Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Wow-- Trump questions Clinton's endurance?
This is going to be a really weird election season. Scratch that-- it already is a really weird election season!
I'm still baffled at something that continues to go on. It's this: Republican strategists seem to assume that Donald Trump is going to implode. They have pretty much assumed that since last summer, and have been consistently wrong. The problem with their theory is that Trump defies the law of political gravity: he says shockingly wrong things, and his numbers go up. Now the theory is that he will just kind of lose, for no real reason.
Lately, he has been arguing that Hillary Clinton lacks the stamina and endurance to be president. It's a bizarre claim-- like saying that Chris Christie is too skinny to be President, or that Jeb Bush doesn't have government service in his family. If there is one thing we know about Hillary Clinton (and it is a good thing), it is that she endures quite well. Most recently, this came across in the Benghazi hearings, where she testified all day and into the night, and did not miss a step. It was an impressive display.
Why does he say this? And why does it work?
I'm still baffled at something that continues to go on. It's this: Republican strategists seem to assume that Donald Trump is going to implode. They have pretty much assumed that since last summer, and have been consistently wrong. The problem with their theory is that Trump defies the law of political gravity: he says shockingly wrong things, and his numbers go up. Now the theory is that he will just kind of lose, for no real reason.
Lately, he has been arguing that Hillary Clinton lacks the stamina and endurance to be president. It's a bizarre claim-- like saying that Chris Christie is too skinny to be President, or that Jeb Bush doesn't have government service in his family. If there is one thing we know about Hillary Clinton (and it is a good thing), it is that she endures quite well. Most recently, this came across in the Benghazi hearings, where she testified all day and into the night, and did not miss a step. It was an impressive display.
Why does he say this? And why does it work?
Comments:
<< Home
1. I think the worry about Clinton's endurance is not nearly as outrageous as you do. You make the obvious point that she has a great record (what some of us actually love about her) of always answering the bell, never giving up. I called her the Anton Chigurh of 2008; she was relentless. But Mrs. Clinton doesn't look good to me. In addition to her well-documented health problems that actually sidelined her for a while in 2013, she just doesn't look like she continues to possess her usual energy, and, more importantly, I do not get the sense that she possesses the same fire for the contest that I have seen in her in the past. Probably you are right. Maybe she is the same Hillary she has always been (the years and miles be damned)--but this question seems less ridiculous to me than it does to you.
2. As for the "just kind of lose" idea, I feel like I anticipated this line of thinking in my guest post from a few weeks ago (with a few more specifics: strange organization, unorthodox appeal to the usual GOP voters). As I anticipated back then, Ted Cruz has moved into the lead in Iowa. So, we have the odd situation of Donald Trump being in the lead in every state contest in the primary season EXCEPT the one coming up. I would not be surprised if this become something of a pattern in the early primaries. Maybe? Who Knows? Nobody Knows Anything--And That Goes Double for Me.
However, I will say this: I am now finally considering the possibility that all the "Trump people" get registered as Republicans and actually show up en masse (as they are doing at these rallies), and Trump wins the nomination, and then Trump wins the general against low energy, old news candidate Hillary Clinton. I am no longer saying that this cannot happen. There, finally, you have wrestled a concession from me!
2. As for the "just kind of lose" idea, I feel like I anticipated this line of thinking in my guest post from a few weeks ago (with a few more specifics: strange organization, unorthodox appeal to the usual GOP voters). As I anticipated back then, Ted Cruz has moved into the lead in Iowa. So, we have the odd situation of Donald Trump being in the lead in every state contest in the primary season EXCEPT the one coming up. I would not be surprised if this become something of a pattern in the early primaries. Maybe? Who Knows? Nobody Knows Anything--And That Goes Double for Me.
However, I will say this: I am now finally considering the possibility that all the "Trump people" get registered as Republicans and actually show up en masse (as they are doing at these rallies), and Trump wins the nomination, and then Trump wins the general against low energy, old news candidate Hillary Clinton. I am no longer saying that this cannot happen. There, finally, you have wrestled a concession from me!
“Why does he say this?” …because he can!
“And why does it work?” …because of the current mass media formula, informing and prompting a frightening mass of people into an excited exercise in idiocy: present in all headlines today, ad nauseam repeat a full news cycle, abandon the next headline, rinse and repeat!
“And why does it work?” …because of the current mass media formula, informing and prompting a frightening mass of people into an excited exercise in idiocy: present in all headlines today, ad nauseam repeat a full news cycle, abandon the next headline, rinse and repeat!
I think he is doing well for the same reasons that Hitler did in Germany. Too many people are afraid of the bogeymen he speaks against and pledges to keep out of the country. And he spouts the strongest version of many classic conservative R ideas.
BTW, I think there needs to be a new "birther" movement. The Cruz family lived in Canada when he was born, and his mother had applied for and received Canadian citizenship, and his dad had not yet applied for/received U.S. citizenship. So the question is whether applying for and receiving Canadian citizenship cancelled or otherwise voided his mother's U.S. citizenship. If so, Cruz is not a U.S. citizen and until he is "naturalized" not even eligible to serve in the Senate! There are issues to be explored and discussed.
BTW, I think there needs to be a new "birther" movement. The Cruz family lived in Canada when he was born, and his mother had applied for and received Canadian citizenship, and his dad had not yet applied for/received U.S. citizenship. So the question is whether applying for and receiving Canadian citizenship cancelled or otherwise voided his mother's U.S. citizenship. If so, Cruz is not a U.S. citizen and until he is "naturalized" not even eligible to serve in the Senate! There are issues to be explored and discussed.
# posted by 
: 12:09 PM
: 12:09 PM
BTW, the Cruz family, including Ted, are Christian dominionists -- they believe that the U.S. should become a nation ruled by, for and etc. Christians who believe like they do, and that non-Christians and non-evangelicals should not have freedom, power or authority in this country.
# posted by : 12:11 PM
: 12:11 PM
As usual, this analysis piece from Nate Silver is as good as it is going to get when it comes to definitively dissecting something as spectral as an American election that has not happened yet: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/three-theories-of-donald-trumps-rise/
Post a Comment
<< Home
