Many consider Donald Trump an anomaly in the Republican party, but they really shouldn’t, suggested New York’s Chait in a Tuesday piece. Chait argued that the GOP which nominated Trump for president is pretty much the same GOP which has freaked out for several years over the Affordable Care Act. As Chait put it, “Republican hatred of Obamacare exemplifies the madness that left its elite unable to stop Trump.”
New York Magazine
In early August, a CNN reporter tweeted an email he purportedly received from a donor to Republican Party nominee Donald Trump's presidential campaign alleging that there was no way that a donor could cancel a recurring contribution. That got the attention of several establishment press outlets and the left-biased "fact checkers" who thought they smelled smoke, but ultimately found no fire.
Several days ago, the New York Observer followed up on a documented complaint by a Minnesota woman first reported at a local TV station in early June. Claiming communications with "multiple sources," reporter Liz Corkin asserted that the Clinton campaign is "purposefully and repeatedly overcharging" small-dollar contributors "after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website." Establishment press interest this time? None — except to have one of the so-called "fact checkers" dismiss Corkin's contentions as "unproven."
To borrow a phrase from President Obama, let New York magazine’s Chait be clear: “Republicans nominated Donald Trump [because] Republican voters like Donald Trump. This theory has the virtues of simplicity and truth.” Chait’s peg for his Friday post, however, was an “alternate theory” he rejects: that “Trump prevailed at least in part because liberals blew their credibility by hyperbolically denouncing previous Republican presidential candidates, thereby conditioning Republicans to ignore the warnings when Trump came along.”
Shorter version of Brian Feldman’s Wednesday article: Sure, Mark Zuckerberg’s a genius, but he still hasn’t come up with a foolproof way to keep Facebook from promoting right-wing propaganda. “Facebook’s problem isn’t that it suppresses ‘conservative news’ or allows ‘fake news,’” wrote Feldman. “It’s that those two categories are increasingly indistinguishable.”
This past January, Donald Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters.” A rough counterpart to that remark came Wednesday from Eric Levitz, who wrote that a Trump presidency would be so dreadful that “it would be reasonable for the average voter to prefer Hillary Clinton, even if she really did order the murder of Vince Foster.”
Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine blasted Hillary Clinton's ethics. Of course, being a Hillary supporter he must have realized he went too far so he also bizarrely slammed people who dare to criticize Hillary. Finally he ends up worrying that her corrupt image could harm her in the election or even beyond. Yes, it is a real rollercoaster ride so let us join Chait in his initial blast mode as you can tell from the title of his article, Hillary Clinton’s Ethics Problems Are Worse Than She Understands:
Recently, both Vox’s Zack Beauchamp and New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait have argued that ideological conservatism isn’t (and never has been) the major reason for Republican electoral success, and that those who consistently vote GOP because they believe in small government and low taxes are greatly outnumbered by those who do so because they’re racists.
They’re calling it the feel-good romantic hit of the summer, or at least of the Democratic convention. Bill Clinton’s long, granular tribute to Hillary Rodham Clinton had several liberal pundits swooning. Dahlia Lithwick of Slate wrote that it was during this speech that “for the first time…most of us met” Hillary, whom “we have all been following and misunderstanding and cartooning for decades now.” Rebecca Traister of New York magazine gave Bill big props for reminiscing about how Hillary turned him on: "One of the roadblocks for women is objectification and sexualization, but when it comes to Hillary Clinton, whose ambition and brains have long rendered her bloodless in the American imagination, hearing her described as an object of desire could feel corrective and bizarrely just. So he did it."
Ralph Nader, are you prepared to don a sackcloth and perform a public act of penance for your role in causing the defeat of Al Gore in the 2000 election? Who is demanding this political burning of Nader? Jonathan Chait of New York magazine who still can't get over his obsession with Gore's loss in the 2000 election. He flat out blames Ralph Nader for that loss and is now enraged that Nader won't publicly confess his role in preventing a President Gore. After all these years, Chait remains a man obsessed. It is as if he can find no final peace unless we get a confession of "guilt" from Nader.
A few days ago, Vanity Fair reported that Donald Trump is “considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States.” Jonathan Chait thinks such a venture “makes sense” since there’d be a “numerically large” ready-made audience for its fare. “Perhaps [Trump] grasps a truth the official Republican Party has refused to acknowledge: The conservative base is a subculture,” wrote Chait in a Thursday post. “It is a numerically large subculture, but a subculture nonetheless. It rejects the moral values of the larger society and wallows within its own imaginary world."
The liberal comedian Louis CK is a darling of the cultural Left. Esquire magazine hailed him for locating with few words “the awkward, painful truth of everyday life.” He explains the 2016 presidential election using a "brilliant airplane analogy.” It was simply this, the notion that Hillary is the sober, statesmanlike figure of experience, your most masterful airplane pilot:
When liberals call Republicans “deniers,” it typically has to do with climate change. Jonathan Chait alleges big-time GOP denial on a non-scientific matter. “Republican voting support is increasingly coterminous with white racial resentment even as conservatives firmly believe in their own racial innocence,” wrote Chait in a Tuesday post. “Conservatives deny the existence of racism in the Republican Party as a matter of doctrinal sanctity, just as Soviet authorities had to officially deny the existence of poverty in the USSR.”
While Chait has no use for the economic and fiscal proposals advanced by Paul Ryan and other House Republicans, he acknowledged that their ideas “have no intellectual connection to racism.” Nonetheless, “the trouble for Republicans is that building a real-world constituency for these policies does rely on racism. Conservatives stopped the momentum of the New Deal in the mid-1960s only when they associated it with support for the black underclass. Republican politics has grown increasingly racialized over time, a trend that has dramatically accelerated during the Obama era.”