28 thoughts on “Wisconsin”

  1. Unless things turn south fast for Trump, he still probably would be close enough to the nomination that he could deal with either Cruz or Kasich to secure the nomination.

    And if Trump is stopped, then who gets the nomination? This sounds like it’ll become the domain of the establishment once again. I don’t think Cruz has a better chance than Trump unless the primaries start radically falling his way.

  2. Two outside groups, the Club for Growth and Our Principles PAC, amplified that assault by blanketing Wisconsin’s airwaves with anti-Trump ads.

    They lost me at “the Club for Growth”. I thought Cruz was going to be tough on immigration. That he’s pardnering with a pro open borders PAC tends to cast doubt on that.

  3. Pat Buchanan writes [url=http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/what-trump-has-wrought/]What Trump has wrought[/url]*

    If, through rules changes, subterfuge and faithless delegates, party elites swindle him out of the nomination, do they think that the millions who came out to vote for Trump will go home and say: We lost it fair and square?

    Do they think they can then go back to open borders, amnesty, a path to citizenship, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and nation building?

    Whatever happens to Trump, the country has spoken. And if the establishment refuses to heed its voice, and returns to the policies the people have repudiated, it should take heed of John F. Kennedy’s warning:

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

    Republicans tried putting the House under Republican control, and yet Obama got everything he wanted. So we put the Senate under Republican control, and Obama still got everything he wanted. The problem isn’t the Democrats, it’s the GOP establishment that fears angering Democrats far more than it fears angering Republicans. We need to change that.

    *wrought should probably be pronounced “worked” since it’s an archaic, almost abandoned phonetic spelling of the past tense of “work”.

    1. The Senate is not “under Republican control” when the Republicans have less than a supermajority. Much of our current problems arose when the Senate was under Democrat control, until Ted Kennedy died. They did a huge amount of damage to the nation in that brief period. But until we get an actual conservative president (and no, Bush didn’t count) and both houses, it’s going to be very difficult to start to make repairs.

      1. The Republicans should be able to block treaties just by holding over one third of the Senate. And yet we had Corker and McConnell and the disastrous Iran deal.

        With the establishment we’ve got, even if Republicans held every office in Washington, they’d still buckle to the Democrats on all the important issues.

        I think they’re trying to copy the Democrat technique, which is to turn the screws on minorities (while of course blaming Republicans), so the minorities will get angry and vote Democrat even harder.

        Well, Republicans are certainly angry and frustrated, but instead of voting for the establishment with more intensity, they decided to go for SMOD 2016.

        1. And yet we had Corker and McConnell and the disastrous Iran deal.

          Because a lawless White House refused to call it a treaty. There was no way to prevent that except to impeach Obama, and they don’t have the votes for it.

          1. Seems to me the Supreme Court ought to be an alternative to impeachment, since this is a constitutional question. Rand, why do you suppose Congress doesn’t try to have the Supreme Court reign in Obama? (I suppose Congress’ mechanism would be a lawsuit.)

          2. Traditionally, SCOTUS has tried to stay out of squabbles between the Executive and Legislative, and hasn’t even recognized that Congress had standing, but in the Obama era, that has finally changed, since they did allow Congress to sue over ObamaCare last fall. It remains to be seen, though, if SCOTUS will ultimately hear it. But what would you expect the court to do if the administration simply chooses to continue to do whatever the hell it wants? The only solution the Founders created is impeachment and removal. It has been used far too seldom, largely because partisanship has take priority over Congressional prerogatives.

          3. “But what would you expect the court to do if the administration simply chooses to continue to do whatever the hell it wants? ”

            Well, we disagree, and there is no resolving it, I find it inconceivable that Obama would disregard the Supreme Court, short of an utterly dire national emergency like an all-out nuclear war.

          4. I find it inconceivable that Obama would disregard the Supreme Court, short of an utterly dire national emergency like an all-out nuclear war.

            Oh, Bob, bless your heart.

          5. I find it inconceivable that Obama would disregard the Supreme Court,

            Why? He ignores court’s decisions all the time.

      2. The Senate is not “under Republican control” when the Republicans have less than a supermajority.

        A supermajority is only constitutionally required for a handful of things (treaty ratification, impeachment conviction, veto override, etc.). A simple majority can change the Senate rules, e.g. to abolish the legislative filibuster. I expect that will happen the next time one party controls the House, Senate and White House, but does not have 60 Senate votes.

    2. —Whatever happens to Trump, the country has spoken. And if the establishment refuses to heed its voice, and returns to the policies the people have repudiated, it should take heed of John F. Kennedy’s warning:—

      If the US could get dramatic increase in economic growth, however it’s done, Trump becomes irrelevant.
      Though this is not something one could do in the short term, even if one had competence.
      So this leaves you with the symbolic stuff- like building a wall on the Mexico border- doing this fast is something which could be done.

      In terms of revolution, what we have is an “outsider” revolution, and in terms of primary election, we currently have two “outsiders”- Trump and Sanders.
      Everyone at the moment is more or less ignoring Sanders. Sanders is mostly considered “harmless”, whereas Trump is “red lights flashing danger”.
      Clinton is evil incarnate. She wouldn’t have any problem with killing Sanders, if she could get away with it- and btw, she has long track track record of getting away with it.

      1. Everyone at the moment is more or less ignoring Sanders. Sanders is mostly considered “harmless”, whereas Trump is “red lights flashing danger”.

        Which is totally insane.

    3. Obama still got everything he wanted

      That is simply false. Obama wanted an immigration reform law, and had to settle for executive orders that are 1) tied up in court, 2) less durable (they can be reversed by the next president), and 3) less comprehensive. He wanted a cap-and-trade law, and settled for the Clean Power Plan, which is (again) 1) tied up in court, 2) less durable and 3) less comprehensive. If Obama still had a Democratic Congress there’d be action on a raft of other topics as well (closing Gitmo, infrastructure spending, community college access, pre-K, middle-class tax credits, paid family leave, LGBT non-discrimination, ending the Cuba embargo, federal minimum wage hike, more judicial appointments, etc).

      Since 2010 neither party has gotten “everything it wanted”. That’s divided government.

      1. Gads you are so full of it.

        He could’ve passed immigration laws in his first two years. Yet he did nothing.

        1. He didn’t do nothing, he passed the recovery act, health care reform and Dodd Frank — by any standard it was a very productive stretch of lawmaking. Immigration reform and cap-and-trade would have followed, but Ted Kennedy died, the Dems lost their 60th Senate vote, and Harry Reid hadn’t yet come around to abolishing the legislative filibuster.

      2. Obama wanted an immigration reform law, and had to settle for

        He wanted open borders and he got them. Notice that everything on your list that Obama couldn’t do legally, he did illegally.

        1. We don’t have open borders. We don’t even have the sort of immigration reform Obama advocated, just the best he could manage under existing law. Republican control of Congress has made a big difference.

    4. The problem isn’t the Democrats, it’s the GOP establishment that fears angering Democrats far more than it fears angering Republicans.

      You can tell by how hard they fight against Trump in comparison to Democrats. Where has all this tough talk and accusations of fascism been hiding at? Why not apply the accusation of fascism where it is accurate and the tough talk for people who think socialism is pretty cool or that think ISIS has a few good points?

      Trump has been good at picking his topics, and one of those topics is the willingness to fight. The GOPe could respond by fighting against the Democrats but instead they go for Trump.

      There is a literal socialist running and is incredibly popular with the Democrat party and yet no one has the balls or capability to champion capitalism over socialism or point out how horrible socialism is for human rights.

      1. In early Wisconsin exit polling, the majority of people voting in the Republican primary feel betrayed by the GOP establishment. Betrayal is a serious thing. It wouldn’t be a wise time for the GOP establishment to buck their voters.

        2. The exit polls reflect that in Wisconsin. They split pretty even on “agent of change”, etc.

          But before I mentioned that the jump in Republican turnout is interesting.

          In the 2008 primaries the turnout was 402,699 for the Republicans (McCain/Huckabee) and 1,113,285 for the Democrats (Obama/Clinton). In the general it went 1,262,383 for McCain and 1,677,211 for Obama.

          So the relative turnout for the primaries compared to the general was 31.9% for the Republicans and 66.4% for the Democrats. Perhaps that’s because McCain/Huckabee was a done deal by that point.

          Anyway, with only 39% in, the turnout in 2016 should be around 984,000 for the Republicans and 930,500 for the Democrats.

          In 2008 Republican turnout was 36.1% of the Democrat turnout. This time it was 105% of the Democrat turnout.

          You see something similar in just about every state.

          1. Yeah but I wonder just how much of that expanded GOP turnout is actually Dems trying to push Trump through because:

            1) They assume Hillary will be the nominee and

            2) Think Trump is easiest to beat.

          2. A other thing to consider for turnout motive, is that people feel their vote counts and they want to influence the election. A lot of people are turning out to vote against Trump.

            What if Trump is driving increased turn out by attracting Democrat and independent crossovers but Cruz is driving turn out by people who don’t like Trump?

            Maybe that enthusiasm transfers into the general but as you pointed out, betrayal might prevent that. Trump being the nominee could to some degree to.

            I don’t know but this is the first Presidential primary I will vote in and should my preferred candidate lose, I will vote for Trump in the general. I would say that I will vote for whomever the GOP nominee is but that depends entirely on what shenanigans take place and what candidate those shenanigans produce.

  4. I see that Trump’s “coattails” allowed Bradley (conservative) to handily defeat Kloppenburg (liberal) for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a hotly contested matchup. Bradley might have won anyhow, but the heavy Republican turnout must have been a big factor.

Comments are closed.