavor of right-wing politics between the two states, but were talking chocolate vs. chocolate with chocolate chips. It ain’t vanilla vs. chocolate by any stretch.

    From what I can tell you are simply a GOP apparatchik who prefers for his presidential nominee to be the sort of bloke who robs the bank through clever lock-picking rather than by blasting a hole in the vault. That’s really the only distinction in play here between Trump and any other potential nominee.

    I left the GOP in 1994. You’re just now starting to think all is not well on the right? Gimme a break.

    • flypusher says:

      You should read through some of the blog archieves.

    • antimule says:

      Read his other posts. Chris is no randroid or evangelical and often criticizes both. He in fact supports some extensive redistributive policies, such as Basic Income. He just doesn’t trust the Democrats because he feels they are too much tied to the unions and government bureaucracies to do the right thing.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yup. Chris is basically a Democrat who hates unions so much he’s a Republican.

        He’s a smart guy though, the kind of Republican who should be in charge of the rebuild after the ashes cool off following the 2016 election.

      • 1mime says:

        (-: We’ll keep working on ya though, Chris….

    • Tom D says:

      Going to a blog called “GOP Lifer” and criticizing the blogger for being a member of the GOP seems a bit pointless. Besides, if having left the GOP in 1992 makes you better than Chris, then I guess it follows that everyone who was never a member of that party in the first place is better than you, right?

      Chris is, at any rate, a Republican who’s capable of having an interesting conversation, which is more than I can say for most Republican bloggers I’ve come across. Better to accept him for who he is and engage with him as such, than to maul him for not having left the GOP (yet).

  30. DFC says:

    This is over already. Trump has just taken the party to the extreme hinted at for years by the GOP leadership. The messages are the same, only crasser, louder and shameless. He is the authentic voice now. They can’t go back.

  31. Creigh says:

    “There is probably only ne major Republican figure willing to blow up the convention and stop Donald Trump”

    I wish you’d quit scaring me like that.

  32. Rob Ambrose says:

    Quite the pickle our GOP friends has found themselves in.

    In sure everybody’s got an opinion on how to deal with it, but if I were among party leadership, Id push to ensure Trump gets the nom to keep the integrity of the primaries intact, and then announced that I wouldn’t be endorsing, supporting, or voting for him and spend all party resources down ticket.

    And then the day after the election, ID get all party leaders together and hammer out a new platform, pronto. You don’t have to kick out the nutcases, just stop making your party a welcome host to them, and they’ll leave on their own. That means not pandering to idiots or conspiracy theorists. Stop demonizing every single thing Dems do just because they’re Dems. Consider ideas on their own meeits. Lose the Hastert rule. Remain traditional on the social issues if you must but stop making them key planks in the platform. Accept that the majority of Americans feel differently then you do about these things, and understand you won’t be repealing roe v Wade, or Obamacare, or Obergfell.

    That seems to be the best way to handle this. But of course, that would require political courage .

    • Fair Economist says:

      Isolating Trump takes a lot of personal courage too, and a lot of courage in your family as well. Apparently when Kristol proposed French for a third party run Trump threatened French’s *wife*. Any Republican ostentatiously opposing Trump is going to get a lot of nasty rhetoric from Trump, and undoubtedly a lot of hate mail and such from Trumps supporters, possibly extending to their wives/children/associates if they don’t knuckle under. The willingness to endure *that* kind of attack is rare, especially among the privileged class they come from.

      Plus, the likely party split raises the risk (to them) of a Dem trifecta, a lot, and that’s something they really want to avoid as well.

  33. way2gosassy says:

    This is a situation I never thought I would see in a modern society. Donald Trump represents everything negative in this country that had effectively been put to bed over the last generation or two. He and by the permission and actions of the Republican Party have brought the dark underbelly of pro-hate to the surface once again. Now Republicans are worried about what this is going to do to the party in the future I would think the party should be much more concerned what this is going to do to the country. I for one am not surprised at all by this and I firmly place the blame for this on the myopic view of modern Republicans that they clearly need not listen to or work with Democrats and even their own constituents for the betterment of this countries citizens, all of them, not just the wealthy or angry white men.

    Donald Trump is your creation whether with your permission or by your failure to advance a more credible candidate and hopefully he will be the demolition of what the Republican party has come to represent. This country needs the balance two strong parties can provide, for now or until a strong and inclusive alternative arises I am satisfied that every marginalized group in this country will get fair representation.

    • 1mime says:

      “I would think the party should be much more concerned what this is going to do to the country.” You nailed it, Sassy, but the crux of the problem is – it’s not been about country for the GOP for a very long time. It’s ALL about party.

  34. flypusher says:

    Is the truck big enough and going fast enough to kill instantly????

    Yes the GOP is in a mess of their own making. The people I considered to actually have some backbone, such as McCain and Ryan, have totally surrendered. McCain especially disappoints. He had the guts to endure 5 years of torture as a POW, but now he won’t stand up to that unqualified bully of a man-child. So damn sad. We needed you Sen. McCain, and you let us down. You deserve to lose your seat.

    • TheMeansAreTheEnd says:

      I thought McCain let us down when he chose Palin for his VP — was that so much better than endorsing Trump? Since then I learned about how he dumped the wife who stuck with him while he was a POW in favor of a richer woman who could give him a political career & regretted ever voting for him.

      • flypusher says:

        My lowered estimation of McCain started in 2004, when he actively stumped for W. There was some extremely low campaigning during the SC primary in 2000, targeting McCain’s adopted daughter. I didn’t expect him to endorse Kerry, but to actively help the people who attacked your family is selling out. Picking Palin took him down many notches. And now the sellout is complete- he endorsed Trump despite his personal insult and despite Trump advocating torture, an issue where McCain used to have a ton of moral authority. It’s sad to see a hero sell his soul like that. He could have been great and done some great things. Now he’s a shell of his old self clinging desperately to his seat. Sad.

  35. antimule says:

    i hate trump,but i hate anyone else on republican side even more. At least trump talks about bringing the jobs back and helping the rednecks. Paul Ryan is every bit the conman Trump is, only more eloquent. Maybe Trump’s cansidacy forces the democrats to create some program to help the white poor, at least. Cruz or Ryan are a road to nowhere.

    • flypusher says:

      I hope so. HRC is smart enough to recognize the problems of the White underclass, but will she do anything about them? It’s a festering sore, and it will be back next election cycle if it’s ignored.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Trump presents a very real danger to America’s institutions and rule of law in a way that no other candidate does, even though on a policy by policy basis, he’s better then, say, a Ted Cruz.

      Frankly, the insane GOP policies don’t worry me that much because even if the worst thing happens and they are able to implement them, the very act of implementation them would prove once and for all that they don’t work. Kind of like Kansas on a national scale. That’s a scary thought of course, but we would fix it eventually. Trump preents a danger unique to him though. A guy with absolutely no idea about seperation of powers, of judicial independence, a guy who has no problem overtly demonizing entire races and religious groups.

      • antimule says:

        Well, as i am not American, I am not as familiar with your separation of powers as you are. What worries me is that if GOP goes full Paul Ryan, Democrats may be tempted to turn into Republicans Lite. Clinton is basically it already. Trump is crazy so I have no idea what might happen with him at the helm of the GOP.

    • duncancairncross says:

      I’m with Antimule on this – the Donald is terrible but the rest of the GOP is worse,

      It’s like the difference between a broken leg and cancer

      • flypusher says:

        I will give Trump credit in that he has helped get the subject of the economically left behind (I like the term ” unnessariat”) prominently into the political discussion. But he offers nothing tangible to help them. His tax plan was just as bad as Cruz’ or Rubio’s in terms of being just another trickle-down-cut-taxes-for-the-wealthy-even-more regressive pile of dreck. He needs to offer more than these trade deals are bad, I’ll make better deals, I’m good at this.

    • way2gosassy says:

      From your link,

      “Asked about one right-wing blogger who said Republicans were backing a racist candidate, McConnell simpered that what matters is winning the White House. “The right-of-center world needs to respect the fact that the primary voters have spoken,” he said.”

      This is the most telling statement describing the state of the Republican party today. To hell with the country and it’s people we have to have control no matter what.

      • flypusher says:

        McConnell has chugged so much of the koolaide I’m shocked that he hasn’t exploded. Does he really think he’s fooling anyone?

        Can’t wait for you to desperately start SCOTUS hearings on Nov 9.

      • way2gosassy says:

        By the time they start it will be far too late. Their lack of action is already biting their butts on some of their favored issues like the second amendment for instance. Seems a lower court ruling on the issue of concealed hand guns in the public are not protected within the Constitution.

      • Turtles Run says:

        McConnell???

  36. Fair Economist says:

    There’s a public action problem with taking out Trump that cropped up in the primaries: if somebody goes after Trump, they help the Republican party, but they themselves are going to get hurt. Also, if the Republicans get a blowout that gives Hillary effective control of Congress, we’ll see a major session of liberal legislation that will move the country permanently to the left like 65-66. Combined with ongoing demographic shifts, the existing Republican party would probably quickly descend into irrelevance.

    So, basically, all the incentives for Republican officeholders are to stay the course, not rock the boat, and hope that whatever happens won’t be so bad as to flip the House. If the House doesn’t flip, the Republicans will just follow the anti-Obama playbook of blocking everything and blaming him for the resulting gridlock. They will almost certainly have huge gains in the Senate in 2018 and thus be able to continue federal obstructionism + low-visibility state takeovers until at least 2024.

    “Play it safe and hope” isn’t a great strategy and risks the big blowout, given how incompetent/crazy Trump is turning out to be. But at this point, I don’t think there’s any way of getting rid of him that doesn’t make a huge blowout likely, and given that leading any such attempt is career suicide anyway, elected Republicans don’t really have much of an option.

    Republican supporters in the media have different incentives. Irrelevance for the party is not irrelevance for them; even if conservatives become a distinct minority there will still be enough to make a lot of media personalities very rich. Being a boycott target, OTOH, can be very painful. So they are often willing to call out Trump. Of course, this makes the situation for the elected Republicans even worse.

    • I think most Republicans will consider first how well they are situated as an individual. Is their seat safe! Their number 1 concern. Look at McCain, a person for whom i used to have great respect. He has endorsed Trump! To save his senate seat!

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      If things keep going as they are, Democrats would need to have their rhetorical legs cut out from under them to lose the fight for the Senate.

      As far as the House goes, Democrats need, at a minimum, an advantage of seven points over Republicans to gain a majority. With Trump at the top of the ticket, I’m willing to bet that they’ll have that and then some. Tie that in with those who either just stay home, vote for another party or begrudgingly vote for Clinton and Democrats have just about the best chance they could possibly hope for to get a modest sized majority in the House.

      Frankly, if that does happen, then I would expect to see a LOT of movement on Democrats’ part to take serious action on a variety of fronts; on voting rights, gerrymandering reform, etc, etc. Republicans may try to block some of that in the Senate, at which point I would expect to see a very strong push for Democrats to end the filibuster on legislation.

      If all that happens, then Democrats would very likely lose their House majority in 2018, but if they can lay the groundwork in two years’ time, they may get it back sooner than people think. That would be my strategy anyhow.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe all Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote, no legislation needed. The filibuster remains because every Senate majority leader is worried about what will happen when their party is no longer the majority.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        I don’t disagree with you, but circumstances may provoke a change this time around. If Democrats take over the Senate by a large enough margin that they feel they’ll be in power for several more election cycles and aren’t at serious risk of losing it to the Republicans, that might just be the push they need to feel comfortable about nixing the filibuster.

        Furthermore, as I mentioned in my previous comment, it’s also about the long game. If they want to make serious inroads about voting rights and other reforms, such as to gerrymandering, then it may be inevitable. Plus, if they realize they only have two years of even a small majority in the House to get all that done, the clock’s ticking and it’s either now or never.

        Tick tock, Democrats, tick tock.

  37. Ryan Ashfyre says:

    Part of me would love nothing more to see Republicans dig deep, DEEP inside and find an iota of spine with which to stop Trump at the convention, but that ain’t gonna happen. McConnell, as is his wont, has withdrawn into his rhetorical shell and will try to make the best of an abhorrent situation. Ryan has capitulated whatever standing he might’ve had and all that’s left for him is to be excoriated (as the NY Daily News so aptly did) for the rest of this campaign season.

    There is no one of sufficient standing in the GOP left to lead such a move. Unless Reagan’s ghost rises from the grave, it’s already game, set and match. Get your popcorn, soda and boxes of Everlasting Gobstoppers (never was a better candy invented for long stretches of time) and sit back and watch as the once proud GOP crashes and burns into smoldering ashes in Cleveland. It ain’t gonna be pretty.

  38. pbasch says:

    As a Democrat, I think you exaggerate the damage a Trump candidacy can do. I mean, George Wallace was a candidate, so was Pat Buchanan, and the GOP is still very strong. Bush/Cheney set the Middle East on fire and danced in the flames, and are comfortably retired, painting their own feet.
    Trump represents a significant portion of Americans. You nailed it with that clip from Mississippi Burning (I think that’s what it was). As you put it in that column, As long as I can be better than others, I don’t care if I’m mired in poverty. I’ll sacrifice my health and well-being, my family’s and my community’s, for my boss’s wealth, as long as I feel that I’m in some kind of club with him, and better than the women and browns who are not in that club. But if, god forbid, women and browns start having power, I want to burn it all down.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Wallace and Buchanan gave serious challenges in their respective times, sure enough, but neither came even close to becoming their respective parties’ nominees. It’s one thing to win a few primaries and give the rhetorical middle finger to your party; it’s another beast ENTIRELY to actually become a nominee for President of the United States and standard bearer for your party and what it stands for.

      Trump has done exactly that and so, with all respect, you’re comparing apples and oranges here and the damage that The Donald can thus inflict is by FAR more magnified than anything that’s been seen in recent political history.

    • Fair Economist says:

      Wallace and Buchanan were candidates, but never major-party nominees. If either had gotten the nomination of their party I think they’d have done it great harm. Plus, both had far more self-control than Trump. They didn’t make huge unforced errors like attacking Curiel for having immigrant *parents*.

    • PB,

      I have to agree. With you that is! While trump is a problem, McGovern lost in a landslide. The Dems came back. It took a while. And the Dems had to change. G. W. Bush was a disaster, the wars, the economy, the stock market crash! But look where Republicans are now. With gerrymandering and voter suppression, they are almost right back on top!

      So i do not see this being the end of the Republicans. What i do see happening if they toss Trump out is he will tell his followers they have been cheated and not to vote for Republicans. Possibly not to vote at all. A lot of republicans would loose their elections.

      But, a few cycles later, the Dems will do something stupid, overreach, just like the Republicans have done, both parties actually, and there will then be a changing of the guard!

      The only real loosers in all this will be, as always, the American people!

      JD

  39. texan5142 says:

    They need to take Trump down hard, kick him to the curb and never look back.

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      Even if he loses, I foresee years of his disgusting presence on television as the former party head, respectable in defeat. He’ll suck up media time like a Hoover (the vacuum). That will be hard to stomach.

  40. tuttabellamia says:

    I take the opposite view. It would be more disastrous to seize the nomination from Trump. He has received the requisite number of delegates fair and square. Not all Trump supporters are angry or semi-literate, or illiterate, for that matter.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I take the opposite view from Lifer’s, that is.

    • texan5142 says:

      “Not all Trump supporters are angry or semi-literate, or illiterate, for that matter.”

      Maybe one or two, but collectively, yes they are.

    • texan5142 says:

      Tutt, then what are they. They believe or overlook every lie he has told. I watched his “speech” the other day, he is worse than Palin . No word salad, more like word blender. Everything is Yuuuuge, it is going to be the great. He is a con man and his supporters are his marks.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The scary thing is that I’ve come across several college-educated, middle-class, totally sane people who support him.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        And they’re not even angry. They essentially support Trump for being “business friendly.”

    • 1mime says:

      Tutta, no one can listen to Trump’s hyperbole or examine the dearth of substance in his “policies” and vote for him. There are a lot of motivations for people to support Trump, but intelligence is not on the list.

  41. texan5142 says:

    Yes, yes they will. They made this bed, let them sleep in the racist, misogynist, hate filled bed they have made. They do not seem to have the backbone to collectively show this egomaniac peace of shit called Trump the door. He is not fit to command and should not receive any security briefings. His over the top big mouth cannot and will not allow him to keep quite on such matters. Your party is toast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 472 other followers

%d bloggers like this: