Donald Trump

[Mayerling]

The hope to derail Trump before or at the GOP Convention in Cleveland may be a pipedream. However, the convention at least promises to be a messy affair, and the general election possible bad news for the Republican Party as well, as many of the pundits are predicting. Just look at Trump's "unfavorables" -- much worse than Hillary Clinton's. Although he has excited and energized his supporters, he is also earning the disfavor of many on both sides of the aisle to the extent that it might make it impossible for him to become President in November. Arguably if that were to happen, the blame should be laid at his feet for a number of things that he has said since he announced his candidacy in the presidential race last summer.

Best regards

Chris

The likelihood of a smooth ride to the necessary delegates for Trump is not dead, but less likely. He could not convince ultra conservative Utah to back him, and he could capture Ohio (due to Kasich), Texas (due to Cruz), and Wisconsin (who voted in the days immediately after those peculiar gaffes about Mrs. Cruz, and Cruz's possible sex life, and the bone headed statements about women who seek abortions must be punished, but not the guys who get them knocked up. He tried to repair that, feebly). It's obvious he thinks too late before his mouth utters complete garbage. So his lack of ability to lead a country becomes increasingly obvious to all but the totally stupid or financially venal (because I am certain he's been hiring hundreds of people to attend his rallies and cheer him - they certainly are "his people" whom he loves!!!). In any case they are four critical states.

If he has those necessary delegates, and gets nominated, he will smear Hillary or Bernie or anyone is the Democratic candidate, giving us the most undeserving President in history. If he doesn't (and I feel he won't) he will fall apart by the third ballot, with most of the delegates deserting him (they are obliged to do it for one or two ballots, but he will probably find most of the delegates who were chosen don't like him - so they'll dump him). He can then scream he was cheated, and bolt the party (a threat he has blown up and down about when it suits his ego - I'm surprised he's not called "Donald the Extortionist"), and run on a third party, guaranteeing that the Democrats come in and probably recapture both houses (only this time they will be less friendly after six years of humiliations by the Republicans). After that his political power will wither because the regular Republicans will refuse to ever back him on anything, and the rump of "Tax Partyists" will gradually wonder what they hooked up to.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Jeff

The view I get from the UK is that Trump will run, even if he does not get the Republican nomination. As an outsider I find your analysis of the possible outcome very interesting.


Steve

[Mayerling]

Jeff

The view I get from the UK is that Trump will run, even if he does not get the Republican nomination. As an outsider I find your analysis of the possible outcome very interesting.


Steve

Hi Steve,

I believe no pundit or critic is really 100 % right all the time, and that would include me. It's just that he has been such an obnoxious (if successful) bag of wind until the last four weeks that I find it less and less likely that he'll achieve the necessary delegate goal he needs. It has actually been since 1952 that a real fight over delegates occurred at a convention, when there were conflicts between General Eisenhower and his chief opponent, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. And in 1976 there were attempts to broker an arrangement between incumbent President Gerald Ford, and California Governor Ronald Reagan for the nomination (they had very close numbers of delegate strength). Reagan eventually accepted losing the nomination to Ford (a wise decision, as Ford was defeated, and Reagan would go on to win the 1980 nomination and the Presidency, as well as the 1984 nomination and his second term). Similarly Taft, despite a bruising fight on the seating of some delegates pledged to him) accepted Ike for the 1952 nomination, and would soon become the Republican Senate Majority leader (only to die of cancer in the summer of 1953). But Ronald Reagan and Robert Taft were experienced Republican politicians - they are not like Donald Trump, who has never held any political office, and does not believe party loyalties count. Many might agree with him, but the traditional Republican and Democrat view is to support the standard bearer (as I suspect the traditional Labour Party and Tory Party and whatever the Liberal Party calls itself today has in the U.K.)

Only one party bolt was eventually forgiven. In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt tried to get the Presidential nomination back from his former friend and protégé, President William Howard Taft, at the Republican Party Convention in Chicago. This was the first election that had delegates (in some states) pledged by the majority of voters in a series of primaries, but not all the states had that method yet. Taft and his backers fought and beat TR in seating some of his pledged delegates. Taft got renominated. Roosevelt left the convention with his supporters, crossed town, and held a second convention for the "Progressive Party" which later became known as the "Bull Moose Party" (because TR said, he felt as strong as a bull moose!). As a result, the Republican vote (which should have been the majority) ended up split, and the Democrat (Woodrow Wilson) won the election. Indeed, so disgusted were many voters, they ended up (nearly 1 million of them) voting for the Socialist Party candidate, labor leader Eugene V. Debs*.

[*This may very well be the last time the electorate had four first rate candidates running for the Presidency! Even Taft, a conservative, turned out - in four years mind you - to break up 90 trusts under the Sherman Act, whereas TR, "the Trust buster" broke up 45 in nearly eight years, and Wilson, who also got the Clayton Anti-Trust Act passed too, in eight broke up 42. Taft really believed in applying the law, and it's no surprise he is the only President who became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.].

The Progressive Party was doomed, as it won no major political elections on the state level (i.e. governorships), nor were they successful in getting Congressmen or Senators elected. Roosevelt, an expert political brain (despite the 1912 defeat) made it clear when he said the party could not survive without "loaves and fishes" (patronage) to use for it's members. In 1916 he was to be the Progressive Party candidate again, but he tried to manipulate the Republicans into nominating him. The Republican leadership, still angry about 1912, refused, and nominated Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes would be beaten by Wilson (later he'd be Harding's Secretary of State, and would succeed Taft as Chief Justice in 1930). Roosevelt announced he would not run as the Progressive Candidate after all, and that effectively killed the party until it was resurrected in 1924 and nominated Senator Robert "Fighting Bob" Lafollette as their candidate against Calvin Coolidge (Republican incumbent and winner here) and the Democrat John W. Davis. When Lafollette, died in 1925, the Progressive Party died again, though it would reappear one more time in 1948 when former Vice President Henry Wallace ran on the ticket against Democrat incumbent (and winner) Harry S. Truman and Republican Thomas E. Dewey.

Because Roosevelt dropped his third party, and was a persistent critic of Wilson and his policies, the Republican leadership changed towards him, and by 1918 it was generally felt that he would be the Republican candidate for President in 1920. But his health had been slowly going down hill since he returned (barely alive) from his trip up the "River of Doubt" tributary of the Amazon in 1914. Roosevelt, especially in 1918 was in and out of hospitals. He died in January 1919. This is why the 1920 Republican Convention was split so badly and ended with the nomination of the "Dark Horse" candidate Warren G. Harding, who won. The difference between TR's actions and Trump's threatened reactions as far as a third party is that TR had been a very effective political figure and a great President. He had plenty of real political experience. Trump doesn't - he just is a self-believing blowheart and self-publicist. After the election the bitterness against Trump would remain, and I can't see him ever wiping it away.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I believe no pundit or critic is really 100 % right all the time, and that would include me. It's just that he has been such an obnoxious (if successful) bag of wind until the last four weeks that I find it less and less likely that he'll achieve the necessary delegate goal he needs. It has actually been since 1952 that a real fight over delegates occurred at a convention, when there were conflicts between General Eisenhower and his chief opponent, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. And in 1976 there were attempts to broker an arrangement between incumbent President Gerald Ford, and California Governor Ronald Reagan for the nomination (they had very close numbers of delegate strength). Reagan eventually accepted losing the nomination to Ford (a wise decision, as Ford was defeated, and Reagan would go on to win the 1980 nomination and the Presidency, as well as the 1984 nomination and his second term). Similarly Taft, despite a bruising fight on the seating of some delegates pledged to him) accepted Ike for the 1952 nomination, and would soon become the Republican Senate Majority leader (only to die of cancer in the summer of 1953). But Ronald Reagan and Robert Taft were experienced Republican politicians - they are not like Donald Trump, who has never held any political office, and does not believe party loyalties count. Many might agree with him, but the traditional Republican and Democrat view is to support the standard bearer (as I suspect the traditional Labour Party and Tory Party and whatever the Liberal Party calls itself today has in the U.K.)

Only one party bolt was eventually forgiven. In 1912 Theodore Roosevelt tried to get the Presidential nomination back from his former friend and protégé, President William Howard Taft, at the Republican Party Convention in Chicago. This was the first election that had delegates (in some states) pledged by the majority of voters in a series of primaries, but not all the states had that method yet. Taft and his backers fought and beat TR in seating some of his pledged delegates. Taft got renominated. Roosevelt left the convention with his supporters, crossed town, and held a second convention for the "Progressive Party" which later became known as the "Bull Moose Party" (because TR said, he felt as strong as a bull moose!). As a result, the Republican vote (which should have been the majority) ended up split, and the Democrat (Woodrow Wilson) won the election. Indeed, so disgusted were many voters, they ended up (nearly 1 million of them) voting for the Socialist Party candidate, labor leader Eugene V. Debs*.

[*This may very well be the last time the electorate had four first rate candidates running for the Presidency! Even Taft, a conservative, turned out - in four years mind you - to break up 90 trusts under the Sherman Act, whereas TR, "the Trust buster" broke up 45 in nearly eight years, and Wilson, who also got the Clayton Anti-Trust Act passed too, in eight broke up 42. Taft really believed in applying the law, and it's no surprise he is the only President who became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.].

The Progressive Party was doomed, as it won no major political elections on the state level (i.e. governorships), nor were they successful in getting Congressmen or Senators elected. Roosevelt, an expert political brain (despite the 1912 defeat) made it clear when he said the party could not survive without "loaves and fishes" (patronage) to use for it's members. In 1916 he was to be the Progressive Party candidate again, but he tried to manipulate the Republicans into nominating him. The Republican leadership, still angry about 1912, refused, and nominated Charles Evans Hughes. Hughes would be beaten by Wilson (later he'd be Harding's Secretary of State, and would succeed Taft as Chief Justice in 1930). Roosevelt announced he would not run as the Progressive Candidate after all, and that effectively killed the party until it was resurrected in 1924 and nominated Senator Robert "Fighting Bob" Lafollette as their candidate against Calvin Coolidge (Republican incumbent and winner here) and the Democrat John W. Davis. When Lafollette, died in 1925, the Progressive Party died again, though it would reappear one more time in 1948 when former Vice President Henry Wallace ran on the ticket against Democrat incumbent (and winner) Harry S. Truman and Republican Thomas E. Dewey.

Because Roosevelt dropped his third party, and was a persistent critic of Wilson and his policies, the Republican leadership changed towards him, and by 1918 it was generally felt that he would be the Republican candidate for President in 1920. But his health had been slowly going down hill since he returned (barely alive) from his trip up the "River of Doubt" tributary of the Amazon in 1914. Roosevelt, especially in 1918 was in and out of hospitals. He died in January 1919. This is why the 1920 Republican Convention was split so badly and ended with the nomination of the "Dark Horse" candidate Warren G. Harding, who won. The difference between TR's actions and Trump's threatened reactions as far as a third party is that TR had been a very effective political figure and a great President. He had plenty of real political experience. Trump doesn't - he just is a self-believing blowheart and self-publicist. After the election the bitterness against Trump would remain, and I can't see him ever wiping it away.

Jeff

thank you Jeff, I knew a little about Roosevelt and the formation of the 3rd party, but you give plenty of detail.

am so glad we don't have a presidential system here in uk


steve

[GUT]

thank you Jeff, I knew a little about Roosevelt and the formation of the 3rd party, but you give plenty of detail.

am so glad we don't have a presidential system here in uk


steve

Like any system the US system has pros and cons, however like you I think the Westminster System takes a bit of beating. Though I do think we improved it slightly by having an elected upper house (midelled on the US Senate intended to be a State's house) rather than a House of Lords.

[Elamarna]

Like any system the US system has pros and cons, however like you I think the Westminster System takes a bit of beating. Though I do think we improved it slightly by having an elected upper house (midelled on the US Senate intended to be a State's house) rather than a House of Lords.

Hi GUT,

I would love to see an elected second chamber, based on a PR system, rather than what we have at present.

steve

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

I would love to see an elected second chamber, based on a PR system, rather than what we have at present.

steve

G'day Steve

Pretty much what we have here.

A lower house, pretty much your Commons. With electorates more or less of equal population.

An upper house (Senate by name) that is similar in power to the Lords but elected. Each State getting the same number of Senators. I just wish the Senate actually voted in State lines rather than Party lines.

Then Her Maj (represented by the Governor General) overseeing the lot, (99.9999%) of the time just a figurehead (except when he sacked the PM bak in '75), appointed by Our Queen on advice of the government of the day.

[Errata]

G'day Steve

Pretty much what we have here.

A lower house, pretty much your Commons. With electorates more or less of equal population.

An upper house (Senate by name) that is similar in power to the Lords but elected. Each State getting the same number of Senators. I just wish the Senate actually voted in State lines rather than Party lines.

Then Her Maj (represented by the Governor General) overseeing the lot, (99.9999%) of the time just a figurehead (except when he sacked the PM bak in '75), appointed by Our Queen on advice of the government of the day.

Somehow I had no idea she was still so involved. I assumed she was just on the money.

[GUT]

Somehow I had no idea she was still so involved. I assumed she was just on the money.

She doesn't do much at all. All the day to day stuff is done by the Governor General, but she alone has the power to remove or appoint the Governor General (normally on the advice of Parliament), he,or she, then to all intents carries out the functions that the Queen carries out in England,msigning legislation into force, officially recalling Parliament (an agin normally on the advice of the Government of the day) that sort of thing.

She and her family are also good for business when they drop by. The crowds following Will and Kate when they were last here were amazing.

[Errata]

She doesn't do much at all. All the day to day stuff is done by the Governor General, but she alone has the power to remove or appoint the Governor General (normally on the advice of Parliament), he,or she, then to all intents carries out the functions that the Queen carries out in England,msigning legislation into force, officially recalling Parliament (an agin normally on the advice of the Government of the day) that sort of thing.

She and her family are also good for business when they drop by. The crowds following Will and Kate when they were last here were amazing.

Huh. You learn something new everyday. Is Canada the same?

[GUT]

Huh. You learn something new everyday. Is Canada the same?

Pretty similar I think.

But a Canadian my be able to chime in.

[Mayerling]

Like any system the US system has pros and cons, however like you I think the Westminster System takes a bit of beating. Though I do think we improved it slightly by having an elected upper house (midelled on the US Senate intended to be a State's house) rather than a House of Lords.

I have sometimes wished that the President's position would be more like the British, Australian, or Canadian Premiers, in that the leader of the party controlling the House of Commons is usually (unless there is an odd coalition government, like the 1930 - 1935 National Government in Britain) the Prime Minister. However, the U.S. Constitution was created following trends in the political philosophy of the 17th and 18th Centuries, which suggested it was best to separate the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The model was that the strong Executive was based on the King of England or France or whatever. Prime Ministers were not as central to the system prior to the rise of Sir Robert Walpole in the 1720s, but the proceeding reigns for a number of centuries had direct connection of the monarch with the chief minister. Examples would have been like George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham with Charles I, or Robert Harley and Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke in the reign of Queen Anne, or Stanhope in the reign of George II. They were chief ministers because they were the King's favorites. Walpole was needed by the government due to the mess of the South Sea Bubble crash of 1722. He proved to be quite indispensable, so that the monarchy needed him, not finding him a favorite. But the relationship did not really cemented as it was we think of it, even by 1787. George III dominated Lord North and his cabinet in the 1770s.

But the model set up by Locke and Montesquiou and others was too strong even if not quite set as we think. Instead, the Americans took the suggestions to heart and followed it in the Constitution, while the British (and their colonial governments) followed the acceleration of the power shift away from the executive figure (now a figure head) to a head of the leading party in the Commons. The key to this change was not really apparent for decades in Britain, until 1834. In 1828 King George IV forced an idiot friend of his, Lord Goderich (known to his friends as "Goody") to be Prime Minister with a majority of the Tories behind him - but he was unable to stand the post for more than three months, before the Duke of Wellington took over. In 1834 George's successor William IV tried to replace Lord Melbourne with the majority of the Whigs controlling Parliament with Sir Robert Peel, and the government floundered after about six weeks. Melbourne returned to his post (and stayed in it until 1841, when the Tories got their majority now under Sir Robert Peel). King William's attempt marked the last effort by a monarch to force a personal choice as Prime Minister on the government.

Jeff

[GUT]

I have sometimes wished that the President's position would be more like the British, Australian, or Canadian Premiers, in that the leader of the party controlling the House of Commons is usually (unless there is an odd coalition government, like the 1930 - 1935 National Government in Britain) the Prime Minister. However, the U.S. Constitution was created following trends in the political philosophy of the 17th and 18th Centuries, which suggested it was best to separate the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. The model was that the strong Executive was based on the King of England or France or whatever. Prime Ministers were not as central to the system prior to the rise of Sir Robert Walpole in the 1720s, but the proceeding reigns for a number of centuries had direct connection of the monarch with the chief minister. Examples would have been like George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham with Charles I, or Robert Harley and Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke in the reign of Queen Anne, or Stanhope in the reign of George II. They were chief ministers because they were the King's favorites. Walpole was needed by the government due to the mess of the South Sea Bubble crash of 1722. He proved to be quite indispensable, so that the monarchy needed him, not finding him a favorite. But the relationship did not really cemented as it was we think of it, even by 1787. George III dominated Lord North and his cabinet in the 1770s.

But the model set up by Locke and Montesquiou and others was too strong even if not quite set as we think. Instead, the Americans took the suggestions to heart and followed it in the Constitution, while the British (and their colonial governments) followed the acceleration of the power shift away from the executive figure (now a figure head) to a head of the leading party in the Commons. The key to this change was not really apparent for decades in Britain, until 1834. In 1828 King George IV forced an idiot friend of his, Lord Goderich (known to his friends as "Goody") to be Prime Minister with a majority of the Tories behind him - but he was unable to stand the post for more than three months, before the Duke of Wellington took over. In 1834 George's successor William IV tried to replace Lord Melbourne with the majority of the Whigs controlling Parliament with Sir Robert Peel, and the government floundered after about six weeks. Melbourne returned to his post (and stayed in it until 1841, when the Tories got their majority now under Sir Robert Peel). King William's attempt marked the last effort by a monarch to force a personal choice as Prime Minister on the government.

Jeff

All too true Jeff, but I have also heard some PMs wish they had the power of a US President.

[GUT]

Looks like Trump v Clinton.

[sdreid]

Looks like Trump v Clinton.

Prolly and a recent poll indicates they are statistically tied for the general election at this point.