S14.E14 - Wayne Pacelle, Rob Reiner, Mark Leibovich, Kellyanne Conway, and Thomas Frank

[33kaitykaity]

With Overtime

Too bad all they could talk about was Trump with the right-wing chick rolling her eyes at all-things Hillary.  

Loved Rob Reiner despite his favoring Hillary.  

 

Edited May 3, 2016 by 33kaitykaity

[ruby24]

Nope. Bill, I'm not gonna be the Democrat who's constantly freaking out about the sky falling. Not this time. You don't have to worry about turnout on the Democratic side with Trump on the ballot, the base is going to show up. I agree with Rob and that author guy, Trump is not winning a general election. The Republican primaries are an entirely different story, he can't win over a majority of Americans by insulting women, minorities and immigrants.

If anything, turnout on the Republican side will probably be low. I know some Republicans who could never bring themselves to vote for Donald Trump, and I know there's got to be other sane people out there too, who'd rather just stay home. Especially Republican women. Trump is repulsive and for all that he claims it's an act, the sexism is who he is at his core. The guy is a misogynist who sees women only as property and/or sex toys. He has for his entire life. It's going to drive him crazy to have to run against an accomplished woman.

[HelenBaby]

Kelleyanne Conway is a smug annoying conversation killer. All that she was saying about people crossing party lines to vote for Drumpf or Sanders? It's all because they see those people as easily beaten in the general election. Oh I'm sure there may be one or two who like their messages, but Democrats see the Donald as the buffoon he is and no matter what Sanders message is about income inequality, the Republicans think they can sway low information voters with the Socialist cudgel. And before everyone jumps on me about Hillary's faults, she's a little more savvy about being on the national stage & is more prepared for the attacks. 

I really hated the show for the most part and only stayed tune for New Rules, which weren't very good this week. 

[spiderpig]

I was commenting to Mr. pig that Kelleyanne Conway reminded me of a chirpy Anne Coulter (even down to the dress - in blue though). Guess who's on next week's show?

[candall]

I was much happier with this show than the last few.

In the first place, I support the USHS.  I'm blue in the face from talking to people who vilify it because they think it's supposed to be running some sort of enormous national animal shelter in DC instead of pushing legislation for animal testing, roadside zoos, tuna nets, puppy mills, circus animals, corporate farming, etc.  (The nature of lobbying--different discussion.)

But, er, Bill?  "This is the issue I care about the most and I don't want to burden the audience with my issues"?  Since when?

 

Otherwise, pretty classic RT.  The third panel guest struggling to slip in a cogent point when the certifiably insane GOP mouthpiece going head to head with the overconfident Dem pause for breath.  The middle comedy piece was dependably lame, but the fourth guest had considerably more on his resume' than common knowledge with the host of comedy club space, or weed.

 

I guess I'll always watch RT because there are still provocative points, I didn't hear the Trump quote "I have a brain and I've said things" anywhere else and "Rule by snit" makes me laugh.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Kellyanne monopolizes the conversation all the time and is often on CNN.  She also thinks she is the cat's ass staring into the camera with her constant smile, oy!  Reiner had no choice other than to pretend he was giving serious consideration to what she had to offer, surprised Bill didn't catch on right away and Rob had to explain it?!  I was not aware the Trump boys were into big game killing and it makes me sick!  

[iMonrey]

Kellyanne Conway is a real piece of work. She's one of those pundits who tries to present herself as a reasonable moderate but she employs the same tactic they all do - pivoting. Bill asked why Trump was "masculine" and she pivoted to why Hillary isn't attracting young women voters. Way to change the conversation. 

Then she says economic disparity is a bipartisan affliction but there's a drastic difference between Trump supporters and Sanders supporters and that difference is largely racism. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or delusional. 

And people don't support Hillary because she tries to pass herself off as one of the common folks even though she makes more money off one speech than most people do all year. OK - but what about Trump? Like he doesn't have money? And when you get down to it, Sanders isn't exactly living in a cardboard box either. Nobody running for President can claim to be one of the little people.

Man, talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Rob Reiner always keeps the conversation lively, but the panel was a little too chaotic, thanks mostly to Conway. Thomas Frank makes some valid points but his basic premise is "Democrats are just as bad as Republicans" and I'm sick of that overly simplistic narrative. That's only true if you consider one issue: Wall Street. Otherwise the two parties are miles apart on everything from immigration to civil rights.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Again, the piece about this show's verision of Us  magazine, had me rolling and laughing hysterically. 

I detest Conway--I'm pretty sure the last time she was on this show, she was blathering on about how "safe" frakking was and how doing it ensured coal miners would have jobs. Or something along those lines.  And Kelly? Hillary is a woman. I really wish that Bill had quoted what Hillary said in response to Drumpf's accusation of her playing the "woman" card.  And I don't believe (based on the few whackadoodles asked that I've seen) that those that luuuuuuve Trump are the disenfranchised people--they're out and out racists, who love him because he's able to say racist, sexist, misogynistic, bigoted shit and no one calls him out on it, like they would if anyone else said it, and cloak it under political correctness. It's like 'see? see?! He can say what we're feeling and thinking and doesn't apologize for it or is made to apologize for it and it's TRUTH!' craziness.

I have to believe that there are supporters for Bernie Sanders who don't prefer that blowhard over Hillary.

And I wasn't sure what that Frank guy was saying, and then I read what iMonrey posted above and it became clear. I really have no patience for those kinds of people.

Yes, Reiner was overconfident, but I still love him. I also wanted to hear more from Mark.

It was nice to see, when Bill blew up at Reiner for predicting a "landslide" that he didn't stay pissed or frustrated and that they ended up joking with each other again.  And yes, Conway, explain what you fucking mean intsead of acting like you're taking some high road and the others are slinging mud when asked how is Hillary playing the woman card.

[ganesh]

I'm not a pollster, so I'm only guessing! Based on what I hear on talk radio and the news, there's this "We cannot let Clinton become president, it would be a disaster." So, I imagine that there's a lot of people who will just vote on hate. On the actual news, you see all the gop candidates trashing Trump and then saying they'll still vote for him if he's the nominee, so presumably they're going to tell their supporters to vote for him too.

A win for Clinton isn't really going to be a "win" unless it's 60%+, probably 65%. You want to say twice as many Americans voted for Clinton. It's like college football. You can't stay #1 if you squeak out a win by a field goal. You have to win by 2 touchdowns at least. 

Rob Reiner really brought it to that woman. She would not stop and let him talk when he was asking her questions. She was going to say her thing and that was that. If your answer is "many reasons", then you can leave the adults table now. Go have some crabcakes with Ann.

Hey you know what? If you're 25+ or so and don't think you can go back to college, you can go to my college. Or, I'd even say if we made community colleges more affordable, you can go back and learn some cad software or get some machining/lathe skills, etc. You'll get a job. "Not everyone is going to do that" because they aren't aware that it's an option. 

It has to be so tiring to *always* have to interrupt with a quip, and it has to be even more arduous to not be able to complete your sentence because you're always pausing to parry the incoming interruption. 

Reagan started out as a tv character --he was also governor of California, big job-- yes, obviously, and the overall point is that his playing a tv character led to a lot of success in his political career. *Everything* has to be disputed. 

Edited April 30, 2016 by ganesh

[candall]

4 hours ago, Foghorn Leghorn said:

 I was not aware the Trump boys were into big game killing and it makes me sick!  

Oh, yes.  There are trophy photos of one son posing next to his dead leopard and the other son jauntily swinging around the tail he cut off the elephant he'd just shot.

There was some negative backlash in (I think) England, but it never really pinged on the radar here.

 

The part I didn't know was Chelsea's involvement with banning ivory trade.  Wow, could there be a more perfect next-generation juxtaposition?

[ruby24]

I don't like it when people constantly bring up Reagan as the reason Trump could win. First of all, I do think we're getting to the point where people need to stop referring back to the Reagan era as something comparable to modern times, because really guys, it was a long time ago now, and no one refers back to pre-80's elections as having anything to do with now. I think it's getting there on the 80's as well.

Second, I do think there a lot of differences there. Like Rob said, the man was governor of CA for two terms and he ran in '76. He had a political career before just deciding to run for president. His acting career was what, two decades behind him at the time? Trump is literally straight out of reality show land. And also, did Reagan act anything like Trump as far as fanning the flames of all this hatred with his rhetoric? Trump's more like George Wallace in that regard.

I really don't think it's the same thing. Just because they have "charisma" from being in television or movies, that's not the only thing that matters. I mean, Obama has as much charisma as any movie star in that regard as well. Obviously, that helps anyone with the media.

Edited April 30, 2016 by ruby24

[Victor the Crab]

"We need to adopt progressive, forward thinking ideas like Bernie says to get the country going. But don't you go spouting off ANY politically correct nonsense, or else Trump and the Republicans will win in November. Then it will be all YOUR fault!" - The message Bill seems to be sending last night.

The shit that spews out of Bill's mouth is why I tend not to take him as seriously as he so badly demands.

YUCK! It's bad enough that walking blight on humanity Ann Coulter will be one of Bill's guests next week, but that smarmy piece of shit Nick Gillespie will be on as well. He's just as bad with the rude, obnoxious behavior as Coulter.

The upside is that Bryan Cranston will grace his presence.

[BooBear]

I just hate when the panel can't have cogent conversation and degenerates into a yelling match. Bill please start looking for better panel members. I usually use real time to put me to sleep on Friday nights and that doesn't work when they are all screaming at each other mmmmkkkayyy.

[ganesh]

That's not happening any time soon. For one, Bill says he likes the yelling. The other, who is going to come on the show? It's not like there's a stable of cogent, erudite conservative pundits. 

[b2H]

I went ahead and looked up the trophy hunting for the Trump boys.  I found a decent link.  I then went on Snopes, who designated the story True.

I attached both links to my page on FB.  Yes, the actual article and the Snopes (I am kind of a Snopes queen when people post that stupid kind of stuff).  This way, if someone wants to say it isn't true, they can argue with Snopes.  Already two of my friends, who didn't know about it (but are on the Blue side of the fence) have reacted.  I'm hoping more of my 'Red' friends at least look at it, but I probably hope too much.

[attica]

There is an answer to Bill and Frank's rhetorical question of why 'rubes' are Trump supporters, when he's not one of them, and in fact would take no small pleasure in firing them. It's called Identification to the Aggressor, and it's a pretty common phenomenon. You see it in every bully's posse, every Darth Vader's Storm Troopers.. It's the desire to acquire the Top Dog's strength as your own, so you can spit on them that are below you.

[ganesh]

Trump is giving the 'rubes' essentially license to be racist too. 

[candall]

18 hours ago, b2H said:

I went ahead and looked up the trophy hunting for the Trump boys.  I found a decent link.  I then went on Snopes, who designated the story True.

 

https://www.google.com/#q=Don+Trump+trophy+hunt+photos

https://www.google.com/#q=Eric+Trump+trophy+hunt+photos

Here you go, an extravaganza of big game good times.  Trump Jr. and his girlfriend look so cozy with the dead giraffe's neck wrapped around them. [/s]

Edited May 1, 2016 by candall

[HalcyonDays]

Hey People, We have a rule here. Be Civil and Be Respectful. Discuss the show; what happened, who said what, who replied to what. You do NOT insult each other, linguistically roll your eyes at each other, attack each other or engage each other in petty back and forth you said/I said arguments.

Post have been removed. Move on with discussing what happened on the show in a CIVIL manner.

[wknt3]

19 hours ago, ganesh said:

That's not happening any time soon. For one, Bill says he likes the yelling. The other, who is going to come on the show? It's not like there's a stable of cogent, erudite conservative pundits. 

There's the rub. For Bill it's a feature, not a bug. He likes it when they yell and say batshit crazy things. It allows him to pose as the defender of free speech who will let anyone come on his show. He gets lots of opportunities to tee off on stupidity. And he knows that's there's a sizable portion of the viewers who will stay to watch the train wreck of people yelling at each other and calling it a debate (see CNN, MSNBC, ESPN...) And many of these pundits are apparently great fun off camera so who cares? Maybe they monopolize the panel and derail an interesting, entertaining discussion. But it's probably more likely they fill air time with a panel that doesn't gel, make Bill's job easier, care so much about getting booked again or are so vapid they won't or can't seriously challenge Bill on anything he really cares about, and then they smoke and drink with him at the after party. And as long as that's what he wants that's what we'll get.

Edited May 1, 2016 by wknt3
fix formatting

[grawlix]

On a slight tangent, was anyone else thinking "Why is Melanie Griffith on Real Time?!?!" when the panel was being introduced?

[teebax]

On 4/30/2016 at 8:24 AM, iMonrey said:

On 4/30/2016 at 7:45 AM, spiderpig said:

I was commenting to Mr. pig that Kelleyanne Conway reminded me of a chirpy Anne Coulter (even down to the dress - in blue though). Guess who's on next week's show?

 

I can't wait to miss it. I'll have to come here to see what I missed, but I can't watch or listen to AC. Life is too short. I can't think of another pundit I despise more.

[ganesh]

I only watch so I can discuss it here with everyone else. What ridiculous thing will come out of Coulter's mouth this time? Who will she insult?

[candall]

49 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I only watch so I can discuss it here with everyone else. What ridiculous thing will come out of Coulter's mouth this time? Who will she insult?

Since the whole situation is already so outrageous, Coulter's going to have to hit fucking hyperdrive, just to maintain.

 

Maybe her head will pop off.

[ganesh]

That's the problem. She always has to outdo herself because every appearance she has to up the incredulity. 

[ktwo]

Quote

And also, did Reagan act anything like Trump as far as fanning the flames of all this hatred with his rhetoric? Trump's more like George Wallace in that regard.

Reagan kicked off his 1980 general election run in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The very small town famous for only one thing - the murders of three civil rights activists sixteen years before by its sheriff and his KKK buddies. He spoke about state's rights and the overreaching power of the federal government over state and local governments and businesses to a crowd in Philadelphia, Mississippi. So certainly not Wallace level, but that was one hell of a dog whistle.

[ganesh]

Not to mention turning a blind eye to HIV till 1987 and essentially refusing to his best friend thus condemning him to death. The republicans have essentially been running on Nixon's southern strategy since 1968.  They never anticipated that the singularity of that would be someone from outside the party machine.

Edited May 2, 2016 by ganesh

[bluepiano]

So Bill blasts the media for their Trump obsession, on a show where over half his monologue is about Trump and he opens the panel discussion asking a question about Trump. In fact, I believe this has been the pattern for every Real Time this season. Bill and every other liberal comic with a TV show forfeit their claim to moral superiority when they exploit Trump for ratings, which is the same thing they blast the news media for doing

I think the panel was pretty bad this week, and while I'm no Trump fan, a rich liberal like Rob Reiner repeatedly calling him a moron and an idiot is neither entertaining nor a contribution to political discourse. In fact, this is the attitude that probably drives many people to support Trump. Bill on occasion has tried to go for a deeper level of discussion, but too often his humor degenerates into crude mockery and grade school level insults. If I wanted bad hair and small penis jokes I can find them on the internet 24/7.

My guess is that a true satirist like George Carlin would use Trump as a source for comedy but at the same time make some meaningful observations about the roots of his popularity, without stooping to condescension or simply labelling his supporters racist boobs. Real satire can even sometimes get people to reconsider their positions. I just don't think Bill is capable of humor that works on that level. Or else he's too lazy to try, especially given his often stated opinion regarding the low IQ of the public.

Edited May 2, 2016 by bluepiano

[ahpny]

Quote

I think the panel was pretty bad this week, and while I'm no Trump fan, a rich liberal like Rob Reiner repeatedly calling him a moron and an idiot is neither entertaining nor a contribution to political discourse. In fact, this is the attitude that probably drives many people to support Trump.

This one was the weakest of the season so far. I found both Kelleyanne and Rob irksome. Rob seemed smug and childish, sitting there with his hands folded half the time. But at least one point Kelleyanne raised rings true to me, and is in line with Bill’s fatwah on “landslidism:” Ignore Trump’s supporters at your peril. He’s touched a nerve and that should be considered seriously.

Also, how could this show proceed with no one saying anything about Boehner’s comment that Cruz was the worst son of a bitch he’d ever worked with and that Cruz was Lucifer himself? You have conservatives attacking one another viciously, plus, you know, the Devil. This seems like the reddest red meat ever for Bill, yet nothing. Was there some sort of deal with Kelleyanne (Cruz supporter that she is) to avoid this topic entirely as part of her agreement to appear on the show? Nothing else seems to explain it.

[ganesh]

I thought it might have happened too late in the week after Bill already prepared the show. Maybe he wanted to save it for Ann.

[iMonrey]

Quote

So Bill blasts the media for their Trump obsession, on a show where over half his monologue is about Trump and he opens the panel discussion asking a question about Trump. In fact, I believe this has been the pattern for every Real Time this season. Bill and every other liberal comic with a TV show forfeit their claim to moral superiority when they exploit Trump for ratings, which is the same thing they blast the news media for doing

To be honest I don't think Bill has really made a huge issue out of the media's coverage of Trump, and this week he rightfully pointed out that his show is entertainment, not a news show, so there's a difference between news shows spending 24/7 on Trump and entertainment shows making jokes about him.

In some ways Overtime works better than the show proper, because each panelist and guest is given one question and the opportunity to answer at length without interruption. For the most part. Whatever Mark Leibovich was asked, Bill actually interrupted him to make a dumb joke. Grrr. 

[bluepiano]

He also did the same thing with the author who was the second guest. That's when Bill is at his worst, at least as far as being a host/moderator. He can't resist interrupting to make a job. It comes down to the show always being about him.

I got really frustrated when all the panelists kept talking about people who only have a high school education, because these supposed experts were missing a huge part of the real story. What's changed over the past 10-15 years is that college grads and even people with advanced degrees are finding themselves unemployed (due in part to foreign outsourcing) or stuck at the same pay levels while housing, health, and education costs skyrocket. This is what Bernie Sanders speaks about. And although it's debatable that Trump genuinely cares, he at least talks the talk. I kept waiting for Bill to mention this, but instead he just stuck with the narrative that it's the ignorant and uneducated who are dissatisfied with the status quo.

Ironic, since he delivered that diatribe about the out-of-touch liberal Democratic elite, but he seemed pretty out of touch himself. And while I've always liked Rob Reiner as an actor, could he have been any more smug and self-satisfied? Conservatives always talk about Hollywood liberals like they're a bunch of Molotov-cocktail throwing Bolsheviks,  but in truth people like Reiner and George Clooney are as much part of the 1%, and as invested in maintaining the status quo, as any Republican Wall Street insider.

Edited May 2, 2016 by bluepiano

[ganesh]

Clooney has said the money in politics is ridiculous though. I'd rather have Clooney throwing his money around than the Koch brothers. And there's plenty of people like Gates and Zuckerberg who have pledged to donate 95%+ of their wealth away, and others like Buffett who have said that taxes should be raised on them. They are all the 1%, but it's not accurate to lump them all together. 

I think what they were getting at with the high school educated people is that their consistently voting against their own interests. So, calling them stupid is kind of mean, but it is stupid. Obama and Sanders are trying to expand educational opportunities for these exact people. It doesn't guarantee a job, but just going to a cc and getting certified on CAD is going to up your chances considerably. They won't vote for higher taxes even though it wouldn't affect them, in terms of paying, but possibly could help them in the longer term, and, currently, if Trump or Cruz rolls back the ACA and they aren't covered under the extension. Or, looking at Kansas, where they basically eliminated taxes for the "job creators" who just pocketed the cash. 

[Victor the Crab]

8 hours ago, ahpny said:

But at least one point Kelleyanne raised rings true to me, and is in line with Bill’s fatwah on “landslidism:” Ignore Trump’s supporters at your peril. He’s touched a nerve and that should be considered seriously.

Considering he polls very badly with women, polls very badly with Latinos, and is considered by fivethirtyeight to be the weakest nominee ever, the threat of Donald Drumph as president rings very hollow.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Victor the Crab

[Maherjunkie]

I do not trust that.  No one suspected he'd get this far.

I just wanted to punch that bitch.  Hillary is the nominee you idiot!  She looked like a blonde Olive Oyl.

[ganesh]

Predictions aside, I think it's just smart for Clinton to get everyone out to vote : get out and vote for me . Let's win big and show Congress that we mean business and want to get things done. 

The first thing Obama said after Democrats lost the Senate in 2014 war that it wasn't a mandate for the GOP. And it wasn't. That's exactly what's going to be asked of Clinton. 

[bluepiano]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

Clooney has said the money in politics is ridiculous though. I'd rather have Clooney throwing his money around than the Koch brothers. And there's plenty of people like Gates and Zuckerberg who have pledged to donate 95%+ of their wealth away, and others like Buffett who have said that taxes should be raised on them. They are all the 1%, but it's not accurate to lump them all together. 

I think what they were getting at with the high school educated people is that their consistently voting against their own interests.

I agree about Clooney vs. The Kochs, but just because the Republicans are horrible doesn't mean that the Democrats should get a free pass. That's one of the points Thomas Frank was trying to make, when Bill wasn't interrupting him. Like Bernie Sanders or not, I think the Democrat Party owes him a debt of gratitude, for making them reconnect with their traditional roots as the party that defends working people and the middle class.

Another point Frank was trying to make is that affluent Democrats can live in a bubble the same way as affluent Republicans. It doesn't mean those people are uncaring or selfish. (Well, at least not all of them). But American society is largely fragmented and there is not a lot of dialogue between different social classes. (At least you generally don't hear Democrats talk about poor people being lazy and looking for hand-outs). 

People voting against their own interest is what the Republicans have depended on for decades. As Bill said, the popularity of Trump is largely due to many lifelong Republicans finally realizing that they've been taken. But on the other side, you can say that many Bernie supporters are Democrats who feel that the mainstream, middle of the road Dem Party has not made their well-being a priority either. (Is there any greater irony than the Republicans constantly accusing Obama a socialist, when under his administration corporate America achieved their greatest profits ever?)

Edited May 3, 2016 by bluepiano

[ganesh]

Quote

People voting against their own interest is what the Republicans have depended on for decades.  As Bill said, the popularity of Trump is largely due to many lifelong Republicans finally realizing that they've been taken. 

That's what I'm saying. Calling those people stupid is harsh, but not off base. 

Trump and Sanders is a false equivalency, and I think tv people overuse it way too much. I don't think that Sanders can achieve much of what he says, but he's actually talking about expanding opportunities for the very people that are voting for Trump, who isn't going to do squat for them. The supporters of both are legitimately disillusioned with a so-called "broken" political system, but who was voting for the tea party people, who all said, "we are the party of no" and ran on no compromising? Now they've realized they've been "taken?" Then don't vote for people who don't represent you or understand you. That's basically what they were saying on the show. 

Sanders supporters may be naive in thinking what he can accomplish, but I'm going to bet they haven't been voting for people who flat out refused to govern the country. They can be mad that most politicians are taking big money and all that, and that's fair. Sanders has shown that you don't necessarily have to do it like that, and that's a really good thing. It's not the same as Trump not being beholden to special interests though because he's an actual near-billionaire.  

I'm not giving the Democrats a free pass. Certainly, Clinton isn't going to be cracking down on Wall Street. But when you're talking about which billionaires are saying, "yes, let's raise taxes," or donating 95% of their wealth, who are those people usually voting for?

[iMonrey]

Quote

Considering he polls very badly with women, polls very badly with Latinos, and is considered by fivethirtyeight to be the weakest nominee ever, the threat of Donald Drumph as president rings very hollow.

It was almost comical how manic and screechy Bill got every time someone suggested Hillary would win in a landslide. I mean - I get where he's coming from, because Democratic voters could theoretically be too complacent to come out and vote. However, with Trump as the Republican candidate, Clinton is going to get all the voters that came out for Obama precisely because they will be even more terrified of Trump than they were of McCain or Romney. Neither of the two previous Republican presidential candidates said anything near the batshit levels of crazy Trump has said. And on the flip side, Trump is going to have the same problem McCain and Romney had - the evangelical base that usually puts Republicans in office will sit this one out.

Clinton may not get a lot of Bernie supporters but how many of them voted for Obama anyway? A lot of them weren't even old enough to vote in the last election. Bernie's success rests on his ability to get people who usually don't vote. Most of them can sit out the election without causing a shift of any kind.

[ganesh]

That's all true, but they did point out on the show that Trump is bringing out new voters too. The extent to which may be exaggerated. While women shouldn't vote for Clinton just because she's a woman, 70% of women don't like him. You'd have to think she'll carry a majority of women. 

[Victor the Crab]

18 hours ago, Maherjunkie said:

I do not trust that.  No one suspected he'd get this far.

Trust it! You're not going to win the presidency if the majority of key voting blocks hate your guts. Ask Mitt Romney that.

[Hanahope]

Quote

Clinton is going to get all the voters that came out for Obama precisely because they will be even more terrified of Trump than they were of McCain or Romney. Neither of the two previous Republican presidential candidates said anything near the batshit levels of crazy Trump has said

I think Bill was worried because people were not out voting against McCain and Romney so much as they were voting for Obama (at least a lot of minorities were).  But I agree that this year, many people are likely going vote for Clinton in order to vote against Trump.  Its my hope that with enough people voting against Trump, that will help the Dems in all the other races as well, and perhaps with a friendlier Congress, a democratic administration can actually get more things accomplished.

[ganesh]

Yes, that's another reason that they should be getting out all these new young voters. There's a much larger picture, politically. 

[IvySpice]

Quote

So certainly not Wallace level, but that was one hell of a dog whistle.

Right. Reagan was signaling racism to people who knew what to listen for, but there was nothing like Trump's level of misogyny and ugliness, ever. You can make a good argument that it's better that Trump is bringing it to the surface so that it's undeniable, but it's definitely a change of tone.

Kellyanne was so full of BS. "Why isn't she the nominee??" Because she's in the process of beating a strong challenger on the left. She's going to be the nominee, but Democrats aren't monolithic, and we're having a robust contest on our side. WTH does that prove? Whether you waltz to the nomination or fight a tough primary contest is no predictor of how you'll do in the general. You know who had a tough primary? Reagan in 1980. He still won the general in a landslide.

[candall]

Like Bill, I get the cold sweats about voter complacency that Clinton will win in a walk.  But I do not understand the thinking that Repubs will be humbled into admitting there was any sort of mandate, no matter how large the margin.  They'll just lay it on "that bastard outsider" and swear a true GOP mainstreamer is the answer.  See:  the Tea Party characterizing that last GOP rout as failure to be conservative enough.

 

The thought of game-changer Congressional trickle-down from a massive Hillary win makes me lightheaded and giddy.  Don't tease me like that.

[ganesh]

Oh, there's no way the republicans will admit to a mandate. That doesn't mean if Clinton wins with 75% of the vote and carries nearly 40 states that it isn't a mandate though. 

[Victor the Crab]

Bush was giftwrapped the presidency in 2000 despite being outvoted by Gore and the real likelihood Gore would have won Florida if not for the batshit insanity that happened down there. And yet Bush and the Republicans acted as if the public gave them a decisive mandate to do whatever the fuck they pleased. Even if they don't like and distrust Drumph, they're going to pull the same shit if, God forbid, he becomes president.

[ruby24]

I don't see why predicting a landslide against Trump equates to people not voting because they think it's going to be an easy win for her. I'm voting because I WANT Trump to get crushed. The people who are going to be voting against him all want that too. 70% of people hate this guy, they want to see him annihilated in the fall.

I'm still freaked out that this actually happened. A major political party let this clown take over and now he's one step away from the White House. That's so surreal. The closest thing we've ever heard to this kind of rhetoric was George Wallace, and he ended up running third party. I have to blame the media in a lot of ways for this.

[ganesh]

Typically, because young people are the demo that typically don't come out and vote. So it could be closer. Sure, plenty will come out to vote against Trump because they hate him, but we all know well enough that Clinton has been vilified for basically all my adult life, well I know that, but the point is it's a long time. We all know well enough that the gop is going to be waging the d-day operation of hate campaign against her, and there's a lot of people that will vote anti-Clinton. Most likely not enough. My point is that just winning isn't going to be good enough. The democrats flat out suck at controlling the national narrative and just saying "Trump is a bad person" just isn't a demolition strategy. 

Definitely a huge amount of blame should be on the media. But it's not like Cruz is much different than Trump. They didn't hold anyone's feet to the fire. The gop is just pissed that they've been planning this at least since Reagan and now they can't control it. It's like Dune when Jessica had Paul instead of a girl!

[candall]

Breaking news:  Trump has replaced Campaign Manager Paul Manafort with **drum roll** Kellyanne Conway. 

 

I came back to review the thoughtful tenor of her reasoning during this appearance.  [/s]