Dracula 发表于 2016-6-30 03:46
Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President
Nate Silver过去几次大选的预测都是挺准的 ...
2016 General Election Forecast
按照Nate Silver的估计，electoral college，希拉里能拿到343票，Trump能拿到194票。最近在摇摆州的民意调查，希拉里在North Carolina都领先的挺大。如果连NC都能给拿下（2012年Romney赢得北卡）的话，这次大选民主党肯定会大胜。Arizona以前是铁杆的红州，但最近的民调Trump只有很小的优势，Nate Silver模拟的结果，Trump赢Arizona的概率只有52%。就目前来看他的形势确实是挺悲观。而且最近的一些消息，像Star of David事件，表现出来的Trump搞竞选的unprofessionalism，我觉得他要想把差距追上困难很大。
Dracula 发表于 2016-7-4 21:18
2016 General Election Forecast
按照Nate Silver的估计，electoral college，希拉里能拿到343票，Trump ...
Paulson 的 endorsement ， 还有民主党提名两位变形人为国会议员
你以为会对民调有何影响啊。。
Dracula 发表于 2016-6-28 02:36
瑞典的穆斯林难民比例很高同欧盟无关，它的邻居丹麦就少很多。原因是丹麦的反移民情绪要高很多，对申请难 ...
难民危机刚爆出来的时候，头天看着默克尔公开承认多年来对土耳其劳工移民的同化工作是失败的，改天就看着德国接受了大批的新难民。自己要往死路上走，真是怎么都没用。
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-7-5 16:59 编辑
如若 发表于 2016-7-5 09:14
Paulson 的 endorsement ， 还有民主党提名两位变形人为国会议员
你以为会对民调有何影响啊。。 ...
我估计影响不大吧。对于教育程度低的白人，估计就不知道Henry Paulson是谁，如果知道是以前Goldman Sachs的老板，2008年金融危机时救助银行的策划者，估计还能让他们更愿意选择Trump。但是对于教育程度高收入高的白人，这一点可能会更坐实他们对Trump的不安，他的榜样会更可能让以前温和派共和党人也会捏着鼻子投希拉里一票，或者会选Gary Johnson。这两者我估计会抵消吧。这次大选在收入超过10万美元的那个群体里希拉里可能会特别的大胜。但是Trump在低收入白人那儿可能也会优势挺大。
在Transgender的这个问题上，美国的文化正在变得更宽容。最近国防部下令允许transgender的人入伍，也没引起轩然大波，共和党也没在这个问题上对Obama政府进行什么攻击。在LGBT问题上，Trump的立场其实是接近于自由派。奥兰多恐怖事件发生后，还试图拉同性恋的票。北卡因为洗手间的问题闹得沸沸扬扬，Trump从来也没在这个问题上插过嘴。这个不会是他攻击希拉里的方向。
最近的Star of David事件，让我觉得Trump搞竞选实在是太不专业。他的手下就没有个把关的部门，预先查一查这些材料图片是从哪来的，是不是有不合适的内容。本来这个周末大家应该是谈论希拉里的电子邮件，她和FBI的谈话，现在注意力都集中在Trump是不是反犹主义者。这事就是无心，也让人怀疑他运营大型组织的能力。连竞选活动都搞不好的话，能运行的好庞大的多的联邦政府吗？
Dracula 发表于 2016-7-5 14:54
我估计影响不大吧。对于教育程度低的白人，估计就不知道Henry Paulson是谁，如果知道是以前Goldman Sachs ...
我周围的中产还是心存疑虑。尤其是希拉里现在那个副总统大热Julian Castro。狂推Section 8。 真不明白但是Bloomberg怎么就那么快的决定不参选了。
In expensive ZIP codes, Castro’s plan — which requires no congressional approval — would more than double the standard subsidy, while also covering utilities. At the same time, he intends to reduce subsidies for those who choose to stay in housing in poor urban areas, such as Brooklyn. So Section 8 tenants won’t just be pulled to the suburbs, they’ll be pushed there.
馒头笼子 发表于 2016-7-5 15:58
我周围的中产还是心存疑虑。尤其是希拉里现在那个副总统大热Julian Castro。狂推Section 8。 真不明白但 ...
我也很喜欢Bloomberg。他经商很成功，比Trump强不少。当过3任纽约市市长，干得很好，从政经验也可以说挺丰富。他的政治观点中间稍稍偏左，我是中间偏右，对他的soda tax尽管不喜欢，但整体上还是很接近。他这个人好像很想当总统，3月份的时候决定不参选肯定是经过深思熟虑。美国历史上第三党的记录从来就很不怎么样。1912年，非常受欢迎的前任总统西奥多罗斯福作为Progressive Party的候选人都失利，别的人更没有希望。美国的竞选制度是First Past the Post，赢者通吃，对第三党特别不利，1992年Ross Perot获得20%的选票，却一张选举人票都没有。现在美国政治两极化越来越厉害，这次大选风头最劲的Trump和Sanders可以算是极右和极左，像Bloomberg这样实际做事的中间派估计也就是在收入高教育程度高的人群中会有不少的吸引力，人数会很有限，没法靠这个赢得大选，我估计他几乎不可能达到Perot的20%的水平。而且第三党的候选人要想登上所有50个州的选票好像就很不容易。Bloomberg好像找人研究过，3月份是最后期限，晚了就来不及了。而且这要花很多钱，有人估计得上亿美元，加上选举还要再花好几亿美元，Bloomberg可能是觉得一点获胜希望没有的话，花这么多钱不值，徒然惹来好多讥笑。美国政治的两极化趋势确实让人有些担忧，我喜欢的偏中间的Bloomberg, Kasich, Jeb Bush这次一点机会都没有，民主党共和党都在往极端的方向发展。
这次赌博公司预测英国退欧好像输了
本帖最后由 Dracula 于 2016-7-7 04:38 编辑
如若 发表于 2016-7-5 09:14
Paulson 的 endorsement ， 还有民主党提名两位变形人为国会议员
你以为会对民调有何影响啊。。 ...
Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-become-the-first-republican-in-60-years-to-lose-white-college-graduates/
Donald Trump does really well among white voters without a college degree. Indeed, he is on track to carry that group by a wider margin than Mitt Romney did over President Obama four years ago. But there’s another side to that coin: While Trump is outperforming your run-of-the-mill Republican among whites without a college degree, he’s underperforming among white voters with a college degree. In fact, he is on a track to lose white college graduates.
That’s really unusual for a Republican, and it means that among white voters overall, he’s probably not holding a winning hand.
If you look at seven live interview polls taken since Trump wrapped up the nomination in May, he has trailed among whites with a college degree by an average of 6 percentage points. The same polls have him losing among the overall electorate by an average of 5 percentage points. (That’s about wherethe race stands now.)
TRUMP’S MARGIN
POLL START DATE OVERALL WHITE COLLEGE GRADUATES
CBS/NYT May 13 -6 -4
NBC/WSJ May 15 -3 0
ABC/Post May 16 +2 +1
CBS News June 9 -6 -21
CNN June 16 -5 -8
NBC/WSJ June 19 -5 -1
ABC/Post June 20 -12 -8
Average -5 -6
At first glance, it shouldn’t be too surprising that Trump faces a deficit with whites with a college degree. He struggled with them tremendously compared to whites without a college degree during the GOP primary season, and you can easily imagine how his nativist appeals have less resonance among those who have more education.
On the other hand, Trump’s performance is downright shocking from a historical perspective. Romney won whites with a college degree by 6 percentage points over Obama, according to the American National Elections Studies. In fact, the American National Elections Studies showsRepublicans carrying that group in every election from 1956 to 2012.
http://i1.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/enten-collegewhites-1-1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1
What makes this year’s turn of events even more interesting is how Hillary Clinton is doing this well among whites with a college degree even as she isn’t blowing Trump out. Lyndon Johnson couldn’t carry whites with a college degree in 1964 when he was defeating Barry Goldwater by 23 percentage points overall. That is, there has been a big leftward shift among white voters with a college degree without the rest of the electorate following along.
You can see the dramatic movement among white college graduates by comparing them with other groups. In late June, Emory University’s Alan Abramowitz looked at 17 demographic groups and compared how the groups voted in 2012 according to exit polls with how they said they were going to vote in 2016 in a June CNN survey. He wrote that the results “show an extremely high degree of consistency in group voting patterns between these two elections.”
One group, however, stands out for its inconsistency: white voters with a college degree. I re-created Abramowitz’s work and found that Clinton does about 17 percentage points better among whites with a college degree in the CNN survey than we’d expect based on the 2012 exit polls. Neither Trump nor Clinton does greater than 9 points better than expected among any of the other 16 demographic groups studied. The average difference from the expected result in the CNN/ORC survey based on the 2012 exit poll is just 4 percentage points.2
The 2016 election is being contested along a different battle line than presidential elections usually are. Well-educated white voters say they’re going to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in numbers that just haven’t been seen over the past 60 years. That could have big ramifications for our political discourse, creating a class-based divide among white voters that isn’t akin to any other American election in recent memory.
This split between white voters with and without a college degree could also make a big difference in where this election is decided. As Margaret Talev, Jennifer Epstein and Gregory Giroux wrote at Bloomberg Politics, Clinton’s strength among white voters with a college degree could aid her in swing states like Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia. She may do worse than Obama did in states where whites without a college degree are more plentiful, like Iowa and Ohio.
In terms of the national vote, Clinton’s strength with white voters with a college degree could win her the presidency. Even using relatively conservative estimates for how well Obama did among whites with at least a college degree in 2012, Clinton expands her overall margin by 3 percentage points compared to Obama because of how well she is doing among white voters with at least a college degree. For now, that’s making up for her lack of support compared to Obama among white voters without a college degree. We’ll see if that’s enough in the months to come.
Dracula 发表于 2016-7-7 04:32
Trump May Become The First Republican In 60 Years To Lose White College Graduates
http://fivethirt ...
哈哈~ 正准备来问问伯爵对FBI不准备告女克有什么看法~ 没想到就已经有关于trump的更新了~
tanis 发表于 2016-7-7 06:13
哈哈~ 正准备来问问伯爵对FBI不准备告女克有什么看法~ 没想到就已经有关于trump的更新了~ ...
James Comey 关于希拉里电子邮件具体的评论是很负面的。但是对于希拉里的支持者来说，也可以把没有起诉理解为她没有大错，该支持她还会支持她，我估计这件事不会有多大影响。另外Trump的大嘴也确实是关不上，就是最近几天，先是Star of David的反犹主义的tweet，又是赞扬萨达姆，而不是利用希拉里的这些坏消息一心一意的攻击她。就是电子邮件这些事，James Comey关于希拉里的很多话其实很重，Trump完全可以借过来用，攻击效果会很好。他却偏要往阴谋理论上引，说没有起诉是Obama政府对FBI插手干预的结果。对于铁杆的Trump支持者来说这会很受用，但是对中间选民来说，我觉得效果未必会好。赌博预测市场对电子邮件这件事的反应是对希拉里来说稍稍有一点利好。
如果民主党临时换马，无论三德子还是布隆伯格顶上来，对川普来说其实更加棘手。所以嘛，双赢咯{:187:}
Dracula 发表于 2016-7-7 06:39
James Comey 关于希拉里电子邮件具体的评论是很负面的。但是对于希拉里的支持者来说，也可以把没有起诉理 ...
I think this will come back and bite her , hard..
今天尖刻一下，抛开两党共同的自私和贪婪
女克代表的民主党，腐败，空话谎话连篇。。
川普不完全代表的共和党，傲慢自大到某种程度上的愚蠢。。
刚看到的，
Charles Stevenson, long-time Congressional staffer and author of many books about the politics and policy of national security, write about Donald Trump’s meeting this morning with Republicans on Capitol Hill:
You may have seen this TPM report about Trump's meeting with House GOP.
I think this part is especially significant:
Another Republican in the meeting who declined to go on the record so he could speak candidly told TPM that Trump was asked pointedly if he would defend Article I of the Constitution.
"Not only will I stand up for Article One," Trump enthusiastically stated, according to the member in the room. "I'll stand up for Article Two, Article 12, you name it of the Constitution."
The Republican member said that Trump's lack of knowledge about how many articles exist, gave him "a little pause." (The Constitution has seven articles and 27 amendments.)
Besides indicating Trump has little real knowledge of the Constitution, it also shows an insensitivity to the purpose of the question.
Article I lists the powers of the Congress, which many Republicans say has been undermined by an overreaching Obama. Trump doesn't seem to understand that he was being asked about legislative-executive relations and the proper balance between those branches. He didn't know, and probably doesn't care. Lawmakers should.
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/07/trump-time-capsule-35-two-corinthians-and-twelve-constitution/490373/
南京老萝卜 发表于 2016-6-28 01:46
瑞典该脱了
一个人口不到1000万的国家，大量涌入穆斯林人口，清真寺建得到处都是，把个好端端的平静的北 ...
刚看到的
Denmark’s Tougher Citizenship Test Stumps Even Its Natives
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/08/world/europe/denmark-citizenship-test.html
Which Danish restaurant gained a third Michelin star in February 2016?
How many municipalities are there in Denmark?
In what constellation did the 16th-century Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe discover a new star?
Questions such as those are part of a new Danish citizenship test so difficult that more than two-thirds of applicants who took it for the first time in June failed, the Integration Ministry confirmed this week.
The center-right government of Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, which has been tightening rules on immigration, has made little effort to hide the goal of the new test: to make it significantly harder to become Danish, as Europe struggles to cope with a refugee crisis.
But critics of the test — which includes 40 questions covering subjects such as Danish film, the functioning of local government and, of course, the Vikings — say that it is too tough, and that even many Danes would be hard-pressed to pass it.
Danish Radio recently asked the actor Morten Grunwald a question on the test: When was the premiere of the first movie about the Olsen Gang, a fictional criminal syndicate? Mr. Grunwald, a star of the film, replied, “That, I can’t even answer myself.” His memory was jogged when he was given the choices: 1968, 1970 or 1971. (It was 1968.)
Jakob Nielsen, editor of the online edition of Politiken, an influential left-leaning newspaper, said the proximity of the years given in some of the multiple-choice questions seemed calculated to stump test-takers. For example, one question asks if the life span of the Danish composer Carl Nielsen was 1865 to 1931, 1870 to 1940 or 1892 to 1965? (The first is correct.)
He said that when Politiken posted the test online, many readers failed it. “There is no doubt that the test is aimed to discourage immigrants from coming here,” he said. “Some of the questions are just ridiculous, and many Danes couldn’t even answer them.”
He added, however, that applicants were provided free preparatory material that covered the test’s contents, and that aspiring Danish citizens who were determined enough could persevere.
Inger Stojberg, the integration minister, confirmed that 68.8 percent of the 2,400 people who took the test in June had failed it. But she was unrepentant about the test’s difficulty, telling Politiken that being Danish is “very special” and that “citizenship is something you have to earn.”
“Too many did not prepare properly,” she said.
The new test comes as the Danish government has clamped down on immigration, including by introducing a law requiring recently arrived refugees to hand over valuables, such as gold or jewelry, to help pay for the costs of lodging them.
The test replaced a version introduced by the previous center-left government in 2014, and critics like Mr. Nielsen say it is undeniably harder. Applicants must now get 80 percent of the answers correct to pass, up from 73 percent previously.
Even without the citizenship exam, the requirements to qualify for Danish citizenship are arduous and include passing an oral and written exam in Danish, a difficult language with an abundance of vowel sounds that linguists say makes it hard to learn. Applicants must also be able to prove that they have been able to support themselves financially for four and a half of the past five years.
In Denmark, as in several European countries, a far-right populist party has been appealing to voters by warning against the perils of immigration. The Danish People’s Party has been a central proponent of the tougher citizenship test. Mr. Rasmussen’s governing center-right party does not have a majority in Parliament and often needs the support of lawmakers from the People’s Party to pass legislation.
With its generous welfare state, strong tradition of egalitarianism and Scandinavian quality of life, Denmark is an attractive country for many foreigners. The country was recently ranked as the world’s happiest for the third time since 2013.
As to the questions that started this article, Geranium in Copenhagen was the restaurant that got three stars; there are 98 municipalities; and the constellation was Cassiopeia.
特朗普猴精猴精，还是吸大麻好点
Dracula 发表于 2016-7-4 21:18
2016 General Election Forecast
按照Nate Silver的估计，electoral college，希拉里能拿到343票，Trump ...
Nate Silver的预测结果转向了{:201:}
楼主要弃楼了{:187:}
怎这样呢 发表于 2016-7-27 00:47
楼主要弃楼了
我前几天在瑞士，这几天在威尼斯，美国大选的新闻没怎么关注。再过几个星期我可能会评论一下。
海天 发表于 2016-3-7 05:39
如果提升到这样的高度（第六政党系统的终结），那还真值得好好关注一下初选
加拿大这里喜欢川普的看起 ...
刚看到的
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/a-fundamental-decency-the-difference-between-rob-ford-and-donald-trump/494075/
Many people have noted the campaign-style similarities between Donald Trump and Rob Ford, the late mayor of Toronto. John Spragge, who lives in Toronto, says that the Capt. Khan episode points out an important difference:
I am the Canadian systems analyst who sometimes writes you from Toronto. Earlier in this campaign, I compared Donald Trump to the late Toronto mayor Rob Ford.
I still believe Mr. Ford drew much of his support from people who feel alienated and left out, and I believe getting elected mayor had dire personal consequences for Mr. Ford, just as I believe attaining the presidency might have serious consequences for Mr. Trump. However, over the past week I have come to see important distinctions between Mr. Ford and Mr. Trump; I think Mr. Ford’s greater skill at retail politics speaks to a fundamental decency. As I put it in a web log post :
When I asked myself how Rob Ford would have responded to Khizr Khan’s speech, it occurred to me: Rob Ford would have called the Khans. He would have talked to them. Rob always called people who disagreed with him. He would have listened the he Khans. He would have expressed sympathy with their sacrifice. He would probably not have changed any of his positions, but he would have given the Khans the courtesy of a hearing.
All Rob Ford’s most vehement opponents, which some times included me, acknowledged his ability as a retail politician. He listened to people, and whether he agreed with us or not he gave the impression he cared what we thought. I think he genuinely did; I think he had a real desire to help and connect with people, and unlike Donald Trump, he did not respond to opposition with the fury of wounded vanity.
Rob Ford was diagnosed with cancer during the last election and has since died. Since the emergence of Mr. Trump, many Toronto residents have seen the parallels between the social forces that gave rise to his candidacy and Mr. Trump’s. I think we owe it to his memory to acknowledge that nothing in his record suggests he would have treated the Khans the way Trump did.
刚看到的，挺有意思。作者David Frum是保守派，当过小布什的speechwriter，但是这次大选反对Trump。
Why Trump Supporters Think He'll Win
DAVID FRUMJUL 29, 2016
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/backing-donald-trump/493619/
Perhaps the hardest thing to do in contemporary American politics is to imagine how the world looks from the other side. I’ve made no secret of why, as a Republican, I oppose Donald Trump and what he stands for. But I’ve also been talking to his supporters and advisors, trying to understand how they see and hear the same things that I do, and draw such very different conclusions. What follows isn’t a transcription—it’s a synthesis of the conversations I’ve had, and the insights I’ve gleaned, presented in the voice of an imagined Trump supporter.
“You people in the Acela corridor aren’t getting it. Again. You think Donald Trump is screwing up because he keeps saying things that you find offensive or off-the-wall. But he’s not talking to you. You’re not his audience, you never were, and you never will be. He’s playing this game in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen. And he’s winning too, in a different way from anybody you’ve ever seen.
“Our convention worked. Donald—I’m not on the payroll, I can call him that—Donald energized his voters: people who are afraid of crime and worried about the mass immigration that’s transforming their country and displacing them. We talk a lot about polls, but you ignore the polls that don’t show what you expect to see.
“Here’s what’s going to happen. We’re going to run up vote totals like you’ve never seen in places you’ve never been. Not just coal country, either. No, we don’t have what you’d call a proper campaign. What do we need it for? Campaigns spend most of their money on TV ads that do nothing except entertain you on YouTube on your lunch hour—oh, and pay huge commissions to the consultants who make them. It’s all a waste and rip-off. If our message is exciting, our voters will get to the polls on their own. And you have to admit: Our message is exciting!
“You think it’s crazy when Donald goes after Ted Cruz about the unanswered questions in his life. It’s crazy like a fox. Trump is forcing people in the party—a lot of them already don't like Ted, you know that, right?—he’s forcing those people to think about whether they’re really going to let this guy posture as the keeper of the party conscience. There are a lot of unanswered questions about Ted: You know that, way beyond the Kennedy assassination. Donald's showing: Nobody backstabs him without paying a price. He’s the boss of the party now, he’s going to be treated like the boss, and if you don’t respect him, he’s going to bring down the hammer. That’s a good lesson for everybody else—and look how quiet and respectful all those Republicans are now. Donald knows that Reince Priebus and Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and even Mike Pence want nothing better than to lay him low. But every time they bite their tongues as he takes off the head of Ted or whomever … he makes it that much more impossible for them ever to say, ‘Oh Donald? No, I had nothing to with him.’ They all wear the Trump logo now—and they always will wear that logo, whatever happens in November.
“The Putin thing. You think you’ve really nailed Donald with the Putin thing. Get it through your head: Our people are done fighting wars for your New World Order. We fought the Cold War to stop the Communists from taking over America, not to protect Estonia. We went to Iraq because you said it was better to fight them over there than fight them over here. Then you invited them over here anyway! Then you said that we had to keep inviting them over here if we wanted to win over there. And we figured out: You care a lot more about the “inviting" part than the “winning" part. So no more. Not until we face a real threat, and have a real president who’ll do whatever it takes to win. Whatever it takes.
"That’s another way you don’t understand Donald. When you squawk: 'Oh, it’s so horrible, he’ll waterboard prisoners, he won’t ask our troops to risk their lives so as to protect a terrorist’s mother-in-law …' when you talk like that, what our people hear is that you are a lot clearer about what you won’t do to protect the American people than what you will do.
“Tom Kean/Tim Kaine? So, so sorry we got the name of your latest precious progressive New South governor a little mixed up. Just kidding: not even a little bit sorry. What you need to take on board is how profoundly so many Americans do not give a … oh yeah, you still live in a country where people don’t use language like that when they talk about politics. Come visit Reddit sometime and see how the other half lives. But I’ll spare your feelings. They like that Donald doesn’t know any of that sh …. Oops. Sorry again.
"You Acela people live in a beautiful country where everything works. You believe in institutions because they work for you. So it bothers you that Donald doesn’t seem to know what the OECD does or who’s in charge of the FDIC. But our people don’t believe in institutions any more. The institutions they do still care about—the military and the cops—you use for props when you need them, and as dumping grounds when you don’t. I noticed that when Tim Kaine took a bow for his son’s military service, he pointed out that he was a Marine—because we all know that what you’ve done to the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Yeah, they’re just as lethal as Obama and Hillary said. When you spend as much as the rest of the planet combined, you can make a lot of things go boom—even if the soldiers can’t do chin ups any more and the sailors get pregnant when they decide their tours of duty have gone on too long. And the cops! One minute you’re calling them murderers, the next you’re slobbering all over them. Our voters are cops. They know who’s on their side. Not you.
“You loved the Democratic convention didn’t you? Soaring rhetoric, we’re all together in just one big beautiful rainbow quilt: illegal aliens and billionaires, all together. And the flags? So many flags. You wave the flag one day every four years, and you think it means you’ve taken America from us. You haven’t, not yet—and that’s another thing our voters will be wanting to say on Election Day. Lots of ideas too: free this, free that, more investment in this, higher taxes on that, and ‘common sense gun laws.’ I bet you don’t own a gun. I bet you’ve never had a DUI either. So it wouldn’t worry you that you could lose the first if you get the second. But it worries our voters. Their lives are kind of messed up. They get into trouble. That’s why they want guns for themselves, and not just for Mayor Bloomberg’s bodyguards.
“Here’s the bottom line. You live in an America that’s still a lot like your parents’ America. It’s mostly white. Nobody’s displacing and replacing you. It’s pretty safe too. You can read about rising crime—you don’t live it. In your America, you worry about how there aren’t enough women making Hollywood films or sitting on corporate boards. In our America, the gender gap closed a long time ago—and then went into reverse. Obama in the Oval Office was humiliating enough. But Hillary will be worse: We’re going to lose any idea at all that leadership is a man’s job.
“You’ve been building up to this for a long time. No more Superheroes rescuing women in the movies. The girl always has to throw the last punch herself. In the commercials, Dad’s either an idiot—or he’s doing the housework with his boyfriend.
"And you know what? It’s not just our hillbilly voters who are going to vote ‘no’ to all that. A lot of men you never imagined will vote for us. Trump’s going to do better with Latino men than you expect—probably no worse than Romney. He’s going to do better with black men than Romney ever did. And his numbers with white men will be out of sight. Every time you demand that Donald show respect to Hillary—while laughing as Hillary disrespects Donald—you push those numbers up.
“You tell us we’re a minority now? OK. We’re going to start acting like a minority. We’re going to vote like a bloc, and we’re going to vote for our bloc's champion. So long as he keeps faith with us against you, we’ll keep faith with him against you. Donald's a scam artist, you tell me. You’re from The Atlantic? Read that great book by one of your former colleagues, Jack Beatty, about Boston’s Mayor Curley, The Rascal King. Curley was a scam artist. The Boston Irish loved him for it—even when he scammed them, too—because Curley pissed off the people the Boston Irish hated and who hated them. (I can still say ‘pissed off,’ right?) It’s going to be just that way with Donald. I mean, Mr. Trump. I mean, President Trump.”