I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOTTOM IS • US presidential elections part VIII

I won't link to another 538 piece on how poorly Trump's doing, but I love this sentence: "How do we know that the rest of the electorate isn’t craving a Trumpier Trump?" A Trumpier Trump might be too Trumpy for even his Trumpiest supporters.

I regularly read news publications with an international focus but I'd guess that I'm an outlier among my American brethren. Merkel seems like one of the most sober European (and possibly world) leaders atm.

Just from hearing the mentions of Merkel in US press I'd imagine to an American she comes across as a tough operator, mainly because of the Greece situation

She runs a tight ship. Italy's been trying to flaunt EU regulations and initiate a public bailout of their failing banks but she's been one of the louder protest voices.

Crazy that Angela Merkel could be described as a 'largely-unknown European leader'.

For even the average "likely voter," my guess is that that is a fair if depressing characterization.

the average voter might think she was on "Family Matters."

Google did not disappoint.

http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.187884428.5979/raf,750x1000,075,t,fafafa:ca443f4786.u7.jpg

Cruz's refusal to endorse looking more and more like a canny, foresighted tactic.

Or a really obvious move that anyone with half a brain could have come up with.

It's not like who Trump is should have been a mystery to anyone! Dude has spent an inordinate amount of time spreading his odiousness across American media and is mostly famous for being a sketchy ass; I don't think you have to be Nostradamus to predict that supporting his run for President would be disastrously stupid.

sure - but the vast majority of Republicans in office haven't done it, and it was definitely a bucking of party orthodoxy (granted this is something Cruz has never shied away from)

so as a political maneuver it sets him apart from the pack of morons

I strongly suspect he'll be blamed by a large percentage of Republicans (by Trump supporters, obviously, but above and beyond)--lumped in with the media, pollsters--not credited. Maybe he's safe in Texas, but I can't ever see him getting anywhere nationally again.

Cruz's gamble is that Trump's implosion will take down a bunch of the existing establishment guys/structure who went along w Trump and opposed Cruz - leaving him in a stronger position as the "true" conservative

I don't really see how any in the GOP could credibly blame Cruz for Trump's loss

It's basic hubris. Republicans thought they could corral and control Trump and turn him into a puppet for their policies, completely against the bald evidence of a) how he ran his primary campaign, and b) virtually every single thing the man has done in his life in the public eye. They basically thought, "we're smart, we can totally manipulate him into doing our bidding" without paying attention either to how their control techniques actually play with personalities like Trump's (they don't) or what the constituency they've built actually wants from a candidate (a boorishly offensive buffoon).

Texas Republican's aren't happy with Cruz

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/texas-republicans-prefer-donald-trump-and-rick-per/nsHFM/

Texas Republicans supported U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the March primary, but they now prefer Donald Trump to Cruz as their party’s presidential nominee, and they would prefer former Gov. Rick Perry over Cruz in a potential Senate matchup in 2018, according to a Public Policy Polling survey released Wednesday.

Half of Texas Republicans said they would like Cruz to be their party’s Senate nominee in 2018, but 43 percent said they would prefer someone else. Presented with the alternative of Perry, just 37 percent supported Cruz.

The survey of 944 likely voters — including 522 Republican voters — conducted Friday through Sunday showed that Cruz’s failed presidential run and his refusal to endorse Trump at the Republican National Convention last month have hurt him with the party faithful.

Not that I have any idea how true conservatives think, but to me the best way to approach Trump was the I'll Vote for Him but Won't Endorse (and obviously have thinly disguised contempt for him) tack taken by Ryan and many others. Four years down the road, I think they'll be seen as party loyalists who did the best they could in an impossible situation. Reporters will continue to ask them how they could ever vote for someone they held in contempt, but within their own party, I think they'll be understanding (and more than that, a desire to forget the whole nightmare).

Cruz will be seen within the party as a guy who engaged in self-serving theatrics on a national stage.

"was"--I guess that should be "is." There's still an election.

I don't really see how any in the GOP could credibly blame Cruz for Trump's loss

― Οὖτις, Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:08 AM (8 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

OTM. Once the dust settles, hardcore Trumpists are the only ones among the GOP who won't be seething with rage over everything Trump cost them (particularly since, at that point, there will no longer be any political reason to pretend that they support or like the man). But, like Trump, they'll need to do some self-reflection and consider who's really to blame for the current state of affairs.

hillary

DJP otm

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/766249028606652417

Trump has no attention span. He cannot absorb information or think. He can't strategize, he has a few moves and that's it. Stop overthinking

Analogies are never precise, but I still find '64 instructive: Nixon the party loyalist was rewarded (which admittedly had as much to do with his off-year campaigning in '66), Rockefeller wasn't.

But, like Trump, they'll need to do some self-reflection and consider who's really to blame for the current state of affairs.

So who will get the blame then? Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

I'm not saying Cruz is going to get the bulk of the blame or anything, just that he'll be lumped in with a thousand other excuses the party will make.

They'll blame the lame stream media, like they always do.

I guess, yeah, in general the GOP is becoming the party of whiny blamers. Wah wah wah, this person wronged me and that person wronged me and we don't get what we want because of those people. No real fucking agency or ownership. There are plenty of people for them to jab their impotent little fingers at.

the Beltway press is already wondering if a definitive Trump loss will represent a "break" in the "fever" lol

So will supporting Trump become the GOP equivalent of voting to invade Iraq? One prob of course is the huge voter block of dumbass Trump supporters, so will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

Since they're already attacking Cruz and Ryan, who the heck is going to be their hero after Trump loses? Can really a radio host as nominee next time around.

On November 9th, the party will engage in some sober reflection, realize whose votes they lost and how, pledge to move more towards the center and engage with minorities for real this time. Can't wait to hear Manson's convention speech after he wins the nomination.

i think marilyn manson is a democrat tho?

Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

― clemenza, Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:26 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Wasn't it the establishment that said that? Fox News and their viewers continued head first down into the dark depths of alternate reality dystopia white blue collar victimization fantasyland without the slightest change in direction.

there will be no reevaluation/realignment. It isn't going to happen. It might after the core old white party regular die off and some other demo weasels it's way into the hollowed out husk of a party apparatus.

Even if Trump is crushed, 40-45 million dead-enders is still a pretty large customer base

will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

The GOP insiders wish they knew the answer to that. There is no way for them to make a clean break from this mess. They're going to lose some slice of voters out of their coalition. All they can do is try to minimize the damage.

I will repeat my previous assertion/prediction/guarantee: whatever else happens, Trump will not run for prez in 2020.

Every day I open this thread reminds me of Game of Thrones, like what big plot twist will Trump give me today??

― Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:21 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and instead you see some dreary shots of starvation in a dying empire and eunuchs getting beaten.

will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

depends on the Dems' improving their state legislature game

As much as I enjoy guessing and trying to figure this out, I think it's pretty much impossible to say where this year will take the party in four years time (assuming a sizeable loss, and not even taking into consideration how Clinton's term goes). Trump has been that disruptive and discombobulating.

Agree that Trump will no way run again. Even comparatively mild second acts like Perot in 1996 and Forbes in 2000 got much less attention second time around.

I think the problem is the GOP is not conservative enough.

good news everybody! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html?_r=0

and per previous discussions of Trump's polling w Latinos: The latest poll of Latinos, conducted within the last week by Fox News, had Mr. Trump with just 20 percent support, below the 27 percent that Mr. Romney received in 2012.

@DennisThePerrin
If you have any doubt that Hillary has the election in the bag, CNN is giving the Green Party an hour of prime time. #GreenTownHall

did anyone watch, btw?

All this talk about the effective death of the Republican party is some bullshit. If literally any of the other (still very weak) candidates-except maybe Carson-had been nominated, there's a very good chance Clinton would be being thrashed right now. And unless she discovers some previously untapped reservoir of electorally-attractive statesmanship, it's easy to see almost anyone even marginally less crazy than Trump beating her in four years.

it's easy to see almost anyone even marginally less crazy than Trump beating her in four years

like who, Paul Ryan? one of the governors?

given his 'murderers, rapists and drug dealers' comments, I's say 20% is a surprisingly strong showing. suspect even.

So who will get the blame then? Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

The heads of the Republican party didn't nominate Donald Trump for anything; in fact, they did the best they could to NOT nominate him, only to have the distrustful constituency they represent override them.

Yeah sure Paul Ryan, why not? Even a can of Spam wouldn't gaffe on the daily

I used "Republicans" to mean people who vote in Republican primaries, too.

incumbents have an inherent advantage though, much harder to unseat someone after they've had the position four years.

also there is no way Ted Cruz would have beaten Hillary. it wouldn't be a blowout at this point, but I think only a Jeb or a Marco could have beaten Hillary and look just how EXCITED the GOP was about both of those candidates! plus Marco proved to be terrible on his feet in debate which coulda easily sapped his momentum.