Overall, I've argued that there are some legitimate gripes on the part of the GOP candidates. I think their man source of gripes is simply that there are too many candidates in this primary to have a debate that is not totally unwieldy.
I'd argue that the very size of the primary is a symptom of GOP dysfunction. Contrary to happy talk we heard about 'the deep bench' this many candidates is not an embarrassment of riches but just an embarrassment. It shows that the GOP electorate itself can't agree on anything.
If you have observed the Grand Old Party over the last 35 years, it now seems inevitable that this is where it ends up. Purists can find no area of consensus and compromise. Compromise is seen as a dirty work. But without any consensus how is it even a party? Simply scorched earth opposition to Democrats, to President Obama or Secretary Hillary Clinton is no longer enough.
And while I don't think there isn't some truth in the criticism of the moderators-they do spend too much time trying to create phony 'drama'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lessons-learned/2015/10/29/7d23d98e-7e78-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html
it must be admitted that the optics of this are doing the GOP no favors. President Obama got a great line in yesterday.
“Candidates tough talk about Putin,” Obama said, referring to the various foreign policy assertions of Republican presidential contenders, including Donald Trump, who has boasted that U.S. relations with Russia would improve under his administration.
“They say, when I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out … And then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators,” the president said, according to a pool report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-broadway-republican-debates-humor-215463#ixzz3qSmmdDdL
I have to admit though I'm no fan, Chris Christie is right:
"Christie said Monday that while the moderators of the last GOP presidential debate did a poor job, he and his fellow Republican candidates should not get to control the debate format. The New Jersey governor, whose most memorable moment in the CNBC debate came as he slammed the moderators for asking about fantasy football, took to the airwaves to suggest that he wasn't concerned about the handling of the debates."
"While representatives from the GOP presidential campaigns met Sunday evening to discuss ways to reform the debate process, Christie said debate negotiations should stay in the hands of the Republican National Committee."
"That doesn't mean that I want us, the candidates, controlling the debate, the format and having everybody negotiate. We'll never agree," Christie said on CNN's "New Day," referring to the RNC's decision to cancel an upcoming NBC/Telemundo-sponsored debate. "The RNC has done a good job on this. They took steps against NBC when they felt they had gotten out of line. I think we should allow the RNC to continue doing what they're doing."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/politics/chris-christie-republican-debate/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-debate-complaints-215432
Exactly right. None of these candidates is thinking about the good of the Republican party as a whole-which is why the RNC was running it in the first place.
All the various candidates are going to do is try to manipulate the process to their own advantage. There are 14 candidates and only one gets to be the nominee. So you are just going to have 14 different candidates come up with 14 different proposals.
This is why the GOP is in such trouble these days-no unity, each simply seeking out one's own narrow interests.
So every candidate has its own agenda and has a different solution to this debate fracas that risks making the whole party make silly enough for the President and other Dems to just sit back and take potshots.
So Carly Fiorina and Christie want to Just Do it: of course, as they both are struggling mightily in the polls they don't have the luxury of arguing on the correct temperature of the studio, and how much space between the podiums and the bathroom.
Lindsay Graham and Bobby Jindal will try to argue that there should be no more Kid's Table. Ben Carson for some strange reason agrees.
I have to say that Ben's proposals are as usual the wildest and most out there. He's leading in Iowa and some recent national polls, and yet he somehow thinks it's in his own best interests to have all 14 candidates on the same stage each making a 5 minute opening statement-which would take over an hour.
Ben Carson believes in the Lord who is said to move in mysterious ways. Not as mysterious as Ben Carson however,
Indeed, he doesn't want it to be on television but just the Internet. Just mystifying.
"With the republican debates in the 2016 race for President having dissolved into the various republican candidates telling one lie after another, moderators doing their best to point out those lies, and the candidates responding by claiming that the moderators are guilty of “liberal bias” for using facts, frontrunner and serial liar Ben Carson believes he has a solution: stop televising the debates entirely."
"Instead Ben Carson and his camp want the “debates” to be nothing more than a series of uninterrupted soliloquies, in which the republican candidates can make whatever claims they want, with no moderators there to call them out on it or present contrasting evidence. And, in order to make sure reputable and knowledgeable news anchors from TV networks are out of the picture entirely, he wants to broadcast the debates solely on the internet. This comes just days after the republican party canceled its upcoming NBC News debate for fear of tough questions from moderators."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ben-carson-doesnt-want-the-rest-of-the-debates-to-be-televised/22952/
Trump's campaign quite sensibly says it doesn't care about other campaigns. Exactly. This is what the RNC is for.
Trump says the questions were as usual unfair but he also loves the debates.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/donald-trump-bush-quit-carson/2015/11/03/id/700311/?Dkt_nbr=11550-1&nmx_source=Breitbart&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=112&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2
It should be no surprise that the rebellion against the RNC is no more organized than the RNC process itself has been.
I'd argue that the very size of the primary is a symptom of GOP dysfunction. Contrary to happy talk we heard about 'the deep bench' this many candidates is not an embarrassment of riches but just an embarrassment. It shows that the GOP electorate itself can't agree on anything.
If you have observed the Grand Old Party over the last 35 years, it now seems inevitable that this is where it ends up. Purists can find no area of consensus and compromise. Compromise is seen as a dirty work. But without any consensus how is it even a party? Simply scorched earth opposition to Democrats, to President Obama or Secretary Hillary Clinton is no longer enough.
And while I don't think there isn't some truth in the criticism of the moderators-they do spend too much time trying to create phony 'drama'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lessons-learned/2015/10/29/7d23d98e-7e78-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html
it must be admitted that the optics of this are doing the GOP no favors. President Obama got a great line in yesterday.
“Candidates tough talk about Putin,” Obama said, referring to the various foreign policy assertions of Republican presidential contenders, including Donald Trump, who has boasted that U.S. relations with Russia would improve under his administration.
“They say, when I talk to Putin, he’s going to straighten out … And then it turns out they can’t handle a bunch of CNBC moderators,” the president said, according to a pool report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/obama-broadway-republican-debates-humor-215463#ixzz3qSmmdDdL
I have to admit though I'm no fan, Chris Christie is right:
"Christie said Monday that while the moderators of the last GOP presidential debate did a poor job, he and his fellow Republican candidates should not get to control the debate format. The New Jersey governor, whose most memorable moment in the CNBC debate came as he slammed the moderators for asking about fantasy football, took to the airwaves to suggest that he wasn't concerned about the handling of the debates."
"While representatives from the GOP presidential campaigns met Sunday evening to discuss ways to reform the debate process, Christie said debate negotiations should stay in the hands of the Republican National Committee."
"That doesn't mean that I want us, the candidates, controlling the debate, the format and having everybody negotiate. We'll never agree," Christie said on CNN's "New Day," referring to the RNC's decision to cancel an upcoming NBC/Telemundo-sponsored debate. "The RNC has done a good job on this. They took steps against NBC when they felt they had gotten out of line. I think we should allow the RNC to continue doing what they're doing."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/02/politics/chris-christie-republican-debate/
Exactly right. None of these candidates is thinking about the good of the Republican party as a whole-which is why the RNC was running it in the first place.
All the various candidates are going to do is try to manipulate the process to their own advantage. There are 14 candidates and only one gets to be the nominee. So you are just going to have 14 different candidates come up with 14 different proposals.
This is why the GOP is in such trouble these days-no unity, each simply seeking out one's own narrow interests.
So every candidate has its own agenda and has a different solution to this debate fracas that risks making the whole party make silly enough for the President and other Dems to just sit back and take potshots.
So Carly Fiorina and Christie want to Just Do it: of course, as they both are struggling mightily in the polls they don't have the luxury of arguing on the correct temperature of the studio, and how much space between the podiums and the bathroom.
Lindsay Graham and Bobby Jindal will try to argue that there should be no more Kid's Table. Ben Carson for some strange reason agrees.
I have to say that Ben's proposals are as usual the wildest and most out there. He's leading in Iowa and some recent national polls, and yet he somehow thinks it's in his own best interests to have all 14 candidates on the same stage each making a 5 minute opening statement-which would take over an hour.
Ben Carson believes in the Lord who is said to move in mysterious ways. Not as mysterious as Ben Carson however,
Indeed, he doesn't want it to be on television but just the Internet. Just mystifying.
"With the republican debates in the 2016 race for President having dissolved into the various republican candidates telling one lie after another, moderators doing their best to point out those lies, and the candidates responding by claiming that the moderators are guilty of “liberal bias” for using facts, frontrunner and serial liar Ben Carson believes he has a solution: stop televising the debates entirely."
"Instead Ben Carson and his camp want the “debates” to be nothing more than a series of uninterrupted soliloquies, in which the republican candidates can make whatever claims they want, with no moderators there to call them out on it or present contrasting evidence. And, in order to make sure reputable and knowledgeable news anchors from TV networks are out of the picture entirely, he wants to broadcast the debates solely on the internet. This comes just days after the republican party canceled its upcoming NBC News debate for fear of tough questions from moderators."
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/ben-carson-doesnt-want-the-rest-of-the-debates-to-be-televised/22952/
Trump's campaign quite sensibly says it doesn't care about other campaigns. Exactly. This is what the RNC is for.
Trump says the questions were as usual unfair but he also loves the debates.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newswidget/donald-trump-bush-quit-carson/2015/11/03/id/700311/?Dkt_nbr=11550-1&nmx_source=Breitbart&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=112&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2
It should be no surprise that the rebellion against the RNC is no more organized than the RNC process itself has been.
"frontrunner and serial liar Ben Carson"... I can imagine Steven Colbert using that as an intro to a segment to good effect.
ReplyDeleteAnother SNL skit idea: They show the campaigns arguing over what the final "debate" footage will look like when released on the internet. And then all it ends up as is a still "air-brushed" photo of each candidate with a buzz word emblazoned alongside... words like "BOLD" and "LEADERSHIP"... with the lighting and perfection of each shot making them look like 1930s "socialist realism" airbrushed propaganda posters for Stalin. And then that's it. No actual debate, just a series of images with pompous soviet style music to accompany them.
"Ben Carson believes in the Lord who is said to move in mysterious ways. Not as mysterious as Ben Carson however,"
ReplyDeleteMaybe Ben Carson prayed about it, and that's what Jesus told him to insist on. You can't argue with that... that's talking directly to Jesus after all. If you doubt the wisdom there, then it's clear you hate America.
Looks like I was wrong about who's pulling the strings with Ben... it's not Jesus:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Williams
The title of this piece expresses my views exactly, and why there's a bit of gallows humor edginess to all the yucks the GOP clown car is generating:
Deletehttp://www.salon.com/2015/11/03/republican_voters_have_lost_their_damned_minds_they_trust_ben_carson_the_most_with_nuclear_weapons/
I'm not sure I like that edginess.
I know. I don't really share this concern. LOL
DeleteI also to be honest find mocking poor Ben as kind of low hanging fruit. It's almost like people are saying-why support a nut like him with reasonable people like Jeb, Kasich and Rubio running?
Yet the same funny numbers Ben uses they use. Trump is crazy for exploding the deficit by 12 trillion dollars but not Kaisch at 7 trillion.
The party doesn't have a few nut jobs running it's a nutty party.
It has gotten worse every election cycle and now this is the logical destination
In away I'm glad about Trump and Carson as it shows the party is finally imploding.
I think we'll look back on 2016 in the future as when the GOP finally totally jumped the shark.
I wonder if Republicans also favor giving a retarded boy a loaded AK-47 as a Christmas present?
DeleteI wish I could share your confidence Mike. I look at these stories and see it as the equivalent of relatively moderate Islamic country (say Turkey) with a "moderate" Islamic party deciding to instead become more radical and support the Taliban or ISIS.
DeleteIf you actually had control and could push a button and make the GOP 10% crazier, that's a two edged sword: on one hand it increases the chances the Democrats win (Yeah sanity!). On the other hand it makes 10% crazier more "normal" and thus acceptable to the low-information voter (Boooo!), which endangers all of us. I'm sure I wouldn't press such a button. Not a responsible risk IMO.
Here's what concerns me about Ben: I'm not sure he's lucent enough to clearly understand self interest and self preservation. Once you loose enough lucidity to understand that, you become cable of becoming a suicide bomber ... or the vastly more horrifying equivalent as the head of a state armed with thermonuclear weapons.
Science flies you to the moon. Fundamentalist religious nonsense flies you into buildings.
"capable" not "cable"
DeleteI find this headline to be absolutely terrifying:
Deletehttp://time.com/4098770/hillary-clinton-republican-matchups/
1st sentence:
"If the presidential election were held today, Hillary Clinton would beat several Republican opponents but not Ben Carson."
Of all the people it's absolutely vital that she destroy in a not-even-close landslide, I'd put Ben Carson at the top of the list. Electing him is like handing a retarded boy an AK-47 for Christmas. Inside a crowded shopping mall. Except it's a billion times worse.
Recent 538 discussion with Nate Silver and others basically gives the GOP a 50% chance of winning (at this stage of the game).
DeleteThat bit about Hilary not beating Carson if the election were held today actually has me kind of freaked out... that might give me nightmares tonight!... if I can get to sleep at all.
DeleteSeriously though... not any of the other GOP candidates (from now or 2012)... not even Cruz or Huckabee... or Trump, makes me worry that they are too insane to be president. Sure, I could see Cruz trying to stage a "soft" coup and try to fix elections to be "President for Life" (perhaps burning down the Senate after they fail to pass his "Religious Freedom for Christians Only" bill, and then blaming Democrats and "moderate" Republicans... al la 1933 Germany and the Reichstag fire) ... and sure I could see Trump or Huckabee doing something almost as vile or horrendous... but I can't see them thinking that clouds of nuclear fallout will be "fine"... that they just need to pray them away and Jesus will protect us... or better yet God will rapture the "good" people, so who cares about the rest? I can see Ben Carson taking that attitude, and if Time is correct, he's now officially the national (not just Republican) front runner.
DeleteI truly hope it's me that's delusional about that! But the guy just terrifies me. I'd seriously prefer Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho to occupy the white house... I'd VASTLY prefer that actually!
At least President Camacho **worried** about solving important problems, ... like crop failure and a lack of "burrito toppings." Lol.
DeleteThat Ben Carson does well against HRC right now is good news in my view. This makes him able to claim he can beat her and a better chance someone other than Rubio/Jeb wins.
DeleteSometimes you have to take the risk.
The reason I don't worry is I don't for one moment believe such hypothetical Hillary-GOP polls means anything right now.
I don't buy for one second he can beat her in the general.
To me we don't have a choice-the GOP is what it is. I see what's happening as the necessary next step and a positive thing as it won't be much longer than they will even be able to plausibly claim to be a national party.
By the way, the media is getting ahead of itself in saying Ben is beating Trump.
DeleteRCP averages show Trump is still up nationally though by only about 1.3%. But though Ben is up by 6 in Iowa, Trump smokes him in NH and leads in SC. FL, and Nevada which is what counts rather than national polls.
I suspect Ben is peaking though time will tell.
Mike, I trust your political sense on this... HOWEVER... the fact that any national poll ever in history would put Carson not only at the top of the GOP, but tied with Clinton is terrifying and nausea inducing. In other words, it borders on cold comfort.
DeleteIt's like saying "don't worry about all of our medicines being useless against this latest outbreak in this new series of strains of the plague... this one broke out in Kyrgyzstan and it'll likely fizzle before it gets to the US" ... what I'd find much more worrying is the fact that there have been a SERIES of plague outbreaks that we're utterly defenseless against!
I don't like your sense of risk. I'd feel much better if the non-Democratic party were the one I liked more... to the left on some issues and to the right on others, but solid and sane looking as compared to the Dems. The fact that the other party is essentially fully insane and that the general electorate is ignorant enough not to see that leaves me with little to feel good about given that they do basically have a 50% chance of winning.
DeleteAlso recall what happened to Dan Rather. It's not inconceivable that the cynics on the right in the media business couldn't pull another "Benghazi" out of the hat come October of next year to try to destroy Clinton.... leaving us with what? Ben?? The thought is chilling.
DeleteI know this is kind of a joke now... and I know this would hardly protect me from the clouds of strontium 90... but I think I really would consider moving to Canada in that case... if they'd have me! At least I wouldn't have to live those last few years with the shame of being a citizen of the country that put Ben in office... Lol... I really hope I'm being a bit over dramatic there, but that's where I'm at.
I know I waver about going full "Trump Democrat"... but this is perhaps the wake up call I needed to go out and commit myself to actively campaign for the Donald. Lol!
DeleteI thought Bush was a moron... and I voted for him anyway, thinking his advisers would keep him from doing anything too stupid. I was wrong about that on a scale that I never thought possible... I was literally in shock when he went ahead and actually invaded Iraq... I held out a thin sliver of hope that they were just bluffing until maybe a month before it actually happened... from that moment on I swore I would never even think about putting another moron in the white house.
Now I see Republicans making the same comments about Ben (not saying he's a moron exactly, but trusting that he'll surround himself with adequate advisers to make up for his lack of knowledge).
I consider Ben to have maybe 25% the mental competence for the presidency that Bush had. That's my rough estimate based on hearing him speak and listening to the (frightening) meaning of what he says.
Thus if you thought the Iraq War was a disaster, think about what a Carson presidency could give us? It's not even worth the risk. Not at all. I'm not really joking about nukes... I remember during the Bush years you had neo-cons out floating the idea (really they were making the case) on Fox News for using "tactical nukes" on Iran. What are the chances that Ben could be persuaded by his "advisers" to revive that idea, and maybe take it a step or two or three or four further? I think they're extremely good.
"I don't like your sense of risk. I'd feel much better if the non-Democratic party were the one I liked more... to the left on some issues and to the right on others, but solid and sane looking as compared to the Dems. The fact that the other party is essentially fully insane and that the general electorate is ignorant enough not to see that leaves me with little to feel good about given that they do basically have a 50% chance of winning."
DeleteI think many share your sense. This is what David Brooks wants as well-Krugman's Very Serious Pundits who because like you they think it would be great if the parties were equal in terms of sanity and decency,, blind themselves to reality and laughingly insist that this is in fact the case never mind reality.
For a guy that loves reality as much as you, the VSP sure aren't reality based.
I have been a political junkine for a long time. My judgements are based on what I've observed since my younger years-I remember the 1980 election!
I used to think maybe the Dems could work with the GOP if they saw we were reasonable they'd work with us.
What made me a 'Republican Hater' is when reality became too tough to ignore.
Maybe this system you envisage where both parties are basically both sane with very small differences would be nice. But it's not the world we live in and I don't really know when it was.
All I know is things were better when the Dems dominated. That's what the historical record shows in America at least.
Other countries have also gone large periods of one party rule-Canada's Liberal party had dominated closed to 100 years before the Conservatives came back in the 90s.
The Liberal Democrats of Japan had ruled for 50 years in Japan.
Party parity is not always either optimal or possible.
"I remember the 1980 election!"
Delete... I've got you beat there Mike! I remember the 1976 election... and Jerry Fords "Win!" buttons. Lol. I also remember Nixon in the White House and Watergate. That's probably my earliest political memory. My brother was in high school then (10 years older) and I remember him telling us a stupid joke (that he had to explain to me):
Q: What's behind watergate?
A: The mill house.
Get it? Richard Milhous Nixon?
But I also remember the 1980 election: do you remember John Anderson?
I first had a chance to vote in 1984. I don't recall if I did or not... I think I did. I know I voted Dem because I disliked Reagan. I thought he was a dope too... all that ridiculous blather about the "evil empire." I thought he sounded like a creepy child molester when he talked too... I could never understand the appeal. I'm sure I voted Dem in 1988 too. In 1992 I was a true swing voter: Bush 41 turned out better than I imagined... what impressed me was the nuclear accords he came to with the soviets. It seemed like every other day they were announcing some new reduction in our mutual nuclear stock piles. At one point I seriously considered all three: Bush, Clinton and Perot. I bought their books and read them! Ha! I hope I eliminated Perot from consideration... but honestly I don't recall how I voted. I know that I felt reasonably confident that the country would be OK no matter if the Dems or the Republicans won. I felt the same in 1996, and I'm pretty sure I voted for Dole. I certainly didn't hate Clinton. I did hate the whole "I did not have sex with that woman!" thing that came later... I was happy he was forced to admit he lied... not because I hated Dems, but because I felt that my intelligence had been insulted! I thought the GOP were nuts to impeach him for it though. It was at about that time in my life that I had become a fan of P. J. O'Rourke... I'm sure that's what let me to generally support Republicans over Dems during much of the 1990s. But back then I was more right wing in general. I flirted with libertarianism (I always hated the religious right) but I didn't like their "open borders" policy... nor did I like that about P.J.O'Rourke. I didn't like the social conservatism of Limbaugh. I belonged to some group founded by a Democrat & Republican (Tsongas and Rudman?) that thought it was terrible the way our debt was exploding. This worried me at the time, but looking back I can say I had no idea how national financing worked. I also belonged to an anti-illegal immigration group. I also didn't like teachers unions because I thought kids were getting a substandard education and I blamed them. Plus I was generally for gun rights, but not a fanatic about it (I was not an NRA member). So I had a lot pushing me right of center, but it wasn't a cut and dried case. I thought Gore was more intelligent. Bush wasn't my first choice either... I was a McCain guy... and I literally couldn't bear to hear Bush talk. I thought he sounded embarrassingly stupid. Really... I remember listening to the debate on my car radio, and having to turn it off because I couldn't take it anymore. After I was sure it was over I tuned in again to hear what the commentators thought (expecting the worst) and was shocked to hear them speak of Bush as if he wasn't an ignoramous! Lol.
Perhaps I was deluded, but I miss the feeling that it didn't matter too much which candidate won. So yes, that is a difference between you and I. I'm under no illusion now... it matters very much. I'm in no way thinking that any of the GOP candidates will be good now. But I would like the conservative voters to start to come back from the brink ... the sooner the better. Baby steps are better than nothing.
I consider 1980 my first election as I was sort of following the polls and was very invested in Carter winnning re-election though I knew this was in doubt.
DeleteI hated how badly he lost. I always felt like Reagan was a better actor but Carter was a better man.
I remember 1976 but don't count that as my first election as I didn't really follow it.
But I remember 1976 the day after Carter one, my Kindergarten teacher actually revealing herself a partisan and decrying the result.
She felt so sorry for President Ford. LOL I remember thinking that she and I differ. I was happy about it.
Even then at 5 years old-and I was an immigrant at the time too, just in the country two years-from England. LOL-I had this sense that the Dems were good people out for the little guy but the GOPers were for those at the top with all the natural advantages. LOL
Just like you were relieved, Tom, when you discovered I'm not a believer, I'm relieved that you didn't like Reagan either. LOL.
DeleteI agree about the child molester line! LOL.
I will also hand it to you that Bush the Father wasn't bad though that was my first election and yes I voted for Clinton. LOL.
I've always been a Democrat. It's amazing I mentioned the story of my Kindergarten teacher. I've just always been a Democrat. LOL
"But I would like the conservative voters to start to come back from the brink ... the sooner the better. Baby steps are better than nothing."
DeleteIt won't happen by the GOP becoming more reasonable but the GOP ranks thinning.
I see the Trump-Carson thing as a good sign as it shows that the whole conservative movement is now splintering.
Even I was more conservative in the 90s policy wise. I didn't support gay marriage then and thought Clinton's welfare reform was a good idea-I've since changed my mind.
But I was always Dem. In the 90s the whole Third Way Democrat thing made sense as the Dems had been just smoked in in some Presidential elections in the 1970s and 1980s
But what Obama's former campaign guy Dan Pfiefer said they realized after Obama's Quixotic attempts to work with Republicans in the first few years is that when the President went left-using executive action on wages or immigration, or Cuba policy, he never regretted it-in the polls.
The trouble is there's less and less of what you used to be-swing voters. The parties are very partisan. There's no advantage in not boing partisan.
The Right will hate whatever a Democratic President does but going liberal will excite the base. The independents such as they are seem to me to mostly just follow the momentum these days.
Regarding guns, that is the NRA position. They would give it to the retarded boy in a second.
ReplyDeleteTheir philosophy is not just a maximization of gun sales, but of guns fired. Like 60 Minutes talked about this technology that only allows a gun to be fired by its owner?
They have gone on scorched earth opposition to the technology and gun dealers are scared to sell it.
The NRA claims that any gun control measures no matter how small to be the slippery slope that ends with full prohibition.
The NRA are extremists. They are similar to the very worst part of the GOP in many ways. They live off of irresponsibly hyping fear and paranoia and spreading the false adolescent male fantasy that their membership alone stands in the way of tyranny.
Delete"Mike, I trust your political sense on this... HOWEVER... the fact that any national poll ever in history would put Carson not only at the top of the GOP, but tied with Clinton is terrifying and nausea inducing. In other words, it borders on cold comfort."
ReplyDeleteTom as I guy that reads Sumner and Nate Silver, you have to realize that polls fluctuate-as stats in general do.
This is why I dind't get worried about Bernie because a couple of polls were somewhat closer.
Surely you get that no all polls-in terms of accuracy-are created equally.
It's like when the Bernie fans all went Truther because some wildly unscientific Internet polls showed Bernie winning the debate over HRC 80 to 15. I didn't take that seriously and I don''t take these general election polls seriously.
If I'm supposed to take it seriously convince me it's scientific. As Silver, such general election matchups mean nothing right now.
I agree the polls have lots of noise at this point... But the Bernie thing is no comparison. If Bernie came out ahead in a national poll, I wouldn't sweat it. He's a decent guy and he's sane. The sanity part basically applies to every other candidate in either party ... Maybe even Ross Perot... Since I've walked this Earth... Until now. Maybe the sole exception being David Duke. But Duke never had more than what? ... 3% tops of the electorate supporting him in a match up against any other candidate in the field? If Duke had been on top in any slightly plausible poll ever I would have felt almost as sick to my stomach as this poll makes me feel. Sadly I would judge Duke's likelihood of causing a man made disaster slightly lower than Carson's... Simply because I'd judge his sense of self preservation to be slightly better.
DeleteIMO fundies that believe in end times nonsense are basically self fulfilling profecies waiting to happen ... should they gain power. There's almost nothing more frightening to me.
DeleteMy point was not about a scale of sane vs, insane-LOL.
DeleteJust that the polls that run hypothetical Dems vs. GOPers basically mean nothing right now.
For me the worst case scenario is not Ben Carson as I don't believe he will win for a second. I don't believe it.
In fact, my premise is he can't win the GOP primary. He is peaking I suspect and may win Iowa but elsewhere he's less of a threat. I still think Trump has the better chance though I suspect Ben could be a factor for awhile.
He might do pretty well also in SC where there are also lots of Evangelicals.
The GOP is no longer Winner Take it All so Carson could hand around after winning Iowa and coming in second in SC and other places down South.
My sense is that Carson or Trump will mean the GOP loses big. That's my assumption.
Your worry that maybe they will actually beat her doesn't reallyl resonate with me. I very much doubt it. But you have to take some risk.
Look, if Ben Carson wins then I will finally say the GOPers were right all along.
The American people really are with them and not me.
I hope you're right about hypothetical Dems vs GOPers right now. I estimate you're correct, but still: Like I've said before... imagine David Duke were beating Hillary in a national poll right now. That's basically how shocking this is to me. I would have to think the worst of my fellow countrymen... which is exactly how this makes me feel now.
DeleteAs for W, that's a sore point for me as that election was stolen. Sorry to raise that blood shirt but that's probably when I put aside the idea that the parties are or ever can be roughly equal.
ReplyDeleteI Mean it's shocking if you saw that CNN piece. Katherine Harris' adviser basically said he fixed the election.
Sorry, buddy, politics is not a debating society. Back then we Dems brought a knife to a gun fight.
No more! LOL
"As for W, that's a sore point for me..."
DeleteMike, I can honestly say that I'm profoundly sorry for my vote for W in 2000!! Please forgive me!!! :^D
I'm not joking. Literally from the moment they started floating the idea of invading Iraq my support for Bush & company began to crumble to dust, and by the time it actually happened ... and I saw the shameless unanimity on that decision in the GOP (only Ron Paul voted against it) ... and the triply shameless defense of Bush in the neo-con press (which was basically all the press at one point, even the NY Times... but especially Fox), I too became a "Republican Hater" to the core. Prior to that I basically felt that both parties had been at least minimally proficient enough to run the country. I was a true swing voter. My mistake (post Iraq invasion) was thinking that the neocons were the worst the conservatives had to offer... I thought it was basically a bunch of irresponsible lying war mongering neocons vs the "realists." Basically baby Bush vs his dad. I hoped that the neocons would be soundly defeated and the realists would regain power in the GOP. Little did I know that the Tea Party was yet to come... a crowd so loathsome they actually make the neocons look good by comparison!!
LOL. Tom I don't hold you voting for W against you! LOL
DeleteI do hold Jeb, and his friends in Florida responsible.
. I mean I knew you were something of a lapsed Republican-or as you put it a true swing voter.
I guess that's your frustration. You are a natural swing voter where you don't have the two reasonable parties where that strategy works.
By the way, I was pretty pissed at the Democrats too for largely voting for Iraq. I felt they were the one remaining party of sanity and the fact that they abandoned their responsibility as a whole (though with much less unanimity than the Republicans... which I give them some credit for) really angered me. Again, I put the lion's share of the blame on the administration, and the Republicans in congress... but the Dems deserve some scorn for their role too). That's basically why I supported Obama over Hillary in 2008. However, I've forgiven her now. I don't really have a choice given the alternative! (I mean the GOP, not Sanders). I think she's the best bet for defeating the GOP so I do support her.
DeleteI will say this. Ben Carson or Trump are not GOP outliers. They are its heart and soul. After all they combine for over 50% and in many polls 60% of the GOP vote right now.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put it as Carson is 25% as competent as W was, but more that Carson is the logical next step of a system that foised W on us.
Carson is just a more advanced stage of GOP regression.
"I will say this. Ben Carson or Trump are not GOP outliers. They are its heart and soul. After all they combine for over 50% and in many polls 60% of the GOP vote right now. "
DeleteI think you're right and that's exactly what scares me! That's not good. Any incremental step we can take back (as a nation) from where we are now is a good thing IMO.
The funny thing is Tom I feel totally different. I feel more confident now then I was in 2012, 2008, etc, when the GOP ran more plausible candidates but with the exact same ideology.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest my concern is not about 'sanity' vs. 'insanity' but who shares my views. I care about immigration reform. election reform. fighting back on the attack of a woman's right to choose, to protect SS and Medicare.
To do something about the drop in wages of the Uber economy.
To me I want a Democrat in 2017 to consolidate Obama's achievements, and turning the SJC back after being on the Right for 30 years.
That's why I always saimd I thought Trump might be better than Jeb as President.
To me GOP ideas are terrible. Yes, Trump and even more Ben are crazy. But when I know the GOP ideas are the worse, crazy is better than what I know is the worst.
Like Trump could be a little more reasonable on abortion, the Iran deal, etc.
Ben I kind of agree with your description-he truly seems to lack the usual self preservation that would stop you from doing something really insane.
Butt that hardly makes me pray for Rubio. I think his chance of winning is small enough that I don't worry over it.
No strategy is over zero risk.
And we don't have a choice. This is their party and this is where they are taking it.
So all you van do is make the best of it. I've long since given up the David Brooks dream of two reasonable parties, reasoning together in the moonlight. LOL
Mike I agree with most of that.
DeleteIf in a somewhat plausible poll (not some internet crap poll where Ron Paul wins by a landslide every time like he used to, remember?). In a poll with a head to head match up against Hillary, Ben Carson was doing slightly worse or perhaps equal to how David Duke would do against her, then I'd be in almost total agreement with you.
I'd feel light and airy, not a care in the world. I'd scoff at Ben's 3% showing to Hillary's 97%, and feel warm inside about the core sanity of my fellow countrymen... and if it so happened that Carson was well ahead in the national polls amongst REPUBLICAN VOTERS ONLY, then I would be laughing tears of amusement right now!
I'd be slightly sad (unlike you) that the GOP had gone completely insane and deprived me of a choice... but the fact that the GOP was clearly committing suicide would be amusing and nothing at all to worry about.
However, that's not what this poll (however noisy) is telling us. It's as if America saw David Duke make his case in three ratings record breaker RNC debates... and then America (not just the GOP), said:
"Young Mr. Duke makes a lot of sense! I like the cut of his jib and I think I'm willing to take a chance on him! (plenty of time to change my mind, but so far I LIKE what I'm seeing and hearing... especially that Nazi salute!... very sharp!)"
My jaw is left agape... that's all I can say.