There are still a few comforting theories out there. The low ceiling theory-though after Trump got 46 percent last night-it's even less persuasive.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/trumps-new-ceiling-exactly-46-percent.html
I mean if it gets much higher he'll have the nomination even in a two man race.
Speaking of a two man race, that's the other theory: just winnow the field, that's the ticket. Jonah Goldberg, a card carrying member of the Establishment, admits that the winnowing theory isn't going so well just yet. After all, the field has already winnowed considerably. At most it's a four man race-Ben Carson isn't a candidate, he's on a book tour.
"While a queue for allotments of blame would be longer than a Great Depression breadline, the person at the head of it is Ted Cruz. For months, Cruz embraced Trump as a comrade-in-arms. This helped send the signal to talk radio hosts and various conservative activists that Trump was a healthy addition to the political conversation. Even though the two men are wildly divergent ideologically, they both found shelter under the “anti-establishment” umbrella."
"Cruz finally broke the clinch in Iowa and demonstrated that negative attacks on Trump work."
"But then, disastrously, Cruz stopped attacking. He wrongly reasoned that he had no chance in New Hampshire and had little to gain, so why bother fighting Trump there? For the entire crucial week leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the GOP field went back into a cannibalistic frenzy to win the non-Trump mantle. This allowed Trump to run up a huge victory in the Granite State, and that momentum let him gobble up Cruz’s evangelical base in South Carolina (where 73 percent of voters describe themselves as evangelical or born-again), resulting in a strategically devastating third-place finish that shattered Cruz’s claim to be the standard-bearer of true conservatism."
"The morals of this story so far should be familiar. First, you can’t count on politicians to look beyond their immediate tactical self-interest. Second, rumors of the so-called establishment’s power — or even existence — are greatly exaggerated. Waiting for “the establishment” to save the party from Trump’s hostile takeover is like waiting for Godot to bring the beer to the party."
"Marco Rubio is now the only plausible alternative to Trump. But it’s unclear whether he’s taken either of these lessons to heart. According to his campaign’s post–South Carolina strategy memo, he thinks he can wait until after Super Tuesday to post a win in any state. Rubio assumes first-place finishes will ultimately come his way because the field will be clear. Will it? Jeb Bush is finally out, but Ben Carson seems to be running one of the most ingeniously disguised book tours in modern memory. John Kasich is hunting windmills in Ohio and Michigan, in the apparent hope that he can parlay such victories into being Trump’s running mate. And Cruz is unlikely to stop running for president because that’s all he knows how to do."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/24/rubio_is_the_only_plausible_alternative_to_trump_129771.html
Goldberg engages in some historical revisionism here I think. Cruz won in Iowa largely because he had a great ground game and that was his state to win.
But he thinks the answer is for the field to winnow just a little more. Cruz should step out. A unity ticket is the answer:
"Is there another way? One possibility would be for Rubio and Cruz to cut a deal. Republican disarray is largely attributable to the fact that no so-called “establishment candidate” secured much support from the conservative grass roots, and no grass-roots candidate secured much support from the establishment."
"If the two factions — which make up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters — could be unified, it might be enough to stop Trump."
"What would the deal look like? A Rubio–Cruz ticket. Cruz won’t work at the top of the ticket for the simple reason that too many GOP quislings fear Cruz more than Trump. But a unity ticket — a la Reagan–Bush in 1980 — in the form of Los Hermanos Cubanos might just do the trick. There are real costs to such a deal (not least the fact that there are better general-election running mates for Rubio)."
"Maybe there’s another way, but I haven’t heard it. And in a race where Trump has changed everything with his boldness, it’s long past time for his opponents to provide some of their own."
But Cruz is not Establishment and is in no way a team player. Remember this is the man who once shut down the government by himself in 2013 to the detriment of his own party. Now he's who is going to bail them out? Especially the way the whole Estalbihsment seems to even favor Trump.
Actually, Goldberg''s analysis misses this fact. In Iowa, the GOP Establishment did everything they could to cut Cruz off at the knees. Unlike Goldberg they seem to think Trump not Cruz is the lesser evil.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/02/trumps-new-ceiling-exactly-46-percent.html
I mean if it gets much higher he'll have the nomination even in a two man race.
Speaking of a two man race, that's the other theory: just winnow the field, that's the ticket. Jonah Goldberg, a card carrying member of the Establishment, admits that the winnowing theory isn't going so well just yet. After all, the field has already winnowed considerably. At most it's a four man race-Ben Carson isn't a candidate, he's on a book tour.
"While a queue for allotments of blame would be longer than a Great Depression breadline, the person at the head of it is Ted Cruz. For months, Cruz embraced Trump as a comrade-in-arms. This helped send the signal to talk radio hosts and various conservative activists that Trump was a healthy addition to the political conversation. Even though the two men are wildly divergent ideologically, they both found shelter under the “anti-establishment” umbrella."
"Cruz finally broke the clinch in Iowa and demonstrated that negative attacks on Trump work."
"But then, disastrously, Cruz stopped attacking. He wrongly reasoned that he had no chance in New Hampshire and had little to gain, so why bother fighting Trump there? For the entire crucial week leading up to the New Hampshire primary, the GOP field went back into a cannibalistic frenzy to win the non-Trump mantle. This allowed Trump to run up a huge victory in the Granite State, and that momentum let him gobble up Cruz’s evangelical base in South Carolina (where 73 percent of voters describe themselves as evangelical or born-again), resulting in a strategically devastating third-place finish that shattered Cruz’s claim to be the standard-bearer of true conservatism."
"The morals of this story so far should be familiar. First, you can’t count on politicians to look beyond their immediate tactical self-interest. Second, rumors of the so-called establishment’s power — or even existence — are greatly exaggerated. Waiting for “the establishment” to save the party from Trump’s hostile takeover is like waiting for Godot to bring the beer to the party."
"Marco Rubio is now the only plausible alternative to Trump. But it’s unclear whether he’s taken either of these lessons to heart. According to his campaign’s post–South Carolina strategy memo, he thinks he can wait until after Super Tuesday to post a win in any state. Rubio assumes first-place finishes will ultimately come his way because the field will be clear. Will it? Jeb Bush is finally out, but Ben Carson seems to be running one of the most ingeniously disguised book tours in modern memory. John Kasich is hunting windmills in Ohio and Michigan, in the apparent hope that he can parlay such victories into being Trump’s running mate. And Cruz is unlikely to stop running for president because that’s all he knows how to do."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/24/rubio_is_the_only_plausible_alternative_to_trump_129771.html
Goldberg engages in some historical revisionism here I think. Cruz won in Iowa largely because he had a great ground game and that was his state to win.
But he thinks the answer is for the field to winnow just a little more. Cruz should step out. A unity ticket is the answer:
"Is there another way? One possibility would be for Rubio and Cruz to cut a deal. Republican disarray is largely attributable to the fact that no so-called “establishment candidate” secured much support from the conservative grass roots, and no grass-roots candidate secured much support from the establishment."
"If the two factions — which make up the overwhelming majority of Republican voters — could be unified, it might be enough to stop Trump."
"What would the deal look like? A Rubio–Cruz ticket. Cruz won’t work at the top of the ticket for the simple reason that too many GOP quislings fear Cruz more than Trump. But a unity ticket — a la Reagan–Bush in 1980 — in the form of Los Hermanos Cubanos might just do the trick. There are real costs to such a deal (not least the fact that there are better general-election running mates for Rubio)."
"Maybe there’s another way, but I haven’t heard it. And in a race where Trump has changed everything with his boldness, it’s long past time for his opponents to provide some of their own."
But Cruz is not Establishment and is in no way a team player. Remember this is the man who once shut down the government by himself in 2013 to the detriment of his own party. Now he's who is going to bail them out? Especially the way the whole Estalbihsment seems to even favor Trump.
Actually, Goldberg''s analysis misses this fact. In Iowa, the GOP Establishment did everything they could to cut Cruz off at the knees. Unlike Goldberg they seem to think Trump not Cruz is the lesser evil.
Erick Erickson is bitching and moaning about being smart and winnowing the field... and now he's suggesting Rick Perry get back in it! Yes, a "dispassionate" realist that one.
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/rick-perry-for-president/
Good, I hope Perry does get back in.
There is actually at least one clear thinker over at his new site though "The Resurgent"... (Lol, what an effed up name considering that state of affairs): this guys sees the end of the two party system (at least in the near future):
http://theresurgent.com/on-the-death-of-the-two-party-system/
I'm still waiting to see another light bulb go off over their (seeing as a few have already over the past 24 hrs), how about this:
"Maybe we shouldn't have been anti-compromise. Looks like 0% of what we want sucks worse than non-zero %. Oops."
The irony is Obama was set to give them chained CPI on SS and discussed raising the age for receiving Medicare benefits in 2011.
ReplyDeleteFat chance that ever happens again. Now the Dems debate how best to expand it.
In 2011 Nancy Pelosi was willing to just have the Bush tax cuts on those making at least $1 million expire in exchange for all those cuts and discussing 'tax reform' and the GOP said no.
In 2013 B TCs expired for those who make more than $450,000 per year and goodbye and good riddance to cutting corporate tax rates, etc.
Well played GOP