I like Sargent generally though certain sensibilities of his irritate me. In some senses he-like the rest of the MSM-shows himself to be too serious-in the sense of Krugman's Very Serious People.
His analysis of tonight's debate I find a bit off. He kind of sounds like Geoffrey Stone which is not a good thing.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/geoffrey-stone-is-totally-wrong-about.html
"Guess what: It doesn’t have as much to do with Donald Trump as you might think.
"Tonight the 473 GOP presidential contenders gather for what is widely — if optimistically — being described as a “debate.” There are reams of analysis out there about what each Republican needs to accomplish in the context of the coming GOP primaries. Obviously Dems will be on the lookout for an outbreak of anti-immigrant bluster from Trump or something else that could harm the GOP’s brand."
"But perhaps more important, top Democrats watching tonight’s debate are going to be looking in part for clues as to how the serious GOP contenders — and the GOP overall — will approach and fare in the general election."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/06/morning-plum-what-top-dems-are-watching-for-at-tonights-gop-debate/
See that irritates me. He even used that word-serious. Yet, what makes the GOP candidates in this race other than Trump serious candidates? The irony is that as Krugman says while the VSP are claiming that the problem with Trump is a lack of substance, the reality is that the GOP's only real objection to Trump is stylistic.
There is no substantive difference between Trump and the other more 'serious' candidates on immigration where Trump made his notorious comments about Mexican immigrants.
Yet we get his from Sargent:
"All signs are that Jeb Bush genuinely sees a need for the GOP to broaden its demographic appeal. Scott Walker has moved rightward on immigration, and seems to think maximizing the white vote is the route to the White House, though he doesn’t go out of his way to antagonize Latinos. At the extreme end of this spectrum, of course, is Donald Trump."
A President Jeb would be no different from a President Trump on immigration. In both cases Latinos would face harsh bigoted policies.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-jeb-bush-administration-would-be.html
Or did Sargent miss where Jeb's brother failed to get immigration reform done? See what Sargent is doing here is he thinks that the only way to have a serious analysis of the Republican debate is to abstract Trump out of the equation.
I disagree, What's wonderful about Trump is that he elucidates the truth of the GOP primary and the GOP party for what it is. We don't have to listen to phony speeches like Jeb telling is that illegal immigration is an 'act of love' and that he wants reform but only after the border is secure.
Sargent like many other in the phony VSP media has it exactly backwards. Trump is the only way to seriously discuss today's Republican party. To ignore him is to waste our time in a phony and euphemistic discussion.
His analysis of tonight's debate I find a bit off. He kind of sounds like Geoffrey Stone which is not a good thing.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/geoffrey-stone-is-totally-wrong-about.html
"Guess what: It doesn’t have as much to do with Donald Trump as you might think.
"Tonight the 473 GOP presidential contenders gather for what is widely — if optimistically — being described as a “debate.” There are reams of analysis out there about what each Republican needs to accomplish in the context of the coming GOP primaries. Obviously Dems will be on the lookout for an outbreak of anti-immigrant bluster from Trump or something else that could harm the GOP’s brand."
"But perhaps more important, top Democrats watching tonight’s debate are going to be looking in part for clues as to how the serious GOP contenders — and the GOP overall — will approach and fare in the general election."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/06/morning-plum-what-top-dems-are-watching-for-at-tonights-gop-debate/
See that irritates me. He even used that word-serious. Yet, what makes the GOP candidates in this race other than Trump serious candidates? The irony is that as Krugman says while the VSP are claiming that the problem with Trump is a lack of substance, the reality is that the GOP's only real objection to Trump is stylistic.
There is no substantive difference between Trump and the other more 'serious' candidates on immigration where Trump made his notorious comments about Mexican immigrants.
Yet we get his from Sargent:
"All signs are that Jeb Bush genuinely sees a need for the GOP to broaden its demographic appeal. Scott Walker has moved rightward on immigration, and seems to think maximizing the white vote is the route to the White House, though he doesn’t go out of his way to antagonize Latinos. At the extreme end of this spectrum, of course, is Donald Trump."
A President Jeb would be no different from a President Trump on immigration. In both cases Latinos would face harsh bigoted policies.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-jeb-bush-administration-would-be.html
Or did Sargent miss where Jeb's brother failed to get immigration reform done? See what Sargent is doing here is he thinks that the only way to have a serious analysis of the Republican debate is to abstract Trump out of the equation.
I disagree, What's wonderful about Trump is that he elucidates the truth of the GOP primary and the GOP party for what it is. We don't have to listen to phony speeches like Jeb telling is that illegal immigration is an 'act of love' and that he wants reform but only after the border is secure.
Sargent like many other in the phony VSP media has it exactly backwards. Trump is the only way to seriously discuss today's Republican party. To ignore him is to waste our time in a phony and euphemistic discussion.
I know you'll probably disagree, but I will still be amazed if Trump gets the nomination. Why? Because as I've explained before I think he provides an outlet for real frustrations, just like you've noted. But at some point the GOP electorate will factor "electability" into the equation. They hate themselves for those practical thoughts maybe, but I'd argue that in the past that has eventually become a major consideration. How else to you explain McCain and Romney?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if we are on the cusp of a third party? It's rare, but it does happen. For example, perhaps the people concerned with electability will break off... leaving those with no such concerns behind.
Of course this is all speculation on my part. We'll get to see what really happens... but unlike you, it does make me feel a little nauseous that we've come to this. I like my politics boring and phony! Lol.
No, I actually agree. If I had to bet I'd still see the chances of a Trump candidacy unlikely-way less than 50-50 though perhaps a little higher than I would have expected initially
ReplyDeleteI don't think he'll win or go third party though I'd be ecstatic in either case. .I agree that the GOP establishment at least certainly factors in electability which is why they hate this.
They are right to hate this-every day it goes on is only going to make Jeb's run against Hillary more difficult in the future.
The establishment simply will never let Trump win if they have any ability to stop it at all. Note though that the conservative Bruce Bartlett-he served Reagan-hopes Trump does win and gets pounded by Hillary to finally knock some sense into the GOP.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/bruce-bartlett-makes-moderate-gop-case.html