conservatives not exactly enthralled by trump are a problem

THIS ONE ISDOOZY! The ques­tion on Quora was, “Would lib­er­als be sur­prised to learn that con­ser­v­a­tives aren't ex­actly en­thralled with Don­ald Trump ei­ther?" One must make some as­sump­tions when en­gag­ing other In­ter­ne­tally, so I as­sume that the per­son who posted this ques­tion is po­lit­i­cally con­ser­v­a­tive. I also as­sume that he as­sumes that ask­ing it dis­plays his feel­ings and opin­ion about the cur­rent ad­min­is­tra­tion as be­ing rea­son­able.

My name is called Dis­tur­bance. I'll shout and scream! I'll kill the king! I'll rail at all his ser­vants!

But what­ever one's pol­i­tics, we have all watched an ap­par­ent racist, misog­y­nis­tic, nar­cis­sist, and bully em­brace white su­prema­cists as a can­di­date.

We have watched him run amok for two years as the pres­i­dent, throw­ing what ap­pear to be tem­per tantrums via tweets ("tweet­rums"?) on a daily ba­sis. We have read these tweets, which are of­ten as gram­mat­i­cally chal­lenged as they are fac­tu­ally chal­lenged.

Think­ing that when you "aren't ex­actly en­thralled" with Trump's heinous be­hav­ior you are some­how be­ing rea­son­able . . . well, folks, that's not ex­actly a rea­son­able re­sponse.

A rea­son­able re­sponse at this time might be to run amok your­self, yelling things like "My name is called Dis­tur­bance. I'll shout and scream! I'll kill the king! I'll rail at all his ser­vants!" and "Off with his head!"

Need­less to say, I of­fered up an an­swer to the ques­tion,Would lib­er­als be sur­prised to learn that con­ser­v­a­tives aren't ex­actly en­thralled with Don­ald Trump ei­ther?" You can read it be­low, in­dented be­tween the two car­toons (and both car­toons were brought to my at­ten­tion by Maryann Hymel).

 

Trump cartoon TwiceThePaperTowels Granlund 1000

Car­toon by Dave Granlund.

The Anecdote

A num­ber of years ago, I met a woman who worked for the lot­tery com­mis­sion of our state. I re­marked that it seemed back­ward to me that states would let in­di­vid­ual lot­ter­ies build up un­til there were gi­gan­tic pots ex­ceed­ing $100,000,000.

I asked, “Why don’t the states just take their cut off the top of each week’s ticket sales, then di­vide what’s left into lots of $100,000 each and give a hun­dred res­i­dents a $100,000 pay-out in­stead of giv­ing one res­i­dent a $10,000,000 pay-out?”

She smiled and said, “You’re not a gam­bler, are you?”

No,” I replied. “Why?”

She said, “If you were, you’d un­der­stand: the big­ger the prize, the more tick­ets we sell. The more tick­ets we sell, the more money the states make.”

Huh,” I said.

Gam­blers like to gam­ble,” she said, “and they're the ones that spend all the money buy­ing all the tick­ets.”

The Election

In the 2016 pres­i­den­tial elec­tion, the vote tal­lies were:

Clin­ton:  65,844,610
Trump:   62,979,636

Clin­ton beat Trump with 48.2% of the votes to his 46.1% of the votes. (The other 5.7% of the votes were cast by those re­ally smart folk who like to make "state­ments" with their wasted votes.)

Nonethe­less, the elec­tors of the Elec­toral Col­lege gave Trump the win.

It would not be in­ac­cu­rate to say that it's been chaotic since.


If a spe­cial re-election was held in No­vem­ber 2018 with Clin­ton ver­sus Trump, I will bet you that the same peo­ple who voted for Trump in 2016 would vote for him all over again in 2018.


The Wager

That anec­dote above was to in­form you that not only am I not a gam­bling man, but I also don’t even un­der­stand gam­blers.

That said, I'm pre­pared to make you a hy­po­thet­i­cal wa­ger, and the data about the last elec­tion above was to give you facts about my wa­ger.

Here is my wa­ger: if a spe­cial re-election was held in No­vem­ber 2018 with Hillary Clin­ton ver­sus Don­ald Trump, I will bet you that the same 62,979,636 peo­ple who voted for Trump in 2016 would vote for him again in 2018.

I will give you 10:1 (ten-to-one) odds and I'm will­ing to put up my last buck-three-eighty in the bet!

The Footnote

Of course, if such a spe­cial re-election was held, there would prob­a­bly be sev­eral mil­lion more votes cast. There were a lot of id­iots peo­ple who sat out the 2016 elec­tion be­cause of two ma­jor rea­sons:

1.  They didn’t see any dif­fer­ence be­tween the two par­ties.

2.  They were swal­lowed FBI head and life­long Rep*blican James Comey’s “Oc­to­ber sur­prise” an­nounce­ment about find­ing yet more mean­ing­less “Hillary emails,” an ac­tion he al­legedly re­gret­ted af­ter it al­most cer­tainly cost Clin­ton mil­lions of votes.

It's likely that a small por­tion of the first group would re­al­ize that — gasp! — there is a HUGE dif­fer­ence be­tween the two par­ties. These peo­ple could show up this time and vote for Clin­ton.

It's also likely that a small por­tion of the sec­ond group would re­al­ize that Comey f*cked them over with his an­nounce­ment and that there never was any ev­i­dence of any kind of wrong­do­ing by Clin­ton. These peo­ple could show up this time and vote for Clin­ton.

Con­se­quently, Clin­ton could win a re-election by the 6,000,000-8,000,000 votes she should have won the 2016 elec­tion by. This would be too big a dif­fer­ence for the bas­tards at the Elec­toral Col­lege to over­come.

Be­cause I re­al­ize that for ei­ther of the above sce­nar­ios to hap­pen, sev­eral mil­lion peo­ple would have to ac­knowl­edge that they were wrong about some­thing and to act on it.

On this, I will not gam­ble . . .

 

Trump cartoon TremendouslyWet Ohman 1000

Car­toon by Jack Ohman.

Both sides do it

Fi­nally, give a read to the opin­ion piece "Trump De­range­ment Syn­drome Is a Myth" by David Leon­hardt on today's New York Times web­site. The sub-heading is, "And the De­mo­c­ra­tic Party has not ac­tu­ally be­come a band of rad­i­cal left­ists." Here are the open­ing para­graphs:

"Con­ven­tional wis­dom says that the mid­dle is dis­ap­pear­ing from Amer­i­can pol­i­tics: The Re­pub­li­cans have moved far to the right, the De­moc­rats far to the left, and woe to any mod­er­ate vot­ers look­ing for politi­cians to rep­re­sent their views.

Well, the con­ven­tional wis­dom is wrong. The De­moc­rats have not ac­tu­ally be­come rad­i­cal left­ists, or any­thing close to it.

You keep hear­ing this story partly be­cause Re­pub­li­cans have an ob­vi­ous in­ter­est in pro­mot­ing it and partly be­cause large parts of the news me­dia find it ir­re­sistible. It’s a 'both sides do it' an­gle that al­lows us jour­nal­ists to ap­pear tough, know­ing and above the par­ti­san scrum. We love that im­age. But the facts don’t sup­port the story in this case."

Mil­lions of peo­ple have to ac­knowl­edge they were wrong about Trump and do some­thing about it and on this, I will not gam­ble. Click To Tweet

Trump Atlantic Autocracy 1000

FEATURED IMAGE: The im­age at the top of this page is a draw­ing by Jef­frey Smith that ac­com­pa­nied the ar­ti­cle "How to Build an Au­toc­racy" by David Frum on The At­lantic web­site. The sub-heading is, "The pre­con­di­tions are present in the U.S. to­day. Here’s the play­book Don­ald Trump could use to set the coun­try down a path to­ward il­lib­er­al­ism.