The most insightful part of this analysis is the acknowledgement right up front by the author that he got it wrong. Very wrong. What Axelrod fails to realize is that he's still wrong. If Trump decides to stick around he will win, likely easily. In this country nothing beats the power of a brand, especially one that's comfortable making others uncomfortable. Find that brand and you find the winner. With Trumps brand, cultivated over decades, there's not too much he can't do because he's comfortable making others uncomfortable. Obama didn't win as the antithesis to Bush. He won because he built a brand and was very comfortable making others uncomfortable. Black dude, south side Chicago, crazy Muslim sounding name, all 3 of them, black wife , black best friend, If Axelrod wants to help someone to become the next president that is what he may wish to share with them. Americans are just not that sophisticated. Never have been, never will be. Hypothesis A. So if Hillary really wants to win she has to follow the playbook. Embrace big banks and NY culture. Tell everyone in the red states they are hicks and need to catch up and they are the real reason why this country is failing. And where all the welfare and government handouts really go. Shock the system. . Win the election. Or watch president Trump take the office.
10
OBAMA'S THEORY OF TRUMP DISSERTATION
It's more about Obama than Donald Trump
The Obama Theory of Trump dissertation.
The anti-Trump that Obama imagines he is
Is phantasmagorical Narcissine reflection.
Big talkers, giant egos, great dividers
Authoritarians with delusion.
Their own imagined brilliance blinds them
Trump-Obama. Separated-at-birth. Fusion.
6
The prospects of Sanders vs Trump is so implausible it makes sense in this political climate. People have become so disgusted with the inertia in Washington that they are abandoning any political discourse for two men, one, chasing windmills, the other, a megalomaniacal narcissist. No wonder Bloomberg sees this as an opportunity to rescue the country.
10
The message Mr. Trump is spreading, intended or not, is that Republicans are contemptuous of Mexicans, women, Muslims, P.O.W.s, people with disabilities, and whoever is next. Either the Republicans shut Trump down, or he will take the Republican Party down with him. You thought recovering from Bush was difficult? Recovering from Trump should wipe any vestiges of the Republican Party off of the political landscape for generations to come.
23
Both Trump and Sanders supporters say that "we need to take our country back."
When Trump supporters say it, they mean take it back from illegal Mexicans and liberals.
When Sanders supporters say it, they mean take it back from Wall St., the military industrial complex, and the neocons.
Supposedly when a supporter told Adlai Stevenson that Stevenson had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied, “I need more than that, I need a majority.”
I think that is Bernie Sanders’ problem.
(And our country's problem.)
When Trump supporters say it, they mean take it back from illegal Mexicans and liberals.
When Sanders supporters say it, they mean take it back from Wall St., the military industrial complex, and the neocons.
Supposedly when a supporter told Adlai Stevenson that Stevenson had the support of all thinking voters, Stevenson replied, “I need more than that, I need a majority.”
I think that is Bernie Sanders’ problem.
(And our country's problem.)
58
Axelrod has finally seen what has been apparent for so long, that Trump is the anti-Obama par excellence. He has become the lightning rod for all the anti-Obama sentiment regardless of legitimacy of its sources.
Yet, when Axelrod was part of the pro-HRC panel on CNN, he waxed on her performance against Sanders despite the fact that most people who actually watched the "debate" found Bernie the winner. HRC has even more negative baggage now than she did in 2008, when she couldn't defeat a nobody who gave good speeches for the nomination. If the nominee, she will lose against just about anyone the reprobates nominate.
Tell you colleagues on CNN that it doesn't matter which Democrat wins the South Carolina primary because Jeff Davis couldn't carry the state in the election if he ran as a Democrat.
Are you prepared to have the White House turned into another Trump Tower?
Yet, when Axelrod was part of the pro-HRC panel on CNN, he waxed on her performance against Sanders despite the fact that most people who actually watched the "debate" found Bernie the winner. HRC has even more negative baggage now than she did in 2008, when she couldn't defeat a nobody who gave good speeches for the nomination. If the nominee, she will lose against just about anyone the reprobates nominate.
Tell you colleagues on CNN that it doesn't matter which Democrat wins the South Carolina primary because Jeff Davis couldn't carry the state in the election if he ran as a Democrat.
Are you prepared to have the White House turned into another Trump Tower?
13
Trump has defied all predictions about his aspirations...yet if he were to win that would be scary. He would be the most unqualified president since ....OBAMA!
9
Mr. Axelrod misses the elephant in the room which is the America hating Mr. Obama. The American people can't take it anymore. To have a brick and mortar candidate actually say "I'm going to build a wall and stop illegal immigration" is refreshing. Mr. Trump is one the best negotiators of our time. Although the media wets their pants when Trump says he will deport all illegals all will be negotiated down to those in the last five years or something like that.
14
All I know is that the thought of "President Trump" is a nightmare of nightmares, only slightly worse than most of the other GOP candidates. If the American people really want to bring that on for the whole country, they should take a good look at Kansas right now.
41
That's an embarrassing column, David. My goodness the silliness. Mr. Trump will not be president of the United States. Never. Ever. I don't care how idiotic or blustery or racist or piggish or pompous or ridiculous he gets, he will not succeed. It isn't' even debatable.
Call me in November, David. We'll discuss it while watching Hillary take the crown.
Call me in November, David. We'll discuss it while watching Hillary take the crown.
20
It is actually not Trump that should be feared by those of us who seek a compassionate, sane, intelligent candidate, it's his supporters. after all, he is just one person and he probably has enough self-realization that he is playing a caricature in public. but the millions of followers that take his spewings as gospel, that is very disturbing. I'd like to believe that if you put a bunch of politicians alone together in a room and make them work, they can come up with something workable, regardless of party mix. but add in lobbyists, their base, etc. and all bets are off.
reminds me of the following:
"If you put Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad in the same room together, they will embrace each other. If you put their followers together, they may kill each other!”
- Swami Prabhavananda
reminds me of the following:
"If you put Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad in the same room together, they will embrace each other. If you put their followers together, they may kill each other!”
- Swami Prabhavananda
10
OBAMA'S THEORY-OF-TRUMP DISSERTATION
It's more about Obama than Donald Trump
The Obama Theory-of-Trump dissertation.
The anti-Trump Obama imagines he is
Is phantasmagorical Narcissine reflection.
Big talkers, giant egos, great dividers
Authoritarians with delusion.
Their own imagined brilliance blinds them
Trump-Obama. Separated-at-birth. Fusion.
2
an obvious point few recognize: a quarter of Republicans disapprove of Mr. Trump.
8
Your column is also a cautionary tale for Mrs. Clinton, of course, who is wrapping herself in the centrist Obama banner. Dems, too, may be drawn to contrasts -- which on their side are represented more by Mr. Sanders' defiant leftyism.
5
This is by far the most logical explanation I have heard to explain Trump's popularity. It's a foregone conclusion he will have big trouble drawing from the Independents he would need to win in a general election. Throw in a potential Independent run by Mike Bloomberg and.....
5
At the very least he finally lays open the horrendously abhorrent heart of the Republican Party and Gloriously shows it off for all to see. The fact that the Politicians are bought and sold, Trump has made the point that, yes, he has bought and paid for several and they do HIS bidding.
In fact, Trump is doing Wonderful at showing that the Repub Party, it's Donors and it's Media arm are all involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate elected Governments and instill the ALEC components that turn our Democratic Republic into an Autocratic Plutocracy indistinguishable from a Dictatorship. Why else would they disdain the NEEDS of the Public and cater ONLY to the DESIRES of the Already Too Rich and Powerful? They were elected to represent all of us, so them representing ONLY the Uber Rich is treason since they support the .1% over the 99.9%. Trump is OF that .1% that needs no more offices or wealth
In fact, Trump is doing Wonderful at showing that the Repub Party, it's Donors and it's Media arm are all involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the legitimate elected Governments and instill the ALEC components that turn our Democratic Republic into an Autocratic Plutocracy indistinguishable from a Dictatorship. Why else would they disdain the NEEDS of the Public and cater ONLY to the DESIRES of the Already Too Rich and Powerful? They were elected to represent all of us, so them representing ONLY the Uber Rich is treason since they support the .1% over the 99.9%. Trump is OF that .1% that needs no more offices or wealth
10
In 2008 I came to the very same conclusion: Open seat Presidential elections are decided in reaction to the previous President. Here is what I predicted for President Obama back in 2008:
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-is-president-like-window.html
I predict that rather than those who didn’t vote for President Obama being the most disappointed, it will instead be the far left who will start to be dissatisfied first. Many in the far left have come to see Barack Obama as some kind of savior. Carrying their huge expectations, he can’t fail to disappoint. He will not institute national health care in the first three months. He will not do away with the military’s Don’t Ask—Don’t Tell policy in his first year. He will not push for the arrest of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes charges.
It is the fire-breathing, bomb-throwing true believers who will be most disapproving of President Obama. They have projected onto him all of their wildest hopes and dreams of “revenge governance” and he is just not that sort of man. When Senator Obama gave his speech on race in Philadelphia back in March, I became convinced that he was the man for the job. His speech showed that he is clear-eyed and sees not through the distorting lenses of fierce partisanship but instead through the sharpening lens of pragmatism.
Maybe he doesn’t have an MBA from Harvard, but the man knows how to manage. He is just what we need right now—a leader who is NOT George Bush.
http://c-dawson.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-is-president-like-window.html
I predict that rather than those who didn’t vote for President Obama being the most disappointed, it will instead be the far left who will start to be dissatisfied first. Many in the far left have come to see Barack Obama as some kind of savior. Carrying their huge expectations, he can’t fail to disappoint. He will not institute national health care in the first three months. He will not do away with the military’s Don’t Ask—Don’t Tell policy in his first year. He will not push for the arrest of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld on war crimes charges.
It is the fire-breathing, bomb-throwing true believers who will be most disapproving of President Obama. They have projected onto him all of their wildest hopes and dreams of “revenge governance” and he is just not that sort of man. When Senator Obama gave his speech on race in Philadelphia back in March, I became convinced that he was the man for the job. His speech showed that he is clear-eyed and sees not through the distorting lenses of fierce partisanship but instead through the sharpening lens of pragmatism.
Maybe he doesn’t have an MBA from Harvard, but the man knows how to manage. He is just what we need right now—a leader who is NOT George Bush.
7
True-- It's the law of physics. The pendulum. Perhaps-- if things slow down and are not so extreme, we can get back to the moderate middle. Perhaps.
3
David Axelrod's 2006 memo to Barack Obama would serve just as well as advice to Bernie Sanders. Stay the course. Offer something new, as did Obama who delivered. Hillary Clinton, who is still on the market, although her sell-by date is long past, is offering just baby steps to right what is wrong with America. Democrats must not be distracted by that clown from the GOP. We must nominate someone who can defeat that show biz huckster. That someone is not someone who herself is as ethically challenged as that Las Vegas hustler and who is in thrall to Wall Street. The choice is clear: Bernie Sanders.
4
He Knows how to Glisten.....But Never learned how to Listen.
2
Interesting theory, but let me pose an alternative. So let's say you're a Republican and you have spent the last 10 or so years listening to Rush Limbaugh or Fox News and that has stoked your hatred of liberals, government (cleverly channeling all your anger away from the people actually causing most of your problems). You are furious and/or terrified about many things. About the loss of jobs, the expense of healthcare, the fear of terrorism, and the extent to which you feel left behind and disrespected by social changes like gay marriage.
So you turn against the establishment Republican candidates with a vengeance. So far so good since they're wolves in sheep's clothing. But where do you go? There's a massive stampede away from yet another Bush, Rubio, etc, but going over to the Democrat side is almost unthinkable because what you have gotten from Fox can almost be called indoctrination or brainwashing.
So some completely understandable passion driven by anger and fear (partially realistic partially hyped up), combined with a culture of angry victim-blaming racism and jingoism, ends up settling on Trump. Trump's tone matches the prevailing mood: riled up. Fed up and not gonna take it anymore. Trump has skillfully capitalized on this anger. (Or maybe hasn't needed skill. ) He's just the right kind of person at the right time and he is knocking down the pins that were set up for him.
So you turn against the establishment Republican candidates with a vengeance. So far so good since they're wolves in sheep's clothing. But where do you go? There's a massive stampede away from yet another Bush, Rubio, etc, but going over to the Democrat side is almost unthinkable because what you have gotten from Fox can almost be called indoctrination or brainwashing.
So some completely understandable passion driven by anger and fear (partially realistic partially hyped up), combined with a culture of angry victim-blaming racism and jingoism, ends up settling on Trump. Trump's tone matches the prevailing mood: riled up. Fed up and not gonna take it anymore. Trump has skillfully capitalized on this anger. (Or maybe hasn't needed skill. ) He's just the right kind of person at the right time and he is knocking down the pins that were set up for him.
2
In early 2007 I would have guessed the US would have an African-American president sometime around 3000 AD. By comparison President Trump seems entirely possible.
Regarding his Muslim bombast: I expect him to receive a good share of the Muslim vote. Many American Muslims know first hand what a mess things are back home; if they already have their family safe in the West, closing the borders is unpleasant but understandable. With any luck he is grandstanding for the primaries, and as a businessman won't be too stupid, too often.
Regarding his Muslim bombast: I expect him to receive a good share of the Muslim vote. Many American Muslims know first hand what a mess things are back home; if they already have their family safe in the West, closing the borders is unpleasant but understandable. With any luck he is grandstanding for the primaries, and as a businessman won't be too stupid, too often.
2
Trump's rise and popularity is a sad commentary on a large majority of white americans to people outside our borders. Minorities, foreigners, and now women knew exactly what type of person Trump was (he would tell you whenever he had an audience of three or more).
What is so sad is that although many white americans dislike Trump, they cannot bring themselves to admit exactly why they dislike him: It has everything to do with playing on race and the fear of non-whites (i.e: non-european, foreign born people). To admit this is to admit that Institutional Racism is still alive and well in the US of A.
Trump is the mouthpiece poster-boy of everything that a vast majority of whites in this country are thinking.....on only difference between the vast majority and Trump is that Trump is a billionaire.....He can basically say anything he wants and the consequences will be minimal in his world. The rest of his supporters are just piggy backing on his words, thankful that this guy is 'telling it like it is' by putting 'those people' in their rightful place, and making America 'great again'.
What is so sad is that although many white americans dislike Trump, they cannot bring themselves to admit exactly why they dislike him: It has everything to do with playing on race and the fear of non-whites (i.e: non-european, foreign born people). To admit this is to admit that Institutional Racism is still alive and well in the US of A.
Trump is the mouthpiece poster-boy of everything that a vast majority of whites in this country are thinking.....on only difference between the vast majority and Trump is that Trump is a billionaire.....He can basically say anything he wants and the consequences will be minimal in his world. The rest of his supporters are just piggy backing on his words, thankful that this guy is 'telling it like it is' by putting 'those people' in their rightful place, and making America 'great again'.
3
I've thought as well that the coolness of the Obama administration has provoked a terrible backlash without any redeeming qualities...like intelligence, heart, and something that is just knee jerk reaction.
If Trump's stunning comment that if he shot someone in the middle of a road (paraphrasing) he'd still have his fans supporting him didn't cause even minimal disgust, then I don't know what will.
If Trump's stunning comment that if he shot someone in the middle of a road (paraphrasing) he'd still have his fans supporting him didn't cause even minimal disgust, then I don't know what will.
6
It should be clear that Trumps candidacy is built on the enormous media attention he gets, which, in turn, is built on being the biggest clown in show. Don't you think he understands that saying outrageous things is the key to a ton of free publicity? If you want to derail him stop talking about him.
7
The writer admits his first analysis of D Trump's primary run was inaccurate. Now, based on polling data, he has concocted a second analysis.
Polling data is not the same as voting data. I suggest the writer rework his analysis...again. Eventually mr Trump will be revealed to be totally unqualified to be President.
Polling data is not the same as voting data. I suggest the writer rework his analysis...again. Eventually mr Trump will be revealed to be totally unqualified to be President.
The absurd, infantile, dumb expectation that the President will FIX EVERYTHING never ceases to amaze, frighten and infuriate me!
8
If Obama stood out from the pack, because he was against war from the beginning, it sure didn’t end that way. Mr.Bernie Sanders was also against it, from the beginning. The public still craves an end to it. Mr.Trump may be Mr.Obama’s antithesis in temperament, but Bernie Sanders is the only remaining antithesis to them on war. I think Mr.Sanders should stop defending himself for not prosecuting this war, but go on the offensive to show that he can make peace without it.
3
Despite his reasoned argument to the contrary, Mr. Alexrod forgets all the variables (stock market downturn, unemployment increasing terrorist acts) that could catapult Donald Trump into the White House should he win the nomination. Mr. Trump truly makes me fear for my nation.
4
Mr. Trump captures the angst of the working class accurately. They are disguested with job-sucking globalization and threated by liberal social policies and immigration. If he had channeled that anger without being offensive, he would be the runaway favorite to be President.
8
Mr. Axelrod watches too much TV and drinks too much Kool-aid!
3
I believe that Trump, like Herman Cain before him, was just trying to get publicity.
In Cain's case, he was on a book tour and it turned into a dynamic 15 minutes of fame (so to speak). Trump might well have been auditioning for a new reality show bigger (or at least with as much hype) than Caitlin Jenner's.
Cain used script from the Pokémon movie to evoke inspiration; Trump uses trash talk against minorities to fan hatred.
In either case, "There is no there there." (Gretrude Stein, 2/3/1874).
In Cain's case, he was on a book tour and it turned into a dynamic 15 minutes of fame (so to speak). Trump might well have been auditioning for a new reality show bigger (or at least with as much hype) than Caitlin Jenner's.
Cain used script from the Pokémon movie to evoke inspiration; Trump uses trash talk against minorities to fan hatred.
In either case, "There is no there there." (Gretrude Stein, 2/3/1874).
4
They said Reagan would never be elected, too.
27
Of course this is Obama's fault. What isn't?
4
This is all so simple. Let me lay it out for you:
The pendulum is swinging Trump's way now in the same manner that the pendulum swung President Obama's way back in 2008.
President Obama won election because George W. Bush messed things up so bad that this racist country actually voted for a black man.
In 2016, things aren't much different. Trump's appeal is because a black man actually became president and this racist country can't stand it.
If President Obama was the antithesis of President George W., then Trump is nothing more than the antithesis of President Obama.
Like I said, it all makes perfect sense when you think about it...
The pendulum is swinging Trump's way now in the same manner that the pendulum swung President Obama's way back in 2008.
President Obama won election because George W. Bush messed things up so bad that this racist country actually voted for a black man.
In 2016, things aren't much different. Trump's appeal is because a black man actually became president and this racist country can't stand it.
If President Obama was the antithesis of President George W., then Trump is nothing more than the antithesis of President Obama.
Like I said, it all makes perfect sense when you think about it...
1
An ongoing joke on US citizens is that Trump and most of the other candidates represent those who gutted the middle class by sending jobs overseas, structured tax havens and exemptions for the super-rich while maintaining the tax burden on middle class working citizens and accelerating the deterioration of her education and infrastructure systems by obstructive politics.
10
Like the play Ubu Roi where a thug cadre stokes the populace into a terrified desperation for a strong man - a poltical protection/extortion scam - Trump and his fellow Republican candidates is leveraging fear. It is an old strategy.
Obama promised a return to rationality, smart action vs dumb & disasterous belligerence.
How sad the pendulum swings back to that so quickly.
Obama promised a return to rationality, smart action vs dumb & disasterous belligerence.
How sad the pendulum swings back to that so quickly.
7
Mr. Axelrod, you "missed it" because you presumably did not lose your job at a steel mill whose blast furnaces were shipped to South America; you are not stuck in a housekeeping job at a local motel working for minimum wage because the labor supply of illegal immigrants holds wages down; and you do not feel marginalized as taxpaying American citizen who has played by the rules.
In short, you missed it because you never lived through what most Trump supporters are mad about. Lucky you.
In short, you missed it because you never lived through what most Trump supporters are mad about. Lucky you.
12
This theory has interesting implications for Hillary Clinton whose latest incarnation (after the "I'm a hippie like Bernie" game fell flat) is to pretend she's Obama in a pantsuit.
24
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and thought process Mr Axelrod. Its fascinating to get a peek at the motivating thought process behind President Obama's candidacy & administration. It reminds me of what a great candidate, president and person Obama is, and how lucky we are to have had his services in office.
Missing though in your analysis of this primary season, is any mention of what appears to be an absolutely symmetric dynamic between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the democratic side.
Does not Bernie's urgent call for 'political revolution' not provide the more stark contrast to Obama's demeanor, then Hillary's calm, quiet, 'go along to get along' competence?
Obama was the master of compromise, even when compromise was scarcely in sight, and non-existent from the GOP - who actively and openly sought to undermine Obama at every opportunity. Obama worked brilliantly, albeit within the confines of the establishment.
But this election cycle, I believe, the establishment wall of unity has finally cracked. People don't believe in political discourse anymore, because no one believes it is anything other than mouthing the positions of political donors & benefactors, rigging the economy, law & policy in their favor, for pennies on the dollar.
The establishment is corrupt. And the public is turning away from establishment candidates. Its not that people are angry. Its that they no longer believe in the corrupt political shell game.
I am ready for president Sanders.
Missing though in your analysis of this primary season, is any mention of what appears to be an absolutely symmetric dynamic between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the democratic side.
Does not Bernie's urgent call for 'political revolution' not provide the more stark contrast to Obama's demeanor, then Hillary's calm, quiet, 'go along to get along' competence?
Obama was the master of compromise, even when compromise was scarcely in sight, and non-existent from the GOP - who actively and openly sought to undermine Obama at every opportunity. Obama worked brilliantly, albeit within the confines of the establishment.
But this election cycle, I believe, the establishment wall of unity has finally cracked. People don't believe in political discourse anymore, because no one believes it is anything other than mouthing the positions of political donors & benefactors, rigging the economy, law & policy in their favor, for pennies on the dollar.
The establishment is corrupt. And the public is turning away from establishment candidates. Its not that people are angry. Its that they no longer believe in the corrupt political shell game.
I am ready for president Sanders.
5
Just a guess, but I recall footage from the annual press gallery dinner and President Obama and others laughing at Trump. My guess is that at that time he said to himself, "I will take that job, if I can." I would have thought the same. No special preference on my part, except possibly Saunders v. Trump, since the "establishment" has abused "we the people" basically since Nixon at the gain of large corporagtions (as opposed to big government, the official brainless Fox mantra).
1
Trump's candidacy is like Obama's in more direct ways than David Axelrod describes. He's a messiah figure who allows information-light, angry and desperate voters to project on him their fears, aspirations, and whatever policy positions they want to scry for him. The Obama coalition was one part far-left true believers and several parts aspirational well-wishers hoping he'd be a transformational, pragmatic problem-solver. The difference between "make America great" and "hope and change" is that with Obama, the middle was duped, while the far left got an ideologue who fairly represented their interests and mentality. Trump will do no such thing with conservatives. In his case, the right is being duped into believing he'll turn his back on crony capitalism and the allure of power and big spending.
It seems to me that in the current polarized political landscape, Americans are searching for the best way in which to express their contempt for each other. The left by trying to assert ever more fascistic control over Americans' private lives, speech and even thought, and the right with the rise of libertarianism (a constitutional right to say "screw you all"). Trump is the last gasp of right-wing authoritarianism which lost the culture wars and bankrupted us in actual wars. I'm afraid I don't see a sane way forward here on either side.
It seems to me that in the current polarized political landscape, Americans are searching for the best way in which to express their contempt for each other. The left by trying to assert ever more fascistic control over Americans' private lives, speech and even thought, and the right with the rise of libertarianism (a constitutional right to say "screw you all"). Trump is the last gasp of right-wing authoritarianism which lost the culture wars and bankrupted us in actual wars. I'm afraid I don't see a sane way forward here on either side.
2
May God bless America and all of the the adults in the room.
Last night I caught a C-Span re-run and watched Donald Trump speak in Iowa on Sunday afternoon in high school gym for about an hour.
It was a rambling boasting of "our poll numbers," denigration of Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush and a recount of the billions of dollars the Iranians will get released for meeting a step in the nuclear agreement. He talked about the sailors who had been held captive and the anchor babies who America will have to support for the next 90 years.
There was a gaggle of supporters near the podium waving the Trump signs in what seemed like on cue, and there were enthusiastic attendees clapping or nodding in agreement and those who seemed perplexed by what they heard and saw. One attendee waved a large white sheet saying "Halt Hate" and he was ushered out.
What was my takeaway?
There were two.
First Donald Trump has upset the GOP presidential candidate apple cart in such a way that no one of the candidates has been able to establish a plausible audible platform.
Second, the Iowa electorate that Donald Trump and his fellow candidates seek are in no way, shape, or form informed, nor do they have the judgement skills needed to pick a chief commander for our country and world.
This is colossal GOP blunder. They do it every campaign. And it's because the Mitch McConnell game plan which the GOP has been working with for 20 years is simply wrong for America. Use the Donald Trump s word for it.
Last night I caught a C-Span re-run and watched Donald Trump speak in Iowa on Sunday afternoon in high school gym for about an hour.
It was a rambling boasting of "our poll numbers," denigration of Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush and a recount of the billions of dollars the Iranians will get released for meeting a step in the nuclear agreement. He talked about the sailors who had been held captive and the anchor babies who America will have to support for the next 90 years.
There was a gaggle of supporters near the podium waving the Trump signs in what seemed like on cue, and there were enthusiastic attendees clapping or nodding in agreement and those who seemed perplexed by what they heard and saw. One attendee waved a large white sheet saying "Halt Hate" and he was ushered out.
What was my takeaway?
There were two.
First Donald Trump has upset the GOP presidential candidate apple cart in such a way that no one of the candidates has been able to establish a plausible audible platform.
Second, the Iowa electorate that Donald Trump and his fellow candidates seek are in no way, shape, or form informed, nor do they have the judgement skills needed to pick a chief commander for our country and world.
This is colossal GOP blunder. They do it every campaign. And it's because the Mitch McConnell game plan which the GOP has been working with for 20 years is simply wrong for America. Use the Donald Trump s word for it.
3
Well surprise, surprise, surprise David Axelrod has woken up from a long hibernation of denial. No doubt just in time to join the Cult of Hillary Clinton, who is next on Donald Trump's hit list.
This week the elite of the political class are waking up and realizing that American People are not going to tolerate their failure and selling out to the big banks, the rich billionaires, and international globalization any more. The establishment political class and their cronies in the establishment media have completely failed the people.
It is no wonder that people of a conservative bent are turning to Donald Trump as a broom to clean out our corrupt and morally bankrupt government. However, Donald Trump is not a real solution to the nation's ills. He is part of the government for sale system, and is just an end user of corrupt politicians who is trying to save money by cutting out the middlemen.
Bernie Sanders however wants to throw the rascals out of office and remake government into a socialism that protects the people instead of the current socialism that exists to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Bernie Sanders is the candidate that will make America Great Again. Donald Trump is just a final symptom of a corrupt disenfranchisement of the American People. Bernie Sanders is the start, just the start, of a cure.
This week the elite of the political class are waking up and realizing that American People are not going to tolerate their failure and selling out to the big banks, the rich billionaires, and international globalization any more. The establishment political class and their cronies in the establishment media have completely failed the people.
It is no wonder that people of a conservative bent are turning to Donald Trump as a broom to clean out our corrupt and morally bankrupt government. However, Donald Trump is not a real solution to the nation's ills. He is part of the government for sale system, and is just an end user of corrupt politicians who is trying to save money by cutting out the middlemen.
Bernie Sanders however wants to throw the rascals out of office and remake government into a socialism that protects the people instead of the current socialism that exists to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Bernie Sanders is the candidate that will make America Great Again. Donald Trump is just a final symptom of a corrupt disenfranchisement of the American People. Bernie Sanders is the start, just the start, of a cure.
2
Great analysis. Trump won't win a single primary. The polls are, once again, misleading. Trump hasn't been 'legitimized' by the media. His nonsense helps sell their product. Most Americans understand that. Trump won't win a single primary. It's fun to watch the spectacle but that won't translate into votes from all but the most gullible and careless. Meantime most of us are concerned about the loss of a thoughtful oposition party, which may be the most detrimental to the health of our nation.
1
Nice work, Mr. Axelrod. I agree with all points.
I do want to comment on something that bothers me, though. Can Democrats stop taking credit for gay rights? This was a social issue much before it was a political one. I'd argue that Obama and the Clintons were pretty mute on the subject until their hands were forced. If you want any large organization to get credit for advancing gay rights it's probably television companies.
I do want to comment on something that bothers me, though. Can Democrats stop taking credit for gay rights? This was a social issue much before it was a political one. I'd argue that Obama and the Clintons were pretty mute on the subject until their hands were forced. If you want any large organization to get credit for advancing gay rights it's probably television companies.
3
Another column explaining Trump's appeal that focuses on his bombastic style rather than immigration, the issue that made him. I voted for Obama twice and much prefer his personality to Trump's. But when Obama said that he was going to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens because Congress wouldn't, I became a single-issue voter.
Donald Trump is the only candidate in either party who has said that a) the US, like all countries, has a right to decide who enters its territory, b) that those who do so in violation of our laws should not be granted the most valuable status in the world, US citizen, merely because we've been too lax to find and deport them, and c) that uneducated, unskilled Mexicans are probably not the best choice for new citizens in a post-industrial economy. Given the overwhelming consensus among Democrats and mainstream Republicans for open borders, it's not coincidental that only a boor like Trump could publicly disagree. For people like David Axelrod (or Jeb! "they come out of an act of love" Bush) pointing out that unrestricted illegal (or legal, for that matter) immigration is not in the interests of the vast majority of Americans constitutes a "nativist rant." Even Bernie Sanders, who last summer said that open borders was "a Koch brothers proposal," has switched in the pursuit of Hispanic votes to embracing a tide that will swamp America's environment, economy, and culture.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
Donald Trump is the only candidate in either party who has said that a) the US, like all countries, has a right to decide who enters its territory, b) that those who do so in violation of our laws should not be granted the most valuable status in the world, US citizen, merely because we've been too lax to find and deport them, and c) that uneducated, unskilled Mexicans are probably not the best choice for new citizens in a post-industrial economy. Given the overwhelming consensus among Democrats and mainstream Republicans for open borders, it's not coincidental that only a boor like Trump could publicly disagree. For people like David Axelrod (or Jeb! "they come out of an act of love" Bush) pointing out that unrestricted illegal (or legal, for that matter) immigration is not in the interests of the vast majority of Americans constitutes a "nativist rant." Even Bernie Sanders, who last summer said that open borders was "a Koch brothers proposal," has switched in the pursuit of Hispanic votes to embracing a tide that will swamp America's environment, economy, and culture.
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation
12
I don't think any rational person can deny that, in the sense that Obama has been destroying America, portraying it as progressive transformation, the president set conditions for a national reaction of the Trump type.
By the way, Fyodor Dostoevsky warned, in The Brother Kramazov, of the danger of "progressive transformation" fifty years before the Boshevik revolution.
By the way, Fyodor Dostoevsky warned, in The Brother Kramazov, of the danger of "progressive transformation" fifty years before the Boshevik revolution.
2
The problem here is not Trump, but the political process in America. Why, in heavens name, do we allow Iowa to hold the first race, If it were a state a little bit more representative of the nation at large, say Ohio or Washington State, we would not be dealing with Mr. Trump being in the lead. But because we allow approximately 130,000 Republicans in Iowa the privilege of being first, this is what we get.
We even recognize that past winners of Iowa go on to lose BIG time and are entirely forgotten, yet we persist in giving this infinitesimal conservative state pride of place in our political process. Does all of this and the attendant nonsense attached really serve the nation? Isn't it about the time to change this and if not, why not? The political parties have an obligation to serve the nation at large, not the just egos of the most non-electable right wing idiots!
We even recognize that past winners of Iowa go on to lose BIG time and are entirely forgotten, yet we persist in giving this infinitesimal conservative state pride of place in our political process. Does all of this and the attendant nonsense attached really serve the nation? Isn't it about the time to change this and if not, why not? The political parties have an obligation to serve the nation at large, not the just egos of the most non-electable right wing idiots!
4
My naive and foolish friend. Trump is a plant, a false-op, working for the Clinton campaign. The plan was to insure her election to presidency by having the Republicans nominate a candidate she could easily defeat. Alas, she may have outsmarted herself, people are beginning to realize that even Bernie Sanders could beat Trump.
1
Reading the Most Recommended comments, I'm disappointed that none seems to address the substance of Axelrod's column, instead largely limiting themselves to (understandable but irrelevant in this context) trashing of Trump. I would like to see more analysis of the paradigm Axelrod sees and some thought given to implications. Even more important, if Axelrod's take is fundamentally accurate, what do we do to influence the outcome rather than just complain.
39
I grew up two miles from Trump in Queens. I met him face to face in an
elevator about thirty years ago, not in Queens but in midtown Manhattan.
There he was, the unmistakable figure of the even then legendary Donald Trump, builder of the magnificent Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. I knew Trump then as a sort of modern New York folk hero, no kidding. When the city was on the verge of bankruptcy and national pundits were announcing its death as a great city, there was a brash innovative young man who did just the opposite, he built his tower and a number of other notable projects spearheading the revitalization of Manhattan under the Koch administration.
At the time I didn't know that 200 illegal Polish construction workers, paid below or at the minimum wage, lived on the site, hired by one of Trump's subcontractors. I wasn't aware of all the quasi or illegal deals that may have been done by Donald Trump the real estate developer. No, I think if you check the history of the Reagan era, Trump was at one point the most admired man in the world among American high school students. That was after Reagan expressed his admiration for the New Yorker.
Trump has the uncanny ability to hold an audience and build a following among a significant plurality of voters. People who form his core constituency don't condemn, his is after all an entertainer.
elevator about thirty years ago, not in Queens but in midtown Manhattan.
There he was, the unmistakable figure of the even then legendary Donald Trump, builder of the magnificent Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue. I knew Trump then as a sort of modern New York folk hero, no kidding. When the city was on the verge of bankruptcy and national pundits were announcing its death as a great city, there was a brash innovative young man who did just the opposite, he built his tower and a number of other notable projects spearheading the revitalization of Manhattan under the Koch administration.
At the time I didn't know that 200 illegal Polish construction workers, paid below or at the minimum wage, lived on the site, hired by one of Trump's subcontractors. I wasn't aware of all the quasi or illegal deals that may have been done by Donald Trump the real estate developer. No, I think if you check the history of the Reagan era, Trump was at one point the most admired man in the world among American high school students. That was after Reagan expressed his admiration for the New Yorker.
Trump has the uncanny ability to hold an audience and build a following among a significant plurality of voters. People who form his core constituency don't condemn, his is after all an entertainer.
16
The GOP field a la Monty Python, all together, on cue, after being instructed what to do and say by Big Daddy:
"We are ALL individuals!!"
"We are ALL individuals!!"
3
Barack Obama's presidency has been a string of missed opportunities. Most of these, I believe, are a fairly direct result of his calm, professorial, temperament that is sadly out of touch with the times. When your opposition is concerned only with making you a failure, national interest be damned, you have to be willing to raise your voice to denounce them. I think if the Democratic Party had picked Ms. Clinton in 2008 she would have marginalized the Republican Party for 20 years. As is, they control both houses of congress, the Supreme Court, and most state governments. It is frightening that Mr. Axelrod's theory of unhappy voters looking for polar opposites makes very good sense and could lead to a disaster that I once thought impossible.
2
Okay, so we can blame Bush for Obama and Obama for Trump? But it's hard to miss the Axelrod bias here: that somehow the disgruntled voters that elected Obama are somehow more virtuous than the disgruntled voters supporting Trump. That's quite a convenient fiction.
11
"The robust condemnations Mr. Trump has received from media and political elites have only intensified the enthusiasm of his supporters, many of whom feel disdained and forgotten by the very same people who regularly mock and chide their man for his boorishness."
I'd say this perfectly sums up Trump's appeal. And it is the truth. The 20 percent mock/disdain the rest. They can't figure out why people aren't listening to their wisdom and authority.
I'd say this perfectly sums up Trump's appeal. And it is the truth. The 20 percent mock/disdain the rest. They can't figure out why people aren't listening to their wisdom and authority.
4
People who are excited by Donald Trump’s candidacy (or Bernie Sanders for that matter) may want to temper their enthusiasm.
It’s evident from the last seven years that no president can pass legislation unless he or she has the support of 218 Representatives and 60 Senators. If not, they can be obstructed at every turn.
As Mr. Trump is to the extreme right of President Obama, and Mr. Sanders is to the extreme left, how likely is it that either will be able to convince a majority of congress to approve ANY of their initiatives, no matter how wonderful they may sound now?
It’s evident from the last seven years that no president can pass legislation unless he or she has the support of 218 Representatives and 60 Senators. If not, they can be obstructed at every turn.
As Mr. Trump is to the extreme right of President Obama, and Mr. Sanders is to the extreme left, how likely is it that either will be able to convince a majority of congress to approve ANY of their initiatives, no matter how wonderful they may sound now?
47
Mr. Axelrod, thank you for an insightful piece. You missed one key influence that President Obama has had on the Trump ascendancy, however. Obama, via "If you like your plan you can keep it" and "nobody is going to be able to get on a plane and fly to America with Ebola" and "ISIS is contained" has taught us that it is perfectly acceptable to have a cynical liar in the White House.
8
What a foolish, nonsensical statement. President Obama is far from perfect, but he has to be the most reasonable, straightforward and honest president in a long, long time. And Donald Trump isn't cynical or dishonest?
5
Mr. Axelrod posits that "open seat presidential elections are shaped by perceptions of the style and personality of the outgoing incumbent. Voters rarely seek the replica of what they have"
While his thesis may once have been true, it doesn't necessarily hold now. My sense is that Kennedy, Carter, Bush, and Obama won their elections because they received a crossover vote. In the case of Mr. Trump, I doubt that a reasonable Democrat will vote for him---nor for that matter, a rational Republican.
While his thesis may once have been true, it doesn't necessarily hold now. My sense is that Kennedy, Carter, Bush, and Obama won their elections because they received a crossover vote. In the case of Mr. Trump, I doubt that a reasonable Democrat will vote for him---nor for that matter, a rational Republican.
4
Good analysis, but two questions:
1.How does he explain the electorate moving from charismatic Clinton, to charismatic, compassionate [conservative] candidate W? Wouldn't technocratic, charismatic-less Gore been the logical remedy after Clinton? Oh wait, he did win, and SCOTUS stopped the FL recount.
2.Wouldn't Sanders be an equally plausible remedy to Obama? Rabble-rouser, hot not cool, very anti-President [not candidate] Obama in his approach? Sanders vs. Trump is an intriguing choice between Axelrod remedies, while Hillary is no remedy at all.
1.How does he explain the electorate moving from charismatic Clinton, to charismatic, compassionate [conservative] candidate W? Wouldn't technocratic, charismatic-less Gore been the logical remedy after Clinton? Oh wait, he did win, and SCOTUS stopped the FL recount.
2.Wouldn't Sanders be an equally plausible remedy to Obama? Rabble-rouser, hot not cool, very anti-President [not candidate] Obama in his approach? Sanders vs. Trump is an intriguing choice between Axelrod remedies, while Hillary is no remedy at all.
2
In a very different way Sanders and Trump have one thing in common that people like. They are not politically correct and speak their mind (like the common person). Many are tired of the careful phrasing and backtracking, the many strategies to shift according to polls (that nobody remembers being included in).
I would agree that is about the only thing they have in common.
Bernie for President!
I would agree that is about the only thing they have in common.
Bernie for President!
10
Very intresting analysis by Mr Axelrod... He looks at the immediate desire by Americans but there is also the long term outlook...ie...there are periods of center/left periods to center right periods.....we came out of a center/right period in 2008 with Obama.
History would suggest a center left person will win 2016...maybe Hillary, maybe a agreed upon establishment candidate like Kasick,Cristie etc. or who knows Trump is a demagog but his history shows he is center/left.
Time will tell...
History would suggest a center left person will win 2016...maybe Hillary, maybe a agreed upon establishment candidate like Kasick,Cristie etc. or who knows Trump is a demagog but his history shows he is center/left.
Time will tell...
2
Axlerod didn't say it outright, but he was close. Trump didn't create the anger voters feel, he merely correctly detected that anger.
Voters have rewarded the EGOP with unprecedented Congressional victories and have gotten what exactly in return? Zippo, natta, bupkiss. For the EGOP to expect that voters will be swayed by Trump's lack of conservative bodnafies don't get that they don't care.
Trump may not take the nomination, but if not him, it will be Cruz. JEB! et al have zero chance.
Voters have rewarded the EGOP with unprecedented Congressional victories and have gotten what exactly in return? Zippo, natta, bupkiss. For the EGOP to expect that voters will be swayed by Trump's lack of conservative bodnafies don't get that they don't care.
Trump may not take the nomination, but if not him, it will be Cruz. JEB! et al have zero chance.
1
The only people who are surprised by Donald Trump's success are those who have assumed that most white people aren't racist and most white men in particular aren't misogynists. Guess what, they are. Trump's base is self-centered, racist and misogynistic white men that are petrified that their automatic privilege card is being revoked. Trump tells them exactly what they want to hear and addresses the issues that scare them to death. "Making America Great Again" is just code for "Returning Power in All Things to White Men".
39
Trump is merely saying out loud what the Republicans have been saying for decades in coded language. Just look back to the Southern Strategy and Reagan's "welfare queens", they are based in racism. His supporters love him because he no longer hides the rampant racism and xenophobia of the Republican party. In some ways, it is refreshing to see that they are no longer hiding because it is easier to directly confront racism and extremism when it is out in the open. In other ways it is a sad day for America when the racists again feel like they can be back out in the open and accepted.
18
I and many here agree with you.
And it is amazing that no one in the media says that.
But we all know the likes of Karl Rove and the rest know they created this Frankenstein and they don’t know what to do.
It would be funny if it weren’t the future of the country at stake.
And it is amazing that no one in the media says that.
But we all know the likes of Karl Rove and the rest know they created this Frankenstein and they don’t know what to do.
It would be funny if it weren’t the future of the country at stake.
2
When the analysts finish examining the goat entrails, it will still be all about the base. And the base would have been against Obama regardless of his "style." Let them rant, rave and act like the children they are, when the dust settles, the Republican base will succeed only if the left fails to get out the vote.
8
I hope you're right. I fear you're not.
1
There is also what I'll call the sense of "post 9/11 impotence" that is driving much of today's political thinking and whose adherents measure the strength and ultimate success of the United States by the number of, for lack of a better expression, asses we kick. It's what ultimately made it so easy for George Bush to get the green light to invade Iraq. It's what is driving the reckless willingness of Mr. Trump and others to capriciously place US lives at risk by leading their foreign policy aims with talk of widespread and unrealistic military interventions. It's what is allowing the capricious messaging of the GOP field leaders to resonate with no consideration being given to the damage that will ultimately result from such carelessness. We are becoming a nation whose policy is being driven by an obsessive need to prove, in any way possible, that we're still the strongest kid in the schoolyard. A clever politicial candidate would figure out a way to demonstrate this in a positive way. Unfortunately, clever candidates are presently in gravely short supply and our voters are increasingly driven by emotion, rather than reason.
3
It's not 9/11 that is driving this. It is the Great Recession, where normal American housholds lost 50% of their assets, and more dangerous, their loss of belief in their opportunites for decent jobs and wages.
Many of them no longer believe that their futures are in their own hands, so some of them are willing to go to someone who says that HE can fix up their futures, since he is in a postion of power that they no loger believe is possible for them.
1. He attacks a 'dispised minority (now he has two).
2. He tell enormous lies, and doesn't go back when they are exposed.
3. He rants and raves in a most unpolitic manner.
4. He says your economic problems are due to someone else (fairly true).
Just like Hitler.
Many of them no longer believe that their futures are in their own hands, so some of them are willing to go to someone who says that HE can fix up their futures, since he is in a postion of power that they no loger believe is possible for them.
1. He attacks a 'dispised minority (now he has two).
2. He tell enormous lies, and doesn't go back when they are exposed.
3. He rants and raves in a most unpolitic manner.
4. He says your economic problems are due to someone else (fairly true).
Just like Hitler.
1
I think you're wrong here. The people who support Trump are a tiny portion of America. They amount to only about 8% of voters. They are almost all bigots and racists. All the evidence still points to a backlash against the black man in the White House. The majority of Americans will not let him in the White House.
Don't get me wrong. I think your theory has merit in normal elections. It's just that Trump (sorry) trumps your rule along with all the others.
What we've underestimated is the reaction of the minority who fears and hates non-whites. Especially blacks. It's their fear that drives this and Trump didn't underestimate it.
Don't get me wrong. I think your theory has merit in normal elections. It's just that Trump (sorry) trumps your rule along with all the others.
What we've underestimated is the reaction of the minority who fears and hates non-whites. Especially blacks. It's their fear that drives this and Trump didn't underestimate it.
4
"Asked to write a strategic memo..." Reminds me of the phrase the less you know the smarter you are. People do not simply vote for what is the most different. They vote for what the Country and the people need. In BHO it was race relations and give a chance to the underdog because he probably understands us best. Guess what, that failed miserably -- average HH income dropped 6.5% during his time in office so far and that excludes the impact of inflation. What we got was someone with experience as a Community Organizer that was woefully inexperienced in leadership and the economy. Now what the US needs is someone to clean up the mess of record historic deficit spending, out of control immigration, unsecured borders, and the threat of terrorism. A politician cannot do that. We need someone with tremendous business experience in controls, budgeting, and managing P&L's. Those in denial that think of the government as their Parents do not understand and will not understand. Those that know the government works for the people will vote and carry the day.
7
oh stop it please with the we need experienced business leaders claptrap! This is almost as nonsensical as your anti-Obama diatribe. Obama inherited the worst economy since the 30's with massive tax cuts strangling any kind of stimulus and forcing huge deficit spending, and you are going to blame his stewardship of the economy for this? The Republican austerity programs that were shoved down our throats, along with the even stupider EU austerity programs, have hamstrung any real hope for a recovery. And you blame Obama for the incredibly steep drop in State and local spending pushed by Republicans to kill the unions and government in general?
Anything you need to know about business leaders is on display in Flint, MI. There is plenty I don't like about what has happened over the last 7 years but at least pretend to try to take cause and effect into account.
Anything you need to know about business leaders is on display in Flint, MI. There is plenty I don't like about what has happened over the last 7 years but at least pretend to try to take cause and effect into account.
2
Well, actually you do have a point: the incomes of the people who would likely support Donald Trump have dropped....for reasons that don't have anything to do with government
Their fortunes have declined because they were and remain ill equipped to deal with a changing economy: lack of STEM skills, residing in a part of the country that has been stagnant for more than two decades, focusing on "controlling one's beliefs and behaviors" instead of "developing intellect and skills" so when business and commerce changed to heavily require STEM type skills, these unfortunate individuals were left behind and they are angry, and of course very naive
They are naive to the following:
1) Donald Trump does NOT care about middle class, working class and for that matter, anything but his own interest. Look at his history: all he has done, built, and created serves his interest or the interests of the very wealthy.
If he is elected, his supporters lives won't change....
2) I suppose decreasing the deficit may have some effect on taxation but, again, the benefits will still be gleaned mostly by the wealthy and very wealthy. Decreasing inheritance taxes and capital gain taxation will not really benefit the majority of Trump supporters if they dont have any money!
Their fortunes have declined because they were and remain ill equipped to deal with a changing economy: lack of STEM skills, residing in a part of the country that has been stagnant for more than two decades, focusing on "controlling one's beliefs and behaviors" instead of "developing intellect and skills" so when business and commerce changed to heavily require STEM type skills, these unfortunate individuals were left behind and they are angry, and of course very naive
They are naive to the following:
1) Donald Trump does NOT care about middle class, working class and for that matter, anything but his own interest. Look at his history: all he has done, built, and created serves his interest or the interests of the very wealthy.
If he is elected, his supporters lives won't change....
2) I suppose decreasing the deficit may have some effect on taxation but, again, the benefits will still be gleaned mostly by the wealthy and very wealthy. Decreasing inheritance taxes and capital gain taxation will not really benefit the majority of Trump supporters if they dont have any money!
1
This analysis omits that Obama is black and Trump was the most prominent birther and is campaigning as a racist (or anti-political-correctness-candor, if you believe that).
This campaign is the other shoe falling on Trump's birther nonsense. Trump was waiting for this. He isn't really a conservative, and when Jeb! tried to point that out, it had zero effect on Trump's support. Trump made himself one of them with his racism. He knows it, and that's what his gross shoot someone comment means.
This campaign is the other shoe falling on Trump's birther nonsense. Trump was waiting for this. He isn't really a conservative, and when Jeb! tried to point that out, it had zero effect on Trump's support. Trump made himself one of them with his racism. He knows it, and that's what his gross shoot someone comment means.
4
As Mr Axelrod knows, his analysis misses half of the equation. Political analyses should examine the strengths and weaknesses of the various possible match-ups. The relevant outcome is always dependent on whom he or she is running against, as well as the current temperament of the voters.
And if Mr. Axelrod's theory were correct, how would you explain a president winning a second term?
And if Mr. Axelrod's theory were correct, how would you explain a president winning a second term?
2
"Yes, I can!" That is the perfect summation of the Trump candidacy.
1
As you say voters reach for the "remedy" to the previous presidency. As Obama presidency winds down, that remedy is perceived very differently by many parts of the electorate. The remedy I will be voting for is the candidate who is most likely to fix the current impass in the house and senate. What kind of policy is it to obstruct everything put on the table by Democrats. Politicians who treat politics like a game of winners and losers rather than elected officials that are expected to be informed, participate in debate and "negotiate" bring us all down. There is no honesty in a politician whose point of view is simply" I am against whatever there for". This is very bad for the country. Maybe the only solution is to move away from the two party system.
3
Trump's frontrunner position speaks to the power of celebrity in a crowded field. With 12-13 candidates, why won't the face that the public already knows get the most 'votes'.
If his GOP opponents had been able to show some discipline, they would see this and do something to whittle down the field. Choose straws; play Rock, Paper, Scissors; Eeny Meeny Miny Mo....Who cares? But they can't, they've done the same analysis and think THEY can be the one to replace a (more or less) popular president.
The fact that so many Americans are willing to back an arrogant no-nothing who has no domestic policy experience, no foreign policy experience, scant knowledge of the strategic defense posture of the nation and claims to get things done...Getting legislation passes IS NOT the same as executive fiat(!)...is scary to me. How did so many people get out of high school with no knowledge of how their government works.
If his GOP opponents had been able to show some discipline, they would see this and do something to whittle down the field. Choose straws; play Rock, Paper, Scissors; Eeny Meeny Miny Mo....Who cares? But they can't, they've done the same analysis and think THEY can be the one to replace a (more or less) popular president.
The fact that so many Americans are willing to back an arrogant no-nothing who has no domestic policy experience, no foreign policy experience, scant knowledge of the strategic defense posture of the nation and claims to get things done...Getting legislation passes IS NOT the same as executive fiat(!)...is scary to me. How did so many people get out of high school with no knowledge of how their government works.
6
There's a term what Mr. Trump is: The Ugly American. And the rest of the world notices. So let's stop pretending to be the exemplar for how other countries should do things and subtract one word from our vocabulary: exceptionalism.
8
An interesting analysis, but unlike Obama, I can't see that Trump's anger-based candidacy will hold much appeal for the large number of independents in the general electorate.
Much of the success of Trump is simply due to the narrowing of the GOP electoral base (the suburban and Main Street moderates have all left the party). It will be interesting to see how Trump makes the pivot from the primary to the general election.
Much of the success of Trump is simply due to the narrowing of the GOP electoral base (the suburban and Main Street moderates have all left the party). It will be interesting to see how Trump makes the pivot from the primary to the general election.
We all made the same mistake about Trump because we all missed the visceral intensity of America’s impatience with the establishment’s – both sides -- inability to play together well enough to advance. He appeals to those who have given up on visions and experience … just wanting to see a strong man impose his will, so long as it gets us SOMEWHERE.
We hadn’t realized how low we’d sunk.
But Mr. Axelrod’s offering today is that the characteristics of an outgoing president shape what the electorate looks for in a replacement? And that what they look for is something opposed to what will be replaced?
This is insight? Of COURSE Trump’s “the perfect counterpoint to a president whose preternatural cool and deliberate nature drive his critics mad”. But President Obama’s critics would be less numerous and less compelling if his “deliberate nature” resulted in decisions that worked. What actually happens is that he consumes geological ages making a decision, then is more likely to get it wrong as get it right. Trump decides matters quickly, applies irresistible force to successfully imposing his views, and when the method is questioned merely smiles and points to his stack of gold coins as proof of effectiveness.
What’s more, it’s only in manner that Trump is the anti-Obama. On reviewing Trump’s published positions, he could as easily run as a moderate Democrat with some issues as a moderate Republican with some issues. A lot of what Obama defends Trump would defend, as well.
We hadn’t realized how low we’d sunk.
But Mr. Axelrod’s offering today is that the characteristics of an outgoing president shape what the electorate looks for in a replacement? And that what they look for is something opposed to what will be replaced?
This is insight? Of COURSE Trump’s “the perfect counterpoint to a president whose preternatural cool and deliberate nature drive his critics mad”. But President Obama’s critics would be less numerous and less compelling if his “deliberate nature” resulted in decisions that worked. What actually happens is that he consumes geological ages making a decision, then is more likely to get it wrong as get it right. Trump decides matters quickly, applies irresistible force to successfully imposing his views, and when the method is questioned merely smiles and points to his stack of gold coins as proof of effectiveness.
What’s more, it’s only in manner that Trump is the anti-Obama. On reviewing Trump’s published positions, he could as easily run as a moderate Democrat with some issues as a moderate Republican with some issues. A lot of what Obama defends Trump would defend, as well.
7
Ayeeah, c'mon Dick - your comment is nonsense. There is no policy analysis done by Trump supporters. It is Trump's gleeful echoing of their bigotry, coarse and uncouth, that is attracting them because this is what they want!
Your gratuitous Obama bashing - saying that his political opponents would be fewer if his ideas worked better - is just you supposedly "reasonable" conservatives twisting yourselves around to find another explanation for it because after all, these ignoramuses couldn't POSSIBLY be real Republicans. Well guess what; they are, and they have been courted by Repugnant-cans for 2 generations. You wanted 'em, you can have 'em.
Oh, and what "published Trump positions" are you referring to? The only ones I have seen are where he says, "I will be great at XX; just trust me!" C'mon, man!
Your gratuitous Obama bashing - saying that his political opponents would be fewer if his ideas worked better - is just you supposedly "reasonable" conservatives twisting yourselves around to find another explanation for it because after all, these ignoramuses couldn't POSSIBLY be real Republicans. Well guess what; they are, and they have been courted by Repugnant-cans for 2 generations. You wanted 'em, you can have 'em.
Oh, and what "published Trump positions" are you referring to? The only ones I have seen are where he says, "I will be great at XX; just trust me!" C'mon, man!
The thing that I am reminded of is Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for and subsequent election to the governorship of California. Brash, loud-mouthed, ego-driven Arnold promised that he -- The Terminator -- could break the gridlock that had immobilized the administration of the aptly named Gray Davis. There was even talk of amending the Constitution so that the Austrian-born Schwarzenegger could run for the presidency! Needless to say, none of that happened, and by the time he was done, even his own party was happy to see him go. Californians had learned the hard way that in real life, there are no superheroes.
1
We know exactly how Mr. Trump will react if he loses Iowa or New Hampshire. He'll stand on the pedestal of "'We The People,' not establishment politicians, have decided they don't want me and that's the way it should be in America." Followed by this childlike petulance, "you want a politician, fine, good luck with that. I'll take my ball and go back to being a billionaire."
2
People have finally figured out that Trump is going to win. Their response is to write a bunch of articles about him, guaranteed to solidify his support and give him more free publicity.
Some how they think this will stop him. Silly, silly people.
Some how they think this will stop him. Silly, silly people.
4
Trump is the Kim Kardashian of American politics, although Kim is much more popular -- the most Googled person on the planet! Both are relentless self-promoters backed by elaborate PR machines and proximity to the major TV/print NYC and LA media outlets. They are in fact creations of the media which relies on conflict and outsized personalities to attract viewers/readers and increase advertising revenue. Without Kim or Trump, cable TV would curl up and die. People and Us magazine would go out of business. (I do worry about Melania Trump who at age 45 is at the end of her babe warranty. Isn't it time to trade her in for another 25 year old supermodel?)
Trump also represents the Death Rattle of the Aging White Male who sees that his undisputed position at the top of the food chain of power and influence being threatened by the ascendancy of his former subjects -- women, gays, people of color, immigrants, and now Muslims. Good golly -- these upstarts now attend the military academies and get elected to Congress ... a woman even runs General Motors! They "want my country back" means they want a complete monopoly on power and authority, to be unequivocally in charge all all social institutions and law making entities. Right.
Trump also represents the Death Rattle of the Aging White Male who sees that his undisputed position at the top of the food chain of power and influence being threatened by the ascendancy of his former subjects -- women, gays, people of color, immigrants, and now Muslims. Good golly -- these upstarts now attend the military academies and get elected to Congress ... a woman even runs General Motors! They "want my country back" means they want a complete monopoly on power and authority, to be unequivocally in charge all all social institutions and law making entities. Right.
6
I hope that the New York Times ...as well ....as TV pundits would begin to
realize...
how offended we the people are about your constant coverage of the
REPULSIVE ......Elephant in the Room....aka Donald J. Trump.
Please STOP IT...!!!
realize...
how offended we the people are about your constant coverage of the
REPULSIVE ......Elephant in the Room....aka Donald J. Trump.
Please STOP IT...!!!
2
What bothers me is not that Trump has the support of ~40% of Republicans - given that party's constant courting of the extreme right over several decades that is to be expected. Nevertheless, the polls suggest that a much higher percentage of Republicans utterly detest Trump. So what's really troubling that even his detesters say that, out of party loyalty, they will vote for him in a general election if he's nominated, rather than vote for ANY Democrat. That says a lot about what is wrong with the GOP, and and why we are unable to sustain any kind of bi-partisanship in government.
4
Fact check for you Mr. Axelrod; it’s not just Republican base infuriated by some of Obamas actions.
Here are poll facts from but one Democrat.
Climate change – agree big issue.
Health reform – it costs me more but necessary in one country.
Immigration - #!!@* Let’s recognize borders for heavens sake. 11 million illegal aliens. There are things they (Mexicans) can do for themselves, such as birth control. BTW they do cost taxpayers a fortune.
Gay rights - ##@!! Gays should be and have been free to do what they want for some time. But compelling me to believe that it makes no difference to a child whether they have a mother and a father, belies scientific rational and the religious faith that is a bedrock of building personal relations. If two men choose to take a child away from its biological mother so as to have a ‘true’ family, sorry I can never ever believe that is a good thing.
BTW You left out POLITICAL CORRECTNESS the biggest issue of all wherein people are drummed out of their careers, communities and ostracized in general for expressing the very views presented here. (in fact one can never submit something like this without a real awareness that it might not be printed for expressing the views that it does. Hopefully if you are reading this, it made it. )
Here are poll facts from but one Democrat.
Climate change – agree big issue.
Health reform – it costs me more but necessary in one country.
Immigration - #!!@* Let’s recognize borders for heavens sake. 11 million illegal aliens. There are things they (Mexicans) can do for themselves, such as birth control. BTW they do cost taxpayers a fortune.
Gay rights - ##@!! Gays should be and have been free to do what they want for some time. But compelling me to believe that it makes no difference to a child whether they have a mother and a father, belies scientific rational and the religious faith that is a bedrock of building personal relations. If two men choose to take a child away from its biological mother so as to have a ‘true’ family, sorry I can never ever believe that is a good thing.
BTW You left out POLITICAL CORRECTNESS the biggest issue of all wherein people are drummed out of their careers, communities and ostracized in general for expressing the very views presented here. (in fact one can never submit something like this without a real awareness that it might not be printed for expressing the views that it does. Hopefully if you are reading this, it made it. )
4
What you call political correctness is simply public courtesy extended to those who have been treated derisively or unfairly in the past. Complainers such as you feel cheated that you can't continue to maintain hierarchies through subtle, rhetorical manipulation. At the time, it was considered political correctness that we finally came around to dropping the n word from public discourse. Office banter about women was fun for some insecure men, but almost always hurtful to their female colleagues. Your protestations ring hollow, as someone who is simply disappointed in not being able to exercise the same sort of subtle rhetorical beligerance. My heart does not bleed.
1
What bigoted claptrap! Nobody is "compelling" you to believe anything, and if you think gay people are anything OTHER than EQUAL to straights, well, then that's on you.
1
@ Ben - thanks for illustrating your ignorance so clearly in your comments about Mexicans and gays. Your thoughts are perfectly clear.
I am afraid that a Trump/Palin ticket would be difficult to beat. The GOP has shown over and over that they love candidates who seem are bullies or have a low IQ or both. Palin fits that perfectly and other than business smarts Trump seems dumb as a stick.
And the Dems have shown over and over that they can't beat them.
And the Dems have shown over and over that they can't beat them.
Except that they beat Palin in 2008. I think it would pretty well screw up The Donald's chances of winning if he was dumb enough to take her on again for VP. But maybe this will continue the idea in some quarters that what Trump really wants is a Democrat to win.
I'll take that bet, Axe. And I'll raise you a Cruz and a pair of Rubios.
So far this election cycle, from all I've been able to determine, the polls have focused their laser beams on the Republicans "likely to vote" to the exclusion of almost every other American in the country. So the NRA and the gun-owners are in the Republicans' pocket. Whoopee. I've been in a Cabela's store in the week after a Sandy Hook, a San Bernardino, a Columbine. The percentage of actual voters there, if appearances count for anything, are nothing for the Republican party to crow about. And I'm an old white guy who votes, owns guns and votes liberal.
It's long past time for Gallup and Quinippiac and all the other three or four thousand opinion aggregators out there to remove the pinpoint beam and replace it with the floodlight that reveals the countryside, not just a keyhole sliver of focus that guarantees headlines for the surveyor and reveals almost nothing.
So far this election cycle, from all I've been able to determine, the polls have focused their laser beams on the Republicans "likely to vote" to the exclusion of almost every other American in the country. So the NRA and the gun-owners are in the Republicans' pocket. Whoopee. I've been in a Cabela's store in the week after a Sandy Hook, a San Bernardino, a Columbine. The percentage of actual voters there, if appearances count for anything, are nothing for the Republican party to crow about. And I'm an old white guy who votes, owns guns and votes liberal.
It's long past time for Gallup and Quinippiac and all the other three or four thousand opinion aggregators out there to remove the pinpoint beam and replace it with the floodlight that reveals the countryside, not just a keyhole sliver of focus that guarantees headlines for the surveyor and reveals almost nothing.
2
Let's hope David Axelrod is right about his assessment. Donald Trump may win the GOP nomination if he is lucky. But he will not move into the Oval Office in January 2017, because there are plenty of sensible voters in America. Think what a laughing stock the US would become to have a president like Trump.
He may even be worse than Silvio Berlusconi.
He may even be worse than Silvio Berlusconi.
17
... and I'll not forget that way back when Reagan was 1st elected a woman called me from Portugal and said ".... they're laughing at us". Yes, the laughter's been going on for a long time. Exceptionalism and democracy. Indeed.
I said that, too, a few months ago. But now, I'm not so sure. President Trump --- I shudder.
" Yet a week before caucusing begins in Iowa, he still reigns supreme atop the Republican field."
Which says about Republicans.....?
Which says about Republicans.....?
10
I think Mr. Axelrod and most political pundits have missed what is going on in main stream America. Good paying jobs for the middle class have disappeared. The rich have got richer, the poor and middle class poorer. Pundits point to the unemployment rate as success, yet the real story is the worse worker participation (or lack thereof) in our history. Our manufacturing base has disappeared. People want to work and need cooperation from both the private and public sectors to make this happen. Anger is fueling Mr. Trump campaign as hungry, out of work citizens look for a leader who will put them back to work. Unfortunately the current administration and most of the Republican candidates don't understand what is driving the anger.
22
JJ,
Trump swag is made in China too. The loss of quality jobs is problem that has been inadequately addressed since Reagan fired the air controllers. The latest do-nothingest Congresses have avoided giving stimulus money to main street. Replacing our infrastructure while money is cheap and people need real jobs is a win-win situation. But Congress, including the Tea Party, was too busy making sure that their donors were comfortable.
Trump can't and won't give everybody a good job.
Trump swag is made in China too. The loss of quality jobs is problem that has been inadequately addressed since Reagan fired the air controllers. The latest do-nothingest Congresses have avoided giving stimulus money to main street. Replacing our infrastructure while money is cheap and people need real jobs is a win-win situation. But Congress, including the Tea Party, was too busy making sure that their donors were comfortable.
Trump can't and won't give everybody a good job.
1
In reply to JJ:
Your post starts with a strawman argument. You imply that most political pundits haven't a clue about something that you find obvious. I read many of the articles by these same pundits and most of them say the same things as you do, over and over and over.... I don't understand how you have missed this.
If voters are so concerned about what leader will put them back to work, why is it that virtually all Republican candidates propose massive layoffs of government employees, combined with tax cuts aimed mostly at very wealthy people? Oh, and I note that their proposals have yuuge deficits built in. You may disagree with the specifics of Clinton and Sanders' proposals, but at least they have put out reasonably clear plans aimed at the middle class.
Now of course Trump is a bit vague about his economic proposals. I doubt that building a giant fence around the country and forcing Mexico to pay for part of it is going to generate a lot of new middle-class jobs. But he promises we'll love it when he tells us more detail. I am reminded of the parable about the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion promises not to sting the frog and the frog agrees. Remember that Trump is a billionaire (in theory) and got that way by inheriting vast wealth from his daddy.
One more thing: I think you are confusing the labor participation rate, which is low because people are aging, with the long-term unemployed rate.
Your post starts with a strawman argument. You imply that most political pundits haven't a clue about something that you find obvious. I read many of the articles by these same pundits and most of them say the same things as you do, over and over and over.... I don't understand how you have missed this.
If voters are so concerned about what leader will put them back to work, why is it that virtually all Republican candidates propose massive layoffs of government employees, combined with tax cuts aimed mostly at very wealthy people? Oh, and I note that their proposals have yuuge deficits built in. You may disagree with the specifics of Clinton and Sanders' proposals, but at least they have put out reasonably clear plans aimed at the middle class.
Now of course Trump is a bit vague about his economic proposals. I doubt that building a giant fence around the country and forcing Mexico to pay for part of it is going to generate a lot of new middle-class jobs. But he promises we'll love it when he tells us more detail. I am reminded of the parable about the frog and the scorpion. The scorpion promises not to sting the frog and the frog agrees. Remember that Trump is a billionaire (in theory) and got that way by inheriting vast wealth from his daddy.
One more thing: I think you are confusing the labor participation rate, which is low because people are aging, with the long-term unemployed rate.
1
You're wrong to say the Prez doesn't understand what is driving the anger. He wanted a jobs bill, and got nothing from the Republican controlled congress. He made the mistake of not putting that proposal forward when he had the Dems in control, not that the R's wouldn't have tried to derail that when it came to a vote. A vote for Trump won't change any of this either, and that's something that his supporters don't get.
1
I completely understand and appreciate Mr. Axelrod's analysis of opposition party voters looking for something different than an incumbent, two-term president, but I don't think they're looking for a bloviating strong-man character like Donald Trump. What's apparent at this stage in the election is Trump owns the medias attention. His wealth and ego allow him to say and do whatever he likes, regardless of how well tethered his viewpoint is connected to reality. It's theatre, Trump loves the limelight, and his caustic barbs are irresistible for a 24/7 media environ that's constantly starving for fresh content to shovel. He may be polling well in 2 primary states that constitute less than 5 million people and are 92% or more caucasian, but he'll never survive a general election.
14
steve, I agree, and I want to believe he can't survive a general election. I'm not sure I will if the year continues this way!
Steve,
I m afraid the he could very well survive a general election. There is a huge group of disgruntled people with the way America is heading, Trump appeals at their racism rampages and I am afraid that group is not small at all.
Take those two lost wars, stagnant wages for most of us, threats of terrorism, plunging 401(k) retirement plans, and rampant anxiety — and put all that together with a practiced showman promising restored greatness — and you get the equivalent of a pre-war Germany a kind of Wiemar volatility of this utterly divided America.
On the other hand check the enthusiasm that their opponents are generating... specially in the democratic front, Hilary campaign is almost dormant and generates none or few enthusiasm, Sanders, well too far left to scare most Americans this is an almost A perfect cocktail for a very explosive showdown.
I m afraid the he could very well survive a general election. There is a huge group of disgruntled people with the way America is heading, Trump appeals at their racism rampages and I am afraid that group is not small at all.
Take those two lost wars, stagnant wages for most of us, threats of terrorism, plunging 401(k) retirement plans, and rampant anxiety — and put all that together with a practiced showman promising restored greatness — and you get the equivalent of a pre-war Germany a kind of Wiemar volatility of this utterly divided America.
On the other hand check the enthusiasm that their opponents are generating... specially in the democratic front, Hilary campaign is almost dormant and generates none or few enthusiasm, Sanders, well too far left to scare most Americans this is an almost A perfect cocktail for a very explosive showdown.
1
Interesting analysis, and it reminds me of my own feelings back in 2000. I recall focusing more on personalities, and, frankly, didn't see much difference between Gore and Bush. Both were trying to present themselves as noble men, not inclined to the personal failings of Clinton, and even Gore tried to distance himself from his boss. I didn't pay enough attention to the parties and the machines behind the candidates, and we most certainly ended up with a very different presidency in Bush than we might've had with Gore.
So, the bottom line of this analysis leaves me very worried. If Trump the man gets votes simply by being the opposite of Obama, then we'll be stuck with both Trump the man and his doomed approach to the presidency. (I would worry about his policies, but he hasn't really articulated any, any realistic ones at least.) God help us all.
So, the bottom line of this analysis leaves me very worried. If Trump the man gets votes simply by being the opposite of Obama, then we'll be stuck with both Trump the man and his doomed approach to the presidency. (I would worry about his policies, but he hasn't really articulated any, any realistic ones at least.) God help us all.
5
The Republican Party is a very strange beast. The Party has been on a downward skid for a long time as reviewed in two books on the subject:
‘Why the Right Went Wrong’ and ‘Too Dumb to Fail’
By ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/why-the-right-went-wrong-...
Next to Dubya, Regan looks like a genius, and next to Trump, Dubya looks like a genius … well we all know better.
From the deregulation of the American economy under Regan, which began the process of damaging the middle class, through the deregulation of banks and financial markets under Dubya, which brought on the Great Recession, now America is faced with Donald the Trumpet, who has no political experience of any kind, and his sidekick Sarah Palin who attacks and blames everyone in sight for what is wrong in America and the failings of her family.
These two loose cannons with their incendiary remarks and vulgar behavior will energize and rally their audiences attending the Republican circuses of competing assorted clowns, trapeze artists and flame-throwers to great glee and enjoyment as they climb to new high points in voter polls and comedic entertainment.
But this will end badly. While Sarah Palin believes that she can “Refudiate” Donald Trump’s opponents, she is the kiss of death for Donald the Trumpet. Both meteors will crash while criticizing everyone in sight with lots of Sturm und Drang in a fiery mess.
‘Why the Right Went Wrong’ and ‘Too Dumb to Fail’
By ADRIAN WOOLDRIDGE JAN. 19, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/why-the-right-went-wrong-...
Next to Dubya, Regan looks like a genius, and next to Trump, Dubya looks like a genius … well we all know better.
From the deregulation of the American economy under Regan, which began the process of damaging the middle class, through the deregulation of banks and financial markets under Dubya, which brought on the Great Recession, now America is faced with Donald the Trumpet, who has no political experience of any kind, and his sidekick Sarah Palin who attacks and blames everyone in sight for what is wrong in America and the failings of her family.
These two loose cannons with their incendiary remarks and vulgar behavior will energize and rally their audiences attending the Republican circuses of competing assorted clowns, trapeze artists and flame-throwers to great glee and enjoyment as they climb to new high points in voter polls and comedic entertainment.
But this will end badly. While Sarah Palin believes that she can “Refudiate” Donald Trump’s opponents, she is the kiss of death for Donald the Trumpet. Both meteors will crash while criticizing everyone in sight with lots of Sturm und Drang in a fiery mess.
5
Mr. Axelrod makes selective use of history. What did the American people see in Dwight Eisenhower that was markedly different than what they saw Harry Truman or what they saw in Nixon that was different from LBJ.
And we've had many previous candidates that have followed Trump's unconventional campaigning. George Wallace managed to get a great deal of support on a platform long on racism and short of any real recommendations. And Nixon ran on his secret plan to end the Vietnam War. As it turned out his plan was to keep the war going and expand it, something he never told anybody.
In fact, essentially everybody running as a Republican for president or any office now fits the Trump model: they call for repealing and replacing ObamaCare, sealing our borders and deporting all illegal aliens, and destroying ISIS while conveniently not offering a single idea of how to implement these things.
And we've had many previous candidates that have followed Trump's unconventional campaigning. George Wallace managed to get a great deal of support on a platform long on racism and short of any real recommendations. And Nixon ran on his secret plan to end the Vietnam War. As it turned out his plan was to keep the war going and expand it, something he never told anybody.
In fact, essentially everybody running as a Republican for president or any office now fits the Trump model: they call for repealing and replacing ObamaCare, sealing our borders and deporting all illegal aliens, and destroying ISIS while conveniently not offering a single idea of how to implement these things.
4
Mr. Trump gives voice to what most Republicans think but are afraid to say: That this country is being taken over by the Godless, by Gays, and by immigrants, legal or not.
While this rings true to the masses of Republicans in middle-America the main effect is that it becomes okay to think and say these things. Nothing feels as good as righteous anger, and one can see that Mr. Trump vindicates the feelings of those who feel aggrieved by a changing nation.
The scary part is that it is difficult to stop such a process.
While this rings true to the masses of Republicans in middle-America the main effect is that it becomes okay to think and say these things. Nothing feels as good as righteous anger, and one can see that Mr. Trump vindicates the feelings of those who feel aggrieved by a changing nation.
The scary part is that it is difficult to stop such a process.
5
The American public is sick and tired of being sick and tired. The establishment and the status-quo angers Americans. The rigged economic system, politicans feasting off the rigged system they've put in place over the years. Our carnival barker leading the Republican field seems to be the medicine we've all been looking to take. Something tells me the labeling is wrong on this patent medicine. However, there is a candidate whose coming victories in Iowa and New Hampshire may provide the momentum that will do in another establishment candidate like your man did so well in 2008. The good news here is that unlike President Obama, who craved a second term and couldn't see that acting for the people and abandoning the crybaby banks would have brought him that second term, Bernie Sanders will do what is right for the majority of the nation's citizens without a worry of how it will affect his bank account or what kind of legacy he leaves. He is an authentic American who will serve Americans.
The toxic brew is upon us again, the final year of a Democrat president with a congress controlled by Republicans. In Bill Clinton's last year he signed PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and he signed the deregulating legislation that contained the Gramm-Leach-Bliley amendment that did away with the Glass-Steagal separation of saving and investment banks which I'm told led directly to the Bush economic meltdown.
If TPP gets pushed to next year SANDERS WILL NOT SIGN IT. Trump?
The toxic brew is upon us again, the final year of a Democrat president with a congress controlled by Republicans. In Bill Clinton's last year he signed PNTR, Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and he signed the deregulating legislation that contained the Gramm-Leach-Bliley amendment that did away with the Glass-Steagal separation of saving and investment banks which I'm told led directly to the Bush economic meltdown.
If TPP gets pushed to next year SANDERS WILL NOT SIGN IT. Trump?
7
This makes complete sense to me. Trends of any sort are a reaction-- most often a rejection, of what came before. You can easily see this in fashion. After years of tight slacks, pants are going wide for next fall. With Mr. Axelrod's theory, democrats have an uphill battle. But jeez, I sure hope not.
4
TRUMP IS UNFIT FOR HIGH OFFICE. It seems to me that Donald Trump exhibits what appear to be symptoms of neurological impairment; perhaps frontal lobe dementia, as characterized by poor impulse control, limited sentence structure and vocabulary, concrete thinking and extremely poor insight and judgment. Do we really want a man in the White House who think that Paris is in Germany? Who thinks it acceptable to shoot down a crowded Manhattan Street? That's no joke. It's an invitation to gun toting rogues to take the street and create a bloodbath. After all, Donald told them there was nothing to lose. I think that David Axelrod has made an astute and accurate analysis of the perceptions of people who want a change of pace after one president's term. But the Presidency of the US is NOT a TV show where you change the channel if you find something boring, demanding or too serious to be bothered with. Who's going to vote for Trump? Not the African Americans, their friends and families. Not the Hispanics with their friends and families. Not the 39% of Americans who lean toward the Democratic party. We may just get a person with a serious character for the next 8 years. I believe that Trump could cause a lot of Republican swing voters to go with the Democrats to prevent Trump from getting into office because of his dangerous ideas, impulsive actions and substituting swagger, bragadoccio, bufoonery and the pitch of a snake oil merchant. Tell me this is a nightmare!
10
Sometimes I think that Trump is playing with us - saying the most outrageous thing possible to see the reaction. In the statement that he could shoot people on Manhattan I see someone who is testing his limits or trying to commit political suicide and it's not working.
If George W. was a cowboy, The Donald is a gilded cowboy with a bigger megaphone.
I hope the Americans remember what Santayana wrote: ”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The U.S. has a huge army and stocks full of nukes and other high-tech weapons. Stop and think, please!
I hope the Americans remember what Santayana wrote: ”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The U.S. has a huge army and stocks full of nukes and other high-tech weapons. Stop and think, please!
4
Trump is a byproduct of a wayward media that's over leveraged and nearly bankrupt. They cannot afford to run news divisions or pay journalists. Pundits comes cheap and so are their opinions. David Axelrod continues to opine like a cow chews cud. He'd like to reduce this election to old fashion issues or a personality war. Sadly, it's about low paying jobs, dishonesty and corruption. Trump is but a symptom. Cruz is a reaction. Both are unelectable. Think of your children or grandchildren before you vote and few will vote for either one of them.
13
Not sure you're correct on the unelectable part. Why is a admitted socialist or a thief and a liar considered electable? What is wrong with our country that we would even consider these people?
5
And it's about time it happened too. For two hundred years this country has had "prescription" politicians whose only job has been to perpetuate the status quo, exactly as it was written. Well maybe enough time has past so people to feel that maybe what was literally written was not as perfect as those who wrote it at the time were thinking. (Lest we not forget they too were carrying a lot of their own personal baggage at they the time they wrote that stuff and weren't necessarily angels themselves.
So as with Obama, and maybe now Trump, I feel it's a healthy collective expression of open-mindedness and curiosity for people to explore where new avenues might take them. That's how discoveries are make and life grows and matures beyond just crawling. Trump's non-traditional style is just that, a style, with just a normal mortal behind it. He eats, sleeps, breathes, and dies just like everybody else; so if the media would stop making him out to be like something from another planet, maybe . . . .
I don't know, but unless we're willing to trust our instincts instead of prescribed conventional rules, we'll doomed to be marching in place all our lives. Which probably suits some just fine, especially those who sell shoes.
So as with Obama, and maybe now Trump, I feel it's a healthy collective expression of open-mindedness and curiosity for people to explore where new avenues might take them. That's how discoveries are make and life grows and matures beyond just crawling. Trump's non-traditional style is just that, a style, with just a normal mortal behind it. He eats, sleeps, breathes, and dies just like everybody else; so if the media would stop making him out to be like something from another planet, maybe . . . .
I don't know, but unless we're willing to trust our instincts instead of prescribed conventional rules, we'll doomed to be marching in place all our lives. Which probably suits some just fine, especially those who sell shoes.
2
Excellent insight-- wrong conclusion. Obama was elected on "yes we can" and "change and hope." He couldn't, there was little change, and people have less hope. There is an old saying "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." Sanders and Trump have this in common -- they're telling people they've been peed on. People are not in the mood to elect someone who only offers a bigger umbrella.
9
So, who exactly has peed on Trump? Can't imagine that's happened much, if ever, in his storied life.
Republicans infuriated by climate change says it all?
As if climate change is something they can buy out of, bully or deny.
As if climate change is something they can buy out of, bully or deny.
6
The climate has been changing since the atmosphere formed. Thanks to the climate change that's been going on nonstop for eons, we have the Great Lakes (inland seas, really) in the upper Midwest instead of the massive glaciers that were once there.
Humans didn't cause those massive glaciers to melt into the Great Lakes (there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants then) and so you can stop yelling that the sky is falling.
Adults tell children the Chicken Little story for a reason, so that they don't get suckered in so easily when they grow up.
Humans didn't cause those massive glaciers to melt into the Great Lakes (there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants then) and so you can stop yelling that the sky is falling.
Adults tell children the Chicken Little story for a reason, so that they don't get suckered in so easily when they grow up.
1
Donald Trump has changed is positions on social issues about as often as he changes his hair color. Why are the "angry Republicans" unable to see through this charlatan?
3
Trump is like a mad elephant who has broken his chains. Heaven forbid you get below his stomping feet no matter who you are, a mad bully who only believes in throwing his weight around. Does anyone have an elephant gun?
But Ted Cruz is the jackel nipping at his heals, the scavenger whose high pitched barking declares his intent to pick over our government as soon as he brings it heal.
republicans in their frustration have turned or revealed our politics for what it is, the heart of darkness.
But Ted Cruz is the jackel nipping at his heals, the scavenger whose high pitched barking declares his intent to pick over our government as soon as he brings it heal.
republicans in their frustration have turned or revealed our politics for what it is, the heart of darkness.
39
And the Clintons are very much at home in this heart of darkness.
2
Lots of animal imagery here.
Politics as entertainment, I guess - and it fits the way these politicians present themselves.
But I think the whole circus is a procrastination. We need to look at the human needs in this whole country and these people are clogging the dialogue on purpose. I'm looking out for that 11th hour bait&switch when the performers yield the stage to those genuine, purring hucksters, and we end up with a smooth cadre dedicated to servicing this country's moneyed minority.
Ain't it fun getting hustled?
Politics as entertainment, I guess - and it fits the way these politicians present themselves.
But I think the whole circus is a procrastination. We need to look at the human needs in this whole country and these people are clogging the dialogue on purpose. I'm looking out for that 11th hour bait&switch when the performers yield the stage to those genuine, purring hucksters, and we end up with a smooth cadre dedicated to servicing this country's moneyed minority.
Ain't it fun getting hustled?
How often to you call for somone to get a gun when it comes to the Democrats' candidates?
Excellent artice and food for thought. Any Democrat who does not run on Obama’ record of accomplishment in spite of GOP bad faith and obstruction and public be damned attitude is a fool. Cowardly Democrats took a beating in 2014 by running away from Obama and now Hillary is in effect runing for Obama’ 3rd term which he would win in a walk if he could run.
Bernie would do well to close ranks and admit that no president has the power in his office to effect revolutionary change in 8 years without controlling Congress which is unlikely until after redistricting. Now the House is rigged.
The most important reason that a Democrat must succeed Obama is the Supreme Court. In the next 5 years who better to select the next 2 or 3 justices, Obama, Hillary, Bernie or Trump or Cruz.
Bernie would do well to close ranks and admit that no president has the power in his office to effect revolutionary change in 8 years without controlling Congress which is unlikely until after redistricting. Now the House is rigged.
The most important reason that a Democrat must succeed Obama is the Supreme Court. In the next 5 years who better to select the next 2 or 3 justices, Obama, Hillary, Bernie or Trump or Cruz.
7
How did the brave Democrats who ran on Obama's record and policies do in 2014 (as compared to the Dem cowards who ran away from Obama and his record)?
How did the Democrats who the Clintons came to campaign for do in 2014? Heck, how did the guy do who had been O'Malley's Lt. Gov do?
How did the Democrats who the Clintons came to campaign for do in 2014? Heck, how did the guy do who had been O'Malley's Lt. Gov do?
2
I am betting on Abe Lincoln’s wisdom “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
2
The majority of Americans are pretty reliably foolish.
It looks like most of the people are finally catching on to the Big Con that has been DC politics for generations now. Both factions of the organized criminal syndicate running DC are getting challenged by outsiders. Sanders and Trump are cleaning out the corruption and wow, there's a massive amount of it clogging up the works all across the USA.
1
No-one has worked harder to put Trump in the White House than Obama!
Obama's appeal was based on Marketing fraud-Obama didn't even try to do what he said.
But Obama's 2008 Marketing campaign tricked everyone so well in 2008 Obama/Axelrod won Ad Ages "Marketer of the Year"* for lying their way int0 the White House!
Beating out Apple, Coke, Pepsi, ect for the award!
So 1 of the reasons Trump sells so well is he IS the opposite of Obama!
Many people feel they are NOT being lied to by Trump like Obama did.
The lying 2008 Obama/Axelrod set the stage for Trump.
No one has worked harder to elect Trump than the lies and deceit of the Obama/Axelrod White House from 2008 on.....
Yes America is hoping Trump is the opposite of Obama, America is hoping Trump is Truthful......unlike Obama!
*http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/
Obama's appeal was based on Marketing fraud-Obama didn't even try to do what he said.
But Obama's 2008 Marketing campaign tricked everyone so well in 2008 Obama/Axelrod won Ad Ages "Marketer of the Year"* for lying their way int0 the White House!
Beating out Apple, Coke, Pepsi, ect for the award!
So 1 of the reasons Trump sells so well is he IS the opposite of Obama!
Many people feel they are NOT being lied to by Trump like Obama did.
The lying 2008 Obama/Axelrod set the stage for Trump.
No one has worked harder to elect Trump than the lies and deceit of the Obama/Axelrod White House from 2008 on.....
Yes America is hoping Trump is the opposite of Obama, America is hoping Trump is Truthful......unlike Obama!
*http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/
4
Remember: You get Trump if he wins. He's only the opposite of O when it comes to rational thinking.
San Francisco? Really?
Mr Trump represents the naivety of the American electorate, these individuals have no understanding of the complexity of the world and issues of other nations and peoples. They believe that a school yard bully would simply scare all others into line.
3
I thought David Alexrod was actually going to admit to being wrong, but no, he explains that he was right before he was wrong -- his mistake was in not rereading his own words nine years ago....
American politics isn't likeable.
American politics isn't likeable.
5
You guys said he would face the same, steep challenge in the primary. He came in, spent virtually nothing and played EVERY card right. Don't think he can't do this again as he's proven to be this year's Johnny Chan of politics and he's now a few plays from a heads up game with a flawed candidate that lost her last Presidential bid.
1
Mr. Trump MAY still stumble? So? He is way ahead in the polls. He may even have a slight fall but he is still way far ahead allowing him the luxury of getting up and running to the finish line. If the people only want a change from the incumbent, then that is what Democracy is all about, that the collective will of the citizenry is above all else. But if the people are cutting off their noses to spite the face, then we have a huge problem. A Trump Candidacy is a direct path to hell and angry as the people are they should not lose focus of the consequences. Trump should be recognized for all that he stands for - bigotry, sexism, narcissism, decadence, superciliousness, unspeakable slurs, insults and disdain for everyone who does not agree with him, boorishness, his lying, outlandish promises which cannot ever be practical or attainable, bankruptcy as a deal to address our country's finances and above all making our country a Pariah and a rogue with his hostility almost with all countries in the rest of the world. The rest of the world would be laughing at us Americans for choosing a celebrity (!!) who has really nothing going for him except his celebrity, a toxic brew of hate.
89
I think the polls are suspect. In Canada Justin Trudeau and his conservative opponent were shown as neck-and-neck in the polls, yet Trudeau won by a landslide. I have heard that the pollster are mostly calling people with landlines they are not bothering with cell phone users. This means they are missing most people under 45, minorities and low income people. What really matters is who bothers to show up at the polling booth or caucus meeting hall and actually vote!
Additionally, if the make-up of Congress remains the same or changes only a little, nothing will change irregardless of whom is elected President.
Additionally, if the make-up of Congress remains the same or changes only a little, nothing will change irregardless of whom is elected President.
Say what you like about Trump, he's shaken the political process unlike any other candidate. The pundits constantly denigrate his supporters as if they are idiots, all the while wringing their collective hands. I'd dare say if elected he would govern far differently than his speeches would have you believe.
Bernie would get nothing done, Hillary would be a nightmare (if you think the Obama administration is transparent, imagine a Hillary administration).
Average people are fed up with all politicians, period. Neither party is offering any help to the middle class. The right has caved to the wealthy and corporations; the left has caved to the poor and the corporations.
Is there any wonder why middle class citizens are angry?
Bernie would get nothing done, Hillary would be a nightmare (if you think the Obama administration is transparent, imagine a Hillary administration).
Average people are fed up with all politicians, period. Neither party is offering any help to the middle class. The right has caved to the wealthy and corporations; the left has caved to the poor and the corporations.
Is there any wonder why middle class citizens are angry?
3
Jerry, actually Obama has got a lot done for the middle class but he never promoted it. For over ten years I paid high premiums which would not cover a recurring pre-existing coverage that I had. Now I have cheaper coverage than I previously did and I can get all the coverage I need for anything instead of going broke paying for the condition my old insurer would not cover.
If you are in college, you probably will get better payback terms on your loan, then you otherwise would.
If you pay interest on credit cards, you cannot be charged such high rates of interest, as before.
There are many other examples like this of things the Obama administration has done to make middle class people more secure and the system less fair. His administration never marketed what it was doing.
If you are in college, you probably will get better payback terms on your loan, then you otherwise would.
If you pay interest on credit cards, you cannot be charged such high rates of interest, as before.
There are many other examples like this of things the Obama administration has done to make middle class people more secure and the system less fair. His administration never marketed what it was doing.
1
Axelrod has to rationalize the failure of his guy somehow. But at the end of the day Obama lost the House, Senate and most of the Governors and State Houses as well - when people voted in negative support for Obama.
Libya is the symbolic epicenter of Obama & Clinton foreign policy...complete chaos and destruction.
Assad has many other countries fighting for his cause, while the US affiliates bomb women and children in Yemen. Millions of Muslims descend upon Europe who can no longer take the Obama induced chaos from one end of the ME to the other. The US imposed Coup d'etat in Ukraine has been equally as destructive.
Domestically the people know the 30 hours imposed limit on Obamacare (which they cant afford) have left them with part time jobs at lower wages than before while Obama touts and records these part time jobs as "full time job creation". It now takes 2.5 jobs to equal the hours and wages before he began his Term. Coupled with other phony metrics out of the BLS - the 5% UE Rate is pure propaganda. Trump has called UE right at 23%!
The final proof of Failure is Bernie is killing Hillary who is tied at the hip to Obama. Clearly the slap in the face to domestic Obama policy. Trump is saying many of the same things as Bernie. So on the right and left the people don't believe your view of Obama. Totally plastic no substance except to the ObamaBots.
Where is the success Mr. Axelrod? Endless Speeches issued from the Teleprompter in Chief don't make a Presidency.
Libya is the symbolic epicenter of Obama & Clinton foreign policy...complete chaos and destruction.
Assad has many other countries fighting for his cause, while the US affiliates bomb women and children in Yemen. Millions of Muslims descend upon Europe who can no longer take the Obama induced chaos from one end of the ME to the other. The US imposed Coup d'etat in Ukraine has been equally as destructive.
Domestically the people know the 30 hours imposed limit on Obamacare (which they cant afford) have left them with part time jobs at lower wages than before while Obama touts and records these part time jobs as "full time job creation". It now takes 2.5 jobs to equal the hours and wages before he began his Term. Coupled with other phony metrics out of the BLS - the 5% UE Rate is pure propaganda. Trump has called UE right at 23%!
The final proof of Failure is Bernie is killing Hillary who is tied at the hip to Obama. Clearly the slap in the face to domestic Obama policy. Trump is saying many of the same things as Bernie. So on the right and left the people don't believe your view of Obama. Totally plastic no substance except to the ObamaBots.
Where is the success Mr. Axelrod? Endless Speeches issued from the Teleprompter in Chief don't make a Presidency.
3
... and at the end of the day we are certainly much better off today than we should have been able to expect we would be, when viewed from the bottom of that deep chasm 7 years ago precipitated by arguably the worst GOP presidency in history,
Hopefully the nation will finally rid itself of the blatant GOP obstructionism that's been a frustrating drag on dealing with entrenched protracted problems festering from the disastrous Bush administration. In short order it will be very good for the country as we finally expand Medicaid, address environmental issues, enact reasonable gun safety measures, address a crumbling infrastructure, attend to the plight of a stagnating middle class, address soaring college tuition costs, make legal voting easier, and appoint thoughtful judges.
Hopefully the nation will finally rid itself of the blatant GOP obstructionism that's been a frustrating drag on dealing with entrenched protracted problems festering from the disastrous Bush administration. In short order it will be very good for the country as we finally expand Medicaid, address environmental issues, enact reasonable gun safety measures, address a crumbling infrastructure, attend to the plight of a stagnating middle class, address soaring college tuition costs, make legal voting easier, and appoint thoughtful judges.
2
You could not be more wrong. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, stimulus constitute the most substantive changes in our country since the environmental legislation of the late 60's and 70's. Unfortunately, due to the depth of the recession, none of these legislative acts have been noticed by significant numbers of the population despite the high number of jobs created in the last five years. Fundamentally, the biggest problem with our economy and the economies of other industrialized countries is that the change in high tech has rendered the jobs of the twentieth century unnecessary. That is the biggest challenge all modern countries have. We are doing better than almost all of them.
As for Libya, of course (unlike Iraq), we did not start that war. We were asked by the rebels and the Arab League to step in as the rebels were on the verge of being slaughtered immediately. We achieved the goal of protecting them. We also ensured Qaddafi would be toppled. The failure to help secure the peace afterward was the big failure by this administration. Of course, we would have had to put in troops for probably at least fiver years to do that. As for Syria, that was happening regardless of what we did. There were no good answers there. We did not cause it and our country has never been able to stop civil wars like that.
As for Libya, of course (unlike Iraq), we did not start that war. We were asked by the rebels and the Arab League to step in as the rebels were on the verge of being slaughtered immediately. We achieved the goal of protecting them. We also ensured Qaddafi would be toppled. The failure to help secure the peace afterward was the big failure by this administration. Of course, we would have had to put in troops for probably at least fiver years to do that. As for Syria, that was happening regardless of what we did. There were no good answers there. We did not cause it and our country has never been able to stop civil wars like that.
1
The substantially flawed foreign policy substance of your comment sounds written by Putin whom Republicans have fallen in love with. The second sentence of your third paragraph flatly contradicts the first sentence. Your economic part sounds written by an inept Republican economist seeking to ruin the economy every eight years in every possible way. Obamacare is cheaper than what it replaced. Those who can afford what it replaced do not worry, but Republicans have no heart for others. One who sincerely attacks the cost of Obamacare must support single-payer or any reasonable alternative. You do neither and lack bona fides. Like your master, you propose no solution to what you call UE of 23%. I do not accept politically fictional figures, but for the sake of argument, if Donald Trump believes them, he has proposed no solution, no plan. Trump may be waiting until he can copyright one.
Fox News is responsible for the rise of Mr Trump and Mr Cruz. Roger Ailes assumed that by peddling fear, anger and anti-intellectualism he would develop an army of party loyalists, fighting for survival. That has backfired. They've opened Pandora's box and unleashed the evil within. Trump and Cruz are perfect representatives of an angry, frightened and ill informed populace.
8
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch whose brainchild is FOX news has already been deemed in Britain not fit to run a major international media company on ethics and moral grounds. A first step toward reversing the degradation of our political discourse with the likes of FOX news, the WSJ, and the NYP would be to put the Rupert Murdoch Lie Machine out of business, via the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
2
And who makes you the judge of who is "ill-informed"? The middle class is worse off than ever under Obama, the stock market is tanking, the world is besieged by terrorism , and we have more Americans out of the work force permanently in US history. Presuming you voted for him, exactly who was "ill-informed"?
3
@BLF
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black! The DOW is up over three times where it was in 2009 where it really tanked, there were way more Benghazi like terrorist attacks under Bush, and the worst terror attack in US history was in New York when Bush/Cheney were down at the ranch ignoring intelligence reports about it. But the most grievous "ill informed" remark is this middle class worse off under Obama nonsense. Median household incomes have barely budged for 30 years while in stark contrast income growth for the top privileged 10% has grown by 80% since 1980 and counting. In 1980 the average CEO made 25 times what an average worker made; now it´s over 400 times. And tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (disproportionately benefitting the wealthy) are at unprecedented lows as public debt takes up the slack. We can thank Reagan sponsored "trickle down" ideology for that! ... not Obama.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black! The DOW is up over three times where it was in 2009 where it really tanked, there were way more Benghazi like terrorist attacks under Bush, and the worst terror attack in US history was in New York when Bush/Cheney were down at the ranch ignoring intelligence reports about it. But the most grievous "ill informed" remark is this middle class worse off under Obama nonsense. Median household incomes have barely budged for 30 years while in stark contrast income growth for the top privileged 10% has grown by 80% since 1980 and counting. In 1980 the average CEO made 25 times what an average worker made; now it´s over 400 times. And tax revenue as a percentage of GDP (disproportionately benefitting the wealthy) are at unprecedented lows as public debt takes up the slack. We can thank Reagan sponsored "trickle down" ideology for that! ... not Obama.
2
Trump is merely gaining momentum because he is saying out loud what many of us have been thinking for a long time. We are sick of political correctness. Being told what we can or can not say. What happened to freedom of speech. We're sick of everyone being insulted if they hear something they don't like. We are sick of illegals coming here and legals for that matter who do not assimilate. Change our laws and uphold the ones we have. Make English our language and our constitution our law. Keep immigrants in their own country by giving them a safe place and letting them sort it out. Until we have a president that will stand up to the plate we will have Trump gathering momentum.
6
Trump's campaign is about Trump's persona. Only when voters realize that persona and reality are not identical, will he lose. So far the primaries attract the very devoted, excited fringe. The Trump, Cruz wing of the GOP may get to nominate a candidate, but whether the broad swath of voters agree with that choice is not clear. The question is whether voters believe in "magic"--that a totally inexperienced "outsider" is good for the welfare of the USA and the world.
8
Stupid is as stupid does. Thank you Mr. Gump.
When Trump wins, moving to Canada may not be far enough.
When Trump wins, moving to Canada may not be far enough.
9
Mr. mjbarr, I am in NC and I'll back home, The Netherlands, care to go with me?
...especially if Cruz moves there too in self-exile.
1
The most frightening aspect of Donald Trump is the tens of millions of people who support him out of contempt for thoughtful public policy formation, whether domestic or international. This is not only a serious danger to the peace and stability of the USA but to the world as a whole. I hope America and the rest of us will not live to regret the ascendancy of the Sarah Palin-type "kick-ass" mentality for dealing with the complexities of the contemporary geo-political landscape. These people cannot be allowed near the nuclear trigger. They are not the parody of dangerous ignorance - they are the real thing.
6
Axelrod hit a sensitive nerve here evidenced by some of the most cogent reader commentary I have seen of late.
Thanks everyone!!
Thanks everyone!!
3
If one were to apply the logic of Mr. Axelrod's theory to the Democratic candidates, it would suggest that instead of running as someone who would uphold Obama's legacy, Hillary Clinton would and should show in sharper relief how she would modify and recast certain signature Obama programs including health care.
As for Senator Sanders, he is the opposite of a cool young black man even if his policy positions and stance mirrored that of Candidate Obama.
As for Senator Sanders, he is the opposite of a cool young black man even if his policy positions and stance mirrored that of Candidate Obama.
4
No, Axelrod is not making the point that people do not like Obama's policies but that they want a president with a different set of personal qualities.
There is much in the basic analysis of this article with which the Clinton campaign may take note, especially given the rise of Sanders, whose increasingly emphatic, screaming pitch in campaign stops resembles Trump.
It is a tough call because for a woman to look to emphatic is to stir up unwelcome stereotypes, but I wouldn't have minded too much if in the last debate she had let Sanders have it, especially when he talked about universal health care as if she had never heard of it.
It is a tough call because for a woman to look to emphatic is to stir up unwelcome stereotypes, but I wouldn't have minded too much if in the last debate she had let Sanders have it, especially when he talked about universal health care as if she had never heard of it.
2
In 2008 I was a 21 year old Democrat strongly campaigning for Mr. Obama. In 2016 I'm a registered Republican voting for Trump. Why?
Millions my age feel like Mr. Obama lied to our face. Just like 9/11 too the innocence out of air travel, Mr. Obama took our innocence out of politicians. It is why Mr. Trump is appealing to millions. Mr Obama's betrayed promises set the stage for this election year.
By the way Mr. Axelrod, excellent piece. Even though I'm a Republican, I have always admired your eloquence and style, and it is no lost on me that your work and Mr. David Plouffe's had a lot to do with Mr. Obama's 2008 win.
Millions my age feel like Mr. Obama lied to our face. Just like 9/11 too the innocence out of air travel, Mr. Obama took our innocence out of politicians. It is why Mr. Trump is appealing to millions. Mr Obama's betrayed promises set the stage for this election year.
By the way Mr. Axelrod, excellent piece. Even though I'm a Republican, I have always admired your eloquence and style, and it is no lost on me that your work and Mr. David Plouffe's had a lot to do with Mr. Obama's 2008 win.
16
If the reason for your disaffection for the Democratic party is your perceived mendacity of Barack Obama, you are backing the wrong candidate in 2016. Over and over, Donald Trump has issued categorical denials of things he's said that are on the record for the whole world to see. He denied saying that he would issue a 45 percent tariff on goods coming in from China despite the existence of an audio tape where he says this very thing. He issues appalling dog-whistle insults of journalists, media figures, and other candidates and then denies that he meant what he clearly intended. It's the old "what, who me?" defense...
Finally, David Axelrod and David Plouffe had a lot to do with Obama's victory in 2008. No question. But what sealed the deal was the fact that their candidate was, in the words of Republican campaign managers, the best they'd ever seen.
Finally, David Axelrod and David Plouffe had a lot to do with Obama's victory in 2008. No question. But what sealed the deal was the fact that their candidate was, in the words of Republican campaign managers, the best they'd ever seen.
What specific promises did he betray? And what promises that Trump has made do you find attractive on a policy basis?
2
If the make up of Congress does not change with the next election, nothing will change! Remember the old saying "The President proposes, Congress disposes". Obama has been "hamstrung" by the fact that many bills were never brought to the floor of the House to be debated and voted on! The confirmation of the new Attorney General was held up for months because Congress refused to even vote on this matter! Then Congress had the gall to say that President Obama had failed to act!
I do believe that some people thought they were electing a "cool black man" reminiscent of Will Smith, Blair Underwood, Michael Jordan et al. Plato wrote that the problem with democracy was that the people would elect a popular figure rather than a statesman. Perhaps he was right?
I do believe that some people thought they were electing a "cool black man" reminiscent of Will Smith, Blair Underwood, Michael Jordan et al. Plato wrote that the problem with democracy was that the people would elect a popular figure rather than a statesman. Perhaps he was right?
Even George H.W. Bush succeeded the popular and larger than life Ronald Reagan. When Reagan left office he was neither popular nor larger than life. He was seen for what he was, a senile old man who should have been impeached for his role in Iran-Contra. The popular and larger than life Reagan is a figure concocted by a well funded, loud right wing image machine aided and abetted by Democrats like Axelrod. Democrats who stand by and allow the base to be slandered by the chief of staff. Democrats who stand by and allow the boss to be railroaded by a party who should have been punished for the crimes of the Bush era. Democrats who stand by and fail to understand that hucksters like Trump know how to play on the rage of people who are tired of being screwed over not just by plutocrat Republicans, but by corporatist sell outs like Axelrod.
3
Donald Trup reminds me of the "Wizard of Oz." Remember when the Wizard is exposed by the dog, Toto? If not, here is the scene from the movie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA
My sense is that Clinton (and Sanders, too) are acting like the Wizard, as well. But people are looking for something more. not just words and personality but a real promise for the future.
I think that Hillary Clinton has the woman thing, which might just be what we really need, now. For all of our history, politics has been a man thing. Hillary could change that. By her very presence in the White House, next to Bill, she could motivate women and men to rise up. I think this is huge.
============================================
David Axelrod, why, is Hillary so ashamed to push herself as a woman? Why doesn't she push it to the max? Why doesn't she find a symbol? I suggest that she use the "V" sign with both hands, as a "W" (V V) to suggest the idea of a woman president.
Yes, Women Can! Yes Men Can! (Forward, not Backward)
===========================================
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA
My sense is that Clinton (and Sanders, too) are acting like the Wizard, as well. But people are looking for something more. not just words and personality but a real promise for the future.
I think that Hillary Clinton has the woman thing, which might just be what we really need, now. For all of our history, politics has been a man thing. Hillary could change that. By her very presence in the White House, next to Bill, she could motivate women and men to rise up. I think this is huge.
============================================
David Axelrod, why, is Hillary so ashamed to push herself as a woman? Why doesn't she push it to the max? Why doesn't she find a symbol? I suggest that she use the "V" sign with both hands, as a "W" (V V) to suggest the idea of a woman president.
Yes, Women Can! Yes Men Can! (Forward, not Backward)
===========================================
6
As dishonest, callous and greedy as Ms. Clinton is, and with a pending FBI indictment, I, a democrat, feminist and attorney, find her to be a shameful example of women in politics. Just because she is a woman does not make her anymore electable than anyone else. She is an embarrassment to all professional women.
2
Mr. Axelrod may be correct, but if he is, does it not speak to the, to use a John McCain word, feckless nature of the American electorate? You vote for someone because he or she is simply the opposite of what you have?
What a sad state of affairs.
But before we jump off the George Washington Bridge, let us remember the numbers. Mr. Trump is currently the darling of about 30 percent of a party that is much less than half of the electorate as a whole. His only real chance of winning, should he be nominated, is for Americans, as they did in the last cycle in 2014, to stay home. That is what the Republicans have been trying to accomplish in all of the states they now control. It's the stay at home factor. They want it for whomever they nominate. They may not like Trump as their banner carrier, but, as they always do, they will hold their noses and try, once again, to keep the Democrat electorate away from the ballot box.
They will also, as they always do, rip the face off any Democratic candidate as they did with John Kerry.
In the end, there is only one thing a bully understands, raw power and unless and until someone is ready to use it against Trump, he will continue on this Shermanistic path, burning the party and country down with that smug look on his face, as he casts out protesters one by one at his rallies. Republicans haven't found and may not find the right formula, but we better hope the electorate as whole does.
What a sad state of affairs.
But before we jump off the George Washington Bridge, let us remember the numbers. Mr. Trump is currently the darling of about 30 percent of a party that is much less than half of the electorate as a whole. His only real chance of winning, should he be nominated, is for Americans, as they did in the last cycle in 2014, to stay home. That is what the Republicans have been trying to accomplish in all of the states they now control. It's the stay at home factor. They want it for whomever they nominate. They may not like Trump as their banner carrier, but, as they always do, they will hold their noses and try, once again, to keep the Democrat electorate away from the ballot box.
They will also, as they always do, rip the face off any Democratic candidate as they did with John Kerry.
In the end, there is only one thing a bully understands, raw power and unless and until someone is ready to use it against Trump, he will continue on this Shermanistic path, burning the party and country down with that smug look on his face, as he casts out protesters one by one at his rallies. Republicans haven't found and may not find the right formula, but we better hope the electorate as whole does.
76
Axelrod doesn't say this, but isn't his explanation equally applicable to the Bernie Sanders campaign?
7
Obama's own political architect David Axelrod tells us one big reason why Hillary is once again miscalculating. She is embracing the Obama presidency in her latest debate rhetoric because if she loses New Hampshire (she will) and Iowa (she might), then she must win South Carolina, and that requires her to pander to the African American voters there. Of course, three months ago she was trying to distance herself from Obama. Don't think people don't notice the shifting weathervane of your campaign, Hills.
4
David Axelrod, This is a beautifully written piece with excellent psychological insights about our tendency to hypnotically and historically swing to an opposite extreme regarding the persona of those we vote for to take the place of a sitting president we don't like. Trump himself is apparently aware of this trance-like phenomena when he somewhat bewildered admitted that he could shoot someone and not lose followers.
That example, of how easy it is to ignore a presidential candidates warts, and baggage, and lack of qualifications, should serve as a warning to awaken from our needy pull to throw caution to the wind merely to replace what we don't like with what we think would be better for us while reality is yelling that dong so would most likely take us stumbling headlong down a blind alley.
That example, of how easy it is to ignore a presidential candidates warts, and baggage, and lack of qualifications, should serve as a warning to awaken from our needy pull to throw caution to the wind merely to replace what we don't like with what we think would be better for us while reality is yelling that dong so would most likely take us stumbling headlong down a blind alley.
4
It's a solid theory, one I've considered myself, with a slight variation: my thought was that as the center loses mass and credibility, we get progressively wider swings toward the periphery.
Obama probably wasn't more substantively liberal than Hillary, with the important exception of the Iraq war, eight years ago. But just his name and face rendered him Different with a capital d, and it was a good year to be different. This year, the difference is the evident inverse relationship between political experience and resonance with the rabid Republican primary electorate. That's Trump, who I think on policy substance--to the extent he has any--is probably the most moderate of their serious contenders.
What really worries me, about Trump and in general, is the widening range of possible outcomes once people lose faith that the system as we've known it can provide peace and plenty. It seems increasingly plausible that representative democracy itself could be discredited and discarded.
Obama probably wasn't more substantively liberal than Hillary, with the important exception of the Iraq war, eight years ago. But just his name and face rendered him Different with a capital d, and it was a good year to be different. This year, the difference is the evident inverse relationship between political experience and resonance with the rabid Republican primary electorate. That's Trump, who I think on policy substance--to the extent he has any--is probably the most moderate of their serious contenders.
What really worries me, about Trump and in general, is the widening range of possible outcomes once people lose faith that the system as we've known it can provide peace and plenty. It seems increasingly plausible that representative democracy itself could be discredited and discarded.
5
I'm very confused about why there is so much dismay surrounding Donald Trump's apparent popularity in the presidential race... (I say "apparent," because in fact not a single vote has been cast yet.)
Eight years ago, the people of this country elected an unproven, inexperienced, untested, charismatic leader, who spoke beautifully, made giant promises (that he couldn't keep), and said what his people wanted to hear.
Today, the pendulum is swinging the other way. But, the result of that swing is a candidate from the other side who is an unproven, inexperienced, untested, charismatic leader, who speaks well, makes giant promises (that he won't be able to keep), and says what his people want to hear.
In short, Trump is running the Obama playbook.
Is it really that hard to figure out? It worked for Obama. Why shouldn't it work for Trump?
Eight years ago, the people of this country elected an unproven, inexperienced, untested, charismatic leader, who spoke beautifully, made giant promises (that he couldn't keep), and said what his people wanted to hear.
Today, the pendulum is swinging the other way. But, the result of that swing is a candidate from the other side who is an unproven, inexperienced, untested, charismatic leader, who speaks well, makes giant promises (that he won't be able to keep), and says what his people want to hear.
In short, Trump is running the Obama playbook.
Is it really that hard to figure out? It worked for Obama. Why shouldn't it work for Trump?
21
I can't believe you would closely compare a serious thinker with a serious background in public/political life, a serious political philosophy and serious policy proposals with a bombastic, demagogic cartoon-character who revels in being outrageous and parlays insults, invective and braggadocio into a notoriety that most think is extraordinarily unlikely to succeed in a general election, let alone actually garner the Republican nomination for President. Stating that one is from one side and the other is from the other side is the kind of false equivalence that undermines real intellectual discourse.
3
Donald Trump is the antidote (or predictable response) to eight years of a lawless and utterly incompetent* presidency. Unless you were fortunate enough to have lived in a top 10% household, our first constitutional scholar President has been a major disappointment.
[*NSA, DOJ, IRS, VA, EPA, State Dept, Immigration, DOD, HHS, NLRB, race relations, Susan Rice, Eric Holder/Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton/John Kerry, James Clapper, Jeh Johnson, New Black Panther Party voter intimidation, Fast&Furious, Benghazi, unauthorized wars with Libya, destruction of the middle class, Obamacare, a feckless foreign policy, etc, etc, etc,]
Hurry January 2017. Please, hurry January 2017.
[*NSA, DOJ, IRS, VA, EPA, State Dept, Immigration, DOD, HHS, NLRB, race relations, Susan Rice, Eric Holder/Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton/John Kerry, James Clapper, Jeh Johnson, New Black Panther Party voter intimidation, Fast&Furious, Benghazi, unauthorized wars with Libya, destruction of the middle class, Obamacare, a feckless foreign policy, etc, etc, etc,]
Hurry January 2017. Please, hurry January 2017.
5
In other words, social cultural change in any era, but especially in the present modernist one, is explainable by dialectic forces. Hegel got this over 220 years ago.
2
Day one in office Trump is going to deport 11 million Mexican illegals, build a wall that the Mexicans are going to pay for, block entrance to all Muslims, stir things up in the ME "in a very very big way" as if it isn't stirred up enough, tell China to take a walk, buddy up with Putin, appoint Palin to a "senior level position", replace Obamacare with "the world's best healthcare system", ...
Come on people, this is insane! The caption for the photo should read "What. me worry?" The world is now asking are americans really this stupid.
Come on people, this is insane! The caption for the photo should read "What. me worry?" The world is now asking are americans really this stupid.
13
"The problem with the world is that intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence."-Charles Bukowski
Never confuse Obama's rationalism with weakness and Trumps decisiveness with strength.
Never confuse Obama's rationalism with weakness and Trumps decisiveness with strength.
34
Interesting thoughts, David, and probably right on the money. But must we avoid talking about another factor in the room: racism. Racism that is stronger in this country, than many might like to admit.
The numbers of "other"-color skins is growing in America, and those who equate power with skin color, are angry and scared. The GOP noticed in the 2008 election that it hadn't done well with women and the growing minorities, and vowed to woo them. Of course, it hasn't done that! But neither has it struck hard enough against what many see as a major threat; or used language strong enough to express their anger and fear.
So all that frustration has built. I suspect that the economic hardships growing over decades, also fed it: I'm suffering, folks around me are suffering, and it must be "those people"'s fault. Anger, fear, frustration, blame--all of this building.
When along comes a man who says it all out loud: "I hate 'those people,' and I want to get rid of them." It's simple, it's direct, and it apparently struck a chord with a lot of people. Trump put racism (and sexism, and xenophobia) on the table.
And they are such terrible beasts. David, you're a brilliant political analyst and strategist; that 08 campaign was a thing of beauty. I surely hope that our Democratic candidate will study its playbook. We'll need to. Because we'll need a sweeping victory for the Democrats, to be a sweeping victory against racism. And for embracing the full potential of America.
The numbers of "other"-color skins is growing in America, and those who equate power with skin color, are angry and scared. The GOP noticed in the 2008 election that it hadn't done well with women and the growing minorities, and vowed to woo them. Of course, it hasn't done that! But neither has it struck hard enough against what many see as a major threat; or used language strong enough to express their anger and fear.
So all that frustration has built. I suspect that the economic hardships growing over decades, also fed it: I'm suffering, folks around me are suffering, and it must be "those people"'s fault. Anger, fear, frustration, blame--all of this building.
When along comes a man who says it all out loud: "I hate 'those people,' and I want to get rid of them." It's simple, it's direct, and it apparently struck a chord with a lot of people. Trump put racism (and sexism, and xenophobia) on the table.
And they are such terrible beasts. David, you're a brilliant political analyst and strategist; that 08 campaign was a thing of beauty. I surely hope that our Democratic candidate will study its playbook. We'll need to. Because we'll need a sweeping victory for the Democrats, to be a sweeping victory against racism. And for embracing the full potential of America.
9
Who wants to bet? I will bet. The American people will fire T-Rump and Bernie will be our next president. The conservative base is angry at activist government? You ain't seen nothing yet.
9
Sadly, Sanders is the William Jennings Bryan of the twenty-first century. Bryan had strong support from "the people," but went down in flames three times, the last time losing to William McKinley.
1
And the liberal base is angry at a government that is not active enough. Hence Sanders unexpected strong run against Hillary who is seen as an establishment candidate. In that sense both parties are mirror images; each opposed to the election of another "party insider". It's going to be an interesting election!
I'll take that bet.
What a perfect photo of Trump to accompany this op-ed.
Trump looks just like a character from Alice in Wonderland--kind of a mix of the Cheshire Cat and the Queen of Hearts.
Alice in Wonderland was pure fantasy--but then so is Trump. A perfect candidate for the bubble-wrapped right-wingers and nasty champions of zingers against others.
Entertaining? Maybe. Presidential? No.
Gallup poll: "Donald Trump Well Known, but Not Well Liked"
91% familiar with Trump
32% favorable opinion of Trump
59% unfavorable opinion of Trump
It's the media that is smitten with Trump, not most of the citizenry. And that is part of the problem--the media likes to report the bizarre, not what is representative of people's views or lives.
Trump looks just like a character from Alice in Wonderland--kind of a mix of the Cheshire Cat and the Queen of Hearts.
Alice in Wonderland was pure fantasy--but then so is Trump. A perfect candidate for the bubble-wrapped right-wingers and nasty champions of zingers against others.
Entertaining? Maybe. Presidential? No.
Gallup poll: "Donald Trump Well Known, but Not Well Liked"
91% familiar with Trump
32% favorable opinion of Trump
59% unfavorable opinion of Trump
It's the media that is smitten with Trump, not most of the citizenry. And that is part of the problem--the media likes to report the bizarre, not what is representative of people's views or lives.
114
"The robust condemnations Mr. Trump has received from media and political elites have only intensified the enthusiasm of his supporters, many of whom feel disdained and forgotten by the very same people who regularly mock and chide their man for his boorishness."
2
Interestingly, Sanders' favorable to unfavorable is now at 45 vs. 38,based on latest poll of polls! So guess who is more likely to win the middle 34%, after Trump and Sanders take their 33% core each? Seems more like Sanders -- he is the more palatable "remedy" to the swing voters, than Trump.
Couldn't agree more about the photo - watching him try to smile is physically painful. He has no idea how to go about it, what it means, or the emotion it is meant to reflect. I've seen people who don't smile with their eyes, but he doesn't smile with any single part of his face. Creepy.
1
Sadly self-indulgent Americans, for whom thinking can be too much trouble, will luxuriate in how they feel, indulging all their narrow, destructive prejudices along the way.
Apparently, in our modern, media drive age, democracy carries the seeds of it's own demise, allowing the oligarchs to win time and again.
Maybe this is why US foreign policy has been so hell bent on exporting 'democracy'.
You say you want a revolution ? Shut the TV, disconnect from 'social manipulation', and meditate on the timeless values (starting with 'love your neighbor').
Apparently, in our modern, media drive age, democracy carries the seeds of it's own demise, allowing the oligarchs to win time and again.
Maybe this is why US foreign policy has been so hell bent on exporting 'democracy'.
You say you want a revolution ? Shut the TV, disconnect from 'social manipulation', and meditate on the timeless values (starting with 'love your neighbor').
6
Just picture Ivanka Trump as Secretary of State, and his sons the head of Treasury and the Fed... His wife would remind us of Imelda Marcos. Trump himself is our own Berlusconi, or Le Pen, Fortuyn, or other far right populist that gains traction amongst the neo-Nazi element in European countries.
4
With respect to the president, I think it has more to do with the people left behind by the elitist politicians of late. We all know how government costs have risen...including salaries and benefits of the ruling class. But how about the rest of us? In 1983, union carpenters in Iowa...including African Americans...earned $16.39 per hour. Today, 33 years later, their median wage is only $19 per hour. Obama can't be blamed totally for that dismal growth in income, but he's had 8 years to do something about it. Whether Trump can do anything to improve their lot is up in the air. Bit one thing has been proven...ordinary politicians haven't done much at all to help the blue collar worker or for that matter, any middle-class American in recent years. It's doubtful Trump could do any worse.
6
As you don't mention it, since 1983 -- 33 years -- inflation has made costs of everything go up about 400-500% (some items like college much more than that).
The yearly wage of a carpenter in 1983 -- roughly $35K -- was a very good income then, plus most union carpenters would also been earning substantial overtime at time and a half pay! and don't forget a real pension and good health insurance.
Today that $19 an hour is barely even middle class -- under $40,000 a year. It is likely that the pension and health care cut back or even gone. Most such workers are now forced to work "off the books" for cash under the table, meaning no SS credits and no overtime pay.
I urge ANY reader here, no matter how lefty, to visit (without warning) any construction site in their area -- and SEE for themselves the crews of all hispanic workers speaking Spanish. They are not "hispanic-Americans" with poor English skills. They are illegal aliens, working for cash under the table.
I have seen this myself in my area -- Rustbelt Midwest -- and we are 1000 miles from the Mexican border. We have almost no local hispanic population (under 1%). These are all an influx of illegals, brought here to take our jobs.
The yearly wage of a carpenter in 1983 -- roughly $35K -- was a very good income then, plus most union carpenters would also been earning substantial overtime at time and a half pay! and don't forget a real pension and good health insurance.
Today that $19 an hour is barely even middle class -- under $40,000 a year. It is likely that the pension and health care cut back or even gone. Most such workers are now forced to work "off the books" for cash under the table, meaning no SS credits and no overtime pay.
I urge ANY reader here, no matter how lefty, to visit (without warning) any construction site in their area -- and SEE for themselves the crews of all hispanic workers speaking Spanish. They are not "hispanic-Americans" with poor English skills. They are illegal aliens, working for cash under the table.
I have seen this myself in my area -- Rustbelt Midwest -- and we are 1000 miles from the Mexican border. We have almost no local hispanic population (under 1%). These are all an influx of illegals, brought here to take our jobs.
1
Nuts. More "theory" and not enough reality. The disaffected people in this country (left, right, and center) are sick of all the deceptions practiced by Mad-Avenue (and almost all politicians). They (unfortunately) tend to judge people like Trump as non-deceptive when he shouts out stuff that is non PC. But in our present culture "non-PC, and drunk" is just another mad-ave deception. We need honest people who are proven to keep their word - from the bottom up.
4
So rash, compulsive action instead of Deliberation or patience; intolerance instead of tolerance and segregation instead of a "passionate embrace of America’s growing diversity". And an emphasis on covert action and war over diplomat...
In a way, I hope Trump gets the nomination as it would put him further under the microscope focusing on real issues supplying the Democrats with more momentum in the struggle to regain American values and promote a global vision of cooperation.
In a way, I hope Trump gets the nomination as it would put him further under the microscope focusing on real issues supplying the Democrats with more momentum in the struggle to regain American values and promote a global vision of cooperation.
4
Behold Trump’s all or nothing, no holds barred reckless fling at self destruction and dragging his immediate world down with him with a despotic and utter disregard of them as individuals … what an amazing spectacle! How is this possible? It’s possible because of the glaring incompetence and dangerousness of each and every GOP candidate, particularly Cruz. A Trump candidacy could well win the Presidency, the Senate, and maybe even the House for the Democrats. Even districts that are 55% GOP might not be safe with Trump leading the ticket.
30
Nobody owns Trump. The rest of the field are owned by their donors. Trump is flawed and crude, but he is honest.
9
Rich:
Honest about exatly what?
Can anybody explain how he intends to doany of the things he has promised? Since he never explains anything how do you know what he will actually do?
Honest about exatly what?
Can anybody explain how he intends to doany of the things he has promised? Since he never explains anything how do you know what he will actually do?
1
Better to have a flawed and crude candidate who angers everyone?
And if you think he's motivated by some sort of benevolence you are sadly mistaken. He's about his own power and making money - the same as all other politicians. Our only hope would be the Jimmy Carter effect where Congress just hates him enough to make sure he gets nothing done.
And if you think he's motivated by some sort of benevolence you are sadly mistaken. He's about his own power and making money - the same as all other politicians. Our only hope would be the Jimmy Carter effect where Congress just hates him enough to make sure he gets nothing done.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
1
Axelrod's column is a bunch of just so stories. In fact, in 1960, Nixon won the election--not Kennedy. And all the things Axelrod says about George HW Bush in 1988 he could have said about Dukakis.
Trump's appeal is to Americans who are disenfranchised. As Chris Matthews of MSNBC was asked last winter on the Jim & Margery show on Boston's NPR station last winter, why there is so much hatred in politics today. He told them that people are watching their towns turn Hispanic, and losing their jobs to the flood of cheap labor, or are in danger of losing their jobs. This is the force that has propelled Trump. And the numbers of immigrants, which almost never get reported in the press, are staggering. Since the millennium, there are 19 million additional immigrants, the population equivalent of one New York State, and there are an additional 16.5 million working age Americans, but only 9.3 million new jobs. Do the math. http://cis.org/for-every-new-job-two-new-immigrants
And political correctness is part of what prevents these issues from being hashed out in the news media.
Trump's appeal is to Americans who are disenfranchised. As Chris Matthews of MSNBC was asked last winter on the Jim & Margery show on Boston's NPR station last winter, why there is so much hatred in politics today. He told them that people are watching their towns turn Hispanic, and losing their jobs to the flood of cheap labor, or are in danger of losing their jobs. This is the force that has propelled Trump. And the numbers of immigrants, which almost never get reported in the press, are staggering. Since the millennium, there are 19 million additional immigrants, the population equivalent of one New York State, and there are an additional 16.5 million working age Americans, but only 9.3 million new jobs. Do the math. http://cis.org/for-every-new-job-two-new-immigrants
And political correctness is part of what prevents these issues from being hashed out in the news media.
6
A very articulate, clear, and thoughtful analysis from a supremely successful political strategist. It goes a long way to explain the Trump phenomenon, but, of course, it's one part of the calculus, as I'm sure Mr. Axelrod would agree. In the plus column, one had to add Mr. Trump's unmatched access to media attention and his personal fortune, assets competitors lack. In the minus column, though, one has to consider that being the polar opposite of the incumbent counts for a lot among a lot of people, but not for everything. Here, at the risk of sounding like one more of those who have predicted Trump's demise for a long time, Trump's isolation within the party and his lack (as far as I can make out) of a coherent and viable governing program will ultimately create a ceiling for his support, if not in the primaries, certainly in the general election. He's much more like the most successful third party runs we've seen, capturing and genuinely exciting a segment of electorate (including, perhaps, many who would not otherwise vote). Finally, the excesses of Trump's rhetoric and personality seem thus far to have only intensified his support. I'm not sure, however, that they will broaden it sufficiently. In the end, enough Americans may simply think that a president who talks about how he could go down 5th Avenue shooting people and still win might be better in reality TV than in reality.
33
It occurred to me that mr. Trump is actually pretty easy to figure out. He represents the portion of the American electorate who would say, imply and do all of the odious and sadly, reprehensible things that he says,implies, and would do if given the opportunity. I'm one American who believes that there aren't enough of those folks to turn this nightmare into reality!
4
I'm one too. Let's bring all of our friends to the polls!
1
The buffoon is a nightmare for the Republican Party.
A nightmare the GOP brought upon itself by coddling the Tea Fringe for decades.
How do you like your Orange Haired Frankenstein, Reibus?
A nightmare the GOP brought upon itself by coddling the Tea Fringe for decades.
How do you like your Orange Haired Frankenstein, Reibus?
6
"many in the Republican base, who view with suspicion and anger the rapidly changing demographics of America" is the only accurate part of Mr. Axelrod's appraisal of Trump supporters. Otherwise the typically elitist conception of people in the U.S. as impressionable cottlebrains to be manipulated by the Axelrods of the world is exactly what people left and right are rejecting.
3
A very intriguing analysis. But, when one considers the profile of the GOP base, it is hard not to go with Bobby Jindal's explanation. The GOP is the "Party of Stupid" that the Establishment is no longer able to manipulate.
8
There's a major void in Axelrod's otherwise excellent analysis: Neither Obama nor Trump is a party person. That is, their ambition to be President arises out of a personal self-regard, rather than as a party builder and advocate.
Obama never has devoted much time for Democratic Party politics; he's always postured as somehow outside or above political machinations. Trump (as I've stated several times) is no more a Republican than Hillary Clinton. He takes pride, in fact, in constantly picking at the GOP establishment and its party apparatus, as if it were a scab that won't heal.
As President, if he makes it, Trump will be all about Trump, and he will ignore Congresss with even more antipathy than Obama. In his disdain for traditional politics, Trump will end up annoying the hell out of everyone on both sides of the aisle but, unlike Obama, he will not be able to assemble the votes he needs to pass any significant legislation.
Look for a Trump Presidency running on executive orders. Shades of Obama.
Obama never has devoted much time for Democratic Party politics; he's always postured as somehow outside or above political machinations. Trump (as I've stated several times) is no more a Republican than Hillary Clinton. He takes pride, in fact, in constantly picking at the GOP establishment and its party apparatus, as if it were a scab that won't heal.
As President, if he makes it, Trump will be all about Trump, and he will ignore Congresss with even more antipathy than Obama. In his disdain for traditional politics, Trump will end up annoying the hell out of everyone on both sides of the aisle but, unlike Obama, he will not be able to assemble the votes he needs to pass any significant legislation.
Look for a Trump Presidency running on executive orders. Shades of Obama.
20
GW Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and more all issued more executive orders than Obama. So you might wants to rexamine your shades.
3
Bernie wouldn't pass anything significant either. Hillary might if she acts as Bill did and shifts to the center. Cruz is disliked by everyone in Congress, so ditto there.
2
It's all about the press! They are the corruption within the country! What in see in the NYT and on FB which is free and open are two different stories!
If David's analysis is correct, Mr Sanders will be the DP nominee.
1
Excellent article, but it misses the point. Trump is as exciting as he is because he is making a mockery of the American political system, the very one that its cohorts have made into a lucrative and perennial dog fight. Interestingly, Ms. Clinton should have read the article a few weeks ago, and although Mr. Obama may be well liked in Iowa, distinguishing herself from him was the real ticket. Right now, unsure of which way to go, she plays it both ways. Mr. Axelrod is one of the great political analysts of all time, without a doubt, so in all probability there will be a spring thaw and Trump will fade and Hillary will emerge as the anointed one she has been from day one. This would only be true, of course, if the minorities choose to participate, and Mr. Obama has done much to turn them off by doing very little. Elsewise, we may very well be listening to Trump for a prolonged period of time.
3
If Axelrod can admit to missing Trump's rise in the primary then he should also admit that he continues to miss the probability that Donald Trump will win the White House and become one of our country's greatest presidents. Admit it, Axelrod, Trump was right when he promised he would "Make America Great Again."
3
Remember when Donald got angry with Senator Graham so he publicized his cell number? Remember Valerie Flame - Dick Cheney outing her as a CIA agent because her husband published an article he didn't like? So let's give the Donald the nuclear launch codes, names of agents, give him access to all that top secret military technology. Oh yeah, trust Trump. Right!
3
Hope and Change has been supplanted by Rude and Crude.
4
Action = equal and opposite reaction
1
One piece of irony that fascinates me is that for years, knee jerk conservative voters ate up a narrative that Obama was "out to get" religious Americans, particularly Christians. They chain lettered easily debunked urban legends like the one that claimed the president cancelled the National Day of Prayer.
Now those same voters embrace a candidate who's made clear threats of religious persecution of Muslims, promises that if carried out, would tear the First Amendment to shreds.
Now those same voters embrace a candidate who's made clear threats of religious persecution of Muslims, promises that if carried out, would tear the First Amendment to shreds.
4
Mr. Trump has not advocated any RELIGIOUS persecution of anyone, and not Muslims. That would entail closing Mosques or forbidding the practice of Islam -- which has not happened, not been proposed and would never stand up to legal scrutiny.
What he has said, and I agree, is that in the face of WORLD WIDE TERRORISM, we need to curtail future immigration from known Islamic terror states. These are entirely Muslim. We saw what happens when government does not vet such immigrants in San Bernardino and of course, in Paris.
What he has said, and I agree, is that in the face of WORLD WIDE TERRORISM, we need to curtail future immigration from known Islamic terror states. These are entirely Muslim. We saw what happens when government does not vet such immigrants in San Bernardino and of course, in Paris.
2
Interesting article.
If Mr. Axelrod is correct, Democrats should nominate someone who, while sharing progressive values, is not seen as too similar to President Obama.
Mr. Axelrod's theory also raises another flag against Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Mrs. Clinton is closer to Mr. Obama than Bernie Sanders is. She is closer to the president in her temperament, policy, style, and the fact that she served in the Obama administration.
Tell me again why she is seen as the stronger general election candidate?
If Mr. Axelrod is correct, Democrats should nominate someone who, while sharing progressive values, is not seen as too similar to President Obama.
Mr. Axelrod's theory also raises another flag against Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Mrs. Clinton is closer to Mr. Obama than Bernie Sanders is. She is closer to the president in her temperament, policy, style, and the fact that she served in the Obama administration.
Tell me again why she is seen as the stronger general election candidate?
67
Perhaps because she actually has the "chops" to do the job?
2
She is thoroughly at home in the political heart of darkness. Bribed to a fare-thee-well by Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, etc. Do any of these outfits think her insights in her speeches are worth $200,000+ ? Supported the Iraq invasion and all the cash registers it rang for Halliburton, Cheney, etc. Mr. Sanders continues to be a remarkable and desirable candidate. We are privileged that such a person is running.
2
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created all of the Free Trade Agreements that economically required US businesses to relocate US jobs to Third World Nations!
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created all of the wars that we lost or tied since WWII.
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created all of the CFI Federal “Pay to Play” government contracts, Intercontinental Military Rocket Guidance Secrets licensed sale to Communist China (google Chinagate), or the Solyndra “Pay to Play” government guaranteed loans!
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures for awarding favors and no-bid contracts to political contributors! Foreign Manufacturers and foreign governments probably think that they paid US Presidents for NAFTA and all of those other Free Trade Agreement legislation that economically caused US jobs to relocate to foreign nations, MFNs, PNTRs, and that secret US Military Rocket Technology “fair and square” in accordance with the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED unwritten federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures!
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created the National Debt that we have obligated our children to repay the money that we borrowed and then spent on ourselves.
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created all of the wars that we lost or tied since WWII.
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created all of the CFI Federal “Pay to Play” government contracts, Intercontinental Military Rocket Guidance Secrets licensed sale to Communist China (google Chinagate), or the Solyndra “Pay to Play” government guaranteed loans!
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures for awarding favors and no-bid contracts to political contributors! Foreign Manufacturers and foreign governments probably think that they paid US Presidents for NAFTA and all of those other Free Trade Agreement legislation that economically caused US jobs to relocate to foreign nations, MFNs, PNTRs, and that secret US Military Rocket Technology “fair and square” in accordance with the prevailing INSTITUTIONALIZED unwritten federal government “PAY TO PLAY” bribery procedures!
“Mainstream Republicans” and “Mainstream Democrats” such as Hillary Clinton created the National Debt that we have obligated our children to repay the money that we borrowed and then spent on ourselves.
2
This is really a reformatted version of Glen Reynolds piece
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/09/glenn-reynolds-liberals...
but with a selective comparison on personality rather than policy designed to favor Axelrods's odd client.
The analysis fails if we considered succession that Axelrod omits. So what is the explanation for Trump?
Well, what is the explanation for Sanders?
These two anomalies are not unrelated. They have a common cause--the destruction of trust between the average voter and government. The explanation in terms David should appreciate are here:
http://www.info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/01/fear-and-loathing-in-dc.html...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/09/glenn-reynolds-liberals...
but with a selective comparison on personality rather than policy designed to favor Axelrods's odd client.
The analysis fails if we considered succession that Axelrod omits. So what is the explanation for Trump?
Well, what is the explanation for Sanders?
These two anomalies are not unrelated. They have a common cause--the destruction of trust between the average voter and government. The explanation in terms David should appreciate are here:
http://www.info-theory.blogspot.com/2016/01/fear-and-loathing-in-dc.html...
2
At least with the nomination of Trump (serially-bankrupt, thrice-married adulterer, building his fortune from the rubes at his casinos), we could finally put to rest the myth of the Republican Party as the party of values. So there's that.
And I didn't vote for Obama for his sunny "Hope and Change" message. Please. I voted for the man who was intelligent, eloquent, deliberate, and patient, as you point out. Remember, too, that Sarah Palin was on the other ticket.
And I didn't vote for Obama for his sunny "Hope and Change" message. Please. I voted for the man who was intelligent, eloquent, deliberate, and patient, as you point out. Remember, too, that Sarah Palin was on the other ticket.
6
Axelrid writes " trash-talking, authoritarian, give-no-quarter Mr. Trump". that is laughable!! No one is nore authoritarian than Obama with phone and pen" No one is more "give no quarter" than Obama with his passing of ACA without one single GOP vote. Not to mention the Iran Deal, Gitmo or the ISIS. No one is more trash talking (in his own way) of the GOP than Obama. America is looking for someone who is used to making GOOD deals, who can get things done that is in the best interests of ALL of America, not just Obama's legacy..
5
This is real trash talk.
2
You forget that Congress passed the ACA with the support of a majority of Americans. A majority then re-elected him for helping to get it through Congress as he promised that he would when first elected.
Nice try though.
Nice try though.
3
Very insightful essay. Axelrod's analysis rings true. But if he is correct, matters in the near future will become scary.
Excellent summary, Mr. Axelrod. If only Republicans had an ounce of your
logic and perspicacity, America would have a chance to avoid a calmitous down-slide.
logic and perspicacity, America would have a chance to avoid a calmitous down-slide.
2
Donald Trump has 10 times the brain power Obama will ever have.
Obama did not become president for any other reason than he thought he could win. No resume, no skills and no vision.
Obama tried to ridicule Trump publicly.
Now its pay back time. Trump will spend 8 years disassembly Obama's pitiful presidency, and I will be chuckling the entire time.
Obama did not become president for any other reason than he thought he could win. No resume, no skills and no vision.
Obama tried to ridicule Trump publicly.
Now its pay back time. Trump will spend 8 years disassembly Obama's pitiful presidency, and I will be chuckling the entire time.
5
Obama became president because he was voted in by a majority of the American people...twice.
2
No vision? I think his vision and his efforts to realize it are what you hate about him.
2
Another trash talk.
2
Chuck Grassley was flirting with Trump last week. What's up, Chuck? What do you think about Trump's racism? Not important?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of his sexism? Just a joke?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of his apparent links to organized crime? Not proved? Just business?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of Trump's near total lack of understanding of domestic and foreign policy? Something he'll pick up?
What's up, Chuck?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of his sexism? Just a joke?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of his apparent links to organized crime? Not proved? Just business?
What's up, Chuck? What do you think of Trump's near total lack of understanding of domestic and foreign policy? Something he'll pick up?
What's up, Chuck?
7
What are you worried about- Obama still hasn't picked up foreign policy.
2
Want to know why Trump resonates? For every complaint about Trump, compare him to Obama. Trump is the mirror image one-up to Obama. All the negative, offensive and provocative things he says, his lack of experience in anything but being a celebrity, his boost in popularity gained from the massive unpopularity of his predecessor. Obama has deliberately stuck his thumb in the eye of the other half of America, the "typical" white ones, like he described his grandmother, and the ones he cited stereotypically for clinging to their guns and bibles. Nothing Trump has done is as offensive as releasing five terrorist generals in exchange for an American traitor, Bergdhal. Nothing is as offensive as releasing sanctions on Iran while they simultaneously insult us and call for our destruction. Nothing is as offensive as sending weapons to el Chapo and ISIS, Obama has done (fast and furious and arming Syrian "rebels"). Trump may outdo Obama in volume and tone, but he is simply following the model and pattern of Obama. I would have thought that the U.S. could not endure the disgrace of a Trump presidency, until I witnessed the pitiful, pathetic, disastrous Obama presidency. Now Trump doesn't seem that bad. Thank Clinton for bin Laden, 9/11, and GW Bush. Thank Bush for the Iraq war and Obama. Thank Obama for ISIS and their 9/11 (yet to come) and Trump. After Bush, Obama doesn't seem so bad. And after Obama, Trump doesn't seem that bad. But are we the frog in water about to boil...?
16
This screed gets an NYT Pick? Or is it satire? This is a mess Trump would be proud of.
5
If only real life were that simple; that dots that don't really connect can be so easily connected.
1
Excellent argument. Reagan after Carter, Clinton after Reagan are other excellent examples of the contrast vote.
1
Clinton was not after Reagan.
2
Polls predicting how Trump will do in the general election are of little value. Trump is incredibly street smart, and he has already shown he can say anything and move the numbers in his favor. I am no Trump supporter, but you have to marvel at his ability to read the TEA leaves.
5
Trump is now controlling the Democrat primary. He is just deciding who he would rather run against, or if he should just let them beat each other up for a while.
1
I don't think you are saying anything that comes as a surprise to most engaged voters.
The real question is whether there are enough crazy people who want to burn the country down to get him elected.
I go back and forth on that. I live in the middle of the country and I know most people haven't even started to think about this yet. They aren't plugged in to every act performed by every candidate. They have jobs and children and lives. I know the reports we get are not symbolic of the electorate as a whole. When they speak to people at these rallies most are retired, white, many religious and not necessarily the make up the electorate as a whole.
One thing I am fairly certain of, an extreme candidate, or one that can be painted as extreme, at either end of the spectrum may get the nomination but they won't win. Most people have a dog in this hunt. They aren't wealthy and retired and able to vote their ideology.
Both parties should take that as a cautionary tale.
The real question is whether there are enough crazy people who want to burn the country down to get him elected.
I go back and forth on that. I live in the middle of the country and I know most people haven't even started to think about this yet. They aren't plugged in to every act performed by every candidate. They have jobs and children and lives. I know the reports we get are not symbolic of the electorate as a whole. When they speak to people at these rallies most are retired, white, many religious and not necessarily the make up the electorate as a whole.
One thing I am fairly certain of, an extreme candidate, or one that can be painted as extreme, at either end of the spectrum may get the nomination but they won't win. Most people have a dog in this hunt. They aren't wealthy and retired and able to vote their ideology.
Both parties should take that as a cautionary tale.
5
Bernie is running as an ideologue. Hillary is running as the extension of Obama, another ideologue. If you can believe anything she says.
Trump is the only one not running as an ideologue, but as a "git 'er done" kind of guy that is willing to do or say whatever it takes. He is the candidate of common sense, who is willing to say what the rest of us are thinking, but are afraid to say, because the truth might be offensive to someone, somewhere.
When the truth is considered "politically incorrect," we have lost our way. We need someone to get us back on the right path, who is unafraid of the criticism he will certainly get for doing so.
When the ideologues from boths sides are attacking you, that is proof positive that you are not one of them.
Trump is the only one not running as an ideologue, but as a "git 'er done" kind of guy that is willing to do or say whatever it takes. He is the candidate of common sense, who is willing to say what the rest of us are thinking, but are afraid to say, because the truth might be offensive to someone, somewhere.
When the truth is considered "politically incorrect," we have lost our way. We need someone to get us back on the right path, who is unafraid of the criticism he will certainly get for doing so.
When the ideologues from boths sides are attacking you, that is proof positive that you are not one of them.
10
That's not proof positive you aren't one of them. Yes, you might not be an ideologue of either side, but ideology is not limited to "two sides"--Trump is his own ideologue.
Bashing women? the disabled? the poor blacks Hispanics? That is the truth? Telling it like it is? What kind of truth do you choose to believe.
3
Trump has been helped by the fact that there were so many candidates. If it was just Trump and Cruz voters would be able to see a real contrast, much more on the issues. As it is now, it's Trump's outsize television personality, which dominates the "news", against EVERYONE else.
If all the candidates where combined as one, and they all say the same things anyway, Trump would be way behind. People who support any of the other candidates are not going to suddenly see Trump as the answer. Either you like the guy, or you don't.
What will happen is this: After the first few primaries go by, and candidates drop out, the remainder will pick up those votes, not Trump. Eventually he loses, and he loses quite convincingly. You heard it here first.
If all the candidates where combined as one, and they all say the same things anyway, Trump would be way behind. People who support any of the other candidates are not going to suddenly see Trump as the answer. Either you like the guy, or you don't.
What will happen is this: After the first few primaries go by, and candidates drop out, the remainder will pick up those votes, not Trump. Eventually he loses, and he loses quite convincingly. You heard it here first.
Peter, it depends a great deal on whether (i) one candidate can consolidate the anti-Trump vote and (ii) how quickly he can do so. Cruz has the money and the organization to stay in for the long haul, but he has perhaps even less support among "establishment"-leaning Republican voters than Trump does. (Notice all the recent talk about how Cruz would be even worse for Republicans' down-ticket prospects than Trump?)
If Rubio outperforms the other "establishment" candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he will probably be able to consolidate the support of their voters pretty quickly and will then probably have the best chance to win the nomination. BUT if they splinter (for instance, if Rubio is the establishment's #1 in Iowa, followed by Kasich in New Hampshire and Jeb in South Carolina), then that will aid Trump tremendously because then it is likely that more candidates will stay in the race longer, thus giving Trump a great chance to win the winner-take-all states with only a plurality of the vote.
If Rubio outperforms the other "establishment" candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire, then he will probably be able to consolidate the support of their voters pretty quickly and will then probably have the best chance to win the nomination. BUT if they splinter (for instance, if Rubio is the establishment's #1 in Iowa, followed by Kasich in New Hampshire and Jeb in South Carolina), then that will aid Trump tremendously because then it is likely that more candidates will stay in the race longer, thus giving Trump a great chance to win the winner-take-all states with only a plurality of the vote.
On the contrary, we have been hearing predictions of Trump's doom since day one. You are nowhere near the first. But you are just as wrong as the rest.
1
While they are not the same- Hitler and Trump- the people who support them are: human beings. Germans, the most educated populace at the time, under great economic stress, humiliated by a war they could not win, decided to go with a bombastic ego-maniac, who sneered (OK, he did more than sneer) at anyone who disagreed with him.
Narcissistic wounds of the struggling, insecure, faltering humans whose status in the world has been savaged (Wall Street and even a Black guy on top!) get salved by grandiose figures that promise to make THEM great again. The buffonary is not noticed till their fall from grace- where are you Charlie Chaplin now that we need you, again. Then the disasters left in their wake become clear.
Narcissistic wounds of the struggling, insecure, faltering humans whose status in the world has been savaged (Wall Street and even a Black guy on top!) get salved by grandiose figures that promise to make THEM great again. The buffonary is not noticed till their fall from grace- where are you Charlie Chaplin now that we need you, again. Then the disasters left in their wake become clear.
11
To many uninformed Donald Trump is the last hope to stop disliked changes. It is also clear that the current Republican Party will fail if Trump is their candidate.
1
Mr. Sanders' obvious value lies in his openness and strategy in taking on Wall Street and the 1% class. Mrs. Clinton's oft-stated opposition to Wall Street doesn't square with her $200,000+ speeches to Goldman Sachs and the like Her contempt for all of us hoi polloi comes through loud and clear in her laughing off a reporter asking for a transcript of one of her speeches to Goldman Sachs. Her message to all os us is, "What I say to Goldman and company is my business, not yours." She isn't so different from the Mitt Romney who was caught in his comments to a Boca Raton audience of the well heeled. The part of the press that endorses Mrs. Clinton is sclerotic and utterly out of touch. The one thing Maureen Dowd said that I agree with is the following: "The Clintons' tin cup should be placed in the Smithsonian. It's one of the wonders of the world."
2
Anyone who has a retirement account, 401k, etc. or who trades on the open market has an investment in Wall Street. It sucks but it's true. Besides if I was offered $200k to make a speech I would be in foolish to stupid territory to not do it. I can't figure out why people spend energy trying to take down HC in order to replace her with BS when the real enemy is a person who wants to deport 11m people...just visualize those trucks circling your neighborhood.
1
Good article. For a person like me, a confirmed Realist ,who votes, but claim no political affiliation. My memory tells me, the author was instrumental in identifying a demograhic who would support a no name non qualifed Illinois senato,r to run for President. It worked. Now Trump has identified a apparently large demographic, who for a host of reasons, like Obama's followers, want their voice. So Obama's logo was, Hope and Change, Trumps is, Make America Great Again. When the Clintons take over, it seems clear the Hope and Change model, along with having hung up our worlds policemen badge, will make further inroads, into profund change in our experiment. Called American style Democracy.
Yes Mr. Axelrod this GOP base has been looking for the anti-Obama for the last seven years and found two, Trump and Cruz, who are qualified only by their ability to appeal to the twisted emotions, xenophobia, mysogynists and hatred of the GOP base.Unlike Obama who had a genuine idea of how to solve the US ills which were overwhelming in 2009, and for which he relied on top notch advisers, Trump makes grandiose nationalistic statements and boasts of his personal capabilities to solve all ills. Cruz gains popularity and ratings by attacking all three branches of the existing establishment and appealing to extremists on the far right.
The display last week with Trump and Palin and the Trump rally in Biloxi tells us he will do anything to gain right wing, southern bigots and lower class votes. The danger is this appears to another Vladmir Putin in the making with the showmanship and limited capacity of Ronald Reagan.
Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have become the intellectual leaders of the GOP. And both Trump and Cruz embrace these media buffoons wholeheartedly. At least Obama wisely steered his campaign away from the Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton and other left wing race baters and similar types . Moving to the center with the Clintons and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi told us he was not going to alienate the independents and intellectuals of Obama's party.We have no such assurances with Trump and Cruz.
The display last week with Trump and Palin and the Trump rally in Biloxi tells us he will do anything to gain right wing, southern bigots and lower class votes. The danger is this appears to another Vladmir Putin in the making with the showmanship and limited capacity of Ronald Reagan.
Rush Limbaugh , Sean Hannity Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have become the intellectual leaders of the GOP. And both Trump and Cruz embrace these media buffoons wholeheartedly. At least Obama wisely steered his campaign away from the Rev. Wright, Al Sharpton and other left wing race baters and similar types . Moving to the center with the Clintons and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi told us he was not going to alienate the independents and intellectuals of Obama's party.We have no such assurances with Trump and Cruz.
9
Nature abhors a vacuum and the vacuum that TRUMP fiills was created by Obama's fecklessness in the face of terrorism, disingenuousness when confronted with a real problem of ILLEGALS flooding across the border, and unwavering belief that the governed exist to benefit those in government and the furtherance of their ideology.
TRUMP is popular because the concerns he had the stones to address are real. Address those concerns and his support would decrease.
TRUMP is popular because the concerns he had the stones to address are real. Address those concerns and his support would decrease.
7
Obama does well to think, reflect, and use his intelligence in the real world. Way better than faking it.
In short, here's Trump without the fancy magic patter:
I'll ruin you and make you pay for it. And you'll love it because I'm rich.
In short, here's Trump without the fancy magic patter:
I'll ruin you and make you pay for it. And you'll love it because I'm rich.
3
The "flood" of "illegals" Trump showed in his ad was a picture taken somewhere in North Africa. So much for telling (or showing) it like it is.
2
Stay tuned...Trump attends a Presbyterian church in Iowa, un planned and gets the biggest lesson in life. http://news.yahoo.com/trump-iowa-church-hymns-readings-childrens-choir-1...
"One reading during the service, about the importance of humility, included a reference that caught Trump's ear. "Can you imagine eye telling hand, 'Get lost, I don't need you' or hearing the head telling the foot, 'You're fired, your job has been phased out?'" the reader said.....In her sermon, the pastor, the Rev. Dr. Pamela Saturnia, also made several references with resonance for the 2016 race."Jesus is teaching us today that he has come for those who are outside of the church," she said, preaching a message of healing and acceptance for "those who are the most unloved, the most discriminated against, the most forgotten in our community and in our world."
Among those she cited were "the Syrian refugees" and "the Mexican migrants." Trump has advocated barring all Syrian refugees from entering the country because of potential security risks and deporting all of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally." Hope thick skinned Trump got the message from GOD!
"One reading during the service, about the importance of humility, included a reference that caught Trump's ear. "Can you imagine eye telling hand, 'Get lost, I don't need you' or hearing the head telling the foot, 'You're fired, your job has been phased out?'" the reader said.....In her sermon, the pastor, the Rev. Dr. Pamela Saturnia, also made several references with resonance for the 2016 race."Jesus is teaching us today that he has come for those who are outside of the church," she said, preaching a message of healing and acceptance for "those who are the most unloved, the most discriminated against, the most forgotten in our community and in our world."
Among those she cited were "the Syrian refugees" and "the Mexican migrants." Trump has advocated barring all Syrian refugees from entering the country because of potential security risks and deporting all of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally." Hope thick skinned Trump got the message from GOD!
2
Obama has shone himself as a closet hawk and closet Republican. He has deported more immigrants and used more drones than any other president. This is why Sanders is running and winning.
1
I wonder what George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would make of their successor, Donald Trump...
1
The cover of this week's New Yorker pretty much answers the question:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-02-01
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/cover-story-2016-02-01
Not happening...Britain is already debating how to ban trump from entering the country, UAE Arabs are threatening to withdraw billions of dollars of investment in US if Trump wins and every country in the developed world is going to reject him.
2
Trump is the best chance America has of restoring it's past glory. Of the Morgans, and the Vanderbilts. The PIONEERS who BUILT the railroads and the automobile.
He's my guy, and now that we have the support of Democrats, who have followed our lead in pushing Clinton aside, we can get down to business.
The banks will be stronger than ever, and keep the real estate industry flush with capital. We will take back the border, and annex as we wish.
Thank you Bernie Sanders, we could not have done it without you.
He's my guy, and now that we have the support of Democrats, who have followed our lead in pushing Clinton aside, we can get down to business.
The banks will be stronger than ever, and keep the real estate industry flush with capital. We will take back the border, and annex as we wish.
Thank you Bernie Sanders, we could not have done it without you.
This seems like an excellent description of what is happening in the Presidential race right now if one only pays attention to the polls and mainstream press. However, there is one indisputable fact - women and the men who love them have an unprecedented opportunity to elect a woman as President of the United States of America because she is the MOST QUALIFIED CANDIDATE and she has a strong social conscience. She has my vote.
6
not usually a fan of Axelrod, his analysis is brilliant. His theory of successive POTUS's is spot on: a pattern of opposites succeeding each other.
2
Recently, MSNBC reported that Trump dismissed criticism from multiple sources in THE NATIONAL REVIEW by saying, "That's a dying paper."
I imagined his complete response, as it might have arisen in Trump's mind, as, "That's a dying paper... and most of my supporters don't read, anyway."
I imagined his complete response, as it might have arisen in Trump's mind, as, "That's a dying paper... and most of my supporters don't read, anyway."
8
Dear NYTimes. Please stop publishing giant photos of Mr. Trump smirking. You're scaring the children!
13
Behind all his showmanship an bluster Trump is a shrewd businessman. He and the Republican party, if he gets nominated, will give the Democratic party candidate a run for the money. Democrats have to be as skillful as he in their counter offensive campaign to get the voters attention. It will certainly be an interesting election in November.
3
Though other profiles point out that Rumsfeld may understand what's going on around him, they all point out that he operates almost completely through impulse and intuition. As a businessman, his record has been mixed. He was born into a wealthy family and had all the advantages of an elite education and headstart in the family real estate business. What's clear throughout is that he is not very deliberative and does not have a lot of patience for planning and analysis. It would be entirely unsurprising if before the end of the campaign, Trump made a truly disastrous gaffe resulting in his becoming unelectable. At that point, it will become clear that Trump's is not really all that shrewd, but has advanced on luck and his skill at triangulating disaffected white voters.
1
As you say, David Axelrod, the gist is that voters rarely seek a replica of what they had - i.e. Kennedy/Ike, Carter/Ford, Nixon, HGW Bush/Reagan, GW Bush/Obama. Donald Trump is the flip side, the antithesis of Barack Obama. We still have 6 months left until the RNC Convention crowns its nominee in Cleveland, Ohio. And may he (or she) not be Donald Trump. Chances are slim to none that not one of the rest of the GOP/Tea Party wannabe POTUSes - unelectable, unqualified "losers" (The Donald's favorite slam) - will get the nod. Am now noodling about Bloomberg and Biden, and wondering what your take is on their throwing their campaign hats in the ring?
1
hillary robbem klipem is the MOST TRANSPARENT candidate in history!!!!!
Anyone with 2 connecting brain cells can see right thru her
Anyone with 2 connecting brain cells can see right thru her
2
So, to make a long story short, because Obama was reserved and a gentleman America longs for loud mouthed buffoon. Got it.
29
This is our next President.
Having wrapped up the GOP nomination, he is now hard at work using Bernie Sanders to push Hillary out of the way, and many are falling for it.
Having wrapped up the GOP nomination, he is now hard at work using Bernie Sanders to push Hillary out of the way, and many are falling for it.
4
it is so sad and amazing to watch my people being led astray. Donald trump and the pied piper are the same person.
4
It is depressing to think that a sizable minority of Republicans share Trumps clownish, bigoted opinions.
What a disaster for the Republicans. A disaster of their own making, true, but a disaster none the less. I do not wish them well with their Frankenstein.
What a disaster for the Republicans. A disaster of their own making, true, but a disaster none the less. I do not wish them well with their Frankenstein.
8
Great analysis.
However, you left out the fact that even at his best, which is right now, he commands the attention of 39% of Republican voters. That translates to roughly 20% of the voting public in a general election.
That does not make an electoral college victory.
That twenty percent is probably a reliable number for the percentage of people in this Country who haven't got a clue as to how government actually works.
However, you left out the fact that even at his best, which is right now, he commands the attention of 39% of Republican voters. That translates to roughly 20% of the voting public in a general election.
That does not make an electoral college victory.
That twenty percent is probably a reliable number for the percentage of people in this Country who haven't got a clue as to how government actually works.
3
America is one thing ... money .... without its basis all the left and right and good and willed .. the honorable the visioned .. become as much air. Which of the early season range crop of candidates would be able to weather out economic collapse..which could prevent or detune it? Sanders.. socialists make everyone a loser... Clinton ... her hubby set the mark for the 2008 fall ...Hillary counts no better... O'Malley ... now here's a hangnail pol -- mismanaged Baltimore and the State of Maryland -- raising sales tax to buoy the poorest fools who voted him in... Leaving us with the GOP gaggle .. Too many heads there to find a directed mind.... time for them to thin the herd... so that head to head contacts can begin
Still continue to be surprised that all the pundits surprised by Trump --- talk about being isolated in the beltway. In the real America I live in, the pleading for a Trump like candidate was loud and clear from my Republican neighbors and the retired community by Dad lives in. When I viewed his first "Mexican rapists" speech, I thought to myself, the savior has finally arrived.
2
We will miss President Obama.
11
Wish he could linger, stay longer.
1
I'll go one further, President Obama created Donald Trump.
4
The left wing has left a political void of gaping proportions through its continued and unapologetic genuflection in front of President Obama and Mrs. Clinton (on the other knee).
Absent that, neither Trump nor Sanders, living on political fringes, would stand a chance.
Thank you, Mr. President, thank you Hillary, and why don't we also thank the vast majority of the people on this board. You and your fellow travelers have brought us here. So please stop moaning. It's getting really old.
Absent that, neither Trump nor Sanders, living on political fringes, would stand a chance.
Thank you, Mr. President, thank you Hillary, and why don't we also thank the vast majority of the people on this board. You and your fellow travelers have brought us here. So please stop moaning. It's getting really old.
3
What's old is new again! Open your mind! the '20's are about to be repeated... that's the 'ROARING 20'S'! only 4 more years to go to regress....
1
My bet is that Mr. Trump, if he does make it into the general election, will count on the 8 second attention span of the American electorate and simply modify his rants enough to attract a wider slice of voters.
1
Many years ago a very wise teacher observed" "What comes out of a man's mouth reveals what is in his heart."
From his pronouncements It is obvious that Donald Trump's heart is very black indeed.
From his pronouncements It is obvious that Donald Trump's heart is very black indeed.
5
You do mean dark...not black.
1
There have been some who say that Trump has connected with the American people in ways that give them the feeling he can change their lives for the better. How he intends to do that doesn't seem to be clear to me since I've not read or heard him say one single serious sentence about how he will accomplish his ability to "do the deal" and make all the other angry warring countries suddenly see how advantageous to them his deals will be.
For those Americans who believe his presidency will change their lives for the better, I have to ask why they think that 11 million illegals being removed from their jobs (many of which most Americans shudder at working such as gutting dead animals and stoop picking strawberries) will make their lives improve. Or how his being able to shoot someone on a NY city street will improve their lives since he believes they will vote for him anyway. Unless, of course, they, too, believe that they can then shoot someone and not pay the price.
Nothing about this man's running for POTUS makes sense to many of us. I have extended family members who approve of him and their reasons for doing so are, to say the least, a bit scary to this Democrat.
For those Americans who believe his presidency will change their lives for the better, I have to ask why they think that 11 million illegals being removed from their jobs (many of which most Americans shudder at working such as gutting dead animals and stoop picking strawberries) will make their lives improve. Or how his being able to shoot someone on a NY city street will improve their lives since he believes they will vote for him anyway. Unless, of course, they, too, believe that they can then shoot someone and not pay the price.
Nothing about this man's running for POTUS makes sense to many of us. I have extended family members who approve of him and their reasons for doing so are, to say the least, a bit scary to this Democrat.
6
remember what happened to the man who walked on water !
2
Basically, David Axelrod is saying that, yet again, Democrats are floundering and fighting over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic in face of a giant iceberg. Today, also, Charles Blow points out that Clinton has turned nasty against Sanders, and in the worst way and it's backfiring on her.
Plus, of course, his open-chair thesis (BTW, he forgot 2000, where "the guy you'd rather drink a beer with" won over the techno-geek policy wonk).
Blow also points out the firewall, but here's the rub, which Axelrod touches on:
Non-White, Hispanic, Women and Young voters can make a landslide for Democrats but only if they register and get out and VOTE. All indications are that the ONLY impetus for that is Trump's George Wallace racist appeals. Sanders doesn't seem to know how to reach them, and Clinton is taking them for granted. So they may WELL stay home figuring it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to them. That's wrong, of course, because the next President will have between 2 and 4 Supreme Court appointments which will change the Court for 30 years or more.
Plus, of course, his open-chair thesis (BTW, he forgot 2000, where "the guy you'd rather drink a beer with" won over the techno-geek policy wonk).
Blow also points out the firewall, but here's the rub, which Axelrod touches on:
Non-White, Hispanic, Women and Young voters can make a landslide for Democrats but only if they register and get out and VOTE. All indications are that the ONLY impetus for that is Trump's George Wallace racist appeals. Sanders doesn't seem to know how to reach them, and Clinton is taking them for granted. So they may WELL stay home figuring it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to them. That's wrong, of course, because the next President will have between 2 and 4 Supreme Court appointments which will change the Court for 30 years or more.
1
Thanks, Mr. Axelrod, for some useful advice and a relatively cogent analysis. Where you drift from truth and fact is in your assumption that President Obama has much of a constancy left. I would argue that he has so alienated the electorate with his corruption and cronyism that people want change. They want someone who will not lie about IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, You-Can-Keep-Your-Doc, etc. The people believe Trump will be truthful and, if he isn't, that the liberal media will do the job it has ignored for the last seven years.
2
You just rattled off a list of the GOP's failed attempts at sticking Obama with a scandal. In every single instance, there has been not only zero evidence of intentional wrongdoing, but additionally, there is no substance to the complaint!
Seriously! The IRS has a mandate to investigate and enforce the prohibition of nonprofits from participating in political activity. They investigated Democratic and Republican nonprofits. Are you saying there should be no oversight at all, or just no oversight of political activity while the other party is in power?
Maybe you're a sockpuppet, maybe you're new to the game and don't have the perspective to understand what corruption and cronyism look like... or maybe you're too blinded by propaganda and hatred of the other, to care about stupid little distinctions like that.
Seriously! The IRS has a mandate to investigate and enforce the prohibition of nonprofits from participating in political activity. They investigated Democratic and Republican nonprofits. Are you saying there should be no oversight at all, or just no oversight of political activity while the other party is in power?
Maybe you're a sockpuppet, maybe you're new to the game and don't have the perspective to understand what corruption and cronyism look like... or maybe you're too blinded by propaganda and hatred of the other, to care about stupid little distinctions like that.
3
So, on top of every thing else that is Obama's fault, Trump, too, is Obama's fault. Thanks O.
I didn't think so at first but now I see that Trump is going to win. He will pull votes from the dems while most repubs will vote for him rather than another term under the dems. So Donald is your next President. It could be yuuuuuge.
3
As appalling as is the rise of a con man as cruel, as hysterical, and as shallow as Donald Trump, equally frightening is his actual belief that he could "shoot someone" with no consequences or loss of adoration from the base that he "loves" That conviction speaks volumes about his outsize self regard and conscience. That he has captured the hearts and minds unconditionally of so many and that the media is so near crazed for him is scary indeed.
5
When I listen to Donald my mind is transported to the Germany of January 1933.
8
Since Obama was s measured,intelligent man,now people want stupidity at the top.That is not an excuse.If Trump wins the nomination you will have to blame the voters and nobody else.
5
I'll add something to mr Axelrod's analysis: President Obama always has his thought on the long-term good and the long-term solution, whether addressing health care, Iran, climate change, or any other issue.
Mr Trump is in the here and now, a good fit for many Americans who can no longer walk down a street without checking their phones.
Mr Trump is in the here and now, a good fit for many Americans who can no longer walk down a street without checking their phones.
8
Mr Trump is shallow, he does not realize what long term means. His parents never taught him to think long term, only short term at the expense of others. Mr Trump does not realize a President is the President of all people, rich poor, thin fat, tall short, gay straight, black white brown, Muslim or Christian or jew or no faith, everyone. You cannot be President of just angry white men, exclusively Christian. Not in America. It is not the reason our founding fathers fled their countries of origin, why people fleeing from persecution of all kinds, came to our shores. Mr Trump does not understand even the slightest bit what makes America the country it is. He seems to be from a past yesteryear that people rejected soundly and firmly.
1
America should run away from anyone that Sarah Palin enthusiastically supports.
5
Doesn't there have to be some substance?
At this point, Trump is the tailor from The Emperor's New Clothes persuading the public to try this on--it's huge.
At this point, Trump is the tailor from The Emperor's New Clothes persuading the public to try this on--it's huge.
4
I think you mean "yuge"?
Leaders shape polices and create opportunities for inclusion, Obama has done neither; his policy was and is, divide and conquer as a result this country is headed for a period much like the pre civil war.
2
You mean Il Trumpolini will bring back SLAVERY? Who wudda guessed?
1
"Voters rarely seek the replica of what they have. They almost always seek the remedy, the candidate who has the personal qualities the public finds lacking in the departing executive...."
Did Hillary Clinton get this message?
Did Hillary Clinton get this message?
1
Trump equals the infliction of more pain on America.
Moderate, prudent and level headed he is not.
Moderate, prudent and level headed he is not.
3
Nothing reflects as poorly on the GOP base as the popularity of Donald Trump. I can't decide if it's that they're so stupid that they actually believe he could deliver on his unattainable promises, or that they really just don't care and they're voting for the guy who's going to provide the most entertainment?
3
I always thought that David Axelrod was unusually perceptive and he displays it here in pointing out the 'voting in the opposite'. He is clever as well: "open mike night". But he is unknowingly campaigning for Bernie here. People do want change and Clinton is not change. And as polled, the majority of U.S. voters want Bernie's change more than Republican's change, especially Trump's.
3
Yes, unfortunately when you ask the polls the way the election does (Trump? or Sanders?) guess who wins. Not Bernie.
2
Theory only partly true.
Two term presidencies in particular bring out the 'do the opposite' campaigns. The real question in the GOP field where they are all 'opposites' is: why Trump?...policy-wise, it might be that Cruz, Rubio and others would move further away from Pres. Obama than the Don. So I would agree it becomes a personality and temperament element initially...where Trump might be seen as the most opposite to the prez.
But, it's now embedded in a cauldrom of anger on both sides, which gives definition to the 'most opposite' characteristics.
Sanders taps into the 'system is rigged' and the rich get richer angst, meanwhile Trump is the result of the GOP catering to the wealth cartel and finally bypassing politicians all together and running a billionaire directly. In Trumps case it's like selling weapons to your enemies' enemies--only to find them used against you (or in this case against the GOP high-ranking players and donors). It was always in the GOP psyche that the US would be better run by an unapologetic business man...they just didn't expect it to be Trump and his package of narcissistic bellicose.
Two term presidencies in particular bring out the 'do the opposite' campaigns. The real question in the GOP field where they are all 'opposites' is: why Trump?...policy-wise, it might be that Cruz, Rubio and others would move further away from Pres. Obama than the Don. So I would agree it becomes a personality and temperament element initially...where Trump might be seen as the most opposite to the prez.
But, it's now embedded in a cauldrom of anger on both sides, which gives definition to the 'most opposite' characteristics.
Sanders taps into the 'system is rigged' and the rich get richer angst, meanwhile Trump is the result of the GOP catering to the wealth cartel and finally bypassing politicians all together and running a billionaire directly. In Trumps case it's like selling weapons to your enemies' enemies--only to find them used against you (or in this case against the GOP high-ranking players and donors). It was always in the GOP psyche that the US would be better run by an unapologetic business man...they just didn't expect it to be Trump and his package of narcissistic bellicose.
3
So, Mr. Axelrod, are you saying the American people are empty headed, have no discretion nor a real philosophy? That they heard around any new, provocateur or entertainer that tickles their fancy and then after four or eight years move to a new carnival side show to be goosed? Just asking.
4
Trump capturing the GOP nomination is only "likely" to come to pass, especially if what is reported of his supporters is true - the majority is made up of those Least likely to vote in the primary and the general election. Der Donald as POTUS beggars belief, but, for the sake of argument...
How could a Pres. Trump, having also alienated large swaths of the Republican Party, ever hope to build a ruling congressional majority?
Trump has jabbered endlessly about what he'll do about this and that issue...as if Congress would simply roll over and play "rubber stamp" or, more ominously, he didn't need the Congress at all to fund and implement his, doomed to fail, grandiose plans.
How could a Pres. Trump, having also alienated large swaths of the Republican Party, ever hope to build a ruling congressional majority?
Trump has jabbered endlessly about what he'll do about this and that issue...as if Congress would simply roll over and play "rubber stamp" or, more ominously, he didn't need the Congress at all to fund and implement his, doomed to fail, grandiose plans.
4
I'm a Trump skeptic on the whole, but I will say this about him. He has shown that he is non-ideological. Perhaps this is merely a kind way of calling him a flip-flopper with no guiding principles, but he clearly has no strong allegiance to either party and thus does not consider himself to be bound by either party's ideological orthodoxies. If he were to somehow be elected President, then maybe, just maybe, this would lead him to cut across these orthodoxies to make legislative deals that neither a Democratic nor a Republican President could achieve because of (i) the other party's opposition and (ii) his/her own party's disapproval of any attempts to bridge that opposition. Perhaps a Trump presidency would not be so bad after all.
17
Good theory Axlerod. Ive always said that when a President takes the country too far in one political direction, the country rights it by swinging the pendulem the other way.
The only thing your missing here is immigration. Its not only Republicans who are tired of illegal immigration and open borders - its Democrats too, especially African Americans. Just like the Republican establishment misread their base, so too are the Democrats. Democrat voters, not all but mnay, dont like illegal immigration either. the base isnt loaded with ultra liberals who believe in diversity and multiculturalism. Illegals are invading neighborhoods, and dragging them down. They are also taking jobs from young African Americans, and sucking the life out of govt services meant for the poorest of American citizens.
Republicans are moderate Democrats alike ate tired of hearing their political leaders say they are for strong borders, but do absolutely nothing about it. Trump, defying the fear displayed by Republicans, and the willfill ignorance by Democrats, suggests doing the most onvious thing - build a damn wall.
Trump is just the guy to do it. He's a builder, and he's going to ride this issue right into the Oval Office.
The only thing your missing here is immigration. Its not only Republicans who are tired of illegal immigration and open borders - its Democrats too, especially African Americans. Just like the Republican establishment misread their base, so too are the Democrats. Democrat voters, not all but mnay, dont like illegal immigration either. the base isnt loaded with ultra liberals who believe in diversity and multiculturalism. Illegals are invading neighborhoods, and dragging them down. They are also taking jobs from young African Americans, and sucking the life out of govt services meant for the poorest of American citizens.
Republicans are moderate Democrats alike ate tired of hearing their political leaders say they are for strong borders, but do absolutely nothing about it. Trump, defying the fear displayed by Republicans, and the willfill ignorance by Democrats, suggests doing the most onvious thing - build a damn wall.
Trump is just the guy to do it. He's a builder, and he's going to ride this issue right into the Oval Office.
5
Accepting Mr. Axelrod's thesis, how does apply to the Clinton and Sanders csmpaigns?
2
Mr. Axelrod treats Trump as style over substance, but his supporters know exactly what they want: someone white, raging, and vindictive.
5
Trump cannot win the election. The only states that matter in the general election are the industrial Midwest, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico and Colorado. People in the Midwest are not going to give power to a loose cannon like Trump. Florida, New Mexico and Colorado have large Hispanic populations whose members will likely vote over 90% for his opponent. And northern Virginia will unify to save sanity in DC, where they all work, and do all they can to defeat him. Nomination, maybe, president, never.
BTW, when Mitt Romney proposed letting the auto industry fail, that election was over before it even started. Would Ohio and Michigan EVER vote for thet candidate?
BTW, when Mitt Romney proposed letting the auto industry fail, that election was over before it even started. Would Ohio and Michigan EVER vote for thet candidate?
4
To bhs: Well, Ohio and Michigan both have Republican governors now even though a Democrat President Obama saved the auto industry and both states had Democratic governors at that time. Donald Trump is a genius at selling snake oil, and he could indeed win in the states you mention.
1
The President did not vote against the Iraq War... He said we would have if he was in the Senate. So we really don't know do we. I am very surprised Mr Axelrod does not make that clear. He knows better.
5
Axelrod does not insinuate that President Obama was in the Senate for that vote. He writes that Obama publicly opposed the war. And of course, we who were there at the time remember the distinction clearly.
1
JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country..!!
One must ask of himself the big question of not one can say he can do for his country but do you really believe the rhetoric of what he says he can accomplish.
The Presidency as discovered by Obama did not give him Supreme Powers, things that he wanted to do and promised.
So one can rant and scream and promise his head off to get the Top Job but accomplishing is another matter.
The loudest voice in the house is not necessarily the wisest.
Wisdom comes from experience and experience has The Man as the Chinese philosophers say " Walking with a bowed head and speaking with a quiet voice.."
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
25 January, 2016.
One must ask of himself the big question of not one can say he can do for his country but do you really believe the rhetoric of what he says he can accomplish.
The Presidency as discovered by Obama did not give him Supreme Powers, things that he wanted to do and promised.
So one can rant and scream and promise his head off to get the Top Job but accomplishing is another matter.
The loudest voice in the house is not necessarily the wisest.
Wisdom comes from experience and experience has The Man as the Chinese philosophers say " Walking with a bowed head and speaking with a quiet voice.."
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
25 January, 2016.
3
Not political pundits, but "We the people are speaking...Are you listening?
One of the smart Americans who loves his country talks about Donald Trump…
No matter who he attacks, who attacks him his polling numbers claim higher.Why? What is the Trump Phenomena? And how does it work? Mason explains…
https://www.facebook.com/masonweaver/videos/10208291644185637/
One of the smart Americans who loves his country talks about Donald Trump…
No matter who he attacks, who attacks him his polling numbers claim higher.Why? What is the Trump Phenomena? And how does it work? Mason explains…
https://www.facebook.com/masonweaver/videos/10208291644185637/
Yes, I bet the GOP sane people are mad, in fact I am a DEM and I am very mad. I am mad that we have a do nothing, just say no congress that has thrown away the last seven years. I believe the congress must be changed and term limits put in place along with real campaign finance laws.
6
Who is the best qualified person to be the President? That would be an individual brave and smart enough to come up with a simple conclusion.
The worst national threat to America is not the ISIS but the NATO. How do we know it? By summarizing the total harm inflicted upon us by both sides till now.
Due to our NATO membership we waged the Vietnam War to defend the French colonial empire.
Due to the British colonial conquests we got involved into the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict.
Due to the British oil interests we orchestrated the military coup in Iran in the early 50’s and never again had a normal relationship with Tehran.
Due to the British oil interests Margaret Thatcher pushed George H. Bush to jump into the internal Arab affairs and kick Iraq out of their former province Kuwait. Afterwards we have never stopped fighting the Muslim world.
The NATO was supposed to stop us from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn’t.
Why?
Relationship between America and the NATO is giving the false confidence to both sides. They always agree with us, thus making us believe we are right.
That’s similar to the relationship between the Wall Street and the credit rating agencies during the housing bubble. Both sides told us the derivatives and securities were rock solid. We didn’t bother to verify.
Whatever we want the NATO just rubber stamps because we are the paying customer.
Only a few decades later we realize we launched the wrong wars at colossal cost.
The worst national threat to America is not the ISIS but the NATO. How do we know it? By summarizing the total harm inflicted upon us by both sides till now.
Due to our NATO membership we waged the Vietnam War to defend the French colonial empire.
Due to the British colonial conquests we got involved into the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict.
Due to the British oil interests we orchestrated the military coup in Iran in the early 50’s and never again had a normal relationship with Tehran.
Due to the British oil interests Margaret Thatcher pushed George H. Bush to jump into the internal Arab affairs and kick Iraq out of their former province Kuwait. Afterwards we have never stopped fighting the Muslim world.
The NATO was supposed to stop us from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn’t.
Why?
Relationship between America and the NATO is giving the false confidence to both sides. They always agree with us, thus making us believe we are right.
That’s similar to the relationship between the Wall Street and the credit rating agencies during the housing bubble. Both sides told us the derivatives and securities were rock solid. We didn’t bother to verify.
Whatever we want the NATO just rubber stamps because we are the paying customer.
Only a few decades later we realize we launched the wrong wars at colossal cost.
1
What the election is about is not so much Obama as this: right and left, we ALL feel we've been lied to. The right sees their politicians making promises that are not kept. The left saw plutocrat banksters go scot-free after the financial disaster of 2008, and we are STILL stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq--Americans are still dying in those countries, and money is still being poured into those countries, instead of into our own, despite our so-called withdrawals.
Right and left, we ALL feel we've been lied to over the past 15 years. We want that to stop. That is what this election is about.
Right and left, we ALL feel we've been lied to over the past 15 years. We want that to stop. That is what this election is about.
94
It's true, we have been lied to, but changing the occupant of the White House isn't going to move the needle. There's going to have to be an entire generation of politicians in both houses of Congress willing to sacrifice their re-elections, in order to reform the campaign finance laws of this country.
We are not even close to starting that conversation, so I will pull my D lever, and expect more of the same, regardless of who gets elected.
We are not even close to starting that conversation, so I will pull my D lever, and expect more of the same, regardless of who gets elected.
2
It is still hard to believe that our current president continuously disobeys our constitution, the laws of our land and the will of the majority of Americans. More empathy is given to illegal aliens, and criminals than to hard working Americans. We are seeing before our very eyes how justice under this administration does not prevail. Hillary lies, fast and furious, banksters, etc. what a horrible and depressing example Obama , hillary and the democrats are to the young people of today....and to the hundreds of millions of Americans who have been cheated out of Obama's hope and (no) change.
2
Yes, should they all look up to George Bush, who invaded a country for no reason, lied to the American people about WMD and then allowed the country to collapse.?
1
This is an excellent example of delusion created by a right-wing media entertainment complex and a shamble of our education system.
1
Thanks for making Axlerod's point.
1
So David, are you telling us we are seeking in Mx. Hillary the personal flaws of dishonesty, corruption and untruthfulness that the present holder of the office lacks. Is the electorate looking to jump into hell? Seems so.
As for Trump, well, this power hungry jerk seems to mirror the power driven urges of O. You cannot have it both ways. In O you have a power seeking, big government ideology. Just like O, Trump wants to do away with Congress. Will the electorate fall for this? Of course, stupid they are.
As for Trump, well, this power hungry jerk seems to mirror the power driven urges of O. You cannot have it both ways. In O you have a power seeking, big government ideology. Just like O, Trump wants to do away with Congress. Will the electorate fall for this? Of course, stupid they are.
1
It's hardly surprising that Axlerod is blind to the several striking similarities between Obama and Trump: a) inability to play well with others; b) terminal arrogance and inclination to dictate rather than collaborate(except with terminally hostile adversaries: Iranians for Obama and Putin for Trump); c) no friends in government except those who work for him; d) terminal wordiness.
2
Trump reminds me of the super long shot horse that comes charging out of the gate, unexpectedly leading the field----going into the first turn..... of a long race.
He really should collapse at any moment, what with his reckless, inane declarations and his recent association with the dunce, Sarah Palin.
What's preventing that from happening is the absolute incompetence of the remainder of the Republican field.
He really should collapse at any moment, what with his reckless, inane declarations and his recent association with the dunce, Sarah Palin.
What's preventing that from happening is the absolute incompetence of the remainder of the Republican field.
4
I think this ignores a yet more powerful force.
Sadly, too many people want to be conned. They mistake the con for reality.
They have found the quintessential con artist. Those of us who want someone with balance and intelligence to work for all of us and keep, inasmuch as is possible, balance and forethought in the world's polity, cannot understand that the appearance and expressions of feelings are more important to most people.
We owe much of this to the power of two-dimensional media to replace reality with illusion.
Sadly, that reality will break in, and this is a tragedy.
Sadly, too many people want to be conned. They mistake the con for reality.
They have found the quintessential con artist. Those of us who want someone with balance and intelligence to work for all of us and keep, inasmuch as is possible, balance and forethought in the world's polity, cannot understand that the appearance and expressions of feelings are more important to most people.
We owe much of this to the power of two-dimensional media to replace reality with illusion.
Sadly, that reality will break in, and this is a tragedy.
8
What is sad is that Americans feel they were conned by Obama, and that is why radicals like Trump and Sanders seem the appropriate antidote for the failure of "Hope and Change," which has left all but the wealthy in much worse shape than they were, in relative terms, seven years ago.
2
Mr. Axelrod's analysis is interesting and adds some nuance to the current handwringing over the Trump phenomenon. However, it's far too benign a theory to be completely accurate in this election, as it doesn't take into account the ugliness and nastiness of Mr. Trump's rhetoric or that of his supporters on the right. Who would vote for a person who denigrated huge groups of people publicly, and had literally no policy positions whatever to offer, for the Office of President of the United States? Only the ignorant, the bigoted and perhaps some other rich con men, who believe his election will be good for their bottom line. This election is giving us an indication of the level of ignorance and ugliness that exists to a frightening extent in our citizenry. Mr. Trump is simply the canary in the coal mine - a emergency warning to show us the alarming toxicity of our current politics.
33
What is really surprising is how many black men, most of whom probably voted for Obama, are willing to consider Trump. All the brash billionaire has to say is that the reason you can't get a job is that employers prefer illegal immigrants, and he will find quite a few struggling blue-collar men, including a number of young black guys, who are thinking the same thing. The Democrats have offered nothing except 'the Republicans are evil racists' for many years, but some of their voters are starting to reconsider.
16
Both those blue-collar black men -- a larger group than most liberals imagine -- and Mr. Trump would be correct.
The media routinely ignores the fact that the real "losers" to unlimited immigration and open borders are working class BLACK PEOPLE (women as well). They are US citizens, and of long duration -- often much longer than white people whose ancestors came here in the 20th century from Europe -- and yet they have been told to just "suck it up" in terms of job loss and lower pay. NO GROUP suffers higher unemployment than young black men.
These are the folks who would have gladly (in prior generations) taken those "jobs nobody wants" -- construction, trucking, sheetrocking, landscaping, food service, meat packing, and yes, even farm labor. But those jobs are gone now, gone to illegal aliens....who can work under the table for cash.
Employers WANT illegals, because a US citizen would (or could) report them for paying sub-minimum wages, or for lousy working conditions. An illegal cannot, without revealing his/her status.
It is also worth noting that the posters here, and the NYT columnists and Editorial Board -- all, to a person -- work in professions that are UNAFFECTED by illegal immigration. Few if any Mexican or Central American illegals are coming here to take jobs as an editors, web designers, engineers, college professors, lawyers or journalists. Affluent white collar lefty-liberals basically don't care what happens to blue collar America.
The media routinely ignores the fact that the real "losers" to unlimited immigration and open borders are working class BLACK PEOPLE (women as well). They are US citizens, and of long duration -- often much longer than white people whose ancestors came here in the 20th century from Europe -- and yet they have been told to just "suck it up" in terms of job loss and lower pay. NO GROUP suffers higher unemployment than young black men.
These are the folks who would have gladly (in prior generations) taken those "jobs nobody wants" -- construction, trucking, sheetrocking, landscaping, food service, meat packing, and yes, even farm labor. But those jobs are gone now, gone to illegal aliens....who can work under the table for cash.
Employers WANT illegals, because a US citizen would (or could) report them for paying sub-minimum wages, or for lousy working conditions. An illegal cannot, without revealing his/her status.
It is also worth noting that the posters here, and the NYT columnists and Editorial Board -- all, to a person -- work in professions that are UNAFFECTED by illegal immigration. Few if any Mexican or Central American illegals are coming here to take jobs as an editors, web designers, engineers, college professors, lawyers or journalists. Affluent white collar lefty-liberals basically don't care what happens to blue collar America.
2
Axelrod misses a critical point about the frustration and anger that finds its voice in Trump.
That Democrats forgot how our government works is one of the major ironies of the Obama years. It did not start with him, but the stone wall of Republican congressional opposition to ''hope and change'' is a stark reminder of the vast power of Congress in our system. (Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for only a few months in 2009 and early 2010.)
On the other hand, Republicans, who say they hate government, clearly have developed superior ways of electing people to office at all levels except the presidency (so far.)
Thus, we have the Congress and a majority of statehouses controlled by a party that believes that private interests trumps (sorry) any aspect of the public good. They got there through superior marketing/messaging, and attending to the details of controlling legislatures and congressional district lines.
By contrast, Democrats have proved they can win the popular vote and Electoral College for President, but not mount a realistic campaign to win majorities in the House and Senate. Looking ahead for several cycles, no Democratic candidate for President can expect a Democratic majority in the House and 60+ Democrats in the Senate. More gridlock.
If Trump wins, all hell breaks loose.
That Democrats forgot how our government works is one of the major ironies of the Obama years. It did not start with him, but the stone wall of Republican congressional opposition to ''hope and change'' is a stark reminder of the vast power of Congress in our system. (Obama had 60 votes in the Senate for only a few months in 2009 and early 2010.)
On the other hand, Republicans, who say they hate government, clearly have developed superior ways of electing people to office at all levels except the presidency (so far.)
Thus, we have the Congress and a majority of statehouses controlled by a party that believes that private interests trumps (sorry) any aspect of the public good. They got there through superior marketing/messaging, and attending to the details of controlling legislatures and congressional district lines.
By contrast, Democrats have proved they can win the popular vote and Electoral College for President, but not mount a realistic campaign to win majorities in the House and Senate. Looking ahead for several cycles, no Democratic candidate for President can expect a Democratic majority in the House and 60+ Democrats in the Senate. More gridlock.
If Trump wins, all hell breaks loose.
46
Gerrymandering. It's fouled up. I'm lucky I live in a district that I have Jim Clyburn as my Representative. But most of my friends a couple of miles away some how get stuck with Mark Sanford a guy who abandons his family and job as governor and both he and his minions lie about it with a fantastical story of hiking the Appalachian Trail while actually having a tryst with his mistress. But he'll cut your taxes and drill offshore to power your sport fishing boat. Republican values Yee Haw Bubba!
Trumpolini's real campaign slogan is "Let's Make America Know Nothing Again".
America has a long, rich history of shortchanging public education and culturing ignorance, thereby producing an electorate that is systematically diverted from learning, critical thought and higher education.
Trumpolini is simply tilling that great American garden of ignorance, knowing full well that America always produces a bumper crop of Know Nothings sufficient enough to produce a near-majority or majority.
Donald Trump's campaign senior strategist has been dead since 1992, but he's still doing powerful work for Trumpolini and the Republican Party.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992)
America has a long, rich history of shortchanging public education and culturing ignorance, thereby producing an electorate that is systematically diverted from learning, critical thought and higher education.
Trumpolini is simply tilling that great American garden of ignorance, knowing full well that America always produces a bumper crop of Know Nothings sufficient enough to produce a near-majority or majority.
Donald Trump's campaign senior strategist has been dead since 1992, but he's still doing powerful work for Trumpolini and the Republican Party.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov (1920 – 1992)
599
Bunch of snarky Liberal nonsense.
America will be better, just not for the criminal half of America :)
America will be better, just not for the criminal half of America :)
3
Paraphrasing William Buckley, I would rather be governed by the first 400 names in the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard. The utter failure of government is evident, as is the condescension and disdain our statist masters shower upon us. Trump speaks to the best in the American character, and the fearful reaction of the elites confirms that he is on the right track.
4
I find the anti-intellectualism in the US very depressing but it is also such an irony when you consider the intellectual chops of the founding fathers. Franklin, John Adams, Washington, Madison were all well educated, extremely curious, and thoughtful men. Then there is the paragon amongst them: Thomas Jefferson. If you were to search high and low in the colonies you could hardly have found a more intelligent, cultivated, and inventive mind. He also wrote well. Why this is devalued and instead we have low-life (yes, even with money) candidates who don't appeal to our moral "better angels" and certainly distain the high-minded intellectual acumen that stands behind our founding documents.
I'd rather sit down with someone who is a critical thinker and well informed regarding policy than just swill beer with a glad-hander who represents the least thoughtful and inquiring impulses of the current American electorate.
I'd rather sit down with someone who is a critical thinker and well informed regarding policy than just swill beer with a glad-hander who represents the least thoughtful and inquiring impulses of the current American electorate.
4
A Democratic President (FDR) gave us the New Deal which - essentially - created our middle class. From Social Security to Medicare, from Minimum Wage laws to Food Stamps, a social safety net was built to protect the most vulnerable of us. Then Republicans gave us tax cuts for the ultra rich, tax increases for the middle class, and a cut to social programs, effectively gutting the existing middle class and reducing the chance of upward mobility into it. Along came the Dems again and gave us health care, expanded Medicaid, etc. and the Republicans have set out again to gut the help for the less fortunate to pay for more cuts for the ultra rich. I am baffled why people would vote for them. But your article (essentially: "I was right once and then wrong once so listen to me") adds noise but not substance to the issues. If Trump is not a billionaire who decided (for the benefit of the poor) to disembowel the GOP, then he is a particularly scary tyrant-in-waiting. We will see when/if he is the nominee if he seeks to beat Hillary or beat the GOP into oblivion. I hope the latter - no prisoners among what is left of that old party.
167
Yeah!
Considering that Ed Rendell, the former head of the DNC, said he would support Bloomberg over Sanders if they ran, I would say that the Democratic Party is the one more likely to split up between those who want to continue pushing for progressive ideas and a true change in income inequality and those who say that we should accept that this is the way things are.
That the party has put its thumb on the scale to favor Clinton over Sanders just adds to the frustration that many feel.
That the party has put its thumb on the scale to favor Clinton over Sanders just adds to the frustration that many feel.
It is really absurd to suggest there was no American middle class before The New Deal -- this was always a nation with a large middle class.
BTW: the present-day food stamp program started in 1965, under LBJ.
BTW: the present-day food stamp program started in 1965, under LBJ.
I'd make David Axelrod's theory simpler: Who wants to go with more of the same, when the same was a disaster?
The rise of Trump, and frankly Bernie Sanders is a signal mostly, that Americans have noticed that things are not improving - jobs, wages, healthcare, the likelihood they will retire before they die. Short memories are the norm: no one wants to think of the reality that the 2008 meltdown created a 10 to 15 year problem, regardless of who controlled the government. All President Obama could achieve was a sort of misery mitigation. He could never restore pre-meltdown prosperity in only 8 years.
And our citizens forget that the President isn't the king; he or she can only do what Congress and the Courts allow. Control of State Houses by groups like ALEC have more influence on their lives than the President.
So voters go for a total change - in party, in personality - in the hopes that that one factor is really all that was amiss.
The rise of Trump, and frankly Bernie Sanders is a signal mostly, that Americans have noticed that things are not improving - jobs, wages, healthcare, the likelihood they will retire before they die. Short memories are the norm: no one wants to think of the reality that the 2008 meltdown created a 10 to 15 year problem, regardless of who controlled the government. All President Obama could achieve was a sort of misery mitigation. He could never restore pre-meltdown prosperity in only 8 years.
And our citizens forget that the President isn't the king; he or she can only do what Congress and the Courts allow. Control of State Houses by groups like ALEC have more influence on their lives than the President.
So voters go for a total change - in party, in personality - in the hopes that that one factor is really all that was amiss.
8
Sounds logical, even plausible but it also explains the growing problem for Mrs. Clinton, who has tried to respond to her difficulties by embracing President Obama's example. Weather Bernie Sanders is electable doesn't bother the growing number of energized supporters, it is the immense difference in his forward pushing vehemence that makes him the absolute Non Obama candidate. This fits perfectly in Mr. Axelrod's equation.
4
Trump himself, or even the persona, doesn't seem directly like The New Hitler. He's too old, too American, to really play that role to the hilt.
But it is important to remember that Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI, post-Weimar Germany occurred because he rode up and crystallized a wave of rage, fear, dispossession, xenophobia, racism and misogyny that -- once summoned -- produced an inexorably destructive force in history.
The militarist, triumphalist, revivalist, hero-worshipping tendencies that birthed Nazism are not exclusive to that period of Germany's history. We have Marvel's X-Men and Avengers instead of Wagner's Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde, but the appeal is common. We have an aging nation, defeated by two generations of failed, costly, damaging wars, undergoing rapid demographic and cultural change.
We are as ripe for our own, home-grown form of Nazism as we've ever been, and the same corporate industrialists in power back then, are essentially here, now, to fund it eagerly.
We should not forget that Hitler, and his philosophical inspirations Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, were all fans of Emerson and Thoreau.
Our future, and the world's could turn suddenly very dark. We have a few, short months to prevent that.
But it is important to remember that Hitler's rise to power in post-WWI, post-Weimar Germany occurred because he rode up and crystallized a wave of rage, fear, dispossession, xenophobia, racism and misogyny that -- once summoned -- produced an inexorably destructive force in history.
The militarist, triumphalist, revivalist, hero-worshipping tendencies that birthed Nazism are not exclusive to that period of Germany's history. We have Marvel's X-Men and Avengers instead of Wagner's Parsifal and Tristan und Isolde, but the appeal is common. We have an aging nation, defeated by two generations of failed, costly, damaging wars, undergoing rapid demographic and cultural change.
We are as ripe for our own, home-grown form of Nazism as we've ever been, and the same corporate industrialists in power back then, are essentially here, now, to fund it eagerly.
We should not forget that Hitler, and his philosophical inspirations Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, were all fans of Emerson and Thoreau.
Our future, and the world's could turn suddenly very dark. We have a few, short months to prevent that.
6
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
— Sinclair Lewis, 1935
— Sinclair Lewis, 1935
2
Seriously -- Donald Trump as a Nazi?
There is some theory that says once you devolve to calling absolutely anything or anybody "Nazi" -- you have already lost the argument. You don't have any real points, so you call the opposition the worst, most insulting name you can think of.
Donald Trump may be a loud mouth or blowhard; he is most definitely not a Nazi or fascist. And the more the left devolves to that level of namecalling and pandering, the more likely you are to lose.....because when you call Mr. Trump those names, you are basically calling his SUPPORTERS (ordinary voters whose votes you need!) Nazis and fascists themselves.
There is some theory that says once you devolve to calling absolutely anything or anybody "Nazi" -- you have already lost the argument. You don't have any real points, so you call the opposition the worst, most insulting name you can think of.
Donald Trump may be a loud mouth or blowhard; he is most definitely not a Nazi or fascist. And the more the left devolves to that level of namecalling and pandering, the more likely you are to lose.....because when you call Mr. Trump those names, you are basically calling his SUPPORTERS (ordinary voters whose votes you need!) Nazis and fascists themselves.
1
Simply the best analysis of the Trump phenomenon I've read. Trump is the anti-Obama - born to wealth, ruthless, self-promoting, mean-spirited.
Mr. Trump's rise tells us is these are the qualities that have attracted some Americans to the Republican Party. It continues to attract, even as it repels others - likely more.
It also tells us this election is not merely about whether we return to GOP domestic, fiscal and foreign policies, but if we will see them applied in an even more robust and almost certainly incoherent fashion.
Add the likelihood of the next President setting the course of the Supreme Court for the next two to three decades and it makes this one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
Mr. Trump's rise tells us is these are the qualities that have attracted some Americans to the Republican Party. It continues to attract, even as it repels others - likely more.
It also tells us this election is not merely about whether we return to GOP domestic, fiscal and foreign policies, but if we will see them applied in an even more robust and almost certainly incoherent fashion.
Add the likelihood of the next President setting the course of the Supreme Court for the next two to three decades and it makes this one of the most important elections in our nation's history.
6
Every election contains the possibility that the POTUS may have to appoint 1-2 Supreme Court Justices. It is not as predictable as you think. Some Justices serve until age 90 or later. Others, like Sandra Day O'Connor, retire unexpectedly.
Here's another way to look at it. We elected Obama in 2008 because even a black president was less scary to much of America than having a female president. I love Obama but America took the less threatening route. And now we have another election where fear of a woman president makes Bernie and Trump and the whole raft of rogue republicans look like a reasonable candidate. The left of the democratic party hides a lot of Hillary haters in Bernie's quixotic campaign. Trump is powered by long-time resentment for women (the man who bought the Miss Universe franchise years ago just happens to enter politics in time to try and stop a first woman from winning the election?).
Only layers of fear and resentment of women can explain such a crazy election cycle.
Go Hillary!
Only layers of fear and resentment of women can explain such a crazy election cycle.
Go Hillary!
3
Hillary, the Feminist?
Or Hillary the enabler of an abuser of women?
Can't be both at the same time, not in my book.
Or Hillary the enabler of an abuser of women?
Can't be both at the same time, not in my book.
4
That anyone would rationalize and overlook HRC's corruption, mendacity and incompetence simply because she has the right chromosomes confirms what many of both genders believe about women.
3
If this theory is true, and I believe it is, voters wanting a change from contemplative quagmire might do better to consider Bernie Sanders.
What better way to fix this country's ills than to cast out the insurance company
and banking crooks who have taken advantage of us for years, and replace
our high deductible, low coverage sham of health insurance with a simple
single payer system which gives every citizen good healthcare without the crippling medical bills we face now. If voters would just stop and think how
much they could save if they didn't have health insurance premiums anymore
and how many jobs would be created if employers didn't have to help pay for their workers' health/eye/dental coverage, America could grow and become great again. Bernie Sanders would reign in the corrupt big banks, would make
college free like high school, and this could all be accomplished in a fiscally
conservative way. We accept the post office, public schools, Medicare, and social security as systems that make our society function better, so why are
Americans so afraid of a single word, Democratic " socialist" ? A
person who is intelligent understands this is a philosophy about how to make
government work better for all the people, it's not about Communism or
any Russian spy movie form of oppression- that is a very different thing.
Trump would be authoritarian and would do little to improve the lives of those
who blindly follow him because of this bombastic promises. Think,voters!
What better way to fix this country's ills than to cast out the insurance company
and banking crooks who have taken advantage of us for years, and replace
our high deductible, low coverage sham of health insurance with a simple
single payer system which gives every citizen good healthcare without the crippling medical bills we face now. If voters would just stop and think how
much they could save if they didn't have health insurance premiums anymore
and how many jobs would be created if employers didn't have to help pay for their workers' health/eye/dental coverage, America could grow and become great again. Bernie Sanders would reign in the corrupt big banks, would make
college free like high school, and this could all be accomplished in a fiscally
conservative way. We accept the post office, public schools, Medicare, and social security as systems that make our society function better, so why are
Americans so afraid of a single word, Democratic " socialist" ? A
person who is intelligent understands this is a philosophy about how to make
government work better for all the people, it's not about Communism or
any Russian spy movie form of oppression- that is a very different thing.
Trump would be authoritarian and would do little to improve the lives of those
who blindly follow him because of this bombastic promises. Think,voters!
4
Mr. Axelrod has written a good article, free of the partisanship that characterized his actions and words when he was the President's chief advisor.However, he omits any mention of Obama's major fault or flaw, which is his apparent determination to favor foreign nationals over citizens, his reluctance to seal the border, and his denigration of segments of American society:Witness his vilification of rural whites as clinging to their guns, bibles and anti immigrant prejudices. Whoever wrote these lines into O's speech given to wealthy contributors in Pacific Palisades in 2007 has much to answer for. The gut feeling shared by millions of Americans, white and blue collar, is that the President is not "on our side," not fighting for us, but defending an ideology. Hence, we witness the rise of an America Firster like DT, who, although belonging to the posh elite himself, identifies with the folk. Thus, Mr. Axelrod has failed to cut to the core of the dislike by many of the President, that he is insensitive the anguish of the average American who is suffering from being unable to compete with cheap labor coming in from across the border and elsewhere, and that he is more faithful to an ideology than to the people who have, through their votes, entrusted their fate to him.
6
Why do you see the "guns and Bibles" comment as vilifying, as opposed to an accurate, and perhaps sympathetic, explanation of why a certain group of people were behaving in a non-intuitive manner?
3
@Ron: obviously you and many lefties absolutely agreed with that statement ("guns and religion") -- but it was immensely insulting to a majority of Americans and we do not see as "sympathetic" in the least, but denigrating and snobbish.
2
This would suggest that Mike Bloomfield as an independent has no chance since (at least in my mind) he is very much in character with President Obama. I know that I, as a "firmly entrenched" Democrat who would privately hate myself as I punch the Hillary button, would campaign excitedly for a President Bloomfield as the most centrist, populist (yes I said that) and least tarnished candidate for the thinking moralist, and the only non-cartoon other than John Kasich in the room. So in my mind the question becomes, might the goofiness of the existing ticket combinations drive more of "me" to vote for Mike? In this most unpredictable of years, it could happen.
Otherwise, I think this is a brilliant piece by a brilliant man.
Otherwise, I think this is a brilliant piece by a brilliant man.
3
Of course in the 2008 Democratic primary race, there was also another "opposites attract" issue: a chance, and need, for a president not named Bush or Clinton.
To an extent that is still true for 2016; it is one of the reasons Jeb! did not get off the ground, and a factor in HRC's effort. I supported Obama then, but was not uncomfortable with Clinton beyond that issue.
Though I'll support any conceivable Democrat over who and what the Republicans are offering, I still would have preferred a cross between Sanders and Clinton: Elizabeth Warren.
To an extent that is still true for 2016; it is one of the reasons Jeb! did not get off the ground, and a factor in HRC's effort. I supported Obama then, but was not uncomfortable with Clinton beyond that issue.
Though I'll support any conceivable Democrat over who and what the Republicans are offering, I still would have preferred a cross between Sanders and Clinton: Elizabeth Warren.
8
There are other ways to look at this. A thousand other ways, in fact.
President Obama has been unable to convey a sense of motion, of action, on matters of concern to millions of Americans. That doesn't mean he is wrong or that he has failed generally. On some matters, like health care, he went in one direction while the nation was ripped hard by the Great Recession, causing a discordant vibe.
His efforts to put his presidency before the public fly in the face of many new and yet to be fully analyzed changes. The presidency itself, conducted most often through television imagery and televised words since the time of Kennedy, has been diminished. Television no longer revolves around what any president is doing. Obama is another sound bite. In response, he and his wife have taken to appearing on every imaginable television outlet, including showing up in some guy's garage for a webcast. It's like Frank Sinatra or the Beatles working your local bar. Does this help?
The explosion of social media has created an explosion of confusion about current power centers. They have shifted, but where? Time was, you could read several newspapers and get a strong sense of where the nation stood. Forces of influence were defined. Now, a million scream.
America doesn't seem to like cerebral presidents. Reagan played the ordinary guy who wore power lightly. Plus, the never ending, multimillion dollar funded campaign against this president reached gale force before he ever took the oath.
President Obama has been unable to convey a sense of motion, of action, on matters of concern to millions of Americans. That doesn't mean he is wrong or that he has failed generally. On some matters, like health care, he went in one direction while the nation was ripped hard by the Great Recession, causing a discordant vibe.
His efforts to put his presidency before the public fly in the face of many new and yet to be fully analyzed changes. The presidency itself, conducted most often through television imagery and televised words since the time of Kennedy, has been diminished. Television no longer revolves around what any president is doing. Obama is another sound bite. In response, he and his wife have taken to appearing on every imaginable television outlet, including showing up in some guy's garage for a webcast. It's like Frank Sinatra or the Beatles working your local bar. Does this help?
The explosion of social media has created an explosion of confusion about current power centers. They have shifted, but where? Time was, you could read several newspapers and get a strong sense of where the nation stood. Forces of influence were defined. Now, a million scream.
America doesn't seem to like cerebral presidents. Reagan played the ordinary guy who wore power lightly. Plus, the never ending, multimillion dollar funded campaign against this president reached gale force before he ever took the oath.
12
Was it H.L. Menken who once said something about not underestimating the stupidity of the American people? How have we gotten to this low level of political discourse, this celebrity worship, denial of facts and data, tribalism at the expense of the public good?
The Flint Michigan water issue is a prime example of how far we have distanced ourselves from any sense of community when it comes to the basic needs of a civilized society.
We have become victims of our historic myths of rugged individualism, self determination, that frontier spirit, anyone can be President, etc. Now we have over 300 million people living in fixed borders (no frontier to conquer) competing with a global economy but we still want to believe in our wild west myths. We still believe that unfettered capitalism and disregard for the common good will deliver us from all evil. I got mine, now you get yours after I rigged the system.
The Flint Michigan water issue is a prime example of how far we have distanced ourselves from any sense of community when it comes to the basic needs of a civilized society.
We have become victims of our historic myths of rugged individualism, self determination, that frontier spirit, anyone can be President, etc. Now we have over 300 million people living in fixed borders (no frontier to conquer) competing with a global economy but we still want to believe in our wild west myths. We still believe that unfettered capitalism and disregard for the common good will deliver us from all evil. I got mine, now you get yours after I rigged the system.
16
Axelrod's theory is simplistic and surprising, given the state of the GOP today, and the stranglehold the extreme right wing/Tea Party has on Congress and all the GOP candidates, including Trump.
President Obama hasn't failed to bring promised change. He has brought some change, such as the ACA. But from the day he took office and Mitch McConnell said the only goal of the GOP was to make Obama a one term president, Obama has dealt with a hateful obstructionist Congress, except for his first two years in office.
The irony is that these angry Trump people, the "anti-establishment" people, don't even understand it's the GOP and its policies that have made them angry, not Obama.
Since Reagan -- even since Goldwater -- the GOP has moved farther and farther to the right. It has literally refused to govern. It shuts down the government, lowers our credit rating, and dismisses compromise and consensus, the bedrock of governance, to jam their Calvin Coolidge/Barry Goldwater policies down our throats.
Trump is the result of their governance, not Obama's.
Trump is attributable to Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, to every single unbending, vitriolic "conservative" who thought they owned America when Reagan won. Only to discover Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Every failed promise of conservatism has moved them farther to the right.
It's far more complicated than Axelrod's outgoing president theory. A fascinating read: "Why the Right went Wrong."
At heart, Americans are centrist.
President Obama hasn't failed to bring promised change. He has brought some change, such as the ACA. But from the day he took office and Mitch McConnell said the only goal of the GOP was to make Obama a one term president, Obama has dealt with a hateful obstructionist Congress, except for his first two years in office.
The irony is that these angry Trump people, the "anti-establishment" people, don't even understand it's the GOP and its policies that have made them angry, not Obama.
Since Reagan -- even since Goldwater -- the GOP has moved farther and farther to the right. It has literally refused to govern. It shuts down the government, lowers our credit rating, and dismisses compromise and consensus, the bedrock of governance, to jam their Calvin Coolidge/Barry Goldwater policies down our throats.
Trump is the result of their governance, not Obama's.
Trump is attributable to Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, to every single unbending, vitriolic "conservative" who thought they owned America when Reagan won. Only to discover Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Every failed promise of conservatism has moved them farther to the right.
It's far more complicated than Axelrod's outgoing president theory. A fascinating read: "Why the Right went Wrong."
At heart, Americans are centrist.
26
This is a very perceptive analysis, but it doesn't deal with the crux of the problem: apparently a substantial fraction of the American public wants a Mussolini or Peron.
And it underplays the ugly realities of racism and nativism, and Trump's weird disgust with women. In an MSNBC interview The GOP strategist Rick Wilson dismissed Trump's "alt right" followers with a putdown I won't repeat here (it's icky), but tellingly the media has repeated the ick for shock value without the "alt right:" internetese for Dylann Roof types.
Trump is playing to all the classic fascist themes -- the "he's a leader" -- look at what every fascist dictator you can find has called themselves.
I am reasonably optimistic that the conventional wisdom of "the adults in the room" across a wide range of political views will hold: Trump is unelectable, and he will do the Republican party a lot of damage if he heads the ticket.
But he may have the real support of perhaps 20 % of Americans, and that's scary, and will have long-term ugly consequences. Trump is not their natural leader -- the next one will be more authentic, and worse.
And it underplays the ugly realities of racism and nativism, and Trump's weird disgust with women. In an MSNBC interview The GOP strategist Rick Wilson dismissed Trump's "alt right" followers with a putdown I won't repeat here (it's icky), but tellingly the media has repeated the ick for shock value without the "alt right:" internetese for Dylann Roof types.
Trump is playing to all the classic fascist themes -- the "he's a leader" -- look at what every fascist dictator you can find has called themselves.
I am reasonably optimistic that the conventional wisdom of "the adults in the room" across a wide range of political views will hold: Trump is unelectable, and he will do the Republican party a lot of damage if he heads the ticket.
But he may have the real support of perhaps 20 % of Americans, and that's scary, and will have long-term ugly consequences. Trump is not their natural leader -- the next one will be more authentic, and worse.
28
Ooh, you really nailed it here. Also, a large minority of American voters have leaned toward social or religious authoritarianism for some time (the Moral Majority and hard right in the 1980s were said to comprise 25-30% of voters, as I recall). So now this streak takes the form of Trumpism. Like you, I'm cautiously optimistic about his limits and his potential to wreak havoc with the Republican party. I'm also anxious and fascinated to watch the trajectory of national politics this year and beyond.
2
About what George Wallace had at his peak.
1
To reduce his popularity to style is a mistake. Trump's recent comment about shooting someone and not losing support is a signal to his core supporters that he will be willing to kill people to achieve goals, even at home, (really home, since Manhattan was his shooting ground) and that he believes he will be supported by his constituency when he does it. I cannot see any other reason for making such a statement. Despite the showmanship he is very serious.
5
Americans are natural born contrarians with an inbred distrust of whoever is in power. It is what makes us great and irritating at the same time. What makes both Trump and Sanders appealing to so many people is that we recognize them as the loudmouth opinionated people we argue with all the time but also like and in our hearts, know as good people. Trump says horrible things but so do a lot of our friends. Sanders is recognizable too.
Some of the other candidates with financial connections to vested interests and perhaps simply naked ambition are not as recognizable.
Some of the other candidates with financial connections to vested interests and perhaps simply naked ambition are not as recognizable.
8
Mr. Axelrod absolutely nails it - both the circumstances and the timing underlying Trump's appeal.
One question that hasn't been addressed, and that won't be addressed until after the election (if ever), is how to work toward improving the education and economic prospects (same coin, two sides) of that portion of the citizenry who now find Trumpy-Cruzy demagogues appealing, so that they, and our nation, can better avoid such pathetic spectacles in the future.
One question that hasn't been addressed, and that won't be addressed until after the election (if ever), is how to work toward improving the education and economic prospects (same coin, two sides) of that portion of the citizenry who now find Trumpy-Cruzy demagogues appealing, so that they, and our nation, can better avoid such pathetic spectacles in the future.
8
Susceptibility of the masses to the appeal of the demagogue is well known for a long time; it is why Hamilton insisted on having an electoral college built into the constitution.
Everything is a reaction formation, like sons deliberately differing from their fathers (Bush, et al.) and president's with characteristics in contradistinction to the last one. The difference between the parties, however, is that when Democrats are in power, the economy generally does better, employment rises and deficits are reduced. Yet, the public keep electing Republicans, despite their trail of failure to serve them well, placing personalities over proven principles of good governance.
31
The GOP could rally behind Kasich. If the electorate seeks someone "different" he's your man - signs of goofiness to Obama's cool; moments of abraisiveness to Obama's calm and those flying windmill hands are very far from Obama's smooth delivery. Kasich could give Clinton a run for the money and prove to be an effective leader with the ability to compromise and actually help the working class and middle class. The GOP has been so polarized I doubt that this is possible.
8
If Mr. Kasich had the popular support and charisma required, he'd be a front runner. He does not and is not.
It is interesting how the left wants to tell the Republican Party who they can or should run for office! Come on! it is obvious you want them to have a weak, unelectable candidate!
It is interesting how the left wants to tell the Republican Party who they can or should run for office! Come on! it is obvious you want them to have a weak, unelectable candidate!
2
Mr Axelrod seems to have a blind spot in his contrast analysis between Obama and Trump. For many Republicans the biggest galling contrast, which is obvious to anyone who has sight, is that Obama is black. And yes of course like most Democrats he is viewed as left of center when compared to his Republican counterparts But the element of race here seems to be the driving force behind much of the energy in who the Republicans will choose as their standard bearer. It is no coincidence that Trump was the original birther. He has carefully and deliberately expanded that theme into other areas. His two best received policy prescriptions by Republican faithful is to deport 12 million Mexicans and to ban Muslims from entry into this country. If that isn't a hate and go after the non white agenda then what is. We can talk all we want about Republicans being fed up with Establishment Republicans or of disliking Obama's liberal agenda (which all Democrats possess), but the real demon seed of Republican politics has always been race. Since the days of Nixon's playing the Southern strategy it has been a prime mover in Republican politics. Trump refers to these people as the Silent Majority (ironically another Nixon reference).
85
It really, truly has nothing to do with Mr. Obama's race (which is MIXED; he is half white).
The Republicans have a 100% black candidate -- Mr. Carson -- who liberals also hate! and ridicule. So it is never good enough, no matter who they run for office.
To make this about race is ridiculous. Also, Mr. Obama is not running for a third term. He's done -- cooked -- put a fork in him. You can't win in November by invoking the "racial issue" this time.
The Republicans have a 100% black candidate -- Mr. Carson -- who liberals also hate! and ridicule. So it is never good enough, no matter who they run for office.
To make this about race is ridiculous. Also, Mr. Obama is not running for a third term. He's done -- cooked -- put a fork in him. You can't win in November by invoking the "racial issue" this time.
1
In this regard, the Trump and Sanders campaigns have something in common and although Bernie is vastly more qualified to be president, they each appeal to the one metric that ought to be troubling to those of us who believe that President Obama is a great leader. That would be "the direction of the country metric" and it consistently shows that by a large majority, Americans see the country going in the wrong direction.
Running for a third term of President Obama is laudable but probably not the best way to win an election when the vast majority of voters believe the country is going in the wrong direction. If Clinton continues to take that path as she did in the last debate, she could be a galvanizing force for blue dog democrats and independents to shift direction and gamble on Trump.
Running for a third term of President Obama is laudable but probably not the best way to win an election when the vast majority of voters believe the country is going in the wrong direction. If Clinton continues to take that path as she did in the last debate, she could be a galvanizing force for blue dog democrats and independents to shift direction and gamble on Trump.
4
I will take the bet. Trump is a buffon and can't win the presidency. His current situation proves that, to put it mildly, 40% of the Republican Party don't know squat. This is at most 20% of the population, this fact while disappointing can be managed, and there have been plenty of other data points that told us the same thing, since 2009.
16
Agreed. And balance that against Trump's incredibly high negatives with all the groups of people his supporters love to hate.
2
lol...You have quite a shock coming
1
I hope, hope, hope that you're right.
1
Trump has played an important role is this election year. He has touched on the darker thoughts of many Americans, but these are not without reason. Jobs are outsourced to places like India, we have an immigration system that is not working, and a corrupt H1B visa program. Top that off with ageism in the workforce, a perception that middle eastern refugees count more than the 50 million Americans living in poverty or homeless vets and you get an unhappy electorate. Somehow it's easy to brand this electorate as only uneducated working class folks but that's not entirely true, as we've been seeing.
Trumps ability to 'trump' political correctness is also resonating with the electorate - some of which has gone too far - but somewhere in his statements, he's touching on this darker side of what unfortunately many think and feel but do not say, for better or worse. So if that's not new news, (unacknowledged emotions fester) why not get to the root of how people think and make them feel like their reality matters?
Looking in the macro, there's a large and deep disconnect between current elected officials and what many voters experience in their daily lives - and this is why we've been seeing the kind of populist surge in Trump & Sanders.
Trumps ability to 'trump' political correctness is also resonating with the electorate - some of which has gone too far - but somewhere in his statements, he's touching on this darker side of what unfortunately many think and feel but do not say, for better or worse. So if that's not new news, (unacknowledged emotions fester) why not get to the root of how people think and make them feel like their reality matters?
Looking in the macro, there's a large and deep disconnect between current elected officials and what many voters experience in their daily lives - and this is why we've been seeing the kind of populist surge in Trump & Sanders.
35
That Trump is a narcissist who proclaims his own strength is widely recognized. That he espouses a radical, authoritarian nationalism is recognized by at least some. That he seeks to purge society of what he and his followers consider undesirable elements is a matter of record. Put it all together and what you have is a fascist. So let's recognize that as well.
7
So how has "Hope and Change" worked out for those not in the top 1% that Obama took care of?
2
Fascism is in the eye of the beholder. Depends on whose cause is being gored.
What drives people who seem normal by most accounts to heap such adoration and rabid loyalty on chauvinistic blowhards Trump and Cruz is directly proportional to their hate for President Obama. It has blinded their followers who take on the appearance of a lynch mob. These folks will shout to the high heavens that they do not have an ounce of racism in their bones. Then in the next moment then proceed to go on a vicious tirade against President Obama, their monologue gaining strength and volume with viciousness. Their arguments briefly skirt the major issues, like Obamacare and foreign policy, but then it veers completely off the rails, and turns dark, into a personal hatred for our President. It has has absolutely nothing to do with policy. No, this is pure hate.
It is the same sort of vitriol I witnessed in the Sixties when charged-up demagogues like George Wallace ran for president. Wallace supporters paranoia of yesteryear is very similar to the phobic anger of the white working class voter today. They don't disagree with the President, they don't disagree with Hillary, they hate them. People who never have met or never will meet the President or Hillary honestly think they are able to expertly analyze and diagnose from afar their souls. You know what one would calls such arm-chair psychologists? That's right, they themselves are certifiably crazed.
DD
Manhattan
It is the same sort of vitriol I witnessed in the Sixties when charged-up demagogues like George Wallace ran for president. Wallace supporters paranoia of yesteryear is very similar to the phobic anger of the white working class voter today. They don't disagree with the President, they don't disagree with Hillary, they hate them. People who never have met or never will meet the President or Hillary honestly think they are able to expertly analyze and diagnose from afar their souls. You know what one would calls such arm-chair psychologists? That's right, they themselves are certifiably crazed.
DD
Manhattan
373
"People who never have met or never will meet the President or Hillary honestly think they are able to expertly analyze and diagnose from afar their souls. You know what one would calls such arm-chair psychologists? That's right, they themselves are certifiably crazed". Just as crazed as those who have never met Barrack and Hillary yet support them.
2
Probably no poster here has ever met Donald Trump, yet many of them claim he is so bad "he's a Nazi or Mussolini"! They call him really ugly hateful names and make unsupportable accusations about him. They just have a visceral hatred of the man.
Why is THAT not crazed?
BTW: I don't "hate" Mr. Obama personally, but I think he has done an awful job as President. It has nothing to do with his race whatsoever.
Why is THAT not crazed?
BTW: I don't "hate" Mr. Obama personally, but I think he has done an awful job as President. It has nothing to do with his race whatsoever.
2
There is a very simple and logical explanation for the rise of Herr Trump and it can be found in the words of the poet Robert Frost in his work: "Fire and Ice".
2
I will say one thing about Trump, he and his cronies have figured out how to get weak-willed people to give him their money at casinos.
Now, Trump and company are applying the same psychological tricks and strategems to get the weak-willed to vote for The Donald.
BTW, I predict that the Trump administration will be the most corrupt administration since Tammany Hall. You're going to love it.
Now, Trump and company are applying the same psychological tricks and strategems to get the weak-willed to vote for The Donald.
BTW, I predict that the Trump administration will be the most corrupt administration since Tammany Hall. You're going to love it.
23
And to vote for Bernie Sanders. It was easy. We just flood the message boards with anti-Hillary propaganda, say we are for Bernie, and the sheep follow us.
Just like at the black jack tables. The trick is convincing the suckers that they actually have a chance.
Go Trump ! Go Bernie !
Just like at the black jack tables. The trick is convincing the suckers that they actually have a chance.
Go Trump ! Go Bernie !
1
"people may tire of the show" - great line, because that is what it is, isn't it? A TV show. Unfortunately, unlike a canceled TV show, this reality TV could have very bad consequences for the real world.
58
What do you call Ted Cruz pimping his daughter in an "anti-Obama" ad? A show? No, a freak show.
1
@Maxomus: I call it the same thing as Hillary using Chelsea as a spokesperson or to defend Hillary's policies.
1
To me personally, either Trump is in the race at the urging of Bill Clinton or he's there to promote his brand 'TRUMP' for his business venture .
Because one way or the other, his stock will either double or triple after this election cycle is over as Trump is already making millions of dollars through his book sales .
So, to me, who could've easily told Romney in the last election cycle in 2012 that he was not going to win even if he got 61% of the White vote ,which he got by the way , it seems weird that a man who's investing so much of his personal wealth as Trump is , why it's not going to the head of his campaign team, (just like it was with the mind of Romney's campaign team ) that America has changed completely.
From top to the bottom.
Black votes , Hispanic votes, Asian votes and even Muslim votes will count as much as White votes to win such a major Presidential election .
I know the Republican party has somehow learnt it the last time around .
That's why G.O.P. has fixed their Convention date in August and not September so that the nominated Candidate for the President has at least one month extra to tune out all the rhetoric and change the tunes of the primaries .
But to me that's still not enough time to appeal to all the minorities that Trump is trashing right now.
Three months is not enough to unwind all the trash talks that the minority voters have heard from Trump and all the other Candidates in the debates as well as on their campaign trails.
Because one way or the other, his stock will either double or triple after this election cycle is over as Trump is already making millions of dollars through his book sales .
So, to me, who could've easily told Romney in the last election cycle in 2012 that he was not going to win even if he got 61% of the White vote ,which he got by the way , it seems weird that a man who's investing so much of his personal wealth as Trump is , why it's not going to the head of his campaign team, (just like it was with the mind of Romney's campaign team ) that America has changed completely.
From top to the bottom.
Black votes , Hispanic votes, Asian votes and even Muslim votes will count as much as White votes to win such a major Presidential election .
I know the Republican party has somehow learnt it the last time around .
That's why G.O.P. has fixed their Convention date in August and not September so that the nominated Candidate for the President has at least one month extra to tune out all the rhetoric and change the tunes of the primaries .
But to me that's still not enough time to appeal to all the minorities that Trump is trashing right now.
Three months is not enough to unwind all the trash talks that the minority voters have heard from Trump and all the other Candidates in the debates as well as on their campaign trails.
13
But unfortunately, Trump has the decades long work done in state after state to make the non-white vote less concrete with voter ID laws, etc. He might not have been involved but Trump (or whatever GOP nominee) is reaping the reward. If you don't have the policies or ideas that a majority of Americans want, instead of listening to the American people, just figure out a way to disenfranchise those who don't like your policies. You got to hand it to the GOP state strategy, gerrymandered for Congress and set up for state legislatures to change voting rules in your favor. It was brilliant.
1
Many, if not all, Liberal observers miss an important point. For those of us who would call ourselves moderate conservatives the Democrats have given us Hillary Clinton, an ideologue who is openly contemptuous of and hostile to the American Right in all of its forms, and Bernie Sanders who openly practices as a Socialist. Where many of us found ourselves voting for the promise of Obama's conciliatory rhetoric, we only find ourselves bracing for the disturbing possibility of the left's hard turn to the extreme with these two candidates.
At the same time the Liberals have broken extreme, the Tea Party branch of the GOP has done the same with Trump. In normal times, I wouldn't consider a vote for someone like the bombastic Trump, but given the alternatives are a pseudo liberal corporate shill and an openly practicing socialist, I would vote for just about whatever the Republican Party trotted out.
The point is, in its obsession with how Trump possibly could have gotten this far, the media has ignored the insanity of the DNC's proposed choices of national leaders. Across the spectrum, the viable 2016 presidential choices are insane. Since whatever choice we have to make will be insane, I will go with the GOP's brand of insanity over the DNC's -- and the left will make the same choice.
At the same time the Liberals have broken extreme, the Tea Party branch of the GOP has done the same with Trump. In normal times, I wouldn't consider a vote for someone like the bombastic Trump, but given the alternatives are a pseudo liberal corporate shill and an openly practicing socialist, I would vote for just about whatever the Republican Party trotted out.
The point is, in its obsession with how Trump possibly could have gotten this far, the media has ignored the insanity of the DNC's proposed choices of national leaders. Across the spectrum, the viable 2016 presidential choices are insane. Since whatever choice we have to make will be insane, I will go with the GOP's brand of insanity over the DNC's -- and the left will make the same choice.
14
McCarthyism, Vietnam, Watergate, Katrina, Iraq, Flint, Wisconsin, labor hating candidates run amok, union busters, pension busters, health care busters, unaffordable housing. anti-intellectual, anti-science, forcing other people's children (teenagers) to have unwanted babies, voting against reasonable gun control since the 1960's. You will be in great company, D.C.
Did you watch any of the debates? Both GOP and Democrats?
1
I thought from the title that I was going to read President Obama's theory of Donald Trump, but I enjoyed this essay nonetheless.
One issue President Obama's presidency raises is that being smart and inspirational is not enough to make sufficient progress in governing in a system that requires the cooperation of Congress. I also became disenchanted with the pattern of what was meant by "smart" in policy choices -- it may be smart in comparison to other approaches but I've thought it has been limited to its own preferred group of thinking and thinkers, a group that has in my view limitations of its own. Of course, being less thoughtful and smart I don't think is a helpful response to this, as a Trump presidency might provide. Watching John Kerry as Secretary of State has made me think we missed out on a good presidency with his loss to George Bush.
One issue President Obama's presidency raises is that being smart and inspirational is not enough to make sufficient progress in governing in a system that requires the cooperation of Congress. I also became disenchanted with the pattern of what was meant by "smart" in policy choices -- it may be smart in comparison to other approaches but I've thought it has been limited to its own preferred group of thinking and thinkers, a group that has in my view limitations of its own. Of course, being less thoughtful and smart I don't think is a helpful response to this, as a Trump presidency might provide. Watching John Kerry as Secretary of State has made me think we missed out on a good presidency with his loss to George Bush.
152
The fault has been in the Republican manipulation of voters. Emotionalism
trumps reason. The results have been disastrous consequences.
trumps reason. The results have been disastrous consequences.
3
"Watching John Kerry as Secretary of State has made me think we missed out on a good presidency with his loss to George Bush."
Diana, I have thought the same in recent months. I wish he had joined the fray. To me, he has little of the downside and much of the upside of those running.
Diana, I have thought the same in recent months. I wish he had joined the fray. To me, he has little of the downside and much of the upside of those running.
2
I sure don't want to bet, David Axelrod! These days, in such an upside down world, where the "unpredictable" is now the norm, who can assume anything is a sure bet?
I like your essential contrast and question: " So who among the Republicans is more the antithesis of Mr. Obama than the trash-talking, authoritarian, give-no-quarter Mr. Trump?"
The very antidote to the careful, reflective, articulate, and principled President--a man as reckless in speech and often in action as they come, as reflective as an evaporating rain puddle in July, who talks with a street-talk level of speech and is driven by one principle, his ego--is exactly the man you've identified.
It remains to be seen if this quest for a presidential candidate to revert the boring, methodical, and at times the not so humble superiority of Mr. Obama, will actually go the distance and nominate Trump. He's invading too many protected spaces controlled by big donors, and he can't be controlled by them. So perhaps in the end, he'll fall on his own sword.
But in the meantime, while the people--as usual--say they want one thing when they really want another might just come to their senses and wake up to realize this guy doesn't really know anything about running a country.
I guess I can dream, can't I?
I like your essential contrast and question: " So who among the Republicans is more the antithesis of Mr. Obama than the trash-talking, authoritarian, give-no-quarter Mr. Trump?"
The very antidote to the careful, reflective, articulate, and principled President--a man as reckless in speech and often in action as they come, as reflective as an evaporating rain puddle in July, who talks with a street-talk level of speech and is driven by one principle, his ego--is exactly the man you've identified.
It remains to be seen if this quest for a presidential candidate to revert the boring, methodical, and at times the not so humble superiority of Mr. Obama, will actually go the distance and nominate Trump. He's invading too many protected spaces controlled by big donors, and he can't be controlled by them. So perhaps in the end, he'll fall on his own sword.
But in the meantime, while the people--as usual--say they want one thing when they really want another might just come to their senses and wake up to realize this guy doesn't really know anything about running a country.
I guess I can dream, can't I?
86
Don't rule out the possibility, however, that your impression of Trump's boundless ego and bombastic energy are exactly the solution for dissolving any Republican's remote chance of being elected. Remember, he and Hillary are thick as thieves and "do lunch" frequently in New York.
Something's cookin' and it sure ain't a Republican victory!
Something's cookin' and it sure ain't a Republican victory!
3
If President Obama tried to pretend he was not superior, it would be obvious false modesty. Unless he's in a room with his fellow Nobel prize winners, he is the smartest person in the room. That's even more obvious whenever he meets with Republicans. I've come to the conclusion over seven years that the Republicans dislike Obama not solely because he's black, but because he's black and clearly superior to them. For bigots, the toughest pill to swallow is the obvious demonstration that a member of the group they want to think is inferior not only turns out not only not to be, but is clearly better than they are. Hence why Trump's supporters love Trump so much -- he is the anti-Obama -- a pink-faced, shallow, impulsive, rude, anti-intellectual reality TV star with multiple wives and a resume that's made up mostly of lurching from disaster to disaster. Trump would be be a terrible President -- making us pine for James Buchanan and Warren Harding. But, he would be the complete opposite of President Obama, and that's really all Trump's supporters are looking for -- someone who can make them forget there ever was a black President whose mere presence made their inferiority so obvious to everyone.
553
Clare, Frederick Douglass was aware of a similar phenomenon: racism among white Northern abolitionists. Yes, they wanted to end slavery on humanitarian grounds—but often from the perspective of benevolent superiority, not much different from ending cruelty toward carriage horses. Douglass often felt condescended toward; it was laudable that he was educated and articulate by the standards of white culture as long as he knew his place. Artists and intellectuals of African descent in his day who were favorites of white audiences often felt paraded out and "approved" of for their accomplishments as exceptions that showed what white benevolence could do.
President Obama has actually evaded the power structure and come out on top, and you are so right in what you say.
President Obama has actually evaded the power structure and come out on top, and you are so right in what you say.
20
Smart. Very smart analysis.
15
Mr. Axelrod comes from the traditional political business model, he as well as many other talking heads don't know what to think.
Trump has cut out the middlemen and taken his message straight to the people. People like Axelrod got fired. So did the donors, the super pacs, and the pre-arranged media. He has taken a successful business model and applied it to politics. Cut out the distributors and layers.
The pundits can't stand it, but the people love it. He then successfully tries to become a news bandit. Right now the media follows him around like a herd of puppies, and his competitors are helpless. Does it really matter what he says? No it doesn't, It never has. And if you listen, his opponents all say outrageous things. Free college? Single payer healthcare? Flat tax? All fantasies.
The difference is Trump is connecting with the people, and surprisingly he is cutting across the demographics, The Democrats are weak, the Republicans are disorganized. Timing is everything. Very clever man.
Trump has cut out the middlemen and taken his message straight to the people. People like Axelrod got fired. So did the donors, the super pacs, and the pre-arranged media. He has taken a successful business model and applied it to politics. Cut out the distributors and layers.
The pundits can't stand it, but the people love it. He then successfully tries to become a news bandit. Right now the media follows him around like a herd of puppies, and his competitors are helpless. Does it really matter what he says? No it doesn't, It never has. And if you listen, his opponents all say outrageous things. Free college? Single payer healthcare? Flat tax? All fantasies.
The difference is Trump is connecting with the people, and surprisingly he is cutting across the demographics, The Democrats are weak, the Republicans are disorganized. Timing is everything. Very clever man.
19
"All fantasies." This is what conservatives told liberals when they wanted "outrageous things" like--Native American rights, abolition, suffrage, social security and medicare..............please keep dreaming Bernie. It founded this country and continues to light our way.
1
In other words Trump proves "you can fool some of the people all of the time".
At Last, an astute observation by a person paying attention. Bravo!
Democrats are in trouble because they allowed Hillary to box out most of her potential competition months before the campaign. She sucked all the air out of the room (and all of the money out of the coffers) and she even has the party chairwoman running debate scheduling interference for her. Now we are stuck with two weak candidates (sorry Martin) who could just possibly lose the election. It didn't help. of course, that Republicans have also done such a great job taking over at the state levels that they have a field of up and comers in their party and the Dems don't.
19
Martin O'Malley is not a serious candidate; he's just there to make it look like it is NOT just the "Hillary and Bernie Show" -- when of course, we all know it IS the Hillary and Bernie show.
They are so lovey dovey to each other, it is very hard to imagine that the winner won't pick the loser as his/her running mate.
They are so lovey dovey to each other, it is very hard to imagine that the winner won't pick the loser as his/her running mate.
Popularism –represented by Trump at this time – has its own logic, simultaneously coherent and incoherent, it cannot be summed up by theory or appeals to empirical data. In many ways, when it rears its head and is successful, it is a historical anomaly that can only be explained in the somewhat nebulous terms used by another commenters to describe apparent rise of Trump: “Maybe it’s just his time.”
2
Pretty sure the word is "populism."
1
There is much to like in the presidency of Obama. After all, Bush II invaded Iraq on the false pretense that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. 4491 US servicemen needlessly lost their lives in this debacle, and perhaps half a million Iraqis.
In foreign policy, Obama has been a welcome change. Instead of yet another war in the Middle East, Obama negotiated with Iran, coming to a deal which will hopefully decrease tensions. He gets high marks here.
Where Obama comes up short is domestic policy. He more or less promised a path to universal health care; instead Obamacare is a kludge which leaves many out. And Obama has a tendency to preach rather than listen.
He hasn't listened to America's poor, may of them white. The US needed a jobs program to fight unemployment following the Great Recession of 2008. Krugman rightly points out that he should have proposed a fiscal stimulus at least twice as large as his ARRA. We needed jobs for construction workers, the building of high speed rail connecting major cities in preparation for a world that uses less oil.
instead we got sermons like "Trayvon Martin could have been my son," which took sides rather than built upon common challenges.
Trump supporters simply don't believe the liberal view that illegal immigration contributes to prosperity. They see the destruction of their communities as immigrants invade their communities, crowd their schools and emergency rooms.
It is time to listen, not preach.
In foreign policy, Obama has been a welcome change. Instead of yet another war in the Middle East, Obama negotiated with Iran, coming to a deal which will hopefully decrease tensions. He gets high marks here.
Where Obama comes up short is domestic policy. He more or less promised a path to universal health care; instead Obamacare is a kludge which leaves many out. And Obama has a tendency to preach rather than listen.
He hasn't listened to America's poor, may of them white. The US needed a jobs program to fight unemployment following the Great Recession of 2008. Krugman rightly points out that he should have proposed a fiscal stimulus at least twice as large as his ARRA. We needed jobs for construction workers, the building of high speed rail connecting major cities in preparation for a world that uses less oil.
instead we got sermons like "Trayvon Martin could have been my son," which took sides rather than built upon common challenges.
Trump supporters simply don't believe the liberal view that illegal immigration contributes to prosperity. They see the destruction of their communities as immigrants invade their communities, crowd their schools and emergency rooms.
It is time to listen, not preach.
14
"Beyond specific issues, however, many Republicans view dimly the very qualities that played so well for Mr. Obama in 2008. Deliberation is seen as hesitancy; patience as weakness. His call for tolerance and passionate embrace of America’s growing diversity inflame many in the Republican base, who view with suspicion and anger the rapidly changing demographics of America. The president’s emphasis on diplomacy is viewed as appeasement."
Actually that NOT how many see Obama. The "tolerance and embrace of growing diversity" doesn't have to include illegal aliens. And the "President's emphasis on diplomacy" is seen as lack of decisive action. And let's not start to talk about the lack of action on doing anything about the Bush administration officials that pushed war, or the Wall Street robbers that screwed pretty much everybody but themselves, or deal after deal that Obama made by capitulating to Republicans and pressuring his allies. And under Obama the middle class has shrunk and blacks' economic position has declined substantially (not to mention pretty much everybody else too, other than Wall St. and Silicon Valley).
Mr. Axelrod was part of the Obama "show" and is disingenuously commenting on the "Trump show." Axelrod's defense of Obama's legacy isn't the story. Obama's poor record for the past 8 years is the story. That's why a politician like Trump is ahead in the polls. He just wishes he worked for Trump's campaign since it's going to be a winning one.
Actually that NOT how many see Obama. The "tolerance and embrace of growing diversity" doesn't have to include illegal aliens. And the "President's emphasis on diplomacy" is seen as lack of decisive action. And let's not start to talk about the lack of action on doing anything about the Bush administration officials that pushed war, or the Wall Street robbers that screwed pretty much everybody but themselves, or deal after deal that Obama made by capitulating to Republicans and pressuring his allies. And under Obama the middle class has shrunk and blacks' economic position has declined substantially (not to mention pretty much everybody else too, other than Wall St. and Silicon Valley).
Mr. Axelrod was part of the Obama "show" and is disingenuously commenting on the "Trump show." Axelrod's defense of Obama's legacy isn't the story. Obama's poor record for the past 8 years is the story. That's why a politician like Trump is ahead in the polls. He just wishes he worked for Trump's campaign since it's going to be a winning one.
14
Yes, it's a good theory, Mr. Axelrod. However, when looking at what has happened to American society since Eisenhower, this article discounts the serious impact of the economic disadvantages that have affected the middle class since the Reagan years. The article also ignores the proliferation of tabloid news and social media in promoting this "celebrity candidate." Further, the gerrymandering of voter districts by the GOP since the 2010 census was primarily responsible for the abrupt rise in the election of Republican governors/legislators at the local and national levels.
If Obama had an advantage in voters' minds in 2008, it was because he offered a counterpoint to the GOP's "politics as usual" that brought on the bombshell of the 2007-08 meltdown of the economy. Coupled with his promise to get the U.S. out of the quagmire of the senseless Iraq war, and you have a formula for success. The fact that many of those promises weren't delivered, along with an economy that has not rebounded for the working classes, and you have a loud minority of the GOP electorate who idolize a bombastic authoritarian TV personality whose "plans" consist of repeating a mindless slogan about America's greatness.
The theory put forth may seem valid on its face, but the real reason for the Donald's rise seems to be life mimicking art in "Network." We can only hope that all of those "mad as hell" people wake up in time to vote for the one authentic, lifelong reformer in the race - Bernie Sanders.
If Obama had an advantage in voters' minds in 2008, it was because he offered a counterpoint to the GOP's "politics as usual" that brought on the bombshell of the 2007-08 meltdown of the economy. Coupled with his promise to get the U.S. out of the quagmire of the senseless Iraq war, and you have a formula for success. The fact that many of those promises weren't delivered, along with an economy that has not rebounded for the working classes, and you have a loud minority of the GOP electorate who idolize a bombastic authoritarian TV personality whose "plans" consist of repeating a mindless slogan about America's greatness.
The theory put forth may seem valid on its face, but the real reason for the Donald's rise seems to be life mimicking art in "Network." We can only hope that all of those "mad as hell" people wake up in time to vote for the one authentic, lifelong reformer in the race - Bernie Sanders.
40
Bernie is a socialist, and yes that would be a very big change for America. One, I fear, they are not ready for. I also do not think they are ready for a Fascist like Donald.
1
Look up the financial health of countries "reformed" by socialism.
Doesnt work. Never has, never will.
Doesnt work. Never has, never will.
4
I think Bernie should run on the "New Deal" platform. He's the country's FDR. If you consider the inequality that exist today, we need a New Deal, not Trump's deal.
1
The elites have skillfully exploited the vast white masses for years now. They won states, Congress and even the White House using social shibboleths such as marriage and abortion to cynically invite the poor and angry into their tent. Meanwhile, they worked assiduously at lowering tax rates, changing laws and the judiciary while mining the mountain of spending on everything from the military to healthcare to their personal benefit. What Trump has done is to show this up. He is an insurgent in the elite world and I love him for it.
Heck, as long as he does not become the next President.
Heck, as long as he does not become the next President.
5
There is, totally, nothing about him. Obama only needs to endorse him and he would pulverize. What an utter schmutz. We are better than this.
3
Not Mark. Mark's better half :))
Very good article David, as are your insights in many interviews you have given over the years after Obama got elected.
One Republican smarty pants, more like a smart-alec, said, "If Bill Clinton is sometimes called the first Black President,, Barack Obama is called the first 'woman President'. He, he, he". I guess from that rationale, logic or view point Trump must be Mr. Macho on Steroids: a Man's Man, Manly Man or a "Real Man" according to Republicans, and some Democrats silly enough to vote for him.
Lets call Trump for what he really is: a classic MCP: Male (also Misogynistic) Chauvinist Pig. We need more posters displaying that.
Very good article David, as are your insights in many interviews you have given over the years after Obama got elected.
One Republican smarty pants, more like a smart-alec, said, "If Bill Clinton is sometimes called the first Black President,, Barack Obama is called the first 'woman President'. He, he, he". I guess from that rationale, logic or view point Trump must be Mr. Macho on Steroids: a Man's Man, Manly Man or a "Real Man" according to Republicans, and some Democrats silly enough to vote for him.
Lets call Trump for what he really is: a classic MCP: Male (also Misogynistic) Chauvinist Pig. We need more posters displaying that.
17
You may have it -- a nice addition to eh Axelrod analysis.
4
I subscribe to the theory that it is a good thing for the country when different segments
of the population who have not formerly had a president of their own -- or haven’t had one for a long time -- finally get one.
Blacks needed a president and now have one. Women do want a president, but they are
picky and notoriously difficult to please and have mixed feelings about Hillary. Jews don’t need a president -- I’m thinking here of Mayor Bloomberg -- and they would be well advised never to get one. There would be far too much baggage associated with that.
Donald Trump represents the sizeable part of the American electorate that relishes clown Presidents. The U.S. has had many clown presidents in the past and will again in the future. There is nothing to be gained by installing yet another one in the White House at the present time.
The segment of the U.S. population that is crying out the hardest now for love and affirmation is the American left. They thought they had their man in President Obama until they discovered he was really a neocon disguised in sheep’s clothing. Bernie Sanders, while Jewish, is primarily seen as a man of the left, and it is to him the nation should now turn. Four years of Sanders, or better yet eight, would convert even his most ardent supporters into hostile critics of his and convince them forever of the folly of adopting socialism, democratic or otherwise.
of the population who have not formerly had a president of their own -- or haven’t had one for a long time -- finally get one.
Blacks needed a president and now have one. Women do want a president, but they are
picky and notoriously difficult to please and have mixed feelings about Hillary. Jews don’t need a president -- I’m thinking here of Mayor Bloomberg -- and they would be well advised never to get one. There would be far too much baggage associated with that.
Donald Trump represents the sizeable part of the American electorate that relishes clown Presidents. The U.S. has had many clown presidents in the past and will again in the future. There is nothing to be gained by installing yet another one in the White House at the present time.
The segment of the U.S. population that is crying out the hardest now for love and affirmation is the American left. They thought they had their man in President Obama until they discovered he was really a neocon disguised in sheep’s clothing. Bernie Sanders, while Jewish, is primarily seen as a man of the left, and it is to him the nation should now turn. Four years of Sanders, or better yet eight, would convert even his most ardent supporters into hostile critics of his and convince them forever of the folly of adopting socialism, democratic or otherwise.
3
A Stanton- We already HAVE socialism, just you and your fellow republicans refuse to acknowledge this. Daily Kos lists at least 75 socialist programs/services we already have in this country including public education, public roads, farm subsidies, the national weather service, homeland security, FBI, CIA, OSHA, Public street lights, FEMA, (your republican governors seem to LOVE that one) The Pentagon, Amtrak, and countless others. If it is publicly funded it IS socialism.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-I...
The internet you use was also developed by the government and funded collectively by taxpayers, the very definition of socialism.
"The Internet got its start in the 1960s, when a team of computing pioneers at the Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects Agency designed and deployed ARPANET, the first computer network that used “packet switching”—a communications system that splits up data and sends it across multiple paths toward its destination, which is the basic design of today’s Internet. According to most accounts, researchers working on ARPANET created many of the Internet’s defining features, including TCP/IP, the protocol on which today’s network operates. In the 1980s, they strung together various government and university networks together using TCP/IP thus creating a single worldwide network, the Internet."
Is it only socialism when it's a service that YOU don't use or like but perfectly acceptable otherwise?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-I...
The internet you use was also developed by the government and funded collectively by taxpayers, the very definition of socialism.
"The Internet got its start in the 1960s, when a team of computing pioneers at the Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects Agency designed and deployed ARPANET, the first computer network that used “packet switching”—a communications system that splits up data and sends it across multiple paths toward its destination, which is the basic design of today’s Internet. According to most accounts, researchers working on ARPANET created many of the Internet’s defining features, including TCP/IP, the protocol on which today’s network operates. In the 1980s, they strung together various government and university networks together using TCP/IP thus creating a single worldwide network, the Internet."
Is it only socialism when it's a service that YOU don't use or like but perfectly acceptable otherwise?
2
I'm not seeing it, but then you never know. Frankly, I'd say that Sander's supporters would be sick of him in six months -- it wouldn't take four years.
If by some miracle he was elected and then ran for a second term....he'd be almost EIGHTY when he took office. I have 80 year old relatives, and I cannot imagine in any way, shape or form someone being able to handle the rigors of the Presidency at that age.
Most of the people claiming to be "feeling the BERN" can say so, because it has not yet hit them directly in the pocket. Mr. Sander's "plans" all involve massive, permanent tax increases the likes of which Americans have never had to deal with before.
If by some miracle he was elected and then ran for a second term....he'd be almost EIGHTY when he took office. I have 80 year old relatives, and I cannot imagine in any way, shape or form someone being able to handle the rigors of the Presidency at that age.
Most of the people claiming to be "feeling the BERN" can say so, because it has not yet hit them directly in the pocket. Mr. Sander's "plans" all involve massive, permanent tax increases the likes of which Americans have never had to deal with before.
When will the people tasked with analyzing this election stop assuming that the Republican primary voters are in any way a reflection of the nation as a whole?
Barack Obama was an elected Senator in 2008. Yes, he had only been in office for two years, but he at least had been approved by voters in an actual election.
Donald Trump represents no one but the media corporations who have profited from his circus of a campaign. To compare his headline grabbing, hate-filled remarks with President Obama's message of hope and change belittles the reason many voted for President Obama in 2008.
Fox News actually thanked Mr. Trump for bad-mouthing one of its moderators because the network felt his childish diatribe against Meghan Kelly helps boost ratings. Is that any metric by which to measure a candidate? Is that the "opposite" you claim America wants?
It is disingenuous at best to use credentials of 40 years of political experience to justify ignoring the biggest issue we face in this election. The American media has a conflict of interest only made worse by the Citizens United decision. Candidate spending is their income. There is now greater financial incentive to put profits over properly vetting candidates than ever before.
Please don't tell me that after 40 years in politics, you can't see what's really going on -- unless you happen to be part of the problem, and your income relies on validating Trump's joke of a campaign.
Barack Obama was an elected Senator in 2008. Yes, he had only been in office for two years, but he at least had been approved by voters in an actual election.
Donald Trump represents no one but the media corporations who have profited from his circus of a campaign. To compare his headline grabbing, hate-filled remarks with President Obama's message of hope and change belittles the reason many voted for President Obama in 2008.
Fox News actually thanked Mr. Trump for bad-mouthing one of its moderators because the network felt his childish diatribe against Meghan Kelly helps boost ratings. Is that any metric by which to measure a candidate? Is that the "opposite" you claim America wants?
It is disingenuous at best to use credentials of 40 years of political experience to justify ignoring the biggest issue we face in this election. The American media has a conflict of interest only made worse by the Citizens United decision. Candidate spending is their income. There is now greater financial incentive to put profits over properly vetting candidates than ever before.
Please don't tell me that after 40 years in politics, you can't see what's really going on -- unless you happen to be part of the problem, and your income relies on validating Trump's joke of a campaign.
16
There is no requirement whatsoever that a candidate for POTUS must serve in Congress, or as a Governor, or any elected office. NONE, whatsoever.
Also: Mr. Trump is not using any part of "Citizen's United", since he is not taking money from the Koch brothers or any other PAC. He is a billionaire and self-financing his campaign -- indeed, he has been so clever (this far) that he has let the lame lefty-liberals and their histrionics give him 24/7 exposure in the media at ZERO COST TO HIMSELF. Smart. The American people like that.
Also: Mr. Trump is not using any part of "Citizen's United", since he is not taking money from the Koch brothers or any other PAC. He is a billionaire and self-financing his campaign -- indeed, he has been so clever (this far) that he has let the lame lefty-liberals and their histrionics give him 24/7 exposure in the media at ZERO COST TO HIMSELF. Smart. The American people like that.
David seems incapable of coming out and frankly admitting that Obama’s colossal failure as President has bequeathed us Trump.
19
Good example - the current crop of health.gov commercials begging us to enroll "before it's too late," with its only virtue avoidance of an IRS penalty. This the President's signature achievement? Oh wait, there's Cash for Clunkers, right?
3
"Cash For Clunkers" -- while popular amongst people who got a nice fat check to buy a new car they were going to buy anyways -- did great harm to the REST of America. How? Because when WE went out to buy a used vehicle -- the supply was at historic lows, since many tens of thousands of working and usable cars had been DESTROYED (glass poured into the engines, so they could not be resold).
For US, it was nothing short of pure evil. And for those who don't know (like non-driving wealthy New Yorkers) -- it has raised the cost of ALL used cars, to the detriment of poor and working class Americans.
For US, it was nothing short of pure evil. And for those who don't know (like non-driving wealthy New Yorkers) -- it has raised the cost of ALL used cars, to the detriment of poor and working class Americans.
3
Wow ... "it's all Obama's fault." You remind me of the people who put up "Repeal Obama's NY-Safe Act" lawn signs -- seen a few of these around.
1
Not an analysis that favors Clinton viz a viz any GOP candidate but for Jeb! I suppose. Axelrod's tale does have something to say in conjunction with Krugman's observation that Sanders's campaign is that of candidate Obama whereas Clinton's is President Obama. For Hope-based campaigner Obama changed into Technocrat-President Obama, and that gives both Sanders and the loony GOP the contrast they require. Nonetheless, give me the option to choose a pragmatic, technocratic, intellectual President Obama any day and I'll be happy. I'm still optimistic for the fall.
5
That Arab Spring Obama and HIllary supported really worked out. We have seen absolutely nothing intellectual about Obama. He is driven by his own ideology, regardless of the damage it does.
3
Maybe there's a simpler explanation.
Americans might be tired of "establishment" politicians (on both sides) who make promises, but then once they are elected, run "business as usual..." I mean, as a libertarian leaning person I don't really see much difference between both sides. Regardless of what they promise, once they get elected they all gravitate to the middle and run things as they have always been run.
I tell people, "it doesn't matter whether you buy Fanta or Sprite, Coca Cola still gets rich."
Each "team" wants you to root for them, but both teams want you to buy a ticket to the game (vote). Is it because they really want you to participate in government? (No) Maybe it's just because your vote gives them relevance.
I prefer proactive apathy. Prove to me my vote matters in a National election and I might change my mind, but I don't think you can do it.
Americans might be tired of "establishment" politicians (on both sides) who make promises, but then once they are elected, run "business as usual..." I mean, as a libertarian leaning person I don't really see much difference between both sides. Regardless of what they promise, once they get elected they all gravitate to the middle and run things as they have always been run.
I tell people, "it doesn't matter whether you buy Fanta or Sprite, Coca Cola still gets rich."
Each "team" wants you to root for them, but both teams want you to buy a ticket to the game (vote). Is it because they really want you to participate in government? (No) Maybe it's just because your vote gives them relevance.
I prefer proactive apathy. Prove to me my vote matters in a National election and I might change my mind, but I don't think you can do it.
6
President Obama has given us an improved economy, lowered unemployment, Paris cimate-change agreement, drastically improved car mileage rates for car manufactures by 2025, ACA, nuclear deal with Iran, reached out to Cuba, reduced consumption of fossil fuels ... All without ANY Republican cooperation.
And yet you think the glass is half full. Vote for ANY Republican and watch the lights go out: you'll be voting in a very dim light bulb.
And yet you think the glass is half full. Vote for ANY Republican and watch the lights go out: you'll be voting in a very dim light bulb.
4
It is more than just voters changing styles or personalities every 4 or 8 years. It is widespread disillusionment with Obama's timid, incremental and fumbling approach to government. This is the danger when you bring strong, stirring rhetoric to a campaign and then fail to deliver on your promises. Axelrod focuses on the Republicans. He could have written the same column about the Democrats. Sanders is winning the hearts of those who are appalled by the profit-driven half-a-loaf Obamacare, the stimulus spending that still allowed millions to suffer foreclosures, the lack of significant reform on Wall Street, and an inept, reactionary foreign policy. Every time Hillary sings the praises of Obama (which people know she doesn't believe), she loses another million votes.
11
Not since FDR has a Democrat succeeded a Democrat as POTUS. And FDR is not the best example, given the dire times and the fact that he succeeded himself.
Trump knows that, and sells all sizzle, no steak.
Trump knows that, and sells all sizzle, no steak.
11
Maybe it was cut during editing, but the same theory holds true for Bush II over Gore in 2000 (as it applies to the Electoral College win vs. the popular vote, but let's put that aside for the time being).
Clinton was viewed as morally bankrupt for his liaison during his Presidency and was too wonky. Gore during the 2000 campaign was overly wonky and stiff.
In comes Bush II, a likable compassionate conservative, acting on his gut rather than his head. And he had been redeemed from his alcoholism by the Lord and taken responsibility for his transgressions. Clinton never asked for forgiveness for his indiscretions nor sought redemption.
Bush II was nearly the polar opposite to Clinton and all Bush II needed was to win the electoral college with a conservatives and moderates for that opposite profile...and he did.
The Axelrod Theory holds true in that case.
Clinton was viewed as morally bankrupt for his liaison during his Presidency and was too wonky. Gore during the 2000 campaign was overly wonky and stiff.
In comes Bush II, a likable compassionate conservative, acting on his gut rather than his head. And he had been redeemed from his alcoholism by the Lord and taken responsibility for his transgressions. Clinton never asked for forgiveness for his indiscretions nor sought redemption.
Bush II was nearly the polar opposite to Clinton and all Bush II needed was to win the electoral college with a conservatives and moderates for that opposite profile...and he did.
The Axelrod Theory holds true in that case.
1
But he didn't win.
1
@Gord: although a popular meme of the left (and apparently in your case, CANADIANS), Mr. Bush did win the election.
We do not elect POTUS by a popular vote. We elect POTUS by the terms of the Constitution, which is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Mr. Bush won that, without question (even after several informal recounts!).
He lost the POPULAR vote by a narrow margin, but again: we do not elect POTUS by a popular vote.
This was the first time in our history that the popular vote and Electoral College diverged.
We do not elect POTUS by a popular vote. We elect POTUS by the terms of the Constitution, which is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Mr. Bush won that, without question (even after several informal recounts!).
He lost the POPULAR vote by a narrow margin, but again: we do not elect POTUS by a popular vote.
This was the first time in our history that the popular vote and Electoral College diverged.
No, Concerned Citizen, it was not the first time the popular vote and the electoral college diverged; it was the fourth.
1824: John Quincy Adams / Andrew Jackson
1876 Rutherford Hayes / Samuel Tilden
1888 Benjamin Harrison / Grover Cleveland
and, of course
2000 George W. Bush / Al Gore.
1824: John Quincy Adams / Andrew Jackson
1876 Rutherford Hayes / Samuel Tilden
1888 Benjamin Harrison / Grover Cleveland
and, of course
2000 George W. Bush / Al Gore.
2
"The Republican base is infuriated by Mr. Obama’s activist view of government and progressive initiatives, from health care reform to immigration, gay rights to climate change."
The Republican base is furious because they are weak, self-doubting, embattled hypocrites who refuse to take responsibility for their own unhappiness.
The Republican base is furious because they are weak, self-doubting, embattled hypocrites who refuse to take responsibility for their own unhappiness.
127
Another overconfident talking head eating his own words and
providing yet another example of how meaningless his words are.
providing yet another example of how meaningless his words are.
21
He isn't eating his words; this comment is just more "hell, no" talk.
"the iconic Trump logo affixed to the White House portico"
If Trump is elected, I look forward to new 14K gold-plated front doors to the White House, the Rose Garden transformed into a miniature golf course, and above all, a 20 foot wall surrounding the entire White House so that neither occupant nor public could get in or get out.
If Trump is elected, I look forward to new 14K gold-plated front doors to the White House, the Rose Garden transformed into a miniature golf course, and above all, a 20 foot wall surrounding the entire White House so that neither occupant nor public could get in or get out.
2
Antithesis indeed.
This is what is so astounding to many of us who have seen people suffer because they have had no means to health care insurance. This is what is so astounding to many of us who did not hear a president say the word HIV or AIDS, as thousands and thousands died on the streets because they got no help. This is what is so astounding to many of us who do not want to be sending troops of to another world, the Mideast, because we have seen the atrocity of PTSD, brain injury, limb prosthesis, funerals of suicide, completely attributed to those Mideastern wars.
This antithesis makes those of us opposed to Donald Trump and still supporting Barack Obama shake our heads and wonder if we are really living in the United States.
Do we want a man who says he could stand on 5th Avenue, shoot someone and still get votes?
How can that be when we see our President weep at the very thought of children shot down in schools and sing "Amazing Grace" at the funeral of church attendees murdered by a gun while studying the Bible?
When I see Donald Trump "thumbs up" it makes me shutter. The man from New York, homeland of diversity. Yet he kowtows to those who don't believe one iota in diversity. Those are the people he seeks votes from, in his crowds with Trump tee shirts, applauding and cheering.
History does have a way of sorting out presidents and their values.
I'll stick to those values of Barack Obama. A man who did not pick and choose. A man for all.
This is what is so astounding to many of us who have seen people suffer because they have had no means to health care insurance. This is what is so astounding to many of us who did not hear a president say the word HIV or AIDS, as thousands and thousands died on the streets because they got no help. This is what is so astounding to many of us who do not want to be sending troops of to another world, the Mideast, because we have seen the atrocity of PTSD, brain injury, limb prosthesis, funerals of suicide, completely attributed to those Mideastern wars.
This antithesis makes those of us opposed to Donald Trump and still supporting Barack Obama shake our heads and wonder if we are really living in the United States.
Do we want a man who says he could stand on 5th Avenue, shoot someone and still get votes?
How can that be when we see our President weep at the very thought of children shot down in schools and sing "Amazing Grace" at the funeral of church attendees murdered by a gun while studying the Bible?
When I see Donald Trump "thumbs up" it makes me shutter. The man from New York, homeland of diversity. Yet he kowtows to those who don't believe one iota in diversity. Those are the people he seeks votes from, in his crowds with Trump tee shirts, applauding and cheering.
History does have a way of sorting out presidents and their values.
I'll stick to those values of Barack Obama. A man who did not pick and choose. A man for all.
103
I have a wake-up call for you -- Mr. Obama is not running for a third term.
To YOU and some others, he was a black savior/messiah. To the rest of us, he was a disaster and a tragedy.
To YOU and some others, he was a black savior/messiah. To the rest of us, he was a disaster and a tragedy.
2
I used to think that Trump's campaign would inevitably go down in a "Face in the Crowd" moment (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend it). But I was wrong. Trump's supporters cling all the more tightly to him after he says things that, individually, would have ended a candidacy not too long ago. The psychology behind the loyalty of a group that can be told they would still vote for Trump even if he shot someone is fascinating. But it is so frightening I can hardly stand to think about it.
67
Just an FYI, b- l- a - c - k had nothing to do with anything for me.
But obviously it does for you.
Messiah? No, that would be what the conservatives are looking for as in a "2 Corinthians" reader. Doesn't even know how to interpret the name of a Biblical chapter......from the book that he loves so much.
But obviously it does for you.
Messiah? No, that would be what the conservatives are looking for as in a "2 Corinthians" reader. Doesn't even know how to interpret the name of a Biblical chapter......from the book that he loves so much.
1
Trump is an self-aggrandizing egotist, but many of his policies resonate with everyday Americans. Many of us think that the real culprit in income disparity in this country is the constant off-shoring of jobs. How can workers campaign for higher wages when the company can just move the plant to Mexico?
Trump and Sanders are the two that recognize this, or at least haven't made Faustian bargains that would prevent them from taking such positions. Many intellectuals do not see the devastation of our trade policies, but it is real and people want change. Apple should make their damn things in the US.
Trump and Sanders are the two that recognize this, or at least haven't made Faustian bargains that would prevent them from taking such positions. Many intellectuals do not see the devastation of our trade policies, but it is real and people want change. Apple should make their damn things in the US.
406
I don't disagree, but are citizens willing to pay the cost for products made here? The crowds at Walmart suggest they are not.
4
While you're at it, tell Mr. Trump to have his ties made here in the USA..in case you didn't know it, Trump's tie are manufactured in China. Trump has never let the truth or fear of hypocrisy alter his rhetoric.
8
No.
Apple should design their damn things here, and make them in the lowest manufacturing cost place on earth.
You apparently want the iPhone to cost $1,000+.
Apple should design their damn things here, and make them in the lowest manufacturing cost place on earth.
You apparently want the iPhone to cost $1,000+.
1
The problem with taking Axelrod's bet is that if GOP'ers are so foolish as to actually nominate El Donaldo (and there are only 2 candidates in Nov.), bad weather on election day in a couple of key regions of the country could depress voter turn-out enough that IL Trumpolini wins - add in a few voting software glitches in Dem precincts of purple states, with some overly long voting lines in other Dem precincts of purple states, and the scenario is more plausible.
IL Trumpolini is a dangerous fellow.
IL Trumpolini is a dangerous fellow.
35
If you are right, we will, indeed have a President Trump and a renamed White House (The Trump House?). My bets (though certainly not my vote) are on a nominee Rubio and, increasingly likely (and horrifyingly) a President Rubio. Trump and Cruz are doing well at making Rubio look moderate and the saner option. Increasingly Rubio is touted as the "establishment" candidate, though the true ones would be Jeb! or Kasich or, maybe, Christie.
3
Rubio's only shot -- a slim one -- is in the VP slot. He lacks maturity and confidence, and though he is intelligent, he is not (yet) a good public speaker.
If Trump is smart, he will pick a woman or minority as a running mate.
If Trump is smart, he will pick a woman or minority as a running mate.
David Axelrod offers a political context for Trump's rise. He misses how this context embeds in a larger sustained political vision.
Two points: Collectively, the Republican party, its state and national officials and its presidential candidates have made the dog whistles of white supremacy a standard feature of their flag-wrapped identity politics. Using their denial of a Black President in the halls of power that they couldn't defeat to attempt the defeat of the next candidate of his party--defeating him in absentia! Axelrod takes no notice the Republican use--and denial--of issues tethered to white supremacy, framed as law and order issues, budget demands, and character failures.
Two: in his xenophobic, misogynistic world view of glad, sad, weak, and bad Trump convinces voters that through him, their voices will be heard! To point, on Trump's behalf, White supremacists are making robo-calls.
Trump targets twin foes: the elite class and working class families of color and brings together a middle class and a working class vested in the displacement of others, exasperating false differences through racist and nativist rhetoric. It is an old South dialectic: he speaks to minorities about their limits. It results in a pragmatic conservatism, rooted in action rather than blame.
It allows hate and the appearance of a limited equality to coexist and rejects the doctrinaire conservation that denies its bias and love of the rich. It proscribes race in the halls of power.
Two points: Collectively, the Republican party, its state and national officials and its presidential candidates have made the dog whistles of white supremacy a standard feature of their flag-wrapped identity politics. Using their denial of a Black President in the halls of power that they couldn't defeat to attempt the defeat of the next candidate of his party--defeating him in absentia! Axelrod takes no notice the Republican use--and denial--of issues tethered to white supremacy, framed as law and order issues, budget demands, and character failures.
Two: in his xenophobic, misogynistic world view of glad, sad, weak, and bad Trump convinces voters that through him, their voices will be heard! To point, on Trump's behalf, White supremacists are making robo-calls.
Trump targets twin foes: the elite class and working class families of color and brings together a middle class and a working class vested in the displacement of others, exasperating false differences through racist and nativist rhetoric. It is an old South dialectic: he speaks to minorities about their limits. It results in a pragmatic conservatism, rooted in action rather than blame.
It allows hate and the appearance of a limited equality to coexist and rejects the doctrinaire conservation that denies its bias and love of the rich. It proscribes race in the halls of power.
101
To the GOP, defeating Obama--even out of office--is more important than critical thinking.
120
Nonsense.........
2
Which part, Hawk? The part about white supremacists making robo-calls for Trump?
"Hear a white nationalist's robocall urging Iowa voters to back Trump" [http://wpo.st/sOD61].
Or search: "White Nationalist PAC Blankets Iowa With Robocalls For Trump." Even Fortune, a staunch capitalist rag, reported it:Search: "Donald Trump is getting support from the white supremacist American Freedom Party making robo-calls."
Or the dog whistle/racist part?
GOP’s 2016 Festival of Hate: It’s Already the Most Racist Presidential Campaign Ever [http://thebea.st/1L1t1DT].
Maybe the conclusions about the words of Trump himself:
Search: "Here are all the racist comments that got Donald Trump fired from NBC."
Trump's love of "the blacks" promises a limited equality. For women, too. I invite you to earnestly reconsider your dismissive conclusion and open your heart to build an America that doesn't shout down a Muslim women who attends a Trump rally to build understanding through dialogue and is told to "get out."
"Muslim woman ejected from Trump rally in South Carolina" [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-woman-ejected-donald-trump-rally-sout...].
Seriously. (Otherwise, you prove my point. We both don't want that!)
"Hear a white nationalist's robocall urging Iowa voters to back Trump" [http://wpo.st/sOD61].
Or search: "White Nationalist PAC Blankets Iowa With Robocalls For Trump." Even Fortune, a staunch capitalist rag, reported it:Search: "Donald Trump is getting support from the white supremacist American Freedom Party making robo-calls."
Or the dog whistle/racist part?
GOP’s 2016 Festival of Hate: It’s Already the Most Racist Presidential Campaign Ever [http://thebea.st/1L1t1DT].
Maybe the conclusions about the words of Trump himself:
Search: "Here are all the racist comments that got Donald Trump fired from NBC."
Trump's love of "the blacks" promises a limited equality. For women, too. I invite you to earnestly reconsider your dismissive conclusion and open your heart to build an America that doesn't shout down a Muslim women who attends a Trump rally to build understanding through dialogue and is told to "get out."
"Muslim woman ejected from Trump rally in South Carolina" [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-woman-ejected-donald-trump-rally-sout...].
Seriously. (Otherwise, you prove my point. We both don't want that!)
11
Thank you, Mr. Axelrod.
As I read your article I had many "Aha" moments. Your theory made so much sense when laid out like this, applicable to so much of the ebb and flow of American politics, except, unfortunately for the subject you chose to apply it to here, the anomaly, Donald Trump.
The flaw in his case, is that the Donald does not represent a change from the governing style or philosophy of Obama - a swing of the political pendulum - he does not represent simply a contempt for "the niceties of governance and policy making" that his predecessor brought to the table.
In fact, I strive, Mr. Axelrod, to find printable terminology for just what it is Mr. Trump represents.
In fact, I won't try. Those of us who keep ourselves informed on the political discourse, who have a passing acquaintance with history - and with the field of psychology - know what Mr. Trump represents. The fact that he occupies his current exalted place in the presidential selection process, that he has the level of support he has garnered and sustained for so long, and that he will actually be remembered for this in the annuals of American politics is an abomination.
The body politic on the right has lost it's collective mind. There is no other way to say it. The "antithesis" of Mr. Obama - the one who says "Yes, I can!", who would "face a steep uphill battle in a General Election", the "strong man who promises by sheer force of will to make America great again", is Bernie Sanders, Mr. Axelrod.
As I read your article I had many "Aha" moments. Your theory made so much sense when laid out like this, applicable to so much of the ebb and flow of American politics, except, unfortunately for the subject you chose to apply it to here, the anomaly, Donald Trump.
The flaw in his case, is that the Donald does not represent a change from the governing style or philosophy of Obama - a swing of the political pendulum - he does not represent simply a contempt for "the niceties of governance and policy making" that his predecessor brought to the table.
In fact, I strive, Mr. Axelrod, to find printable terminology for just what it is Mr. Trump represents.
In fact, I won't try. Those of us who keep ourselves informed on the political discourse, who have a passing acquaintance with history - and with the field of psychology - know what Mr. Trump represents. The fact that he occupies his current exalted place in the presidential selection process, that he has the level of support he has garnered and sustained for so long, and that he will actually be remembered for this in the annuals of American politics is an abomination.
The body politic on the right has lost it's collective mind. There is no other way to say it. The "antithesis" of Mr. Obama - the one who says "Yes, I can!", who would "face a steep uphill battle in a General Election", the "strong man who promises by sheer force of will to make America great again", is Bernie Sanders, Mr. Axelrod.
176
Sanders is an angry old man, who hasn't got along with anyone in Congress for years. His ability to legislate is nil. He is too old. And the only reason he has gotten traction is because he is the "anyone but Hillary" vote. If anyone actually believes this country will elect a "democratic socialist", is sadly mistaken.
The Democrats are in trouble, and I'm guessing you didn't understand what Axelrod was saying.
The Democrats are in trouble, and I'm guessing you didn't understand what Axelrod was saying.
5
I read your erudite, astute and devastating critique of Mr. Rhett's thoughtful and informed comments above. I'll continue to rely on my own - and Mr. Rhett's "understanding" of Mr. Axelrod's comments over yours - any day - Hawk.
1
Oh boy, does Mr. Axelrod consume his own product.
He should come out and say what the rest of us understand: President Obama could not deliver on change. He still has us fighting the wars he was supposed to end, and then some. He and Sec. of State Clinton, and special advisor Susan Rice, helped engineer a Libyan revolt that took out their leader and left them with no government. Made Iraq look like like child's play.
We didn't see patience and diplomacy. We see increasing use of drones and reliance on anti-government "rebels" on the ground to tell American troops what to target. We didn't see leadership in the Arab Spring or support of our allies in Egypt. We saw a "hands off" policy that led to chaos where a little bit of diplomatic influence and American leadership might have helped.
The media, and Obama's people, are still trumpeting his administration as a success, but the majority of the people do not see it. He did NOT lead on gay marraige! Don't take credit for the activist's legal arguments, and the Court's decision that was separate from identity politics, or politics by numbers.
We're getting Sanders and Trump because Obama could not deliver on Change, and we want something different. Own it, Mr. Axelrod. And please, stop speaking and start listening more respectfully to other people, other voters in other regions? (I read James Baldwin too.)
He should come out and say what the rest of us understand: President Obama could not deliver on change. He still has us fighting the wars he was supposed to end, and then some. He and Sec. of State Clinton, and special advisor Susan Rice, helped engineer a Libyan revolt that took out their leader and left them with no government. Made Iraq look like like child's play.
We didn't see patience and diplomacy. We see increasing use of drones and reliance on anti-government "rebels" on the ground to tell American troops what to target. We didn't see leadership in the Arab Spring or support of our allies in Egypt. We saw a "hands off" policy that led to chaos where a little bit of diplomatic influence and American leadership might have helped.
The media, and Obama's people, are still trumpeting his administration as a success, but the majority of the people do not see it. He did NOT lead on gay marraige! Don't take credit for the activist's legal arguments, and the Court's decision that was separate from identity politics, or politics by numbers.
We're getting Sanders and Trump because Obama could not deliver on Change, and we want something different. Own it, Mr. Axelrod. And please, stop speaking and start listening more respectfully to other people, other voters in other regions? (I read James Baldwin too.)
50
You say, Midway, 'We saw a "hands off" policy that led to chaos where a little bit of diplomatic influence and American leadership might have helped."
When was the last time America was capable of "bit of diplomatic influence and American leadership"? Please. President Obama was handed an untenable situation: a rebellious opposition party that irrationally hates his guts and made a shambles of our economy via its patron saint, Ronald the Dreamer (what was that foreign policy about?) and a foolish electorate that can't remember the day before yesterday and an attention span of a gnat.
Please, you're talking about a fantasy that never existed. America started of exceptional and started getting high on the smell of its own perfume and turned into a bully, than became foolish as it stands back and lets the oligarchs, corporations and banks shred its Constitution. As Larry Eisenberg so eloquently states above, we are committing suicide and you are condemning President Obama, the only adult in the room who, like the little Dutch Boy is trying to plug countless holes in the dyke with his 10 fingers?
As far as "other voters in other regions," who put snake-oil salesmen and shysters in government? Those mysterious "other voters from other regions" you pine for did.
When was the last time America was capable of "bit of diplomatic influence and American leadership"? Please. President Obama was handed an untenable situation: a rebellious opposition party that irrationally hates his guts and made a shambles of our economy via its patron saint, Ronald the Dreamer (what was that foreign policy about?) and a foolish electorate that can't remember the day before yesterday and an attention span of a gnat.
Please, you're talking about a fantasy that never existed. America started of exceptional and started getting high on the smell of its own perfume and turned into a bully, than became foolish as it stands back and lets the oligarchs, corporations and banks shred its Constitution. As Larry Eisenberg so eloquently states above, we are committing suicide and you are condemning President Obama, the only adult in the room who, like the little Dutch Boy is trying to plug countless holes in the dyke with his 10 fingers?
As far as "other voters in other regions," who put snake-oil salesmen and shysters in government? Those mysterious "other voters from other regions" you pine for did.
13
We are not getting Trump and Bernie because Obama failed to deliver on change but because people like you believe change can be accomplished by one man if he just tried hard enough and railroads all opponents. Obama did over promise but has pretty much delivered what was possible in the political environment his presidency faced. All presidents have missteps. The sign of presidential acumen is how to recover from them, not compound them. To keep in mind a noble vision of what kind of country he would like the US to be and, given the enormous US influence, what kind of world he wishes to see his descendants inhabit. The US is like an enormous aircraft carrier with multiple pilots steering it in opposite directions. The captain can only make in turn slowly in one direction by convincing a number of pilots to overcome the ones pushing in different directions. Obama has been a remarkably cool captain, a hothead would have broken the steering wheel and left us drifting towards an iceberg. That will be the result of a Trump presidency. In the case of Bernie it will be even more disappointing to his supporters than Obama since he promises so much more.
6
"He should come out and say what the rest of us understand: President Obama could not deliver on change." The rest of us? Speak for yourself, please.
"The majority of the people do not see it." The majority? How do you know that?
Every day I read these comments on the NYT and feel a bit more deflated. Yes, the comments tend to be of a much higher quality than is typical elsewhere, but even so, what I encounter again and again is certitude instead of skepticism, mere blustering instead of reasoned argument ("made Iraq look like child's play"), black-and-white thinking instead of nuance, and self-indulgent outrage instead of dispassionate engagement with the article and the other commenters' opinions.
On the one hand, there is something wonderful in our certainty that if only WE had been sitting in the Oval Office, we could have sorted everything out perfectly. On the other hand, it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it? And I, for one, grow weary of it.
Yes, yes, we have a responsibility as citizens to follow events, evaluate, and judge. Yes, yes, everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, as we're reminded constantly. If only we could bring to it some measure of humility, some degree of self-awareness, some thought for what our words might do to raise the level of debate and strengthen our body politic.
"The majority of the people do not see it." The majority? How do you know that?
Every day I read these comments on the NYT and feel a bit more deflated. Yes, the comments tend to be of a much higher quality than is typical elsewhere, but even so, what I encounter again and again is certitude instead of skepticism, mere blustering instead of reasoned argument ("made Iraq look like child's play"), black-and-white thinking instead of nuance, and self-indulgent outrage instead of dispassionate engagement with the article and the other commenters' opinions.
On the one hand, there is something wonderful in our certainty that if only WE had been sitting in the Oval Office, we could have sorted everything out perfectly. On the other hand, it's a bit ridiculous, isn't it? And I, for one, grow weary of it.
Yes, yes, we have a responsibility as citizens to follow events, evaluate, and judge. Yes, yes, everyone's entitled to his or her opinion, as we're reminded constantly. If only we could bring to it some measure of humility, some degree of self-awareness, some thought for what our words might do to raise the level of debate and strengthen our body politic.
4
All true David. The vast majority of GOP candidates espouse the same, with less bombast. The ones that are saner are flailing in the wind.
This reminds me of the stark difference between Reagan's frequent use of very simple words, especially "well," and the brilliant flowing thoughts from Clinton, whom I always considered to be the "great communicator."
And of course, many in the GOP will breath a huge sigh of relief if they get a white man back in the white house.
This reminds me of the stark difference between Reagan's frequent use of very simple words, especially "well," and the brilliant flowing thoughts from Clinton, whom I always considered to be the "great communicator."
And of course, many in the GOP will breath a huge sigh of relief if they get a white man back in the white house.
11
A cheap shot. Nobody cares about Obama's skin color, outside of a few extremists. In fact, that is what his election PROVED -- that Americans can and would elect a black candidate. They could not have done without the votes of millions and millions of white people....including more than a few Republicans.
1
Trump is a by-product of the Dem Party statism as well as GOP fecklessness.
America has given the GOP most of the statehouse, increased the House majorities and the senate in '14. And what has the GOP majorities given us? Nothing. They haven't stopped Obama's lawlessness. In fact, they've enabled him.
Trump comes along, denigrates all pols, and he is taking off like a rocket. If the pols did what they ran on, there'd be no need for a Trump.
America has given the GOP most of the statehouse, increased the House majorities and the senate in '14. And what has the GOP majorities given us? Nothing. They haven't stopped Obama's lawlessness. In fact, they've enabled him.
Trump comes along, denigrates all pols, and he is taking off like a rocket. If the pols did what they ran on, there'd be no need for a Trump.
9
"Obama's lawlessness". By that you mean his use of executive powers? Just how does Donald expect to attain his goals - building walls, forcing other governments to do his bidding, mass deportations, stopping Muslims at the border and, Oh yes .. MAKING us all say Merry Christmas. And remember he must do it all with two other branches of (gulp) equal and sometimes recalcitrant government, foreign leaders less than impressed with his resume and a divided electorate more fickle than his taste in women. Get out your pen, Mr. Trump - government by executive order has only just begun.
23
Needs to be said that gerrymandering gave the GOP their power on Congress. Democrats got a million votes more than the GOP. And gerrymandering gave all of us Mr. Trump.
31
The GOP is doomed so long as its faithful immerse themselves in patently false rhetoric. Obama's lawlessness? Had there been any such lawlessness they surely would have impeached him. There was no lawlessness.
27
I think simpler explanaitons are in order. The Constitutiional flouting executive you bamboozled us into electing has proven exactly what some of us thought he was, a laconic, ill-prepared extremist, little better at working with his own party than he is with Republicans. His do-it-on-your-own, exective order approach is consistent with that profile. The world is now a far more dangerous place than the one Obama inherited, with nary a spot anywhere in which relations with our country is better than it was 8 years ago. We are awash in debt. Race relations have never been worse. Millions of illegal aliens seek licenses and government handouts as Obama shields them from the reach of U.S. law.
So, my explanation? We've had enough of living to "pro's" like you Mr. Axelrod. Lot of good that's done us. Someone has to clean up this mess, and perhaps Mr. Trump can do it.
So, my explanation? We've had enough of living to "pro's" like you Mr. Axelrod. Lot of good that's done us. Someone has to clean up this mess, and perhaps Mr. Trump can do it.
13
Yup, MFW...make them trains run on time.
7
You're correct in one thing in that your explanation for what ails us is quite simplistic.
9
So, MFW, the "mess" we're in now is worse than the mess we were in in 2008? W handed us two wars on Uncle Sam's MasterCard and an economic meltdown worse than any since 1929.
Race relations never worse? I wonder what all the black men lynched between say 1865 and 1930 would say about that. I think what we're seeing here is that all this brutality that went on all the time is simply being recorded on cell phone and dash cams for the first time ever. Naturally, when we see it for what it really is, people of goodwill are outraged. Does that outrage "count" as "race relations?"
Do you really think that the current US president's appeal on the international stage is one of lower esteem than GWB at any time in his presidency? If you do think that, I would suggest you read some books & book a round the world trip stopping in as many places Asian, European, and African as you can to maybe get a fact-finding mission going on.
Have you seen the number of executive orders of each of the presidents? Obama's a piker in this sweepstakes. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) The presidents since Teddy Rooseveldt who have exceeded Obama's 228 executive orders are: TR, 1081; Taft, 724; Wilson, 1803; Harding, 522; Coolidge, 1202; Hoover, 968; FDR, 3721; Truman, 907; Ike, 484; LBJ, 325; Nixon, 346; Carter, 320, Reagan, 381; Clinton, 364; GWB, 281. Do-it-on-his-own executive order?
You think David Axelrod is a "pro?" Your views on Lee Atwater, Grover Norquist, & Karl Rove are ?
Race relations never worse? I wonder what all the black men lynched between say 1865 and 1930 would say about that. I think what we're seeing here is that all this brutality that went on all the time is simply being recorded on cell phone and dash cams for the first time ever. Naturally, when we see it for what it really is, people of goodwill are outraged. Does that outrage "count" as "race relations?"
Do you really think that the current US president's appeal on the international stage is one of lower esteem than GWB at any time in his presidency? If you do think that, I would suggest you read some books & book a round the world trip stopping in as many places Asian, European, and African as you can to maybe get a fact-finding mission going on.
Have you seen the number of executive orders of each of the presidents? Obama's a piker in this sweepstakes. (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php) The presidents since Teddy Rooseveldt who have exceeded Obama's 228 executive orders are: TR, 1081; Taft, 724; Wilson, 1803; Harding, 522; Coolidge, 1202; Hoover, 968; FDR, 3721; Truman, 907; Ike, 484; LBJ, 325; Nixon, 346; Carter, 320, Reagan, 381; Clinton, 364; GWB, 281. Do-it-on-his-own executive order?
You think David Axelrod is a "pro?" Your views on Lee Atwater, Grover Norquist, & Karl Rove are ?
7
I suspect that the republican base anger is more economic than racist. A lot of them are adrift politically. They hate their party and Wall Street as much or more than Drudge, breitbart, and their ilk would have us believe they hate Democrats, uppity women and brown people. Thus Sanders stands to gain a significant fraction of their vote come November.
23
Their anger is directed at those they think have taken their jobs and their country. This is a universal phenomenon, and sometimes gets the tag "peck order."
2
Will Hunt, how does the Republican base hate its party? It consistently, with knee-jerk precision, keeps voting for shills, who hoodwink them into thinking they're its "representatives," yet kiss the behind and genuflects to Wall Street, bankers and oligarchs?
Sanders is up against an uniformed lot, which will rather risk serfdom instead of (oh, horror!) a somewhat social democratic alternative.
Sanders is up against an uniformed lot, which will rather risk serfdom instead of (oh, horror!) a somewhat social democratic alternative.
2
Notice that the debilitating pain of the bone spur, which secured an exemption from the Viet Nam draft, for this tough talking, belligerent chickenhawk, this bellicose pretender to Commander in Chief, has never interfered with his ability to play golf?
His financial acumen is readily apparent in four bankruptcies. Just as the war criminal George W. Bush gave us the term quadruple amputee Trump is a quadruple bankruptee.
And those holy republican, Christian, family values, constantly nattered on about?
Three wives, so far, each younger than the last and a public discussion about his daughters body and his desire to date her.
His financial acumen is readily apparent in four bankruptcies. Just as the war criminal George W. Bush gave us the term quadruple amputee Trump is a quadruple bankruptee.
And those holy republican, Christian, family values, constantly nattered on about?
Three wives, so far, each younger than the last and a public discussion about his daughters body and his desire to date her.
505
I agree 100% with everything you lament about. Especially "Three wives, so far, each younger than the last and a public discussion about his daughters body and his desire to date her." which leads me to ask how come no GOP Candidate has asked the next obvious question, at least to me, "Donald how many Abortions have you paid for?"
8
The smarmy factor hasn't set in yet...there are so many inconsistencies in the Donald's candidacy that Republican polls are missing due to the fact that neither Iowa or NH represent the general election voter. These are meaningless other than they are first; a useless beauty pageant with no real prize. There's a lot of hand-wringing in the GOP because they're scared of a Trump candidacy. They shouldn't be but he's got lots of money and can stay in the race until he sees for himself he'd make a terrible general election candidate.
1
What financial acumen? If he'd taken the money he got from his dad when he got it and essentially invested in the S&P 500 (like an index fund, although they didn't exist then) he'd be worth four times as much today as he's actually worth, and he could have spent the time in the meantime doing something other than "being an industrial wizard".
4
"As of today, he has the lowest standing, by far, of any major Republican candidate among Democrats and independent voters." That is the key insight about Trump, and how he can be defeated in November. (As other Republicans drop out of the race for the nomination, Trump will get some of their votes. He is a shoo-in for the G.O.P. nomination.)
So, who is best positioned to defeat him? It comes down to Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
But Hillary is strongly disliked by Republicans, independents and many Democrats. (Obama was actually the "anyone but Hillary" candidate in 2008.) Whereas Sanders is extremely likeable, because unlike Hillary, he is perceived as honest and trustworthy. In fact, many of the Trump supporters today would probably vote in November for Bernie, the "good" populist, but never for Hillary.
Despite the misinformation campaign of Republicans and Democratic elitists, Bernie Sanders is far more electable than Rodham Clinton, and the only Democrat who would defeat Trump.
So, who is best positioned to defeat him? It comes down to Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
But Hillary is strongly disliked by Republicans, independents and many Democrats. (Obama was actually the "anyone but Hillary" candidate in 2008.) Whereas Sanders is extremely likeable, because unlike Hillary, he is perceived as honest and trustworthy. In fact, many of the Trump supporters today would probably vote in November for Bernie, the "good" populist, but never for Hillary.
Despite the misinformation campaign of Republicans and Democratic elitists, Bernie Sanders is far more electable than Rodham Clinton, and the only Democrat who would defeat Trump.
165
The main task for the Democratic nominee will not be to pull away DT supporters to win the general election. Even if that were true it is self-deception to think that Sanders would be better placed for that than Clinton. We have not yet seen the withering force a single word could have in the general campaign: "socialist." Just try to nuance that one on Fox TV...
Rather, DT (if the GOP nominee) would face the gargantuan task of trying to pick up votes from the center. But his antics so far, and his general odiousness, have made him sheer, stomach-turning poison to the majority of centrist voters.
There is a risk here, though. Axelrod's theory really needs to be expanded: for what a sizable part of the electorate now yearns for is not the perceived opposite of the current incumbent, but of the style of governance that has held for generations.
This is potentially a recipe for catastrophe. This yearning is understandable but so very vulnerable to manipulation by an authoritarian brute (especially if he is able to white-wash his greed for power behind some vague sort of "charm"). And I am afraid I do not see a "respectable revolutionary" a la Sanders as able to compete with Mein Herr.
We need to hope that the U.S. electorate remembers that the complex U.S. political process is often frustrating but also--at rare but key moments--inspiring. We are also witnessing that it is more fragile than we thought. We need to find pride in recuperating its finest impulses.
Rather, DT (if the GOP nominee) would face the gargantuan task of trying to pick up votes from the center. But his antics so far, and his general odiousness, have made him sheer, stomach-turning poison to the majority of centrist voters.
There is a risk here, though. Axelrod's theory really needs to be expanded: for what a sizable part of the electorate now yearns for is not the perceived opposite of the current incumbent, but of the style of governance that has held for generations.
This is potentially a recipe for catastrophe. This yearning is understandable but so very vulnerable to manipulation by an authoritarian brute (especially if he is able to white-wash his greed for power behind some vague sort of "charm"). And I am afraid I do not see a "respectable revolutionary" a la Sanders as able to compete with Mein Herr.
We need to hope that the U.S. electorate remembers that the complex U.S. political process is often frustrating but also--at rare but key moments--inspiring. We are also witnessing that it is more fragile than we thought. We need to find pride in recuperating its finest impulses.
3
nope.
I know many Republicans who are teed-up to vote for HRC.
You live in an elitist East Coast bubble. As soon as the Republicans begin their "Socialist" rant, Mr. Sanders is toast, if he isn't already.
Out here in "flyover country" the places he needs to win, he won't. He doesn't look Presidential. He doesn't act Presidential and he doesn't sound Presidential. If you'd like DT as your next president, be sure to nominate BS.
I know many Republicans who are teed-up to vote for HRC.
You live in an elitist East Coast bubble. As soon as the Republicans begin their "Socialist" rant, Mr. Sanders is toast, if he isn't already.
Out here in "flyover country" the places he needs to win, he won't. He doesn't look Presidential. He doesn't act Presidential and he doesn't sound Presidential. If you'd like DT as your next president, be sure to nominate BS.
1
I believe that Bernie looks stronger than he is, for a couple of reasons. One is that this is just primary season -- no matter how much some folks want the final election result NOW, it is still 10 months off -- and therefore, Dems are still running against Dems and Repubs against Repubs. There has been no negative campaigning, nor any serous onslaught of political commercials.
Hillary can't/won't attack Bernie, because she will desperately need his supporters to cross over to her, if she wishes to win. LIkewise, Bernie is being almost absurdly non-confrontational with Hillary. I wonder what it will take to provoke him? Because folks, at some point the gloves ARE coming off.
When that happens, the feathers are really going to fly. The average Bernie supporter is only so far hearing the good stuff, from what seems like a grandfatherly personality. But I've seen footage of Bernie outside his scripted debates and interviews -- and he is a testy guy, not given to small talk. He doesn't like it at all when anyone asks him probing or personal questions, or when they disagree with him. He is surprisingly cold, even to his supporters -- he's not a baby kisser.
In time, both Hillary and whoever is the Republican nominee, will start slamming Bernie for his ADMITTED Socialism and the fact that he was not in the Democratic party AT ALL until recently -- he's honestly not a Democrat -- and that his vision for America is clearly socialist and European (meaning: very very high taxes).
Hillary can't/won't attack Bernie, because she will desperately need his supporters to cross over to her, if she wishes to win. LIkewise, Bernie is being almost absurdly non-confrontational with Hillary. I wonder what it will take to provoke him? Because folks, at some point the gloves ARE coming off.
When that happens, the feathers are really going to fly. The average Bernie supporter is only so far hearing the good stuff, from what seems like a grandfatherly personality. But I've seen footage of Bernie outside his scripted debates and interviews -- and he is a testy guy, not given to small talk. He doesn't like it at all when anyone asks him probing or personal questions, or when they disagree with him. He is surprisingly cold, even to his supporters -- he's not a baby kisser.
In time, both Hillary and whoever is the Republican nominee, will start slamming Bernie for his ADMITTED Socialism and the fact that he was not in the Democratic party AT ALL until recently -- he's honestly not a Democrat -- and that his vision for America is clearly socialist and European (meaning: very very high taxes).
1
Where though is there any empirical support for these ideas of David Axelrod?
3
If Donald Trump is elected I will leave the country. I will move back to Marin.
20
Of Ted Cruze is elected I will renounce my citizenshio!
4
If you are going to toe the P.C. democrat line and vote for the liberal of the moment, you better learn to write Spanish correctly: it is CRUZ, not Cruze.
2
Trump brings out the lights, the noise, the crowds. The big question is, can he bring out the votes?
2
This is why I do not get the histrionics of the left (well on display here).
The proof is in the pudding. Polls actually do not count and mean little. If Mr. Trump has the confidence of the voters, he will win. If not, he will lose.
It is actually JUST THAT SIMPLE. If you dislike him, vote for someone else.
The only qualifications for running for POTUS are -- be a natural-born US citizen.....be over 35 years of age. THAT IS IT. There is no qualification that you must have held other public office, been in Congress or a Governor. There is no qualification that you be "politically correct" or polite or work well with others. There is no qualification that you be from either party, or any party.
Lefty liberals want to control the dialogue here entirely -- their most cherished goals are almost always NOT democracy in action (they are elitists, who despise the working classes) -- but to enforce THEIR vision of an "enlightened" (but very, very costly) high tax socialist society. It keeps slipping away from them. Obamacare is and has been a total disaster, loathed by the voters. "We thought they would greet us as victors" -- well, Bush wasn't the only deluded one. Lefty liberals have been offending the majority of Americans for 7 years and the worm is about to turn.
The proof is in the pudding. Polls actually do not count and mean little. If Mr. Trump has the confidence of the voters, he will win. If not, he will lose.
It is actually JUST THAT SIMPLE. If you dislike him, vote for someone else.
The only qualifications for running for POTUS are -- be a natural-born US citizen.....be over 35 years of age. THAT IS IT. There is no qualification that you must have held other public office, been in Congress or a Governor. There is no qualification that you be "politically correct" or polite or work well with others. There is no qualification that you be from either party, or any party.
Lefty liberals want to control the dialogue here entirely -- their most cherished goals are almost always NOT democracy in action (they are elitists, who despise the working classes) -- but to enforce THEIR vision of an "enlightened" (but very, very costly) high tax socialist society. It keeps slipping away from them. Obamacare is and has been a total disaster, loathed by the voters. "We thought they would greet us as victors" -- well, Bush wasn't the only deluded one. Lefty liberals have been offending the majority of Americans for 7 years and the worm is about to turn.
3
Another calamity that's "Obama's fault". How ironic that in this case it holds true.
"As of today, he has the lowest standing, by far, of any major Republican candidate among Democrats and independent voters."
I take this as an Axelrod prediction. I think David Axelrod is repeating the mistake he just bemoaned a few paragraphs earlier. He is again wishfully underestimating Trump. To me, Trump is the Republican candidate most likely to win, in case of nomination.
In the blink of an eye, Trump would add grievances of Democratic footsoldiers to his playlist. Romney's "etch-a-sketch" would look pathetic beside it.
"As of today, he has the lowest standing, by far, of any major Republican candidate among Democrats and independent voters."
I take this as an Axelrod prediction. I think David Axelrod is repeating the mistake he just bemoaned a few paragraphs earlier. He is again wishfully underestimating Trump. To me, Trump is the Republican candidate most likely to win, in case of nomination.
In the blink of an eye, Trump would add grievances of Democratic footsoldiers to his playlist. Romney's "etch-a-sketch" would look pathetic beside it.
4
The Republicans now harvest what they sowed when they allowed for many years Tea Party and Koch propaganda to take over their party. Trump is the perfectioning of the dysfunctional type of politics that they embraced.
I wouldn't bet against Trump. Yes, he is putting a lot of people off. But it works for him at the moment. And I believe that he is very well capable of changing his approach when he needs to appeal to a wider range of voters.
I wouldn't bet against Trump. Yes, he is putting a lot of people off. But it works for him at the moment. And I believe that he is very well capable of changing his approach when he needs to appeal to a wider range of voters.
13
Bet on how crazy the American voters are is insanely correct if Mr.Trump is in the mix. Democracy unravels exactly as predicted by the constitutional founders and their development and installation of the electoral college. This time the odds of some cataclysmic RNC collapse seems assured along with independent candidates springing up like tulips in the Springtime.
2
While outwardly they are indeed opposites, in reality they are very similar presidential candidates. They both don't have credentials to be POTUS and both enhance the laughter of the world at who is / might be the 'leader of the free world'.
3
I'll take Axelrod's bet--even if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee. Fortunately, he won't be.
3
Is Suicide how we must fall?
Does Death of the Earth not appall?
Is love of one's Brother
Something we will smother?
Must a tiny Group have it all?
Does Death of the Earth not appall?
Is love of one's Brother
Something we will smother?
Must a tiny Group have it all?
321
@Larry Eisenberg
As polled countrymen break my heart, you apply the needed bandaid. Early Valentine: I love you Larry Eisenberg. -- Sally
As polled countrymen break my heart, you apply the needed bandaid. Early Valentine: I love you Larry Eisenberg. -- Sally
Which "tiny group" who has it all are you referring to?
I know, I know, the moderator will not let this comment through.
But that is why the writer does not understand Donald Trump.
He has been indoctrinated in Cultural Marxism. In Cultural Marxism, people who do not want America overrun with illegal immigrants are "sick".
In Cultural Marxism, you cannot even say the words "illegal immigrant".
Just those words would keep this comment from slipping past the moderator.
So, New York Times, carry on being clueless.
I know, I know, the moderator will not let this comment through.
But that is why the writer does not understand Donald Trump.
He has been indoctrinated in Cultural Marxism. In Cultural Marxism, people who do not want America overrun with illegal immigrants are "sick".
In Cultural Marxism, you cannot even say the words "illegal immigrant".
Just those words would keep this comment from slipping past the moderator.
So, New York Times, carry on being clueless.
2
Larry Eisenberg, you're not getting older. You're getting better!
1
That was an interesting article. However IMO, there is way too much over-thinking about Donald Trump, maybe this is just his time?
I can think of worse things than having a Salesman-In-Chief.
I can think of worse things than having a Salesman-In-Chief.
5
@ -Rob - Rob I guess you must be thinking of a takeover by an Armed Militia, like those holding forth somewhere out there in the northwestern USA. Please clarify. So Trump would be better than that?
This slightly facetious reply as the sign off to the previous 3 serious comment submissions at 3 different places.
This slightly facetious reply as the sign off to the previous 3 serious comment submissions at 3 different places.
17
Actually Ted Cruz is our worst nightmare, totally repulsive in every sense and not qualified to be elected to any public office outside of Texas. The good people of Texas deserve far better for their tax dollars then they get from Sen Cruz who should start looking for work in the private sector asap.
12
Trump is not going to win the election. It's obvious doesn't intend to be President, and knows he won't be.
Dumb & short-sighted Democrats hope he is the Republican nominee, because he will do the Republican party terrible damage. (The Bernie fans are positively begging for Trump, because it would polarize the electorate, offering them perhaps the only way they really "win.")
If Trump is the presidential candidate every other Republican running is faced with supporting/not-supporting Trump. A Trump candidacy will be worse for the party than a Cruz candidacy because Trump has a greater potential to destroy Republican congressional candidates -- this point is not accepted by a few Iowa Republicans (Dole, Bronstad) ... but they are only motivated by the Ethanol fuel-scam.
Sane Republicans (how many are there left?) know that either Trump or Cruz is likely to be the end of the Republican party as we know it.
Sane Democrats do not want to see the aftermath of a Trump presidential campaign, even a failed one. Trump is a neo-fascist, and he's empowered these people. They will have another leader, one who is more authentic and more dangerous than Trump.
I don't think a Bernie v. Trump election is at all likely, but that would put the US on the path of no-center politics.
Dumb & short-sighted Democrats hope he is the Republican nominee, because he will do the Republican party terrible damage. (The Bernie fans are positively begging for Trump, because it would polarize the electorate, offering them perhaps the only way they really "win.")
If Trump is the presidential candidate every other Republican running is faced with supporting/not-supporting Trump. A Trump candidacy will be worse for the party than a Cruz candidacy because Trump has a greater potential to destroy Republican congressional candidates -- this point is not accepted by a few Iowa Republicans (Dole, Bronstad) ... but they are only motivated by the Ethanol fuel-scam.
Sane Republicans (how many are there left?) know that either Trump or Cruz is likely to be the end of the Republican party as we know it.
Sane Democrats do not want to see the aftermath of a Trump presidential campaign, even a failed one. Trump is a neo-fascist, and he's empowered these people. They will have another leader, one who is more authentic and more dangerous than Trump.
I don't think a Bernie v. Trump election is at all likely, but that would put the US on the path of no-center politics.
4
The Trump and Cruz phenomena are symptomatic of a malignancy in the Republican innards of the body politic, best defined by George Carlin: "Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups."
666
Name-calling will get you far. About as far as it's gotten Trump detractors. Keep going. You are a Godsend.
2
Carlin said something even better: Think about how stupid the average American is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that. (paraphrasing)
7
A had assumed for most of my 84 years that most people were of roughly the same intelligence. Then came the neocons. How stupid of me.
5
Not even the American electorate has sunk so low as to elect this angry, bigoted, fear-mongering little man. I'll take that bet and spot you Ohio.
214
They elected George W. Bush...twice. The American electorate is capable of doing a lot of damage when it puts its mind, or mindlessness, to it.
32
W. was not elected in his first term. SCOTUS handed the office to him. In his second election, there are still questions about his win in Ohio for the final, necessary, electoral votes.
7
Attitudes like yours will make Trump president.
2
Following his election, someone in his campaign referred to Mr. Obama as "No drama Obama." The protean candidate who garnered a good deal of support as a campaigner was disappointing as president as he lacks the "Happy warrior" quality of a Reagan or a Clinton. Jimmy Carter lacked that quality as well. I think in this regard, Mr. Trump's charisma connects with many who have the "feeling" that nothing about his character as a leader is unknown.
3
Disappointing to who?
23
reply to James Landi: Yes, we can truly see how obnoxious and repulsive Trump is.
That is very clear. You call it charisma, I hesitate to use that kind of affirmation of
this man's manner. He is a supreme egomaniac with misogyny, bigotry, and a weird
kind of Howard Hughes tendency to find the funtions of the body repulsive. I can
visualize him ultimately winding up in a psychotic frenzy. Fortunately, we do see
who he is, and it is shameful that he's hoodwinked so many people.
That is very clear. You call it charisma, I hesitate to use that kind of affirmation of
this man's manner. He is a supreme egomaniac with misogyny, bigotry, and a weird
kind of Howard Hughes tendency to find the funtions of the body repulsive. I can
visualize him ultimately winding up in a psychotic frenzy. Fortunately, we do see
who he is, and it is shameful that he's hoodwinked so many people.
68
Dear p. kay, Entirely agree with your assessment of the character of Trump's thinking process and morality. I am simply attempting to amplify on Axelrod's analysis. We've been fortunate to have elected two brilliant presidents-- Carter and Obama-- but that "happy warrior" quality was missing in both men-- and the elections that followed yielded Reagan and (let's hope no trump!).
2