A Trump Nomination

John Hinderaker is thinking the unthinkable:

…what should principled conservatives do if neither party nominates a candidate of the right? I would certainly vote for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, but I think the most reasonable response is to provide no support to the non-conservative presidential candidate beyond the ballot, and focus instead on other races where true conservatives are running.

Apart from the fact that I don’t think he would make much of a chief executive, a Trump presidency could have the unfortunate effect of further disillusioning many on the right. Voters on the right often say that politicians lie, and sometimes, of course, they do. But usually the “lie” is a case of over-promising. When they are campaigning, conservatives, like liberals, often overstate what they will be able to accomplish in office. This engenders disappointment. But imagine if conservatives were to elect Trump under the misguided belief that he is one of them. He presumably won’t govern as a conservative; he hasn’t even promised to. More likely, he will govern in accordance with his belief that the Democrats are right on most issues, particularly the economy, and consistent with his acceptance of big government. I am afraid that conservatives who vote for Trump expecting something different will be in for a rude awakening, should he win.

Yes, Trump has no discernible political principles. This reminds me very much of the Perot phenomenon in 1992. I disagree, though, that Trump is likely to be the nominee.

[Update a while later]

Related thoughts from Frank Cagle:

I think a Trump presidency would be a disaster. While he talks a good game, he has no practical way to carry out his promises. Like Cas, he will say anything to grab attention, get a headline and get on television. But his success should be a warning to the political establishment. The American people are fed up with political correctness, and if you do not provide sensible solutions to the issues Trump has raised, don’t be surprised when he stands on the podium as the GOP nominee.

Yup.

[Thursday-morning update]
Thoughts from Max Boot on Trump’s profound and dangerous ignorance. Yes. When you don’t know what you don’t know, how can you possibly even choose competent policy advisors?

35 thoughts on “A Trump Nomination”

  1. Ross Perot is the best president America never had. And if GHW Bush had actually kept his promise of “Read my lips – no new taxes” he’d have won.

  2. I share some of the concerns about Trump, especially on the fiscal side. (of which size of government plays a huge role). I also share the concerns that what he’s saying now will have little bearing on how he governs, if elected.

    Basically, IMHO Trump might be doing what Rubio did when Rubio was running for his senate seat; lying about his positions, and then flipping to the other side as soon as the polls closed. His immigration positions are a glaring example of this. In other words, saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. So, while I suspect Trump might be doing this, I know darn well Rubio is because he’s done it before.

    I watched the debate. I found Trump’s apparent ignorance on what the nuclear triad is to be very scary.

    On the other hand, I found Christie, whom prior to the debate I’d been somewhat open to, to be terrifying. I’m referring to his declared intent to create a no-fly zone inside Syria and shoot down Russian planes that trespass in it. That strikes me as a great way to risk WWIII, for at best a small thing. I’ve long been against a no-fly-zone in Syria, because what’s the point? ISIS and the islamists aren’t the ones flying, so what we’d be doing is creating an area where they wouldn’t need to worry about air attacks. This strikes me as strategically foolish, with the added benefit of risking WWIII. I can’t help but note that several Republican candidates, as well as Hillary, are for the no-fly-zone.

    What I’m trying to say is I have major reservations of some sort about every single candidate, so while I don’t think Trump would be the best pick, I don’t think he’d be the worst, either. Personally, I’m still a Cruz leaner, and last night’s debate and last night’s debate move me a bit further in his direction (Even though I learned something about him I didn’t like; his H1b visa enlargement support).

    My favorite line from the debate was Cruz’s pledge to build the wall and make Donald Trump pay for it. That was hilarious.

    As for whether or not Trump will win the nomination; at this point in 2008, wasn’t Hillary still seen as the “inevitable” 2008 Dem nominee?

    At this point, I don’t think anyone can can say for sure who will win or loose.

    1. The bit about making Trump pay for the wall was great and under Scott Adams’ master persuasion filter very effective because it got Trump to think past the sale. Trump said he would build it for a President Cruz. By Trump saying that, it filters into the audiences subconscious as well. Very effective when the current top candidate makes a slip like that.

      On the no-fly zone, the time for that was prior to Russia getting involved. I would allow for an exception if a safe zone for refugees was established. Helping refugees over there would solve the problems the globe is having with refugees. And the no-fly zone wouldn’t need our air force patrolling it.

      Even if we are trying to help proxies, rather than use air strikes, we could use ground based missile/rocket systems that would prevent the potential loss of our expensive airplanes and getting dragged into a wider conflict if a plane gets shot down.

  3. Trump isn’t conservative. He is like an establishment Republican except the he exists outside their power structure, which is why they don’t like him.

    I have no idea how he would govern, could be good, bad, or a mixture of both. Ego would drive him get results but unlike our current President, he actually likes our country, so even if his methods are unappealing to people who are hoping for a conservative ideological standard bearer, the outcomes would be radically different than Obama’s policies of making our country weaker and promoting intraAmerican strife as a way to maintain power.

    Someone would be right to point out Trump’s divisive rhetoric on illegal immigrants and Muslim refugees but these people are not Americans and people are tired of American Presidents elevating non-Americans over citizens of the USA while saying Americans are the real problem.

    Democrats, and many others, have problems with Trump’s rhetoric but they don’t play the reversal game where they look at their own rhetoric directed at the USA and fellow Americans from the POV of their targets. It is a hard point to get them to address because they feel so superior that they feel morally justified that their targets deserve the treatment being directed at them and that such treatment need not be bound by ethics, morals, or laws.

  4. Cas Walker was a hoot. I grew up watching his morning program. There are a lot of clips of him on Youtube.

    Christie and Fiorina were both for shooting down Russian jets, which would mean Russians will use their S-400 missile system to shoot down US jets, whose pilots would eject over ISIS territory, and that would end who whole air campaign against ISIS unless we used airstrikes to take out the Russia missile sites, which means the US would be bombing Russian ground forces.

    And what objective do we accomplish while starting WW-III? We get to make sure ISIS doesn’t get bombed by the Russians because Christie and Fiorina’s objective is … what exactly? To try out options and battle plans from 2012?

    And then at the end, in response to Christie trumpeting what he had to cope with after 9/11, Fiorina tried to top him by saying she immediately increased security at her facilities located in 173 countries because she thought corporate targets would be struck next.

    Carly Fiorina, we have these wonderful parting gifts for you. Thank you for playing!

  5. Just before California went behind the blue curtain for good, the Republicans managed to elect governor Schwarzenegger – mainly because he was a media celebrity with a “tough guy” image and had assured everyone he was a true blue conservative. He rapidly departed from those positions after a couple of uncomfortable demonstrations by the SEIU and became a sort of left coast Teddy Kennedy – at one point advocating government health care in the state and banning a gun that had never been used to commit a crime. The situation now in the country is eerily similar to California’s at the time of his election.

  6. That’s not a moon, that’s a Trump.

    Trump’s a big target.
    Question why hasn’t MSM gone after him?
    Do you think they very busy making their “documentary” on Trump, or
    when comes down it, they are confident he will not be the Rep choice?
    He continues to amaze me that he is still so far ahead in the polls.

    But anyhow, I still think that what happening is the Dems are losing rather than the Reps are winning.
    And I think the path to win for Rep, is gaining more seats in Congress.
    So right now, Trump is very helpful to Rep party.
    And I don’t polls matter at the moment in terms of whether Trump wins, though if he maintains his lead into January, he will win some primaries.
    And if Trump wins some primaries I think that will continue to be good for Republican party. But were this to happen then MSM would have to get serious about attacking Trump- because it’s not about Trump, it’s about Dem losing badly. And it’s going to interesting how Trump responds to the normal attacks of MSM.
    But assuming Trump wins primary, how will this affect how well the Reps do in terms gaining more seats in Congress.
    What happens if Trump wins primary and then Dems loses big time in terms seats in Congress?
    I think if Dems can stop the bleeding in terms of Congress, it will be a big win for them.

    1. GB,

      “Question why hasn’t MSM gone after him?”

      Because he serves two important purposes to the Democrat-owned MSM:

      1) He creates sensational news which brings revenue to the MSM.

      2) MSM can cast Trump as a “classic” GOP guy which means “crazy bastard”. It helps Hillary.

      “And I think the path to win for Rep, is gaining more seats in Congress.”

      So far that hasn’t helped us….Ryan just gave the store away in the latest Omnibus.

      “And if Trump wins some primaries I think that will continue to be good for Republican party.”

      There are, to be sure, benefits to the GOP to have Trump being in the game. He expanded the “Overton Window”, takes a lot of MSM heat off of the other candidates, and more serious candidates like Cruz and Rubio can use Trump’s bombast to their advantage.

      But those advantages have an expiration date.

      In forecasting how things will go int he future, I think we have to wait until we have substantial numbers of GOP candidates give up and see where those votes go.

      Trump has about 30% but he’s always been around 30%. Can’t win with 30%

      1. Gregg
        December 17, 2015 at 9:21 AM

        GB,

        “Question why hasn’t MSM gone after him?”

        Because he serves two important purposes to the Democrat-owned MSM:

        1) He creates sensational news which brings revenue to the MSM.

        2) MSM can cast Trump as a “classic” GOP guy which means “crazy bastard”. It helps Hillary.–

        Hmm, crazy bastard vs the wicked witch, it sounds like a match in heaven.
        I wonder what Andrew Breitbart would said about this whole thing.
        I don’t think Breitbart or Trump were not “classic” GOP guys- unless you mean it in a good way- GOP has humans and Dems has flesh eating zombies.

        –“And I think the path to win for Rep, is gaining more seats in Congress.”

        So far that hasn’t helped us….Ryan just gave the store away in the latest Omnibus.–
        Were we to have a President Trump, would he veto it?
        Would Jeb veto it?

        “And if Trump wins some primaries I think that will continue to be good for Republican party.”

        There are, to be sure, benefits to the GOP to have Trump being in the game. He expanded the “Overton Window”, takes a lot of MSM heat off of the other candidates, and more serious candidates like Cruz and Rubio can use Trump’s bombast to their advantage.”

        Exactly what I am thinking.

        “But those advantages have an expiration date.”
        But that is always the case.

        –In forecasting how things will go int he future, I think we have to wait until we have substantial numbers of GOP candidates give up and see where those votes go.

        Trump has about 30% but he’s always been around 30%. Can’t win with 30%–

        I don’t know whether Trump can win, but he is winning in terms of helping the Reps. Trump is huge target for Lefties to attack, and photons in exhaust port may not work.

      2. “candidates like Cruz and Rubio can use Trump’s bombast to their advantage.”

        They ought to be stealing his superior market research and crafting a “I would handle this issue better than Trump because…” message.

    2. Let me start off by saying that I don’t care for Trump and would prefer another candidate but that watching him stick it to the GOP establishment and media is entertaining. The trick is on Trump supporters though because Trump is essentially establishment.

      Almost all of the coverage of Trump is negative, really really negative. He is called Hitler, Mussolini, racist, and bigot. How are they supposed to get more negative?

      The problem with this is that the media is not exactly honest in their attacks against Trump and the racist hitler cards are played out so it ruins their credibility. The media is already unpopular and untrusted. Trump pounds them in every speech. The hated media responds with outlandish attacks and Trump gets stronger.

      Much like the GOP establishment, the media is a damaged brand and Trump prepared the battlefield early on. It is quite the trap he set for them. He spends almost no money on ads and yet gets the most coverage. So he isn’t giving money to people who hate him and he is making them give him more coverage than anyone else for free. The only way for the media to win, is not to play but they want to destroy Trump so they can’t stop talking about him.

      And if the media did stop talking about Trump, he would buy airtime. In his speech the other day, he said he had planned to spend $30m up to this point of the race but he didn’t need to. Then he made fun of the media for falling into his trap.

      He just kept plugging away on them by noting how Bernie gets coverage of his big crowds and they never show Trumps crowds. The cameras never move he said, until a protester pops up in back then they swivel like pretzels. This was effective because he had a large crowd, the media didn’t show it, and as he made his attack, the cameras remained still.

      Also, there is a documentary about Trump.

  7. And from the “are you retarded” department, as Trump continues to bitch-slap the Republican establishment, and that establishment continues it’s groping, blind befuddlement, comes this.

    Funding deal hits backlash over increase in foreign worker visas

    Congressional leaders quietly slipped the provision into the 2,009-page funding bill, with rank-and-file lawmakers only discovering it Wednesday morning. The move immediately sparked protests from both ends of the political spectrum.

    the number of H-2B visas will soar from 66,000 to 250,000 because of the language in the omnibus.

    And usually reliably intelligent and informed people like Jonah Goldberg profess genuine puzzlement about Trumps popularity.

    I mean… Seriously??

    1. Hell here’s John Hinderaker on it.

      The American people overwhelmingly oppose adding still more immigration on top of our already-unprecedented levels, but their views don’t seem to matter. The omnibus bill lends credence to the widespread belief that the vicious attack on American workers and American wages represented by out-of-control immigration is the result of a bipartisan conspiracy.

      lends credence to a widespread belief ?? I swear that’s borderline Onion territory. At this point the overwhelmingness of America’s viewpoint on this can only be argued against with earplugs and a song that’s stuck in your head.

      1. “t this point the overwhelmingness of America’s viewpoint on this can only be argued against with earplugs and a song that’s stuck in your head.”

        And of course, that song is:

        “Iiiiiit’s a small world after all!”

      1. What did you think of last CNN debate?

        What I saw was not the normal CNN debate.
        I think CNN wanted an actual debate about actual policy
        because they thought their normal dog and pony shows would have favored Trump.
        But I think the outsiders won and I think the public got a debate
        about the candidates and not a show about the moderators.

        1. related:
          “For all their flaws and fakery, the Republican candidates have squared off frequently, at convenient hours and despite the menacing nimbus of Donald Trump’s hair; the Democratic candidates have, in contrast, hidden in a closet.
          And:
          “In fact none of the first four Republican debates had an audience of less than 13.5 million. The fifth debate averaged 18 million viewers.”
          http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article50116120.html

          Hiding isn’t a plan the Dems want.

          1. “Hiding isn’t a plan the Dems want.”

            It is though because the more we see of Hillary the more we dislike her. Also, they don’t want the Democrats to suddenly notice that Sanders is really popular with the socialist base that provides the bulk of their energy for activism. The lack of Democrat debates and holding them at times when people are out getting drunk, is a deliberate strategy to protect Hillary.

            Democrats don’t get to choose their candidate this cycle and pointing that out to them makes them crazy. Should be useful to whomever the GOP candidate is to depress their turnout.

          2. –“Hiding isn’t a plan the Dems want.”

            It is though because the more we see of Hillary the more we dislike her. Also, they don’t want the Democrats to suddenly notice that Sanders is really popular with the socialist base that provides the bulk of their energy for activism. The lack of Democrat debates and holding them at times when people are out getting drunk, is a deliberate strategy to protect Hillary.–

            The Dem establishment wants it, and that why Clinton is hiding, but I meant Dem voters don’t want it.
            The Dem establishment know Clinton is turkey, but they think they can elect her anyhow.
            The Dem [and/or Rep] establishment are not geniuses, they just imagine they are.

            Now what would be a proper way of getting Clinton elected?
            Buy a Japanese robot that looks like Clinton??
            I don’t know, I haven’t given it much thought. But getting rid of Trump would probably be part of the path.
            Or don’t focus on Clinton, instead focus on electing Dems for Congress.
            I think I would find some super pol who is a dem who can run someplace important- governor, senate, congress. And focusing a lot attention on it. But I have problem imagining a good dem politician.
            Actually, Trump would been a good dem politician- they should have recruited him, + 6 months ago.
            Yes, I know, some might be certain that the Dems did recruit him to run as Rep.
            But even if the dems did, I don’t think it’s working out well for them. Because what you want while Clinton is hiding is the Reps squabbling in obscurity.

            –Democrats don’t get to choose their candidate this cycle and pointing that out to them makes them crazy.–

            You don’t need to point it out to them, they know it. Crazy- and don’t forget, very pissed off.

        2. Each debate has a theme. After each debate, people always ask why X issue wasn’t talked about and its because that issue wasn’t part of the debates theme. So AGW apocalypse isn’t likely to get a lot of airtime in a GOP debate but they should be ready for questions in the general election debates.

        1. We are not being governed; we are being ruled.

          The very notion of “representative government” has gone out the window. Neither party gives a damn about what the American people think or want, as they continue to cram things like this down our throats.

          One way or another, this will not end well.

          1. Neither party gives a damn about what the American people think or want, as they continue to cram things like this down our throats.

            There is zero reason to think that Trump will be any different, given his complete disdain for and ignorance of the Constitution.

          2. It depends on whether or not he wants to be a one term President. He has to keep his voters happy.

            The amazing thing is how all kinds of pundits have noticed what makes Trump successful and yet the GOP don’t address any of their shortcomings. Cruz is the only one playing a smart game and the GOP keeps trying to get him and Trump to fight.

    2. This omnibus bill disaster, which is yet another glaring example of GOPe being either spineless, incompetent, or corrupt (or all three), is a gold plated gift-wrapped Christmas present to the two candidates seen as enemies of the aforementioned GOPe. Trump and Cruz really ought to send those guys a thank-you card and fruit basket. (Cruz will benefit less than Trump, because Trump is more widely perceived as anti-establishment. Reality is irrelevant in this case; in politics, it’s perception that counts).

      I have to wonder; did Ryan et. al. not see this dynamic when they were crafting this monstrosity?

    3. There’s also the stealth addition of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act which allows private businesses to readily share their customers’ information with the US government. Currently, the only two presidential candidates to have opposed this bill in its prior manifestations are Rand and Sanders.

  8. I’m not fed up with political correctness in relation to who should be President or a candidate. I’m fed up with crap like this recent omnibus funding bill. I’ll support pretty much anyone willing to at least draw attention to stuff like this. If that requires Trump to be President, so the media will dig into any document he signs; it works for me.

    1. “In 4GW, primary loyalties shift away from the state–someone’s native state or one to whch they have immigrated–to a wide variety of other things, including religions, races and ethnic groups, and cultures.”

      It looks like the Democrats are already waging this war.

      1. I’m not so sure of that. Democrats may not have been working for the US state, but they certainly have been doing their best for the Soviet state since WWII.

        Either way, I pretty much agree with the article. The age of mass immigration is over, whether or not governments realize yet. In the future, few societies will risk bringing in people who might decide to build bioweapons in their garage… if they’re not intentionally infected with one when they arrive.

        As far as I can see, we’re heading into a future that’s far more localized and decentralized, where telepresense replaces planetary travel in the majority of cases.

  9. Isn’t Hindraker the guy who was telling conservative voters they had to shut up and fall in line for McCain and Romney?

Comments are closed.