So then, Defcon 0.5?
Probably not.
But I’m making sure my passport is in order and eyeing real estate prices in Canada, just in case.
I don’t know, because I actually think Trump would by far could be a tough candidate to beat precisely because of why he continues to win the primary; he is not hurt by things most candidates are. I mean how many times has his political obituary been written? How many more things like Megyn Kelly, John McCain, “rapists,” etc. that he and only he could get away with need to occur for Democrats to see that this isn’t any pushover? I also think his message of independence from Kochs, etc. might resonate with swing voters more than Rubio’s “I’m a non-white Republican, vote for me” bit.
I say Cruz is the easiest of the big name Republicans to beat.
A really smart guy would locate himself so that he could scoot over the border before the Canadians close it. That’s what a real smart guy would do.
The GOP Panjandrums will punk Trump at the Convention, if it gets that far.
And, if that happens, I predict the Tea Party, and perhaps much of the Base as well, will walk.
3rd Party?
Non-voting?
You guess.
I continue to be astounded at the idea that Trump could become President – it won’t happen. He lacks the support of almost all serious voters; he lacks support of the Koch Brothers and the other big money boys; he lacks the support of sober Republicans like Karl Rove, etc.; he lacks the support of even the most off-the-wall media personalities. I assume he lacks his own support as well – this is all a publicity stunt that’s gone farther than he ever expected. It’s extremely unlikely that he could become the GOP nominee and almost impossible that he’d win the general election: too many rational Americans would find the idea abhorrent or laughable.
In a fantasy land where he did become President, building the Great Wall of Mexico would be the least of our worries. With Russia, China, Iran and ISIS all eager to probe for U.S. weakness, now is not a good time to hang a sign on U.S. foregn policy: “Out to Lunch. Come back in four years.” … Though such a sign would probably be better than Trump actually meeting with foreign leaders.
I’d love to “put my money where my mouth is,” if anyone knows a way that makes sense. Putting 15x my winnings into escrow at Betfair for up to 13 months doesn’t sound like a good way to go, though.
Right now, that support is limited to the crazy wing of the Republican party. It’s true that that support hasn’t been damaged much by his gaffes. But to actually win the presidency, he needs to get a near-majority of all voters. Not going to happen.
Current polls show close enough to a majority, at least against Clinton. That close, it only takes one new scandal to finish Clinton off. And does anyone want to bet against at least three more new scandals coming out between now and 13 months from now?
You mean something they don’t already have? Overdue library books? She colors her hair, thus lying to the American people? Do the drapes match the carpet, is she really blonde? Why won’t Hillary release those pictures, or strip down in front of the Congressional investigative committee?
Are you asking us to bet whether or not Drudge thinks he has a scandal, or whether he actually does? Does “making shit up” count?
See, that’s the difference between Trump fans and Clinton fans. The Trump fans know who their guy is. Clinton fans are completely divorced from reality.
So your reality based prediction is 3 new Clinton scandals before the election?
For the purpose of this bet, what’s a scandal? Does there have to be any fire, or would just a lot of smoke qualify?
It has to be reported by the NY Times and the story has to continue to surface on the front page for at least a month as new details come out.
Seeing that more than a few scandals from the NY times about Clinton were found to be bogus I think you need to recalibrate your balance.
The NY Times misreported a story, but their error only took a huge campaign ending scandal and turned it into a fairly typical Clinton scandal.
But assuming they don’t have to issue retractions like they did there, there will be more stories.
Trump isn’t scary. Is he going to build a wall via executive order? Are executive orders that powerful now?
As I have seen them, the “stories” come also from the right wing people who are in government, the NY Times has simply not learned that their sources in government are also very helpful on pushing misinformation from the conservatives (their Iraq reporting before the war was really shameful as Cheney made them for all purposes their stenographer) and as the report I linked concludes, the NYT is open for [del]more business[/del] more disinformation.
Speaking locally, ever since I saw how Trump kowtowed to Sheriff Joe Arpaio it is really reckless to think that if Trump is elected that he is not going to help people like Arpaio.
In the previous election the Arizona Republicans did made the point that if Obama was reelected then the executive orders would continue to undermine the abuses of sheriff Joe, that for many conservatives over here are supposed to be “business as usual” against minorities.
Trump came to a rally in support of Arpaio a few months ago, never mind that it was already well reported that Arpaio was and is currently on trial for contempt of court for his abuses and Arpaio even tried to get a mistrial by investigating the judge that is currently on the case.
I was not born yesterday so either Trump was a really dumb ignorant when he joined Arpaio to his hip. He is then an incompetent and he does not deserve the presidency as he id not aware of who hes is getting help from, or that he knew already and he does like what he sees in Arpaio. No wonder both Republican senators from Arizona advised Trump to not go to Arpaio’s rally.
Yes, one can claim that executive orders are not powerful, but some scoundrels just ask for an inch to then get a mile.
Short of the White House being offered as a raffle prize and Trump using his fortune to buy all the tickets, I’d have to say… not really.
Oy.
I will readily accept the high probability that an unholy alliance of the the GOP smear machine and a media desperate to create a competitive race out and to have something, anything, to report that will get clicks, will report three or more “scandals” over the next 13 months. The NYT loves Hillary takedown narratives and definitely anything created will be front page there and repeated and repeated and repeated. “It’s been alleged…” “Sources close to …” rinse repeat. Low bar … likely more than three.
And if so Hillary would, Election Day, win a race against Trump win with an electoral vote of no less than 297, very likely at least 347, possibly even 369 … and I would not rule out by more.