ChrisWeigant.com

Thinking The Unthinkable: Donald Trump, GOP Nominee

[ Posted Wednesday, July 29th, 2015 – 16:54 PDT ]

It's time to think about what has previously been in the realm of the unthinkable: Donald Trump might just become the Republican nominee for president. Two months ago, that statement would have elicited nothing but a big old belly laugh from just about anyone who pays any attention to politics. Nowadays, though, nobody's laughing. The very concept has moved from the surreal to the possible. So it's time to actually think about what it would mean for the country and for the Republican Party.

Trump, we were all assured by the inside-the-Beltway media crowd, was going to be nothing more than an entertaining sideshow. His "support," such as it was, would soon collapse, after Trump said something so outrageous that it drove people away. Trump would be a flash in the pan, and then we could all go back to contemplating the Republican candidates who easily met the inside-the-Beltway crowd's measure of being "Very Serious People." Trump would quietly fade away as the real Republican race got underway.

None of that has happened. The inside-the-Beltway crowd has consistently misread Donald Trump's base support. People who support him aren't turned away by Trump saying radical things, instead that is his primary appeal to them. The more outrageous things he says, the higher his poll numbers head. His support has grown to the point where he is in first place not only in most national polls, but now even in many state-level polls (including beating Bush by six points in Florida). Even if his support does eventually begin to decline, Trump is just never going to fade quickly away. Why should he? In the first place, he certainly does seem to be having an enormous amount of fun, and in the second place, he's writing his own checks -- so he can continue his campaign for as long as he likes. Trump is not a sideshow -- he's actually now the main event.

What happens if this continues? Trump is now polling as high as the mid-20s, which could actually be enough to win the first primaries, due to the overcrowded Republican field. If he increases his support slightly, he could easily be the frontrunner in many of the early-voting states. As some of the other candidates run out of money (or out of steam), Trump could actually pick up voters from them.

This could either lead to a wide-open Republican convention, or outright to Trump taking the nomination before the convention even gets underway. I wouldn't want to predict the odds of either of these things happening, but they certainly are within the realm of possibility now. Donald Trump, Republican nominee for president -- not so unthinkable, is it?

The most interesting reaction to watch would be to see what Jeb Bush would do. Since we're charting the boundaries between the thinkable and the unthinkable anyway, it would not be entirely out of the question for Bush to mount his own third-party bid for the presidency, to take Trump on directly. For the past few weeks, people have been contemplating whether Trump will create his own party if he lost the Republican nomination, but now we've got to consider the other side of that coin. Would any other Republican candidate refuse to get behind Trump at the convention, and instead stage a dramatic walkout of delegates, in the Strom Thurmond "Dixiecrat" style? It's certainly also now a possibility.

What would Trump's chances for winning the general election be? Well, your guess is as good as mine. I mean, conventional wisdom would say that he'd get creamed by pretty much anyone the Democrats nominated, but there's nothing "conventional" (to say nothing of the applicability of "wisdom" to the situation) about Donald Trump, GOP nominee. Would a third-party bid help Trump or hurt him? Again -- who knows?

The Republican Party establishment has had to fall in line behind unconventional candidates before. I'm old enough to remember when a B-movie actor (who had co-starred with a chimpanzee) actually became president, much to the consternation of the Republican establishment back then. But Ronald Reagan had at least served as the governor of California -- more political experience than Donald Trump could ever claim. I'm not trying to equate Trump and Reagan, here -- such a comparison isn't really realistic. I'm just wondering whether party loyalty would stretch as far as cheerfully supporting Donald Trump as the party's standard-bearer or not. Even if no other Republican launched a third-party bid, my guess is that there'd be a lot of party regulars who just couldn't support Trump no matter what. But then I could be wrong about that.

I'll put this a different way. I'm pretty certain that Trump as the GOP nominee would lead directly to "President Hillary Clinton," but at the same time I am less sure of that now than I was a few weeks ago. The polls all currently show such a head-to-head contest would be won by Clinton by double-digits, but polls can change over time. Anything can happen in politics, after all. So far, Trump has proven that adage correct, at the very least.

I'm not quite at the point where "President Donald Trump" is within the realm of the thinkable, yet. I still see that as completely unthinkable, in fact. But Trump's continued popularity within the Republican ranks means that it's time to at least consider what would happen to the Republican Party if he actually won the nomination. No matter how much it might terrify the Republican Party establishment, "Donald Trump, GOP nominee" is now a distinct possibility.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

65 Comments on “Thinking The Unthinkable: Donald Trump, GOP Nominee”

  1. [1] 
    neilmcgovern wrote:

    Didn't we go thru this 4 years ago. Remember 'Next President Bachmann' then the '999' fiasco and 'Moon Base Newt'? The GOP insists on some performance art before the main event ... Mr. '47%'.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Chris, does this mean you don't find Trump to be amusing, anymore?

    Is there anyone currently officially running for POTUS who you believe is eminently qualified and competent to effectively deal with the critical issues of the day, domestically and internationally?

    (This is just a test)

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that Donald has said that Palin is a "special" person and he'd love to have her on his team, I'm through with him. He gave the impression that he understood that McCain is a dummy. Now he's going to act like a dummy too?

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Would a third-party bid help Trump or hurt him?"

    Wouldn't this actually involve more than giving insult comedy press conferences?

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "She wanted to breast pump in front of me and I may have said that's disgusting, I may have said something else. I thought it was terrible. She's a vicious, horrible person." - Trump

    LOL! She's a vicious, horrible person. For using a breast pump? Or maybe for telling on him?

  6. [6] 
    dsws wrote:

    There's a difference between responding to a poll, and actually casting a ballot in a primary. A big difference.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Oh, no, I still find him amusing as all get-out. But I am taking his chances in the primaries a little more seriously now.

    No other Republican (all 16 of them) has polled above 20 percent yet. Trump has. I have to take that into account.

    dsws -

    Yeah, you're right. And polling shifts over time, too. However, we here in California had two terms of Governor Schwarzenegger, and Jesse Ventura has also been a governor. Sometimes people vote for these folks, not just respond to a poll. Not always, but it can happen.

    John From Censornati -

    Now THERE'S the debate I would really like to see -- Donald Trump versus Triumph the insult comic dog. Hoo boy -- I'd even buy that on pay-per-view!!

    Heh.

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Ronald Reagan had at least served as the governor of California -- more political experience than Donald Trump could ever claim.

    Since when has "experience" been a requirement??? :D

    Not since 2008 anyways.. :D

    The thing ya'all don't get about Trump is that ya'all DON'T GET how Trump can be so popular...

    Once ya'all come to grips with the WHY, ya'all will understand the HOW...

    The problem is that, by facing the WHY, you'll come to realize that Trump makes a lot of sense..

    And ya'all just CAN'T have that happening, eh? Ya'all's heads would explode.. :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now that Donald has said that Palin is a "special" person and he'd love to have her on his team, I'm through with him.

    Yea??

    20,000 Quatloos, with 100-1 odds, says yer not through with Trump...

    :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    No other Republican (all 16 of them) has polled above 20 percent yet. Trump has. I have to take that into account.

    Yes, you do. But, my point was that you need to be taking a lot more than that into account when it comes to Donald Trump. Or, while you find him and his 'Build a Better America' campaign so amusing, he, and all that he represents, is going to destroy America ... if I may be allowed a bit of hyperbole ...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll give you a hint as to one of the reasons why Trump is so popular..

    He ain't politically correct and he is right more often than he is wrong and he is right a LOT more often than people give him credit for..

    Hmmmmmm Who does THAT remind you of!? :D

    This latest McCain kerfluffle is a perfect example...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Michale,

    I can't seem to post anything more than a word or two at a time on that other Trump thread - how come there are so many Trump threads around here, anyway!!?? - so I might continue our Iran discussion right here ...

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Donald Trump is no Governor Schwarzenegger!

    Governor Schwarzenegger was what we like to call an up-wing type candidate, a futurist looking to new technology, creative utilizations of existing technology, and new structural forms to pursue enduring values and new visions; a political leader who places a special emphasis on big think/think big future-oriented policies.

    You'll find Donald Trump, on the other hand, at the other end of the spectrum, if not off the scale, altogether; he's a down-wing type candidate, anti-Enlightenment with a small politics orientation.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    There really isn't much left to discuss..

    To your credit, you have the text of the JCPOA down to a tee..

    But as we have learned so much in the last 6 years, what it says on paper or what politicians say it says is far FAR different from what actually happens when the rubber meets the road..

    Remember, "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan"??

    No, I think the only thing that will settle this discussion is time...

    It will come to pass, sooner rather than later, that Iran will be caught cheating. Caught totally and completely dirty... And absolutely nothing will happen as a consequence..

    If we're REALLY lucky, it will be the October Surprise...

    I have it easy... If I am going to be proved right (and I am sure I will be) it will happen sooner rather than later..

    Ya'all that support the JCPOA are going to have to wait 10-15 years for vindication.. :D

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Just to be clear ...

    Donald Trump is no Governor Schwarzenegger!

    Governor Schwarzenegger is what we like to call an up-wing type candidate, which, to paraphrase another favourite political analyst from California, is a futurist looking to new technology, creative utilizations of existing technology, and new structural forms to pursue enduring values and new visions; a political leader who places a special emphasis on big think/think big future-oriented policies.

    You'll find Donald Trump at the other end of the spectrum, if not off the scale, altogether; he's a down-wing type candidate, anti-Enlightenment with a small politics orientation.

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, while you find him and his 'Build a Better America' campaign so amusing, he, and all that he represents, is going to destroy America ... if I may be allowed a bit of hyperbole ...

    He can't do any worse than Obama and the Democrats have done...

    It would be refreshing to have a POTUS who actually CARED about this country and would tell off the likes of Iranians fanatics or Putin etc etc...

    I don't know about ya'all but I am getting kind of sick and tired of having our leader bowing (figuratively AND literally) to every two-bit dictator and scumbag leader on the planet...

    When a US President puts the interests of Iran before the interests of Israel, you just HAVE to know that said US President is totally whacked in the foreign policy department..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think that the media should ask all of the candidates how they would react if a woman insisted on her lunch break so that she could pump some breast milk: Would you pledge to savage the woman with politically incorrect insults and run from the room to make Archie Bunker Nation happy?

  18. [18] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LizM,

    "he, and all that he represents, is going to destroy America"

    There is little evidence that his ideas are weirder or more destructive or really even different than those of Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, or any other out-of-touch billionaire currently buying politicians. Trump has simply removed the middleman.

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, that win didn't take long at all.. :D

    What's 20K times 100?? :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    LOL! Your reading comprehension is deteriorating although it's hard to believe that's even possible.

    BTW - gambling requires two to tango.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When a US President puts the interests of Iran before the interests of Israel, you just HAVE to know that said US President is totally whacked in the foreign policy department..

    Try this on for size ...

    When the US Congress puts the "interests" of Israel before the interests of their own nation, you just HAVE to know that said Congress is totally whacked. Period. Full stop.

    Republicans and Democrats alike are doing just that in their asinine opposition to the JCPOA.

    I always knew that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the powerful supporters of Israel in America held great sway over the legislative branch of the US government but, their influence over the debate in Congress on the nuclear deal with Iran has been a real eye-opener for me in demonstrating just how far they will go down the unenlightened path of self-destruction.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    John From Censornati,

    "There is little evidence that his ideas are weirder or more destructive or really even different than those of Foster Friess, Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs, or any other out-of-touch billionaire currently buying politicians. Trump has simply removed the middleman."

    Oh, I agree.

    Donald Trump is quite representative of the anti-Enlightenment, pro-corporate Republican Party. Which is why Chris should not be so amused by Trump's campaign.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    BTW - gambling requires two to tango.

    And here you are... :D

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    When the US Congress puts the "interests" of Israel before the interests of their own nation, you just HAVE to know that said Congress is totally whacked. Period. Full stop.

    I disagree..

    Because, more often than not, there is no daylight between the interests of this country and the interests of Israel..

    You have said so yourself on more than one occasion... I believe "No Daylight" were your exact words..

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Because, more often than not, there is no daylight between the interests of this country and the interests of Israel..

    You know, the irony is that on the issue of the JCPOA, the interests of the US and Israel do indeed align, perfectly.

    The problem is that the US Congress and the powerful Israeli lobby are too blind to see that.

    The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is one glaring example of where the interests of Israel and the US diverge, substantially.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I always knew that Prime Minister Netanyahu and the powerful supporters of Israel in America held great sway over the legislative branch of the US government but, their influence over the debate in Congress on the nuclear deal with Iran has been a real eye-opener for me in demonstrating just how far they will go down the unenlightened path of self-destruction.

    Funny thing is, I bet they would say the same about those who support this deal.. :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Funny thing is, I bet they would say the same about those who support this deal.. :D

    And, they would be wrong, naturally.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran.. ... NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..

    Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear program. You need only review our recent history with Iran to know that.

    The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear programme is because they are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out for you in further detail, someday. If you're lucky. :)

    Now, if Iran had refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could have placed a good bet that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear program significantly forward.

    On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

    Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

    My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long war in the Middle East?

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, it looks like anything I have to say in response to your misguided thinking on sanctions in the context of the JCPOA is being blocked from the comments.

    Very strange ...

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Could it be that anything that is cut and pasted will no longer make it into a comment for me? Does this have something to do with my free upgrade to Windows 10??

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, they would be wrong, naturally.

    And they would claim YOU are wrong..

    And so it goes.. :D

    Could it be that anything that is cut and pasted will no longer make it into a comment for me? Does this have something to do with my free upgrade to Windows 10??

    I am sure it's a temporary thing..

    How do you like Windows 10?? I love it, but predict a VERY busy time at my shop over the next couple weeks.. :D

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    How do you like Windows 10?? I love it, but predict a VERY busy time at my shop over the next couple weeks.. :D

    So far, I've only noticed that I can't comment here on the JCPOA. :(

  33. [33] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It's too early.

    Most people aren't paying close attention to politics.

    Polls have low predictive power when there are 16 going on 17 candidates.

    Fundamentals are probably more important than polls at this stage, but who knows?

    If history actually repeated itself we would already know.

    We are all political junkies here, so none of the above can keep us from hyperfocusing on what amounts to noise plus a tiny amount of signal.

    You can substitute hyperventilating for hyperfocusing in the previous sentence.

    My last update killed spell check. I will try to fix it later.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sanctions have been PROVEN to work...Continuing the sanctions was the ONLY logical response to Iran.. ... NOW, thanks to Obama's deal, the *ONLY* way to stop Iran *IS* with War... Overt or covert, but war is the ONLY option now..

    Sanctions alone, in perpetuity, could not work to stop Iran's illicit nuclear programme. You need only review our recent history with Iran to know that.

    The only reason sanctions have worked to bring Iran to the negotiating table to restrict its nuclear program is because those sanctions are comprehensive and multilateral. The Obama administration was successful in bringing the entire UN Security Council and European Union on board with a sanctions regime that is unprecedented in its scope and severity. This was the Obama Doctrine, in action, by the way. Which I will lay out in greater detail for you, someday. If you're lucky. :)

    Now, if Iran refused to agree to the deal it was being offered by the P5+1, then you could make a good wager that the sanctions would have been left in place, if not further strengthened. Iran would remain isolated, stuck with a crippled economy, yet fully capable of realizing many of its nuclear ambitions. Because, we have already seen that even under the strongest sanctions regime ever imposed on a country in the history of the world, Iran was able to move its nuclear programme significantly forward.

    On the other hand, if the US Congress rejects a deal that the rest of the P5+1 countries worked so long and hard to achieve and that they all whole-heartedly support, then it will be the US, not Iran, that finds itself isolated from the international community on this issue - and on many other critical issues, for that matter - with all of the catastrophic consequences that would surely follow such a foolhardy move.

    Only a fantasist would argue that sanctions could remain in place or be strengthened if the US rejects the JCPOA. You see, Michale, your sanctions arguments lack context and, therefore, are devoid of any meaningful substance.

    My questions for you: Why would you wish to reject a deal before we find out if it can be fully implemented, verified, monitored and enforced BEFORE we resort to any military option? And, is the US military prepared to go it alone in starting a war with Iran and will the American people support yet another long and costly war in the Middle East, especially without having exhausted all of the diplomatic otpions?

  35. [35] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    He ain't politically correct and he is right more often than he is wrong and he is right a LOT more often than people give him credit for..

    Actually, he is wrong [politifact.com] vastly more often than he is right. A recently unconstipated horse could give the Donald a run for his money on the amount of crap he spews...

  36. [36] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "And ya'all just CAN'T have that happening, eh? Ya'all's heads would explode.. :D"

    Not Really.

    "He ain't politically correct and he is right more often than he is wrong and he is right a LOT more often than people give him credit for..
    Hmmmmmm Who does THAT remind you of!? :D"

    Bernie Sanders of course! Trump is politically popular on the right for almost the same reasons that Sanders is so popular on the left. It just depends on your world viewpoint on who you agree with as being more right.

    But both men as candidates are saying what they believe to be true, without consulting poll numbers first to see which way the wind is blowing, regardless of what their political handlers tell them to say, and without trying to appease big money contributors, etc. And that is what people are responding to. Both are generating their respective grassroots support.

  37. [37] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "When a US President puts the interests of Iran before the interests of Israel, you just HAVE to know that said US President is totally whacked in the foreign policy department.."

    Not really. While U.S. and Israeli national interests frequently coincide (That's what makes us nominally allies after all.), they don't always do so. And the U.S. would be foolish to pursue Israeli national interests over and to the detriment of American ones. Sometimes, strategically, American national interests are going to coincide with those of Iran where the two will cooperate together also. That's just the way it is. Historically, just ask any national security advisor under Eisenhower or Nixon or Ford, for example. Or any chess player when there is multiple players.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bernie Sanders of course! Trump is politically popular on the right for almost the same reasons that Sanders is so popular on the left. It just depends on your world viewpoint on who you agree with as being more right.

    I was actually thinking of me, but yer right. And I have stated it before...

    Trump and Bernie are two sides of the same coin... :D

    Not really. While U.S. and Israeli national interests frequently coincide (That's what makes us nominally allies after all.), they don't always do so. And the U.S. would be foolish to pursue Israeli national interests over and to the detriment of American ones.

    So, what interests does it serves to give Israel the finger and Iran BJs???

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    But both men as candidates are saying what they believe to be true, without consulting poll numbers first to see which way the wind is blowing, regardless of what their political handlers tell them to say, and without trying to appease big money contributors, etc. And that is what people are responding to. Both are generating their respective grassroots support.

    So why is Trump a "clown" and Bernie is all right??

    Because Bernie says what the Left wants to hear... :D

    The power of the almighty '-x' :D

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Repeal and replace with something terrific." - Trump

    "And the "terrific" is?" - Bash

    "The terrific will be plans that blah blah blah . . . Now, at the lower end where people have no money, I want to try and help those people and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that." - Trump

    This guy speaks truth to power and doesn't back down. Replace the socialism with terrific socialism!

  41. [41] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Bashi,

    I loved the one about the USA not building bridges any more. They're building two bridges across the Ohio River in Louisville right now. It would've happened a long time ago except for a NIMBY spat with a wealthy enclave (they lost).

  42. [42] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Would you run as an independent?" - C-SPAN guy

    "No, I made the promise that I would not and I will keep that promise. And the reason for that is I do not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican to be president of the United States.” - Bernie Sanders

  43. [43] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Feel the burn.

    Trump re: JEB - "He can't even put on a tie and jacket. He's running for president. Maybe he knows something I don't know. Maybe I should take it off because I want to be one of everybody. You know what? You run for president, maybe put on a tie."

    Trump re: Rubio - "And by the way, I have better hair than he does, believe me."

    Trump re: Walker – "He brings me this beautiful plaque. I don't know who pays for it. Does he pay for that or does Wisconsin pay for it?"

    Trump re: Perry – "He should be forced to take an IQ test before being allowed to enter the GOP debate."

    Trump re: Graham - "He doesn't seem like a very bright guy. He actually probably seems to me not as bright as Rick Perry. I think Rick Perry probably is smarter than Lindsey Graham."

    Trump re: Fiorina & Santorum – "How do you run for office, and lose by huge margins — I won’t say who — but they lose by these massive margins. And then you're "Oh, that's okay, now I'll run for president."

    Trump re: Cruz – "He was born in Canada, if you know, and when we all studied our history lessons, you're supposed to be born in this country, so I just don't know how the courts would rule on it."

  44. [44] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "He has the best chance of winning, I can't imagine why anybody would not vote for him." - Foster Friess talking about Frothy Santorum

    Billionaire bubble delusion mixed with spectacular lack of imagination. He does actually make Trump sound sane.

  45. [45] 
    dsws wrote:

    A Trump/Clinton general would be interesting. Sort of an immovable object / irresistible force situation.

    Hillary has to lose, because elections are decided by turnout and she guarantees 100% Republican turnout and suppresses Democratic turnout.

    The Donald has to lose, because he's seen by the apolitical majority as a buffoon who can't be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, and essentially all votes in a presidential general election are cast by the apolitical majority.

    Any third-party / independent candidate has to lose, because they're a third-party / independent candidate.

    But someone has to win, because it's the rules.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    RE #43

    Well, I am sure glad you are "through" with Trump... :D heh

    dsws,

    A Trump/Clinton general would be interesting. Sort of an immovable object / irresistible force situation.

    Have you read the latest Paglia and the latest Clinton scandal-a-day marathons??

    I am coming back around to my original thinking that Clinton might not survive the primary.. :D

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, ya really got to feel for Clinton..

    She sits on her throne and wonders why no one likes her..

    "I only execute those who disagree with me!! Everyone can AND does likes me!!"

    Clinton's descent into un-electable hell will not be a pretty sight to witness....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since no one wants to go into the WHY of Donald Trump, I'll let Peggy Noonan take ya'all to school..

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-voters-see-in-donald-trump-1438301641

    :D

    Now, ya'all can easily see the HOW.....

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It will be entertaining to watch the GOP leftovers humiliate themselves as they grovel for Trump's endorsement when he disappoints the rubes and goes back to his job as a game show host.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read a funny anecdote by one of the GOP candidates or one of their advisers..

    "Prepping for this debate is like prepping for a NASCAR race where everyone knows the lead driver is going to be driving drunk.."

    :D

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It will be entertaining to watch the GOP leftovers humiliate themselves as they grovel for Trump's endorsement when he disappoints the rubes and goes back to his job as a game show host.

    It will be entertaining to watch the entirety of the Left's head's explode when Trump moves into the White House..

    Can't happen, ya'all say??

    Well, ya'all said that Trump would never even make it this far..

    Ya'all said Trump would implode and whither away after his McCain comments..

    Ya'all don't have a very good track record on Trump...

    Am I wrong? :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of snark..

    Clinton just seems like a mismatch for the party and the moment. The center-left darling of Wall Street talking up issues of inequality. The former Walmart board member posing as savior of American jobs. The "Smart Power" leader whose achievement at state was wrecking a nation and turning it over to Sunni terrorists faster than George W. Bush. A champion of women who pretended the leader of the free world was the victim of his intern. The wife of a man who flies on the "Lolita Express" with a porn star that was booked for "massages." The vanquisher of a Yonkers mayor.

    Is this really the best the Democrats can do? Yes, and that should worry them.
    http://theweek.com/articles/569184/astonishing-weakness-hillary-clinton

    Now THAT is snark... :D

    oh Democrats, oh Democrats...

    How low ya'all have sunk that your savior is Hillary Clinton...

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's really ironic is that, with one important exception, ya'all's opinion of Hillary and MY opinion of Hillary is nearly identical.. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly..

    Even JFC and I agree on Hillary! :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as the debates go, think about it.

    I can name quite a few world leaders that are Trump-esque...

    How the GOP candidates handle Trump will be a very good indicator as to how they will handle a Putin or a Kim or a Netanyahu...

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton's candidacy is toast..

    EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's camp fears a new 'bimbo eruption' will put the kibosh on candidacy - especially from Gennifer Flowers who claimed Bill liked to be blindfolded and tied up with silk scarves and called his wife 'Hilla the Hun'
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180398/Hillary-Clinton-s-camp-fears-new-bimbo-eruption-kibosh-candidacy-especially-Gennifer-Flowers-claimed-Bill-liked-blindfolded-tied-silk-scarves-called-wife-Hilla-Hun.html

    Why the Democrat Party ever thought that Clinton was a viable candidate is beyond me....

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "JFC and I agree on Hillary"

    Wow. This bizarre and baseless assertion really is the icing on the fruitcake. Unless you have suddenly decided that HilRod is the most likely person to become the next president and that she would make a better one than any Republican, then we don't agree on Hillary. If I wasn't already familiar with your habit of attributing the things that the voices in your head say to other people, I'd think you'd been smoking Quaaludes.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    JFC,

    I won't bother to go thru the archives and bring out the quotes where you agree that Hillary is untrustworthy and is not the best choice for POTUS...

    Because everyone here, including you, KNOW that you have stated such... :D

    But, thanx for playing. :D

    I'd think you'd been smoking Quaaludes.

    Sorry, ur the local druggie around here, not I.

    My anti-drug Nazism is well established.. :D

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know, JFC...

    Every time you quote me and respond to my comments, you are telling all of Weigantia that you don't REALLY believe that I am a chat bot...

    You realize that, right? :D

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Dear Concern Trollbot,

    Your amply demonstrated flawed "logic" and disastrously poor reading comprehension combined with your habitual erection of strawmen tend to make me think that I should probably disregard it when you say that "all of Weigantia" is interpreting human behavior and the English language the same twisted way that you do, but thanks for caring.

    The more you whine about not being a chatbot, the more you sound like a chatbot. You realize that, right?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    The more you whine about not being a chatbot, the more you sound like a chatbot. You realize that, right?

    It's already been well-established by myself and every other Weigantian that I am not a chat-bot..

    You are the ONLY one who makes this claim..

    And the more you respond to my posts the more you prove to everyone who full of carp you really are.. :D

    By all means, continue.. It amuses me. :D

    Your amply demonstrated flawed "logic" and disastrously poor reading comprehension combined with your habitual erection of strawmen

    huh.. hu uh huh.. he said 'erection'
    -Beavis & Butthead

    :D

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, since you ignored the point, I'll assume that you concede that we are in agreement that Hillary is not trustworthy and should not be elected POTUS..

    Dismissed.. :D

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dear Concern Trollbot,

    What "concern"?? What are you blathering about???

    Trollbot?? I thought you said I was a CHATbot??

    Make up yer mind, sonny.. Or take another hit... :D

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If history is any guide, they always put the whack jobs out there to take fire first.

    Then the establishment GOP candidate steps in to rescue America from the nutters.

    Though ... part of me is rooting for Trump to win the primary because of the sheer entertainment value. Imagine the new levels of idiocracy!

    -David

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Though ... part of me is rooting for Trump to win the primary because of the sheer entertainment value. Imagine the new levels of idiocracy!

    Yea.. I think the same thing about Bernie Sanders, the guy who has dreams about raping women... :^/

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.