Flexibility

So now the anti-Trumpsters have homed in on the notion that Trump may not inflexibly insist that every single position he stakes out will be implemented as proposed.  That's presented as somehow being evidence that he's a bait-and-switch guy.

Really?  You've got to be kidding.  For years we've gotten nothing but complaints of gridlock on the Beltway - that extremists in power just dig in their heels with the result that, in the absence of a middle, nothing whatsoever gets done.

With that background, Trump comes along and describes policies he prefers, some of which are surely extreme, but increasingly indicates that he's open to discussing and massaging those policies.  I saw this coming in my very first post.  So the ship would get steered toward his policies, which may actually be fundamentally preferable policies (certainly, it's starting to look like the electorate thinks so), but possibly with substantial refinements incorporated out of deference for the strongly-held beliefs of those on the other side.  

This is bad?!?  That he's willing to discuss, cajole, negotiate, etc., to get things actually done is somehow a negative?  Flexibility, then, is a trait to be disdained.  Yeah.  Right.

I guess the Republican nominee's head of steam is becoming a bit daunting.  But do the people looking for anything . . . anything . . . insulting to say about him pause for even a second to think about what they're actually saying?  Grasping at straws in the face of is one thing, but the attempted vilification of a willingness to be flexible is hilarious, just hilarious.

Polls

In a prior post, I gave you an advance taste of how fast the polling numbers would show that Mr. Trump is a formidable candidate, and then some.  I surmised that early polling after his securing of the nomination would probably have him down only in the range of 46-for-Clinton to 41-for-Trump.  I guess I was wrong.  Today's polling?  Trump at 45, Clinton at 42.  Already.  I guess I undershot the mark.  And, with Hillary's unlikablility factor (as distinguished from the more official "unfavorables" designation), it may actually be hard for her to reverse any palpable slides.  Ol' Mo' (Momentum) could be a real thorn in Hillary's side, given the dynamics of this particular election cycle.  Be afraid, Hillary fans . . . be very afraid.

The Blame Game

OK, so now Democrats are throwing chairs, cursing and making death threats, all directed at those guiding the Party in the direction of Hillary Clinton.  Hey! - where's the cacophony of voices blaming Hillary for all of the is mischief and even violence?!?  Didn't we learn from the Republican primary season that Trump was at fault for those misbehaving in Trump's direction?  Why, then, isn't Hillary at fault for what went on in Nevada?

The answer, of course, is that neither Hillary nor Trump is responsible for this type of nonsense.  The people responsible are, well, the people who are doing what they're doing.  (Duh.) 

I point all this out, though, just to show the duplicity of any number of left-leaning commentators.  Boy, it would really be something to see them saying, out of respect for consistency, that Hillary needs to behave differently in order to quell all the violence.  Ha.

If there is an external encouragement of misbehavior here, I think that it revolves around systems that are implemented or even designed to thwart the will of the people.  The Republican system was corrupt in its implementation, as the Establishment plotted (really, plotted) to try to hijack the convention away from the people's clear choice.  The Democratic system, on the other hand, is corrupt structurally, with superdelegates that are there for the clear, express and admitted purpose of thwarting the will of the People in the event that the People have been adjudged to have gone awry.

Trump talked about possible riots in the event that party elders tried to wrest the Republican nomination.  He wasn't encouraging riots, but rather was expressing a likely state of play.  It's tough to watch the System countering the will of the People.  And now we're seeing it on the Democratic side, as Sanders supporters become more focused on the structural impediments that the System has erected against the Senator.  Disenfranchisement is a dangerous thing.  To quote a line from School of Rock, "Stick it to the Man."  I'm not trying to justify the behavior; I'm just trying to explain it.  

Rachel Maddow once pointed out to Jimmy Fallon (I'm paraphrasing) that Trump had driven a wedge between the Republicans.  On one side were the Beltway professionals and other members of the Establishment.  On the other side were . . . the voters.  Genius.  Bernie Sanders seems to be doing the same thing now, on the Democratic side.  

Wouldn't it really be something to see a Republican lovefest in Cleveland, and a Democratic riot in Philly.  Who'd'a thunk it.  Who'd'a thunk ANY of this.

See you in November.

Walls, Bridges and (Yet More) Demagoguery

So we've been hearing that the warm-and-fuzzy way forward in this terror-laden world is to build bridges not walls.  What transparent and absurd self-serving bluster that is.  I've previously noted the rank demagoguery surrounding certain other criticism of the Republican nominee, and I'll note it now, again.

Let's see if I've got this straight.  The idea of building a wall to protect the country against people crossing our borders illegally (!!!!!) is somehow an offputting concept that shows that we're not kind and open people.  Seriously, are you kidding (again)?  

When the White House is equipped with a lock or two (or three or four), sophisticated security systems and really high (but apparently not overly effective) fences, is that an unfriendly mean-spirited message to the world?  We're not . . . welcoming . . . our friends and neighbors?  Should the White House be an open house?  Of course not - that's absurd.  The proper characterization is that steps to attempt to bar entry by those up to no good are perfectly reasonable steps to pursue obvious and legitimate security goals.  There is no attempt there whatsoever to bar entry by those who should appropriately be allowed in.  

It's the same thing with a border wall.  People allowed to come in can, well, come in.  People who are not allowed in are physically barred from, well, coming in.  I challenge the left-leaning demagogues of the world to take the locks off their doors, or maybe better yet to remove the doors from their hinges altogether, in the name of pursuing a kinder-and-gentler approach to their beloved neighbors.  At the end of the day, choosing NOT to protect oneself from those not allowed in is probably the course that is indeed manifestly inappropriate!

How did it get to be the case that it is somehow, in any sane view of the world, inappropriate to bar entry by those that are not allowed to enter?  I guess the answer to that question is - you will see it argued that this country has no legitimate interest in enhancing border security when a Democratic nominee wants to generate some nice-sounding bridge/wall motto at the expense of even a scintilla of sense or reason.  

Sheesh.

Bankrupt Thinking on Bankruptcy

OK, people, enough about the bankruptcy thing.  What silliness.  What ignorance.  What  demagoguery.

So here's the way it works.  You're allowed to try investing in a variety of separate limited-liability buckets.  It's a concept that is at the very core of this economic system.  It encourages capital investment and risk-taking.  If one of your entities goes belly-up, the entity goes bye-bye, and the rest of the empire is safe.  Conversely, if something hits, you win.

You can try this all day long.  So it's easy, right?  Well, no - all in, it's really pretty hard to win.  If it weren't, we'd all be rich.  Many successful investors have embarked upon unsuccessful ventures.  I would imagine that the lion's share of successful investors have material amounts of failed enterprises in their long-term portfolios.  The question that matters is: where do you wind up, net-net?  

If you wind up personally bankrupt, that's not so good.  If you wind up with . . . BILLIONS OF DOLLARS . . . well, that's pretty good.  Mr. Trump has billions of dollars.  That's pretty good.  Let's see you do it.

Can this particular absurd line of criticism please stop?  It's getting pretty old.  And it's getting really stupid.  Trump's resume is just fine thank you.  And it now includes Republican Nominee for President of the United States of America.

Onwards . . . 

The "Napoleon Dynamite" Election?

There's a risky haughtiness to the notion of looking down on a campaign that goes down a distinctly entertainment-type path, as it appears that this one well might.  The Donald has already started to foreshadow a convention the likes of which we've never seen.

Watch out, though - underestimating the power of good feelings and generalized positivity can be dangerous indeed.  We can all laugh as Pedro wins the election based on Napoleon's distinctly issue-free dance presentation, but the movie may well be spot on when it comes to recognizing that the kind of excitement generated by Napoleon and his memorable moves really can lead to victory.  Remember the simplicity and power of Reagan's Morning in America worldview, with America portrayed as a "shining city on the hill"?

Laugh all you want, but do so at your peril.  If Trump comes out of that convention with a bump that goes so far as to constitute an actual lead - and I think he well might - then I'm not entirely sure that after a quick glance in the proverbial rear-view mirror he ever really looks back again.

As to the gorilla not yet in the room, who apparently will not be revealed until the convention (sigh), we have the incredibly critical VP question.  For myself, I'm imagining that, at that convention, we ultimately do get Big Marco.  Now I know he's said he doesn't want it, and he has cogently explained that Mr. Trump should have as his running mate someone who's views are more, well, Trumpian.  I get it.  I'm tilting at windmills, just trying to will my prior Big Marco surmise into reality.  But here's my draft of a piece of Big Marco's speech when he accepts the second-slot nomination: "Initially, I thought that what Donald needed was someone that had greater agreement with him on a range of important issues.  But he has tapped into something here, and I want to be a part of it.  After due consideration, I have come to the conclusion that I can do more to pursue the things I hold dear by working from within the system, rather than by working without it.  I want to be a part of this Movement.  And so, with that, I enthusiastically accept your nomination to be the Vice President of the United States of America."

C'mon, Marco (bringing it back full circle to viewing the world through the Napoleon Dynamite prism), you really do need to go out there and tell Pedro to: "Vote for Donald"!

The VP Issue

Having previously shot out a quick hitter on the Trump Cabinet, I wanted to get down just a quick thought or two on the VP issue.

Thought one - Marco Rubio.  The idea of building out the Hispanic, young, Florida, conservative, legislative angle just makes ALL kinds of sense.  I can just see Donald parading him out with the following line, "From here on out, I want you all to call him . . . BIG MARCO!"  Ha.

Thought two - Condoleezza Rice . . . which, I would think, would simply be just another way of pronouncing the phrase, "President Trump."

I'm sure I'll be 0-2 here, but you can't blame me for tryin'.  Do we really have to wait for the (hopefully Ryan-less) convention to see how this all shakes out?  Suspense, suspense, suspense . . .

Conservative Hypocrisy

Well, yet another chapter of the "Are You Kidding Me" book is apparently in the drafting stage.  Mitt Romney and a bunch of other Conservative Crazies are now talking about ginning up a third-party candidacy?!?  I would say, "Really?!??!" but that wouldn't do justice to the situation.  What happened to "We need to stop Hillary"?  Or, more specifically, "We need to rally around Ted Cruz so that we can stop Hillary."  I guess what they were really saying is, "I want", "Look at me", "Here I am."  Or maybe just simply, "me me me me me me me me me me".

They're not the most gracious Losers, are they?  (I'll concede, however, that they are indeed Losers, which I guess explains how Romney somehow got to become their leader.)  Somehow, there's this line that about 60% of the Republican electorate voted against Trump, and that the numbers therefore somehow support these strangest-of-strange efforts.  But hey, geniuses, did you notice that about 73% of the voters voted against Cruz?  What an utterly bizarre and transparent argument to support a third-party candidacy.

Let's just go with an honest line of thinking.  How about? - "I hate Trump so much for kaboshing any hope for a conservative takeover of the Republican party (itself a pipe dream, by the way) that I will sell my core purpose of defeating Hillary right down the river, regardless of the level of hypocrisy and absurdity that I need to marshal in order to get me there."  Well, at least that would be above-board, now, wouldn't it?  Hey, Ted, I remember all of those unite-behind-me-SO-THAT-WE-CAN-STOP-HILLARY oratories.  You think maybe it's time for you to call upon these petulant children that you call allies and get them back to being on-message?  Or, if being on-message is too much to ask from a bunch of irrational lunatics, let's maybe lower the bar to: not being utterly and counterproductively off-message?  Sheesh - what's going on here doesn't make any sense at all, even on its own terms.

Look, I don't know if The Donald really can beat Hillary.  But wouldn't it be sad if, because of a bunch of immature miscreants, we didn't even get the fighting chance to see if it's possible?

Liberals for Conservatives?!?

OK, so now I'm officially confused.  Here's the flow:

- The liberal media historically dislikes - or maybe despises - fringe conservatives.  Honestly, that's almost a tautology.

- Trump becomes the Republican nominee, completely shaking up the Republican establishment and utterly tweaking reactionary Conservatives.  The people shaken up and tweaked are the very people that, by definition, liberals oppose, and fundamentally so.

- The extreme Conservatives, some of whom are utterly off the right side of the page, decline to unify behind Trump.  In tantrum-like fashion, they criticize and even vilify Mr. Trump.

- The liberal media (and here comes the punch line) point to that criticism and vilification as confirmation of Mr. Trump's lack of qualification.

Really?!?  Are you completely kidding?!?  Maybe this is just a silly joke.  The people who have forever been in the cross-hairs of the liberal media are now somehow the Voice of Reason?  I frankly can't believe the rank duplicity.  A liberal citing to Beck, Levin, Limbaugh, etc., etc., for support of liberal opposition to Trump?  I thought everyone wanted to see a move away from the fringe extremes into a more moderate center.  So now we've got that, complete with full-blown hysteria on the part of the right-wing fringe extremists.

With any consistency at all, the reaction of the liberal media should rather be along the lines of: "Hey, the people who are rejecting Trump are the very people with whom we vehemently disagree at our very core, maybe more than we disagree with any other group in the political spectrum.  Hmm, maybe Trump is striking a chord that we should consider more soberly, if the people that are rejecting him are the very people whose views we hold in such incredibly low esteem."  The opportunistic demagoguery and sheer rank duplicity of liberals pointing to a rejection of Trump by dogmatic ultra-right Conservatives as evidence of his undesirability is nothing short of staggering.  Hey, folks, disagree with The Donald all you want, but please - please - try to maintain even a shred of honesty, consistency and self-respect.

P.S.: The remarkably self-important Speaker of the House is purporting to set himself up as a higher-ranking member of his party than the party's presidential nominee?  What exactly would the reaction of the liberal media had there been to an attempt by, for example, Nancy Pelosi to sit in judgment of Barack Obama?  Sheesh.

Paths

Not enough people are paying attention to the question of, "What's the path?"  While we can all root for Person X or Person Y, at some point the simple question revolves around identifying real scenarios under which your favorite can actually . . . win.

Ted Cruz understood the point.  So long as there was a path, he was hangin' around.  Then he laid the groundwork for getting out when the path evaporated.  (Supposedly, he was saying that from the "beginning"; yes, if the "beginning" means "this week for the first time".)   It wasn't only the Indiana ("heartland") shellacking.  It was that in conjunction with the 30-point walloping in the latest Cali polls.  I was on record as saying that, if Cruz lost Indiana big, he would suspend.  I give him credit for doing so.  It was the right move at the right time.

So what's the path for Trump?  That is the real question.  People should be focusing on the "Wag the Dog" theory of numbers assembly.  (C'mon, Mr. Rove, get with your own program!)  Reince Priebus has already said that the RNC is building a monolithic numbers machine for figuring out just where Republican resources should go, and that the nominee, whoever he is (now Trump) will have the full benefit thereof.  The Democrats should fear this as much as they fear anything.

But it's not just a purely state-by-state allocate-the-wins thing.  There are so many WtD and WtD-type dynamics here, and here are two of them:

- CNN's Van Jones makes the incredibly prescient point that if Trump gets a material minority of the black vote he's your next president.  With his support among certain voting blocs, he doesn't need to win the black vote.  When you drill down into the numbers, what he needs is to get some of it.  Can you say, "Cain, Carson, Tyson, West"? . . . with more coming?   And watch what happens on the women's side.  People are going to be shocked at the number of women that go for Trump.  There's a secret weapon here named Ivanka.  (Will Trump play the Monica Lewinsky and Orgy Island cards?)  When it comes to the Hispanic vote, to me the jury is still out.  Etc., etc.  The potential numerology here is truly fascinating.

- People are not making enough of the mischief The Donald will do in states like New York, California, Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Hillary wants to be able to ignore such states.  Even if Trump can't carry them, how much damage will he cause if he causes her to devote substantial resources thereto?  And what if he wins just one or two of those states?  What happens to the WtD numbers, then?

- And let's not forget the Bernie factor.  Bernie could never have won, to be sure (certainly, not in the general election).  But his staying power is undeniably remarkable.  Can Trump start picking off some of his voters?  If Bernie waits too long to unify behind Hillary will too many of his voters already have gotten comfortable with Trump?  For that matter, when Bernie does throw his support to Hillary, will it be at all enthusiastically?  That's an interesting aspect of the numbers calculus.

It's also not too soon to start talking about Mo'.  This could be an odd part of the cycle when it comes to Momentum.  Hillary is not particularly popular, and indeed in certain circles is brutally unpopular.  If Trump is able to cloud her ability to get her messages out, and if he is able to start driving up her unfavorables even further and putting her back on her heels, then we could be looking at a situation in which she is consistently swimming upstream.  One of the keys for the Democrats seemed early on to be the "joke" aspect of Trump's candidacy, especially given some of the early, and quite silly, Hillary v. Trump polls.  I felt that the post-Indiana early polling would show Trump down by, let's say 46 to 41.  Some are a little worse, and some are a little better.  But the notion that the Trump candidacy is a joke is, well, a joke.  If Hillary starts swimming backwards, it could start to be hard to reverse the Momentum.  We'll have to see.

The path for Trump started to become evident here, even as the pundits identified roadblocks at every turn.  He can't get away with saying X (about illegal immigrants).  Surely, he can't say Y (about John McCain).  Let's see what happens when people "really" start to vote.  His ceiling is 32%.  His ceiling is 38%.  His ceiling is 45%.  We'll see (this one is particularly funny) what happens when the field winnows down.  (I guess his ceiling is now somewhere in the 70%-to-80% range?)  And on and on and on and on.  And, of course, more recently, we have: well, that's just all primaries stuff, and now, you see, as we enter the general election, the game will change.  Really?  Well, maybe so.  And, then again, maybe not.

So now we head off to the next chapter of (with apologies to the Disney folks) Mr. Trump's Wild Ride.  Buckle your seatbelts . . .

Finding a Dream Team - the Real Trump Card?

I'll take my shot at some Cabinet-type folks for The Donald's team:

VP - ??????
Chief of Staff - Ivanka (haha - nobody seemed to mind Bobby Kennedy)
Treasury - Icahn
State - Cruz (yes, Cruz)
Homeland Security - Giuliani
HHS or Surgeon General - Carson
AG - Christie
Veterans Affairs - Sessions
Culture (new post, with co-Secretaries) - Michaels, West (and Rivers, posthumously)

Places for Huntsman?  Rubio?!?

Anyone out there have any thoughts?