How can you tell a campaign is way behind?
This post may seem to be about Donald Trump’s campaign, and it certainly was sparked by things I’ve been noticing about that campaign. But my aim is to describe some phenomena I’ve noticed over the years about campaigns in general, and how you can usually tell when a candidate is going to lose.
Not always. Sometimes there are surprises, and that’s what helps to feed the myths that candidates and campaigns and supporters tell themselves to shore up optimism and keep the energy flowing. But surprises are just that— surprising, and also unusual.
Take polls. They are often flawed, of course, but you know what? The averages of polls tend to have good predictive value. If a candidate has been consistently losing—and in particular, losing in almost all the polls, and losing by amounts outside the margins of error, and losing over time—it becomes easier and easier to have more and more confidence in making the prediction that the candidate will be losing the election.
I have a fairly good track record with election predictions, as it turns out, although I’m not perfect at it (and I often don’t make them, or don’t make them publicly). But, for example, I didn’t fool myself with Romney, and although I thought he had a chance of winning I never was optimistic about it. I was almost certain McCain would lose. With Bush I couldn’t really tell, and his two elections were remarkably close and so they really were difficult to predict.
Readers of this blog are probably aware that I’ve been very consistent in predicting a Trump loss, and probably a decisive one. Now, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t change. There is still time, although time is getting short and the only way I see it as happening is if there is some revelation about Hillary Clinton so extraordinarily dreadful that even her staunchest supporters would have trouble pulling that lever for her. It is hard to imagine what that thing might be, but I concede there might be something (Hillary is just that awful).
This prediction of mine that Trump will lose has nothing to do with who I want to win, either. In the case of this election, the thought of either candidate winning is sickening, and yet it will probably happen that one will be our next president. I have already said I will not be voting for her, and that I don’t know if I can vote for him.
But again, this post isn’t mainly about Trump vs. Hillary. It’s about the signs of a losing campaign, chief among them that spokespeople and columnists and bloggers and blog commenters who support the candidate talk about the following:
(1) Polling is constantly questioned. In particular “skewed polls” are cited, and the poor showing of this particular candidate is explained away as poor polling methods, period. Methodology is criticized incessantly and obsessively (including landlines vs. cellphones, response rates, etc.), and the averages that point in a single losing direction are said to be invalid or are ignored.
(2) This or that anomalous election of the past is brought up and cited (often incorrectly[*see below]). For example, if there was a time when a certain candidate was doing poorly up to a week or two before the election and then a reversal occurred and the candidate won, that’s the one that’s talked about. The fact that it constituted a very rare exception, or that it featured special circumstances that don’t appear to be currently present, is ignored.
(3) The Bradley effect or something similar is cited, even though it’s not at all clear that something like that is operating and there’s not even any evidence for it. When I say “the Bradley effect or something similar” I’m not limiting it to elections where race is a factor, I’m referring to the idea that people lie to pollsters about their true intentions for any number of reasons (including the Shy Tory factor).
(4) Way too much emphasis is placed on crowds and crowd enthusiasm. As I’ve written before, crowds are no measure of anything except the fervor and gregariousness of the candidate’s supporters and how eager people are to see him or her in the flesh. Losing candidates often draw very large and enthusiastic crowds, right up to the day those candidates lose.
To go from the general to the specific, the Trump campaign has been showing strong signs of all these phenomena. Trump has nearly always been behind in the polls, and the gap between the two candidates is getting worse. Not only that, but the state polls in swing or target states are getting worse for Trump as well. As I said before, this doesn’t mean it couldn’t change for the better, because this election is nothing if not strange. But beginning last summer I observed that Trump’s chances of winning were not just poor, but very poor, and that he was the GOP candidate least likely to beat Hillary rather than most likely.
Trump supporters have always disagreed vociferously with that assessment. It’s unprovable who is correct, because we don’t have an alternate history in which to test out all the other candidates. When I point to polls, they debunk them. But debunking polls—although that sometimes turns out to be correct—is to ignore the fact that the polls usually predict elections fairly accurately.
Another thing Trump supporters often say is something on this order: well, you were wrong about Trump being the nominee, and you’re wrong now. Although that was indeed true of a lot of people, I wrote about a year ago, in August of 2015, that I took his candidacy very seriously and that I saw him as having a very real chance of winning, a prospect that alarmed me in part because I thought he would lose the general. So my fear, nearly from the start, was that he did have a good chance of winning the nomination and also a very good chance of losing the election.
That last fact is something a great many Trump supporters have ignored, which is that one of the objections a lot of people on the right had to Trump is that they thought (and still think) he would be a weak candidate in that he was unlikely to win the general election. An extremely vulnerable opponent—Hillary Clinton—gave the right a golden opportunity to defeat her, and the Republican primary process appears to have led the party straight to the election of Hillary Clinton.
If no tremendous August, September, October, or early November Surprise occurs, I don’t think there’s any amount of anti-poll pep talk or rallying the GOP troops that can change that sad reality.
Sorry to be such a downer.
[NOTE: * One of the campaigns often cited by people on the right is Reagan in 1980. The claim is that Reagan was losing till the very last weeks, when he overcame Carter. If true, that would be unusual. But actually, it’s not even true—see this. Reagan had been ahead for a long time, and he merely widened his lead.]
“Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” ― Abraham Lincoln
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” ― Abraham Lincoln
Wkat kills me about all this is that once again, just as in every freaking election cycle, the media/democrats and establishment republicans signaled early who they feared most. They let everyone know who would really rock the boat and take a flamethrower to their potemkin village. But lo and behold did we listen to them? Hell no.
No the stupid party fell in with a conman that by some strange coinky dink was getting Tons and Tons of free media time.
And once again, the media gets to choose the republican nominee. Who can forget ol maverick McCain in the media druing the primaries and oh how the media loved repeating that line. But in the general, crickets.
I get the anger and frustration that Trump tapped into, I really do. But when he loses, the republican establishment is going to roll over and pass comp immigration reform that makes it impossible to elect a conservative again. They wil do this and point blame at the trumpkins. Clinton will then appoint three judges to the supreme court.
The good thing is that pandora’s box is now open, the media has finally thrown out all pretense of fairness. The trainwreck that ensues in Europe, and the far east, as Clinton stands aside and flounders with “talks”, will be epic. Domestic issues like the death spiral of obamacare and the debt will come home to roost, and there will be not enough votes or time between January 2017 and the next democrat midterm massacre to do anything other than talk and the immigration/amnesty betrayal of the rino’s.
The problem that keeps hurting us is no one on our side can overcome the media and tie all their failure around the democrats necks. No one will look at the damage to the middle class and hang that where it belongs. And so 4 years later a still dysfunctional republican party will allow the media to pick their nominee again……
I get the anger and frustration that Trump tapped into, I really do. But when he loses, the republican establishment is going to roll over and pass comp immigration reform that makes it impossible to elect a conservative again. They wil do this and point blame at the trumpkins. Clinton will then appoint three judges to the supreme court.
—————————-
And the Trump supporters are going to blame the Establishment and Ted Cruz for the loss.
I tend to agree with you, except for this:
” some revelation about Hillary Clinton so extraordinarily dreadful that even her staunchest supporters would have trouble pulling that lever for her.”
Something like starting a “war of choice” resulting in a failed state and misery for millions?
Fact is, there is absolutely nothing that will turn off liberal voters from the progressive train, which at this point means voting for Hilary.
As Hayek predicted, being a ‘planner’ means that the corruption is not a bug, it’s a feature, arising naturally out of the circumstance, and liberals are embracing that with their usual vigor.
My prediction? We will soon be pining for the days of the old normal under Bush and Obama.
“And the Trump supporters are going to blame the Establishment ”
As they properly should.
Cruz had little or nothing to do with it.
Snapping defeat from the jaws of victory seems to apply here. Republicans make excellent businesspeople, but are not very good when it comes to politics.
Cruz had little or nothing to do with it.
——————–
Nonetheless, he’s getting blamed. Too many comments over at AoSHQ are already filled with individuals who are gloating over the recent poll that had Perry beating Cruz in a match-up for the latter’s Senate seat. If Trump loses, then Cruz’s comments at the convention will be magically transformed into one of the things that caused the country at large to not vote for Trump.
(Note – afaik, Perry has not actually expressed in interest at this point in running for Cruz’s Senate seat, which will be up for a vote in 2018)
With all that being said, and stating that I don’t disagree that the odds look long against Trump, this is still a very unusual election year.
I can’t think of a previous election where you could say “Vote for the crook, it’s important” and people might legitimately wonder which candidate you meant.
A three term Presidential run for one party is unusual. GHWB had a lot of wind in his sails to accomplish the feat – his own obvious fitness for the job, close association (VP both terms) with a very popular President, long term positive economic news, in a time of relative peace, running against a virtually unknown governor of a small liberal state who turned out to be a disastrously bad candidate. Of those factors, Hillary has at best one or two (popular President, weak opponent) depending on which way you want to argue the toss. Polls may be reasonably good predictors but Trump has defied polls and conventional wisdom a lot this season.
West:
No, they properly shouldn’t.
They should blame themselves for nominating a guy who lost, and whose loss easily could have been predicted, and was nearly inevitable.
He is a bad candidate who only appeals to less than a majority of people. Really bad, not just bad as in “imperfect.” He never appealed to many Democrats and Independents, and never to even a majority of Republicans. His unfavorables have consistently been higher than Hillary’s, and that’s saying a lot. It has nothing to do with the “establishment” or any other scapegoat people want to point fingers at. The proper scapegoat is Trump, and those who didn’t see what was obvious.
Of course, if he wins, they get to say “I told you so, stupidhead” to everyone else. But we are talking about blame for a hypothetical Trump loss.
I don’t get the demonization of Cruz either.
The deeper we get into this cycle the more it becomes apparent that the GOPe (for lack of a better term) picked their own poison.
The !Jeb folks were deathly afraid of Trump making an independent run, something that more level headed people considered unlikely. Considering the way his campaign looks now, it was highly unlikely. To me, they were also afraid that Cruz, Rubio, or Perry would be able to unite anti-immigration seculars with Evangelicals, and swamp !Jeb early.
To kill two birds with one stone they decided to pull Trump into a primary contest that he was supposed to lose, binding him with a pledge to support the nominee (and various sore loser laws) and using him to drive a wedge between the anti-immigration and Evangelical wings of the GOP.
They didn’t bank on the fact that Evangelicals would desert Cruz, and ignored the fact that the majority of the party detested !Jeb to the point that they would vote for anyone else.
Thus, Trump.
One cardinal rule in politics is no one ever blames themselves for losing. So most likely if Trump loses the Trump hordes (and in particular that thuggish, nationalist, white supremacist Alt-Right contingent) will blame Republicans who couldn’t/didn’t vote for Trump, or who ever even said a negative thing about it. It could get really nasty.
The chances of Trump or his followers blaming themselves is 0%.
There’s more here than I had previously considered.
Non-quantifiables are the curious things, on 2 opposing fronts:
(1) The level of traditional DNC vote fraud. The “voting dead” are no joke, they’ve been around for years. It will just grow slowly. (Although, I’ve been noting some left-leaning voices start to agitate for election accountability, especially with respect to voting machines. The argument is “foreign influence” though.).
(2) The Shy-Tory effect is perhaps a better term than the Bradley effect. It’s quite real, yet, is it significant? Or is it mostly noise? The truth is in there somewhere, yet, measurement is impossible.
Sorry to be such a downer.
We were already there anyway…
I find myself transitioning from trying to be a Responsible Informed Citizen(TM), to being prepared to pick up the pieces of a broken and possibly shattered civilization. I haven’t located the instructions for doing this yet. It looks really hard.
If Trump loses, junior has the right of it. Future generations will look back at this election and with the benefit of hindsight wonder; oh, yeah that was the tipping point, how could they not see that?
“Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.” Matthew 15:14 King James Version
Let’s frame the question correctly.
Trump voters(and I’m voting that way, reluctantly) by definition can not be blamed for Trump losing the election. They voted for him.
Nominating Trump instead of somebody else can be blamed for the Republican party losing the election, but again, Trump supporters can not be blamed for his nomination. They wanted him nominated.
The discussion needs to center on the circumstances that lead to his nomination, not who supported him. One of those circumstances was the clear indication by long time Republican politicians and party leaders that Trump was an acceptable nominee. Look back to the news coverage early in the process, and it’s clear that the highest priority of many Republicans was ensuring that Cruz and Rubio were defeated, not Trump.
“Clinton lead over Trump in Bloomberg poll
March 2016: 18 points
June 2016: 13 points*
August 2016: 3 points**
*including Libertarian in race
**within the margin of error
But this notable trend isn’t reflected in the Bloomberg write-up here. Instead, the reporter chose to use the poll numbers that look better for Clinton: ones that added in “leaners.” What are leaners? Respondents who were first asked who they’d vote for, then answered they didn’t plan to vote or didn’t know who they’d vote for, and then were pressed to pick a candidate they were leaning toward, anyway. This is how Bloomberg got to the 6-point spread cited in its headline…double the actual spread of 3%.”
https://sharylattkisson.com/clinton-lead-over-trump-shrinks-to-margin-of-error-bloomberg-poll/
GB: gotta say, I think the tipping point was Nov 4, 2008. We are all just living the hope and change dream now.
It ain’t over, till it’s over and, it ain’t over;
Rasmussen
Clinton: 41%
Trump: 39%
Johnson: 9%
Stein: 3%
LA Times/USC poll
Clinton:45.3%
Trump: 43.2%
You’re right GB
My go-forward expectation (not a prediction) is that Trump will win.
However – and I’m not saying you’re doing or will do this – if the polls start trending Trump it would be nice to see some intellectual honesty in the Eric Boling’s et. al. of the world to say the polls are STILL wrong (since they are saying they are wrong now). But instead, they’ll be touting them (as will Trump – remember when all he talked about was how he was ahead in all the polls?)
Personal note: 2016, and particularly summer 2016, has been particularly hard on me and my immediate/extended family for a number of reasons. Far down the list of stressers (way down, but still a factor) is the overall weirdness and disappointment of this election. I can’t wait for this summer to end and to get to whatever happens in early November. No matter who’s elected, at least the election will be over.
I can’t wait.
Geoffrey Britain:
Of course it ain’t over, as I’ve said many times.
But you are doing one of the things I’ve seen people do (although I didn’t specifically mention this one in the post), which is to give the results of certain polls in isolation, ones that are closest to the results you prefer.
Here is the picture right now. And note the chart with the trends over time. Trump has been consistently underwater (and it’s not because the public hasn’t yet gotten to know him).
vanderleun:
You miss my point while at the same time illustrating my point, just as Geoffrey Britain did.
See my reply to him.
Christopher B:
They nominated him while ignoring the fact that he was very very likely to lose, and failed to support those GOP candidates far more likely to win.
That certainly means they would bear significant responsibility for the loss of the election (no, not for Trump’s loss, but who cares about Trump’s loss if he hadn’t been nominated? It’s the election that matters.) Many of them also are responsible for browbeating and insulting those who didn’t agree with them, and failing to convince enough people of why Trump was worth voting for.
I agree that anti-Cruz and anti-Rubio sentiment was also responsible. “Establishment” Republicans promulgated the first but not the second.
Geoffrey Britain:
This election is not the tipping point.
The tipping point, IMHO, was 2012. I felt it very strongly at the time.
This election just plays out things that were very clear then and probably unstoppable. If anything about this election was a tipping point, it was the nomination of Trump, not the election itself. But I choose 2012.
steve.c:
Ask all the king’s horses and all the king’s men.
Very hard, they’d say. Maybe impossible.
neo,
I’m only offering those too polls as potential evidence that Trump MAY not be losing as badly as the other polls indicate. Zogby agrees btw, so perhaps tales of Trump’s demise are premature. Right now he is losing and barring outside events, he will almost certainly lose. I give a real possibility to outside events being decisive.
neo and KLSmith,
One can argue plausibly that the tipping point was election day 2008. I discarded my rose colored glasses the day after the 2012 election.
This election is arguably the tipping point because IMO, it is the last chance to turn things around.
If so, one can also make the argument that the tipping point was when Trump gained the GOP nomination.
Mark me down for the nomination of Trump as the tipping point. That all but guaranteed Hillary’s victory.
But I can go for Obama’s win in 2012 too. That election broke my heart and changed my thinking about America.
It’s one thing to fall for Obama once, but twice suggests deeper, more serious problems with the system and our people.
That two hairballs like Hillary and Trump got coughed up in 2016 to be POTUS confims it.
That two hairballs like Hillary and Trump got coughed up in 2016 to be POTUS confims it.
It certainly points to a VERY broken political system.
Thought experiment: If Trump hadn’t been nominated and one of the young rising stars of the very broad GOP bench had gotten it, how would we all feel right now? We’d be feeling like it was a new day. We’d be the party with the young talent, fresh ideas, etc. If, say, Marco Rubio were the nominee, instead of Trump (who is currently softening his thoughts on immigration) – yes, we’d be facing the same hostility from the MSM but we should be used to that by now.
But this election will likely be the “shoulda, coulda, woulda” election for the GOP. It’s driven quite a number of people who were very reliably republican (including yours truly) completely out of the party. Such a wasted opportunity. Even if Trump wins it was wasted, because the GOP will now be the alt-right, nationalistic, thuggish, crony-capitalist party with white-supremacist overtones and that’s basically a loss for the GOP (in my opinion) anyway.
Sometimes people tell “If only” stories about failed relationships. If only person A hadn’t said X or if only person B hadn’t done Y, it would have worked out.
I’ve told some of those stories myself.
Later, perhaps from decades of living with California earthquakes, I came around to a “tectonic” theory of such failures. Now I think relationships fail because of underlying pressures, and it doesn’t take much to set off an earthquake which ends the relationship.
Sometimes a Man on a White Horse may come along and clearly change things for the better or worse. But mostly, I suspect, people in democracies get the leaders they deserve.
I fear Hllary and Trump are accurate reflections of a nation way overextended on credit and character.
re: “credit and character”
I just heard a radio ad this morning. A man was listing his debts – college loans, mortgage, a vacation to take away the grief of having so many debts – and the ad said that the man needed a break to help turn his finances around. It was an ad for the lottery.
I place Trump’s odds much higher than 538 for the simple reason that I had expected Donald to be completely blown out of the water by this time.
That Reuters and others are in the tank for Hillary is hard to dispute.
What’s remarkable is that it’s a tight race — and Trump has scarcely spent much.
I figure the tabulation to be hacked — severely hacked.
It’s plain that Google is apart of both the maladministration AND the Hillary campaign.
Trump shouldn’t even be this close.
The win will go to the campaign that out hacks the other.
Yes, the tally is all “Chicago” now.
DC has been utterly transformed under Barry into Chicago on the Potomac… the “Rise of the Machine.”
“I fear Hllary and Trump are accurate reflections of a nation way overextended on credit and character.”
Huxley – this is one of the best and (sadly) truest descriptions/epitaphs for 2016 that I’ve read yet.
“Yes, the tally is all “Chicago” now.”
Some questions:
1. To hack nearly every poll, how many “true believers” would there need to be?
2. How big of a conspiracy is this?
3. Or if not hacked, is every poll showing HRC ahead employing underhanded skewing?
4. Is there any viable, tangible evidence for this charge?
I don’t believe in most conspiracy theories, because they require far too many people and people just can’t keep secrets that well.
Not that I don’t think Trump can win. I do believe he can, and – partly just as a personal expectation-management scheme – I kind of expect him to. HRC is that bad of a candidate.
But I’d need to see some real evidence of the charges. This goes along with the idea that Romney really won 2012 but the vote was hacked (would that not be one of the hugest stories of the last 100 years or so?). Evidence.
Thanks, Bill!
I’m copacetic with your posts too — particularly your point about the disaster of a Trumpified Republican Party.
The rot goes pretty deep in America. Repairing the rot IMO will require character and principles, which a Trump GOP will be unable to supply.
You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.
–Matt 5:13
And you know what really pisses me off about all this?
Not Trump.
What boils my blood is the resources that Jeb Bush and John Kasich and the other no chance idiots wasted. After we all knew they were toast, they still fund raised and hammered on the only people who could have saved this mess. Chris Christie spiking Rubio, and do not get me started on all the Rino’s knifing cruz.
Do these asshats have any idea how pissed off all the voters who supported Carson, Rubio, Cruz, the outsiders, are at them? Think of all that money spent, after New Hampshire.
What could have been had Jeb not run at all but got behind Rubio, or had Rubio pulled out and endorsed Cruz before Florida………..
huxley & Bill are among those who agree that the deepest problem is the electorate. If that is true and Trump and Hillary are an accurate representation of a majority of the public, then arguably this ‘choice’ of candidates was inevitable and unavoidable.
In which case, there is no Republic to save, since an actual Republic is only possible for “a moral and religious people”. Anything else is just pretense.
Geoffrey Britain, 4:36 pm — “One can argue plausibly that the tipping point was election day 2008. I discarded my rose colored glasses the day after the 2012 election. This election is arguably the tipping point because IMO, it is the last chance to turn things around. If so, one can also make the argument that the tipping point was when Trump gained the GOP nomination.”
Just M J R ‘s two cents’ worth:
The tipping point was Election Day 2012. In my rarely humble opinion, that was the last chance. Even then, it would have been uphill, but at that point it was at least plausible. 2016 is too late; Trump or no Trump, Cruz or no Cruz, Carly or no Carly — it is no longer plausible in 2016.
The demographics have accelerated, not slowed or reversed, towards third-world banana-ism. Combined with the acceleration of dead people reliably voting Democrat, Election Day 2016 was always going to be extremely uphill. And should a non-Democrat be the winner in 2016, the demographics are still there (and accelerating), as well as the entrenched leftism in the bureaucracy, not to mention Hollywood and academia.
As Roy Orbison once crooned, “It’s Over”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8xXMs4nNY
And Geoffrey Britain gets it 100 percent right at 5:59 pm.
People really need to see this before passing judgment on the Trump campaign.
This is what’s being missed by the MSM, the polls, as well as the conservative punditry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ag8dmCQN0E
I don’t think this can be dismissed as mere crowds.
GB:
” I give a real possibility to outside events being decisive.”
You mean like an asteroid or something? Because thats the only thing I can think of that neither the media or Justice Dept controll.
Christopher B Says:
Let’s frame the question correctly.
Trump voters(and I’m voting that way, reluctantly) by definition can not be blamed for Trump losing the election. They voted for him.
Communism would be the most perfect form of government, if nobody dissented.
Socialism would be the most perfect form of government, if nobody dissented.
Libertarianism would be the most perfect form of government, if nobody dissented.
Democracy would be the most perfect form of government, if nobody dissented.
Anarchy would be the most perfect form of government, if nobody dissented.
The problem is, there are ALWAYS dissenters. We can use our faculties of reason to predict what the likely sources of discontent are, too!
It is tautological nonsense to claim that everything would be fine if only everybody agreed with us.
Bill Says:
That two hairballs like Hillary and Trump got coughed up in 2016 to be POTUS confims it.
It certainly points to a VERY broken political system.
It points to a broken electorate. My hope is that they can learn from their mistakes, but I’m not certain about it.
” I give a real possibility to outside events being decisive.” GB
“You mean like an asteroid or something? Because thats the only thing I can think of that neither the media or Justice Dept control.” Harry The Exremeist
Surely you possess a richer imagination than that Harry 😉 . All it will take is a serious enough terrorist attack or a series of them. Think Paris & Nice. A Mumbai style shopping center attack with children beheaded. American passenger airliners blown out of the sky as they take off and land by shoulder fired rockets. ISIS has a bunch of them. An attack upon the nine critical electrical substations, which will bring down the grid, possibly for good. Poisoning city water supplies.
There’s a high probability that all of those horrific events await us, either before or after the election. If before, Hillary’s toast.
Jim Doherty Says:
And you know what really pisses me off about all this?
Not Trump.
This thinking is part of the problem. Trumpkins thought they were storming the Bastille, and they were going to ram their agenda down the establishment’s throats.
Not only is this an immoral and unwise position on its own (disenfranchising people *because you have the power to do so*), but we see now that the Trump camp isn’t nearly as strong as it thought.
The only way Republicans win again is if we can compromise enough between the three factions to smooth over the differences. None of the three factions will ever be destroyed, though the Trump camp might lose interest after a while.
@ GB:
“Events” won’t solve our problem, they will just exchange one problem for another. The actual problem is that both candidates are horrible.
And to reiterate, I don’t think we’ve reached a tipping point. Nothing about America’s decline can’t be fixed by the people, if only they’ll learn from their mistakes.
In Trumpkins’ case, that will require them acknowledging that they aren’t the majority they thought they were, and that a coalition is absolutely necessary to win. They will then have to realize that coalitions are built on compromise.
…oh, and not nominating a clown next time would be a good idea.
Matt_SE Says, 8:18 pm — “It points to a broken electorate. My hope is that they can learn from their mistakes, but I’m not certain about it.”
I am. (And I am not at all optimistic.)
Matt_SE Says, 8:33 pm — “Nothing about America’s decline can’t be fixed by the people, if only they’ll learn from their mistakes.”
Ahhhh, therein lies the rub. The track record in that regard is pretty unimpressive (and uninspiring).
Wishing and hoping for jihad attacks to derail hrc is underestimating the jihadists. They are blood thirsty barbarians but they are not stupid. Plus, based on his history, I see no reason the towel wrapped too tight monsters fear djt more than hrc. Djt or hrc, we get a liberal, NYC values in November. At least it will not be Chicago style machine tactics which are more corrupt than NYC politics.
Matt_SE Says, 8:33 pm – “Nothing about America’s decline can’t be fixed by the people, if only they’ll learn from their mistakes.”
Like they learned from their abortion of a Healthcare system?
The only people who learn, are the ones who are humble or subservient to a higher power. Everybody else is going to “learn” to the limits of their Authorities on earth and their limited IQ based intellects. Frankly, the latter is about as useful as mice and pigs for data processing.
But I’d need to see some real evidence of the charges. This goes along with the idea that Romney really won 2012 but the vote was hacked (would that not be one of the hugest stories of the last 100 years or so?). Evidence.
The Dems don’t need to hack the votes, they just need to ensure that the voter fraud isn’t seen. The Dems bus in loads of people to vote again and again in precincts, to move a state or city. It’s easier when a city has most of the population.
Things like 157% of a precinct reporting in 90% for Hussein Obola… even idiots can figure that one out.
As for a conspiracy, where do people think public union and teacher union and Leftist organizations like Code Pink spend their money on?
They hire fake grassroots, astroturf, protesters. They hire people to vote They hire people to protest. They hire agent provocateurs. ACORn has an entire system dedicated to “helping” people with their problems.
Planned Profit has an entire money making scheme based on selling aborted fetuses and post birth babies.
Where do you think, Bill, they are spending that money on? Isn’t all private jets and luxuries. A lot of it goes directly back into the Chicago machine or another machine, that protects them.
Before getting to specifics, here is an interesting perspective.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/why-not-the-worst-4.php
“We are subject to the tyranny of the present. Let’s try briefly to place our current election in historical context for whatever educational and entertainment value it may have.
Donald Trump is the worst candidate ever nominated for president by the Republican Party. From John Fremont and Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump – as the Grateful Dead put it in “Truckin’”: what a long, strange trip it’s been.
Who was the worst GOP nominee before Trump? Paul recently mentioned James Blaine, the Republican nominee in the election of 1884. I think back to twentieth-century losers such as Landon, Wilkie, Dewey and Goldwater. From Fremont and Blaine to McCain and Romney, they were all giants compared to Trump.
Hillary Clinton is the worst candidate ever nominated for president by the Democratic Party. …”
Matt_SE,
Please read a bit more carefully. Nothing I said even implied that I thought that ‘events’ could ‘fix’ what’s wrong. I only offered examples of events that could swing the election to Trump.
I fully agree that Trump’s election would create/reveal a different set of problems. I don’t agree that the actual ‘problem’ is that both candidates are horrible because they are symptomatic rather than causal.
Nor do I agree that having the ‘right’ candidate could solve our problems. The right candidate would only offer another mirage of “hope and change”, while only delaying our reckoning. As our problems run much deeper than a lack of leadership.
Each sides “failure to communicate” stems from fundamentally incompatible views of how a society should be structured, rather than a failure to understand the other.
Which is why, in the aggregate, Americans will not “learn from their mistakes”. The divisions are too deep, the cognitive dysfunction too severe. Only reality’s harshest lessons will suffice to bring a new consensus.
“There shall be much wailing and gnashing of teeth”.
GB: “Surely you possess a richer imagination than that Harry 😉 . All it will take is a serious enough terrorist attack or a series of them. Think Paris & Nice.”
All those things have happened GB, including the still very recent 49 deaths at an Orlando night club. Where do we stand as a nation now? On the brink of adopting 65,000 Syrian refugees and I dont see anyone outside of ourselves having much of a problem with that.
If another large scale, mass-death terrorist attack is what you think it will take to make people move towards Trump and away from Hillary, it would have to happen no earlier than two days prior to the election before the media post incident mis-direction campaign reaches full steam and something else occupies the American attention span. What a thing to hope for in order to see the lesser of two despicable candidates win isnt it?
parker,
I’m disappointed. In no way do I wish or hope for jihad attacks.
Attacks are simply the surest outside events that would lead to Trump’s election.
Agreed, jihadists are not stupid. They are however filled with hate and hate is intolerant of reason. Violent emotions lead to mistakes.
I think it likely that they prefer hrc to djt. If for nothing else than their confidence in hrc continuing Obama’s “paper tiger” tactics. And the stealth jihadists who have infiltrated our government into so many levels of influence do fear djt because they fear that he may well be on to Islam’s game. While they know that hrc is safely in their pocket.
Harry,
Pointing out the obvious is NOT an indication of “hoping” it will occur.
Paris did not happen here, as the difference between Paris and the Pulse Nightclub attack was a ‘lone wolf’ vs a terrorist cell. A coordinated terrorist cell attack cannot be spun by the media into, “nothing to see here folks, move along”…
People are MUCH more anxious about terrorist attacks than the media is admitting to, there have been several reports of mass panic reactions to false alarms. Naturally, quickly downplayed by the media as ‘overreacting’.
Polls show very large majorities of Americans discomfitted by the large influx of Syrian refugees, again the media is covering it up, which is why we’ve heard nothing from the MSM about attacks like the one upon the 5 yr old girl in Twin Falls, ID.
Another 9/11 or series of Orlando attacks by terrorist cells would sink Clinton. Time will tell whether, as parker expects, they are smart enough to hold off until after the election.
But federal intelligence sources have already publicly stated that they’re coming in across our open southern border.
That’s not a hope, that’s an observation.
You’ve also forgotten another factor – Party support.
Trump has split the Republican party badly. If he can’t get his own party to vote for him, good luck getting the swing voters to do so. His main selling point, as I see it, is that he’s not Hillary Clinton… which really isn’t much to go on for me, because there are 320,000,000 other Americans who aren’t Hillary Clinton either.
Id have to disagree GB. Another 911 is no guarentee Trump, an obvious loose cannon would be seen to be any better a choice for President than Hillary. Im not saying you’re hoping for an attack, but if you’re a Donald supporter, I wouldnt bank on a large scale terrorist attack making him look that much better. Face it: We lost this thing as soon as the Donald was nominated.
Jim Doherty:
I spent most of the winter and spring railing against the very things you describe, and begging other candidates to drop out and unite behind a Trump alternative. I wrote post after post about the game of Chicken they were playing. It was tragic, and infuriating, and it remains so.
Tragedy of the Commons.
Once the SMOD arrives or the Yellowstone caldera pops off Hillary surely will loose and Trump will coast to victory. I’m not saying I’m hoping for either of those two outcomes, but either would certainly be better than the election of Hillary. Now the actual probability of the SMOD or Yellowstone event happening before November is another matter. /s
Matt_SE Says:
August 24th, 2016 at 8:12 pm
Christopher B Says:
Let’s frame the question correctly….
It is tautological nonsense to claim that everything would be fine if only everybody agreed with us.
* * *
They only care if everything is fine for them; the rest of us don’t count; it’s all part of the “you will be made to care” agenda of the Left.
Satan has always promised his followers that he will make the world a place where no one will hurt them, or make them afraid, and we are seeing a literal fulfillment of that promise — “safe spaces” anyone? —
because he destroys anyone opposed to his plan.
steve.c Says:
August 24th, 2016 at 2:57 pm
…
I find myself transitioning from trying to be a Responsible Informed Citizen(TM), to being prepared to pick up the pieces of a broken and possibly shattered civilization. I haven’t located the instructions for doing this yet. It looks really hard.
* * *
The Old Testament and the Book of Mormon are both narratives of the way civilizations shatter themselves (turning away from God is the usual MO); fortunately, those plus the New Testament are also how-to manuals for putting things back together.
neo-neocon Says:
August 24th, 2016 at 4:05 pm
Geoffrey Britain:
This election is not the tipping point.
The tipping point, IMHO, was 2012. I felt it very strongly at the time.
This election just plays out things that were very clear then and probably unstoppable. If anything about this election was a tipping point, it was the nomination of Trump, not the election itself. But I choose 2012.
* * *
Agreed on the date, not sure about the inevitability of events – turn-arounds have happened; even though 2008 was an egregious error in terms of “forks in the road” it was understandable in the euphoria of a black candidate actually having a serious chance of winning. However, 2012 was a cold-blooded choice to continue down the path of destruction. That is where the slide probably became unstoppable.
huxley Says:
August 24th, 2016 at 5:01 pm
Sometimes people tell “If only” stories about failed relationships. If only person A hadn’t said X or if only person B hadn’t done Y, it would have worked out.
I’ve told some of those stories myself.
Later, perhaps from decades of living with California earthquakes, I came around to a “tectonic” theory of such failures. Now I think relationships fail because of underlying pressures, and it doesn’t take much to set off an earthquake which ends the relationship.
Sometimes a Man on a White Horse may come along and clearly change things for the better or worse. But mostly, I suspect, people in democracies get the leaders they deserve.
I fear Hllary and Trump are accurate reflections of a nation way overextended on credit and character.
* * *
Tipping points are basically tectonic events, which is why one can never be sure what will set off the explosion (just to mix a few metaphors).
Overextension is an understatement.
And the chances of finding the equivalent of the “10 righteous in Sodom” are declining.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/24/school-district-to-teachers-dont-tell-parents-when-transgender-boys-sleep-with-girls-on-field-trips/
* *
http://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/832/why-did-abraham-stop-at-ten-in-genesis-1832
If the Republican candidate loses the upcoming election the blame can be correctly assigned to the GOP Establishment.
An objective analysis of the 2012 Presidential results shows it was the data mining and GOTV effort by the Obama campaign that put him over the top.
GOPe had FOUR YEARS to build similar systems for the 2016 nominee, whoever that was going to be.
Instead they had great meals and told each other what swell fellows they were. They did NOTHING! It is inexcusable.
It should be clear that the current the GOPe leadership finds no ideological fault with the ‘Progressive Agenda’.
With any luck the clowns that supposedly have the best interests of the Republican Party and our Nation will be tossed out on their butts real soon now.
This could easily and accurately be rephrased:
“Instead he held YUGE rallies and told everyone what a swell fellow he is. He did NOTHING! It is inexcusable”
The lack of a decent ground game points squarely at Trump’s incompetence and/or hubris and/or lack of desire to win. This is on him.
Harry,
The reason why Trump would mightily gain support if a serious attack(s) occurred is because he’s been speaking out on the issue much more seriously that Hillary and because she’s firmly stated that her foreign policies will be a continuation of Obama’s. Such an attack(s) would put paid to the notion that ‘business as usual’ is still acceptable.
I’m not ‘banking on’ an attack to usher Trump into the WH. Just offering an opinion with some examples of what it would take.
Underlying assumption: Trump still has credibility on anything he says.
@Tuvea – in addition to Bill’s reply…
Romney and obama’s campaigns were each >$1B.
Where is trump’s much vaunted self funding model?
If he won’t put his own money (in sufficient quantities) where his mouth was/is, what does that say about him?
Too many are giving him a pass on this very important differentiator he argued in comparing himself to each of the other GOP nomination candidates.
A coordinated terrorist cell attack cannot be spun by the media into, “nothing to see here folks, move along”…
Since people are not talking about Dallas BLM Nation of Islam terrorist cell assassination hit, I would think the MainSewerMedia did a good job of “moving people along” there.
Instead they had great meals and told each other what swell fellows they were. They did NOTHING! It is inexcusable.
In comparison, Apple, Google, Facebook, did all the heavy lifting for the Left, creating databases from which to mine open source data.
The problem is that people think the GOP E should do all the heavy lifting when fighting evil or the Left. That’s not what the GOP E, an oligarchy, was for. If the people don’t hate evil to kill it when they see it, or to do their work to further the cause, like the Left’s Google and Facebook minions… you people really don’t deserve victory.
OM,
My point, which seems to repeatedly escape you is that it would be Hillary’s credibility that would collapse in the event of a serious attack or lesser series of attacks by terrorist cells. Trump’s credibility would be increased simply because he’s spoken out against Obama’s feckless foreign policy, whereas Hillary has strongly supported it.
That Trump is hardly trustworthy would be of little consequence, should the situation for the average voter become one of “any port in a storm”.
Is this really that hard to understand? Or has personal animus so blinded you…
“And to reiterate, I don’t think we’ve reached a tipping point. Nothing about America’s decline can’t be fixed by the people, if only they’ll learn from their mistakes.” – Matt SE
There is a haunting pessimism in the air on the right and many claim they have a “rational” basis for that sentiment. Of course they do.
Yet, a realistic look around the world would / should reveal a country that is the best place to be living of any, on many measurable dimensions.
There is a certain self fulfilling prophecy in assuming the rest of society won’t learn from their mistakes, won’t listen, cannot be convinced. have cognitive dysfunction, are part of a stereotyped permanent voting bloc, etc..
That’s because it becomes a nice excuse to not even bother to try.
Yes we have serious issues and threats looming on the horizon, but when has this not been the case in this world?
We’ve got to take our heads out of the echo chamber bubble to get a better, more realistic perspective, and start engaging in a deliberate process to move people beyond our group to our side and adopt our ideas.
Folks, the tipping point was on January 22 1973.
Good and evil are real. They exist. They are opposing forces. They are not equal, but good is the stronger.
Believe this, you can not kill 55 million babies and get away with it. God won’t allow us to get away with it. So we will be made to know the consequences of our actions.
God sets nations up and God sets nations down. Yes, something is wrong. America is dying. The cold truth is this election is just one more symptom.
GB: “The reason why Trump would mightily gain support if a serious attack(s) occurred is because he’s been speaking out on the issue much more seriously that Hillary and because she’s firmly stated that her foreign policies will be a continuation of Obama’s. ”
Yes, but he’s also said the military will follow his orders even if they’re illegal and a lot of idiotic loose talk about the use of nuclear weapons. That tends to scare people off.
We’ve got to take our heads out of the echo chamber bubble to get a better, more realistic perspective, and start engaging in a deliberate process to move people beyond our group to our side and adopt our ideas.
The Marxists have been using B’s idea of having society and humans fix society and humans. The results are quite clear by now.
For all of human history, without a just and stable authority at the top, whether that’s an enlightened king, a priest leader, or a god, human civilizations rise to prosperity and then they fall to destruction.
This has happened numerous times, undocumented by what people know of history.
Evil can’t be fixed by human efforts, human powers, human civilizations, human societies, and human philosophies. That’s not within your scope.
As for HRC losing credibility, I don’t think she has any left to lose. After all, even getting a Democrat to admit a Democrat is evil or corrupt is problematic if not impossible. And that’s the level HRC has reached.
GB:
“Is this really that hard to understand? Or has personal animus so blinded you…”
I don’t buy your baseline assumptions. So you fall back on your blindness theme again.
From “O Brother Where Art Thou”
Everett: The treasure is still there boys, believe me.
Delmar: [about the Blind Seer] But how’d he know about the treasure?
Everett: I don’t know Delmar. The blind are reputed to possess sensitivities compensating for their lack of sight, even to the point of developing paranormal psychic powers. Now, clearly seeing into the future would fall neatly into that category; it’s not so surprising then that an organism deprived of its earthly vision…
Pete: He said we wouldn’t get it. He said we wouldn’t get the treasure we seek on account of our obstacles.
Everett: Well what the hell does he know? He’s just an ignorant old man. ”
I’m not sure if you (GB) are Everrtt (Odysseus) but I’m laughing already.
“Evil can’t be fixed by human efforts, human powers, human civilizations, human societies, and human philosophies. That’s not within your scope.” – Ymarsakar
Don’t want to get into a theological debate here, however, I always thought that humans have free will and have cognitive abilities to make choices.
Humans may be weak, but do we all say it is impossible, as you suggest, and therefore give up?
Should we focus on how humans cannot be perfect, blame others for their frailty, and sit and wait for armageddon, or should we focus on what we can do to bring others on board and improve ourselves, even if it ends as less than perfect?
The problem is in the choices that humans make, such as compromising greatly in support of one awful choice to defeat another awful one. There is a false sense of “strategy” in that (binary choice paradigm), but no moral win in that situation.
If we don’t speak up and help swing people to what we think is right, are we not leaving opportunities unanswered?
How will we then be judged when that inevitable day comes?
Pingback:Maggie's Farm
Neo:
You’re absolutely incorrect:
1) The media poll numbers _are_ objective, empirically-proven lies, not a figment of the Trump campaign’s imagination.
2) People are cautious about coming out for Trump publicly because we no longer live in a free society: we can lose our jobs, our reputations, our property and our lives for advocating opinions that are unpopular with the hard-left. We can be beaten or assaulted on the streets for our opinions, and it never makes the headlines, no one is outraged.
We no longer have freedom of speech or the discretion to make our own decisions about our lives, our families, or our businesses. Look around you; our republic is toast. _Fundamental_ transformation, baby. That has never before factored into a presidential election.
3) Trump is not a weak candidate, but an especially _strong_ candidate; he had more primary votes than any other Republican in history. How can you even suggest that someone who has galvanized the public the way that he has–drawing support from a wider base of interests than any Republican before—is a ‘weak’ candidate?
4) Unlike in the dim, distant past, which is where you is getting most of the ‘rationale’ for your so-called argument, the national media is now the naked propaganda arm of the government; there is no longer even any pretense of journalistic integrity. Everyone knows it. Without the media’s 24/7 lies, Trump would be 20 points ahead.
Trump’s rallies out-draw Clinton’s by a factor of 5. If Trump ‘loses’, it will be strictly because of massive voter fraud, which I have been expecting since 2008. The hard left has been trying to take over the United States since the 1920s. They landed the White House in 2008, and if you think they’re giving it up just because we’re having a little popular referendum, you’re out of your mind.
Losing our children’s birthright of freedom to a coup de grace from the left is not an option.
Only Putin can save us.
ahem:
Keep reassuring yourself with statements that are untrue.
About polls being right or wrong, see this. About the unimportance of crowds, see this.
Aren’t you trotting out the old “massive fraud can be the only thing accounting for the loss” thingee a mite early this year?
Also, I find this to be very interesting re the Shy Tory effect for Trump:
Also, Trump had more votes in terms of total vote, but that’s one of those “you can have a lot of fun with statistics” numbers. Guess what? He got a lower percentage of votes than most nominees have ever gotten, and also the most people voting against him in the primaries as well as for him, because more people voted in the primaries than before. Combine all of that and it makes the fact that he got the most votes meaningless.
It would be interesting to learn whether you are aware of these facts and just are hiding that awareness and hoping other people aren’t aware, or whether you just don’t know.
The “Trump got the most votes” argument is especially irritating because more people voted for others than for him. And because the nominee wasn’t decided until very late. I admit, I generally skipped primary voting in Texas because usually by then the nominee was known and I already knew who would win my state (I know, I know, lazy).
This year I was very motivated to vote in the primary. Against Trump. The lines snaked around the building.
Bill, yes, there was higher turnout because of other candidates besides Trump. That is definitely true. However, you cannot deny that Trump received the most votes for any Republican primary candidate ever.
Additionally, the assumption is that those who voted for ‘other than Trump’ don’t want to vote Trump. Not so. Know many Republicans who are voting Trump who did not vote for him in the primary. There are plenty like that. A small percentage of Republicans are on the fence. But there is a larger number of independents and first time voters who are not.
The polls do not show this because the polls are looking at a traditional turn out model.
Don’t want to get into a theological debate here, however, I always thought that humans have free will and have cognitive abilities to make choices.
Humans may be weak, but do we all say it is impossible, as you suggest, and therefore give up?
If you can or want to destroy the Leftist alliance or Islam, be my guest. I will not try to stop you or persuade you otherwise. Whether you or anyone else in the West can produce some tangible results verified by reason, not divine interpretation, is what I doubt.
It is true that each human soul and spirit have the free will to decide which side they will be on, after death. Assuming this mortal material plane isn’t the sum total of this universe and existence. Evil as a concept, however, you cannot destroy, any more than you can destroy darkness or light. Evil opposes good, so if you destroy evil, good would also be destroyed, given elements that oppose each other and are defined by each other.
Defeating evil is merely temporary. Of course I have sought out ways to permanently destroy and block evil, but that is like trying to make it so that the brightest noon day, has no shadows… the brightest noon day has the Deepest Shadows. The more successive humans and America becomes in prosperity, the more people fall to evil, not less.
Should we focus on how humans cannot be perfect, blame others for their frailty, and sit and wait for armageddon, or should we focus on what we can do to bring others on board and improve ourselves, even if it ends as less than perfect?
Convincing people to become part of your political sports team, has nothing to do with self improvement. Self improvement has to do with improving the soul and gaining self reliance. If you are reliant on politicians or even the Tea Party for hope and change, you aren’t really reliant on your own power. That’s not adding whether people can ever use divine power or not as a guide.
Years ago, I told people they should stop investing in political campaigns, 2009 or 2010 or 2012. They should stop relying on the Law, to protect them. They shouldn’t depend on the Police or Military to protect them. They should go out and search out ways to survive without society. Some Americans have done just that, by becoming survivalists or “off grid” communities.
Now look at the people who spouted “Obey the Law”, as they see the Left issue laws that destroy good and benefit evil, while they sit around doing nothing but talk about it. That is the very definition of being powerless and weak. In many riot towns like Ferguson, the civilians were lined up Protecting the Police from BLM terrorists. The civilians, who were supposed to Obey the Police no matter what, were shielding the police, who were standing around doing nothing but Letting it Burn, as they were ordered to do. While, also, Oathkeepers had snipers on rooftops keeping a watch on BLM and rioter movements, to act if they invaded the rich and shopkeeper zones.
There’s America’s infamous Law and Order, that people put so much false hope and faith in. That is definitely not an example of overall self improvement. Some people chose to improve themselves, but as usual, most people did not. They are free to choose.
If we don’t speak up and help swing people to what we think is right, are we not leaving opportunities unanswered?
How will we then be judged when that inevitable day comes?
As for that, I prefer to devote my efforts to training, educating, and saving the people that matter. The ones that can rebuild Western civilization, not the ones that are parasites or angels of Lucifer. I will not lift one finger to save humans who have given their heart, souls, and careers to the riches and glories of evil. Nor will I feel a scintilla of guilt, no matter what happens to them.
In human societies, the next generation is important. If people have to be made to do what is right, then that is not a sustainable future.
America, I remind people here, was not created by reforming Europe or convincing people in Europe that religious freedom and God, absent Holy War Popes, was a good thing.
We can be beaten or assaulted on the streets for our opinions, and it never makes the headlines, no one is outraged.
Republicans and patriots have been spit on and harassed since before Vietnam and after as well. Where were you, a regular Democrat voter or transnational progressive back then?
he had more primary votes than any other Republican in history. How can you even suggest that someone who has galvanized the public the way that he has—drawing support from a wider base of interests than any Republican before–is a ‘weak’ candidate?
Open primaries. The system is weak and corrupt. No matter how strong the dictator, Rome was still going to burn and be destroyed, because Rome was already rotten and corrupt. The stronger the Emperor, the worse it got.
The hard left has been trying to take over the United States since the 1920s.
That part is true at least.
I disagree somewhat. Trump’s rise is at least partly due to the fact that none of the Republican candidates seemed capable of thinking strategically beyond themselves (except maybe Walker (my 1st choice), who pulled out early. The hubris of Bush and the fantasies by overpaid consultants about getting voters in their ‘lanes” is also to blame. This is all the Republican establishment, who figured the electorate this year was going to do the usual and eat whatever they puke out.
I agree Trump’s a horrible candidate (I go back and forth as to whether he actually wants to win), but the counterfactual that one of the other candidates, who couldn’t get much more than 10% of the Republican vote, would have done much better, after running into the media/Dem buzzsaw, is hard to fathom.
It’s always amazing how people will tie themselves into utterly illogical knots trying to avoid responsibility for their behavior.
Come January 20, one of two, and only two, people will be President of the United Staes: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If you vote for one of those two people, you help them get elected. If you vote for someone else or don’t vote, you don’t help one of them get elected. This is not complicated.
If you don’t do everything you could have (via your vote) not to elect Hillary, then you helped her get elected and should rightfully accept your share of the blame. There are vast swaths of people who didn’t vote for Trump in their state primary (and are therefore, not responsible for his nomination), but will be voting Trump come November. They are not the voters who will be responsible for a Hillary victory.
nit-pick wrt the Bradley Effect. You can’t have evidence until after the election. Then, what you have is sufficient only for speculation.
Various efforts to find out who donated to one movement or another do chill. The Firefox guy who lost his job–CEO–had donated for a pro-family group.
The idea that today anything is guaranteed anonymous is not one held by many people.
Physical attacks on Trump supporters in which, twice, cops were told to stand down might seem to be a lesson to people who show up at rallies. Not that they might be attacked, but that the establishment thinks it’s a good idea, with whatever further ramifications that suggests.
Dan Kathy of Chik Fil A donates pro-family and CFA was to suffer a boycott by gays and their supporters and two, at least, city officials threatened to block CFA’s business. There was, however a buycott which apparently broke records.
The IRS knows, by law, where your charitable money goes and that they’ve just gotten around to reviewing years-old Tea Party cases means they might come for you.
When the government does something rotten to you and you spend $60k with an attorney to get it fixed, the glib suggestion that the system works does not satisfy. All attorneys know but pretend not to that the process is the punishment.
See Gibson Guitars–CEO donates repub–versus Marving Guitars–CEO donates dem.
It does not do to dismiss the fears of Trump supporters.
Whether it provides the missing voters is another matter, and, I submit, separate as well.
Pingback:Is Donald Trump getting a fair shake by pollsters? - TeeJaw Blog
One of the best threads ever. So many of my thoughts and worries of the past 6 months have been well discussed here. Plus lots of new thoughts to consider from people who basically see the situation in a similar light. That is different than an echo chamber because there are genuinely different opinions here but a common sense of what is wrong. Well done Neo et al.
Sometimes I think Trump believes all of these as well. I think this belief is bolstered by the fact that Hillary has spent a fortune only to break even.
I think this misbelief might be why Trump has held off on spending a ton of money on ad (as any other candidate would do in this situation) because I can’t think of any other sensible reason why (if you were winning despite cheating indicators and such) you would not to be flooding the airwaves 24/7 and building up a lead and momentum that couldn’t be hidden.
<i."If you don’t do everything you could have (via your vote) not to elect Hillary, then you helped her get elected and should rightfully accept your share of the blame."
No. No. No. No.
If you don’t vote for Trump or Hillary, YOU HAVEN’T VOTED FOR HILLARY!
So tired of all the battlespace preparation by Trump supporters to put the blame anywhere other than themselves for supporting one of the most unqualified candidates for President ever. I never supported him, did everything I could (small though it was) to try to have him not be the nominee. The moment he was nominated I took off my GOP jersey and threw it in the trash. I’m not on your team anymore. And I didn’t put on a Dem jersey (I’m not on their team and never have been). So I’m sitting here shivering in the cold without a shirt in the midst of the most miserable election season in living memory, and the Trump supporters are throwing beer cans at me because I’m not cheering for their guy.
I hope he loses (while I’m on the football metaphor) 68-2.
Seriously… the moment I saw him physically mock a disabled reporter, I was out. And that’s been followed by tons more disqualifiers. The moment he spent time after gaining the nomination GOING AFTER REPUBLICANS I was out. The moment he thumbs-upped his Taco bowl to pander to Hispanics I was out The moment he joked about Karly’s face, Meghan’s period, Cruz’s wife, I was out. The moment he spread the rumors through his buddies over at National Enquirer (Pulitzer Baby!) that Cruz had an affair, and that Cruz’s dad was friends with Lee Harvey Oswald, I was out. The moment he spent a week complaining about a judge in a case about him because the judge’s parents were from Mexico I was out. “There’s my African American” – I’m Out. Trump University – I’m Out. Alt-right thugs tweeting pornographic outrages to one of the women named in the “cruz affair” – I’m Out. “Let’s kill the families of terrorists and the military will follow me even though that’s a war crime” – OUT. Deport all muslims. O.U.T.. Alt-right thugs posting anti-semitic and white supremacist garbage – I’m Out. I could go on.
He may win. But either way, this dumpster fire is on you. Not me. I’m not even in your party anymore. So I’m already a “traitor” to your team.
There are a lot like me.
Sorry for the rant . . .
I’m not sure I would vote for Gary Johnson, but this has to be one of the best (and funniest) political ads I’ve ever seen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI
(“did America waste it’s vote on Abe Freakin’ Lincoln?” – heh)
um, all of you are forgetting one thing about this election:
Trump became the presidential candidate because he voiced the people’s concerns – lack of jobs, immigration issues/abuse and potential terrorism. The others seem avoidant and Jeb was seen as pro-illiegal immigration.
And I agree that the atmosphere is very Republican negative – anyone who has a different opinion is immediately attacked and ostracized. Who wants that?
Plus, it would not matter *who* was the Republican candidate anyway; they would all be seen as evil and treated like a threat. And trust – if the Democrats had a non-Hilary candidate, it would be 20-30 pts in their favor.
People of both parties are aware that the Washington Cartel is self serving, and no longer answers to the will of the voters. Hillary represents the status quo. Only fools can’t see that Hillary is a lying and crooked politician, and only fools will vote for her. This awareness is going to cause this election to be a “wave” election, with large numbers of people who haven’t voted in years coming out to vote for Trump. The black voting bloc is beginning to crumble for democrats, as blacks become results oriented. Trump may get as much as 20% of their vote.
You guys are funny.
Trump Victory in a Landslide of epic proportions.
What is ultimately depressing is not the mistakes, it is that no one will learn from the mistakes. 100 years from now, when the US is what ever form it will be in, they will look back to now, and the history will be totally distorted, and they will not make the correct conclusions, because they will not have the proper inputs from which to make those conclusions.
Sad:
You might be interested to learn that I wrote a post very recently on that very subject, whether people learn from their mistakes, how often it happens, and what it takes to do it.
Jack Mackenzie:
You’re even funnier.
And you don’t even realize it.
nofreelunch:
Keep telling yourself that. Problem is there’s no evidence for it (I’ve written on the topic in other posts recently, such as for example this one).
You’re demonstrating a form of the “Shy Tory” argument, which is that there is a “silent majority” that will come out and vote for Trump. That’s a common argument of losing campaigns, as well.
Agree with you completely and harbor no illusions about Trump’s chances. I just find reassurance in the fact that Hillary probably won’t live more than two years into her term, and I suppose we can all be grateful for that.
Here is yet another assessment that is all about the process of elections. This is akin to sitting in the 1st Class lounge on the titanic and truely believing the ship can’t sink. Events will soon put to the test what one believes to be fact. The election, no matter who “wins” doesnt stand a chance of avoiding the iceberg
lehnne:
No one here believes the ship can’t sink, or at least very few believe the ship can’t sink. Take a look at this post and the comments.
Trump became the presidential candidate because he voiced the people’s concerns — lack of jobs, immigration issues/abuse and potential terrorism.
Hussein Obola also became America’s God King by voicing people’s concerns…. and people’s point is what exactly? They need a fresher God King that isn’t black now?
Do they really think Salvation will come if they do that…
Trump Victory in a Landslide of epic proportions.
Like most incompetents at war, they count their chickens before they hatch. They aren’t even at the tactics proficiency level in Tactics < Strategy < Logistics, they're off in their own Social Justice lala land of a copy cat realm.
There is no “tipping point” in terms of ‘conservative’ vs. ‘liberal’ or Democrat vs. Republican. Coalitions are usually very fragile, and none moreso than the current Democratic coalition. They play identity politics masterfully, but even they have to know that you can’t please all of these disparate groups forever. McCain got crushed but still ad ~45% of the vote (in the most toxic environment for Republicans in my lifetime). Romney got ~47%. Trump will probably get 43-44%. Things just have to get worse, or a Republican has to offer enough to swing 4-5% of the population back in our direction.
Furthermore, I don’t think any of the Republican nominees (save for maybe Rubio, if he could get past the “Gang of Eight” disaster) could beat either of the Democratic nominees. We might have dodged a bullet – Sanders is further left than Clinton and certainly a more likeable person. Of course, on the other hand, Hillary is more pragmatic and has more grit, making her agenda more likely to come to fruition. Either way, Trump or Clinton, we may have the most vulnerable incumbent since Bush in ’92 come 2020 (the best silver lining I can give).