It’s true enough that whoever thought up the Deep Bench strategy should be sent out to pasture. But I still think that the GOP, going forward, is going to need to figure out what to do about Trump’s Fan Club, who are still going to be pissed off in four years. The GOP is either going to have to learn to win elections without them or appeal to them without driving away all the rational folk.
I don’t think there’s anyone in the GOP today who’s adroit enough to put the Republican coalition back together in such a way that the Trump Club is marginalized - especially while Donald is still thrashing around, desperate for attention.
The changing demographics mean that whatever appeal Trump has will never happen again. The next demagogue will focus on different issues and assemble a different coalition. I’d say that it would be a focused anti-muslim and somewhat generic anti-immigrant wave without so much a focus on anti-Latino immigration, but who knows what the popular demagogic messages will be in 20 years. For all I know it could be an anti-trade conspiracy theorist who thinks we should literally confiscate the assets of the rich but doesn’t really care about other taxes or immigration or social issues.
In twenty years, it will all be about the last stand of the Climate Deniers. They’ll want to make America Great Again by pretending that Global Warming isn’t real.
Not another ranting demagogue, but a tough, smart hard-line conservative (and expect to see the same in Europe). Republican voters who are angry now will be even angrier after four years of HRC, four more years of liberal “values” and persecution of Christians, four more years of immigrants, refugees, tax hikes, doubling health insurance premiums and electric bills (to “fight global warming”), etc.
But can anyone who satisfies the Republican voters’ anger really appeal to the rest of the country? Or would they consider a “smart hardliner” to be too establishment and mealy mouthed?
I think it really depends how stark the contrast is drawn between voters on each side of the aisle, especially as a good segment of one side gets angrier and more reactionary. Any tea leaves read today are shaky at best. Or wouldn’t you agree that Trump is a… unique figure?
+1
If all the poisons that lurk in that mud hatch out and elect one POTUS before their demographic flames/fizzles out it would be better to be TRUMP than the next ideologue.
It might be a close-run thing but the world and the US will probably survive 1,460 days of TRUMP, with the quite bearable loss of the New American Century.
Yeah, but that would also mean they could claim that Trump wasn’t conservative enough if and when he fails, so a failed Trump presidency still wouldn’t necessarily turn down the voters’ heat at all.
The best way to handle this is for each party to prevent the buffoons from running in their name.
Trump made it as a Republican. If he’d been forced to run as an independent, he’d have fizzled away like Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.
So all we need is a law which states:
“no person shall run for President of the United States as a member of an pre-exisiting, organized political party, unless he has previously held a political office as a member of that same party”.
This doesn’t have to be a constitutional ammendment–it can simply be passed at the state level, as a technical required for registering for on the ballot in that state.
It would not infringe on freedom or democracy: any unknown citizen could still run for president. But he couldn’t claim that he is part of an existing party–he would have to create a new party of his own.
That would prevent any pre-existing party that had never successfully elected a candidate from running a candidate for president. It would also prevent all pre-existing parties from running any candidate of their choice for president. If the Republican Party thew its full, unconditional support behind one of the Koch brothers, they wouldn’t be allowed to run him for president.
[QUOTE=chappachula]
So all we need is a law which states:
“no person shall run for President of the United States as a member of an pre-exisiting, organized political party, unless he has previously held a political office as a member of that same party”.
This doesn’t have to be a constitutional ammendment–it can simply be passed at the state level, as a technical required for registering for on the ballot in that state.
[/QUOTE]
So Dwight Eisenhower shouldn’t have been President? Or someone who has held a non partisan office, such as ambassador?
Or Michael Bloomberg? Or any number of people like him? Or someone who was a governor or senator on a moderate platform and switches parties?
Of course you need a Constitutional amendment. Such a law would be swiftly challenged under Article II, which clearly states the requirement for a Presidential candidate, and the Fourteenth Amendment to boot. It’s manifestly unfair, and solves a problem that doesn’t clearly need solving. Donald Trump is horrible, I agree, but he is a symptom of a problem your proposed law won’t solve.
But shouldn’t a party want a candidate who’s successfully done the campaign thing before? Plus it’s a pretty low threshold as long as any elected office will suffice.
Note that both the Libertarians and Greens would meet this test this year. Both Lib candidates are ex-governors. Jill Stein was twice elected to municipal government in Lexington, MA. (Wiki cite) While the Green VP candidate has never ran for office as far as I can tell, Stein would’ve just picked someone else if there was such a rule.
Also note that it would not have excluded Cruz or Huckabee. It’s not there to weed out assholes or crazies but “outsider” candidates who want to eat the cake of being an outsider and also have the cake of having an established party support them. Yes, I’m also referring to an unsuccessful candidate other than Trump in a party other than the GOP.
The Constitutional requirements for being the President, or a member of Congress, don’t include having X,000 signatures on a petition for candidacy, or whatever other procedural requirements the various States already impose to get on the ballots. The States operate, and are the primary regulators of, elections to Federal office.
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 4]
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1]
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
[/QUOTE]
The election is still months away, so I wouldn’t count our chickens when it comes to Trump being defeated. But assuming he is, I still worry that now that he’s shown demagoguery to be a feasible path to the nomination, someone else with a little more ability to keep his cool and act in his own self-interest will attempt it.
Trump is a demagogue who seems unable to fake humility, unable to pick his battles strategically, and who is either not smart enough or not informed enough to fake alignment with the constituencies he’s courting. (E.g., when he tries to court the religious right, but misstates the names of Bible books, or when he tries to court the Congressional Republicans by promising to defend the non-existent Article 12 of the Constitution, or when he tries to court Pro-Lifers by saying he’ll punish women who get abortions, which I honestly think he did because he believed it was the answer they wanted to hear.)
In other words, Trump is a demagogue, but he’s not nearly the most effective possible demagogic candidate. Hopefully a failed Trump candidacy will make it harder for such a person to achieve the nomination, rather than merely encouraging them to do so. Time will tell.
I agree. Trump’s success demonstrates that our democracy is very fragile.
Trump is just an ordinary egomaniac who ran as a publicity stunt and ego trip, had no political agenda beyond a single issue, and never expected to get elected. It’s still easy to believe that his increasing mistakes are deliberate — he doesn’t want to win! He knows he’s unqualified and would be a laughing-stock President; and being President would completely cramp his happy life-style.
Imagine if the same energy and voter stupidity served a megalomaniac demagogue with a real wish to win and a real political agenda.
But just as a tiny dose of measles vaccine pretends us from getting a real case of measles, so Trump’s success may turn out to be a blessing, a sort of vaccine! Expect to see changes in party rules and perhaps media coverage to make a recurrence less likely.
Yes, I’m also referring to an unsuccessful candidate other than Trump in a party other than the GOP. 