I’m a little frustrated with Nate Silver’s frustration. I understand the basic impulse to rage against anyone who attributes a single positive attribute to Donald Trump, even if the positive attribute (cunning, savvy, foresight, intuition) is in the service of a negative goal. But Silver needs to reckon with three things.
First, Donald Trump defied all the experts to win the primaries against eleventy billion competitors, and he stunned the world by executing an Electoral College inside straight that came out pretty much exactly how he and his advisers said it would come out, with the Rust Belt falling in his column. This wasn’t some accident that had nothing to do with their plan.
Second, all the way along his path to victory, he was scolded by the media and Republican consultants and by many of his own handlers for going off script and saying needlessly stupid or offensive things. The list is too long to detail, but we all know the list. He generally wasn’t hurt by these antics in the places where he needed to win, and collectively they pretty much describe why he won in those areas.
Three, even though there is no doubt that Trump acts impulsively and from base instincts and emotions much of the time, and even though he clearly doesn’t understand the rules of politics or the separation of powers very well, he is usually following a rough process laid out for him by advisers. If he goes off script, which he does often, there is still an overall intentionality and plan he is following. The advice he has received is retained however imperfectly in his head and plays a part in how he behaves.
Taken in combination, these three things explain what we see. His plan for victory entailed crafting a message on the economy and on cultural issues that would help him win where previous Republicans had consistently lost, without ceding traditional Republican territory. He executed that plan. What he learned from his success is that the scolds in the existing political firmament were clueless and that his intuition was a better guide than the analysis of polls or any common wisdom that could be found anywhere. He learned that he had wide latitude to say whatever the fuck he wants, no matter how uninformed or hateful, and that far from being harmed by it, it would serve as the source of his appeal and strength.
Maybe Trump’s success says more about the character of our nation in this moment in time than it does about his political intuition, but it seems as if there is enough of a match that it hardly makes a difference which one you want to emphasize. What doesn’t seem warranted is to reject the idea completely that Trump is following his political intuition when he does things like attack black athletes or Puerto Ricans or Mexican-American judges or Muslim refugees. These things have not only worked for him, they are what worked for him. If, at some point, he reaches the point of diminishing returns or goes too far and suffers the kind of backlash that actually harms him electorally, that won’t mean he was wrong all along. It will just mean that there is a limit or boundary.
It’s fine to point out that Trump exhibits some pretty obvious psychological traits. For example, he doesn’t take criticism well and feels compelled to answer it. He’s most inclined to respond to criticism from people he feels are inferior, like women or people of color. We can see this and use it to predict his behavior. We can note how it sometimes takes him off message. What we can’t do is show how it’s caused him to lose appeal among the groups that provided him his margin of victory.
The real threat to Trump lies elsewhere. It’s his inability to deliver on his promises that makes him look weak and stupid to his supporters. And the explanation for his failure is largely a failure of the people advising him and of the congressional leaders to provide him with a workable plan. When his fans blame Ryan and McConnell, and people like Reince Priebus, they aren’t wrong. Those people assured him that if he followed their plans, he’d have success. He attempted to follow their advice and got nothing but humiliation in return.
Of course, the truth isn’t something Trump’s base would like to hear, because the truth is that Trump overpromised and his advisers overpromised. His fans love Trump for his disrespect and brashness, but they’re not loving his ineffectiveness and they don’t understand at all the cause of his ineffectiveness. It’s not the fault of Priebus and McConnell and Ryan that they failed to produce. It’s their fault for saying that they could.
Yet, it’s still the case that Trump’s in-the-now impulsiveness jibes well enough with what the electorate wants that it’s a mistake to think he ‘s not following a plan when he fails to stop and think.
In the simplest formulation, enough people wanted an asshole for president that being an asshole became the winning formula. In particular, being an asshole about gender, religion and race became a winning formula when it was combined with an economically populist message.
Finally, I want to point out that beginning before Trump was even a rumored candidate, I predicted that the Republicans would move or be very tempted to move in this direction.
The GOP is Moving in the Wrong Direction, July 2nd, 2013.
A Deal with the Devil, May 5th, 2014.
Trump and the Missing White Voters , December 9th, 2015.
Trump’s Narrow Path to Victory, September 20th, 2016.
And, right after the election, I wrote Avoiding the Political Southification of the North .
Those who argued against comprehensive immigration reform in the aftermath of Obama’s reelection were arguing that the Republicans could win, despite growing demographic disadvantages, by polarizing the white electorate against the Democratic Party on the basis of race and religion. Trump merely executed that plan. He’s still executing it.
People ought to be sick by now both of underestimating Trump and overestimating the character of the American people. No one wants to hear either of those messages, but I’m sick of losing and we’ll keep losing if we keep lying to ourselves.
Is Trump a cleverly disguised genius? No. Not at all. He’s not even minimally sane. He’s very bad at following instructions, sticking to a plan even of his own making, or executing more than two steps ahead. This is dangerous enough in the foreign policy sphere that he should be removed from office for that defect alone.
But he says spontaneous assholish things not only because that’s who he is but because that’s how he’s had success. It’s still working for him where it counts. And it’s not clear that it will ever stop working for him where it counts. What will stop working for him is everything else.
Absolutely correct on Trump. He’s a one trick pony who’s time is now because his character defects line up perfectly with the character defects of 45% of the electorate distributed across the states necessary to win the election.
Again, it’s not clear to me if this is the dying gasp of white supremacy/peak misogyny or a rising tide of fascism that will have crossover appeal down the road.
He is actually a two trick pony.
Trick one is being an assholish bigot and mobilizing his fellow assholish bigots better than his more hypocritical fellow Republicans.
Trick two is being a persuasive con artist and getting enough suckers to believe his impossible and illogical overpromises.
Trick one is still working just fine, but trick two is suffering from encountering reality, thus shrinking his support to his core base of assholes aand bigots.
yup. that’s another way of putting what I said about what’s working for him and what isn’t.
and when he sticks with what’s working, that doesn’t mean that he’s not following a thought-through plan. It’s the plan he began with.
This is a depressing post, Martin. How does our side stop losing in the face of the obvious Republican strategy? (I don’t even see a big problem with unmet demands, as long as the economy holds together. Most of his base does think Trump is succeeding. Any promise unkept is somebody else’s fault.)
How do win against a candidate (Trump or the Republican who follows him) when:
How do we win against that?
You forgot one thing. If the stock market is relatively stable or goes higher, that helps Trump too. Sucks, I know.
I am with you. At the momemt, I am at a loss on how to chart a path forward. And while I know at some point there will be a path, I am feeling a real sense of despair right now. This despair stems, in large part, from the fact that I live in a very strong pro-Trump area, and it seems that almost everyone I talk to is living in a universe in which I feel like a total alien from another planet. Just today, I heard people talking positively about Trump’s chiding of Rex Tillerson for “wasting his time” trying to deescalate the nuclear tensions in North Korea. I actually got a little loud talking about this with my wife when we were sitting in the bar area of a restaurant waiting for a table for lunch. So much so that the lady tending the bar came over and asked me if everything was okay.
How in the hell am I supposed to feel and react when I hear people around me talking so blithely about a potential nuclear holocaust? Like it is some schoolyard brawl we are talking about? It just appears to me as if we are in the process of losing our fucking minds, and there isn’t a god-damned thing anyone can do about it.
O I know that feeling. I also live in a red area and people here have lost their freaking minds. There seems to be almost nothing this clown can do to change their minds. Strike that it is simply nothing. They will argue with you over anything in the world, facts be damned.
When I reminded one guy that Trump could trigger a nuclear war he responded. ” I gotta believe they have something to stop that.” And all around nodded in agreement. “What do you think they have?” ” I don’t know but I gotta believe they have something.” Honest that is how it went. The world has gone nuts.
And we are going to defeat that thinking how again?
The frightful fact is that once Trump makes the call to launch a nuclear attack, it will be underway within 15 minutes, if launched from a submarine. And in spite of what they think, no, there is not “something to stop that”. It does not matter if every person sitting in the situation room disagrees with the decision, the President’s word is the only thing that matters when it comes to launching a nuclear weapon.
And Joe Scarborough claimed in August 2016 that Trump inquired three times about the use of nukes during a foreign policy briefing sometime during the campaign.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/03/joe-scarborough-donald-trump-asked-three-times-why-us-cant-use-nuke
s/
The fella I was talking with was referring to NK launching a missile at us or our allies. He figures we can stop it. Maybe we can but is that what you really want?
Which reminds me of the time, many years ago, when at a party the subject of electromagnetic pulse came up in the context of nukes. I mentioned how EMP could take out electronics over a wide area, with devastating results; one young man I was talking with blurted “No! That can’t happen!” “No, but it would, if….” “No! They can prevent that! It can’t happen!” And he could not be budged from his insistence on the refuge of denial.
People will believe what makes them comfortable.
Truth is that the so-called adults in the room (Gen. Kelly was supposedly one of those, as I recall) are purported to have Combover Cheeto under control. So far seeing little evidence to support that. The notion that he could plunge the US into a major shooting war (with nukes) is one that should worry us all – as it has me since the moment he launched that sorry spectacle of a campaign. Thing about despots is they tell you up front what they intend to do, and then set about doing what they said they’d do. He’s living up to his promises – wreck the nation, wreck international relations, and start fights just cuz.
How do we win against that?
Present a candidate who has the talent to win…political talent…and is willing to confront Wall Street, the banks and Corporate America.
A coalition of pissed-off white and minority working class people…pissed-off because they have been ripped off by representatives of both parties for at least 3 generations…plus the educated middle class and the young would do quite nicely.
The questions are…who is that candidate and would the Dem powers-that-be allow him or her to win in the primaries? I fear Bernie Sanders is too old and I also fear that Elizabeth Warren seriously lacks the common touch that is essential for a winning presidential candidate. She comes off as scolding and holier-than-thou in a Hillary Clinton sense, only in her case she’s probably telling the truth.
So it goes.
Next?
Damned if I know.
AG
Two questions.
I think that Strongman Trump, if he continues to falter at getting what he and the pig people want, will use it as a siren call to get the pig people to come out and vote to make sure he has enough in Congress to enact his policies. It can only be counteracted by Democrats going to vote…during a midterm.
Which, of course, is exactly what politicians should do when not in position to deliver. Blame the other side for shortcomings. Use failure as a rallying call.
(As opposed to, say, taking a victory lap and tutting, ‘we simply didn’t have the votes, my good fellows.’)
I’ve been watching the aggregated approval polls since Trump took office. His approval rate has been remarkably consistent, starting at 43%, but by August first it had dropped to 38%. Since then it has slowly risen back to 40%.
Disapproval, on the other hand, grew dramatically over the first seven months, going from 45% to 57.3% as of Aug.1. Since then it’s gone down, but only slightly, to 55.7%.
In other words, there has been a statistically significant decrease in approval, but it’s not big. There has been a lot more increase in disapproval. The base support has shrunk by about 3%, but it remains a remarkably stable base.
Both factors have been in a relative holding pattern since midsummer.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/trump-job-approval
Which says a great deal about the citizens of this country, very little of it good.
I think this shows some big weaknesses in our system
Ever dealt with an ambitious psychopath in the workplace? Often there are controls in place, and those types are either short-circuited or their energy redirected productively (more or less). But when the controls are bad – they have no inhibitions and no amount of scolding
is going to matter.
That’s the 1st weakness. The Republican party is an open door and this guy walked in. We’ll have to wait for the full story to be told but he must’ve found people who thought they could ride this tiger (see Fritz von Pappen).
The 2nd weakness is the big one – he won the election. I don’t want to discuss the messaging issues, but the weakness there is the failure of our own system to protect us. He should not have been allowed to pass the electoral college vote (let alone run at all) – remember all the agonizing about that vote? And the system itself should now be in a position to dump this failing administration and reconfigure.
Instead, we are stuck. Are we really getting close to some replacement of the incompetent at the top? Don’t see it myself – you do – sure hope you are right. As I said once before I don’t think it’s in the Democrats’ interest to support impeachment unfortunately – it will be another mess.
Contrast that with what seems to be the D plan for the future: cede territory where pre-Hillary Democrats had consistently won, assume that those who voted for Clinton over Trump are permanent Democrats, and craft a message centered on how much Republicans hate voters in Republican areas that were surprisingly close in the Clinton-Trump contest.
Trump put together the traditional base of the GOP, despite being a racist moron. Being a racist moron helped him whip up enthusiasm in rural America. But, what really enabled him to win in any state Obama won before was about 10% of voters who held their nose and voted for him.
I know such a voter here in Colorado, who despite being on the Bernie Sanders wing, voted for Trump because he wanted to “shake up the system” and because he was convinced by the media that Hillary Clinton was particularly corrupt. In short, about 10% of the voters decided at the last minute that “at least Trump will change things.” He’s already lost such voters.
I think that pretty much accounts for his polling below 40% – he’s kept more of his base than a Generic Democrat at this point and would win re-election if he could do better with swing voters.
However, the only chance he has to do that would be to abandon and suppress the racist wing of his party. The media and GOP establishment desperately wish he would do this, but he never does.
The media keeps trying to portray the Trump “pivot” only to see him “pivot” right back to attacking black athletes, because that gets the biggest roar of approval from his fans.
All of this behaviour is Trump instinctively reacting like a showman to coddle and gin up his audience. And it definitely works — with his chosen audience. And that gets him to about 40%.
But, to get to a number that can help him win outside bright red districts he needs the middle ground. Being president gives him the opportunity, but being Trump denies him any chance of reaching out to that middle.
Because his base do not WANT reconciliation with the rest of America. They want to offend and shit all over the rest of America. Literally. So, every move Trump makes that would expand his base of support alienates his supporters who fear he is selling them out.
In fact they require constant re-assurance, because they assume everybody will sell them out. I don’t think they really expect Trump to DO anything to help them or change their lives in any positive manner. It’s symbolic victories over their hated enemies that they expect him to achieve.
Thus, they are thrilled when he attacks black NFL players, and appalled when he does a deal with Nancy Pelosi to keep the country from falling apart.
And Trump senses their displeasure. He comes back from a rally complaining about the smaller numbers and lack of energy he got from the crowd. He senses he’s losing support and instinctively reaches out with some racist attack on some helpless black or brown people – like Puerto Rico after the Hurricane. And they respond with wild cheers, because they are programmed through Fox News and right-wing hate radio to love their 2-Minute Hate.
So, Trump’s behaviour is instinctive, but effective within it’s limits. But, we have seen what the limits are already. It’s about 40% of the voting population.
. . . something.
This take of yours explains in large part the bizarre, unprecedented practice of continuing to throw “campaign rallies” (I believe I’ve read/heard somewhere that they actually refer to them as such) long after the election is over.
Which seems of a piece with booman pointing out that Trump keeps doing what he keeps doing because it keeps working for him . . . at least in the narrow sense his mind conceives of something working for him. Working for the country and the world? Not so much.
The Trump equation is very simple, if you’re willing to look at it. People who aren’t willing to look at it — like David Brooks, or Ross Douthat, or (arguably) Hillary Clinton — have to come up with all kinds of tortuous byzantine logic to explain what happened. But it really couldn’t be simpler:
Roger Ailes devised a PR/advertising/publicity mechanism for Richard Nixon that got him elected (as documented, most notably, in Joe McGinnis’ excellent The Selling of the President 1968). It was an amalgam of post-Goldwater conservative techniques, galvanized and supercharged for television — which, ironically, had been the instrument of Nixon’s defeat eight years earlier. Ailes and his team borrowed Madison Avenue techniques to “sell” the candidate by means of carefully-massaged, largely fictional imagery and rhetoric, and it worked.
Over the decades since, Republican after Republican has repeated this pattern, because it worked, and because in politics it’s easy to rationalize a cynical, manipulative, means-to-an-end “realpolitik” if it gets you elected (and, as Goldwater insisted, it didn’t matter what you said to get into office, if it got you into office). So, successive Republican campaigns (and, some Democratic ones) were built on this false-adverting model, because, again, it worked.
After a while this element became the most important part of national contests, to the extent that Ronald Reagan, an actor, is remembered by many as some kind of visionary genius statesman (rather than the shallow placeholder he really was) because he was able to serve so well as a Ronald-McDonald-style pitchman.
All Trump did (and, I don’t think it was conscious or deliberate; it just happened) was take this part of American politics — the television-ad/game-show/bullshit component — and invigorate it by jettisoning everything else. He realized on some instinctive level, either through stupidity or “canniness,” that the TV-contest is now all that matters and the governance has become irrelevant. The part where you go on television and shout, once considered a “necessary evil,” a vulgar component attached to politics, has become politics itself. The rest isn’t necessary, and, in fact, is an impediment, so Trump didn’t bother with it, which freed him to be even more telegenic, so he won.
Of course eventually everyone will realize that there needs to actually be a functioning government. But there are many safeguards in place that prevent this from happening (including a mainstream press that’s too polite to point out what’s happening). But this is all there is to Trump: the ad campaign taking over the entire endeavor.
I just finished watching the Vietnam documentary by Ken Burns and after four years of killing everything in sight and tens of thousands of Americans, blowing shit up and watching endless anti war demonstrations and the dissolution of an effective Democratic Party, it should be no surprise Nixon won in 1968. Maybe the PR put an exclamation point on it. ( and the Democratic Party is still wandering around in the wilderness.)
And I would also add again that Comey and Putin had more than a little input into this past election. And I think the electorate make up changed just enough to favor the Orange Man- and he proved really good at getting free PR from our wise media clowns.
The dems are going to have to do a much better job if they hope to break through next time around. It is not just about the right and left coasts anymore.
Respectfully, I don’t think any of that (while true) refutes my point.
Elections are like rocketry: it’s always about payload weight vs.thrust — if the rocket’s too heavy it won’t launch, so you have to lighten the load or increase the thrust. Disagreeing about which component was “decisive” is silly: “It would have launched if we’d taken out [component a]” — “no, the problem was [component b].” (The fact is that either one would have done the trick.)
To say Trump won “because of” the Russians or the Comey letter or Hillary’s bad campaigning (meaning, to focus on any one of those factors in a way that discredits the rest), just like with Nixon (Vietnam vs. the ad campaign) is, I think, to miss the point: each element is “decisive,” so each must be discussed on its own terms or beaten on its own terms.
Did I say it had to be a single factor? It does not need to be a single factor. For some it was Comey who should have locked her up, for others it was the shit on Facebook or fake news or the media coverage, for others Hillary was not well liked. And then there is the change in the demographics and turn out. Take your pick. Change any of those and the election could turn. The combined weight killed. she needed to lighten the load in your terms. That rocket simply couldn’t launch.
Have to agree with Jordan’s response.
We can drive ourselves nuts look at/for specific and/or unique variables that were decisive in the outcome. However, rarely are they robust enough to alter the original mood of the electorate and the prior midterms are a clue as to the mood that’s setting up. IMO the one exception to that in seventy years was 1988. That was the one that Democrats let get away from them by nominating a candidate that was personally weakish and also vulnerable to a last gasp overtly anti-black racist attack. Despite his best efforts, that didn’t work for GHWB in ’92.
The US Presidential election is just a cult of personality. Has been for awhile now.
I respectfully disagree. This is the ‘regression to the mean fallacy’, as I call it, that the Democratic leaders and base have been counting on. Obama thought he could ‘break the fever’ with the sequester and putting the pressure on defense spending to create the leverage to bring Republicans to their senses.
But nihilism in pursuit of bigotry IS their sense.
They’ve internalized ‘drowning the government in the bathtub’ to the point that jeopardizing America’s credit rating and other unique advantages the country has just to pay marginally less taxes for the base and have the public coverage to be the low class louts they’ve always aspired to be.
This has been a trend since Reagan was elected governor in California and Nixon was elected president in the 60’s. Mysteriously these things happened after some milestone legislative events I can’t quite put my finger on.
Simple. And yet in ’68, 100% of the electorate was born prior to 1948 and in 2016 less than 15% of the population was born before 1948. ’68 didn’t include a large portion of the evangelicals that only became politicized in the late 1970s (a combined function of “Roe” in ’73 and the late ’70s “Moral Majority” that normalized political preaching from the pulpits). The churches aren’t a full as they were in ’68, but the football stadiums with the flag, anthem, and pro-war military displays are bigger, more numerous, and fuller than ever. The average number of years of formal education for that ’68 electorate was several years less than that of ’16, and yet, politically, the electorate is either as dumb or dumber than they were in ’68. Or maybe that broadcast media fairness doctrine and newspapers were a good substitute for more years of formal education.
The Republican party for some time has been morphing into an unholy alliance between the grifters and the nihilists. Trump, through some combination of shear luck of being the absolutely worst guy at the worst time and his long history of being a grifter and asshole was able to capitalize on this strategy in his idiot savant sort of way. I don’t think there is much deep thinking going on there, its just the way god and his racist parents made him.
The nihilists of the Republican part just want to blow everything up in the mistaken belief that they can return to the good old days of their racist, misogynistic, theocratic past where the economy was mostly good for the white male head of household and there was always someone to shit on when it wasn’t. Of course, what they ignore in this golden rule society (those that have the gold…) is that the country they will end up creating is probably going to suck for them way more than things do now. But hey, look how mad it makes the liberals now…
I can’t tell if Trump is an evil genius or not, but there has been a marked change in demographics over the years, per Pew Research. The democrats and those leaning democrat are younger and better educated. About 57% are white. The republican and those leaning are 86% white, older and less educated. Also, about 87% of AA identify as democrats.
All of that suggests the bigots are pretty much all lined up in the Republican Party. So it is natural for Trump to pick a fight with someone in Puerto Rico or a judge with Mexican background or police over protesters or against those kneeling during the national anthem, etc. He is playing to his base. And they are the majority.
The democrats are also facing a gerrymandered congress making winning difficult even with a Trump. – except on the coasts. So it seems Martin is right. The dems need to win back some rural white votes against the headwind of bigotry. And they need to get the vote out and that means support for the AA community.
One thing the democrats can ill afford is to lose the mid west such that it becomes like the south and upper mid west. Trump just needs to keep tweeting his hate for POC and love for the white man.
Congratulations, Booman.
You’ve just about pinned it.
Now…what to do about the situation ?
A whole ‘nother ballgame.
Do you really think that the baby-boomer Democratic power triangle of Schumer, Pelosi and HRC can take him down?
I don’t.
The only person in any sort of position of power…and a tenuous one at that, because Trump can fire him any day of the week and will probably do so if the investigation gets too close to the presidency…who can actually be expected to possibly do something except froth at the mouth about Trump’s ongoing assholeness…is Special Counsel Robert Mueller. And…I have absolutely no trust in him or anyone else who has survived in a position of power in this totally corrupted, revolving door, corporate-owned government.
I hope I’m wrong, because if this investigation is simply another in a long line paper tigers meant to calm the rubes (See the Warren Commission for all you need to know on that subject.), then it’s all over but the eventual accession to the de facto kingship of His Royal Highness King Trump.
If of course he lives that long. He has already successfully threatened the existence of the current Permanent Government much more seriously than did the Kennedy brothers or Martin Luther King Jr.
We shall see, won’t we.
May you be born(e) into interesting times.
AG
I hate the thought that you might be right. I wish i could unthink it.
Me too.
The only way that I can handle it…and seeing your sig, I think that you will probably know what I mean…is the idea that evolution continues inexorably no matter what things may look like or how bad they seem to be. Also expressed as “God works in mysterious ways” and “All roads lead to Rome.”
Have you read any of the versions of the Sufi story about Moses and Al-Khidr? The Green One? If not, here is a fairly approachable version:
https://books.google.com/books?id=9qPuCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=sufi+moses+khidr&am
p;source=bl&ots=9W7bmhgK7x&sig=nRa-A397IhDYwtjYmI76oPWT-pA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKE
wiWibWvg9DWAhXmlVQKHSuxBMU4ChDoAQhNMAo#v=onepage&q=sufi%20moses%20khidr&f=false
Fly on.
AG
Forgive me if I read this wrong, but there seems to be an implicit assumption here that Trump’s success lay in sticking to the plan as described, and that doing that would mean victory was his no matter what his opponent did. Friends who can be described as almost religious in their fervor, support and defense of all things Hillary have said the same things post election, that no matter what she would have done, the die was cast in favor of Trump. As a way of not acknowledging fatal mistakes that cost the democrats an election that should have been their’s to win.
I would posit that the biggest factor in Trump’s victory was the political ineptitude of his opponent and the party that supported her. They fatally misread the mood of the electorate by nominating an unpopular lightening rod that was viewed as the very definition of “establishment” when establishment was the label of their discontent. Further, they put forth a candidate compromised by the very forces she claimed were thwarting the perceived dispossessed of the electorate. Ironically, Trump couldn’t have been a better representative of those forces feeding off the “deplorables” and keeping them down. A testament to his con man skills he pulled that off, with them ridiculously referring to him as a “blue collar billionaire. With the winning Electoral College margin being approximately 77,000 voters in three states, some of which the campaigns models got arrogantly wrong, it cannot be said that Trump’s victory was a lock if he stuck to the plan. It was the democrats having the wrong plan and candidate that delivered for Trump, more so than Trump himself.
As for Trump’s behavior, the short analysis is Trump won the support of asshole who saw him as a fellow assholes. Trump is at his best (in the eyes of his supporters) when he speaks from the heart. That his heart is what it is, is a benefit in that regard. His lack of empathy for “those people” mirrored theirs. His sense of white superiority is in alignment. His disdain for all things Obama was in line with their view of the first president who happened to be black, and it was that blackness that drove their insanity and informed their jealously hateful view of Obama, simultaneously, as an evil genius and an inept inferior who could get nothing right. And nothing describes better Trump’s insane obsession with all things Obama.
Articles of faith:
The fundamental problem is the voters, not the party.
(1) is probably true.
I fundamentally disagree with points (2) and (3).
Hillary was a lousy candidate. I don’t even know what you mean by (2). The whole campaign was a substantial error.
It is foolish to fight about whether Trump won because he had a winning formula, or simply because Hillary was such a bad candidate. There is no inherent contradiction between the two premises. Trump had a winning formula for the people that voted for him, given that the other alternative was Hilary. But a significant number of Trump voters were former Obama voters who would have voted for a Democrat other than Hillary.
I think there was wide recognition that both Trump and Hillary terrible candidates who left the country with a terrible choice.
Your point (3) effectively states that no Democrat could have beaten Trump. Or even more — that if Trump could beat even the heavily favored Hillary Clinton, then surely nobody else could have beaten him.
I do not believe that is the lesson of this election at all. True, I did not expect Trump to win. But I did know from the moment I realized she was running that Hillary was a bad candidate for 2016. The real lesson of the election was that she was even worse than I thought.
Point #3 is nonsense. Why? Because a certain someone polled way better with independents and a general election electorate is different from a primary election electorate. He spoke to issues that mattered to people. Also, there is this:
http://jacobinmag.com/2017/09/democratic-party-2016-election-working-class
But he got more than a little help from Comey and his friend Putin and still just barely pulled it out.
Perhaps only tangentially to this current thread, but directly so to this earlier one, and the discomfort/frustration some of us expressed with booman’s criticism of anthem-kneeling on tactical grounds; and also, to be fair, to booman’s expressed frustration with the “fallacy” (though I’m not quite sure that’s the right word) that it arguably confronts him with: So black athletes have forgotten their place?
. . . a negative goal.”
This may be more of a moral philosophical distinction, but in my moral universe, there’s no such thing. I’d argue an “attribute (cunning, savvy, foresight, intuition) [deployed] in the service of a negative goal” is thereby a negative (at best neutral, certainly not positive) attribute. To me, the original formulation seems oxymoronic.
shorter booman:
I think the Goldwater/daisy commercial needs to be remade with Trump because he really and truly is going to get us into a nuclear war.
Best political ad ever and very few actually saw it. However, replicating it for today won’t work because the truth embedded in the original doesn’t yet exist.
All the rightwing fear beliefs about Obama didn’t defeat Obama in ’12. All that does is galvanize strictly partisan voter participation.
It will be the donald’s words and unfulfilled promises that will make the best ads. His words along with those tax returns may kill all of his credibility with a lot of his base.
Trump won with immigration politics and with Hillary dislike. He won because Rs own the rural turfs.
Why do Rs own the rural turfs? Identity politics.
If you wish a pretty good description, look at “Once and future liberal: After identity politics” by Mark Lilla. He basically notes that identity politics substitutes group for we, and that the Dems are dividing the electorate into small pieces, which dislike and distrust one another.
He prescribes a dose of “love of citizenship”. That might work, but not in today’s D Party. In today’s D Party, D pols must agree that illegals have as many rights as citizens, that illegals are to be protected over citizens. Bernie Sanders’ horrible and craven cave to the illegal hustlers shows the power of the illegals hustlers.
Until Dems give up the illegals, Trump will continue to have power over them.
You may dislike my terminology. But you ignore my point at your peril as D proponents.
“Trump won with immigration politics”? He won, it would seem, with nativism and white racial resentment. What he won with is–get this, dataguy–identity politics.
How you get “D pols must agree…that illegals are to be protected over citizens” is truly a mystery. Over citizens? Please explain in detail what this “over” consists of.
And then there’s your other great turn of phrase: “Until Dems give up the illegals”, italics added. Is it really necessary to point out the nastiness evoked by the use of “give up” here? Can you not think of any other circumstances when people were urged to “give up” a minority in their midst?
People arguing to “give up” ID politics talk in abstracts a lot but never articulate what that means in practice. As we are seeing in Puerto Rico, however, citizenship doesn’t necessarily mean shit. Dataguy wants to send Gestapo Forces to our neighborhoods and towns, my neighborhoods (I don’t want cops in my neighborhood), and kick people out. Whenever someone confronts Mark Lilla about what to do, he rambles like an idiot who published a book that came from a newspaper column rather than a scholar (because that’s what happened, seems like an easy way to make money).
Mark Lilla is a fraud, and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He stumbled upon a nut that White Grievance is powerful and must be confronted; except Mark (like dataguy) does not wish to confront it, but ignore and perpetuate it.
Man Who Knows Nothing About American Political History Is Here to Lecture You About American Politics
Those crap articles you refer to make the same fucking stupid mistake Dems are making all the time. They are now believing that RALLIES are WORK. This is the fucking stupidest idea I have really ever heard.
No one in politics thinks that a march is work. No one gives a shit about marches. Marches are for idiots, really. Remember the Million Man March? I don’t. What about all those folks with pussy hats? SO fucking what?
Identity politics is all about dividing the electorate into small groups, picking some, and calling the rest of them racists. Democrats today think that “racist” is an argument.
I ‘spec you have not read the book. You might consider it. One of those “liberal” things, reading.
Illegals are not a minority. They are criminals. I’m kind of amazed that someone could be this clueless.
By your reasoning, bank robbers are a minority, and thus should apply for protected status. Or some similarly idiotic idea.
Criminals have no rights to not be treated as criminals.
They’re criminals – remind us of the crime. Who was harmed?
If you’re asking me personally, I would say that I don’t care about problems that aren’t problems. It doesn’t look like these code violators are costing a lot of money, which is my main issue. If they were, I’d be concerned, but the studies seem to be unable to show much. In some cases they benefit. They sure get under a lot of people’s nerves tho. This is what I want to understand. What my feelings are don’t matter very much.
I’ll remind us that in the absence of non citizen immigrants Americans have a history of turning on each other. See Woodie Guthrie’s “Do-Re-Mi” or Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.
This is the normalization of deviance, or the creeping corruption of the D Party. As the acceptance of criminal behavior becomes not just OK but really required, the D Party loses legitimacy. A party which has as a core tenet the acceptance of criminals is not a political party, it’s a criminal enterprise itself. It’s the substitution of lawful behavior with criminal behavior.
What is the crime? Financial crimes – fraudulent use of SS and other numbers – felony. Crossing the border after deportation – felony. Illegals are criminals.
As the D Party normalizes criminals, they become anathema to persons who believe that society runs by rules. The D party is a party of the mob as it continues this policy of normalization of deviance and criminality. Sanctuary cities, voting rights for non-citizens (College Park, MD tried this last month), protection of illegals. Cost: schools, welfare, tax benefits. Huge money.
Sorry, not understanding. Are they stealing something from somebody? What I know they do is use SSNs that don’t belong to them to report income, sometimes.
This doesn’t hurt anybody – except the person who did the work, who cannot collect on it.
If it could be demonstrated that these folks are taking jobs from citizens you might get my support. But I like facts and so far this is not proven. I think the H1B system does take jobs from Americans, but even there the evidence is poor. And those guys are a long way from undocumented/illegal/undesirable for sure.
A felony is for serious crimes, like theft or violence. I don’t see any violence or theft in this act – somebody crossed an imaginary line. Maybe I don’t like this person here for other reasons, but so far you haven’t offered any. Instead I see this as abuse of the legal system. For example we could try to solve the diabetes problem by making being fat a felony & tossing those fatties in the klink!
Why isn’t this just as nutty?
Well like I said I personally don’t have any interest in problems that aren’t problems.
Maybe tangential, and if so, I apologize. It seems we are going through one our nation’s periodic bouts of anti-immigrant hysteria. Today’s GOP is gripped by an undercurrent eerily reminiscent of the Know Nothings. Then, it was hysteria over Catholics who’d migrated to the US. These days it’s primarily those who’ve migrated from Mexico and Central America or from the Middle East and who take on the jobs that Americans have proven they don’t want to do. I wish I could say that the fever will break soon. I seriously doubt it, and many good, hard-working people will be hurt along the way. Undocumented immigrants are almost always very badly exploited by corporate America, including agribusiness. That’s a problem that deserves to be addressed, but not at the expense of those who are undocumented immigrants.
A number of years back, I lived in a rural area where much of the population growth could be traced to migrant workers seeking employment at corporate meatpacking plants. My state wanted to get rid of its undocumented workers for the same basic reason that the Know Nothings wanted to get rid of Catholics. They were Other. Sheriff at the time in my county decided not to go out of the way to enforce the state’s new laws – ostensibly because the state was not giving the county any extra funds to do so. But beneath the surface, there was something else: these workers payed rent, payed taxes, contributed to the economy. Those shiny new patrol SUVs and law enforcement pensions don’t just magically pay for themselves, now do they. Chasing the immigrants away would have been economic suicide. Didn’t take a supergenius to understand that basic reality. The local methheads weren’t fit for employment if the immigrants weren’t there. End of story, really. There’s all sorts of data on how undocumented immigrants disproportionately contribute to our nation’s economy and receive disproportionately less. It’s not much of a stretch to say that we continue to succeed as a nation on the backs of men and women who are badly exploited.
One last thing. For the decade and a half I’ve blogged, I have gravitated toward the phrase “illegal is not a noun.” Folks who run afoul of that ethos lose the ability to persuade me on much of anything that may matter to them. I don’t suffer fools gladly, nor do I suffer racists – nor should any of us.
Illegals are not a minority. They are criminals. I’m kind of amazed that someone could be this clueless.
You got a deserved troll rating for that comment.
Gosh, that’ll show me. Take that, you anti-illegals fiend.
You write:
True. But they have been wink-wink, nudge-nudged into that state of “criminality” by a system that allowed them essentially free entry and no serious pursuit thereafter because it wanted cheap labor.
And it got exactly what it wanted.
So…who are the real villains here? The people who took advantage of laissez-faire immigration enforcement to better their lives, or the politicians who supported that approach and now feel that there is an advantage in opposing it? Politicians whose ongoing practice of international economic imperialism largely caused the conditions in the third world that prompted people to run in the first place!!!
And as far as “criminality” goes, every U.S. citizen who has ever fudged on their income tax returns or even makes a consistent practice of rolling stops at stop signs is a “criminal.” Again, laissez-faire enforcement of those criminal acts is taken as permission to do them. Where are we to draw the line? In the eyes of the Permanent Government, we are all “Guilty until proven innocent,” and that’s exactly where they want us. That way, if they want to crack down on us, they can.
“Justice” carries a two-edged sword as well as a balancing weight.
Which edge of the sword do you chose?
Moral justice or here-today-gone-tomorrow justice?
I choose the former.
You?
I repeat:
Oh.
Nevermind…
AG
The tree firm Asplundh will pay $96,000,000 for hiring illegals, and further for conspiring to re-hire them after they were found and forced to quit from the company.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/pennsylvania-company-to-pay-record-fine-for-illegally-hiring-immigrants
-1506713490
I can’t find the item, but another firm was fined for failing to hire US workers
More and more firms are not hiring illegals or foreign scabs of any kind.
In Martha’s Vinyard, they got really desperate this year. They couldn’t get enough foreign scabs through the H-2B mechanism. They had to hire anyone who came through the door and TRAIN THEM !! THE HORROR!! TRAINING US WORKERS!! And what about the language barrier.
The longer Dems promote, support, and assist in the hiring of illegals, the more they will lose in the court of public opinion.
. . . “people” nor “the court of public opinion”. Sorry to have to be the one to break that to you.
We’ve heard the verdict passed on these human beings from the court of “dataguy”‘s (LOL!) bigoted opinion, but why would any decent person give a shit about that? I know I don’t.
Good to know. Thanks for your thoughtful contribution with plenty of careful discussion. Shorter version: He’s a racist, and I am not.
In 2018, Dems are going to lose a ton of seats in the Senate, and people who are as clueless and oblivious as you are why.
. . . the powerful shorter version you came up with, so good on ya for that.
Found the item:
The case of a Louisiana employer highlights problems with the H-2B program, and guestworker schemes in general.
The Department of Justice recently ordered Barrios Street Realty Company of Lockport, La., to provide the final payment in a $108,000 settlement to a group of American workers who were discriminated against in favor of H-2B workers. According to a March 2016 press release from the Justice Department, the firm knowingly and illegally hired temporary foreign workers despite there being 73 qualified Americans willing to do the job.
Following a lawsuit, Barrios Street Realty had to pay a total of $115,000 to compensate just 12 of the American workers who were passed over for foreign workers. The roofing company will also owe $30,000 in civil penalties and lose the ability to hire H-2B workers for a period of three years.
Another case:
Mercedes Benz is building a plant in Alabama. A subcontractor had hired hundreds of workers from Croatia and Slovenia, and was bringing them in on B-1 visas. B-1 visas do not allow you to actually work, but simply to visit and observe.
From the CIS Blog:
So…dataguy.
You’re a Trumplican now?
Not making a value judgement.
Really.
Just observing.
You have a point.
AG
No, AG, as I have stated on several occasions, I do not support Trump. He stumbled into an issue I support. There’s a difference. If you don’t see the difference, that is guilt by association.
As Booman stated quite cogently in 2016, Trump is the dog that caught the car. He’s inept, incompetent, and will in all cases take the most offensive position possible.
I am opposed to illegals, work visas, and the current level of legal immigration. Thus far, he has done little of what he promised, and has damaged and diminished support for the issues I support. So, no, I don’t support Trump. But I do support an issue he falsely promised on.
I hope that is clear.
Clear as day.
I do not support unlimited immigration either. But…I refuse to support punishing those who took advantage of the opening, most of whom have led good, hardworking lives here.The latino community in the United States…legals, illegals, whatever… is a testament to the values on which this country was supposed to have been built. Among other things, it is the single most “integrated” community in the country. By far!!! I have lived as a sort of honored guest in this culture for 40+ years, and I applaud its ethics and its success.
Want to deport some “undesirables?”
Start on Wall Street.
AG
I know that you are musician in the Latin genre. Hey, that’s great. Right now, in my house, we are all Spanish all the time – my wife is long-term subbing for a Spanish teacher in a high school, so we watch spanish TV, listen to spanish music, work on spanish words. My response to whatever she asks me is always “Da nada”.
If you want to support these folks, be my guest. We are paying the price for your choice: Trump. The support for illegals by folks like you and a lot of others created a backlash. The backlash is Trump.
The backlash is not over.
The real question will be what happens in 2018. If I am right, more Dems will lose. If you and 90% of others here are right, Rs will lose. We’ll see.
You were kind enough to respond to a question about surviving as a musician. My son continues to be a rock-n-roller. His band in St Louis gets gigs. To date, I am not sure if the gigs are paid for – the shows are all “no admission”. He is still having his rent covered by us and that is ending soon. So we will see.
If you are in St Louis at any point, his band is on facebook.
It’s a tough job now, dataguy. In any idiom or style. The digital revolution basically made all music free for the asking. No way around it except massive hype, and that only happens by a combination of talent…and there is a plenitude of talent out there. more than ever before in my 4 decades in the business…and dumb luck/nasty hustle.
Sorry, but there it is.
It was a crapshoot when I came in, but now the dice are decisively loaded.
That said, I would never discourage a truly talented musician…again, in any idiom…from taking a shot. I was a successful, working freelance jazz, studio and latin musician in NYC by the time I was 22, but the competition was nothing like it is today. More musicians, less need for them. Robot music, basically.
There have been lots of bumps in the road since then, but I would not trade my life for anyone’s. Encourage him, but also encourage him to learn a trade or skill…a data trade, a cooking trade, the teaching trade, whatever attracts him. By the time he’s into his late 20s/early 30s…if he’s honest with himself…he’ll pretty much know where he stands. I cannot tell you how many gifted young musicians over the past 20 years or so have continued their careers as musicians while simultaneously becoming good, working cooks, lawyers, academics, etc. If I was coming up now I’d become a writer of some sort…a journalist, probably…because that’s where my other interests lie and I am reasonably gifted at it.
Good luck to him.
AG
“encourage him to learn a trade” yeah, we been there, we done that. Like talking to a wall. This kid is stubborn. He was in a master’s program for biostat, and decided to take a poetry class. He stopped the biostat, and kept with the poetry. I do not talk to him. Not out of bitterness or anger or anything, simply because I know that WHATEVER I say will be misinterpreted and drive him to do the exact opposite. He’s my son, but I am 100% convinced that I have no lever which can move him, so I do not talk to him. When he wants to talk, I will listen.
Raising kids is a difficult process. Once they are 18, you want to get them to do stuff, but you cannot. So, you send them money every once in a while. They gotta fail on their own time.
We have encouraged him to do substitute teaching. There are positions available, and a need. Especially in St Louis. He’s a big guy (6’4″), and ugly as hell, so he is intimidating, and might be OK even in the rough schools. But has he gotten off the dime yet? No, he has not.
Dunno what to say except “Good luck.” One way or another…he’ll learn. I hope it’s a good way.
AG
Thanks. Your thoughts have been helpful.
We all make our way in the world as we choose. When a person becomes an adult, they have decided on their own way, and the wishes of their parents no longer are the main issue. He is an adult, and is making his own way. I have no idea what that way is, but I am but an egg, and must simply observe. When my input is desired, I will provide it.
Dataguy is too far gone. He’s gone full-blown Trumpster long ago. Sad thing is, late last decade he actually managed to come across as fairly progressive in his posts. He solicited support (mostly moral) for a campaign run for a minor office once. Lost as I recall. From the story he told at the time it seemed plausible he fought the good fight and never stood a chance. Wonder how much of that was real now.
Those days are long gone. He’s let the mask slip, for whatever reason in the last two or three years. Why is anyone’s guess. Regardless, we had a stealth racist in our midst who is now out in the open. At least if you’re wanting to know what you’re up against in Trump country, he’s giving you a peak inside the deranged landscape of their minds.
Whatever. I will tell you one important thing – rejecting the messenger does not mean the message is going away.
Call me a trumpster if you wish. I don’t support him. He is an idiot. In fact, my particular obsession with immigration is being damaged by Trump’s incompetence. He is hardening the idiotic position of the Democrats. He is, in this area as in all others, doing much more harm than good.
Speaking of immigration, I saw a comment the other day that immigrants contribute to our GDP and help keep SS solvent (if that is a thing). Went on to suggest, it is a good thing to encourage. Imagine that.
Yeh, their payroll deduction for SS goes in despite it being a fake number, but they can never collect on that, so the SS fund actually gains on their contributions.
If the message is toxic, rejecting the messenger is totally appropriate, as it is in your case. Lates.
Let’s watch what happens to the VA Gubernatorial election. Purple state featuring a Democratic candidate, Dr. Ralph Northam who has a long, meritocratic record against a “swamp creature”, i.e. long-time GOP lobbyist and political operative Ed Gillespie. Turnout will be everything and it is not just northern Va vs. southern VA since there are scattered Democratic strongholds in university towns in the south and even in the naval base areas of Norfolk/Hampton Roads. But the main point is who can mobilize turnout. It is significant that, less than six weeks before the election, Trump is not really a factor (except for whacko Corey Stewart). This is smart, especially for the Democrats since he is simply a total distraction and adds no Democratic/indie votes since they already hate him. There is no alternative to countering Trump other than promoting a positive alternative to Tump’s relentlessly negative messaging. But the Democrats have no media platform except for the great but nearly invisible Democracy Now and Hayes/Maddow on MSNBC. The GOP have Fox and Hate Radio and a formidable online network. Never mind ALEC and similar. Until Democrats start paying attention to counterattacking, the clowns will always win.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/in-iowa-democrats-ask-rural-voters-for-a-second-chance/2017
/10/01/e54e1854-a567-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_housedems-730pm%3
Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a0ef7cb755c7
This was better than I expected. An Iowa meet-n-greet, with Cheri Bustos (D-IL) and Tim Ryan (D-OH), who are midwestern and very clear about the inability of the D party to attract normal voters not in cities. They discussed health care – rural hospitals are a very big issue – if you live in Winner SD, you are 2.5 hours from Sioux Falls and 3 hours from Rapid City. If your hospital closes, this can be very serious. Rural hospitals are TOTALLY DEPENDENT on Medicare and Medicaid. Today (10/1) CHIP is no longer in force – health care for low-income kids. These are issues that can bring Americans together. Health care is one.
Jobs is another. Jobs for American citizens, not illegals. Jobs not on H-2Bs. In Martha’s Vinyard, they couldn’t get enough H-2Bs (Trump’s visa for Mar-a-lago). They had to hire whoever came through the door and train them. SHOCKING!! Hiring Americans to change beds, wait on tables. I know that for many here, they cannot believe that these are jobs Americans want to do. But the treasonous notion that there are some jobs Americans will not do repels normal Americans.
95 different types of bathrooms, special rights for all kinds of snowflakes, people rioting in colleges because a conservative speaker is there, BLM doing much of anything – these repel people.
95 different types of bathrooms, special rights for all kinds of snowflakes, people rioting in colleges because a conservative speaker is there, BLM doing much of anything – these repel people.
They are repelled, if at all, because their own situation sucks and are looking for someone to blame. It’s what happens when you don’t blame what for most people still is a crappy economy on Wall Street and Trump and his fellow billionaires.
This is one of the rare times when I will strongly disagree with you.
You are looking at Trump as a political phenomenon, but you need to, instead, step back and look at him as a human being. We’re not always able to do this with our politicians, because they have a public face and a private face, but we can in Trump’s case because he is so completely transparent and consistent.
And what you’ll see in the human being is overwhelming narcissism straight out of the DSM. Every single thing he does comes directly from the Narcissistic Personality Disorder handbook.
So you say he does this because it’s worked for him, but that presupposes that he could be otherwise. Whereas the overwhelming evidence is simply that he is incapable of being otherwise. Which is Silver’s point.
The fact that it has worked for him does, as you say, tell us more about the state and mood of the country at present than anything else. But that doesn’t mean that he’s executing strategy. This is a provable hypothesis: if he is ever capable of being any other way, then he should, at some point, demonstrate that when the chips are down. (And they will be down bigly in the not-too-distant future.) I say he will never be any other way, even when it hurts him, because he simply isn’t capable. In fact, I’d like a week’s pay on it. Because that’s what severe narcissistic personality disorder looks like.
Take a look at what he’s saying in Puerto Rico today as Exhibit A.