I’m in Paris, I don’t think that any Republican can win the U.S. Presidency (previous posting), and my vote in any general election is irrelevant (since I vote in Massachusetts), so I haven’t watched or read about the Republican convention. My Facebook feed is alive with expressions of outrage from Hillary Clinton supporters (did they imagine that the convention was set up for them?), but they don’t describe anything substantive having happened.
Readers: What happened at the convention? Is there any new information?
What happened was that from Monday to Wednesday 90% of the time they talk about Hillary Clinton exclusively. You could swear that this is the Democratic convention (if they wouldn’t have talked negatively about her). But, as said, they spent 90% of the time explaining why people should not vote for Hillary Clinton. Why we should vote for them? That wasn’t the purpose of this convention.
Only on Thursday things looked diffently. Ivanka’s speech was completely different from Trump previous campaign rhetoric. It felt like it was written by Bernie Sanders and it was clearly targeted to woo women.
Trump speech was his classic style, a mix of lies and truths, telling how good it is going to be when he is going to be president without giving any specifics. It always seems a lot of contradiction in his speeches. He wants to cut regulations but wants to force companies to move jobs back in the US (more regulations), or force companies to make it easier for women to have children and work (his daughter speech). Wants to cut taxes but he wants to cut loopholes such that rich people will pay more (his son speech), wants to make US safer but wants to withdraw from NATO and don’t give any security warranties to US allies.
Thanks, Dan. It sounds as though I didn’t miss anything! Politicians from Party X express dislike of politicians from Party Y. Politicians then proceed to promise a bunch of stuff that that they can’t deliver.
But Dan left out the best part, where Ted Cruz, [the principled standard bearer of true conservatism/the prince of darkness that everyone loves to hate] delivered a [shining oration extolling the Republican values of individual liberty and support for the Constitution/dishonorable and disrespectful rant that was disloyal to party and nominee], culminating in a [noble call to vote one’s conscience/a weasel-ish refusal to endorse Donald Trump]. Choose your own adventure.
Best thing about Cruz speech is that many people — e.g. moi, a true blue liberal — liked substantial parts of it! Which explains why so many Republicans hated it!
All in all, I’d be concerned about future of USA as a stable democratic nation since real chance Trump will win (or bully his way in if the election goes to House.)
I’m a permanent resident and a Canadian citizen (for now), so I’m just an interested observer at this point. I’m not sure I understand your point about Trump bullying his way to a win if there is a contingent election in the House. If I understand correctly, the state delegations in the house will have to choose one of the top 3 (or is it 5) contenders as their preferred candidate. Since (I think) the majority of state delegations are Republican, doesn’t that mean that a contingent election would go to Trump without any bullying being necessary? For that matter, how could he bully his way to a win in that situation?
To your other point, about many Republicans hating the speech, I think that has more to do with a prevailing view of politics as a team sport than any particular disagreement with the content of his speech. Many Republicans apparently won’t entertain the idea that commitment to certain principles is more important than a victory for the party.
Alex,
You are assuming that Trump will adhere to Constitutional values & customs.
I don’t.
Don’t sell yourself short, Philip. You’re not going to cast the deciding vote, but you’re an influential guy! (I just hope you don’t fall for the Trump could be the next Hitler – but tax cuts! argument.)
Trump said the US wouldn’t necessarily defend NATO allies if they were attacked by Russia, especially the Baltics. That was pretty big news.
Trump’s acceptance speech is probably what’s scaring your liberal friends. Jonathan Chait‘s take is that Trump is moving the Republican Party towards being an ethno-nationalist party.
Trump hasn’t moderated his rhetoric at all since winning the nomination, which is unusual. That’s what typically happens as the challenge becomes winning over the general electorate, not the primary electorate.
Oh, and we now know the running mates: Trump picked Mike Pence, Clinton picked Tim Kaine.
The Washington Post is running a full-page editorial on Sunday. Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy.
Now, obviously, I’m not going to find a Trump fan here, and I’m voting for Johnson, but nothing that’s been said here so far can’t be inverted and applied to the Democrats and Hillary. I mean, really? Trump is going to trash the Constitution and destabilize the economy of the United States? I really, really have to scratch my head and wonder how the imaginations of liberals work. We have 25 YEARS of CONCRETE examples of how Hillary will lie, cheat, steal, bribe and be bribed (and some would say murder) in the pursuit of power. And liberals want me to be worried about how TRUMP will treat the law? After an equal time in the public eye, and nothing terribly concerning has come to light about him? Seriously? Do people making this argument even hear themselves?
The GOP and Trump realize he cannot persuade anybody who hasn’t already voted for him, so they are pounding on getting every one of them to vote one more time. Ivanka is quite capable but she is just helping Dad with his latest zany scheme. When this is over the Trump family will have a good laugh and go back to living off construction loans and celebrity gigs. They don’t have the patience to restructure the Republican party and they really don’t owe it a try since the party’s donors are MIA.
I wouldn’t be totally surprised if Trump develops a medical condition and leaves the party holding the bag. There’s not much upside for the Trump brand in a rout.
The only cool thing about it was that Ted Cruz gave the line that common anti-trump republicans give in the speech and didn’t endorse him….after Trump himself explicitly gave Cruz permission to give a speech there.
That’s awesome.
I read and watch bits about the RNC on the news, but watched all of Trump’s speech live.
Yes, the convention was negative and aimed at Hillary. But this is nothing new at convention, or have we forgotten how Bush was portrayed [1]? There was similar negative speeches at RNC against Kerry (I cannot recall it to link to it), and very much all other conventions.
Back to Trump’s speech. It was about America first, which is what the country is salivating for. It was about passing laws and acting on them, which is what the country is salivating for. It was about being an outsider, which is what the country is salivating for. It was about speaking the mind of the country without being politically correct, which is what the country is salivating for. He did not offer anything specific or how he will get what he said done, but which politician does?
Trump is aiming at those who are frustrated with the statuesque and are looking for a real change. He was saying “I’m that change” and “I can fix it”, and “I will fix it” and “I alone can fix it” — notice how there is a lot of “I’s”? Many Americans are agreeing with him because Obama run on “hope”, “opens”, and “transparent” platform but never delivered and Hilary is seen as someone who wants the office because she is hungry for power of it for herself above all.
Personally, I would not be surprise if Trump wins the White House and if he does, expect to see executive actions flying off his desk because he is not the kind of a guy who will be patient with Congress to get things done. If he losses, it will be with a narrow margin and the country will be even far more polarized, divided and angry at Hillary as president then they were / are with Obama.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgeQ_y7LMRI
How can Trump have suddenly become a KKK member in all but membership card and white hood, when he has lived in NYC for decades with the eyes of the press on him, and at least one of his kids married a Jewish person?
I think the real issue is that as the email leaks from the DNC show, the press in general is heavily influenced by what the DNC wants, and will act to give positive press to Democrats, especially Hillary.
While the #DNCleaks hashtag is suppressed in Trending by Twitter, expect the news to gradually filter out and get noticed.
I haven’t paid close attention either. The commentary I’ve read would be http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/07/thanks-to-arnold-kling-i-sort-of-understood-trumps-speech-last-night.html , http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147798324931/my-opinion-of-trumps-convention-speech , http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-22/trump-s-opponents-are-helping-him-win and http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-22/donald-trump-s-disturbing-and-deluded-speech .
Cruz souns interesting. I didn’t see the speech, but it sounds like his statements were reasonable, however he came across as somebody who goes to a birthday party and insults the guest of honor. I don’t know what reaction e expected, but at this point I’m sure he hopes that if Trump loses, people will remember him as the principled opposition within the party.
Sheesh.
Obviously stumbled in with wrong crowd.
Best of luck, America, we are going to need it.
I support Trump and the convention was fine, nothing major happened except moderates and independents are moving towards Trump. Hillary choosing Kaine tells us she is not expecting Obama-level turnout with black people. That’s interesting, but also not part of the RNC convention.
The last 24hrs…
After the Donald’s speech, CNN’s instapoll rated the speech 76% favourably + 56% said they were more likely to vote Trump + 100% of focus group of 20 independents said they were less likely to vote Hilary. The liberal talking heads flipped out.
Today a CNN panel was poo-poo’ing Trump’s bigoted speech on Islamic terrorism when they were interrupted by the breaking news of yet another terrorist attack in Europe. The irony was thick enough to cut with a knife.
Wikileaks’ email dump shows: the Democratic National Committee was colluding against Bernie, and reporters were sending Hilary stories to the DNC for approval before releasing them to the public.
Given the calls to murder Hillary given at the convention, the calls to murder the families of terrorists spoken by Trump himself, and the implied calls to set up American concentration camps for anyone of Muslim or Mexican descent, if Trump is elected president, anyone who ever boasted that given the chance he would have stood up to Hitler, will have the chance to prove it.
Desperation.
I assume they’re louder simply because they realize they might lose this one. Nothing happened at the convention. Solid theater. Trump’s kids remind ppl of Kennedy’s (dynasty) and give cover to scaredy-Americans to say they support Trump because his kids “speak volumes”. Convention had 100 people total protesting (usually only 10 at a time) with minimal urine/feces flinging and only a few punches. Also, Wikileaks looks to me pretty damaging now that people have combed through for the juicy tidbits.
billg has an accurate summary just above
Hate to be a killjoy, but, America being one sick puppy of a nation, you all may yet wake up a Trump win in a landslide (I remember the time when the previous can’t-but-win patrician and sane Dem nominee Gore lost to a averbal nincompoop with daddy issues). Also, both Gary Trudeau & the Dilbert strip’s creator say so, sharp minds both.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/06/23/how-doonesbury-predicted-donald-trumps-presidential-run-29-years-ago/?tid=pm_entertainment_pop_b
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-will-win-in-a-landslide-the-mind-behind-dilbert-explains-why/?tid=pm_entertainment_pop_b
[ To underline his certainty, Phil ought to take an equivalent to the public “Sherman Oath,” promising to eat up his Golden Retriever if Trump wins, or something. Or at least take the R44 out for a full barrel spin on camera! ]
@ianf, Trudeau and Adams write a lot of strips (at least 1 a day) and they write about current events and trends. Washington Post using *selected* strips from Doonesbury and Dilbert to make a current event point that this was predicted by two “smart” guys, going back some 30 years, is pointless.
@ George A., I wish I could say that my obviously flippant comment was based on this single WaPo article of cherry-picked anti-Trump Doonesbury strips from the past. But it wasn’t… I may be dwelling way beyond America’s Protective Moat, but my acquaintance with US political press satire goes much farther than that (is that the correct distance-to-concept expression?). I have not lived through the day to day realities of American political processes, as you do, but am a keen student of its various post-event exegeses in print. And in this particular case, I pay attention to Gary Trudeau’s opinions (a Canadian to boot!) primarily due to his scriptwriting for the two incredibly educational TV mini series, Tanner ’88, and its 25-years later sort-of sequel Tanner on Tanner.
I actually saw them in reverse order, which only added to their impact. The 1988 production was shot live on the presidential primaries trail, as was there a candidate Tanner (Michael Murphy) campaigning alongside all the others (they were aware of it, and very much in on the concept). Smashing. So, funny ha-ha, or not, I have no reason to doubt Trudeau’s judgement.
And then there is that bigger than elsewhere unpredictable element in the American politics… it’s a long time yet until November, and then until the Installation. A lot can happen. So I wouldn’t rule out this turning out One Way Or The Other.
ObLitContent: “Dark Horse” by Fletcher Knebel (1972). Too bad it’s only fiction, we could use a whiff of fresh provincial air in Washington D.C. ;-))
You could simulate this RNC convention by watching Jean-Marie Le Pen on France Televisions, and imagine it being said with a Queens accent.
Lots of trade protectionism, fuzzy State-capitalism, gutter ethno-nationalism and fear mongering. They even had a Marine Le Pen stand-in introduce him.
Ivanka Trump’s portrayal of her heroic father was so boring that I was moved to google during her speech. It’s no surprise that these “character reference” speeches soar along a predictable path, but it’s unfortunate that they never account for any of the black sheep in the family. For example:
Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law, Charles Kushner, was convicted of 18 counts of tax evasion, witness tampering and making illegal campaign donations, and served two years in federal prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kushner
At about the same time, Chelsea Clinton’s father-in-law, Ed Mezvinsky, was convicted of 31 charges of felony fraud, and served five years in federal prison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mezvinsky
These guys have so very much in common.
BTW, Ivanka Trump’s father-in-law only got 2 years because he copped a plea with the U.S. prosecuting attorney, Chris Christie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/05/nyregion/democratic-donor-receives-twoyear-prison-sentence.html
What was that about politics and strange bedfellows?
@ Buckley, is Jean-Marie Le Pen still campaigning for once-his FN? I understood he’s been ejected from the party for much too much scaring of the petit-bourgeois electorate. In any event, while I see plenty of Marine Le Pen on British TV news, there’s little trace of her father nowadays there (not even post Brexit, when there were no limits on whom to put on air, blabbing away freely).
@ Martin Beck, informally you are right, but were we to FORMALLY judge people on the grounds of what their antecedents and relatives did, the world would come to a standstill. So the worst that can be read out of Ivanka’s and Chelsea’s choice of mates is that their respective pairs of parentheses [no typo!] did not instill in them any higher taint-by-association-wary morals than they apparently did. That, and perhaps also that they reached the plateau of their young femme attractiveness: good enough for financier sons of embezzlers and shady deal-makers, not dishy enough for Leonardo diCaprios of this world ;-))
The Washington Post editorial link from Russil above has captured him completely, but voting is about “the picture in our head” not rational analysis. Once mindshare has been allocated advertising can push the needle a couple of percent. The picture for minorities and most women is obvious and the Libertarians will score 5 percent or so. If Hillary were a good candidate, it would be a 65-30-5 blowout, but I’ll predict 51-44-5 and closer than that in the electoral. Anybody else have a prediction?
@ ianf Papa Le Pen was on LCI a couple months ago, and is still a sitting member of EP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qVRy3b6Jx0
But yes, he is 88, and in 2015 even the National Front distanced themselves for too much overt flirting with the exterminationists. His neo-fascist legacy though is being carried out robustly by the much more telegenic Marine, as well as in the current Republican Party nominee.
Trump by 5, 51-46, with 3% to third parties. Polling internals of polls with demographics show Trump having ok if not great numbers with minorities and reducing his negative numbers with women without losing men.
In some polls he’s already winning all white women and in others he’s down less than 10 points with all races of women while being up 10-15 points with men, which is enough to win.
https://www.johnsonweld.com/