Clinton Can Still Easily Be Beaten

But a lot depends on what happens the rest of this primary season and what happens at the open convention the Republican party is likely to have. Something I wrote in another thread:

Clinton's negatives are high. Trump's are higher. It's not that Clinton is hard to defeat. It wouldn't be hard. Rubio, Kasich, and Cruz, for example, have frequently beaten her in the polls. Some Republicans are still ahead of her in RealClearPolitics' poll average, even though the Republican primary season has been so unusually negative, and that negativity has received so much more media attention than the negativity in the Democratic primaries. If multiple Republican candidates can beat Clinton so often in the polls, even in such a negative primary season in which Trump is making the Republicans look so bad, it would probably be even easier to beat Clinton once the primaries are over and Trump is receiving less attention.

I'd still only give Cruz a 45% chance of winning against Clinton, but that's far better than Trump's chances. I'd expect Rubio or Kasich to win easily. So would other Republicans, if they were to be the nominee.

What's the endgame?

I've observed a few things about Trump supporters and Cruz supporters that I'd like to comment on. It's based on what I've run across. I don't claim it's a scientific sample. So it may not be representative. For instance, Jerry Walls as spent a lot of time berating Rubio. So I'll return the favor.

i) One contention is that it's time to unite behind a single candidate–that candidate being Ted Cruz. Critics like Walls are very impatient with Rubio supporters. Time is running out to block Trump. Cruz is our last best hope!

But a reason I prefer Rubio, a reason I've been hanging back with respect to Cruz, is that I find that advice nearsighted. What's the endgame?

There's a twofold goal: beat Trump, then beat Hillary (or Bernie). There's no particular advantage to beating Trump in the primaries if you lose to Hillary in November. You need a good general election candidate. So you have to think ahead. What's the second act? 

I'm not saying for a fact that Cruz can't beat Hillary. I'm not saying for a fact that Rubio would beat Hillary. You can only go with the best information you have at any given time.

If he can get nominated, I think Rubio has a much better shot of beating Hillary than Cruz. I'm not keen on uniting behind a candidate who can edge out Trump in the primaries only to lose in November. I want a conservative candidate who has a good chance to cross the finish line. Leading in the backstretch is not enough. 

ii) Jerry totally supports Cruz and totally opposes Rubio. I've encountered this same mentality among other Trump supporters and Cruz supporters. The mindset is that you can't support one candidate unless you totally oppose his rival. In addition, some Trump and Cruz supporters so identify with their candidate that he's above criticism. 

That's unhealthy. Now, there are candidates who richly deserve unmitigated opposition. I totally oppose Trump, Hillary, and Bernie. If Christie were still in the race, I'd say the same thing about him. But it's irrational when Walls can't find anything good to say about Rubio. The problem is not with opposing a candidate, but acting as though the only way to support one candidate is to utterly oppose a rival candidate. 

Which brings me to a related point: while there are candidates who deserve our wholehearted opposition, there's rarely if ever a candidate who deserves our wholehearted support. Our political support for candidates should always be qualified. In particular, Christians should not be blind loyalists. 

Although I support Rubio, I don't totally support him. To the contrary, I've made a note of positions he's taken that I oppose. Conversely, the fact that I prefer him to Cruz doesn't mean I totally oppose Cruz. In fact, I think Cruz has a lot going for him. Mind you, I doubt he's equally sincere on all his current positions. 

iii) Another problem with this polarized mindset is that it's a recipe for disillusionment. What has catapulted Trump to the frontrunner status, and what attracts many voters to Cruz, is bitter disillusionment with the GOP "establishment". 

But when you totally support one candidate, it takes very little for him to let you down. And when that happens, the cycle of bitter disillusionment repeats itself. That can be a vicious circle. It's prudent to lower our expectations. Work for improvement, not utopia. As William Rusher said, "Politicians will always disappoint you." 

iv) Apropos (iii), I've seen both Trump supporters and Cruz supporters use a common narrative. Here's one version:

After Obamacare became law, House Republicans ran on a repeal and replace platform. "Give us control of the House, and we'll revoke Obamacare!" But they broke their promise. Then Senate Republicans ran on a repeal and replace platform. But they broke their promise. The GOP establishment betrayed us!

Here's my problem with that complaint: it's inherently impossible for the House to singlehandedly repeal Obamacare. One house of Congress simply lacks the unilateral authority to pull that off. So that was never in the cards. Now I fault House Republicans for making a campaign promise they knew they couldn't keep. And I was aware of that at the time.

But if you voted for Republicans because you thought the House could repeal Obamacare, you have only yourself to blame. Voters have a duty to know how the system works. There's no excuse to be that ignorant. That's not betrayal–that's being a patsy. 

The situation is similar with respect to the Senate. Now it's true that in principle, both houses of Congress, acting in conjunction, can repeal a law. But that's not automatic. If you have a hostile president, then the only way to do that is if both houses pass a bill by veto-proof (or even filibuster-proof) majorities. And although the House of Representatives may currently have that margin, the Senate does not. 

I'm not sympathetic to voters who are complain about how they were "betrayed" when they are politically illiterate about the rudiments of our legislative system. This isn't arcane knowledge. You don't need a law degree to figure that out. Even if they don't teach that in public school, anyone with Internet connections can find out. Is that really asking too much? 

Ironically, the same mentality makes them suckers for Trump. They are being duped all over again because they refuse to think. They don't bestir themselves to do the most elementary research. 

BTW, it's always a good idea to sweep Democrats out of power. 

v) Let's take another example: I've seen people express admiration for Cruz because he called Mitch McConnell is a liar on the Senate floor. Sorry, but I think that's a really dumb thing for Cruz to do. 

McConnell is majority leader. How do you get anything done as a lawmaker if you antagonize the leadership? They determine who gets to sit on what committees and subcommittees. They determine if a bill gets voted out of committee. They determine if a bill gets a floor vote. 

I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with challenging the leadership. That can be a good thing. But unless you have someone viable to take their place, it is foolish to alienate the leadership. 

The legislative process requires teamwork. If you have open contempt for your colleagues, what does that accomplish? Why are you there in the first place? Why join an organization that requires collaborative effort to get anything done if you can't stand your associates? 

We need to distinguish two different issues. To say it's true to call McConnell a liar doesn't mean it's smart to call him a liar. For instance, imagine a subordinate who publicly said his commanding officer was a moron. And suppose his commanding officer really is a moron. But it's counterproductive for a subordinate to say that. He will be relieved of duty and court marshaled for insubordination.

Likewise, suppose a football player says the coach is an idiot or the quarterback is an idiot. Even if that's true, why join the football team in the first place if you have such open contempt for the coach and the quarterback? You will either be booted off the team or spend the rest of the season on the bench. What purpose does that serve? 

The political process requires cooperation. If you're better at making enemies than allies, that's self-defeating. If you find it demeaning to schmooze people you don't respect, then choose a different line of work. Sometimes Cruz acts like the stereotypical autistic savant: high IQ but antisocial. 

Once again, what is the endgame? Is it just to have a moment of emotional release? Moral satisfaction, or is it to make a difference? Change the status quo? 

To a great extent, etiquette exists for folks who dislike each other. The amenities submerge the enmities to make social life possible. 

Imagine a family reunion or Thanksgiving meal where everyone finally decides to say what they really think of each other. They've been saving that up for years. All the cumulative grudges. Well, that may make them feel better for the next hour or so, but they will never be on speaking terms for the rest of their lives. 

vi) Which brings me to another point: in my observation, Trump supporters and some Cruz supporters are unable or unwilling to put themselves in the shoes of voters who aren't naturally drawn to candidates like Trump or Cruz. Indeed, they seem to think it would be demeaning or compromising to do that. Just today I ran across a perfect illustration:

Some Cruz fans wrote in, “the fact that these people don’t like him makes me like him more!” 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432687/choice-gop-needs-if-not-choice-gop-likes

Okay, but while that might make Cruz fans like him even more, how does that endear him to voters who aren't already members of his fan club? 

Problem is: that's a prescription for defeat at the polls. You need to be able to think like other people. Assume their viewpoint. The electorate is very disparate. A winning coalition consists of different voting blocks. If you wish to win, you need a candidate who has fairly broad appeal. That's not a question of right or wrong, but how to achieve your objective. Maybe it shouldn't have to be that way, but that's the way it is. Once again, what is the endgame? 

vii) A danger I see among some voters is that if you insist on too much, you end up with nothing at all. You don't get more. You don't get less. You don't get anything. 

viii) Florida is do-or-die for Rubio. I think it's droll for Cruz to suggest that Rubio should drop out and unite behind him because Rubio can't win Florida. Classic self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Now I'm not suggesting this is about fairness. Cruz has a perfect right to run in Florida. It's a competitive process. But the question is the endgame. If the Rubio is knocked out, and Trump nets the delegates, what's the endgame? 

Depending on how Tuesday turns out, it may be hard to shake an air of futility. I'm already becoming fatalistic about November. It's shaping up to be one of those tragic dramas where the stage is strewn with bodies at the end of the play. You know how it's going to end before it begins. The only man left standing is the villain. Or in this case, Hillary. 

Spoilers

Because Trump is unacceptable to most Republican voters, even though he's the frontrunner, this has enhanced the role of spoilers (i.e. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich). A spoiler can't win, but he can block a rival from winning.

Whether it's good or bad to be a spoiler depends on the specifics. The current GOP primaries raise some interesting questions about voter priorities and candidate priorities. Which is more important: opposing Trump or supporting a particular anti-Trump candidate? Preventing Trump from getting the nomination, or helping a particular anti-Trump candidate to get the nomination?

Is it more important to support a particular anti-Trump candidate at the risk of making it more likely that Trump will win the nomination–or opposing Trump at the risk of sacrificing your preferred candidate? 

In addition, a campaign can be like a game of chess. You don't know ahead of time what's a winning move or losing move. You can't say in the abstract what's a winning move or losing move. That's because it depends on what the other player does. There is no winning move in the absolute sense, only in a relative sense. 

As the campaign evolves, a winning strategy may become a losing strategy. Candidates must adapt to the state of play. And it depends on priorities. Each candidate wants to win. But in the event he can't win, who's the backup? 

Take the Florida race. Cruz has a twofold agenda: defeat Trump and defeat Rubio. Those are his two main rivals. And he has an order in which he wants do to it: drive Rubio out of the race to make it a two-man races between Trump and Cruz.  

That, however, makes Cruz a spoiler is a dicey sense: it's more important for him to prevent Rubio from winning than to prevent Trump from winning. Cruz has no realistic chance to win Florida, but he may be able to prevent Rubio from winning. That, however, means it's more important to his strategy to sacrifice Rubio to Trump. To make Rubio lose at the cost of Trump winning. Cruz's strategy requires him to become a temporary Trump-enabler, in the hopes of stopping him further down the line. 

That's a very risky strategy. If Trump wins Florida, it accelerates his momentum. In addition, Florida is a big delegate cash cow. If Trump wins Florida, that makes it much easier for Trump to rack up the remaining delegates to win the nomination outright. If Trump wins Ohio in addition to Florida, then his nomination is probably inevitable.

Although it would be advantageous to Cruz to knock Rubio out of the race, it would also be advantageous to Cruz to deny Trump victories in Florida and Ohio. 

That would give Cruz two possible paths to the nomination: winning the nomination outright, or winning at a brokered convention. If Trump loses Florida and Ohio, that's a backstop that probably keeps him from winning the nomination outright. 

Cruz's preference is to win the nomination outright, and that makes sense. It would, however, be prudent for him to have a fallback. 

Suppose Trump can't net the winning number, and Cruz comes in second. If at the end of the primary season, Trump is still failing to get a majority of Republican voters, and Cruz comes in second, Cruz would be the obvious alternative to Trump at a brokered convention.

For Cruz to compete in Florida is quite a gamble, because it runs the risk of a twofold loss: it may make it harder for him to win the nomination, and it makes it harder for another anti-Trump candidate to win the nomination. It clears a path for Trump to win the nomination. On that scenario, not only does Cruz lose, but the party is likely to lose in in November. And even if Trump wins the general election, that's just as bad in a different way. Trump winning or Trump losing to Hillary are both worse-case scenarios. 

Trump Is Losing Ground

Trump had a bad weekend. He was defeated by double-digit percentages in Kansas, Maine, and Puerto Rico. He lost the voting that occurred in Louisiana on Saturday, he only got more votes there overall by winning the early voting, and he apparently ended up getting the same number of delegates from the state as Cruz did. Cruz got more delegates than Trump over the weekend, and Trump ended up with less than a third of the delegates overall.

The New York Times gives us a glimpse into the incompetence of Trump and his campaign:

In conversations with some of his allies, who insisted on anonymity to relay those private talks, Trump campaign aides have expressed concern about the money being spent against him on television. The Trump campaign has no pollster, so it is governed by public polling and what the candidate himself observes while watching cable news….

“Trump has total disdain for the professional political class,” said Scott Reed, a veteran Republican strategist. “He thinks they’re all about making money. Pollsters are hacks. Organization doesn’t matter. Their idea of a political organization is taking phone calls from some elected officials who wanted to endorse and making it work in the schedule. And that’ll catch up with you eventually.”

He's very beatable. Keep fighting.

Larry Sabato recently tweeted:

In Tampa I've seen dozens of pro-Rubio and anti-Trump TV ads over 2 days. None for anyone else.

I'm glad that anti-Trump groups are running ads in Florida, Illinois, etc. And they're addressing some important issues (e.g., Trump University, Trump on military issues). But two of Trump's biggest weaknesses, his mistreatment of women and his unelectability, aren't getting nearly as much attention as they should. Run some clips of Trump's derogatory comments about women on Howard Stern's show. Quote Trump's boasting about committing adultery with so many women. On the issue of electability, provide people with Trump's losing numbers in head-to-head match-ups with Clinton. After showing the numbers and explaining how unelectable he is, end the ad with the words "Donald Trump: Loser" in big letters across the screen. These kinds of ads ought to be running in as many states as possible. It's good to go after him on Trump University and other issues that have been getting a lot of attention, but his mistreatment of women and his unelectability are two others that don't seem to be getting the attention they deserve.

Some Seldom-Discussed Options For Defeating Trump

A lot of people are suggesting that Rubio and Kasich drop out, given Cruz's good performance in the voting Saturday. (Make sure you don't just look at the end results in Louisiana. Also look at Cruz's percentage of the early voting in contrast to his percentage of the votes cast yesterday.) Cruz does look more promising as an alternative to Trump now, and Rubio looks weaker. However, yesterday's results need to be combined with polling data about what would happen in the upcoming states if Rubio and/or Kasich were to drop out. If Cruz would lose in Florida and Ohio under a scenario in which Rubio and/or Kasich would drop out, whereas Rubio and/or Kasich would win those states if they stayed in, then I think they ought to stay in for now. (And my understanding is that Rubio was expected to win in Puerto Rico today. If so, he ought to at least wait until after that voting before dropping out.) Here's what I'd suggest doing:

The long game

The conventional wisdom is that we need to reduce the primaries to a two-man race to stop Trump. The question then is whether Cruz or Rubio should drop out. 

We need to keep the long game in mind. This is a two-step process. It's not enough to defeat Trump; you need to defeat Hillary. 

For Trump to win the general election is a worse-case scenario. For Hillary to win the general election is a worse-case scenario. 

The question at issue right now is not whether Rubio or Cruz can win 1237 delegates in the remaining primaries, but whether one or both can prevent Trump from winning the magic number. Trump is still opposed by about 60-70% of primary voters. So he's very vulnerable.

At this point, Cruz probably has his best states behind him, whereas Rubio has better states ahead of him–if he can win Florida. 

I realize there are Republicans who can't stand Rubio on immigration, but if Hillary wins, it's not as though she will be any improvement on illegal immigration.

How To Blast Trump Back To The Stone Age

Rubio and Cruz need to continue to relentlessly pound Trump from every direction. Their campaigns should be sharing information and working together in their effort to take down Trump. There's another nuclear bomb they can drop on him that I haven't seen them use yet. (But maybe I missed it. I don't know.) Gather together some of Trump's derogatory comments about women, and bring them up during the next debate. Give example after example of Trump's vulgar comments (boasting about committing adultery with so many women, talking to Howard Stern about trying to avoid getting STDs from the women he has sex with, women he refers to in such a derogatory way, etc.). There's a lot of that sort of material circulating, and some of it comes from videos of Trump, his own books, etc. Put together a collection of descriptions of that material and quotations of it, drop it on his head in the middle of the next debate, and watch him explode. Drive a wedge between Trump and half the voters (women). Ask the audience if they want a president who's so abusive of women. Ask them if they want to face Hillary Clinton and the charge of a Republican war on women with somebody like Trump representing the party. Then close with Rubio's line about how the party of Lincoln and Reagan must not become the party of Trump. Or use whatever better line they can come up with. This should be done by both Rubio and Cruz. Don't just do it once. Hit him from both sides.

Do this on other issues as well. Pound Trump relentlessly. And make some cryptic comments about how there's more where that came from. Get Trump paranoid and looking over his shoulder.

Rubio and Cruz can't hold back, and they can't wait. Do it now, do it forcefully, and do it relentlessly.

If any of you have any contacts with the Rubio and Cruz campaigns, please pass on this sort of suggestion. I would think they're aware of the possibility of using Trump's comments on women against him, but I haven't noticed them doing it yet. It's important that they not pass this opportunity by. Encourage them to act on it.

What Rubio Is Up Against

David Weigel has a good article at the Washington Post about the ongoing battle between Rubio and Trump. The article includes videos of some recent ads being run against Trump on Rubio's behalf. What I want to focus on here, though, is how the article closes:

And the scale of Rubio’s challenge was evident just hours later, when a much larger crowd filed into the Cox Convention Center, half a mile away. A significant reeducation campaign would need to be implemented before they stopped thinking of Trump as a bar-brawling friend of the working man. Asked about the Rubio attacks, Trump supporters either said the endorsement of Trump by Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.) overwhelmed them, that Rubio was irrelevant or that they hadn’t even watched the debate.

“Rubio won’t even win his home state,” said Mark Morris, 57. Trump, by contrast, reminded him of the Oscar-winning film “Gladiator,” and of Russell Crow's hero Maximus. “He survives the battle, and the emperor calls him in. The emperor says, ‘I need you to go to Rome.’ Maximus says, ‘I've never even been to Rome.’ He says, ‘That's why I want you to go. It’s corrupt there.’ That was so profound, so profound.”

Robert Jay, 28, a lineman who was kept from voting by an old felony conviction, did not watch the debate. Wearing a T-shirt with the slogan “white pride worldwide,” he explained that he bought it “as a response to Black Lives Matter,” and was happy that his wife, a onetime supporter of President Obama, was casting the family’s vote for Trump.

“He’s tough — I don’t know what Rubio is talking about — and he says if you attack us, we’re going to attack you,” Jay said. “We'’re going to be strong. And that’s important.”

Though Weigel probably chose these examples of Trump supporters in an attempt to make Trump and his supporters look bad, I suspect the examples Weigel cites are representative of much of the Trump movement. The part about Trump being like Maximus, going to corrupt Rome, is especially absurd. Given how ignorant, incompetent, and corrupt Trump is, what do you expect him to accomplish in his equivalent of Rome? Why prefer him to the far more knowledgeable, far more competent, and far less corrupt Rubio? It's doubtful that Trump would even make it to Rome. His electability is so bad that he'd probably get run over by the Clinton machine and have his innards splattered all over the road, or get drunk one night and fall off a cliff, long before he got anywhere near Rome.

Rubio And Cruz Just Gave Trump A Beating

A commentator on CNN said something to the effect that Rubio needs to keep doing this every day. So does Cruz. Until they send the charlatan back to New York in his clown car.

Trump was evasive on healthcare, evasive on his tax returns, was evasive about his losing to Clinton in the polls, kept repeating himself while denying that he repeats himself and while criticizing Rubio for repeating himself too much, etc. I agree with Leon Wolf:

Here’s what a bad night it was for Trump. In the middle of a completely innocuous question from moderator Hugh Hewitt, which was not in any way attacking Trump, Trump out of nowhere slammed Hewitt with “No one listens to your show.” In the span of 20 seconds, he said “I don’t believe anything Telemundo says,” and “I love Telemundo. Everything is fine.” Literally within the same answer. The belief this entire time has been that Donald Trump cannot be rattled in a debate. Tonight proved that it is not true. It’s one thing to expose Trump as a liberal; what the other Republican candidates did tonight was to expose Trump as a lightweight. Trump has gotten away for months with not having answers to anything because no one has pressed him on the point. Tonight, that ended, and he looked like a child.

Trump's unprovoked insult of Hewitt reflects Trump's character. Imagine if any other candidate had done that or had done even half of the rest of what Trump did in this debate. Rubio's relatively minor mistakes a couple of debates ago got a major amount of media attention and had Rubio getting criticized widely for days on end. Will Trump get the far worse treatment he deserves, now that he's so obviously had a debate performance vastly worse than what Rubio had in that previous debate? I doubt it. We'll see how many voters are discerning enough to realize what happened in tonight's debate. Trump got knocked out by Rubio, was propped up and knocked out again by Cruz, and kept getting the same treatment over and over the rest of the night. He was a punching bag getting hammered back and forth between Rubio and Cruz. Will the media cover the debate that way? Will voters respond to the debate as they ought to? Rubio and Cruz did their part. If the media and voters don't respond as they should, then the media and the voters are to blame.

Oh, and Kasich and Carson were there, too. I think.

Brokered convention

I'm going to briefly toy with some nomination scenarios. 

i) On one scenario, Trump cinches the nomination outright by winning enough primaries to net 1237 delegates or more. 

That process would be accelerated if his competitors drop out. Or it's possible that he can garner 1237 delegates even if his competitors remain in the race.

ii) But in another scenario, what if Cruz and/or Rubio have enough money to stay in the race right up to the convention, and one or both pick up enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number. He wins a plurality of the delegates, but falls below the 1237 threshold. 

In that event, the nomination would be settled at the convention itself. If Trump doesn't have 1237 delegates by the time of the convention, will he get the nod anyway? I don't know.

Here's one potential hurdle: if he continues to win primaries, but maintains his pattern of only skimming about one-third of the vote, with the other two-thirds going to the remaining anti-Trump candidate(s), would the convention nominate a candidate whom about two-thirds of the party can't stand? 

Your Choice Is Rubio Or Trump, Not Cruz

Leon Wolf, the editor-in-chief of Red State, has just endorsed Rubio, and he makes some good points in the process. Be sure to read the article by Dan McLaughlin that he links. And other arguments for Rubio could be added to the list. He does significantly better against Clinton in the polls. He helps Republicans in a state where they need more help (Florida, in contrast to Texas). Etc.

I hope Cruz does the right thing by dropping out no later than early March. I'd like to see him drop out in the last two days of February if his polling doesn't improve a lot before then. But if he's going to stay in beyond February, I hope he at least doesn't stay beyond early March. And if Cruz doesn't do the right thing, his supporters had better do it.

Since Cruz is so young and has so many positive attributes (along with some weaknesses), he has a promising future in some political contexts (as a senator or potential governor of Texas, Supreme Court justice, etc.) But he's not good as a presidential candidate. Even if he still wanted to be president, this isn't his year. He has time to run again at least twice, given how young he is. He ought to leave the 2016 race sooner rather than later. If he would do that, it would do far more good than the alternative, and it would improve his standing in the party and his political prospects over the long run.

SC primary

Although it's disgusting that Trump won (no surprise, given the polls), if you add up all the Republican voters who didn't vote for him, nearly 70% voted against Trump. Problem is, too many candidates competing for the anti-Trump vote. 

If you combine Rubio/Cruz #'s, that's 10 points more than Trump

Rubio has razor thin lead over Cruz with 99% reporting.

Bush dropped out. Who picks up his supporters? Trump or Rubio? Same question if Kasich drops out.

A challenge facing Cruz is that he's probably more of a regional candidate than Rubio. If Cruz can't dominate Southern primaries, where will he make up the difference? Likewise, he didn't sweep the evangelical voting block in SC. Yet he needs that to build on. And he needed momentum. Now Trump and Rubio have the momentum. 

How To Damage Trump

Something I just posted in a thread at National Review:

Here are a few of the points I'd like to see made against Trump in tonight's debate (and others):

- No other Republican candidate has as close a relationship with the Clintons as Trump does. The Clinton campaign would be able to run ads featuring Trump's previous endorsements of Clinton. There's general agreement among Republicans, including Trump's supporters and self-identified liberals and moderates, that we want to defeat Clinton. Trump's lengthy and explicit record of supporting the Clintons would make him uniquely weak as a Republican nominee.

- Nobody has worse general election numbers than Trump. Rubio would be the best one to highlight this point, since his numbers are among the best. (Carson has some good numbers as well, sometimes even better than Rubio's, but he's not as good of a communicator and has shown so little interest in going after Trump, so Rubio would be better at bringing up this issue.)

- Trump is remarkably self-contradictory. Cruz could use Trump's flip-flops on whether Cruz is eligible for the presidency as an example, then cite other examples. I'd suggest making the criticism as forceful as possible, such as by saying that Trump is the most self-contradictory candidate to ever run for the presidency. In addition to "self-contradictory", I'd use the term "unstable". That has broader implications, and it's an accurate description of Trump.

- Mention at least twice (to make sure it gets remembered) that Trump openly boasts about committing adultery with many women. That's another way in which Trump is uniquely corrupt. As bad as Bill Clinton is, at least he didn't brag about his adulteries in a book he published. Bringing up this aspect of Trump's character should be especially helpful in states with large religious populations, like South Carolina and other states coming up soon. People want to like the president at a personal level, probably more so than with any other office in our nation. Trust is important. How much will people trust somebody who publishes a book bragging about damaging so many lives through adultery? (I'd recommend that the people criticizing Trump even refer to how he "destroyed homes", "wrecked lives", "ruined marriages", etc.)

Rubio and Cruz

1. Some voters act as though supporting a candidate means defending everything they say and do. I notice that some Cruz supporters excuse everything he every said or did, or unquestioningly accept his ex post facto explanations. That's very credulous.

Rational voters can separate out defending someone's candidacy from blanket support for whatever they say or do. It's possible to support someone's candidacy despite disagreement with one or more of their positions or policies. 

Indeed, it's important to reserve the right to criticize positions/policies of a candidate you otherwise support. I don't issue any candidate a blank check. 

For instance, I might support a candidate even though I disagree with some of his policies. That doesn't necessarily mean I give up those issues. If he becomes president, it's still possible to block those particular policies at a legislative or judicial level. It becomes a question of when and where to fight.

2. Some voters raise fake, frivolous objections to a rival candidate. This is where they are reaching for anything they can use against the rival candidate. These are not objections they consistently raise. If their favorite candidate did the same thing, they'd give him a pass. Or if it were a different election cycle, they might swap those out for different objections. For instance, opponents of Rubio complain about his missed votes. They say he's not doing the job he was paid to do. But there are several problems with that complaint:

i) There's more to the job of a legislator than showing up to vote. His job includes meeting with constituents. Serving on committees and subcommittees. Intercede with other gov't agencies on behalf of his constituents. 

ii) Many votes are just symbolic votes. Unless his vote is required for passage of a bill, or for the bill to pass by a veto-proof majority, missing a vote is not intrinsically significant. 

iii) Let's compare Rubio's missed votes to Cruz:

Rubio: 

14.1% 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/marco_rubio/412491

Cruz 

13.8% 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ted_cruz/412573

So Rubio misses votes 0.3% more often than Cruz. Clearly that's a frivolous objection.

3. Another phony issue is that he's too scripted in debates. But when you are limited to 30-60 second answers, you need to have compact, prepared answers to predictable questions. 

4. A basic problem with raising phony objections is that it gives equal weight to frivolous objections and serious objections. But that's a way of saying serious issues don't matter. If you treat frivolous objections and serious objections equally, then you really don't care about the issues. You really don't care about ideology. But I do. 

Here are some serious, substantive criticisms Rubio:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marco-rubios-record-of-bad-judgment/2016/01/13/e668fd40-b959-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

If you wish to find fault with Rubio, talk about something like that. 

5. There are roughly two considerations:

i) Is Republican candidate A better or worse than Republican candidate B?

ii) Is Republican candidate A (B, C) better than the Democrat candidate?

You could have two Republican candidates who are both better than the Democrat; one Republican candidate is better than another, but the better candidate is less electable. So you have a twofold comparison; two considerations you need to balance: Which is worse? for the Democrat to win, or for a Republican to win, who's better than the Democrat, but worse than one (or more) of his Republican rivals (who have little chance of winning)? 

I know some Christians bristle at those comparisons, but reality constrains our field of action. Suppose I said that if you wish to draw water from a well, you should use a bucket rather than a pasta strainer. Some Christians would respond by saying "That's pragmatic! That's worldly wisdom!"

6. Oftentimes, the debate is cast in terms of Cruz as the intrinsically better candidate, but we must settle for Rubio because Cruz is unelectable. An unfortunate, but necessary compromise. One problem I have with that way of framing the issue is that I not only have some genuine reservations about Rubio, but I have some genuine reservations about Cruz. I doubt he's quite the knight in shining armor that some of his supporters imagine him to be. 

i) Take his position on SSM. In an interview, shortly after Obergefell, he said gov't officials should simply ignore the ruling:

http://www.npr.org/about-npr/418600824/complete-transcript-senator-ted-cruz-interview-with-npr-news

I like that. But I can't help noticing that his initial reaction to Obergefell wasn't that hardline. Initially, he proposed a Constitutional amendment: 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420409/ted-cruz-supreme-court-constitutional-amendment

I have a default suspicion about Republicans who propose Constitutional amendments in the culture wars. I think that's often a decoy. It's a lengthy process that usually goes nowhere. So it's a proposal that doesn't cost the politician anything. A diversionary tactic creating the pretense that a politician has taken meaningful action, when it deflects attention away from meaningful action. Placating social conservatives with symbolism.

I'm also curious about the timing. Between his initial, weaker response, and his later, tougher response, Cruz's mentor, Robert George, came out with a public statement saying officials should disregard the ruling. 

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/after-obergefell-a-first-things-symposium

Right after that, Cruz came out with a public statement saying officials should disregard the ruling. Hmm. Is that just coincidental? Or was Cruz waiting to see how other conservative opinion makers-would respond, then struck a more confrontational rhetorical pose after they did? Is this putting a wet finger to the wind? Did he sense that his first response might be perceived as too weak?

But that's not all. The Lawrence decision laid the groundwork for Obergefell. If you wanted to oppose SSM, it would be more strategic to draw the battle lines sooner, before the homosexual lobby got so much momentum. And Cruz had an ideal opportunity to do so. The Lawrence decision involved a Texas anti-sodomy law, and Cruz was Texas attorney general at the time. He was uniquely positioned to right that battle. Yet he didn't get involved, and there's prima facie evidence that his inaction might be related to his courting gay donors. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-29/ted-cruz-anti-gay-marriage-crusader-not-always

7. Then there's his position on illegal immigration. There's prima facie evidence that he's shifted position for political expediency:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/28/ted-cruz-s-flat-out-lie-on-immigration.html

At one point Cruz proposed an amendment to legalize immigrants, but deny them citizenship, although he now claims that was a poison pill. 

However, one can easily see legalization as part of a long-range strategy. If it's too controversial to begin with outright naturalization, you break it down into increments. You lead with legalization as a first step, to gain a foothold. Having achieved that, you then complain about how arbitrary and unfair it is for immigrants who are here legally to be denied a chance to become citizens.

8. Recently, Cruz opposed draft registration for women:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/new-hampshire-primary-2016-live-updates/2016/02/ted-cruz-women-military-draft-new-hampshire-218910#ixzz3zXQZ3QuB

Although I agree with him on the merits, his statement misses the point. Liberals say women can do anything a man can do. So this is calling their bluff. Right now we have a double standard. This is a way of forcing liberals to be consistent–and make them pay a political price for consistency. 

9. Finally, some conservatives seem to be schizophrenic about the value of an Ivy League education. They usually say political correctness has ruined the humanities at Ivy League institutions. Students are indoctrinated in sheer propaganda. Liberal ideology is at war with history and science. You'd get a much better education at a Christian college like Patrick Henry. 

But then some of them drool over Cruz's Ivy League resume. That suggests a conservative inferiority complex. Is a candidate who attended Harvard and Princeton presumptively better than a candidate (Rubio) who attended a state college on a football scholarship? 

The Overreaction To Rubio's Debate Stumble

Jim Geraghty has a good assessment of Rubio's poor handling of an exchange with Christie in last night's debate. Rubio hurt himself, but not much. His critics are exaggerating the significance of it.

He's performed well in every debate, including the large majority of last night's debate. Trump and Carson frequently commit mistakes far worse than Rubio's. Trump loses every debate, in the sense of being the worst performer of all, and he repeats himself far more than Rubio does and with far less substance. But Trump is often judged by a different standard. He's expected to cross a low bar, while somebody like Rubio is expected to cross one that's much higher. If Trump's irrational supporters are thought to be likely to keep supporting him after his performance in a debate, then his performance is treated like a success. As if Trump's irrational supporters set the standard for him, while somebody like Rubio has to meet a standard far higher. What we ought to be doing is judging all of these candidates by the same standard. Trump has flunked out every time, whereas Rubio has had some occasional bad moments (with last night's being the worst) while usually performing at the level of something like a B or B+. There were multiple segments in last night's debate in which Trump performed worse than Rubio did in his exchange with Christie (e.g., the segment on eminent domain, Trump's comments on healthcare), but Rubio gets a more negative response from analysts and worse media coverage. Similarly, Rubio can have more good moments than other candidates (e.g., his comments on abortion) and a better debate overall, yet get less of a positive response.

I think Cruz had the best performance last night. He'd be a significantly better candidate if he would always conduct himself that way.

The Republican Debates Can Be Misleading

I've watched all of the Republican presidential debates so far. There have been more than a dozen, if you include the undercard debates. I've noticed that some issues haven't come up much yet, if at all. We'll see if that continues in tonight's debate and the others to follow. But the fact that these patterns have persisted through more than a dozen debates is significant.

It's a reminder that we need to distinguish between primary debates and debates in the general election campaign. A candidate can be well-suited for one, but do poorly in the other context.

The audiences will be different. There are lines that will get nothing but applause in a Republican primary debate, but would also get a lot of booing in a debate for the general election.

10 lessons from Iowa

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/eidos/2016/02/ten-lessons-from-iowa/

Iowa results in review

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-observations-on-the-iowa-republican-results/article/2582189

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-comes-out-of-iowa-looking-like-pat-buchanan/

Cruz control

This is a more impressive win for Cruz than it would have been a month ago because, in the intervening weeks:

i) Trump played the Birther card on Cruz

ii) Palin endorsed Trump, as did Jerry Falwell, Jr. 

iii) The Iowa governor endorsed Trump

iv) Members of the GOP "establishment" made it known that they were backing Trump rather than Cruz

v) Cruz took a big risk by opposing farm subsidies (i.e. ethanol) in a farm state 

vi) It was a come from behind victory. Polls had Trump with a big lead, while Cruz won by a comfortable margin.

Yet Cruz pulled through despite those additional obstacles. 

In addition, Rubio surged. It was a great night for Cruz, good night for Rubio, and bad night for everyone else. Both Cruz and Rubio performed above expectations while Trump performed below expectations. Rubio almost overtook Trump. Still, a win is a win, especially in the first primary of the season.

The remaining candidates had a disastrous showing. They need to get out. It's now a 3-man race.  

To make sure Trump is good n dead, Trump still needs to lose a few more primaries to drive a stake through his heart. But this is a good start.

According to Nate Silver:

One thing we’ll be thinking about over the next several days is how much Donald Trump’s inferior ground game harmed him tonight in Iowa. 

An argument against the ground game having been the sole cause of his defeat: Republican turnout tonight now projects to be around 180,000, well ahead of 2012’s total of around 120,000 voters and somewhat ahead of where most political watchers expected it to be. Given how poorly Trump performed among the late-deciders in tonight’s entrance poll, it’s possible he had a different problem: trouble expanding his coalition beyond his intense but relatively narrow base of support. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/iowa-caucus-presidential-election-2016/?#livepress-update-15880819

Rubio, Cruz, and Trump

A few parting thoughts or parting shots on the eve of the Iowa caucus.

1. Here's one potential way the wheels might fly off the Trump bandwagon:
Thus far he's been able to coast on free air time. But successful campaigns are about more than media coverage. You need a field operation in the "battleground states." And a turnout machine takes money. You must hire staff. Have campaign offices, &c.

From what I've read, Trump doesn't have a turnout machine in Iowa. If so, that's probably because he isn't prepared to invest his own money in the campaign.

Trump supporters say he's not beholden to the donor class. But is he willing to sink his own fortune into a presidential bid? Indeed, does he even have a legal way of doing that already set up? He can't write a company check. His conglomerate isn't his private piggybank. Corporate assets are sequestered from personal assets.

If he doesn't have a field operation in Iowa, that may be a harbinger that he has no intention of self-financing his campaign. If so, can he win primaries without spending money? Can he win the nomination without spending money? It's not enough to have air time. You need a ground game. If the wheels come off soon enough, a rival candidate might have time to overtake him.

But what if Trump gets the nomination? If he's unwilling to bet his personal fortune on his own campaign, then he will either limp along on free airtime or else he will need to rattle tin cup for the donor class to pitch in. If they do, he's beholden to the donor class, and if he doesn't, I don't see how he wins the general election on a shoestring. Increasingly, it takes a huge war chest to mount a competitive presidential campaign.

2. Rubio seems to have two basic problems:

i) He damaged himself with the Gang of Eight. However, I'm not sure how important the immigration issue is this election cycle. To some degree, I think the issue of Muslim immigration has eclipsed the issue of illegal Hispanic immigration. In addition, the looming threat of Hillary raises so many larger issues.

ii) Rubio is the ill-fated heir to the cumulative resentment of many GOP voters who are fed up with candidates like Dole, McCain, and Romney. (Some of them include Bush 41 and Bush 43 in their list of RINOs.) And they're taking out their pent up rage on Rubio.

He's at the wrong place at the wrong time. That's ironic because, from what I can tell, he's way to the right of Dole, McCain, and Romney. Why draw the line with Rubio, when he's so much better than Dole, McCain, and Romney? Why swallow hard and vote for them but not for him?

In my experience, Rubio detractors (in effect) tell Rubio supporters: "How low are you prepared to stoop to win"?

But Rubio is a pretty good candidate. Even Ben Shapiro says that immigration excepted, Rubio is a bona fide conservative.

So it's not a choice between bad and worse. This doesn't trigger the lesser evil principle.

That doesn't mean he's above criticism. He's been guilty of some serious misjudgments.

3. The Cruz conundrum

Cruz suffers from a dilemma: the very thing that conservative voters find appealing about him is the same thing that less conservative voters find off-putting. So he has a low ceiling. Rightwingers love him because he's so far right. But that's not enough to get elected. How does he make up the difference? What's his appeal to voters who aren't hard right? It's unclear to me how he expands his base of support.