Both Fareed Zakaria and 538’s legendary Nate Silver have issued apologias and post-mortems for having failed so utterly to predict Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. Interesting reading. And yet they seem determined to double down on mistakes.
1. Voters are more tribal than I thought.
2. GOP is weaker than I thought.
3. Media is worse than I thought.
Oh, certainly these have some general truth. And yet, does Donald Trump’s triumph in GOP primaries reflect on all “voters”? Or on the 6% or so of qualified U.S. citizens who cast ballots in his favor in primaries, so far?
More significant is the fact that another 4% or so backed raving reactionaries like Ted Cruz, with very few supporting the mainstream GOP pols whom Rupert Murdoch is used to having at his beck and call. Sure, Trump is appealing to “tribalism.” But he has swayed a subset of a subset, so far.
It will only be fair to impugn American voters, in general, if the supporters of Bernie Sanders prove too “tribal” to see the practical value of joining the general democratic alliance.
Is the media “worse” than Nate Silver thought? Oh sure. But the tribes supporting Donald Trump are not swayed by general media, rather by a subset that was fine-tuned, at great expense, by the Murdochian machine, by Clear Channel svengalis and by Heritage/AEI incantation-rationalizers. After inciting millions into a resentful, grievance-driven froth that includes a bilious war against science and every other “smartypants” profession in American life, the owners of that specialized wing of media now blink in astonishment at what they have wrought. Having whipped their horse into a populist frenzy, they cannot believe it when an expert rider hopped aboard their already-raging beast and snatched the reins right out of their hands.
(As happened to the so-smart 1930s German Junkers lords who thought they could control racist populists because “we own the newspapers.")
Nate Silver blames the “weak” GOP on a failure of coordination, ignoring the fact that the 21st Century Republican Party was - until very recently - the most tightly disciplined political entity in the history of the republic.
For a couple of decades no major GOP officeholder dared utter a word that did not comply with talking points issued by Roget Ailes. And woe unto any who violated the (Dennis) Hastert Rule by negotiating with democrats over matters of public substance. It was for that sin, rather than his divorce scandals, that Newt Gingrich suffered exile into the political wilderness. (And contemplate Newt's possible revenge.)
Sure, that formerly tight discipline appears to have been shattered, this year. But look underneath. House and Senate republicans are still marching in utter lockstep, with no one breaking ranks, except a few gutsy senators daring to diss Trump. As far as policy is concerned? Sticking to the GOP method of doing almost nothing for the republic? Anything at all? No change.
No, Nate, the fault does not lie in GOP "failure of coordination." My own theory is that Murdoch and his ilk deliberately bent their wills and massive resources to re-igniting our 250 year old, ever-simmering American Civil War. "Red" America is gray, and we have been down this path before. And setting fire to this match was not just treason. It was spectacularly stupid.
== How does Donald Trump do it? ==
Scott (Dilbert) Adams has analyzed how DT's most outrageous or fact-free statements aren't meant to convince, they
are designed to move the Center of Narrative, so that we're arguing over how much
or little DT has exaggerated a core truth. The essence is
"there must be some fire under all this smoke I am blowing,
right?" Now see an even closer analysis of Trump's polemical method,
which is brilliant. While it seems he's babbling, a simple word analysis
reveals fiendish precision.
Watch this video! Share widely this appraisal of how
Donald Trump’s polemic is so skillfully planned and executed, down to the
number of one, two and three syllable words. A brilliant svengali! It will not persuade a single
fervid Trumpist. But it can affect fence-sitting conservatives. Above all, it
will show the True America of Jefferson and Franklin and Clemens and decent
argument and of science and of people who can talk at a tenth grade level...
that this truly is a fight worth taking very seriously.
After that amazing
decryption of DT’s method, Nerdwriter then analyzes how news media and
politicians and citizens helped make the Trump phenomenon. Though I'll warrant
only for the 40% who are confederates. The greater number of blue/Union
Americans will send him packing as we did Jeff Davis.
== Vice Presidential choices ==
Recently I posted my own quirky take on the factors that Trump must consider in picking his running mate... a choice made far more problematic by the fact that few seem to want the job... and that whoever he does select may betray him for political advantage, either before the election or else - in the unlikely event they win -- very soon after. If you haven't seen these almost-scifi scenarios, go see how plausible they are, and how closely DT himself should pay attention to the minefield.
In this parsing of possible Democratic VP picks, I lean strongly toward Al Franken. Also Virginia’s TIm Kaine. Both reach
out beyond their obvious traits, are sharp-witted and truly substantial minds.

As for the other veep choice? Okay I'll dip back in, since it is so fascinating. This article from The Washington Post shows how, with Trump, the spread is so wide, it’s like an entire Dr.
Seuss bestiary -- alas most of it similarly nonsensical. Does he want his
veep choice to help shore him up with the establishment? That is starting
to seem likely. Only then that will mean he’s NOT planning a hard veer to the
center.
If he does veer toward the middle (and I
elsewhere called that a potential benefit for the country, if (say) the GOP
presidential candidate were to publicly drop insane voodoos like supply side
and climate denialism) then in that case he’d need a veep from the radical
right who would protect his base, while he performs his centrist feint.
A deciding factor between those two options? Donald Trump always thinks of #1
first. And picking a mainstream, establishment republican politician would be
political - perhaps even real - suicide. Follow the logic. If he chooses
an establishment republican who is in Rupert Murdoch’s pocket (meaning nearly
all of them), then the gopper lords could solve their Trump Problems by getting
rid of DT on any pretext, after the inauguration. Forget the “JFK” scenario.
Just impeach him! On any excuse at all. Most dems in Congress would go along
(possibly foolishly) so Murdoch would not even have to supply his own
majorities. And then? DT fades into an historical footnote. Your
establishment puppet is in and you get all the Supreme Court picks and possibly
a re-election.
What
a perfect plan! What on Earth could prevent it? DT will provide some pretext,
early on. And the dems would never have the discipline to stand back and tell
Paul Ryan: "do your own dirty work." Indeed, if the election looks lost, this betrayal could happen a month or so before the November polls. (Okay, I repeated some of my earlier argument. But see it all laid out clearly here.)
This is why - for his own protection from both kinds of lynching - I am putting
$5 on him nominating a maniac.
Though given how DT thinks? A woman for sure. He’ll think that helps.
Wait. Did I just describe Sarah Palin? Eep! Far better… Ivanka
Trump? Oooooh. This year is giving me a headache.
== Paul Ryan embraces Trump ==
This stunningly Orwellian puff piece for Paul Ryan proclaims: “Paul Ryan in many
ways is the antithesis of Donald Trump; he’s everything that Donald Trump is
not. He’s a decent human being. He is a conservative. He is steeped in public
policy. He cares about ideas. He’s a person who conducts himself with civility
and grace in public life. He doesn’t put down his opponents. He’s aspirational in his message and
philosophy. He’s inclusive. He’s an admirable human being, and Donald Trump is
not.”
What
stunning malarkey! Mr. Ryan may be softer-spoken, but he has been an utter
partisan warrior on behalf of the pro-oligarchy madness that has transformed
American conservatism from a movement containing some real intellect, respect for
science and willingness to engage in adult negotiation into what we now see – a
frothing frenzy of fervidly intransigent dogmatic hate-peddling.
The
last Republican leader to actually engage in “politics” – or argument aimed at
advancing policy in service to the American people – was Newt Gingrich who –
while a sometimes-offensive culture warrior – would also pause now and then to
negotiate with Bill Clinton, getting actual bills and debt-reducing budgets
passed.*
Gingrich
was toppled by a cabal of neoconservatives led by Dennis “role model for all
boys” Hastert, Tom “convicted felon” DeLay, Tearful John Boehner and Paul Ryan,
who combined to establish the Hastert Rule that any Republican who ever again
negotiated with a democrat would be harshly punished. Their dedication to
electoral cheating – e.g. gerrymandering – was unprecedented even in Tamany
Hall days.
The Congresses they led were not only the most dogmatic but also the
laziest and most worthless, not even trying, feebly, to pass long stated
Republican goals – not even when the GOP owned all three branches of government
and could do anything they wanted (2001 to 2007). All
that passed during that span were gifts to Wall Street and the uber-rich and
resource extractors. That… is… it. That and utterly absurd wars.
The
rest of this insipid rationalization by Mike DeBonis is worth scanning if only
to make sure that you don’t exist in
an isolation booth. You blues are better than confederates because you are
willing sometimes lift your gaze to hear other sides. At least you should be.
More from Ryan: “It’s
a question of how to move ahead on the ideas that I — and my House
colleagues—have invested so much in through the years. It’s not just a choice
of two people, but of two visions for America,” Paul Ryan said today in
endorsing Donald Trump. But unlike every other commenter or pundit, I care less
about surfaces like this endorsement than the utter gall of Ryan, contending
that he has a "bold and clear vision" of ambitious actions on the GOP
agenda.
What a towering liar. Okay, this bears repeating. The Republicans have held the House for 20 of the last 22
years and both houses for 16. For 6 years (2001-2007) they owned every single
branch of government, Congress, the Courts and the presidency and could have
passed anything they chose. What did they choose... from their long, long
list of ranted grievances?
Did they deregulate or banish any departments? Not a-one. (In contrast,
democrats have deregulated many things, the ICC, CAB, AT&T, GPS and the
whole freaking Internet.) Did twenty years of GOP Congresses cancel environmental regs? Did they do a
push on abortion?
Nope, except for the Bushite disaster trillion-dollar wars, all they did was
pass gusher arterial wealth transfers into the open maws of Wall Street,
bankers, resource extractors and other parasites. That... is... it. NAME
another major thing they did with all that power!
Again, because no one else will say it -- the last five GOP-run Congresses have been the laziest in the history of the
republic. Members spend nearly all their time fund-raising. Or passing
futile-bizarre retractions of Obamacare. They achieved not only record breaking
lows in legislation proposed or passed, but lows in the number of days in
session, hearings held, subpoenas issued. And if you subtract frippery
Benghazi and Email hearings, almost none at all.
The utter nerve and Chutzpah of Ryan, to use an "ambitious agenda" as
his reason to support that screaming svengali Donald Trump? Hypocrisy
exponentiated, as we would expect from an apprentice to Dennis "role model
for all boys" Hastert, convicted felon Tom De-Lay and Tearful-John
Boehner.
When I assert they are all traitors, that is political polemic. But when I call
them, lazy perverts, that is a matter of record.
== Splitting parties ==
Conservative columnist Thomas Friedman calls for a “New Republican Party” to
become the healthy center-right movement in America. He’s not the only one.
Elsewhere I describe how Jennifer Rubin, the “Right Turn” columnist for the
Washington Post, has said similar things, citing Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb) as a
(rare) example of sanity on that side, who might serve as a crystallization
seed for such a reborn conservatism, rising from the well-earned ashes of the
mad confederacy ignited by Rupert Murdoch.
Alas, if Friedman and Rubin and their ilk weren’t so blinded by stereotypes,
they’d realize that the party they’re calling for already exists. It's HALF of
the Democratic Party.
Let me explain. Today's Democratic Party is not a center right party... It
*contains* America's center right party. The DP is - in fact - the entire
spectrum of moderate politics in America. It is where people who truly want to argue
and negotiate pragmatic mixes of state and private and corporate views gather
to try to concoct solutions to 21st century problems. Want to see this in every detail? Look at California, where the 3/4 democratic majority has resulted is far more vigorous debate, not less. The far-more-moderate-than-national republicans in the state assembly are very influential, using their votes to horsetrade between the DP's liberal and moderate wings. Oh and by the way, California under Jerry Brown is the best-run, cleanest and most effective state in the Union.
Hence the DP is
ill-disciplined and hard to typify… a good thing!
In effect, the Democratic Party is the House of Commons and the GOP is the
House of Lords and when the Lords have a majority they have just two priorities
- to perform rip-offs of the people and (2) to prevent politics from
functioning at all.
If the GOP vanished tomorrow, Thomas Friedman's wish would instantly come
true as the DP would then almost instantly split in half. San American moderate conservatives would get a party that loves science and the Earth but is also pro-enterprise and flat-fair business competition... one that argues like adults with the somewhat pink wing of slightly socialists.
If the GOP vanished tomorrow. Oh, not till November. Then make it so.