« Dylan | Main | First Tme in my Lifetime -- Open Thread »

October 19, 2016

Comments

the misery will not end.

as Atrios recently noted, it took years for the media to stop treating Sarah Palin's every utterance and FB post as important news.

even if he loses, we'll be dealing with Donal Trump Person Of Importance, for years to come.

I'm going out to run a roleplaying game tonight instead. It's set in a bleak dystopian future in which "everything that that could have gone wrong, did go wrong".

Don't fuck this up, America.

Ahh, Shakespeare from Macbeth. I think of this more a Ubu Roi situation. A plot summary from
http://www.jackstigner.co.uk/ubu-roi/ubu-roi-plot-summary.html

Act I
Pere Ubu, along with Mere Ubu and Captain Bordure, plot the killing of the King of Poland. Pere Ubu poisons Bordure’s men, who have assembled at a sumptuous feast, by providing an excrement covered toilet brush for all to taste. The act ends with Pere Ubu demanding that Mere Ubu, Captain Bordure, and the other conspirators “swear to kill the king properly.”
Act II
Pere Ubu attacks and kills King Venceslas of Poland. Queen Rosemonde and her youngest son, Bougrelas, escape to a mountain cave, but the Queen dies. The dead ancestors appear to Bougrelas and demand vengeance, giving him a large sword.
After some prompting from Mere Ubu about sharing some of his newly ill gotten wealth, Pere Ubu throws gold coins to the crowd. Several are trampled in the mad rush. Pere Ubu’s response is to provide more gold as a prize to whoever wins a footrace. Afterwards, Pere Ubu invites the assembled multitude to an orgy at the palace.
Act III
Pere Ubu and Mere Ubu discuss what to do now that they are the sovereigns of Poland. Pere Ubu has decided, now that he no longer has any need of Captain Bordure, not to elevate him to the rank of Duke of Lithuania. Bordure ends up in Pere Ubu’s dungeon but escapes to ally himself with Czar Alexis. Meanwhile, Pere Ubu executes all of Poland’s nobles so that he can then lay claim to their properties. Then, he follows suit with the magistrates and the financiers, claiming a reform in both the law and financial dealings of the government. When he realizes that all of the government workers have been killed, Ubu shrugs and simply says that he himself will go door to door to collect the taxes.
Bordure sends Ubu a letter in which he reveals his plans to invade Poland and re-establish Bougrelas as the rightful King. Ubu weeps and sobs in fear until Mere Ubu suggests they go to war. Pere Ubu agrees but refuses to “pay out one sou” for its expense. With the cardboard cutout of a horse’s head around his neck, Ubu leads his army off to battle against Bordure, Czar Alexis, and Bougrelas.
Act IV
Mere Ubu searches the crypt that holds the remains of the former Kings of Poland for the Polish treasure. She discovers it among the bones of the dead kings but cannot carry it all out at once. When she says that she’ll come back tomorrow for the rest of the treasure, a voice from one of the tombs shouts, “never, Mere Ubu.” Bougrelas advances to Warsaw and wins the first battle. Mere Ubu escapes amid rifle shots and a hail of stones. Meanwhile, Pere Ubu and the czar do battle in the Ukraine. The tide shifts, first one way, then another. Finally, Pere Ubu and his army are bested. They escape to a cave in Lithuania. A bear attacks while Ubu is in the cave with two of his soldiers; Ubu climbs to safety on a rock, and, when asked for help, responds by mumbling a Pater Noster (“Our Father, who art in heaven... “). After the soldiers kill the bear, Ubu falls asleep, and the two men decide to escape while they have the opportunity.
Act V
After crossing Poland in four days to escape Bougrelas and his army, Mere Ubu arrives at the cave where Pere Ubu is sleeping fitfully. Unseen by her husband, Mere Ubu pretends to be a supernatural apparition to make Pere Ubu ask forgiveness for his “bit of pilfering.” Instead, Mere Ubu is treated to a litany of her faults. When he discovers that it is Mere Ubu in the cave, Pere Ubu throws the dead bear on top of her. Not taking any chances that it might still be alive, Pere Ubu climbs up on the rock and begins the Pater Noster routine again. Angered that Mere Ubu laughs at him, Pere Ubu begins to tear her to pieces. But, before he can do much damage, Bougrelas and his army arrive and soundly beat the Ubus, who just manage to escape to a ship on the Baltic Sea. Pere Ubu plans to get himself nominated Minister of Finances in Paris so that the whole sordid series of events can begin again..

From wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubu_Roi
According to Jane Taylor, "the central character is notorious for his infantile engagement with his world. Ubu inhabits a domain of greedy self-gratification".Jarry's metaphor for the modern man, he is an antihero — fat, ugly, vulgar, gluttonous, grandiose, dishonest, stupid, jejune, voracious, greedy, cruel, cowardly and evil... "There is", wrote Taylor, "a particular kind of pleasure for an audience watching these infantile attacks. Part of the satisfaction arises from the fact that in the burlesque mode which Jarry invents, there is no place for consequence. While Ubu may be relentless in his political aspirations, and brutal in his personal relations, he apparently has no measurable effect upon those who inhabit the farcical world which he creates around himself. He thus acts out our most childish rages and desires, in which we seek to gratify ourselves at all cost". The derived adjective "ubuesque" is recurrent in French and francophone political debate.

life imitating art, I'd say...

"we'll be dealing with Donal Trump Person Of Importance, for years to come."

I just hope that law enforcement gets to deal with Trump as a "Person of Interest" for years to come.


sanbikinoraion: sounds like the game Paranoia. Tried it once, but it was too dark and deadly. Call of Cthulhu is more cheery and optimistic, I think.

pro tip: don't let anyone use the "Nose Gun".

The best piece I've seen on Syria.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-debate-over-syria-has-reached-a-dead-end/

Seriously. I've been reading more and more on that and had concluded just as the author says that the debate has been polarized between two narratives which are both dishonest to some degree. But no point in summarizing--if you are interested in Syria then you're better off reading the link.

I love Pere Ubu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=1hYqvtHzr48

In the mess in Syria, as so often, there are two major threads.

Those who are external players (which certainly includes the US, Russia, and Turkey; but also arguably ISIS) have what Donald's link calls a pure narrative. That is, there is some overarching principle which governs both what is going on and how they see all of the players involved.

Those with the misfortune to actually live there, however, have a rather different take. Mostly what they would like is to just be able to live their lives in peace. Since that is not on offer, their choices come down to which force is less awful. "Awful" including both how they behave while the fighting is going on, and how they have demonstrated they will behave if/when they take control -- locally, not just nationally.

Anyone on the outside would do well to give a little thought to the locals and their views. But generally don't.

Just as they would do well to gvie some thought to what can really (as opposed to in their ideal worldview) be accomplished given where things are today. But generally, they spend more atttention on justifying their existing positions and alliances.

A view of the Trump Death March, from the perspective of someone who has some personal experience with losing political campaigns.
https://theringer.com/donald-trump-is-on-a-presidential-death-march-weve-never-seen-before-2a23da0e8af4#.z6t8c3xlh

Marshall on the "guests" Trump has invited.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-clintonites-rat-s-ass

it's like Trump thinks this is a pro-wrestling show - Clinton is some cartoonish bad guy who will see these people and just fall down screaming, grabbing her head and slapping the floor in agony.

heckofajob, GOP.

I'm on Day 10 of bronchitis. The doc said I should be feeling better Real Soon Now (though I won't be better all the way for almost another 2 weeks). I guess I am: I can sit for a couple hours at a stretch. But my rib muscles are *killing* me, and there's still a lot of gunk that needs to be coughed out.

Do any of you know a breathing technique that could do the eject work of coughing without straining the ribs?

If I watch tonight, it will be with Scotch in my hot-honey-&-lemon. Trader Joe's Blended Scotch is a VERY good deal, inexpensive yet drinkable.

Trader Joe's Blended Scotch

oh to live in a state where you can buy liquor at a grocery store...

oh to live in a state where you can buy liquor at a grocery store...

But you have BrewThru, right, cleek?

Only SOME grocery stores! In NJ, independent grocery stores can sell liquor (if can get license). Grocery chains may sell alcohol in only TWO (2) of their stores in the state, & have to pick which ones. Therefor, the nearest TJ's to me sells wine, but the nearest Costco does not.

It's really amazing (from the left coast) how many bits and pieces of Prohibition/Puritanism still remain in other parts of the country.

"Do any of you know a breathing technique that could do the eject work of coughing without straining the ribs?"

My always sick friend swears by micro coughing--little hacks without the full force of a cough. It seems like the reverse of singing from the diaphram. I have no idea if it really works.

Well, no matter how the debate goes, at least the Cubs are back scoring runs again. (Taking up-sides where I can find them.)

the county my MiL lives in (central AL) was totally dry until a couple of years ago.

hte debate: it's grown up Lisa Simpson vs Chief Wiggum

Good God! We just had the first time in my memory where a candidate formally refused to say that he would respect the results of an election.

Every time I think, can it possibly get worse? it does.

cleek wins!

Is it over and safe to come out yet?

Chief Wiggum is a freaking genius compared to He, Trump. Ralph Wiggum is more like it.

I still can't get over the pass He, Trump gets for asking "Why haven't you solved this, that, or the other thing in the last 30 years?" He, Trump seems to think that any ole 1st lady of Arkansas, FLOTUS, junior NY Senator, or SoS can snap her fingers and cause mountains to crumble, skyscrapers to rise, and Real Murkins to gain IQ points.

Ten years from now, very, very few people will be willing to admit they voted for He, Trump.

--TP

"Ten years from now, very, very few people will be willing to admit they voted for He, Trump."

I disagree.

Folks who vote for Trump will wear it proudly.

You may be right, russell. People still fly the Confederate flag proudly, after all.

--TP

Folks who vote for Trump will wear it proudly.

Many of them will be dead. Not sure those living will still be fired up. I just hope the best for the next four years, because that's when the trouble could happen.

Oh dear, Ugh. You missed Trump praising Assad's leadership abilities. I guess mustard gas is a macho thing in his mind....

My always sick friend swears by micro coughing--little hacks without the full force of a cough. It seems like the reverse of singing from the diaphram.

I'd agree about 'micro' coughing - if you can, breathe out about two thirds of your breath, and then cough (using your diaphragm).
Works for me; I think you are much more likely to strain your rib (intercostal ?) muscles when they fully extended.

Takes a bit of practice, but it gives some measure of control over your coughing.

Wj-- that was more or less what the article on Syria said. I agree.

There seems to be a sudden outbreak of these pieces. Here is another.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/the-many-truths-on-syria-how-our-rivalry-has-destroyed-a-country/

And another-- in this case the writer I also engaged in some self- criticism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/20/syria-and-the-left-time-to-break-the-silence/

Welp, stick a fork in him: yesterday, PaddyPower paid out its Clinton-to-win bets. The Senate and House are truly critical, now.

Thanks for the micro-coughing description, I shall try it! feeling much better this AM, but still need to cough a lot.

I started the second article, Donald, but found it hard to read past "freshly osculated behind". Really?

We just had the first time in my memory where a candidate formally refused to say that he would respect the results of an election. Every time I think, can it possibly get worse? it does.

Well, as others have said elsewhere, this is the logical result of the GOP constantly pushing the terribly false "voter fraud" line. That they all seem taken aback that someone in a position of power has taken them seriously is evidence of their own personal avarice in pursuit of power, their cowardice, and of course additional proof (not that there was any need for more) that they knew they were lying about it all along.

Indeed, if you believe the voter fraud lie and that it altered the outcome of the election, then it is incumbent on you to not accept the reported election results - they would not reflect the will of the voters. So it's entirely consistent with this worldview for Trump to say something like "I will wait and see." In fact, under that worldview, that is the responsible thing to say - he's not saying "I will reject any result in Hillary's favor" (although perhaps he is implying it), he is saying he will take into account the evidence that arises between now and election day and then decide.

Of course, he doesn't give a sh1t what kind of things his statements on "rigging" the election lead to in the meantime.

All that said, I expect Trump to concede the election the evening of November 8th (assuming the result is in line with current polls) and that will be that. Could be wrong of course.

More broadly, the GOP's nationwide effort to disenfranchise African Americans is a stain on this nation and is the modern equivalent of the poll tax (which led to the enactment of the 24th Amendment - would any GOPer in Congress vote for that today, BTW?) and other Jim Crow laws used to keep African Americans from voting.

And the GOP wonders why they can't attract minority voters (actually they don't).

All that said, I expect Trump to concede the election the evening of November 8th (assuming the result is in line with current polls) and that will be that. Could be wrong of course.

In all likelihood, Trump won't be the next Al Gore. He's probably going to lose bigly, in an outcome so decisive that it could not be the result of any sort of "rigging."

In a sense, that will be way out of questioning the election, or at least the winner. He can save face by saying that, while there still may have been an effort to fix the election, he would have lost anyway because the vote was so one-sided.

When I have had a terrible cough, I have found temporary relief by steaming my sinues for awhile. I get in the bathtub with lots of very hot water. I wish you well on your cold; being sick is a miserable experience.

My biggest concern about HIlary is that she will not exercise the best judgment abou when to do a military interventions and when not to. Otherwise I think she will be fine as a President.
I am expecting her to appoint Justices so we have a Supreme Court that will overthrow voter suppression laws gerrymandering and maybe even Citizens United, thus saving representative government from the Republican effort to turn the US into a one-party state.

And here we go with the revisionism regarding what votes for Clinton signify, and it's as brashly disingenuous as it was inevitable.

I haven't watched the debate yet, and will wait another couple of hours til Mr GftNC gets back and we can watch it together (he's never been that interested in US politics before, but has become somewhat infected by my obsession).

However, I have read lots of commentary etc, and I have a linguistic question to put to US ObWi people:

I speak pretty good American because I grew up in Hong Kong watching mainly American TV, and can always translate for friends in e.g. US drugstores (UK: chemists). However, in light of all the outrage I have read this morning about Trump calling HRC a "nasty woman", it is accentuating an impression I gained not long ago that "nasty" has different connotations in the States than in the UK. The previous incident was a reference to "nasty" sex, which in context I gathered meant non-vanilla, extra-"dirty", transgressive sex. But now I would be very interested to hear in what subtle ways your "nasty" differs from our "nasty".

In English English, nasty when used of a person means unkind, malicious. Nobody could say "nasty" sex, and expect it to be understood as anything other than perhaps sex involving some cruelty, if it had any meaning at all. But if someone X called someone else Y a nasty woman, it would kind of make sense if Y had just made a barbed or insulting comment about X. Nobody would be surprised, or find it particularly unacceptable. So I would be grateful to be enlightened on this admittedly minor, but to me interesting, point.

He can save face by saying that, while there still may have been an effort to fix the election, he would have lost anyway because the vote was so one-sided

That doesn't strike me as Trumpy enough. I think he'll say that the election was stolen, but that as a patriot and for the good of the country he'll technically concede.
Or he just won't, and the adults will just continue on as if he did.

The previous incident was a reference to "nasty" sex, which in context I gathered meant non-vanilla, extra-"dirty", transgressive sex. But now I would be very interested to hear in what subtle ways your "nasty" differs from our "nasty".

looks like you get it.

'nasty' usually means unkind and malicious - also filthy and disgusting, generally unpleasant. and that's certainly the meaning Trump intended. Trump thought Clinton was being nasty because she was insulting him with facts.

but the sexual 'nasty' works the same way 'dirty' and 'filthy' do - they all imply a kind of knowing, enthusiastic, transgression.

GftNC: "Nasty" can carry either connotation in the US. In fact, "doing the nasty" means having sex. (I would have thought that usage was originally British, in fact! And maybe it is!) But saying “he was nasty to me” means just what you say it means in UK English. He was mean, unpleasant, accusatory, hostile, said bad things about me.

You wrote this: "But if someone X called someone else Y a nasty woman, it would kind of make sense if Y had just made a barbed or insulting comment about X. Nobody would be surprised, or find it particularly unacceptable."

I didn’t watch the debate, but I did see that clip. What Clinton said was in fact a barb, and intended to be so, but it was based on Trump’s own past words and actions. So I think it *was* kind of nasty, but meant to be the goading dig that it was, and at the same time a little verbal dig is so much less than he deserves that it’s laughable.

Things that make it notable (my hasty theories):

1) Trump is such a nasty piece of work that any truth one could tell about him is going to sound nasty.

2) In Trumpworld, anyone who challenges him is nasty on the face of it.

3) He talked over her to say it.

4) In a campaign where she has presented herself as calm, reasonable, wonky, and he has presented himself as a rabble-rousing no-nothing vicious (nasty!) sh!thead, he has a lot of damned gall (to quote a phrase) calling her nasty. Projection much?

5) And here is the most subtle aspect of it: “Such a nasty woman” carries something different than if he had said “Such a nasty person,” or “She’s so nasty!” Saying nasty *woman* matters. It’s a darker version of condescending phrases like “lady author.” It means to imply that *women* aren’t supposed to fight tough. A man making that remark wouldn’t have been remarkable, but a woman….argh, clutch your pearls folks.

P.S. Back to the question of the two meanings of nasty: you might also hear someone say “That’s nasty” in a tone of disgust – meaning some spoiled food or something like that.

[See cleek commented while I was rambling on...]

OK, it looks like the difference is the "filthy and disgusting, generally unpleasant" aspect, which is completely lacking in the English "nasty" when describing a person, except to the extent that English people are consuming American culture and gradually starting to pick this stuff up. So it made sense that Trump called HRC a nasty woman because she had just "insulted" him (actually, I gather she had just correctly said he would try to wriggle out of paying higher employer taxes if he could), which in England would just have been considered a childish response from him, but the extra American nuance explains the generally outraged response to his remark.

Thanks cleek

JanieM, completely fascinating, thank you.

You're right about "doing the nasty" actually, but that is a rare and now sort-of archaic usage, perhaps from as late as the 60s.

Re your p.s., we might use it too in that context to describe e.g. spoiled food, but not of a person.

Your point 5 is very well taken however. And I'm also hearing a sort of unspoken "old", as in "nasty old woman", which could play into old archetypes of hags, crones etc.

Very interesting. Again, thank you.

“Juliet. Such a nasty woman. She made Romeo kill himself. And believe me he could have done better. Look at her.” #TrumpBookReport
— Catherine Q. (@CatherineQ) October 20, 2016

From here.

Twitter is a horrible thing. Except when it's giving me my laugh of the day/week/etc.

One can indicate the different meanings of "nasty" with pronunciation:

American: N-ah-sty
British: N-aw-sty

American english needs a word as all-round useful as "cheeky"

I take a certain connotation of inherentness - or at a minimum, a durative connotation - away from "nasty" in this sort of context. Nasty is something you are more than something you do. You don't just suddenly do something nasty; that reflects either inner character or long-standing patterns of behavior.

Take all of that with a grain of salt, though. I've never been great at appraising fluency of particular lexical usages, and this is not dissimilar to that...

Yes, NV, I think you're right, in both countries' usage. Thanks.

More Twitter excellentness, albeit from horrible source:

"Better a nasty woman than a Nazi man."

And here we go with the revisionism regarding what votes for Clinton signify, and it's as brashly disingenuous as it was inevitable.

Could you expand on this, NV? I'm genuinely curious.

nv -- your conntation of inherentness rings true to me. It also seems like the implication of inherentness makes the meaning shade from unkind toward disgusting.

Sapient--I'd recommend just skipping over that sentence. The article is about the various stances people on the left have taken on Syria and how both sides (the pro-and anti-interventionists) tend to be dishonest about some very important points. Some of the anti-interventionists have become pro-Assad. He criticizes himself for being insufficiently honest about the brutality of the Assad regime, or of glossing over it. It's pretty rare (in my experience anyway) to find people who write about Syria who don't portray at as Good vs Evil, when the unfortunate reality is that it is Evil vs Evil vs some other Evil and look over there, more Evil. The chief exception would be millions of innocent civilians caught in the middle and even then some of them are partisan and blind to the evils of their own side. There was an example of that in a recent New York Review of Books interview with a Syrian poet living in Egypt of Alawite background--her family and friends think of her as a traitor for being critical of Assad. We rarely get that viewpoint (Syrians committed to Assad) in the mainstream US press, but on the other hand in some left circles they adopt that pro-Assad position in its entirety. These competing propaganda narratives are what dominate the bulk of what I read about Syria. That's why I recommended the three pieces.

I just watched an interview with the first lady of Syria (forgot her name). It was fascinating. She is very smart, very articulate and to hear her speak the Syrian government is engaged in an attempt at saving the country from terrorists while doing as little damage as possible. What struck me was that (except for what I assume is a British accent) she could easily be a Western politician representing her country on an American TV interview, except that we would never see this here. The point is not that her viewpoint is right. I suspect she is willfully self-blinded to what the Syrian and Russian military do. The point is that if we saw people like this we'd see an unmistakeable resemblance to Western government spokespeople who defend the indefensible and sound like they are civilized folk doing their best in very hard circumstances. They might see themselves in exactly that way.

Here is the interview.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/full-video-syrias-first-lady-interview-russia-24/

For British political context for "nasty", cf Theresa May's comment about the Tories being seen as "the nasty party".

" It means to imply that *women* aren’t supposed to fight tough. A man making that remark wouldn’t have been remarkable, but a woman….argh, clutch your pearls folks."

I would be more inclined to interpret his statement as misogyny if he hadn't insulted absolutely everyone that ran against him in the last year with a stream of pretty similar insults. He is just a boor.

He could be both a boor and an misogynist, Marty. That seems the most likely explanation.

"He could be both a boor and an misogynist, Marty."

Oh sure, I was just referencing that one statement.

Nigel: exactly. The "nasty" party because picking on and oppressing the poor, the disabled etc, not in some weird, even if implied way, filthy and disgusting.

There is no end to this sh1t:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701756.html

This is your modern GOP. Trump is a natural.

E.g.:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rnc-warns-against-poll-watching-citing-decades-old-court-agreement

I don't think there is enough popcorn:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hannity-replace-saboteur-ryan-with-louie-gohmert

i was hoping to see some armed Trump zealots at the polls today, just so i could get a picture. alas.

American english needs a word as all-round useful as "cheeky"

Snarki, for many people, "uppity" fills the bill. At least as they usually use it.

Top Trump trolling:

"I will accept result if I win..." !
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37722434

"He could be both a boor and an misogynist..."
Think you need to rework your understanding of 'could'.

wj, Snarki is right. Uppity only approximates one of the many meanings of cheeky, and probably not even the most common one.

FYI, the most common one is probably a sort of combination of bold, saucy (not in the sexual sense), daring (not in the physical sense), and teasing (not in the sexual sense). Nigel can confirm or deny, add or subtract if he feels like it.

I took the "bold and sassy" part to be the main one. And to have serious overtones of someone "acting above his station." Hence my analogy to "uppity."

But then, I have limited enough experience with British English to know I'm out of my depth here.

Hannity calls the GOP to punish the 'traitor' Ryan and to replace him with ... Louie Gohmert.

Yes, please!!! Vivat asparagus!

vita summa brevis spem nos vetat incohare longam

It will be amusing if, having refused to reject Trump, Ryan goes down in flames anyway for being less than whole-hearted in his embrace. I don't think he will actually lose this time, but the chances of his going in 2018 the way Cantor did aren't zero.

I also wonder if, as a result of the fanaticism of the far right part of the Republican Party in the House, it turns out to be impossible for Ryan or any other member to get a majority of the votes for Speaker. Does anyone know if the House rules allow for a Speaker elected by a plurality?

My understanding is that the Speaker has to receive a majority of votes from the whole House.

In which case, I wonder who the Democrats could come up with (NOT Pelosi!) who could attract enough moderate Republican votes (and there are some still) to get elected.

Fun times!

Ryan is a fraud.

And it's very freaking scary that he's not right wing enough for Hannity. Again, Trump's best legacy for the GOP is to make people like Ryan and Pence look like moderates and/or reasonable people.

Could you expand on this, NV? I'm genuinely curious.

The article is trying to equate the reading of tea leaves with reading a large-print manuscript with ample footnotes and appendices. It's making very definite statements about who Clinton supporters are, and what they stand for - not once does it mention the yuge elephant in the room when it comes to the size and breadth of Clinton's support. It's a paean to the majoritarian status of liberal sensibilities and centrist Democratic values as demonstrated by Clinton's polling margins... versus Trump.

Its largest sin is that it wants to make sweeping, definitive analysis of something that isn't done yet, but even if we forgive that it's still appalling because it's ahistorical in the extreme; it is seeking to derive generalizable meaning from a narrow context.

I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of thing from Yglesias and his ilk. Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics. That's like saying Chirac's 82% to 17% sweep of Le Pen in the second round of French voting in 2002 was a ringing endorsement for the UMP. You're not going to be able to tease apart support for Clinton and opposition to Trump going forward from November - not least because we've been lectured endlessly that not supporting Clinton was supporting Trump ever since he became the leading Republican primary candidate - but that's not going to stop the Third Way DLC centerists both inside and outside the Beltway from making declarations as fanciful yet decisive as Bush fils' claim of a clear electoral mandate for his agenda.

So, disingenuous but predictable, with more of the same to follow.

What makes this year especially historic -- at least potentially?

The last time the Cubs won the World Series was . . . before women gained the right to vote. Coincidence? I wonder....

Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics.

I agree that it isn't a decisive endorsement of everything Clinton stands for. But the Yglesias article you cited doesn't really say that. He describes a "coalition of minorities" that rejects what Trump stands for. That seems fairly accurate to me.

Yeah, I don't really get it. The article seemed mostly to be one about the demographics of the voters, not so much what they stand for, aside from some degree of inclusivity.

Clinton winning decisively will not be a decisive endorsement of Clintonian politics.

neither will the fact that her opponent was utterly beyond the pale be a valid reason to think that she was only elected defensively. so, let's not get all preemptively dismissive here.

because, she hasn't actually won yet.

Just watched the debate. I actually think Trump managed to seem more substantive and controlled than the commentariat (and his previous performances) had prepared me for. I'm glad HRC's so far ahead, because I wonder whether his performance in this debate will really turn off the general population in the way that the analysts have supposed. What he said about conceding the election is indeed very shocking, but I think the incessant drumbeat of "it's all rigged" for the last couple of weeks may have brainwashed large parts of the population who might therefore be having doubts about the legitimacy of the election.

Apart from all of this, however, what is so very clear is that HRC is a tremendously impressive performer; her mastery of policy, foreign and domestic, and her intelligence, discipline and control, are truly impressive.

What article did you read?

You may have missed some of the subtler points, such as the part where Clinton voters are separate and distinct from those to her left:

Clinton’s silent majority is at times caricatured by her critics on the left as complacent...

Or the part where Yglesias draws causal connections between policy concerns and supporting Clinton:

Clinton’s voters, like Trump’s, experience economic challenges. But they are responding mostly by backing a candidate who is offering specific forms of assistance...

Or the thread woven throughout that conflate people who poll as voting for Clinton with people who support Clinton in particular, and then proceed to paint pretty pictures (using Nice Respectable Liberal terms of endearment) of the thought processes of the unified mass:

Clinton’s silent majority values competence and experience, and recognizes that it’s no coincidence the first plausible woman president had to be the most well-qualified candidate in generations and equally un-coincidental that in the hands of her enemies her great asset has been relabeled as a weakness.

[...]

Clinton’s coalition is under no illusion that all is well in America, but it does believe the country is improving in important ways. It’s skeptical of the impulse to flip the table over and hope for the best, and absolutely allergic to the view that the current version of the United States is a fallen one and the country reached its peak in the days of Mad Men and union factory jobs.

[...]

You can’t profile “Clinton Country” or the “Clinton voter” as a single kind of person or place. Clinton Country, instead, is like America itself — vast and diverse, incorporating a staggering range of disparate individuals and localities that do not have an enormous amount in common beyond allegiance to a common set of political ideals.

Etc.

Seriously, it isn't subtle. At all.

neither will the fact that her opponent was utterly beyond the pale be a valid reason to think that she was only elected defensively.

cleek, since I've become a huge fan of Clinton's, perhaps I am overly sensitive to the fact that some Clinton voters don't really accept her except as a lesser evil. I find that frustrating, but I acknowledge it.

NV, I agree with Yglesias about most of this, even taking into account the fact that not everyone loves her. What do you disagree with? Do you want to go back to Mad Men days?

Another example, NV:

But they are responding mostly by backing a candidate who is offering specific forms of assistance

Do you not support her specific forms of assistance? Which do you not support?

so, let's not get all preemptively dismissive here.

because, she hasn't actually won yet.

This, from you. Wow. Just... wow. Do you not remember your stances on such matters during the primary, or are you only assuming I (or more likely, the third parties to the discussion) don't remember your stances during the primary?

I'd remind you again that you don't get to have it both ways - you can't demand everyone vote for your favorite to oppose their opponent, and then declare those votes as support for they themself - but since you've decided that it's never over 'til it's over and we mustn't be preemptively dismissive, the importance of consistency obviously wouldn't be a persuasive argument.

sapient, you're not even trying to address my point. Instead, you're arguing that disagreeing with your triangulator is rejecting in toto Every. Last. Thing. she agrees with to any degree. Do you really want to play the game where we pick and chose laudable or unobjectionable stances and try to conflate non-support of other policies as being a rejection of the former? Really? That playground game is your chosen rhetorical gambit?

Also, I must say... your last two post is a pitch-perfect example of what I'm objecting to in the Yglesias article, albeit impressively even less subtle.

*your last post *sigh*

That playground game is your chosen rhetorical gambit?

You're the one who pointed to those things as examples of why Yglesias is trying to wrongly describe Clinton voters. I think he's pretty much correct. I'll just leave it at that since you don't want to discuss any of the policies that might attract people to Clinton. You'd rather just point to your gripes. That's fine - I am not going to change your mind or especially your attitude.

Did you notice the look on Trump's face as he gritted his teeth and tore his notes in pieces at the end of the debate?

His face was like Pesci's in Goodfella's just before he and de Niro took that made man down in the bar by kicking the stuffing out of him with their Florsheims.

If you like nuclear mushroom clouds over your cities, you'll want this killer as your President.

I wonder if he took Kelly Ann Conway, whose husband collects fake Clinton dic pics to enliven the electoral process of this now disgraced country, by the neck and threw her up against a wall the better to grope her for daring to muzzle him last night.

Twenty days until we spray for bugs.

"That's fine - I am not going to change your mind or especially your attitude."

It's been months, if not years since anyone was in danger of changing anyone's mind in a significant way, in almost every forum. But it is very interesting to experience the emotion behind many of these exchanges.

Several weeks ago the third party candidate was incredibly important because, despite Trumps grotesque caricature of a Republican politician, Hillary couldn't really pull away. There was emotion, perhaps vitriol, in the challenge to wasted votes and reliving Perot's impact.

Hillary spent a few million dollars having her surrogates trash Johnson, they blocked him out of the debates and his momentum outside a few states here and there ebbed.

So now its a less emotional argument for "making a statement". It is now the piling on school of politics, we don't really want to work for national conciliation, we want to bury those people. We want them to feel awful and completely unrepresented. But that's a poor winners strategy rather than the panic stricken strategy of a month ago.

Now that Hillary has won the panic has been replaced with simple enmity for anyone who dared/dares to continue to point out her flaws.

At some point we will have to learn when not to kick the other side when they are down, something Obama never learned. When you win you are responsible for helping the other team feel better about their place in the game. You understand their emotional reaction, help them get a win, celebrate what you do accomplish in a way that helps them share in that success. Every President in my lifetime until Obama understood that. Our country would be better served if this one remembered it.

From what I have seen the last week, we aren't close to that.

Ah, I see. The highly general aspects of her voters are being described in ways that are overly complimentary of Clinton (for you). I didn't pick up on it because it doesn't really bother me, but I can see it once you point it out.

I still wouldn't say Clinton voters are being said to be separate and distinct from everyone to her left. I think the point was that what's being described as her silent majority, as opposed to all of her voters, is characterized a particular way by her critics on the left that is distinct from her critics to her right, who don't really care which of her voters they're describing, since they all just suck.

MattY was doing what pundits often do--he was projecting his own views on tens of millions of people and claiming those views are therefore correct because they are supported by The People and those opposed are vile Trump supporters (grumpy old white racist guys) and arrogant young males (Bernie Bros). Stereotypes all the way. Matt Y has a set of views on how things should work-- by an amazing coincidence, he finds that a vast number of very diverse people all have essentially the same views, are voting for Clinton for the same reasons and those reasons match up pretty closely with how Matt Y thinks. This wasn't analysis. It's preaching.

A somewhat different view--

http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/10/how-do-gender-and-age-shape-electoral.html

At some point, Marty has to cite an example or two of Obama kicking "the other side when they are down". I'm especially interested in what "down" means in a political environment where "the other side" controls both Houses of Congress.

--TP

Hillary spent a few million dollars having her surrogates trash Johnson, they blocked him out of the debates and his momentum outside a few states here and there ebbed.

I'm trying to figure out what possible reason Clinton would have for doing this.

It seems vastly more likely that Johnson would take votes from Trump than from her. To the point where she would probably end up winning more states with him being a significant vote-getter than she will this way. So where is her motivation?

Maybe you think that he should have a real shot at winning the election. But the reality is, the chances of him even getting to second place in the electoral vote count are pretty slim. Not the way the world should be, I'd agree. But how it is.

...those opposed are vile Trump supporters (grumpy old white racist guys) and arrogant young males (Bernie Bros). Stereotypes all the way.

But, if you're talking about who is more vocal and gets more press, isn't it they who do, even if as stereotypes? Do you disagree with the notion that Clinton voters are more diverse and less vocal?

TP,

The last day when it was clear that the ACA was going to pass the Republicans tried to submit a significant number of amendments. All of them were voted down by every Democrat. Some, as I recall, were pretty good. Reid, obviously with Obama's agreement, made sure that no Republican could take a single bit of good from that.

Yes, they opposed it and even with the amendments they were not going to vote for it, but it was an opportunity lost to build a little goodwill.

I don't remember them all but there was a string of chances for him to give a few wins, but even in the SOTU's he always took anything he gave. He constantly called them out. Instead of laying out an agenda and reporting on progress he always made sure to include the chastising of the Republicans, "take the bill I submitted and pass it today" blah blah. It was always the hammer.

And, the Republicans never got over that and moved on. Even in his second term, they couldn't regroup because the damage had been done, to the country. The stalemate in the first term, the pushing through the ACA, that was broadly unpopular, in what was universally perceived as a backdoor way to do it and more were the coalescing factors of the Tea Party. Then the Republicans hands were tied to respond to any overture, the damage had been done.

Down, in this case, was in the first term when any hope of creating anything good for the country was ruined by Obama with Rahm and his quotes, as divisive as McConnell's, "elections have consequences" (which we all learned all to well come midterms and 2012) and a "crisis is a terrible thing to waste".

The difference between Obama and McConnell in the beginning is that Obama won, for a brief shiny moment he controlled the Senate too. McConnell's sour grapes sucked and Obama was an ungracious winner. The combination brought us to here.

"Do you disagree with the notion that Clinton voters are more diverse and less vocal?"

yes

wj,

All the polling 8 weeks ago showed Johnson taking more votes from Clinton. He was, and is, popular with millennials that she couldn't bring on board from Bernie. He was too socially tolerant to put any dent in Trumps core support.

In almost every poll where they went from head to head to including him the race between her and Trump got closer.

So, she did indeed have to do something about him.

Hush-- I was disagreeing with Matt's notion that he can read the minds of the people who vote for Clinton. I'm voting for her. And the Berniebro category was a primary stereotype that, among other things, ignored all the non white millenials that voted for Sanders. I also doubt one can lump all Trump supporters into a neat box either, except maybe the box labeled " not very good political judgment in presidential candidates".

The Carl Beinart piece said that among millenials, Clinton is stronger with males than females. I didn't look at his sources, but that surprised me a little.

Hush was my iPad's correction for hsh.

Carl Beijer, not Beinart.Don't know whose fault that typo was.

I find that frustrating, but I acknowledge it.

as do i.

but that's different from granting the maximally-Pure position that, should she win, her Presidency will be less than legitimate.

you can't demand everyone vote for your favorite to oppose their opponent, and then declare those votes as support for they themself

which i haven't done. so, bravo for your strawcraft.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad