- EphBlog - http://ephblog.com -

Why Trump?


A good question when Oren Cass ’05 asked it last month. An even better one after last night’s sweep. What do EphBlog’s readers think?

My opinions now are the same as in December:

1) Who is the most prominent Eph supporter of Trump? I have trouble naming a single person. Help us out readers! It could be that I (David Dudley Field ‘1824) am the most prominent. I am still hopeful that a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Eph Division, will sign up for the Trump campaign. How about Mike Needham ’04, Oren Cass ’05 or James Hitchcock ’15?

2) The fact that no one (?) on the Williams faculty thinks that Trump could possibly become President is a sign of intellectual group think.

3) The fact that no one (?) on the faculty will vote for Trump is an indicator of the lack of ideological diversity at Williams.

4) There are probably many Trump supporters among the white working class of Williams employees. The Record ought to interview them.

Trump will be the next President of the United States because a large majority of voters want to end/decrease illegal (and legal) immigration, especially by Muslims and poor people. All good Williams faculty members find such opinions offensive. Adam Falk banned John Derbyshire (at least partially) because he shares Trumps views on these topics. Who will Falk ban next?

Comments Disabled (Open | Close)

Comments Disabled To "Why Trump?"

#1 Comment By Nishant On April 27, 2016 @ 12:17 pm

As a life long republican and former president of the Garfield Republican Club, the only thing I can say is that Trump isn’t either a conservative or a Republican – he is closer to an demagogue / authoritarian leader. Most real small government conservatives should hate him. His rise is as the presumptive leader of the GOP is sad.

#2 Comment By ephalum On April 27, 2016 @ 1:03 pm

While I generally am done commenting here, I will make an exception when I return in November to say “I told you so” after Hillary absolutely eviscerates Trump in the general, 386-148 in the electoral college, with a ten point popular margin Oh, and the Dems retake the Senate.

Oh, and the underlying premise of your argument is demonstrably false, as well.


Nationwide, 57 percent of voters said immigrants strengthen the country through work and talent, while 35 percent said immigrants are a burden because they take jobs, housing and health care away from those born in this country.

That ratio was the most positive since Pew started asking the question in 1994. Back then, 31 percent of voters viewed immigrants positively, while 63 percent considered them a burden.

Favorable perceptions have climbed steadily since, according to annual Pew polls.

#3 Comment By ephalum On April 27, 2016 @ 1:07 pm

Sorry, make that 390-148. Hillary wins Nevada, Colorado, Utah (yes, Utah), Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire.

#4 Comment By Dick Swart On April 27, 2016 @ 4:46 pm

He is what he is …


#5 Comment By Dick Swart On April 27, 2016 @ 4:58 pm

Hopefully, a lager image than above …


#6 Comment By student On April 27, 2016 @ 9:22 pm

Trump is not a conservative. Trump is not a Republican. He is an authoritarian populist who is going to lose Republicans the Senate and get his ass handed to him by Clinton in the general.

#7 Comment By student On April 27, 2016 @ 9:28 pm

I honestly don’t understand Eph Blog’s fascination with Trump. Why aren’t you supporting Romney or JEB! or Kasich or Ryan or Gilmore or literally any of the other candidates who are actually Republicans and actually conservative. Are you so desperate to oppose the “faculty” and “elite values,” that you are throwing yourselves in with a demagogue?

#8 Comment By immigrants On April 27, 2016 @ 10:53 pm

I bet the people who are positive on immigration are also positive on homeless shelters and low-income housing, just not in their neighborhood.

#9 Comment By Dick Swart On April 27, 2016 @ 11:25 pm

stydent …

Are you so desperate to oppose the “faculty” and “elite values,” that you are throwing yourselves in with a demagogue?

I understand the problem of choosing between a brown shirt and a black shirt. It’s always a question of fashion.

#10 Comment By anon On April 28, 2016 @ 9:40 am

I think Trump has a shot at winning. It depends what he does after winning the nomination.

People do not like Trump- very true.

People do not like Hillary- also very true.

Trump will attack early and often. Hillary has a ton of baggage. The Clintons are about as well liked as Bush.

Think about this- what is the difference between Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney on the use of military power for foreign policy? You could easily argue that Hillary is more of a hawk than Cheney. Look at her positions and votes. Trump has rhetoric but no record. Rhetoric can be changed- a record cannot.

#11 Comment By anononymous On April 28, 2016 @ 9:42 am

Why Trump?

Because he is not Hillary.

#12 Comment By ephalum On April 28, 2016 @ 9:56 am

Trump has a SEVENTY PERCENT disapproval rating among women, who only make up more than half of the electorate. And it may even get worse as he continues to make comments like Hillary couldn’t get elected to City Council if she wasn’t a woman. You really think that is going to resonate with the other 30 percent who don’t yet despise him?

Trump will not do better than Mitt Romney with Latino voters, in fact, he will lose them by a record margi. He will not do better than than Mitt Romney with single women. He will not do better than Mitt Romney with married women. He will not do better than Mitt Romney with highly-educated voters. In fact, he is guaranteed to perform worse than Romney with all of the above. Polls shows that he also performs miserably vs. Hillary among voters under 30 — even worse than McCain did vs. Obama.

Trump has no campaign organization to speak of. That is fine in terms of winning a plurality of GOP primary voters, but ain’t gonna cut it in a general election. He is so toxic that no one with any degree of competence will work for him. He also will lag behind Hillary’s fundraising by hundreds of millions of dollars without support from the usual big donors like the Koches, etc., and with, again, no built-up campaign finance infrastructure, as opposed to Hillary, who has a decades-long head start in that regard.

To paraphrase the Donald himself, other than (possibly) killing someone on the streets of New York, there is nothing that Hillary could do to lose to him. We are looking at Mondale-Reagan 2.0.

#13 Comment By simplicio On April 28, 2016 @ 10:07 am

While a Trump win seems unlikely, it depends on how likely Hillary will be indicted over violating national email security.

#14 Comment By ephalum On April 28, 2016 @ 10:32 am

(1) Very unlikely
(2) Trump has legal troubles of his own this summer

#15 Comment By student On April 28, 2016 @ 1:09 pm

The Trump suit is a civil suit not a criminal action, so at worse its bad press.

#16 Comment By frank uible On April 28, 2016 @ 1:33 pm

A field day for misanthropes.

#17 Comment By ephalum On April 28, 2016 @ 2:05 pm

Again, I don’t think she gets indicted. But even if she did, I think either her (if she can still run) or Bernie or Joe Biden would still beat Trump, and quite easily. He is the most toxic person ever to be (likely) nominated for President, and it’s not even close. Let’s check back in November and see who was right.

#18 Comment By Tsk tsk On April 28, 2016 @ 2:42 pm

“So toxic that no one with any degree of competence will work for him.”

Replace “him” with “the federal government” and you would have a truer statement.

#19 Comment By Anon On April 29, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

Trump can win…

#20 Comment By frank uible On April 30, 2016 @ 9:53 am

How can it be expected that the country act admirably when its leaders are so damn ignoble?

#21 Comment By simplicio On April 30, 2016 @ 3:18 pm

@frank uible

There are no nice answers to this question, but the words of a wise misanthrope are worth considering:

#22 Comment By ephalum On May 2, 2016 @ 10:40 am

Tsk tsk, how many people do you actually KNOW who work for the federal government? And in how many cases have you actually closely observed their work? That’s what I thought.

As someone who has spent years working in the same field in both state government, the federal government, and the private sector, I can say that (again, at least in my field) in the aggregate the most competent and devoted employees, by FAR, are those in the federal government. Are there duds? Of course, like anywhere. But at least in the legal field, there is no doubt that the federal gov’t attracts the best and the brightest.

For dedication, I’d rank it federal gov’t, state gov’t, private sector.

For ability-level, I’d go federal gov’t, private sector, state gov’t.

For integrity, no question, government employees win by a landslide.

#23 Comment By ephalum On May 2, 2016 @ 2:35 pm

Speaking of the vast left-wing conspiracy,


But I thought Williams hated conservatives! (Sounds like a great appointment, hopefully the college will try to bring him on permanently).

#24 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 3, 2016 @ 1:50 am

I don’t think Hillary will last very long once Trump starts pealing the bark off of her. Trump will have the advantage of being able to focus on Hillary’s corruption and the evidence of that corruption contained in the book, Clinton Cash. See, http://nypost.com/2015/06/22/clinton-cash-author-demolishes-hillarys-self-defense/

In addition, it will not be difficult to remind voters of Bill Clinton’s history as an unrepentant rapist.

Trump will have the ability to mobilize the white working class that has been screwed by Democrat party policies and neglected by pro-immigration business elites. The white working class sort of sat out the Romney-Obama campaign and cost the GOP what should have been an easy victory.

Thankfully, we are entering a new political alignment where the enemy will be the politically correct people who limit our freedom of speech and have no tolerance for our desire to preserve out country’s traditional culture and inherent advantages.

In a couple of months, the news regarding Hillary’s corruption will have the Bernie Sander’s folks voting for Donald Trump.

#25 Comment By ephalum On May 3, 2016 @ 9:36 am

If you are so confident on it, John, you should bet money on it — betting markets making Hillary an overwhelming favorite will make you a rich man! Or are you still smarting from betting against Obama — twice?

I look forward to returning in November to laugh at all the ridiculous folks who think that a man who will lose virtually the entire Black, Latino, Asian (combined, close to 30 percent of the electorate) and youth vote (while inspiring record levels of Latino turnout) and who has over a 70 percent disapproval rating among women (who now form more than half the electorate), can win an election in a U.S. that has only grown more diverse over the past four years. The Dems haven’t even touched him yet, or barely, since they’ve been rooting for him to win the primary … just wait until they unleash hundreds of millions of dollars of ads (money Trump won’t have, because the big donors won’t support him for the most part) flood the airwaves highlighting the years and years and years of misogynistic comments, nonsensical policy positions, and most of all, consistent scamming of average Americans via failed businesses, come to light. He is so toxic that more than half the leaders of his own party will refuse to back him. He’ll be lucky to break around 42-43 percent in the popular vote. But of course, you won’t change your tune after Trump gets destroyed, just like you didn’t change your tune after Obama easily won reelection, because you don’t believe in things like “facts” or “evidence.” You will still see an America that simply does not exist, rather than an America which has consistently rejected your warped and antiquated world view in popular votes in five of the past six Presidential elections (very soon to be six of the past seven).

#26 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 3, 2016 @ 4:13 pm

– ephalum

You must exist in some alternative universe where the Clintons are admired, where it is OK to tolerate/forgive a rapist husband and where people applaud you for getting wealthy through using political office to advantage yourself. Here in the real world, these are not the hallmarks of a winning campaign.

By the way, the newest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows Trump beating Hillary.

See, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/new_rasmussen_poll_finds_trump_ahead_of_hillary_41_to_39.html

#27 Comment By ephalum On May 3, 2016 @ 4:53 pm

Hillary dominates Trump in nearly every poll this cycle — many by double digit margins — including romping over him in swing states. She will not lose to (as his buddy Ted Cruz just called him today) “pathological liar … utterly amoral … bully … a serial philanderer … a narcissist at a level this country has never seen” Donald Trump. You can’t win a national election with disapproval rates of over 70 PERCENT among over half the electorate, and that will be the high water mark after the Dems unleash their opposition research file. Hillary will beat Trump in places heretofore unimaginable — Utah, Arizona, Georgia among them. If you are so confident in your pick, again, just go and place some cash bets on Trump — the payoff will be huge. My prediction is that you are a classic troll with no faith in your own pathetic little “predictions” who won’t put his money where his mouth is.

You made the same sort of malicious lies about Obama, and thought there was no way he’d be elected President — and he only won two elections, both in electoral landslides. I look forward to your prognostication skills being equally pathetic when Hillary destroys Trump and you are once again left mystified as to why your views are so out of step with the sane majority of people in this country. You see, you are the perfect Trump constituent — an angry, white, middle-aged male who hates minorities, foreigners, and women, and blames everyone but yourself for your own failings in life. You never met an excuse you didn’t embrace for anything that has gone wrong in your life. You laughably somehow believe that life is more difficult in American for a while male than for a black female, notwithstanding massive evidence to the contrary. You don’t believe in science, or other forms of fact-based evidence. So of course you see the world through Trump-colored glasses. Thankfully, the vast majority of this country sees him, and you, for what you are — whiney losers constantly in search of a scapegoat to blame. You will lose, and I will laugh and laugh and laugh.

#28 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 3, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

You are so tightly locked in your own little bubble that it is painful to read your comments. You obviously don’t get out much in the real world where many of us think that Hillary Clinton’s lies are more likely to land her in jail than the White House.

You seem to be missing the fact that the new Rasmussen poll I shared with you shows Trump is — at this very moment — creating an electoral realignment.

He is welcoming young Bernie Sanders voters who share his concern over Obama/Clinton’s unfair trade deals. He is doing better among blacks than any Republican candidate in recent memory. He is bringing the white working class back into the picture and mobilizing it to make a difference this fall.

I’m laughing at you right now because you failed to predict Trump’s successes. You had no idea Trump would triumph in this manner. In contrast, I was predicting Trump’s months ago based on what I understand of the electorate and the genuine anger of the American people.

#29 Comment By ephalum On May 4, 2016 @ 9:26 am

As usual, you are allergic to facts and reason, ignoring all the points I made that don’t fit your narrative. If I am in such a bubble, why has Obama – a man you utterly despite and believe all of American should, too — been elected twice by overwhelming margins? Why is his net approval rating at plus seven? It is you who live in a bubble – a bubble of ignorance and hate, where you pretend that American only consists of angry, middle-aged white men like yourself. We have women in this country — they almost all despise Trump. We have minorities, and young people, and folks with higher education levels — ditto. His disapproval ratings are the highest in history for any major political candidate, and the Dems haven’t even BEGUN to go after the treasure trove of opposition research out there on them. Everyone already knows ALL of Hillary’s negatives because the GOP has been hammering at her for two decades. The Dems, gleeful at the prospect of a Trump nomination, have been totally hands-off … so far.

I did, in fact, predict Trump’s success in a party that is increasingly dominated by xenophobic racists. But that party is only a small portion of the electorate, thank God.

Your polling claim is laughable, too — you cite to one PARTISAN poll which has Trump and Hillary dead even — a poll which had Romney over Obama, by the way. Remind me again of who won that election. Today’s non-partisan CNN poll has Hillary up THIRTEEN POINTS. At the same time in 2012, that same poll had Obama up two points on Romney, who is a far, far, far less toxic candidate than Trump. Thirteen points, read it and weep! The polling average had Hillary up about 8, aggregated across ALL polls. And again, that is before hundreds of millions of dollars of attack ads are unleashed against Trump.

But if you are SO confident in your laughable prognostication skills, which failed MISERABLY to predict the two Obama wins, I’ll make you a little wager. If Trump beats Hillary by ANY margin, I’ll never post here again. If Hillary beats Trump by more than SIX points in the popular vote, YOU’LL never post here again. Deal?

#30 Comment By simplicio On May 4, 2016 @ 11:05 am


This is getting interesting! What do we get if, by some miracle we do not deserve, Bernie pulls an upset? [Other than the least corrupt president of the modern era]

#31 Comment By ephalum On May 4, 2016 @ 11:54 am

I seriously doubt Sanders is the nominee, but if he is, that make it almost impossible to predict. I still think he’d narrowly beat Trump because Trump has to win Florida to have any chance at all and realistically he can’t win there or any other swing state with a substantial minority electorate (including Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia), but for Bernie, there is an enormous treasure trove of problematic statements and positions stretching back decades that have yet to be explored; Bernie (unlike Hillary, who has been vetted to death) simply hasn’t been vetted in any sort of serious way, and I think a lot of this country will not feel comfortable with his economic platform once they realize the kind of massive tax hikes it will require. He could perform substantially better than Hillary vs. Trump (as current polls reflect) or the election could turn into a true toss-up (which I suspect would be closer to reality, but again, I think Bernie would eek it out just because of the Dems’ built-in demographic advantage in swing states).

#32 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 4, 2016 @ 12:42 pm

– ephalum

I expect some of your sociology students at Villanova will one day read the nonsense you post as a Williams alumni at Ephblog.

It is a rookie mistake for you to suggest that the CNN poll you cite is more accurate when – in truth – it is based on a sample of registered voters. The much more accurate Rasmussen poll, the one which shows Donald Trump beating the corrupt Hillary Clinton, is based on a survey of likely voters.

If you ever took the American politics class I used to teach as a faculty member at Williams, then you would know that it is important to read the fine print whenever you cite a survey.

#33 Comment By sigh On May 4, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

ephalum is not the ephalum you are looking for. I will enjoy using the election to discuss race in politics though.

and LMAO @ rasmussen being accurate. yeah, 30% of black voters are gonna support trump (one of the many LMAO moments in that poll). When was the last time the republican candidate got 30% of the black vote?

#34 Comment By ephalum On May 4, 2016 @ 1:28 pm

As suspected, Drew proves to be a coward and a fraud who lacks the courage of his convictions. A classic Internet troll. He’s also wrong on Rasmussen’s methodology. Here is a right wing website tearing apart that outlier Rasmussen poll:


If anybody wants to bet cold hard cash on the outcome of this election, I’m game. I believe there is a greater chance that Trump finds an excuse to drop out before November than actually wins, anyway. Once he sees the tea leaves he may want to avoid the embarrassment of the worst electoral landslide since 1984.

#35 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 4, 2016 @ 2:04 pm

– ephalum (not sigh)

There is plenty more in the Rasmussen poll which refutes your wildly optimistic take on corrupt Hillary Clinton’s chances for victory. Here are a few:

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads 37% to 31%, but 23% like another candidate. Nine percent (9%) are undecided.

Clinton earns 71% of the black vote, 45% support among other minority voters but just 33% of whites. Trump gets only nine percent (9%) of blacks, 33% of other minorities and 48% of white voters.

(Unfortunately, sigh is misrepresenting Rasmussen’s report regarding their take on Trump’s standing with black voters.)

In my view, what is most important about the Rasmussen polls is the trend toward Trump that it documents. As always, it is best to read the full report for yourself. See, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

How about this, ephalum, why don’t you show us your courage by revealing your real name on this site?

#36 Comment By sigh On May 4, 2016 @ 2:31 pm

and you misrepresent Rasmussen as a reputable polling outfit. It isn’t. Let me rephrase my question so it fits that absurd poll: When was the last time a democrat received less than 75% of the black vote? THE ANSWER IS THE SAME.

also, this: https://storify.com/mfessler/trump-primary-vs-general

#37 Comment By Ephalum On May 4, 2016 @ 5:47 pm

Sigh, the funny part is that Drew is too uninformed, or perhaps just too dumb, to understand that black voters are never going to support in consequential numbers a flat-out racist who did everything in his power to delegitimize the first black President by claiming that Obama’s birth certificate was a fraud and challenging his status as an American. It’s been all but forgotten among Trump’s other more recent stupidity, but the man launched his political career via ridiculous unsubstantiated birther claims. You think Obama might mention this once or twice when advocating for Hillary this fall? Trump will win less than ten percent of the black vote and less than twenty percent of the Latino vote. Mark it down. Hillary is gonna win not just Virginia and North Carolina but Georgia as well thanks to massive support from minority voters. And Trump will also lose women by an historic margin. Heck he’s currently polling behind Hillary in UTAH!

#38 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 4, 2016 @ 7:03 pm

– Ephalum

Please. What makes a misguided, easily-refuted, proven coward like you an expert on black America?

I think blacks will be more offended when they learn that Obama lied about his closeness to the black community when he wrote his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. To pander to black voters, for example, Obama turned my white girlfriend into a black woman. Check out the full story here.


For insight on how Obama benefited from the perception that he was born in Kenya, check out this article from Snopes which displays advertising from Obama’s literary agent claiming he was born in Kenya.


From personal experience, I can report that Obama has a long history of distorting his past to gain political advantage. I would not be surprised if he approved the advertising copy that claimed he was born in Kenya. After all, Obama has already been caught lying about far more important things.

#39 Comment By Ephalum On May 4, 2016 @ 8:55 pm

66 percent of black Americans voted in 2012, and 93 percent of them supported Obama. So, John Drew, you are both a delusional moron and a liar. QED.


#40 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 11, 2016 @ 5:34 pm

There is more good news for Donald Trump in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll of likely voters.

In the most recent survey, 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, and 40 percent backed Trump, with 19 percent not decided on either yet, according to the online poll of 1,289 people conducted from Friday to Tuesday. The poll had a credibility interval of about 3 percentage points.

Trump is also doing well in recent polls done in the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania.

#41 Comment By Fendertweed On May 13, 2016 @ 9:36 pm

Mr Drew,

If you are as elite an intellect as you claim, I’m surprised you misspell “peeling.”

Perhaps the result of a spell cast by the shallow, pungent tinge of Drumpfism… .

Trump may indeed win despite his utter lack of morals, class, understanding of issues, etc. a sad commentary on the vapid gullibility of American voters if the huckster (Mencken’s “perfect moron” come to life) hoodwinks the “marks.”

#42 Comment By John C. Drew. Ph.D. On May 14, 2016 @ 1:50 am


If you are the urbane sophisticate you pretend to be then I’m startled that you forget to use the correct punctuation after the title “Mr”.

Your lack of attention to detail may be one of the reasons you are out of touch with reality and attribute Trump’s rise in political power to the failings of your fellow citizens.

You might be wise to put down that next serving of marijuana and instead ask yourself why your views seem to be irrelevant to those who seeking to make America great again.

#43 Comment By Trump because On May 14, 2016 @ 5:46 am

Trump can win because Hillary has huge negatives as well.

Hillary is the war candidate. People are sick of aggressive United States foreign policy. They know her history includes the support of killing without direct provocation.

An isolationist like Trump has a message that will resonate with many people for different reasons. “Building a wall” may indicate a “lack of morals” but look at the other option.

Hillary Clinton is a candidate who has a record. That record includes the support of preemptive warfare and regime change doctrine.

What is more immoral, the building of a wall, or being involved in the destabilization of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc? Is causing the death and suffering of millions of people more immoral than building a wall?

I am not sure the democrats have the moral high ground…

#44 Comment By Fendertweed On May 16, 2016 @ 7:16 pm

Mr Drew

Haha that is funny since I intentionally wrote it that way both above and here.

Congrats on your fine eye for my tribute to the Englis usage, not to mention your weak attempt at a witty riposte and political insight.

Like other Drunpfites you’re stuck with lame marijuana references? Sad.

Have a nice day!

#45 Comment By Fendertweed On May 16, 2016 @ 7:20 pm

P.s. I’m laughing harderrealizing you may believe “fendertweed” has anything to do with “weed” aka pot …

It is a reference to classic Fender tweed amps … So you swung and missed mightily there, a la Drumpf. ;-)

#46 Comment By Fendertweed On May 16, 2016 @ 7:39 pm

I agree Trump/Drumpf can win.

As Mencken (again) has been paraphrased, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

This election is a Menckenian feast.

#47 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 19, 2016 @ 3:26 am

FYI: A new national level poll of registered voters shows Donald Trump beating corrupt Hillary Clinton. See, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/18/fox-news-poll-trump-tops-clinton-both-seen-as-deeply-flawed-candidates.html

#48 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On May 22, 2016 @ 2:51 pm

FYI: The Washington Post/ABC poll released May 21, 2016 shows Trump favored by 46 percent among registered voters compared to Clinton at 44 percent. See, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/2016/05/21/8d4ccfd6-1ed3-11e6-b6e0-c53b7ef63b45_story.html

#49 Comment By ephalum On June 14, 2016 @ 5:31 pm

Trump is now down 12. And it’s gonna get worse.

I was going to say it at the time, but figured I’d just wait to shove it in your face, because anyone with a vague clue about politics (which excludes you, Mr. Obama-is-going-to-get-crushed) observed that Trump’s very, very short-term rise was a product of him clinching the GOP nomination while Hillary and Bernie were still battering aware at each other. In any election cycle, we see these kind of temporary bumps — happened for Romney, too.

As Trump (predictably) continues to implode in historically epic fashion, with nearly every leading Republican candidate and politician (other than Newt Gingrich and McDonald’s fetch-boy Chris Christie) running away from him like he has the plague, his poll numbers continue to plummet. In the first poll conducted after the Orlando shooting, he is down TWELVE POINTS to Clinton. Another poll released today with an earlier sample has him down seven. The GOP now pretends like their own Presidential candidate doesn’t even exist!


The bigger concern for Trump is that he will almost certainly underperform his current polling numbers. Bernie Sanders has yet to concede and formally endorse Hillary; when he does, many more of his supporters will gravitate to her as he vigorously advocates for them to do so. Trump has no analytics operation whatsoever, and no voter turnout operation, which is likely to cost him somewhere between 2-5 points in most swing states. Hillary is going to have around three or four dollars to spend for every dollar Trump spends, so she is going to be hammering and hammering away at him in ads for the next five months. And he has almost no campaign surrogates and no members of his own party willing to defend him. On the contrary, prominent members of his OWN party like Meg Whitman are comparing him to Hitler. Generally not a good thing. The polls generally reflect consistent Hispanic turnout with past years, when there is no doubt whatsoever that we are going to see record numbers of Hispanics coming out to vote for the most toxic, anti-Hispanic candidate in our nation’s history. Also, as Trump continues to implode making Hillary look more statesmanlike in the process (just wait to the debates, which he’ll probably try to weasel out of), a lot of those Stein / Johnson voters will come home to Hillary out of sheer abject terror.

I think there is at this point a better chance that someone else is the GOP nominee than there is that Trump wins a general election in November. That is my biggest fear, in terms of worrying about an epic Democratic sweep come November. I stand by my prediction that Hillary takes all of Obama’s 2012 states plus Georgia, Arizona and Utah, and that Texas will be shockingly close. It could honestly get worse than that for Trump, but we are probably too polarized for Hillary to beat him in places like Alabama, North Dakota or West Virginia. Because there is really little doubt that if Trump remains down in Hillary to the polls, he will lose very badly given his lack of rudimentary campaign infrastructure.

#50 Comment By ephalum On June 14, 2016 @ 5:42 pm

It’s worth noting that Trump has yet to lead in the average of national polls vs. Clinton — not once. And this trend line is brutal. And it is almost certain that more meltdowns are coming. Whereas Clinton is only growing stronger. This is gonna be fun (unless, of course, the GOP gets smart and dumps Trump for someone who has a chance, like Kasich).


#51 Comment By ephalum On June 14, 2016 @ 5:48 pm

Sorry, forgot North Carolina. All of Obama’s states plus North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Utah … unless, of course, Trump is no longer the nominee (I’d put the odds of that at 20 percent, and rising), in which case all bets are off … in the meantime, Trump can take comfort in his continued strong appeal to his base of racist, sexist, xenophobic white Christian men, which fortunately don’t come close to adding up to 50 percent of the electorate, although certainly appear to be overrepresented here at Ephblog!

#52 Comment By ephalum On June 14, 2016 @ 5:52 pm

I don’t think ads like this are going to help Donald’s rapidly plummeting poll numbers. And plenty more are in the hopper, I’m confident of that:


#53 Comment By anon On June 16, 2016 @ 8:12 am

Hillary may get indicted. She is under federal investigation.

What does that ad look like?

#54 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 9:34 am

That’s all you’ve got? P’shaw. BFD. She won’t get indicted. And even if she did, it doesn’t matter at this point. Nothing she could do related to her emails is worse than being a an unhinged, unstable, racist, sexist, military-hating fascist, which Trump is, and which even other mainstream Republicans (like Meg Whitman) now acknolwedge. Everyone already knows about the emails — the awareness of this issue is sky-high. It’s been reported to death, and she’s still crushing Trump in every poll now, and it’s only going to get worse. Becasue she is beating him without consolidating Bernie voters. Before the debates, where she will eviscerate him. Before her hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ads and ground game get geared, which she can’t match. And before Trump’s next inevitable implosion.

Think about the optics of who will be at the RNC speaking on Trump’s behalf: Newt Gingrich, Jeff Sessions, Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Sheriff Joe, and LePage. That’s aboutu it. Only the most toxic, reviled group of political figures in America. How can you ever hope to consolidate the GOP vote when all of the prior GOP Presidents, nominees, members of Congress and party leaders are on TV calling you a racist and your policies un-American every day? There just aren’t enough racists in America (thankfully) to elect a candidate like Trump, even if there are (barely) a plurality of racists in the GOP primary who were able to squeeze him through.

Meanwhile, Hillary will have Obama (he of the plus ten approval rating), Biden, Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, Bill, and on and on and on. Trump has a disapproval rating of SEVENTY right now. Seventy. He wins fewer than 1/20 black voters, and fewer than 1/5 Latino voters (and frankly, I think he will end winning no more than 1/10). The GOP has been throwing everything it has at Hillary for months and months, and she is still crushing Trump no the favorability metric. She will win nearly every minority voter, and she will run in the end about even with white women. Trump can’t win. He is more likely to drop out than he is to defeat Hillary.

#55 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 9:36 am

Err, ground game get geared up, which he can’t match. He’s gonna in the end probably have a BILLION dollars less to spend during the election. And unlike in the primaries, when all the free publicity hurt him, all of his TV appearances now hurt him badly, because he says something stupid and/or offensive like clockwork every single time.

#56 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 9:37 am

Aggh, all free publicity helped him rather in the primaries. Not anymore, suckers! It’s really going to be fun to watch not only Trump go down in flames, but all the GOP Senators and Congressmen in swing districts who have refused (as of yet, just wait …) to condemn him.

#57 Comment By anon On June 16, 2016 @ 10:48 am

She is under investigation by the FBI for a federal crime. It may have to be Bernie or Biden in the general if she gets charged. That is a real possibility. The charges against her are substantial- that is why there is an investigation and the FBI has been giving people around her immunity to talk.

This stuff is not just made up for no reason by the feds. If there was no evidence of a crime, this would have ended a long time ago. Of course, if she is charged is partially an element of politics and who controls the levers of justice right now. Still, federal agents tend to be unbiased when looking at the law- regardless of who the AG is.

And no, that is not “all I got.” She beats Trump handily I believe, but to pretend that Hillary is not a flawed candidate with massive negatives who is also under federal investigation is untrue. Hillary has negatives well above 50%, and she is in fact under federal investigation for multiple felonies.

All true.

#58 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 10:58 am

If for some reason she couldn’t run, then Biden or Bernie would also crush Trump. There have been repeated stories, leaks, whatever you want to call them that the FBI has found no basis whatsoever that she has committed any criminal offense. I’m confident that in the end there will be no criminal charges. But again, if for some reason she had to suspend her campaign, another Democractic could step in and romp. I never said she wasn’t a flawed candidate. But again, an election is a choice, not an up or down vote on just one candidate. The question is, is Trump viable as a candidate for President even against the most flawed candidate the Democrats can put up? The answer has proven to be a resounding no. Because again, Hillary may be -12 right now in terms of plus/minus popularity, but Trump is around -40. That’s an ENORMOUS difference. And there is no reason to think things will get materially better for Trump over time. Whatever Hillary’s negatives are, people generally recognize that she is qualified, capable, knowledgable about how government works, and not likely to try to start a nuclear war in a fit of personal pique. None of those things can be said for Trump. And all of the negatives you could say about Hillary — lack of transparency, some personal likeability issues, questions about honesty — are just as bad, if not worse, for Trump. I mean heck, throughout this campaign cycle she has been FAR more honest than Trump, who pretty much issues a series of lies every time he gives any sort of public statement. That is coming back to haunt him, albeit belatedly so far as the GOP is concerned.

#59 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 11:03 am

I mean, Trump at his very peak and at Hillary’s very nadir briefly was roughly even with her in the polls, but he’s never been in the lead. Other than that, for an entire year, she’s maintained a steady, and now growing, substantial lead over him. The more voters pay attention, the better she is going to do. And the last five national polls to come out have her up 6, 7, 12, 10, and 5, so an average of eight points. That is a massive margin especially when you consider her substantial organizational and financial advantages. Either Hillary won’t be disqualified from the election and she will beat Trump (most likely) or Biden or Bernie would step in and be able to capitalize on months and months of negative publicity about Trump and beat him.

#60 Comment By anon On June 16, 2016 @ 1:18 pm

“If for some reason she couldn’t run, then Biden or Bernie would also crush Trump.”

We can only hope. Hillary is seriously flawed. Corrupt, and her policy record is horrible.

Now, maybe she will change when she gets the power of the presidency? More than likely, she will fill her cabinet with sycophants who will support her corruption.

She is experienced enough to do a lot of harm. She has a record of escalating war- as well as corruption in terms of both politics and money.

We have no idea what Trump would do, and neither does he. You can’t win when you have an empty platform. People want to hear at least some of the specifics.

#61 Comment By ephalum On June 16, 2016 @ 2:29 pm

I’ll take the flawed (and I would not call her corrupt, but we can agree to disagree) but capable, mainstream and fairly predictable candidate with a strong set of moderate-liberal policy proposals over the erratic, wholly unqualified thin-skinned racist whose only clearly developed policies are all essentially fascist by nature any day of the week, and so, it seems, will the American people.

#62 Comment By anon On June 16, 2016 @ 4:53 pm


Her foreign policy is neoconservative, not moderate. Her record proves that. Syria, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, Israel relations etc. She is not moderate at all when it comes to war. She is a neocon.

Perhaps somewhat moderate on economy, but mostly just in language, not in practice. Also conservative there as well.

Liberal on social issues such choice, gun control, etc. But on economy and war, Hillary clinton not moderate. Also conservative on law enforcement.

#63 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 16, 2016 @ 7:37 pm

If Hillary Clinton is not corrupt, no one is corrupt. See, http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/

#64 Comment By ephalum On June 17, 2016 @ 9:46 am

Ahh, yes, yet another lie-and-innuendo filled Clinton “expose” from the same people who brought you Obama-was-really-born-in-Kenya, Ted-Cruz’s-Dad-killed-JFK, and the Clintons-murdered-Vince-Foster.

If you want the textbook definition of corrupt, try Donald Trump, a man who refused to pay good working men and women then buries them in litigation until they give up, or scams seniors and single moms out of what little cash they have via Trump U. Not to mention, all his mafia ties, and that is NOT a flimsy conspiracy theory but well-documented. Notice you aren’t trumpeting any of the polls anymore!

#65 Comment By anon On June 17, 2016 @ 4:09 pm

The “Obama-was-really-born-in-Kenya” meme was actually a Clinton campaign strategy in the 2008 primary ephalum.

I guess you forgot that fact…

#66 Comment By anon On June 17, 2016 @ 7:25 pm

#67 Comment By Ephalum On June 17, 2016 @ 8:33 pm

No it wasn’t close to a Clinton strategy. If it was, he would not have given her the most important job in his administration. Or did you not hear about that?

In all events we are way off topic. Only one candidate is a fascist and will lose badly. And it ain’t Hillary.

#68 Comment By Dick Swart On June 17, 2016 @ 8:52 pm

Mark Twain remarked “You can’t create an economy taking in each others laundry”. But you certainly can maintain a blog!

#69 Comment By anon On June 17, 2016 @ 10:15 pm

Ephalum- You must have been asleep during the 08 primary. Please read the link. In her own words, she leverages race, as does her husband and campaign surrogates. That strategy became a meme during the primary- not the general. That is the historical record. Invent another one if you like… I guess.

Yes, he gave Clinton a good job. He had to to unite the party. She got nearly half the votes in the primary. Political foes consolidate all the time in American politics. It is very common.

That does not change the fact that Clinton leveraged race during the 08 primary- that fact is well documented.

#70 Comment By anon On June 17, 2016 @ 10:34 pm

The picture meme of Obama in native clothing that you are referencing, the Jeremiah Wright video, the focus on “white working voters” and a long list of other racially centric smears came out during the primary from the Clinton campaign- when it appeared Hillary could lose.

In fact, John McCain was forceful in his defense of Obama against those kinds of attacks in the general election. Palin, not so much!

That said, the attacks based on race were indeed formed by camp Clinton during the primary.

That is the historical record.

#71 Comment By DrewTerribleGrantWorld On June 18, 2016 @ 1:28 am

“The picture meme of Obama in native clothing that you are referencing, the Jeremiah Wright video, the focus on “white working voters” and a long list of other racially centric smears came out during the primary from the Clinton campaign- when it appeared Hillary could lose.
In fact, John McCain was forceful in his defense of Obama against those kinds of attacks in the general election. Palin, not so much!
That said, the attacks based on race were indeed formed by camp Clinton during the primary.
That is the historical record.”

Is this English?


#72 Comment By anon On June 18, 2016 @ 9:36 am

Drew- Absolutely. It is appropriate English for a conversation on a blog. In this forum the written word is conversational.

So… if you do not understand what I have written, explain what part of it you do not understand. I’ll explain it using simple words? Which part in particular, do you not understand?

The attacks based on ethnicity against BO came out of camp Clinton during the 2008 primary. That is a matter of record.

Nice try at a diversion though.

#73 Comment By anon On June 18, 2016 @ 9:41 am

If you want really bad English I can refer you to any number of articles from the Williams College Record. In those, the young adults and editors should be trying to use prose that is appropriate for journalism.

Perhaps I should add the words inclusion and diversity- if I want to be an award winning A student. Oh wait, I already am an award winning A student. Never mind.

#74 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 21, 2016 @ 2:23 am

Apparently, Trump is holding his own in the key swing states that will decide the presidential election.

See, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/20/swing-state-polls-show-close-race-clinton-trump/

I’m glad he parted ways with Corey Lewandowski today. Sometimes, the guy that pulled you out of the ditch isn’t the one you need to push you down the road.

#75 Comment By ephalum On June 21, 2016 @ 9:28 am

There is not a single poll, from a single pollster, since Hillary has effectively clinched the nomination that shows Trump beating her either nationally or in any swing state:


Check that out: that is a HECK of a lot of blue. And if Hillary is up 6-7 points nationally, as she is right now, there is no way the swing states are going to buck the national trend and vote Trump — especially in light of Hillary’s massive financial and organizational advantage in those states, which (a) should start to affect the polls as she pummels the airwaves with ads, as she JUST started to do in the past week and (b) which should be worth at least a few points on election day because of superior analytics and voter turnout measures. Remember, while the GOP primary was still competitive, Trump usually significantly underperformed his polling numbers. It will be the same story nationally. Ohio is the only significant swing state in which Trump will ultimately be competitive. I see Hillary pulling way to win Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Virginia each by 5 or more points.

And remember, Trump needs to not merely be competitive in SOME swing states (he’s not competitive in Florida according to the poll you trumpet, down 8 in Florida is absolutely a brutal poll for Trump) he needs to beat her in most of them … Hillary could stand to lose Ohio or Florida, for example (I’m confident she won’t), while Trump needs to win them both to have any realistic chance.

When you fire your campaign manager in late June that is anything but a good sign — Trump the candidate, and the campaign, is falling apart. His financials are abysmal. The candidate gets crazier and less coherent with each passing day while Hillary will continue to get stronger especially once Bernie FINALLY endorses her. I stick with my prediction that Hillary wins all the 2012 states plus North Carolina, and at least one, more likely more than one, of Arizona, Utah, and Georgia.

#76 Comment By ephalum On June 21, 2016 @ 10:22 am

Also, those Quinnipiac polls represent dramatic drops in Trump’s level of support in both Ohio and Florida in just the past month … right now, Clinton is beating Trump in the aggregated polls of EVERY swing state that has been polled within the past few months.

#77 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 22, 2016 @ 12:13 am

Love this. The DNC got hacked and now we have access to their own list of Clinton Foundation scandal facts that they consider “vulnerabilities” for Hillary Clinton.

See, http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/21/secret-memo-42-page-leaked-dnc-document-reveals-clinton-foundation-scandal-vulnerabilities-hillary-clinton/

Trump got rich in real estate and construction. Clinton got rich by selling access to political power. Disgusting beyond belief.

#78 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 22, 2016 @ 12:28 am

FYI: Hillary’s support is sinking in latest CNN poll. She led by double digits in May, but not any more. It turns out Trump beats her on both the economy and terrorism among registered voters.

See, http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-national-cnn-poll/

#79 Comment By ephalum On June 22, 2016 @ 9:28 am

Trump first of all is not rich. That’s why his campaign is broke and he refused to disclose his tax returns. He’s not even a billionaire! If he was, he’d be pouring a few hundred million in to his campaign, rather than cheating veterans out of promised money, and loading a far smaller sum much of which has just gont into his own businesses. To the extent Trump is wealthy, he did it (a) by inheriting money from his Dad (he would be wealthier today if he had just put that money into the stock market), (b) scamming seniors and single moms at Trump University, (c) bullying blue-collar workers via litigation after consistently refusing to pay any of them for services rendered, and (d) going bankrupt again … and again … and again … and again, again screwing his creditors over consistently. And still, after all that, he doesn’t have enough to fund his campaign, not even close. He is a liar and a fraud and I’m glad to see the American peoiple are starting to come around to that fact.

I keep laughing while you post poll after poll that shows Trump losing, and losing by a substantial margin (the polling average is now about 7 points), to Hillary and act as if this is good news for Trump. John Drew, you know zero about government and politics. You were sure Obama would lose — twice. Each time, he won in electoral college landslides. You will be wrong yet again. You are like the Bill Kristol of Ephblog — consistently wrong about everything of consequence, yet you act as if you have some sort of deep insight into matters that are well above your intellectual level or incredible shallow and uninformed views of poltics in America. You love Trump because you are his very target audience — aggrieved older white men who are failures in life and instead of accepting responsibility for their own lack of achievements, want to case blame on foreignors and minorities. At least, a political candidate who speaks EXACTLY to who you are, no wonder you are delusional about his chances! Can’t wait to come back here and laugh at you — although I’m sure after Trump loses, you will still find some way to try to spin it into a victory.

#80 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 22, 2016 @ 10:06 pm

– ephalum

I’m quite certain I’m more successful than you. I can tell your IQ from the quality of your writing, your inability to render an objective opinion, and the lazy way you respond when I tear apart your clearly uninformed comments. You are starting to act as weird as “Lying Hillary” who once claimed she landed in Bosnia and had to flee to avoid sniper fire.

See, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-clinton-bosnia-sniper-story/

#81 Comment By ephalum On June 23, 2016 @ 10:06 am

No, you aren’t. I’m not an embittered 50-something (or whatever) man who spends hours and hours and hours on the internet, for years and years and years, complaining about how unfairly he was purportedly treated by an institution, and indeed by an entire field of employment, that he couldn’t cut it in. I’m no psychologist, but it’s pretty obvious that you need to find validation on the internet becuase you haven’t found it in your own life’s work.

The facts speak for themselves: I’m happy with my life’s work and content that I’ve been successful. You, on the other hand, can only whine about how wronged you’ve been because you could not succeed on your own merits. And who do you blame? Minorities anbd foreigners of course. Not too original I’m afraid … Trump is losing in every single poll. Will you admit you were wrong about him when he loses in November? Of course not — you haven’t admitted to being wrong about Obama’s electoral chances, even now. Because part of your deep pathology is to never admit to being wrong about anything, even when events pass you by. And let me give you another piece of advice: real geniuses don’t need to contiually crow about how smart they are, and don’t need to sign their name with their credentials as if that somehow provides validation to their specious and increasingly unhinged rants. Real intelligence is obvious on its face, and needs no qualifiers.

#82 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On June 23, 2016 @ 10:11 am

Could all participants please try to “aim high,” as the saying goes, in regards to personal attacks in the comment threads? Do your best to only say something you would be comfortable saying in a Williams classroom.

And this probably goes double for our anonymous participants . . .

#83 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On June 23, 2016 @ 12:41 pm

Hear! Hear! to David’s comment above.

“Ad Hominum” seems to be getting out of hand when applied to individual contributing members of this Williams-interest community.

“Gentlemen, my thought is this:” *

While those public figures who have earned animus in the public arena may warrant scorn, those private citizens here in “the classroom” deserve the respect of their personal dignity as colleagues in the discussion of topics.

* the line with which Prof Richard Newhall would end a lecture/discussion. His thought would inevitably be included in some blue-book exam.

#84 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 9:12 pm

But then why is Ephblog posting about Trump at all? I’m fine with politics manifesting themselves in the context of Williams-related discussion, but this original post has nothing to do with Williams in any serious way. And so for the original poster (anonymous, by the way) to suddenly decide 81 comments in that we need a certain level of civility ESPECIALLY among anonymous folks is pretty rich.

Especially one supporting an organization on campus in UL that has been utterly un-transparent about its outside support.

By the way — they should have let Derbyshire speak. The guy got fired from National Review for being too much of a racist (CENSORSHIP!!!!!) so I’m guessing that the people who would have gone to see him at Williams would have survived his idiocy.


#85 Comment By Dick Swart ’56 On June 23, 2016 @ 10:14 pm

Yo, dcat,

# 68 Dick Swart says:

Mark Twain remarked “You can’t create an economy taking in each others laundry”.

But you certainly can maintain a blog!

June 17th, 2016 at 8:52 pm

Dave’s technique : scrape remarks on other Williams blogs to present on Ephblog.. Ipso facto related to Williams.

I still just throw in the occasional thought that is of interest to me without regard to relevance. But I’m 82 and still on the masthead.

Very nice article bringing readers up-to-date on Derek right here:


#86 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 11:10 pm

Cue: John Drew telling us how awesome that one thing he did in the 80s was

#87 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 11:22 pm

Oh, and:

Are you LITERALLY David Dudley Field from the Class of 1925, or are you utterly unaware of all irony? You did, after all, literally just wite: “And this probably goes double for our anonymous participants . . .”

So, says the guy, who runs the blog, under his NOT NAME: about anonymous people, criticizing the views of anonymous people on Ephblog: “And this probably goes double for our anonymous participants . . .”

So, since we so value openness:

Who funds Uncomfortable Learning?

#88 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On June 23, 2016 @ 11:24 pm

What I meant is that anonymous commentators (like me!) have a special obligation to make their comments as polite and on-topic as possible. I like to think (contrary opinions welcome!) that almost everything I write — even stuff that is factually wrong — would be acceptable in a Williams classroom.

#89 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 11:31 pm

I hold the opinion that John Drew needs to prove something of value. I won’t even ask him to compare publications against those of us who write at Ephblog (an impossibility). I would just ask him to prove a single refereed article in the 21st Century. One. He’s a condescending fuckbag. He insults people at allegedly lesser schools. At a certain point shouldn’t he have to earn his self-proclaimed awesomeness? After all, most of us have just asked the name of the one book he’s written. For a superstar scholar, that should be the basic, non-fucktard, entry position, yes?

#90 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 11:39 pm

But seriously, captain Open Dialogue: Who Funds Uncomfortable Learning?

I thought openness was everything?

Give me all of the names. Or is transparency only Kind Of a Thing?


#91 Comment By dcat On June 23, 2016 @ 11:40 pm

So, again: Who funds Uncomfortable Learning?

#92 Comment By dcat On June 24, 2016 @ 12:01 am

See. I’m also pissed off that this fat, out of shape fuck called me, in his Trumpesque phase,anything but a fuck?

#93 Comment By dcat On June 24, 2016 @ 12:02 am

And yeah, that’s my view of John Drew.

#94 Comment By dcat On June 24, 2016 @ 2:33 am

I will give a hundred dollars to anyone here who can show me book from a legitimate press where John Drew is the lead author. (Hahahahaha! Look at all the sweet ass cash I get to keep in my pocket!!!!!!!)

I’ll give: Fifty bucks for Two journal articles, in journals of any quality, where John Drew is the lead author. Two! That doesn’t get you tenure at a standard Masters comprehensive university! So obviously you get to make fun of my university, you loudmouthed little fat boy.
Ok. How about you show me one journal article. Just one. I’ll give you Twenty five bucks. (Looks at relevant databases. Notices that resident idiot does not qualify.)

In fact, I’ll pay sweet ass cash for a book review. Let’s say it will be $10. The lowest hanging fruit in the academic profession — a fucking book review, published. (Looks at relevant databases. Begins to think that person in question is a loudmouthed motherfucker with no actual record of accomplishment. Feels sad for loudmouthed motherfucker who doesn’t recognize that there are databases to understand that loudmouthed motherfucker is, in fact, loudmouthed motherfucker.)

C’mon, John Drew: Bring the noise! How many books have you published? How many refereed articles? Book chapters? How many book reviews? I’m putting up the sweetass cash for you to simply show that you have published those things at all, never mind expecting a level that would earn you tenure (whoops — already missed that standard, eh?).

Oh, and you decided to quote Trump and call me “low energy” a couple of months ago. The fat guy calling the athletic guy “low energy” is probably the funniest part of all of this. Let’s meet, tubby. Let’s meet. You live in Southern California? I have to go there soon for research (ask about it — it’s what actual academics do) maybe we can meet up? Or will that get in the way of your busy not-publishing schedule? C’mon shit pile. While I’m in the midst of out publishing your entire career I’m happy to have you insult the university where my wife teaches, and to show your soft tubby ass that there are consequences for doing so. Dick and David have no problem with you insulting peoples’ families. I fucking well do you burbling little cumbubble. It’s Orange County, right? I’ll send you a copy of my latest work. Don’t worry. I don’t expect the same.


#95 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 24, 2016 @ 2:59 am

I’m not sure how to respond to this. This looks like odd behavior to me.

#96 Comment By dcat On June 24, 2016 @ 3:31 am

My offer stands. Show one book, one refereed article, one book review.

You don’t know how to respond to it because you have no response to it. You insult people on Ephblog and then find their emails and add them to your sad little grant writing list.

You can solve this — it’s been three decades since you got your PhD. Where is your book? Where are your articles? Simple question. It must have an easy answer.

The next thing you publish in the 21st century will be the first thing you publish in the 21st century. These are facts. David (who hates anonymity and yet publishes anonymously, which is weird) defends you at every turn, and I have no idea why. He just wrote me an email asking me to take it easy on you because even he knows you’re a halfwit. And he’s on your side. When your allies think you’re a fuckwit, I think it’s safe to say that you’re a fuckwit.

#97 Comment By John C. Drew, Ph.D. On June 24, 2016 @ 6:09 am

I think David and I agree that you are out of line today. Are you OK?

#98 Comment By Alum On June 24, 2016 @ 10:30 am

Hey dcat,

Donald Trump funds UL.

#99 Comment By dcat On June 25, 2016 @ 12:56 am

Alum —
That would make some sense.


#100 Comment By David Dudley Field ’25 On June 25, 2016 @ 11:59 am

Looks like this comment thread is about complete. Thanks to all the participants!