[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-21, 18:19, said:

I think Trump is very much like a televangelist - he has a lot of zealot believers but most of Main Street America isn't in the crowd. He will lose and lose by a gigantic margin, if he survives his own party's attempts to lynch him. I would not be totally surprised to see his opt out before November - if he senses an embarrassment in the making.

This is a man who has nothing on his mind other than aggrandizing himself - if he senses that he has reached the pinnacle of his current quest for attention, I am more and more confident that he will start to look for ways to bow out and save face - perhaps even prior to the convention.

Putting it this way you may have a point. It would be most amusing of all if he gets the nom at the convention, then quits later. But really I still don't see this happening. If anything he will "quit" simply by making no serious effort. Indeed there are some signs he is already doing this. I don't expect an announced withdrawal.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2016-June-22, 08:41, said:

Putting it this way you may have a point. It would be most amusing of all if he gets the nom at the convention, then quits later. But really I still don't see this happening. If anything he will "quit" simply by making no serious effort. Indeed there are some signs he is already doing this. I don't expect an announced withdrawal.

Lately he seems to be acting as if he can win this election just be sheer force of will or name recognition. He has barely any campaign staff, no money in the bank, no plans for advertising (just depending on the free advertising when news channels show his public appearances). No one seriously thinks this can work.

But a year ago no one thought he could get the nomination, either. Considering how much he's bucked conventional wisdom so far, it's hard to know what will happen next. He could prove everyone wrong.

[kenberg]

This is the weirdest damn election I have ever seen.

The republican leadership is wildly desperate to get Trump to act differently. Otherwise put, they want him to pretend to be somebody else for a few moths so he can win. I don't really think that this can work, for one thing he won't agree to be somebody else and for another everyone has already seen more than they need to. But at some point I think even a political power person gets a bit embarrassed by essentially saying that the candidate is truly awful, so awful that the candidate can win, if he can win at all, only if he pretends to be somebody other than who he is, but what the hell, he's our guy so I support him. I don't see how they can face themselves.

Of course all candidates have faults, but this is getting to absurd levels. I don't know if I really have a suggestion, but maybe something like this: The republican leadership could announce that DT is the R candidate by virtue of having won enough delegates. But it has become clear that the R leadership and DT do not much see things the same way so the party will concentrate on Senate and House seats, and on state elections, and Donald can run his campaign on his own. It's what he is doing anyway. Obviously this is not what the leadership would like, but it is high time they accept that they will not be getting what they would like.

Nobody knows what to make of this.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2016-June-22, 11:16, said:

Lately he seems to be acting as if he can win this election just be sheer force of will or name recognition. He has barely any campaign staff, no money in the bank, no plans for advertising (just depending on the free advertising when news channels show his public appearances). No one seriously thinks this can work.

But a year ago no one thought he could get the nomination, either. Considering how much he's bucked conventional wisdom so far, it's hard to know what will happen next. He could prove everyone wrong.

He does not care about winning and losing - his objective for running was and still is self aggrandizement.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-22, 15:20, said:

This is the weirdest damn election I have ever seen.

The republican leadership is wildly desperate to get Trump to act differently. Otherwise put, they want him to pretend to be somebody else for a few moths so he can win. I don't really think that this can work, for one thing he won't agree to be somebody else and for another everyone has already seen more than they need to. But at some point I think even a political power person gets a bit embarrassed by essentially saying that the candidate is truly awful, so awful that the candidate can win, if he can win at all, only if he pretends to be somebody other than who he is, but what the hell, he's our guy so I support him. I don't see how they can face themselves.

Of course all candidates have faults, but this is getting to absurd levels. I don't know if I really have a suggestion, but maybe something like this: The republican leadership could announce that DT is the R candidate by virtue of having won enough delegates. But it has become clear that the R leadership and DT do not much see things the same way so the party will concentrate on Senate and House seats, and on state elections, and Donald can run his campaign on his own. It's what he is doing anyway. Obviously this is not what the leadership would like, but it is high time they accept that they will not be getting what they would like.

Nobody knows what to make of this.

I think it is fairly clear. About forty percent of registered Republicans are abandoning their own party. It is also a great opportunity for the Democratic party to step in and reclaim these disgruntled people who don't seem to be able to grasp that it was their own leaders and the ideology those leaders preached and followed that caused the disaffection to occur. Trouble is this group is still lumping together all politicians and calling the problem a "Washington" problem when the problems began in earnest when right wing thinking began to dominate discussions and FDR's institutional changes were slowly eroded.

[Winstonm]

This guy named Matt Bai seems to think similarly to me about Trump:

Quote

Trump wants to run for president, all right, but my guess is he still wants to be president about as much as I want to be on “Dancing With the Stars.” (Not that it wouldn’t be nice to be asked.)

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-22, 17:38, said:

I think it is fairly clear. About forty percent of registered Republicans are abandoning their own party. It is also a great opportunity for the Democratic party to step in and reclaim these disgruntled people who don't seem to be able to grasp that it was their own leaders and the ideology those leaders preached and followed that caused the disaffection to occur. Trouble is this group is still lumping together all politicians and calling the problem a "Washington" problem when the problems began in earnest when right wing thinking began to dominate discussions and FDR's institutional changes were slowly eroded.

"About forty percent of registered Republicans are abandoning their own party. " Meaning? Are you saying that forty percent of registered Republicans have declared that they will not vote for Trump? I hadn't heard that, I had heard around twenty or twenty-five percent. Still quite a lot. Maybe I am out of date. Anyway, not voting for Trump, or more accurately saying that they are not voting for Trump. is what you are referring to here?

I do hope the Democratic Party makes an effort to appeal to a broader slice of the public I think this will take some serious thinking and effort from party leaders. I expect quite a few believe that the Democratic Party, and for that matter the Republican Party, is not focused on their well-being. A guy is out of a job, about to lose his house, and he sees people arguing about which bathroom people should use. I doubt he cares. Use the woods, who cares.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-22, 15:20, said:

I don't see how they can face themselves.

Shouldn't Republicans (indeed, most of Congress) be used to that feeling? They won't pass gun control legislation that 90% of the population wants, they refuse to even hold hearings on the SCOTUS nomination, they hold budgets ransom for partisan reasons, etc.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-23, 08:10, said:

"About forty percent of registered Republicans are abandoning their own party. " Meaning? Are you saying that forty percent of registered Republicans have declared that they will not vote for Trump? I hadn't heard that, I had heard around twenty or twenty-five percent. Still quite a lot. Maybe I am out of date. Anyway, not voting for Trump, or more accurately saying that they are not voting for Trump. is what you are referring to here?

I do hope the Democratic Party makes an effort to appeal to a broader slice of the public I think this will take some serious thinking and effort from party leaders. I expect quite a few believe that the Democratic Party, and for that matter the Republican Party, is not focused on their well-being. A guy is out of a job, about to lose his house, and he sees people arguing about which bathroom people should use. I doubt he cares. Use the woods, who cares.

Sorry I wasn't clear. My understanding is that Trump is winning about a 40% plurality of registered Republican voters who are voting in the primaries. His polls show he is clearly not liked by much other than his choir/congregation so I can't see Republicans voting for him in the general election, but also not voting for Hillary. I would guess the result would be that many Republicans stay home and not vote at all.

What I mean is that the 40% plurality who is voting for Trump is the disaffected who are abandoning their own party in order to vote for an outsider.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-23, 08:18, said:

Sorry I wasn't clear. My understanding is that Trump is winning about a 40% plurality of registered Republican voters who are voting in the primaries. His polls show he is clearly not liked by much other than his choir/congregation so I can't see Republicans voting for him in the general election, but also not voting for Hillary. I would guess the result would be that many Republicans stay home and not vote at all.

What I mean is that the 40% plurality who is voting for Trump is the disaffected who are abandoning their own party in order to vote for an outsider.

Ah yes. I agree with that. Voting fr Trump is basically a rejection of the Republican Party, much as voting for George Wallace in 1968 was a rejection of the Democratic Party, and for that matter voting for Sanders was at least something of a rejection of the Democratic Party. Each of these is different, and the Trump vote is by far the most bizarre, but there is a common theme of finding neither party acceptable.

As I think about it, maybe the theme, if not the Donald, is fairly common. Goldwater in 1964, McGovern in 1968. Both came about as substantial numbers rejected their party's past leadership.

But Trump is bizarre, and he is a stand-alone in that. McGovern, Sanders, Goldwater each represented serious parts of their respective parties. Trump support seems to be based on unbridled frustration and little else.

[akwoo]

https://morecrows.wo.../unnecessariat/

[Winstonm]

 akwoo, on 2016-June-23, 12:36, said:

https://morecrows.wo.../unnecessariat/

These are the people who can be re-won by the Democratic party, IMO, but first they must be taught how to let loose of their inane social conservatism that serves as the new opium of the masses.

[Winstonm]

How Brexit will affect U.S. elections:

Here are thoughts from Barry Ritholtz's blog that I think are interesting:

Quote

There are two lines of thoughts on this:

The first is to note this data point, reported by Politico: “66% people who left school at 16 voted for Leave. 71% of those with university degrees voted to Remain.” Hence, if the U.S. has a similar proportion of more educated versus less educated, and they vote in similar ways as the Brits just did, it could benefit Trump.

The second involves a bit of reflexivity: If Brexit turns out to be the disaster it looks like it will be, and people come to understand that foolish actions have consequences, then the result could be a move against someone who is seen as a chaos candidate.

[akwoo]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-23, 14:24, said:

These are the people who can be re-won by the Democratic party, IMO, but first they must be taught how to let loose of their inane social conservatism that serves as the new opium of the masses.

I disagree. The Democratic party has no ideas on how to improve their lives either. None of us have any ideas on how to improve their lives. Also, policies that give these people money generally don't do much for (or hurt) the urban middle class constituency that is the core of the Democratic party.

It's not social conservatism. More than anything else, it's an acknowledgement that they don't have the skills or the aptitudes to survive in the city. Around here, these people really just want to be allowed to continue subsistence farming (with a little spare cash for a few modern amenities) for the rest of their lives.

[Winstonm]

 akwoo, on 2016-June-24, 13:09, said:

I disagree. The Democratic party has no ideas on how to improve their lives either. None of us have any ideas on how to improve their lives. Also, policies that give these people money generally don't do much for (or hurt) the urban middle class constituency that is the core of the Democratic party.

It's not social conservatism. More than anything else, it's an acknowledgement that they don't have the skills or the aptitudes to survive in the city. Around here, these people really just want to be allowed to continue subsistence farming (with a little spare cash for a few modern amenities) for the rest of their lives.

I don't see how you can think this when the Trump voters must be disillusioned Republicans - the group of Republicans that used to be part of the Democratic party. I'm talking 1950s and 1960s. The Democrats have a chance to win them back if they can show them that supporting the 1% is a losing position, that Reagan was wrong and the Reagan revolution began the downward spiral of the middle class.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-24, 13:35, said:

I don't see how you can think this when the Trump voters must be disillusioned Republicans - the group of Republicans that used to be part of the Democratic party. I'm talking 1950s and 1960s. The Democrats have a chance to win them back if they can show them that supporting the 1% is a losing position, that Reagan was wrong and the Reagan revolution began the downward spiral of the middle class pigs flying.

fixed

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-June-23, 14:24, said:

These are the people who can be re-won by the Democratic party, IMO, but first they must be taught how to let loose of their inane social conservatism that serves as the new opium of the masses.

I hope that the Dems give some serious thought to finding a better way of phrasing this.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2016-June-24, 14:55, said:

I hope that the Dems give some serious thought to finding a better way of phrasing this.

You mean, they should tell them not to cling to their guns and religion?

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2016-June-24, 15:24, said:

You mean, they should tell them not to cling to their guns and religion?

One hand on the Bible, and one hand on the gun?

I am thinking that there is indeed a historic opportunity for Dems to appeal, and perhaps successfully appeal, to those who have come to doubt that either the Republican leadership or the Democratic leadership has any interest in them. But how to do this? A good question.

I hope there will be an effort to listen. Most people have a pretty good feel for who is really listening and who is not. If they see that a conversation is possible, they may even, after being heard, listen to other views. But if someone starts from the idea that "first they must be taught how to let loose of their inane social conservatism that serves as the new opium of the masses, and this was the post I was addressing, then this attitude will come through. And that will be the end of any chance of conversation.

I am NOT suggesting that the Democratic leadership learn how to fake it. We have enough of that. I am suggesting that they look inside themselves and see if they really are interested in the thoughts and problems of those who are so unhappy with both parties. If, after these leaders have thought it through, they decide they really aren't interested in hearing from the people, that the only solution is for the voters to learn that the leaders are smart and the people are stupid, then nothing can be done.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2016-June-24, 14:20, said:

The Democrats have a chance to win them back if they can show them that supporting the 1% is a losing position, that Reagan was wrong and the Reagan revolution began the downward spiral of the middle class pigs flying. fixed

I don't think the disaffected are stupid people but are angry at the wrong people. If you can get past the anger, they are teachable.