DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Trump-Palin '16?

by JASmius



Oh, my apologies, did I cut to the chase too soon?  C'mon, if Trump is anything remotely like the populist as which he has depicted himself the past eleven months, and wants to maintain that bilious facade for the final six, there really isn't any other choice.  It is inevitable, it is inescapable, it is guaranteed.  No assimilated drones, no RINO hostages; The Donald has to have a.....counterpart.  Somebody cut from the same rancid cloth.

Saracuda is it.

But if you want greater elaboration, Leon Wolf provides it this morning:

The whole appeal of Trump has been that he is an outsider. That he is here to burn it all down. That he alone has the balls to say it like it is and let the chips fall where they may. That he is what he is and if you don’t like it you can cram it. That he speaks for the great silent majority of Americans who are just sick of Washington and politicians – and people who are all talk, talk, talk, no action.

Well, it’s time to put that theory to the test. If people really are sick of politics as usual and are prepared to nominate someone who is despised by the establishment of both parties, Palin is really the only choice. Newt Gingrich? Boring. Can’t possibly get any more establishment than the former Speaker of the House. Mary Fallin? Susana Martinez? Jeff Sessions? Political insiders, every one. All talk, no action politicians every one.

I’ve said since day one of this fiasco that the Donald Trump candidacy has allowed us to see what would have happened if Sarah Palin had run in 2012 (or 2016). It’s the exact same subset of voters who believe that they and their ideas are just down the center of what America needs and wants, and that if only the Republican party (or Democrat party) would get on board, they would a) win tons of elections and b) make everything "great" again.

For too long, this particular incoherent pulp populist mass delusion has allowed itself to believe that it is far more numerous and influential than it really is....Either way, it is time to find out one way or the other. This contagion has been in danger of wiping out the GOP for years. It’s time to concentrate it all in one place where it can either flourish beyond all expectations or be incinerated once and for all.

Which, in turn, is precisely why I oppose any independent conservative third-party spoiler candidacy whose only purpose can be to provide Trumpoids with an excuse for their candidate's November defeat and allow the "populist" contagion to escape its "incineration" to poison another day.  Far better for it to be buried, deep, where even the metaphorical worms can't find it, once and for all.

And if a Trump-Palin ticket somehow won despite the enormous odds against it, well, then they'd deserve to have the last laugh.  Kind of like the Italians did in 1922.

But that isn't very likely.  You know all those millions of new voters that Trump boasted he was drawing into the GOP?  Yeah, that was all hogwarts:

Donald Trump likes to say he has created a political movement that has drawn “millions and millions” of new voters into the Republican Party. “It’s the biggest thing happening in politics,” Trump has said. “All over the world, they’re talking about it,” he’s bragged.

But a Politico analysis of the early 2016 voting data show that, so far, it’s just not true.

While Trump’s insurgent candidacy has spurred record-setting Republican primary turnout in State after State, the early statistics show that the vast majority of those voters aren’t actually new to voting or to the Republican Party, but rather they are reliable past voters in general elections. They are only casting ballots in a Republican primary for the first time.

It is a distinction with profound consequences for the fall campaign. [emphasis added]

And remember: 60% of the GOP primary electorate didn't vote for Donald Trump.  Yes, centrifugal partisan tribalism will drag the bulk of that percentage towards Trump, but not all of it, which means that whatever number of stupid-ass "GOP" voters who stayed home in recent elections out of purity fetishism (ironic, isn't it?) will be more or less offset by #NeverTrumpers whose conservative principles still matter to them.

And that horde of Bern-feelers who insist they're going to cross over to Trump rather than support Hillary Clinton?  Centrifugal partisan tribalism works both ways.  Just ask all the Hillary supporters who insisted they'd never vote for Barack Obama eight years ago.  They came around; so will the Nutrootsers this time.

Hillary will win.  And Trumplicans will be fully responsible for it.

And then will come the reckoning.

Sounds....



....like fun.

No comments: