How will Trump handle losing the election?

FactChecking the Final Presidential Debate
D'Angelo Gore - FactCheck.org - Thursday, October 20, 2016

“Still in suspense, America? Tonight at ten, watch, ‘Will He or Won’t He?’ and see Donald Trump make his decision—live! Only on Trump TV!”

Donald Trump loses nothing if he does not win. It is the whole country that loses if he does not win. I believe that if the ballots are not tampered with, and the count is legitimate, Donald Trump will be the next president, and we'll finally have something to celebrate after 8 years of abject anti-American failure. Candlelight8

The only anti-American failure on display right now is Donald Trump.

That's a far more negative take than my own. First, it seems to me inevitable that the blogging form, because it is open to everyone, is going to display a range of quality and most instances will be pretty awful (as it is with comment boards like this one or as it was with political pamphlets or even fiction works when printing presses became common and readily available).

But even if such a "democratization" of publishing is bound to produce junk 9 times out of ten, it also permits bright voices and quality penmanship to rise into view. That's the stuff that takes a while to find but has, certainly for me, great worth.

Josh Marshall's set of suites at TPM is an example. And his operation has produced a remarkable number of very good political writers who have subsequently moved into other operations such as Brian Beutler at the New Republic or Greg Sargent at the Washington Post. Or there's Ed Kilgore now at New York magazine or Steve Benen now at MSNBC and running Rachel Maddow's blog. Or Mike Tomasky who used to have a blog at the Guardian and now has a place the Daily Beast (as well as regular essays in the New York Review of Books). And Digby who is one of the most tireless (and brilliant) blogger anyone might point to.

What gives these individuals value, for me, is that I can learn from them. They usually know more than I do and are usually smarter than I am. And almost all of them are very good essayists, short form or long.

I think I am better, as a student of US politics and as a writer, for attending to these people.

One can judge the reliability of posts here by the sources that members provide (or fail to provide). That is rarely the case with bloggers.

Like reliability of posts and the provision of sources matters to Setanta given the fantastic hatred of women he displays here.

Oh he hates women? I thought he just hated everyone equally.

Setanta has a particularly seething hatred of women. That is why you should ignore what he says no matter how rational it is or how well-sourced the arguments are.

One time a couple years ago he posted something about women in a thread I started.

Yeah... his posts are filled with hatred towards women.

in my areas of deeper interest eg, for every Nicholas Wade, Neil Shubin or Greg Sergeant, there lie a dozen or more "second level" bloggers who gain as much a following (albeit more locally) as do the principles. For example, a Nick Wade, Paul Krugman or David Quammen, writing as first level workers in politics, econ or science or genetics and engaged in their own blogs (often its required by their news corp contract),
the second levels of bloggers on the other hand , like rumors are passed from kid to kid, will morph when the bloggers add their own ( much less studied and often silly) views that many readers arent sophisticated enough to draw valid concluions.
I never gave the point that Set made any thought, but think about it, as Krugman posts more extended versions of his NYT econ columns, sometimes his opinions very quickly get picked up in the "capitol blogs", and are generously expanded with stuff that is often a pile of dogshit.(But , like dogshit, its crapped out at a lightning fast rate, much quicker than Krugman rote the original)

I know several writers who are "old time" REAL journalists whove been picked up and pub'ed by The Atlantic. These folks may work months on an article that may become nearly OOD by the time the mag prints it. Yet, in a short weekend, some wag with a blog will post chunks of the well researched article and "dress it up" with total crapolla.Yet they are all considered to be "journalists". Hence the entire profession is besmerched by too many lazy second level bloggers. I think the bloggers who are first level (by past chops earned for their work in investigative reporting in politics, econ, history, or science reporting). The READRS, unless they are expert themselves merely pick up "sound bites" of the chaff as qwell as the grain.
However, many of these 1st level reporters are more appreciated, and much better paid to write researched books in "Creative non-fiction" (But even they get ripped off by hasty bloggers who take facts from a reporter/writer's (like a Mark Bowden )work and write junk blogs )

Look, in my subject, Im a mile high but an inch wide, so, in areas that I hve no pwrsonal tudied knowledge I will more often or not BELIEVE what some of these bloggers (from my local Lancaster/Harrisburg/Philly metro blogs) say. Only if I read the original authors on a subject am I able to really sort out some truth. But thats often the art of picking fly-**** from pepper.

I guess Im like Set on that point, I more and more, stay away from blogs that vaunt self proclaimed "expertise" . I do visit hobby ,garden, cooking, trout fishing, and wooden boat blogs. What the hell can possibly go wrong with getting some bad woodworking plans? You soon discover that the author had his head up his ass when the boaqrds dont meet.

Replying to myself, I did read the whole Ottolenghi article instead of follow the debate. Good use of my time.

Na I dont treat anyone like that. He can hate me but I have been both offended and impressed by different posts. Just because I might not like something someone says doesnt mean I should completely ignore them. At least I dont.

I was bereft when Andrew Sullivan stopped his blog, The Dish, some time ago, but now he shows up from time to time in New York Magazine. Not that I patently agreed with him, he's a conservative of sorts, presently for Hillary, but I liked the discourse in the blog. Also, his View From My Window feature, where people sent in photos of places all over the world and readers guessed the exact places the photos were of, sometimes down to the exact city block or even closer, after first guessing region/countries. Gads, I loved that. Wish someone would start it again. One quiet day I might go back and look again at the View from My Window photos, for the sheer pleasure - if The Dish is still out there somewhere.

Bad Hombre passing by, saying hi!

No, Setanta doesn't hate women, that is bullshit. I could say you do, Max, but I won't go that far, though it seems like that sometimes.

I really don't have an argument with you here. I've seen too many times what you describe re second level or even third level commentary. Or thought-terminating cliches that speed across the internet like some twirling-eyed lunatic road runner, full of passionate certainty even while not knowing what the **** they are talking about. I have a near constant headache from this stuff.


I'm particularly sympathetic to this. For whatever set of reasons, I've become a generalist (or in the darker moments, I conceive of it as dilettante). It is when I am in a conversation with an actual expert that I understand the thinness of the ice beneath me. It's intimidating, for good reasons. But there is something to be said for making connections across multiple zones of knowledge or thought, I believe. Here's an example.

I did a course in primate studies with Birute Galdikas. Just a single semester and I enrolled because I wanted knowledge in that sphere (and because of who she was). God, I learned a ton that had acute relevance to other areas of interest. For example, when Muslims set to their prayer position, head down and rump elevated, that is the position chimpanzees adopt when acknowledging another more dominant male. That's not a coincidence. And similar observations can be made about christian prayer, eyes closed, gaze downward, quiet, etc.

James Fallows, who has been doing great work forever, now has a blog at the Atlantic. Recently, because he's really smart, he enjoined Jane Goodall to make observations on Donald Trump's behaviors. From his post...
“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”



As regards this

I offer up my self-constructed woodworking bench as evidence that much can indeed go wrong.

That's the best laugh I'll likely have today, you cantaloupe-calved outsider.

I read Andrew intermittently. Smart dude, no question. But I got burned out even more quickly than he did. That old View from my Window feature was damned agreeable and I miss it too.

Likewise, Eric Alterman eventually got burned out blogging. And I really miss his output because of his areas of expertise and experience.

I don't blame either for dropping their tools. It's a tough gig to keep doing it right.

Maybe you hate women Osso. But you are missing the point.

Once I say that you hate women, I no longer have to listen to what you are saying on any topic no matter how rational you are being or how much factual evidence there is to back up your point. It doesn't even matter if the topic has anything to do with your hatred of women. It's a perfect ad hominem (oh... that's clever).

That is why Setanta hates women.

I'm trying to remember what your avatar is, Bad Hombre - I knew once and forget now, but it's a strong one.