Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Social Commentary

How Inevitable Is Trump?

46 Comments

Not as much as some want us to think.

[Late-morning update]

Kurt Schlichter has sympathy for the Donaldites.

So do I, but The Donald isn’t their (or anyone else’s) salvation.

46 thoughts on “How Inevitable Is Trump?”

  1. Do we want to roll the dice against the casino owner who’s used to gaming the system?

    I suspect these guys are going to wind up with The Donald because they can’t put aside their irrational dislike of Cruz.

  2. If the November election pits Trump and Hillary as opposing nominees, many of us will be asking, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

  3. I’ve long had Cruz as my preferred candidate, but I fear a brokered convention far more than I do a Trump win.

    Why? Because I think a brokered convention would result in a truly stolen nomination (such as nominating someone who didn’t finish even in the top tier, or didn’t run at all – I note that Romney, after his self-serving tirade, won’t rule out accepting the nomination himself). That’d not only cause a landslide loss this November (There are enough people would never bless that kind of fraud with their vote, and I’m one of them) but it would also likely cause a permanent formal split in the party.

    1. I think you’re right. If the party pulled some shenanigans at the convention – real or perceived – you can expect millions of people to immediately drop out. They’d either vote 3rd party in November or not vote at all. That would cost the Republican party both the presidential election but almost control of Congress.

      I voted for Cruz on Super Tuesday. While Trump wasn’t even in my top 10 candidates, if he wins the nomination fair and square, I’ll vote for him in November. I’ll then go home and weep for the future of my country and my grandchildren. With some 320 million people in the US, are these 6 remaining candidates (both sides) the best we can do?

      1. I fully agree, Larry.

        While I do support Cruz, to be honest, I’m not exactly a fan. I’m supporting him as more of a case of least-objectionable-to-me-at-the-moment. I like some things about him, but there are some things I don’t.

        I was going to vote for Cruz in the AZ primary (which I need to get in the mail by March 16th) and probably still will, but I won’t if he looks like he no longer has a path to 1237 by then, or, if it appears that a vote for Cruz at that time would help Rubio, or if at that point it looks like a Rubio/Trump race. In any of those cases, I’ll be voting for Trump.

        Right now, the only person in the race I won’t support (with money or votes) in November is Rubio. As for anyone not in the race becoming the nominee, I would never support them, not even if it’s someone I like a lot, such as (just to pick a name) Alan West.

      2. –I voted for Cruz on Super Tuesday. While Trump wasn’t even in my top 10 candidates, if he wins the nomination fair and square, I’ll vote for him in November. I’ll then go home and weep for the future of my country and my grandchildren. With some 320 million people in the US, are these 6 remaining candidates (both sides) the best we can do?–
        Well, it seems like good guess, we will get Trump as President and Cruz as VP.
        Which about 75% of Reps voted for, plus some independents and Dems. And as election goes forward higher portion of Reps will vote for these two.
        So question, would Cruz not want to be president of the Senate for 4 years? And if big fan of Cruz he could be VP and President for 16 years. Or Trump might just want one term, so 12 years for Cruz being VP and President- and afterward be slightly other than Obama
        is presently.
        The worse we get with Trump is weak president and/or impeachment. And btw, who going to protect him for impeachment- the rep establishment- and/or the dems?
        It seems their is no doubt that Trump has already been a boon for the Republicans, and expect Trump to continue to be helpful.
        And were Cruz to somehow win, it seems the only way for him to do this is to up his game- which would increase his chance to beat Clinton. Or basically at this point, both of them should be going towards the center- or if Cruz can’t do it, he will not win, nor be useful as VP.

    2. If no single candidate gets a majority of delegates, what =should= happen is a meeting between the candidates and their delegates to produce a reasonable coalition with a majority of delegates behind a candidate. Which may involve some horse trading of one candidate offering another a favorable position in their administration.

        1. Rand, after the first ballot, most delegates become unbound. At that point, the operative question IMHO is “who are the delegates?” Largely, they are state level party operatives – and thus many of them having strong ties to the GOPe. If the top 2 in the delegate count going in are Cruz and Trump (no matter which one is ahead), I thinks it’s very implausible that either would get the nod.

          I hope I’m wrong.

          However, I note that Cruz is strongly against the brokered-convention idea too.

          1. Cruz doesn’t want a contested convention because he knows he’d get shoved aside. But if they’re top two in the delegate count going in (unlikely), they’ll cut a deal, and probably run as a joint ticket.

          2. If the GOPe even tries to pull shenanigans at the convention, I predict that will destroy the Republican Party. Millions – perhaps tens of millions – of Trump and Cruz supporters would see this as an act of utter betrayal. They would be correct. They (and I) will probably drop out of the party. They would likely not vote for any Republican in November. That would turn the presidency and both sided of Congress over to the Democrats. Go ahead, GOPe, and get rid of us. See who needs the other more.

  4. On a side note, I don’t see anyone discussing the disillusionment of the youth that wanted Bernie. Will they show up to vote for Hillary?

    Also, if she has the email scandal to worry about, will there be a brokered Democrat convention? Will Biden be the pick?

    1. Both Clinton and Sanders have high favorability ratings from Democrats. There will be grumbling by Sanders diehards, just as there was from Clinton diehards in 2008 (remember PUMAs — Party Unity My Ass?). But I don’t think it will be hard to get them to the polls, especially if the GOP nominee is Trump or Cruz.

      There won’t be a brokered Democratic convention unless Clinton has a health emergency.

        1. A Clinton indictment is very unlikely. I’d bet my Rotary Rocket ball cap that we won’t see one before the election, much less the convention. The DOJ generally shies away from filing charges against candidates in the middle of political campaigns.

          2. Because it is rarely, if ever, the case that an actual federal felon is running for office.

            Huh? It’s actually quite common for the DOJ to file federal criminal charges against political office holders. For example, in the last couple years the DOJ has indicted Congressmen (Chaka Fattah, PA), a Governor (Bob McDonnell, VA), and state legislators (Sheldon Silver, Speaker of the New York State Assembly). All of these guys were expected to run for office again, at least until the indictments came down. But none were indicted in the middle of a political campaign; the DOJ doesn’t want to be seen as being used for political ends.

          3. If they’re not going to indict during the campaign, when are they going to indict? After she’s elected, and can pardon herself? If they’re not going to indict at all, why are they bothering to investigate?

          4. That’s a silly wager. We all know that Hillary will never be indicted, but not because she did anything wrong, but because she’s a party hack.

          5. If they’re not going to indict during the campaign, when are they going to indict? After she’s elected, and can pardon herself?

            That would be awkward, but less obviously political than issuing an indictment during an election campaign. And it isn’t guaranteed that she’ll win.

            If they’re not going to indict at all, why are they bothering to investigate?

            Clinton’s political enemies may not see any point in an investigation that fails to indict Clinton, but the FBI presumably takes a wider view.

            To be clear, I don’t think Clinton will be indicted because the facts that are known don’t add up to a case that the DOJ would want to pursue even if she weren’t running for president. The fact that she is running just raises the bar even higher.

          6. Clinton’s political enemies may not see any point in an investigation that fails to indict Clinton, but the FBI presumably takes a wider view.

            And that “wider view” would be…?

          7. And that “wider view” would be…?

            That their job isn’t to thwart Hillary Clinton’s election, it’s to investigate possible violations of the law.

          8. That’s not a “wider view.” I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that the latter, not the former, is the FBI’s job. But it’s likely that, if it does its job properly, the result will be to thwart her election. I also suspect that the FBI knows that.

          9. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that the latter, not the former, is the FBI’s job.

            And yet you yourself just asked: “If they’re not going to indict at all, why are they bothering to investigate?”

          10. I should have elaborated. Why are they putting so many resources into investigating, and granting Pagliano immunity? I don’t they’d be doing all that if they weren’t gathering evidence to support an indictment.

          11. Jim, don’t forget one of the penalties for the crimes in question is not being able to hold public office. That makes settling this prior to the election rather important.

          12. Wodun, I’ve seen zero evidence that Jim cares one wit what the law actually says. If you have such evidence, please let me know.

          13. Why are they putting so many resources into investigating, and granting Pagliano immunity?

            To show that they’ve done due diligence? As a warning to current and future officials to not be so cavalier about email? To build a case against someone or someones other than Clinton? To build a case that they would only file after the election? There are plenty of possible explanations that don’t involve indicting Hillary Clinton during an election campaign.

            That makes settling this prior to the election rather important.

            Unless Clinton pled guilty, it’s already too late for a criminal charge to be settled before the election.

      2. By the way, you never even answered my question; but you just shoved your two cents regardless.

        I asked if there were an issue, would there be a brokered convention.

        1. There might be. It would depend on a number of things, such as when the issue emerged, how it emerged (e.g. indictment of Clinton? indictment of aide or aides? release of embarrassing information but no indictment?), etc. Right now Clinton is on track to win most pledged delegates. If she was indicted tomorrow Sanders would have a good shot at getting a majority, and the nomination. If it happened later, both Clinton and Sanders might end up short of a majority, and the convention could give the nomination to someone else (e.g. Biden, Kerry, or even Elizabeth Warren). That would be a mess, but at this point seems very unlikely.

      3. The people I have talked to are very upset. Some have said they won’t vote for Hillary. It probably depends a lot on the manner she wins. The superdelegate thing is a scam and Sanders fans know it. You guys could see a real socialist revolution.

        1. Exactly. Here in the socialist utopia of Seattle, all you see are Bernie stickers and signs. They despise Clinton. The youth know that Hillary doesn’t give a rats ass about their student debt and their part time jobs either.

          Only the myopic democrat establishment and Hillary sycophants think that Bernie fans will automatically jump to her side. It’s as arrogant as what is happening on the republican side.

          I have a friend who is a Bernie fan and he is actually voting republican this year because he sees how Cantwell and Murray (Senators of Wash State) voted in the Exim Bank due to Boeing’s lobbying. My friend is also a Boeing engineer.

          1. From a poll that came out yesterday:

            Furthermore, either Democratic candidate is broadly acceptable within their party: 74 percent of leaned Democrats say they’d be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee, and 72 percent would be satisfied with Sanders. That compares with satisfaction figures on the Republican side of 51 percent for Trump, 56 percent for Kasich, 62 percent Rubio and 65 percent for Cruz.

  5. Trump, or something worse for GOP chances, seems pretty inevitable. It’s hard to see anyone overtaking Trump in delegates. The remaining states aren’t great for Cruz; the polls have him trailing Trump by double digits in delegate-rich Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Illinois. Rubio is fading, and Kasich is far behind. By all sticking in the race they might deny Trump a majority, but good luck uniting the party around someone who couldn’t even reach 50%. And of course Trump will throw the mother of all hissy fits if he goes into the convention with a delegate lead and isn’t chosen.

    1. A hissy fit or a righteous anger? My, your choice for words is astounding.

      Cruz may not win, but it isn’t “inevitable.” He’s only 70+ delegates behind.

      1. He’s only 70+ delegates behind.

        It looks like he’ll be further behind tomorrow, and still further behind a week later.

          1. Today FoxNews.com has Trump 99 delegates ahead of Cruz. Polls can be spectacularly wrong (see Sanders’ win in Michigan), but it would take multiple big upsets for Cruz to narrow that gap in the next week.

          3. Is there any sign of Kasich dropping out before Ohio, or Rubio before Florida? Could Cruz actually beat Trump one on one in New York, New Jersey or California?

          4. Not so far, but after last night, Rubio should be having second thoughts. His best opportunity to salvage his political career may be as Cruz’s veep, but that’s an asset that’s diminishing with time.

        2. That could be. Today, the states are proportional rather than winner takes all but the interesting thing is how the polls haven’t been good predictions of results lately.

  6. Chief executive politicians have traditionally been reined in by the control of the purse and the refusal of men with guns to shoot their neighbors. What happens if President Trump authorizes a military drone program to take out people on an “enemies list” that’s funded by civil forfeiture?

    1. I doubt that USAF or CIA drone operators would blithely start blowing away their neighbors. But I would expect Trump to change rules of engagement to the detriment of civilians near U.S. targets abroad.

      1. Obama already set the precedent for assassinating Americans and their children abroad. The same goes for non-American civilians.

        Why? Because Obama knows that targets don’t always pop up and a small number of civilian casualties outweighs the the future loss of life if these high value targets are allowed to live.

        I am starting to come around to the Democrat way of thinking on this and think that Democrats should be drafted to go fight by their preferred rules rather than sacrificing American soldiers, who Democrats often hate and are totally disconnected from as humans, and civilians at the altar of Democrat morality. Democrats need some skin in the game or their views on how to fight a moral war don’t really hold any weight.

        But that might be hard considering Democrats are on the same side as ISIS, AQ, and the Taliban.

Comments are closed.