Home / General / Does Brexit Mean We’re Doomed?

Does Brexit Mean We’re Doomed?

Comments
/
/
/
746 Views

150827102252-donald-trump-july-10-2015-super-169

I suspect we’re going to see a lot of this kind of analysis:

Britain’s stunning vote to leave the European Union suggests that we’ve been seriously underestimating Donald Trump’s ability to win the presidential election.

When you consider all his controversies and self-inflicted wounds over the past month, combined with how much he’s getting outspent on the airwaves in the battleground states, it is actually quite surprising that Trump and Hillary Clinton are so close in the polls. He’s holding his own, especially in the Rust Belt.

Does this make sense? Not really:

  • I mean, on one level it’s scary that Trump is within 6 points. But, still 6 points, in presidential election terms, is getting your ass kicked. And there’s no reason to think he has much upside potential.
  • It might be possible for a formidable campaign organization to overperform the polls. But Trump has the opposite of that. Clinton’s dominance of the airwaves and superior organization is going to make it harder for Trump to overcome a substantial deficit and harder to get his supporters out.
  • The argument against these facts seems to be something like “nobody expected Brexit to win, nobody expected Trump to win, but Brexit won, and Trump has already won once, so Trump can win twice.” But this doesn’t really make any sense. Unlike with Brexit, Trump took a commanding lead in the polls early on in the primaries; skeptics (like me) were ignoring the polls. I don’t think there’s any reason to believe there’s a large reservoir of untapped support for Trump that polls aren’t picking up.
  • One major comparative advantage for Brexit is that none of the prominent assholes on its side were actually on the ballot. People who would never dream of voting for Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson in a national election could vote Brexit. Implicitly voting against Cameron didn’t require voting for someone you hate as much or more. If the question on the ballot in November was “do you want Hillary Clinton to be president?” I would be pretty worried. But it’s not. If Trump is going to win, he’s going to need a plurality of voters to affirmatively vote for him, although he’s a very well-known and widely despised figure heading a nationally unpopular party while barely running a presidential campaign at all.
  • The United States is a much bigger and more diverse country, which really makes a big difference in terms, which is rather important for how a campaign based around mobilizing white resentment will play out. How is Trump going to win Florida, barely a white majority state? What’s his path to the Electoral College without it? (Hint: even if he can win Ohio and Pennsylvania, that’s not enough.)
  • Brexit is helpful to Trump for one reason only: if it harms the American economy, it hurts the incumbent party. Will the effects on the American economy be enough to make a big difference? I doubt it, but that’s the only reason to worry about Brexit in terms of the American presidential election.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • CP

    I think the main point is simply “don’t underestimate just how far stupid identity politics in the service of an utterly fact free cause can go.”

    • slothrop1

      Yes. Many people voted for HRC because she’s a woman.

      • brad

        Whereas that’s why you refuse to vote for her, and?

        eta: since the snark is a bit unclear, fuck that noise, bro.

        • wjts

          Just as your elderly relatives get upset when guests neglect to use a coaster when setting drinks on the coffee table, slothrop gets upset when voters get estrogen and melanin stains on the class struggle.

          • sharculese

            What I find funny is that even my brother, who I would describe as a little to the left of center is openly like “why the fuck would people who have historically been excluded from power not want to see someone who looks like them in the White House?”

            • Karen24

              Exactly this. I agree with Clinton on almost everything, and I also really like that she’s a woman.

              • scott_theotherone

                Same here.

            • Moondog

              It is a Big Fucking Deal.

        • sharculese

          I’m more and more convinced with every post he makes that gender is a big factor in slothrop’s aggression towards her.

          • wjts

            That’s a little like saying that with every episode, you’re more and more convinced that Roscoe won’t ever catch them Duke boys.

        • slothrop1

          The identity politics are thick here. On the opposite side, if you voted for her and you are a person who lives off of interest from inherited fortune; if you work on Wall Street or in the finance industries–in other words, if you are wealthy, and you voted for HRC, good job. You are voting for reasons associated with policy. Also, if you believe that military violence is a good way to solve problems in the Middle East, and if you want to press for military confrontation with Russia, then you are voting for policy reasons oriented towards neoconservative policy interests (after all, Kagan endorses her). Good for you!

          If you voted for her because you just want a woman president, you’re dumb.

          • sharculese

            Did this tantrum make you feel like a Big Boy?

            • slothrop1

              You sure prove my point. Thank you! Your third-wave feminism is so endearing.

              • Karen24

                Aha! Finally!

                You really just hate feminists because we mess up all the fun Male Lefty Bonding. The fact that these days you’re all alone in the Liberal Man Cave makes me very happy.

                • efgoldman

                  You really just hate feminists

                  Not true! He hates ALL women.
                  As we used to say about my late brother-in-law: He’s not prejudiced, he hates everybody.

                • sharculese

                  Whenever someone says ‘third wave feminism’ with a sneer it’s like an immediate lightbulb as to what’s going on here.

                • slothrop1

                  Benhabib, Greer, Millett. hooks. Of course. HRC? No way.

                • Karen24

                  You have provided a list of surnames that have virtually nothing in common. In fact it’s not even accurate to call Germaine Greer a feminist anymore. So I’m glad you can use Google but you should read their works before concluding they must support you.

                • sharculese

                  Have you met slothrop? Namechecking and spouting theories he doesn’t understand is his party trick, and for some reason he thinks we’ll be impressed by it.

                • slothrop1

                  Female Eunuch is a great book.

                • Halloween Jack

                  I liked the part where he proved his feminist political bona fides by listing feminists who aren’t actually running for anything AFAIK.

          • brad

            Reading your posts out loud doesn’t stop you from being tone deaf to yourself, clearly.

            You need to actually join the left before you start telling us how to be pure. Whining about identity politics is what’s called “a tell”.

            • slothrop1

              Heh.

            • Linnaeus

              The more someone complains about identity politics, the likelier it is that they are in fact practicing their own brand of identity politics.

              • brad

                When a white man does it it’s not identity politics, tho. Our concerns are universal and our judgment is just plain better. Silly women and minorities, thinking they understand their own situations better than he does.

                • slothrop1

                  This is just word fart. You have no idea who I am. If you did, you certainly wouldn’t make this kind of comment.

                • brad

                  You’re not a woman, and if you’re not white then the degree to which you make minorities and their concerns and agency vanish is even more depressing.

                • random

                  You have no idea who I am.

                  An Internet troll.

                • sharculese

                  You have no idea who I am. If you did, you certainly wouldn’t make this kind of comment.

                  You’re right, we have nothing to go by except how you present yourself here. And the person you present as here is a dude who thinks he get to tell women how to think. It’s your job to think about why that is.

                • slothrop1

                  This is just your own projection.

                  Sadly, Cedric Robinson died a couple of weeks ago. Did anyone mention it here? Of course not.

                • brad

                  We all seem to have this mass delusion of you as full of shit, yep. In no way is this reflective on the quality of your participation here, of course.

                  Empty references and freshly discovered synonyms for the insults you want to use still only impress you, tho.

                • Thirtyish

                  And the person you present as here is a dude who thinks he get to tell women how to think.

                  And how to vote. In fact, he had the temerity to basically command Karen to vote for Bernie in another thread.

                  You have no idea who I am

                  Yeah, I do. You’re an idiot who mistakenly believes yourself smart and worth taking seriously.

              • djw

                This is so true it needs a name. Linneaus’s law of identity politics or some such.

                • N__B

                  Linneaus’s Taxonomy of Identity Politics, no?

                • Linnaeus

                  One could say, I suppose, that the law and the taxonomy work together, since the taxonomy derives from the general principle.

                  Time for a new project once I get back from Lapland.

          • randy khan

            So if I voted for her because she’s competent and experienced, because I think her policy positions on women’s rights, gay rights and civil rights in general are where the country ought to go, because I think she’s likely to pick Supreme Court justices who will have progressive views on a range of issues that matter to me, and because I support a wide range of positions she espouses, am I okay even though she’s a woman?

          • efgoldman

            If you voted for her because you just want a woman president

            And if you voted/vote for her because you’re a 71 year old angry white retired hourly drudge guy who really thinks she can and will do the job, and is way preferable to the other angry old white guy who lost by 3 million votes and has no fucking idea at all what the hell he wanted to do, and lied to people about it, or the other angry white guy who wouldn’t know the truth if you wrapped it around a softball bat and hit him upside the head with it, and who’s been voting since before your smarmy self was born, what does that make me, you asshole?

          • a_paul_in_mtl

            For all your huffing and puffing about “identity politics” (what, is “insufferable troll” not a political identity?), you run into the same problem that all Bernie or Bust people do. Namely, the primary is over, and Clinton, for better or worse, is the only viable alternative to Donald Trump. And further, whatever sins Clinton is guilty of, Trump is guilty of, and worse.

      • Tony Worthington

        And Obama was only elected because he is Black, Juan McCain was much more qualified.

      • cpinva

        “Yes. Many people voted for HRC because she’s a woman.”

        oddly enough, many millions of irish-american catholics voted for JFK because, well, he was an irish-american catholic. as well, many millions of black people voted for Obama because, well, in case you hadn’t noticed (soto voce’), he’s black. but don’t tell anyone.

        why would you find it strange that people vote for people who are like them? it’s been going on since the dawn of representative democracy.

  • D.N. Nation

    “See, neoliberals? You must suck up to the xenophobes and nationalists and offer them policies (that they hate because minorities share in them) and then magically we can solve the class issue! Also Hillary is probably worse than Trump because, I ‘unno, drones and such.” – Chinless leftist dork pundit. Pick one. I’ll go with “Glenn Greenwald”

    • Pat

      I don’t agree with you, D.N.

      I think that progressives need to think about how to help the people who are left behind and see no future of their own.

      Health insurance is a good start. Higher wages would be good too, but we have to be mindful of people already in the market and people on SS. I’d like to see better options for paying for college than taking out a mortgage you can’t bankrupt out of. Oregon’s strategy of asking for 5% of your income for the next 20 years to pay for your schooling is an interesting option.

      And, maybe, UBI.

      • Gee Suss

        But the policies we are advocating for WILL help them. It just will help EVERYONE in those situations, not just the racists and xenophobes

        • Pat

          My experience with a lot of knee-jerk conservatives is that they really, truly believe that our policies won’t help them. Even when there’s no question that our policies help, knee-jerk conservatives believe the opposite. (See: Kentucky, governor’s race, 2014).

          And I’m not sure exactly what to do about it. However, getting mad at them only makes them dig in deeper. I think we need to co-opt some of their trusted information sources, like churches and organizations, to drive our message home.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            Sometimes even when they’re directly helped by liberal policies, they refuse to believe it.

            For example, that business owner in Elkheart, IN who claimed the stimulus didn’t help… even though he got a $200k loan through a gov’t agency, because of the stimulus.

          • Bugboy

            My experience with conservatives is they have a blind spot as big as an asteroid when it comes to gov’t policies that actually DO help them, because, you know, gov’t is the problem and all that.

            Case in point is a co-worker of mine who hates paying ANY taxes whatsoever, meanwhile he and his wife have both spent most of their lives working gov’t jobs. Conservatives can be quite talented with cognitive dissonance…

      • D.N. Nation

        Well, yeah. My issue is with effete, cosmopolitan tools like my example there cosplaying as the Workin’ Man and acting like some sort of Cletus-Whisperer.

        offer them policies (that they hate because minorities share in them)

        This is something they’re never able to wave away.

  • DilbertSucks

    I’ll have a longer response to this later, but this tweet tells you why Hillary Clinton is simply NOT the right candidate to take on Donald Trump:

    https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/746181566351679492

    At the very least, I hope she now realizes that TPP needs to stay dead and buried. I wish I could say with more than 70+% confidence that she’ll stick to her word about her current opposition to it, but her track record and her list of donors say otherwise.

    Is she better than Trump? Yes, but if she doesn’t draw the right lessons, four years of Clinton could very well pave the way for someone more dangerous and electable than Trump.

    • twbb

      “but this tweet tells you why Hillary Clinton is simply NOT the right candidate to take on Donald Trump:”

      And? Most of us know that. But she’s who we have.

      • Breadbaker

        Unfortunately, the Constitution says we can’t have Barack Obama. Of course, if he ran, it’s not clear Donald Trump would know why he couldn’t be elected again.

    • D.N. Nation

      but this tweet tells you why Hillary Clinton is simply NOT the right candidate to take on Donald Trump:

      Yeah, well, her opponent — someone I voted for, for disclosure’s sake — had an opportunity to make that case and he lost.

    • randy khan

      The basic argument Hayes makes is that we can’t trust what Clinton has been saying all through the campaign about what she’ll do. And I get that a lot of people feel that way.

      However, there’s really very little evidence for a bait and switch. First, candidates rarely do that – they’re very likely to try hard to fulfill their campaign promises, because that’s what got them elected (or at least, so they think). Second, a fair number of the items that people say aren’t really what Clinton wants actually are positions she’s had for a long time. In other words, the argument is not just that she’s lying, but that she’s been lying for quite a while or, even less rationally, that she’s lying when she says she’s going to act consistently with what she did before.

      • delazeur

        It always strikes me as odd when people who complain about elected representatives changing their minds to better reflect their constituencies. Isn’t that the point?

        • jim, some guy in iowa

          “if they changed their minds once they can do it again!!!”

        • Murc

          It always strikes me as odd when people who complain about elected representatives changing their minds to better reflect their constituencies. Isn’t that the point?

          What the point is is getting good policy enacted, and contrary to popular belief sometimes what a politician actually believes really matters and how hard they feel like fighting also matters.

          So people are, quite rightly, suspicious of pols who they suspect are just telling them what they want to hear, especially if that pol has a long history of believing the opposite. It makes them think “their support for this is grudging and soft. They’ll cast a yea vote when the cameras are on them, but will they furiously lobby their colleagues? Will they expend favors and political capital? If they have a chance to let something they publicly endorse but privately do not give a shit about die in committee, will they?”

          Those are genuine concerns.

          • One thing I will say is that Hillary does seem to have something of a track record of being on the wrong side of history before she flips to the right side of it. The difference this time is that she’ll be commander-in-chief when she makes those decisions.

            • John F

              before she flips to the right side of it.

              Well, that is better than being and staying on the wrong side.

        • efgoldman

          It always strikes me as odd when people who complain about elected representatives changing their minds to better reflect their constituencies.

          But this isn’t about “changing minds”. This is a canard that her opponents have made up that she’s secretly an evil genius who’s going to turn into a… what?… Republiklown? Curtis LeMay? Nixon? as soon as she’s inaugurated.

      • slothrop1

        Oh – she’ll definitely work with Republicans on a grand bargain. No question about it.

        • brad

          Do you actually think anyone here takes you seriously?

          • slothrop1

            Don’t waste your time, Brad. You are far too intelligent.

            • Pat

              Why do you want to see President Trump, slothrop?

              • Karen24

                I think he does. Either he’s a real Trump supporter trolling or he’s one of the Heighten The Contradictions crowd who’s happy to see other people suffer for their own convictions.

              • slothrop1

                I have my doubts that Trump will make it through the convention. HRC is terrifying. I think she is potentially as much a fascist as Donald Trump. The marriage of casual militarism and neoliberal capitalism. She’s bought off by really despicable interests.

                What’s really interesting to me is that people here really think that she is somehow reformed, chastened by Bernie, et cetera. Lies.

                • randy khan

                  If you think she’s “potentially as much a fascist as Donald Trump,” either you’ve seriously underestimated how much of a fascist he is or you have no clue what Clinton is about.

                  I don’t think she’s reformed or chastened by Bernie, for what it’s worth. I think she has learned from her experience as a Senator and Secretary of State. She’s better on some issues than others, obviously, but so are we all.

                • Hogan

                  I think she is potentially as much a fascist as Donald Trump.

                  The way she eggs on her supporters to beat up protesters at her rallies? Yeah, I really wish she’d cut that out.

                  What’s really interesting to me

                  I think it’s well established that you have nothing useful to say about what’s interesting.

                • slothrop1

                  She was a complete disaster as Secretary of State. Kissinger likes her. Must be her good works in Libya, Honduras.

                  The foundation makes money love with really shady characters. The Clintons will do anything for money.

                  “We came. We saw. He died.” Cackle.

                • Gregor Sansa

                  Please proceed. What did she do in Honduras, what should she have done, and what could she have done worse?

                  I happen to agree she got it wrong, but I’d bet safe money that you can’t answer that question.

                • Halloween Jack

                  I think she is potentially as much a fascist as Donald Trump.

                  And that’s when we realized that he was fucking the chicken the entire time.

                • slothrop1

                  Of course, she lied about the coup. The Obama administration was legally bound to suspend aid. She denied this was a military coup d’état, even though we know, based on the wikileaks, that she knew it was a military coup d’état from the very beginning.

        • JMP

          Heh. That is a pretty good sarcastic mockery of the idiocy of the “liberal” reflexive anti-Clinton crowd who just constantly slander her; however it probably goes a little too far, no one could be so stupid as to actually state such a ridiculous obvious untruth seriously.

        • Well, then, perhaps we should focus on flipping the Senate, no?

      • JustRuss

        Clinton, like most politicians, tends to go with conventional wisdom, and the conventional wisdom on trade deals since Reagan has been “They’re great!”. To their credit, Bernie and yes, Trump, have blown that up as far as the TPP is concerned, making it “safe” for Clinton to oppose it. If she campaigns against it, it’s a good bet she’ll oppose it. I don’t say this out of any great admiration for Clinton, but that’s how she seems to roll.

        • Pat

          You mean, she does what she says she’ll do?

      • It continues to blow my mind when I read people confidently stating that Clinton isn’t in favor of campaign finance reform, or overturning Citizens United. Do people remember what Citizens United was about?

    • EliHawk

      Yeah, the Democrats who passed Dodd-Frank and the ACA are just finance cosmopolitans, Chris. The idea that the Democrats don’t have any agenda but “Wall Street” is belied by the sheer hundreds of millions of dollars Wall Street has leveled against them since 2010; but White Liberal Useful Idiots parrot leftist talking points that Obama and Clinton. Didn’t. Even. Try. to do anything about Wall Street because they didn’t get a TV ready perp walk.

      • lunaticllama

        But there are Democrats who work on Wall Street (and genuinely support things like expanding healthcare and fighting climate change) and want to support the party!

      • The Lorax

        Amen.

    • slothrop1

      She certainly is a neoliberal clown, isn’t she? And most voters understand that she is just saying a bunch of shit to get her sorry neoliberal ass elected after which she will completely screw workers.

      Yup. Trump could win. Really, he just needs a good replacement. With the exception of Carson, any of those Republican candidates would easily beat her.

      • OMG…hahahahahahahahahaha!

        Short of convincing the FBI to actually indict her prior to the election, there’s nothing the Republicans can do at this point to derail her election. Perhaps if Romney were to somehow get into the race as the Republican nominee, then it might be a nailbiter. But even then, there would be an open revolt in the Republican ranks. Trump is their man. Short of him freely stepping down, he will always be their man.

        • Breadbaker

          The FBI doesn’t indict people. The Department of Justice does that.

      • random

        Translation: ‘troll comment deleted’

      • So based on this comment I think it’s time for me to create a browser extension that turns “neoliberal” into “smurf”.

    • Is she better than Trump? Yes, but if she doesn’t draw the right lessons, four years of Clinton could very well pave the way for someone more dangerous and electable than Trump.

      I have the same concerns, but my response is this: If you want Clinton to stay to the left and honor her promise on the TPP and other leftist ideals, then we need to expand the liberal caucus. She’s much more likely to stay left if she’s dealing with Elizabeth Warren (or even Chuck Schumer), than Mitch McConnell.

    • efgoldman

      I hope she now realizes that TPP needs to stay dead and buried.

      Seriously? I mean, I don’t like it either, but how many people even know what it is, and care about it enough to make it the single disqualifying issue? It’s not like abortion or penis substitutes.

      • DilbertSucks

        The consequences of the policy itself would be disastrous and make it all the more likely a populist demagogue would emerge, especially if the Democrats hurt their own brand by passing it and being tied to it in the future. It’d make it a lot easier for that demagogue to portray Democrats as the party of pro-corporate free trade deals who are out of touch with the economic concerns of the 99%.

    • Tony Worthington

      Obamatrade has thrown millions of Americans out of work. Trump is going to get rid of Obamatrade and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

    • cpinva

      “I’ll have a longer response to this later, but this tweet tells you why Hillary Clinton is simply NOT the right candidate to take on Donald Trump:”

      um, no, no it doesn’t. what it tells me is that Trump gains most of his support from virulent racists. fortunately, they represent a small percentage of the total voting population. when Ms. Clinton wipes the electoral college floor with Trump, they’ll mostly crawl back into mommy’s basement.

  • Denverite

    What’s his path to the Electoral College without it? (Hint: even if he can win Ohio and Pennsylvania, that’s not enough.)

    He wins Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and then two of Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin.

    Jesus, the fact that Trump simply can’t compete in even borderline swing states or states with a nonwhite population north of about 35% just absolutely kills him.

    • JMP

      He’s not going to win Pennsylvania; like the rest of the Northeastern states, Pennsylvania is not a swing state but a reliably Democratic one and why people keep fantasizing it might go Republican every election when it hasn’t since 1988 is hard to understand.

      • bobbo1

        I wish this were still true. Apparently the folks at 538 disagree. Still leans Dem, but no longer a sure thing.
        http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-clinton-campaign-seems-to-think-pennsylvania-is-in-the-bag/

        • Joseph Slater

          I generally like 538, but I don’t think the analysis really matched the headline/lede there. What I learned from the article is that in 2012 (the closer Obama victory), Obama won PA by 5.4% and that PA hasn’t gone for a Repub since 1988. I wasn’t sure of why a state that voted for Kerry and Gore, fer gosh sakes, is likely to flip more than 5.5 percentage points in a race where Clinton currently leads nationally by about 6 points.

          • UserGoogol

            If Clinton leads nationally by about six points in November she’ll win. The question is what states are on the edge if the popular vote is close to even. In 2012 Obama won the country by 3.9 percentage points, so he only got an extra 1.5 points in Pennsylvania. To pull the vote an extra 1.5 in the other direction isn’t unimaginable.

            • Joseph Slater

              Well if the standard is “unimaginable” then sure, I guess I can imagine PA being in serious play IF the national polls are close to even. But that’s a pretty big “if,” isn’t it? Did the 538 article explain why we should expect national polls to pull close to even? And if that’s true, OH, FL, and VA were all closer than PA was in 2012 AND all three of those states had gone Republican in the 21st century.

              • UserGoogol

                Because polls change. Anyone with any amount of modesty will say that it’s possible Trump could win. If that happens, how should we expect it to happen? Well, getting at least somewhat near most of the votes. What states would be most likely to give Trump the 270th delegate in the Electoral College? Those whose election results are in general closes to the national average. Pennsylvania was closer to the national average than Florida in 2012, it’s just that it was in the other direction so nobody cared.

              • Actually, that’s what 538 means when they’re talking about Pennsylvania being a battleground state or a turning point state or whatever — it’s the state that they consider most likely to deliver the decisive electoral votes assuming a narrow enough race. That is: they think that if Trump wins Pennsylvania, he’s probably won, and if he loses it, he’s probably lost, based on the assumption that if Trump does well enough to flip Pennsylvania he’s already flipped enough states which are slightly more R to get up to the finish line.

                So the assumption would be that if Clinton barely ekes it out, the closest state she wins would be Pennsylvania.

          • DilbertSucks

            Current PA polls show a very tight race:

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

            Also, stories like this:

            Today Karlheim—blue-eyed, 58, and graying around the temples—spends his days behind the wheel of a giant coal truck, but the declining coal industry has hit Karlheim hard. He’s making $10,000 less than he was just three years ago, he said, and he’s worried about his mortgage. “How do you make those payments?” he asked. This spring, after years of not voting for anyone, in either party, in any presidential election, his anxiety compelled him to cast a vote in the Democratic primary. For Bernie Sanders.

            His vote helped the socialist from Vermont beat Hillary Clinton in the county—while Trump won big, claiming more votes than either Democratic candidate. Since then, Clinton has sewn up her party’s nomination, but recent polls show that Cambria’s primary was no fluke: among the crucial battleground states, Pennsylvania is a tossup. Who wins the state’s precious 20 electoral votes in November will depend, in part, on people like Karlheim.

            And he has some bad news for the former secretary of state.

            While there are some things that worry him about the GOP nominee—“We don’t know his background,” Karlheim said, and “He’s a bit outspoken.”—he likes that Trump is talking about jobs. “That’s what we need,” which is why, Karlheim said, “In the big election … I’m going for Trump.”

            Not that long ago, such a notion would have turned heads in Cambria County. Between 1932 and 2000, voters here backed the Democratic candidate for president every time except twice. They routinely supported liberals who had no chance: Adlai Stevenson in ’52 and Hubert Humphrey in ’68. When most of America joined the Reagan revolution in 1980, Cambria County went for Jimmy Carter. Four years later, Walter Mondale did even better, winning 55 percent of the vote.

            This was Clinton country both times in the ’90s; it was in the pocket of Al Gore in 2000. And while the county narrowly went for the incumbent George W. Bush in 2004, voters were back to supporting Democrats four years later. In the ’08 primary, Hillary Clinton won more votes than all other candidates in both parties combined. Barack Obama won the county that fall. And then something appears to have shifted. In 2012, though he won the state, Obama lost the county in a veritable landslide, despite the fact that it has 50 percent more registered Democrats than Republicans. In recent months, that rightward shift solidified: To date this year, Republicans have gained nearly 1,500 registered voters in Cambria County as Democrats abandoned their party for the other side. That trend is playing out statewide, where switches have boosted GOP rolls by a net of nearly 50,000 voters. And in the primary this spring, Clinton not only lost to Sanders; she lost to herself, taking home 64 percent fewer votes than she did eight years ago. A county once hers now simply wasn’t.

            http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/coal-country-democrats-donald-trump-2016-213988

            And the whole “Pennsylvania hasn’t gone red since 1988, therefore it can’t go red this year” is so stupid.

            In 2004, Bush won Virginia by a margin of 8.2% points.

            In 2008, Obama won Virginia by a margin of 6.3% points. Before then, Virginia had not gone Democratic since 1952! These kinds of shifts happen, the 538 article indicates that PA has indeed been trending red in recent years.

            • Joseph Slater

              Yes, and if anyone said it “can’t go red” that would be dumb. And re the polls, fair enough, although it’s really early, and that anecdote doesn’t impress me. I’m not saying huge shifts are literally impossible, but they are increasingly rare — and there are some specific things about VA’s shifting demographics that help explain that. I’m still not convinced that Dems should worry about PA more than, say, OH, FL, or VA.

            • You should really stop reading these “man on the street” pieces. You have absolutely no reason to believe that this random guy is representative of voters in his region.

              I want to stress this point:

              “We don’t know his background,” Karlheim said

              Donald Trump has been a celebrity for decades. He wrote an incredibly well-known book. He hosted a popular prime time network television show for years. He has been on WWE wrestling. He pretended to run for president at least once before. The man’s life has been a matter of public interest, for better or worse, for a long time.

              I want you to consider the indifference necessary for an adult American to say “we don’t know his background” about Donald Trump.

              Also, this guy has never voted for President before. He says he’s going to vote for Trump, but why believe him?

      • so-in-so

        Its all that Alabama between Philly and P’burg.

        • JMP

          Luckily, they can’t gerrymander the Presidential election to give the awful parts of my home state control over the results like in the state legislature and US Congress delegations despite their deficiency in actual population (though Tom Corbett actually tried to do so).

      • UserGoogol

        Republicans lost four of the last six presidential elections and the elections they won were rather close. So there’s nothing particularly shocking about a swing state being lost by Republicans six times in a row, what matters is the margin and the Democrats have won Pennsylvania by relatively low margins consistently.

        • Joseph Slater

          Dems won PA by larger margins than OH, FL, or VA in 2012, and indeed all those states have actually gone Repub. in recent memory. Again, I’m not saying “HAHA, PA is absolutely in the bag for sure,” I just don’t think that 538 article had much meat to it.

      • Matt McIrvin

        Pennsylvania is getting less reliably Democratic. NH may be in play too.

        However, Trump winning Michigan or Wisconsin is really implausible, and I have no idea why pundits keep acting as if it’s not (I think it’s some vague notion of Rust Belt states, Scott Walker, and the idea that since Bernie Sanders unexpectedly won the Michigan primary anything can happen there).

    • Tony Worthington

      Trump is also going to win New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Maine if you keep talking about gun control Trump is sure to win Vermont lots of people there own guns and want to keep them. Crooked Hillary is toast!

    • cpinva

      “Jesus, the fact that Trump simply can’t compete in even borderline swing states or states with a nonwhite population north of about 35% just absolutely kills him.”

      interestingly enough, that’s what killed Sanders too. and Sanders is a paragon of virtue, by comparison to Trump.

  • randy khan

    There are reasons for Clinton supporters (and Clinton!) not to be complacent, and I suppose the notion that voters will occasionally do stupid things is related to the Brexit vote, but until someone gives me a specific reason to think the U.S. electorate is remotely like the U.K. electorate, I’m not going to take these kinds of arguments seriously.

    • D.N. Nation

      It’s almost like super-white pundits only consider voters who are also super-white!

      • randy khan

        Even though I am super-white myself, my inability to consider only super-white voters makes me ineligible to be a super-white pundit.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Well, Friedman will apparently consider a taxi driver of any ethnicity.

    • Spiny

      Yes. Pundits have resolutely refused to learn the lessons of the Obama elections and this last primary season, which are:

      1. Momentum is not a thing.
      2. Anecdotes and gut instinct are not a substitute for polling data.
      3. Demographics is a thing.
      4. Candidates who put together a numerically superior demographic coalition and do a reasonable job of turning that coalition out to vote win.

      So unsexy.

      • All very good points.

        Counterpoint: there are lots of stupid, angry people out there and stupid, angry people can be very unpredictable

        • efgoldman

          there are lots of stupid, angry people out there

          True. But despite the RWNJ’s fantasies, there aren’t huge swathes of them hidden in caves and grottoes and on mountain tops who haven’t voted before but will this year.

      • so-in-so

        You mean we have do DO WORK? Hush your mouth!

    • brad

      Yeah, the idea that this will have any electoral relevance here, aside perhaps from economic fallout, in 4+ months is… dubious.

    • slothrop1

      There is a possibility of a strong Bradley/Major effect. Voters say HRC because they are too embarrassed to reveal preference for Trump.

      • bobbo1

        Oh please that is straight outta the Trump talking points

        • Joseph Slater

          That was straight out of the freakin’ McCain talking points (and made marginally more sense there, because the Dem candidate was black). And yet the polls predicting Obama’s victory were . . . accurate.

      • random

        How is this not trolling?

        • efgoldman

          How is this not trolling?

          Oh, it is. But it’s political, not racist/sexist/homophobic/antisemitic, and therefore not usually ban-worthy, just irritating.

          • sharculese

            but it’s… not… sexist

            Do we still believe this?

        • Murc

          How is this not trolling?

          slothrop appears to be sincere in their beliefs and not just saying things for the purpose of derailing conversation or stirring up a hive. That’s enough to make them not a troll.

          That said: I subscribe to a very old-school definition of trolling, as I find the modern one to be less than useful, as it seems to just boil down to “anyone I disagree with and also find to be obnoxious.”

          • a_paul_in_mtl

            My definition of “trolling” is a little different, since it is impossible to read minds, especially online, and so my criteria is simple: does this person act as if his or her main goal is to pick fights and provoke angry responses? If yes, I don’t care how sincere that person’s beliefs are.

            • Murc

              Well, I mean. Under that rubric some of our most-valued commenters are trolls. Hell, Erik might count on a day when his blood is up.

              • a_paul_in_mtl

                I don’t agree. Someone can be snarky in responding to someone, or have a tone that people don’t like, and that doesn’t make them a troll. If, on the other hand, someone is swarming through various threads making aggressive remarks seemingly calculated to stir things up, I would say that is someone who “trolling for a fight”.

            • IS

              Yeah, this. Also, though I’m not sure it applies here (I’ve mostly just been skimming sloth’s posts this thread), I tend to take refusal to accept verifiable facts or even look at sources to be a sign of trolling, independent of the apparent sincerity of the poster’s beliefs.

          • random

            slothrop appears to be sincere in their beliefs and not just saying things for the purpose of derailing conversation or stirring up a hive.

            It appears to me like he says things for the purpose of derailing conversation and stirring up the hive. He doesn’t seem very sincere in his beliefs, it’s almost like he’s typing from a script.

          • Matt McIrvin

            I used to subscribe to the REALLY old-school definition of trolling, from when the term was invented on the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban (it was “trolling for newbies”, an essentially benign prank in which someone would bring up a dead-horse topic to see who was new enough to come out and beat it–what we think of as trolling was called “flamebaiting”).

      • Scott Lemieux
        • Matt McIrvin

          But the Brexit polls actually did miss by a few points, maybe because of shy-Brexiteer effects, so it’s revived this whole line of speculation.

    • Tony Worthington

      People are sick and tired of immigration they voted for the Brexit and they’re going vote for Trump. Nothing you libs can do about it!

  • Murc

    If Trump is going to win, he’s going to need a plurality of voters to affirmatively vote for him

    And Trump is really helping that along, because he’s attempting to make this election all about himself, and if Clinton is smart she’ll let him.

    Anyone remember Harry Reid’s last re-election campaign? Even though he was running against Angle Eyes, she of the “Pay your doctors with chickens!” argument, it looked like he might be a dead man walking for awhile.

    And it would have been, if the question in peoples minds as they went to vote had been “Do I want Harry Reid to be my Senator?” The answer to that would probably have been majority no.

    But because Reid is smart and a good campaigner, and Angle Eyes was and is neither of those things, he made the campaign all about her. And she let him. So the question in peoples minds as they went to vote was “Do I want Angle Eyes to be my Senator?” And it turned out the answer to that wasn’t just no, but HELL no.

    If this election becomes about Clinton, she is going to be in for a tough time. If it remains all about Trump, I think maybe an Obama-level blowout.

    • UserGoogol

      Sue Lowden made the pay your doctors with chickens argument. Sharron Angle was the person the Republicans nominated instead, who was probably worse.

      • Murc

        Sir, I stand corrected, and cheerfully. The only defense I can offer is that it is very hard to correctly attribute every crazy thing Sharron Angle has said.

        Although at least she never cut a campaign ad where she uttered the words “I’m not a witch.”

      • sharculese

        Yeah, the whole point of that fiasco was that Reid wanted “chickens for checkups” to make Lowden toxic, because he thought beating Angle would be easier.

    • heckblazer

      Man, I’m gonna miss Reid.

      • Pat

        Isn’t the dude eighty or something? I don’t blame him if he wants out.

        • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

          Think of how old he is in dealing-with-McConnell years.

  • The path to Trump victory has always been unexpected exogenous events shifting the fundamentals. His radical campaign incompetence just makes the required magnitude of events bigger.

    Brexit could be such an event. We’ll have a pretty good idea in the next few weeks of the near term global effects. If we get a big recession, then things will be scary.

    The only people who should change their current feelings about the likelihood of a Trump victory are people who thought it was literally impossible. Once you’re on the ballot of a major party in the US, you have an uncomfortable chance of winning. However, Trump has less of a chance than any Republican in…nearly forever.

    • Murc

      Brexit could be such an event. We’ll have a pretty good idea in the next few weeks of the near term global effects. If we get a big recession, then things will be scary.

      Our best hope in such a scenario is to pin the blame on the right-wing idiots in Britain, and run hard on “The British voted for their version of Trump, and they did THIS to do. Imagine what the real deal is gonna do!”

      It would have a real good chance of working, too. People really understood where the blame for the Bush years rested, after all.

      • CP

        I think the notion that Americans are at all influenced by what happens on the other side of the ocean seems incredibly optimistic with regards to our population’s interest in what happens anywhere else.

        • random

          The US news has been and is being blanketed with coverage over ‘Brexit’. This isn’t going to go away. It’s an easy concept with a catchy name that at this point is strongly associated with self-inflicted economic catastrophe.

          • Ellie1789

            Except that most Americans outside of the chattering classes don’t even know what Brexit is, much less care about what it might mean or associate it with anything at all.

      • Cassiodorus

        1. They didn’t understand it until after the fact. They gleefully voted for the idiots in 2002 and 2004.
        2. The Brexit vote shows the limits of the approach. A lot of the vote, especially in Wales and other strong Labour areas, was “austerity has really hurt, so let’s take it out on some immigrants.” Not hard to see a similar pattern working for Trump.

        • brad

          Aside from the demographics, you mean?

      • leftwingfox

        If Internet comments are any indication, the right wing will then blame the Rothschilds, Bildebergers, and probably the Jews for any economic hardship.

    • Rob Patterson

      Polls say voters trust Trump over Clinton (by 8%) to handle the economy. That might be how he might have some upside potential, in a down-economy scenario.

      • Manny Kant

        Good God.

        • “We cheat the other guy and pass the profits on to YOU!”

      • efgoldman

        Polls say voters trust Trump over Clinton (by 8%) to handle the economy.

        When CNN came along in the dark ages of cable, it was a wonderful thing. All te news, all over the world, 24/7. Hooray for Ted Turner.
        Now I wouldn’t trust them if they say today is Friday.

        • EliHawk

          Worst thing Ted ever did was merge with Time Warner. Lost control of everything he cared about, and after the AOL merger, lost billions.

    • CP

      Eh, I don’t know. The argument that Trump fires up the base like no politician since Dubya isn’t without merit, I think. The reason I was so comfortably sure Mitt Romney would lose in 2012 (I was pretty confident at least a year out) was that it was obvious that not even Republicans liked him. Will Trump similarly turn off enough Republicans? Maybe. But he at least has the loud and proud support of a big part of the party like his predecessor never did.

      • He alienates the opposition like no politician since Dubya either.

        • efgoldman

          He alienates the opposition like no politician since Dubya either.

          Oh, I think much worse, don’t you? Especially among woen and Latinos/Latinas. Other non-pale groups aren’t too crazy about him, either.
          It’s going to be a much longer haul, with more setbacks along the way, but I can see the country as a whole following California’s example, as it has in so may things.

      • altofront

        I’m not sure this is actually true. He has the Trumpenproletariat, true, but I’m sure I saw a recent poll where basically 50% of Republicans would prefer someone else to be the nominee.

        • Pat

          What CP says is true as long as women don’t vote.

          • efgoldman

            What CP says is true as long as women don’t vote.

            Wait! Women vote? When did that happen. Nobody told me! Are you sure that’s not an urban myth?

      • djw

        The argument that Trump fires up the base like no politician since Dubya isn’t without merit, I think.

        What? First, Trump is far more intensely disliked by a sizeable plurality of Republican voters than either McCain or Romney was. Secondly, the voters who were most likely to be anti-Trump in the primaries are better described as ‘the base’ than Trump’s supporters, insofar as they’re reliable and predictable R voters. Trump doesn’t fire them up at all. (I think they’ll still vote for him, of course, but I don’t think this statement holds for any conventional definition of “base”).

        • Pseudonym

          base (adj.): lacking or indicating the lack of higher qualities of mind or spirit; ignoble

      • random

        was that it was obvious that not even Republicans liked him.

        More Republicans dislike Trump, and the dislike is far greater.

      • efgoldman

        The argument that Trump fires up the base like no politician since Dubya isn’t without merit

        Even if that were true (and I don’t think it is), there aren’t enough angry white guys in enough states.

    • random

      We’ll have a pretty good idea in the next few weeks of the near term global effects. If we get a big recession, then things will be scary.

      I don’t think it would work that way. Donald is loudly broadcasting his strong support for the policy that unambiguously caused the recession in the first place.

      • I don’t think it would work that way. Donald is loudly broadcasting his strong support for the policy that unambiguously caused the recession in the first place.

        Except voters don’t vote policy or causes, they generally vote “change” if the economy is bad.

        • random

          This isn’t a general downturn that you can blame just anyone for. It’s a self-inflicted downturn that was unambiguously caused by a singular and very high-profile decision, one that even has a catchy name and that is associated with Donald.

          The media is driving home ‘Brexit == bad idea’ over and over again right now. The bad repercussions aren’t going to stop any time soon, and every chance that they can be blamed on Brexiters, they will be. ‘Brexiters are idiots who just fucked you and themselves’ is going to be most of the sub-text for the next few months.

          This is in addition to there being a more partisan and demographically sorted electorate than existed in the past. We’ve already seen that a major terrorist attack didn’t help Donald a single bit. It’s a bit premature to think that a Donald-endorsed recession would help him much either.

    • a_paul_in_mtl

      Well, I’m not an economist but I can’t see how a referendum result actually triggers a global recession unless it is something like the United States electorate voting to default on U.S. debt. The uncertainty created by the Brexit vote will negatively affect Europe and the UK in particular, but if anything we can expect more investment in relatively safe places like the U.S. – unless polls start pointing to a Trump victory. otherwise, globally the results should be marginal.

      • Well, I’m not an economist but I can’t see how a referendum result actually triggers a global recession unless it is something like the United States electorate voting to default on U.S. debt.

        I don’t think a global recession as a result of Brexit is wildly likely, but there was some nervousness about how the US banks would handle it. If the EU shudders more, it could do the job. Greece is still hanging around.

        Brexit will be a strain.

        ETA: Central banks are geared up to keep things stable, but, you know, the tools are few as interest rates are super low.

        • a_paul_in_mtl

          “If the EU shudders more, it could do the job. Greece is still hanging around.”

          Yes, I’m more concerned about the next round of Eurozone drama. The main short-term concern with Brexit is uncertainty about how much will end up actually changing – what trade & finance arrangements will finally replace the terms of the UK’s EU membership, since the actual process of departure from the EU is expected to take at least two years.

          • Once Article 50 kicks in, it’s at most 2 years.

            Right now Boris wants to drag it out, but the EU wants to dump us quick.

            • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

              A 2-year process with an uncertain start date (and the unlikely but theoretically possible choice by the government to not invoke Article 50) vs. less than four and a half months until the US election.

              The US economy might be showing some weakness by November due to Brexit, but it won’t be so obvious that a recession is happening that people who don’t either believe we’re already in one and the government is lying about it or who have been certain that a recession is coming any day now since 2009 will cast their vote based on the economy tanking.

  • Hogan

    Kent Brockman: Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our viewers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?

    Professor: Yes I would, Kent.

  • mds

    How is Trump going to win Florida, barely a white majority state?

    Really narrowly, like the margins in 2000 and 2012? The fact that it was closer in 2012 than in 2008 isn’t automatically encouraging.

    The argument against these facts seems to be something like “nobody expected Brexit to win, nobody expected Trump to win, but Brexit won, and Trump has already won once, so Trump can win twice.”

    The argument actually seems a little closer to “nobody expected Brexit to win, but racist and selfish stupid old white people outperformed the polling, so maybe the polls are missing some of Trump’s natural base, too.” To which I would note that Brexit behaved more like an off-year election here, complete with underperforming Remain support. And also, Barack Hussein Obama won twice, so our racist elderly shits can’t usually get their way in presidential elections. I guess will see if there are really enough Bernie-or-busters to emulate the “I voted Leave, but didn’t really mean it” crowd.

    • BigHank53

      enough Bernie-or-busters to emulate the “I voted Leave, but didn’t really mean it” crowd

      Actually, the UK may prove a most salutary example of why one must occasionally hold their nose while pulling the lever.

      “Vote for the crook. It’s important!”

    • medrawt

      The “I voted Leave, but didn’t really mean it” crowd is incredible. And possibly extremely extremely small, but I hope they get a lot of press attention, at least over here in the US. If I could I’d use them to condition people against the idea of strategic votes, and protest votes, and everything other than “I’m affirmatively voting for my sincere preference between the choices with which I’ve actually been presented” votes.

      • Pat

        You mean like our friend slothrop, a card-carrying member of that crowd?

    • xq

      Really narrowly, like the margins in 2000 and 2012? The fact that it was closer in 2012 than in 2008 isn’t automatically encouraging.

      Yeah. FL eligible voters is about 2 percentage points less white. But 2012 was extremely close and black turnout is likely to decrease without Obama on the ticket. That would make FL very scary against generic Republican in a bad economy. Now, Trump isn’t generic Republican, and the economy isn’t yet that bad, so I think Clinton is still strongly favored (and the polls agree) but it doesn’t seem at all impossible that he could win under the right circumstances.

      • randy khan

        I think we should assume that Obama will campaign vigorously for Clinton, which should help black turnout.

        • random

          will campaign vigorously for Clinton, which should help black turnout.

          On top of which, we just saw that she does really well with minority voters (not just black) even without Obama in the mix.

      • djw

        Also, Trump changes the equation for Latino voters, potentially, and the ongoing cohort replacement of Cuban-American voters is already shifting the Latino vote in Florida toward the Democrats more than elsewhere, and fast (Bush got something like 80% of the Cuban-American vote in 2004; Obama narrowly won it in 2012–10+ points better than he did in 2008.)

      • efgoldman

        That would make FL very scary against generic Republican in a bad economy.

        Not only will people come out to vote AGAINST Combover Caligula, but a significant minority will also be purposely voting against Brave, Brave Sir Wonderboy Marco, to teach him a lesson.

    • djw

      The fact that it was closer in 2012 than in 2008 isn’t automatically encouraging.

      Not by the metric that we should be using, though. 2008 was what passes for a landslide in our polarized environment. Florida was about 4.6% more Republican than the national result; in 2012 it was 3% more Republican than the national result. Comparing those two elections indicates it’s moving in the right direction.

    • Matt McIrvin

      Sam Wang has started posting “if the election were held today” EV maps over at PEC. His current map is interesting, in that it looks almost exactly like the 2012 election results… except that in the run-up to 2012, Florida was uncallably close, whereas now he’s painting it blue and Arizona is on the knife edge.

      • Matt McIrvin

        …Also, what’s more important than the map is his top-line state-poll prediction, which is not based on a specific map but on a weighted average over plausible maps. That’s currently running just a hair behind the 2012 result (probably mostly because Florida and PA are still not certain), though Clinton has a clear lead.

  • addicted44

    Ok. While we are making dumb comparisons between British and American politics, let me point out that Sanders would have been the Corbyn equivalent.

    • EliHawk

      I mean, at least Sanders, truculent loser that he is, actually has some message discipline. There is nothing redeemable whatsoever about Corbyn as an actual political operator. He’s a complete incompetent.

      • Cassiodorus

        Because selecting Kendell or some other warmed over Blairite would have resulted in a Remain victory?

        • Murc

          It is possible to criticize Corbyn without either meaning or implying that someone else would have done better.

          • Bill Murray

            but does anyone here actually do/mean that?

          • Cassiodorus

            If you don’t think it was possible to do better it seems odd to place the blame on Corbyn.

            • This is ambiguous.

              I don’t think Corbyn was a decisive factor in Remain campaign failure.

              But he didn’t put a good effort. Or a merely bad effort. It was a pathetic non-effort. There’s no part of his performance that should give anyone any confidence he can run a general campaign worth spit.

        • Manny Kant

          Why is Kendall the alternative you jump to? Wouldn’t Burnham be the more obvious go to?

          • Cassiodorus

            Probably. I have her interview with Owen Jones that’s full of bland centrism burned in my brain though.

        • EliHawk

          He’s been out of power for 9 years, but it’s still all about Blairite or not, Labour eating their young like Tories did for a decade and a half post-Thatcher. Who the fuck cares about Tony Blair? What is wrong with actually judging Kendall/Cooper/Burnham or whoever on who they are and not the Judas of Sedgefield? What is wrong with choosing a personable, center-left leader who might actually lead a fucking winnable general election campaign against a Tory Party in the midst of a civil war, that just axed their only half decent frontman, and that just made Black Wednesday look like a backyard barbecue? Someone who might have done something in his one year on the job after a terrible general election defeat other than natter on about Nuclear Weapons and being against fighting ISIS, who actually tried to listen and rebuild public trust in his his party’s ability to govern and fight alienation in its heartlands? Someone who in the runup to these elections actually gave serious thought about Britain’s place in the EU and had a coherent, unified message about it? Someone who actually knows anything about governance, policies, politics, or elections?

          I want someone who has a coherent message for the country. Who actually could govern if elected. Who can speak to people outside his narrow activist clique. Hell, I want minimal political competence. Corbyn has none of it, and people are so wrapped up in sticking it to Tony Fucking Blair that they don’t give a shit. So deluded that they look at working class alienation from the Labour Party and think they’ll win it back behind a bearded old professional protester from London, so long as he says “Austerity Bad.” But, he’s sticking it to Tony Blair, so yeah, let’s keep fiddling along while the Labour Party, and with it any organized, responsible opposition in Britain burns to the ground. That’ll show ’em.

          • efc

            For someone who has been out of power for a long time and supposedly doesn’t matter, Tony Blair won’t shut the fuck up.

            Corbyn gave serious thought to the EU since he became an MP. He was against it then and is against it now. He was able to get 70% of the people who might listen to vote with the party’s official position. What else could he do? His clear, coherent argument was Tory austerity is the problem, not migrants or Brussels. But since the other remainers were Tory do you think they were going to back him up? Or even other Labour MPs who agreed with the 2015 GE position? So blame Cameron. Blame Blair.

            • Corbyn gave serious thought to the EU since he became an MP.

              Hahahahah. No.

              He was against it then and is against it now.

              And couldn’t shut up about it.

              He was able to get 70% of the people who might listen to vote with the party’s official position.

              What does this mean? Labour voters? Who are the “people who might listen”?

              And what magical powers are we attributing to him now? He got them? That seems like bullshit.

              I’m much more willing to believe he had a null effect (positive or negative) that think he was any sort of reason for 70% of even Labour voting Remain. C’mon.

              • efc

                That’s fine too. But this isn’t “his fault”.

                • What’s his fault is the craptastic job he did as campaigner and strategist.

                  The referendum as a whole is Cameron’s fault.

                  I still don’t know where your 70% is coming from. According to Dave, “It’s pretty clear that a greater than 35% share of Labour Party membership voted for Brexit.”.

                  He has to go.

              • efc

                I can’t keep replying downthread.

                I’ve been thinking about this since I saw on twitter the no-confidence motion or whatever Dame Hodge advanced.

                The criticism against Corbyn is that he is out of step with the GE voters and Mohammed needed to come to the mountain as it were if Labour wanted to win. Power being more important than principle.

                Now, when Corbyn was himself personally with the voters’ position, he agreed for the sake of the party to campaign for Remain (which was the correct vote) and he’s being blamed for not being able to convince the voters to come to the party’s position!?

                Maybe Labour needs to change their position on Brexit. Then they might get tons of voters.

                What strategy would you suggest? He took the only correct position which is “it” is the fault of austerity, not migrants or brussels. Did he get support from Cameron? Of course not, Cameron can’t say that because it is admitting his entire government was based on lies. Did he get support from LibDems? From Blair (fuck no)?

                And fine, 65%. I saw 30% of labour voters from 2015 voted leave, but I’ll accept 35% It doesn’t make a difference.

                But The last thing labour needs when the tories are in crisis is a manufactured leadership dispute.

                http://labourlist.org/2016/06/the-last-thing-labour-needs-is-a-leadership-row-unions-statement-backing-corbyn/

          • Cassiodorus

            I think Corbyn is a poor spokesman, but has a better message. I don’t think Labour’s path to victory is “austerity with a human face.”

      • addicted44

        Sanders had message discipline while he was allowed to set the terms on what was being discussed.

        The moment we stepped out of his comfort zone the Daily News happened.

        To be honest, seeing Sanders absolutely squander his leverage over the last few weeks makes me question how much of Sanders’s success was due to political brilliance over the fact that Hillary barely ran s campaign against him.

        • RonC

          These kind of comments are what cause Max to call this a Hive of Hillary supports, I suspect.

          The shear nastiness of the comments here are interesting, at least when you all are talking about someone who is to the left of Clinton and would dare challenge her. Of for that matter any one in Labour who would challenge any of Blair’s boys or girls.

          • addicted44

            Can you quote the nastiness in this thread?

            Or is questioning Sanders’s political capabilities the epitome of nastiness?

          • efgoldman

            The shear nastiness of the comments here are interesting

            There’s nothing at all nasty in addicted’s comment. It’s all Trufact. You may not like it, you may be in denial, but he really screwed up the interview, and it cost him big time.
            It’s also true that in terms of the artillery HRC could have brought to bear, she was very indulgent.

          • sharculese

            This is what the scientists call a lie.

        • EliHawk

          I mean, I have a low opinion of Sanders’ own political skills and judgment, but Corbyn makes him look like FDR.

          • addicted44

            I am not trying to compare Sanders and Corbyn directly. I thought the whole “dumb comparisons” phrase gave that away.

            For some reason the commenting system botched this up but my original comment was intended as a response to the Chris Hayes tweet and the comment indicating that Brexit is evidence that Hillary was the wrong choice.

            My point was that even if we use that faulty premise that UK politics had direct analogues with US politics, that was still not an endorsement for Sanders because the closest analogy to him would be Corbyn who has been a political disaster for Labour.

  • Downpuppy

    Trump’s efforts to capitalize consisted of insulting everyone in Scotland with some of the doomest shite they’d ever heard, so no, no big bump.

    Asked about economic turmoil and the degree to which the Brexit results are undermining the value of the British pound, Trump relied that the market decline is good news – for him.

    “If the pound goes down, more people are coming to Turnberry, frankly,” he said, referring to the location of his resort. “For traveling and for other things, I think it very well could turn out to be positive.”

    In a generational moment for the United Kingdom, Trump’s principal concern is what this means for Trump.

    He added that as far as he’s concerned, golf courses are like countries. Trump wasn’t kidding.

    When NBC News’ Katy Tur asked the presidential candidate whether he’s traveling with any foreign policy advisors who’ve spoken to him about Brexit, Trump replied that he’s been in touch with his team – but “there’s nothing to talk about.”

    • Alex.S

      Trump celebrating an economic downturn as good for him should matter.

      Well, I hope it matters.

      To be honest… I don’t think there’s anything Trump could do over the next week that will make news.

    • D.N. Nation

      Trump is stupid, silly, and evil, but I’m starting to think that the thing he’s most is lazy.

      • NBarnes

        +1 to this. The ‘stopped calling a list of 21 donors after 3 because he couldn’t be arsed’ story was pretty damning.

      • The banality of evil has been replaced by the laziness of evil?

        • DW

          They were going to replace it, but, eh, they didn’t get around to it.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Trump resembles Palin, IMO. Both had success based on their ability to BS, which convinced them there was no point in bothering to learn anything about anything.

        Trump does have a better shtick.

    • so-in-so

      Hey! He managed to top Romney’s visit during the 2012 campaign! For certain values of “top”.

    • Matt McIrvin

      Well, the people of Scotland certainly won’t vote for him in November.

  • CrunchyFrog

    Agree, these are totally different elections. In Britain both major parties bought into the expansionary austerity doctrine – Labour even openly admitted that they were to blame for the recession due to overspending, when they weren’t. The viable 3rd party, the Liberal Democrats, made a deal with the Tory devil in exchange for a voting referendum which they lost and then meekly agreed with everything the Tories did for 5 years. The only parties actually saying “no, we’re not following the austerity doctrine, we’re for the average people” were the SNP – which royally cleaned up but applied only to Scotland – and UKIP, which did so-so in the elections in large part due to the other baggage they brought along. So, in short, there was no electoral solution offered to most UK voters and life was still getting worse. So, quite a number of them bought into the blame-the-immigrant solution and, since voting Leave doesn’t carry with it the baggage of voting UKIP – went along with the Leave solution.

    We’ve seen similar things happen in other European countries – when the two leading parties both double down on austerity the people look elsewhere, sometimes with really bad results.

    In the US if the Democrats were still campaigning as Republican-lite we’d have the same trouble, especially if we’d been under the extreme austerity programs that most of Europe has suffered under.
    But neither of those situations applies. Democrats are talking about expansion of benefits, have given up trying to sell GOP talking points as their own, and the economy isn’t terrible.

    I’m not worried about the 6 point difference because of where we are in the process. The average is something like 46-to-40 – that’s a shitload of undecideds or people opting for a non-viable 3rd party. Most of those people will choose the lesser evil in the end, and far and away that’s Clinton.

    • Amanda in the South Bay

      And US demographics are totally different, and the presidential election has to be filtered through the Electoral College. Other than that sure they are the same!

  • Alex.S

    Polling is a big deal — Brexit was slightly up in the polls a week or two ago (I wasn’t paying close enough attention to know the specific time frame).

    If someone was making predictions just on polls–
    * Trump would win the GOP nomination
    * Brexit might happen, it’s too close to call
    * Trump will probably lose the Presidency, but it’s too far out to determine.

    • Before this week they were up as much as 10 points, even in the aggregators.

      Then it crashed earlier this week. Then squeaked a win.

      • randy khan

        The polls seemed all over the map for the last several weeks. The last polls released, IIRC, were two with remain winning and two with leave winning, with wildly different margins.

    • Cassiodorus

      Would they though? The state-level polling is a lot closer.

      • Alex.S

        State level polling is very variable right now. There’s even a poll with Clinton winning Arizona (which I’ll ignore).

        Biggest thing is that Clinton is ahead (based on averages) in Florida, and like 2012 and 2008, it’s very difficult for the GOP to make a winning map without Florida.

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          Two polls showing Clinton winning Arizona, one a tie, and one with Trump +4. Evidence suggests it’s in play.

          Then again, there are also polls showing Hillary ahead in Kansas, almost tied in Utah, but also almost tied in Pennsylvania and relatively close in New Jersey, etc.

          It’s not clear whether Trump’s scrambling the map with his anti-Hispanic rhetoric (the margins are more favorable to Dems than usual in Florida and Texas as well) and the fact that it seems that Mormons hate him (which could also be a marginal factor in AZ/NV) or whether the state polling is just bad. We’ll get a better idea once the number of state polls increases. And after the conventions of course.

          • Matt McIrvin

            I think a lot of this is just normal variation, not anything special about Trump. Sam Wang’s aggregated map shows a situation that is really not that different from 2012; the main differences I can see is that Pennsylvania is a bit closer, Florida is less close, and Arizona is tied up.

    • addicted44

      This. If there’s anything we should have learnt, it’s that polling has been pretty damn good.

      People have been misled in both the Repub primaries and Brexit not because polling has been off, but because betting markets have been off.

      And there seems to have been a significant strain of “polls are for the rubes…sophisticated people look at betting markets”.

  • cleek

    given that all previous predictions about Trump have been wrong…

    i’d hold off on further predictions.

    • Murc

      Well, credit where it’s due; Paul saw Trump coming a mile away. So from now on when he posts anything about Trump I am gonna think really hard “Do I want to call the guy who was smart enough to see this coming in August 2015 wrong?” before calling him wrong.

      (I am aware this is not a Paul post.)

      • Pat

        Sam Wang also called it for Trump prior to the onset of voting. He maintained throughout that anyone who could reliably hold 35-40% of the Republican vote in a field of greater than 4 people was going to win.

    • Matt McIrvin

      Trump massively led in the Republican primary polls almost from the moment he announced. All the pundits saying he couldn’t win were just ignoring the polls or making up excuses for disregarding them.

  • DilbertSucks

    I mean, on one level it’s scary that Trump is within 6 points. But, still 6 points, in presidential election terms, is getting your ass kicked. And there’s no reason to think he has much upside potential.

    The problem is that this is almost the entirely the product of Trump’s offensive responses to Judge Curiel and to Orlando cratering his own support rather than any substantial gains in Clinton’s support. Clinton is still polling at a much lower % than she was back in March/April. More worrisome, there are rumblings that many angry Sanders voters plan on repeating 1968 at the DNC convention this year. I’d like to believe that Clinton can win back the Sanders supporters she seems to have lost over the last two months, but I wouldn’t take it for granted (and arrogant pundits repeatedly declaring “they’ll fall in line” just pisses them off more).

    Clinton’s dominance of the airwaves and superior organization is going to make it harder for Trump to overcome a substantial deficit and harder to get his supporters out.

    I’m not sure this matters as much as you think it does. Unfortunately, Trump’s lack of fundraising and disorganized campaign has allowed him to once again cast himself as an underdog taking on the formidable Clinton machine and her vast array of wealthy donors. People like underdogs and this narrative benefits Trump much more than if he were taking millions from the Koch brothers. Also, he still gets plenty of free media, and TV advertisements matters less and less these days. He also knows how to manipulate the press and social media like Twitter to spread his message at a much lower cost.

    I don’t think there’s any reason to believe there’s a large reservoir of untapped support for Trump that polls aren’t picking up.

    From Dave Brockington’s earlier blog post:

    I’m not sure we can call this a polling failure, given the polls were all over the place. Clearly, however, on-line polls did better than telephone polls, to which I strongly suspect social-desirability was the cause (in Brit-speak, “shy Brexiters”).

    Trump also performs better in online polls than in telephone polls, likely for similar reasons.

    While I was reading through the BBC coverage last night, I couldn’t help but be struck by some of the parallels — significant numbers of Labour voters who feel betrayed by their party opting for Leave, people angry with “the system” driving higher than expected turnout to vote Leave as a “FU” vote, etc. While it’s true that a referendum is not the same as an election, these are the same sentiments which cause many people to support Trump.

    The United States is a much bigger and more diverse country, which really makes a big difference in terms, which is rather important for how a campaign based around mobilizing white resentment will play out.

    There’s also stuff like this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?_r=0

    The silver lining of the above article is that the 2012 election wasn’t nearly as racially polarized as believed. The downside is the last four years of race and identity-obsessed stupidity from the media and the elites (much of which I think was the product of believing the 2012 was very racially polarized), combined with Trump’s populism (which Romney never attempted), could change that this year, and in Trump’s favor.

    I’ll also remind you that many Florida Hispanics are Cubans who don’t identify with Mexicans or illegal immigrants and many lean Republican, so they’re not nearly as reliable a firewall against Trump as California Hispanics.

    OTOH, it is a very good sign that Trump has fallen way down in the latest Quinnipiac poll from Florida thanks to his self-aggrandizing response to Orlando. As long as the people of Florida never forgive and forget that, he should lose the state and thus — most likely — the election. But it’s still early and the public also has a very very short memory, so I can’t declare victory just yet.

    • The problem is that this is almost the entirely the product of Trump’s offensive responses to Judge Curiel and to Orlando cratering his own support rather than any substantial gains in Clinton’s support. Clinton is still polling at a much lower % than she was back in March/April.

      Well what I see on the RCP aggregator is that they were tied in June at 43, but now Clinton is +6 at 45. A two point uptick isn’t nothing.

    • altofront

      Unfortunately, Trump’s lack of fundraising and disorganized campaign has allowed him to once again cast himself as an underdog taking on the formidable Clinton machine and her vast array of wealthy donors. People like underdogs and this narrative benefits Trump much more than if he were taking millions from the Koch brothers.

      I’m sceptical that this matters much to people who don’t follow the horse race–i.e., just about everyone. I mean, you’re right about the media effects: in his most recent speech Trump talked about Muslims in somewhat less bigoted ways, and the press trumpeted this as a major change, a move to the center, blah blah blah. But there will still be dozens of anti-Trump ads reminding people (or in many cases, informing people) about his earlier, much more bigoted comments.

      Ultimately I think message discipline wins over favorable media narrative (although it’s better to have both).

      I’ll also remind you that many Florida Hispanics are Cubans who don’t identify with Mexicans or illegal immigrants and many lean Republican, so they’re not nearly as reliable a firewall against Trump as California Hispanics.

      This is much, much less true than it used to be. Florida has had a huge and ongoing influx of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. (And younger Cuban-Americans are considerably less Republican.)

      • Yankee

        In the epistemically closed world it’s about buzz, not the horse race. Since horse race data is just more so-called “facts”. Libruls like that st.

      • addicted44

        Also I don’t see why Cuban Floridians will be supportive of Trump after he went about insulting Rubio.

    • twbb

      “I’ll also remind you that many Florida Hispanics are Cubans who don’t identify with Mexicans or illegal immigrants and many of whom lean Republican, so they’re not nearly as reliable a firewall against Trump as California Hispanics.”

      True. One of the problems with demographic assumptions, especially in a bizarre place like Florida, is if you dig into the demographics you can often find significant reversals in voting patterns.

      One example, as you’ve pointed out, is Cubans vs. Mexicans (and just about every other Latino group).

      Another is Jews; while overall not a big fan of Trump, he’s surprisingly popular among Orthodox (particularly Hasidic).

      • randy khan

        The Orthodox already break heavily Republican, especially as compared to Jews in general – somewhere around 57 percent in a 2015 Pew poll.

        • Davis X. Machina

          The Hasidim in particular vote that way only because Avigdor Lieberman’s not on our ballot.

          • efgoldman

            The Hasidim in particular vote that way only because Avigdor Lieberman’s not on our ballot.

            And they are a minority of a small minority of a smaller minority, even in Florida.

            • twbb

              Couple of tens of thousands in South Florida, which for most states wouldn’t be really significant. But on the other hand, it’s Florida…

    • CrunchyFrog

      More worrisome, there are rumblings that many angry Sanders voters plan on repeating 1968 at the DNC convention this year. I’d like to believe that Clinton can win back the Sanders supporters she seems to have lost over the last two months, but I wouldn’t take it for granted (and arrogant pundits repeatedly declaring “they’ll fall in line” just pisses them off more).

      Won’t happen. No-drama Obama has been quietly talking to him and Bernie’s on board. He’s not going to suddenly switch sides completely to Clinton, but you’ll notice that every week he measurably moves in the direction of full Clinton support. You’ll note she’s hiring a lot of his people now, he’s acknowledged he won’t win, and said he’s voting for Clinton in the general election. We have no idea what arrangements were made, but he’ll be part of the choreographed show at the DNC and will strive to get his supporters on board as well.

      Remember the incredible efficiency and effectiveness of the Obama campaign in 2008? (Not the distracted “I can’t believe I have to do this again” campaign in 2012.) Obama’s team is part of the planning – we’ll probably see something similar. They won’t have Obama’s great inspiring oratory (and I don’t think that would be possible now anyway – his major theme was bringing people together – the Wingnut faction has made that kind of dreaming obsolete), and he won’t have 100s of thousands coming to see the likely first black US President speak. But the campaign itself will be on target. Clinton is nothing if not prepared, and with top quality advisers instead of a Mark Penn-led staff, she’ll be fine.

      • Pat

        I really hope you’re right, Crunchy.

        • Breadbaker

          I’d add that Clinton is more self-aware about what her strengths and weaknesses are, and choreographs her public appearances to show off her best side. She won’t try to out-Obama Obama at oratory; she will speak the way Hillary is most effective.

          Happily, one way she is most effective is that she’s a pretty good fighter in debates with idiots (see Benghazi hearings). That didn’t help so much with Obama in 2008, but it can with Trump in 2016.

          Also, don’t underestimate how popular she is among her base. There are a lot of people who are in fact very enthusiastic at the idea that a woman, and indeed this woman, is the Democratic nominee.

          • CrunchyFrog

            On your last point, I suspect that’s going to grow. We (and I include myself in this) have tended to talk about how she has really bad negatives from all of the bad publicity – both made-up wingnut shit and valid criticisms – over the years. But one consequence of that tidal wave of extremely negative publicity/propaganda is that very few people have heard about any of the actually good stuff she’s done. I see that her marketing folks are putting together a terrific set of pieces, for all markets and mediums, about her accomplishments over the years. The “other side” if you will. While there is nothing negative that Trump can bring up that people haven’t already heard all of that good stuff will in fact be new to most voters.

            And by the way, most of that good stuff involves building government programs to help families and children. Exactly the kind of examples Democrats need to be pushing.

            • The Lorax

              It has grown with me as I’ve listened more to her. I started as a strong Berner, and now am happily in HRC’s camp. I suspect I’m not the only one around here to whom this happened.

    • djw

      I’ll also remind you that many Florida Hispanics are Cubans who don’t identify with Mexicans or illegal immigrants and many lean Republican, so they’re not nearly as reliable a firewall against Trump as California Hispanics.

      Over the last three elections, the Democratic share of the Cuban-American vote has gone from 21 to 39 to 49. There’s a big, fast shift happening here that’s far bigger than the candidates on the ballot.

      • twbb

        The typical traditional Cuban-American Republican is a Goldwater Republican on foreign policy (particularly in regards to Cuba), paleoconservative on the economy and environment, and fairly indifferent to the sexual, religious, and racial* hangups that have come to dominate GOP rhetoric.

        *From a policy standpoint; on a personal level there’s quite a bit of racial animosity in the community, but as far as I can tell they don’t view BLM as an existential threat like so many right-wing delusionists do.

      • GeorgeBurnsWasRight

        Is the shift generational? There’s got to be a big difference in the world view of those who fled Cuba vs. those born in the US who have never lived in Cuba.

    • efgoldman

      More worrisome, there are rumblings that many angry Sanders voters plan on repeating 1968 at the DNC convention this year.

      As an angry old white guy who was already an adult in ’68, I really, really don’t see hipster Berniebros rioting in the streets of Philly. They don’t want to ruin those expensive faux-hobo clothes, or whatever they’re wearing these days. Plus, if the streets aren’t safe, all the Starbucks will close.
      What happens inside the hall is orders of magnitude more controlled than it was 48 years ago, too.

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      Trump also performs better in online polls than in telephone polls, likely for similar reasons.

      But you should also consider that some of the voters likely to be most hostile to Trump will also be subject to biases in polls. Minority voters, and particularly Hispanic and Asian immigrants that are not highly fluent in English, will be harder to reach. Poorer voters may be less likely to have reliable internet or be reachable by mail (it’s my understanding that the sample for internet polls are actually mostly recruited by mail, which is part of how they prevent massively oversampling the young).

      I think it’s probably worthwhile to consider how the polls did at predicting his vote in the primaries. And in that regard, during the competitive phase of the primary (prior to NY) the polls were fairly accurate, and in fact tended to slightly overestimate his support. Starting in NY, there was an obvious consolidation around Trump as the frontrunner (or possibly the opposition was disheartened and didn’t show up, given that he still underperformed with late deciders), and he outperformed the polls. Obvious caveats apply that general election demographics are different so the pattern may end up different.

  • jim, some guy in iowa

    christ, the way this thread is starting to go makes me sentimental about the fucking primaries. Suck it up, people, and act like we can *win*

  • DilbertSucks

    By the way, I don’t always agree with Robert Reich, but I think this Facebook post he just made is accurate:

    Asked in a CBS This Morning interview why he hasn’t yet endorsed Clinton, Bernie Sanders replied, “Because I haven’t heard her say the things I need to hear said.”

    I don’t think Bernie will hear what he “needs to hear” because the Clinton campaign assumes he’ll endorse her anyway. With Trump imploding, Hillary has no interest in accommodating Bernie beyond the concessions she already made in the primary. On Wednesday, she gave what was billed as a “major” economic speech, but it was little more than a rehash of her previous policy positions, emphasizing her competence and experience. As the Times put it, “the speech framed her place in the race as being the candidate who understands the populist discontent but will react to it with practicality.”

    It seems like a cautious strategy but I think it’s a dangerous one for Hillary. After all, Trump could bounce back and her support could begin to erode. If she campaigns only on the fact she’s experienced and competent – and not Donald Trump – the public doesn’t know what she stands for, which allows Republicans to paint her any way they wish.

    She needs a bold vision and a big idea proportional to the scale of the large economic problems most Americans face.

    • Amanda in the South Bay

      This has the vague aura of implying that Hillary never says anything substantial, or that she’ll lose because she doesn’t give Sanders’ generic stump speech.

    • addicted44

      I don’t think Bernie will hear what he “needs” to hear because what he apparently wants to hear is “Hey Bernie, I quit because you are so much better to me, and want you to run for President as the Dem nominee”.

      Why hasn’t Bernie Sanders laid out what he wants Clinton to say if that isn’t it?

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        Well, addicted, he has met with Hillary Clinton, so I imagine the subject has come up between them.

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        One thing he and Robert Reichs might want her to do is more forcefully oppose corporate trade agreements more forcefully and unambiguously, since that is one area where Clinton could be vulnerable to Trump’s populism.

        • addicted44

          That would be nice, and I would support him.

          Apologies if I am a little harsh on Bernie today more than usual. Brexit’s put me in a bad mood, since it has almost certainly strengthened right wing policies in Britain (and England is gonna make a very sharp right turn if Scotland leaves), which has amplified my annoyance at Bernie having squandered a lot of leverage which he could have used to push Dems further left, in a mathematically impossible effort to try and win the nomination in the weeks leading up to the California primary.

    • junker

      This seems like especially pure pundits fallacy to me n

    • Casey

      “Because I haven’t heard her say the things I need to hear said.”

      Was the thing she needs to say “Radical Islam”? Oh, wait, that’s the other side that relishes making Democrats in general, and women and POC in particular, jump through particular rhetorical hoops.

      The 2000, 2004, and especially 2008 elections, were all about Republicans trying to get the Democratic nominee to denounce this, or apologize for that, or say some particular magic incantation. This “say the magic words” bullshit is a really bad look for ostensible Democrats to be pulling.

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        This “say the magic words” bullshit is a really bad look for ostensible Democrats to be pulling.

        you mean magic words like “I, Bernie Sanders, hereby endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton, next President of the United States”?

        • ForkyMcSpoon

          Endorsing her is a speech act.

          Which is not really analogous to the “radical Islam” bit.

          • a_paul_in_mtl

            Well, let’s see. Bernie has already indicated that he will work with Clinton to defeat Trump. He has also indicated that he will vote for Clinton in November.

            But still we are hearing, “but…he hasn’t officially endorsed her yet!!!”

            In other words, he hasn’t actually said the magic words. As if saying them would, itself, make much of a difference.

            Again, Sanders is already saying he will campaign and vote against Trump. If Clinton wants a more positive endorsement than that, say, a sincere declaration that she is a wonderfully progressive candidate who will work tirelessly for working families in this country, then maybe he needs some convincing on that score. Perhaps that is what he means?

    • efgoldman

      I don’t always agree with Robert Reich

      That’s the same Robert Reich who’s been elected to what offices, and run what campaigns?
      I like him, a lot. Always have. But as a strong Bernie supporter, of course he’ll say she’s not satisfying some Bernie requirement.

      • Matt McIrvin

        Also, whenever he says anything positive about Clinton, he gets a big negative response from his Bernie-or-Buster fans, so he’s probably wary.

    • Halloween Jack

      I like Bob Reich, generally, but he seems to be speaking from the perspective of still wanting to believe that Sanders holds the bulk of the power in any negotiations that he and Clinton may be having, if Sanders is actually interested in negotiating and not simply digging his heels in. From that interview quote, it sounds like that’s exactly what he’s doing.

    • The Lorax

      I stopped listening to him about the time I got off the Bernie train. She has big ideas. That actually add up mathematically and have a chance of getting through.

      • EliHawk

        I mean, hearing him offer one bit of terrible political advice after another this spring and summer has been an effective bit of historical understanding into how he lost so many policy arguments in the cabinet during Bill Clinton’s first term.

  • Amanda in the South Bay

    Yet another reason to curse the Internet in the next little while-to avoid the progressive freak out over this. I don’t think we’re screwed-to me it’s like saying we’re screwed because Trump draws lots of pissed off angry white guys at rallies.

    • FMguru

      Just remind yourself that this nation elected a skinny black guy named Hussein to the presidency barely seven years after the 9/11 attacks, and then re-elected him, and neither election was particularly close. And then remember that the electorate has gotten 3-4% less white than it was in 2008.

      Brexit is concerned (in re: Trump) only because one of the few ways Trump has to get elected is a sudden exogenous event that scrambles the electorate, and Brexit leading to a sudden and major global recession is one of the few possible contenders for that sort of event. Otherwise, all the fundamentals and polling data points to Hillary Clinton reciting the Oath of Office on January 20, 2017.

  • Yankee

    Ok _this_ time. What about _next_ time? We have to do this again in 4 years you know. What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

    • i8kraft

      Ted Cruz? He certainly gets vast visions of of Spiritus Mundi.

    • brad

      Nikki Haley is probably the odds on fav right now, meaningless as it is this far out.

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Haley’s probably ruled herself out by her support for removing the Confederate flag from various bits of real estate.

    • Karen24

      If Trump loses, the thing that scares me the most is that the only thing the R’s will learn is “find a more polished Fascist next time, one more like Franco than Mussolini.”

      • Amanda in the South Bay

        Bam Bam Johnson was born in New York…so how about Johnson/Haley 2020!

        • Matt McIrvin

          That’s a Constitutional issue that I don’t think has been explored… is a natural-born citizen who renounced US citizenship and then was re-naturalized eligible for the Presidency?

  • keta

    You know what’s fucking doomed? The US media. I mean, listen to this piece of shit prattle on and try not to lose your lunch.

    I’d suggest a post about the pathetic Lewandowski hire at CNN, but on a base level discussing it would be tantamount to dissecting a bowel movement – poking at something that is solid waste.

    • Pat

      What would be great is if they never put Lewandowski on. ‘Cause they have him exclusively, but they don’t have to use him.

      • junker

        If CNN paid $500,000 just to lock away Lewandowski I would respect them about 1000 times as much.

  • JohnT

    The key lesson, which the Republican primary already hinted, is that fact-free bullshit animosity can crack 50% in a large country – there are sufficient low info voters to do the trick.

    In practice this will be mitigated by the fact that the US has far more non-white voters and they don’t need to be very informed to know what Trump means for them. But I bet Trump can crack 50% of the white vote, which is horrifying really

    • randy khan

      50% of the Republican Party is not 50% of the electorate. This is an important point.

    • junker

      Trump never cracked 50%. That was the point – that his act only worked in a divided field.

      • twbb

        In terms of declared support he is well past 50% of the GOP now, and surreally close to 50% of the electorate generally.

        • John F

          The Pollster aggregate has him at 38.6% nationally, his absolute high point was just under 44%

          His favorable rating is 36% (unfavorable 60%) the lowest his unfavorable rating has ever dropped was to around 54%, The highest his aggregate favorable rating has been is 41%

          HRC may be “divisive” there may be a solid core of anti-HRC sentiment out there, but her negatives have NEVER been as high as his, her positives have NEVER been as low.

          • Matt McIrvin

            They’ve come within a few points, though.

      • Yankee

        Arrow Theorem! Trump da Man!

  • Anna in PDX

    To me the fundamental difference is that in Britain Remain was not very organized and not very convincing. Leave had simple arguments and hammered the same lies over and over. (I hasten to add that I don’t have any special insight into British politics aside from reading about them on the Internet so someone can set me straight here if I am very misinformed.)

    In the US, Trump is all over the map on what he stands for, he has no message discipline, and he has no campaign organization. Whereas the Dems are campaigning much better. We have a lot of people here who will vote Republican no matter what so Trump has a higher floor than he should. But I don’t see him suddenly running an effective general election campaign, as he shows no interest in doing so.

    • (I hasten to add that I don’t have any special insight into British politics aside from reading about them on the Internet so someone can set me straight here if I am very misinformed.)

      Nope, about right.

      Leave also out raised and thus outspent Remain.

  • tsam

    Brexit tweet:

    2007: “Bankers ruined our economy”
    2015: “Immigrants are ruining our economy”
    2016: “Finally, we took control & ruined our OWN economy”

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      2017 UKIP for Britain! We fucked up the first time – just think what we can do with practice!

  • tsam

    One more:

    What’s after #Brexit?

    Grexit
    Departugal
    Italeave
    Fruckoff
    Czechout
    Oustria
    Finish
    Slovlong
    Latervia
    Byegium

    unitil EU becomes Germlonely

    • N__B

      Russhin!

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Russhin Limbo. *cough*

    • Anna in PDX

      Thanks, I needed this laugh!

  • wengler

    Has Trump indicated that it’s time for the US to leave the EU?

    • Hogan

      The EU has probably indicated that it’s time for Trump to leave the EU.

      • Breadbaker

        He can do that by staying in place in Scotland long enough. Then he can mysteriously find himself back in the EU after Scottish independence and its rejoining. Might take him past January 20, but I’m not concerned if it does.

    • bobbo1

      Not quite but Jeff Sessions said “Now it’s America’s turn.”

      • Pat

        I told our daughter that I thought it was okay for Texas to leave as long as the US military took all its toys home before they left.

      • tsam

        I know I’m going to regret this, but our turn to do what?

        • junker

          He seems to be implying that voting for Trump would be America’s version of Brexit. I have no idea why.

          • John F

            A monumentally insane act that would wreck the country?

          • so-in-so

            Blame everything on immigrants seems to work similarly.

            Listening to the rantings of narcissistic idiotic politicians who refuse to accept blame for the results of the policies they promulgate is kinda SOP the world over, but maybe a bit worse right now.

          • Matt McIrvin

            Because Trump said so?

        • Hogan

          He doesn’t mention Trump by name, but he seems awfully upset about the TPP, which is our equivalent of the EU, I guess.

    • Matt McIrvin

      Fox News’s chyron described the UK as voting to leave the UN.

  • We are not doomed because of Brexit. Hell, England is not doomed because of Brexit! Will it be diminished? Sure. Will it become Argentina? Hell no. Is there something to be learned? Sure. Is the house suddenly on fire? Hell no.

    Clinton winning the White House is about as sure a thing as sure can be. Trump is already 6 points behind, and Clinton is just warming up. I fully expect her to go into the election with a double-digit lead. I’m more concerned about 2020, but let’s get through this race first.

    • John F

      Will it become Argentina? Hell no.

      I think you underestimate Boris Johnson

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Will it become Argentina?

        General Farageieri is tanned and lean and pickled for power.

      • The Lorax

        Or how comparatively bad English footballers are.

    • EliHawk

      Will it become Argentina? Hell no.

      Well, that’d be one way to get back the Falklands.

  • Ethel2Tilly

    Here’s my out-of-left-field take:

    Over the past several months, the consensus seems to have solidified that Obama has had by and large a significant and successful Presidency. For the first time in a long, long time, a nominee closely associated with an outgoing Administration can actually benefit from that association rather than downplaying it or otherwise needing to distance themselves. Likewise, Obama will be the first outgoing President in a long, long time who will get to play an active, public, and enthusiastic role during the campaign. Bush didn’t in 2008, Clinton didn’t in 2000, Reagan played a very limited role in 1988. Johnson was kryptonite in 1968, etc. This creates a rare synergy that allows HRC to run as “Obama’s Third Term”.

    But what if the perception of Obama’s Presidency shifts from being “successful” to being “a complete unmitigated disaster”?

    Obama is directly responsible for Brexit. Any other dominos that fall as a result of Brexit – global recession, the UK splitting up, the EU falling apart, etc, can be blamed on fumbling, bumbling Obama. How could we ever thought of his time at the helm as anything bur a disaster. And HRC was an integral part of the whole mess.

    There has always been problems in the UK’s relationship with Brussels, but, arguably, it was the immigration/refugee issue – the well-publicized pictures and stories of the huge teeming throngs of mostly Syrian refugees overwhelming European roads and train stations and border crossing, as well as the much resented Brussels decree of national quotas of numbers of refugees for each EU member-state to accept – seen as a particularly loathsome EU usurpation of national sovereignty – which galvanized public support for the Leave campaign.

    Now let’s back up 5 years to the Arab Spring in 2011, which was vocally encouraged and championed at the time by Obama and his Secretary of State HRC. And ever since then the Middle East, especially places like Syria, has been an unstable, violent hellhole, resulting in the massive tide of refugees threatening to engulf Europe. Unintended consequences. Shows exactly how brilliant and effective Obama and HRC really are.

    Trump only needs to seize on this point to change the narrative of Obama’s “successful” Presidency (by comparison, even tho awful Dubya got to do the global recession thing, thr UK and the EU both managed to remain functioning and intact throughout – or despite – his two terms in office.) And Hillary wants to be Obama’s Third Term? God help us all.

    Once Trump finds out that Obama/HRC are responsible for Brexit and all subsequent events stemming from that, it’ll be a game changer You read it here first.

    • a_paul_in_mtl

      :Obama is directly responsible for Brexit.”

      Er, no. And the argument you make to get there is…something else:

      1) Obama and his Secretary of State HRC “encouraged” the Arab spring, and are therefore not only the cause of it, but also directly responsible for all consequences

      2) the Arab Spring is the only cause of the current instability in the Middle East, which was caused an influx of refugees to Europe

      3) Therefore, Brexit!

      Obama and Clinton did not “cause” the Arab Spring, and for encouragement their position on it was ambivalent to say the least. They had little if anything to do with the uprising in Tunisia, only dropped their support for Mubarek in Egypt when it became clear he was toast, and it’s unclear what “encouragement” they actually did to spark the uprisings in Libya and Syria. Considering that the Republicans’ main critique of Obama on Syria was that he wasn’t aggressive enough against the Syrian regime, I’m curious as to who’s going to make the argument that Obama should have supported Assad’s brutal crackdown on the Syrian population. I suppose Trump has a soft spot for foreign despots but I don’t see him getting far with that argument.

      The instability and rise of ISIS in Iraq had nothing to do with the Arab Spring, and rather a lot to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

      In short, no. Just no.

      • heckblazer

        I thought the Arab Spring was 100% due to the leaks from Chelsea Manning!

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        I think Ethel2Lilly is a little unclear on the meaning of the word “directly”

    • Halloween Jack

      Wingnut pundits could indeed assert that Obama is responsible for Brexit, since they will throw any sort of shit that they think might be damaging to him personally and Democrats in general at the wall to see if any of it sticks, and Trump quite possibly could latch onto it. But he’s also likely to quickly unlatch the first time someone asks him if that means that he’s OK with the idea of Arab dictatorships staying in place. Stick with the first part of your argument, in which there’s really no reason why Obama shouldn’t campaign for Clinton.

      • a_paul_in_mtl

        Fortunately the reasoning Ethel2Lilly engages in is so convoluted Trump is unlikely to even attempt to use it. Also, I see no reason why Brexit should even be an issue in the U.S. campaign.

    • DrS

      You are correct. That is out of left field.

      • Captain Haddock

        I disagree. It’s not out of left field. It’s out of somewhere far darker, wetter, and smellier.

        • EliHawk

          Left field at the Kingdome?

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      Over the past several months, the consensus seems to have solidified that Obama has had by and large a significant and successful Presidency. For the first time in a long, long time, a nominee closely associated with an outgoing Administration can actually benefit from that association rather than downplaying it or otherwise needing to distance themselves.

      Consensus among whom, precisely?

    • Once Trump finds out that Obama/HRC are responsible for Brexit and all subsequent events stemming from that, it’ll be a game changer You read it here first.

      LOL

    • Now let’s back up 5 years to the Arab Spring in 2011, which was vocally encouraged and championed at the time by Obama and his Secretary of State HRC.

      I might be going out on a limb here, but I’m quite certain that those who kicked off the Arab Spring couldn’t have given two shits about what Obama thought. They were tired, hungry, sick of being beaten and killed for the crime of not being born into the oligarchy, and sick of there being no end in sight. Obama didn’t have a thing to do with it. Nor Brexit. That was wholly on the Brits.

    • Hogan

      Concern troll is . . .

      wait for it . . .

      concerned.

      Never saw that coming.

    • Matt McIrvin

      “The wonderful thing I was just celebrating in Scotland is all Obama and Hillary’s fault! GET ‘EM!”

  • Breadbaker

    Do the actual effects of a potential recession as a result of this possibly come to the US economy by November 8? My recollection is that from event to effects takes a lot longer than that. The housing market didn’t collapse in September 2008; it happened a long time before that.

    • Matt McIrvin

      I was dealing with the effects of the real-estate collapse in the summer of 2006.

  • Origami Isopod

    “YAY CONTRADICTIONS BEEN HEIGHTENED!”

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      So it all comes down to “The left should have provided free lube and sympathy and encouraged me to fuck myself over because I was angry at .. SOMEONE!”

    • I couldn’t get past the title of that second post before I burst out laughing.

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Yeah, that post makes Trump seem like a model of lucidity and disciplined argument.

        • DW

          And the comments! So many delicious comments!

    • Bruce B.

      Not much class in this war, gotta say. Needs a dance number or something.

  • Pingback: Campus Question – June 24, 2016 | BPI Campus()

  • @ianpaisleymp:

    My advice is if you are entitled to second passport then take one. I sign off lots of applications for constituents

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • MilitantlyAardvark

    Here’s what Sarah Palin had to say about the referendum in a post to Facebook:

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

    The UK knew – it was that time. And now is that time in the USA.

    The Brexit referendum is akin to our own Declaration of Independence. May that refreshed spirit of sovereignty spread over the pond to America’s shores!

    Congratulations, smart Brits. Good on you for ignoring all the fear mongering from special interest globalists who tend to aim for that apocalyptic One World Government that dissolves a nation’s self-determination and sovereignty… the EU being a One World Government mini-me.

    America can learn an encouraging lesson from this. It is time to dissolve political bands that connect us to agendas not in our best interest. May UN shackles be next on the chopping block.

    If ever you needed confirmation that Brexit was an act of monumental, crass stupidity…..

  • Pingback: Brexit: Who Voted How? Evidence from Ashcroft - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

It is main inner container footer text