I don’t think so- the voters and the electors have to vote for both offices- who would they vote for in states that were carried by Trump?
He’ll pick a military figure.
That’s plausible. He’d have to pick a non-politician, because politicians won’t want it.
Where I disagree with you, however, is the presumption that Trump has a good chance of winning the nomination.
Read this:
Then consider Trump’s latest zinger analogizing Clinton’s 2008 nomination loss to being penetrated by a male sexual organ against her will. Such attention-getting behavior prevents low-information voters from thinking about other candidates. But eventually the big story is going to be that Trump lost this state or that state, and the bubble with burst.
The worst thing about the Trump bubble may be that it makes Cruz seem reasonable by contrast, greatly increasing his chances.
Any ticket featuring Trump would be crushed in a landslide by any Democrat.
Admiral Stockdale, perhaps?
Dec 17-21 CNN ORC poll:
Clinton 49 Trump 47 (hardly a landslide)
Cruz 48 Clinton 46
Rubio 49 Clinton 46
I think the Dems lost this one. They’ve blundered horribly on national security and gun control, and are running a woman widely seen as the Wicked Witch.
As pointed in the other thread, you are only looking at CNN:
In the aggregate Clinton is ahead of Trump by 6 percentage points.
For the others, Clinton is in a virtual tie.
I don’t know that I agree 100%. But you do have a point.
I think the Dems (of which I am one) are stuck with a candidate who’s truly a Bogeywoman for the right and will herself be a big reason for high (R) turnout. Which obviously is not to her / other Democrats’ advantages. There is also a sizeable contingent of D’s (of which I am one) who thinks she’s more tainted and more dated than is good for the party. Dynasties are just deeply un-American.
Each party has at various times been stuck with an “heir apparent / inevitable” candidate who was really the wrong person for that particular election. I think HRC is that person this election.
Whether that’ll be enough to tip the election to the (R)s is an open question IMO. No way to predict (yet) with all the wild cards in play this time. Voter turnout is everything, and as we saw in 2008, it’s the folks who usually don’t vote who suddenly do (or vice versa) that change everything. Will the crazies show up *en masse *to carry the day for Trump/Cruz or not?
I believe Trump will have a relatively unknown minority as a running mate. I think a black veep choice is most likely; or maybe Hispanic. Once he does this, it will cause confusion among the people who swear up and down that Trump is a died in the wool racist.
It will give greater resolve to his current supporters whose deepest desire in terms of politics is to see anything that shows liberal pundits are demonstrably wrong about something, it will make people who agree with some of the things he says but are afraid of the buffoonery of his campaign a little more comfortable for voting for him and it will solidify and even expand the support he has in minority communities.
The Adams and the Bushes are just lucky I guess.
That is a given, but as pointed before, that is not enough to win the election; the question is if the moderate Republicans will have the stomach and fortitude to support the country over the party as it should finally dawn on them that the current Republican party does not represent them.
Lucky is not the point. But they, like the Roosevelts, are examples of dynasties. Something that IMO is deeply harmful to the ideals we profess to hold as Americans. The mere fact there have been dynasties in the past, and probably will be dynasties in the future, doesn’t mean we ought not be working to prevent / avoid them whenever and wherever they appear. Like hereditary wealth, they are anathema to the founding ideals of the Republic.
Could be. But those same moderate Republicans are the ones who’ve been exposed to the Democrat = Socialist = Terminal Decline drumbeat for decades now. IMO they’d be more likely to hold their nose and vote R as their least bad alternative than to vote D.
One thing’s for sure; all the theorizing is fun, but ultimately we’re in mostly uncharted territory for this country in this election. Other countries with a more flexible multi-party (or evolving party) system have certainly had their share of hard-left and hard-right populist demagogues. Some of whom have crashed and burned, others of whom have done very well in otherwise advanced and tolerant countries.
We are really seeing the strains of trying to cram the wide (and ever-widening) variety of citizen sentiments and concerns onto a binary two party system wherein for all practical purposes those two parties are enshrined in law and cannot be replaced. They can be remolded over time by internal forces. But they can’t be supplanted wholesale as we’ve seen in, e.g., the French Right over the last 20 years.
If he gets the nomination he (and Hillary) will gravitate to more centrist rhetoric, as is always the case in politics. So that would theoretically be enough to nudge those moderate Republicans towards him.