[gwnn]

Pretty sure net favorability means what you think it means. I wonder what the % would be for "kill them both and try again" (if you excuse the slightly excessive measure proposed).

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-May-16, 05:04, said:

I see that in a head to head, asking who they would vote for today, Clinton outscores Trump 42-40. Which is a little weird because when the question is who is qualified to be president, Clinton outscores Trump 55-31. I would like to hear from those who think Trump is unqualified to be president but plan to vote for him. Well, maybe I don't want to hear from them.

Many people will vote for their party no matter who the candidate is. And there are plenty who just dislike Hillary, even though they may admit that she's more qualified.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2016-May-16, 08:03, said:

Obama delivers commencement speech at Rutgers: 'Ignorance is not a virtue'


Sad that this is even a point that needed making...

I agree that it is sad and I agree that is a point that should be made, and made repeatedly.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2016-May-16, 08:52, said:

Many people will vote for their party no matter who the candidate is. And there are plenty who just dislike Hillary, even though they may admit that she's more qualified.

Yes, that's so. And no doubt it is the explanation or a lot of it. I would still expect a person to feel a little unease if the pollsters asks if Trump is qualified, and they say not, and then the pollster asks who they are going to vote for and they say Trump. It should at least cause a little discomfort. I suppose there are degrees of unqualified.

[kenberg]

gwnn, on 2016-May-16, 08:31, said:

Pretty sure net favorability means what you think it means. I wonder what the % would be for "kill them both and try again" (if you excuse the slightly excessive measure proposed).

There goes your post-doc at the IAS, you will never be allowed into the US now.

You may think I am joking (and I am) but during the Viet Nam war a guy was arrested or at least detained by the Secret Service because he said or wrote (you can see I don't recall the precise details) that "Johnson's war makes me puke". When challenged, the agency maintained that if enough people puked on the president it could be life threatening.

If needed, I could testify that no one ever takes you seriously. Always happy to help a friend.

[StevenG]

kenberg, on 2016-May-16, 09:21, said:

Yes, that's so. And no doubt it is the explanation or a lot of it. I would still expect a person to feel a little unease if the pollsters asks if Trump is qualified, and they say not, and then the pollster asks who they are going to vote for and they say Trump. It should at least cause a little discomfort. I suppose there are degrees of unqualified.

They know that Clinton is qualified because she is establishment, whereas Trump is not. They will vote for Trump because he is not establishment. The need to oppose an establishment that is not working for them, er, trumps all the other factors.

[gwnn]

At the risk of being anti-trump (pro-notrump I guess), it would seem that the only person in this race (4 Democrats and 16 Republicans) who is unqualified is the Donald. I don't think thinking evolution is Satan's doing should disqualify you, for example. I guess maybe Carly Fiorina also, since she had never been even a senator. What else can "qualified" be interpreted as other than official political experience? I guess people just read it as essentially the same question as favorable/unfavorable.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2016-May-16, 09:32, said:

You may think I am joking (and I am) but during the Viet Nam war a guy was arrested or at least detained by the Secret Service because he said or wrote (you can see I don't recall the precise details) that "Johnson's war makes me puke". When challenged, the agency maintained that if enough people puked on the president it could be life threatening.

This kind of thing is still a sore point with me.

I actually heard a guy (a loudmouth I could not stand) get up at a meeting and say "I'm going to wring LBJ's neck!" He was arrested and charged with threatening the life of the president. I had to testify at a grand jury and at two federal trials: "Yes, I heard it. No, I didn't believe he was serious."

Two trials, the first 11-1 for acquittal, the second 12-0 for acquittal. A huge waste of the time I wanted to spend studying and playing bridge!

[Winstonm]

The biggest fear I have concerning the upcoming election is low turnout because Democrats who dislike Hillary may stay home. I would hope fear of the consequences of a Republican Congress and White House would override the dislike factor, though. Here's hoping.

[awm]

It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case. Legally, it only means US citizen from birth and 35+ years old. Pretty clear Trump qualifies unless you believe Bill Maher's bit about him being half orangutan.

If "qualified" means having a lot of relevant knowledge or experience, it's easy to imagine thinking someone "unqualified" would be better than someone who has a lot of misguided opinions despite a lot of experience. My guess is this describes a set of reluctant Trump voters who would have preferred someone with governing experience but just cannot stand to vote for Clinton.

[kenberg]

awm, on 2016-May-16, 19:02, said:

It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case. Legally, it only means US citizen from birth and 35+ years old. Pretty clear Trump qualifies unless you believe Bill Maher's bit about him being half orangutan.

If "qualified" means having a lot of relevant knowledge or experience, it's easy to imagine thinking someone "unqualified" would be better than someone who has a lot of misguided opinions despite a lot of experience. My guess is this describes a set of reluctant Trump voters who would have preferred someone with governing experience but just cannot stand to vote for Clinton.

I doubt that there was one in a thousand poll responders who took the question about qualified to refer to legal qualifications. Republicans do indeed have a problem, and from what we read this seems to be more than hypothetical for many. What do you do when the party nominates someone you find to be unqualified and quite possibly a disaster in the making? I am hoping that Clinton can speak to at least some of these voters in a way that they will consider her a viable alternative. It won't be easy. Many of our problems have no easy answers, some may have no answer at all, and that is not what a voter wants to hear.

I came to Maryland in 67, Spiro Agnew was governor. This is a Dem state, but the Dems ran a candidate whom no one (ok, few) could vote for. So they voted for Agnew??? Well, yes. And we have a Republican governor now as well. Some people just check to see whether the candidate is R or D, but others will consider the choice further.

We can hope, as Winston suggests.

[Al_U_Card]

An interesting opinion from Fred Harrison

Donald Trump: Hail the 1st American Caesar


If he is elected President in November, Donald Trump will be the first of a succession of American Caesars. The blueprint for why he is popular and what this portends for the American Empire can be read in the fate of Rome.

The City of Rome was a republic for hundreds of years, until the rent-seeking culture took hold. That was when civil society started to come apart. Corruption was institutionalised. The rule of law fell into disrepute, and it was only a matter of time before governance became the plaything of authoritarian personalities with overblown egos.

The reign of the Caesars was based on the cult of personal power; but the economic underpinnings of that phase of dissolution is key to understanding what happened then, and why it is unfolding now.

The pillage of the people began as an internal phenomenon, with free peasants losing their lands to those who appointed themselves as nobles. As the landless flowed into the city, the unemployed had to be preoccupied with bread-and-circuses. The Caesar syndrome provided the means for containing the mob. It did so by reaping yet more rents.

With all the home-grown rents under their control, the Caesars had to turn outwards for more spoils. Thus was launched the phase of empire-building. Territories were captured, from which to extract the rents that could fund the bread-and-circuses back home. This set in train the process that would lead to the inflow of the barbarians – economic migrants – and the Sack of Rome. From then on, the fall of the western half of the empire was unstoppable.

And so to the present.

The pre-conditions for a take-over of power in the West have been in the making for at least a century. It was just a matter of time before a Donald Trump-type personality would emerge, displaying all the characteristics of the narcissism that characterised Rome in its phase of decadence.

It is no accident that Trump is the archetype land speculator. Rent-seeking is our dominant cultural doctrine. In the UK, it’s called “getting on the property ladder”. Many people feel uncomfortable when they heard Trump utter his inanities, but they do not link his demeanour to the something-for-nothing culture of rent privatisation.

Trump’s is a bid for personal power. He is not interested in the discipline imposed by the Republican Party. He keeps reminding us that he is his own man. He used his own money – made from land speculation – to fund his bid for high office. He has made it clear he will not conform to conventional party politics. He wants power to “Make American Great Again”. This resonates with working class whites who have lost their secure, well-paid industrial jobs; with the footloose “trailer trash” families desperate for the leadership of a Strong Man; and with the middle class folk whose spending power has been diminishing for the past three decades.

Hail Ceasar!

If Trump triumphs in November, he will end the American Dream. Few people will notice, for he will launch a massive programme of bread-and-circuses. The mob will have to be kept quiescent as he launched forth on the construction of a new territorial empire. From where else could he draw the rents that American needs to keep its rent-seeking culture afloat?

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2016-May-16, 09:21, said:

Yes, that's so. And no doubt it is the explanation or a lot of it. I would still expect a person to feel a little unease if the pollsters asks if Trump is qualified, and they say not, and then the pollster asks who they are going to vote for and they say Trump. It should at least cause a little discomfort. I suppose there are degrees of unqualified.

I think that in a well-constructed poll they wouldn't ask both questions to the same respondents, because of well known psychological effect of priming. Or they might ask both questions, but randomize the order -- there's probably a statistical way to determine how much the priming affected the answers to the second question and adjust for it.

[helene_t]

awm, on 2016-May-16, 19:02, said:

It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case.

His hands are big enough.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2016-May-17, 11:15, said:

His hands are big enough.

He has to be able to hold the "football".

[olegru]

>> It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case.

Sorry, it remind me very old Soviet joke. I hope my translation make sense.

International Art exhibition for specialists only.
Picasso forgot his ID. Security person asks him to prove he is "qualified" as an art specialist. Picasso took the pencil and drawn the bird. Security person let him in.

USSR Minister of Culture forgot her ID too. The same security person asks her to prove she is "qualified" as an art specialist.
“I am the Minister of Culture for 14 years,” saying she.
“Could you please prove it," saying security. “Picasso just had the same problem and he drawn the bird…”
“Who is that Picasso guy and why did he draw bird?” interrupted she.
“Welcome, Minister.”

[hrothgar]

olegru, on 2016-May-17, 13:08, said:

>> It's not really clear to me what "qualified" means in this case.

Sorry, it remind me very old Soviet joke. I hope my translation make sense.

International Art exhibition for specialists only.
Picasso forgot his ID. Security person asks him to prove he is "qualified" as an art specialist. Picasso took the pencil and drawn the bird. Security person let him in.

USSR Minister of Culture forgot her ID too. The same security person asks her to prove she is "qualified" as an art specialist.
“I am the Minister of Culture for 14 years,” saying she.
“Could you please prove it," saying security. “Picasso just had the same problem and he drawn the bird…”
“Who is that Picasso guy and why did he draw bird?” interrupted she.
“Welcome, Minister.”

Thats a good one...

[Winstonm]

I think Noam Chomsky has most of the answers correct with this explanation:

Quote

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, first of all, the phenomenon that we’ve just seen is an extreme version of something that’s been going on just for years in the Republican primaries. Take a look back at the preceding ones. Every time a candidate came up from the base—Bachmann, McCain, Santorum, Huckabee, one crazier than the other—every time one rose from the base, the Republican establishment sought to beat them down and get their own—get their own man—you know, Romney. And they succeeded, until this year. This year the same thing happened, and they didn’t succeed. The pressure from the base was too great for them to beat it back. Now, that’s the disaster that the Republican establishment sees. But the phenomenon goes way back. And it has roots. It’s kind of like jihadis: You have to ask about the roots.

What are the roots? The Republican—both political parties have shifted to the right during the neoliberal period—the period, you know, since Reagan, goes back to late Carter, escalated under Reagan—during this period, which has been a period of stagnation and decline for much of the population in many ways—wages, benefits, security and so on—along with enormous wealth concentrated in a tiny fraction of the population, mostly financial institutions, which are—have a dubious, if not harmful, role on the economy. This has been going on for a generation. And while this has been happening, there’s a kind of a vicious cycle. You have more concentration of wealth, concentration of political power, legislation to increase concentration of wealth and power, and so on, that while that’s been going on, much of the population has simply been cast aside. The white working class is bitter and angry, for lots of reasons, including these. The minority populations were hit very hard by the Clinton destruction of the welfare system and the incarceration rules. They still tend to support the Democrats, but tepidly, because the alternative is worse, and they’re taking a kind of pragmatic stand.

But while the parties have shifted to—but the parties have shifted so far to the right that the—today’s mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called moderate Republicans. Now, the Republicans are just off the spectrum. They have been correctly described by leading conservative commentators, like Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann, as just what they call a radical insurgency, which has abandoned parliamentary politics. And they don’t even try to conceal it. Like as soon as Obama was elected, Mitch McConnell said, pretty much straight out, "We have only one policy: make the country ungovernable, and then maybe we can somehow get power again." That’s just off the spectrum.

Now, the actual policies of the Republicans, whether it’s Paul Ryan or Donald Trump, to the extent that he’s coherent, Ted Cruz, you pick him, or the establishment, is basically enrich and empower the very rich and the very powerful and the corporate sector. You cannot get votes that way. So therefore the Republicans have been compelled to turn to sectors of the population that can be mobilized and organized on other grounds, kind of trying to put to the side the actual policies, hoping, the establishment hopes, that the white working class will be mobilized to vote for their bitter class enemies, who want to shaft them in every way, by appealing to something else, like so-called social conservatism—you know, abortion rights, racism, nationalism and so on. And to some extent, that’s happened. That’s the kind of thing that Fritz Stern was referring to in the article that I mentioned about Germany’s collapse, this descent into barbarism. So what you have is a voting base consisting of evangelical Christians, ultranationalists, racists, disaffected, angry, white working-class sectors that have been hit very hard, that are—you know, not by Third World standards, but by First World standards, we even have the remarkable phenomenon of an increase in mortality among these sectors, that just doesn’t happen in developed societies. All of that is a voting base. It does produce candidates who terrify the corporate, wealthy, elite establishment. In the past, they’ve been able to beat them down. This time they aren’t doing it. And that’s what’s happening to the so-called Republican Party.

[Al_U_Card]

Democrats = Corporate conservatives
Republicans = Corporate fascists

There has never been a socialist element (Since WW1) and liberal = libertarian.

The problem (Chomsky appears to suggest...) is corporations and particularly financial ones and the wealth inequality that they tend to generate from fractional reserve banking and leveraged transactions.
OMG is he a crazy CTer or what?!

[Winstonm]

I cannot vouch for the quality of this information. It appeared on a site called Alternet. If accurate, it could go a long way to explaining why Trump does not want to release his tax records

Quote

“I’m really rich,” Donald Trump said when he was announcing his run for president and many times since. The image of Trump as a billionaire businessman, impervious to donor influence and thus fully able to do and say as he pleases, has been a key part of his appeal to followers. But nailing down Trump’s actual worth in order to get a full accounting of his supposed billions has been difficult, and his refusal to turn over his tax records has only added to the mystery.

Crain’s New York Business did some digging around Trump’s finances, and the answer could be that he makes far, far less per year than he’s boasted about. According to the outlet, for the last three years, Trump qualified for a tax break that only applies to married couples who take in less than $500,000 a year. Granted, half a million dollars a year is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s much less than the $362 million he’s previously said he raked in during 2014. According to Crain’s:

It’s called the STAR program, which stands for the New York State School Tax Relief Program and has been around since 1997. It offers an approximately $300 annual benefit for those who qualify. Hundreds of thousands of New York homeowners get it. Here’s where it gets interesting for Trump: To be eligible for STAR, a married couple must have annual income of $500,000 or less. One wouldn’t think a guy as rich as Trump claims to be would qualify, but records filed with the city’s Department of Finance show he received a $302 STAR benefit on his latest property-tax bill for his Trump Tower penthouse on Fifth Avenue.That means whatever his annual income is, it’s less than $500,000.

“It’s strange that a billionaire would apply for a $302 tax benefit and, moreover, that he would take it,” said Martha Stark, a property-tax expert and former New York City finance commissioner who is now a lecturer at Baruch College.