May 24, 2016

Trump's VP will be Jeff Sessions (reminder, and further analysis)

With the topic reaching a fever pitch lately, let's just make it clear. I've been saying off and on since late February that Trump's criteria for VP, which he has repeatedly gone through to interviewers, lead toward Jeff Sessions.

He's the most similar to the future President on policy, and Trump has said that's the most important thing -- to be a faithful back-up, just in case.

He has decades of experience in the Senate, which experience Trump wants in order to hit the ground running on passing legislation.

He's been working with Trump for over a year, before the campaign was formally announced, meaning they have history and loyalty, something Trump requires.

He doesn't pick up any swing states, but voters are choosing Trump at any rate, not the VP.

He does provide geographic balance, and personality balance, being a soft-spoken Southerner.

Many people thought this as well, so it did not take any brilliance on my part -- just putting two and two together. This recent tweet by Roger Stone would seem to confirm it.

These clues are based on substance (who stands where on which policies), but you could also have figured it out from the showmanship that Trump is also an expert at. Back in late February when Sessions formally endorsed Trump, he was brought out to a massive rally in his home state of Alabama.

Most folks at home aren't political junkies, and would have had little idea who he was or what he stood for. So why was Trump shining such a spotlight on him, and at such an early stage? He wanted us to get familiar with him, something that he's enhanced over the months by naming him as a top policy advisor (gets him into the news cycle), and sending him to do interviews on the cable news circuit.

Why else would Trump want us to get so familiar with Sessions? He wants the VP announcement to be somewhat of a surprise -- hence feeding the gullible media all sorts of red herrings -- but he doesn't want that person to be an unknown, which would disorient the voters and perhaps start us worrying about who this guy is and what he stands for.

Come the Convention in Cleveland, voters will have seen and heard enough from Sessions himself, to feel familiar with the choice.

Trump knows how to tell a proper story and put on a good show, so he made sure to set up the announcement of Sessions as VP way back during the early primary stage, like Chekhov's gun. Notice that the other major endorsements did not receive as much fanfare, and the endorsers have not been a recurring presence in the media to stump for Trump. They have been important additions to the story, but not absolutely crucial like the role of Sessions.

28 comments:

  1. All good points. Plus, naming Sessions as the VP would send the surest possible signal that Trump is dead serious about building The Wall and getting immigration back under control. The immigration issue is the single biggest elite v. normal, globalist v. nationalist issue there is. Trump's position on immigration is what initially catapulted him to the forefront in the GOP race (along with his refusal to back down from it), and it is the main thing that will help peel off non-crazy Dems and wishy-washy independents.

    Don't get me wrong, global-trade (i.e. banditry) and overseas meddling (i.e. imperialism) are both crucial elements of the three-legged stool of Trump's America First agenda. But it is immigration that is the most salient to average people and the most frustrating to everyone who's driven by a Home Depot or pressed 1 for English.

    You cannot get a more tangible issue than hordes of foreigners bankrupting your hospitals, crowding your children in school, and drunkenly driving you off the road. Sessions as VP doubles-down on Trumps signature issue, and tells his base that he's not f*cking kidding around with this bullsh*t.

    PS - Christie's gotta get something, since he's done in NJ. My guess is Attorney General. The role of the nation's "top cop" will give him an opportunity to throw his weight around, and would serve as an outlet for his bullying nature. (Though under Trump he'll be more of a toadie than a true bully.)

    I'd also guess that Giuliani will be the Secretary of Homeland Security - he'll profile the hell out of the moslems and leave red state sportsman alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where would Newt Gingrich fit into a Trump administration?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I pray for Jim Mattis but you're likely right on Sessions. The most pervasive thing about Trump is "does he mean *ANY* of what he says?" Sessions makes immigration a certainty.

    Gingrich? I'm sure there's an Ambassadorship somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. "I pray for Jim Mattis"
    Yeah the rabid dog of the neokahns would be a great choice...

    ReplyDelete
  5. An Ambassadorship seems too lightweight for someone with as much historical significance as Gingrich. (1994 Congressional Revolution, Contract with Americe, etc.)

    Gringrich strong-armed Clinton into enacting welfare reform and provided the rightwing counterpoint to the left that allowed Slick Willy to triangulate and take credit for results that were not his "brain-children", so to speak.

    So, something more substantial. I want to say Secretary of State, but Gingrich might be a bit too garrulous for that. He also has a tendency to think out-loud a lot which might not cohere in policy-terms with what Trump wants done overseas.

    Maybe White House Chief of Staff? Basically a consigliere to Trump who knows his history and how the gubbermint works (both pro forma and backroom).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Random Dude on the Internet5/24/16, 10:57 AM

    I see Christie as the Attorney General more than anything. Maybe Secretary of State. He definitely will play a prominent role in a Trump cabinet.

    Not sure on Gingrich. I always filed him under a cuckservative that appealed to the Cuck Belt. If Trump wants to go big-tent with his cabinet, I imagine there will be a mid or high level position for him somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A.B. Prosper5/24/16, 11:18 AM

    Session is needed in the Senate unless he has as good a replacement. We'd be better off with someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sessions' successor will be effectively appointed by him -- it's Alabama, not like a Dem will pose any threat to fill the vacancy.

    He won't be needed in the Senate -- you're assuming Hillary or Cuckenheimer would be Pres. With Trump as Pres, the Congress will do things the easy way or the hard way, but do the right thing nevertheless.

    VP is Pres of the Senate, so he can take an activist role just like McKinley's VP did (Trump is neo-McKinley). He also casts the deciding vote if they're split.

    Remember: the key job of the VP is a back-up in case anything happens to the President. With Trump as Pres, assassination attempts would not be out of the question. So we need someone who, to the would-be assassins, would be as bad or worse.

    Sessions is not only on board with Trump's policies on immigration, trade, etc. -- but also much more socially and culturally conservative, also an older white male, and from the *gasp* DEEP SOUTH who speaks with a strong Southern drawl.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah he's much preferable to cucks like Gingrich (who tried to Hispander in the 2012 primaries), being one of the few Repugs who has touched the sacred cow of legal immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christie as AG and Giuliani as Homeland Security sound right.

    Gingrich seems a little too eager and brown-nosing, and although he can easily comprehend and communicate the populist / nationalist message, doesn't seem to have resonated with it ever.

    I'll trust Trump to put him in the right place, which may not be very influential.

    The appointment I'm looking most forward to is Press Secretary -- he's going to pick someone who will troll and trigger the fuck out of the entire media and elite class for 365 days a year.

    It won't be some cuckservative who tries to out-genteel the pseudo-genteel elites -- it's going to be someone who doesn't take any of their crap, belittles them deadpan right to their faces, and who goes for the jugular if needed rather than just dialing up the snarky snickering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Russian Limbaugh5/24/16, 2:04 PM

      Stephen Miller for press secretary. That would be hilarious.

      Delete
  11. Another sign that it's Sessions is that in his sit-down interviews, he always looks like a giddy schoolboy barely hiding a secret that he's been told not to share because it's supposed to be a surprise.

    The others that people talk about never look that way -- either uncertain, dismissive, eager, wishful, etc. Like they hoping they're at least on the short list.

    Politicians are not the greatest actors (how many hammy performances did we see this season alone?), so it's fine to take their demeanor at face value.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Press sec haha, the only time Milo ever tweeted back at me was in July or August when I told him that Coulter already had the job on lock down.

    Miller, the policy aide from Sessions office (fellow Dukie) could get a press sec role. He's been shitlording a lot on TV. Hell, read his shit from the Duke Chronicle. It's not acting with him.

    Gingrich is too self promoting. He gets the program, but he needs to be put somewhere he doesn't spotlight whore into a distraction

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe Ann Coulter will be his Press Secretary. Holy sh*t would that be must-see.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BioCultBeamDelta5/24/16, 2:19 PM

    I've been hoping the VP would be Sessions ever since last June/July when Trump started running. Fingers crossed that you're right. Obviously the list Ben Carson released was a red herring.

    A second vote Ann Coulter as Press Secretary. Heads would be exploding, "Scanners" style.

    Gingrich is half-cuck, half-fantastic. As others have pointed, he has pandered for immigration in the past. Gingrich's big mouth is an asset, as much as it's a liability.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't listen to Radio Derb on the regular anymore but I remember a couple years back he raised a call of "Jeff Sessions for President!" that seemed completely far-fetched at the time. How much things have changed since then.

    ReplyDelete
  16. BioCultBeamDelta5/24/16, 6:34 PM

    Not sure what people around here think of him, but Roger Stone also just floated Jeff Session's name just today.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was really hoping for Coulter for VP, but Stone's tweet convinces me it'll be sessions. Stone has been running Trump's stealth campaign.

    Sessions, however, was one of my other choices as well. As I've said, Trump needs a VP who is, first and foremost, assassination insurance: the elites are going to try to kill him before they give up the open borders strategy that has enriched them and increased their power so much. Sessions is, like Coulter, further to the right than Trump on immigration, so any killing of The Donald would only bring an energized Sessions/Coulter into power, with the entire country frothing for revenge in Trump's name---hence an easy doubling down on immigration. And Trump knows this.

    I really do think Sessions as Homeland Sec/staying senator and Coulter as VP would be a better set up, given the powerlessness of the VP position over all and Sessions's abilities on the Washington inside track. Plus it would be hilarious/awesometo see Coulter presiding over the Senate and making Hillary and the other Dems in the Senate bow and kiss her ring when she presided.

    One problem with Sessions: age. I don't want him "accidentally" dying of a heart attack right around the time the elites get a crazy to take a shot at Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The VP is a fake job"

    Not for Trump, who has no experience in politics. Listen to the man himself -- he has said over and over that he has only practical and utilitarian criteria for choosing the VP. All of those criteria point to Sessions, and apparently nobody else.

    Scott Brown is not as battle-tested about all of the planks of the populist / nationalist platform.

    He was only in the Senate for 3 years -- Trump says he wants someone with decades of experience in the legislative process... and "someone who knows all these guys in Congress". Meaning, knows all the dirt, the alliances, which teams of lobbyists control which ones, etc.

    Sessions will have been in the Senate for 20 years by Inauguration Day.

    If Trump died in office, was assassinated, or was impeached and removed, would you trust Scott Brown or Jeff Sessions to best continue the Trump movement in the White House? Or do you think none of those contingencies is worth planning for? (Hint: Trump wears a bullet-proof vest to his rallies, so we know where he stands on the matter.)

    We heard from Scott Brown leading up to the New Hampshire primary, and nothing since. He could be a regional surrogate in the fall, but Trump hasn't brought him out since February because he doesn't see a major role for him.

    Gay men may be obsessed with having a "younger, personable, handsome guy" in the spotlight, but even women don't care that much (it would only be icing on the cake, otherwise not on their minds).

    VPs don't elect the Pres, especially with a mega-star like Trump, who needs no help from his running mate. Especially when the competition is Crooked Hillary. He is eschewing any symbolic or stylistic concerns, and making a purely practical / utilitarian choice.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Then explain Justin Trudeau."

    Explain Donald Trump, dumbass. The gays and airhead women were all-in for Rubio. Somehow his looks didn't save him.

    "Trump wants someone to help him communicate Trump's agenda to the Congress not make policy."

    Wrong.

    "He's a veteran with concern for veterans' interests. That's important symbolism"

    Trump avoids symbolism in VP, he's raised millions for vets, is the only one talking about reforming the VA, and will only be contrasted against Hillary Clinton, not George Patton.

    The Clinton machine is already crying racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc. Sessions or no Sessions. BTW, you think they won't do the same for Scott Brown? He laughed off Elizabeth Warren's phony Native American claims when they were fighting for the Senate, so they'll dig up some more instances of racial insensitivity.

    The good thing is: nobody cares about what Trump has said so far, and it includes "Mexico is sending rapists," "Complete and total shutdown on Muslim immigration until we can figure out what the hell is going on," "I can't help it if my passionate fans punch out some uppity negro disrupting our rallies," and so on and so forth.

    You're worrying about past issues that nobody cares about anymore, outside of the gay media and Homos 4 Hillary supporters.

    Scott Brown also lost his Senate run against... Elizabeth Warren, Crooked Hillary's even more nagging scold of a surrogate. If Scott Brown took a prominent role in Trump's campaign, it would give Pocahontas endless material to work with.

    Bet on it: it's not Scott Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm abroad at present and can't give a precise time due to slow internet, but early in this link from 2005, Trump thanks Sessions and shortly afterward refers to him again as "the great senator on my right" or some such. I wonder if these hearings were the context in which they met or if there was a relationship even before that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Good catch. I'd seen a clip of that before, but not the whole thing where you see and hear from Sessions.

    Here's a good WaPo article on how the two met back in 2005:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/04/19/how-the-united-nations-brought-donald-trump-and-jeff-sessions-together/

    You can tell that they're close and loyal to each other, more than Trump and just about anybody else in the political world.

    Now we know that their loyalty doesn't go back just one year, but 10 years.

    It's also significant that Trump's policy advisor and hype man, Stephen Miller, was a former aide for Sessions. So he's not only paired himself with Sessions but his broader network in Washington.

    How many more signs do we need that he's going to be the VP and not someone who has a shallow history with Trump and uncertain loyalty to the cause?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I applaud Trump (and his accomplice Sessions) for playing the media so hard on this topic. Anyone can figure out who the VP choice is -- including that WaPo writer, who still didn't reach that conclusion, simply because Sessions deflected with "Don't bet on me" being the running mate.

    OK, we'll just ignore all the evidence, then.

    In the minds of the airheads in the media world, Trump is nothing more than a persuasive demagogue succeeding on his persona. (Ignore that Bernie has also punched far above his weight and does not have a similar persona or stage presence to Trump's.)

    Choosing Sessions would prove them wrong about Trump being a superficial style-oriented huckster, since Sessions doesn't bring much to the table in showmanship.

    However, the two of them apparently have lengthy discussions about matters of paramount substance, like whether our leaders are for the American nation-state or an internationalist donor-politician network. Sessions says that Americans are not Darwinian or Randian -- yikes, a substantial point, we can't have any of those being associated with Trump.

    So to prevent cognitive dissonance, they ignore all the signs pointing to Sessions as the VP choice. To follow the obvious signs would prove them wrong about such a dearly held idea about who Trump is and why he's succeeding so much with the American people.

    The sheltered elites' hubris is the instrument of their undoing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. They wouldn't attack Sessions over black stuff, primarily it would be over Mexicans Muslims etc. since his main program is immigration restriction which doesn't affect Af-Ams.

    Trump's numbers with women are rising while Hillary's are falling, and most of the ceiling with women for Trump is due to black and Hispanic women not budging, which is fine since the black Boomer female demo will never vote big for a Republican even Trump.

    You're proving to be a very low-info guy, either learn more or your comments will get deleted. Low-info is fine for lurking but not for 888 comments where you try to fake confidence despite not knowing what you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yet another 888 spaz-out -- banned. Go back to whatever literally gay forum you came from.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The "rules" don't matter anymore. Screw the polls, screw the studies, screw the pandering. Screw (recent) history. Trump can get two for the price of one; Sessions will have the value of being a smart and productive ally/replacement as well as symbolizing a renewal in the appreciation and fortunes of white dudes in the face of cuck worries that the GOP is too white, male, and old. And hey, married and fecund (e.g. well-adjusted) women might be comforted by the idea that the GOP ticket was chosen based on competence and knowledge rather than naive and obvious pandering. The "I'm sick of old white guys" crap might play well with bitter spinsters, the childless, and some PC'd immature Millennials but guess how tired the other women have gotten by now,

    It also represents an Eastern shift; a New Yorker and an Alabaman (who represent the best of their respective cultures) will lead the way, enough with the goofiness and paranoia emanating from the desert, mountains, and plains. The sour McCain and ditzy Palin ticket really fired us up, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Given how much money the rock gods still rake in, I don't think people are tired of old white guys.

    Anyone who is, will not be voting.

    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."