Friday, December 11, 2015

The Trump Conspiracy

Is Trump a closeted bag man for the Dems?  Are candidates like Lindsey Graham not a closeted bag man for the Dems?  Too many moving pieces right now methinks.  Some thoughts:
  • The GOP has become the party of Bush/Dem-lite. Witness the chest beating, self righteous outrage over Trumps reasonable proposal that immigration from Muslim nations be suspended until the Feds know what they're doing (which to be fair will be never, thus the source of the outrage).  Only Ted Cruz, from what I read briefly, made a reasoned rebuttal, but the rest of the GOP is indistinguishable from the wackos on the left.
  • There's stuff like this inferring that the GOP elite want to force a brokered convention (very difficult with their current rules) which leads one to believe that money men behind the GOP who care about one thing, slave labor rates and how to get more of them, are determined to force the car off the cliff if they aren't allowed to drive.  The big disappointment for me from the primary candidates was Scott Walker whose normally tough nosed approach and good governance could have easily stolen Trumps thunder but for the fact that he was forced to tow a very unpopular immigration line so that he could get national level funding.
  • One of the writers at Instapundit is very hard on Trump and believes him to be an absolute phony who doesn't actually stand for what he says and is lying through his teeth for some sort of ulterior motive (The "Hillary for prez" idea being one of them).  The comments, in turn, are just as hard on him.  It seems to me that Trump could have found an easier path to accomplish such a byzantine plan.  Backing this up is that I've seen comments that state that Trump's blowhard persona says makes sense if you've ever read his book (which I have not).  You can already see him dragging the entire immigration argument to the conservative right (though events have certainly helped him out); not exactly the result a secret far left candidate would be gunning for.
  • The left is a basket case.  Far lefties love Bernie while the more "level headed" realize how bad off they are.  They're running interference in trying to bring down Trump (and to a lesser extent Ted Cruz) while desperately trying to pump up farther left Republican candidates like Rubio and Kasich.  I think the Trump noise is even louder in this echo chamber; if the Dems had a strong candidate they would probably just ignore the GOP field entirely knowing that the electoral college math favors them.  As it is though they have to bring the full weight of their media and institutional might to bear on every perceived GOP snafu.  This has turned out to be a double edged sword though since they have repeatedly ended up broadcasting Trump saying what everyone else was thinking (I stole that bit from Dilbert man Scott Adams, who is not a Trump fan).
  • The Republican Congress has proven worthless.  Many GOPers (to an extent myself included) think that the current post-Gingrich paradigm needs to be blown up.  The results of such an event are probably overrated, but at the very least, if a candidate was elected President who was unpopular with his own party in Congress that would force a return to some balance of power instead of unelected executive bureaucrats basically running the country.
  • Again I think the closest equivalent to Trump is Italy's Silvio Berlusconi.  The fact that such an amoral sleazebag could be such an improvement over your regular run-of-the-mill Italian politician tells you everything that you need to know about the state of our political elites today.  People like Ed Driscoll and Scott Adams may think the absolute worst of Trump, but even if what everything they say is true (which I don't think that it is) they need to accept the fact that he would still not be the worst candidate on the stage.
Here's the rub with the current GOP nomination rules: in most (all?) states, the winning candidate gets all the delegate votes, thus it's theoretically possible for a candidate to win more than they lose, even win substantially more votes than they lose, but still lose big in the delegate count (and obviously, vice versa).  This was originally engineered to keep Ron Paul delegates out of the convention, but what if, say, Trump manages to pull the stunt of losing the vote, but winning the delegates (by scooping up non-majority wins in places like New York, California, Florida, and Ohio)?  And the opposite could also happen, or any other manner of combinations.  Again, the GOP has brought this on itself in a number of ways.  In this light, and with all the information that we have, I'm given to think that Trump's threat of an independent run has more to do with trying to keep the GOP honest (good luck) than some conspiracy in him trying to make sure that they lose.

No comments: