Heh. That guy voted for Trump.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

OK, I guess we’ll leave it at that, unless someone else has anything.

[Little_Nemo]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

My point was that Trump wants the best experts that he can get but the experts themselves are not interested in signing on with his campaign, because the downside, in terms of being seen as a Trump supporter, is high, and the upside, in terms of the likelihood of actual power, is low. This calculus would change for these experts if there was an actual position being offered, and at that point Trump would be able to attract a higher level of expert. Therefore - and this is the crucial point, so pay close attention now - the level of experts that are part of Trump’s team now is not a good indicator of the level of expert that would be on his team if he actually won.

I don’t think this is true. From everything I’ve heard, Trump has no real interest in learning new things. Staffers have tried to set him up for briefings by experts in various fields and Trump just blows it off.

[Sam_Lowry]

@adaher

If people viewed the Presidency in terms of character and competence and actual accomplishments, then most Presidential races wouldn’t even be close. They are close because most people view the Presidency in terms of ideology. Which candidate is saying what you want to hear? Smarter people try to rationalize placing ideology on a pedestal because of Supreme Court justices and such, but what it really comes down to with a President, is can we trust him? Is he competent to run the federal government? If he has good ideas, can he even implement them? How good is he at diplomacy, not just with foreign countries, but with the opposition party as well? Does he lie too much, to the point where you simply can’t trust him?

With Hillary Clinton, she only fails the last test.

I really don’t understand how Clinton is seen as such a huge liar. According to Politfact, of her contested statements 13% were either False or Pants on Fire False, which rates a whole lot better than a lot of politicians. Compared to Donald Trump where 55% of his contested statements were False or Pants on Fire False. I can’t speak for Hillary voters, but I feel like I could trust her, and I definitely believe I can trust her a whole lot more than Trump.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

My point was that Trump wants the best experts that he can get but the experts themselves are not interested in signing on with his campaign, because the downside, in terms of being seen as a Trump supporter, is high, and the upside, in terms of the likelihood of actual power, is low. This calculus would change for these experts if there was an actual position being offered, and at that point Trump would be able to attract a higher level of expert. Therefore - and this is the crucial point, so pay close attention now - the level of experts that are part of Trump’s team now is not a good indicator of the level of expert that would be on his team if he actually won.

Does Trump have the judgment to pick out the best experts? Let’s say Trump won, and he had a lot of people available he could choose from for his cabinet and advisers. Would he be able to tell who actually knows what they are talking about and who is just speaking nonsense? Or if he does pick out some actual experts, would he keep them around or dismiss them the first time that they disagree with him or inadvertently insult him?

His campaign has done better than expected, but it’s still not well run and with a lot of unforced gaffes. And the expert campaign manager he does have, has a history of working with actual dictators, so not someone I would hope sticks around. Based on the people he works with for his campaign, I am skeptical to say the least that he’d be able to pick experts to run things if he was in the White House.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Measure_for_Measure

Kudos.

I’m not sure anyone deserves praise for having come to their senses.

[F.U.Shakespeare]

@adaher

Farrakhan is a pretty extreme case, but how about Al Sharpton? Sharpton has quite a bit in common with Trump in terms of saying really stupid things and never apologizing. Plus unlike Trump, he’s made a career of actually hurting people with his false accusations.

I agree that Sharpton has a lot in common with Trump, but Marvin Roffman might disagree with the bolded part.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Lowry

Does Trump have the judgment to pick out the best experts? Let’s say Trump won, and he had a lot of people available he could choose from for his cabinet and advisers. Would he be able to tell who actually knows what they are talking about and who is just speaking nonsense? Or if he does pick out some actual experts, would he keep them around or dismiss them the first time that they disagree with him or inadvertently insult him?

His campaign has done better than expected, but it’s still not well run and with a lot of unforced gaffes. And the expert campaign manager he does have, has a history of working with actual dictators, so not someone I would hope sticks around. Based on the people he works with for his campaign, I am skeptical to say the least that he’d be able to pick experts to run things if he was in the White House.

On that note, and for contrast, the energy guy for Clinton is Trevor Houser. Already an expert on international energy issues and environmental policy. As usual, “Show me your friends, I’ll tell you who you are.”

Trump also has convicted racial profiler and big brother wanna-be abuser of the law Joe Arpaio as a friend and supporter. That also tells us a lot of what Trump does want for America.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Little_Nemo

I don’t think this is true. From everything I’ve heard, Trump has no real interest in learning new things. Staffers have tried to set him up for briefings by experts in various fields and Trump just blows it off.

I agree. I don’t think he’ll become an expert in anything. (Besides for having no interest, as you note, he’s also too arrogant to admit that he’s as ignorant as he is.) But he would hand things off to experts.

@Sam_Lowry

Does Trump have the judgment to pick out the best experts? Let’s say Trump won, and he had a lot of people available he could choose from for his cabinet and advisers. Would he be able to tell who actually knows what they are talking about and who is just speaking nonsense? Or if he does pick out some actual experts, would he keep them around or dismiss them the first time that they disagree with him or inadvertently insult him?

Probably something in that. My point is just that I think he would have a respectable staff. A lot better than you would think by extrapolating from him himself.

His campaign has done better than expected, but it’s still not well run and with a lot of unforced gaffes.

The unforced gaffes are by Trump himself. The rest of the campaign has been a lot better than expected.

[septimus]

I do not think OP’s hypothetical is a fair question. I’ll guess that any left-wing buffoon you come up with will mirror a right-wing buffoon like Ted Cruz, Huckabee, Walker or Ben Carson, rather than Donald Trump. Ask Bricker and Shodan if they’d vote for one of these.

To choose between Romney and Stein I’d need to know more about Stein. Right now I know ZERO and plan on keeping it that way. The personalities of politics hold no interest for me, unless they overwhelm.

But is Stein someone whose career was based on bombast and fraud? Is she snuggling up to Putin? Does she fit the following description of Trump?

@BigT

None of that is why Trump fails the basic competency test. It’s because he is remarkably unknowledgeable and has no desire to learn. It’s because he has a huge temperament problem. It’s because he has a personality disorder that makes him act irrationally.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@adaher

Nate Silver should do a study on whether Republicans or Democrats are more likely to abandon their nominees. We don’t just have to look at the Presidential level, but Congressional too, since that’s a bigger sample and Democrats have been as likely as Republicans to nominate someone who was unfit or was found late in the process to be unfit. I’d be interested in how likely Democrats were to abandon such candidates vs. Republicans. We could define “unfit” as a corruption scandal or some other damaging scandal that called into the question the qualifications of the candidate.

Or, we could just look at the Democratic race in Florida. Patrick Murphy got bitchslapped hard by the Miami Herald for basically making up his resume out of whole cloth. Grayson was already pretty close to him in the primary race and could very well end up being the nominee. Senate Leader Harry Reid has said that Grayson has serious ethical problems.

So if it’s Grayson vs. Rubio, who would Democrats support in that not all that unlikely hypothetical? I know that few liberals like Rubio, but there just isn’t any comparison between Rubio and Grayson in terms of temperament or honesty. So Florida Democrats, if I’m supporting Clinton, you guys need to return the favor and vote for Rubio.

I can’t vote for Rubio, but I won’t be voting for Grayson.

Fair?

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I was having a similar thought last week, but Jill Stein is nowhere near vile enough to be a Trump equivalent. Honestly, I have about as many problems with Clinton as I have with Stein.

Switch your hypothetical around so that we have a truly narcissistic, violent sociopath running as a Democrat. Louis Farrakhan is our nominee.

Against him? I’d hold my nose and vote for Romney.

+1

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not sure anyone deserves praise for having come to their senses.

It’s simply shorthand for “I see you’re choosing nation over party, and I appreciate that value in you, as a fellow citizen.” It’s not intended to be patronizing praise, just acknowledgement.

[Little_Nemo]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I agree. I don’t think he’ll become an expert in anything. (Besides for having no interest, as you note, he’s also too arrogant to admit that he’s as ignorant as he is.) But he would hand things off to experts.

Probably something in that. My point is just that I think he would have a respectable staff. A lot better than you would think by extrapolating from him himself.

Okay, I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying Trump would be able gather experts to advise him. You’re saying he could gather experts that he could delegate jobs to.

I still see problems there. I made the same point a few days ago when somebody said that Trump could just stand back and let Pence handle the day-to-day running of the government. This still runs into the problem of Trump’s ego.

What happens when Pence tells Trump he needs to sign a piece of legislation and Trump doesn’t feel like doing it? Or when Pence tells Trump that he has to deliver a speech in Brussels reaffirming American commitment to our NATO allies? Trump’s not the kind of person who will be happy functioning as a puppet for his Vice President or anyone else. He’s going to rebel against being controlled.

And he’s also going to rebel against the perception that somebody else is running his administration - even if he set things up that way. If the press implies there’s a Dick Cheney like figure running the Trump administration, Trump will attack the idea and fire the guy. Trump’s ego will insist he be seen as the guy in charge.

[WillFarnaby]

Of course you guys would vote for a Trump/Jill Stein. You supported Bernie Sanders who was just as nuts as Trump. The guy was a raving lunatic who likely has deep psychological problems. No normal person speaks like that for more than 5 sentences straight. He was dumb too. On a list of the major primary candidates in all parties, he was down there with Marco Rubio.

[adaher]

@Sam_Lowry

I really don’t understand how Clinton is seen as such a huge liar. According to Politfact, of her contested statements 13% were either False or Pants on Fire False, which rates a whole lot better than a lot of politicians. Compared to Donald Trump where 55% of his contested statements were False or Pants on Fire False. I can’t speak for Hillary voters, but I feel like I could trust her, and I definitely believe I can trust her a whole lot more than Trump.

More than Trump, sure. But politifact doesn’t measure a candidate’s truthfulness, they measure the quality of their fact checking staff more than anything. Clinton has continuously lied about the email investigation and continues to do so even though she doesn’t have to. And the media is calling her on it, keeping it in the news. The fact that she doesn’t make misstatements about the growth in education spending from 1988 to 2002 doesn’t make her lies about her official conduct a wash.

As for whether you can trust her, what issue is most important to you? Chances are, you don’t really know where she stands on it. And where she stands today can change tomorrow depending on political circumstances. Such as not having to worry about a primary challenge from the left.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m not sure anyone deserves praise for having come to their senses.

No, I very much think they do. George Orwell: “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” The line is humorous, but it is no joke.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@WillFarnaby

Of course you guys would vote for a Trump/Jill Stein. You supported Bernie Sanders who was just as nuts as Trump.

You’re the crazy asshole who thinks that taxation is theft, right? I’m not gonna take your analysis of who’s nuts, thanks.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

At this point Trump’s teams of experts are going to be thin, because there’s a considerable stigma in being associated with him and he’s unlikely to win anyway. If he actually won the election that calculus would change dramatically.

I disagree, but I don’t dismiss your point. Extrapolating from a campaign is hazardous.

1. But so is ignoring it. In 2000, I heard folks say that GWBush’s unaffordable tax cut plan would be watered down in Congress. That wasn’t implausible. And in fact, GWBush’s Treasury Secretary and Fed Chairman tried to do exactly that. But GWB declared he wasn’t going to negotiate with himself. So that was that. The tax cut passed intact.

My point is that while political pendulums do swing at times, that is not always the case.

2. The stigma of being associated with Trump dropped after he was nominated. Just saying. And his economic team, but together after the convention, contains 1-2 economists (I say one).

3. You can also look at his behavioral patterns. Trump has no ties to Washington and no ties to state or local government. Companies that he runs tend to be small in the head office and staffed by sycophants. Trump is going to want folk that follow orders. That’s a recipe for getting hacks in office, not experts.

4. Vis a vis #3: actually yeah, there could very well be some stigma in associating with Trump, even post election. Look what happened to Christie and Pence. The closer you get to him, the more he feels it necessary to pull a dominance game with you. Which frankly isn’t that great for your career.

So yes the calculus will change, but that’s not to say that it would revert to something like a normal Presidency. Not with a guy like Trump on top.

5. Top, top people aren’t always over eager to work for Presidents. Henry Paulson required some persuasion before he would join the GWBush admin. Specifically, he didn’t want to be a toadie. To GWBush’s credit, he gave Paulson a great deal of latitude once he persuaded him to join the team. Trump certainly couldn’t credibly promise the same, given his history.

[Little_Nemo]

@Measure_for_Measure

Top, top people aren’t always over eager to work for Presidents. Henry Paulson required some persuasion before he would join the GWBush admin. Specifically, he didn’t want to be a toadie. To GWBush’s credit, he gave Paulson a great deal of latitude once he persuaded him to join the team.

Nobody is going to want to be another Colin Powell - the guy whose reputation gets sacrificed to protect the President’s.

[adaher]

Powell wasn’t the only one. A lot of well respected people’s reputations were brought down by GWB.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Josh Marshall parts company a little with the OP: [INDENT][INDENT]It’s simple. If you really oppose Trump, the danger he poses and what he represents, you need to vote for Hillary Clinton, difficult a step as that may be for many. It’s that simple. [/INDENT][/INDENT]
I could easily vote for Jeb Bush. My problem is voting any Republican into the Presidency when the GOP Congressional leadership does things like playing chicken with the US’s credit rating. Again, it’s not conservatism that I have an issue with: Dick Cheney was extremely conservative and extremely effective but he was also a deal cutter. It’s the nihilistic obstructionism of Mitch McConnell in the Senate and the Tea Party caucus in the House.

I would argue that the Republicans don’t have that sort of issue. The analogy I think would be if somebody unqualified for the Presidency was on your side and a competent but villified person was in the opposing party. Maybe like Ronald Reagan for some, GW Bush for others, or Jesse Helms. Or… Mitch McConnell in the Presidency. With a non-nihilistic Republican congress I think I could vote for any of those in opposition to a Trump-like Jill Stein.