Philip Klein: Trump has clearest path, but here’s how he can still lose – Washington Examiner

CK MacLeod

WordPresser: Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. And given the currently unquantifiable number of people promising to defect if Trump is the nominee

    And if he’s elected, they’ll move out of the country!Report

  2. Art Deco says:

    You have not since 1976 had a convention wherein there was any uncertainty about the outcome when the convocation was offered (and there wasn’t much in 1976). You haven’t had a hung convention requiring multiple ballots since 1952. The selection process in 1952 was a different regime entirely than what we have today and even in 1976 there were some residual features of that regime. Kasich and Carson have been passably stubborn about remaining in and neither Cruz nor Rubio seem to be able to garner much of an advantage over each other. Trump may effectively wrap this up in two weeks.Report

  3. Stillwater says:

    It would have the look of the party elites overruling millions of voters, poisoning the well.

    It would have that look because that’s exactly what it would be.

    On the other hand, by denying him the nomination, Republicans would be taking a stand against Trumpism

    Yes, a stand taken by party elites to overrule millions of voters, poisoning the well.

    {{If only there were someone to blame for this existential impasse. Thanks, Obama!}}Report

    • Morat20 in reply to Stillwater says:

      There’s literally no way to win for the party if Trump is even within spitting distance of the nomination. Any loss, even if through perfectly legit floor maneuvering that occurred because Trump never managed an outright majority (say, Trump hits with 45% of the delegates and the remaining 65% who backed other candidates consolidated on the last non-Trump) will infuriate Trump voters. As long as he holds the plurality of votes, rejecting him as the nominee will screw the party.

      Trump voters are, among other things, generally angry because they feel they’ve been screwed from their due (by the party, by elites, by life, whatever). It’ll fit perfectly into their worldview.

      If he wins the nomination, or gets it with a plurality, then you’ve got…Trump at the top of the ticket. The guy hobnobbing with the KKK, who has turned the dial up to 11 on anti-minority sentiment and has the crossover appeal of a case of herpes.

      Frankly, blaming Trump on Obama/liberals/the left is about all you can do. It’s literally the one response without huge blow-back from somewhere critical.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Morat20 says:

        Yes, tho I disagree with the characterization that Trump is “hobnobbing with the KKK”. Part of his whole shtick (and I don’t think it’s an act) is that he shouldn’t have to publicly denounce a Duke endorsement, especially when the underlying logic (PC-driven) is that such a failure constitutes, by logic!, an implicit endorsement of the KKK.

        So regardless of whether or not he’s hobnobbing with the KKK (if he actually is is a different matter, seems to me), his reluctance to DENOUNCE Duke’s endorsement was motivated by a rejection of the underlying logic compelling the denunciation.

        He may have over-reached there. He ended up denouncing, of course…Report

        • Morat20 in reply to Stillwater says:

          While America is a heck of a lot more racist than we often like to believe, the default American view of race does include “KKK” on one side and “Decent freaking human beings” on the other.

          KKK members are a sort of hardcore racism that, if it didn’t exist, would have to be invented just so that people can look at the old racism meter stick and assure themselves “Okay, maybe I’m uncomfortable around [x] or say [y] sometimes privately, but it’s not racism. The KKK is racism”.

          Any sort of fun “I denounce the logic of denouncing” nuance is entirely lost, because honestly — the point of the KKK is to isolate the really crazy, undeniable, nutcase racists so that everyone else can say “I’m not with these guys. Those guys are racists”.

          Playing word games with the KKK is not the way to go. For anyone interested in even a sizable minority appeal.

          (I realize the KKK is a voluntary organization of people with some unique and surreal points of view on race, race relations, and the a love of fire and funky white robes with strange hats. However, since they conveniently made themselves, the rest of American pretty much uses them as a “Thing I can say I’m not as bad as and want nothing to do with” group).Report

          • Kim in reply to Morat20 says:

            KKK is old, and more or less persecuted.
            I’d rather we talk about the groups of people who are significantly more virulent, likely to hurt me and mine (or thee and thine, I’m not picky), and crazy to boot.Report

          • Stillwater in reply to Morat20 says:

            Any sort of fun “I denounce the logic of denouncing” nuance is entirely lost

            I think this is an important point because it gets to one of the most common reasons people can’t understand Trumpism, seems to me. Not only is it NOT lost, but in my view (and others too, I should add) it’s actually the main driver of his appeal to those who support him. I won’t belabor it any further since I made my case upthread.Report

      • Art Deco in reply to Morat20 says:

        The guy hobnobbing with the KKK,

        He didn’t.

        who has turned the dial up to 11 on anti-minority sentiment

        He hasn’t.

        and has the crossover appeal of a case of herpes.

        He polls adequately against Hellary, a bit worse against Sanders. Oh, did you catch it that Hellary’s personal IT tech has been given immunity from prosecution?Report