Could Trump Become GOP Establishment Favorite?
To ask that headline question at the present time may seem almost insane. Trump? The favorite candidate of the establishment Republicans? Preposterous! Well, maybe so and maybe not -- hear me out before you either reject the notion out of hand or start rolling around on the floor laughing. Because it might just be more plausible than you might initially think. And remember, a lot of other things previously considered insane have already happened this election cycle.
The Republican race has not actually moved much since before the voting started in Iowa. Donald Trump is the strongest candidate, followed by Ted Cruz. Then there is a traffic jam (with apologies to the recently-departed Chris Christie) for the "establishment lane" -- or, in other words, for the white knight who is going to ride in and save the party from the likes of Cruz and Trump. Right now, there are three contenders for this position: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. The only real change between now and a few weeks ago is that Chris Christie is not in the running for the chosen establishment candidate anymore. Otherwise, the situation remains the same.
Kasich just won second place in New Hampshire. Marco Rubio won third place in Iowa. Jeb Bush's best showing so far has been fourth in New Hampshire, but he enjoys an enormous campaign chest which will keep him going for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, Trump has a first place and a second place, while Cruz has a first and a third.
Let's take a look at South Carolina, the next Republican state to vote. The electorate seems pretty favorable to both Trump and Cruz. Lots of anti-establishment feeling out there, in other words. If Trump and Cruz place first and second (in either order, really -- who is ahead only really matters to the dynamic between the two, not the other candidates), then we'll have either Bush, Rubio, or Kasich in third place. If it's Rubio, then he'll have two third-place finishes. If it's Kasich, he'll have a second and a third. The worst case scenario (for the Republican establishment) would be for Bush to have a good day and edge out the other two -- because this would mean all three establishment candidates would have a minor finish to brag about.
Whatever happens, it's pretty clear to see that all three men will continue running. Kasich is the only possible one who could drop out (due to lack of funds). They'll all head to Nevada, and then we'll have Super Tuesday, where over ten states vote at once. A key dynamic that most political analysts are missing, however, is that once we hit Super Tuesday (and the rest of the jam-packed March primary calendar), the media are going to focus solely on two metrics -- who has won more states, and how many delegates each candidate has. There will be almost no attention given to second- and third-place finishers. It'll all be about "states won" instead.
If all three of the current hopefuls for the establishment lane continue splitting the vote, then they're all going to look equally as weak to the voters. Even if one (or two) of them eventually drop out -- say, if the contest for the establishment lane is "won" by Bush or Rubio, for instance -- they will start to be held to a different standard than just whether they can beat each other or not. If one candidate emerges from the pack, the question becomes whether they can win states of their own or not. Or to put it slightly differently, can any establishment candidate actually beat Trump and Cruz?
This is where the radical thinking comes in (I say "radical" only because nobody else seems to have gamed this scenario out this far as of yet). What happens if Bush (or Rubio, or Kasich) just can't win any states? What happens if the best they can manage to do -- even with the establishment lane cleared -- is to place second or third?
To put this another way, what happens if the current status continues and the Republicans are faced with a two-man race, between Trump and Cruz? What happens if there just is no viable "establishment candidate" at all?
This is where some very hard choices will need to be made, in the proverbial smoke-filled back rooms of the GOP. If they only have Trump and Cruz to choose from, will they support Trump in the hopes that some sense can be talked into him once he enters the Oval Office, or will they decide that Cruz has at least spent some time in the Senate and knows how Washington is theoretically supposed to work? That's about as politely as I can put it, especially in the case of Cruz.
Ted Cruz, as Trump has taken to pointing out, doesn't have many friends in Washington. He has been extraordinarily successful in making enemies, though. So much so that I really don't think it'd even be all that tough a choice for the establishmentarians to make. Most of them hate and fear Cruz with a passion. Trump will be the lesser of two evils for them -- one who has not personally annoyed them in the way Cruz has during his time in the Senate.
So if Rubio (or Kasich, or Bush) does eventually emerge as the last man standing in the "non-Trump, non-Cruz" category -- and then if he can't manage to start beating both Trump and Cruz in some primaries, then winning the establishment lane will be nothing more than a Pyrrhic victory. Because the establishment itself may have to abandon the establishment lane.
When laid out, step by step, this scenario doesn't seem as insane, does it? If Trump and Cruz continue to keep winning states (and besting all the other candidates), then the establishment Republicans will truly find themselves between a rock and a hard place. It may come through gritted teeth and a whole lot of desperation, but it is actually not that farfetched to see the Republican establishment getting on board with Donald Trump as their last chance to derail the candidacy of Ted Cruz -- a man they sincerely despise.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think you're starting to salivate over a Trump v. Sanders scenario... ;)
ABC - Anybody But Cruz!
rdnewman -
Who? Me?
[looks behind to see who's really being talked about...]
Heh. Heh heh.
:-)
-CW
C'mon now. The GOP backing a white supremacist who plays a foul-mouthed billionaire on TV and says that wages are too high? That seems like a very unlikely scenario.
King George W's brother speaks Mexican, Robio keeps malfunctioning, and Kasich is playing the compassionate conservative card (phony and unpopular). This lane is a dead end.
We are the ninety-nine percent!
CW,
Ted Cruz, as Trump has taken to pointing out, doesn't have many friends in Washington. He has been extraordinarily successful in making enemies, though.
Which WOULD make him appealing in my book, considering the enemies he has made.. :D I have always maintained that you can know the character of a person, not only by the friends they keep but the enemies they make.. :D
JFC,
C'mon now. The GOP backing a white supremacist
And yet, not a SINGLE person can find a SINGLE racist statement made by Trump.
Funny, iddn't it.. :D
I know, I know... Who cares about FACTS!? It IS a hysterical bigoted rant, after all.. :D
We are the ninety-nine percent!
PuppyMonkeyBaby
Michale
Ya'all notice how the call to release Hillary's speech transcripts have muted??
Guess it wasn't all that big a deal, eh?? :D
Michale
Well, it's becoming clear that Hillary's strategy is to run as Obama's third term...
Great strategy!
If the goal is to hand the primary to Bernie..
Upwards of 80% of Americans have emphatically STATED that they do NOT want a continuation of the Obama Administration..
This is 2008 all over again with a different set of mistakes..
"We're not going to make the same mistakes, I can tell you that!"
"No, no.. You are making all new mistakes.."
-Jurassic Park-LOST WORLD
Michale
Trump has shown that there is one strategy available to The Establishment that they aren't taking seriously enough. They could go all out to undermine The Donald and allow Terd Cruz to claim the nomination. They could then tell John Roberts to disqualify the Creepy Canadian Cheater and install John "Prince of Light and Hope" Kasich (or maybe Willard Rmoney) as their Messiah and he could lead the plutocrats out of the wilderness.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/is-the-us-economy-running-out-of-gas.html
If this occurs, the Democrats can kiss their collective asses good-bye...
Michale
A thought provoking column, here are some thoughts it provoked in me.
If the Republican Establishment says "Preserve the Party at All Costs" I can see them warming to support Trump.
Especially if The Establishment Wing believes they can co-opt him. Given that Trump has held such a wealth of conflicting political positions in the not-all-that-distant past there might be some validity, or at least hope attached to that belief. Very risky though, and Established Wealth and Power = Republican Establishment does not particularly like risk.
An alternative to Preserve the Party At All Costs is "Preserve Control of the Party at all costs." If this means losing a presidential election to maintain a meaningful degree of control (veto power) going forward, so be it. Political parties are all about control. All the more so if Trump is perceived to be a long shot once nominated. Why cozy up to an upstart who will lose - make the bastid pay for his insolence! This is a long-view perspective, but dynasties take the long view.
The remaining primaries are much less proportional in terms of delegate allocation, and the fight goes to states which are much more favorable to the Establishment Wing and Cruz TP Wing. Trump could still fade, and an Establishment candidate could emerge and actually get more than 50% of the delegates. That said, fifty% +1 is starting to look like a heavy lift for any Republican.
At this point,a contested convention is not a bad outcome for The Establishment. The Tea Party Wing of the GOP doesn't really trust Trump, and he's eating into their constituency among The Base. At the very least, a three winged party offers room for meaningful negotiation with Trump, and if the negotiation goes badly, there are still alternatives. Among them, the fall backs are 1),"place holder candidate, wait 4 more years", 2), Party Purge (does anybody actually know the party rules) or even 3) take the ball and bolt the party, while fighting to retain the Brand Name. Two and three come down to lawyers lawyers lawyers.
If ever the words "wait and see" have weight, now is that time.
"The GOP backing a white supremacist who plays a foul-mouthed billionaire on TV and says that wages are too high?"
Sounds like a PERFECT fit to me.
The GOP backing a white supremacist who plays a foul-mouthed billionaire on TV and says that wages are too high?"
Sounds like a PERFECT fit to me.
Yea, it IS a perfect fit..
Well, except for the fact that there are NO FACTS supporting the idea that Trump is a white supremacist..
But I get it..
When it comes to political bigotry, ya'all don't need no stinkin' facts.... :D
Michale
Now, if ya'all REALLY want to talk about racial supremacists, we can DEFINITELY have such a conversation...
But I have a feeling ya'all won't like where the facts lead.. :D
Michale
"Sounds like a PERFECT fit to me."
If you say so, John. I hope the GOP Machine and their PC police are unable to muscle the Stormfront out of his grade-school level word salads. I want him to win!
DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists
The Democratic National Committee has rolled back restrictions introduced by presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008 that banned donations from federal lobbyists and political action committees.
The decision, which may provide an advantage to Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, was viewed with disappointment Friday morning by good government activists who saw it as a step backward in the effort to limit special interest influence in Washington.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html
Someone remind me again how exactly it's the REPUBLICANS who are corrupt about money influencing elections??
I seem to have forgotten what with all the FACTS to the contrary???
:^/
Michale
Chris,
I would like to nominate Rep John Lewis (GA) as this week's Most Disappointing Democrat.
JFC,
I'd like to second that motion. Rep. Lewis is a good man but he engaged in the not-so-artful smear in endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Why not just endorse her? Why do what he did to Senator Sanders?
Not surprisingly, I find myself in complete agreement with Liz...
COMPLETELY surprisingly, I find myself in complete agreement with JFC... :D
Lewis' claim, "I don't recall Senator Sanders in any civil rights protest so he must be lying" or words to that effect is the cheapest of cheap shots...
This is exactly why I support completely and unequivocally Bernie for the Democrat Party candidate for POTUS..
Hillary Clinton doesn't DESERVE the honor...
Michale
"Why not just endorse her? Why do what he did to Senator Sanders?"
We are in complete agreement. I don't care that he endorsed HRC. I very disappointed by what he said.
Disappointing, indeed. And, wholly, ah, non-serious.
What point was he trying to make? I mean, I know what he was trying to say but what he was trying to say doesn't make any sense.
I never would have expected that from him.
Michale,
I can't say that I agree with you 100% about Hillary not deserving the honour.
And, I think Sanders has a lot of convincing yet to do to make me comfortable with him as the Democratic nominee.
I can't say that I agree with you 100% about Hillary not deserving the honour.
And, I think Sanders has a lot of convincing yet to do to make me comfortable with him as the Democratic nominee.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive...
While you may or may not think that Sanders has the capability to be POTUS, it's clear the he DOES have the one thing (in spades) that Hillary lacks..
Honesty.. Integrity...
In that, Hillary doesn't deserve to be the Dem Candidate because her honesty/integrity numbers are in the toilet...
What point was he trying to make? I mean, I know what he was trying to say but what he was trying to say doesn't make any sense.
He was calling Sanders a liar.. Pure and simple...
Michale
While you may or may not think that Sanders has the capability to be POTUS, it's clear the he DOES have the one thing (in spades) that Hillary lacks..
Honesty.. Integrity...
OK OK, that's two things.. :D
Michale
Michale [7] -
You are on very dangerous thin ice. You have broken a cardinal rule of this website by using monumentally disturbing language. This is your last warning, the next time you'll be banned from the site permanently.
The offending phrase which led to this warning, of course, was:
PuppyMonkeyBaby
There's just no call for that level of creepiness.
[Heh.]
-CW
John From Censornati [10] -
OK, that one sent chills up my back. Machiavelli would be proud of that scheme!
Heh.
-CW
JFC [18] -
Fair enough, but I'm warning you in advance my mind's pretty much set on Gloria Steinem this week...
-CW
Chris,
Fair enough, but I'm warning you in advance my mind's pretty much set on Gloria Steinem this week...
Did you actually see Steinem and Lewis? Two wholly different contexts within which the comments were made - Real Time with Bill Maher vs a public endorsement announcement on a serious stage, number one.
And, number two, one was said half-jokingly and could only be condemned by the extremely hypersensitive among us. The other was a wholly non-serious statement said in all seriousness - not to mention mean-spiritedness - in a blatant and unwarranted attempt to demean the character of a presidential candidate.
Give Steinem an dishonourable mention, if you must, but there can be no more disappointing democrat this week and beyond than Rep. Lewis.
Are you sure that Steinem actually is a (D)?
The Stig [12]:
If the Republican Establishment says "Preserve the Party at All Costs" I can see them warming to support Trump.
Especially if The Establishment Wing believes they can co-opt him.
That may well be possible considering the rapid turnaround of Trump's "economic policy". What he said and what was written for him were canyons apart!
It went from him saying he'd pay more taxes, close loopholes and tax hedge fund managers more heavily to cutting taxes to the wealthiest of the wealthy while the bottom third are being paid far too much, including those on minimum wage.
The latter is definitely in line with establishment Republican (aka plutocrat) policy and it only took Trump 24 hours to switch from the former to the latter.
But, as you pointed out, there is also the matter of power, specifically: control. I doubt that they could ever have that with Trump, no matter how cooperative he might prove to be in other ways. So a brokered convention is looking like their best option at this stage.
If ever the words "wait and see" have weight, now is that time.
Can't argue with that!
Michale [14]
I don't think Trump is a white supremacist either but he certainly does attract their support and he seems happy enough about it since he's done nothing to discourage them.
I was amused to read that David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK, said that Trump speaks "a lot more radically" than he does.
You are on very dangerous thin ice. You have broken a cardinal rule of this website by using monumentally disturbing language. This is your last warning, the next time you'll be banned from the site permanently.
The offending phrase which led to this warning, of course, was:
PuppyMonkeyBaby
hehehehehehe
Wasn't that the creepiest thing!!!??? :D
Michale
I don't think Trump is a white supremacist either but he certainly does attract their support and he seems happy enough about it since he's done nothing to discourage them.
Well, if we are going to judge a person by the people that support them, then all the black racists that hurt and kill white people color Obama..
You can't have it one way without the other...
I was amused to read that David Duke, former grand wizard of the KKK, said that Trump speaks "a lot more radically" than he does.
And the Ayatollahs and Kim Un have sang Obama praises at one time..
Once again, you can't have it your way without the other way...
Michale
http://news.yahoo.com/young-blacks-more-open-bernie-sanders-white-house-180417919.html
Like Steinam's and Albright's moronic statements, Lewis' bonehead attacks are having the opposite effect...
Michale
CW
For MDDOTW, I'd like to nominate these seven House Democrats in a tie for the award:
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Alan Grayson (FL-09)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
All seven voted for the "Scientific Research in the National Interest" Bill which adds additional bureaucratic requirements to the process of awarding grants and cooperative agreements, and opens it up to political influence.
The Bill will burden the National Science Foundation with unnecessary layers of bureaucracy yet, disgracefully, seven Democrats voted for this latest move in the GOP war on science.
I listened in horror this week to the livestreaming of the end of the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Some self-appointed "expert" called KrisAnne Hall very nearly succeeded in talking the last hold-out, David Fry, into killing himself. While it wasn't her intention, it was certainly the effect her abrasive, self-centered and ill-informed verbal diarrhea was having on the young man.
She was argumentative, insulting and talked over the top of him to the point where he was in complete meltdown. At one point he told her and Gavin (another amateur whose interference and lack of understanding directly contributed to Fry's severe distress) that he was holding a gun to his head. That didn't stop either of them, especially Ms Motormouth who ploughed on over the top of Fry with renewed vigor.
This went on for over an hour before the FBI somehow managed to shut up the pair of amateurs and bring in a professional negotiator who resolved the situation in minutes.
I was listening to all this with friends who were equally horrified and really thought Hall was going to talk Fry into killing himself. It was a close thing.
Yet -- and I'm gobsmacked by this -- not a single newspaper reported how Hall and Seim very nearly caused David Fry's death. The comment sections of most newspapers were full of it, particularly The Oregonian, but not in the papers' reports. They just glossed over the whole drama as though it hadn't happened at all.
Kudos to your compassion, MS...
It's somewhat surprising because, up until now, the entirety of the Left Wingery has treated these occupiers as nothing but Right Wing domestic terrorists..
It's heartening to see your compassion for your fellow human surpass any partisan ideology..
I mean it seriously when I say kudos to you...
Michale
RE-26
CW, PBM is pretty creepy, but it's not like M used B*lgium or anything. Those gravity waves announced this week weren't caused by colliding black holes... they were caused some golfer in a galaxy far, far away firing off a B*lgium after a bad slice. Somebody is going to get a Nobel Prize for detecting billion year old profanity with an interferometer.
WOW....WOW....WOW.
Scalia is no more. Now SIERRA just got interesting.
Will Congress do it's job? Will the president do his? and MOST importantly will the american public weigh in? will what the american public expresses matter? (probably not..)
Stay tuned to another exciting episode of as the politics churn...
Will Congress do it's job?
i'm pretty sure obama will nominate, and perhaps the senate will even hold a confirmation vote, but not before squeezing every possible drop of political juice out of the process. because it's a presidential election year, more favors will be traded behind the scenes over this SCOTUS nomination than we've seen in quite awhile.
JL
p.s. "its job," not "it's job." possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes.
p.s. "its job," not "it's job." possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes.
Heh.
Where's Michale? :)
@liz,
i'm of the belief that he's sleeping because it's too late. you're in agreement?
OR
my belief regarding this issue is that his sleep is more important than its resolution. have i responded to your satisfaction?
;-)
JL
Now, now, Joshua. I just meant that Michale can always use one of your lessons on use of apostrophe's ... I'm just trying to confuse him. Heh.
on use of apostrophe's
@liz,
now you're just messing with me.
Heh.
p.s. "its job," not "it's job." possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes.
"Whoaa!!! WAIT A MINUTE!!!"
-Ralph Macchio, MY COUSIN VINNY
Since when!???
Michale
since always. pronoun possessives don't have a single apostrophe between them:
my your his her its our their whose
mine yours his hers its ours theirs whose
the only time pronouns have apostrophes is when they are part of a contraction:
i'm you're he's she's it's we're they're who's
so, is your mind sufficiently blown?
:)
JL
I can see how 'his' and 'her' doesn't need an apostrophe because it's already possessive as it is..
But its???
I mean "it's teeth were sharp" seems more grammatically correct than "its teeth were sharp"...
Yer da teacher, so I know I am on the losing side of this argument.
It never pays to argue with a teacher.. :D Remind me to tell you about the time I got into an argument with my Academy Poli Sci teacher over Israel.. :D
Michale
I can see how 'his' and 'her' doesn't need an apostrophe because it's already possessive as it is..
But its???
I mean "it's teeth were sharp" seems more grammatically correct than "its teeth were sharp"...
Yer da teacher, so I know I am on the losing side of this argument.
It never pays to argue with a teacher.. :D Remind me to tell you about the time I got into an argument with my Academy Poli Sci teacher over Israel.. :D
Michale
I mean "it's teeth were sharp" seems more grammatically correct than "its teeth were sharp"...
Think of it this way, Michale ... it's = it is; try using that in your sentence and see how grammatically correct it seems.