I think 2 implies more optimism than I'm willing to have.
I think he'll agree to the debates. I bet he remembers campaign-time fondly, and has filed them away as a success.
Conceding the election? Should we be so lucky: I bet he will live in a gray area where one day he's tweeting about how it was rigged and he's the rightful president, and the next day he's tweeting at his own campaign team for screwing everything up. I don't see him actually pulling out forceful stops and gunning for a coup so much as continuing to rile up his base, foment violence, and make the transition as ugly as possible.
1) Yes. He's a narcissist with no sense of his limitations.
2) *would*, not will. Not sure. Depends on the margins. Depends how Fox calls it. Depends what Congress Republicans, the AG, the Joint Chiefs (God help us) are saying. I get where Moby is coming from, but OTOH one has Trump's cowardice and conflict-aversion.
And on the other hand we have these Congressional Democrats.
What Netanyahu is doing now is a dry run for what Trump will do.
5: Try to form a new government? Is he doing anything unconstitutional at this point?
6 Just generally in refusing to concede and blaming the media and Arabs/immigrants.
But he doesn't have to concede. AIUI it's a parliamentary system and it's still possible for him to form a government.
Of course he'll agree to debates. "Do you think that Trump will want to appear on national TV for an hour talking about himself and insulting his opponent?" is not a tricky question to answer. What, you think he's going to come over all shy? He's going to say to himself "gosh I'm really not up to this, Joe Biden could make me look stupid"?
But I don't think he will concede because I don't think he's going to lose. Presidents running for re-election generally win (18 times out of 27).
If he loses, I think 3 is the most likely outcome, but an entertaining alternative would be for him to resign immediately after the result is announced and leave Mike Pence to do the conceding.
A kind of "you can't fire me, I quit!" approach.
Presidents running for re-election generally win (18 times out of 27).
This stat seems really unilluminating without some acknowledgement that we're in a politically very unusual situation. He lost the popular vote, which is not unprecedented but hasn't happened much, and he hasn't done much that's likely to broaden his appeal while in office.
ESPECIALLY WHILE ENTANGLED WITH IRANIAN REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS.
This dipshit absolutely thinks he went 3/3 in 2016 AND that he won the popular vote. I don't know what'll happen but it won't be normal.
Also, why did Doha build a giant cock in the middle of its skyline?
Ah, the Condom Tower (it's got a reservoir tip). They're also building a vagina stadium for the World Cup.
||
I discovered last week that a co-worker (like, on my team, literally sits next to me) is an Unfogged commenter of long standing. They inferred I was too from our mutuals at Another Place. We even met at a Meetup years ago and didn't remember one another.
|>
Of course now everybody knows I'm a poseur bc I didn't write cow-orker or whatever.
Also we'll only be co-workers for a few more days, then balance will be restored The Force.
Hah. There's a guy at my office (in my old bureau, but not someone I knew) who commented under his real name at Crooked Timber back when those were livelier, and some other places too. I always felt a little bad because I knew who he was but not vice versa. OTOH, he wasn't super interesting either online or inperson, so I never brought it up.
19: A close friend employed by your employer (at least, the one you worked for ca. 2013) also mentioned having met a co-worker who was a long-term commenter earlier this summer, at which point I dropped the shocking bombshell that I leave tedious normie comments here all the time despite my real-life pose of being too pure for the Internet. This did not end our friendship, but the friend also admitted they just weren't ever going to read comments. In conclusion, this is the one truly inconsequential place online in 2019, except for that swimming champion business.
This stat seems really unilluminating without some acknowledgement that we're in a politically very unusual situation.
Yeah, granted - and there are lots of arguments for downrating Trump's chances from 0.67. You mention one: he lost the popular vote. This is unusual but not unprecedented - he's the fifth person to become president but lose the popular vote, and of the four others only two lost re-election attempts: John Q Adams and Benjamin Harrison. George II Bush was re-elected and Hayes never intended to stand again. So one in three presidents who lose the popular vote get re-elected, and 17 out of 24 presidents who win the popular vote get re-elected. Those aren't really statistically distinguishable.
Another: he's been unprecedentedly personally unpopular for his entire term so far.
But then again, there are so few data points that almost every election - especially re-election attempts - is a politically very unusual situation. Trump is an incumbent with a very supportive Senate and a hostile but largely inert House, he is extremely well funded, he will be supported by friendly Fed policy in his election year (like all previous Republican presidents; peer-reviewed article showing this available).
19, 23 A similar thing happened to another commenter here at another blog a few of us used to be regulars on. Kind of hilarious and I need to ask for any updates at the next meet-up. The other commenter was a bit of a dick too (not the one who comments here).
Some may think the commenter here is a bit of a dick but I certainly don't. The other commenter was a total dick though.
I was worried this might be an "if you don't know who the sucker is" situation. In which case I would have pointed out that *I* don't live next door to a literal giant dick.
The weird thing was that other commenter on the other blog was a real good guy irl by all indications. Had saved people's lives and put himself at risk to do so. But a raging asshole on that blog. Go figure.
I would be fascinated to see, even though I'm not sure I could watch, a Trump vs. Warren debate. He would, no doubt, try to pull all the same shit on her that he did on Clinton, plus Pocahontas, etc. But Warren is such a different candidate than Clinton, it's hard for me to imagine how she would take him on and I'm curious what it would look like, even if I had to watch through my fingers a la horror movie.
Trump vs. Biden on the other hand would be more straightforwardly entertaining.
I cannot imagine watching a Trump Biden debate. I would long for death.
31: My own intuitive reaction is the opposite.
Warren is such a different candidate than Clinton
For the purpose of debates, Warren and Clinton are functionally identical. They are smart women who will (or did) wipe the floor with him in a formal debate setting. I enjoyed the Clinton debates for that reason, and would likewise look forward to seeing Warren in a setting that, to some extent, disintermediates the media.
Trump vs. Biden on the other hand would be more straightforwardly entertaining.
God no. It's tough to come out of a debate looking worse than Trump (among normal people), but I think it's possible that Biden could manage it.
My prediction is that trump will lose both the popular vote and the EC. Rather than concede, he'll start tweeting about fraud and what not, and his most psychotic goons will be all over the media screaming about it. He'll push it to see how far he can go, and if he thinks he's getting the response he wants, he'll either refuse to leave office or try to stir up so much shit that he has a pretext to institute martial law. I think elements of the military, law enforcement and lower levels of government will be 100% on board with that, and it could literally come down to sherrif's deputies fighting national guardsmen in the street. Certainly, regardless of the outcome of the election itself, there's going to be a huge spike in fascist violence. And that's why people should arm up.
A Trump-Biden debate would be amusing because they would eventually just start ignoring the questions and do the thing that senile old guys do where they just start listing various things from pop culture that they remember. One of them will probably call Jake Tapper "Dan" too at some point.
As for martial law, I just don't think anyone really likes Trump enough to risk dying for him to stay in office, and I don't think he actually likes being president enough for that either.
It wouldn't be dying for him to stay in office, it would be dying to keep the Democrat usurper out of office.
One of them will probably call Jake Tapper "Dan" too at some point.
This is pretty much what I had in mind when I thought it would be more entertaining than Trump vs. Warren. Two old assholes standing up there insulting each other and trying, or not, to remember what the question was. And I only mean entertaining within the confines of the debate. To be sure, if it comes to a Trump vs. Biden debate, I will have lost all hope for the future.
And I agree w/Trivers about Trump trying to stay on; I think he'll try to win out of pride but would be greatly relieved to lose and then just bitch about the unfairness of it forever after.
Pride, and presidential immunity. Golden Bridge, etc.
"Certainly, regardless of the outcome of the election itself, there's going to be a huge spike in fascist violence."
A testable prediction.
A prediction whose testability would benefit from more specifics.
He'll certainly go for recounts where he can, and litigate them if they go the wrong way.
30, 40: well, I think you'll see the most violence where you would expect it: hotbeds of trump supporters and soi disant liberal cities like Portland where the power structure has gone out of their way to coddle the Nazis.
I think they want you to specify "huge".
Oh, okay, I didn't get that. I dunno, what's huge to you, IYKWIMAITYD?
If there's a big Nazi demo and four people get killed, that would be a serious escalation. What if it's more mosque shooters? The far right has so many options, it's hard to compare apples to apples.
||
Just had the opportunity to stand on the sidewalk for half an hour, because the filth was rousting a bunch of homeless kids from an empty lot. Y'all know what a big fan of politeness I am, and I've always found it extraordinary how the ambient level of politeness increases when the police see a middle class white person observing them.
||>
Trump will get stomped in this election.
It will be Bush-Dukakis bad, if not Nixon-Mondale bad. He will rage on twitter and blame everyone but himself. Power will transition smoothly and time will march on.
The real question is whether legal action will be pursued against him or his family once he leaves office. Satisfying as that might be to some, it would be a terrible idea. Strategically akin to, but even worse than, getting rid of the filibuster for certain nominees in 2013.
Do you think the Democratic leadership will still be arguing about whether they should have impeached if they end up in political re-education camps? I figure yes.
if not Nixon-Mondale bad
Man, that Nixon-Mondale fight was some of the sickest shit I ever saw on Pay-Per-View.
Nixon-McGovern or Reagan-Mondale, presumably.
I don't think there will be a spike in violence. Right wing political violence in the US is very rare and very stochastic. The six months following the election will see no more than twice the number of incidents involving lethal right wing violence as the six months preceding the election.
Bear in mind that the number of dead from extreme right wing violence in the US has actually been lower since Trump was elected: 37 in 2017 and 50 in 2018 vs. 70 and 72 in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
46: Strategically akin to, but even worse than, getting rid of the filibuster for certain nominees in 2013.
Holy fucking fuck! That's a centrist pundit from sub-hell take right there. I guess Merrick Garland would be seated on the Supreme Court right now? Because Mitch McConnell would lack sufficient evil imagination if it weren't for norm-destroying Dems showing him the way?
Why is the UK Supreme Court not in robes & c?
38: This is a very good point that I forgot about, and obvs. the value of immunity increases the more dirt comes up between now and the election. Slightly less confident in my prediction about transfer of power now, although on balance I don't think he has either the support or the canniness to pull off a full-on usurpation of the office unless through a Bush v. Gore kind of stunt if the election is close (a la CharleyCarp's 41).
The real question is whether legal action will be pursued against him or his family once he leaves office.
I can imagine why there will be well-intended arguments against it, but the lawlessness has been so overt that I fear the consequences of letting it slide worse than the conflict that prosecution would provoke. There's been no accountability for greater and greater offences by America's elites over my lifetime and the longer we put it off the worse it will be when, and however, the reckoning arrives. I'll be as relieved as anyone just to see him go but I don't think America would recover from just pretending it all never happened; to do so is to invite a smarter version of Trump into office.
50: are you counting mass shooting incidents without a classic IRA claim of responsibility but with XRW subculture features?
@51 The democrats killed the filibuster in 2013, for all judicial nominees but supreme court nominees. The republicans then killed the filibuster for supreme court nominees in 2017. So no - we wouldn't have stopped Gorsuch, but we likely would have stopped Kavanaugh (and gotten Amy Barrett, but that is another matter).
Compare to the situation in 2005, when the gang of 14 refused to support Bill Frist in eliminating the fillibuster, which the democrats were using to block judicial nominees like Miguel Estrada, Henry Saad, and Janice Rogers Brown. The republicans weren't able to kill the filibuster then.
You seem to have this strange notion that the republicans will just sit there and take it, and not escalate in response. You need to have a plan for how to handle escalation. A countervailing strategy, to borrow a concept. If past history is a guide, I don't think the democrats have such a strategy.
The weird assumption that you're making is that Republicans wouldn't escalate to whatever level served their interest regardless of what Democrats do. Demonstrably, they did in the case of Garland -- if they'd refuse to even hold hearings on any Obama nominee in his last year, what makes you think they would have let Democrats filibuster Kavanaugh regardless of the prior status of the filibuster?
55.1. We'll get her soon enough.
OP: I can imagine Trump yelling and screaming "fraud" if the election is close and he loses, but that's it. I can't see that there's a large contingent of violence-producing Trump supporters out there to ... do what? March on Washington, a la Mussolini or that clown from the 1930's? He has had enough trouble getting things to happen that in a less contentious environment would have been yawned at.
He's also at heart a bully and coward who backs down when confronted. If he tried to hold on to the White House, his own Secret Service people would probably arrest him. He lives in DC, the blue of all blue cities in the US. The people of DC and environs are not going to support him. If he fled to Mar-A-Lago, he would just be treated as another crazy old man, and the new President would move in.
One thing he might try is to resign before January and have President Pence pardon him. There's precedent for that, after all. (I'm not 100% sure Pence would even make that deal.)
@56 Because in 2005 they didn't? Their interests would have been served by exercising the nuclear option then and pushing through all of their appeals court nominees. Instead they cut a deal that only got them some of their nominees.
You're appealing to what they did in 2005 as more predictive of what they're likely to do now than what they did in 2016?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but will note that if you're looking at the counterfactual of what would have happened in 2017 had what happened in 2013 not taken place, what happened in 2016 -- when 2013 did take place -- isn't necessarily the strongest evidence.
It's a fact that the Senate did not get rid of the filibuster on legislation in 2019, although the majority was substantially frustrated by the filibuster rule in 2017, and the President railed against it at the time. Is this predictive of what would have happened with respect to nominations had the Senate not made its 2013 changes?
I hold the minority opinion on this -- that the power of executive appointees, and especially federal judges, is great enough that some sort of super-majority requirement is justifiable. Yes, in the McConnell era this has broken down: not only because he's an awful person, but because he's correctly calculated that voters in his faction would reward him for unreasonable obstruction. And I guess they were right to do so, having gotten Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and a horde of other judges rammed through the Senate.
||
This has got to be D^2, right? I saw it bc he retweeted a link to it, and of course the pseud, and the dates line up. Seems unlikely to be literally true, but...maybe?
|>
I think he has had a job for some time since he's been back.
63: I mean, that's been my impression too. But that article is obviously referring to his IRL adventures, so what's the deal? Is it just a lark?
63: From his twitter stream, he seems employed, though maybe self-employed or semi-self-employed in some consulting sense? It is some D^2 level trolling. On the other hand, was his old job in risk? Also, the style is kinda low-key for actual D^2 writing. On the other other hand, he is clever enough to tone down his style when necessary.
Doesn't read like him to me at all -- I would read that as pure coincidence.
65 it's a real gig, I remember him tweeting about it when he started
65: his former job was as a banking equity research analyst - he was never in risk to my knowledge - and he is back doing pretty much that again. I don't think it's him (or if it is then not accurate).
Well, if he wants to move to mpls, we're always hiring for the phones.
What are the odds that this whistleblower complaint is about more than just the Ukraine extortion and Republicans are focusing on that because, with the Biden "connection", they can make it a wash?
And once it's all about Ukraine any further revelations are old news. I guess my question is where did this online consensus come from?
I think this one just started so let's see what happens.
What is the putative consensus? Anyway, 72 is right. And with this administration it's never just the one thing. The deeper anyone digs the more bodies they find.
Trump could probably throw Giuliani under the bus the way he did Cohen. Still, you got to figure that Giuliani in prison isn't nothing.
