Ok, so Trump is the GOP Nominee. Now, What?

John Ralston (@RalstonReports on Twitter) says that Homeland Security as changed the national threat alert to “Orange”. My advice to everyone is to get a grip and get over it – Trump is the nominee; sitting around in recriminations about just how we got Trump is pointless. Now it is time to move forward.

More than likely, Hillary is the next President. Trump can win it, but he’d have to run a campaign the likes of which we haven’t seen since…well, since the 2016 GOP primary. He’ll have to go entirely outside the box and pull in voters who, until yesterday, never thought of voting Republican. Trouble for Trump is that the polling all says he can’t do that – that his statements to date have permanently alienated so many different demographic blocs that there’s no place for him to go. 95% of normal GOP voters will show up for him, but that won’t be near enough, even though Hillary’s numbers are bound to be down from Obama’s 2012 totals. I’m figuring it 53% Hillary, 47% Trump (Progressive – and anti-Trump Conservative – dreams of Hillary getting to 60% and winning 45 States are just silly; Hillary is just an awful candidate and no one likes her, not even her fellow Democrats…nothing is sure in politics, but with anyone other than Trump at the helm, the GOP would be looking pretty certain for a win in November). If polling is correct, Trump won’t be able to do it…but if polling is wrong, then we could be in for interesting times. And by “wrong” I don’t mean that someone is screwing up at polling – I mean that if there is a large bloc of Americans who (a) can’t stand the system, (b) usually don’t vote because they think both Democrats and Republicans are corrupt and (c) get excited about Trump as a grenade to throw into the political system, then polling simply won’t pick up on that, at least not any time soon.

Trump as the likely losing nominee will do damage to the overall Republican effort. But it might not be catastrophic. Thirty GOP Senators aren’t even up for re-election, and of those who are about fifteen are pretty safe, so even if Hillary does well, the GOP will drop to about 45 Senators (which would still be a net gain of 10 for them – not bad by anyone’s measure)…more than enough to sustain a filibuster. But that is if things go really well for the Democrats. I suspect the GOP will lose seats in FL, IL, PA, WI and NH. That is five, and it only gets the Democrats to 50, with Hillary’s VP casting the tie breaker. But, the GOP still could win Reid’s seat in NV, but could also lose it’s seats in MO and LA. The real worst for the GOP is 52/48, in my view…but with a bit of luck and some good campaign work, the GOP could actually retain a Senate majority even if Hillary wins (if the GOP loses those 5, but wins Reid’s seat, it is 51/49 GOP).

In the House, the Democrats could possibly score a majority, but it would take just about everything breaking their way. If Trump is really an utter disaster, then the House is in play – if it comes out like I suspect (Hillary winning by about 6 percentage points, that is), then the House is probably safe for the GOP, though losing a dozen seats would be rather baked in. If the Democrats do win a House majority, then it will likely be a pretty thin one – we’re talking maybe 220 House Dems and 215 House GOPers (getting to 220, by the way, means the Democrats net a gain of 30 – that’s a lot).

But fret not – if Hillary does great and Trump melts down in a 1964-style wipe out of the GOP and the Democrats go to 58 in the Senate and 230 in the House, it is only for two years. With Hillary being disastrously in charge (she will fail, utterly – she’s no good; not bright; horrible at policy; terrible at politics…) and the 2018 map exceptionally favorable to the GOP, it is pretty sure that the GOP will roar back to the Congressional majority in that year.

But what sort of GOP comes roaring back? That is the question. Don’t mistake this at all: Trump has radically altered the GOP. This is no longer Reagan’s party – it’s not really Trump’s, but it isn’t the party most of us have grown used to since 1980.

For us Conservatives, the task ahead is to craft a response to, on the one hand, the lure of Big Government Progressivism and, on the other hand, the lure of Big Government Nationalism. Hillary is the former, Trump is the latter. We all know that Big Government is a failure – but it is not yet a concrete, absolute failure in the minds of the American majority. Things are still bearable – and as Jefferson pointed out in a document Americans used to be familiar with, “experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed”. People are accustomed to the forms we have at present – but the forms at present are failing in every department. We need new forms (well, more actually, to restore the old forms…but they’ll appear new) – but we have yet to convince the American people of the necessity.

Hillary (or Trump, should be pull off the win) may be just the thing necessary to demonstrate to the American majority the bankruptcy of the very idea of an all-encompassing government allegedly “solving” our problems. But we have to be ready with credible, easy-to-understand alternatives to what people are currently used to. When things fall apart, we have to be able to show the people that the reason they are falling apart is precisely because of the “solutions” the Big Government (Progressive or Nationalist) types have implemented.

I’m not sure we Conservatives can do this within the Republican Party. In the aftermath of Obama’s 2008 victory, the TEA Party gave all of us (I think) hope that we could capture the GOP…but the 2016 race has shown how very difficult it is to dislodge a Ruling Class from within. Remember, the GOP Establishment could have coalesced behind Cruz right after Rubio pulled out of the race…this still might not have stopped Trump, but it would have given Cruz a much greater chance of doing so. But, they didn’t – because at the end of the day, the GOP Establishment is as wedded to Big Government as the Democrat Establishment is…sure, they’d prefer someone other than Trump, but anyone (in their minds) was better than Cruz who might have actually started to dismantle Big Government.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – it might be time for a new Party. I favor calling it Christian Democrat, but I’ve also heard people revive the old Federalist party label, as well as other proposed names. The reason I prefer Christian Democrat is because, well, first and foremost an American Conservative party must be in defense of Judeo-Christian morality (so, call it the Judeo-Christian Democrats…but that sounds a bit clunky). Adding Democrat to it is partially based upon the concept that we’d be for the freedom of the people (unlike the Democrat part of today) and partially because it would also be a very clear separation between us and the Republican party. The name, in and of itself, would help us pull in people who are currently Democrat but who, when you get right down to it, have nothing to do with the leftwing extremism advanced by the Democrat leadership…it would allow us to talk sensibly to millions of people who Republicans can’t even get a hearing from.

I think such a party could also immediately pull current GOP and Democrat office-holders away from the two parties. It would allow us to get out the gate already holding some political power. Naturally, most of those liable to shift will be Republican, but there are some Democrats we could also get. If we suddenly existed in, say, May of 2017 with 5 Senators and 20 House members, as well as a proportional number of State legislative seats, then we’re already made. The idea behind such a party is not to immediately capture a Congressional majority and win the White House in 2020 – but to provide a balance between the Republicans and Democrats and to provide an alternative party which is completely clean of all Democrat and Republican policy failures. Starting a party in 2017 which holds no legislative majority and no executive power means that whatever goes to heck in a handbasket in 2018 and beyond is simply not our fault…and there we are, sitting with easy-to-understand explanations for GOP/Dem failures and equally easy-to-understand alternative policies.

Also freed from the GOP we would be able to campaign in areas of the country where the GOP often can’t even show it’s face…or won’t show it’s face because to campaign in such areas would require the GOP to adopt positions in opposition to the desires of GOP donors. Such a party could well emerge after 2020 with enough House and Senate members to make the choice of who is Speaker and Senate Majority Leader dependent upon how much Democrats and Republicans promise us. If things collapse in a general sense (as they will – trust me, debt and fake money can’t go on forever), then we’re positioned to knock both major parties collectively down to minority status.

Anyway, that is how I see it – for now, Hillary is probably going to win, the GOP is going to suffer some serious Congressional losses (with a small chance of them being really bad if Trump melts down entirely)…and then the GOP profits off Hillary being Hillary for 2018. But, then, where are we? Back where we were in 2010…having handed a lot of power to a GOP which has relentlessly thwarted us from getting our way. The correct alternative, in my view, is to form a new party which will represent us – first to at least give us genuine leverage in getting at least a half a loaf from time to time, eventually to take over when things go smash. And if Trump wins? Even more important for us to form a new party – we don’t want Conservatism to be identified with the Big Government Nationalism of Trump…especially as his version of Big Government will eventually collapse just like the Progressive version of it.

47 thoughts on “Ok, so Trump is the GOP Nominee. Now, What?

  1. Retired Spook May 4, 2016 / 6:34 pm

    I’ve been trying to come up with the words to express why I most likely won’t be voting for Trump. Thankfully, Matt Walsh did it for me.

    This part is especially apropos:

    If there’s one thing I hate it’s intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency. Believe what you will, say what you will, but be coherent and sincere. That’s all I ask. But it seems I’ve asked too much.

    Trump fans, as we’ve established, nominated Trump despite the fact that he will likely lose to Hillary Clinton in the general election. This risk did not bother them. They said it was “change” they were after (a very unique political slogan). They said they won’t just go along with what the GOP wants. Indeed, they said they wanted to “burn the Republican Party to the ground.” I heard that exact phrase hundreds of times from Trump fans.

    Yet, now that Trump is the nominee, they tell me I can’t vote third party because it will hand the White House to Hillary and damage the Party. These are the two arguments they’ve been rejecting for months, and now that their man is at the helm, they’ve embraced them and begun flinging them at conservatives without a hint of irony. Sorry, but I’m sick of this game. You said yourself that we shouldn’t be “compromising” or doing things just “for the good of the party.” Now I’ve taken you at your word.

    And, in any case, my vote is mine. It doesn’t belong to you or to “the Party.” The fact that you’d suggest otherwise is disgraceful.

    • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 8:50 pm

      I’ll have to vote for Trump if he is the nominee, unless we come up with a third party before the election, which I think is probably impossible. I can’t just let the election go to Hillary because our party is infested with a bunch of fake conservatives who get all giddy and pee down their legs in glee if someone appeals to their issues while ignoring the fact that his promises all seem to depend on him out-Obamaing Obama when it comes to ruling rather than leading.

      But it will not be for the good of the party, because the party is dead to me. I am already talking with people about the need for a new party. This is a very strong, very deep, very principled movement that I think may take a lot of people by surprise. The current GOP, especially with Trump as its leader (and it is really hard to say that with a straight face) is really no more than the Democrat Party with a different name tag. It is fine for the Identity Politics people, but for people with a sound and coherent political ideology based on Constitutional governance it is a disaster, a fraud and a waste of time and money. The GOP had one last chance to prove that it is really is about constitutional government and true conservative values, but it was so pissy about Cruz that it encouraged Trump as the Anti-Cruz, while the Trumpbots misidentified Trump as anti-GOP, and between the two camps of the clueless we ended up where we are now. It has been a jumble of misdirection, confusion, ignorance, and hypocrisy, with the only real chance we, or the party, had kicked to the curb.

      On the contrary, I am looking forward to letting the GOP, and the Trumpbots, wither on the vine and putting my energy and my money into developing and supporting a party that stands for something.

      I will say I am looking forward to phone calls from the RNC asking for money. That will be fun.

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 8:53 pm

        A new party is, I think, our only way forward – we need a party which will represent us. If I’m going to be shut out of power because of the way things are, then I’d rather be shut out backing what I firmly believe in rather than backing people who say they will do my bidding, but then go and do the opposite once in office. And as I said, I am convinced that this system is doomed to collapse…being the Outsider at the time of collapse means the people will of nature turn to us.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 9:18 pm

        If I’m going to be shut out of power because of the way things are, then I’d rather be shut out backing what I firmly believe in rather than backing people who say they will do my bidding, but then go and do the opposite once in office.


        And if I’m going to be in a party, I prefer to be in a party which consists of people who have not proved themselves to represent the antithesis of what the party stands for.

    • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 9:03 pm

      By the way, as for a party named Christian Democrat, no way nohow. For one thing, it is a very bad name that automatically isolates the party from nonbelievers and people of non-Christian faiths. That is not a good way to build a new party. For another, at this point I don’t particularly want to be associated with people who claim to base their politics on Christian values and beliefs—not after seeing millions of people who have insisted that this is how they identify themselves, only to turn against those values and beliefs when dazzled by wealth and fast talking and glib promises.

      There is already a registered Constitutional Party, and I like Federalist except for the fact that it will confuse a lot of people when the party then comes out in favor of restricting federal size, scope and power. Using the word “democrat” would be confusing, either by linking it in some minds with the current Democratic Party or by implying a belief in democracy as our preferred form of government. I think that grafting onto the existing Constitutional Party, if they would have us, would provide a name that clearly states the agenda of the party and is not confrontational. Even Liberals who favor policies that undermine or at least ignore the Constitution claim that they respect it and believe in it, just want it changed a little. Most people are not AGAINST the Constitution. Or, there is the Conservative Party, which would require defining conservatism—for a change—and which would contrast it with the pseudo-conservatives of the Trump Party.

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 10:13 pm

        Hey, I’m open to ideas on that – I’ve been pondering a name for a couple years and Christian Democrat is just the best I can come up with because the American Party already exists as a racist left-over of Wallace’s 1968 campaign; the Federalist Party (as you note) would confuse people; the Constitution Party also already exists and the name, like Federalist, might not “sound” good in LIV ears…

        But, you’re right about the “Christian” being a potentially divisive part of the name – not just because Jews and others might feel automatically excluded, but because both GOP and Democrats would try to paint it as some sort of theocratic party…I admit to be inspired on the name from Konrad Adenauer’s Christian Democratic Union which rebuilt Germany in the post-World War Two era. While his disastrous successor, Merkel, doesn’t give much confidence in the name, the fact is that he took a ruined, totalitarian nation into the broad, sunlit uplands of peace, freedom and justice.

        What is in a name? In politics, a lot – and we need a name which will (a) clearly identify us as not being Republican or Democrat and (b) make people willing to listen. I’m all ears…

  2. casper3031 May 4, 2016 / 7:38 pm

    I would predict Hillary 55%, Trump 42%, other 3%. There is a very good chance that Democrats take the Senate, not so much the House. Democrats in the House could take 4-5 million more votes, but lose because of the gerrymandering that’s gone on. I could be wrong, but I would bet that most of the posters here will vote for Trump just because of your hate for Hillary. One plus for the Democrats is that Trump will do a great job in bringing out the minority vote.

    • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 8:14 pm

      Oh, Casper, you good little Liberal footsoldier you. OF COURSE the only reason anyone would not want Hillary to be president is due to “hate”. It could not possibly be related to her unbroken history of incompetence, her unbroken history of corruption, her radical Leftist political ideology and an objective analysis of political systems that shows this to be a horrible system for this country. It couldn’t possibly be related to the fact that in the incredibly important and sensitive position of Secretary of State she didn’t even try to protect the most sensitive information related to national security and international diplomacy, making it easy for even the most amateur of hackers to access at will—-and then lied about it. Under oath. How could anyone think this level of recklessness exposing the entire nation to harm would disqualify someone for the position of Commander in Chief? There is no way that anyone would think someone who left our military and diplomats in harm’s way, leading to their deaths, and then lied about it, is unqualified to lead the country. Nah.

      No, you have to run it through your handy dandy little Lib filter, project the typical Lib approach of making all political decisions based on emotion, and come up with a tired old recycled cliche.

      You, on the other hand, no doubt find none of these facts about Hillary Clinton significant enough to withhold your vote.

      • casper3031 May 4, 2016 / 10:31 pm

        I didn’t say that is the only reason you will vote for Trump, but it is pretty obvious that you do hate her. I’m not a big Hilary fan myself, but this is the choice we have.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 11:03 pm

        See,this is exactly what you Libs just don’t understand. The very concept of having a coherent political philosophy, a clear understanding of a blueprint of how best to govern the nation, is just beyond comprehension to you people, which is why you make everything so personal.

        I admit, I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible person. I think she has proven herself to be a congenital liar, a cheat, a crook, and generally inept. But what I HATE is her political agenda, the political system she advocates and represents.

        I know, to the Identity Politics people this is just gobbeldygook, way too complex for consideration. It’s identity, and it’s issues. And, of course, the underlying foundation of all your “political” choices—emotion.

        If YOU base everything on emotion, then of course everyone else does, too, right? It’s the Lib way of seeing the world.

    • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 8:51 pm

      Geesh – get over it, already. We don’t hate Hillary – we just know that she’s a dishonest crook who advocates for horribly bad policies. We don’t hate Trump, either – we just feel he’s a near-duplicate of Hillary.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 9:15 pm

        Hey, this is an election that would offer some very clear choices.

        There is the choice of Very Experienced and Always Failed vs No Experience At All But Often Failed In Other Endeavors. There is Old vs Older. There is White vs Whiter. There is Signs of the Onset of Dementia vs Signs of Brain Damage Due to Trauma. There is Corrupt vs, well, Corrupt. There is Unlikable vs, well, Unlikable. There is Dishonest vs, well, Dishonest. There is Liberal With a D vs Liberal With an R. There is Dirty Fighter vs Even Dirtier Fighter—-fans can sort out which is which. There is Criminal With The Threat of Iimminent Indictment vs Criminal Often Threatened With Indictments. There is Criminal Fraud vs Civil Fraud. There is Perjury vs Ponzi Scheme. There is Betrayed Wife vs Betrayer of Wives.

        It’s just a big old grab-bag of choices. Why, just going through the lists of lies on either side to figure out which are more important and which can be lived with will be a full time job. On second thought, no it won’t, because neither side gives a flip about the lies of its own candidate. Never mind………..

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 9:59 pm

        ROFL…it is quite the choice. Personally, I think I’ll vote for the demented crook with shady business dealings.

      • casper3031 May 4, 2016 / 10:38 pm

        Mark, Not surprised Trump is your choice. You are pretty good at falling in line with whoever the Republicans come up with.

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 11:50 pm

        Dude – where in anything I’ve written do you get the indication that I’m going to support Trump? In this very thread I’m calling for Conservatives to form a new party because the GOP nominated Trump.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 11:13 pm

        Casper, your efforts a humor are so clumsy it is hard to know when you think you are being funny and when you are not. Surely you can’t take Mark’s comment about Trump as “… falling in line with whoever the Republicans come up with….” You yourself said, 7 minutes before this post, “..but this is the choice we have…”

        As I said, in my response to that 10:31 post of yours, “I admit, I think Hillary Clinton is a terrible person. I think she has proven herself to be a congenital liar, a cheat, a crook, and generally inept. But what I HATE is her political agenda, the political system she advocates and represents.” Based on many conversations with Mark, and WHAT HE HAS BEEN SAYING RIGHT HERE IN THIS THREAD, I feel confident in saying I think he feels the same way.

        I am sure you would prefer to have us all sit out the election, as Hillary is such a terrible candidate her success might depend on something like this, but please don’t try to claim that recognizing the dangers of continuing and doubling down on Obama policies and socialist insanity is in any way “… falling in line with whoever the Republicans come up with….”. You have to play the hand you’re dealt, or walk away from the table. Do try to rein in your inner snark. You have been doing pretty well this go-round and I hate to see it bubbling up again.

      • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 12:39 am

        “Dude – where in anything I’ve written do you get the indication that I’m going to support Trump? “

        Casper is a Liberal and exhibits all the clear thinking and ability to process information we associate with his kind, as we can see from his interpretation of what you said.

      • casper3031 May 5, 2016 / 11:51 am

        “Dude – where in anything I’ve written do you get the indication that I’m going to support Trump?”

        Maybe when you said this:
        “ROFL…it is quite the choice. Personally, I think I’ll vote for the demented crook with shady business dealings.”

        I would consider voting for someone as support.

        I’ve never missed an election, but I have voted for a third party candidate rather than vote for someone I despised. But that was my choice. If you truly hate Trump as much as you say you do, then start your own third party, or support someone running for one of the other parties.

      • M. Noonan May 5, 2016 / 10:44 pm

        Well, that was a joke – as Amazona noted. Both candidates are demented crooks with shady business dealings.

        As for saying you can’t vote Trump because of moral objections but will, then, vote Hillary – oh, for pity’s sake!

      • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 12:40 pm

        There you go with “hate” again. Of course, hate is such an essential component of Leftist allegiance, I guess it makes sense for a Lefty to assume everyone else is equally motivated by it.

        I can’t speak for Mark, but my answer to Spook included this comment: “I have to look at what I would gain by refusing to vote for Trump if he is the nominee.”

        What would Mark gain by refusing to vote for a Republican for the presidency because he thinks he is not a good candidate or would make a good president? Seriously—what would be the benefit?

        You go ahead and call it “supporting” if that floats your boat. It’s not as if you have ever had a clue about what motivates conservatives anyway. By the time any idea makes its tortured way through your Liberal filters and that Mixmaster of a brain that mauls every coherent idea till it fits into a Liberal mindset, what comes out bears no resemblance to fact so there is no reason for this to be any different.

        As for me, I voted for Ross Perot because I didn’t like Bush all that much and had pegged Clinton as a hound dog and Liberal from the get-go. It was a very stupid decision. Voting should be a conscious decision in pursuit of the best outcome possible, not a fit of pique or an empty gesture.

      • casper3031 May 5, 2016 / 1:47 pm

        I also voted for Ross Perot, because at the time I felt he represented my best interests and the best interests of the country. I’m not sorry I did and if there was someone running in this election who I felt represented my interests better than the two major parties, I would vote for that person.

      • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 2:02 pm

        But that amounted to merely a token vote, a symbolic vote with no authority and no significance. It felt good, at the time, but overall it was useless, unless you for one got some emotional satisfaction out of running up the numbers for a symbolic outsider to “send a message”.

        If you would otherwise have preferred Clinton, you did no harm and it is as if you never voted at all. For those of us who, looking back on it, realize we would have been much better off with Bush, it was a destructive act, a self-defeating little temper tantrum that only hurt me and people like me. And the country, of course.

        Most people do not understand the value of having a PARTY in the majority. I hear all this smug preening about “I vote for the person, not for the party” but if the party, overall, does represent your true political values then it should get your support for the simple reason that if the party prevails, it means more power than what would be invested in just one or two candidates. It means committee chairmanships, for example, and Harry Reid taught us how committee chairs can ride roughshod over the legislative process and keep bills from ever hitting the floor for voting.

        For those of us who take politics, and voting, seriously, who study and understand the two basic political systems vying for control in this country, who have analyzed the success/failure rates of each system, and who have even a basic grasp of how the overall political system works regarding benefits of being the majority party, a symbolic gesture is just silly. If your vote is not going to make a difference, why vote at all.

        It’s a lesson I learned. That is why I think we need to start serious work on a serious third party, one which will soon have a shot at getting at least a third of the votes cast, so it can be a player and not just an abstract symbolic “up yours”.

      • casper3031 May 5, 2016 / 7:02 pm

        Amazona, I respect your reasoning, but I could never vote for someone like Trump, regardless of the circumstances.

      • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 7:59 pm

        I understand, and appreciate your “respect” comment. It is not an easy decision for me.

  3. Amazona May 4, 2016 / 8:03 pm

    “Trouble for Trump is that the polling all says he can’t do that – that his statements to date have permanently alienated so many different demographic blocs that there’s no place for him to go. 95% of normal GOP voters will show up for him, but that won’t be near enough, …” but that’s not the point, is it?

    The point is, it will really be fun to watch Trump and Hillary roll around in the gutter together. Just think—the trash talk, the personal attacks, the insults! It will be vicious, it will be brutal, it will be beautiful, and Trumpsters will be so happy.

    You know how, when you see an Obama bumper sticker, you shake your head and think “what a moron”? The thing is, while you think only the ignorant could have voted for Obama, at least the second time around, you don’t feel betrayed by that voter. He just trotted along with all the other sheeple who drank the Leftist KoolAid and voted for their pet issues blissfully unaware of the actual political system they were really supporting.

    But over the next however many years, when I see a Trump sticker, I will think not only “what a moron” but “what a hypocrite”. And I will be angry, and I will feel betrayed. And everyone I have talked to about this, over the past few weeks, feels the same way.

    So when the Trumpets come whining back bleating that they realize what a huge mistake they made, I won’t care. I just wonder how long it will take them. My money is on a pretty big buyer’s remorse reaction before the general election even takes place. We had a lot of people thinking gee, maybe they should have voted for Romney after all, and not voting for him is a mistake that is nothing compared to the insanity ditching Cruz in favor of Trumpery.

    • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 8:55 pm

      It might well be entertaining, this Hillary vs Trump battle…I do think that Trump, now the nominee, will really want to win and will unload on Hillary. Now, the MSM which has been friendly to him as he blows up the GOP will turn on him – they have to protect the Queen…but Trump is such great copy for a brainless and amoral MSM that they’ll cover his outrages in spite of themselves.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 9:29 pm

        I think it will be very entertaining for the Trumpbots, who after all really love him because he is promising them a real smackdown. I mean, we used to know how Donald Trump described himself, and then we heard how his fans described him, but now, after watching the way he went after Ted Cruz, I think we have all seen the Real Donald Trump. I’ve actually heard Trump supporters say they vote for him because he is not afraid to get down in the gutter.

        High praise indeed.

        I don’t think I will find it entertaining, As one who has wanted politics elevated out of the gutter, and no longer dependent on personal destruction, I think I will find it disgusting, distressing, ugly and and downright creepy. And I doubt that it will, coming from the sewer as it is bound to do, advance the image of the United States.

        I do think it will take Donald Trump to make Hillary look classy.

      • Retired Spook May 4, 2016 / 10:34 pm

        Now, the MSM which has been friendly to him as he blows up the GOP…..

        See, that’s just the thing. Initially I thought he would blow up the GOP, and I think that’s what the majority of his supporters thought and still think as well. Boehner’s comment about Trump being his golfing and texting buddy kind of let the cat out of the bag. I think the GOP establishment wanted Trump all along, but knew the only way he could get traction was to make people think he was going to take the establishment down. I’m not sure who is the bigger con artist, Trump or the Boehners and McConnells of this world. I’m betting there will be whole poly-sci courses based on this election cycle.

      • M. Noonan May 4, 2016 / 11:51 pm

        Well, I meant it in terms of making the GOP toxic for the general election – they don’t want the actual GOP, as it is, to go away because it provides a handy party for Democrats to beat.

      • Amazona May 4, 2016 / 10:57 pm

        I’m not sure if they WANTED Trump, but they most definitely did not want Cruz, because of all 17 original prospective candidates Cruz was the biggest threat to the true GOP establishment. I think they were hoping for Jeb, would have liked Christie, would have tolerated Huckabee, looked down on Jindal, but there was no way they would welcome a Cruz candidacy.

        I think Trump’s early success surprised them, as it did nearly everyone, but they went along with it because it sucked support away from Cruz. But then it kind of got out of control, they lost Jeb, they lost Christie, and then they were between a Trump rock and a Cruz hard place.

        And they made the wrong decision. Early on, when Trump was an outlier, a joke candidate, they had a chance to back someone solid and let him drift away. But they were so blinded by hatred of Cruz, or more rightly I think fear of Cruz, that they let Trump get away from them. The thing is, they could have worked with Cruz. Cruz is not a bomb thrower. He is a surgeon, and they could have worked with him. They would have had to give up some things, but they would have come out of it OK, and the country would have been stronger and better. So would the party.

        Now they have about half of the old party so mad at them we could all spit. And many of us ARE spitting, right in their faces. They will have a hard time getting money out of us. Let’s face it, the average Trumpbot is not going to impress many people going door to door, from what I have seen of the foul-mouthed Cruz-hating insult machines. On-the-ground campaigning means convincing people, one on one, that your candidate is the best choice BECAUSE. And the Trump “becauses” are so flimsy and so feeble, it is going to be hard to support them. Trump will get a lot of our votes, only because Hillary is so awful, but as for the GOP, they are going to be hurting, and may never really recover.

        I would not be surprised to see a GOP effort at reconciliation, after either a Trump trouncing or a couple of years of a Trump presidency. I do think the only chance the GOP will have will be to do what they would have had to do with a Cruz candidacy and presidency, only with less control and less finesse. They will have to eat crow and say it is yummy, and openly and enthusiastically back some true conservatives. I don’t know if they can bring themselves to do this. And it serves them right.

      • tiredoflibbs May 5, 2016 / 1:58 pm

        “Now, the MSM which has been friendly to him as he blows up the GOP…..”

        To the MSM, Trump has been good for ratings. But they will not turn their back on Hillary. The last few Hillary interviews I’ve seen has been one softball after the next – no mention of scandals or pending investigation. Unless of course, it was an opening for Hillary to scoff at the investigation and show that she’s the victim because of her gender.

      • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 2:07 pm

        It looks like we are going into our convention with a leader who has, to a great extent, been chosen for us by Democrats voting in open primaries and a Liberal press eager to foist the worst possible candidate on us to help Clinton win.

        I have no idea what motivated Fox, but trust me, there is a groundswell of anger out here directed at Fox in general, at Coulter, at Gingrich, at Rubio and Kasich, that is not going to just disappear. When your mask slips, it is hard to convince people that they didn’t see what they saw, and there is going to be blowback at all who worked so hard to dump a Trump on us. It will be even worse if he loses to Hillary.

      • M. Noonan May 5, 2016 / 10:47 pm

        I do believe that a desire for ratings – all thru the MSM – built the Trump phenomena…but, credit Trump for playing the MSM like a maestro. They just couldn’t look away. But the right media is in for it – because we count on them to be motivated by actual principals.

        So far, a few GOP leaders have held back (Ryan and Sasse most notably), but in the end, most will climb on board…even if behind the scenes they distance themselves from Trump…and if Trump starts to rise in the polls, all these “leaders” will be on him like he’s always been their first choice.

  4. Amazona May 4, 2016 / 10:42 pm

    We might as well get started on the “I Told You So” compilation: emphasis mine

    His pick, he (Trum) explained, will be “somebody that can help me with legislation and somebody that can help me get things passed and somebody who’s been friends with senators and congressman so we don’t have to go the executive order route as much as Obama did where he can’t get anything approved.””

    Paying attention, “conservatives”? So WE DON’T HAVE TO GO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER ROUTE AS MUCH AS OBAMA DID

    Do we have a volunteer to keep score? He or she will need a good calculator.

  5. Retired Spook May 5, 2016 / 7:20 am

    What a nice story to wake up to this morning — Karma of the highest order.

  6. Retired Spook May 5, 2016 / 8:16 am


    You and I rarely disagree, so I’m confused by these two statements from this thread:

    I’ll have to vote for Trump if he is the nominee, unless we come up with a third party before the election, which I think is probably impossible.

    But over the next however many years, when I see a Trump sticker, I will think not only “what a moron” but “what a hypocrite”. And I will be angry, and I will feel betrayed. And everyone I have talked to about this, over the past few weeks, feels the same way. So when the Trumpets come whining back bleating that they realize what a huge mistake they made, I won’t care. I just wonder how long it will take them. My money is on a pretty big buyer’s remorse reaction before the general election even takes place.

    So, is it going to be OK to vote for Trump as long as you don’t advertise it with a bumper sticker? Will only people who voted for Trump AND have a Trump bumper sticker be morons? I’m saying this with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, but I’d still like to hear your answer.

    • Amazona May 5, 2016 / 8:50 am

      I think my point is that I will have to vote for Trump for the reason I gave—-I couldn’t live with myself knowing that I had not even tried to defeat Hillary. It does not mean I would be “supporting” Trump—-I would be resentful at being put in the position of having to make such a distasteful choice.

      I would not be proud of voting for Trump, merely reluctantly accepting that I was doing the little remaining to me within the context of having to do my best in a horrible situation. I would certainly never brag about voting for Trump, and would always make it clear it was a very unpleasant choice forced upon me by morons.

      My position is that anyone who actually SUPPORTS Trump because he is Trump, who has bought into the fantasy that Trump is a good man who will be good for the country, who has drunk the Trump KoolAid, is a moron. And this is the kind of person who would brag about his or her backing of such a profoundly flawed candidate and the subsequent shattering of the Conservative Movement, or at least of the momentum it has been building. To me, anyone flaunting a Trump bumper sticker (or wearing one of those butt-ugly hats) is saying he or she actually finds Trump to be the best candidate. That, to me, is moronic. In no known universe is Trump the BEST candidate for the Republican Party. However, he is probably the marginally LESS awful candidate in a general election up against either Hillary or Bernie.


      I believe you have to pick your battles. I fought to nominate an honest, ethical, competent and proven conservative I thought was the best hope for the future of the country. I lost that battle. Now the reality I am forced to occupy is a very different one from the one I wanted, but it is what is left, and the choices left to me are dictated by that reality. Now I have to look at what I would gain by refusing to vote for Trump if he is the nominee. Would that change the outcome of the election for the better? I don’t see how. On the contrary, I think that attitude, spread throughout the country, would ensure an even worse outcome than a President Trump, odd as that concept is.

      No, the battle for the best person to run for the presidency representing the Republican Party is lost, and I don’t plan to waste any more of my time or energy continuing to fight it. Now all I can do is whatever is in my power to keep the Dems out of the White House, and move on to the next battle. That is to work on establishing a true conservative party built upon the true conservative base that is left after the defections to the fun house that is Trump, and to let the existing GOP know how I feel and why.

      As to refusing to vote for Trump “on principle” my principles are based on doing whatever I can to rein in Liberal, Leftist, control over this country. Now that we are poised to nominate a Liberal to run as a Republican, my principles involve doing what I can to make sure the lesser of the two evils is elected, as with a President Trump there is a chance, however slight, that he will be less damaging to the country than a President Clinton.

      I will admit to voting for Trump, if it comes to that, but I will make it clear that I did it under duress, because it was the only choice left to me if I still want to try to have some influence on the direction the country is going, and that I resent being put in that position. If I were to switch to the Trump side, actually overtly SUPPORT him as a great candidate, I would be a moron.

      Then I would be fluttering around babbling about how the man who wants to make the government pay for everything really hates bureaucracy, how Trump tells it like it is even when “like it is” fluctuates wildly from one day hour minute to the next, how the man who built his fortune on the backs of illegal alien workers is all about immigration reform, and other moronic blatherings.

      • Retired Spook May 5, 2016 / 9:01 am

        Good answer. As you can probably tell from my postings, I’m really struggling to find some way to rationalize in my mind voting for Trump. Like you I’m frustrated and angry to have been put in this position. This is another one of those times when a functional crystal ball would come in handy.

      • ricorun May 8, 2016 / 10:28 am

        It appears to me that the fundamental desire of most of the people here is to hasten the development of a “true” conservative party. If so, how does voting for Trump help? It seems to me that however a Trump presidency goes, the chance for a true conservative party emerging anytime soon is pretty much dead. So if that is your long-term goal, then it would seem imperative that Trump loses — as badly as possible.

        In my particular case, I don’t desire a more conservative or a more originalist party. I don’t think the best way to approach the future is to stare in the rear-view mirror. So I don’t have that barrier to voting for Trump. In my case, I’m just not convinced that his judgement is sound. I feel the same about Hillary. One the one hand, Trump thinks outside the box too often and in often appalling ways. On the other, Hillary never thinks outside the box. She essentially defines it. So I don’t know what I’m going to do.

  7. bardolf2 May 6, 2016 / 7:36 am

    I’m kind of hoping ALL the B4V regulars sit out the election or better yet vote for Hillary.

    Bush&Clinton pretty much destroyed the American middle class along with a 2 thousand year tradition of Christianity in the Middle East.

    I vote for Mark and Amy and Spook to join the CONSTITUTION PARTY along with Sasse and Ryan.

    • Retired Spook May 6, 2016 / 7:55 am

      I can’t speak for Mark and Amazona, but I’m sure thinking about it. Not sure exactly how Bush and Clinton (which one?) destroyed the middle class and poor wittle Barry didn’t have a hand in it. I tend to agree on the destruction of Christianity in the ME, although, again, Barry at least bears a little responsibility, if for no other reason than he sat by, watched it happen, and did nothing to stop it.

      • Amazona May 6, 2016 / 9:10 am

        Bush was the only one who saw what was going on in the ME and tried to intercede. Of course, that is still used against him. I seem to remember you, dolf, screeching about our Iraq efforts. Too bad you never shared with us your brilliant idea for saving Christianity in the Middle East from afar, without actually doing anything. I gave a feeling it was about as brilliant as voting for Hillary Clinton. And what could be smarter than “sitting out” the election? Losing all those House and Senate seats by just “sitting out” the election is a stroke of pure genius.

        That’ll teach ’em!

        I’m not sure what you would be trying to accomplish, dolf, but then I can seldom figure out what you are talking about.

        We can speculate all sorts of things about this bogeyman we call the GOP “establishment”. We can range from the idea that the organization itself is like any other—-a PTA, an HMO, a garden club—which is defined by the temporary leaders who represent it and which can therefore be changed by replacing them all the way over into seeing it as part of a Leftist conspiracy and plot to take over the country by fooling us into thinking we have choices. It’s like any other massive group of people, like GE or for that matter any country, subject to change by revolt from within, or it is an entity impervious to change because its character goes all the way through it, from the top to the bottom. Its leaders are either just selfish and greedy individuals desperately trying to protect the little fiefdoms they have created, or they are cold-hearted cold-eyed pure evil manipulators of the fate of the nation. In other words, if you are going to war, you should at least know who your enemy is.

        My question is, how and when and why did “the GOP Establishment” become the enemy? An impediment to accomplishing what we wanted, perhaps, but the primary target of our energy?

        Donald Trump is looming as the choice of the Republican Party because he succeeded in convincing millions of people that the enemy is not Leftist governance. Instead, he rallied mobs to act against various enemies he set up for them, identified for them, targeted for them, spotlighted for them, demonized and then attacked. Donald Trump swept into a demographic that was pretty well unified in its conviction that its goal was to block the further expansion of Leftist governance in this country, and he splintered that demographic into smaller groups, and and redefined their purpose. Donald Trump’s enemy was never Leftist governance in this country. It was his opponents in the primary and it was the illusion of the “establishment”. It was Mexican immigrants, it was Muslims, it was Megyn Kelly, As he went on, he focused on Ted Cruz as Enemy # 1. His goal was not to simply get more votes than Ted Cruz, it was to destroy him. He was the Costco of politicians. Once you walked through the Trump doors you could find anything you wanted. But you were likely to forget why you went there in the first place, and to walk out without it.

        So here we are. He has gotten to the point where it appears he will be the nominee. All he has to do now is calm down, get a grip, and not screw it up. But it looks like we are stuck with him.

        I’m just saying we need to focus on the real enemy. It is not Donald Trump. He is a potential threat, but he is not the enemy. He is potentially dangerous, but he is not the enemy. We don’t KNOW what a threat he will turn out to be. But we do know the threat of continuing and expanding the Leftist governance we have been having to deal with . The focus has to be on doing whatever can still be done to slow the advance of Leftist governance in this country, Its dangers are not potential. They are real. To me, Trump is now a distraction. He is not the answer, and he certainly represents some serious problems, but he is not the enemy.

        So I’m going to ignore Trump, and focus on what is really important. If I can’t change the ugly fact that Trump has been foisted upon us, knocking out the only real chance the conservative movement has had for decades to get things right, then I’ll just accept that and ignore him, because the real enemy is still there, counting on us being so distracted by Trump, so distracted by the concept that the enemy is the GOP, that they will have a clear path ahead, even if it is cluttered up to some extent by the baggage of Hillary.

        And evidently they will have some allies, in people who still seem to think that their goal in the election is to “take down” this invented enemy “establishment”. Good on you, dolf! You go right ahead and vote for Hillary! That will really send a message! That monolithic GOP Establishment will rue the day they crossed that unibrowed math teacher from New Mexico, by golly!

  8. Amazona May 6, 2016 / 9:18 am

    BTW, on one hand poor Hannity is whining that he should not be held accountable for his role in promoting Trump, and on the other is channeling his idol by engaging in a series of embarrassingly juvenile tweets about Paul Ryan, including one-word comments such as “pathetic”.

    What is pathetic is watching someone slobber over someone as blatantly as Hannity did over Trump and then desperately try to keep in his hero’s good graces by imitating him and going after his critics.


  9. Retired Spook May 6, 2016 / 9:42 am

    This is one of the few accurate observations I’ve seen Trump make.

    Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump slammed Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse (R) for suggesting late Wednesday in a letter to “the majority of America” that conservatives should have a third option for president.

    When asked about Sasse’s suggestion by Fox News anchor Bret Baier, Trump sarcastically shot back: “Yeah, he’s a real genius.”

    “Let’s say you get somebody to run,” he continued. “That means the Republican can’t win. Now you have four to five Supreme Court justices that will be picked by Hillary Clinton or whoever it is, but probably Hillary. Bernie even worse.”

    I’m not sure at this point who would make a credible third party candidate, but I think you’re going to see the idea catch on like wild fire, well before the GOP convention. Never was the time more ripe for a 3rd alternative.

    • Amazona May 6, 2016 / 12:04 pm

      Trump’s observation might be accurate, but then why wasn’t this a potential problem when HE was the one holding the threat of a third party run at the throat of the GOP? Why is this a danger now, when it wasn’t a few months ago? What is the difference, regarding making it likely to have Hillary elected, between a GOP Trump against a conservative third party candidate and a GOP conservative against a Trump third party candidacy? It’s still a three-way race. But now, as usual, he is restating the terms.

      I think he is threatened by the prospect, is pulling a Trump and trying to scare us away from giving it a try. No matter how pathologically narcissistic he is, no matter how incoherent he is, he can read, and the figures show that while he had enough Trumpbots to swing a nomination (especially in open primaries) he still lacks the support of well over half of Republicans and nearly everyone else. Women can’t stand him. Hispanics hate him. Some polls show that he does well with blacks, some say he does not, but in none does he do well enough to make much of a difference.

      Now that he has succeeded in destroying his opponents in his own party though vile, vicious tactics, he has to pull off the miracle of completely changing his image from unprincipled bully to admirable statesman. That would be a tough hill to climb even for someone with mental filters, who is capable of rational thought and of restraining his impulses to blurt out whatever cockamamie or vicious thing pops into that “big brain” of his. For Trump, I think it will one or two steps forward when he sticks to the scripts his minders write for him, and at least that many back when his “big brain” takes over.

      He is what he is. His team has tried, valiantly, to convince us that he is not the Trump we have been watching pull a Godzilla through the ranks of the conservative movement, leaving chaos and anger and destruction in his wake. But every time they try to tell us he is really a different guy than the one we see, he barges in and says “No, I’m not !” He may want to believe that he is just so darned charming and “charismatic” that he can win over the many many millions who can’t stand him, on very deep philosophical as well as visceral levels, but deep down he knows that if this mass of voters is given a choice that is not just between him and Hillary he could go down in flames.

      So he tries an old Trump tactic that has worked for him in the past, and sets up an invented danger that he then says is very very scary. Hey, it worked on Cruz, why not try again?

      • Retired Spook May 6, 2016 / 10:43 pm

        As I said in our email forum, I may eventually come around to voting for Trump, but this is currently how I feel.

  10. Amazona May 7, 2016 / 7:44 pm


    Except Trump is NOT “the GOP nominee” and won’t be, unless and until the party says so at the convention. He has more delegates, based on primary and caucus votes, but it turns out those are not binding. Some states have their own internal rules saying their delegates are bound, at least for the first ballot, to the winner of that states’ caucus or primary, but in fact the party makes the rules, party rules overrule state rules (I guess we can’ say “party rules trump state rules” any more 😉 ) and it ain’t over till it’s over.

    Right now it is going to come down to the calculation, by the heads of the GOP, about which will do more harm to the party and to the chances of winning the general election—-having Trump be the official party representative and nominee, or having a different nominee and having to deal with a wall-kicking hissy fit complete with threats and lawsuits and probably a spite-run by Trump just to try to ruin the GOP chances.

    I think that choice will be made by a combination of factors—–Trump continuing to run backwards on the promises that got him his votes in the first place and starting to lose some of his base, Trump mouthing off so recklessly that the idea of him in office scares the pants off the GOP so badly they are willing to work with conservatives to bring them back into the fold and keep them, the prospect of too many conservatives refusing to vote for Trump at all, and most scary I think the prospect of too many conservatives voting for Hillary.

    She is already putting together a big campaign to win over anti-Trump Republicans, and a recent CNN poll showed that more than half of those polled who said they are going to vote for Hillary are only doing so as a vote against Trump. That has undoubtedly gotten a lot of attention at GOP headquarters, as it should.

    I agree, though, that there is a big push to claim that Trump is already the nominee, setting him and his drooling mobs up for real fits and claims “HIS” nomination was “STOLEN” from “HIM”. SSDD.

Comments are closed.