But to the extent it is accepted, seen as appropriate, or, as some of his followers have claimed, represents what all of us want to say but can’t because it is not politically correct, it is normalized. Of course not all of us see it as acceptable or appropriate, but when Evangelicals support and defend him, the bar of what is normal and right and good has been lowered considerably.I don't think Trump has normalized anything. Indeed, if it comes from Trump - from mouth, from fingers, or from his wherever - it becomes by definition abnormal, farcical, even freakish.
I am largely in agreement, but think the beginning of the end was the infiltration of the Tea Party. I am not sure to what extent the obstructionist tactics of the party have backfired. A scorched earth policy hurts everyone, but they have managed to fool a large percentage of the people into putting the blame on Obama and the Democrats. And so, however dysfunctional the party is they still garner votes if they convince people that the real problem is not them, that they are part of the solution. As long as they position themselves as the party of opposition it may not be the sane ones who survive, but those who are the most opposed to the government as it stands.He's given dyed-in-the-wool conservatives a Republican model to avoid and an opportunity to contemplate just how much damage they've done to their party through their divisive politics and relentless Obama-hating rhetoric. They have no choice but to rebuild the party from the ground up, and maybe the survivors will be the sane ones.
There is speculation that he will start a TV network. It fits in very well with his attempts to discredit legitimate media outlets. I do not know if he will be unscathed. Clearly, he does not like to lose, and while he may put the blame elsewhere, it is still a huge blow to his ego.Trump will walk away unscathed, still rich, write off his losses and start some other harebrained enterprise …
-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 10:51 am to add the following --
Empiricist-Bruno:
I would not be too quick to shout corruption. That is a main point of this thread: everything gets thought of and portrayed as corruption.And if the media cover an unfair debate, I continue to see corruption or gross incompetence (irresponsibility) in their actions and end up feeling the same way about them.
The decision to limit participants is based on practical considerations. Why limit it to four candidates? There are others running as well. EVAN MCMULLIN, for example, announced his candidacy in August. It may be that these candidates would increase their percentage of votes if they could participate, but the question is whether they have a reasonable chance of winning. If they don’t then including them gives us less opportunity to judge the difference between the two candidates who do have a chance of winning. The time has passed for them to establish themselves as viable candidates. Not a perfect system but certainly not corrupt or grossly incompetent or irresponsible.