I’m not going to go so far as to predict that Hillary Clinton will win in this madhouse of an election, but the odds in her favor keep improving.
More icky revelations about Trump are trickling out.
The Republican party is cutting off support to the Trump campaign.
Many Republican leaders are publicly denouncing Trump, although many are not going so far as to decline to endorse him.
Trump refuses to resign. With an ego that size, can anyone imagine that he would?
Now picture this.
He loses big in the election in November. Even if it’s close, maybe especially if it’s close.
Now put yourself in his shoes, with his narcissism. He’s got to blame someone else, right? Who is he going to blame?
Not Clinton. Not some woman, especially not some woman he thinks is a crook. Maybe there will be some whining of voter fraud, but that’s not going to hold up for long.
He’s going to blame those Republican bigshots, Paul Ryan and John McCain and Reince Priebus and all those governors and senators and congresspeople who failed to support him in the face of these terribly unfair attacks. He has been betrayed. He has been stabbed in the back by his own party.
Trump still has fanatical supporters. Look at Breitbart. Look what’s happening: Trump fans are booing Paul Ryan.
This is what has the Republicans sweating bullets right now. You know they’re busy calculating: they have to repudiate what he said, but how far can they go before they alienate the Trumpian base and find themselves a target of their own fanatics in subsequent elections?
Even scarier — what if he wins? Do you think Trump is the kind of fellow who keeps enemy lists, bears a grudge, and is going to screw over anyone who tried to hurt him the campaign? These guys are trapped.
I do think Clinton will win, though, and then that 30-40% of the rabid electorate that was fueled by racial hatred will pin a Dolchstoßlegende on the Republican establishment and turn on them. They won’t go Democrat, though — they’ll sit there simmering in resentment waiting for a fresh demagogue. It’s just going to get uglier and uglier, but I don’t think the Republicans will benefit.
My question right now is… Who, right now, is benefiting from this chaos? Surely the big money interests, the owners of our government and our country are not fearing destruction. Or are they?
I don’t think we’ll have to wait to November to see the schism. Trump’s already getting repudiations from Republicans in close races, and with time we’ll likely see more nasty revelations a la Bill Cosby. Trump and his hordes will turn on whoever splits with him, culminating in nuclear recriminations immediately after election day.
But once the Hated Hillary takes office, they’ll simmer down and unite against her. By the midterms they’ll all be on the same page again.
I agree that they’ll be united against Clinton, that won’t change. But the question is, who will they be for in the next election? I don’t think they’ll back any of the establishment Republicans, now that they’ve proved untrustworthy.
Phil Robertson is probably plotting his march to the White House right now.
I think PZ is correct about the Republican schism, the long-overdue split between the GOP establishment and their underclass suckers who dutifully vote Republican on the basis of “values” while getting royally screwed economically. Cui bono? The big money interests are seldom worried too much about chaos because they confidently (and with good reason) expect to ride it out — and perhaps even profit from it. This time, however, I suspect many of them are very worried indeed. The splintered Republican Party may lose so big in the general election that the heretofore unthinkable may occur: Clinton could become president with a Democratic Congress that will pave the way for enactment of big chunks of the party platform — complete with the reforms in consumer protection, human rights, financial services, and the tax structure espoused by Sens. Sanders and Warren. Till now, the plutocrats could comfort themselves with the thought that pragmatic Clinton would be easy to block with a Republican Congress. However, with newly empowered progressives at President Clinton’s back, pushing her toward implementation, she becomes an actual threat to their creature comforts. It may be time to invest in popcorn futures.
Pure speculation here. In a few years there will be a “Constitution Party” that’s (unofficially) a whites-only Christians-only party that will have several state-level offices in the deep South.
The GOP will move itself back to its William F Buckley + George Will roots.
And there won’t be a conservative president for decades.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of scoundrels.
johnhattan — “…several state-level offices in the deep South.” Yes, and perhaps a few not-so-deep South states, say Indiana and Arizona and some of those Northern-tier Midwest states that are so deeply red. Bigotry knows no boundaries.
[related but not directly on-topic]
Not entirely comparable, but in Australia such a split occurred back in the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_split_of_1931
(If you look at related entries, there were splits in 1916 and 1955, too)
5: There already is a Constitution Party. It’s pretty much what you described it as, too.
Too early to count chickens, but yes, if Trump lays waste not only to his own presidential chances but to the Senate and House races and the Dems win at all three levels, and get to nominate 3 Supremes at least, this *could* be the thing that finally starts America waking from the long nightmare ushered in by the crowning of election-loser Dubya in 2000.
Uhm. Breaking up? No. The only reason Ryan disavowed him is the last piece of legislation he was involved with when the Trump story broke, was for federal aid for sexual assault victims, and he did televised interviews about it. Neither he nor anyone else in that party cares what Trump said. There are too many outs. They can point to Bill Clinton, they can say “it’s in the past”, they can ignore it, they can embrace it, they know they aren’t going to lose racists over the Stern show or misogynists over the rest. What’s more, they don’t want their own comment history dug through and have good reason to keep quiet.
I live in the northeast and I’ve never seen a button/bumpersticker/lawn sign for Clinton in my travels all over it since June. But I’ve seen dozens for Trump. That there are people in this part of the country that aren’t embarassed to declare him their candidate worries me.
I think he’s still favored to win. I think he’s still favored to win up to 60-40, and that everyone’s victory dances are dangerous.
@taraskan at #10 – the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. The lawn signs you see in your local area are not more accurate than multiple national polls.
I agree on the need to avoid premature celebration: it’s still far closer than it has any right to be.
But the prediction that Trump will win in a landslide has no solid empirical support at all.
When pundits duke it out (apologies for the HuffPuff link): CNN Panel Devolves Into Shouting Match About ‘P***y’. Ana Navarro, whom I gather is considered a Republican CNN contributor, got in a shouting match with some of her fellow wag heads over The Donald’s video bomb on CNN.
I don’t know about the rest of the country, but I’m not comfortable putting out Clinton yard signs or bumper stickers where I live. Also, last time around somebody put Romney yard signs on every lawn on our block, without asking the residents.
Anyone can stick a yard sign anywhere they want; it’s not an indication of support.
I’m in Massachusetts, and I’m not seeing lawn signs for Clinton–because the campaign is sending them to states where she doesn’t have a huge lead. (I know this because someone else posted to a town email list, asking where to get one. The only lawn sign I’ve seen in my neighborhood for a presidential candidate was for Gary Johnson; the signs are for candidates for state senate and the like.
@11
Nobody has this empirical data you’re talking about. We’re whinging about prospective US election results – all of it has been pulled out of our asses. The amount of empirical data Wolf Blitzer can present is also, definitively, zero.
I could explain how 30 ish signs compared with 0 signs is still statistically significant, especially for American highways or areas of dense population, but I don’t have to. I’m not addressing my dissertation panel, I’m throwing my gut feeling onto a heap of others, and I don’t expect or intend to have it achieve anything resembling a result.
I wouldn’t worry about yard signs.
1. I don’t put out Clinton yard signs where I live. Because they might get vandalized.
2. In the last election, Romney yard signs outnumbered Obama about 10 to 1.
Romney got 35% of the vote. This is essentially zero for an election. It’s the number of people who would vote for satan or Osama bin Laden if he had an R after his name.
There aren’t many GOP supporters here. But they tend to be pretty vicious.
People aren’t putting up Hillary signs because they don’t want their house burned down.
Trump is tweeting his gratitude to his supporters in WI who heckled Ryan today.
I’m hoping a bunch of Republican voters will choose Johnson now.
No, he’s not.
I hope your dissertation isn’t in the social sciences, because you seem to have no understanding of what statistical significance means. (And that’s aside from the whole use-of-lawn-signs-on-particular-roads-as-a-measure issue.)
@4, Zeno
I doubt the monied interests are terribly worried about a Democratically controlled government. The Democrats had total control of the government following the election of President Obama and they did fuck-all (ok, in fairness, it did do some things, but it was laughably weak overall). As I’ve seen it, the Democrats are largely cowards in their governing style. Given a choice between a very liberal policy and a moderately conservative one, they always seemed to settle for conservative.
Sorry, I’m just bitter.
The Republican party is in a very tight spot. Case in point: Many folks, like Sen. Kelly Ayotte, are calling for Mike Pence to take over the race. However, Pence has his own problems with women voters. Cecile Richards (Planned Parenthood) jumps on that idea saying, “Trading Trump’s violent language for Pence’s devastating policy proposals is a horrifying substitution.”
I should add, Pence’s problem isn’t just with “women voters,” but also men who support the right of women to make their own health choices and to be treated with the same respect due any human.
Pence seemed to “win” his debate because Kaine wasn’t aiming at him. Like a master director creating a commercial, Kaine wanted to elicit a specific performance from Pence, and he got it.
If Pence thinks he could roll through a general election just as he did that debate, he’s in for a surprise. Assuming he ever gets as far as a general election.
Ugh, and he’d have a decent shot too as he’s not as unhinged as Trump. And that’s saying a lot.
Big money interests will still be happy with a democratic president. The democrats are more progressive than the republicans to be sure but it would be delusional to say they haven’t be bought. The system has been so heavily rigged, the corruption is so rampant that people are losing all patience. Trump and Sanders were a clear shot across the bow. I guarantee you the next election will be a lot worse.
But the question is, who will they be for in the next election? I don’t think they’ll back any of the establishment Republicans, now that they’ve proved untrustworthy.
The Trumpetariot, unlike the Club For Growth, has no capacity to field primary challengers against wayward incumbents. At best they can latch onto opportunistic loons who jump into contention with the odd billionaire backing them (thank you Citizens United). This is not the same thing as setting up a new party, with all the necessary apparatus, filings and candidate and staff recruitment that entails. Nor will it last in the face of the inevitable losses third-party startups must endure in a first-past-the-post voting system. In short, I don’t see the GOP permanently splitting; neither half can survive independently, no matter how much they despise each other. And however much they hate each other, they hate Democrats much much more.
By the midterms (probably) and failing that, 2020, it’ll all be back together. The good news is that even duct-taped into one piece, the modern GOP is probably shut out of the White House by pure demographics.
Been bought* blargh
Reading through my answer, I realized I didn’t answer PZ’s main question: Who will they be for? I think that after this year’s debacle, there’ll be a very powerful incentive for the party apparatus to take back control, and give the nominations to reliable professionals. I expect that they’ll do so (and it won’t be pretty). And once they do, the base will fall in line again. The alternative (the base continues to saddle the party with no-hoper loons) isn’t viable. The money would just leave.
It can get uglier.
One local lawn campaign sign that stuck in my mind from a week or so ago was the “Republicans for Clinton” sign.
Yes, and that’s why we need to keep organizing, protesting, writing, filmmaking, blogging, reporting,… – in addition to voting.
Zeno, #4:
the long-overdue split between the GOP establishment and their underclass suckers who dutifully vote Republican on the basis of “values” while getting royally screwed economically
Trump doesn’t seem recognizeable by either of those descriptions: has no “values” to speak of, not in the “establishment.”
Matrim, #21, in response to Zeno:
As I’ve seen it, the Democrats are largely cowards in their governing style.
You could put it that way. But does the fact that I’m a Democrat imply I’m (largely or probably) a coward in my governing style? What would that mean, given that I’m a Democrat who has no governing style since I’m not in the government?
Or you could say there’s a Dem “establishment” which doesn’t intend to make substantive progress in a coalition with people who dutifully “vote for them” on the basis of “values,” liberal/progressive values. But that’s also misleading. There are Democratic voters, not in any sense “the establishment” or “the inner circle” or politicians, who genuinely don’t want substantive progress from their representatives in government. Those people are (more or less happily) voting for theirs, while the Democratic values-voters are voting for theirs. The somewhat confusing part is that both groups collectively (each of which includes politicians and their constituents) are called the “Democratic Party.”
Sorry, I forgot to make blockquotes. Also, I misspelled “recognizable,” which is of course a grave error. Let me try again:
Zeno, #4:
Trump doesn’t seem recognizable by either of those descriptions: has no “values” to speak of, not in the “establishment.”
Matrim, #21, in response to Zeno:
You could put it that way. But does the fact that I’m a Democrat imply I’m (largely or probably) a coward in my governing style? What would that mean, given that I’m a Democrat who has no governing style since I’m not in the government?
Or you could say there’s a Dem “establishment” which doesn’t intend to make substantive progress in a coalition with people who dutifully “vote for them” on the basis of “values,” liberal/progressive values. But that’s also misleading. There are Democratic voters, not in any sense “the establishment” or “the inner circle” or politicians, who genuinely don’t want substantive progress from their representatives in government. Those people are (more or less happily) voting for theirs, while the Democratic values-voters are voting for theirs. The somewhat confusing part is that both groups collectively (each of which includes politicians and their constituents) are called the “Democratic Party.”
PZ@#3:
I don’t think they’ll back any of the establishment Republicans, now that they’ve proved untrustworthy.
Thank goodness the NSA/FBI took that asshole Petraeus off the map. And Colin Powell’s too old.
The republican strategy has been to run the devil you don’t know – and hope they get across the finish line before they do something awkward, like all of Trump’s opposition did.
They’re going to be lining up to try to talk Condoleeza Rice into running.
@33/34, Consciousness Razor
Yes, yes, I was generalizing and being bitter about it. Regardless of why, the results are the same. I call it cowardice, maybe it’s not, but it’s the term that gets my sentiments across best. The larger point is that monied interests aren’t sweating a Democratic Party sweep.
Matrim, #36:
Sure, but while that’s probably true, an even broader point is that it isn’t just about “monied interests.” Democratic voters do not all have a legitimate and coherent set of liberal/progressive values, or in a more general sense they don’t have reasonable and informed worldviews about straightforward/not-so-value-laden matters of fact.
Like SC said, we ought to do stuff besides voting. What we ought to be complaining about, at least occasionally, is not only our corrupt/cowardly/etc. Democratic politicians but also other Democratic voters. It’s important to worry about what they (these other voters) are going to do, in the event of this or that or the other thing, since they have a great deal of influence on what actually happens, even if not directly. And we should figure out how we can try to shape their views to be more moral and more in accord with reality as we know it.
Incidentally, it’s pretty amazing to me that this recording will be enough to sway certain people against Trump. I mean, just try to imagine a person who was thinking (more or less consciously) that all of the other horrific shit Trump said is acceptable, that they would end up voting for him if it had not come to light, while this happens to be the one thing which is going too far…. There will presumably be “Democrats” in the election like this, and perhaps some will be card-carrying Democrats from now on. I don’t think I can put myself in that frame of mind. For me, this type of person may as well be from outer space, with some type of alien brain which works very differently from mine or yours or most other people I can understand fairly well. I have no clue how much we may agree on anything at all, or how we could have a reasonably constructive conversation about what our society or our world should be like. How can we make any sense of a situation like this, as people voting/acting as Democrats? That question seems similar to questions about the Democratic “monied interests,” to the extent it’s interested in and critical about the other half of the party.
@ 37 I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. These are the two most unpopular candidates to face off against one another. The fact is most of the people voting for them in these poles aren’t hard core supporters. What most of it boils down to is anti globalization and this general feeling they’ve been screwed and left behind. It played a significant role in bernie’s campaign in the primaries. A sizable portion of the people claiming they will vote trump are probably the ones who watched their jobs leave the country. They know what a flaming asshole trump is. The problem is that as lovely as principles sound you can’t eat them, you can’t pay your rent or mortgage with or use them to put your kids in school. You wanna see otherwise sane and rational people do insane shit? Take away all hope and opportunity. Clinton talks about closing massive coal mines to fight climate change and she is right in saying we need to do that, but do not be surprised when the people whose livelihoods depend on those mines running freak out. People will gladly back a tyrant when they are doing badly enough. To boil this down to the idea that the other side is just stupid or evil is both ignorant and guaranteeing their victory on the next fight.
If Trump hasn’t let anger cloud his mind and if he has any street smarts at all, he’s probably worried about money.
I’d like to make a prediction and say that he might utilize his disgruntled base by forming think tanks or PACs along the lines that have been established by people like the Koch brothers. It would be a way to siphon off money from ignorant fools while keeping his brand in the media.
I can imagine a future where a Republican candidate needs an official Trump endorsement.
The Republican infighting will continue long after the election, but they will not split into two parties. The US electoral system simply does not allow for it. It has evolved into an entrenched duopoly bolstered by the fact that whichever party is in power at the state level, controls the election process from start to finish.
I suspect what will happen is some kind of repeat of the Obama –> Tea Party –> Republican gains –> Trump cycle (omitting the Romney stage) as the Republican base look for another Trump-like outsider as their champion for the 2020 election, while all the mainstream GOP candidates even more desperately paint themselves as Washington outsiders. Cruz, Rubio, and Pence are already running, Kasich and Walker may not be far behind.
The big question mark is who the next Trump will be, if there is one. Odds are they will be just as crazy as Trump but without the personal baggage. If we’re desperately unlucky, there is an outside chance they find someone with actual charisma and charm, and then we’re all in trouble.
This isn’t over, and while there is a very good chance that the Republicans have a huge dose of deja vu in 2020, considering how close Trump has come to the White House, it wouldn’t take all that much to swing the next race in the Republicans’ direction.
If it’s not stupidity, then there’s a massive dose of denial going around. There is nothing in Trump’s resume that indicates he can deliver on any of his promises (or that he’s even serious about them), and there is plenty that demonstrates that he is not capable of doing so.
But even that’s not really the issue anymore. It’s whether he’s even remotely capable of doing the job, and it’s getting very hard for anyone with a lick of intelligence to argue that he can.
And the result will be the same. Many of the people who voted for Trump and Sanders seem to believe that all they need to do is elect the right president and everything will be fixed. (Certainly, that’s what Trump is promising.)
What I don’t see any sign of yet is that any of them are willing to put in the years of grass roots toil that it will take to change the system in the way they want. Real, lasting change has to start at the bottom, with the local party organizers, with the state parties nominating candidates who are willing to put in the hard miles in (often losing) campaigns, and grooming the next generation of politicians who support their ideas.
If Trump or Sanders had won this election, and when they inevitably failed to deliver on any of their promises, what happens then?
Big money interests are always going to find a way to benefit from any situation. They are the ones with the most resources to do so. They will already know what they’re going to do whether Clinton or Trump wins the election, and they will do everything they can to ensure that the transition to the new government is a smooth as possible.
The same would have happened even if Bernie Sanders was currently riding high on the polls instead of Clinton, and I doubt they would be too flustered by the possibility of a Sanders presidency. After all, these are multinational corporations who was used to dealing with governments way more left-wing than anything even Bernie would have wrought. It all boils down to little more than the cost of doing business.
One idea I’ve seen floating around (via Ed Brayton, I think) is that the VP-debate was setting the stage for the next election already. So, Pence 2020. Then again, the R primaries (from an outsider’s perspective) have been so nutso this year, who knows.
Keep in mind the teabuggers have demonstrated for six-ish years now they do not compromise and are willing to burn down the house. And are reality-challenged, inventing their own “facts”.
Assuming there is anyone sensible in the dregs of the thugs’s kleptocracy, I don’t see how they could negotiate with the teabuggers / trum-pratistas. Hence, I concur the thugs look like they are going to implode — especially if teh trump-prat loses — as none of the relevant sides seems to have anything other than a “winners-take-all and destroys-the-losers” mentality (with the possible exception of a few elder statesmen, who aren’t trusted by one or more of the sides, and seem to be mostly sidelined: Witness the appalling thugs’s platform this year, which is almost-all trum-pratoid).
Thankfully, Trump is a bumbling idiot. What I’m really worried about is the next guy: Someone with Trumps ability to sway the base, coupled with the organizational talent to form functional paramilitary groups. Trump will likely fall, but the ground has been prepared now. Pay very close attention to who steps up next.
You sound so hopeful, PZ. What I think is going to happen is that he’s going to blame the loss on – you know, as Samantha Bee said, the “riggers” at the polls. And all of Those Other People. And a I know a hell of a lot of his supporters are.
Would that they just tick to cannibalizing the Republican party, but no, I think that plenty of their rage will be directed at black, hispanic, gay, trans, women, and all the other groups that this campaign is built on demonizing. I’d spend less time gloating about their imminent destruction than preparing for their imminent terror campaign.
It’s still a better alternative than having the force of a reich but it’s a fucked up future either way.
Regarding the conversation upslope about campaign signs, I had a Hillary for President sign in my yard. I came home from work and found it on the porch. Half of it burned. I consider myself lucky the house didn’t go up. I reported it to the police and wanted it investigated as attempted arson. They wrote it up as vandalism with no monetary damage. So another bit of anecdata as to why there are so few signs out for Clinton.
# 7John Morales
I think a serious split that forms viable new parties in the USA is not all that likely. The two existing main parties are embedded in the state (that is gov’t) structure.
Believe it or not, some/many/most? primaries and caucuses for the Republicans and Democrats are financed by a state not by the party whose primary it is! And as far as I have been able to figure out the USA parties don’t seem to have anything that is the equivalent of a political party in Australia or the UK or Canada.
matrim
If you’re talking about a real sweep by the Dems with a President, a Senate majority and a close or real majority in the House, you’ll need to rephrase that as some monied interests. With that kind of control, Clinton will have a pretty free hand with nominations to the Supreme and other Federal courts. With that kind of power, the likes of Sanders and Warren and their ilk will have a lot of scope for driving Clinton’s commitments to get rid of Citizens United, clean up Wall Street, improve and expand healthcare and education reforms as fast and as far as possible.
And then there’s the rest of her multitudes of pages of commitments on the website. (Does anyone know anyone who’s read every word of those “The Briefing” linked pages?) Many “monied interests” won’t worry too much about enhanced support for unions and for a $15 per hour minimum wage, but many will. Same thing goes for environmental regulations and the clean power proposals.
Some of the really big monied interests will be apoplectic at the proposed destruction of Citizens United. With a big enough win and Clinton actually getting her draft for the constitutional amendment out within 30 days of inauguration, the Dems will still have a large group of workers flushed with electoral success willing to put in an extra effort to support the amendment. They’ll be facing the combined money and power of the Kochs and all of those super PACs but I reckon the proponents of the amendment will have practically 60% of the electorate on side before they even get started. They’ll just have to keep them on track in the face of serious persistent opposition to see it through.
…while reserving most of the blame for Democrats, for causing the entire mess.
Just like the Teabaggers blamed the 2008 economic meltdown on Obama.
These are not people with functioning brains.
More leaks from Trump campaign (disloyalty all around you, Donald) – talking points for surrogates: attack Republicans who’ve unendorsed or called for him to withdraw.
davidgeen;
“waking from the long nightmare ushered in by the crowning of election-loser Dubya in 2000.
I am old enough to recall when Ronald Reagan was elected by Iran (coughDeal to delay release of hostages until Carter had lostCough).
Holy shit! The ugliness that happened in El Salvador, the support to Khmer Rouge, the systematic blocking of research into replacing oil, the budget cuts to EPA, the support to the warlord Jonas Savimbi in Angola, and to the apartheid government…….
a Dolchstoßlegende will probably also be made to include all kinds of minorities that have “infiltrated” USA.
— — — — — —
” They’ll just have to keep them on track in the face of serious persistent opposition to see it through.”
And therein lies the crux. Do the Democrat congresscritters have the spine to do this?
Remember how a lot of Democrats -including Obama- tried to appease the Regressians unit it was obvious to them it was meaningless to try.
Josh Marshall on the escalation of hostilities within the party. Never-Trump Republican Rick Wilson has a harsh message for Trump endorsers and appeasers:*
* I shouldn’t have to note this, but I will: I’m linking to and quoting from the article because it makes some good points. I don’t endorse all of Wilson’s ideas in the article or in general.
As much as I’d like to see the Rethuglican Party messily implode and fragment into insignificant splinters as everyone with a (figurative) soul, let’s be real, this won’t be happening this or next year.
The real powers behind America have a vested interest in perpetuating the duopoly for as long as possible. They will do everything to prop up the status quo. The GOP will survive this election, with the roster of faces being shuffled around.
Trump’s current Twitter eruption includes retweets of things like this: “GOP traitors! Not supporting U is voting for her, destroying America.”
@tacticus I absolutely think they are trying to ignore trumps faults( which in my opinion is everything about him). It doesn’t matter though, a great analog(though not perfect) is the recent presidential and vice presidential elections in the philippines(they are separate ballots there), they elected Rodrigo Duterte with 39% of the vote and because of the lack of a run off system in he went. If you talk to people who supported him during and since the election one of the first patterns that becomes clear is that most of his supporters don’t actually like him per se. They just like the fact that he’s honest(even though he’s a monster). When a system is that corrupt, when inequality is that high, all sense of civility evaporates. No one cares about how polished and not fucking crazy the other politicians are when they know(in their minds at least, not necessarily with hard data) that they are crooked as a dogs hind leg. All the optimism and flowery talk falls on deaf ears. They’ve got a family and bills to pay and is it too much to ask to have someone who won’t lie to them. I’ve listened to otherwise decent and even openly progressive people support him with some of the craziest mental gymnastics i’ve ever seen because of it. Otherwise decent people with support a monster under the right conditions. These are those conditions. My only hope is that trumps most recent comments will be the breaking point for a lot of people.
@tacitus* my apologies
What I’m trying to say is that this pretty well mirrors the rise of every facist nutjob ever. I just don’t talk about trumps rabid fan base because just like with clinton its not that big.
When I read this a few days ago, I hoped it would be true, but was skeptical. And today, it’s already happening. http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/republicans-us-election/index.html
Good call, PZ.