Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Abuelo Igor]

Yeah, don't get me started on the cleverness of the people who wrote the Spanish constitution. Especially since the official wisdom seems to be that it's a sacred text, written in stone, and that even to contemplate the possibility of altering it is folly pure and simple. Not to mention the much-vaunted "transition", which was basically a way of allowing all the evil guys of the Franco regime to walk away scot-free.

[Florestan]

the much-vaunted "transition", which was basically a way of allowing all the evil guys of the Franco regime to walk away scot-free.

I know what you mean. The post-Ceaușescu "transition" meant basically the same for Romania.

the official wisdom seems to be that it's a sacred text, written in stone, and that even to contemplate the possibility of altering it is folly pure and simple.

To get back ontopic: the Spanish constitution is not the only one to be treated like that...

[Karl Henning]

Disclosure: Robinson is a commentator on the left

Trump has given voice to the ugliness and anger that the party spent years encouraging and exploiting. He let the cat out of the bag, and it's hungry.

The party might nominate Trump, in which case the establishment will have lost all control. Or party leaders might somehow find a way to defeat him, in which case they will have lost the allegiance of much of the base. In either event, the GOP we once knew is irredeemably a thing of the past.

[Todd]

Disclosure: Robinson is a commentator on the left

Even George Will is warning about the potential end of the party.  It could happen.  But then, with most delegates meted out based on proportion of the vote, and with the remainder in the hands of the party (three per state), the party could very well select the appropriate establishment guy at the convention, even if Trump gets 49.99% of the vote.  I forgot where I read it, but Haley Barbour basically stated that some establishment Republicans are willing to support Hillary, and some big donors may not even engage in the general election if Trump somehow gets the nod.  An outlandish scenario has Trump winning the Republican nomination and Jeb Bush running as a third party candidate to split the vote.  The most fun could still be in front of us!

It's hard to see a way for Republicans to win the White House in 2016, so I would think they focus on the House and Senate and preventing Trump from getting the nod and preparing for 2020.  Rubio is young, after all.

But what happens when Donald doesn't win a state? 

[Todd]

Okay, you got me. I forgot George Pataki was running in this race. 

If you would have waited eight days to write your original post . . .

[Pat B]

I forgot where I read it, but Haley Barbour basically stated that some establishment Republicans are willing to support Hillary, and some big donors may not even engage in the general election if Trump somehow gets the nod.  An outlandish scenario has Trump winning the Republican nomination and Jeb Bush running as a third party candidate to split the vote.  The most fun could still be in front of us!

It's hard to see a way for Republicans to win the White House in 2016, so I would think they focus on the House and Senate and preventing Trump from getting the nod and preparing for 2020.  Rubio is young, after all.

I still don't think Trump will be the nominee. I'm back to thinking it will be Cruz (and regretting that I didn't stick to my guns after the first debate). His biggest liability, supposedly, has been that a bunch of people in his party hate him. But Trump's apparent staying power may have those Republicans reconsidering. They are running out of options.

Barring a (wildly unlikely) Kasich nomination, I agree about winning the White House.

Do you think Rubio has what it takes? He comes across as wooden and scripted to me. I am skeptical that he can fix that before 2020.

[Todd]

Do you think Rubio has what it takes?

Of the current crop, he has the best shot nationally and within the party. 

Cruz is smart, ruthless, and based on all reports has probably the best organization among Republicans.  Organization may be the key to the nomination, so it is not out of the question.  He's too conservative to win the big job.

The only way I see Trump getting the nod is if he gets well over 50% of the delegates before the convention.  I seriously doubt that will happen.

[Karl Henning]

Do you think Rubio has what it takes? He comes across as wooden and scripted to me. I am skeptical that he can fix that before 2020.

Doesn't absolutely resolve your concerns . . . when Geo. W. Bush began his campaign in earnest, a co-worker who was going to vote Republican in all events, and who therefore (we might say) wished to believe, came away from the broadcast of a Bush event feeling that the candidate was (in his words) an empty suit.  And of course, we know how that campaign concluded.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Breaking news! George Pataki has left the race!

[Karl Henning]

If you would have waited eight days to write your original post . . .

Breaking news! George Pataki has left the race!

Another Vanity Candidate Out

[kishnevi]

Another Vanity Candidate Out

Ah, for a moment I indulged in the hope that Trump had withdrawn from the race.

You must admit he puts a whole new dimension to the phrase "Vanity Candidate".

[(poco) Sforzando]

Ah, for a moment I indulged in the hope that Trump had withdrawn from the race.

You must admit he puts a whole new dimension to the phrase "Vanity Candidate".

All vanity candidates in my opinion. There are twelve left, including The Hair. If Republicans were smart and wanted to counter The Donald, they'd coalesce around one or two other "acceptable" candidates to create a viable opposition. As of now, the field is so splintered that no other candidate is making a strong enough showing to displace him.

[jlaurson]

All vanity candidates in my opinion. There are twelve left, including The Hair. If Republicans were smart and wanted to counter The Donald, they'd coalesce around one or two other "acceptable" candidates to create a viable opposition. As of now, the field is so splintered that no other candidate is making a strong enough showing to displace him.

This is, for the most part, worth reading, gents:

The Great Republican Revolt
The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/




No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter. And in a way I think that Trump is so horrifying as a potential president (not that I think he gets the nomination by a long shot...) because of the precedent it would set... not because he would prove to have any efficacy in office. On that count, Hilary Clinton, assuming one disagrees with her policies, or Fiorina, assuming she figures out what policies she might have, could be much more influential and potentially damaging. But *tone* is important in politics and sets the scene for years and decades to come, which is why Trump should scare us. Not for who he is, but for who we have become where he is acceptable and not a clown.

[Karl Henning]

This is, for the most part, worth reading, gents:

The Great Republican Revolt
The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/




No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter. And in a way I think that Trump is so horrifying as a potential president (not that I think he gets the nomination by a long shot...) because of the precedent it would set... not because he would prove to have any efficacy in office. On that count, Hilary Clinton, assuming one disagrees with her policies, or Fiorina, assuming she figures out what policies she might have, could be much more influential and potentially damaging. But *tone* is important in politics and sets the scene for years and decades to come, which is why Trump should scare us. Not for who he is, but for who we have become where he is acceptable and not a clown.

Would you be upset if your child married a supporter of a different party from your own? In 1960, only 5 percent of Americans said yes. In 2010, a third of Democrats and half of Republicans did.

[Karl Henning]

Recognize that the gimmick of mobilizing the base with culture-war outrages stopped working at least a decade ago.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

No sane person could want him in the White House rather than any of the other clowns and minor devils, but I must say that Carly Fiorina and Hilary Clinton nearly tie Trump on my worry-meter.

What I haven't yet seen from anyone on this thread, is that The Donald, at least as compared to the other major-party contenders, is actually the peace candidate. Consider:

http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/12/28/who-is-the-arch-racist-trumporclinton/

For us peaceniks and anti-interventionists, Trump looks like the only sane choice. What does it say about the Republicrats that is has come to this?

[Todd]

For us peaceniks and anti-interventionists, Trump looks like the only sane choice. What does it say about the Republicrats that is has come to this?

I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate.  One could always go with Rand Paul.  I can't do that either.  Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible.  (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.)  Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me.  He talks tough.  He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group.  Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.

I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well.  The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly.  Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable.  I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.

[Karl Henning]

Nor does restraint seem at all one of El Tupé's hallmarks.

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate.  One could always go with Rand Paul.  I can't do that either.  Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible.  (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.)  Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me.  He talks tough.  He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group.  Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.

I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well.  The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly.  Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable.  I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.

A good encapsulation of my own feelings. Hard to see any Republican candidate who can become the convention consensus winner without being ready to declare war on someone, anyone, pretty darn soon. Restraint ain't gonna feed the bulldog, especially with the Trump supporters out there. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well. 

I agree with this too. At least in foreign policy, Obama appears to be the closest thing we have to an Eisenhower Republican.