It is funny no one seems to remember Trump’s first presidential campaign.

Though Trump had never held elected office, he was well known for his frequent comments on public affairs and business exploits as head of The Trump Organization. He had previously considered a presidential run in 1988 as a Republican, but chose not to run. For 2000, Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura convinced Trump to seek the presidential nomination of the Reform Party, which was fracturing despite achieving ballot access and qualifying for matching funds as a result of the presidential campaign of industrialist Ross Perot, the party’s 1996 presidential nominee. Trump’s entrance into the Reform Party race coincided with that of paleoconservative commentator Pat Buchanan, whom Trump attacked throughout the campaign as a “Hitler-lover.”
Trump focused his campaign on the issues of fair trade, eliminating the national debt, and achieving universal healthcare as outlined in the campaign companion piece The America We Deserve, released in January 2000. He named media proprietor Oprah Winfrey as his ideal running mate and said he would instantly marry his girlfriend, Melania Knauss, to make her First Lady. Critics questioned the seriousness of Trump’s campaign and speculated that it was a tactic to strengthen his brand and sell books.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 29 2016 19:42 utc | 103

P Berman at 98
Perhaps I was unclear. I did not seek to disparage the effort to fight anti-semitism. I cited the ongoing contributions as evidence that Trump is very unlikely to actually be the scourge of Zion that some posters seem to think.
in re 101 —
Talk about lowering the bar. Now y’all have dropped a submersible and are excavating in the Marianas Trench.
It isn’t a lie if you don’t really fucking give a rat’s ass about what you’re talking about then? “Speaking carelessly” usually translates into “perjuring oneself” in court.
Just so you can’t say you didn’t know, Trump tends to rate higher on the “untruthiness” of his discourse.

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 30 2016 3:32 utc | 105

Somebody at 103, had exactly the same thought, Trump’s political past forgotten. Also, on Youtube you can find vids. of him at an extremely young age putting forth same povs.
Not that surprising – the MSM of course want to paint him as a loon or an alien who just landed from Jupiter.
Of course he is for some kind of ‘universal HC’ because like all biz men he knows the no. 1 obstacle in the US to ‘fuller’ employment/econo devp./biz friendly climate/ is the labor overhead health care costs (plus corp. taxation, the highest in the world with Japan, not that everyone pays the 35% rate) and not ‘illegals’ – an easy target – so to address Pomeroy at 101, about Trump lying, DT is being somewhat, or very, duplicitous about his ‘real’ thoughts.
I re-noticed Trump in 2001 (me 9/11 nut) when he declared that the buildings could not possibly have been brought down by planes. Now he is all ‘muslims attacked America’ – he is genuinely trying to profile himself to win. Putin btw switched the same way. Right after 9/11 some Russki general came on TV and said this is all eempozzrible (saw it live and remember it well), and that can’t have happened imho without Kremlin approval. It then took something like 3 weeks for Putin to come out with the we must all fight terrorism line, and Russia has not veered from that line since. (See Syria.)
What is also left aside is *recent* Repub. political history. The Tea Party is down the memory hole, though it represented the first schisms in the Repub Party. Imho McCain-Palin could potentially have won, if it wasn’t for the fact that both were totally inept and played to sections of the Repub. base, had no interest in a Reform, and were mostly just touting or protecting their ‘personal situations.’
This left the field wide open for a maverick, an anti-Establishment candidate like DT as Rubio, Cruz, Jeb B., are lame ducks, and the Repubs had no choice, or preferred to duck out or support HRC or whatever. In these situations, change/renewal/move forward always come from the ‘right’. The ‘left’ – Dems. savagely eliminated the candidate who could have won, Sanders.
Charles Hugh Smith on HC costs, simple (I don’t agree with the ‘solution’) via other blog:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/09/want-fix-economy-first-fix-healthcare.html#more-61545

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 30 2016 14:29 utc | 107

Well that is some analysis. McCain and Palin coulda won, ‘cept they were incompetent and politically and ideologically incapable of doing it. So that would really mean that it was impossible for them to win, right?
The Tea Party is “down the memory hole”? Puh-lease. They only populate the GOP benches in the House, are widely stocked in state and local governments, and their agenda is the Trump agenda. Forgotten, but not gone, perhaps? Who remembers the Gadsden flag rattler when there is a real, live orange snake at the podium?
And what was she, Elizabeth Montgomery in “Bewitched”? Just a twinkle of the nose makes magic happen?
Since it was a slow news day, maybe you shoulda googled the Infowars article. They did not switch to the Donald. The assertion is that the signal was to Holt, to allow Clinton to make a well-founded attack on The Donald.
Did the lads’ dataset include the times when a bon mot or a cut-away occurred without such a signal?
The primary source of this “theory” comes from Mike Cernovich, apparently the voice behind True Pundit. Salon reports that he is an alt-rightist and conspiracy proponent.
The secondary promoter, who confirmed this inspired theory, card shark Mike Matusow, is also a Trumpeter.
So some wing-nut comes up with a theory, which another confirms and a third promotes. Sounds suspiciously like collective work and responsibility.
Here’s a little info on point from Wonkette. “[F]uck this unfalsifiable bullshit where one thing is proof of a conspiracy and that same thing not happening is also proof of the same conspiracy, you fucking rejects.”
I think the sniffles suggest the only nose magic happening was the blow going up The Duckhead’s hooter, like Dr. Dean suggested. He came of age in that Studio 54/disco/”masters of the universe” environment in NYC in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Those Wall St. yuppies did like their coke.
Just asking the question, of course. Perhaps it was worded carelessly.
I don’t get this parade of lame excuses for Trump getting his day-glo orange head handed to him. That’s the sort of thing that happens when your experienced opponent prepares for the debate, and you don’t. Why is it that Rethuglicans never take any responsibility for the negative consequences of their actions? Ironic in the party of “personal responsibility,” no?

Posted by: rufus magister | Sep 30 2016 23:26 utc | 109

Jackrabbit, & Alberto @ 57, You don’t like the idea of a president who can’t control her eyes & has a “lazy eye” @13:25-13:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkPe-9rM1Q This is a very funny & brief show; you’ll enjoy it. It was taped Sept 9th. Do you think she could’ve gotten rid of so many wrinkles & pounds in such a short time? How about changing her eyes from blue to brown? Funny about that lazy brown eye– it’s exactly like Double2’s at Greensboro & the press conference afterwards.

Posted by: Penelope | Oct 1 2016 7:10 utc | 111

I voted for Sanders in the primary, and will vote, as I have since the late 70’s, for one of the socialist parties down the ballot.
What fascinates me is the fetid bullshit that Trump, his minions, and his supporters keep putting out. And of course, the caliber of supporters he attracts. David Duke Says Donald Trump ‘Is Our Candidate,’ That He ‘Did the Job’ at the Debate.
What also is fascinating is this notion that the alleged billionaire is somehow not part and parcel of the elite, and despite his long and distinguished record of shady double dealing, will somehow lessen their death grip on politics and the economy. He represents the “America First” wing.
And you know, even Fox says he lost.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 1 2016 12:32 utc | 113

Aptly named BS.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 1 2016 23:07 utc | 115

How many votes will “moral victory” pull in the Electoral College? Assuming that the performance was in any way moral or a victory.
I’m a little surprised at some of the folks who’ve taken the plunge into the Marianas trench, where it seems extensive excavations to lower bar for The Duckhead’s performance continue at a feverish pace. I suppose this is in anticipation of the next debate.
The local MSM hardcopy features semi-rational conservative Michael Smerconish. A more down-to-earth version of David Brooks, without the annoying rhetorical tics.

This is no longer an exercise to fire up the GOP base. He’s not preaching to a crowd eager to chant: “Lock her up.” Instead, it’s Trump’s last chance to grow the tent, and he offered absolutely nothing in the first debate to move that needle.
The forces that brought Trump this far now impede his growth. If he doesn’t realize that, the race is over.

Leaving aside the question of “growing a tent” being a mixed metaphor, I think you get the picture. He has needed to do this since at the the RNC, and he has not.
Smerconish notes the trouble The Duckhead has had keeping to the talking points and away from the ad-libs. Since the whole campaign is predicated on Trump’s business “personality,” I look for The Donald to keep doing what got him here. And so, preparatory work continues in the Trench.
So let’s say victory in the second, town-hall style debate will consist in him not going off and berating some voter who had the gall to actually question him. “Jerky John Doe over there, he’s a Hillary plant. Google it, trust me, it’s disgusting.” I’ll leave it to you Trumpeters to decide if you need cover by qualifying it as “repeatedly goes off” or not.
I think I’d bet Clinton and the over. Fox and the alt-right are spotting The Ducks too many points.
Don’t vote Red or Blue or Green — vote Orange to “Make America Hate Again!” Who would have imagined that the emblem of American fascism would be not an armband or pin, but a baseball cap?

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 2 2016 14:39 utc | 117

I believe you nailed the preferred metric. I think “slimness challenged” is the more inclusive term for that growing American voter segment.
It’s like the limbo stick. How low can you go? But here, the low popularity rating will lose, and that remains The Duckhead.

Posted by: rufus magister | Oct 7 2016 1:47 utc | 119