I had an earlier piece where I talked about an illuminating Twitter conversation regarding Oregon and where Vern explained to me that the North should have just let the South go in 1861-what should decide these issues is not might makes right but the Will of the People.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/i-have-long-chat-with-anti-government.html#comment-form
Yes, but then I asked him how you determine the People's Will and he admitted this isn't alway easy to ascertain. I get that he and a lot of people don't like the idea that might makes right-that some higher principe, like the Will of the People should decide. But how do you know what the people want?
We normally don't know the People's Will to after a war. He points out that during the Revolutionary War only one third of the colonists wanted independence from Britain-another third was loyalist and the other third was basically neutral or agnostic.
So whose view of it was legitimate? In retrospect we obviously believe those who wanted independence. But if it had turned out differently, if Britain had won and we were still a commonwealth of Britain now our answer may well be different. indeed, if you want to look at the role not travelled, checkout Canada who decided to stay with Britain.
Ok, regarding Trump, I've tried to argue something about him with Tom Brown that Matt Yglesias touched on yesterday:
"Throughout Donald Trump's rise and hold at the top of national Republican Party polling, there's been a tendency to dismiss his rhetoric as mere limelight-grabbing antics. Trump, as Nate Silver put it, was running a perpetual attention-getting machine in which outrageous statements fueled media coverage, which fueled high poll numbers, which fueled more media coverage. And it's clear that Trump is, in fact, an adherent of the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity."
"But this has always missed the specificity of Trump. He doesn't say or do random things to get attention. He says particular kinds of things. Things that take what liberals have long argued is a white ethnocentric subtext to many conservative politicians' rhetoric and make it the main text."
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10710474/trump-new-ad-winning
My point I make with Tom is when he has yet another crazy, racist, Right wing thing he thinks Trump should just do-like go full KKK or something.
My point is like Yglesias I don't think Trump simply thinks of the craziest thing he can say. Rather there are kinds of crazy things he'll say and the kind he won't. He thinks of the craziest things on the list of things he will say.
So, for instance, after Scalia's talk of how blacks might feel better off at slower track schools, the media thought Trump would agree but he repudiated Scalia on that one.
He has been extremely anti Latino immigrant and Muslim during his campaign; however, he hasn't been directly anti black nor anti gay.
There were a few racist things he did after the Black Lives Matter protesters crashed some of his rallies. But he's said virtually nothing anti gay-I can't think of even one example of this.
With Kim Davis, he said she had to obey the law and that this was not the right job for her. That's the thing about Trump-he is very nationalistic. He doesn't like to see the law ignored.
So he is now coming out against the Bundys.
"Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed disapproval of the militia that took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon over the weekend."
"In an interview with The Hill, the real estate mogul agreed with his fellow Republican presidential candidates who have called for the group of armed men to stand down."
"You have to maintain law and order, no matter what," Trump told The Hill.
"Numerous presidential candidates have criticized the militia and called on them to leave the Oregon refuge, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-oregon-militia
P.S. There is talk about Trump's actually having a pretty good voter database.
Trump quietly builds a data juggernaut
Defying skeptics, he puts tools in place to get out the vote.
"Donald Trump’s rivals cling to the hope that the surprise GOP presidential front-runner lacks the know-how to lure supporters to the polls, but POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes."
"The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data outfit L2, according to multiple sources familiar with the effort. The data push is focused on integrating information Trump has collected, through his campaign website and at voter rallies, on nontraditional or unregistered supporters. It also includes commercial data obtained from the RNC and other sources, in an effort to mobilize voters in key early states, the sources said."
"Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who has significant experience in voter registration, declined to comment on the data program. “We don’t discuss internal procedures; however, Mr. Trump has been underestimated through every step of this campaign, to many people’s demise,” said Lewandowski, who ran a pilot registration project for Americans for Prosperity in 2014.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-builds-data-juggernaut-217391#ixzz3wTZgtG4x
I previously shared my own anecdote which leads me to suspect this is true. As a lark I bought a few shirts and caps from Trump back in October or so, and he actually sent me a very personal looking Christmas card.
I'm obviously not saying it is a personal card but it really does look the part. This suggests that they are saving data if everyone who has bought anything from their campaign receives a personal looking Christmas card.
Man, I'd love to see him win at least NH to put egg in the faces of those like Nate Silver and Ezra Klein.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10717690/donald-trump-loss
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/i-have-long-chat-with-anti-government.html#comment-form
Yes, but then I asked him how you determine the People's Will and he admitted this isn't alway easy to ascertain. I get that he and a lot of people don't like the idea that might makes right-that some higher principe, like the Will of the People should decide. But how do you know what the people want?
We normally don't know the People's Will to after a war. He points out that during the Revolutionary War only one third of the colonists wanted independence from Britain-another third was loyalist and the other third was basically neutral or agnostic.
So whose view of it was legitimate? In retrospect we obviously believe those who wanted independence. But if it had turned out differently, if Britain had won and we were still a commonwealth of Britain now our answer may well be different. indeed, if you want to look at the role not travelled, checkout Canada who decided to stay with Britain.
Ok, regarding Trump, I've tried to argue something about him with Tom Brown that Matt Yglesias touched on yesterday:
"Throughout Donald Trump's rise and hold at the top of national Republican Party polling, there's been a tendency to dismiss his rhetoric as mere limelight-grabbing antics. Trump, as Nate Silver put it, was running a perpetual attention-getting machine in which outrageous statements fueled media coverage, which fueled high poll numbers, which fueled more media coverage. And it's clear that Trump is, in fact, an adherent of the theory that there's no such thing as bad publicity."
"But this has always missed the specificity of Trump. He doesn't say or do random things to get attention. He says particular kinds of things. Things that take what liberals have long argued is a white ethnocentric subtext to many conservative politicians' rhetoric and make it the main text."
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10710474/trump-new-ad-winning
My point I make with Tom is when he has yet another crazy, racist, Right wing thing he thinks Trump should just do-like go full KKK or something.
My point is like Yglesias I don't think Trump simply thinks of the craziest thing he can say. Rather there are kinds of crazy things he'll say and the kind he won't. He thinks of the craziest things on the list of things he will say.
So, for instance, after Scalia's talk of how blacks might feel better off at slower track schools, the media thought Trump would agree but he repudiated Scalia on that one.
He has been extremely anti Latino immigrant and Muslim during his campaign; however, he hasn't been directly anti black nor anti gay.
There were a few racist things he did after the Black Lives Matter protesters crashed some of his rallies. But he's said virtually nothing anti gay-I can't think of even one example of this.
With Kim Davis, he said she had to obey the law and that this was not the right job for her. That's the thing about Trump-he is very nationalistic. He doesn't like to see the law ignored.
So he is now coming out against the Bundys.
"Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed disapproval of the militia that took over a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon over the weekend."
"In an interview with The Hill, the real estate mogul agreed with his fellow Republican presidential candidates who have called for the group of armed men to stand down."
"You have to maintain law and order, no matter what," Trump told The Hill.
"Numerous presidential candidates have criticized the militia and called on them to leave the Oregon refuge, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-oregon-militia
P.S. There is talk about Trump's actually having a pretty good voter database.
Trump quietly builds a data juggernaut
Defying skeptics, he puts tools in place to get out the vote.
"Donald Trump’s rivals cling to the hope that the surprise GOP presidential front-runner lacks the know-how to lure supporters to the polls, but POLITICO has learned that his campaign several months ago assembled an experienced data team to build sophisticated models to transform fervor into votes."
"The team is led by two low-profile former Republican National Committee data strategists, Matt Braynard and Witold Chrabaszcz, and includes assistance from the political data outfit L2, according to multiple sources familiar with the effort. The data push is focused on integrating information Trump has collected, through his campaign website and at voter rallies, on nontraditional or unregistered supporters. It also includes commercial data obtained from the RNC and other sources, in an effort to mobilize voters in key early states, the sources said."
"Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, who has significant experience in voter registration, declined to comment on the data program. “We don’t discuss internal procedures; however, Mr. Trump has been underestimated through every step of this campaign, to many people’s demise,” said Lewandowski, who ran a pilot registration project for Americans for Prosperity in 2014.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-builds-data-juggernaut-217391#ixzz3wTZgtG4x
I previously shared my own anecdote which leads me to suspect this is true. As a lark I bought a few shirts and caps from Trump back in October or so, and he actually sent me a very personal looking Christmas card.
I'm obviously not saying it is a personal card but it really does look the part. This suggests that they are saving data if everyone who has bought anything from their campaign receives a personal looking Christmas card.
Man, I'd love to see him win at least NH to put egg in the faces of those like Nate Silver and Ezra Klein.
http://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10717690/donald-trump-loss
Because these folks have been making ti sound not only like Trump won't win the nomination-which is still a reasonable theory-to the much more dubious proposition that he can't win a single state. The new model seems to be either Rudy Giuliani in 2008 or Howard Dean in 2004, where the wheels just fall off the wagon overnight for some reason, who knows what, but this is what history shows so it has to repeat this time the exact same way.
So Trump has graduated from being 2016's Herman Cain to 2016's Howard Dean. The more natural comparison would be this year's George Wallace, or maybe even Barry Goldwater or Teddy Roosevelt's third party run in 2012.
I notice that Nate and Harry Enten haven't even entertained the possibility of Barry Goldwater.
So Trump has graduated from being 2016's Herman Cain to 2016's Howard Dean. The more natural comparison would be this year's George Wallace, or maybe even Barry Goldwater or Teddy Roosevelt's third party run in 2012.
I notice that Nate and Harry Enten haven't even entertained the possibility of Barry Goldwater.
"As a lark I bought a few shirts and caps from Trump back in October or so, and he actually sent me a very personal looking Christmas card."
ReplyDeleteI had a white elephant gift exchange to go to recently. That's what I *WISH* I could have brought.