Simpleminded Braying

Well, that’s over. As the first presidential debate approached, Hillary Clinton was the needlessly obsessive-compulsive, cramming for the big night, and Donald Trump was the snide goofball, the rich kid who knows he’ll always do fine, because he always has, blowing it off. The snide rich kid would try to get by on quick wit and charm, and the obsessive-compulsive policy wonk would try to look loose and open and pleasant, but she’s still a wonk – and Donald Trump had caught up to her in polls. Trump was going to win this thing. No one likes a nerd, and perhaps he could look just presidential enough so that folks would stop worrying that he’d crash the economy, start a race war, and get us all killed in a worldwide religious war that would go nuclear. He’d show that he wasn’t all that dangerous, and that she was boring, and a loser.

That wasn’t to be. She got to him and he lost it, temperamentally, and literally. Everyone saw what happened:

Donald Trump unrelentingly blamed the nation’s chronic problems on “typical politician” Hillary Clinton, yet he found himself mostly on the defensive in their first debate here Monday night as she denounced him for racial insensitivity, hiding potential conflicts of interest and “stiffing” those who helped build his business empire.

After circling each other for months, Clinton and Trump finally took the stage together for the first time, and each tried in a series of combative, acrimonious exchanges to discredit the other.

Trump, the Republican nominee, spent much of the evening explaining himself – over his temperament, treatment of women and minorities, business practices and readiness to be commander in chief, as well as over his long perpetuation of a falsehood about Barack Obama’s birthplace to delegitimize his presidency.

That led to exchanges like this:

“He has a long record of engaging in racist behavior, and the birther lie was a very hurtful one,” said Clinton, the Democratic nominee. “Barack Obama is a man of great dignity, and I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him.”

Trump, who earlier this month at last acknowledged Obama’s birth in Hawaii, replied by invoking Clinton’s 2008 rivalry with Obama: “When you try to act holier than thou, it really doesn’t work.”

That’s hardly a response, but people heard what they wanted to hear:

Both candidates delivered performances likely to please and energize their core supporters. Clinton eviscerated Trump’s character and record while championing progressive ideals. Trump directly confronted Clinton over her email scandal and general trustworthiness. Less certain was how the debate might shape the perceptions of the slivers of the electorate still up for grabs, especially college-educated white women.

But it wasn’t an even match:

Clinton poured forth with policy details and practiced catchphrases – “Trumped-up trickle down” to describe his tax plan, for instance – and tried to sow doubts about the seriousness of Trump’s proposals. She seized on his comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin to suggest that Trump does not understand the global threats the country faces.

Where Clinton was measured in her attacks, Trump was a feisty and sometimes undisciplined aggressor. He regularly interrupted Clinton, as well as the moderator, “NBC Nightly News” anchor Lester Holt, and raised his voice. At times, Trump delivered rambling, heated and defensive answers.

In fact, he stopped making sense:

Clinton mocked Trump’s discussion of national security, suggesting he is uninformed and even unstable. “Whoo,” she said with a laugh, when Trump finished one oration about NATO and the Islamic State.

Earlier, Trump grew visibly frustrated by Clinton’s critique of his economic plan and declared: “Typical politician. All talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn’t work. Never gonna happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs, in terms of what’s going on.”

But he didn’t defend his own plan. It hadn’t occurred to him that he’d have to. Preparation matters. He was winging it. Oops.

There’s much more detail, but the reviews are in, like this from Andrew Sullivan:

What can one say? I was afraid that Trump’s charisma and stage presence and salesmanship might outshine Hillary Clinton’s usually tepid and wonkish instincts. I feared that the facts wouldn’t matter; that a debate would not take place. And it is to Clinton’s great credit that she prepared, and he didn’t, and that she let him hang himself.

His utter lack of preparation; his doubling down on transparent lies; his foreign-policy recklessness; his racial animosity; his clear discomfort with the kind of exchange of views that is integral to liberal democracy; his instinctual belligerence – all these suggest someone who has long lived in a deferential bubble that has become filled with his own reality.

So there was a winner here:

Clinton was not great at times; her language was occasionally stilted; she missed some obvious moments to go in for the kill; but she was solid and reassuring and composed. I started tonight believing she needed a game-changer to alter the trajectory of this race. I may, of course, be wrong, trapped in my own confirmation bias and bubble – but I thought she did just that.

I’ve been a nervous wreck these past two weeks; my nerves are calmed now.

One of Sullivan’s readers added this:

A blinking, huffing manifestation of incoherent 21^st-century white male rage – he is offended by the temerity of his public servant opponent while incredulous that he is clearly in the presence of a sane person who is in possession of facts and reason. Cheap country-club vulgarity. The only question is – is America seeing that too?

That question won’t be answered until the next round of polling, but Jonathan Chait saw this:

Before the first presidential debate, a conventional wisdom had formed that Donald Trump merely needed to appear “presidential,” which the campaign media had defined as “non-sociopathic.” He failed to clear that bar.

Chait sees that Trump started out well and then just faded:

Trump enjoyed his greatest success near the beginning of the debate, where he pounded home his nationalist-populist message on foreign trade and cornered Hillary Clinton, who has changed her stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Clinton used the first portion of the debate to try to define her opponent as an advocate of conventional Republican trickle-down economics, but only managed to mention his support of tax cuts for the rich. She failed to bring up his increase in taxes on the middle class, and when Trump proposed to reduce regulations, she neglected to tie his promise to its unpopular specifics, like deregulating Wall Street, polluters, and opposing the minimum wage. It was possible for a while to imagine low-information voters buying his self-styled image as a truth-telling, nonpolitical outsider who would shake up the system.

And he was on a roll:

Trump managed to tell a number of lies without consequence. He insisted he had never called global warming a Chinese hoax, when that very claim is still up on his Twitter feed. He insisted crime has risen in New York, when it has fallen. He insisted that, contrary to his public support for the Iraq War, he had opposed it in private, inaccessible conversations with his lickspittle Sean Hannity – who, if called upon to do so, would probably vouchsafe that Trump indeed won the 1985 American League Most Valuable Player Award.

He was firing up his base, but that proved useless:

What did work for Clinton was sowing doubts about Trump’s character. She mentioned his $14 million loan from his father, and Trump aggravated the damage by calling the loan “small” without disputing the sum. He gave no coherent reason for why he could not release his tax returns. He admitted to failing to pay contractors, insisting they had all done poor work, an excuse hardly any person who had done work for hire could find plausible or acceptable. He defended his record of refusing housing accommodations to African-Americans by saying he had signed a consent decree with no admission of guilt, and then, years later, built a club in Palm Beach that did not exclude people by race. His defense of the charge of fomenting birtherism was a disaster. When he tried out his campaign line that he merely wanted to force Barack Obama to produce his birth certificate, Lester Holt noted that he continued to question its authenticity in each of the next four years, at one point sputtering, “Look, it’s all words.”

What did that mean? But he was proud that he, as America’s sheriff or something, had finally forced that uppity black guy to show his papers and prove he had a right to be in office, which is not a way to win over any who are undecided about Trump’s seeming racism, but it didn’t stop there:

The final exchange of the debate was the most devastating. Clinton lacerated Trump for his dehumanization of women – the kind of sexualization that offends social conservatives and social liberals alike. She brought up his abuse of one of his beauty-pageant contestants – noting, as an aside, his fondness for hanging around them – and that he called one contestant “Miss Piggy” and, because she is Latina, “Miss Housekeeper.” When Trump fell for the trap by demanding her name, Clinton supplied it: Alicia Machado, driving home the justifiable impression that Clinton sees her as a human being, unlike her opponent, who sees her as a piece of meat. His response consisted of whining that her campaign was spending money to attack him in advertisements.

No one likes a whiner, and Clinton won by contrast:

She maintained her composure and her dignity, something no Republican who confronted (or was bullied by) Trump in the primary debates managed to do. She had facts at her disposal, she apologized for her poor choice of email systems, and she conveyed that she is sane and competent. The contrast between an obviously and eminently qualified public servant and a ranting bully was as stark as any presidential debate in American history.

Josh Marshall agrees with that:

Clinton clearly went into this debate not looking for one or two big “Have you no decency” moments but rather looking to hit Trump with a rat-tat-tat series of taunts and jabs to see if she could get him to lose his cool and throw him off his game. It ended up happening a lot more quickly than I expected. No more than fifteen minutes in, he was getting visibly angry. And he stayed that way for the next hour plus.

From maybe a half hour into the debate Clinton had almost entirely seized the initiative. She was attacking while he responded, sometimes angrily, sometimes with new attacks and very often by doubling down on demonstrable falsehoods he’s been pilloried for, for months. At various moments he shuffled in and out of parts of his stump speech. But through most of the exchange he constantly interrupted Clinton, talked over her, denied claims she made which are easily validated…

Trump had no good answer on why he refused to release his taxes. And I think on live television, watched by maybe 100 million people, the fact that he’s lying about this was pretty obvious. On birtherism he tried to resurface the argument that Clinton was the real birther, just not as effective as he was. “I think I did a great job and a great service in getting the President to give his birth certificate.”

There was a winner here:

If we’re going to use boxing metaphors, my read was that for the last two thirds or so of the debate she had him almost constantly on the ropes. He was almost always reacting to her. He was swiping, swinging, sometimes nasty, sometimes getting in applause lines – but he was reacting to her almost throughout. Most of the time he was ranging between outbursts, denying claims, saying how many people loved him and are happy. At other times, he talked about how she’d spent more money on ads than he had, and how his poll numbers were going up.

Hardcore partisans care about this stuff. Not anyone else. It’s the stuff you grouse or brag about to your staff. Not the stuff you use in a debate. In the most basic sense, Trump spent most of the debate talking about himself and complaining about how he was being treated.

And he offered nothing new:

In this debate, Trump repeated virtually every lie he’s told through this campaign. He settled birtherism. He opposed the Iraq War. He can’t release his tax returns because of an audit. This time he said them in front of a hundred million people. Those things will each come up again now.

And he really didn’t prepare:

We heard a lot about Clinton preparing in depth for this debate. Trump, we’re told … well his advisors couldn’t get him to do any real debate prep. He had bull sessions with Christie and Giuliani and Gen. Flynn. I now find those claims quite believable. Her preparation and his cocky indifference to doing so showed in both cases. Clinton was poised and unflappable. She needled him, but not in a way that seemed nasty or petulant. She was poised throughout. It was equally clear that he had no clear strategy for what to do. For that among other reasons she took control of the debate within a half hour.

That may change things:

I don’t know that it will move the polls dramatically. But Trump was scattered, swaggering and stumbling. He lied a lot and repeatedly refused to answer big questions in a way that was fairly obvious and transparent. If you hadn’t heard him refuse to release his taxes before, how do you think it came off here? I think most people who had doubts about him won’t have those doubts assuaged. People not inclined to like him likely found him bullying and rude – and not even successful at it at that. I’m not sure this is any game changer. It simply confirms what a lot of people already know: Trump is not suited to be President. Clinton is competent, prepared and in this exchange buoyant and dynamic.

But that comes with a warning:

If I know anything about Trump he’ll feel wounded by this encounter. Low-stamina Hillary, almost a foot shorter than him, a weak women … well, she controlled him and owned the floor. Like we saw with Pastor Timmons and so many others who have hurt him, he’ll lash out.

He’ll lash out? That won’t help matters either, and Kevin Drum adds this:

I guess the only thing anyone cares about is who won. I’d give it to Hillary Clinton pretty easily. She handled her facts well, she spoke well, she didn’t get baited, she laughed at some of Trump’s more ridiculous statements, and she attacked him pretty effectively. “Just listen to what you heard,” she said when Trump tried to pretend that he did everyone a favor by forcing Obama to release his long-form birth certificate. I suspect that even Republicans in the audience laughed at that.

Trump, by contrast, was like a manic version of his usual manic self. He spoke too fast, he got practically red faced at times, he repeated the most obvious lies, and he could barely keep a coherent though together for more than a few seconds before wandering off to something else.

But then again, what do I know? Basically, Clinton acted like Clinton and Trump acted like Trump.

That’s what did him in of course:

If you like either one of them, you probably liked what you saw on the screen. And to Trump’s credit, he got his talking points across. Law and order. Politicians like Hillary are all talk, no action. Foreigners are stealing our jobs. I’m going to destroy ISIS big league.

But Trump’s howlers were just too numerous. He’s the son of a millionaire but said he started out with a “very small” amount of money. He claimed yet again that he absolutely opposed the war in Iraq – just ask Sean Hannity. He never said Clinton didn’t look presidential. NATO started a terror division because of him. He never said climate change was a hoax. Hillary’s people were responsible for birtherism, and he’s the guy who put an end to it. The IRS deliberately targets him, and only him, for audits. He never said he didn’t care if Japan built nukes. And then there was his bizarre riff about his pride over opening a club that doesn’t discriminate against African Americans…

Trump got called on all this, of course, and his strategy was simple: just deny everything. “Wrong,” he said repeatedly, talking obnoxiously over Clinton. Then, against all expectations, Lester Holt fact-checked Trump twice, but Trump just raised his voice and rode roughshod over him. Does this kind of simpleminded braying work? It all seemed like pretty obvious charlatanism to me, but maybe not to everyone else. Maybe they just came away thinking that Trump says one thing and Clinton says another, and who knows, really?

I have a little more faith in the American public than that, though. I think Trump did poorly, both in what he said and how he said it. He was manic about proving that he was the alpha male in the room, but I think he took it at least three or four notches too far. It was not a winning night for him.

The New York Times’ Gail Collins is a bit more pointed about that:

Trump lost. Really, I think we can work under the assumption that when a candidate is accused of cheering for the housing crisis, it’s not a good plan to reply: “That’s called business, by the way.”

There had been some speculation that all Trump needed to do was speak in complete sentences to beat expectations, and if that was the bar, the man did great. When Hillary Clinton suggested he might be withholding his federal returns because he never paid any taxes, he responded: “That makes me smart.” Complete sentence.

This was a disaster:

There’s something terrifying in the way Trump can’t admit error, even in a case where the incorrect statement in question has become world-famous. There are undoubtedly people in Chad who know that Trump supported the invasion of Iraq before it happened. But when it came up on Monday, he denied it once again, arguing that his much-quoted interview on “The Howard Stern Show” was something else entirely: “I said very lightly I don’t know maybe who knows. Essentially.”

Got that? No wonder he felt there was no need to practice for the debate.

And there’s this:

Is it fair to point out that Trump kept sniffling? All I know is, if Clinton did it we would never have heard the end of it. But forget nasal congestion. He made faces. Viewers had to sit all night in front of a split screen, watching one of the candidates grimacing, pouting and smirking. Over on her side, Clinton looked – pretty darned normal. Historically speaking, Americans tend to expect more than that of a debate winner. But we’re in new territory this election cycle.

It does make a difference. Do we want the rest of the world thinking of the United States as the Land of Weird Facial Contortions? Both of these candidates have a lot of baggage and Clinton got past her email burden by admitting she was wrong and saying she was sorry. Not the perfect apology, but it got her through the night.

Trump, for his part, could have anticipated that the business of calling women pigs, slobs and dogs would come up. The correct answer, as his advisers undoubtedly hinted, was to say he regretted it, and hoped he’d be a better example for his ten-year-old son. His actual response was to: 1) Claim that nobody likes Rosie O’Donnell; 2) Congratulate himself for not saying “something extremely rough to Hillary, to her family”; and 3) Point out that the polls are looking good.

It was kind of – wow.

Then there’s the central problem:

The night was totally about Trump. Clinton is not a very interesting speaker, and her failure to say anything stupid made her side of the debate all the more unexciting. People tuned in to see Trump and he didn’t disappoint. Not every politician would respond to a comment about how he got his start in business with $14 million in family money with: “My father gave me a very small loan.”

Remember when we made fun of Mitt Romney for his privileged background?

At least he didn’t walk out on stage, announce, as he had said before, that he has a very big wang, and then walk off stage and leave the building, assuming he had won the election – but he came close.

His folks will stick by him, of course. Hillary stood there, smug and smirking, because she knows the issues and makes sense, as if that matters. They hate her for that, but there aren’t quite enough of them to win the election in November. Trump’s advisors will now have to figure out a way to sell a shallow, uniformed, impulsive, easily-provoked, instinctively cruel and nasty man, to the American public, as their next president. Maybe the next debate will go better for him.

Expecting Lies

Everyone expects politicians to lie. If they like the lies, knowing full well they’re lies, they vote for that candidate. A little exaggeration never hurt anyone. Mexico isn’t really going to pay for that wall. There may be no new wall at all. It’s the thought that counts. If, on the other hand, they hate the lies, they’ll not vote for a blatant liar. The truth matters, and if that candidate actually believes the nonsense they’re offering, that candidate is dangerous. Those we elect to office should live in this world, not in some imaginary paradise, or dystopia.

That’s the Donald Trump problem. There are a few Americans who believe we live in a hell-hole where everything is falling apart and the economy is in ruins, and where there’s someone on every corner – Muslim or black or brown or gay – who wants to kill us all, right now. There is scant evidence for any of that, but scant evidence is enough for these folks – a subset of all Republicans, who are, in turn, a minority subset of all Americans. Everyone else kind of wonders what the hell, or what hell, Donald Trump is talking about.

The first presidential debate, scheduled to begin in a few hours, should settle some of that. Lester Holt, the moderator, will no doubt ask Trump what the hell he’s talking about. He’ll ask Hillary Clinton the same thing. That’s his job, to ask that for the American people. He represents all of us, for better or worse, but the weekend before this Monday night debate there was a bit of prepositioning going on, although some of it was simply trash-talk:

Donald J. Trump’s campaign moved on Sunday to squelch reports – set off by the candidate himself – that Gennifer Flowers, the woman whose claims of an affair with Bill Clinton imperiled his 1992 presidential campaign, would be Mr. Trump’s guest on Monday at his first debate with Hillary Clinton.

In television interviews on Sunday morning, Mr. Trump’s running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, flatly denied that Ms. Flowers would attend the debate, at Hofstra University on Long Island. And Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said that in threatening on Saturday to invite Ms. Flowers, Mr. Trump had merely been making a point.

“He wants to remind people that he’s a great counterpuncher,” Ms. Conway said on ABC’s “This Week.”

This was the “punch” he was countering:

Mark Cuban, the voluble billionaire who owns the Dallas Mavericks basketball team and is supporting Mrs. Clinton, announced on Twitter on Thursday that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign had given him a front-row seat at the debate to watch her “overwhelm” Mr. Trump.

For good measure, Mr. Cuban – who once hosted a short-lived reality television show called “The Benefactor,” and more recently offered $10 million to the charity of Mr. Trump’s choice if the Republican nominee would let Mr. Cuban interview him for four hours about his “policies and their substance” – suggested the debate would become known as the “Humbling at Hofstra.”

Mark Cuban wants to be the one that asks Trump what the hell he’s talking about, unrelentingly, point by point, but if that cannot be, he’ll sit in the front row and stare. Perhaps that will rattle Trump. Oh yeah? Gennifer Flowers will rattle Hillary Clinton, unless Clinton shrugs, or even worse, turns that against Trump:

The thrice-married Mr. Trump, whose second marriage grew out of an affair during his first one, has repeatedly raised Mr. Clinton’s infidelities as a character attack against Mrs. Clinton. Several of Mr. Trump’s advisers have a long history of calling attention to Mr. Clinton’s scandals.

She could call attention to his, and point out that she’s the one running for president this time, not her famously horn-dog husband. Gennifer Flowers will watch the debate from home.

But Mark Cuban was onto something. Slate’s Jim Newell says that one way to beat Trump in this debate is to ask him to explain pretty much anything:

The large Republican primary field didn’t just help Trump by allowing him to cruise to early victories with relatively modest pluralities. It also helped him in the minute-to-minute unfolding of the early debates. He could get in his insults against Jeb Bush or Rand Paul or some other foil, and then, as the conversation – as it occasionally did – ventured into more substantive policy grounds, he could go into hiding for tens of minutes at a time as, say, Paul and Chris Christie argued about surveillance programs or medical marijuana. The stage will be smaller Monday night, as Trump competes in the first one-on-one presidential debate of his life. There will be no hiding.

It’s not necessarily in Clinton’s interest to turn this into a patronizing quiz show. Voters don’t cast their ballots based on which candidates best trill the consonants in foreign leaders’ names. But there are things that people expect their presidents to know, and on this count Trump tripped up a few times during the primary debates.

Newell can count the ways:

In the Dec. 15 debate held in Las Vegas, CNN guest questioner Hugh Hewitt asked Trump which element of the aging nuclear triad he felt was most urgently in need of an upgrade. Trump’s response was a jumble of nonsense about Iraq and Syria that made clear he had never heard the term, which refers to land-, air-, or sea-based systems for delivering nuclear weapons. That’s not great. But it’s deeper than terminology: It was clear that he had never considered the question of nuclear arsenal maintenance. He did, however, say that, “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation, is very important to me.” Indeed, big bomb go boom.

And there’s this:

Trump is running strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (Hillary Clinton claims to be against TPP, too, though no one really believes her.) When asked for even modest details of the trade pact, though, Trump tends to stumble. In the Nov. 10 debate, Trump went on about how “It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door, and totally take advantage of everyone.” For all of the trade deal’s opacity and complexity, it is indeed not “designed” to allow China to do that. It is designed to corner China into reforming its economy. Rand Paul chimed in after Trump’s spiel to point out that China is not a signatory to the deal, and Trump had little to say in response.

Oops. So there’s a plan here:

Clinton doesn’t need Trump to name the presidents and prime ministers of foreign countries. What she – or the moderators – could do, though, is ask him to explain the details of any of the policy proposals other people have written up on his behalf. How many weeks of paid leave are offered in Trump’s child care plans? Who would and wouldn’t be covered? Trump could be asked the cost of either his tax or education plan. Even better: What are his tax and education plans?

But she doesn’t even have to be that specific:

She could ask him to explain anything. How does Medicaid work and how would he change it? What does he dislike most about the Iranian nuclear deal? What’s the latest from Syria? Don’t wander too far in the weeds, but try to find some way to get him to move past the superficialities he’ll have memorized. Remember: Trump does not know what he’s talking about. Ever. This fact gets obscured from time to time whenever we start talking about Trump pivots and message discipline and the like, as if the problem simply were a lack of grace. And we should be careful to avoid the fallacy so common on the left that politics is about knowing more stuff than the other guy. But the simple truth is that Trump does not understand the basic grammar of the job he’s seeking.

That could hurt, or not. Janet Brown, the executive director of the Commission on Presidential Debates has declared that the debates should be fact-check-free:

I think personally, if you start getting into fact-checking, I’m not sure. What is a big fact? What’s a little fact? And if you and I have different sources of information, does your source about the unemployment rate agree with my source? I don’t think it’s a good idea to get the moderator into essentially serving as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Trump’s folks breathed a sigh of relief:

Trump’s campaign spokesperson told ABC’s “This Week” that it isn’t the media’s job to fact-check the presidential debate.

“I really don’t appreciate the campaigns thinking it is the job of the media to go and be these virtual fact-checkers,” Kellyanne Conway said, in an apparent attempted jab at the Clinton campaign. She also opposed debate moderators questioning the candidates’ truthfulness in any way.

That might not be helpful to the rest of us, but it has been done before:

Conway went on to praise Matt Lauer’s performance during a candidate forum earlier this month, during which he pressed Clinton on several issues, but accepted Trump’s (false) claim that he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning.

“We thought he did a great job,” Conway said.

Of course they did, and on the other side:

The Clinton campaign says it’s not her job to play “traffic cop” to Trump’s lies while also trying to present her ideas to the American public.

“All that we’re asking is that if Donald Trump lies, that it’s pointed out,” spokesperson Robby Mook said Sunday, also speaking on “This Week.”

Is that too much to ask? The Trump folks think so, but a curious thing happened on the weekend before the debate. The media suddenly ganged up on Trump. They decided to call him a liar – not someone who exaggerates – not someone who presents an alternative point of view. They finally called him a liar. The Los Angeles Times offered this:

Donald Trump says that taxes in the United States are higher than almost anywhere else on earth. They’re not.

He says he opposed the Iraq war from the start. He didn’t.

Now, after years of spreading the lie that President Obama was born in Africa, Trump says that Hillary Clinton did it first (untrue) and that he’s the one who put the controversy to rest (also untrue).

Never in modern presidential politics has a major candidate made false statements as routinely as Trump has. Over and over, independent researchers have examined what the Republican nominee says and concluded it was not the truth – but “pants on fire” (PolitiFact) or “four Pinocchios” (Washington Post Fact Checker).

But that was the idea all along:

Trump’s candidacy was premised on upending a dishonest establishment that has rigged American political and economic life, so many of his loyalists are willing to overlook his lies, as long as he rankles the powerful, said Republican strategist Rob Stutzman.

“It gives him not only license, but incentive to spin fantasy, because no one expects him to tell the truth,” said Stutzman, who worked against Trump during the primaries. “They believe they’re getting lied to constantly, so if their hero tells lies in order to strike back, they don’t care.”

That, however, also caused chaos:

Trump’s pattern of saying things that are provably false has no doubt contributed to his high unfavorable ratings. It also has forced journalists to grapple with how aggressive they should be in correcting candidates’ inaccurate statements, particularly in the presidential debates that start Monday.

At a time of deep public mistrust of the news media, the arbitration of statements of fact, long seen as one of reporters’ most basic duties, runs the risk of being perceived as partisan bias.

But so does the shirking of that role. Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, one of the debate moderators, has faced a storm of criticism for telling CNN: “It’s not my job to be a truth squad.”

After a Sept. 7 town hall on NBC, critics skewered moderator Matt Lauer for failing to correct Trump’s false statement that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl drew milder reprimands for letting Trump repeat the same lie twice in a July interview on “60 Minutes,” responding “yeah” both times with no correction.

And this seems to have torn the country apart:

PolitiFact, a Tampa Bay Times site that won a Pulitzer for its coverage of the 2008 election, has rated 70% of the Trump statements it has checked as mostly false, false or “pants on fire,” its lowest score. By contrast, 28% of Clinton’s statements earned those ratings.

“As we noted when we awarded Trump our 2015 Lie of the Year award for his portfolio of misstatements, no other politician has as many statements rated so far down the dial,” PolitiFact writer Lauren Carroll reported in June. “It’s unlike anything we’ve ever seen.”

At a recent Trump rally in downtown Miami, supporters vouched for his trustworthiness.

“I think he has been very straightforward, whether people like it or not,” said Rosario Rodriguez-Ruiz, 42, a Republican real estate broker and accountant.

We now have two separate realities, and that’s a worry:

Marty Kaplan, a professor of entertainment, media and society at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, has two theories on Trump’s falsehoods.

Perhaps he’s just putting on an act, like P.T. Barnum – a “marketer, con, snake-oil salesman who knows better, knows how to get the rubes into the tent.” Or maybe, Kaplan suggested, Trump is just “completely unconstrained by logic, rules, tradition, truth, law.”

“I’m confused,” he said, “whether the whole fact-free zone that he’s in is a strategic calculation or a kind of psychosis.”

Psychosis is a worry, and a day earlier it was the New York Times:

All politicians bend the truth to fit their purposes, including Hillary Clinton. But Donald J. Trump has unleashed a blizzard of falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies in the general election, peppering his speeches, interviews and Twitter posts with untruths so frequent that they can seem flighty or random – even compulsive.

However, a closer examination, over the course of a week, revealed an unmistakable pattern: Virtually all of Mr. Trump’s falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction. Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating “an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.”

The New York Times closely tracked Mr. Trump’s public statements from Sept. 15-21, and assembled a list of his 31 biggest whoppers, many of them uttered repeatedly. This total excludes dozens more: Untruths that appeared to be mere hyperbole or humor, or delivered purely for effect, or what could generously be called rounding errors.

The list follows, but Trump’s campaign dismissed their compilation as “silly” – and maybe it was, to them, but the Washington Post did the same thing:

Donald Trump’s week began in the wake of explosions in New Jersey and New York. It ended in the aftermath of shootings and riots. For a candidate whose strategy relies on painting a dystopian view of the nation – often based on inaccurate and questionable claims – the tragedies yielded a trove of political opportunities.

Shortly after the first bomb went off – Trump boasted that he had been ahead of newscasters in calling it a “bomb” – he seized upon the terrorism act as justification for some of the most disputed things he has said since announcing his presidential bid.

Terrorism wouldn’t have happened if others had opposed the Iraq War as he did, Trump said, even though he had said at the time in a radio interview he supported the war. The problem increased because Hillary Clinton has “been silent about Islamic terrorism for many years,” Trump claimed falsely. Trump called for profiling people, but insisted he “never” suggested targeting Muslims, even though he held an event specifically to propose a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and has called for “surveillance of certain mosques.”

They showed him no mercy:

Trump’s campaign is hardly the first to spin things its way, and Clinton has made her share of questionable claims, but Trump has nevertheless revealed himself to be a candidate who at times seems uniquely undeterred by facts.

An examination by The Washington Post of one week of Trump’s speeches, tweets and interviews shows a candidate who not only continues to rely heavily on thinly sourced or entirely unsubstantiated claims but also uses them to paint a strikingly bleak portrait of an impoverished America, overrun by illegal immigrants, criminals and terrorists – all designed to set up his theme that he is especially suited to “make America great again.”

And they know where this is headed:

Trump is expected to employ this approach, in both style and substance, at the first debate between the two major-party candidates on Monday night. Expecting that the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, will serve as a real-time fact-checker during the debate, Trump has repeatedly said that Holt should not do so. (Trump initially criticized Holt, saying: “Lester is a Democrat. It’s a phony system.” But after reports surfaced that Holt has registered Republican, Trump said he thought the moderator would be fair.)

Yeah, it’s getting absurd, but Politico piled on too:

As August ended, a new Donald Trump emerged. Coached by his third campaign management team, he stayed on message, read from a teleprompter and focused on policy. It lasted about a month.

After he lied on Sept. 16 that he was not the person responsible for the birtherism campaign to delegitimize Barack Obama’s presidency, POLITICO chose to spend a week fact-checking Trump. We fact-checked Hillary Clinton over the same time.

We subjected every statement made by both the Republican and Democratic candidates – in speeches, in interviews and on Twitter – to our magazine’s rigorous fact-checking process. The conclusion is inescapable: Trump’s mishandling of facts and his propensity for exaggeration so greatly exceed Clinton’s as to make the comparison almost ludicrous.

Though few statements match the audacity of his statement about his role in questioning Obama’s citizenship, Trump has built a cottage industry around stretching the truth. According to Politico’s five-day analysis, Trump averaged about one falsehood every three minutes and 15 seconds over nearly five hours of remarks.

In raw numbers, that’s 87 erroneous statements in five days.

That’s three different extensive lists of lies, all told in just the last week, the week before the first debate. Something is up, but Politico also reports the reaction to their list:

Jason Miller, Trump’s senior communications advisor, responded in an email: “There is a coordinated effort by the media elites and Hillary Clinton to shamelessly push their propaganda and distract from Crooked Hillary’s lies and flailing campaign. All of these ‘fact-check’ questions can be easily verified, but that’s not what blog sites like Politico want people to believe. Mr. Trump is standing with the people of America and against the rigged system insiders, and it’s driving the media crazy. We will continue to speak the truth and communicate directly with the American people on issues they care most about, and we won’t let the dishonest, liberal media intimidate us from speaking candidly and from the heart. A Donald J. Trump presidency will make America great again.”

It seems truth is a slippery thing, or reality is, but Miller is right – there is a coordinated effort by the media. They like reality, and Nicholas Kristof explains why:

If a known con artist peddles a potion that he claims will make people lose 25 pounds and enjoy a better sex life, we don’t just quote the man and a critic; we find ways to signal to readers that he’s a fraud. Why should it be different when the con man runs for president?

Frankly, we should be discomfited that many Americans have absorbed the idea that Hillary Clinton is less honest than Donald Trump, giving Trump an edge in polls of trustworthiness.

Kristof finds this depressing:

I can see how the endless media coverage of Clinton’s email evasiveness might incline some casual voters to perceive Trump as the more honest figure. Of course we should cover Clinton’s sins, but when the public believes that a mythomaniac like Trump is the straight shooter, we owe it to ourselves and the country to wrestle with knotty questions of false equivalence.

In watching the campaign coverage this year, I’ve sometimes had the same distressing feeling I felt in the run-up to the war in Iraq – that we in the media were greasing the skids to a bad outcome for our country. In the debate about invading Iraq, news organizations scrupulously quoted each side but didn’t adequately signal what was obvious to anyone reporting in the region: that we would be welcomed in Iraq not with flowers but with bombs. In our effort to avoid partisanship, we let our country down.

Well, not this time:

Lately, news organizations have displayed greater resolve, including a blunt willingness to refer to egregious Trump falsehoods as “lies.” I hope we’ve reached a turning point that will frame the debates.

Some traditionalists are horrified at the recent journalistic toughening, and it’s true that fact-checking is a high-wire act for moderators. In a 2012 presidential debate, the moderator Candy Crowley backed President Obama when Mitt Romney accused him of not having promptly called the Benghazi attacks terrorism. In fact, the point was ambiguous – Obama had used the phrase “acts of terror” but wasn’t clearly referring to Benghazi.

So, granted, fact-checking on the fly is difficult, Clinton supporters are trying to goad the media to thump Trump, and truth is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. Good journalism is challenging.

But do the job anyway:

Our job is to share with our audiences what we know. And we all know that Trump will not build a wall that Mexico will pay for (estimates are that it would cost $25 billion). If we know this, we shouldn’t keep it to ourselves.

Skeptics note that more rigorous coverage might not make a difference. Only six percent of Americans say they have a great deal of confidence in the press. After all, few facts are clearer than that President Obama was born in the United States, yet only 62 percent of American voters say he was born here. Facts may be stubborn things, but so are myths.

Yet even if Trump seems to be a Teflon candidate, to whom almost nothing sticks, we must still do our jobs. We owe it to our audiences to signal that most of us have never met a national candidate as ill-informed, deceptive or evasive as Trump.

And the job has been done before:

In the early 1950s, journalists were also faced with how to cover a manipulative demagogue – Senator Joe McCarthy – and traditional evenhandedness wasn’t serving the public interest. We honor Edward R. Murrow for breaking with journalistic convention and standing up to McCarthy, saying: “This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent.”

Likewise, in the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, it was not enough to quote from news conferences by each side. Great journalists like Claude Sitton and Karl Fleming took enormous risks to reveal the brutality of the Jim Crow South.

Our job is not stenography, but truth-telling. As we move to the debates, let’s remember that to expose charlatans is not partisanship, but simply good journalism.

That may be so, but Kathleen Parker says that might not matter:

Is anyone really going to change his or her mind based on what the candidates say Monday as opposed to what they said last week? Trump lovers are set in stone, as are Clinton haters. That’s one voting bloc. Clinton supporters (I don’t think there are many lovers around) are solid and entrenched, as are those who find Trump utterly unfit to be president.

It’s all over but for showing up at the polls.

Everyone expects politicians to lie. Take it from there.

Cramming for the Finals

You either know your stuff or you don’t. That’s how some of us approached finals in college, a long time ago. There was no point in cramming – if you’d been paying attention, and thinking, all term, all possible answers to all possible questions were already in your head. If they weren’t, there was no way to force-feed them in there in an all-night session or two. They wouldn’t stick anyway. If you hadn’t been engaged in the subject for four months, because you were always thinking of other things, it really was impossible to suddenly find it all fascinating and think deep thoughts about whatever it was. You can’t fake fascination with what actually bores you – so some of us played pool during finals week, and aced all our finals. It was just another day in class. Those who crammed barely got by, at best.

Of course there were the obsessive-compulsives, those who knew their stuff but crammed anyway. A good night’s sleep before each final would have served them better, but some people have to make sure they’ve got everything exactly right. Nothing would be left to chance. They had a plan for every possible contingency – and bloodshot eyes – and they did just fine anyway. They were unpleasant tight-ass people, but understandable. It takes all kinds – and then there were the snide goofballs. They didn’t give a shit about economics or literature or chemistry or whatever the course had been about. They hadn’t studied all term and they weren’t about to cram now. They’d take their chances with their quick wit and charm. Things would work out. They’d do fine – and sometimes they did do fine. More often than not – they didn’t. People tend to overestimate their quick wit and charm. Those were generally the rich kids whose parents had covered for them for years. They mistook that for their own personal wonderfulness. They were irritating too.

They wouldn’t ever change, and the obsessive-compulsives would also never change, and as the first presidential debate approaches, Hillary Clinton is the needlessly obsessive-compulsive, cramming for the big night, and Donald Trump is the snide goofball, the rich kid who knows he’ll always do fine, because he always has, blowing it off.

The New York Times lays it out:

Hillary Clinton is determined to get under Donald J. Trump’s skin at Monday’s debate, and is testing attack lines to try to rattle him.

Mr. Trump is largely shunning traditional debate preparations, but has been watching video of Mrs. Clinton’s best and worst debate moments, looking for her vulnerabilities.

She’s cramming and he isn’t:

Mrs. Clinton has a thick dossier on Mr. Trump after months of research and meetings with her debate team, including analysis and assumptions about his psychological makeup that Clinton advisers described as critical to understanding how to knock Mr. Trump off balance. Mrs. Clinton has concluded that catching Mr. Trump in a lie during the debate is not enough to beat him: She needs the huge television audience to see him as temperamentally unfit for the presidency, and that she has the power to unhinge him.

Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last-minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he wrote it.

He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.

We all remember that guy from college, and that determines their preparations:

Clinton:

She is mentally readying herself for multiple Trumps: the disciplined opponent who sticks to big themes, the no-holds-barred adversary who goes on the offensive, and the snide antagonist who calls her a “loser” to her face. Her advisers are hurling a host of Trumpian assaults and counterattacks at her to test her responses and adjust them as needed.

Mrs. Clinton is eager to play offense and try to get under his skin, by doing things like calling him “Donald” and questioning his net worth.

Yet she is also testing out whether and how to interrupt Mr. Trump, as she does not want to be seen as pushy and play into gender stereotypes. In practice sessions, she has come across best when she waits to pounce confidently on Mr. Trump for lying or misstating facts, rather than trying to talk over him.

Trump:

He does not like practicing an answer over and over until it is letter-perfect and appropriately brief. But this weekend’s work will be geared to running through questions while Mr. Trump is on his feet and aware of a countdown timer when he is speaking.

His advisers will try to throw him off balance, and measure his response to possible Clinton jabs like “You’re lying, Donald.”

He believes debates are not won or lost on policy minutiae since most viewers will not remember them in an hour. His advisers see it as a waste of time to try to fill his head with facts and figures. Instead, they want him to practice staying focused on big-picture themes (jobs, terrorism, protecting the homeland and closing borders, “Make America Great Again”) rather than picking fights on side issues or taking the bait from Mrs. Clinton.

She’ll know the subject matter and he won’t, but he assumes his quick wit and charm are what really matters.

Jonathan Chait puts that this way:

There are two ways to read today’s New York Times report from Donald Trump’s debate preparations, or lack thereof. One is that Trump’s advisers are deliberately setting expectations at rock bottom, so the media will proclaim him the winner if he can merely remain upright for the entire time. A second possibility is that they have come to the horrifying realization that their candidate is delusional, uninformed, lazy, and utterly unsuited to the presidency, and they’re hoping without evidence that these traits can somehow be hidden from the viewing public.

The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. In either case, Trump’s advisers are advertising that their candidate is a man-child. Trump cannot read and must be shown videos instead…

His own campaign did tell the New York Times that Trump is not doing much more than watching video of Clinton’s “best and worst debate moments” and only skims briefing materials, if he reads them at all, and he won’t even practice standing still:

He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers … He prefers not to do a full-length mock debate, and has no set person playing Mrs. Clinton.

He is not using a lectern for mock debate drills, despite suggestions from some on his coaching team that simulating a one-on-one debate is good practice after the primary debates that featured several rivals …

Some Trump advisers are concerned that he underestimates the difficulty of standing still, talking pointedly and listening sharply for 90 minutes.

And he may be uncontrollably abusive:

His instinct in debates is often to attack and insult opponents, which had an upside during the circuslike primary debates but could be grating during a 90-minute one-on-one debate.

Chait also notes that Trump’s attention span is so limited that his advisers have given up on getting him to focus on preparation and simply hope he can pay attention throughout the actual debate:

Mr. Trump can get bored with both debate preparations and debates themselves. His advisers have been reinforcing the importance of listening and focusing on every word Mrs. Clinton says and looking for ways to counterattack.

And there’s this:

He may not like debate preparations, but he is very competitive and wants to vanquish Mrs. Clinton on Monday night. His team has been emphasizing the best ways to win: Do not pick stupid fights with her or with the moderator; explain yourself rather than get defensive; and deliver the answers you want rather than worrying about directly answering the question.

Chait thinks that’s pathetic:

If Trump is legitimately as stupid, lazy, and childlike as his advisers portray him to be, they should stop helping him get through the debate and instead warn America not to let him become president.

Maybe so, but Jonathan Freedland sees this:

So low are expectations for his performance on Monday – where it is assumed that his opponent, a seasoned debater, will wipe the floor with him – that if Trump manages to speak in vaguely coherent sentences and not deliver a misogynist insult to Clinton’s face, his advocates will declare that he looked “presidential” and anoint him the winner. If he can somehow persuade wavering voters that he is not so ridiculous as to merit automatic disqualification, he will have cleared a crucial hurdle.

And for all her experience, Clinton heads towards this first, and therefore most important, debate facing some serious obstacles. She’s been advised that she mustn’t interrupt too much or talk over Trump: apparently voters react badly to seeing a woman act that way. According to a New York Times report well sourced from inside Hillary’s debate preparation team, “she does not want to be seen as pushy and play into gender stereotypes”. This was not something Barack Obama, or husband Bill, ever had to worry about.

And she has other problems:

If she calls him a liar, he’ll hit back over her use of a private email server, calling her Crooked Hillary, knowing that some 60% of Americans believe she’s dishonest. The risk is that he’ll use her experience and expertise against her, casting her as the boring know-it-all against the freewheeling, entertaining guy who relies on good old gut instinct.

If that sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a show we’ve already seen. In 2000 Al Gore was clearly the more accomplished, ready-for-office candidate. But he came across as impatient and pompous against the looser, backslapping George W Bush. Never mind that one was a visionary on the issue of climate change while the other would lead the US into the catastrophic invasion of Iraq. On the night, Bush came across better on TV.

Which brings us to a core problem facing Hillary Clinton: Polls show there are millions of voters, especially young ones, who agree in big numbers that Trump is a racist and a sexist, unqualified for America’s highest office – but who are refusing to back Clinton. One survey of 18- to 34-year-olds recorded dire numbers for Trump, but still found only 31% supporting Clinton, with 29% preferring libertarian Gary Johnson and 15% the Green candidate Jill Stein. If those numbers are replicated on Election Day, Trump will win.

This too stirs queasy memories of 2000. In that year, a small but significant bloc on the left voted for Ralph Nader instead of Gore. More than 90,000 voted for Nader in Florida, a state Gore was eventually deemed to have lost by just 537 votes. Had even a tiny fraction of those Naderites decided to hold their nose and choose Gore instead, there would have been no Bush presidency – and no Iraq war.

And that’s not sour grapes:

You might think this is all so obvious that it barely needs stating. But 2000 can seem like ancient history to those who don’t remember it. And here, younger voters are not to blame. Older liberals haven’t seared the Bush calamity into the minds of the next generation. They never turned 2000 into a cautionary tale of the cost of third-party indulgence. As the New Republic put it this week, “Liberals have failed to teach millennials about the horror of George W Bush.”

So now even though the hour is late this is the case Democrats must make – that this is an exceptional election because Donald Trump represents an exceptional menace, to America and to the world. It is indeed a referendum on Trump and the only way to vote no in that referendum is to vote Clinton. She may not be the candidate of your dreams, but she’s all that stands between you and an American nightmare.

You don’t have to love her. You don’t even have to like her. You’re not saying she’s flawless (though the current Democratic platform is its most progressive in 30 years, thanks in part to the challenge of Bernie Sanders). As Joe Biden puts it, “Don’t compare her to the Almighty. Compare her to the alternative.” And the alternative is President Trump.

Still, she should worry, except that Marissa Payne notes that Clinton has a secret weapon:

Donald Trump critic Mark Cuban won’t be on stage during Monday’s first presidential debate between his nemesis and Hilary Clinton, but he’ll be pretty darn close: The Dallas Mavericks owner announced that he scored front-row seats to the spectacle at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

Cuban tweeted about it Thursday night, and a Clinton campaign aide later confirmed the news to CNN – “Just got a front row seat to watch @HillaryClinton overwhelm @realDonaldTrump at the Humbling at Hofstra on Monday. It Is On!”

“He has the best seat we have access to,” the aide told the cable news network Thursday. “Cuban has proven to be singularly effective in making the case against Trump and for Clinton. That is why we invited him.”

Well, Cuban has been a pain in the ass to Trump:

Cuban has repeatedly questioned Trump’s qualifications, most memorably calling him “batshit crazy” at a July campaign event in Pittsburgh, where he also formally endorsed Clinton.

“Trump scares me,” Cuban said (via CNN) directly after addressing the crowd. “Donald, initially, I really hoped he would be something different, that as a businessperson, I thought there was an opportunity there. But then he went off the reservation.”

In his latest effort to dog Trump, Cuban offered Trump $10 million to the charity of his choice in exchange for an uninterrupted four-hour interview about Trump’s policies that would supposedly “make America great again.” Trump, who has been notoriously tight-lipped about laying out specific plans for the country, has so far declined that offer.

This could be good:

Cuban hasn’t specified whether he’ll try to speak with Trump at the debate on Monday, but one thing’s probably certain: We’re all hoping there will be an intense stare-down, judging from the boxing allusions he included in his tweet on Thursday (“It Is On!”).

That’ll be interesting, but Andy Borowitz offers this:

At a campaign rally on Friday, Donald Trump warned that Hillary Clinton is scheming to “rig the debate by using facts” in their first televised face-off, on Monday.

“You just watch, folks,” Trump told supporters in Toledo, Ohio. “Crooked Hillary is going to slip in little facts all night long, and that’s how she’s going to try to rig the thing.”

“It’s a disgrace,” he added.

The billionaire drew a sharp contrast between himself and the former Secretary of State by claiming that his debate prep “involved no facts whatsoever.”

“I am taking a pledge not to use facts at the debate,” he said, raising his right hand. “I challenge Crooked Hillary to take that pledge.”

He also warned that unless CNN, which is hosting the debate, promises to forbid the use of facts, he might pull out of Monday’s contest. “I’m only going to debate if I’m treated fairly, and facts don’t treat me fairly,” he said.

At CNN, a spokesperson assured Trump that the network would do everything in its power to keep the debate “as free of facts as possible.”

“We have a well-established practice at CNN,” the spokesperson said. “If the candidates start straying into facts, data, or other verifiable information, we have instructed the moderators to cut them off.”

That’s satire, or perhaps not. It’s hard to tell these days, but Kathleen Parker thinks that everyone is making too much of this first debate:

Is there anyone left in America who doesn’t know what each candidate thinks and what they’re going to say?

The only surprise would be if Trump were suddenly fluent in policy particulars and Clinton started making faces and giving the thumbs-up every time she thought she was winning.

Is anyone really going to change his or her mind based on what the candidates say Monday as opposed to what they said last week? Trump lovers are set in stone, as are Clinton haters. That’s one voting bloc. Clinton supporters (I don’t think there are many lovers around) are solid and entrenched, as are those who find Trump utterly unfit to be president.

It’s all over but for showing up at the polls.

This is not some college final:

It will be a popcorn-and-brew event – entertainment pure and simple. To the extent there’s a contest, it will be one of senior superlatives. Who’s smartest? Funniest? Quickest? Deepest? Most important, whose voice do you want to listen to for the next four years?

Questions of substance – who is going to keep us safe, build our economy, stanch the flow of immigrants, rally the troops, protect the innocent and elderly – have been asked hundreds of times in a variety of forums…

Everything you need to know for Monday’s debate, you learned in high school – how to size up a person, get their gist, seek their weak spot and watch closely how they handle themselves in the tightest sort of squeeze – exposed as 200 million eyeballs (that’s assuming two per person) are watching.

That’s about it:

Showing viewers who they really are is all that’s left. This, I think, is where people are today. The moderator who can get to the core of the individual rather than simply elicit yet another rote recitation of either facts or nonsense, as the case may be, will have provided a public service indeed.

So who are Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?

We know their résumés. We know their histories. We know their foibles and weaknesses. But do we know their characters? Clinton has asked who the American people want to answer that 3 a.m. call. In past campaigns, other questions have arisen. With whom would you leave your children? With whom would you like to grab a beer?

These are somewhat silly questions, obviously, but human beings aren’t so terribly complex after all. Most people think they’re pretty good judges of character. Most times, they can’t put a finger on what precisely tips the scale or sends the signal that this or that person is a mover or a maker.

It may be a simple gesture, a slight movement at a specific time, a tightening of the jaw, a sag of the shoulder, eyes that can’t stay with you. Or it can be something more discreet – an absence of presence, a missing something you sense rather than see.

Parker argues that people will watch, not listen – so no amount of cramming on policy will work, nor will all the contingency planning, either way, on what to do if the other says this or that. This is one of those finals where the best preparation may be to shoot some pool and catch up on your sleep. You know your stuff or you don’t – it’s too late now to do anything about that. The snide rich kid will try to get by on his quick wit and charm, even if that means he won’t look “presidential” – and the obsessive-compulsive policy wonk will try to look loose and open and pleasant, but she’s still a wonk. And they will each be judged on other things, to be determined. That’s how the American people will grade the first of these three final exams. There’s no way to prepare for that.

The Absurd Choice

There’s no quick fix. There’s no good choice. In November it will be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. She’s plodding and conventional, if not a bit boring, with an extensive list of quite reasonable detailed policy positions that no one reads, and she’s defensive about the few bone-headed mistakes she made in all her years in public service. That defensiveness seems to be a red flag to voters, but Donald Trump is absurd. He’s never held public office and knows nothing about public policy or, really, about how the world works. He’s a reality show star who used to be a real estate developer but now sells his name to anyone who wants to put it on their product, which has made him richer than he was when he started out, which was pretty damned rich in the first place – and he’s on trial for fraud about his fake university, and now in legal trouble over his fake foundation. And of course two thirds of Americans think he doesn’t have the “temperament” to be president – he could get us all killed. Every week there seems to be another letter from a hundred former diplomats or whatever, saying this guy is totally unfit to be president – but at least he’s not defensive. He says he’s a genius. Trust him on that.

That’s the choice. America is free to choose one or the other, but that’s an absurd choice, in an existential way, if you remember your Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Sartre’s primary idea is that people are “condemned to be free” – and that’s a bitch. We have to make up our own meaning, by what we choose. The world is indifferent to the individual – there’s no external help for you, sorry. You’ve got to figure it out on your own. He wrote of Nausea and then of Being and Nothingness – and Camus wrote of absurdity, using the metaphor of the Myth of Sisyphus – the guy condemned to roll the same big rock up the same big hill forever. That damned rock rolled back down each time, so Sisyphus had to roll it up that hill again. It’s absurd, but life is like that. You cannot choose not to roll the rock up the hill. That would be giving up entirely, accepting a life of not doing anything at all, thus not being anything at all. So here, now, you have to vote for one of these two, even if that damned rock rolls down the hill again and nothing is ever any better.

The existentialists weren’t a cheery lot. They specialized in ennui – they’d seen it all and weren’t going to be fooled by this or that enthusiasm that had claimed to be the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything – and maybe that’s a French thing, or a universal thing. At Amazon there are three pages of products with the logo “I Already Hate Our Next President” – on mugs, t-shirts, tank tops, hoodies and infant onesies. Indulge your inner Sisyphus. There’s no good choice.

Trump, however, may be the worse choice, and Daniel Drezner, that professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts, cheers himself up by arguing that Trump won’t win:

At a moment when the American populace no longer trusts itself (or, rather, other Americans), why am I so calm that things will work out?

My model of this election is that Trump has a rigid core of supporters but also a hard ceiling on that support. Clinton has more voter support but also more “soft” support. These are voters who become easily disaffected when she has a bad news cycle or two. (It’s also possible that those on the left get disaffected when she appeals to moderate Republicans and vice versa.) So when the race looks close, it’s not because Trump is attracting Clinton voters, it’s because possible Clinton voters are not feeling all that good about Clinton and might choose not to vote – or answer a pollster.

In this way, the very tightening of the race prevents Trump from winning. There is a bevy of voters who are not jazzed by Clinton but are petrified by a Trump presidency. Once polls start to show that it’s close, they will decide to vote for Clinton or say so in a poll. When the lead expands, they get more complacent and disaffected by Clinton’s flaws.

Given the good recent economic news – and the failure of terrorism threats to benefit Trump – my baseline of the 2016 election is that any tightening of the race creates endogenous effects that prevent Trump from taking the lead.

That’s an interesting theory, backed up by this:

There are a few additional factors that make me even more confident about a Clinton victory:

Contra Trump’s claims that he will change the map by bringing out lots of new voters, none of the data I have seen suggest that this is true. There’s no hidden “reserve army” of Trump supporters in places such as Connecticut or Oregon.

Although Trump has surged in places such as Ohio and Florida, recent polling in crucial swing states for Clinton’s bare-minimum electoral path to 270 continue to show her with a comfortable margin of victory.

I’m assuming that Clinton’s vastly superior ground game and data operation will give her a boost of one to three percentage points above the polling averages, which could make the difference in places such as North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.

The last major moment endogenous to the campaign, when Trump can overtake Clinton, is the debates. And I think Clinton’s extensive debating experience, combined with her recent one-on-one debates with Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, leaves her far better prepared than Trump.

On that he cites James Fallows:

Significantly, Clinton, unlike Trump, comes to this fall’s debates as a veteran of five one-on-one debates with Sanders (plus five in the 2008 election cycle against just Barack Obama after John Edwards dropped out, and three against Rick Lazio in her 2000 Senate race). Donald Trump, by contrast, has not been through even one head-to-head live debate. After the multiplayer scrum of the early Republican field, the smallest field he ever faced was Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Marco Rubio in Miami in the very last GOP debate. These are entirely different experiences: facing one person, with a moderator, versus being part of a crowd. With three or more contenders onstage, each participant is mainly fighting for airtime and looking for chances to get in planned zingers. …

In a head-to-head debate, participants know they will get enough airtime. The question becomes how they use it. Example of the difference: In several of the GOP debates, Trump went into a kind of hibernation when the talk became too specific or policy-bound, letting John Kasich or Marco Rubio have the microphone. It didn’t matter, because he’d have a chance to come back with a one-liner – “We’re gonna win so much.” In debates like the ones this fall, it will be harder to answer some questions and ignore others.

Drezner finds comfort in that:

Trump’s best chance of persuading voters to back him over Clinton is in a venue where Clinton is far more likely to shine.

So that’s how I’m thinking about this election right now. Maybe there’s some motivated reasoning in there in which my brain, believing that Trump would be an unmitigated disaster as a president, can’t possibly, actually win. But until something happens that alters those assumptions of mine. I’m still feeling copacetic.

Good for him, but Catherine Rampell notes this:

Millennials are souring on Hillary Clinton. Again.

Not that they were ever so sweet on her to begin with, at least relative to how they swooned over other Democrats. Both Bernie Sanders in the recent primary campaign, and Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 general elections, received far more love from young voters. But in any case, Clinton’s already weak millennial support has gotten much weaker in the past month.

The polls show that:

Quinnipiac, for example, found last month that Clinton had a big fat 24-point lead over Donald Trump among 18-to-34-year-old voters (48 percent to 24 percent). Now that margin has shriveled to just five percentage points (with Clinton at 31 percent, Trump at 26 percent).

Nationwide Fox News polls of registered voters also found that Clinton’s lead has narrowed to nine points, from 27 points in late July and early August. And a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times national poll has Clinton’s August lead not only disappearing but reversing, with Trump now ahead among millennials by six points. There were outliers, but the trend was clear.

Polls in battleground states have likewise shown Clinton’s lead among millennial voters shrinking. In Michigan, for example, Clinton’s 24-point August lead among young voters has shriveled to just seven points. Clinton has just 31 percent of the youth vote there, compared with Trump’s 24 percent.

Then add the complication:

In most of these polls, the young supporters ditching Clinton seem to be shifting not to Trump but to third-party candidates, particularly Libertarian Gary Johnson. The Michigan poll has Johnson tied with Trump; the national Quinnipiac poll actually has Johnson slightly ahead of Trump among under-35 voters.

These trends have been met with liberal teeth-gnashing and garment-rending, plus a lot of sanctimonious scolding of Kids These Days. How dare these ungrateful young hooligans turn their backs on the only serious candidate who actually cares about their issues! Are they really too young to remember the horrors that resulted when Ralph Nader played the spoiler in 2000? Quoth one columnist, “I know you’re young, but grow up!”

That happens when there’s no good choice, but Clinton is fighting back:

That means a flurry of college visits, including from progressive heartthrobs such as Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama. The Clinton campaign explicitly advertised these events as an appeal to prodigal young voters.

The surrogate speeches haven’t always gone according to plan, though. Obama’s speech at George Mason University was at one point met with chants of “four more years” – her stumping apparently got the crowd pumped for the wrong politician.

The Clinton campaign has thus also been desperately seeking coverage in millennial-tailored media. She whipped up an inane essay for Mic titled “Hillary Clinton: Here’s What Millennials Have Taught Me.” (The lesson: Millennials are totes awesome.) And she sat for an awkward, if amusing, interview on “Between Two Ferns” with actor Zach Galifianakis.

This seems pretty hopeless, but there’s a hopeful explanation:

Several recent polls, anyway, suggest that younger voters are much more likely to see a Clinton presidency as a fait accompli. Per Quinnipiac, 71 percent of voters younger than 35 believe Clinton will win in November; just 49 percent of voters older than 65 believe the same. YouGov also finds that 58 percent of voters under 30 expect a Clinton victory, versus 47 percent of those over 65.

If you believe a Clinton presidency is inevitable, then casting a ballot for a third-party candidate probably doesn’t feel like it has much consequence. It’s a mere protest vote, a victimless expressive gesture, like angrily tweeting into the void, kneeling during the national anthem or, I don’t know, sending unhinged hate mail to unsuspecting columnists.

But that’s not harmless:

A tighter race – one, ironically, made tighter largely because of millennial defections from the Clinton camp – changes the calculus. It’s riskier to “throw away” your vote, either by supporting someone who has no chance of winning or by abstaining from the polls altogether.

But not to worry:

See, millennials may not adore Clinton, but they really, really hate Trump. Six in 10 young voters view him “strongly” unfavorably, and the same-share describes him as “racist.” Don’t be surprised if their third-party crushes start to fade as the prospect of President Trump begins to feel all too terrifyingly real.

That can be put another way. There’s no good choice, there never is, but some things are simply unacceptable.

John Judis, however, examines how Hillary Clinton made herself a bad choice:

If I had to bet on this election, I’d still put my money on Hillary Clinton. But there is a big question about why she is not doing better. When presidential candidates face opponents who can’t even command the support of their party’s leadership and leading interest groups, it’s usually landslide time. Think of Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Richard Nixon against George McGovern in 1972. And Trump has less support in his party’s leadership than either Goldwater or McGovern had. Yet if the polls are to be believed, the race between Clinton and Trump is close.

I don’t accept some of the explanations proffered by her supporters: that the media tilts toward Trump or that there is a silent majority of racists and sexists in America. I think she does suffer from representing the party that has controlled the White House for the last eight years and for 16 of the last 24. In these cases, voters accumulate grievances with a long half-life that affect their view of the current candidate. And the candidate finds it difficult to advocate dramatic change without appearing to repudiate her predecessors.

All that may be so, but Judis argues that the real problem is that Hillary Clinton has turned herself into Michael Dukakis:

Beyond not wanting her opponent to be president, I have my reasons for supporting Clinton – and they begin with Supreme Court nominations – but I can’t think of three positive reasons why the average voter would support Clinton. Her own ads have been almost entirely devoted to warning about a Trump presidency, which is why complaints from her camp that the media devotes too much attention to Trump run hollow. Voters want to know what she really wants to do as president.

When I presented this conundrum to a friend, he pointed me to Clinton’s website, where there are detailed proposals on 38 issues – from climate change and campus sexual assault to HIV and AIDS and protecting animals and wildlife. But that’s not really what I mean by standing for something.

Political campaigns are thematic. They are not about detailed proposals. That’s what governing is partly about, although politics is crucial to governing, too. The most successful campaigns can be summed up in slogans and simple demands. I think of Ronald Reagan in 1980, George H. W. Bush in 1988 (who had to face the third term problem), Bill Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama in 2008. These campaigns had easily remembered slogans — yes we can, compassionate conservatism, putting people first, kinder, gentler nation, making America great again (Reagan and Trump) and they had simple programmatic proposals – end welfare as we know it, an across the board 33 percent tax cut, read my lips; no new taxes, withdraw from Iraq, and not a dime from special interests.

Trump’s campaign is very much along these lines, which is one reason he has gotten this far. Clinton’s is not. Nor was that of Dukakis (competence, not ideology) who at one point in the summer of 1988 was 17 percentage points up on Bush.

It seems she forgot the one thing that matters:

What a candidate is against is as important as what a candidate is for. And I am not referring to being against your opponent. It’s a simple principle of linguistics. Positives are defined by negatives, and vice versa. As the philosopher John Austin once remarked, what “real” means depends on whether it is being used in opposition to being toy, artificial, virtual, insincere, or apparent. Franklin Roosevelt was famously against “economic royalists,” Reagan was against “welfare queens” and the “evil empire.” Presidential candidates can’t declare too many enemies for fear of losing votes. Clinton dumping Trump’s supporters into a “basket of deplorables” certainly wasn’t good politics. But if candidates have no enemies, their message becomes fuzzy.

Judis gives an example of that:

Compare for a moment Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton’s response to the consumer fraud perpetrated by Wells Fargo. During Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf’s appearance before the Senate Finance Committee, Warren told Stumpf, “You should resign. You should give back the money that you took while this scam was going on, and you should be criminally investigated by both the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

By contrast, Clinton’s response was an open letter to Wells Fargo customers. “I was deeply disturbed when, last week, we found out that Wells Fargo had engaged in widespread illegal practices over many years… Today, Wells Fargo’s CEO will appear before Congress. He owes all of you a clear explanation as to how this happened under his watch. There is simply no place for this kind of outrageous behavior in America.”

Clinton then went on to present a raft of proposals for reforming the banking system.

Here’s one:

First, we need to defend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau… Second, we need real consequences when firms on Wall Street break the law…it’s frustrating that a bank can simply pay a fine and keep doing business as usual – with massive compensation for the executives responsible. That compensation should be clawed back. I’ve put forward an agenda to enhance accountability on Wall Street. Executives should be held individually accountable when rampant illegal activity happens on their watch. .. Third, we need to make sure that no financial institution is too big to manage. I’ll put additional safeguards in place to address the risks that the big banks continue to pose to our system. .. I’ll appoint regulators who will stand with taxpayers and consumers, not with big banks and their friends in Congress.

Judis:

These are reasonable proposals, but they belong in a transition committee’s report on financial reform. Did Clinton expect that many of Wells Fargo’s customers would actually read this letter? By not singling out Stumpf and not taking the kind of tough stance that Warren did, Clinton missed a golden opportunity to tell voters what she really cared about – and do so without alienating a significant bloc of voters. And it certainly wouldn’t have put her at odds with Obama. I simply don’t understand why Clinton and her campaign took a pass, but it’s more or less characteristic of her campaign, and it is one important reason Trump has pulled close to her in the polls.

She is kind of hopeless:

Clinton and her campaign do see a problem. They recently put out a positive (non-Trump) ad showing, in the campaign’s words, “Hillary Clinton’s lifelong record fighting for children and families.” But I’m not sure that kind of ad does the trick. Sure, she’s for families and children, but the ad lacks any edge and dramatic demand and there isn’t an enemy lurking in the back yard that needs to be slain. Will average voters, after seeing this ad, feel Clinton cares about their own family and children? I doubt it.

Clinton’s got demographics on her side in this election, and she’s facing a damaged opponent. She should win. But by this time, she should be well ahead, as Johnson was in 1964 and Nixon in 1972, but she’s not, and I think some of the fault lies in the kind of campaign she and her advisors are running.

She could have made herself the one good choice this time around, and somehow couldn’t, perhaps because she is plodding and conventional, and rightfully defensive after all the years of mostly bullshit attacks, but Heather Parton argues that this year was just not her year:

In recent days we’ve seen most prescriptions directed at the Hillary Clinton campaign, as the always nervous Democrats are waking up the startling reality that the flamboyant, white nationalist demagogue on the other side might just pull this off. And they have as many different ideas as there were GOP all-stars Donald Trump smoked in the primaries. These range from “She needs to take the fight to Trump and call him out” to “She should attack the Republican officials who endorse him” to “She should stop attacking him and lay out a positive policy agenda so people have a reason to vote for her” – which, to be fair, sounds like a good idea.

But the question is, if someone lays out a positive policy agenda and nobody hears it, did it really happen?

That was never going to work:

It’s an old truism that negative campaigning works, so it’s no surprise that Clinton’s campaign would try to leverage Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric against him. But there is plenty of positive material out there as well. It’s just the press isn’t interested, and there isn’t a lot of evidence that the voters are either. This doesn’t seem to be that kind of election.

The armchair strategists who think a more positive, uplifting message is what Hillary Clinton needs to put this election away may be right. But the question is whether anyone could hear such a message above the din of cynicism and negativity that characterizes the coverage of this campaign.

That din of cynicism and negativity has created what Sartre and Camus would have called an absurd world, one where there are no good choices. What can one do? Push that rock up that hill, even if it rolls down again. To do nothing is to disappear. And you can always buy that “I Already Hate Our Next President” shirt.

Back To the Real Issue

This election was going to be about terrorism, or at least the upcoming first presidential debate was going to be about terrorism, because an unhinged lone bomber decided he wanted to do that ISIS thing and set off a few bombs here and there. He may have been motivated by an extremist Islamic ideology, but the FBI and CIA and all the rest are having a hard time connecting him to any of the groups of the bad guys anywhere in the world. He was a fan-boy. He had once stabbed his own brother. His parents had called the cops on him more than once. His wife had left him. He wasn’t good at anything, even terrorism. He did relatively little damage and he represented no one. Still, this was a “terrorist” attack, and Trump and Clinton each said what they’d do about terrorism, and why they were right and the other was dead wrong, as a warmup to what they’d say at the first debate – the same thing, only more dramatically.

Forget that. With Donald Trump being a bit of a white nationalist, this election was always going to be about “the other” – Muslims and Mexicans, or all Hispanics that aren’t Cuban-American Republicans from Miami, and about the Black Lives Matter folks who presumably want to kill all cops, and loathe Donald Trump. There’s no way to “make America great again” with those folks around. One flaky terrorist bomber was a small subset of all that. America understood what Trump was getting at. Get rid of these folks. Many agreed with him.

Terrorism wasn’t what was on people’s minds. It always comes down to race, and now, in Charlotte, it was back to this main issue, as the city just exploded:

A man was shot and critically injured during a second violent night of protests here, after two sharply divergent accounts emerged of the death of a black man at the hands of police.

A march of a few hundred people turned chaotic after protesters attempted to follow police in riot gear into the lobby of an uptown hotel. Officers used tear gas, and then a reporter heard one gunshot and saw a man lying in the street near the hotel entrance.

Medics said he was taken to a local hospital with injuries they said were “life-threatening”; officials used the city of Charlotte’s Twitter account to confirm he had died in what they said was “a civilian on civilian confrontation.”

He hadn’t died – they later corrected that – he was only on “life support, critical condition” – as if that mattered. They had an outraged mob on their hands, perhaps the first of many to come:

Marchers used outdoor seating to break the windows of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, which then barricaded its doors.

In the aftermath of the Tuesday afternoon death of Keith Lamont Scott, anger in the streets turned to looting and arson, and North Carolina’s largest city joined the list of communities across the country that have erupted amid a growing debate on racial bias in policing.

In Tulsa, meanwhile, protesters called for the arrest of the officer involved in a fatal shooting of a black man there on Friday. President Obama called the mayors of both cities to offer his condolences and pledge help, the White House announced.

Forget that incompetent lone bomber, as there are bigger issues:

To date, law enforcement officials have fatally shot 702 people this year, 163 of them black men, according to a Washington Post database tracking fatal police shootings. A growing divide in public rhetoric over that toll has been stoked by a summer of high-profile deaths captured on social media and the deadly assaults on police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. The latest encounters come as the presidential race has tightened, and both candidates have offered different positions and solutions.

At a news conference Wednesday, Charlotte police insisted that Scott had a gun and was posing an “imminent deadly threat” when officers shot him outside an apartment complex near the campus of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Scott’s family, however, said he was unarmed when he was killed and was instead reading a book in his car while waiting to pick up his child from school – a detail that quickly went viral on social media and was seized upon by protesters here.

Officers were searching for another man, a suspect with outstanding warrants, when they spotted Scott emerging from a vehicle and armed with a handgun, police said.

That’s what they say, but now no one trusts anyone in North Carolina. The Republican governor and his Republican legislature changed the voter-ID laws and the time-and-place rules about who gets to vote and when, and were told by the courts this was a laughable attempt to keep black voters from the polls, and that they had to stop that right now, and the state refuses to stop. That raised tensions, and this latest police shooting sent things over the top:

In the first hours after the shooting, a large crowd gathered near the university, some chanting “black lives matter” and “hands up, don’t shoot.” As the protest grew in size and anger, police appeared in riot gear and fired tear gas and rubber bullets. Some protesters began smashing the windows of police cars.

By early Wednesday, demonstrators had shut down traffic on Interstate 85. Some opened the backs of tractor-trailers, took out boxes and set them on fire in the middle of the highway, according to local news reports. A truck driver told news station WSOC that people stole cargo from her trailer.

A few dozen appeared to have broken into a nearby Walmart, then dispersed when authorities arrived.

Among the 16 officers hurt in the violence, one was hit in the face with a rock, authorities said. At least 11 people were taken from the demonstrations and treated for life-threatening injuries, hospital officials said. Police reportedly used flash grenades to break up the crowd, clearing the highway by early morning.

Those elsewhere might have been surprised by all this, but no one in North Carolina should have been surprised:

This city was the scene of another high-profile police shooting in September 2013, when Charlotte-Mecklenburg officers fatally shot Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old black man who had crashed his car in a residential neighborhood several miles from the complex where Scott was killed.

Officer Randall Kerrick fired 12 rounds at Ferrell, who was unarmed, striking him 10 times. Police said Ferrell ignored officers’ instructions.

Last year, the jury deadlocked during Kerrick’s trial. While most jurors voted to acquit the officer, four voted to convict him. After a judge declared a mistrial, the state said it would not seek another trial. Ferrell’s family and the city of Charlotte settled a lawsuit stemming from the shooting for a reported $2.25 million.

It seems that the anger from that shooting never went away. Some things never go away.

And there was Tulsa:

The family of Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man whose fatal confrontation with the Tulsa, Okla., police was recorded on video, said Tuesday that Mr. Crutcher had posed no threat and that his hands were in the air when he was shot.

“We watch the video and it’s clear to see that Terence did not have a weapon in his hand,” a lawyer for the family, Damario Solomon-Simmons, said at a news conference Tuesday. “It’s clear to see that Terence was not being belligerent.”

The shooting, the family and its lawyers said, was a clear case of excessive force.

Mr. Crutcher, 40, was killed Friday evening on a Tulsa street by an officer identified as Betty Jo Shelby, a five-year veteran of the city’s Police Department. Officer Shelby, who is white, was responding to reports of a tan SUV abandoned in the middle of the road – its motor running, the driver’s door open and the driver nowhere in sight.

The family’s news conference came as the Tulsa police promised a thorough investigation and as a lawyer for Officer Shelby, Scott Wood, defended her actions.

The defense was that she was an expert in spotting people on drugs and decided he was on PCP – which makes people dangerous – so she shot him dead on the spot, in a preemptive way or something. She knew he was on PCP even if no one else did. She just knew it. Trust her.

Good luck with that:

Adrian Colbert, who is African-American, said the shooting occurred near his house, and he referred to the riots in the 1920s, in which white residents killed up to an estimated 300 African-Americans in the city.

“He had his hands up, and they popped him,” Mr. Colbert said. “But that’s something we’re used to. It goes back to 1921. What happens here usually gets swept under the rug.”

So we’re finally back to the real issue, but Donald Trump says he has the answer:

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday called for the broad use of the contentious stop-and-frisk policing strategy in America’s cities, embracing an aggressive tactic whose legality has been challenged and whose enforcement has been abandoned in New York.

His support for the polarizing crime-fighting policy – which involves officers’ questioning and searching pedestrians – collides with his highly visible courtship of African-Americans, who have been disproportionately singled out by the tactic, data show. It also came as police shootings were once again drawing scrutiny and protest.

It’s hard to see what good that would do, but he loves the idea:

Mr. Trump has long championed stop-and-frisk as a crime-fighting tool in his hometown, New York, but on Wednesday he recommended that it be deployed in cities across the country that are struggling to control violence.

It was the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s awkward, and at times counterproductive, outreach to black voters, who polls suggest remain deeply skeptical of him – and it occurred right after a prominent black supporter, Don King, used a racial epithet as he introduced Mr. Trump at a church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

Well, that was awkward:

As Mr. King, the retired boxing promoter, sought to explain how society unfairly categorizes African-Americans, he referred to a “dancing and sliding and gliding nigger,” before quickly correcting himself. “I mean Negro,” he said as Mr. Trump looked on a few feet behind him, grinning.

He didn’t mind the word:

Mr. Trump described his enthusiasm for stop-and-frisk during a town hall-style discussion, also in Cleveland Heights, after a voter pressed him on how he would reduce violence in black communities. “One of the things I’d do,” he said, “is I would do stop-and-frisk. I think you have to. We did it in New York, it worked incredibly well and you have to be proactive.”

The largely white audience erupted into applause.

During the event, hosted by Fox News, Mr. Trump suggested that stop-and-frisk would work well in cities like Chicago, which has been convulsed by gun violence, and Cleveland.

“I see what’s going on here, I see what’s going on in Chicago,” Mr. Trump said before praising the technique again as “incredible.”

Some didn’t think that was incredible:

“The idea of creating a national stop-and-frisk policy is the equivalent of advancing martial law and is beyond the constitutional power of the presidency,” Marc H. Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an email.

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, who has overseen the dismantling of stop-and-frisk as official police policy, said what Mr. Trump was proposing “will simply alienate the very people who we need to be partners in the fight against crime.”

“He does not understand how policing works,” added Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat who is supporting Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump’s Democratic rival for president.

And there’s a history here:

Once credited with significantly reducing murders in urban centers like New York by removing weapons and drugs from the street, it has drawn protests and legal challenges. A federal judge in New York, Shira A. Scheindlin, struck down the tactic as unconstitutional in 2013, saying the way the city was using it violated the rights of minorities.

About 83 percent of the stops in New York from 2004 to 2012 involved blacks and Hispanics, even though those two groups make up just slightly more than 50 percent of the city’s residents.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appealed the judge’s ruling, but after Mr. de Blasio took office the Police Department repudiated the strategy and stopped using it. Mr. de Blasio, who dropped the appeal, has called it a “broken policy.”

Similar complaints dogged the use of stop-and-frisk in Chicago, prompting the Police Department to make an unusual concession: It now allows an independent third party to monitor its use.

The tactic is a bit odd. By fiat, a mayor suspends all the rules about “probable cause” so his cops can stop and search anyone they don’t like the looks of at any time. Any weapon or drugs or whatnot that they find cannot be used as evidence in any court – that’s illegal search and seizure – but the idea is not to charge anyone with any crime. The idea is to harass people so they don’t get any ideas. It’s preventative. If the cops don’t like the look of you, you’ll be frisked. Rudy Giuliani, who now advises Donald Trump, was the one who came up with the idea years ago – and the courts shut that down. It was just a way to harass minorities for no reason at all.

Trump should have known this, but he was having a bad day:

Mr. Trump is drawing historically low support from African-Americans, according to several polls, and he has repeatedly stumbled in his attempts to appeal to them.

He earned ridicule a few weeks ago when he told blacks that “you’re living in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed – what the hell do you have to lose?”

Wednesday was a chance for Mr. Trump to try a different approach, by speaking to black pastors.

But Mr. Trump’s choice of the 85-year-old Mr. King to introduce him was unusual: Mr. King was convicted of manslaughter in 1966, though he was later pardoned; he has been investigated for possible connections to organized crime; and he has no political experience.

Ah, but he is black, isn’t he? Of course he is – but Trump couldn’t catch a break:

The top official in the country’s largest police union tweaked Donald Trump on Wednesday for leaping to blame the police officer who shot an unarmed black man in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Trump last week, and that endorsement still stands, said Jim Pasco, the group’s executive director. But of Trump, said Pasco, “he must be mindful of the due process rights and presumption of innocence accorded to all, including police officers.”

Trump did make a mistake: 

Trump has been reaching out to black voters in recent weeks, and on Wednesday, the Republican presidential nominee said he was “very, very troubled” by Tuesday’s shooting of Terence Crutcher by Officer Betty Shelby, and suggested her inexperience was to blame.

“Now, did she get scared? Was she choking? What happened? But maybe people like that, people that choke, people that do that, maybe they can’t be doing what they’re doing, okay? They can’t be doing what they’re doing,” Trump said at a church in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

“I watched the shooting in particular in Tulsa. And that man was hands up,” Trump continued. “That man went to the car, hands up, put his hand on the car. I mean, to me, it looked like he did everything you’re supposed to do, and he looked like a really good man.”

He shouldn’t have said that: 

Trump’s law-and-order message and unequivocal support for police in other recent confrontations between cops and black men have made him popular with law enforcement, so his criticism of Shelby was an unusual departure.

Clinton has sharply criticized the killings of both Crutcher and Keith Lamont Scott, whose death in Charlotte, N.C., prompted protests even as police said he was armed.

Clinton said that such killings should “become intolerable” and touted the need for reform on Wednesday, and the day before she spoke about “implicit bias” in the context of the Tulsa incident.

That prompted Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway to attack Clinton Wednesday morning, saying on Fox News, “It’s just unbelievable that she would do that before we even know the facts, the details. I think that’s an over-politicization of a situation where we don’t know the facts.”

Conway’s remarks came before Trump’s own suggestion that the officer choked.

Oops. These things are difficult, and there was that other guy:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a prominent Donald Trump adviser, said on Wednesday that Hillary Clinton’s comments saying we need to “tackle systemic racism,” while discussing the police shooting of Terence Crutcher were “a disgrace.”

“She’s a disgrace. She’s a disgrace and those comments are a disgrace,” the New Jersey governor said on the Laura Ingraham Show on Wednesday. “It’s typical of Hillary Clinton. She knows nothing but the mouth never stops. And, the fact is she has no idea what happened in North Carolina. The same way, as you very aptly pointed out Laura, people jumped to conclusions in Ferguson which caused riot cautions in Ferguson, because of politicians dumping gasoline on a fire.”

“And the fact is that she has no experience in law enforcement except for being interviewed by them,” continued Christie.

Hillary’s sin was this:

“We’ve got to tackle systemic racism – this horrible shooting again,” Clinton said. “How many times do we have to see this in our country? In Tulsa, an unarmed man with his hands in the air? I mean, this is just unbearable, and it needs to be intolerable. And so maybe I can, by speaking directly to white people, say, look, this is not who we are.”

“We’ve got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. There are good, honorable, cool-headed police officers,” she continued. “We have seen them in action in New York over the last 48 hours because of the terrorist attacks. We can do better. We have got to rein in what is absolutely inexplicable. And we have got to have law enforcement respect communities and communities respect law enforcement because they have to work together.”

That’s her position. There are good, honorable, cool-headed police officers – support them, and fix the rest. Trump said the same thing, and got slapped down for saying what she said. If the rest of the race is going to be about this issue, race, and not about that sad loser of a bomber, Trump is stuck between common decency and his implicit white nationalism. He may not be able to resolve that conflict.

On the other hand, having law enforcement respect communities and communities respect law enforcement may be out of reach. Ijeoma Oluo addresses that:

When I or any of my black friends discuss issues of police brutality online, we receive a common response: “Well see what happen next time you need the police and they aren’t there to protect you.” But we’ve already seen what happens – it’s our current reality.

Terence Crutcher needed the police when he was killed by them. Veteran Anthony Hill needed the police when he was killed by them. Elliott Williams needed the police but he was instead taunted by them as he slowly died in a jail cell without food and water. Quintonio LeGrier needed the police and had called them three times when he and his neighbor were killed by them. We already live in a world where we can’t call the police when we need them, because we know that there is a good chance that we or our loved ones will be killed for it.

He sees what’s happening:

The police have become even more open in their declarations that they are not here to serve us. They have threatened not to provide police protection to athletes who dare protest police brutality by not standing during the national anthem. They stopped doing their jobs in New York when the mayor dared to question why so many black men have died by their hands. In Seattle, police demanded higher pay and more benefits before they would start implementing measures to stop abusing the public. In West Virginia, they have started firing police officers for not killing black men. The message has been simple: we are not in service for black people, and if you question us, we won’t be in service for you either.

And here we go again:

As grieving black people gathered in the streets to protest yet another killing of a black man by police officers, police in North Carolina made it perfectly clear, once again, that they are not here for us. Charlotte police say Keith Scott was armed when they encountered him while trying to execute a warrant on somebody else. Scott’s family insists that he never carried a gun and was in fact afraid of them. They say that Scott was simply reading a book in his vehicle while waiting for his son’s school bus to arrive. Those who are served by the police may be more likely to believe them over Scott’s family.

But those of us who are not served by the police remember that the gun reportedly found on Che Taylor was traced to a sheriff’s deputy. We remember that officer Michael Slager was caught planting a weapon on the body of Walter Scott after he was shot in the back while running away. We remember that Samuel DuBose was politely interacting with police during a traffic stop when Officer Ray Tensing shot him in the head and then immediately claimed to his superiors that DuBose had tried to run him down. We remember that officers claimed that 19-year-old Laquan McDonald was threatening them with a knife, until video revealed that he was running away from officers when he was shot 16 times.

There’s more, but it comes down to this:

Black Americans know that the police don’t serve us. But who do they serve? And if they serve you, is this really what you asked for?

What kind of country do you want? Now it’s come down to the real issue.

The Right Stuff

The Right Stuff is that 1979 book by Tom Wolfe about the pilots who became the first Project Mercury astronauts – the “Mercury Seven” – brave men who faced incredible unknown danger with utter confidence. Not many can do that – but somehow they knew what to do in totally new circumstances. The 1983 film made that even more dramatic – and the term became how we talk about some magical mixture of toughness and intelligence and ingenuity and insight, applied on the spot, without hesitation. Who has the right stuff? That’s the test of everything now.

This is a test of instincts – the immediate reaction to the unexpected – and it’s a test for politicians too. Who has the right stuff when an unhinged lone bomber decides he wants to do that ISIS thing and set a few off here and there? What is the right stuff?

That’s hard to say, but at least this rather incompetent young “terrorist” was quickly caught and charged:

The man who the authorities say set off powerful bombs in Manhattan and on the Jersey Shore over the weekend planned the attacks for months, conducted a dry run just days before his assault and took inspiration from Osama bin Laden and other international terrorists, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court on Tuesday.

The man, Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28, was charged with several crimes, including use of weapons of mass destruction and bombing a place of public use, and the criminal complaint against him outlines how close the attacks came to causing death and even more destruction…

The complaint offers evidence that Mr. Rahami was motivated by an extremist Islamic ideology that he recorded in a notebook he had with him when he was shot and wounded by the police in Linden, N.J., early on Monday and then taken into custody.

He may have been motivated by an extremist Islamic ideology, but the FBI and CIA and all the rest are having a hard time connecting him to any of the groups of the bad guys anywhere in the world. He was a fan-boy. He had once stabbed his own brother. His parents had called the cops on him more than once. His wife had left him. He wasn’t good at anything, even terrorism. He did relatively little damage. Lock him up. Make sure he takes his meds. Forget about him. Move on.

That’s one instinctive reaction, and here’s another:

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, called for Ahmad Rahami to be placed into indefinite military custody as an “enemy combatant” and interrogated for intelligence purposes, rather than held as a civilian criminal suspect.

As an enemy combatant, Mr. Rahami could be questioned without a lawyer or a Miranda warning that he had the right to remain silent, Mr. Graham argued.

“Holding Rahami as an enemy combatant to determine whether he has ties to terrorist groups, whether he was working for or funded by them, and whether there are co-conspirators, and then trying him in our civilian system for his terrorist acts is the best way to protect our country first, and then achieve justice,” Mr. Graham said in a statement.

Graham’s instinct is that the guy MUST have been working with others, and we should do that “enhanced interrogation” thing and make him spit it all out. That’s the right stuff, or not:

Mr. Graham and other Republicans made a similar call in 2013 after the capture of the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Such a step would face legal scrutiny. Like Mr. Tsarnaev, Mr. Rahami is an American citizen arrested on domestic soil. There is no publicly available evidence suggesting that he is part of Al Qaeda, the specific terrorist group with which the United States is engaged in armed conflict. (The authority to hold someone in wartime detention arises as part of an armed conflict.)

Graham, who was once a military lawyer, a member of the Judge Advocate General, should have realized that, and then he did:

He also acknowledged that if Mr. Rahami is prosecuted, it would have to be in a civilian court, not before a military commission, since the law governing the tribunals does not permit the system to be used against American citizens.

Oops. But he was trying to show his instincts, not his expertise, were in the right place, and Donald Trump was out there saying that Hillary didn’t have the Right Stuff, because her instincts were in the wrong place:

Donald Trump suggested Tuesday that Hillary Clinton is too busy denouncing his supporters as “deplorable” to level the same criticism at countries that harbor Islamic terrorists.

Speaking at High Point University in North Carolina, Trump accused Clinton of reserving her harshest criticism for political opponents, saying the former secretary of state “talks tougher about my supporters than she does about Islamic terrorists.”

“She calls the patriotic Americans who support our campaign, many of them cops and soldiers, deplorable and irredeemable,” he said before launching into a series of questions.

“Has she ever talked that way about radical Islam or about those who oppose and murder women and gays overseas?” he asked, answering himself: “Noooo.”

“In many countries overseas, non-believers face the death penalty. Whether it is Hillary’s condemnation – I mean, where is it? Where is her condemnation of these people?” Trump asked rhetorically. “Where is her condemnation of these countries?”

She won’t condemn whole nations because of this one guy! She’d rather pick on folks who distrust Muslims and Hispanics and gays and are fed up with the Black Live Matter folks and Anderson Cooper. To hell with her!

He was claiming he has better instincts, as the day before it was this:

Donald Trump on Monday offered a confusing explanation for who exactly he was referring to when he said “we’re gonna have to start profiling” after this weekend’s attacks in New York and New Jersey.

His remarks on Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” made clear that anybody who looks like they could be from the Middle East may be targeted. Host Bill O’Reilly asked the GOP nominee to expand on the renewed call for profiling he made earlier Monday on Fox in response to the bombings.

“Another thing that you said that was very controversial is that you want to profile. You want to profile Arab or Muslim men. How would that work?” O’Reilly asked.

That’s a good question, but the answer was all instinct:

“Well, we have no choice,” Trump replied. “Look, Israel does it and Israel does it very successfully.”

“When they see somebody that they would like to talk to, that they would like to look at, that they would maybe like to open up their satchel and take a look inside, they do it,” he continued. “And they don’t like to do it. I don’t like to do it. But we have to be – you know, you have a woman who is 87-years-old in a wheelchair from Sweden and we have to look at her if we’re going to look at somebody else. It’s ridiculous what’s going on.”

Trump repeated his claim that “political correctness” was preventing law enforcement from questioning individuals suspected of terrorist activity.

That wouldn’t do, even on Fox News:

O’Reilly asked how profiling would work in a Trump administration.

“It works,” Trump replied. “Where if we see somebody that we think there could be a problem, at airports and other places, you talk to them and you see what’s going on.”

“But I think they do that now,” O’Reilly replied.

“We don’t do that,” Trump insisted.

Yes, we do, as if it matters. This was a display of awesome test-pilot attitude, like in the Wolfe book – the Right Stuff even if he was wrong about everything – because attitude is everything:

The “bad part” about bombing suspect Ahmad Khan Rahami being captured alive is that now he’ll be treated to “amazing” medical care and an “outstanding” lawyer, Donald Trump said Monday.

After praising the efforts of law enforcement, Trump bemoaned how this “evil thug who planted the bombs” in New York and New Jersey over the weekend is now receiving medical attention after being wounded in a shootout with police earlier in the day.

“But the bad part, now we will give him amazing hospitalization. He will be taken care of by some of the best doctors in the world,” the GOP nominee told the crowd at a rally in Estero, Florida. “He will be given a fully modern and updated hospital room. And he’ll probably even have room service knowing the way our country is.”

Trump added that “on top of all of that, he will be represented by an outstanding lawyer,” saying Rahami’s case would take years to work its way through the criminal justice system until his eventual punishment is diluted.

Of course the Sixth Amendment does ensure the right to a fair and speedy public trial and the right to a lawyer for all criminal defendants, but that doesn’t matter now:

“What a sad situation. We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people,” Trump said, to big cheers from the crowd.

He was wishing for something else, and Slate’s Leon Neyfakh notes this:

During a phone interview with Fox & Friends on Monday, Donald Trump asserted that the law enforcement community is too “afraid to do anything” about terrorism because they don’t want to be accused of “profiling.” Trump stated that “our local police … know who a lot of these people are” but choose not to pursue them because “they don’t want to be accused of all sorts of things.”

Trump’s intended message – which he telegraphed by calling the police “amazing” – was that the culture of political correctness that has taken root in Obama’s America has made it impossible for cops to be as aggressive as they need to be.

Okay, if it weren’t for Obama, our cops, who actually know exactly who these guys are, would grab them off the street, take them out back, and shoot them in the head, and be done with it. Forget arrest for “probable cause” when you “just know” they’re terrorists. We’d all be safe again. Why not free the cops to take care of the problem? Obama doesn’t have the right stuff.

That’s fine, until you think about what Trump really said:

What he actually said is that police officers are aware of terrorists who are plotting attacks but are declining to pursue them because they’re scared…

On Friday, the Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, endorsed Trump for president. What does the union’s executive director, Jim Pasco, think about Trump’s suggestion that his members are so cowed by liberal bed-wetters that they are allowing known terrorists to operate with impunity? Pasco did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There will be no response. The Fraternal Order of Police likes Trump’s attitude. He has the right stuff. The rest is just detail.

Who has the right stuff? Josh Voorhees wonders about that:

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had polar opposite reactions to this weekend’s nonfatal bombings in New York and New Jersey. The Democratic nominee is urging everyone to remain calm and trust the procedures the U.S. government has in place to protect them. The Republican nominee has other ideas. “This,” he predicted Monday, “is only going to get worse.”

It’s easy to guess which of those two responses is going to get more attention from the press and the public.

But that might be good for Clinton:

In this campaign, it’s often been better to be the candidate who voters aren’t thinking about. Political scientists at the University of Virginia, for example, recently took a long look at a daily Gallup tracking poll that asks Americans whether they had heard or seen anything about Clinton and Trump in “the last day or two.” When they compared those results to national polling averages, they found a small inverse correlation between the candidate who more Americans had heard of recently and that same candidate’s standing in the polls. Or, as Larry Sabato and his UVA colleagues put it: “Generally, when the campaign has been more about Trump, he has suffered, and when it’s been more about Clinton, she has suffered.”

Again, the evidence is limited here, and in our two-party system, a story about one candidate is almost always also about the other, at least implicitly. But in a presidential election between the two most disliked candidates in modern history, the hypothesis that most press is bad press makes some sense.

But there are other considerations:

That is not to say that the post-bombing news cycles will necessarily be good news for Clinton. While Trump had been inching ever-closer to her in national polls recently – during a time when her “basket of deplorables” comments and her health were front-page news – the NY/NJ attacks happened as the media’s attention was already shifting to Trump’s rebranded birtherism, as well as comments he made over the weekend about what would happen if Clinton’s Secret Service detail disarmed. It’s possible she would have benefited more if those news cycles had run their course.

Still, given that they didn’t, Clinton’s decision to stand off to the side for now while Trump stands in the center yelling himself hoarse looks to be not only a responsible choice, but a smart one.

Josh Marshall put that more bluntly:

Clinton Message: Be vigilant, not afraid.

Trump Message: Be afraid, also give me credit.

Which is more appealing? Which shows the right stuff? Politico notes that many already think that Clinton has the right stuff:

In a Quinnipiac University poll last week, 49 percent of likely voters said Clinton would do a better job “keeping the country safe from terrorism,” while 47 percent said Trump would do a better job. And in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month, half of registered voters said they trust Clinton more to handle terrorism, more than the 41 percent who trust Trump – though that margin narrows to 48 percent for Clinton to 45 percent for Trump among likely voters.

In short, she doesn’t react on instinct and say wild things:

Clinton, multiple polls show, is viewed as having experience and as the better informed, more stable leader. In the Fox News poll, 61 percent of likely voters say the former secretary of state is “qualified to be president,” far more than the 45 percent who say Trump is qualified. Fifty-nine percent think Clinton “has the temperament to serve effectively as president,” compared to only 38 percent who say Trump is temperamentally fit.

But voters also see Trump as a decisive candidate who will tell it like it is and is more committed to attacking the Islamic State in the Middle East. In a slightly older CNN/ORC International poll, conducted over the first four days of this month, half of voters said the phrase “a strong and decisive leader” applied more to Trump than the 42 percent who said it applied to Clinton. (That poll, the only live-caller national poll Trump has led since the conventions, also found Trump ahead on the issue of terrorism, 51 percent to 45 percent.

That may have been an outlier:

Clinton’s slight edge on terrorism and national security in most polls reverses what was a traditional Republican advantage. For decades, voters have seen the GOP and its presidential nominees as stronger on defense.

She can let him go wild. His party no longer has the right stuff. Hers does, and Paul Waldman notes that President Obama had said this about what happened:

At moments like this, I think it’s important to remember what terrorists and violent extremists are trying to do. They are trying to hurt innocent people, but they also want to inspire fear in all of us and disrupt the way we live to undermine our values. And so even as we have to be vigilant and aggressive, both in preventing senseless acts of violence, but also making sure that we find those who carry out such acts and bring them to justice, we all have a role to play as citizens in making sure that we don’t succumb to that fear. And there’s no better example of that than the people in New York and New Jersey.

When I was speaking to Governor Cuomo, Governor Christie, and Mayor de Blasio, one point that they all made is, folks around here, they don’t get scared. They’re tough, they’re resilient, they go about their business every single day. That kind of toughness and resoluteness, and the recognition that neither individuals nor organizations like ISIL can ultimately undermine our way of life, that’s the kind of strength that makes me so proud to be an American, and that’s the kind of strength that is going to be absolutely critical not just in the days to come but in the years to come. By showing those who want to do us harm that they will never beat us, by showing the entire world that as Americans we do not and never will give in to fear, that’s going to be the most important ingredient in us defeating those who would carry out terrorist acts against us. 

Waldman notes the real difference here: 

The Democrats locate things like strength and resolve in the American public, and describe them as critical to our success. Trump seldom talks about how ordinary people can or should react to terrorism, other than to say that people are afraid and they should be, because more attacks are coming.

Whenever Trump talks about strength, it’s about his own. Only he, through his intellectual brilliance and steely spine, can defeat terrorism on our behalf; the citizenry’s job is to cower for a while, then emerge to gaze in wonder at the paradise Trump has created.

But it’s not just attitude:

In practical terms, there are stark differences between what the candidates would do about terrorism. Clinton’s plan is essentially to continue what we’re doing now. The best argument in its favor is that not only is ISIS steadily losing, but even with a few dramatic attacks in recent years, we’ve had extraordinary success in keeping Americans safe here at home. Since September 11, Americans have literally been more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a jihadi terrorist.

Trump, on the other hand, wants to encourage the use of racial profiling at all levels of law enforcement, ban Muslims from entering the United States, and “knock the hell of them” in the Middle East.

And that loops back to that book about those first astronauts and the right stuff in the military:

Perhaps the best we can hope for out of him is that when he gathers the Joint Chiefs together and says, “All right, fellas, here’s my new order: Knock the hell out of ISIS,” they’ll look awkwardly at one another until someone says, “Yes sir, we’ll get right on that,” then they’ll continue what they’re already doing.

They’ll shrug. Some guys don’t have the right stuff. They just fake it.

Adjusting for Race

The Republican Party has had to make adjustments. Donald Trump finally decided it was time to tell us all that what he had been telling us for five years just wasn’t so – Obama actually was born in America. He didn’t apologize. No one got to ask questions. He scammed the press – he made the event an infomercial for his new hotel, and walked out, and the press was infuriated. This whole thing seems to have been intended to put the whole birther matter to rest, so Trump would never be asked about it again. Obama was born in America. Move on – but of course he did mention that Hillary Clinton started it all, and that has become the Republican line. It wasn’t him, it was her – and he fixed the birther thing by forcing Obama to produce a long-form birth certificate. Obama should thank him for putting the matter to rest. America should thank him for putting an end to Hillary Clinton’s racist nonsense, finally, once and for all.

That bit about Hillary has been thoroughly disproved – she didn’t start the birther thing. No one remembers her, at every campaign stop in 2008, shouting that Obama was born in Kenya, so she didn’t continue what she never started. This was recommended to her by a few supporters, but she laughed at them. She wasn’t going there. But Trump said she did go there. There were one or two internal memos suggesting she go there. Those who wrote those memos were fired? Well, there were memos. That was the smoking gun. It wasn’t him, it was her.

That’s the Republican line now – the adjustment they’ve had to make. Their candidate cannot be a racist bigot. This is the party of Lincoln, but Greg Sargent reviews the difficulties this creates:

This new GOP storyline has gotten obscured by the ongoing back-and-forth in the media over various subplots (did Hillary Clinton start birtherism? did Trump really keep feeding this conspiracy after 2011?) that are related to the birther battle. Yet it’s unmistakably the larger narrative that the Trump campaign and top Republicans – including the chairman of the Republican National Committee – are telling right now. The Trump campaign’s effort to whitewash his birther history – in which he fed racist conspiracy theories for years – is being widely called out as dishonest. And that’s good. But Trump’s new narrative is actually a lot worse than the rendering of it we’ve seen in most media accounts suggests, and now the party has institutionally joined in promoting it.

On the Sunday shows, RNC chair Reince Priebus, GOP veep candidate Mike Pence and other surrogates for Trump all made the same argument: Clinton started the birther rumors in 2008, and Trump ended them by compelling Obama to release his birth certificate, rendering this a settled issue, which Trump declared to be the case last week. Priebus said: “after getting this issue resolved, he proclaimed on Friday that he believes that the president was born in America.” Pence said that Trump brought the birther “issue to an end.” Chris Christie said: “after the president presented his birth certificate, Donald has said he was born in the United States, and that’s the end of the issue.” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said that he “put the issue to rest when he got President Obama to release his birth certificate years later.”

In other words, Trump’s birther crusade legitimately got results. That is their argument.

That is, Trump stopped pushing this after he forced Obama to “show his papers” in 2011, which isn’t the case, but perhaps beside the point:

To chase after those assertions is to get lost in a rabbit warren. It distracts from the larger point here, which is that the current official position of the Republican Party on Trump’s birther crusade is in some ways just as reprehensible as the crusade itself was. To be clear, Republicans like Priebus and Christie have long left no doubt that they themselves know Obama was born in the U.S. But their position right now is simultaneously that Trump’s years-long effort to “settle” this “issue” was nonetheless a defensible exercise that had a positive outcome. Indeed, their position is essentially that this “issue” might not be sufficiently settled for many people if Trump had not launched his crusade. In short, it’s that Trump finally got Obama to cough up his papers, and now we can all move on – thanks to Trump’s efforts.

It is likely that many Republicans and conservatives – such as Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio – see it as a blot on the history of the modern GOP that the party nominated someone who launched a years-long racist campaign to delegitimize the first African American president in the explicit belief that it would appeal to the racist tendencies of many GOP primary voters. Those Republicans might even say so right now if asked. But Trump has compelled the RNC not merely to participate in helping him push lies designed to muddy the waters around his birther history, but also – and this is the really important part – to institutionally defend that history. Indeed, while many Republicans previously repudiated this history, the RNC is now helping Trump validate it.

It seems that Trump turned them as racist as he is (or was) to prove that they’re not racists, that no Republicans are racists. They simply got Barack Obama to “show his papers” – like a good meek boy – or as Sargent puts it:

Trump’s handling of birtherism has reignited a national debate about Trump’s racism, and the RNC has been forced to institutionally defend it, neither of which will likely help him.

They had no other choice, but Justin Gest suggests there is a parallel problem on the other side:

Hillary Clinton’s recent reference to many of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables” comprised of racists and homophobes only made explicit what her advertisements and other public statements have insinuated.

Three weeks ago, she released a video that confronts Trump with the support he has received from white supremacists. In it, Jared Taylor, editor and founder of the white-supremacist magazine American Renaissance, is quoted from an interview with CNN: “Sending out all the illegals, building a wall, add a moratorium on Islamic immigration – that’s very appealing to a lot of ordinary white people.”

That video might have been a mistake:

It’s pretty obvious what Clinton hopes to get from this line of campaigning: Underscoring Trump’s endorsements from white supremacists might deter moderates, independents and mainstream Republicans who are loath to be associated with the right-wing fringe.

However, her mudslinging also condemns Trump voters – half of them, at least – who may support Trump’s social platform, but not in the interest of institutionalizing the supremacy of white people. These white working-class voters support Trump because he articulates their complicated discomfort with immigration and demographic change.

Gest argues that discomfort isn’t exactly racism, just something that looks like it:

Over the past six months, I’ve interviewed more than 100 white working-class people both here and in the United Kingdom, where a similar nationalist surge has triggered accusations of racism.

My interviews suggest that there is a complexity to Trump’s supporters that is not as simplistic as a yes-no binary about whether they’re racist. Millions of Trump’s supporters exist in the vast space between Wall Street and Breitbart.

Is it racist to associate immigration with the greater globalization of commerce that has altered the economic prospects of outmoded people? Is it racist to be frustrated that members of ethnic minorities are rendered new advantages unavailable to white people, such as affirmative action policies and ethnicity-specific advocacy? Is it racist to believe that white working-class people are underrepresented in political leadership or vilified in popular media?

Clinton’s decision to lump all voters with these concerns into the sweeping category of “racist” might motivate her base, and might even be correct as a short-term political calculation: She probably won’t win over these voters. But there’s a long-term societal risk here: Shunning them as racists pushes them only deeper into pockets of private discomfort, where their perceptions go unexposed and unchallenged – entrenching their views and further polarizing the American public.

She could make thing worse, and probably is making things worse:

Allegations of racism are now viewed by many white people as a means of wielding their ancestors’ misdeeds to unfairly disqualify their dissenting viewpoints in the present.

In the view of many of the voters Trump is speaking to – not just the “alt-right,” but disaffected white voters across the board – it’s crucial to talk frankly, even critically, about the perils of Islam, immigration and Black Lives Matter, even if it means offending some listeners. And on the more politically activated end of that spectrum, such voters see suppression of their ideas is part of a broader conspiracy to impose a liberal worldview.

It’s a perception that has been seized by Trump – “We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore,” he said in his July GOP convention speech – but also by far-right leaders in Europe, like Britain’s Nigel Farage, the former head of the UK Independence Party and one of the leaders behind the UK’s departure from the European Union.

Both Trump and Farage have heralded the power of their countries’ “silent majority” – a hushed constituency of predominantly white voters whose views have long been ignored.

That means you get this sort of thing:

In Britain, dozens of my respondents would often preface their most candid thoughts to me by stating “I’m not a racist, but…”

“I’m not racist, but this country’s covered by blacks and Bosnians.”

“I’m not racist at all. I’ve got black cousins and nieces. But the Polish have been taking all of the work and running prostitution and drug rings.”

“I’m not a racist. I fucking love goat curry, pardon my language. But the principle of English families not coming first is just not right.”

Gest excuses that:

These individuals had not endured hours of sensitivity training; they were concerned that their ideas would be disqualified, when they are, in fact, sincere expressions about how their societies are being transformed.

Racism is perceived to be a “mute button” pressed on someone while they are still crying out about a sense of lost status – from a position of historic advantage, frequently in terms they have difficulty articulating.

Therefore, the preface “I’m not racist” is not a disclaimer, but rather an exhortation to listen and not dismiss or invalidate the claims of a group that feels marginalized.

And that raises antipathy toward minorities, and toward those who are doing well, and urban hipsters:

They feel estranged from minority groups, who they believe have access to new privileges that compensate for historic advantages that today’s white working-class people do not recall exploiting. They feel alienated from an urban white bourgeoisie, which has divorced their less skilled or geographically isolated co-ethnics and look down upon them. And they feel blamed for neither empathizing with the plight of minorities, nor mobilizing to overcome structural poverty and embrace global cosmopolitanism.

There’s no way in hell these people would vote for Hillary Clinton or any Democrat – that’s the cosmopolitanism urban white bourgeoisie and their minority friends. Those are the folks who mock them, who call them racists, and on a good day pity them, if they think about them at all. And there’s no way they’d vote for any fat-cat establishment Republican. Those are the folks who have used and betrayed them. They don’t want to hear one more word about tax policy or Ayn Rand.

They’ll vote for Donald Trump. When Trump won the Colorado primary, he gave a shout-out to the voting bloc that put him over the top – “I love the poorly educated!”

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but they love him. He doesn’t call them racists. He rips into the Black Lives Matter folks, and Muslims, and he mocks the disabled, who of course do get special treatment, and he really did lead the effort to prove Obama was not born in America, and may be a Muslim too, and should have never gotten in Harvard Law School but did because of Affirmative Action or something – no matter what Trump just said at that press conference. He had to say that. He’ll take it all back when he’s elected. After all, they’re not racists, but…

This is why Republicans are now making adjustments to excuse what Trump has done – Hillary started it and Trump fixed the problem. That’s preposterous, but they cannot lose this voter bloc. What else have they got?

Gest, however, does note that Clinton has a harder task:

To govern effectively, Hillary Clinton needs white people to buy into the social change she heralds. So instead of casting them as outmoded bigots, she could point to how the very social forces that entrench white working-class people into poverty also entrench minority groups – that there are no white problems or minority problems; there are just problems.

That’s a non-starter. Everyone is too angry to hear that, even if it’s true.

Zack Beauchamp addresses this in a different way, looking at the recent rise of far-right populists in Europe and the United States. The problem is larger than Trump:

It’s tempting to see Trump’s rise as something sui generis: something so bizarre, so linked to his own celebrity, that it could never be repeated. Yet it is being repeated: Throughout the Western world, far-right populists are rising in the polls.

In Hungary, the increasingly authoritarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, has started building a wall to keep out immigrants and holding migrants in detention camps where guards have been filmed flinging food at them as if they were zoo animals. In Italy, the anti-immigrant Northern League, led by a politician who has attacked the pope for calling for dialogue with Muslims, is polling at more than three times its 2013 level, making it the country’s third most popular party. And in Finland, the Finns Party – which wants to dramatically slash immigration numbers and keep out many non-Europeans – is part of the government. Its leader, Timo Soini, is the country’s foreign minister.

These politicians share Trump’s populist contempt for the traditional political elite. They share his authoritarian views on crime and justice. But most importantly, they share his xenophobia: They despise immigrants, vowing to close the borders to refugees and economic migrants alike, and are open in their belief that Muslims are inherently dangerous.

This is the new world:

These parties’ values are too similar, and their victories coming too quickly, for their success to be coincidental. Their platforms – a right-wing radicalism somewhere between traditional conservatism and the naked racism of the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan – have attracted widespread support in countries with wildly different cultures and histories.

The conventional wisdom is that the economic losses suffered by working-class people throughout the developed world explain the rise of this new right. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are estimated to have been lost due to free trade pacts in recent decades, with industries like manufacturing absorbing much of the pain.

That’s created an ocean of angry and frustrated people – primarily blue-collar and primarily white – who are susceptible to the appeal of a nationalist leader promising to bring back what they feel has been taken away.

But that’s not the real story:

A vast universe of academic research suggests the real drivers are something very different: anger over immigration and a toxic mix of racial and religious intolerance. That conclusion is supported by an extraordinary amount of social science, from statistical analyses that examine data on how hundreds of thousands of Europeans look at immigrants to ground-level looks at how Muslim immigration affects municipal voting, and on to books on how, when, and why ethnic conflicts erupt.

This research finds that, contrary to what you’d expect, the “losers of globalization” aren’t the ones voting for these parties. What unites far-right politicians and their supporters, on both sides of the Atlantic, is a set of regressive attitudes toward difference. Racism, Islamophobia, and xenophobia – and not economic anxiety – are their calling cards.

So it was always about race:

The ongoing surge of immigrants – especially those who venerate a different prophet or have a darker skin tone – is triggering a fierce right-wing backlash around the West. In the US, the anger about Latino immigration has linked up to another racial anxiety: Many white Americans believe their privileged status is being eroded by the past half-century of moves toward treating African American as truly equal citizens.

Donald Trump is a manifestation of this backlash, as are Brexit and the surge of support for far-right European parties. They show the extent of white Christian anger – the privileged who are furious that their privileges are being stripped away by those they view as outside interlopers.

It is that fury over immigrants that offers the best explanation we have for why the forces of intolerance are currently on the rise in the West. If we want to understand the world we live in today – and the one we’ll be inhabiting for years to come – we need to understand how immigration and intolerance are transforming the way white Christians vote. We need to understand that the battle between racist nationalism and liberal cosmopolitanism will be one of the defining ideological struggles of the 21st century. And we need to understand that Donald Trump is not an accident. He’s a harbinger.

That’s depressing. The war between racist nationalism and liberal cosmopolitanism is the war that’s being fought now. It has little to do with Democrats and Republicans, and little to do with Donald Trump. He’s just a foot soldier on one front of many, and that’s a worry:

It’s not clear just how high the far right’s ceiling is.

On the one hand, the far right has never taken power in Western Europe or the United States. Donald Trump is down in the polls, and could lose so spectacularly that he discredits the entire right-wing populist approach. The United States will be a majority minority country in 30 years; younger generations on both sides of the Atlantic are less attracted to the far right’s racial dog whistles.

So it’s possible that the far-right wave peters out over time. But it’s also possible that the opposite is true. We could be at the very beginning of an era defined by a battle between the far-right, racist nationalists and the kind of liberal cosmopolitanism that transformed the world after World War II.

The only answer may be this:

If we want to protect the idea of Western societies as fundamentally open and tolerant places, then Western governments need to do something. One possible path forward can be found in the Western country that’s proven most immune to the rise of right-wing populism: Canada.

You might be tempted to think Canada has always been this way. Far from it: For most of its history, Canada was every bit as bigoted and intolerant as its peers. The Canadian immigration system prior to the 1960s was known as the “White Canada” policy because of explicit ethnic and racial quotas.

A half-century later, Canada has become an entirely different type of society.

In 1982 it passed the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a major anti-discrimination law that enshrined multiculturalism as an essentially constitutional value. Ottawa now provides funding for communities and individuals to run citizenship and language classes for new immigrants, and sometimes even help them find housing. It eschewed the guest-worker programs used in much of Europe and emphasized to new immigrants that they would be a welcome and permanent part of the Canadian populace.

That might work anywhere, or not:

Even if other Western countries copied large parts of Canada’s immigration system and multicultural ideology, they could have a hard time staving off the growing political strength of the far right. Divisions over race caused the American Civil War; in Europe, centuries of ethnic supremacy culminated in the Holocaust. What we’re experiencing today, thankfully, is far less dangerous – partly because the open racism that the Confederates and Nazis stood for has been utterly delegitimized.

This is a testament to a basic truth, underscored by the Canadian model: Things really can get better. The forces of reaction, of ethno-racial supremacy, have been defeated in the past, and can be defeated again. The key to doing it is to refrain from surrendering on core values – to reaffirm Western societies’ basic commitment to tolerance and to craft policies that promote that commitment rather than back away from it.

Sure, but the Republicans aren’t helping. They’re with Trump now. And the Democrats are helping, with condescending talk about the deplorables among us. And we’re simply not Canadians. They’re too damned polite. We’re direct, and proud of it. This will not go well. No adjustments seem possible.