William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

Stream: Political Scientists Didn’t See Trump Coming. What Went Wrong?

Trump does not appear in this reaction.

Trump does not appear in this reaction.

Today’s terrific post is at The Stream. The Bad Science Behind Trump’s Opposition. It’s the best post. The best. It just is. I don’t know. I have friends in journalism. Top guys. Win all the big awards. One of them asked me, they asked, “Briggs, why is The Stream so great?” I said: look, it’s the greatest, especially this post. It really is. Everybody should go there and read this post. The writing is the best. It just is.

Before I begin, let me remind you of the ancient wisdom of not shooting the messenger. Given that…

Many folks aren’t too happy with the way the primaries are going. To say that angst, agitation, and anxiety are on the ascendant is an understatement. The Washington Post in particular is acting like listeners to Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds broadcast. It’s full-on panic over there, with their writers running in circles with their hands over their ears—which makes it hard to use their keyboards, as we see next.

Here is a small sample of headlines that appeared just in the last couple of days:

The last is my particular favorite…

Tell me. Where else have we seen lately academics loving their models too much? I’ll tell you: pretty much everywhere, from global warming to sociology to psychology and now to political science. Their multifarious failures are the natural consequence of insulating themselves from reality.

The writer of the “No one thought” piece is one Daniel W. Drezner, “a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.” He said:

Trump is winning because no significant Republican coalition seriously tried to oppose him when there was still time for it to work. And the reason no powerful Republican coalition emerged to stop him is that the GOP believed all the analysts who said Trump had no chance. In other words, the political science theories predicting that someone like Trump was highly unlikely to win a major-party nomination were so widely believed that they turned out to refute themselves.

That bit of reasoning is what my old father would call a Messerschmitt. If the political science theories were true, or even mostly true, then Trump wouldn’t have had the success he has had so far. If they were true, they should have been believed. He has had success (to say the least), thus the theories must have been false. The question then becomes why. What could they not have accounted for?

Two things, I think. One, insiders are wedged so tightly inside the establishment…Two, democracy itself…

Now to democracy itself. In this case, democracy means direct election of a president by citizens. Tell me this: what proportion of the electorate—which is ever expanding, incidentally; there are even proposals for allowing non-citizens to vote—understands the complexities of the office of the presidency? The question answers itself…

Go there and read the rest. Pay attention to the inference (which I allow the reader to draw on his own) that all democracies doom themselves in the same way.

36 Comments

  1. Thanks for the shout-outs for these. I have tried to subscribe to The Stream numerous times, and have written to them about it, but I never receive any posts.

  2. Briggs

    February 29, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Gail,

    Really? Send me an email which I’ll pass on to editor.

  3. Bravo! Well said. You should see the Republican establishment in Texas. The smell of burning hair is prompting complaints to the EPA.

  4. “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
    – Dean Vernon Wormer (in Animal House)

    The Republican party should have paid attention. Now it and the rest of us will suffer the consequences. A frustrated public agrees that this election “absolutely calls for a really futile and stupid gesture to be made on somebody’s part. And we’re just the guys to do it.” FOOD-FIGHT!

  5. The Christie endorsement says more about Trump than about Christie.

    In the usual “failure to include all factors in an analysis”, I think here we see failure to realize that Jonathan Gruber was right—Americans are not very bright at all. Trumps entire campaign is “let’s get even with Obama and make America great again”. Many followers seem only interested in the first part. Of course, that is how we got Obama—hatred of Bush. The lack of thought (doubt me? check the comments on Breitbart and other such places) runs through and through. This is about revenge. It’s about hope and change.

    Again, I would note that whoever is elected is only relevant if Congress continues to draw a salary without doing their job. Obama achieved his kingship via an acquiescing congress and so will the next President. We already see signs of derriere kissing with Sessions and Trump saying he can “work with Democrats” (which means do whatever they say if correctly heard). So I have little hope things will change. Worse yet, Trump does not have the power to deliver what he promises and his followers believe him to be god. Things rarely turn out well when gods fail.

  6. Sheri,

    “Americans are not very bright at all….”

    “Trumps entire campaign is “let’s get even with Obama and make America great again”.

    Not sure which campaign you’ve been watching….but the one that is going on in America bears no resemblance to what you described.

    Trump’s campaign is based on Normal-Americans’ disgust with the Establishment in DC.

    Normal-Americans sent a massive notice to the Establishment with the 2010 landslide election of “conservative” Republicans to Congress.

    What did we get in return? The suborning, co-opting, and subversion of the “conservatives” we sent, see: Eric Cantor, John Boehnor, Paul Ryan, Rubio, etc. These fake “conservatives” are spineless ingrates, or they are corrupt traitors to their stated beliefs.

    The poster-child issue for Normal-Americans is illegal immigration. For 30 years, the DC Establishment has played a sucker-cycle of amnesty/open borders/amnesty, while talking tough. The criminal elements south of the border are not stupid. They just follow the reality–and don’t listen to the lies from Rubio and his neo-con crew.

    Trump’s signature issue–and the only one he really needs to get Normal-Americans on-board–is “BUILD THE WALL.”

    For full details, see Trump’s immigration policy here:
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

    Trump’s appeal is NOT based “hate Obama.” Trump’s appeal is based on “Love America. Either we have a country, or we don’t.”

    The willful ignorance, and covering of their eyes to this fact, just dooms the neo-con Establishment. They have lost the ability to gull the gullible.

  7. from global warming to sociology to psychology and now to political science.
    – “now to political science”: it has always been like this. There is no such science. It is simply story time with Statistics 101. These days the models get more and more “sophisticated”.

  8. These days the models get more and more “sophisticated”.

    I dated a model some time ago who knew when to choose white vs. red wine at dinner and could properly use “then” and “than”. However, she’s a dated model. Current ones I’m not so sure about. Have you ever seen the Watter’s World segment where models were interviewed? Leads one to believe they are only pretty faces. I’d be willing to bet they would say the difference between Beethoven’s ninth and fifth is four. The smarter ones that is.

  9. If you liked those articles, checkout

    John Oliver’s analysis of Trump’s campaign. https://www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight

  10. RE: “…remind you of the ancient wisdom of not shooting the messenger…”

    Technically, the messenger (of bad tidings) wasn’t “shot” he (usually a “he”) was stabbed on the spot – and that WAS considered, in ancient times, at least in one major culture of the time, a wise thing to do.

    RE: “Rubio said that what was wanted was, in part, a candidate who would support “the party.””

    A good example of the “defend the govt system at all costs” kind of outlook & thinking is rampant within the Canadian case Chaoulli v Quebec for this it is work looking up & reading – because we in the U.S. are starting to see exactly that same kind of mindset, that even the Canadian Supreme Court sort of rejected, manifesting in our “right-leaning” politicians here.

    The Chaoulli v Quebec case presents in detail a viewpoint that most of us find bizarre – the desire & asserted need to safeguard a government program that wasn’t working, to deadly effect, simply because it was a govt program. Defenders of the public health care system argued with earnest & heartfelt seriousness that the grand & glorious public system needed to be protected at all costs — that permitting commercial medical insurance would undermine the govt’s wonderful system…a system so wonderful the Canadian Supreme Court cited evidence that undue wait times were measured in avoidable deaths, and too many of them. As a result, in Canada, if one is in Quebec, one can get private health insurance.

    Look it up, read those arguments for preserving the govt system … and then compare those to arguments made to retain any number of U.S. broad welfare programs (e.g. Medicare, SSS, etc.).

  11. Kent Clizbe: Your answer to some degree supports my assertion—“based on disgust with the Establishment”. That’s not really voting for a platform, that’s voting to get rid of those whom you dislike. Where’s the new platform? Trump makes lots of statements, but does not really have a platform other than getting Mexico to build a wall (how is he going to do that?) and well, after that, there are few if any details. How is he going to make America great again? Can he raise the price of oil? Can he magically get rid of the EPA? Can he deport 11 million illegal aliens (I really want to see that one)? Just exactly what is it he stands for except anger and revenge and promises that realistically cannot be fulfilled. He’s a cheerleader, just like Obama was.

    Why I think as I do (from Breitbart comments):
    “Oh, is that a fact. Just saw a poll showing Trump ahead of Haggery in New York. Keep parroting what the media tells you. Don’t pay any attention to the enthusiasm generated by Trump everywhere he goes. Democrat numbers down about 30%.

    You actually think that Trump being a Republican or a Democrat means something? A conservative or a Liberal?
    You also seem to leave out all the Blue Dogs and Independents, which are needed to win.
    Of course, your numbers show that you are a nickel hooker, turning tricks for pocket change.

    “No sharing. No compromise. We must beat the Left completely into the ground like tent stakes. They don’t get half a loaf They don’t get table scraps. The only thing we give them are free rides to the airport to get the h*ll out of OUR country. This is a country WITH borders we will defend with our own blood as our ancestors did.””
    These were three I could actually put on a family blog. Note the last one—get even with the Left. That is the theme. No one cares how, no one cares if it can be done. Only that Trump says he can fix it. Again, Obama said he could fix what Bush did. So how is this different?

    (Feel free to use “Normal-Americans”. If this is how “Normal” Americans behave, I am so happy and proud not to be normal.) I agree the neo-cons cannot snow Americans, but that in no way means Trump cannot. The idea that he opposes the enemy does not mean he is a friend. It may not even mean he opposes the enemy when it comes right down to it.

  12. I am adding an additional prediction for the rump of 2016:

    1. Regardless who wins the presidential campaign, new anti-Internet legislation will be proposed. This will happen because the Establishment, in defense of both of its subsidiaries (Republican and Democrat), recognizes that control of the mainstream media (which, in spite of arguments and insinuations to the contrary, includes Fox News) cannot forestall the increasing influence of the Internet. And supposedly mainstream Trump and Sanders, should they win, will sign such legislation because both of them are also about control.

  13. Sheri,

    “That’s not really voting for a platform, that’s voting to get rid of those whom you dislike. Where’s the new platform? Trump makes lots of statements, but does not really have a platform other than getting Mexico to build a wall (how is he going to do that?) and well, after that, there are few if any details.”

    Which part of the Trump platform are you having trouble comprehending? There was a link to his platform, clearly you had trouble accessing it since you make the assertion that he “does not have a platform…”

    In case your mouse does not work, here, I’ll copy and paste from Trump’s platform on Immigration. This is common sense, straight-shooting, anti-PC, anti-neo-con American values policy-making:

    ” 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

    2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

    3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

    For many years, Mexico’s leaders have been taking advantage of the United States by using illegal immigration to export the crime and poverty in their own country (as well as in other Latin American countries). They have even published pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States. The costs for the United States have been extraordinary: U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc. Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011. The effects on jobseekers have also been disastrous, and black Americans have been particularly harmed.

    The impact in terms of crime has been tragic. In recent weeks, the headlines have been covered with cases of criminals who crossed our border illegally only to go on to commit horrific crimes against Americans. Most recently, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, with a long arrest record, is charged with breaking into a 64 year-old woman’s home, crushing her skull and eye sockets with a hammer, raping her, and murdering her. The Police Chief in Santa Maria says the “blood trail” leads straight to Washington.

    In 2011, the Government Accountability Office found that there were a shocking 3 million arrests attached to the incarcerated alien population, including tens of thousands of violent beatings, rapes and murders.

    Meanwhile, Mexico continues to make billions on not only our bad trade deals but also relies heavily on the billions of dollars in remittances sent from illegal immigrants in the United States back to Mexico ($22 billion in 2013 alone).

    In short, the Mexican government has taken the United States to the cleaners. They are responsible for this problem, and they must help pay to clean it up.

    The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices.

    Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.”

  14. Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

    February 29, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Loved the intro. Best intro ever. It just was.

  15. I’m breaking my Lenten vow not to do internet comments, but I can’t resist–get thee behind me Satan (in five minutes).
    Sheri, you’ve hit the nail on the head, as judged by replies to your comments.
    Here’s an apropos quote from H.L Mencken:
    “No one in the world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the plain people.”
    see
    http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4407

  16. Yeah, it really shows how much better you are than the mouth-breathers to pretend that Trump does not have a platform. How elegantly avante garde! How deliciously intelligentsia-like! How utterly classe! Oooo….what a great chance to show just how devastingly sharp your rapier-like wit really is! All your book club confreres will be so impressed!

    Meanwhile, back in the real world….Trump’s tax plan (try reading his website–it’s all there):

    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

    ” The Goals Of Donald J. Trump’s Tax Plan

    Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas, and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet. This tax plan directly meets these challenges with four simple goals:

    Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.
    Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.
    Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.
    Doesn’t add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

    The Trump Tax Plan Achieves These Goals

    1. If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each.
    2. All other Americans will get a simpler tax code with four brackets – 0%, 10%, 20% and 25% – instead of the current seven. This new tax code eliminates the marriage penalty and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) while providing the lowest tax rate since before World War II.
    3. No business of any size, from a Fortune 500 to a mom and pop shop to a freelancer living job to job, will pay more than 15% of their business income in taxes. This lower rate makes corporate inversions unnecessary by making America’s tax rate one of the best in the world.
    4. No family will have to pay the death tax. You earned and saved that money for your family, not the government. You paid taxes on it when you earned it.”

  17. Deporting 11 million or 30 million is relatively easy. Just enforce the current laws. No jobs, no welfare, no support. They will self-deport. Will not require Elian Gonzalez type actions, although that may speed it up. It’s not rocket science.

  18. Briggs

    February 29, 2016 at 3:15 pm

    Kent,

    #NeverHillary!

  19. Donald Trump is the greatest everything! The greatest. He just is.

    He is not a warmonger during the workdays, but he is on weekends. He supports legalized abortion during the first half of a year, but opposes it during the second half. Avoid him on Mondays, because “I am gonna sue you” is his favorite sentence of that day.

    You’ve got it. You know what they say… “Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”

    Oh, you know what his opinion of you, don’t you? Even thoughall the money in the world won’t make you as smart as Ben Carson, but he is going to make you look smart.

    The greatest Con! The greatest. He just is.

    Gotta love him when he said that he wouldn’t let people, including illegal immigrants, die on the streets!

  20. Matt,

    #NeverHillary !

    Amen, brother!

    But also, NeverNeoCon!

  21. Kent Clizbe: Congress must finance the wall unless Trump waits for Mexico to do so. I assume Trump will increase fees on visas, increase border crossing card fees, increase fees on NAFTA workers and increase fees at ports of entry unilaterally, using executive orders or some similar mechanism. Apparently the president can also impound remittance payments unilaterally. Does Obama know about this, because I’m shocked he hasn’t eliminated all the fees by now. Since the Donald will be using executive orders to rewrite the tax code, let’s hope Obama doesn’t figure out this can be done too soon. Seems the Donald has no need for Congress either. Wait, isn’t that what I said?

    You are doing a bang-up job of making my point about Trump supporters. Please keep up the good work.

    Bob: Thanks for the thumbs up.
    Is Satan patient enough to wait five minutes? I guess we’ll find out if you return after Lent!! 🙂

    Jerry: That might work if liberal bleeding hearts don’t issue too many court stays and sanctuary cities don’t continue to support the illegals. New York is reportedly moving to allow illegals to teach in public schools, so this could get dicey.

  22. Oooo…Sheri! Your attitude is reminiscent of the French restaurant I ate at this weekend–the food sucked, but the disdain was superb!

    Your attitude is the perfect example of why Normal-Americans are sick to death of the self-styled “elites!” We bow to your superiority!

    Now that your elite mouse has made its way to the website (Voila! There are actual policies! Not just talk–as your elite febrile intellect told you!), you may want to work on your reading comprehension skills.

    Where does it say that the tax proposals will be enacted by executive order?

    I’ll help with your elite reading skills: Nowhere.

  23. Probably the fastest way to make Mexico pay for the wall is to put an excise tax on all the money going to Mexico.

  24. Remember that Trump proclaimed that among the illegal aliens in the US there is a criminal element, murderers and rapists. A week later Kate Steinle was killed by an illegal alien. Trump then called for a wall and his popularity surged. He has touched on the one issue that the GOPe is too soft on for many Americans. He has run with that issue, has doubled down on it and keeps it in the public eye. It’s no wonder that he is so popular. Many conservatives believe that if illegal alien amnesty comes to pass then there will never be another conservative president and Trump is smart enough to use that to his advantage.

  25. Well, might as well be damned for a goat as a sheep… here’s another comment:
    What Trump and his supporters don’t seem to realize that there is a hard core (more than 50%) of people who are turned off by his and their nasty remarks.
    What is required of Trump and his supporters are rational arguments not grade school, or at best, junior high insults. Rubio is of late doing this also, and it does not recommend him to me.
    Trump may win the nomination or run as a third party candidate, but he will never be elected. His candidacy has done more to secure the election for Hillary Clinton than anything she could have done. I wonder, given his past proclaimed friendship with the Clintons, whether there might not have been conversations with them a few years ago to promote his Republican candidacy.

  26. Kent: Still making my point. You turn nasty if I question your allegiance to Trump. #NotHelpingYourCase

    If the tax proposals are not by executive order, then Congress, NOT Trump will have to enact the tax changes. Trump is promising then that he will pummel or cajole or whatever Congress into doing his will. Wait—Obama tried that, too. He just went around Congress when they disagreed. So what do you suppose the Donald will do if he can’t convince Congress?

    Bob: I’m starting to be concerned about your dedication to Lent. The Donald is even affecting you! (Kidding)
    (Agreed on Rubio—He and the Donald sound like preschools hurling insults—Rubio even commented about the size of Trump’s hands versus his height, apparently insinuating Trump is lacking in the “family jewels” area. Not sure on the Hillary thing—hard to tell who will win when it’s a playground shouting match.)

  27. Sheri,

    “Nasty?”

    Young lady, you haven’t a clue what nasty is!

    Allegiance? None here.

    Trump’s ideas for solutions are called “planks in a campaign platform.”

    You started out your rant with: “Where’s the new platform? Trump makes lots of statements, but does not really have a platform…”

    I provided just two short excerpts from Trump’s platform. The links are above. Before you further embarrass yourself, you might want to actually read them.

    You asserted that you had (somehow, mind-reading? witchcraft? Tarot cards? Ouija board?) determined that Trump’s platform ideas for solutions would be implemented “by executive action.”

    Nowhere does Trump promise to use executive orders to carry out his detailed platform proposals.

    You seem to have caught a fright and are rattled. You really should stop allowing the National Review, the Weekly Standard, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Karl Rove, and all the other fake “conservative” geniuses who have destroyed the Republican Party to interpret reality for you. As demonstrated above, your understanding of Trump, his positions, and his plans, is clearly faulty. Blame it on excessive consumption of neo-con agit-prop.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  28. Kent Clizbe: I take back everything I said—you called me young lady!!!

    However, you are incorrect on virtually everything in your comment. I was pointing out that most platforms are hollow promises that cannot be fulfilled by the candidate him/herself. Funny that you object to my “executive action” comments and state I have no idea what a platform is, yet you immediately provide a list of people and publicans you are sure I read, though I only mentioned Breitbart by name. Actually, I have read maybe one or two George Will columns over the last 12 months, no National Review, no Weekly Standard, no Krauthammer, no Rove and no other “fake” conservatives that I am aware of. My opinion of Trump and his platform are from observing Trump. In fact, most of the things I do read (like Breibart) are gung-ho for Trump. So it can’t be my reading list. I’m reading his supporters and fans words and his words. Want to try again?

  29. Sheri,

    Glad that you’re mollified.

    But, pray tell, where in heavens name you were misinformed about “executive actions” that Trump would take. His positions are carefully detailed on his website. Nowhere is there a mention of executive action.

    That line is right out of the Karl Rove (upperclass twit of the year finalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss ) school of absurdly wrong, terrified, neo-con pundit babbling.

    Trump is running for President. Presidential candidates promise actions, and lay out platforms. That is the nature of the campaign. The understanding is that they will then work within the system (passively or actively, as is their wont) to implement their platform.

    The only comments Trump has made on executive actions is that he would “terminate Obama’s….bad executive orders” his first day in office.

    He also explicitly acknowledges Congress’s role in implementing his platform:

    “Well, you have executive orders all over the place, so many would be terminated,” he claimed. “The good thing about an executive order, signed by our president is that it can be unsigned immediately. You don’t have to go through Congress. So I would get rid of the attack on our Second Amendment because that’s what Obama is doing when he does that.”

    “I would very, very strongly get rid of the attack on the border. We have a border that’s like a piece of Swiss Cheese. People are pouring through. That order will be the single, first thing I do and we will work on all of these executive orders and the bad ones of which mostly that’s what you have will be terminated immediately my first day in office.”

  30. Kent: You’re still missing my point, but that’s okay. You’re making my original point and I do appreciate it. It seems you cannot comment without using terms like neo-con and Normal American, which is exactly my point. It’s emotion and insults. Even while you’re trying to explain Trump’s platform and why it’s no different from any politician, including Obama, you have to use language that is meant to demean. It is about getting even and stomping on those who get in your way. It seems you just can’t help yourself. Anyway, it’s been fun but time has ran out for now.

  31. Sheri,
    “derriere kissing with Sessions ”

    You are being unfair to Sessions. His priority may be to stop Rubio.

  32. Sheri,

    Not only do you seem to be confused about Trump. But you also seem to be confused about what your point is!

    Emotions and insults?

    I use “neo-con” and “Normal-American” as clear factual terms for clear factual discourse. Would be happy to explain them to you. Bing search is a great help. So is the book that I wrote on the origins of Politically Correct Progressivism.

    If you think those are insults, and emotion-filled, then you may want to consult a psychological text under “projection.”

    When I explain Trump’s platform, I copy and paste from his website.

    Again, seek out the meaning of the word “projection.” You began this conversation with a hate-filled, fact-free diatribe.

    Your entire emotion-based criticism was based on your erroneous assertions: “Where’s the new platform? Trump makes lots of statements, but does not really have a platform other than getting Mexico to build a wall (how is he going to do that?) and well, after that, there are few if any details.”

    I provided you with direct refutation of your firmly-held, but purely mistaken belief–in the form of Trump’s detailed platform, copied from his freely available website.

    You received the benefit of the doubt, in assuming that you were parroting your fact-free diatribe from the Establishment and neo-con media. Because your attacks echo directly the most rabid defenders of their elite death-grip on the power in DC.

    So, while you mull your next witty hash-tag, you might want to consider an American conservative’s thoughts on the destruction of the neo-con/Establishment fake “conservative” clique’s control of the Republican Party:

    Is a New GOP Being Born?

    http://buchanan.org/blog/is-a-new-gop-being-born-124893

  33. Mactoul: Is kissing the behind of Trump a good strategy to stop Rubio? I guess if one is certain the Donald will keep his promises on immigration, perhaps. However, if one thinks the Hillary can beat the Donald, it might be a poor strategy.

    Kent: #nothelpingyourcase (The use of scare quotes is certainly not helping…..Nor is cutting a pasting from the Donald’s website. When global warming believers do that, it is consider it lazy and uninformed. So is the use of “projection” hurled at one’s opponent when failing to win the discussion. You have a lot in common with the followers of global warming and their mindless drivel. Such as your use of the term “fact free quoting” of sources with which you disagree. Your argument seems cut and paste from some Trump narrative just as Mann supporters cut and paste everything. Your language is cut and paste—you use all the proper terms and insults as dictated by the Trump narrative. You’re making my point over and over and over.)

    (I am NOT a Republican and don’t care what happens to the Republican party. Of course, I MUST be a Republican and a member of the conservative branch, or your cut and paste insults all fail. So go on, call me a closet Republican or just flat out a liar. I know I can’t shake your complete and utter faith in the Donald anyway. And I don’t really care. You’re making my point.)

  34. Unfortunately, Trump is very likely to get the nomination. Last night’s results have pretty much clinched it. Another thing to hang on Obama. I hope this doesn’t result in a win for Bernie or Hillary. There may be just enough Gimme’s to swing the election in favor of the More and Bigger Government crowd.

    I thought the 2000 election with its bottom-of-the-barrel choices was bad. Now I’m wishing for the good old days.

  35. The right side didn’t see Trump coming because we assumed out fellow conservatives were sane.

    The left side didn’t see Trump coming because they assume that conservatives always obey the Establishment.

  36. Joseph: I believe you have described the situation very accurately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑