Better With My Memories and Dreams (And Without You)

Will Truman

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

Related Post Roulette

50 Responses

  1. greginak says:

    This is good stuff Will. I think it’s mostly pettiness and dominance politics as Josh Marshall has written about. It’s less about tactics because this is just who he is. He comes down hard because that is all he knows and aims at anybody who isn’t on his side. He never apologizes or admits contradictions. He just paves all that over with bluster. Just plow ahead loud and proud. Yeah that is a tactic but he’s been doing it in public for so long it is who is now.Report

  2. Stillwater says:

    I’ll go with a different option:

    6. He’s convinced that tacking to the GOP middle will end in a loss, just like the last two cycles, so the only hope to win – pragmatically as well as consistently with his own (megalomaniacal) temperament – is to garner support from the unaligned, rejectionist, angry, anti-establishment voters inhabiting all major isms. Winning this way would allow him to have no outstanding chits to fill, which is not only the main plank of his platform but something he’s psychologically allergic to seems to me, while (from his pov) improving the odds of winning from unpossible to likely.Report

    • greginak in reply to Stillwater says:

      Do you mean he doesn’t give a chit?Report

    • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

      This is kind of a variation of #4, and I don’t think it quite pans out for the same reasons. At best, it’s an idea that simply overlooks that he actually does need Kasich’s help (and Kasich isn’t especially unpopular). Now, as I go on to say later in the post, I do think there is a conscious desire to reach out to Berner types at the expense of party folks who have rejected him, and I think that does make its own sort of sense. But I don’t think the Kasich thing, or even the Cruz thing, is really strategic.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

        But I don’t think the Kasich thing, or even the Cruz thing, is really strategic.

        I don’t know, actually. I generally hate trying to climb in another person’s mind, but I think evaluating the strategery of those types of moves along conventional axes is a mistake, since – and this is the point I was trying to get to upthread – Trump’s conception of “strategic” will be circumscribed by his own temperament and vision of the world. IOW, I think that from HIS pov pandering to the GOP establishment to garner support from Kasich (for example) effectively dooms his run. He’s not only incapable of playing “team ball” at that level, but I think he thinks such a move would be a disaster. It’d be a repeat of previous cycles.

        Of course all that is just speculation, but it’s consistent with his apparent refusal to make what all the political-strategery insiders as well as common-sense-popcorn eaters viewed as the politically savvy post-presumptive-nominee move: tack to the GOP and general electorate middle. His decision-process strikes me not so much as a refusal (implying that it was an open option) as something that makes no sense to him (tactically, pragmatically or temperamentally).Report

        • I don’t know, actually. I generally hate trying to climb in another person’s mind,

          Especially that one. Coat yourself all over in penicillin first.Report

        • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

          The “master plan” thesis would make a lot more sense if there weren’t other indications that this is a gut-run campaign. I don’t know which voters precisely might carry Donald Trump to the White House, but I’m pretty sure they are not going to live in New York, New Jersey, California, and other states that he has made a priority.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:


            I think he does have a master plan: attack the establishment; by shooting from the hip; against targets that motivate people’s anger and fear.

            Whether he’s successful in that remains to be seen.Report

            • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

              I think he has instincts. Obviously, not terrible ones or he wouldn’t have gotten this far. I think the plan, to the extent that there is one, is constantly adjusting to where his instincts take him.

              I also think his instincts get clouded by the needs of instant gratification.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

                Whether he’s temperamentally suited to be the president is a different question than if he’s temperamentally suited to win the GOP primary. Or win the general, for that matter.

                He’s loose, no doubt. I’m not sure that’s a demerit (in a democracy) if people think our society is overly tight along a handful of important and clearly identifiable metrics.Report

  3. Aaron David says:

    Whatever he is doing seems to be working, as the day after HRC announced her running mate, the lead has closed to 1.9.Report

    • A post-convention bounce? Woah, that’s unusual. How odd.Report

      • Report

        • Snarky McSnarkSnark in reply to Will Truman says:

          The table is good for perspective, but if McCain hadn’t seemed such a hapless idiot when the financial crisis hit (plus Palin), I think he might have been competitive all the way through the election.Report

          • He had already fallen back behind before Lehman hit, though it probably would have been closer. It is also true that Hillary Clinton isn’t Barack Obama, though. On the other hand, Trump has more in common with Palin than McCain (though some degree of commonality with each).Report

      • Aaron David in reply to Will Truman says:

        That’s what I was thinking a couple days ago, but I figured she would get a bounce from Kaine being announced. Instead, she lost a point a day later.Report

        • It is weird that she didn’t get a bounce in polls from calls made before she announced Kaine…

          (That said, I’m not expecting a Kaine bounce. She does need a convention bounce, though.)Report

          • Aaron David in reply to Will Truman says:

            Fair enough and good point Will, I hadn’t thought of the call lag time.

            That said, I don’t think Kaine was a good choice, as he doesn’t shore up any areas. So, I agree with you there, no bounce. But boy howdy does she need to change the numbers direction.Report

            • Get back with me in about a week and a half and we’ll see where the poll numbers are.

              VP picks almost never add, they just sometimes take away. Kaine wasn’t my first choice (Vilsack), but he’s better than most on the list and better than the last three picks in this situation (Palin, Lieberman, and Quayle).Report

              • Mo in reply to Will Truman says:

                Kaine helps in VA. And VPs do tend to give about 5 points in home states. Also, it may help with NeverTrump Republicans (not the media types, but the suburban ones).Report

              • Will Truman in reply to Mo says:

                As I commented elsewhere the other day, HRC’s announcement speech went over really well with the NeverTrumpers on my feed. I think some who were on the fence between a null vote (Johnson, write-in, staying home) and HRC may be leaning a bit more towards HRC.

                But Twitter isn’t representative, of course.

                So I’m not expecting a bump.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

            She does need a convention bounce, though.

            Last Thursday, after the last speech, I knew that Hillary’s convention bounce was inevitable.


        • Stillwater in reply to Aaron David says:

          but I figured she would get a bounce from Kaine being announced.

          Aaron, I take you mean a “officially name the VP candidate” bounce, yes? I mean, who is Tim Kaine gonna bounce? (Elizabeth Warren woulda given her a post-announcement bounce, no doubt, if that’s what she was looking for). I was a Hillary supporter at the beginning of ’08 and I can’t say naming Timmeh was accompanied by any starbursts or sent any tingles up my spine… (TMI?)

          If Kaine helps her, it’s gonna be a really smooth, long, almost imperceptible curve. Probably less steeply downward than without him.Report

        • Snarky McSnarkSnark in reply to Aaron David says:

          Those polls take a couple weeks to gather and compile, so I doubt the Kaine choice factored into that polling.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

        Hillary’s track record is that her percent support only declines over the cycle of the election. Which ain’t nothin. I also think Trump’s in a great position against this particular candidate, especially since he hasn’t actually campaigned against her yet, while she (or her PACs) clearly have.

        Odds wise I think he’s in a good position right now. 3:2 against? Which is a good thing only if you bought the Trump line when he was a 7:1 longshot. One of the betting market sites has him at 30% right now, with (in my view) a LOT more upside potential than H. Clinton.Report

  4. “If he was a Clinton plant, what would he do differently?”

    Given Hillary’s track record as a campaigner, he’d be much worse at it.Report

  5. He’s the auto mechanic who won’t stop talking about what a star he was on the high school football team.

    Shoe salesman.Report

  6. scott the mediocre says:

    It’s not that he has strong feelings about Republicans and Democrats in the ideological sense,


    but there are people he considers “his people” and people he doesn’t. The people he likes and who he thinks should like him lean to the left.

    For those of your interlocutors who are pushing #5, i.e. those who mean it seriously, not simply in the Redstate etc. sense that anybody the poster disagrees with on anything beyond tactics is a “liberal”, who do they/you think [Trump] “thinks should like him”, and why would those people lean left? His whole self-mythology that “he built that” fits the “heroic entrepreneur” meme nicely, which has had pretty heavy GOP valence for at least the last eight years, and fair GOP valence going back to at least the Eighties.

    I mean, those who follow Russell Kirk’s first canon (transcendent order) sure aren’t going to be Trumpkins (though it is quite astonishing to me, and this as somebody who really, really dislikes Evangelicals, how quickly they have fallen in line with fairly few exceptions), but I don’t see that it follows from a rejection of Kirkean (or Burkean, if there are actually are any of those left) conservatism that the rejector is then on the left. I’ll skirt Godwin here and say that those who would like Trump (say in his less-overtly-political days, e.g. pre-2008) are in fact drawing from much of the same pool as small-f fascism. Compare Trumpian aesthetics to those of H*, Mussolini, D’Annunzio, Dolfuss, etc., and then compare to the aesthetics of a more little-i integralist rightwinger like Franco, Salazar, or Vargas.Report

    • For my part, I meant “like” in a rather non-ideological, indeed apolitical sense. Report

      • scott the mediocre in reply to Will Truman says:

        What sense is that, then, in which the people who would/should like him, at least in his reality, would tend toward the left? Not trolling, very serious question. Anybody have access to e.g. Nielsen’s crosstabs on the audience for “The Apprentice”? Internal demographics on customers at his various resorts? Fans of the New Jersey Generals, beauty pageants, random boxing promotions, etc.?

        Those on the political left (e.g. the Clintons) who used to include him in their event – do you think they always thought he was a buffoon and were just being calculating: better not to antagonize? The comparison that comes to mind in Sharpton, who has gotten far more serious treatment that his buffoonery justifies, but people think, probably correctly, that he swings votes, and better inside the tent etc. It would be interesting to read something written by a New York Democratic insider after Trump left the tent but before he became a serious threat (say 2007)

        To cut against my own point, the only two people I know (out of an admittedly left-leaning set of friends and acquaintances, but I do know a few Republicans 🙂 whom I know to have watched “The Apprentice” are indeed left leaning (an odd pair who would consider themselves political and are embarrassed to have shopped at Hobby Lobby, but who have no problem patronizing Adelson properties); I don’t think – to your point – that they interpreted it as a political act in any way.Report

        • His social coterie, for most of his life. The high life in Manhattan and the Big Apple. Roy Cohn aside until recently I think most of the people around him were of the left. I think that’s part of the reason he used to rag on Reagan.

          Like I say in the OP, this actually applies to me as well. In different ways, of course.

          Even it liberals at large really don’t like him, I still think that’s his mindset and why he thinks he can win New York and California. He feels a connection, whether reciprocated or not.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Will Truman says:

            I find myself agreeing with this theory more as I read.

            If you were to actually break Trump’s reality down, and figure out who he interacts with, and in what way, you’ll see it…hasn’t changed in his run for president. And that simple fact seems to be explain a lot of oddities.

            For example, the media consist of one set of people who puff him up, who he loves, and one set that keeps asking questions about lawsuits that he ignores…and this currently trips him up because even the right-wing media will ask non-puff questions of a presidential candidate. Think about that surreal Scotland/Brexit interview.

            Likewise, Trump’s friends are people that like to pretend they’re the super-rich, although they are actually one rung down. The 1%, not the 0.1%. And it’s a bunch of actual, honest-to-God, big city elitist liberals…and conservatives, and the difference between them is almost nothing. The Democrats make noises about inclusion and lack of sexism, don’t actually care about it and probably don’t pay their staff enough. The Republicans make noises about gun rights and don’t care about that, and pretend to be rural while living in large cities.

            Everyone is vaguely libertarian a bit, they want lower taxes and the drugs they like should be legal, at least for them. (Not legal for the poors, although I’m sure they have a more polite way to say it.) How rich you are is *very* important. What people think about you is *very* important.

            Yes, his friends might have drifted more Republican in recent years, but the party doesn’t actually matter. It never mattered.

            Think about it: In this era of Republicans constantly talking about how horrible the Democrats are…has Trump actually done that? I mean, it’s a weird omission, right? That this guy willing to attack anyone, the super-populist, hasn’t gone after the Democrats in general, the people the Republicans have been told they should hate for decades? Specific Democrats, yes, but has he attacked the goals of the party itself?

            I don’t think Trump even thinks in *terms* of the parties, or policies, or anything political at all. Or, at least, not if he can help it, although the RNC has started forcing his hand.

            But wait, you say. If Trump doesn’t care about that, what the hell is going on with his hard-right-in-specific-ways platform?

            And then I point to Trump interacts with the public: He’s a con man who makes a bunch of promises, saying whatever he needs to say to close the deal.

            The thing is…I think the man doesn’t understand the actual public at all. He understand how to operate a *con*, but the problem is, you can’t fool all the people all the time…

            …and I don’t mean that as some sort of trite expression, I mean that cons have to be designed to fool specific people, and it’s impossible to fool a large percentage of people very long. Trump has designed his con around a specific group of people.

            Except he didn’t design it, I suspect he basically stumbled into it. The best conmen operate by instinct.Report

            • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC says:

              Oh, and this explains why he’ll say random, non-Repbulican things in interviews, and then have to explain them away later…because he has a big ego, and there are two different things: *Him*, and *the con*, and they aren’t the same thing, and he’s basically used to the people that he cons not really paying attention to the media cover of him, or at least not past the ‘billionaire businessman Donald Trump’.

              I.e., why the hell does a *newspaper* want him to just state a position on abortion? How is that supposed to work? He’s not supposed to have a *position*, he’s supposed to be able to sorta *try out* positions with the people he’s conning, and then pick the one they respond to best. Maybe even a slightly different one depending on the crowd.

              And this was sorta obvious to start with. Donald Trump is a *real estate developer*, it’s where he’s made almost all his money despite constantly trying in other areas. And real estate developers are all ‘con men’, every one of them…but in quotes because it’s not exactly what people think as con men.

              Real estate developers are successful *entirely* based on how well they can convince rich people to give them money, because they structure the projects where they make money even if the thing fails.

              Now, some of them do consistently have successful projects, and thus no one thinks of them as ‘con man’, but their *success* actually has nothing to do with the project’s success, just how well they convince people *of* their project’s future success. Trump, meanwhile, has all his projects fail…but, again, that has nothing to do with how well he has succeeded as a real estate developer. (And caused him to entirely fail at everything else.)Report

              • Will Truman in reply to DavidTC says:

                One thing conservatives have noted is how he often states things in such a way that sound more like “what a liberal thinks a conservative believes on subject X” instead of the more common position.

                This is sometimes to his benefit. He discovered the value of a guttural “Build the wall!” yell better than most of the actual border hawks. But his expressions on abortion were… more of an iffy performance on a Touring test.

                This fed the “Trump is actually a liberal (pretending to be a conservative)” though can just as easily be explained as someone who comes from a not-conservative background with little actual ideology just kind of trying to feel his way through and hit the sell points.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Will Truman says:

                This fed the “Trump is actually a liberal (pretending to be a conservative)” though can just as easily be explained as someone who comes from a not-conservative background with little actual ideology just kind of trying to feel his way through and hit the sell points.

                Exactly. He’s not really an expert on his audience, and has to feel around to figure them out…which works fine in a one-to-one setting, and to some extent with crowds…but fails pretty badly when he has to state a position to the press when he hasn’t already figured it out.

                He does sometimes seem to be falling back on ‘What have I hear liberals say conservatives think?’, although I’m not sure ‘liberals’ is really the word there…it’s just as likely he’s channeling some elitist conservative upper-class people.

                But even if he could somehow present this to all audiences before having to answer question, his con won’t actually work. As I said, the problem with cons is that they have to be audience tailored….although, to a large extent, the victims tend to be *self-filtering*. Aka, the people who fell for Trump Universe’s con were the people who showed up there in the first place. You can just spread the con widely and con the people who fall for it, and everyone else congratulates themselves for not falling for it.

                Which presents a rather obvious problem in politics, because that’s not how politics works. People don’t see Trump promising them fame and fortune, know it’s a scam, and walk on by. They vote *the other way*. Or just not vote…but the Republicans were already in a pretty bad place, they can’t afford to have previous Republican voters not vote!

                Additionally, the partisan divide has…uh, saved us? Man, that’s a weird thought, but it’s true. Because now it is very hard to come up with political cons that will fool people on the left and the right at the same time, because the world-views are often very different. (Someone will point at some hypothetical Bernie supporters moving to Trump, but I literally do not believe they exist. They are the PUMAs of this election, the tiniest fraction of people that exist mostly because other people want them to exist, and those other people desperately search to find people saying they are those people.)

                Hell, Trump hasn’t really even managed to fool a majority of the right, they’re just behind him because he’s a Republican. A lot of them seem to be behind him while *knowing* what he’s saying is a con, in fact, they use that to *justify* it. ‘Oh, he’s lying about the Muslim ban’.

                Which is something I don’t think he understand at all. Trump seems entirely unaware we see him for the con man he is…hell, I’m not even sure if he knows there’s anything to see. There’s a certain type of con man who has no idea of truth as it relates to themselves. When they promise something, or say they think a certain way, it’s *true*, 100%, they could pass a magic truth serum…and if it’s not true tomorrow, or when they’re talking to someone else, whatever.Report

              • what a liberal thinks a conservative believes on subject X

                Where “liberal” means, as it so often does when used by the Right, anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what they do. They might as well say “infidel”.Report

              • DavidTC in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                Well, yes and no.

                The right is correct that Trump often seems unfamiliar with the tropes and world view of the right. (1)
                This, by conservatives, gets shorthanded to ‘what liberals think conservatives think’, even though, as I said, it’s just as likely that mostly- non-political upper-class Republicans think about the ‘Republican base and their ideas’ in mostly the same way and *that* is where Trump is getting it from.

                The upper-class Republicans *and* Democrats, at least the ones who *started* as upper-class, do not really function in the same world as the rest of their party, and see most of the ‘important issues’ we’re fighting over as completely irrelevant. They both tend to be much more ‘libertarian’ than their party’s base. That’s the universe Trump *actually* lives in.

                I mean, technically speaking, it’s the universe that Bush and Romney lived in, also, but they also were *taught* conservativism as children and interacted with conservatives. It’s an interesting fact that, as Republicans have become more and more the party of the rich, they’ve had to resort more and more to rich conservative *families* to make sure that the knowledge of how to interact and speak like the middle class wasn’t lost.

                That’s not to imply this is, in any way, ‘fake’. Yes, there was a bit of rural fakeness to Bush, but both Bush and Romney were actually taught the beliefs and virtues of conservativism and really believe it. I’m just saying they learned that from their families, and family friends. (And that’s not to imply they’re all born rich either. John McCain, for example, wasn’t.)

                …and then we got Trump, a complete fake. Who knows *none* of that stuff, and didn’t learn it from anyone, and has such a huge ego he didn’t even get it from his *advisers*.

                Of course, most Republicans would like to pretend that all Republicans are on board with their world-frame, so likes to make the assumption that it must be the *liberal* framing that Trump is operating in.

                1) He is equally unfamiliar, somewhat hilariously, with Christianity. Not just the particular right-wing warped version, but *any* version at all! Not only does he not know how to pronounce Bible verses, but he often verges into the literally blasphemous, like his claim he doesn’t need to ask God for forgiveness. That…is not something he should be saying as a political candidate. He’s even worse at faking Christianity than conservativism, in fact. He’s so bad at faking it that it actually didn’t *work*, and the religious right is splitting itself in pieces because a large section of them are, in fact, Republican operatives and support the Republican no matter what, and the rest are like ‘Wait a second. Is this guy even a Christian at all?’Report

          • Saul Degraw in reply to Will Truman says:

            Trump still has a bit of the outsider about him. He grew up in comfortable wealth but he grew up in Jamaica Estates, Queens and not in the silk stocking district of the Upper East Side.

            I have a feeling that Trump still wants to be part of the born and bred Manhattan rich.

            His father got rich by building lower to middle class rental apartments en masse. Trump’s projects are all about trying to attract wealth and prestige.Report

    • scott the mediocre in reply to scott the mediocre says:

      Sorry, I realize that I opened up the “Fascism is really left wing – what does the S in NSDAP stand for?” can of worms, which even has a bit of defensibility in the early Italian context (Mussolini’s rise in PSI, Fascism’s early embrace of Futurism, c.f. Marinetti, etc.).

      I do suppose it’s possible, Manhattan demographics being what they were, that a majority of
      Trump’s direct customers back when he was not just a branding machine, might have been well left of the US political center of the time. I rather doubt that they were left of the Greater NYC political center, though.Report

  7. Kolohe says:

    My own theory has not gotten as much play, and it is this: He’s the auto mechanic who won’t stop talking about what a star he was on the high school football team.

    That’s excellent.Report

  8. North says:

    Yeah I don’t think that he really has a strategy. Strategies are composed by campaigns and at the moment Trump’s campaign appears to be functioning like a room full of bumper cars (except some of the cars catch on fire when they crash into each other). I am pretty sure the way they keep twitching and flailing around is a pretty good indication that there isn’t a master plan at all; just a bunch of courtiers frantically following after wherever Trump goes post hoc producing damage control or justifications.Report

  9. Jaybird says:

    There is a number.

    I suppose the formula is something like this:

    A + (B/Z)

    A is the number of Significant Events in the USA. Stuff like riots in cities, police officers killed in particularly horrible ways, terrorist attacks (or events that present similarly to terrorist attacks.

    B is the number of these things that happen in Europe.

    Z is some number that I don’t know what it is but it’s probably between 2 and 5 given that crazy stuff that happens in Europe is important… but it’s not *AS* important as the stuff that happens on US soil.

    If that number hits some number (let’s call it “T”), then Trump will win the election. If that number is lower than T, Hillary will win.

    There is very little that either Hillary or Trump can do to meaningfully affect this number… they can nudge it up or down a little bit with a bad gaffe here or there (or a particularly good gaffe) but they can’t double it or halve it or anything like that. Just nudge it up or nudge it down.

    I suppose that we could also add something about how the entire formula should be multiplied by M (where M might be .9 or so or as high as 1.1) based on how the Media covers events… but, at the end of the day, it’s that particular number that will be the threshold.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think we’ve crossed that threshold yet.
    I also don’t think that it’s unthinkable that we will. It’s very, very, *VERY* thinkable.Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Jaybird says:

      Fill in the missing steps. Does this stuff helps Trump because of Billy Joel rule? [1]

      1. It just might be a lunatic we’re looking for.Report

      • Yeah. It seems like all of that stuff might be devestatingly effective for a demagogue that appeared to have their act together. With Trump… it’s hard to say. I think a lot of it depends on how HRC responds. (So far she’s done reasonably well.)Report

        • North in reply to Will Truman says:

          I caught Kaine’s debut speech today and I was a little surprised.
          -I was expecting a Pence clone but Kaine came off pretty happy and rather comfortable with Hillary. This was just one showing so who knows if it’s predictive but the vibe and chemistry was good.
          -The themes were positivity, pro-America with shades of “happy warrior”. If they stick to those themes I would consider them a pretty much perfect foil to the apocalyptic tone Trump has adopted.
          -I cannot begin to guess how Kaine would fair in a debate with Pence. I just have no idea.
          -It’s interesting to me that HRC has chosen a Veep who’s personally pro-life but firmly accepts pro-choice policies. I approve heartily since, while I disagree with Kaine, I find it highly respectable that he is willing to recognize that his opinions shouldn’t have the force of the law behind them on this matter. Also this kicks the complaints by pro-lifers that the Dems are dogmatically unfair to pro-life people square in the balls. (probably doesn’t matter for electoral reasons).
          -Kaine’s really centrist. Hillary isn’t tacking left for her Veep choice, that’s for sure. I wouldn’t say she’s tacking right but I think she’s making a play for all the marbles in the centrist section of the electorate and if she succeeds Trump will lose in a blow out.
          -I could be getting all this through partisan blinders so it could be imaginary.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

        If the world is not on fire, we need a straightforward normal and corrupt-within-acceptable-parameters president. Sure, Hillary isn’t perfect but Trump is nuts.

        If the world is on fire, we will need a strong man to lead us. To protect us. To tell our enemies to go to hell and if they don’t back down we will send them there.

        My formula is an attempt to quantify (however poorly) the amount of kindling we have stacked up around us.Report

    • J_A in reply to Jaybird says:


      I’m not criticizing your formula. I think it is correct.

      But there must be something interesting to be said about there not being a third component (C/W) where C is events that happen in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where the majority of “events” actually take place.

      There are things bubbling in my head about this, but I have a gut feeling that there is something important there that we (Americans) are missing.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to J_A says:

        I’m not sure that those events will make people say “We need a strongman” more than they say “We need someone who is willing to bomb the ever-living shit out of those people.”

        As such, I don’t think that that number will make people favor Trump over Clinton.Report