Walk on to Sir Mixalot?

Hits keep coming...
Condoleezza Rice Says Donald Trump Should Quit Presidential Race - Bloomberg Politics

Giuliani, leaving Trump Tower, signals Trump is ready to wage war against his party. "This is basically the insiders versus the outsiders."

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) October 8, 2016

That's probably his best chance at this point. Make it us vs them and hope for a miracle.

Trump's running for office the way I play board games. I may not win, but I'll make damn sure those that screwed me don't win either.

I hope this destroys the Republican party and somehow, out of the resulting pieces, a moderate and centrist party would arise championing conservative economics and social progressiveness.

I mean, I can hope right?

Note to anyone who probably wants to run president, you probably should never ever go on the Howard Sterns radio show.

More Trump tapes surface with crude sex remarks - The Washington Post

"Surface." I didn't think something that had been aired on the radio would really be that secret.

Seeing some chatter on twitter that Pence is seriously considering leaving the ticket.

Turns out that the advisers did not have a time machine. And it will be forgotten, but Trump had this as a toss-up before the first debate. It was a real campaign, Jack.


I missed on that. The debate hurt him.


Yeah.


It was a great move. And she actually got pneumonia and fainted on video. And the election pulled into a tie. It just wasn't enough.


I think that a lot of future political science research will contain the phrase "Other than the 2016 U.S. Presidential election . . ."


Depending on how crazy shit gets, I could see a post-2016 realignment where the Trump and Bernie populists conslidate into a party and the GOP ends up moving more libertarian for having lost them.

So what I'm not understanding is the timing of the release of the tape. The Bushes have been pretty solidly against Trump even after Jebs short lived campaign ended. Why now? Who actually released them? Am I skeptical that it came right after the Wikileaks dump? I bet Clinton has much worse for November.

Sounds like worse may be coming from recordings of The Apprentice

How the shocking hot mic tape of Donald Trump was exposed - Oct. 7, 2016

And the tape was out a couple hours BEFORE the WikiDump.

And I guess Trump didn't do a good job, so the donors don't want to pay him ;)

Trump donors angry, want their money back after lewd tape leak - CBS News

I've been trying to figure out how a hypothetical Pence for Pres would work. The ballots for many states are already printed, so even though there is a method for the RNC to change the candidate, at this point it's too late. Trump can say he's no longer running, but that wouldn't officially remove him from the vote. Isn't it possible that Trump could say he's off the ticket, but if Pence were to win he could say, "take back!"

I know the electors can change their vote in some states, but in others there are laws designed to eliminate the possibility of voting against the winner of the popular vote. The GOP would fight those laws, but who knows what the outcome would be.

I don't think the GOP has any hope other than Trump going through whatever official process there is in state after state, and that seems, well, unlikely.

Well that may happen, but there would also be a "Core" party.

Yeah, if you believe that I've got a 250 acre ostrich farm to sell you. What a coincidental time to remember something that relevant to the current situation!

Yeah, amazingly they knew the wikileaks would come out later that day ;).

Hey, that's just their story. But I'd assume it would have to be someone on that production team, associated with Access, etc. if the clip wasn't previously broadcast (unlike any Stern interviews, which I'd assume anyone could dig up and are no real secret).

Other than that, who's going to remember that, or would have even seen it? I can buy that a producer would forget about it -- why would they remember everything every douche who's been on that program would have said in some outtakes?

If they remembered it back in Sept but held it until now? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(It's funny, because some have wondered if NBC was buoying Trump. Seems they were aware of the tape, but it's not like they were releasing it at Clinton's direction -- not if they got scooped on its release. So what's the theory then, producer took the tape to the Clinton campaign, and then the campaign leaked it to the Post? I mean maybe, but at some point I think you're giving her campaign too much credit. I mean, this is a campaign which was until now essentially tied with Donald friggin' Trump. That's not incredibly impressive.)

The Republicans were predicted for a long stay in the political wilderness after the 2008 Presidential election. It lasted two years.

That's the thing - negative politics work. If Clinton gets elected, all the Republicans have to do is run the 2009-10 playbook. If they hold the House (probable in any event) and/or the Senate (questionable, but not impossible), the play is just to either obstruct anything Clinton tries to get done, or flat refuse to consider her priorities, pass a bunch of bills, and dare her to veto them all. If they lose the Senate this year, they're likely to get it back in 2018, because regardless of voter contempt for the GOP as a going concern, ballot access laws still privilege the Democrats and the Republicans to an extent no other party has, and Democratic voters are much less likely to turn out reliably in a midterm year.

Clinton's got a window of two years to get fuck-all done, never mind judges confirmed to the Supreme Court - be they to the Scalia seat or any other unforeseen vacancy.

If Republicans can slow down the game in the next two years, their ability to obstruct a Clinton agenda will be greatly enhanced in 2018. She's already the second least-liked Presidential candidate in modern electoral history; what does it do for her re-election prospects if she rolls into 2020 not only with 45%+ of the country still spitting fire at the thought of her, but also without anything to show for her first four years in office?

I'd LIKE to see a GOP realignment that leaves the "First Amendment applies to Christians only" and outright racist crowds behind, but nobody ever went broke betting on the ability of negative politics to keep the GOP viable.


Short answer: there is no real way to replace Trump on the ticket at this point, given that ballots have been printed, voting has started, and you can't simply assign votes for Trump to whomever the GOP selects as his replacement. You can't throw out those votes, either, or you disenfranchise a swath of the country.

The only viable path to replacement before the GOP essentially requires either a Trump victory - in which case they'd be hard-pressed to replace him shy of threats of immediate impeachment if he doesn't agree to resign immediately on swearing the oath - or for something to damage Clinton so severely that McMullin, Johnson, or others manage to cause an electoral deadlock and throw the vote to the House delegations. Winning "red" states isn't enough. Effectively, they can't replace Trump before the election, replacing him via an EC hail mary if he wins would be a repudiation of the people who voted to elect him and politically dangerous in its own right, and it's moot if Clinton wins.

As far as Trump qua Trump, they're fucked. At this point, the only path available in terms of replacing him is to damage Clinton as least as severely so that nobody reaches 270.

Really at this point there's nothing they can do, they'll be forced to carry his candidacy to term.

I think the Republican party is dead. I mean, the Trump Supporters are a large number, and are still defending Trump and attacking those who disagree with them. They don't get it that in order to win the general election, you have to broaden the support base.

Where do the Trump Supporters go from here? I don't see them quietly falling back in "line," and with those supporters, can the GOP ever win again? By sticking with the demographics of these voters, they'll lose the opportunity to bring on the ever-growing Hispanic base, women, the younger vote, and the minorities, which also means they'll never win either. The LP platform, aided by a likable Gary Johnson and William Weld, has much more that is attracting the younger and minority, which isn't going to suddenly flee to the current GOP platform.

The Trump Supporters and that base, which has been active for a few years, basically killed their hopes of doing winning anything. If Hillary wins, then what? You've achieved nothing, especially in a year where a halfway decent candidate would have likely defeated Hillary. You have zero power, and you given the office, and possibly the Senate, to the Democrats. Good job.

The Republican party holds the House through at least 2022, 31 Governor's mansions, and 23 state legislatures. They're a long way from death, though they do seem hell bent on never seeing the White House anytime soon.

The possible results of a Supreme Court ruling on gerrymandering could hurt their ability to control the House and state legislatures in the future.

After going all-in for Trump and continuing to side with him for political gain, it's my sincere hope that if nothing else gets accomplished in this election cycle, we'll at least get the end of evangelicalism in America (at least as we know it).

I say that as a self-identified evangelical*. I'm embarrassed by how the "leadership" of evangelical churches and organizations has presented itself -- and the rest of us, and, most importantly, the name of Jesus, to the world. We've been paving this road to hell since roughly the origins of the Christian Coalition.




* with some reservations

Doubtful. That would require, at minimum, a 5-3 outcome, since it seems unlikely that the Scalia seat is filled before arguments in the case are heard. The prior ruling was that the gerrymandering in question was legit, so a 4-4 deadlock means that stays in place.

If SCOTUS does vote to overturn, that will affect GOP seats on the margins. They have a 59 seat majority at the moment, and the states which are both red and have sizeable minority populations aren't terribly populous.

If the case were about gerrymandering in general rather than about the use of race in gerrymandering, continued control might be imperiled.

There's another case currently in federal court about Maryland's redistricting about gerrymandering as a First Amendment issue rather than about racial bias, along with a Wisconsin suit that also isn't about race.

The thing is, SCOTUS has previously held that partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but that under the law they don't have a standard for where the line is, and so they've left it be.

I feel like the First Amendment argument is probably going to suffer the same fate - getting SCOTUS on board requires not just proof of partisan gerrymandering, but a solution SCOTUS can endorse. The Court is likely to nod and say "yes, we agree, that's a violation," but the same Elections Clause Roberts cited in Arizona is a roadblock here - the legislatures are given the power to determine the "times, places and manner" of elections.

Now, they held (narrowly) that Arizona's citizens had legislative powers and, thus, had the right to hand the redistricting process to a nonpartisan commission, but the Constitution doesn't permit the Court to impose that remedy on the other 49 states. The ruling in Arizona merely permits the other 49 states to pursue that remedy, where possible. I don't know how the several states handle referendums (some states, the Legislature votes to put the measure on the ballot for the public to vote on, while others allow citizens to collect signatures to get the issue on the ballot), so it may not be a remedy available to all 50 states.

That's still going to be the bottom line. Not, "is it legal," but rather, "what is to be done?" And that's a question they've been asking for over 50 years. Wesberry established an equality-of-population requirement for redistricting (I've no doubt otherwise that Madison and Milwaukee would have been placed in a district together after the 2010 elections), but beyond that, they've not found an applicable standard to deal with gerrymandering.

Even Tic-Tacs are denouncing Trump: :)

Tic Tac denounces Donald Trump - POLITICO

Great choice of words.

I'm getting tired of seeing all these right wing apologists out there making an argument that altough Trump is basically an individual with no morals that match up with their's. They still will need to vote for him to protect the Supreme Court.

That's not how the Supreme Court works. :banghead:

NEWS: Trump urges surrogates to unload on Republicans abandoning him, per new talking pts just forwarded to me (1/)

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) October 9, 2016

Trump talking pts urge total war on Rs: "They are more concerned with their political future than they are about the future of the country"

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) October 9, 2016

WE DON'T NEED EM.

Trump talkers > "Trump won the Primary without the help of the insiders and he’ll win the General without them, too"

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) October 9, 2016

I see what you did there. :D

Haven't watched it yet, but Breitbart has managed to get Jones, Broaddrick, and Willey in a room together to trash HRC.

We are ‘Terrified’ of Hillary - Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey - YouTube

It's going to get *UGLY* tonight.

I guess I understand if the GOP candidates did not know about this specific tape but you would think they could have found the Howard Stern tapes and make some hay out of it. Poor opp research.

Yup. I'm sure Hillary will be prepped but it'll be interesting to see how things develop.

But if you're Jeb and your cousin is Billy Bush, don't you think this might of come up? Just seems weird, unless Billy was concern about himself looking bad.

In tonight's format, will they be on stage at the same time? Will the candidates get individual questions or will each of them have the answer the same one?

well its not exactly flattering to Billy Bush either? And who knows what the Bush's relationship is like.

They were all hoping to be the last one vs Trump. The "sane one in the room", at which point, they could focus everything on him and blow him out of the water.

The thing is, the last two standing were Cruz (who noone likes) and Kasich (who the Jon-ites in the party would not stomach)

Kasich would have killed Clinton. Straight up killed.

This tape is going to at least temporarily end Bush's career. If he even remembered, it makes perfect sense that he wouldn't be enthusiastic about sharing it.

Dang, I put my Kasich chuckle post in the wrong thread ;)

I'd just as soon see Hilary elected as that worthless sumbitch. Literally no meaningful difference to me whatsoever.

First off, GAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Second, yeah, my first thought is that this doesn't sound like the sort of thing that Billy would have wanted to get out.

On the claim of "dirty politics," meh. HRC and DJT were both the leaders from day 1. If Team Clinton knew about this back in 2015, I'd fully expect them to have held on to it until now. It ain't exactly their responsibility to make sure that the other party nominates a strong candidate.

Oh come on now. I'm not under any illusion that Trump is clear of playing dirty politics! Just saying this is a core example of such. At the end of the day, I'm fully aware of the age old motto, "Live by the sword, die by the sword".

And CNN drops this one a little more than 3 1/2 hours before the debate...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politi...now/index.html

‘Apprentice’ producers have footage of Trump using N-word: claim - NY Daily News

Just a rumor at this point, but how bad does Trump lose if this tape gets out?

Yeah, some people would like to see Mark Cuban pony up the $5M.

I think the needle's mostly moved on that point. North Carolina and Georgia have both been closer to swing than usual, so maaaaybe black turnout gets nudged high enough to flip them. But how many voters stayed after the "grab 'em" comments that will decide the 'n' word is beyond the pale?

Probably not many. The honor of [White] Women > Blacks.