The Pauline Kael election

I just read a couple of characteristically brilliant Scott Alexander posts.  That got me thinking that I ought to try to say something halfway intelligent about the election, instead of my usual mindless drivel.  So here’s my attempt.

Scott says:

I have yet to meet anybody in person (other than my patients) who supports Donald Trump.

I feel exactly the same way.  In contrast, I met lots of people who supported Mitt Romney in 2012.  So things must be really bad for Trump?  Nope, he trails Hillary by roughly the same 4% that Romney lost to Obama.  OK, then maybe Trump has a completely different set of supporters.  Perhaps, but most of the evidence so far points to almost an exact rerun of the 2012 election, albeit with perhaps a bigger chunk of third party voters.  (And remember, third party support tends to drop off on election day.)  Here’s how Romney did:

Whites:  59%

Minorities:  Very low numbers

I see no evidence at all that it will be any different this time.  Is there any evidence that I’ve missed?

At some point almost all smart pundits come around to talking about the “hillbilly issue”.  Here’s Scott:

At the same time, old outgroup hatreds will take on a different character. Even If You Don’t Like Donald Trump, You Should Understand The Pain Of His Poor White Supporters. And I Know Why Poor Whites Chant Trump, Trump, Trump. And Millions Of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump; Here’s Why. And The Incredible Crushing Despair Of The White Working Class. I’m not saying these articles are typical; for every one of these articles there are ten “Trump Voters Are Xenophobic Trailer Trash” pieces. I’m saying that it’s weird that they’re happening at all.

So perhaps if all the people Scott and I meet are not voting for Trump, then there’s been this massive rotation within the 59% of whites who vote Republican.  Romney got the country club set and Trump will lose those while picking up the hillbilly vote. But here’s the problem with that view. Romney crushed Obama in West Virginia by 27 percentage points (way more than usual for the GOP).  Obama crushed Romney in Connecticut. Yes, there has been a rotation within the white community over the decades, as white professionals have drifted left and rednecks have moved to the GOP, but that migration was mostly completed by 2012.

Many generalizations about Trump voters are a bit innumerate.  (Not the voters, the generalizations).  I wonder if people realize how big a number 59% is.  If you are getting 59% of the white vote, you need to have strength in all sorts of areas. I expect Trump to easily win the white vote in Orange Country, and those people are mostly helped by globalization.  China is not stealing Orange County jobs.  Coal burning restrictions aren’t causing Orange County coal miners to lose their jobs. There simply aren’t that many hillbillies, especially in Beverly Hills.

Of course, there have been a few shifts.  Trump is obviously losing ground in Utah, and seems to be gaining some ground in the depressed areas of the northeast.  But these changes are at the margin, and are pretty small in the overall scheme of things.  The GOP will still get about 59% of the white vote (ignoring third parties). Florida and Ohio are still very close.  And the Trump will still win the upper middle class (especially whites) by a solid margin.  Here was Romney’s support in 2012:

Some high school 35%

College grad:  51%

Or how about this:

below $50,000  38%

above $100,000  54%

So we have an entire industry of brilliant intellectuals writing thoughtful essays about why unemployed factory workers are supporting Trump, while his actual support (as far as I can tell) is almost the same as (pro-free trade) Romney’s.  He’s getting 90% of GOP voters, as Hillary gets 90% of Democratic voters.

But that brings us back to the original mystery.  Why did I meet lots of Romney supporters in 2012, but no Trump supporters today?  I think it’s partly because Trump supporters know that their candidate is not PC.  And they know I’m a college professor—so they don’t volunteer the fact that they support Trump.  Another possibility is that Trump support has rotated out of intellectuals, but as with Mormons, we just aren’t numerous enough to move the needle.

Let me try to head off some objections.  I understand that the GOP’s poor performance with low income and low education voters partly reflects the voting patterns of blacks and Hispanics.  But there’s no getting around the fact that Trump support is pretty strong in affluent white areas.  If 59% of whites vote GOP, then they are drawing from a wide cross section of (white) America.  Thus when thinking about the Trump phenomenon, I think it’s a mistake to visualize a single type of voter.  Many intellectuals (including me) think Trump’s obviously a buffoon. However it’s unwise to then jump to the conclusion that his supporters must be poor and uneducated.  One reason I am so negative about Trump supporters is that I think many of them should know better.  On the other hand, I understand that many don’t actually like Trump, but are holding their noses and voting for him because they hate Hillary more.  The one’s that annoy me the most are the commenters who try to explain away all of the Trump’s nonsense, who think he’d be a better President than Jeb Bush, or John Kasich.

PS.  If you didn’t chuckle at the Alexander quote up top, it may be because you don’t know that he’s a psychiatrist, or perhaps because you do know, but are a Trump supporter.

PPS.  This Alexander post is also brilliant.

PPPS.  Now for some mindless drivel. Tom Brown sent me the following (which if the primaries are anything to go by, should give Trump a boost in the polls):

Yesterday morning, we wrote that Donald Trump’s campaign seemed like it was unraveling over his inexplicable clash with the Khan family. Twenty-four hours later, the word “unraveling” seems like an understatement. Take a look at what’s happened in the last 24 hours:

  • In a Washington Post interview, Trump declined to endorse House Speaker Paul Ryan against his primary challenger
  • He reiterated that he hasn’t endorsed Sen. John McCain and said the onetime prisoner of war “has not done a good job for the vets”
  • He slapped out at Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, saying “she has given me zero support”
  • He suggested that Americans should pull their 401(k) funds out of the stock market
  • He said he’s “always wanted” to receive a Purple Heart but that having one gifted to him by a supporter was “much easier”
  • He said that the handling of sexual harassment has “got to be up to the individual”
  • He accused Khizr Khan of being “bothered” by his plan to keep terrorists out of the country, and said that he had no regrets about his clash with the family
  • He appeared to feud with a crying baby during a rally
  • He reiterated that “if the election is rigged, I would not be surprised”
  • The sitting president of the United States publicly called Trump “unfit to serve” and urged Republicans to withdraw their support for him.
  • Trump spokesman Katrina Pierson suggested that Obama and Clinton are to blame for the death of Humayan Khan, who died in 2004, when neither were in the executive branch at the time
  • An ally of Paul Manafort told our colleague John Harwood at CNBC that the campaign chairman is “mailing it in,” leaving the rest of the staff “suicidal.”
  • Sitting GOP congressman Richard Hanna, HP head Meg Whitman and former Christie aide Maria Comella all said they plan to vote for Hillary Clinton
  • The Washington Post released a transcript of its full interview with Trump, indicating among other things that he paused five times to watch TV coverage in the middle of the sit-down
  • A GOP source told NBC’s Katy Tur that Reince Priebus is “apoplectic” over Trump’s refusal to endorse Ryan and is making calls to the campaign to express his “extreme displeasure”

What are we missing? Any one of these items would be problematic on a normal campaign day. This all happened since 8am yesterday.

 


Tags:

 
 
 

79 Responses to “The Pauline Kael election”

  1. Gravatar of Effem Effem
    3. August 2016 at 07:10

    I think the Trump vote is largely an anti-PC vote. And that transcends income levels. It obviously is heavily white and male, as those are the “oppressed” groups in a PC world.

  2. Gravatar of John Hall John Hall
    3. August 2016 at 07:12

    You’d think that more of these Republicans would support candidates other than Trump or Hillary.

  3. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    3. August 2016 at 07:18

    Do any Republican intellectuals besides Thiel support Trump? That seems to be the biggest difference- academics and pundits.

    Our President just basically told 10 million Americans that they made an unacceptable choice. That doesn’t sound like democracy.

    From here, it looks like the Whole Establishment is adamantly anti-Trump. Curious.

    I don’t like Trump and don’t think I could vote for him, but he doesn’t particularly scare me.

  4. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 07:27


    His actual support (as far as I can tell) is almost the same as (pro-free trade) Romney’s.

    I think it’s partly because Trump supporters know that their candidate is not PC.

    Finally a dead-on analysis. That’s exactly what’s happening. Tell the people you meet that you think that Trump might not be that bad and they will open up in no time.


    I think the Trump vote is largely an anti-PC vote.

    Also true. And that’s why it doesn’t really matter what Trump is saying in detail, as long as it is anti-PC.

  5. Gravatar of Justin Justin
    3. August 2016 at 07:37

    This was a good post. Trump’s support basically comes from everyone who realizes they’re going to lose if the US shifts away from being an Anglo nation to a sort of mish-mash international terminal at the airport. A Bowling Alone dystopia. This includes many Hispanics (30+%) and a few Asians (Vietnamese) who prefer the ship be steered in an Anglo direction.

    Trump may lack the discipline to win (the crying baby thing, WHY?!) but he’s at least showing a viable strategy that could work for a more focused politician. Someone might be able to learn the lessons from his campaign and save Australia or parts of Europe from America’s fate.

  6. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. August 2016 at 07:37

    Effen, Sounds like the Romney vote.

    Brian, You said:

    “From here, it looks like the Whole Establishment is adamantly anti-Trump. Curious.”

    I don’t see it as curious at all. From the very beginning, establishment people like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush said Trump was a dangerous con man. Establishment people are generally fairly smart, and can easily spot a buffoon. I’m surprised that even more have not turned against Trump. Why did McCain support him, for instance? That makes no sense to me.

    Christian, You said:

    “And that’s why it doesn’t really matter what Trump is saying in detail, as long as it is anti-PC.”

    Hitler was anti-communist. Did it matter what else Hitler was saying?

    I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler. 🙂

  7. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. August 2016 at 07:39

    Justin, Given how anglos vote, I’d say we need someone to save us from anglos. If it were not for blacks, the Dems would have nominated a loony socialist.

  8. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    3. August 2016 at 08:03

    “In contrast, I met lots of people who supported Mitt Romney in 2012.”

    -This is because you live in Massachusetts, a state Mitt served as governor of. The places that were strongest for Mitt in 2012 in the primaries now voted strongest for Rubio and Kasich. In Massachusetts’ case, it’s Kasich.

    “I have yet to meet anybody in person (other than my patients) who supports Donald Trump.”

    -Now this is what I find really hard to believe. I live within a few miles of Scott A’s employer. In the county in which both of us live and work, Hillary Clinton got 163886 votes. However, it’s really hard to find a White person who was for Her in the primary, because most people who were for Her where we live were Black. #2 was Bernie Sanders, with 104999 votes. He squarely won the White vote in the Democratic primary in our county, as well as the plurality of the White vote in both primaries combined. In third place was… Donald Trump, with 55795 votes. In fourth place was Kasich with 38165 votes.

    So either Scott is fully ignoring some 1/4 of the White population of the county he lives in (doubtful) or he does know a few Trump supporters in real life, but he hasn’t asked.

    Yes, no matter how hard it is to believe, there are some truly rich Republican-voting counties in which the candidate who got the most votes in both primaries combined was Trump. Forsyth County, Georgia is one of them.

    “However it’s unwise to then jump to the conclusion that his supporters must be poor and uneducated.”

    -Strangely, nobody pointed out how poor and uneducated, on average, Hillary Clinton’s supporters were. Maybe that’s because the people who write about these things live in areas that voted both Clinton and Kasich, so it may be hard for them to comprehend the reality of what Her support base was.

    “(pro-free trade) Romney’s”

    -Nope. Mitt’s line on China was exactly the same as Trump’s.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/romneys-china-bashing-is-100-correct-but-5-years-late/264011/

    “The one’s that annoy me the most are the commenters who try to explain away all of the Trump’s nonsense, who think he’d be a better President than Jeb Bush, or John Kasich.”

    -Donald Trump would be a much better president than Jeb Bush or John Kasich, certainly in matters of foreign policy and probably in matters of court appointments. Simply put, there’s nothing recommending Kasich or Bush over Trump.

  9. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    3. August 2016 at 08:18

    “I’m not comparing Trump to Hitler.”

    -Enough stupidity.

    “Why did McCain support him, for instance? That makes no sense to me.”

    -Who won the most votes in the Arizona presidential primaries?

    “Establishment people are generally fairly smart, and can easily spot a buffoon.”

    -In raw IQ terms, yes. In wisdom, nope.

    “I don’t see it as curious at all. From the very beginning, establishment people like Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush said Trump was a dangerous con man.”

    -Maybe that’s because they were looking at themselves in the mirror and applying their own characteristics to the greatest GOP presidential nominee since Reagan. BTW, I hated Romney and disliked Jeb Bush. I still love poking fun at their miseries.

    At least some of Donald Trump’s primary support (especially in the Northeast) can be explained by (White) ethnic voting. Poles, Irish, Italians, Soviet Jews, and French really liked Trump. No wonder he performed well in Rhode Island, Staten Island, New Jersey, Luzerne County, and Massachusetts in the primaries. Most Germans (as in Wisconsin) didn’t. Descendants of Puritans (as in Vermont and Utah) were mostly against.

    The greatest actual Trump support as a percent of total White primary vote (both Democrat and Republican) was, I think, unsurprisingly, in Mississippi.

  10. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 08:25


    Hitler was anti-communist. Did it matter what else Hitler was saying?

    That’s indeed a good example because it’s basically the same mechanism. In my opinion Hitler’s strong anti-communism was a major reason why he came to power.

    And yes from the viewpoint of his voters it did not matter what else he was saying. In the end of the Weimar Republic the situation became so bad that (from their viewpoint) there weren’t too many other choices left anyway.

    Of course you can use hindsight now but that’s just ahistorical. Let’s see how people judge us in 100 or 500 years with the benefit of hindsight, amongst other things.

    And Hitler talked a lot about anti-imperialism, human rights and world peace by the way. He sounded like a hippie/Jesus/Obama on steroids oftentimes. So listening to him wasn’t really helpful. Many politicians from France, the British Empire, the US and Russia trusted him to some extent. Hitler caught them with their pants down. People today tend to forget this a lot because they use hindsight way too much.

  11. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 08:29

    “And that’s why it doesn’t really matter what Trump is saying in detail, as long as it is anti-PC.”

    The homeless guy on the street corner shaking his grimy fist at passer-byes and yelling at the voices in his head isn’t PC at all. Why not elect him?

  12. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    3. August 2016 at 08:33

    I’ll probably vote for Trump. Of course you can’t say that in public. If I said I supported Trump at a dinner party at my sister’s house (who, BTW Scott, lives in your neighborhood), she’d lose all her friends.

    This kind of intolerance on the left is one of the reasons I’m emotionally tempted to vote for Trump.

    I don’t believe a thing I read in the NYT or WaPo. The lies, hypocrisy, and PC makes me sick for my country and is another reason to vote for Trump.

    Anyone who can put together even a single real estate deal in NYC or beat the entire GOP establishment in the primary can’t be entirely incompetent.

    I agree with 90% of the what Trump said in his acceptance speech.

    I vehemently, intellectually and viscerally disagree with 99% of what Clinton said in her acceptance speech.

    I’m seriously afraid that another 8 years of the progressive agenda that produced the Trump backlash will lead to an even worse backlash in the future. I’d rather have a Donald in 2016 than an Adolf in 2024.

    As an aside, I would not be surprised to see Trump going after the African American vote.

  13. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    3. August 2016 at 09:03

    Scott,

    There are plenty of smart people outside the circles in which you move. I reckon we have at least as good an understanding of how the world works as y’all do, even if our thoughts and actions are less concerted.

    The Establishment thinks the whole world could come tumbling down under Trump. They lurch from “America is great and would never fall for evil Trump and his awful supporters” to “This place is a hellhole. I’m moving to Canada” depending on the polls. Overwrought. Tiring. Stupid.

    The fact that Hillary is such a poor candidate doesn’t help matters.

  14. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 09:08


    Why not elect him?

    Simple: Because he is not up for election.

    And you need to be a master persuader to get so far. Don’t forget that Hitler was basically a bum – but also a master persuader.

  15. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    3. August 2016 at 09:18

    Harding, No, it’s not Massachusetts, as I travel a lot. I think it’s because I tend to meet other intellectuals.

    And Trump did extremely well in Massachusetts.

    You said:

    “(pro-free trade) Romney’s”

    -Nope. Mitt’s line on China was exactly the same as Trump’s.”

    You really are mentally ill.

    Christian, You make Hitler the candidate sound like Trump. Don’t you know that other commenters will object to that?

    dtoh, You said:

    “I’ll probably vote for Trump. Of course you can’t say that in public. If I said I supported Trump at a dinner party at my sister’s house (who, BTW Scott, lives in your neighborhood), she’d lose all her friends.”

    Sorry, but I can’t respect that. I would never hold back from expressing my views at a dinner party just because some people might object. I’ve sat at faculty tables full of Marxists, and told them I thought Marxism was idiotic. I used to defend Reagan. You should be proud of your views—tell them why Trump is the right choice, why they too should vote for Trump. Be loud and proud of your views!!!

    As far as agreeing with 90% of Trump’s views, is that his call for massive spending increases in lots of programs, combined with massive tax cuts, which would bankrupt the country? Or is it his wavering on NATO promises? How about his gross protectionism? How about the wall on the border that won’t do anything? How about deporting 11 million hard working people? Or is it the 38% jump in the minimum wage you support? How about his wanting to make it easier to sue people who criticize Donald Trump? How about the War on Drugs he promises? How about his promise to start telling CEOs where they can and cannot open new factories? How about banning Muslims? How about his claim that the yuan is undervalued? How about his call to considering defaulting on the national debt?

    Are those all in the 10% you don’t support?

    I’d like to know the specifics about what you love about Trump.

    If Hillary wins this time, the GOP will win the next election with a much more sane candidate. So your comment about 8 years from now is a mute point.

  16. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 09:23

    This kind of intolerance on the left is one of the reasons I’m emotionally tempted to vote for Trump.

    Trump is banking on those emotions. At Trump University material they said they’re not selling any product other than feelings.

    Wow, it must be so hard on you with all that “intolerance.” Funny I get the same kind of intolerance from my half siblings and their families who are pro-Trump. But then those are just feelings and emotions: kryptonite to seeing things clearly.

    If Trump offered to manage your 401k, would you let him? Would you trust him with that? What if he said he’d put “the BEST” people on it? What if he said your return was going to be HUUUUGE? What if he said ONLY he could get you those kinds of returns because he has the best brain and he’s a winner? Or would you think “This guy sounds like a 6-sigma 3rd rate obvious fraud and charlatan that I wouldn’t trust with a $20 loan, let alone my life savings?”

    Trumpism has his own brand of PC BTW. It’s just a different set of verboten ideas and words.

    And now he seems to be obsessed with the idea of using nuclear weapons.

    And the damage he does to the GOP may be considerable. Why doesn’t the GOP cut it’s losses. Beg Sheldon Adelson or some other actual billionaire donor to pay down some of Trump’s (Russian?) debts if he’ll drop out now. =)

  17. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 09:29

    The Establishment thinks the whole world could come tumbling down under Trump.

    “The Establishment” is quickly becoming a meaningless phrase, akin to “running-dog capitalist” as used by rival bands of Maoists when insulting each other.

  18. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    3. August 2016 at 09:32

    “You really are mentally ill.”

    -Look in the mirror. Name one difference between Mitt’s and Trump’s China policy. Go ahead. Did you read the Atlantic article I linked to? Trump ripped off Mitt’s China policy wholesale.

    “And Trump did extremely well in Massachusetts.”

    -Irish.

    Massachusetts is one of the states where Trump is doing the worst in the general election polls.

    “If Hillary wins this time, the GOP will win the next election with a much more sane candidate.”

    -Trump is a much more sane candidate than Mitt or Her.

  19. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 09:40


    You make Hitler the candidate sound like Trump. Don’t you know that other commenters will object to that?

    Well there are striking similarities between Hitler (the candidate) and Trump. There’s no denying that. For example their master persuasion abilities and the fact that Trump might be mentally ill.

    I still think the US constitutional state is strong enough to deal with a Trump, even if elected. The US does not look like Weimar to me. And Trump seems to be mentally borderline while Hitler was a full wacko.

  20. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 09:41

    Justin, Given how anglos vote, I’d say we need someone to save us from anglos. If it were not for blacks, the Dems would have nominated a loony socialist.

    Amen to that! I know you don’t agree about the tax returns Scott, but I think the GOP and the Dems should immunize themselves against future catastrophes by requiring primary candidates to publicly disclose no less than the prior 10 years worth of tax returns in their entirety plus all high school and college transcripts. Furthermore legislation should be passed allowing Top Secret security clearance background checks to be performed on civilians without a need to know (as long as a private party pays for the investigation), and then the two main parties should further require than any primary candidate must pass this clearance check before ever setting foot on a primary debate stage.

    Just the tax return requirement alone would have eliminated both Trump and Sanders from consideration by the major parties. Sanders would then be forced to run (if he was dead set on doing so) as what he actually is (under the Socialist Party) and Trump (if likewise determined to do so) could have run under the banner of The Traditional Worker’s Party or perhaps the Constitution Party (based on their current nominee, they seem to have a predilection for conspiracy lunatics).

  21. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 09:54

    Ben Howe at RedState on Trump’s statements about using nukes:
    http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/08/03/must-see-madman-finger-nuclear-button/

  22. Gravatar of Sean Sean
    3. August 2016 at 10:07

    Exactly correct that trump supporters are not “poor white”. He’s transcending that. May have an initial base that fit that characteristic but he’s pass that.

    Still haven’t explained why he’s getting support.

    Part 1 I think Bush/Obama destroyed the publics taste for POTUS who pretend to be Presidential. Both have the signature event of the Presidency built on lies and largely turning into failures – Iraq War/ObamaCare. So it destroyed the publics interest in “serious” Presidents. If they just give us lies and large failures.

    Celebrity culture is as large as ever in this country. Trump dominates that field.

    Trump not being bought and paid for is also largely true. Hillary if she was anyone else would be doing 6 months in white collar jail. Everyone else who committed that crime has been punished. And then theres the Saudi money connections and the Clinton Foundation money. Their’s a lot of things to be concerned about there. Obama had Rezko. Trump’s money is largely clean from the old fashion way.

    PC culture really has gone too far. The protests coming out of college campuses and BLM really lack intellectual pinning. Trump in a way makes no sense, but to many can counterract those movements because he plays at there level of making no sense.

    Romney is my ideal candidate. Boring, pragmatic, and analytical. But he lost so the GOP turned to the opposite extreme.

    Charisma goes a far way in life. Trump dominates the field in that category.

  23. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 10:20

    Scott, I know you love to troll your commenters with Hitler and Nazi references in relation to Trump. But in one respect Hitler compares favorably: instead of four student deferments and a final “bone-spur” deferment (1968), Hitler actually volunteered, fought and was wounded in battle (and presumably received the German equivalent to a [legitimate] purple heart).

  24. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 10:24

    Wait, Reince Preibus is now warning us not to vote for Trump?

    At time when US is newly concerned about terrorist attacks, we can’t afford such unprincipled & out-of-touch leadership on world stage

  25. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 10:24

    Scott Alexander’s basic analysis of outgroups and fargroups sounds pretty good but when it comes down to concrete examples he is so biased.

    The obvious examples for his basic analysis are people like Obama. Obama treats dictators like the Iranian regime, the Cuban regime and the Russian regime like fargroups and the GOP like an outgroup. And this happened long before Trump. It’s his core ideology. You might say similar things about the GOP of course but they are not the ones in power.

  26. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    3. August 2016 at 10:26


    Romney is my ideal candidate. Boring, pragmatic, and analytical. But he lost so the GOP turned to the opposite extreme.

    Exactly what I think. I like this thread more and more.

  27. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 10:37

    Re: boring Romney. I’m a fan of boring too. A Romney vs Kaine match-up would be perfect. My ideal campaign rally would sound like the 3rd hour of a detailed engineering critical design review for a new FPGA architecture.

  28. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 10:38

    I think it’s partly because Trump supporters know that their candidate is not PC. And they know I’m a college professor—so they don’t volunteer the fact that they support Trump.

    Have you bothered to attempt a detached assessment of how you address people here? You might consider the possibility that people who cross your path in meatworld have your number.

    One thing that’s manifest about faculty members is that most cannot seem to have an ordinary conversation – dialogue, not you pontificating or talking crazy – with an ordinary person when the topic is public affairs. Nobody wants to have that argument. No one who reads you here would want to talk politics in a coffee shop.

  29. Gravatar of Greg DeLassus Greg DeLassus
    3. August 2016 at 10:55

    “If Hillary wins this time, the GOP will win the next election with a much more sane candidate. So your comment about 8 years from now is a mute point.”

    I suppose that is one plausible scenario. I would not at all rule it out at this stage. It seems to me, however, that there are two equally plausible alternative scenarios:

    (1) The same forces that drove the GOP primary electorate to choose a buffoon in 2016 drive the same outcome in 2020. Pres. Clinton triumphs over this second manifestly unqualified candidate in the same way she triumphed over Trump.

    (2) At the age of 73, Pres. Clinton decides that she is not up to a second term. She steps aside and the Democratic party chooses a fresher, more charismatic candidate as her successor.

    In other words, I would not count on any particular outcome in 2020.

  30. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 10:59

    instead of four student deferments and a final “bone-spur” deferment (1968),

    He had one deferment, renewed each year he was in college. The first was awarded in 1964. During the period running from November 1961 to February 1965, the American troop force in Indochina averaged about 13,000 in number and incorporated < 1% of American military manpower. Most were attached to South VietNamese units as instructors and platoon leaders.

    If you look at the service record of the nine cohorts born over the years running from 1930 through 1938, you discover about 24% were disqualified upon examination. These were about equally divided between categorical disqualifications (4-F) and contingent ones (I-Y). About the same proportion of people who reported for induction physicals during the period running from 1965 through 1972 received these deferments.

    I knew a man who received a temporary deferment for eczema on his feet. Rush Limbaugh was deferred for a time because of pilonidal cyst. Hubert Humphrey received a deferment during the 2d World War for a hernia. Read the biographical sketches in Michael Medved's What Really Happened to the Class of ’65?. People received I-Y deferments for being overweight, for minor knee injuries, &c. Trump would have been sent to the back of the queue and re-examined later. They could recall you in as little as 90 days.

    In 1969, the draft lottery was instituted. A rash of situational deferments (including student deferments) were eliminated and men were to be called in for induction according to the day of the year they were born. The birthdays were in a random order according to a drawing held on 1 December 1969. Per the drawing, Trump’s subcohort was to be the 356th called in during the year 1970. Men born prior to 1951 were excused after 1970. As it happened, the military only called up the first 195 subcohorts. Another lottery was held in July 1970 for men born in 1951, applicable for calendar year 1971. A third was held in August 1971 for men born in 1952, applicable for calendar year 1972. Another was held in February 1972 for the 1953 cohort. About 700 men from the 1953 cohort were drafted before conscription was suspended.

  31. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 11:03

    Romney is my ideal candidate. Boring, pragmatic, and analytical. But he lost so the GOP turned to the opposite extreme.

    Romney’s a very capable man, and his mundane life is unblemished. However, he’s called ‘windsock Romney’ for a reason.

  32. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 11:07

    Being pro-life starts with being pro-human-race survival:
    http://theresurgent.com/lets-review-for-trumps-sake-nuclear-weapons-are-bad/

  33. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 11:11

    Well there are striking similarities between Hitler (the candidate) and Trump. There’s no denying that. For example their master persuasion abilities and the fact that Trump might be mentally ill.

    Donald Trump is an elderly real estate developer who has decades of accomplishment behind him. Adolf Hitler was an utter no account who failed at everything he ever did prior to 1930; Hitler’s employment history prior to that date began and ended with his military service. Trump has an ample family life and no history anyone knows about of intramural disputes with family members apart from his divorce proceedings. Hitler was a lifelong bachelor (with an incestuous affection for his niece) who was too warped and physically repulsive to build relationships with women. Hitler’s entire worldview was constructed on crank nonsense. Trump is a practical man of business.

  34. Gravatar of Jeff Jeff
    3. August 2016 at 11:14

    The Democrats should be careful here. If Trump’s support starts falling in a noticeable way, it may suddenly collapse. If it does, a lot of people are going to seriously consider Gary Johnson and he may get into the debates. If this happens, he might just win it all. Very few hate Johnson the way they hate Trump and Clinton.

  35. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 11:19

    The Democrats should be careful here. If Trump’s support starts falling in a noticeable way, it may suddenly collapse. If it does, a lot of people are going to seriously consider Gary Johnson and he may get into the debates. If this happens, he might just win it all. Very few hate Johnson the way they hate Trump and Clinton.

    The smart money says Johnson wins 4% of the vote. The country’s never elected a 3d party candidate in 192 years of popular balloting and there’s no great reason to think it’ll start this year.

  36. Gravatar of Ray Lopez Ray Lopez
    3. August 2016 at 11:21

    Sumner: ” I ought to try to say something halfway intelligent about the election, instead of my usual mindless drivel.” – oh c’mon, you’re not that bad with politics; pace the economics.

    Christian List brings up good points. The early Hitler, if you read Kirshaw’s 3 vol tome, was moderate and even had a Jewish friend when he was a Viennese artist; later he morphed into a monster. But he was very popular, 33% of Germans (mostly hillbillies and the disgruntled) voted for him, and the Center Catholic party and others agreed to tear up the constitution for the sake of the stability offered by Hitler.

    Also, as List says, the test for the USA is whether it can survive a Trump presidency. I think it can. If it cannot, then the USA is like the Roman Republic, which could not, due to some vague ‘constitutional’ issues, survive strongmen and fell to become the Roman Empire. I personally think the 17th Amendment, which Progressives around 100 years ago instituted, is flawed (direct election of Senators). The Founding Fathers knew a thing or two about democracy: it becomes mob rule with the basest instincts. They also declined to fund a central bank (via Andrew Jackson, “The Donald” of his day) though the entire issue is moot (money is neutral) so arguably we should abolish the Fed too, as it’s a useless enterprise.

  37. Gravatar of Greg DeLassus Greg DeLassus
    3. August 2016 at 11:25

    “The Democrats should be careful here. If Trump’s support starts falling in a noticeable way,… Gary Johnson… might just win it all.”

    Speaking as a Democrat, I am not sure why this is an outcome of which we need to be careful. I am enthusiastically supporting my candidate (Hillary Clinton), but I would not regard a Gary Johnson victory as any sort of disastrous outcome, which is how I would regard a Trump victory. If we can only make certain that Trump loses by making a Johnson victory marginally more likely, that is easily a trade-off worth making.

  38. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 11:34

    @Greg DeLassus,

    +1

    That’s why I’m voting for whoever is most likely to beat Trump. Full stop.

  39. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    3. August 2016 at 11:46

    “His VP choice (Bill Weld) is also a moderate libertarian.”

    -W. Bush’s VP choice fit this description far better than Weld.

    “which is how I would regard a Trump victory”

    -Why? What do you have to gain from illegal immigration? What do you have to gain from terrorism? What do you have to gain from America not being Made Great Again?

    “mostly hillbillies and the disgruntled”

    -Nope. Hitler was very popular on college campuses. And everyone was disgruntled in Germany during the Great Depression.

    Romney lost because he was an elitist, a flip-flopper, and signed Romneycare into law. I deeply despised him then, and continue to do so.

  40. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 12:48

    What do you have to gain from terrorism?

    So Trump will put an end to Terrorism? So no more lone wolves renting a truck in France during a holiday? I don’t even think Super Man makes asinine promises that in comic book plots designed for adolescent boys: too unrealistic.

  41. Gravatar of Matthew Waters Matthew Waters
    3. August 2016 at 12:48

    Warren Buffett made the point about the one time Donald Trump had a public company. DJT lost 90 cents on the dollar from their IPO, as the S&P 500 had doubled and competitors such as Harrah’s did even better than the S&P.

    Everything else about Trump is shrouded in half-truths and distortions. At the end of the day, his dad gave millions in support for him in the 70’s and 80’s and he turned that into negative personal worth in the 90’s.

    Sure, there are many other cases of squandered inheritance like the Hunt brothers cornering the silver market. Many lottery winners lose everything. But do you call the Hunt brothers and lottery winners “great businessmen” who have “been successful for decades.” Most people worth millions in the 70’s did not later have negative personal wealth in the early 90’s.

  42. Gravatar of Bababooey Bababooey
    3. August 2016 at 13:28

    You know me Scott. Given a binary choice, I easily and comfortably prefer Trump and have a long, developed list of why.

    My long shot preference is that Gary Johnson/Jill Stein peel off enough electoral votes (and the electors honor their pledges) to force the election into the House, each state having one vote. Coulda hapened if Bernie accepted Stein’s offer and abased himelf to the DNC that shafted him. That’d be entertaining.

  43. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    3. August 2016 at 13:31

    Warren Buffett made the point about the one time Donald Trump had a public company. DJT lost 90 cents on the dollar from their IPO, as the S&P 500 had doubled and competitors such as Harrah’s did even better than the S&P.

    Everything else about Trump is shrouded in half-truths and distortions. At the end of the day, his dad gave millions in support for him in the 70’s and 80’s and he turned that into negative personal worth in the 90’s.

    Again, this business has been reviewed here more than once. The increase in the value of Trump’s holdings between 1982 and 2012, per Forbes is quite respectable and bested by only one of the six real estate developers who have been on the Forbes 400 consistently since 1982. You’ll find on the Forbes 400 roughly 10% who made a good portion of their money through buying and selling companies and bits of companies, but you’d have to scrounge to find anyone who is on there through investing in passive vehicles like index funds.

  44. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    3. August 2016 at 14:18

    I’ll just repeat that Joseph Epstein was onto something last month in the WSJ;

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trumpkins-want-their-country-back-1465596987

    —————endquote————-
    The political rise of Donald Trump owes less to the economy, to his status as a braggadocio billionaire, to his powers of insult, to the belief that he can Make America Great Again, than to the success of this progressive program. What the woman who said she wants her country back really meant was that she couldn’t any longer bear to watch the United States on the descent, hostage to progressivist ideas that bring neither contentment nor satisfaction but instead foster a state of perpetual protest and agitation, anger and tumult.

    So great is the frustration of Americans who do not believe in these progressivist ideas, who see them as ultimately tearing the country apart, that they are ready to turn, in their near hopelessness, to a man of Donald Trump’s patently low quality. In doing so they fail to realize that Mr. Trump has succeeded in this political season precisely because of the successful spread of these pernicious ideas. Or, to put it in the 1960s terms from which the current progressivism ultimately derives: Donald Trump, who in his vagueness and vapidity is unlikely to provide any solution, is himself part of the problem.
    ——————endquote—————–

  45. Gravatar of Randomize Randomize
    3. August 2016 at 14:51

    The Purple Heart outrage seems overblown. Does anyone really argue that being gifted the medal isn’t easier than being injured in war?

  46. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    3. August 2016 at 15:26

    my extended family is split about….
    30% apolitical who never vote, who find this year more repugnant than ever..
    10% hard core Hillary,
    20% like Hillary but liked Bernie better…
    10% don’t like hill but are terrified of trump…
    5 % Libertarian/Green (they have a weird respect for each other )

    10% loud, obnoxious, know nothing, and believe that no one else can Know anything so can’t know anymore than they do…Trump supporters… (but still, I Love them )

    And 15% of people who vote…and… have not made up their minds yet!!! These loved ones Perplex me the most…they blow my mind…

  47. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    3. August 2016 at 15:28

    Scott, Could their be a kinda “Bradly effect” going on in your circles of association ?

    The idea worries me.

  48. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    3. August 2016 at 15:33

    Randomize asks….” Does anyone really argue that being gifted the medal isn’t easier than being injured in war?”

    No…that’d be real dumb…why do you think that’s the part of the purple heat story that has people upset ?

    why’d you assume that… weird.

  49. Gravatar of Tom Davies Tom Davies
    3. August 2016 at 15:35

    Trump does bring people together Scott — I was reading this in my newsfeed: http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2016/lunging-from-one-controversy-to-another/ and thought it was you, rather than a very left wing feminist (who, I add, has interesting things to say on non-economic subjects)

  50. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 15:55

    So great is the frustration of Americans who do not believe in these progressivist ideas, who see them as ultimately tearing the country apart

    @Patrick, which “progressivist ideas” do you think they mean? What are the top three that are really burning people’s shorts?

  51. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    3. August 2016 at 15:57

    “The Washington Post released a transcript of its full interview with Trump, indicating among other things that he paused five times to watch TV coverage in the middle of the sit-down.”

    Horrors!

    Trump has managed to alienate me, but he was very appealing in his willingness to challenge the GOP-militarism orthodoxy or the open-borders orthodoxy. The revulsion of the GOP establishment at Trump is another reason to like him.

    The above quote re WaPo and the self-reverential nature of it is another reason to like someone like Trump.

    Kasich? Do not confuse a civilized demeanor with good policy. Kasich wanted to build more aircraft carrier groups, which are fantastically expensive offensive weapons systems.

    Ponder this: the US is now dropping bombs in four different nations, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Oh, and we get such stellar results in these military expeditions…

    Trump is nuts. More so than orthodoxy?

  52. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    3. August 2016 at 15:58

    Tom Brown… don’t you know…Trump alone can stop terrorism..
    you blind fool..

    All Hail Trump…

  53. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 16:15

    Ponder this: the US is now dropping bombs in four different nations, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Oh, and we get such stellar results in these military expeditions…

    Ah, but who could forget this? How many nations now have ISIS affiliated groups in them? Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nigeria… who am I forgetting? That’s a lot of bombing-the-shit-out-of isn’t it? Plus he says we need to “declare war” when a lone asshole in France rents a truck on a holiday to run over people with? I got to hand it to that guy… 80+ deaths 200 some injured, 50 or so seriously… all by one guy renting a truck (I understand he rode his bicycle to the rental office… I wonder if he bought insurance?). So we declare war? Call out the 5th fleet to put a stop to truck rentals? Maybe his policy of torture and killing the terrorists families will reduce ISIS recruitment? What do you think? Also, remember that Egypt Air flight that went down that Trump (and others) were quick to label terrorism? What ever became of that anyway? Was he vindicated? Or was he shooting from the hip? Looks like the jury is still out. But it’s good he make bold, sure forceful proclamations on the matter before all the evidence was in, because that’s what we need in a leader, right? It’s a proven method for not starting unnecessary wars.

  54. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 17:05

    @Benjamin Cole, you write:

    Ponder this: the US is now dropping bombs in four different nations, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Oh, and we get such stellar results in these military expeditions…

    Do you remember this? So which countries is ISIS in now? Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Bangladesh, … which ones am I forgetting? That’s a lot of countries to “bomb the shit out of” isn’t it?

    Not only that a guy in France rides his bike to a truck rental place in France, probably skips the insurance, and runs over a bunch of people… and Trump’s response? Declare war? What, call out the 5th fleet to stop lone wolves from renting trucks?

    And how about that Egypt Air flight? A bunch of people jumped on that right away, Trump prominently among them. And yet was that ultimately a case of terrorism?:
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_804]
    Not so clear. Do we want a leader who jumps to conclusions before all the facts are in? Is that the way to prevent unnecessary wars?:
    [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_(ACR-1)]

    Maybe his promise to use torture and to kill the families of ISIS members will reduce recruitment? Ya think?

  55. Gravatar of Major.Freedom Major.Freedom
    3. August 2016 at 17:12

    The sitting president of the United States publicly called Trump “unfit to serve” and urged Republicans to withdraw their support for him.

    That is just bad form on the part of the President.

    At any rate, Michelle Obama once said Hillary Clinton is unfit to serve. Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton is unfit to serve.

    In politics, it is common to hear “unfit to serve” between opponents. This is children’s sandbox level discourse.

  56. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 17:22

    That is just bad form on the part of the President.

    If Victor Emmanuel III had said Mussolini is “unfit to serve” would that have been bad form, or the truth? I’ll grant you it may not be a good strategic play, but I’m not sure “bad form” is how I’d describe it. And it looks like even Newt Gingrich today is floating the idea. Not what Sanders or Michelle Obama are saying.

  57. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 17:28

    http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/08/03/first-thing-trump-top-secret-info-share-world/

    Both major parties should insist any primary candidate running under their banner qualify for a Top Secret clearance before they even get on a primary debate stage. Make the campaigns or the candidates pay for it, but our security agencies should accommodate the parties efforts to voluntarily immunize themselves from hostile takeover. Pass legislation to facilitate this if necessary. Let fringe people run in fringe parties.

  58. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    3. August 2016 at 19:49

    Tom Brown: I forgot to mention Yemen. I think we are dropping bombs there too. So make that five nations were are dropping bombs on.

    Yes, Trump is nutty. More so than orthodoxy?

  59. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 20:29

    @Benjamin Cole,

    Granted there’s a difference between words and deeds, especially with regards to Trump, but other than Ted “carpet bomb them till the sand glows” Cruz, were there any other candidates in any other party (GOP, Dem, Lib, Constitution, Green) that promised to “bomb the shit out of them?” Even if the candidate thinks to themselves that a bombing campaign is justified or the best approach in some cases, is it really something you want to fire up campaign rallies about?

    I’m not sure what you mean by orthodoxy? If you mean Bush/Cheney, they were super irresponsible IMO. I don’t know what to make of Obama’s policy. I know Harding thinks ISIS was created by Obama (which I think it’s 100% loony tunes). I’m not a pacifist. I don’t know they answers, but I’d like to see some evidence of an ATTITUDE that considers use of force as a last resort. I’m not sure any of the candidates are there… but there’s a LONG list from all different parties that seem closer to that position than Mr. Trump.

    Trump seems to wonder why we don’t promote the proliferation of nuclear weapons (to Japan, etc). And then there was this today on his attitude on nukes:
    http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2016/08/03/must-see-madman-finger-nuclear-button/

    or this:
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/08/03/report-trump-obsessed-idea-using-of-using-nuclear-weapons/

    So, yeah, in light of that I never even heard W take an irresponsible attitude like that with nukes… so yeah, I’d say the “orthodoxy” (whatever that is, assuming it’s not Trump) is less nutty.

    How to sell HRC to a pro-lifer? Pro-life starts with avoiding nuclear war.

  60. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    3. August 2016 at 21:29

    More Trump lunacy on use of nuclear weapons:
    https://twitter.com/gfostaty/status/760940116269424640?lang=en

  61. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    4. August 2016 at 02:05

    @scott

    I said, I agree with 90% of what Trump said in his acceptance speech.

    You said,
    “As far as agreeing with 90% of Trump’s views, is that his call for massive spending increases in lots of programs, combined with massive tax cuts, which would bankrupt the country? Or is it his wavering on NATO promises? How about his gross protectionism? How about the wall on the border that won’t do anything? How about deporting 11 million hard working people? Or is it the 38% jump in the minimum wage you support? How about his wanting to make it easier to sue people who criticize Donald Trump? How about the War on Drugs he promises? How about his promise to start telling CEOs where they can and cannot open new factories? How about banning Muslims? How about his claim that the yuan is undervalued? How about his call to considering defaulting on the national debt?

    Are those all in the 10% you don’t support?”

    You must have listened to a different speech because I didn’t hear one of those things in the speech I listened to.

  62. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    4. August 2016 at 02:16

    @scott
    You said, “Sorry, but I can’t respect that. I would never hold back from expressing my views at a dinner party just because some people might object.”

    How about if you meant you ran the risk of losing your job? Getting sent to the Gulag?

    Honest answer please.

  63. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    4. August 2016 at 02:22

    Both major parties should insist any primary candidate running under their banner qualify for a Top Secret clearance before they even get on a primary debate stage.

    You mean the intelligence agencies get to screen our presidential candidates like the mullah screening committees you have to pass through to run for office in Iran? Sounds like a plan!

  64. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    4. August 2016 at 02:24

    If Victor Emmanuel III had said Mussolini is “unfit to serve” would that have been bad form, or the truth?

    Mussolini had been a newspaper editor / professional agitator his entire adult life. That’s an improvement on no-accounts like Hitler and CZ Codreanu, but not much of an improvement. That doesn’t describe Trump.

  65. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    4. August 2016 at 04:23


    Both major parties should insist any primary candidate running under their banner qualify for a Top Secret clearance before they even get on a primary debate stage.

    Funny what kind of regulations liberals can think of in no time all the time. In only 1-2 threads you asked for 2-3 checks now: Screenings on mental illnesses, screenings on taxes and screenings by secret services. What else do you want?!

    That’s all just really nutty. In a real democracy like the US you got the free press, the opposing party and the checks and balances (including the Legislative and the Judicative) for all that. You don’t need anything else.

    That’s also the reason why Trump is actually the better choice: The Press, the opposition (hell even his own party), the Legislative and the Judicative all don’t really like him. So he will be under massive control. Quite the opposite is true for Hillary.

  66. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    4. August 2016 at 04:57

    Tom Brown:

    You are right to be concerned about nuclear weapons, and other massive weapons systems.

    Read up on Tsar Bomba.

    Only sado-lunatics would build these things, and the US might need 10 or 20 of these. Hundreds and thousands?

    I am not voting for Trump.

    But orthodox thinking, that perma-wars are fine and so is having thousands of nukes, is a deep insanity upon the world.

    Putin invaded contiguous territories of Russian-speaking peoples. He was correctly condemned for that.

    The US has occupied or bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and of course we were in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Grenada and who remembers where else.

    Putin is the looney? At least there is an upside for Russia in his looniness. Some sort of ethnic solidarity, perhaps a business platform or two. A vacation spot in Crimea (though I think Russians were welcome anyway).

    What does the US taxpayer get out of this perpetual insanity of our foreign policy?

    $1 trillion a year in taxes.

  67. Gravatar of Thomas Taylor Thomas Taylor
    4. August 2016 at 05:42

    “’d rather have a Donald in 2016 than an Adolf in 2024.”
    So that’s it: either the crazies get their way or things will get crazier. It must be the fault of the left’s “intolerance” of course that Trumps voters couldn’t come up with a candidate they themselves don’t see as Hitler’s harbinger.

  68. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    4. August 2016 at 06:43

    Harding, Romney is a free trader who made a meaningless throwaway comment about China that everyone makes. Trump is a protectionist.

    Yes, I know, Harding doesn’t get “nuance”.

    Christian, You said:

    “Well there are striking similarities between Hitler (the candidate) and Trump. There’s no denying that. For example their master persuasion abilities and the fact that Trump might be mentally ill.”

    When I said that 6 months ago I was called unhinged. Didn’t you say that about me?

    You said about Alexander:

    “when it comes down to concrete examples he is so biased.”

    He’s actually one of the two or three least biased people on the planet, you should read his blog more often.

    Tom, Thanks, Sorry I forget to give you a HT on my new post, you provide a lot of great sources.

    Art, You said:

    “You might consider the possibility that people who cross your path in meatworld have your number.”

    Very few of them read my blog. And I’m very polite to commenters here who don’t act like jerks.

    I do think 4% for Johnson is a reasonable guess, FWIW.

    Bababooey, See my reply to dtoh, on the “90%” point.

    Randomize, I agree about the purple heart, indeed lots of Trump criticism is silly (Consider the baby crying). On the other hand, he gets a free pass on insanity like defaulting on the national debt, or his spending tax proposals.

    dtoh, You said:

    “You must have listened to a different speech because I didn’t hear one of those things in the speech I listened to.”

    Odd that the ideas in his acceptance speech had no relationship to the issues he’s been campaigning on. But then there’s lots of odd things about Trump. I didn’t see the speech, but I read that he proposed a long laundry list of new spending. Is that true?

    Yes, the gulag is a good reply, but is that where you’ll be sent if you annoy your sister’s friends? 🙂

  69. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    4. August 2016 at 07:23

    And I’m very polite to commenters here who don’t act like jerks.

    No, you’re polite to your puppy dogs and to other economists.

  70. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    4. August 2016 at 11:27

    No, Art, you routinely trash the moderators at the 2 blogs you live on since no one will listen to you on your own blog. Then you get huffy when one of them bites back. You are a child.

  71. Gravatar of E. Harding E. Harding
    4. August 2016 at 11:53

    “Romney is a free trader who made a meaningless throwaway comment about China that everyone makes. Trump is a protectionist.”

    -LOL. Nope. Check again. Trump’s 2016 and Romney’s 2012 positions on China are exactly the same. BTW, neither Trump nor Mitt ever had or ever will have any principles or fixed positions. Trump might be a sincere protectionist because he opposed NAFTA back in the early 1990s. But from where do you get your ridiculous idea Romney was a free-trader? There’s simply no evidence of that anywhere. Again, his positions in 2012 were basically ripped off by Trump wholesale this year.

    “Yes, I know, Harding doesn’t get “nuance”.”

    -Projecting your inadequacies onto me, eh?

    Donald Trump is the most sane guy I’ve ever seen run a presidential campaign. Even more so than Obama (though only slightly). The fact the news media are calling him insane proves that they are Democrat partisan hacks unrepresentative of the will of the people.

  72. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    4. August 2016 at 14:29


    When I said that 6 months ago I was called unhinged. Didn’t you say that about me?

    That’s quite possible. Sorry about that.

  73. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    5. August 2016 at 04:29

    @scott,
    I’d rather go to the gulag than to hurt my sister.

  74. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    5. August 2016 at 08:32

    @scott

    “Odd that the ideas in his acceptance speech had no relationship to the issues he’s been campaigning on.”

    Lower taxes. Better trade deals. Educational choice. Stopping illegal immigration, etc. Seems to me like he’s been talking about this pretty consistently.

    Also, I think you need to do a better job parsing the campaign rhetoric from actual policy views. Admittedly the hyperbole from established politicians is a little more nuanced and sophisticated, but to my way of thinking that’s just another way of saying they are more clever liars than Trump. Not something I would vote for or be fooled by.

  75. Gravatar of Tom Brown Tom Brown
    5. August 2016 at 14:26

    @Benjamin Cole,

    If the choice were between Putin and Trump for POTUS, I think I’d chose Putin. He seems more mentally balanced to me. I’d trust him (and frankly Stalin and Mao as well) more than Trump w/ nukes. IMO all three have a better sense of self preservation. Hitler? I draw the line there on this issue. I do think Trump would be more responsible with nukes than Hitler.

    Now Stalin and Mao (and Hitler, for that matter) have a lot of other proven disadvantages: important things they’d certainly be way worse than Trump on (mass starvation, paranoia, sociopathy, purges, etc)… so perhaps all in all Trump would be a better choice, but I’ll be weighting confidence about handling nukes pretty high… so I’m not sure (re: Stalin or Mao: Trump beats Hitler hands down). I’d have to do the math, but off hand, I guess I’m inclined to take a chance with Trump more than Stalin or Mao. So that’s my preliminary ranking: Putin > Trump > Stalin = Mao > Hitler.

  76. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    6. August 2016 at 05:51

    Harding, You said:

    “Donald Trump is the most sane guy I’ve ever seen run a presidential campaign.”

    Eisenhower – – – Trump.

    LOL

    Christian, No worries.

    dtoh, OK, in that case . . . 🙂

  77. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    8. August 2016 at 04:54

    Eisenhower – – – Trump.

    Harding reports he was born ca. 1985, when Eisenhower was safely six feet under. No one below retirement age has witnessed Eisenhower campaigning for office, and no one below the age of 80 ever voted for him.

    Ron Paul is a man lost in economic and political delusions and Howard Dean has elected for whatever reason to do impressions of a raving loon. Other than that, sanity’s not been at issue since Lyndon Johnson was giving tarmac speeches subsequent to imbibing large quantities of aged scotch.

  78. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. August 2016 at 06:09

    Art, You said:

    “Other than that, sanity’s not been at issue since Lyndon Johnson was giving tarmac speeches subsequent to imbibing large quantities of aged scotch.”

    No, not at the end of the Nixon administration, when he was getting drunk and talking about the use of nukes.

  79. Gravatar of Art Deco Art Deco
    9. August 2016 at 07:26

    No, not at the end of the Nixon administration, when he was getting drunk and talking about the use of nukes.

    Strange as it may seem to you, 56 year old men in private settings sometimes drink to excess. As for ‘talking about the use of nukes’, even Woodward & Bernstein did not add that little prize into their faux-fly-on-the-wall account of the administration’s last nine months. (And, of course, nothing remotely similar happened; the closest you came was during the Yom Kippur War when American forces were put on DefCon3.)

    Nixon was not at peace with himself, had a stew of petty resentments, had strange outbursts (manifest in ‘nutty memos’ per William Safire), had a (sometimes disabling) dislike of face-to-face interaction (confrontation especially), did not care for unscripted meetings, and could be manipulated by the few people who knew which buttons to push (e.g. Henry Kissinger, who did not play these games with Gerald Ford). He was a fundamentally introverted and melancholic man in an occupation congenial to neither type. These are all normal range personal shortcomings. They made him unsuitable for much of what he did all day (he was a wretched administrator, among other things), which incorporates a certain irony.

    He was suitable for a raft of things that most people could not do or bollix. He could have made an excellent living practicing law; he chose not to. His marriage was durable and not the wreck people like Judith Viorst pretended it was; his children were and are the least problematic presidential offspring of the last 50-odd years and had an uncomplicated affection for him; he had no issues with his brothers or Pat’s relatives; he had a short list of friends, but the friendships were abiding and close; and he was one of the few people for whom familiarity did not breed contempt. The Reagan Administration produced a raft of memoirs which injured the reputation of the President; the Nixon administration did not; even John Dean did not try to do the job on Nixon that David Stockman did on Reagan.

Leave a Reply