(11-18-2016 03:21 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do I think Donald Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? I don't know.
Do I think any significant number of Donald Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? Absolutely not.
Do I think there was a concerted effort by democrats to paint Trump and his supporters in those terms in an attempt to marginalize their legitimate issues? Absolutely so.

You may disagree. If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think you're starting to realize the state of political discourse today, if you haven't already realized it. The problem is that, as it's been said, while conservatives tend to see their ideological opponents as wrong and misguided, liberals tend to see their opposition as stupid and evil. To the left, there can be no honest disagreements, because the right is fundamentally dishonest due to its opposition to liberal views. Therefore, any opposition must be rooted in some sort of bigotry, whether it be racism/sexism/xenophobia/"Islamophobia"/Bailiff apologia/whatever; the one thing opposition couldn't be is principled.

Appeals to bigotry are especially perfidious because of the slippery nature of the offense. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote about pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. However, that makes bigotry as much a function of the observer as the observed, and in my experience accusations of bigotry tell us as much about the accuser as they do about the accused. That's why the community standard concept has been used in regard to pornography; let the community decide what's acceptable following the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, it seems that a good portion of the left isn't willing to do that. Because its opposition is (to them) immoral, it must be crushed, in all aspects of life, and driven out of the public square of ideas. It's argument by epithet, and it formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As you pointed out, Trump at least advanced policies during his campaign, ones that you may have found disagreeable, but nonetheless substantive policies. Clinton did little of that beyond a vague "Stay the course!" meme, focusing instead on how disreputable Trump (and by extension his supporters) are. It was a campaign of little substance, making bad-faith arguments because it presumed that its opposition was necessarily operating in bad faith. What's scary is that a slight plurality of the voters actually bought into that. Hurling insults is always easier than thinking, and the fact that the Democratic Party has essentially gone all-in on that philosophy for its campaigns can have only deleterious effects on the body politic and on society.

We'll have to agree to disagree that Clinton did not put forth substantive policies, but I want to touch on something else you brought up and ramble a bit.

You touched on the idea of how the left and right view each other without diving too much into it. I think that these views are really driven by the differences in social opinions that two sides generally have. And in the end, the majority of the hand-wringing that either side does are about the social policies that the other side wants to propose, not the economic ones. You can disagree on the importance of that, but for the past several election, social issues, as opposed to economic issues have been front and center.

And since that is the case, what you end up having are pretty much the most vocal proponents of social "change" on the right speaking out, which probably don't make up a majority of the conservative movement. As opposed to the opposite on the left, where I think you end up having a majority of the left speaking out, even though those who do so are not the most vocal. And what this does, is this unfairly paints a picture of the entire right as a party who is against gay marriage, against extending Civil Rights to gays/lesbians, against marijuana decriminilzation/legalization, etc. even though society as a whole is rapidly moving towards those being the norm. So this group of conservatives is causing things like homophobia to be associated with the party as a whole.

You also then have even more extreme people on the right, such as the KKK, white nationalist, etc. poking their heads out and getting their voices heard, further associating the right with racism, sexism, bigotry, etc. You have the same on the left with some very adamant atheists, but they don't seem to get as much play in the political mainstream.

And a problem for the right is that, what you didn't have, until a number of elected officials spoke out against Trump, was Republicans denouncing or moving away from the vocal hate groups offering support, laws that could allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation (you often had the opposite), etc. Some of that is due to the general philosophy of republicans that government should be out of our lives, but a lot of it appeared to be due to a concern that it would push away voters.

And this doesn't even get me started down the road with a lot of the Obama complaints that were covered in racist overtones (hello birther movement), and how that affected opinions of the GOP.

In short, the GOP is not full of a bunch of racist pricks, but they face a problem where they have some very vocal ones across the country that make the entire party look bad. And it is those vocal people, and the unwillingness to denounce them or actively move away from them, that keeps a focus on the GOP as the party FOR racists, which people then incorrectly mistake as the party OF racists.

Just some thoughts and rambles here on that.

(11-18-2016 03:21 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do I think Donald Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? I don't know.
Do I think any significant number of Donald Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? Absolutely not.
Do I think there was a concerted effort by democrats to paint Trump and his supporters in those terms in an attempt to marginalize their legitimate issues? Absolutely so.

You may disagree. If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think you're starting to realize the state of political discourse today, if you haven't already realized it. The problem is that, as it's been said, while conservatives tend to see their ideological opponents as wrong and misguided, liberals tend to see their opposition as stupid and evil. To the left, there can be no honest disagreements, because the right is fundamentally dishonest due to its opposition to liberal views. Therefore, any opposition must be rooted in some sort of bigotry, whether it be racism/sexism/xenophobia/"Islamophobia"/Bailiff apologia/whatever; the one thing opposition couldn't be is principled.

Appeals to bigotry are especially perfidious because of the slippery nature of the offense. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote about pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. However, that makes bigotry as much a function of the observer as the observed, and in my experience accusations of bigotry tell us as much about the accuser as they do about the accused. That's why the community standard concept has been used in regard to pornography; let the community decide what's acceptable following the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, it seems that a good portion of the left isn't willing to do that. Because its opposition is (to them) immoral, it must be crushed, in all aspects of life, and driven out of the public square of ideas. It's argument by epithet, and it formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As you pointed out, Trump at least advanced policies during his campaign, ones that you may have found disagreeable, but nonetheless substantive policies. Clinton did little of that beyond a vague "Stay the course!" meme, focusing instead on how disreputable Trump (and by extension his supporters) are. It was a campaign of little substance, making bad-faith arguments because it presumed that its opposition was necessarily operating in bad faith. What's scary is that a slight plurality of the voters actually bought into that. Hurling insults is always easier than thinking, and the fact that the Democratic Party has essentially gone all-in on that philosophy for its campaigns can have only deleterious effects on the body politic and on society.

You are completely oblivious to the irony of this post, aren't you?

I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

(11-22-2016 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

sounds very white knightish to me.

(11-22-2016 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

sounds very white knightish to me.

Do you know who Evan McMullin is?

I had intended to move on from this particular subject, but then watching the white nationalists in DC yesterday doing Nazi salutes and saying "Hail Trump" got my attention.

Then this morning I found out about two friends of friends who were victims of hate incidents. One was a Jewish professor who is receiving threatening anti-semitic hate mail. The other, a gay couple who were victims of an attempted assault here in Austin. Thankfully the police were nearby to intervene.

There's also been an incident of "trump supporters" (don't know what that means in middle school) bullying a mixed race kid at my daughter's school. Several other AISD schools have had incidents as well.

And yes, I condemn any incidents in the other direction as well.

How bad does it get before we start to come together as a country?

(11-22-2016 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

sounds very white knightish to me.

Do you know who Evan McMullin is?

Yes.

(11-22-2016 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

That was my write-in.

(11-22-2016 11:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:24 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-22-2016 10:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the Left sees themselves as White Knights. I think the Right sees themselves as the Resistance.

I think those in the middle feel like they are beset on all sides.

JMHO.

Actually, I think right and left should be united in standing up against racism and hate. But Trump seems scared of alienating some of his base. I think Evan McMullin covers it well:

sounds very white knightish to me.

Do you know who Evan McMullin is?

Yes.

So then the Right is also White Knighting?

(11-22-2016 10:59 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I had intended to move on from this particular subject, but then watching the white nationalists in DC yesterday doing Nazi salutes and saying "Hail Trump" got my attention.

Then this morning I found out about two friends of friends who were victims of hate incidents. One was a Jewish professor who is receiving threatening anti-semitic hate mail. The other, a gay couple who were victims of an attempted assault here in Austin. Thankfully the police were nearby to intervene.

There's also been an incident of "trump supporters" (don't know what that means in middle school) bullying a mixed race kid at my daughter's school. Several other AISD schools have had incidents as well.

And yes, I condemn any incidents in the other direction as well.

How bad does it get before we start to come together as a country?

Let me join you in condemning anti-Semitism, although I am constrained to remind that it infects the far left as well as the far right. And let's not forget that the current president once had a blind spot for it, at the very least, for sitting in Jeremiah Wright's pews for 20 years and calling him a mentor. I don't have many kind words for Trump but there is no evidence of similar anti-Semitic associations that I am aware of, much less any personal anti-Semitism that can be used to claim that every anti-Semitic act done in this country after November 8, 2016, is his fault.

Jews have been on the receiving end of hate since long before Trump came along, they sadly will still be after he exits the stage, and I would venture to say that in the campus context anti-Semitism is apt to come at least as much from the left as the right if not more so. Pray tell, what exactly did this hate mail say? Either way it's awful but if the professor was called, say, a Palestinian baby killer, that may change the calculus about who should be citing it for what sort of evidence.

And was the gay couple explicitly attacked with Trump-brand homophobia, or was it generic homophobia? Without evidence of a Trump-connected motivation in the assailants -- such as in this actual (not attempted) assault of a white man in Chicago -- all we have is "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacious reasoning attempting to pin a hate crime on Trump's election. And that's before we even get to the incongruity of blaming Trump (says gay marriage is a settled issue, criticized NC for restricting transgender bathroom access, etc.) for allegedly stoking homophobia.

I will also see the reports of student bullying done in Trump's name (which is definitely troublesome but perhaps also a bit difficult to separate from its middle-school context) and raise with one report of my wife, a (white) high school social studies teacher here in the Chicago area, receiving a formal complaint of racial harassment from a (black) student and her parent for discussing the election in class and not being, as far as I can discern the complaint, sufficiently upset, outraged, or condemnatory of Trump. My wife did/does not support Trump (or Clinton) although that is irrelevant because she does not discuss her personal views with her students. She was merely trying to explain how rural voters can make a difference in electoral college terms, but apparently anything other than calling the election illegitimate equals racism in this student's and parent's eyes. She was completely absolved by the school district but only after a formal investigation that caused significant distress.

White nationalists/neo-Nazis marching is odious, even as small as their actual numbers are. Having lived in Chicago since 2001, I have seen countless marches for any number of leftist causes, peppered with prefabricated signs from ANSWER, Worker's Party, and other avowedly Communist organizations, which is similarly odious. The fringes on both sides are just that: fringes - small in number, equally morally repugnant, and unfairly used to score cheap guilt-by-association points.

(11-22-2016 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Jews have been on the receiving end of hate since long before Trump came along, they sadly will still be after he exits the stage, and I would venture to say that in the campus context anti-Semitism is apt to come at least as much from the left as the right if not more so.

Tom Lehrer put it succinctly (and musically) as follows:

Quote:Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Moslems,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,
It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!

(11-22-2016 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Let me join you in condemning anti-Semitism, although I am constrained to remind that it infects the far left as well as the far right...

That's a great post for perspective (I just quoted the first sentence for brevity). There are a lot of examples of hate speech from academia and/or from Obama's past that have gone unchallenged.

For my part, I've focused on the intent of the candidate and my own perceptions about the cynical motivations for what he has said. I never really thought that Trump's intent was to stir up post-election violence. Once he achieved his ends, I doubt he cared a whit for any of the constituency that got him there, but that's nothing new in politics.

(11-09-2016 03:36 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  I'll have a wrapup post on the presidential election sometime in the near future.

Here it is.... I decided to go through all of the posts before the election on this thread and examine the ones with predictions to see how they turned out. I removed the names from posts other than my own in order to protect the guilty:

(09-22-2015 07:54 AM) Wrote:

(09-22-2015 07:44 AM) Wrote:An early "dark horse" favorite just dropped out of the GOP race, saying pretty directly that he's doing it to stop Trump and encouraging others to drop out. Speaking of which, the two candidates after Trump with the most support are Carson and Fiorina, neither of whom has ever held public office, either. And the GOP candidates are actually still arguing about whether Obama is an American and/or a Muslim.

Meanwhile Sanders is leading Clinton in some Iowa and NH polls, and Biden may very well jump in.

And we don't have a thread on all this? What has become of the Quad?

I think your bolded statement is a misstatement of the facts.
\

There does seem to be a strong backlash against politics as usual in both parties. Hillary is the most politics as usual candidate, and now Dems are seeming saying anybody but Hillary. On the Rep side, I think they will settle on one of the Politics as usual guys and pair them with Fiorena. I look for a Rubio-Fiorena ticket.

Heh.

(09-22-2015 09:25 AM) Wrote:I'm not sold on Fiorena, but time will tell. At the moment, I think Kasich will be the VP on whatever Republican ticket is made. Winning Ohio is a big deal.

That it was - and Kasich played no part in it.

(09-22-2015 02:18 PM) Wrote:you didn't ask me, but i think the issue with the dems is who draws outside the base?

I think Hillary has strong support from a group of dems too small to win the general election... and no support from the disaffected who flocked to Obama and now somewhat flock to Bernie. And worse for her, she motivates the base on the right to vote against her.

This is the election that an 'outsider' can win. Establishment Republicans who might not otherwise 'aggressively' support someone like Paul or Trump would come out in droves if they were up against Hillary... and Establishment Dems who wouldn't otherwise aggressively support Sanders would similarly do so if Bush were nominated.

Indeed.

(09-22-2015 04:42 PM) Wrote:Ugh, too early to discuss in earnest. Still in the silly season.

My prediction: Trump will either a) have dropped out by the time the Republican National Convention rolls around, or b) stay in it but get less than 10% of the delegates.

Heh.

(09-22-2015 05:50 PM) Wrote:I think Bush, Kasich or Rubio ends up getting the Republican nomination. And call me crazy, but I think the Democratic bid will end up with someone who hasn't officially started his/her bid yet. Biden would be the most logical person, but the NY Post reported earlier this week that some people are trying to get Michael Bloomberg to enter the race on the Democratic side.

You were crazy.

(11-05-2015 09:56 AM) Wrote:I'd put my money on Rubio being the nominee at this point. (Ironic given what Republicans have been saying about electing a first term Senator with little 'real world' experience based on charisma and status as an historic 'first'...)

For your sake, I hope you didn't put money on that....

(11-05-2015 10:49 AM) Wrote:I too think Rubio comes to the front. Seems odd that the Republicans have the young, diverse group of candidates while the
democrats plan to hold on to the young diverse voters with old white people.

Heh.

(12-04-2015 11:03 AM) Wrote:

(12-03-2015 10:40 PM) Wrote:60 days to the first voting - how predictive has polling been at this point of the cycle?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal...e-winners/

I completely forgot who was leading the GOP polling 60 days before Iowa in 2012.

Yeah, it's stuff like that that's kept me from really thinking of Trump as a viable candidate - we're still in the silly season.

But on the other hand, there's not a Romney analogue at this point. So who knows, maybe Trump's lead really does mean something.

Indeed.

(12-04-2015 11:12 AM) Wrote:If I had to bet money, I'd still bet on Rubio as the nominee, but I wouldn't feel comfortable about it at all. Still don't think Trump will be the nominee, but I no longer think it's impossible that it will be Trump or Cruz. I'd expect Clinton to get some prominent Republican endorsements if either of those things happen.

I also wouldn't rule out a Trump third party bid. And I'm not sure which party that would hurt most. I think the Rs would lose the most votes to Trump, but the Dem nominee might lose crucial votes in MI, OH, or PA....

Trump was nominated by the Republicans, and the Democrats did lose crucial votes in MI, OH, and PA.

(12-04-2015 12:19 PM) Wrote:Yeah, I'd bet on Rubio too. And I think the prediction markets have him as the favorite, somewhere around a 50% shot at winning the nomination.

As you talk about Trump and Cruz, I realize the main effect Trump has had on me is to make Cruz appear to be electable (and establishment, even). If someone asked me to estimate the probabilities, I'd put it at 60% Rubio, 30% Cruz, 5% Bush and 5% anyone else.

People who bet on Trump in the prediction markets made lots of money. See, Trump has already been good for the economy!

(01-27-2016 01:02 PM) Wrote:

(12-08-2015 01:10 PM) Wrote:My theory is that Trump doesn't actually want to be president (it would be a lot of work, and a pay cut) but he's getting nervous that he's still leading in the polls. So he says some crazy off the cuff things to try and lose supporters. Unfortunately his plan doesn’t seem to be working that well.

I thought for a long time that he didn't actually want to be president either. And maybe he didn't at the beginning. But now I'm beginning to think he really does.

Of course a new poll just came out showing Jeb! surging in NH, so maybe we get our boring Bush-Clinton matchup after all.

Heh.

(02-01-2016 10:52 AM) Wrote:I'm still thinking it's possible Trump wins Iowa and NH, seems a lock for the nomination, and then realizes being President is actually a hard job and drops out.

Heh.

(02-02-2016 12:53 PM) Wrote:I'm feeling at this point that a brokered convention is the most likely outcome for the GOP.

But then again, my gut is still telling me that the Republican party as a whole isn't crazy enough to really go for Trump/Cruz, and that Rubio ends up with it outright.

Your gut needs work.

(02-10-2016 02:11 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  With the results from New Hampshire now in, Carson is losing contact with this group and likely will be out of the race soon. By the time the Super Tuesday primaries roll around, expect to see only Bush, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, and Trump still left on the Republican side, with as before only Cruz, Rubio and Trump having a serious chance to win. What's more important now is not who's leading the polls, but rather where the supporters of the candidates who drop out will go. While Trump is leading the national polls so far, among the supporters of candidates who will be dropping out over the next month he might very well be the least favorite candidate of them all, so Cruz and Rubio will close the gap with him. Whether either or which one can pass Trump I don't know (my brother the political science professor thinks Cruz will win out in the end, for what it's worth).

Sanders won the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, but I see Clinton winning a healthy majority of delegates on Super Tuesday and
using that margin to ease into the nomination. The fact that she's even in this position against an opponent who is, well, a crackpot shows just what a weak candidate she is.

Cruz almost won, finishing second, but that only counts in horseshoes and H-bombs....

(02-10-2016 08:41 AM) Wrote:Don't count out Kasich quite yet. If Christie throws his support that direction, that would help him. Kasich has no ground game in most of the Super Tuesday primaries but it wouldn't be hard for him to make a significant impact in a few of those states (like Michigan).

Kasich was out. He won only his home state of Ohio and stayed in the race pretty much out of ego.

(02-10-2016 01:23 PM) Wrote:

(02-10-2016 11:58 AM) Wrote:

(02-10-2016 09:36 AM) Wrote:Agreed on Kasich.

Rubio-bot is toast - I used to think he had a chance but I think the last two slips of him being a robot have done him in, he just seems so unqualified at the moment and hasn't latched on to a key Republican group (the way Cruz has with evangelicals). Jeb! hasn't been able to garner any momentum yet. Christie can hit hard in debates, but hasn't seemed to been able to connect with voters on his issues. And after that, you've got to really stretch to make an argument for another candidate outside of Trump or Cruz making some noise.

My favorite line from the political media was Politico's "Rubio is not the droid you are looking for..."

I'm still having a hard time accepting that Cruz or Trump could actually win the nomination of a major party. But we really could end up with Trump v Clinton. Still not convinced Sanders has a shot.

Kasich is the Republicans best general election candidate, I think, but I'm not sure he hates non-Republicans enough to win the nomination. Of course, that's why he's a good general election candidate.

Kasich is probably the only candidate on that side of the spectrum that could get true independents or right-leaning liberals to vote Republican. Cruz and Trump definitely can't, and I think Rubio, et al would have a hard time too (except maybe Christie).

Heh.

(02-11-2016 04:46 PM) Wrote:I think Kasich is the most tolerable and well qualified of the Republican candidates, but I'll be shocked if he's in the race after Super Tuesday. He's running low on cash and is polling very low in South Carolina and the southern states that make up ; I think the Bush camp's statement that Kasich is a "one-state guy" may turn out to be true...for whatever bizarre reason, the Republican party is moving away from candidates that have practical experience in reaching across the aisle / those that have been responsible for running a state to demagogues like Trump or people that are universally hated like Cruz. Frankly, I hope Bloomberg runs anyways so that I don't have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the general election to avoid our country being run by Trump or Cruz.

As noted above, Kasich stayed in as long as possible, and his "practical experience" seems for a lot of voters to have translated to "swamp inhabitant".

(02-22-2016 10:11 AM) Wrote:This article points out that if Rubio, Kasich, etc. had done what Trump has done so far in terms of primaries and delegates, they would be considered the prohibitive nominee and the race would be over. Yet people are still doubting he will win the nomination.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

Having said that, I'm still having a hard time believing he's going to get the nomination.

You should have believed what the Post wrote (a rare occasion, that!)

(02-25-2016 07:09 AM) Wrote:I don't think Bernie has a chance unless Hillary is in jail basically. He just won't be able to make any inroads with the minority vote. The only thing I agree with him is something should be done about college tuition costs. I'm not saying they should be free, but I'd like to see pressure to force public (and private if possible) universities to use some of their endowment to lower tuition costs (two middle schoolers here in my family so this subject is important to me). I also agree with him that college today is comparable in many ways to high school 80-100 years ago.

I'm voting Friday for Kasich. Now I just have to figure out which one of the 2000 judges I have to vote for....

Indeed.

(03-10-2016 10:36 AM) Wrote:

(03-09-2016 02:26 PM) Wrote:This Republican primary really seems to be one for the ages. If you had told me even 4 years ago that, by the end of the next primary you would have Ted Cruz and Donald Trump squaring off over the nomination I would have thought you were crazy. Some over-tanned "businessman" who hosted his own reality TV show and has forcibly shaved Vince McMahon's head at a Wrestlemania versus a sycophantic, pompous, jack*** who has made enemies, rather than friends, everywhere he went.

What a time to be alive!

I'm excited to see what next surprise we are in for.

I'm not sure who the Clinton campaign would rather run against - Trump or Cruz, but I'm sure they can't believe their luck that it looks to be one of those two. I suspect they'd pick Cruz - Trump is an unknown and might make some inroads in the upper midwest, whereas Cruz is a profoundly unlikable right wing ideologue.

I think if they run Cruz and lose, they might be more open to running someone like Kasich in '20, whereas if they run Trump and he loses they might nominate a Cruz like candidate in '20 thinking they lost because Trump wasn't a real conservative.

But I've been wrong about everything this election, so feel free to ignore me.

Actually, you were right about almost everything here except assuming that the Republican candidate would lose....

(03-30-2016 02:29 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  Of course, that's not what the polling data says, either about the heads-up races or Cruz's likability. Right now, in a heads-up race between Clinton and Cruz polling shows it about even, whereas Clinton leads Trump, so you have to think the Clinton campaign would prefer to face Trump. However, given the fact that Trump seems to believe that, like many Group of 5 football coaches, the best defense is a good offense and Clinton's profound weaknesses as a candidate, that might be a case of being careful about what you wish for.

Indeed.

(03-30-2016 02:29 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 05:22 PM) Wrote:D's and R's are down to a criminal, a communist, and two idiots. Vote for Gary Johnson. I see there is a poll out suggesting that he would pull double digits if it's Hillary v. Trump. At this point, that looks to me like the best possible outcome for this election. That would probably hand the election to Hillary, as Johnson would surely pull more from R's than D's. I can live with that. I'm not a fan of Hillary's, but at least she has some sense, which is more than I can say for anybody else who appears to have a chance of winning.

I really think, the best possible outcome at this point is that libertarians pull enough votes to deny a win for either an R or a D. If that happened, both R's and D's would start paying attention to libertarian positions on the issues. And that really is the best result I can see coming from this.

As is well-documented in political science research, in the end people tend to come home to their parties on Election Day, no matter what promises they made about who they'd never vote for during the primaries. The fact of the matter is that the Libertarian Party has run candidates in the last 11 presidential elections and has never gained more than about 1% of the popular vote in any of them (most of them much less than 1%). If the Libertarian Party had any sort of broad appeal, it would have demonstrated it sometime in the last 40 years. It hasn't, and it won't this time.

It didn't. The party members did indeed come home on Election Day. While the Libertarian Party had its best showing ever in a presidential election, it still pulled in only a little more than 3% of the popular vote, far below the double-digits a couple of polls had shown earlier, and likely had no influence on the outcome of the election.

(03-30-2016 02:29 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(03-09-2016 12:44 PM) Wrote:Kasich and Rubio will have to drop out next Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, if not before, as I don't think either will win their respective home states. Frankly, I believe Kasich when he said he'll drop out if he doesn't win Ohio (although he said back in New Hampshire that he had to win Michigan, and we saw how that turned out last night). Kasich's next/last political hope is probably a 2020 presidential campaign, since he'll leave office as Ohio governor in 2018; basically, he doesn't have a ton left to accomplish in his political career other than the presidency. I think it's actually more imperative for Rubio to drop out now, as he is only 44, and presumably would like to have a political career that includes being a long-term senator / governor / president, rather than getting run over in his home state presidential primary, which could damage his still-young political career.

You're half-right. Rubio couldn't win Florida, so he dropped out, but Kasich did win Ohio and appears to be in to the end despite the fact that it's mathematically impossible for him to win the nomination and likely won't even get put into nomination. I think he's in it now mainly to be the vice-presidential pick.

In the time since the Florida and Ohio primaries, it's grown more likely that Trump will have the most delegates at the convention, but Kasich's continuing presence also makes it more likely that Trump won't have a majority. In that case, a deal is going to be cut and either Trump or Cruz will win a clear majority on the second ballot.

Cruz dropped out of the race early enough so that Trump could collect an absolute majority of delegates by the time of the convention. No "brokered convention" this time!

(03-31-2016 12:56 PM) Wrote:

(03-30-2016 09:17 PM) Wrote:

(03-30-2016 08:46 PM) Wrote:Well, today Trump managed to make pro-choice and pro-life groups mad at him.
That is quite an accomplishment.

Yep.

I think this combined with the statement about letting Japan, S. Korea and Saudi Arabia (?!?!?!) get nuclear weapons may finally do him in, or at least finally bring us the contested convention pundits and junkies day dream about every four years.


Edit: Rereading the transcript it's not clear what his position on Saudi Arabia having nuclear weapons is:

COOPER: Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: Saudi Arabia, absolutely.

COOPER: You would be fine with them having nuclear weapons?

TRUMP: No, not nuclear weapons, but they have to protect themselves or they have to pay us.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11332074/do...udi-arabia

That's what you get for depending on Vox....

(05-03-2016 10:14 PM) Wrote:Amazing. Up until the first votes were cast, I was certain* that Trump was a joke and that not even Republicans were crazy enough to nominate that guy.

Dead wrong.

*So certain that I'm going to lose a significant amount of money on PredictIt once the nomination is official. Oh well, live and learn.

Heh.

(05-06-2016 08:21 AM) Wrote:Even in this craziest of election years it looks like we *still* won't get a contested convention. Though who knows, with Ryan refusing to endorse Trump, as have the last two Republican presidents. Crazy situation.

Still not clear to me what Bernie's end game is. I think he'll support Clinton in the end, but not sure about all of his supporters.

Like most of the Republican supporters of candidates other than Trump, most of them came home in the end.

(06-15-2016 09:11 AM) Wrote:Will Trump actually make it out of the convention as the nominee? Lamar Alexander seemed to think possibly not. At this point, even though I'm supporting the Dem nominee, I'd support the Republicans putting someone on the ticket who actually seems like a viable president. Trump is already hurting our country with speeches like the ones he's been giving since Orlando. I can see a number of elected Republicans openly supporting Clinton or Johnson before this is all over.

We already have the past two Republican presidents and the previous Republican nominee saying they won't vote for Trump. That has to be unprecedented.

Apparently, not enough of them did this to keep Trump from being elected.

(06-15-2016 09:45 AM) Wrote:I hate to even say it because it's still far-fetched, but there is starting to be a scenario where Johnson could win this thing. Enough republicans defect from Trump and enough Bernie supporters come over because of the libertarian stands on issues like marijuana and gay rights to get him up to around 20%. Then Hillary gets nominated, following which the truth comes out about the classified information, and she is either indicted (in which case democrats probably reconvene to pick another nominee) or not. In either event, the democrat nominee is wounded and more people defect. In the end it comes out something close to 38-32-30, and Johnson carries enough states (New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska could happen, maybe a few more, maybe even an Arizona or Texas or Missouri) to prevent anybody getting to 270. Then it goes to the house, R's have the majority but don't really like Trump and can't stand Hillary, lots of D's aren't strongly in favor of Hillary either, and Johnson emerges as a compromise.

It's a long, long way from happening, but it's a lot closer to possible today than it was a year ago.

If you mean that a one-in-a-million possibility is closer to happening than a one-in-a-billion possibility, then you're right.

(08-02-2016 05:01 PM) Wrote:Not so bold prediction: Julian Assange will prove to be kingmaker for the U.S. presidential election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...icity.html

Indeed.

(08-11-2016 01:06 PM) Wrote:

(08-10-2016 07:10 PM) Wrote:Earlier today, CNN reported that the secret service had had multiple discussions with the Trump campaign about Trumps 2nd amendment statement yesterday.

As reported by Reuters, that was a lie (by CNN). Reuters went straight to the secret service and the secret service denied having any formal discussion with the Trump campaign at all.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-el...SKCN10L29W

(08-10-2016 07:42 PM) Wrote:The Secret Service of the United States of America just said CNN is reporting misinformation. From the link:

Quote:Pushing back against a CNN report that the law enforcement agency had had "more than one" exchange with the Trump camp about the remark, an official familiar with the matter told Reuters there had been no formal conversations with the campaign regarding the comment made to supporters the day before.

(08-10-2016 07:50 PM) Wrote:Pretty bad when Reuters calls you out lying about Trump.

Wow. Anyone who denies the leftist bias and favoritism of the mainstream media might want to reconsider.

I think this is one big reason Trump is saying what he says and doing what he does. He appears to be using social media and outreach to reach the overlooked majority of voters who are fed up with the media and their coddling of the Democratic elites. He seems to be having fun provoking and exposing the media frenzy for its almost complete lack of journalistic integrity. Crazy like a fox. The debates should be fun.

Indeed.

(08-12-2016 03:32 PM) Wrote:Sanders (I can't call candidates by their first name) failed to get the nomination, true.
But he went from 1% in the polls to getting 1000+ delegates and greatly influencing the platform.

Trump succeeded in getting the nomination, but if trends hold, Clinton's going to get at least 350 electoral votes.

The trends didn't hold.

(09-30-2016 03:40 PM) Wrote:If the Trump handlers were smart, they'd take away his phone from him.

Maybe not his phone, but Trump did tweet a lot less in the last few weeks of the campaign.

(10-08-2016 06:32 AM) Wrote:The Bush family gets its revenge, and finally might have unleashed the tape that will end Trump's presidential campaign.

Or not.

(10-13-2016 02:42 PM) Wrote:Bets on whether Pence stays on the ticket until the bitter end?

Really, at this point I think the only viable candidates for 2020 for the GOP are those who had the guts to never endorse Trump. That would have been Cruz until recently. He's got to be kicking himself.

So, Clinton v Kasich should be a much more substantive campaign. We can hope, anyway.

Heh.

(10-14-2016 10:43 AM) Wrote:The interesting thing is that Republicans have (at least until they potentially lose the Senate) had the biggest highwater mark in quite a while; they own the House, have a slight current majority in the Senate, 60% of US governors are Republican and U.S. state legislatures have over 4,000 Republican representatives compared to just over 3,000 Democratic representatives. Yet this November, barring an October Surprise to end all October Surprises, Republicans will lose the popular vote in the U.S. presidential election for the sixth out of the last seven elections.

... but they won the Electoral College vote for the third time in that span. In addition, they held their majorities in the House and Senate and even expanded their representation in state legislatures and governorships. Right now, the Republicans have the highest representation in the states since the 1920s and will control the branches of the federal government as well. Barrack Obama sure has been good for the Democratic Party....

(10-19-2016 11:33 AM) Wrote:Here's another question: If the Dems take back the Senate, which seems more likely than not, does Schumer take the nuclear option and abolish the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees? I think the blocking of Garland, who is as moderate as the R's are going to get from a Dem president, and now McCain's astounding claim that they will block all of Clinton's nominees, have pretty much made that inevitable. And probably for the best, IMHO.

We may indeed see the "nuclear option", just done by the Republican majority.

(10-19-2016 10:04 PM) Wrote:I can hear Dandy Don (Meredith) crooning in The Donald's ear now:
"Turn out the lights
The party's over.
They say that all
Good things must end.
Turn out the lights
The party's over.
And tomorrow starts the same old thing again."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtGxusvUT3k

Trump buried himself tonight. Now he's even calling his own wife a liar! She says he apologized to her for the Billy Bus language and he claimed tonight that he didn't!

And to cap it off, he will keep America "in suspense" until the election is over to say whether he would accept the vote of the people. To paraphrase Butch Cassidy's question to Sundance, "Who [is this] guy?"

Heh.

(10-20-2016 09:58 AM) Wrote:I think that when Trump loses, there will be literally a few dozen people nationally who want to do something about it, and I doubt any of them will be using a pitchfork.

At least you were right about the people "who want to do something about it" not using pitchforks....

(11-02-2016 08:44 AM) Wrote:Getting back to the original "Horse Race" intention of this thread, a couple interesting observations from Josh Marshall at TPM:...

2. One dynamic of this race is Trump's disproportionate share of the vote from non-college educated white voters. The key is that that slice of the population is relatively over-represented in the big swing states. That's the main reason why Clinton is slightly underperforming Obama in most swing states and relatively over-performing in a number of reddish states which are younger and less white. So, for instance, Arizona is very close, even though Clinton likely won't win there. Texas is closer than it usually is even though she almost certainly won't win Texas. What it amounts to is a net negative since a lot of that additional support in red states - mainly college-educated whites who voted for Romney but won't support Trump - is, in hard electoral terms, wasted.

3. One fascinating part of the 2016 cycle: In part because of dynamics I noted in Item #2 there is a decent chance that Donald Trump will win both of the archetypical battleground/swing states of the aughts (Florida and Ohio) and yet still lose the election. That's because of states like Virginia, Colorado and North Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina weren't even considered swing states in the Bush years. Now Virginia and Colorado will also certainly go to Clinton and there are better than 50-50 odds North Carolina will too.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/elec...-potpourri

Marshall's analysis was fairly good, which is unusual for him, but like almost everyone outside of the Trump campaign, he completely missed on Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, states which gave Trump the election.

(11-09-2016 03:36 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  One last note: doesn't it seem a bit churlish on the part of Clinton that she called Trump to concede but didn't give a concession speech to her supporters that night? You learn the most about a person's character when she faces adversity....

We now know that she didn't give the concession speech that night because she was in her hotel room teaching her Secret Service detail some new profanities, plus demonstrating a throwing arm that, were she 50 years younger, might have brought a visit from Wayne Graham to discuss a scholarship - and people were questioning Trump's temperament!...

(11-22-2016 09:33 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(11-18-2016 03:21 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 08:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Do I think Donald Trump is racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? I don't know.
Do I think any significant number of Donald Trump's supporters are racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, or misogynist? Absolutely not.
Do I think there was a concerted effort by democrats to paint Trump and his supporters in those terms in an attempt to marginalize their legitimate issues? Absolutely so.

You may disagree. If so, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I think you're starting to realize the state of political discourse today, if you haven't already realized it. The problem is that, as it's been said, while conservatives tend to see their ideological opponents as wrong and misguided, liberals tend to see their opposition as stupid and evil. To the left, there can be no honest disagreements, because the right is fundamentally dishonest due to its opposition to liberal views. Therefore, any opposition must be rooted in some sort of bigotry, whether it be racism/sexism/xenophobia/"Islamophobia"/Bailiff apologia/whatever; the one thing opposition couldn't be is principled.

Appeals to bigotry are especially perfidious because of the slippery nature of the offense. As Justice Potter Stewart wrote about pornography, you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. However, that makes bigotry as much a function of the observer as the observed, and in my experience accusations of bigotry tell us as much about the accuser as they do about the accused. That's why the community standard concept has been used in regard to pornography; let the community decide what's acceptable following the principle of subsidiarity.

Unfortunately, it seems that a good portion of the left isn't willing to do that. Because its opposition is (to them) immoral, it must be crushed, in all aspects of life, and driven out of the public square of ideas. It's argument by epithet, and it formed the basis of Hillary Clinton's campaign. As you pointed out, Trump at least advanced policies during his campaign, ones that you may have found disagreeable, but nonetheless substantive policies. Clinton did little of that beyond a vague "Stay the course!" meme, focusing instead on how disreputable Trump (and by extension his supporters) are. It was a campaign of little substance, making bad-faith arguments because it presumed that its opposition was necessarily operating in bad faith. What's scary is that a slight plurality of the voters actually bought into that. Hurling insults is always easier than thinking, and the fact that the Democratic Party has essentially gone all-in on that philosophy for its campaigns can have only deleterious effects on the body politic and on society.

You are completely oblivious to the irony of this post, aren't you?

If you mean that criticizing the left for labelling people by labelling it, then there's no irony here. It is what it is. The left's de facto position seems to be that anyone opposing it is by definition bigoted in some way. Pertaining to the presidential election, a number of analysts, including Democratic ones, have made precisely this point, and that it may very well have cost Clinton the election.

There were a not-insignificant number of voters, especially in the Midwest, who had been voting Democratic for the last 20 or so years who looked at Trump's positions on trade and the economy and found them intriguing vis-a-vis their current economic situations. While by habit and nature inclined to vote Democratic, they nevertheless were persuadable to vote Republican. When these voters engaged the Clinton campaign with the arguments proffered by Trump, however, instead of receiving a substantive critique of Trump's arguments they were told that anyone who supported Trump's proposals was some sort of deplorable racist or xenophobe. Their concerns were essentially ignored. Therefore, it's not surprising that this group voted for the candidate who addressed their concerns (Trump) rather than the one who seemed to have no respect for them nor their concerns (Clinton). This group was large enough so that it tipped several of the Midwestern states, and the election, to Trump. It's awfully hard to get people to vote for you when you insult them....

(12-01-2016 04:52 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  If you mean that criticizing the left for labelling people by labelling it, then there's no irony here. It is what it is. The left's de facto position seems to be that anyone opposing it is by definition bigoted in some way. Pertaining to the presidential election, a number of analysts, including Democratic ones, have made precisely this point, and that it may very well have cost Clinton the election.
There were a not-insignificant number of voters, especially in the Midwest, who had been voting Democratic for the last 20 or so years who looked at Trump's positions on trade and the economy and found them intriguing vis-a-vis their current economic situations. While by habit and nature inclined to vote Democratic, they nevertheless were persuadable to vote Republican. When these voters engaged the Clinton campaign with the arguments proffered by Trump, however, instead of receiving a substantive critique of Trump's arguments they were told that anyone who supported Trump's proposals was some sort of deplorable racist or xenophobe. Their concerns were essentially ignored. Therefore, it's not surprising that this group voted for the candidate who addressed their concerns (Trump) rather than the one who seemed to have no respect for them nor their concerns (Clinton). This group was large enough so that it tipped several of the Midwestern states, and the election, to Trump. It's awfully hard to get people to vote for you when you insult them....

To me, the story of this election is people in the center who got tired of smug, arrogant, condescending people on the left pissing on their legs and telling them it was raining. Obama has been at least as guilty of this as Clinton was, if not considerably more so.

These people have been told for 8 years what a wonderful economic recovery was taking place, and all that Obama had done to make it happen, but their economy hasn't recovered. They have been told for 8 years how well Obamacare is solving our health care problems, but their health care has gotten more expensive and worse.

Now the big challenge is for Trump to deliver. To me, he is like I have felt for some time about the democrats, correctly identifying a problem but proposing a cure that is worse than the disease. I don't know how this will go, but I am not optimistic.

I'll say it differently. It's still the economy, stupid.

When the economy (locally) is good, people vote for 'the common good'. When the local economy is not good, they vote for their own interests. Democrats ran on a 'common good' platform... and how Trump and his deplorables were against the common good. Trump ran on a 'Americans first' platform. Meaning democrats called those voting for their own jobs and putting food on their table were deplorable because they didn't put Somali Refugees and Illegal Immigrants above their own interests.

ETA... I'm not saying Hillary supporters intended this... I'm saying that is how it came across

(12-01-2016 04:52 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  It's awfully hard to get people to vote for you when you insult them....

And they still don't get it. Obama just said they just need to do a better job of explaining things. I guess he means those dolts in Middle America are just too dense to get it without him doing a double A+ job of getting it through their thick skulls.

He also said the problem was Fox News in every bar and restaurant. Who does he think asked for the TV to be switched to that channel? Some vast right-wing conspiracy?

(12-02-2016 01:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 04:52 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  It's awfully hard to get people to vote for you when you insult them....

And they still don't get it. Obama just said they just need to do a better job of explaining things. I guess he means those dolts in Middle America are just too dense to get it without him doing a double A+ job of getting it through their thick skulls.

He also said the problem was Fox News in every bar and restaurant. Who does he think asked for the TV to be switched to that channel? Some vast right-wing conspiracy?

Or Obama thinks that Democrats have, on the whole, not been particularly good/effective at communicating with America. And he's very, very correct on that front (and I think you'd agree).

(12-02-2016 02:08 PM)baker-13 Wrote:  

(12-02-2016 01:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-01-2016 04:52 PM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  It's awfully hard to get people to vote for you when you insult them....

And they still don't get it. Obama just said they just need to do a better job of explaining things. I guess he means those dolts in Middle America are just too dense to get it without him doing a double A+ job of getting it through their thick skulls.

He also said the problem was Fox News in every bar and restaurant. Who does he think asked for the TV to be switched to that channel? Some vast right-wing conspiracy?

Or Obama thinks that Democrats have, on the whole, not been particularly good/effective at communicating with America. And he's very, very correct on that front (and I think you'd agree).

The question is, do they need to change the message (i.e., the underlying policies) or the messenger (which could be the campaign rhetoric/themes used to convey the policies, or the candidate who carries that rhetoric to the people, or both)? Or both?

I am certain Obama thinks it is the messenger. He has zero interest in seeing the party move substantively back toward the center.

And in some sense it is hard to fault him for that view. First of all, had anyone other than HRC and her ship's hold worth of baggage run, he/she very well might have won. So that is easily fixed (HRC is effectively done). As it was, she won the popular vote. The EC was lost because of two phenomena: lower Dem base turnout especially among African-Americans in Detroit, Milwaukee, and other urban centers in a few swing states that resulted in switches from blue to the faintest of reds, combined with some defections to Trump from white non-college-educated voters - who previously voted for Obama - in those same states. Some have attributed these (especially the latter) to sexism but that requires a belief that there are significant numbers of people who are sexist but not racist and in fact actively egalitarian on race (since they voted for Obama). I don't buy that, or at least I have not met such a unicorn to date. I think it was a combination of her baggage personally turning people off and, frankly, her not being African-American. It might be sufficient (and in any event it will be necessary) for the Dems to change their candidate to win the WH in 2020.

To the extent that Obama is espousing the view that it would have been both necessary and sufficient, to win the WH in 2016, for any candidate (including HRC) to just use different rhetoric to sell the same (i.e., his) policies, that is flatly condescending. That is saying they just needed to speak slower and in smaller words so the benighted rubes can finally get it and stop voting against their own interests. This is insulting to the extreme but an oh-so-attractive line of thought to the true believer. I think it has its adherents on both the left and the right but I hear it more from the left.

As everyone knows, there used to be a sizable faction of the Democratic Party - Blue Dog Democrats, epitomized by Bill Clinton - that advocated for more centrist policies. Bill Clinton, it may be remembered, won 2 elections and but for a poor ballot design in Palm Beach County would have won a de facto third and had the incumbent's advantage heading into a fourth. But Obama's first-term overreach rendered them vulnerable (because they came from more conservative districts to begin with) and they were largely wiped out in 2010 and thereafter. So now there is no one to even coax the Democrats toward the center even though that is a more proven way to win elections.