Efforts to prevent Trump from becoming the nominee, or defeat him with a better candidate if he becomes the nominee, usually focus on a couple of scenarios. One would be to deny him the nomination by means of something like a rule change at the convention in July. Another is to run a third-party candidate against him, with the hope of preventing both Trump and Clinton from getting the 270 electoral college votes they'd need. That would place the decision in the hands of the House of Representatives.
Both scenarios are highly unlikely to occur. The Republican party has the ability to deny Trump the nomination in a variety of ways, but the people in a position to do it (e.g., the delegates going to the convention) don't seem to have the will to carry it out. And a third-party candidate would have a hard time beating both Trump and Clinton in enough places to prevent both from getting to 270.
A third option that I've seldom seen discussed is also unlikely to work, but seems more promising. Convince Trump to drop out. As John Fund mentions in an article I linked earlier today, there's a good chance that information on Trump's tax returns will be leaked if he doesn't release the returns. Try to persuade him to avoid that development by dropping out. Persuade him that his likely loss to Clinton in November would do a lot of damage to the Trump brand and his reputation in the business world. Explain that, if he remains in the race, a lot more effort is going to be made to look into his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. And so on. It would be good if some individual or group could have discussions with Trump about dropping out. But not many people would have that sort of opportunity. What more people could do, though, is raise these issues publicly. Write editorials in newspapers. Publish articles on web sites. Publications could assign some of their staff members to researching topics like the ones I've mentioned above. Make it known that the issues will continue to be investigated as long as Trump remains in the race.
One advantage to this kind of approach is that it also makes the first scenario discussed above (i.e., the Republican party denies Trump the nomination) more likely. Simply repeating objections to Trump that have already been raised probably won't convince the delegates at the convention and others involved in the process to deny Trump the nomination. But if new information is turned up about Trump's tax returns, his relationship with Epstein, etc., that has more potential to change some minds.
Another advantage to the approach I'm suggesting is that it's still applicable if Trump gets the nomination in July. If he dropped out in August, for example, that sort of late drop-out would be better than his not dropping out at all.
Will the approach I'm suggesting work? Probably not, but I think it has more potential than the other options. I think all three approaches I've mentioned in this post should continue to be pursued. But most resources should be focused on the third option.
There's not doubt that Trump has a lot to lose by running in the general election. If he presses ahead, his reputation (such as it is) will be shredded by the end of the process. He's nothing if not a proud, vain man, so if he had any sense, he'd drop out before he becomes a national laughingstock.
ReplyDeleteOr you might get stories like this:
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/us/politics/donald-trump-butler-mar-a-lago.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/10/trump_butler_incredibly_generous_just_a_nice_man.html
http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/RonaldKessler-DonaldTrump-Mar-a-Lago-PalmBeach/2010/01/07/id/345661/
yes, because the ex butler is such a sensible fellow, himself boasting a stellar character:
Deletehttp://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama
Thank God for Mother Jones, eh?
DeleteThank God for the genetic fallacy, eh?
DeleteWho else is going to dig up the kinds of dirt that you're looking for? Couldn't be that you, and they, have common motives. Maybe the Washington Post reporters now will find the kinds of scandals that you want to see.
DeleteJohn Bugay
Delete"Or you might get stories like this:"
The source of these "stories" is Trump's butler. Not exactly the most objective person when it comes to "stories" about Trump.
"Who else is going to dig up the kinds of dirt that you're looking for?"
No need to "dig up" stuff on Trump. There's more than enough "dirt" on Trump based on what Trump himself has publicly said and done.
"Couldn't be that you, and they, have common motives."
So what's your "motive" in soft-selling Trump?
"Maybe the Washington Post reporters now will find the kinds of scandals that you want to see."
Is there something wrong with the WaPo reporting on Trump?
Rocking, you know, if you've ever had a bad boss, you'd say so, and when you have a good boss, you'd say so. I would think that what the people closest to you have to say about you should carry a lot of weight.
DeleteAnd so what if the Butler dislikes Obama and is vulgar about it? Lots of people are worse. But (and this is the kind of thing we talk about when defending the Gospels), the people closest to Jesus had the best things to say about him. Shouldn't we hold consistent views about that sort of thing?
As for WaPo digging up stuff on Trump, it's like "bring it on". Once they find "the worst", and hit him the hardest, there will be nothing left. I've said to others, what are they going to find that hasn't already been said publicly? They may find more detail, but I doubt that the outlines of it will change very much, if at all.
My motive in soft-selling Trump, really comes down to a couple of things. He creates excitement, he's winning big, and I think he'll win in November. Last nail in the Clintons' political coffin. And this "standoff" thing with Ryan isn't a conflict, it's a negotiation, and Ryan is going to get his concerns written into the Republican platform, in exchange for his willingness to "walk away from the table". Trump's own words.
On the flip side, so many of the negatives that we see about Trump seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what he's trying to accomplish. He's not going to build internment camps, he's not going to torture little kids. Yet the alarmists at National Review and elsewhere have no trouble constructing horror scenarios that they publish with the promise of "disaster" if Trump is elected. Scare tactics, not really based on a close reading of what he actually says.
Yes, he's been a philanderer -- a product of this era in this country -- but he's a competent business man, he's articulated a simple but popular vision for the direction he'd like to take things, he's promised to find the best people to help carry it out. He's not going to overrule the smart peoples' recommendations for the sake of doing something stupid. He'll have "checks and balances" on what he can do, in the form of a Republican congress.
He is, by the way, creating excitement down-ballot too -- there are already signs that his fundraising efforts will help candidates at lower levels, that he's gaining support among Hispanics, and that, generally, predictions of disaster are a bit overblown. He's tied Hillary in the general election swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania; he's winning in Ohio, and as things move forward, I wouldn't doubt that he could win a lot more of the Northeast, and even places like California and New York will be in flux like they haven't been in years.
I say, "vet him all you want". Jason has been nuking him for months, other Republicans have spent literally MILLIONS of dollars of negative advertising, and he's still come out on top. He's a known quantity, and if he's not perfect, he'll win, he'll keep his word to Ryan to nominate conservative judges, and overall, he'll do a competent job -- far moreso than the last three presidents.
John Bugay
Delete"I would think that what the people closest to you have to say about you should carry a lot of weight."
1. You can't make a blanket statement like this. It depends on the particular individual "closest to you". Some friends and family members are more trustworthy than others.
2. It also depends on the particular circumstances involved. There may be situations where a normally trustworthy person could become less than trustworthy.
3. By the way, Jesus himself said parents could turn against their children and children against their parents in terms of the gospel. Yet parents and children are among "people closest to you".
"And so what if the Butler dislikes Obama and is vulgar about it? Lots of people are worse. But (and this is the kind of thing we talk about when defending the Gospels), the people closest to Jesus had the best things to say about him. Shouldn't we hold consistent views about that sort of thing?"
1. You mean like Judas Iscariot when he betrayed Jesus?
2. You may also be interested in verses like Prov 27:6, 28:3, 29:5.
"As for WaPo digging up stuff on Trump, it's like "bring it on". Once they find "the worst", and hit him the hardest, there will be nothing left. I've said to others, what are they going to find that hasn't already been said publicly? They may find more detail, but I doubt that the outlines of it will change very much, if at all."
Time will tell.
"My motive in soft-selling Trump, really comes down to a couple of things. He creates excitement,"
One of your motives for having become a Trump fan is because "he creates excitement"? You're excited about Trump because he excites you? Sorry but that seems more like how a teenage girl would behave at a Justin Bieber concert.
"he's winning big, and I think he'll win in November. Last nail in the Clintons' political coffin."
Another one of your motives for having become a Trump fan is because you think Trump will win? Let's put aside the fact that it's quite debatable whether Trump will win or not. Nevertheless, how does one go from predictions of victory to Trump fan? You don't connect the dots.
"And this "standoff" thing with Ryan isn't a conflict, it's a negotiation, and Ryan is going to get his concerns written into the Republican platform, in exchange for his willingness to "walk away from the table". Trump's own words."
Yes, Ryan will eventually cave to Trump. No surprise if he does.
"On the flip side, so many of the negatives that we see about Trump seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what he's trying to accomplish. He's not going to build internment camps, he's not going to torture little kids. Yet the alarmists at National Review and elsewhere have no trouble constructing horror scenarios that they publish with the promise of "disaster" if Trump is elected. Scare tactics, not really based on a close reading of what he actually says."
1. The National Review has multiple writers. Some National Review writers are more sensible than others.
2. You're attempting to tar the entire National Review as "alarmist". That's either ignorant or underhanded.
3. Where have sensible writers for the National Review (e.g. David French) ever argued against voting for Trump because Trump is "going to build internment camps" and "going to torture little kids"?
"Yes, he's been a philanderer -- a product of this era in this country -- but he's a competent business man,"
It's debatable whether Trump is indeed "a competent business man". Regardless, even if (arguendo) we agree he is competent here, how does competently running a business necessarily mean one will competently run the nation?
"he's articulated a simple but popular vision for the direction he'd like to take things,"
Delete1. There's no use having "a simple but popular vision" (e.g. make America great again) if there's no specific plans or realistic means to accomplish the vision.
2. It seems more like Trump articulates what he thinks most people want to hear. He has already changed his mind on particular issues.
3. How does "a simple but popular vision" necessarily make for a "good" vision for the nation? Or a vision which can actually be accomplished?
"he's promised to find the best people to help carry it out."
Yes, Trump makes a lot of promises. But who knows if he'll deliver? Best case scenario, there seems just as much likelihood that he will as he won't.
"He's not going to overrule the smart peoples' recommendations for the sake of doing something stupid."
Why not? Historically, there have been leaders who have "overrule[d] the smart peoples' recommendations". What makes Trump so unique?
"He'll have "checks and balances" on what he can do, in the form of a Republican congress."
1. For one thing, you're assuming the Republicans will hold both the House and the Senate. Both of which are debatable.
2. Sure, our system of gov't has checks and balances. But it's arguable we're already losing these checks and balances (e.g. judicial supremacy). There are also loopholes which can be manipulated as Obama has done.
"He is, by the way, creating excitement down-ballot too -- there are already signs that his fundraising efforts will help candidates at lower levels,"
1. That's ironic inasmuch as Trump originally campaigned on the idea that he doesn't need outside funding (he claims he's a multi-billionaire after all!) and that candidates who are tied to certain campaign contributors and contributions are more compromised than he is.
2. Trump has his own funding issues. See here for starters.
"that he's gaining support among Hispanics,"
Better to look at how many Hispanics are opposed to Trump. How many find Trump unfavorable. How many wouldn't vote for Trump.
"and that, generally, predictions of disaster are a bit overblown. He's tied Hillary in the general election swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania; he's winning in Ohio, and as things move forward, I wouldn't doubt that he could win a lot more of the Northeast, and even places like California and New York will be in flux like they haven't been in years."
So you keep saying (attempting to spin?), but the data are highly debatable.
"I say, "vet him all you want". Jason has been nuking him for months, other Republicans have spent literally MILLIONS of dollars of negative advertising, and he's still come out on top. He's a known quantity, and if he's not perfect, he'll win, he'll keep his word to Ryan to nominate conservative judges, and overall, he'll do a competent job -- far moreso than the last three presidents."
Delete1. This entire time you've been talking about how great Trump will be for us in the future, what great things Trump will do for us, etc. It seems like a teenage girl head over heels over her new bf who happens to be a philanderer and worse. He's so dreamy! He's going to buy me a big bright diamond ring! We're going to travel the world! We're going to live in a mansion! We're going to have a family full of perfect kids! It's going to be heaven!
2. Many if not most general election voters wouldn't have paid much attention to the Republican primaries. They likely wouldn't have heard all that's been said about Trump.
3. The Democrats including Hillary haven't really gone at Trump as fully as they likely will later. They're only starting to now. But Hillary is still dividing by having to deal with Bernie (and vice versa).
4. Much of the media have more or less been giving Trump a free pass so far.
5. Trusting Trump to keep his word is at best naive. He may, he may not, who knows? Trump probably doesn't even know what he'll do. Trump is too much of a wild card when it comes to keeping promises.
6. None of this means Trump won't win. It's possible Trump could win. However, if he does win, then may God have mercy on us.
Just one thing: you say "One of your motives for having become a Trump fan is because "he creates excitement"? You're excited about Trump because he excites you?"
DeleteI'm excited about Trump because he excites a lot of people. The popular excitement is contagious. It will continue to be contagious. I'm excited because Republicans are energized (and not to have a nominee who's a frumpy old non-exciting nominee like Bob Dole or John McCain).
And you are right, most of this falls into the "we'll see" category. Who can predict the future. I'm basing what I say here on nearly 50 years of watching presidential elections. I could be wrong. But I don't think I've misunderstood what's going on.
(And if Trump loses, or if he wins and promptly starts rounding up puppies and kittens for execution, please feel free to say "I told you so").
John Bugay
Delete"I'm excited about Trump because he excites a lot of people. The popular excitement is contagious. It will continue to be contagious. I'm excited because Republicans are energized (and not to have a nominee who's a frumpy old non-exciting nominee like Bob Dole or John McCain)."
One could say the same thing about say Pope Francis. Pope Francis "excites a lot of people". This too is "contagious". Lots of liberals and liberal Catholics are "energized" by Pope Francis.
"I'm basing what I say here on nearly 50 years of watching presidential elections. I could be wrong. But I don't think I've misunderstood what's going on."
It's not quantity of years that's most important, but the quality how those years were spent.
A person can spend many years typing, but if they've always been typing the wrong way, then that's just many years spent typing the wrong way.
A person can spend many years programming, but if they've always been programming with bad or sloppy habits and the like, then that's just many years spent programming with bad or sloppy habits and the like.
"(And if Trump loses, or if he wins and promptly starts rounding up puppies and kittens for execution, please feel free to say "I told you so")."
You're just putting words in my mouth. I've never argued that Trump will certainly lose or that if he wins he'll start "rounding up puppies and kittens for execution". Not sure why, but I guess you're just attempting to hyperbolize or exaggerate what I've actually said.
"I'm excited because Republicans are energized"
DeleteA lot of Republicans and conservatives in general are "energized" against Trump too. Trump has a considerable amount of opposition. High unfavorability.
Yeah but generally Republicans are climbing aboard the Trump train, and not moving in the other direction.
DeleteSome of us on the Triablogue staff had some lengthy discussions with John about Trump. He ignored most of our counterarguments, and his comments posted in this thread ignore much of what we've already written (publicly and privately) in refutation of his claims. A few days ago, John told me in an email that he wouldn't be discussing issues like these publicly. He said he didn't know the issues well enough. But here he is, a few days later, writing about these subjects over and over again in public, repeating a lot of bad arguments we've already refuted.
DeleteJohn Bugay
Delete"Yeah but generally Republicans are climbing aboard the Trump train, and not moving in the other direction."
For one thing, I wouldn't limit it to Republicans. They're not the only ones who matter when it comes to voting for or against Trump. (Or remaining neutral.)
Sure, some GOP leaders are indeed "climbing aboard the Trump train," but others are not. Among voters, seems to me many are still decidedly against Trump, and some (I think unwisely) even attempting to form a third party.