***

Deny him the limelight, and he’ll wither. From a reader in Nebraska:

An earlier reader correctly stated that "[c]onservatives leaders need to stop taking these [economically left-behind] groups for granted. Liberals should see them as a group that deserves attention and outreach. This needs to happen after Trump—otherwise we will repeat history in 4 or 8 years."

I believe this to be a correct assessment in many ways; the GOP has never, in my voting lifetime (20+ years) had what I'd call "a domestic policy program" that came close to anything the Dems have had. The Democratic domestic program over the years has been scattershot, perhaps, but at the base of it: "helping people out whatever holes they're in."...

I have talked with a friend who is the one rabid Trump supporter I know. I find his certainty in Trump's eventual nomination and election baffling, but not surprising….

I pointed out to him that the last time 'outsiders' won their party nominations over establishment candidates, the electoral results were disastrous: Goldwater in '64, and McGovern in '72.  This didn't matter to him, and I was lectured on the Democratic Party's 150 years of using minorities to simply get votes, etc….

It is this "suspension of logic borne of intuition" that I find so frustrating...and troubling.

As far as Trump, if he becomes the nominee, being an unknown/ untested candidate against a presumptive Hillary Clinton candidacy, I think HRC would do herself a favor by simply speaking generally about the GOP and its candidate, and not even deigning to "debate" him where he could bully and bluff his way into "winning" any such event.  Deny Trump the limelight, and he'd wither.  Let surrogates call him out by name and sling the mud.  

***

It’s not narcissism. It’s something much worse. From a reader in the Midwest, in response to a previous note offering an arm’s-length diagnosis of Trump as manifesting narcissistic personality disorder:

Interesting take on the Donald - yes he is narcissistic, but it's actually much worse than that.  I believe he's also Character Disordered.  When people are character disordered their basic belief system is that they are never wrong, or to blame for anything that they might do that goes wrong.  It's always everybody else's fault.

The big  problem with this psychosis is that it's very difficult to treat.  If you are always right, then what is there to change?

I wrote back to this reader, saying that I did not know about “Character Disorder” and wondered if it was a real thing. He said, yes indeed, and pointed to discussions like this (emphasis added):

Most disturbed characters don’t hear that little voice in their heads that urge most of us to do right or admonish most of us when we’re contemplating doing wrong.  They don’t “push” themselves to take on responsibilities and don’t “arrest” themselves when they want something they shouldn’t have. Any qualms of conscience they might experience can be eliminated with great ease.  In the most severe disturbances of character (i.e. the psychopath or sociopath), conscience is not simply weak, underdeveloped, or flawed, but can be absent altogether.

It’s really hard to fathom and accept that there are people in this world who simply don’t have the same degree capacity most of us have to be inwardly troubled when they contemplate doing things that are potentially very harmful to others or even themselves.

***

“I will not be voting in the general.” From a reader who works in the defense industry, on the shape of this year’s race. He is responding especially to this post, in which I quoted some obscene and snarling pro-Trump messages:

One of the downsides of the Internet is where one can be fairly anonymous, people often give themselves permission to behave poorly.  The comment board of The Atlantic, for example, is quite insalubrious.

Another example is Buzz Mitchell's message to you. [“James, you are a pathetic little dickhead” etc.]  One of the most valuable lessons I've learned in my short life is just because you're thinking something, or you want to do something, that doesn't mean you should say it or do it.

It's also clear that Buzz and the machinist [also quoted in that post] have immersed themselves in the bubble that Conservatism Inc's. lucrative media complex has created.  One can exist in this bubble and be blissfully unaware of what is truly going on in the country or in the world.

The machinist, in particular, uses buzzwords like "Jonathon Gruber", but how much do you want to bet the machinist is not aware that the same "Jonathon Gruber" was instrumental in implementing healthcare reform in the home state of the last GOP presidential candidate for that GOP governor?  Or that the ACA was first proposed by the Heritage Foundation back in the late 80's?...

Circling back to my first point -- civility or lack thereof -- one of the things we as a nation appear to be losing is a sense of self- responsibility.  Rod Dreher over at The American Conservative had a great blog earlier today that touched on that topic.

Speaking for myself, I completed a masters program in electrical and computer engineering three years ago.  Statistically speaking at this point in my life, I have academic and professional credentials that most Americans would kill for.

But it didn't happen by accident, James.  Graduate school in the hard sciences is brutal, and it has a way of culling out the weak.  But I hung in there, worked hard, and it's paid off.  It doesn't matter if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is POTUS one year from now because given my career trajectory, I'm going to earn a good amount of money.

What I'm sure the machinist in particular is in denial about is a President Trump will ameliorate his present situation of only earning $45,000 a year.  It won't, for wage stagnation amongst the working class and income inequality has been an issue long before Barack Obama became president….

It's worth saying that it is not Obama's or the hated establishment's fault that the machinist is earning only $45,000 a year.  I realize not everyone can be an electrical engineer, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or a businessman.  I'm incredibly fortunate to have the brainpower I have in order to do what I do.  But as I've said, James, I've had to work hard and pay a price to get to where I am.

Without knowing the machinist, I can tell you that a lot of people don't want to pay the necessary price to get to where they want to be because, frankly, it's too hard.  At some point, people have to take ownership of their own futures.  Government can help towards that end (I took out federal loans for my undergraduate EE degree), and it should.  But it is folly to blame any incumbent president for one's own life circumstances.

NB: For the record, I will likely not be voting in the general.  Trump is an unelectable authoritarian, and Hillary Clinton (assuming she puts Bernie Sanders down) is untrustworthy for a myriad of reasons aside from her not inconsiderable baggage.  You may refer to me as an engineer who works on DoD programs for a large defense contractor.

This fall I read Joe Bageant’s book, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America’s Class War, which opened my eyes (and heart) to people I would not normally have given much thought to: working class men and women from Winchester, Virginia, Joe’s hometown. To put it bluntly, these are not my people but Joe paints a sympathetic portrait of men and women who have paid the real price of our current economy, the ones who get knocked to the ground when corporate decisions are made far, far from their doorsteps. These are people who are seen as consumers or digits on a spreadsheet. And when they are no longer valued as “assets” they disappear entirely from our radar.

And clearly, until Trump galvanized them, they have been (and to a large degree remain) invisible to the talking classes and, perhaps, more crucially, to themselves. The parade of shiny, happy people my mother sees on her TV in commercials and the shows themselves do not reflect the circumstances of their lives and when they do it is often in reality tv shows where their antics are remarkable only because they are so odd to the talking classes. They are fodder for entertainment.

From this perspective any appeals to reason, ideology, true Christian values or whatever, will fall on deaf ears. Trump has made them visible to the talking classes and to themselves. They will not be denied.

I’d like to say one more thing that seems critical to me. Capitalism takes care of the talking classes in a way most of us take for granted: it confers dignity to their labors. There might have been a time when a man who worked with his hands could also count on that as well but not in my memory.

The phrase that keeps recurring to me is this one: “a place at the table.” This is what working class men and women have not had in some time.

***

He doesn’t really want to win. From an American reader in Asia:

I've been enjoying Trump's show from abroad after living in Japan the last few years... For what it's worth here's my guess how this plays out:

Trump knows he won't beat Clinton absent divine intervention (a real scandal, a perfect storm of an independent run), so he'll wait until the last moment and then instruct his delegates to support someone else... someone who checks the boxes of (1) palatable to establishment GOP, (2) credible general election candidate, (3) shares Trump's calls-it-likes-he-sees-it-ness (phony as it may be), and most importantly (4) promises Trump the moon in return.

Trump's brand depends on his reputation of not being a loser (phony as it may be). He's shown no interest in actually running a general election campaign -- no interest in the issues, no fundraising, no campaign. If he wants to maximize the return on his investment, this is the safest course.

Note that in this universe, Christie's endorsement actually makes sense.

No, really, winning would be bad for him. From an American reader in New York:

If you want to compare Trump to an athlete, he's not Muhammad Ali so much as the guy at the YMCA who swears he can make a shot from half court. It's a lot more fun to see him talk about it than to watch him try to do it.

I think it's possible that Trump could win a general election. (I switched parties so I could vote for Kasich in the NY primary next month for just that reason.) But it's worth asking if Trump could ever be reelected in 2020. [JF note: thinking about 2016 is enough for me.]

It seems like Trump's appeal lies in the ambiguity of what his policies would be. It's easier to run on vague promises than an actual track record. After Iowa, most of the punditry I read was about how losing would sink Trump. But it seems like winning in 2016 would be the end...

***

This is less amusing than it seems. From a reader in California, who makes a surprisingly precise comparison between The Donald and Il Duce:

This is in response to the reader from Europe who asserts that Trump is not a fascist and that the US would be better off as a direct democracy.

As a resident of California, I've seen some of the problems (that of course you already know) about direct democracy. On the more immediately impending issue: of course, we can't tell yet whether Trump is a full-fledged fascist. But do we want to put him in power and find out? The Italian historian Roberto Vivarelli's description of Mussolini's rise could have been written today about Trump [JF: emphasis added]:

“From the very beginning, for example, the relation between words and deeds among Mussolini and his followers was very peculiar, and words were used not to state any firm conviction, nor to outline a definite political program but, rather, to arouse emotions that would generate support for a changeable line of action.

“Language, that is, was used by fascists not as an instrument of persuasion but as a means of deception. As a result, the fascist movement from its inception presented itself as a purely political phenomenon-that is to say, as a movement created for action which acquired national relevance through a skillfully executed plan ending with the seizure of power. But when in October 1922 Mussolini became Italy's prime minister, his contemporaries had no idea of what was in store for them. There was no such thing as a fascist blueprint for government, simply because fascism was not an intellectual movement with anything comparable to a doctrine; and, in fact, among the fascist rank and file one finds at that time the most bizarre and varied collection of people.”

This is from Vivarelli's article "Interpretations of the Origins of Fascism," in the Journal of Modern History 63 (March 1991), 30.

I think the key phrase to the recent post, Trump Supporters Make Their Case, is your summation, “and then we’ll have to deal with the aftermath.” No matter how the primary cum election plays out, there will be a group seething at the results. I guess the closest parallel to this coming November are the `64 and `72 elections where depending on party affiliation and political inclination, a large group of the electorate viewed the Republicans & Goldwater and the Democrats & McGovern as nutcases … and the winners, Johnson and Nixon,  as viewed by the losing groups, were out to destroy America.

Well, actually, Nixon was out to destroy America, anyhow, we did muddle on.

I looked up the `64 and `72 election results, both had an approximate 60% / 40% split for the vote. Although an election landslide, still, 40% is a sizable block of voters that choose what is now viewed as extremist candidates (my political inclination says that Goldwater was truly on the extreme right and labeling McGovern as his mirror image is a bit of false equivalence, but trying to see things from both sides).

I remember the Nixon years and the bitterness that some Republicans felt at his ouster, some say that Clinton`s impeachment was payback. What I am asking you and your readers is how did the Goldwater defeat go down to those that supported him, I was 6 at the time so I do not remember. Johnson was able to pass the Great Society legislation (and I think he did that with some bipartisan support). If only he did not feel the need to placate the hawks what a different nation we would have had, maybe, or were the Reagan Republicans as angry as the present cohort but minus the internet/talk radio bullhorns.

In other words, how are we not going to tear ourselves apart at the seams (even though the bounty that constitutes the US as seen from afar - Japan - makes this whole B grade opera feel absurd)

And finally in the what if he loses? vein:

Many people wonder what will happen if Trump gets the nomination. Most anti-Trump people seem to be confident that he will lose, though there is a real fear on the part of some people that he might win. My big fear is what will happen if he does lose, which is not something I feel like many people are addressing. I used to have a Tea Party friend who’s now a fervent Trump supporter. I am sure that he’s convinced Trump will win the presidency, and that belief will only get stronger if Trump gets the nomination. I am sure many Trump supporters will feel validated if he gets the nomination, and will be sure he will win. I wonder what their reaction will be if he’s defeated. Will they feel like the election is illegitimate. Even if they’re willing to accept that he legitimately lost, I wonder if they will take that as a sign that they have truly lost this country, and will then start getting desperate.

I don’t think people are quite worried enough about what might happen IF Trump loses. It could get a whole lot uglier in the next few years than people are imagining.

***

Another next-step question: what about a veep? A reader asks:

One thing I have yet to see discussed anywhere is the question of Donald Trump's VP choice. I ask because the whole idea of naming a VP seems completely contrary to Trump's messaging.

A Vice President is a contingency that the President will be unable to do his or her job: has such a thought ever entered Trump's head? How could he share the spotlight with someone who isn't Trump? A second name just dilutes the brand: there simply isn't room. I can only conclude Trump will name himself as his VP.

Interesting question: who would he want on the ticket, and who would accept?

Now, back to his argument. What about the Switzerland comparison? A reader responds to a previous reader argument that the U.S. needs to organize itself the way the tidy Swiss do:

The one from Switzerland may have disturbed me more than the others, even.  The idea that democracy = tyranny of the majority is pretty frightening (some peoples’ rights might be curtailed but so what?)

Oy.

Also, the idea that the President doesn’t have to know anything.

See:  Dubya (but even he had some experience as a real life governor and came from a political family!)

I rest my case.

And more on the Swiss angle:

I just read the opinion of your reader from Europe with interest as a US citizen residing in Switzerland.

The idea that the Swiss system of direct democracy is what the US needs is interesting to be kind.

I suppose that this could suppress any cult of personality that surrounds candidates in the US, but would it really create more trust in government? Switzerland, without the benefit of a charismatic leader, has passed stringent anti-immigrant laws promoted by extreme parties through popular votes and continues to attempt to pass more. If the Swiss minority in these votes "shuts it" and accepts the vote, doing so has not calmed the frightened populists in the country.

Unfortunately, the real Trump problem isn't simply the fact that Donald Trump could win the US presidential election. The full scope of the problem is that similar issues seem to exist in most developed countries - likely as part of the long hangover from the financial crisis. As your colleague reported recently there are "Little Trumps" all over Europe.

On the other hand, a lance the boil argument. From someone who has been a military officer during the recent wars:

I want him as the nominee.  It seems like, if he isn't then the Republicans just have this same problem again in four years, and worse.

Picking Trump tells the right, this is where they are and they have to start working to make the party different if that's what they want.  Picking Rubio tells them, there was absolutely totally nothing wrong with the Bush years, which is just wrong.  And Cruz wants them to believe, despite all available evidence, that there is a sleeping giant of far-right evangelical voters who form a significant American plurality and want no more concession of any kind on their core issues and instincts, which is a disastrous misconception both for his party _and_ for the country.

The Republicans should be doing a "this thing of darkness I acknowledge mine" and prepping for the convention.

***

What it means for the industry.  From a former political-science professor who has worked on Capitol Hill and in the Pentagon:

I offer these observations on how unusual Trump's campaign is.

As a political scientist who has worked in several campaigns over the years, I have been astounded that Trump has largely failed to utilize the political consultant industry and its tools and has succeeded in winning voters despite his flouting of the candidate's code of conduct.

Political consultants have expertise in buying TV ads, in microtargeting people for ads and turnout efforts, in branding and message discipline—which have made the difference in numerous campaigns over the years. So far as I can tell, Trump isn't using these people, isn't using much paid TV, isn't building a ground game—because he can win without it.

Everybody has been surprised by his ability to manipulate the media and dominate news coverage by tweets and phone calls, but it has worked. He has not followed the traditional media campaign of paid ads, themed speeches, and infrequent press availabilities.

The whole pundit class has been amazed that Trump can get away with behaviors that used to destroy previous candidates: personal insults, lies, changing positions, ignoring what he labels political correctness but the rest of us see as civility. These deviations from the standard code of conduct haven't cost him many votes.

What this means for the presidential race is that Clinton must run against a candidate using new and unexpected behaviors, and it's far from clear that her playbook responses will work against such an untraditional candidate.

America has never had a demagogue as a serious presidential candidate since the television era began in 1952. Huey Long was like that in the 1930s, and might have dethroned FDR if he hadn't been killed in 1935. George Wallace was a demagogue, but on a single issue with only regional appeal. Trump has found issues that resonate across geography and ideology. And voters are so distrustful of what politicians say that they don't hold Trump's outrageous comments against him. They even enjoy them because they're refreshingly different.

Back to positive news tomorrow. Classy departure speech (the personal parts) by Marco Rubio tonight.

***

“When are you hypocrites going to question your own party?” A more common theme in pro-Trump mail is anger at the hypocrisy of the press in general and me in specific. A polite version:

Got it. You hate Trump. That’s very clear. I'm no fan either. But I'm still waiting for one of you media elites to step up and say, “I cannot support a pathological liar corrupted by an insatiable thirst for power who abandoned four American to protect a political campaign.” [JF note: for those in doubt, he is talking about Hillary Clinton.]

How about it James?  Can you spot a phoney regardless of party? Or is your indignation only in one direction? I think I know the answer.

The less polite alternative:

James you are a pathetic little dickhead
Crawl back in your wigger rat hole
Continue to write slime propaganda and I suspect it will catch up with you
     Buzz Mitchell
     American

And in essay-question form:

While I might agree that the disavowal of Donald Trump may be a wise thing for Republicans and especially conservatives to do, as his statements seem not presidential, bellicose, and needlessly insulting to many. I would also ask, will you write a similar article suggesting Democrats or Progressives, disavow Hillary Clinton, for actions that break the law, that enrich herself and family though using her position and former positions in government, for her unjustifiable role in attacks and smears against women her husband had sexually abused, and for her constant and conspicuous and ubiquitous dishonestly?  

When I see such an article from The Atlantic, or any of the plethora of similar leftist magazine articles which show up on my Yahoo browser page daily, then I might agree that you have a valid point about candidates declaring they won’t support Donald Trump. Otherwise, Mr Trump’s possible nomination and election does not seem any more disastrous than Ms. Clinton’s.

***

Here’s a long message that combines views of the press and the political establishment with complaints about the economy.  I’m not taking the time to copy-edit the whole thing, because generally I don’t do that with reader mail. Also, the style of presentation is part of the message.

The reader starts by objecting to my claim that Trump, successful as he may have been in business, is shockingly ignorant about public affairs.

So a stupid and ignorant person can build and own towers, casinos, have many businesses, and employ thousands simultaneously. Realy? Use your brain idiot. So anyone can do this according to your logic?

Either your the ignoramous for writing an entire article on something that has zero logic to it or your part of the liberal lieing propaganda machine taking advantage of the stupid american voters that Jonathon Gruber was refering to. Which would mean your just pure evil like Obama, whom only got elcted on lies and broken promises directed towards stupid and ignorant voters.

Example of Lies:

"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it"- No, that put a bunch of new requirement on mandatory plans so that was a blatant lie. The new cadilac tax that was imposeed on small busninesses by his plan is why I lost mine. Went from paying $116 a month with $500 deductibale through my employer, kicked to the private sector paying $265 a month with a $1800 deductable. Which brings me to the next monstrous lie.

"The cost of healthcare annual increase will slow to the lowest levels in american history" -That the lie from hell. That same silver plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield was gonna increase from $265 to $430 this year if I would have kept it. That's a 62% increase from one year to the next. You tell me any year in the history of our nation healthcare has gone up that much? It hasn't! Now I'm a average income machinist making $45000 a year that ony has a catastrophic plan and paying $216 a month. How is that improved healthcare for middle class amaerca?

"The average american family will save $2500 a year on healthcare under my plan"- The above explains what a lieing crock of shit that is.

"I'm gonna bring hope and change to a disfuntional Washington"- This was his main theme during his first campaign. When you start your time in office overhauling the entire healthcare system in america and ramming down everyones throats with out even enough time for Congress to read it not to mention reach across the isles to discuss it, you set a precidence of divided politics. What did Polosi say" You have to pass it to see what's in it"? Can you get anymore divisive that this move? How many time hasn't he stated to give him what he want or he'll shut the government down? He's one elected official. Congress are hundreds of representative elected by the american people. Government has never been more divided as it is now and it's directly because of him.

"Al-Queda is at it's lowest levels of activity and on the run" Part of his debate statements just prior to the last election. Then Bengazi happens a few weeks later and he has to make up another lie to cover this one. NBot a single human being that was in Libya that day said there was a single deminstartion. I remenber on CNN a Libayan official came out the next day in an interveiw and said there were no demonstration going on. It's been a complete fabrication by this administration from day one and average joe me can see that. Terrorism around the world has gotten at least 10 time as bad since he's taken office under his polices. Another major ass deception to the american public to get re-elected.

Above are 5 examples of massive blatant lies by this administration towards us american voters that I remember thinking how great that would be if it is as he says. Finding out the facts later and him being one big fraud to the american public. Or at least the stupid and ignorant ones.

My opinion on the Trump rise against you whom don't understand. Middle class america is pissed about being misled on a massive scale with no accountability. Democrats have lied and told us everything we want to hear(which Hillary and Bernie are doing now). Republicans have been rolling over and letting them get away with it. Trump don't need to be bought and he isn't telling everyone all the nicey nice things that they want to hear. He won't put up with the lieing crap on either side of the isle.

Example- You see Hillary in the last month or so address the african american community and telling them everything they want to hear so the agree with everything she say. Prior to running she never talked that way. Good indication she's another Obama and just filling the american voters full of crap.

Just a middle class average income hard working american tired of the lieng BS by politicians and the press,thats tired of making less and having it given to those whom worked less and sacrificed less to get by. America became great without free healthcare and college. We've had to pay our way though life, why should others get a free ride. One sides bought mainly by big lobbyist, the other side just is plain bought by american tax dollars thru entitlements. Bernie just don't get that socialism isn't gonna make everyone wealthier. History don't lie so that sorta leaves Trump now doesn't it?

[I’ve removed the name, but it’s from a real person in Wisconsin]

Machinist

Nearly eight months to go, and then we’ll have to deal with the aftermath.

From another reader:

Quite simply, Trump is the embodiment of the saying, “fake it ‘til you make it.” Confidence can have an impact on outcome. If you don’t have the skills or knowledge to get the job you want and you don’t feel confident, you simply pretend to be confident until you gain the experience required to make it happen. Accordingly, Trump is always the best at everything (in his mind). He’s mastered this skill so thoroughly that I doubt even he recognizes it within himself.

And on practicalities of the job he is seeking:

Why hasn’t anyone considered how Trump would actually handle being president? It seems fairly obvious that after a few months of confronting the frustrations of the job, he would get bored and disinterested. If he thinks the nonstop narcissistic rewards of campaign rallies will continue post inauguration, he has a rude awakening coming.

***

Finally for today, on the conjunction of Trump’s performance skills and his oft-discussed hands:

Trump obviously had substantial acting coaching, especially with his hand gestures. Other people notice this too, since most of his press photos feature his hand gestures. I suspect he learned to do this as a reaction to Graydon Carter’s infamous epithet [in Spy magazine] “Short-fingered vulgarian.”

Nothing sticks to Trump. He is a master of “frame control.” He never accepts the premise of a question or comment, instead he answers it within his own frame of reference. He has absolute control over any interaction, skillfully deflecting anything that might hit him and stick.

EXCEPT one thing: his hands.

So my new hobby is photoshopping Trump’s hands. I have to find a way to get these pics to Graydon Carter. The only problem is, they’re too good; nobody can tell they’re photoshopped. I tried not to make them totally implausible, I only reduced them by about 25 percent. You could easily overlook the resized hands, which was kind of my point. I sort of hoped they would escape and go viral and nobody would notice the difference until it was too late. But no luck so far.

I think it’s entirely possible that this is the only way anyone will take down Trump. I wish I knew some other way. But I don’t. So here for your amusement are some of my depictions of the short-fingered vulgarian. I wish I knew what to do with them. These are mostly copyrighted AP news photos but I’ll claim Fair Use as satire.

Here’s one from his rally [this weekend] in Cleveland. Maybe I should start a blog and do one of them every day.

This reader concludes:

Maybe I shouldn’t continue to mock Trump’s tiny hands. He will just get stronger. But I can’t help myself.

***

[Update another reader writes in to suggest one exception to the Trump-as-blank-slate principle. That is the subject of eminent domain, which Trump has indeed discussed as if he knows something about it.]

From someone who disagrees — about Trump, and about my saying that a presidential candidate who has never heard of the “nuclear triad” needs to study up on defense policy:

Just read your recent Trump analysis, post debate. Listen to Trump addressing the same subjects outside the debate. Trump keeps it deliberately simple during the debates. It took awhile to figure that out.

Big deal on the nuclear triad. I've yet to meet someone who knew what that was, it's so obscure. I doubt if most people writing or talking about him not knowing what it was knew about it themselves. This is not knowing about the details, it is the willingness to make things right. We all know Common Core is all wrong. He was right on with what I hear from teachers and occupational therapists working with school children. It's conceptually wrong, it's not working. What else do we need to know?

***

Finally for now, from a reader on the larger question of what Trump knows and doesn’t:

I [think your post is right] to recognize Trump’s performance chops and also his remarkable ignorance. Of course he is the carnival barker that Obama undressed “fittingly,” but what is strange to me is that anyone as successful as he claims to be could be so appallingly uninformed about the world outside his comb-over.

This is, however, the vice that has become the virtue of “Conservatism” since 1976, or, as a Californian, I might say since 1968 when Reagan became governor. [JF note: Reagan actually won in 1966, beating Pat Brown, but the shift in political alignment and tone became much clearer in the election by 1968.] Ignorance of history, ignorance of government, ignorance of everything has always been an identifier for the conservative movement. The sole weakness in your argument, it seems to me, is that it does not account for how this man made his money. And I am supposing that more than half his wealth is fictitious. But, still, somewhere, sometime, he must have had a clue.

Given your analysis, I am thinking it is possible that Trump is playing a role that he has divined will gain the best results. And there are plenty of actors who get so submerged in their roles that they never come back again (I'm thinking Heath Ledger), so he may or may not believe his BS.

But, there are two things that can take him down. One of them is what Bill Clinton did to George Bush when Gore finally allowed him to speak in the late fall of 2000. I'm sure you remember this. Bush had said something about how the government could never create a program as successful as Medicare. Clinton just laughed at the man. He kicked his ass. It was hysterically funny. “Can you believe this guy?” and Bill is laughing.

The other thing that will catch Trump will be something along the lines of Romney’s Benghazi moment in his second debate with Obama. An instant factcheck with his opponent onstage, smiling at the cheater missing an obvious question on the midterm. Fox Noise tried to pull that off, but the three other stooges weren’t any better clued in than Trump so the gambit just looked weird.

And there is also the likelihood of a stack of binders.

I expect Hillary will be able to laugh at Trump. Maybe not as spontaneously as Bill, but she will have endless opportunities. And then she should call for the moderator’s reality check.

More as I weed through the inbox.