May 1, 2016

"Ted Cruz’s Support Softens Among the Delegates He Courted."

The NYT observes:
Even as Donald J. Trump trounced him from New Hampshire to Florida to Arizona, Senator Ted Cruz could reassure himself with one crucial advantage: He was beating Mr. Trump in the obscure, internecine delegate fights that could end up deciding the Republican nomination for president.

“This is how elections are won in America,” Mr. Cruz gloated after walking away with the most delegates in Wyoming.

But turns out that delegates — like ordinary voters — are susceptible to shifts in public opinion. And as the gravitational pull of Mr. Trump’s recent primary landslides draws more Republicans toward him, Mr. Cruz’s support among the party’s 2,472 convention delegates is softening, threatening his hopes of preventing Mr. Trump’s nomination by overtaking him in a floor fight....

80 comments:

Hagar said...

Just heard Pat Caddel say that roughly a quarter of the registered voters of each party say they will refuse to vote for their party's leading candidate. There is still a lot that can happen between now and November 8!

Hagar said...

Caddell.

Also saw that Trump's biggest votes in Texas came from the "warzone" counties along the lower Rio Grande that are 90-95% Hispanic.
Curiouser and curiouser.

Michael K said...

Cruz was just too cute.

AReasonableMan said...

The Cruz-Trump battle is a fairly good indicator that Puglia's claim that "The problem right now is that the masculine has no honor whatever in our culture" is just so much sociological BS. Cruz is an effeminate product of the Academy whereas Trump is a product of the rough and tumble of the construction industry, despite his small hands. Nonetheless, Trump has prevailed relatively easily, especially in light of his many other failings.

Fabi said...

There was an article at National Review with the same theme, and even quoted a few of the same delegates. I had to check the URL to be sure that I was at NRO and not Breitbart. Ted needs a victory on Tuesday or the slim narrative, and even slimmer chance of denying DT 1,237 delegates, will evaporate.

Daniel Richwine said...

Cruz's strategy would only work if he could plausibly claim Trump had no moral directive from the country. Since he will, it won't end up being close.

traditionalguy said...

Trump has mastered great leadership techniques. He has created a loyal movement that is willing to follow him through what ever slanders are generated by Lyin Ted or CNN, MSNBC and FOX News.

Ask Bobby Knight. They will follow him all the way because they believe he is on their side.

He wears a bullet proof vest and crosses ditches and rear entrances to out maneuver the Mexican Army of rioters. SanJacinto is relevant history because it was a border war fought by border warriors that first defeated Mexico in 1836 to create Texas. Sam Houston was a Jackson man that lead it. Trump is a neo Jacksonian leading it again.

Michael said...

ARM

Well put. Trump, in his thirties, acquired the Commodore Hotel on NY's 42nd Street from the bankrupt Penn Central Railroad. He then converted that old hotel into the Hyatt, requiring a complex contract to be coordinated with the construction of an exceptionally difficult labor and materials market in a town that was not entirely cooperative. On top of that he had to raise the equity from third parties and debt in an environment was was not particularly receptive to hotel construction. Has done many equally difficult deals since then,. Failures? You bet. But nobody died as a result.

Chuck said...


The New York Times' dream Republican nominee: Donald J. Trump.

chickelit said...

The outcome of the Republican Presidential primary in Chicago was still uncertain that first weekend in early July, 1952. Those were still the days when conventions were decided by men in smoke-filled rooms. Neither Eisenhower nor Taft had a majority of delegate votes needed going into the convention. Each man represented differing factions within the same party, yet nothing seemed to be a deciding factor other than the inchoate "electability" factor of Eisenhower. And that was just it. Ike was liked. Well liked. The general had famously rejected candidacy four years before in 1948, despite a nascent and popular "draft Ike" movement. Hardcore Republican delegates were loyal to Taft, but in the end they listened to their constituents. One-by-one during the next week of the convention they found ways to switch from Taft to Eisenhower.

Ted Cruz is the Robert Taft of our era (without the gravitas of Taft).

narciso said...

yes, I've long thought that was the paradigm, we should consider, a piece by kristol in the weekly standard quoting a consultant named rich danker, who is referred in an american thinker piece,

narciso said...

this is the piece,


http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/05/pundit_of_the_week_rich_danker.html

chickelit said...

Chuck said...The New York Times' dream Republican nominee: Donald J. Trump.

Carlos Slim, the plurality stockholder of the NYT, would probably enjoy the fight. Presumably, Trump would too. They say you can't go a day in Mexico without personally enriching Carlos Slim.

edutcher said...

I guess those are New York values.

Hagar said...

Just heard Pat Caddel say that roughly a quarter of the registered voters of each party say they will refuse to vote for their party's leading candidate.

More likely on the D side. The Rs will, for the most part, kiss and make up because the Senate is at stake. The hardcore Cruzzers, sorehead Conservatives and Libertarians, will stay home or vote Libertarian, respectively.

The Demos involved are mostly Feel The Bern kids to whom Democrat is just a brand. They are more passionate (lots of Bernie signs and stickers).

D.E. Cloutier said...

Re: chickelit's comment about Taft and Eisenhower

I was 7 years old and lived in New York City in 1952. At a public park near my home, 9 or 10 boys around 11 or 12 years old said they were for Eisenhower.

Another boy, the same age, said he was for Taft. The Eisenhower supporters chased the Taft supporter across the park and down a street, eager to beat the hell out of him.

I went home. "Who do want to become President," I asked my father.

"Stevenson," he answered.

"You better tell the neighbors you like Ike," I told him.

Bill Roberts said...

"The Rs will, for the most part, kiss and make up because the Senate is at stake"

I'm sure some will, but I think overall that's a pleasant fiction. I will vote, but will not vote for Trump. He'll have to win this without me and people like me.

Democrats have long been the party that finds it easier to unite around a candidate. I remember all the "PUMA" voters who swore if Hillary did not get the nomination they wouldn't support Obama in 2008. I think most of them came around.

I'm not coming around . . .

David said...

"But turns out that delegates — like ordinary voters — are susceptible to shifts in public opinion. "

Same as it always was.
Same as it always was.

shiloh said...

"Trump has prevailed relatively easily, especially in light of his many other failings."

Lack of any discernible competition. Plus his opposition, such as it is/was, had major flaws also.

Like Khan in Star Trek II they kept missing the target!

>

Again, let's all drink a toast to the Republican deep bench !!!

chickelit said...

@D.E. Cloutier: That's a priceless memory. Thanks for sharing.

Qwinn said...

I will not vote for Trump. If it's him, I'll vote the downticket and then write in someone (probably Cruz) just to make sure my non vote isn't taken as "not leftist enough for me", as non votes always are.

MikeD said...

I'm sorry, the NYT's isn't my go to source for unbiased reporting. That said, Cruz is toast! Lucky me, livin' in CA there's not a statewide issue/candidate that'll be impacted by my vote.

MathMom said...

Cruz started out at 3% in Texas, and just kept slogging. They call him Senator Cruz because he won, against a guy who was loaded financially.

I find nothing dishonorable about Cruz fighting for delegates at the conventions that occur after the primaries or caucuses. This is how we select delegates. Duh.

When a systems analyst doesn't understand how the database works, and goes to the database administrator with questions about it, he will often hear, "RTFM!" Read The Fecking Manual.

Cruz can RTFM. Trump could RTFM, but doesn't give a shit about preparation and doing things according to the rules. So he screams that the system is rigged.

Trump is a pansy. Unfortunately, if he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him, because I won't have a protest vote which improves Clinton's chances on my conscience.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, you actually believe the Times when it comes to Republicans? Why on earth would you do that? What makes you think anyone working for them has the slightest clue about Republicans?

Mike Sylwester said...

I have favored Cruz during the past five months. I am dismayed to see that he seems to be sinking to defeat in Indiana.

If Cruz loses to Trump in Indiana, then I must admit that Cruz is too unlikeable, even within the Republican Party. Too many people are repulsed by his religiosity, his demeanor, his pushiness, his extremism, etc.

If I were a delegate, then I too might be willing to dump Cruz at the convention, even in favor of Trump. Despite Trump's negative qualities, at least Trump grows his popularity and wins elections continually within the Republican Party.

I still fantasize that Ryan would agree to accept the nomination and would select Sessions as his running-mate. That ticket could unite the party and win the general election. That is obvious to me, but I suppose it will not happen.

Mark said...

There are an awful lot of people who are too full from eating s*** the last two presidential elections to do it yet again. Now, they simply cannot take another bite. They've done their bit. They're not going to do it again.

gadfly said...

chickelit said...

Ted Cruz is the Robert Taft of our era (without the gravitas of Taft).

Those of us who have been around long enough to remember Robert Taft, know that he was never praised for his gravitas. I am not sure why Ted Cruz is being compared to an establishment candidate since Trump is the guy who has been paying off politicians for decades and is now schmoozing with the RNC.

Trump may compare well to Thomas Dewey in 1948.

DavidD said...

If I wanted to choose between Hillary and another Democrat, I would've voted in the Democrat primary.

No; I voted in the Republican primary for the only conservative still running. (I'm glad Walker had already dropped out, as early on I hadn't been able to decide between him and Cruz.)

If the choice is between Hillary and Trump I'll vote Constitution Party.

Mark said...

It's not all Trump's fault though. There has been a buffoonery wing to the Republican-Independent faction for many years now who, in their SFB arrogance, have been an obstacle to victory for strong genuine conservatives. Add in the Establishmentarians, and you get the complete CF we have today.

Mark said...

What is really amazing is that the movie Network is forty years old. True, Trump isn't the first embodiment of Howard Beale, and Trump's followers are not the first to act like a bunch of monkeys, but in the past they have been more subtle, rather than real-life caricatures.

Mark said...

On the other hand, Idiocracy is only ten years old. When I first saw it, I thought it was kind of dumb (I don't mean that as a pun), certainly not as good as Office Space or King of the Hill. I didn't realize it would be prophetic.

chickelit said...

Gadfly noted: Those of us who have been around long enough to remember Robert Taft, know that he was never praised for his gravitas.

Oh, I was just referring to his moniker, "Mr. Republican"

grackle said...

Trump is the guy who has been paying off politicians for decades and is now schmoozing with the RNC.

“Paying off”? Translation: Legally contributing to political individuals and organizations that could impact your business’s projects - like every other successful builder in NYC. But to the #neverTrumpers anything Trump has ever said or done is proof of evil.

Take something that is commonplace and ordinary – a business owner openly making legal political contributions – and imply with double-meaning word choices(“paying off”) that something illegal, secret or at least shady took place.

Notice, readers, that Trump is chided for “schmoozing” with the RNC. That’s this particular anti-Trumper’s angle of attack. Another anti-Trumper might deride Trump for being a discordant force, of “splitting” the party, even destroying the party(hyperbole is their forte) … but if Trump reaches out to the RNC to try to heal the rift(that is overblown by the MSM) it’s interpreted in the most cynical way possible. They’re going to be critical of anything Trump says or does. They got him coming or going – they think.

In the past we’ve seen these tactics of character assassination as used mostly by the Left/Democrats/MSM to sometimes devastating effect against the Right. But now a segment of the Right is in the process of damaging its political credibility by joining up with the Lefties and in a fit of group hysteria is employing those same propaganda techniques - in order to nullify their party’s voters’ popular choice. George Will actually urges Republicans to vote for Hillary!

Shameful, if you ask me. If I were a Republican voter I would be angry. As an independent who doesn’t want the next 4 SCOTUS justices to be picked by Hillary I am glad that Trump seems relatively immune to their political treason.

grackle said...

Free advice for Trump: Just before the convention I think Trump should name Cruz as one of his potential SCOTUS nominees. It might go a long way toward unifying the party for the battle against Hillary and I personally believe Cruz would make an excellent replacement for Scalia.

Amexpat said...

The New York Times' dream Republican nominee: Donald J. Trump.

Wrong. Cruz would be the dream nominee as support for him is predictable and he would have no chance of winning. His vote would be less than Romney's in 2008. Trump is a wildcard that would change the dynamics of the race. He could very well lose in a landslide or win by getting the old Reagan Democrats and elements of the electorate that have never voted before. HRC would much prefer to go for the easy win.

shiloh said...

"old Reagan Democrats"

Are just that ie either old or dead. And since Trump in no way resembles Reagan, except he wanders from liberal to conservative depending on what day it is, whereas Reagan went from solid liberal Dem to solid con Republican.

And Reagan was always presidential in words and demeanor, whereas Trump not so much.

And Reagan had an "establishment" track record as gov of CA for (8) years, whereas Trump said you're fired on a reality tv show.

hmm, maybe one could compare The Apprentice to being host and performer on GE Theater & Death Valley Days ...

Saint Croix said...

Ted Cruz's Support Softens

What is up with the phallic headlines in the NYT?

I know when Sarah Palin was running, maybe a week or two after I was saying, "I love her! She's awesome!" I started asking myself, am I voting with my dick? I had this little voice in the back of my brain. "Warning. Warning. You're about to vote with your dick." Big brain has to tell the little brain to cool it.

Anyway, my suspicion is that whoever wrote that headline is some liberal girl or guy who secretly has Donald Trump fantasies. The authoritarian is make their heart go pitter-pat. Let me go ahead and suggest since the word "softens" is used negatively, the headline writer is a guy. Soften is bad! Stay away from Cruz, he makes me soft! Donnie gives me a hard-on! So I would just say to this NYT headline-writer, get thee to therapy, and stop voting with your dick.

If, on the other hand, the headline-writer is a woman ("When I think of Ted Cruz and his respect for women, I go all soft on my insides, and I just melt!") go ahead and vote with your loins. You have my permission. Daddy says that's fine.

Saint Croix said...

That's what the media did to Marco Rubio, by the way. The Pravda machine has been pumping up Donnie with free publicity, while belittling the masculinity of all his rivals. Once he's the nominee, the Pravda machine will turn on Donnie, who is a horrible candidate. Actual Republicans know this and are wary of it.

Saint Croix said...

Donnie's secret meeting with the NYT probably included instructions on what headlines to write for him.

You media assholes deserve a punch in the eye.

Brando said...

It'd be hard to convince unbound delegates to go against the candidate with the plurality of votes at that point. It'd be one thing if there was an obvious candidate, who could unite the factions and look strong for the fall, but at this point all that's left are factional candidates. Trump will get this by default, even if he is under 1237 on the first ballot.

Conservatives won't really have a major-party option this fall. It'll be Fabian socialism or nativism. In a way, the Obama years have made us more European! This is the sort of choice you might expect in continental Europe.

Brando said...

"That's what the media did to Marco Rubio, by the way. The Pravda machine has been pumping up Donnie with free publicity, while belittling the masculinity of all his rivals. Once he's the nominee, the Pravda machine will turn on Donnie, who is a horrible candidate. Actual Republicans know this and are wary of it."

They've been favoring Trump because they're pathetic lickspittles but it's mainly because he brings them ratings, and that drives everything for them.

"Just heard Pat Caddel say that roughly a quarter of the registered voters of each party say they will refuse to vote for their party's leading candidate. There is still a lot that can happen between now and November 8!"

That'll depend on whether Hillary-hating Dems fear Trump more than Trump-hating GOPers; I suspect that's the case because while anti-Trump Republicans believe (correctly, in my view) that Trump is not a conservative, anti-Hillary Democrats don't really question that Hillary is at least center-Left. They're more likely to stomach her than conservatives can stomach Trump.

Plus, consider the Dems have a larger base to begin with.

damikesc said...

I won't vote Trump. Nor will I vote Republican at all. When the party keeps claiming that somebody is a horrible candidate and then refuses to support anybody else, it is too pathetic to keep alive.

Besides, Peter King is a Republican and I'd rather swallow a bullet than be on the same side as that IRA apologist.

Good riddance, GOP.

damikesc said...

Free advice for Trump: Just before the convention I think Trump should name Cruz as one of his potential SCOTUS nominees. It might go a long way toward unifying the party for the battle against Hillary and I personally believe Cruz would make an excellent replacement for Scalia.

Assuming the meth addled chimps in the Senate would vote for him. They won't want to vote for anybody who is any threat to their gravy train.

Brando said...

"Good riddance, GOP."

Amen to that. Though I'll still be voting for my governor when he is up for reelection in two years as he's the only bulwark against this state going down the blue drain.

damikesc said...

They've been favoring Trump because they're pathetic lickspittles but it's mainly because he brings them ratings, and that drives everything for them.

Trump hasn't dealt with the media just inventing shit about him. That's when most conservatives start to lose their shit. When the media reports that Harry Reid (the person who makes assassination seem like a reasonable political move) says that he hasn't paid his taxes in 10 years without seeing if its true. Or that report that Romney caused a guy's wife to die of cancer when he had no part in that story whatsoever. Or when they try to pull up a "bullying" story from high school that is described as untrue by everybody involved.

McCain had a false affair and false death threats to Obama attributed to his supporters as well.

At this point, I also wonder if the Constitution is worth protecting anymore. The 1st Amendment is grand, but it allows our press and few of them deserve life, much less protection.

Brando said...

"Assuming the meth addled chimps in the Senate would vote for him. They won't want to vote for anybody who is any threat to their gravy train."

Considering the Dems will probably have the Senate next year even if Trump somehow won, I think the prospect of Cruz on the Supreme Court is a fantasy.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump makes that offer, though. Cruz would have to basically say "you can insult my wife's looks publicly and leak info about my affairs, and I'll still forgive you if you promise to appoint me to something that won't fly." Is Cruz dumb enough to go along with that?

damikesc said...

Amen to that. Though I'll still be voting for my governor when he is up for reelection in two years as he's the only bulwark against this state going down the blue drain.

I would here...but, sadly, after Haley there is already a developer discussing a Trump-like pursuit of the governorship here.

Just create a Freedom Party and run against the college kids who are becoming the federal bureaucracy and academia.

damikesc said...

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump makes that offer, though. Cruz would have to basically say "you can insult my wife's looks publicly and leak info about my affairs, and I'll still forgive you if you promise to appoint me to something that won't fly." Is Cruz dumb enough to go along with that?

Cruz can argue, rightly, that Hillary is still worse and a criminal who promises to make criticism of her illegal would be a God awful choice for President.

I will happy with a Hillary win IF it means Peter King is tossed out. I'll sacrifice everything to get that shitstain out of office.

Brando said...

"Just create a Freedom Party and run against the college kids who are becoming the federal bureaucracy and academia."

I wouldn't mind seeing a more mainstream libertarian party, a fusion of libertarians and conservatives sick of the GOP. Perhaps the GOP would be better off as a multiparty coalition that teams up on occasion rather than trying to fuse disparate elements that often are at odds. The vitriol of this campaign season shows this is not really a healthy coalition.

"I will happy with a Hillary win IF it means Peter King is tossed out. I'll sacrifice everything to get that shitstain out of office."

I don't think I'd ever be happy with a Hillary win, but I am fatalist about it. The upside is she would galvanize the opposition and maybe after a third straight loss the GOP would be forced to reassess itself.

AprilApple said...

Saint Croix @ 2:12.

Exactly. The media are a narrative manipulation propaganda hypnosis machine. This one is easy to see a mile away.

Chuck said...

Grackle I am a Republican who is quite happy with the US Constitution and a who likes the agfirmation of First Amendment rights found in the Citizens United case. Donald Trump, however, is one of the very few Republicans ("purported" Republicans in Trump's case, I'd say) who questions Citizens United.

As for Trump's political donations, I don't question his right to make them legally. I question his judgment in who he made donations to. Trump seems to like Democrats. And other politicians with social/celebrity value. I am not aware that Trump has ever donated anything of consequence to any conservative causes.

And it was Trump himself who suggested that he made many of the donations in order to position his business(es). I'd really like to know what benefit the Trump business got, in terms of political favors or special consideration. That was Trump's own implication, nobody else's. Trump could have said that he truly believed in Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That he thought that they were the best people for our representative government. Trump didn't do that. Trump specifically said that he made those contributions because that is the way business is done.

Chuck said...

"...affirmation..."

Sheesh; where is auto-correct when you need it?

Brando said...

"As for Trump's political donations, I don't question his right to make them legally. I question his judgment in who he made donations to. Trump seems to like Democrats. And other politicians with social/celebrity value. I am not aware that Trump has ever donated anything of consequence to any conservative causes."

Let's assume for a minute that Trump fans are correct and Trump made donations to Clinton, Pelosi and Reid not because he favored their politics but because he needed to "get something out of them" like a good businessman. If so, then why not back that up with specifics? Show us how corrupt those people are by interceding on a wealthy donor's behalf! Show the system for what it is! Particularly in Clinton's case, where this could taint her for the general election (and in Pelosi's case, could help the GOP argue that making her Speaker would be to advance corruption).

Of course, Trump cannot do this because while he may have donated to local zoning board members or mayors to get things done (possibly) the fact that most of his donations have gone to Democrats in high national offices suggests he's not actually getting anything from them, but supports what they do.

Just like he cannot release his financials because they would reveal he's worth less than a billion dollars, poking a big hole in his fragile self-image. But clearly, if you just call yourself a billionaire often enough the media takes it as a given.

damikesc said...

I don't think I'd ever be happy with a Hillary win, but I am fatalist about it. The upside is she would galvanize the opposition and maybe after a third straight loss the GOP would be forced to reassess itself.

The Establishment will blame Trump supporters without looking at how they helped create him (has Boehner discussed any Democrat as negatively as he discussed Cruz? I am fairly certain he did not, and that is a HUGE problem). Reagan always said Republicans shouldn't trash other Republicans, but given that Boehner seems to like Pelosi and Reid more than conservatives, who can expect ANYBODY to support a party that has an orange cancer like him in a position of power?

Trumpsters will blame the Establishment without looking at how comical their candidate is. The Establishment is terrible, but a candidate whose issues can undergo total 180's in spans of hours is a horrible replacement.

Democrats don't ever have to change because they own education so they teach the young to be utterly useless morons and they will vote Dem until they actually get a job. And the Dems seek to insure that it never happens.

Brando said...

"The Establishment will blame Trump supporters without looking at how they helped create him (has Boehner discussed any Democrat as negatively as he discussed Cruz? I am fairly certain he did not, and that is a HUGE problem). Reagan always said Republicans shouldn't trash other Republicans, but given that Boehner seems to like Pelosi and Reid more than conservatives, who can expect ANYBODY to support a party that has an orange cancer like him in a position of power?"

That's why they might be better off split into a multiparty coalition. They have a lot of the same divisions the Dems had since the '30s, but at least the Dems were united around the idea of redistributing income to keep both segregationists and urbanites mollified.

What unites the GOP coalition?

TCom said...

It's painfully clear Chuck has never ran a real business in his life. Even smaller businesses in towns donate to both local parties if they know what's good for them. You don't always get 'favors', Chuck. Often the favor is to simply be left alone.

As for you Republican lifers, too bad for you, you're outnumbered by people who don't care about ideology. You have done nothing but fail us. Time to get out of the way. You're never going to get another truecon as president. Ever. Get used to it.

Love the 'conservative' here who uses the nativist slur, too. What kind of a conservative has no desire to conserve their native culture?

Trump seeks to conserve what is most important first. Deal with it.

TCom said...

How can Trump be a nativist AND a Democrat, anyway? Nobody has explained that.

Also, how is he a Dem running on Build the Wall? That makes no sense either. I know what you'll say in response, "he doesn't mean it!" That's because you don't realize politics is downstream from culture. The left does, that's why they have played the long March while the truecons piddled around for decades.

Trump is not a Democrat. He is not a plant. There is no way the left would approve a plan that annihilates their entire narrative. The narrative is EVERYTHING to them. Trump has smashed it and woken up millions to the cultural and economic displacement of their country.

Ignore this in favor of your pet social issues at your peril. This genie is not going back in the bottle.

Birches said...

I can't wait to see the reaction here when Trump taps John Boehner as his running mate...

Sammy Finkelman said...

Mr. Cruz’s support among the party’s 2,472 convention delegates is softening, threatening his hopes of preventing Mr. Trump’s nomination by overtaking him in a floor fight....

But they aren't getting more enamored of Trump, are they?

And many delegates cite concerns about whether Mr. Cruz is really a better choice

...a larger flaw with Mr. Cruz’s strategy of being the last non-Trump candidate standing in a field that began at 17: It was never as much about him as about Republicans grasping for a more palatable alternative to Mr. Trump.

Taking Kasich out of the picture helps Trump.






Sammy Finkelman said...

Hagar said...5/1/16, 7:15 PM

Also saw that Trump's biggest votes in Texas came from the "warzone" counties along the lower Rio Grande that are 90-95% Hispanic. Curiouser and curiouser.

No. The absolute number of voters in the Republican primary was low. Not only do these people not have to be Hispanic themselves, these would be people opposed to legalizing immigrants or who want a wall.

n.n said...

Coalescing.

Chuck said...

TCom I am totally with Brando, who actually finished my thought. If Trump got better treatment -- might have been a favor or might have been, as you fantasize, being left alone -- let's get the details on what that was. It is Trump's own claim; let him explain it.

I say to you; I don't believe a word if it. Trump's donations weren't necessary to any business in the conventional sense. Trump's donations were necessary only to his celebrity self-promotion. To get invited to prized parties. To get himself invitations to parties he prized.

But Trump can prove me wrong, by detailing what a great governmental "deal" he made with his donations. It would be nice, if Trump could prove any improprieties on the part of the Democrats who benefitted from the Trump largesse.

grackle said...

Cruz would have to basically say "you can insult my wife's looks publicly and leak info about my affairs, and I'll still forgive you if you promise to appoint me to something that won't fly." Is Cruz dumb enough to go along with that?

I believe that bunch of timid mice in Congress will yield rather easily to the “populist” President Trump. Easier even than the way they folded when “opposing” Obama. BTW, just wondering – why is the term, “populist,” so popular these days? Answer: Because the MSM will do anything to avoid that dirty word, “patriot.”

Trump specifically said that he made those contributions because that is the way business is done.

Exactly. It’s so nice to be agreed with.

Of course, Trump cannot do this because while he may have donated to local zoning board members or mayors to get things done (possibly) the fact that most of his donations have gone to Democrats in high national offices suggests he's not actually getting anything from them, but supports what they do.

Naw. It suggests that Trump is a savvy businessman that doesn’t allow his competition to get the jump on decisions that might affect his business. Business owners and corporations regularly make political contributions. It’s as common as fleas on dogs. They all have EXACTLY the same motivation – which is to be friendly to folks who have the power to ruin them with a stroke of the pen. But the anti-Trumpsters have this burning desire to take the ordinary and elevate it into something ominous and unusual.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The New York Times' dream Republican nominee: Donald J. Trump.

Maybe not the New York Times, but some of the political sources they are talking to.

But that's not really the Hillary Clinton campaign's dream situation. Their dream situation is probably Cruz getting the nomination, but Trump opposing the ticket. Next best: Vice versa.

The dream is to split the Republican party into two or more irreconciable, fairly even, pieces, with the second biggest faction taking in at least a third of their usual voters. Although even 20% would be quite good for them.

I think Bill Clinton isn't so confident Hillary would win if it was Trump. He is just scared that Trump may figure out something - or use a nasty line of attack. Just "Crooked Hillary" may be worth something, even if Trump is 85% incompetent in carrying it out. She's obviously ten times worse than former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell except that it is much more sophisticated and she wanted her e-mails kept private to protect that. And you can worry about connections to the Saudis etc.

So the campaign would have to be like that of former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1991 'Vote for the crook: it's important."

http://photos.nola.com/tpphotos/2011/12/175duke.html

The most memorable bumper sticker from the race was 'Vote For the Crook. It’s Important.' Never had a governor taken office with as little public confidence as Edwards. Exit polling showed that 6 in 10 voters thought he was a crook.

Or maybe there'll be a terrorist attack in the United States in October, and people will think Trump's policy is better.

So I think the Clinton campaign prefers a Republican Party split and not either Trump or Cruz. Do what they can to make sure they are at each other's throats. Have them be suspicious of each other, or feel the other side isn't playing fair. There are ways to help that along, not to mention luck.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Mike Sylwester said...

I still fantasize that Ryan would agree to accept the nomination and would select Sessions as his running-mate. That ticket could unite the party and win the general election. That is obvious to me, but I suppose it will not happen.

No that probably won't happen, and why would you want Sessions, who endorsed Trump by the way, and not Cruz. He has all the problems Trump has with immigration.

My somewhat ideal forecast is more like this:

The Republican convention will adjourn after the 11th ballot, at about 3:30 am on Friday, July 22, 2016, without reaching a decision, voting to reconvene on the day before Labor Day, that is, Sunday, September 4, 2016, at a location to be selected by the Republican National Committee, unless the RNC, by a two thirds vote, shall pick a nominee both for President and Vice President.

And then, about August 22, the RNC will select Paul Ryan for president and someone Donald Trump agrees to for vice president.

(Democrats will scream bloody murder and try to keep his name off the ballot.)

Mike Sylwester said...

Sammy Finkelman at 10:25 AM

.... the RNC will select Paul Ryan for president and someone Donald Trump agrees to for vice president.

Trump would agree to Sessions being selected.

Brando said...

"I believe that bunch of timid mice in Congress will yield rather easily to the “populist” President Trump."

Are you predicting Senate Democrats are going to fold under whatever Trump wants to do, even if he nominates Cruz to the Supreme Court? That's a bold claim, even for Trump.

"Naw. It suggests that Trump is a savvy businessman that doesn’t allow his competition to get the jump on decisions that might affect his business. Business owners and corporations regularly make political contributions."

Yes, Trump fans have suggested as much. But if there's any connection between the donations to Pelosi, Hillary, Reid, et al, and Trump's business needs, it shouldn't be difficult to draw that. So where is the connection? It would benefit Trump to show it, as it would back up his claim that these donations were "how you have to do business" and get sympathy (showing how businessmen have to deal because of crooked pols). But so far no one has shown any benefit he got from donations to those people.



Sammy Finkelman said...

TCom said...5/2/16, 9:11 AM

How can Trump be a nativist AND a Democrat, anyway? Nobody has explained that.

Easy. Trump only became a Republican to run for president, and he isn't really a nativist. And he's not converting anybody. Forty two years of anti-illegal immigration propaganda on talk radio did that already. Plus twenty to twenty five years of demagagory on trade. Trump is just capturing some votes.

I do think Trump has begun to believe what some of his sources are telling him. He says things that can only be explained by the proposition he is being lied to.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech

There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more.

Dozens more. He's talking like he has inside information. But there no way this is true. Every person charged is public.

And the numbers of peole charged are exaggerated. What some recent -- in terms of years -- immigrants are charged with is attempting to go to Somalia to join al Shabab. They are invariably teenagers.

Trump also claimed the other day that the rise in crime in California is due to immigrants.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article74610082.html

Like as anyone doesn't know, what ethnic group and what family history is associated with criminality. It wasn't immigrants whom his father was accused of trying to keep out of his developments. It was, rather, a group of people who had longer ties to the United States than just anybody else, except Indians.




Sammy Finkelman said...

the fact that most of his donations have gone to Democrats in high national offices suggests he's not actually getting anything from them, but supports what they do.

These donations were probably made as favors to the people raising the money. Also, he didn't know what party he would eventually belong to.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Mike Sylvester at 10:32 AM

...Trump would agree to Sessions being selected.

Yes he would, or you would expect him to, but Ryan wouldn't want him, to the extent maybe that he'd turn down the nomination if he was paired with Sessions. And the RNC wouldn't want to do it. And Jeff Sessions would want to avoid the national exposure.

So it has to be someone else acceptable to Donald Trump. Ben Carson, maybe, but he comes off as inepxerienced and Ryan would want someone more credible.

Anyway, Ryan would be ore amenable to taing the nominaiton at that second stage.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brando said...5/2/16, 8:49 AM

What unites the GOP coalition?

They're not part of the Clinton machine. The fact that they are not united.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Brando said...

Are you predicting Senate Democrats are going to fold under whatever Trump wants to do, even if he nominates Cruz to the Supreme Court? That's a bold claim, even for Trump.

Well, Trump isn't makingthat claim grackle is and grackle, as far as the supreme Court is concerned, is still making the assumption that nominees to the Supreme Court by a president get confirmed, absent apearing not to be up to the job or the dscoovery of ethical issues. Actually, we could see Supreme Court vacancies not being filled for years, as was the case in New Jersey.


StephenFearby said...

I wonder, Is this the Althouse blog or the Sammy Finkelman blog?

damikesc said...

Well, Trump isn't makingthat claim grackle is and grackle, as far as the supreme Court is concerned, is still making the assumption that nominees to the Supreme Court by a president get confirmed, absent apearing not to be up to the job or the dscoovery of ethical issues. Actually, we could see Supreme Court vacancies not being filled for years, as was the case in New Jersey.

I'd be fine with NO confirmations until they all die. Then don't replace them.

And we've seen eminently qualified judges (Bork) not confirmed. We've just never seen qualified PROGRESSIVE judges not confirmed. The Republicans have never had the balls to fight on this.

Brando said...

"Well, Trump isn't makingthat claim grackle is and grackle, as far as the supreme Court is concerned, is still making the assumption that nominees to the Supreme Court by a president get confirmed, absent apearing not to be up to the job or the dscoovery of ethical issues. Actually, we could see Supreme Court vacancies not being filled for years, as was the case in New Jersey."

By "even for Trump" I meant "even for Trump to accomplish". I think the only way Senate Democrats would ever confirm Cruz to the Supreme Court is if Cruz is currently president and it would be the only way to get him out of the White House.

Republicans always seem to be on the losing end of the Court fights. Republicans appointed Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Souter and Stevens, and some squishy moderates like Stewart, Burger and O'Connor. When's the last time a Dem appointee turned out to be even moderate?

Achilles said...

Bill Roberts said...
"The Rs will, for the most part, kiss and make up because the Senate is at stake"

"I'm sure some will, but I think overall that's a pleasant fiction. I will vote, but will not vote for Trump. He'll have to win this without me and people like me."

damikesc said...
"I won't vote Trump. Nor will I vote Republican at all. When the party keeps claiming that somebody is a horrible candidate and then refuses to support anybody else, it is too pathetic to keep alive."

There are other cowards posting similar crap all over the net. We will be fighting the left and the make America Mexico crowd. You guys, all 3% of you write in Cruz. Keep track of all the Cruz write ins please so you know how small and dwindling a group you are.

Conservatives will be irrelevant for a generation if you sit this election out. Nobody cares about conservative/liberal anymore. It is going to be Americans vs. the Globalists from here on out. If you want to help the American side and have influence over what comes next help out.

If you want to pout in the corner like cowards go for it, but you will be treated like the people who run away at the start of the fight by whoever wins.

Brando said...

"Nobody cares about conservative/liberal anymore. It is going to be Americans vs. the Globalists from here on out. If you want to help the American side and have influence over what comes next help out."

How does an "Americans/Globalists" divide affect issues re: size of government, entitlement spending, regulation of business, tax rates, etc? With foreign policy, I presume "Americans" would be less interventionist, but then from Trump and his fans I sense a lot of "kick our enemies' asses" sentiment so I'm not sure of that. But surely you can see that there is still a "collectivist vs. libertarian" divide in this country that speaks to most of the national issues we face.

As for conservatives "sitting it out" this year, either they're an insignificant group that will not make a difference in Trump's inevitable win, or they're significant and by sitting out they threaten his election. If the former, you shouldn't care. If the latter, calling them "cowards" isn't likely to get them into your column.

Chuck said...

If it really is true that no one is any longer concerned about any adherence to being a "conservative" or a Republican, the epithet RINO loses all of its meaning and power, right?

There's never been anyone in national public life for whom the RINO label better applies, than Donald Trump, right? Trump hasn't been a Republican atall, for much of his life. He's never before been elected to anything, and certainly not as a Republican. His endorser of last weekend, Coach Bob Knight, regards Trump as neither Republican nor Democrat. Trump himself scolds the Republican Party's leadership and organization on an hourly basis. Trump excoriates Republican donors. Trump supporters excoriate the whole Party; many of them say they'd like to destroy the Party.

If there could ever be a more comprehensive picture of a "RINO," I can't imagine it.

Brando said...

"If it really is true that no one is any longer concerned about any adherence to being a "conservative" or a Republican, the epithet RINO loses all of its meaning and power, right?"

RINO is a dumb term (because everyone technically is a Republican in name only--it's not like you have to pass a test to register as one, and in many states you don't even register) but what it's always meant is "very left-leaning Republican."

Chuck said...

I don't disagree, Brando.

But just think of the nature of epithets. The epithet used to be "RINO"; Republican In Name Only. The traitors were not Republican enough. They were illegitimately using the name of Republicanism. Or so it went.

Now, I suppose that the epithet is "Establishment GOP." With yet another acronym, "GOPe." So while the unfaithful used to be those who failed to live up to established GOP standards, now the unfaithful are those who do comply with that establishment.

For all of the pissing and moaning about how the Trump-critics in the Republican primary should focus more on the presumptive-nominee Hillary, so too should the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys spend a lot less time bashing the "GOP establishment" and instead decide if indeed they are really conservatives and if Trump is a conservative candidate.

Sean Hannity is a bit of a laugh; he's the guy who for years has been proclaiming that he is not a registered Republican. He is instead something else that isn't quite clear to me (registered independent or member of some conservative party or whatever). Rush Limbaugh is the proprietor of the fictional "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies."

Too bad they aren't getting a conservative candidate for president.

Brando said...

"For all of the pissing and moaning about how the Trump-critics in the Republican primary should focus more on the presumptive-nominee Hillary, so too should the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys spend a lot less time bashing the "GOP establishment" and instead decide if indeed they are really conservatives and if Trump is a conservative candidate."

Rush and Sean are just trying to stay in tune with their fans, but they are far more "establishment" than the people they criticize. How else would you describe influential media personalities who have access to any Republican pol they want?

They and their fans are just upset that Republicans have been blundering over the years when it comes to their wishlists--why can't we erase the deficit? Why are taxes so high and complicated? Why do the Dems seem to get what they want? And why is this country riddled with illegal immigrants and we have no wall?

And rather than consider some obvious answers (e.g., most of the country disagrees with them on some issues so they have to change more minds before they can get it to happen, or some of what they ask for is based on incorrect facts, such as this idea we can erase deficits by just getting rid of waste and not cut some stuff they actually want) it's easier to believe that some "establishment", once elected in Washington, is corrupt and stabs them in the back. "Stab in the back" has long been a popular theory for those who don't want to face uncomfortable realities--much easier to blame some traitors.

Not that Republcian officeholders haven't made blunders--but many of those blunders (e.g, the shutdown) were done in response to these angry constituents, not despite them. So now, after a long period of grasping untruths and blaming sinister backstabbers, the natural move for a lot of them is to gravitate towards the most unqualified person to ever be nominated by the GOP. They're determined to take the GOP down the drain with them.