New York primary: if Trump can make it there…
…can he make it everywhere?
In other words, what is the significance of Donald Trump’s yuuge win in his home state?
He was expected to win, and win big. That was already factored into projections about his final vote total on the first ballot at the convention, and those predictions have been that he had a good chance of falling a bit short. However, yesterday Trump won even bigger in NY than the polls had predicted, and gets a few more delegates than was expected. That may or may not matter.
Kasich and Cruz did about as expected, with Cruz doing very poorly. New York is not Cruz’s natural territory at all, and he didn’t help himself with his “New York values” statement many months ago. Even though he was quoting Donald Trump, Cruz’s remarks were clumsily phrased and unclear—and ripe for exploitation by Trump, and that’s what happened. But even without those remarks, I don’t think Cruz would ever have done well in NY. And even if Kasich had bowed out and it had been a 2-person race there, I still think that Trump would have garnered all or nearly all of New York’s GOP delegates.
Which brings us to the question of who are these New York GOP voters, and what is their political philosophy? Michael Barone describes them this way:
New York has always believed in commerce and in tolerance, but has had little use for principle. Like Amsterdam in the age of Rembrandt, it is the greatest trading and finance system in the world, with a taste for high art and low life. In New York you are considered “old money” if you have held your fortune for 10 minutes…
It’s a city that, like its son Donald Trump, loves winners — winners like the New York Yankees, hated in much of America but loved in New York. Longtime Yankees owner George Steinbrenner and on-and-off manager Billy Martin may have been brash and boorish, but they were loved in New York. Hey, they were winners.
Trump speaks in the accents and cadences of New York — not of the ancestral rich in Manhattan but in the upward strivers and figure-out-the-angles rich of the outer boroughs and Long Island suburbs…
Only 23 percent of New York state voters are registered Republicans…
In a quick search just now I couldn’t find any statistics on some hard facts about New York’s GOP voters, but I have long noted that victorious GOP politicians in New York (no, that’s not an oxymoron) tend not to be what we’d call conservatives. For example, the city of New York has sometimes had Republican mayors, but those mayors have been far from conservative (Bloomberg, Giuliani, Lindsay).
There have always been more Republicans upstate than in the city, but in recent years they have very rarely been able to overcome the NYC advantage and elect a statewide Republican. In fact, New York has elected only three GOP governors since 1923: Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, and George Pataki. Dewey “led the moderate or progressive faction of the Republican Party.” Rockefeller was the quintessential moderate Republican in the same mold. Pataki was more of a mixed bag, but in this year’s primary he endorsed Kasich, which tells us something (and might be one of the reasons for Kasich’s relatively strong showing there).
In the 70s there was one conservative Republican senator from New York, James L. Buckley (William F.’s brother), who was elected (with only 38.7 of the vote) for one term as somewhat of a fluke in a six-candidate race where the liberal GOP vote was split. Jacob Javits, a GOP senator from NY from 1957-1981, was another liberal. Alphonse D’Amato has the distinction of having been New York’s last GOP senator (1981-1999), initially elected because of another split between two liberal candidates, but re-elected after that despite his relative conservatism. But he was an anomaly, and IMHO the end of a rather short line.
So I think we can safely say that New York’s Republicans are not conservatives and were never voting for Cruz in anything but very small numbers. This can probably be said for much of the Northeast GOP: not only has Trump done very well there (and not just in New York), but Kasich has come in second quite reliably. This has been true in Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire, all of which have already voted. Maine was the anomaly; it went for Cruz, but that was in a caucus and it’s not at all clear whether Cruz would done nearly as well in a primary. You can see exactly the same “Trump, then Kasich” trend in Connecticut polls.
I’m not going to keep going with this, because I think you get the idea: the northeast GOP has not been conservative for a long, long time, and is not especially interested in Cruz. Cruz’s strength in other states that have yet to vote in their primaries is not such that he could ever win on a first ballot. His chances depend on Trump losing on a first ballot—which still could happen. But let’s not kid ourselves; it seems less likely after last night, because there’s something about momentum that is real, and Trump is going to seem a bit more inevitable (although not actually in fact inevitable) after that New York vote.
It seems ironic to me that it comes down to this, after such a promising beginning to the primary season. Ironic and depressing, because of my oft-stated opinion about Trump. I also think Trump has no chance of winning in a general election against Hillary Clinton (whose nomination has always seemed inevitable to me), and Cruz has a better chance but not a great one. On the other hand, I think Rubio could and would have beaten her. Maybe even Kasich could beat her, strangely enough. I’ve written about both before, and am not getting into their merits or demerits in this post, but feel strongly that either would have been a better president than either Trump or Clinton.
And that’s where we stand today. I have no idea if Trump will win on that first ballot, but I give him a better-than-even chance. And I believe that will lead to Hillary Clinton being the next US president. I also believe the entire situation is abysmal.
[NOTE: I also predict that if nominated, Trump will lose New York in the general to Hillary. By the way, this was my 2012 prediction about Hillary’s chances in 2016.]
[ADDENDUM: John Podhoretz is even more pessimistic than I am.]
Trump can pound hillary just cause he can open his mouth… which none others will do.. the very reason you dislike him is what allows him to win… you think hillary will be honest and play by the rules? I have no idea why you think that Cruz could win when he wouldnt go for her jugular. meanwhile, its the SAME thing they said about reagan as if this is a repeat… reagan was down how many points the night of the election and did a landslide?
i also notice that ivy league wusses would rather lose with a weak hand than win with a strong one that isnt in their cadre…
its getting to the point that i think its programmed in
Artfldgr:
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to why I dislike Trump as a candidate, or why I think he’d lose to Hillary if he were the nominee. Suffice to say those “whys” are not one and the same; I don’t have time to repeat it all here.
What’s more, if you read this post, you’d see that I did not say I think Cruz would win. I said he has a better chance than Trump of beating Hillary, but not a great one.
In fact, I think that she would be likely to beat either of them.
Hillary’s likability and electability numbers keep sliding, yet the pundits predict she could win against any Republican except Kasick. I am confounded by the polls that show that: I find Kasich lackluster and not presidential. (Yeah, I’ve listened to his long list of successes in Ohio. Following the previous governor, he would have had a hard time doing worse.)
I desperately want anyone but Hillary to win. Oh, and anyone but Bernie too. If that anyone is Kasich, I’ll vote for him. I would vote for Cruz with a great deal more excitement, but the polls show him doing poorly against Hillary. Will I vote for Trump? Just listening to him talk sets my teeth on edge. Voting for him will not be easy.
F:
You’ve pretty much stated my point of view.
It’s hard to feel optimistic. Very hard.
Cruz has now been eliminated from the race on the math alone. Winning 100% of the remaining delegates puts him short of a majority at 1228, but he’ll continue to be trounced in the Northeast just like he was in the South. California will be similar. At this point, his only hope of the nomination lies with convention shenanigans.
“I also think Trump has no chance of winning in a general election against Hillary Clinton…”
Trump vs. Clinton would be most perplexing.
Trump vs. Sanders would be most perplexing.
Trump vs. anyone would be most perplexing.
Anyone vs. Clinton or Sanders ought to be a shoo-in.
We sorely need a revised “Guide for the Perplexed”…. Updated. “For Dummies”, maybe…
All that being said, I wonder if union members (that is, of the less radical unions), traditional stalwarts of the Democratic Party, might decide they’ve had enough with the Democrats (and their unions)—and vote for Trump….
And not just union members. Practically anyone that’s not a die-hard progressive (or a neo-con, who seem to believe that they must avoid Trump at all costs).
Hillary is a laughably poor candidate. And Sanders is an utter goofball.
Which makes Trump’s ascendence all so perplexing.
In any event, it ain’t over til it’s over. (And the Democrats, it should not be forgotten, do seem to have some kind of, um, influence on the behavior of voting machines….)
From today’s WSJ:
“since the 2008 crisis, 61% of all liabilities in the U.S. financial system are now implicitly or explicitly guaranteed by government, up from 45% in 1999.
“Citigroup estimates that the top 20 advanced industrial economies, in addition to their enormous, recognized public debts, face unrecorded additional debts of $78 trillion for their unfunded pension systems.
“Six years after a crisis caused by excessive borrowing, McKinsey estimates that even visible global debt has increased by $57 trillion, while in the U.S., Europe, Japan and China growth to pay back these liabilities has been slowing or absent.”
Trump or Hillary will do what about this? What can anyone do? We are in the abyss and realize it not.
I don’t give a good damn about the election. It does not matter.
Well, try to see the bright side. The abyss is probably not what we imagine it to be; but if the house does burn down the rats will flee into the open. We will all be homeless, but that is not the worst fate. The worst fate is being yoked by law to these nihilist appetite entities and their fate, in a kind of pseudo-peace.
Socialism, makes the bad behavior of others not simply annoying, or even potentially dangerous, as it is in a libertarian polity, but an active drain and daily assault on your life.
Imagine millions of Sander’s voters tearing each other apart. Would you care? Should you care? If so, why?
I think I am going to take a look and see if I can find New Yorkers explaining their support for Trump.
Trump got less votes than Sanders in NY.
Clinton 1037,344
Sanders 752,739
Trump 518,601
Kasich 214,894
Cruz 123,894
So anyone who thinks NY or the tri- state area is in play for Republicans with Trump as the nominee is not being realistic.
David French of National Review has a great article, Trump’s Counterfeit Masculinity. It’s a week old and you may have read it but if you haven’t it is outstanding.
French says,
“The answer to feminism is and always has been manhood properly defined. It is not – and never will be – the toxic masculinity of the arrogant. The answer to the predator is the protector.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434143/donald-trump-counterfeit-masculinity-feminism-dream
The Trump Chess Board
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143006237056/the-trump-chess-board
With the New York State primary tomorrow, let’s see how the chess board is set up for Trump.
The Lead
Trump has the lead in delegates for the Republican race and that lead will grow with the upcoming primaries.
Momentum
After Trump wins the New York primary he will be the one with momentum for a few weeks.
The Colorado Innocculation
Trump cleverly used the Colorado “rules change” situation that denied him any delegates as a warning to the party for the convention. Trump’s Wall Street Journal article about Colorado was perfect because it primed voters to be touchy about any future shenanigans. The party has been warned.
The Colorado situation is a perfect fit for Trump’s story. Trump is trying to break the system at the same time the system is acting rigged right in front of our eyes.
Victim of a Woman
Trump’s campaign manager Corey Lewandowski learned there would be no charges against him after journalist Michelle Fields’ accused him of grabbing her arm at a Trump event. Regardless of the facts, the court’s conclusion made Trump look like a victim of a woman. On the level of objective fact, the Fields situation has nothing to do with any of Trump’s policies. But as a matter of persuasion it changed the frame from Trump being less empathetic on women’s issues (or so it seems) to Trump being a victim of a woman (or so it seems). Watch how Trump’s “woman problems” seem to diminish going forward.
Moreover, Trump stayed loyal to Lewandowski the whole time. Voters noticed.
Megyn Kelly Interview
As I predicted, Trump and Megyn Kelly are planning a one-on-one interview that will be a yuuuuge ratings event. Expect Trump to be polite and professional. Expect Kelly and Trump to be on good terms when it is over. Kelly has been a big part of the story of Trump’s perceived problem with women, and this will probably fix it. If this were a movie, Trump’s critical third act solution would revolve around the Kelly interview.
Bad Boy Transition Story
In movies, the hero has to undergo some sort of change in order to make the story compelling. Voters want Trump to moderate his obnoxious style and it seems that he is doing just that. We assume Trump’s new subdued style is because of hiring Reagan campaign veteran Paul Manafort. This transition from bad boy to responsible leader will be catnip for the press for months, assuming Trump keeps it up.
The new approach will help Trump run out the clock without introducing any drama that might derail him. And obviously it sets him up for the general election.
Can Trump Take Advice?
The anti-Trump public worried that Trump would be a narcissist and not follow the advice of experts once in office. That was a reasonable fear because Trump seemed to be winging it on the campaign trail. But the hiring of Paul Manafort followed by Trump’s pivot towards a more leaderish vibe are clear indications that Trump can listen. If you were worried about Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger, you can worry less now. Apparently he does listen to expert opinions.
New Haircut
Unless it is my imagination, Trump’s haircut has recently improved. I don’t know if that is because of Manafort’s advice or something else. But on the visual plane of persuasion, the haircut is far more than a haircut. It is another visible signal that Trump can be influenced by the public and his advisors. And it is part of his transition story.
In the 2D world of reason, no one ever rejected a presidential candidate based on his haircut. But in the 3D world of persuasion I would bet Trump loses 10% of voters based on them not wanting a clown-looking president to be the face of the nation. The new haircut is a big, big deal on the persuasion level.
The Sanders Association
Trump has been painting Bernie Sanders as a victim of the rigged system to show that Trump is not alone. It is a smart way to make Trump’s claims of an unfair system seem less Trump-centric. And it makes it easier for Sanders supporters to jump ship to Trump later.
The Shame Test
Trump recently passed the shame test. And by that I mean he quickly changed his position on abortion penalties when he realized his first thoughts on the subject were immensely unpopular. The public saw that as a mistake, and it was. But on the level of persuasion it solved one of Trump’s biggest problems: People believed he was impervious to facts and shame. Voters believed Trump would be dictatorial and ignore the legitimate interests of the people. But the people just spun Trump like a top on the subject of abortion penalties. Now we know he can be managed when it makes sense to do so. That’s a big deal. It might be the most important thing that happened in the campaign because it solved Trump’s biggest problem — the idea that he would not be “managed” by the people. He just was.
It might be my imagination, but I think all of the Trump=Hitler memes stopped at the same time the public “managed” Trump back to a more popular position on abortion penalties. That would not be a coincidence.
New Clinton Linguistic Kill Shot
Trump is testing “Crooked Hillary” as his new linguistic kill shot. It lacks the visual reminder element that “low energy” and “liddle Marco” had, but that’s probably a good thing because it wouldn’t be classy or smart to go after Clinton’s physical appearance. (Because of gender.) Instead, Trump is using the same confirmation bias play that he used for “Lyin’ Ted.” And by that I mean Trump depends on a slow drip of future news that reinforces the label. Trump knows Cruz will say some things that are not true (as all candidates do) and it will reinforce his “lyin’” label. Likewise, Clinton will endure a slow drip of allegations about crooked dealings in the past, taking money from banks for speaking fees, and the email server situation. Every time another sketchy detail emerges, you will think “crooked.” The new name is sticky. And it is engineered with a timer so it worsens all year until the election.
Trump has also called out Clinton for her lack of “stamina.” That’s the second kill shot, and it too is engineered as a magnet for confirmation bias. Every time Clinton coughs, loses her balance, looks tired, or cancels an event, you will wonder about her stamina.
In the movies, the hero kills all of the bad guys with one clean shot until the final showdown with a super-nemesis. The super-nemesis doesn’t die from the first shot. You always need more. So don’t be surprised by Trump using two linguistic kill shots on Clinton. Crooked and stamina work well together.
Headlines and Confirmation Bias
Unfortunately, there’s a good chance of more terrorist attacks around the world before November. You can also expect more stories about Syrian immigrants in Europe causing problems. Those stories — which are inevitable — will strengthen Trump’s appeal.
Bill Clinton’s Sabotage Tour
It looks to me as if Bill Clinton doesn’t want Hillary to be president. That makes sense on a human level because it would wreck his lifestyle and diminish his own accomplishment. Before the primaries, people assumed Bill would be Hillary’s secret weapon. But that weapon might be pointed in the wrong direction.
Obviously I could be reading too much into Bill Clinton’s motivation. But you can already see that the public is starting to interpret his actions that way.
Summary
This is the strongest position Trump has been in since he announced. The chess board is all set for him to win the nomination and then go on to a landslide in the general.
–
If you think this blog is ridiculous, you should see my book.
Neo:
“On the other hand, I think Rubio could and would have beaten [Clinton].”
Given the Rubio campaign’s glaring incompetency confronting the mere ‘jayvee’ Left-mimicking activism supplied by the Trump-front alt-Right within the Republican race, it seems unlikely that the Rubio campaign would have competed competently versus a Clinton campaign backed by ‘varsity’ Left activism supplied by the Democrat-front Left for the general election.
Artfldgr:
“Trump can pound hillary just cause he can open his mouth… which none others will do”
That’s not true. GOP candidates have and would criticize Clinton, and do so with better quality.
The difference is method, not content.
The Trump campaign has been a joke by traditional electoral standards. However, since participatory politics subsume electoral politics, Trump’s joke of a campaign has succeeded due to the critical advantage of activist support from the alt-Right versus the crippling deficiency of activism suffered by the GOP due to willful negligence by conservatives.
If conservatives of the Right had closed the market inefficiency exploited for the Trump phenomenon by supplying the activism that the GOP candidates need to compete for real, it’s highly unlikely that the Trump campaign would be viable right now, let alone the front-runner.
But since conservatives steadfastly refuse to collectively adapt the activism needed to close the obvious, critical vulnerability for the GOP, here we are.
The activist component alone positions the Trump campaign better for the general election than an activism-deficient GOP campaign, but moving up in class from the activism-deficient GOP to the Democrat-front Left is a substantial step up in degree of competition. The likelihood of Trump versus Clinton in the general election will depend on whether ‘jayvee’ Trump-front alt-Right activists will elevate and adjust their gameplay to a varsity level versus ‘varsity’ Democrat-front Left activists – social activist movement versus social activist movement.
Oleg Atbashian
Owner of the People’s Cube
Some of my best friends are Trump supporters
Artful, because Trump doesn’t engage his brain before he opens his mouth*, he will be eviscerated by the general media the moment that it’s no longer politically expedient to encourage and laugh at his antics. Not in my lifetime has there been a candidate for national office with such a treasure trove of material that will be used against him, and he adds new bloopers every day. If by some crazy happenstance he were to be elected, he will alienate any entity that doesn’t already hate us, and stands a better chance than most at instigating confrontations that could lead to pointless war.
All this because some people think it’s a great idea to vote for a boorish a-hole because he’s an a-hole. This does not make him a winner. It makes him an astonishingly terrible person and even worse candidate for President
* There’s the chance that Trump thinks before he speaks – and still says what he says. In that case, he’s even a more terrible human being than if he’s just an unthinking blabbermouth who has no idea how to behave himself in civilized society.
If they are willing to literally fight in the streets like Democrats are, it could be interesting.
The left has been threatening violence. Could be in for a fascinating time.
Oh, just remembered why I actually came back. Browsed half a dozen news sites for polling data and exit interviews on why New York Republicans voted for Trump.
Nothing unexpected, new. or even particularly interesting.
Neo captured it.
One thing to remember is that New York State politicians are crooks first and party men second. The heads of both houses of the legislature are going to jail on a bipartisan basis. Anyone doing business in New York changes their voter registration after each election to stay alive. The level of corruption is astonishing. This is a culture that sees a pseudo tough guy like trump as no more corrupt than anyone else. He held to a much lower standard than he would elsewhere
General election – Trump loses YUUUGE – he might carry the southern states but won’t come close to the other states. He is not a conservative, he is not a Republican – He is and always has been a liberal democrat. Changing your registration before running as a president candidate should be the tip off.
It is for those reasons that Trump will not be the nominee – he won’t have the delegates for the 1st vote. He can’t close the deal with the GOP and he has shown he’s a loudmouth incompetent when it comes to getting the delegates. Out of all of his victories only 1 has been over 50% – his home state with only 2 others running. He might get 50% in CT but I seriously doubt it.
Cruz in the general will win, because he will attack Hillary in a way that will make people nod and agree. Hillary has only 1 attack against Cruz – he’s a conservative, but he will be able to show how the conservative values will make America better.
As for the Polls – all the polls for Cruz Vs Hillary are within the margin of error. Trump vs Hillary – they are double digit losses.
How about staging a massive protest in NY in which hords of men demonstrate the kind of candidates Trump supports (de Blasio) by staging a pee-in at each of Trump’s properties? If New Yorkers want to defend NY values, let’s see how they do it.
I am so sick of all the blogs and pundits who supported Trump because of his big mouth and attacked everyone else because they weren’t conservative enough. I’m begiining to think that Flynt isn’t the only place where brains have been damaged by the drinking water.
Can anyone tell me why people that live in deep blue states are agonizing over whether they will vote for Trump if he is the nominee?
As of now, Indiana is the most important state. And if it’s not over by then, California.
Trump will not turn NY red. As Beth noted, Democrats outvoted Republicans 2.5 to 1 last night.
I live in a deep blue state and I will not vote for Trump. Probably will go third party. Following a narcissistic no nothing with another narcissistic no nothing is not a good policy. Especially when the Trumpster keeps showing his progressive roots.
Political scholars should have a field day dissecting this election cycle. Such promising prospects; such dismal results.
I do think the GOP leadership needs to get started defending the legitimacy of an open convention.
I have read people who say that will mean that your vote means nothing. That is ridiculouos. A primary vote already has questionable meaning, by definition, given the polygot system of open primaries, closed primaries, and caucuses. The primaries should be treated as statements of preference to guide the process. Nothing more.
A party has the right and duty to select the best possible candidate to represent it in the election by any means it chooses. This primary season has been an outlier, and a near travesty. It should be unceremoniously flushed. It certainly should not become a GOP suicide pact.
Get out there and make the case.
It seems to me that neo has made a valid argument that Cruz did poorly in NY, directly and simply due to “New York Values”… arguably, never have so many Americans been dead wrong about so much.
Only a brokered convention provides a path for Cruz to gain the nomination. Clearly, that is his strategic goal. It’s highly unlikely that if Cruz gains the nomination on a second ballot, that Trump’s supporters will view it as fairly won. Which makes it highly probable that they will not vote for Cruz. Making a victory by Cruz, in the general election, improbable.
If GOPe machinations result in someone like Romney being given the nomination, it will all fall apart. A ‘sacrifice’ that the GOPe may be happy to make, since they want neither Cruz nor Trump and can ‘live with’ Hillary.
If Trump gains the nomination, he only wins the general election, if the great majority on right votes for him AND a “game changer” event occurs, such as a severe enough terrorist attack(s), fiscal collapse, etc.
KLSmith. To answer you question about why people in deep blue States would vote for Trump: I believe many of those voters are minorities or legal immigrants who are worried that illegal immigrants will take their jobs because they (the illegals) will work for lower wages. They like Trump because he promises to control the borders.
“A party has the right and duty to select the best possible candidate to represent it in the election by any means it chooses.” Oldflyer
How is that NOT an argument for our GOPe ‘masters’ to dictate who shall rule over us and the ‘rules’ under which we shall live?
Does not that assertion presume that a party will choose “the best possible candidate” for the country, that is also electable rather than the candidate who provides the best combination of electibility and ‘cooperation’ with the interests of the party elite?
Which in this election would be Kasich? A man clearly in the GOPe’s pocket and, who will keep our border’s open? Ensuring America’s dissolution into tribalism under a ‘progressive’ (communist/socialist) banner?
Beth,
Thank you for bringing David French’s deeply insightful article to our attention. I had missed it, as I rarely visit National Review anymore.
Donald will not carry New York in the Fall.
He has no chance of bringing his home state into his column — as New York is also Hillary’s home state — as it were.
eve: thanks for your reply. I guess my question was kind of vague. What I was getting at is this – a deep blue state will go for Hillary in the general. If someone feels troubled about voting for Trump, maybe even morally repulsed at the idea of casting their vote for him, but at the same time feels obligated to vote for the Republican this is a conundrum. But is it really if you know that regardless of how or even if you vote your state will go for Hillary? Why the angst if their vote won’t matter?
KLSmith:
Maybe they think that this time it WILL be close, so their vote could matter. Or maybe it’s a moral issue for them. Maybe they believe voting is a profound and important duty, and they want very badly to vote, and they want to be on record in their own minds as doing what they can to stop Hillary, but their conscience and integrity won’t allow them to vote for a man like Trump.
I supported Rubio because he was strong and informed on foreign policy AND polled best against Hillary. Like F, I feel revulsion when I hear Trump talk. I will get to vote for Cruz or Kasich, in California on June 7. The question for me will be which will be better for avoiding the Hillary catastrophe.
neo,
That is a conundrum. One that would boil down to, do you vote for the lesser of two evils or allow the greater evil to triumph?
Perhaps best decided by the question of, which would give the greatest chance for recovery?
Alan F,
IMO, you would be making the same mistake with Kasich that you were prepared to make with Rubio, ignoring the mortal internal threat out of an understandable focus upon the external threat. Kasich is pro open borders and essentially agreeable to unlimited Muslim migration, either one of which will, unchecked, inescapably lead to America’s dissolution.
If it comes to it, Kasich may not be the better choice than Hillary, even though he won’t accelerate our rush to the abyss but because he, as the GOP choice, would share responsibility for that approaching disaster and thus allow the Left with the full support of the MSM, to disclaim all responsibility. And, the rubes would fall for it.
IMO, there is no acceptable substitute for Cruz. But we have to ‘play the cards we’re dealt’.
GB:
Many conservatives do not see Trump as the lesser evil, however.
GB,
Wouldn’t Kasich still be bound by laws passed by congress?
If Trump were elected, I expect that he would perform like the handful of other celebrities elected to office without (i) political experience or (ii) a network of long-time knowledgeable advisors or (iii) any strong political philosophy. Examples are Jesse Ventura and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those people have generally been ineffective, prone to do the popular thing from moment to moment, and outmaneuvered by those with more experience. That won’t be good for the country (my primary concern) or the Republican Party.
neo,
That’s certainly true of many conservatives but at this point, IMO logically untenable simply because we know what Hillary will do and of the forces at her back. She will have the enthusiastic backing of the Left and the protection of congressional democrats. She will also appoint liberal activist judges.
Whereas, though we may strongly suspect, we do not ‘know’ what Trump will do but we do know that there will be a formidable amount of forces opposed to him and, if he gets too extreme, that opposition will mount to him. Yes, he may attempt to intimidate and bribe but the MSM will lie in wait. And impeachment will be a sword hanging over his head.
expat,
You mean a Congress, the great majority of whom strongly back illegal immigration and unlimited Muslim migration?
y81,
A very perceptive speculation, one that I think likely to be accurate.
Alan F: Patrick Ruffini is doing some good work on which way to vote to help stop Trump in different congressional districts. If it looks more likely that one or the other is ahead, vote for who is ahead. If it’s a toss-up, vote your conscious. Don’t know if they will get enough detailed polling in California to offer opinions.
neo: understood. I have just seen people struggling with this and I think realistically, in a deep blue state it doesn’t matter (no matter how much they wish it did). For that matter, I’ve seen a Maryland blogger bragging about being Never Trump – that doesn’t matter either.
I’m one of those that feel voting is a duty, in most cases. I wish at least some uninformed people could acknowledge and appreciate that they were uninformed and choose to stay home.
Back during Bush v Kerry, I had not finished my political change. Seems weird now, but I really couldn’t make up my mind which was worse. I thought about going down to the polling place anyway, and choosing on the spot. I decided that that was ridiculous. If I didn’t know who I wanted to vote for five minutes before that then it was not going to be a rational, informed, meaningful choice on my part. I left it up to the other voters of my state (which was also the last year it voted Republican). That was the only time I hadn’t voted when eligible; I will admit, it felt strange not to vote. But under the right circumstances it can be a valid choice. In my case it felt strange but not wrong.
Trump was expeced to win big in NY, he will do well in other east coast races. But MD may not go his way, with Kasich winning in that race. Indiana should go for Cruz with Kasich coming in 2nd. Cruz will win in SD and the remaining mountain states. The battle for CA will tell the story, and an open convention is what will happen in July. The gope will stop DJT at the convention simply because down ticket he is a disaster. The only question is will they work to deny Cruz. It will blow up in their faces if they should succeed.
If you are one of those people who believe DJT as the nominee will win any of the die hard blue states in November, you need to put down the pipe immediately.
Lost in all of this: Donald is not set up to FINANCE his Fall campaign.
Virtually all of the big money donors have been the butt of Trump’s insults — implicitly.
Ted is right: Donald can’t run an organization of the scale required.
He’s still massively undermanned.
He’s absolutely in no position to fund his own campaign, not at the scale required.
Dilbert must put down the bong.
&&&&
As for financial crisis, ISIS… and more one should expect fireworks.
I see many conundrums. One is this: if Trump is destined to lose in the general election, would it be better for him to be crushed so that the Republicans could rebuild with Trump and his followers demoralized and discredited?
GB, you make a good point that Trump might not be as bad as how we “know” Hillary and the Dems would be.
KLSmith, I agree with Rufini’s logic. Thank you.
I fear that Trump, and even Cruz, will hurt lower level (congressional) races in California. We have a good congressional candidate in the Monterey/Santa Cruz area. She (Casey Lucius) is not emphasizing that she’s a Republican.
GB, isn’t it about time that you give up the “GOP Masters” rhetoric? I think such as Limbaugh, Levin, Coulter have beat that to death.
I don’t know about you, but I do not feel that I have Masters. Though unlikely that I would vote for the other party candidate, I will always have a choice of who to vote for in the general election if I do not like who the GOP put forward. Unfortunately, this year is beginning to shape up differently. Still, no one will be the master of my vote.
I spoke the truth. A political party exists solely to organize people to get like minded candidates elected. Or more likely the candidate who comes closest to their ideal. It has no other purpose. Someone has to take the lead, as in any group; especially one as large and diverse as a political party. It borders on the ridiculous to refer to those who step up as “The Establishment”, The Elite”, or the “Masters”. Rather they are the ones who do the hard work.
The party has free reign as to how it chooses its candidate. To argue otherwise borders on the puerile. In recent history, the primary process is preferred; if nothing else it gives the rank and file a sense of ownership. On the other hand, this season has been a travesty that does not deserve respect.
I concur blert, DJT can not finance nor organize a presidential run. It would be like sending in a little leaguer to pitch the 7th game of the World Series. All the ‘progressive’ forces will coalesce to produce a landslide. Trump vs. Hrc or any dem would result in DJT with 20% of the popular vote and an electoral college slaughter. Why is this so difficult for people with an IQ above 90 to understand?
Put down the pipe trumpinistas, step back, check into rehab.
Barry Meislin: “Hillary is a laughably poor candidate. And Sanders is an utter goofball.”
Just so. To our eyes. However, has anyone thought about what a Hillary/Bernie ticket would do. It would unite the two halves of the democrat party. Hillary has her minorities, elite progressives, Wall Street, and the feminists. Bernie brings the young socialists, the unions, and the old hippies. Together I see them as an unstoppable force.
A trump/Cruz ticket might have some uniting effect on the GOP side, but the independents, the ones who actually decide our national elections, would probably go for a Hillary/Bernie ticket because……………Trump/Cruz too “extreme.”
I see this election as a national nightmare which is going to really end much hope for smaller government and fiscal responsibility until the day of reckoning – when the government must contract because they’ve run out of other people’s money.
Alan F,
Trump is a disaster down ticket, there can be no doubt this is the case. Cruz will be a liability down ticket if the RNC and its donors fail to support him 100%.
I keep visiting my initial conclusion about DJT, he is a saboteur, with no desire to be POTUS. Trump’s refusal to release his tax info is a tell. He is a millionaire, not a billionaire. Soros can fix it for him.
JJ,
I have to agree.
“The party has free reign as to how it chooses its candidate.”
You will find no argument from me. Some are enchanted by the concept of democracy. While refusing to acknowledge democracy is a suicide pact. We were founded as a republic based upon the rule of law, not the capricious rule of the mob which is exactly what results from adherence to the idea that a pure democracy is somehow egalitarian. It always leads to the guillotine or the gulag. Brought to you by the letter G/g.
Cannot imagine a Trump/Cruz ticket. We now know that JFK held LBJ in utter contempt; Ike did not really respect Nixon, etc. Even Reagan and GWH were political marriages of convenience. The difference is that in the prevailing climate, those facts were not widely known at the time; and could be papered over. Now, the antipathy between the two is trumpeted (no pun intended) almost 24/7.
I expect Trump would choose someone like Ben Carson, who he could overshadow, and who would provide a balance and the appearance of sanity to the ticket. Maybe a Christie for political convenience–although it is hard to imagine them sharing a stage or microphone. I suppose someone like Jan Brewer could be a possibility, for gender balance without threat to his ego. She might be on board with his Mexican war aims.
If Trump is in a position to select a V-P — figure it to be a female governor from a southern state.
But…
Nothing will help.
I see Donald as a 200:1 underdog at this time.
To repeat, he’s wholly unable to fund a run in the Fall.
When you’re a prohibitive underdog — the Big Money crowd flees.
Hillary is nothing if not vindictive.
Think about it.
Stalin in a pants suit.
I’m sorry Oldflyer but I won’t give up the truth just because it makes you uncomfortable.
“I will always have a choice of who to vote for in the general election if I do not like who the GOP put forward.”
Both parties do their level best to rig the game such that your ‘choice’ is between whomever the two major parties nominate, since no minor party has a chance. And the loyalty of both party’s nominee is to ‘those that got them there’.
Both parties pay lip service to their base and then do whatever they think, best serves the interests of their major backers.
Our personal lives are mostly our own but as the left increasingly gets their way, those days are numbered.
“I spoke the truth. A political party exists solely to organize people to get like minded candidates elected.”
I don’t doubt your sincerity. Unfortunately, what you wish to be true has not been so for quite some time. While today the parties exist in the minds of their base for the reason you describe, in actuality today’s political parties exist solely to advance the interests of those who control them. This is proven by the actions of the party… after they are elected.
parker @ 6:43,
It’s not that people have trouble understanding your assessment, which btw may well be correct, it’s that they do not accept it to be the only possibility.
If nominated, Trump may find financial donors. He may bring on board people who can organize and he may stump the progressive forces arrayed against him. Not that he will do those things, only that it is not certain that he will not.
Democracy is indeed a suicide pact, whereas an oligarchy that pretends at democracy is an abomination.. We were indeed founded as a republic based upon the rule of law. But “law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Thomas Jefferson
And, when a few men dictate who shall administer the laws, by consistently manipulating the rules, effectively limiting the base’s ‘choice’ to nominees whose actions demonstrate them not to have society’s best interests at heart, that elite is acting with contempt toward the principle of the consent of the governed and has declared itself to be tyrannical in nature.
Oldflyer,
“Mexican war aims”? That is an astonishing failure to understand the man. Did you get that from MSNBC, CNN or perhaps NPR? Certainly all of them would agree that Trump wishes war with Mexico.
blert,
If parker is right about Trump being a democrat plant, intended to ensure Hillary’s election, in a post Hillary administration, Trump is likely to do very well indeed. His payoff would have to be very substantial indeed.
I’m not in agreement that Trump has no chance whatsoever to win the election. Funding may not be as difficult as you imagine. I do believe that to win he needs conservatives to vote for him and, he needs a wild card event that convinces the public that the democrats cannot keep America safe.
Those convinced that he cannot win under any circumstances would do well to remember that right now, 75% of Americans agree that Muslim migration should be halted until “we know what the hell is going on”…
GB,
With all respect, because you and I come from a similar perspective, I must state that what you imagine about your fictional unknowns about a (fantasy) POTUS Trump is IMO somewhere on the dark side of the moon. To suppose DJT will be less an authoritarian than hrc is akin, at a lesser level, choosing between Mao or Stalin.
And, you have dissed Cruz simply because his organization has gamed the legal, understood well in advance, delegate process in CO and WY and elsewhere. Trump is barely minor league, Cruz is pitching knucle balls in the major league.
I agree with parker.
Just as Kerry, KKK Byrd, Kennedies, Clintons, and the rest of the Demoncrats were hiding things by refusing to be transparent, so the same applies to Trump. I’m still open to exactly what he is hiding, of course, but it’ll certainly be a surprise to some.
I doubt that any serious person in politics right now has the aim of declaring war on Mexico and destroying the Institutional Revolutionary Party, its allies, and all it does, tolerates, and stands for. Unfortunately.
Any “war”, if it or something like it comes, will be fought here; within our borders, and against problems Mexico has created and exported here with the connivance of our own government.
But hey … we always have Twitter!
parker,
I hold you in high regard as well but I would ask you to consider; who resides on the dark side of the moon; the man who says I’m right and no other possibility exists OR the man who says in reply, you’re probably right but I can’t agree that it is a certainty…?
I’m not suggesting that Trump will be less authoritarian than hrc. I AM saying that his authoritarianism will NOT have the goal of fundamentally transforming America into the United Socialist States of AmeriKa. Nor will he be able to successfully declare himself to be the new American Caesar.
And that IMO, that is much less of a threat because an authoritarian Trump Presidency will have much less mendacious goals and much greater constraints upon it, than will an hrc Presidency.
I am also saying that IF you are wrong about Trump being a dem plant and IF Trump is sincere about controlling illegal immigration and bringing Muslim migration under control and sincere about stopping ISIS, then any other failing as a President he would demonstrate will be worth the ‘trade’. Because Hillary will not only not stop those mortal threats to the republic, she will facilitate them.
Nor have I “dissed” Cruz, which implies an unjust criticism. I’ve freely admitted that Cruz must operate within the rules as they exist, nor have I criticized his benefiting from them. I’ve simply said that based upon the principles he himself advocates, he has an obligation to acknowledge the need for reform.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write:
First of all, nominating Trump is probably the best way to make certain that Hillary Clinton is our next president.
But let’s say that’s not correct. Let’s say he’s the winner and becomes president. Trump has expressed a number of socialist aims and sympathies, such as single payer. He has been a keen supporter of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. He is a serial liar. Do you really think you know what he wants to do if he is given the power of the presidency?
Furthermore, he gives every indication of wanting to declare himself the American Caesar. I think he is even worse in that regard than Hillary. The only question is whether he would be as “successful” at doing so. Perhaps you think Congress would be more likely to impeach him than her, and that would stop him? I discussed that with you before here. As far as checks by SCOTUS go, Trump would ignore them, and the only enforcement possible is impeachment.
I remain unconvinced by arguments that of course Trump would not be as bad as Hillary. I believe they are both likely to be very very very bad. I actually think he might be more dangerous in terms of foreign affairs, too, and that’s saying something.
neo,
“nominating Trump is probably the best way to make certain that Hillary Clinton is our next president.”
I have never suggested that we nominate Trump. I have consistently expressed my strong preference for Cruz. I have never argued that nominating Trump will not effectively result in Hillary’s election. I have only said that Trump’s nomination will not for certain result in Hillary’s election and I have stated more than once the conditions that would have to eventuate in order for Trump to beat Hillary.
“Trump has expressed a number of socialist aims and sympathies, such as single payer. He has been a keen supporter of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton herself. He is a serial liar. Do you really think you know what he wants to do if he is given the power of the presidency?”
I agree that he’s a social liberal and agreeable to single payer. I agree that his past indicates sympathies to the left. He is a serial liar.
ALL of that however, IMO pales to insignificance IF he is serious about his core issues because those issues are a far greater threat to the republic than single payer which can be repealed, whereas 50 million more illegals spells America’s end.
Of course I do not know what he wants to do if elected but… neither do you. Probabilities are NOT certainties but they are a ‘caution signal’ and that is why I do not support Trump’s candidacy.
It may well be true that Trump wants to be an American Caesar more than does Hillary. I do not think that a credible probability though it certainly is a possibility, which is another reason to prefer Cruz. I just do not find it credible that either Congress or the American military would support a coup by Trump. I’m not saying its impossible, just highly unlikely.
Whereas, if Hillary is elected, it becomes an absolute certainty, that America permanently becomes a one party State and ceases to exist with even a pretense of liberty and/or that civil war erupts.
Which is why, even though I agree that both Trump and Hillary would be very bad for America, there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary’s election results in a fatal disaster, while Trump may be equally disastrous.
And that is why IF Trump is the nominee, I will vote for him, strictly to keep Hillary out of the Presidency. Knowing that it might not make any difference but also that, at this time, knowing that one IS a certainty and the other only a probable certainty.
Geoffrey:
Parker and Neo make more sense than your opinions and arguments regarding Sir Donald. You almost sound like a “concern” troll when speaking of Cruz. You are loosing credibility.
Geoffrey is right that if Trump claims the THrone or the Pretendership before the throne, there is a chance things can go any number of ways. The possibility is there.
I have predicted a number of strategic and historical turning points, but they are not tactical predictions. I can proclaim that an army will be destroyed merely by looking at how much water and food they have, since without them, the army destroys itself.
The deal, if there was one between the Trumps and the Clintons, would be something akin to “sabotage the Republicans, but lose the nomination as a result, allowing HRC to beat the Demoncrats into line, if Trump wins the nomination, then he can attempt to claim the throne”.
Not even Trump thought he could be close to winning the GOP nomination though. But I think he is clever, ruthless, or smart enough to have put that into his Deal nonetheless. Before on Opra, Trump said he wouldn’t run because he doesn’t do things he believes he will fail at.
While Trump has a lot of problematic points of cracking and leaks, Trump is backed by 3 pillars. And at least two of them, are sympathetic to ties with American patriots.
That means we have an insurgency way in, to get at Trump from the inside if he gets power. Far better a chance than the US patriots had with Hussein or HRC in Libya, of course.
My problems are with Trump the Tyrant or dictator or CEO robber baron. Not with his supporters, of course, unless those supporters were Planned Profit baby killing Demoncrat enemies of humanity. Those, I will keep in my remembrances.