Here’s one flaw I see in your plan. As you’ve mentioned elsewhere, you’re only doing this if Hillary has the nomination “locked up”, but I assume you don’t mean mathematically assured. ISTM, only Hillary supporters would be onboard with your plan. So if you actually convinced enough people to go along with this idea to make a difference, couldn’t it also make a difference in Hillary’s “lock”?
Though on further reflection, if you are in a WTA state, a few thousand extra votes in the Republican race can make a much larger delegate difference than in the Democratic proportional race.
You’ll get no argument with me over Cruz. I agree he’s a ratfuck bastard. And Rubio’s another one. But I feel that if worst comes to worst, our political system can handle a ratfuck bastard as President better than it could handle Trump. Cruz and Rubio are both politicians and I feel they will stay within the limits of accepted politics. They’ll enter office already thinking about their re-election for a second term and accommodating interest groups. Trump’s a loose cannon who doesn’t know what he should be doing and doesn’t think he needs to learn.
Do you think the government shut down was within the limits of acceptable politics?
Solid argument. Trump would probably run third party as well.
Or we switch over to something other than a 2 stage electoral system, where stage 1 is filtered by 50 different and changing voter elegiblity rules. Hacking the primary system is the first step towards ending it. We should switch to a system more in line with every other functional democracy.
No, no, no young Padawan. Our main concern is maximizing the chaos on the other team’s side. That means voting for the 2nd place candidate, all the better to keep the race going. This applies especially when they have no qualms about going negative hard, long and dirty. Like Trump and Cruz. Consider this a method of educating the public. Vote Ted Cruz (unless he moves into first place).
Sure, Trump is entertaining. But enough is enough: this guy needs to go down. Rubio has finally landed some hits on this jerk and it’s about time.
- Trump is a reality show star: the main requirement for such folks is lacking shame. That’s really a terrible thing to have in a leader. Ezra Klein: [INDENT][INDENT]Trump’s other gift — the one that gets less attention but is perhaps more important — is his complete lack of shame. It’s easy to underestimate how important shame is in American politics. But shame is our most powerful restraint on politicians who would find success through demagoguery. Most people feel shame when they’re exposed as liars, when they’re seen as uninformed, when their behavior is thought cruel, when respected figures in their party condemn their actions, when experts dismiss their proposals, when they are mocked and booed and protested.
Trump doesn’t. He has the reality television star’s ability to operate entirely without shame, and that permits him to operate entirely without restraint. It is the single scariest facet of his personality. It is the one that allows him to go where others won’t, to say what others can’t, to do what others wouldn’t.
Trump lives by the reality television trope that he’s not here to make friends. But the reason reality television villains always say they’re not there to make friends is because it sets them apart, makes them unpredictable and fun to watch. “I’m not here to make friends” is another way of saying, “I’m not bound by the social conventions of normal people.” The rest of us are here to make friends, and it makes us boring, gentle, kind.
This, more than his ideology, is why Trump genuinely scares me. There are places where I think his instincts are an improvement on the Republican field. He seems more dovish than neoconservatives like Marco Rubio, and less dismissive of the social safety net than libertarians like Rand Paul. But those candidates are checked by institutions and incentives that hold no sway over Trump; his temperament is so immature, his narcissism so clear, his political base so unique, his reactions so strange, that I honestly have no idea what he would do — or what he wouldn’t do.[/INDENT][/INDENT]
-
Trump wins if the economy goes into recession. IMHO the odds of recession are less than 50%… but higher than during a typical year. Because China is experiencing a downturn. (Also commodities and oil, which is double edged. Luckily oil states are red anyway.)
-
Democrats can handle a conservative Republican in the oval office: they survived Reagan after all. But a joke like Trump is bad for democracy, worldwide even. Kevin Drum:
[indent] Even if you assume that Marco Rubio might be more technically destructive of liberal policies than Trump—an unlikely but admittedly possible outcome—Trump would be more destructive of the very core of liberalism. If we’re willing to accept bigotry and belligerence and just plain inanity—along with the small but genuine chance of a something truly catastrophic taking place on his watch—just for the sake of maybe getting a slightly better outcome on a few liberal policies, we really ought to just hang it up. [/indent]
Liberals Need to Back Off the Trump Love – Mother Jones
Republicans can and will disavow Trump. In fact McConnnell is doing it right now. President Cruz would do far more damage to the Republican brand, as his failed Presidency couldn’t be characterized as a hostile takeover.
I said Cruz is a ratfuck bastard. But you’re not going to convince me he’s worse than Trump.
I’m not happy with the fact that we’re facing a choice between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio for the Republican nomination. I’d certainly be happier if there was at least one choice I had any positive feelings about. But this is the hand we’ve been dealt and now we need to rank them bad, worse, and worst.
This isn’t disavowal. This is just trying to get a different Republican nominated. Until I hear McConnell or some other conservative telling people they should vote for Clinton rather than Trump, I’m not taking it seriously.
McConnell can’t make himself appear to be waiting for *Trump *to nominate the next SC Justice.
Sorry. There is indeed a question whether a few conservatives would announce that they are voting for Hillary. My link discusses that. But I meant to claim something else.
I was saying that after Trump has his failed Presidency, conservatives in general and Republicans in particular would be able to distance themselves from the disaster. They would characterize it as a hostile takeover to limit the damage to their brand. It would be harder to do that with President Cruz. Just as it is harder to claim that GWBush’s Iraq adventure wasn’t really conservative. Some do so. But outside of their tank few take it seriously.
Srsly? Cruz constantly runs against the “Washington cartel”.
I have to agree with the OP. If we assume that Kasich is going nowhere in the primaries, the real danger is Rubio. Cruz is very likely unelectable and Trump almost certainly isn’t, so as I said elsewhere, through these primaries I’m a big Trump fan, mainly on the expectation that he’ll lose the general election in a McGovern-type implosion.
As someone else said somewhere, the voter demographic of the general is vastly different from that of the Republican primaries. Some die-hard Republicans may be clamoring for a refreshing dose of non-establishment contrariness now, but the general electorate may question whether they want a comic book character embarrassment as their President and Commander-in-Chief. For Trump to be anything else, he would have to change his public persona so completely that he would be unrecognizable. So why would anybody vote for this strange new Trump 2.0, assuming he could even effect such a dramatic transformation?
Good question and nice post. Let’s keep in mind the example of Sarah Palin. She lost some support in the GOP over time, but in the fall of 2008 they thought she was just the bees’ knees. While at the same time, the general public increasingly saw her as a total joke, completely unqualified for the presidency.
Palin is a good analogy. Trump is much smarter than Palin, of course, but so is my dog. The operative principle here is the same: (a) no filter between brain and mouth, and (b) Republican crowd goes wild! I remember being told by Republicans back in '08 that Palin was a political powerhouse and that the real reason progressives were so critical was that they were all deathly afraid of her. I kept trying to explain that, no, we were all laughing so hard that we couldn’t actually say much!
If you want the racists to openly take over the country, then by all means vote for Trump. He doesn’t disavow David Duke, even though he did when it suited him over 10 years ago. He needs that racist vote.
I don’t know why the US even bothers to have a Holocaust Museum or an African American Museum slated to be opened in September in Washington. The money would be better spent on racist policies, like getting Mexico to build a wall, or stopping all Muslims, hell anyone with a religious head covering to enter America. Keep it as white and as Pleasantville as possible. Then you can continue to stick you heads in the sand. Afterall, Trump builds big buildings. The Statue of Liberty was only meant for white folks. The rest of the world might as well get used to it
Yeah, but Republicans would rally around him more than Trump after the convention.
Maybe. My scenario is plausible, but I hereby downgrade it since using it as a basis for decision making involves too much conjecture about this summer and fall. Too many moving parts. Let me keep post 86 but demote post 87 to dubious status.
ETA: Andiethewestie presents another problem. Fomenting chaos aside, it may make sense to boycott right wing white nationalists. Like Pat Buchanan, David Duke and Le Pen in France.
That is a valid point to consider.
Yes, but don’t overestimate the intelligence of the right wing base. There were idiots who liked the kind of things Palin was saying but weren’t going to vote for a woman. Trump will say the same things and they’ll vote for him because everyone knows only white men are supposed to be President.
The top story on Redstate right now is “Donald Trump would probably nominate worse SCOTUS justices than Hillary”. REDSTATE. How can anyone possibly think this guy has any chance in hell in a general election?