Throughout this entire election process I've found myself dismayed with America's current choices, but I have not ever, nor am I now, really all that concerned with the eventual fate of the Republic itself.
Don't believe me? Read this.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Back? Good.
And while I don't think that America is going to be in for days of wine, roses and stuffed peacock, I do think that, ultimately, the Republic will endure.
I think that because the United States of America is a bigger thing than one man in one office at any one time. We survived Jackson, Buchanan, Harding, the scandals of Grant, the ineptitude of Carter, the god-king delusions of Roosevelt, the paranoia of Nixon, the hedonism of Clinton and the fecklessness of Obama.
In short, America will emerge from this all right. Maybe not as strong as we were before, maybe with less influence on the global stage, maybe a little bit poorer, but if there's one thing that history has taught us it is that the machinery of the Republic moves on. Yes, we might have just made a modern day Caligula the President-Elect, but the Holy Roman Emperor didn't have any checks and balances on his power, the Bronzed Ego will.
He'll also have a partially functional Congress to have to do business with and a newly motivated minority in the Senate. He'll have States who have enumerated powers seeking to keep those powers and (hopefully) a rather conservative Supreme Court that (hopefully) rediscovers its skepticism toward executive power.
He'll also have a mid-term election to face in a couple of years. And a citizenry to satisfy who has shown a willingness to flip the legislative branch opposite the political leanings of the executive branch in order to curb excess. Like Obama before him, Trump and the GOP are going to find they have a very short window for enacting change.
Granted, the map for Democrats in 2018 does not look promising, and they'll have to find the will and activism to do something they traditionally haven't. In short, they're going to have to turnout for mid-term elections. That they're likely going to be doing with with Sens Elizabeth "high cheekbones" Warren and "Angry" Bernie Sanders as their standard bearers should give them a moment's pause.
The temptation will be there for the GOP to overreach, here's hoping what remains of the Democrats will not let them. I'd appeal to their good sense but the GOP has shown to have little of that remaining.
Most importantly though, the power of the USA lies not in her political class but in the machinery of the people. This morning around 300 Million people are going to wake up and continue going about their daily lives. They will do this tomorrow, and the next day, and the ones after that. They will continue to go to jobs, participate in leisure activities and (hopefully) nurture families that will generate the next generation of leaders. Leaders who, have a pretty low bar to clear to best the levels of accomplishment attained by the Baby Boomers.
No doubt there will be struggle. There will be disagreement and there will be stumbles along the way. Radical Islamic terror is still a thing, China is still looking to expand her footprint in Asia and Russia will now become very emboldened. Our allies in Europe are still trying to figure out where they went so wrong and Africa is a powder-keg waiting to explode in a fury of Ebola and poverty.
The climate is still going to change (as it has for Millennia) and the United Nations is still going to try and stop it rather than figuring out what in the word we can do to deal with it. Energy demand will continue to increase while supply lines are threatened, and there's still the issue of what to do with a under-educated workforce that's slipping further and further behind because of an education system that's totally in shambles.
The unions will still want more money to maintain their outdated business models and there will still be progressives running around clamoring for economy-killing things and pining for the day that their hand-picked "experts" get their hands back on the tiller.
Crony Capitalism is just as prevalent in GOP administrations as it is in DEM ones, and Sheldon Adelson has spend tons of money making sure that his interests will be brought to the front. In short, there are a long list of distractions that the new Trump-led GOP will have to overcome to meet their campaign promises and try to attempt to open back up an economy that almost 75 years of progressive policy has strangled.
Here's hoping they succeed.
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election 2016. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 09, 2016
Election 2016: No, the Trump-Led GOP will not welcome the #NeverTrump movement back. (Nor should they)
I have stated all along during this election process that I am a member of the #NeverTrump movement. It had less to do with what the left is decrying as his "racist, sexist and other -ist" followers (I have frequently been termed all of the above by progressives in the past) and more with the complete and utter moral and conservative failings of the man himself.
In short, beating Hillary Clinton was less important to me than keeping my head held high.
I also understood that, for many in the GOP, beating Ms. Clinton was the most important thing of all. It "trumped" ethics concerns or the fact that the Bronzed Ego had several positions that were decidedly not conservative. That winning and (ostensibly) gaining control of the SCOTUS and ending the Affordable Care Act and repudiating Obama were of primary concern.
I get that, and I don't begrudge those people their moment of joy.
You won, congratulations. Enjoy the party, this is now your show, do what you will.
This is how it works in a representative democracy. Far from having a "mandate" however, the GOP does have controlling interest in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and most of the same at the State level. It should not be overlooked how powerful their position is. In fact, Democrats right now are in a worse position than were the GOP eight years ago, because even then the GOP had a fairly dominating presence in the States, which the DEM's lack.
They have the filibuster in the Federal Senate, and a few State's that are very blue, with little GOP opposition. In short, for the next two years (at least, because the 2018 map is not friendly to them) they are going to find themselves scrambling, trying desperately to forge a message that's bigger than "we hate you America" which is where they're likely to go under the lead of Sens Warren and Sanders.
It will not be a nice time to be a Democrat as the progressives will start to turn inward and eat their own.
The coming Democratic fissure is potentially the greatest underrated story of the current election. Suppressed by the bigger, and more public reality of the GOP split.
Except now, I'd call it a GOP take-over, because the win by Trump, and the vitriol that is already springing from it is only going to get worse over time. The Trumpets who said to NeverTrump members "we don't need you" were right.
And we were wrong. Our idea that the GOP was still, at heart, a conservative party was mistaken. The so-called "conservative wave" that always appeared to be just over the horizon was a mirage, as was the libertarian revolution that was destroyed in vitro when the the Libertarian Party nominated Gary Johnson and liberal Bill Weld.
Instead, the GOP of today is a much more populist place, inviting big-government to sit down at the table when it suits their needs and the Libertarian Party is in disarray. Meanwhile, those of us who formed the core of the NeverTrump movement find ourselves on the outs, without a political home and unlikely to find one soon.
Evan McMullin, the independent conservative who ran a long-shot campaign in Utah hoping to.....win some electoral votes is correct when he states that Conservatives are out of the GOP but he's wrong in saying that we should abandon it. We have been forcefully evicted. And there's no reason for the GOP to let us back in any time soon. The election results have shown that we're not needed. They will go about ostensibly acting like conservative principles matter, but they will govern as they always have.
And that there is no longer a conservative party in America.
Not my circus, Not my monkeys. Which, all things considered, is probably for the best.
In short, beating Hillary Clinton was less important to me than keeping my head held high.
I also understood that, for many in the GOP, beating Ms. Clinton was the most important thing of all. It "trumped" ethics concerns or the fact that the Bronzed Ego had several positions that were decidedly not conservative. That winning and (ostensibly) gaining control of the SCOTUS and ending the Affordable Care Act and repudiating Obama were of primary concern.
I get that, and I don't begrudge those people their moment of joy.
You won, congratulations. Enjoy the party, this is now your show, do what you will.
This is how it works in a representative democracy. Far from having a "mandate" however, the GOP does have controlling interest in the executive branch, the legislative branch, and most of the same at the State level. It should not be overlooked how powerful their position is. In fact, Democrats right now are in a worse position than were the GOP eight years ago, because even then the GOP had a fairly dominating presence in the States, which the DEM's lack.
They have the filibuster in the Federal Senate, and a few State's that are very blue, with little GOP opposition. In short, for the next two years (at least, because the 2018 map is not friendly to them) they are going to find themselves scrambling, trying desperately to forge a message that's bigger than "we hate you America" which is where they're likely to go under the lead of Sens Warren and Sanders.
It will not be a nice time to be a Democrat as the progressives will start to turn inward and eat their own.
The coming Democratic fissure is potentially the greatest underrated story of the current election. Suppressed by the bigger, and more public reality of the GOP split.
Except now, I'd call it a GOP take-over, because the win by Trump, and the vitriol that is already springing from it is only going to get worse over time. The Trumpets who said to NeverTrump members "we don't need you" were right.
And we were wrong. Our idea that the GOP was still, at heart, a conservative party was mistaken. The so-called "conservative wave" that always appeared to be just over the horizon was a mirage, as was the libertarian revolution that was destroyed in vitro when the the Libertarian Party nominated Gary Johnson and liberal Bill Weld.
Instead, the GOP of today is a much more populist place, inviting big-government to sit down at the table when it suits their needs and the Libertarian Party is in disarray. Meanwhile, those of us who formed the core of the NeverTrump movement find ourselves on the outs, without a political home and unlikely to find one soon.
Evan McMullin, the independent conservative who ran a long-shot campaign in Utah hoping to.....win some electoral votes is correct when he states that Conservatives are out of the GOP but he's wrong in saying that we should abandon it. We have been forcefully evicted. And there's no reason for the GOP to let us back in any time soon. The election results have shown that we're not needed. They will go about ostensibly acting like conservative principles matter, but they will govern as they always have.
And that there is no longer a conservative party in America.
Not my circus, Not my monkeys. Which, all things considered, is probably for the best.
Election 2016: A Tale of Two Parties
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
But congratulations to the GOP for pulling out what appears to be a pretty big win at most levels of government last night, and commiserations to the Democrats who appear to have not.
As I stated last night on Twitter there's going to be a LOT written on this election outcome over the next few days. Much of it, especially what's coming from the progressive left, is going to be 100% incorrect.
The left is going to tell you that America is now a racist, sexist place and that racist, sexist mouth-breathers on the right voted in a modern-day version of Hitler to office. Trumps brown-shirt proclivities aside (which, to be fair, we really don't know whether or not they even exist at this point) there are data points aplenty showing the 'racist/sexist' meme to be false.
For one, David Duke, titular head of the KKK and running for office in Louisiana, received a mere three percent of the vote in a district, and State that Trump carried. Second, the same so-called sexist voters who carried Trump also made it a very good night for female Republicans down ballot.
But these are facts, and the people such as Krugman, Blow, Bouie and countless others that are spouting the 'racist/sexist' line are literally too stupid to be confronted with facts. To quote the Hangover "you are literally too stupid to insult." As such, they are best ignored.
What really happened, what drove new voters to the polls in massive numbers, and what led to a deficiency in Democratic enthusiasm is two-fold.
First, the Democrats nominated as their standard-bearer the most unlikable, scandal-ridden, rent-seeking, self-serving public figure in the last 20 years. In short, there was nothing for Hillary supporters to be FOR. They were all against something else. And unless you have a rallying cry that's more than "beat the other side" history has shown us that you're in a heap of trouble if the other side does.
And they did. Because in addition to the 'stop Hillary' crowd (which was sizable) Trump also had the "Trumpets" or people who were fired up about what Trump was telling them. The overlooked and marginalized, the people who had fallen behind and who have spent the last eight years being lectured by Democrats, progressive and social justice warriors on just how stupid they all are. Combine those angry people with the 'anyone but Hillary' crowd and you had a coalition that had the ability to pull out the win.
Already though, the progressive left, too insipid to see where they're wrong, is doubling down. Already there are cries and gnashing of teeth on social media, in online outlets, print journalism etc. The blame game is in full gear, and they're blaming the great unwashed, the same majority that just beat them into an electoral pulp nationwide.
As long as the Democrats continue to do this, as long as they target anyone who is not wealthy, Caucasian, progressive or somehow dependent on them as a lower class they will continue to not experience the electoral success they think they are entitled to.
Trump didn't win because people are racist/sexist/ whatever -ist, he won because he gave people who have been besmirched as such for years now by Democrats, and ignored by Republicans an outlet for their anger. Trump won because he was FOR something, no matter wrong-headed it may seem.
Again, congratulations to him and the GOP for a huge win, across the board.
Don't squander it.
But congratulations to the GOP for pulling out what appears to be a pretty big win at most levels of government last night, and commiserations to the Democrats who appear to have not.
As I stated last night on Twitter there's going to be a LOT written on this election outcome over the next few days. Much of it, especially what's coming from the progressive left, is going to be 100% incorrect.
The left is going to tell you that America is now a racist, sexist place and that racist, sexist mouth-breathers on the right voted in a modern-day version of Hitler to office. Trumps brown-shirt proclivities aside (which, to be fair, we really don't know whether or not they even exist at this point) there are data points aplenty showing the 'racist/sexist' meme to be false.
For one, David Duke, titular head of the KKK and running for office in Louisiana, received a mere three percent of the vote in a district, and State that Trump carried. Second, the same so-called sexist voters who carried Trump also made it a very good night for female Republicans down ballot.
But these are facts, and the people such as Krugman, Blow, Bouie and countless others that are spouting the 'racist/sexist' line are literally too stupid to be confronted with facts. To quote the Hangover "you are literally too stupid to insult." As such, they are best ignored.
What really happened, what drove new voters to the polls in massive numbers, and what led to a deficiency in Democratic enthusiasm is two-fold.
First, the Democrats nominated as their standard-bearer the most unlikable, scandal-ridden, rent-seeking, self-serving public figure in the last 20 years. In short, there was nothing for Hillary supporters to be FOR. They were all against something else. And unless you have a rallying cry that's more than "beat the other side" history has shown us that you're in a heap of trouble if the other side does.
And they did. Because in addition to the 'stop Hillary' crowd (which was sizable) Trump also had the "Trumpets" or people who were fired up about what Trump was telling them. The overlooked and marginalized, the people who had fallen behind and who have spent the last eight years being lectured by Democrats, progressive and social justice warriors on just how stupid they all are. Combine those angry people with the 'anyone but Hillary' crowd and you had a coalition that had the ability to pull out the win.
Already though, the progressive left, too insipid to see where they're wrong, is doubling down. Already there are cries and gnashing of teeth on social media, in online outlets, print journalism etc. The blame game is in full gear, and they're blaming the great unwashed, the same majority that just beat them into an electoral pulp nationwide.
As long as the Democrats continue to do this, as long as they target anyone who is not wealthy, Caucasian, progressive or somehow dependent on them as a lower class they will continue to not experience the electoral success they think they are entitled to.
Trump didn't win because people are racist/sexist/ whatever -ist, he won because he gave people who have been besmirched as such for years now by Democrats, and ignored by Republicans an outlet for their anger. Trump won because he was FOR something, no matter wrong-headed it may seem.
Again, congratulations to him and the GOP for a huge win, across the board.
Don't squander it.
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Election Day: Some Good Reads Before you Head to the Polls. (If You're Heading to the Polls)
A Vote's Consequences and a Voters Conscious. Matthew J. Franck. Public Discourse
A Republic, Not a Dairy. Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
As you know by now, I'm sitting this election out.
I understand that most don't agree with that decision (You should write-in for President but vote down ballot! they say) but it's a decision I've come to soberly, mostly, and am quite comfortable with.
For those of you who are still choosing, or have chosen, to partake in America's Democracy dance please be sure to do so with a modicum of thought. Don't vote "straight party" because you feel you have to, vote that way if, and only if, you WANT to.
Neither the crumbling GOP or the fracturing Democrats own, or have any right to, your vote, and it's not some sense of "pragmatism" that should cause you to vote for one over the other.
When I vote it's for a candidate who will not cause me to regret the vote the next morning. In this race there are none that provide me with that certainty. Even the Texas Republican Party has been overran by candidates such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, (my)State Senator Paul Bettancourt and others for whom pulling the lever would give me pause.
You might feel differently, and that's OK. As a matter of fact, it's a good thing, because if we all thought the same way this would be a boring old world. despite what the progressive arm of our political discourse would have you believe.
Above all else, vote for liberty. And free markets and unobtrusive government and a severe reduction of the regulatory state. Strong private property rights are a plus, as is a fealty to the Bill of Rights and (yes) the Constitution. Because without those items America is just a bigger, more bloated banana republic, something that's going to be all to evident in either a Bronzed Ego or Anointed One Presidency and which we've seen for the last 24 plus years, at least since the end of the Reagan Administration, but really probably not since before WWII to be totally honest.
See you on the other side.
A Republic, Not a Dairy. Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
As you know by now, I'm sitting this election out.
I understand that most don't agree with that decision (You should write-in for President but vote down ballot! they say) but it's a decision I've come to soberly, mostly, and am quite comfortable with.
For those of you who are still choosing, or have chosen, to partake in America's Democracy dance please be sure to do so with a modicum of thought. Don't vote "straight party" because you feel you have to, vote that way if, and only if, you WANT to.
Neither the crumbling GOP or the fracturing Democrats own, or have any right to, your vote, and it's not some sense of "pragmatism" that should cause you to vote for one over the other.
When I vote it's for a candidate who will not cause me to regret the vote the next morning. In this race there are none that provide me with that certainty. Even the Texas Republican Party has been overran by candidates such as Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, (my)State Senator Paul Bettancourt and others for whom pulling the lever would give me pause.
You might feel differently, and that's OK. As a matter of fact, it's a good thing, because if we all thought the same way this would be a boring old world. despite what the progressive arm of our political discourse would have you believe.
Above all else, vote for liberty. And free markets and unobtrusive government and a severe reduction of the regulatory state. Strong private property rights are a plus, as is a fealty to the Bill of Rights and (yes) the Constitution. Because without those items America is just a bigger, more bloated banana republic, something that's going to be all to evident in either a Bronzed Ego or Anointed One Presidency and which we've seen for the last 24 plus years, at least since the end of the Reagan Administration, but really probably not since before WWII to be totally honest.
See you on the other side.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
News Link: 4 Years. Of This.
Hacked e-mails show Clinton Campaign Communicated with State (Department). Matthew Daly & Stephen Braun. ABCNews.com
It's become a badge of honor among columnists for the media to pen something that characterizes a Trump Presidency as "the worst thing ever" in terms of world security, economic well-being and the continuation of victim politics disguised as "rights".
I'm not suggesting that any of that is incorrect. I believe that a Trump Presidency will be a disaster for the US of A. I believe that the Bronzed Ego will not only damage us at home, but abroad as well, tipping the balance of power away from the US and toward Russia and the Chinese, in a manner that could take decades to unwind.
I believe that a Trump Presidency will be awful for civil rights, and for rights themselves. He's already come out against free speech, has supported torture and the killing of Americans, silencing those who are critical of him and has demonstrated some worrying tendencies in the area of foreign policy. His economic ideas are jingoistic, and dangerous. I will not be voting for him.
But I won't be heading to the ballot box and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton either, because I believe the Anointed One will be just as bad, if not worse, just in a different way.
Throughout their political careers the Clinton's have demonstrated no qualms about casting aside the rule of law and accepted rules of behavior in order to use the Federal Government as their personal tools for graft, patronage and revenge. They have also used it to circumvent the laws, with no fear of repercussion because they, or someone with a favorable attitude toward them, have appointed the very people who would conduct such an investigation.
Forget Monica Lewinsky (if nothing else, for her sake, leave the lady alone) pay more attention to the dirty business deals and shoddy foreign policy deals that Bill Clinton as President, and then Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, green-lighted. This is a couple that is so corrupt they break the bounds of corruption.
Because Hillary would also be awful for civil rights and for rights themselves. She's already come out against free speech, has supported imprisoning (or limiting the ability to make a living) of those who do not subscribe to the politically correct norms of her donor class, she has supported the torture and killing of Americans, silencing those who are critical of her, and demonstrated some worrying tendencies in the area of foreign policy. Her economic ideas are jingoistic, and dangerous. I will not be voting for her.
The bad news is this: America is staring down the deep, dark hole of it's Caligula moment, and the only thing we're being asked in this Presidential Election is which gender we would prefer our Caligula to be? There IS no good choice in this 2016 version of "would you rather?" third party nonsense to the contrary.
This election is so bad that it has effectively brought an end to the modern Libertarian Party. Even the Greens couldn't step up and nominate someone who's not at least ranked at 90% on the bat-shittery scale.
As I've stated for a while now, I'm sitting this one out. My vote is my own and is not pledged blindly to any political party. Neither party has done anything to deserve either my time, effort or support, and they will not be getting any of them.
At 8:30 last night I received a telephone call. It was from the Harris County Republican Party and it went something like this:
"Hello this is the Harris County Republican Party, we just wanted to check in and make sure that you're voting early and that you're planning to vote straight Republican"
Me: "I'm not voting, nor do I owe my vote to any party"
*click*
It's become a badge of honor among columnists for the media to pen something that characterizes a Trump Presidency as "the worst thing ever" in terms of world security, economic well-being and the continuation of victim politics disguised as "rights".
I'm not suggesting that any of that is incorrect. I believe that a Trump Presidency will be a disaster for the US of A. I believe that the Bronzed Ego will not only damage us at home, but abroad as well, tipping the balance of power away from the US and toward Russia and the Chinese, in a manner that could take decades to unwind.
I believe that a Trump Presidency will be awful for civil rights, and for rights themselves. He's already come out against free speech, has supported torture and the killing of Americans, silencing those who are critical of him and has demonstrated some worrying tendencies in the area of foreign policy. His economic ideas are jingoistic, and dangerous. I will not be voting for him.
But I won't be heading to the ballot box and casting a vote for Hillary Clinton either, because I believe the Anointed One will be just as bad, if not worse, just in a different way.
Throughout their political careers the Clinton's have demonstrated no qualms about casting aside the rule of law and accepted rules of behavior in order to use the Federal Government as their personal tools for graft, patronage and revenge. They have also used it to circumvent the laws, with no fear of repercussion because they, or someone with a favorable attitude toward them, have appointed the very people who would conduct such an investigation.
Forget Monica Lewinsky (if nothing else, for her sake, leave the lady alone) pay more attention to the dirty business deals and shoddy foreign policy deals that Bill Clinton as President, and then Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, green-lighted. This is a couple that is so corrupt they break the bounds of corruption.
Because Hillary would also be awful for civil rights and for rights themselves. She's already come out against free speech, has supported imprisoning (or limiting the ability to make a living) of those who do not subscribe to the politically correct norms of her donor class, she has supported the torture and killing of Americans, silencing those who are critical of her, and demonstrated some worrying tendencies in the area of foreign policy. Her economic ideas are jingoistic, and dangerous. I will not be voting for her.
The bad news is this: America is staring down the deep, dark hole of it's Caligula moment, and the only thing we're being asked in this Presidential Election is which gender we would prefer our Caligula to be? There IS no good choice in this 2016 version of "would you rather?" third party nonsense to the contrary.
This election is so bad that it has effectively brought an end to the modern Libertarian Party. Even the Greens couldn't step up and nominate someone who's not at least ranked at 90% on the bat-shittery scale.
As I've stated for a while now, I'm sitting this one out. My vote is my own and is not pledged blindly to any political party. Neither party has done anything to deserve either my time, effort or support, and they will not be getting any of them.
At 8:30 last night I received a telephone call. It was from the Harris County Republican Party and it went something like this:
"Hello this is the Harris County Republican Party, we just wanted to check in and make sure that you're voting early and that you're planning to vote straight Republican"
Me: "I'm not voting, nor do I owe my vote to any party"
*click*
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Election Day 2016: ....and nothing else matters....
We're 84 days away from the end of all things good and holy, some thoughts.
- No matter who wins, we all lose. At this point we're just splitting hairs over which of the two candidates, The Anointed One, or the Bronzed Ego, is going to make a worse President. The reality is they are both going to be awful and neither has the apparent chops to improve or, in the case of the Ego, "pivot" to anything approaching respectability.
- At this point, I don't think it's necessary to fully recap why Donald J. Trump would be a disaster, but it still seems that some people are holding out hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton will somehow be not that bad. They're wrong of course, because a Hillary Presidency will be just as big, if nor more of, a disaster.
Not a disaster of the "OMG! we're all going to DIE!" type or even one that puts the very fabric of the country in danger but a disaster in the continued dearth of leadership vein that most cities, some states and the country has seen over the last several years.
To be clear. I'm not as gloom and doom as most. In fact, when bad leaders are in charge there is typically opportunity for some, and I imagine they will take advantage of it, creating wealth, and hoarding it (wisely) as they have always.
What is certain to suffer is America's "position in the world" if you feel that type of thing is important (I do, but not in a manner that you might thing) and the government's ability to function in a manner that is subject to the rule of law.
- A bigger concern, to most, should be that the cities, towns and states are starting to show real signs of wear and tear, as groups such as Black Lives Matter and ineffectual, progressive, politicians find new and creative ways to continue receiving loyalty from the very groups that they are exploiting the most.
In fact, monolithic blocs of voters skewing heavily towards one party or another is probably a bigger concern than the fact that there are still a lot of people who believe, heartily, that their vote matters. The same pundits who cheered the black votes 90+ percent loyalty to candidates with (D) following their names are suddenly shedding crocodile tears over only 11% of white in one state voting against candidates with (R) following it. Repeat after me: lock-step voting is bad. No matter the demographic slicer that's being applied.
- The good news: Football season is starting soon which means: A distraction.
The Olympics have been OK but there's nothing that can distract from the depressing reality that out of 300 Million people the best we could find was a habitual liar and live-action baboon to run for office is startling. But, "Gary Johnson!" you holler, to which I say: "Meh."
Even the Libertarians couldn't sort it out and nominate someone who was, to put this indelicately, Libertarian. At least the Greens have nominated another communist carnival barker I guess? Some things never change.
- Then there's the sad case of Evan McMullin, an apparently decent man who's been caught up in the hissy-fit of rejection from some of the more Reagan-underwear wearing fellows over on the Right. "Back to the 80's!" is not a winning campaign slogan.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't have thought "Back to the 50's!" would have been either but here we are, in 2016 listening to the two nominees for the two major parties in a diminishing world power yearn fondly for the heady, early days of the Cold War.
Happiness is rarely found in the past, but rarely expected in the future, at least where politics is concerned.
- No matter who wins, we all lose. At this point we're just splitting hairs over which of the two candidates, The Anointed One, or the Bronzed Ego, is going to make a worse President. The reality is they are both going to be awful and neither has the apparent chops to improve or, in the case of the Ego, "pivot" to anything approaching respectability.
- At this point, I don't think it's necessary to fully recap why Donald J. Trump would be a disaster, but it still seems that some people are holding out hope that Hillary Rodham Clinton will somehow be not that bad. They're wrong of course, because a Hillary Presidency will be just as big, if nor more of, a disaster.
Not a disaster of the "OMG! we're all going to DIE!" type or even one that puts the very fabric of the country in danger but a disaster in the continued dearth of leadership vein that most cities, some states and the country has seen over the last several years.
To be clear. I'm not as gloom and doom as most. In fact, when bad leaders are in charge there is typically opportunity for some, and I imagine they will take advantage of it, creating wealth, and hoarding it (wisely) as they have always.
What is certain to suffer is America's "position in the world" if you feel that type of thing is important (I do, but not in a manner that you might thing) and the government's ability to function in a manner that is subject to the rule of law.
- A bigger concern, to most, should be that the cities, towns and states are starting to show real signs of wear and tear, as groups such as Black Lives Matter and ineffectual, progressive, politicians find new and creative ways to continue receiving loyalty from the very groups that they are exploiting the most.
In fact, monolithic blocs of voters skewing heavily towards one party or another is probably a bigger concern than the fact that there are still a lot of people who believe, heartily, that their vote matters. The same pundits who cheered the black votes 90+ percent loyalty to candidates with (D) following their names are suddenly shedding crocodile tears over only 11% of white in one state voting against candidates with (R) following it. Repeat after me: lock-step voting is bad. No matter the demographic slicer that's being applied.
- The good news: Football season is starting soon which means: A distraction.
The Olympics have been OK but there's nothing that can distract from the depressing reality that out of 300 Million people the best we could find was a habitual liar and live-action baboon to run for office is startling. But, "Gary Johnson!" you holler, to which I say: "Meh."
Even the Libertarians couldn't sort it out and nominate someone who was, to put this indelicately, Libertarian. At least the Greens have nominated another communist carnival barker I guess? Some things never change.
- Then there's the sad case of Evan McMullin, an apparently decent man who's been caught up in the hissy-fit of rejection from some of the more Reagan-underwear wearing fellows over on the Right. "Back to the 80's!" is not a winning campaign slogan.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't have thought "Back to the 50's!" would have been either but here we are, in 2016 listening to the two nominees for the two major parties in a diminishing world power yearn fondly for the heady, early days of the Cold War.
Happiness is rarely found in the past, but rarely expected in the future, at least where politics is concerned.
Thursday, June 02, 2016
Election 2016: Where I am right now. #PostGOP
I thought that this piece by Ramesh Ponnuru over at National Review Online was pretty good.
Trump vs. Clinton: Grim choice for conservatives. Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review.
As a resident of one of the reddest districts (TX-2) in the reddest State, just, it's highly likely that my vote for any office is going to be meaningless. For all of the talk about democracy and what not the fine State of Texas tradition of gerrymandering pretty much ensures that while the 'participatory' portion is encouraged, the effective is pretty much all but meaningless. As is any one, individual vote.
Politics in Texas has devolved into a shit-show of long-time party activists bemoaning how hard they 'fought' to 'build' something that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. It's a clusterfuck of epic proportions to watch the modern-day Texas GOP convince itself that pay-for-play slates don't dominate, and that a large portion of it's electorate simply pushes the 'straight-ticket Republican' button on the machines and goes on their merry way.
In fact, Texas democracy has gotten so bad that the State is effectively broken at a functional level. It's probable that you have a better chance of getting something done in Italy than you do in Texas. Hell France probably has a better "git 'er done" rate than does the Lone Star State of today.
The Texas Agricultural Commission is ran by a buffoon, the Texas General Land Office is ran by a nascent political careerist whose election was brought about mostly by his name, and certainly not by his grasp of GLO issues, and the Texas Comptroller's Office is staffed by a man who is taking his cues from former disaster Susan Combs. All of this and we haven't even spoken about the AG who is under indictment for (and mostly likely guilty of) securities fraud, and a Governor who's idea of a strong political stand is making fund-raising pleas based on his pie-in-the-sky call for a gang of nitwits to conduct a Article V Convention of the States. Something that will never happen, but from the promise of which much campaign cash can be raised. When he's not talking about suing the Feds that is.
My Congressman, Ted Poe, is now supporting light-rail expansion in a city where it makes no sense, and is really not doing much of anything. Ted Cruz is marginalized, and John Cornyn is....well, he's John Cornyn, possibly the blandest man in Texas politics now that David Dewhurst has left the building. (thank goodness) On the bright side, he has a good head of hair. On the downside? He has a bad head for policy.
The Texas Speaker of the House, Joe Straus, is by all accounts a petty, vindictive man, who has decided that conservatives are the worst people in the world and the Lieutenant Governor is an avowed Theocrat with a monster Messiah complex and some pretty scary authoritarian instincts. In short, he's a demagogue.
Even more depressing is the fact that this group of clowns is in power because the Democrats don't even elevate to the level of a bad joke in Texas. Yes, they get pumped up by the sycophants working in the Texas Lock-Step Political Media, but when they get ready for prime time and to meet the Texas voters we're subjected to moon-shots for Texas education, ringing the damn bell, filling the damn boot, bad (horrible) singing political ads, a candidate who didn't campaign but apparently cooked some chili, a technocrat's technocrat and the most overrated pair of pink tennis shoes in modern history.
At least the Republican candidates, for all of their faults, could fog a political mirror. Texas Democrats are the equivalent of an intellectual pop-gun. In fact, they did us all a favor when they fled to the casino in Ardmore, maybe they should consider a permanent relocation? (hint: take the netroots with you. It will help, I promise, no one likes a group of people who continually call them stupid.)
The rub of all this is that, with the possible exception of people in Houston, Dallas and Austin, Texans are an agreeable lot, still (somewhat) self-reliant and unlikely to be caught up in all of the commotion surrounding the so-called "hot issues". Most people just want roads that are in better shape than those in developing nations (without tolls would be nice), secure neighborhoods, good schools and either trades education or decent secondary education for their kids. Issues such as sanctuary cities (the 'most important' issue of the next legislative session per the Governor) who takes the piss where (hint: let the market work it out) and all of the other issues you see on the news are mainly not on the public radar.
Until there's a party that starts talking about these issues there will continue to be more and more people pulling back from participatory democracy believing, correctly FWIW, that their single vote doesn't matter a hill of beans. The rub is, it doesn't. Because, in the grand scheme of things, one person sitting in a tiny voting booth pushing a button on any one race doesn't matter. Those who tell you that it does because of one race in Cut n' Shoot Texas that was decided by three votes is using the exception to try and prove the rule.
There are far more productive things you can be doing than campaigning, pimping your preferred party or voting even. Primarily you can be getting out there and getting work done.
That's where I am right now. I respect you if you are not, but the fight for conservatism is not going to be won by entrusting it to either the GOP or Democrats, it's going to be won by individuals working outside of the political system to make things better.
Trump vs. Clinton: Grim choice for conservatives. Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review.
No voter is under any moral obligation to judge whether Trump or Clinton is the lesser evil.
Refusing to vote for either one of them — by writing someone in, voting third party, or voting only for other offices — need not be an evasion of reality or a shirking of civic duty. It may be the right choice, at least if it is combined with tolerance for conservatives who make different judgments in this dismal year.Agreed.
As a resident of one of the reddest districts (TX-2) in the reddest State, just, it's highly likely that my vote for any office is going to be meaningless. For all of the talk about democracy and what not the fine State of Texas tradition of gerrymandering pretty much ensures that while the 'participatory' portion is encouraged, the effective is pretty much all but meaningless. As is any one, individual vote.
Politics in Texas has devolved into a shit-show of long-time party activists bemoaning how hard they 'fought' to 'build' something that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. It's a clusterfuck of epic proportions to watch the modern-day Texas GOP convince itself that pay-for-play slates don't dominate, and that a large portion of it's electorate simply pushes the 'straight-ticket Republican' button on the machines and goes on their merry way.
In fact, Texas democracy has gotten so bad that the State is effectively broken at a functional level. It's probable that you have a better chance of getting something done in Italy than you do in Texas. Hell France probably has a better "git 'er done" rate than does the Lone Star State of today.
The Texas Agricultural Commission is ran by a buffoon, the Texas General Land Office is ran by a nascent political careerist whose election was brought about mostly by his name, and certainly not by his grasp of GLO issues, and the Texas Comptroller's Office is staffed by a man who is taking his cues from former disaster Susan Combs. All of this and we haven't even spoken about the AG who is under indictment for (and mostly likely guilty of) securities fraud, and a Governor who's idea of a strong political stand is making fund-raising pleas based on his pie-in-the-sky call for a gang of nitwits to conduct a Article V Convention of the States. Something that will never happen, but from the promise of which much campaign cash can be raised. When he's not talking about suing the Feds that is.
My Congressman, Ted Poe, is now supporting light-rail expansion in a city where it makes no sense, and is really not doing much of anything. Ted Cruz is marginalized, and John Cornyn is....well, he's John Cornyn, possibly the blandest man in Texas politics now that David Dewhurst has left the building. (thank goodness) On the bright side, he has a good head of hair. On the downside? He has a bad head for policy.
The Texas Speaker of the House, Joe Straus, is by all accounts a petty, vindictive man, who has decided that conservatives are the worst people in the world and the Lieutenant Governor is an avowed Theocrat with a monster Messiah complex and some pretty scary authoritarian instincts. In short, he's a demagogue.
Even more depressing is the fact that this group of clowns is in power because the Democrats don't even elevate to the level of a bad joke in Texas. Yes, they get pumped up by the sycophants working in the Texas Lock-Step Political Media, but when they get ready for prime time and to meet the Texas voters we're subjected to moon-shots for Texas education, ringing the damn bell, filling the damn boot, bad (horrible) singing political ads, a candidate who didn't campaign but apparently cooked some chili, a technocrat's technocrat and the most overrated pair of pink tennis shoes in modern history.
At least the Republican candidates, for all of their faults, could fog a political mirror. Texas Democrats are the equivalent of an intellectual pop-gun. In fact, they did us all a favor when they fled to the casino in Ardmore, maybe they should consider a permanent relocation? (hint: take the netroots with you. It will help, I promise, no one likes a group of people who continually call them stupid.)
The rub of all this is that, with the possible exception of people in Houston, Dallas and Austin, Texans are an agreeable lot, still (somewhat) self-reliant and unlikely to be caught up in all of the commotion surrounding the so-called "hot issues". Most people just want roads that are in better shape than those in developing nations (without tolls would be nice), secure neighborhoods, good schools and either trades education or decent secondary education for their kids. Issues such as sanctuary cities (the 'most important' issue of the next legislative session per the Governor) who takes the piss where (hint: let the market work it out) and all of the other issues you see on the news are mainly not on the public radar.
Until there's a party that starts talking about these issues there will continue to be more and more people pulling back from participatory democracy believing, correctly FWIW, that their single vote doesn't matter a hill of beans. The rub is, it doesn't. Because, in the grand scheme of things, one person sitting in a tiny voting booth pushing a button on any one race doesn't matter. Those who tell you that it does because of one race in Cut n' Shoot Texas that was decided by three votes is using the exception to try and prove the rule.
There are far more productive things you can be doing than campaigning, pimping your preferred party or voting even. Primarily you can be getting out there and getting work done.
That's where I am right now. I respect you if you are not, but the fight for conservatism is not going to be won by entrusting it to either the GOP or Democrats, it's going to be won by individuals working outside of the political system to make things better.
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Election2016: Down to the Bronzed Ego and the Anointed One.
What. Have. We. Done?
It's all but over, the election I mean (although possibly the Republic itself), as The Bronzed Ego becomes the presumptive Republican nominee for President and Sanders' nonsensical ramblings notwithstanding, he'll be facing off against the Anointed One even though it's going to take her a bit to get there. As you can imagine, progressives are ecstatic. This is understandable since they are hitching their wagon to the single most unlikable candidate ever to grace the public stage. (Yes, I'm including Nixon and Andrew Jackson in this analysis.)
Clinton is arrogant, corrupt, a liar, dishonest, aloof and uncomfortable actually communicating with the public. You can almost see her inner shrieks as she's forced to interact with the hoi polloi. She has a disregard for the rules, no belief in either the Constitution, America as historically constructed or the rule of law. Her (and her husbands) entire career has been built on patronage and payback, they're Chicago Way politicians who didn't originate from Chicago. Want to see the offspring of Clinton politics? Take a look at Rahm Emmanuel and Terry McAuliffe.
Honest progressives, in their heart of hearts, know that they've turned over the keys to the Socialist car to a self-centered monster but they had no other choice. Nominating Sanders might have stunted the socialist cause for a generation due to his total lack of understanding of basic economic principles. "Worse than Carter for the economy" is not something you want even loosely associated with you, it was tightly wound around Sanders.
There is no politician who infuriates Republicans more than the Anointed One to the point that the rallying cry for them is already "Not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary".
But, here's the rub.
I don't care.
Because while all of the things I mentioned about Hillary are true, they are also true of Trump, and then some. Trump has bragged about his patronage to politicians (most of the Democrats), he has lied, he feels entitled, and he's sexist and (quite possibly) racist and anti-Semitic. (or, at the least, using those that are)
If you're concerned about the justices on the Supreme Court being Conservative then you shouldn't have voted for him. Because I think he's just as likely to nominate liberal justices as is the Anointed One. The idea that the Bronzed Ego is all the Republicans can muster to stand in the breach against the Anointed One's reign is not something that we need to be guilt-shamed into fixing. The GOP built this mess, now it's up to movement-conservative (and moderates) to fix it.
But it's going to have to be fixed after the election. Whatever follows the GOP is going to have some work in front of it. A good place to start is by keeping tabs on who's falling loudly behind the Bronzed Ego and ripping up their membership cards.
The problem is this. Historically, you cannot win an election by being against something. That is why the #NeverHillary movement is doomed to fail. The GOP has tried anger against Obama the last two tries at the White House and it got them nowhere. When the GOP won, they had a message that resonated with the populace and it involved fealty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law and limited government. Unfortunately, eight years of Obama acting like a petulant child in the White House has beaten those beliefs from them.
What we're left with is anger, but it's not quite that simple. It's the same thing that drives so-called low-information Democrat voters to pull the lever for bad candidates despite ample evidence that their policies are ruinous toward them. The Republicans that are supporting Trump are mad because they have not been "getting theirs". They see a presumed stream of what they think is their tax money being redistributed to other groups and they feel that it's high time they got paid. They feel that The Bronzed Ego is the man to do it.
At the end of it all we're seeing the motto of the United States of America change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "mea mea mea" and that's not a good thing.
For my friends who are Republicans threatening to "put me on the list" for being part of #NeverTrump I can only say this: Go ahead. Because I'm not changing my mind even though I understand that this is going to be brutal. I get that a Democratic government will go after my employer with both guns blazing, they will seek to destroy the economy and will try and take away freedoms. I understand that the Anointed One and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge will be awful.
I understand this, and I think it might be the last, best hope for our country. Sometimes when you royally screw things up you have to get slapped in the face to realize it. I only hope for America that we're not too late.
It's all but over, the election I mean (although possibly the Republic itself), as The Bronzed Ego becomes the presumptive Republican nominee for President and Sanders' nonsensical ramblings notwithstanding, he'll be facing off against the Anointed One even though it's going to take her a bit to get there. As you can imagine, progressives are ecstatic. This is understandable since they are hitching their wagon to the single most unlikable candidate ever to grace the public stage. (Yes, I'm including Nixon and Andrew Jackson in this analysis.)
Clinton is arrogant, corrupt, a liar, dishonest, aloof and uncomfortable actually communicating with the public. You can almost see her inner shrieks as she's forced to interact with the hoi polloi. She has a disregard for the rules, no belief in either the Constitution, America as historically constructed or the rule of law. Her (and her husbands) entire career has been built on patronage and payback, they're Chicago Way politicians who didn't originate from Chicago. Want to see the offspring of Clinton politics? Take a look at Rahm Emmanuel and Terry McAuliffe.
Honest progressives, in their heart of hearts, know that they've turned over the keys to the Socialist car to a self-centered monster but they had no other choice. Nominating Sanders might have stunted the socialist cause for a generation due to his total lack of understanding of basic economic principles. "Worse than Carter for the economy" is not something you want even loosely associated with you, it was tightly wound around Sanders.
There is no politician who infuriates Republicans more than the Anointed One to the point that the rallying cry for them is already "Not voting for Trump is a vote for Hillary".
But, here's the rub.
I don't care.
Because while all of the things I mentioned about Hillary are true, they are also true of Trump, and then some. Trump has bragged about his patronage to politicians (most of the Democrats), he has lied, he feels entitled, and he's sexist and (quite possibly) racist and anti-Semitic. (or, at the least, using those that are)
If you're concerned about the justices on the Supreme Court being Conservative then you shouldn't have voted for him. Because I think he's just as likely to nominate liberal justices as is the Anointed One. The idea that the Bronzed Ego is all the Republicans can muster to stand in the breach against the Anointed One's reign is not something that we need to be guilt-shamed into fixing. The GOP built this mess, now it's up to movement-conservative (and moderates) to fix it.
But it's going to have to be fixed after the election. Whatever follows the GOP is going to have some work in front of it. A good place to start is by keeping tabs on who's falling loudly behind the Bronzed Ego and ripping up their membership cards.
The problem is this. Historically, you cannot win an election by being against something. That is why the #NeverHillary movement is doomed to fail. The GOP has tried anger against Obama the last two tries at the White House and it got them nowhere. When the GOP won, they had a message that resonated with the populace and it involved fealty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law and limited government. Unfortunately, eight years of Obama acting like a petulant child in the White House has beaten those beliefs from them.
What we're left with is anger, but it's not quite that simple. It's the same thing that drives so-called low-information Democrat voters to pull the lever for bad candidates despite ample evidence that their policies are ruinous toward them. The Republicans that are supporting Trump are mad because they have not been "getting theirs". They see a presumed stream of what they think is their tax money being redistributed to other groups and they feel that it's high time they got paid. They feel that The Bronzed Ego is the man to do it.
At the end of it all we're seeing the motto of the United States of America change from "E Pluribus Unum" to "mea mea mea" and that's not a good thing.
For my friends who are Republicans threatening to "put me on the list" for being part of #NeverTrump I can only say this: Go ahead. Because I'm not changing my mind even though I understand that this is going to be brutal. I get that a Democratic government will go after my employer with both guns blazing, they will seek to destroy the economy and will try and take away freedoms. I understand that the Anointed One and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in charge will be awful.
I understand this, and I think it might be the last, best hope for our country. Sometimes when you royally screw things up you have to get slapped in the face to realize it. I only hope for America that we're not too late.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
#PostGOP: 03/15/2016
Today is the day that it could all go sideways. With five States, including Florida, heading to the polls to determine who their preferred nominee for President will be it could be all but over after the last winner is announced.
For the Democrats, it's time to see whether the perpetually presumptive one can hold off the raging socialist with no grasp of financial literacy. FiveThirtyEight thinks her majesty will but they thought the same way in Michigan and look what happened there.
The Democratic establishment is getting just a bit worried, as their party appears to be in the midst of a revolt that's not only going unreported, but which is being dishonestly reported when the media does pay attention to it.
The Republicans have the same problem, except their numbers are even worse. While Hillary has a lead in the delegate count, and is still most likely to win the nomination, her numbers point to weakness in the MidWest that make it harder for her to climb the steps to the Presidency.
The biggest problem, for Republicans, is that their candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November, is not only trailing badly in the polls, but is likely to be former candidate Rubio after today. Because if Rubio loses Florida, there is no path forward for him, and he should drop out and allow the remaining voters to cast their lots behind either the opportunist Senator from Texas, or the Bronzed Ego.
Things are so bleak on the Republican side that a brokered convention leading to a Romney re-boot is the consensus best choice of all the bad choices facing party leadership. It's either that or support Trump, which GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus has pledged the GOP will do. Not ALL of the GOP of course. Those of us who have vowed #NeverTrump won't, and neither will a lot of others who aren't as active on political social media but who will just tune out.
Of course, a brokered convention effectively ends the GOP as well, and will cause chaos among those many voters who supported Trump. The question remaining is whether or not facing down a rigged primary system is going to hurt the Democrats as well?
My early guess is no, because the Democratic leadership has a much tighter grip on the rank and file than do Republicans. Yes, the Bern has made some inroads with predominately poor, white Democrats, but his campaign hasn't been allowed to escalate into a movement as has Trumps. It is somewhat ironic that the party that, on a superficial level, supports voting rights, chooses to handle it's candidate selection process through an early network of party officials and insiders known as "Superdelegates" while the supposed vote-suppressing GOP has let the mob run wild.
And running wild they are. No group during this process has taken a harder hit to their credibility than has the so-called "conservative media". In the process of endorsing, and slathering, over Trump infotainers such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have exposed themselves as operating without principle in search of a buck. Some of the more odious players, such as Breitbart.com and Ann Coulter, have just exposed themselves as D-level shock jocks with racist and misogynist tendencies.
Their grip on what's left of the conservative movement is, hopefully, loosened. However, given the gullibility of the masses I'm unsure whether what follows is going to be any better.
I implied earlier in this that the two parties are facing much the same problems. While they are on different sides, this is true. Both the Democrats and Republicans are facing the anger of the poor, white blue-collar worker that they've ignored for years. The Democrats claimed to be a friend of the American Worker while pushing policies that decimated them. The Republicans promised prosperity that would flow if the wealthy were just "taxed a little less" and allowed to use capital to create "good-paying" jobs. These promises never emerged as the GOP donor class took those tax credits and redistributed them to their stock-holders or the corporations held the cash in reserves.
Both parties promised that Government would fix the poor-man's problems, but instead they exacerbated it by forwarding tax structures and regulatory obstacles to social mobility. Unlike what the media tells you it is not the income gap that is the problem, it's that the government has been busy for the last 20 years burning all of the economic bridges between the classes and effectively putting an end to social mobility. In effect, the government regulatory state and crony capitalism have put the American Dream out of reach for most citizens. They've rigged the game if you will.
The Democrats answer to this is to make the strata more rigid, by burning down the middle class and offering feel-good solutions such as increases in the minimum wage that will only create more unemployed. The Republicans have countered by offering to put more money in the hands of the wealthy or, in the case of Ted Cruz, implement a European-style Value-Added-Tax in place of an income tax. One that will be passed immediately onto consumers and which will be even more onerous than the current system.
Fortunately, for the campaigns of the Bronzed Ego and Angry Bernie a large chunk of the electorate that follows them doesn't understand how global markets work. Instead people are just angry that "the Government was here, and they were here to help." That the solutions offered up by El Bronzo and Captain Angry are like giving a cancer patient the flu is lost on most of their supporters.
All of which brings us to March 15th.
Today I'm afraid that the last adult in the race is going to lose his home State, and drop out of proceedings, leaving us with a choice between four adolescent candidates (and, of course, the delusions of Kasich) whose campaign strategies are nothing more than to shriek the loudest, make the most out-there promises, and control that anger all the way to the nomination and beyond.
Certainly Rubio was not a perfect candidate. He was very (extremely) weak on corporate welfare (namely, sugar tariffs) and government spying. But there has been no candidate in this race who has done a better job offering up a hopeful vision for the country than has Rubio. Except for his ill-advised dalliance with Trump's hand-size, he has been the most optimistic candidate in terms of vision.
And he'll most likely be gone after today.
What remains is, most probably, going to be the next President of the United States of America. Your choices are now going to be a man who is nothing more than an over-sized ego and a Napoleonic complex so big it is threatening to burst through its fake-tanned wrapper. A Jr. Senator from Texas who no-one seemingly likes, and who either thinks that shutting down the IRS is a viable plan or he's conning his supporters. A Governor from Ohio who's father was a mailman, and who refuses to believe that he's been beaten. An Angry Statist who has learned to mask his lack of understanding of basic financial principles behind a veil of socialism (but which is really just a crony system designed to keep the right members of the ruling class in power). Or a candidate who truly believes that it is her destiny to become President and has proven a willingness to do, say or promise anything to get there.
In short, it's pretty dire folks. The State of the Union is decidedly not strong, and it's future prospects are getting worse with each passing day. We might just look back on March 15, 2016 as the day the last, best hope (however flawed it was) abandoned the race and left us with a beggar's choice of horrible options, a political game of "would you rather?" in which there is no good choice. Amazingly, once again, it appears we're placing our hopes on Florida.
God help us all.
For the Democrats, it's time to see whether the perpetually presumptive one can hold off the raging socialist with no grasp of financial literacy. FiveThirtyEight thinks her majesty will but they thought the same way in Michigan and look what happened there.
The Democratic establishment is getting just a bit worried, as their party appears to be in the midst of a revolt that's not only going unreported, but which is being dishonestly reported when the media does pay attention to it.
The Republicans have the same problem, except their numbers are even worse. While Hillary has a lead in the delegate count, and is still most likely to win the nomination, her numbers point to weakness in the MidWest that make it harder for her to climb the steps to the Presidency.
The biggest problem, for Republicans, is that their candidate most likely to beat Hillary in November, is not only trailing badly in the polls, but is likely to be former candidate Rubio after today. Because if Rubio loses Florida, there is no path forward for him, and he should drop out and allow the remaining voters to cast their lots behind either the opportunist Senator from Texas, or the Bronzed Ego.
Things are so bleak on the Republican side that a brokered convention leading to a Romney re-boot is the consensus best choice of all the bad choices facing party leadership. It's either that or support Trump, which GOP National Chairman Reince Priebus has pledged the GOP will do. Not ALL of the GOP of course. Those of us who have vowed #NeverTrump won't, and neither will a lot of others who aren't as active on political social media but who will just tune out.
Of course, a brokered convention effectively ends the GOP as well, and will cause chaos among those many voters who supported Trump. The question remaining is whether or not facing down a rigged primary system is going to hurt the Democrats as well?
My early guess is no, because the Democratic leadership has a much tighter grip on the rank and file than do Republicans. Yes, the Bern has made some inroads with predominately poor, white Democrats, but his campaign hasn't been allowed to escalate into a movement as has Trumps. It is somewhat ironic that the party that, on a superficial level, supports voting rights, chooses to handle it's candidate selection process through an early network of party officials and insiders known as "Superdelegates" while the supposed vote-suppressing GOP has let the mob run wild.
And running wild they are. No group during this process has taken a harder hit to their credibility than has the so-called "conservative media". In the process of endorsing, and slathering, over Trump infotainers such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have exposed themselves as operating without principle in search of a buck. Some of the more odious players, such as Breitbart.com and Ann Coulter, have just exposed themselves as D-level shock jocks with racist and misogynist tendencies.
Their grip on what's left of the conservative movement is, hopefully, loosened. However, given the gullibility of the masses I'm unsure whether what follows is going to be any better.
I implied earlier in this that the two parties are facing much the same problems. While they are on different sides, this is true. Both the Democrats and Republicans are facing the anger of the poor, white blue-collar worker that they've ignored for years. The Democrats claimed to be a friend of the American Worker while pushing policies that decimated them. The Republicans promised prosperity that would flow if the wealthy were just "taxed a little less" and allowed to use capital to create "good-paying" jobs. These promises never emerged as the GOP donor class took those tax credits and redistributed them to their stock-holders or the corporations held the cash in reserves.
Both parties promised that Government would fix the poor-man's problems, but instead they exacerbated it by forwarding tax structures and regulatory obstacles to social mobility. Unlike what the media tells you it is not the income gap that is the problem, it's that the government has been busy for the last 20 years burning all of the economic bridges between the classes and effectively putting an end to social mobility. In effect, the government regulatory state and crony capitalism have put the American Dream out of reach for most citizens. They've rigged the game if you will.
The Democrats answer to this is to make the strata more rigid, by burning down the middle class and offering feel-good solutions such as increases in the minimum wage that will only create more unemployed. The Republicans have countered by offering to put more money in the hands of the wealthy or, in the case of Ted Cruz, implement a European-style Value-Added-Tax in place of an income tax. One that will be passed immediately onto consumers and which will be even more onerous than the current system.
Fortunately, for the campaigns of the Bronzed Ego and Angry Bernie a large chunk of the electorate that follows them doesn't understand how global markets work. Instead people are just angry that "the Government was here, and they were here to help." That the solutions offered up by El Bronzo and Captain Angry are like giving a cancer patient the flu is lost on most of their supporters.
All of which brings us to March 15th.
Today I'm afraid that the last adult in the race is going to lose his home State, and drop out of proceedings, leaving us with a choice between four adolescent candidates (and, of course, the delusions of Kasich) whose campaign strategies are nothing more than to shriek the loudest, make the most out-there promises, and control that anger all the way to the nomination and beyond.
Certainly Rubio was not a perfect candidate. He was very (extremely) weak on corporate welfare (namely, sugar tariffs) and government spying. But there has been no candidate in this race who has done a better job offering up a hopeful vision for the country than has Rubio. Except for his ill-advised dalliance with Trump's hand-size, he has been the most optimistic candidate in terms of vision.
And he'll most likely be gone after today.
What remains is, most probably, going to be the next President of the United States of America. Your choices are now going to be a man who is nothing more than an over-sized ego and a Napoleonic complex so big it is threatening to burst through its fake-tanned wrapper. A Jr. Senator from Texas who no-one seemingly likes, and who either thinks that shutting down the IRS is a viable plan or he's conning his supporters. A Governor from Ohio who's father was a mailman, and who refuses to believe that he's been beaten. An Angry Statist who has learned to mask his lack of understanding of basic financial principles behind a veil of socialism (but which is really just a crony system designed to keep the right members of the ruling class in power). Or a candidate who truly believes that it is her destiny to become President and has proven a willingness to do, say or promise anything to get there.
In short, it's pretty dire folks. The State of the Union is decidedly not strong, and it's future prospects are getting worse with each passing day. We might just look back on March 15, 2016 as the day the last, best hope (however flawed it was) abandoned the race and left us with a beggar's choice of horrible options, a political game of "would you rather?" in which there is no good choice. Amazingly, once again, it appears we're placing our hopes on Florida.
God help us all.
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Energy Scarcity: What Bill McKibbon's wins mean for the poor.
*Full Disclosure: I work in government reporting/regulatory for a mid-major oil and gas company based in Houston. The opinions presented here are my own and do not reflect the views of my employer, the board, or any officer of the company. Also, because I work in the O & G industry I realize that many of you will discount my thoughts out of hand. That's OK, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to the reasonable people out there.
EPA Expands Methane Rules to all Oil and Gas Wells. James Osborne, FuelFix (Houston Chronicle)
As a world wide consumer of energy this is bad for you. If you're poor in America, or live in a developing country, this is even worse for you. The reason for this is that the new rules are going to come with an extreme cost, and that cost is going to be paid for by the consumer, most notably by the poor who will not be able to absorb the cost increase.
Of course, I can hear you say, 'But the Democrats are the party of the poor, how can they want to hurt the poor?' The problem with your question is that it is bunk. The Democrats are not the party of the poor, they do not work for the interests of the poor, nor do they care all that much about the poor except to provide them with sufficient government subsidy to ensure their vote.
At this point Republicans chime in 'See!! WE'RE the party of the poor, and OUR policies really help the poor.' But they don't. Because too many Republicans look at a problem as see an opportunity for a big G Government solution. Even Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the founder and champion of the State's Tea Party Caucus (Which, tellingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party) has been known to suggest that "Government must do something!" when a problem arises.
It is the nature of those who Govern, who we have elected to govern us, to want control, to want to purchase power through largesse funded primarily by your tax dollars. In the end, the entire anthropogenic climate change fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to do that. Al Gore has leveraged a scientifically dodgy movie to do just that to the tone of Millions of dollars in personal wealth, all while not changing his or his families lifestyle one iota. Mr. Gore still travels via personal jet, in armored sports utility vehicles running on diesel. In most cases he is driven, and the house in which he lives is less climate friendly than some gas processing plants.
Then we have the story of Bill McKibbon, the new-age climate change activist who has coined the term "Keep it in the ground" which, he thinks, is a call to eliminate all oil and gas production, but is being used by the government as a means to attempt to control an industry that has vexed politicians for decades.
America is unique in the fact that it allows private citizens to have ownership, and profit off of, mineral royalties. In other countries the monies paid in royalty for oil, gas, coal etc. are exclusively the property of the government. This is why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries enjoy a standard of living so high. It's why Scotland thought they could afford to break-away from Great Britain, and it's why many of the so-called "Nordic Democratic Socialist" governments can make things work. In all cases, they are not socialist but oil emirates in government structure.
There is a large group of Statists in America who want our company to operate the same way. They have latched on to the carbon movement to try and accomplish this goal. What you are being sold is that it is "Wall Street" who are going to be hurt by this and who cares right?
In truth, the people who are going to be hurt the most are the landowners who rely on those royalty checks, in many cases to bridge gaps in their income. The working poor are also going to be hurt because rising energy prices will affect them the most.
Scarcity of energy will be felt the most in developing economies. In fact, lack of energy being increasingly acknowledged as a prime contributor to World poverty. You don't often hear the green movement address this because it's one of their many inconvenient truths that they seek to hide from the general public.
In fact, the green energy movement is not about plentiful, so called 'free', energy as the businesses and politicians in their pocket would have you believe. In fact, even so-called 'new-environmentalists' admit that the movement views people to be the problem. Specifically, too many people of the wrong socio-economic class and mindset.
When Bill McKibbon, Al Gore and their sycophants suggest that on carbon we need to "keep it in the ground" what they're really suggesting is that approved forms of energy production should only be available to the groups they want it to be available to.
I have no doubt that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe this just as I believe that pollution above certain levels is a bad thing. However, I remain unconvinced that we know about this planet to determine the entire cause to be anthorpogenic. There is the problem of the warming pause to which climate change true believers have attempted to discount only by tweaking their computer models. And if you're serious about science then any contention that Mann's Hockey Stick has not been totally debunked is based only on faith in the movement.
At some point, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that man is pretty much powerless, despite all of our hubris, to alter the Earth's climate significantly. In other words.....
Climate change is coming regardless of what we try and do so our focus had better turn to how to DEAL with it rather than how to PREVENT it.
Because dealing with the issue means providing developing economies with the tools they need to power their economies in the cleanest, cheapest way possible so that they can have access to technology and medical services at a 1st world level. In order to do this we need carbon. We also need political leaders who are not pushing fantasy in a thinly veiled attempt to grab power.
Does the Oil and Gas industry need to do a better job capturing methane? You bet. But the way to accomplish this is not to punish them into leaving mineral resources in the ground.
The way to do it is to encourage other countries to adopt natural gas so that the price rebounds and capture becomes economically feasible, and profitable. The Obama Administration (aided by a complicit Congress, is doing exactly the opposite by enacting regulations that are going to greatly increase the cost of energy for the poorest among us.
Hope and change for the ruling class. Pain and suffering for everyone else. I don't think he said that on the campaign trail did he?
Oh yeah, he did.* But his predominately poor supporters ignored that and voted against their own economic interests.
We're doing this to ourselves, and there will be no reason for the government to stop until we require them to.
*OK Sorry, I couldn't find a video linking to that tweet that didn't have the crazy, birther stuff in it. My apologies.
EPA Expands Methane Rules to all Oil and Gas Wells. James Osborne, FuelFix (Houston Chronicle)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is expanding its crackdown on methane emissions from oil and natural gas drilling to all existing wells.The announcement from the White House Thursday came as part of a joint agreement with Canada on climate change, curbing methane emissions from North America and taking steps to protect the Arctic region from rising temperatures and oceans.The EPA had announced plans to cut methane emissions from new oil and gas wells last year. But if the United States was to reach the goal set out by President Obama of cutting methane emissions at least 40 percent by 2025, existing wells have to be included, said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.“Based on this growing body of science it’s become clear it come time for EPA to take additional action,” she said in a press conference. “We’ll start this work immediately and we intend to work quickly.”
As a world wide consumer of energy this is bad for you. If you're poor in America, or live in a developing country, this is even worse for you. The reason for this is that the new rules are going to come with an extreme cost, and that cost is going to be paid for by the consumer, most notably by the poor who will not be able to absorb the cost increase.
Of course, I can hear you say, 'But the Democrats are the party of the poor, how can they want to hurt the poor?' The problem with your question is that it is bunk. The Democrats are not the party of the poor, they do not work for the interests of the poor, nor do they care all that much about the poor except to provide them with sufficient government subsidy to ensure their vote.
At this point Republicans chime in 'See!! WE'RE the party of the poor, and OUR policies really help the poor.' But they don't. Because too many Republicans look at a problem as see an opportunity for a big G Government solution. Even Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, the founder and champion of the State's Tea Party Caucus (Which, tellingly, has absolutely nothing to do with the Tea Party) has been known to suggest that "Government must do something!" when a problem arises.
It is the nature of those who Govern, who we have elected to govern us, to want control, to want to purchase power through largesse funded primarily by your tax dollars. In the end, the entire anthropogenic climate change fallacy is nothing more than an attempt to do that. Al Gore has leveraged a scientifically dodgy movie to do just that to the tone of Millions of dollars in personal wealth, all while not changing his or his families lifestyle one iota. Mr. Gore still travels via personal jet, in armored sports utility vehicles running on diesel. In most cases he is driven, and the house in which he lives is less climate friendly than some gas processing plants.
Then we have the story of Bill McKibbon, the new-age climate change activist who has coined the term "Keep it in the ground" which, he thinks, is a call to eliminate all oil and gas production, but is being used by the government as a means to attempt to control an industry that has vexed politicians for decades.
America is unique in the fact that it allows private citizens to have ownership, and profit off of, mineral royalties. In other countries the monies paid in royalty for oil, gas, coal etc. are exclusively the property of the government. This is why Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other countries enjoy a standard of living so high. It's why Scotland thought they could afford to break-away from Great Britain, and it's why many of the so-called "Nordic Democratic Socialist" governments can make things work. In all cases, they are not socialist but oil emirates in government structure.
There is a large group of Statists in America who want our company to operate the same way. They have latched on to the carbon movement to try and accomplish this goal. What you are being sold is that it is "Wall Street" who are going to be hurt by this and who cares right?
In truth, the people who are going to be hurt the most are the landowners who rely on those royalty checks, in many cases to bridge gaps in their income. The working poor are also going to be hurt because rising energy prices will affect them the most.
Scarcity of energy will be felt the most in developing economies. In fact, lack of energy being increasingly acknowledged as a prime contributor to World poverty. You don't often hear the green movement address this because it's one of their many inconvenient truths that they seek to hide from the general public.
In fact, the green energy movement is not about plentiful, so called 'free', energy as the businesses and politicians in their pocket would have you believe. In fact, even so-called 'new-environmentalists' admit that the movement views people to be the problem. Specifically, too many people of the wrong socio-economic class and mindset.
When Bill McKibbon, Al Gore and their sycophants suggest that on carbon we need to "keep it in the ground" what they're really suggesting is that approved forms of energy production should only be available to the groups they want it to be available to.
I have no doubt that the Earth's climate is changing. I believe this just as I believe that pollution above certain levels is a bad thing. However, I remain unconvinced that we know about this planet to determine the entire cause to be anthorpogenic. There is the problem of the warming pause to which climate change true believers have attempted to discount only by tweaking their computer models. And if you're serious about science then any contention that Mann's Hockey Stick has not been totally debunked is based only on faith in the movement.
At some point, we're going to have to come to grips with the fact that man is pretty much powerless, despite all of our hubris, to alter the Earth's climate significantly. In other words.....
Climate change is coming regardless of what we try and do so our focus had better turn to how to DEAL with it rather than how to PREVENT it.
Because dealing with the issue means providing developing economies with the tools they need to power their economies in the cleanest, cheapest way possible so that they can have access to technology and medical services at a 1st world level. In order to do this we need carbon. We also need political leaders who are not pushing fantasy in a thinly veiled attempt to grab power.
Does the Oil and Gas industry need to do a better job capturing methane? You bet. But the way to accomplish this is not to punish them into leaving mineral resources in the ground.
The way to do it is to encourage other countries to adopt natural gas so that the price rebounds and capture becomes economically feasible, and profitable. The Obama Administration (aided by a complicit Congress, is doing exactly the opposite by enacting regulations that are going to greatly increase the cost of energy for the poorest among us.
Hope and change for the ruling class. Pain and suffering for everyone else. I don't think he said that on the campaign trail did he?
Oh yeah, he did.* But his predominately poor supporters ignored that and voted against their own economic interests.
We're doing this to ourselves, and there will be no reason for the government to stop until we require them to.
*OK Sorry, I couldn't find a video linking to that tweet that didn't have the crazy, birther stuff in it. My apologies.
Friday, March 04, 2016
Election 2016: Why debates are horrible (and other things)
I rarely watch political debates, I've been less inclined to do so since the Bronzed Ego has been involved in them.
It's not that I would prefer to be watching The Voice or Blindspot or something on ESPN, it's that I typically find debates useless and boring. Granted, if you genuinely have no idea who you are supporting in a political race a debate might have some utility. However, for most of us we already know who we're supporting so the debate is really just a chance to mock everyone else's chosen candidate.
With El Bronzo in the lineup, the debates are childish and stupid. Last night, if i'm reading the news reports and Twitter correctly, The Bronzed Ego's best moment was when he referred to Marco Rubio as "Little Marco" and when her assured Americans that he was, small fingers notwithstanding, very well endowed for a paunchy, elderly Caucasian male.
Yes, you're going to read that Cruz, and to a lesser extent Rubio, "cornered" El Bronzo on policy and that they beat him over the head with the twin cudgels of Trump U and Hillary Clinton donations. You'll read this morning about how Trump is thin of policy knowledge and skin and that, when challenged, he more closely resembles a school-yard bully rather than a statesman. All of this is probably true. As a matter of fact, when it comes to Trump, I would say it's definitely true.
It also doesn't matter one iota.
That's because Trump's supporters don't care about policy. They don't care whether or not Trump's health care plan will work or whether his economic plan is based on unicorn farts. What they care about is that Trump does not act like a politician. That's it, no further questions.
The thing is that the more Trump blusters around the stage, acts churlish during the debates, constantly interrupting other speakers, making snorts, grunts and "nope" comments while they talking, the more he endears himself to his followers.
Because Trump is not, has never been, about reviving the conservative movement. He's not about reigning in the regulatory state or restoring the rule of law or limiting government or promoting policies that advance wealth. Trump is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the hordes of politicians in DC who campaign like populist conservatives, but govern like Statists.
Therefore it doesn't matter that Trump things the Nuclear Triad is, in Ted Cruz words "an 80's rock band" or that Trump University was a scam on the common man. It doesn't matter that Trump thinks China is a signatory to the TPP, that he has expressed a fondness for Putin, or even that he's making threats to limit media protections found in the 1st Amendment.
What matters to his base of support is that he is not a politician, and that he does not act like one.
That is why the key to beating him lies in proving that, as a businessman, he's really nothing more than a glorified politician. It's why he's working so hard to suppress his conversation with the New York Times where he might have said that the border wall he has promised is "negotiable". It's why he wants to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, for fear the public will see that he's just like the so-called "fat cats" that he chastises when he (legally) reduces his tax burden.
The problem that the GOP and, more importantly, Rubio and Cruz are having is that they are trying to attack the Bronzed Ego like he's a politician. That won't work. What they need to be doing is adjusting their tactics to promote him as a politician, to point out all of the politician-like things that he's doing and saying. It doesn't matter that Trump has a tenuous grip on policy, but it does matter that he's more than willing to "negotiate" away core items that he's stumping for on the campaign trail. That's what has made his followers so angry and that's what will likely have the most impact.
Alternatively, the GOP needs to make the case that El Bronzo's policies will not solve the rigged system. In fact, they will only make it worse. Because a man who has operated throughout the entirety of his business career on the patronage system will not understand any other way. It's the patronage system after all that's limiting growth, contributing to wage stagnation and stifling economic mobility.
So far Cruz and Rubio's consultants have been either unable, or (more likely too ignorant) to make that charge stick. They're calling plays from a playbook that might have worked against Romney and McCain (not a real conservative) but which the Bronzed defense has figured out. To be fair however, it's not just the campaign consultants who haven't figured it out. Many of the so-called Republican 'pundits' and media personalities haven't either.
What they have figured out is that the Bronzed Ego is good for ratings, which means that they are increasingly starting to back his campaign. While that's a blog-post for another time it does say a lot about why the GOP is struggling, and threatening to collapse as a national party if it hasn't already.
El Bronzo is a politician, and not an especially intelligent or talented one at that. If the candidates and GOP can't make that case then maybe we're better off blowing it up and focusing on #PostGOP matters?
It's not that I would prefer to be watching The Voice or Blindspot or something on ESPN, it's that I typically find debates useless and boring. Granted, if you genuinely have no idea who you are supporting in a political race a debate might have some utility. However, for most of us we already know who we're supporting so the debate is really just a chance to mock everyone else's chosen candidate.
With El Bronzo in the lineup, the debates are childish and stupid. Last night, if i'm reading the news reports and Twitter correctly, The Bronzed Ego's best moment was when he referred to Marco Rubio as "Little Marco" and when her assured Americans that he was, small fingers notwithstanding, very well endowed for a paunchy, elderly Caucasian male.
Yes, you're going to read that Cruz, and to a lesser extent Rubio, "cornered" El Bronzo on policy and that they beat him over the head with the twin cudgels of Trump U and Hillary Clinton donations. You'll read this morning about how Trump is thin of policy knowledge and skin and that, when challenged, he more closely resembles a school-yard bully rather than a statesman. All of this is probably true. As a matter of fact, when it comes to Trump, I would say it's definitely true.
It also doesn't matter one iota.
That's because Trump's supporters don't care about policy. They don't care whether or not Trump's health care plan will work or whether his economic plan is based on unicorn farts. What they care about is that Trump does not act like a politician. That's it, no further questions.
The thing is that the more Trump blusters around the stage, acts churlish during the debates, constantly interrupting other speakers, making snorts, grunts and "nope" comments while they talking, the more he endears himself to his followers.
Because Trump is not, has never been, about reviving the conservative movement. He's not about reigning in the regulatory state or restoring the rule of law or limiting government or promoting policies that advance wealth. Trump is nothing more than a giant middle finger to the hordes of politicians in DC who campaign like populist conservatives, but govern like Statists.
Therefore it doesn't matter that Trump things the Nuclear Triad is, in Ted Cruz words "an 80's rock band" or that Trump University was a scam on the common man. It doesn't matter that Trump thinks China is a signatory to the TPP, that he has expressed a fondness for Putin, or even that he's making threats to limit media protections found in the 1st Amendment.
What matters to his base of support is that he is not a politician, and that he does not act like one.
That is why the key to beating him lies in proving that, as a businessman, he's really nothing more than a glorified politician. It's why he's working so hard to suppress his conversation with the New York Times where he might have said that the border wall he has promised is "negotiable". It's why he wants to keep his tax returns out of the public eye, for fear the public will see that he's just like the so-called "fat cats" that he chastises when he (legally) reduces his tax burden.
The problem that the GOP and, more importantly, Rubio and Cruz are having is that they are trying to attack the Bronzed Ego like he's a politician. That won't work. What they need to be doing is adjusting their tactics to promote him as a politician, to point out all of the politician-like things that he's doing and saying. It doesn't matter that Trump has a tenuous grip on policy, but it does matter that he's more than willing to "negotiate" away core items that he's stumping for on the campaign trail. That's what has made his followers so angry and that's what will likely have the most impact.
Alternatively, the GOP needs to make the case that El Bronzo's policies will not solve the rigged system. In fact, they will only make it worse. Because a man who has operated throughout the entirety of his business career on the patronage system will not understand any other way. It's the patronage system after all that's limiting growth, contributing to wage stagnation and stifling economic mobility.
So far Cruz and Rubio's consultants have been either unable, or (more likely too ignorant) to make that charge stick. They're calling plays from a playbook that might have worked against Romney and McCain (not a real conservative) but which the Bronzed defense has figured out. To be fair however, it's not just the campaign consultants who haven't figured it out. Many of the so-called Republican 'pundits' and media personalities haven't either.
What they have figured out is that the Bronzed Ego is good for ratings, which means that they are increasingly starting to back his campaign. While that's a blog-post for another time it does say a lot about why the GOP is struggling, and threatening to collapse as a national party if it hasn't already.
El Bronzo is a politician, and not an especially intelligent or talented one at that. If the candidates and GOP can't make that case then maybe we're better off blowing it up and focusing on #PostGOP matters?
Thursday, March 03, 2016
Election 2016: What to do #PostGOP ?
First.
Trump, Cruz and Rubio had fair (not great) nights on Super Tuesday. I realize this runs counter to what you've read in the media (namely, that the Bronzed Ego triumphed). In fact, Trump's delegate haul of 238 was on the lower end of what many observers felt he needed to call the evening a success (the O/U for that was 250).
Cruz, held serve in Texas (his home state) and, in a mild surprise, Oklahoma and Alaska, but failed to register, most notably with evangelicals, almost every where else. That said, he currently stands second in the delegate count so many people, most of whom don't seem to understand maps, are suggesting he's the top guy to knock out Trump.
Rubio's math is a little tougher. First, he hasn't "won" anything except Minnesota so he's struggling to make people understand the power of proportional delegates. It doesn't help that he's up against the Bronzed Ego, who is furthering the regression of the general population by focusing on "wins" instead of delegate counts. For example, Trump "won" Virginia but only received one more delegate than did Rubio.
Kasich has no path, he's a regional candidate who simply refuses to see that, either through a sense of malice toward the conservative arm of the GOP, or by blinders provided by his consultants. Carson did see that he's a fringe candidate (finally) and (sort-of) suspended his campaign.
Where this leaves us is in the unenviable position of having to listen to almost every pundit on the right, many of whom are partially responsible for getting us here in the first place, tell us that El Bronzo is either the worst thing in the history of worst things or the greatest thing since sliced white bread.
On the other side, we have the Democrats who, as they do, are suddenly finding themselves "very concerned" over what's happening to the GOP. By concerned, of course, they mean "crapping themselves in glee and breaking out the champagne bottles."
Regardless of what the pundits are saying, I think Trump is the leader with Rubio and Cruz' odds getting longer and longer. What is clear is that the rusting hulk that is the GOP National Party has passed it's expiration date and those of us concerned with quaint ideas such as economic and political freedom had better start planning for what's next.
I call it #PostGOP and I think its going to be crucial to conservatives to consider this.
To me, the two-main issues of importance are going to be reigning in the ever-growing octopus that is the regulatory State, and re-establishing the rule-of-law in American politics. Yes, issues such as abortion and National defense and infrastructure matter, but those issues are nothing if we don't have the political and economic freedoms in place that the Country was founded on.
Yes, there are times in our history that America has behaved badly. As a country we haven't always lived up to our potential. In short, we've done some bad things. Unlike other countries however America has (eventually) for the most part tried to right those wrongs and learn from its mistakes.
Can we do better? You bet. Our relationship with Central and South America is one area where we can improve. Internationally and domestically we can walk back race relations from the ledge of silliness that President Zero has placed it.
More importantly, we can reign in the over-burdensome regulatory state and let business people, and private citizens, go more easily about the business of creating wealth. What this will really do is reignite the concept of social mobility, the idea that you're not limited to your current status just because you were born into it. It's this lack of social mobility that's angering so many people in the first place. (If you read one article that I link to in this post, please make it this one)
I'm not sure if either Rubio or Cruz are going to be able to knock the Bronzed Ego out of the catbird seat for the Republican nomination. To be honest, I think that's about as likely as Her Highness actually being indicted by Obama's Justice Department. What I do know is that any conversation of conservatism post-Trump is going to have to happen at the local level first. The brand, at least in Texas, where I live) is starting to take on a significant amount of water.
The question now is, what comes next? First though we have to let this election cycle play out.
#NeverTrump
Trump, Cruz and Rubio had fair (not great) nights on Super Tuesday. I realize this runs counter to what you've read in the media (namely, that the Bronzed Ego triumphed). In fact, Trump's delegate haul of 238 was on the lower end of what many observers felt he needed to call the evening a success (the O/U for that was 250).
Cruz, held serve in Texas (his home state) and, in a mild surprise, Oklahoma and Alaska, but failed to register, most notably with evangelicals, almost every where else. That said, he currently stands second in the delegate count so many people, most of whom don't seem to understand maps, are suggesting he's the top guy to knock out Trump.
Rubio's math is a little tougher. First, he hasn't "won" anything except Minnesota so he's struggling to make people understand the power of proportional delegates. It doesn't help that he's up against the Bronzed Ego, who is furthering the regression of the general population by focusing on "wins" instead of delegate counts. For example, Trump "won" Virginia but only received one more delegate than did Rubio.
Kasich has no path, he's a regional candidate who simply refuses to see that, either through a sense of malice toward the conservative arm of the GOP, or by blinders provided by his consultants. Carson did see that he's a fringe candidate (finally) and (sort-of) suspended his campaign.
Where this leaves us is in the unenviable position of having to listen to almost every pundit on the right, many of whom are partially responsible for getting us here in the first place, tell us that El Bronzo is either the worst thing in the history of worst things or the greatest thing since sliced white bread.
On the other side, we have the Democrats who, as they do, are suddenly finding themselves "very concerned" over what's happening to the GOP. By concerned, of course, they mean "crapping themselves in glee and breaking out the champagne bottles."
Regardless of what the pundits are saying, I think Trump is the leader with Rubio and Cruz' odds getting longer and longer. What is clear is that the rusting hulk that is the GOP National Party has passed it's expiration date and those of us concerned with quaint ideas such as economic and political freedom had better start planning for what's next.
I call it #PostGOP and I think its going to be crucial to conservatives to consider this.
To me, the two-main issues of importance are going to be reigning in the ever-growing octopus that is the regulatory State, and re-establishing the rule-of-law in American politics. Yes, issues such as abortion and National defense and infrastructure matter, but those issues are nothing if we don't have the political and economic freedoms in place that the Country was founded on.
Yes, there are times in our history that America has behaved badly. As a country we haven't always lived up to our potential. In short, we've done some bad things. Unlike other countries however America has (eventually) for the most part tried to right those wrongs and learn from its mistakes.
Can we do better? You bet. Our relationship with Central and South America is one area where we can improve. Internationally and domestically we can walk back race relations from the ledge of silliness that President Zero has placed it.
More importantly, we can reign in the over-burdensome regulatory state and let business people, and private citizens, go more easily about the business of creating wealth. What this will really do is reignite the concept of social mobility, the idea that you're not limited to your current status just because you were born into it. It's this lack of social mobility that's angering so many people in the first place. (If you read one article that I link to in this post, please make it this one)
I'm not sure if either Rubio or Cruz are going to be able to knock the Bronzed Ego out of the catbird seat for the Republican nomination. To be honest, I think that's about as likely as Her Highness actually being indicted by Obama's Justice Department. What I do know is that any conversation of conservatism post-Trump is going to have to happen at the local level first. The brand, at least in Texas, where I live) is starting to take on a significant amount of water.
The question now is, what comes next? First though we have to let this election cycle play out.
#NeverTrump
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Election 2016: Super Tuesday
First: Read this.....
Never Trump. Jon Gabriel, Ricochet
Second: It's no secret that I've always been a reluctant member of the Republican Party. This is in large part because most Republicans are joyless people with whom I have little in common. When you're a pro-gay marriage, pro-gambling, pro-immigration, pro-individual choice Republican with libertarian leanings you often find yourself at cross-purposes with the Party in the Bible-belt South. (One issue on which we do agree is pro-life, that wasn't always the case but I was wrong then, and have come around now)
The problem is that the Democrats are even worse. If you want to be depressed, spend some time around a progressive social justice warrior without a fifth of whiskey. If you can do that without making a bee-line toward the medicine cabinet more power to you.
Also, Democratic policy, for the most part, is an exercise in silliness. Yes, the GOP is too corporation friendly and yes, they get issues like immigration totally wrong. I admit that their 100% insistence on cutting taxes for the rich gets tiresome.
But they aren't anti-business, for the most part and they aren't full of social justice warriors.
That said, if the GOP selects Trump as their nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America I will, as will many others, leave the party. This time I will not come back.
Because if a group of people that I'm not all that sure about anyway decide to nominate an odious, self-promoting, wanna-be strongman as their standard bearer I'm out.
Of course, if Trump does get the nomination the very real possibility exists that the GOP itself might be out. Oh sure, it will still limp along in some manner, and at the State level there will probably still be some life, but as a National entity it could find itself crippled for a generation.
This would be a disaster for the Nation as Democrats would have free-reign to undo each and every piece of the American Experiment to their choosing. You could pretty much say goodbye to the Bill of Rights, profitable business, finance as we know it, and prosperity. Under policies designed to promote "clean energy" (but which would really be designed to limit energy) the poor and middle-class would suffer greatly while the ruling and courtesan classes dined on peacock and baby seal. The income gap would turn into an un-passable gulf and poverty rates would sky-rocket.
Increased regulation would stifle entrepreneurship, the newly-empowered unions would destroy productivity and profitability and federal environmental policy would all but shutter the oil and gas industry, causing millions to find themselves out of work with few prospects. Patronage would surpass merit as the means to success and all the while the GOP will find itself relegated to permanent minority status, similar to the Republican party in California.
I cannot and will not be a party to that.
So, today I'm going to cast my vote for Marco Rubio. It's quite possible this is the last vote that I will ever cast as a Republican.
#NeverTrump
Never Trump. Jon Gabriel, Ricochet
Second: It's no secret that I've always been a reluctant member of the Republican Party. This is in large part because most Republicans are joyless people with whom I have little in common. When you're a pro-gay marriage, pro-gambling, pro-immigration, pro-individual choice Republican with libertarian leanings you often find yourself at cross-purposes with the Party in the Bible-belt South. (One issue on which we do agree is pro-life, that wasn't always the case but I was wrong then, and have come around now)
The problem is that the Democrats are even worse. If you want to be depressed, spend some time around a progressive social justice warrior without a fifth of whiskey. If you can do that without making a bee-line toward the medicine cabinet more power to you.
Also, Democratic policy, for the most part, is an exercise in silliness. Yes, the GOP is too corporation friendly and yes, they get issues like immigration totally wrong. I admit that their 100% insistence on cutting taxes for the rich gets tiresome.
But they aren't anti-business, for the most part and they aren't full of social justice warriors.
That said, if the GOP selects Trump as their nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America I will, as will many others, leave the party. This time I will not come back.
Because if a group of people that I'm not all that sure about anyway decide to nominate an odious, self-promoting, wanna-be strongman as their standard bearer I'm out.
Of course, if Trump does get the nomination the very real possibility exists that the GOP itself might be out. Oh sure, it will still limp along in some manner, and at the State level there will probably still be some life, but as a National entity it could find itself crippled for a generation.
This would be a disaster for the Nation as Democrats would have free-reign to undo each and every piece of the American Experiment to their choosing. You could pretty much say goodbye to the Bill of Rights, profitable business, finance as we know it, and prosperity. Under policies designed to promote "clean energy" (but which would really be designed to limit energy) the poor and middle-class would suffer greatly while the ruling and courtesan classes dined on peacock and baby seal. The income gap would turn into an un-passable gulf and poverty rates would sky-rocket.
Increased regulation would stifle entrepreneurship, the newly-empowered unions would destroy productivity and profitability and federal environmental policy would all but shutter the oil and gas industry, causing millions to find themselves out of work with few prospects. Patronage would surpass merit as the means to success and all the while the GOP will find itself relegated to permanent minority status, similar to the Republican party in California.
I cannot and will not be a party to that.
So, today I'm going to cast my vote for Marco Rubio. It's quite possible this is the last vote that I will ever cast as a Republican.
#NeverTrump
Friday, February 26, 2016
Election 2016: The Republicans and Democrats have the same problem.
If you listen to the media, the GOP should just close up shop now. Given that Donald trump is leading the nomination process, after less than a 10th of the delegates have been awarded, and no one can seemingly put a dent in Mr. Trumps armor, it's just time for them to throw in the towel and let the much more reasonable Democrats run things.
If you listen to the media you could be forgiven for thinking this is what's going on. If you look at the hard numbers (removing the Democratic super-delegates [more on them later]) you'd quickly realize that the problems both parties are currently experiencing are almost identical.
Let me explain.
Currently, the Grand Old Party is struggling to come to terms with the reality that fully 30-40% of it's party members lack basic literacy in civics. They don't understand how it is that laws get passed, and why it's difficult to accomplish anything if you do not control all of the three branches in the American government. (And, even then, it's not a given. [Ask Obama how his policy priorities, outside of ObamaCare, fared while the Dems held both houses of Congress and the White House]). This is why the government shut-down never really had a chance, once the American people sided with the Democrats, it's why Ted Cruz meaningless "repeal and replace" bills over Obamacare are just more grandstanding (Veto anyone?) and it's why things are currently stuck (stalled really) in D.C. currently.
To "remake" the country in the way they see fit the GOP needs to win elections, at all levels. While it's true that they would have a great chance of accomplishing this if they held the Executive branch of government, the lack of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would be the hedge against getting much done even then.
The Democratic Party is not having to really face the reality that 30-40% of it's party members lack basic financial literacy because of two reasons. First, the party did a good job clearing the field of meaningful competition for Hillary Clinton. Because of this there is only one guide post for those party members who remain tenuously connected to reality to lash their ships. Whether for good or for ill that post is Her Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton, possibly the most corrupt, entitled candidate to ever stand for a major party nomination in recent history.
Second, the Demcrats, for all of their hiding behind democracy and voter's rights, have possibly the most undemocratic primary process in the free, Western world. Hillary's current delegate lead of 502 to 70 is largely a construct of the Party's anti-Democratic SuperDelegate system which, in reality, pushes the nomination toward the candidate who best plays ball with the Democratic Party elite. Eight years ago that was Barack Obama, this year it's Hillary Clinton. (Note: The Republicans have "super" delegates as well but they are far less in number, and much more strongly committed to vote the way of their state's primary voters).
If all of this sounds a little bit convenient and "establishment" friendly to you, you're right.
What this has really done is kept the absolute top of the Democratic Party (Nationally) lily white while it's voter mix is increasingly diverse. Ironically, the masses who continue to vote for this confab of upper-crust, predominantly Caucasian set of Democrats provide the role of useful idiot by continuing to gain ground, and media time, calling the GOP a bunch of racists. To be fair, the GOP aides in allowing this more often than not be acting tone-deaf on racial issues, as well as having possibly the worst urban messaging in recorded history. (Possibly Marie Antoinette was worse, but not by much).
Sadly, for the GOP, during this election cycle it's not only the messaging that's off, but their entire function as a party. They've lost control of their 30-40% of angry, low-information voters and (in part to a split-ticket and in part due to inconsistent messaging) are currently in danger of nominating, to represent them on the Presidential ballot, a man who has spent his life as a member of the opposing party. A man who has, at the minimum, understood that the low-information voter on the right is enthralled by anti-immigrant rhetoric, protectionist trade language and a hearty dislike of anything remotely politically correct and has channeled that. Anger being a powerful, albeit historically temporary, motivator.
That Trump has done this and is considered (by some) to be the favorite to win the GOP Presidential nomination while Sanders, who has done the same thing exactly instead of choice of targets (the 1% vs. immigrants) is not speaks more about the job the party did pre-election than anything it says about the candidates or their electorate.
The Democrats and the Republicans have both spent most of the last 20 years catering to an angry sub-set of their electoral base. In many, not all, but many, cases those angry people also lack the basic knowledge to succeed in modern times. This is why demagogues succeed, because it's easier to blame someone else for your faults than to blame yourself.
Which brings us back to the GOP.
IF Trump wins the nomination and IF, as many (including myself) predict, the party suffers down-ballot because of the same, you're likely to hear a lot of clap-trap about how the "media" framed things to make the GOP (and by extension conservatives) look bad. This will ignore the fact that the GOP's problems are largely of their own making.
For all of the talk about the 'biased' media the GOP misses the point. The media is biased against ideas, not party. And the replacement media that the GOP has embraced (talk radio, independent Internet news outlets etc.) have been far worse. Ratings hungry talking heads such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Erick Erickson are not the solution, they're the problem. (At least part of it). In Texas the finger should be pointed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and his fire-breathing (light on action) sycophants.
A light at the end of the tunnel?
For one, the GOP is having to deal with it's issues and is currently starting to turn it's serious talkers toward educating the angry plurality of voters. This could mean that education rises and GOP low-information voters is on the wane.
The Democrats are putting their heads in the sand. Long-term this could spell trouble for a party who might find themselves fully running against the American system and embracing policies that would diminish the Country over time.
That might play to the base, but independents and moderates would, for a while, be a lost cause.
If you listen to the media you could be forgiven for thinking this is what's going on. If you look at the hard numbers (removing the Democratic super-delegates [more on them later]) you'd quickly realize that the problems both parties are currently experiencing are almost identical.
Let me explain.
Currently, the Grand Old Party is struggling to come to terms with the reality that fully 30-40% of it's party members lack basic literacy in civics. They don't understand how it is that laws get passed, and why it's difficult to accomplish anything if you do not control all of the three branches in the American government. (And, even then, it's not a given. [Ask Obama how his policy priorities, outside of ObamaCare, fared while the Dems held both houses of Congress and the White House]). This is why the government shut-down never really had a chance, once the American people sided with the Democrats, it's why Ted Cruz meaningless "repeal and replace" bills over Obamacare are just more grandstanding (Veto anyone?) and it's why things are currently stuck (stalled really) in D.C. currently.
To "remake" the country in the way they see fit the GOP needs to win elections, at all levels. While it's true that they would have a great chance of accomplishing this if they held the Executive branch of government, the lack of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would be the hedge against getting much done even then.
The Democratic Party is not having to really face the reality that 30-40% of it's party members lack basic financial literacy because of two reasons. First, the party did a good job clearing the field of meaningful competition for Hillary Clinton. Because of this there is only one guide post for those party members who remain tenuously connected to reality to lash their ships. Whether for good or for ill that post is Her Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton, possibly the most corrupt, entitled candidate to ever stand for a major party nomination in recent history.
Second, the Demcrats, for all of their hiding behind democracy and voter's rights, have possibly the most undemocratic primary process in the free, Western world. Hillary's current delegate lead of 502 to 70 is largely a construct of the Party's anti-Democratic SuperDelegate system which, in reality, pushes the nomination toward the candidate who best plays ball with the Democratic Party elite. Eight years ago that was Barack Obama, this year it's Hillary Clinton. (Note: The Republicans have "super" delegates as well but they are far less in number, and much more strongly committed to vote the way of their state's primary voters).
If all of this sounds a little bit convenient and "establishment" friendly to you, you're right.
What this has really done is kept the absolute top of the Democratic Party (Nationally) lily white while it's voter mix is increasingly diverse. Ironically, the masses who continue to vote for this confab of upper-crust, predominantly Caucasian set of Democrats provide the role of useful idiot by continuing to gain ground, and media time, calling the GOP a bunch of racists. To be fair, the GOP aides in allowing this more often than not be acting tone-deaf on racial issues, as well as having possibly the worst urban messaging in recorded history. (Possibly Marie Antoinette was worse, but not by much).
Sadly, for the GOP, during this election cycle it's not only the messaging that's off, but their entire function as a party. They've lost control of their 30-40% of angry, low-information voters and (in part to a split-ticket and in part due to inconsistent messaging) are currently in danger of nominating, to represent them on the Presidential ballot, a man who has spent his life as a member of the opposing party. A man who has, at the minimum, understood that the low-information voter on the right is enthralled by anti-immigrant rhetoric, protectionist trade language and a hearty dislike of anything remotely politically correct and has channeled that. Anger being a powerful, albeit historically temporary, motivator.
That Trump has done this and is considered (by some) to be the favorite to win the GOP Presidential nomination while Sanders, who has done the same thing exactly instead of choice of targets (the 1% vs. immigrants) is not speaks more about the job the party did pre-election than anything it says about the candidates or their electorate.
The Democrats and the Republicans have both spent most of the last 20 years catering to an angry sub-set of their electoral base. In many, not all, but many, cases those angry people also lack the basic knowledge to succeed in modern times. This is why demagogues succeed, because it's easier to blame someone else for your faults than to blame yourself.
Which brings us back to the GOP.
IF Trump wins the nomination and IF, as many (including myself) predict, the party suffers down-ballot because of the same, you're likely to hear a lot of clap-trap about how the "media" framed things to make the GOP (and by extension conservatives) look bad. This will ignore the fact that the GOP's problems are largely of their own making.
For all of the talk about the 'biased' media the GOP misses the point. The media is biased against ideas, not party. And the replacement media that the GOP has embraced (talk radio, independent Internet news outlets etc.) have been far worse. Ratings hungry talking heads such as Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, Ann Coulter and Erick Erickson are not the solution, they're the problem. (At least part of it). In Texas the finger should be pointed at Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and his fire-breathing (light on action) sycophants.
A light at the end of the tunnel?
For one, the GOP is having to deal with it's issues and is currently starting to turn it's serious talkers toward educating the angry plurality of voters. This could mean that education rises and GOP low-information voters is on the wane.
The Democrats are putting their heads in the sand. Long-term this could spell trouble for a party who might find themselves fully running against the American system and embracing policies that would diminish the Country over time.
That might play to the base, but independents and moderates would, for a while, be a lost cause.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Election 2016: So you want to be a GOP political pundit.
Just say "establishment" over and over and people will think you know what you're saying.
Armageddon for the GOP Establishment. Jeremy Carl, National Review Online
What Mr. Carl writes would be true, if there existed a GOP "Establishment" as it used to be understood in the 80's and 90's. It's not so true when you look at the party today. During the days of Reagan (and Bush the elder) the GOP "establishment" controlled most of the party apparatus and had a very big hand in selecting the eventual nominee. Think the current Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's six-coin-flip run in Iowa. Today however the GOP is made up of factions. And winning the nomination is going to depend not on establishment support, as many pundits are claiming, but in corralling the support of enough factions to come out ahead.
In reality, what's called the "establishment" of the GOP are really two factions who typically find their interests aligned. The Corporate Faction and Northeastern Moderates.
In light of this I think it's better to look at the nomination process via who is going to receive support from the various factions, and whether or not that presents them with a path to victory. The way I see it, there are seven major factions currently at work in the Republican Party.
The "Flyover" Faction: These are the Caucasian, mostly poor, mostly pissed off voters that Kevin D. Williamson describes in the White Ghetto. If you have not read this piece of reporting you should, because it's vital to understanding just how strong their support of Trump is. While not wholly confined to Appalachia these people feel that the system of immigration and affirmative action are slanted against them. They are voting on an emotional level.
The Social Tea Party: Not to be mistaken with the people who attended the tea party rallies post bailout, these people are often lumped in with the same but are really a different movement altogether. It's also not fair to call them Evangelicals either. By social I mean "culture" and by culture I mean language and immigration. They count among their members some in the Flyover faction but they are truly a faction apart. Trump draws a lot of support from these people and it includes many in the White Supremacy movement.
The Fiscal Tea Party: These are the people who, at parties, always start off by telling you they're "not Republican, they're conservative" and then devolve from there. They are yuuuuge Ted Cruz supporters and are likely to have something about being "A strict Constitutionalist" somewhere in their social media bio. Ironically, these are also the people who make signs reading "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" at big rallies.
Evangelicals: Another Cruz-Group. The Evangelicals haven't changed much over the years, since the rise of the Moral Majority that is. They are politically active, believe in a theocracy of convenience and almost always vote Republican. They are pro-life, anti-gambling, anti-alcohol, anti-drug legalization and will go to great lengths to tell you that they don't hate the GLBTQP community, but don't want the US to legalize their orientation either.
The Beltway/D.C. Faction: This is K-street. The thought is often, mistakenly, that this is the group that supports business but that is sometimes not true. These groups come from Wall Street, Military Suppliers and other companies who (to be honest) like to take a seat at the government trough. They are widely derided but highly necessary. They want to support Jeb(?) but his candidacy has been so weak that they are shifting between Rubio and Jeb(?) almost interchangeably.
Northeast Moderates: This group is Jeb(?)'s core group of support. Again, they're often referred to as "The Establishment" but that is no longer true. They are old money, a LOT of old money, and they have much influence in the region but their reach is no longer Nationwide. They also have been wavering from Jeb(?) and are looking for a home.
Business: Not to be confused with lobbyists and/or Wall Street. The Business faction is made up of several business sectors and is not as monolithic as people think. The energy sector has different needs than the service sector for example. However, most of this support is currently behind Rubio. As derided as it is in other GOP factions the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill would have been a boon to most business groups.
There are other, smaller, factions for sure but the seven above are pretty much the ones that are going to make up the electorate that selects the Republican nominee. The exception to this was in New Hampshire, where Kasich was able to cobble together enough fake-Republican voters to come in 2nd, something he is unlikely to repeat in future states. This is also why I think Donald Trump might not see another win for quite some time.
In Iowa, the results for the GOP tend to skew toward the Evangelical candidate, which gave Cruz the edge. However, the large, Midwestern, influence exerted by the Flyover faction pushed Trump up to a respectable (if not funny) 2nd place finish. As I stated earlier, New Hampshire is a result not likely to be repeated. It's low levels of Evangelical voters, coupled with a large influx of moderate Democratic voters, skewed the results. More important to the health of each candidate's chances will be the results in Dixie.
Due to the rather large prevalence of Tea Party and Evangelical voters, I'm expecting Cruz to start gaining some distance over Trump. And while the Flyovers had some pull in Iowa and (to a lesser extent) New Hampshire, I expect their influence to be muted in the much more economically well-off South. I think Rubio will start doing better as well. Gone will be the Kasich distraction (he'll fall back to last place) and Jeb(?) will be diminished away from his ancestral home in New England. (The Bush Family, in case you are wondering, are NOT Texan)
One last point: Mr. Carl mentions, in his article, that the eventual Republican nominee has either won Iowa or New Hampshire in every election since the modern calendar was adopted in 1976. I think that's an interesting stat that is of diminishing importance. The reason for that is the democratization of the media.
In prior elections engaged voters, of the type that vote in primaries, were limited in information to a few mainstream sources. Most campaign coverage was consumed by opening the morning paper with a bowl of cereal, or watching the network news. That started changing in recent years as cable news rose to prominence, but even with the emergence of Fox News the narratives were still very narrow.
More than the general electorate voter the primary voter is much more likely to consume a large amount of political information. Increasingly, this information is much more varied and (in many cases) much less likely to hide its bias than was the old. This means that many of the old narratives forced by the media, are now countered endlessly through articles, tweets, Facebook posts you name it.
An example of this, this year, would be John Kasich. In prior elections his 2nd place finish would have been reported as the resurrection of Lazarus. He would be instantly branded a contender and pushed forth to South Carolina where pundits would say "he's in with a chance". This year's election however the much-needed context of his 2nd place finish is being discussed. What this means for Kasich is the likelihood that most, not all, voters in the Southern states will see his finish for what it is, an outcome of NH's silly primary/social system, and less a product of his viability.
Next up are Nevada (not all that important) and South Carolina (more important), where I predict the story will be that the "Establishment" is back because Rubio is going to do well in two States that he's always been targeting. Rhetoric to the contrary, I still view this as a three man race between Cruz, Rubio & Trump. I will say now, however, that instead of having Rubio a slight favorite I'm pivoting to the Jr. Senator from Texas as the odds-on favorite.
I also expect Christie, Fiorina** and Carson to exit the race soon. Jeb(?) should exit but family dreams die hard. I doubt he lasts long after S. Carolina.
Odds to win Republican Nomination*:
Cruz: 3/1
Rubio: 7/1
Trump: 15/1
Bush: 100/1
Other: 1000/1
*Note: The odds are NOT a measure of my support of any candidate, just where I think we stand.
**Additional Note: Since I wrote this two days ago both Christie and Fiorina have "suspended" their Presidential campaigns so I was correct about that.
Armageddon for the GOP Establishment. Jeremy Carl, National Review Online
The night could have gone worse for the GOP establishment—but I’m not really sure how. Not only did Donald Trump win an overwhelming victory in New Hampshire, but the establishment lane of viable candidates got more crowded than it had been going in. And remember that since the current primary calendar was inaugurated in 1976, no GOP nominee has ever emerged without winning Iowa or New Hampshire.
What Mr. Carl writes would be true, if there existed a GOP "Establishment" as it used to be understood in the 80's and 90's. It's not so true when you look at the party today. During the days of Reagan (and Bush the elder) the GOP "establishment" controlled most of the party apparatus and had a very big hand in selecting the eventual nominee. Think the current Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's six-coin-flip run in Iowa. Today however the GOP is made up of factions. And winning the nomination is going to depend not on establishment support, as many pundits are claiming, but in corralling the support of enough factions to come out ahead.
In reality, what's called the "establishment" of the GOP are really two factions who typically find their interests aligned. The Corporate Faction and Northeastern Moderates.
In light of this I think it's better to look at the nomination process via who is going to receive support from the various factions, and whether or not that presents them with a path to victory. The way I see it, there are seven major factions currently at work in the Republican Party.
The "Flyover" Faction: These are the Caucasian, mostly poor, mostly pissed off voters that Kevin D. Williamson describes in the White Ghetto. If you have not read this piece of reporting you should, because it's vital to understanding just how strong their support of Trump is. While not wholly confined to Appalachia these people feel that the system of immigration and affirmative action are slanted against them. They are voting on an emotional level.
The Social Tea Party: Not to be mistaken with the people who attended the tea party rallies post bailout, these people are often lumped in with the same but are really a different movement altogether. It's also not fair to call them Evangelicals either. By social I mean "culture" and by culture I mean language and immigration. They count among their members some in the Flyover faction but they are truly a faction apart. Trump draws a lot of support from these people and it includes many in the White Supremacy movement.
The Fiscal Tea Party: These are the people who, at parties, always start off by telling you they're "not Republican, they're conservative" and then devolve from there. They are yuuuuge Ted Cruz supporters and are likely to have something about being "A strict Constitutionalist" somewhere in their social media bio. Ironically, these are also the people who make signs reading "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" at big rallies.
Evangelicals: Another Cruz-Group. The Evangelicals haven't changed much over the years, since the rise of the Moral Majority that is. They are politically active, believe in a theocracy of convenience and almost always vote Republican. They are pro-life, anti-gambling, anti-alcohol, anti-drug legalization and will go to great lengths to tell you that they don't hate the GLBTQP community, but don't want the US to legalize their orientation either.
The Beltway/D.C. Faction: This is K-street. The thought is often, mistakenly, that this is the group that supports business but that is sometimes not true. These groups come from Wall Street, Military Suppliers and other companies who (to be honest) like to take a seat at the government trough. They are widely derided but highly necessary. They want to support Jeb(?) but his candidacy has been so weak that they are shifting between Rubio and Jeb(?) almost interchangeably.
Northeast Moderates: This group is Jeb(?)'s core group of support. Again, they're often referred to as "The Establishment" but that is no longer true. They are old money, a LOT of old money, and they have much influence in the region but their reach is no longer Nationwide. They also have been wavering from Jeb(?) and are looking for a home.
Business: Not to be confused with lobbyists and/or Wall Street. The Business faction is made up of several business sectors and is not as monolithic as people think. The energy sector has different needs than the service sector for example. However, most of this support is currently behind Rubio. As derided as it is in other GOP factions the "Gang of Eight" immigration reform bill would have been a boon to most business groups.
There are other, smaller, factions for sure but the seven above are pretty much the ones that are going to make up the electorate that selects the Republican nominee. The exception to this was in New Hampshire, where Kasich was able to cobble together enough fake-Republican voters to come in 2nd, something he is unlikely to repeat in future states. This is also why I think Donald Trump might not see another win for quite some time.
In Iowa, the results for the GOP tend to skew toward the Evangelical candidate, which gave Cruz the edge. However, the large, Midwestern, influence exerted by the Flyover faction pushed Trump up to a respectable (if not funny) 2nd place finish. As I stated earlier, New Hampshire is a result not likely to be repeated. It's low levels of Evangelical voters, coupled with a large influx of moderate Democratic voters, skewed the results. More important to the health of each candidate's chances will be the results in Dixie.
Due to the rather large prevalence of Tea Party and Evangelical voters, I'm expecting Cruz to start gaining some distance over Trump. And while the Flyovers had some pull in Iowa and (to a lesser extent) New Hampshire, I expect their influence to be muted in the much more economically well-off South. I think Rubio will start doing better as well. Gone will be the Kasich distraction (he'll fall back to last place) and Jeb(?) will be diminished away from his ancestral home in New England. (The Bush Family, in case you are wondering, are NOT Texan)
One last point: Mr. Carl mentions, in his article, that the eventual Republican nominee has either won Iowa or New Hampshire in every election since the modern calendar was adopted in 1976. I think that's an interesting stat that is of diminishing importance. The reason for that is the democratization of the media.
In prior elections engaged voters, of the type that vote in primaries, were limited in information to a few mainstream sources. Most campaign coverage was consumed by opening the morning paper with a bowl of cereal, or watching the network news. That started changing in recent years as cable news rose to prominence, but even with the emergence of Fox News the narratives were still very narrow.
More than the general electorate voter the primary voter is much more likely to consume a large amount of political information. Increasingly, this information is much more varied and (in many cases) much less likely to hide its bias than was the old. This means that many of the old narratives forced by the media, are now countered endlessly through articles, tweets, Facebook posts you name it.
An example of this, this year, would be John Kasich. In prior elections his 2nd place finish would have been reported as the resurrection of Lazarus. He would be instantly branded a contender and pushed forth to South Carolina where pundits would say "he's in with a chance". This year's election however the much-needed context of his 2nd place finish is being discussed. What this means for Kasich is the likelihood that most, not all, voters in the Southern states will see his finish for what it is, an outcome of NH's silly primary/social system, and less a product of his viability.
Next up are Nevada (not all that important) and South Carolina (more important), where I predict the story will be that the "Establishment" is back because Rubio is going to do well in two States that he's always been targeting. Rhetoric to the contrary, I still view this as a three man race between Cruz, Rubio & Trump. I will say now, however, that instead of having Rubio a slight favorite I'm pivoting to the Jr. Senator from Texas as the odds-on favorite.
I also expect Christie, Fiorina** and Carson to exit the race soon. Jeb(?) should exit but family dreams die hard. I doubt he lasts long after S. Carolina.
Odds to win Republican Nomination*:
Cruz: 3/1
Rubio: 7/1
Trump: 15/1
Bush: 100/1
Other: 1000/1
*Note: The odds are NOT a measure of my support of any candidate, just where I think we stand.
**Additional Note: Since I wrote this two days ago both Christie and Fiorina have "suspended" their Presidential campaigns so I was correct about that.
Tuesday, February 02, 2016
Election 2016: What Iowa Does is Provide Some Clarity.
Thanks, I guess, to Microsoft, most of Iowa 2016 was over before it got too late last night. By 9:30 PM CST we knew that Cruz was going to win, Trump was having a bad night and Rubio and Carson out-performed expectations. What we don't know, at 10:30, when I tuned out and got ready for bed (and work tomorrow) but we know now (5 AM, at the time of this writing) is that Hillary beat the angry socialist (barely) and, barring indictment, probably laid clear her path to the Democratic nomination.
For all intents and purposes however, we're down to five, flawed, candidates from which we're going to choose who is the next President of the United States. If nothing else, last night in the snow, caucuses and remarkably consistent coin flips, Iowa served to focus the race and identify the main contenders.
On the Democratic side you have coin-flip Clinton and her e-mail servers. A woman with so much baggage she has to charter a 2nd plane just to carry it around. Despite having a likeability ranking somewhere below herpes, Democrats continue to go into the ballot-booth, and happily pull the lever for her. They have to be doing this while holding their noses. Hillary has none of the charisma and charm of Bill, lacks his ability to compromise and is seemingly transforming into a easily-confused, technology-incompetent, old woman right before our eyes. Not a sweet old woman but an angry old lady with a vicious mean-streak and temper.
Then you have Bernie Sanders, possibly the perfect candidate for the Millennial generation, physically unkempt, financially illiterate and perpetually angry about.....well he's not sure but he's damn sure angry about it. He's also considering suing Microsoft because...vote rigging or something. It's been neither confirmed, or denied, by the Sanders campaign that all of his future stops will include free tin-foil hats for himself and attendees. Feel the Bern and all of that.
For Republicans the choice is a little better. At least they have a couple of top-tier candidates who aren't either under investigation or barking at the walls.
Ted Cruz had a good night. By all accounts he had an excellent plan and ground game in a State that's historically required the same. The biggest deal, to me, is that Cruz came out AGAINST corn subsidies, was vehemently opposed by the Iowa Governor for that stance, and still won. Yes, Cruz can come off as abrasive, and the label of "Cruz the Opportunist" is probably 100% accurate, but the guy can campaign and he's on the correct side on several issues. One thing: Expect the Cruz/Birther stories to be Legion leading up to the New Hampshire primary. Trump is going to hit that hard.
Speaking of The Donald. I can't see him recovering from this blow. After spending the entire run-up to Iowa talking about how he's going to win so much you might get bored of him winning Mr. Trump's campaign lost. Not only did it lose, it almost slid to 3rd. I thought as much might happen, and have said so for weeks now. He had a lot of support in the person of people who don't historically vote. I've only seen one candidate get those people out of their houses and to the caucuses and primaries. Unfortunately, for Trump, he doesn't have either the ability to campaign, or the natural voting bloc that Obama had 8 & 4 years ago.
Perhaps the best night of all was had by Marco Rubio. Yes, he came in 3rd, in a race where he was expected to come in 3rd, but his vote percentage was higher than expected and he didn't see the emergence of Jeb? Christie, Kasich or Santorum as a viable option-candidate. This is huge because it now gives supporters of the lower-tier candidates a rallying point that I presume most are going to acquiesce around. The possible exception to this are the hard-core Paul supporters, who will probably sit this election out when their man eventually chucks it in.
Already Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee have suspended their campaigns in light of yesterday's results. I've a feeling we'll see a couple more suspensions today. I think Christie and Kasich are the two obvious candidates. Jeb? will hang in at least through New Hampshire, and maybe through to South Carolina as he desperately tries to kick-start a wheezing campaign that no-one, except a few in the money class, really has any interest in supporting. Fiorina might as well stay in, but I think she jettison's things after New Hampshire. Paul will stay in longer than he should, as will Carson, but I don't see either of them staying active much past Texas.
After that it turns into a 3-man slug-fest for the Republican nomination.
At this point I'd have to say that Rubio v. Clinton feels like the most probable outcome.
Keeping in mind this huge caveat: We still have a long way to go.
For all intents and purposes however, we're down to five, flawed, candidates from which we're going to choose who is the next President of the United States. If nothing else, last night in the snow, caucuses and remarkably consistent coin flips, Iowa served to focus the race and identify the main contenders.
On the Democratic side you have coin-flip Clinton and her e-mail servers. A woman with so much baggage she has to charter a 2nd plane just to carry it around. Despite having a likeability ranking somewhere below herpes, Democrats continue to go into the ballot-booth, and happily pull the lever for her. They have to be doing this while holding their noses. Hillary has none of the charisma and charm of Bill, lacks his ability to compromise and is seemingly transforming into a easily-confused, technology-incompetent, old woman right before our eyes. Not a sweet old woman but an angry old lady with a vicious mean-streak and temper.
Then you have Bernie Sanders, possibly the perfect candidate for the Millennial generation, physically unkempt, financially illiterate and perpetually angry about.....well he's not sure but he's damn sure angry about it. He's also considering suing Microsoft because...vote rigging or something. It's been neither confirmed, or denied, by the Sanders campaign that all of his future stops will include free tin-foil hats for himself and attendees. Feel the Bern and all of that.
For Republicans the choice is a little better. At least they have a couple of top-tier candidates who aren't either under investigation or barking at the walls.
Ted Cruz had a good night. By all accounts he had an excellent plan and ground game in a State that's historically required the same. The biggest deal, to me, is that Cruz came out AGAINST corn subsidies, was vehemently opposed by the Iowa Governor for that stance, and still won. Yes, Cruz can come off as abrasive, and the label of "Cruz the Opportunist" is probably 100% accurate, but the guy can campaign and he's on the correct side on several issues. One thing: Expect the Cruz/Birther stories to be Legion leading up to the New Hampshire primary. Trump is going to hit that hard.
Speaking of The Donald. I can't see him recovering from this blow. After spending the entire run-up to Iowa talking about how he's going to win so much you might get bored of him winning Mr. Trump's campaign lost. Not only did it lose, it almost slid to 3rd. I thought as much might happen, and have said so for weeks now. He had a lot of support in the person of people who don't historically vote. I've only seen one candidate get those people out of their houses and to the caucuses and primaries. Unfortunately, for Trump, he doesn't have either the ability to campaign, or the natural voting bloc that Obama had 8 & 4 years ago.
Perhaps the best night of all was had by Marco Rubio. Yes, he came in 3rd, in a race where he was expected to come in 3rd, but his vote percentage was higher than expected and he didn't see the emergence of Jeb? Christie, Kasich or Santorum as a viable option-candidate. This is huge because it now gives supporters of the lower-tier candidates a rallying point that I presume most are going to acquiesce around. The possible exception to this are the hard-core Paul supporters, who will probably sit this election out when their man eventually chucks it in.
Already Martin O'Malley and Mike Huckabee have suspended their campaigns in light of yesterday's results. I've a feeling we'll see a couple more suspensions today. I think Christie and Kasich are the two obvious candidates. Jeb? will hang in at least through New Hampshire, and maybe through to South Carolina as he desperately tries to kick-start a wheezing campaign that no-one, except a few in the money class, really has any interest in supporting. Fiorina might as well stay in, but I think she jettison's things after New Hampshire. Paul will stay in longer than he should, as will Carson, but I don't see either of them staying active much past Texas.
After that it turns into a 3-man slug-fest for the Republican nomination.
At this point I'd have to say that Rubio v. Clinton feels like the most probable outcome.
Keeping in mind this huge caveat: We still have a long way to go.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Taking a break: Life gets in the way
Over the past few weeks I've been able to keep fairly constant with daily posts. Unfortunately life, as it does, gets in the way from time to time.
Based on that I'll be slowing down a little bit in February until I get some more free time in the evenings to blog.
Given what I'm sure is going to be an uneven posting schedule this month might I take a moment and direct you to the following:
My Twitter Feed - Which is where all of the things I'm currently reading/writing end up. Not only do I tweet out when I make a blog post (either on here or on The Public Money) it also updates my links on....
My Pinboard Feed. - Not as in depth as my blog but it is almost like micro-blogging about different things every day.
So, keep up with those and, until we get back on a regular schedule, enjoy the caucuses and all of the assorted bad political commentary that is going to result.
Without guessing on percentages, here's my pick of how things turn out tonight.....
Republican:
1. Ted Cruz - I think he holds on, mainly because almost no one has Trump listed as their "second choice".
2. Donald Trump - Honestly, #1 and #2 could be reversed. If that happens then the Cruz campaign could be in a lot of trouble.
3. Marco Rubio - I will leave it to Evan to point out to you why this might be the best position of them all.
4. Ben Carson - Fading fast.
The rest? Time to close up shop and call it a campaign.
Democrat:
1. Hillary Clinton - In another close one, and her victory speech again reminds Democratic voters of all the reasons they didn't like her in the first place.
2. Bernie Sanders - Comes close enough that everyone starts freaking out and Democrats slowly begin to understand the ballot implications of a Sanders victory.
3. Martin O'Malley - Should drop out immediately after this.
The rest? Oh, that's right, the Democrats don't have any other 'mainstream' candidates on the ballot. I'm still surprised that Biden didn't jump in here, he could have been the nominee hands down.
If Trump and Sanders pull out wins in their respective races then Katie bar the door. The panic from the Cruz and Clinton campaigns is going to lead to some pretty comical campaign tactics.
Based on that I'll be slowing down a little bit in February until I get some more free time in the evenings to blog.
Given what I'm sure is going to be an uneven posting schedule this month might I take a moment and direct you to the following:
My Twitter Feed - Which is where all of the things I'm currently reading/writing end up. Not only do I tweet out when I make a blog post (either on here or on The Public Money) it also updates my links on....
My Pinboard Feed. - Not as in depth as my blog but it is almost like micro-blogging about different things every day.
So, keep up with those and, until we get back on a regular schedule, enjoy the caucuses and all of the assorted bad political commentary that is going to result.
Without guessing on percentages, here's my pick of how things turn out tonight.....
Republican:
1. Ted Cruz - I think he holds on, mainly because almost no one has Trump listed as their "second choice".
2. Donald Trump - Honestly, #1 and #2 could be reversed. If that happens then the Cruz campaign could be in a lot of trouble.
3. Marco Rubio - I will leave it to Evan to point out to you why this might be the best position of them all.
4. Ben Carson - Fading fast.
The rest? Time to close up shop and call it a campaign.
Democrat:
1. Hillary Clinton - In another close one, and her victory speech again reminds Democratic voters of all the reasons they didn't like her in the first place.
2. Bernie Sanders - Comes close enough that everyone starts freaking out and Democrats slowly begin to understand the ballot implications of a Sanders victory.
3. Martin O'Malley - Should drop out immediately after this.
The rest? Oh, that's right, the Democrats don't have any other 'mainstream' candidates on the ballot. I'm still surprised that Biden didn't jump in here, he could have been the nominee hands down.
If Trump and Sanders pull out wins in their respective races then Katie bar the door. The panic from the Cruz and Clinton campaigns is going to lead to some pretty comical campaign tactics.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
National Politics: No Virginia, the GOP is not crumbling
Pundits, on both the right and the left, have taken one look at Sarah Palin's endorsement of the Donald and are stepping over themselves to declare the GOP ruin as a political force.
To borrow a word: Hogwash.
It should be clear by now that I'm not a fan of Donald Ego, that I find Sarah Palin about as interesting a public figure as a half constructed night-stand. In short, I've got little use for either of the two. But it's important to remember that nary a vote has been cast in the primary election as of yet and at this time, eight years ago, Hillary Clinton was still viewed as the "shoo-in" to be the 44th President of the United States of America.
And even IF Donald Trump scores the nod, to run against Sanders in the general election, neither the GOP or the DEM party will be dead. Ballot access laws, incumbency protection fundraising schemes and gerrymandering almost assure it.
Suggesting that Trump (or Cruz for that matter) undermines the "brand" that the GOP has built is ignoring the fact that the GOP "brand" is currently a wheezing, rusty relic that's doing good in low-turnout elections but which struggles on the grand stage.
What's happening right now is that the people being polled (not the voters remember, we haven't gone to the polls yet) are throwing a hissy fit. A nation that has spent the last 15 years watching American Idol and other shows is suddenly realizing that the guy from "The Apprentice" is running for President and it seems kind of neat.
They KNOW him, and they don't know many of the others. Oh sure, most on the Left and the Right know OF Hillary Clinton, but they can't get around the fact that they just don't like her all that much. Clinton is robotic, elitist and doesn't seem like a person you would enjoy sharing a beer with. As a matter of fact, she seems like the type who would order a soda water and then spend the afternoon lecturing you on why she made a better choice. Sanders, on the other hand, would have a beer but would then spend the rest of the evening complaining that the brewery is owned by rich people. Not only would this grow tiresome but, by the end of the night, you'd really wish he would find his own ride home.
Cruz looks like he might skip out on the tab, Rubio would take FOREVER trying to figure out what he wanted, Rand Paul would sit in a corner and accuse everyone of doing it wrong and Jeb? would spend the entire night telling stories about how he USED to be the best beer pong player in his frat house, back in 1985. Kasich is probably and angry drunk, as is O'Malley, Fiorina would giggle nervously all night until you wished she'd just go away and Carson would spend all evening telling you about how bad beer is for your health. Rick Perry would have been fun, but he doesn't count anymore. Santorum and Huckabee, of course, don't drink.
Trump, on the other hand, looks like a guy who would chug the beer, order the table a round of shots and then goose the waitress when she brought them. Yes, he'd talk too loud and most of his stories would probably be full of shit, but he at least seems like you'd get some laughs out of the deal. None of the other candidates are offering that right now. Because of this, and because he speaks out of turn and seemingly doesn't care when other candidates land damaging blows, people are gravitating to him.
But this still doesn't mean that the GOP is somehow dead.
What it really means is that one reality TV star has endorsed another, and that the first reality TV star is hoping to parlay that toward a second VP nomination in hopes that she can either continue to feast at the government trough or, at least, after losing parlay that into a renewed round of interest in her TV career.
Just keep in mind, the first ballot has yet to be cast.
To borrow a word: Hogwash.
It should be clear by now that I'm not a fan of Donald Ego, that I find Sarah Palin about as interesting a public figure as a half constructed night-stand. In short, I've got little use for either of the two. But it's important to remember that nary a vote has been cast in the primary election as of yet and at this time, eight years ago, Hillary Clinton was still viewed as the "shoo-in" to be the 44th President of the United States of America.
And even IF Donald Trump scores the nod, to run against Sanders in the general election, neither the GOP or the DEM party will be dead. Ballot access laws, incumbency protection fundraising schemes and gerrymandering almost assure it.
Suggesting that Trump (or Cruz for that matter) undermines the "brand" that the GOP has built is ignoring the fact that the GOP "brand" is currently a wheezing, rusty relic that's doing good in low-turnout elections but which struggles on the grand stage.
What's happening right now is that the people being polled (not the voters remember, we haven't gone to the polls yet) are throwing a hissy fit. A nation that has spent the last 15 years watching American Idol and other shows is suddenly realizing that the guy from "The Apprentice" is running for President and it seems kind of neat.
They KNOW him, and they don't know many of the others. Oh sure, most on the Left and the Right know OF Hillary Clinton, but they can't get around the fact that they just don't like her all that much. Clinton is robotic, elitist and doesn't seem like a person you would enjoy sharing a beer with. As a matter of fact, she seems like the type who would order a soda water and then spend the afternoon lecturing you on why she made a better choice. Sanders, on the other hand, would have a beer but would then spend the rest of the evening complaining that the brewery is owned by rich people. Not only would this grow tiresome but, by the end of the night, you'd really wish he would find his own ride home.
Cruz looks like he might skip out on the tab, Rubio would take FOREVER trying to figure out what he wanted, Rand Paul would sit in a corner and accuse everyone of doing it wrong and Jeb? would spend the entire night telling stories about how he USED to be the best beer pong player in his frat house, back in 1985. Kasich is probably and angry drunk, as is O'Malley, Fiorina would giggle nervously all night until you wished she'd just go away and Carson would spend all evening telling you about how bad beer is for your health. Rick Perry would have been fun, but he doesn't count anymore. Santorum and Huckabee, of course, don't drink.
Trump, on the other hand, looks like a guy who would chug the beer, order the table a round of shots and then goose the waitress when she brought them. Yes, he'd talk too loud and most of his stories would probably be full of shit, but he at least seems like you'd get some laughs out of the deal. None of the other candidates are offering that right now. Because of this, and because he speaks out of turn and seemingly doesn't care when other candidates land damaging blows, people are gravitating to him.
But this still doesn't mean that the GOP is somehow dead.
What it really means is that one reality TV star has endorsed another, and that the first reality TV star is hoping to parlay that toward a second VP nomination in hopes that she can either continue to feast at the government trough or, at least, after losing parlay that into a renewed round of interest in her TV career.
Just keep in mind, the first ballot has yet to be cast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)