February 27, 2016

GOP Establishment pondering an independent run for one of their own, too dumb to see it would guarantee Trump victory

In further examples of how ass-backwards the Establishment is thinking and acting in our climate of realignment, this post at Politico says that members of the donor class have started to research the feasibility of running a candidate not named Trump on a third-party ticket, in the increasingly likely case where Trump gets the GOP nomination.

Forget the details of their plan. Just step back and ask: where would this cuckservative candidate pick up any of the popular vote at all? In heavily red states, where the most hardcore Old Guard Republicans can be found in any decent numbers per capita. Mostly the Plains and the South, and if the primaries so far are any guide, more so in the Plains (Iowa going for Cruz) than in the South (South Carolina going for Trump).

And therein lies the irony -- even if the third-party Establishment candidate siphoned off a non-trivial amount of would-be Republican voters, there is so much slack left in these deeply red states that Trump's chunk of the electorate would still clear 50% and give him all the electoral votes, while the cuck would get 0.

There's no way the cuck could convert any of the state's Democratic voters either -- he would be the very definition of outdated Republican baggage.

Let's just play with a few numbers to see how futile their efforts would be. Most would-be Republican voters are going to vote Trump if he's the nominee. I'd be surprised if even 10% of the state's Republican voters were so bitter and puritanical that they'd vote for a sure loser just to spite Trump for his "hostile takeover," i.e. democratization, of their precious party, in the hopes of sinking Trump for this cycle and starting the war all over again for the GOP nomination in 2020.

We'll just go with the percent of the state that voted for Romney in 2012, and carve away 10% of it for these hardcore cuck voters, leaving 90% of those who voted Romney. (This is an underestimate, since Trump will be getting a good level of defection from the Democrats.) Where would "90% of Romney's vote" still put Trump over 50%? Where Romney's share of the vote was at least 55-56%. This includes:

Utah
Wyoming
Idaho
Montana
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Kansas
North Dakota
South Dakota
Texas
Arkansas
West Virginia
Alabama
Kentucky
Tennessee
Louisiana
Mississippi

This is the Mountains, the Plains, and the inland part of the South. It does not include the red states or the neither-red-nor-blue states in the Midwest and along the Atlantic coast.

But that works out perfectly for Trump. In the states where the cuck constituency is most likely to be found, their defection would not rob Trump of the electoral votes. And where a defection from Trump of 10% would endanger him, the cuck voters are far less numerous and wouldn't even come close to 10% of Republicans (Rust Belt, southern Atlantic).

Moreover, Trump could use the presence of a third-party made up of bitter old-guard Republicans to even further enhance his appeal to independents and Democrats in blue states, in order to turn them red for Trump. It would even more vividly distinguish him from the cuckservative losers who the Dem voters associate with the GOP.

Folks, I understand -- you don't want to be saddled with the baggage of the old Republican Party. If our movement hadn't taken it over, honestly, I'd call it 'The Failing Party of the Bushies' -- no, think about it. But look who you're talking to now -- I'm the guy who eviscerated the Bush dynasty in front of a debate hall packed with Establishment hacks and donors on national TV, and still won the popular vote in that state. Along with 100% of the delegates that really matter, but these are minor details.

With Trump, folks, you aren't gonna have to worry anymore about maybe possibly choosing to vote Republican. I know, before you guys in the blue states, you would've been embarrassed, but all that... garbage... that you're reacting to has been flushed right out of the Party, and they're now running their own pathetic third-party ticket. I call it 'The Circling the Drain Ticket" -- no, it's true! It's true!

The last thing this country needs is another Clinton, or another Bushy. Those people are not going to lead you into the Promised Land, that I can tell you. Stand with Trump, and together we will make America great again!

The fact that the elites can't even tell that the barrel of this third-party gun is bent right back toward their own faces, is further encouragement that they are so out-of-touch with the changing new world that they are going to be trivial to knock over.

It's no different from what we saw in Bloomberg's potential third-party run. He, too, is too dumb-from-insulation to realize that his best chance would be in a world where Clinton and Bush/Rubio were the nominees, revealing popular demand for Establishment candidates. Instead, the clueless rat thinks his best chances are if Sanders and Trump are the nominees, where he would hope to corner the market on Establishment voters -- despite their near invisible numbers in a population that chose Sanders and Trump.

Insulation must be the most intelligence-corroding force in the universe. Good news for the Trump movement.

14 comments:

  1. They're not the Stupid Party for no reason.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A bit off topic but did anyone watch the NBC News last night? Lester Holt introduced this piece by Cynthia McFadden stating that Trump's company used Polish illegals to help build the Trump Tower or some project. But then after the segment was over McFadden states that one illegal she spoke to who has since become a citizen told her he bears no grudge and may vote for Trump. Bet NBC didn't want that said out loud.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It can be overstated, the Neocohens are the GOP establishment and a Trump Presidency could realign the entire conservative movement in the US and this is extremely scary for the Shekelsteins.

    ReplyDelete
  4. advancedatheist2/27/16, 8:28 AM

    The Hitler comparisons also sound ridiculous. What could a President Donald Trump possibly do so that Jews 50 years from now will try to discredit a politician in that era they oppose by comparing him to Trump?

    This Hitler nonsense even comes from unlikely sources, like Danielle Allen's piece the other day about the urgent need to stop Trump from becoming our next Hitler, published in the Washington Post. Miss Allen, a black woman with a Ph.D. in classics from Cambridge University(!), apparently didn't absorb a sophisticated understanding of history and politics from her study of Greek and Roman literature. Otherwise she might have chosen a less stereotyped model for understanding Trump by comparing him to a figure from antiquity like Julius Caesar or something.

    Hitler shows signs of receding in people's awareness as he assumes a more normal role among long-ago historical figures. As late as the 1990s' we still had plenty of people around who remembered Hitler and maintained his bad reputation. Now that this generation has nearly vanished, the emotional baggage they carried about Hitler will vanish with them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think the Republican establishment is stupid enough to trash their chances in the national election to back a 3rd party candidate, although I'd love it if they did.

    As for the Hitler comparison, I agree it's a little off base. Trump is more reminiscent of Mussolini. Stir up our most fearful aspects and codify it into a platform. That's Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hysterical comparisons, aside from being lame, don't convince normal people (only for nuts). Trump is McKinley:

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/01/trump-as-re-born-mckinley-with-neo.html

    From Ancient Rome, he'd be more like Diocletian, the first to start healing the Empire together after the increasing competitiveness, fragmentation, and polarization of the Crisis of the Third Century. That leaves our Constantine still ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I don't think the Republican establishment is stupid enough to trash their chances in the national election to back a 3rd party candidate"

    It's the donors who are investigating the third-party thing. If they pull out of funding Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, etc., their campaigns are over immediately. That's the only reason why candidates end their campaign -- running out of funds from donors.

    If that funding goes toward the third-party candidate, then they're the one campaigning.

    It's not up to the politicians, consultants, etc., themselves -- it's the donors who pull the strings.

    ReplyDelete
  8. A failing ruling class that's insulated and clueless doesn't even realize that they've lost the mandate of heaven and are destroying before their subjects whatever shreds might remain of their legitimacy.
    With the advent of internet they can't limit opinion to a few editorial columns and TV shows anymore. Any fool online can compete with "the experts." The Gods are brought down to earth.
    It's a lot of fun watching them flap about and struggle uselessly after watching them dominate with their idiocy most of my life.

    ReplyDelete
  9. advancedatheist2/27/16, 9:40 PM

    You have to wonder how much of Trump's success so far reflects shrewd strategy versus dumb luck. If he managed to get establishment Republican donors to squander $150 million on Jeb the Crypto-Mexican with nothing to show for it except Jeb's defeat and humiliation, that must have eaten up a big percentage of the budget that could have gone towards a third-party challenger to Trump. How much more money can these donors come up with, especially in an economically precarious year? And did Trump plan on hid opponents' miscalculated waste of money as part of his strategy?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Random Dude on the Internet2/27/16, 9:51 PM

    This is supposed to be a threat. I have little doubt that the donors will actually go through with it, they just want the establishment Republicans to be scared just enough to vote for Rubio or Cruz on Tuesday. Now that Trump is starting to get some endorsements, they know that the floodgates could open on Wednesday where countless Republicans come out to support Donald Trump. With current polls, Marco Rubio is unlikely to win a single state on Tuesday. Ted Cruz will win Texas and Donald Trump will win the rest.

    No donor is going to risk getting on the ugly side of a guy who will likely spend the next eight years as President. They will fall in line, with gritted teeth, but they will fall in line. I can see some of the old Neocon guard refusing to work with Trump but good, nobody wants them anyway. People like the Bush family, Wolfowitz, Romney, are all part of a bygone era that it seems like the GOP base is ready to move on from. These people are burning a big bridge here but seem too wrapped up in their own BS to realize it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. George Romney leads the GOPe betrayal of Goldwater. Mitt Romney leads the GOPe betrayal of Trump almost half a century later.... Maybe I am stretching things a bit, but this is pretty funny to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here's one elite who get it: Joel Kotkin, judging from http://www.ocregister.com/articles/white-705940-trump-percent.html. It's not letting me cut and paste, but he basically says that to the horror of the libertarians, race hustlers, and cultural strivers, class has dominated this cycle. He cites alarming measures of insecure employment among whites and also accounts for the immigrants against whom said whites compete in order to make the case that class issues will reign from now on.

    He also says that while Hillary is indeed using race to her advantage, it looks like Millennial blacks might not hold the grievances of their elders while Trump did relatively well with latinos in Nevada. As Kotkin admits, non-elite latinos who've made it to America or grew up in America have no real reason to cheer on their co-ethnics swamping America.

    I also read a good dissection of Hillary's career which pointed out that Clinton has somehow escaped the black animosity that you would think would've been provoked by presiding over 1990's anti welfare and anti crime bills. Both of which did lots of damage to blacks. I guess being told that Republicans rednecks hate you for 30+ years has really had an effect on blacks, who don't even realize that since 1990 most elite democrats became nearly as hostile towards communal well-being as Republicans. White or black, the elites firmly turned their backs on low/middle class people over the last 30 years. Thus, why America has the highest prison population in the world, in spite of crime declining in the later 90's.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "It's not up to the politicians, consultants, etc., themselves -- it's the donors who pull the strings."

    Sure, the donors who ghostwrite Republican establishment policies and fund Republican establishment candidates. Same diff. Those donors don't want Clinton and certainly don't want Bernie in the White House, so they will hold their patrician noses and back Trump. Backing a 3rd party candidate is a guaranteed way to lose the national election.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If your whole cause is free trade / deregulation uber alles, you will 100% back Hillary over Trump. She's totally captured by the economic elites.

    Trump, unlike Bernie, has already promised 35% tariffs on formerly American-made stuff that's been off-shored.

    There are already neocons making the case for Hillary being the lesser of the two evils.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."