It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Trump-Mas

"Ohio election officials say that more than half of all early voting on the GOP side is from voters who were recently Democrats or Independents."

Herself got a lot closer to putting an end to the Sanders insurgency tonight, although he has a good slate coming up and plenty of cash from his successful fundraising. A few likely wins will be putting some energy back in his campaign, assuming that he -- as seems likely -- is stubborn enough to not give up.

But on the Republican side, there's no real joy for anyone but Trump tonight.

So I guess the question is, did those early voting Democrats in the Republican primary come to stop Trump or to join him? It was Trump's only loss of the night, to a favorite son candidate in his home state. Maybe Kaisch came over the top to beat Trump's supporters plus a bunch of Democrats, but probably this was the only success of Operation Chaos.

Preventing a second Clinton Presidency is my major goal for our country this next little while. For some of you, it's stopping Trump. We probably need to talk this through, because we're getting very close to having to make a call between those goals.

Personally, I can rest safe in the knowledge that my vote is never going to Clinton -- but it doesn't matter, because I live in Georgia, where any Republican will beat her easily. I could write in anyone I want and be sure that I was not casting a secret or accidental vote for Clinton.

It's going to matter in other ways, possibly. Where are we, people of the Hall?


Joel Leggett said...

I will never, under any circumstance, vote for Trump. I will not be complicit in what he will do to the country and our constitution.

Edith Hook said...

Paraphrased from the Zblog:
"Audacious Epigone has done yeoman’s work figuring out who is voting for Donald Trump and the thing that jumps out is that Trump has broad-based support across the American middle-class. In fact, he is the candidate of middle America right now. Despite all the hooting and hollering about his angry voters, his rallies look like the crowd at Little League baseball games in a typical American suburb. His issues are also directly aimed at the middle......
One last thing, related to the middle-class nature of these movements, is how the elites are responding. Instead of co-opting the issues, they are trying to link these movements to bogeymen like Pegida and the KKK. That’s a telling response and suggests the ruling classes have become decidedly anti-middle class. It’s also legitimizing the taboos against xenophobia, racism and ethnocentrism. You can only call decent people Nazis so many times before it loses its power to shame.

What’s happening across the West is the people are awakening to the fact that their rulers have a very different vision for their societies than they disclose in public. In many cases, it feels like the rulers have plans for the future that don’t include their voters. Those plans may be great ideas, but in stable societies, they must be debated in public. Otherwise, society becomes unstable. That’s what’s happening in Germany and America. The system is becoming unstable."

Anonymous said...

I will vote for the Republican nominee, because the Democratic Party needs to be turned out of office. The current state of the political process is ultimately grounded in the national level Democrat's complete failure to even allow the Republicans input on major legislation, which has resulted not only in increasing voter anger but bad legislation and worse policy.

Amongst themselves, the Democrats blame the poor economy on the inevitable demographics of job loss to robots, but this really is not true. Their economic policy of loading down poorly-qualified people with debt caused a severe and very predictable housing bubble, and then their economic policy of overtaxing and over regulating slowed down recovery from the recession.

Ted Cruz is part of the problem. He has stoked voter anger with a lot of useless grandstanding when he did not have the votes to get his way. I did catch him saying that, as President, of course he would compromise, get the best legislation he could, and keep pushing.

That leaves Trump. Oddly enough, what the man says is far more reasonable than what both the Repubs and the Democrats say he says. He gives these extemporaneous speeches where he deals with something complex,-- such as interference with a rally -- with acknowledgement to the complexities. Then, somebody runs away with a 5-word snippet, and immediately starts making things up. Much of the most effective criticism of Donald Trump to date has been based on deliberate failure to convey his statements as a whole.

Yesterday I read an editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune loftily advising him to do exactly what he has done to keep his own supporters in line.

I still do not trust him, but he might be a lot better than I previously thought.

I'd really like to vote for a President with confidence, and I had hoped to vote for a Republican governor who had obtained good economic results in the last few years, and preferably did so by winning co-operation from local Democrats. Somehow the other voters would not allow that.


Edith Hook said...

I didn't wake up to the Trump juggernaut until I saw the pictures from a Trump rally in Lowell MA. People waited in long lines in the bitter cold of January to attend. It occurred to me then that both parties were effected and the coalitions that existed are under siege. Neither party hierarchy is working very hard to prevent a realignment by accommodating the disaffected, unless you count the smarmy, tired old smears and name calling. Way to go.
To recap some of my earlier thoughts. Trump didn't create this movement. I don't know who is using who. I don't know if he meant to champion the little people but I do know that Bernie is the only other public figure that has attempted to address their concerns. I don't think the word "angry" particularly characterizes his base either. I don't know if he intended to pull back the curtain but now that he has I can't unsee the disdain for working stiffs, like me. I don't actually know what I will do but my sympathies lie with Middle America.

Tom said...

If he is on the ballot, I will vote for Cruz. However, if he is not, I will vote against Clinton. If my vote could in any way keep her out of office, I must use it that way.

The only match-up I would need to think about at this point would be Trump v. Sanders. I respect Grim's view in an earlier thread that at least Sanders is an honest man, so Sanders should get the vote. However, Trump has brought out a lot of people who strongly feel they haven't been represented for some time, and I sympathize with that. I might vote for Trump just to reward them for getting involved, and then turn my attention to persuading them both to stay involved and to be better informed.

At this point, I think we should keep fighting. Miracles happen, maybe Cruz can still pull it off, and in any case we need to mitigate the damage. However, we should probably consider the present battle lost and focus on the long-term situation. There is a re-alignment happening, and we need to plan how best to take advantage of that. If we can keep Trump's supporters involved and win them to our side for future battles, this could be good in the long-term, whatever happens over the next four years.

Dad29 said...


Is this the end of the road for Constitutional Conservatives?

Anonymous said...

I cast my vote to Trump over Hillary, and pray he appoints a constitutionally minded Cruz to supreme court.
Trumps's sister is simply not a viable supreme court justice.
It would be far better to appoint Caligula's horse than his sister.

We do not need two Clinton, or two Bushes, or an Obama presidency followed by Obama appointment to the supreme court, and especially we do not need two Trumps.
Spread. out. the. power.

Tom said...

Is this the end of the road for Constitutional Conservatives?

No president is going to save us, and no president can destroy us. We are a small minority, and the road to victory for us is to convince enough Americans to join us to make real changes. That is going to take a couple of generations, so that's the time frame we need to think about.

It took nearly a century to end slavery. It took more than a century for women to win the right to vote. We cannot be any less persistent in fighting for our rights and freedoms.

Grim said...

Caligula's horse, yes.

Joel, I know your position because you've been clear about it in the past: like Thorin Oakenshield, I don't expect your mind to change with the rising and setting of a few suns. If Trump is Loki, and perhaps he is, Clinton is something worse. Loki is bad mostly not because he is malevolent but because he is uncontrollably willful and proud. The race is coming down to Loki v. the Ice Giants.

But, like me, you are blessed to live in a deep red state. You like me can vote however you like without fearing that we will affect the outcome.

Tom said...

Sorry, my last comment should have read, "That is going to take at least a couple of generations ..." Sometimes I get carried away in my optimistic exuberance.

Elise said...

If Cruz is the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him.

For a while I've thought that if Cruz wasn't the Republican nominee and Sanders was the Democratic nominee, I'd vote for Sanders. But somehow I just can't bring myself to actually write that down and thus in some sense commit to it. So in that eventuality, I don't know what I'll do.

If Cruz is not the Republican nominee and Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I'll write in Carly Fiorina. She as my first choice so I may as well vote for someone I'd like to see as President.

Like Grim, however, I live in a deep red state (Alabama) so I have more freedom to refuse to choose between two unpalatable options. If, however, the National Popular Vote initiative ever succeeds, that will no longer be the case. I have no reason to think it will succeed before this November but I certainly plan to keep an eye on it.

Ymar Sakar said...

The war cannot be stopped or halted, not even by the next US President, as diminished as that Throne has become.

Grim said...

Well, then, I trust you're ready. However paranoid I think you may be, at this point it's not bad advice to -- as D29 often says -- buy plenty of ammo.

E Hines said...

I'll vote for Don Corleone before I'll vote for Progressive or a Socialist. If Trump's the Republican nominee, he'll get my vote.

Beyond that, a Trump win has a better chance of holding the Senate (and House, though that's at significantly less risk) than a Clinton/Sanders win, and that in turn has a better chance of mitigating Trump's behavior than the loss of the Senate will Clinton's/Sanders'.

And, a Trump White House means a Republican VP, with his tie-breaking vote in the Senate and being the Senate parliamentarian of last resort, with the authority to overrule the actual Senate parliamentarian.

It'll be a four (eight?) year interregnum in Conservative progress, but anyone who thinks life--or politics--progresses monotonically is not paying attention.

Eric Hines

Edith Hook said...

Whatever comes of Trump’s campaign, I think we can take heart in the apparent failure of money and that the suffocating PC police have blown themselves up. The preachy scolding, the faux outrage, the endless harping on sexism, racism, genderism, xenophobia is falling on deaf ears. It’s as if the regular folks know that it is an effort to marginalize Main Street and browbeat them into voting against their own self interest. It makes me wonder if there really is a realignment occurring this election cycle. Luckily for Trump, the PC police have persisted; they couldn’t help themselves, even after it became obvious that their smears boosted Trump.
I don’t think this would have happened without Trump. I don’t know, if it was his end goal or if he was just gaming the media to indirectly finance his campaign. Is the “bull in the china shop” shtick calculated; would we be talking about him if he was a mushy mouthed deferential gentleman? Could he have planned this or does he just know how to play others, just like he has a well honed ability to hone in on the weakness of rivals.

Edith Hook said...

E Hines reminded me. Does Trump have coattails?

ColoComment said...

It's good that E Hines reminds us that it's about more than just the WH. I like the Constitutional emphasis of Cruz, but he cannot draw in support from any but voters beyond right-center voters. Trump is drawing thousands from all across the spectrum who, I daresay, never turned out for a candidate before.

It's also possible that a Trump WH could (he is a deal-maker, after all) work with Congressional Republicans, and with luck and pluck, start to reverse our ever-expanding entitlement state. We cannot go on building debt at the rate that is forecast. There's no chance that Hillary would do so; she is not Bill and we have no Gingrich in the House.

Hillary is naked ambition in a female body. I have no doubt that she sold Dept. of State favors in return for foundation contributions, & promised favorable policies for inflated speaking fees, all of which funded her interregnum staff and lifestyle and campaign.

Besides, how can anyone not appreciate at least the in-your-face attitude of any candidate who released this:

Tom said...

So I've been reading around and have a question on this topic. I think this situation presents an opportunity to pull in some Trump voters for our cause (that broadly being constitutional conservativism), but maybe I'm wrong.

David Harsanyi at The Federalist claims the big lesson of 2016 is "people are the worst." He spends a few hundred words attacking Trump supporters, though I'm not sure he makes any point beyond putting forth the idea that they are a mindless mob and that a lot of analysis of why they support Trump is self-serving. (There is a bonus Andrew Klavan video mocking Trump supporters as well.)

Matt Walsh, a conservative Christian writer, has created an enemies list in his article, "Let's Remember The Cowardly Conservative Leaders Who Betrayed Us For Trump." It includes pretty much every major conservative figure who has endorsed Trump from Ann Coulter to Sarah Palin, Ben Carson to Jeff Sessions, Fox News, The Drudge Report, and Breitbart.

My question, then, is, do we simply reject these voters? They're not and never will be on our side? It's been said that a lot of Trump supporters are not Republicans. Would they come over to our side with some (or a lot of) persuasion and some shifting of the platform? Or is this just wishful thinking?

E Hines said... we simply reject these voters? They're not and never will be on our side? It's been said that a lot of Trump supporters are not Republicans.

The Republican Party has been claiming for some time that it's a big tent party, and it wants to bring in more folks. These "more folks" are, pretty much tautologically, not Republicans until they come in.

There's immigration, and there's immigration. Harsanyi and Walsh are illustrative of the worst in the party. And they're upset that the wrong guy is winning by playing within the Party's own rules, so they want to bolt. Or betray.

Eric Hines

Tom said...

I've never had a real problem with Walsh before, though of course I don't always agree with him.

One of the disturbing things about this whole Trump episode is the ways it has pulled conservatives apart. I wonder if the Trump phenomenon is causing rifts, or exposing them.

douglas said...

Both. Which is why it's so confusing.

Edith Hook said...

Here's the thing I wonder about. Why would the Trump supporter vote for people who have nothing to offer besides tsk tsking, disdain, condescension, paternalism?

Edith Hook said...

What do you think of this? Does it help or hurt Trump? Speaking for myself, I have some of the same misgivings, except for the smarmy weasel from the Packer PAC. Yet, again I see no path here for America's Middle working demographic. Compared to the Rs, the Dems just offer a little less disdain and tsk, tsking.

MikeD said...

I live in South Carolina (the State that is "too small to be a nation, but too large to be an asylum"). So regardless of how I vote, it is going to the Republican in the race. At this point, I did what I could to stop Hillary Clinton (for all the good it did) by voting in their primary. But come election day, I will be casting my vote for Gary Johnson and feeling good about it.

Grim said...

What do you think of this? Does it help or hurt Trump?

Probably it hurts him, because most people who watch a show like that will be interested in policy and politics at an intellectual level. That's what would make the show enjoyable. The audience is likely to sympathize with the fearful Republican leaders over the unseen mob hovering off screen.

Trump can, of course, co-opt most of these guys whenever he wants to do so. It's not currently to his advantage. It may never be to his advantage. As soon as he thinks it would be wise to bring them into the fold, though, most of them would be very ready to come inside if a comfortable position were on offer. Once he plausibly has such positions to offer (if he ever does), he won't find it difficult to sway most of them.

E Hines said...

Here's the thing I wonder about. Why would the Trump supporter vote for people who have nothing to offer besides tsk tsking, disdain, condescension, paternalism?

Couple things. One is that IMNSHO this is, at worst, an interruption in Conservatives' progress toward recovering our nation. I'll say it again: nothing is monotonic.

The other is that it comes down to electability. It's critical to defeat the Progressive-Democrat Party's candidate if we can't get our preferred Conservative nominated by the Republican Party. Four-eight more years of Obama-esque destruction is something we can't risk trying to survive. Trump has a far stronger chance of defeating the P-D Party's candidate than any third party candidate can possibly have.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

Trump caused the realignment in the same sense that Gore invented the internet.

Correlation, not causation.

Ymar Sakar said...

However paranoid I think you may be

As the Left once said, one's man freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

But in this context, it would be at this point, false prophecy vs true prophecy.

Ymar Sakar said...

Btw, the easiest way to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans is to watch what they shout when facing their Presidential candidate.

Democrats shout Kerry back in 2004. Republicans shouted USA.

What do Trump voters shout at Trump? In the pseudo assassination vid, it was Trump, although hard to make it out. Many Democrats vote based on this self conception that they are patriots or even nationalists. In reality, they're just obeying the orders of their Dear Leader, as always. Nothing has changed in that sense.