Some largely off-topic musings strolling down What-If Lane.
Reid J. Epstein, Aaron Zitner and Stephanie Stamm have this article in the WSJ headlined How Trump's Nomination Could Still Be Stopped: Donald Trump's Republican opponents aim to clear the path for a different nominee by rewriting the rules of the national convention.
The proposed rule change would unbind the delegates who are presently bound on the first ballot, and sometimes successive ones, to vote according to the results of their state's primary and not according to their own view of who should be the nominee. Since many delegates are chosen by the party apparatus and not by the primary victor, there are many who are bound to vote for Donald Trump but do not want to.
Another strategy that occurred to me is for 1/4 or more of the Trump-pledged delegates and their alternates to simply sit out the first ballot. As nomination requires a majority of the total eligible delegate votes, not merely a majority of those actually voting, a large enough first-round sit-out would deny Trump a first-ballot nomination and unbind a lot of delegates to vote their own judgment on subsequent rounds.
The case against a convention coup can be made in four digits -- 1912.
Teddy Roosevelt sought to return to the White House and oust his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft. He was the popular choice, but the party machinery nominated Taft for a second term. TR bolted the party, ran on the Progressive Party ticket, and effectively handed the White House to Woodrow Wilson on a silver platter. The popular vote was 41.8% Wilson, 27.4% Roosevelt, 23.2% Taft, and 6.0% for Socialist Eugene Debs. Despite his weak popular vote total, Wilson won the electoral vote in a landslide: 435-88-8-0. Taft carried Vermont and Utah.
Along with back-room maneuvering, the other thing Mr. Trump should do is stop proving the NeverTrump folks right and start proving them wrong. Stop denouncing and vilifying every Republican who disagrees with you on anything or who refuses to kowtow to you. Apologize to the ones you already have wronged in this manner. Choose a running mate who will reassure those who have well-founded doubts about you based on your conduct to date. Act like you are ready to be the unifying leader the party and the nation need.
The proposed rule change would unbind the delegates who are presently bound on the first ballot, and sometimes successive ones, to vote according to the results of their state's primary and not according to their own view of who should be the nominee. Since many delegates are chosen by the party apparatus and not by the primary victor, there are many who are bound to vote for Donald Trump but do not want to.
Another strategy that occurred to me is for 1/4 or more of the Trump-pledged delegates and their alternates to simply sit out the first ballot. As nomination requires a majority of the total eligible delegate votes, not merely a majority of those actually voting, a large enough first-round sit-out would deny Trump a first-ballot nomination and unbind a lot of delegates to vote their own judgment on subsequent rounds.
The case against a convention coup can be made in four digits -- 1912.
Teddy Roosevelt sought to return to the White House and oust his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft. He was the popular choice, but the party machinery nominated Taft for a second term. TR bolted the party, ran on the Progressive Party ticket, and effectively handed the White House to Woodrow Wilson on a silver platter. The popular vote was 41.8% Wilson, 27.4% Roosevelt, 23.2% Taft, and 6.0% for Socialist Eugene Debs. Despite his weak popular vote total, Wilson won the electoral vote in a landslide: 435-88-8-0. Taft carried Vermont and Utah.
Along with back-room maneuvering, the other thing Mr. Trump should do is stop proving the NeverTrump folks right and start proving them wrong. Stop denouncing and vilifying every Republican who disagrees with you on anything or who refuses to kowtow to you. Apologize to the ones you already have wronged in this manner. Choose a running mate who will reassure those who have well-founded doubts about you based on your conduct to date. Act like you are ready to be the unifying leader the party and the nation need.
An interesting theory, and I would love to buy it.
I have my doubts, though, whether a unifying leader can or should be elected. What's going on is not, as it's often put, "partisan bickering." The parties have fundamental differences on culture, policy, law and the nature of law. As Ronald Reagan said, it's a time for choosing. I just wish the particular choices were different.
I very much hope that either the GOP will find a more statesmanlike candidate, and one more serious about ideas; or that Trump will massively clean it up.
Reagan is the exemplar of what I mean when I say a unifying leader. He promptly reached out to unify the party, choosing his erstwhile rival as a running mate. He was able to work with Democrats such as Tip O'Neill when necessary to get things done.
Reagan stood by his principles, but he was not vindictive toward those who disagreed. He was not beloved by all, to be sure, and he was hated by many. In politics, if no one hates you, you are not accomplishing anything. Even so, he brought together a broad coalition and effectively led the party and the nation. He was the only outgoing President of the entire post-World War II era whose party held the White House for another term, which says a lot.
Trump would do well to emulate Reagan.
Reagan was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate. At the time of his election, the country was anything but unified. It was his steadfastness, devotion to long-held principle, and (more than anything) his success in office that made the country more unified. (It didn't hurt that, by late in his term, the economy was growing at a clip much better than we see now, indebtedness was much lower, and labor force participation was much higher).
If Trump had one-tenth of Reagan's overall appeal, this election would be his to lose (and he might win anyway, given the justified and deep public distrust of his opponent).
My understatement of the century:
Trump is no Reagan. Never has been. Never will be. Trump is a narcissistic, skin-thinned, intellectually challenged, disgusting individual. No member of the Party of Lincoln who loves America can in good conscious vote for this short-fingered, crazed, goon.
By the way, did I tell you how I feel about The Donald?
Yes, Paul, we get the gist.