February 9, 2016

What's going to happen after Trump wins big in New Hampshire?

Consider the scenario, described in The National Review — which hates Trump — by David French — who uses the subjunctive because he thinks Trump might not win big:
[T]he race would move on to South Carolina with Ted Cruz wounded slightly by the New Hampshire results, Rubio wounded badly, and the trio of governors energized just enough to stay in and keep attacking Rubio in the quest to gain exclusive ownership of the so-called “establishment lane.” Under this scenario, the loyal Trump plurality gives him disproportionate power not just in South Carolina but in the massive “SEC primary” that follows one week later. The longer the muddle lasts, the more powerful his plurality becomes. He can keep coasting as his rivals tear each other apart in their quest to create a true three-man race. Who will be the first to drop out when their polls are no better or worse than those of multiple competitors?  The primary calendar is front-loaded with states friendly to Trump and Cruz, and unless there is sufficient clarity following New Hampshire and South Carolina, the GOP establishment may just claw itself into irrelevance.
Too many governors! You can't have 3, doing the same thing. If only one of them were stronger than the others. If only the strengths of each could be merged into one Super Governor. But the GOP establishment is stuck with 3 governors, all incapable of running to the front in the governor lane. So they take shots at Rubio, and their argument is, basically, he's not a governor. He's not responsible for any consequences in the real world, because that's what it means to be a Senator. How funny for Trump to be loping along easily in the I'm-not-even-a-politician lane! How grim for the Trump-haters! And just when the Democratic Party is collapsing in an even more ludicrous scenario.

How are you feeling about this? (Multiple answers OK.)
 
pollcode.com free polls

21 comments:

Brando said...

It's telling that these governors are directing their aim at Rubio, who after all is still a distant third behind Cruz (who has even less Senate experience) and Trump (who was never elected to anything). If they take down Rubio, then what--they're now in coveted third place! Meanwhile Trump still leads and unless those polls are off he is going to win a string of primaries.

I still think Trump is going to be handily defeated in the general election if he gets the nomination, and would be an awful president if he somehow did get elected (surprise indictment for Hillary). But what an embarrassment for the Old Guard! Proving that the infighting and petty sniping of the Romney/Santorum/Gingrich contest taught them nothing, and with allies like Republicans you don't need Democrats.

AReasonableMan said...

Personally I think we should all just rally around the nice Hispanic man whom the oligarchs have selected for us. I am sure his promise to eliminate all taxes on capital gains is unrelated to their support and instead reflects deep thought on the basic nature of the US economy.

surfed said...

Always did prefer a demolition derby to NASCAR. To stretch the analogy a good 24 you road race Is good but boring after hour three, remaining unexciting (barring accident) until the last couple of hours. So give me a food old demolition derby anytime. The sight of a '66 Impala wagon at 40mph in reverse (Sanders) smashing into a '68 Rambler Ambassador (Clinton) does the heart good.

Smoke said...

"Burining Down The House" - Talking Heads - how appropriate for this election year.

tim in vermont said...

You need a second tick box for each choice that indicates whether you are being ironic.


I am sure that Hillary's "Wink wink boys, don't worry, I'm one of you." speech to Goldman Sachs and the fact that the more money the govt borrows, the richer these guys get has nothing to do with Wall Street's support of her. It's all due to a deep understanding of the nature of the US economy, which the Clinton's have in spades.

chickelit said...

French wrote a "subjunctive sandwich" paragraph, using the subjunctive only in the first and last sentences. The filler is all fact. Here's how a truly subjunctive mood scenario would sound:

[T]he race would move on to South Carolina with Ted Cruz wounded slightly by the New Hampshire results, Rubio wounded badly, and the trio of governors energized just enough to stay in and keep attacking Rubio in the quest to gain exclusive ownership of the so-called “establishment lane.” Under this scenario, the loyal Trump plurality would give him disproportionate power not just in South Carolina but in the massive “SEC primary” that follows one week later. The longer the muddle lasted, the more powerful his plurality would become. He could keep coasting as his rivals tore each other apart in their quest to create a true three-man race. Who would be the first to drop out when their polls were no better or worse than those of multiple competitors? The primary calendar would be front-loaded with states friendly to Trump and Cruz, and unless there were sufficient clarity following New Hampshire and South Carolina, the GOP establishment might just claw itself into irrelevance.

I have a theory that the subjunctive is mostly dead (as predicted by Fowler). It has the unfortunate effect of blurring fact and fiction which is what ails our thinking world.

chickelit said...

Smoke said..."Berning Down The House" - Talking Heads - how appropriate for this election year.

FTFY

AllenS said...

surfed said...
The sight of a '66 Impala wagon at 40mph in reverse (Sanders) smashing into a '68 Rambler Ambassador (Clinton) does the heart good.

Well, that made me smile.

dreams said...

Its like Trump is getting to drive in the faster car pooling lane and the "car pooling" governors are having to drive in the slow congested lane.

Mike Sylwester said...

Each governor should take a baby step.

Each should promise to advocate one popular reform of birth-right citizenship. At least one parent must be a legal resident of the USA.

So far, though, that has been a step too far for all the governors.

grimson said...

They should devote the next debates (both Democrat and Republican) exclusively to foreign policy. It is not something voters care much about, but it is one of the primary responsibilities of the President. For the Democrats, it would highlight how little foreign policy interests Sanders. For the Republicans, it might help narrow the field among the governors, and force voters to reassess Trump.

Original Mike said...

The only thing I want out of New Hampshire is for Jeb to crash and burn. Jeb Bush would 'eliminate' Citizens United

Shouting Thomas said...

Personally I think we should all just rally around the nice Hispanic man whom the oligarchs have selected for us.

Shit!

I'm becoming an ARM ally!

Bill Peschel said...

I'm afraid none of my answers are on your list.

It's not bizarre and no time for despair. This is politics. Flawed men and women showing us what they got, to voters as equally flawed.

But this primary system is badly outdated. It's a death march that requires millions of dollars in fundraising, and a sequence of elections that gives inordinate power to those voting in the early primaries.

Moreover, candidates get caught up in the day-to-day battling and forget that with each new state, they have to reintroduce themselves to the local voters. Remember that most of the country is not paying attention because they don't have to make a choice.

So by the time the candidates reach the 10th state on the list, all the voters there are hearing is how bad the other candidates are, and little to nothing about the candidate standing before them.

If both parties changed the calendar, shortened the primary campaigns and grouped them by state size or region (and, yes, still give the children in Iowa and N.H. their lollies first), the result would probably be a more accurate expression of the voters' desire and not this dysfunctional, knees-bent-running-around, Three-Stooges pie fight!

pcrh said...

I just want to thank you for noticing and mentioning the subjunctive mood.

Original Mike said...

"I'm becoming an ARM ally!"

I get you two mixed up a lot.

traditionalguy said...

Seems a lot like Napoleon once just watching the The Revolutionary Directory fall apart, until it became time for a leader to eliminate competitors and restore Order.

Achilles said...

AReasonableMan said...
"Personally I think we should all just rally around the nice Hispanic man whom the oligarchs have selected for us. I am sure his promise to eliminate all taxes on capital gains is unrelated to their support and instead reflects deep thought on the basic nature of the US economy."


The Oligarchs have selected him to run against Hillary. They want Hillary and were the ones who gave Obama more money than any candidate in history. They don't pay any of the taxes Rubio said he would eliminate.

They want one thing from their elected officials: A new electorate and workforce from Mexico.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
I get you two mixed up a lot.


I'm the handsome one.

bbkingfish said...

National primary, anyone?

aritai said...

The donor's who aren't all that different that pTb know it's over. They have all the loyalty of a ROI calculation. We're about to see a hostile takeover of the GOP. Long overdue. They should have surrendered to the "Taxed Enough Already" crowd in 2008 and softened the transition to a government that works for more of the people than the elite. Name a hostile takeover that didn't result in a better end-state than continuing the old practice. All good fun. Can't wait to see 3 or 4 of the building on K street up for sale. Will shake the flees of, and what remains will look like companies focused on delivering services to government "city manager" types, like the South Korean model. There will still be special interests but the donor class will be pretty much hollowed out. The special interest will long for the good old days. When they didn't have to work for a a liven and the revolving door was better than oil futures.