For the last year or so I’ve frequently noted how difficult it is for me to make heads or tails over what’s been going on with the political campaigns, I’ve thought a lot about it, and I think I may have some insights as to why that might be. Over the period of the next month or so I’m going to be writing a number of posts analyzing what we might be learning about how our politics is changing from the Clinton and Trump campaigns.
As part of my analyses I plan to produce evidence supporting my observations and outcomes that would test some of them one way or another. Stay tuned.
Category error. You want to analyze policy, you’re a policy guy, and there is no real policy. The Clinton plan seems to be, “Let’s keep doing this,” and Trump’s policy is whatever idiot thing gets the most applause at his next rally. This election is psychology, melodrama and motive.
The Occam’s Question for this election is: who is likely to do the least damage? Or, to put it another way, which candidate do you most trust to be in control of 4,500 nuclear weapons? Policy positions won’t help, this is a character judgment.
North Korea launches a nuclear-armed missile and explodes it over the sea of Japan, inadvertently sinking a Japanese trawler. Which of the two candidates do you trust to avoid launching nukes at Pyongyang? Who do you want on the phone to Tokyo and Seoul and especially Beijing? The former secretary of state? Or the mentally unstable clown who is perfectly capable of asking a crowd of yahoos what to do – and then actually doing it?
Hillary might be all sorts of bad things, but she is not mentally unstable, and she is not wholly ignorant of reality. The choice is really as clear as 2 +2 =.
I wonder why many military officers and troops disagree with you.
Clinton constantly threatens Russia, Trump offers olive branches.
Clinton is part of the neoconlib Elite whose policies have only scared NK, along with demonstrating unreliability directly.
“I wonder why many military officers and troops disagree with you.”
Are you talking about the military support for Johnson?
We’re now getting Tammy Duckworth ads down here and they appear to be two different anti-free-trade, anti-China ads. Assume she supports gang-of-eight style immigration reform (like her Republican opponent), but the most likely Senate pickup for Democrats moves the ball away from globalization.
@Andy, is ignorance about cities where the military doesn’t want to be a plus from a military p.o.v.?
PD,
I don’t understand, cities the military doesn’t want to be? There’ usually no choice in the matter.
@Andy, just joking about the potential appeal of a candidate who doesn’t know Allepo.
Ken:
Tell me you’d trust Trump over Hillary to handle the Cuban missile crisis.