Skip to content

Month: August 2016

Voter fraud for dummies

Voter fraud for dummies

by digby

Josh Marshall (correctly, in my opinion) surmises that Trump the narcissistic con man is setting the table for a claim that the election was stolen from him:

It may not seem terribly important right now with all the stories roiling the campaign. But I think there’s a good chance it’s the most important. Over the last 48 hours Trump’s allies, surrogates and now Trump himself have forcibly injected the topic of voter fraud or ‘election rigging’ into the election. Longtime TPM Readers know this topic has probably been the publication’s single greatest and most consistent focus over fifteen years. The subject has been investigated countless times. And it is clear that voter fraud and especially voter impersonation fraud is extremely rare – rare almost to the point of non-existence, though there have been a handful of isolated cases.

Vote fraud is clearly the aim in what is coming from Trump allies. But Trump’s own comment – “I’m afraid the election’s gonna be rigged, I have to be honest” – seems to suggest some broader effort to manufacture votes or falsify numbers, to allude to some broader conspiracy. Regardless, Trump is now pressing this issue to lay the groundwork to discredit and quite possibly resist the outcome of the November election.

Some might suggest that Trump’s prediction of a ‘rigged’ election is simply an extension of his complaints and vocabulary during the primary process. They’re wrong. Primaries have convoluted and complex rules. They’re not one person one vote elections. National elections have a clear cut set of rules. The only way to rig them is to change the vote numbers.

It’s true that Republicans have been very disingenuously pushing the ‘voter fraud’ con for years, especially as the power of minority voting has grown over the last two decades. However, as bad as that has been, there’s a major difference. Republicans to date have almost always used bogus claims of ‘voter fraud’ to rev up their troops and build support for restrictive voting laws, largely focused on minority voters. A number of those laws have been overturned by federal courts in the last week. A notable case was North Carolina where the Court found that the changes were intentionally designed to limit voting by black North Carolinians.

What Republicans politicians have virtually never done was use this canard to lay the groundwork for rejecting the result of a national election. This is Donald Trump, not a normal politician. You should not be surprised if he refuses to accept the result of an electoral defeat or calls on his supporters to resist it.

I have often wondered if this might happen. With concerns about rigged vote machines from the left and voter fraud from the right, we have lost trust in the electoral system. But the big problem is that we seem to be in a period of inane conspiracy theorizing and paranoia in the system at large, with anyone who disagrees being assumed to be corrupt or dishonest and the assumption being that the entire system is “rigged.” It’s not a partisan problem. It’s a logic problem and it’s getting worse with social media.

As Marshall points out in his piece, this could lead to something very dangerous in terms of Trump since many of his followers are already gun-toting extremists with a very thin grasp of democratic norms. It could be ugly.

.

It’s going to come down to the college educated

It’s going to come down to the college educated

by digby

Since polling began, the Republican Party has always won a majority of white, college educated voters. This may be the election where that finally flips:

It’s been coming for a while. Fewer and fewer have been voting GOP for many years (especially since they began nominating people like George W. Bush and Sarah Palin for high office.) It looks as though Trump may be the last straw.

.

Another day of idiocy

Another day of idiocy

by digby

He just can’t quit this:

In an interview with a local Ohio television station on Monday, Donald Trump said that Khizr Khan was really bothered by his position on border security — specifically his promise to keep radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.

“Well, I was very viciously attacked, as you know, on the stage,” Trump told Columbus’s ABC affiliate ABC6, when asked about Khan’s DNC speech. “And I was surprised to see it. And so all I did — I have great honor and great feeling for his son, Mr. Khan’s son. But, and as far as I’m concerned, he’s a hero.”

When the interviewer brought up Trump’s position on border security, Trump said, “It’s a very big subject for me. And border security’s very big. And when you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands. And I think that’s what bothered Mr. Khan more than anything else.

“And, you know, I’m not going to change my views on that. We have radical Islamic terrorists coming in that have to be stopped. We’re taking them in by the thousands.”

Pumping out the bilge by @BloggersRUs

Pumping out the bilge
by Tom Sullivan


The still-intact aft bilge pump of the Swedish 17th century
warship Vasa as seen from the upper gun deck.
Photo by Peter Isotalo via via Wikimedia Commons.

Donald Trump said something outrageous and incoherent again yesterday. Somewhere. Fareed Zakaria called him “a bullshit artist” on CNN. In other news….

David Mikkelson of Snopes.com, the internet fact-ckecking site, is having trouble keeping up with the propaganda, disinformation and raw sewage spewing out of social media in the post-truth age.

Mikkelson lists four principal misinformation sources:

1 Legitimate satire sites such as the Onion, which dupe the truly credulous, requiring occasional intervention. “No, SeaWorld isn’t drowning live elephants as part of a new attraction.” “Are the parents of teen Caitlin Teagart going to euthanise her because she is only capable of texting and rolling her eyes? False.”

2 Legitimate news organisations that regurgitate stories without checking, such as the $200 Bill Clinton haircut on Air Force One which supposedly snarled air traffic at LAX in 1993.

3 Political sites that distort, such as Breitbart.com twisting an Obama quote about the “contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation” into the headline “Obama: Muslims Built ‘The Very Fabric of Our Nation’.”

4 Fake news sites fabricating click-bait stories. Such as: “Ted Cruz sent shockwaves through the Republican Party today when he announced he would endorse Donald Trump for President, but only if the GOP nominee would publicly support a ban on masturbation, (saying) without ‘swift action … the country was doomed to slide down a slippery slope of debauchery and self-satisfaction’.” Snopes sourced this to a site that mimicked ABC News to lure clicks to an underlying malware site, generating advertising revenue. It named and shamed the worst offenders earlier this year.

The click-bait and pop-up, faux-news sites have really become annoying. “I’m not sure I’d call it a post-truth age but … there’s been an opening of the sluice-gate and everything is pouring through. The bilge keeps coming faster than you can pump,” Mikkelson tells the Guardian. More power to him for even trying to keep the bilge pumped out. It’s a thankless job. Even more so when self-appointed defenders of truth, justice, and the American way have abandoned all three to support a bullshit artist for president.

How about a little something authentic this morning?

Trumpism in small town America

Trumpism in small town America

by digby

If you read nothing else today, take the time to read this piece by Michelle Goldberg about a case of anti-Muslim activism in the small town of Twin Falls Idaho:

In the months to come, there was a constant hum of anti-refugee activity in Twin Falls. A group called the Committee to End the CSI Refugee Center made repeated (and repeatedly failed) attempts to put an initiative on the county ballot calling for the termination of the refugee program. In August the American Freedom Party, a California-based white nationalist organization, blanketed Idaho with robocalls urging listeners to voice their outrage over the arrival of Muslim refugees, saying that the “nonwhite invasion of their state and all white areas constitutes white genocide.” In July, local activists brought Shahram Hadian, an Iranian American pastor and ex-Muslim who travels around the country preaching about the dangers of Islam, to speak to two local churches. He returned for another lecture in September. 

In October, III% of Idaho organized a demonstration against the refugee program in Twin Falls; the Idaho State Journal reported that nearly 200 protesters, flanked “by gun-toting men in flak jackets,” marched to the College of Southern Idaho. On Nov. 1, the militia organized about 100 people to protest against the refugee program on the steps of the state capitol in Boise. The Southern Poverty Law Center quoted a III% spokesman shouting into a bullhorn: “Now, refugees coming from Islamic hotbeds of terrorism, don’t you think that poses a threat to Idaho communities?” The crowd shouted back, “YEAH!”

Trumpism has always been here. But he said himself that he is their voice. And he’s giving them permission to voice theirs. It’s not pretty. I don’t know know what these people will feel empowered to do if he wins.

.

Sputtering adviser tries to defend the indefensible

Sputtering adviser tries to defend the indefensible

by digby

This exchange between CNN’s Brian Stelter and Trump’s new media adviser Jason Miller is really … something:

As with everyone else who signs a contract to work for Trump, I just hope he got his money up front.

CNN’s Brian Stelter held a Donald Trump communications staffer’s feet to the fire in a Sunday morning interview, demanding Jason Miller explain why he kept avoiding his question about Trump’s response to the parents of a Muslim American soldier killed in combat.

Jason Miller, senior communications adviser to the Trump campaign, was asked why Trump is now entering his third day of bickering with the Khan family, who lost Army Capt. Humayun Khan while he was serving in Iraq.

Khizr Khan, his father, spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week and blasted Trump for saying he would bar Muslims from entering the U.S. Trump has responded by defending himself and claiming Khan had “no right” to “attack” him.

Miller kept trying to steer the interview to “radical Islamic terrorism,” even though Stelter said there was no connection to that and his question about Trump’s response to Khan.

“Let’s get back to the broader point here,” Miller said, before Stelter cut him off and said, “Let’s not, let’s put the statement back on screen, the statement on screen says, ‘Mr. Khan has no right to say what he said.’”

Stelter was referring to Trump’s statement on Saturday, which said that Khan had “no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things.”

Miller again tried to turn the conversation to “radical Islamic terror.”

“You keep mentioning radical Islamic terrorism, as though that’s somehow linked to Mr. Khan. Why do you keep responding that way when I mention him?” Stelter asked.

Here’s why, and yes they are definitely doing this on purpose:

The fever swamp already believed this just based on the fact that he is a Muslim. Now they have “proof.”

Roger Stone and Alex Jones are guiding an important aspect of Trump’s campaign: racist outreach. It forms the basis of the Trump coalition.

.

From the “plus ça change” files

From the “plus ça change” files

by digby

I came across this on twitter and unfortunately, the story itself isn’t available online. But I think it’s worth sharing just for the quote:

It’s always been that way and nothing has changed in the intervening quarter century.

.

No impulse control

No impulse control

by digby

This is downright idiotic:

Khizr and Ghazala Khan appeared on CNN’s “New Day” Monday morning, prompting Donald Trump to attack the family again on Twitter while they were still on air.

He is a whining, petulant, 8 year old bully. Sad!

.

The big divide

The big divide

by digby

This Pew Poll is very informative:

Black and white Americans have profoundly different views on racial equality, and a new survey finds they also differ on the extent to which a person’s race can be a burden or a benefit. For blacks, the answer is clear: 65% say “it is a lot more difficult to be black in this country than it is to be white.” Fewer than half as many whites (27%) agree.

The racial gap in perceptions of white advantages is even starker: 62% of blacks say “white people benefit a great deal from advantages in society that black people do not have.” Just 13% of whites say whites have benefited a great deal from advantages that blacks lack.

The survey was conducted June 7-July 5 among 4,602 adults on Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel.

Among Hispanics, 37% say it is lot more difficult to be black than white, which is higher than the share of whites who say this but far lower than the number of blacks who do so. Most Hispanics say white people benefit from advantages in society that blacks do not have; 33% say whites benefit a great deal from these circumstances, compared with 62% of blacks and 13% of whites.

The differences in attitudes on racial advantage are partisan as well as racial and ethnic. In the new survey, registered voters who support Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump diverge substantially in their views of the difficulties blacks face and the advantages that whites possess.

Nearly six-in-ten registered voters (57%) who support Clinton say it is a lot more difficult to be black than white, while 29% say it is a little more difficult and 13% say it is no more difficult. Among Trump supporters just 11% think it is a lot more difficult to be black than white, 42% say it is a little more difficult and 44% think it is no more difficult.

Most Clinton supporters (78%) think that white people benefit either a great deal (40%) or a fair amount (38%) from advantages that blacks do not have. Just 4% of Trump supporters believe whites derive a great deal of benefit from their race and another 20% say a fair amount.

Clinton supporters are divided racially and ideologically on both questions. About half of white Clinton supporters (53%) say it is lot more difficult to be black than white; that is less than the share of black Clinton supporters who say this (67%). However, just 10% of white Trump supporters say it is much more difficult to be black than white.

Among white Democratic voters who back Clinton, liberals (71%) are far more likely than conservatives and moderates (each 37%) to say it is much harder to be black than white. The views of white liberal Democratic supporters of Clinton are nearly identical to those of black Democrats, 67% of whom say it is a lot harder to be black than white.

The patterns are different in perceptions of white advantages. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Clinton’s black Democratic supporters say white people benefit a great deal from advantages blacks do not have; just 29% of her white Democratic supporters agree. Among Clinton’s Democratic supporters, more white liberals (46%) than white conservatives and moderates (17%) say whites possess major advantages that blacks do not.

Yet white Trump supporters are far more skeptical than any group of white Clinton supporters to say that whites have a significant edge because of their race. Just 2% of white Trump supporters say white people benefit a great deal from advantages that blacks lack.

Trump is Modern Republicanism Purified by tristero

Trump is Modern Republicanism Purified 

by tristero

One more subtle effort to characterize Trump as a cancer on an otherwise rational, Republican party. 

Some in the press, especially on television, will continue to normalize Trump, treat him as if he were just another Republican candidate, which will give mainstream conservatives the cover they need to vote for him. But the more responsible members of the media who care more about the direction of this country than they care about their own neutrality or their clubbiness with fellow journalists, will continue to pummel Trump, hoping to disabuse this army of resentment of the notion that he will help them.

There is a false underlying assumption here, namely the notion of a reasonable “mainstream conservative.” There is no such thing today.

Of course Trump should be pummeled. But that’s because he is what passes for a “mainstream” conservative” today. It is because Trump is the quintessential modern Republican that he poses such a profound threat:

Dark, paranoid worldview? Nixon.

Narcissistic, thin-skinned and prone to mocking the powerless? George W. Bush, Chris Christie.

Incurious, inattentive, impulsive, and prone to shooting himself in the foot? Ronald Reagan, John McCain.

Extreme isolationism? Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul

Refusal to accept scientific facts? Inhofe, among nearly every other modern Republican.

Incompetent? Jindal. Bush, Jr. Scott Walker

Prone to playing the race card because it’s politically opportunistic? Bush the Elder, Reagan.

Ignorant and belligerent? Limbaugh. Beck.

Favoring economic policies that favor the extremely wealthy? Koch brothers, every Republican president post-Eisenhower.

Comfortable with white supremacists? Rand Paul (and so many others).

Looked at this way, Trump’s appeal is obvious. He fully expresses very single trait and policy that Republicans have been promoting since Goldwater. Conditioned to believe that “trusting your gut”is a good idea, that tax breaks for the rich will lead to prosperity, that doubling down on stupidity is a virtue, etc etc etc, Trump is the perfect incarnation of the modern Republican worldview.

Trump is no anomaly. And merely defeating him will change nothing. The Republican party itself needs to be defeated, and overhauled so that it becomes a truly rational and responsible party.

Ezra Klein is right: the Republican party is quite abnormal. But it has been so for a very, very long time.

UPDATE: As Paul Krugman points out, there are decent, rational Republicans. I even know some. But very few (if any) are running for any major office, either on the national or local level. For example, not a single Republican presidential candidate this year had the basic respect for reality to publicly accept evolution.

UPDATE 2: John McCain quoted by Sophia Tesfaye in Salon:

“While our Party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us,” McCain said. “I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican Party, its officers, or candidates.”

It don’t work like that, John. The presidential candidate your party nominated does, by definition, represent the party, its officers, and its candidates. As Tesfaye says, “unfortunately for McCain, who is locked in a tough primary battle this month, in 2016, Trump is the Republican party.”

And most tellingly, “McCain’s statement ended with no indication he plans to withdraw his endorsement of Trump’s presidential campaign.”