Hugh Hewitt calls for Trump to be replaced as nominee
Sign of something brewing? Or just blah-blah-blah?
Allahpundit at Hot Air says that no such candidate could win. I’ve heard that before, but I don’t see that it’s true. Yes, this move would alienate Trump’s supporters. But most of them are already lost to any GOP candidate but Trump anyway, and I believe a lot of them are ordinarily non-voters rather than the usual Republican base (I don’t have time at the moment to find the stats on that, but I have come across some in months past).
Allahpundit writes:
Dumping Trump means declaring war on his supporters, which means a schism that guarantees Clinton’s election.
But that schism is already the size of the Grand Canyon, and IMHO Clinton’s election is already guaranteed unless Trump is replaced.
Analogies to third-party candidates losing in the past are inappropriate. This year really is very different—never before have there been two candidates so profoundly unpopular that the voters of both parties are experiencing a sense of regret, depression, and horror. This article crunches the numbers and shows how much support there could be for an alternative candidate, and how a win actually is possible. Although not at all probable, it may be our only chance at this point.
The candidate would have to be conservative enough to appeal to conservatives but still moderate enough to appeal to the many many independents (and some moderate Democrats) who are desperately searching for a way out. A tall order. That is the niche I originally thought that Walker or Fiorina could fill, but neither caught on. Maybe now they’d look better to the voters, in retrospect?
I’m comfortable with the Libertarian ticket. Two Governors who ran as Republicans in their state races are as good as you get. Some of the Libertarian foreign policy is weak, but in the hands of a competent president it’s a lot better than Trump/Clintonism. In this election avoiding Trump will help GOP senate and house races in many areas of the country anyway. A significant third party vote will weaken whoever wins and help restore some of Congresses strength. That’s a good thing constitutionally.
yeah, but what if they want clinton? its a great way to get that and claim something else…
Any and every GOP candidate for POTUS has an uphill climb and poor odds of making it. Hillary already has 90% of the needed Electoral College “votes” locked up (CA, NY, PA, IL, etc.).
The old ways have not helped the GOP. A replacement candidate from the old “let’s be inclusive” GOP school is doomed to fail. Guaranteed or your money back.
Who comes to mind as a GOP savior? No one. Better ride on the horse you rode in on. That means Trump. Sorry.
Artfldgr:
What if WHO wants Clinton? Hugh Hewitt???? The RNC????
“Who comes to mind as a GOP savior?”
I would happily vote for Walker, Cruz, Rubio, even Romney. I’d vote for McCain.
Susana Martinez.
Jindal.
Paul Ryan
Rand Paul
Nikki Haley.
Ben Sasse.
Jonah Goldberg 🙂
Need I go on?
I don’t like to quote Andrew Sullivan, but I agree with him that a Trump presidency would be an extinction-level event.
Has anyone seen Jay Cost’s open letter to Mitt Romney? I know you think his time has come and gone, Neo, but I disagree. If there were ever a set of circumstances that show Mitt in the best and truest light, it’s this terrible Hobson’s choice between Clinton and Trump. He could do it, and if not, there are rumors that Scott Walker is testing the waters.
To take a gamble on a monster like Trump is pure nihilism — an expression of rage and despair.
Frog:
Walker, Fiorina, Perry, Tom Cotton, Sasse, lots of others who I’m not even aware of but who are good people and who have won elections in their states as governors—although of course none of them would be a “GOP savior,” nor have I ever suggested that anyone would be. Any one of those would be better than Trump, and there are plenty of others who would be better, too. It would only take seeming to have a decent, sane, temperament and fairly reasonable positions to be better than Trump.
I am almost certain that Trump will lose, and lose big time. So I don’t think the GOP would be losing anything but an albatross, and a lot of voters who want to destroy the GOP anyway, by dumping him.
Bill:
I’ve seen many very plaintive comments on RedState in the last couple of months saying more or less this: “Remember Jeb Bush? I hated his guts. Now, what I wouldn’t give to see him running!”
Not a smart move, but Hugh is just a man.
When your grand unified theory starts to crack and crumble, when your catechism morphs into talking in tongues, when “the people”, the people who have been, sliced and diced in ever refined categories no longer behave like the rats in a maze, is it not time to ask some different questions?
I’ve always thought a lot of Trump supporters were former nonvoters and disaffected working-class Democrats.
And how about the guy who fought to the end and got criticized for doing so: John Kasich.
A plant would look better, in retrospect.
I agree that it’s possible for this to work this year (while in any other year it would just lead to another ’92). Whomever is selected needs to be bland enough for “normal” Republicans to be okay with them and *clean* enough to appeal to those on the left who find Hillary to be incredibly corrupt (which was some, but by no means all of the Bernie supporters). With a proper mix, he (or she) could win.
If I had to bet, I’d still put Romney at the top, with some combination of Walker, Haley, Rubio or Carly at the bottom. (Ryan only if everyone decides that it’s a lost cause anyway and we just want to avoid Trump association)
More hmm:
Jay Cost — An Open Letter to Mitt Romney:
And …
A viable alternative ticket that focuses on about 10 key states might be able to deny hrc or djt 270. Involving Article 12 would create a schism that would poison the next administration. There is no palatable solution to never hillary, never trump.
Hmm.
The Whig Party is dead? (I.e., “again” lol.)
The entire party is …morphing into …something else?
Perhaps both political coalitions are …crumbling?
So the stratified party politics that have insured we would end up in the mess we find we indeed are in are …in …flux?
Color me unsurprised.
Trump has served the purpose on the right, and Hillary couldn’t help but serve the same purpose on the left.
We are in an extraordinary period. Rare. Uncertain. Fraught with tension …with fear …facing the unfamiliar …the unknowable.
Hey. I have an idea. Maybe we can make lemonade?
After all, we won’t have the opportunity again for a century or more after this period is all hindsight.
I am not unhappy after all.
It’s a shame David Petraeus blotted his copybook. Maybe James Mattis?
Given the dynamics of this year (the usual eight-year itch, a very weak Democratic nominee, and a general unhappiness), any generic Republican would probably win. (Nate Silver and his staff have pretty clearly refuted the “Democratic lock” theory.) Unfortunately, we have a loudmouth celebrity, rather than a generic Republican as putative nominee.
Why not Jim DeMint?
A consummate insider with credentials, a consummate outsider with ideological purity. He has an enormous fund-raising machine in The Heritage Foundation. He’s not a “loser” that just got beaten by Trump. He may not have a single true friend in the Republican leadership, but if they’re serious about NeverTrump, then they should man up and offer him the job.
Oh, and if you can get him on the ballot, he’ll sweep the South.
Ok ladies and gentlemen, children of all ages, we have a strange P.T. Barnum going against the Dragon Lady in a battle of the ages.
If wishes were fishes we would all be Rainbow Trout or something. What it boils down to is that we have the most outrageous goofy son-of-a -bitch running against the Wicked Witch of Wherever who is trying to get us to eat her poison apples and this is an incredible fairytale coming true.
Fairly soon it might be time time to stop talking about your people I have never heard of running for the top office in our nation. I am a dumb shit old Texas Guy who resigned himself to voting for the least despicable candidate a few months ago, hoping he could at least nominate some decent people to the supreme court and that is that.
I was mostly a Democrat who years ago held his nose and voted for Nixon. Now that I have been a conservative for the past few decades I have to vote and hope, once more, that there is more to this Republican candidate than I have seen reported in the news each and every day.
What we, as a nation, have sown, so we shall reap and here we are six months from putting another person in the top slot so please, heaven help us. Most all battles are won by the goobers who make the least mistakes and lost by those who make the most and never without a lot of friendly fire and costly collateral damage and that is the way of the world. I surmise this battle for leadership will be the same.
I am guessing that it is time to assess what we have to lose and what we have to gain and go for a strange flawed win and hope for the best.
Neo, I have enjoyed reading your postings for a number of years and look forward to many more but I am kind of worn our with all of the digressing and angst that has been going on in this election. We know that when it all plays out the undecided, in the middle, halfway muddled masses will decided who gets this dubious honor of dealing with the mess after the past eight years. I am also convinced that it will destroy everything about that individual before it is all over.
The last eight years, maybe more, have been like a drunken party where everyone has been running a tab and at some point, the sun will come out and there will be hangovers, the bill will be presented and payment will be due.
I suspect it will happen in the next 18 months and I have pity on all us as the reconciliation of our outlandish behavior is called for a reckoning. We are a special people in a nation that has been exceptional and it appears to me, have lost our way.
I am sorry to say that our only hand to play is the sorry son of a bitch who has plastered his name on big buildings and casinos and can’t keep himself from choking on his feet every couple of days when he opens his mouth.
This is the stuff legends are made of and in the future historians will earn doctorate degrees with dissertations about our folly. Hang on folks because the worst might be yet to come, heaven help us.
So folks keep on worrying and keep on parsing every bit of this strange journey we are on and I will keep on reading every day and wondering why. At the same time your views might all be right and I do support your ability to chew every bit of this big old bit of gristle we are dealing with until it is over and we have to swallow the results.
May our sweet Lord be with us, even until the end of days.
roc scssrs Says:
And how about the guy who fought to the end and got criticized for doing so: John Kasich.
Kasich didn’t fight to the bitter end, he fought one minute longer than Cruz and enabled Trump’s victory.
There’s not going to be any dramatic rescue. The voters have made their beds and now have to lie in it.
If it is Hewitt it is blah, blah, blah.
As a Nebraskan, I know Sasse. He beat a friend of mine in the primary. Trust me. He is not the next president.
That ship has not only sailed — it’s been scuttled in the deep.
At this late point HH is engaging as the circular firing squad co-ordinator.
I’m going to write in Jean Kaufman.
It’s easy for me. I’m in California.
blert:
I’m touched 🙂 .
Old Texan:
Hear hear!
That was an epic rant. Well done!
never before have there been two candidates so profoundly unpopular that the voters of both parties are experiencing a sense of regret, depression, and horror.
not true… but go ahead anyway..
[Tyler was kicked out of his own party mere months after taking office (and first to hit the impeachment game), Grant had a very corrupt cabinet, Andrew Johnson holds the record for the most presidential vetoes overridden by Congress(and missed impeachment by 1 vote), and those where the guys that won the elections, who were deemed better than the opposition… ] and the whole idea of polling didnt start till the modern era and didnt exist for the vast majority of other elections.
With trump in office maybe the left will finally see the beauty of a small limited government where their opposition cant do much. 🙂
its ridiculous to think that your getting any form of an accurate measure of things given the almost universal slant. its just a game now to find the arguments that turn the locks of different people by going to extremes, heck, even deepak chopra claimeda magical hatred that trump brings…
its reaching inane proportions of the most massive attempt to throw everything and even violate custom around the world coordinated to do what? put their choice in office not any other.
pass the popcorn…
Artfldgr:
I said two so unpopular—not two so out-of-favor with the leaders of their party, or so corrupt in their choice of cabinet members once elected, or so likely to be impeached after election.
I said two so unpopular that voters of both parties are experiencing a sense of regret, depression, and horror—experiencing those feelings before the election, not after it.
Oh S___ We have 6 months until the election. The more those of you that are nominal Republicans whine and moan and say they are not going to vote for Trump, might vote for a Third Party person, or write – in or not vote, is a vote for Hillary. That is plain and simple. Deep down you do know what Hillary will be like. Keep it up and you will get what you wish for. Just don’t come complaining about the cold gruel you will be eating.
lynndh,
Your POV is tiresome. Refusal to vote for djt is simply a choice. I can not vote for the donald simply because I vote my conscience. The only vote for hrc is an actual vote for hrc, again my conscience refuses.
Just don’t come whining if/when djt loses in a landslide as the ‘independents’ flock to vote for hrc or her substitute. You and anyone who endorses djt own it. Dust and ashes to you and your fellow travelers.
“Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest numbers have begun their career by paying obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” We are near the end of a demagogue turned tyrant, and now you want another one? Hrc can be opposed vigorously; with djt as your standard bearer you dare not oppose. Dust and ashes.
Artfldgrs Says:
June 8th, 2016 at 11:49 pm
Andrew Johnson WAS impeached.
He avoided CONVICTION — and ejection — by ONE VOTE.
He maintained a ‘34% confidence vote’ in the US Senate… as it were.
The magic swing vote went his way — not out of faith in Johnson — but because that Senator was concerned about it being TOO EASY to eject a president via impeachment of Congress.
!!!
Yep.
He flipped his OWN vote… at the last second, to boot.
The Senate was called to a vote precisely BECAUSE the tally was sufficient for conviction.
But, then it wasn’t.
Johnson was just about packing his bags.
Even so, he was a nullity — leadership wise — from that point forward… the lamest of lame ducks.
Lincoln had put him on the ticket as a unifying politician.
Whereas, the real Johnson offended just about everybody.
Why is it that no one today is stating four very obvious truths:
1) Democracies more than other countries deserve what they get. The public enthusiastically decided this race should be between a crook and a clown. That herd of simpletons had already revealed itself by electing and re-electing a photogenic charlatan/traitor as President; this election is a well earned form of punishment.
2) The public has not felt the pain of its stupidity, at least not adequately. I dread the form of the inevitable wake up call, will it be an Iranian nuke in NYC or a depression. Maybe wisdom will come with pain.
3) There is a measure of comedy in this tragedy. Remember Jubilation T. Cornpone in the musical Lil Abner. This election is so ridiculous it is or should be funny.
4) Keeping track of President Hillary’s scandals will be entertaining (although time absorbing).
This isn’t going to happen. Trump will be the nominee, since he has about 300 more delegates over the minimum needed. Trump has also received more votes in the Republican primary than any other past candidate, with the second-most going to George W. Bush in 2000.
And at this point, in June, who is going to run? I am reminded of what Mark Steyn said yesterday about some Republicans as generals with no troops. Trump has more than a good chance of winning the general election in November. But if Trump is replaced, then it will become extremely unlikely that the other Republican nominee will win in November.
Trump has more than a good chance of winning the general election in November. But if Trump is replaced, then it will become extremely unlikely that the other Republican nominee will win in November.
Better than the alternative . . .
The comments posted here by those that I have to designate as self-righteous are uniform in their disregard of the fact that Trump followed the rules and won more delegates than any of the others. These now seek to up-end the process and outcome in favor of another, undesignated, person who would be more acceptable to them as individuals. But what about the Trump voters? We read remarks they will be alienated if Trump is trashed, and not vote. The self-righteous have a pretty myopic view of the future are granting to the Democrats under Hillary.
The anti Trumps who will not vote for him in the general are guilty of being accomplices in assigning the greatest country in the history of the planet to Collectivist, Politically Correct Hell. They will let Hillary win. As if what she will do can be easily reversed, starting 4 or even 8 years later. When SCOTUS will be full of Sotomayors and Warrens for a generation, and the Constitution will be stood on its head and eviscerated. When out-of-wedlock births exceed 50%, when cash money has been banned and the IRS will know everything about your health and every financial transaction.
I hope your righteousness is sufficient comfort then.
“This isn’t going to happen. Trump will be the nominee, since he has about 300 more delegates over the minimum needed. Trump has also received more votes in the Republican primary than any other past candidate, with the second-most going to George W. Bush in 2000.”
… A case of you can fool some of the people, some of the time.
Trump only took 44% of the votes. IDK who, in GOP history, received the greatest percentage, but in 2000 GWB had just over 60%.
Of course Trump could get more. ~30M total votes cast vs ~19M in 2000.
Nice try on the statistical sleight of hand.
Would have been nice if you provided…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2000
Frog –
Your preaching only really matters if you’re talking to people who believe that Trump is significantly different in political outlook from HRC. Trump’s “my position depends on the time of day” attitude makes it difficult to determine whether or not that’s true.
In any event, there’s more than just the Republican side of things in play here. If someone were to jump in as an alternative to DJT for unhappy Republican voters, then it might encourage Bernie Sanders to do the same for unhappy Democratic voters. After all, if the Republican vote is split, then suddenly a split Dem vote might still be able to pull off a win. And this will likely be Bernie’s only shot at winning the presidency.
So the possible political chess is fairly intricate, and headache inducing.
“The anti Trumps who will not vote for him in the general are guilty of being accomplices” – Frog
Already responded to this accusation, but again…
We don’t “own” that problem because the 44% plurality think that they have a mandate to change the definition of / the principles of what the party represents.
IDK what Trump is (and neither do you/anyone, btw), and that is problematic. But from what he has been saying publicly about not being beholding to conservative principles, I’ve got to believe him.
Now, I (we?) can tolerate a certain amount of leeway when it comes to how conservative a candidate may be.
Too many do get wound up over the small differences between candidates in the notional 80% to 90% range (as if we can really measure it that precisely) as to who is a “real” conservative, or over some holy grail of “purity”.
But, at the end of the day, I (we?) generally have felt that the candidates coming out of the primaries are certainly far better than a notionally “50%” conservative (despite some of the debates conservatives have).
Trump doesn’t meet a minimum, AFAICan Tell. But who knows?
Besides, anyone who seems to indicate a penchant for bypassing the Constitution and hints at Authoritarianism disqualifies themselves as conservative IMHO.
Your argument was applicable in 2012, as it seems a segment of voters stayed home (Trump’s “new to the GOP”, normally “non-voter” supporters?) thinking Romney = Obama, in a year that should have been a “no-brainer” for the GOP (every election year now seems to be a “brainer”).
That thinking was far from the truth, but that meme came out of the conservative talk show framing of the primaries (“RINO!!!”).
” If someone were to jump in as an alternative to DJT for unhappy Republican voters, then it might encourage Bernie Sanders to do the same for unhappy Democratic voters.” – junior
Good point.
This is a year when the deck of nicely arranged cards are thrown into the air.
While I think it is Clinton’s to lose, we cannot rule out Trump winning, nor the possibility of some other scenario.
Big Maq:
And if you look at the wikipedia source you cited, then you will also note that George W. Bush’s closest competitor, John McCain, dropped out on March 9th, 2000. This year, Ted Cruz was still campaigning until the Indiana primary on May 3rd, close to two months later. Of course the percentages will be different, so don’t call it a “statistical sleight of hand.”
The most important thing to understand is that it is too late to take the nomination away from Trump. If the Republican party does replace the nominee with someone other than Trump, then it is reasonable to predict that person will receive less support and will go on to lose the general election in November.
These are the people who campaigned for the nomination this year. They made that choice. And hypothetically someone could be replaced, and someone else could be the nominee. But realistically, that’s not going to happen.
The question now, in a general way for everyone here, is just what do you want? What do you want? Do you want to lose the election in November?
“Trump has also received more votes in the Republican primary than any other past candidate” – Yankee
Not sure I am misinterpreting this statement.
It is attempting to claim that Trump did better than anyone else implying raw numbers are the “proof”.
But we know that population has increased, and the level of voting has increased with that.
So, is Trump’s 13.5M meaningfully more than GWB’s 12M votes?
Making a claim based on raw numbers alone in those circumstances is disingenuous – a sleight of hand.
For the same type of reason, in economics, they properly quote prices in terms of a given year’s “dollars” – to make comparisons apples to apples.
.
“…John McCain, dropped out on March 9th, 2000…”
Gosh! Apples, Oranges, and Butter Tarts!
You don’t even suggest how to make it apples to apples, you just leave it hang there.
One could argue that the three of GWB’s five competitors (the fourth being Keyes – hardly competitive) in 2000 dropped out early because GWB and McCain had such a strong showing to begin with.
Eyeballing the % votes by states seem to bear this out.
If you measure a 6.5 week period in both years, that would be Mar 17 in 2016. That was about the same time that Rubio dropped out, leaving Kasich and Cruz.
Going by the “First Place” color coded table in the wiki link (I provided above), by that time, Cruz had eight states, Rubio had three, and Kasich one, for a total of 11. McCain only had seven by then.
In the following five weeks, Cruz won five more to Trump’s two.
Yes, timing has something to do with the numbers, but Trump was clearly a weak candidate. Only when he hit the NE cluster did the tide turn.
One could reasonably argue that this timing worked in Trump’s favor, with the NE being clustered as it was this late in the cycle.
So, referencing the raw numbers that Trump had more votes than GWB, even with the timing considered, really doesn’t reflect accurately any point for comparison of strength or popularity or whatever, in favor of Trump.
.
“Do you want to lose the election in November?”
Perhaps you haven’t read any of my comments on this site. Your question has the wrong premise.
As a conservative, with Trump and Clinton as the main choices, I’ve already lost the November election.
What I want is not available to choose, even if I were to exercise a great deal of flexibility.
You’re missing the point, Big Maq. Ted Cruz stayed in the race sixteen years longer than John McCain!
@Nick – good chuckle – thanks!
Heh.
On another note, people keep bringing up this “Trump got more primary votes than any previous Republican nominee” thing. If that’s true, and since Trump only received a plurality (and not majority) in most of the states that he won, wouldn’t it *also* be true that Trump had more people vote *against* him than any previous Republican nominee?
Just sayin’…
“The candidate would have to be conservative enough to appeal to conservatives but still moderate enough to appeal to the many many independents (and some moderate Democrats) who are desperately searching for a way out. A tall order.” neo
A viable third party starts with a viable candidate. There are none. The most prominent conservatives ran in the primaries and lost. Sadly, there is no basis for imagining that they would do much better in the general election.
DirtyJobsGuy,
Enjoy your comfort while ye may, the collective will get around to you eventually.
Bill,
Nice exercise in fantasy.
mizpants,
It’s gamble with Trump or drink the hemlock. And yes, Trump may be cyanide.
“There is no palatable solution to never hillary, never trump.” parker
Bingo.
“There’s not going to be any dramatic rescue. The voters have made their beds and now have to lie in it.” Matt_SE
Bingo.
“The only vote for hrc is an actual vote for hrc, again my conscience refuses.” parker
I fully respect the position that is derived from conscience. However, since numbers are amoral, they are independent of conscience, So, if a simple majority of 100 senators is required with 50 voting in the affirmative and 49 vote against and one refuses to vote… the 50 win and are fully aware of what led to their victory.
” you want another one? Hrc can be opposed vigorously; with djt as your standard bearer you dare not oppose.”
Who shall oppose a Pres. Hillary? McConnell? Ryan? The majority GOP congress that gave Obama MORE than he requested in the Omnibus bill? That majority Congress utterly silent on allowing rapists and pedophiles to prey on children?
Nor is a vote for Trump an elevation to our standard bearer and without a massive network of organized ideologues behind him, the only real support he has is a disparate, dispersed mob. As President, Trump can badly hurt us but he cannot fundamentally transform America. Hillary seeks to be at least as ‘historic’ as Obama…
“The public has not felt the pain of its stupidity, at least not adequately. I dread the form of the inevitable wake up call, will it be an Iranian nuke in NYC or a depression. Maybe wisdom will come with pain.” Bob from Virginia
The public will be given a scapegoat, if not Trump then the ‘usual suspects’ on the right. Human nature would much rather blame someone else than look in the mirror.
Frog @ 11:57,
It is not self-righteousness but the onset of regurgitation when voting for a egotistical buffoon is considered.
“Frog — Your preaching only really matters if you’re talking to people who believe that Trump is significantly different in political outlook from HRC. Trump’s “my position depends on the time of day” attitude makes it difficult to determine whether or not that’s true.” junior
The ‘collective’ IS different from the tyrant. Ask any Eastern European of a certain age. Look to N. Korea. Totalitarian ideologues do not tolerate Tiananmen Square protests…
In addition, Trump’s “my position depends on the time of day” makes him as unlikely to side with the left as the right. It will be a mix, which while bad enough, pales in comparison to the ‘true believer’.
Big Maq,
You might consider that there is far less to fear from the 44% in the republican party who support Trump than the mix of LIVs and ideologues who right now, give Obama a 53% approval rating. It is they and the GOPe who are enabling the looming train wreck that leads to the collective.
“You might consider that there is far less to fear from the 44% in the republican party who support Trump than the mix of LIVs “ – GB
1) It is not they I have any worries about about those 44% of supporters. It is the man they support.
2) You are right that there is something to fear on the left, only you are emphasizing a different time horizon.
With Trump, there is significant risk that, within the next four years, we have some disaster or crisis that he is a catalyst for, including a turn to Authoritarianism.
With Clinton it is a continuation of the current trajectory. Ends badly if we cannot stop it.
I believe the cause would likely be a financial crisis as the Dems don’t know when to stop spending and course correct (e.g. Detroit, Chicago, Illinois, California). How far that is… +/-15 years, when the full burden of the unfunded liabilities coming due peak.
3) You assume that the left have a monopoly on LIVs. Big mistake, IMHO. It affects attitude, communication and strategy, if you ever want to expand the appeal of a conservative movement.
Frog:
If sincere serious non-Trumpers are “self righteous” then Trumpers are amoral zealots.
Trump supporters brought the country Trump. They and you own it. I didn’t and don’t. Try you guild trip tactics on a LIV.
Frog:
Even though the only poll that maters is on Nov. 8 but Trump seems to be sinking Trump: 6 point drop relative to HRC in latest Fox poll.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/09/trump-loses-support-in-fox-news-poll/
You own him.
Big Maq,
As President, the man you fear will be surrounded by enemies. Authoritarianism without force has little power.
Our ‘current political trajectory’ closely mimics the Kurzweil Technology Curve>
A financial crisis is coming, along with other predictable disasters. When they occur, whomever is President will have to declare nationwide martial law. Certainly a Pres. Trump would rule as an autocrat. Any leftist President would view it as an unparalleled opportunity to complete America’s fundamental transformation and the constitution will be discarded like old newspaper.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write:
But primaries are very very different than general elections, especially this year with 17 candidates splitting the GOP vote.
The same candidates that appeal most to a party’s regulars are not necessarily the best candidates to win a general election. The makeup of the voters are very very different. That’s the first reason you cannot extrapolate from one to the other.
In a general election there is one main opponent. With a third-party candidate (such as in 1992) there are two opponents. In this years’ Democratic primaries, the vote was basically only split 2 ways, and it was composed of Democrats—so each candidate only had one opponent. In this years’ Republican primaries, however, the vote was initially split 17 ways, then 16 ways, then….down to (right to almost the bitter end) 3 ways.
That’s the second reasons; they are very different animals. One situation tells you very little about the other.
GB: Nice exercise in fantasy.
Not sure what you’re referring to. If it’s the comment above that said Republicans losing because they nominated someone besides Trump would be better than Trump winning, that’s not fantasy. It’s a sincerely held opinion. I realize you disagree with me. Instead of continuing to patronize me why don’t you just ignore my comments?
“As President, the man you fear will be surrounded by enemies. Authoritarianism without force has little power. “ – GB
Come now. Such a flippant ethereal assumption.
If this would be an effective barrier, then I really don’t see what the fuss is about Obama overstepping his authority.
If this would be true, we’d have another person leading the GOP ticket.
If this would be true, we ought not to worry about Clinton whatsoever.
This is effectively an argument against having any argument about where anyone might lead us, as they all have enemies surrounding them.
.
“Our ‘current political trajectory’ closely mimics the Kurzweil Technology Curve>”
Rather obtuse. Please explain what and how it fits here.
.
“A financial crisis is coming, along with other predictable disasters.”
Disagree. I see them as avoidable.
You imply inevitability (“When they occur”). If that is true, why argue about anything? Que Sera, Sera!
.
“Certainly a Pres. Trump would rule as an autocrat.”
I’m not certain of that, but there is a reasonable possibility that he turns Authoritarian.
There is also a good possibility that his behavior and decision making is the catalyst to a crisis, which may then create the excuse to do so, or open the door (by way of new precedent) to the follow on leader to do so.
I don’t see any inevitable crisis over this next four year horizon, otherwise, with a Clinton admin.
Clinton seems more corrupt for her own gain vs an ideologue who is bent on “(completing) America’s fundamental transformation”.
That seems to describe a Bernie Sanders administration of anyone who’s been under consideration.
So how would Trump be the better choice, if he is certain to be an Autocrat?
.
Overall, I’m confused about what you are really arguing about.
Unless you are arguing from a deep Guru Maharaj spritual POV, where everything is nothing, with a touch of Buddhism’s four truths.
Then maybe…?
Geoffrey,
Excellent illustration of the principle: the 50-49 Senate split, with one abstention (or throw-away or “protest” vote) effectively giving the decision to the 50.
I’ve been trying for a long time to come up with a simple example. This meets the case perfectly. Be advised that I intend to snitch it. :>)
Julie
Every vote in the 50 (or 49) is important. Not just the last one
This has been repeated ad nauseum, but among the mistaken assumptions many people are repeatedly making in this argument:
– the assumption that the Republican nominee is by definition better for the country than the Democratic nominee
– the assumption that failing to vote for Trump is a “protest vote” borne out of some misguided and purist principle rather than the deeply held desire that someone else (anyone!) become President instead of him.
neo,
Yes, the general election is different from the primaries. That reality however does not change the necessity of the candidate to carry the party’s base. A successful nominee builds upon that base, adding independents and crossover votes. Without that base, the other votes are useless. My point is that none of the more preferable republican candidates acquired enough of the base to have a realistic chance as an alternative 3rd party candidate.
Bill,
My intent was NOT to patronize you, not even subconsciously. I was referring to the list you offered of candidates for a 3rd party nominee. IMO, none of them even come close to having the required qualities (name recognition, crossover appeal, solid conservatism, moderate social liberalism) that would be needed for a 3rd party candidate.
Big Maq,
How, if Trump ‘gets out of hand’ is the assertion that Trump would have the dems, media, academia, leftist activist organizations and the GOPe against him a “flippant’ and ethereal’ observation?
The fuss about Obama overstepping his authority is because he has a HUGE amount of organized support outside the government at his back. The fuss is that when Obama oversteps his authority neither congress or the judiciary acts as a constitutional balance. That SAME circumstance will apply to Hillary Clinton, the FIRST WOMAN President! That would not be the case with an ‘out of control’ Trump.
Our ‘current political trajectory’ of moving to the left closely mimics the Kurzweil Technology Curve. Click on the link and you’ll see that the curve is moving straight up. Imagining that the next 4 years is not critical to the left, in securing an irreversible advantage is IMO, engaging in willful denial.
Some of those disasters may be avoidable but fiscal crisis is NOT. EVERY Western nation is bankrupt and the pretense that we are not WILL end.
I suggested that, IF one of the disasters such as fiscal collapse occurred, that the imposition of martial law would be inescapable and that, in such a case, Trump would rule as an autocrat. IMO, that is not debatable.
Yes, Trump MAY well lead us into a crisis. Hillary WILL lead us into a crisis because the left’s ‘solutions’ make crisis unavoidable. I don’t see an inevitable crisis in the next four years under Hillary either. What I see is that Hillary leads to the destruction of the nation and takes us far enough down that path that escape from our fate is unavoidable.
Clinton’s corruption is NOT her primary motivation, she is as much an ideologue as Sanders. Her corruption is in service of providing her with the resources to act as an agent in advancing the left’s agenda. She also rationalizes it as her due but that is not her motivation.
Despite ALL his faults, Trump is the better choice, solely because he is not an agent of the left. Regardless of his liberal tendencies, he doesn’t wish to see capitalism end and socialism triumph. He doesn’t believe that “it takes a village to raise a child”, which is a euphemism for state control and indoctrination of children.
Nor do I envision myself as possessing a “deep Guru Maharaj spiritual POV” 😉
Bill
Every vote in the 50 (or 49) IS important. But the last one provides victory’s tipping point. As does those who by refraining from casting a vote, enable the majority to win.
It is NOT “an assumption” that Trump is, by definition, better for the country than the Democratic nominee, it is a foregone conclusion. And IMO, it is your “deeply held desire that someone else (anyone!) become President instead of him” that prevents you from seeing that.
Sigh. “It is impossible to speak in such a manner as not to be misunderstood” Karl Popper
OK, I have to take my 94 yr old father up to the VA, so if needed, I’ll respond later.
Big Maq Says:
“Too many do get wound up over the small differences between candidates in the notional 80% to 90% range (as if we can really measure it that precisely) as to who is a “real” conservative, or over some holy grail of “purity”.”
What exactly is in that 10-20% “impurity” is rather critical in this particular election, isn’t it?
The left’s century-long march now leaves it in a position to create a super-majority in the electorate that will willingly vote in the Collective forever, and it really only needs that one, first time, for the Marxists never, ever give up that kind of power peacefully. (The USSR had us as a counterbalance to show the Soviet citizens an alternative. If we succumb, who is going to inspire us to rise up – New Zealand, Switzerland?)
I really liked Rubio, and even the tough-grading Conservative Review had him rated at 80%. What stopped him from being right up there with Cruz was of course the Gang of 8. Granting amnesty and eventually voting rights to 12-30++ million illegal occupants with questionable desire to assimilate and already in the pocket of the left would be handing the Marxists their wet dreams.
I don’t care if they can recite all the Federalist Papers and “God and Man at Yale” from memory, anyone in any party so blind and/or naive not to see that disqualifies themselves as “conservative”, at least to me. So bye-bye Marco, Jeb, Chris, Mike, John, possibly even Scott and Rick, leaving only Donald, Ted, Carly and maybe Bobby.
And Donald has already shown himself to be a liberal Democrat who supposedly claims he might possibly be somewhat sort of maybe perhaps against amnesty (unless someone makes him a better deal.)
GB:
When you post opinions and include “it is a foregone conclusion” you haven’t enhanced your argument. Foregone to you maybe, but unconvincing and condescending.
Geoffrey, I’m also having trouble with your statement
“It is NOT “an assumption” that Trump is, by definition, better for the country than the Democratic nominee, it is a foregone conclusion.”
It seems to me that, if everyone agreed on that, then there would be no conversation on this topic. You may consider it a foregone conclusion, but do you think that Bill does? Or Neo?
@GB – still.. Like OM says – “forgone conclusion”?
You said “Certainly a Pres. Trump would rule as an autocrat.”
And that is better because Trump is not a leftist, but merely has “liberal tendencies”. And, besides, Trump “doesn’t wish to see capitalism end and socialism triumph”.
Come on. Even Bernie Sanders has good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
The combination of Autocrat and Leftist Tendencies gets you right where you fear most, to “complete America’s fundamental transformation and the constitution will be discarded like old newspaper.”
I fail to see much difference in the outcomes you are comparing. To me an Autocrat is abhorrent, be it Leftist or Rightist, regardless of their “intentions” or their being (or not) “an agent of the left”.
.
“that Trump would have the dems, media, academia, leftist activist organizations and the GOPe against him” is somehow a barrier for Trump to rule as a Leftist Autocrat?
Crap, if that were true, he’d have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected, as all those “enemies” (if they have the capability you ascribe to them) would line up to stop him.
Do you see how that argument shoots itself in the foot?
.
You keep talking about the EVENTUAL outcome of a left government and assign it all to a Clinton admin. Without quibbling over the details, there is generic truth to the outcome of a left government… eventually, if we don’t stop it.
But you insist that there is a danger in the next four years on the scale of an Autocrat, only worse. Your timeline for that is based on non-working link to a “Kurzweil Technology Curve” which you don’t bother to explain. Fortunately I am already familiar with it – I don’t see the fit.
What are YOU putting on the X and Y axes? What do the curves represent? What are the drivers of those curves?
You leave it out there hanging like it is stand alone “proof” of your point.
Then you follow it up with asserting the Dems will “(secure) an irreversible advantage” in the next four years.
The unexplained Kurzweil Curve does not lead to that being obvious at all. Non sequitur.
Ya gotta give me something here to see how I could even be “in wilful denial” of anything.
What are the triggers? “the left’s ‘solutions’ make crisis unavoidable” is not enough to go with. True in a generic sense, but what specifically do you think will happen in the next four years. Oh, the “irreversible advantage”? Non sequitur.
.
You are saying Clinton is “as much of an ideologue as Sanders”. Huh? Clinton is far less dogmatic and seems to be much more flexible on her positions. Really, haven’t the MSM and conservative media been reporting how Clinton had to shift further leftward in her rhetoric because of Sanders? It just doesn’t come across as dogmatic to have to do that.
Yes, Clinton would operate to the left. Wrong direction, but you haven’t given me anything to see that she would be any worse than Obama, let alone anything convincing to show that is worse than someone you admit would be an Autocrat in power.
“What exactly is in that 10-20% “impurity” is rather critical in this particular election, isn’t it?” – geokstr
True in a generic sense. You seem to be arguing that what to do with the people who circumvented the law to stay here is the key differentiator.
What is your solution?
How does it line up with Mr. GB’s proposal? Is your reaction “AMNESTY!!!”?
GB believes there is no backlash to any political leader for even negotiating on, let alone compromising on, what to do – I think you geokstr are a case in point to the contrary.
Border Security is a big issue, but the thinking and reaction behind what to do about the people already here is a roadblock to getting a solution on Border Security (a separate, but related issue).
“12-30++ million … already in the pocket of the left”
That thinking is wrong. It is a lax assumption that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, simply by the default of our own inaction to make the conservative case to them.
Really, it is an excuse we are giving ourselves.
Our conservative principles should have universal appeal – after all, our society is founded on them and is why we are such a magnet to begin with.
Romney had a perfectly acceptable solution to what the problem of what to do with the people here. You change the risk vs rewards equation so that they end up going home voluntarily. You set things up so that no employer wants to hire an illegal, making it extremely difficult for illegals to find work.
“That thinking is wrong. It is a lax assumption that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, simply by the default of our own inaction to make the conservative case to them.
Really, it is an excuse we are giving ourselves.
Our conservative principles should have universal appeal — after all, our society is founded on them and is why we are such a magnet to begin with.”
This.
Geoffrey Britain:
In fact, many alternative candidates on the right (non-Trump candidates, that is) would appeal more to the base at this point than Trump himself does, so I don’t get your argument at all.
I suppose it depends who you consider “the base.” I do not see any evidence that Trump voters are “the base” of the GOP.
“Romney had a perfectly acceptable solution to what the problem of what to do with the people here. You change the risk vs rewards equation so that they end up going home voluntarily. You set things up so that no employer wants to hire an illegal, making it extremely difficult for illegals to find work.” – junior
Great point!
To be fair, I think GB was proposing similar…
http://neoneocon.com/2016/06/07/a-couple-more-things-about-trump-and-judge-curiel/#comment-1229543
When one digs into that approach, there are some problems that crop up, but I doubt there is a perfect solution anyone can come up with that has no downsides. Nevertheless, incentives do play a huge role in how this problem has come to be, and ought to be a fair target.
junior; Big Maq:
Here’s what Trump had to say about Romney’s solution at the time.
Nick,
Of course some others disagree with me that it is a foregone conclusion that Trump is better than Hillary. Above that comment I listed in detail many of the reasons why I believe it to be a ‘foregone conclusion’. If those reasons haven’t persuaded, repeating them serves little purpose. Absent reasoned rebuttal, I can only surmise that willful denial is at play.
Big Maq,
Good intentions have nothing to do with Trump’s support for Capitalism and aversion to socialism. His gut is ‘philosophically’ opposed to it.
NO, the combination of Autocrat and Leftist IDEOLOGUE Tendencies gets you right where I fear most, to complete America’s fundamental transformation and the constitution discarded like old newspaper. Trump is a liberal not a leftist and he is decidedly NOT an ideologue.
“I fail to see much difference in the outcomes you are comparing. To me an Autocrat is abhorrent, be it Leftist or Rightist, regardless of their “intentions” or their being (or not) “an agent of the left”.”
There is a great difference in outcomes between the dictator that demands obedience and the ideologue who demands that we be “true believers”. One commands your body and mouth, the other your body, mouth, mind and soul.
I’m insisting that the next four years are critical because I believe we are at a tipping point, where recovery will be impossible. Perhaps I’m wrong, I certainly hope so but can you afford to be wrong?
Sorry about the broken link. As you know, the Kurzweil Technology curve tracks technological innovation VS time and the curve heads straight up, I ascertain America’s drift to the left as similar. If so it supports the conclusion that we are approaching the tipping point in the fundamental transformation of America.
If Hillary is elected, the Dems will “(secure) an irreversible advantage” in the next four years because it will be impossible to reverse course with another 15 million illegal immigrants (Clinton has promised to make amnesty and citizenship a priority), a near permanent liberal/leftist SCOTUS, the gutting of the 2nd amendment (9th court ruling that the bearing of arms is not a constitutional right), continued cultural transformations (progression: same-sex marriage-transgendered facilities-plural marriage), etc., etc. If you can’t see the danger as highly pressing, I can’t avoid believing that you’ve got your head in the sand.
“what specifically do you think will happen in the next four years”
Perhaps nothing specific but the direction the circumstances point is unmistakable. Obama’s feds have armed themselves for armed rebellion (1.5 billion illegal hollow point ammo, 2700 light duty tanks). Fiscal collapse is being greatly accelerated by the dems spendthrift ways and economy killing solutions. Muslim migration spells an Israel like daily terrorist attack future for America. Iran gaining nuclear capability is a game changer, they will provide nukes to terrorist groups.
Everything the dems are doing leads to any one of several scenarios eventuating where nationwide martial law is imposed. During martial law, the President may legally suspend constitutional guarantees. Do you really think that a President Hillary would forego the ‘opportunity’ such a crisis would offer? A Pres. Warren? A future President Sanders style ‘socialist’?
Here’s your future;
It’s as obvious as the nose on our faces and only willful denial explains dismissal of the writing on the wall.
If those reasons haven’t persuaded, repeating them serves little purpose. Absent reasoned rebuttal, I can only surmise that willful denial is at play.
There has been lots of reasoned rebuttle.
Have it your way Bill.
GB – you start with “His gut is ‘philosophically’ opposed to it.” and end with “It’s as obvious as the nose on our faces and only willful denial explains dismissal of the writing on the wall.”
In both cases you presume you have knowledge that the rest of us don’t possess, and/or imply ill will on our part.
.
“There is a great difference in outcomes between the dictator that demands obedience and the ideologue who demands that we be “true believers”. One commands your body and mouth, the other your body, mouth, mind and soul. ”
You have to go with Trump because he’d be, to paraphrase, a better dictator?
Dude, do you even care about Liberty?
You ought to be pushing hard for a third choice rather than going all in for Trump, if that is what you really think of him.
.
Several of the consequences you mention are what a slide into Europeanization would mean over several years, and they ain’t living under a dictatorship.
Of course, a crisis could spark something drastic, but Fiscal Collapse (at least talk to me about where Japan is and how we compare before you start telling me that is a likely scenario in the next four years), and Muslim migration (really, you cannot differentiate better than basically all Muslims? Besides, if it is Isreal you want to point out as an example of the folly of Muslim immigration, at least consider that they are not under a dictatorship either)?
.
Then, man, you lost me when you start spinning all this conspiracy stuff, like Obama loading up the feds with hollow points, etc.
Seriously, if all that stuff you are fearful of is just about to happen, why would Obama have waited around instead of making it happen on his watch? Why is he “foregoing the opportunity”?
We have enough real problems to deal with from a Dem admin, we don’t have to be imagining more than there is and drumming up people’s emotions.
Pingback:bamboo bicycle