Donald Trump was Jimmy Fallon’s guest on the Tonight Show last night. You should watch it, not because you will learn anything substantive (you won’t), or because after watching you will feel better about the fact that Trump has been maintaining a substantial lead in GOP primary polls for weeks, and so far is defining that race (you won’t). You should watch it because, like it or not, he is the most important story in American politics right now.
So, here it is. The Trump segments starts about 11 minutes in.
Please share widely!
Christopher says
…because the media can’t seem to resist his showmanship and reports on polls too much anyway. Frankly, I’m baffled and disappointed that you seem to have jumped on this particular bandwagon.
Also, it seems Joe Arpaio of all people sounds reasonable on immigration by comparison.
David says
I’ll just repeat the question I posed before: “You don’t think it’s going to be Trump? Who else is it going to be?” One of those guys is going to be the GOP nominee. Please explain who you think it will be, and please supply evidence backing up your choice.
Christopher says
…to the reply I gave to this on the other thread. My money is still on Jeb Bush because despite wide polling swings in the calendar year before the election and flirtation with extremes, the GOP has consistently returned to the person reasonably electable whose turn that it is. As those getting no traction drop out (unfortunate IMO since there are current/former Governors and Senators among them), the non-Trump vote can begin to coalesce around one more traditional candidate. Plus, Trump holds or has held views that are anathema to the party base. FWIW Nate Silver doesn’t think Trump will be the nominee either.
David says
If you want to call polling at 8% “traction,” well, OK. One of the anomalies of this cycle is the unusually large number of candidates and the fact that many of them are polling so close to each other. Why should Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina, or even Walker drop out, when each of them is within just a few points of everyone but Trump and Carson? As long as that dynamic persists, the “non-Trump vote” will continue to be badly split (as things stand now, those 5 candidates together barely exceed Trump in the polling), which will only fuel Trumpmentum.
Patrick says
The idea that as non-Trump candidates drop out that their supporters will go to the remaining non-Trump candidates seems flawed.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/former-iowa-chairman-for-perry-goes-with-trump.html/
drikeo says
Bobby Jindal tried it this week, but he’s in the Siberia section of the polls. However, if Bush, Rubio or Christie do it at one of these debates, it might stick. The Republicans will lose if they present themselves as the part of anger, bluster and disrespect … and they will lose badly at that. One of the better placed contenders is going to chop Trump down, making the case for civility and withdrawing his/her pledge to support the party nominee if it’s Trump.
I suppose no one might right to that challenge and Trump could win by default, but my guess is their nominee will be the one that takes down Trump.
Bertro says
No he isn’t. Bernie Sanders is.
Patrick says
It was a moot issue when Hillary was dominating, but I doubt his access will remain unchallenged.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/416929786/this-quirky-new-hampshire-law-might-keep-sanders-off-the-ballot
Christopher says
…including having ranking member status and VT Dems endorsing him, his rejection notwithstanding, there’s no question in my mind he should be on the Dem ballot. I’m sure the law’s intent is to prevent a Trojan Horse so I think spirit over letter is appropriate this time. Any rival campaign who tries to force him off on this basis would look extremely petty.
Patrick says
This isn’t an odd law. NH actually has very permissive ballot access. The matter is straightforward. Is he or is he not a member of the Democratic Party in VT? The answer is no. All that has to happen is for someone to challenge (as I understand it). If someone does that, he’s sunk.
He can be on the ballot, he just doesn’t qualify to be on the Dem ballot. Petty or not, it would be political negligence to not knock your opponent off on a “technicality” if you can. What if instead, Sanders’ was a bit shy on the number of signatures required? Should Hillary let it slide? This kinda sorta happened here if you recall in a Senate race with Jim Ogonowski and Jeff Beatty running in a Republlican primary against Kerry for Senate.
Christopher says
…indicates the state party will fight to keep him on the ballot if it comes to that, and they would have likely been the establishment trying to keep him off. Whether he is a Dem in VT or not is moot since that state doesn’t have party registration at all. If that were the only criterion strictly adhered to Howard Dean would not have been on the ballot in 2004. Hillary has nothing to gain and a lot to lose if she pulls this. It will confirm to many the idea that she will do anything to win and not fight fair, a reputation she already has in the minds of some. Besides, he wouldn’t necessarily be sunk if someone challenges him; the challenger won’t necessarily win. Signatures are a more objective measure so if that were a requirement you either have them or you don’t, but I believe you can get on with just a $1000 filing fee.
jconway says
Especially with Sanders now pulling away with double digits over Clinton in the Granite State. That kind of challenge would really backfire and make Clinton look petty, desperate, and weak. I don’t see it happening. The DNC could have excluded Sanders from the debates and it has not, it even invited him to it’s annual meeting even though he is not a registered Democrat.
If the incompetent and decidedly undemocratic Debbie Wasserman Schultz has the good sense to be inclusive towards the Sanders campaign, I am confident state level parties will be sure to toe that line. I have committed myself publicly to supporting Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee and have consistently said she has the potential to be a great President, but I would have a hard time voting for her if she or her campaign pulled a stunt like that.
Peter Porcupine says
Why couldn’t any registered NH voter mount a challenge of an unqualified candidate?
Christopher says
…but a rival Dem campaign would have the strongest argument for standing since they can most easily demonstrate harm.
SomervilleTom says
Pick your poison — a nearly catatonic electorate, numbed by decades of television trash (have you ever made yourself actually WATCH an entire “Monte Williams” or “Oprah” episode?), an entire broadcast medium owned by corporate masters and unregulated by any force except self-interest, an entire economy so battered by decades of legalized theft that most Americans have no time or interest in elections, several entire generations of Americans who view politics is utterly irrelevant to their day-to-day life because it has been irrelevant during their lifetimes.
Donald Trump happens to be the manufactured main character in this season’s episodes. He is not the story.
The fact that an obviously synthetic caricature of a candidate like this is still touted as legitimate — never mind “the most important story in American politics” — is the story.
If it wasn’t “Donald Trump”, it would be someone else. The living breathing man called Donald Trump is NOT the story, any more than an obscure man named André René Roussimoff was ever an actual wrestling contender.
jconway says
As someone intending to marry an immigrant whose family endured a lot of hardship to come here, stay here, and become citizens here I find it offensive. As a friend and classmate of undocumented students at CRLS, I find the implication that their American story is less worthy than my fiancées or my great grandparents (one of whom definitely came in illegally) or Trumps mother for that matter equally offensive. Especially now with the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War-largely a result of the failed states left in the wake of our wars, that we dare reject the Emma Lazarus line to take the tired, the hungry, the huddled masses yearning to be free.
The only exciting thing is that Republican rank and file voters are loudly rejecting their party’s position on social security, Medicaid, and coddling Big Business. We should be running head first on those issues and may win over some right leaning populists. But we must loudly denounce this appeal to nativism as the racism it is, even Rick Perry already has, and his words are an example for candidates in either party on how to confront this demogogue.
scott12mass says
Objection to illegal immigration is not necessarily racism. I am having two rooms in my house painted and I’m getting a couple of quotes. One will be from an illegal Polish guy, there is a very large Polish community in Webster. I’ll let you know how it goes.
SomervilleTom says
Why on earth does the nationality of a painting contractor matter? How do you know the immigration status of that contractor? Why do you care? If you know that the contractor is an illegal immigrant, why do you invite a bid?
The contracting business is filled with companies and individuals who have stiffed creditors, defrauded customers, and violated dozens of laws (such as consumer protection laws, building codes, and so on). I know, from first-hand knowledge, of several builders who fled the towns of Groton and Dunstable because they did things like tell buyers that they had waterproofed foundations (during construction) when they hadn’t. Much of the corruption in this state (both legal and illegal) comes from contractors that make “special” arrangements with government officials, volunteer members of local planning and zoning boards, and so on. If you’re going to pick a a category of legal violations to concern yourself with, immigration law is among the least relevant.
I get that you think you’re not racist because you speak of a Polish community rather than some other nationality. You are mistaken. It’s still racist. The nationality of a contractor has nothing whatsoever to do with his or her quality, cost, or professionalism.
scott12mass says
I appreciate reading opinions here, and always try to remember I am a guest here. Most on here seem to be urban professionals, you are very knowledgable about the computer world, there are many in education even a few government workers. There doesn’t seem to be many from blue collar rural backgrounds.
I try to interject some anecdotal evidence from my perspective. If a Black guy kills a Black guy, or a White guy robs a White guy, it ain’t racial. They just deported an illegal Irish nanny in the Boston area, a kid died in her care. Was that racial?
I know the guy through the friend of a friend. It’s not a highly technical job so I will be able to evaluate his work pretty easily, I’m not worried about getting “stiffed” and he’s not worried about getting paid (cash).
I guess the point is the use (or abuse) of illegals always seems to be depicted on here as akin to an episode from Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It isn’t racial, it’s economic.
jconway says
The U Chicago grad won’t pretend he’s blue collar, but my folks are, and my uncles, cousins, and my godfather are all in the trades. I know they are hurting, it’s really hard for them to be competitive with undocumented laborers. But the issue isn’t blaming the other laborer but finding a solution that really ensures employees can’t exploit undocumented workers. That’s the main reality-that exploitation is bad for undocumented workers and it’s bad for native born, largely unionized, prevailing wage paying construction workers who feel they are playing by the rules and getting screwed for it.
Obama’s immigration reform proposal, dead on arrival in the Republican controlled House of Representatives would’ve had the most comprehensive and fully funded border control system ever put in place by an American President, it would’ve mandated that e-verify becomes mandatory and would’ve tripled the fines and penalties employers caught breaking the rules would have to incur. It put undocumented immigrants on a path to citizenship, but at the back of the line behind those that came here fully legally. It also would’ve fully funded and reformed ICE so that the visa backlog, which took my future in laws over 14 years to be processed through, can be made far more affordable, accessible, and expedited so that immigrating ‘the right way’ is a far easier alternative than the wrong way. It definitely isn’t at present. This is common sense, and it was a policy both parties supported until this decade rolled around. Only through reform can we end the exploitation and the economic imbalance between undocumented and native born laborers.
SomervilleTom says
So you propose to illegally hire (pay under the table) an undocumented immigrant, while you simultaneously demand that the government “do something” about “illegals” (by the way, again, “illegal” is an adjective. Your use as a noun is itself racist).
I don’t know about “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. I explained, in my comment, why your claim that this is “economic” is self-serving nonsense.
As far as I’m concerned, while you’re knowingly planning to illegally hire workers of ANY nationality, including American, you no right to complain about the decisions made by hardworking people much less prosperous than you.
scott12mass says
I will be participating in the underground economy. I will be exploiting/giving an opportunity to an undocumented/illegal worker. I will be depriving the government (and by extension my fellow citizens) of revenue which if everyone played by the rules they would be getting. If the person were not here I couldn’t give in to my selfish desire to save ($200?). I would be OK with hiring anyone but price generally drives decisions.
I feel our government is corrupt on a national, state and even local level. They pick and choose what laws they want to enforce, they line their own pockets (look at our state legislative leaders)on both sides of the aisle when given the chance. So I don’t feel bad.
Progressives seem to think we can have the “Nordic Socialism” type of model and actually I would not mind that in theory. Unfortunately I don’t think we have honest enough leaders and I am only emulating them when I look to cut corners myself.
SomervilleTom says
You asserted that your actions aren’t racist.
I suggest that the more you write, the more racist they sound. It sounds as though you’re using the issues you have with government (whether true or not) to excuse behavior that is hypocritical.
You whine about “illegals” hurting the economy, while you hurt the economy more yourself with your own actions.
TheBestDefense says
But are you not the same man who argues that Uber and similar services are good, even while they violate state laws about adequate insurance to protect the public interest. I am not taking a position on either Scott’s painters or your use of Uber, but the law has to be consistent. It is not always about race.
SomervilleTom says
You casually assert that “they violate state laws about adequate insurance”.
I did some checking on that. Uber and Lyft provide supplemental insurance from when the driver accepts the request to when the rider is delivered at their destination. That’s part of the standard signup that would-be drivers go through.
There is another period (“period1”, I think), which is the time from when the driver logs into Uber until the driver gets a request. The ride sharing companies are attempting to provide that as well, and there is apparently contention about what companies will offer it and for how much money.
It is however, simply inaccurate to flatly claim that “Uber and similar services … violate state laws about adequate insurance”.
Peter Porcupine says
…cash is legal tender for the transaction and tax responsibility lies with the recipient, not the payer.
He doesn’t know if the person will report the income or not. He THINKS the guy will not report it, he’s likely correct (he knows him), but he cannot hire illegally unless the contractor is an employee.
Carry on.
SomervilleTom says
He’s said that he knows the recipient won’t pay taxes, he’s said he knows that the recipient is an illegal immigrant.
You don’t sound like an attorney, and it doesn’t sound like you consulted an attorney before posting this.
Christopher says
I actually don’t agree with the idea that employers are on the hook for enforcing immigration laws, but haven’t we seen instances of people getting into trouble for knowingly hiring domestic help or contractors who hire illegal immigrants? I’m reminded of Mitt Romney emphasizing that he couldn’t have such workers on his property because he was “running for office for pete’s sake”, or was that more a political than legal matter? What about Clinton’s first two AG nominees – weren’t they sunk over the legal status of people they hired?
SomervilleTom says
If you know that someone doing work for you plans to not pay taxes, you cannot escape liability by claiming “but they were a contractor”.
Your recollection about the legal status of Mr. Clinton’s nominee is absolutely accurate.
TheBestDefense says
There is no legal liability on an individual who hires a contractor (NOT an employee) who does not pay taxes. This is simple stuff and you really should not be making up junk like this.
Peter Porcupine says
The landscaping company Romney hired had illegal immigrants as employees. (Sidebar – I always wondered how Romney was supposed to check these people out. He had no access to their social security numbers or lack thereof, and if has asked if a Hispanic employee was a legal resident he’d have been guilty of racial profiling). The company improperly hired these individuals.
The Clinton nominees were direct employers of illegal immigrants as service/domestic help, not via a company or other actual employer. They were responsible for determining legality for the IRS, withholding, minimum wage, etc. and it is to be hoped they complied with these other employment laws even if they ignored legal status.
TheBestDefense says
I don’t recall all of the details of the Clinton nominees but there are thresholds where a contractor becomes an employee, based on income and level of control over the work performed.
ST”s assertions ignore those parts of the law, whereas your comments on Romney are mostly accurate (although “racial profiling” is not an illegal activity). The big difference is that Romney hired a contractor who violated the law by employing people and maintaining management control over their day to day work, and Scott12Mass is looking to hire a contractor. If Scott does not oversee the work, the painter remains a contractor, not an employee.
jconway says
I get there are a lot of undocumented immigrants from non-Latino areas, lot of Irish in the Boston area and I know undocumented Poles and Lithuanians from the Chicago area. Trump is specifically disparaging Mexican and Muslim Americans. From dismissing Jorge Ramos, saying nothing while his supporters tell Ramos-a citizen I might add-to ‘go back to Mexico’, and saying nothing while two supporters in Southie beat the shit out of an innocent bystander who happened to be Mexican while shouting Trump slogans at him. Great welcome mat for my Filipina fiancee Boston!
It’s why folks like David Duke and are endorsing Trump, why they are calling his establishment opponents like Jeb ‘cuckservatives’ which has a whole subtext of anti-miscegenation attached to it as well. It’s all about keeping America white and English speaking, and protecting ‘native’ jobs. It’s the same fucking pitch as the original Know-Nothing’s.
scott12mass says
The Donald will not last. There are racists (of many hues) and we’re probably 5 or 6 generations away from the time when appearance will not matter. His running in the race has exposed raw emotions but it may turn out to be very cathartic in the long run.
Mark L. Bail says
I don’t mean he’s not a complete horse’s ass. He is. But he represents interesting changes in the Republican Party, which–at least nationally–is coming apart at the seams. A party is a coalition. The more that coalition members have in common, the more stable the party is. The national GOP is, at this point, highly unstable. The Congressional leadership can barely keep its members together. Every wingnut with money or a billionaire keeper is running for President. Their debate participants are left up to news networks. Fox News has more power than Reince Preibus. The GOP base is less interested in policy than maintaining their white, nativist identities. And Donald Trump, the Teflon Con, is running an anti-establishment campaign. Something historic is happening to the Republican Party and Donald Trump embodies it. He is the most important story.
dasox1 says
Here’s what I find most fascinating about Trump and the Republican nominating process thus far. For the past number of cycles, Republicans have made every effort to be as right wing as possible. If you were seen as a moderate—at all—in congress, you faced the real prospect of a right-wing primary challenge. So, candidate after candidate and elected official after elected official stood on extreme right wing ground and changed moderately conservative positions to extreme ones. Now, along comes Trump, this bombastic, NY, billionaire, who has been a Democrat, pro-choice, pro-tax, not-evangelical, against the Iraq invasion, and he’s (for now) the darling of the party. How’s that happen? You’d think that his prior-positions would make him DOA. It’s fascinating and it’s happening right before our eyes. Is Trump just a temporary vehicle for voters’ anger and frustration, or is he really “the chosen one” of the Republican, nominating electorate? I suspect the former, but every day that goes by, it looks more like the latter (and I look more wrong). Ironically, those in the Republican party who are most upset about Trump’s rise—old-school, Bush-ian, moderates, Wallsteeters—could have stood up to Trump long-ago, when he was pushing birther-ism non-sense. But, they were so afraid of the right-wingers that they didn’t say or do anything against Trump, and now they have to deal with him. Serves them right.
SomervilleTom says
Various polls have shown that the ideals, vision, and positions of the Democratic Party are supported by a significant majority of Americans (I keep seeing number like 65-75%).
Close elections make money for mass media. Landslides do not. It is therefore very much in the best interests of mass media to make each election as close as possible. A good way to accomplish that is to overstate the popularity of the minority party, and either create the delusion that “mainstream America” supports even its craziest ideas, or failing that, delude gullible Amercans into believing that those crazy ideas are true.
There are people who actually believe that climate change is a hoax, that slashing federal spending will improve the economy, that President Obama “wants to buy all the ammunition” (I have family in West Virginia who actually hear that from locals), that cutting taxes increases tax revenue, and host of similar crazy GOP fantasies.
I think Donald Trump is today’s hot candidate for the same reason that Birkenstocks were a hot piece of footwear, and for the same reason that various articles of clothing are must-haves for certain demographics. Television is very good at manipulating what people want — that’s why companies are willing to pay so much for television advertising.
Advertising works, and in my view that explains an enormous part of Donald Trump’s current popularity among voters.
jconway says
“I decided for the next contest to sit out of any television appearances at all, because I increasingly saw coverage devolve to the horse race phenomena of who was up and who was down rather than about which candidates were right or wrong about the various issues of the day. Issues that were invariably subsumed by personality clashes rather than clashes over ideas.”
That was a great line in John Kenneth Galbraiths 1980 memoir and it holds true today. It stuck with me because nothing has really changed, even if we want to pretend yesterday was a golden era of substance, civility and moderation.