The GOP primaries and the dropouts: what will happen now?
Why pay attention to a primary in a tiny state like New Hampshire? Is it just that it’s the primary primary in terms of the calendar? Doesn’t that mean it has a disproportionate influence? And isn’t its population not only small, but non-representative?
The answers are pretty much “yes.” But still, along with Iowa (which is a caucus), it’s the only real-world evidence we have so far. And like it or not, New Hampshire creates a buzz and provides momentum. In that case, Trump supporters must be very very happy.
As someone who most definitely does not support Trump, I am hoping for dropouts, the sooner the better, and lots of them. The greater the number of people who think they’re still in the running, the greater the number of people who will hang on. Even though Kasich, for example, has hardly a chance long-term, why would he drop out now? And certainly Bush won’t. Ben Carson, who paid little attention to NH and has barely reached 2% there, appears to be headed for South Carolina, the next primary state, where he is polling better.
Fiorina was one of my early favorites, and though it makes me sad to say it, she didn’t catch on and she won’t catch on, and I was about to add that she needs to give up and give others a chance—something I happen to think Carson should also do. But I just learned that she has dropped out, which shows good judgment, although I actually think she should have done it before New Hampshire.
In a post I put up about two hours ago, I mentioned that Christie should drop out, and reiterated an earlier statement of mine that on Saturday night, “Christie was like a drowning man who reaches out to another person and tries to pull him under too.” Sure enough, Christie has just announced his departure from the race. Good riddance.
I predict that South Carolina will be a repeat of NH, except that Kasich’s number two spot will probably go to Ted Cruz, and the rest of the vote will be split among what I will now start to call the moderate candidates: Bush and Rubio in particular (Rubio being more conservative than Bush, but less conservative than Cruz), with Kasich doing very poorly there. Carson will do somewhat better (if he stays in, which I think he will do).
It all comes down, however, to who will drop out and when, and where will their votes go. If it comes down to three people, for example—Trump and two others, let’s say Cruz and Rubio, or it could be Cruz and Bush—what happens? Do the voters split into roughly even thirds, and do they then limp on like that in an uneasy troika, right up to the finish line and perhaps a brokered convention? Or does one non-Trump person pull ahead by drawing most of the votes of the dropouts? Has a controversial candidate such as Trump already attracted most of the people who might ever be persuaded to vote for him, or can he appeal to significantly more as the field winnows and get the nomination?
I have been disturbed but not surprised that the field hasn’t winnowed so very much yet. I fear that self-interest on the part of each candidate, and deep pockets for some, argue against its happening soon enough. Who would be the candidate[s] willing to take one for the team? As Matthew Yglesias points out:
The establishment’s consistent dream, ever since Trump rocketed into a national polling lead, has been that consolidation of the “establishment lane” candidates will lead eventually some someone from the Rubio/Bush/Christie/Kasich foursome taking a strong lead. The problem for the establishment is that New Hampshire is the only state where this would have actually worked. Had supporters of those four men all united behind a single candidate, he would have won.
But they didn’t…
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there’s no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they’re running out of time.
.
If it’s any consolation (and to me it is not), the same muddled incompetence that the establishment GOP has shown in fighting the Democrats it now shows in fighting for its own survival. That argues in favor of “fools” in the “fools vs. knaves” controversy (some, of course, would say “both”).
Too many cooks spoil the pot. Too many candidates spoil the—GOP chances? If the all-powerful much-feared-and-hated “establishment” could coalesce around one candidate (the un-Trump, the anti-Trump), their candidate would have a decent chance of wining, perhaps a good chance. But at the moment, it seems most likely that by the time the South Carolina primary is over, the leading non-Trump candidate would be—if numbers are what you’re looking at—Ted Cruz. After all, he won Iowa, he came in third to Trump and the anomalous Kasich in NH, and he will probably come in second to Trump in South Carolina.
David French explains why his NH primary showing was even better for Cruz than it seems. It has to do with what he was up against, and how little effort he expended:
First, Cruz spent just 27 days in New Hampshire, about half the number of Bush and Fiorina. Kasich and Christie both spent more than 70 days, and even Rubio was in New Hampshire more than Cruz. Even more importantly, Cruz spent very few resources on New Hampshire: Less than $1 Million combined between the campaign and SuperPACs. Compare that to Bush, whose combined efforts spent $35 Million in New Hampshire, while Christie spent $18 Million, Rubio $15 Milllion and Kasich $12 Million. All of them were beaten by Cruz in a state that was supposed to be a bad fit for him. Cruz enters the South Carolina primary with by far the largest war chest of any GOP candidate in hard campaign dollars and has by far the most extensive grassroots fundraising network to add to that total. Furthermore, he’s best organized candidate in the coming states in the “SEC Primary” March 1, and is the only candidate in the field right now who definitely has the resources and organization to compete throughout the primary season. A Southern supporter of Trump’s recently lamented that “Cruz is actually running the perfect [expletive] campaign” and while there are still many roadblocks in his way Cruz’s pathway to the nomination has never looked clearer.
The dilemma for the establishment is that Ted Cruz is not their guy. If you ask who they dislike more, Trump or Cruz, the answer would almost certainly be Cruz.
That argues against their backing Cruz, but if they don’t it would play into Trump’s hands. Common wisdom would say that a two-person race is more likely than a three-person race to lead to the defeat of Trump, but if the two people are Trump and Cruz, then the establishment is likely to want a third. It almost doesn’t matter who it is, but Bush would be the obvious choice, or perhaps Kasich (despite the fact that he’s less popular than Bush). Rubio could be a sort of honorary establishment choice, because he’s a bit too conservative to be a natural for them, but they probably would take him in a pinch. His trajectory was halted by the drowning Chris Christie, though, and it’s unclear whether he can start the climb again.
[NOTE: Here’s a good piece on the prospects.]
[ADDENDUM: Here’s Carly’s farewell message, which is excellent. Hint: it’s not exactly farewell, although she is indeed dropping out of the running.]
I was very impressed that Cruz spent so little and got so much of the vote. I do think it will be a Trump/Cruz race for most of it. Bush will be the one to stick around even if he is polling badly because he has the money to do it. He will be the establishment candidate everyone else centers around and will try to push at every turn. He won’t leave any time soon.
I did find it interesting that today Trump said he is interested in having a ‘politician’ as his running mate, since that is not his strength. Wonder who he has in mind.
Neo:
If it’s any consolation (and to me it is not), the same muddled incompetence that the establishment GOP has shown in fighting the Democrats it now shows in fighting for its own survival.”
Their own survival.
The Trump-front alt-Right activists mean to take over the GOP. The mean to displace the mainstream conservatives of the Right, which is on the road to taking over the GOP.
The establishment GOP needs – has always needed – mainstream conservatives to step up to compete in the activist game versus the activist Left that has taken over the Democrats.
It’s mainstream conservatives, mainly, who have shown the “same muddled incompetence” in the activist game and left the the GOP vulnerable.
Take 2.
Neo:
If it’s any consolation (and to me it is not), the same muddled incompetence that the establishment GOP has shown in fighting the Democrats it now shows in fighting for its own survival.”
Their own survival.
The Trump-front alt-Right activists mean to take over the GOP. They mean to displace the mainstream conservatives of the Right, which is on the road to taking over the GOP.
The establishment GOP needs — has always needed — mainstream conservatives to step up to compete in the activist game versus the activist Left that has taken over the Democrats.
It’s mainstream conservatives, mainly, who have shown the “same muddled incompetence” in the activist game and left the GOP vulnerable.
So, New Hampshire does serve a purpose, or at least has an effect, I guess.
Speaking of effect, an article up on Powerline discusses the effect that Christie has had on this campaign, as well as 2012. Paul Mirengoff reminds me of what I did not like about Christie; even though I started to warm to him a bit during the debates. I guess that standing near Trump worked in his favor.
I am sad that Carly is gone. So many that I favored now are; Walker, Perry, now Carly. I cannot fathom Carson. What does he expect? Want?
I am beginning to fear that no one can stop Trump. The GOP electorate remind me of the old Marine (TIC) command; “Ready! Fire! Aim!” Or maybe the admonishment to form a circle (facing inward) and prepare to fire. Rubio dug a hole that might be hard to climb out of. Given the typical 21st century attention span, labels are definitive. Cruz is hated by the movers and shakers in the GOP. The Governors seem unable to gain any real traction. Therefore, I am beginning to pay attention to Bloomberg. Hard to believe that he might be the most attractive choice in November, but that could be the case.
South Carolina looms large.
Bloomberg will tell you what you can eat and drink….He is a liberal with a CAPITAL L. He changed the rules, so that he could have a third term…Is that really what we want?? Cruz 2016
When push comes to shove the GOPe would rather lose with Trump than win with Cruz.
Assuming Cruz to be sincere, (based on his record) it would spell at the least, a great lessening in the GOPe’s influence and ability to rig the ‘field’ to their advantage. And at the worst, the financial and political damage to the GOPé¨ could be incalcuable.
Whereas if they win with the wild man Trump they can always disown him later.
Given the GOP’s predictable recalcitrance, it may well take a Reagan style sweep of the electorate for Cruz to win the Presidency.
Oldflyer,
So, by your calculus, a man who demonstrably abhors free choice, otherwise known as liberty, can under the ‘right’ conditions, be the most attractive?
Ted wins big in the SEC primary.
I guess my endorsement of Carly wasn’t enough. Hope there is a big role for her in the Cruz Administration.
Hmmmm, the alt-Right wants to use Trump to destroy the GOPe, but does not consider the possibility a POTUS Trump will eat them? Trump, the master of ‘the deal’ will feel right at home with the GOPe. Why? Because DJT is not a conservative. He is a more bombastic, flamboyant, Viva Las Vegas Bloomberg. He is riding the wave of the frustration of a large portion of voters who want to throw the bums out, nothing more and nothing less.
Cornhead,
That’s my wish too. Cruz could give Carly a big vacuum cleaner and tell her to get to work on government agencies. I bet she’d love being a cleaning lady.
Your analysis seems right.
The choice is coming down to Trump vs Cruz or Trump vs Cruz + Bush or Trump vs Cruz + Rubio. None of those options has much appeal to the GOPe, because Trump probably wins any of them. But, it was always going to be establishment vs anti-establishment because the GOP establishment had so betrayed its base.
If Hillary doesn’t right her ship, Bloomberg may see an opening.
One of Trump’s biggest selling points, and often cited by his rabid followers right after immigration, is that he is self-financing and thus cannot be bought. I inform them, for naught of course, that what they’re advocating for is that eventually only the .1% will be running.
Bloomberg has 4 times as much as Trump’s self-inflated net worth, on top of which a lot more multi-billionaires would back him over Trump.
I choose to believe that people of solid conservative principles like Cruz cannot be bought either; unfortunately, doing the constitutional and right things like lowering corporate taxes would benefit the wealthy disproportionately because they already pay most of the income taxes. While this would create a booming economy and millions of real full-time jobs plus increase the value of stocks in virtually everyone’s 401k/IRA, that would all be ignored and Cruz would be excoriated in the media for being beholden to the wealthy.
As long as the media is in reality an arm of the left, conservative governance will always be stuck in catch-22s invented by them. Glenn Reynolds has for a long time been advocating for the wealthy on the right to start buying failing media or starting new ones to counteract this.
@geokstr: Your choices are an unbought billionaire or a politician bought by a billionaire. In Cruz’s case, the billionaire is Robert Mercer.
PatD:
It depends what the billionaire wants—not all billionaires want the same thing. And it depends on the meaning of “bought”—giving money to someone buys influence, but depending on the person, it’s not the same amount of influence.
A billionaire doing the buying is only as good as his intentions are.
Both Trump and Bloomberg are anti-liberty, in different ways. If having a lot of money seems to be our new criterion for “having integrity and not being beholden to special interests” (and I’ve written posts on exactly why I do NOT think it is a valid one), then Bloomberg has tons more money than Trump. He makes Trump look like a piker.
Bloomberg has another advantage (actually, two, but they boil down to one, in a way). The first is that he doesn’t go around like a loose cannon insulting anyone who crosses him and trying to destroy them. The second is that he has actually held public office, mayor of NY, and therefore has an actual record to study. It’s a long record, too—he was in office for three consecutive terms.
What’s more, Bloomberg is a philanthropist, and Trump is one of the stingiest billionaires on record. If you want to actually study Bloomberg’s positions, they are here. I have some serious problems with many of them, as I do with Trump’s.
I am pretty sure a lot of moderates would want to take a look at Bloomberg. Personally, I am aghast that it may come down to the abominable Trump vs. the abominable Clinton, with Bloomberg as a possibly more sane choice, because I disagree with Bloomberg on so many issues. And it’s particularly ironic because we started out on our side with so many good candidates, and still have a few, IMHO.
Bloomberg obviously over stepped the bounds big time in a few areas and got lots of notoriety for that. Not noticed in all of the hoopla was that overall he was a pretty effective Mayor.
Trump has exploited a vein of frustration and anger and exploited it with bombastic rhetoric. I cannot fathom him as President. In fact I find the prospect abhorrent.
I would think that nothing need be said about the prospect of Hillary as President..
So yes. If it comes down to Trump, Hillary, or Bloomberg I would very likely go for Bloomberg. I did not say that was an attractive option.
I hope that the dissenters did not read any more than that into my earlier post..
@neo-neocon:
Bloomberg lost me immediately on illegal immigration. That is the #1 issue driving Trump’s rise. Limiting Muslim immigration is #2.
Bloomberg is also full of hot air on climate change. Trump thinks it is all BS. In his book, Crippled America Trump writes:
Do I want a philanthropist who sees nothing wrong with illegal immigration or a tightwad who wants to seal the border and send all the law-breakers and welfare cheats back home? I’ll take the tightwad, especially since he is strong on stopping the flood of cheap, high quality heroin into our schools and colleges.
Robert Mercer is a billionaire that loathes the GOPe. How strange that he supports Cruz.
PatD:
As I said, I differ strongly with Bloomberg on many issues. And that is most definitely one of them. There are certainly others.
I differ strongly with Trump on many issues, they just tend to be different issues.
On the other hand, there are other candidates (Cruz, for example), with whom I differ on very few issues.
Trump loses me on character and profoundly narcissistic personality and general fitness for office. Bloomberg is far superior on those things, and has executive political experience of some length, although only at the local city level (NY is a large city, though).
To me, it’s a no-brainer: Cruz. So I find it revolting to have to contemplate the choice of the dreadful Trump vs. the dreadful Hillary, with the semi-awful Bloomberg as what might be the best alternative of the three.
I have no idea what I would do, but it would not be to vote for Hillary.
@neo-neocon:
We can agree on something. NOT hillary. Cruz is my second choice.
I hope my next girlfriend is named Carly so I can make further good use of my “Carly” coffee mug.
Oldflyer Says:
February 10th, 2016 at 5:08 pm
With all due respect, are you insane?
I’d vote for Sanders before I’d vote for Bloomberg. And I’d write in my cat’s name before I’d vote for Sanders.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is apparently a real thing.
I can’t believe some of the comments here. Anyone who thinks Bloomberg is in any way preferable to Trump has lost me.
Trump has not yet shown himself to be a tinpot dictator. Bloomberg long ago removed all doubt.
> Anyone who thinks Bloomberg is in any way preferable to Trump has lost me.
Need a roadmap?
A more insightful question regarding Bloomberg might be to ask, what are the policy differences between he and Hillary? I’m unaware of any substantive policy differences. If so, a vote for Bloomberg would essentially be a vote for a Hillary in pants.
Trump might well screw us, but any democrat (and Bloomberg, as a hard left liberal IS a democrat) WILL screw us.
rickl:
It depends on what your criteria are. I just listed some ways in which Bloomberg is better than Trump.
I also made it clear that if all three were running, I would have a huge dilemma, but I know I would not be voting for Hillary.
However, I submit that the only reason that “Trump has not yet shown himself to be a tinpot dictator” is that he’s never held office. However, there’s plenty of evidence from the rest of his life that he would like nothing better than to be a tinpot dictator (actually, in his case, a gold-plated dictator).
@neo-neocon: Tin-pot dictator?
Trump established his credibility by helping to save New York. Worth the read, actually.
Trump ran his business by picking the best people and delegating to them. He’s actually good at that. Tin-pot dictators don’t do that. Tin-pot dictators closet themselves with faithful yes-men and yes-women who only reinforce their grandiose view of themselves. We have one in office now.
PatD:
Trump never had the political power of any office, much less the enormous power of a presidency, to work with. He was a private citizen, and limited as such. However, he has made no secret of his drive for power, and his belief in big government to wield it, and his lack of interest in most of the restrictions of the Constitution.
I have described all of this in post after post. You ignore it, but the pattern is clear.
And I must say that “An autocratic ruler with little political credibility, but with self-delusions of grandeur” is one of the best descriptions of Trump’s plan for the presidency as I’ve ever seen.
Bloomberg seems to think that the Second Amendment can be overridden by passing laws, thus depriving me of the means of self-defense, while he enjoys the services of a 24/7 private armed security detail.
Let’s just say I have a leeetle problem with that.
Neo:
You referred to the “dreadful Trump” vs. the “semi-awful Bloomberg”. Yet there is ample empirical evidence that Bloomberg is an autocrat who spits on the Constitution, while Trump has no such track record. How can you say that you would prefer Bloomberg over Trump?
rickl,
I consider TDS an emotional state in which the inflicted believe Trump has transformed from the NYC tycoon who has a long record of supporting ‘progressive’ politicians and causes, into a conservative crusader that will right all the wrongs. I see no basis for that belief beyond wishful thinking.
parker:
I have serious misgivings about Trump. It’s just that I despise all of the other candidates more.
Are we writing Rubio off too soon? He might do better than Cruz in South Carolina, where foreign policy is important because of all the military folks living there. It’s also Lindsay Graham’s state and he really doesn’t like either Trump or Cruz — said they’d be the “death” of the Republican party in November and that Cruz is “just as wrong as Obama, if not worse” on foreign policy. And the other South Carolina senator, Tim Scott, has officially endorsed Rubio, as has Congressman Trey Gowdy.
@neo-neocon: Trump’s plans for the presidency are outlined on his web-site and fleshed out in his book, “Crippled America”. I’ve read both and I don’t see any “self-delusions of grandeur” beyond his belief that he can implement what he proposes. Since he has a track-record of doing just that in the complex world of real-estate in New York and beyond, I give him some credibility. He says he will make Mexico pay for the wall. Remittances from Mexicans in the US back to Mexico exceed Mexico’s Oil revenuue. Don’t you think there is some leverage there? Or in renegotiating NAFTA? Or modifying the tax code to encourage Ford and Nabisco to stay in the US?
Mexico has huge incentives to export their poverty, criminals and drugs to the US. Isn’t it time to eliminate those incentives? Who started that conversation and who continues to hammer it? A tin-pot dictator would open the borders, arm the drug cartels and reduce the penalties for selling heroin. Guess who did all those things?
Trump hasn’t held office but he has interacted with politicians for all of his professional life. He described exactly what Peter Schweizer exposes in his book Extortion. He freely disclosed that he contributed to Nancy Pelosi. A couple of years later, when he had problems with environmental impact statements in California, he called Pelosi. He said, “If I hadn’t donated she wouldn’t even have taken my call.” He knows how the game is played and he has been exposing it on the campaign trail.
PatD:
I don’t know whether you’re gullible/naive, or whether you actually have trouble understanding what I’m referring to, or what.
Do you really think that I’m referring to Trump’s written policy papers at his website (which of course he didn’t write, and mostly cannot even speak intelligibly about)?
I am referring to his actions, speech, and life. If you don’t see that this man has “self-delusions of grandeur” you simply have not studied his life. I have. That’s not to say he doesn’t have accomplishments; he does. But he’s also had quite a few failures, made many promises he doesn’t keep (or are fraudulent, such as Trump University), but most of all it’s his braggadocio about just about everything.
See this, this, this, and this.
And why on earth would “interacting with politicians” or “knowing how the game is played” be some sort of qualification for actually holding office?
Trump comes of as a clown but one thing you can say about him is that political correctness won’t reign supreme.
To me that is real Liberty – being able to say that there are differences between men and women. Saying that I support traditional marriage. Saying my culture is important and that we should not be importing people who oppose it. And to say those things without fearing for my livelihood.
So when I see “convervatives” say they support Bloomberg, who thrives and promotes political correctness, then I know they are fakes.
I wouldn’t vote the top of the ticket if Bush or Rubio were elected, or write in my dog, but to promote or say you’d vote for vile creature like Bloomberg?
Perhaps it’s his new anti-gun partnership with Cosmo magazine that you’re supporting him?
There are a number of negative things that I foresee in a Trump Presidency but I’m not in the least worried that Trump might turn into a tinpot dictator. Were he to try, he’d be impeached in a NY minute by a large majority of both parties.
It’s highly probable that Trump would govern in a manner that is sure to offend both party’s bases.
What I do fear is that he would make ‘deals’ that are harmful in the long run to America.
That said, if we don’t stop illegal immigration, reform legal immigration and, stop Muslim migration into America, it’s all over anyway and everything else in comparison is a moot point.
It’s like a medical case needing triage, if a patient has a staph infection, you don’t focus first on his complaints about his sprained ankle.
Trump is the only one speaking unequivocally enough about these mortal threats to America. I hope that Cruz privately thinks the same way because if he doesn’t, as President whatever he then does will be too little, too late.
Neo – Your comment about Christie as drowning man who reaches out to another and tries to pull him under reminded me of his huggy-kissy show with obama during Hurricane Sandy. You can never persuade me that there was no calculation as to the huge positive push obama was given with that piece of theatre and Chris’ knowledge that he could now live to fight in a wide open nomination race in 2016.
@neo-neocon:
You say:
You are saying this about someone who can read contracts hundreds of pages long, digest the contents, and find a way to satisfy all parties in making a deal. You must think the man is a moron. Good luck with that.
He has entered politics on the other side for the first time in his life and is surfing the polls like a pro. Morons don’t do that, unless you are thinking of Being There
He’s ghost written or written many books. I’m pretty sure he knows what is in them because he proscribes the same policies in his ad lib speeches. There is no teleprompter on his stage and he always speaks ex tempore. It might sound primitive and grandiloquent to your finely tuned ears, but it resonates with his audiences and the voters.
Know thy enemy. Trump knows the enemy. They are the politicians who extort donors and ignore their voters. They are the politicians who sell access to the highest bidder. They are the politicians who talk conservative on the stump and vote Obama when elected. They are the politicians who opened the borders to drug traffickers. They are the politicians who failed to hold our tin-pot dictator to account for selling arms to drug cartels. They are the politicians who just voted to allow in hundreds of thousands of unvetted Muslims. They are the politicians who won’t address our debt. They are the politicians who cave whenever it helps our enemies.
You shouldn’t underestimate your enemy and denigrate him with cheap insults such as
There are more worthy lines of attack.
As Pat says above, “If it’s any consolation (and to me it is not), the same muddled incompetence that the establishment GOP has shown in fighting the Democrats it now shows in fighting for its own survival” , I couldn’t agree more. I’ve spent most of my life voting for the lesser of two evils for President, and unless Cruz or Rubio is nominated, I’ll do the same this time. Trump will be by far the better of whoever the Democrats finally settle on. And this thought just came into my old, tired brain – a Trump-Martinez ticket would be a solid winner.
Hell yeah, neo-neocon, no “cheap” insults that happen to be true: you should use classy insults like smearing Trump’s opponents with the charge that they’ve been bought by obscure billionaires. It simply isn’t fair to characterize the gibberish Trump spouts at all hours for the nonsense it is — no, on the contrary, fairness demands we use our imaginations to pretend Trump is speaking substantive English, since after all that’s what the man himself does.
Anyone have any comments on the March 15th NC Primary election being put on hold by a Federal Judge? With the NC Primaries already underway (absentee ballots), this (Clinton appointee) judge and two of his buddies decided that the 5 y.o. redistricting is invalid. Yes, I question the timing…
Special session to redraw NC congressional districts may be called next week
One would think this travesty would make the national news, but apparently their focus is elsewhere.
Some states have open primaries. New Hampshire is one. When non-republicans show up and vote, they vote for Trump.
Watch for closed primary states to have Trump lose and open primary states cause him to win. It could be a real roller-coaster.
PatD,
“Know thy enemy. Trump knows the enemy. They are the politicians who; extort donors and ignore their voters… sell access to the highest bidder… talk conservative on the stump and vote Obama when elected… opened the borders to drug traffickers… who failed to hold our tin-pot dictator to account for selling arms to drug cartels… who just voted to allow in hundreds of thousands of unvetted Muslims… who won’t address our debt… who cave whenever it helps our enemies.”
Who elected those politicians? Who keeps reelecting those politicians? Who refuses to hold them accountable? At what point does ignorance and indoctrination become, in its effects, indistinguishable from willful acts of evil?
Hitler could do nothing without his Gestapo, and they could do nothing without the military’s acquiescence…
@Geoffrey Britain: We the people keep electing these faux conservatives and they keep betraying us. Our revenge is Trump or Cruz this time.
Two points…
1. I may not like Gov Christie’s politics, but he handles the media beautifully. His smackdown of George Stephanopoulos was a work of art.
2. The GOP establishment would rather mate with an active wasp’s nest than rally behind Ted Cruz. They would, in fact, rather lose to the Democrats. Ruling in Hell, as opposed to serving in Heaven, is more their style.
It’s my observation that the Trumpistas are starting to adopt irksome lefty-leftist minion traits such as believing at face value (more like accepting as gospel truth) anything emanating from their cult of personality figurehead. It’s creepily Obama-esque.
Why do you people not get it? Trump is even less believable and trustworthy than a typical politician. He is a salesman of the aggressive con man style – he will say anything if it gets you to do things that benefit him, which in this case is either voting for him, or voting against another candidate whose election would be less advantageous to him. The jury remains out on whether he’s running solely on personal hubris or is just creating mayhem among Republican candidates for the betterment of the parties he is actually helping.
Even if he is just running for president because it’s a toy he’s never had before, his confrontational and offensive behavior is counterproductive and his vaguely grounded, irrational and often unworkable my-way-or-the-highway ideas is going to make us a pariah among nations. Was Obama spineless jellyfish? Yes. Is the only possible solution electing a walking international incident? Can we not elect an adult? We actually have decent Republican candidates – just tell Trump to take his cheeseball reality show routine back to cable TV and out of an election which is probably determining whether our nation survives or declines.
I continue to think that trump is probably the best hope for the GOP going forward. Their “pure conservatism” shtick is not helping the lesser of our society. His immigration policy has the best chance of making inroads into and helping the black community. His renegotiating of trade deals at least acknowledges that the middle class is getting demolished.
PatD, I agree with everything you said about Trump, that is why he is on my increasingly short list. The biggest issue for me is, picking any candidate is a matter of trust. Who do you trust to do what he says? That is what it comes down to.
Because Neo and other commenters are convinced the Trump will not do what he says. I believe he will if given the chance.
I do not believe many others who are still in the race. So, to try to convince me or someone else to not vote for Trump and toss him the pile, you’d first have to convince me he’s lying. I’ve read his book from 2011 and I agreed with most of what he wrote. I’ve watched several old videos of him, and I see that he was kind, considerate and thoughtful…so I know he has the ability to be ‘presidential,’ which is different than his campaign self. And, to be honest, if you watched Ted Cruz in Iowa going full-on spiritual, do YOU think he will be like that in the White House? So, we all know that a campaign is different than a presidency.
Anyway, thanks PatD for expressing some of how I feel about Trump.
PatD:
You habitually misunderstand most of what I write about Trump, and/or misrepresent it.
You think I think “Trump is a moron”? I happen to believe that Trump is smart, and have never said he’s stupid or anything close to it. For the record, I always said that Obama was smart, too. And other people here were arguing that he wasn’t.
Let me state right now (and I’ve said this before): Trump is smart.
If you actually read the incredible number of words I’ve written on Trump already, you’d see that my critiques of him have nothing to do with dumb and everything to do with character, trust, and philosophy.
In terms of your objections in your comment, however, I have little doubt Trump could understand the policy papers at his site quite well, for the most part. His problem is not lack of ability. My opinion is that he doesn’t seem familiar with them when he speaks, either because he hasn’t put in the time or perhaps because for some reason he doesn’t want to talk to the American people about it.
I have also observed that Trump “misunderstands” things like the difference between eminent domain for a bona fide public project and eminent domain for a Kelo type taking, and he mixes the two as though there is no difference. I’m watched and listened to him him do that, over and again, and I have long thought his “misunderstanding” is purposeful rather than actual. I think he understands the difference only too well, and he’s just mixing them up because he wants to defend his own attempt at using Kelo-type reasoning/arguments against Coking and Holmes in his lawsuits. I suppose it’s also possible he hasn’t bothered to learn the difference, and delegates that task to his lawyers. But I’m assuming that, whichever it is (and I think he knows the difference) he has the intelligence to learn the difference and that it suits his purposes to seem to not understand.
The issue is not about Trump’s intelligence; my point has consistently been about his character and his intentions. I actually don’t think I’ve ever insulted his intelligence.
I wrote in my comment to you:
I certainly don’t mean “cannot” in the sense of “is physically and mentally incapable of.” That would be absurd; he obviously could learn this rather simple stuff and speak about it if he cared to. It’s “cannot” as in G. Washington’s cherry-tree story, “I cannot tell a lie,” meaning “something in me will not let me do this.” It’s not an absolute inability, it’s a choice of how to be and how to present oneself.
If you don’t see that Trump has “self-delusions of grandeur” you simply have not studied what he’s said to people, including tons of it prior to running for office this year. That’s not to say he doesn’t have accomplishments; he certainly does. But he’s also had quite a few failures, made many promises he doesn’t keep (or are fraudulent, such as Trump University), but most of all it’s his braggadocio about just about everything.
Perhaps you read my word word “intelligibly” as being the same as “intelligently”? I used the word “intelligibly” from the root “intelligible,” which means: “capable of being understood; comprehensible; clear.” I will add that what I mean is this: for the most part, Trump declines to speak in any clear or comprehensible way about the details of his position papers. He either seems to have not much actual interest in those details and really is not all that familiar with them, and/or has little interest in explaining them to the public when asked. My guess is that he thinks that will bore people and sound wonky, like Cruz, plus he doesn’t like to be pinned down, and he feels he needn’t bother with a lot of it to win.
I have criticized him for many, many things, but never for being dumb.
Yes, he’s had books ghost-written, and I’m sure Trump is quite familiar with most if not all of what’s in them. In fact, despite the ghostwriters, I am pretty sure that they are based on his own ideas. I have not accused him of not being able and willing to speak both intelligently AND intelligibly about The Art of the Deal. But that is a very different thing from his willingness to speak intelligibly about his position papers since he has been in the 2016 presidential race.
You write:
But I’ve not suggested he doesn’t talk intelligently about his books. I assume he can, and I also assume he does. I assume that’s one of his strengths, actually. I was referring to the way he speaks about his policy papers and the details in them when he is interviewed or in particular in a debate, and asked specific questions about them. Basically, he brushes off most of the questions and goes into very little detail, and even sometimes gets the details wrong. I think the exception is probably his tax policy, which he’s spoken about in more detail, but I would expect him to be more interested in talking about that.
Nor have I ever used a word like “primitive” to describe Trump; I think the entire persona he presents to the world is a well-thought-out self-presentation designed to present a certain persona and image to the public.
‘….the same muddled incompetence that the establishment GOP has shown in fighting the Democrats.’
What? The establishment GOP has absolutely no interest, incentive or desire to fight the democrats. If they had, they would have actively opposed them. They would have understood the majorities they gained were a signal the electorate wanted them to fight the democrats, to reverse the course.
The establishment republicans and democrats have wanted exactly the same things which is why they have co-operated. Any appearance of opposition was ‘failure theater’, say they oppose but put in place things to enable dems to achieve their goals (lowering requirements for a treaty approval, then claim they didn’t have the votes to stop it).
That’s why the establishment candidates are failing. The electorate doesn’t trust them to be conservative. They understand that it’s not incompetence keeping them fighting the democrats, its a complete lack of desire or intent to oppose them. Pepsi and Coke- the parties are just branding not substantive differences in philosophy or approach to government.
Just for giggles, has anyone pondered what will happen if there is a concerted effort by the GOPe to stop Trump and it works? How many of his supporters are going to work for, contribute to, and vote for another GOPe liar in any putative 2016 election after they conspire to get rid of the candidate that they support in no small part because he fights the GOPe?
Even if you are making the GOPe assumption that the plebians who support him are inconsequential; those plebians who support him are those who do the work in campaigns.
In 2014, we started the campaign actually in October 2013. I volunteered no less than 4 hours and up to 28 hours a week up to election day, based on the promise that the Republicans would actually fight the Democrats if we gave them the Senate. I was far from the most active campaigner here. Not one Democrat won in our county, not one Leftist ballot issue won in our county. And from the moment the polls closed, the GOPe betrayed us and collaborated with Obama, and haven’t stopped yet.
So why should I work for a GOPe candidate who will just do what the Democrats want? Why should any of us? And how do you intend to win without us?
If we can survive 8 yrs of Obama, we can survive 4 yrs of Trump.
Which is far from an endorsement, but I don’t see letting the GOPe drive me into a panic to vote for their chosen loser, like I did in 2008 and 2012.
In fact, if the “establishment” field doesn’t thin by the end of February, Trump will become the GOP establishment’s candidate because he will be the only one who can stop Cruz, whom they hate. Trump is not ideological, they can “do business” with him. Cruz has principles that are anathema.
The GOPe has to be the most pathetic political class ever–except maybe the Chicago Republican Party.
georges and others re “the hug” — I just want to ask you one question: If your house was flattened by a natural disaster, and you were standing in the middle of the wreckage wondering how you were ever going to clean up and rebuild, and suddenly your crazy left-wing uncle drives up — you know, the one you disagree with on every point, who makes Thanksgiving dinner a living hell — hops out of his car waving his checkbook, and says, “Anything you need, you’ve got it, son. I’ve got your back. How much do you want for starters?” — would you give him a hug? I know damn well I would!
I find it amazing how so many are in the extreme with regards to their opinion of Trump or Cruz or whoever.
My first choice is Cruz, but Trump is a close second. I am under no delusion that Trump has become some super-conservative via a Road to Damascus conversion.
My approach is this. Conservatives have sucked it up and supported one failed GOPe candidate after another (Romney, McCain, Dole). We have worked to give the GOP the House and the Senate. The thanks we have gotten has been lies and betrayal.
The truly conservative Cruz has my vote. However, if he does not win the nomination, I am fine supporting Trump. Trump may be a blowhard but he will be our blowhard. He will probably follow through on his promises regarding the border, immigration, and tax reform if for no other reason than his ego will demand it, because too many have said he can’t do it. By doing those things alone, he will begin to turn this ship of state around to a better path.
Beyond that, he will absolutely give the GOPe fits and will probably go a long way toward loosening their grip on power. He will probably also biotch-slap the corrupt Chamber of Commerce, which would be lovely.
As I saw one person put it, Trump will be our murder weapon to use against the GOPe.
mhj’s notion that we survived 8 yrs under Barack so we can survive 4 years under Trump may be right, may be wrong.
We have not yet survived the full 8 yrs, and we may not.
It is quite possible we are in a global deflation aka recession, possibly headed to worse. We have no horses to pull us out of the economic morass into which we have been placed by the Ruling Class.
The last Depression was remedied only by going to war, with much deficit financing, possible because entitlements had not eaten up the Federal Budget, and citizens still had money to lend Uncle Sam (war bonds). Can’t do that now.
I think it will get bad this year. It’s been bad, but it is going to get worse.
Richard Saunders:
Not if my crazy left-wing uncle was running for the presidency, I was the Republican governor of a state, all the cameras were on, and it was shortly before election day.
Subotai Bahadur:
By the way, that quote from my post that you quoted in your comment was actually not something I said. I was quoting an article by—of all people—Matthew Yglesias.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Now for your question:
I don’t pretend to have my finger on the pulse of the GOP establishment. My guess is this, however: they think that there are still enough people besides the group supporting Trump that will help their candidate get elected. It’s the same sort of problem, in a way (or at least analogous) to the situation Obama faced in 2008 when he knocked out Hillary, who did have a lot of support. I recall that a lot of Hillary supporters were very bent out of shape at how Hillary had been treated by Obama and his people, and they didn’t want to work for his election.
So a certain percentage of them didn’t. And he won anyway. He won for many reasons. One was that he apparently had charisma (at least for a lot of people), and he was the historic first black candidate of a major party. The second was that he faced a weak opponent in MCain. There were others, but those two were big, and he didn’t need the disaffected Hillary people in order to win the general.
I see the possibilities for 2016 as similar, except minus the charisma and the historic black president part. If the establishment’s favorite son is Bush, and he were to be nominated, he has little charisma and he’s not a first anything. With or without Trump’s supporters, I don’t think he could win.
But if the nominee is Cruz (not the establishment choice) I see a different picture. Don’t know if he could win, but he would have the advantage of having stood up to the establishment even in the Senate. Of course, the most fervent Trump supporters will say “not enough,” and “he’s just a tool like all the others.” But that’s not the set of all Trump supporters, not by a longshot. A lot of them respect Cruz, and see him as the insider-outsider, and I believe they would support him (especially because it’s clear he is NOT the establishment pick). He also has a “first” as a Hispanic, or half-Hispanic, although the left considers him an honorary non-Hispanic. He lacks charisma, but since the Democrats have an even weaker field now than McCain was, the lack of charisma might not matter.
But what is the GOP establishment to do? If it comes down to Trump or Cruz battling in out, they dislike them both but would probably choose Trump.