There is a lot of talk from the pundits that Trump lost the debate last night for not looking 'presidential'-even though that's his appeal in the first place.
The GOP establishment claims that Trump lost big and that-get this-Jeb! and Marco Rubio won.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/politico-caucus-republican-debate-donald-trump-biggest-loser-121146.html
Sure, no confirmation bias there. If Trump did so badly why do conservatives themselves think Trump won?
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/drudge-poll-donald-trump-wins/2015/08/07/id/666039/
I mean who do you trust more for what the conservative base is feeling-the RNC or the Drudge Report? I don't trust the Drudge Report for much but I do trust it more on the sentiment of the base.
That this establishment judgment can be ignored is clear by the fact that they claim that Rubio and Bush did well. I can buy that you think Trump stumbled if you think his refusing to take a pledge not to go independent will hurt him a lot-I'm not at all clear about that-but there's no way you could have watched that debate and think Bush and Rubio did really well. Maybe you could say they survived but they sure didn't shine.
Now Waldman is getting my goat again with his claim that Trump failed by not presenting himself in a serious and presidential way.
"The first question of the night was asked to all the candidates, but clearly aimed at Trump. The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they weren’t willing to pledge to support the party’s nominee, no matter who he or she might be. Trump was the only one who did, and while there were surely some in the party who said, “Ha, now we see that he’s not a loyal Republican,” the one-fifth of the party’s voters supporting him were almost certainly pleased. This is the core of Trump’s appeal: that he’s not like all those politicians, he’s his own man, and he tells it like it is. While his unwillingness to be a team player could hurt him with some primary voters, he was probably quite happy to get that question answered."
"But on other questions, he didn’t do as well. When Megyn Kelly asked him about his history of calling women things like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” he tried to make a joke out of it. His answers to policy questions were vague and evasive when the panel asked for specificity. As the night wore on, he looked less and less like a serious person."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/07/the-gop-presidential-candidates-get-a-thorough-working-over/
I just don't get this. Who ever thought he was in any way a serious person? His appeal to the base was never remotely about him being serious-totally to the contrary. I don't see how anyone thought he would grow more serious or that doing so would help him. Krugman makes a lot more sense here:
"For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party."
"For example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused. But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr. Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor."
"Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration "
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/opinion/paul-krugman-from-trump-on-down-the-republicans-cant-be-serious.htmlthat he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?
"Or to put it another way, modern Republican politicians can’t be serious — not if they want to win primaries and have any future within the party. Crank economics, crank science, crank foreign policy are all necessary parts of a candidate’s resume."
"Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a facade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?"
"Remember how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain? Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care less about him."
The GOP establishment claims that Trump lost big and that-get this-Jeb! and Marco Rubio won.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/politico-caucus-republican-debate-donald-trump-biggest-loser-121146.html
Sure, no confirmation bias there. If Trump did so badly why do conservatives themselves think Trump won?
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/drudge-poll-donald-trump-wins/2015/08/07/id/666039/
I mean who do you trust more for what the conservative base is feeling-the RNC or the Drudge Report? I don't trust the Drudge Report for much but I do trust it more on the sentiment of the base.
That this establishment judgment can be ignored is clear by the fact that they claim that Rubio and Bush did well. I can buy that you think Trump stumbled if you think his refusing to take a pledge not to go independent will hurt him a lot-I'm not at all clear about that-but there's no way you could have watched that debate and think Bush and Rubio did really well. Maybe you could say they survived but they sure didn't shine.
Now Waldman is getting my goat again with his claim that Trump failed by not presenting himself in a serious and presidential way.
"The first question of the night was asked to all the candidates, but clearly aimed at Trump. The candidates were asked to raise their hands if they weren’t willing to pledge to support the party’s nominee, no matter who he or she might be. Trump was the only one who did, and while there were surely some in the party who said, “Ha, now we see that he’s not a loyal Republican,” the one-fifth of the party’s voters supporting him were almost certainly pleased. This is the core of Trump’s appeal: that he’s not like all those politicians, he’s his own man, and he tells it like it is. While his unwillingness to be a team player could hurt him with some primary voters, he was probably quite happy to get that question answered."
"But on other questions, he didn’t do as well. When Megyn Kelly asked him about his history of calling women things like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” he tried to make a joke out of it. His answers to policy questions were vague and evasive when the panel asked for specificity. As the night wore on, he looked less and less like a serious person."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/07/the-gop-presidential-candidates-get-a-thorough-working-over/
I just don't get this. Who ever thought he was in any way a serious person? His appeal to the base was never remotely about him being serious-totally to the contrary. I don't see how anyone thought he would grow more serious or that doing so would help him. Krugman makes a lot more sense here:
"For while it’s true that Mr. Trump is, fundamentally, an absurd figure, so are his rivals. If you pay attention to what any one of them is actually saying, as opposed to how he says it, you discover incoherence and extremism every bit as bad as anything Mr. Trump has to offer. And that’s not an accident: Talking nonsense is what you have to do to get anywhere in today’s Republican Party."
"For example, Mr. Trump’s economic views, a sort of mishmash of standard conservative talking points and protectionism, are definitely confused. But is that any worse than Jeb Bush’s deep voodoo, his claim that he could double the underlying growth rate of the American economy? And Mr. Bush’s credibility isn’t helped by his evidence for that claim: the relatively rapid growth Florida experienced during the immense housing bubble that coincided with his time as governor."
"Mr. Trump, famously, is a “birther” — someone who has questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States. But is that any worse than Scott Walker’s declaration "
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/opinion/paul-krugman-from-trump-on-down-the-republicans-cant-be-serious.htmlthat he isn’t sure whether the president is a Christian?
Indeed, with all the faux outrage about Trump's personal insults of the attractiveness of many women, it's Scott Walker's positions on women that are truly scary. Jeb's are no bargain either
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-was-not-most-misogynistic-man-on.html
This is what the VSP-and here I have to admit Waldman sounds very serious on this point in the bad sense-are about. They are outraged by Trump's style but on substance there's no difference. Indeed the sad thing is Trump seems to be putting on an act-he clearly thinks single payer is the best healthcare plan and clearly is really prochoice but has changed just for political convenience.
There are just so many ironies. Trump's parody of an extreme Conservative Republican pleases the base more than the real thing. It's almost as if the GOP base started voting for Stephen Colbert.
Krugman:
"Until now, however, leading Republicans have generally tried to preserve a facade of respectability, helping the news media to maintain the pretense that it was dealing with a normal political party. What distinguishes Mr. Trump is not so much his positions as it is his lack of interest in maintaining appearances. And it turns out that the party’s base, which demands extremist positions, also prefers those positions delivered straight. Why is anyone surprised?"
"Remember how Mr. Trump was supposed to implode after his attack on John McCain? Mr. McCain epitomizes the strategy of sounding moderate while taking extreme positions, and is much loved by the press corps, which puts him on TV all the time. But Republican voters, it turns out, couldn’t care less about him."
There's just something about the beltway view where even liberal pundits like Waldman can't just be honest that the entire modern Republican party is a joke. It just seems wrong to them that both sides aren't equal-that there are good and bad ideas and politicans on both sides. Maybe this bipartisan utiopia they imaigine exists somewhere ut not in modern America. Not in any other countries I can think of-maybe Canada? Are you there Nick Rowe?
It's fun watching you enjoy this spectacle. I'm enjoying it now more after reading your posts. You'd probably get the impression that I should take over the "Republican Hater" mantle now that you've abandoned it. However, the funny thing is I took one of those "What are your 2D political coordinates?" tests the other day, and I came out very close to the middle, especially on the left right axis (almost dead center). If we can take that test seriously at all, then I'm persuadable on a lot of issues (in fact I did my best to express that on a number of the questions). But the GOP mostly precludes themselves from having my vote by being an order of magnitude more unsettling in their approach to decision making and knowing things in general. I told this to Sumner a while back, pointing out this very issue. I told him essentially that if the debate moderator were to ask the Republicans again "Raise your hand if you believe in evolution" that there's an excellent chance not one candidate would. To me that question is equivalent to "Raise your hand if you believe the Earth is approximately spherical rather than a flat disk balanced on the backs of two elephants in turn standing atop a giant turtle" ... or more to the point "Raise your hand if you're not delusional or pretending to be so." He brought up some example of liberal or Democratic delusion which at best was plausible (something involving gender roles). The difference is that one is as plain as day and the other is murky.
ReplyDeleteI want to make it clear that I don't consider Republicans to be stupid. Not at all. I have a half brother who's a fanatical right winger (and you guessed it: a big Trump supporter!). He's a jolly sort of person in general though, and it's only when he gets on on certain subjects (politics, religion, the nature of reality, Lol) that I can't believe what's coming out of his mouth. And the dude is as smart as a whip. He never went to college, but he has an enormous repertoire of general knowledge to call upon, and he can do mathematical calculations in his head that you wouldn't believe. (e.g. a month ago I sprang this one on him out of the blue: "How many cubic chains in a cubic light year?"... no joke, after a brief pause he said "About 1 times 10 to the 44th" ... faster than I could Google the answer). But he has almost no filter on what he'll believe. He actually told us this! Unfortunately he listens to a lot of Rush, but also conspiracy theory types and other garbage. His approach to knowing things is often unreliable.
DeleteSumner always tries to create those false equivalences. The Democrats may be wrong on some issues but it's never just purely absurd.
DeleteI never said all GOPers are stupid. I consider myself basically a sensible centrist-what you might call a Whig.
I'm hardly a bomb throwing, bank hating, socialist. But the sensible centrist party today is the Democratic party.
"...the sensible centrist party today is the Democratic party." Or as good an approximation as we have right now... that's my impression, and it'll be difficult to change my mind on that anytime soon since it seems to me that on many issues the GOP isn't even trying.
DeleteAgain, I've mentioned this more than once but if you want to understand my political philosophy such as it is I reccommend you read Gary Wills, 'Confessions of a Cosnervative'
ReplyDeleteThat book which he wrote at the end of the 70s just before the rise of Reaganism describes my philosophy about politics as well as anything.
I'm basically a small c conservative myself. He made a point that bears repeating. The most educated and knolwedgeable voters tend to be the most blatant and frankest partisans.
The mush middle as it were-the vaunted undecideds tend to be low information voters.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439001148&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative
I certainly don't get the idea that you hate Republicans. You strike me as a guy who bends over backwards to understand the other side.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly wish you could point to something reasonable in the Republican party. But you're honest enough to admit it's not there right now.
My guess is that if the GOP is ever to be reasonable again it will take lots of humiliating defeats. The party is a slow learner.
You know I will say that with all the bipartisan talk history shows that the best times in American history have been when one party clearly dominated the other.
Post 1968 we've been a bipartisan nation in the sense that neither party has yet been able to gain a truly dominating advantage. In the 70s and 80s the GOP dominated the Presidency but the Dem's owned Congress.
In 1994 the GOP finally got Congress back but by then the Dems had figured out how to win the White House. The Dems have dominated presidential politics in recent years but the GOP has owned Congress and dominated at the state level.
On net it's been parity but this bipartisanship has been highly frustrating. The previous New Deal era of total Democrat dominance was much more satisfying to Americans. Prior to FDR the GOP dominated between Lincoln and Hoover.
People say the Repubs used to behave themselves better and that's true but that's because Eisenhower Republicanism basically accepted being the minority party.
This would make a nice blog post actually-the bipartisan illusion.
People make the mistake of saying they want bipartisanship yet they bemoan gridlock. Bipartisanship is gridlock. Bipartisanship is what we've got.
DeleteAn interesting thought about bipartisanship. You write:
Delete"...the best times in American history have been when one party clearly dominated the other."
And maybe that's true. Unfortunately I'm not sure that's globally been the case (see French Revolution, USSR, Third Reich, etc). (c:
I'm not implying that if the GOP dominated right now that that's what we'd have... but year after year they give no indication that they're turning back. I think they see the demographic trends... and this combined with their other problems, compounds their paranoid, fatalistic, and dangerous attitudes. In short, they make me outright nervous. 20 or 30 years ago, I never actually felt nervous about one party or the other. (But perhaps I should have!)
In any case my "feelings" could be dead wrong. I hope they are.
Well to say that the best times have been times of one party domination doesn't mean that any case of one party domination will be a good thing.
DeleteI agree we sure don't want the GOP to dominate today. We would do very well though with the Democrats.