Tyrone on why Democrats should vote for Donald Trump

I know that Tyrone, my evil twin brother, has been fairly silent in 2015, but that’s only because he’s been so busy whispering things in my ear.  He’s also been spending his profits from having shorted the Chinese stock marketAnd having shorted the Democrats.

Can you imagine his latest?  Electoral politics once again, his weakest area (not nearly as good as Tyrone the neo-Fisherian).  Well, I scribbled down some notes on a napkin, over lunch, so this is an imperfect rendition of what he really said.  Tyrone in fact didn’t want me to write this post, fearing people would take it the wrong way.  Here goes, here is Tyrone at his mischievous worst:

Tyrone: It is obvious that intellectual Democrats, especially those concerned with climate change, should vote for Donald Trump for President.  Furthermore they should welcome his ascent, as should intellectual Republicans.

Let’s accept the commonly argued premise that climate change, if not quite an existential risk, can drastically lower the quality of life on earth for generations to come.

There is some chance that Trump will in fact support some kind of comprehensive climate change legislation.  After all, he used to be a liberal, but perhaps more importantly he wants to think of himself as a savior.  The chance of this is higher than that of any other Republican, and he is hardly beholden to the standard lobbies.

Most importantly, the chance of Trump “going Nixon” is higher than Hillary’s chance of selling meaningful climate change legislation to an oppositional Republican Congress.  She’ll be unpopular from day one, and the salaries of Dutch kunstmatige land consultants will skyrocket; that would bring a new Dutch disease, not just the one you get in those pretty Amsterdam shop windows.

OK people, let’s say Trump sticks to the mainstream Republican position.  What will happen then?  Won’t greedy capitalists rape the earth, not to mention building that energy-consuming wall?

Well, in the short run, maybe.  (Don’t forget Lennon on the omelette and those broken eggs!)  But we all know how disastrous Trump’s economic ideas would be in practiceThey would lower the growth rate of gdp and impoverish the masses.  Even if you read Trump as a policy moderate, just imagine what his volatile temperament would do to the equity risk premium.  (Then they would have to give Robert Barro a Nobel prize!)  And so, four or maybe eight years later, — or is it two? — what we could expect to find?  A fully Democratic Congress and White House.  (And dear reader, is there any other way to get there?)  And thus would arrive comprehensive climate change legislation, just as we got Obamacare post-2008.  Voila!  That’s way more important than maintaining America’s status as a nice, well-respected, and tolerant country, isn’t it?

So Democrats, if you really care about Bangladesh and Vietnam, and don’t just have this silly mood affiliation fancy that Tyler has fabricated, you should promote the candidacy of Donald Trump.  The more Democratic you are, the better.  The more worried about climate change you are, the better.  Your man has arrived on the national scene.  Finally.

Remember the take of Borges on Judas?  He made the real sacrifice of his reputation, so that the rest of us could be saved by Christ.  It is time for you too to be like Judas…[TC: At this point the absurdities piled up so high I just had to cut Tyrone off.]


Tyler again: Readers, I am so sorry for this.  I receive numerous requests for more Tyrone, but usually I resist.  The only reason I occasionally oblige is to show you all, once again, how crazy he is.  How unreasonable he is.  How subject he is to his own mood affiliations, foibles, and quirks.  How little heritability can explain, once you look get past superficial sibling similarities and look more closely at the details of the intellect.

Tyler’s view — my view — is that good Democrats in fact should support…[at which points Tyrone cuts Tyler off, and the two tumble over the proverbial cliff]…


Half a year of Trump has been fun, but five more years of Trump sounds pretty exhausting.

Compared to eight more years of Bill Clinton in the Lincoln bedroom?

Personally I am supporting Bernie. Because, you know, I can.

Who cares where Bill Clinton sleeps, or with whom? That is about the least important thing he does.

No, his entire life has been devoted to the quest for the perfect blowjob. From his perspective, it's the only important thing he does.

I think you mean rimjob:


Well, there's that. Then there's also his effort to organize the governments of very poor countries to negotiate big discounts for HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria drugs for their people while being at what most people would consider retirement age. What's on your CV, Art?

Two fellatio references in two days!

A lot of people care. The Clintons are low-life sleaze artists. Everyone knows this. The idea that the public wants another eight years of credible rape allegations, abused interns and Cuban cigars put places God did not intend them to go is really beyond belief.

The open borders immigration policy that the Democrats all favor would boost climate change a lot. Greenhouse gas impacts go up a great deal as soon as people move from low energy Nigeria or Guatemala to high energy consumption U.S. You know how everybody worries about India (and less so now China) growing by producing high CO2 energy? When Indians come to the U.S. they add that impact right away.

So if you are really concerned about climate change, you have to really question immigration. It should be a difficult issue, not one where you jump fully on board. Trumps anti-immigration policy could be the biggest single thing one could do for climate change. Similarly, his immigration policy is probably the single best employment policy for low-skill citizen minorities. (I find Borjas's results on employment rates and immigration to be convincing.)

Yes, but immigration has less carbon impact per unit of GDP than endogenous growth. Western countries use only about 1/3 the fossil fuels per unit of GDP than middle income countries. Moving an Indian at $1000/yr to the US at $20000/yr may immediately raise carbon, it may have less of an ultimate impact than leaving him in India until the country reaches the level of $12000/yr.

He hates us, preciousssssss!

When I saw the text accompanying the link to Tyrone's pontification on the Chinese stock market, I could have sworn I remembered him saying that it was time to buy, not short.

Sure enough, I click through and the link is as I remember--Tyrone is bullish on Chinese stocks in June 2015.

Now, I'd think the probability that you'd misremember what you wrote is pretty low, especially after linking to it...so what's going on? Was that some kind of weird social experiment to see what you could get away with? At first I thought it could be sarcasm at his previously poor prediction record...but that doesn't fit well with the democrats link that follows.

Presumably Tyrone was urging you to buy then because he was shorting it at the time. He is the *evil* twin after all.

Tyrone is (may be) an exercise on things that feel good to think and say but are ultimately wrong. Tyrone is not stopped by that useless thing known as "doubt", he is full certainty.

Certainly, I can't find the difference between the people like Tyrone and cocaine users. They same kind of high, so energetic, so confident =)

Tyrone is only displaying the same outright certainty that we see from most anti Trump commentators. True, unfounded certainty is a bad thing but let's not pretend it's only bad when you are rooting for Trump.

Ehhh... I still think you're not getting it. Tyrone says the opposite of what Tyler thinks, and says it in with the opposite kind of rhetorical inflections. Tyler changes his mind over time, and so I believe Tyrone is also allowed to do that.

But really, this is getting weird. Tyrone isn't a real person. Why must need a fictitious being adhere to some kind of externally consistent rationale? It's like asking why Santa Claus would bother loading up his sleigh with lumps of coal when it would be more efficient and better for good children to just not give bad kids anything; and besides, isn't giving a naughty child coal just spiteful? WTF is wrong with Santa?!?

If you've gone that far, you've missed the point already.

Tyrone is like Louis CK's bit "of course, but maybe"


If Tyrone has come out for Trump, I think the thing is done and dusted. I haven't checked the betting markets, so I can't say if Tyrone is just doing what Tyrone does and backing the winner.

Back in the UK in the 80s I remember Marxists urging people to vote for a Thatcher government as that would impoverish the working class and so hasten the inevitable revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat.

Well, voting for Thatcher did impoverished the working class by free lunch Reaganomics is just too appealing to even working class people who have been impoverished. Cut taxes and cut labor costs to get rich sounds fantastic to workers who do not know they are labor costs.

"Labour isn't working." Catchy and true. The UK in the 1970s was a hot mess.

The Trump would be such a disaster that Dems could recapture the House is interesting. Otherwise, nah Tyrone.

To be fair, the Democrats went from talking about a "permanent majority" in 2008 to losing the House in 2010. IE, Trump could perform as well as Obama and still lose the House.

If you are a democrat, which is more important: getting control of house and senate as well as the presidency 4-8 years from now, Or filling the next couple supreme court vacancies?


...is a sad statement about the state of our democracy.

Which democracy? The Ivy League Lawyer one?

Here is the non-counterintuitive argument for why Democrats should support Trump:

He is a nearly life-long Democrat who has expressed his support in the past for almost all of the liberal platform and whose current statements continue to suggest that he is not conservative on almost every issue.

The only downsides with Trump are that he claims to be a right-wing Republican and has an outrageously offensive immigration platform, which means he has a lot less baggage than Clinton or Sanders.

I haven't thought much about what would happen if Trump wins. It always seemed so unlikely. I still think that he's unlikely to win, if he gets the most votes there will be a brokered convention and if he can survive that the establishment will run a third party candidate to act as a spoiler. And if he wins the election then there could be a coup. But considering what would happen if Trump won I see two problems with Tyrone's analysis:

1. The climate change thing, what exactly are the Dems going to do about it? Their message now seems to be mainly "vote for us." If Trump and the democrats do agree to anything it will just be symbolism, even more than a plan the Democrats would put into place themselves.

2. I hope Trump doesn't go through with his disaster of a tax plan, there will no doubt be opposition to it among his most die-hard fans. It will be interesting to see how much organization there is among Trump supporters, hopefully we can organize to send a clear message to him that we don't want his tax plan to go through. But suppose he does do it, or something like it. That's no guarantee of a short term economic disaster. If financed through deficit spending, a massive tax cut could stimulate the economy in the short term even as it delivers a harsh blow to the long term economic health of the nation. The nation's credit rating would go down but people would all enjoy the short term party. In addition to this the working class would reap a huge benefit from the deportation of the illegals. A Trump presidency could lead to a Republican landslide, hopefully some of the new Republicans will have spine.

There will be no brokered convention, because there are no brokers. You haven't had slated delegations in and amongst competitive contests since 1976. A popular vote donnybrook generating a hung convention is something that has never happened. The closest you've come would be the Democratic contest in 1984.

Slated delegations from PA, ND, UT, ME, GM, and AS plus PLEOs add up to more than 10% of RNCC delegates. That's enough to broker a nominee. Plus, it guarantees Trump will need almost 60% of the earned delegates to get a majority.

Without many winner-take-all states left on the calendar after rules changes it's very hard to get to 60% if there is any competition left running to the convention. Cruz and Bush at least seem inclined to fight to the end.

Slated delegations from PA, ND, UT, ME, GM, and AS

There is a primary schedule in Pennsylvania for 27 April and the filing deadline hasn't even closed yet. You'll only have slated delegations in those other loci if everyone skips the caucus. About 7% of the delegates to the convention will be superdelegates. There have been two conventions in the post war period wherein that number of votes would have been decisive (1952 Republican convention, and the 1976 Republican convention, both of which were held before the current primary and caucus system had gelled).

Cruz and Bush at least seem inclined to fight to the end.

If Jeb! wishes to do an imitation of Ron Paul, I suppose he will. Smart money says he finishes 5th in Iowa. He's lost 2/3 of his polled support in the last 7 months.

Without many winner-take-all states left on the calendar after rules changes it’s very hard to get to 60% if there is any competition left running to the convention.

I don't think they've had any winner-take-all states on the Democratic side since 1971. Number of brokered conventions in 40 odd years = nil.

From the Green Papers:

"54 of the Commonwealth's 71 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be directly elected (their names appear on the ballot) in a LOOPHOLE type primary, in which delegates are elected separately from a presidential preference. Each of the 18 Congressional District is allocated 3 delegates (54 = 18 districts × 3 delegates/district). Rule 8.4 of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania's Rules states that all delegates elected by Congressional District "...shall run at large within the Districts and shall not be officially committed to any particular candidate on the ballot."."

"I don’t think they’ve had any winner-take-all states on the Democratic side since 1971. Number of brokered conventions in 40 odd years = nil. "

Ten conventions. Seven without incumbent presidents. Six without pre-emptive heirs apparent.

And half of them -- 1972, 1984, and 2008 all required that PLEOs screwed up by misunderstanding the system or acquiesced in or supported a candidate that the establishment had to come to love. Even 1976 had a lot of potential for chaos. There would have been a floor fight in all of those if the winning candidate had been as popular with the people and unpopular with amoral avaricious apparatchiks as Trump.

“54 of the Commonwealth’s 71 delegates to the Republican National Convention will be directly elected (their names appear on the ballot) in a LOOPHOLE type primary, in which delegates are elected separately from a presidential preference. Each of the 18 Congressional District is allocated 3 delegates (54 = 18 districts × 3 delegates/district). Rule 8.4 of the Republican State Committee of Pennsylvania’s Rules states that all delegates elected by Congressional District “…shall run at large within the Districts and shall not be officially committed to any particular candidate on the ballot.”.”

Brian, you do know what a 'slating meeting' as Jane Byrne would have understood the term is? You do know that New York's 1976 Republican delegation was assembled by Richard Rosenbaum with some pro forma procedure for ratification? That's a 'slated delegation'. Competitive primaries for delegates are not that.

And half of them — 1972, 1984, and 2008 all required that PLEOs screwed up by misunderstanding the system or acquiesced in or supported a candidate that the establishment had to come to love. Even 1976 had a lot of potential for chaos. There would have been a floor fight in all of those if the winning candidate had been as popular with the people and unpopular with amoral avaricious apparatchiks as Trump.

Brian, 'superdelegates' were not instituted at Democratic conventions until the 1984 contest. George McGovern was never favored by any establishments and the AFL-CIO refused to endorse him in the general election. Walter Mondale's plurality was sufficiently large at the 1984 convention that he did not require superdelegates though he had them. The same deal applies to BO in 2008; his 350 vote plurality among superdelegates was a fraction of the 2,000 vote plurality he maintained among the entire body of delegates. The 1976 convention had no potential for chaos. It was a coronation for Jimmy Carter who had rolled over a succession of candidates who had competed regionally (Wallace, Church), competed episodically (Brown), kept placing rather than winning (Udall), or ran out of money (Jackson).

"has an outrageously offensive immigration platform"

I see nothing offensive about reducing immigration, Japan only accepted 27 refugees last year,

Japan chose between robots and cheap labor of Chinese immigrants...and automation won. So, Japan is not like the good old 50s in the US, sorry.

Soon: "We have a right to refuse entry would-be robot immigrants!"

that's a good point jim.

"Japan only accepted 27 refugees last year". So did Britain, but she also accepted fake refugees by the tens of thousands.

When I read "outrageously offensive immigration platform", I didn't think dan1111 was referring to changing annual immigration levels. I think the thing that bothers those offended are the use of a religious test for future immigrants & the violations of Bill of Rights protections they believe would be necessary to find & remove 11,000,000 illegal immigrants from country,

Granting asylum from religious persecution implies a religious test. Asylum programs have always been based on tests of authenticity, I don't see why that is mildly offensive. If we see Muslims persecuting Christians, asylum is supposed to help the latter more than the former.

the violations of Bill of Rights protections they believe would be necessary to find & remove 11,000,000 illegal immigrants from country,

"They believe" in fictions.

Japan: Economic growth model for the world

They have done alright actually, despite some very bad monetary, budgetary and industrial policy. Certainly in real per-capita terms.

You haven't figured out that Bryan Caplan's trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk is a fantasy.

Was voting for Hitler because of his disastrous economic ideas such a good idea for intellectual liberals in Germany?

The Communist policy across Europe was that Hitler would pave the way for the Revolution and so should be supported. But as it turned out that only worked for the Eastern half.

Although the future leadership of several Communist parties only survived because Hitler jailed them. The German Communist leaders were all killed except for those in Hitler's prisons. Any that went to Moscow died. The same is true for the Poles. Beirut survived because he was jailed by the Nazis. So for them, it was a good idea.

The longest lasting ruler of Communist East Germany by a long shot was the late Walter Ulbricht. He spent most of the war years in Moscow. One of the ways he ingratiated himself with Stalin was by becoming his point man on selecting which of the exiled German Communists should be killed by Stalin's regime, which meant that Ulbricht's inner team when he took over in East Berlin was very loyal.

East Germany had only two local satraps who held their position for longer than about a year. One was in charge for 21 years and the other for 18 years.

And Ulbricht was the first of those, the one who brought his cronies in from hanging out in Moscow during the war to dp Stalin's bidding. Are you questioning this, Art Ceco? Are you as ignorant as So Much for Subtelty?

You said:

The longest lasting ruler of Communist East Germany by a long shot -

The phrase 'by a long shot' does not mean, when discussing spans of time, 'by three years' or 'by 16%'. It's passing strange to offer that comparison where there were only two people who held that position for any length of time. The Soviets' nominal point man in East Germany during the period running from 1945 to 1950 (which included the first year of the GDR's corporate existence) was a man named Wilhelm Pieck. His effective influence vis a vis others in the German Communist nomenklatura is a bit of esoterica which does not much interest me.

Gag you are so massively ignorant on this stuff, AD. "President" was an utterly toothless job. Ulbricht was Stalin's man.

He was chairman of the German Communist Party in the Soviet Zone, the same position held after 1949 by... Walter Ulbricht. I can tell the students at JMU are getting their money's worth.

You are hopelessly in over your head. I shall just give you one simple reference, from Oxford Reference;
www..oxfordreference.com/wigi/10/10931/09authority.20110803110528980. I may have that wrong (I am recovering from open heart surgery, but back teaching). But what it says is simply correct and easily verified in many sources.

It says that even though Piek and Gotewald held the official postions (only for the first few years in the late 40s, "real power lay with Ulbricht." He was Stalin's man and he ran the show until pushed out in the 70s by Honecker.

You are just way in over your worthless head.

Well done. You have managed to find someone Stalin did not kill.

Unfortunately it does nothing to alter my point. The leadership of the German Communist Party were safer in Hitler's prisons than in Stalin's guesthouses.

Hard to say which of you and Art Deco is more ignorant. Ulbricht protected a whole bunch of cronies in Moscow. When the returned to Germany, they killed all those who survived Hitler's prisons, except for those that managed to go west.

Ulbricht protected no one. He could not. He would not dare.

Killed all of those who survived Hitler's prisons? You mean like Erich Honecker?

De facto he did. Although you very ignorantly do not seem to be aware of it, there was a whole group of German Communists who survived in Moscow during WW II. They were the ones closest to Ulbricht, who managed to get the ear and support of Stalin. Those in Moscow who did not survive were the ones whom Ulbricht did not support to live when Stalin was deciding whom to kill.

This group went back to Berlin after the war and took over what would be East Germany. That Ulbricht was really running the show for several years when others held the official upfront positions shows he ruled in reality much longer than Honecker or any other. He built East Germany, including the Berlin Wall. What finally did him in during the early 70s was that he was this hardlining leftover Stalinist who openly declaring the superiiority of the East German system over the Soviet, which annoyed Brezhnev. You can see the dynamics of Ulbricht trying to assert his independence from Moscow in the early 60s in the recent exclellent movie, "Bridge of Spies," although Ulbricht is not named. But he was the East German leader.

I have commented on the errors in that movie (mostly not too serious on Econospeak. The son of Francis Gary Powers contacted me privately to thank me for bringing up certain matters, some of which remain unresolved even now. I also happpen to know very well and personally the economist Fred Pryor, still alive, who was traded in that exchange, and is a majjor/minor figure in the movie. Indeed the effort by the East Germans to assert themselves by trying to mess things up involved jerking around Fred Pryor.

Really, the idea that either you or the worthless and despicable Art Deco think you have remotely the knowledge to challenge me on any of this is just a enormous and absurd joke. Both of your are pathetic excuses for being human beings, quite aside from your massive and arrogant ignorance..

Hitler's economic policies were fantastic creating full employment and massive capital investment that made Germany the greatest industrial power in the world.

The problem was Hitler's quest to be Andrew Jackson opening up a frontier to which Germans could go claim open land to create personal wealth. He saw Poland as a land filled with savages (jews) to be killed for the land just as Jackson saw the west (ohio valley) filled with savages to be killed to take the land. He also considered the treaties of Jefferson to be worse than conservatives see Obama's deals with Cuba and Iran - you can't make treaties with savages granting them a nation status.

So, Tyrone's argument makes sense for a dozen or so Democratic leaders and only if they are afraid of some kind of Sander's purge in near future.

BTW. Bierut was never jailed by the Nazis. Polish government did him this favor. Great purge was before WW2

When will Tyrone start Libertarians for Sanders movement?

When Scott Sumner is ready.

Have you read his opinions on Trump? He has been ready for a while.

Oh, yes. On quite a whinge, and not really willing to discuss the fallacious aspects of what he has to say; he just responds with gamesmanship. One thing he did say with precision is that he preferred Sanders to Trump. Exhibit # 637 demonstrating that OPEN BORDERS is what really matters to this crowd.

Sanders was anti-illegal immigration when he began running.

I suspect if he were to win, he might not be so open borders as he is now for the primary.

One thing to consider is that congress is heavily Republican. I'm not sure who I'd support between Sanders/Trump but I know I'd support Sanders given the current (and likely) congress.

Sanders was anti-illegal immigration when he began running.

Good point.

Sumner seems fixated on the aesthetic aspects of Trump and thinks he's a 'horrible human being'. You ever meet anyone on a college campus who told you that adultery or divorce-and-remarriage rendered the participant a 'horrible human being' when they weren't talking about someone they knew personally (like, you know, the guy that swiped their wife)? People like me were snickered at by the likes of Molly Ivins for thinking Bilge Clinton should get out of public life and American colleges and universities have been giving both Clintons six figure speaking fees. Who knew there were nests Una Voce members and hardline evangelicals on the faculties of New England business schools? Learn something new every day...

Though an ezcercise in silliness, I recognize some of the symptoms that most of the GOP has gone through and more have accepted the inevitability of the Trrunp presidency. Making farcical arguements in the line of this is like what republicans have been doing for a while, starting with "is there any ridiculous argument in which I could possibly support this man" and ending with recognizing he's just a much stronger candidate than you thought, and he could very easily win, and the cognitive dissonance you're feeling means you'd better adjust your understanding of reality.
So many of my conservative friends have gone through this, I'm now seeing liberals go through the same thing. Politics is being trnaformed.

Trump is an used car salesman. What he offers isn't what he'll deliver.

No, they deliver what they offer when you select the right dealer. You're just a lousy car buyer.

That's the "Tyrone of the Republican Establishment"'s thesis: Trump doesn't have policy positions as such, but negotiating positions that change as the status of The Deal change.

Right now he is anti-immigrant because that's the path to The Win with the negotiation as it exists. If he moves to the next step - the general election or even the presidency - the terms of The Deal change and so does his negotiating position.

The GOP establishment also doesn't deliver what they promise.

"You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on."

--Trump, The Art of the Deal

Trump has wisely chosen a concrete promise of a wall.

For all the claims that its impossible to build walls, we already have a wall between Mexico and California, for example. (When Arizona wanted a wall, and California called them racists, it was quite hypocritical.)

The wall I believe was already funded, or perhaps that was the exit visas.

In any case, I'm pretty sure Trump could expedite and get a wall being built in time to "fulfill his promise."

I get so tired (and sometimes despondent) looking at the popularity of people like Trump, Clinton and Sanders that I look at the warnings about AI from Musk, Hawking et al and think, god, bring on the Borg already.

It may be inevitable anyway. A Japanese think tank recently predicted that half of Japanese jobs will be taken by robots and AI within the next decade.

While we dither over immigration and climate change, Japan might be pinching a hole into a future that none of us can escape.

There's something rather problematic about this post. If you support a particular policy, the clearest thing to do would be to vote for a candidate who supports that policy or comes as close as possible to supporting that policy. If that candidate can't get the policy past Congress then you should support putting people in Congress who will support it.

This idea here seems to be you should support someone who opposes your policy because you calculate he is untrustworthy enough to flip flop on it in a way that benefits you and he might have the demagogic power to strong arm those in Congress against it to come around. Maybe but then maybe not. The more complicated a plan the more that can go wrong.

+1, best comment Boonton has ever made on this site.

I would personally vote for Sanders before Trump to minimize the damage to the Republican Party.

That Trump, Sanders, and Clinton are the leading candidates is depressing on so many levels.

The Republican Party needs to be destroyed. Their only purpose at this point is to consolidate liberal gains.

Pray tell which base of the contemporary Democratic Party will join the new party in its pursuit of the 1820s, assuming you lose none of the bases of the contemporary Republican Party, which is incredible in and of itself.

The idea is more that the GOP in Congress has rolled over too much, and basically tells the voters one thing, but then does something else once in power.

The problem with this is that replacing people might not change much.

The problem is conservatives reject republican government but chose the Republican party to force democratic majority rule of 50% plus one, while the Democratic Party is made up of hundreds if not thousands of factions that force republican government.

Consider that coal miners were at least until recently a major force in the Democratic Party at the same time environmentalists and health advocates were major forces in the Democratic Party. Byrd of the Byrd Rule, which was anti-democratic but instead republican, was loyal to the coal miners until a deathbed conversion by evangelicals for the mountains to advocate ending coal pillage and plunder of his beloved mountains. He could not live long enough to vote for the cap and trade bill passed by Congress. Thus coal miners continue to destroy their future by blocking any halt to the total destruction of the Appalachians by outsiders who would be happy if the miners all died before age 40 so there was no possibility of paying for black lung medical with taxes on coal which gets passed by Democrats as parts of the health advocates. And the environmental block gets the Federal government bailouts of the governors and state legislatures who help coal companies kill jobs by legalizing health destroying pollution.

If Democrats were as unified as conservatives, the coal miner faction would have a party successfully and unified in forcing coal be mined underground using pick and ax to create two million coal mining jobs, and force coal be burned for power with electric rates raised enough to pay middle class wages to all coal miners, with natural gas and nuclear prohibited in generating power. Then rooftop solar and batteries would be the libertarian environmentalist alternative at twice the cost today.

Trump getting the nomination will likely mean a landslide for Dems...He will have single-handedly shrunk the GOP's potential base and likely destroy the party...We shall see.

Trump getting the nomination will likely mean a landslide for Dems

Trump polls satisfactorily against both Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom can manage more than a notional lead over him.

There have been since the advent of popular voting for the electoral college about 20 occasions when an incumbent party has sought a 3d, 4th, 5th, or 6th turn at the wheel. The only occasions wherein they won a plurality of that dimension would be 1836 (opposition divided among several candidates), 1904 (opposition ran a token candidate, and the incumbent president was on the ballot), 1928 (don't you wish BO was as respected as Calvin Coolidge), and 1940 (don't you wish BO was as respected as FDR). You're positing that the Democratic Party will manage this in spite of their performance in federal and state legislative contests reaching for a 90-year low, something that certainly was not the case in any of these previous circumstances. Good luck with your wagers.

I don't disagree, but you are forgetting 1988.

Many people seem to think Trump will lose, but I look at the only states in play and don't see the outcome as that obvious.

I'm not forgetting 1988. George Bush the Elder had a solid plurality, not the conventional 'landslide;. It's not an analogous situation in other respects, either. It was only during the 1981-82 recession and just after that Reagan was regarded as skeptically by the general public as has been bog standard for BO. The difference has been that most components of the major media have been suborned by the Democratic Party. You might say that of the broadcast media during the Clinton years, but not the print meida. It wasn't true during the Reagan era; the media merely favored the Democratic Party and could be hornswaggled by effective Republican PR.

Running against someone who may be indicted or running against a socialist.

I think Trump has fertile ground to use his talent on either of those targets.

The fact that Trump is now edging to bring the establishment in shows he knows how to co-opt groups.

It seems highly likely that either Cruz or Trump will win. I think straight up Clinton will probably beat either of those by a few percentage points. (RCP gives Clinton a +2.7% on Trump).

However, if Clinton gets indicted, I think that immediately flips the advantage. Either it pushes Clinton out in favor of Bernie or it comes to late to affect the primary and leaves a weakened Clinton in the General election.

So, the big question is will the FBI indict? Fairly anonymous reports indicate that the FBI has scores of agents on this investigation. How often does a major investigation running this long with this many resources end in a decision to indict?

Wow, I didn't expect this. RCP has Cruz +1.3 on Clinton.



Of course, polls are polls.

I want to be clear I am not a Trumpkin, but he's been very, very good at picking negative aspects of opponents, highlighting them to the public in very effective ways, and then forcing media attention.

He took down Jeb as "low energy." He's relegated Bill Clinton to a much lower profile than Hillary would want.

Its also not so much Trump figuring this stuff out, as he has a way of implanting these narratives in the media.

Its all very junior high in some ways, but effective.

Cruz seems smarmy to me, but Hillary is grating as well, so its an interesting match up.

According to Tyrone's logic, Democrats should have voted for George W. Bush for President and Republicans for Congress in 2000 and 2004 because, once elected, they proved themselves to be so incompetent that the country would never again vote for a Republican for President or for a Republican Congress.

The part about never again voting for a Republican President has held true so far...And with Trump as the candidate, I think it will hold for another 4 years...

how much do like Obamacare? Also they really tried to get a cap and trade system in place in early 2009 as well as the grab bag of dem goodies in the stimulus package (aka grab bag of dem goodies not shovel ready projects)

It very well could have been a trade people accepted

Come on Tyronne, we both know the chance of Trump "going Nixon" is 0 because he lacks the credibility with the party/officeholders. If he tried to go "Nixon" he'd really just go "John Tyler" and be kicked out of the party while in office.

Regarding the Judas bit, that is not at all an over the top absurdity and has long been seriously argued by many theologians. The powerful literary expression of the argument can be found in Nikos Kazantzakis's novel, _The Last Temptation of Christ_, which was made into a highly controversial film.

My fave part of this is Tyler and Tyrone "going over the proverbial cliff" together, :-).

Corporate leaders set goals way past what they think the company can achieve in the hopes they will get part of the way there. I think Trump's hyperbolic policy suggestions are in that vein. They get people excited and motivated, and even if we reduce immigration only some, tighten up the borders, cut taxes a bit, renegotiate trade deals, etc the direction is clear. He is turning a supertanker the way a businessman would, not a politician - ie something will happen.

I read this as evidence that Tyler is deeply--though quietly--concerned about climate change.

As he should be.... assuming he is.

Tyrone is really

Rafael E. Cruz in disguise, claiming to direct his message at Democrats,

Hoping it will hit Conservatives, so that Rafael wins.

Democrats instead should vote for Rafael E. Cruz in the primary so the Republican Party can experience that 1964 Republican Moment.

Democrats instead should vote for Rafael E. Cruz in the primary so the Republican Party can experience that 1964 Republican Moment.

Per Real Clear Politics, Cruz polls about dead even with Clinton and Sanders. You have no incumbent president running. Lyndon Johnson's polled approval ratings were north of 70% all through 1964, something fairly common during the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administrations, but unusual since (seen for a bloc of months during 1991 after the first Gulf War and for about a period shy of 2 years between September 2001 and July 2003). Still, if a Johnson landslide fantasy helps you get through the day...


I can't tell you how many of my Republican friends have told me that they would move to Rafael's home country, Canada, if he were elected. It's true, some are very establishment Republicans, but they have moved toward Trump, hoping that someone else will emerge after Cruz flames out.

By the way, what you said about the polls in RealClearPolitics is inaccurate, and maybe wishful thinking.

Here is the link to the current polls for others to decide for themselves about the accuracy of your claim: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

No, what I've said is not inaccurate, and I checked the most recent general election match-ups this morning. What your friends tell you is immaterial and it doesn't trump survey research even in a matrix such as the one in which we live, wherein such research is less reliable than it once was. Your chums want to move to Canada, maybe Alec Baldwin will rent to them.

Re Art's Falsehood: "Cruz polls about dead even with Clinton and Sanders"

Most recent general election poll results in Politico comparing Cruz, Trump Clinton and Sanders with paired races in Presidential race:

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Clinton 51, Trump 41 Clinton +10
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Cruz 45, Clinton 49 Clinton +4
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Rubio 46, Clinton 47 Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl Sanders 54, Trump 39 Sanders +15

The last one was very interesting: Sanders beats Trump by 15!

From RealClearPolitics

It shows Cruz up by +1.3 versus Clinton

C'mon, Bill, this isn't that difficult.

There have been four recent polls taken testing a Clinton v. Cruz contest and reported on Real Clear Politics. The median score for Cruz is 46.5%; that for Clinton is 45%. The confidence intervals on these polls are +/- 3%, so the notional lead is not that important.

There have been three polls there reported of a Cruz v. Sanders contest in recent months. The median score for Cruz is 43%. That for Sanders is 44%. The confidence intervals on these polls are around +/- 3% as well.

Art and JW, I didn't see the RCP composite score from mid December polls, and used the most recent general election poll reported on RCP in the link above, so Art is within margin of error if you use composite December, and if you use most current my statement stands. You can go to the link listed above to see the WSJ/NBC poll conducted recently.

There are two iron laws of US politics that hold nowadays.
Controlling Congress alone is rubbish.
Controlling the Presidency is mediocre to awesome.

Democrats for Trump? Is that because Democrats are realizing just how bad Hillary Clinton is as a candidate?

Of course, no one knows what Trump would do as president; perhaps Trump himself doesn't know. Which makes it entirely too easy to project ones hopes or fears onto Trump the candidate.

I love Tyrone! Tyler is a genius of Straussian communication. And it's wonderful to know he is a Christian after all.

Tyler, Tyrone is not a very deep thinker (I guessed the gist of the post as soon as I saw the title: "if you are a Democrat, vote for Trump, as his presidency will result in tremendous gains for Democrats in the future"). As for Trump having a "volatile temperament", shouldn't we then still expect his candidacy to implode any day now?

It seems to me you and Tyrone share significant cognitive dissonances about the current political situation, and my prediction is that they are only going to get worse. I'm waiting for Hitler comparison come September, from either you or Tyrone.

No need to wait. Scott Sumner is already talking Napoleon. His more disoriented votaries are talking inter-war fascism.

And here I was expecting (based on the headline) to read the rather obvious point that strategic party-switching by democrats to help nominate Trump would be a surefire path to a Hillary win! Well done, Tyrone.

You wrote Lennon instead of Lenin.

Freudian slip?

My first thought was, "what would Paul think?"

-...I am the walrus.
-Shut the f*** up, Donny. *V.I.* Lenin -- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!

And, by analogous reasoning, should conservative Republicans vote for Sanders?

No, Clinton may well implode on her own. If Republican's muddy the water by supporting Sanders (as some already have done), the strategy would probably back fire.

Breaking News!!

Trump just shot Cruz in the middle of 5th Avenue today,

And reported that it would not affect his election chances.

That;s what you get for supporting concealed carry.

It's funny watching supposed libertarians turn into hardcore liberals whenever questions of race and immigration are brought up.

Richard Epstein once wrote a monograph critiquing employment discrimination laws. If you follow Inside Higher Education, you'll discover that racial preference schemes are a topic of obsessive interest therein, but it's a topic of which the moderators here are quite chary. Prof. Epstein's age exceeds that of the moderators by 19 and 23 years respectively. There's libertarian and there's libertarians.

Tyrone is correct. Democrats should vote for Trump.

This is because Trump is signaling a subliminal Democratic message

With his "Let's Make America Great Again"

He is obviously referring back to the 1990 Clinton economic era with that message--he wants us to go back to the prosperity of the Bill Clinton era and thus is secretly supporting the Clintons.

Good one, Tyrone.

Tyrone is in fact echoing Lenin, who said: "The worse [capitalism excesses] the better [for Communism being adopted]" It's also expressed in the Republican 'strategy' of "Starve The Beast" (Google this).

Even if trump wins, he won't be treated as a Republican by congress or the states - every other elected Republican except VP Palin will go all out to oppose everything he does, so it would be no different than with HRC. All Trump's supporters are hardhat Democrats anyway.

I think it likely Trump could get into a nuclear war within four years and there would no longer be a US to govern. It would help with climate change in bringing on a nuclear winter to offset any carbon emissions.

The greatest thing Trump could do would be to run as a Republican, take the oath, announce a switch back to Democrat, and then he could just do whatever he wanted to do via executive order. Nobody would know whether they were supposed to support him or not since, after all, most of The Hypnotized only oppose those things when The Other Team does it, and by the time they figured it out, BOOM, done. Terrific entertainment value, which is all we can really expect from the ruling class these days.

Comments for this post are closed