I don't usually play some kind of pundit, but I figured with the Iowa caucuses today I might as well take a stab at guessing who will win each one. Rather than flat-out predicting a winner, I'd rather hedge my bets a little, so I'll just be assigning odds. To be clear, while these odds are in percentages, they are not the percentage of the vote that I'm predicting each candidate will get. They are basically betting odds that I would give. With that said, let's start with the Republicans.
Trump--80%
Cruz--20%
Given that everyone else lags behind Trump in the polls by double digits, I don't feel too obligated to assign a value to the utterly negligible chance that Rubio or some other clown in the background of this spectacle will somehow win Iowa. While a few weeks back I would have given Cruz better odds, he's faded in the polls since then. Trump has been surging again, and has both a lead and momentum on his side. He will need high turnout to win, but I don't think that's likely to be an obstacle. While Iowa's weather will turn nasty tomorrow, that's expected to be after the caucuses. Yes, Trump will need to turn out a lot of people who haven't caucused ever before, but his supporters do not half-ass it. They are rabid wolverines, ready to claw out the eyes of their enemies, full of bitterness and anger about the GOP establishment's neglect of them. They've turned out in droves for Trump's rallies and beaten protesters all for King Donald, and caucusing won't likely deter them. If I'm wrong about that--which I consider unlikely but not impossible, as indicated by the odds--Cruz can expect to win. None of the establishment mannequins that have been set up (Rubio, Bush, et al.) can possibly hope for anything better than second place, if even that.
On to the Democrats.
Sanders--55%
Clinton--45%
This race looks to me a lot more competitive than the Republican race. The polls have been close for the past weeks, and the most recent one puts Clinton ahead by 3% with a 4% margin of error--a statistical tie. (LATER NOTE--It turns out there has actually been a more recent poll released, by the Emerson College Polling Society, that gives Clinton an 8-point-lead, but that organization's polls have consistently been among the worst for Sanders (by a large margin), meaning I'm inclined to disregard it.) I give the edge to Sanders because the momentum is on his side--he's been gaining over the past weeks and brought in 20 million dollars in January. Like Trump, he will need a big turnout, but like Trump, his supporters are enthusiastic (though not violent mobs, unlike Trump's). The caucuses also require some voters to pick their second choice in the end, because of the way they're set up, and the O'Malleyites prefer Sanders to Clinton, giving him a small boost there, too. So while it's still a toss-up, I say advantage Sanders. Maybe it's just wishful thinking. In any case, the only Democratic candidate I'd be surprised to see take Iowa is Martin O'Malley.
Such are my predictions. No matter what outcome, we're in for a hell of an election.
Sunday, January 31, 2016
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Trump: Just a Romney With Skills?
Four years ago, if you'll remember, we had a candidate named Mitt Romney. I don't blame you if you've forgotten, because he was a very, very forgettable candidate. The only reason I bring him up is because he had one distinguishing feature: his total insincerity. It was clear that Romney would say anything to get elected; he was a shapeshifter from a sci-fi movie, willing and able to take any form to advance his own purposes.
But the difference between him and the shapeshifter in the sci-fi flick is that the one in the movie was actually convincing, and Romney was completely transparent. He was a shapeshifter whose real form was obvious: he was a simple political hack, an opportunist, an empty suit speaking empty words. So no one ever bought his new disguise as a "severely conservative" ideologue. He's now faded into history, a mere footnote for a high school textbook.
Why do I mention all of this? Because I want to make a proposition. It's not a proposition that I'm sure of, but it's one that seems increasingly likely to me. It's that Donald Trump is a Romney who can pull it off. I've written about how he's running essentially as a fascist, but increasingly, I doubt his fascism is anything but skin-deep. I'm beginning to think he's nothing more than a skilled con man who's found his mark and is exploiting them like a master of his field. His recent comment, that he could shoot someone and his supporters wouldn't mind, only seems to boost that idea.
Let's think about this. We all know that Trump has held all sorts of political positions throughout the years. He used to support single-payer healthcare, and legal abortion. At one point he advocated a wealth tax. But back in the day he was a supporter of Reagan. This sort of thing can usually only mean a person doesn't have a clear political ideology, that they're likely to get sucked into new ideas and new people, as those gain popularity.
But now he's adopted as his own a far-right platform he could have taken right from the website of some two-bit European fascist party, with a few minor adjustments. And it's been a huge hit with the rabid masses that make up the Republican base. That shouldn't surprise anyone; it was clear from the Tea Party movement that the base was moving toward increased racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. And just as that happens, Trump adopts a new ideology, one that's fervently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and willing to raise questions about the country's black population. It's a bit much for a coincidence.
The motive, too, is obvious enough. We all know Trump is a narcissist. It was clear enough that his other flirtations with running for the presidency were little more than yet another way for him to stroke his ego. Why should this one be any different? Perhaps the only real difference is that he picked a demographic and figured out how to truly manipulate them.
A Trump presidency, it seems increasingly likely to me, would look less like a fascist takeover of the government and more like it would have looked if we'd elected Ross Perot in the '90's--adopting policies with support that cuts across party lines, attempting to project an image of strength, while doing little to help marginalized groups in society. It would be an ugly sight, but, if I'm right, it wouldn't involve shipping 11 million illegal immigrants out of the country, building a giant wall and trying to make Mexico pay for it, or banning Muslims from entering the country. That isn't to say that the thought of a Trump victory shouldn't be terrifying. It would be like handing a flamethrower to a kid who likes to play with matches. But the neo-Nazis and other nasties that have increasingly cropped up wouldn't really get their wishes.
But with all that being said, I could be wrong. Maybe Trump is a true convert--a modern day St. Paul, who substituted the ideas of Jesus with those of Mussolini and the Ku Klux Klan. If that's the case, his election could well mark the official death of even the illusion of the rule of law and democracy in the United States. In any case, while it's a curious question just how a Trump presidency would look, it's not a question that I want to see answered firsthand.
 | |
| Trump and Romney (Stan Honda/Getty Images, taken from The Daily Beast) |
But the difference between him and the shapeshifter in the sci-fi flick is that the one in the movie was actually convincing, and Romney was completely transparent. He was a shapeshifter whose real form was obvious: he was a simple political hack, an opportunist, an empty suit speaking empty words. So no one ever bought his new disguise as a "severely conservative" ideologue. He's now faded into history, a mere footnote for a high school textbook.
Why do I mention all of this? Because I want to make a proposition. It's not a proposition that I'm sure of, but it's one that seems increasingly likely to me. It's that Donald Trump is a Romney who can pull it off. I've written about how he's running essentially as a fascist, but increasingly, I doubt his fascism is anything but skin-deep. I'm beginning to think he's nothing more than a skilled con man who's found his mark and is exploiting them like a master of his field. His recent comment, that he could shoot someone and his supporters wouldn't mind, only seems to boost that idea.
Let's think about this. We all know that Trump has held all sorts of political positions throughout the years. He used to support single-payer healthcare, and legal abortion. At one point he advocated a wealth tax. But back in the day he was a supporter of Reagan. This sort of thing can usually only mean a person doesn't have a clear political ideology, that they're likely to get sucked into new ideas and new people, as those gain popularity.
But now he's adopted as his own a far-right platform he could have taken right from the website of some two-bit European fascist party, with a few minor adjustments. And it's been a huge hit with the rabid masses that make up the Republican base. That shouldn't surprise anyone; it was clear from the Tea Party movement that the base was moving toward increased racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia. And just as that happens, Trump adopts a new ideology, one that's fervently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and willing to raise questions about the country's black population. It's a bit much for a coincidence.
The motive, too, is obvious enough. We all know Trump is a narcissist. It was clear enough that his other flirtations with running for the presidency were little more than yet another way for him to stroke his ego. Why should this one be any different? Perhaps the only real difference is that he picked a demographic and figured out how to truly manipulate them.
A Trump presidency, it seems increasingly likely to me, would look less like a fascist takeover of the government and more like it would have looked if we'd elected Ross Perot in the '90's--adopting policies with support that cuts across party lines, attempting to project an image of strength, while doing little to help marginalized groups in society. It would be an ugly sight, but, if I'm right, it wouldn't involve shipping 11 million illegal immigrants out of the country, building a giant wall and trying to make Mexico pay for it, or banning Muslims from entering the country. That isn't to say that the thought of a Trump victory shouldn't be terrifying. It would be like handing a flamethrower to a kid who likes to play with matches. But the neo-Nazis and other nasties that have increasingly cropped up wouldn't really get their wishes.
But with all that being said, I could be wrong. Maybe Trump is a true convert--a modern day St. Paul, who substituted the ideas of Jesus with those of Mussolini and the Ku Klux Klan. If that's the case, his election could well mark the official death of even the illusion of the rule of law and democracy in the United States. In any case, while it's a curious question just how a Trump presidency would look, it's not a question that I want to see answered firsthand.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Hill's Shills Slander Sanders Demanders
Given Bernie Sanders's surge in the polls, it should come as no surprise that the Clinton campaign has been eager to discredit him. And, of course, that means the pro-Clinton mouthpieces are also ready to do their part, spitting out their pre-packaged, mass-produced propaganda like the dead-eyed robots they are. We've heard the "electability" lie about a thousand times now, and about "experience," and "practicality," and so on. But it's not enough, and the Clintonites know it's not enough. You don't kill a movement like the one behind Sanders by appealing to the criteria that vapid, corporate-funded pundits use to declare who the "better" candidate is. It doesn't work. So, swine-like, they've gotten down in the mud and begun to use some truly scummy tactics.
Sanders is too congenial for them to truly demonize him. The Clinton campaign did their best, insinuating he was a racist, and a sexist, and a thief, but nobody bought it (except, of course, Clinton's supporters). So instead one can only demonize his supporters. It's the natural next step: promote the lie that Sanders supporters are a bunch of depraved half-wits, foaming at the mouth and unable to hear any criticism of their candidate, and every noncommittal primary voter will flee like a scared jackrabbit. Or so that's the thought. Or maybe it's just putrid whining from a group of people angry their candidate has some competition and who are looking for the nearest rock to throw.
Allen Clifton, one of my favorite targets, is at the top of the list of people eager making these attacks, with tweets like this gem:
Michael Cohen, a hack writer who recently churned out a piece (about how Sanders doesn't understand politics) that might as well have been stamped with the official Hillary Rodham Clinton Campaign Seal of Approval, also made sure to throw in his two cents.
With these two goons, we can also toss in Amanda Marcotte, who's busied herself concern-trolling about how overwhelmingly male Sanders supporters supposedly are. Like them, she's not above vague, unsubstantiated comments intended to jab at Sanders supporters:
These are the cries of people who know they've run out of real arguments to make. They can rehash the same talking points in favor of Hillary from now until the end of primary season, but when the Sanders supporters hit back and claim that Clinton is corporate-backed shell of a candidate, a tool of the master class, a sneering war-hawk with an itchy trigger finger, they can't do much but shake their heads and mumble. So better just to complain about the Sanders supporters who say those sort of things.
But their efforts are failing. Sanders continues on, unabated by his detractors from the chattering class. He's a longshot candidate, but in a country as angry and disgusted as ours is now, he's far from out of the question. That anger can be channeled into fixing the problems of society, or, as with Trump, it can be channeled into a Neanderthal rallying cry to bash out the brains of the weak. But the anger has to go somewhere, whether the pundits like it or not.
POST SCRIPT: While not strictly the subject of this article, after I had written a draft of it I discovered a truly nausea-inducing slam against Sanders by Clinton ally David Brock, who said (based on an ad Sanders ran that he viewed as lacking in racial diversity) that "From this ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders." This is disgusting on at least two levels: one, because of its mendacity about Sanders (who attended Martin Luther King's March on Washington and has a 97% rating from the NAACP), and two, because of its sickeningly cheap invocation of not caring about black lives, which has been (and continues to be) a serious problem in the United States. I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton denounces this remark; as little regard as I have for her, I'd like to be able to believe that she's at least not as much of sick-minded political monster as Brock clearly is.
Sanders is too congenial for them to truly demonize him. The Clinton campaign did their best, insinuating he was a racist, and a sexist, and a thief, but nobody bought it (except, of course, Clinton's supporters). So instead one can only demonize his supporters. It's the natural next step: promote the lie that Sanders supporters are a bunch of depraved half-wits, foaming at the mouth and unable to hear any criticism of their candidate, and every noncommittal primary voter will flee like a scared jackrabbit. Or so that's the thought. Or maybe it's just putrid whining from a group of people angry their candidate has some competition and who are looking for the nearest rock to throw.
Allen Clifton, one of my favorite targets, is at the top of the list of people eager making these attacks, with tweets like this gem:
Getting to where I dread debating Sanders supporters as much as Trump's. Neither care about facts, only believe what their candidates say.
— Allen Clifton (@Allen_Clifton) December 22, 2015
With one stroke of the brush, the people who back Sanders are lumped in with the nematodes propping up the Trump campaign--Nazis, xenophobes, and friendly neighborhood racists. Is the comparison fair? Of course not. There are no records of Sanders supporters attacking Hispanics or Muslims, or beating up protesters, or shouting Nazi salutes at his rallies. And of course Clifton's not saying anything like that. But the seed is planted. Deep down, they're the same. Don't want to be part of the kind of mob you see at Trump rallies? Stay away from that Sanders guy. His supporters are bad news.Michael Cohen, a hack writer who recently churned out a piece (about how Sanders doesn't understand politics) that might as well have been stamped with the official Hillary Rodham Clinton Campaign Seal of Approval, also made sure to throw in his two cents.
I've written about every candidate this cycle & without fail Sanders supporters are the most consistently abusive & rude ...
— Michael Cohen (@speechboy71) January 19, 2016
Michael and I must have been dealing with different groups of Trump supporters. The ones I've dealt with have accused me of being disloyal to the white race. Or maybe Cohen is just less bothered by accusations like that than he is by intelligent people waving away his huckstering and laughing in his face, knowing he doesn't have much to offer but a coughed-up load of advertising slogans for his favorite candidate.With these two goons, we can also toss in Amanda Marcotte, who's busied herself concern-trolling about how overwhelmingly male Sanders supporters supposedly are. Like them, she's not above vague, unsubstantiated comments intended to jab at Sanders supporters:
Sanders supporters really better hope that undecideds don’t read comment sections is all I’m saying.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) October 16, 2015
Notice the lack of nuance from all three. It's not even that some Sanders supporters are the vile creatures they're warning us about--rude, abusive, just like the Trump clan--it's just "Sanders supporters" as a group. Oh, of course, it's not like they're saying that every Sanders supporter is like that, or even a majority, but clearly it's a real problem among Sanders's supporters (the whole boorish, unsophisticated bunch of them).These are the cries of people who know they've run out of real arguments to make. They can rehash the same talking points in favor of Hillary from now until the end of primary season, but when the Sanders supporters hit back and claim that Clinton is corporate-backed shell of a candidate, a tool of the master class, a sneering war-hawk with an itchy trigger finger, they can't do much but shake their heads and mumble. So better just to complain about the Sanders supporters who say those sort of things.
But their efforts are failing. Sanders continues on, unabated by his detractors from the chattering class. He's a longshot candidate, but in a country as angry and disgusted as ours is now, he's far from out of the question. That anger can be channeled into fixing the problems of society, or, as with Trump, it can be channeled into a Neanderthal rallying cry to bash out the brains of the weak. But the anger has to go somewhere, whether the pundits like it or not.
POST SCRIPT: While not strictly the subject of this article, after I had written a draft of it I discovered a truly nausea-inducing slam against Sanders by Clinton ally David Brock, who said (based on an ad Sanders ran that he viewed as lacking in racial diversity) that "From this ad it seems black lives don't matter much to Bernie Sanders." This is disgusting on at least two levels: one, because of its mendacity about Sanders (who attended Martin Luther King's March on Washington and has a 97% rating from the NAACP), and two, because of its sickeningly cheap invocation of not caring about black lives, which has been (and continues to be) a serious problem in the United States. I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton denounces this remark; as little regard as I have for her, I'd like to be able to believe that she's at least not as much of sick-minded political monster as Brock clearly is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)