I don't know about that. They succeeded in taking over all of our institutions including the military. If you have a good strategy then you can afford to lose here or there on the tactical level and still win. I'm not sure the opposite is true.
Boxty, I think that is entirely true but entirely separate from elections. I don't think it is at all the same people running those shows, however allied they might be in spirit. The electoral people and the institution people are at best cousins. The former fantasize that they are as smart as the latter, but they aren't.
I think of Uncle Bill's comment as more along the line "Which came first, leading in the polls or being treated badly?"
Nixon was reviled for his anti-Communist activity and then railroaded into resigning under circumstances which, in hindsight, can be eerily reminiscent of the 'Russian Collusion' hoax. There's a reason those Fibbies talked about having an 'insurance policy' if Trump got elected. It likely had been done once.
Goldwater was portrayed as a warmonger and clinically mentally ill.
Reagan was a Machiavellian warmonger or an amiable dunce, at need, who was accused of lying about the goals of his economic program, even by a member of the Deep State wing of his own party. "VooDoo Economics" was GHWB's phrase first.
McCain was the press's Maverick Republican darling until he got nominated, at which point the NYT ran a libelous claim to him having an affair with a lobbyist on their front page. Romney saw a similar switch in coverage, being accused of literally causing an employee to be stricken by cancer among other things.
W's treatment was not unlike Reagan's, except it had a Texas cowboy twang.
As I pointed out a few days ago in another comment, there's little new about the way Trump is being treated except Spinal Tap-ish volume levels. Yes, there are a bunch of loud mouths who claim to be supporting Trump just because he's getting attacked on all fronts. It's likely (in some cases it's been proven) that you could make the same statement about Ron Desantis, Nikki Haley, or Tim Scott (to pick some names) as they rose in the polls, and once the volume knobs are twisted off the noise isn't going to stop.
All true. But I'm not talking about their behavior, I'm talking about ours. Theirs is a given, as you note. I am concerned that too many of us are responding to Trump largely because he is being treated unfairly. That's not a reason to be president. I still have Dominic Cummings words in my mind "Trump didn't drain the swamp. He merely annoyed it." Too many Republicans kept adoring Trump because he "pwned the libs" and that felt satisfying. To me that was always a distraction for him that he spent far too much time and energy on. And he's doing it again. It's not a success on his part, it's a failure.
Agree on this, especially your last comment about Trump getting distracted by “pwning the libs.” His inability to move past slights against him and to stop fighting and accomplish things is a weakness that has only gotten worse as he’s aged.
Trump was at his best when he let Mitch tell him who to nominate for judges. That’s unlikely to continue in a second administration since he’s spent the past year making racist remarks about Mitch’s wife, so I don’t see much future for him in accomplishing anything electorally.
Yeah, that thin-skinned nature was what I was worried he would apply to other nations starting in 2017, and I was pleased (and rather triumphant!) that he wasn't like that, actually trying to get us out of conflicts and negotiate or apply soft pressure instead. It was my main reason for liking him in 2020, that he really had a good perspective on that, even if it meant letting some allies (who should have been ready to pick things up on their own...maybe?) down.
But the internal arguments just got worse, and they weren't even partisan. He could care less about the party, he cared about personal insult. He is dobling down on what gave him victory in 2016, even though it defeated him in 2020. He lost control of his own staff, including people who gave up their careers to support him. He expects loyalty but has none.
The only reason to support him would be that he might defeat whoever the Democrat is. That has value, but what else is there? This is not the end of the world. This is not The Most Important Election In Our Lifetimes. Not again. That has happened repeatedly. We have already lost the cultural battles despite popular support, and we are in a new world with a new generation now. He's an albatross. Even if we lose badly, we are better off having him in the rearview mirror.
My observation about primaries is that it usually doesn't matter what the voters want. Especially in the Democratic Primary, it's hashed out by insiders at the convention. In 2008, after an intense campaign to 'count every vote' by the Clinton campaign, they ended up counting none of the votes and appointing Obama the candidate by acclamation. Clinton herself joined the acclamation in return for the post of Secretary of State. The Republicans are more democratic -- ironically -- but it's still only tangentially up to the voters even there.
Trump managed that time because the field was so divided that nobody else got close; Cruz did well in Texas and some other places, Rubio in Florida, and there were like 10 others. Trump got ~20% everywhere consistently. In the end it added up. So really, it depends on how many candidates run, and how stubborn they are about refusing to realize that he's going to have momentum in every state. He'll win if they don't come together on an opposition candidate and rally around him, and that's not going to be a decision the voters get to make. The candidates do.
Trump vs. Republican Fantasy Candidate X is a lousy candidate. Trump or any other Republican vs. any nationally competitive Democrat looks pretty good. Trump was a very good president despite his manifold flaws. I'll happily vote for him again vs. Biden or Newsom or whomever. I think cheating by the Democrats is more of a problem than are Trump's bad qualities.
Whatever the choices presented and whatever the flaws of the elected, we’ll find out the hard by chance and circumstance whether whoever is elected can lead / manage / cope with what the future brings our way. That we know by reason and evidence who is the right candidate is a delusion. But afterwards someone will shout, “I was proven right.”
As we all know, FDR was elected to be war president. LBJ to be peace candidate. Nixon to end the war. Wilson to keep us out of war. Hoover because he was a great manager. JFK to stand up the Soviets and to end the missile gap. Reagan promised to abolish the department of Education and restrain government.
The soundtrack of fate is sardonic laughter.
I thought the Republican candidate was chosen as the best politician to preserve, extend, and consolidate the bold advances of the last Democrat president. Can Trump be that candidate?
I laugh at your Primary Winner thoughts. I lived and voted in California for 30 years and there was no Primary because by the time we got to vote it was all over and had been for what felt like months as the Primary process weeded out anybody I would have voted for and barfed up McCain and Romney and others of that ilk.
There used to be a saying, "when you're getting the most flak, you're over the target."
I don't misremember that both Nixon and Reagan, greatly despised by all democrats actually both won 49 states in their reelections.
13 comments:
The fact that a person is the most badly treated by the Democrats might just be a pretty good indication that they are the strongest candidate.
Don't overlook the possibility that the Democrats would love to be that tactical (and a few of them are) but are mostly just unhinged.
Even at our worst, we are all mostly just junior demons who are sputtering pointlessly, not crafty plotters. Those we disagree with are the same.
I don't know about that. They succeeded in taking over all of our institutions including the military. If you have a good strategy then you can afford to lose here or there on the tactical level and still win. I'm not sure the opposite is true.
Boxty, I think that is entirely true but entirely separate from elections. I don't think it is at all the same people running those shows, however allied they might be in spirit. The electoral people and the institution people are at best cousins. The former fantasize that they are as smart as the latter, but they aren't.
I think of Uncle Bill's comment as more along the line "Which came first, leading in the polls or being treated badly?"
Nixon was reviled for his anti-Communist activity and then railroaded into resigning under circumstances which, in hindsight, can be eerily reminiscent of the 'Russian Collusion' hoax. There's a reason those Fibbies talked about having an 'insurance policy' if Trump got elected. It likely had been done once.
Goldwater was portrayed as a warmonger and clinically mentally ill.
Reagan was a Machiavellian warmonger or an amiable dunce, at need, who was accused of lying about the goals of his economic program, even by a member of the Deep State wing of his own party. "VooDoo Economics" was GHWB's phrase first.
McCain was the press's Maverick Republican darling until he got nominated, at which point the NYT ran a libelous claim to him having an affair with a lobbyist on their front page. Romney saw a similar switch in coverage, being accused of literally causing an employee to be stricken by cancer among other things.
W's treatment was not unlike Reagan's, except it had a Texas cowboy twang.
As I pointed out a few days ago in another comment, there's little new about the way Trump is being treated except Spinal Tap-ish volume levels. Yes, there are a bunch of loud mouths who claim to be supporting Trump just because he's getting attacked on all fronts. It's likely (in some cases it's been proven) that you could make the same statement about Ron Desantis, Nikki Haley, or Tim Scott (to pick some names) as they rose in the polls, and once the volume knobs are twisted off the noise isn't going to stop.
All true. But I'm not talking about their behavior, I'm talking about ours. Theirs is a given, as you note. I am concerned that too many of us are responding to Trump largely because he is being treated unfairly. That's not a reason to be president. I still have Dominic Cummings words in my mind "Trump didn't drain the swamp. He merely annoyed it." Too many Republicans kept adoring Trump because he "pwned the libs" and that felt satisfying. To me that was always a distraction for him that he spent far too much time and energy on. And he's doing it again. It's not a success on his part, it's a failure.
Agree on this, especially your last comment about Trump getting distracted by “pwning the libs.” His inability to move past slights against him and to stop fighting and accomplish things is a weakness that has only gotten worse as he’s aged.
Trump was at his best when he let Mitch tell him who to nominate for judges. That’s unlikely to continue in a second administration since he’s spent the past year making racist remarks about Mitch’s wife, so I don’t see much future for him in accomplishing anything electorally.
Yeah, that thin-skinned nature was what I was worried he would apply to other nations starting in 2017, and I was pleased (and rather triumphant!) that he wasn't like that, actually trying to get us out of conflicts and negotiate or apply soft pressure instead. It was my main reason for liking him in 2020, that he really had a good perspective on that, even if it meant letting some allies (who should have been ready to pick things up on their own...maybe?) down.
But the internal arguments just got worse, and they weren't even partisan. He could care less about the party, he cared about personal insult. He is dobling down on what gave him victory in 2016, even though it defeated him in 2020. He lost control of his own staff, including people who gave up their careers to support him. He expects loyalty but has none.
The only reason to support him would be that he might defeat whoever the Democrat is. That has value, but what else is there? This is not the end of the world. This is not The Most Important Election In Our Lifetimes. Not again. That has happened repeatedly. We have already lost the cultural battles despite popular support, and we are in a new world with a new generation now. He's an albatross. Even if we lose badly, we are better off having him in the rearview mirror.
My observation about primaries is that it usually doesn't matter what the voters want. Especially in the Democratic Primary, it's hashed out by insiders at the convention. In 2008, after an intense campaign to 'count every vote' by the Clinton campaign, they ended up counting none of the votes and appointing Obama the candidate by acclamation. Clinton herself joined the acclamation in return for the post of Secretary of State. The Republicans are more democratic -- ironically -- but it's still only tangentially up to the voters even there.
Trump managed that time because the field was so divided that nobody else got close; Cruz did well in Texas and some other places, Rubio in Florida, and there were like 10 others. Trump got ~20% everywhere consistently. In the end it added up. So really, it depends on how many candidates run, and how stubborn they are about refusing to realize that he's going to have momentum in every state. He'll win if they don't come together on an opposition candidate and rally around him, and that's not going to be a decision the voters get to make. The candidates do.
Trump vs. Republican Fantasy Candidate X is a lousy candidate. Trump or any other Republican vs. any nationally competitive Democrat looks pretty good. Trump was a very good president despite his manifold flaws. I'll happily vote for him again vs. Biden or Newsom or whomever. I think cheating by the Democrats is more of a problem than are Trump's bad qualities.
Whatever the choices presented and whatever the flaws of the elected, we’ll find out the hard by chance and circumstance whether whoever is elected can lead / manage / cope with what the future brings our way. That we know by reason and evidence who is the right candidate is a delusion. But afterwards someone will shout, “I was proven right.”
As we all know, FDR was elected to be war president. LBJ to be peace candidate. Nixon to end the war. Wilson to keep us out of war. Hoover because he was a great manager. JFK to stand up the Soviets and to end the missile gap. Reagan promised to abolish the department of Education and restrain government.
The soundtrack of fate is sardonic laughter.
I thought the Republican candidate was chosen as the best politician to preserve, extend, and consolidate the bold advances of the last Democrat president. Can Trump be that candidate?
@ ErisGuy - You may be cynical, but you're not wrong.
I laugh at your Primary Winner thoughts. I lived and voted in California for 30 years and there was no Primary because by the time we got to vote it was all over and had been for what felt like months as the Primary process weeded out anybody I would have voted for and barfed up McCain and Romney and others of that ilk.
There used to be a saying, "when you're getting the most flak, you're over the target."
I don't misremember that both Nixon and Reagan, greatly despised by all democrats actually both won 49 states in their reelections.
Post a Comment