The NYTimes did an article on the same topic, back at the beginning of December – “95,000 Words, Many of Them Ominous, From Donald Trump’s Tongue” [warning: *loud* autoplay video]:
… The dark power of words has become the defining feature of Mr. Trump’s bid for the White House to a degree rarely seen in modern politics, as he forgoes the usual campaign trappings — policy, endorsements, commercials, donations — and instead relies on potent language to connect with, and often stoke, the fears and grievances of Americans.
The New York Times analyzed every public utterance by Mr. Trump over the past week from rallies, speeches, interviews and news conferences to explore the leading candidate’s hold on the Republican electorate for the past five months. The transcriptions yielded 95,000 words and several powerful patterns, demonstrating how Mr. Trump has built one of the most surprising political movements in decades and, historians say, echoing the appeals of some demagogues of the past century.
Mr. Trump’s breezy stage presence makes him all the more effective because he is not as off-putting as those raging men of the past, these experts say.
The most striking hallmark was Mr. Trump’s constant repetition of divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery that American presidents rarely use, based on a quantitative comparison of his remarks and the news conferences of recent presidents, Democratic and Republican. He has a particular habit of saying “you” and “we” as he inveighs against a dangerous “them” or unnamed other — usually outsiders like illegal immigrants (“they’re pouring in”), Syrian migrants (“young, strong men”) and Mexicans, but also leaders of both political parties…
Also in the NYTimes, number-cruncher Nate Cohn had an interesting piece infelicitously titled “Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat”:
Donald Trump holds a dominant position in national polls in the Republican race in no small part because he is extremely strong among people on the periphery of the G.O.P. coalition.
He is strongest among Republicans who are less affluent, less educated and less likely to turn out to vote. His very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm…
Yes, it’s the much-discussed ‘Reagan Democrats’ — voters who registered as Democrats back when Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy’ was new, but haven’t actually voted for a Democrat in a general election since maybe Jimmy Carter. Or, in more honest terms: Republicans who aren’t in the top fifth income percentile and who aren’t blatantly “evangelical”.
Mr. Trump’s huge advantage among these groups poses a challenge for his campaign, because it may not have the turnout operation necessary to mobilize irregular voters.
But it is just as big a challenge for the Republican Party, which has maintained its competitiveness in spite of losses among nonwhite and young voters by adding older and white voters, many from the South. These gains have helped the party retake the House, the Senate and many state governments. But these same voters may now be making it harder for the party to broaden its appeal to nonwhite and younger people — perhaps even by helping to nominate Mr. Trump…
Mr. Trump’s best state is West Virginia, followed by New York. Eight of Mr. Trump’s 10 best congressional districts are in New York, including several on Long Island. North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina follow.
His strength in the South is blunted only by Ted Cruz in Texas and Mike Huckabee in Arkansas. (Mr. Huckabee, despite his weakness nationally, still holds a lead in the congressional district of his Arkansas hometown.) Mr. Trump fares well in Florida despite the political histories of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in the state…
His geographic pattern of support is not just about demographics — educational attainment, for example. It is not necessarily the typical pattern for a populist, either. In fact, it’s almost the exact opposite of Ross Perot’s support in 1992, which was strongest in the West and New England, and weakest in the South and industrial North.
But it is still a familiar pattern. It is similar to a map of the tendency toward racism by region, according to measures like the prevalence of Google searches for racial slurs and racist jokes, or scores on implicit association tests…
Mr. Trump appears to hold his greatest strength among people like these — registered Democrats who identify as Republican leaners — with 43 percent of their support, according to the Civis data. Similarly, many of Mr. Trump’s best states are those with a long tradition of Democrats who vote Republican in presidential elections, like West Virginia…
… And thus we see why the headline writer (probably not Cohn) decided to class these Trump supporters as Democrats — everyone knows, within the Media Village / Conventional Wisdom boundaries, that Archie Bunker (a fictional character) was a Democrat, ergo white working-class racists are never Republicans.
Mr. Trump’s strength among traditionally Democratic voters could pose some problems for his campaign. Many states bar voters registered with the other party from participating in partisan primaries. Other states go further, not allowing unaffiliated voters to vote in a primary; in the G.O.P. race, for example, that would mean restricting the electorate to those registered as Republicans — one of Mr. Trump’s weakest groups. This group of states includes many favorable to Mr. Trump, like Florida, Pennsylvania and New York.
Another turnout challenge for Mr. Trump is that he commands the support of many people who are unlikely to vote. Civis found him winning 40 percent of the vote among those it gave less than a 20 percent chance of participating in the general election — let alone in the primary. He held 29 percent among those who had greater than an 80 percent chance of voting in the November election…
In other words, Donald Trump may inspire a lot of Pete King’s and Joe Manchin’s regulars to finally give up the sentimental pretense that they’re Democrats, like their long-dead daddy was, and suddenly bump up the percentage of declared bigots registered as Repubs. Which would, of course, be good news for John McCain.
As to that last highlighted-by-me note, right now there’s a lot of “centrists” happily explaining that the people who travel long distances and wait for hours to attend Trump rallies are too lazy, dumb, or shiftless to show up for caucuses or primaries, so Trump won’t win any of the early states, *whew*. Because of course Il Douche, once he is forced to admit that the right Republicans just don’t want to associate with his sort, will meekly pack up his snake-oil caravan and slink back to the filthy teeming hellhole of NYC where he came from…
I don’t think so. Could be he’ll get bored and announces “we” don’t deserve to bask in the reflected glory of his vast WINNING any longer — but my bet would be a thwarted-on-Super-Tuesday Trump either goes third party (absolutely good news for Democrats) or just decides to spend the next eight months making all the other Repub candidates’ lives not worth living.
What think y’all?
raven
raven
well shit
Cacti
@raven:
In other words, shouty white people like the two shouty white candidates.
JPL
@Cacti: I could care less about Trump and think he’s getting to much air time and blog time.
Time to watch Downton Abbey…
Cacti
I think that unless the non-Trump vote consolidates around another candidate, the GOP could end up with a brokered convention.
I certainly hope it plays out that way.
Baud
Kim Davies was a Democrat until this year.
smintheus
The video has interesting observations about Trump’s huckster rhetoric. Oddly, it doesn’t mention that Trump did not make even the slightest feint in the direction of answering the question he’d been asked.
raven
@Baud: From the Kinks?
Gvg
I don’t understand this election cycle and have almost given up.
Maybe I shouldn’t make fun of pundits who are so “obviously” wrong as it is clearly hard to figure out what is going on.
I wonder why anyone would still be registered with the “wrong” party 40 or 50 years after they quit voting that way. I think there must be a reason beyond not getting around to it.
Baud
@raven: The clerk from Kentucky. Don’t know if she also played in a rock and roll band.
gene108
I am sad.
I like the fact Trump gets the racist cockroaches out in the open.
I hope he can translate his support into votes.
Baud
@Gvg: Laziness and state and local elections.
Anne Laurie
@raven: Think I fixed it, I hope?
Anne Laurie
@Baud: Yup. There were reports, at the height of the Kim Davis kerfuffle, that she’d registered as a Democrat because only Democrats got appointed to civil service positions, but she’d never actually voted for a Democratic presidential candidate.
jl
I read AL’s link about the chances of the Trumpists showing up to caucus or vote. I didn’t see pundits pontificating, I saw quotes from Trump supporters and focus groups. G-damn they are pissed off and Trump is the needed savior, and by Gawd they will back him 100 percent! But doing something on election or caucus day? Ehh…. we’ll see… maybe…
So, this a big unknown in how Trump will do.
They are goofballs, and goofballs gotta goof.
redshirt
We’ve entered the Postmodern Age.
Meaning is what you make it.
The truth is decided by the powerful.
jl
@raven:
” thanks to government, which is either hamstringing them and/or abandoning them ”
Sounds like my hapless teabagger farming kin. After they blew it big time because they didn’t do due diligence, or get proper insurance, or were sure that hope was, this time dammit, a plan, or just didn’t do much of anything.. waawwlll, seems like a guy can’t get ahead ’cause that damn government keeps him down.
Edit: sadly unlike the Bundy clan, my teabagger kin tend to be the scammed rather than the scammers. So, the government won’t let the Bundys get away with fraud forever, dammit I guess it’s time for a revolt against unbearable government tyranny.
Mai.naem.mobile
@raven: that was Ray Davies.
Roger Moore
He’ll probably do fine in primary states, but I wonder if his turnout at caucuses will actually convert to delegates. Of course it’s not clear how important that would be in practice, since what he needs most is the appearance of doing well. If he does well in the early states, that will cement his lead and let him rack up delegates in later, winner-take-all states that will really make a difference. Trouble converting caucus attendees to delegates will only matter if the race is still close at convention time.
Mike J
@jl:
President Dean had the same problem, but his followers were certain that the messiah was going to smite everyone in his way.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@raven: Delightful. Dave’s niece by marriage?
@Baud: Kim Davis was a Democrat because the Dixiecrats there never switched, is my guess.
amk
@raven:
“they can’t get ahead thanks to government, which is either hamstringing them and/or abandoning them”
aren’t they the nutz who want to drown the gobinment in a bathtub in the first place?
jl
@Mike J: We will see. Sanders may have the same problem, but looks like at least Sanders has a real GOTV operation similar to that of HRC.
I’ve read several places that despite claims to have dumped big money into building a real GOTV organization, Trump has next to nothing. That is better than the other GOPers, except Cruz, but apparently GOP presidential contestants don’t use GOTV during the primaries.
I noted in comments that a news story said that Trump was using pre-checked website volunteer forms to scam people into ‘volunteering’ as organizers, and one reporter was surprised to find his name on a list of town campaign captains or some such non-existent organizing team.
Seanly
I’d like to think that Trump has the ability to meet both of those goals.
lamh36
Obama’s second term could be the most consequential in recent history
jl
@Roger Moore: Trump doesn’t need a big GOTV operation in states where he will have a double digit lead, if the others don’t have any. But Cruz apparently does have a GOTV operation in many states. And will Trump maintain his double digit leads in primary states if he whiffs big leads in early caucus states?
Liink in AL’s story about voting from focus groups said that only 20 percent of Trumpists had any notion of doing squat on election day. And Trump goofballs are most likely to get discouraged if Trump does not produces fantastic tremendous ubelievable yoooge really classy first class victories all the time.
lamh36
CNN to host Obama town hall on guns in America
jl
@lamh36: Thanks for info. But dammit, I’ll have to watch CNN again. I guess it will be worth it.
GregB
@jl:
If Trump comes in second in Iowa won’t that make him the worst thing in the world? A big fucking loooooooooser.
Schlemazel
@Roger Moore:
I went to my first caucus in ’64 and it was all new and shiny and things went nicely. Then in ’68 I saw how a minority of committed tru-believers could commandeer the process to produce an outcome more to their liking. The McCarthy folks came prepared & in many cases simply stayed until well past midnight in order to empty the room of anyone else. Paul’s people did it 4 years ago in several states. I don’t expect the Trump people who bother to show up (I think most won’t) to know how the process works or be prepared to deal with an organized effort to torpedo them. I still expect Trump to do well in primary states but not so well when the machine can call the tune. If we are really lucky it will lead to a very ugly convention with lots of metaphorical blood-letting that will damage the GOP for at least 2 or 3 election cycles.
Baud
@GregB: Iowa, probably not, although the media will be pushing that angle. New Hampshire, yes.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Mai.naem.mobile: Of Bob and Ray? (3:41)
;-)
Cheers,
Scott.
SiubhanDuinne
@lamh36:
Wasn’t it Elizabelle who referred to him the other day as a “lithe-duck President”?
Such a perfect turn of phrase!
SiubhanDuinne
@lamh36:
I’m no big fan of Anderson Cooper, but he’s relatively harmless.
Pray FSM they keep Don Lemon far, far away.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Schlemazel: I looked up the Iowa caucus rules a while back, but to be honest my eyes glazed over. I think the Dems’ process is more complicated and second choices and persuadables are more important? In either case, I suspect you’re right that Trump won;t have the organization and dedication– there was a video the other day of an Iowa Trump supporter who asked the reporter exactly what the caucus was, which I bring up not to point and laugh but to remind us all that people who follow this stuff like we do are pretty rare. Is that lady gonna show up and stand around for several hours on a week night? Especially if it’s cold and sleeting and the wind is howling? I think Cruz is the one because his supporters think they’re caucusing for Jesus.
dogwood
Lots of stories about angry republicans and angry Whites. We’ll see how it all shakes out. In the 2008 primary season democrats turned out at 2 and 3 times the rate of republicans. The numbers I’ll be looking at once this hootenanny starts are the turnout numbers for each party. That will tell us a lot about what’s going on.
debbie
@JPL:
“Does it ever get cold on the moral high ground?”
danielx
I have to go with door#3, making other Repub candidates miserable for the next eight months. Hell, he’s been doing it for six months already.
Bobby Thomson
@Mai.naem.mobile: God damn it, does nobody see what he did there?! (or, more accurately, what Baud did?)
rikyrah
They are not Democrats. They are Republicans . And if the only way to get the attention of these “Democrats” is to talk like Trump…phuck that.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@danielx: A Trump who thinks Li’l Marco or Creepy Ted stole his crown? That’d be some fuckin’ going rogue. His urine will be all over that tent whether he’s in or whether he’s out.
jl
@dogwood: The Berniebots have their uses. And I think Sanders will tell them to show up for his political revolution regardless of outcome of primary. He is telling them at rallies that the billionaires don’t give up after they have set back, they are not quitters, and if his bots want a revolution, they can’t be quitters either.
So, I hope the Berniebots have more brains and initiative than the Trumpists.
dogwood
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
In the Iowa caucuses Republicans simply go to a caucus site and cast a ballot. There’s no haggling about second choices or 15% viability thresholds. That’s why their numbers come in faster.
Roger Moore
@jl:
No, that’s not what it says. What it says is that they asked the people questions that were intended to estimate their likelihood of voting. The group that they estimated had a 20% chance of voting in the primary were more favorable than the group they estimated had an 80% chance of voting in the primary, though he still did decently with the group that was more likely to vote.
But that depends critically on the effectiveness of their likely voter screen. One of the things we know about Trump is that he’s very attractive to people who are turned off by politics because they don’t think the politicians are listening to them, and those are the people who will be rated as unlikely to vote by the likely voter screen. But it’s an open question if that’s screen is going to remain accurate. If Trump is able to get people who have been discouraged by politics to turn out and vote, he’s going to be a formidable candidate.
Keith G
@SiubhanDuinne:
Actually, he sucks.
Schlemazel
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Have not been to a GOP caucus in years but the Dem ones provide for proportional voting so if 5 HRC voters show up and 5 BS (he has no middle name) voters they each get half the delegates to the next level if it is 7/3 the delegates get split like that. It gets complicated when the number of delegates is not divisible by the % of people in the room.
The GOP when I went was winner take all. If 5 Dumpsters show up, 4 Cruds, 3 Ayns, 2 JEB?s, and 2 Fiorinas then Dumpster gets all the delegates unless a couple of the others agree to go together and somehow split the delegate. I don’t see the Dumpsters as bright enough to make a deal for a smaller group (hey vote with us & we agree to support your boy if ours falls) the Crud is too faithful to make a deal but the Rubio/JEB? guys are just the type to agree & then back stab if needed.
My fingers are crossed
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Bobby Thomson: You mean he was referring to the millionaire property developer who used childrens’ gravestones for a patio?
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
catclub
Bernie Sanders also has ‘lots’ of enthusiastic people who show up at his rallies. But ‘lots’ at rallies does not mean real ‘lots’ on election day. I have no idea if there are many election day voters for Trump.
I guess if there are as many as Sanders is likely to get he will sweep the GOP primaries. We shall see.
jl
@Roger Moore: Sorry if I was imprecise. I should have said that hard core strong supporters were not likely to vote. But I think the bottom of line of the piece, including quotes from individual supporters, is that as a group, they are not very certain about doing anything on election or caucus day.
Edit: and yes, I agree with you that it is a big unknown, as I said in my comment. However, I’ve watched Trump pitch to his audiences to get out and vote, and Sanders pitch, and I have far more confidence of high turnout for Sanders than Trump. I don’t know what HRC is saying.
dogwood
@jl:
“The Berniebots have their uses”
I don’t get offended easily by the banter on this board. But that’s bad.
catclub
@lamh36: Certainly the most consequential in the last five years.
jl
@dogwood: I am a Berniebot, and a Sanders mega-donor, in (way… I just added it up) over a hundred bucks. I apologize to myself.
Mike J
@Schlemazel: At the caucus here in WA, our precinct was evenly split Obama-Clinton. I managed to get a 70/30 Obama split just by chatting with would-be delegates about how exciting/boring the county convention would be.
dogwood
@jl:
Sorry for jumping on you. There was something about that first line that just made me cringe. Keep up the mega donating and GOTV.
David Koch
Well intentions people have tried to rationalize why working class whites with only a high school education stopped voting for Democrats. They say it’s because no Dem has offered them enough financial incentives to return; if someone offered them nice chunk of redistribution they’d come back.
Realists like myself have always maintained the Archie Bunker vote is lost forever because they’re racist and bigots and no amount of money can bring them back.
This cycle gives us a great test case. Trump is offering them pure racism and Sanders is offering them significant leg up in life (free college, free medical care, larger social security checks, larger minimum wages). And what are the results: the working class whites are flocking to the racist, while the social democrat is being kept afloat by highly educated professionals.
Case closed: Sanders’s proposals are very good policy and should be pursued but just don’t expect working class whites to reward you, so it would be better to focus on groups who will, such as people of color.
Schlemazel
@Mike J:
Having some interpersonal skills is a good thing thats for sure. Being a good horse trader to. It is my hope that the natural animosity the Dumpster and Crud have built up really constipate the whole deal for them. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes.
amk
@srv: are donald dreck’s numbers starting to fall?
BillinGlendaleCA
@Mai.naem.mobile: And his brother Dave Davies.
jl
@dogwood: Didn’t mean to upset people. Even though I support Sanders, I will crawl over broken glass and through hordes of rabid weasels to vote Democratic in the general election.
And speaking as a Sanders mega-donor, there is a real question of what Sanders strategy is. Let’s face it, he is the underdog, and every day he does make the breakthrough to get within ten points of HRC in some of the big early primary states, he becomes more of an underdog.
So, it is important to me, as a Sanders mega-donor, that he keep his campaign useful. From what I have seen, I think he is. I note that he is saying in his stumps recently that conducting a political revolution is more important than him being president, and giving pep talks in the middle of his stumpers on how important it is to never give up, and explaining how the billionaires and corporations never give up, no not never ever, if they don’t get what they want the first time. And lecturing his fans that they are not going to quit either, if they want to remake US politics.
So, my theory has been that Sanders has strategized a nice little win-win situation for himself. Win the Democratic nomination for president, or win a majority in the Senate, where he can head some committees and try to be a major power broker in the next Clinton administration.
Sorry if I sound cynical, but as I long time GOTV phone banker and door knocker and voter registerer, I just tend to think that way.
Edit: anyway, I want all Democratic politicians to make themselves pretty damn useful this election cycle, even if that sounds cold.
Origuy
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Wow. Just wow.
Satby
@David Koch: Actually, I know several old union guys, white working class stiffs who probably were Reagan Dems back in the day. Grew up racist and still are to a much lesser degree, making for areas we don’t discuss often. But they backed Obama twice and like Bernie a lot. Because they know who’s working for them, and who’s been screwing them. And I think watching the frenzy of open, ugly racism was educational for them and helped them move away from the casual racism they grew up with. Anecdotes aren’t data, but it’s been a surprise to me how much these guys evolved over the Obama Presidency; they even support BLM.
Edited to add: I guess it’s why I still argue with people, like water flowing over a rock sometimes it makes a difference.
dogwood
@David Koch:
It’s a big mistake to assume that outside of the mega wealthy elite, people vote based on economic arguments. People are much more than economic entities. Culture, race, religion etc are powerful forces in people’s lives. Republicans understand this better than democrats. They make these people who are loosing ground fast feel important. We promise free college ; they promise to make them feel important again.
Roger Moore
@jl:
You don’t sound cynical, just realistic. Bernie has to know that his campaign is a long-shot, and he’s a serious enough guy that I don’t think he’d be engaging in a long-shot candidacy if he didn’t have a plan for how he’d accomplish something even if he didn’t win the nomination. I think it’s actually insulting to think he doesn’t have a bigger plan.
ThresherK (GPad)
@srv: I’d ask for a cite, you cherry-picking snoteater. But you have your reasons for not doing so, which are between you and your therapist.
jl
@Roger Moore: Seems like if he is a good enough politician to get his Democratic Socialist self a long term gig in Congress, he is good enough to know how to plan out getting something big done when the opportunity strikes.
And, since you are a stickler for precision, I meant to type:
” every day he does NOT make the breakthrough to get within ten points of HRC in some of the big early primary states, he becomes more of an underdog. “
jl
@ThresherK (GPad): I don’t think anyone, whatever s/he thinks the nym is supposed to be doing, takes srv seriously enough to get angry anymore.
FlipYrWhig
@dogwood: why does having the country build walls to keep out the Mexicans make them feel “important”? I don’t think that’s it. I think it’s this: They’re angry hateful assholes who want people not like them to feel pain.
ThresherK (GPad)
@jl: I was going for a Peter Cook condescending. I could no more be angry at that jagoff than when my 3-year-old nephew hit my shin with a mini Wiffle bat.
Elizabelle
@SiubhanDuinne: Good evening and Happy New Year’s weekend.
Re Lithe Ducking: I like that phrase, but did not originate it. Maybe it was from David Koch?
Fits, though, and happy to see a president who works for good every day, with no f*cks left to give.
James Fallows post, from mid-December:
Fallows then quotes from a Democracy Corps report on Tea Partiers, Evangelicals, and moderate Republicans, done by Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg, James Carville and Erica Seifert from October 2013:
jl
@ThresherK (GPad): I liked ‘cherry-picking snoteater’, hope you don’t mind if I use it at appropriate times in the future.
Elizabelle
@Satby: Yeah, I actually think Bernie might make some inroads with people pundits and others were assuming were in the Trump camp. Some of them have more cognitive ability than others; they will listen to what Bernie is saying, rather than just labeling “social ist.”
Will be interesting to see.
@jl: Proud of your Bernie megadonoring.
I send him a few bucks now and then, and it always makes me smile. I send a micro-contribution to Hillary, as well, just cuz I will be happy to voter for either Democratic candidate.
jl
@Elizabelle: This probably sounds cold too, but if those GOPers think that the RNC and GOP Congress give a rat’s ass about anything the common GOP voter cares about, they are really really stupid people. I mean, really dense and pathetically sad hapless doltish people.
” [Obama] has been so cunning and strong, and has so fully outwitted the Republican House and Senate majorities that seem so powerless to stop him. ”
That quote is hilarious and makes me laugh. The idea is laughable. Obama has been centrist enough on most of his economic policies that I don’t think that the paymasters of the GOP see any need for a big struggle. Sure, some of the billionaires will scream about the upward tick in tax rates on marginal income, but the corporations and billionaires with true vision, will take the TPP in trade any day. All the howling is really about the 2016 election.
J R in WV
I got nearly a dozen spam begging emails from people working for Hillary Clinton’s campaign just before New Year’s eve. After I gave them a substantial donation, they continued sending me begging emails, that even included a reference to the amount I had given.
Fuck those assholes!!!! I’m done with anyone who begs for one more dollar after I’ve given way more than they were asking for.
Done for the primary cycle, anyhow.
Pissed off, too.
Elizabelle
@efgoldman: Good evening, pal.
Not a bad thing to get the idea out there (free college, free medical care, other social spending). Democrats should play the long game too. That is about the only way I suggest we learn from Republicans.
The nature of employment is changing, rapidly, and we should have some responses ready.
On the NY Times article about tough job prospects for over-50 women, I saw a lot of reader comments suggesting Medicare (and even Social Security??) eligibility at 50. Some folks never get the full job with benefits back, and it’s too long a stretch to 62 or older. They’re going through their savings and retirement funds just to survive, in middle age.
And a lot of young people are in the precariat as well.
Mostly, I saw a lot of sneering at GOP proposals to raise the Social Security age to 70.
We need to be ready with proposals. No gliding past the very real economic and social insecurity out there. It does not mean Democrats have failed. It means that our world is changing, way faster than a lot of people expect.
Elizabelle
@J R in WV: I noticed that too re HRC. Was amazed sending a contribution did not stop the wall of appeals from Chelsea, Bill, James Carville, the Clinton campaign data guy. They seemed to have no mechanism to know when an earlier appeal had worked.
Smacked of desperation.
Meanwhile, Bernie’s campaign was there with a big thank you, and yesterday they sent a link about getting plugged in locally for training and volunteer work. Glad to see that.
danielx
If only. TPP ranks right up there on the socialist-Marxist agenda, amirite?
David Koch
@J R in WV: How many fund raising emails did you receive from Baud! 2016?
Elizabelle
@David Koch: David: was it you who came up with lithe ducking?
Siubhan and I both like that term. Fits, too.
FlipYrWhig
@Elizabelle: Bernie isn’t promising to wipe out and/or humiliate the brown people. Ergo the people who support Trump, who want only that, aren’t ever going to gravitate to Bernie.
dogwood
@FlipYrWhig:
Of course they are angry racist assholes. When Trump praises them for their racism and xenophobia that flatters their ego, makes them feel good about their pathologies. They must be important because the big white billionaire tells them they are.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Elizabelle:
Shortstop, September 16.
Dunno where you got “lithe ducking.”
David Koch
@Elizabelle: Could be. Can’t remember for sure; I come up with so many great comments.
ThresherK (GPad)
@jl: By all means.
Claire Haws
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I’m a bad Iiwan and don’t remember all of the rules, but you are correct–Denocrats have a more complicated process here. A candidate has to have a certain number/percentage to be deemed viable. If they don’t meet that threshold, those supporting them realign with one of the viable candidates. Meaning there is public counting–we all go and stand in a certain part of the room to show support for our candidate–and are counted.
Republicans do a secret paper ballot. They do not do the realigning thing, I don’t think. You cast your paper vote, and it’s done. Shorter evening, for sure!
Elizabelle
@Steeplejack (phone): Thank you. Was shortstop, eh?
Steeplejack (phone)
@Elizabelle:
That’s the earliest appearance I could find using the Google.
Elizabelle
@Steeplejack (phone): Well done.
I always associate you with Sighthound Hall, and the housecat with the heated throw.
Steeplejack (phone)
@Elizabelle:
She’s dozing on 3 (low simmer) right now.
PurpleGirl
@Baud: She was probably a legacy — the family was Democratic and didn’t think much about it. As long she was able to work within her own beliefs it didn’t matter to her. When that changed she had to change.
dogwood
@David Koch:
All your comments are classy.
PurpleGirl
@srv: For Mr. Trump’s information, we had lots of institutions for the mentally ill. And we closed a lot of them because they were expensive to operate and worked against the patients own civil and human rights. We were supposed to move to a model of neighborhood homes but people didn’t want the mentally ill in their neighborhoods and those homes would also have been expensive. Reducing taxes and costs became the by-word of politics and policies.
ETA: Trump should take ride on the Triborough Bridge and look at Manhattan State Psychiatric Hospital — huge, tall buildings.
ThresherK (GPad)
@PurpleGirl: Remember when ammosexuals used to rally around the slogan of “enforcing the gun laws already on the books”?
Oh, that was so long ago. Now it’s nothing but hurt fee-fees and pissing their pants in fear for them.
David Koch
@dogwood: and luxurious. i will make this blog great again.
Elizabelle
Here, to deliver us to a Friedman unit. (Is that 100 comments?)
Anyway, hello again.
Laurie Anderson is giving a free concert for dogs and their humans tonight (Monday), Times Square, 11:30 p
Mark your calendars (yours and your pet’s).
So: they’re doing this through month’s end, although not always with Laurie. I would imagine your pet is welcome at most of them ….
Villago Delenda Est
@srv: Yup. We have sickos all over the place. Like Donald Trump. Alex Jones. Rafael Cruz. And srv.
Elizabelle
@Villago Delenda Est: Of them all, I know that srv is often a parody act. Possibly the Donald too sometimes, intentionally or not — that is the question.
Chris
I continue to be fascinated by the MSM and other VSPs’ faith that the archetypical American voter, even in 2016, is still Archie Bunker. I mean, these people don’t even particularly like or identify with the Archie Bunkers, except in the most paternalistic terms. Maybe there’s some kind of Noble Savage idealization going on, where they romanticize the rough but honest simplicity of the Common Clay Of The New West.
Or maybe, like so much of our culture, it’s just that what was true for the Baby Boomers is assumed to be an immutable fact. There was a huge political sea change during the Boomers’ adult lives, Archie Bunker was at the heart of that change, and they don’t have the imagination to realize that things are different now.
Chris
@Satby:
Reagan won by absurd margins, getting close to 10% more than his opponent the first time and 20% the second time. No Republican (or Democrat) has gone near his 58% popular vote margin in 1984 since then, which can’t just be explained by changing demographics. So yeah, I always figured there was a demographic that went Republican in the early eighties and then moved back.
Probably helps that by the time Reagan ran for office, we were almost fifty years away from the Gilded Age days that he was pining for, so few people had experience with what his neoliberalism really looked like – compared with the “liberal consensus” model that people had lost faith in, it must’ve felt like a breath of fresh air at the time.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
I’m not sure it’s entirely good news for Democrats if Trump goes 3rd party. I guarantees that a Democrat will be President, which is good, but a Trump independent run may actually help Republicans hold the Senate. Suppose he gets conservative voters who wouldn’t turn out for whoever unseats him to show up at the polls? Sure, they vote for him for POTUS but who do they vote for down ballot? Probably GOP down the line. I’d much prefer he not run as a third party candidate but take incessant pot-shots at the R candidate. That would encourage his supporters to stay home. Hillary still wins AND GOP turnout is suppressed. That’s a win-win.
What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?
@Chris: Yeah, that’s (the white racist Democrat) a stereotype that should have died in the 1990s. The Reagan Democrats never came back to the Democratic party when he left office. If you’ve voted R for 30 years you’re not a Democrat, even if you never bothered to re-register.
David Koch
@Chris:
Actually it can. In ’84 the Whites vote made 86% of the vote. Today they’re only 72% of the vote.
the solid south is still solid in that white southerners still vote in a block. they’re still voting in a bloc against Dems it’s just that there are less of them today. now if white southerners voted in a bloc for Dems like they did before desegregation, then Obama would have received 58% to 61% of the vote, instead of 53% of the vote.
Chris
@David Koch:
Comparing 1984 to today, yes. Comparing 1984 to its immediate aftermath, no. The Republicans went from a high of 58% of the popular vote in 1984 to 53% in 1988, and it’s never been even that high since. One way or another, there’s a demographic out there that voted Republican for Reagan and then stopped, whether because they went back to the Dems or went apathetic. (Although I could see them drifting back to the GOP later – the party’s share of white votes has gone up, not down, I believe – later on, but being counteracted by increasingly nonwhite demographics).
Death Panel Truck
What’s so surprising about it? An asshole bigot appeals to other asshole bigots. It’s what the Republicans have always been, only this time the dog whistle has been replaced by a bullhorn.