Rubio

[Pointedstick]

I think that what's happening is that all of the rules of politics are being re-written and the bar is being lowered dramatically.

In the past, the news media saw itself as a Woodward and Bernstein-type gatekeeper.  It simply wouldn't cover vanity projects like Trump and Carson.  In a world where the Kardashians are some of our biggest celebrities, however, the news media now simply wants to have something to write about to stay relevant.  Who cares if what they are covering is stupid, as long as they are getting clicks.

I think that what is happening as this new reality unfolds is that people are realizing that anything goes, and there own personal reservations are also loosening up.  We saw it at the state level with Ventura and Schwarzenegger, and then we saw it at the national level with Obama and perhaps Trump or Carson.  No one cares about substantive issues any more, which means that the substantive decisions are being made by people whose names no one even knows.  The "leaders" today are more just figureheads than they have been at any time in our history.

The media's problem is that the internet destroyed their role as gatekeeper. Candidates don't need TV, radio, and newspaper attention anymore.

Another part of the problem seems to be that the people who purportedly care about substantive issues have been hard at work destroying the country. People wouldn't be so angry about the direction of the country and the selection of politicians if they'd done a good job. Trump has succeeded in convincing a lot of people (myself included) that he cares more for the mythical "common good" than any of the other guys because they ring such familiar notes when struck, and those notes aren't particularly pleasing to an ear that's attached to someone who pays attention to politics.

[MediumTex]

I think that what's happening is that all of the rules of politics are being re-written and the bar is being lowered dramatically.

In the past, the news media saw itself as a Woodward and Bernstein-type gatekeeper.  It simply wouldn't cover vanity projects like Trump and Carson.  In a world where the Kardashians are some of our biggest celebrities, however, the news media now simply wants to have something to write about to stay relevant.  Who cares if what they are covering is stupid, as long as they are getting clicks.

I think that what is happening as this new reality unfolds is that people are realizing that anything goes, and there own personal reservations are also loosening up.  We saw it at the state level with Ventura and Schwarzenegger, and then we saw it at the national level with Obama and perhaps Trump or Carson.  No one cares about substantive issues any more, which means that the substantive decisions are being made by people whose names no one even knows.  The "leaders" today are more just figureheads than they have been at any time in our history.

The media's problem is that the internet destroyed their role as gatekeeper. Candidates don't need TV, radio, and newspaper attention anymore.

Another part of the problem seems to be that the people who purportedly care about substantive issues have been hard at work destroying the country. People wouldn't be so angry about the direction of the country and the selection of politicians if they'd done a good job. Trump has succeeded in convincing a lot of people (myself included) that he cares more for the mythical "common good" than any of the other guys because they ring such familiar notes when struck, and those notes aren't particularly pleasing to an ear that's attached to someone who pays attention to politics.

Would you be supportive of a Camacho administration?

He might be just what our country needs.

[MediumTex]

The media's problem is that the internet destroyed their role as gatekeeper. Candidates don't need TV, radio, and newspaper attention anymore.

Another part of the problem seems to be that the people who purportedly care about substantive issues have been hard at work destroying the country. People wouldn't be so angry about the direction of the country and the selection of politicians if they'd done a good job. Trump has succeeded in convincing a lot of people (myself included) that he cares more for the mythical "common good" than any of the other guys because they ring such familiar notes when struck, and those notes aren't particularly pleasing to an ear that's attached to someone who pays attention to politics.

Would you be supportive of a Camacho administration?

He might be just what our country needs.

He'd be much better than most of the current crop of candidates.

Before entering politics, Camacho enjoyed considerable success as a porn star and mixed martial arts fighter, so his "outsider" credentials are 100% legit.

I loved Camacho's response to claims that he is sexist.  The response is below (I bleeped the curse words):

"**** *** ******** *** **** **** **** ********-*********** **** ***-**********!!!!!!!"

[Pointedstick]

Out of curiosity, MT, can you describe how your ideal president would start to turn things around?

[MediumTex]

Out of curiosity, MT, can you describe how your ideal president would start to turn things around?

1. Stay out of state and local political issues, especially anything involving local law enforcement.

2. Develop a realistic legislative agenda that can actually get through Congress.

3. Find a few issues that people of both parties can get behind and spend time on those issues.  Maybe a tax cut of some kind.

4. Get Congress way more involved in foreign policy decisions.

5. For lack of a better word, try to be a moderate if possible.  That's what I think the country needs.  The trouble is that it's hard for a moderate to get out of the Republican primaries.  The last one to do it was probably George Bush Sr. in 1988.  In retrospect, other than being a warmonger and a liar, Bush Sr. wasn't a bad President.

6. Focus on issues that will allow you to look like a statesman rather than a politician.  Maybe try to get the Israelis and Palestinians to stop killing each other.  That's a good go-to for modern politicians who want to polish their legacies.

7. Stay away from the us/them framework.  Model yourself after Presidents who enjoyed broad support like Theodore Roosevelt or Eisenhower.

8. Create a feel good narrative.  It's sounds stupid, but that stuff is important to people.  You're going to be become a caricature no matter what you do, so try to make the caricature more like Reagan than Nixon.

[MachineGhost]

My bad.  Reagan picked one of his opponents to be his VP.  That boring CIA stooge known as Bush the Elderly.  You know, the one whose lips said "Voodoo Economics" about supply side tax cuts?  He'll never live that one down.

Respectfully, I don't think MT's done any deep analysis into Trump but is making impressions off the media superficiality.  That's the monkey on Trump's back with his approach so far.

[MediumTex]

My bad.  Reagan picked one of his opponents to be his VP.  That boring CIA stooge known as Bush the Elderly.  You know, the one whose lips said "Voodoo Economics" about supply side tax cuts?  He'll never live that one down.

Respectfully, I don't think MT's done any deep analysis into Trump but is making impressions off the media superficiality.  That's the monkey on Trump's back with his approach so far.

If there is more to Trump than bombast and buffoonery, I'm ready to be impressed.

His casual dismissiveness of problems that are genuinely difficult to solve, however, is usually the sign of naivety, but maybe Trump is just that good.

Trump's vagueness about the details of his sweeping solutions is also frustrating.  His tax plan, like most of the Republican candidates' tax plans, sounds silly.  Does he truly believe he could get that through Congress?

From a purely sporting perspective, however, I think that a Trump candidacy in a general election would be great fun.  Watching Trump and Clinton go at it would be like watching pig wrestling, and I LOVE pig wrestling.

The last private sector darling that was elected President was Herbert Hoover, and that didn't work out as well as people were hoping.

I remember listening to Obama's first inaugural speech and thinking to myself about every point he made: "THAT will never happen", and sure enough, most of it never happened.

[Pointedstick]

If there is more to Trump than bombast and buffoonery, I'm ready to be impressed.

His casual dismissiveness of problems that are genuinely difficult to solve, however, is usually the sign of naivety, but maybe Trump is just that good.

Trump's vagueness about the details of his sweeping solutions is also frustrating.  His tax plan, like most of the Republican candidates' tax plans, sounds silly.  Does he truly believe he could get that through Congress?

From a purely sporting perspective, however, I think that a Trump candidacy in a general election would be great fun.  Watching Trump and Clinton go at it would be like watching pig wrestling, and I LOVE pig wrestling.

The last private sector darling that was elected President was Herbert Hoover, and that didn't work out as well as people were hoping.

I remember listening to Obama's first inaugural speech and thinking to myself about every point he made: "THAT will never happen", and sure enough, most of it never happened.

I think you are mistaking the advertising for the product. I have spent entirely more time than I would have predicted a few months ago investigating Donald Trump (seriously, it's weird) and I believe that he is crafting a persona and narrative that appeals to low-information voters while having just enough meat for high-information voters (people like us) where we can see it. All of his written plans feature his signature negotiating tactic: an aggressive "first offer" that he trades away to get the realistic parts done, thereby getting what he really wants while making his partners feel like they've avoided giving away too much (but that he never believed he could get in the first place).

What I also see in Donald Trump is a quality that Bill Clinton had: the ability to get in a room with someone skeptical and mesmerize them. I swear to god, you see him do this at townhall-style gatherings. I've watched videos. It's surreal. Someone who is clearly not impressed with him asks him a rude or aggressive question, and within 20 seconds of Trump beginning to reply, that person's body language has done a 180 degree flip and they're nodding and listening intently. Watching this happen is mesmerizing. I fully believe he will deploy this unmatched persuasive power on congresscreatures, but in truth, he doesn't even need to. The modern federal government is so executive-branch-heavy that a president Trump could get a huge amount done just by directing the cabinet agencies. Lawfully, even!

Then I compare the life accomplishments of Donald Trump to some of the alternative "top-tier" Republican candidates. Ben Carson is a ground-breaking neurosurgeon and author of like seven books--real, substantive accomplishments, but all personal accomplishments. No experience creating or managing systems or people. No demonstrated executive abilities. Nothing ballsy. Now let's look at Marco Rubio: a man who has never accomplished anything particularly noteworthy in his entire life. Graduation from an average school, no notable private sector employment, rapid ascension through government mostly through luck and personal connections, no ability to manage even his own money, and a variety of covered-up financial scandals to match (as a Florida congressman, he charged more than $100k of personal expenses to his work credit card, and the ethics investigation mysteriously petered out). Currently the recipient of millions of dollars from the desperate GOP establishment that has turned everything they touched to shit.

Compare and contrast these men to Donald Trump: an uncontrollable, independent-minded billionaire who successfully runs an enormous business empire and curates a world-famous brand. Huge, multi-decade executive and managerial experience. Vast responsibilities. Numerous deliverables actually delivered, on time and under budget (one example out of a zillion). Incredible powers of persuasion. Gutsy and aggressive, but realistic. That is the kind of guy I want to be the president: a man whose entire life has been focused on motivating the people around him to build cool stuff and get things done.

As this dawns on more and more people, are they really going to vote for a shrill harpy with no accomplishments over her entire career who has been publicly power-hungry for decades, is actively loathed by roughly all men, and whose only response to how she would be different from the current failure of a president is that she's a woman??? If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president, that's the real Idiocracy warning.

[MediumTex]

PS, great points above.

If Trump is that subtle in his strategies, to what do you attribute his comments about minorities and women?

If he alienates even a small number of Hispanic and female voters, there is no way he can win.

For a Republican to win the presidency against a legitimate Democratic opponent, he or she must grab a good chunk of a minority vote that typically goes Democratic.

There is a minority demographic bulge in this country that will require Republicans to do something if they ever want to win another presidential election.  This reality is the wave Rubio has been riding his entire career (and BTW I agree with you that Rubio is basically an empty poncho).  It seems like if Trump is as smart as you think he is, he would have weighed the pros and cons of making his remarks about Mexico and softened them a bit (which he actually appears to have done since he made his controversial comments back in the summer).

If nothing else, being President will likely be a deeply humbling experience for Trump.  I'm pretty sure that he will find governing to be harder than it looks, and working with this Congress will be a complete nightmare for someone who has never had to deal with the legislative process.  I can't imagine designing a Congress that would be harder to get a bill through than the current Congress.  The way it is configured now, there is no way for anyone to deliver a reliable majority on anything.  It's great for people who like gridlock, but I'm sure it sucks if you are trying to actually get anything passed.

[Pointedstick]

Out of curiosity, MT, can you describe how your ideal president would start to turn things around?

1. Stay out of state and local political issues, especially anything involving local law enforcement.

2. Develop a realistic legislative agenda that can actually get through Congress.

3. Find a few issues that people of both parties can get behind and spend time on those issues.  Maybe a tax cut of some kind.

4. Get Congress way more involved in foreign policy decisions.

5. For lack of a better word, try to be a moderate if possible.  That's what I think the country needs.  The trouble is that it's hard for a moderate to get out of the Republican primaries.  The last one to do it was probably George Bush Sr. in 1988.  In retrospect, other than being a warmonger and a liar, Bush Sr. wasn't a bad President.

6. Focus on issues that will allow you to look like a statesman rather than a politician.  Maybe try to get the Israelis and Palestinians to stop killing each other.  That's a good go-to for modern politicians who want to polish their legacies.

7. Stay away from the us/them framework.  Model yourself after Presidents who enjoyed broad support like Theodore Roosevelt or Eisenhower.

8. Create a feel good narrative.  It's sounds stupid, but that stuff is important to people.  You're going to be become a caricature no matter what you do, so try to make the caricature more like Reagan than Nixon.

This is a great list and I see Trump focusing on many of them already. He creates a feel-good attitude with his whole "Make America great again!" spiel, and he is an expert at brand management and persuasion. Trump has expressed no interest in state and local issues at all and I suspect he would stay out of them. A good manager delegates rather than micromanaging.

In terms of his actual goals and ideas, I think Trump actually is a moderate. Certainly that's what he's been throughout his own political life. The guy supported an assault weapons ban in the past and expresses his support for a singe-payer health care system. He wants to cut taxes for poor and middle-class people and corporations, but raise it for rich people. When it comes to focusing on issues with broad support, I see evidence that he will do just that in his statements and positions: Care for military veterans by redoing the VA system entirely. Energy independence through nuclear power. Rebuild Amtrak into a respectable modern train network. Rebuild infrastructure of all types. The guy is a builder. People love building stuff.

In terms of foreign policy, Trump gains little to nothing by engaging in the warmongering we've seen no end to, and he's not beholden to the Lizard Illuminati that seems to turn vulnerable doves into hawks as soon as they get a bit of power. As Scott Adams pointed out yesterday, a man with most of his money in American real estate is just about the least likely person to want to antagonize people who blow up American real estate for a living.

[Pointedstick]

PS, great points above.

If Trump is that subtle in his strategies, to what do you attribute his comments about minorities and women?

If he alienates even a small number of Hispanic and female voters, there is no way he can win.

Trump hasn't made any particularly offensive comments about "minorities and women." He has made negative comments about certain specific immigrants and women, and the media has blown this up into a huge thing, which actually played into his hands because he was using them to gain attention during the early days of his campaign. If you look at the actual comments, they are actually pretty inoffensive, subtle, or very narrowly targeted. The people who are offended by them are reading into them exactly their worst fears about Republicans. They are really no more nasty than anything the other candidates say about other people. The only people were were truly turned off were the outrage police who were never going to like Trump. In fact, Trump has not at all alienated woman and minorities. Far from it. Trump's support is at least as female and non-white as that of the other candidates, if not more so. Some evidence (you can find loads more if you look):

http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/10/23/a- ... candidate/
http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politic ... ppeal.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/us/po ... speak.html

In poll after poll of Republicans, Mr. Trump leads among women, despite having used terms like “fat pigs” and “disgusting animals” to denigrate some of them. He leads among evangelical Christians, despite saying he had never had a reason to ask God for forgiveness. He leads among moderates and college-educated voters, despite a populist and anti-immigrant message thought to resonate most with conservatives and less-affluent voters. He leads among the most frequent, likely voters, even though his appeal is greatest among those with little history of voting.

This is the New York Times admitting that the people you might expect to be turned off by Trump's comments love him instead. Are they all idiots? Or is there more to it than the media is letting on?

It seems like if Trump is as smart as you think he is, he would have weighed the pros and cons of making his remarks about Mexico and softened them a bit (which he actually appears to have done since he made his controversial comments back in the summer).

Yes, and that is exactly what he did, isn't it? I see no evidence that his gambit failed. He attracted an enormous amount of attention to himself early on, rapidly drowned out all the other contenders, and avoided turning off demographically important constituencies. After becoming the frontrunner, he toned it down and not only has he managed to avoid losing his core support, but he's continuing to gain on everyone else. Seems pretty calculated to me. You don't just fall into that kind of success.

If nothing else, being President will likely be a deeply humbling experience for Trump.  I'm pretty sure that he will find governing to be harder than it looks, and working with this Congress will be a complete nightmare for someone who has never had to deal with the legislative process.  I can't imagine designing a Congress that would be harder to get a bill through than the current Congress.  The way it is configured now, there is no way for anyone to deliver a reliable majority on anything.  It's great for people who like gridlock, but I'm sure it sucks if you are trying to actually get anything passed.

You know, it all reminds me a bit of something else that I am very personally and professionally familiar with. If you remember back in 2006 and 2007, when the first rumors of an Apple Phone were swirling around, people said the same thing. "Apple can't make a phone! It's too complicated! They have no history or experience in this field! Mobile is incredibly hard to get right! Established Industry titans have been struggling with the same problems for years! It's pure hubris to imagine that they can just waltz in and trump everyone else's efforts!" You might also remember the same things said again with the iPad rumors.

History proved them all wrong, didn't it? The power of relevant related experience is frequently underestimated.

[moda0306]

PS,

Can you post links showing Trump "mesmerizing" people that lay into him at events?  I certainly haven't seen anything mesmerizing from the guy.  IMO he's no Bill Clinton when it comes to that, and I certainly don't get a "positive" vibe from him. He actually seems quite grumpy, and only usually positive about his own accomplishments and what he'll do for us. Everyone and everything else really seems to "suck" to him.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Can you post links showing Trump "mesmerizing" people that lay into him at events?  I certainly haven't seen anything mesmerizing from the guy.  IMO he's no Bill Clinton when it comes to that, and I certainly don't get a "positive" vibe from him. He actually seems quite grumpy, and only usually positive about his own accomplishments and what he'll do for us. Everyone and everything else really seems to "suck" to him.

One of the videos on this page: http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump- ... ive-t52111

I can't remember which one since it's annoyingly broken up into like 8 pieces. But all the videos show Trump's new softer style, too.

A lot of this is very personal, too. Some people just don't like a powerful, self-assured, confident speaker. It threatens or offends them. Those people are just never gonna like Trump, even if he gave them everything they wanted on a silver platter.

[MachineGhost]

I remember listening to Obama's first inaugural speech and thinking to myself about every point he made: "THAT will never happen", and sure enough, most of it never happened.

True, I'm still waiting for him to end income taxes for all retirees earning less than $50K from Social Security.  I should call him out on it during one of his infamous White House Online Fireside Chats, but I seriously doubt it would make it past the censors.  I can phrase things nicely, if that's what you're worried about.  Instead of "Hey, you !@#%$fucking OBAMA!, why didn't you..." 

[MachineGhost]

I think you are mistaking the advertising for the product. I have spent entirely more time than I would have predicted a few months ago investigating Donald Trump (seriously, it's weird) and I believe that he is crafting a persona and narrative that appeals to low-information voters while having just enough meat for high-information voters (people like us) where we can see it. All of his written plans feature his signature negotiating tactic: an aggressive "first offer" that he trades away to get the realistic parts done, thereby getting what he really wants while making his partners feel like they've avoided giving away too much (but that he never believed he could get in the first place).

I've always thought this is how politics should be done.  Why is everyone so darn wimpy?  You can't bargain from a position of weakness if you have to compromise.  Set the bar so high that anything less is still a win win and then you've moved the line of scrimmage.  This is what the leading Democrats should have done with ObamaCare.  Instead of trying for a public option, start with Medicare-For-All or even ban all insurance for socialised sickcare and negotiate it down to the public option.  Instead, they got nothing and we got this clusterfuck of a disaster.

[MachineGhost]

A lot of this is very personal, too. Some people just don't like a powerful, self-assured, confident speaker. It threatens or offends them. Those people are just never gonna like Trump, even if he gave them everything they wanted on a silver platter.

Those people likely don't vote, but flap their pieholes endlessly in the media, Twitter, Facebook, forums, etc..  Stepford Attention Whores I call them.

[MediumTex]

A lot of this is very personal, too. Some people just don't like a powerful, self-assured, confident speaker. It threatens or offends them. Those people are just never gonna like Trump, even if he gave them everything they wanted on a silver platter.

Those people likely don't vote, but flap their pieholes endlessly in the media, Twitter, Facebook, forums, etc..  Stepford Attention Whores I call them.

Lizard Illuminati
Stepford Attention Whores
Piehole Flappers
Trump for President

I love it!

Get crazy!

[Pointedstick]

Back on the subject of Rubio…

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/m ... ast-215521
For years, Rubio has faced questions about his finances, from his money pit of a rental home in Tallahassee, to his $80,000 fishing boat, to his student loan debt. But none of his money woes have caused him as much headache — and come with as much risk — as his use of a credit card reimbursed by the Republican Party of Florida.

Rubio has admitted putting personal expenses on the card, but has attempted to explain them as simple oversights, including a $10,000, four-day family reunion (Rubio has said the travel agent used the wrong card) and repairs for his family minivan (the vehicle was damaged at a political function). He has insisted he did nothing improper, and in 2012, the Florida Commission on Ethics cleared him.

Though the controversy over the card was aired during Rubio’s Senate run in 2010, not everything is public yet. Two years of credit-card transactions from Rubio’s time in the Florida House have not been disclosed, but Rubio’s camp promises they will be released soon. “We have always planned to release them. Marco is running for president and has nothing to hide,” said Rubio strategist Todd Harris.

[MachineGhost]

I would give him the benefit of doubt on this.

[MediumTex]

I would give him the benefit of doubt on this.

And assume that when it comes to money he is just kind of dumb?

[Reub]

New poll shows that Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Christie all beat Hillary.  Trump doesn't. 

new poll shows savvy voters what establishment and media want voters to believe..

[MachineGhost]

And assume that when it comes to money he is just kind of dumb?

No, that he wasn't raised in a middle-upper or upper class family who taught him any financial intelligence.  He had to learn as he went -- the hard way.

[MediumTex]

And assume that when it comes to money he is just kind of dumb?

No, that he wasn't raised in a upper-middle or upper class family who taught him any financial intelligence.  He had to learn as he went -- the hard way.

But by the time you get to be 40 or so, wouldn't you think you would have learned something as basic as not to use a work credit card for personal expenses?

[MachineGhost]

But by the time you get to be 40 or so, wouldn't you think you would have learned something as basic as not to use a work credit card for personal expenses?

Didn't all this happen well before he was 40?  Half of it was someone else's fault and he was cleared of that and other wrong doings, so I don't think there's any real fire to be found here.  Two minor business credit card transgressions and then learning how to undo the damage after being punch drunk from political riches for the first time in your life?  Give the guy the benefit of doubt, I say.  If anything, he can relate better to the struggling middle class.  Doesn't mean I would want to vote for him, though, but I'm not holding these financial shenigans against him.

[Reub]

Maybe Rubio is appealing to the fiscally irresponsible voter? Ever think of that?