Clinton and Trump Win

Joe Cannon weighs in.

The first part is concerned with the Syrian mess, while the second part is concerned with the presidential election.

When I was 11 years old, the President of the USA was shown to be a criminal, and he resigned his office in disgrace, and…nothing happened.

No armed mobs clashed with Five-O in the streets, no National Guard units were called out, no tanks rolled–holy Haruhi, the disgraced Prez’s Veep almost managed to win the next Prez election.

Suffering Sappho, even the Great Depression failed to install Communism, or Fascism, or anything else more radical than the rather moderate New Deal, in the USA.

So, yeah, I’m going to remain skeptical about massive changes in the USAmerican political order.

I suspect bloggers, us blog-haunters, and other people interested in politics tend not to realize how little like us the majority of USAmericans are. Most people are moderates, and I doubt they will take well to a posturing vulgarian like Trump, much less the Oliver Cromwell wannabe Cruz.

How many times does the Apocalypse need to be delayed before we can finally conclude it isn’t coming?

If Trump or Cruz wins the nomination, the GOP Establishment still has one other option:

Take a dive.

I’m just barely old enough to remember “Democrats for Nixon” in 1972.

The GOP Establishment might decide they would prefer to lose this presidential election than lose their control of their party.

kj1313 makes good points that I agree with.

Ben says, “I think Trump should be favored now, but the party doyens have a clear path to stop him: get everyone besides Rubio and Cruz to drop out.”

That’s the plan (although Kasich doesn’t seem to be on board yet, and his strongest areas are well off so he could hang around for a while – although I suspect he’ll be carrot and/or sticked out of the race in relatively short order), but look at the numbers:

In South Carolina: Trump/Cruz/Carson = 62%, Rubio/Bush/Kasich = 38%

Nationally: Trump/Cruz/Carson = 61%. Rubio/Bush/Kasich = 30% (doesn’t add to 100% because rolling poll average still contains some dropouts)

Sure, establishment figures will consolidate, but you always lose some votes when you consolidate, and they barely have enough votes to begin with, even if they could sustain an even split of votes between Trump and Cruz (and note how impossible that dynamic was to manage for Harper last election in Canada).

I do wonder if the Carson campaign is simply a front to divert whatever votes from Cruz that they can. If so, it’s worked pretty well so far and you could expect Carson to hang in as long as Cruz does.

Anyway, I’m not saying consolidation won’t work, but it’s not as simple as consolidating the superior establishment vote count into a single candidate and rolling to victory.

Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, the Clinton coalition is wealthy old white people and Black people, which seems odd, and makes you wonder if Black people really know what they are doing, but I guess really what it comes down to is liberal (in U.S. terminology) democratic voters vs moderate democratic voters.

I think the moderate/defensive democratic votes are still a majority on the Democratic side and Clinton will win the nomination, but I must say I’ve been quite surprised how well Sanders has done so far (not as surprised as the clueless beltway media, but surprised all the same), so perhaps I will be surprised again. The media will spin his upcoming losses in the Southeast as hard as they can, but the reality is if he wins enough of the Hispanic vote, he can lose the Southeast and still win the nomination.

Despite the pleas of electability from Clinton supporters, I can’t say I like her chances much in the general, she could beat Cruz I imagine, but anyone else?

…the Clinton coalition is wealthy old white people and Black people, which seems odd, and makes you wonder if Black people really know what they are doing…

I think part of the answer is this comment on a previous post:

The reason African-Americans support the Clintons is simple: they have shown that they can beat Republicans.

My own impression is that the more people learn about Sanders, the more they like him—as Ian points out, his numbers keep improving while Clinton’s do not—and I would assume that holds for Hispanics, women, and, yes, blacks so he probably has some room to extend his numbers.

Also to steal Ian’s point about the Dems: Rubio’s numbers keep improving, Cruz / Trump’s do not

If Ian has any African-American readers:

[snark]I’m sure they just love privileged palefaces like Some Guy (and of course he’s a guy) whitesplaining to them how they don’t really know what they’re doing and need Wise Honkies like Some Guy to tell them how to vote.[/snark]

*CLUNK* Aw, where’s the super glue? I gotta glue my butt back on after laughing it off. AGAIN. 😆

On the subject of; “why do black folks vote for Hillary?” I find the comments above ignoring a rather glaring piece of history, working class people in general, but working class blacks in particular have seen a decline in their fortunes since 1978 EXCEPT in the latter years of Bill Clinton’s Administration. While Bill’s policies had absolutely nothing to do with it he get’s the credit for driving employment levels so high, that employers were FORCED to give lower class people a chance and a raise…when they found out the could do the job well and might be recruited away.

Let me say for the record, I am no friend of Hillary or Bill, both are Wall Street lacky’s, both have a large role in re-birthing the cold war and Hillary is a war criminal for her “Wars of Aggression” in Guatemala, Libya, Ukraine and Syria. Hillary/Obama are responsible for the deaths of at least 350,000 innocent civilians. Indeed, Hillary presided over a genocide against blacks in Libya [12-25,000 innocents] carried out by her forces…which was conveniently NOT reported by ANY western media.

Sadly, those who clapped the loudest for Obama drowned out any discussion of Hillary’s race war against blacks in Libya must now share in the blame if Hillary is able to garner enough black votes to disguise her undemocratic use of super-delegates to overcome her ballot failures. Chickens do come home to roost.

If you look at the two groups, I think the difference is that for wealthy old white (sadly, ‘wow’ doesn’t seem line an appropriate acronym) Clinton supporters, the reality is that Clinton is a better choice for them (assuming they don’t care about their fellow citizens or death destruction for millions abroad) regardless of electability concerns.

For Blacks, the available evidence (notwithstanding S Brennan’s useful point above) suggests (IMO) they will do better under Sanders than Clinton.

The counterveiling points is that Blacks obviously have a lot more at stake in preventing a Republican victory.

So for the ‘wow’s, there are 2 rationale’s – self-interest and electability, for Blacks, just one (electability), but it is a much more powerful force for them.

At any rate, in case there are others out there as slow-witted as Ivory Bill, let me note that I don’t claim to know what people’s best interest is better than they do (not in this case at least!), I’m just pointing out warning signs and reading the tea leaves.

OK, one last bit of honkywhitemancanuckbrocrackersplaining and then I’ll leave this alone.

If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the intensity of concern about electability is what drives Blacks to support Clinton, then support for Clinton vs Sanders among Latinos is likely to vary depending on who the front-runner is on the Republican side.

If Trump is in for sure, the stakes get higher for Latinos as well. But if Rubio takes over, then the stakes drop a lot.

Part of this I think has to do with splitting anti-minority Republican behaviour into two pieces.

One part is screwing the poor to benefit the rich via economic policy. This is something that the Republicans will do no matter who is the nominee (less under Trump, but likely to continue all the same – look at his tax plan) and I’d argue it matters more to Black people than to Latinos.

The other part is screwing the (domestic) poor to benefit the rich via immigration policy. Here Republicans are split. The base wants this to stop, and are voting for Trump and his wall. The rich want this to continue and are supporting gang of 8 Rubio. Arguably this piece matters more to Latinos – so they don’t have as much at stake in preventing a Republican victory – unless it looks like Trump is going to win.

So if you want Sanders for Pres., support Rubio?

Add to Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem the name of Jill Filipovic who has an article in the Sunday NYT with the subtitle: “Young women aren’t voting for Clinton. Maybe that’s because they haven’t faced years of sexism at work”. She argues that the real “radical” feminists are the older women who are supporting Hillary because she “shares both their political views and their experiences.” The thesis is that millennial women’s feminism is primarily centered around sexual issues because they basically have no workplace experience. This is really nothing more than a reworking of Albright’s and Steinem’s comments minus their more incendiary expression. And it is still hilariously funny and insulting to women of all ages.

Young millennial women have never really experienced the kinds of discrimination that Hillary Clinton has who had to accept a measly $675,000 for 3 speeches to Goldman Sachs because, as she said, it was all they offered, or who had to suffer the indignity of receiving a place on the board of Walmart because of her last name, or again because of that last name and the piddly millions it garnered from Wall Street was reduced to running for Senator from New York, and after that a run for the White House, and after her loss to Obama, the sexist booby prize of Secretary of State.

This tale of hardship and woe, which Clinton was only partly to overcome through the traditional American values of connections and other people’s money, should resonate with all women. It is just inexplicable that it doesn’t with millennial women or that, given their ongoing sexual obsessions, they don’t recognize that real radical feminism isn’t about kicking your sexual predator of a husband out the door and using your own last name. It’s about the cynical choice to stay with him, use his name and connections, and even trot him out to schmooze and smooth the masses, you know to rise above.

Now Hugh mansplains to Hillary that she should have kicked her sexual-predator (proof that his horndog activities were predatory rather than consensual, please?) hubby out the door and gone out on her own.

The Pharisaic moral supremacism is strong on this thread.

Ah, yes, the Archdruid, another prophet of doom.

Maybe this one will prove correct, but I have spent nearly 53 solar orbits now, being bombarded with apocalyptic prediction after apocalyptic prediction after apocalyptic prediction after apocalyptic prediction…you get the idea–and it hasn’t happened yet.

Of course, that does not mean it won’t happen tomorrow, or next year, or whenever.

However, when one hears interminable apocalyptic predictions without an apocalypse ever showing up, one can be forgiven for losing faith in apocalypses.

Ivory Bill, Greer (Archdruid), literally wrote a book entitled, ‘Apocalypse Not’.

Mr. Welsh–The enjoyment of reading your blog comes not just from your commentary but also from the thoughtful if usually contradictory commentaries of your patrons. But please, as a metaphorical bar owner, you should remember that, when one of the patrons becomes a drunken lunatic driving off your other customers, most actual bar owners kick said maniac off the premises. Thank you.

Ivory Bill Woodpecker, how do you explain from your ivory perch how all Sanders’ mansplaining has won him the support of so many millennial women? Must be they are so obsessed with sex that they haven’t noticed he’s a man. I mean if you are going to drag out these canards can’t you at least vary them or make them a little more interesting?

As for Bill Clinton and sexual predation, both social mores and the law recognize it isn’t just about physical violence but occurs when there is a substantial difference in power and/or authority between the predator and the victim. Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, for instance. He settled with Jones rather than be deposed about his sexual activities in the midst of his impeachment trial in part over his affair with Lewinsky. Or even Gennifer Flowers. Clinton denied on national television (60 Minutes) ever having had an affair with her. Flowers started playing tapes she had made of them together, which resulted in Clinton admitting that indeed he had had an “encounter” with Flowers, but only once. Although the 60 Minutes interview was not under oath, it raises a question common to such proceedings: “If you were lying then, are you lying now?” This was also the great era in which Clinton argued about what the meaning of “is” is and whether fellatio constituted sex.

The current Bill Cosby case illustrates certain aspects of sexual predation. The first is that it is never singular. It is more a way of life. As such, it is virtually inconceivable that a spouse, if there is one, is unaware, especially over a period of decades of their partner’s actions, however they may rationalize them. Second, the predator can use their status (and think how much greater Clinton’s status as governor and President was compared even to Cosby’s) to hide their activities, deny them if they surface, defame and/or buy off their accusers, and above all else stay out of jail.

Both Trump and Sanders are an inevitable counter reaction to the dominant neo-liberal and neo-con ideologies that the Dems and GOP signed up with long ago.

The ability for the GOP to play the religion and social conservatism cards, conning lots of working class people, has hit its use by date. We see this in Trump beating Cruz.

The Dems have been tactically cynical about this, standing back and letting it happen when it suited them, throwing a few bones here and there to their liberal base when they had to.

You know, Ivory Woodpecker, there comes a time in some arguments when the best way to discredit your opponent is simply to let them talk. So I cede the floor to you.

Please don’t get rid of IBW that set of massive chips he has on each shoulder make him that rare thing a well-balanced North American “liberal” or “progressive” or whatever. I also like his reverse chicken little approach not least because further weakens the decaying redneck republic of which most of the commenters on this thread are denizens.

@Mark: Why do you think I’m “well-balanced”?

Several of the other folks here seem to think I’m unbalanced (which may be true, but that’s never been a disqualifying condition on Da Intertoobz).

It’s like a laundry list of behaviors displaying the absolute worst tendencies of American liberals and why they’re so useless, not to mention off-putting to so many voters.

YES! And it’s SO enjoyable watching him and his seemingly innumerable counterparts dig the grave of American “liberals” just that bit deeper. That he and his fellows are simultaneously hastening and deepening the collapse of a very nasty hegemon makes it all the sweeter.

Thank you for expressing so perfectly his political function.

I’ve never been very impressed with the Archidruid. He sometimes has some interesting ideas. But, what he can say in 300 words, he usually spreads in 3000. I usually give up somewhere along the road, looking for the meat but only finding amuse-bouches.

If Sanders wants to raid Clinton’s black vote, he can use this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXulk0T8cg

Super Predators! AAAAGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

While I think IBW went far over the top against Some Guy, we all have our bad days, and times like these would fray the nerves of a saint–I wouldn’t even trust myself not to fly off the handle once in a while.

It would be a shame if the commentariat here were to blow up into a full-out civil war over this.

Just thought I’d mention this: there is about a 0% relationship between what Trump will say in his incoherent campaign speeches and what he will do as president. There will be no wall and he won’t do anything to increase social security or universal health care. He is more likely than not to respond to any perceived “threats” by massive and pointless bombing. He thinks a “bill” is what his assistant pays the restaurant where he eats lunch.

To be fair, few candidates will (attempt) do anything they claim during an election campaign. Bernie Sanders may try, but that’s another story.

At this stage of the game, Bernie Sanders doesn’t have very many blue-collar supporters. His supporters are mainly white and college-educated. Currently, blue-collar Democrats are supporting Hillary Clinton, but they’re mostly minority voters. Both college-educated voters and minority voters hate Donald Trump, so I don’t think there will be much defection from these 2 groups if Trump is the Republican nominee. As for white blue-collar workers, they’re already supporting Trump.