The Stupidity of Nominating A Businessman Like Trump

Notice the qualifier in the title. Ordinarily having a president with business experience would be of great benefit to the country; it’s one of the qualities that would have made Mitt Romney such a good president (of course, the Democrats managed to turn one of his greatest strengths against him). But Donald Trump, though he appeals to many people who generally call for “running government like a business”, is not a businessman in the same league as Romney.

Simply put, Romney was successful at business. Trump was not. Though the Clinton camp is making much of the fact that Trump’s leaked 1995 tax returns suggest that he may have paid no income tax for up to eighteen years, the greater emphasis should actually be on the phenomenon that would have made that possible in the first place—namely, his billion-dollar loss.

Trump in the 1990’s was on the brink of financial ruin, as detailed in The Choice 2016 and summarized by John Fund at National Review. Trump survived, Fund says, only by “shifting from real-estate deals to licensing his well-known name.” Not exactly the mark of a successful businessman, or a promising sign for those eager for business acumen in the Oval Office.

The fact is that Trump is just not a good businessman, as has been adequately documented throughout 2016—from his massive business gambles and losses in the 90’s to his four bankruptcies. Not only does he have absolutely no experience in government—there’s a reason every single president has either been a general or had previous political experience—but he’s been monumentally bad at his signature enterprise.

The only thing he’s really been good at has been reality TV and branding. And it’s really not an option for America to escape debt and budget deficits through licensing deals.

Is This Election Strange, or the New Normal?

If there’s one thing every single person can agree on in politics—Republican or Democrat, liberal, moderate, or conservative—it’s that this is a weird election. Even Donald Trump’s most fervent supporters (and it’s also obvious that this wouldn’t be such a weird election without Trump in the mix) admit freely how crazy it is. The differences of opinion only come in when debating why it’s just so strange.

The real question becomes, Is this an aberration? Is 2016 truly destined to go down in the history books as the most monumental of crazy elections, on the largest stage imaginable? Or is this year merely beginning a trend, with Trump as the primary catalyst, that will lead to future candidates also calling their political opponents ugly, low-energy, stupid, and anything else that pops into their head at any given moment. Will it lead to the old political rulebook being torn up, burned, and buried forever, to be replaced with a brave new world in politics?

The answer to that question lies in whether or not the Trump movement and Trump political brand will outlive Trump’s candidacy itself, and the answer to that question is probably not. National politicians have a long history of believing that they can leverage their personal popularity into a sustained populist movement, and such politicians from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama have been proven wrong. Nearly every other rule has been shredded this election, but as of yet there is no reason to believe Trump can extend his newfound movement beyond himself.

A few state-level results from the primaries back up this assertion. Senate candidates in Florida and Colorado, who attempted to replicate the Trump model of insulting opponents without Trump’s high name recognition, were badly defeated. And in North Carolina, Rep. Renee Ellmers—one of the few candidates Trump endorsed in a primary—lost badly, losing by over twenty points. Sad!

I continue to believe that only Trump could have pulled off what he has this past year, and that any other candidate who had said and done the exact same things would have plummeted in the polls and quickly dropped out. Trump’s name recognition, combined with a unique ability to get away with far more than any candidate would generally have a right to, and a political climate ripe for just such a candidate, forced an exceptional occurrence. There will (likely) never be another Donald Trump, and without Trump this election would go from bizarre to simply maddening.

Voting Has Officially Begun

Forty-six days before Election Day, presidential election voting has officially begun. Starting today, voters in Minnesota, South Dakota, and Vermont will be able to vote in-person at local election offices. (Several other states have already begun mailing absentee ballots.) From now on, a few more states will begin early voting every week, until two-thirds of the country will have begun voting by the last week in October. Some election analysts have estimated that at least 40% of voters will cast ballots before Election Day.

Meanwhile, Monday will see the first of three scheduled presidential debates.

There are many valid arguments for and against early voting, but one serious drawback few people discuss is that it essentially locks in a vote over a month before Election Day—this year, before three presidential debates, one vice-presidential debate, and who knows how many scandals and breaking news stories, any of which could affect a voter’s decision on whom to support.

One of the best and most recent illustrations of the dangers of early voting can be seen in the results of the Arizona GOP presidential primary. Marco Rubio, following his disastrous finish in the Florida primary on March 15, dropped out of the presidential race. But even though Arizona’s primary was held a week later, on March 22, because of early voting (which had started a month beforehand), Rubio still managed to earn just over 13% of the vote, or over 70,000 votes—not enough to change the overall results, but still a significant number of people who would presumably have rather voted for a candidate still in the race.

I’ve known for months exactly who I intend to vote for in this election, and at this point I can’t imagine anything changing my mind. But I’ll wait to cast my ballot until November 8, because—especially in this election—you never know what could happen, to change the calculus in an instant.

Some Overdue Praise for John Kasich

Ted Cruz has received effusive praise from many corners since his defiant, rousing speech at the Republican National Convention (along with more than his share of anger and hatred from the Trumpkins), but less attention has been given to John Kasich. He may not have given a primetime address in the middle of Trump’s coronation and pointedly refused to endorse, but Kasich has been no less critical of the Dear Leader.

He angered many during the primary campaign, and with good reason. Beyond his moderate policies, his christening of himself as the “Prince of Light and Hope”, and his holier-than-thou admonition of critics of Medicaid expansion, his presence served to split the anti-Trump vote for most of the primary season, costing both Rubio and Cruz several crucial victories and won only Ohio in the process.

This in turn led many to believe he was secretly in league with Trump, sabotaging the efforts of the #NeverTrump forces in return for the vice presidency. But since he dropped out in May we’ve all been proven wrong. He reportedly declined the VP nomination after it was specifically offered to him, criticized and pointedly refused to endorse Trump in several media appearances over the past couple months, boycotted the Cleveland coronation in his own backyard, and has now angered Trump enough for the God King to pledge up to $10 million to defeat him in a future election (Trump has also pledged up to $20 million to defeat Cruz’s 2018 reelection campaign).

You still aren’t the best presidential candidate in history, John Kasich, but we had you wrong. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for your beliefs.

Will Ted Cruz Endorse Donald Trump?

Ted Cruz has a big decision to make. As the last major candidate to stand against Trump in the primaries (apart from Kasich, who mainly just acted as a spoiler), there will be increasing pressure on him, even more than others, to support the nominee against Hillary Clinton. By this point, two months after he suspended his presidential campaign, it’s clear Cruz is not just taking a break from electoral politics in general. He’s been active in endorsing and campaigning with other candidates across the country, most recently throwing his support behind Darryl Glenn in Colorado and Marco Rubio’s reelection in Florida. But the silence on endorsing Trump is becoming increasingly significant.

It speaks to Cruz’s character and strength of his principles to hold out even this long. There are a few fellow GOP senators who are avowedly #NeverTrump, but they are neither former primary opponents of the likely nominee, nor actively pursuing another presidential run in the near future. As the current rumblings point toward another Cruz run for the White House in 2020, following his 2018 Senate reelection bid, the pressure will be on from the RNC, Republican leadership in Congress, and many GOP voters to get behind the nominee this cycle if he wants any future in national elected office.

I think the best path forward for Cruz, with regard to Trump, is to continue to hold out on an endorsement until the convention. There is still the possibility, however remote, that the delegates will choose someone else as the nominee—maybe even Cruz himself, as many of those same delegates are personally loyal to him. Either way, the fact that there won’t be an official nominee until the middle of July gives Cruz some breathing room politically, and an effective cover in interviews in which the subject of a Trump endorsement is sure to come up.

After the convention, assuming Trump is the nominee, the pressure to support him will grow far more intense. Everything he said about Cruz, from the Lyin’ Ted smears to the attacks on his father and wife, will be ignored by party leadership and voters alike who merely want to present a united front against the Democrats for the general election. The need to win will for many people outweigh both principle and loyalty to one’s family, and Cruz will have to walk an increasingly fine line.

At some point after the convention, Cruz will likely need to offer some kind of pro forma endorsement of Trump. This, I think, is the best way of balancing his integrity and political future: By giving Trump his formal support, however half-hearted, Cruz neutralizes much of the later attacks he would otherwise endure from leadership and ordinary voters alike, who would at least partly blame his refusal to support the nominee for his eventual loss, and hence for the Clinton presidency that followed.

At the same time, by waiting until after the convention, and only giving a tepid, formal endorsement without much actual campaign assistance, Cruz reserves the loyalty of the many #NeverTrumpers he won over during the primary, and whose support he will need as much as that of Trump voters for a future presidential run.

Obviously, there are dangers of alienating members of both sides in walking such a thin line. I personally supported Cruz throughout the primary, and would love to see him take a bold stand against Trump, electoral future be damned. But Ted Cruz is not a man we can afford to lose, and if a pro forma endorsement of Trump is the price we have to pay for a future Cruz White House, then it’s a disappointment I would be happy to endure. After all, we already know what he really thinks of Donald Trump.

Dump Trump at the Convention

Ritual mass suicide, a collective murder-suicide pact with the country, the Titanic meets the Hindenburg… Call it what you will, but the nomination of Donald Trump in Cleveland later this month could well be the most devastating thing to ever happen to the Republican Party, from both an ideological and electoral standpoint. Any Republican candidate for president who looks to be in danger of losing Utah and Kansas, is beginning to trail by double digits both nationally and in swing states such as Florida, and is outraised by his Democratic opponent 40-to-1—and yet still blindly discusses the possibility of winning in Maryland and California—is actively pursuing electoral suicide.

The only question is whether the party will sacrifice itself, along with dozens of strong candidates across the country, in an attempt to satisfy the roughly 11% of registered voters who supported Trump in the primary.

Trump may have eagerly claimed the mantle of “presumptive nominee”, but the fact remains that he will not be the official nominee of the Republican Party until the 2,472 delegates vote on the floor of the national convention. And until then, the delegates that will be gathering in Cleveland have an opportunity to avert disaster for both party and country, salvage the House and Senate majorities, and possibly keep alive the possibility of denying the White House to Hillary Clinton.

But it all depends on a little bravery on the part of those delegates, and the nomination of someone other than Donald Trump to be the standard-bearer of the Republican Party.

All the delegates have to do is pass a rule allowing each of them to vote their conscience when the time comes to nominate a candidate for President. Many of the roughly 1,500 delegates bound to Trump under the current rules would leap at the opportunity to back another candidate, one possessing both principles and electoral viability.

It hardly matters at this point who the alternative nominee might be. Much of the early primary season, when it was most possible to stop Trump before the convention, was wasted in debating which of the possible alternatives was the most acceptable. Scott Walker or Ted Cruz, both of whom have been discussed as possible draftees by the convention, would be excellent choices, but we are to the point where almost any alternative would be better than Trump. If John Kasich is the only other candidate to enjoy the support of a majority of delegates, then so be it. If Jeb Bush or Jim Gilmore see a surge in support at the convention, then I’d wholeheartedly endorse either one, remembering that the alternative of Donald Trump would be a thousand times worse than nearly any other possible nominee.

Trump and his allies believe they have the nomination sewn up. Delegates to the convention should remind them that it ain’t over till it’s over, and show that the GOP won’t be taken over by a liberal, repulsive con artist without a fight.

Trump: The Will of the People? (Part 2)

This is the second of a two-part series examining the overall primary results of the 2016 Republican contest, in an attempt to determine whether Donald Trump is truly "the will of the people", as he and his supporters frequently claim. For part one, go here.

The nationwide number of votes for and against a nominee, though a useful overall metric, doesn’t tell the whole story, or accurately answer the question of whether Donald Trump’s nomination is truly “the will of the people”. The final variable to look at, which will offer a much more specific view of the entire primary season, is a breakdown of the statewide results of each individual primary and caucus, from the Iowa caucuses on February 1 through the final batch of primary states on June 7. Seeing how the numbers for both Trump and his opponents varies between states, and over time, offers a much more useful snapshot of the race as a whole.

Date:	State:	Type:	Trump	Cruz	Rubio	Kasich
2/1	Iowa	Caucus	24.3%	27.6%	23.1%	1.9%
2/9	New Hampshire	Open	35.3%	11.7%	10.6%	15.8%
2/20	South Carolina	Open	32.5%	22.3%	22.5%	7.6%
2/23	Nevada	Caucus	45.9%	21.4%	23.9%	3.6%
3/1	Alabama	Closed	43.4%	21.1%	18.7%	4.4%
3/1	Alaska	Caucus	33.5%	36.4%	15.1%	4.1%
3/1	Arkansas	Open	32.8%	30.5%	24.9%	3.7%
3/1	Georgia	Open	38.8%	23.6%	24.4%	5.6%
3/1	Massachusetts	Open	49.3%	9.6%	17.9%	18.0%
3/1	Minnesota	Caucus	21.3%	29.0%	36.5%	5.8%
3/1	Oklahoma	Closed	28.3%	34.4%	26.0%	3.6%
3/1	Tennessee	Open	38.9%	24.7%	21.2%	5.3%
3/1	Texas	Open	26.7%	43.8%	17.7%	4.2%
3/1	Vermont	Open	32.7%	9.7%	19.3%	30.4%
3/1	Virginia	Open	34.7%	16.9%	31.9%	9.4%
3/5	Kansas	Caucus	23.3%	48.2%	16.7%	10.7%
3/5	Kentucky	Closed	35.9%	31.6%	16.4%	14.4%
3/5	Louisiana	Closed	41.4%	37.8%	11.2%	6.4%
3/5	Maine	Caucus	32.6%	45.9%	8.0%	12.2%
3/6	Puerto Rico	Open	13.6%	9.0%	73.8%	1.4%
3/8	Hawaii	Caucus	42.4%	32.7%	13.1%	10.6%
3/8	Idaho	Caucus	28.1%	45.4%	15.9%	7.4%
3/8	Michigan	Open	36.5%	24.9%	9.3%	24.3%
3/8	Mississippi	Open	47.3%	36.3%	5.1%	8.8%
3/12	Washington, D.C.	Caucus	13.8%	12.4%	37.3%	35.5%
3/15	Florida	Closed	45.7%	17.1%	27.0%	6.8%
3/15	Illinois	Open	38.8%	30.3%	8.7%	19.7%
3/15	Missouri	Open	40.9%	40.7%	6.1%	9.9%
3/15	North Carolina	Open	40.2%	36.8%	7.7%	12.7%
3/15	Ohio	Open	35.6%	13.1%	2.9%	46.8%
3/15	Northern Mariana Islands	Caucus	54.0%	34.4%	1.1%	2.1%
3/22	Arizona	Closed	47.1%	24.9%	13.3%	10.0%
3/22	Utah	Caucus	14.0%	69.2%	---	16.8%
4/5	Wisconsin	Open	35.1%	48.2%	1.0%	14.1%
4/19	New York	Closed	60.4%	14.5%	---	25.1%
4/26	Connecticut	Closed	57.9%	11.7%	---	28.4%
4/26	Delaware	Closed	60.8%	15.9%	0.9%	20.4%
4/26	Maryland	Closed	54.4%	18.9%	0.7%	23.0%
4/26	Pennsylvania	Closed	56.7%	21.6%	0.7%	19.4%
4/26	Rhode Island	Closed	63.8%	10.4%	0.6%	24.4%
5/3	Indiana	Open	53.3%	36.6%	0.5%	7.6%
5/10	Nebraska	Caucus	61.4%	18.4%	3.6%	11.4%
5/10	West Virginia	Open	77.0%	9.0%	1.4%	6.7%
5/17	Oregon	Closed	66.6%	17.0%	---	16.3%
5/24	Washington	Caucus	75.8%	10.5%	---	9.8%
6/7	California	Closed	75.3%	9.2%	---	11.3%
6/7	Montana	Open	73.7%	9.4%	3.3%	6.9%
6/7	New Jersey	Closed	80.4%	6.2%	---	13.4%
6/7	New Mexico	Closed	70.7%	13.3%	---	7.6%
6/7	South Dakota	Closed	67.1%	17.0%	---	15.9%

(As an aside, I also noted whether each state held a caucus, closed primary, or open primary. It has been well analyzed many times by several different people how Trump does far better in the latter type of contest, which allows independents and, in some cases, Democrats to vote in Republican primaries, than in those elections which only allow dedicated Republican voters to participate. That particular angle is one for another discussion, but it is to some degree borne out in the data and leaves open the question of how many of Trump’s plurality of primary voters are even Republicans.)

This chart clearly shows that Trump was struggling to unite the primary electorate behind him as late as May, when he won a bare majority in the Indiana primary which nonetheless effectively ended the GOP primary season. Even later than that, however, and without a major opponent in the race, Trump endured a few embarrassingly small victories, winning just 61% of the vote in the Nebraska caucuses on May 10, and 67% of the vote in the South Dakota primary on June 7, the last night of Republican primary voting. Considering the fact that, as of the South Dakota results, Trump had been effectively unopposed for the nomination for over a month, his vote tally in this contest—in which Ted Cruz and John Kasich received just over 10,000 votes apiece—points to a continuing struggle to win over large segments of the party electorate.

For comparison’s sake, let’s look at a couple vote percentages from late in the 2008 and 2012 primary seasons, when John McCain and Mitt Romney were also running effectively unopposed. In 2008, the Nebraska primary was held on May 13, and the South Dakota and New Mexico primaries were on June 3. John McCain received 87% of the vote in Nebraska; 70% in South Dakota; and 86% in New Mexico. While it is understandable that not every voter would be willing to line up behind any one candidate, particularly after a divisive primary process which lasted for months, McCain was also able to unify a much wider swath of the party behind him, and by the end of the 2008 primary calendar saw none of his statewide vote totals drop anywhere near the percentages Trump has continued to receive.

In 2012, both New Mexico and South Dakota again held their primaries at the beginning of June, this time on June 5. Mitt Romney, by then the presumptive nominee, received 73% of the vote in New Mexico and 66% in South Dakota, figures much closer to those received by Trump at the same point in this election season (in the interest of fairness, Trump did about one percent better in South Dakota than Romney in 2012). However, this point comes with two caveats: first, Romney had effectively secured the nomination by mid-April, with Rick Santorum formally dropping out and Newt Gingrich scaling back operations after losing a string of primaries. By comparison, Donald Trump was still losing primaries, and trailing in state polls of upcoming primary contests, well into April, and his campaign did not begin looking like it would wrap up the nomination before the convention until the “Acela primary” on April 26. This extended intraparty tensions through May and into June, motivating both pro- and anti-Trump voters to show up to the polls through the last day of voting, whereas in 2012 motivation was likely highest for those voters steadfastly opposed to Romney.

And second, this data must be taken alongside all the rest: Trump’s low vote totals in states where he was running unopposed, combined with his struggle to put away the nomination until May, combined with his historically low percentage of votes in the primary nationally, combined with the historically high number of votes cast against him, all point to the conclusion that, far from being “the choice of the people”, Donald Trump is in fact the choice of only a plurality of Republican primary voters, and not an especially strong plurality at that. The numbers do bear out the argument that Romney had certain weaknesses with segments of the party, and the conventional wisdom is indeed that Romney was a comparatively weak nominee. But he at least received an absolute majority of primary votes nationally.

What the numbers do show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that the majority of Republican voters wanted nothing to do with Donald Trump from the beginning.