The Beltway was so wrong, for so long about Donald Trump, they were even more wrong than Patsy Cline.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EK6N430?ie=UTF8&keywords=patsy%20cline%20so%20wrong&qid=1463581374&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
Dana Milbank has literally ate his words-though he's still wrong judging by what he's now saying.
The media is now going 180. They absurdly underestimated his chances in the primary-while, yes, I called it since: last July.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/this-is-why-im-trump-democrat-reason-759.html
But now the Beltway is making the equal, opposite mistake the other way. They dismissed Trump as a joke with no chance in the primary.
Now they are building him up as a political virtuoso in the general who is going to beat Hillary because he's authentic and she's not-despite his admittance that every thing he says is just a 'suggestion'', despite the fact that he runs against illegal immigrants while he has used them copiously in his business.
He won't even release his tax returns as they will give us an idea of just what a fraud he really is: the opposite of 'authentic.'
Even a Hillary hater like Scott Sumner gets it right:
"Thiago, You said:
“All politicians do that.”
"Nope, Trump’s the only one who held all three positions on the minimum wage, in a single campaign. If all politicians did that we’d never know what any of them believed on any issue—no point in even having elections."
"I do love the way Trumpistas insisted that Trump was not an ordinary politician, rather he was a man of convictions, who could stop the wave of immigration. And now they defend him as being an ordinary politician who can’t be trusted on anything. Actually ordinary politicians can be trusted on some things. Hillary really will try to raise the minimum wage, you can count on it. It’s Trump who cannot be trusted on anything. The disgruntled voters who never vote because you can’t trust politicians, ended up supporting the one guy who’s even less trustworthy than real politicians. The guy who’s more like a caricature of politicians."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-minimum-wage-and-why-trump-doesnt.html
The one wholly lacking in 'authenticity' is Trump.
While the media grossly underrated Trump's chances in the primary, they seem determined to grossly overrate his chances in the general.
You have to go back to their original theory to see where they went wrong. They thought he was a joke who could never win the primary.
The trouble is they were only half wrong but now assume they were totally wrong.
He is a joke who could and did win the primary because the Republican party is an even bigger joke.
But this is what the Beltway can never admit. They have to believe that the two parties are equal no matter how torturous the argument. As they still can't admit the GOP is a joke they now have to assume Trump is not a joke-after all the GOP just nominated him in a cakewalk.
Krugman gets it right as usual:
"Greg Sargent interviews Hillary’s chief strategist about the coming general election, and finds him dismissive of claims that Donald Trump can repeat his march through the Republican primary. You never know — but it does seem obvious, except to the political pundits completely flabbergasted by Trump’s rise, that the general election is going to be a very different story. For the truth is that Trump’s Republican rivals fought with both hands tied behind their backs, and that just won’t happen from here on in."
"Greg summarizes the case very well, but let me do it a bit differently. Think about Trump’s obvious weaknesses, why Republicans couldn’t exploit them, but why Democrats can."
"First, he’s running a campaign fundamentally based on racism. But Republicans couldn’t call him on that, because more or less veiled appeals to racial resentment have been key to their party’s success for decades. Clinton, on the other hand, won the nomination thanks to overwhelming nonwhite support, and will have no trouble hitting hard on this issue."
"Second, Trump is proposing wildly irresponsible policies that benefit the rich. But so were all the other Republicans, so they couldn’t attack him for that. Clinton can."
"Third, Trump’s personal record as a businessman is both antisocial and just plain dubious. Republicans, with their cult of the entrepreneur, couldn’t say anything about that. Again, Clinton can."
"The G.O.P. paralysis on these issues explains why, again and again, Republicans turned to a proven line of attack — that is, proven not to work: insisting that Trump isn’t a true conservative, which matters to voters not at all. Obviously Democrats will be able to go after different and, I imagine, a lot more salient issues."
"And there’s one last thing, which I suspect may make the biggest difference of all: Clinton’s campaign can go after Trump’s fundamental buffoonery."
"I mean, he is a ludicrous figure, and everything we learn just makes him more ludicrous. So why couldn’t Republicans make that stick? I’d argue that it was because there was something fairly ludicrous about all his opponents, too."
"Think about Marco Rubio: even before his famous brain glitch, it was just obvious that he was a prefab candidate, a nice-looking guy with no real convictions or experience reciting lines he was told to deliver. The infamous “We must dispel with …” wasn’t just vile and stupid (even the first time, let alone repeated); it was also, transparently, not something Rubio believed or even cared about except that his handlers told him to say it."
"Or think about Ted Cruz, whose mean-spiritedness and self-centered nature evidently stand out even in today’s conservative movement, making him a hated figure even among those who should like his message."
"Clinton, on the other hand, is not ludicrous. She can think on her feet; she’s tough as nails. Do you really think the person who stared down the Benghazi committee for 11 hours is going to wither under schoolboy taunts?"
"The news media will, I fear, try their best to pretend that the contrast isn’t what it is. We’ll hear endless explanations of why Trump’s vanity, ignorance, and lack of moral fiber somehow prove his “authenticity”, which Clinton somehow lacks. And maybe that will stick with voters. But I don’t think it will. In the end, it will be a race between a tough, smart lady and someone who is obviously a yuge, um, Antonin Scalia School of Law. And voters will notice."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/the-gop-is-not-america-clinton-is-not-rubio/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0
More signs of Trump's authenticity: his dissembling on the minimum wage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-is-pulling-a-scam-on-wages-heres-a-way-to-call-his-bluff/
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EK6N430?ie=UTF8&keywords=patsy%20cline%20so%20wrong&qid=1463581374&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
Dana Milbank has literally ate his words-though he's still wrong judging by what he's now saying.
The media is now going 180. They absurdly underestimated his chances in the primary-while, yes, I called it since: last July.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/this-is-why-im-trump-democrat-reason-759.html
But now the Beltway is making the equal, opposite mistake the other way. They dismissed Trump as a joke with no chance in the primary.
Now they are building him up as a political virtuoso in the general who is going to beat Hillary because he's authentic and she's not-despite his admittance that every thing he says is just a 'suggestion'', despite the fact that he runs against illegal immigrants while he has used them copiously in his business.
He won't even release his tax returns as they will give us an idea of just what a fraud he really is: the opposite of 'authentic.'
Even a Hillary hater like Scott Sumner gets it right:
"Thiago, You said:
“All politicians do that.”
"Nope, Trump’s the only one who held all three positions on the minimum wage, in a single campaign. If all politicians did that we’d never know what any of them believed on any issue—no point in even having elections."
"I do love the way Trumpistas insisted that Trump was not an ordinary politician, rather he was a man of convictions, who could stop the wave of immigration. And now they defend him as being an ordinary politician who can’t be trusted on anything. Actually ordinary politicians can be trusted on some things. Hillary really will try to raise the minimum wage, you can count on it. It’s Trump who cannot be trusted on anything. The disgruntled voters who never vote because you can’t trust politicians, ended up supporting the one guy who’s even less trustworthy than real politicians. The guy who’s more like a caricature of politicians."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-minimum-wage-and-why-trump-doesnt.html
The one wholly lacking in 'authenticity' is Trump.
While the media grossly underrated Trump's chances in the primary, they seem determined to grossly overrate his chances in the general.
You have to go back to their original theory to see where they went wrong. They thought he was a joke who could never win the primary.
The trouble is they were only half wrong but now assume they were totally wrong.
He is a joke who could and did win the primary because the Republican party is an even bigger joke.
But this is what the Beltway can never admit. They have to believe that the two parties are equal no matter how torturous the argument. As they still can't admit the GOP is a joke they now have to assume Trump is not a joke-after all the GOP just nominated him in a cakewalk.
Krugman gets it right as usual:
"Greg Sargent interviews Hillary’s chief strategist about the coming general election, and finds him dismissive of claims that Donald Trump can repeat his march through the Republican primary. You never know — but it does seem obvious, except to the political pundits completely flabbergasted by Trump’s rise, that the general election is going to be a very different story. For the truth is that Trump’s Republican rivals fought with both hands tied behind their backs, and that just won’t happen from here on in."
"Greg summarizes the case very well, but let me do it a bit differently. Think about Trump’s obvious weaknesses, why Republicans couldn’t exploit them, but why Democrats can."
"First, he’s running a campaign fundamentally based on racism. But Republicans couldn’t call him on that, because more or less veiled appeals to racial resentment have been key to their party’s success for decades. Clinton, on the other hand, won the nomination thanks to overwhelming nonwhite support, and will have no trouble hitting hard on this issue."
"Second, Trump is proposing wildly irresponsible policies that benefit the rich. But so were all the other Republicans, so they couldn’t attack him for that. Clinton can."
"Third, Trump’s personal record as a businessman is both antisocial and just plain dubious. Republicans, with their cult of the entrepreneur, couldn’t say anything about that. Again, Clinton can."
"The G.O.P. paralysis on these issues explains why, again and again, Republicans turned to a proven line of attack — that is, proven not to work: insisting that Trump isn’t a true conservative, which matters to voters not at all. Obviously Democrats will be able to go after different and, I imagine, a lot more salient issues."
"And there’s one last thing, which I suspect may make the biggest difference of all: Clinton’s campaign can go after Trump’s fundamental buffoonery."
"I mean, he is a ludicrous figure, and everything we learn just makes him more ludicrous. So why couldn’t Republicans make that stick? I’d argue that it was because there was something fairly ludicrous about all his opponents, too."
"Think about Marco Rubio: even before his famous brain glitch, it was just obvious that he was a prefab candidate, a nice-looking guy with no real convictions or experience reciting lines he was told to deliver. The infamous “We must dispel with …” wasn’t just vile and stupid (even the first time, let alone repeated); it was also, transparently, not something Rubio believed or even cared about except that his handlers told him to say it."
"Or think about Ted Cruz, whose mean-spiritedness and self-centered nature evidently stand out even in today’s conservative movement, making him a hated figure even among those who should like his message."
"Clinton, on the other hand, is not ludicrous. She can think on her feet; she’s tough as nails. Do you really think the person who stared down the Benghazi committee for 11 hours is going to wither under schoolboy taunts?"
"The news media will, I fear, try their best to pretend that the contrast isn’t what it is. We’ll hear endless explanations of why Trump’s vanity, ignorance, and lack of moral fiber somehow prove his “authenticity”, which Clinton somehow lacks. And maybe that will stick with voters. But I don’t think it will. In the end, it will be a race between a tough, smart lady and someone who is obviously a yuge, um, Antonin Scalia School of Law. And voters will notice."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/the-gop-is-not-america-clinton-is-not-rubio/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur&_r=0
More signs of Trump's authenticity: his dissembling on the minimum wage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/18/donald-trump-is-pulling-a-scam-on-wages-heres-a-way-to-call-his-bluff/
Mike, regarding staring down that Benghazi hearing, did you see the recent news on that and how it's continued to blow up in the GOP's face?
ReplyDeleteMike, the "false equivalence" syndrome of the media, essentially means they sound just like RedState these days: an admittedly hard right no-compromise conservative opinion blog. Here's an example from RedState of what I'm talking about:
ReplyDelete"All the buzz today is focused on the idea that someone might jump into the race as an independent in response to the Hobson’s Choice between two monumentally unqualified and sociopathic candidates the two major parties have decided to nominate."
I even doubt THEY believe that crap about Hillary. They constantly feel compelled to shit on her and say she's just as bad as Trump, when they goddamn well know that the GOP candidate has to be an order of magnitude worse (even from within their warped perspective) before they'd give up on him and say he's "just as bad."
That article actually has some other good bits in it.
DeleteA #NeverTrump Third Party Should Not Be Conservative
Mostly because a conservative third party wading into the election this late is only going to beclown itself.
I'd argue it's already "beclowed" itself when it gave up on science and thus reality. Although, I do hope this is a case of a glimmer of reality getting through:
"If a move is made to a third party, it needs to be a clear-eyed breach from the status quo and it needs to accept that such a third party will forever be a local party because conservatives are minority within the GOP which means they are a definite minority among general election voters. Maybe we should accept being the party of state legislators and county commissioners and elected judges with an occasional governor or member of congress." [emphasis added]
Hallelujah, maybe you should accept that!!!
Let's hope the 1st bit of this is a clear eyed glimpse of reality as well:
DeleteWe Are Thoroughly Screwed And A Third Party Isn’t Going To Make the Experience More Pleasant
(although I think he ("streiff") makes some good points about a 3rd party being a terrible idea for conservatives... thus I hope the DO form a 3rd party obviously)
... and a 4th and 5th party as well.
DeleteNate Silver has an interesting piece on how he got Trump wrong here:
ReplyDeletehttp://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/
Good. Let's hope he doesn't now predict Trump wins the general and double his wrongness
ReplyDeleteI mean let's hope he doesn't 'compound his error.'
ReplyDeleteI like the way he explains science though: 'failing forward'
He's still getting me going though-no one predicted it. Hindsight bias.
ReplyDeleteWe know of course Tom that I with foresight thought Trump was the real deal.
LOL.