Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

what's bugging me is that i couldn't imagine a world in which this moron would be a major party nominee. and that appears to be happening! so i'm necessarily questioning other things that i believed wholeheartedly... like that a plurality of morons could overturn the apple cart entirely.

If they manage to back-door Ryan into the nomination, I will be more concerned about the Democrats losing the election and losing ground in the Senate/House.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

whatever happens, the GOP will have to change in order to resolve its establishment vs freedom caucus vs trump dilemma, or be rendered fractured and irrelevant. and when one major party changes to such a degree, the other tends to adapt and change as well, correct?

just a preference for a certain type of chicken sandwich that is strong enough to overrule all principles.

most likely scenario imo is trump becomes the nominee and the rest of the GOP falls in line. i don't expect convention dealing and paul ryan is definitely not going to the nominee

i am as reluctant to evaluate Yam as a dope any more than It's Pat as brilliant. Or Clinton as astute, or Kasich as reasonable.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

it's not even about paul ryan (although i agree, he's certainly no ideal). if the convention ends with the GOP denying trump the nomination (this is assuming he continues to dramatically outpace cruz and kasich in delegates), it wouldn't matter if ronald reagan descended from the heavens riding a flying golden lion, they'd be doomed in the presidential race

GOP establishment's gonna get behind Trump for the most part, and then the party's gonna get crushed in the election, and the war between the rank and file and the "establishment" will revert to prior status - the establishment saying "see? we told you he was a loser!" and the base saying "you sold us out!" Rinse and repeat.

You mean Paul "Mitt Romney's VP pick"/"almost a real boy" Ryan? Yeah, there's no universe in which he beats Clinton.

"more concerned" does not necessarily mean I am actually concerned; more that if the Republican party manages to finagle someone like Ryan into being their nominee, I can see a scenario where voters reward them for not being stupid enough to continue backing Trump. This doesn't mean that I think that scenario will actually happen.

GOP establishment's gonna get behind Trump for the most part, and then the party's gonna get crushed in the election, and the war between the rank and file and the "establishment" will revert to prior status - the establishment saying "see? we told you he was a loser!" and the base saying "you sold us out!" Rinse and repeat.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 4:37 PM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yup

The "get behind Trump" phase during and after the convention is gonna be hilarious.

"THAT BEING SAID, I don't think everyone in this country has forgotten the lessons of World War II and I don't think a majority of voters are willing to vote for for a fascist, so I don't think there's any serious chance of Trump becoming President."

I imagine Trump supporters think this is a melodramatic exaggeration and aren't actually processing the real similarities, same way they dismiss when Trump is called an asshole as just a name rather than looking at the striking similarities of him to a literal anus that spews actual shit.

DERP in the VIRP

More turmoil in the Virgin Island Republican Party erupted Tuesday as the GOP chair there announced the disqualification of six delegates that had been selected to represent the territory at the Republican convention and the elevation of new delegates in their place.

since HRC has not rarely acted like a political nitwit in the last 3 months, you Bring Yam On pundits are walking the line here.

maybe they could ask follow up questions asking for specifics for the vague nonsense and bullshit he constantly spews

Trump's been on my TV constantly for the last six months, so I'll second mordy's point above: he gets asked follow-ups all the time, which he responds to with more "believe me, believe me"s and "it's gonna be great"s. It's pointless. You're better to ask for details once, move on, and leave it anyone listening to figure out that nothing was actually said.

everyone in this country who personally remembers the lessons of World War II is over 75

book larnin' and the History Channel aint quite the same

No, you have to spoon feed that point to the audience listening "So you're saying you don't actually have a detailed plan to achieve ______?"

xpost

I imagine Trump supporters think this is a melodramatic exaggeration and aren't actually processing the real similarities, same way they dismiss when Trump is called an asshole as just a name rather than looking at the striking similarities of him to a literal anus that spews actual shit.

I imagine that Trump supporters are not a majority of voters. I don't think he's going to win more than 60% of the Republican vote, let alone a majority of independents and Democrats, and if he does it will be due to suppressed Republican voter turnout due to their party nominating a blatantly obvious walking talking bag of shit as their nominee rather than someone who can play the part of a reasonable human being that can spin their loathsome positions into reasonable-sounding sound bites.

I don't think he's going to win more than 60% of the Republican vote,

from NYT, yesterday:

http://i.imgur.com/SdN731J.jpg

looks more like 82%, and that's before republican voters are told over and over for months that bernie sanders/hillary clinton is the devil and the world will explode if they don't vote for trump

Trump's been on my TV constantly for the last six months, so I'll second mordy's point above: he gets asked follow-ups all the time, which he responds to with more "believe me, believe me"s and "it's gonna be great"s. It's pointless. You're better to ask for details once, move on, and leave it anyone listening to figure out that nothing was actually said.

― clemenza, Tuesday, March 22, 2016 1:52 PM (7 minutes ago)

I don't agree at all. I think Trump or whoever it is gets the upper hand. Why not stand for something? Why not say our news organization doesn't tolerate evasive answers, contradictions, and lies? Why not spell it out right explicitly and vehemently right when it happens?

support /= vote though, i think on the enthusiasm scale trump won't really bring them running to the polls

yeah, i can't prove you wrong on that, because i can't find a similar poll from 2012 or 2008 that measured "enthusiastic support / support with reservations / support only because nominee" among mccain/romney/obama voters to see how that translated to actual turnout

but my guess is that the vast majority of people fall in line with whichever person has the D or the R by their name, even the people who aren't enthusiastic

moreso on the R side I think, their tribal affiliations are a bit stronger

they're also on drugs or killing themselves

(xpost) They do. You're talking to a brick wall.

Why not say our news organization doesn't tolerate evasive answers, contradictions, and lies?

If you actually said this, I think you'd look self-righteous and silly. Ask the question, ask a follow-up definitely, but a certain point, you have to trust that people can see through nonsense. It's not like Trump's fooling the whole country or anything--maybe 40% of his party ("of his party" not exactly accurate) believes everything he says, the other 60% doesn't, a large part of that 60% is scrambling around to prevent him from getting the nomination, and most of the rest of the country sees him as the buffoon he is. I don't think asking the same question six times instead of two is going to move those numbers much.

I agree with Dr. Morbius about the inadvisability of taking Trump's loss to Hillary (or to Bernie, who imo has less than a 10% chance of being nominated) as a foregone to conclusion. Yes, Donald has made himself odious to anyone with a recent family history of immigration from Latin America and he will not be getting many minority votes of any kind, but his reduction of every issue to terms so simple they are pure fantasies is a powerful weapon.

Think how often you indulge in a fantasy life and how strong that tug is. Trump is creating a mass shared fantasy and giving millions of people permission to join in. It isn't enough to point out that one must be fairly weak-minded to enter that dream world. Given a choice between a reality you already know feels like crap and a golden dream where solving your problems is as easy as pie, a hell of a lot of people will choose to toss reality aside and buy a fistful of lottery tickets.

math is a bitch and it's not on Trump's side

Dems already start w an electoral college advantage, and no way can Trump swing enough states to overcome it. it will never happen.

Very happy to hear it. Glad it's guaranteed. I'd feel uneasy otherwise.

believe me, believe me, it's very true

This will get ridiculed, but something Greil Marcus wrote a couple of weeks ago: "In a presidential election, Nate Silver will prepare careful and accurate guides to what should happen, what is most likely to happen, but not what will happen: anything can happen. Add to this the disbelief on both sides that Trump could actually win, which energizes his followers and confirms his claims to outsider status, and add to that the fact that in many circles, particularly among better educated and better-off people, and particularly on the coasts, there are plenty of people who are attracted to Trump, who are secretly thrilled by the current of nihilism he is riding and the specter of destruction he embodies, but are keeping their mouths shut.

I understand how awful the demographics look for Trump, I've made the same argument myself, and I think in the end, that indeed will result in a possible landslide. But I'm with Aimless--anything can happen. I'm reluctant to express anything with certainty with regards to Trump at this point, other than he'll continue to say and do outrageous stuff. I especially get wary when something like Brussels happens, that irrationality and fear will take over.

I agree with Dr. Morbius about the inadvisability of taking Trump's loss to Hillary (or to Bernie, who imo has less than a 10% chance of being nominated) as a foregone to conclusion.

not sure where you got that -- all i saw was stuff about yams and pats

it's coded language

when I read that response, especially the last sentence, I thought, "Name names, Greil."

noted political social scientist greil marcus

This will get ridiculed

this man knows ilx

a vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton as nominee is a vote for irrationality and fear, by the way.

greil marcus' record speaks for itself

For weeks, all of the indicators, measurements, polls and calculations have pointed to an Obama victory, even an overwhelming rout. But while I read the polls many times a day and half believe them — believe them all, the poll that has Obama leading by 15 as much as I believe the poll on the same day that has him leading by 2 — I also believe absolutely none of it. My whole life, my upbringing, education, travel and talk, from working in Congress as an intern at the height of the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s to every election in which I’ve ever voted, makes it all but impossible for me to believe that, on Tuesday, a single state will turn its face toward the face of a black man and name him president of the United States.

lol

For personal reasons, I promised myself I wasn't going to defend Marcus anymore, so I think I'll sit this one out.

Curious, Οὖτις--what was your own prognosis early on for Trump's chances of winning the nomination?

that reminds me of the guy who told me with absolute confidence in 2007 that giuliani would be our next president.

xpost

In re: Obama, I think Marcus' point was that he was in a state of disbelief, not that the polls were wrong.

Curious, Οὖτις--what was your own prognosis early on for Trump's chances of winning the nomination?

as is well documented on these threads, I thought he would flame out for any number of reasons - saying something beyond the pale, refusing to reveal his finances, some other kind of scandal/criminal charges. Will happily admit I was totally wrong and underestimated how much free media time + weak/uncoordinated establishment response + popularity of demagoguery would work in his favor. In retrospect greater credence should have been given to how well Trump polled w primary audience, right from the day he announced.

Primaries, however, are not the general election where a lot of other factors are in play, and none of them favor Trump.

not a lot of minority voters in GOP primaries, for one thing

Don't disagree with any of that, and don't disagree that Trump's chances of winning a general are miniscule, barring unforeseen events. But miniscule and impossible aren't the same thing, and unforeseen events do happen.

Okay, I'll break my rule--I don't think it's fair to remove that 2008 Marcus quote from its context (starting right with the headline, which in this case may have been Marcus's suggestion) and treat it like a Real Clear Politics prediction.

http://www.salon.com/2008/11/03/obama_71/

even ignoring his extreme politics, most people just really don't like Donald Trump and the Americans who loathe the guy aren't gonna suddenly stop loathing him. we're kinda lucky he *is* Donald Trump and not a more affable extremist politician.

guess Palin's out as potential VP: https://www.yahoo.com/tv/sarah-palin-daytime-court-tv-show-development-200702957.html