The Trump victory, which is certain even at 7:30 this evening, means he gets the Republican nomination, especially since Cruz dropped out of the race today. What surprises me is that Bernie Sanders has a 5-point lead over Hillary Clinton; I thought she’d win handily. But what do I know?
All I know is that America looks really bad with a Presidential candidate who’s a loose cannon (although Cruz would have been almost as embarrassing), and that Americans don’t really trust Hillary Clinton.
Here’s the latest Indiana update from the New York Times:
No surprise at all when it comes to that Idiot Chump getting nominated.
You’ve got to remember that almost half of the American population is of below average intelligence; I’m beginning to wonder if this figure isn’t on the low side!
The interesting thing to watch will be if there’s an attempt to somehow, by all kinds of questionable procedural maneuverings, replace him at the convention with a candidate more “acceptable” to the core TeaOP- the ensuing fracas could be the “last nail in the coffin” of the party as we know it.
Average or median for population intellect? 🙂
I’m not a statistician but I would think, for a large population and unless there are factors that skew the curve, the average and median would be the same.
cr
Nope you’re not. ;). But we got you’re point. Statisticians may be as annoying as others always pointing the difference between weight and mass when everyone gets the meaning.
Technically, it is more the distribution than the actual size of the population that matters. Indeed for a perfect bell shape curve, it would be the same for a large enough population.
We can imagine cases where it would not be a symetrical curve and therefore median and mean would be different. Even for a large population. For exemple: Number of crimes per individual commited over the past ten years.
I’m not an expert on IQ and I wonder what the curve would look like. I ll try to google it.
Ok… So intelligence cannot be really summed up by IQ, but lets say the IQ curve would. For the total of the population, IQ is a perfect bell shape Curve. As it seems to be defined this way. With 100 as the mean and median. You’re right then ;).
(
However this need not be the case for subset of the population.
There is a disturbing number of graph comparing different subset of the population on internet. I hope most are not the result of properly done studies.
)
What’s really disconcerting is how low an IQ of 100 actually is.
I didn’t mean to imply anything uncomplimentary about statisticians, or to imply that ‘only a statistician would care’. What I meant was, ‘I’m not a statistician so I’m no expert on median, average or mean’.
That said, I think those would all be the same for a bell curve.
On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that average and mean are not the same for number of arms. 😉
cr
For sets of data, mean = average.
The formula is the same.
(X1 + X2 + X3 … Xn) / n
Oops, sorry, I meant *median* and average are not the same. IIRC, I think the mean is usually taken to mean the average.
My mistake.
cr
Yes, you are correct. The median and mean are determined differently and almost never the same.
It’s the “Bill Gates walks into a bar” thing.
In a busy bar, the average (mean) income of the patrons is (let’s say) $45K and the median is, say, $50K.
Bill Gates walks in. Suddenly the mean goes to something in the millions, while the median is still the same.
Which is why it often makes more sense to talk about the median instead of the mean to characterize a population. Depending of course …
ahem – “YOUR” point! “You’re” would be you are”
😉
I believe there’s a hump in the below average area of the curve. A simple function based on multiple alleles might produce a smooth curve, but there are genetic disorders and medical conditions that are orthogonal to the “normal” distribution.
That crossed my mind after I posted. Those would be factors that ‘skew’ the curve (though I’m not sure if ‘skew’ is quite the right word).
An extreme example (to which I alluded above) would be number-of-arms-per-person. The median is obviously precisely 2. The average (on account of unfortunate one-armed people) is equally obviously slightly less than 2.
Whether an average can even be said to apply to such a discontinuous curve, I’m not sure, though it’s exactly the same case as the well-known “1.5 children” of the typical family.
cr
Inverse “Lake Wobegone Effect”.
I can just see the Parisians I know shaking their heads. We were an international laughing stock when G. W. Bush was in office, but, indeed, not even the tragic poets can bemoan the abysmally sad state of affairs we’ll face if Tr*** is elected. It’s bad enough with this news.
Is a psycho really any better just because it’s not a psycho in a clown costume?
Cruz is like your dotty and embarrassing uncle; Trump is like a dotty and embarrassing uncle who comes into your living room and urinates during a party.
Oh lord, that’s hilarious. And tragically true.
(How do families handle their dirty uncles? They don’t let them cook at holidays or organize events. What the flip are we doing!?)
Yes, that uncle is embarrassing, but you never have to wonder who he has tied up in his basement.
Respectfully disagreeing, sir. Trump may be a clown, but Cruz is a theocrat. Or, as I’ve taken to saying lately, “Trump for crazy; Cruz for scary.”
I don’t think Trump can beat Hillary, but even if he does, I think America would muddle through. Cruz, on the other hand, would be a near-worst case scenario.
I know the christian right unfortunately far too well from personal experience. For those looking to be scared shitless, I recommend these two books:
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America by Chris Hedges
Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg.
Yeah, Cruz is backed by an ideology, which I think is more dangerous than random stupidity.
It’ important to remember that the ideology that Cruz clings to is scary AND crazy – about the only good thing I can say about Trump is that he’s not likely to kiss the ass of the religious right….
No, just Putin’s.
No, he’ll have sex with Putin. It’ll be YUGE! Believe me!
I heard it wasn’t YUUGE at all.
However, he is already encouraging his supporters to rough up opponents. I have raised eyebrows of Americans here by asking a sort of “What’s so bad of Trump that we haven’t already seen?”, but I’ve changed my mind. I think there is a high chance that Trump will keep trying to suppress free speech.
Yes I agree. Cruz scares the bejesus out of me.
Agree. Trump is just a con-man. Cruz is a True Believer. I find Cruz truly terrifying.
Cruz has an agenda. A very unpleasant one. Internally it would be anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-Muslim, anti-atheist and more. Externally, the New Crusades would be my guess.
I haven’t been paying enough attention to know if he would be trying to fulfill the prophecies that will invoke Armageddon and the Second Coming, supposedly.
Along with so many others here, I agree that Cruz is a far worse option than Trump. Remember too (as if anyone could forget) the Dominionist Cruz if president would be choosing the next three or four Supreme Court justices. It wouldn’t just be the next four years he would affect, but a generation.
My old Uncle Ned was never nominated to run for president.
Funny. But I pee in swimming pools; I do not think there is any relation to Trump’s desire to pee in someone’s living room.
Ahhh. There are two kinds of person: those who admit to peeing in swimming pools, and those who don’t.
😉
cr
I would always pick Trump over Cruz. Cruz and Trump are both insane, but with Trump there is still a big chance he’s lying about his crazy point of view.
Cruz, however, has shared a stage with Kevin Swanson, a pastor who called for the murder of gay people. Not even Trump’s friends are that bad. Cruz, a dominionist, has consistently been crazy all his political life.
Me too. I agree, I think Trump is far less sincerely right-wing. Though neither option would have been as good as a contested GOP convention, both in terms of political spectacle and possibly in terms of nomination results.
I agree, from what I’ve seen Trump is a small-fingered old car salesman who says anything that gives him press and voters, but who has in the past even endorsed liberal positions. He used to be pro-choice, for example. He’s a flip-flopper like Clinton, only in the other direction. I guess he’s manageable and would be less severe once in the office (though still disastrous). But at least entertaining for the rest of the world.
Ted Cruz on the other hand is a genuinely dangerous politician, one who is the incarnation of the right-wing theocratic Republican.
Carly Fiorina has been a running mate for about 6 days and then got defeated for the second time in the same election cycle. That’s a whole new level of failure.
But it isn’t over yet. Kasich is still standing and Cruz keeps his end of the bargain: he won’t be campaigning in Oregon and New Mexico. 😛
Oh it’s over.
I am not American, but I hope that Bernie Sanders makes it — against all odds.
Hillary Clinton is essentially an old time Republican before the party went barmy altogehter. She’s a political sibling of George W. Bush, a big business corporate hawk in the first place. She appears to say what people want to hear, more like Trump, just in a democrats version, and you cannot believe anything she says.
Blocking reporters with white noise and such things makes matters clear: unelectable (I would go “Bernie or Bust”, but of course I have no skin in the game). Sanders would be good for the USA, in particular its democratic system; and better for the world.
Bernie’s the closest we’ve ever been to having an atheist in the White House, well, the one who has not ended every speech with gawd bless america….
AND I would like to know what she said in those great speeches. Why doesn’t she just release them and clear up our misconceptions?
Then why entertain “misconceptions”?
Or maybe, you might consider that every time the Clintons have released documents, they have been mischaracterized and used against them.
Or maybe Bernie just oughta release his taxes? Like every other candidate does, except Bernie and The Donald, who clearly don’t think the prior rules of engagement apply to them?
He did quite a while ago.
No, he hasn’t. Recently he released just the latest year – 2014/15. He’s never released any others.
Yeah. One year’s worth. Hillary has released eight years. Candidates routinely release many years. He’s managed one, and he had to be hounded by the press to do that.
From an article I read by someone who attended one of the speeches in question, there is a clear reason why she will not release them – during those speeches, she kisses ass to the host. Be it Goldman Sachs or whomever. She was hired and paid to give a speech, she was not hired and paid to come in there and tell them what assholes they are. So obviously, she has to say complementary things about her hosts, who are paying her. Now, there is no question the opposition would use this to paint her as “on the side” of Goldman Sachs Et. al. But really, an equally logical explanation is that she is kissing ass for money, which is what paid speeches are. And maybe you find that un-paletable in itself, and that’s cool, some do. Me personally, I do not care. You may also believe that she just shouldn’t do work for companies on Wall St. – but that comes from an assumption that doing so means you are in the tank for them. That is just not a logical conclusion to make as far as I can see.
You can see from their actions (failures to prosecute, especially, but also in the administration’s choices for Treasury appointments) that the current Dems, like the Republicans, are indeed bought by these guys. It is more than a mere perception of conflict of interest.
Please state, with specificity, what criminal statutes were violated, and by whom.
That may be true, but she’s firmly on the liberal side in terms of social policy. She’ll support healthcare, gay rights, women’s rights to contraception and abortion, and so on. That makes her completely different from the Republicans of today.
I think it’s also worth pointing out that on the subject of gay rights, she is far more ‘left’ now than any mainstream democrat or republican from 10 or 20 years ago. We often talk about the Overton Window shifting right, but at least on that issue it’s shifted to – and is still moving to – the left.
Barring Ms. Clinton having a sudden fatal heart attack or someone releasing a video of her banging the entire New York Rangers team, he’s not going to win. The Dems award their delegates proportionally in the remaining states, which means that Bernie doesn’t just have to beat Clinton in those states, he has to beat her by a popular margin of something like 40 points (i.e., 70% to 30%. In every remaining state). That just isn’t going to happen.
I have to hand it to Trump: He waited until the actual day of voting to make the most outrageous, off-limits and insane statement ever by any leading politician in modern history. He accused his opponent’s father of being connected to the murderer of a U.S. president. It is a measure of our Trump-battered sensibilities that, so far, no one has called for Trump to exit the stage. This is a statement that, had it been made a year ago by any candidate would have provoked justified outrage and condemnation. It is so far beyond the pale that it is beyond comprehension. It encompasses so much. Try to imagine anyone, ever making such a claim and being rewarded not only with indifference but victory in a primary. It encapsulates beyond doubt the unfitness for office of Trump. Indeed, it demonstrates he is unfit even for even civilized company. Yet, I saw only two instances today where anyone seemed to appreciate just how monstrous this was. Everyone else talked about how Cruz “lost it” by responding. Cruz, loathsome as he is, shouldn’t have had to say anything. Trump should have been ostracized by society, and yet he escapes any sanction at all. If he wins, we deserve him. We left honor far behind long ago. This is what we get.
As for Hillary, well, gosh, if people had been lying about you in the national media for over 20 years and inventing phony crimes and scandals to tar you with, how trustworthy do you think folk would find you? And this, too, represents an absolute refusal on the part of our media to hold anyone’s feet to the fire, and instead gleefully garner ratings by reporting dubious claims by unbelievable people. Under the Clinton Rules, no matter how many investigations clear you, no matter how sleazy and corrupt your tormentors, you still must have done SOMETHING.
So a cheap real estate hustler who couldn’t find the Constitution with both hands and a map will compete with a former senator and secretary of state who is also an accomplished attorney and worker for women and children.
Drumpf & Cruz are both bloody nasty, but the latter is surely a great deal nastier with his theocratic convictions – Drumpf’s accusation that Cruz’s father was connected in some way to the assassination of Kennedy was extraordinary, and at the beginning of Cruz’s rejoinder, I thought, ah, this man is actually sounding half-way responsible at last, but then he got on to his daughters and Drumpf and venereal disease: and throughout the speech, on one side was Cruz’s wife and on the other was Fiorina, who had obviously both been instructed that when their man gives a speech they must stare in breathless admiration at this god-like being, bursting with testosterone and power and paternal protectiveness, as he lays down the law… Does this happen in other countries – this clear use, or abuse, of women to bolster male status, in politics and elsewhere? I never cease to be shocked when I happen on Fox News, with its four pairs of carefully crossed female legs setting off the large male jewel centre-stage. There really does seem to me to be a peculiar cult of uber-masculinity in the States, a cult that as well as assisting such as Drumpf involves a large does of self-pity, particularly when the subject of feminism comes up.
‘dose’ for ‘does’
Not that it would have made a difference for today’s election, but Cruz did what actors call “stepping on your own line.” Meaning, get in, get out, shut up. All Cruz had to do was announce the outrage, express shock and disgust, and shut up. Instead, he went on, and on, and on, and reminded everyone why they hate the guy. Self-pity and whining do not harmonize with righteous indignation.
But what Trump did was so thoroughly unprecedented and horrific that the press and the public should have been universally revolted. Some were – Christ Matthews, closer to my age, which I find significant, was gobsmacked. The younger reporters, with the exception of Jake Tapper, shrugged their shoulders. I think this is a byproduct of the Internet. In the past there were “flame wars,” now there are “trolls,” but it amounts to the same thing: No boundaries, no sense of honor, no sense of community. There really should be a point where “Hold! Enough!” is the response, and we’ve
lost that. I love license as much as the next person. I trace my history to the transgressions of Lenny Bruce and Frank Zappa. Now, if it doesn’t involve live action murder, it stops being clickbait. Obviously, I’m a “get off my lawn” guy.
As for Europe, I don’t know. All my UK FB friends have similar standards to me. I think that Europeans couldn’t care less about “male status,” but perhaps I paint with too broad a brush. One thing I do see: Everyone who lives there is terrified by Trump.
Do you mean J. Christ Matthews?
Matthews swing wildly between old pro and sucker for anything that shines. Today, he was spot on as to this issue. And the fact that his guests didn’t understand that is no reflection on him.
If you didn’t catch it, then you don’t know.
I was just amused by your (mis)spelling of Chris(t) Matthews’s name… And, yes, good
for himfor saying what he did.
On NPR yesterday morning as they reported this incident, they did it straight and you could tell their jaws were on the floor and they were pinching themselves.
That a serious candidate for the US Presidency could say things like that is … astonishing.
Like you said, all his misbehavior up to now has desensitized many to the outrageousness of his statements and behavior.
That crap plays to a segment of the GOP, I don’t think it’s going to play well to the general electorate.
The “woman card”?
Ted Cruz’s dad conspired to kill JFK?
Build me a wall?
In what world does that shit win a general US election?
Let’s hope we don’t find out.
This is unprecedented with regard to the smear coming from a Presidential candidate, yes. But the right wing has long acused Bill Clinton of secretly assassinating people who got in his way, so I’m not surprised that what Trump said wouldn’t create outrage. After years of our politicians and media appealing to the lowest common denominator, this is what we have. As George Carlin said about politicians, “They come from among us. This is the best we can do folks.”
Yeah, but neither Bush I or Bob Dole accused Clinton of that. (Of course, being adults, they knew it was BS anyway.)
Trump is now the presumptive nominee. The country is being asked to elect a man who gets his news from the National Enquirer and Alex Jones.
This is the problem though. Former Presidents know these things are BS, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have good laughs about the conspiracy theories when they are together behind closed doors. Whether Trump believes Cruz’s father was involved in Kennedy’s murder or whether he believes that Barack Obama isn’t a U.S. citizen, I have no idea. I’m inclined to think he doesn’t; but as with all issues, the truth is irrelevant when it comes to Trump. Bringing up Obama’s birth certificate is just as loony as accusing Cruz’s father of murder, if not more so. The former accusation has been refuted with hard evidence, the latter simply has no evidence to support it.
Trump knows what to say to stoke the flames of anger and hatred in his rabid base, and that’s what is truly scary. He doesn’t have to believe anything he says, he just has to make emotional appeals to enough fools to get more votes than the competition. On that front, I wouldn’t underestimate Trump; he clearly has the ability to lead large herds of the unthinking masses right off a cliff. My concern is that the unthinking masses may well end up constituting a majority of the voters this Fall.
I think we’ve (the world as a whole) come to a sticky pickle when Dole and Bush (either) look like moderates …
Oh no, I think both of them were firmly in the “moderate” camp. Bush tacked right as part of the Reagan team, but he was always a patrician Yankee Republican, and that means moderate. They get that in the womb, believe me. I knew a lot of Bush types growing up in New England. They live in Marblehead and Pride’s Crossing.
Dole, too, was a moderate. And a pretty smart guy. He grew up in Russell, KS, and if you’ve ever been there, you can see why he got the hell out. But KS wasn’t really a hard right stronghold until Brownback and his ilk. And Brownback may drive the state into the arms of the Communist Party at the rate he’s trashing it.
Is this not simply an application of the principle of the “Big Lie” as used with such devastating effect by Hitler (Mein Kampf -vol 1. ch.10)
No, not at all. A “big lie” is one that is fundamental and repeated. Saying, over and over again, that all of Germany’s problems are caused by the Jews is a “big lie.”
Trump’s lie will not be repeated, by Trump at any rate. In typical fashion he threw it out there, and later praised Cruz once he had defeated him. It is unlikely it had much effect on the race, because voting had already started. Its significance is that a candidate crossed such a line, made an unthinkable, inexcusable accusation, and is now the presumptive nominee.
It marks and end of the idea that there are limits beyond which our society will not go. Nothing, literally, is sacred. Any false accusation, any obscenity that previously would not be abided can now be made without penalty.
In an earlier age, Cruz would have challenged Trump to a duel “on the field of honor.” Meaning, the sanction could be death.
Now it’s just trolling. My, how far we’ve come.
‘Hail Emperor Trump!’ White Nationalists Take Victory Lap Following Trump Win – See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/hail-emperor-trump-white-nationalists-take-victory-lap-following-trump-win#sthash.u0H9OXq2.fHU1et6O.dpuf
Worth reading: the anti-Semites and racists are in a seventh heaven of delight.
Maybe David Duke will make some ads for him.
from Right Wing Watch:
‘Duke said it was high time “to start naming the enemy that’s orchestrating our destruction: If we don’t dispose the Jews, there is no hope for our people.”
“This is not Trump’s job,” Duke said. “It’s our job to give Trump the space to do it eventually.”
He explained that Jews “control” the media, academia and the political world, “and I think that we’ve really got to start going full bore on that. I’m not saying that Trump has to but we’ve got to and that’s the only way we’re going to move people like Trump more toward doing the things we’ve got to do.”
“Here’s a question for you,” Duke asked. “How do we go from this idea, ‘We’re going to build the wall,’ to understanding that Europeans are being wiped out in their land and to start taking a more open position to defend our people and changing the way the media operates and doing trust-busting or whatever to destroy this media establishment that is brainwashing our people every day?”’
Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.
I’d say that Americans are in more serious trouble than they realize. There’s got to be a reason why these people flock to this man who appears to be without a sense of common decency and integrity. He’s a master at using mass hysteria. The U.S. is in deep trouble.
“A “big lie” is one that is fundamental and repeated.”
That has been the GOP strategy for a long time. What does one expect from a bunch who listens to Rush Limbaugh and Billo every day?
So maybe now it is time to vote for the vision we really believe in? Sanders might be a better candidate than Trump. It is possible that Trump can destroy Hillary with one sentence: “Hey Hillary, remember when I bought your vote on [fill in the blank]?”
Yeah, and if Trump actually had, that sure would be a great line.
Too bad for Bernie it isn’t true. Maybe it’s time Bernie left the party he never really joined, because it’s past time for his vanity play. He is alienating people now. I know he doesn’t care, but everyone else should.
Sanders isn’t perfect but he is more honest and much more principled than either of the Clintons. They are clearly in the pockets of the big banks, and they are somewhat hawkish.
The exciting thing about this election, no matter how it turns out, is that Americans are finally pushing back at the backroom power brokers that have shaped our policies for so long. That would be a good thing.
“but he is more honest and much more principled than either of the Clintons.”
I’m not sure that’s a good reason to vote for anyone.
Of course it depends on what the principles are. In Sanders’ case, these principles seem admirable, at least to me.
They may be, but most of the things he promises are unachievable in the near term. That certainly borders on dishonest.
Well, his plan is to maintain his record high voter enthusiasm and direct it into getting out the vote to help reshape Congress (and state and local politics too), which is what he means by a “political revolution”. He has plenty of time to do that, given that 1/3rd of Congress is up for reelection every two years. I think whether he could maintain voter enthusiasm and turnout is a bigger question…
“his plan is to maintain his record high voter enthusiasm”
How well did that work for Obama? The enthusiasm is high because people have unrealistic expectations about what Sanders can actually do. It will fade. There will be no revolution; at best, incremental change.
Nah, he’ll be dead by then.
No, one-third of the Senate is up every two years. Representatives are all up every two years.
This is his big plan? “I’ll get everyone excited enough to change the Congress!”? Little late for that. Maybe if he’d helped down-ticket candidates beyond the three he’s helping because they’re backing him, he have a start. But, unlike Clinton, Bernie hasn’t helped down-ballot candidates except when he gets money for himself, too. Hillary gave party candidates $18 million last year. Bernie? Zero.
So if he got the nomination, then what? Down-ticket candidates aren’t going to campaign with him, because he’s done nothing for them. Plus, they rightly don’t consider him a Democrat.
This is what happens when you’re a gadfly, when you won’t join a party: No one is there to help you. These candidates, most of them, and especially incumbents, have spent years working with the party, helping each other. Bernie hasn’t. They owe him squat.
Though it’s a bit sappy, I like the quote “If your life’s work can be accomplished in your lifetime, then you’re not thinking big enough” (Wes Jackson). It takes ambition to move things forward. That’s what leaders do. No one can fully realize their stated agenda in our political system because you must compromise. If you begin with a small goal you will achieve an even smaller result. You have to work toward the goals of Sanders to achieve the goals of Hillary.
I don’t hold any delusions about a President Sanders existing let alone actually achieving the things he wants to achieve. However, the changes Sanders wants will never happen if everyone just stands around saying it can never happen.
“goals of Sanders to achieve the goals of Hillary”
No, you don’t, but I agree that they can inspire people. Even so, you need to have a road map and be honest with those who trust you about what can be realistically be achieved in the short-term.
Short answer: Bernie Sanders wants the U.S. to be more like Denmark. The personal income tax rate of Denmark is 58%.
There’s your Republican spot right there.
Bye-bye, Bernie.
No, they are not “clearly” any such thing.
And, news flash, every election has someone claiming they are “pushing back against the power brokers.” Being the “outsider,” the “anti-establishment” candidate: these are hardly new ploys, and they don’t say anything about Sanders except what tactic he is using. That doesn’t make him dishonest, mind, just a familiar character. See, Nader, R., McCarthy, G., Perot, R., McGovern, G., Anderson, J., Bradley, B., et alia.
Sorry but that is demonstrably wrong. Bernie was an independent, was an early fighter against racial injustice, has usually been on the right side of an issue (like the Iraq war) even when nearly everyone was on the other side. The man has principles and sticks to them. Maybe he won’t be an effective president because of that, but maybe he will pull the country along. Someone has to try.
No, Bernie is a guy who has never played well with others, and was never a member of the party that he now seeks to fund him.
Hillary is quite correct when she says he can diagnose a problem but offers no means to correct it. He has long been humored along by the Democrats in Congress as kind of a nice old guy who never really works with anyone. If nothing else, his New York Daily News session revealed someone who has not thought through the mechanics of getting anything done. He has to ask if the president can shut down a bank? He doesn’t know?
In that sense he is like Trump – someone with no apparent knowledge of how government works. But unlike Trump, he has worked in government most of his life. Answer after answer betrayed someone who really hasn’t thought anything through. If you had asked Bill Clinton, say, or Barack Obama how you accomplish something in the government, take a seat and get out the popcorn because they will not only know how, they will tell you in excruciating detail. They’ll also give you the phone numbers of the elected officials they’ll be relying on. Bernie has no constituency, nobody in Congress that has any reason to even return his calls. He has no allies, and no one who owes him anything.
It’s great to be too pure for all this. Just don’t expect to be sitting on anything BUT your principles.
Every few elections the Democrats get someone leading a Children’s Crusade. Bernie is nothing more than the latest, and he will have the same success.
> He has long been humored along by the Democrats in Congress as kind of a nice old guy who never really works with anyone.
The fact that Sanders and Trump don’t work with others is what makes them appealing to their respective supporters.
> In that sense he is like Trump – someone with no apparent knowledge of how government works.
Maybe they know exactly how government works and choose not to play the same game. Again, this is exactly what their supporters, who are tired of watching how government “works” for the elite and not themselves.
> They’ll also give you the phone numbers of the elected officials they’ll be relying on. Bernie has no constituency, nobody in Congress that has any reason to even return his calls. He has no allies, and no one who owes him anything.
Once again, Bernie’s supporters will see this as a positive.
> Every few elections the Democrats get someone leading a Children’s Crusade. Bernie is nothing more than the latest, and he will have the same success.
Democrats and Republicans alike are ignoring the current populist groundswell at their imminent peril. The people who support Sanders and Trump don’t want someone who will continue playing the same power games with the same corrupt players. They don’t want the president with the biggest Rolodex, or the shiniest Party credentials.
The thing that sustains the corruption, horsetrading, and realpolitiking of the government is a pervasive attitude that it’s the only “grown up” way to run a government, and that the little people who are unhappy with it are merely “children” on a “crusade.” Both parties need to descend from their ivory towers if they want to remain relevant.
No, they don’t understand government (especially Trump), and it’s not a game. It is a system established by the Constitution of the United States. And has been working for a very long while, comparatively.
And anyone who has truly studied it will tell you, it provides that the president is 1) not the head of the most powerful branch of government, and 2) no president can accomplish much if the legislature doesn’t want to cooperate. If the past 7+ years has taught you anything, it should be this.
You cannot carry out a “revolution” by electing any particular person president. Congress is the most powerful branch, and if most of the legislature either 1) is of the opposition party, or 2) doesn’t take you seriously, you are not going to get anything done.
You seem to not understand these most basic constitutional principles. If you want to win at football, you have to know the rules. You don’t understand the rules, which makes you perfect Bernie-bait.
That’s right, a revolution isn’t made by one person. But one person with good ideas can motivate voters and candidates in other elections.
What do you mean? He heads several committees, frequently works with others to get amendments passed, and has worked with Republican co-sponsors to craft and pass bills. What he doesn’t do is compromise his principles or play the corrupt Washington favor-trading game.
He’s funded by the people in small donations. He’s asked for and received almost nothing from the party. Yes, he’s not really a member of the Democrats, but that seems irrelevant.
I thought his answer was fine. He said you can either use the existing authority under Dodd-Frank or pass new legislation. If anyone was confused, it was the questioner, in my opinion. What specifically was wrong with his answer?
Yes, he doesn’t play Clinton’s “I’ll get you some money and you support me later” game and he doesn’t sell out his constituents for political favors. Seems like a good thing to me.
You must have pretty low standards. Those were questions he should have knocked out of the park. Instead, he stunned them with his vagueness and lack of command.
As for legislation, let’s finally try and put this canard to rest: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/04/07/hillary-clinton-was-a-more-effective-lawmaker-than-bernie-sanders/
Jeff, in your last comment you accused Bernie of merely playing the outsider role as a strategy. Then in this comment you criticize him for always having been an outsider.
I’m very glad that Cruz is gone, he was the much more dangerous threat. I think Trump is a buffoon but not as stupid as he likes to play, and probably not a true believer in his own rhetoric. Cruz on the other hand seems to truly be a dangerous religious maniac. I don’t want either of them close to the White House, but I know which I consider to be the lesser evil.
Same here.
Agreed!
+1
I will miss having a candidate who looks like a blobfish in the race.
Do NOT fool yourself by underestimating what Trump can do. He is petty, vindictive, and takes offense quite easily.
He is more than capable of provoking a war, or just plain starting one because his feelings are hurt.
A lot of people are saying, “Oh, well, he’s not a fanatic like Cruz.” Do you think an ICBM cares whether it’s a fanatic or a buffoon pushing the button?
There is a great misconception that Trump is playing a role because he’s such a successful businessman. He’s not. He’s a cheap real estate hustler and a thug. His business failures are legendary. Name one truly successful businessman, doesn’t even have to a Buffet or a Gates, who respects him. There aren’t any.
This is a thug who has muscled his way to what money he has. You think he won’t release his tax returns because he’s being audited? He won’t release them because they’ll show he nowhere near the money he claims.
This guy built cheap shoddy housing, and he says everything he does is “beautiful”? He builds skyscrapers out of concrete. No one else does. Could the fact that the Gambino and Genovese families in NY, and the Scarfo outfit in Philly, sold him the concrete? He’s been mobbed up for years, and it’s amazing that he thinks no one will ask about this. Of course, given the excruciatingly pathetic media we have, he may be right.
But, more to the point, he is a think-skinned bully, and he can get us into a war so easily. Do not underestimate the threat he represents.
Indeed, I fear him getting into a school yard pissing contest with Putin or Assad or Xi. I wouldn’t put it past him. At all.
Some bizarre stuff. Trump, now the presumptive nominee, signs on to the zero-evidence National Enquirer claim that Cruz’s father conspired with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Wow, this is a weird election year.
There was a story by Mark Twain about a candidate who entered the campaign to assure the presence of a honest man among all those crooks, just to find out that every candidate was smeared with outlandish accusations. (Don’t remember the title and the details.) If there had been a Kennedy assassination by the time of the story, the character would have been accused of this also.
I suspect you are referring to Twain’s brilliant little sketch, ‘Running for Governor’. There was a man who understood American society and politics!
Thank you!
The demographic models had Sanders winning by 7 points whereas the polls suggested a similar margin for Clinton.
It turns out that the demographic model worked better here.
Poor Kasich; he’s like Lepidus to us.
And what happens if all of Cruz’s delegates and all of Rubio’s delegates switch to Kasich?
And no, I don’t know.
On the first ballot, they can’t. So if Trump gets the necessary pledged delegates, he’ll get the nomination. After that, delegates can be literally bought and the Trumpster fire has more money than Kasich.
By “After that”, I meant if it goes to a second ballot, which it shouldn’t.
You are correct. I didn’t think it through. Though is Trump doesn’t have enough pledged delegates on the first ballot, it could be a free-for-fall.
Which is what everyone in the GOP (pretty much) except Drumpf is hoping for.
People seem relieved that Ted Cruz is out of the presidential race and willing to believe that Donald Trump, although a total human and political disgrace, would be preferable if the choice for our next president were between him and Cruz.
No doubt about it, Cruz is a dangerous fanatic who seems to truly believe in the evil ideas he has been spewing for so long. Whereas Trump believes on only one thing: feeding his obscenely bloated ego. This allegedly makes him tolerable compared to Cruz if we have to be stuck with him in the White House for the next four years.
But make no mistake. This outcome would be a catastrophe for the United States and whatever cachet, despite all its shortcomings, it still possesses in the world.
The possible election of Trump terrifies me for the future of our nation. I truly fear that if this does happen, the only fitting headline for every news outlet in the world will be “USA RIP.” He is nothing less and other than the most repulsive individual in all of American history who has ever had a genuine chance to become our country’s president. We should not assume that this cannot happen.
Right now the United States of America is in a state of mortal peril.
I understand what you’re saying, and why, but I doubt anyone here really finds Trump tolerable.
They just believe he’ll be less effective.
I agree he is terrifying, intolerably terrifying. He just doesn’t know where the bathroom is and where they keep the staples.
Problem is, he’ll learn.
I do not think so. I fear that Trump will orchestrate witch hunts against opponents. Otherwise, nothing out of ordinary. As for the world, I think it already feels on its own.
I don’t think he’ll win the election; but if he were to get into the Whitehouse, he’d put Nixon’s dirty tricks in the shade.
I wouldn’t put it past him to use the FBI to arrest journalists that criticize him.
We here in Minnesota tried Drumpf on for size (Jesse Ventura — Drumpf is Ventura on steroids … oh, wait, Ventura already took lots of steroids, well, you know what I mean). And the hair shirt was a REALLY BAD FIT.
A big whining egomaniac who thought he could rule (not govern) by insult and personal attack. There you have it: Drumpf.
I think you’re slightly misunderstanding the people who ‘seem relieved that Ted Cruz is out of the presidential race’. Everything you say about Trump is true, and the possibility of him becoming president terrifies me, too. I still think Cruz would be worse. Here’s an article from March that explains it in more detail:
Donald Trump may be an actual fascist. Ted Cruz is still more dangerous
Yes, perhaps Ted Cruz (true-believing theocratic proto-fascist) would be a more dangerous American president than Donald Trump (empty-headed, blowhard egomaniac).
At least potentially, it does not seem, at least to me, too big a stretch to liken Cruz to a potential dictatorial maniac of the Hitler stripe, whereas Trump parallels Mussolini more, a ridiculous clown could, under the wrong conditions, become a killer clown in the manner of Il Duce.
But throughout this insane presidential campaign season, there has been a key difference between the two.
As the Indiana primary results have confirmed and so has Cruz’s abrupt withdrawal from the race, there was next to no chance that Cruz, whose electoral appeal seems to have been confined largely to a niche of like-minded religious fanatics, could have been elected to the US presidency.
However, Trump — unlike Cruz — has, however unexpectedly when all this began, become a genuinely possible next American president.
Thus, he could very well become capable of inflicting an unnerving degree of havoc on America and the rest of the world as well. Horrifying as he certainly is ideologically and personally, Cruz never reached this this status.
Now so many people who are commenting about this entire situation seem so very certain that the election of Hillary Clinton will of course vanquish Trump in November and end this peril.
But if this demented, beyond disgraceful Republican campaign has accomplished anything of value, it should have taught us to take absolutely nothing for granted.
Maybe Trump will go down in flames in the end. Let’s fervently hope so. But let’s not get complacent. The danger of Trump becoming the next US president is absolutely real, in my opinion, at least during this perilous moment in American history.
Hear, hear!
As Frank Zappa used to say: Get yer ass out there and vote!
Here’s how I compare Trump and Cruz: Trump might blunder into a war by a series of stupid policy decisions. Cruz would deliberately provoke a war to bring about the End Times.
No. Trump might provoke a war through ignorance. He may well start one out of pique.
Do not be fooled into thinking Cruz is worse than Trump. He isn’t, though it’s close.
So this may end with two realpolitik politicians against each other (Clinton vs Trump).
It could have been worse. In any case, if Trump wins, US will join Russia and China as former or coming superpowers with problematic leaders. Yet the world continues to revolve…
Trump is BOLD. Boldness opens doors. Once inside, it gets everybody else to do the work. Is that all it will do? No, it will insist that you smile while you do everything. If this shallow, ineffective person is elected will slacking-off qualify as a reason for impeachment?
Sanders’ seeming compassion/meekness can open doors also. Once inside? It will whine and blame-shift.
Though assertiveness (not the same as boldness) and confidence (not the same as pathological narcissism) does not rule out making mistakes, they are crucial aspects for leadership. In that case, H. Clinton wins hands down despite the bona fide criticisms that can be made against her. Her grasp of how the Presidency based on the distribution of power among three branches works in America is a bonus.
Damn, I may have get off my ex-pat arse once again and vote if she manages to get the candidacy.
In any case, thanks for the good discussion, commenters. 🙂
I agree, Cruz is really frightening, while Trump is a clown ready to change his ideas any minute. But, anyway, if Sanders doesn’t go all Nader on Hillary she should no doubt be a winner, right guys?
Yes, there is little doubt Clinton will be the nominee. I’m a Sanders supporter but with the republican field narrowed to Trump, I think the time has come for Bernie to either stop or turn his campaign against Trump rather than Clinton. No need for friendly fire at this point. He should use his resources to put a few dents in Trump before his campaign is officially put to rest.
+1.
He’d better not go Nader on us.
I see it differently. We can be a bit less cautious with Trump as the opponent. I think this gives us freedom to vote with our hearts.
If you are saying this because you think Trump can’t win the general election, I think you are underestimating the powerful anti-establishment feelings of conservative voters right now. There is also strong hatred of the Clintons among republicans so Trump will pick up votes against Clinton as well. Do not underestimate Trumps chances. Just like the primary, this is far from a sure thing for Hillary.
Besides, why would you vote with an muscle that squeezes blood when you could be using your brain? Sorry, I’m a smartass (pun intended).
Are you insane? “Vote with our hearts”? Do you think this is like falling in love?
Your vote isn’t your virginity or your sacred honor, or your anything, really. You vote to ensure we all continue to have a safe and decent place to live, and a Constitution to live under. You don’t vote for you. You vote for everyone. I’d venture to say you probably won’t be affected by a Trump presidency. You forget that women, people of color, the elderly and the vulnerable WILL be affected.
If Trump wins, though, and they lose everything, I’m sure they’ll be comforted by the fact you “voted with your heart.”
It’s the only way to make real progress. You will instead vote out of fear, which is why the Clintons and other Democrats can get away with coddling Wall Street and supporting wars.
I want it to stop. Polls show that Bernie can beat Trump. Of course there are too many unpredictables to make those polls reliable, but when it comes to unpredictable campaign-killing gaffes, the odds are in favor of Trump making more of them than Sanders.
Polls are meaningless, because Bernie hasn’t been vetted by the press yet, and the Republicans will decimate him.
Or maybe you think people want to pay over a 50% income tax?
Otherwise, your statements are incredibly simple-minded. You really need to learn, first, how reality works (Wars? Oh my God!) and how government works.
Bernie will accomplish nothing. Did I say nothing? I meant less than nothing. If no one answers your calls, you can’t accomplish anything. And there is no one who makes the wheels turn that is going to do anything but laugh hysterically if Bernie wins.
You seem to think there is this magical universe somewhere where Bernie will just replace the whole Congress, and pronounce what he wants done (with NO idea how to do them) and yadda yadda yadda paradise!
Your posts so far betray an appalling ignorance of the basic operations of government, the Constitution and common sense.
Gaffes? What gaffe has cost Trump a single vote? Name one! This is a person who accuses an opponent’s father of being connected to the murder of a president, and he wins! What freakin’ gaffe can he make?
And what has Bernie accomplished? Mayor of Burlington, Vermont? Winning a congressional seat and a senate seat from a state with a population of, what – 200 people? Have you even BEEN to Vermont?
Look, I know I’m being harsh, but you display the political maturity of a 12-year-old.
And it’s moot anyway. Bernie’s done, he’s toast. That you don’t even realize this says all anyone needs to know about your political sophistication.
I prefer to call it idealism, and it is worth having. Hillary’s election will not shift the political dialogue to the left. It will shift the Democrats farther to the right, where they have been going for some time now thanks to condescending people who think principled leaders have no place in it. You want idealists to just shut up and play with the cards the other side deals. No thanks.
That’s just silly. The party has been shifting to the left, not the right. And has been for quite some time. How have they shifted to the “right”?
It has been amusing to watch you and others constantly misrepresenting Bernie along the way.
One of my relatives told me how unreasonable Bernie was. “Free college”? How crazy is that, my relative said.
I explained to her that even Brazil has free college. She was surprised. Lots of of his “extreme” positions are like that–eminently workable and better than what we do now.
Of course he won’t get any of this through by himself, and congress won’t shift overnight. But it will never shift at all if we listen to people like you.
Agreed with respect to social issues. But not in the issues that affect big money interests. The Dems and Republicans are almost indistinguishable in their treatment of Wall Street, their treatment of government whistleblowers, drone warfare, ignoring human rights violations by allied countries, etc.
What do drone strikes have to do with “big money interests”? Or “treatment of whistleblowers”?
Answer: Nothing. And let me ask you this as well: What do you do if everyone tells you that letting Wall Street and the banks go under will cause a global Depression? Causing the death and starvation of millions? See, here in reality, we understand that presidents of every stripe have to deal with the world as it is. They can’t wave a wand and have unicorns save the world economy. Or sprinkle fairy dust on ISIL and make them turn into pumpkins.
I can see why you might think so, because “outsiders” like Bernie never wanted to be on the inside, so they can criticize all they want because they don’t face the consequences. Heads of state receive information the public never hears, and have to make decisions without causing a public panic. Sometimes they make bad decisions, to be sure. But usually that has nothing to do with party or philosophy. It has to do with perception of the national interest and national security. The bailouts of 2008-09 were bipartisan decisions at the executive level. They were decisions that had to weigh all the pros and cons from a practical level.
Guys like Bernie and Trump can carp all they want. But there was a good question put to Sanders at that Daily News briefing: Say you break up all the banks you want, what happens to the many, many thousands of people you put out of work? Probably not the first question a leader has to consider, but nonetheless a very important one.
Sanders’ answer was literally that he saw a stronger economy down the line. He didn’t actually answer the question. Ever. It was apparent he never had even thought about it. That’s not a person with a considered plan. It’s someone who engages in magical thinking.
You asked me how the Dems were shifting left. I gave you a list of Republican positions which the Dems used to criticize but now embrace. Your response was to ask what the items have to do with each other?!?
Then you introduce a straw man, implying I think the banks should have been left to go under. That was your invention. I said the people responsible for wrongdoing should have gone to jail, not that the banks should have been left to fail.
No, you responded by copping out and saying, “Well they moved left on social issues, but there are these others…” Then you proceeded to list not policy shifts but real world events that had to be responded to. I didn’t see any mention of a “policy shift” at all.
Are Democrats against raising the minimum wage? They only differ on by how much. Are Republicans in favor of raising the minimum wage? No. Are Democrats in favor of expanding alternative energy? Yes. Are Republicans? No. Do Democrats favor health insurance for all? Yes. In fact, Hillary was out there from the first. Do Republicans? No. So just where do you see this “shift to the right”? This is in fact an example of lazy thinking. What you’re really saying is you don’t think Hillary has shifted left enough. That’s not shifting right. That’s just not being as lefty as you want.
And you still dodge my prior question: Just what laws were broken, what statutes that is, and who should have been prosecuted? It’s all well and good saying people should have gone to jail. It’s a very different thing to articulate how. And you haven’t come close.
Alpha, I agree with you that he has a lot of support and we can’t take it for granted that he will lose. But we have Democratic candidate who also is an outsider and independent, and who can fire up his supporters.
If the Dems run Clinton it will be lunatic outsider versus backroom insider. Give me a compassionate, principled outsider to go against the regressive outsider. This is the year of the outsider in American politics.
No, it isn’t. Bernie’s done. He is not going to be the nominee, get used to it, and now decide what you’re going to do: Vote Trump? Or vote Hillary?
Those are your choices. Unless you’re holding out for Nader.
If it’s Hillary vs Trump I’ll probably hold my nose and vote Hillary. But in the remaining primaries I hope Hillary gets creamed. The Dems need a wake-up call.
It’s going to be Trump v. Clinton.
I heard Bernie interviewed on NPR this morning. Some quotes (my memory may be a little off, but …):
“A Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country.”
“I will do everything in my power to prevent a Trump Presidency.”
I hope he takes the second one to mean backing off his attacks on HRC now that it’s basically a done deal.
*shivers*
I long ago stopped believing anyone who says “Don’t worry, Trump won’t get THAT far…”
I watch the US elections now with a feeling of LoveCraftian, creeping dread and inevitability….
Though a huge embarrassment, if Drumpf gets into office, he’ll be the ultimate do-nothing president. No one (no one) in Congress would work with him,
I’ve seen this movie before, in Minnesota, with Jesse Ventura.
Jesse Ventura didn’t have the launch codes.
This is not “only a movie.” (Hat tip to Wes Craven)
Indeed!
As I’ve said before, the GOP should have been reading Faust.
The devil is in their living room, screwing their wives and daughters on the couch while slurping their expensive Scotch.
Glenn Beck should be proud.
Something else to think about in this election year circus. We will have one candidate 70 years old and another 69 years old. Maybe older if old Bernie could get there. That alone makes this a joke in America. The requirement, if I remember correctly is 35 years old.
If you still had any doubts whether America has lost it, you now have to be on medicare before you run for president. Looks like myself and the Professor are just about ready.
Hemant Mehta points out that Cruz’ dropping out marks an important secular milestone. There is no longer an evangelical Christian in the race (unless Clinton counts). Finally the power of the religious right is on the wane. Whatever else happens in this election, we can at least celebrate that.
Not that Clinton is evangelical, just Christian.
So Rafael Cruz was wrong; Ted’s not the messiah – he’s just a naughty boy?
Obligatory Python reference noted. 😉
Every time I see Ted Cruz, for some strange reason I’m irresistibly reminded of Bill Murray, playing one of his slightly obnoxious movie characters.
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/ghostbusters/images/1/11/Bill_Murray.jpeg/revision/latest
cr
QUESTION about Ted Cruz:
I’m in Canada and I know very little about Ted Cruz. Mostly I just notice my fellow atheists saying he is the scariest candidate, and a theocrat.
I’ve tried to look up (briefly) what Cruz has said that makes him sound like a Theocrat, and what I see over and over is the quote where he stated he was a Christian first, an American second.
That seems far from him actually being a theocrat. Many religious people would see their religious identity as most prominent…even if they also acknowledge that a pluralistic society requires the consideration of other beliefs. Clearly I’m missing a lot on Cruz.
What has he actually said, or done, that makes him so scary? That suggests he really would act in ways that make him a Scary Theocrat?
Thanks!