I think Lindsey Graham is about to find out that his predictive powers are not better than Bill Kristol’s:
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), a supporter of [Jeb] Bush, said of Trump: “This man accused George W. Bush of being a liar and suggested he should be impeached. This man embraces [Russian President Vladimir] Putin as a friend. The market in the Republican primary for people who believe that Putin’s a good guy and W. is a liar is pretty damn small.”
It takes a certain kind of determined myopia not to see in retrospect that George W. Bush was a liar of immense proportions. It’s also extremely difficult to ignore the disastrous consequences of his presidency:
“The war in Iraq has been a disaster,” Trump said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It started the chain of events that leads now to the migration, maybe the destruction of Europe. [Bush] started the war in Iraq. Am I supposed to be a big fan?”
Despite all this, it might not be entirely accurate to say that the base of the GOP agrees with Trump’s assessment of our 43rd president. It’s probably more a matter of them not really caring much one way or the other. They’ve moved on.
I think it’s interesting that the Republican rank-and-file seem impervious to heresies against the Conservative Movement. Trump’s past comments calling for universal health care don’t bother them, nor do they hold his pro-Planned Parenthood funding against him. Was he pro-gay rights and pro-choice in the past? It’s no matter.
He makes a left-wing critique of the Iraq War and President Bush? Apparently, not too many people are offended.
You can go down a growing list. Trump calls for protective tariffs and opposes free trade. He uses eminent domain and strategic bankruptcy to further his business interests. He clearly fakes his piety in an unconvincing and frankly insulting manner. His private life is nearly the opposite of what the family values crowd espouses. He uses expletives and sexual innuendo (who will protect the children?).
What this calls into question is how much the appeal of conservative ideology has ever really explained the cohesiveness of the Republican coalition. Has it always been more a matter of tribalism and a team mentality? Could it be that what unites them is less free enterprise, retro-Christian values and a strong national defense than a shared antipathy for common enemies?
That’s been my working hypothesis for a while now, which is why I thought the Republican Establishment was deluding themselves when they said they’d destroy Trump once they began running ads about his record as anything but a movement conservative.
The people who support Trump are supporting him because he’s the kind of guy who will stand up the president and say that he wasn’t even born here. They don’t care whether he’s an economic protectionist or not. But they damn sure like that he’s willing to tell the Mexican government that he’s going to force them to pay for a Great Wall on the southern border.
In the battle of us vs. them, The Donald has been winning from the start.
Cruz is doing a decent job, too, but he’ll probably never be more than Trump’s caddie.
And, if Cruz does eventually outshine Trump, his appeal will be the exact same. It won’t be his adherence to strict constitutional originalism or his appeal to Christian Dominionists. It will be that Cruz convinces the base that he’ll do a better job than Trump of shattering the liberals.
The fact that these two jackasses are leading the polls is already doing a decent job of shattering this liberal.
This sentence reminds me of a Mussolini quote: “The democrats of ‘Il Mondo’ want to know our program? It is to break the bones of the democrats of ‘Il Mondo.'” Capitalize “Democrats” and eliminate “Il Mondo” and Il Duce’s words work just as well for the Republicans.
The GOP voters are a coalition that varies in what they care about. All that is needed is less than half of the primary vote to get the GOP nomination, the way the states have set up the delegate allocation rules.
Trump does not need all of the base, the fraction he has is adequate.
Precisely.
And when he is finally nominated, here is what he will be saying to the electorate. The whole electorate, including Dems and so-called “undecideds.”
Like dat, if he’s smart.
And if he does…no matter how sincere he is or how difficult-if-not-impossible it will be to get things done that he has promised…he’ll win.
And then the fun will really start.
Watch.
AG
TTIP is a farking red flag to precariat Americans. And Hillary will have less than zero credibility on that issue, I can tell you.
Arthur has a blissfully thorough lack of self-awareness.
No, he’s not rooting for Trump. Just writing the Donald’s stump speech is all.
Looking forward to AG’s next sanctimonious lecture of progressives. Smell the rooster!
I’d claim Arthur has been sent here by the LaRouchies, but his blend of sophistry has some elements that are distinct to him.
One distinct element is a heaping helping of smugness
That’s what he’s gonna say, only in his own matchless, self-aggrandizing manner.
Deal wid it.
It has been leftinesses like you that have made it possible for Trump to succeed. Now here we are, all likely to have to pay a steep price for your gullibility. You remained staunch, lock-step DemocRats, while:
1-Bill Clinton
2-Al Gore
3-John Kerry
and
4-Barack Obama
Led you down the primrose-strewn path of Permanent Government Neo-liberalism. When they didn’t get elected? (Gore, Kerry) It was even worse.
And who’s up to bat now? Supported by almost the entire power of the Democratic National Committee? Owner of supetrdelegates up the yin-yang?
Dassit. You got it. Another Clinton. Will she be successful in her quest to be the first female neoliberal president? Maybe, maybe not. In my view, if she’s not successful then Trump in going to win going away. Bernie won’t be able to handle him.
Do I want that to happen. What’s the matter with you? Can’t you read? How many times have I said here that a Trump presidency promises a new kind of hell for the U.S.
Get real.
AG
Oh, I can read. The musician doth protest too much, methinks.
You thinks whatever you wants. You’re still way off base.
AG
Some people write to try to persuade the reader. Other people write to insult the reader.
AG does not try to persuade. I expect this is because insults are quick and cheap, but persuasion is not.
Bullshit,. I very patiently and at great length try to explain my positions and how I reached them. A lot of people get them and some others don’t. So it goes. I do keep trying.
AG
Hang on AG. “Bernie won’t be able to handle [Trump]”? Then why in the world would you favor Sanders as candidate?
I have said elsewhere that a Sanders/Warren ticket would be able to match fire for fire with Trump.I cannot imagine HRC picking a VP candidate who is a stronger public personality than is she. She’s had enough of that in her marriage.
AG
“I’d claim Arthur has been sent here by the LaRouchies…”
You may be onto something, just not about Arthur. Instead, it’s about Trump. What passes for his platform actually is closer to the LaRouchePAC platform than to those of the establishments of either the Republican or Democratic Parties. It even has its own conspiracy theories, like Trump disbelieving the official unemployment numbers and going for something even more extreme than ShadowStats. I always thought that the LaRouchies were a better fit in a lot of ways than with the Democrats. Thanks to Trump, now I’ll have a chance to find out if I’m right.
Interesting…
I haven’t paid attention to the LaRouche types for a long time. Used to be they ascribed all the world’s troubles to a conspiracy involving the Mossad, the British royal family, and Henry Kissinger. ANy different now?
On those counts, no, which is why I wrote that Trump’s version had its own conspiracy theories. It helps that Trump, unlike LaRouche, doesn’t have an ex-wife who left him for an Englishman. Underneath the tinfoil hats, what passes for their serious ideas looks like Trump’s–nationalistic and populist: anti-free trade, pro-American industry, anti-big-banks, and rather anti-environmental. I once snarked at one of them that the Democratic Party of 1963 called and they wanted their platform back.
That might very well give the coup de grace to the GOP, but it won’t win him a national election. He’s too odious.
having lived through the elctions of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bush I and II…I envy your innocence.
AG
Be here now, man.
I am “here.” I just haven’t forgotten what got us here.
AG, you have your opinion, but no one died and appointed you God.
I lived thru Nixon, et al also. I was politically active also. Apparently, I live in a different country from you, because frankly, you haven’t yet said WHICH FUCKING STATES THAT OBAMA WON IN 2012 IS TRUMP GOING TO FLIP?????
Until you do that so that everyone else here can pick your logic apart … you are just chicken little running around screaming about the sky falling.
You’ve got a long wait for that list of states.
Yes. He does. I’ll give it to you after the nominations are in.
I will say this, though…in a head-to-head with HRC he will most certainly take the states that Romney won. Obama won 332-206 in the Electoral College count. 270 are the minimum number of votes needed to win. That means he needs about 64 more votes to win.
Consider this:
Iowa-6
Ohio-18
Pennsylvania-20
New Jersey-14
That’s 58 right there. All quite possible. Bet on it.
Maine-4
New Hampshire-4
Here we are at 66. I believe that he will win in Maine on personal experience. New Hampshire wouldn’t surprise me either. In fact, any largely rural state in the country wouldn’t surprise me. Washington? Oregon? Colorado? New Mexico? If the rural voters turn out in force and the urban voters not so much?
UH oh!!!
AG
Oregon is not mostly rural. Half the population of the state lives in the Portland metro area. The Willamette Valley is mixed red/blue but swings blue owing to Eugene and Corvallis, the state university towns. The GOP has not managed to win any of the supposedly swing Congressional districts for as long as I’ve lived here (23 years). Greg Walden holds the safely GOP seat that includes all of eastern Oregon and, if I recall correctly, parts of southern Oregon as well.
I do realize that stripped of the sneers, your argument is that Trump is not a GOP candidate in any sense that we think we understand, and that he would be able to peel off Democratic voters on the way to the White House. I hope you are wrong but fear you may be right.
I stand corrected on Oregon.
Thank you.
AG
Colorado and maybe Illinois, if enough black voters stay home because they are mad that Hillary is not the candidate or there is a surge in white proletarian voting if she is. But I think Colorado. Lot’s of religious whackos out there.
Not Oregon and probably not Washington. Job situation is not that bad in Washington.
Michigan, Wisconsin? did they vote for Obama? I’m too tired to look it up. Florida? More electoral shenanigans?
Obama won both Michigan and Wisconsin by solid margins in each of his POTUS campaigns.
Thanks. I’m surprised because both of them seem as hard Right as Kentucky or Indiana. Black turnout?
ok. All of this is predicated on the FACT that there are very few individual state polls for heads up general election information.
Iowa – Trump is not a good fit for Iowa. He is a good fit for some of the primary voters, but you know what? More than just primary voters vote in the general elections. PPP shows HRC and Trump in a dead tie. It shows Bernie Leading Trump by 5 points. THis is the highest Trump will get in Iowa. No. Iowa does not flip for Trump.
Ohio – Even worse than Iowa. Yes, Ohio has an R governor. That Governor couldn’t be less like Trump and still be a Republican if you paid him. Ohio is NOT a good fit for Trump and indeed, it is likely that a good number of “reliable” Republicans will vote for the D Presidetial BECAUSE Trump is the nominee. No. Ohio does not flip for Trump.
Pennsylvania – D presidentially since 1988. Last 2 election presidential margins of over 5%. Tough talk does well in PA, but Statewide Republicans generally don’t do so well. There is no particular evidence that Trump will do that much better. And before you bring up the R majority of congress critters, in 2012 D congressional votes were 2.7 m — R congressional votes were 2.6 m. NO. Pennsylvania is not a “very likely” flip for Trump.
New Jersey. The state so democratic that its Senatorial candidate can be indicted and confess to fraud and corruption, can name an 80 year old icon to run for his seat TWO months before the election … and the seat stays democratic. Nah, Jersey may have the accent, the mouth, and the attitude but your swinging high a low curve balls if you put New Jersey as going Republican.
Maine — Any state that can elect LePaige can do anything. I’ll give you Maine.
NH — Nah. I got friends in NH. They giggle at the thought of Trump winning the state in the general. NH is weird but not crazy. No NH stays blue presidentially.
Now for a deflated football: If Trump is the candidate … ALASKA is in play for the presidential. The establishment in Alaska hates Palin so much that they would do almost anything to embarrass her. She’s a big Trump fan (of course). I think there won’t be a lot of Northern Love coming for the Trumpster.
The west coast is blue, presidentially. Trump will not play well in the Urban west and that’s where the votes are. There is no reason at all to suspect a outpouring of rural votes and a slacking off of urban votes. If anything, I’d suspect the reverse.
New Mexico. 47% is Hispanic (actually, Mexican is probably a better descriptor). These are the people that Trump will make pay for the damn Wall. No way NM goes for Trump.
Colorado. See New Mexico.
AG, you have your opinion and you have a right to it. But I have mine and it is just as valid as yours until we start getting hard poll evidence on a state by state basis.
Until then? Welcome home, Chicken Little.
Any state that has a large proportion of working class white voters and a large proportion of minority voters is a state up for grabs in an HRC/Trump showdown. If the white working class voters turn out and the minority voters do not? All previous bets are off. All of them.
As pissed of as the black community of Chicago is at Rahm and his master/subject/whatever, even Illinois could be in play.
Watch.
AG
Also…
Here’s a “fact” for you.
Polls all across this country continued to predict a win for Romney right up until the time Obama handed his his ass.
And so on.
Final result? 51.1%/47.2% Obama.
After that debacle, anyone who puts any credence whatsoever in “polls” as they are now conducted in the U.S. is a fool.
Especially with a wild card like Trump on the ticket.
He wins the RatPub nomination? All bets are off the table.
AG
My maternal grandmother idolized JFK and loathed Nixon, who truly was odious. The family legend is that she tore a full page ad for Nixon–one featuring his face–out of the LA Times and used it for a doormat.
That’s impossible. He can’t be too odious. His odiousness has become mainstream. I have to cry about the death of Scalia: not because I mourn him but because of all the crap that is being spewed about how genial and talented the man was, really charming. Just the judgment of Bush vs. Gore disqualifies him from earning any of those compliments. And there is ever so much more. Talking about being obnoxious!
I meant he’s too odious for the national. Obviously he’s not too odious for the GOP base.
There is much more odiousness than you suppose, it’s not limited to the Republican base.
Why, yes, yes it has and yes it could!
The one real positive I can find in the current wingnut fratricidal contest is that it’s laying all that bare for all (that can) to see.
Yes, always. Keep in mind that the people who created the coalition between 1964 and 1980 did have one central policy idea: they wanted their tax bills lowered. And it was not an idea destined to win a big electoral majority, but they’d noticed, thanks to JFK, that you could implement very significant tax cuts on very wealthy people without losing popularity as long as you roused the enthusiasm of the masses by some other means (Kennedy had done it by cutting everybody’s taxes, at a time when it was the right Keynesian thing to do, and generally being a great president, but that’s another story).
With the racist Southern strategy, and the drug war, and the militarism, and the anti-abortion cult, and the anti-gay cult, and anti-immigrant cult (which has a very long history in animating US populisms anyway), they recruited enough members to dominate political life for most of a long period, but none of those specific things was as important as the tribalism itself, except the racism, which amounts in a practical sense to the same thing. And Trump is just exposing this with his inability to pretend it’s about anything else. Which is why the establishment hates him–they’ve always been able to keep up appearances, against the Wallaces and Buchanans and such–but they’re losing the battle.
Trump’s refusal to use his inside voice, or play the dogwhistle, pisses off the grifter-subtype Republicans who don’t typically give a shit about the base, but require the base to get elected.
Trump is a marketer more than anything else, and since Citizens United, the Republican party has become simply a brand-name under which to market yourself.
Now that Trump has essentially solidified his support at about 35% anywhere and everywhere, now he’ll market himself as the SaneOneTM, while the rest of the Republican field continues to market themselves as MoreTrumpierThanTrumpTM…with Trump now being able to market himself as sane, reasonable, and less dangerous than the rest of them.
Watching the Republican party get destroyed as a result of Citizens United and an expert carnival barker is absolutely hilarious. And slightly terrifying, to be honest.
Now, to win in 2016 with the most coattails possible, cement the USSC as liberal-leaning for the next 20+ years, and hopefully earn the right to “gerrymander” the Congressional districts in 2020 to be favorable to liberals.
I don’t think it’s automatic, but I can hope.
Let’s say “de-gerrymander” or “un-gerrymander”. Or back independent redistricting commissions. But yeah.
I mean, there are already in existence better ways to apportion representatives without having to worry about any type of gerrymandering…but I’ll take independent commissions over what occurs now.
“What this calls into question is how much the appeal of conservative ideology has ever really explained the cohesiveness of the Republican coalition. Has it always been more a matter of tribalism and a team mentality? Could it be that what unites them is less free enterprise, retro-Christian values and a strong national defense than a shared antipathy for common enemies?”
Yes.
The conservative movement was already psychologically oriented toward tribalism, and Nixon’s Southern Strategy drove the Republican Party straight into organizing the coalition of racists and Birchers that remain the drivers of the movement to this day. Reagan became more broadly successful in adding evangelicals to the coalition.
The people in this coalition triad all have views which are faith-based and impervious to reason. That explains the mystifying attraction to tin foil hat conspiracy that many of them have. It’s been fascinating to see these three groups spreading their reasoning to each other and causing the members of their tribe to have views which are incestuous blends of the three.
We can go back to the KKK and further to see that Dominionists and racists have often been one and the same, but I am fascinated by the Trump campaign’s ability to reveal that evangelists have become persuaded by Bircher arguments as well. How else to explain Trump, with his sordid past and comically insincere love of the Bible, polling well among evangelists? Racism is a big part of it, but I’ve heard some evangelists spouting wild Bircher nonsense in recent months. And what are we to make of Franklin Graham’s romance with the Bundys??
Yes, Bircherism did have a religious component (the “Godless communists” was part of their rap), but before the 1970’s birchers didn’t have big, active buy-in from leaders in the charismatic religions, to the best of my recollection. And only now have Bircher talking points and campaigns been moved so enthusiastically and incestuously by Dominionist leaders and disciples.
I knew a man and his wife who were John Birchers back in the day and they were atheists for all practical purposes. So I think you are right about the historical context.
” … the cohesiveness of the Republican coalition.”
I’ve always found the cohesiveness of Ayn Rand-type libertarians and born-again Christians quite baffling. The cohesiveness of RW Protestants, Catholics and Jews, though politically understandable, is also fairly weird, if you think about it.
That just goes to shows how powerful their tribalism is. I’d say that the Democratic Party has become undone because it rejected its principle of the New Deal and FDR, starting most obviously with Mr. and Mrs. Clinton (maybe Mr. Carter to a lesser extent). The Repugnants will only become more intransigent and goal-directed. That’s what Mr. and Mrs. Clinton want to emulate and foster with their ‘I get things done’ bullshit—one-sided pragmatism (any Methodists in the room?).
I examined that connection in a blog post about the role of Objectivism in the Republican Party. I came up with the following.
I think that interpretation makes the connection much less baffling, if much more sinister.
Very interesting indeed.
Curiously, I stumbled upon Greer’s blog by complete chance less than two weeks ago. Whether I agree with him or not, he seems worth reading, though I haven’t read all that much.
You write: “[T]hey think they’re making America Christian in preparation for the return of the vengeful Jesus of the Left Behind books and movies. Instead, they’re making Christianity more American (actually more Southern) and then trying to convert America to that vision.”
I completely agree. Not only that, but it harmonizes exactly with my other observation about Right-wing Catholics, Jews and Protestants. My point was that traditionally there’s little love lost between these groups, but since Reagan they have somehow come together to such an extent that (as I’ve said before) they seem more like three flavors of the same religion. And what is that religion? Right-wing Republicanism.
It’s interesting that the American Christianity you refer to only developed over the past 200 years or so, simultaneous with “progress”, including, notably, the dispensationalism institutionalized in the enormously influential Scofield Reference Bible.
What you are saying is that another name for RW Republicanism is Randianism, and that this is practically the same thing as Satanism.
(I wasn’t kidding when I stated upthread my agreement with Scalia that the Devil is real. )
So, checking up, I find that the connection between LaVey and Randianism is widely discussed and that it was acknowledged by LaVey himself. And many evangelicals are well aware of the contradiction. For example:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/5/4/9476/33834
I suppose you know that Greer’s reference to the “counter-initiation” is an allusion to the ideas of René Guénon. But I see he follows the erroneous tendency to associate Guénon with Evola, as popularized by Pauwels & Bergier in a vulgar and unfortunately influential screed called Morning of the Magicians. If you want to look further into this, I recommend an essay (not available in English) by Jean-Louis Gabin, “René Guénon contre « l‟extrême-droite » et les idéologies modernes” that is available online.
Ayn Rand was a seriously sick individual — a psychopath. If you don’t believe me, read this (warning: you’ll need a strong stomach).
http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_l
eaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer
Trump’s takedown of Bush, Iraq & 9/11 sounded like he was reading comments straight off of boomantribune.com.
Stewart & Colbert played huge roles in 2006, 2008 and 2012 – greatly weakening the right through mockery – but still leaving about 47% of their presidential cycle electorate intact. Trump is now using the same approach (and many of the same arguments) to attack the remaining 47% from within. On the anti-Trump GOP side, Bush, Graham as you point out, Kristol, Frum, Brooks et al have already been taken out of the conservative conversation, so all that’s left are Trump’s faction and the increasingly marginalized RedState.com crew, who hate the Establishment AND Trump, leaving them a very small slice of the pie.
Trump supporters LIKE most of his policies and attitudes. They want protectionism, protection of their white privilege, to avoid seeing their sons and daughters sent overseas to fight adventurist wars, etc. They don’t care about religion much, and actively dislike the pro-rich aspects of the establishment economic policies.
They are a big chunk of the non-establishment in the conservative movement, the group that left the Democratic party starting with FDR but especially after the Civil Rights Movement. Trump is their guy, big time.
There are also non-establishment Republicans who care a lot about religious issues. They are supporting Cruz or Carson.
One quarrel with this: Trump is polling well with self-identified evangelical Christians. Now, you and I can decide that their support of Trump makes their claim that they are following the One True Christ awfully doubtful. But that don’t make no difference here nor there; they’re talking about how great The Donald is among their fellow congregationalists.
To me, these two scenes…
…are awfully similar:
Maybe Trump’s self-hatred isn’t as visible as Plainview’s, but Daniel’s contemptuous look of triumph at the end looks familiar.
Whoops, didn’t realize the film scene would be edited so hideously. Here’s Plainview’s triumph at the end:
Today’s evangelicals believe in the “Prosperity Gospel” and that where The Donald fits in.
THIS shit is funny:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/02/15/okay-scalia-assassination-conspiracy-theories-getting
-hand/
RedState has been struggling with its readership, many of whom are firmly in the Trump camp. Leon Wolf is the writer who has taken on the task of trying to get these people to get real. Today, he’s trying to slap the “SCALIA WAS MURDERED111!” people into sense. The deliciousness of their worldview over there is well encapsulated by these dudes:
“I know you are right Leon; I just wish they had done an autopsy before embalming the body. There’s nothing I would put past Obama, although your reasoning does make sense. Thanks!”
Next one…
“I believe everything should be throughly investigated just to preserve all evidence, or lack thereof. To chase conspiracy theories at this point is silly. Unless some real evidence is found, there is no point. It makes real conspiracies, like Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, etc. get thrown out and disguarded.”
I despise Obama as much as anyone, but not everything bad that happens is his fault, particularly dealing with the death of a 79 year old man. If he desired to do this, it would have much more sense to target Alito because of his age. And to do it a year or two ago when he would have been guaranteed a confirmation on another liberal Justice.”
IOW, sure it’s crazy….BUT!
THANKS OBUMMER
Listen.
The lack of evidence itself proves just how dastardly and devious the perpetrators really are. They are inherently evil, and we must oppose them at all costs, before they destroy our country, forever.
More than anything it’s been fascinating to watch the Right Wing pundits try and figure out how they got here. Frum probably does a better job than most, but he still doesn’t understand his own role.
want to admit?
This is the risk of having a really good line of B.S. to sell your constituents. The Republican party had mastered the art of getting their rubes to vote against their own interests. I saw people who really needed Obamacare because of a dying child, and knew that they needed it, who still took a “principled stand” against it for a few pats on the back from their friends.
Then someone comes along who carries the right tone and represents the anger, the underlying id of the party — and then it suddenly becomes apparent that the platform was far less important than anyone had been lead to believe. Trump has taken the GOP schtick and schtuck it to ’em.
” Trump has taken the GOP schtick and schtuck it to ’em. “
Don’t you mean “schlonged them with it”?
Trump has a lot of flaws, and I don’t support him. I do like to watch him go after JEB!!!!$$@#@!!@!, however. And he is ripping the bandade off the W wound, and calling a spade a spade. He didn’t keep us safe, and Iraq was a huge mistake/con job.
For that, we owe him something.
The Republican primary is completely out of whack. Trump has been riding his highest numbers (nationally) at about 37% for about two months now, so it seems to be his ceiling. So, whatever Trump “means,” the other 60% of Republican voters remain with the other candidates (or, more likely, would prefer someone like a young Clint Eastwood). At the end, of course, however it happens, their convention will need to produce a winner with half the delegates voting for him and it remains hard to see how Trump gets there. Still seems to me their best bet is Kasich for long term purposes if not this election, but how is Trump going to win the nomination with only 37% support?
A deal for a VP with (fill in the blank). There’ll be plenty of candidates willing to go there. Probably, Cruz at first.
I know Trump has called him a liar, but that’s the worst so far. Trump & Cruz. Nomination in the bag.
Today, it’s Trump toying with going it alone as an independent candidate. Maybe he thinks he can pull off the same percentage (35% or so) nationally and win in a four-way race. It seems like that overestimates both Trump’s appeal to independents and Bloomberg’s ability to draw votes away from the Democratic nominee, but I assume he’s done some polling that makes him believe he can do it.
So, maybe you’re right, and he thinks the numbers just aren’t there for him to win the nomination outright.
Delegates are not doled out according to support in national polls. Others have explored this and argued that Trump most certainly does have a path to a majority of delegates.
The Republican rules are a bit screwy this year and they seem to favor Trump. He can win easily without getting a majority of the primary electorate. Sam Wang here lays out why it’s going to be hard for them to stop Trump.
this article by him in January explains why he thinks the rules favor Trump. Pretty good call, in hindsight.
This is a trick question, right? What was the first clue?
At a Conservative, evangelical, teabagging Republican support group the most important tell is – are you a good hater?
Hate liberals? Hate taxes? Minimal qualifiers.
Hate the browns? The poors? The gays? Now you’re cooking.
Hate the sluts, the transgendered? Deport people with foreign dounding names? Ban Mooslims? Chafe at the political correctness that constrains you from stating your hates forthrightly for the ‘own good’ of the target of your hate? Leadership material.
WFB set the tone in the 50’s, Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan kept it going. Lee Atwater shared it with everyone.
Hate is the common commitment. It gets you in the club.
Open contempt for your common targets of hatred is a particularly good thing to display to get a leadership position in their club.
I concur with Booman about tribalism, which is a different matter than hatred as a unifying theme of the American Right.
The Right seems to be especially motivated by a desire for revenge for perceived slights. That, and a desire to fuck up people on the Left. The right wing base voters are seemingly perfectly willing to put up with bad schools, bad roads, bad infrastructure, and so on as long as people on the left are unhappy.
Thanks for engaging, Arthur. Let’s get started:
– We see a howler right off the bat: “…the Hispanic vote is still up in the air…”. Yeah, not so much, bunky:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/100760/20151209/presidential-polls-2015-latinos-view-donald-trump-
very-negatively-dont.htm
http://huelladigital.univisionnoticias.com/the-latin-vote/
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-19/hispanic-voting-power-swells-to-record-for-201
6-pew-study-says
– Even these attempts to use polls to claim Trump has big Latino/Hispanic support have Grand Canyon-sized holes in them:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/12/no-joke-trump-can-win-plenty-of-latinos.html
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/21/donald-trump-will-likely-mention-a-poll-sh
owing-him-leading-among-hispanics-in-florida-a-warning