Search Results for: trump

If you're breathlessly following whether Trump's up in the polls or Hillary's down or Lindsey Graham has actually found someone willing to vote for him, read Nate Silver. In fact, if you're too lazy to click over there, you should just read this paragraph from it…

It's not only that the polls have a poor predictive track record — at this point in the past four competitive races, the leaders in national polls were Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton and Rick Perry, none of whom won the nomination — but also that they don't have a lot of intrinsic meaning. At this point, the polls you see reported on are surveying broad groups of Republican- or Democratic-leaning adults who are relatively unlikely to actually vote in the primaries and caucuses and who haven't been paying all that much attention to the campaigns. The ones who eventually do vote will have been subjected to hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of advertising, had their door knocked on several times, and seen a half-dozen more debates. The ballots they see may not resemble the one the pollsters are testing since it's likely that (at least on the GOP side) several of the candidates will have dropped out by the time their state votes.

If you're panicked that your pick will/won't win, read Silver's article and while you're at it, bookmark it and take three times daily.

Jonathan Chait brings up an interesting point about Donald Trump. Tax cuts for wealthy people are not a big concern for rank-and-file Republican voters because…well, because most of them are not wealthy people. But lowering taxes on the rich is the obsession of Republican leadership and if you're not 100% for that, they won't let you hold public office and you have to go sit in a corner somewhere until you atone and vow never to let such heretical thoughts enter your brain ever again.

Mr. Trump, though richer than rich, does not pledge absolute fealty to the notion that nothing in this world matters so much as cutting taxes for the wealthy. Chait thinks while Trump's anti-immigrant positions probably account for the bulk of his popularity, one cannot discount that he is also more in tune with most G.O.P. voters on the issue of taxing the wealthy. Like I said: An interesting point.

This morning, I went out to Cal State Northridge and did that lecture about Jack Kirby that I told you about. It was interesting talking about Jack to a roomful of folks who didn't really know much about who he was. I'd guess that applied to about 80% of those present. The talk was streamed live on Periscope and I believe it will soon be online in a more conventional manner. As soon as someone tells me where it is, I'll let you know.

---

Mark Rothman is pretty sure he saw Jimmie Komack in the Damn Yankees number I posted earlier today. Mark writes, "He's the one at the beginning who says 'Okay, so how do we make him famous?' He doesn't dance, and spends the rest of the number in the back, second from extreme stage right." Okay, if my pal Mark says that's Jimmie, that's Jimmie. In the meantime, check out Mark's blog where he's been happily recovering from a stroke. You can tell he's improving as he gets crankier.

---

I'm starting to feel burned out on the whole subject of Donald Trump so I may write no more about the guy for a while. I will though link you to where Jonathan Chait predicts that Trump will not get the Republican nomination but will launch a third-party assault. That would sure shake things up…and what else is Donald Trump good for if not that?

While you're over there, assuming you go over there, also check out Chait's piece on Dick Cheney's criticisms of the Iran deal. Cheney's administration got nowhere with Iran…just caused it to get more and more nuclear capability. And now he's faulting a deal to not cut them back because it's not good enough. Apparently, any time you sit down to negotiate with an enemy, if you don't achieve total surrender from them on every point, you're Neville Chamberlain empowering Hitler. Better to let them get stronger than do that.

Gotta go nap then write. So I'll post a John Oliver video link and then you may not hear much from me here until tomorrow. Ciao.

Lots of Democrats and Republicans are agonizing over Donald Trump's current lead in the polls. A lot of each don't want him to be the Republican nominee and for conflicting reasons. It also bothers some of both that the Old Rules don't seem to apply to this guy. He says and does things that would doom anyone else's candidacy and he still creeps upwards in the polls.

The latest example of that: Trump always brags about his deep commitment to The Bible. He even goes so far as to say that it's even a better book than his own Art of the Deal. But asked to name his favorite passage, he came up empty. He couldn't even say if he preferred the Old Testament or the New Testament. With any other candidate, that would be a deal-killer for a lot of folks who aren't fleeing from Trump because of it but who can shrug or call it a "gotcha" question and continue to support him.

I would like to suggest one reason for his popularity. I've seen a hundred offered but if someone has suggested it's as simple as I'm about to, I've missed it. It's that he looks like a winner and the people running against him do not.

I mean, come on. President Bobby Jindal? President Ben Carson? President Rand Paul? Are you kidding? Even President Jeb Bush is starting to look like a joke.

I really think it may be that simple. If you are a Republican, you probably have a whole list of things that you want to see the next president do. Trump's stated positions — and he hasn't stated all that many — may or may not promise you all of yours. (Last we heard, he wants to ban assault rifles and not close down Planned Parenthood, though I would expect both of those to change.)

But we are now so polarized in this country along partisan lines that you probably figure that with any Republican in the White House, you'll get at least some of what you want and with any Democrat, you'll get zero. In fact, the Democrat will probably do the exact opposite of many things on your wish list. Even the worst Republican will probably not make those matters any worse. He might not repeal Obamacare but at least he won't expand it.

So I think the reason Trump is doing so well is that at this point, he looks more like a winner than any other option. And it won't do Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee a bit of good to try to top him with anti-abortion or anti-immigrant rhetoric because neither of those guys looks like they have a prayer of winning.

So yeah, Trump was a Democrat not so long ago and he was pro-life and he doesn't conform to the list of positions that every Republican candidate has had to assert or risk a dequalification. So what? He might just be the only one who can beat Hillary.

This can all change and I'm sure it will. It's a long time until the election and Hillary could grow or shrink in strength. She might not get the nomination at all. (Eight years ago at this time, she seemed inevitable.) Other Republicans could still emerge or John Kasich could suddenly get a transfusion of charisma or it could come out that Trump has personally performed late-term abortions…or something. I still don't think The Donald is going to be The Nominee.

But I think what will do him in is when he starts to look like a Loser. Because when he starts to look like one, he will become one.

Ed Kilgore writes about the campaign against "political correctness." I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about the term and an occasional puzzlement as to what some people mean by that but first, here's a key except from Mr. Kilgore's piece…

The Trump supporters and proto-Trump supporters I know are upset by things like having to listen to Spanish-language messages on customer service lines, not being able to call women "chicks" without someone frowning at them, and having to stop telling racist jokes at work. That's what "political correctness" is code for: having to worry about the sensitivities of people who were invisible or submissive not that very long ago.

That's what I sometimes (note the "sometimes") think is being said when someone condemns "political correctness." They're saying they should have the right to say bigoted things without anyone thinking they're a bigot. They certainly should not suffer any personal consequences from it. It reminds me of when Sarah Palin was arguing that if someone like the head of Chick-Fil-A made anti-gay comments, it had a "chilling effect" on the rights of free speech for him to lose business because of them.

My concept of Free Speech works kinda like this: Mutt has the right to say he thinks gays are evil or Jews are mercenary devils or the Holocaust didn't happen or women should stay barefoot, pregnant and underpaid. And Jeff has the right to say he thinks Mutt is an asshole and to shun him or to not patronize his business or whatever. (I also don't think boycotts are usually effective but if it makes you feel better to not buy paper towels made by the Koch Brothers, that's your right.)

I do sometimes agree with people who complain about "political correctness," such as when someone is way overreacting to a joke or trying way too hard to not offend people with skin the thickness of fishnet. When I use a gender-specific pronoun to discuss who might be our next president, I usually say "he or she" but if I say "he" only, that does not warrant a scolding as if I'd said no woman could possibly be qualified.

I am generally anti-censorship. To the extent demands for "political correctness" are being used to stop people from expressing their opinions, I'm against them…but it's evolving away from that. Demands for "political correctness" are becoming demands that if someone says racist or sexist things, we not brand them a racist or a sexist.

And there also seems to be an undercurrent of belief out there that if a statement is "politically correct," it could not possibly be correct. No, it's not automatically wrong if it offends no one…and it's not automatically right if it does, either.

I'm at least trying to not post much more about Donald Trump because I still believe his campaign is mainly about getting attention and not being too specific about what he'd do as president. This piece by Jonathan Chait though is too good to not link to. Chait points up the strong disparity between what Republican rank-and-file voters want and what their presidential candidates work for. Does anyone think Mitt Romney ever really cared about stopping abortion or anything else that wasn't about money? And yes, Democrats have a similar disconnect.

Since I like you, I'll warn you about this stuff. It's Cheez-It Snack Mix and it's really, really addictive. Do yourself a favor and don't try it because you may never eat anything else the rest of your life.

I'm talking here about their Classic variety. The Cheez-It people make several different kinds of Snack Mix like their Double Cheese version or their Cheddar & Barbecue. I haven't tried any of these. I dare not for fear I'll like one of them even more than I like the Classic variety.

The Classic, which is sometimes labelled as such or sometimes just says Cheez-It Snack Mix, consists of the following: Two different sizes of pretzels, Cheez-It crackers, teensy non-cheese crackers which they call "bread slices," cheese-flavored rice balls, some kind of not-great Wheat Chex knock-off and various seasonings including garlic powder and Worcestershire Sauce. Even with mediocre Wheat Chex replicas, it makes for a wicked, impossible-to-resist concoction.

I don't know much about how heroin is trafficked in this world but I'm guessing that if you could somehow corner the market on Cheez-It Snack Mix, you could follow the same business model and annually make an amount somewhere between what Donald Trump claims to be worth and what he actually is worth. This would involve giving unsuspecting people their first hit for free and then making them pay, pay, pay for more as they desperately struggle to recapture the feeling of that first high.

In truth, someone is already doing this. Costco is doing this.

I had my first taste via a free sample handed to me by a lady there wearing a hairnet. Since it didn't seem to be cole slaw, I ate it and I was hooked. I had to have more.

I circled back and hoped she wouldn't notice I was helping myself to seconds and then thirds, fourths and eventually ninths. But she knew what I was doing and she knew she'd succeeded in her goal. She had me.

I had a monkey on my back.  I don't mean that literally.  There was no actual monkey on my back but if there had been, he would have been eating Cheez-It Snack Mix.

Facing the inevitable, I pushed my cart to the part of the store where Costco displays the stuff and discovered that they only carry it in three-pound bags. That's a lot of Snack Mix. I didn't buy one because I knew my only hope was to slowly wean myself off the junk with smaller and smaller portions. That's hard to do when you have three pounds of the stuff on the premises.

So I forced myself to leave Costco without any…though on my way to the register, I spotted above-ground wading pools and briefly wondered how many three-pound bags of Cheez-It Snack Mix it would take to fill one of them. En route to my home, I stopped at a Ralphs and bought a normal-sized box of it. It took about a week but I've managed to eat less and less of it each day to the point where my consumption is now limited and mostly voluntary…

…although since I had to go back to Costco for someone else, I did buy one three-pound bag. But I ate it at a semi-normal rate.

I'd like to think I have my addiction to Cheez-It Snack Mix under control but it has not been easy. I thought about it more than seemed sane, devoting way too much time to pondering why it includes two different sizes of pretzels instead of just more of one. I also fantasized about how much more delicious it would be if they replaced their counterfeit Wheat Chex with genuine Wheat Chex. Perhaps it's better for all of us that they don't.

You may have read articles about how well Costco treats its employees and how it pays them better than chains like Walmart and Target. Costco also has very reasonable prices and all that makes some wonder how they're able to do it; how they're able to show a profit. I think I have the answer. I think all of that stuff — the cheap office supplies and electronics and tires and half-ton tubs of margarine — are just a Loss Leader. I think they make their money by getting people hooked on Cheez-It Snack Mix.

I'm convinced that discussing the presidential race at this point in time is largely a waste of time. Nevertheless, I do it, mostly with fellow Democrats. The ones I know seem to be divided on the issue of Donald Trump. About half of them are afraid he'll get the Republican nomination and have a shot at winning the presidency. The other half of them are afraid he won't get the nomination and that it will go to someone who won't be as easy for the Democratic nominee to defeat.

That's always a conundrum for those who want their party to win: Do you want the opposition party to nominate someone who'd make a decent president in case they win? Or someone who wouldn't and therefore is more likely to lose? I'm not sure how I feel about this. I guess I don't trust the electorate to recognize that the worst guy is the worst guy.

In any case, this is for those who are worried about Trump getting the nomination. Larry Sabato, who has a pretty good track record of forecasting elections, calls Trump "The Un-Nominatable Frontrunner." You can read the article, see why and decide if you want to believe him. Sabato thinks the race is now down to Bush, Rubio and Walker.

Matt Taibbi thinks Donald Trump just stopped being funny. I never thought Donald Trump was particularly funny but I thought (and still think) a lot of this country finds him entertaining. Car chases aren't funny either but most of us watch them.

I continue to think that very little of what happens in current political news has much to do with who will be the Republican nominee or the next President of the United States except that as we go along, certain people become a little more or less likely than others. For instance, Chris Christie is more likely than Lindsey Graham. Then again, the Geico gecko is more likely than Lindsey Graham — and that gecko probably wasn't even born in this country.

Is Trump inevitable? Last I heard, Nate Silver was still pegging the guy's chances at the nomination as between two and four percent. Silver, who looks at polling not at domination of news cycles, would have to up that number a lot before I'd think Trump was possible.

One thing that may impact the election is the new dynamic of the G.O.P. as increasingly hostile to illegal immigrants. Weren't Republican leaders saying just a few months ago that the party had to do a better job of attracting racial minorities and women voters? The assaults on Planned Parenthood are probably not winning over a lot of ladies, either.

I don't know where all this talk about "anchor babies" is going except that a lot of people out there seem to think that if two illegal aliens have a baby in this country, mother and father automatically become American citizens. I wish someone they'd trust would explain to them that is not so. An illegal couple might become less likely to be deported because of the kid but the parents don't instantly get citizenship. The child, when he or she reaches the age of 21 can sponsor them for that but even after that, it takes a long, long time to qualify.

I do know that the current yelling is not going to result in a constitutional amendment to rescind the 14th and do away with Birthright Citizenship. We have an ongoing position of this blog: Constitutional amendments do not happen in this country unless at least 80% of the nation is in agreement on the issue. It pretty much has to be a proposal that has no organized opposition.

Something like 90% of the time when someone calls for one, they don't even bother to take the first step to make it happen. The other 10%, they get it introduced just so they can say they tried, and it gets quickly defeated and that's the end of it. We will never see an amendment passed that outlaws abortion or Gay Marriage or overturns Citizens United or institutes a mandatory death penalty for the making of cole slaw or any of those. My cole slaw one is about as likely as any of the others.

Calling for a constitutional amendment is apparently great for fund-raising. Also in this country, a lot of voters don't want their candidates to ever admit a cause is lost so they cheer his or her determination to fight, fight, fight. Instead of admitting that you've lost on an issue like Gay Marriage, you pledge to fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns the Supreme Court or whatever. You don't actually do anything but make that pledge and maybe introduce a bill that is quickly shot down but it still impresses people that you said you'd fight for it. I don't get why.

• Donald Trump wants to end Birthright Citizenship because those kids didn't earn it. This is coming from a Birthright Billionaire.

Here's another one of those "I don't get it" things…

Last week, a judge in New Hampshire overturned a law that made it illegal to take a picture of your completed election ballot and show it to others or to post it on social media. As the New York Times explained, "The law was meant to combat vote buying and coercion, which were common before the adoption of the secret ballot." Three voters had challenged the law as a restriction of their First Amendment rights.

I don't get why this is ever illegal. I vote by absentee ballot, as do about 20% of all voters in every national election. The states of Oregon, Washington, and Colorado conduct their voting entirely by mail.

Now, let's say you either bribe me or threaten me to cast my vote a certain way. I'm not sure this is really a problem in this country but let's say it is. A law that prevents me from taking a photo of my completed ballot might prevent you from being able to verify that I voted as ordered or promised. But you could also threaten me or pay me to request an absentee ballot and to show it to you before I mail it in. Hell, I could just sign the ballot and hand it to you to mark and mail in and no one would ever catch us.

Come to think of it, I could screw you over by showing you the ballot marked as you like, then on Election Day, I take it into my polling place and say, "I mismarked my ballot. Please void it and let me vote here now." They do that in my state and I'll bet they do it in most others.

Also come to think of it, I could do the same workaround if I go in and vote in person. You come to me before the next presidential election and offer me $100 to vote for Donald Trump. It wouldn't take that much to buy my vote especially in California. Since no Republican can possibly carry this state, I'd sell out for ten bucks.

But let's say you're dumb enough to pay cash for my vote and you say, "Take a photo of your completed ballot in the voting booth before you deposit in the ballot box. Then e-mail it to me when you get home and I'll PayPal you the money!" That's what these laws are supposed to prevent, right?

So I go in the booth, vote for Trump and take a clear picture of my ballot. Then I tell the polling place workers, "Oops! I punched the wrong hole!" They destroy my ballot and give me a new one. I vote for someone else and cast that ballot, then when I get home, I send you the photo and you send me my money.

This whole idea of preventing voters from being intimidated or bribed sounds like a crime which almost never happens…and if it did, a pretty easy one to foil. So what is it I'm not getting here?

Hilary Kissinger attended the final taping of Jon Stewart's Daily Show and she writes of the experience. She's right when she says that Stewart and his colleagues not only did political comedy but expanded the definition and possibilities of political comedy.

While I've got you here: Lots of folks are commenting about the sudden shot of extra outrage in our political discourse in this country. People have always said stupid or offensive things but we seem to have an unprecedented wave of them…like Jeb Bush acting like everyone thinks the Iraq War was a smashing success or Mike Huckabee promising six percent economic growth when he becomes president or whatever Ted Cruz says tomorrow.

The popular explanation is that the current poll numbers for Donald Trump are dictating that trend. Maybe. But maybe it's also that the folks saying such things are no longer worried about being a target for Jon Stewart.

Here's another article on why it's way too early to think that Donald Trump's current lead means he'll be the Republican nominee. About the only indicator that he might be the nominee is that no one else looks especially likely.

You know, it's still possible for someone else to get into the race and grab the nomination. Trump reminds us of that today when he says he thinks the Democratic nominee will be Joe Biden.

Daniel Larison points out that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio have foreign policy positions that pretty much come down to: The U.S. should invade everywhere. Bush, Larison says, wants the U.S. to go back into Iraq and double-down (maybe even triple-down) on his brother's policies there.

Meanwhile: Rubio, Larison says, insists we can contain Iran's nuclear program by rescinding the agreement to stop it and then…and then…well, he doesn't seem to have a plan what to do at that point. But once we get rid of that deal to stop their nuclear program, it will be stopped…somehow.

The other day, I mentioned here that Kevin Drum was trying to figure out what Scott Walker meant when he claimed that an abortion is never necessary to protect the life of a mother. It turns out that what he and others are doing is redefining the word "abortion" to dance their way around that inconvenient situation.

Walker, by the way, seems to be a clear "loser" (to use Mr. Trump's favorite word) in the Republican Debate. I suppose one could argue that those who are polling under 3% and whose numbers didn't change were losers because they needed desperately to do something to raise that number. Carly Fiorina had the greatest "win" but she's not really really running for president, is she? At best, she's running for vice-president and I think even that's a longshot. If John McCain proved nothing, he proved that you can't run based on experience when your running mate has almost none — and Fiorina has even less than Palin did.

Getting back to Mr. Drum: He offers an interesting explanation of what it is that Donald Trump boosters like about Donald Trump: They like him leading them in a war against Political Correctness, especially the part where they don't get to express their fears and hatred over minorities.

Someone wrote and asked me what I think about Political Correctness. I think some Political Correctness is correct and some isn't. I had a friend years ago who used to rail on about the evils of condemning "politically incorrect" speech and to insist that as a commitment to the First Amendment, we had to shout all those things from the rooftops and laud those who refused to be intimidated by the P.C. movement.

And it all sounded very heroic and patriotic and he was right that some of it is inane. But I also realized that what this guy believed was that he should be able to say stupid, bigoted things and be praised for speaking his mind instead of being condemned as stupid or bigoted. He wanted to limit the Free Speech of others to say that. I think Trump may be tapping into a lot of votes with that mindset.

Today (Wednesday), Stu Shostak again discusses the state of the TV industry with his resident TV critics, Steve Beverly and Wesley Hyatt.  What will they be yapping about? Well, about Donald Trump and about a man of greater accuracy, Brian Williams, returning to the air; about the success of Celebrity Family Feud and whether than means another round of game shows where you win if you say some euphemism for a naughty body part; about some new cable channels and probably about the airing of old Johnny Carson shows like I just mentioned; and about scads of other topics. It's three guys ranting about what is and isn't on TV so listen in and enjoy the outrage.

Stu's Show can be heard live (almost) every Wednesday at the Stu's Show website and you can listen for free there. Webcasts start at 4 PM Pacific Time, 7 PM Eastern and other times in other climes. They run a minimum of two hours and sometimes go to three or beyond.  Shortly after a show ends, it's available for downloading from the Archives on that site. Downloads are a paltry 99 cents each and you can get four for the price of three. Your rent payment can wait until some other month. Load up on old Stu's Shows!