Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 21, 2018

OTP 2018 May 21: President takes British royalty to a baseball game, May 15, 1991

The 65-year-old queen, dressed in a below-the-knee blue and red dress, black gloves and three strands of pearls, entered the Orioles dugout along the third base line. She formed a receiving line with her husband and the president, clad in a navy blazer, and Barbara Bush. The first lady wore a blue and white floral print dress.

While the VIP guests took their positions designated by their names on 3-by-5 cards, the song “Brown-Eyed Girl” played over the stadium’s public-address system. Their images appeared on the video screen in right-center field.

“I’ve been playing baseball for 10 years, and I’m used to a normal atmosphere,” said Cal Ripken Jr., the Orioles shortstop, after exchanging handshakes. “This is a lot different. There’s a lot of excitement.”

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 21, 2018 at 07:42 AM | 1375 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baltimore orioles, oakland athletics, off topic, politics, polyamorous wood

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 7 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   601. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5677983)
Flip
   602. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:06 AM (#5677984)
Juan often accuses people of shaking their fist at the clouds. In that he has Trump's fist firmly up his ass, it's no wonder he likes to type "fist".
   603. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:11 AM (#5677985)
I know we have discussed this a bit, but still trade deals were a central pillar of GOP President Trump's campaign. His betrayal of that central promise is not some campaign verbiage "If you like your plan you can keep it" it is much more central than that, and we heard endlessly about that (and we still are, weirdly). So I feel OK in talking about the lovely China negotiations the world class negotiator is fixing for the US.

Chances of China Trade Win Undercut by Trump Team Infighting

The entire article is damning and was referenced earlier. But still some truly special bits. How about some master negotiations?

“The U.S. has very little to give,” he tweeted last week, “because it has given so much over the years. China has much to give!”


But anyway pretty much everyone agrees the negotiations were a disaster where we got nothing and China got everything they wanted (Trump, Chinese leaders moving forward on deal to save ZTE), but still everyone sensible knew Trump was a train wreck based on his campaign promises, but amazingly he managed to both break his campaign vows, betray his base, and still be a disaster.

“It’s absolutely stunning how we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” said Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s former chief strategist and a prominent representative of the nationalist wing.

“China is still in a trade war with us,” he said. “It’s just that we’re unilaterally calling a truce.”


Heck even the Chinese seem taken aback:
But after the talks in Washington, the Chinese, too, seemed bewildered by the divisions, saying that even if they were able to secure concessions from Mr. Mnuchin, they were not sure those promises would ultimately hold, according to people briefed on the discussions.
   604. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5677988)
In Only the Best People News -

Trump Posed in Photo With Pedophile George Nader for $189,000 RNC Donation: Report
President Donald Trump posed for a photo with convicted pedophile George Nader, a well-connected lobbyist in the Middle East, after a substantial donation to the Republican Party was agreed, according to a report.

Nader, a Lebanese-American, and his associate Elliot Broidy, the RNC’s former finance chair who was convicted of bribery in 2009, were independently lobbying the Trump administration against Qatar in the hope of securing lucrative consultancy contracts from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, reported Associated Press.

Broidy, well-connected in the Republican Party, had arranged two meetings with Trump to push the anti-Qatar agenda he developed with his partner Nader, who did not attend them.

But Nader, an adviser to Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Abu Dhabi crown prince, wanted a photo with Trump when the pair met at an RNC fundraiser in Dallas in October 2017. And that came with a price tag, AP reported; a donation to the RNC of between $100,000 and $250,000. Broidy arranged the photo.
   605. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:19 AM (#5677989)
And I missed posting this, my bad. Support for Tax Law Is Falling

A new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) poll finds the popularity of the new tax law has dropped into net negatives, currently opposed by a 50% to 41% margin.


The trend lines don't look good. And that is the administration's bright spot.

The public's attitude towards the GOP Trump administration fascinates me. The scattered elections show one picture, the Trump approval a different one, the generic ballot a third, and various targeted polls yet another glimpse. They all seem to move in different directions and not at all coordinated with each other. I suspect there are a couple factors that are proving difficult to tease out and that pollsters are in for a potentially rough November.

The two biggest factors are pretty obviously tribalism and enthusiasm. With Tribalism causing many on all sides to respond to the polls reflexively and then enthusiasm which is notoriously difficult to poll, but shows up in spades on election day.

Anyway it should be fun to watch and see what happens.
   606. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5677991)
I know we have discussed th9is a bit, but still trade deals were a central pillar of GOP President Trump's campaign.


It's been pretty astounding how badly Trump has failed on this front.

In retrospect, perhaps it was inevitable but still... damn.

The dirty little US secret - well, maybe it's not/wasn't so secret - seems to be that the US can no longer go it alone and dictate trade agreement. The US is still - of course - the world's biggest economy and a lucrative trading partner for anyone... but it has become painfully clear that the US is now best served steering the parameters of multilateral pacts as sort of a 'first among equals' (even if it's not exactly 'equal').

There are just too many options, too many growing economies, too easy to seek out commodities elsewhere.

If Trump weren't constantly upping the ridiculous ante on, well, everything - I think this would stand out as the biggest miscalculation and mistake of the Trumpublican agenda.

NAFTA renegotiations have basically failed. China is making a fool out of Trump and the US. Even some nominal Mnuchin feelers about rejoining the TPP were met with near laughter.

Trump has managed to hit every single reef, rock, and maelstrom in what were already treacherous waters.

I have a hard time thinking of any policy portfolio that has failed so remarkably, so quickly, and so completely.
   607. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:21 AM (#5677992)
@existentialfish:
Fox host and Trump adviser Pet Hegseth on Kim Jong Un: "The guy who wants to meet with Dennis Rodman and loves NBA basketball and loves western pop culture, probably doesn't love being the guy that has to murder his people all day long. Probably wants normalization."
   608. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: May 23, 2018 at 10:29 AM (#5677999)
"The guy who wants to meet with Dennis Rodman and loves NBA basketball and loves western pop culture, probably doesn't love being the guy that has to murder his people all day long.
I'd always assumed that he delegates the job to someone else
   609. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:06 AM (#5678030)
I have a hard time thinking of any policy portfolio that has failed so remarkably, so quickly, and so completely.


And (again) it wasn't just part of the Dumpster Fire's campaign it was a central part of it, only the infamous Wall and sundry immigration matters is its equal. But yes, you are right, it is am amazing failure.

Still better complete failure than some horrific trade war or actual deal which is certain to be worse than the thrashing he and his administration are currently engaged in.
   610. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5678031)
Trump Posed in Photo With Pedophile George Nader for $189,000 RNC Donation: Report


In Trump's defense, he's used to Eastern Europe, where that sort of thing is just how you find your next wife.
   611. McCoy Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:14 AM (#5678042)
It's been pretty astounding how badly Trump has failed on this front.

In retrospect, perhaps it was inevitable but still... damn.

The dirty little US secret - well, maybe it's not/wasn't so secret - seems to be that the US can no longer go it alone and dictate trade agreement. The US is still - of course - the world's biggest economy and a lucrative trading partner for anyone... but it has become painfully clear that the US is now best served steering the parameters of multilateral pacts as sort of a 'first among equals' (even if it's not exactly 'equal').

There are just too many options, too many growing economies, too easy to seek out commodities elsewhere.

If Trump weren't constantly upping the ridiculous ante on, well, everything - I think this would stand out as the biggest miscalculation and mistake of the Trumpublican agenda.

NAFTA renegotiations have basically failed. China is making a fool out of Trump and the US. Even some nominal Mnuchin feelers about rejoining the TPP were met with near laughter.

Trump has managed to hit every single reef, rock, and maelstrom in what were already treacherous waters.

I have a hard time thinking of any policy portfolio that has failed so remarkably, so quickly, and so completely.



But Snapper assures us that tariffs are the way to go. If we shout out a command the rest of the world will sit up and beg for that bone. Surely he can't be wrong?
   612. stig-tossled,hornswoggled gef the talking mongoose Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5678044)
plainspoken bigots like Joe[y] B and Morty.


I hope he's OK, as I noted a couple of pages back, but I'm pretty sure "plainspoken" is not an adjective very many people would apply to Morty.
   613. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:21 AM (#5678052)
While laughably accusing "Team Blue" of trying to downplay an awkward subject!

That Nancy Pelosi is an awkward subject is the point. It's not like I wrote the Roll Call article speculating on her possible demise linked in #553, or this one noting how many Democratic Congressional Candidates refused to back her for Party Leader in the House. Those here who have been measuring the drapes in the Speaker's Office on behalf of Pelosi may have been a bit premature. The Democrats lead in the RCP Generic Congressional Ballot Poll Aggregate is only 3%, down from 13% at the start of the year, and Reuters has them actually trailing. The election is ahead, not already decided.
   614. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5678059)
This court case seems like it deserves significant discussion among the internet's largest collection of dwellers in mom's basement.


A 30-year-old man court-ordered to vacate his parents' home on Tuesday said he should be given more time to leave because of how much his parents "harassed" him about moving out.

Michael Rotondo, of Camillus, New York, had been living rent-free in his parents' Syracuse-area home for eight years when a State Supreme Court judge ruled on Tuesday in his parents’ favor, ordering him to move out.


The broader implications of the ruling - Nick Markakis' HoF case, the proper ordering of Star Wars films, and whose WAR is better, FG's or BBREF's - were not discussed as the judge apparently was concerned about issuing too broad a ruling.
   615. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:29 AM (#5678061)

That Nancy Pelosi is an awkward subject is the point. It's not like I wrote the Roll Call article speculating on her possible demise linked in #553, or this one noting how many Democratic Congressional Candidates refused to back her for Party Leader in the House. Those here who have been measuring the drapes in the Speaker's Office on behalf of Pelosi may have been a bit premature. The Democrats lead in the RCP Generic Congressional Ballot Poll Aggregate is only 3%, down from 13% at the start of the year, and Reuters has them actually trailing. The election is ahead, not already decided.


I recognize these words, but when I read them, all I hear is "Coo Coo ka-CHA! Coo coo ka-CHA!"
   616. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:40 AM (#5678067)
Bivens is no more of a racist

*Pedant alert* There's a difference between being a bigot and being a racist.

He is a racist. He wants to see Iranians and Palestinians murdered.

He calls me a bigot because I call him out on his racism.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Bivens is no more of a racist than you are,

Find a single racial epithet I've uttered, Andy, but whatev. That cloud must be overhead by now. Get to work.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

At the risk of being the armadillo in the middle of the highway, I think you're both way overdoing it.

Joe: JE's an uber-hawk on everything pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, and like many of that persuasion he sees Israel as always being one step removed from annihilation. But that doesn't mean "he wants to see Iranians and Palestinians murdered". It just means he thinks that (in his words) appeasing the mullahs and Hamas / Hezbollah / etc. is a long term losing proposition, and that the only thing that Israel's enemies understand is military force.

Personally I don't see anything good coming out of that sort of a mindset, but then as I've said before, I don't see anything good coming out of that conflict no matter what policies the Americans pursue. The entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a human tragedy with no real villains other than historical and geographical circumstances, with both sides doomed to keep reprising their roles until all of us here are long long gone.

JE: Being opposed to Israel's policies doesn't make anyone a bigot, and while saying Zionism = racism is a shameful equation, noting the fact that specific Zionists are indeed racists is not the same thing.

AFAICT Joe's simply echoing many of the concerns of the Israeli Left when it comes to their treatment of the Palestinians. That doesn't make him either a bigot or a Self-Hating Jew, especially given the fact that most American Jews seem to share most of his concerns about Israel's current policies towards the Palestinians.

And JE's not at all a racist, although by his long and unbroken silence vis-a-vis Trump's blatant racism, in his minor and symbolic way he's certainly enabling it.
   617. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:45 AM (#5678072)
That Nancy Pelosi is an awkward subject is the point.


As awkward as Ryan? Really?

From Playbook (politico)

A REALLY, REALLY BAD SET OF HEADLINES FOR PAUL RYAN … POLITICO: “Immigration showdown puts Ryan’s job in peril” … A1 of the NYT: “Ryan’s Hold on Speaker’s Job Is Tested by G.O.P. Infighting” http://bit.ly/2LniebH … WAPO A1: “Ryan’s grip on House is growing weaker” http://bit.ly/2GGVNLb

-- THERE IS NO QUESTION June is going to be absolutely brutal for the speaker, given the Republican leadership’s curious decision to elevate immigration as an election-year issue after more than a decade of division on the topic.

IF RYAN IS TO BE REMOVED, Republicans have two choices: try to oust him on the House floor, or find a candidate with 218 votes to tell him he’s gotta go. Neither option is viable at the moment, even according to Ryan’s most fervent detractors. That doesn't mean it won't be at some point. That means today, May 23, neither option is viable.

-- BTW: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS when you are speaker and you announce you’re gone months before the end of the Congress.


From the Washington Post

Multiple Republicans said this week that the only factor that could accelerate Ryan’s departure is intervention from Trump, who is caught between his friendship with McCarthy and conservative allies who want to force a race. For now, the White House is not convinced that Ryan staying as speaker through the end of this term is a tenable situation.


   618. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5678081)
I have seen this multiple times, enough so I am not sure if it has been here and I am too lazy to look. Anyway it is great enough to deserve an encore even if it has be posted here before:

“If Democrats gain power they will try to reverse these incredible gains, these are historic gains, they will try and reverse many of them. So your vote in 2018 is every bit as important as your vote in 2016 — although I’m not sure I really believe that, but you know. I don’t know who the hell wrote that line!”

— President Trump, speaking at the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Gala
   619. DavidFoss Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5678082)
Those here who have been measuring the drapes in the Speaker's Office on behalf of Pelosi may have been a bit premature.

Who are you arguing against? Pelosi herself issued a "just win baby" directive to any Democrats running for House seats who feel the need to distance themselves from her personally. Random republicans in swing districts would rather run against the liberal from CA-12 than whoever is on the ballot in their own districts. That's the only reason why Pelosi's leadership role is in any danger. But it doesn't make any sense to commit to being a minority party just to keep Pelosi as leader. Everyone knows that.
   620. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:51 AM (#5678086)
You have to understand that the bruises Clapper has from his Paul Ryan betrayal may be fading to the eye, but they run deep psychologically.

I fear he may never get over it.
   621. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 11:53 AM (#5678089)
Pelosi herself issued a "just win baby" directive to any Democrats running for House seats who feel the need to distance themselves from her personally.


Yeah, Nancy Pelosi can count (unlike seemingly the entire GOP congressional leadership). And she is the ultimate pragmatic. Her skill is unrivaled and it will be a darn shame when she hangs up her spurs, but even so everyone wants a Democratic majority first and foremost and then after that the Democrats can divide up the spoils. And I bet it will go better than the Zamboni crash happening right now on the other side of the aisle.
   622. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:02 PM (#5678097)
And I missed posting this, my bad. Support for Tax Law Is Falling

A new Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) poll finds the popularity of the new tax law has dropped into net negatives, currently opposed by a 50% to 41% margin.

A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee poll without any crosstabs? You might not want to go the bank on that one, Bitter Mouse.
   623. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:10 PM (#5678101)
Pelosi herself issued a "just win baby" directive to any Democrats running for House seats who feel the need to distance themselves from her personally.

So, if those "just win" candidates actually win, do they break their pledge not to vote for Pelosi? Gaining a majority and immediately tossing the leadership, with no obvious heir apparent, or starting your Congressional career by breaking your promise to the voters, seem like less than ideal choices.
   624. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:22 PM (#5678109)
That's not the latest on Avenatti, by any means. It appears he may have committed the worst crime in the legal profession, defrauding a fellow attorney
Clapper, a serious question. Let's assume Avenatti is a fvcktard.

Does that excuse Trump's behavior towards women?
   625. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:30 PM (#5678111)
Avenatti's a tool and a publicity whore, and no one to be emulated.

If Clapper is accusing him of willfully and gratuitously spreading HIV, herpes, and chlamydia, the good money bet is that he wiped a booger on someone else's sleeve.
   626. strong silence Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:32 PM (#5678115)
The past 18 months have been a humbling experience. After 2001, I fell for the notion that, by and large, federal law enforcement was capable of policing itself, and that it would never work in tandem with an administration to engage in despicable activities. Just because it happened during a Dem White House doesn't mean the potential for similar abuse can't happen with this one or a future GOP administration.

I'm unsure whether the Bureau requires wholesale fixing. Maybe the answer is as simple as raising the threshold for certain types of investigations? Also, the Constitution gives the executive branch enormous powers over foreign policy (also immigration) but Congress must step up and fulfill its oversight obligations on domestic issues -- and that includes federal law enforcement.


JE, while I'm fully aware of your desire to score debate points along with a tad too much ignorance of the faults of the Republican Party, you seem sincere in 322. But some questions remain:

Implied is that if one administration does it, then it is ok for another. In other words, Party X does it and you say "what about that". It is as if you're seeking a justification simply to defend your party, rather than defend what is right, as I've seen you do many times.

Congressional oversight is missing because both parties do what is best for the party, rather than the country. Why is oversight lacking now but not in the past?

You don't seem concerned about the high likelihood of abuses alleged to have been committed under Trump. You should know that Hillary Clinton is not President. It will take active citizen participation and vigilance to prevent tyranny. I hope your partisan blindness doesn't cause you to forget this.

   627. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:37 PM (#5678117)
Jeebus already.

BBC is reporting that Ukraine paid Michael Cohen $400k to arrange a meeting with Trump.

I can only guess that Putin bid $400,001.

This administration has managed to amass more scandals and sleazy endeavors in just 15 months than every prior administration in history managed to amass during its entire tenure. They've probably amassed more than than any two administrations combined and seem to be rapidly working their way up to One Sleaze Nozzle to Rule Them All.

Just imagine what we'd know if the Trump weren't treating the DOJ as his personal defense team and Pinkerton agency and Congressional Republicans were interested in anything more than ensuring Trump's Pinkertons weren't being as gonzo in their duties as they should be.

But don't you worry, Trumpkins... the high colonic is coming.
   628. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:42 PM (#5678119)
@sethamandel:
Waiting for NRA-TV to say Kim Jong-un only runs concentration torture camps because he's overmedicated for ADHD

@billkristol:
I don't want to interrupt conservative cheerleading on judges and deregulation, but is everyone fine with a president of the United States attacking our "Criminal Deep State?" But not to worry. Because today's "conservatives" have decided ideas or words have no consequences.

@radiofreetom:
Watching the Trump defenders go into overdrive on the same day that Trump is breaking new ground in violating basic Constitutional norms tells me that there's no longer much room for dialogue. Trump could produce a KGB ID card from 1985 and they'd respond by saying "Lois Lerner."
   629. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5678122)
Avenatti's a tool and a publicity whore, and no one to be emulated. If Clapper is accusing him of willfully and gratuitously spreading HIV, herpes, and chlamydia, the good money bet is that he wiped a booger on someone else's sleeve.

If Lassus is posting about me, the good money bet is that he has his "facts" wrong. I didn't accuse Avenatti of anything, just excerpted an article containing the adverse findings of a federal judge (#532).
   630. zenbitz Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:45 PM (#5678123)
@618 might be second best Trump act, me t to "consort with porn stars"
   631. dlf Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:46 PM (#5678124)
We had our primaries here in Georgia yesterday. The election that had some attention nationally is for Governor. On the D side, there were two women, both with the first name of Stacey, both in the State Senate, who were running. The more liberal of the two won. She is black and, if I remember correctly, would be the first black woman elected governor in any state. On the R side, the candidate who ran the ad pointing a gun at his teenage daughter's swain is in a runoff against the sitting Lt. Gov.

Of much less national import, I effectively moved yesterday as the unincorporated area of the north Atlanta 'burbs in which I live has now formed a new city, Sharron Springs. As best I could tell, that vote was over who gets control over the zoning decisions, and the resulting kick-backs from developers, in this area with a rapidly growing population.
   632. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:49 PM (#5678128)
Find someone that looks at you like Clapper looks at the GOP and how Mouse looks at Nancy Pelosi. Gentleman -- grab your sweat rags you're in heat!
   633. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:51 PM (#5678130)
BBC is reporting that Ukraine paid Michael Cohen $400k to arrange a meeting with Trump.
I asked this a week or two back, and didn't see a reply. If there was one, I missed it; my apologies. I'm wondering:

What is the deal with Ukraine/Russia/Crimea these days? Has the world just accepted that it's Russian now, and no one cares? What's the situation with travel in and out of the region? Are there ethnic troubles on the ground there? Did the Ukrainians get their stuff (goods, gov't assets, people, whatever) out of Sevastopol or wherever?

Links to appropriate reading materials would be fine, or summarize for my lazy ass, that's ok too. I did see the story about Trucker Putin opening the bridge, but it doesn't really outline if anyone is actually doing anything other than shaking a tiny fist.
   634. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:53 PM (#5678131)
Clapper, #613:
While laughably accusing "Team Blue" of trying to downplay an awkward subject!

That Nancy Pelosi is an awkward subject is the point. It's not like I wrote the Roll Call article speculating on her possible demise linked in #553, or this one noting how many Democratic Congressional Candidates refused to back her for Party Leader in the House. Those here who have been measuring the drapes in the Speaker's Office on behalf of Pelosi may have been a bit premature. The Democrats lead in the RCP Generic Congressional Ballot Poll Aggregate is only 3%, down from 13% at the start of the year, and Reuters has them actually trailing. The election is ahead, not already decided.

Yankee "Ryan 4 Life" Clapper, tackling bad news head on, as always.



Clapper, #623:
Pelosi herself issued a "just win baby" directive to any Democrats running for House seats who feel the need to distance themselves from her personally.

So, if those "just win" candidates actually win, do they break their pledge not to vote for Pelosi? Gaining a majority and immediately tossing the leadership, with no obvious heir apparent, or starting your Congressional career by breaking your promise to the voters, seem like less than ideal choices.

It's tough with no obvious heir apparent.
   635. dlf Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:54 PM (#5678133)
I know we have discussed this a bit, but still trade deals were a central pillar of GOP President Trump's campaign.


No, they weren't. His was not a campaign of policy but of personality. And the braggadocious bluster was untied to anything consist beyond personal insults. The D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.

And to the degree that you may be trying to include not just DJT supporters but also the traditional GOP voter who fell in line behind their party's standard bearer, remember that those voters have loooong been opposed to the protectionism that DJT occasionally voiced from the stump slash did a 180 on with ZTE, etc.
   636. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 12:59 PM (#5678137)
he D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.


no kidding. there appears to be a rather naive set here that thinks voters actually vote on issues. luolz. A lot of Trump voters liked that he put women and minorities and "pc culture" "in its place". He was a celebration of swinging, white dick.

His policies on trade? Come on. He wasn't trying to win the George Wills of the party.
   637. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:10 PM (#5678142)
No, they weren't. His was not a campaign of policy but of personality. And the braggadocious bluster was untied to anything consist beyond personal insults. The D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.


I could not disagree more. One of the most startling and telling things about the campaign is that Trump, in his commercials and in his stump speech was much more policy focused - jobs, immigrants (bad!) taking your jobs, China and bad trade deals taking your jobs - than was the Clinton campaign. Clinton ran a campaign - in advertising at least - that was basically an anti-Cult of Personality; "Don't vote for Trump" might as well been her campaign motto. Seriously how weird is it that Trump had in total more policy in his ads than Clinton did?

That is not to say that there was not a huge portion of Trump's campaign based around who Trump is, but that is every Presidential campaign of at least my lifetime.

You are also incorrectly conflating two different things. What Trump based his campaign on and why voters voted for Trump. I have said nothing about the latter supposition. If you care about that subject there have been roughly five billion articles written on it. Rather what I am talking about is looking at what Trump said, what he campaigned on and emphasized, Trade was easily in the top three of his priorities and linked closely to the other two (immigration and jobs).

And political science research has shown that most candidates, after being elected, do tend to make a good faith effort to enact what the campaigned on (I have linked to this before). So I think it legitimate to evaluate Trump and his administration (or any elected politician honestly) based on the campaign issues. And on that metric Trump is an disaster regarding Trade, a success (loathsome as it might be) on immigration, and mixed grades (more positive than negative) on jobs.

Note: Yes I am giving Trump higher marks than any republican ever gave Obama. I stand by those ratings as we sit today.
   638. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:10 PM (#5678143)
No, they weren't. His was not a campaign of policy but of personality. And the braggadocious bluster was untied to anything consist beyond personal insults. The D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.


It makes one wonder what sort of a person would support an openly ignorant #######. I mean, I could offer a guess, but it would hurt feelings, and hurt feeling are what loses elections.
   639. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5678148)
And political science research has shown that most candidates, after being elected, do tend to make a good faith effort to enact what the campaigned on (I have linked to this before). So I think it legitimate to evaluate Trump and his administration (or any elected politician honestly) based on the campaign issues. And on that metric Trump is an disaster regarding Trade, a success (loathsome as it might be) on immigration, and mixed grades (more positive than negative) on jobs.


Good lord this is barely any better than Ray's musings on "pre dawn raids" and "jackbooted thugs". Do every Democrat a favor and go do some phone banking or door knocking. I think you might find a little disconnect between "political science research" and your actual American voter.

Trust me, talk some Republicans "on the street" and I don't think you'll hear "disaster" thrown around much with any Trump policy.
   640. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5678149)
I'm behind. With this new Ukraine/Cohen payment, if there's any money trail from Cohen to any Trump entity at all, I assume that's basically the end, right? (Note: I do not in any way assume there is.) Or is it more Clinton Foundation rebuttal?
   641. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:19 PM (#5678150)

No, they weren't. His was not a campaign of policy but of personality. And the braggadocious bluster was untied to anything consist beyond personal insults. The D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.


Not that I disagree entirely, but I think one needs to consider the Trump voters - and let's remember they comprise just 44% of the last tally - as less an unbreakable monolith.

I'd wholly agree that the "personality voters" are probably the biggest portion of that 44% - after all, he did win the GOP nomination.... but they're a lost cause. Immaterial. To be ignored in campaigned. Even if it were possible to formulate a Democratic personality counter that might appeal to them, I would have zero interest in pursuing that path.

Just spitballing, let's say that 2/3 of the Trump voters are either that or the Clapper sorts (R auto-voters)... or even 3/4. That's still more than enough outside that group to not just flip an election, but send it to a monumental crash-and-burn defeat.

   642. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:22 PM (#5678153)
I could not disagree more. One of the most startling and telling things about the campaign is that Trump, in his commercials and in his stump speech was much more policy focused - jobs, immigrants (bad!) taking your jobs, China and bad trade deals taking your jobs - than was the Clinton campaign. Clinton ran a campaign - in advertising at least - that was basically an anti-Cult of Personality; "Don't vote for Trump" might as well been her campaign motto. Seriously how weird is it that Trump had in total more policy in his ads than Clinton did?


Policy should not be confused with themes... or even themes, but memes.

   643. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:25 PM (#5678156)
Policy should not be confused with themes... or even themes, but memes.


He's apparently convinced himself that Trump won because he was better on policy than Hillary. He really thinks that. This is why Democrats lose elections.
   644. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:29 PM (#5678160)
Apologies for mentioning baseball in OTP, but there seems to be some controversy over Trevor Bauer carving BD 911 on the back of the pitching mound with his spikes yesterday, with some suggesting that is conspiracy theory shorthand for "Bush Did 9/11", while Bauer maintains he actually wrote BD 91.1, which is a "personal thing of importance" to him. Maybe he's getting paid by a FM radio station? Probably best to forgo messages on the mound lest pitchers start using spray paint before their warm-ups.
   645. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5678161)
Policy should not be confused with themes... or even themes, but memes.


In a campaign? Not to be overly snide but law is not made on the campaign trail, only talked about. And what is talked about is what I am pointing out. Trump talked about jobs, trade (trade deals), and immigration. If you think otherwise then you clearly watched a different election than I did.

He's apparently convinced himself that Trump won because he was better on policy than Hillary. He really thinks that. This is why Democrats lose elections.


This is the dumbest thing you have ever written, which is impressive in its own way. Well done.
   646. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5678163)
I'm behind. With this new Ukraine/Cohen payment, if there's any money trail from Cohen to any Trump entity at all, I assume that's basically the end, right?

WE GOT HIM!!!!
   647. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:35 PM (#5678168)
This is the dumbest thing you have ever written, which is impressive in its own way. Well done.


Your tribalism is no better than Clapper's. It's probably worse. At least his name indicates an ironic self awareness.

In a campaign? Not to be overly snide but law is not made on the campaign trail, only talked about. And what is talked about is what I am pointing out. Trump talked about jobs, trade (trade deals), and immigration. If you think otherwise then you clearly watched a different election than I did.


"Trump won because he was better on the issues". Lord help us all if this is the Democrats' takeaway from 2016.
   648. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:40 PM (#5678177)
Trust me, talk some Republicans "on the street" and I don't think you'll hear "disaster" thrown around much with any Trump policy.


I think it really depends on which streets.

Trump has a very serious farmland problem. Not claiming my little patch of Indiana farmland familiarity is anything more than anecdotal, but there are a lot of rural folks that Trump's trade debacles are hitting hard.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - running a farm from the bookkeeping perspective is different than other enterprises... Farmers are inevitably cycling through flush/broke cycles - cash-flush at harvest time, scraping by during the growing season. Decisions about what to plant are made in advance - and they don't have the option of switching on a dime. IOW - the futures markets are king - and they make decisions based on expectations than span well out.

There are a lot of farmers who are not sleeping well because this fall and next year look particularly tough.
   649. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:43 PM (#5678183)
There are a lot of farmers who are not sleeping well because this fall and next year look particularly tough.


They might stay home in November but they aren't turning into Democrats. I mean, we've been over this time and time again. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" is as relevant as ever.
   650. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5678185)
I'm not a smart man, but I think you guys are essentially in agreement but talking past each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mouse isn't saying Trump is "better" on policy, just that his speeches actually mentioned the issues more than Clinton^.

Mouse, if you *do* make a claim that DJT actually understands the issues/policies better than HRC, you're every bit the idiot everyone says :) I'll sign on to the theory that the "typical" Trump voter understands/cares about policy precisely as much as Trump himself does. It sounds good to take certain positions, even if you don't know what they mean, or the advantages and consequences of implementing them. So Trump takes positions, and his base nods knowingly, but how those positions translate to any actual action is random - and neither Trump nor the base cares, because they didn't understand the policy position in the first place.

-----------

^ ETA: Perhaps "paid lip service" is a better way of putting it.
   651. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5678187)
I think this was probably expected -

But a district court has found that Trump cannot block people on twitter.

No word on whether Trump will quit twitter as a result in his usual inability to be questioned fashion.
   652. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:49 PM (#5678197)
They might stay home in November but they aren't turning into Democrats. I mean, we've been over this time and time again. "What's the Matter with Kansas?" is as relevant as ever.


We'll see.

I think the KS-4 special election is instructive - and no, I don't know the answer - but did the race surprise by its closeness because the minority Dems in the district were more charged up, or, because some reliable Republicans flipped to vote for the more ag-friendly candidate? I think the betting money says both.

   653. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5678199)
"Trump won because he was better on the issues". Lord help us all if this is the Democrats' takeaway from 2016.


Yeah, you are an idiot. I never said anything like that. I said "Trump, in his commercials and in his stump speech was much more policy focused - jobs, immigrants (bad!) taking your jobs, China and bad trade deals taking your jobs - than was the Clinton campaign."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mouse isn't saying Trump is "better" on policy, just that his speeches actually mentioned the issues more than Clinton.


Correct. Why he didn't (or choose not) to understand that I have no idea.

Mouse, if you *do* make a claim that DJT actually understands the issues/policies better than HRC, you're every bit the idiot everyone says :)


Heh. Clinton is a policy machine personally. The fact she choose not to talk policy in her general campaign (other than issuing a blizzard of white papers no one read) I can understand, but in hindsight it was a huge mistake.
   654. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5678201)
The twitter ruling applies to @RealDonaldTrump, not just @POTUS. It had seemed like the WH was at one point at least attempting to differentiate between the two, but this court ain't having it.
   655. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5678209)
No, they weren't. His was not a campaign of policy but of personality. And the braggadocious bluster was untied to anything consist beyond personal insults. The D's erred (err?) in thinking that his supporters turned on his advocacy about TPP / NAFTA or Coal or ADA or anything substantive; they supported (support?) him because of the personality.
This is puzzlingly backwards. The Ds focused on his personality rather than substantive policy. I kept noting that during the campaign, how much of Hillary's message was "Trump's a terrible person." Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy. (I mean, loosely speaking. "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" may be policy for a third grader's intellect, but it's policy.) Trade deals are terrible and Trump will pull out of the ones we've entered into and negotiate better ones is policy.

EDIT: Coke to BM.
   656. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 01:54 PM (#5678210)
Yeah, you are an idiot. I never said anything like that [that Trump won voters on policy that Clinton lost]. I said "Trump, in his commercials and in his stump speech was much more policy focused - jobs, immigrants (bad!) taking your jobs, China and bad trade deals taking your jobs - than was the Clinton campaign."


You contradict yourself in your own post bruh.

The fact she choose not to talk policy in her general campaign (other than issuing a blizzard of white papers no one read) I can understand, but in hindsight it was a huge mistake.


You're implying that she lost, at least in part, because she didn't TALK ISSUES ENOUGH. You believe this, you just told us, "it was a huge mistake".

Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy. (I mean, loosely speaking. "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" may be policy for a third grader's intellect, but it's policy.) Trade deals are terrible and Trump will pull out of the ones we've entered into and negotiate better ones is policy.


Everyone of his quote "blue collar" economic "policies" was based in racial resentment one way or another. The Chinese are playing us. The Mexicans are playing us. Furthermore, they are sending their worst to steal your jobs. The other part of course was the bog standard 1% Libertarian Mercer #### that any GOP candidate, even Kasich, would probably have taken as a plank.
   657. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5678217)
Probably best to forgo messages on the mound lest pitchers


Free speech for Republican leaning corporations. Tiny American flags and mandatory worship of the state and flag as idols in lieu of the gods for sportsballers.
   658. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5678218)
You're implying that she lost, at least in part, because she didn't TALK ISSUES ENOUGH. You believe this, you just told us, "it was a huge mistake".
Right. Her speech/spoken strategy was "I can't believe you'd vote for Trump!"

It should have been "I differ from Trump on this because X" and "I differ from Trump on that because Y". Do you disagree with that?
   659. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5678222)
Right. Her speech/spoken strategy was "I can't believe you'd vote for Trump!"


To be fair, it wasn't a stretched assumption only stupid Hillary fell for. Many, many people woke up after election day stunned at the sheer, total ########## stupidity of the American people.
   660. Zonk is a cagey fellow Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5678223)
Another update on Paul Ryan's increasingly tenuous and rapidly waning Speakership...

The compromise immigration discharge petition got another GOP signee - meaning it's now just four votes short of being forced to the floor. It continues to be amusing - especially to those of us that closely follow Clapper's leadership analysis - that it's accepted as a given that Nancy will get every Democratic vote onboard when the time comes. TFA claims that there are three more Republicans ready to sign on, but just waiting for until their signatures push it over the top.

Should the numbers breach the levee and the bill be forced onto the floor - seems near certain that Ryan would be gone the following week... as the bill would likely pass and the nutter caucus would do what the nutter caucus does best.

In effect, this means that the Haircare Apparent is probably one vote away from being forced to see just how good a vote wrangler he is.
   661. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5678224)
You contradict yourself in your own post bruh.


You are still an idiot.

You're implying that she lost, at least in part, because she didn't TALK ISSUES ENOUGH. You believe this, you just told us, "it was a huge mistake".


Hey, blind squirrel, well done. Yes, that is correct. That doesn't mean she was worse on the issues, just she did not talk about them enough. Instead as David pointed out while Trump was focused on jobs and other issues voters care about she was focused on "Donald Trump, Threat or Menace?"

Clinton's policies were fine. Small bore and without an overall theme, but solid blue policies that she did not talk enough about. Trump did talk policy. Go back and watch one of his main speeches (painful as that might be). He talks about jobs. A lot.
   662. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5678227)
It continues to be amusing - especially to those of us that closely follow Clapper's leadership analysis - that it's accepted as a given that Nancy will get every Democratic vote onboard when the time comes.


Credit where credit is due.
   663. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:05 PM (#5678228)

Everyone of his quote "blue collar" economic "policies" was based in racial resentment one way or another.
Liberals can find racial issues in test patterns, but I'm not going to debate your claim at this moment because it's irrelevant. Even if what you say is true, that doesn't change the fact that they were policies. While Hillary was running ads saying, 'What will we tell our daughters about this asshat running against me?" (I may be slightly paraphrasing.) Trump was saying, "We need to reduce immigration" and Hillary was saying, "Trump's a racist."
   664. tshipman Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:09 PM (#5678230)
This is puzzlingly backwards. The Ds focused on his personality rather than substantive policy. I kept noting that during the campaign, how much of Hillary's message was "Trump's a terrible person." Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy. (I mean, loosely speaking. "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" may be policy for a third grader's intellect, but it's policy.) Trade deals are terrible and Trump will pull out of the ones we've entered into and negotiate better ones is policy.


Yeah, count me on Trump's policies being important, and that "failed promises" is a potent campaign theme.

Trump had several novel differentiators between him and the "average Republican":

1. No cuts to Medicare
2. Your healthcare will be better, cheaper and cover more people. Repeal/replace will somehow do this with an unspecified mechanism.
3. Tax plan for normal people, not wealthy people.
4. Build a wall (and Mexico will pay for it)
5. Win trade

I was very frustrated at the time that no one seemed to care that the policies were completely unrealistic, but that was the lesson of Trump. Just promise whatever you like and worry about the consequences later. Generally speaking, I think this is a winning strategy in economic boom times, but a losing strategy during recessions.
   665. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:09 PM (#5678231)
Liberals can find racial issues in test patterns

Or leaves in car windows.
   666. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:11 PM (#5678233)
Right. Her speech/spoken strategy was "I can't believe you'd vote for Trump!"

To be fair, it wasn't a stretched assumption only stupid Hillary fell for.
Agreed, this is all strategery-in-hindsight. Personally, I still can't believe that many people voted for Trump. Maybe HRC's use of "half" for deplorables was an undercut.
   667. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:14 PM (#5678237)
Hey, blind squirrel, well done. Yes, that is correct. That doesn't mean she was worse on the issues, just she did not talk about them enough. Instead as David pointed out while Trump was focused on jobs and other issues voters care about she was focused on "Donald Trump, Threat or Menace?"


So your position is that she was better on the issues (whatever this means to your average voter) than Trump, but that she didn't talk about them enough relative to Trump? Is that correct?

I'll assume that's correct, because it's what you've said. So that implies that Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained how much better her policies would be (mostly economically) for them than Trump's.

This is why Democrats keep losing elections. Voters. Don't. Vote. On Logic. They vote on emotion and laundry and heuristics like "I'd like to have a beer with that guy".

The GOP has long figured this out. It's why they win. I'll add that tShipman is exactly the sort of Democrat that also thinks this way. It's laughable, years of evidence and you guys still think you can convince Bubba in Topeka making 35K a year at his food processing job that he's a Democrat. Bill Clinton did it to a degree, and it sure wasn't accomplished with wonkish policy discussions.
   668. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:16 PM (#5678239)
I still can't believe that many people voted for Trump.

There was a whole hell of a lot of "not a liberal", "not a Clinton", "not Hillary", and "not a woman" in those votes.
   669. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5678244)
There was a whole hell of a lot of "not a liberal", "not a Clinton", "not Hillary", and "not a woman" in those votes.


No it was because she didn't talk enough policy! You win today's award for common sense.
   670. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5678245)
Even if what you say is true, that doesn't change the fact that they were policies.


David's point is that Trump ran on racist policies. And racists loved him for it. He also ran on misogyny and hatred of anything "liberal," and his core base of 4chan trolls and sub-reddit cucks ate it up. He also ran with an R by his name, and soulless, centerless whores like Clapper jumped in happily and with gusto. One in every 10 Trump voter should be put on a pike and left to rot in the street, as a decimation to establish that this #### is not acceptable.
   671. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:24 PM (#5678249)
So that implies that Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained how much better her policies would be (mostly economically) for them than Trump's.
I think this is true for a percentage of swing voters, yes. Whether that would have swung the election, who knows. We can look back and think that if HRC had camped out in Wisconsin/Ohio/Pennsylvania and done the above, things could have been different. But that's looking back.

You are correct that the Bubbas/Deplorables (however much they may intertwine) would never have voted for HRC, no matter what she did.
   672. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:25 PM (#5678250)
I'll assume that's correct, because it's what you've said. So that implies that Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained how much better her policies would be (mostly economically) for them than Trump's.


Yes, you are still an idiot. But even idiots slowly learn. Time for the next step in your learning I guess.

So,yes I think Clinton should have talked policy more. That doesn't mean "Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained...", because you are generating a false dichotomy. Trump voters are not a single block. She didn't need all Trump voters to abandon Trump, and in fact she needed very few of them to move to her side (or decide to vote instead of stay home). She won the popular vote and lost the election because of relatively small numbers of voters - mostly based in parts of the country who are really really interested in a little issue we call JOBS.

Trump talked endlessly about jobs, how immigrants were taking your jobs, how his wall would solve that, how there were terrible trade deals taking your jobs and Trump would fix it and so on. Much of it was based in racial animus, but so what? He flipped states that Obama had won just a few years before.

This is why Democrats keep losing elections. Voters. Don't. Vote. On Logic. They vote on emotion and laundry and heuristics like "I'd like to have a beer with that guy".


This is both lazy and dumb, so way to keep expanding your repertoire. But yes, humans are often non-rational, but the appeal of jobs is part of an emotional appeal. I am not claiming Trump won because of logic, nor am I claiming Clinton should have used emotionless logic to sell her policies. Why you imagine I am is a mystery to me, but whatever.

EDIT: And to be clear to the dim and those dishonestly representing my views (some overlap there, BTW) there are a million reason Clinton lost, just like there are in any election that close. Anyone claiming this is the one reason and there is no other is being overly simplistic. And again to be extra clear that is not what I am saying. Lack of campaigned on policy in contrast to Trump is one of many reasons Clinton lost the narrow election.
   673. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5678254)

This is puzzlingly backwards. The Ds focused on his personality rather than substantive policy. I kept noting that during the campaign, how much of Hillary's message was "Trump's a terrible person." Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy. (I mean, loosely speaking. "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it" may be policy for a third grader's intellect, but it's policy.) Trade deals are terrible and Trump will pull out of the ones we've entered into and negotiate better ones is policy.

Right. People need to remember that the campaigns were irrelevant to most states, which were already predetermined based on the D or R next to the candidate's names. But there were a few states that were close, that Trump flipped from recent elections, and those were the ones where his anti-immigration, anti-trade, anti-environmentalism, and in general anti-establishment message actually did resonate. He wasn't "better" on the issues but he presented a clear vision of what he was going to do if elected and I don't think the Dems did that effectively. Trump's message was "I am going to build a wall," and the Dems' message was "OMG he says he is going to build a wall."
   674. Lassus Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:27 PM (#5678255)
No it was because she didn't talk enough policy!

I've already said it was a death of 1000 cuts. This would be a prominent one of those cuts. I'm not sure why you're insistent that smaller things are inconsequential things, especially in that close an election; but I can't really agree.


So that implies that Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained how much better her policies would be (mostly economically) for them than Trump's.

That SOME would have. Perhaps like my dimwitted Progressive LBJ-era in-laws, BETRAYED by BERNIE and voting for Trump! I'm not in a swing state, but these people existed in those states.
   675. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:30 PM (#5678261)
Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy.

Exactly. Trump's candidacy was largely propelled by two stances, opposition to illegal immigration and greater protection from allegedly unfair economic competition, both in the primaries and general election.
   676. tshipman Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:34 PM (#5678267)
David's point is that Trump ran on racist policies. And racists loved him for it. He also ran on misogyny and hatred of anything "liberal," and his core base of 4chan trolls and sub-reddit cucks ate it up. He also ran with an R by his name, and soulless, centerless whores like Clapper jumped in happily and with gusto. One in every 10 Trump voter should be put on a pike and left to rot in the street, as a decimation to establish that this #### is not acceptable.


No, not entirely. Again, Trump's candidacy was also fairly focused on healthcare and on populist tax/job policy. His mechanisms were incoherent, but his promises were not. People didn't hold that against him for whatever reason.

Exactly. Trump's candidacy was largely propelled by two stances, opposition to illegal immigration and greater protection from allegedly unfair economic competition, both in the primaries and general election.


See, the establishment view here. Clapper ignores the parts of Trump's campaign that got etch-a-sketched away once Trump took office. Trump promised that rich people wouldn't benefit from his tax plan and that everyone would have better health care.

Those didn't happen, so Clapper disappears them down the memory hole.
   677. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:36 PM (#5678273)

Trump had several novel differentiators between him and the "average Republican":

1. No cuts to Medicare
2. Your healthcare will be better, cheaper and cover more people. Repeal/replace will somehow do this with an unspecified mechanism.
3. Tax plan for normal people, not wealthy people.
4. Build a wall (and Mexico will pay for it)
5. Win trade

I was very frustrated at the time that no one seemed to care that the policies were completely unrealistic, but that was the lesson of Trump. Just promise whatever you like and worry about the consequences later.


And, in the beginning, Trump ran as the "anti-politician". "Drain the swamp" means get rid of all the career bureaucrats and politicians. He alone could and would MAGA. And now even most of the idiots can see that he has much more in common with politicians than he would ever admit: He's a bullshit artist who came to power making promises he had no intention of keeping. His sole reason for being president is to use his influence to make as much money as he can. This has always been Trump's game. Making money. (Not that he's always successful at that. But if he can avoid prison, this may be his best business venture ever.)
   678. dlf Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5678279)
This is puzzlingly backwards. The Ds focused on his personality rather than substantive policy. I kept noting that during the campaign, how much of Hillary's message was "Trump's a terrible person." Personality played a massive role in Trump's campaign, but his persona was directly related to policy.


I'm not sure if I wrote poorly or you misread, but I didn't intend to say the D's focused too much on policy. I agree that HRC lost any consistency in her message other than "I'm not him" and perhaps to a lesser degree "I'm a her." Where we differ is on Trump's stump policy, such as it was. Few of DJT's policy positions, if any, had any internal logic or consistency. How long did it take him to go, for example, from pro choice to jail the woman to the more standard pro life punish the doctor only POV? I'd, in fact, turn the final clause of what I quoted around 180 degrees: to the degree there was any policy consistency (mostly protectionism in one form or another), it was directly related to his persona.

Not that I disagree entirely, but I think one needs to consider the Trump voters - and let's remember they comprise just 44% of the last tally - as less an unbreakable monolith.


Which is why, in the next paragraph after the one you quoted, I distinguished his supporters from those who lined up behind their party's standard bearer.
   679. Traderdave Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5678283)
His sole reason for being president is to use his influence to make as much money as he can. This has always been Trump's game. Making money. (Not that he's always successful at that. But if he can avoid prison, this may be his best business venture ever.)


He's secured himself & his useless, despicable progeny a 9-figure tax cut. He'd be wise to resign now and spend the rest of his life on Fox getting paid to whine about Hillary and questioning Obama's birthplace.

Seriously, it his best next step.
   680. Random Transaction Generator Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:48 PM (#5678284)
Trump's candidacy was also fairly focused on healthcare and on populist tax/job policy.


It was focused on "anti-healthcare", as in "I don't like the current state of health care (because OBAMA!) and I want to destroy what already exists." He didn't have a real solution (or even a hint of one) on how to fix it, only on how to get rid of what already exists. That was proven when it came time to dismantle the ACA while holding on to all three branches...

The tax/job policy was the usual "less taxes!" and "more jobs" basic statements that every candidate is supposed to say during an election year.
   681. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:49 PM (#5678285)
He's a bullshit artist who came to power making promises he had no intention of keeping. His sole reason for being president is to use his influence to make as much money as he can. This has always been Trump's game. Making money. (Not that he's always successful at that. But if he can avoid prison, this may be his best business venture ever.)


When we say it's hard to believe people were stupid enough to vote for him, this is what we mean. Ignore the liars who claimed to be "moral voters" and jumped in bed with him. We're just talking about the mouthbreathing idiots who apparently can't see an obvious con from a decades long snake oil salesman, because... I don't know. They're stupid, man. I don't understand the stupids.
   682. PepTech Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:53 PM (#5678292)
He wasn't "better" on the issues but he presented a clear vision of what he was going to do if elected
And the scary thing is, the deplorable faction will believe he accomplished all of them, if he says so.
   683. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5678293)
Zonk, #660:
The compromise immigration discharge petition got another GOP signee - meaning it's now just four votes short of being forced to the floor. It continues to be amusing - especially to those of us that closely follow Clapper's leadership analysis - that it's accepted as a given that Nancy will get every Democratic vote onboard when the time comes.


Don't count on it. Word is, Nancy Pelosi is so unfathomably old that she might confusedly wander the streets, asking trees and stoplights for their vote.

Speaker Paul Ryan will keep the immigration proposals off the House floor as long as he wants to.
   684. Traderdave Posted: May 23, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5678295)
Trump has a very serious farmland problem. Not claiming my little patch of Indiana farmland familiarity is anything more than anecdotal, but there are a lot of rural folks that Trump's trade debacles are hitting hard.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - running a farm from the bookkeeping perspective is different than other enterprises... Farmers are inevitably cycling through flush/broke cycles - cash-flush at harvest time, scraping by during the growing season. Decisions about what to plant are made in advance - and they don't have the option of switching on a dime. IOW - the futures markets are king - and they make decisions based on expectations than span well out.

There are a lot of farmers who are not sleeping well because this fall and next year look particularly tough.


I remember seeing the sea of red across the farm state counties on Election Night maps and wondering WTF farmers were voting for a guy who loudly preached a trade war.

Now in fairness, I probably focused too much on that issue (I have a near-certain losing wager w dlf because of that excess focus) but really, what were they thinking? Or were they?

   685. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:04 PM (#5678309)
So your position is that she was better on the issues (whatever this means to your average voter) than Trump, but that she didn't talk about them enough relative to Trump? Is that correct?

I'll assume that's correct, because it's what you've said. So that implies that Trump voters would have voted for Hillary if she only explained how much better her policies would be (mostly economically) for them than Trump's.
It does not remotely imply that. It implies that Stein voters, or Johnson voters, or Trump voters, or non-voters would have voted for her if only she had spent more time talking about policies.
This is why Democrats keep losing elections. Voters. Don't. Vote. On Logic. They vote on emotion and laundry and heuristics like "I'd like to have a beer with that guy".
Not to point out the obvious, but as I've kept repeatedly explaining to Ray over and over again ad nauseam, a lot more voters voted for Hillary than for Trump.

And you are not paying attention to the discussion. Nobody is claiming that Hillary should've taken out 30 second ads in which she ran regression algorithms to demonstrate the effects of her proposals vs. Trump's. The point is that if Trump says, "I will punch Xi Jinping in the face if necessary to get them to stop stealing your jobs," and Hillary says, "Trump is a misogynist," one person is offering people a policy that will (in theory) make voters' lives better, and the other is not.
The GOP has long figured this out. It's why they win. I'll add that tShipman is exactly the sort of Democrat that also thinks this way. It's laughable, years of evidence and you guys still think you can convince Bubba in Topeka making 35K a year at his food processing job that he's a Democrat. Bill Clinton did it to a degree, and it sure wasn't accomplished with wonkish policy discussions.
How old are you? Bill Clinton was absolutely famous during the 1992 campaign for his wonkish policy discussions. He'd be asked a question at a press conference and would spit out a seven bullet point itemized policy answer.
   686. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5678318)
I'm not sure if I wrote poorly or you misread, but I didn't intend to say the D's focused too much on policy. I agree that HRC lost any consistency in her message other than "I'm not him" and perhaps to a lesser degree "I'm a her."
I feel like I'm rehashing a two year old discussion here -- say, how do people feel about steroids in baseball, anyway? -- but I said so many times how emblematic and boneheaded Hillary's campaign slogan was. "I'm with her." From the outset, she made it about herself. Trump (pretended to) make it all about you: "I'll fight for you." And Hillary's response was to make it about him: "He's a terrible person."
Where we differ is on Trump's stump policy, such as it was. Few of DJT's policy positions, if any, had any internal logic or consistency.
We don't differ on that. But having stupid or incoherent or incompatible policies is not equivalent to having no policies. (I mean, on a substantive level it may be -- but not on a political level.)
   687. dlf Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5678323)
(I have a near-certain losing wager w dlf because of that excess focus)


Mmmmmm bourbon.

I took the position I did in that wager because I think that the broader US economy is much stronger than, and to a large degree exists independent of, the fools, buffoons, frauds, and crooks that can get elected. What happens in DC has, at best, a tangential effect on both Wall Street and Main Street and is more symbolic than anything else.
   688. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:12 PM (#5678324)
Trump screamed about jobs, immigration, the wall, and grabbing pussies. No one would listen to him and think "policy".

Hilary walks around looking like she wants to debate policy specifics with you.

Presidential elections can be very primitive.


   689. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:19 PM (#5678330)
Exactly. Trump's candidacy was largely propelled by two stances, opposition to illegal immigration and greater protection from allegedly unfair economic competition, both in the primaries and general election.

See, the establishment view here. Clapper ignores the parts of Trump's campaign that got etch-a-sketched away once Trump took office. Trump promised that rich people wouldn't benefit from his tax plan and that everyone would have better health care.

Most of his rivals for the GOP nomination also favored some form of tax reform or tax simplification, and it didn't provide them any real traction. The issues that propelled Trump's candidacy were his opposition to illegal immigration and his promise to do more about the negative effects on jobs from allegedly unfair foreign economic competition. That's not to say that he didn't take other stances, but those who don't think those were the issues that gave Trump the nomination & general election must have been watching a different campaign.
   690. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5678336)
How old are you? Bill Clinton was absolutely famous during the 1992 campaign for his wonkish policy discussions. He'd be asked a question at a press conference and would spit out a seven bullet point itemized policy answer.


Sure, but he was also famous for being "America's first black president" and his nickname as "Bubba" and a lot of poor southerners, black and white, liked him.

Trump screamed about jobs, immigration, the wall, and grabbing pussies. No one would listen to him and think "policy".

Hilary walks around looking like she wants to debate policy specifics with you.

Presidential elections can be very primitive.



Elections can be very primitive. But otherwise, -- bingo.
   691. Traderdave Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:30 PM (#5678343)
Mmmmmm bourbon.


Had my first disappointing experience with Four Roses SB this week, after enjoying it for several years. One of the things I like about the brand is that there's significant bottle variance, variety being the spice of life, but always quite good.

Not this one, from warehouse L, East side (labeled LE on bottle). Sharp, astringent wood, as if they'd aged it juniper rather than oak, bad stuff. When shopping, avoid that one.
   692. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5678355)
Trump is going to propose additional tax cuts.

Have Republicans forgot about the existence of the deficit and debt? Its so weird that those words have disappeared from their vocabulary.
   693. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5678362)
Trump screamed about jobs, immigration, the wall, and grabbing pussies. No one would listen to him and think "policy".
No, Hillary screamed about grabbing pussies during the campaign; Trump hand waved that away. And wrt the oolicy/personality dichotomy we've been discussing, the other things are policy.
   694. dlf Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:00 PM (#5678372)
We don't differ on that. But having stupid or incoherent or incompatible policies is not equivalent to having no policies. (I mean, on a substantive level it may be -- but not on a political level.)


I believe we've now come full circle. I believe that having internally inconsistent, incoherent, and oft changing policies (not necessary just stupid) IS the same as having no policies and, as such, it was his persona that was fully driving his supporters with, again, a difference between those supporting DJT and those who got in line when he secured the nomination of their party.

Not this one, from warehouse L, East side (labeled LE on bottle).


Thanks for the specificity. I've had several good bottles of the Single Barrell, one that was the best <$100 I've ever had, but none that were poor. I only wish I remembered the barrel specifics of the one that was so good. I bought it in a big box store - Frugal MacDougal - just south of Charlotte in Fort Mills, SC, but work no longer takes me through Charlotte.
   695. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:26 PM (#5678391)
Have Republicans forgot about the existence of the deficit and debt? Its so weird that those words have disappeared from their vocabulary.


They always disappear when a R gets into office (even a R like Trump), and magically reappear when a D gets elected.
   696. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5678395)
We're just talking about the mouthbreathing idiots who apparently can't see an obvious con from a decades long snake oil salesman, because... I don't know.


Because they're desperate, and, in their stupidity, believe in miracles.
   697. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5678396)
Trump (pretended to) make it all about you: "I'll fight for you." And Hillary's response was to make it about him: "He's a terrible person."


So he lied and she told the truth. Well that'll teach us.
   698. Joe Bivens will never admit, will make some excuse Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5678403)
YR, RE: those links to Twitter you posted earlier today: The idiots were calling for a boycott of Netflix (if they were clever, they'd have a Nyetflix campaign).

Netflix is up 4% today on slightly lower than average volume, and is at a 52 week high. I'll defer to Traderdave on this, but I think that when a stock moves that much, up or down, on average volume, it isn't the rubes buying or selling, it's the institutions making big buys.

I guess the boycott hasn't gained much traction yet. NYET!
   699. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:57 PM (#5678410)

Trump screamed about jobs, immigration, the wall, and grabbing pussies. No one would listen to him and think "policy".

Hilary walks around looking like she wants to debate policy specifics with you.


As David said, Trump didn't scream about grabbing pussies.

Otherwise, you're right. Trump had a few clear messages about things he was going to do to MAGA (whether or not they were practical or realistic), and Hillary looked like she wanted to have a wonkish debate. And I know that Hilary had specific policy proposals on her website that you could go read, and performed well in the debates, but in her campaign, I don't think there was the clear, simple "Vote Democrat because we will do X" unless X was "not be Trump".

The problem in part is that Democrats have spent decades telling the poor and middle class that the deck has been stacked against them, and the rich and powerful are taking advantage of them. Then when the voters finally listened, the Dems ran someone who was perceived as being a member of that very same rich elite, and said things like "America is already great". I mean, they were the incumbent party so they had to do a bit of that (and it had the virtue of being largely true), but the messaging was not very good and certainly wrong for this election cycle.

Don't get me wrong, Trump's personality and demeanor had a large amount to do with it, and particularly how he managed to be perceived as the outsider who was going to drain the swamp and stick up for the very people who he has been screwing his whole life. And I still thought the Dems were going to win, so some of this is Monday morning QBing.
   700. Walks Clog Up the Bases Posted: May 23, 2018 at 04:58 PM (#5678411)
Flip
Page 7 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Mike Emeigh
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHow Major League Teams Are Using Bobbleheads to Skirt Tax Laws
(8 - 6:23am, Jun 21)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOTP 2018 June 18: How Life Imitates the Congressional Baseball Game
(1000 - 6:12am, Jun 21)
Last: I Am Merely a Fake Lawyer

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(1365 - 1:48am, Jun 21)
Last: tshipman

Sox TherapyA Pleasant Trip So Far
(17 - 1:23am, Jun 21)
Last: Chip

NewsblogFormer MLB pitcher Kevin Brown reportedly held two mail thieves at gunpoint until police arrived
(261 - 1:15am, Jun 21)
Last: baxter

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(118 - 12:37am, Jun 21)
Last: Ray (CTL)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER wants to be in the room where it happens, June 20, 2018
(156 - 12:34am, Jun 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(615 - 11:21pm, Jun 20)
Last: Richard

NewsblogKelvin Herrera Trade Start of Something Big for Nationals
(44 - 10:20pm, Jun 20)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-20-2018
(15 - 9:46pm, Jun 20)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 6-19-2018
(53 - 9:07pm, Jun 20)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogDeadspin: Former Blue Jay Kelly Gruber Disinvited From Canadian Baseball Hall Of Fame Festivities
(14 - 8:17pm, Jun 20)
Last: TomH

Gonfalon CubsClicking
(71 - 4:05pm, Jun 20)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogGrumpy Gossage Napalms His Bridges:BWitz:NYT (reg req.)
(103 - 3:54pm, Jun 20)
Last: SandyRiver

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(3812 - 2:29pm, Jun 20)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Page rendered in 0.8456 seconds
46 querie(s) executed