I’m calling it right now. The 2016 Republican nominee for president will be Donald Trump. And Ben Carson will be Trump’s running mate.
You don’t think it’s going to be Trump? Who else is it going to be? Jeb Bush, the supposed choice of the establishment, who has turned out to be an absolutely terrible candidate for president, who foolishly lets himself get baited by Trump, and who sinks a little further with each new poll? Scott Walker, who looked like a real contender until he started, you know, saying things in public, and until people started looking at his actual record in Wisconsin? Marco Rubio, whose positions on some issues (e.g., abortion) are so extreme as to be nearly disqualifying, who also has failed to meet expectations, and who is consistently polling worse than fellow Floridian Jeb Bush – to say nothing of his epic fail when delivering the GOP response to the 2013 State of the Union address? Carly Fiorina, who is running on her business record which mostly consists of nearly managing to single-handedly destroy one of the most storied technology companies in America? Ted Cruz, the only person the GOP establishment hates more than Donald Trump? John Kasich, who will sink like a stone (all the way down from 4%) once GOP primary voters realize that he kinda likes Obamacare? Christie? Jindal? Perry? Huckabee? Rand? Come on.
Fact is, none of the other GOP candidates can figure out how to deal with Trump. He baits them, and they keep falling for it. He insults them, and they splutter and look awkward and sad about it. It’s fair for GOP voters to ask if the other candidates can’t handle Donald Trump, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO HANDLE ISIS? Or Hillary Clinton, for that matter?
Furthermore, Trump has figured out a couple of things that the other Republican candidates haven’t. First, most Americans – and this includes most Republicans – basically like Social Security. Trump does too, and to my knowledge he’s the only GOP candidate to say so. Second, most Americans basically hate the fact that wealthy donors wield so much influence in politics. Trump doesn’t need donors – he’s practically dead last in terms of fundraising – and he has been railing very effectively on this topic, declaring the campaign finance system “broken” and himself independent of it. It’s something Trump says that even lefties sorta like. Third, Trump – like most Americans – thinks that really rich people (including himself) should be willing to pay more taxes, and he’s expressed interest in eliminating the infamous “carried interest” loophole that helps the hedge fund guys pay next to nothing.
And another thing: the old adage that people aren’t paying attention yet doesn’t really hold in this case. Did you know, for example, that the GOP debate that aired in early August drew an estimated 24 million viewers, making it “the highest-rated primary debate in television history as well as the highest-rated non-sports cable telecast of all time in total viewers”? Those are extraordinary statistics. Sounds to me like people are paying attention.
I didn’t think this way a month ago, but the last month has been extraordinary (the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza described the Trump phenomenon as “the most amazing thing I have seen in all of my time covering politics”). I don’t see Trump going anywhere any time soon. He’s got all the money he needs. He’s way up in the polls, and there’s no reason to think he’s not going to stay there for a while – his numbers have stayed high and even gone higher despite statements and actions that would have destroyed any other candidacy. And, unfortunately, he’s got a message that is resonating. Note, in this connection, that the combination of virulent nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric with populist/left positions on some economic issues is not an entirely new idea, and has enjoyed some success elsewhere.
In short, Trump seems to me as likely as anyone (and more likely than most) to be the Republican nominee. So, who would he pick to run with him? Ben Carson strikes me as the most obvious choice. Carson is (a) African-American, which would help Trump rebut the racism charge; (b) not a politician, which is consistent with Trump’s apparent belief that most (if not all) elected officials are nitwits; (c) actually pretty popular with Republican voters, at least right now; and (d) open to the possibility. Furthermore, he’s one of the few other GOP contenders whom Trump hasn’t yet insulted.
So. Trump-Carson 2016. You heard it here first.
on Jeb. Yes, he’s a terrible candidate who is currently sinking in the polls. But wasn’t that the case with Romney? Doesn’t the GOP always end up with a plain vanilla, establishment candidate as the nominee? It’s still a long way to the primaries and the nomination. Trump may yet find a way to self-destruct. He seems to be working hard at it.
I’m not quite sure if you’re serious (probably not), but if so, you could make a lot of money betting that this will be the ticket! 🙂
Just in case, here are the reasons why Trump will not be the nominee:
(1) The most important is that he has essentially zero, ZERO support from actual party officials or the party establishment. One might counter that maybe being anti-establishment is a good thing this cycle, but keep in mind that there are always “anti-establishment” candidates and they always lose. For some good analysis on this point, I recommend “The Party Decides,” which examines presidential nominations since the Founding. The basic thesis is that for all the hue and cry about “populist” candidates, it’s the party insider establishment that determines possible candidates. And the Republican Party insider establishment hates Trump.
(2) It’s August before the presidential election year. Crazy things were happening right about this time, and even several months later, during the last cycle. Remember the “boomlets” of Bachman, Gingrich, and Cain? They actually lasted a while, and even during times when most people were actually paying attention (i.e. not the sleepy summer months, when “Trump-mania” has taken over).
(3) There are 16 non-Trump candidates in the race (though it seems like a million). They are splitting support right now, but that won’t last. Once people start dropping out — and, to be sure, that likely won’t happen until after Iowa — they will endorse other candidates, and it certainly won’t be Trump. It’s possibly that (say) Lindsay Graham’s or Carly Fiorina’s supporters will turn to Trump, but I doubt it. Whoever is not with Trump now, when he’s riding high, isn’t likely to be in the future. There will be consolidation around a more acceptable candidate.
(4) The media loves Trump, for all the obvious reasons. He’s a shot of energy during an otherwise slow time politically. He’s very talented in gaining attention. He says and does wacky stuff that gets clicks on media websites. Yet this sort of thing has a shelf-life. As talented as Trump is in getting media attention (and he’s great at it), the media will soon chase the next shiny object. And once Trump has no media attention, he’s nothing. He has few skills, fewer qualifications for office, and a grasp of policy that would make a fifth grader wince. In other words, after the media is bored with him, his candidacy has nothing else to sustain it.
(5) Trump’s favorables, even among Republicans, isn’t great. While it’s actually improved in the last few weeks, it is still well below others in the race. That’s likely because a significant number of Republicans believe, correctly, that he would get smoked by Hillary Clinton in the general election. Historically, parties that have been out of power for at least a couple terms tend to nominate more electable candidates.Trump definitely doesn’t fall in that category.
In short, the fact that (1) Trump has no establishment support, (2) that other possible candidates can (and will) get that support, (3) that it’s August before an election year, which means it’s still silly season before voters get serious, and (4) Republican voters themselves (never mind the establishment) aren’t especially keen on Trump, means that the likelihood of him being the nominee is quite small indeed.
To be sure, I’d agree that Trump isn’t a “flash in the pan.” He’ll be around for a while, in part because of his media skills. Will he last until Iowa? I wouldn’t be surprised. Could he win Iowa? I’d be surprised, but not shocked. Could he win the GOP nomination? In that case, I would be shocked. It would go against everything we know and have observed about American politics for decades. I know there’s a tendency to claim that “this time is different,” but it isn’t. Trump is a more skilled, more media-savvy version of what we’ve seen before. It doesn’t change the fact that the headwinds against him are too strong for him to actually get the nomination.
In any case, I’d place my bet for a Rubio-Kasich ticket. That’s because both are electable (according to the party establishment, who history suggests are critical), and Rubio has remarkably high favorability numbers across all constituencies of the Republican Party. It would be a Florida-Ohio ticket, which wouldn’t hurt. Most importantly, it would give Republicans the best chance to get back into the White House since the start of the Obama presidency — which, at the end of the day, is their main goal.
I wouldn’t put money on it, but I agree that a Rubio-Kasich ticket (or flipped) would be the strongest for the GOP. Very little in the polling trends indicate it will happen, but if it did, I think they could win the white house.
just for fun, let’s take up your 5 reasons Trump won’t win.
1. Factually, this is correct: Trump has no insider support, and he’s not likely to gain much as time goes on. My question is whether Trump’s money can help make up for that. After all, what is it, exactly, that insider support and endorsements bring? Logistics? GOTV? Trump can buy all that if he does it right.
2. As I said in the post, I think people are paying more attention this summer than usual, precisely because of the Trump show. Time will tell.
3. Yes, the field will indeed shrink next year. But Carson and Cruz are polling decently right now, and it’s not inconceivable that they’d go Trump’s way. And many of the other likely dropouts (Graham, Jindal, etc.) have so few supporters that it’s not an issue.
4. This is a good point – Trump is indeed the beneficiary of one of the greatest free media campaigns in history. The problem is that the media has to talk about something, and the other candidates turn out to be so incredibly dull that it’s hard to imagine what the next shiny object would be. He will, at some point, have to shape something like a platform. But, as I noted in the post, there’s precedent for the mix he seems to be selling.
5. Also a good point. In fact, I’d say Trump’s high unfavorables are his biggest problem right now. If – and it’s a big “if” – the party can coalesce around “the person who isn’t Donald Trump,” then of course Trump will lose. But let’s say it boils down to a four-man race: Trump, Bush, Rubio, and Kasich. With the “moderates” going to Kasich, and the establishment conservatives split between Bush and Rubio, is it so obvious that Trump doesn’t win?
I don’t think this happens entirely that way:
I think it boils down to Trump, Rubio, and Kasich. Kasich and Rubio can afford a third and second place finish in NH, even behind Trump, but if Jeb doesn’t place in the top three in either contest-and he definitely won’t in Iowa at this point and NH isn’t looking great for him either-than I don’t see how he continues. Even with his PAC money and some establishment support (not nearly as much as either his father or brother enjoyed during their primary campaigns in 88′ and 00′ I might add).
No modern nominee has come out in third or worst in both contests and gone on to win. If it isTrump, Rubio, Carson/Cruz in Iowa and Trump, Kasich, Bush/Rubio in NH-what rationale does Jeb have to stay in the race? Especially if Trump tops both contests the establishment would probably prefer to coalesce around Rubio or Kasich. You might even see them team up early in exchange for that VP spot.
… Jeb has enough money to go to many other primaries. This has for a long time been a game of ‘last man standing’, except with the influx of SuperPAC money the candidates can stand for much longer (and why wouldn’t they?)
At one point does the RNC tell Jeb it’s over, if say, a Rubio or Kasich emerges as the clearer alternative to Trump? To the extent that your prediction pans out, it definitely benefits the current frontrunner by preventing a clear conservative or establishment candidate to come to the fore.
In addition to the far-right European parties/candidates, I would also include the various anti-establishment candidates from the left or perceived left, like Syriza in Greece, or Beppo in Italy. None of them are particularly coherent in any traditional sense, and don’t really align to the traditional left-right spectrum. But they are all populist, bombastic, and vituperatively anti-establishment.
One thing in Trump’s favor is that superpacs have totally overturned the old pressures on candidates to drop out. Now, all these guys need is one super-rich supporter and they can stay in till the bitter end. IMHO, Trump has 25-30 of the gop primary electorate locked in. Candidates have been winning NH, IA, and SC with not that much more than that in fields that were 1/4 the size of the current GOP one. Unless there is a truly mass exodus of candidates in the next couple months (ego, hope, and superpacs make this unlikely), Trump could very well run the table on the early primaries and then all bets are off.
This Trump phenomenon is far more solid than the Cain, Bachman, Gingrich boomlets of last time. He is on a whole other level from them.
Most people don’t pay any attention to politics until after Labor Day, and the first primary isn’t even until February of next year. Trump is a summer phenomenon and will fade in the autumn and winter. As he withers, he’ll get angrier (since he probably believes some of the things he is saying about how great he is, even though every sensible person in the country knows he is a “short fingered vulgarian” as Spy Magazine used to say) and even more buffoonish. Eventually, he will be marginalized by even the Republicans. Keep your money in your wallet.
But it could also turn out to be that this is “old” conventional wisdom that turns out to be unwise. The August GOP debate was the highest-rated primary debate, ever. How is that not paying attention?
I give David 50/50 odds on his prediction, it’s smarter than mine regarding Hillary staying out in 2008 or Pawlenty being the man to best in 2012. It’s clear my early impressions of Walker were wide off the mark too in this contest. It’s important to look at who’s playing the long game. Right now in a divided field, Rubio is literally everyone’s second choice. That’s hard to do in a party as divided and fractured as the GOP is right now. If Trump wins Iowa, Rubio gets 2nd, and Walker gets 3rd that is a compelling case that Rubio becomes the stop Trump candidate on the way to NH.
It means that the divided right would unite around Trump to block the establishment from kneecapping him and after NH Bush and Kasich line up behind Rubio-probably as his Veep and Secretary of State right there. A Trump win in Iowa unites the right behind him and the establishment behind a single candidate. And Id still say it’s 50/50 after that.
Another aspect of Donald Trump that appeals to the GOP voter is his constancy — not on issues, but himself. Unlike Mitt Romney specifically and the other GOP nominees in the past (save for Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater), I think we can be reasonably confident that the Donald Trump who shows up for November 2016 election will be the same Donald Trump that we see today, for better or worse (and the same Donald Trump that we’ve seen forever).
It’s too early for me to do more than playfully speculate about 2016 because so much can happen between now and then.
On the other hand, my playful speculation is that Bernie Sanders continues to catch fire, that Mr. Sanders uses his relentless focus on wealth concentration to peel off huge portions of former Tea Party voters in red states, that BLM and related groups (as well as, sadly, a never-ending sequence of raw videos of ongoing police violence) keep the racism of America’s law enforcement agencies front and center, and that the November election is between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
In that matchup, after the campaign I sketched above, I think the sincere, passionate, and accurate focus on wealth disparity of Bernie Sanders is an armor-piercing bomb into the Achilles Heel of the Donald Trump Bismarck (the Bismarck was a huge German battleship sunk by a lucky bomb hit into a weak spot in its armor, allowing the bomb to penetrate to its ammunition magazine and destroy the ship).
My speculation is that a Donald Trump/Bernie Sanders matchup is the way Bernie Sanders wins the presidency. If Mr. Sanders loses, meaning that a majority of Americans think Donald Trump will be a better president than Bernie Sanders, then my wife and I will immediately move to Austria.
Speculatively speaking, of course.
Sanders would love that.
If Trump wins indeed the Republican primary, I think he might get a 3rd party candidate against himself from a run of the mill conservative.
No way all the Republicans will let Trump represent them, even if he wins the Republican primary.
to beat Trump/Carson, IMHO.
Julian Castro was appointed US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by President Obama in 2014. He is the former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas where he earned a national reputation as a leader in progressive urban development. Previously, he served on the City Council.
He earned his B.A. from Stanford and his J.D. from Harvard Law School. He is married to his wife Erica and they have a son and daughter.
He brings youth, geographical balance, executive experience and Latino votes to the ticket.
If they win, I would appoint Senator Sanders Secretary of Treasury to implement his progressive economic vision of prosperity for all and Vice President Joe Biden as Secretary of State to keep America at peace with the world.
Peace, Prosperity and Progress for all. That’s 3 of a kind that’s TRUMPS all !
A man can still dream, can’t he ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Matt Yglesias and other Voxxers seem to be turning towards his direction. He will definitely consolidate the conservative vote, the question is if the establishment can rally around a favorite in time.
Utterly lacks charisma, but he keeps gaining steam in the polls.
I wouldn’t write off Walker so quickly. He’s having a shaky month, but I still expect him to play well in Iowa and South Carolina. What he’s done in Wisconsin isn’t going to hurt him in a Republican primary.
Carson has genuine appeal among conservatives. He talks their language, tells them what they want to hear. Argues philosophical points rather than practical. Speaks from ‘first principles’. And comes off as genteel and grounded – which is a big contrast with Trump.
What Carson lacks is experience running a campaign and running political office. Also, he has a tendency to shoot of his mouth and let out outrageous sound bytes – which comes down again to lack of experience.
And, of course, he is very conservative. ‘Severely conservative’, as Mitt Romney would say.
Also, when are we going to learn how ultimately predictable the GOP is? We go through this every cycle since at least the 1994 Congressional takeover. “Look how extreme the GOP has gotten,” we say. Surely they will nominate a perfect reflection of their far right base. Yet they have consistently nominated “moderates” (at least in terms of temperment) who are reasonably electable and competent and whose turn it is: Dole 1996; Bush 2000, 2004; McCain 2008; Romney 2012. The latter two at least went through periods when their political obituary was written because someone else got their turn as the shiny object at the top of the polls the previous summer. By that criteria I have yet to see reason to deviate from my long-held belief that Jeb Bush will ultimately be the GOP nominee.
The extreme GOP base works by out-shouting perceived traitors in the party, but Trump out-shouts everybody. Even the Tea Party – even the extreme GOP base.
It’s a contest of who has the highest number of decibels. Policy and ideology get lost in the shouting.
It’s clear that Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate of all those in the field. But part of that experience means that she has certain routines. She is perhaps one of the most scripted candidates of all the candidates in the field. The Clinton machine likes predictability. And Donald Trump is the least predictable candidate of the field.
And how can she attack him in a way that he hasn’t already been attacked? The American people already know that he is extreme. They already know that he says offensive things. They already know he has no experience but his business experience. They already know he is a hypocrite on traditional marriage. What can Clinton do to persuade an “undecided voter” (if such a person truly exists) who knows these things and still cannot make up his or her mind between the two candidates? What can come out about The Donald that is more absurd, more disqualifying, or more terrible?
While you consider that, ask what could come out about Hillary Clinton – whether in her emails or the next phony scandal – that will trip up the Clinton machine?
Then, if the expectation is that Donald Trump is not-at-all a serious candidate, and Hillary Clinton is The Most Experienced candidate, what happens if Donald Trump is witty and sounds “tougher” at the debates? What happens if he says enough ridiculous things that Clinton simply doesn’t know what to do with them other than to give the same-old talking points, which sound lame? Or, alternatively, what if he has been saying ridiculous things all campaign, but then sticks to somber, thoughtful talking points during the debates and sounds relatively reasonable? I don’t know what he does at that debate, and neither do you. But more importantly, neither does Clinton.
Who wins that debate? It’s not clear to me, but I have a hunch: if Clinton gets at all thrown, or Trump lands too many punches, or if people come away thinking that Trump is in any way plausible as a Commander-in-Chief, the narrative will be that a reality TV star wins for not losing to a former Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady.
…as just about the most publicly vetted candidate in a long time. There is nothing new under the sun with her, as much as the opposition might try. I can easily imagine her successfully driving home the point of how big a buffoon Trump really is. Sure, voters “know” that to some extent, but by the general I suspect they will realize that they really are about to elect a President rather than vote someone off the island.
Her campaign, regardless of whom the Republicans choose, should be first and foremost about lifting working Americans out of stagnating wages and income inequality and giving them the opportunity to thrive. She should show her independence from the President and the GOP by politely but firmly opposing the TPP. She should do so now, it’s widely popular position and getting on the record now gives her one safe issue to go to the left of Obama on that is widely popular with independents and even Republicans. She should endorse expanding social security.
I do not want Clinton going into a fight against Trump or a GOPer embracing Trumpism with the same old centrism from the 90s. It just won’t work anymore, working people are angry and they want a fighter who will take on big business not a mediator who feels their pain and pledges to work on the margins to reduce some of it.
Shouting extremism or going after them on abortion didn’t work for Coakley either time she tried, didn’t work for any of the swing state Congressional candidates in 2014, and it won’t work in 2016. People are ready for radical change, and it is up to Democrats to offer it to them. Simply being the bland milquetoast moderate to the right wing nut won’t cut it.
And this is why a Trump v. Clinton battle could be very scary.
…nor do I find our comments to be mutually exclusive.
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but Clinton is running an appropriately disciplined campaign, which (1) is the way to go and (2) would be unremarkable, and even praised, when others do it.
Whenever I see her engage with people, she comes off as honest and, within the confines of being a national candidate, spontaneous. Sure, she has a staff that is constantly figuring out ways to tie current events to basic themes and message, and sure, she executes that pretty well. That’s the idea.
“Scripted,” like “shrill,” is one of those words that stigmatize women who campaign like men.
My monwy is on scripted versus nutcase, btw.
Which is used every election season against the machine candidate.
Cruz is sticking close to Trump, I assume because Cruz realizes that if/when Trump falters he can pick up the supports.
But Trump / Carson is just as likely / crazy…
With either ticket, with the amount of baggage the two will have combined, you could travel to Mars…but they will embrace their baggage with gusto!
Would be impressed by Trump funding himself. He’s a billionaire. This suggests no one would have a problem with David Koch funding his run for President. I mean, sure, let’s get rid of fundraising altogether and just have billionaires run. That’s transparent at least. Sure, no nonbillionaires would be able to compete but at least we’d know which corporate entities were behind each candidate. It would be the ones they own.
While I would not want to get to the point where only the very rich could run there is a world of difference between a self-funded candidate and a Koch-backed candidate. In fact I would tell the Kochs that if they wanted to influence policy in an open and honest way, they SHOULD put their own names on the ballot. I would much rather have a billionaire who is free to tell us exactly what he believe because he is not beholden to anyone, than someone looking over his shoulder making sure his words please someone pulling the strings who may not be telling the whole truth about what they hope to gain.
John Jay, a Founding Father, once wrote, “The people who own the country ought to govern it.” See, Trump is Constitutionally kee-rect!
Sorry. I don’t see it. It’s one billionaire or another trying to exert ultimate power. It’s not admirable.
Beholden to oneself vs. power behind the throne is big.
Per Josh Marshall, Trump is able to stay on on top in this social media age because he is able to attack and tweet quickly all by himself and in his own voice. The establishment candidates, with their consultants, pollsters, and political directors, communicate on a much slower schedule. So Trump is able to pummel them from all sides before they’ve even fired the first shot.
This advantage in mobility, just as in military operations, proves decisive.
I doubt that Donald Trump keys his own tweets and social media posts himself. I think Scott Brown probably did/does, and is legendary for it.
The prospect of Donald Trump as candidate, never mind President, smearing his own smartphone is more like a loose ICBM than loose cannon.
I suspect he has excellent, responsive, and well-paid staff.
Frankly, I think he writes much of his own press releases, never mind tweets.
Given how much Kasich was licking Trump’s boots at that debate, this might be on K’s mind. Certainly has strategic logic, in appealing to moderates and, of course, the most important swing state.
The questions I have about Trump are:
– Can he survive continuing to attack FoxNews
– Can he express nonextreme positions on religious matters and survive the southern primaries?
– Will he say something even more damaging than insulting American veterans? And if he does, will his supporters care?
– Will the primaries that matter come March/April still have more than 6 candidates? If he can win with 25% of the vote, he will. If he needs 40%, I start to question whether he can pull it off.
Especially with Trump, and even about Carson if Carson still manages to stay in the top 5 or so in the polls.
That said, look for three things to happen that could derail Trump:
1. The Republican Party will come after him with metaphorical oozies.
2. Team Koch will have around 10 of their fellow billionaires over at some ‘hunting lodge’ many times larger than my house, at which point they’ll have the (real) establishment primary and pick one. Just about all of the establishment types will drop out in favor of the Koch choice after that point.
I’m really not sure either options 1 or 2 will be enough, though, since Trump’s proven pretty immune to bad press, and I highly doubt the establishment can offer anything the likes the Cruzs and Pauls of the world want enough to get out — so there’ll still be a primary vote divided in enough ways that Trump can win.
That leads to…
3. The Republican Party will try to kick him off the ballot.
Don’t think they won’t go that far? They’re already threatening it. The GOP in North Carolina, Virginia and, crucially — given its importance as an early state — South Carolina are all threatening Trump’s access to the ballot.
It’s like Harding and McKinley all over again! At least Carnegie and Rockefeller built libraries, universities, and museums. Other than bribing PBS not to air their ditty laundry-can’t think of any positive contributions the Koch’s have made.
to be fair, David Koch in particular gives a lot of money to charity. Here are two examples.
The details clearly differ between Ms. Fiorina and Dr. Carson, but the strategy is similar. Fiorina brings gender diversity. She’s got a similar pull-herself-up-by-her-bootstraps story as Carson. Whereas Carson appeals to the social conservatives, Fiorina appeals to the Wall Streeters. Maybe that’s redundant when compared to Trump, or maybe they tag-team a jobs and wealth and growth and success ticket.
I don’t think Trump wins the nomination, and even if he does it’s hard to see it not pyrrhic for Trump in the general.
I feel like Cruz and Carson are the only two he hasn’t. He and Cruz are doing a joint appearance at an anti-Iran deal rally for what it’s worth. I’m honestly more shocked at Carsons rise in the polls-nobody is covering him, his debate presence was forgettable, and he’s campaigning in Harlem not Des Moines. I get Trump-hard to ignore at this point and his viral campaign has really paid off. But Carson doesn’t seem to be doing anything-they must really think all the “credible” candidates are tainted.
I don’t know if Trump has gone after Fiorina or not, nor do I know if it’s “undo-able” or not. A fair point.
I also have no sense on where Carson has been. But, again, if he’s not playing for Iowa and NH but instead building up infrastructure elsewhere, doesn’t that make him a stronger veepee candidate, because he’ll have resources in other places?
I really don’t know exactly how or why Carson is attractive to folks — but, to be fair, I’ve really only heard him a few times on Sunday morning teevee and in the GOP primary debate.
I just find it fascinating that guys who have paid staff and infrastructure are getting outpolled by a surgeon on a glorified book tour. The base has really rejected Walker, Jeb!, Rand, and Rubio in a way I would not have expected a few months ago. I always knew Perry, Jindal, and Christie were DoA, but the others doing so bad honestly surprise me. Even Cruz only gets attention when piggy backing off of Trump, who is obviously not going away.
Kasich has the cagiest strategy, he is still viable in NH and will likely get Jeb!’s donors when that campaign collapses. They will forgive him for Medicaid expansion to stop Trump, but it may be too late.
Do you think he started by running for Prexy or for Veep?
You make the same moves either way, and I’ll bet he is liking his chances now. But was president plan A or B 6 months ago?
…with Fiorina next, so whatever exemption from Trump’s criticism they’ve enjoyed may not last much longer.
It’s disturbing to me that those with no relevant experience are leading the polls. For me the White House belongs to someone who has worked their way up.
I was talking to my dad about this yesterday, and off the top of my head, Wendell Wilkie came to mind as the only major party nominee approaching Trump’s level of inexperience and a summer where a candidacy suddenly caught fire. Both were businessmen and media figures, both ran on single issue campaigns, and both were nominated over the establishment choices of the Republican Party.
A big difference is that Trump holds an extreme pole even within the party, while Wilkie kept his in the center which benefited America in my view, since it froze isolationism out of the mainstream when America needed it least.