Tuesday, February 23, 2016
what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
If you go on Google and type in
"Counterpunch, Ralph Nader predicts Trump's success"
you get an article written by the iconic consumer-rights advocate last June that sounds interestingly as if it had been written last week.
---------------------- some Reader Comments from The American Conservative, dated today:
>> (Emilio) Trump...isn't leading because overall he's such a great candidate, he's leading because of the soft and disarrayed competition and the fortuitous structure of the primary race.
He's a terrible candidate.
The problem wasn't the misdiagnosis of Trump as a circus, it was the misdiagnosis of the Republican Party as not a circus.
The GOP elites have failed the party, and people are angry and hopeless enough to now vote for Trump.
I continue to enjoy his nuttiness.
Trump now keeps claiming over and over that he's completely part of the Republican Establishment, he loves and greatly respects those people, they're very tough and intelligent people. Remember, it's OK to make mistakes, Dubya made one and Trump will make some too, so just take it easy, OK? Lol
>> (Joseph Dooley) By siding early against political correctness/establishment, Trump became an idol for fed up people....When I look back on the last 6 months...I have to admit there's not much anyone could do to derail this monstrosity. Trump's an open book, flaws, inconsistencies, and all. Who he is doesn't seem to matter in this race, only the anger of the people whom he harnesses.
The whole mess feels ordained by God honestly.
>> (Ian G.) Remember, many of these same GOP insiders who insisted that Trump would implode also insisted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would turn Iraq into Switzerland.
Why anyone should trust their judgments is beyond me.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with the idea that Bill Kristol
predicting something is basically the kiss of death for said thing. Anyone want to go back through his Twitter feed to see how many times he proclaimed the end of Trump?
>> (John) Maybe Trump just tried a little harder to understand his customer and what he wanted, instead of trying to sell this year's version of what the customer wanted thirty years ago.
The establishment candidates in this race have not been any Republican campaign strategist's dream, but maybe, just maybe, the problem is less with the candidates and more with what they are made to sell because the party donors demand it.
>> (DobermanBoston) Remember, many of these same GOP insiders who insisted that Trump would implode also insisted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would turn Iraq into Switzerland.
And it's interesting to see that even Chuck Todd is now peddling the fever dream once confined to Boston Republican circles and the pages of the Deseret News, the one about Mitt Romney and a brokered convention.
>> (Oliver) Could it be that the GOP leadership have no policy prescription for the concerns of the GOP base? And Trump is the only one who is addressing this? ...
I think it's misguided to think the answer is just to 'attack' Trump in the same old conventional ways (negative ads, bringing up past transgressions)....Trump has been a public figure for decades and everyone already knows his failings.
If the GOP are offering to send the sons of working class whites to war...only to have them come back with limbs missing and PTSD... you think they're going to vote for Rubio because Trump had a bankruptcy?
If the GOP isn't addressing trade and people are driving past shuttered factories that left for China, think they'll vote for Rubio because Trump uses salty language?
*Note: I am not a Trump supporter, or a GOP member and am terrified at the prospect of him being the GOP nominee. I just don't think people understand why Trump has the support he has.
>> (Clint) ...Trump rides a wave of Americans' dislike of The Washington Establishment of both Major Parties and their agendas, which failed many American taxpaying workers.
>> (Scott) At a certain point, you have to wonder how smart the party establishment and our pundit class really are.
I didn't think Trump would last this long, who did, but he's been going strong in a way that no one could ignore for at least six months.
As Daniel notes, you'd have thought that sometime in the fall after he didn't implode that the pundits might have started exploring the idea that his support was durable, and figuring out why that was, and that the party types would have come up with a plan B.
Neither the pundits nor the donor class really did.
What's interesting to me almost as a sociological matter is that these folks were so invested in politics being As It Always Been that they didn't bother to adjust their views based on what they were seeing with their own eyes. The blindness on display is pretty staggering.
>> (DobermanBoston) At a certain point, you have to wonder how smart the party establishment and our pundit class really are.
I agree 100%. Everybody from Will to Erickson to Maddow was convinced that this was an excellent GOP primary field.
Trump, whatever one may think of the guy, was not convinced that it was an excellent GOP primary field.
He acted accordingly.