Sunday, July 24, 2016

The Kaine Mutiny: DNC Convention Day 0

The DNC has not kicked off yet and already there is the Wikileaks DNC hack, the choice of Tim Kaine, and the rejection of a vote to remove SuperDelegates. All of this infuriates Sanders supporters which probably makes the entire DNC say "Thank God for SuperDelegates!"

A Few Observations

Kaine gets exactly the kind of praise from Republicans that you want.  He is also a  bilingual Catholic politician with a good reputation. He's exactly the kind of "run it down the middle" VP pick that the strategically savvy Clinton campaign could be expected to make. He also apparently has good chemistry with the candidate and is both experienced and low-drama. Over all, he's almost unquestionably the right choice.

Secondly, Wikileaks has claimed a scalp in that Debbie Wasserman Schlutz, the head of the DNC, will, apparently, not be speaking at the convention. This is because of the leaked emails--they make it pretty clear that the DNC, as a whole, wanted Hillary.

This, as far as The Omnivore can tell, is dead-on-target: they fucking ought to have wanted Hillary. Sander's purported walk-to-victory was predicated on (a) enthusiasm from a portion of the Democratic voting base and (b) approval from the right who (reasonably) felt Hillary would be much harder to beat. We'll never know what a Sanders General Election would look like--but the current state of polling is not a good guide.

Remember: all those If-The-Election-Were-Held-Today polls show the current polls. But if the election actually were held today, there would have been debates, attack ads, and people educating themselves a hell of a lot more than you see now. In other words, unless you presume a "surprise election" the numbers we see right now are Apples. Election day is for Oranges.

Finally, The Omnivore thinks that Trump is going to have a developing problem: his last, best chance for party unity just shut down. Now, while he can pick up some more enthusiastic endorsements, there's never again going to be as good a forum for them. While Cruz may well have damaged himself, he's not going to get McConnell or Ryan on a giant stage to say better things about him.

The Democrats are probably unlikely to attain the kind of unity with the Sanders hard-core as they would like--but unless Sanders pulls a Cruz, The Omnivore doesn't see much chance for it to get worse (remember: The Bernie faithful already think that the election was totally rigged, that the DNC did unspeakable things to Sanders, that the Media were entirely in on it--and that, hey, he actually won the popular vote. At that point the only thing that could bring unity is a Unicorn).

Tomorrow the DNC kicks off--and after that comes the first set of important, really meaningful polls: at that point the cake is largely baked.

We'll be watching.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Day 4: Trump Towers

Tweet during the Trump Speech
Looking like a set out of movie--and, judging from the dark tone of the speech, a dystopian one at that, Trump addressed the nation on night four to middling viewership numbers (Caveat: we don't have streaming or C-Span numbers). 

Was It Good?

The only metric that matters will be the polling after this coming week (the DNC convention). Right now we cannot say whether it was effective or not.

Did The Omnivore Like It?

The speech leaked ahead of time (or was leaked, whatever) and people who read it, including The Omnivore, thought it was very effective. Rod Dreher found it terrifyingly effective--on paper. David Frum felt that it was toxic--but that it would work.

That was on paper. In practice it was too long--the longest on record (or the second). It was close to the printed page--but not identical--it was broken up in ways that may have hurt its coherence. It was . . . loud. It was angry. Make America Deaf Again may not have quite been the winning delivery.

The Omnivore watched and felt that, while it seemed impossible hours before, perhaps Trump had gone too far on the anger meter. We'll see.

Now we get the Clinton VP roll-out, the DNC--and then? Whoever is ahead after that? They usually win.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

When Ted Cruz Attacks: Day 3 of the RNC

The Omnivore joked that Punchable Face (Ted Cruz) would attend the Republican Convention just to get close enough to stab Trump. Last night, he did. Metaphorically at least. This was his speech. It's noteworthy that he didn't bash Trump. He spoke about conservative values. He didn't endorse Trump--but he did congratulate him on winning. While these might be fine distinctions, he was loudly booed from the floor.

The dangerous line in Ted's speech, other than its tone and delivery, was telling people to "Vote their conscience." This is the "All Lives Matter" for the Republicans: it sounds like no one could disagree with it--but in context it means something troubling to the base (that you should vote other than Trump). This is because Vote-Your-Conscience was the catch-phrase of #NeverTrump.

The Trump reaction has been something like this:
And, again, on the night VP Mike Pence gave a perfectly good speech, the narrative is all about something that went wrong. Make no mistake: this did go wrong. If you want any evidence that it'll leave a mark, look here:
Now they will hate him all the more. The Republican apparatchiks will despise Cruz out of their own envy, because he demonstrated the courage to do what they would not: resist Trump to his face. They resist him only through their mealy-mouthed endorsements. They will hate Cruz for making them trash a vote of "conscience" while they defend a Trump candidacy they loathe. Cruz has provoked defense hawks like Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) to denounce him strenuously as "not a true conservative," on the same night Trump put into question the whole NATO alliance in a tossed-off interview in The New York Times. Cruz has caused Trump's useful idiots to out and embarrass themselves further.
When you become outraged at a man who encourages you to abide by your conscience, it means your conscience has already condemned you.
He's right.

Today, Cruz stated that he was not a "servile puppy dog," effectively 'subtweeting' Chris Christie. While Cruz makes his play for 2020, the observers are, again, wondering what the hell the Trump campaign was thinking putting that guy on stage. While they have said it was no big deal, these were their faces:
The Art Of The 'No-Big-Deal'
It'll be fascinating to see if this convention produces a bounce for Trump--and how long lasting it is.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

My Little Plagiarist: Day 2 of the RNC

Sean Splicer (Actual Photo)
Republican strategist Sean Spicer (pictured above) innovated the "My Little Pony" defense of Melania Trump's plagiarized speech. Basically?
"Melania Trump said, 'the strength of your dreams and willingness to work for them.' Twilight Sparkle from 'My Little Pony' said, 'This is your dream. Anything you can do in your dreams, you can do now,' " Spicer said.
The big news here is that the RNC is full of Bronies. Who knew? The point here is two-fold:

  1. Somehow Melania made it to the stage in front of 23 million people with a speech that plagiarized not just anyone--but a currently serving, particularly hated first lady.
  2. The Trump campaigns response has been miserable. From the circling of the wagons to the defense above (whatever you may think of the gravity of the charges, the response should not inspire a "What do you take me for??" reaction), to information that (somehow) Melania was responsible for all this herself (even if true, this should not be any part of messaging).
There have been molten-hot takes about how this gaffe should disqualify the campaign (no), about how it sheds light on some internal weakness (well, yes), and about how it's no big deal but the media is going nuts about it (kinda). The Omnivore thinks a couple of things:

It's A Real Problem

Melania Trump isn't even a nominee. She isn't running for anything--she's just the spouse of the Republican nominee and this is likely the first public speech of her life (and certainly with anything near this magnitude). So what if she plagiarized?

The 'so what' is that it has given the media something legitimate to talk about for a 24 hour news cycle (it's still top-of page on The Omnivore's news aggregator) when there are all kinds of things the Trump campaign would rather the press be talking about (like Chris Christie's rousing "Lock-Her-Up" speech/chant). The opportunity cost here is probably significant: if the bounce from the GOP convention isn't up to par, this will likely be one reason why.

Secondly, and in the same vein, it mars what was otherwise a well delivered speech by a sympathetic potential first lady. She did a good job--she reasonably connected--again, there was an opportunity to do well and it was utterly squandered.

Finally, it raises big questions about the ability of the campaign itself. How did this slip through? Didn't someone vet the speeches (even if Melania wrote it?)? Why wasn't damage-control short, sweet, and on-topic? There aren't any good answers to these.

The Times reports that two speech writers were hired and provided a speech--but that it was either ignored or heavily edited by Melania herself and, possibly, a friend:

Quote above from Twitter (here). The question then is that even if Melania were 100% responsible for the content--and even if somehow it passed through all editorial--why is she taking the fall for this? While a scapegoat for her might seem cynical, surely it is better than the admission that she cribbed Ms. Obama?

The Rest of The Convention

The Omnivore thinks that the convention is both a display of everything wrong with the Trump campaign (emphasis on empty showmanship, lack of organization, divisiveness)--and a success. Nothing will pry Trump voters away from him. His brand is that of a bull in a china shop. So what if the convention runs over time? If pundits make fun of the campaign logo--or the speeches?

The GOP has been trained on a carnivorous diet of red meat and that is being served. Right now Trump's chances of winning are just around 25%--that's great--and if it doesn't get worse? Then it's a better strategy than going for a "statesmanship" pivot that it's probably too late for.

Of course if his polling collapses or he loses a convention bump and Clinton gets a big one? People will point to this as the turning point. So we'll see.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Conventional Wisdom: GOP DAY 1

While The Omnivore holds out hope for a floor-clearing brawl, the first day of the convention seems to have more or less delivered on what-did-you-expect. The first part of the day had a voice-vote rejection of Never-Trump which was ham-handed (and probably unnecessary).

The speaking events were less well watched (The Omnivore had stuff to do, yo) but it seemed Rudy Giuliani ranting like a maniac was the high-point. There are allegations Melina Trump plagiarized some of Michelle Obama's speech (maybe her secret hero is Joe Biden?) and apparently some viewers found the rest of it incoherent--but over all, it seems to The Omnivore that it'll play well to the base.


This is Erick Erickson's The Resurgent's live-tweet recap (with full video).

Thoughts On The Convention

This, from Princeton Electoral Consortium is what the race looks like today:
The red zone is around 65% chance and the yellow is 95%. The spread is based on the historical "elasticity" of the shift in vote--how much does it likely move between now and November. If the race were "held today" Clinton's chance of winning would be over 95%. Assuming that the vote-count drifts "within normal parameters," if it goes in Trump's favor, she has an 80% chance of winning in November.

The methodology here has held up extremely well since 2008.

What Does This Tell Us?

Below is a 538 look at some campaign events for Romney vs. Obama and their impact on the vote aggregate (note: 538's methodology is different from PEC's--but they generally converge):

From this it is hard to tell what exactly contributed to the slide in Romney's polling (or the gain in Obama's). For example, Libya is #Benghazi. There are two basic kinds of movement in national polling numbers:

  1. Undecideds making a decision.
  2. Partisans coming home.
You can add (3) "decides" switching sides--but while that happens, it's statistically insignificant in most cases so long as both candidates remain in the race. The distinction between 1 and 2 is that in the case of 2, they were really, always, going to vote one way or the other and when something happens they now feel they can declare for the candidate they were always gonna cast a ballot for in the first place. Consider this:
Yet many of these “stuck in the middle” Americans, Lincoln Park finds, still identify with one party or another. When the firm cross-referenced ideological inclinations with party identification, the share of ideologically “stuck in the middle” Americans who also identify as nonpartisan Independents was just 4%.
The survey finds that when push comes to shove there are really only 4% of voters who haven't made up their minds. The Omnivore suspects it's an even lower number: most people have a handful of issues they really care about and have probably already been persuaded by the candidates on those issues.

The remaining part of the race comes down to:

  1. Get Out The Vote: can the campaigns convince their ideological supporters to actually get to the polls? This involves door-knocking, phone-banking, and so on. 
  2. Rubbing It In: if you sleep between now and the vote, even if, today, a lot of people were on your side, they'd likely lose confidence in you. Both parties have to keep up the drum-beat of messaging and partisan massaging until the ballots are ready. 
  3. Expanding your targets. Clinton wants more minorities going to the polls. Trump wants more white males (to be clear, both want whoever they can get--but there are trends, right?). This is different than GOTV because it involves talking to new people.
The chances for an elastic event to change the vote comes down to a few pre-packaged scenarios. The party conventions, Vice President roll-outs, and the debates. Sprinkled in there are (a) run of the mill gaffes (most of which are not very important) and (b) the odd black-swan event like a war, another major terrorist attack, economic collapse, etc.

The question over the next three days is going to be: Are the Republicans blowing one of their key chances to get a bounce (considering that they will not, over time, keep all the "bounce"?). We'll see.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

A Tale of Two Dark Sides

Peter Wehner writes in the Time: Can We Find Our Way Back To The Party of Lincoln?

(Copy-Paste seems disabled or something)
He allows that some people will say this dark-side was there all along--but he thinks it's more complicated. He finds that:

  1. Republican Primary voters were well recognized and their grievances at least understood--if not all justified (although some were).
  2. He implicates a "perfect storm" of the 2008 crisis, a failure to nullify Obama, and a belief among Republicans that the practice of politics is inherently illegitimate.
  3. He points out, rightly, that he--and others--simply did not believe that GOP voters, knowing what Trump did (or did not) represent would hand over the keys to the party to him.
But they did.

The Omnivore is pretty sympathetic to this--to a degree. For Wehner, having served a decade in Republican presidential administrations, his experience with the GOP is an honorable one. For him, allegations of bald racism were a leftist tactic--not a keen observation. He even goes so far as to recognize those elements were there. They simply were not driving the party.

He's right about that: GOP administrations, ever since they captured the South from the Democrats, have benefited from some degree of racist voting (as did the Democrats for decades). This was not the main thrust of the party in most cases.

However--and this is important--even now, having a test-case where an actual candidate was able to withstand the backlash to say out loud what a lot of GOP Primary voters were thinking--and got elected for it--there are things he isn't willing to look at. These are worth looking at.

Both Sides! BOTH SIDES!!

This year both parties suffered an incursion by an outsider who embodied (out loud, in the open) the stereotype their enemies accused them of. Trump was a race-baiter who pitched grade-school foreign policy (Kick-Their-Ass--Take-Their-Gas) and appealed to, pretty much, aggrieved white males in the basest possible terms.

For the Democrats, they got outsider/independent Bernie Sanders. He made free-stuff (college) a major thrust of his platform. He would #OccupyWallStreet--bring down the banks. He was an out-and-proud socialist--but while the 'socialist' got air-quotes and Sweden-Talk, analysis of his plans showed a significant capture of the working economy if he got most of what he wanted.

Culturally, Sanders voters were angry young people. When Sanders lost--and he did lose--they've retreated to conspiracy theory and promises of 1968-style convention protests. 

On the other hand, he lost. He lost decisively. Maybe there's a lesson there.

Why Did Sanders Lose Vs. Trump Winning?

There are basically two dimensions to the loss / win of the insurgent candidate. These are both inter-related but they have separate drivers. We should examine them differently. They are:
  • The party nominating process and party leaders
  • The messaging over the last decade the party members have received

The Party & The Process

If you want a one-word illustration of the difference between the GOP and Democrats the distinction would be "Superdelegates." The Democrats had to deal with the problem of an insurgent populist before and paid for it. They developed systemic antibodies in the form of a substantial number of party insiders who were not bound to the voting public. These people could tip the scales substantially. 

The GOP, on the other hand, learned a different lesson from along, damaging 2012 primary--they wanted whoever was ahead at the midpoint to bring things rapidly to a close. They presumed that'd be Romney Version 2.0 . . . of some sort.

Beyond the mechanics, though, there's another dimension to the problem. The Democrats understood from McGovern that their base's instincts could be sincere and damaging--i.e. that they had a dark-side and that it needed a control. What the GOP learned from 2012 (and from 2008) was that their base's instincts were embarrassing and they needed to keep it covered up. These are two different approaches.

In the second case, the attempt to shorten things rather than control them is an attempt to treat a symptom. In the Democrats case, what it treats is closer to a cause.

The Medium & The Message

 The other problem the GOP has--and one it has yet to even attempt to grapple with--was the melding of its leadership with its mass-media. When Rush Limbaugh was recognized as the defacto head of the party, a lot of Republicans shook their heads. Yes, true, the uber-popular radio host commanded a great deal of mindshare--but what did it really matter? For one thing, both he--and Fox News--wanted the GOP to succeed. So long as their views were aligned, things were fine. Secondly, Rush was smart. He might dance with provocative rhetoric but he stopped short of putting his foot firmly in his mouth.

It drove Rush's opponents crazy . . . which was a plus.

A second wave of guys like Hannity, Beck, World News Daily, and the endless drum-beat of alternative news with guys like Alex Jones was a problem of a different level. These guys were further out there than Rush was. They dove directly into conspiracy theories (WND is filled with religious end-times nonsense) and they racked up millions of listeners piggy-backing on the the more mainstream sources (Hannity on Fox). 

They also did not have the party's best interests in mind. They were most interested in making money off their listeners. Selling gold certificates, survivalist water filters and rations, and advertising a coming collapse, the message they conveyed was not that the Democrats were bad--but that the Republicans were just as bad--maybe worse. The Dems were evil--the Republican Establishment were traitors.

This was good for business. It was especially good in an environment where Obama was well hated--but the GOP was not well represented enough to fully block him and the Democrats. Throw in a couple of Supreme Court decisions that were against the dogma and the story that the GOP was in the pocket of Big Democrat.

This wasn't true, of course--Boehner, McConnell, and everyone else--even John McCain were stalwart Republicans--but the GOP as a whole stood by while they were demonized. Even guys like Limbaugh--who knew better--had their constituency to think of. When push came to shove, the conservative media, entrusted with the soul of the party, turned out to be capitalists prioritizing making a buck.

Very, very Republican.

How Do You Get Back?

How do you get back from this? What happens after Trump? Well, if he wins--good luck. If he loses, though, you have a problem that you had in 2012: how do you build a coalition that includes some pretty hardcore racists and minorities? How do you keep the base that is infinitely angry, ideologically backwards, and requires pandering to in the face of being called 'racist'--while at the same time reaching out to growing demographics that are opposed to them?

The answer is simple: Triangulate. Peel off some Democratic strong-holds and repudiate the guys defending the Confederate Flag and Muslim-Tests for entering the country, and the great Southern Wall. Of course in order to do that you'd need people who were legitimately charismatic. Who were not movement conservatives (triangulation will require pragmatism). It will not be the party of Reagan. It might, however, get back to being the party of Lincoln: Recommend Reparations for slavery and the institutional racism that persisted (under Democrats) in its wake.

See what happens.

Saturday, July 16, 2016

The Omnivore's Case For Hillary

"If you want to convince me then don't tell me why I shouldn't vote for Trump," The Omnivore's cousin said on Facebook, "Tell me and try to convince me why I should vote for the Democratic candidate."

The Omnivore isn't in the habit of recommending candidates--and would, in fact, be hard-pressed to tell anyone they ought to vote for anyone out there this cycle--but this is both a fair and interesting question.

It is fair because like it or not, a vote against Trump is, at this point, almost certainly at least a partial 'vote for Hillary' (especially as the vote in question will be happening in Florida, a key and close swing-state).

It is interesting because the most obvious Case For Hillary is that she is not Trump. It is far easier to litigate against Trump than to try to build an affirmative case for Hillary to a doubter.

But The Omnivore isn't afraid of hard problems--so let's do it.

To The Omnivore's Facebook Cousin: The Omnivore knows this is a lot of text and you'll have problems getting through it all. Tough luck--you promised to read it. You asked for it, you've got it. The Omnivore has helpfully numbered various sections and arguments and expects a reply to each of them

The Omnivore has challenged you to "put up" (argue your case) previously. When you asked for it, you got it. Now you've got to do the same.

1.0 Some Real Talk: There's Nothing Wrong With Hillary, Yo.

The first and painful thing that The Omnivore's cousin will have to get through is that there's nothing disqualifying about Hillary. Sure: she has all kinds of things one might not like--but every candidate does. There wasn't a flawless candidate in the Republican's 16-person Strongest Bench [sic] Evar. No one on the Democratic side, save, perhaps, for Lincoln Chafee (because no one knows anything about him) seemed to be unblemished either. 

But is Hillary disqualified? Sorry: no. If you think so, it's because you have been told to think so by people who also tell you things that even you can suss out as definite bullshit. While going into detail would take time, let's look at the most common digs against Hillary Clinton and, in a line or two, why they are bullshit.
  • 1.1 Benghazi: The most thorough and politically motivated inquisition in modern times found missed opportunities but nothing amounting to anything approaching malfeasance. If you got nothing? Sorry--you've got nothing.
  • 1.2 Libya: Everything that we've done in the Middle East has been some kind of disaster. Bush I was gigged for not "finishing the job" with Saddam. Bush II "finished the job" with Saddam and left a power-vacuum. Libya killed Gadaffi and didn't expose us to ground-warfare and occupation. The Omnivore counts that as a best-case scenario.
  • 1.3 Email-Gate: A massive nothing-burger. Out of 60k emails, approximately 113 were classified. Those were improperly marked. The data that we have access to was strategically meaningless. The inquisition alone proved she was right to be protective of her communication.
  • 1.4 She LIED: Everyone lies. There are clips of Romney flip-flopping like a dead fish. Trump lies about everything he says (most recently? That Pence was his first pick!). If your qualification is someone who does not lie you are a hypocrite. It's okay: we all are. Just don't think you're fooling anybody (except maybe yourself).
  • 1.5 She is rated the most truthful candidate (including Sanders) by Fact Check organizations. An investigative reporter finds her basically honest.

She is experienced at all levels of government. She is an accomplished politician. Her spouse is an acclaimed ex-president who would, presumably, bring something to the table.

Despite what you have been told by Fox News and Conservative Click-Bait, there is nothing disqualifying about Hillary Clinton.

But that, alone, isn't much of an affirmative case, is it?

2.0 She's A Hawk

Sanders supporters find Hillary's hawkishness a reason not to vote for her. The Omnivore considers it a plus. So, too, did Republicans until Clinton triangulated and then Obama started winning on Foreign Policy (and Bush II gave American intervention a bad name with the Iraq debacle). Still, if we hearken back to Reagan, there is a case to be made for using American muscle abroad and Hillary, a hawkish candidate, will do it--and will do it far more intelligently than any other potential candidate in the race.

The Omnivore assesses that Obama, committed to getting America out of two theaters (Afghanistan and Iraq) and dealing with the problem of the native forces having a difficult time standing on their own feet--yet having a commitment to it--was understandably reluctant to wage an American ground war with ISIS.

The Omnivore suspects that although the American populace is war-weary, whoever comes into power next term will have a reasonable mandate to do that--to destroy ISIS--which will require ground troops. Hillary is qualified to do that. All her detractors--left and right--consider her overly war-like. Trump talks tough--but he thinks military school was the same thing as serving. Republican National Security experts are backing Hillary. That should tell you something about who is better qualified to wield American power.

3.0 She's a Pragmatist

3.1 Let's say you hate Obamacare. Great! Let's get rid of it. The problems are (a) there is no alternative (oh, yes, there's a white paper--but it isn't remotely fleshed out) and (b) there is no transition plan. Trying to tear it up on Day 1 (like Cruz was going to) would lead to chaos. Hillary wants to fix it. That's a conversation anyone who is a realist should want to be having. The time to kill it was back when it was passed or in the first SCOTUS case. 

3.2 You don't like the Iran deal? Bully for you--The Omnivore respects your expertise as a nuclear weapons inspector (what's that? You're not? But . . . but . . .). Still, tearing up a treaty on Day 1 (Cruz, Trump) is not how experts handle foreign policy. That's what they're telling you because it's what you want to hear--but it's not going to happen.

The second problem with tearing up the treaty is that The Omnivore has read stuff by multiple military strategists he trusts (and has served--which means at least a little): there is no good answer to stopping Iran from seeking nuclear weapons without attacking them. Attacking them will create a transcendental mess in the Middle East. This is why Obama's (?) stuxnet anti-nuclear virus was, perhaps, the most effective move against Iranian nuclear power that was legitimately possible.

Did you know that? That the Obama administration did the thing most damaging to stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions outside of a shooting war? Oh? You didn't? Why isn't The Omnivore shocked.

In other words, again, incrementalism is the only real strategy here and it's Hillary's.

3.3 Remember the TPP? It's bad, right? The Omnivore means, you've read it. You're some kinda expert--right? Oh, wait: you get your news from click-bait web-sites that you know feed you lies half the time--but you trust them anyway because they wear your jersey colors. Airtight.

The TPP is an attempt to prevent other major powers (China) from dictating terms in the new world. The Omnivore has no idea whether it's a good idea or not--and is no kind of expert--but believes that the kind of simpleton explanations that Trump and Sanders are providing are exactly that. The real world is messy. 

3.4 The Big Banks? The Omnivore thinks we want them. Breaking up America's banks won't stop other world banks from existing (or doing business in America). The markets can certainly use oversight--but, again, that's incremental. It isn't a feel-good moment of power like the Brexit was.

4.0 She's A Historic Candidate

There is a culture war in America today and it's being fought in fantasy-land. In fantasy land, trans-sexuals are storming Target bathrooms to molest little girls (in fact, this happened--in real life--and the guy was arrested for it). In fantasy-land there's a War on Christmas (HEY: "All Holidays Matter!"). In fantasy-land, there's a war on Christians. In fantasy-land homosexuals are going to bully you into watching their gay-sex . . . or something.

You live in fantasy-land because you live in a media-bubble that makes money off you. That needs to stop but you are ill equipped to stop it. Hillary, on the other hand, just might.

Why? Well, here we get to Trump. Trump is a disaster of a candidate. Unprepared, untruthful, and unready, he is an incarnation of the conservative media bubble. He is everything in reality that Obama was in conservative fantasy-land (without at teleprompter he's a rambling mess--something Obama was supposed to be, for example. He doesn't understand the Constitution--something Obama is constantly charged with. Trump isn't really, actually religious--a charge leveled at Obama. Trump is running on celebrity--That was supposedly Obama, right?).

If Trump loses this election, perhaps--just maybe perhaps--people will realize that Trump was a dumpster-fire of a candidate given life by a mad-science concoction of lies, appeals to emotion, and attempts to sell gold certificates and post-apocalypse foodstuffs. Maybe enough suckers would wise up.

Well, The Omnivore can hope . . . can't he?

Can't he?