The photos of the "crowds" at the tank parade remind me of when Bill Hicks would come on stage in an almost-empty club, scan the room slowly, and announce "I've had more people in bed than this" ...
When the president sends a cabinet member on TV to announce "We are using the military to liberate an American city from its elected leaders," where do you go from there. What is left to say. The idea of that being anything short of a near-universal "Wait, what the fuck is going on" moment proves how far we've backslid.
This is from 2022 but it was absolutely right. The practiced buffoonery of Trump 1, all the "just kiddings" and "seriously but not literallys" absolutely succeeded in desensitizing people who are hardly paying any attention to the harder stuff they always intended to do next. ...
The basic fallacy in chasing votes by being "tough on immigration" is that the modal American's position on the issue is "Deport the Bad ones and keep the Good ones," and they alone know who is which, and that simply does not translate into workable policy. So this kind of gestapo stuff horrifies some of the same people who cheered when Trump promised to do it. There are true sociopaths who love this, but "No, I meant only the BAD immigrants! Not my coworker/friend/neighbor!" is as likely a reaction as enthusiasm. You cannot do immigration policy that satisfies these people because what they want is nonsensical.
So by the time center-left parties fully commit to chasing the far right by "getting tough" on immigration, the backlash has already begun to build and they walk right into it. "I thought you people wanted this!" No, they want something impossible and convinced themselves they'd could have it - the "eat whatever you want AND lose weight!" of immigration policies.
It is hard to grasp but large masses of Americans are both racist/xenophobic AND not racist/xenophobic enough to applaud what Trump is doing. It's goldilocks shit, they want a level of racism/xenophobia calibrated exactly to their personal preferences, and you just can't make that policy. Don't try. ...
AP: Trump extends olive branch, invites Musk to White House cellar to taste some brand new amontillado ...
Mike says:
What does Edwards have to do to beat Obama? Is it game over since the South doesn't caucus much (does it?)? I know he's a big deal in Nevada (coming up?) but I honestly haven't followed this that much….
j tyler says:
I am by no means a Clinton fan, but how can you discount her so early? Although Obama will get a surge after Iowa, it looks like she is leading in most other primaries and many national polls.
Also, I got the impressions that Edwards and Obama both got better bumps from the candidates who didn't reach 15%. In other words Clinton's cut of the results were all original supporters…I guess I'm answering my own question assuming the other dems drop out and their followers don't support Clinton.
Just the same, she might not be a lot of people's second choice, but looking at other states and national polls she is still a decent number's first.
Ed says:
I think Edwards lacks the resources to run with Obama. Edwards has less than half the money and I don't see him doing better in the southern states, even though he is from NC. Now that he's clearly viable, I doubt that the black vote in the south won't overwhelmingly tilt toward Obama.
Clinton is screwed because anyone who shows up to the first primary with $90 million and finishes third is failing to connect with voters. Her strong showing in national polls is entirely a function of name recognition. She has – by far – the highest "negatives" of any Democrat in the +/- polling. People just do not like her. She's cold and arrogant. And it's worth pointing out again that Obama beat her handily among young people, women, and minorities. Show me a successful Democrat who does not do well with young people, women, and minorities.
Ed says:
By the way, Mr. Tyler, I didn't intend to be dismissive of your points about Hillary. What you have stated is correct. However, if you forced me to put money on it there is no way I'd bet on her winning the nomination at this point. I've seen this before – the presumptive nominee showing up and laying an egg early – and it's never a good sign. And yes, when you have $90 million and universal name recognition, finishing 3rd (by however slim a margin) is considered failure. On paper, she should have had a 30% lead over everyone else.
J. Dryden says:
Your first and seventh points should be screamed from every roof-top from sea to shining sea. (And also in Alaska and Hawaii, "the freak states.") Iowa is such a terrible indicator of "who's going to get the nomination" that the amount of media slavering it receives–and amount of wild speculation it provokes–inevitably proves to be nothing more than media gas-baggery and a lot of *terrible* predictions about 'what this will mean.' Personally, I don't pay attention until South Carolina–the only reason Iowa matters is because too many people are fooled into *thinking* that it matters by a national media that is essentially advertising its own relevance by saying so. Same for NH, really–the dominoes are already in place for three or four major primaries down the road, and *those* are the ones that count. But since we can't talk about them yet, let's talk about Iowa…The NY Times calls the victories there "triumphs" as if that word were in any way appropriate for an achievement that will be irrelevant in a couple of weeks. It's *still* early, dammit. True, the loss here isn't *good* for Clinton and the other former front-runners, but William Jefferson *did* set a precedent…As a registered Democrat, I sure as hell *hope* that the 'Huckabee Express' keeps rolling. For an election year that's driven by an "Anyone Who Isn't Bush" fervor, nothing screams "Hindenberg" like a man who proudly lays claim to all of the incumbent's least popular qualities.
Mike says:
Three more: – Why does the Republican establishment (or at least the talking heads) hate Huckabee a _lot_? For instance, all these people (are there any left after?):
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2007/12/23/the-huck-a-bust-is-coming/
– Is the Reagan Republican coalition falling apart? Or is it just a bad drawn of candidates?
– You see McCain with a potential to surge? We'll of course know after NH….
BK says:
I had lunch with some Edwards and Obama supporters who live and work in Wisconsin politics – senior level staffers, not phonebankers – who forecasted last night's outcome close to three weeks ago.
The point they kept coming back to is this: the more time the three dem front runners spend in any one location the more Hillary falls in the polls.
She may have big leads nationally – but unfortunately we don't have a national primary or election system.
It can't be emphasized enough – a black man won a 97% white state and the only demographic he seems to have lost is the 65+ crowd.
The Bush presidency and all its failures both domestically and internationally may be enough to wake up younger voters and get them to the polls…
Peggy says:
Just out of curiosity, my question is: do you have a favorite, Ed? I'm not asking you to say who it is, of course, but I'm interested to know if there is a candidate that you support (warmly, reluctantly, or no, they all suck).
Other than that: I love reading your analysis. I look forward to keeping up with it to the election and beyond. I don't feel smart about politics at all (I feel very helpless and depressed, actually) but reading your analysis of it at least makes me feel like smart people are paying attention.
J Tyler says:
I think you are right Ed, but I won't count Clinton out until after New Hampshire. Anything worse than first there, and she is finished regardless of who comes in first. However, if she wins than she can continue to the tone of being the popular choice. I didn't think anyone expected her to win in Iowa anyways, Obama always seemed to be the winner, and the bigger story is that Edwards made up lost ground.
On the other side, I think that the Republican Coalition is falling apart to an extent. Huckabee can't make an election about Christianity even if he wants to, and I think there is some small scale backlash against evangelicalism in politics. For the time being its about the economy, the war, and anyone but Bush. Traditional conservatives want a McCain or to a lesser extent a Romney because when the general election comes around, they are much more electable.