Convincing reluctant Trump supporters to vote for him
For a long time I’ve conceptualized Trump voters as falling into two camps: the enthusiastic and the reluctant. No doubt there are some who fall in between, too, but I think that mainly there are those two categories.
The first group are people who supported Trump in the primaries, either as first or second choice. They believe he would be a good president, or at least that he was the best or one of the best of the lot of GOP candidates who originally threw their hats into the ring.
The second group are people who support Trump now only because he’s running against a person they consider worse, Hillary Clinton (if I end up voting for Trump, it will be for that reason).
Members of the first group sometimes appeal to members of the second group, urging them to make sure they vote for Trump. The arguments vary widely (we’ve seen many in the comments section of this blog). Sometimes the argument is that Trump will be a good president and will do a number of good things for the country. Sometimes it’s that Trump will do one or two good things, usually involving SCOTUS justice choices and/or immigration policy. And sometimes it’s that even though we don’t know what Trump might do, we know that Hillary would be awful and there’s at least a chance that Trump would be better.
That latter type of reasoning has probably become the most common argument we see these days, at least as reflected in blog comments and blog posts, in newspaper and magazine columns and TV commentary, plus social media. As Trump’s poll numbers rise and fall and then rise and fall and rise, and state polls become increasingly common, it occurs to me that the latter argument rests almost entirely on the race being at least somewhat close.
For example, let’s say you live in California. If Clinton is ahead by 12% in the polls there (I chose that number because it was the figure in a recent poll, but the point is that no one really disputes that she’s way ahead there), why would a reluctant Trump supporter be motivated to compromise what he/she sees as both his/her principles and integrity by voting for a man he/she detests, if that man is seen as having absolutely no chance of winning in that state? In other words, why prostitute yourself without a payoff?
It behooves Trump to stay close in swing states, because a whole lot of his supporters everywhere are in the category of “reluctant supporters.” Often very reluctant supporters. They will only hold their noses and vote for him in that voting both if they see a good chance of defeating her. Because elections are decided by winning state electoral votes rather than winning the national popular vote, voting decisions will be made by most voters who know much of anything about elections (and I would guess that the category “reluctant Trump voter” is probably made up of people who are aware of the way the Electoral College works) by taking into account this system.
That’s another way in which polls matter. There are margins of error in polls, to be sure, and there are just plain errors, too. But overall, polls that show Trump far behind in a state—particularly a state that usually and reliably goes for the other party; in other words, for Trump supporters that would be blue states—are going to discourage the Trump vote. And polls that show him close will almost certainly encourage it.
Trump is the better of the choices.
The politicians have sure screwed things up, maybe it’s time to give an non-pol but accomplished business man a chance to pull us out of the ditch we’re in.
My criticisms have been pretty clear- if you really think continued control of the House and Senate are important, then you really can’t advocate a position of splitting the ticket. All you will do in attacking Trump’s candidacy that way is to drive down Republican and Republican leaning turnout while driving up Democratic turnout. In addition, you also run the risk that the most adamant Trump supporters will split the ticket the other way in retaliation.
Now, I blame Trump for a good portion of this fallout- I don’t think he made a strong enough, or the even the right effort at the convention to heal the breaches that his own candidacy caused in the Republican Party. However, the breaches had to come in the primaries- I think the party itself had to be broken and remade in certain ways to be competitive again at the national level. I know you disagree and think that another candidate would have had won this election easily, but I think even Rubio and certainly Cruz would have been in about the same position as Trump vs Clinton now, and this assumes that the Democrats would have stuck with Clinton if she looked sure to lose to another candidate in July.
You do really do have a binary decision here- regardless of which state you live in. If you work to divide the ballot top from those lower down, you will accomplish nothing but a devastating loss at all levels.
Neo’s “why prostitute yourself without a payoff?” strikes me as rather odd. Prostitutes are prostitutes, period. To prostitute oneself is a moral sin, regardless of payoff.
Reminds me of Churchill’s famous dialogue with the Lady seated next to him at a dinner party, which went something like this;
WC: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Lady: Why, yes, Winston, I believe I would.
WC: How about just one pound?
Lady: Winston! What do you take me for? A prostitute?
WC: We have already established that, madam. Now we are just haggling about price.
Your summary of the two camps of Trump supporters, at least as seen among commenters here, is spot on. However, your commenters are mostly (probably all) college educated citizens who like to stay informed about current affairs.
What we never see here, (At lest I don’t think so) is the commentary of the blue collar workers, the marginally informed, and the apolitical people who have not voted recently but will vote this time. These are mostly citizens who have been adversely affected by Obama’s policies. They don’t know exactly why things are going badly for them, (at least most don’t) but they are open to the ideas that illegals have affected their job prospects, that Obama’s anti-terror efforts are not working, that climate change is not an imminent danger, that NAFTA and TPP are instrumental in hurting their job prospects. etc. Most of those people will vote Trump because, as Trump himself often asks, “What have you got to lose?” Are there enough of those citizens to make a difference? We’ll only know when the real, final poll is taken on November 8th.
J.J.:
I have been assuming that the group you describe are mostly among the ranks of enthusiastic Trump supporters.
Yancy:
That “logic” fails for me. Down ticket conservative/R. President – not HRC not DJT.
Frog:
It’s a metaphor. But prostitutes don’t work for free. They don’t sleep with a john unless they are paid. They get something out of their degradation: money. For very reluctant Trump voters who feel degraded by voting for him, they want the payoff of defeating Hillary.
I’ve previously urged you all to vote Libertarian if you live in a “safe” state for Clinton; or, for that matter, if you live in a “safe” state for Trump, assuming there are any. Don’t throw away your vote on Trump, but use it to support a third party alternative instead. If you’re worried about down ticket candidates, then split your vote.
neo’s take is mine as well.
I currently live in FL and since it’s a swing State, I will vote for Trump.
If I still lived in California, I would not vote for Trump.
I haven’t warmed up to any of the current third party candidates.
I contend that there’s actually a third group, or at least a 2(a): Voters who believe that the only path back to a working system, if at all possible, is someone from outside the system. As Kurt Schlichter recently wrote (paraphrasing from memory) – “You want a sudden renewed interest in long forgotten checks and balances? Elect Trump.”.
I very begrudgingly find myself in this category somehow. As imperfect as he may be, he is not an insider. I would prefer a very different outsider, to be sure, but only someone with the media presence that Trump has could pull off a nomination from the weaker of the two parties. Otherwise, they would have simply been written off as fringe candidates and forgotten.
I am wondering what his cabinet would look like…or maybe I don’t really want to know…
steve.c:
You are definitely 2(a). Voters in group 2 are certainly not unitary in their reasons for reluctantly coming around to voting for Trump.
I agree with J.J. that neo-neocon has eloquently described the arguments of those urging others to vote for Trump.
Neo-neocon wrote,
I believe that type of reasoning is popular because it is rationally unassailable. Couple that with the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary, and you should have a slam dunk argument.
I reside in blue California. From what I see from my conservative friends here, they are MORE vocal in their support of Trump than they were of their support of Romney. Now, they like Romney more than they like Trump. Why more vocal in 2016 than in 2012 (or 2008)? Generally they disdain the situation in which someone of the ilk of Hillary is walking around as a free person, let alone as a candidate for any public office.
I am what neo would probably call a “reluctant” Trump supporter, though not as reluctant as neo if she is one at all. I supported Cruz in the primaries and like others roll my eyes at some of Trump’s antics. But I am absolutely voting for hiim even though I live in California which he has almost no chance of winning. I believe it is important to make a statement against Hillary and the Dems, and I think the size of the popular vote margin nationwide matters no matter who wins the election.
And I fully agree with Ira’s “the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary”. That is not an idea, it is a 100% certainty. If someone honestly, truly believes that the two candidates are equally bad they should vote for Trump for that reason alone. We are seeing this play out in real time before our eyes. The latest horrific news about Hillary’s e-mails was dumped on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day and it’s a cinch the MFM will have buried it by Tuesday morning. A President Trump will not be able to pick his nose without 8-column headlines.
Neo, I don’t believe that all of the people I describe are enthusiastic Trump supporters. Many are citizens who have mostly been apolitical and voted intermittently. They don’t go to rallies, they don’t send money to candidates, and seldom ever talk about politics. Spectator sports, fishing, golf, camping, boating. good restaurants, and such are what interest them. They know Hillary because she has been around forever, but they also sense that she is corrupt and probably incompetent. They feel that the economy isn’t performing like it used to. They see medical costs skyrocketing and feel that terror is not being combatted successfully. They feel nervous about taking a flyer on Trump because he’s not the usual slick politician but also find that trait appealing. If they are going to vote for Trump, they don’t advertise that fact, as they wonder if other people will think poorly of them. I happen to know one of these people. How many there are like him I don’t know. Like me, he lives in a deep blue state where our presidential vote probably doesn’t matter. But he confessed to me, rather reluctantly, that he’s planning to vote for Trump. Maybe he’s a one off. We’ll find out soon enough.
George W Bush was better than Gore. In the end, it didn’t matter because he wasn’t good enough to prevent paving the way for Obama.
That is the folly of electing the “more conservative” of two bad candidates. The Buckley rule only applies if one of the candidates can pass a threshold of acceptability.
If they can’t, then all you’re doing is paving the way for a backlash in 4 to 8 years.
Frog Says:
“Neo’s “why prostitute yourself without a payoff?” strikes me as rather odd. Prostitutes are prostitutes, period. To prostitute oneself is a moral sin, regardless of payoff.”
People remember that story because it’s funny, but actually the point being made isn’t true.
Example:
Think of some slightly rude thing that you wouldn’t do to another person. Now ask if you would do it for $10 BILLION. If you would, then you’re a prostitute and we’re just haggling over price.
You see?
The glib part is where Churchill glosses over the cost-benefit analysis that ALL PEOPLE do in their heads. There are some evils that are mild, and resistance to engaging in them can easily be overcome. Doing so doesn’t make you a prostitute.
Either that, or prostitutes get a bad rap.
Wooly Bully Says:
“I’ve previously urged you all to vote Libertarian…Don’t throw away your vote on Trump…”
The problem with your plea is that any vote for someone who doesn’t win will be “throwing your vote away,” and that includes the Libertarian candidate.
It is impossible to know which candidate will win beforehand.
steve.c Says:
“As Kurt Schlichter recently wrote (paraphrasing from memory) — “You want a sudden renewed interest in long forgotten checks and balances? Elect Trump.”
I have a better solution: elect someone who won’t propose violating the constitution. Then Checks and Balances won’t be necessary.
And BTW, the idea that Congress or the media will rein in Trump is only a theory, and one I can easily disbelieve.
FOAF Says:
“And I fully agree with Ira’s “the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary”. That is not an idea, it is a 100% certainty.”
It is a theory, and also irrelevant. The problem with Hillary isn’t identifying whether or not she’s a crook. The problem is finding anyone with the legal authority and willingness to jail her.
We just got done seeing that with Comey.
Oh, and on top of the problem with the authorities is the identical problem with her voters. They simply don’t care about her illegalities because she’ll deliver the material/ideological goods for them.
They’re not interested in holding her accountable.
@neo-neocon:
While we’re on the subject of Trump’s supporters, here are a couple of tidbits from Jonah Goldberg regarding the alt-right:
http://www.nationalreview.com/g-file/439662/sean-hannity-jonah-goldberg-class-donald-trump-supporters
His most recent article at National Review Online
https://youtu.be/JW8JjaYBVLc
An except of Jonah’s recent interview with Hugh Hewitt, where they discuss the nature of the alt-right and its integration (pun!) into the Trump movement.
I agreed with Jonah’s assessment 100%. It matches my experience with the alt-right online.
They are many more enthusiastic Trump supporters than reluctant ones. Every national poll this week shows more support for Trump coming from the Republican Party.
Not sure why you are concerned about unenthusiastic Trump supporters in California. CA would be awesome, but pretty unexpected for Trump.
I notice you aren’t really thinking about the types that either are brand new voters or voters who haven’t voted in decades. I think there are enough of those to overcome the ‘reluctant’ Republican voter you speak of.
I find it very sad, Neo, that you are still not certain of your vote. After Friday’s FBI dump, Hillary just cannot be president.
Look to Pence, Giuliani, Sessions and others on the trump team to convince yourself voting for Trump is the only option.
Because in the end if you don’t vote for Trump you will basically be considered as having voted for Clinton by those who vote Trump. It isn’t true of course, but that is what will happen. And you will face 4 years of feeling guilty for having contributed to the election of the most corrupt and annoying President ever. You will proclaim to the heavens that you didn’t actual vote for Hillary, but neither the heavens or anyone else will care. It will be considered a de facto vote for Mrs. Clinton and you will fell Tudor and unclean for as long as she is President plus 10 years after.
First Matt says:
“It is a theory, and also irrelevant.”
Then he says:
“They’re not interested in holding her accountable.”
So which is it? What’s your point?
The tabulation is going to be decided by HACKERS.
The underlying software that is tabulating the vote is Windows XP — STILL loaded with backdoors.
Windows XP underpins virtually all of the ATMs we use, too.
The idea that the clowns in charge of our tabulations have ANY conception as to how wide open their digital domains are is to laugh — and to weep.
The 2012 election was HACKED. That’s a certainty.
Thank you Google.
From this point forward, the victor must spend large on his hackers.
We’re all living in Chicago, now.
And I fully agree with Ira’s “the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary”.
Expecting evil to do the job of telling the truth is rather rich. Anyone that thinks the MSewerM is telling them the truth, has already fallen for the con. But that’s to be expected in a country that thought Hussein Obola was the Lightbringer and Messiah two times in a row.
Matt_SE: Hi, Matt! You just contradicted yourself there.
Phil: I don’t know who you were addressing, but I will reply that I am not going to vote for Trump and I will sleep like a baby afterwards. No one will bully me into feeling bad if Clinton wins. I don’t give a flying #@(%! what anyone else thinks. I’m not voting for her.
FOAF Says:
“And I fully agree with Ira’s “the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary”. That is not an idea, it is a 100% certainty.”
“What’s your point?”
Let me re-phrase: Whether reporters report on Hillary or not is irrelevant because we already know that she’s guilty. No more evidence is required. She should be in prison right now.
Furthermore, since Trump and his followers are dismissive if not hostile to any press criticisms already, how are reporters going to keep him in line?
This is the similarity between Trumpkins and SJWs: disqualification of critics.
So your comment is wrong on two accounts: firstly, that reporting on Hillary would be worthwhile. Secondly, that reporting on Trump would change his behavior and “keep him honest.”
That was my point.
Wooly Bully Says:
“Matt_SE: Hi, Matt! You just contradicted yourself there.”
Hi, Wooly!
I didn’t realize we were on a first-name basis, but maybe you can expand on my error? Because I’m not sure to what you’re referring.
“So your comment is wrong on two accounts: firstly, that reporting on Hillary would be worthwhile. Secondly, that reporting on Trump would change his behavior and “keep him honest.””
In the first place you put quotes around the phrase “keep him honest” as if I used it which I did not. Media reporting does not necessarily keep its subjects “honest” but it has a significant influence on the responses of others, such as the Congress and the public in the case of the President.
It is pretty obvious to anyone with at least a room-temperature IQ that media bias towards Dems and the left has had no small influence on the course of American politics in recent years. Apparently you do not qualify. Sad!
Spengler formulated a compelling argument why it is necessary to vote Trump: Clinton’s foundation is a criminal organization masquerading as charity. It deserves investigation under RICO act, and people who own it are criminals by this standard. Al Capone also did not murder anybody by his own hands, but now he would be jailed not for tax fraud.
FOAF:
Please quote for us here an instance of press scrutiny forcing Trump to change his position. I’m unaware of one off the top of my head and to the contrary, it seems Trump’s intransigence is one of the features his supporters like the most.
Quit insulting our intelligence.
Hillary will be worse for the country in the short term. Trump will be worse for the country in the long term because he’s corrosive to the conservative ideology.
Trump’s most ardent supporters are anti-conservatives, and in several different ways.
“Quit insulting our intelligence”
Quit misquoting me. This is now the second time you’ve done it. In fact I said that the importance of media influence was on others, not the subject be it Trump or Hillary.
And I did not “insult” your intelligence. Indeed I may have overrated it by comparing it to room temperature. I could have said “Celsius” :^)
Mr. SE: I take it back; maybe you weren’t contradicting yourself. However, I don’t think you understood my argument, which is that if you vote for Trump in a winner-take-all state that he cannot win, that is “throwing your vote away” because it simply won’t do any good. Voting Libertarian is not throwing your vote away because the point is not to win this time but to build the party up to the point that it may win in the future. Of course, if you don’t want that, then don’t vote Libertarian.
Wooly says: ” Voting Libertarian is not throwing your vote away because the point is not to win this time but to build the party up to the point that it may win in the future. Of course, if you don’t want that, then don’t vote Libertarian.”
I was considering voting Libertarian but after listening to Gary Johnson get all sweaty about the phrase “illegal immigrant”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xlmU9LvtAs
and speak warmly (pun intended) about a carbon tax
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/22/libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-says-most-of-gop-right-now-is-me.html
no thanks.
Bob_CA, maybe we should forgive Johnson for getting sweaty about the open nativism if not downright racism of the alt-right and Trump. As to the the carbon tax, it’s hopefully nothing more than a sop to Bernie supporters. At the Lib convention in May he said this about global warming:
“I’m not smart enough to say whether or not global warming is man made, certainly there is climate change.”
—which contradicted a statement by him 5 years ago that he accepted the fact of anthropegenic climate change, and which contradicts the statement in the interview you linked. Which is his real belief and which is the calculated one? Let’s put it this way: if you saw millions of disaffected Bernie supporters open to persuasion, and realizing this is perhaps a chance of a lifetime, wouldn’t you consider doing the politically expedient thing and massage your answer? As to the carbon tax, he said he would consider it – pretty vague.
I’m not a gung-ho Johnson supporter, but looking at his overall policy proposals, he’s heads above either HRC or DJT. And he’s neither a crook nor crazy.
The point about the journos covering Trump like a wet sheet is not to cause him to change his policies.
Unlike wrt the dems, the journos won’t be covering them up, lying about them, smearing those complaining.
In addition, the various federal agencies now overloaded with Lois Lerner clones will not cooperate as they would with Hillary. In the conflicts, then, is a possibility of the worst things not happening. Unlike what would happen if Hillary were president.
It appears that there are a few unconvinced conservative voters in VA. Richmond Post Dispatch for example.
But it’s binary, BINARY! /jk
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/09/05/reliably-right-leaning-virginia-paper-endorses-gary-johnson/
Out of sheer shock I was determined to not vote this year. Then one of my sisters let me know she was voting for Hillary because at least she was intelligent. OMG! I am now voting for Trump for the horrible reason: out of spite.
Aren’t siblings wonderful at times. 🙂
Thank you, Richard Aubrey, that was *exactly* the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately someone continued to dishonestly misrepresent my views even after I made this explicit.
The Other Chuck, I think that Gary Johnson courting Bernie voters is a fool’s errand. Brings to mind the Hillary voters in 2008 who claimed they were PUMAs (party unity my ass). In the end they came around to vote for Obama. Democrats are very disciplined and know how to fall in line when needed.
But his pandering definitely speaks to Johnson’s character.
I think the best path for conservatives is to fight in the Republican party. In the past, Libertarian voters have cost the country dearly in close elections. One I recall is electing Tester to the Senate in 2006 paving the way for Obamacare among many other disasters.
At this point here in CA my best option is not voting for President at all but voting the down ballot particularly against many terrible initiatives.
FOAF:
Perhaps that person honestly misunderstood your viewpoint.
It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.
@Matt SE – thanks for the links!
Why the argument of a binary choice and that somehow one cannot be against both candidates is folly…
“What if the race this year was between Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders, or to better illustrate the point, between Hannibal Lecter and Freddy Krueger. Am I really obligated to figure out which is the lesser of two evils, or am I actually obligated to say they’re both evil?” – Jonah Goldberg
I understood my sister! 😀
I don’t think so, neo. 1) I never ever said anything to even remotely imply that I thought the press would change the President’s mind while Matt explicitly and falsely attributed that idea to me. It is true that in my first post I did not precisely lay out the reasons why I thought the scrutiny of the press was important. But even then Matt crossed the line by putting the phrase “keep him honest” in quotes even though I never said that. He was already trying to impute views to me that I do not hold. 2) *After* I responded to his comment to clarify my meaning he continued to attribute that view to me.
I will allow there is a remotely small possibility that he “honestly” misunderstood my viewpoint, if you assume Matt is incredibly stupid and self-referential. Do I sound angry? Yes, I am.
While I usually like Goldberg, Big Maq’s quote from him is pretty weak sauce if you look at it carefully. “Krueger vs. Lecter” is not actually Godwin since it does not invoke Hitler or the Holocaust but I would call it “Godwin-equivalent”.
As for Stein vs. Sanders, that is not a realistic scenario that there would be no viable candidate to the right of that very far left. A more plausible race would be Gary Johnson vs Stein or Sanders. And in that case I and I suspect most other prospective Trump voters, reluctant or otherwise, would vote for Johnson in a heartbeat even if we think it is a wasted vote in the current 4-person race. Goldberg’s strawman argument puts Ray Bolger to shame.
FOAF:
I haven’t read every detail of the exchange between the two of you, but I’ve skimmed it, and this is what I have to say in response to you.
I have been misunderstood time and time again. I find it is a very good policy to remain polite unless it’s incredibly egregious and repetitive as well as rude and nasty and trolllike (even then I sometimes stay polite). The reason is that then I’m taking the high road, plus people really DO misunderstand and/or fail to read details much more than one might think.
When you wrote about the press and Trump, it actually is a bit puzzling as to why you think it matters. The press has criticized Trump for ages and it hasn’t seemed to matter one way or another. Nor do I see the press as having an influence on Congress. You may see it; I don’t.
But even further, putting things like “keep him honest” in quotes does NOT necessarily mean a person is quoting you. That is only one possible interpretation. Another is—particularly when using a cliche, as is happening with “keep him honest”—the person might just be referring to the phrase itself as a cliche or hackneyed phrase. Scare quotes, not real quotes.
That’s the way I would read it, not as some deliberate misquoting of you.
See what I mean about possible misunderstandings?
As we’ve seen from the Obama years, there are only two ways to get the president to change policy: either you persuade him to change his mind, or you impeach him.
If impeachment is off the table and you can’t persuade him, then you’re out of luck.
The press will have no direct influence over Trump. He has shown a dogged willingness to disregard them. Trump’s core supporters have shown a similar intransigence.
If Trump can persuade 34 GOP Senators to never impeach him, people who disagree with his policies will again be out of luck.
So much for the influence of the press.
I’m getting a little tired of people cowering behind Godwin’s Law, so I’ll just ask you directly FOAF:
When discussing fascism or possible fascists, who are we allowed to use as an example? Obviously it’s not Hitler, even though he is the most clear and universal example available to mankind.
Who are we allowed to use?
@ neo-neocon:
Yes, those were meant as scare quotes. This is especially obvious in an online forum, where the original post cannot be deleted and is easily checkable. I cannot have been quoting him.
“‘[S]ometimes [the argument for supporting Trump is] that even though we don’t know what Trump might do, we know that Hillary would be awful and there’s at least a chance that Trump would be better… That latter type of reasoning has probably become the most common argument we see these days, at least as reflected in blog comments and blog posts, in newspaper and magazine columns and TV commentary, plus social media.’ (- Neo)
I believe that type of reasoning is popular because it is rationally unassailable. Couple that with the idea that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president as opposed to Hillary, and you should have a slam dunk argument.” – Ira
.
While Neo’s statement is accurate, she is not saying the argument is “unassailable”.
“There’s at least a chance that trump would be better”
Very true.
But, the “chance” assumption can be played the other way to claim “unassailability” of a similar argument against trump.
.
Fact is, implied by the “chance” reasoning, there is also a very good “chance” that he could be worse, and some “chance” he could well be catastrophic.
But, “better”, “worse”, “catastrophic” all depend on one’s principles. That is, what is your measuring stick?
GB here argues trump is going to be an authoritarian. That surely pushes us towards the catastrophic category, by my books. Yet, some have no problem with an authoritarian.
If there is no step too far in the opposition to clinton, then your measuring stick on what is “better” is very different from mine.
.
Your second statement “that the press will more likely do its job with Trump as president” is false.
The MSM (I presume you are referring to) will do what it always has, in their usual biased way.
GWB won a second term and was able to continue the war in the ME, all despite the MSM bias. So, if trump can win an election despite that headwind, just how likely will their natural bias hold trump in check?
Meanwhile, the “conservative” media would be split as it is, between the pro-trump 24/7, 365 cheerleaders and those who express concerns based on their principles.
If you acknowledge the serious risks with trump, then you must be wishing this to be, despite the clear failures we have seen of the media (and of the “establishment”) to stop trump during the nomination (nor election – should trump win), nor of the several examples in which SCOTUS or Congress (to include other hurdles others argue wrt trump) failed at stopping even obama.
Or, you don’t recognize the risks with him (having bought into the arguments made by those media cheerleaders – different measuring stick?). In which case, you will not be alarmed if trump moves forward on changing the laws wrt media rights, as he has threatened on occasion, nor the rationale he may take to expand government, accelerate centralization of power within the POTUS, and crony SCOTUS appointments – all of which devolves the power of the press, and Congress, giving trump greater latitude in exercising power.
.
Third, your measuring stick must not include conservative oriented policy prescriptions, as that has little likelihood (if we go by trump’s history, considering how mutable he has been this cycle on any policy). If we are not getting conservative policies, what have we “won” if trump wins the election, other than “not clinton”?
Of course “there’s a chance…” at him implementing some conservative policy, but given the risks and their consequences, hardly seems worthy of the trade off.
.
“Unassailable”? I don’t think so.
“While I usually like Goldberg, Big Maq’s quote from him is pretty weak sauce if you look at it carefully. “Krueger vs. Lecter” is not actually Godwin since it does not invoke Hitler or the Holocaust but I would call it “Godwin-equivalent”.” – FOAF
Arguing “Godwin” is to avoid the key point altogether, or is a serious misunderstanding of the point Goldberg (and I, by extension) are trying to illustrate.
How about this… YOU.. pick two people you find well beyond your idea of acceptable (Jonah used Stein and Sanders, then picked two figures anyone could agree on as loathsome – well, maybe not anyone).
Now, someone tells you that your loathsome candidate A is better than your loathsome candidate B and that we should all jump on board the A – train, that criticizing A is like supporting B, and that not voting for A is like voting for B, all when you actually think neither are acceptable whatsoever.
This is all because A is on “our” team, and we have always tried to beat B’s team. But A is nowhere close to representing what your team used to stand for, nor is loathsome candidate A convincing when he says he does (in his on again off again fashion).
I hope you understand now.
If you are still stumbling across Godwin now, then L0rd have mercy.
“If you acknowledge the serious risks with trump, then you must be wishing this to be” – me
The assertion that the media will block trump is the “wish” rather than an expectation.
It is rather droll to me to see people getting so huffy about “Godwin” when the actual example was exponentially more ridiculous – Freddie Kreuger and Hannibal Lecter for crying out loud. How about John Gacy and Ted Bundy? My characterization of Goldberg’s argument as strawman still stands.
“I cannot have been quoting him.”
Even *if* that is true it is unmistakable that you were trying effectively to put words in my mouth that I never intended. And that you continued to do so after I explicitly disclaimed that meaning.
Let me expand a little bit on the hypothetical Stein-Sanders scenario even though I think it is barely less ridiculous than Kreuger-Lecter. If that were really the case, and the likelihood of one of them being elected were equal to the likelihood of Trump or Clinton in 2016 (that is the part I find far-fetched) I *would* examine them carefully, and if I came to the conclusion that one was likely to cause less damage to the US than the other I would probably vote for that one even though they are both bad.
In fact I am faced with a near-equivalent choice in this election and it’s not Trump vs. Hillary. I live in California where our stupid primary system has produced two and only two candidates for US Senate, both Democrats. I may very well vote for Loretta Sanchez simply to keep Kamala Harris out of the office.
My feelings are hurt.
I can’t understand why authoritarian ruler is always considered to be a bad choice. It entirely depends on personal virtues of this ruler. Singapore and Chile are clear examples how authoritarian ruler can save his nation on the verge of catastrophe and do the job which no democracy can ever accomplish due its inherent weakness and impotence.
@FOAF – Dude you avoid the point, claiming strawman, when it is an obvious analogy to illustrate a point.
You claim it unrealistic. Yet, who on this earth thought we’d be left with two POTUS candidates with all time historic negatives?
That you don’t imagine the choices to both be awful, doesn’t mean it isn’t for anyone else. Since you may well be okay with trump, hence the analogy to illustrate the point – YOU can even get to pick the two worst possible candidates on your own standard.
Your elaboration about the Senate race indicates you well understand the point we are making, but your rebut with a Senate example is not quite like voting for POTUS. Far different scope of power and impact.
You introduced the idea that it was about Godwin’s law (it was not), and then claim we are the one’s huffy about Godwin’s law in simply refuting so.
Aw shucks!
Finally, another potential libertarian supporter who actually did his due diligence, and found out just what Johnson was selling.
Kudos, however you eventually do vote.
I have to admit that although I had read the Libertarian platform and looked fairly closely at Johnson’s position points, I had not seen this clip.
He starts off like a miffed church lady barely veiling her pique in a “for your information” mode; and then does go ballistic with the histrionics and the righteously jabbing finger of indignation indicting his interviewer.
(Very risky tactic for him, if in his menacing invasion of another’s personal space, they should grab ahold of his finger and snap it back as they would presumably have a libertarian-like right to do. )
Anyway the upshot? “Libertarian” candidate manifests as PC morals police when asked a simple legal question.
I did not watch quite to the end and cannot say whether he was caught on camera wiping away his ejected spittle or not.
Anyway, it’s pretty remarkable that a candidate moment this thoroughly entertaining and revealing was caught on tape.
Oh I now did watch to the end. And no, he was not wiping away the slobber of rage at the end. He sighed and admitted that technically speaking, violating immigration law was an illegal act.
You know, if you what to get all literal and all fussy about the law.
FOAF:
You wrote (in response to Matt_SE in this thread):
“Matt_SE” had written just prior to that (to me, because I had suggested they were scare quotes rather than actual quotes):
So FOAF, if you understand what scare quotes are (which I’m assuming you do), they don’t put words in a person’s mouth. And Matt_SE only used the phrase “keep him honest” in quotes in one comment of his. And as he points out, anyone would know he wasn’t quoting you because you didn’t use those words, and your comment is right there in the thread.
My larger point is that misunderstandings happen. He may have misunderstood something you wrote, thinking a certain thought was implicit in what you wrote. You initially misunderstood the meaning of those scare quotes. You still disagree with what Matt_SE wrote, but he was not putting false quotes into your mouth.
People misunderstand people on forums all the time. It is usually not evidence of purposeful lying or misrepresenting what they said. That’s what I’m trying to convey to you. Accusing someone of that kind of ill will is usually another kind of misunderstanding, which can easily help the forum to degenerate into angry name-calling between and among the commenters.
Accusing someone of that kind of ill will is usually another kind of misunderstanding, which can easily help the forum to degenerate into angry name-calling between and among the commenters.
Humans aren’t any better wearing their fancy 21st century civilization masks compared to the Salem Witch Trials (stopped by some Christians) or the heresy trial that burned Jean De Arc due to political gain.
If man made Laws keep our civilization running, it won’t for long, once people’s heart becomes corrupted into factionalism. Check out the infamous blood feud, McCoy vs Hatfields.
As for what I do, I deny knowledge gained from human hands and I read threads backwards.
Unlike wrt the dems, the journos won’t be covering them up, lying about them, smearing those complaining.
I saw what happened to Bush II with the press. The American people fell for the con, again. It’s not going to fix Lucifer’s deception nor have people eat the truth. They don’t want the truth.
“Finally, another potential libertarian supporter who actually did his due diligence, and found out just what Johnson was selling.” – DNW
So we have the mutable one who is all over the map and has a temperament problem to boot. In the other corner we have a lying crook.
Johnson, at least, doesn’t come with all that baggage, and has been a Governor for two terms, running essentially as a moderate, small government Republican.
Yes, I cannot agree with his entire platform, but considering the alternative, he’s MUCH more likely to move the government in the one direction we all need it to – smaller.
Also, add that if we maintain GOP dominant Congress, with downticket votes, Johnson is MUCH more likely to live within the bounds of office. Something neither of the other two seem likely to.
“Johnson is MUCH more likely to live within the bounds of office”
He’s got about much chance as Freddie and Hannibal.
The country has as much a chance with HRC and DJT; crook and con man, or do I repeat myself?
@FOAF – I’ll repeat what I have said elsewhere….
If you and many others continue to think your choice is only binary, then “SURPRISE!!!”, that is what it will be.
It is self-fulfilling.
There is an alternative, but only if you break out of the binary paradigm.
You won’t because you need to see some movement elsewhere towards an alternative. IOW, you are waiting on someone else to deliver to you a “viable” alternative.
You won’t budge first, so you mock any alternative to keep the herd of like minded folks in place.
If nobody budges, waiting for everyone else to make the move, then nobody moves.
That is all assuming you are a “reluctant” trump supporter.
If you are NOT reluctant, then you probably don’t see the point about Freddie and Hannibal, and why anyone would be opposed to trump as well as clinton.
Perhaps, there is even no limit in opposing clinton.
If so, we disagree about a LOT more.
Article II
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, [Section 3] … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”
Guess that eliminates Johnson as a matter of principle guided by the rule of law , doesn’t it.
“1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 — Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud”
Maybe Gary Johnson’s sensibilities would be salved if illegal aliens were termed “unlawful entrants” instead.
Advocates for criminals could probably could apply that as a strategic euphemism in any number of criminal classifications; including one particularly heinous subset of interpersonal assaults.
Regardless as to whether that makes Johnson feel better or not, he still has the Presidential disqualification problem though: in that he cannot take, or be trusted to honorably take the oath of office …
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
… which requires that he faithfully execute the office, which means he swears, ” … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”
Gary Johnson, the supposedly more honorable and presumably more knowledgeable alternative to Trump, cannot according to statements he has himself made, be trusted to faithfully execute the office of they President, and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
DNW
The same “argument” can be applied to Trump (illegal orders to military, first amendment and the press, just for starters), and to the Shrew Queen. You can do better./s
“Article II
The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, [Section 3] … he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”” – DNW
Applies to obama, and many would argue GWB at the time.
Given what we’ve seen from both trump and clinton, it will likely apply to them both too.
I’m not claiming Johnson is perfect – he is far from it. But, its not entirely clear how different his position on illegal immigrants is from some of what we’ve been hearing from trump, though admittedly trump is all over the map on that. That’s where trump’s mutability bites one in the a**.
And that is aside from all the other downside risks that come with trump.
Johnson will at least seek balanced budget, and a reduced size and scope of the federal government – THAT is the right direction we need head.
Reluctant voters can go to the polls with their principles and integrity intact… AND PUBLIC by wearing The American NosePin Salute from cafepress.com/nosepinamerica