Press "Enter" to skip to content

Blanchard Predicts Trump Win; Schaff Says Television Makes Trump

Political science professors Ken Blanchard and Jon Schaff speak at the Northern State University Noon Forum, 2016.11.02.
Political science professors Ken Blanchard and Jon Schaff speak at the Northern State University Noon Forum, 2016.11.02.

Trump wins, predicted Northern State University political science professor Ken Blanchard. Speaking with Northern colleague Dr. Jon Schaff at Wednesday’s NSU Noon Forum, Dr. Blanchard said that Donald Trump’s apparent momentum this week and other factors give the Republican nominee a strong (but still not bet-worthy) shot at winning on Tuesday.

Blanchard said that historically, when the race is tight at election time, challengers usually beat incumbents. Blanchard cross applies this historical tendency to paint Hillary Clinton as more of the incumbent—member of the incumbent party, former member of the incumbent Administration, not to mention receiving the endorsement of the incumbent President as the candidate who will continue his policies—and Trump as the challenger, not only to the current Administration but to the Republican Party establishment. Blanchard also cited Clinton’s rising negatives and falling voter enthusiasm as weighing in favor of a Trump win.

Blanchard cautioned, however, that Trump’s numbers look like Romney’s in 2012: a surge at the end that stalled shy of 50%, plus polls that overpredicted his actual support. Calling Trump a “human jack-o’lantern,” Blanchard said a more traditional Republican candidate would have been five points ahead and “cruising toward victory” against Clinton, whom he said is part of “one of the most corrupt families to occupy the White House.”

Looking back rather than ahead, Dr. Schaff called 2016 the “Neil Postman election.” Invoking the 1984 book Amusing Ourselves to Death, Schaff said that television turns everything into entertainment and trivializes everything it touches. Donald Trump is perfect television-era candidate. Schaff said Trump is “manifestly ignorant of public policy” and gets his information by watching “the shows,” a weird sort of idiot-box Ouroboros. Schaff said that the TV networks gave Trump the equivalent of nearly $3 billion in free publicity—and how could TV not? Television can’t help but devote a majority of its coverage to a candidate who gives them ratings—Schaff cited CBS chairman Les Moonves’s February 29, 2016, statement that, Trump’s candidacy “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS…. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

Schaff blames not just TV but the popular primary system for the rise of Trump… a rise predicted, said Schaff, by James Ceasar in his 1979 book Presidential Selection. Schaff said that allowing rank-and-file voters to select Presidential nominees instead of party leaders leads to costly, perpetual campaigns that favor demagogues over moderates and team players. Demagogues make for good TV, but they don’t make for good governance, which requires collaboration and compromise. Competent compromisers get Cantorized. Schaff added that good candidates are hamstrung by campaign finance rules that hinder them from raising the money they need to beat back TV candidates like Trump.

Looking beyond the Presidential match-up, Blanchard said he foresees the GOP holding the Senate but only by a seat or two. Schaff said the GOP will likely lose the Senate, but he recognizes that Trump-mentum could change that outcome. With both District 3 Senate candidates in the audience (but only one of them taking notes to prepare a blog post to share the experience with the public), neither Blanchard nor Schaff dared venture further down ticket.


  1. Porter Lansing 2016-11-03 12:03

    A candidate who has never led can never win. Trump – 206 ~ Clinton – 332

  2. David Newquist 2016-11-03 12:13

    I have a former professor colleague who insisted that he not be called a political scientist but instead a professor of political theory and practice. He said that of the pseudo sciences that have little grounding in empirical facts, political science is the worst offender. He said that too many of his disciplinary colleagues were wanna-be campaign strategists who posed as scholars of politics.

    The primary job of a political scholar, he said, was to measure how the application of a particular political idea affected the electorate. A true political scientist cuts through the partisan bombast to examine the actual facts. My former colleague would classify Ken Blanchard’s terming of the Clintons as “one of the most corrupt families to occupy the White House” as partisan bombast.

    The GOP has raised issue after issue, from White Water to Benghazi and that damned e-mail server, to investigate and try to contrive charges against the Clintons. And the only factual allegations have evolved from Bill’s wayward whanker. The matter of the Clinton Foundation takes up the donation of money from corporations and foreign governments as a measure of Clinton influence, but the taint of corruption dissipates when following the money to what it was actually used for. Ironically, the latest investigation by the FBI on e-mails is also whanker-based, but this time the weeny belongs to Anthony Wiener.

    Many people who supported President Obama and Bernie Sanders have come to understand that the “corruption” that party-line hacks such as Ken Blanchard try to apply to Hillary Clinton is the total manufacture of the GOP. The interminable investigations of the Clintons have failed to produce the evidence of criminality that the party hacks so fervently have hoped for. But the transgressions of Donald Trump, in contrast, leave tornado-like wreckage for all to see.

    It is clear that if Hillary wins, the GOP will continue to make defamation and obstruction as its agenda and Hillary’s administration might well be hamstrung. That is the prospect raised by many actual political scientists. After a 240-year run, the American experiment in democracy may sink into failure. If Trump wins, the country, like his casinos, will up for a bankruptcy sale, and the people will not have to wait to know it has failed.

    The people might rally at some point to save the republic, but they need the work of real political scientists to define the real facts.

  3. Porter Lansing 2016-11-03 12:33

    Hear, hear Prof. Newquist. When something helping people needs doing, Clintons may push the rules but Clintons don’t break the laws. That’s a large reason Republicans are so afraid of her. She’ll be darned hard to obstruct.

  4. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-03 12:34

    Yesterday the 13 year old rape victim of Donald Trump was expected to hold a press conference, but after some rather serious death threats had to cancel the press conference. The press conference has been rescheduled for today.
    Did Blanchard and Schaff make any references to the laundry list of Donald Trump’s amoral comments and behavior during this discussion?

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-11-03 12:43

    Roger, not really. Neither speaker expressed support for Trump, but neither addressed those issues.

    Dr. Newquist, good points. Democracy is in serious peril if Trump wins, but even if Clinton wins, the ongoing obstructionism and politics of personal destruction waged by the GOP will continue.

    Clinton will win over 300 Electoral Votes, largely on the basis of her superior GOTV organization and the absence of Trump’s effort or skill in that area. Ground game. Ground game. G-r-o-u-n-d g-a-m-e.

  6. mike from iowa 2016-11-03 12:50

    Twould be rilly nice if Blanchard, Satan or anyone else could actually point to a single indictable crime HRC has committed. Just one is all I am asking for. One. Let’s hear it or keep your yaps shut!

  7. Porter Lansing 2016-11-03 13:02

    Good one, MFI. One wonders why they’re so angry all the time. Hmmmm? We have one of USA’s newest minorities (working class white males with no higher education), who despised President Obama who are now going to despise Madame President Clinton. It fits right into their minority playbook. This is the group that fears and suppresses change and nothing’s changed. What’s the problem, guys? You’re going to get what you want and you’re still mad. Some groups just can’t be pleased and there’s going to be a leader who won’t even need to try.

  8. jerry 2016-11-03 13:47

    The New York City Marathon is now corrupted by the Russians in a doping scheme. Trump and his gang are doing marvelous things in this country.

  9. Robert McTaggart 2016-11-03 14:02

    I don’t think South Dakota allows write-ins…is that correct?

  10. mike from iowa 2016-11-03 14:07

    NYC is corrupted by an FBI clique that apparently does not pay attention to the Justice Department’s orders. These same FBI goons are friends of Screwdy Guilliani and seem to have no problem leaking to Fake Noize.

  11. Donald Pay 2016-11-03 14:13

    Too many young college-educated moderate to conservative and Christian moms and dads with special needs children and daughters have been turned off by Trump. The name-calling ad Hillary put up runs constantly. They may not vote for Hillary, but they won’t vote for Trump. It’s over in Wisconsin.

  12. Porter Lansing 2016-11-03 14:14

    She’s going to fry him like a dollar a scoop greasy pot sticker. Tax evasion felony, business fraud felony, campaign finance felon, felony rape, sexual assault, racial housing discrimination felony, Rico Act felon, gaming regulations felony, tenant intimidation felony, lying in bankruptcy court federal felony, undocumented immigrant worker felony, marital rape felony, anti-trust felonies, employee payroll refusal to compensate felonies, undocumented models immigration felonies, Trump Foundation misappropriated funds felony, Cuban Embargo violation felonies and new ones every now and then. Justice Department will need a new wing.

  13. Anthony Renli 2016-11-03 14:31

    Robert that is correct – South Dakota is one of six states that do NOT allow write in candidates.

    On one topic that I to a great extent agree with Dr. Blanchard on – there were, by my count eight or nine of the Republican candidates who would be leading Secretary Clinton right now. Not that this would be my desired state of things, but really, if Trump loses, he will be a gift to the country.

    Does that mean that in four years the Republicans will nominate someone who is not – for lack of a better description – a turd sandwich? I’m not sure. Their number two candidate Ted Cruz falls into the ‘Can’t Beat Clinton’ camp IMHO…

  14. Donald Pay 2016-11-03 14:32

    Trump’s strategy in Wisconsin is to outperform Romney in the less educated white areas where there is manufacturing, and then count on voter suppression to reduce student and minority voting. It may have worked, but a judge stopped most of the voter suppression.

  15. mike from iowa 2016-11-03 14:47

    Doc- Seven states—Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota—do not allow write-ins at all. …

    Sounds like a violation of a voter’s right to vote for the candidate of their choice.

  16. Robert McTaggart 2016-11-03 14:54

    Well, that tends to work better if there is one option that arises past the deadlines, or a third party that is registered in some states and not others. If there are 205 people running for president, it’s not so great.

  17. mike from iowa 2016-11-03 14:54

    “cruising toward victory” against Clinton, whom he said is part of “one of the most corrupt families to occupy the White House.”

    I forgot how Grampa Prescott Clinton sold war materiel to Hitler or how the entire Clinton family has been in bed with the Saudi Royal family- even adopted one Prince Bandar Clinton. And don’t forget Clinton’s dad-George Hitler Weasel Clinton was doing business with bin-ladin’s family around the time 9-11-01 happened under HRC’s husband’s watch. Corrupt basses.

  18. Porter Lansing 2016-11-03 16:02

    There ‘ya go, Young Dems. Try to get into Vermillion for PoliSci.

  19. Donald Pay 2016-11-03 16:07

    Korruption King? Ronald Reagan. He was clean, but his administration was thoroughly corrupt.

  20. mike from iowa 2016-11-03 16:31

    How many Raygun aides did it take to change a lightbulb? None-they wanted to keep Ronnie in the dark.

  21. Ed 2016-11-03 17:00

    I am a graduate of Northern, but thank goodness one of my children who was a political science major, did not attend Northern and be subjected to the partisan rants of a Republican hack like Blanchard. It makes me sad that our young people taking his classes are being indoctrinated with his vitriolic rhetoric. Many of the officials and some professors at Northern are nothing more than right wing zealots thanks to our Republican controlled Board of Regents.

  22. Douglas Wiken 2016-11-03 17:27

    I started on a PhD at the University of Rochester. William Riker and others in the Pol Sci department were striving to apply the scientific aspects of economic analysis to politics. I ran out of money and never got that degree, but it was interesting. My background in physics generated respect for real data and real facts which seems to be absent at Northern’s Pol Sci dept. A couple of my grad student friends at U of R, wrote dissertations. At that time, while scientifically correct, the results seemed trivial. One showed that the US Supreme Court Chief Justice tended to assign cases to Justices who agreed with him on the issue. Somehow that did not seem surprising. I guess a totally random assignment system would have surprised me and might be what is needed, but there is not a thing any of us or any in other branches of government can do about it. Since I left, I suspect the U of R system produced more robust studies. A number of the grads there ended up as professors in very good systems such as Stanford.

    In any case, the study of government can be made more scientific than it appears Blanchard is doing. There is also a reason why Doc Farber insisted the USD program should be called “Government” rather than “Political Science”.

  23. jerry 2016-11-03 18:49

    I hope there were no economics professors in on the forum. If so, they would have to admit that the education of one Donald J. Trump in economics was just a lesson in the Art of the Scam. Here is the latest failure from the Russians and Trump, Let’s hope that they do not get the reins of the country in their hands. The Russians are not known for business savvy and neither is their protege, Trump

  24. Darin Larson 2016-11-03 19:18

    Dr. Blanchard contradicts himself too much for me to take him seriously. According to Cory, Dr. Blanchard contends that
    “when the race is tight at election time, challengers usually beat incumbents.” Then he paints Trump as the challenger and Clinton as the incumbent. I’ll go along with him for the sake of argument on this latter contention. But then he points to Romney as closing the gap with Obama enough to make it a tight race in 2012. Yet Obama’s win in 2012 disproves Blanchard’s rule. If the last election in 2012 disproves your rule, I’m not going to put much stock in it.

    Is it just me or do others agree that the GOP would be going crazy if a public university prof called Trump the most corrupt presidential candidate in modern times. But feel free to make sweeping generalizations about Hillary Clinton in SD with no supporting facts. His tenure is secure.

  25. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-03 20:30

    About those write-ins.

    Stan Adelstein’s blog, A Way To Go, is campaigning for a write-in for Libertarian Gary Johnson,
    Stan surely knows that South Dakota doesn’t allow write-ins.

  26. Greg 2016-11-04 08:31

    I will vote for Hillary, she will make history. She will be the first female president and the first husband-wife to both be president. She will also bring honor to the Democrats when she is impeached like her honorable husband Bill. The Clintons, role models for our future.

  27. Pris 2016-11-04 08:54

    I am really, really disappointed in all the “he said, she said” coming out of this election, I am counting on Clinton to secure the presidency, I have never fact checked so much information on a daily basis, and I have not found any crimes that Clinton has been charged with or has pled guilty to as of yet? Where the heck does this stuff come from other than the right wing hate & fear monger’s club? I was astounded to hear the Noem/Hawks debate where Noem said Clinton had “murdered four Americans in Benghazi…” Holy crap, and people (some of my own family) believe this? I show them the proof that shows otherwise, and they still say “well, she is crookeder than a dog’s hind leg!” What happened to the truth shall set you free instead of the truth shall cause a migraine in my case?!

  28. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 09:01

    Latest poll I found today says Drumpf is more honest and trustworthy than HRC- 46%-38%, This shows the effects of Comey and FBI efforts to throw the election to Drumpf.

  29. Jenny 2016-11-04 09:17

    It might actually be entertaining to have Trump for President. I’m still not voting for either one of them, but why am I kind of rooting for the underdog now?

  30. Jenny 2016-11-04 09:18

    Oh no, see, it will be liberals like me that just might sway the election. We won’t for either of the top two. Michael Moore just might be predicting this correctly. Well, I have my popcorn and I’m ready for a wild show.

  31. Dicta 2016-11-04 09:22

    “It might actually be entertaining to have Trump for President. I’m still not voting for either one of them, but why am I kind of rooting for the underdog now?”

    Because you conflate “Leader of the Free World” with “reality television” are a a bit of a dullard? Or was the question rhetorical?

  32. Jenny 2016-11-04 09:30

    Probably b/c I really really can’t stand Hillary, Dicta.
    And we all know Trump is more liberal than he lets on.

  33. Porter Lansing 2016-11-04 09:50

    Jenny, you’re like that woman who decided her face was so ugly that she’s cut off her nose just for resentment. HRC is going to be President and you can either appreciate what that will do for USA and the progressive movement or you can sit in your stew of jealousy with your imagined indictments of her and sulk for the next eight years. Whatever makes your little heart flutter.

  34. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 10:54

    Many Bernie supporters are going to pick Trump because they know he is a one term president who won’t accomplish a thing while giving a middle finger to the DNC for rigging the primary. Hillary is what is wrong with our gov’t and Trump is what is wrong with our culture. Why choose the left nut or the right nut when you can have the Johnson?

  35. Dicta 2016-11-04 10:57

    And, once again, we see horseshoe theory in action. Idiocracy is a thing.

  36. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 11:11

    Dickta is all butthurt now.

  37. Dicta 2016-11-04 11:19

    Eh, maybe. But at least I’m a little less flippant about the electoral process than some. *insert dick joke here, I guess*

  38. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 11:22

    Db is perpetuating more lies, I see.

  39. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 11:34

    That’s just pointing out criticism from a coward poster holds as much weight as much as Mike’s continuous lies. I give Mike more credit because at least I know his full name. I know lots of Bernie supporters who are going to vote Trump to spite Clinton and that just pisses him off.

  40. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 11:51

    Still perpetuating lies, Db.

  41. Dicta 2016-11-04 12:00

    Since when does posting on an internet blog require my real name? Cory knows who i am. and that is enough.

  42. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 12:11

    What is your source for the Bernie supporters voting for Trump, I follow a lot of polls and analysis from some of the best and I haven’t heard that one.

    Please enlighten me.

  43. Porter Lansing 2016-11-04 12:28

    Exactly, Roger. There aren’t any Bernie supporters voting for Trump because it’s impossible. Bernie has endorsed candidate Clinton, so if you vote for anyone but candidate Clinton you’re not a Bernie supporter.

  44. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 13:17

    “Since when does posting on an internet blog require my real name?”

    It doesn’t but many won’t take you seriously.

    “What is your source for the Bernie supporters voting for Trump, I follow a lot of polls and analysis from some of the best and I haven’t heard that one.”

    I’ve spoken to many. I’ve seen many Bernie supporters express it on other community sites as well. Didn’t Jenny just express that exact sentiment?

    “There aren’t any Bernie supporters voting for Trump because it’s impossible.”

    You guys are assuming too much if you think they are going to forget about how the DNC treated them. The anti-establishment sentiment is large this election season and that includes a number of Bernie supporters.

  45. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 13:21

    Breaking news- the Outlaw Jersey Whale’s aides are found guilty on all bridgegate counts.

    Screwdy Rudy admits FBI released details of Weiner case to Fake Noize. Screwdy Rudy therefore implicates hizownself as a leaker.

  46. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 13:22

    There are those that use their real name on blogs, supposedly, and still don’t find them credible.

    If former Bernie supporters choose to vote for Trump, they are Trump supporters.

    And you’re correct Daniel, Jenny is ONE of those apparent converts.

  47. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 13:22

    ps a berserk squirrel savagely mauled three patrons at a Florida Senior Center, prolly on suggestions from Drumpf.

  48. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 13:25

    mike from iowa,
    Did you catch the morning news that the Obama administration has another 161,000 jobs growth?
    He has a steady jobs growth since 2010, after saving our economy from republican destruction.

  49. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 13:34

    Awww…so people who voted for Bernie in the primary and identify as Democrats or Independents that vote Trump in the general were Trump supporters all along?….Do you guys actually believe the crap coming out of your mouths? You are literally trying to downplay the democrats/independents who are upset that they weren’t given a fair shake and now you are writing them off. I can’t help but laugh.

  50. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 13:55

    I saw that, Roger. Only wonder how Drumpf and Daniel plan to turn this into a negative for squeaky clean HRC- our next Potus that wingnuts can’t pin any sort of criminal activity on. Not that they haven’t tried and failed for 30 years.

    Hope you maintain yer sense of humor come next Wednesday, DB, the day after HRC is elected as our Nation’s first female Potus.

  51. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 14:02

    What is so difficult for you to understand, Daniel?
    In the 2007-2008 campaign I was a Hillary supporter, after her primary loss to President Obama, I became a Obama supporter and voted for him in his two consecutive White House bids.
    If Bernie supporters vote for Trump, they are in fact Trump supporters since Bernie is not on the ballot. The can call it a protest vote but that does not change where their allegiance lie.

  52. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 14:04

    Little slow mike? I said quite a while ago that I figured Hillary would be president. I also know that nothing will get done for the middle class with either candidate. Hillary will get us into another war and congress won’t let her do a thing because Dems are going to lose their asses on down ballot elections. Doesn’t mean she isn’t a shining example of what is wrong with our gov’t. She will be even more controllable, which is why the establishment wants to get behind her. She represents the status quo for the past 30 years and she will continue it.

  53. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 14:06

    “If Bernie supporters vote for Trump, they are in fact Trump supporters since Bernie is not on the ballot. The can call it a protest vote but that does not change where their allegiance lie.”

    You want to argue semantics? My bad, there will be Democrats who vote Trump to spite Hillary. Does that make you feel better?

  54. Jenny 2016-11-04 14:07

    I can say for a fact that I do know Bernie supporters in MN that do not like Hillary at all. They feel there is real suspicion with the DNC that the primary was rigged.
    Also, for MN being a blue state, I have never seen such a lack of presidential signs for the Democratic candidate as I have this year. I can count them on one finger and I live in a town that has 112,000 people. Oh, and also, my neighbor’s HRC sign was stolen. No, it wasn’t me that swiped it. I had a political sign taken also, a local DFL candidate that is in a tough race with a GOP candidate. The GOP is spending all kinds of money to beat this DFL candidate it’s sickening. They want a majority in St Paul again.

  55. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 14:14

    Voters want to destroy the 2 party system. The right is doing it with Trump, and the left attempted to do it with Bernie. Instead, Democrats pushed for their status quo candidate through unfair means and instead of watching Bernie walk away with the election, they are closer than they ever thought they would be with Hillary vs Trump. Trump is the only person Hillary could beat, and Hillary is the only person Trump could beat. I feel bad for those alienated Democrats and Indepedents. They didn’t stand a chance and that is why both parties are going to die slow deaths.

  56. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 14:33

    Nothing will get done for the middle class because of and only because of freaking wingnuts.

  57. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 14:43

    ….More like grey-haired establishment politicians in both parties. Your generation did this to us so don’t get mad when we try to change things.

  58. Dicta 2016-11-04 14:48

    1. The “signage” metric is asinine and I cannot understand why people continue to trot this out as proof of anything.
    2. If your proposed solution to Washington gridlock and perceived dishonesty in DC is to support a candidate who lies so much that fact checkers can’t even keep up with the guy, man, I don’t know what to tell you.

  59. Daniel Buresh 2016-11-04 14:52

    1. Signage is just a small part, but I wouldn’t say it is completely merit-less. Many have expressed they would rather destroy the system by voting Trump than continue to support it by voting Hillary. Why does that possibility bother you guys so much?

    2. Proposed solution to our defunct two-party system is to destroy it at all costs. I know neither of these people are going to do anything so might as well try to continue with the destruction of both parties. Gridlock will happen either way.

  60. leslie 2016-11-04 15:06

    Daniel my friend, you need a mentor. the two party system can leave for all I care but not by happenstance or violent revolution. we’ll apply reason. Bernie will be right there at the table if it comes about. I’ll vote for Bernie when its right, just like I’m voting Hillary now, when its right. terd-can your cynicism and sarcasm and grow up.

  61. Donald Pay 2016-11-04 15:14

    I don’t think it’s the two party system that is the problem. If we had two functional parties, we would be fine. The Republican Party is not functional. Since the mid-1970s, after the constitutional crisis of the Nixon administration, the Republican Party has been pulled in several different directions. It found itself having to attract and massage a crazy fringe in order to win elections. At the same time It slighted its moderate local main street business supporters to sell itself more and more to the corporate elitists. With the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, rational discussion in which give and take occurred on a shared set of facts and values gave way to blow-hard bloviators who knew nothing and claimed God was loaning them the facts. That Republican Party fringe became dominate, dumbed down and single minded enough to think it can run the country, but, as we’ve seen, it can’t run anything.

    So, really what we have is one party that can actually run a government, and another that is too dysfunctional to even run the Congress.

  62. leslie 2016-11-04 15:16

    ditca, feel free to rip this guy a new one if that isn’t too much of a non-sequiter for yah:)

  63. Dicta 2016-11-04 15:24

    “ditca, feel free to rip this guy a new one if that isn’t too much of a non-sequiter for yah:)”

    There isn’t much to really rip apart. If you enter into a debate with an edgelord whose fallback position is “tear it all down” without thinking about the practical implications of such a result, you can’t go anywhere.

  64. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 15:33

    Your comments are on target, the two party system is working whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not.
    And yes, we have seen a republican congress and senate that is totally dysfunctional while the executive branch has functioned quite well.
    It could be said that party dysfunction came about from the Nixon, I would say it came about and became more active from the anti-Obama movement in 2008 when the illiterate tea party opened its ugly mouth.
    Donald Trump monopolized on the what he has himself called, “uneducated white voters”.
    We have had eight years of these simpletons in congress and the senate that have driven themselves insane because America dared to elect a Black President.
    Their hate and anger has raged since the founding of the tea party and has found a national leader in Trump.

  65. Dicta 2016-11-04 15:50

    My biggest problem with the political process right now is the national need to feed into the Dunning-Kruger effect that has overcome the mouth breathers populating the fringes at the moment. No, there is a 99.9% chance you are not smarter than the people in Washington DC, and no, there is a 100% chance your basic readings of Keynes, Hayek and Friedman through the lens of whatever website told you economics is SO EASY would not make you better at running the country than everybody else.

  66. bearcreekbat 2016-11-04 16:00

    Any genuine “Bernie supporter” would listen to him, follow his voting advice, and work to get a Democratic President and Senate majority so that Bernie’s seniority would elevate him into the position of chairman of the most powerful committee in the Senate.

    Daniel says: “I also know that nothing will get done for the middle class with either candidate.” I would urge Daniel (and Jenny) to read today’s Dana Milbank’s column in the Washington Post. It describes what Trump could accomplish in his first 100 days using executive power alone, and it doesn’t look very entertaining, what with trade wars with China and Mexico causing the price of imported goods to sky rocket with corresponding inflation as just the tip of the iceberg.

    By the way, Daniel, your statements that “Hillary will get us into another war and congress won’t let her do a thing . . . .” is internally inconsistent since Congress has to authorize the executive to take military action – don’t forget how Bernie criticized Senator Clinton for just such a vote and how she characterized it as a mistake on her part.

  67. Jason Sebern 2016-11-04 18:28

    Speak for yourself. Bernie supporters can do what they want at this point. They are not obliged to vote for Hillary because Bernie reluctantly “endorsed” her. I think the Hillary folks that cannot understand what is happening are a wonderful example Democratic Party hubris.
    During the last 40 years we have been told by the neoliberal wing (think DLC) of the party that we have to moderate. We have to settle. We have to adopt Republican-Light policies to capture the undecided vote.
    Enough is enough. Trump is an awful candidate. Hillary is a little better. No reason to vote for either.
    And btw, when was the last time Congress declared war in this country …

  68. bearcreekbat 2016-11-04 18:40

    If I am not mistaken, I think the Constitution governs the war question:

    As for Bernie supporters, I would be surprised that they will passively allow the Republicans to take the Presidency and maintain the Senate. But you are certainly right, they can do what ever they want. For a “reluctant” Hillary supporter, Bernie sure keeps busy.

  69. Porter Lansing 2016-11-04 18:48

    Bernie said this is not the time for a third party protest vote. The truth is that Bernie Sanders is very, very angry—at Donald Trump. He is angry enough to have spent weeks travelling on behalf of Hillary Clinton, speaking for her in union halls and arenas, to students and activists. When he talks, he is entirely Bernie—“We are going to fight for this democracy; we are not going to become an oligarchy.

  70. Jason Sebern 2016-11-04 19:08

    We are already an oligarchy.
    Do you think Hillary is really going to change course at this point in time? Bill and Hill have represented the banking and finance industry throughout their political careers. It was Bill who assisted the Republicans in the ending of Glass-Steagall. You folks need to read Wikileaks to get a feel for Hillary’s point of view …

  71. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 19:12

    We also have the Drumpf campaign actively coordinating with the FBI through past and present agents to throw the election to Drumpf. Yet HRC is the most corrupt pol to ever run for Potus and she and her hubby are a crime family.

  72. mike from iowa 2016-11-04 19:15

    HRC killed Bill Clinton. The fact that Bill is still alive doesn’t mean he isn’t dead or that HRC didn’t kill him.

  73. jerry 2016-11-04 20:18

    Read wikileaks for a John Pondesta point of view. The idea that we think the sharing of a private citizen’s emails is cool just shows how far into the looking glass we have allowed ourselves to go. There have been warnings since the Patriot Act on rogue elements that could take private information public and were promised that would never happen. Looks like it has and the trigger factor was enforcement.

  74. Roger Cornelius 2016-11-04 21:17

    Have you seen the most recent reports about the emails leaked by the FBI?

    It now appears that many of these emails are faked and that they have originated by Trump’s friend Putin.

  75. jerry 2016-11-04 21:46

    Yes, I have seen them, not good.

  76. Douglas Wiken 2016-11-05 10:21

    I am waiting for somebody with money to request a freedom of information search of all Senate Republicans computers, private and official, to determine if they have been bribed by foreign or domestic enemies, corporations, or other organizations or if they have any “secret” information on their computers. The best (or worst) way to breach security is to put it into a congress with retrograde GOP thugs willing to edit e-mails and documents to make them appear to support their partisan witchhunts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.