The American People Say: Yes, We See the Trump "Baskets."

The polls say Americans of all stripes recognize Trump as a bigot. Even 37 percent of Republicans. There's a basket right there.

"So I'm a bigot. I'm still gonna win." What if he does?

Polls just this weekend reveal that large majorities of Americans -- and a significant minority of Republicans -- agree that Donald Trump is biased against women and minorities.

But the new Post/ABC News poll released over the weekend raises questions about whether Clinton’s remarks were really a political mistake. If Clinton’s goal was to force a public discussion of Trump’s bigotry and chauvinism, well, the Post poll finds that a large majority of Americans agree with her that Trump is biased against women and minorities, including among the voter groups that Trump needs to improve among in order to win.

The Post poll, which found Clinton leading Trump by five points among likely voters nationwide, also found that 60 percent of Americans believe Trump “is biased against women and minorities,” with 48 percent believing that strongly. According to the crosstabs, college educated whites believe this by 57-41, and college educated white women — a crucial demographic that the campaigns are fighting over — believe it by 61-39.

What’s more, majorities of college educated white men and non-college white women also believe this. Indeed, as James Downie puts it: “At this point, the only group of voters that doesn’t think Trump is biased is white men without a college degree.”

Speaking of James Downie, he chimes in:

 The demographic breakdown on that question looks even worse for Trump. 66 percent of women think he is biased. So do 75 percent of Hispanics and 77 percent of African Americans; 59 percent of independents answer in the affirmative, including 69 percent of female independents. Even 37 percent of self-described conservatives see him as biased — a strikingly high number in such a polarized electorate.

Who might be the bigots in Hillary's "basket of deporables?" Might they be white men without a college degree? Might they be bigoted against women and minorities? You want them on your softball team at work? You want to have a beer with them after the game?

I don't know, maybe you do. Maybe you're part of the 37 percent of Republicans that think Trump is bigoted and see that as a feature, not a bug. Or maybe you're in the other "basket," you know, the basket full of decent Republicans that will vote for Trump because he might start World War III, but he'll nominate good judges!

Heaven help us all and hope that Hillary Clinton at least got some of these people thinking.

Putin Is a Strong Leader of a Weakened State. What Does the Right See in Him?

Something almost unnoticed about the new Russia: It's no longer communist, just authoritarian.

The leader of an incredibly shrinking state. Heckuva job, Vladie!

Paul Krugman gets it right this morning:

There are good reasons to worry about Mr. Trump’s personal connections to the Putin regime (or to oligarchs close to that regime, which is effectively the same thing.) How crucial has Russian money been in sustaining Mr. Trump’s ramshackle business empire? There are hints that it may have been very important indeed, but given Mr. Trump’s secretiveness and his refusal to release his taxes, nobody really knows.

Beyond that, however, admiring Mr. Putin means admiring someone who has contempt for democracy and civil liberties. Or more accurately, it means admiring someone precisely because of that contempt.

When Mr. Trump and others praise Mr. Putin as a “strong leader,” they don’t mean that he has made Russia great again, because he hasn’t. He has accomplished little on the economic front, and his conquests, such as they are, are fairly pitiful. What he has done, however, is crush his domestic rivals: Oppose the Putin regime, and you’re likely to end up imprisoned or dead. Strong!

So, there you are. Now, a funny thing happened on the way to the bromance between Trump and Putin: Putin thinks Trump is a wimp. Didn't see that coming. Of course, these are unidentified sources within the Kremlin, easy to dismiss. Let's see if Putin truly tips his hand.

There Is a "Basket of Deplorables," and They Do Support Trump

Tons of polling demonstrate this "deplorable" phenomenon. Saying it might not be wise.

A fascist by any name is deplorable. (thanks @ilduce2016)

I wish Hillary Clinton didn't open up the "basket of deplorables" can of worms, but she did. As Charles Blow points out in today's NYTimes, there are things that are true that politicians shouldn't say:

What Clinton said was impolitic, but it was not incorrect. There are things a politician cannot say. Luckily, I’m not a politician.

Donald Trump is a deplorable candidate — to put it charitably — and anyone who helps him advance his racial, religious and ethnic bigotry is part of that bigotry. Period. Anyone who elevates a sexist is part of that sexism. The same goes for xenophobia. You can’t conveniently separate yourself from the detestable part of him because you sense in him the promise of cultural or economic advantage. That hair cannot be split.

Furthermore, one doesn’t have to actively hate to contribute to a culture that allows hate to flourish.

Donald Trump has gathered behind him a deplorable rabble. He's also gathered next to them a bunch of people that dislike him but feel he'll represent their ideologies and economic interests more than Clinton will, thus we have two "baskets." Hillary spoke of both, and the political media seized on only one because it sizzled. Typical -- the political media as vultures (more on that in another post).

Charles Blow gets to it:

It doesn’t matter how lovely your family, how honorable your work or service, how devout your faith — if you place ideological adherence or economic self interest above the moral imperative to condemn and denounce a demagogue, then you are deplorable.

If you analyze, as some political commentators have, what Hillary Clinton was both intending to convey and hoping to accomplice, you sense that she might have been making a bold gambit: peeling off a segment of Trumps supporters who would say, "Oh my God, she's right, do I want to stand with them?"

So the real basket of deplorables aren't coming her way but the better basket might yield some supporters who reflect on what she said and abandon Donald Trump.

As usual, in this day of journalists pushing their narratives -- OMG SHE SAID WHAT? -- instead of calmly analyzing the inherent truth of something when you allow it to exist in context, you get this political hysteria because THAT'S MUCH MORE FUN.

But it isn't, it's degrading, uninformative, and bad for the country. Hopefully, voters will somehow sort it out. Otherwise, the outcome the coming election will be deplorable indeed.

Hillary Is Right about Trump Supporters, but the Press Can't Go There. Why?

Polls overwhelmingly show that Clinton's description of the Trump crowd fits with who they are and what they believe.

They may be for Trump, but they're not happy campers.

I find solace in not being a Donald Trump supporter. It turns out they're nothing like me, so that's good. Te-Nahisi Coates reports:

We know, for instance, some nearly 60 percent of Trump’s supporters hold “unfavorable views” of Islam, and 76 percent support a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We know that some 40 percent of Trump’s supporters believe blacks are more violent, more criminal, lazier, and ruder than whites. Two-thirds of Trump’s supporters believe the first black president in this country’s history is not American. These claim are not ancillary to Donald Trump’s candidacy, they are a driving force behind it.

But we knew that, and Hillary has been pressing this for days before her "basket of deplorables" statement, describing in several speeches what elements of Americans were coalescing behind Trump. They're not a pretty bunch. But Josh Marshall in TPM points out that, amid the outrage Trump and his surrogates have been voicing, no one is saying Hillary isn't speaking the truth:

As far as I know, this hasn't been mentioned. But it jumped out at me pretty immediately. As far as I can tell, none of the Trump campaign pushback to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comments have said anything about the people Clinton was talking about not being racist, not being misogynist or by whatever definition not being 'haters.' It's not referenced once. Check out the statements after the jump.

Does that strike you as a bit odd. [sic]

Yes, it does, but it points out what Coates does, that the truth of the statement isn't the first thing political reporters do. First, they diagnose what the likely political outcome will be -- will it hurt Hillary, is this her 47 percent moment!? -- on the horserace. The truth of the statement is secondary or simply irrelevant.

Sad, but certainly the political reality of this sillier-than-average season.

Note. One of the views of Hillary's use of "half" and "basket of deplorables" is that her use of language was "inartful." What should she have called them, a clusterfuck of assholes? No matter the word choice, the truth is the truth.

Obama Looks Away from Yemen If Saudis Keep Oil Prices Down. Loser? Putin.

Does America lose its moral high ground? Sure, but millions of SUV drivers don't care. Patriots!

The Realpolitik of Barack Obama: We can win against Russia
without firing a shot, at the expense of the Yemeni Shiite rebels.

And what's the name of the game? Oil prices. We accept that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" in regards to Saudi Arabia, and we 1) don't challenge the Saudis on their horrible domestic human rights record, and 2) let them have at the Houthi (Shiite) rebels in Yemen, which they've treated quite brutally.

The Realpolitik aspect of this appears uglier than it really is because how could we get the Saudis to change, anyway? Invade them? Act openly hostile to them and thus encourage them to raise oil prices in return? I suppose we could refuse to sell them jets, but that would just drive them to get MiGs from Russia. (Putin would love that and get higher oil prices in return. Snap!)

So we play footsies with Saudi kings.

It's similar to the devil's bargain we made with Egypt. We have been giving them military aid ever since the Camp David Accords that led Egypt to cease hostilities against Israel, an agreement that has remained largely inviolate to this day, even after the tumult of Tahrir Square and later events, first under the Muslim Brotherhood and then under the imposition of military rule. Egypt, with its gross violations of human rights, still receives military aid because they do our bidding on Israel's southern border.

Should we cut off aid to Egypt because they're not model citizens, risking a new conflagration? What American leader would want that? And what would we gain?

So, what happens to Russia? I showed this chart a few days ago:

Putin paid a price for his shenanigans in Ukraine and Crimea, even if the "optics" allow Republicans to say Obama is weak. For his part, Obama knows he's playing a winning hand against a corrupt and failing petrostate. Legacies are built on history, not hysteria.

Now compare the above to the effect of lower oil prices on Putin's Russia:

When oil's the game, Russia's fortunes will track oil prices. In the end, there's more benefits than suppressing Russia. Low energy prices help the world economy, at a time when there's little political will to use other means. Feel the extra dollars in your wallet? Me too.

Take a look at what constitutes a petrostate:

As fuel costs rise and fall, so do Russia's fortunes. Donald Trump may be having a bromance with Vladimir Putin, but the reality is that Barack Obama's been undermining Putin for years. Sure, Russia can annex Crimea, but at a cost to all else in Putin's domain. Putin can perpetrate his mischief in Syria to prop up Assad, but someone's paying for all that military equipment and ordinance. The U.S., sadly, can afford our pugilistic ways. In an era of crashing fuel prices, Russia cannot.

So what happens? Just yesterday, a cease-fire agreement was agreed to between the U.S and Russia in Syria, with the apparent approval of the Assad regime. If this succeeds, not only do we get true humanitarian aid into the decimated cities in the north, but we also bring it big time to ISIS, which, between joint U.S. and Russian air power and Turkish troops on the ground, run the risk of getting crushed and crushed quickly. So pray for that cease fire, slated to begin tomorrow, to hold.

Finally, consider this: No matter how much Donald Trump seeks to pump up Vladimir Putin, Putin still sits atop an ever-shrinking failed petrostate, with a GDP that falls into 14th place, just below Spain and Australia and barely above Mexico and Indonesia (source: IMF).

When was the last time you considered Mexico a superpower? Enough said.

(All charts courtesy Paul Krugman.)

Trump Lies on a Massive Scale. Why Is He Not Called Out? The Media is Overwhelmed.

I've watched some commentators, here and there, talk about their amazement of the scale of Trump's falsehoods. It's a steady stream.

Why does Trump lie? Maybe it's because the media has encouraged him to.

We know several facts about Donald Trump, one being that he lies nearly constantly. If his mouth is open, there's a better than even chance bullshit is coming out.

Another fact we know: If a mainstream media fact checker says Trump is lying, his fans respond with "Oh, that's the Washington Post, they're in the tank for the liberals. You can't trust them."

Donald Trump said it himself: He utilizes "truthful hyperbole." Stephen Colbert gave it a name: truthiness. While that's, on one level, hilarious, on another level, it's insane. Trump, however, doesn't care. He believes that if it isn't true, well, it ought to be. So, he stretches the truth. For Trump, truth is pliant.

Example: "58 percent of black youth are unemployed!" Er, Trump, that's if you include all black high-school students (by that measure, 50 percent of white youth is unemployed). Trump's answer? "No, it's true!"

Journalists are then a bit overwhelmed by his gall. Their jaw drops, they twitch a bit, then offer a wry smile and a shake of the head.

Deep in Donald Trump's heart he believes he's telling the truth because it's mostly true, or, well, it should be true. Why? Because it proves his point. Black youth are worse off, right?

He calls this truthful hyperbole. Psychologists call it pathological lying, but hey. Whatever. Trump thinks, hell, I'm up in the polls.

We get the liar we deserve. I'm frightened to death that we deserve Donald Trump.

There is hope, though. There's a steady -- hopefully growing! -- stream of journalists and media outlets that are bringing the Trump "big lies" to the fore. He delayed this moment by not employing Hitler's "Big Lie technique" (yes, Hitler came up with it in Mein Kampf) but by utilizing a steady stream of small to medium lies, leading Paul Krugman to declare Trump, in his column today, to be "The Big Liar."

Some, like Krugman, are hopeful that Matt Lauer's shameful performance at the Commander-in-Chief Forum may finally break the fever, as Krugman suggests.

Signs of that are here, here, here, and here.

Obama Weak! Putin Strong!

I count on Paul Krugman's wit and wisdom to let me know why and when to chill.

Putin and Russia decided we're so weak that he could run roughshod over us to invade Ukraine and annex the Crimea. And Trump knows it!

Weak Barack Obama got his friends together and slammed sanctions on Russia.

Who's winning this? Helpful tip for answering: We didn't fire a shot.