Five Requirements For Republicans To Sweep

As Establishment heads explode, the race for the White House has tightened. If recent polls are correct, Trump has managed to close a nearly 11 point gap against Clinton in about a week and a half. This may come as a surprise to Democrats, but it's no surprise to Trump supporters. He's constantly beaten highly qualified candidates on whom he trains his sights. 

Clinton, by contrast, has proven to be a truly awful candidate. Bernie Sanders just won yet another state yesterday. Clinton, who won every county in West Virginia in 2008 against Obama, managed to alienate just about every voter she could by promising to "put [them] out of work." Donald Trump, granted, says some stupid things, but seriously, "I want to put you out of work"? I can't imagine a more damaging statement. "Build the wall" simply doesn't compare to threats to disenfranchise and unemploy hard working, blue collar Americans. In any event, her comparative weakness as a candidate provides Republicans with exactly the opening they need to sweep the elections, if they play their cards right. As a life long Republican, here is my advice.

Embrace Some Trumpsim

I did not say "embrace all Trumpism." I said "some." Specifically, Trump's jobs message is extremely powerful and has resonated with all Americans, even if he has alienated some others. All Americans can be unified in some very basic things: (1) we love our families and want them safe; (2) we want ourselves, families and neighbors to have good jobs; (3) we want our representatives to be proud to be Americans; and (4) we all want to feel like we're heading in the right direction in our lives.

Trump speaks to all of these common American aspirations. In that way, he is an ironic aspirational candidate. He clearly loves his family, and he speaks often about keeping America safe. He wants to rebuild the military and do whatever it takes to protect Americans from dangerous Jihadis who are, inevitably, flowing across our borders, (hidden in bales of marijuana). 

Trump is strong on jobs. He wants everyone to get back to work, in good jobs. Manufacturing jobs, infrastructure jobs, and mining jobs are good jobs. Somehow in America, right around the passage of NAFTA, Republicans and Democrats got together to convince Americans that these forgotten man jobs were somehow too dirty or low for any real American to do. It was a foolish proclamation that has deeply damaged our nation.

These jobs lead directly to production. A producer economy is always stronger than a consumer economy. Making things like coal, steel, automobiles, clothing, or furniture is far more important than making paper wealth through currency manipulation and markets. Building the infrastructure to  support these manufacturing jobs is much much more important than shuttering plants and mines. Trump is a builder. He builds "beautiful buildings, and a beautiful business" etc. He promises to rebuild American manufacturing and to exploit American strategic resources. That can only be good. How that is accomplished is up for debate. Trump has his ideas, now it's up to individual Republicans to offer some modifications. But they should embrace his energy and passion on the issue.

Trump is proud to be an American. My wife laughs every time she sees Trump, this billionaire New Yorker, wearing that ridiculous red trucker hat. But it works. He is telling voters in every state that he wants, above all else, to make America great again. Clinton has an effective response, I have to admit. She says that America is great now and she wants to make it better. Her message may resonate with voters, it may not. My guess is, that if she is branded as a liberal coal hater, who still embraces globalism rather than jobs, she will lose. Trump does not believe in globalism. He believes in an America First approach to dealing with every problem from immigration to foreign policy. After decades of Globalthink, perhaps he is correct. Regardless, a majority of the Republican primary voters, and a significant number of cross-over Democrats, agree with him. It is time for the Establishment to get on board with the America First agenda and then find ways to tweak it to make it work.

Finally, we all want to feel like our lives and our country are headed in the right direction. The single most important poll in every election is the so called "right track, wrong track" poll. An historic number of Americans believe the country has been on the wrong track. That is the fault of both parties and Republicans would do better in their own down ballot elections if they took at least some responsibility for that. Trump is the outsider. He has enormous credibility with voters looking for change, including anti-establishment Democrats. He can, and likely will, vouch for individual candidates as "part of the solution" rather than "part of the problem." There have been a large number of Establishment politicians stating that they don't want Trump anywhere near their elections. Maybe they're right, but it is likely that these Establishment incumbents would lose anyway. This is obviously an anti-incumbent year. Look at Bernie Sanders "Berning" Clinton to a crisp with energized, anti-establishment voters. Between Trump, Cruz and Sanders, almost three fourths of Americans have already voted for outsiders who promise to destroy the Washington Establishment. I'd hate to be running as an incumbent from either party this year. I would probably reach out to Trump and ask him for his endorsement, and I would also adopt the popular parts of his message. Candidates who choose to face this electoral hurricane on their own may be able to claim they stood on principle, but they may be claiming that from their next stop in some cushy multinational boardroom, not the Senate.

Name a Cabinet

Embracing some Trumpism will be half the battle when it comes to unifying the party. The next will be his choice of Vice President and cabinet members. Trump has already announced that whoever his Vice Presidential pick will be, it will be an insider with significant political experience. That sounds to me like he will pick an Establishment politician. Hopefully, the party can get behind that person rather than ripping him or her to shreds for supporting Trump. If they don't, well that's on them. Trump can only reach out so much before looking weak with the electorate he has clearly energized. 

Stay Away From Politicizing The Supreme Court

Trump made a huge mistake when he said he would provide voters with a list of ten Supreme Court nominees. This has never been done before and for good reason. The Court is obviously political and has become even more so in recent years. Judges write hundreds, sometimes thousands of decisions in a career. This may offend some of my judge friends, but guess what? Some of them aren't great decisions. Judicial nominees are very easy to attack. Everything is in writing and, in our legal system, often times the law is unpopular. Rulings force a judge to pick one party over the other. Someone always loses and sometimes that person can be a rallying point for politicians. 

Naming ten Court picks gives the opposition ten more highly vulnerable candidates to run against. Judges are not elected to the Supreme Court, so subjecting them to the electoral process necessarily defeats the Framer's intent. They will be inundated with press and opposition researchers. They will be hounded in their homes and security will be difficult to provide. They will be held up to scorn and, ultimately, a number of them may not want to be considered or may drop out of consideration. It's just a bad idea and the Establishment should not push it either.

Don't be Afraid to Attack Clinton

Establishment Republicrats have been shocked by Trump's "attacks on women." Trump needs to avoid saying stupid things about women, but he does not need to "moderate his tone." The fact is, women are not infants. They don't need to be mansplained to or protected from the harsh realities of the world. Trump doesn't mansplain. He literally treats women like he does men, and Republican candidates can learn from that. There is a phrase for it that I won't repeat, but basically, he is an equal opportunity harsh tone user.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the United States. In my view, she's already demonstrated that she's not up to the task by her time as Secretary of State, when every conceivable global rival mowed her down like a weed. She clearly didn't have the stomach to save Americans in Benghazi, or stand up to Putin in Eastern Europe. Now she wants to extend her reach to the Presidency. 

Clinton's record is fair game and no one should put on silk gloves to attack her on her decisions. The Obama Administration, with her support, has placed women in combat, in special forces training, and on the front lines. If she was serious about those decisions, then she can stand with them and fight bare knuckles. Yes, even against a man. Republican men should have enough respect for women in general and Clinton in particular to go after her like they would a man.

Resist the Urge to Campaign on Reproductive Politics

The conventional wisdom is that Trump has a "woman problem." As I've said before, I think married women will likely vote for their husbands in this election, somewhat blunting the impact of Trump's rhetoric. The Establishment's constant gloating about Trump's unpopularity with women, however, is the most hypocritical development so far in this cycle. The Republican Party has done terrible with women, and individual candidates who make stupid statements about reproductive politics are to blame. Every candidate who discusses "legitimate rape," or refuses to consider any exceptions to abortion bans, further erodes what modest support the party has. For his part, Trump doesn't have this problem. He doesn't discuss "legitimate rape," and he wants to change the Republican Platform to recognize, as the Catholic Church does, exceptions for the life of the mother. In fact, the entirety of Trump's woman problem rests in his willingness to attack women personally like he does men.

The Party needs to avoid making this election about abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, or anything else that involves a discussion about women's sexual health or sexual activities. None of those things has ever helped a single Republican win the womens' vote. If asked, candidates need to be measured in their opposition to abortion and recognize that the vast majority of abortions are not carried out by women who have some murderous desire to kill a baby. The nation is deeply divided on this issue and demonizing women who you are trying to persuade to change their position is unproductive. Unfortunately, Republicans, especially Republican men, have sometimes had a real problem articulating the pro-life message in a way that is not considered universally offensive. It's better just left unsaid for now. 

Conclusion

In the final analysis, Republicans should take a page out of the old Bill Clinton playbook. "It's the economy, stupid." Two decades later, his wife has completely abandoned that message, instead promising to put people out of work to pursue some bizarre liberal ideology. Trump, by contrast, has a clear jobs message. Embracing that message, promising to curtail globalism, and staying away from unnecessary political debates will carry them to victory on a new wave of populist voters.

A New Third Party Emerges From The Ashes Of Trumpism

Jeb Bush will not vote for Donald Trump. Neither with George W. Bush, nor George H.W. Bush. Mitt Romney and John McCain will sit this one out as well. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Republican Convention, isn't sure whether he will support Trump or not. 

The Republican and Democrat elites have now established their own party. We'll just call it the Establishment Party.

The Establishment Party will vote for Hillary Clinton, a member of the Establishment. They may not all actually pull the lever for Hillary, but they might as well. None will attempt to block her candidacy. The Bushes, of course, are now terribly sorry that they played a part in forcing Trump to pledge his support, in writing, to the Republican Party. They now know they could've done much better. They could have forced Trump (and his anti-establishment, grass roots supporters, made up of blue collar miners and machine operators) to run as a third party. They know from their own family history that, while a third party Trump would divide the vote like Ross Perot did, they still would maintain their power and influence. Eight years later, another Bush could be President. It's just a waiting game for the Bushes. 

And what will this new Establishment Party stand for? Well, we actually know what they stand for. They stand for themselves. They stand for maintaining their own influence, even if they have to sacrifice the nation to do it. They stand for higher taxes, and more spending, just as they've done, more or less, for three decades. They stand for the invasion of Iraq, nation building, limited war and globalism. They stand for free trade, even if that puts hard working Americans out of work. They stand for the federalization of education with Common Core and No Child Left Behind. They favor bank bailouts, "too big to fail," cronyism, and anti-abortion platforms that make no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. The Establishment Party believes that Democrats are mostly right, but their policies need to be tweaked - just a little. They prefer unsustainable debt and spending to fiscal responsibility and hard choices. The Establishment Party prefers cocktail parties in Georgetown to a beer with a miner at the end of his shift. They prefer cheap, illegal labor from Mexico to higher paying jobs for blue collar Americans. They prefer their buddies to the voters.

The Democrats are even worse, but at least they're honest about it. Everyone knows that Democrats are corrupt. They hardly deny it themselves. Hence the rise of Bernie Sanders. Between Trump and Sanders, a full 70%, yes 70%, of Americans want to Bern down the Washington playground. Trump's unfavorables are terrible. There is no doubt. But they are lower than the unfavorables of the Republican Congress. Think about that. The Establishment Party is lambasting Trump and calling him unelectable because of his unfavorables when theirs are even worse...

It's both a sad day in America and a great day. I did not vote for Trump. But, everything in my core tells me that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the right messengers for this nation right now. As Peggy Noonan said today in an article for the Wall Street Journal, Trump was the spark, not the fire. http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-was-a-spark-not-the-fire-1462488099. It's a good read.

Trump was surprised today that Paul Ryan wouldn't support him. I'm not. After all, Ryan is a Wisconsin Representative, in a moderate district, in a liberal state, who ran as Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential pick. He's a good man, but he's obviously still learning on the job. Donald Trump should run against Ryan and the Establishment Party in the general election. For starters, the Establishment won't support him, so why should he care what they think or say? Trump appeals to a broader cross-section of Americans, including service workers, blue collar manufacturing workers, entrepreneurs, miners, married middle class women, evangelical Blacks and, of course, a huge percentage of white men. White men alone made up nearly 37% of the actual voting electorate in 2012. By contrast, hispanics of both sexes only make up 14% of the entire population, and in 2012, hispanics made up only 8.4% of the electorate. African Americans  of both sexes made up about 12% in total. It's very difficult to find statistical information about married white women because, I have to suppose, the media just ignores their importance in the overall electorate. A pew poll, however, indicates that white women made up about 40% of the electorate in 2012. It also appears that married couples basically voted the same, within one or two points of each other.

My point is this, building the wall is not unpopular, no matter what the media says. And no matter how unpopular it might be with hispanics, it probably will not the determinative factor in the election. For every one hispanic voter who wants illegal workers to have unfettered access to our country, there are ten miners, truckers, electricians, journeymen, autoworkers, and machine operators that are out of a job because of NAFTA or that illegal worker. If everyone in this nation votes his or her interest (which they will), the wall will be built. Period. This is democracy. The majority will rule, with exceptions spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

The Establishment Party doesn't want majority rule. Quite simply, they are in the minority, so they must use force of law to maintain their power and influence. The day there is a true populist revolution is the day they lose everything they've built for themselves and their families. Before you feel sympathy for these elites, however, consider how they got their wealth. The vast majority got it through influence peddling, trading favors, playing politics and making unfulfilled promises to the voters. Very few of these men and women built their own wealth. It was handed to them because of their political station. And they tend to forget that their power is granted to them by the people who they have willingly betrayed now for decades. 

It is worth considering this: 535 representatives of our government are all there are for 325 million Americans. When Hawaii became a state in 1959, capping the number of representatives we have, the population of the United States was 154 million. The size of the country has more than doubled, but the number of politicians representing our interests has remained the same. I doubt this was our founders' intent. Each year as our population grows, our elected officials become more and more elite just by virtue of the fact that the number of representatives remains stagnant. It is an untenable model. Elitism is quintessentially unAmerican but unfortunately it has become the norm just by default.

The Establishment Party represents American elitism at its worst. The "Bush Dynasty" is the best example. Prescott Bush started the dynasty as a Connecticut moderate Senator. His son was Vice President and then President. His grandson became President and his other grandson was the anointed one by his party to become the next President. Bill Clinton came from nothing, but his wife is now running for President. No doubt his daughter will run some time in the future. Dynastic politics is anti-American. When George Washington was offered a crown, he declined. Jeb Bush had to have his crown taken away by the sullied masses.

There are many things I dislike about Trump. But there are a lot of things I do like. I like his willingness to say out loud that Americans should come first. That security should come first. That jobs make everyone happier and better off. "How will you win the Black vote, Mr. Trump"? "That's easy," he responds, "they want jobs, and I'll get them good jobs." 

It's the same with any demographic or balkanized group in our country. For my liberal friends, Bernie Sanders represents the same singular focus. And I like Bernie, a lot, even though I totally disagree with his position on the issues. At least he tells it like it is. And that's what Americans want.

For the Establishment Party, the last thing they want is to have the truth exposed. That would mean that they are exposed as the power mongers and elitists that they are. I say, expose them all. Sanders vs. Trump is a fair fight for the hearts and minds of Americans. The Clintons and Bushes can stay home.

Establishment Disloyalty Earned A Trump Candidacy

Many of my Republican friends are setting themselves on fire today. Donald Trump has now totally obliterated a field of experienced political insiders that stood opposed to him for the nomination. He did it with almost no party support and very little money or advertising. He had almost no staff and preferred large crowds and free media to attack ads and fund raisers. As he has correctly noted, his opponents spent $60M in negative advertising against him. Against all odds, he won and, he didn't just win, he crushed the field. 

The Erik Erickson wing of the Republican Party has made it clear that they will not support Donald Trump. They have rejected the judgment of the voters, their message to the Establishment, and their messenger. In other words, they will now be disloyal to the Republican Party and its nominee because, in their view, Donald Trump is not ideologically pure. What they continue to miss is the fact that it is exactly this kind of disloyalty to the electorate that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

Establishment disloyalty began in 2006 when George W. Bush took a sudden turn away from his otherwise very conservative presidency. He began legacy building with Ted Kennedy Democrats, passing massive new entitlements and educational reforms like "No Child Left Behind." Most conservative Republicans felt completely betrayed, and it only got worse. In 2008, the great Republican compromiser, John McCain, won the nomination. His campaign was obsessed with "Democrat light" arguments. He was the embodiment of the type of Republicanism that Ronald Reagan ridiculed as "pale pastels," rather than "bold colors." He refused to attack Obama, instead leaving it to the media to vet the inexperienced first term Senator; a job they did not do. 

President Obama was elected of course, and he went on to ram Obamacare through Congress. Two years later, a large group of usually silent voters began protesting. These protesters appeared at political town hall meetings and events to voice their deep concern over the sudden expansion of government. In 2010, these protesters (later called the "Tea Party") voted in huge numbers for Republicans, putting them back into power in the House. 

"Tea" stands for "taxed enough already." The principle ambition of this loose affiliation of voters was to reduce the size and scope of government. It was originally a grassroots movement made up of ordinary Americans fed up with big government. Democrats, sensing an impending disaster, began attacking the Tea Party movement as "radical." Exactly no one in the Establishment of the Republican Party came to their defense and, as a result, the Tea Party activists set their sights on Republican incumbents. As it turned out, most of the nation had grown tired of elite, establishment politics on both sides. Many incumbent Republicans lost their primaries and a small but vocal group of Tea Party Republicans made their way to Congress.

But the Empire struck back. Establishment Republicans, angry that their special little club was being invaded by ordinary Americans, began in earnest to destroy the Tea Party. They joined Democratic Party attacks on their own candidates and tarred and feathered political amateurs who made any statement perceived to be out of the mainstream. In short, the Establishment attacked its own grass root voters; voters who had loyally supported slack-jawed moderates and Republicrats for decades. It was no doubt a surprise to most of these Americans that their own party would be so disloyal to them, especially after they handed them control of the Congress. You never hear about the Tea Party anymore. The Establishment accomplished its goal. Or so they thought...

Over the course of the next four years, Republicans proceeded to do exactly nothing they had promised to do. In fact, the only thing the Republicans did was rubber stamp President Obama's huge, Omnibus Budget bills, doubling the deficit in the process. Adding insult to injury, the Republican Party shoved Mitt Romney down voters' throats in 2012. The same voices now attacking Donald Trump's conservative credentials said very little about Romney's record of liberalism, like Romneycare, gun bans, and tax increases. This time, the Tea Party stayed home on election day. Somewhere between 7 and 11 million Republican voters opted out of Establishment politics, leaving Romney to lose by 3 million votes to Obama. The Establishment should've taken the hint. They didn't. Instead of focusing on winning back the voters who stayed home, they instead began to "reach out" to every conceivable balkanized Democrat in a desperate attempt to sell ice to Eskimos. They continued to pass enormous, deficit busting budgets, and they continued to demonize ideological conservatives, libertarians, and Tea Party candidates.

It was the most pathetic misreading of the electorate since Howard Taft stole the Republican nomination from Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, the Party has been so wrong about the will of the electorate, that many Republican voters began to believe it was intentional; that, in reality, the Republicans only cared about staying in power and voters were nothing more than a fig leaf used for legitimacy.

It was always going to be the case that there was one remedy for this entrenched group of political elites who consistently ignore the will of the electorate - an outsider. And not just an anti-establishment politician, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. No, it had to be a true outsider, like Ben Carson or Donald Trump. Voters chose Trump.

I've had my fair share of jury trials. I've won some and lost some, but I've always accepted the judgment of the jury. One American alone may not be a genius, but if you put 12 of us together in a room, something miraculous happens. The collective intelligence of the jury, more often than not, gets it right. Any lawyer who doesn't respect that collective intelligence will fail as a trial lawyer. More importantly, however, is the fact that the jury will know if you think they're nothing more than a bunch of stupid commoners, and they will punish you for it.

Elections are really no different. The collective intelligence of the American people far exceeds that of any individual candidate or party. Accept their judgment or don't, that's your business. But remember this, America is the most powerful nation that has ever existed and it is the collective wisdom of the American people that has made it that way. The collective will of the Republican voters in this election was to disenfranchise the elites and influence peddlers. The money changers have now been thrown out of the temple, and "we the people" will start over, building a new Republican Party that listens to the electorate.

Win or lose in the general election, Trump or someone like Trump was inevitable. The Republican elites fawning over the idea of a third Bush presidency likely sealed the deal early in the process. Voters have had enough, and who can blame them? Trump now goes into the general election with a popular "America First" agenda. He will get votes from segments of the population that haven't ever voted or who have traditionally voted Democrat. Coal miners will support Trump. Manufacturing employees will support Trump. Service workers will support Trump. In fact, anyone who has been left out of the Bush/Obama/NAFTA/Wall Street/Finance/paper pusher economy is a potential Trump convert.

In the Trump election, Americans will be defined and divided on the basis of their own personal ambitions and desires, not on the basis of skin color, or ethnic group, or sexual preference. While Democrats will desperately attempt to use racial politics to divide Americans, Trump transcends group politics with a broad prosperity agenda. He will unite "Americans" by promoting an "America First" agenda. If you are an American, you will be targeted for prosperity at the expense of a Chinese in Hong Kong or an Eastern European or, yes, a Mexican working in Mexico. How will he help African Americans? He will get them jobs. Why is he good for women? Because he will get them, and their husbands, jobs. Why should hispanics vote for him? Because he will get them jobs. It is the simplest, most pure message in modern politics. We all put our pants on the same way in the morning. We all want jobs, and we all want to support our families. We all want to do just a little bit better than last year, and we all want the freedom to pursue happiness. We care about those things far more than we care about our own skin color or the skin color of our neighbors. Us married men want our wives to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. Us fathers want our daughters to be happy, whether that's working or staying at home. We want our sons to have better opportunities than we had. Prosperity is not a theory in some old American History textbook. It is not some fantasy that is reserved for the super-rich or the elites and influence peddlers. It is real, people know it is real, and people are demanding it.

Trump is, like most messengers, imperfect. He has nevertheless dutifully carried the populist message through the primaries, earning more votes than any other Republican primary candidate in history. Unbelievably, he did it with 16 other highly qualified and popular candidates in the race. Voter turn out is 70% higher for Republicans this year than in the last cycle. Like him or hate him, his argument resonates with the jury and he should be respected for that. The worst thing that could happen to the Republican Establishment in this election has probably already happened, but it could still get worse. If they refuse to support him, or if they actively work against him and he still wins, then the Party's influence will be done for a generation. My guess is that the elites will find a way to compromise with him and his followers if for no other reason than to preserve what little influence they have left.

Fuzzy Math and Denial Shape Republican Fantasies about a Brokered Convention

There was no way he could win. He was just a clown to them, an entertainer. But, if he ran as a populist third party candidate, the Republican Party was certain he would take enough votes away from their nominee to ensure a Democratic victory. In order to avoid this catastrophe, Reince Priebus, chairman of the party, presented himself to Trump, in Trump Tower, on bended knee, seeking his signature on a "pledge." With his signature, Trump would pledge his support to the Republican Party and support "whoever" the nominee would be. Trump signed. 

Priebus was declared a genius by the Party. "What a coup," they gushed. With a signature, the Republican Party guaranteed the two party system and at the same time entitled itself to the massive energy Trump had already generated. "What a clown," they said in private, "he'll never get elected anyway."

Around the same time, Ted Cruz stood on the floor of the Senate and blasted Republican Senate leaders as "liars," "dishonest," and acting contrary to the will of the electorate. The massive Obama budget, including funding for Planned Parenthood, was being shoved through the Congress. There would be no amendments allowed. Cruz, who had just been elected by Tea Party conservatives, had seen enough. His intemperate tirade against the Establishment made him an absolute outcast within the Party. As Senator Lindsay Graham said, if Ted Cruz were "murdered" in the Senate and the trial were held there, there would be no conviction for his murderer. And Trump is the "violent" one...

Now, the clown and the outcast have more than 80% of the delegates between them. Neither is likely to have enough delegates to win the nomination outright before the convention, but should Cruz and Trump team up, they would easily crush any Establishment attempt to steal the nomination from the anti-establishment forces in the Party. Many Republican Elites are taking their medicine like champs and choosing their poison. Graham, not withstanding his desire to murder Ted Cruz, is now raising money for him and will undoubtedly vote for him over Trump. Other Elites, however, are refusing to  choose either. They are now engaged in a full throated campaign to convince voters that a "contested convention" is likely, and that it is perfectly acceptable for Trump and Cruz to lose in favor of "someone else," chosen by the delegates. It is pure fantasy and, even if it were not, the Republican Party would simply be signing its own death warrant.

The fantasy is this: Trump doesn't reach 1,237 delegates on the first ballot. Cruz doesn't reach 1,237 on the second ballot. Backroom deals are then made to float a "compromise ticket" with two Establishment Republicans. Presto! The Establishment retains its power and defeats the dark forces of the populist, Tea Party electorate.

It'll never happen. It'll never happen and dreaming about it has done nothing but destroy the eventual nominee's chances in the general election. The only "compromise ticket" we will see come out of the convention is a Trump-Cruz Anti-Establishment ticket. There is exactly zero chance that Trump or Cruz would allow the Party Elite to steal the nomination from both of them. One, maybe, but not both. 

Some self-proclaimed anti-establishment conservatives have been enlisted to promote this fantasy. Erik Erickson, who I no longer have any use for, has been all over the news promoting a brokered convention or a potential third party candidate. When asked on Fox News yesterday about Trump's claim that riots would break out if the election were stolen, he quipped something to the effect that there was a contested convention in 1860 which resulted in Abe Lincoln's nomination, "and there were no riots." Anyone with a third grade education and Google knows that Erickson is completely wrong. Abe Lincoln's nomination resulted in the succession of the Southern states and the Civl War followed shortly thereafter. 

Even if Erickson were not completely wrong about 1860, his general theory is completely contradicted by the historical record. In 1976, a weak, feckless, Establishment Republican eeked out a victory against the Goldwater conservatives. Gerald Ford won the nomination over Ronald Reagan by only a few delegates in a contested convention. And how did that work out? Ford went on to be annihilated by Jimmy Carter (the second worst President in history), and Reagan had to wait four more years. Reagan, of course, went on to be the most popular Republican President in history. Gerald Ford went on to be a punchline in Saturday Night Live skits and has the dubious distinction of being the only President who was never elected.

In 1912, the Republican Establishment nominated the failed, deeply unpopular incumbent President, Howard Taft, over populist, Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt had won 9 out of 10 primary states in landslides, including Taft's home state of Ohio. However, at the convention Party rules thwarted his campaign and Taft was renominated. Worse, many of Taft's delegates had questionable credentials and Roosevelt publicly challenged the results. His objections were ignored, and the Party Elites selected Taft. Taft only won two states in that election. Roosevelt formed the Bull-Moose Party, split the vote, and Woodrow Wilson won the election with less than 42% of the vote. 

There are other examples, but suffice it to say, that whenever the Republican Party has refused to listen to the voices of its voters, they have lost in epic fashion. In 2008, the Establishment promoted Mitt Romney as the savior of the Party and attempted to make his nomination into a coronation. Conservatives, who had not forgotten Romneycare, his support for gun control, and his tax increases in Massachusetts, gagged and began looking for "not Romney" candidates. Like the "anyone but Trump" crowd, the "anyone but Romney" wing of the party failed to coalesce around a single candidate and the Establishment spent enormous political capital painting Romney's opponents as unbalanced or unfit. Romney got the nomination and 7 million conservative white voters stayed home. Romney lost the election by 3 million votes.

I am not a Trump "fan." I did not vote for Trump (or Cruz) and I do not agree with those who believe that either man was the best candidate. However, I will enthusiastically support either man for the nomination if there is a brokered convention. That is particularly true of Trump. There is something extraordinarily offensive to me about a group of elites sitting around, mocking a candidate, gaining his loyalty under false pretenses, and then cheating him whenever their own promises become inconvenient. In fact, my feelings mimic the feelings that anti-establishment voters have for the Republican Elite. For years they have mocked their own voters and insulted their intelligence. They nevertheless gain our loyalty under false pretenses, making promises that they intend to abandon as soon as it is politically expedient to do so. Trump is simply the representative of the angry monster the Elites have created. And they will be consumed by that monster if they don't all stand on the Senate floor and slit their own throats first. Who would stop them? Certainly not Ted Cruz...

Venice, Trump, and Political Violence

Our view from the Hotel Danieli in Venice.

As many of you know, Liz and I just returned from eight days in Venice. The Venetians did not disappoint. Everyone was warm and welcoming. The views were epic and the food was truly special. However, even in Venice, while tucked away in Harry's bar enjoying a bellini, we could not escape Trump. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has captivated global audiences with his presidential campaign. For some, it's like watching a slow motion train wreck - you know you don't want to see it, but you can't look away. For others, Trump is a serious response to decades of political elitism and unrestrained globalism. Regardless of your view of him, his political fate is now of global significance. 

As Liz and I sipped our cocktails, French President, Francois Hollande, and Italian Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, were meeting in the Doge Palace, just 500 feet from Harry's. The streets were blocked off and there was only one way in and out of St. Mark's Square. Security was tight, but as one local told us, when President Obama traveled to Venice, the city was forced to shut down for 11 hours. Ambassador of good will, indeed. Venetians remember that day as a bad one, especially for business. In any event, part of the French delegation was dining at a table close to us. They were an eclectic group and we could tell that they were not all native French speakers. Our very excellent Italian hosts could not hide their disdain for the French delegates or the EU, Renzi, Italian taxes or the "stupid" Euro. They also exhibited genuine admiration for America and Americans. Many Venetians have lived in America and can speak from experience, especially about the difference between European micromanagement and American free enterprise. 

Enter Trump into the conversation. Everyone was curious what we Americans thought of him. He's obviously a celebrity and has 100% name recognition, even in Venice. However, unlike here at home, there wasn't a single foreigner who expressed any emotionally driven vitriol towards the man. Liz and I had at least half a dozen conversations with different people from different countries about Trump. We did not initiate these conversations, but as Americans, Europeans thought we were somehow responsible for explaining Trumpism. So, the explanation was (in as neutral a tone as possible) that Americans were fed up with "politicians" and political corruption. Americans are now looking for someone who at least sounds genuine, and has no previous tie to the Washington establishment. To a person, this explanation was an epiphany. It prompted responses like "Yes, we hate our government too," and "So Americans feel the same as us!" 

American politicians have joined the global elite over the last two decades as the line between power and wealth has completely disappeared. American politicians leave office and become extremely rich, peddling influence and political favors for money. They sit on boards of international companies with interests that are contrary to those of their own country. It's not that it hasn't always been this way, it's just that the cycle of corruption has reached a new zenith. Whether it's Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, Americans want to burn down the Washington playhouse, and it is a global sentiment.

Which brings me to the issue of political violence. To begin with, disrupting a semi-public political rally is not protected free speech. In fact, disrupting a political rally in which Secret Service protection is engaged, is a felony. The Supreme Court has long recognized time, manner and place restrictions on free speech. You cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example. When leftists like Bill Ayers use the First Amendment as an excuse to stifle others' political speech, they are doing so illegally. The Constitution recognizes both the right to speak for and the right to speak against a particular issue or candidate. No one group's right to free speech trumps another group's right to that same speech, even if their position is 100% correct or moral. When one group uses "protest" or "occupation" to stifle the free speech of another group, they have used force. Physically occupying rented space, shouting and refusing to leave is the use of physical force. When one group forcibly infringes on the Constitutional rights of another group, they should expect to be met with equal force. While violence should not be condoned or encouraged by either side, it is naive to not expect it when you trample on rights. 

For years now, we've seen violent protests erupt in urban centers over issues ranging from police brutality to economic conditions. Police have been shot, cars have been set on fire and private property has been destroyed. Part of the Trump phenomenon can be directly attributed to a large segment of the population being fed up with this kind of behavior. "Your rights are not more important that mine," has become the central theme for the silent majority, which is why Trump appears to be an irresistible force. That theme is both legally and morally correct; as correct as any theme on the left, be it racial inequality or social justice. This silent majority has managed to eviscerate 15 highly qualified, articulate, powerful Republican presidential candidates. Donald Trump is an imperfect messenger, but the message has been transmitted to the political elite in unmistakeable terms.  

This election has become one of the most interesting and important in history. Barring some kind of Establishment misconduct, a political outsider will be the Republican nominee. He will be running against Hillary Clinton, who is the embodiment of political elitism. Americans will have to choose between their rage towards the Washington Cabal or a more comfortable status quo. It's a terrible shame, frankly, that it has come to this, and I mostly blame the Republican party for ignoring the will of its voters for more than a decade. Democrats are at least partially transparent about their thirst for big government, taxes, social spending and political power. Republicans decry such things then get elected and conduct themselves in a substantially similar manner, hoping no one will notice. Hence the rise of Trump. Perhaps he's a fool and a liar. Perhaps he's not "really a true conservative." Perhaps he's going to change his positions when he's elected. But I ask you, how is that any different than what we have now?

Four Lessons Learned From Iowa

Finally, the voting has begun. The media's coronation of one candidate or another has finally given way to the Vox Populi. Voting has a remarkable impact on the outcome, doesn't it...

1.  Hillary Clinton is a Terrible Candidate.

For the second time in Hillary Clinton's political career, Iowa has humbled her. In 2008, her inevitability campaign was shattered by a little known first term Senator named Barack Hussein Obama. Senator Obama had no meaningful experience of any kind, very little money, and the unfortunate distinction of sharing his middle name with a Middle Eastern dictator we had just spent several trillion dollars deposing. 

Fast forward eight years, she is tied with a self-proclaimed socialist who wants to dismantle the signature legislation of the Obama administration. Senator Sanders favors a single-payer universal healthcare system, higher taxes, free college for all, and nearly 5 trillion dollars in new spending on social programs. He is polling somewhere around 37% nationally. Now, to be fair to Sanders, he has a double digit lead over Clinton in New Hampshire and actually beats Donald Trump in several national head to head polls. The difference between Clinton and Sanders, however, is that Clinton is a terrible candidate and Sanders is not. Democrats have to be worried about Clinton in a general election. She has an uncanny ability to take inevitability and squander it, and it's not like she's gaffe prone. She simply does not connect with voters. She actually loses votes when she campaigns which, when facing a popular Republican like Marco Rubio, would be devastating. 

2.  The Republican Establishment is Dead.

The key number from last night is not how close Trump, Cruz and Rubio were. It is how poorly the "mainstream" establishment candidates performed. Santorum, Christie, Huckabee, Kasich, and Bush earned a whopping 9.3% of the vote. Marco Rubio, who won his Senate seat by defying the Republican establishment, had the best night. He exceeded expectations in an election in which more votes were cast than in any other Republican caucus in history.

The worst night belonged to Jeb Bush. It is difficult to see a path to the nomination for him, even if Trump and Cruz were to collapse. He garnered 2.8% of the vote. To put that into perspective, Bush earned two thirds fewer votes than Ben Carson. Even if the other preferred establishment candidates dropped out, Bush would still struggle to stay in the race. He is running fourth in New Hampshire at just 10%, and it seems likely after last night that Marco Rubio will be taking votes away from him going forward. The establishment fantasy of a Bush III Presidency has now been crushed.

Voters have rejected establishment politics on both sides of the aisle. To the Republican establishment, the message is unequivocal: go away. 

3.  Organization Beats Enthusiasm and Celebrity.

One of the obvious themes of the night was that you can't win elections without getting out the vote, and getting out the vote requires a huge number of volunteers. To date, Donald Trump has been getting by on celebrity and free press. He's spent far less than every other candidate, but now it is starting to show. Were he anyone else, a second place finish with as little organization as he has would be considered an extraordinary victory. The problem for Trump is, he could have easily won had be been better organized. That gives primary voters something to think about. Will Trump lose a general election in the same fashion? Will he lose a close race to Clinton because he failed to understand the basics of political organization?

Ted Cruz won because he spent almost all of his time in Iowa, he is not competing in New Hampshire, and he had the best ground game. Marco Rubio came in a close third even though he campaigned far less. That is because, like Cruz, he has a sophisticated campaign. Trump, on the other hand, seriously hurt his own inevitability campaign by losing Iowa and nearly losing to Marco Rubio.

Trump is 20 points ahead of the field in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but those numbers will change. Now that the votes are being counted, organization is king, and Trump has no organization. As a result, he is no longer inevitable. 

4.  There is an Enthusiasm Gap Between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans had a record night as far as participation was concerned. Democrats did not. Bernie Sanders, while interesting to Democrats, performed far below what Senator Obama did in 2008. The lack of enthusiasm stems from the perceived coronation of Hillary Clinton, who has so far failed to articulate any new vision for the country. This is a change election for both parties. Whereas the Republican voters have successfully passed the torch from the establishment, the Democrats are still arguing for the status quo. 

The Republican equivalent of this election would be if Jeb Bush was running a coronation campaign with someone like Rand Paul acting as his foil. There is no enthusiasm for another hereditary politician, on either side. That will also be the case in the general election, which seriously damages any Democratic nominee.

The Circus Leaves The Stage, Making Room For Policy Debate

Shortly after last night's Republican debate, moderator, Megyn Kelly, intimated to her audience on the Kelly File that she had two outlines for the debate - one for a debate with Trump and one without. She then went on to admit that "they were totally different," and that there could have been "two totally different debates" last night depending, of course, on Trump's presence. My question is, why? Why on Earth would Trump's mere presence change the entire nature of the debate? After all, we are electing a President. There are unresolved policy issues in this country, but they are fairly well defined. The next President will be dealing with taxes, the VA crisis, the deficit and debt, ISIS, Putin and a host of other well known issues. So why such a dramatic difference between a debate with Trump and a debate without Trump, Ms. Kelly?

Then it occurred to me. If the ring leader was willing to show up, they were ready to turn the debate into a circus, just like the last one. Rather than serious questions about foreign policy or immigration, the audience would have been titillated with questions about Trump's controversial statements about Muslims or women or Hispanics. Serious questions about policy would have been replaced with invitations to the other candidates to attack or humiliate Trump. Kelly was undoubtedly prepared to lob dozens of questions at Trump about his values, statements he's made about Kelly and others, and who knows what else. In other words, seriousness would have been replaced with the circus. 

No wonder Trump didn't show up. As an entertainer, he knows other entertainers when he sees them and, specifically, he knows it's time for Megyn Kelly to get off the stage. Two narcissists never get along, and Kelly's histrionics are damaging Fox News's reputation as a serious news organization.

Trump's absence was good for the process. Not only did it force Kelly and company to take the debate more seriously, but it also meant the end of personal attacks. Whether he is entirely to blame or not, when Trump is on the stage, a significant amount of time is spent engaged in hyperbole, insults and Trump's juvenile AMOGing. It significantly detracts from the discussion.

With Trump off the stage last night, the true depth of the Republican field became apparent. Jeb Bush had his best night. As an insider related to two Presidents, there is very little question about whether he understands the issues. The fear with Bush has always been that he will address those issues in some squishy, moderate, establishment way. There is no question, however, that he sounded supremely competent and ready to be President. 

Rubio had his best night. Despite Bush's command of the issues, Rubio's aspirational message and tone elevated him above the rest of the field. He appeared the most Presidential and addressed each issue with the language of success rather than demagoguery. Marco Rubio will be President one day.

Ted Cruz acquitted himself well in the center of the stage, but his smooth style lacks a smooth message. Cruz spends much more time reciting the facts surrounding problems than he does offering solutions. In a short answer format, like last night's debate, Cruz is cut off by the bell just as he is about to get to his point. It leaves him sounding like a complainer rather than a President with well-developed strategies for the country.

Chris Christie had his best debate. With The Donald elsewhere, Christie was able to resist his natural inclination to be overly-combative. When Christie is focused, it is easy to see why he is doing so well in the New Hampshire polls. He is an independent thinker and knows his own mind. Like most Americans, he has little patience for politicians who split hairs or use parliamentary tricks to take both sides of the same issue. His ability to call out Senators Cruz and Rubio for their lack of parliamentary transparency was very effective. 

Rand Paul also had a good night, but it is very clear by now that the libertarian wing of the Republican Party will remain nothing more than a wing. Paul is far more centrist than his father was and far more open to mainstream political solutions. Still, unfortunately, Americans are not ready to return to core Constitutional principles no matter how much they say they are. Paul is the right messenger. He has the right stage and this is the right time. The message simply is not being accepted by the voters.

Then there's Ben Carson. I think everyone appreciates having Carson in the race, but he just does not belong in the Oval Office. His answers on core policy issues are vague and seem forced or rehearsed. He is clearly not comfortable with the nuts and bolts of policy, preferring instead to stick to broad principles. Broad principles get you elected, but they will not substitute for a solid understanding of policy.

That leaves John Kasich. One day, someone somewhere will explain to me why Governor Kasich is criticized as a "moderate." I've been watching his career since he was first elected in the Republican Revolution of 1994. He has balanced nearly every budget he has ever touched. He was chairman of the budget committee in Congress and worked with Bill Clinton (yes, Bill Clinton) to balance the budget and create a surplus for the first time since before World War II. How that makes him a moderate, I'm not sure. His positions are more nuanced, but that's because he is a policy expert. He understands the details and knows exactly which buttons to press to get the desired result. Disliking John Kasich for being able to get into the weeds on these issues with Democrats is inappropriate. The Party needs men like John Kasich and I would strongly encourage people to take a closer look at his record of conservatism and success. 

What I fear most is that Republicans want nothing more than to elect a candidate who will humiliate Democrats and rub their noses in conservatism when elected. This is, of course, what Obama did to Republicans and conservatives. While turnabout is fair play, the country needs much more than it has gotten from its leaders over the past ten years. We need to raise the level of discourse in this country and at least try to reach a consensus on some of the more difficult issues we face. 

What we don't need, is a circus.