Thursday, November 26, 2015

Donald Trump Is The Heir of Andrew Jackson Against The Elites

A study of the attitude of historians*, especially of the patrician sort, to the "crass democracy' which had produced, in combination with the new Jacksonian style politics, the Presidency of Andrew Jackson (and had ousted their upper middle class strata from that leadership role in society) has a firm resonance with the attitude to Donald Trump by the historians and pundits from the right and left who inhabit that same strata today.

Those from this class on the right express the same ambivalence to popular democracy as exemplified by James Parton the Jacksonian historian whose 1860 "The Life of Andrew Jackson" is considered one of the finest biographies of our 7th President.

If we take the overview of Parton's work included in Charles G. Sellers Jr. "Andrew Jackson versus the Historians" Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIV (March 1958) and where we have "Parton" substitute "David Brooks" and for Jackson substitute "Trump" we can see there is nothing new under the sun.

The elite will always show their true colors-with their nose in the air in the case of the liberal left-and with utter confusion in the case of the right-in fact the more conservative the pundit the more this confusion is expressed, as it is a battle against their inner nature, whereas with the liberals it is an excuse to vent their inner anger.

Or as Sellers stated it " For Parton's view of democracy is essentially ambivalent. Like many intellectuals, Parton will, at one moment, excoriate the masses for their ignorance and for vulgarizing American life; but at the next moment he will turn around and extol democracy as the mark of an enlightened society.

Periodically in the Jackson (biography), Parton will rail against the vicious mob who could " feel, but not think; listen to stump orations but not read...who could be wheedled, and flattered, and drilled by any man who was quite devoid of public spirit, principle and shame, but could be influenced by no man of honor unless he were a man of genius."

Then, a little while later he will announce that the "instinctive preferences of the people must be right" and that the "truly helpful men and women of this Republic have oftenest sprung from the cabin.... and worked their way up to their rightful places as leaders of the people, by the strength of their own arm, brain, and resolution".

That Jackson overcame this instinctive class based hatred and ridicule to become recognized as one of the greatest of presidents should be succour to the Trump supporters who, from time to time, wilt under the ongoing onslaught-especially when it comes from the right.

It is my "instinctive preference" to consider that in due course Trump will prove to these "lettered betters" that he can claim the mantle of Jackson . In doing so there is no doubt that some future historian of our present period will make the same comparison to the commentators of our day as set out here regarding the, mistaken then as ours are now, historians and"pundits" of 150 years ago.

*James Parton "The Presidency of Andrew Jackson" from Volume 111 of the "Life of Andrew Jackson" Edited by Robert V. Remini. Harper 1965

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Redux; Walker/Perry/Jindal/Kasich Attack Trump "They're all gone-he's still here"

Presuming this is true (but if not it will be in due course)

BREAKING: Kasich to suspend Campaign facing bankruptcy, low polls via

What do all these article have in common? Lack of common sense and political nous.

 To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen;
"They're all gone-he's still here"

Rick Perry just gave an epic speech raging against Donald Trump and comparing him to a 'cancer'

Walker pivots from Clinton, knocks back on Trump

Bobby Jindal blasts Donald Trump as 'a narcissist'

Kasich goes for the jugular in latest Trump attack ads

UPDATE Economist Trump 36% Ipsos 38% Gravis 37% And Leads In Three New State Polls (Iowa+9)


Trump's trend line speaks for itself Whale swimming amongst minnows

YouGuv/Economist to 11/23

Reuters Ipsos 5 day tracking poll.

The day before, the 23rd Trump hit 42.6%
 from Gravis Marketing for OANN (with a relatively low margin of error 
of +/- 3% ) as noted by Donald Trump himself;

A new state poll of Massachusetts see Trump with a massive lead of 14 points. In Iowa trump continues his lead even though Ted Cruz is hoovering up Carson's erstwhile support.Cruz will have a bit of a run like all the others and if he gets too close to Trump will feel the Trump blowtorch.

Given the evangelical GOP population in Iowa it is good that Carson continues to hold a percentage of support to prevent Cruz from getting a superior position.We will see how this plays out in due course but whatever happens in Iowa it seems unlikely that it will affect Trump in New Hampshire.

Who knows, a close second in Iowa might actually be for the best for Trump given that states recent record of its winners not going on to the nomination.

UPDATE;Trump extends Iowa lead to 9

Monday, November 23, 2015

If Trump Did Go Independent Could The GOP Still Win? Absolutely

GOP Chairman Reince Preibus and the GOP establishment are walking on eggshells as regards Donald Trump's candidacy. Trump is impervious to the usual mechanics of reining in a contender; threats to turn off the financial spigot, threats of bad media.  

The second of which has been underway from the git-go, to no avail as he vaults further into the lead, and of course Trump is self-financing. Neither does the usual carrot of the promise of a plumb congressional or party position carry any weight with the successful billionaire businessman.

The reason for this caution is twofold. The GOP Establishment views Trump as a loose cannon whose statements they consider take away attention from the"serious" i.e. Establishment backed candidates. 

And, possibly more importantly, they fear Trump will run as a third party/Independent candidate, which possibility he has not ruled out on a number of occasions, the latest being  November 22nd. 

This latest was in response to news that a Republican "hit squad Superpac a guerilla campaign to destroy "Trump is being geared up with the specific aim of raising big bucks to mount an advertising campaign against him. Trump responded by advising, again, he could go Independent "if I am not treated fairly."

Clearly the Republicans would prefer to have a straight Republican versus Democratic election in 2016 but, if Trump ran, would that necessarily mean the GOP would lose in a three way competition? The answer is, perhaps surprisingly, that under certain, and actually very plausible circumstances, a Trump run could give the election to the GOP!

How plausible is this scenario? If Trump ran and won one state, New Hampshire,where he currently has a massive lead, with its tiny 4 Electoral College votes, that could throw the election into the Republican Party dominated House of Representatives.

In the map above every balance has been considered based on recent Electoral College history. The GOP has to win Florida from the start otherwise the election is over. Since President Obama won it by less than a half of one percent a Republican win is of course a strong possibility. The rest of the map are mostly McCain/Romney won states so, again it is more than plausible to assign them to the GOP. This leaves Virginia/Iowa/Colorado as the determining states.

Since no Republican has been elected without winning Ohio, and it was marginal in 2012, it is plausibly assigned to the GOP. Virginia has been assigned to the Dem's but could easily go Republican. Similarly Iowa and Colorado have been assigned to the GOP but could go Dem (giving the Dem's 268 votes, 2 short). 

The bottom line is that there are a number of very plausible combinations which, if a Trump third party won just New Hampshire, could throw the election into the House of Representatives as none of the candidates would have the 270 votes required to be elected.

Of all potential Trump states New Hampshire, with its record of switching back and forth between GOP and Dem, it's substantial vote for Nader in 2000, its surprise support for Hillary after Obama won Iowa and seemed invincible, and independent reputation seems a very strong possibility.

 If Trump wins the Republican primary there, then it would clearly signal his chances as an independent. If Trump also won neighboring Vermont which, as Sanders shows can be quirky, then with 7 Electoral College votes the odds on no candidate having enough votes is substantial. A loss in Vermont alone would, even if the Dem's won New Hampshire, deny them them presidency as it would create a  GOP 268/ Dem 267  situation.

The popular vote tally would not come into consideration as it has not on a number of occasions, (Tilden/Cleveland/Gore) thus what would happen next is as follows:

Under the constitution, the GOP standard bearer, the Dem, and the third party candidate would be the candidates the House would decide from. (presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes. If they did they would be eliminated from the balloting as only the top three go through for consideration)
Every state would have one vote based  on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York’s one vote would go to the Dem, and Wyoming’s one vote would go to the Republican. 
It would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House and the state caucus delegations in the 2016 Congressional elections, thus, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.
This scenario played out before. In the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson finished first with more electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, William Crawford came third and Henry Clay fourth. With Clay eliminated he threw the support of his states to Adams, who was duly elected, based on the fact of his having the majority of states.

It would not matter if the state/states Trump won voted for the Democrat as that would be only one or two delegations which would not be enough to overcome the GOP's majority of states delegations and thus the Republican would be chosen as the next president. The Senate, currently with a Republican majority would then choose the vice-president. Interestingly if the 2016 senate elections produced a tie, sitting Vice-President Biden could cast the deciding vote in favor of himself.

The above scenario is predicated on a Trump candidacy not taking so many votes from the GOP that there is a Democratic Party landslide. On the other hand Trump in this scenario might do as Perot did, according to the experts, and take votes evenly from both the Dem and GOP candidates and the above scenario would still play out. The big danger for the Republicans is not so much the Trump candidacy but who the Republican candidate was.

If it were another establishment person like Jeb Bush then the nightmare scenario for the Establishment, of the base deserting Bush for Trump, would indeed come to pass and produce a potential Electoral College disaster with Florida/Virginia/Ohio and all the other marginal states lost.

There is only one way of preventing this disaster and that is to nominate, in the case Trump goes third party, a person who can hold the base, in fact increase its turnout, gain some independent and blue collar ("Perot-ite") Dem's. 

Senator Cruz is a possibility but has limited time in government and may not have appeal to the indies and Perot-ites. It is clear to me that if Trump bolts only Governor Palin can possibly give the party a fighting chance. 

In that scenario it would be up to the GOP establishment to decide, at the convention, if they wish to lose massively (including the senate) or make a solid go of it with Palin. I have set this out in detail at;
LINK; "Trump Problem Reince Preibus? Call Sarah Palin Stat!"

Sunday, November 22, 2015

From TCOS;"GOP Doesn't Need Vote Majority/Electoral College Or Supreme Court to Win In 2016"

First published at Bob Belvedere's outstanding site 'The Camp Of The Saints"


It is a completely realistic proposition that the 2016 presidential election could be won by the GOP without a popular vote a majority or 270+ Electoral College votes or, as in the 2000 Bush/Gore election, the assistance of the Supreme Court.

This map of the possible state by state results clearly shows a more than strong possibility of such a tied outcome;

The vital states, Florida/Virginia/Ohio were won by President Obama in 2012 with majorities that could easily be overturned, or held, in the case of Ohio. That would make Iowa,Colorado and Nevada, all swing states, the final key to win, lose or tie.

In the map above there is a tie. To reach this situation, one vote short of the 270 to win Electoral College majority, is quite clearly a possible outcome. Further it is not dependent on either candidate having a majority of the popular vote. A number of presidential elections have been won or lost without a majority, Bush in 2000 obviously being a recent case.

In this scenario with neither candidate (whomever they are) having the 270 electoral college votes needed for outright victory, under the constitution Trump, the presumptive GOP standard bearer, and Clinton would, presuming no other candidate had any electoral college votes, have their chances determined by the House of Representatives

Every state would would caucus, have one vote based on the result of each states party representation. Thus, for example New York's one vote would go to Hillary (That state having more Democratic Congressmen than Republican) and Wyoming's one vote would go to Trump.

Given it would be unlikely that the GOP would lose control of the House in the 2016 elections and that, on the most recent analysis, the GOP would have a majority of the 50 states votes based on caucus outcomes when balloting.

The current situation regarding the caucus composition is as per this map via "Newsalert" ;

The Democratic party would cast 14 votes for Hillary. The Republicans could caucus 33 state votes for Trump and 3 states votes are undetermined at present, this could of course change either way in 2016 but it seems unlikely that whatever their final structure it would affect the outcome given the huge majority of state caucuses the GOP controls. The situation of Washington D.C.
is unclear but even if it were allowed a "caucus" vote it would not change the outcome.

Thus, without a popular vote majority nor an Electoral College one and without the aid of the Supreme Court Donald Trump could be sworn in as president in January 2016 thanks to the Constitution.

The full constitutional scenario is set out below 

The constitution is very clear on the matter. Article 12 states, inter- alia:

"The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."

Thus, if the no candidate with an electoral college majority scenario plays out, and presuming there are no other candidates who have won electoral votes, the House would meet to choose the next president by January 20th 2016, with the states having one vote each, whilst the Senate would meet to choose the Vice-President.

Based on the current composition, and presumably similar composition post November 2015, of the House and if voting went strictly on party lines, with no vote switching or abstentions in states with a close proportion of Republicans and Democrats, the Republican candidate would be chosen on the first ballot.

According to information supplied by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the current composition of the house by party is:

States with a Republican party majority of Representatives    33
States with a Democratic party majority of Representatives   14
States with an equal number of Representatives                      3

What can happen to cause a crisis, or give victory to the Democrats? If there are changes in swing states delegations due to a move back to the Dem's from the GOP's perhaps, high watermark result in November 2014, a Hillary landslide with long coattails.In that scenario a constitutional crisis could come into play if the Republicans lost their majority in 8 caucuses giving a 25/25 tie. 

The "stolen election" of 1876 brought the country to the brink of civil war. The election of 2016 gives the possibility of a situation where, as in 1824, when no candidate had an electoral majority, the candidate with a significant minority of popular votes might be chosen by the House under heated circumstances. 

For all these reasons, especially if the economy is at the current level of unemployment-or worse, the election of 2016 is fraught with a terrible danger for the country.These dangers could be averted, or ameliorated if, well before the actual election, the constitutional possibilities are well canvassed with the public so they are aware of what might need to be done.

Otherwise, if by the first Monday following the second Wednesday in March 2016, as the constitution requires, there is no President, the Senate's choice of Vice-President will take over-to who knows what effect.

Media To Admit Defeat? Two New Non-Online Polls Give Trump Massive 10 point leads

Embedded image permalink

Surely, surely the media and the pundits have to now admit what has been obvious to everyone else for a long time-Donald Trump is not only the front runner he is very much so.

Massive turnouts for him everywhere he goes,crowd sizes any other candidate would be proud to have half of must now make the scales drop from even the blindest and most prejudiced of eyes.

"Poll: Trump retakes lead, Cruz surges in IA; Rubio second in NH:"

The last  fortress for the Establishment has been that Trump's large poll leads were "not valid because they were internet polls. Well; that has been blown away by the ABC and Fox telephone/interview polls released today.

Trump/Carson/Cruz are 59% of GOP polling. The media/Establishment really should stop embarrassing themselves

Media favorite Rubio continues to make no traction no matter how hard they push him and Establishment hopes Jeb and Kasich languish. FROM; HUFFINGTON POST POLLSTER

And the trend line makes the gap even starker-calling Megyn Kelly!

And in the state polls it's a field day for Trump from REAL CLEAR POLITICS

Poll media hides.Trump gains 20 points lead Hillary by 5 Nov 4. Hillary 56% Trump 41% Today Trump 46% Hillary 41%

  Under the next debate guidelines it appears only Trump/Carson/Rubio/Cruz/Bush will be in the main debate.Fiorina right on the cusp at 3.5%

Friday, November 20, 2015

UPDATE November 20th Astounding New Poll Trump 38.8%; Trump's 4 Months At The Top Of The Polls

UPDATE; Astounding new Ipsos Reuters 5 day tracking poll
Trump 38.8%  Carson 14.7%

July 20th 2015 Donald Trump moves into first place in the Real Clear Politics aggregate "Poll of Polls" for the first time.

Except for two days and by less than half a percent for that minuscule period, Trump has lead the field against all comers.

No matter who the media and an increasingly shrill and desperate GOP establishment pumps up Trump has seen them off. Perry then, and especially Walker rose and fell and vanished. Fiorina was the media's next push after her "crushing debate performance. She went from 1% to 13% and is now back almost where she started from and why she is still in the running is mystery. Jindal has gone, and the back of the pack are in a hopeless situation.

The media has now decided that Marco Rubio is their best chance after Kasich and Jeb bombed on them (they certainly don't want Carson or Cruz) and Trump will see him off in due course.

The pundits like Dana (I will eat my column if Trump is the nominee) Milbank and Philip Bump have come off looking like utter fools with their initial gross condescension to Trump and their ilk now have little to say except "when the field narrows down Trump will lose" Unfortunately for them this new Reuters poll explodes that concept.

 (Trump 43%/Carson 26%/Rubio 25% if they were the only candidates)

The poll pundits and especially Nate Silver's look the silliest whith their seeming endless graphs and charts produced by the erroneously named "Forecaster Enten" (Harry Enten) which showed candidates inprevious campaigns (Gingrich/Santorum etc) rising and falling which fate was confidently proposed for Trump.

Well here he is on November 20th his fourth in a row month as kingpin!