Facebook > Email > More Pinterest Print Twitter Play

We Survived the 2016 Presidential Primaries

It’s been a long, dark night of the soul, but sunrise is approaching.

By Comments

CLEVELAND, OH - JULY 21: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence with their families at the end of the Republican National Convention on July 21, 2016 at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.
Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

I’ve spent most of the weekend thinking about the Democratic National Convention, held last week in Philadelphia; the Republican National Convention, held the week before that in Cleveland; and, more generally, the events of the past year. We can all agree that this year’s presidential election has defied expectations and it will surely continue to do so. The general election many pundits would have predicted two years ago, between Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush, would not have been the most exciting affair in American political history. All things considered, however, it probably would have been preferable to the one we’re about to have instead.

Saturday, coincidentally, marked the one-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s first appearance here on BurkaBlog. His decision to briefly visit the border city of Laredo spurred me to comment on his bid for the Republican nomination, which he had announced in June. As of Thursday, when Clinton officially accepted the Democratic nomination, the 2016 presidential primaries are officially over, and we are now less than one hundred days away from the general election, on November 8.

No one can be absolutely certain what its outcome will be. But my assessment of Trump has not changed since the first time I wrote about him. Insofar as he is a leading candidate for president, his daily demands for attention do, in a sense, have implications for the public interest and they will, I trust, be covered at length in the national media. As for me, though, I continue to find covering Trump profoundly dispiriting. He’s been a good Rorschach test, in that he reveals lots of interesting things about the people observing him, but he is, himself, basically an ink blot—and, after a year of his campaign, I’m not sure how much further diagnostic value we can expect from the exercise.

Plus, at this point, I think it’s fairly safe to predict that Trump will lose. So I’d like to lay out my reasoning on that today, and then, having done so, resume my focus on subjects that are more worth our time.

It was clear, in Cleveland, that Trump and the Republicans would like it to be a referendum on one of the nominees—although, somewhat amusingly, the party and its newly minted leader don’t seem to be on the same page about which nominee they hope the referendum will concern. Republican officials may still think they can induce Trump to train his focus on Clinton’s misdeeds, or the nefarious Democratic agenda she represents, despite the grandiose speech he gave about himself while accepting their nomination. If so, I’d recommend that they read Jane Mayer’s profile of Tony Schwartz, the former journalist who is now haunted by remorse over his stint as the ghostwriter for Trump’s The Art of the Deal. It’s a very interesting profile and would therefore be a better use of their time.

Democrats, in any case, resisted the temptation to turn their convention into an extended coronation of Clinton or a weeklong takedown of Trump. Supporters of Bernie Sanders may deserve credit for the former, but the latter seemed to reflect a shrewd strategic decision. Michelle Obama, whose remarks at the 2008 DNC had been warmly received in Cleveland, didn’t even mention Trump’s name while dressing him down from the stage. Barack Obama took things a step further; he threw many Republicans into an existential tailspin by giving exactly the speech that they would have wanted their own nominee to give–and then, in a zen-master move, standing up for his critics in their hour of anguish: “What we heard in Cleveland week wasn’t particularly Republican. And it sure wasn’t conservative.”

Hillary Clinton, too, extended an olive branch to her longtime adversaries. Historically, she has been critical of America’s vast right-wing conspiracy, and she could easily have chosen to cast Trump as an example of the people she’s been warning us about all these years; he did, after all, win the Republican presidential nomination. It was telling, then, that Clinton cast Trump as a break with tradition; Trump had, she said, “taken the Republican Party a long way—from “Morning in America” to “Midnight in America.” And like so many of the speakers who had preceded her, she rejected the idea of Trump as the captain of a rival team. “He wants to divide us—from the rest of the world, and from each other,” said Clinton. “He wants us to fear the future and fear each other.”

And no speech at either convention, probably, made more of an impact than the one offered by Khizr Khan at the DNC. He and his wife, Ghazala, who stood by his side as he spoke, are bereaved parents of a fallen soldier; their son Humayan, an Army captain, was killed in combat in Iraq. As immigrants and Muslims, they are members of two of the groups of Americans that Trump has freely maligned. But the case Khan made against Trump was, ultimately, rooted in a different aspect of his identity. “Have you even read the Constitution?” he asked, taking a copy of the document out of his pocket; if not, Khan added, he would be happy to let the candidate borrow his.

All of these speakers were arguing, in their own ways, that Trump’s attacks on various groups of Americans are attacks on us all. And so, over the course the convention, Democrats framed the election as binary choice that ultimately has nothing to do with politics. On the one hand, they were saying, is Trump: not the Republican Party, not the conservative movement, just Trump. On the other, you have the foundational principles enshrined in our Constitution and embodied by a diverse and pluralistic American public. Since it’s the American people who will decide the question in November, that’s a compelling way to frame the question. If asked to choose between Trump and ourselves, presumably, the latter will prevail.

Even if the frame that Democrats offered in Philadelphia fails to gain traction, though, I think it’s reasonably safe to predict that Clinton will win. FiveThirtyEight gives her a narrow chance of doing so, based on its models, as does most general-election polling thus far. What I can add is that all the quantitative evidence I’ve seen thus far is consistent with my own premises about the electorate, and this election in particular. My current prediction, in other words, may not prove to be correct. But like all the ones I made during the primary, it’s not being pulled from thin air. Perhaps the most key fact to keep in mind is one that Republicans kept referencing in Cleveland: in a two-party system, presidential elections boil down to a binary choice. The general election can’t be a referendum on Clinton, full stop; it can, at most, be a referendum on her qualifications for the office, relative to Trump’s.

If that’s what the general election becomes, millions of Americans would vote against her, for various reasons. There are, after all, many legitimate criticisms one could make of Clinton’s long public record. The fact that she has a long public record is, in itself, arguably a liability, given how many Americans seem to be in a mutinous mood this year. And although the 2016 election is not about policy or ideology, there are some voters who continue to care about the issues. If they’re conservative, they don’t have great options this year, frankly. But many, no doubt, will pin their hopes on the notion that Paul Ryan and Mike Pence can persuade Trump to be an advocate for their party’s stated priorities.

Still, though, Clinton isn’t running in a vacuum. She’s running against Trump. And although we don’t know what will happen this November, we do know what happened in the last one.

The day after the 2012 election, I argued that Mitt Romney lost because he was the nominee of a party that had proven itself susceptible to certain tendencies that millions of Americans were bound to find off-putting, regardless of their ideological alignment or views on fiscal policy and so on. Some Republicans, that year, had casually maligned various groups of Americans on the campaign trail, and a number of voices on the right had gleefully applauded their various abuses. It would have been easier to dismiss candidates like Todd Akin and George Allen as anomalies if not for the fact that so many other Republicans leaders kept insisting that they were. Similarly, it would have been easier to ignore the more vitriolic rhetoric, if not for the fact that so many Republican leaders were insisting that we should. In my assessment, the Republican Party had ultimately guaranteed Obama’s re-election: “Americans can take pride in the fact that a majority of them voted in favor of each other. Even if the Democratic Party’s policies are not always to their liking, its intention of inclusion clearly is.”

In retrospect, I think, my analysis of the 2012 election holds up pretty well. And Romney, of course, was not one of the Republicans clamoring to lead the party in a more degraded direction. If he couldn’t win the presidency because of the pathologies we now summarize as Trumpism, it doesn’t seem likely that Trump himself will be able to do so. I can even see a scenario where Trump’s defeat serves as a salutary wake-up call for those on the right whose contributions to the national political discourse have been even more baboonish than usual lately, thanks to his emboldening influence.

Regardless of what happens on Election Day, though, it’ll take a while for American politics to recover from the Great Trumpling of 2016. This election has been a long, dark night of the soul, and we still have three months to go until sunrise. At this point, though, I’d like to get back to work writing about things other than Trump: there’s light on the horizon, and no harm in waking up early.

Related Content

  • Sacagewea

    Even if Clinton wins, the nightmare will continue. There is a hard core of hatred that won’t evaporate. Only a landslide defeat will help create change.

    • WUSRPH

      I think a landslide defeat might make the crazies even more dangerous…..They would see all of society as being evil, not just liberals and democrats as the Troll does. And be even more likely to strike out wildly.

  • BCinBCS

    Erica wrote: “Republican officials may still think they can induce Trump to train his focus on Clinton’s misdeeds, or the nefarious Democratic agenda she represents, despite the grandiose speech he gave about himself while accepting their nomination.

    I’m curious, Erica, in this sentence, are you describing Clinton’s deeds as “misdeeds” and the Democratic party’s agenda as “nefarious” or are you stating that these are the opinions of them by the Republicans? The sentence structure does not indicate which is the case.

  • BCinBCS

    Erica wrote: “I can even see a scenario where Trump’s defeat serves as a salutary wake-up call for those on the right whose contributions to the national political discourse have been even more baboonish than usual lately, thanks to his emboldening influence.

    As I have stated many times, I live in an extremely conservative area. Last election when Mitt Romney lost, it was the overwhelming consensus among those I live among that the reason for the Republican defeat was because the party had not put forth a candidate who was truly conservative. I can assure you, Erica, those sentiments will be out in spades if Trump loses this presidential election and there is no way that it will be seen as a wake up call against baboonish political discourse.

    This attitude of conservative purity will pave the way for another Republican primary run for the nomination by Ted Cruz who will undoubtedly win it. And, if the Republicans lose the Presidential race again, only then will the Republican Party wake up to the fact that they have moved the Overton window well beyond the limits of acceptability of this country.

    • John Bernard Books

      “baboonish political discourse.” I was correct you’re a big dummy.

      • BCinBCS

        And to whom do you think Erica’s use of the phrase baboonish political discourse was describing? Got a mirror?

        • dave in texas

          You’re looking for self-awareness and introspection from an entity in which it does not exist.

          • John Bernard Books

            You wanna be the lil dummy?

        • John Bernard Books

          I commented because you were drawn to it like a moth to flame….you big dummy

          • BCinBCS

            Did you even read Erica’s article?

          • John Bernard Books

            Yes….I was commenting on how shallow you are….jeez have a grown up explain it to you.

        • Wilson James

          Baboonish is a generous description of our esteemed Texas politicians on the right.

    • Wilson James

      The GOP may not be able to answer the wake up call after 8 years of Hillary. Mad, old and increasingly batty old white guys are dying off and Latinos, women and educated millenials seem to be rejecting the conservative worldview. May take longer in Texas as our barnacles were more firmly embedded.

    • nickthap

      They’ll never admit it because they can’t. To admit that they’re out of step destroys their whole notion of entitlement to lead.

    • WUSRPH

      Assuming Hillary wins twice that would make it four consecutive wins for the Democrats and six out of the last eight. I doubt there would be any GOP left after that to “wake up”….

      • Wilson James

        If there is a GOP after 8 years of Hillary it will either be a nasty and irrelevant offshoot of the Tea Party or, hopefully, a moderate, thinking, non-socially driven chamber of commerce GOP we would welcome.

        • BCinBCS

          I too could support the latter.

    • BCinBCS

      BCinBCS wrote: “This attitude of conservative purity will pave the way for another Republican primary run for the nomination by Ted Cruz who will undoubtedly win it.

      In the vein of Cruz running for President again in 2020 I read this in the comments section of LG&M where malraux wrote:

      I can respect Cruz for going all in on the trump is completely unqualified argument. A solid “this is a bad idea” voice will set him apart from the entire rest of the party in 2020. I don’t know if it will work, but he at least has the courage of his crazy convictions.

      Interesting thought and a possible successful strategy (maybe?).

      • wessexmom

        Ms. Grieder believed CRUZ could win the nomination THIS year AND the presidency too!

        But unless the other candidates are as hollow, shallow and self serving as they were this year, it’s highly unlikely that Ted Cruz will succeed the next time around either. But even if he were to emerge as the nominee in 2020, TED CRUZ will never win a general election unless he’s able to undergo a complete and total personality transplant, one that also erases all memories voters have of his past!

  • John Bernard Books

    “In retrospect, I think, my analysis of the 2012 election holds up pretty well.” and you’ve done well with 2016 also. What is puzzling though is after observing all the facts you would support Hillary. Leads me to believe that you’re supporting her only because she’s female. That is the most prejudicial and worst criteria for electing a leader.
    As for me, I’m sticking with Buckley’s advice and voting for the most conservative of the two.

    • BCinBCS

      Did you even read Erica’s article?

      • John Bernard Books

        Yes she’s voting for Hillary because she’s a woman same as she did with Windy…..

        • Erica Grieder

          Actually, I voted for Abbott.

          • BCinBCS

            Erica, facts will not change his opinions. Accept it, you voted for Wendy.

  • John Bernard Books

    No one is more gullible than dem voters. Turns out Kahn has ties to Huma…the Saudis and the Clinton Foundation.
    “But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan? According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (sharia). In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown “his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood” by the name of Said Ramadan, who “wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism.” Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton’s aide)[.]””
    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/is_there_a_backstory_about_khizr_khan_and_donald_trump.html

    Dems like Wassup are such tools……

    • BCinBCS

      Oh my God, JBB, the Kahn’s have a job and it involves other Muslims. The horror, the horror.

      • John Bernard Books

        You big dummy….

        • BCinBCS

          JBB, you’ve bested me with your intelligence and debate skills.

          • John Bernard Books

            Not hard to do….

      • Sacagewea

        I’ll bet Trump employs lots of Christians . . .

    • BCinBCS

      JBB, one of the problems with six-degree of separation stories is that they frequently come back to bite you in the butt. Your post about the Khan’s is an example. Here is the latest on it from Politico:

      Eleven gold star families rebuked Trump in an open letter calling his response to the Khan family “repugnant and personally offensive” and demanding an apology. “When you question a mother’s pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us,” they wrote. “When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice. You are not just attacking us, you are cheapening the sacrifice made by those we lost. You are minimizing the risk our service members make for all of us.”

      And the Veterans of Foreign Wars issued a statement from it director, Brian Duffy, that the organization “will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.”

      In this reductive, zero-sum political culture, it was almost inevitable that some Trump supporters would quickly engage in attempting to discredit the Khans themselves. Over the weekend, longtime Trump ally Roger Stone suggested that a link between the Khans and the Muslim Brotherhood. (In a later Tweet, Stone issued a “correction” to instead accused Khizr Khan of being linked to a Saudi financier of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.) In television interviews Monday, campaign co-chairman Sam Clovis lamented that the Khans had “politicized” their son’s death. Trump supporters are likely to take their candidate’s side, but this ongoing back-and-forth and Trump’s impulsive escalation of the fight isn’t likely to broaden his appeal with general election swing voters.

      “His supporters are still willing to make excuses for whatever he does, but it does hinder his chance to expand his standing in the polls, and he’s going to need to bring in more people if he wants to win,” said Ryan Williams, a GOP operative who worked on Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign. “I don’t think it’s going to peel people off of him, because they’re with him despite his already having said so many crazy and offensive things. But by doing this, he’s really hurting himself in his efforts to woo undecided voters.”

      I’d like to emphasize the last two sentences of this excerpt: “I don’t think it’s going to peel people off of him, because they’re with him despite his already having said so many crazy and offensive things. But by doing this, he’s really hurting himself in his efforts to woo undecided voters.

      According to Reuters, Trump’s campaign has appealed to Republican House and Senate members to help him tamp down the Khan controversy in which he has mired himself.

  • Texas Publius

    Clinton is a congenital liar, which explains why she’s in basically a dead heat with a guy as awful as you claim Trump is. Any way you look at the race, that’s an indictment of Clinton. She’s a terrible candidate.

    But the Rs’ convention did have a clear message communicated, and it’s resonating with the Rust Belt working class. The Ds’ convention had no heat-seeking message. It was several muddled messages. In campaigns, this matters a great deal.

    • John Bernard Books

      Yes that is how this election will be viewed as a referendum on Prez Obama’s policies and an indictment of Hillary as a politician.

    • Sam Jacinto

      Your opinion of HRC is no doubt the result of years of habituation by Faux News, rush lamebrain, et al. Let’s put aside email and Benghazi for the moment, as they are not the genesis of your hatred. Please tell us why you reach such a conclusion.

      • Wilson James

        Interesting, this. The GOP must be given great credit in in identifying their future opponent early. The conservative echo chamber has been vilifying HRC for over 25 years: health care, her husbands infidelity, her daughters hair, then Benghazi (what a waste of taxpayers time) and now the e-mail thing (Condi? Colin? how about yours?). While the e-mail thing was not a shining moment it pales in comparison to the Bush/ Cheney years. While HRC may not be completely trustworthy neither is a party or movement that would nominate Trump.

    • Erica Grieder

      How would you summarize the RNC’s message?

      • David

        I’ll take a stab at that. I don’t think the RNC’s message has changed appreciably since Ronald Reagan – sell trickle-down economics, exploit the social wedge issue de jour, pretend that unfettered free market capitalism is the answer to all of mankind’s ills, and support foreign dictators that allow American companies to exploit cheap labor or cheap natural resources.

        • John Johnson

          Aren’t these the same things the Dem’s support? Think about it. The bi-political multinational mover’s and shakers have both parties working for them, and the status quo suits them just fine. They are rolling in profits and they are not reinvesting it in the U.S.

      • Beerman

        EG, It was sad to see and hear the “haves” direct their hatred toward the “have-nots,” using rubbish wrapped in the GOP platform. The DNC showed a much more compassion, inclusive, thoughtful and moral nation. As a left-center right-center voter, I was impressed and enjoyed the DNC more than the Trump Reality Show that made up the RNC. I believe that the hate, anger and fear that was preached during the RNC drives wedges between segments of Americans and only weakens the Country.

    • Hanuman

      Your data are behind the times. Clinton is up six points, Trump is downmone:

      http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/how-big-is-hillary-clintons-convention-bounce-226545

  • John Johnson

    I have no idea who will win. If Clinton wins, and she is in position to appoint several Supreme Court justices, there is going to be plenty of teeth gnashing and finger pointing.

    I will save the middle digit for Cruz, the Bush’s, and Romney. Had they paid attention to the people and not so much themselves, their mega donors, and the D.C. and Wall Street elitists, we would not be in this position right now. Trump would still be concentrating on building golf courses and Hillary would get tromped.

    This anger about multinationalism, and exported jobs by a coalition of both blue collar workers and white collar professionals is not going to go away if Hillary wins.

    If Trump does get defeated, it is his own fault. He is his own worst enemy.
    If he doesn’t quit making off the cuff, crass comments, he is toast. If he sticks to his message and saves his sharp tongue for the debate stage, he might still have a chance.

    I will never vote for Hillary.

    • Sam Jacinto

      JJ,

      You are getting closer. I just wish you could add to your last sentence “or Trump”.

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems denying Americans the right to assemble?
    “The entire hall is a 72,000 square-foot behemoth that can seat 4,140 people at banquet tables without running afoul of the fire code, according to the convention center’s event planning guide.

    But….
    “The local fire marshal disagreed, telling reporters that the event was always to be limited to 1,000 audience members – something he insisted Trump’s own staff knew ahead of time.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3718763/Trump-blasts-fire-marshal-political-interference-thousands-left-outside-rally-despite-massive-spaces-inside.html#ixzz4G7LMSxzm

    Looks like Hillary can’t win so dems are denying Americans the right to assemble…….I have never voted and will never vote dem.

    Time to push back folks……time to show up, stand up and speak up or the looters will steal your rights.

  • John Bernard Books

    And now we know why the FBI didn’t put Hillary under oath…..she simply cannot control her propensity to lie.
    And some want to elect her as prez?……

  • nickthap

    I personally think Romney’s “47%” comments showed a pretty degraded mindset. Not sure if he believed what he was saying, but that he said it speaks volumes. You can’t just insult a little less than half of a country’s people without blowback.

    • Erica Grieder

      I hope this isn’t awkward, but um, I can think of someone who agrees with you on that point… http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/ted-cruz-and-the-47-percent/

      • John Johnson

        While Cruz may have made the comment, what was he doing to coax those 47%’ers away from the “dark side”?
        In fact, what happened to cause him to lose the backing of his own base, much less gain from the other side?

        • BCinBCS

          … what happened to cause him [Cruz] to lose the backing of his own base…

          Uh, maybe the fact that he is a back-stabbing a-hole?

          • John Johnson

            You’ll have to ask Erica. She knows him personally and is one of a handful that still, obviously, supports him.

  • WUSRPH

    Two comments:

    First, it is never good to lie in politics or anything else. But, if you are going to lie–and do it consistently—you would think one would take care to make the lie at least feasible or one that cannot be easily refuted. That would seem logical, but apparently not to Trump. He lies consistently and consistently it is something that can and is easily refuted. For example, today’s attack on Clinton because somehow some of the presidential debates fall on the same day as an NFL game. The lie part of his complaint was when he claimed to have had a letter from the NFL about it…..which the NFL says it never sent…..The man just does not care. Open his mouth…makes it up and on he goes to lie again another day.

    Second, I agree that it is too much to expect that a defeat this November will wake the GOP up from the dark nightmare it has been living in for the past few years. I, as I have said before, see three GOPs emerging from the defeat. A Trumptarian “we was robbed” faction that will try to make the country ungovernable. A “establishment” remnant led by Ryan and company that will be basically those in federal offices and the party establishment. And a “you should have nominated a REAL conservative” branch led by Cruz and his ilk. Eventually the Trumpites will probably spin off into some sort of an “America First” party of its own….leaving the establishment and the Real Conservatives with possession of the corpse.

    • John Bernard Books

      “First, it is never good to lie in politics or anything else. But, if you are going to lie–and do it consistently-”

      an admirable dem trait?

    • I keep seeing Trump use this phrase “I have to be honest” I don’t believe it means what he thinks it means.

      Soooooo, is he preparing his followers for his defeat in November and conceding the election already, or is he preparing us for a slew of lawsuits and a repeat of 2000?

      Twitter is going wild – you’d think after the drubbing he got over his disrespect for a Gold star Mother and Father that he’d STFU. Fortunately, he’s too thin skinned and doesn’t have the self-control to only say what his advisors tell him to.

      ABC News Politics ✔@ABCPolitics

      [email protected] on general election: “I’m afraid the election’s going to be rigged.” http://snpy.tv/2aI5lt4

      #TrumpSacrifices #HonestBelieveMe #OnlyICanSaveYou #VoteHillary #ImwithHer

      • WUSRPH

        I would suspect that, if he loses, he could likely file lawsuits challenging the election in every state in which he is within 5 points or so of Hillary. While those cases are being head, he would have to try to delay the meeting of the Electoral College, but there is slight problem there since the SCOTUS already ruled in Bush’s favor in 2000 that the meetings of the electors could not be postponed. He could then scream “technicalities cheated the people” and spend the next couple of years trying to make the country ungovernable. I am convinced that Trump will not accept the legitimacy of his being defeated unlike John Adams in 1800 who established that the loser accepts the outcome or Gore who stopped fighting in 2000 even thou he probably won except for the SCOTUS. I can certainly see the Troll following Trump’s lead on such a path. I still have hopes for JJ, however.

        • I am praying that he is served a completely humiliating defeat, otherwise I fear that he would urge his followers to take up arms against the government in the scenario you describe.

          • WUSRPH

            I do not believe it would begin with his followers taking up arms….but, if they were able to bring government to a standstill, it could extend to that. There was little use of guns in Germany—more of fists and clubs—but that was because only a few people had guns. There are just too many guns in this country and too many nuts for them to be totally absent from the “mass revolution” that JJ has called for.

          • John Johnson

            What is wrong with “mass revolution”? Is voting out the incumbents considered “mass revolution”?

        • wessexmom

          As litigious as he, it’s unlikely that TRUMP will SERIOUSLY challenge the results. TRUMP wants to win the presidency but he has absolutely no desire to actually BE president.

          A defeated DON The CON will scream bloody murder about how he was robbed then use that as the jumping off point for starting his own wing-nut media empire headed by Roger Ailes. Never forget that Donald TRUMP is in the WWE hall of fame!

  • BCinBCS

    Here’s an interesting bit of information that I read in other places:

    The Gallup poll calls the Republican convention an historical dud. Talking Points Memo described it this way:

    Donald Trump’s efforts to make the Republican National Convention “unlike any we’ve ever seen” produced an unexpected first: the first time more voters came away from a convention less likely to vote for the party’s nominee than they were to support him or her, according to Gallup.

    Gallup has surveyed on this question since 1984, and the 2016 GOP convention was the first time where a candidate ended up in negative territory.

    The voters who felt less likely to vote Trump after the convention outnumbered those who felt even more motivated for the GOP nominee, 51-36, according to a Gallup poll.

    The closest a convention came to such unfavorable closing percentages was the 2012 RNC, when 40 percent of adults felt more likely to vote for Mitt Romney and 38 percent felt more wary after the convention, according to Gallup.

    In direct contrast, 45 percent say they are more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton based on what they saw of the Democratic National Convention, with 41 percent saying the opposite.

    • WUSRPH

      He appears to be on of those people who the more you know him the less you like him.

      • BCinBCS

        Man, W, I hope that you’re not just now discovering that. 😉

        • WUSRPH

          Actually I think I judged him as not someone I wanted to know the first time I heard of him….Not an open mind on my part but a conclusion that has been justified many times since.

    • BCinBCS

      I forgot to add the Doonesbury cartoon to my post and, apparently, the editor does not allow the addition of a graphic once something is posted. Anyway, here it is:
      .

  • BCinBCS

    Here’s an interesting bit of information that I read in other places:

    Vox has analyzed Trump through an in-depth analysis of his books and, among other things, has concluded that he sees everything as a zero-sum game, calling him Zero-sum Trump. Here is a small part of what they learned:

    More generally, he’s always believed in the fundamental zero-sum nature of the world. Whether he’s discussing real estate in New York, or his ’00s reality TV career, or his views on immigration and trade, he consistently views life as a succession of deals. Those deals are best thought of as fights over who gets what share of a fixed pot of resources.The idea of collaborating for mutual benefit rarely arises. Life is dealmaking, and dealmaking is about crushing your enemies.

  • WUSRPH

    I have heard of “demonizing your opponent” but it looks like Trump really thinks he is running against the Devil, which is what he kept calling Hillary today.

    • Beerman

      Watching Trump’s actions during the rally replays and TV interviews this last few days have been very eye-opening. Trump’s mood swings, euphoric jesters and memory lapses make me wonder if instead of asking for an IRS Return release, maybe a drug test would be more appropriate. Whatever he is doing to prepare for his appearances does not come in 12 fl. oz aluminum cans……..

      • BCinBCS

        Oh, Beerman, Beerman. Tap or glass bottles only!
        (I hope that doesn’t make me a snob.)

        • Beerman

          The Beverage of Moderation……..

        • Hanuman

          Gin. It’s medicinal.

          • BCinBCS

            Oh, please, please, please let bourbon be medicinal, too.

  • Rules of Blazon

    I’m glad the primaries are over so we can finally get to the best part of this election: Democrats beating the tar out of Republicans. It’s gonna be a great big ass kicking in November, and it’s been a long time coming. I can’t wait!

    • WUSRPH

      I’d feel that “Happy Days are here again” if we only won the Senate. Ryan is not a total crazy and he might be someone who, unlike the Cruz’s of this world, actually wants to accomplish something…..But Mitch has got to go!

  • BCinBCS

    Sometimes we here at BB can get a bit serious, so take a look at this. I’m not a Simpsons fan but it really got me laughing.

    • Beerman

      Funny

    • John Bernard Books

      The Simpsons the dems choice for news…..

  • John Bernard Books

    Time to play Lets ask Vince Foster….
    Vince what is worse than the good old boys club?
    Vince, “the mean girls club>”

    Vince would know…….

  • John Bernard Books

    Dems have new buzzwords for their deeds one is “social justice. This is how it works….
    “It’s beginning to look like politics, more than justice, was the driving force in Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby‘s decision to charge six police officers with the death of small-time drug dealer Freddie Gray last April. Leaked text messages indicate the prosecutors were prepared to charge the officers, regardless of any evidence.
    Case notes revealed that the prosecution reportedly gave Detective Dawnyell Taylor a narrative that she was to read to the grand jury during the initial phase of the case, Fox News’ reported.
    She wrote that the narrative “had several things that I found to be inconsistent with our investigation.””
    http://conservativetribune.com/baltimore-text-messages-leak/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=WesternJournalism&utm_content=2016-08-01&utm_campaign=manualpost

    Taking the lead of the dem nominee Maryland’s top prosecutor asked the detective to lie to the grand jury.
    Can the dems get more corrupt? You will be surprised as dems fear losing power this election.

  • John Bernard Books

    Meet the new Boss Tweed

  • John Bernard Books

    This proves what I said about dems all along….
    ” This is what I don’t understand. We know she is lying. She knows she’s lying. The voters know she is lying. So when she goes out and lies on top of a year of lies all she does is drive down her honest and trustworthy numbers even more. And then at the end, it was a fact that she then blamed State Department professionals and ambassadors across the world who she forced to communicate with her. It was mind boggling. It’s just kind of impossible to lie anymore about a topic than she did yesterday.”
    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/08/01/joe-scarborough-hillary-still-lying-voters-emails/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

    “It’s just kind of impossible to lie anymore about a topic than she did yesterday.”

    Dem voters are stupid…..

    • BCinBCS

      I’m amazed how RWNJ’s constantly take a fact and use it in a lie to try to give that lie some legitimacy. Breitbart is becoming the master of this technique. With all of the differences between liberal and conservative politics, I don’t see why it is necessary. Maybe its due to an inferiority complex.

  • Hanuman

    Trump awakened the slumbering racism in white America:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/the-gop-has-made-its-peace-with-trumps-racism.html

    What are possible scenarios? 1) Trump loses by a small margin. 2) Trump loses by a large margin (>5%).

    Two spin offs – business class and white nationalists? Or three – business, white nationalists, and evangelicals?

    Armed insurrection as Anarchist JJ desires?

    • John Johnson

      Hahaha. “Armed insurrection”? Where did that come from? Revolution begins by voting for people who will carry out your wishes, not shooting those who who are going in the opposite direction.

  • WUSRPH

    Trump’s approach to democracy? Say it enough times to “justify” your actions.

    “Meanwhile, longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone is explicitly encouraging Trump to make this case to his supporters. “I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly,” Stone told a friendly interviewer, adding that Trump should start saying this: “If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.”

    Stone also said: “I think he’s gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath.”

    http://tinyurl.com/z9buvb5

    • John Bernard Books

      You mean Trump has stolen dem’s social justice? Now thats funny…don’t care who you are.

    • OMG. We really are going to be descending into armed chaos.

      Becoming a prepper is looking more and more sane every day.

  • John Bernard Books
  • John Bernard Books

    Another Hillary lie?
    “This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,” Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.”
    “As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.
    The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.
    “I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”
    http://www.usanewsinsider.com/new-email-shows-pentagon-asked-hillary-let-send-help-benghazi-proving-leon-panetta-lied/

    Hillary is unfit to lead as Commander In Chief.

  • Beerman

    Oops, the “B…. word” was finally used at a Trump rally today…it was only a matter of time…interesting couple of months ahead…everyone’s sanity will be tested.

    • John Bernard Books

      hahaha….I was wondering which idiot will be the first to post this…….you moron

    • Sam Jacinto

      Buffoon?

  • WUSRPH

    As with everything else, when it comes to Trump loyalty is a one way street….both Paul Ryan and John McCain have endorsed Trump….but, guess what, Trump is refusing to endorse them in their primary contests…

  • Beerman

    Trump World……

    The seven deadly sins of narcissism:

    -Shamelessness: Shame is the feeling that lurks beneath all unhealthy narcissism, and the inability to process shame in healthy ways.
    -Magical thinking: Narcissists see themselves as perfect, using distortion and illusion known as magical thinking. They also use projection to dump shame onto others.
    -Arrogance: A narcissist who is feeling deflated may reinflate by diminishing, debasing, or degrading somebody else.
    -Envy: A narcissist may secure a sense of superiority in the face of another person’s ability by using contempt to minimizethe other person.
    -Entitlement: Narcissists hold unreasonable expectations of particularly favorable treatment and automatic compliance because they consider themselves special. Failure to comply is considered an attack on their superiority, and the perpetrator is considered an “awkward” or “difficult” person. Defiance of their will is a narcissistic injury that can trigger narcissistic rage.
    -Exploitation: Can take many forms but always involves the exploitation of others without regard for their feelings or interests. Often the other person is in a subservient position where resistance would be difficult or even impossible. Sometimes the subservience is not so much real as assumed.
    -Bad boundaries: Narcissists do not recognize that they have boundaries and that others are separate and are not extensions of themselves. Others either exist to meet their needs or may as well not exist at all. Those who provide narcissistic supply to the narcissist are treated as if they are part of the narcissist and are expected to live up to those expectations. In the mind of a narcissist, there is no boundary between self and other.

  • Sam Jacinto

    Now that digit (DJT) finally has his own purple heart, he will soon be dropping out of the race due to an acute heel spur attack.

    • WUSRPH

      I wouldn’t put it past him to even wear it…….

  • here is another good analysis of Trump and what he will bring should he gain power.

    https://www.brookings.edu/2016/05/22/this-is-how-fascism-comes-to-america/

    • Beerman

      Thanks, a very good read, and confers my personal concerns about the Trump World disaster.

    • John Johnson

      Another hack piece by WaPo. It mentions the “fear” the Trumpies have, and then uses the word their “wants”. It doesn’t, however, address the other side’s fears…which is the fear of losing something. For those receiving government assistance, or those of us now receiving back a portion of what we paid in, it is a fear of losing all or a portion of a monthly check; for the bi-political elitests and multinational corporations, it’s a fear of having their gravy train derailed. The references to Hitler and fascism are words that are even used to gin up fear and loathing…so who is truly “afraid”, huh? I’m not fearful; I’m angry. There is a difference.

  • Sam Jacinto

    Yeah – I heard about the slang word. Flung by a preteen boy

    • WUSRPH

      The question is whether is was a preteen boy just trying to get attention with a word that he knew would shock a few, or, in a more sickening possibility, a preteen boy who has heard his parents use the word to describe Mrs. Clinton so often that it seemed to be normal to him. The continuing coarsening and polluting of American life and politics—especially on the Right—is only one of those trends which Trump has made almost respectable.

  • WUSRPH

    Interesting tidbit….The Houston Chronicle’s endorsement of Clinton in which they called Trump “a danger to the Republic” was the second time since 1964 that the paper had endorsed a Democrat. Otherwise solid GOPer. That must tell you something about Trump as a nominee.

    • John Johnson

      What should it tell us?

  • WUSRPH

    There may be a glimmer of hope for the GOP after all. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, one of the “purists of the pure” elected in the TeaParty sweep of 2010, was overwhelming defeated in the Kansas GOP primary tonight. Huelskamp was so pure that he gained the reputation of being the hardest man in Washington to work with on any subject. He was an early and strong supporter of Cruz who made commercials for him in this campaign. Huelskamp was a bitter enemy of Speaker Boehner and also opposed Speaker Ryan. Although he represented one of the largest agricultural districts in the US he voted against the Farm Bill last year. His constituents apparently wanted a congressman who would represent them.

    • WUSRPH

      It turns out it was a bad night for more than Huelskamp…..10 TeaParty state legislators were also defeated in the GOP Primary. There may be hope for the GOP yet.

      • wessexmom

        Kansas voters voted against these Tea Party reps as a way to register their contempt and dismay for Governor Sam Brownback, whose “conservative” policies are destroying their state. One can only hope that Abbott and Patrick (along with Cruz, Gohmert, Farenthold, Burgess, et al) will eventually suffer the same blowback here!

  • BCinBCS

    Here’s the latest on the Khan (whose son was killed in Iraq in 2004) and Trump dust-up according to The Daily Beast (emphasis is mine):

    During an appearance on “The Situation Room,” Katrina Pierson, a spokesperson for Donald Trump suggested that Captain Humayun Khan was killed in Iraq due to a change in the rules of engagement under Barack Obama’s presidency.

    “Donald Trump never voted for the Iraq War,” Pierson said (he supported it in his capacity as a businessman). “Hillary Clinton did. And then she didn’t support the troops to have what they need. It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life.’

    Have you caught the problem with this statement, yet?

    Captain Humayun Khan died June 8, 2004. Who was President then …Obama?

    • WUSRPH

      But most people will not know that…..and they have accomplished the goal of blaming Obama.

  • WUSRPH

    Did you see the item in the media today suggesting that women who have husbands or boyfriends planning to vote for Trump should consider follow the example of the women in the ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes’ play and refuse to sleep with them until they change their vote? That’s taking politics to a very basic level.

    • Kozmo

      Lysistrata is proud!

  • WUSRPH

    By the way, did anyone notice that yesterday, in the midst of him insulting a Gold Star family, Trump unveiled (again) a Democratic-style “pump priming” plan to stimulate the economy. He called for a half-trillion dollars worth of infrastructure projects, a classis Keynesian economic stimulus. I wonder how his GOP “friends” in the Congress feel about that, especially since they have fought every similar proposal by President Obama as being useless and harmful to the economy.

  • WUSRPH

    Love all this talk about the GOP doing an “intervention” on Trump…Maybe they can send him to the Betty Ford Clinic for six weeks….It certainly wouldn’t hurt his campaign for him to be off the road for a while.

    • Kozmo

      He must need some fresh batteries, since his audio-servo units appear to be on the blink.

  • Kozmo

    I think it’s great that we should have the first woman president elected in 2016; I only wish it weren’t the current model of Hillary (since I believe the years since 2000 have hardened her and reinforced her tendencies toward hawkishness and capitulation to the right). I predict a lot of disappointed Democrats come late 2017 when she fails to live up to her promises and sells out a lot of the people who voted for her. Much as Obama did.