Linky Friday #165: Blood, Guts, & Money

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

199 Responses

  1. Kolohe says:

    Ec3 – that’s not what that article says. It’s says it won’t be easy, and it may not be possible due to the poltical pull of various current stakeholders (and may be also be undercut aftetwards, if it could be done, by foreign competition), but Kling clearly thinks it would be better for some financial institutions to be ‘right-sized’ through corporate spin offs, for better regulatory balance and reduced sector wide risk.Report

  2. Kolohe says:

    H1 – no they did not. The story is viral marketing for Oak Island tourism aided and abetted by the History Channel.Report

      • Richard Hershberger in reply to Will Truman says:

        Specifically, you can buy that replica sword online for under 30 bucks. Is it possible that the Oak Island sword is real, and followed a common pattern that was copied for that modern replica? Sure. I can construct a Just So story to support that. But the fact that we aren’t reading about the results of the metallurgical analysis of the Oak Island sword, performed by a reputable outside laboratory, creates a strong presumption that what we are looking at is bullshit, and poorly crafted bullshit at that.

        But just for fun, let us stipulate that the sword is real, and that it really was buried somewhere on the island for all those years. What would this tell us? That the Romans were in America? No. Merely that a Roman sword made its way here. It turns out that non-Romans can carry Roman stuff around. So what it really would tell us is that there was some contact mechanism between the eastern and western hemispheres.

        That would be interesting, but in the big picture still more trivia than not. We sometimes see silliness like noticing that both the Egyptians and the Mayans built pyramids and concluding that the Egyptians therefore must have influenced Mayan culture. Once we get past this, it becomes clear that any contact was so fleeting as to make no real difference. You want to tell me that Saint Brendan was in a boat and caught a storm that carried him to America? Then he caught another storm that took him back to Ireland? Sure. Fine. Maybe he had an old sword with him, and left it on Oak Island. But so what?Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to Kolohe says:

      I played Civilization too, and got to the New World as the Romans on a galley … to find a well-developed Aztec civilization with gunpowder and cities (some with suspiciously Iriquois-like names) that chewed up my paltry two legions pretty quickly.

      I didn’t write any press releases about it, though.Report

      • North in reply to Burt Likko says:

        So much win! I am so viciously addicted to Civ it’s not funny.Report

        • Richard Hershberger in reply to North says:

          But which version? Answer wrong and I will condemn you as a heretic beyond hope of redemption.Report

          • Autolukos in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

            4 with expansions is the One True Civ, and all dissent will be crushed with endless stacks of suicide catapults.Report

            • Kim in reply to Autolukos says:

              Yes, it’s the “with expansions” part that’s kind of critical.
              I actually know someone who helped fix Civ 4 (he’s a crack game designer)…Report

            • Burt Likko in reply to Autolukos says:

              Concur. Go send those catapults against the French or something, not here.Report

            • El Muneco in reply to Autolukos says:

              I still have a lot of fondness for 2, but after 4 got the AI boosted, 2 is mostly an object lesson in unintended consequences. The guys who were setting records in 2 were not only not playing the game as intended, but arguably not even playing the same game at all.Report

              • Autolukos in reply to El Muneco says:

                2 was the first one I played, so I have a bit of nostalgia for it, but once Alpha Centauri came out it completely overshadowed 2 for me.Report

            • North in reply to Autolukos says:

              I know 4 has its acolytes but I have been won over by the virtually no stacking model of civ V.Report

              • Autolukos in reply to North says:

                Heretic! Send in the stacks of doom!Report

              • El Muneco in reply to North says:

                I think the idea of “use the game map as if it were a battle map” works better in theory than in practice.

                I like Endless Legend’s mechanic where they take the terrain surrounding the two stacks, blow it up on the fly into a map big enough to maneuver on which looks kind of like the game map zoomed in, then spread the units in the two stacks across their relevant staging area. You maneuver around and fight until the time limit, then the survivors get sucked back into stacks in their original hexes on the game map.

                So you get the logistic advantage of having single stacks on the game map (which makes it much easier for the AI not to be an idiot about moving them), it retains the importance of combined arms, but there are no weird abstractions like “stacks of doom”.Report

              • Autolukos in reply to El Muneco says:

                I also really liked Endless Legend’s approach. Civ V got to a decent place with expansions, but they never solved the issues of one unit per tile.Report

              • El Muneco in reply to Autolukos says:

                Hopefully it will all be irrelevant on Monday – Paradox is releasing Stellaris, which looks like there’s a chance that it will fuse the grand strategy experience of the Crusader Kings developers, the ambition of Master of Orion 3, and the grounding in popular culture extrapolation of Alpha Centauri.

                Of course, there’s also the chance that it will fuse the grand strategy experience of Master of Orion 3, the grounding in popular culture extrapolation of Crusader Kings, and the ambition of Alpha Centauri.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to El Muneco says:

                I keep trying to get into Crusader Kings and getting confused. But then, it kept crashing on me in the tutorial.

                Civ V, once the expansions were in, was pretty solid. Alpha Centauri remains my favorite. (I missed Civ 4 entirely, due to a period with an incredibly old computer and no money).Report

          • North in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

            Five, brave new world, the perfection of Civ with all it’s patches.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Burt Likko says:

        Et tu, Burtus?Report

  3. Kazzy says:

    G2: The article is pretty limited but if the case against the original winner is solely predicated on her wearing boxers, it strikes me as pretty flimsy and likely to give ammo to those hostile towards transgender folks. Which doesn’t mean transgender folks shouldn’t have conversations about what it means to be transgender — and even publicly so — but that that particular argument is exactly what has been (and continues to be) used against trans people.Report

    • veronica d in reply to Kazzy says:

      This is just an older generation playing around with old fault lines in trans space. So, whatever. Nothing to see here. Just a trashy, regressive LGBT-space contest run by and idiot and based on dumb rules.

      So whatever. Slow news day, I guess.

      When I lounge around the house, I wear whatever old sweatpants I have laying around. Some are from my “boy days.” So yeah. I guess I’m not “really trans” by this person’s estimate.

      We call such women HBS-ers, and mostly just mock them as being pretentious bores.

      Like, whatever.

      On the other hand, my friend Destiny was blocked from competing on that interminable RuPaul show cuz she’s trans, and thus not properly a “drag queen,” despite the fact she works as a drag queen.

      (Although I guess one could describe estrogen as a “performance enhancing drug.” So whatever.)Report

  4. Kazzy says:

    Lactivists are out of control. They do such a detriment to women and mothers. It is disgusting.

    We really need to stop the Mommy/Parent Wars. Everyone loses… parents and children alike.Report

    • Richard Hershberger in reply to Kazzy says:

      My understanding of the brouhaha is that the lactivists have two things going: Arguing that mothers should be able to breastfeed in public, and arguing that baby formula is the root of all evil. On the first point, they are right, though sometimes obnoxious about it. On the second point, they are silly people who should be ignored. That’s what the wife and I concluded after the birth of our first. It turned out to be pretty easy to ignore them.Report

      • the lactivists have two things going:

        As you’d expect.Report

      • Kazzy in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        Zazzy was bombarded by lactivists in the mother/baby unit and at one point had three different pairs of hands on her breasts (none of them mine, her’s, or Mayo’s). She was overwhelmed, emotionally drained, recovering from the meds, exhausted, in pain, and these folks were in her face very aggressively talking about failing to latch and just forcing the baby’s face onto her breast and OMG I wanted to slug them all. It was awful.

        Once you are out of the hospital, they are easier to ignore. But the shaming they so often employ can really take a toll especially on women who are prone to guilt (like Zazzy) and who need to return to work at the end of their maternity leave (like Zazzy). We were very fortunate to have the good Doctor here give us a more nuanced understanding of the pros and cons of breastfeeding and formula feeding.

        Promoting breast feeding in public and a broader acceptance is a righteous cause.

        ETA: The hospital we were in was certified baby friendly ( so the experience may have been somewhat atypical. I’m on board with the general baby friendly approach, but it should also be mommy friendly and acknowledge that often times being mommy friendly IS being baby friendly.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Kazzy says:

          The more annoying thing is that half the time, the lactivists are frickin clueless about why a mother may have trouble breastfeeding. When Bug was born, it took us two weeks before we found a specialist who stopped looking at the breasts, and looked at the baby. Bug was tongue tied, and a 15 minute, extremely minor procedure later, he went from a baby who had to be bottle fed to survive, to one who was nursing like a pro.Report

        • Maria in reply to Kazzy says:

          I hear you on the pressure. Having a Ped in the family helped me filter some of it out, but it was hard. With baby #2 we had a really irritating lactation consultant, but by then I was better able to push back on her opinions about how to do things the “right” way. There is a blog/Facebook page called The Fearless Formula Feeder that I found very enlightening, even as one who primarily breastfed.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Maria says:

            Thanks, @maria . While both my boys are done with breastfeeding and I don’t see any more coming down the shoot, I’ll be sure to share that group with others I know who might be dealing with all this crap.Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Richard Hershberger says:

        An interesting thing is that lactivism seems to have started as a rightist Catholic movement in France rather than a feminist movement.Report

        • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

          From what I’ve seen, it seems deeply rooted in feminism but of the particular stripe of feminism oriented towards, “THIS IS THE WAY WOMEN SHOULD BE!” rather than “WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR PATH AND THIS SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AS A VIABLE ONE!”Report

          • LeeEsq in reply to Kazzy says:

            Slate had an article on the subject and while lactivism is associated with feminism today, its roots are a bit weirder.Report

            • Kazzy in reply to LeeEsq says:

              Do you have a link? I’d be interest to read that.

              As is typical of many movements, it seems possible that the current proponents are unaware or detached from the originators.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Kazzy says:

                My liberal friends blame it on conservatives, and my conservative friends blame it on liberals.

                (Blamed on fundies and feminists, to be exact.)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Will Truman says:

                While I’m sure both groups do that and probably with some degree of accuracy, I think the tack tends to be the result of a broader culture of shaming, win-at-all-costs, demonize-your-enemies type thinking.Report

  5. notme says:

    It Takes 300 Hours to Become a Shampooer in Tennessee. We’re from the gov’t and we’re here to help you.

  6. Autolukos says:

    H3: If you’ll excuse me, I’ll be screaming about the abuse of Diocletian’s Price Edict for a few hours.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Ec1: I think a lot of people are underplaying the role of International Treaties in copyright. The 1909 Copyright Act provided for two 25 year terms and many people opted not to renew. The modern version comes from the 1976 copyright act and Congress passed that to make us conform with the rest of the world. So we used to have one of the world’s most lax copyright acts.

    Ec2: I am also skeptical of the politics of UBI especially in the United States. I am also curious about the sociological and psychological effects because I think if it does happen, you might have a generation that feels significant psychological shame. The subsequent generations will need an education system without the assumptions of full-employment baked in.

    G4: I am not buying anything from a site that self-servingly calls itself Elite Daily.

    C1: This sounds like someone got really offended that East Coast and West Coast cities were more normal than cities in the center of the country.

    C2: Definitions for open-access and closed-access cities would have been nice. I did some googling and NYC is not closed access by wikipedia standards.

    C3: I still think that when people talk about moving for opportunity or to save, they are ignoring several things. Many people can’t move without a job lined up, moving is expensive, finding a place to stay without adequate savings is hard, there is romantic and familial consideration. My girlfriend’s job is in San Francisco. She is quite adamant about staying here. So moving could mean ending the relationship.
    I would like to see articles discuss these things more.

    C5: They need much better food to compete with the Bay Area tech companies. Also Kombucha on tap. The beer taps are probably not happening though. Also there are some microbrewies in Utah and they produce high-alcohol beers.

    H1: No. Just No.Report

    • Troublesome Frog in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I still think that when people talk about moving for opportunity or to save, they are ignoring several things. Many people can’t move without a job lined up, moving is expensive, finding a place to stay without adequate savings is hard, there is romantic and familial consideration. My girlfriend’s job is in San Francisco. She is quite adamant about staying here. So moving could mean ending the relationship.

      This is more and more likely to be a real dealbreaker for moving to find a new job. With two-income households becoming the norm, moving for one person’s job becomes less of a win. My wife and I are both tech professionals in similar income brackets. I can’t just get a sweet gig 100 miles away and tell the little woman, “Pack up your pots and pans. I found a new job, so we’re moving!” If we’re moving any serious distance, it means we both need to find jobs at the same time.Report

      • The population who can easily move for a job is limited to those who 1) have already found a job in the place they’re moving to (which requires that the company either be willing to fly out to interview you, to fly you out to an interview with them, or to hire you without meeting you in person); 2) don’t own a house; 3) aren’t in a long-term relationship; and 4) have enough savings to be able to afford the costs of the move, plus the costs of the first two months’ rent, plus the cost of living in the new place until you get your first paycheck (which can be 4-8 weeks after you start work).

        That’s not a very large pool.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

        Troublesome Frog: With two-income households becoming the norm

        The percentage of two-income households actually peaked at 46% in 1989. It’s now under 40%. The resurgence of one-earner households and increase in no-earner households is a major contributor to the stagnation in median household incomes.Report

  8. LeeEsq says:

    Ec1: During the 19th century, America drove European artists and publishers mad by our lax treatment of copyright. We were the China of the day. Some European artists had their work premier in New York so they could get better copyright protection from the American government rather than get pirated. Victor Hugo was especially angry at this. He is the one that argued for life of the artist plus three generations.

    G4: Nobody likes to see themselves as common though. Your right though. Like Your Tango and a bunch of other sites, Elite Daily is where people who try to pass received wisdom and personal preferences as great incites go to publish self-serving essays.

    C1: I agree. This came off with a lot of interior resentment.

    C3: Agreed. Unless your a very independent person, most people do not want to abandon friends and family if they could avoid doing so.Report

  9. LeeEsq says:

    H2: Many liberals think that if most people had more accurate historical knowledge than we would have a more just world. They are wrong. Places where people have a lot of historical awareness really just have group mythology awareness. This tends to be a long list of misremembered deeds of glory against the out group and betrayals and oppression from the out group. Think of the Balkans, the Middle East, many parts of American society, or many other places. Sometimes the ability not to care about the past is good thing for the general peace.

    H4: Many Americans suffered greatly because of paranoia against Communism. Yes, communism does not work and caused many atrocities. That doesn’t make persecuting people a good thing.Report

    • Art Deco in reply to LeeEsq says:

      H4: Many Americans suffered greatly because of paranoia against Communism.

      No, a small corps of people had their lives unfairly disrupted, but these are people who matter to the likes of Ellen Schrecker (and made for copy for the likes of Edward R. Murrow back in the day). History isn’t written by the winners. It’s written by the intelligentsia, who fancy old reds.

      (By the way, Alger Hiss was guilty. Julius Rosenberg and Morton Sobell were guilty. Ethel Rosenberg wasn’t guilty, but was indubitably on board with her husband’s extracurriculars. Annie Lee Moss and Robert Oppenheimer actually were security risks).Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to LeeEsq says:

      Yes, communism does not work and caused many atrocities. That doesn’t make persecuting people a good thing.

      It was horribly unjust to socially ostracize people and hound them out of their jobs for having formerly advocated an ideology that would ultimately lead to a hundred million deaths. That’s the kind of thing we should reserve for really heinous crimes like having formerly advocated referring to gay marriages exclusively as civil unions.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Wait, who’s being “hounded for advocating an ideology that led to a hundred million deaths”?

        We still tolerate the presence of Neo Confederates.Report

      • j r in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        I will never understand the desire to take a side in this communist sympathizers v the Red Scare debate.

        On the one hand, there really was a Comintern, and its successor organization within the Soviet Communist Party, which had the goal of spreading communism worldwide and, to that effect, was able to place agents and sympathizers within all manner of government, civil society and cultural institutions. And lots of these folks were literally taking orders from Moscow.

        At the same time, the freedom of belief and expression is central to liberal democracy. Heck, it is liberal democracy. The idea that someone should be surveilled, harassed, fired, persecuted, or whatever for holding unpopular political opinions is pretty indefensible (and yes, if you believe that in regards to communism, then you ought to believe it for other things as well).Report

        • Art Deco in reply to j r says:

          As a general rule, I think you’re right, with several qualifications.

          1. At least some of the 140-odd people prosecuted under the Smith Act were party officials whose salary was paid with laundered money provided by a hostile foreign power. That should have been worth some time in the clink.

          2. The woman in this story was a school teacher. She was terminated after public hearings she herself requested and which even her defenders admit were conducted in a professional manner. The writer for the Boston Globe attempts to obscure this point, but she was a member of the Communist Party for 12 years and change; had allowed her membership to lapse just months before this case began percolating and just 3 years and change before these public disciplinary hearings were held. What summaries have been published of any accounting she gave of herself indicate she did not repudiate this 12 year period in her life. Jessica Mitford was once interviewed about her time in the Party and she said that she and her husband had left more-or-less because they’d concluded it was not a going concern anymore and had departed the front organization they were active in because the federal infiltrators had made it such a chore; you get the definite impression that her take on things was similar to Mitford’s.

          3. You think it’s bad business for public agencies to be subjecting people to inquisitions over their politics. Well, so do I. The thing is, education is indoctrinative, so some inquiry into what she thinks about the world she lives in is legitimate. People in this country are and have long been in favor of providing schooling through public agencies which are effective monopolies (Don’t bitch to me about private schools. I grew up in a sophisticated 2d tier metropolis before the economy of Catholic education had imploded; the private schools still only enrolled 12% of the available students; in outlying towns, it’s 0%). We’d be better off with voucher-funded private schools juxtaposed to tuition-funded private schools, but we do not have that. The way to community control lies through local boards, and it was the local board reflecting community sentiment that unloaded her.

          4. The FBI was invested in this case (putatively against the advice of their local office). That actually is something of a scandal. The woman in question was tainted, but she was not engaged in federal crimes and never had been. It isn’t the business of the federal police to be engaged in what Catholic ethicists call the sin of detraction. (Keep in mind, though, that detraction was effective only because local people did not wish to employ her).

          5. One has to sympathize with the terrible time the woman had making a living. That applies across the board to anyone in a situation in which they’re untouchable.

          6. That having been said, people like this do not get ink from the likes of Ellen Schrecker or The Boston Globe because they’re sympathetic with the untouchable. The bookkeeper of my acquaintance who was hounded out of his tax perparer’s job (public meetings were called in that town, the local paper found the ugliest picture of him which had ever been taken and published it, and the prosecutor/fanatic who’d handled his case 14 years earlier was contacted for her commentary) won’t be getting any ink from Ellen Schrecker or the Globe. He’s just a sex offender who’d like to earn a living and live a quiet life, not a crusader for a better world.

          7. And the Globe and Schrecker do not give any evidence of giving a rip about anyone else who’d like to be left alone or about the freedom of association and freedom of contract of anyone who does not think like arts-and-sciences academics or newspaper editors.Report

        • Mike Schilling in reply to j r says:

          Not just holding unpopular opinions, but also having held them in the past, belonging to an organization along with people who hold them or held them in the past, belonging to an organization that collaborates with one containing members who hold them or held them in the past, etc. etc. Considering that avowedly Communist organizations supported progressive causes like integration and were the most solidly anti-Nazi group in America (until everything changed in 1939), that last one covers a lot of ground.Report

          • Huh?

            I think Victor Navasky of all people has contended you did not get hauled in front of HCUA unless you’d been identified as a Communist Party member by at least two people interviewed by federal investigators.

            The Smith Act defendants were party officials. The people on the Red Channels list were party members (or thought to be).

            IIRC, Robert Oppenheimer was not a party member, but he belonged to an antheap of front organizations. He lost his security clearance. He wasn’t rendered unemployable, just embarrassed and debarred from certain government projects.Report

  10. H2: There’s a real irony there. The Crusades are remembered as Christians fighting Islam, but the Fourth Crusade, in which Catholics from Western Europe destroyed the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire, led to the Islamic conquest of the Balkans.Report

  11. notme says:

    What Happens When Millennials Run the Workplace?

    This country is headed downhill. I can’t believe they didn’t fire the guy that lied about the funeral.Report

  12. notme says:

    Europe to Remove 500-Euro Bill, the ‘Bin Laden’ Bank Note Criminals Love

    Maybe we should get rid of the $100 and put Ben on the $20 and them print more $50s.Report

  13. Damon says:

    Ec1] Google: “And to get that compromise you need competing mega-corporations to wrestle each other to a middle ground” Yeah, unless they team up and figure out a way to screw everyone else in the process. I’m not convinced. Copywrite probably needs a fixing, but I’m not sure this recommendation is the best path.

    Ec2 UBI: I really don’t understand the concept that “the most direct stimulus for lifting inflation and triggering productive economic activity is putting cash in the people’s hands.” Who’s gonna rewrite the Fed’s charter? Or are we just going to ignore that? And we’ve been printing money and giving it away for decades, and even with it’s less efficient methodology of using ‘crats to do so, it’s not done much to help people out. And the solution when inflation spikes is to “cut back on the money-creation or take money out of circulation and bring inflation into check”. You going to do that by ratcheting down someone’s UBI? Or just impose more taxes? Yeah, both of those sound like the populace will love that.

    Ec4 Not surprising. Fix it by getting rid of fed insured flood insurance and let the market correct. And don’t bail folks out allowing them to rebuild.

    Ec5 Surprising that it’s unintended but FORESEEABLE. And yet it’s still going on.

    V1: Seems some folks object to owners doing something different from what their restaurant does. “For those of us who love animals and responsible agriculture but hate hippies, it’s the age-old conundrum.” Shesh. Obnoxious pretentious folks arguing with the same.

    G1 So let me get this straight, folks hire folks that seem like them? Academics, with all their talk about gender equality DID THE SAME THING as everyone else when hiring? I guess all that lording over about how enlightened they are is bull crap. I’d be curious to know what “slightly better than chance” was too. That figure seems noticeably absent.

    G2: eat our own guys, eat your own.

    G6 This falls under “none of your damn business”. Sadly, status folks gotta exhibit status and trends gotta be trendy.

    H1 Wouldn’t be surprised if they poked around on the east coast. Not surprised if the Chinese managed to get to the west coast either.

    H2: Nope. Not forgetting. There’s a difference in remembering and reliving.Report

  14. Troublesome Frog says:

    En2: Interesting that 2 out of those 5 flashes of brilliance were, “Hey, let’s add a woman to an all-male cast.” That seems obvious to me today, but I guess 20-25 years ago it might not have been. I’m pretty sure it’s part of a standard checklist today, and that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to have on a TV production checklist.Report

  15. Joe Sal says:

    Good round of links again Will!Report

  16. Troublesome Frog says:

    Ec5: The water bottle thing is something I find seriously irritating. It’s exactly the type of nonsensical imposition of personal aesthetics on others that liberals complain about when religious conservatives want liquor stores closed on Sundays.

    The store sells bottles of water both with and without sugar syrup. We find all of those things terrible and wish you would stop consuming them, but we’re just going to ban the bottles of water without the sugar syrup. Who could possibly have foreseen that it would cause an increase in sugar syrup water? Since it is also bad and should be eliminated for your own good, we clearly need to do some more social engineering to solve this pressing problem.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

      I blame it on the rise of the meme:

      Step 1: Ban plastic water bottles.

      Step 2: ?

      Step 3: Profit!Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Troublesome Frog says:


      The big issue with bottled water is that it actually wastes a lot of energy (and water) to bottle water.

      • notme in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        Sure, but if I buy a bottle of soda instead of a bottle water what is the difference? The syrup? Somehow that is great liberal victory?Report

        • Troublesome Frog in reply to notme says:

          That’s even worse because it’s high fructose corn syrup which causes autism and puts money in the pockets of the Monsanto fat cats who run the universe behind the scenes.Report

      • Troublesome Frog in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        1) It doesn’t use any more energy than any other drink of equivalent size that’s 99+% water and 99+% the same shipping weight per unit volume.

        2) The people who write the “just use tap water” articles seem to assume that bottled water is a straight up substitute for tap water. It very often isn’t. I don’t know many people around here who drink it at home like tap water (although we have pretty palatable water in the Bay Area). It’s often just a substitute for being out and about without any water because you didn’t bring any. It solves that problem extremely well because it’s palatable, not leaky, and it allows you to have water when you walk away from the water source. I often keep a small case of it in my trunk in case of emergency because the bottles are well sealed and it keeps.

        Yes, it would be nice if we all carried empty drinking vessels around for refills day-to-day. But if you don’t, a bottle of water is a great product to be able to buy. I don’t usually buy it because it’s expensive and energy intensive when there’s an alternative, but it solves a real problem and is clearly a viable product. Just making it “go away” without some solution to the problems it solves is pretty unlikely to actually net a better result.

        If we actually want to solve the problem, a real solution would look more like this: Make sure there are places to easily refill bottles and sell empty reusable bottles instead of full ones. University students are just picking up water as a convenient beverage when they’re walking around campus. I don’t think most of them are buying into the health benefits of Organic GMO Free Magnetized Water or anything like that. Give them a viable alternative that’s similarly cheap and convenient and it becomes a non-issue.

        I’m putting it in the same category as banning plastic grocery bags. Sure, there are real measurable problems that come with them, but they’re also a great engineering solution to a common problem. The bans usually appear to be more an enforcement of cultural norms than an actual honest attempt to improve some measurable variable.Report

        • Fortytwo in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

          A few places have started putting bottle fillers on water fountains. They seem to always have a meter for saying how many ounces of water the bottle dispenser has dispensed and a sign with something positive about Green something or other. The problem is that the sensor turns on even when someone just drinks from the fountain. This causes a pressure drop at the fountain, which can cause the stream to diminish so as to be undrinkable. I was with a crew member the other day and she got quite a laugh out of me bending to take a drink, the water shutting off, cycle, and repeat.Report

    • notme in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

      Who could possibly have foreseen that it would cause an increase in sugar syrup water?

      Anyone that put some thought into the subject as opposed having the knee jerk idea that bottled water is evil and must be destroyed.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Troublesome Frog says:

      I don’t consider bottled water to be evil, just colossally stupid.
      There really isn’t any difference in taste between (most) municipal water and bottled water.

      But this bit about “social engineering” caught my eye.

      Because the switch from drinking fountains and municipal water to bottled water represents a magnificent triumph of social engineering in the form of advertising.

      We never think about advertising as social engineering, but it really is, just a private version of shaping society to prefer one thing over another.Report

  17. Saul Degraw says:

    Kevin Drum is one of the few people who gets that Trump was trolling liberals yesterday and doing it very well:

    • greginak in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      It’s less about trolling libs then making his supporters feel good. Sure he is fine with the free media, but it was aimed at making his white folk feel like Trumpy isn’t what everybody else sees him to be.Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Even if Kevin Drum is correct, that is a remarkably stupid thing to do with a man whose approval ratings among Hispanics is about 11%, and who cannot win the election without massively improving those numbers.

      Then again, short-sighted has been Trump’s business motto since day one, so…Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

        On its own, I doubt it hurt him even a little bit with any pursuadable Hispanic voters. It might have hurt him with some GOP people trying to figure out how much to buy in. Might have helped innoculate him against future attacks by creating an atmosphere of “These people will criticize Trump over anything…”

        All of which ultimately being irrelevant as this is not an election that’s likely to be won on the margins. If it’s won, it’s because something really big happened between now and then. “Dangerous Donald” aside, I still refuse to believe that HRC is that bad at this.Report

        • North in reply to Will Truman says:

          She’d have lost to Bernie if she was.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to North says:

            I think that there’s a lot of room to suck at this and still be able to beat a guy who calls himself a “socialist” who wasn’t even a Democrat until last Wednesday.Report

            • Will Truman in reply to Jaybird says:

              Yeah. For the state of the race to be what it is (against Bernie Sanders*), even granting that the outcome has been known for some time, one (or more) of the following things is true:

              1. Bad campaign
              2. Bad candidate
              3. Intraparty discord

              None of these being so bad that she likely won’t defeat Trump in November, but something is going on.

              * – If Joe Biden, different story. Maybe even O’Malley.Report

            • North in reply to Jaybird says:

              Yes, but beating Bernie without completely alienating his faction takes a certain finesse and how badly has Hillary flailed around or screwed up so far in the nomination race? How many debates has she flubbed? How many attacks have overshot or undershot? I’d submit not many.
              It isn’t going to take a genius to defeat Trump, just basic competence and I’d submit that she’s put on a big display of at lease basic competence this primary season.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to Jaybird says:

              I’d bear in mind that Clinton came within a whisker of beating Obama in 2008, who then went on to beat McCain and Romney like a drum — and look pretty effortless doing so.

              And I’ll say this about her: She learns. I don’t know how innovative she is (she strikes me more as an implementer, a manager) but she clearly learns. She took Obama’s 2008 playbook, and used it. She had no intention of making the same mistakes, and she did it well.

              I worry about her hawkishness, and I hope she’s learned from watching Obama there too. (Not that he’s not been more eager than I’d like there). She’s pretty explicit she’s gonna be Obama’s third term — continue with what we’ve been doing, consolidate the gains, fix and upgrade and incremental improvement.

              A pretty conservative approach, I’ll admit, But frankly, there’s worse Presidential pitches — even if her opponent wasn’t Donald Trump.

              What I’m more concerned with is that (and I think this was also Drum) — there’s no way on God’s Green Earth that the media can do six months of “Clearly, there is only one candidate and clearly, the polls show she’s putting the boot in and frankly this was a foregone conclusion the moment Trump was nominated”.

              It HAS to be a horse-race. Even if they have to manufacture it. (Which is how you get a stunned Karl Rove on election night, btw. A tight race is exciting).

              And not to claim conspiracy — it’s more…human nature. If you have two polls, you lead with the one showing the race tighter. If there’s multiple interpretations, you go with the one showing the race tighter. If you feel like you’ve only been reporting negative stories about a candidate, you often go looking for something positive — or find something, anything, negative about the other so it’s “even”,

              It’s just a thousand reporters making tiny, individual, choices that end up skewing the perspective. Karl Rove shouldn’t have been stunned on election night. The data was incredibly clear. But the reporting always slanted it as tighter. Because tighter sells. Not because Fox News had it’s thumb on the scale, but because every news agency wanted a more interesting story than “Obama clearly going to win, barring some unforeseen catastrophe”.Report

              • j r in reply to Morat20 says:

                … who then went on to beat McCain and Romney like a drum…

                Huh? The split in 2008 was 53% to 46%, which narrowed to 51% to 47% in 2012. Sure, the electoral college margins were much wider but it doesn’t take that many votes in the swing states to make that happen. Plus in 2000, the Republicans were carrying the baggage of W and, honestly, McCain just looked tired. A contest between Obama and 2000-era McCain would have been much more interesting.

                Also, not sure why so many people are convinced that Trump’s campaign is destined to fail. My even money bet goes to Hillary, but the main lesson of the last six months has not escaped me: campaigning against Donald Trump is very difficult. Lots of the things that the anti-Trump crowd hate about him will end up playing very well to some significant percentage of the undecided. My guess is that the official Hillary campaign will realize this soon enough, if they haven’t already. The real question is whether the larger ecosystem of Hillary supporters will pick up on this or will continue with the sort of in-group virtue signalling that could very easily alienate the larger electorate.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to j r says:

                The real question is whether the larger ecosystem of Hillary supporters will pick up on this or will continue with the sort of in-group virtue signalling that could very easily alienate the larger electorate.

                I’m expecting that they won’t, but will still win because Trump is better at alienating voters than they are.Report

              • j r in reply to Will Truman says:

                This is where we disagree. I believe that Tump’s power to persuade is greater than his power to alienate. And more importantly, the people that he alienates were never going to vote for him in the first place.

                Does anyone else remember how the narrative up until about a year ago was the deep Republican bench? Trump ran through them with astonishing ease.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to j r says:

                Does anyone else remember how the narrative up until about a year ago was the deep Republican bench?

                I do, and it never made any sense, unless is was a mangled version of a British commentator calling them “thick”.Report

              • No, it made perfect sense. Partisan Democrats define accomplished Republican politicians as ‘stupid’ or ‘thuggish’ by default. Partisan Democrats need to stop projecting.Report

              • Let’s see:

                Few people called Mitt or McCain either of those.
                W was called stupid, and his presidency more than justified that.
                Few people called Dole either of those.
                Few people called GWHB either of those.

                So I have to ask, does any thought go into these comments, or is it all random venting?Report

              • W was called stupid, and his presidency more than justified that.

                Is that the new line among partisan Democrats? I thought it was ‘Bush lied’? (Or is it that if he were not so stupid, we’d all overlook his lies, like we did for the Big He)?

                I can’t keep up with the talking points.Report

              • So I have to ask, does any thought go into these comments, or is it all random venting?

                As I said, you need to stop projecting.Report

              • “I know you are but what am I”?

                Clever riposte. I’ll have to remeber that one.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to j r says:

                Lots of the things that the anti-Trump crowd hate about him will end up playing very well to some significant percentage of the undecided.


                And will it offset the xenophobia and racism, as well as the fact that Donald lacks any political experience? (And that his business experience is — or at least success –is, shall we say, overstated)

                Right now you have the two living GOP former Presidents stating for the record they won’t endorse anyone. That’s not a good sign for your base, much less cross-over appeal. When you can’t win over the biggest symbols of your own party….how are you going to win over the mushy middle?

                Which doesn’t even get into that which wins elections — turnout among soft supporters.

                I AM curious to Trump’s negatives and name recognition. Hillary’s got a certain floor and ceiling, because she’s a fully defined public figure — which is both a strength and a weakness. Trump’s negatives are awful, but how much room he has to grow depends more on “how well known he is” than anything else. (In politics, it’s easier to SET an opinion than CHANGE one. Which is rather useful if you can define your opponent to voters before he or she can define themselves).

                That I can only guess on, but if I was on the Trump campaign I’d be pretty worried that all that free media attention on the primaries might have already cemented his image pretty solidly.Report

              • j r in reply to Morat20 says:

                Right now you have the two living GOP former Presidents stating for the record they won’t endorse anyone. That’s not a good sign for your base, much less cross-over appeal. When you can’t win over the biggest symbols of your own party….how are you going to win over the mushy middle?

                If Trump wins this election, it will be because people’s fear and/or intense dislike of him clouded the judgments of enough people and facilitated a string of unforced errors.

                Trump is in the middle of running the table in the Republican primary and you’ve convinced yourself that the GOP establishment not rushing to him means that he has no chance. Have you been keeping score in this ongoing contest between Trump and the GOP establishment?

                This is how politics works. The people who have nothing to lose get to take the principled stances, so that the people with chips on the table get to bide their time and see which way the cards are turning. If the cards keep turning for Trump, enough of the GOP establishment will get behind him.

                I don’t know that it will happen, but it’s pretty easy (once you put your biases away and look at this objectively) to see how it might happen.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

                And will it offset the xenophobia and racism,

                These are nonsense terms.

                as well as the fact that Donald lacks any political experience?

                I take it the optics of making arguments like this do not bother you. Lack of any salient experience did not bother partisan Democrats in 2008.

                Right now you have the two living GOP former Presidents stating for the record they won’t endorse anyone. That’s not a good sign for your base, much less cross-over appeal. When you can’t win over the biggest symbols of your own party….how are you going to win over the mushy middle?

                Again, (and see Wm. Schneider on this point), the identity of the vp candidate hardly affects outcomes. The dispositions of two retired presidents are unlikely to. These men are not like Ronald Reagan. They do not have the kind of rapport with the public which makes their opinions salient for differentiating kosher from traffe. Let’s hear from Dan Quayle, Richard Cheney, and the Nixon and Eisenhower clans while we’re at it.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

                who then went on to beat McCain and Romney like a drum — and look pretty effortless doing so.

                It’s amusing how partisan Democrats have redefined quite ordinary electoral pluralities as ‘landslides’ (conventionally, a plurality of 10% or more) and ‘beat like a drum’. We’ve had about 30 presidents elected de novo since the advent of popular balloting. Obama’s plurality (8%) was somewhat better than the median (which is 6%). We’ve had about 25 presidents who sought to be returned to office. Obama’s margin (4%) is a bit below the median (which is 6% as well).

                Obama did not do any better against McCain than Bush I did against Michael Dukakis; the major media were extensions of his campaign, an advantage Bush I never had; and he had political manna in the form of eight major financial institutions being revealed to be insolvent right in the middle of the campaign. If there was a politician more responsible than any other for this last, it was Barney Frank, but the public took it out on McCain .Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Art Deco says:

                Why are you going back 30 Presidents, when really it’s the last 30 years that matter at most? That’s going to skew the hell out of your sample, because you’re compare 1880 to now.

                Do you actually think 2016 is going to be less like 2012, 2008, or 2004, 2000 than it is 1896?

                If so, why are you privileging a century or more of elections that are entirely unlike the current political atmosphere over the most recent data points? (Say, 1990 through now?)Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

                Going back 30 years, you’re looking at 7 elections. Obama/Romney would be the third closest, and Obama/McCain the 5th closest.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

                True. And the Clinton ones were weird, what with a third party that actually had a major effect and Clinton won without even a bare majority at least once.

                2000 was, of course, the weird situation where the popular vote winner lost.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

          I still refuse to believe that HRC is that bad at this.

          In poker, this is what we call a “tell”.Report

        • greginak in reply to Will Truman says:

          I’m not seeing where Dangerous Donald is all that bad. It’s a quickee tagline to frame an argument. Granted i’m a bit deaf to lots of PR/add speak but it seems fine. It’s aimed at the people who haven’t made a choice yet.

          Hills has baggage and Bernie is evidence of well known party split, but she is going to win the nom. The D process seems pretty typical of many primary struggles.Report

          • Will Truman in reply to greginak says:

            No. Really. It’s that bad. Donald Trump isn’t the least bit worried about being called dangerous. The response will write itself. This is not as bad as the whole “Our primary line of attack is going to be Trump’s effect on US standing in the world” but it’s close. But it’s even along the same lines.


            I mean, it’s not going to swing the election or anything. It wouldn’t even if the forecast wasn’t so lopsided. But if this is what they’re thinking is a good idea? Lord help us all and thank god Trump dug himself in so deeply.

            As far as the Democratic Primary goes, how does this compare to 2000? This should have been 2000. Or at least closer to 2000 than 2008. It shouldn’t be May with her campaigning in West Virginia.Report

            • I watched her two anti-Trump ads. One was pretty good! The other one is not so good. This should not be hard. This is a layup, not a Hail Mary.Report

            • greginak in reply to Will Truman says:

              Okay…i’m not seeing it but maybe you are right. Donnie is going to have a come back to everything. The aim seems to be playing on fears that the undecided are going to have. Framing Trumpy as a blowhard loose canon who can’t be trusted seems like a decent line of attack.

              What would you think is a good attack on Trumpy? There are plenty of them we are going to see.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to greginak says:

                I think instability is a great line of attack. I don’t think “Dangerous Donald” does that even a little bit. Nor do I think “Loose Cannon” does. In the movies we watch, people called dangerous and loose cannons are often the good guys.

                Remember that 3am commercial she ran against Obama? That, but on steroids. A lot of people like Donald precisely because he’s going to “shake things up” and a lot of others wouldn’t mind things being shaken up. So that alone does nothing. Gotta drive home why people should be scared about his shit-stirring, instead of potentially intrigued.

                If you’re gonna use “Dangerous Donald”, make a logo and put the nuclear football on it. Or something like that. The chaos surrounding his rallies, and the violence. Poll it first to make sure that independents and undecideds don’t blame the protesters, but it removes a lot of the romance of danger.

                Beyond that, the ad I liked was somewhat by the numbers on his capacity to say terrible things about just about everyone. Women are especially important, but everybody. Edit precisely, though, so that you’re not using examples that some potential voters have often done.

                And, of course, he’s a fraud. Someone suggested that when “Dangerous Donald” fizzles out, give “Default Donald” a try. You probably won’t even have to explain it. Donald being Donald, he will tell everyone what Defaulting is while he’s explaining that he’s not doing it. Trump University. A lot of the things that didn’t work out especially well late in the primary are more likely to in the general. (They might have worked in the primary, if deployed sooner.)Report

              • greginak in reply to Will Truman says:

                Oh we’re going to see more ads based on derogatory things he has said. Dont’ worry about that. We’re also going to hear about his businesses, that is all coming.

                I’m assuming everything Hills is doing is heavily polled. That is her to a fault.

                She does seem to want to scrape up moderate R’s so playing on Donnie being unstable and dangerous seems fair enough.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to greginak says:

                Instability is fine. Dangerous Donald doesn’t do that. First rule of giving someone a derogatory nickname is don’t give them one they would give themselves. Trump wishes he’d thought of Dangerous Donald.

                Anyway, this touches on a lot of my objections.

                They’d had months to figure this out. Crikey.Report

              • greginak in reply to Will Truman says:

                I’m guessing pollsters and ad men said they needed a 2 or 3 word definition to spray like mad so they polled the heck out of it and settled on that. There will be lots of sub attacks under that umbrella. We’ll see where that campaign goes. Like i said, while i dont’ think its bad, i’m the most attuned to what works in advertising or messaging.Report

              • North in reply to Will Truman says:

                Don’t over react, remember, Trump isn’t nailed into the nomination yet either. I would imagine that the early goal is to bounce a bunch of stuff tentatively off the wall to gauge the impact with the barrage increasing the more locked in the Donald is.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to North says:

                What I love most about the “America Is Already Great” hat is that it does two things at once:

                1. It says “Trump is in my head!”
                2. It says “Screw you, Berniebros!”

                It’s the “New Coke” of political slogans.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                There is a point where it seems clear there will never be a good slogan or whatever Hills puts out will be tarnished in some way. I think you have hit that point. The AIAG is a good idea. People like positivism, it certainly worked for Ronnie. It is weird that pointing out good things about the US is somehow a problem. We have problems and we have good things. That shouldn’t be controversial and hits Trumpy in an awkward spot.Report

              • North in reply to Jaybird says:

                It doesn’t exactly sing for me either but this is the time to be trying all that stuff out so I’m not particularly concerned.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to North says:

                I would be less worried if a month ago Hillary hadn’t said a major point of attack would be US’s standing in the world. That… sort of explains a lot of the missteps. Both specifically and abstractly. They seem to think that what the American people will find worst about him is what they find worst about him. Maybe they will adapt. Fortunately, they probably won’t have to.

                The only way I think HRC loses this election is with a terrible misreading of the public combined with an external event. Neither will do it alone as they are ahead enough that they can afford to misread the public. And if an event happens, there is a good enough chance that it will actually make people appreciate HRC’s comparatively steady hand.

                But it’s sort of looking to me like they are assuming a degree of consensus that isn’t there (especially during trying moments). Along the lines of “Of course we should go after waterboarding. The people are as embarrassed by that as we are!”

                (I’m not saying she should come out in favor of waterboarding. I’m saying there’s a difference between taking a politically iffy position knowing it’s potentially a liability, and taking it without knowing it’s potentially a liability.)Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                A good attack on Trump:

                He’s got problems with women. He can’t relate to them. (Don’t lean on this *TOO* much, Hillary’s has a handful of poorly phrased statements on this.)

                I’d also focus on some of his business mishaps where he stabbed his investors and/or partners in the back. “He’s not a partner you can trust” or something like that.

                The main thing to watch out for is that the left-right axis attacks aren’t going to work, really, because Trump is not operating on the left-right axis but the technocrat-elite/populist axis. Any left-wing attack on trump that is actually a left-wing technocrat-elite attack will get a not-right/not-left populist punch right back in the kisser… and it’ll be a haymaker.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird says:

                “He’s not a partner you can trust”

                Actually, this is the #1 thing I hear among the non-movement-conservatives who aren’t going to vote for him… this is probably the single best vector to work on the right side of the aisle.

                All the nonsense about not being a Republican, or a True ™ conservative is meaningless to large swaths of right leaning voters…trust is the major issue and the Republican movement lost it. That Trump has it is an interesting phenomenon, but not one that is cemented by any actual deeds (yet).Report

          • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

            One of the things that Trump has going for him is this really, really weird dynamic that puts him in a different spot than Romney/McCain/Bush/Dole/Bush/Reagan/Ford/Nixon/Goldwater:

            You know how we all knew, in our bones, that Romney was pretending to be less conservative than he actually was? And the rest of them too?

            Trump is less conservative than he’s pretending to be. You know in your heart that he doesn’t give a crap about LGBT issues or abortion. He can go on television and talk about throwing women into prison for getting an abortion and we all know that he’s lying and pandering to the religious right. It’s a straight up naked pander and he doesn’t mean a word of it.

            So instead of saying “I think that Romney is crazier than he lets on”, we’re in a place where we’re saying “Trump isn’t as crazy as he’s pretending to be.”

            And the Democrats yelling that Trump is “dangerous”?

            Well, yeah. But he’s not as dangerous as he’s pretending to be.Report

            • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

              I agree that most people probably assume Trumpy doesn’t believe much of what he says on lots of issues. They believe in his over arching message- “make america nifty again”- but on specifics they don’t care if he is pandering. That isn’t a strong basis for a campaign though, having everybody assume you don’t mean what you say. heck that is something that affects Hills whether its correct or not.

              Plenty of people aren’t thrilled with ” sure he isn’t telling the truth, what do you expect?”. That makes him untrustworthy and, dare i say it, sort of dangerous. He is a blowhard who says stuff without thinking or that he believes in. Some people dig that, some people will run from that.

              Trump does have a weird thing about him at this point. There is always an assumption he has some gimmick or edge or that things will work out. Part of that is buying into his bluster. But it also forgets how many times he has failed in his career. And he has presided over some cluster sporks in his life. He couldn’t even make money running a casino in Atlantic city.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                Another thing to keep in mind: any attack on Trump that can be turned around into a pithy “oh, and Hillary is any freakin’ better? (example)” is not going to be a good attack.

                Imagine if you will, someone vandalizing Trump’s webpage. Just imagine.

                Now imagine someone attacking Trump for not properly protecting his webpage.

                Do you see why this theoretical example would not be a particularly good attack?Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                True. But Hillary is slick and professional and calculating. She isnt’ a loud mouth the way Donnie is. The DD attack is not one that can immediately go rubber on her and bounce back.

                This election is going to be a big poo fight. Most attacks can be turned and twisted and responded to. That is just the way it is. There are few Excalibur kind of attacks that are completely brilliant, undefendable and with no response.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                “You’re darn right, I’m dangerous. I’m dangerous to the bigwigs who want to keep the honest guy down! I’m dangerous to the criminals who want to cheat the system! I’m dangerous to the status quo! These people who have done everything they can to ruin this country call me dangerous because I’m going to change things! I AM GOING TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

                Or something like that.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                The people who are going to buy that have already bought it. The people who don’t like Trumpy dont’ need to hear it. The people who are undecided ( conservative leaners, independents), well i bet some of them do just want a steady responsible hand in the big chair. There is a type of presidential character that people seem to want. That ain’t Donnie act. Or at least many people won’t see it that way is the idea.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

                The people who are going to buy that have already bought it.

                Compare this Venn Diagram with the Venn Diagram of people who are going to buy “Dangerous Donny”.Report

              • greginak in reply to Jaybird says:

                Simply there are people who will find Don dangerous and never vote for him. Is it a great slogan, beats me. Per Katherine’s comment, the dangerous line certainly might energize various minority groups.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to greginak says:

                She isnt’ a loud mouth the way Donnie is.

                She’s actually famous for being a terror to work for.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Art Deco says:

                Do cite, please, as I’ve heard the opposite. (We’re talking Clinton, right?. Or did I get the wrong “her”?)Report

              • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

                Start with Paul Fray and Billy R Dale.Report

            • KatherineMW in reply to Jaybird says:

              Not necessarily dangerous to abortion providers. But the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant stuff he’s saying? I think he’d actually go along with it. Don’t know whether he believes it or whether he’s just using it as political fuel, but if he can rev up his base by banning Muslims from the country and building a border wall, he’d do it.

              A populist who’s trying to gain power by inciting hatred against ethnic and religious minorities is always dangerous. A populist of that sort who is also an arrogant blowhard with the mindset of an authoritarian is even more dangerous.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to KatherineMW says:

                So let’s say that he’s dangerous to Muslims trying to enter the country and illegal imm-, er… I mean, people who just want to make a better life for themselves and their children who happened to be born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line.

                How do you think that will play in the voting booth?Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to Jaybird says:

                Badly, with Muslims and Hispanic people. His history of anti-black discrimination will play badly with black people when it comes to voting. It will also play badly with people who consider themselves liberal and tolerant (who are probably mostly already voting Democratic or third party).

                With the rest of Americans, I don’t know. I wish I could say that I was confident it would play badly.Report

              • j r in reply to KatherineMW says:

                A populist who’s trying to gain power by inciting hatred against ethnic and religious minorities is always dangerous.

                Don’t like populism. Don’t like scapegoating ethnic minorities. And don’t like Trump. But come back and tell me when Trump has done more actual harm to Muslims than the current and former administration (which includes Hillary).

                We’re arguing over tone here while our official foreign policy is to blow up Afghan hospitals and Pakistani wedding parties and say “oops, my bad.”Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to j r says:

                That’s an comparison between people who have access to the most powerful military on the planet, and people who don’t. Trump doesn’t have the ability to order the military or security forces to kill people (yet), and I don’t want him to get it.

                I strongly oppose drone strikes, and the Obama Administration’s bullcrap on what they define as “accuracy” and who they define as a “terrorist”. I think all the post-9/11 US military activities in the Mideast/North Africa region have been immoral fiascos. And Hillary would, if anything, be worse than Obama in terms of military aggression.

                But Trump is far worse than her. He’d bring back torture as a government policy. He’s actively endorsed war crimes. He thinks that foreign policy is all a matter of being “tough” and that looking tough enough will enable the US to achieve anything it wants – a belief that was extremely harmful when acted upon by the Bush Administration. And if we can draw any conclusions from the things he says in his campaign, it’s that he’d actively persecute Muslims and other minorities within the US if he felt it would score him political points.Report

              • j r in reply to KatherineMW says:

                Badly, with Muslims and Hispanic people. His history of anti-black discrimination will play badly with black people when it comes to voting.

                This comment should come with a warning that says something like, “no actual minorities were harmed in the forming of this opinion.” As I’ve been saying, Trump signals all sorts of bad things to white progressives, who sees themselves as being the natural allies of minorities. But those feelings just aren’t reciprocated in any meaningful way. Black and Hispanic voters are almost always doing some sort of internal calculation as to which candidate is going to screw them the least. Bill Clinton and Obama were exceptions, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Hillary is as well.

                Trump probably won’t be getting lots of black and Hispanic support but he probably won’t do much worse than any other Republican would. And he may do a little better.

                And Hillary would, if anything, be worse than Obama in terms of military aggression.

                But Trump is far worse than her.

                No, he isn’t. Because as you pointed out, Trump has yet to be put into a situation were he has had the opportunity to be far worse. Would he be? Honestly, who knows. As a candidate, George W Bush’s lack of interest in foreign policy was the running joke. Obama ran against Bush’s foreign policy. In both cases, the reality of their presidencies ran counter to the narrative of their campaigns. Trump could very easily be a pragmatic non-interventionist who mostly talked tough but always managed to keep situations from escalating past a certain point.

                And look, I don’t support torture, but if you were to start listing terrible things that the U.S. government has done in the last twenty years or so, waterboarding doesn’t even come close to cracking the top ten. We are already assassinating people with not much regard for collateral damage. We are already surveilling people far and above any legitimate authority to do so. We are already confiscating wealth from the poor and the disenfranchised without due process. We are already deporting people at record-breaking numbers. See a pattern here?

                There is the narrative that we tell ourselves about the relative merits of the candidates and then there’s the matter of fact reality. And the two don’t seem to match up much.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to j r says:

                Black and Hispanic voters are almost always doing some sort of internal calculation as to which candidate is going to screw them the least.

                No. Blacks vote Democratic by rote, and have for over 50 years. The phenomenon is less intense among Puerto Ricans and California chicanos, but that’s still the story there. Outside of California, chicanos shift around some in their preferences. Cubans are reliably Republican in federal elections but variegated lower down the ticket.Report

              • j r in reply to Art Deco says:

                What you wrote is completely orthogonal to my point. Even voting Democrat involves a choice. Go vote or stay home is another choice.

                The drone comment misses the mark as well. The funny thing about the world is that there are always more than two choices.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to j r says:

                What you wrote is completely orthogonal to my point.

                It is nothing of the kind. There’s no evidence of any calculating going on. The same thing happens every year.Report

              • j r in reply to Art Deco says:

                There you go with that selective reading comprehension thing.Report

              • No. Blacks vote Democratic by rote, and have for over 50 years.

                It hasn’t been a difficult calculation.Report

              • j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                No offense Mike, but this is a very stupid comment. But it’s also quite emblematic of the sort of white progressive triumphalism that I’ve referenced elsewhere.

                The segregation of black voters into one political party is reflective, and in large measure caused, by the wider segregation of black Americans. I get how white Democrats like to pat themselves on the back over this fact; however, having to pick between one party that ranges from disinterest to implicit to outright hostility and another which says and does just enough to get your vote but not so much as to jeopardize their larger agenda is lots of things, but easy isn’t one of them.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to j r says:

                The insult aside, you agree with me, so yours must be stupid too.

                having to pick between one party that ranges from disinterest to implicit to outright hostility and another

                means picking the one that isn’t hostile isn’t all that tricky. I didn’t deny that the Democrats win this one by default.Report

              • j r in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                I’ll just say that you and I approach this issue with a different set of concerns and leave it at that.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to j r says:

                We are already assassinating people with not much regard for collateral damage.

                No, drone strikes limit collateral damage. They cannot eliminate it completely. Make the case for pacifism or hold your peace.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to KatherineMW says:

                He’s actively endorsed war crimes.

                As we speak, any sort of military operation that might feasibly be conducted is a ‘war crime’ according to our bien-pensants. Best retire the whole concept.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to KatherineMW says:

                A populist who’s trying to gain power by inciting hatred against ethnic and religious minorities is always dangerous.

                It helps to remember in these discussion that ‘hate’ and ‘hatred’ are rhetorical thrusts in these discussions and have no meaning congruent with one which would be understood by an ordinary person.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to KatherineMW says:

                Populists who incite hatred against people are bad. Unless they’re Our Populists, inciting hatred against Those People, who totally deserve it.Report

              • Art Deco in reply to Brandon Berg says:

                No, Brandon, that’s passion.Report

              • No one would have any problems with the Klan if they had just stuck to lynchings and stopped telling black people to fuck off.Report

              • You need to sober up before you post anymore. You’re getting incoherent.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Art Deco says:

                You’re awful quick to resort to insults. It’s an interesting quirk.Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Morat20 says:

                I’ll let you judge, Morat. Was that incoherent?Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                No, but I believe I’m a delusional projectionist of some sort, so I’m probably reading it incoherently. 🙂Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Morat20 says:

                No worries, I will have another drink and stay for the third reel.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

          I’m gonna reiterate my point: If Kevin is right, Trump decided to do this to shore up the votes of the already insufficient voters who like him, at the expensive of ticking off a demographic he is doing horrible with and absolutely MUST improve on.

          In short, Kevin’s read of it requires Trump to be dumber. A stupid,tone-deaf, backfiring, outreach to Hispanics is still a realization that he can’t even come within a mile of the White House with those negative numbers with Hispanics. Deliberately thumbing his nose at Hispanics? That means he’s too stupid to grasp a pie chart.Report

          • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

            I think very little of what Trump does is strategic beyond gut feel.

            There was a thing where he was having an unusually high frequency of misspelled words. People were mocking him for it. Others were saying “Dude, that’s just what he wants.” It became Perceived Wisdom that Trump was actually misspelling words on purpose. I almost found myself believing that maybe it was true. Critics were sounding awfully nitpicky.

            Then suddenly all of the tweets with misspelled words were pulled. It was, apparently, not deliberate. From inside the campaign, the whole thing was not helping him. But lots and lots of people had decided that it was. Since then, I have assumed that there is no higher-level stuff beyond some pretty good low-level instincts and a high (but broad) trajectory.

            All of that being said… even if it was strategy, I’m not convinced that it was especially bad strategy, or throwing in the towel. I sort of suspect his critics come out of this looking a bit worse than he does, among pursuadables and potential pursuadables (even among the non-white variety, to whatever extent they’re out there).Report

            • greginak in reply to Will Truman says:

              Yeah. I noted it above but people seem to assume everything Trumpy does is masterful strategy and a success. It doesn’t matter if he looks like a dufus, somehow it was a good move.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

              I think that’s going to wear real thin outside of the Republican base. Which appears to be about 30-40% that like him (and a chunk of those entirely because he “pisses off liberals”) and the rest either dislike him or are resigned to him. (Ha! I just wondered if his hard-core support with with the general electorate might hover around the magic 27% number. I mean he’ll do better — teams rally around even the worst coach).

              I do suspect we’ll hear a lot of Trump’s “Secret strategy” because, again, the media isn’t set up for “Bumbling Reality TV star wanders through Presidential election race, doing random crap”.Report

      • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

        and who cannot win the election without massively improving those numbers.

        Hispanics make up about 9% of the general electorate and they vote Democratic as a matter of course. Their alienation might cost him 1% or 2% net.Report

        • Morat20 in reply to Art Deco says:

          You should take a good, long hard at the electoral map (the states that are clearly safe “Democratic” and “Republican”), the margins, and the demographics of the swing states and get back to me.

          In the name of peace and sanity, I can only hope Trump is getting the same superficial advise you’re peddling.

          (And weren’t you JUST saying that the median win was 6%? And you’re scoffing a full third of that? Not very consistent of you…)Report

          • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

            The more I’ve toyed around with the map tools, the more convinced I have become that the importance of the Hispanic vote in the electoral college has been dramatically overstated for 2012 by pretty much everybody (Media, Democrats, High Republicans). It was really surprising because I had bought into it.Report

            • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

              Maybe so, but I’m not sure you can be so cavalier about 1 or 2% of the people who show up to vote.

              Looking at the GOP/Democratic demographic breakdowns and turnout patterns of, say, the last 20 years — overcoming another drop in Hispanic support requires finding twice as many voters from a much narrower (and already fairly high turnout) field. (One to make up for your loss, one to put you ahead).

              So Trump, say, writes off 1% of the voting electorate by continuing to play very unsubtle racist games. Leaving aside any turnout changes on the Hispanic side, that means the has to find another 1% among his demographics — or eat into Democratic demographics by 1% — just to stay even.

              But the thing is, I can’t see where. He’s playing similar games with women as with Hispanics, and facing a female candidate that’s…let’s call it a wash, for argument’s sake. (I’m sure he’ll pick a female VP, which I don’t suspect will do much for him. I’m not even sure WHY people try that with VP’s, either party) Blacks? Clinton’s pretty popular there, and Obama will endorse.

              So white males. They’re pretty tapped out — it’s already a heavy GOP demographic. All this against the last two elections showing a 4 or 5% wins on the Democratic side, with the usual demographics worsening for Republicans not getting better. Against an electoral map where Democrats need to find what — 40 votes among swing states? And the GOP needs 100.

              Pissing away 1% is stupid, especially for no obvious gain.

              Then again, the GOP is clearly not united behind him. He’s struggling to get endorsements, both Bush’s have said no…..but that’s a really, really bad sign. If he’s doing this sort of thing to shore up his base at the expense of general election votes, he’s screwed. That’s a campaign that doesn’t think it can hold onto the Romney numbers, not one trying to actually win.Report

            • El Muneco in reply to Will Truman says:

              I haven’t seen anyone actually connect the dots in the same argument. I think most people are just thinking “Hispanic voters hate Trump. More votes against Trump is good. Yay, get out the Hispanic vote!”. But like you say, there are very few states where Hispanic numbers are larger than the margin of error, so even a massive increase would still either be buttressing a solid lead or banging even more heads against a yuuge wall.

              Although Cubans switching en masse in Florida would be interesting, but that would be due as much to Obama as to Trump if it were to happen.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to El Muneco says:

                Some interesting numbers:
                – If Romney were to have doubled his take of the Hispanic and Asian votes both… he still would have lost the electoral college.
                – If you slash Romney’s support in half for each group, it costs him zero states that he won.
                – Holding everything else constant, Romney would have needed 63% of the white vote to win the electoral college. He got 60%.
                – If you slash Romney’s share of the Hispanic/Asian vote in half, the number of whites he needs to win the EC goes up to… 65%.

                So I mean, I am Mr Don’t Write Off Voters. But if I’m Trump, I’m… not actually terrified of the Hispanic vote. I’m certainly not worried about Hispanic voters that are offended by a taco bowl.

                I am, however, terrified of women.Report

              • Marchmaine in reply to Will Truman says:

                Trust issues.

                Unfortunately, that’s exactly the same angle of attack for HRC. So maybe this comes down to whom you trust less, or whom you trust more to betray you the least?Report

              • j r in reply to Will Truman says:

                My guess is that Trump is far from terrified of women. Whether that’s wise or not is a separate question.

                Here’s the thing. Being behind is just another way of saying that you have upside potential. If the general election were held tomorrow, Trump would probably lose big with women voters and the lose big overall, but the election is not tomorrow. We have six months of people asking whether Trump can win women voters and six months of the news channels running footage of Trump surrounded by some very attractive women. That complicates the narrative. If women don’t like Trump, how does he attract beautiful women? Why does his attractive and successful daughter dote on him? Why do all these dour and unpleasant-looking women keep calling him sexist?

                If you’re reading this, I’m sure that you have a set of answers to all those questions. But how sure are you that the median voter will come to the same answers that you did?Report

              • Morat20 in reply to j r says:

                That complicates the narrative. If women don’t like Trump, how does he attract beautiful women? Why does his attractive and successful daughter dote on him? Why do all these dour and unpleasant-looking women keep calling him sexist?

                I’m gonna go out on a limb and say the average woman knows exactly how that works.

                Trump’s problems with women aren’t men asking these questions, it’ll be women. And women know the score, because it’s pretty much their day to day life. (In fact, my experience has been that women are a LOT more perceptive of this crap than most men. Again, because they’ve experienced it).

                In fact this:

                Why do all these dour and unpleasant-looking women keep calling him sexist

                Is the exact sort of argument that might appeal to a man, but make a woman go “Jerk says what?” because you’ve just straight up implied that clearly the pretty women are the ones worth listening to, but the ugly ones should STFU because who cares.

                So yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say: The average woman voter, seeing a rich old man surrounded by thin blondes, knows exactly what’s going on and why. And the last thing they’re going to ask themselves is “Gosh, but all those pretty girls like him! He can’t be sexist! He’s surrounded by pretty girls!”. Because they know why, and it ain’t because Trump is blind to gender, seeing only skill and quality.Report

              • j r in reply to Morat20 says:

                You drastically overestimate the number of people who think like you and share your opinions on feminism. This is understandable, the internet can be a bit of a bubble.

                Go find that video of women reading Trump quotes about women and show it to people who don’t share your political and ideological priors. See for yourself what their reaction is.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to j r says:

                If only women possessed the power of speech, by which they could inform us of their preferences!

                If only there were some mechanism by which their preferences could be counted and tabulated into a spreadsheet or graph or something!Report

              • Morat20 in reply to j r says:

                I’m not the one that just said women will look at Trump, see all the pretty girls around him, and go “That man seems like a good idea!”.

                That’s how a guy thinks.

                A dumb, kind of sexist guy. Actually, a teenager.Report

              • j r in reply to j r says:

                Thank you all for the very reliably inaccurate comments. The fact that you have to paraphrase what I said in such a misleading way instead of just quoting speaks volumes to my point about the inability of some to see outside of their worldview.

                Elections are as much about appearance as they are about policy, probably much more so. Most voters aren’t sitting down to make rational calculations. Most either already have their minds made up or will come to some sort of intuitive lean towards one candidate over the course of the election cycle.

                What I actually said is that the repeated appearance of Trump surrounded by attractive and successful women will create tension with the narrative of Trump as a vile misoygnist who hates women. Just because you guys and the people who surround you have resolved that tension in one direction does not mean that everyone else will do the same.Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to Morat20 says:

                Morat’s right on this one, jr. Anecdotally, every women I know who I’ve discussed politics with really dislikes Trump (because he’s a sexist lowlife), and no woman is going to find “he surrounds himself with hot younger women” a convincing argument as to why they should support him. Statistically, he’s got phenominally high unfavourables with women: 70% regard him unfavourably, compared to 23% who regard him favourably, giving him a net favourability among women of -47. Of particular importance is the fact that he’s disliked by about half of Republican women, which could either affect voter turnout or lead to conservative women choosing to vote for the Democrats. Link:

                There may be some women who will support Trump because his populism appeals to them and outweighs his sexism, but it’s not going to be many, and it’s not going to be for the reasons you say. Like Morat says, “I’m going to support this guy because he surrounds himself with hot women” is the way a sexist, immature guy would think, not the way women generally think.Report

              • j r in reply to KatherineMW says:

                The problem with that number is that Trump has a really high overall unfavorability rating and it hasn’t stopped him from trouncing the Republican field. Will Trump be able to do the same thing in the general election? Probably not, but if we are being honest, none of us have any idea.

                And it’s worth noting that while Trump has some of the highest negative ratings in the history of recent presidential elections, Hillary has the second highest.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to j r says:

                And it’s worth noting that while Trump has some of the highest negative ratings in the history of recent presidential elections, Hillary has the second highest.

                An even jucier tidbit (which has, to no surprise, got a bit of traffic among my Trumper followers):

                On the other hand, the person who is ahead in April/May usually wins, and the only exception is when one of the two candidates is relatively unknown (like Dukakis). The fact that HRC is also historically unpopular does mitigate a bit, but this is going to be a lot harder than the primary when favorables were more fluid.

                So yeah, I’m betting this is going to be the second exception.Report

              • j r in reply to Will Truman says:

                For the first six months of Trump’s campaign, I was wrong about his chances for all the right reasons.

                At some point, I just decided that I don’t know half of what I thought I did and decided to approach this as an opportunity to raise questions rather than provide answers. I’m all for forecasting, though; it is how we test our priors.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

                Clinton is fully defined, which is unusual. Trump is…I dunno, actually.

                I can make cases that he’s pretty solidly defined already, and I can make cases that he’s just mostly there.

                I lean towards “Fully defined”. He’s been a celebrity a long time, had a TV show, been the butt of jokes and cultural references (and not obscure ones) for decades, is a relentless self-promoter, and frankly has spent the last few months getting a LOT of free press.

                He’s certainly better known to the general electorate than, say, Ted Cruz.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to j r says:

                The problem with that number is that Trump has a really high overall unfavorability rating and it hasn’t stopped him from trouncing the Republican field

                That’s the kind of read on an election that leads to surprised Karl Rove.

                Republican base (of which he has a core of about 30%) is not the general electorate field, and most critically — he’s not facing at least three opponents splitting the other 70% of the vote in the general election.

                I mean “trounced”? He’s in a winner-take-all setup, and he just last week managed to get Ted Cruz — universally hated by the entire GOP establishment and who had been repeatedly backstabbed from the moment he announced — to be eliminated. Trump still hasn’t secured the 50%+1 delegates he needs for the floor vote (he will, since he’s the only one left, but even then…barely). In a winner-take-all primary setup.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

                Another apparent data point: Apparently the Bush clan is, by and large, unhappy with Trump. That includes their fundraisers. That includes Jeb. That especially includes Jeb, because the way Trump went after him was apparently irritating to the Bush clan.

                Florida is a must-win state for Republicans (without it, their path to the electoral college collapses. I mean this pragmatically — if they can’t swing Florida, they won’t swing the ridiculous number of stretches needed to replace Florida in their electoral college path). It’s not for Democrats.

                If Trump doesn’t have access to the Bush’s fundraising resources, their names, or their support — Florida just titled heavily. Now that might change, but that would require the sort of public apology Trump doesn’t seem to do. Ever. For anything.

                Hoewever, those white vote numbers — you gotta remember, that includes white of all ages (of which there is a vast disparity in some areas), and both men and women. The GOP is sort of bumping up against a hard limit there — there aren’t a lot of ‘free’ white voters that don’t have firm opinions, or at least heavy leans. Getting up three points on the white vote when half of those are women? Something like a fifth will be under 30?

                As for Hispanics — I know Cubans and Hispanics aren’t the same thing, but the way Trump’s rolling — I gotta admit I wouldn’t be real trusting of “you’re the good kind of brown guy. I wanna throw out all the illegals except for you, baby!”.Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Morat20 says:

                I think Trump is probably up against a hard limit limit with the white vote unless he can do something about women. I actually suspect that he’s going to underperform among whites compared to Romney on that basis.

                If I’m running his campaign, I’m not hugely worried about Hispanics. I’m worried about white women. So to bring us back to the taco bowl, if we’re considering it as a strategy, I’m mostly asking myself “How will this and the response go over with white women?”

                Specifically, whether they will find it stupid and offensive, or whether they will find the critical response to it utterly obnoxious. in a way that actually endears them to Trump? Even more specifically, I’m looking at the women in subdemographics that might be more pursuadable. In other words, not the women I know with college degrees and professional careers (or SAHM with professional husbands), but WWC married women, divorced women, women with vocational certifications and degrees.

                How does it go over with them? I wouldn’t be surprised if they found the hubbub obnoxious in a way that redounds to Trump’s benefit. I suspect it doesn’t have much of any effect at all. So in that sense, I don’t think the taco bowl move was especially stupid.

                However, Trump’s comments about women are making his campaign’s job even more impossible than it otherwise would be. And it was already a very, very steep climb.

                So nothing in the above should be construed as Trump optimism. I’ve been pretty clear on that, I hope. Rather, it’s my belief that he’s not really doomed because of Hispanics. He’s doomed because of women.

                In 2016, doomed is doomed and the reason why doesn’t necessarily matter much. For Trump, anyway. For an enduring Trump/UKIP/FN-style coalition? This sort of stuff is important.Report

              • Morat20 in reply to Will Truman says:

                I admit, I tend to conflate the overall demographic challenges facing Republicans into Trump in particular, which boils down to me asking “Why are you making it harder on yourself?”.

                I think Trump is in deep trouble for lots of reasons. Women. The antipathy of the Bush clan. Hispanics. Underlying challenges facing Republicans in general that he is not particularly suited to combating. The fact that it seems the bulk of the movers and shakers in his party hate him just a little less than they hate Ted Cruz. The fact that “President Donald Trump” was Simpson’s joke, proving the Simpson’s have, in fact, done everything possible in the universe.

                And I am NOT looking forward to the next six months.

                (I am really keen to return to an actual two party system, in which I can actually have a choice between two parties. This current setup blows).Report

              • KatherineMW in reply to Morat20 says:

                I don’t see Trump being short of money during the campaign – due to the whole “being ridiculously rich” thing – and there’s not going to be many people who are alienated by the fact that one of the worst presidents in US history doesn’t like him. More likely the reverse.Report

              • We’ll see how his fundraising goes (I’m told he actually got someone good), but he’s said he’s not going to self-fund (and for once I believe him).Report

              • Trump got a former Goldman Sachs guy named Munchkin to run his fundraising. (OK, it’s Mnuchin. But it should be Munchkin.)Report

          • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

            I’m not peddling any advice. Neither do I fancy I’m Frank Luntz, a delusion which is rampant in these comboxes.Report