The lack of endorsements from Republican senators and governors
Leon H. Wolf points out that there have been relatively few endorsements of either Trump or Cruz from elected GOP officials:
Surprising as it is, there are still a lot of people who are on the sidelines as the party decides between Trump and Cruz. Almost the entire United States Senate, many sitting governors, and a large number of ostensibly conservative pundits have said that they are not going to endorse either Cruz or Trump. This is the coward’s way of tacitly endorsing Trump without risking any fallout for doing so, or taking any responsibility for the crazy things that Trump says and does…
Many people have fallen into the trap of believing that Trump’s chances of reaching 50% have already gone down the tubes, but it just isn’t so…
…[I]f the GOP does nothing to unite to stop Trump, he will win, either before the convention or at the convention. And the pundits and elected officials who are sitting on the sidelines now know this ”“ or at least they should. The only reason anyone would refuse to take a stand against Trump at this point ”“ even for Kasich ”“ is because they secretly want Trump to win. If that’s what they want, they should have the courage of their convictions and come out and openly declare it.
Quite apart from the political considerations, there is no substantive reason for anyone to be neutral about Trump at this point.
I agree with a couple of things that Wolf says. I agree that Trump still has a very good chance of winning the nomination on the first ballot. I agree that there is no substantive reason to be neutral about Trump at this point. And I agree that a lot of people are sitting on the sidelines.
Where I disagree is that refusal to take a stand at this point means they secretly want Trump to win. What I actually think it means is this, depending on the person:
(1) Some don’t want either person to win—Trump or Cruz. They can’t figure out who is the worst candidate (there’s no question for them of who is the “best”—the answer is “neither”).
(2) Some are hedging their bets. The election is so close that they cannot predict the winner, so the bandwagon effect isn’t operating. Also, if they think neither candidate is likely to win the general election, they don’t stand to gain anything much from an endorsement (such as an appointment or a favor) and they also would lose the support of people who liked the other candidate. So they may see any endorsement as a lose-lose proposition.
(3) Some are afraid of retaliation if they back the wrong person and the other person is the nominee and perhaps even the eventual winner. In particular, Trump is known for taking revenge on anyone who has thwarted him.
Those are the big three reasons, in my opinion. I also have a question—in close races, are there usually a great many senators or governors who endorse? I really have little idea whether the premise of the whole thing is correct—that is, whether there are a lot fewer endorsements this year than usual at a similar point in the campaign (i.e. when there are still two leading candidates who are very competitive with each other).
I knew one very successful politician who explained his philosophy of endorsements. The key one was, “Don’t endorse until you are in a position to put someone over the top.” That way the credit for the endorsement was maximized.
Neither survivor is a GOPe kind of fella.
And that’s that.
Actually, I have been surprised at the endorsements. I thought the “high ground” was to not endorse during the primaries. Memory may be hazy.
That aside; I have really been disappointed by some of the people who endorsed Trump. Sure, Sarah Palin has a big chip on her shoulder toward the Republican establishment for their lack of respect for her VP credentials. I thought she was smart, however. Does she really expect order out of chaos? Others are even more mystifying. If Giuliani, who is flirting for sure, comes out for him officially I will be completely disoriented. Do they see something that is not apparent? Is there really a hidden Trump? If so, why? What does he look like?
Five Thirty Eight has an excellent analysis on endorsements, and tracks them.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/
I agree with Tom. I was about to post the same link. Cruz leads Trump in endorsements 99 to 42.
I think the post and comments sum it up. An endorsement is a risky play in this tight race that could go multiple ways … even before they have to actually run against whatever comes out of the Democrat party.
Trump and Cruz are disliked by the GOPe.
To back Cruz earns the hatred of Trump, who is the kind of guy whose retaliation as President would be scary, and who wouldn’t forget someone daring to take a stand against him even if he just goes back to private life.
To back Trump puts you on the side of a candidate who stands very little chance of winning.
I’d steer clear of the whole mess, too.
Scott Walker endorsed Cruz. That counts for something with me, though it doesn’t have a large impact.
I’m becoming resigned to a Hillary presidency, and wondering if this will mean much to me personally or not. Micro-level impacts, in other words.
How will she react to terrorism. Bill has evinced some regrets he did not pull the trigger more often or effectively so there may be a bellicose influence looming if and when outrages occur. It’s dimly possible anyway.
I think most Republican officials don’t like either Cruz or Trump, and hope at this point for a contested convention, where they can coalesce behind the eventual winner (i.e., neither of the two named). Not knowing yet who that might be, they are keeping their powder dry.
What I don’t understand is the theory that the anti-Trump forces should force Kasich out. Surely there are a significant number of Republican primary voters (basically, secular pro-business types) who might prefer Trump to Cruz, if those were the only choices. If the game is to deny Trump a majority, then votes for Kasich advance that end as well as votes for Cruz (subject to the complicated rules for actual award of delegates, which are awfully hard to game out two months in advance).
miklos000rosza, 3:08 pm — “I’m becoming resigned to a Hillary presidency, . . . .”
Makes two of us. In fact, I perceive that at some point, I had definitely entered the fifth Ké¼bler-Ross stage of grieving for our nation and culture.
— — — — — —
(As a refresher, here are the five Ké¼bler-Ross stages of grief, plagiarized from Wikipedia; I did spend a lot of time in stage 4, but now, what the heck.)
BEGIN PASTE
1. Denial – The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger – When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, they become frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: “Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; ‘”Who is to blame?”; “Why would this happen?”.
3. Bargaining – The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.
4. Depression – “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die soon, so what’s the point?”; “I miss my loved one, why go on?”
During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the mathematical probability of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.
5. Acceptance – “It’s going to be okay.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.
Ké¼bler-Ross later expanded her model to include any form of personal loss, such as the death of a loved one, the loss of a job or income, major rejection, the end of a relationship or divorce, drug addiction, incarceration, the onset of a disease or chronic illness, an infertility diagnosis, and even minor losses.
END PASTE
Yes, the gope are antithetical when it comes to Cruz and Trump. I think they are of two minds. Trump would be more willing to make deals; after all DJT is the deal maker. And, the donald is clueless and might be willing to let the gope fill a Trump cabinet with their choices. Cruz OTOH is impervious and as POTUS he would bring fundamental change to the GOP. Thus, the donald is preferable. However, when it comes to what happens down ticket, the gope must realize Trump is a disaster and Cruz would do far less damage or might even be an asset.
The likes of Rove must be sweating blood. They want to game the convention and select someone like Kasich or Rubio or even Jeb! But that would be making sausage under a spotlight. So it will get even more interesting as the rest of the primaries unfold and the convention opens.
BTW, the only endorsement that puzzles me is Session jumping on the Trump band wagon.
parker Says:
“BTW, the only endorsement that puzzles me is Session jumping on the Trump band wagon.”
Yes, that one bothered me the most, followed closely by Carson, then Palin, and Jindal a distant fourth.
Sessions seemed a natural ally for Cruz, after heaping praise on him ever since the Gang of 8 defeat. I have a feeling the deal-making attention whore must have offered him something sweet – Secretary of State, maybe Secretary of Defense or Homeland Security.
Then we got to watch Ben Carson literally sucking up to Trump, after Trump relentlessly questioned his faith, called him a child molester, a pathological homicidal maniac and even a not-too-bright, less than average doctor for the crime of creeping up on him in the polls. I don’t believe for a NY second that a Cruz staffer sending out an ill-advised email based directly on a CNN report, too late to make a difference, could have provoked him enough to despise Cruz vs the thunderous month-long character assassination Trump hit him with.
He came right out and admitted Trump offered him something for his endorsement, but wouldn’t say what. Cruz ideologically is much closer to Carson than Trump, so whatever he was promised must be a real doozy.