Trumpian daydream

Rich, do you mean Spike Jones, the band leader, famous for spoof arrangements of popular songs (1911-1965) - or Spike Jonze (seems to be the usual spelling) film maker / producer. I'm thinking it's the latter. I'll confess - never heard of him until today. The other guy (Jones, musician) -- known of, and heard him for most of my life. Very funny guy. Good musician and leader, too.

 

This is the crux of the matter.

For the GOP, backing Trump way back when was like riding a tiger. Great, until you try to get off. Then you get mauled.

Nancy Pelosi handed his head on a silver tray twice to McConnell. Nothing. They continue to support him--even while trying to surreptitiously stab him in the back--despite all of his antics and crimes. Why? Because they cannot be seen by the base as having their fingerprints on the knife in his back. They want someone else to do it.

That's why they all came to his aid (rhetorically only, please note) when his indictment was looming. But none of them said he was innocent. (A few tried to diminish the gravity of the charges, but most simply railed at the system as being unfair to Trump.) Again, can't be perceived by the base as being anti-Trump.

And that's why they're hoping the justice system will take care of the problem for them. They can sit on the sidelines and blame the courts, the Democrats, the "deep state" and the bogeyman, all the while preparing to run for the nomination. But here's the rub: Trump isn't going anywhere. If you think his being indicted for felonies is going to hurt him in the primaries, you haven't been paying attention to the Republican Party's changes since Obama was elected in 2008. And if you think they won't nominate him, look at the Texas AG, who won re-election while under indictment. The AG!

But what if Trump is convicted? Nope. First, the wheels turn to slowly for that to happen before the 2024 primaries. Second, I doubt seriously he's facing prison time for these charges. And, as we know, indictment, conviction, even imprisonment are not disqualifiers. (Again, McConnell and the rest could have had him disqualified at impeachment, but they didn't do it.)

Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does politics. If the GOP could rally around just one opponent, one person not named "Trump," they might beat him. But they can't because the base won't come along and their own ambitions compel all of them to run this cycle. (See DeSantis, Ron) So:

• Phase I: Trump, indicted all over the place, defeats a host of GOP candidates splitting what little non-Trump vote there is and wins the nomination
• Phase II: Trump, unable to attract any of the people who took a flyer on him in 2016, loses in a landslide

Absent some unforeseen--and undesired--tragedy, or Trump taking it on the lam, I just don't see how it plays out in any other way. (And I can imagine only one hypothetical currently missing a key ingredient.)

 

The former. Yes, I know that distinction.

Ja we ist the supermen,
super-duper supermen!

 

This appears to be the most likely scenario to me. The next possibility is.

• Phase I: Trump, indicted all over the place, the GOP coalesces behind not-Trump nominee who gets the nomination.
• Phase II: Trump runs as a third party candidate to keep raking in the donations, GOP loses in a landslide

 

My problem with this is...WHO? Who can do the double duty of (a) pulling the base away from Trump and (b) keep it for her/himself?

If anyone was already capable of that, would we not have already seen him/her? If that person existed, wouldn't the Republicans who are not running for president but still afraid of the base support that person? Instead, they're all rushing to prop up Trump, even at his weakest. I have to think it's because even though he's at his weakest, he's still stronger with Republican voters than the rest of them.

 

Why wouldn't it be DeSantis?

 

Because it would be by now. But it isn't.

For DeSantis to succeed, Trump will have to be gone from the scene, taken out by someone or something else. DeSantis shows NO ability to take it away from Trump.

 

I said that I considered it less likely for the reasons you mention. Three indictments, for example, might convince the base that the Trump baggage has just gotten too big.

 

Ahem. "Paging Ms. Daniels... Ms. Stormy Daniels. Ah, there you are, Ms. Daniels. A telephone call for you..."

 

The way Dr D describes the situation it sounds like some sort of widespread pathological obsession.

 

Seems like a pretty good description of the current GOP to me?

 

I would put it differently, but it might mean the same thing.

I thing the Republican Party is--and has been since the big switch in the '60s--made up of three basic sectors:

• Establishment Republicans, driven primarily by capitalism and commerce
• Conservatives, who are primarily driven by social issues and slowing down the progress of liberalism
• The "Base," a reactionary group (think "Archie Bunker") centered on anger, racial issues, etc.

Normally, it was the Establishment who led the party. The Conservatives were promised support for their issues, like promotion of religion. The Base was fed "red meat" issues. This worked from Nixon through Dubya. Then Obama came along and riled the Base and scared the Conservatives. (The Establishment didn't really mind him, except that he was on the opposing team, so they...opposed him.)

But it was Trump who ignited the Base. Through him, they gained control of the party, cowing the Establishment. The Conservatives went along because, like under the Establishment, their issues would still be supported. They're in charge now, and this keeps Trump on top while the Establishment hides (and the Conservatives abide).

It's not about Trump; it never was. He was a catalyst and not really necessary anymore. But the Base will hang onto him without a viable--and compelling--replacement who literally takes them away. The Conservatives will come along, as always. And the Establishment will continue to hide, hoping to work their agenda under the radar while pretending the shenanigans of the Base aren't really happening.

The real question is whether the party can attract enough cross-over vote in 2024? The problem is that the sector of their party most attractive to crossovers--the Establishment--is no longer the face of the party. Instead of them--the furthest left--the bloc that is the furthest right, the base, is now doing that job. They'll dominate their primaries, but will lose big in the general election.

 

It was the Establishment who worked to cultivate the Base, relying on them for electoral success. Their actual policies of reverse Robin Hood (take from the poor to give to the rich) had no chance to attract voters otherwise. Worse, they deliberately turned the Base against social program by cultivating a lie that they benefit These Other People (primarily in terms of race, though the Other group in the forefront right now seem to be trans people and other LBTQ folk). Conservatives are the ones who traded Christ to get abortion bans. Pox on all three of their houses. I hope you're right and the GOP, a party of no redeeming qualities, is destined for defeat.

As this board's resident HRC fan, I really wonder if the "gaffe" she was condemned for (half of his supporters in the Basket of Deplorables) was actually very generous and optimistic assessment, offered by a leader we need - but do not deserve.

 

Maybe. But having at least some personal experience in electoral politics, let me suggest that it's unwise to alienate any group of potential voters if you can possibly help it.

As to the GOP...yeah, I hear you but a single party state is still a single party state and that's a bad thing even if the single party didn't get there through force. Opposed parties keep each other somewhat more "honest" than wings of a single party can do.

 

Not if one of them is literal Death Eaters.
There is no reason Democratic Party can't divide in two to preserve two-party system. Joe Manchin wants to preserve some tax cuts, talks up corporate interests and fossil fuels (including his own interests), worries about "competitiveness" (read low corporate taxes) and thinks safety nets need to be means tested so mothers won't spend child benefit cash on "drugs". In short, he's a Republican from times when they still recognized the need to freaking govern the country. Folks to the right of him, who like Second Amendment but neither Article Two (tax and spend) not First Amendment, are far right extremists. And need to be properly marginalized.

 

While splitting the Democratic party is a possibility. I think it is more likely that after a few more losses at the polls the Republican party will be reconstituted as a relaunched party. The GOP will have to first give up on Trump and the Trump wanabe's then they may have a chance at a new start? It might take 8 or 10 years? who knows?

 

As everyone probably already knows, Trump has been indicted for the federal documents case in Miami. I'm reviving this thread because I was just going to do a bit of daydreaming on the thing.

I was thinking about Spiro Agnew agreeing to settle his federal case. The prosecutors wanted him out of office because they knew the Nixon case was heating up quickly and they didn't want Agnew being made President. I was thinking what if something like the following plea agreement was made with Trump. He pulls out of the 2024 presidential election and agrees to never seek public office again. In return the charges are dropped.

I would be happy with such a deal because making sure Trump is never President again would be worth it. Trump would still be facing charges in NY and potential charges for the January 6 insurrection. I think maybe the prosecutors might go for this because of the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 election and then pardoning himself and the 1000 folks convicted for January 6.

 

Donald Trump: 41
Hillary Clinton: 0

 

Yes, Agnew agreed to resign. But he did not have the charges dropped. He pled nolo contendere to one count of federal tax evasion. This plea resulted in a conviction. He was subsequently disbarred as well.

Another difference is that Agnew agreed to resign, but nothing was said about any future runs for office. It was accepted that this would be impossible, that voters would never go for it. Times have clearly changed, at least on one side of the ledger.

 

I didn’t mean to imply that the Agnew deal was the same thing only that the prosecutors were considering political goals as part of the Agnew plea deal. Which kicked off my daydreaming.

This is the Trumpian daydreaming thread. What’s yours?