Home / General / Trump Could Easily Win

Trump Could Easily Win

Comments
/
/
/
811 Views

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

Yes, I know that the fundamentals are against Trump, like they are against any Republican candidate. But if there’s one thing we should take from the Republican National Convention, it’s that the racist disaster of it did not hurt him at all. The rapidly changing 538 forecast is scary, not because Trump is receiving a major post-convention bump right now, which is expected, but because there is literally nothing he could do that would convince most Republican voters not to vote for him. All the racism, all the complaining among the Republican elite about him, it all means nothing. The New Yorker story about the guy who actually wrote The Art of the Deal exposing what a complete psychopath that Trump is, it means nothing. Trump joking about having sex with his daughter and his history of womanizing, it means nothing to voters who talk about morals and sin.

In the end, I don’t see how this election looks much different than 2012, in that while it is likely that the Democrats will win, it’s far from guaranteed. It’s probably going to rely on the same close states that it usually does. Even an extremist racist unstable candidate like Donald Trump is going to win 45 percent of the vote. It’s going to be a fight to finish, perhaps not only for this election but for the future of the republic given Trump’s complete disdain for democratic norms. All hands on deck.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Thom

    And we all need to remember this the next time we complain about some other country electing, or nearly electing, a nightmare candidate. It can happen here.

    • PhoenixRising

      Yup. John McCain suggested that we have nothing to worry about, because we’re not Romania, when asked a few months ago whether he was concerned about Trump. I drank my dinner that night and will do so again in the coming months.

    • I really do find it disconcerting that a quite large percentage of the electorate find Trump’s version of facism preferable to democracy. But then they consider themselves to be diehard patriots, too. How about that for holding two opposing ideas in the head at one time!

      • so-in-so

        Not when your realize they see their nation as ‘white’ rather than U.S., in their minds they ARE being patriots.

        Yes, the GOP narrative for the last 8 years about “taking are country back” leads directly here.

        • Yes. The wave that Trump is riding is one based on legitimized hate.

      • piratedan

        well you can thank our MSM for that…. it seems as though the 30 year vendetta that the NYT has been waging against the Clintons has done enough damage. Why? Because people think that she’s untrustworthy and lies… why do they think that? Because we’ve been treated to years of Benghazi and e-mail gate where nothing has been proven but the old “where there’s smoke there’s fire” saw gets trotted out. There’s still women who blame her for Bill’s catting around and then even more who were upset for her letting the old dog back into the house. Politifact findings be damned, these people just “know” that she’s a liar.

        Because these asshats in the GOP keep blaming her for shit (the overwhelmingly vast majority of it projection of their very own failings) that are faithfully repeated by our media, rarely pushed back upon or taken into context that has allowed this to happen.

        and then people why she’s cautious around the media….

        • Dilan Esper

          I think the public’s susceptibility to caudillos long predates any notion of a mass media.

          • CP

            True. In our country at least, we owe a huge debt to George Washington for slipping into the role where the “caudillo” archetype usually goes (“Heroic Victorious General President”) and then neutralizing it by very specifically setting precedents that went against that archetype. (When, if he’d wanted to, he could totally have been the American version of Napoleon or Santa Anna).

            For the most part, that’s worked out pretty well so far – even Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt never undid it. Who knows what the future holds.

        • LiveFreeOrShop

          And with the MSM controlled by fewer and fewer people or entities–all conservative–it has a much greater reach. Before ownership regs where changed, two competing outlets in the same region had to produce credible reporting to survive–even if both were owned by conservatives. No more. They can say whatever they what without challenge.

          I’ve slowly come to the conclusion that the dysfunction we now experience can largely be placed on the shoulders of the MSM. Oddly, it was highly placed journalists that warned me about it, quite some time ago. I just didn’t want to believe them.

        • Origami Isopod

          There’s still women who blame her for Bill’s catting around and then even more who were upset for her letting the old dog back into the house.

          Since when was this limited to women?

      • UserGoogol

        The United States was founded on freedom and equality, and also racism and oppression. There’s lots of different ways of patriotic, some of them quite horrible.

      • advocatethis

        And in the ultimate irony, those who support Trump because they want a strong leader who will decisively make decisions without interference from the electorate or their representatives are implicitly rejecting republicanism.

      • CP

        I really do find it disconcerting that a quite large percentage of the electorate find Trump’s version of facism preferable to democracy.

        The plain fact is that for a huge number of “white” people, democracy or what goes by that name in America was acceptable only in the respect that it remains dominated by white Christians. Even after the civil rights movement’s victories in the sixties, that was still the case in the basic sense that, “one man one vote” or not, the majority of Americans were still white Christians, most of them with lots of racial hangups (hence Nixon’s “silent majority”). Obama’s election is perceived as ushering in an age when even that last shred of control is slipping away from the bigots. And so more and more of them are embracing fascism openly.

        ETA: again, this did not begin with Trump. Dave Neiwert’s been tracking the fascistic tendencies of the teabaggers for years now.

      • JohnPDarling

        “How about that for holding two opposing ideas in the head at one time!”

        As F. Scott Fitzgerald (?) told us, that’s the sign of a truly first rate mind.

    • J Alfred Press

      The US has already elected Nixon (twice). I didn’t live through the Nixon years and, given the effort that’s been put into rehabbing his image, it is always tempting for me to say “Well, I guess the really sinister stuff didn’t come out until much later.” But then reading anything at all written during his unnaturally long political life it’s clear that a whole lot of people had his essence clocked from the jump and were well aware of the slow motion nightmare they were living through.

      The US not only elected Reagan but decades later Very Serious People on both sides of the aisle pay lip service to his leadership skills.
      Within recent memory, we have elected GWB twice–first as a tragedy and then as a farce. The first election is still too bitter for me to think about without getting queasy because of how much bullshit had to coalesce to put that grinning psychopath in the WH. The second election maybe felt even worse because everyone knew exactly what he was and what he was doing and there was still no way to stop it.

      Trump in many ways is the worst and maybe the most dangerous, but he’s certainly not the first nightmare.

  • The whole Clinton campaign has been a serious misreading of the anti-establishment anger that many people are feeling right now. On the Trumper side this resonates with racism and tribalism, but on the left it resonates with anti-globalization and inequality. This is not an election where centrism and incrementalism are selling points.

    But, hey, unity and all that.

    • D.N. Nation

      Who you voting for?

      • You taking a poll? Clinton, of course.

    • cleek

      But, hey, unity and all that.

      you’ll be so happy when Trump wins, won’t ya?

      • PhoenixRising

        It is deeply unsettling that there are any remaining Bernie supporters who think that criticisms of the Clinton campaign–which has certainly moved toward their stated policy preferences since January–is a relevant response to the crisis we face.

        • MPAVictoria

          “think that criticisms of the Clinton campaign”

          Maybe people are criticizing the Clinton campaign because once again it is a poorly run mess? I am praying to God that Hillary will win but she needs to start listening to people outside of her bubble before it is too late.

          • DrDick

            Indeed.

            • PhoenixRising

              Point proven, in 5 minutes.

              • los

                yes, MPAVictoria’s point proven…

          • The problem is that Clinton is nearly as polarizing to the right as Trump is to the left. The mistake that Clinton makes is thinking that these people can be reasoned with. They cannot. What she needs to do is keep making her case to the left instead of trying to woo the one or two so-called principled Republicans that she seems to think still exist.

            • Dilan Esper

              Like Butch van Bredda Kollf in the 1969 Finals, Hillary would probably prefer to win with Wilt on the bench. She doesn’t want to have to move even farther left to get Sanders supporters to vote for her.

              • Yes, and one reason that this may wind up being a much scarier and closer election than it has to be.

              • Ahenobarbus

                Will moving further left win over Sanders supporters? I doubt it. I don’t think their dislike of her has much to do with whatever positions she takes now.

                • Dilan Esper

                  That’s overly reductionist. Like every candidate, Sanders has different supporters with different motivations. Some are just the people that a lot of LGM commenters are sick of me talking about- the leftist dissenters from the American system. These people have little in common with liberals and are unlikely to vote for HRC no matter what she does.

                  Others are just generally loyal to the party voters who are farther left or had problems with some aspects of HRC’s candidacy- the warmongering, her proximity to wealthy interests, etc.- and those people are already voting for Hillary.

                  But I am sure there is a nonzero number of voters who voted for Sanders, don’t really like Hillary because they don’t see her as far enough left, and want to see her move to the left. And with respect to those voters, HRC has two choices. She can decide to court those voters or decide that she doesn’t need them.

                  And if she decides she doesn’t need them and wins, she has a much freer hand to govern from the center (which she probably wants to do). The problem is, that calculation can turn out to be wrong. As I’ve pointed out, Gore did very little to make the sale to Nader voters in 2000.

                  As an aside, there’s a fair amount of resentment that I’ve seen from a lot of Hillary’s fans. “Why should she have to move to the left? Bernie lost!” And that fundamentally ignores the situation. She doesn’t HAVE to move to the left. But not attempting to be attractive to Sanders voters is a BIG gamble. Whether Hillary supporters like or have respect for Sanders voters is not the point. They hold some power, and HRC has to decide whether she needs them in her coalition. That’s the calculation.

                  So far, it’s been one step forward, one step back. She did reverse herself on TPP, and she did come out for free college for the middle class. On the other hand, she picked Kaine with his pro-free trade and pro-banker record, and she hasn’t been vocal about getting rid of DWS and in fact has appointed her to an honorary post in her campaign. She’s treating Sanders voters as people who just need to be thrown a bone rather than as full coalition partners. This may backfire.

                • Pat

                  Dilan, Clinton moved to the left on 80% of Sanders’ issues. On many of the rest, like gun control, she was already to the left.

                  I sincerely doubt that for supposed leftists “who want her to move further left,” there is literally nothing she can do to convince them.

                  I believe this because a lot of commenters on this blog always tell me that they cannot trust her to do what she literally promises to do…

                  It’s a fool’s errand to try to please people who will never be pleased by you. Those who continually distrust Clinton are using their feelings, not their brains.

                • That’s overly reductionist. Like every candidate, Sanders has different supporters with different motivations. Some are just the people that a lot of LGM commenters are sick of me talking about- the leftist dissenters from the American system. These people have little in common with liberals and are unlikely to vote for HRC no matter what she does.

                  Technically, what many of us, including me, object to is your ahistorical and unevidenced ramblings about a liberal vs. leftist divide that we supposedly don’t acknowledge or understand that explains…something…about our analysis of e.g., third party voting.

                  This discussion of yours has evolved over the years, but never to actual complete coherence or substantiation.

                  But I am sure there is a nonzero number of voters who voted for Sanders, don’t really like Hillary because they don’t see her as far enough left, and want to see her move to the left. And with respect to those voters, HRC has two choices. She can decide to court those voters or decide that she doesn’t need them.

                  At the moment, 85% of Sanders voters intend to vote for Hillary. (Which, IIRC, is more than Hillary supporters who would support Obama in 2008.) Furthermore:

                  Another 9% said they intended to vote for Donald Trump (a trend the Guardian noticed among its readers) and 6% said they either aren’t sure who they will vote for or will choose another candidate in November.

                  The 9% surely aren’t meaningfully on the left.

                  She doesn’t HAVE to move to the left. But not attempting to be attractive to Sanders voters is a BIG gamble.

                  Yes, all the ways in which she didn’t try to be attractive to Sanders voters like platform concessions, getting rid of DWS, and, I don’t know, enlisting Sanders as a major surrogate surely do loom large.

                  As I’ve pointed out, Gore did very little to make the sale to Nader voters in 2000.

                  This is obviously false.

                  She’s treating Sanders voters as people who just need to be thrown a bone rather than as full coalition partners.

                  This is really obviously false. A very small number of people are acting as if being a minority in a coalition means that they should win on everything, in every way, and even then, that’s no good. This is a tiny set.

                  However, managing a coalition means balancing interests across the coalition. She clearly has treated Sanders and the broad swath of his supporters as serious, full members of the coalition. But even folks like DWS has a base of power in the coalition. (About half of the attendees at booed evens were DWS supporters and often strong ones, so the reporting says.)

                  So, your opening sentence is true of your comment, “That’s overly reductionist.”. Well, and flat out wrong a lot of the time. It’s back to the general point that one’s fantasy analysis isn’t actually analysis, it’s just fantasy.

            • PhoenixRising

              What is she not doing to appeal to the left? Aside from failing to resign from the ticket? A literal howling mob is screaming for Tim Kaine’s head as we type. Tim Kaine is a younger, better-disciplined Joe Biden.

              Those hippies are going to have to get punched, in public, to reassure my Boomer white Catholic relatives (who live in Ohio and will vote) that HRC is a serious person who can save their grandchildren from the very real challenges we face as a nation–which have to do with income inequality. They are going to vote for someone who makes them feel safe. If she can’t even shut those idiots up…

              This really is not a time for shrugging.

              • Well, except that the hippies that the Dems take such great glee in punching tend to be right more often than wrong.

                • MPAVictoria

                  Exactly. Things like appointing DWS as her honorary campaign chair??? Right after she had to resign for incompetence from the DNC? Whose brilliant idea was that and why do they still have a job?

                • Brien Jackson

                  Yes, this is clearly important and will cost Hillary untold numbers of votes amongst all of the casual voters outside of Florida who care very deeply about Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You are totally not a self-absorbed crackpot.

                • advocatethis

                  And, 99% of the time those hippies are going to vote for the Democratic candidate, whereas your boomer white Catholic relatives won’t, regardless of how much anybody tries to appease them.

                • PhoenixRising

                  No. This is important so I’m going to repeat it: White, Catholic registered Democrats in swing states like Ohio and Virginia are legitimately scared. They are willing to be reassured that their fears of an elite-dominated future, in which their grandchildren have poor opportunities, can be addressed by a policy-oriented technocrat.

                  But their votes cannot be taken for granted on the basis that the guy offering a white nationalist solution to their very real concerns is a fascist. Taking the tantrum to prime time scares them. It makes the alternative to Trump look like what he says it is: weakness and chaos.

                  Feeding that narrative is dangerous. It is literally how the Weimar Republic ended.

                  *Bolded because it demonstrates the failure of Bernie’s supporters to take yes for an answer. You are correct that these problems are real and the Clinton campaign must be perceived to address them, but this is all about perception.

                • los

                  C.V. Danes says: hippies that the Dems take such great glee in punching tend to be right more often than wrong.
                  and are the noisiest amongst the non-right about laws rigged to promote systemic income inequality.

                  Requoting you from above:
                  [Clinton] needs to do is keep making her case to the left [and center, etc] instead of trying to woo the one or two so-called principled Republicans

                  Sanders should be encoluraged to continue wooing the income inequality, anti-rigged economy voters.

                • los

                  It is literally how the Weimar Republic ended.
                  In Weimar, it was the Trumpshirts (not the BernieBros and/or BLM) who were running amok in street battles…

            • los

              a.) C.V. Danes says: mistake that Clinton makes is thinking that these people can be reasoned with. They cannot.
              I think Clinton and campaign knows that the (((TrumpCucks))) aren’t playing with even half ‘a deck’.

              b.) (((Trump’s))) rude RWNJ radio sloganeering, whether deliberately or not, appeals to the (((TrumpCucks))).
              However, (((Trump))) can be Trumpbacked with FUD at similar rude, crude level.

              c.) Some of (((Trump’s))) actual policy positions – PutinPandering, etc. – are very ‘unpatriotic’. So, these cuckservatively incorrect policy positions must be highlighted as anti-cuckservative, in (((Trump’s))) rude sloganeering manner.

              d.) [Clinton] needs to do is keep making her case to the left [and center, etc] instead of trying to woo the one or two so-called principled Republicans
              Yes, (((Trump))) has already burned ‘principled conservatives’. Clinton and official Democratic Party cannot be the folks that hit back at (((Trump))) in the Trumpian manner.
              Samantha Bee and some others are halfway there, but rude smartmouths such as Keith Olbermann(?)[1] or Bill Maher are approximately who is needed to TrumpStomp (((Trump))).

              __________
              1. Olbermann was said to be rude. I recently saw an Olbermann tweet. It didn’t seem very effective, but I can’t compare to Olbermann’s past because I saw almost no Olbermann when he was on TV.

          • Brien Jackson

            This is like the leftier-than-thou version of “ya know what will fix that? Tax cuts!”

      • If Trump wins because a few Bernie Bros or whatever fail to fall in line, then the republic is already doomed. We just haven’t come to terms with it yet.

        • PhoenixRising

          If Trump wins, one factor will be the shrug: Both parties are awful, Democrats have no discipline, they can’t even control their own people so how can we trust them to run the country?

          That narrative is damaging and dangerous. It will exact a price with voters who we need to defeat Trump. Shrugging off the chaos sown by an attention-seeking mob as a failure to ‘fall in line’ is…not reassuring.

          • Except that the Democratic Party is a big, messy tent. That’s what distinguishes us from the Republicans. That’s what makes us better than the Republicans. The people who don’t realize that would never have voted for Clinton, anyway.

            Democracy is a big, messy way to run a government, but its better than all the alternatives. Allowing for dissent does not equate to a lack of discipline. Its what makes us stronger as a party, and as a country.

            • ColBatGuano

              Allowing for dissent does not equate to a lack of discipline.

              You don’t see much of the major media do you?

          • cleek

            +100

            • NickFlynn

              +100 too, but damn if it doesn’t make weeks like this hard on the heart.

          • Bill Murray

            Shrugging off the chaos sown by an attention-seeking mob as a failure to ‘fall in line’ is…not reassuring.

            and continually shrieking “fall in line you jerks” is reassuring?

        • so-in-so

          A few ‘Bros with the megaphone of a Clinton-hating MSM is really different than a bunch of sorry dudes whining on the internet.

          • brewmn

            And Christ, I’ve had NPR on all day. The Bernie Bros and the DWS kefluffle have had more airspace today than all of the Trump critics combined over the past fifteen months.

            • BigHank53

              Nice Polite Republicans!

    • Phil Perspective

      The whole Clinton campaign has been a serious misreading of the anti-establishment anger that many people are feeling right now.

      And Bloomberg was given a prime-time speaking slot at the convention!! Talk about misreading on a number of different levels!

      • The people do like them some Bloomberg, I’ll give him that :-)

      • PohranicniStraze

        So was having Zell Miller speak at the 2004 RNC a mistake? Having prominent members (even members in name only) from the other party support your nominee is normally considered quite a prize.

        • wengler

          Considering Zell Miller was a crazy person, yes I do think it was a mistake.

          • Karen24

            The Republicans won that election.

            • wengler

              Do you think Zell Miller was a big/small/any part of that?

        • Phil Perspective

          What “Democrat” did the GOP let speak this year? And it doesn’t help when you have a racist billionaire, which is what Bloomberg is, speak when people think the rich have too much power as it is.

      • wengler

        You got to be fucking kidding me. The king of the Plutocracy will surely inspire the down and out to vote for Hillary!

        • PhoenixRising

          Do you sincerely believe that the down and out are going to be permitted to vote by the swing states in which Republicans control voter registration?

          I want some of what you’re having.

          • so-in-so

            Wengler forgot to use his sarcastic font, I think.

            Then again, Texas voter suppression was a bridge too far for even the 5th Cir, so maybe it won’t work so well.

            Plus, I hope the Democrats are working on GOTV in those states.

            • Phil Perspective

              Plus, I hope the Democrats are working on GOTV in those states.

              They seemed more concerned with being bigots. The DNC, that is. If you read any of the emails.

    • NewishLawyer

      But how much of this is based on inchoate rage and not understanding the facts and limits of Presidential and political power?

      I was initially into Bernie but in the end went for HRC. A lot of Bernie supporters struck me as having a very limited knowledge on the powers of the Presidency. All you heard from them was Bernie was so great and wonderful and was going to create a complete and total utopia. I don’t think they quite got that Bernie could not do much if he only had one half of Congress or less.

      HRC for better or for worse understands what it is like to work with an oppositional Congress and the limits of what she can say on the campaign trial as promises.

      The WikiLeaks stuff is not bad but people who buy into it seem to have a conspiracy minded psychology and see shadowy cabals everywhere. So everything becomes a sign that the elites are out to destroy ordinary joes.

      • Why do you have to give up being in the Bernie camp to pull the lever for Hillary? The two are not mutually exclusive.

        • NewishLawyer

          I also decided that he was offering what he could not deliver. I liked that he pulled HRC to the left.

          I also voted for Scott Weiner because his medium essay was true even if painful.

          • Phil Perspective

            I also decided that he was offering what he could not deliver.

            And Hillary can? Care to explain how?

      • PhoenixRising

        It’s worse that that: Elites are indifferent to the fates of ordinary Joes, so they look for an explanation that puts them at the center–even if it means supporting Trump. Or Sanders.

        It’s just too hard to manage the reality that elites run the world and no purist outsider is going to fix that with simple solutions.

        • NewishLawyer

          I once knew a woman who thought that religion was created by evil elites to control the masses.

          I am a pretty secular guy but that kind of struck me as backwards and paranoid. Was she basically saying the masses were dumb enough to be fooled by the elites? Why can’t the masses have found religion on their own volition?

          • The masses did find religion on their own volition. The elites merely discovered how to channel it to their own ends.

          • so-in-so

            That is pretty much out of Marx, for what is worth.

            • (((Malaclypse)))

              Not really. This is the relevant quote, with surrounding context: Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

              The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

              In Marx’ era, opium was an anesthesia, not a recreational drug.

      • wengler

        See this argument that your making…the one right there where you claim Hillary is going to work with a Republican Congress to achieve her goals…that makes me wonder what universe you are in.

        There is possibly one person hated more than Barack Obama by Republicans and that is Hillary Clinton. The idea that any Republican, especially in a climate where their middle has collapsed, the inmates are clearly running the asylum now, is going to want to work with Hillary is just fucking insane.

        • Which is why it is imperative that we flip the Senate.

          • wengler

            Controlling the Senate means 60 votes with no asshole Democrats leveraging their assholery.

            • los

              Controlling the Senate
              IMO until then,
              57 Ds[1] are better than 56
              58 Ds are better than 57
              59 Ds are better than 58
              and so on.

              and returning to the root issue of this subthread,
              Greater Expectations strategy Sanders would be better than Lowered Expectations strategy Clinton.
              Why:
              Reagan was part of the oligarchs’ Greater Evil strategy, and by 2000, the oligarchs were perpetrating the More Evil Than Reagan of Cheney upon the USA.

              _________
              1. Democrats and Caucuses-with-Democrats, etc.

      • CP

        Yeah, I think your trajectory and mine were basically the same in the primary.

      • Shalimar

        Funny how all the people who thought Bernie was going to single-handedly create a utopia now can’t even listen to him speak without booing. If they won’t follow him through anything, why did they think anyone else would?

        • Bill Murray

          funny how people don’t quite understand what the word all means

    • Brien Jackson

      Trumps voters aren’t “anti-establishment.” They’re just white nationalists.

      • los

        same tools as falwell’s fools, limbaugh’s dittodolts, etc.

    • bender

      I don’t think it’s a serious misreading so much as that a leopard can’t change its spots.

    • CP

      The whole Clinton campaign has been a serious misreading of the anti-establishment anger that many people are feeling right now.

      Hopefully, the campaign knows better.

      I try very hard to separate “what groupies say on the Internet or elsewhere” from “what the campaign is actually up to” (and I did for the Sanders campaign too). … so, when I got off the phone with Dad today having heard him predict the largest landslide in U.S. history for Hillary Clinton, and came home to read another email from him praising her precisely for being “centrist” and “establishment,” my reaction was mostly “good Christ, I hope nobody from the Clinton campaign is drinking this kool aid.”

  • West

    I agree, Trump’s baseline is 45% even if he first rapes and then murders his daughter in front of live TV cameras and then brags about how he’s made a profit on the deal. Part of the country is that sick. And the media is in full horse-race both-sides equivocating profit-making disgrace mode, so they will do anything to hurt Clinton enough to keep it close. So her base is less solid than we Democrats would hope for. Throw in the Bernie bro factor and we start off closer to the edge than most of us really want to acknowledge. Some crisis that feeds into the red meat type of response…..

    • If Trump were to win, no small amount of blame rests on the media, which has legitimized hate in search of the almighty click count.

      • MPAVictoria

        yep

      • witlesschum

        Les Moonves’ quote about Trump being wonderful for CBS but terrible for the country was the sort of thing that is obvious, but you don’t hear said out loud that much.

      • los

        no small amount of blame rests on the media, which has legitimized hate in search of the almighty click count.

        and Trump is (part of) the MSM

    • rjayp

      45% is only “part” of the country? some part. some country.

      • West

        My point exactly. Perhaps I was underselling it.

        Actually, I should amend to 45% of the eligible voters who actually vote, which is down closer to 25% of the general adult population. Which is still deeply depressing, and then leads to the question of how anyone can really sit this one out and still expect to be given one shred of respect as a fellow citizen.

        • Brad Nailer

          Let’s just call it 60 million people, which is the number who voted for Romney in 2012. Trump will probably get at least 40 million. That’s 40 million of our fellow citizens who either don’t know or don’t care that Trump is any of the things that we know him to be that would disqualify any normal candidate (shady businessman, quasi-fascist, adulterer and womanizer, etc.). Reminds me of the arguments I had with my father back in the Vietnam days: “Jesus, Dad, can’t you see?

          Nixon man all the way.

          • los

            Nixon man all the way.

            after watergate?

    • Jean-Michel

      The contrast between the obsessive focus on Wasserman Schultz/the DNC emails and the low-key coverage of Trump’s threat to withdraw from the WTO has been instructive. (It’s arguably more of a pledge than a threat, since he can’t do what he’s promising to do within the organization—WTO withdrawal has been implicit in many of his economic proposals, but AFAIK he hasn’t explicitly mentioned it until now.) Regardless of what one thinks of the WTO, U.S. withdrawal would be a shock to the global order that would make Brexit look like Greenland’s withdrawal from the EEC. That fact should be spotlighted, with detailed analysis of what exactly it would mean for the U.S. and the world. Based on a Google search, the NYT and WaPo have not mentioned it at all. The horse race is paramount.

    • I agree, Trump’s baseline is 45% even if he first rapes and then murders his daughter in front of live TV cameras and then brags about how he’s made a profit on the deal.

      Does it goes up, or down, from 45% if the murder precedes the rape?

      • Shalimar

        Trump tells it like it is. He lives a life most people can’t even dream of. Raping a corpse is something ordinary people wouldn’t have the balls to do. That has to increase his vote.

        • Raping a corpse is something ordinary people wouldn’t have the balls to do.

          Indeed, it’s positively Corinthian! Per Herodotus:

          [The shade of] Melissa [wife of Periander, Tyrant of Corinth] appeared and said she would not tell in what place the deposit was laid, for she was cold and had no clothes, since those which he had buried with her were of no use to her, not having been burnt; and this, she said, would be an evidence to him that she was speaking the truth, namely that when the oven was cold, Periander had put his loaves into it. When the report of this was brought back to Periander, the token made him believe, because he had had commerce with Melissa after she was dead[…].

      • los

        if the murder precedes the rape
        doubles to 90% if also perpetrated on 5th ave, followed by video on Reality TV.

        Just Asking Questions classic
        Glenn Beck Not Allowed To Rape And Murder An Internet Meme

        Actually, there’s no proof that he raped & murdered that girl. It’s just as likely that he murdered & THEN raped her.

        How long before we find out that Sarah Palin is implicated in the alleged 1990 rape and murder of a young girl by Glenn Beck?

        Oh my GOD! Glenn Beck raped and murdered his girlfriend in 1990 and hasn’t denied it?

        I think Roger Ailes is protecing that raping murdering bastard

        For real. What is he hiding? You know… If it weren’t such a big deal, you think he would just go on tv and clear the air. Just show us all the long forms, seriously, is it that hard, cchris_39? you could just lay it all to rest, with the official, undoctored, signed, long-form investigation certificates.

        Guys, this is getting kind of scary. I just did another Lexis-Nexis search, and there is not one record of the statement “Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a girl today” in all of the records for 1990. It is possible, then, that he raped and killed as many as 365 1/4 girls in 1990. We’re through the looking glass here folks.

        Some say Glenn Beck has spent possibly THREE BILLION DOLLARS to cover up the fact that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Why won’t Glenn Beck release her death certificate?

        wouldn’t it be the prudent thing for him to simply release his legal records proving that he didn’t rape and murder a girl in 1990. It is very interesting that he has not taken this simple step. Instead he hides it behind an army of lawyers. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE, GLENN?

        Notice: This site is parody/satire. We assume Glenn Beck did not rape and murder a young girl in 1990, although we haven’t yet seen proof that he didn’t. But we think Glenn Beck definitely uses tactics like this to spread lies and misinformation.

    • RPorrofatto

      I agree with your agreement. The Overton window for Republicans is off the right-wing cliff, but it’s been so for years. It’s only a few degrees of hateful hallucination from Purple Heart band-aids to “lock her up!” It’s talk-radio politics, which is all they know now. Besides, Republicans, even the transitioning neverTrumps, aren’t much interested into supporting policies or candidates as they are in the throes of hate against Hillary Clinton and libruls. So, as Trump said, he could “could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody” and he wouldn’t lose a single voter.
      But those people aren’t going to vote for Clinton never, ever.

      What’s worrisome are all the things that can depress turnout for Clinton — media bias, infantile Bernie supporters, voter supression, DNC incompetence, and general ratfucking can perform all kinds of black magic. I’m an old fart who lived through two elections of Reagan and W, so I’m prepared to wake up on a Wednesday in November just as stunned as Brexit opponents were a few weeks ago. But I won’t be asking myself “what the fuck just happened?”

  • Linnaeus

    While I don’t want to downplay the stakes of this election and the necessity of ensuring that Trump gets nowhere near the White House, summer polling around convention time can be pretty volatile.

    • bender

      I believe the polls are going to be unreliable down to Election Day, because many people who intend to vote for Trump aren’t telling the pollsters.

      The Trump voters who aren’t vocal about it don’t fall into a couple of identifiable demographics or by where they live. They aren’t united by class, religion, age cohort or racial attitudes. What they have in common is dissatisfaction and a desire for a new deal lower case. There isn’t one simple strategy to appeal to them and persuade them to change their vote. This is not a normal election where voters’ behavior is predictable. It’s worse than it looks.

      • Matt McIrvin

        What about all that would make them not tell pollsters?

        I heard the same thing about Obama in 2008: the Bradley Effect was going to get him.

        I suspect that a lot of Hillary Clinton supporters, women particularly, are being very quiet about it for fear of harassment or physical danger. Even in the liberal parts of social media, there’s a hesitation to openly advocate Clinton in part because the Sanders diehards will dogpile on you with crooked-Hillary comments (which is part of what fuels the resentment in places like this).

        Whether that extends to lying to pollsters, I have no idea. But I’m not at all sure that Trump is the one whose poll numbers are being suppressed by “social desirability bias”.

        • Brien Jackson

          This is one big wildcard with polling: I really do wonder how many white, Republican leaning women are going to end up voting for Hillary once it comes down to the actual secret ballot, and then go back to swearing they supported Trump.

          • West

            I, too, suspect this is a significant factor this year. This gives me hope that my more general worries are overblown. Might also be a factor with Republican-leaning men. Though they won’t necessarily feel physically at risk, the social pressures on white conservative men above a certain age is quite intense. I think there’s a not insignificant number of Republican men who have managed to shuck off the worst of their own racism / xenophobia / misogyny / etc but have not yet shucked off the social milieu that both generates and sustains the racism etc. If they ever fess up to not voting R, they become instant pariahs, and they haven’t advanced to being ready for that yet. I know a few people whom I suspect of being in this position: so few that I am deep in anecdata land. but maybe there’s more than I want to admit? Certainly I think there’s way more Republican-leaning women in this scenario, that’s got to be the case.

          • Rob in CT

            My predictions:

            Vote HRC: very, very few. Like a couple of thousand, maybe?
            Leave POTUS blank or vote Libertarian: more, though not a lot.
            Stay home: a few, but not enough to matter unless the race is really, really close. This is the one we actually want (b/c it costs the GOP downticket), and I doubt we’ll get much of it.

          • PohranicniStraze

            “and then go back to swearing they supported Trump.”

            I think a less embarrassing Republican crossover voter cover story would be something along the lines of “I was totally going to write-in Kasich, but I was so strung out on a week-long meth, gigolo, and crush-porn binge that I missed the voting date.” At least then they will be able to maintain some dignity.

          • Matt McIrvin

            Also, how many white, Democratic-leaning women and men are going to vote for Hillary and then go back to swearing they voted for Jill Stein?

            • witlesschum

              Honestly, we should all do this just to fuck with Stein.

        • I think you are onto something here– HRC supporters were far less vocal about it during the primaries than were the Bernie voters, at least around here. I suspect that many of them don’t care to subject themselves to the sort of vituperation they would likely receive.

        • los

          Whether that extends to lying to pollsters

          THEY are going to track me down through this phone call!!!
          I wrapped foil on the phone to stop the reptilians frum heering me11!!

          If yu dont vot for Donnal Trump I wil be mad that america is not gret
          Ernest T. Blogger

      • JMV Pyro

        And what do we do about it.

        So far when I hear about this hidden Trump voter stuff, it’s just this endless stuff about a silent majority of people who no one can track or find. What evidence is there for this and how do we deal with this if it’s the case, that’s what I care about. Otherwise it’s just bed wetting.

        • lunaticllama

          The purported hidden Trump voters didn’t up in the Republican primary. The polls tagged Trump’s support pretty well in the primary; I don’t know why it will be different in the general.

          • JMV Pyro

            It’s that idea that there are a bunch of unengaged white voters sitting around waiting for the right populist with the white right message to engage them.

            Like you said, the evidence doesn’t support the claim. Trump’s voters were consistent Republicans who weren’t engaged in the primaries until this year. Are these more of them hiding somewhere? Where are they? It would be nice to know.

            • los

              Are these more of them hiding somewhere? Where are they?

              all of the peepel that voted obama in 2004 lerned there lessins11!!
              never again1!!1

              You liberels will cry when Donnole Trump makes america is great
              Ernest T. Blogger

        • bender

          I agree that there are some hidden Hillary backers too and they might turn the tide.

          There are a lot of people who don’t talk politics on the Internet. There are a lot of people who don’t respond to polls. Polls operate on the expectation that those people either aren’t going to vote, or that they will vote about the same way as the people who do answer pollsters. I think the normal expectation may not be true anymore for two reasons, one being that the mood of the country is unusual and the other is technical: land line phone polls are about as representative of the electorate as the Readers Digest poll that predicted a victory for Dewey.

          I think it’s a reverse Bradley effect and it is going to amount to something. Trump is continually vilified as a demagogue, narcissist, conman and racist. If somebody, particularly somebody who is not a white male and who sometimes votes for Democrats, is voting Trump because they are upset with the status quo, or they hope he actually will do something about trade and offshoring, or because they want to reduce US military interventions overseas, why would they want to be labeled as a racist?

          As to how you deal with it, the concerns of Trump supports who are supporting him for reasons other than racism or being part of the GOP base are known. They have been stated often enough by political observers and by those people themselves. The way one would deal with it would be to address some of their concerns convincingly and loudly.

          • JMV Pyro

            OK, but:

            What evidence is there that these people exist in enough numbers to swing the election?

            What about polls that aren’t conducted solely through landlines?

            If the Bradley effect didn’t turn out to be true either time a black man was on the ticket for President, why would an inverted version of it be true this time.

            And as for more catering to these people, well, what more can we do? Clinton’s already backed off the TPP and won’t campaign on it, has adopted a number of Bernie’s positions on things like the minimum wage and college, and whatever her hawkishness is, Trump has argued for total war on “terrorist countries”, which doesn’t exactly scream “non-interventionist” to me. What exactly can we do beyond this? Whether we like it or not, Clinton is an establishment candidate and can’t run as some kind of insurgent.

          • Loofah

            no one does all landline polls any more

      • I think there’s also going to be people who tell the pollsters they’re undecided or voting Trump who will chicken out and not vote or vote Clinton. There’s a lot of people out there saying that they don’t agree with what he says but likes that he’ll shake things up, etc., who will think differently when it comes time to actually cast the vote.

    • Thrax

      And figuring out who’s a likely voter is always tricky, especially this far out, and is even trickier than usual this year. (Exactly how many women voters will be inspired to turn out to vote for the first major-party female candidate? How does Trump’s demagoguery affect minority turnout?) Poll results are adjusted to follow the pollster’s view of the likely turnout demographic, and if that view is off, the poll will usually be off too.

  • postmodulator

    Hard to believe it was only about a month ago that people were saying things like “Trump might get disheartened and quit in October” and “maybe the House is flippable” (I said that one) and “Utah is in play” (that last one was HRC herself).

    • bender

      I think the reason Utah was in play still exists, but Utah is a special case.

      • I think Utah is in play, and Nevada. I doubt that we will see much Clinton action in AZ, but Trump is going to have to campaign there, and he is going to have to do it without structural support from either Flake of McCain. I don’t think Ohio tilts Trump, and although I worry about FLA, I always worry about FLA. I’m not being complacent– but I am not freaking out. A lot of what we are seeing is the normalization of Trump by the press/media. That will even out.

        • PhoenixRising

          Not so sure re AZ: Anne Kirkpatrick is running well and may knock Fossilized War Hero McCain out of the Senate. If she looks strong in polls around Labor Day I expect to be knocking on doors in Raul Grijalva’s district through October 30…and I’ll expect to drop lit printed by Hillary for America.

          Why? A lot of AZ voters hate that asshole Joe Arpaio and have never had a ballot on which to express that preference before; within Maricopa County there are many registered Dems who didn’t get to vote in the primary and are furious with Trump too.

          Gabby Giffords’ seat was taken from her former campaign manager, Ron Barber, but it was a tight race. Never say never; I’d be surprised if the Clinton campaign threw much money beyond a handful of organizers but let’s see what Labor Day polls suggest.

        • Matt McIrvin

          Obama won Nevada in both 2008 and 2012. It’s bad that it’s in play.

    • Matt McIrvin

      The House may still be flippable.

      • LosGatosCA

        Not enough drugs in the world to make me believe that.

  • Grumpy

    This is a serious question–what are the most effective ways we can volunteer time and money? I live in Balt / Va / DC area.

    • wjts

      In terms of time, contact your local Clinton campaign office. They’ll probably need phone bankers, canvassers, etc.

    • Bruce Vail

      They’ll want you to do door-to-door in Northern Virginia.

      Democrats don’t bother to do any GOTV in Baltimore unless it is at one of the larger black churches.

      • sharonT

        I know and that’s why Larry Hogan is the governor. One day state dens will figure out that the lack of a gotv strategy that works for municipal politicians doesn’t work for them.

        (Allow me to explain, Baltimore has an overwhelming Democratic primary electorate. You can win reelection on less than 15% turn-out, although that did change this year because contested mayoral primary.)

  • Anon21

    Yes, I know that the fundamentals are against Trump, like they are against any Republican candidate.

    Actually, I think the fundamentals are in Republicans’ favor–or at least you can make a good argument that they are. But Trump is such a weak candidate that he swings it back around to a Democrat-favored election. However, nothing is guaranteed.

    • Funkhauser

      This.

    • wengler

      It’s hard to see how Trump gets even the miniscule amount of non-white voters he needs to triumph. His only real hope is to win white states that almost never go for Republicans. The states that didn’t even like him in the primary like Iowa(91% white) and Wisconsin(86% white). And maybe some of the ones that did like Michigan(79% white) and Pennsylvania(82% white).

      Even in these states he needs minorities to stay home and white people to vote for him in record numbers.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      What “fundamentals” are in Trump’s favor? The economy is doing pretty good, Obama’s popularity has been rising for months, and the U.S. isn’t heavily involved in any major wars.

      • Anon21

        Third term, and various economic indicators, such as wages, that are not doing particularly great.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          “Third term” isn’t a fundamental, it’s a myth. Here are all the “third term” (or fourth in the case of 1992) changes since WW II: 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 2000, 2008. The changes in 1952, 1968, and 2008 involved incumbent parties that were closely tied to unpopular ongoing wars. The changes in 1992 and 2008 involved incumbent parties that were closely tied to serious economic downturns. 1976 is sui generis. That leaves only 1960 and 2000, which were the two closest presidential elections of the 20th Century, and where the Democrats actually won a majority of the popular vote in the second one. That’s basically worthless as a sample size.

          As for economic indicators, everything I’m seeing is pointing in favor of the Democrats.

      • twbb

        What does actual reality have to do with anything? Trump said the country is now riddled with crime, the Democratic response was, well, who knows because the media ignores them and they think the campaign ad is vague and mumbly

        • los

          Trump said the country is now riddled with crime
          and we know why he knows…

  • PJ

    It was always going to be bad. That Trump happens to be a open about his fascism rather than closeted is the only difference.

    The real problem, for me at least, is that even with an open fascist on the ticket the left-leaning types still find time to prevaricate on bullshit talking points like whether Tim Kaine is really pro-life despite a 100% rating from NARAL.

    That’s the thing that makes me despair. We will never get our shit together if this is what our “intellectual”, information-connected, educated types find the time to gripe about.

  • Funkhauser

    Yes, I know that the fundamentals are against Trump, like they are against any Republican candidate.

    Not exactly. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0515-mcmanus-election-forecasts-20160515-column.html :

    Ray Fair of Yale University says that if his election forecasting model is correct, the Republican nominee is likely to win the presidency by a convincing margin. John Sides of George Washington University agrees; the “fundamentals,” he says, give the Republican about a 60% chance of winning. Alan Abramowitz of Emory University gives Republicans a solid shot at the White House too; his model gives the GOP the edge — but in “a very close election.”

    But thanks to Donald Trump, their carefully honed forecasting models may have lost their predictive magic — a possibility the professors themselves acknowledge.

  • Bruce Vail

    2012? Feels more like 1980 to me.

    • DrDick

      Does seem reminiscent of Philadelphia, MS.

      • Bruce Vail

        Trump’s Philadelphia MS moment was his Aug. 2015 rally in Mobile Ala. He locked up the Redneck/Deep South vote all at once. He hasn’t had to spend another moment worrying about the Deep South electoral votes.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      You do realize that the demography of the national electorate is dramatically different than in 1980, right? I seem to recall reading somewhere that Carter would have won in 1980 if he’d gotten the same shares of white/non-white voters but with the 2012 electorate.

      • JMV Pyro

        But things like that might get in the way of the rending of garments and panicking. We can’t have that.

      • Bruce Vail

        It’s a Democratic Party fantasy that demography wins national elections.

        Candidates win elections.

        • Bill Murray

          I would say votes win election. Candidates do so only so far as they get out the vote.

        • MyNameIsZweig

          Got any evidence of this that you’d care to share?

      • John F

        I’m not sure about Carter, but Dukakis would have won with 2012’s racio-ethnic demographics.

        Bush 1 got 60% of the white vote in 1988, Dubya got 55% in 2000 and 58% in 2004, McCain got 55% in 2008 and Romney got 59% in 2012,

        The RCP demographic tool/toy basically shows that the GOP candidate now needs 64% of the white vote (Reagan got 66% in 1984)

      • wjts

        You do realize that the demography of the national electorate is dramatically different than in 1980, right?

        Party identification is much stronger now than it was in 1980, too. I don’t think Trump is going to make much in the way of gains among the ~35-40% of white male voters who have been voting consistently Democratic since Dukakis, much less the 43-48% of white female voters who did the same. Reagan, by contrast, was able to pull in larger percentages of both groups (particularly among women) than Nixon or Ford did.

    • sherm

      Or 1933, Germany.

      • catclub

        47% unemployment. We have 5% and a meh to fair economy.

        Unfortunately, the closest parallel where the economy did not determine the overall winner is 2000.

        • D.N. Nation

          Neither did who actually had the most votes.

      • BigHank53

        Yeah, no. One of the things I inherited from my grandmother’s stamp collection was a letter from the Wiemar Republic with seventeen million Reichmarks of postage glued to the front. It’s one thing to hear about hyperinflation and another to hold proof in your hands.

        • IS

          The hyperinflation ended in early 1924. Please don’t repeat the meme that it had more to do with the fall of the Weimar Republic than the Great Depression did.

        • catclub

          That was 1923. Germany had recovered from that, fairly well.

          Hyperinflation was in the rearview mirror when they went for Hitler.

    • Gregor Sansa

      Or perhaps 1984.

      • Bruce Vail

        Yeah, no shit.

  • Just_Dropping_By

    I find some degree of irony (even if only of the Alanis Morissette kind) in the constant, “ZOMG! Conservatives are voting for Trump!” posts around here given that the LGM posters have spent most of the last year telling the (presumably mostly liberal) LGM commenters that they need to suck it up and vote for Clinton no matter how bad they think she is on the issues because Trump would be worse. It requires a certain blindness to not realize that many conservatives who say they plan to vote for Trump are merely on the opposite side of the same coin — they think Trump will be bad on many of the issues they care about, but they recognize that Clinton would probably be even worse. E.g., a conservative could very reasonably conclude that a Trump administration might not make much of an effort to roll back LGBT rights or gun control laws, but that a Clinton administration would almost certainly work to expand them, such that voting for Trump would be the lesser of evils because it at least prevents the situation from getting “worse” from the conservative’s point of view.

    • rjayp

      lesser evilism, like the best of all possible worlds, is universal.

    • Rob in CT

      Ah, but Trump’s all over the place in terms of his supposed policy positions. He spouts nonsense constantly (granted, that’s not a dealbreaker for Republicans), and is inconsistent as hell. Some of the stuff he’s relatively consistent about (trade, FP as extortion racket) is directly counter to normal GOP positioning.

      HRC at least has discernible issue positions, and they’re those of a moderate liberal.

      So, while I’m not surprised that Republicans are mostly falling in line (tribalism, baby), it’s not unreasonable to expect a few people to actually refuse.

    • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

      Assumes that Hillary is to the standard Democratic candidate what Trump is to the standard Republican candidate. I know of a lot of Republicans (David Brooks and George Will leap immediately to mind, but there are many others) who would disagree with that equation.

    • John F

      It requires a certain blindness to not realize that many conservatives who say they plan to vote for Trump are merely on the opposite side of the same coin — they think Trump will be bad on many of the issues they care about, but they recognize that Clinton would probably be even worse.

      OTOH many neocons are probably gonna vote HRC… but the neocon vote is likely rounding error anyway.

    • Loofah

      They know its dirty but they just really like the way Donald diddles their racist erogenous zones

  • DrDick

    All the racism, all the complaining among the Republican elite about him, it all means nothing.

    They are actually probably assets for the campaign. The former has long been a winner for the GOP.

    • LNM_in_LA

      My friend (and sometime attorney), a solid Republican voter all his life, has confided to me his embarrassment at this ticket; he can’t, he just won’t vote for HRC, but he will be voting for Johnson.

      How many Republicans will be doing likewise?

      • los

        voting libertarian is the outlet.
        and how does voting green hold up as the “mirror” outlet?

  • Todd

    I don’t know. 2012 only had 5 close States (within 5 percentage points). I think Obama won 4 of those, but the point was that he didn’t need to win any of these close States to get to 270. Even if we assume there will be 10 close States in this election, what has changed to ramp up the Republican base more than the Democratic base. Do you think minorities will simply turn out at lower levels due to incompetent Clinton campaigning? This would seem the most likely route for an upset. I don’t really think there are untapped reserves of angry racist whites who just were not turning out in 2008 and 2012.

    • Denverite

      what has changed to ramp up the Republican base more than the Democratic base.

      Going from perhaps the most popular Democratic candidate of all time to a tepid mediocre campaigner with astronomical unfavorables.

      Oh, and the Republicans are running an openly racist campaign targeting working class whites in the Rust Belt and Midwest.

      • Anon21

        Going from perhaps the most popular Democratic candidate of all time to a tepid mediocre campaigner with astronomical unfavorables.

        Oh, and the Republicans are running an openly racist campaign targeting working class whites in the Rust Belt and Midwest.

        You do see how the second factor is favorable for Democratic turnout, right?

        • Denverite

          You do see how the second factor is favorable for Democratic turnout, right?

          Maybe. It’s an empirical question. It’s probably going to get more Republicans AND more Democrats to the polls. Whether it helps or hurts one party or the other is going to depend very much on how many of either.

        • twbb

          Is it openly racist though? It’s openly bigoted and xenophobic, but so far that bigotry has been aimed at nationalities and religions, not “race.” The racism is there, but it’s still covert (just even less covert than it usually is).

      • cleek

        Going from perhaps the most popular Democratic candidate of all time

        who was wildly popular as Secretary Of State.

        why, it’s almost as if her opponents have been able to convince people that she’s terrible: even people on the left who should be able to recognize her as a strong ally.

        • Denverite

          Oh come on she’s not a good campaigner. At all. It shouldn’t be controversial to say that.

          • ColBatGuano

            So, how did she defeat Sanders?

            • DrS

              You have got to be kidding

        • twbb

          why, it’s almost as if her opponents have been able to convince people that she’s terrible: even people on the left who should be able to recognize her as a strong ally.

          Yes, when we say she’s a terrible campaigner, that’s exhibit number 1.

      • Todd

        They’ve been running openly racist campaigns for a while, it’s just that the candidate is openly racist now. Still not sure how that all prevents Trump from getting the lowest percentage of hispanic voters in…. a long time. It still takes a large and coordinated national organization to motivate and turn out your base. Clinton may be an uninspiring public speaker, but she sits atop a sophisticated national campaign organization. Trump does not as of this date. Twitter and free media may have advantages, but if you want to win Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan and Florida and Iowa and Colorado, you need to spend months targeting the key districts, canvassing and launching voting drives, pushing for early voting in the States that allow that. That is just for starters.

    • JMV Pyro

      The common trend I’ve noticed is that people are saying that this is an “anti-establishment year” where “old rules do not apply”, so therefore all predictive models are bunk and we should curl up into a ball and bemoan the state of an unfair world.

      • West

        This is not at all what I have to say and I don’t think it’s the more common theme. Those of us who are worried are saying this year is the culmination of forty or more years of Republican hate-mongering of a low-key variety. Trump brought it ought of the closet, but that doesn’t make it a situation of “old rules do not apply” it’s more like “the long-running Republican playbook will now be screamed out instead of dog-whistled.” And the Republican establishment is much less upset with it than many of them let on.

        And I do not believe predictive models are bunk, I think the predict that no Republican, however vile, can ever fall below 45% of the active voters. And while that does indeed scare the hell out of me, curling up into a ball is the last strategy I’d suggest.

        GOTV. Speaking of which, where could I do the most good, in PA or NC?

        • JMV Pyro

          Good to here. There’s just a lot of fear out there right now and it’s grating on me.

          As for where you’d do the most good, well, that’s up to you. I know I’ll be making some trips down to PA from New York, but with NC Democrats being righteously pissed at the moment we have a pretty good chance to take the state.

    • xq

      Do you think minorities will simply turn out at lower levels due to incompetent Clinton campaigning”?

      I would expect Hispanic turnout to increase, but black turnout to decline due to Obama not running. Hard to know how that shakes out.

      I don’t really think there are untapped reserves of angry racist whites who just were not turning out in 2008 and 2012.

      Lots of angry low-income whites really hate the Republican party. You don’t think any whites in Romney’s 47% might be more attracted to Trump’s (fake) economic populism?

      • Todd

        So they just didn’t show up in 2008 to voter for an angry white war hero running against the first black nominee ever?

        • xq

          After the economy fell apart on Bush’s watch? No.

          Some of them probably even voted for Obama.

        • LosGatosCA

          You must be forgetting this.

          So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”

          Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.”

          In this economy, racism is officially a luxury. How is John McCain going to win if he can’t win those voters? John Murtha’s “racist” western Pennsylvania district, where this story takes place, is some of the roughest turf in the nation. But Barack Obama is on the ground and making inroads due to unusually strong organizing leadership.

      • los

        but black turnout to decline due to Obama not running. Hard to know how that shakes out.
        I expect Obama to do some campaigning, but perhaps not in person at Clinton rallies.

  • catbirdman

    I expect (hope?) that, by this time next week the country will have absorbed the sobering reality of one convention looking and sounding like a normal grouping of hopeful and aspiring Americans vs. the other looking and sounding like Leni Riefenstahl had access to modern camera technology. I still think (hope?) the Dems would have to screw the pooch even more than usual to lose this one.

    • West

      I shall pick a nit: I don’t want to sound like a Leni Riefenstahl fan, but this is pretty deeply unfair to her, and much more importantly is an inaccurate description of the Republican National Convention. If Riefenstahl were alive and in her prime and had been given full artistic control over the R convention, it would have looked radically more professional and more polished and more terrifying. We should all be counting our blessings that whoever DID have artistic control over the convention – Trump, I assume – has less than 0.01% of Riefenstahl’s propagandistic skills. [I am speaking of her skill from a purely technical standpoint, not from a politically admiring standpoint. She was GOOD, frighteningly so.]

      • bender

        If Leni Riefenstahl had had artistic control over the RNC, I would have watched it on TV.

        I am indeed counting my blessings, and wondering who will be artistic director for the 2020 convention of the opposition party to the Democrats.

      • There’s also a bit of a difference between a live broadcast & assembling all your footage into a coherent narrative &/or swell collection of images.

    • Katya

      Slightly OT, but my favorite tweet about the convention: Norm Ornstein: “If Leni Rifenstahl were alive today, Trump would have hired her to film that speech. And then not paid her.”

  • It has been 71 years since the end of World War II. Popular memory doesn’t last much longer than that. Having no lived experience of the horrors of authoritarian politics, it’s not so surprising that various forms of fascism are on the march here and in Europe.

    • Merkwürdigliebe

      I think there is a lot to that. Dire warnings of generations past fade away and people start thinking “Hm, would a dictatorship be really that bad? This current system clearly stinks… So it couldn’t be that much worse, right? We need a radical change to clean up the mess and give the country a spine!”

  • JMV Pyro

    I can appreciate the idea of not getting complicit, but I’m going to break out the Sam Wang here

    ….the median swing is 4 percentage points.

    Four points is not that impressive a change. Recall that in states won by Mitt Romney (R) in 2012, Trump has been lagging by about 9 percentage points. A CBS crosstab (can’t find at the moment – perhaps a reader can help) reports that Trump’s progress was made entirely with Republicans – whose support went up by 2 points. This suggests that with many reluctant Republican voters, Trump did not close the sale. And, of course, it remains to be seen whether his increase in support is lasting. As of today, the election could possibly go to Trump. However, the election is not today.

    Look, I get that people are rightfully petrified by the idea that a racist, authoritarian demagogue is as close to the reigns of power as he is, but for fucks sake people calm down. Polls are the most volatile at this stage of the election, we have no idea what the rest of this week will be like at the convention and what the bounce will be, and that’s not even getting into the fact that Trump has barely any organization in swing states and party officials in Ohio and Florida hate his guts and are refusing to work with him.

    If you’re that scared, channel it into action and get out there and phone bank, canvass, table, whatever. I know many people here already do that/are planning on doing that, but still.

    Sorry about the rant, I’m just seeing a lot of people acting like this election is already lost when we haven’t even gotten to September yet.

    • West

      If you’re that scared, channel it into action and get out there and phone bank, canvass, table, whatever. I know many people here already do that/are planning on doing that, but still.

      Agreed, so I ask what I’ve already asked elsewhere: where could my volunteer efforts do the most good: Pennsylvania or North Carolina? This would most likely be last weekend GOTV phone banking combined with election day, give the little old lady a ride to the polling station, type work. I live in Massachusetts, so if we’re not in the bag for Clinton there’s no hope. I could be of more use elsewhere.

      • JMV Pyro

        It’s a coin flip, but I’d say PA, which might be more in play this year then normal(and is easier on your mileage.)

        • wjts

          I was going to say NC. So, yeah, probably a coin-flip. Either would be valuable.

    • Ahenobarbus

      Sorry about the rant, I’m just seeing a lot of people acting like this election is already lost when we haven’t even gotten to September yet.

      Who?

      All I’ve seen is posts saying (as Loomis does), “look, Trump could possibly win.”

      • JMV Pyro

        Not here, but there are people at TPM right now acting like one bad morning at the convention means we’re doomed forever.

        • MyNameIsZweig

          TPM’s comments section is awful. You should never read it.

          And I wish Josh would hire some damn copy editors already.

    • Came here to post that. When in doubt I take a few deep breaths and go read the latest from Sam Wang.

    • JKTH

      I definitely trust Wang more than 538 because 538 has a lot of untransparent adjustments that seem kinda strange…like right now they adjust their polls by at least a few percentage points Trump for just about EVERY poll. I can get making adjustments for historical bias in polling organizations but why would they all be moving in the same direction?

      • Aaron Morrow

        The 538 model includes fundamentals.

        At the risk of beating a dead horse, most fundamental-only models favor the Republican candidate by 2%-3% points given current economic growth rates and the two terms Democrats have held the White House.

  • Jonny Scrum-half

    Trump gives voice to the grievance culture on the right, and in particular to the supposedly awful burden that political correctness has inflicted upon “ordinary” people. Facts – including Trump’s own instability and ignorance – don’t matter because people aren’t voting for Trump as a person, they’re voting for Trump because he represents the freedom to be politically incorrect, whether that means saying inappropriate things or having no clue what he’s talking about.

    In fact, I think that the only way to change the minds of Trump supporters may be for Trump to actually start acting “Presidential.”

    Also, way too many people have been brainwashed for the last 25 years about Hillary’s evil character, and for the last 3 Democratic presidencies that all Democrats hate America and are actively trying to destroy it. Things are really ugly.

    • Bill Murray

      From David Akadjian

      In sales, when someone has an objection, the first thing you need to do is acknowledge the objection. Honestly.

      If you don’t hear the objection and honestly acknowledge it, you might as well stop. Not dismissively acknowledge it with a cliché like, “I hear what you’re saying” or “That’s a great point.” But honestly acknowledge the objection.

      In politics, this involves emotion. You have to show some genuine emotion.

      People say that Trump is honest not because he’s honest. It’s because he shows emotion and he’s acknowledging the anger people feel and that this rage is genuine. He’s not making fun of them. He’s not telling them they’re wrong. He’s not reading some scripted speech.

      Does he lie? Constantly. It doesn’t matter to many people though, because he’s saying that they’re right to be angry. Similarly, it doesn’t matter to many on the religious right that he’s not religious. It doesn’t matter to many libertarians that he’s not libertarian. He’s angry. They’re angry. By and large this is what counts. (And yes, racism probably plays a big part in this and you will never win the consciously racist. You’re also never going to win people over by calling them racist though.

      • Brien Jackson

        This is ridiculous: People say Trump is honest and tells it like is for the same reason they say that about any politician: because they say what the audience wants to hear or affirms the listeners biases. In this case it’s a full throated defense of white supremacy and male privilege.

      • los

        In sales, when someone has an objection, the first thing you need to do is acknowledge the objection. Honestly.
        Thus, “you [trumpster] are a tool.”
        :-)

        He’s angry. They’re angry. By and large this is what counts.
        yes, they need a thrill…

        To keep them distracted on voting day,drop shooter games into their email on day0, day-1, and day-2.

  • drpuck

    It seems to me that HRC is casting for disaffected chamber of commerce Republicans. Like almost every Democratic nominee post-1972, she is rightly assuming most progressives will hold their nose.

    I’m not feeling the fright, although I recognize that Trump’s tweet and rally-based reich wing approach could well end burying the small/big money, GOTV, analytics, micro-marketing, and money-ball paradigm that Obama used. However, this seems extremely counter-intuitive, if this has to align with winning lots more baby boomer white votes, rather than also picking up college kids/millennials, some single women, and, swing state non-white suburbans.

    Oh, and Obama hasn’t really revved up his campaign for his party’s nominee.

    • LosGatosCA

      Better get the motor started.

  • Timurid

    I’m still trying to figure out Trump’s path to election…

    In 2012 Mitt Romney won a historically high percentage of the white vote… over 60%… and he still got smoked. Trump cannot expect even the minimal minority vote that Romney got. To win, he will have to get white voters to go Republican at a rate not normally seen outside the backwoods of Mississippi and Alabama. It’s going to take some kind of B-52 Black Swan event that causes mass panic by whites to get Trump elected. I’m not sure even a big terror attack by ISIS or Al Qaeda could accomplish that. The one thing that worries me is the risk of a mass casualty attack against white civilians carried out by someone claiming to act in the name of black/nonwhite Americans. That’s still very, very unlikely, but after Dallas and Baton Rouge there’s a new meme loose in the crazysphere. While there’s no organized group willing and capable of doing such a thing, lone wolves can still be very deadly (Oslo, Orlando, Nice, etc.).

    I’m not sure they’re capable of such next level thinking, but if ISIS did have the resources to pull off one big attack on American soil, they could do much more damage politically not by taking responsibility but by running it as a false flag supposedly carried out by some kind of “Black Liberation Army.”

    • LosGatosCA

      Or they could just kidnap Patty Hearst.

      Is it me, or have we entered a time warp back to the 1970’s?

    • Just_Dropping_By

      It’s going to take some kind of B-52 Black Swan event

      Now I’m imagining the B-52s singing Thom Yorke’s “Black Swan” . . . and it’s magnificent.

  • Yankee

    Just wait until you see the October Surprise. Remember, Trump has Hacker Branch/Russian State Security on the job.

  • Nick056

    As others have pointed out, the fundamentals do not predict a Dem victory. They predict a slight R victory. If Clinton wins, it will be through outperforming an expected result based on the fundamentals, or though Trump underperforming, or both. That strikes me as a pretty likely outcome, but Trump could definitely win.

    As far as criticisms of Clinton go, it’s a shocking twist of events, I know, but criticisms of a candidate do not end once they win the nomination. They don’t even end when a candidate becomes President.

  • kped

    Even an extremist racist unstable candidate like Donald Trump is going to win 45 percent of the vote.

    I’ve been saying this in comments for weeks. I don’t think it translates into “easily could win” though. His path is incredibly tough.

    god, I’m going to have to get off the internet, these posts, or the rampant stupidity from Berners in Philly is just pointless aggravation!

  • Looking at the 538 graph, I have to wonder if we’re dangerously close to civil war. I know that’s probably hyperbole, but half the country is seriously deranged, and likely to not take it very well if Hillary wins. And if Trump wins, all bets are off. I do have to wonder if the military wouldn’t just stage a coup if Trump tasked them with preemptively nuking Iran or something similar. The joint chiefs have to be looking at the possibility of Trump and having a WTF moment.

    I have a feeling that we’re approaching brother-against-brother territory. Maybe its my innate paranoia, but I don’t see how this election ends well in either case.

    • Merkwürdigliebe

      I have though about the military angle as well. What are the JCS going to do if Trump seriously tells them to nuke China over, say, an audacious provocation in the South China Sea?

      First, they’ll try to explain how this is just cosmically out-of-bounds when it comes to the repertoire of responses to such actions… But if he insists? What will they actually do?

      • BiloSagdiyev

        Maybe they could just sabotage Air Force One… just last week I was predicting a new political thriller for the summer movie season, The President’s Plane is Missing and Yuge and Classy.

    • bender

      I think you may be right, but that we aren’t quite there yet and 2020 will be the decisive election.

      If it’s another conventional war or two or three, the Joint Chiefs will follow orders, as they should. There’s neither a principle nor a personal interest that would justify their defying the C-in-C’s will. If Trump orders a first strike with nukes, I think an intervention by the intelligence services would be more likely than an open military coup, but I’m just guessing.

      • Nick never Nick

        There are plenty of principles or personal interests that would justify defying the C-in-C’s will — just because the United States has a chain of command doesn’t make it acceptable to launch a nuclear strike on China and murder millions of people. Following orders, maybe?

        • bender

          Nick, I phrased my comment more carefully than you seem to have read it.

          I specified conventional war. Unwise conventional wars can be gotten out of by action of the Congress or by losing them. IOW, by following the Constitution.

          First strike with nuclear weapons is different. I did not say that the Joint Chiefs would have no reason to refuse that order, only that it might not be necessary for them to do so because covert action is possible. If Trump appoints a toady to be head of the CIA, there are plenty of people further down who have the means and opportunity to pursue a Twenty-fifth Amendment remedy, and I think they would do so without hesitation.

          • los

            plenty of people further down
            The suicidal aspect makes sane people think

    • Rob in CT

      I do think political polarization is worse now than any time since pre-WWII, with clear echoes of the antebellum era. I don’t think it’s nearly as bad, though.

  • Karen24

    In the event you weren’t sufficiently terrified:

    • rjayp

      colons terrify me, too, Karen. :)

      • Steve LaBonne

        That’s why I make sure to have my scheduled colonoscopies. ;)

      • Karen24

        Semicolons are even worse. And don’t even mention all those different kinds of dashes.

  • Karen24

    Ugh, link issues read this

    • Ahenobarbus

      Hmmm, it also says this

      That number seems to be climbing. A week before Sanders’ endorsement, a Pew Research poll reported 85 percent of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton in November.

      We’ll see tonight whether Politico is overstating the degree of anti-Clinton animus.

      • IS

        Especially since they’d done so earlier in the piece, they should have included whether that was a two- or three-way poll.

    • Pseudonym

      At this point protesters who are refusing to support the candidate Bernie endorses and are instead trying to shut down his party no longer qualify as “Sanders supporters”.

    • Sly

      “I wouldn’t say [I’m] ‘Never Hillary.’ I’d say “Never Democratic Party,’” said Laurie Cestnick, founder of Occupy DNC, a group dedicated to exposing what Cestnick says is the party’s history of “voter fraud.”

      Fuck the Revolution.

  • Steve LaBonne

    I’m OK with a very narrow deficit after Trump received a solid convention bounce and Hillary hasn’t gotten hers yet. I will never discount the possibility that Trump could win until the election is over, but I don’t think he’s on a path to do so.

  • bratschewurst

    Easily – no?

    The fundamentals favor the Democrats, for one thing. More important is that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections. And the demographic that has made that possible is going to be mobilized to a frenzy by Trump’s behavior over the next few months. It’s a real question as to whether there are enough angry white males left to elect someone who appeals mostly to angry white males.

    It will not be hard to increase Trump’s negatives (and harden those perceptions) over the next few months, whereas I think that Hillary’s negatives have taken all the hits that they will.

    It’s important to remember that Trump is the nominee in large part because of a large field of weak candidates, none of whom focused on him (or figured out how to deal with him) until far too late. The fact that he’s the nominee doesn’t mean he’s a good campaigner or will be a good candidate.

    One very interesting polling number is that the Democrats are up around 7 points on the generic House vote – which would be enough to take the House. There is a lot of dissatisfaction out there; whether it’s enough to lead to us doing something we’ve never done in the past – elect a flat-out demagogue – is another question.

    Of course it’s scary to see someone like Trump up in the polls – it never should have gotten this far. If the Republicans had taken him seriously a year ago, it never would have. But then, a year ago, almost no one took Trump seriously.

  • Yankee

    When Uncle Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel, yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. Then all the old guys gathered together and came to Samuel and said to him, “Behold, your time has passed, so appoint for us a king to make us great again among the nations.” But Samuel prayed to the LORD, and the LORD said to Samuel, “According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of misery even to this day, forsaking sense and serving broken idols, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.”

    So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots.And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be whores and cooks and housekeepers. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work and you shall be his slaves. In rhat day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but no one will answer you.”

    But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. Then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”

    • Karen24

      Entirely too true.

  • smott999

    Wow. Calling this race in any way similar to 2012 seems amazingly facile to me, even with the caveat that “oh, it’ll come down to the same couple swing states it usually does.”
    Ok, fine, we’re down to FL, PA, OH,( in all of which Trump seems absolutely viable), but to compare the election of Donald Trump to say Romney in 2012, or in fact any election in recent US History….I mean, seriously?
    This asshole Trump is a f-cking malignant narcissist nut-case who will invite Putin to walk into the Baltics and doesn’t have the self-control to keep his tiny fat fingers off the nuclear button.

    The ONLY hope we’d have is that Congress (where the GOP mostly loathes him, thank God) would find a way to impeach him soon out of the gate and reach the comparatively safer port of a President Pence.

    The same as 2012? Or ANY US election? No way.

    Trump is literally a sociopathic maniac, people.
    This is different. Way, way, different.
    And PA, OH and FL have exactly nothing to do with it.

    • LosGatosCA

      I believe he meant the electoral dynamic is the same. Everyone understands the differential consequences are not the same and more severe.

      • smott999

        Well yes and I think that’s a pretty facile comparison. The electoral dynamic is rather more than just the electoral votes in a few states.

        We could explore far more deeply the differences this year than to say hey its FL, PA and OH again.

        It’s another white guy again too.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      This asshole Trump is a f-cking malignant narcissist nut-case who will invite Putin to walk into the Baltics and doesn’t have the self-control to keep his tiny fat fingers off the nuclear button.

      You do realize that you’re making an argument nearly identical to the classic Obama Derangement Syndrome argument that Obama is simultaneously a ruthless dictator and a wimpy pushover, right?

      • los

        I lean toward: “Trump will delegate to keep from callusing his tiny hands”
        Even Putin should be smart enough to know that it wouldn’t really be up to Trump to let Putin snatch a NATO country.

  • LosGatosCA

    I’d like to thank Bernie and his supporters for doing their best to make the DNC look as disorganized and chaotic as the RNC was last week. Didn’t think that would be possible but they are clearly overachievers on the self-destructive scale. Booing Nancy Pelosi makes all the sense in the world. She’s been a real enemy of the people. Ron Paul supporters never managed so much impact.

    There are different kinds of stupid on the Republican and Democratic sides, but it all adds up to a hell of a lot of stupid.

    Two rule changes they should definitely make for 2020 – candidates have to be registered Democrats by January, 2019 and caucuses should be eliminated.

    • smott999

      OH Bernie supporters were happily chanting “Lock her up!” This weeknd. F-CK them.

    • IS

      Your first change I think is far too open: I’d say, at a minimum, registered Democrats as of the date of the most recent national general election for the House of Representatives. 100% with you on the second.

    • los

      LosGatosCA says: Two rule changes they should definitely make for 2020 – candidates have to be registered Democrats by January, 2019
      (about 18 months preceding general election.)

      Individuals cannot choose a political party when registering to vote in VT.

      Do I have to register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or some other party in Vermont?

      No. There is no party registration in Vermont.
      All registered voters can vote in the primary election—but can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist).

    • los

      VT candidates/politicians can choose to run under political party. This more complicated:
      2016 Vermont Presidential Election Information
      (signed petition, fee, etc.)

      Candidate FAQs sec.state.vt.us
      (all offices)
      Major party candidates file a petition along with a consent of candidate form in order to be placed on the ballot in the primary election (August 9, 2016). In order for a candidate to appear on the primary ballot, petitions and consent of candidate forms must be filed with the appropriate filing officer no sooner than Monday, April 25, 2016 and no later than 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 26, 2016.

      Major party candidates may also be nominated by party committee in order to be placed on the general election ballot in November, in the event their party does not nominate a candidate through the Primary. The statements of nomination and consent of candidate forms must be filed by the designated political party committee no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, August 15, 2016 (six days after the Primary).

  • Nothing means nothing until the white shoes are back in the closet waiting for Memorial Day.

    The great unwashed & unread will be chanting “U-S-A!! yada” at their tee vees until the Olympics are over 21 August, then it’s enforced Back-to-School consumption, Labor Day, &c. Get back to me mid-September & I’ll let you know if the gnashing of teeth/rending of garments is appropriate.

    P. fucking S.: 45% of the popular vote does not equal the same percentage of the Electoral College.

    • Katya

      Again, slightly OT, but one of my favorite moments of Kaine’s speech in Florida was getting the crowd to chant “USA! USA!” (in a not-scary way).

  • Duvall

    Those three months of snake oil Sanders sold to his supporters are looking better and better by the minute.

    • Brien Jackson

      Yeah I mean, you just watched four days of the other major party promising fascism, with Ted fucking Cruz as the voice of quasi-sanity, but hey, SUPERDELEGATES!!!!!!!

  • TM1

    Sanders delegates are currently acting like immature assholes–booing and jeering the speakers, refusing to let them speak. Not looking good for tonight.

    I fucking hate Bernie Bros. They could quite possibly ruin the entire convention if they boo and jeer at Michelle Obama, Time Kaine, Bill Clinton, or even the President. And they probably will.

    Now they are demanding a different VP, who the hell do they think they are, exactly? They lost the primary.

    • Nick056

      They are actually chanting “lock her up.”

      Good Christ in a fucking clowncar this thing is going to come off on TV worse than the fucking convention with plagiarism, insurgency, and “law and order” coded racism, because progressives of all kinds are simply the most clueless fucking people on God’s green earth. Every decent Democrat is pretty much decent in one way, but the lunatics all find their own ways to be destructive.

      Lock her up. Unbelievable.

      • TM1

        Are you serious? Didn’t hear that. They need to be forcibly escorted out of the hall if they want to do that shit.

        • Nick056

          Paul Owen, in the Guardian..

          • TM1

            I can’t believe they’re getting played this easily by Vladimir Putin. I guess five years of watching RT and lionizing Snowden has had an effect on the dringe left.

        • smott999

          Peeps they’ve been chanting “lock her up” all weekend. Since Friday at least if NPR is to be believed.
          The DudeBros are bringin it.

          This is going to be really ugly I fear.

          And I’m not panicking. Just sayin’ .

    • LosGatosCA

      Welcome to the revolution party, assholes.

      Nihilists to the right me of me, anarchists to the left.

      The sanity quotient has been quite low and declining in this election cycle.

      To paraphrase Dick Cheney – ‘It’s Herbert Hoover Mussolini time.”

      People too stupid to understand the stakes in a game deserve what they get – unfortunately the rest of us don’t.

      • TM1

        When I read “Dick Cheney” I got the sinking realization that Trump is making me nostalgic for the Bush/Cheney days of the GOP. Jesus.

      • Those who have no stakes at all, in or out of the game, are more than willing to knock the damn table over & grab what they can.

  • TM1

    So far the Bernie Bros have booed a black woman, a gay man, and a Latina. Keep it classy, guys.

    • postmodulator

      They’re still Bernie Bros even as they boo Bernie, huh?

      • so-in-so

        If they are doing it because Sanders lost, then yes.

        • postmodulator

          You know what? Sure. Fine. Whatever.

      • Manny Kant

        Frankenstein’s Monster remains his even after he ruined Frankenstein’s life and all that, no?

    • LosGatosCA

      I’m remembering some folks, can’t say where, that said Bernie was helping Clinton and the Democrats.

      Who could think that a person who purposely branded himself as something other than a Democrat would attract a raft of followers who don’t give a shit about the Democratic Party or it’s electoral chances?

      Really hard to imagine that, really, really hard.

  • pianomover

    Reasons to vote for Hillary in order to assure the defeat of D. Trump. https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughTrumpSpam/comments/4teoxl/a_final_response_to_the_tell_me_why_trump_is_a/

    • LosGatosCA

      That list works either way –

      Reasons to vote against Trump – because you are a decent human being with at least an IQ high enough to read that list

      or

      Reasons to vote for Trump – because you thought Dick Cheney was too soft in trying to convince Bush II that nuking Iran was a right course of action = let’s get it right the next time!

  • TM1

    Is it still “hippie-punching” when the hippies punch first?

    • smott999

      Ehhh hippies ? I call em Bros. not quite the same.

  • smott999

    I will be REALLY interested to see if Bernie Sanders is a) capable of or b) remotely interested in, keeping the DudeBros in the hall tonight in line, and stop them from for ex) chanting “lock her up!” Or (Hey what the hell) “STRING her up” or whatever our marvelous young Bros decide to chant tonight. She’s the Devil,after all.

    I think even if he has good intentions, Sanders is not going to be able to control them, and there will be some seriously ugly anti-Clinton chants tonight. A real shame.

  • Shalimar

    I really don’t understand all of the Sanders supporters trying to disrupt the convention. What is the goal? Who cares what Hillary Clinton says or does on the campaign trail?

    If Clinton wins, you try and pull her to the left on different issues when she is president, by lobbying senators and congresspeople and trying to influence legislation. That is when it matters. Obamacare is an obvious example. The final result is more like what Clinton was proposing in the 2008 campaign than Obama’s healthcare platform.

    If Clinton loses, we’re all screwed and you won’t have any influence on what Trump does.

    Hillary will be the nominee tomorrow. Those are the only 2 possible outcomes in November. Why are people re-fighting a primary that is over?

    • TM1

      We gotta, like, burn the system down, man. The Democratic Party is, like, all corrupt and corporatey. Not a dime’s worth of difference! Donres! Snowden!

      I’m against American imperialism and by the way why are we messing around in Russia’s backyard?

      Don’t you watch RT? /sarcasm

    • smott999

      Cmon man WAKE UP. CLinton is the DEVIL. She RIGGED this and STOLE it from Saint Bernie.
      String her up!!!

      Look, Peeps, it’s happening. Get used to it.,

    • It’s pure expressiveness plus some revenge/punishment, I’d guess.

  • TM1

    They actually chanted “NO TPP” over Elijah Cummings while he talked about his father. Fucking dicks.

    They’re really going to boo FLOTUS, aren’t they?

    • Brien Jackson

      Nah, by the time you get anywhere near the heavy hitter prime time speakers the hall will be quite a bit fuller and you won’t even be able to hear these people.

      Compare how loud the #nevertrump people were when they tried to change the convention rules last Monday to the chorus of boos for Cruz, for example.

  • NickFlynn

    Man, these idiots need some chill. Maybe Jeff Bridges could throw on his Big Lebowski robe and talk some sense to these idiots.

    Saw a Sanders delegate insisting that the super-delegates should give the nomination to Sanders. He seemed to think this was a real possibility.

    FML

  • smott999

    What are the chances that Sanders, willingly or not, pulls a (reverse) Cruz? …and the hall goes wild with “string her up!” chants that he is unwilling or unable to restrain?

    I think given what we’ve seen of his ego, if chants should start up, he will be hard pressed to quiet them. Because after all, he is the one who deserves this, and would have had it but for the evil DWS rigging things against him. Never mind that silly 3 million votes or whatnot.

    I’m very interested to see how this plays out. Hope he keeps things respectful, but if his idiot Bros are any indication thus far, it might not be easy.

    • Brien Jackson

      Honestly, I think if something like that does happen he’ll probably pause his speech to call them out directly and disavow them. Ego isn’t necessarily a problem now, because if that were to happen it could basically tank him as a politician altogether, especially if people come to think he tacitly encouraged or supported it.

      Plus I still don’t think you’ll even be able to hear those people in a couple of hours.

      • smott999

        From your lips….

  • Pingback: Trump in Roanoke - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • JohnPDarling

    “…but because there is literally nothing he could do that would convince most Republican voters not to vote for him.”

    McCain had the same “advantage” 8 years ago and it didn’t help him.

It is main inner container footer text