Initial Versus Current Impressions of JD Vance

Back in 2019, I rather liked JD Vance's autobiography/memoir, Hillbilly Elegy.

Last night, I started watching the film version, and expect to finish it tonight. I'm also planning a re-read of the book, because both the differences between the book (as I remember it) and the film, and the differences -- if they are differences in him and not just differences of impression -- between JD Vance circa the book's publication and JD Vance now have me reconsidering my initial impressions.

My thinking at the moment, as is often the case, substantially resembles that of, and/or is prompted by another writer. In this case the former. I was talking about it with Tamara this morning, then noticed Kevin D. Williamson opining in the same vein at The Dispatch:

[H]e is so transparently a man who will say whatever his betters require him to say to get what he wants from them. Telling people with money and power what they want to hear is the only consistent throughline in his career, from Hillbilly Elegy to the present day. Once an appendage of Peter Thiel’s, now he is an appendage of Donald Trump’s after a long and bitter apprenticeship of sycophancy. ... Vance has every indicator that he is capable of being a man who profoundly doesn’t matter. It is a kind of skill.  Vance is whomever Trump needs him to be -- the perfect would-be vice president ...

While the film version does give quite a bit of credit to Vance's "Mamaw" for intervening to keep him off the worst tracks, as does the book, the combination of the film version and Vance's subsequent path has me thinking of him less as the "incredibly lucky, but to a large degree up by his own bootstraps" guy I thought I saw in the book and more as an "incredibly good at climbing the corporate/political ladder by kissing ass" type.

While I am definitely moving fast toward Williamson's evaluation of Vance's character, I'm less sure of Williamson's dismissal of Vance as a likely contributor to Republican success in November:

In the short term, Vance probably will not be much help to the Trump campaign. He may help to motivate a few disaffected young men to climb up out of Elon Musk’s digital sewer for 20 minutes and actually cast a vote, but the Trumpist base he is meant to excite is already excited .... the idea that Vance will help the campaign connect better with Rust Belt and Midwestern voters is nonsense: Vance is an Ivy League lawyer and Silicon Valley money-monkey whose literary success came from writing about poor white Appalachians rather than writing to them or for them.

I think Williamson may be under-estimating the appeal of fake "populists" to regular people.

If a guy who inherited hundreds of millions of dollars and claims to have ended up with billions (although fewer billions than if he'd invested his inheritance in an S&P 500 indexed mutual fund instead of embarking on a multi-decade career as a "famous for being famous" real estate scammer) can sell himself, with considerable success, as a "man of the people," Vance probably can too.

Election 2024: The Only Thing Haley Has Left (Or, Really, Ever Had At All)

In yesterday's Nevada presidential primary, GOP side, Nikki Haley lost.

She didn't lose to Donald Trump, who didn't participate.

The GOP had a primary and a caucus. Candidates could only participate in one. The caucus, not the primary, selected delegates to the Republican National Convention, but since the caucus was pre-rigged to preclude any possibility of a non-Trump victory, Haley decided to use the primary to make a statement, presumably by winning it.

She didn't get to make that statement. She lost not to Trump but to "none of these candidates," a ballot option required by Nevada election law.

Instead, she got to preemptively make the only statement she's ever really had the ability to make truthfully, albeit preemptively and with effect -- possible, but not guaranteed effect -- only in the future.

Quick recap: She came in third in the Iowa caucus. She came in a distant second in the New Hampshire primary. She got embarrassed in the Nevada primary. She'll almost certainly be crushed in her home state (South Carolina) primary. If she keeps running for the GOP nomination, she'll keep on getting the "bug on the windshield of a speeding car" treatment.

But her main argument for nominating her has always been "I can beat Joe Biden -- Donald Trump can't."

If she's wrong, her political career is over (and has been over ever since she declared for the GOP nomination, if not before).

If she's right, she's Cassandra, and the statement she's preemptively making (with an eye on 2028) is "I told you so. You wouldn't listen, but I told you so. Ready to listen now?"

As a betting proposition, she's better off remaining "in the race" than dropping out.

If her claim that Trump can't beat Joe Biden is wrong, she's already lost pretty much everything she had to lose. It's not going to get any worse for her as political career futures go.

If she's right, staying in makes a future win more likely by letting her continue to get that message out to people who aren't supporting her this time, by keeping faith with her current supporters so that they remain supporters, and by using the time and money available to her to build durable campaign organizations in all those upcoming primary states -- campaign organizations that can be reactivated four years from now instead of having to be rebuilt from scratch.

Election 2024: Two States That Are Going to Deserve Attention

In 2020, Donald Trump carried North Carolina ... barely. He pulled 49.93% of the vote to Joe Biden's 48.59%.

The third party, independent, and write-in vote totaled 1.48% of the vote, more or less "covering the spread" between the two.

Trump over-performed versus his polling.  In fact, every poll listed at 538 that collected data into November had Biden up by anywhere from 1% to 6%.

So, what's it look like for 2024?

Well, almost every poll listed at 538 (the last one was in December) has Trump up on Biden by a substantial margin, even with RFK Jr.  included.

BUT!

At the moment, it looks like RFK Jr. will be in the race -- North Carolina is one of the states where he's creating a "We the People" party for ballot access purposes (apparently it's easier to get on the ballot there with a party than as an independent).

Another of those states is Texas, which Trump carried by a larger margin than North Carolina, but a smaller margin than you might guess -- 5.58%, with the third party and write-in vote coming in at 1.46%, nowhere near "covering the spread."

If Kennedy does fairly well in those states -- even, say, 5% -- and if the polling indicating that more of his votes come from people who would support Trump than Biden in a two-way contest without Kennedy in the mix is correct, then Democrats have an excellent shot at North Carolina's 15 electoral votes and at least a plausible shot at Texas's 38 electoral votes.

A Chance to Flog a Podcast and Disagree With One of Its Guests

Some time back, reader DRJ (in, IIRC, a "Thanks For Asking!" thread) alerted me to the existence of Justin Robert Young and his Politics Politics Politics podcast.

Thank you, DRJ -- I've kept up with that particular podcast ever since and have enjoyed it bigly.

I'm not sure I've blogged about it at all, though.

To me, the best way to blog about pretty much anything is to grab something I disagree with, and explore the disagreement. So, let's talk about Friday's episode:

One of Young's guests, Michael Cohen (no, not that Michael Cohen) makes some assertions I disagree with concerning Nikki Haley's political future. I've actually blogged on that before here, in pretty much the opposite direction from Cohen, so let's talk about it a little more.

Cohen's take is that if Haley wants a "political future" -- which pretty much means the presidency, although I suppose an eventual US Senate seat or cabinet appointment could also qualify -- she needs to drop out of the Republican Party's presidential nomination contest before her home state's February 24 GOP presidential primary.

The only case he can really see for her staying in the race is to convince future corporate employers that she's not a quitter. Continuing to run and losing badly (as she looks set to do) in the state she served as governor of for two terms would kill any political aspirations.

I come at it from exactly the opposite direction.

If Haley wants to go back to the corporate board career she's been building (since leaving her post as Trump's UN ambassador), she's better off quitting right now and just going and doing it. She's already got the "was a politician, became a corporate shill" resume. Staying in the race lets that resume go stale. It also gives her less to offer benefactors who might be inclined to give her a second golden parachute if she jumps out of the plane now so that they can pivot to supporting Trump or Biden with less loss of face.

If she wants a political future, the remaining primary races are where she lays the groundwork for that future.

Four or eight years from now, after Trump either loses the general election or runs another complete shitshow of an administration, she needs to be the one who can go to Republicans who didn't believe her and credibly say "I told you so. I told you so over and over and over. I begged you not to make this mistake. I kept telling you even after the situation became hopeless, because you needed to hear it, while others took the easy out and just went with the flow. Are you ready to listen now? Are you ready to fix what you screwed up? Because I'm still here to help you do that."

And four years or eight years from now, she needs to be able to reactivate battle-hardened campaign organizations and offer herself again to currently supportive voters, in all those future primary states, which will be a lot harder to do next time if she abandons them before the fight is over this time.

I don't ever expect Nikki Haley to become president, and I'm glad she probably won't. But if she wants to become president, she needs to stay in this race until it's actually, officially over, not just until she realizes she isn't going to win it.

But, still a great podcast that you should listen to so you can hear the thoughts of Young, Cohen, and other guest Cate Martel.

For Your Convenience: First 2024 GOP Presidential Nomination Debate

If the embed below works correctly, you should be able to watch Rumble's livestream of the first GOP debate right here (live coverage begins at 7:30pm EDT) ... 

 

If I bother to stay up for it, I will live-blog either in the form of updates to this post or comments below it.

I'm Not Very Good at Predicting Presidential Primary Outcomes ...

... but I guess it's time to start trying.

My first prediction: The 2024 Republican presidential nominee will not be Nikki Haley, Asa Hutchinson, Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tim Scott, or Glenn Youngkin.

Alabama: Best Bad Thing for the GOP?

Personally, I was surprised that Republican Roy Moore lost Alabama's election for US Senate to Democrat Doug Jones last night. In fact, I didn't really expect to be especially close. I guess I didn't give Alabamians enough credit for having basic good sense and morals. So, given that this was a race that I didn't predict well, feel free to take my further opinions with a grain of salt (as if you wouldn't anyway). But here are those opinions:

Once Moore won the Republican primary, Moore losing the general election was the best outcome the GOP could hope for.

The party organization could have gone all-in behind a write-in Republican alternative, but that would likely have handed the race to Jones anyway, while enraging the Trump base and making other prospective Republican candidates around the country doubt their party's commitment to their success. Their only viable option was to offer tepid, back-and-forth party support while some individual party leaders tried to get out a "Roy Moore is not us" message.

If he had won the race, he would have spent the next 11 months making the Republican Party look like a raging bunch of assholes (which, in fairness, they are), and the Democrats would have joyously assisted him in promoting that image (if for no other reason than to deflect attention from their own raging assholishness). Holding the one Senate seat in Alabama would almost certainly have cost the GOP one or more Senate seats and a number of House seats in competitive elections next November.

Of course, he's still threatening to spend some time making Republicans look like a raging bunch of  assholes. He's refused to concede the election and is jabbering about a recount. But now that he's lost, the party organization has an excuse to wash its hands of him, and has already started making a show of doing so.

He lost, and the Democrats have gained one Senate seat, but they lost a horse's ass they could have beat through 2018. The horse's ass went down with a broken leg last night. Unless Moore shows some epic "rigged election" whining chops (and, assisted by media who hate him, hey, maybe he will), the horse will shortly die, and beating a dead horse isn't nearly as effective as beating a live horse's ass.

Cold comfort to the Republican Party, I'm guessing, but like I said, it was the best they could hope for.

This Election Still Looks Like a Trump Win to Me

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011
in Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

My prediction since some time ago (August I think, but possibly July or September) has been that Donald Trump will carry every state that Mitt Romney carried, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida for 289 electoral votes.

Right now the RealClearPolitics "no tossups" map -- where they call the race in each state for whichever candidate is currently ahead -- has Hillary Clinton winning with 297 electoral votes to Trump's 241.

Now, remember what I've been saying lately -- I think Trump will almost certainly carry any state where he polls within 5% of Clinton. Why? Two reasons:

• I think that a non-trivial fraction of Trump voters won't say they're voting for Trump. Not even to a pollster. They don't want their family, friends and neighbors to know, so they're not telling anyone.
• Even though this is an "open" election with no incumbent, there's an extent to which it is a referendum on Barack Obama's presidency and the Democratic Party. That makes Trump the challenger. Voters who wait until the last minute to decide vote for the challenger, not for the incumbent. That effect may be a little muted since it's the incumbent party, not person, we're talking about here, but it's still the way things tend to go. This means that Trump is going to be gaining, not losing, over the next few days.

Note that neither of those things are really depending on e.g. some kind of massive Wikileaks bombshell than ends with something like Hillary Clinton being perp-walked in leg irons and orange coveralls on Monday. Not saying that couldn't conceivably happen. Just saying that my prediction doesn't depend on it happening.


Now, have a look at that RCP "no tossups" map and think about the non-Romney states I said Trump would carry. RCP's "no tossups" calls three of them -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida -- for Clinton, with only Ohio going for Trump (as I think it will, and he is 5 points up there).

BUT:

• The two Michigan polls done since Tuesday, the first of the month,  have Trump within either 3 or 4 points of Clinton -- 3 if Jill Stein is included.
• The only Pennsylvania poll done since Tuesday has Trump and Clinton tied.
• The only Florida poll done in November has Clinton 4 points up on Trump. That's toward the edge of my formula and right at the edge of Margin of Error, but I'm fairly confident in Trump winning the state.

So, Clinton was at 297 and Trump was at 241 in the "no tossups." Looking at those three states and assuming the rest of the map is in fact correct:

If Trump wins Florida but not Michigan or Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 270 electoral votes.

If Trump wins Michigan and Pennsylvania but not Florida, he wins the election with 277 electoral votes

If Trump wins Michigan and Florida but not Pennsylvania, he wins the election with 286 electoral votes.

If Trump wins Pennsylvania and Florida but not Michigan, he wins the election with 290 electoral votes.

If he wins Michigan AND Pennsylvania AND Florida, he wins the election with 306 electoral votes.

Unless there's some massive fundamental shift between now and Tuesday, I believe Trump will win that round of voting and, barring faithless electors or personal incapacity of some sort (i.e. severe illness or death), will be the next president of the United States

No, I don't like that any more than you do.

Open to a Discussion About Looking Seriously ...

Gary Johnson has been in politics for more than two decades and has been running for president for five years now. At what point is he going to stop "being open to discussions about" or promising to "look seriously" at issues that are neither especially new nor especially complex?

An Analogy I Haven't Heard Elsewhere Yet

Just throwing this out for discussion.

The 2016 US presidential election as analogous to the 2000 Mexican presidential election:

• The Democratic and Republican parties are merely two wings of the PRI.
• Trump and his supporters are the Alianza por el Cambio.

One obvious difference here is that Trump isn't defeating the Republicans and the Democrats in one swell foop. He defeated the Republicans first (in their own primary elections) and will now attempt to defeat the Democrats (in the general election).

But I think the dynamic is at least facially similar.

Trump's Nuremberg Rall ... er, National Convention ... Speech, Summarized

In one word:

Führerprinzip

And given the range of alternatives on offer and the exceedingly small chances of an even remotely sane one prevailing, it looks like we're pretty much screwed.

The Two Gary Johnsons

Gary Johnson #1, in Politico today:

Creditors have been hurt as [Donald Trump] walked away from debts. Is that the kind of moral example that he would bring to the U.S. government -- finding ways to duck obligations?

That's not an academic question. He has pledged to tear up agreements and even concoct some scheme by which America could walk away from its debt -- just as he did in his business dealings. America doesn't do that.

Bill Weld and I believe that fiscal responsibility is at the core of what our government needs to do.

Gary Johnson #2, according to his 2012 campaign's most recent FEC report:

Debts and Obligations Owed BY the Committee: $1,538,118.73

One of these things is not like the other.

Melania Trump's Speech: Beyond the Plagiarism

Let's get the obvious out of the way right up front. Yes, parts of Melania Trump's speech to delegates at the Republican National Convention last night were indisputably copied from Michelle Obama's speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention:



That, and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort claiming otherwise, make Trump and his entourage look like idiots. Not that looking like an idiot has noticeably damaged Trump up to this point, or that it is likely to this time. Like Mencken said, "No one in this world, so far as I know -- and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me -- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

But let's unpack this a little. How did it come to pass that Melania Trump made a speech plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech?

Melania Trump
(photo by Marc Nozell via Wikipedia)

It seems implausible to me that Donald Trump -- or his campaign staff -- would tell Mrs. Trump, who was born in Slovenia and for whom English is a second language "hey, write up a speech to give at the national convention ... no, no need to run it by us, we're sure you'll do fine."

It's far more likely that a speechwriter was assigned to put together her talk, probably in consultation with her, but with the campaign apparatus in control of content because that's what campaigns do: They control the message as best they can.

If that's how it went, did the speechwriter plagiarize Michelle Obama, and if so why? For the purpose of sabotaging the campaign?

Or did Melania propose the language after listening to Obama's speech, on the idea of doing "something like that," not understanding (due to the "second language" issue, maybe) that she needed to change far more than the few words she did change to make it her own? And perhaps the assisting speechwriter had not heard (or at least didn't remember) Obama's speech, and deferred to Mrs. Trump on the language?

Any way you cut it, I suspect a Trump speechwriter lost his or her job overnight.

Mathematical Possibilities

Up front disclaimer: No, I'm not looking to pick on Gary Johnson in particular with this post. He's far from the first or only person to say something similar to what I'm going to quote him saying. He just happens to be some combination of the most recent/most prominent, having said it in the New York Times, and having said it this year, and being on of the principals in a lawsuit related to it. Here it is:

The contention is on our part that if you're on the ballot in enough states to mathematically be elected, then you should be included in the presidential debate.

Q: How many states does a candidate have to be on the ballot in for it to become mathematically possible for that candidate to be elected president?

A: None.

Here's a scenario featuring a way that Johnson himself could be elected:

This November, Gary Johnson carries one state. Let's just assume that that state is New Mexico, which comes with five electoral votes.

Now, let's say that Hillary Clinton carries California (55), New York (29), Florida (29), Michigan (16), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Washington (12), Virginia (13), Massachusetts (11), Maryland (10), New Jersey (14), Texas (38), and Vermont (3). No, those specific states aren't likely; they were just the ones I picked offhand to demonstrate the math. They come with a total of 268 electoral votes.

That leaves the remaining states, which come with 265 electoral votes, for Donald Trump.

If no candidate receives 270 votes in the Electoral College, the US House of Representatives picks the next president from the three candidates with the most electoral votes. Which means that Gary Johnson could conceivably become president.

But, then, so could Jill Stein, who will be on the ballot in a number of states. Maybe not enough states to win in the electoral college, but as long as she carries at least one state and only Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump end up with more electoral votes than she does, she is still eligible for consideration by the House.

For that matter, if a write-in candidate (in states that allow them) carried a single state while holding the major party candidates below 270 electoral votes each, ditto.

Mathematically, a candidate doesn't need to be on the ballot in a single state for it to be possible for that candidate to be elected president.

[Update, 07/19/16: As Shawn L points out in comments, a candidate wouldn't even have to carry a state to be eligible for election by the House -- Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes rather than assigning them "winner take all." So if (for example) a candidate got one electoral vote, and the other two candidates got 269 and 268 respectively,  all three would be eligible for election by the US House of Representatives. And now that I think about it, a "carried no states victory" could also occur under the auspices of one or more "faithless electors" - TLK]

Bonus question: How many states must a vice-presidential candidate win in order for it to be mathematically possible for that vice-presidential candidate to be elected?

Hint: It's a lot more complicated than the other question/answer set.

Addendum: This turned into a bit of a series. Check out Part 2 and Part 3.

GOP Delegate Revolt Schemes: A Bridge Too Far?

As I have pointed out (very briefly and not that worthy of lookup here at KN@PPSTER, and at more length/greater detail over at The Garrison Center), yes, a GOP delegate revolt to stop Donald Trump from becoming the Republican Party's 2016 presidential nominee is possible. And there's a group planning to do it just the way I outline it getting done. Whether or not it's likely to succeed is another question entirely.

But suppose it does succeed -- enough delegates abstain to deny Trump a first-ballot majority, after which the delegates are no longer bound to particular candidates. What then?

According to the convention rules, in order to be placed in contention for the nomination, a candidate must have carried eight states in the primaries/caucuses. Only one candidate other than Trump makes the cut: Ted Cruz.

Does a majority exist for Cruz?

If not, does a 2/3 majority exist to suspend the rules so that other candidates can be considered? That's obviously what John Kasich's fans (and probably Kasich himself) are hoping for.

Erick Erickson wants Cruz on the ticket, but as veep beneath Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

I'm trying to figure out why Erickson -- or anyone else -- would expect that to fly in the real world.

Walker ran for president and fared so poorly in the debates, in the polls, and in fundraising, that he dropped out of the race more than four months before the first real test, the Iowa caucus.

Erickson writes off Walker's abysmal performance as a presidential candidate to a single mistake:

Walker's major mistake headed into his race was to put all his good people in his Super PAC then hire wildcards to run his campaign. He then could not communicate with the very people who had helped him win so many elections. It was a mistake not reversible once made and I don't think he should be penalized.

But it wasn't campaign organization mechanics that kept Walker in the cellar. At the time he dropped out, the main metric was debate performance. As a political careerist (he's been in one public office or another since 1993) he either knows how to convincingly win a public argument in a way that registers in the polls as presidential timbre or he isn't ever going to know how to do that. Coming off as more presidential than the other 15 people on the stage doesn't automatically create a fundraising juggernaut, effective ground games in Iowa and New Hampshire, etc. But not managing that is evidence that a candidate is trying to stop being a sow's ear and become a silk purse.

It seems to me that almost any GOP ticket, other than possibly Trump/?, is going to have trouble whipping Hillary Clinton in November, if for no other reason than that the fundraising game is well under way based on a nominee apparent. But Walker/Cruz seems purpose-built to lose.

If the will is there to suspend the rules and pick a ticket out of the blue, why not go all the way and draft the existing Republican ticket back into the party it really belongs to?

Early Predictions are Dangerous But I'm Sticking With Mine for Now

I don't know if I've even mentioned that early prediction here on KN@PPSTER yet, but here it is (I've been making it for a couple of months in various venues):

In November, assuming he's the GOP nominee (I still think a successful national delegate rebellion is just barely possible), Donald Trump will win every state that Mitt Romney won in 2012. He will also win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, he will at least be competitive in New York and New Jersey, and he may even put California in play.

Of course, it's not just early predictions that are dangerous, but any predictions involving Donald Trump. I didn't think he had a chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination. Every time he stumbled I figured he was going down for good. So if I'm making a mistake this time, it's the opposite mistake -- he's had a bad couple of weeks, but I expect him to turn things around.

The Hill's Jonathan Easley reports that even with Trump's slump, Clinton has failed to pull convincingly ahead in the ten "battleground" states where the election will likely (per the conventional wisdom, not per my prediction) be decided. Interesting. Even more interesting, though not fully explored:

Trump and Clinton both have historically high unfavorable ratings, opening the door for two outsider candidates -- Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein -- to potentially play spoiler.

When Johnson and Stein are considered in polls, the margin between Clinton and Trump almost invariably narrows.

See what's hinted at, but not actually said, there? As Matt Welch points out at Reason, when Johnson and Stein are included in polls, their inclusion hurts Clinton more than it hurts Trump. IIRC, even some polling that included only Johnson and not Stein shows Johnson hurting Clinton more than he hurts Trump. If there is a "spoiler effect" (yes, I hate the whole flawed concept, but that's how it gets reported), that effect seems to be pro-Trump.

I will be interested to see whether Johnson and/or Stein get enough votes to arguably affect the outcomes in any states. To the extent that they might do so, I expect that that effect would militate toward an outcome like the one I predict.

Things That Make Me Ask "WTF?"

Marco Rubio wasn't going to seek re-election to the US Senate.

But apparently he considers Omar Mateen's attack on an Orlando nightclub an indicator of strong public demand for his continued service, to which he may -- reluctantly, mind you, reluctantly -- bow.

Anyone got some extra facepalm? I'm running short this week.

With Winds Like These, Who Needs Cyclones?

Somehow -- I don't really recall how, but I'm promiscuous like that -- I ended up on Erick Erickson's mailing list. I usually don't open the emails because internal Republican hair-pulling just isn't my thing, but this one caught my eye:

The Winds Appear to Have Shifted In Ted Cruz's Favor

Why did it catch my eye? Well, it's usually just not the kind of thing you see about someone who went oh for five in primaries three days ago. So I wondered what Erickson had on his mind.

I have to admit, Erickson turns quite a trick by fashioning two things -- one, that everyone who's talking about Cruz hates him; two, that most people (including Drudge) aren't talking about Cruz at all -- into a case for CRUZMENTUM.

And he seems to attribute this massive shift, of which the symptoms are that nothing at all seems to have changed in any way, to one thing: Cruz picking a failed CEO who got beat like a red-headed step-child in all three elections she's ever contested (California for US Senate, Iowa and New Hampshire for the GOP presidential nomination) as his running mate.

I'm not convinced.

Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis?

Today, US Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (with help from some other members of their club) are attempting to figuratively do unto Donald Trump in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio what Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger et. al literally did unto Julius Caesar in Rome 1,972 years ago.


It occurs to me that in a more sane world, the Ides of March would be a beloved international holiday and that consequently there might be fewer aspirants to such power.

The Case for Rubio

Mickey Kaus makes it in spades:

Rubio's not going to drive Jeff Sessions from the capital. But you can count on the combination of President Rubio and Speaker Ryan to quickly pass an amnesty bill that (like the Gang of 8) contains only the most chimerical guarantees of new enforcement measures. You can also expect them to promote and defend trade, including "trade in services" that involves foreign workers performing those services on American soil."

Of course, Kaus considers that an attack on Rubio, not a plug for Rubio.

And of course I've never voted for a Republican for president, don't intend to ever vote for a Republican for president, and wouldn't rank Rubio very highly if I did consider voting for a Republican for president.

But damn, look at Kaus's argument: "This guy is the only even remotely likely nominee of either party who's in the same neighborhood as the ballpark of a sane, reasonable, pro-freedom border/immigration policy that's in any way even the tiniest bit consistent with American values. He must be stopped!"

Kind of sums up how FUBAR this whole election cycle is, doesn't it?