Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Monty Hall for VP?

[barmar]

Michelle Branch spoofs one of her own hits:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwip2unqqdLMAhXIOT4KHfDjDTcQqQIIHTAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D9V0pumxenJo&usg=AFQjCNHRVYJtiF-qV1GGxSfhGhpMvPIOBA&sig2=_pCJsKmxUcrxEh0IKtewNw&bvm=bv.121658157,d.cWw

[Winstonm]

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Why did almost everybody fail to predict Donald Trump’s victory in the Republican primaries? Nate Silver blames the news media, disorganized Republican elites, and the surprising appeal of cultural grievance. Nate Cohn lists a number of factors, from the unusually large candidate field to the friendly calendar. Jim Rutenberg thinks journalism strayed too far from good old-fashioned shoe-leather reporting. Justin Wolfers zeroes in on Condorcet’s paradox. Here’s the factor I think everybody missed: The Republican Party turns out to be filled with idiots. Far more of them than anybody expected.

[kenberg]

I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

 

 

I still maintain that this approach is just what the Donald would hope for. If someone is an idiot then there is no point in any sort of discussion. It rules out the possibility that a person might change his mind. As I understand it the gap in the polls between Trump and Clinton is not all that large, at least in some key states such as Ohio. If the Trump folks set out to win over those who currently are undecided or favor Clinton, and the Clinton folks write off the Trump supporters as idiots who are not worth the energy to talk to, or worse they talk to them but the talk consists of telling them that they are stupid, this might not go well.

 

If we agree that any candidate who cannot beat Trump must be stupid then we have established the stupidity of 16 Republicans and we will now have an intelligence check on one Democrat.

[PassedOut]

I don't see why the Trump voters need be characterized at all by democratic nominee, whoever she might turn out to be. Better just to put up a constant barrage of selected videos of Trump himself actually talking, and let those videos define him. Add bits of what republicans have said about Trump too. Put the old Jon Stewart crew on it. Instead of making people angry, make them laugh.

 

I'm thinking of a whole series of short spots with Trump contradicting himself. Or with his dumb commentaries about hair spray and other subjects. Each spot would conclude with Rubio saying, "You know what they say about men with small hands -- you can't trust them!"

 

Nothing negative, just some pointed humor.

:D

Edited May 12, 2016 by PassedOut

[Winstonm]

I still maintain that this approach is just what the Donald would hope for. If someone is an idiot then there is no point in any sort of discussion. It rules out the possibility that a person might change his mind. As I understand it the gap in the polls between Trump and Clinton is not all that large, at least in some key states such as Ohio. If the Trump folks set out to win over those who currently are undecided or favor Clinton, and the Clinton folks write off the Trump supporters as idiots who are not worth the energy to talk to, or worse they talk to them but the talk consists of telling them that they are stupid, this might not go well.

 

If we agree that any candidate who cannot beat Trump must be stupid then we have established the stupidity of 16 Republicans and we will now have an intelligence check on one Democrat.

 

Republicans have gone to the polls and voted Trump as their standard bearer. You have to be stupid to think Trump is in any way anything but a ridiculous and potentially dangerous choice for any public office

 

Those who voted for Trump will not change their minds because they are called stupid.

[Al_U_Card]

10 cents on the dollar. Interesting ratio. Might have something to do with fractional reserve banking. 90 cents of every dollar are invented by the banks when they lend so there is only really 10 cents of value therein. Just sayin'. ;)

[kenberg]

Republicans have gone to the polls and voted Trump as their standard bearer. You have to be stupid to think Trump is in any way anything but a ridiculous and potentially dangerous choice for any public office

 

Those who voted for Trump will not change their minds because they are called stupid.

 

I will focus on your last sentence. If you walk up to a Trump supporter and call him stupid he will remain a Trumps supporter. I agree. My point was a different one. Suppose you walk up to a Trump supporter and chat with him, sharing your concerns but letting him speak his mind and refraining from calling him stupid. Might he then give some thought to what you said and perhaps change his mind? No doubt some won't, but maybe some will? This is what I was getting at.

 

As a matter pf basic philosophy, I am opposed to writing people off. As a political strategy, I would definitely advise against writing people off.

[barmar]

I don't see why the Trump voters need be characterized at all by democratic nominee, whoever she might turn out to be. Better just to put up a constant barrage of selected videos of Trump himself actually talking, and let those videos define him. Add bits of what republicans have said about Trump too. Put the old Jon Stewart crew on it. Instead of making people angry, make them laugh.

They've been doing this all through the primaries, and it hasn't been effective, and they were just trying to sway voters within their party. Why would you expect this to be effective in the general? That faces the uphill battle of swinging voters to another party.

[PassedOut]

They've been doing this all through the primaries, and it hasn't been effective, and they were just trying to sway voters within their party. Why would you expect this to be effective in the general? That faces the uphill battle of swinging voters to another party.

The democrats don't have to swing any Trump voters at all, although I suspect some of those voters will eventually catch on if the democrats just focus on Trump and not (as Ken emphasizes) the people who voted for him in the primary. It's going to be very tough for Trump to get to 270 if the democrats hold their own voters and take some of the republicans and independents (like me) who would never vote for Trump.

 

The problem with running blatantly negative ads is that the candidate doing so looks bad too. By letting Trump do it to himself, especially by turning him into the butt of laughter, you mitigate some of that negative rebound effect. The democrats should try to educate in an entertaining way, not in an angry way. I expect that Trump's reaction to that would be funny itself.

[Winstonm]

I will focus on your last sentence. If you walk up to a Trump supporter and call him stupid he will remain a Trumps supporter. I agree. My point was a different one. Suppose you walk up to a Trump supporter and chat with him, sharing your concerns but letting him speak his mind and refraining from calling him stupid. Might he then give some thought to what you said and perhaps change his mind? No doubt some won't, but maybe some will? This is what I was getting at.

 

As a matter pf basic philosophy, I am opposed to writing people off. As a political strategy, I would definitely advise against writing people off.

 

I agree with you. My point is that most Trump (as well as Cruz) supporters do not care what you have to say and will not listen, regardless. I think there is a basic problem that many people have that is based on a refusal to look at the world with a critical eye, with critical thinking, looking for a reason or eveidence-based assumption rather than an ideological one.

 

To me, this is stupid, although not a proper use of the word. Perhaps stupnorant?

[barmar]

To me, this is stupid, although not a proper use of the word. Perhaps stupnorant?

Maybe just lazy and emotional. People get into ideological ruts, and it's easy to just stick with it.

[kenberg]

Some of the following could be effective:

 

A calm presentation of real concerns about a Trump presidency. Trump has used bankruptcy laws effectively in his own interest. This is legal, as he points out. Filing bankruptcy and leaving others holding the bag may be a fine strategy if a person is watching out for his own interests and no one else's. It does not follow that trying to negotiate down our national debt by refusing full payment would work out well for the country. A business that files for bankruptcy is usually then out of business. People can understand this. And it leads to further thoughts. Trump uses existing law to play other people for suckers and make himself rich. Maybe not as rich as he claims, but definitely rich. Why on Earth would anyone think such a person is suddenly interested in my well-being or the well-being of anyone other than himself? Gambling casinos are legal. They also make the owner rich by playing people for suckers. Playing people for suckers is Trump's entire history. He does it legally, so we don't put him in jail. But don't play the slots, and don't make him president. This can be understood.

 

 

Paul Ryan has to get to know Trump better, or see if Trump will change, or some such. So he says. This is a very disappointing position. Which aspect of Trump is still unknown? We do not know what Trump will say in July. Or what he will say tomorrow, for that matter. Whatever comes into his head, I suppose. But I think both I and Paul Ryan have a pretty good idea of who Trump is.

 

Voting for Trump entails responsibility for the result. People can be angry, we can all get angry, but what we do with that anger has consequences. I think many people understand this. What is needed is something other than shouting and dismissing people as idiots. If our faith in democracy is misplaced, then we are in trouble. So we might as well approach this with the idea that appeal to reason will be productive.

[PassedOut]

Some of the following could be effective:

 

A calm presentation of real concerns about a Trump presidency. Trump has used bankruptcy laws effectively in his own interest. This is legal, as he points out. Filing bankruptcy and leaving others holding the bag may be a fine strategy if a person is watching out for his own interests and no one else's. It does not follow that trying to negotiate down our national debt by refusing full payment would work out well for the country. A business that files for bankruptcy is usually then out of business. People can understand this. And it leads to further thoughts. Trump uses existing law to play other people for suckers and make himself rich. Maybe not as rich as he claims, but definitely rich. Why on Earth would anyone think such a person is suddenly interested in my well-being or the well-being of anyone other than himself? Gambling casinos are legal. They also make the owner rich by playing people for suckers. Playing people for suckers is Trump's entire history. He does it legally, so we don't put him in jail. But don't play the slots, and don't make him president. This can be understood.

It seems to me that the bankruptcies and the Trump University scam would be more effective to flog than would Trump's casino ownerships. The students scammed know they were suckered, but a lot of the suckers in the casinos don't see themselves that way and would be angered to be labeled that way.

[onoway]

I think that making Trump look silly by using his own public behaviour and speech is likely the most effective approach. People don't mind being associated with a gangster type or some such, it makes them feel tough and someone to be reckoned with by association. But make someone look silly - that's much less appealing to be linked to. It should be done without stridency though, a bewildered " umm how's that again?" juxtaposition sort of approach might be quite effective. People don't like to think they are being manipulated about what to think, so if there is room for them to change their minds- they just might. Put their backs up and most won't even listen, much less pay any attention except to defend their position.

[helene_t]

"Phase one of my plan to destroy the wanker party is now completed".

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/12/phase_one_of_my_plan_to_destroy_the_wanker_party_is_now_complete_check_out_republican_apostate_bruce_bartletts_wondrous_trump_tweets/

[kenberg]

"Phase one of my plan to destroy the wanker party is now completed".

 

http://www.salon.com...s_trump_tweets/

 

Perhaps of interest: If you scroll down that page you find a graph showing historical exit poll percentage of Republican primary voters who are conservative, and the percentage who are very conservative. For 2016 the results are 76% conservative, 33% very conservative. I guess the Republican plan is to get out 109% of the vote? This could work!

 

Ok, I suppose very conservative is a subset of conservative. A bit misleading, I think.It's like someone checking "agree" and "strongly agree". Oh well.

 

 

Anyway, Bruce Bartlett appears to be seriously nutty.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps of interest: If you scroll down that page you find a graph showing historical exit poll percentage of Republican primary voters who are conservative, and the percentage who are very conservative. For 2016 the results are 76% conservative, 33% very conservative. I guess the Republican plan is to get out 109% of the vote? This could work!

 

Ok, I suppose very conservative is a subset of conservative. A bit misleading, I think.It's like someone checking "agree" and "strongly agree". Oh well.

 

 

Anyway, Bruce Bartlett appears to be seriously nutty.

 

So that's where the silent majority resides - I thought it was Chicago.

 

Ken,

 

This gal agrees with you about the Chait article:

But as pleasurable as it is to hear that people who disagree with you are just idiots, this easy dismissal of the intelligence of millions of people lacks for intellectual rigor, which is deeply unfortunate for someone trying to posit that their problem is they’re just too smart for the little brains of the world.

 

The problem with calling people stupid is that it’s satisfying, but ultimately meaningless. For one thing, it’s nearly impossible to measure it. It’s easy to dismiss Trump as a buffoon, but his likely retort to that is hard to argue: He did manage to score the nomination of a major political party and rally millions to his side, which is more than Chait has done with himself.

 

The problem is “intelligence” is hard to define, and therefore hard to measure. I, for instance, am good at a lot of things that require intelligence: Pithy jokes, analyzing politics, explicating movies and TV shows, Mario Kart, bar trivia. But put me in front of a computer and ask me to program in Python, and I would seem like a screaming moron.

[kenberg]

It seems to me that the bankruptcies and the Trump University scam would be more effective to flog than would Trump's casino ownerships. The students scammed know they were suckered, but a lot of the suckers in the casinos don't see themselves that way and would be angered to be labeled that way.

 

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

 

I have no objection to people making money, I don't object to them making a lot of money. I am not so pleased with seeing this money being made by taking advantage of the poor, the old, the uneducated, but if it is legal we have to put up with it or change the laws. But we don't have to elect the people who do this to high office. Trump has a cadre of lawyers to keep him on the right side of the law. We should set a higher standard for public office.

 

Again, I think people can understand this once they start listening.

[hrothgar]

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

 

I have nothing against Trump operating casinos. If people want to throw away their money at the slot machines, so be it.

 

The issue with Trump and the casinos is the return on investment that the investors in the casinos realized. (Which was about the same as anyone who was stupid enough to pay for training at Trump University).

 

Trump has a long and storied history of screwing over anyone who has trusted him with their money

This is the story that needs to get told.

 

"Don't trust Donald. He'd screw you over to enrich himself"

This needs to be told over and over and over, with lots of different examples.

 

If Trump's daughter is willing to stand in the same room as him come November, then the Democrats haven't done their job.

If his wife hasn't divorced him, something went very very wrong.

[Winstonm]

Yes, perhaps so. It is all part of an opportunistic and predatory approach to business. Some of the students may have benefited just as some gamblers win big. But mostly they don't, in either case. Trump can explain bankruptcy as legal, casinos as legal, and I doubt he is going to jail for running Trump University. It's all legal, and all a way of getting money from suckers.

 

I have no objection to people making money, I don't object to them making a lot of money. I am not so pleased with seeing this money being made by taking advantage of the poor, the old, the uneducated, but if it is legal we have to put up with it or change the laws. But we don't have to elect the people who do this to high office. Trump has a cadre of lawyers to keep him on the right side of the law. We should set a higher standard for public office.

 

Again, I think people can understand this once they start listening.

 

Question: Why is it O.K. to call people screwed over by Trump "suckers" but not O.K. to call Trump supporters "idiots"?

[kenberg]

Question: Why is it O.K. to call people screwed over by Trump "suckers" but not O.K. to call Trump supporters "idiots"?

 

A good question.

 

I guess I look at it this way. I see Trump as living by "never give a sucker an even break". I am focused on his intent, I mean it primarily as a description of him. Instead of making money by doing something useful, he intends to make money by getting people to make unwise choices.

 

Early on I mentioned that if he changed every position he held and agreed totally with me on everything I still would not vote for him. It's why I find it so disappointing that Paul Ryan wants to learn more about him. How long does it take to recognize him for what he is?

 

But of course you are right, at least sort of. The "sort of" is that we are all, at one time or another, suckered into something. We learn from it and we move on. Being an idiot is a permanent condition. But I won't push this distinction too fiercely. I do think that some supporters of Trump might have second thoughts, and I think some on the edge can be pulled back to safety.

 

I was talking briefly with my older daughter about this. She thinks Trump voters are beyond salvation. I stick to my naive optimism. We still get along.

[Al_U_Card]

Being open-minded and having a healthy skepticism frees you from the emotional attachment to ideals that pushes you to call people with whom you disagree, stupid, suckers, idiots and deniers.

In critical thinking, appeals to emotion are anathema. (Liking someone or something is not a logical evaluation criterion.) Factual analysis is fundamental but being able to enlarge perspective by accepting the validity of other views ensures an enhanced perspective.

Ultimately, the freedom to pursue and support any course of action is necessary to ensure a vibrant and inclusive spectrum of opportunity. Limiting oneself and others to strictly enforced positions is not a viable survival strategy.

[Zelandakh]

Being open-minded and having a healthy skepticism frees you from the emotional attachment to ideals that pushes you to call people with whom you disagree stupid, alarmist and catastrophist

FYP.

[PassedOut]

Seems Donald Trump is furious with Jeff Bezos and the Post. Looks like the fun part of the campaign has started: Donald Trump masqueraded as a spokesman to brag about himself

 

The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian. The man on the phone vigorously defending Donald Trump says he’s a media spokesman named John Miller, but then he says, “I’m sort of new here,” and “I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and even “I’m going to do this a little, part-time, and then, yeah, go on with my life.”

 

A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

 

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

 

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

The more voters who see Trump as a comic figure, the better off we'll be.