It’s Time to Back Trump

Within the political and chattering class, some conservatives, describing themselves as part of the “Never Trump” movement, have attacked Donald Trump as a threat to the republic and the conservative movement while attacking GOP leaders who support him, like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, as sell-outs or charlatans. These attacks couldn’t be further from the truth. Most recently, Ohio Governor John Kasich has been generating headlines by distancing himself further from Trump, in an attempt to lay the groundwork for another run for the Presidency in 2020. Conservatives need to recognize that much, though not all, of what Trump has run on represents the future, not the demise, of the conservative movement. While he is an imperfect messenger, Hillary Clinton would likely do irreversible harm to this country, which is why conservatives must back Trump.

In April 1998, there were 17.64 million Americans working in the manufacturing sector; today that number is 12.28 million. Put another way, we’ve lost 800 jobs every day for 18 years. During this time, real median incomes have fallen, and the African-American poverty rate languishes over 25%.

The typical working American is worse off today than at the turn of the century; for this, both parties share blame. While economists focus on the lost decades nations like Japan have suffered, the simple fact is outside of Silicon Valley and the DC and NYC suburbs, much of America has suffered two lost decades as well, a symptom of a nation in decline.

Trump has refocused the debate around the plight of ordinary Americans, something conservatives have failed to do in recent years. Conservatism is an inherently populist ideology; we prefer giving power to everyday individuals than concentrate it in the hands of supposed experts. Conservatives have faith in the genius of every man and woman. Since 1988, that has been forgotten as the GOP became the Chamber of Commerce Party. Trump is rightly realigning the GOP around the working men and women of this country.

While Trump is imperfect, the general election is about who is the better candidate, making it a simple choice. Given his lack of a political record, there is some uncertainty about what he would do, but we can be certain of what Clinton will do. She will nominate liberals to the Supreme Court while he may nominate conservatives. Take even an area where Trump supposedly disagrees with orthodoxy: trade. Does anyone really believe the same government that has run VA hospitals so terribly negotiated perfect trade deals, particularly when we know China has amassed $3 trillion in reserves?

True, Trump lacks a foreign policy record and is something of a wildcard, but no record is better than a record littered with failure, from ISIS taking territory across the Middle East to China building militarized islands throughout the South China Sea. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton left a world on fire; no wonder global warming appears to be such a problem…

It is said every election, but in 2016, the stakes really could not be higher. Implicit in the Never Trump argument is the belief the damage of a Clinton Presidency is containable, which underappreciates the power of a party’s 3rd term in power. Controlling the White House for 12 years cements policies and structurally shifts the political center. The Roosevelt-Truman terms shifted the country left for two generations, making support for more entitlements and welfare the new political center as evidenced by Republicans eventual acceptance of Social Security. Similar, the three Reagan-Bush terms shifted the political center rightward for a generation on most economic issues with even Bill Clinton declaring the era of big government over.

Clinton will cement the leftward shift begun by Obama for a generation with Obamacare, political correctness, and new regulatory regimes across the economy becoming entrenched political facts, unlikely to be rolled back for years, if ever. For eight years, Obama has pushed our economy, society, and foreign policy footing into one that looks more like Europe. A Clinton Presidency makes a reversal from that path all but impossible. We see the results of Europe’s experiment, and they’re devastating: slow growth, high debt, chronic youth unemployment, and atrophying military power.

The race is tightening, and in the polling averages, Trump has taken the lead in Ohio and Iowa while other states like Florida, North Carolina, and Nevada are too close to call. With momentum at his back, now is the time for reluctant Republicans to get behind Trump. Whether Trump wins 85% or 90% of republican voters on November 8 could very well determine who wins the Presidency. Leaders like John Kasich must really ask themselves if they are willing to sow division and make it easier for Hillary Clinton to continue Obama’s disastrous policies as President.

Donald Trump is our last chance to turn back from the current path of decline and decay. Conservatives need to get behind the republican nominee or risk losing the country we all have fought so hard to build.

Trump Will Reinvigorate NATO

In many precincts, there is this misleading suggestion that Donald Trump is backing off of America’s traditional support for NATO, a claim undermined by a reading of his actual position. Joint security pacts are only sustainable when all participants have security capabilities; Trump gets this. That is why NATO calls for each nation to spend 2% of GDP on defense to avoid free-riders. Otherwise, nations can rely on the defense capabilities of other nations. That isn’t collective security; it is one country providing a free, outsourced military for others.

Sadly, many nations are not spending the 2%, instead benefiting from the U.S. security umbrella without pulling their weight. That is unsustainable; even President Obama has called for more defense spending from NATO allies. Alliances, like personal friendships, are two-way streets. States like Estonia and Poland are meeting the minimum while those like Italy and Spain are in default. Italy, a wealthy country, spends less than 1% of GDP on defense. Germany, home to Europe’s top economy, is little better at a meager 1.2%. Relatively poor countries like Poland, Estonia, and Greece are meeting their NATO requirement while wealthy European states are gladly allowing their military to atrophy, enjoying a defense apparatus subsidized by the American taxpayer who is already carrying over $19 trillion in national debt.

Trump recognizes the 2% minimum is useless without enforcement mechanisms. Unless there are consequences for failing to spend 2% (either a fine or loss of membership), European nations will continue to ignore the requirement. Trump’s plan would simply put in penalties for falling short of 2% and would reinvigorate NATO. By forcing Europe to invest its military and thereby reconfirm its commitment to joint security, the alliance will be stronger and could more easily deter Russia. Putin sees a Europe with decaying powers and weak militaries; it is no wonder he is pursuing expansion. A weak Europe has given Putin room to expand, and by being lax on NATO enforcement, we have allowed Europe to weaken. Given NATO’s reliance on American power, we alone have the leverage to get the 23 members who inadequately invest in defense to meet their commitment. The result will be an energized NATO that makes Eastern Europe more not less safe.

Trump’s push for more NATO spending is the only way to stand up to Putin and protect our allies. Islamic terror, an Expansionist Russia, and a strengthening Iran are global problems. They require global responses. Europe should recognize this, especially after a string of terrorist attacks have hit Belgium, France, and now even Germany. Our current policy of blindly subsidizing many European powers has turned NATO from a collective defense pact into a bunch of nations free-riding on the US (and to a lesser extent the UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece who are spending the 2%). Our European partners need to determine whether they want to help provide and enjoy collective security and meet their commitments.

Trump’s policy will return NATO to its original promise-a transatlantic alliance of democracies all providing for the security of each other. That will make NATO stronger and its collective defense mechanism more credible. Putin will no longer be able to devour the decaying carcass of Europe; instead, the Continent will be able to deter Putin and other aspiring powers like Russia and China. We can then deal with these nations from a position of strength, striking deals when possible and pushing back when necessary. America and the world will be better for it.

Time to Unite Behind Trump

While the media focuses exclusively on deepening divides within the Republican Party, we need to take a step back and remember the stakes of this election. A certain Senator this evening exhorted voters to “vote their conscience.” Yes, his non-endorsement of Donald Trump was clear, but let’s consider what our conscience actually demands of us.

Does your conscience consider the fact 3,400 Americans, many of them children, have been killed in the past 8 years in the city of Chicago acceptable? How about the fact the unemployment rate for African-American teenagers has risen in 2016 to 31%? Or that economic growth, the ultimate engine for lifting people out of poverty and into the middle class, is running at the slowest pace in a peace-time recovery since World War II? Are you comfortable with the fact that after years of decline, the violent crime rate has been rising since early 2015? Can your conscience tolerate the fact that Radical Islam is on the march, poisoning the minds of millions, seeping into Europe and even this country, while stripping millions of Muslim women and gays in the Middle East of basic human rights and dignity?

Are we willing to accept that this is the best that America can be? If your conscience says, “yes, the status quo is acceptable,” then perhaps you should vote for Hillary Clinton. After all, she is not an agent of change. Rather, she is beholden to an entrenched donor and political class that will continue the policies of President Barack Obama. Moreover, this status quo will persist beyond her 4 year term as she appoints judges, regulators, commissioners, and civil servants who could serve decades beyond her final day in office. A Hillary Clinton Presidency will cement our current trajectory for a generation. However, even if you are comfortable with the status quo, does your conscience permit you to vote for a woman of Hillary Clinton’s character? Obama’s own FBI Director noted Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” as she attempted to keep her emails secret from voters while exposing our nation’s secrets to our enemies. She even told the mother of an American killed in Benghazi that a video was the cause of the attack while telling her own daughter and a foreign diplomat otherwise. If Hillary Clinton can’t be trusted to tell a grieving mother the truth, can she be trusted in the event of a national crisis?

True to the American spirit of perpetually seeking national betterment, perhaps your conscience says the status quo isn’t good enough, that we can do better. That we can turn a safety net that merely makes poverty more palatable into a safety trampoline which makes poverty less prevalent. That we should give all parents choice where their children go to school to end the vicious circle of entrenched poverty. That we can accelerate growth by returning power and freedom to the most innovate citizenry the world has ever known. That we have a leader who is unafraid to call out evil in the world by its true name and work to eradicate it, instead of merely downplaying it.

Doing better requires doing something else. It requires voting not for an all-talk-no-action entrenched DC elite but for an outsider who is a doer not a talker. Doesn’t our conscience demand a vote for Donald Trump? We need a President who will cease to accept the decline into mediocrity that is our present course. Would we not rather have Paul Ryan as a governing partner with a Republican White House than as a leader of the opposition against yet another Democrat President who is simply presenting the same old ideas in new packaging?

If we believe conservative principles will make American lives better, we have a moral imperative to vote for the candidate most likely to institute them. Without a doubt, that candidate is Donald Trump, helped by his fantastic running mate, Mike Pence, and a partner in Congress in Speaker Ryan. I will vote my conscience, and it demands a vote for Donald Trump.

He offers change. She offer more of the same. He will return power to ordinary people and to the markets to free up the economy, boost working Americans, and improve social mobility. She will continue the same top-heavy policies that have seen weakened growth and ever-rising inequality. He will restore strength around the world after a President who has let American power recede by backing off red lines, downplaying Radical Islamic terror, and letting China expand in the South China Sea. Her foreign policy? Well, let’s put it this way: if global warming is such a major problem, perhaps the fact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left a world on fire shares some of the blame.

Let’s unite and win in 2016.

Your Super Tuesday Primer

We are now just hours from the biggest day in the GOP Primary: Super Tuesday. 11 states will be holding binding primaries or caucuses, primarily centered in the South, and 595 delegates are up for grabs. At this point, the base case has to be a Donald Trump romp. He clearly has the momentum and has proven to be quite strong in the South and Northeast where most of the primaries are being held. I would expect Trump to carry 9 or 10 states (Texas likely goes to Cruz, and Minnesota is a bit of a wild card). Given this outcome, Trump is the runaway frontrunner in the race (I’d give him a 70% chance at the nomination) with Senator Marco Rubio the best positioned of the rest to beat him. Below are details on Super Tuesday and five things to watch.

odds

First, here is the list of states holding their primaries as well as minimum thresholds. These are important because while every state has a proportional allocation system, candidates must reach a certain share of the vote either statewide or in a congressional district to qualify for any delegates. For instance to win any of its statewide delegates in Texas, a candidate needs 20%. If he only gets 19%, he will fail to garner any delegates. If only one candidate meets the threshold, he would get all the delegates. In other words, proportional isn’t exactly proportional. With Cruz and Rubio polling around the minimum threshold in some states, their exact vote total could significantly sway the delegate count.

st states

Based on my expected winners and assuming Kasich and Carson fall short of viability thresholds throughout much of the South, below is my expected delegate haul for each candidate. Note, these are rough estimates because making or missing a viability threshold could swing these numbers meaningfully. Relative to my baseline, the risk is to the upside for Rubio and Trump and to the downside for Cruz. I am still expecting a reasonable victory for Cruz in Texas, which explains his haul exceeding Rubio. Cruz is clearly losing altitude, and a loss in Texas or distant third place finishes in the South would leave him behind Rubio. If Trump can expand from the low-30%’s to the low-40%’s in some states, he could come closer to 275 delegates. Basically, I would expect Trump to have a 100+ delegate lead, somewhere around 40-45% of total delegates, with Cruz and Rubio in a close battle for second.

st delegates

Now what to look for:

  1. It’s Trump’s Race to Lose

Trump is going to clean up on Tuesday with an outside chance at running the table. He will very likely carry at least 9 states, and 10 is my bet. After Tuesday, Trump will have a big delegate lead but will likely have only 25-30% on the delegates needed to be the nominee. That said, winning begets more winning as voters typically bandwagon to the winner. While he is divisive, Trump will enjoy some of this, and a romping will help Trump in future states. Winning Florida and Ohio would slam the door shut.  Additionally, a romping could lead to a wave of endorsements as members of the political class aim to team up with a winner (a la Chris Christie). Some endorsements (possibly Rudy Giuliani or Florida Governor Rick Scott) could give him more momentum, and each endorsement makes him seem more acceptable to anti-Trump voters. Barring a really stunning turn of events, Trump will win big on Tuesday and will be in excellent shape to claim the nomination.

  1. Can Rubio Win Somewhere?

Much of the establishment is moving behind his bid, and he is the candidate best positioned to take on Trump at this point, though he is a distant underdog. At some point, Rubio needs to start winning states rather than merely rack up 2nd and 3rd place finishes. His firewall is Florida, but recent polls show him down double digits there. Losing Florida and its 99 delegates to Trump leaves him with no path to 1,237 delegates. The question is whether Rubio can come back in Florida without winning somewhere else first, and given recent polling, skepticism is merited. Rubio will not win many states on Tuesday, and Minnesota appears to be his best shot (though no one really knows with caucus turnout hard to predict). Elsewhere, Rubio should have a strong showing in Northern Virginia, though that is unlikely to be enough to carry the state. If he can’t win any states, his path does get narrower, and he will have to expend significant resources to take back FL and get on track. If he can beat Cruz throughout the South and take more delegates, Rubio may be able to get more anti-Trump voters to jump on board. The Rubio-Cruz battle for 2nd is one to watch. Rubio is best positioned among the non-Trump candidates but still faces a steep uphill climb.

  1. Can Cruz Stay Viable?

March 1 should be good for Cruz; the South is evangelical heavy, which is the base of his support. His home state of Texas is also the biggest delegate prize. If he can’t win on March 1, it is unclear where he could. Frankly to have a clear shot at the nomination, Cruz needs to be the delegate leader on Tuesday as the map gets worse for him thereafter. However, that’s just not going to happen after disappointing finishes in South Carolina and Nevada. He absolutely must win Texas to justify staying in, and I think that is likelier than not. It would be helpful to win another state with Arkansas or maybe Oklahoma his best shot, but I wouldn’t bet on that. Cruz will likely win TX and be shut out elsewhere, which is enough to merit sticking around but leaves him without a clear path to 1,237 delegates. His strategy would be one of accumulating delegates and playing in a contested convention, though there could be pressure to drop out and swing behind Rubio in an anti-Trump coalition. If he has more delegates than Rubio after Tuesday, would Cruz step aside though? I doubt it.

  1. Can Kasich Surprise in the Northeast?

Kasich is betting his campaign on winning Ohio and its 66 delegates on the 15th. If he carries Ohio while Rubio loses Florida the same day, he’d be the last viable candidate to face Trump (full disclosure: I’ve donated to the Kasich campaign). He is also looking to do well in Michigan the 8th to be a springboard into Ohio. However, much of the establishment is starting to coalesce around Rubio, so Kasich needs to notch some 2nd place finishes on Tuesday to stay in picture. Vermont and Massachusetts seem like the most likely places for that to happen. His message could also resonate in Northern Virginia and parts of Tennessee where he may be able to beat polls. Kasich is probably better positioned to win OH than Rubio is Florida, but he needs to stay in the conversation until then, which could prove difficult.

  1. Does Carson Drop Out?

Carson will not be President; that much became clear a long time ago. After Tuesday, I expect Carson will drop out. The best explanation for why Carson continues to run is that he wants to take votes away from Cruz (as payback for dirty tricks in Iowa), blocking him from 1st or 2nd place finishes in the South. After Tuesday, that goal will be complete, and his campaign will be running on fumes. Recognizing the inevitable, I would expect Carson to step aside.

 

So, that’s how I see Tuesday. Trump the clear frontrunner, Rubio best positioned to take him on, and Cruz losing altitude fast. Agree? Disagree? Let me know here or on Twitter!

Conseratives: Don’t Pledge #NeverTrump

On Friday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump, stepping on whatever debate momentum Senator Marco Rubio had and becoming the first major elected official to support the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President. Conservatives lit up the Governor for his endorsement with some like Erick Erickson pledging never to support Trump. In fact, #NeverTrump was trending across the United States on Friday night as conservatives lined up against Trump, making the same pledge as Erickson. This is a mistake.

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting conservatives vote for Trump in the Republican primary as I am not a Trump supporter. I have supported Ohio Governor John Kasich since he announced last summer and continue to today (full disclosure: I have also donated to his campaign). I believe Kasich is the only candidate running today with any meaningful accomplishments in government, has an excellent record in Ohio, plays to our hopes rather than our fears, and is eminently electable. Across the board, Kasich is a better choice than Trump or Rubio or Senator Ted Cruz. I hope you vote for him in the primary.

That said, Trump is the clear frontrunner for the nomination (I would peg his odds at roughly 70%), and for the sake of argument, let’s assume he is the nominee. What should conservatives do in the General when he faces Clinton? Those saying #NeverTrump are pledging not to vote for him in that election, which is an error. Conservatives have five choices: stay home, vote 3rd party, don’t vote in the Presidential election but vote in down-ballot races, vote Hillary Clinton, or vote Trump. Hopefully, we agree staying home is the worst choice and a dereliction of civic duty. There are still important down-ballot races with qualified conservatives, and those candidates need our support. In the event of a credible 3rd party candidate (I would define credible as consistently polling in the 20’s), there may be a strong case to vote for that person over Trump or Hillary (I think this may happen with Mitt Romney possibly running as an independent conservative). Let’s set that scenario aside, as the question is whether it is wise to pledge never to support Trump, no if, ands, or buts. That leaves: Trump, Hillary, or blank ballot.

Ultimately, choosing a blank ballot or voting for Hillary makes it more likely she will be President by lowering the number of Democrat and Independent votes she must draw. I struggle to see how conservatives are better off with Clinton than Trump. Yes, Trump has changed positions on many issues over the years, but Clinton is a committed leftist who has moved further left to ward off the challenge from a socialist. On matters of policy, I am sympathetic to the notion Trump is a wildcard given his inconsistency, but is he going to be worse than Hillary? Yes, there is a risk Trump nominates a liberal to the Supreme Court, but is there any doubt Hillary would? Sometimes, you are better with the devil you don’t know than the devil you do, which would be the case in a Trump v. Clinton election even for conservatives more dubious of Trump than me.

In a vacuum, would Donald Trump be my choice for President? No, but general elections are choices. Not choosing one is a choice for the other; opposing Trump helps Hillary. Trump is a gamble, yes, but Clinton is a sure-fire losing hand. Relative to Hillary, the risk of a Trump Presidency is skewed to the upside. Trump is also not wrong on everything; he is right we need to be tougher on China. They hack our systems, steal our intellectual property, and are taking territory in the China Sea. He is right that the working class is being screwed; median wages are lower than when George W. Bush became President. Both parties are to blame. On foreign affairs, I would also note Clinton has not been a particular success. How’s the Russian reset? Or Libyan intervention? Or situation in Syria? I do think Trump is peddling some fiction to get elected (note: I am not excusing this behavior) and would govern more as a centrist technocrat, so I believe he would be a more competent President than Clinton. Even if you disagree with that assessment, which is admitted speculation, Clinton will be at least as damaging to the conservative cause as he would be given her platform. She will certainly push for leftist policies whereas he may not. His upside exceeds his downside relative to Clinton.

I would also note that much of what conservatives hate/fear (the Muslim ban, his insults, his comments on libel laws, his finger on the nuclear button etc.) are likely campaign bluster. Again, I am not excusing that behavior, but it suggests he could be a fine President. Even if I am wrong, our government has well-built structures that limit the power of the President, ensuring these positions could not become law. The strength of our institutions deserve more credit than some alarmists let on, further diminishing his downside. While Trump enjoys a Twitter tirade, he has a history of avoiding direct confrontation (with the exception of his personal punching bag, Jeb Bush) as illustrated by his handling of Megyn Kelly among others. I see no reason to feel less safe with Trump our Commander-in-Chief than Clinton.

#NeverTrump conservatives should also ask themselves whether his VP choice could sway them. Ultimatums made rashly can make one look foolish when one reverses or keep one anchored to bad positions out of an aversion to reversing. Does Cruz (or someone else) allay some concerns? If yes, perhaps, it is best to wait for him to make that choice. Assuming he is the nominee, who Trump picks as his VP will be fascinating and enlightening. If I were to make 5 guesses, I would go (in descending order of likelihood): David Petraeus, a business person (to emphasize the anti-politician theme—this un-named pick on my part is a clear cop-out), John Kasich, Bill O’Reilly, and Chris Christie. Who really knows though?

The General Election is a choice, and Trump is a better one than Clinton, especially as his worst ideas won’t become law with any reasonable congress if he even pursues them.

Conservatives could stand to benefit from some of Trump’s populism, and we do need toughness against China. He would also likely surround himself with smart people, providing wise council. A couple dozen people I know, whose judgment I respect and whose character is unimpeachable, are Trump supporters, and their support may have softened my opposition. The twittersphere showcases the worst of his support but is not representative of much of his base. Questions of moral fitness aside, I do think Trump, whom would likely govern as a centrist and pragmatist, would be a decent President, and the fact Clinton with her server and serial lying is equally unfit renders that concern moot in the General Election.

Conservatives have every right to oppose Trump in the primary. However should he be the nominee (very likely), we should be anti-Hillary in 2016, and this may mean voting for Donald Trump. Pledging #NeverTrump is a mistake.

If you like what you read, follow me on Twitter too!

New Hampshire Takeaways

On Tuesday, the people of New Hampshire delivered Donald Trump a seismic victory, winning 100,000 votes and more than doubling anyone else in the field with 35% of the vote. After his disappointment in Iowa, this was the type of victory Trump needed to indisputably maintain the title of “frontrunner.” After that, John Kasich, who staked his campaign on New Hampshire, showed hard work (and 100+ town halls) pays off with a solid 2nd at 16% (Full disclosure: I’ve donated to the Kasich campaign). Ted Cruz came in 3rd with 11.7%, Jeb Bush in 4th at 11%, and Marco Rubio a disappointing 5th with 10.6%. After their poor showings, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina dropped out while Ben Carson will make a stand in South Carolina, if only to spite Cruz. Below are some takeaways from NH.

As an aside, my predictions were pretty mixed. While I was right 3rd-5th would be close, I did botch the order:

  1. This was a Trump mandate. He’s the frontrunner.

Trump won voters in every age group by double-digits, with every amount of education, winning even 33% of those with college degrees, every income bracket, and in every ideological bucket from very conservative to moderate. For all the talk of his limited appeal, Trump was the most acceptable candidate to every faction of the state. Yes, 35% is far short of 51%, but in a multi-candidate field like this, getting past 50% is a herculean if not downright impossible feat. Yes, the working and middle class are the backbone of Trump’s support, but clearly, Trumpism permeates beyond these precincts.

Plus, those people hoping Trump supporters wouldn’t vote look foolish. The caucus system undoubtedly hurt Trump disproportionately, but in a primary, he gets his people out. Trump likely has a double digit lead in South Carolina and poised for a “yuge” performance on March 1. The next two weeks will be brutal, and we will see if he can withstand an onslaught of attacks (as well as whether he will really loosen the purse strings to fight back on the airwaves). Trump has a built an impressive, broad coalition that leaves him with the best position in the race. If he can hold on in SC, he will be tough to beat. Some in the establishment will continue to downplay Trump; they are kidding themselves.

  1. Ted Cruz is also in an enviable position.

Cruz got a solid 3rd in NH by holding to his core of conservatives, and besting Bush and Rubio was a nice coup given how little time he spent in the Granite State. With its large number of evangelical voters, South Carolina should be hospitable to Cruz. March 1 is setting up to be a battle between Trump and Cruz, so winning SC will be a key test to build momentum into those contests. Cruz is behind today in SC, but with a strong debate performance on Saturday and massive volunteer network, he could consolidate the right pole of the party and make a real run at Trump. Expect the Cruz-Trump feud to be brutal, and Rubio will likely go after Cruz to try and gain some ground as well.

Cruz will also need to push down Carson whose voters would likely gravitate to Cruz as a second choice. Carson may play the role of Fred Thompson who in 2008 stayed in and peeled off enough voters to keep Mike Huckabee from surpassing John McCain. Cruz is this cycle’s Huckabee with Trump McCain. If Cruz can close the gap here, he is well positioned across the South on March 1, which he will need to propel himself into less hospitable Midwest and Northeast states. Apart from Trump, Cruz is in the best place.

  1. I’d still rather be Marco Rubio than Jeb Bush

Rubio was in a position to coalesce the center right with a 2nd place showing in NH; instead, that terrible debate sent him reeling down to 5th. That is a major setback, but this is not fatal for Rubio. Rubio is still flush with cash and is broadly acceptable to wide swaths of the party. Losing to Bush is a clear negative, but let’s keep perspective. Bush spent over $30 million and weeks in the state, both multiples of Rubio. For his efforts, he got 4th place and bested Rubio by about 0.5% or around 1,000 votes. This comes a week after Rubio beat Bush by nearly 20% in Iowa. The media got too excited after Rubio’s Iowa finish and is now too downbeat about New Hampshire. Bush, the former frontrunner with $100 million plus in donations, has managed 6th and 4th. That’s…not good.

Bush will make his stand in SC, hoping his brother’s presence on the trail can bail him out, but Bush fatigue is a real phenomenon, and Trump has totally emasculated the Florida Governor. Bush is also highly unlikely to do to Rubio at the debate what Christie did. Some Bush donors seemed ready to capitulate to Rubio a week ago, and now a few Rubio donors appear ready to capitulate to Bush. This is less the sign of a major realignment than a sign of how fickle and panicky members of the establishment and donor class are. Rubio and Bush is a battle of new and old both between them and the surrogates (Senator Scott vs. Graham). Rubio is more acceptable to more voters whereas Bush likely has a very real ceiling due to familial baggage. If Rubio delivers a great debate (and as Gingrich showed in 2012, debates matter in SC), the NH fiasco will be forgotten. 1,000 people in New Hampshire didn’t change a weeks-long dynamic. Rubio is far more likely to be the nominee than Bush; he’s just given Bush more cover to pursue this failed campaign for longer.

  1. John Kasich has a path, albeit a narrow one

With less money and a lower name ID, Kasich has a narrower path to the nomination. Despite his record of balancing budgets, his Medicaid decision has elicited skepticism among some on the right. Kasich will need to stick to his unique, optimistic message to set him apart in the race while pointing to his record at the Federal and State levels to improve numbers with conservatives. Either way, South Carolina and March 1 Southern states are unlikely to be a region of strength. He needs to find a way to stay relevant, raise money, and build an organization in Michigan, which votes on March 8 and should be more hospitable to him. A win there could catapult him to a huge night on March 15 when he should easily carry Ohio and its 66 delegates and hopefully do very well in Missouri and Illinois. Doing well could set him for a big April when Northeast and Midwest states continue to vote.

The challenge for Kasich is appearing viable on March 8, so that he can win or do extremely well in Michigan. That means winning somewhere before then, probably on March 1 when VT and MA vote in addition to the South. MN and VA could also be fertile territory. Some wins in these states, plus a surprising showing in a state like Alabama (where the governor has endorsed him) will make Kasich appear viable and give him a shot at running the table in the Midwest to make a late run for the nomination. Is this an easy path? No, it requires a lot going right on March 1, 8, and 15, but it isn’t impossible, especially if Rubio and Bush keep attacking each other, driving up their unfavorable while Kasich continues to stay above the fray.

  1. Contested convention odds have risen but remain remote

A contested convention is still unlikely in my opinion, but Trump is not going away and Rubio has failed to coalesce the center right. Add in all the proportional states, and no one could get to 1,236 delegates. This also positions someone like Kasich to be a potential kingmaker simply by having Ohio’s 66 delegates. Ultimately, I expect the field to narrow, most likely after the 15th to 2 or 3 viable candidates with one getting enough momentum to win. However, NH has prolonged the thinning of the field while giving Bush more reason to hang on. This leaves the potential for Trump to stay in the 30%’s, get a chunk of delegates, Cruz to win the core right, and Kasich/Rubio/Bush to split the rest. That would cause chaos, leave the party fractured, and the nominee weakened in the General. The odds are still well below 10% in my estimation but they are higher than 72 hours ago.

With that, here’s how I would peg the odds after New Hampshire. Trump a clear favorite with Rubio down but not out while Bush and Kasich are a ways behind. However, as NH showed, voters can do surprising thing. The fun has only just begun.

odds

If you like what you read, follow me on Twitter too!

 

National Review’s Useless, Misguided War on Trump

On Thursday night, National Review launched a broadside on Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, urging voters to shun him, and the editors solicited editorials from 22 prominent conservative personalities doing the same. The editorials range from well-reasoned critiques to unhinged attacks, culminating in this final take from the editors: “Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself.” Sadly, these editorials are little more than a shout into the anti-Trump echo chamber rather than being a compelling argument to current Trump supporters that they should support someone else. All this does is allow members of a pundit class which too often criticizes rather than offer solutions (criticizing is far easier) to feel comfortable that at least they “warned the base” while staring aghast at the popular will of voters (at least according to current public polling).

For years, conservatives have rightly lambasted liberal media bias because straight news should be delivered without opinion and opinion pieces should be fair and rooted in reality (ie just because a piece is “opinion” does not make the use of misleading statistics to validate a point justified). However, we must apply the same scrutiny to biases we agree with as with bias we disagree with it. On this account, hypocrisy (on both sides) run rampant because it is easier to forgive the missteps of kindred souls. Sadly, personal dislike towards the subject can lower the quality of discourse, and on this count, it does feel like authors of this “National Review Symposium” are suffering a bit from Trump Derangement Syndrome, letting personal animus bleed into their writings, causing them to overstate their case and the danger Trump poses.

I am no Trump supporter and am extremely unlikely to vote for him in a primary (though at this stage, I would support him in a general election vs. Hillary Clinton), but I still feel like we should be fair to him. It is increasingly difficult to find such analysis; there is merely hate and love, few rational pieces. My main sticking point with Trump is his “Muslim ban,” which to me manages to be impractical, irrational, and immoral, but one can feel that way while agreeing with him that politicians are beholden to the donor class. changed his mind. Any voter is free to find these answers unsatisfactory and choose someone else; however, I question the sweeping argument that those “new” to conservatism are unfit to lead it. With the standard caveat that Trump is no Ronald Reagan, the fact is Reagan was an FDR-supporting, New Deal Democrat who left the party in 1962 and ran as a conservative for California Governor in 1966. Based on the arguments in the symposium, it seems the writers would have opposed Reagan in 1966, questioning his sincerity. In fact, I hope they would have; otherwise, they would be holding Trump to a different standard, which is unfair. As Reagan showed though, sometimes betting on a new face can work very well.

Voting for Trump is definitely a wager, given his flip-flops, but he is not alone on this account. Rubio and Cruz are first-term Senators (like Obama) with no major accomplishments in the Senate—voting for them is clearly a gamble. Jeb Bush hasn’t held office for a decade and is comically inept at making an argument. An effective user of the bully pulpit he would not be. Christie’s second term has left much to be desired. In my estimation, Kasich has the strongest record, though some will question his Medicaid expansion (full disclosure: I have donated to the Kasich campaign). Candidates are human beings; they will be flawed. Voters must decide what assets they seek and what flaws are acceptable. It is easy to oppose candidates by focusing on the flaws, which is what National Review did on Trump. Did the writers have the willingness to stand together and support someone else? Of course not. That’d be hard.

Much of the attack on Trump continues to center around his populism, which just boggles the mind. If a candidate isn’t focused on improving the lives of working people and middle class, why are they running? Rather than attack Trump personally, which will merely cause his supporters to tune out, we should embrace his populist focus but argue that different solutions will help Americans more. For instance, a bigger EITC and more progressive code would be a more effective tax plan than Trump’s. On this front, the symposium comes up woefully short. Trump plans are attacked but alternative are not offered. What’s the point of this? Even if Trump’s plans stink, what’s to say others have better plans? After all, Cruz’s European VAT plan is seemingly designed to hurt workers to the benefit of corporations and their owners (read: donors). All we hear from most candidates is a rehash of 1980 economic policy as though the problems have not changed since then. Trump is one of the few to be intellectually honest enough to suggest we try some different policies.

In particular, they signal out Trump’s trade rhetoric, and while not all of his China claims are backed by fact, toughness with China and the threat of some trade restrictions are not inherently anti-conservative. Chinese companies steal our intellectual property, often don’t pay what they owe American companies, get state sponsorship, and the government hacks into our companies to steal trade secrets. While we focus on the currency that is the least egregious thing China does. Should we ignore these actions, which have hurt American workers, in the name of free trade? That seems asinine. Ultimately, the President’s job is to better the country. Heck, even Reagan expanded farm subsidies for exports to the Soviet Union to help U.S. farmers. The rise of China has greatly lowered U.S. inflation, thereby increasing growth indirectly by boosting our purchasing power, but it has not driven much growth directly. Unless, the other country plays fair, free trade for the sake of it isn’t wise or good for the public. That does not mean a 45% tariff is the right policy response, just that mindlessly supporting free trade is neither conservative nor good policy.

Absolute rigidity is a sign of intellectual smallness not of adherence to principles. Opposing the bank bailouts of 2008 (which turned a profit, mind you) is not conservative; they saved this country from Depression. They are one of the few economic policies for which George Bush deserves praise. To criticize Trump for supporting them is laughable. Maybe letting the financial system implode is theoretically conservative, but how is ruining the lives of 100 million people the right thing to do? Again, it is easy to shout from the bleachers when you don’t have to solve the mess transpiring on the field.

Trump is the only leading candidate who consistently speaks to the needs of the middle and working class, demographics the GOP desperately needs to do better with, and there is a greater battle in conservativism here. While Trump is out of the orthodoxy on many issues, many “conservative” intellectuals and politicians have abandoned conservative’s populist roots over the past 15 years, focusing too much on top marginal tax rates, defending things like the carried interest loophole, and emphasizing the elimination of the estate tax. Fundamentally, conservatism is rooted in an optimism of the capacity of ordinary people, which is why we prefer to leave them with power rather than hoard the power among a band of so-called experts within government. In some circles, this optimism in the public has morphed into a simple disdain for government and emphasis on total adherence to principles.

There is a greater war within conservatism between the doctrinaire elites (think George Will) and the pragmatic populists (think Bill O’Reilly), and this National Review-Trump feud is just the latest battle. Trump is an imperfect vessel for his side but the sneering of NRO won’t sway anyone, just entrench both sides further. Being a doctrinaire is easy when on the sidelines critiquing those in the arena, but the fact remains that at the federal level, establishment conservatives and liberals have failed for 15 years to help the middle class. America does its best when pragmatic populists like Reagan lead it, and we should hope this side wins the war for conservatism.

At least Trump is emphasizing the needs of workers. That’s more than most candidates can say. Let’s embrace his focus, prove to those making under $50,000 that conservatives actually care about them (which we have failed to do), and offer different, compelling solutions. What the National Review did surely helped to stroke egos, but it didn’t boost the discourse. It’s high time we realize conservatism’s failures post-Reagan have created Trump. He’s a reminder we’ve lost our way. Directing our ire at him is a waste of time, direct it at the leaders (ie George W Bush), pundits (George Will), and rent-seeking donors whose intellectual rigidity and outdated policies have failed.

Median wages are lower than 15 years ago. Unlike Trump, that is actually something to be embarrassed about and have an emergency symposium on.

If you like what you read, follow me on Twitter too!