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

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

Unlike other court television personalities, Palin does not hold a law degree...she has a “telegenic personality, wide appeal and common sense wisdom make her a natural for this kind of format.”

You don't need to reword that much to imagine an identical conversation among McCain people in 2008--the format was VP there.

I feel like I'm in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm here

MARCUS: You told us in the debate that you guaranteed there was not another problem. Was that presidential? And why did you decide to do that?
TRUMP: I don’t know if it was presidential, honestly, whether it is or not. He said, ‘Donald Trump has small hands and therefore he has small something else.’ I didn’t say that. And all I did is when he failed, when he was failing, when he was, when Christie made him look bad, I gave him the– a little recap and I said, and I said, and I had this big strong powerful hand ready to grab him, because I thought he was going to faint. And everybody took it fine. Whether it was presidential or not I can’t tell you. I can just say that what he said was a lie. And everybody, they wanted to do stories on my hands; after I said that, they never did. And then I held up the hand, I showed people the hand. You know, when I’ve got a big audience.

imagine if Ruth Marcus had asked those questions.

I feel like Trump will probably be annihilated in the general but the media will try SO FUCKING HARD to make it look as close as possible for $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ purposes

His will be a campaign that never ends, even after it's ended.

i read marcus's state-of-disbelief article at the time and got what he meant but i can't help reading it a little differently since he said on his website a while back that he was a clinton supporter that year

why are people reading greil marcus on the presidential election anyway? i wouldn't read charlies pierce on the latest postpunk throwback girl band from the pacific northwest.

if i recall the last time charles pierce wrote about music it was to complain that country music just ain't what it used to be

Maybe someone else would be kind enough to field that very strange question.

That Charles Pierce article btw: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a19774/affordable-care-act-country-music-awards-110713/

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

Way late, but fwiw I think this is right. Tru-con Cruzophiles are going to say "you should have gone with the real deal conservative, not the ersatz latecomer with the ridiculous hair, who only speaks conservatism as a second language." Trumpers are going to say, "Trump would have won if you tru-cons hadn't thrown a snit fit and sabotaged him because he was insufficiently establishment-friendly." Rinse and repeat for basically ever as the grecian entity says.

One might have have preferred the Cruz v. Sanders election, both for its clarifying fire, and to put at least some woulda-coulda arguments out of business, but it's doubtful that will happen at this point.

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.

Ah but rather it is not so much people believing what he says. Rather, they don't care - I mean literally you can see people saying "he may not mean it, but it's a better lie than I've heard from any other politician. And if it turns out that he was full of shit, well, then, I'm no worse off than I was with the last several GOP nominees." This is a real position and you can see it on display here http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=362284. Another form of this is "He's crude but he's what we need. He may not mean what he says, but if he's a catalyst for destroying the country-club Republican set, great. If he gets lucky and also destroys the media and Democrats (but I repeat myself), so much the better."

No, they don't think he's genuine, but they also don't care, because he has the right enemies. And he's doing god's good work by destroying the establishment GOP - which is hated only SLIGHTLY less than the MSM and liberal democrats (which are assumed to be the same thing).

http://gawker.com/word-trump-written-in-chalk-terrifies-harms-emory-st-1766477207

believe me, believe me, it's very true

i'm relieved too, except whatshername will be the most goddamn right-wing Democratic prez of your lifetime

an antiphonal chant addressed to University administration, led by College sophomore Jonathan Peraza, resounded “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” throughout the Quad.

ah, college

YMP: After I posted that, I was thinking the same thing--that even a lot of the 40% who support Trump probably don't believe a lot of what he says, they instead like him for some of the reasons you cite. Which is in keeping with my main point: after months of watching Trump being interviewed, I think that trying to pin him down, or get him to explain anything, or (the idea's laughable) catch him in a contradiction, is utterly pointless. People react to him, pro and con, on a whole other plane.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CeMpdcsW8AAXbeT.jpg

um

^_^

he hasn't done nearly as much actual damage as plenty of actual presidents but I hate him like you'd hate somebody who directly did you wrong

we should have stopped him back when he was just a charismatically awful real-estate tycoon making cameos in mainstream comedies