The GOP Stop Trump Plan: There Will be Hell to Pay

Josh Marshall makes the crucial point that while the rules might allow the GOP to play games and deny him the nomination and maybe even put someone on the ticket who didn't even run in the primary, there is the fact that while the rules are one thing, legitimacy is another.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/hell-to-pay--2

If they take it from Trump and give it to someone with fewer delegates it will not be seen as a legitimate result from many in the party. As for giving it to Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, Karl Rove suggested that yesterday and there was some major blowback on conservative Twitter.

Michael Cohen:

"This actually increases the chances that Trump may be denied achieving the magic number of 1,237 in the primaries — more candidates mean more ways for delegates to be apportioned. But it also will likely ensure that Trump will have the highest number of delegates when the primary season is over. That’s the elephant in the room for Republicans. Even if party leaders can engineer pre-convention shenanigans to stop Trump from getting the nomination; even if they can operate within the rules to hand the nomination to Cruz or Kasich, the fact that Trump will likely have the most delegates creates enormous perception problems."

"Trump and his supporters will argue, persuasively, that the person with the most votes should win the nomination no matter what the rules say."

"Putting aside the fact that giving the nomination to someone other than the person with the most votes and most delegates in primaries and caucuses is undemocratic, there couldn’t be a worse year to do it."

"One of the biggest reasons for Trump’s rise is the belief among Republican rank-and-file voters that the party leadership doesn’t listen to them and has even betrayed them. It’s difficult to imagine a more destructive act than Republican leaders telling the voters who have passionately supported Trump, gone to his rallies, and cast ballots for him “sorry, no dice.” Stopping Trump would serve as confirmation of every bad thing that Trump voters think about their party leadership."

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/01/gop-shouldn-try-stop-trump-convention/03slXklW6LuSBHrBYLpWDN/story.html?event=event12

It is not appreciated how much Trump is about the GOP base deliberately kicking the Establishment in the teeth. At a Frank Luntz focus group some of the Trump supporters said straight out that even if Trump did lose the general, maybe that's what the party needs.

The base wants to stick it to the party. If the GOP somehow enables the candidate without the most delegates to win there will be, as Josh Marshall says, hell to pay. 

P.S. Ted Cruz is smartening up and opposing the GOP hope of getting rid of Rule 40-which only allows candidates who have won the majority of delegates  of eight states to be chosen at the convention.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/31/rncs-2012-rule-disqualifies-anyone-other-than-dona/

To be sure, he doesn't have eight states yet, but evidently, he's confident. He does have six currently-seven if you count Louisiana where he and Trump both have 18-he managed to pull this off despite getting blown out by Trump in the popular vote.

Bernie Campaigning for the RNC

A lot of the Beltway is trying to characterize Hillary's recent exchange with a protester in NY as her 'losing it' or what have you. I couldn't disagree more. She's right-Bernie should stop lying about her record.

He keeps suggesting that somehow she's not honest. Some are arguing this is not such a tough attack line and somehow she's overreacting to it. I disagree. What is more primary than you're integrity? Bernie is using innuendo to try to undermine it. He has no proof of any vote of hers being bought.

I for one like her punching back like this. From what I'm seeing on Twitter many agree with me.

He plays the McCarthyite game of demanding to see her paid speeches. No one else in public life has been forced to do this. Why must she play by special rules yet again? Is it just a coincidence that she is the first woman running for President?

Again people in all kinds of walks of life give paid speeches-Gloria Steinem, Al Sharpton, etc. Why are groups sometimes willing to pay so much? Obviously it's always just what is said but who's saying it. That's the market and it's puzzling why this is the new Bernie litmus test.

As Bernie has no path to victory, what good is he doing going so negative at this point other than to help the RNC defeat her?

Paul Krugman:

"Now, as the bumper stickers don’t quite say, stuff happens. But at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters."

So what does that say about appropriate behavior on the part of her rival? Two things, I’d argue.

"First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too."

"Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable."

"Oh, and the Sanders campaign is saying that it will try to flip superdelegates even if it loses the unpledged delegates and the popular vote. Remember when evil Hillary was going to use superdelegates to steal the nomination? Double standards aside, what makes the campaign think that he will get any backing from a party he refuses to lift a finger to help?"

"It’s important to realize that there are some real conflicts of interest here. For Sanders campaign staff, and also for anyone who has been backing his insurgency, it’s been one heck of a ride, and they would understandably like it to go on as long as possible. But we’ve now reached the point where what’s fun for the campaign isn’t at all the same as what’s good for America."

"Sanders doesn’t need to drop out, but he needs to start acting responsibly."

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=0

I notice that there are two feelings out there right now.

1. GOPers and Beltway pundits are throwing spitballs at Hillary-why is she letting Bernie's very gentle attacks get under her skin?

2. Most liberals and Democrats don't see it this way. Jonathan Capehart also calls out Bernie's hypocrisy in criticizing Hillary for raising money form wealthy donors that helps the Democratic party-that would stand to benefit him if he were the nominee, while he refuses to lift a finger.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/31/heres-why-a-bernie-sanders-victory-for-the-nomination-would-make-him-a-hypocrite/

As much as the Bernie bots try to demonize Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz, at least she raises money for the party.

http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/president-obama-endorses-debbie.html

Corporate Shill Andrew Cuomo Raises NY Minimum Wage to $15

He's a corporate shill as he supports Hillary Clinton and anyone who does that does it because they are a corporate shill.

Yet it is perplexing to consider: why would a corporate shill raise the MW to $15 an hour?

This tells us something:

1. Either corporate shills aren't as bad as Bernie would have us think

2. Or if they are every bit as bad, then Andrew Cuomo is not a corporate shill

3. Which would mean that Hillary isn't a corporate shill.

This is too weird. I thought you couldn't support her for any reason except that you are a corporate shill.

Anyway, it's true, my state of NY, the great state of NY, has raised the MW to $15 an hour in the face of considerable GOP and industry opposition. Good on him and good for NY.

"Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and state legislative leaders announced on Thursday that they had reached a budget agreement that would raise the minimum wage in New York City to $15 by the end of 2018, but initiate slower increases elsewhere, even in the city’s wealthy suburbs."

"For Mr. Cuomo, the wage agreement came with clear concessions, as some lawmakers outside the city won a softer phase-in period. Long Island and Westchester County will not reach a $15 wage for nearly six years; areas north of Westchester are assured only of reaching $12.50 by 2021."

"In announcing the $15 wage, New York became the second state to embrace that threshold; California lawmakers passed a similar measure only hours earlier on Thursday. The movement began in earnest in New York City in late 2012, when fast-food workers began the so-called Fight for $15, which became a nationwide effort to increase wages and support unions."

"The wage issue was one of the final obstacles to reaching a timely accord on the next state budget, estimated to be more than $150 billion, which mixes high-profile policy measures with nuts-and-bolts infrastructure spending and aid to schools."

"With the minimum wage deal and another hard-fought measure — one that would eventually provide employees across the state 12 weeks of paid time off to care for newborns or sick relatives and for families dealing with military deployments — the governor was able to claim victory on two signature issues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/nyregion/new-york-budget-deal-with-higher-minimum-wage-is-reached.html

It will be interesting to see the impact of this. As a liberal, I believe it will be good. But again, while a $15 wage sounds very good, its only good assuming you find gainful employment. 

We are now in the throes of what economists call a natural experiment. The wage won't hit $15 at every part of the state overnight and economists will be able to gauge its impact. Still it will be interesting to watch. 

In the next few years economists are gong to have some real data for their natural experiment on higher minimum wages and their effects. 

A great day for NY. 

Overturning Rule 40 is the Last Hope of the GOP Establishment

These days we have some strange bedfellows in politics. For instance, I couldn't agree with Pat Buchanan more:

"Lock Out the Establishment in Cleveland!"

"No matter who wins in Cleveland, the establishment must lose."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/01/lock_out_the_establishment_in_cleveland_130164.html

No surprise: Buchanan is totally buying what Trump is saying over trade and America First:

"The establishment's problem is that Trump refuses to take the saddle. Again and again, he has defied the dictates of political correctness that they designed to stifle debate and demonize dissent."

"Trump has gotten away with his insubordination and shown, with his crowds, votes, and victories, that millions of alienated Americans detest the Washington establishment and relish his defiance."

"Trump has denounced the trade treaties, from NAFTA to GATT to the WTO and MFN for China, that have de-industrialized America, imperil our sovereignty and independence, and cost millions of good jobs."

"And who is responsible for the trade deals that sold out Middle America? "Free-trade" Republicans who signed on to "fast-track," surrendered Congress' rights to amend trade treaties, and buckle to every demand of the Business Roundtable."

"The unstated premise of the Trump campaign is that some among the Fortune 500 companies are engaged in economic treason against America."

"No wonder they hate him."

"As for Trump's call for an "America First" foreign policy, it threatens the rice bowls of those for whom imperial interventions are the reason for their existence."

"If the primary goals of U.S. foreign policy become the avoidance of confrontations with great nuclear powers and staying out of unnecessary wars, who needs neocons?"

"I'm in. I'm a Pat Buchanan Democrat: my sole and only goal is to make sure the GOP nominee is either Trump or Ted Cruz. How do you get there?"

How to you lock out the Establishment? Not allow them to change the rules for the convention and overturn Rule 40.

For a lot more on the background of the convention system and Rule 40 see this piece by the New Yorker. If the GOP can't change this rule, Kasich is out as he will have fewer than eight state wins.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/how-trump-and-cruz-can-control-gop-convention.html

Trump or Cruz or bust. LOL

P.S. Trump seems to get that when it comes to delegate rules, what he doesn't know can hurt him as he's just brought on a major 'delegate hunter' to his campaign

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/04/01/delegate_hunter_manafort_brings_savvy_to_trump_camp_130167.html

In a Year of Trumpism and Air Castles, Hillary Stands Out

It's the year of Trump and everyone is running on blowing up the system. The Tea Party GOP has been about this for years. Bernie promises a 'revolution' that means electing him and little else.

Hillary in a sense stands out as the one candidate who has what Ezra Klein referred to as the 'audacity of pragmatism.' While she is often accused of somehow being dishonest, to run on pragmatism is actually very honest, even bold.

It is audacious to run on pragmatism. Obama governed pragmatically but he ran on aspiration. In a year of Bernie's sandcastles and Trump's drunk on the bar stool positions, Hillary is the one candidate talking about uniting us rather than dividing us into some sort of Holy War or other.

As 2008 Obama speechwriter, Jon Favreau, says-her former nemesis-in a year of Trump, her simple message of love and kindness is what the country needs. '

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/26/why-electing-hillary-in-16-is-more-important-than-electing-obama-in-08.html

Walter Shapiro picks up this same theme:

"Clinton Offers Predictability in an Erratic Political Year."

"Underlying message is 'Everything will be okay.'

"The appeal of Donald Trump's bilious attacks and drunk-on-a-bar-stool issue positions defies rational analysis. But it is also stunning to see the former first lady, senator and secretary of state on the defensive against a 74-year-old backbench socialist senator who draws thousands of Democrats to monster rallies at which he excoriates the "rigged economy" in a raspy voice."

Voters can respond to anxious times in two diametrically different ways. They can embrace the cult of the outsider personified by Trump and Sanders. Or they can opt for stability, predictability and competence in the form of Hillary Clinton.

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/opinion/clinton-offers-predictability-erratic-political-year#sthash.Np2Evq8F.dpuf

In a sense this is only fitting as she aspires to be the first female POTUS in our history. Women have so often been mediators, bringing conflicts to resolution among warring family members. How many times have they meditated between oedipally warring husbands and sons? 

Hillary's role in Obama's Administration prepared her for this role: Secretary of State. In the Bush years the State Department became totally demoralized as GOPers like Bush think diplomacy is for, uh, girls. 

The only respectable diplomacy in a GOP Administration is gunboat diplomacy. 

Under Hillary, State finally got out from years of being under Don Rumsfeld's thumb. Hillary was the point person in Obama's push to repair our international standing that in early 2009 was moribund. 

Mediation doesn't always mean we solve all the difference of opinion between ourselves overnight. Just that we resolve that we won't let these differences destroy us. This is a role that Hillary alone with her background in Obama''s State Department is able to do. 

Are Candidates Favorables Overrated?

You often hear all the hand-wringing over Hillary's numbers being upside down. It's true though her numbers were very positive before she started running. Which indicates a law of American politics: you are always going to be most popular before you start running. People love you-until you ask them for your vote.

There are some new numbers out on the Presidential candidates from MSNBC which suggest favorability is overrated. Yet the media keeps discussing it regarding Hillary.

Trump is the worst, of course, at -34

But Ted Cruz is worse than HRC too at -28

Next is HRC at -18

However, it's interesting to see who's next.

Bernie is at -7. Mr. Purity, is also, already negative.

Here is the most absurd cut of all, which tells you this is a perhaps not so meaningful gauge:

John Kasich is a +1.

It's almost an inverse relationship between favorability and chance at winning the primary. Kasich has a very slight net favorability precisely because he has no chance and up until now there's been no need to attack him.

Trump did make mincemeat of him in that debate back in October when he came in calling him crazy. Trump just said 'fracking' and 'Chairman at Lehman Brothers in 2009' and that was the last we heard of Kasich in that whole debate.

There is a great deal to criticize Kasich over but until now it hasn't been worth the time.

Why the ProLifers are Apocalyptic Over Trump

I think in many ways, Trump just did to the prolife movement what he's been doing to the larger GOP and conservative movement. He took a bullhorn to something that's supposed to be handled with a dog whistle.

His recent comments about women being punished for having abortions at the Chris Matthews town hall has allowed him to dominate the news cycle again for another 48 hours. Is this going to be what really does bring him down this time?

I'm not sure. As usual you see too many talking heads running to declare him done. These are the same folks who have been wrong all along so I hesitate to join them. I will just admit I don't know. It is certainly a gift for Hillary and the Dems in the general but could it be the smoking gun for the GOP to deny him the nomination?

Again, I don't know. I mean, in theory, this could give John Kasich something to hit Trump in NY and the North East with. To be sure, Kasich's pretty 'severe' on abortion himself.

What isn't appreciated is to the extent that Trump believes that often even negative coverage is a great thing, that if they are all talking about you, you're doing something right.

http://www.amazon.com/Trump-Art-Deal-Donald-J/dp/0399594493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459510990&sr=8-1&keywords=donald+trump+art+of+the+deal

The betting markets clearly see this as hurting Donald Trump. In the last few days the odds of him winning the nomination have fallen from 70 percent to 55 percent. His chances of actually winning the general have fallen from 20 percent to 15 percent.

https://electionbettingodds.com/week.html

At this point,  whoever GOP nomination it will be a disaster in November.

1. Trump will be a disaster

2. But the GOP taking it away from someone with a strong plurality of the votes to someone with a clear minority like Kasich-or even someone who didn't run at all like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney-will also be a complete disaster.

But beyond the fact that the GOP is approaching disaster this election cycle, Trump did something else very important in his Matthews town hall. He unwittingly spilled the beans on the so-called prolife movement.

While his position that women who receive abortions must receive some kind of penalty was shocking, it actually put a finger on the moral incoherence and political hypocrisy of the entire movement. This is why the prolifers are so upset with him.

I buy a lot of what Rush Limbaugh said yesterday about what happened to Trump here. Basically Trump is not an ideological conservative, and has never been ideological about abortion. Because prolife is not his natural intellectual position he made a rookie mistake.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/03/31/gag_order_update_explaining_trump_stumbling_into_chris_matthews_abortion_trap_is_not_an_endorsement

Chris Matthews did a great job of taking him down an intellectual rabbit hole.

For those who want the media to ask Trump tough questions. Matthews showed what can work. He didn't come out there necessarily and immediately sanction Trump or condemn him a la Megan Kelly, but instead was able to sort of engage him in a conversation and let Trump hang himself.

Trump tried to turn it around and point out that Matthews as a Catholic should be prolife. Matthews replied 'Yeah, but that's religion. You're about the law.'

What Trump missed is the political game the prolife movement plays. A game that is morally incoherent. They say the want to just punish the 'abortionist' and not the woman.

Ted Cruz, for instance, says that doctors who perform the operation should get the death penalty. As draconian as that is enables him to still say 'But I won't punish the woman.'

Sure, she won't worry going to get an operation where her doctor could be subject to the death penalty.

Here's the problem.

1. If you believe abortion is murder.

2. Then why shouldn't a woman who 'kills her baby' be charged for murder? That was great when Matthews said to Trump 'Fines? You want a fine for murder?!'

It does beg a question. If it's murder why wouldn't she be punished? Why is only the doctor morally and legally liable? What makes the doctor a hypnotist such that she commits murder  against her own will?

Put it this way. If a woman killed her own six month old, no one would have a problem figuring out what she had done and what should be done to her-prosecuted for murder.

But the prolifers claim there is no moral difference between killing a six month old baby and having an abortion. Indeed, some have gone as far as to praise those who bomb clinics as freedom fighters. And why not? If you believe there is a human holocaust going on, then they are freedom fighters.

Yet the prolife movement claims that it doesn't want to punish women, just the hypnotists who talk them into killing their own babies.

"Apparently Trump wasn’t aware of the fantastical but common Republican refrain that while abortion should be illegal, women themselves shouldn’t be punished – a diplomatic but wholly dishonest response in a country where women have already been jailed for ending their pregnancies. Trump also acknowledged that if abortion were banned, women would seek out the procedure in “illegal places,” once again stepping in the anti-choice party line that insists pre-Roe back alley abortions are a myth."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/donald-trump-abortion-comments-terryifying-truth-for-women

Yes, in a way, Trump's mention of back alley abortions again shows he's not really a prolifer.

"That’s why Trump’s comments not only angered pro-choice activists, but those on the right who have spent an awful lot of time trying to convince Americans that overturning Roe v Wade isn’t anti-woman. Talking about “punishment” reminds voters exactly what outlawing abortion would mean for the one out of three American women who end a pregnancy. They don’t want us to think about the more than 100,000 women in Texas who have already attempted to self-abort, or the woman in Tennessee who was arrested after trying to end her pregnancy with a coat hanger."

What this means to Trump's chances of getting the GOP nomination we will have to see. Only time will tell. I do think there is an overeagerness as always to declare Trump over. But it is notable that the betting markets see this as a big deal.

What is clear though is that Trump opened a can of worms not just for himself but for the prolife movement. One that presents an opportunity for the prochoice movement. A major cornerstone of the entire prolife movement has been cracked open.