KK: The U.S. Popular Vote as Check-and-Balance, and Gerrymandering
Dr. D can always find a way to synch politics with catchers' mitts


This will probably be the last I excerpt James for a while, but it also is (1) awesome, (2) directly related to what Grizzly and Diderot were talking about, and (3) draws parallels to baseball.  How could we not.  :- )

The first except is from a Nov. 25, 2012 article, not Hey Bill, but an article ... $3 per month to sign up here ... remember now this is in reference to the Obama-Romney election, not this year's election.

The second is from last June's Hey Bills.  Okay, the second and third.



64 million votes to 60 million. 

People will tell you that the man who designed the baseball field had to be a genius because after 150 years, infielders are still throwing out runners by a single step.    90 feet is the perfect distance.   87 feet, all those runners would be safe; 93 feet, there would be no close plays.   90 feet is a directive from God. 

What this misses, of course, is the internal forces of the game.   Infielders are still throwing out runners by a single step not because 90 feet is a perfect distance, but because infielders position themselves in such a way that they maximize their coverage.  The place where an infielder can make the most plays is the place where the plays are closest and most difficult.    If the bases were 80 feet apart the infielders would move in a couple of steps, the outfielders would move in one step, and there would still be just as many close plays at first base.   Not EVERYTHING would be exactly the same, but the number of close plays doesn’t depend on the distance.   It depends on the fielders positioning themselves so as to maximize the number of plays that they can make.

In modern American politics, the two parties split most elections almost 50-50—so much so that a 64-60 vote is considered a rout.    Political commentators will talk about how remarkably evenly split the American electorate is.

 This has nothing whatsoever to do with the electorate being evenly split.   It results from political parties adopting positions that maximize their coverage.   The Republicans may want to ban abortion entirely (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections.  The Democrats may wish to legalize infanticide (certainly some of them do), but they also want to win elections.  If either side adopts a radical position, they lose elections, lose power, and have to adapt their position.   

The Republicans may wish to devote 70% of the federal budget to military spending; the Democrats may wish to cut it to 5%.   If either side pushes too hard, they lose elections, and have to adapt.   The positions taken by each side on every issue are constantly adjusted and adapted to form a compromise between the extreme positions and the center of the country—hence, elections in a two-party system are always pushed near to the 50-50 balance point.  

One would think this was obvious, but believe me, I watch a LOT of political analysis, and 90% of the political analysts don’t have a clue that this is what is happening.  - Bill James



... actually, I'll just sum this up for him.  He thinks "gerrymandering" is a waste of time, because of the more fundamental "ameoba vote slips and slides to cover 70% of the ballpark" type vote.

People reply that state representatives have incredible data to work with.  Bill replies that it's like the use of 6 relievers a game -- absolutely everybody believes it's a decisive factor, and if you look at the results, there are never ANY results.  

Heh!  I don't know if he's right, but it's a comforting thought.  The whole concept here, the resiliency of the American voter, is a comforting thought.



He had one other Richter 8.0 thought in that verdant June 2016 Hey Bill archive, which we'll sum up briefly.

If your dog makes a mess on the rug, and you punish him 24 hours later, that is NOT enforcement of rules.  It will have no effect.  It is simply taking out your frustration on the dog. Punishment of players who used steroids 20 years ago?  The time to punish him was ... at the time.   There are exceptions; murder charges don't have to be enforced immediately.  (But Eccl. 8:11 says, "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the hearts of men are fully set in them to do evil.)

Point is, the time to punish a Mexican for crossing the border is not after he's been working here four years, and has a 2-year-old baby.  The place to enforce border law is at the border.


I found that argument strangely compelling, and it moved my position on immigration farther away from "deportation" (except criminals) and closer to the "Wall."  Your mileage may vary.





tjm's picture

Doc, do you actually think that's a fair characterization of any Democrat's view? Whew. Let's try unstacking the deck a little.

On Gerrymandering: There are volumes upon volumes of data that it happens and that it has real effects. Different parties have benefited at different times, but in the current era Republicans have controlled the majority of state legislatures and have used this advantage to warp congressional districts. Hardly anyone disputes this, including Republicans who have set up political action committees and other fundraising mechanisms for exactly this purpose.

Here's a good overview of the current state of affairs: http://svds.com/better-know-districts/ 

My favorite redistricting story occurred when I was covering the Oregon legislature in the 1980s. Back then, the state's secretary of state ran elections and districting (many states not including Oregon have since established independent commissions to handle this). The secretary of state at the time, a moderate, very popular Republican named Norma Paulus, was pretty fair about how she drew districts but made one exception. There was a working class Democratic rep from Portland who Paulus absolutely detested. She had a lot of company - he was irritating. So when she unveiled her early 80's redistricting plan it was quickly evident to everybody that she had throw the offending rep into a different, very popular Democrat's district. The guy had no chance of winning a primary and Paulus essentially ws ending his career.

Asked if she had intentionally put the rep, his name was Davis, out of a job.

Paulus smiled very sweetly and said: "Of course not. Mr. Davis was just a number to me. Unfortunately, his number was up."

The difference between stuff like this and the current state of affairs are the afore-mentioned infrastructure that has been built to direct this nationally and the data-driven opportunity that exists to draw districts precisely to benefit one party or the other. 

eljugopicante's picture

Don't usually comment--I come here for the interesting takes on baseball and politics, even if I tend to disagree with a lot of the political hot takes. 

On the political posts, I'm often left holding my breath, and find it not worth it to correct misconceptions, lies, or positions that I jsut don't agree with.

This infantcide blurb is absurd, though.  The comparison to some Republicans believing all abortion should be banned is absurd.  There truly are Republicans who believe that a woman who is raped should have no right at any point in a pregnancy to decide for herself whether to carry that baby, give birth, and then raise it.  I know the vast majority of the populace would agree there.

On the flip side, to suggest that there are Democrats who support infantcide (killing of children, post-birth, up to age 1), is truly absurd.  That's Fox News-level fear-mongering, that I wouldn't expect to see after years of reading this site.  There's no basis in fact (unless you want to help educate this progressive), and that type of suggestion is exactly what Fox News is known for: throw something outrageous out there, and see if their viewership (which is desparate for this kind of nonsense) takes the bait and inserts it into their newfound base of "facts".



If you'll re-read James carefully, I'll be happy to respond.  Also, I added some specific information in the comments that will help you make better assumptions about James' position.

Thanks for adding.

eljugopicante's picture

I missed that this was a long quote and not your own thoughts. Apologies for misunderstanding as your own.

That being said, to pull a quote like that, that read as-is is ridiculous, deserves an incredulous reaction. Taken at face value the comparison is absurd, and propagates a myth. That an article you linked delivers more nuance doesn't excuse that what you wrote and quoted here (again, as a stand alone article, taken at face value) is absurd.)


From your point of view, [partial-birth abortion as infanticide] looks "absurd" -- comically unreasonable, deserving scorn, etc.  

But the problem is that 65-80% of Americans disagree with you.  You're faced with a dilemma:  are most Americans deserving of ridicule, or is the question more reasonable than you might think?

I don't make excuses for what James said, because I committed no breach of ethics in reporting his opinion on partial-birth abortion.  I'm happy to debate his ideas, though.

eljugopicante's picture

You're not getting the crux of my post here. I've paused to understand that what you presented in your post was a quote, and understand what James is saying about "infanticide" in what was linked (and not clear here with the short quote about infanticide). I understand because I read that article.

What I'm saying is that as-is, the quote here perpetuates a falsehood that democratic politicians would like women to have the option of killing their newborn-to-one-year old baby. In the U.S. mainstream and outside the U.S., that's how infanticide reads, so that's why I (and others) would react with disgust at the suggestion here that some democrats are only holding back on their "kill 1 year olds" stance because they know that wouldn't win them an election. Make sense?


Feel free to to let me know if this post goes too far. I must admit I have some skin in the game as a father of five, one of whom has special needs, and who we were told we should "terminate" while we had the chance (in Washington). I normally simply enjoy the articles posted here, occasionally chiming in when I feel I can speak substantially on a matter--I also very much appreciate the respectful and competent discussion. It's been a while, but I must comment on this. Apologies for the somewhat scattershot approach, I am on an airplane with little battery life. 

This article from the more left-leaning Slate raises the question "Why not infanticide?" specifically referencing an academic paper here. In Belgium, child euthanasia is legal, and it is being considered in more countries. This also coincides with my admittedly conversations with people at various political rallies on the subject of abortion, where I have regularly interacted with people that support abortion through full term, and beyond. I live very close to two universities, which could have something to do with it.  

All this to say, this infanticide blurb is not absurd, it is fact. Kermit Gosnell is disparaged only because he was caught. Planned Parenthood support among the Democractic mainstream has hardly abated despite clear evidence (regardless of your opinion about how it was obtained) that it is allowing abortion far past the legal gestational age. We have ethicists debating the whether or not being born is a valid demarcation between living or not.

It is also true that some Republicans believe abortion to be wrong regardless of situation. It comes down to what you believe a fetus to be: a child, created in the image of God, or a non-viable lump of tissue, suddenly granted the dignity of being human by passing through the birth canal.

For perspective, and full disclosure, I am not a Republican (leaning far more libertarian), and I despise Trump almost as much as I abhor Clinton. I also believe that Gary Johnson is a Libertarian in name only, a Liberal in trendy Libertarian clothing. 

Anyway, I very much want to interact respectfully and honestly, in-line with the way everyone here carries themselves. 





This is about the hottest topic imaginable.  But as long as commenters address their attention to the issue, and not to each other, I won't close comments.

Thanks for your love for your children, including your special-needs child.


I also read those Slate-type articles which straight-facedly argue for child euthanasia.  It is a LOGICAL question, "What would be your objection, if any, to euthanising a 3-day-old who was the product of rape or incest?"

But in fairness, I'm confident that ALL the denizens here, who support late-term abortion rights, would hurriedly disavow child euthanasia, and would fight against its legalization.  When we talk about pro- child euthanasia proponents in America, we are (I assume) truly talking about the fringe.

The typical woman who has a late-term abortion certainly does not think it is infanticide.  Commonly, such a person agonized over the decision and is tortured by the slightest possibility of connecting it with infanticide.  Several of my friends have been in that position.  Trust me, it is a very painful topic for them, one on which you must show the greatest sensitivity.

And yet, as a culture, we can't afford not to discuss the subject.


And with that, how about we re-direct (mostly) back towards James' main topic -- voters as check-and-balance -- without turning this into a primarily abortion debate that TJM started.  None of us are going to feel edified at the end of that discussion, I don't think.  :- )



eljugopicante's picture

Appreciate the thoughts here. Again, I appreciate these as your own, no quotes.

I'd also say tjm didn't take this post to the topic of abortion. The quote definitely took it there before him, and his reaction was the logical next step.

I'd hope people would understand the infanticide take to be far, far fringe, and not a "democrat or republican" take. However, it's clear in the comments that some are taking it face value (as I did), but actually are buying into the nonsense that this is somehow an evil democratic ideal that's lurking below the surface, and only staying below the surface in the hunt for 50% of the vote.

Far, far fringe is a lot different from a mainstream republican refrain that "life begins at conception", suggesting all abortions are immoral.

The setup here for a republican believing "all life begins at conception" is that "just like you on the republican side, those mainstream democrats believe in killing babies, and if they had there way, you know that's what they'd do." See: Fox news.


Only 25% of American believe that partial-birth abortion should be legal.  Here's a 2003 Gallup poll.  Most modern polls are similar.

If I understand correctly, "dilation and extraction" is federally illegal.  On what do you think the criminalization of the procedure is based?  Concern for the life of the mother?  Of course not.  The concern is whether we step over the line at which the fetus becomes a person.

Are you saying that you personally oppose partial-birth abortion, and saying that those who fail to do so are fringe extremists?  James was referring to that, not to child euthanasia.


That's two shots at Fox News as propagandists, Jugo; nobody has mentioned them but you.  You're beginning to sound prejudicial yourself.  There are many watchers of Fox News, including me, and I find 80% of their programming intelligent and reasonable.

eljugopicante's picture

It's clear my inability to communicate so that you understand what i'm truly saying comes down to this use of the word "infantcide". I understand what you're saying here, but it's clear from your response that you've misunderstood my characterization by your line of response and questions. I'm saying that by the traditional definition of infanticide--fully born birth to one year old (not "partial birth")--would be far far far fringe. I'd hope that people would understand THAT. Using infanticide to mean partial birth abortion (or truly any form of abortion as some on the right have done), is a co-option of the word that only makes a real understanding and debate around partial birth abortion that much harder (as illustrated well here).

Apologies for the Fox news comments. They don't add anything to the conversation. It's simply frustration and recognition of what you said. People like you and I can listen, understand, and judge to see that 80% of their programming may be intelligent and reasonable (we may disagree on 80%, but I get it). That being said, Fox news knows very well that a large portion of their viewership will not be discerning, and will take 100% of what they say as informed facts, and then run with it.


"Child infanticide" would represent a far, far fringe of American politics.  Bill got a little cute with his partial-birth = infanticide "quip" and it cost him a dime there, a dollar here.  Generally, BJOL readers knew what he was doing; to my surprise, SSI readers did not know.  If I'd have known ahead of time, I'd have prevented the misunderstanding.  Sorry.

Your tone seems to have synch'ed up in an eyeblink Jugo and I really appreciate it, as well as the depth of your knowledge on the subjects.  Please keep it coming.





It's all about your definition of terms. No one suggests that pro-abortion people want to kill 1 month old babies, or even 1 week old babies or one day old babies. If that's how you define infanticide, the charge is ridiculous. But that's a straw man. The entire debate revolves around when does a baby become a baby. You've set the parameters to prejudge the issue. 

But you start talking about partial birth abortion, where babies are gruesomely killed during and in some cases after delivery, the discussion changes. Many in this country consider that "infanticide." You may disagree with them, but the charge does not seem ridiculous on it's face. 

I assume this is what James is talking about.


Supposing, Terry, that you transcribed a 1,000-word Hillary speech, and published the transcription without comment.  Suppose that a Trumpie then attacked YOU in the comments, "Do YOU really think it's fair to characterize a border wall as Hitlerian?  Whew."

As a journalist very familiar with the ethics, what is your opinion of such a tactic? 


... of the point James was making about checks and balances.

After he made the above position statement, one of James' readers asked him, "What Democrat supports infanticide?"  He responded tersely, with one sentence.  "The difference between partial-birth abortion and infanticide is spelling."  

James chose the term infanticide because HE thought it forwarded his point, that the middle voter (of which Bill James, a two-time Obama voter, is one) can see problems with issues that extreme partisans cannot see.  (Personally, on SSI, I would have avoided that characterization.)


IS it a valid CONCERN that "dilation and extraction" -- Democrats generally will not use the term "partial-birth abortion" -- could amount to "killing a baby"?

Some supporters of partial-birth abortion legality will --- > act as though they are AGHAST at the very SUGGESTION.

But here is the political problem.  The 50th-percentile American voter is not aghast at the suggestion.  This middle voter is very concerned that late-term, much less partial-birth, abortion, might amount to killing a baby.

Because of the 50th-percentile voter -- the Independent -- no Presidential candidate can be (unambiguously) seen as supporting the legalization of partial-birth abortion.  It would be political suicide if the 50th-percentile voter realized that a candidate thought that way.  

And so the issue becomes an excellent illustration of what James is talking about:  no matter how passionate Trump or Hillary are about this issue or that, they've got to watch their step.  In a way that a dictator does not have to watch his step.  

And we wind up with laws that are less extreme than they would be under a dictatorship.

tjm's picture

I apologize. I read the infanticide comment, presented without quotation marks, as yours not James. I was mistaken. It is, in any case, an extreme reading of any Democratic position. It is not a matter of linguistics.

I love Bill James beyond measure, but he has become extremely cranky in discussing American politics. 


Appreciate it Terry.

Yes, Bill gets cranky about politics.  I give him something of a pass because of the clientele that chews at his heels, in front of and behind the curtain of Hey Bill.

But agreed.  If I had been writing such an article I'd have been (I think!) quite careful to withhold the "infanticide" poke, even if it represented my view in that context.  It isn't an SSI kind of way to exchange ideas.

I agree with you 1,000% that left-side views on abortion frequently get distorted, sometimes painfully so.


BTW, I put James' article in italics, to help avoid confusion when readers quick-scan.  I quick-scan a lot myself.


On first reading, Doc, I also thought that 'infanticide' comment was from you.

I guess I would have responded...but I was too stunned.  :)


But let me re-emphasize that there are women I care deeply about, who have been through this.  For me this is a difficult subject.

We did a few things to emphasize that it was James' characterization.  Which in some ways more provocative, since he is an authentic independent, which I'm not.

:: daps ::

GregfromSpokane's picture

Jeff, I believe that compromise used to be the way things worked. However, starting in 2009, when Mcconnell and Ryan got together and made their stated goal to make Obama a one term president they threw compromise to the wind. Anything Obama wanted, they had to oppose. Hence Obamacare, a Republican plan created by the American Enterprise Institute and formerly known as Romneycare, became bad. The debt ceiling, raised routinely under Reagan Bush et al, became a partisan wedge. Republicans wouldn't even allow Obama to fill judge positions of all kinds. I agree with you 100% that the parties need to  compromise, but 1 of the parties stopped doing so. I believe it is the divide in the Republican party between the establishment wing and the tea party wing that paralyzes compromise. Establishment Repubs are reluctant to compromise lest they raise up the tea party to primary challenge them.


Personal opinion here.  If Mitch McConnell were encarcerated tomorrow, no tears from my end.  Hope that doesn't sound too harsh.

And am very hopeful that American politics, especially the Republican wing, will drift towards the Mike Pence brand of reasonable dialogue.

Also agree that the Republican Congress said, and believed, things they never should have said.  Including the stated goal of making Obama a one-term President.  That's never the job of any Congress, is it?  The people send them a President once every four years, and it's their job to govern with him.  Their statement on Obama's One Term is a fundamental corruption of what Congressmen are elected to do.

I couldn't agree with you more.  Couldn't have said it better.


However, I do not believe that one party has a monopoly on extremism.  What POLICY CHANGES, for example, is Hillary willing to make in order to address the concerns of "deplorables and irredeemables"?   0.00 .

She said that you have to "disregard them from your thinking," or something very similar to that, because of their irredeemability -- in other words, you can never expect them to come to your way of thinking, so you're going to have to ignore them.  Do I misunderstand her?  If so, please do help me understand her better.

How do you lead a huge minority in America that you consider not part of America?  How do you compromise with them, and lead them forward with you?



eljugopicante's picture

Since you asked, here's an example of a policy change: West Virginia coal miners aren't a democratic voting block by any means. They are part of Trump's "deplorables" (which, by the way, she apologized for the next day. And I'm talking adult apology. Not the apologies from trump, that typically never come, or under extreme pressure, come in the form of "I'm sorry people were offended" fake apology format. I digress....).

Anyway, for these people, their livelihood is becoming a 20th century relic regardless of any position on climate change (simple economics mean coal as a whole is on the out, and automation means coal miners aren't much needed regardless of demand for coal energy). Despite this fact, Hillary Clinton has real policy proposals that address the future of these people. Education and training to get them into 21st century energy jobs is a great policy, for again, a voting block that's firmly trump. The problem here is that trump peddles myth that he can somehow get their coal jobs back (for somebody who's "a great businessman", I'm sure he understands that the market forces at work will not allow coal mines to reopen and become heavily labor intensive).

While these voters will continue to cling to this myth that this man will get them their coal jobs back, Hillary is listening to their needs, and actually proposing a policy that isn't a wave of the hands, and a magical return to decades-old economics.



1.  Intelligent example on your part, Hillary's plans to help coal miners.  Thank you!


2.  You are aware, are you not, that she apologized for saying "half" of his supporters were deplorable "racists, misogynists, Islamophobes, you name it" but did not apologize for saying that racists etc. were deplorable?  The implication the rest of the country (if not you) took was that Hillary apologized for saying 50% of Trump supporters were deplorable, as opposed to 40%, or 30%, or unspecified.

She, and you, consider the Wall to be racist, correct?  And anyone strongly supporting the Wall to be deplorable?

You consider her apology "adult."  I do not.  Most independents also do not.  But I'll cheerfully admit that is a debate worth having on its own.


The broader question is how many times Hillary Clinton did this, sneer at the basket of deplorables to private Barbara Streisand audiences -- whether Hillary truly holds uneducated conservatives in contempt.  The American Voter will have final say on that question.

That said, Donald Trump has a huge problem "apologizing" for anything, has a huge ego, and has a thin skin.  Usually his "walk-backs" are meaningless to me.  Point cheerfully conceded (conceited?).


3.  If Hillary has "education and training" in mind for diverting coal miners away from their profession, I suppose from that point of view she is "listening to their needs" as Trump supporters.  In what way, though would this constitute a policy change or compromise on her part?  Spending federal dollars on education and training is in no way a Hillary policy change.

She is "listening" to them by imposing her view of the world upon them.  I doubt many coal miners want to attend re-education centers.  More likely they wish to continue in their chosen profession.


4.  Whether it is a "myth" that coal is still alive, is a question to be discussed.  Not brought to an end point within one sentence, as you just did.  Here is a Wall Street Journal article arguing the question of coal's future.


Please try exchanging ideas with us in a less dogmatic, know-it-all manner.  Please match your tone to that of the community.


eljugopicante's picture

Apologies about the tone. I'll do better on it and appreciate the back and forth.

2. On deplorables, I do understand the apology, and agree with your take on what she was apologizing for. I think she did intend to imply "no apology owed" to the racist, sexist, Islamaphobic block. She knows it's it's not half, but was liking to concern that crowd.

As for the wall, no, I wouldn't characterise that specifically as racist. What I would characterize as racist and xenophobic is the language trump has used to drum up fear in support of his wall. I would say anybody who listens to and is excited by a presidential nominee launching his campaign for president with the racist comments he began with last year, yes, racist. I think racism is deplorable. Was it smart for her to be loose with her terms, and unclear that she was calling out racism and the like as deplorable? No way.

3) Training coal miners specifically in a dying profession with the skills to apply towards growing professions is a change in policy based on a mix of understanding their needs (jobs), and the reality of the situation. Based on #4, you may disagree with me on that reality, and I know that many miners likely disagree on that reality.

4) Coal miners certainly don't want to believe that their profession is dying, and trump is a master of playing of those feelings by claiming he alone will reopen closed coal mines. I guess never say never, but at this point, barring a complete collapse in natural gas, oil, and renewables, coal miner as a profession is a dying breed. Heres why:

That article you linked is from two and a half years ago at the start of 2014. 2013 was the height of coal demand. Since this article was written, saying there's "still a chance", natural gas has boomed, and coal demand has dropped significantly. It's simply the most expensive form of energy, and with all the other options available, this isn't going to turn around.

On top of that, and this is perhaps the bigger point (even if you disagree with all the above): coal miners have been losing their jobs for decades, even when there was a booming market for this. Automation is the reason for this. I know you've spent a lot of time in the businessworld, doc. Tell me if you think those coal mine owners are going to go back on hundreds of years of efficiency and automation so coal miners can have their jobs back? It's not going to happen.

So, I'd say that trumps claim that he'll reopen the coal mines, and that they'll get their jobs back is so far short of a real policy proposal it'd be laughable if it wasn't terrible. He's playing on their base needs, knowing that he won't employ West Virginians in coal mines. I'd say Hillary and Donald both understand these folks, and are listening to their needs. The problem for Hillary there is that she's telling them what they need to hear with real policy to back it, and Donald is telling them what they want to hear, with no policy to back it (unless you want to point me towards his real plan for opening coal mines, chasing the larger market forces, and re-employing unneeded labor in this already too expensive form of energy production).

Hope the tone is improved.


2.  On the coal mines - interesting.  With your permission, we'll hold that sub-debate for another day.  But, if the question is whether you are literate on the subject, you've put "PAID" to that ticket.  Thanks.

1.  Trump's language -- here's an agreement and a refinement for you.  Ann Coulter (of all people) said that "once a week" he says something that absolutely makes her cringe.  And I think that's understating it.  :- )

90% of people supporting Trump do not support his language, and Kellyanne Conway has brought him to that understanding, which is why he was so restrained during the debate.  (There are 10% who are legit confederate-flag JAIL HILLARY types, as there are 10% on the left who characterize Trump as Hitler.)

What they support is his tilting at the PC windmills, those who wish to keep the microphones in the hands of the leftists.  They support his nationalism, as do I and James.  They support his decentralization of D.C. power and the economic recovery he think it will bring.  They support the 3-5 conservative Supreme Court Justices they believe he will support.

But, yes, most Trump supporters cringe as much as you do when he does something boorish, tacky, foolish, or offensive.  Mike Pence has a whale of a job, doesn't he?  ;- )


GregfromSpokane's picture

Im not sure we're on the same page on the "deplorable" thing. I think that Hillary was referring to the alt/right, white supremecist type people who seem to flock around Trump rallies. Trump has retweeted them repeatedly. The timing of this remark by Hillary was around the time Trump brought on the notorious man from Breitbart. Have you seen the video of Trump supporters' shout outs during his rallies? If these people are a minority, thank goodness. Not sure what can be done to help them. Trump is big time with the low information demographic. "I love the uniformed." I think Hillary will help them more than Trump's tax cuts for the 1%.



The right has come to understand that they might be labeled this if they say anything with which a strident feminist disagrees.  I understand myself to be 100% homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and misogynist in Hillary's world.  

For example, I support my two gay brothers financially, love them to death, never say a word about their lifestyles, etc etc etc, but I argue calmly that the nuclear Dad-Mom family is the healthiest for society.  I argue that sexual taboos have positives in society as well as negatives.

On college campuses this puts me WAYYYY into the "homophobic" camp.

For a misogynist, Donald Trump has some oddly self-assured, well-adjusted, and proactive daughters.

Honestly, I think you and I have very different reads of what the left means by "misogynist" these days.  If they meant "Wife-beater, Rapist, Woman should be kept barefoot and pregnant" then we would have zero disagreement.  But I don't think they mean that.  My understanding is that *I* am a misogynist, for believing that a child is best off if he has a father.

Blessings to you Greg.


Whatever Trump's flaws -- and they are legion -- he SEES HIMSELF as a master NEGOTIATOR.  The Republican Party hates him precisely because he intends to bring real policy compromise to D.C.  That's policy compromise as opposed to the current flea market of privilege exchange.

IF you are tired of extreme polarization, Donald J. Trump is a bitter-tasting but effective tonic for that specific problem.  He wallows in the belief (delusion?) that he is the only man on earth who will be able to cut deals between the Democrats and the Republicans.

GregfromSpokane's picture

Well, now this is a gray area. I personally don't see him as an agent of compromise. And even if he was he'll have to face the reality of congress. If Ryan and McConnell are in charge, he'll sign what they give him. The Republican party dislikes him because he deviates from their long established orthodoxy on free trade, refuses to use dog whistles to discuss race and proposes massive increases to the deficiet. When I see his history in business, I see opportunism, tax code manipulation and a guy born on third base who thinks he hit a triple. I am tired of polarization. I just don't see Trump as president or really any president overcoming a recalcitrant congress. They have gerrymandered their way to life time employment. Notice how the subject of term limits died when the congress changed hands.


While I can agree with Bill that most elections / issues have been labeled Republican or Democrat or, Conservative or Liberal, AND on many cases the country is split close to 50/50 on these things... This Presidential race is not.

Even before this weekend's revelations and leaks, many Republicans have been against Trump. Trump has has nearly as many attacks from people on the right as he has had from people on the left. Yet, even last week, the poles had the race close, and even a couple poles had Trump up... so unless the country is now 60+% Republican, there is no way the Presidential election is Republican VS Democrat, despite what the media says since a significant portion of the Republicans are against him ... and therefore blaming Republicans for Trump is it's own form of racism.

Second point - the media. I think it is naive to think that on most issues that this country is 50/50 on is because people actually understand each and every issue. Many people are influenced by what media they listen to, and this is happening more and more it seems. Thus, since only 25% of America at most listens to talk radio or Fox, the Liberal media like the NY Times, ABC and others have a lot more influence on issues... and by result how the different parties frame their ideas based on media input more than they use the fringe people, since the media are the ones descibing what is fringe and what is mainstream and what we all should be outraged about without regard to what actually polling would show. Therefore, while Conservatives and Liberals may argue on many topics and policy issues, it is actually the Liberal media who has been leading this country in the direction it is going, and they are the ones who should be blamed for the unrest and incivility.


However, I think I am more worried now if more and more people are getting political news from Facebook, Bing, Huffington Post and Breitbart.

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.


  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.