a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

They havent passed a damn thing. Boehner's accomplishments as speaker = 0

see goole's most recent posts, above. that state can't continue long before the government becomes a hollow shell operating purely on whatever impetus is preserved from the past, back when it functioned. and the presidency will become imperial out of pure necessity

trump, sensing that jeb is shifting his xenophobia toward asia, and sends a clear message that he cannot be outdone:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump used broken English to imitate Asian negotiators during a campaign speech on Tuesday in Iowa.

During his campaign, Trump has repeatedly said that the United States is too closely tied to China's economy.

On Tuesday, the former reality TV star played out a conversation he imagined he would have with negotiators from Asian nations.

"Negotiating with Japan, negotiating with China, when these people walk into the room, they don't say, 'Oh hello, how's the weather, so beautiful outside, isn't it lovely? How are the Yankees doing? Oh they are doing wonderful, great,' " Trump said in his speech. "They say, 'We want deal."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-trump-asian-imitation-video

OK, Jeb! Time to unleash Chang!

i had not heard of that before.
that is bizarre.
jeb! is weird.
FL is weird.

not because they like him in toto or even believe he'll win but because they are enjoying the chaos he's causing to the GOP
this sentiment v prevalent in online comments sections. but my guess is many of the conservatives enjoying this are not going to actually vote for trump, no matter how angry they are at establishment. imo his schtick will wear out (but who knows; trump’s popularity v weird to me though intellectually i get some of what’s going on)

also, reportedly, some significant portion of trump supporters are atypical primary voters— he’s attracting people who’ve been disaffected from politics, haven’t voted in recent elections, etc
not sure how that will shake out when primary process gets beyond just media-circus stage to actual voting

also regardless of who they donate money to srs money'd people and srs institutions don't actually care that much about whether clinton or bush or whoever really wins the election. they mostly just want stability, so 'not a total loose cannon' is pretty much all that matters, and trump doesn't pass that test.
otm

it's kind of pitiful when "our mega-wealthy overlords who control the world will step in and save us from The Donald" is taken as a comforting thought. it's the perfect complement to the radical right wingers who are gleeful at the thought that Trump is causing those same overlords indigestion and are cheering him on.

I'm starting to wonder how long it'll be before Trump drops his first full-on racial epithet. It really is almost more a question of when than if at this point.

I wouldn't go too far down the road of speculation about failed parties and resulting radical shifts etc. I wouldn't rule them out entirely but it seems like jumping to conclusions to me - plenty of other ways this kind of thing could play out. Party leaders or party insurgents could run the numbers and determine that they can't win national elections with or without the wackadoo wing, and aggressively reject the wacakdoo policies as being more trouble than they're worth. The lunatic fringe supporters could form a rump third party, or they could just go back to grumbling or maybe join the vast swaths of the non-voting. The Republicans meanwhile could be crafting a new platform and testing new stump lines that appeal to the people the wackadoos drove away. In the grand scheme of things, these kinds of recalibrations happen all the time within the course of a given two-party system.

I suppose it's possible that we're somewhere in chapter 2 of the 12-chapter narrative of how the current party system; as I'm finding out, people that care about such things aren't even sure whether we're still in the "Fifth Party System" (the one beginning from the New Deal, with the south /and/ the black vote firmly incorporated into the Democratic party) or a "Sixth Party System" (beginning some time between Civil Rights and the 1980s, with the Sunbelt and Reagan Democrats turning Republican).

As people have started writing recently, the 2020 census, particularly if aligned with a strong election or two for Democrats, could help undo some of the particularly heinous redistricting that's given the Republicans a Congressional presence so disproportionate to their electoral performance (56.8% of seats versus 51.2% of the popular vote in the last midterm, 53.8% of seats versus 47.65 of the popular vote in 2012 - that is bonkers). This, too, could dial us back down to a comparatively more functional and representative government without precipitating a constitutional crisis.

It's also possible, though I don't really see signs of it at present, that we could be heading towards one of the really infrequent moments where something actually shifts constitutionally by popular demand; a charismatic leader brandishing a movement for some political-process amendments, for example. Quashing Citizens United probably has the most people talking about it, but in terms of really getting out of deadlock and do-nothing-ism, i still think it'd be interesting to see a real national conversation around instant-runoff voting, or finally doing something about the composition of the Senate. The movement that led to the direct election of Senators was moribund until the 1880s or so, IIRC, then very quickly started getting adopted by individual states and high-profile politicians, specifically mobilized by a sense that the Senate was a bunch of corrupt do-nothings and that the process was broken. (See also: referendums, recalls, all that stuff.) Again, right now I'm not even seeing the first stirrings of that kind of development but it's not without precedent. Hell, maybe D.C. statehood will happen and then suddenly the Republicans will be leading the charge to end the two-senators-per-state arrangement... ha.

But yeah, Trump... I mean, Trump has a plurality of the polling in an extremely large primary field. He's scary and he can do a lot of harm as discussed above but we really do not have to talk seriously about him winning anything, even if one believes that's what he's trying to do. The absolute best he could possibly perform electorally, if everything goes perfectly for him and if he wants to do it, is to run as an independent and lose, with some subset of his current polling fans still turning out to vote for him. Even in this scenario I don't see him beating Ross Perot's 1996 performance but I guess something between that and Perot '92 isn't impossible.

http://noticias.univision.com/article/2441344/2015-08-24/impresiones/jorge-ramos-opina-trumplandia

Article (en español) written by Jorge Ramos, detailing what Trump's immigration proposals would look like if actually carried out. Now of course you may think it's a waste of time to actually look at how this crazy idea would actually play out, but I find it kind of interesting.

Some highlights: the military, police, and immigration agents would have to mount a huge operation, going into homes, work places, schools etc. rounding up millions of men, women and children in large public spaces such as sports stadiums to await being put on buses to Mexico and planes to all other parts of the world. The court system would be paralyzed. There would be wide-scale human rights abuses. This would cost around $12,500 per individual, or $137,000,000,000.

Repealing the 14th Amendment would be mean over 4 million children of the already expelled undocumented would now be stateless people. They would eventually have to be sent to their country of "origin", but where to send a kid born in America with a father from Mexico and a mother from Honduras?

The wall across the border would cost at least $20,000,000,000. 40% of undocumented people in the United States arrive by airplane and overstay their visas.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/08/donald-trump-is-going-to-lose-because-hes-crazy.html

But politics does not work like business. You can get rich being loved by a quarter of the country and hated by the rest, but you can’t get elected president that way. Trump has a brilliant strategy for winning the loyalty of a quarter of the primary electorate, or perhaps a third. He has no strategy for winning a majority, which is what you need to get the nomination. Indeed, the things Trump has done to elevate his profile have pushed that majority further from his reach. If the campaign gets to the point where there is one candidate left standing against Trump, that candidate will enjoy the unified support of the party's financial, media, and organizational strength. Trump has the power to destroy, but not to conquer.

Which brings us back to the question of what it is Trump is after. His presidential campaign seems to have come at enormous financial cost. His undisguised (or less-disguised) racism has made him an economic pariah. He has lost sponsorship agreements from a long list of corporations that want to sell things to people who aren’t white. He’s traded his lucrative brand for Pat Buchanan’s brand.

This immunity from consequence gives Trump the power to wreak apparently limitless havoc upon what is currently his party. The consequences Republicans impose for Trump's offenses have no effect on him. You cannot threaten a man if you don’t even know what he cares about. Is Trump running to spite the reporters who mocked him as a bluffer? As an expensive lark, like the time he got piano lessons from Elton John? To use his political fame to trade up for his next wife? Does Trump actually believe he can become president of the United States?

In answer to that last question, I believe the answer is no. And I still don't believe he has any actual desire to become president, either.

As people have started writing recently, the 2020 census, particularly if aligned with a strong election or two for Democrats, could help undo some of the particularly heinous redistricting that's given the Republicans a Congressional presence so disproportionate to their electoral performance (56.8% of seats versus 51.2% of the popular vote in the last midterm, 53.8% of seats versus 47.65 of the popular vote in 2012 - that is bonkers). This, too, could dial us back down to a comparatively more functional and representative government without precipitating a constitutional crisis.

slightly off topic but this is the perfect time to pass legislation that would delegate the 2020 redistricting process to a non-partisan 3rd party. 2020 is still far enough away, and the outcome uncertain enough, that it could be done now without being perceived as a "giveaway" for either democrats or republicans.

/naivebutmostlytrue

To Shakey upthread - yes but for the knee-jerkily anti-government voter, NOT passing things is more feature than bug.

Trump doesn't seem to care about the money lost as long as he's still rich, so maybe he just thinks it would be fun to become a Fox News host for a few years on the back of his run?

lol that would be a funny turnabout for Ailes (not putting it past him tbh)

I find it funny (scary?) that anyone would believe that making "America great again" is as simple as a declaration, outside of some dystopian North Korean propaganda-fed society.

"Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump ... how do you plan to make America great again?"

"Well, it's simple. I'm rich, very rich. I made that money, and that is what makes me great."

"So exactly how would you make America great again?"

"Easy, just make us the richest country on earth."

"But we already are?"

"Don't be a loser. China owns us. We're worth nothing."

"So how would you make us great again?"

"We should build a Great Wall of America to keep out the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Canadians, and keep America for the Americans!"

"OK. Who would build this wall?"

"Americans, hard working Americans. For America, by Americans! And no one will be allowed in or out, or to exchange currency, or to say anything bad about me. And once the wall is done, we will go straight to building more monuments. Remember when America built monuments? Monuments are what made all the great civilizations great. Rome, Greece, Egypt, Easter Island. There will be an enormous monument in every state, the biggest! And they can have hotels, and casinos. And they will be great! And every nation on earth will wish they were us."

"we want deal" is amazing in its dumbfuckery

Can't blame him, really.

http://s3-ak.buzzfeed.com/static/campaign_images/webdr05/2013/6/14/11/kim-deal-fired-the-pixies-1-25808-1371222823-0_big.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56W16EMxi54

14th amendment has been a target by the right for as long as i can remember. not so much for immigration implications prior as for general warren court rulings, privacy, etc, the 14th amendment is the cornerstone of so many civil liberties and conservatives hate pretty much every one of them. what i don't hear as much anymore is that actually the 14th amendment is unconstitutional or at least it's method and means of passage were and as such it's never been the law of the land really if only the courts/republicans would enforce the constitution; obv this same 'unconstitutionality' would extend to the other reconstruction amendments, i've never been sure if this was an actual dogwhistle (i've only ever heard this 'logic' from southern conservatives) or just yr usual dumb conservative sophistry, the kind of logic behind the various obamacare suits. the only other amendments i've really heard attract as much ire as the 14th from conservatives is the 17th. even the 16th doesn't draw as much heat, maybe because conservatives are nearly as obsessed w/ trying to get the poor to may more taxes are they are w/ trying to get the rich to

pay less derp

sure, but the current thing isn't about the equal protection or due processes clauses, right? it's specifically about the citizenship clause. i mean if trump is actually riding a groundswell of opposition to the extension of the bill of rights to the states, that would also be newsworthy, obviously.

The conservative stranglehold on SCOTUS from post-Civil War to 1937 consists of strangled readings of due process.

The citizenship clause has been settled law since the Wong Kim Ark case and even denying full constitutional rights of people born in U.S. territories assumed these people were U.S. citizens (e.g. the Insular Cases iirc).

you can argue that trump is dangerously rabble rousing (and he is) but you could also make the case that he's showing the real nature of great swaths of conservative america. his short term impact is brutal and hopefully brief but my hope for the long term is that he serves as the colored dye packs secreted inside bank shipments of cash: as he explodes, he paints people their true colors, forcing the national discourse to concede how deeply pervasive, common and troglodytic this sort of thinking truly is. i'm fairly sure in four years (or much less!) he'll sneeringly explain how, in the same method as the Ravens and the NFL did regarding Ray Rice, he got people thinking about these horrible prejudices and in many ways we should be thanking him for starting the conversation.

see, i dig that, but as discussed slightly upthread, is that worth it if in the medium-term, it makes it more likely for people to be the victims of hate speech or violence, or having to turn on the TV and see them giving air-time to someone blathering epithets and hatred towards you? i really think it'd be better if he stfu.

i agree! simply seeking a silver lining in a kitty litter box.

he seems like a reasonable candidate for a coronary, but only the good die young

Don't know if anyone's linked this Yglesias thinkpiece yet, but he draws some interesting parallels between Trump and what's going with Europe's nationalist parties:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/25/9203405/trump-european-far-right

That piece makes an interesting point, though it could get more into the nitty-gritty of these movements' appeals to test the hypothesis that the represent the "same" impulse. While it's true that Trump does represent a different grab-bag of policy positions hammered together than the GOP establishment, how much can we say for sure that that's the basis of his support? It seems to overlook a lot of the specific stuff Trump supporters say about why they like him - I hear a lot more talk about the xenophobia than about the Social Security, and then there's the other stuff (mr. tough guy deal-maker, Chinese trade deals etc.).

Also curious whether the particular institutions of US electoral politics play a bigger role here than is being allowed; winner-take-all voting and its corollary, the two-party system, is a natural for producing potentially large groups of people who feel alternately left out of the process (socialists in Georgia) or taken for granted (right-wingers in a reliable MOR red state). I think that gives a boost to actors framing themselves not as a viable new party looking to take some seats in Parliament, but an insurgent movement that will let those clowns in Washington know we're not going anywhere! That just sounds generically like fascism I guess, but it's also the kind of thing that can comfortably burn itself out in an election cycle: Trump delivers the message, Trump loses, pundits speculate that he may have "shifted the party to the right" or that the nominee's one line in the convention speech was clearly an attempt to appeal to the Trump fans, and that may in fact actually be enough to satisfy the emotional arc here. They heard us that time, that's for damn sure! Of course, if the nominee is obviously the same old candidate they always hate, maybe not.

On an unrelated note, this bit just annoys me: Productivity growth has slowed in the United States and almost every other rich economy, which puts pressure on the sustainability of the welfare state. Well, no - but in a low-tax universe it puts pressure on the size of the government generally. Only if we treat the low taxes and the size of, say, the defense budget as natural and inevitable can we shortcut this down to "...which puts pressure on the sustainability of the welfare state."

unless you consider the defense establishment to be part of the welfare state with a narrower set of people getting entitlements

lol lol

"Our committee believes that Mr. Christie has already performed the service of stopping his campaign in spirit, (without our aid) even if not by the letter of the law," Bjorkland wrote in the letter. "Therefore, we intend to stop (cause to come to an end) the Stop Chris Christie PAC within the next 30 days." A CNN/ORC poll released Aug. 19 showed that Christie polled in 11th place in a crowded GOP presidential field.

wait what does stop mean again

anti-Christie PAC

joeks

Can we just take a minute to imagine a Bjorkland.

my favorite icelandic theme park
ride the black pumice swan into the big time sensuality rocket ship

it already exists! it's in the northern atlantic, it's very icy and green

that's right, greenland

oh shi

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/25/energized-white-nationalist-movement-rallies-behind-trump%E2%80%99s-immigration-plan

henry ford almost ran for president?

https://twitter.com/YAppelbaum/status/636753836464578560

god I really love my neighborhood sometimes:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNbi0jOUkAADzP5.jpg

"Rubio finished his remarks with, 'And that's the truth!' followed by a raspberry."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VczCAaKKDA4/Vd8z6teHSuI/AAAAAAAAbEU/EuW32E-RLts/s1600/Screenshot%2B2015-08-27%2Bat%2B8.59.10%2BAM.png

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/25/energized-white-nationalist-movement-rallies-behind-trump%E2%80%99s-immigration-plan

― Meta Forksclove-Liebeskind (forksclovetofu), Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:48 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-doesnt-want-david-duke-endorsement-121784.html

Bare minimum distancing efforts...

"I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement,” Trump said during an interview with Bloomberg’s Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. He added: “I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”

Asked whether he would repudiate the endorsement, Trump said “Sure, I would if that would make you feel better.”

that man speaks from the heart

the shrivelled black walnut that is his heart

latest quinnipiac poll:

Donald Trump leads the crowded Republican pack with 28 percent, up from 20 percent in a July 30 national survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. This is the highest tally and widest margin for any Republican so far in this election. Ben Carson has 12 percent, with 7 percent each for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. No other Republican tops 6 percent and 11 percent are undecided.

Trump also tops the “no way” list as 26 percent of Republican voters say they would definitely not support him. Bush is next with 18 percent.
Clinton leads the Democratic field with 45 percent, down from 55 percent July 30, with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 22 percent and Biden at 18 percent. No other candidate tops 1 percent with 11 percent undecided. This is Sanders’ highest tally and closest margin.

Clinton tops the Democrats’ “no way” list with 11 percent.

“Liar” is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton. “Arrogant” is the word for Trump and voters say “Bush” when they think of Bush.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us08272015_Ueg38d.pdf

Sorry, had to highlight the voters saying bush when they think of bush part because lol

so 47% are going with either trump, carson, or cruz.

holy SHIT that is terrifying.

it's fun to think about jeb getting mad about people thinking "bush" when they think of him instead of JEB!

"hey guys, don't forget, it's JEB!"

"...Bush!"

"but i earned it!"