The Very Serious Beltway pundits are grateful to be able to say someone, anyone, other than Trump is leading the race.
True, Carson is no more acceptable to the GOP establishment than Trump but the hope is that this shows that maybe Trump's time in the sun is coming to an end and that he's finally ready for the decline the pundits have insisted is coming any day now for three months.
The idea is that supposedly the voters have finally scrutinized Trump-after not doing so for three months and so they realize that Carson is ore suitable as he's not bombastic and doesn't insult people like Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina.
I find this rather laughable to think Trump has received no scrutiny till now. Carly Fiorina when through the stages of discovery, scrutiny, and decline within a few weeks.
I guess the pundits find it reassuring that someone, anyone, can lead other than Trump. They confidently tell us that Carson might be able to win Iowa and then someone suitable like Jeb or more likely tat this point Rubio will take it from there.
This is as usual for the pundits in the primary cycle, way too eager. They are way too eager to declare that their rules of political gravity have been restored.
How is it that Carson can win Iowa, but it's ruled out that Trump can win in NH when a new poll shows him leading Carson his nearest competitor there 30-12?
If he wins NH how is that nothing? If anything Carson winning Iowa is easier to dismiss as an outlier as the state goes for religious conservatives that seldom win elsewhere.
On the other hand, they are out in front by claiming that Carson is the new leader. He clearly is in Iowa but nationally it looks like for now they are tied. Yesterday's Survey Monkey poll shows that Trump hasn't lost support, but rather Carson has gained it as Trump leads 29-27.
The truth is that Carson catching up with Trump hardly helps the establishment. It might be a good sing if he had clearly taken Trump's support but that Survey Monkey poll makes clear he hasn't. Carson has taken that support from establishment candidates. The real story here is that Trump and Carson have almost 60% between them and Ted Cruz has another 10%
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-carson-trump-lead-gop-field-n454831
"But here is the most important and enduring fact of the GOP race so far. In every recent national poll of Republicans, including those with likely voters, with or without leaners, the breakdown is that the five main outsider candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee) combine to generate between 63 and 70 percent support. The three main establishment candidates, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich, combine to between 12 and 19 percent."
"Of course, there is a chance that as one or more of the outsider candidates falters, their supporters will gravitate to Rubio or one of the other establishment figures. Or that the outsiders will fragment in support, allowing Rubio, the establishment favorite, to do what Mitt Romney did in 2012. But it is a bit more likely that the bulk of those voters will opt instead for another outsider."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-this-gop-primary-really-may-be.html
I also think that Norm Ornstein makes a case that it's Carson's support rather than Trump's that might be more fleeting.
"The vast majority of scholars and pundits, including but not limited to those who confidently predicted multiple times over the past four months that Trump had peaked and would soon be out of the race, and who are now gleeful that he has dropped to second in the latest CBS/New York Times survey, assume Trump cannot possibly win a nomination. But consider that Trump’s supporters are far more set in their deep support for him than Carson supporters, who indicate that they are more flirtatious than romantic at this point. And consider that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Trump is now investing more in building an infrastructure in early primary and caucus states than most of his rivals."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/2016-outlook/412813/
True, Carson is no more acceptable to the GOP establishment than Trump but the hope is that this shows that maybe Trump's time in the sun is coming to an end and that he's finally ready for the decline the pundits have insisted is coming any day now for three months.
The idea is that supposedly the voters have finally scrutinized Trump-after not doing so for three months and so they realize that Carson is ore suitable as he's not bombastic and doesn't insult people like Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina.
I find this rather laughable to think Trump has received no scrutiny till now. Carly Fiorina when through the stages of discovery, scrutiny, and decline within a few weeks.
I guess the pundits find it reassuring that someone, anyone, can lead other than Trump. They confidently tell us that Carson might be able to win Iowa and then someone suitable like Jeb or more likely tat this point Rubio will take it from there.
This is as usual for the pundits in the primary cycle, way too eager. They are way too eager to declare that their rules of political gravity have been restored.
How is it that Carson can win Iowa, but it's ruled out that Trump can win in NH when a new poll shows him leading Carson his nearest competitor there 30-12?
If he wins NH how is that nothing? If anything Carson winning Iowa is easier to dismiss as an outlier as the state goes for religious conservatives that seldom win elsewhere.
On the other hand, they are out in front by claiming that Carson is the new leader. He clearly is in Iowa but nationally it looks like for now they are tied. Yesterday's Survey Monkey poll shows that Trump hasn't lost support, but rather Carson has gained it as Trump leads 29-27.
The truth is that Carson catching up with Trump hardly helps the establishment. It might be a good sing if he had clearly taken Trump's support but that Survey Monkey poll makes clear he hasn't. Carson has taken that support from establishment candidates. The real story here is that Trump and Carson have almost 60% between them and Ted Cruz has another 10%
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-carson-trump-lead-gop-field-n454831
"But here is the most important and enduring fact of the GOP race so far. In every recent national poll of Republicans, including those with likely voters, with or without leaners, the breakdown is that the five main outsider candidates (Trump, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee) combine to generate between 63 and 70 percent support. The three main establishment candidates, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich, combine to between 12 and 19 percent."
"Of course, there is a chance that as one or more of the outsider candidates falters, their supporters will gravitate to Rubio or one of the other establishment figures. Or that the outsiders will fragment in support, allowing Rubio, the establishment favorite, to do what Mitt Romney did in 2012. But it is a bit more likely that the bulk of those voters will opt instead for another outsider."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-this-gop-primary-really-may-be.html
I also think that Norm Ornstein makes a case that it's Carson's support rather than Trump's that might be more fleeting.
"The vast majority of scholars and pundits, including but not limited to those who confidently predicted multiple times over the past four months that Trump had peaked and would soon be out of the race, and who are now gleeful that he has dropped to second in the latest CBS/New York Times survey, assume Trump cannot possibly win a nomination. But consider that Trump’s supporters are far more set in their deep support for him than Carson supporters, who indicate that they are more flirtatious than romantic at this point. And consider that, contrary to conventional wisdom, Trump is now investing more in building an infrastructure in early primary and caucus states than most of his rivals."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/2016-outlook/412813/
Carson seems to me to have an excellent shot in taking Iowa but not so much beyond as most states are not so dominated by religious conservatives.
And Trump's lead in NH is just massive and this has been ignored.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The talk now makes it sound like Carson has taken over everywhere.
Trump's strategy on debate night was smart. He didn't attack Carson at all and embraced him as he nailed Kasich for being at Lehman's in 2008.
Both he and Ben are standing close to each other as Ted Cruz also is. Makes sense. Rubio-the most likely establishment conduit going forward will have his work cut out for him.
Both he and Ben are standing close to each other as Ted Cruz also is. Makes sense. Rubio-the most likely establishment conduit going forward will have his work cut out for him.
Bend Carson and Donald Trump. First the former (Mike you should have more insight on this than the average political commentator):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/31/ben-carson-s-church-believes-the-u-s-government-will-team-up-with-the-antichrist.html
Then the Donald:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/31/donald-trump-vows-to-take-on-corrupt-veterans-affairs/
Sounds like he's gearing up to make a direct challenge against Hillary... specifically about what reality at the VA looks like.
Yes I know all about that. In the End Times-and most believe we are now living in these very End Times-there will be an apocalypse.
DeleteI touched on this before but again the US government imposes a Sunday law and persecutes Adventists.
This seemed like a perhaps less crazy idea back in the 19th century when people were still very religions and they had the memory of the old blue laws.
There is also the morality tale that the US turned it's back on God-through the separation of Church and State-and this is what neglecting God wroughts-the US ends up the victim of a false prophet.
Yes, simply describing what Adventists believe sounds nuts.
It's surprising to see this on a fox radio website:
ReplyDeletehttps://radio.foxnews.com/2015/10/26/carsons-church-teaches-evangelicals-are-going-to-hell/
Evangelicals going to hell? It seems David Corn at Mother Jones first dug that up. I'd love your opinion Mike.
This right wing lunatic / fundamentalist con artist at least doesn't shy away from targeting fellow right winger's religious beliefs:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.votingforsatan.com/
I love that... so stupid!
I can't find any negative comments from "Reverend" Keller about Ben though.
Good I'm glad there aren't as I want the readers to keep supporting Ben-unless they want to switch to Trump.
ReplyDeleteTrump actually makes me laugh the way he talks about God and religion
He just says "The Bible is a great book. It's even better than the Art of the Deal. In fact it's much, much better than that, it's the best book in the world!'
Why is it that some find this insincere?
Mike, are SDAists anti-Halloween? Do they think it's flirting with Satanism? I know some fundies believe that.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo what you're saying is you agree with the SDAers about Halloween? LOL.
ReplyDeleteYes the SDAers tend to have that attitude towards Halloween because it started as a kind of Pagan tradition-anything like that offends them. Some even complain about Christmas! So Christians themselves sometimes war against Christmas?
There's a long history of anti-Christmas Christians. For example, some of the puritans (I think!). Jehova's Witnesses too.
DeleteAnd yes, it appears on the surface that I agree with SDAers... Lol... however, it just gets under my skin when people actually believe in ghosts stories... I don't care about people pretending, or dressing up. And I don't even care so much about people actually believing... what drives me nuts is when the media gets in the act and promotes that kind of thing. Fiction is one thing, but then when it crosses the line to the supposedly non-fiction part of media is when I get upset. Like when Larry King used to interview psychics ... as if they were real. I think later in his life he came to realize that they're just con artists.
DeleteYou're right, the TV show (that my tenant watched) is fiction: I shouldn't get so worked up about it. Maybe if it had some sort of redeeming quality like a good script, plot or acting... but it was just thoroughly bad on all scores from start to finish.
But I have to admit, I pretty much universally despise any kind of story or movie with a supernatural theme. There are very few exceptions that have ever appealed to me, so I'm probably in the tail of the bell curve on that one. Thus our culture's seemingly endless love of stories about zombies, ghosts, vampires, magic powers, angels etc, is somewhat baffling to me.
Perhaps for me it's a little like someone who hates gun culture, and is dismayed to see so many movies and TV shows glorifying the use of guns.
I do have to admit you are probably something of a bellwether here. I admit that I often like these themes.
DeleteFor women the whole witch thing is kind of a female empowerment thing as well I think.
Do you dislike Sci-Fi as well? Like the X Files, etc?
Do you ever read or enjoy fiction of any kind? You seem very concerned about holding onto 'reality' at all costs! LOL.
DeleteI agree in general but it does seem you go far in your worry about reality. Or further than me in worrying about the sense of reality somehow being lost sight of.
It's as if you worry that the sense of reality is very tentative and any indulging in fiction even might take us to the Other Side so to speak
Lol... yes, I'm sure that in the tail on several dimensions of the multidimensional probability distribution of likes and dislikes.
DeleteI'm not a big fan of science fiction, fantasy, slasher flicks, comic book themed movies (I can't get over why he dresses like a bat), Rambo type movies, horror movies, car chase movies, etc. There are exceptions in all those categories. No, I'm not an X-files fan. Some exceptions that I did like: Robocop... comic book-like sci fi / comedy, Outland, Pulp Fiction (comic book... er, well, pulp fiction like), Let the Right One In (a vampire story I actually liked), etc. A reliance on special effects is a turn off in general, though I did like Gravity. I'm tempted to see the Martian one.
I like documentaries. Lol!... I do like some crime dramas (Fargo, Goodfellas) and some war movies (HBOs' "The Pacific"), and some comedies (a few dark ones, like Burn After Reading), and spy movies (e.g. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy), dramas, etc. I would never pay to see a Batman Movie though, or the Hobbit or Fast and Furious or Star Wars.... unless I was with some kind of group, and I agreed to see whatever we all voted to see.
Here's how I'd like to modify those movies: The Orcs win. Period. No effing way a half dozen humanoid critters fight off 250 orcs and win! Rambo takes on the entire North Vietnamese army and is shot to pieces, or he's captures and tortured until he begs like a little girl for them to stop: he betrays his colleagues... and then he's hung by the neck until dead. The "good guys" in car chase movies (I'm thinking Ronin here) accidentally hit a 4 year old girl at 130 MPH and her mutilated corpse flies 100 yards down the highway where it's run over by another car... meanwhile her mom is screaming in horror for 10 minutes (just focus on mom's grief for a full 10 minutes.. then back to the chase).
See, wouldn't they bet better with a dash of realism? Lol
Just for laughs though, I would LOVE to add a bit of slasher flick to the very end of a schmaltzy romantic comedy... just to a few random showings around the country, so it's a total surprise.... Imagine the whole movie goes exactly like the original... and then in the happy feel good scene at the end, Leatherface smashes in the front door and chainsaws everyone to death... then credits roll (while you still hear the chainsaw and screaming on the audio). I would pay $$ to see the look on the audience's faces... Ha!
DeleteNow that you've explained it I have to go with no. LOL.
DeleteI figured documentaries were your favorite.
It's a matter of taste but I do think you throw a few things out with the bathwater here, somehow. LOL.
I definitely think that Science Fiction can be highly beneficial in firing our imagination and helping us see new possibilities.
Good Fellas was great. 'I'm just saying, you're funny, Tommy, you're a funny guy!'
'What am I a clown, here to amuse you, what is so fucking funny about me?!!'
'You're funny, Tommy, you're funny that's all...'
Pulp Fiction was a great movie with Samuel T. Jackson reading them the Bible verses before he shot them
I have to admit I'm not the arch realist you are Tom! LOL
DeleteI will be honest with you here! I think you're tenant is a very intelligent woman and wouldn't count her enjoyment of such shows against her so harshly! LOL
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I've watched that show, but it sounds like something I could watch and enjoy.
This sort of stuff-Halloween, witches, ghosts-as opposed to Christian fundamentalism-is in the Romantic, Gothic tradition and I do often enjoy it. .
Hope that doesn't make me a pod person too! LOL
In fact, that show she was watching was probably on the Sci-Fi channel.
Remember throughout history sci-fi has often put out ideas that science later was able to use.
So I'm not shocked that a scientist would watch sci-fi.
I like Halloween as well, not because I believe in ghosts and goblins but it is fun.
The kids get to have some fun so I like it.
Have you had kids Tom? You have to let them indulge sometimes! LOL. Not that I've had kids.
What you find is that the people into this kind of Goth stuff are usually very different ones than who are into the fundamentalist, evolution denial, believe the world has been around just 6000 years etc,
But Tom I'm responding to your comments and now I see you've deleted them! Oh well, I'm going to post this anyway. LOL
No need to be embarrassed! LOL.
That was weird! I was answering those questions and then I noticed they were gone. LOL
ReplyDeleteLol... sorry. I sometimes go off on too long of a tangent, so I thought I'd just spare you the trouble this time. I didn't know you were actually reading those. Thanks though!
Delete