U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Odainsaker 2,136]

Tonight is the Big Night...what will Hillary say to sway the nation and trump Trump?  This follows a stunning speech last night by President Obama that had even some Republicans quietly wishing he was staying for another term and had other conservatives lamenting that he had given the Reaganesque, Shining-City-on-the-Hill speech championing conservatism that they wish Trump had given.  Instead, on the final day of the Republican National Convention, Trump had walked out onto the stage in Cleveland with all the air and profile of Reagan, but then he opened his mouth and we got the red-faced tirade of Mussolini.  The sequence of Melania's plagiarized speech, Ted Cruz's revenge speech, Trump's Mussolini speech, Sander's endorsement speech, Bill Clinton's romance speech, and Obama's swan song speech has been fascinating, and now Hillary must cap it all off with an inevitably history-making acceptance speech.

 

At the more local level, I am surprised by how many little shout outs to my provincially humble hometown of San Antonio, Texas, have occurred at this Democratic convention:

San Antonio resident Cheryl Lankford recounted on Tuesday night primetime how Trump University swindled her out of the military widow benefits money she received after her husband, Command Sergeant Major Jonathan M. Lankford, was killed in Baghdad in 2007.  Controversy has bubbled up in Texas over how the former Republican state attorney general, now current Texas Governor Greg Abbott, had compiled a prosecutable fraud case against Trump University, but opted to instead close out the case with Trump University's promise to leave the state.  Abbott claims he successfully ran them out of the state and fulfilled his duty to protect Texas citizens from further fraud, but others feel he let them off easy in order to protect a rising Republican star and personal friend.

Last night, 14-year-old Mariachi singer Sebastien De La Cruz, an "America's Got Talent" finalist from San Antonio, proudly sang a cappella "The Star-Spangled Banner" national anthem for the opening of the Democratic National Convention in his Mariachi livery to great acclaim.  In 2013, at the age of 11, he similarly sang the national anthem for Game 3 of the NBA Finals at the AT&T Center in San Antonio in his Mariachi costume, a nationally watched performance which brought heaps of racist and nativist online scorn.  Some of the darkest, ugliest, and most vicious taunts and threats where directed at an 11-year-old San Antonio child for daring to wear his Mariachi costume, the suit of his art and profession.  Even President Obama weighed in then on Twitter, and for the following Game 4, De La Cruz was invited back to triumphantly sing the national anthem again, this time escorted by then-mayor Julián Castro, surrounded by the superstars of the Spurs and Miami Heat, and with the eyes of the nation on him.  The middle-schooler still gets pummeled online each time he sings at events for being a Mariachi singer (or is it for looking Mexican?), yet El Charro de Oro still sings on.  Bravo!

Incidentally, former San Antonio mayor and now current Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro was on the short list of Hillary Clinton's picks for vice-presidential running-mate, and had such whispers about him ever since he delivered the well-received keynote address at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.  Though popular, his overall inexperience on the national level and within the halls of Washington likely undermined his chances, and the brief controversy over his apparent violation of the Hatch Act, which bars officials from broaching politics while acting in an official capacity, during a policy interview gaff in the run up to the convention didn't help.  Cabinet officials have been automatically barred by the White House from speaking at the convention, and so Julián will not speak this time, but it does not matter, for Castro's identical twin brother Joaquin Castro did speak today on the final convention day.  Joaquin Castro is the Congressional representative for the Texas 20th district, which includes much of west and northwest San Antonio (making him, uh, my congressman), and as San Antonio is a military and cyber-security town, he has been placed onto key U.S. House military and security committees.  Joaquin's speech was a minor one, but it is clear he is slowly being positioned nationally like his brother.  I will admit, there is something weirdly amusing about having two identical twins who look like nerdy alien clones from the movie "Galaxy Quest" sitting in the box with the Clintons and being groomed for the party's future.  After Senator Ted Cruz of Texas stunningly burned his bridges at the Republican convention last week in a revenge speech that spectacularly highlighted conservative hypocrisy regarding Donald Trump, there are now widespread murmurings that Joaquin Castro may challenge him for the senate seat in 2018.  Actually, talk was of Julián doing the same, and both identical brothers have been pointing at the other!

On the celebrity list, Eva Longoria spoke at the convention on Tuesday night.  While she originally comes from nearby Corpus Christi, she was married from 2007 to point guard Tony Parker of the San Antonio Spurs, and was a popular fixture of the jet-setting sports life until his scandalous affair led to their acrimonious tabloid divorce in 2011.  Heya, Bill!

Interestingly, I don't think my little city was referenced at all during the Republican National Convention.  Pale blue dot in a red state, I guess.

 

[matias93 7,535]

About the first part, all this identification of Obama's discourse and the legacy of Reagan just further proves the 'big swap' in style and affiliation between the two big parties: don't get surprised if in the next years many centrist republicans (or even not so centrist, but definitely less nativist ones, as the neocons) end on the democratic party. Fortunately for the blue party, their more labourist and nationalistic elites (the Warren-Sanders clout) are firmly on the opposite side of the GOP and show no intention to cross lines: about their voters we cannot be so sure...

Now, about the second part, precisely being a heavily differentiated city in an otherwise homogeneous political context is the reason for so much political mobilization and personality formation: the only way to resist the dominant tide is to keep all possible place of power on local authorities and to give them wide support. It is maybe the same reason Sanders has been so strong on New England, where a centennary tradition leans to the GOP: the guy asures the power stays on the region and is accountable to their citizens.

[Delta 88 262]

The media has really been forcing the "Hillary making history" narrative over the last week or so. Very tiresome to hear, but it makes perfect sense that most Americans just mindlessly buy into it. She'll probably win based on that alone. What a sorry state of affairs.

[matias93 7,535]

In any case, it's pretty normal. Here happened exactly the same with Bachelet in 2005 (with no such significant effects on her first government, nonetheless her 80% approval when ending, which also evaporated pretty quickly on her second mandate), and even a little before because both primaries' candidates were women ("primaries" sounds exaggerated, party commitees decided and one of the candidates just drop her campaign when the result was evident); same thing with her second election, when the right's candidate was also a woman, Matthei. I'm sure in Brazil was the same; note in any case that is almost a general rule that no big party proposes a women as president if is not on already in government, unless the government party is doing the same.

[Sabretooth78 808]

4 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

The media has really been forcing the "Hillary making history" narrative over the last week or so. Very tiresome to hear, but it makes perfect sense that most Americans just mindlessly buy into it. She'll probably win based on that alone. What a sorry state of affairs.

Pretty much the case with everything the media pushes.  Americans can be coerced into buying just about everything.  Gary Johnson 2016.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I'm not voting and then I'm getting the hell outta here.

[2001kraft 7]

22 minutes ago, NMUSpidey said:

I'm not voting and then I'm getting the hell outta here.

Poor decision on your end.

I suggest to simply not vote in the Presidential election, but rather vote for Congress lads.

Fortunately, Congress are the ones deciding what goes through or what doesn't. The Presidents are simply public figures.

[CapTon 592]

8 minutes ago, 2001kraft said:

Poor decision on your end.

I suggest to simply not vote in the Presidential election, but rather vote for Congress lads.

Fortunately, Congress are the ones deciding what goes through or what doesn't. The Presidents are simply public figures.

32 minutes ago, NMUSpidey said:

I'm not voting and then I'm getting the hell outta here.

I'd say that you both should vote in the presidential election. Not voting is one vote for a person you don't want. Do a write-in or Pick Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party or Jill Stein of the Green Party if you hate Clinton and Trump (which I'm assuming you do). I honestly feel that every person should vote for SOMEBODY, regardless of who it is, as long as they're going out and voting. Hell, write in Morgan Freeman! At least your vote is being used for somebody YOU want instead of someone that you hate.

 

[2001kraft 7]

I can't vote yet, have three years left before naturalization.

[CapTon 592]

14 hours ago, 2001kraft said:

I can't vote yet, have three years left before naturalization.

Ah. Hence the year 2001 in your username ;). It's cool, I can't vote either. Makes it even funnier that I'm telling people what they should do with their vote when I can't even vote myself.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

No, what I mean is I'm literally leaving for Japan early next year. This election (like every single one of them I can remember) will do nothing to change any of the biggest problems this country has.  Clinton is a shill for Wall Street and loves making money with the Chinese a lot more than she loves us.  Who knows what Trump will do, but electing a blowhard narcissist like him doesn't strike me as the smartest thing to do (although I seriously doubt that America will suddenly turn into a Nazi-style fascist state like the leftists all seem to think).  It does not matter how I vote because the vast majority of the voters in this country will not cross party lines nor will they consider a third, fourth, or fifth way of doing things.  Tens of millions of mostly idiots (go back and watch footage of the RNC/DNC, they're like cultists at best) will not change their minds and suddenly want to vote for what's right for this country, even at a local level.  Maybe even especially at a local level since that would mean that they would have to start paying attention to it.  They will root for their team to win, because it's little better than sports at this point, and with the way the corporate lobbyists continue to search for ways to screw us at every opportunity, the team in the White House doesn't matter because in the end they're not really the ones who are making the decisions.

 

At least in Japan nobody will hound me about my responsibility to vote because I won't be able to.  I won't have to listen to any guilt trips.  I won't be scolded for my "poor decisions" or my voter apathy resulting in less-than-palatable representation.  Because hey, I'M not the one who made this mess.  I'M not the one who voted these losers in.  It's not my fault that humanity (or is it just the American public?) continually produces and then selects the worst possible people to lead us (h/t to George Carlin).  It doesn't matter whether it's Bush or Obama or if it will be Clinton or Trump because in the end, they're all the same, we'll end up with the same, slowly swirling toilet water that is just waiting for that last big plunge to shove us the rest of the way down the drain.  You're all welcome to pretend like it matters, but it doesn't.  All those people, all the same, their kids all go to the same schools, they all spend their time in the same social circles, and they're all just as cut off from most Americans as ISIS cavemen are in the Middle Eastern deserts.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

If Clinton and Trump combined earn over 90% of the total presidential votes this year, it will prove that American democracy is functionally dead because the polarization of politics would have made more people blindly vote along party lines.

[2001kraft 7]

On July 30, 2016 at 8:47 AM, CapTon said:

Ah. Hence the year 2001 in your username ;). It's cool, I can't vote either. Makes it even funnier that I'm telling people what they should do with their vote when I can't even vote myself.

Aside from not being old enough, I also am a permanent resident. I know: it's a coincidence that my naturalization date matches pretty closely with my legal voting age.

 

Back to the topic though.

On July 30, 2016 at 1:15 PM, OcramsRzr said:

If Clinton and Trump combined earn over 90% of the total presidential votes this year, it will prove that American democracy is functionally dead because the polarization of politics would have made more people blindly vote along party lines.

I doubt they'll average more than 50% of the presidential votes. Minorities are typically the most vocal types of people.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I have people in my family trying to convince me to vote for Trump.  Because Clinton is a liar.  And Trump isn't?  Classic deflection; it's embarrassing.  I'm done voting for evil, and will be voting for Gary Johnson.  I'm sure the guy isn't perfect but he might as well be the Messiah next to these two idiots we have running.  Am I the only one who thinks things might be so much better if the VP selections were running against each other instead of the tools who actually are?  They actually seem to be halfway decent people, even if flawed like all the rest of us.

That is, I'll be voting as such unless some useless hack at the local Board of Elections (talk about government waste) decides I'm not supposed to, in which case it's up to either Mickey Mouse or my cat.  I haven't decided which one yet; they're polling in a statistical dead heat.  They're also both fighting over who gets to select Morgan Freeman as veep.  It's a mess.

[Lunar Techie 4]

I'm gonna keep it simple: there is no way I can, with all my heart, vote for Hillary.

It's my first major election I've voted in, and based on all the things I've heard Clinton say, alongside how badly she screwed up with Benghazi, alongside how "good" she was as secretary of state, I just CANNOT agree with her. She not only will destroy jobs (remember her comment on how she was gonna shut down the coal industry and a lot of coal miners would be out of jobs? Imagine that, but several other major industries), but she will screw up foreign relations, guaranteed, but I'm not energetic enough to go into detail honestly. I'm just adding my two cents after hearing certain things this morning that ticked me off quite a bit, which I'm not going to mention to avoid argument.

By the way, I am not a full-on Trump supporter, so please don't assume I'm endorsing Trump in any way. I still don't know who I'm going to go for, but there's about a 50% chance I may go ahead with Trump, anything can change.

 

[matias93 7,535]

About closing coal mines, and grabbing from the chilean experience doing so (Lota, (in)famous for Lillo's Subterra), I cannot say if miners will be worse with or without their jobs...

And by the way, if those miners would have been not so repressed for decades, the US would have had several socialist governments in the 20th century; mining, worldwide, is the main hotbed of leftist and labourist politics.

  Edited August 1, 2016 by matias93  
some background

[Ocram's Razr 964]

On 7/31/2016 at 4:29 PM, 2001kraft said:

I doubt they'll average more than 50% of the presidential votes. Minorities are typically the most vocal types of people.

So you believe that minorities will vote 3rd Party and Write-In?

[2001kraft 7]

6 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

So you believe that minorities will vote 3rd Party and Write-In?

Minorities in this case implied Hillary / Trump supporters. There aren't many of them, but they make enough noise to look like they're the majority.

[Sabretooth78 808]

2 hours ago, 2001kraft said:

Minorities in this case implied Hillary / Trump supporters. There aren't many of them, but they make enough noise to look like they're the majority.

I don't have the numbers, but in the last election (as with most others I would imagine), more people voted for nobody than voted for Obama.  A nice vote of confidence for you.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

7 hours ago, 2001kraft said:

Minorities in this case implied Hillary / Trump supporters. There aren't many of them, but they make enough noise to look like they're the majority.

I will let you pass because you are a foreign teen, with inadequate English and Political knowledge to understand what us adults are talking about.

The 2016 Election is Hilary Clinton VS Donald Trump VS third parties VS write-ins. Leaving a blank on the ballot is abstaining, which is the same as not voting. Fictional characters and "Nobody" are invalid write-ins ("No Confidence," "None of them" "and None of the above" are votes for a recall election with new candidates). The absolutely only ways to vote against both the Democrats and Republicans is to vote for a 3rd Party candidate or a valid write-in. Write-Ins have won entire states in the past (back when states could refuse to put a major candidate on the ballot) leading to victory (though most of the states had said candidate(s) on their ballots) and 3rd Parties have won many local elections and have occasionally replaced old 2nd Parties. If the presidential election results have fewer than 10% of valid votes for 3rd parties and valid write-ins combined, then democracy in the USA is effectively dead.

[CapTon 592]

9 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

I will let you pass because you are a foreign teen, with inadequate English and Political knowledge to understand what us adults are talking about.

The 2016 Election is Hilary Clinton VS Donald Trump VS third parties VS write-ins. Leaving a blank on the ballot is abstaining, which is the same as not voting. Fictional characters and "Nobody" are invalid write-ins ("No Confidence," "None of them" "and None of the above" are votes for a recall election with new candidates). The absolutely only ways to vote against both the Democrats and Republicans is to vote for a 3rd Party candidate or a valid write-in. Write-Ins have won entire states in the past (back when states could refuse to put a major candidate on the ballot) leading to victory (though most of the states had said candidate(s) on their ballots) and 3rd Parties have won many local elections and have occasionally replaced old 2nd Parties. If the presidential election results have fewer than 10% of valid votes for 3rd parties and valid write-ins combined, then democracy in the USA is effectively dead.

Well I don't see that happening any time soon. The amount of hate directed to both Trump and Clinton is so astronomical that I even expect Gary Johnson to start polling at or above 15%, which will let him go on the debate stage against those two and make himself out to be the only good guy in this election.

[Sabretooth78 808]

10 hours ago, CapTon said:

Well I don't see that happening any time soon. The amount of hate directed to both Trump and Clinton is so astronomical that I even expect Gary Johnson to start polling at or above 15%, which will let him go on the debate stage against those two and make himself out to be the only good guy in this election.

You'd think that; we thought that might happen in both 2008 and 2012 and ended up getting kicked in the face with the typical disappointing results.  What that means is anybody's guess; my interpretation is that Americans will whine and complain a lot but are inherently lazy and will passively accept the decline in their country which is thrust into their faces on a daily basis.

But yeah, we can dream.  We fought the British for reasons which compared to this are petty nuisances, so maybe it'll rise again.  The devil within.

[2001kraft 7]

On August 2, 2016 at 10:01 AM, OcramsRzr said:

I will let you pass because you are a foreign teen, with inadequate English and Political knowledge to understand what us adults are talking about.

And I'll let that pass as simple misunderstanding of what I meant and what you meant.

[jmsepe 2,039]

To be honest, I still kinda feel sad that Bernie Sanders did not get the Democratic nomination and instead opted to endorse Hillary. 

[APSMS 1,893]

1 hour ago, jmsepe said:

To be honest, I still kinda feel sad that Bernie Sanders did not get the Democratic nomination and instead opted to endorse Hillary. 

That was disappointing on so many levels, but I get the feeling he was not happy to do it, but rather that he felt he had no other choice.

FWIW, I doubt he'd have lived long enough to be elected if he had managed the nomination. People in politics have more than just wealth and hubris, you know, and Bernie was a serious threat to their power. Conspiracy theory? Sure, but I doubt he smiled at all during the rest of the convention. He sure didn't look happy sitting there, that's for sure.

[Jasoncw 11,946]

A lot of these arguments depend on the fact that Hillary Clinton is actually corrupt/evil/incompetent, which is not actually the case. Benghazi, the e-mails, the assassinations, and pretty much anything else can be shown to be untrue by a few minutes of googling for anybody who is anywhere remotely open to the possibility. If anything Clinton's unpopularity (among certain groups anyway) is a testament to the fact that the Republicans' decades long campaign to delegitimize a legitimate politician has worked. Unfortunately for the Republicans though the same dynamic lead to Trump being nominated. 

The reality is that Hillary Clinton is a centrist democrat who is smart, hard working, and has good political skills (political skills, as in governing, not campaigning, which she is bad at). And once again, for anyone remotely open to believing that, there's plenty of evidence going back a long time. Even back to her Arkansas days there were jokes about her being the real brains behind the operation. 

Bill Clinton is similar except that he's much better at campaigning, and she's probably better at understanding the details of policies. Bill Clinton was the first elected president from the New Democrats. It's important to remember that what the Republicans are experiencing now the Democrats experienced in the 1970s and 80s. Republicans won 5/6 presidential elections that time (it took Nixon/Watergate for Jimmy Carter to squeak out a win for what turned out to be a failed presidency anyway (not helped by party infighting)). During that time the Democrats were thought to be too liberal, too ideological, and too attached to liberal special interest groups, social issues, and culture wars. The New Democrats were more moderate and more inclusive of a broader group of people and more attentive to the average citizen (rather than the average activist), more pragmatic and technocratic. Al Gore was also a New Democrat. 

Barrack Obama is also a centrist democrat, and a self described New Democrat. He campaigned on compromise and consensus building. He's been moderate on all the issues I can think of off the top of my head. There's a reason why Sanders wanted him primaried in 2012, or why he's spent his entire career trash talking Democrats. Or that the protectionist people or the anti-drone people don't like him. But there's also a very high chance that he'll go down in history as one of the great presidents, and Democrats love him.

My point with all this is that if you like Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton, objectively speaking you should like Hillary Clinton. She follows in the same tradition that Democrats have been since almost all of us here have been politically aware. On paper she has one of the best resumes for president ever, and in practice she's been highly praised at each stage. Her policy positions are in line with the party. She was "coronated" because everyone collectively in the party thought she'd be a great president and that they'd be fools to bother running against her. And so as a result the only people who ran against her were weird fringe candidates (some ex-Republicans. And an anti-Democrat who joined the party for access to the DNC's campaign infrastructure), and Martin O'Malley who people figured was running for vice president but he managed to be too much of a flop for that. Clinton won the nomination because she's a historically strong candidate, which is the same reason that Democrats should vote for her.

 

People who are not Democrats on the other hand... If the situation was reversed I'd have no problem voting for a Republican, but I can understand if a Republican doesn't want to actively support probably 8 more years of a Democratic presidency. The Libertarians exist (and can't win) and are basically ex republicans who are socially moderate. But if your main concern is social issues then that's not much better of an option. 

People who are democrats but who are on the far left though... I really have to wonder if anyone thinks that Jill Stein would actually be a good president of if they're just being crabby pants. I mean I think Sanders would have been a terrible president but at least he has held elective office before and at least he isn't crazy.

[Odainsaker 2,136]

2 hours ago, Jasoncw said:

If anything Clinton's unpopularity (among certain groups anyway) is a testament to the fact that the Republicans' decades long campaign to delegitimize a legitimate politician has worked. Unfortunately for the Republicans though the same dynamic lead to Trump being nominated. 

It's worse than that...we've been broadly attacking and delegitimizing our own institutions for so long and through so many impressionable generations that eventually we'll have nothing left but demagoguery.  Francis Wilkinson offered this interesting article today for Bloomberg:  "Republican Party Burns Down One Last Institution:  Itself."

Thanks to decades of political torchmanship, we have now generalized a perception that the world is all a corrupt conspiracy orchestrated by The Establishment, and when things don't go our way, we can hand-wave blame this vast corruption and conspiracy and not, say, the unconvincing extremism of our own particular position.  Surely, Sanders must have lost because of corruption and conspiracy, and not because there are actually Democrats not enamored with youth-baiting promises lacking a price tag.  Already, Trump is laying groundwork to blame corruption and conspiracy should he lose to Hillary in November and some lieutenants warn of mass protests and riots, for, surely, it wasn't his own vitriolic mouth that is undermining his campaign.  Hey, it was Hillary herself who first bemoaned of the "vast right-wing conspiracy."  Yes, we are reduced to My Conspiracy versus Your Conspiracy and dismissing down the entire voting population of America into thoughtless lemmings when they don't vote the way we think they should.

Now that we have self-sorted ourselves into angry bubbles wanting to burn it all down and are just looking for someone to hand out the pitchforks, we can look forward to our democracy morphing into scary scenes like those recorded by The New York Times in the video "Unfiltered Voices From Donald Trump's Crowds."  America the Beautiful!

 

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

Now that we have self-sorted ourselves into angry bubbles wanting to burn it all down and are just looking for someone to hand out the pitchforks, we can look forward to our democracy morphing into scary scenes like those recorded by The New York Times in the video "Unfiltered Voices From Donald Trump's Crowds."  America the Beautiful!

Very interesting. I so wish I could get the opportunity to attend a Trump rally. Donald J. Trump and I, we have this great relationship, but unfortunately, I'm stuck here, so it's a long shot. SAD!

In other news, I have a new favourite comedian; Mr Trump is delivering new lines on a daily basis, augmented by those two athletes Ben Carson and Dumb Spokeswoman, who will be competing in this years mixed cycling race with a revolutionary new technique. My favourite line so far is from Ben Carson, arguing that Mr Khan should be given a 'free pass', arguing that he might not have been completely clear, given what has happened to his son and all (the man should know, he cuts brains for a living...), but, on the whole, they are liars and must apologise to Mr Trump. I'm sure a public ceremony can be arranged in late January. 

[nos.17 5,244]

BREAKING NEWS: The Trump Campaign finally apologizes for something it said.

Well, not really.

Spoiler

Damn, the anchor's facial expressions are priceless. About sums up about what I think about this whole issue.

 

 

---------------------------------

The man certainly runs an interesting campaign. We have Trump saying one thing, and then Manafort, Pence, Pierson, and literally everyone else in the campaign come out and say that he really didn't mean it, and what he actually meant to say was....

It is almost like they are two entities competing on the same side. Trump vs. his staff. Words can not describe it for me how unique/crazy it is to watch.

  Edited August 4, 2016 by nos.17  
spoiler

[Odainsaker 2,136]

The Trump surrogates on the pundit shows would be funny if they weren't so scary.  When Trump national spokeswoman Katrina Pierson or supporter Kayleigh McEnany are on the panel, I know we are in for a segment of wall-to-wall cognitive dissonance, and, indeed, they breach beyond that into the dangerous realm of outright Doublethink.  Jeffrey Lord can spin such logical gymnastics to protect the doctrine of Trump's Infallibility that Van Jones is forced in exasperation to openly point out, "you're beyond the ability of a rational mind to follow you!"  Who knew the Trump-supporting KKK were actually Leftist Progressives?  The best line of SNL's parody of Scottie Nell Hughes was "you can't break me, Kate, because I'm crazy...and crazy don't break!"  I've taken that line to heart and try to avoid getting trapped in lengthy arguments with obvious partisans, because they're crazy, and crazy don't break.

In many ways, the cortège of surrogates and the camarilla of staffers are more dangerous than the candidates themselves, as they are the ones hoping to ride the coattails into the White House administration and staff positions, and these doublethinkers are the ones hoping to control the accessibility, control the messaging, and control the sycophancy.  Can you imagine Katrina Pierson or Jeffrey Lord giving the White House press briefing?  One reason I couldn't fully buy into Sanders was because his campaign manager Jeff Weaver struck me as just another spinmeister, and if we're just going to have more hypocrites and spinmeisters promising us the Revolution, I might as well take the practical one with pragmatic connections even despite her cackle.  Meanwhile, Paul Manafort secretly reassured the RNC leadership that Trump is just playing an act to capture voters, but that ultimately the nominee will be their obedient man under his oversight.  Didn't Franz von Papen promise Hindenburg something similar?