Wednesday, May 04, 2016
The End of the Reagan Coalition
Gerard N. Magliocca
The Republican National Convention is shaping up to be the biggest event of its kind since Jonestown. There will be plenty of time to digest the meaning of Trump's nomination for the Supreme Court's future (in other words, more liberal Justices will be coming your way under the Clinton Administration), but one thing is already clear: The Reagan Revolution is dead.
Concurring Opinions post: "I voted in the Indiana primary on the Republican side."
So, he has a specific dog in this fight.
Meanwhile, the Bill of Rights cliffhanger continues.
Trump didn't destroy the Reagan coalition. The GOP establishment did. Trump is just a consequence of its destruction.
"Establishment" is probably too limited but sure -- "Trump" is but a product of the party's long time actions.
Here's an alternative take: for a long time many people have commented on the post-Civil Rights Era GOP that they've been a party that uses free market and religious conservatism to mask some mix of 1. backlash to that movement 2. xenophobia and 3. racism (some overlap with 1 here for sure, but certainly not entirely). Reasons for thinking that included the fact that the current GOP base resides in almost exactly the same places whose representatives opposed a lot of the Civil Rights legislation, rhetoric that this or that candidate let slip, etc.
Enter Trump. He provided a perfect test case because he rejected a lot of the free market and religious conservative orthodoxy and instead focused almost exclusively on the three things described above. And what happened? While a significant amount of GOP voters to their credit rejected Trump over his break from the ideological orthodoxies, a plurality of them may have demonstrated that yes, after all, it was the three things described above that made up the largest part of the GOP's appeal to them, the rest was cover and lipstick on a pig.
"Enter Trump. He provided a perfect test case because he rejected a lot of the free market and religious conservative orthodoxy and instead focused almost exclusively on the three things described above."
What happened is that the left kept calling anything they disagreed with "racism" and "xenophobia", and eventually, boy who cried wolf. People stopped caring. They actually found it refreshing that Trump didn't reflexively flinch when the left started shouting.
But it's still a case of the left calling anything they dislike "racism", regardless. You can't disagree with the left on ANYTHING without getting hit with that charge. So, who cares? The race card is declined.
I agree there's some of that overreaching hyperbole from the left (ironically very similar to you and Bart's style from the other direction), I'd place it in category 1. But some of what Trump has said and advocated really can fairly be described as xenophobic and racist, so there's that.
A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. So, xenophobia would be an irrational fear of those who are different.
However, Trump hasn't proposed suspending entry by Buddhists, or residents of Easter island. This isn't some generalized fear of strangers. He's proposed a very narrowly focused pause in entries. Just Muslims.
So, is it irrational to be reluctant to import more Muslims? After Cologne, for instance? I'm not asking if a liberal would approve, but rather whether it's irrational.
No, it's not.
As for "racist", that's just out of the blue. What's he proposing that's racist?
As for "racist", that's just out of the blue.
I'll let Mr. W., who has already said he isn't a big Clinton fan & has voted for third party/Republican candidates, handle our Trump surrogate here, but "out of the blue"? Unexpected? Uh okay. Out of left field, huh? ;)
During this campaign, Trump did indeed divide the Reagan coalition. As I noted to Brett in the comments section of your prior post:
Reagan was able to assemble an electoral majority supporting limited government by persuading working class voters that expanding government caused the 1970s stagflation and that leashing government would return prosperity. These Reagan Democrats elected him to two landslide elections and Reagan mostly delivered on his promises. This GOP coalition has proven to be the only effective means of electing limited government politicians.
Trump's fascist campaign is ripping that coalition apart. The Donald is convincing working class voters that foreigners are responsible for an economic depression created by our government along with any number of other evils and is promising that he will repel these foreigners by his own personal exercise of even more government power.
It is way too early to know if Trump's divisions will remain. Much depends on whether Trump wins. If Trump wins, he could change the GOP's ideological alignment. If Trump loses, will his followers see their mistake or abandon the political process entirely.
BTW, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility of a Trump victory given the mass anti-establishment feeling and the deeply unpopular candidate the Dems are set to nominate. 2016 is shaping up like a damned Italian election.
If Clinton does win, the Supreme Court will be reduced to a rubber stamp for the government over the next decade or two and may indeed have the opportunity to (re)erase large swaths of the 1A, 2A, 5A, 10A and 14A. Given that Trump was a progressive for decades before he decided to run a fascist campaign, I am hardly confident that his appointments would be any better.
Dark days indeed for those of us who value freedom and constitutionally limited government.
"but "out of the blue"? Unexpected? Uh okay. Out of left field, huh"
I'd never say it was unexpected. In fact, it was drearily predictable, there literally wasn't ANYBODY the GOP could nominate who wouldn't be accused of racism.
Except maybe Carson, he'd have been called an "Uncle Tom", instead.
What I mean is that there's no basis for it.
As for "racist", that's just out of the blue.
"Out of the blue" means "unexpected." It's not. The amusement is at a reply that sounds like Mr. W. is saying something out of left field here.
It's "drearily predictable" that if you cannot understand why Trump specifically ... who not only members of "the left" are disgusted with (in part because of his positions on the subject cited -- see, e.g., replies from both Arizona senators) ... is getting a negative reaction here.
And, what Democrat would not get tarred these days from many on the Right?
I use a qualifier ("many") since people on both sides have a sense of nuance on such things -- say this in part from personal experience -- but the point holds.
Again, Mr. W., if he wants, can defend his argument on the merits.
Looking it up, I have indeed misused the idiom. It wasn't out of the blue, just baseless.
I understand entirely why Trump is getting called a racist.
He's running against a Democrat.
That's the entirety of it. You run for high office as anything other than a Democrat, you get called a racist. Or, occasionally, an "uncle Tom", if you happen to be black. Reagan got called a racist. Both Bushes got called racists. McCain got called a racist. Dole got called a racist. And Romney got called a racist.
You run for President against a Democrat, you get called a racist. It's automatic.
Brett: You run for President against a Democrat, you get called a racist. It's automatic.
When you run a Know Nothing anti-foreigner campaign against Hispanics, Asians and Muslims, that slander is far more likely to stick with the Democrat media and the Democrat base, if no one else.
The downside for the Democrats is that their racist slander will likely be taken personally by and further enrage Trump's supporters.
Of the two sides, Trump supporters have shown themselves far more likely to actually show up to the polls and vote.
This is going to one ugly general election campaign.
"A "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. So, xenophobia would be an irrational fear of those who are different."
Not quite, words are a bit more than what their parts meant at their origin. Xenophobia in most dictionaries refers to 'intense dislike, hatred or irrational fear of strangers or foreigners.'
"He's proposed a very narrowly focused pause in entries. Just Muslims."
I hope you didn't write these two sentences beside each other with something like a straight face. Narrowly focused...on a group numbering about a billion, of all kinds of ethnicity and geographic location?
And then there's the 'Mexicans are rapists and criminals' quote, which I think does duty as xenophobic and racist. And most people don't usually hesitate so long before denouncing the KKK...
"When you run a Know Nothing anti-foreigner campaign against Hispanics, Asians and Muslims, that slander is far more likely to stick with the Democrat media and the Democrat base, if no one else."
But he's not running a campaign against Hispanics and Asians. I haven't noticed anything he's proposed against the interests of legal immigrants of either sort, and believe me, I'd be watching for it, as my wife is a legal immigrant from Asia.
Muslims, sure. But Islam isn't a race, it's a belief system. And he didn't even call for a permanent bar to their entry, just a pause while our vetting system could be improved.
"And then there's the 'Mexicans are rapists and criminals' quote, which I think does duty as xenophobic and racist. And most people don't usually hesitate so long before denouncing the KKK..."
Direct quote: “When do we beat Mexico at the border? They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity. […] When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you; they’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people. But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.”
So, all he was saying was that some of the illegal immigrants were rapists. Care to deny that? And, of course, all of them are criminals... its illegal immigration, after all.
He says 'When Mexico sends *its* people they're not sending their best...They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists..." Those are pretty general statements.
If a Democratic activist were to say "the problem with whites coming into our neighborhood is that they're not the best people, they have lots of problems, they're rapists and gun nuts" you'd be tearing your hair out with anger denouncing it as racist.
'That's the entirety of it.'
"Here's what you're buying. He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for."
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said this because he's running against a Democrat?
Okay. He's your senator, you should know.
"But Islam isn't a race, it's a belief system.
AKA a religion."
Exactly. There's a reason why most anti-racist legislation includes bars on discriminating against groups based on their religion as well as race/ethnicity. I guess you could technically say it's not 'racist' but it's the same kind of bigotry.
I don't know if the Trump quote in his 2:12 PM comment is accurate. Assumining it is, Brett states:
"So, all he was saying was that some of the illegal immigrants were rapists. Care to deny that? And, of course, all of them are criminals... its illegal immigration, after all."
The word "some" is used but once in the quote as follows:
" ... and some, I assume, are good people."
Brett may be cunning but not as a linguist. [No jokes, please!] In context those "some" are few in number compared to the other categories Trump enumerated. When Brett gets beyond "0s" and "1s" he has problems. Consider Brett's backtracking on language he used after being challenged.
But the whole group he's talking about are illegal immigrants, people who have deliberately violated our immigration laws. In that context, saying that some are probably good people is a generous concession, as they're all criminals.
A "generous concession" by Trump? I would be generous in conceding that the only redeeming feature of Brett is that he sired a mixed race [Asian American] son.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Trump said in the quote "I assume" whereas Brett substitutes "probably" regarding "some" being good people.
Would I be wrong to assume you checked that "probably" aptly paraphrases "assume"? Or is this another of your HUMPTY DUMPTY efforts this time with paraphrasing?
"the whole group he's talking about are illegal immigrants"
Where does he specify that? He says 'When Mexico sends its people they’re not sending their best.' Mexican legal immigrants and tourists come here all the time, are they not 'its people'?
" In that context, saying that some are probably good people is a generous concession, as they're all criminals."
This relates back to the Hillary discussion: they're serious criminals too, see! It's all serious. It's black or white with Brett.
Seriously, he's been talking about illegal immigration all along, and while I know it's SOP among opponents of immigration law enforcement to pretend that anything somebody says about illegal immigrants is said about immigrants in general, don't pretend you're an idiot.
Brett, it really doesn't matter if you don't believe that you're a racist. The problem for you and the politicians that you support is that the fastest growing ethnic group thinks that you're a racist. That's good enough for me. Ignore it at your peril. Seriously.
Brett, the problem is that while some "opponents of immigration law enforcement [like] to pretend that anything somebody says about illegal immigrants is said about immigrants in general" it's also true that many (though of course not all) opponents of illegal immigration also oppose legal immigration (and for similar reasons). So candidates have to be specific if they are only talking about just one of the two. I don't see that with Trump's statements.
"Brett, it really doesn't matter if you don't believe that you're a racist. The problem for you and the politicians that you support is that the fastest growing ethnic group thinks that you're a racist. That's good enough for me. Ignore it at your peril. Seriously."
It would be a problem for me if the fastest growing ethnic group thought I was a vampire, but I still wouldn't burst into flames in sunlight. Fast growing ethnic groups are perfectly capable of believing BS if they're fed it often enough. I admit it would hurt as the stake was driven in anyway.
At any rate, the ethnic group that's being artificially inflated on purpose fastest might just stop growing after this fall's election. The existing people haven't been very keen on being replaced all along, this election is probably our last chance to stop the process of "electing a new people".
Brett, thanks for doing your part to help make America a better place!! I was just kidding about you taking your impending political doom seriously. Stay the course, tough guy!
"the ethnic group that's being artificially inflated on purpose fastest might just stop growing after this fall's election. The existing people haven't been very keen on being replaced all along, this election is probably our last chance to stop the process of "electing a new people"."
Where, o where *do* Hispanics get the idea that conservatives don't like them in general? Who can say?
The "stakes" for Brett and his ilk are quite high as demonstrated by his:
"The existing people haven't been very keen on being replaced all along, this election is probably our last chance to stop the process of 'electing a new people.'"
The KKK supports Trump's and Brett's ideas. Brett's "existing people," "our last chance," "new people" are beyond code words.
The existing people haven't been very keen on being replaced all along, this election is probably our last chance to stop the process of "electing a new people".
# posted by Blogger Brett : 6:28 PM
Yes, it's definitely a mystery why Hispanics think that wingnuts like Brett are racists...
Brett made a reference to STD, perhaps in the thread to Gerard's prior post, in a comment. In the NYTimes today (5/4/16) Thomas Edsall's column "The Great Trump Reshuffle" features SDT based upon a fairly recent study connection demographic changes and 3 described revolutions beginning in the 1960 reflecting voting patterns in 2016 primaries. Perhaps it is SDT that explains Brett's "our last chance." The column is very interesting but difficult to summarize.
Brett noted with some asperity, "Reagan got called a racist." I would expect nothing else about someone who kicked off his first campaign as presidential nominee by talking about "state's rights" at the Neshoba County Fair, hard by Philadelphia Mississippi. Do you remember Philadelphia Mississippi? Would you suppose that anyone in the crowd would miss the reference to the righteousness of murdering civil rights workers and finding their killers innocent; because, state's rights? Or anyone in the south, claimed for Republicans since Nixon's "southern strategy" made hay out of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act?
Well, maybe Reagan wasn't a racist. Maybe it's only that his campaign used a strategy of consciously appealing to racists. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the person and their campaign's strategy. Regardless, it's clear that we've seen a rebirth of this strategy in 2016.
But it's an incoherent strategy in Trump's hands, or he wouldn't be touting the support of Mike Tyson, a felon convicted of rape, and lauding him as a "tough guy." I'm sure Trump's KKK supporters would not approve, but maybe Trump is so much their man that they'll give him a pass on this one. After all, raping a beautiful black woman is right in the KKK's line.
Every single Republican candidate, every last one, has been called a "racist". Democrats started calling Republican Presidential candidates "racist" about the time they stopped thinking it was a compliment, and then just never stopped. This is similar to the way every last Republican Presidential candidate since Hitler was still in office has been compared to Hitler by Democrats.
I'll say it again: It doesn't mean anything that you'll call Trump a racist, because you would have called ANYBODY the GOP nominated a racist. Except that Carson would have been called an "uncle Tom", instead. You'll find your excuses for leveling the charge, but you will ALWAYS level the charge, so they're just excuses.
It's become a content free epithet, the only thing it signifies anymore is that you're not a Democrat.
Brett is suffering from chronic SDT. For more on this condition check out Tom Edsall's NYTimes column yesterday that I noted in an earlier comment. Brett's shilling for Trump in the manner of the Last Chance Saloon. Query: How was the 2nd A construed back then?
Over at the VC Randy Barnett has a post on how John Roberts gave us Donald Trump. I don't subscribe to the WaPO and save my monthly freebies for E.J. and Eugene. I assume that some of the usual suspects at this Blog probably will check Randy's post; if so, a few comments, quotes, would be appreciated. In retirement even once successful lawyers have to be frugal, a lesson to be learned by the generous BB.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], there is an interesting faculty, student brouhaha at George Mason regarding major gifts and naming rights for its law school. (I used up a WaPo freebie this morning even though the article was not authored by either E.J. or Eugene). Query: Does this take the Jesuits off the hook on their 1830s slave trading to save George Mason from bankruptcy? Is this an example of SPAM I AM!'s history repeating itself?
It's nice Brett understands the concept of how when partisans level charge after charge after charge it seems to lose it's sting. Maybe he can understand why his attacks on, say, HRC seem to lack sting. After decades of being accused of everything from murder on down people see a bit of 'crying wolf.'
Yeah, I understand that. It's actually part of the Clintons' strategy, I think. They get so many scandals going that people develop "scandal fatigue", and tune it all out. Makes going "meh" when they commit the next crime that much easier, when people have gotten habituated to just ignoring their criminality.
But that's a PR strategy for dealing with political fallout, not a legal strategy. The only reason it's a viable approach for them is that they have mostly operated under a high degree of political protection from the normal legal consequences most people would have faced for the same acts. You can't deploy "scandal fatigue" from a jail cell.
Mr. W ... giving how Republicans have repeated leveled the charge, "partisans" means what exactly? Political actors? Carbon based life forms?
It is somewhat off-topic, but since I referenced the drunk driving breathalyzer case being decided by the Supreme Court, see here for further discussion:
Also, though some conservative publications etc. suggests Garland is their best bet, Sen. McConnell has held firm on the no hearings argument. Guess we have to wait for President Clinton to nominate a younger and somewhat more liberal nominee. Meanwhile, CRS has analysis of his jurisprudence: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44479.pdf
CRS has done lots of analysis over the years (including on the natural born citizenship question) and is a great resource.
Although it attempts to soft pedal the issue, CRS does a decent job discussing Garland's history of rubber stamping decrees of the bureaucracy.
Given that Obama crossed the Rubicon by issuing bureaucratic decrees rewriting laws of Congress, and Team Clinton has openly spoken of and Trump has strongly implied that he would expand on that abuse of absolute power, Garland is unacceptable for this reason alone.
In any case, unless Trump wins and nominates Cruz to replace Scalia in order to remove a political rival, Clinton and likely also Trump will appoint a similar or worse rubber stamp justice and we will continue down the road toward dictatorship by bureaucracy.
The Congress passes a law and the President implements it. The bureaucracy 'decrees' are regulations to carry out the law. They can be overrode by Congress or by electing a new administration which changes the regulations. A federal judge, on the other hand, gets a life appointment and is not answerable to the people save for impeachment or amendment. Bart would have these unaccountable bureaucrats override the will of our regularly elected officials. He'd call that tyranny if the shoe were on another foot.
"The Congress passes a law and the President implements it. The bureaucracy 'decrees' are regulations to carry out the law. They can be overrode by Congress or by electing a new administration which changes the regulations. "
Yes, that's the "Schoolhouse Rock" version of how it happens, which everybody who's gotten past elementary school knows is a crock. Even SNL made fun of your version of things.
In reality, Congress passes some vague piece of verbiage, and then the unaccountable bureaucracy fills in all the details. And if the bureaucracy feel like it, they fill in the details contrary to the verbiage, even.
Congress is happy to have it this way, since it means less work and accountability for themselves. That doesn't make it constitutional.
Congress passes laws.
A mixture of political reasons (e.g., need for compromise) and the nature of things (inability to realistically cover each specific scenario) means bureaucracy has broad discretion. This isn't new. It is the nature of things from ancient times.
Rules are in place for public notice/comment, hearings etc. and there remains judicial review. Also, Congress provides oversight, plus the press and other groups are out there. And, ultimately -- as happens repeatedly -- Congress can respond to change things, including in response to judicial statutory interpretation.
I don't see the "crock." Bureaucracy is not "unaccountable." Now, words can have special meanings for some. If this means "not enough for me," sure. Depending on the "me." Nor, does the bureaucracy get to do what it "feels like." Again, if this means "too much for my tastes," fine.
Finally, this all means who is in power and overseeing things (like the press or advocacy groups) generally makes a lot of difference. So, people will vote for George Bush or Mitt Romney, even if they rather not have a beer with them (if either drinks), since they figure they would do a better job at filling the bureaucracy.
It's complicated, sure.
It's not just a TV version. I've given you several examples both of 1. executive administrations changing regulations of previous ones and 2. Congressional acts reversing regulations. When they want to, these can be changed.
On the other hand, judicial rulings can only be changed by impeachment or amendment.
Nothing you've said refutes that. You have chosen the latter, less democratic option. Tyrant.
To toss something out there, Mr. W and I disagreed in the past regarding the political judgment of Obama in appointing Garland. I wish not to open that up again but on the merits, he does seem like someone Mr. W. would favor, putting aside the political angle. For those who want a more "activist" sort, ymmv.
Brett tosses out "Segregatedschoolhouserocks" willy nilly and sillily. Brett must feel inferior when the Supremes sing or even when they don't sing. He must feel SDT-ed at his "last chance saloon."
Mr. W: The Congress passes a law and the President implements it. The bureaucracy 'decrees' are regulations to carry out the law.
How many pages of the U.S. Code are taken up by enabling statutes? Now, how many pages in the Federal Register are filled with decrees mandating things which Congress never considered in its legislation or which rewrite the provisions of that legislation under the guise of "interpretation?"
Obamacare is a perfect example: http://acasignups.net/15/05/21/updated-i-dont-want-hear-one-more-obamacare-2000-pages-long-attack-ever
They can be overrode by Congress or by electing a new administration which changes the regulations.
The last time I asked when and where this has ever occurred, you could offer me one example out of 178,000+ pages of regs.
A federal judge, on the other hand, gets a life appointment and is not answerable to the people save for impeachment or amendment. Bart would have these unaccountable bureaucrats override the will of our regularly elected officials. He'd call that tyranny if the shoe were on another foot..
My point is that our elected representatives are NOT enacting the vast majority of our law and Garland will do nothing to stop the unelected bureaucracy which unconstitutionally imposes the vast majority of law by decree.
In any case, the judiciary's sworn duty is to enforce the Constitution, not to rubber stamp unconstitutional law or regulations.
With the Cruz Canadacy suspended, SPAM I AM! is enraged that we cannot revert to The Gilded Age, America's best days according to SSPAM I AM!, and to the gold standard. And Glenn Beck is so enraged he declares there will be no Republican President in the future. If this were an Olympic event this would take the Gold. "USA, USA!"
NYT had some choice comments from Cruz unplugged on Trump.
Cruz played with devil early on by praising Trump as a legitimate voice of change and protest. Trump racked up delegates and trying to stop him later was just too darn hard.
Rep. Ryan isn't quite ready to support Trump, but hopes he can later on. It's a process. Meanwhile, they picked florists for the "Jonestown" convention.
Will there be Kool-Aid? Or Trump Wallbangers? And crow on the menu? Trump might push for Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks. (Delegates should check out the "sell by" dates.)
I note that John McCain is concerned about his re-election poll numbers because of Trump. (Cue to the newly retired BB.) Speaking of John McCain, has Sarah Palin been quiet since Indiana and the Cruz and Kasich suspensions, perhaps keeping her hopes alive at a second VP shot?
Eh, Nate Silver has admitted he got the primary wrong. He hasn't gotten around to admitting he might be wrong about the general election, but that's a reasonable conclusion: Not that he's certainly wrong about it, but that he might be wrong about the general election.
I have no confidence about how the election turns out. I'm just along for the ride, and laughing at the people who think they DO know how it's going to turn out.
"The last time I asked when and where this has ever occurred, you could offer me one example out of 178,000+ pages of regs."
Nope, not just the override of OSHA's ergonomic regulations, but also
All involved significant overriding of agency enacted regulation.
Of course, if a judge had ruled these regs unconstitutional no such democratic rejection, or acceptance, would have been possible. A tyranny of unelected, lifetime appointed government officials is what you want.
In the bills you cited, Congress changed the standards for, but not the fact of, some WWI and WWII era bureaucracy price regulation of common carriers and the landline telecoms. The bureaucracy can still reset prices it finds unreasonable.
Looking at the link, Nat Silver explains how he misconstrued things in part given the weakness of the competition/strangeness of the candidate, but he wasn't really that wrong even there. He, e.g., links his January analysis.
"Things are lining up better for Trump than I would have imagined, however. It’s not his continued presence in the race that surprises me so much as the lack of a concerted effort to stop him."
It's misguided to be overconfident and LBJ, Nixon et. al. won their landslides in part by taking their competition seriously. But, "eh" -- can see people liking their chances here. Others can enjoy the ride ... that is, other than the many Republicans who don't seem to be having a lot of fun. They must all be liberals though since that is the only reason to call Trump "racist" or something.
"if a judge had ruled these regs unconstitutional no such democratic rejection, or acceptance, would have been possible"
OTOH, if a judge ruled -- such as three justices wanted to regarding the ACA regs as to the meaning of "state" etc. -- a regulation was not properly consistent with the statute or some other procedural issue, Congress could and has repeatedly overrode.
Randy Barnett's Our Republican Constitution was a good read comparing and contrasting the classically liberal "republican constitution" of the Founding and the Civil War amendments with the fundamentally rewritten progressive "democratic constitution" of today. In the last chapter, Randy suggests some general changes to recover the "republican constitution," which in reality are unlikely to ever occur.
My biggest quibble with Randy's constitutional labeling is not that the term "republican" is not necessarily synonymous with classical liberalism, but rather with applying the term "democratic" to the progressive rewrite of the Constitution. As Randy himself notes at the end of the book, the progressive rewrite of the Constitution has shifted the vast majority of legislation to an unelected bureaucracy, which generally operates independently of both elected branches.
I've a certain amount of sympathy for Silver: The fact that an event your model says was unlikely happens doesn't actually mean your model was wrong; Unlikely things happen all the time.
But the problem with his response to this, is that he (Explicitly!) assumes that this was something happening within the already Republican electorate. But Trump didn't merely win Republican primaries. He's doing so while winning more primary votes than any prior Republican candidate in history. And having more primary votes cast for the other candidates than every before in history, too.
The factor Silver didn't acknowledge is that Trump hasn't been winning the primaries just by convincing existing Republicans to vote for him instead of somebody else.
He's been bringing new voters into the Republican primaries. And THAT is why Silver shouldn't be confident about predicting Trump will lose the general election. Half the electorate normally doesn't bother to vote. Trump seems to be drawing support from that group, and they're a group Silver's models have nothing to say about, because they're constructed from prior voting behavior, non-voters are invisible to his models.
This doesn't mean he's going to win. But it does mean this election is not a bog standard election you can model off previous elections. It's something different.
Brett tries to plan The Lone Ranger on Silver and then says:
"He's [Trump's] been bringing new voters into the Republican primaries."
Where were these "new" older undereducated white male voters hiding pre-Trump? Surely they were voting in 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014 against even Brett knows whom. Perhaps Brett's "He's" in the quote was referring to Bernie?
Earlier Brett noted:
"I have no confidence about how the election turns out. I'm just along for the ride, and laughing at the people who think they DO know how it's going to turn out."
There's a line from a pop song of ny youth: "Laughing on the outside, crying on the inside" that might better describe Brett who be along with ride out with the tide. I don't like to predict but I do have high hopes and they are not engraved on a tall tower of babble in NYC. Let's hum a little bit of "High Hopes." It worked in 2008 and 2012.
Trump is attracting the Perot voters. These folks are not new to the GOP. They elected Reagan and Gingrich's Congress.
The GOP primary vote was up across the board (not just for Trump), while the Dem primary vote cratered because of the enthusiasm canyon between Republicans and Democrats this year.
The question is whether the majority of that increased GOP vote who voted for other candidates than Trump will vote for the Donald in the general election. I sure as hell am not and I am not alone.
Nat Silver, who we now are "sympathetic" about, in JANUARY was saying Trump was doing better than expected. The "model" -- that is, what was repeatedly shown to be correct in the past -- suggested that a lot of things had to go in his favor to win. So, rather understandable for him not to be convinced. But, a reader of Nat Silver -- so sure can see "sympathy" -- could FIVE MONTHS AGO say "huh. Trump has a shot!"
Trump has encouraged more voters to vote though rising vote totals is a long time trend, 2016 would naturally be a time Republican voters would be excited, plus percentage-wise, he might actually be worse off.
"Trump will probably set a new record for total votes. But he'll also probably end up as the highest-vote-getting candidate with the lowest percentage of the vote since 1968."
Trump (who btw has millions less votes than Clinton received this year, even given her strong opposition & lack of novelty) until recently obtained pluralities. Sure, he is quite polarizing and draws new voters. The problem -- and a major reason for the optimism/pessimism (depending on the party in question) is that it goes both ways. He has remarkable negatives.
Republicans repeatedly -- at least in the general -- don't want MORE voters. Demographics -- including minorities and women -- don't favor a Trump nomination in particular. This is "something different" - it usually hasn't been this bad.
Silver said a lot. Brett as tends to be the case focuses on a little bit & spins even that a bit. That's natural -- we all do that sometimes. Still, to degree Trump is "something different," people in both parties reasonably don't see that in a positive way as to his chances in November. Anyways, again, best not to be overly cocky about these things.
"Anyways, again, best not to be overly cocky about these things."
Yeah, that's my counsel: Don't be confident you know how it's going to go. This is a real "black swan" election.
Brett's use of this metaphor:
"This is a real "black swan" election."
is being fueled by undereducated older white males (aka "cob swans?).
"Congress changed the standards for, but not the fact of, some WWI and WWII era bureaucracy price regulation of common carriers and the landline telecoms"
No, the bills did many things within each industry involving the changing, elimination, or adding to of numerous regulations that were on the book, changes that led to significant effects. Again, Congress changing agency rules has is not uncommon.
I don't liken Trump to Perot, whose biggest issue was government spending. Trump succeeded because many conservatives and conservative-leaning independents saw him as finally providing a voice against immigration, Muslims and 'political correctness' that they didn't think the GOP had been providing.
Is there good source of data for the numbers voting in the respective party primaries? I just looked up Indiana's where the GOP seemed to have about a million and the Dems 600,000, but I also looked up NY where the Dems had 180,000 and the GOP far less.
My contention is that, for a variety of structural and political reasons, Congress and the President do not or cannot substantially reverse the ever increasing delegation of absolute power to the regulatory bureaucracy,
Fine tuning its delegation of power to the bureaucracy to regulate prices charged by common carriers and landline telecoms is not a substantial reversal of that delegation. The bureaucracy still possesses that power to set reasonable prices.
The primary reason prices dropped in both industries was not a reversal of the power to set prices, but rather the entry of non-union competition and/or different technologies.
Mr. W: I don't liken Trump to Perot, whose biggest issue was government spending.
Perot's main selling point was his opposition to NAFTA in particular and free trade in general for "sending jobs overseas." Remember Perot's "giant sucking sound" comments during the 1992 debates?
Trump simply added opposition to immigration to the Perot pitch.
I used == http://www.realclearpolitics.com == for my delegate news etc.
Indiana and NY have very different rules; Sanders, e.g., was upset that NY is a closed primary state and you had to register a long time ago. This would particularly burden Republicans and non-Democratic Sanders voters. The Republican numbers in some NY districts were minuscule. Indiana also is a more conservative state anyhow.
Mass under and unemployment is THE reason why Trump's message is resonating far more than people expected.
And according to BLS, another 439k Americans between the ages of 20 and 54 lost their jobs last month. The total number of workers aged between 16 and 54 are roughly 3.5 million BELOW where they were in December of 2007. The only reason the nominal U3 unemployment rate is at 5% rather than over 10% is because experienced workers over 55 are taking jobs because they cannot afford to retire and millions of others have stopped looking for work and are not counted.
Trump is giving the millions suffering under this economic depression someone to blame - foreigners.
Pat Buchanan on NPR voiced some of the concerns that make Trump appealing to various people http://www.npr.org/2016/05/05/476844409/pat-buchanan-on-why-he-shares-trump-s-ideas-on-foreign-policy
Sounds like he wants to reduce immigration generally -- it is not like he merely wants to stop "illegal" immigration.
"we need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm"
"We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers" (not just "illegals")
"Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S." (again, "legal" immigrants treated to easily; need to limit them more strictly)
"Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers." ("illegal" immigration not the only concern)
The primary focus is stopping illegal immigration, the secondary focus is making sure that legal immigration is based on whose admission would be beneficial to those already citizens. IOW, not importing people hostile to our nation, not importing workers for fields where unemployment is already high.
But that's not a mindless opposition to immigration, it's a realization that immigration policy has to be based on the benefit that immigration brings to existing citizens.
You're moving goal posts, your contention was that I show you an example of Congress acting to change, override, etc., bureaucratic decrees. The four acts I've listed involved numerous examples of written regulations that were changed, overrode, etc. We could go down the list of them if you'd like. Bureaucratic regulations being changed (including replaced, ended, etc.,) by different executive administrations and by Congressional act is simply not uncommon.
You, on the other hand, would have that replaced by the fiat of life time appointed, unelected judges.
As to Perot-Trump, I grant you NAFTA was an issue for him-but a lot of that was after the 92 election. Deficet spending and debt were the subjects of his 30 minute informercials. Trump's main resonating issues are immigration, Muslims and 'political correctness.'
By the way, above, "Abandoning Defensive Crouch Liberal Constitutionalism"
You can always tell when a liberal thinks victory is in sight, they give up all that nonsense about caring about procedure and stare decisis, and get down to driving their enemies before them, and grooving on the lamentation of their women.
Sorry to be late, but I was working off the impacts of my two "Trump Wallbangers" yesterday. Now that Cinco de Mayo (pardon my earlier spelling error) is past this year, so the marketing begins. Let's call on the "Tequila Trumpistas" to show their "love" for The Donald by wearing their "President Trump, tear down that wall" T-shirts at his rallies.
With Speaker Paul Ryan and other Republican leaders unhappy with Trump as the Republican presumptive nominee [Note: Trump is presumptive in his life not just politically.], Paul Krugman offers at his NYTimes Blog today"'Paul Ryan' and the Trump Fail," pointing our with a link to his 8/11/15 Blog item "Tea and Trumpism" his predictive of Trump's chances to be the Republican nominee. In the earlier Blog post, he had this abbreviation: "DT's" obviously referring to The Donald. Jumping ahead to the present, a pundit might say that Republicans are suffering from the DTs. Too many Trump Wallbangers?
I have no confidence about how the election turns out. I'm just along for the ride, and laughing at the people who think they DO know how it's going to turn out.
# posted by Blogger Brett : 5:47 AM
Brett, it's good that you can laugh as your party drives off a cliff. I'm laughing too.
MY party was shoved over the cliff, by Democrats and Republicans working together. The Republican party is just a temporary refuge. If it goes over the cliff, I'll dance on the corpse.
The only thing that would delight me more is if they could contrive to take the Democratic party with them.
Okay. So, Trump won WVA and Nebraska. Estimated delegate count in the low 1100s.
NeverTrump might be in trouble.
(Sanders won WVA though over 10% didn't vote for either of the two.)
Great! Thanks for sharing the information. That is very helpful for increasing my knowledge in this fiel
A good blog. Thanks for sharing the information. It is very useful for my future. keep sharing
Red Ball | red ball 2 | Red Ball 3 | Red Ball 4 | duck life
Flash Games| shooting Games | happy wheels |
شركة وادى الرياض
شركة تسليك مجارى بالدمام
شركة كشف تسربات المياه بالدمام
شركة نقل اثاث بالدمام
شركة تنظيف شقق بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بيارات بالدمام
شركة رش مبيدات بنجران
شركة تنظيف فلل بالدمام
شركة تنظيف بجده
شركة تنظيف خزانات بجده
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمامPost a Comment
شركة تنظيف منازل بالدمام
شركة مكافحة النمل الابيض بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بخميس مشيط
شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض
شركة مكافحة حشرات بجازان
شركة تنظيف بابها