Megan's nickel
Megan mocks the losers and gets it mostly right--though her poignant belief that Rubio was a savior rather than an empty suit is a bit sad. Whatever you want to say about Trump's suit, it isn't empty. (And no mention of Scott Walker, the only one after Cruz who might have had any substance--and the only one who did seem to have any self awareness, again apart from Cruz, which is one of the main themes of her column.)
So, LAGuy, not to spend too much time chatting on the blog, but last time I remember you mentioning Trump it was because you were uncertain about his affect on the race. I suppose you've advanced significantly since then. Is Hillary measuring curtains? If so, to put them in the White House, or wear them?
Megan isn't quite settled on the point. Trump is a sure loser giving Democrats reason to celebrate, who's going to be giving horrid speeches for the next six months, and maybe four years after that, too.
posted by ColumbusGuy @ 3:30 AM
9 Comments:
After all the proclamations that Trump was a sure loser in the primaries, I don't see how anyone can declare that certain for the Nov. election. But it seems likely to me that he loses if Clinton can run a half-way decent campaign and has no huge surprises unearthed. Perhaps Trump is sitting on some such surprises.
By the way, it seemed to me that Walker had no idea what to do or say in his short-lived campaign. Rubio at least had answers memorized, if not internalized. I liked Walker early on, but he needs to find his footing before trying again. And he should probably get a college degree from somewhere, though I always thought that was the most bogus attack on his candidacy.
"Whatever you want to say about Trump's suit, it isn't empty."
Of all the absurd things you've written, this is the most ridiculous. Trump is the emptiest of empty suits.
He has no record (except a business record which is irrelevant and which he lies about) and never comes close to explaining how he'll do anything. Sure, he makes a few bizarre promises which he won't be able to keep (which is a good thing), but when asked how he'll manage to solve the problems he says he'll solve, he responds "I'll do such a great job it'll make your head spin, and by the way, I'm very smart so don't worry about it, and though I know less than anyone who's ever run for office, by the time I'm in office I'll know more than everyone else, and also I'll hire the best people to surround me which I believe no one else has ever thought of doing, and I must be right because I'm ahead in the polls, and I can personally guarantee you that all those groups that polls show hate me actually love me, and let me end by saying that the ugly idiots who speak out against me say such nasty things they should be embarrassed, and no I won't release my tax records for legal reasons that everyone agrees make no sense."
Empty suit? He gives empty suits a bad name.
Trump's loss in November seems certain. Here is the crucial fact: Until a couple decades ago, voters had to register in one party, and could vote only in its primary. Thus in the 1980 primaries, Reagan wasn't a shoo-in; he had real competition from other Republicans. But then in November 1980 he managed a mild landslide because, in addition to almost all Republican voters, he got the votes of many unhappy Democrats.
But Trump (and Sanders, too) benefitted from our new system in which many states let you vote in any party's primary. A lot of Trump's primary voters were not registered Republicans. In other words: it is true that Trump energizes a certain previously "silent" block of potential voters. But this block won't suddenly show up in November. They have already shown up and given Trump a razor-thin victory in the Republican nomination contest. I have no doubt that this group will gleefully vote for Trump in November. But we know its size already. There will be no surprises. Trump cannot win in November by merely keeping the folks who voted for him in the primaries.
Maybe so. But as LAGuy ought to know better than anybody, nobody knows anything.
Some of the "fullest" suits have been some o fthe worst Presidents in my estimation. I start with Woodrow Wilson, but Gov. Jimmy Carter is a good second example. By anon's definition, an empty suit is anyone who hasn't been in politics, but I think experience in politics is just that - experience in how to succeed in politics (work the system, trade favors, shmooz donors, etc.). It says nothing about actually knowing how to manage the affairs of the nation. I don't know that Trump knows what he wants to accomplish as President, but he is not an empty suit - he clearly has some formidable skills.
Anon here. An empty suit has nothing to do with experience in politics. It has to do with substance, of which Trump has none. All he says is he'll do a great job because he's so wonderful and everyone thinks he's great. He says this over and over again, without going into any detail--which he can't, since the basic ideas he has make no sense.
As for skills, I'm not aware of any he has in the world of politics, and the only skills I know he has in business is being born rich, knowing how to go bankrupt, being a huckster, being an obnoxious loudmouth in front of a camera, and knowing how to keep his actual income secret.
Well, the one thing we can be sure, if Trump's looking to hire someone to write substance, Anon won't get the job. Tell us Hillary's qualities, Anon. To prove your bona fides, say she's terrible too. Then tell us again how bad Trump is, because that's what's important.
This has nothing to do with right or left--that's the orientation that runs your brain. This is about the crazy, obnoxious, vacuous ass the GOP has chosen. I wouldn't be saying this if the Republicans had nominated any of the other candidates who ran.
Sure, it has nothing to do with Hillary. Now Trump, that gets your blood pumping. The guy's a dishonest fraud, sheeple!
Post a Comment
<< Home