Big wins for the 'Trumpster' and the 'Pant Suit' last night and the experts are telling us it is all over and these will be the candidates in the general election. Even Mr. Trump in his victory speech started to speak with more civility referring to 'Senator' Cruz' (not 'lying Ted').
I cannot imagine what Kasich is doing in this race, he has never won anything but his own state and if he wants to be a 'spoiler' he is playing right into Trump's hand. This guy is a RINO (Republican in Name Only) and would probably give Hillary a run if he could get the nomination because the DC establishment does not want change. But this is a different time and no one represents the 'establishment' more than Kasich, so he doesn't have a chance and should just fold his tent and go away.
But Cruz, Kasich, and The Bern are not going away, hoping for contested conventions. First of all, Bernie has no chance unless Hillary gets indicted. But the Obama administration and the Democratic Party will not let that happen, so Bernie (as he has been all along) is history. It will be interesting to see where his voters go...they do not like Hillary or the 'establishment'.
And if Trump makes it to 1237 delegates either before or during the first convention ballot Cruz and Kasich are history also. And the Trumpster does have a lot of momentum with favorable polls in many of the remaining primary elections. Whether you support Trump or hate him, we need to acknowledge that this is an inexperienced politician that started off competing against 17 Republican experienced politicians (except for Dr. Carson), and may defeat them all. This, along with Bernie's success, tells us there are a lot of voters in this country angry with the establishment and want change.
Those that follow this Blog know that I am not a Trump supporter, but I am also an "anyone but Hillary" voter. Obama has almost destroyed this country and Hillary plans to continue his policies, Saul Alinsky would be proud.
California has had no say in any primary election for decades because of the late date of our primary. But would it not be ironic if California, the liberal bastion of the western US, and supporter of more illegal immigrants than the rest of the country combined, was the state whose voters catapulted Donald J. Trump into the general election for President?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Chuck, if the "establishment" tries to screw Trump at the convention wouldn't it be a shock if Trump and "the Burn" joined and ran on the independent 3rd party ticket? This is the strangest election in history and I would not be surprised with the impossible.
Mike in Singapore
Donald Trump is not the first to go down the wealthy individual road to a possible Third Party presidential bid. Ross Perot made the same bold move back in the nineteen nineties. It is said in some circles that Ross Perot’s Third Party candidacy handed the presidency to Bill Clinton. Perot and Trump share some common traits, not the least of which is neither of them are or were qualified to serve effectively as President of the United States. They are both incredibly wealthy, but they are both very reluctant to spend a lot of their own money on a campaign. A Third Party campaign will be an expensive proposition that will go up against the two party lock that exists in our nation. If the presidency is going to cost Trump a few billion dollars out of his own pocket, he may take his business elsewhere and leave it to Hillary who will not spend a dime from the Clinton Trust through the election process. Trump has already said he will fund his own campaign up to the Republican Convention, but the party will pick up his campaign expenses from there. If Trump does a Sour Grapes, Third Party run, he will be handing the presidency to another Clinton.
There is speculation indicating the Clinton Trust will grow dramatically while Hillary serves as President.
Yes, this is heading in the direction of a very bizarre presidential election with some incredibly unusual candidates. There were elections in the past with candidates that tended to offer the voters a choice between the lesser of two evils. It seems like we are going to be faced with a pant suit that belongs behind bars and an egomaniac with horrible hair that belongs in an asylum.
I'm not sure I can agree with you Bob. One thing Perot and Clinton have in common is they were very successful businessmen. And one trait of success in business is for the leader to surround him or herself with competent people, give them some direction and responsibility, and then let them manage. The Obama administration is an example of the opposite - and incompetent leader surrounded by other incompetents like Valerie Jarret, Hillary, Kerry, Susan Rice, Jeh Johnson, Jack Lew, etc.; the incompetence just multiplies. Maybe a 'businessman' should be given a chance instead of a career politician.
I am not sure I understand your comment, Chuck. There is no question that Ross Perot was a brilliant businessman. Although Bill Clinton was not a major businessman, he was a brilliant politician. It is natural to compare Donald Trump to Ross Perot. They have both been very successful businessmen and earned vast fortunes in their fields. Bill Clinton was occasionally criticized for being an autocratic micromanager. Perhaps there were issues in his formative years that influenced that aspect of his personality. It is not clear as to the management philosophy of Donald Trump, but it is apparent that he has employed a lot of people and he knows how to schmooze important people and infuriate others. Isn’t that what president’s do or did I miss something in my civics studies.
The political parties, be it Democratic or Republican, will support and promote the candidate they can control. Isn’t that the real purpose of the two political parties? Hillary is an ideal Democratic Party candidate who is tuned into the Democratic Party Line and that includes the party money line, which is undoubtedly a major personal attraction for the pant suit. Trump is a true outsider who is sponsoring his own campaign, so far, and is thus not the tool of the GOP. Regardless of whether Trump arrives at the convention with the required number of delegates to pass that hurdle, the Republican Party is not going to embrace his candidacy and that will leave a fragmented Republican Party that will probably insure a landslide victory for Hillary. The Republicans will again have shot themselves in the foot handing the presidency over to Hillary for the next eight years. They may end up losing control of the House and the Senate as well. Does anyone know the definition of insanity?
Bob I was just taking issue with your comment that Perot and Trump were 'not qualified' to be President. How could we do worse than the last 8 years or the last 16 years for that matter?
Ah, now I understand. I will agree with your thought that Perot and Trump are considerably more qualified than Obama. Perhaps I am being overly pessimistic, but I see the Republican Party continuing to move toward dumping Trump rather than rallying behind the leader and moving toward a full court press to capture the presidency and dump the pant suit.
With respect, running a business is nothing like running a country. The top dog in a business hires his people, he can also fire them. They are either loyal because they respect him/her, or they are loyal because they are paid well. Either way, they do what they are told, or they take a hike......they serve at the pleasure of the boss. Why.....because it's his business, and his pocketbook they are messing around with. External business negotiations are based on who has the power, or who offers the greatest opportunity.....there are few nuances in business negotiations, and action is usually immediate.
Politicians have to work with what is there. Sure, they can fire their immediate staff, but the bureaucracy is "eternal", and Congress has no master. If Trump thinks he can stand in Congress, wave his hands and yell, "You are all fired", when he doesn't get his way, he is dilusional. Negotiations with Countries are highly neuanced, with power being the main factor, regional issues that may never be solved are common, going with the best of the worst situations is common, unintended effects from actions always occur, and success is measured in years, or decades. Trump has the attention span of a neurotic gnat, doesn't seem to care about unintended consequences of his proposals, and international politics is clearly not going to be easy for him. He hasn't even defined who his dream team might be and it takes months to years to staff the top level in an administration. We have seen the disasters that pragmatic people like Rumsfeld and McNamara, or cronies like Bush's Michael (Brownie you did a heck-a-va-job) Brown can do.
The statement that Trump knows how to pick and hire good people is also a bit dubious. Success is measured by money in Trumps world. He only has to be right more than 50% of the time to be successful, particularly when you start with millions, and then inherit hundreds of millions more. Hopefully, a President will be successful much more than 50% of the time......and let's not get into an Obama, Bush, or Clinton pissing contest on this point. The measurement of success is not a comparison of past events, each Presidental administration has to stand on its own.
Trump and Ross Perot have little in common beyond the fact that they are both incredibly wealthy. Perot is a very intelligent man, who does extensive research on opportunities and is calculating and careful with his positions. I also think he could be trusted to do what he says. Trump is a bombastic, serial liar, who says what he needs to say to get the votes. Intellectually he is no deeper than a scratch on a diamond. I think he will be the Republican candidate at this point. Hopefully, the "pant suit" will be indicted and Bernie will give us a rational, if not ideal choice.
John with all due respect you are getting 'verbose' again and your arguments don't make a lot of sense. Sounds like you believe only career politicians with no 'real world' experience are qualified to be President. It's that thinking that has brought us to where we are. Do you really believe Bernie could do a good job as President?
You have to understand the system in order to work it, and if you start out alienating the people you have to work with, you will fail. That was my main point. You don't have to be a politician to understand the system or know how to work with people.
Post a Comment