Many thanks to Batocchio at his Vagabond Scholar blog, for introducing me to Doctor Cleveland’s “Winnowing the GOP Field with Jane Austen” (first published in September):
… In Pride and Prejudice, Mr and Mrs Bennet have imprudently had a family of five daughters and no sons. Since there’s no son, Mr Bennet’s estate is going to distant relatives when he dies, leaving his widow and five daughters in poverty. The five girls’ only hope is to marry well. But since there are five of them, there is the real danger that they will crowd each other out so that none of them gets married. Other characters ask why the Bennets have allowed all five daughters out “into society,” meaning the marriage market, at once instead of letting one daughter out at a time, so that Daughter Number Two wouldn’t start going to balls until Daughter Number One was married. The Bennets take a laissez-faire approach which hopes that all five girls can find husbands; the neighbors fear a Tragedy of the Commons in which the glut of Bennet sisters on the marriage market keeps any of them from being married.
Neither scenario is correct. Three sisters get married, two do not, and the two who do not are never in even the remotest danger of a marriage proposal. The Bennet sisters offer three, rather than five, real choices for potential suitors. Two of the five sisters are eliminated from consideration by the Pareto principle, which says that any option which comes behind another in all criteria being considered is thereby eliminated from consideration: “Pareto dominated,” as they like to say at 538…
Doctor Cleveland’s analysis of the Bennet sisters and their society is charming (you should go read the whole thing). But it’s his Pareto ranking of the GOP candidates, as of September, that I want to discuss:
… Now, our crowd of Republican candidates likewise represents a number of significant alternatives, each with its own sector of the decision space, and a number of also-rans who are basically ruled out. The candidates are competing on different strengths, most obviously on their conservatism and their electability, but there are other characteristics that resonate with Republican primary voters; the exact list is up for debate…
… Huckabee and Santorum are both running as not-very-electable champions of Christian conservatives. But Huckabee is both more appealing to Christian conservatives and more electable than Santorum is (meaning not so very electable, but not as hopeless as Santorum). This leaves Santorum no air to breathe at all…
Where we are really not seeing much competition is in the Electability sweepstakes, with the candidates whose basic appeal is that they can win in the general election. Right now the primary voters don’t seem interested in electability at all… As I’ve argued before, the most surprising thing is not how well Trump is doing but how poorly Jeb Bush, the presumptive electable alternative, is doing. And no one has yet emerged as the main electable candidate, the way Mitt Romney emerged last time around. The 2012 Republican primaries featured one main Electable Option, Romney, and a bunch of competitors for the role of Uncompromising Conservative. This time we have a clear Uncompromising Outsider, pretty much safe from challenge on his native turf, and no solid Electable Mainstream Option. In 2012, no Republican could hold onto the Lydia Bennet role for more than a week or two. This time, no Republican has seized the Elizabeth Bennet role for even a week…
Where I would expect to see movement in the Republican campaign is on the mainstream, electable side. Trump cannot be beaten at Trump’s game. Candidates like Cruz or Rand Paul are going nowhere this year… But someone could conceivably take over the mainstream/establishment/viable-in-a-general-election role that Jeb Bush hasn’t managed to keep or win…
In the comments, at the time, Doctor Cleveland would add:
… Trump (and Carson) have set Cruz’s ceiling of support already. Cruz’s appeal is that he’s against the entirely liberal status quo, and especially against Obama. He can’t match Trump on that issue. Trump is actually a birther. He’s the only candidate who’s publicly gone on record saying that Barack Obama is not from this country. That is very, very salient for a big batch of Republican voters, and that Cruz is a more orthodox Tea Partier (what an oxymoron!) won’t be enough… Cruz’s hope this year was to be the Hardcore Opposition Guy. That is his role in the Republican Party: the insurgent ideologue who challenges the party leadership. He is running as the Keeper of the Pure Conservative Flame. But the outsider/challenger role is taken this year, so that Cruz is really stuck in the mud, unless Trump collapses and the primaries revert to the 2012 Freak-of-the-Week pattern, with rotating outsiders taking short turns as “front-runner.”…
Ted Cruz, or the people behind Ted Cruz, turned out to be craftier than that. Three months later, Trump has solidified his role as the “Burn It All Down” candidate — he’s not really a GOP candidate any more, just a free-floating freelance Anger Translator who’s using the Repub label and facilities because doing so proved far easier than starting his own party from scratch. He’ll run as the GOP candidate if he (improbably) beats out his remaining competitors (and doesn’t get distracted/indicted before the Cleveland convention). But if he and his more devoted acolytes aren’t given the respect to which they feel entitled, he’ll just as happily run as an independent; he’d run as a Democrat, if for once we weren’t the more organized, self-protecting party.
And Cruz has moved very efficiently into position as the top “Insurgent” not-Establishment TeaParty/religious conservative candidate. While Rubio, Bush, Christie, and Kasich stumble around trying to win as the Good Son for the permanent Republican apparatus, Talibangelical Ted has swooped in to consolidate his position as the perfect figurehead for all the social conservatives in Iowa, the South, and the Midwest. He’s effectively eliminating any chance for Carson, Huckabee, or Rick (“It’s His Turn!”) Santorum to move the publicly pious primary voters and donors towards their rapidly fading campaigns. (Rubio was sending out feelers towards these folks, but now he’s got a solid backup going, as the reliable Microsoft permanent-party candidate to Cruz’s artsy-fartsy Apple schtick.)…
(To be continued)
tofubo
whither cruz or the yuuge schwantz ?? neither
professional trolling done right:
http://jonnydepp.tumblr.com/post/135229989065/rayredspider-these-exchanges-between-a-bigot
Doug R
So, knife fight between Calgary Cruz and Rubio with the Trumpet running off to a third party?
redshirt
In an alternate universe, mirror-mirror kinda way, Trump is 2008 Obama – a completely unpredicted force that upends all conventional wisdom by getting people sincerely excited in politics. And maybe winning. Hopefully not.
Mike J
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a conservative party in possession of voters must be in want of a bigot.
NotMax
Stop the election, I wanna get off.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@redshirt: So you’re saying that that albino wombat is just a misplaced goatee?
redshirt
@efgoldman: Trump is part of some kind of establishment. I’m not sure which one – Wall St? Money, Inc?
The fact that I hold in my hands a Spy Magazine “Separated at Birth” book from the 80’s speaks to his longevity as a public figure.
Trump is compared to Elvis, by the way, in 3 different photos.
seaboogie
I read that line so differently than it was intended, and I am still laughing out loud, by myself – it just works on so many levels.
redshirt
Heh. Remember George Schultz? Totally looks like the Cowardly Lion.
benw
I’m sick of the Republican douchelord circus, so I will only add that Elizabeth Bennet is amazeballs. Serious.
Just Some Fuckhead
So a Nazi and two Hispanic immigrants are the front runners for the Republican nomination. My goodness, who will triumph?
redshirt
@efgoldman: Alternate universe man, go with it….
I meant only the idea of relatively coming out of nowhere. Yes, Obama spoke at the 2004 convention so obviously he already had some influence, but for your average voter, he truly came out of nowhere. Just as – in this evil alternate universe – Trump has come out of nowhere on the political scene and upended the apple cart for his party.
Suzanne
@Mike J: Win. For truth. Haz an internet.
Anoniminous
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Unless someone comes blasting out of the pack in the next three weeks, as McCain did in 2008 and Romney in 2012, it looks like Trump will be the GOP nominee. Something I can’t wrap my mind around, but there it is.
Suzanne
@Anoniminous: I think it might be Cruz. Which terrifies me, because I think he’s the one I hate the most, and I don’t know of my blood pressure can handle it.
However, I can take pleasure in his humiliation, so there is that.
redshirt
@Suzanne: I think Cruz is by far the most dangerous because he’s as wingnutty as they come, but he can play to the Harvard/Wall St crew and the Fundies, near simultaneously. It’s a dangerous combination.
So I’m actually hoping for Trump to win the nomination, or go third party, because that ensures Cruz will not win. Which is all that I care for (that is, an R losing).
Roger Moore
@tofubo:
That’s impressive. Too bad we can’t get that quality of troll around here.
seaboogie
@Just Some Fuckhead: Just thinking of you – eemom and Suzanne are duking it out downstairs on the Steve thread – thought you might want to pick a side….
Suzanne
@seaboogie: I’m done, sorry to disappoint.
Suzanne
@redshirt: I have to say, I know it’s sick, but I’m kind of enjoying the Trump show. It’s kind of like watching a movie with epic fart jokes, only it’s the future of our democracy! Otherwise, just the same.
Kropadope
@Suzanne: But only the classiest, most luxurious fart jokes.
Just Some Fuckhead
@seaboogie: I’m not much of a team player.
Anoniminous
Here’s something interesting, I was looking at the polls for the 2000 GOP primary and lo and behold … there was John Kaisch with 3 to 4% support.
Anyway, in the 2000 race George Bush Junior copped the lead in September of 1997, wrapped up 52% support in March of 1999, and had 60% by Jan 1, 2000. In 1988 Daddy Bush hardly had to break a sweat to get the nomination as he was the sitting Veep. In 1980 Reagan romped to the nod. In 1968 Nixon was the front runner from the start. And Ike romped to victory in 1952.
So when people talk about “early polling not predictive” what they mean is “since 2008 early polling hasn’t been predictive.” Which I take to actually mean, “since 2008 the GOP presidential nomination has been competitive” in a way previous post WW 2 nominations weren’t. Meaning the various factions cobbled together by Nixon, et.al., as the Southern Strategy are definitely falling apart.
Which suggests the long predicted GOP faction fight is upon us?
Suzanne
@Kropadope: With the biggest, wettest, smelliest farts. The kind of farts that come from eating wolverine and manticore.
Anoniminous
@Suzanne:
I don’t because Cruz is the poster boy for the Nihilist-Burn-Everything-to-the-Ground Faction and there’s not enough of them. It is possible Cruz can and is grabbing support from Carson but so is Trump as their mutual rise almost matches Carson’s fall in support.
redshirt
@efgoldman: I didn’t think W. had much of a chance in 1999 either. I’ve stopped ever underestimating them, because the cost of doing so is far too great. I’ll try and realistically estimate their chances (not good), but things happen, events can change the landscape. If you have a chance, you have a chance.
Kropadope
@Anoniminous:
He might be able to pull of those kind of numbers this time, if only he manages to scoop up the now-free Pataki vote.
redshirt
@Kropadope: LOL
sukabi
@tofubo: that was pretty funny.
JordanRules
@redshirt: Yeah, I don’t get most of the ‘damn near no chance in hell’ conventional wisdom but I do love that people have moved the ‘Trump will be dead by’ dates a few times.
I have no problem saying I’m more afraid of Republican win than most. But I will also continue to read all the good links and commentary around here and other places that should make me less paranoid.
Anoniminous
@efgoldman:
I cannot see any of the GOP nominees winning. I cannot see how any of them could take any 2012 Obama state. Whereas I can see the potential for Clinton to win some Romney states, North and South Carolina to be precise.
Suzanne
@Kropadope: I kinda want all of Pataki’s supporter to go to Gilmore, because then he would have one. It’s Christmas, and all that.
Anoniminous
@Kropadope:
I doubt Kasich can attract both Pataki voters. One of them is bound to go to Christie.
redshirt
@efgoldman: Is Trump anywhere close that level of wealth? I always got the sense he was more of a credit tiger.
seaboogie
@efgoldman: But only the classiest, most luxurious fart jokes.
Solid gold fart jokes – no gold plate here!
Also a nod to Suzanne and Kropadope…my wireless mouse is dead, so I am linky-lazy….
But I just made a reference to farts on the Steve thread re: elevator crowding, so it seems that farting is the inspiration of the moment for more than one of us.
Anyway, in re The Donald, I think it would be pretty nifty for protesters to show up in sleeveless shirts under jackets they could doff, and engage in an armpit fart chorus in unison with his utterances. He really hates to be made the butt of jokes, and there is no better butt reference than a fart. It would be pretty hilarious, the news reports would be the bomb, and the sane folk around the world would just eat it up with a spoon.
Kropadope
@efgoldman:
And wouldn’t have gotten close enough to have that happen if not for the epic cheating by the Florida political establishment.
Roger Moore
@Kropadope:
I think you’re being unfair. There may be as many as three or four free Pataki votes, depending on how much of his family was planning on voting for him.
redshirt
He won enough.
Well, maybe Trump’s flaunting of his billionaire status will rile the Proles up enough to vote against him…
Right?
Kropadope
@Roger Moore: Yes, but I said “vote” to treat his supporters as a bloc. I understand that they were few enough in number to explain your confusion, so sorry for not making that clearer.
redshirt
@Kropadope: Almost seems like a coup when you put it that way.
Kropadope
@redshirt: Well….
Anoniminous
@efgoldman:
Obama won NC in 2008 and barely lost it in 2012.
SC is a stretch. Yes the state party is pretty much dead and Romney won the state by 206,000 votes but SC should have been hit hard by dying voters. I’m betting there will be a 3% drop in GOP voters compared to 2012 and a concurrent increase by the same amount in D voters coming of age, plus a larger than normal turn-out of women across all age groups to vote for Clinton and some cross-voting by GOP women. I think it’s an interesting possibility. Wouldn’t place any money on it until we see who the GOP candidate is and we get some polling!
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I’m not sure if that’s an insult to Trump, or an insult to Nazis.
Anne Laurie
@redshirt:
You’re not the only one saying that. Conventional wisdom seems to be, at the moment, Trump gets bought off or otherwise persuaded to go away (or goes third party), then Cruz and Rubio duke it out. But Cruz is doing better with the not-so-evangelical Trump racists than Rubio is doing with the (rapidly fading) “moderate” Republicans — he’s surprising people.
Upside, for us Democrats, is that Cruz is such a reptile, and every bit as much a narcissist as Trump. Even people who agree with everything Cruz proclaims — like the Freedumb Caucus arsonists — tend to find him unbearable to be around after a short time. There’s plenty of people find Hillary unlikeable, for real or psychological reasons, but part of her political success is that she’s worked hard at making allies even when she couldn’t make friends.
I don’t want to see Cruz versus HRClinton, but there is consolation in knowing that every time he opens his mouth, a few more low-info voters will decide to just stay home on election day… and (I hope) a few more not-so-fervent Democrats are suddenly fired with the need to get to the polls, just so they won’t have to watch that punchable face all over the media for the next four years!
Ruckus
@Tissue Thin Pseudonym:
Not sure tRump would take that as an insult. But it definitely is one to Nazis.
James E Powell
@efgoldman:
I guess I’m guilty of this. I’m expecting the entire corporate press/media to do to Hillary Clinton what they did to Al Gore only more so. And I expect that the same people will be careful never to challenge the Republican nominee on anything serious, as with Bush in 2000.
They will work very hard to keep the election close no matter what happens. Hating on Hillary is a requirement for admission into the Village elite. No one is going to ruin his or her career by failing to repeat every rumor as fact.
Anoniminous
@efgoldman:
No.
If that happens then I’m wrong and it’s out of reach.
Keith G
Just a reminder that Jerry Seinfeld’s Comics Getting Coffee interview with Barack Obama has just been uploaded. It is a classic. One of the best (PR/fun) things Obama has done in his presidency.
Anne Laurie
@James E Powell:
They’ll certainly try. But Gore didn’t have a ton of committed partisans — he was a perfectly fine nominee, but he didn’t inspire. (That’s why people were so surprised later, when he took his psychological corsets off and went full-bore crazy with An Inconvenient Truth.)
There are plenty of committed Hillary voters. In 2008, they (we) got the blanket label as sandy-snatched racists, but that smear won’t work in favor of whoever ends up as this year’s Republican candidate. And Hillary, even her enemies admit, works at being an ally when she can’t be a “friend”.
The more the Media Villagers try to paint her as a calculating bitch lesbian serial killer, the more they’re going to look like the idiot partisans they are. And the smarter (younger) journalists will pick up on this, and recalibrate their positions, because they’d rather be called two-faced than out-of-the-loop.
redshirt
I think Bill will become a real issue at some point. Specifically, what is the role of a former President living in the White House?
liberal
@James E Powell: agreed.
eemom
@redshirt:
First Gentleman. What’s so complicated about that?
Redshift
@redshirt: No, because unlike a woman, a man will never be expected to give up his career and become an accessory. (With any luck, this will result in that no longer being required of subsequent First Ladies who have their own careers.)
The real question will be which of his current activities Bill will be allowed to continue. Not giving paid speeches, obviously, but after that it’s less clear.
redshirt
@Redshift: Surely he cannot continue to raise money for his own foundation while his wife is President? That seems like a massive conflict of interests.
redshirt
@eemom: 1. The Repukes will bring it up, so she better have a good answer. And 2. The real practical questions. Would Hillary send Bill to Moscow to talk Putin down, for example?
redshirt
What if Chelsea joins the Administration. Do we have a Royal Family at that point?
piratedan7
well if Hillary gets asked about Bill, Hills can simply say that it would be awesome to be able to have a conversation with someone who’s been there and done that. Let the GOP candidate talk about how much their collective spouses will be able to provide insight to the issues of the day.
Yutsano
@Anne Laurie: Am I the only ob gets enough traction to look like he might have a shot, the lawsuits will start flying so fast heads will spin?
dogwood
@Redshift:
I already know how this is gonna play out. Around 25 years ago, the University of Idaho hired it’s first female president who happened to be single. She caused a huge uproar when she required the hiring of a social secretary as a condition for taking the job. The loudmouths were outraged that she was t planning on organizing the entertaining and catering as well a running the university. It eventually died down, but the local press fed the beast as long as they could. Same will happen if Hillary’s elected. The East Wing is going to have to have a consistent boss, and that ain’t Bill. If I were Hillary, I’d be looking for a male VP whose wife is amenable to setting up shop in the East Wing. Like it or not you can’t simply eliminated all the functions and events that a First Lady hosts. They create political capital for a president. And you can’t turn them over to paid staff and expect them to seem as authentic.
mclaren
@piratedan7:
No, Hillary can just say that she needs to erect some hard protocols to deal with the situation. It can’t simply be given lip service.
Seriously, this will be comedy gold.
mclaren
@redshirt:
Not.
Unlike Obama, Hair Fuhrer has a hard ceiling on his support.
Oh, please.. These are the Clintons we’re talking about. “Conflict of interest” is the very air they breathe.
mclaren
@James E Powell:
They’ll try, but it won’t work. Hillary Clinton is no Al Gore.
Hills is at ease and funny, engaging and rapier-witted at the same time. I found it surprising how much better a campaigner Hillary has gotten in just 8 years. She’s light years better than Al Gore was, perhaps because Hillary has gone through this whole process and has now honed her shtick and perfected her campaigning style. She did very well in the Democratic debates, and whatever Republican gets nominated, she’ll feed him into the wood chipper with an engaging smile.
Plus, the press bought into the the year 2000 bullshit that “both sides do it.” In 2016, the press has an inkling that one side is batshit insane…and they’re starting to whisper as much, as far as Trump goes. This too will play strongly in the Democrats’ favor.
This election will not be close. The Democrat will win by a blow-out.
Great new article in the New York Review of Books about Bernie Sanders here.
Kropadope
@mclaren:
It’s called knowing how to pull the levers of power, duh….
mclaren
@redshirt:
Chelsea can be the Secretary of State.
Gennifer Flowers can be the Secretary of Labor.
Monica Lewinsky can be the Secretary of the Interior.
If Hillary gets elected, this will be better than the Cartoon Network’s Ed, Edd and Eddy.
redshirt
In Hillary’s America, jokes write themselves.
BillinGlendaleCA
@redshirt: Well, it won’t be picking out china and flower arrangements.
Mike J
It’s a pity how few people even on a good liberal blog like this think a woman is a separate entity from the man who owns her.
dogwood
@Mike J:
Oh come on. No one is suggesting that Bill and Hillary aren’t separate entities.
Rashi
@mclaren: Clinton’s got very high negatives. She did well in the 2008 debates as well but lost the nom largely because of her Iraq vote which that primary was largely about. Conventional wisdom has been a Clinton walk but conventional wisdom has a way of being wrong, if you haven’t noticed.
Kropadope
@dogwood: He must be talking about people holding her accountable for her advocacy for her husband’s worst policies such as tough-not-smart sentencing and bank deregulation.
Mike J
Ack. BBC web site down. Bleh.
dogwood
@Rashi:
I have no idea what kind of campaign Hillary is running. I said this before here, but the fact that I have been a consistent contributor to Democratic presidential campaigns for the last 15 year, and I have yet to hear a word from her is puzzling. I appears that she hasn’t hired the best in the business when it comes to fundraising. If Sanders, OMalley and a half a dozen Senate candidates have my number, there’s no excuse for her campaign not finding me other than incompetence. She has a better than even chance of pulling it off even if her campaign isn’t well organized. She can do to Bernie what Barack did to her. Win the AA vote by huge margins. And I don’t expect Bernie will even get Obama’s share of the Latino vote from the 2008 primaries.
Mike J
@dogwood: She’s raised $100 million this cycle. I think her fundraising people are doing ok.
BillinGlendaleCA
@dogwood: You’re the first person I’ve heard complain of NOT hearing from Hillary asking for bucks.
Elizabelle
@Mike J:
I think that’s one of the best lines I’ve ever read here. Well done, sir. Well done.
opiejeanne
@dogwood: I must be getting your mail from her campaign, because I get at least one a day asking for monetary support, and today was extra special because Bill told me that Hillary needed me
Applejinx
@Mike J:
From which bank?
I think it’s too early to have to bring Bill out to campaign for her. They should be saving him for later and if they’re not, that’s revealing. I think the Clinton campaign has a clearer sense of how things are going than the Village or the pundits, and good for them: should they win the primary, I prefer them to be smart and capable.
I would rather Bill Clinton be raking in money for his foundation by giving for-profit speeches as the First Bro, than see him given an unelected role in the administration and sent off to talk to Putin or whoever. I would hope Hillary feels the same way. Better to have him take advantage of his position for personal gain, than to have ambiguity about who’s really President, because that is bullshit. And I’m not delighted about a lot of things he did when he WAS President which seemed to make sense at the time, if you were rich or a corporation. He was an idiot in a bunch of ways and he’s potentially a liability even as he retains that ability to charm/con people.
I way prefer Hillary to Bill, except when somebody has to make a campaign speech. I don’t want to see Bill’s clueless hands near the levers of power. If Hillary doesn’t keep good boundaries around him that’s a problem. SHE is smart, capable and practical, but I don’t think Bill is, he’s just amazingly persuasive.
BillinGlendaleCA
@opiejeanne:
It’s nice to be needed.
Mike J
@Applejinx: .
See my #76.
BillinGlendaleCA
@Mike J: Or my #75.
Rashi
@Applejinx: Yeah, I most admire her Iraq vote, 90s healthcare program and 2008 campaign to name just a few of her brilliant moves.
Rashi
Oops. Nevermind. But since I’m editing go watch Phoenix. It’s not only a fine film but has one of the best endings in cinema history. That sounds over-the-top but it’s not; it’s a got an awesome marvel.
Just One More Canuck
@redshirt: my favourite Separated At Birth was Darryl Strawberry and Dino Flintstone
Another Holocene Human
@efgoldman: You’re right, SC lacks party apparatus, but GA does not. GA is going to put up a fight this time.
Heck, I’d volunteer to help them out but FL is going to be a fight again as well. Lots of seats at stake. (In both states.)
Another Holocene Human
@Anoniminous: The problem with SC is that the GOP takes it for granted. If they get a whiff that it’s competitive they will carpet bomb the place with the usual racist shit probably with the usual results.
SC has white swing voters, at least in Charleston metro. I don’t know what’s in their heads but if somebody like Mark Sanford can win after what he did there is definitely a way into their heads. Yes, I do mean swing voters; when one party dominates then the real battle is in the primaries. Many of the same people who voted for Graham voted for Obama and he knows it.
Elizabelle
@Rashi: “Phoenix” ended up on a few best of 2015 lists.
Have not seen it, but will make sure to do so.
ETA: And thanks for no spoilers on the ending. Yet another reason to see it soon. Someone will spill …. (a la The Crying Game).
Another Holocene Human
@Anne Laurie: If Cruz wins the nom it’s better that it happens sooner so that America has enough time to be thoroughly sick of his ass. Winning in a squeaker would be good for Cruz and bad for Dems. Not enough time to let people get persuaded on their own that this guy is horrible and only in for himself.
Another Holocene Human
@efgoldman:
Speaking as an Irish person, I would expect a certain respect for Rubio. Sure, he’s a crook–but look how far he got! Impressive. Hope for the future.
OTOH, Cruz is like McCarthy. Joe who? Not Irish. When the children ask, “What about Joe McCarthy?” “No, he’s not one of us.” Disowned.
Another Holocene Human
@dogwood:
You expect me to believe that nobody would attend a party hosted by Bill Fucking Clinton?!?!?!
dogwood
@Mike J:
If you think her 100 millions means she’s doing fine, then I won’t argue with you.
BruceFromOhio
@tofubo: that is hilarious.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@tofubo: Epic! I give it 5/7 stars.
Thanks very much.
Cheers,
Scott.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@redshirt: I don’t think that Chelsea could join the administration. There’s a 1992-era anti-nepotism law now – Cornell. I think that would prevent something like the President appointing his brother to be Attorney General ever again, also too.
IANAL though.
Cheers,
Scott.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@tofubo: And, of course, it’s fake.
Daily Mail.
Still hilarious though. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
jake the antisoshul soshulist
The local tv station has a poll with really stupid questions. They recently had one asking which would be a better president, Donld Trump or Hillary Clinton. 75% said Trump. I fear for my country.
cmorenc
@Anoniminous:
North Carolina yes – South Carolina when Hell freezes over.
Doctor Cleveland
Thanks for the link and the generous discussion Anne Laurie. I’m a big fan of yours, and of Balloon Juice’s.
Three months down the road, I was clearly mistaken about Cruz. (I will note that Cruz and Carson somehow traded off positions; there can be only one.)
What I did not see coming at all was that the GOP would develop a Crazy Not-Trump (a WingNot-Trump), before they came up with an Electable Not-Trump. I did not expect that there would be roles for two lunatic candidates but no Establishment standard-bearer. This is crazy ugly.
And this means that there’s some separate selection criteria going on. Cruz certainly beats Trump in ideological purity and mastery of wingnut memes.
Thanks again.
Heliopause
Well, that’s true. All five sisters are out for dramatic purposes. When you think about it, it’s a little strange that Jane wasn’t snagged three or four years prior to the story’s setting, followed shortly thereafter by Elizabeth, and this state of affairs coupled with the general anxiety over old-maidhood doesn’t exactly comport with the narrative fact of potential suitors pouring out of the woodwork like termites.
Msb
@Doctor Cleveland:
It was a wonderful analysis, using one of my favorite books. Thanks!