Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

  2. Ludovic's avatar

    I can’t—seriously speaking—imagine anyone doing “philosophy of sexuality” work, as the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy calls it, having an easy…

  3. Andrew Richmond's avatar
  4. Benj's avatar
  5. Mark's avatar
  6. Andrew Richmond's avatar
  7. Michel's avatar

American political circus: “Super Tuesday” post-mortem

Brian Leiter

The full results.

Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, which we knew after her landslide victory in South Carolina and her respectable victory in Nevada.  The problem facing Bernie Sanders is pretty simple: African-Americans are not voting for him in meaningful numbers.  Clinton won by lopsided margins in all the Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Virginia), and also squeaked out a victory in Massachussetts.  Sanders carried his home state, Vermont, by a landslide, but much more interestingly won by sizeable margins in Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Colorado; neither Colorado nor Minnesota has a large African-American population, but Colorado has many Hispanics, who, as Nevada showed, are more receptive to Sanders (I don't know the demographic on Oklahoma, but I believe it is also a fairly white state).  I expect him to carry on perhaps through the convention, thus pushing Clinton to the left.

Meanwhile, in Mordor:  despite being the frontrunner since forever now, Trump still can't get Republican primary voters to rally to him.  Although he won seven states (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Massachussetts, Virginia, Vermont), in all but Alabama and Massachussetts (!), the next two highest vote getters got more votes than he did; indeed, Trump won three states by slender margins:  Arkansas (Cruz was a close second), Virginia (Rubio), and Vermont (Kasich).  In no state did he command a majority.  Cruz won Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska, and Rubio won Minnesota.  Kasich and Carson continue to siphon Republican votes away for no discernible purpose.

I think all Democratic and civilized voters should throw their support behind Ted Cruz at this point:  unlike Trump, he has no prospect of appealing to so-called "moderate" or "independent" voters in a general election, and will be much easier for Clinton to defeat.   And if he and Rubio stay in this, they may yet deprive Trump of a clear win in the delegate count come the convention, at which point the "Establishment" will block Trump (though doing so will also cost them the general election happily, as mad Trump voters either stay home or vote for him a third party candidate).

Comments are open for any thoughts from readers on this on-going circus.

ADDENDUM:  This is a pretty useful analysis of how Trump under-performed expectations on Super Tuesday, and also why he will still be destroyed, if not in the nomination fight, then in the general election.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

33 responses to “American political circus: “Super Tuesday” post-mortem”

  1. Thornton Lockwood

    Did Trump in any meaningful sense "win" MA?
    Here's the breakdown of presidential primary votes in MA:
    Clinton: 588,000 votes
    Sanders: 569,000 votes
    Trump: 300,000 votes
    Kasich: 110,000 votes
    Rubio: 110,000 votes
    So quick math: approximately 1.67 million votes cast, and Trump gets 300,000. That's approximately 17% of the overall number of ballots cast. Is there any sense in which "Trump won MA?" Sure–of a small pool of folks voting in the republican primary, he took just under 50%. But the TOTAL number of ballots cast for Republicans was less than either Clinton or Sanders received. Were the presidential election run today and there is no trading of votes, Trump would be absolutely creamed–a total after-thought. Admittedly, MA is a liberal state. I get that. But I'd be curious what the results look like elsewhere where Trump "won" big. Based on MA alone, he's a total loser. (And yes, I'm very proud of our commonwealth.)
    Compare, by the way, the 2014 gubernatorial election in which a Republican beat a Democrat.
    Charlie Baker (R): 1,041,000 votes
    Maura Coakley (D): 1,000,000 votes
    Baker, a moderate Republican, got three times as many votes as Trump. Admittedly, it's unfair to compare primaries to general elections. But my point stands: at least based on primary votes tallied, Trump is a hopeless mess even for Republicans.

    Reply
  2. Craig Duncan

    On the question of whether Trump could run as an independent candidate if he's somehow blocked from the nomination in a contested convention:

    One problem with this option is that many states have filing deadlines prior to the July 18-21 Republican Convention. E.g. Florida requires that a candidate file 100,000+ signatures by July 15 to get on the November ballot. (See here for a state by state list of deadlines: https://ballotpedia.org/Filing_deadlines_and_signature_requirements_for_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016).

    So a convention coup may leave Trump with too little time to get his name on enough ballots to mount a credible third-party run. (Of course, it's easy to imagine him still trying to do so, if only to spite the Republican candidate.)

    Reply
  3. Steven Hales

    It's kind of an interesting decision theory problem. A Trump presidency would likely be better than a Cruz presidency. Trump's positions are mostly about self-aggrandizement and not based on principle, and he is not beholden to the GOP establishment. Which means he would be more open to the Art of the Deal. Trump could easily turn out to be a Berlusconi, which is bad but not as bad as Cruz. But suppose Trump would be more of a threat to Clinton in the general. Should Democrats support the worst-choice Cruz hoping for a Clinton landslide (as Brian recommends) or support Trump on the grounds that an opportunist blowhard would be the best president if the Democrats lose?

    Reply
  4. Henry

    You write that Cruz has no prospect of appealing to so-called "moderate" or "independent" voters in a general election, and will be much easier for Clinton to defeat. Perhaps, but Trump has no prospect of appealing to Hispanic and other minority voters, and Cruz scares me more than does Trump. Cruz is on a mission to do evil, whereas Trump is on a mission to get attention–who knows what he'll do? He said that he didn't want people to die in the streets because of a lack of health care, and Cruz condemned him for it.

    Reply
  5. Lexington

    I'm just kind of amazed that anybody serious really believes that there's a good prospect Trump won't win the Republican nomination.

    How surprising is it that Trump hasn't yet gotten a majority vote in the primaries when he is competing against four other somewhat plausible candidates? Who can believe that if all but one drops out, essentially all the votes would go only to his single competitor, and not to Trump? And it's especially absurd to think Trump won't prevail when one considers that the Republican primary process is designed to favor candidates with a large plurality, in particular requiring that delegates be awarded winner-take-all in all primaries from Mar 15th on.

    Yeah, I get it: Trump — spawn as he is of a three way between Satan, Hitler, and Sarah Palin (yes, time travel is involved) — is quite the demonic presence. In due recognition, we appear to be obliged entertain only thoughts that he will not win anything politically. But, looking at the numbers, and understanding the process, I just don't see how Trump loses the Republican nomination at this point, short of something truly extraordinary. And as much as the Republican elites detest Trump, I don't see them choosing to pull a fast one at the end to stop an otherwise inevitable nomination. They won't just lose this Presidential election — with such a deliberate, flagrant betrayal, they will have lost possibly a majority of their base forever.

    BL COMMENT: It's not clear it's the "base" that is voting for Trump, as Oklahoma shows (that was a registered Republican-only primary).

    Reply
  6. Stefan Sciaraffa

    My main thought is that Trump is an authoritarian strong man, and sometimes, when the conditions are ripe, those guys win. So, I'm worried.

    A number of journalistic pieces have recently come out that summarize research into authoritarian appeal in general and spell out some implications for the Trump candidacy. As i understand it, the gist of these pieces is threefold. First, a significant percentage of most any population has a a relatively fixed disposition to be receptive to an authoritarian message and that many others have a similar authoritarian receptivity that can be triggered in the presence of particular kinds of threats (to physical security and group-based social standing). Second, a lot of of folks are experiencing threats of just this sort: wages have been stagnant for a very long time now; there is a large proportion of the population that is both faring poorly economically and experiencing threatening demographic changes (Trump's nativist base), and; there is a chronic perception of foreign terrorist threat. Third, Trump is clearly appealing to authoritarian voters. Heres' a link to a fairly lengthy overview.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism

    I should also say that if anyone is wondering how Trump would govern given his ever changing positions on a variety of issues, I think the answer is that he is an authoritarian and would seek to govern as such. Nativist, bellicose, and impatient with legal and constitutional proprieties. All to a degree unprecedented in American governance if he can get away with it.

    I'm guessing that there aren't enough authoritarians out there in the general electorate to elect Trump. But I'm by no means certain about this answer to that empirical question, particularly given that emergent threats (say a terrorist attack in the U.S.) could trigger latent authoritarian dispositions. So, I am most definitely ill at ease about the looming natural experiment that will answer this empirical question.

    Reply
  7. Walther Ellis

    At this point, there is no way to 'save' the Republican Party. It's done, stick a fork in it. I left the Party two decades ago, disgusted with the increasing extremism coming from supposed Republican adults, and became an independent voter. Are people made about the disfunctional federal government? Sure, which is why populism is selling. People like Trump and Cruz (truthfully, others like Rubio aren't much better) weren't slapped down when there was time. These politicians came from within the Party. By and large, the Republicans in Congress and state leadership positions have shown great expertise at lobbing spitballs at the Democrats, but little success mastering the art of good governance. You reap what you sow.

    Reply
  8. howard berman

    So @ Stefan, would you place voters being authoritarian above other traditional voter demographics, at least for this election? Variables such as race, education, income? Or are the two sides independent or not?

    Reply
  9. Philippe Lemoine

    I think the Republican establishment has realized at this point that nobody is going to beat Trump. Cruz did pretty well yesterday, but that's probably as good as it's going to be for him, as the race moves to northern states. And the Republican establishment doesn't like him any more than Trump anyway, so he's not a plausible alternative for them. As for Cruz, he's going to have to share votes with Kasich in several important states and, right now, it looks as though Trump is going to clobber him even in Florida. The establishment's strategy is to deny Trump the number of delegates he needs to get the nomination on the first ballot and choose someone else in a brokered convention. But I also think they are probably fooling themselves. First, even though it's true that Trump didn't do as well as he could have hoped yesterday, he still did very well and may still be able to get the 1237 delegates that would secure him the nomination, especially as the race is moving to winner-take-all-states. Even if he doesn't, he's almost certainly going to get very close to that number, which I think makes the kind of behind-closed-doors deal the Republican establishment is currently envisioning unrealistic. First, if Trump gets almost half of the delegates, choosing someone else would be such a blatant denial of democracy that I think it would be a political suicide of the first order for the Republican party. It's okay for the oligarchy to indirectly control the outcome of the election process in a democracy. In fact, when you ignore the rhetoric and look at how things actually work, you see that it's exactly how democracy normally works. But oligarchs can't do that too openly because it's important to maintain the fiction that people are choosing and nominating someone who got half as many delegates as Trump would definitely be too obvious. Moreover, even if the party's establishment were nevertheless determined to do that, it's really not clear that they would be able to agree on someone to nominate instead of Trump. Finally, even if at the moment the Republican elites are determined to do that, I'm really not sure they will still think the same thing at the Convention in July when they find themselves in a room packed with thousands of overexcited Trump supporters who are convinced that their champion is going to get the nomination…

    Reply
  10. george

    I see Trump's performance quite differently than some people here. First, it is true that his support (as showed in Oklahoma) is less strong among the registered republicans than among independent voters who come to vote in open primaries. But that is actually more worrying – it shows he has an independent appeal which, for example, Cruz lacks. Second, if Cruz steps out, his voters are much more likely to support Trump than Rubio. Once you do that calculation, things look much better for Trump. Third, at least in several articles in La Times and elsewhere, it turns out that there is a number of people who are Sanders supporters but, if Sanders is not the democratic nominee, will vote for Trump. This is no joke and it is quite logical. They vote anti-establishment (whatever it means), and Clinton is not one they want (Cruz is too off the charts for them and Rubio is same old same old). Fourth, Trump is impervious to usual dirt flinging – he has no political record and so no political scandals. His business missteps are easily outweighed by his business successes (John Oliver's video is weak on this – every big businessman has a bunch of failed enterprises and Trump deals in real estate where that's normal). That he is inconsistent? So what? Who cares? Certainly not people who are attracted to him. Finally, he is indeed pretty thin on policies. When you look at his website – it's China-US relations, Veterans, Tax reform, Second amendement rights, and immigration. Now I can see a lot of poeple liking his stand on China (and on making domestic jobs) – this is connected with immigration which, some argue, takes away jobs from poor Americans, esp. black Americans and rural/small town whites. Sure he is saying unbelievable things, but he could quickly make it into an argument and drop the crazy stuff he says in general election. One can also like his veteran stand and the fact he is for investing in mental health. And his tax reform: If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax. That removes nearly 75 million households – over 50% – from the income tax rolls. They get a new one page form to send the IRS saying, “I win,” those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each..not bad, no? I am not saying these are great proposals, but they are not as insane as one might think or, put differently, some people might find them pretty OK. All other things- foreign policy, abortion, and so on – he just says whatever comes to his mind – no one can predict what his policy, if any will be. But perhaps his voters do not care so much about that in any case. Lastly, he is entertaining and comes off as being honest even if it reveals him to be an a-hole. THat's a change from people who pretend to be great but, one might suspect, are in private just as bad. So, all in all, I am actually afraid he might not only be the Rep. nominee, but seriously challenge whoever is the democratic candidate. I find all the rep. candidates unacceptable (Cruz and Rubio are even worse than Trump to me in their positions), but there is something so bizarre about Trump as the president, I just hope that decency of American people will in the end prevail.

    Reply
  11. anaon

    I'm sorry to say but people who think Cruz can still defeat Trump or Sanders can still defeat Clinton are fooling themselves: the numbers and the momentum clearly indicate it's Clinton vs. Trump in the general. So then the question becomes: can she defeat him? This depends on a number of things, particularly: who he picks as his VP (if he picks someone too far to the right I think it's a disaster for him politically), which older GOP establishment figures publicly endorse Clinton over Trump, "for the sake of the country" (and there will be some, probably Romney, McCain and possibly even the Bushes).

    BL COMMENT: I confess I'm much more optimistic that Clinton will beat Trump, and do so by a wide margin. The Democrats will not hold back on attacking Trump the way the Republicans have until recently. And Trump will produce a massive turnout from women, as well as racial and ethnic minorities, and they will all vote by wide margins for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.

    Reply
  12. Stefan Sciaraffa

    HI Howard. I'm not sure. But take a look at the Vox piece and this Politico piece reporting on the same body of recent research. According to those reports, how Republicans measure on an authoritarian scale (as operationalized by five questions about child-rearing priorities) correlates robustly (more so than many traditional demographic features) with support for Trump.

    Here's a key paragraph from the Politico piece and a link:

    My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533#ixzz41mH0Woql

    Reply
  13. Ken Taylor

    Defeating Trump — i.e. winning the nomination instead of him winning it — is probably not in the cards for any remaining candidate. But if I am not mistaken, Trump doesn't currently have a majority of the delegates that have so far been chosen — though he does have a plurality. Every candidate still in the race, other than Trump, has two thoughts. Okay, if I can get the other guys out, I can beat him one on one. But there is also this fall back thought. If none of them drops out, and we all keep winning more delegates collectively, we can at least deny him the nomination. If we collectively can deny him the nomination, then I have at least as good a chance of prevailing on the second or third or fourth ballot as anybody else. So why drop out — at least if I have the money to keep going, and can keep racking up delegate enough to keep me in the game.

    This both helped and hurt by the coming of the winner take all primaries. If somebody bests Trump and the others in a big state with a large delegate haul, a lot of ground can be made up. Of course if Trump actually wins places like Ohio and Florida, the opposition is toast.

    This makes the Republican dynamic a lot different from the Democratic Dynamic.

    If you don't win outright in a dem primary, you can still rack up delegates. Of course, once you fall behind, it's very hard to catch up unless your wins just swamp the candidate in front of you. Not much chance of that happening for Sanders.

    I've heard folks say in the media but if Trump has more delegates than anybody else, then his supporters will be outraged if the party denies him the nomination. But they're ignoring the fact that having more delegates than anybody else, isn't the same as having a majority of the delegates.

    Delegates committed to non-Trump candidates are not just going to let themselves be steamrolled by Trump. Indeed, they can't unless released. But none of Trump's opponents is likely to do the Hillary thing from 2008 and call for the nomination of Trump by acclimation, rather than by roll call.

    Remember Teddy Kennedy in 1980? He fought for a rule change to allow delegates to vote their consciences on the first ballot. Only when that was defeated did he "concede."

    I wouldn't be willing to bet on i quite yet, but it's a non zero probability, that will increase if Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio wins Florida, that the Republicans are in for a convention fight to rival some of the conventions fights of old, when nominations weren't decided by primaries.

    Many Republicans believe, rightly or wrongly, that a Trump nomination would basically spell the end of their grand old party (which is old, but not grand). I suspect they are right. IF they believe that, the non trump forces will keep donating till the end, each with the primary goal of driving the others out, but each with the fall back goal of denying Trump a first ballot nomination.

    Reply
  14. Philippe Lemoine

    About the Republican convention, I think you're right if Trump doesn't get a lot more delegates than every other candidate still in the race, but if he gets twice as many delegates than any other candidate (which could totally happen, especially as the race enters winner-take-all states), I think it's politically unrealistic to expect that the party's establishment will be able to deny him the nomination by making a backroom deal even if he only has a plurality of the delegates. I also don't think it's true that delegates committed to non-Trump candidates can't vote for him after the first ballot unless they are released by their candidate. From what I understand, the rules for what delegates can and cannot do vary on a state-by-state basis, but by the third ballot nearly all of them will be free to vote any way they want. It's true that party official have the power to change the rules before the convention, but again if Trump is ahead of the others by a wide enough margin, I doubt they'll take the chance to tweak the rules in order to fuck him. I also think that Trump is going to reach out to the party elites to reassure them that he'll water down his rhetoric for the general election once he's secured the nomination. In fact, if you watch his press conference last night, I think he's already started.

    Reply
  15. Brian (NOT Leiter)

    Just some thoughts, re: "why he will still be destroyed, if not in the nomination fight, then in the general election."

    – Much of the excitement in the Democratic party right now is centered around Sanders and his progressive and anti-establishment message, while Hillary apparently offers more years of Obama policies and is seen by many as an unfavorable and untrustworthy candidate. There seems to be an assumption that Sanders voters will line up behind Hillary when the time comes, but many in the Sanders camp are there precisely because they are anti-Hillary (anti-establishment in general). When Sanders bows out, how do the Democrats maintain the excitement and turnout numbers? (Clinton-Sanders ticket seems likely ?) How many of the decidedly anti-establishment voters in Sanders' camp could switch to Trump, or simply stay home on voting day? The "anti-establishment" fervor right now cannot be underestimated, and you have to consider that many of those types in the Sanders camp could potentially support a Trump over a Clinton. See, e.g. : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/1/hillary-clinton-cant-count-on-bernie-sanders-suppo/

    – Media attacks on Trump are and could likely continue to be largely useless because they reinforce his main appeal, which is that he is the most decidedly anti-establishment option. Additionally, the extreme media focus on Trump, whether ostensibly positive or negative, helps to create and reinforce the image of Trump as strongman candidate who is the one to be beat. This makes Hillary look weak. This could be damaging to Clinton in the general election, as US voters may tend to go for the "strong" leader especially in times of uncertainty regarding the economy and national security.

    – So far Trump seems to be picking up more women and minorities than would be expected, if his rhetoric has been as damaging as people claim.

    – "It's the economy, stupid" – The underlying Trump message about fixing the economy could appeal to many (incl. perhaps especially minorities) in a broken economy, regardless of his other rhetoric. Even in a substantive debate, Hillary doesn't have much to offer here. Dems currently are split between Clinton and Sanders on the economy.

    – Trump has significant historical advantage as challenger of a two-term incumbency that has been polarizing and unpopular.

    – While we have seen that Trump is so far nearly impenetrable to media attacks (actually, they seem to backfire and rally more support to his cause), Trump has not even started to really attack Hillary.

    More importantly, Trump has not even started spending his "billions and billions" of dollars to this end. See, e.g., http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/opinion/krumholz-money-elections/ With his net worth, Trump could potentially borrow and outspend Hillary many times over.

    Reply
  16. Phil

    Steven Hales – speaking as an Italianist, I think a Berlusconi is the very last thing the US needs. Corruption, cynicism and patrimonialism elevated to a political principle – even a sincere reactionary is better than that. Apart from anything else, the Italian experience suggests that the know-nothing blowhards end up further Right than the Right, because they don't care about anything.

    And Sanders in Minnesota, Oklahoma and Colorado – is this a Farmer-Labor thing? (Flippant but not entirely unserious question.)

    Reply
  17. Arthur Greeves

    But Phillipe, Trump's notion of "watering down" his rhetoric involved threatening retribution on the Speaker of the House. That sounds more like Stalin than Reagan. One desperately hopes that Americans would not elect this unhinged man.

    Reply
  18. Enzo Rossi

    Why can't Sanders pull off what Trump is pulling off? After all both are tapping into the frustrations of vulnerable voters, or voters who see themselves as vulnerable. The awkward but inescapable question here is this: why can't Sanders get enough African Americans and maybe Latinos to vote for him? Some suggested that African Americans are simply more fiscally conservative than Sanders. I'm not convinced, as a lot of the data I've seen to support that claim is from exit polls (in which voters typically rationalise post-hoc) and the questions were of the form "Would you prefer to continue Obama's economic policies?" — hardly a cut and dry political economy question, given the racist othering Obama has been subjected to for eight years. So why do non-whites tend to line up behind the Democratic Establishment?

    Wrong question maybe. We need to ask it just about voting non-whites. My guess is that the poorest blacks didn't vote for Clinton either. They are so disaffected and despondent that they aren't even bothering to turn up at the primaries. But then the Clintons know they won't vote in the general either. The neoliberal Establishment of both parties seeks to disenfranchise inconvenient sections of the population by convincing them that there is no hope for them. Both Trump and Bernie have partly broken through this, but sadly Bernie hasn't succeeded enough because of the entrenched identity politics obstacles, and because of the longstanding marginalisation of poor nonwhites. Trump had more of a ready audience because his core constituency of poor (racist, misogynistic) whites hasn't been marginal and alienated from politics for as long as the poorest nonwhites have been. In fact the turnout at the D primaries was much lower than at the R ones in the Southern states, which again suggests that we need to ask which strata of the non-white population are turning out for Clinton, and which ones are completely alienated.

    I realise it's difficult to make this sort of point without dismissing important racial (or gender) concerns, so I'm now thinking we need to distinguish between three forms of what is commonly called 'identity politics': (i) minorities' egalitarian struggle for recognition, (ii) special interest advocacy of an upwardly mobile petite bourgeoisie, and (iii) the cultural nationalism of formerly privileged groups whose privilege is being eroded or is thought to be under threat. Clinton thrives thanks to (ii), Trump thanks to (iii), and Sanders has failed to mobilise (i).

    Reply
  19. Akilesh Ayyar

    Some observations:

    1. Amusing that National Review and The Weekly Standard et al. are screaming bloody murder at the thought of Donald Trump when these people did not blink an eye at the thought of Sarah Palin being one of John McCain's senescent heartbeats away from the presidency. Palin was just as extreme as Trump, clearly much dumber and otherwise even less qualified to be President than Trump.

    This suggests that the real reason the GOP establishment doesn't want Trump is simply that he hasn't played the game, isn't indebted to the right people, may not sufficiently kowtow to their corporate and partisan interests, and won't be under their thumb — not because he is somehow unprecedentedly "radical."

    2. Trump is extraordinarily adaptable, an instinctual animal with nevertheless a deep cunning, and an expert entertainer. Someone said that one can either appear to be sincere or be sincere, but not both at the same time. Trump might be the exception to the rule. He appears sincere because he is sincere — about wanting to play a certain character. His sincerity is the actor's sincere dedication to the role, a dedication so sincere he first fools himself. And he is having great fun with role of a lifetime. This last is of course what makes him most dangerous.

    3. During the convention, either Trump wins (most likely) or the party splits, or, if the elite is exceedingly wise (very low probability), they make peace with him by finding some way to bribe him out. Such a bribe will take an enormous amount. Perhaps money, a bowing down and kissing of his ring, an anointing him as kingmaker, a face-saving exit for him, plus the certainty that he is insulated from the intolerable humiliation of losing the general? Perhaps, perhaps, but probably not.

    4. The argument that he loses the general election:
    -Though he's a genius at what he's doing (and there remains the remote chance this is all a staggering work of performance art), he is still human, and runs up against gravity. Even Napoleon loses at Waterloo, and no matter how masterful Trump is, there are only so many obstacles he can thread before he is inextricably caught and blocked. Our country as a whole is not so dire or so desperate that they would elect him.

    5. The argument that he wins:
    -In every general election since at least Nixon, the more likable candidate has won. Considered apart from his specific policies, Trump is far more likable than Hillary. He comes off as more charming, more reassuring, more charismatic, more energetic, more honest, funnier. He speaks directly to what people know to be true in a far more forceful way than Hillary does. His people believe not in what he says but in him. He represents a sort of fresh and hypnotic vision, appalling though it is, and that very freshness, coupled with the population's lingering distaste for Hillary and the establishment, could be enough.

    BL COMMENT: Only people who don't really know much about him could have this reaction. The man is a delusional narcissist, who would put all of humanity at risk as head of state of a dangerous country like the US. Bear in mind the existing polling data also makes clear that he is the least liked of all the presidential candidates (Sanders is the most liked!).

    Reply
  20. Jonathan Birch

    Re. Akilesh's 1st point, Sarah Palin was governor of a state, and as such was far better qualified for high office than Trump. If I'm not mistaken, the only previous presidents to take office without any previous political experience were celebrated war heroes (Taylor, Grant, Eisenhower). It's a testament to the valorization of big business during the neoliberal era that it's even conceivable for a "business hero", if that is the word, to make the same move.

    Reply
  21. Pendaran Roberts

    One reason to suspect Trump will be the next President of the United States is this.

    Going back 100 years, the taller candidate wins twice as often as the shorter one.

    Trump is the tallest.

    Reply
  22. Philippe Lemoine

    Come on, let's not get carried away, shall we? Trump is no Stalin and Ryan has nothing to fear from him, except politically, which is what Trump was reminding him of. It's a good idea, when you're trying to convince someone to reach a modus vivendi with you, to remind him of how much he stands to lose if you can't find a way to live with each other. And there is absolutely no doubt that Republicans in Congress stand to lose a lot if the party's establishment tries to fuck Trump in a brokered convention. Even if, as is likely (though I think not as obvious as many people assume), Trump would go on to lose the presidential election if he won the Republican nomination, the Republicans can still hope to keep their majority in Congress. But they sure as hell won't if they deny Trump the nomination despite the fact that he's got significantly more delegates than any other candidate. Finally, let me just say that one doesn't have to like Trump to recognize that, in the Duke non-story, Ryan's outrage was 100% fake.

    Reply
  23. Phil

    Besides which, Trump is anything but a 'business hero' – by most estimates he's worth less now than the money he inherited from his father, adjusted for inflation. His speciality is the infantile megalomania of boasting and not backing it up, promising and not being held to account, and talking and not listening in general. Who would have thought even a sixth of the American public would identify so strongly with that?

    Reply
  24. Daniel Kaufman

    I am must less optimistic about Clinton beating Trump. Clinton's baggage and unlikability — she is not her husband, whose likability overrode his baggage — effectively neutralize Trump's negatives. If she pulls the feminism stuff, he starts reminding everyone how she publiclly trashed all the women who accused her husband of harassment and abuse; if she tries to go after his dirty laundry, he goes after all of the scandals she was involved in.

    BL COMMENT: The polling data to date shows that Trump is viewed more unfavorably even than Clinton, though her numbers are not great. But this is before a real attack on Trump has begun–hence my optimism on this score.
    I think Trump would have a much tougher time against Sanders. The point is moot, of course, as Sanders will not beat Clinton in the primaries.

    Reply
  25. Daniel A. Kaufman

    BL: I would note, however, that it is also before a real attack on Hillary — by Trump — has begun.

    I agree with you that it could go either way, though I think Trump is much better at the media game than Clinton. But I think Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate against Trump.

    Reply
  26. Steven Hales

    Quotation from magician Penn Jillette: "I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car." I think many Americans will do the same.

    Reply
  27. Ken Taylor

    You gotta admit, it would be a helluva a summer if the Republican Convention were contested. Can you imagine the jockeying that would be going on day after day night after night? Can you imagine the floor fights, the street protesta, as enraged supporters of Trump took to the streets? A bunch of angry, downtrodden Republicans, being screwed by the man, perhaps emulating the long-haired radicals of old with cries of "The whole world's watching! The whole world's watching!" Would the Cleveland police department behave as badly as Richard Daly's police did back in Chicago in '68? Just for the political theater of it, I'd love to see it. Not to mention the damage it would do to the Republican Party!

    With Romney's speech today, it seems pretty clear that a contested convention is the establishment's favorite play for stopping Trump. They need the cooperation of the three non-Trump candidates though. if Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz are in on the deal, they probably had a conference call earlier today agreeing not to contest the winner take all states like Florida and Ohio against each other, but only Trump. Leave Florida to Rubio, Ohio to Kasich, etc, divide up the remainder of the winner take all states between them, according to who has the best chance to take down Trump in a one on one contest. They also agree to compete against each other and against Trump collectively in the proportional states.

    They will sort out who gets what in return, once they prevent Trump from gaining a majority of delegates, but instead collectively control the majority among the three of them. One of them is President. Another is VP, the third gets his choice of cabinet posts, perhaps.

    Watch for signs of this strategy in tonights debate.

    Reply
  28. Henry

    Can six-year-olds run for President? I thought that the Constitution requires you to be 35. I could not have imagined this, even from the current Republican candidates: http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-defends-his-hands/

    Reply
  29. david rosner

    Re the debate last night in Detroit : Did Donald Trump really defend the size of his penis as part of the Presidential debate? What exactly does this mean? How do you philosophers make sense out of this?

    Reply
  30. anon2

    It's not just the fact that he's a failed businessman, it's that he's been charged with fraud (Trump University) and rape (the incident with Ivana, in which Trump's lawyer went around claiming, erroneously, that Trump couldn't have committed rape because there's no such thing as within-marriage rape). I think a far-too large proportion of the US population is willing to ignore past charges of rape — after all, Ivana Trump wore tight dresses and too much makeup and was obviously a gold-digger and, yes, I'm being facetious — but current charges of fraud are going to be much harder to gloss over. It would take incompetence far beyond even my lowest expectations for the Democratic Party not to successfully use this against Trump in a general election.

    And, I don't believe that Sanders' supporters will, in the end, vote for Trump over Clinton, any more than I believe that Cruz or Rubio supporters won't, in the end, vote for Trump.

    Reply
  31. Stefan Sciaraffa

    So, my worries about authoritarianism in America remain. But in light of last night's debate and the antics leading up to it, perhaps Trump doesn't have the chops to exploit fully and expand the authoritarian base. The farce can't come before the tragedy. Hopefully, things will get better economically before a more competent authoritarian demagogue surfaces.

    Reply
  32. Brian B

    "Hopefully, things will get better economically before a more competent authoritarian demagogue surfaces."

    While Trump lost to Hillary in the latest CNN national poll, he did come out #1 of all the candidates on the economy, terrorism, and immigration; We could potentially be one terrorist/cartel incident, or one big market sell-off away from shifting to a Trump majority.

    That Clinton was in a virtual tie with Cruz and losing to Rubio nationwide also shows just how weak of a candidate she is.

    Reply
  33. Frank

    Some (non-exhaustive) reasons to think Hillary will win:

    -I suspect that Bernie will do the right thing and support Hillary and campaign for her, so that will dramatically help her in the polls I think when the time comes. Bernie's major demographics—white, educated, liberal—will go for Hillary rather than defect to Trump, in spite of Trump and Bernie sharing "anti-establishment" tendencies. There's talk of Bernie supporters who claim that they wouldn't vote for Hillary, but that data is super unreliable. Exit polls show late deciders going against Trump, for example, so it's not clear how many of those Bernie supporters "who would never vote for Hillary" actually would vote for Trump instead.

    -The betting currently is about 64% Clinton over Trump, which is good, but not good enough. It's too early to trust those numbers though. Also, CNN polls are typically Trump-heavy, so I suspect he lost by more than CNN says.

    -The financial markets are also not really reacting to Trump just yet in spite of his victories. This doesn't account for much but it's worth noting that nobody is dumping their money into gold for fear of a Trump presidency. That might come later though.

    You're absolutely right though: a big obstacle for Hillary would be if there is some kind of (inter)national catastrophe or a cartel incident, as you mention. What I'm more worried about is the looming indictment. If that happens during the general election versus Trump, we may very well be headed for dark times. I don't know enough about that process though or what those odds are.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

    Reply

Designed with WordPress