![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
playing politics, American style
Aug. 10th, 2015 12:24 pmSo here's how it's gonna go for the presidency in 2016. Nothing really significant has changed in my predictions because of last week's GOP "debate" (please, like that was a real thing), just a couple of things solidified:
1. Trump will not get the GOP nomination and will break away to run as an Independent, Ross Perot-style. Unless he runs out of money before next November, the Democrat nominee is almost certain to win, since he will split the conservative vote.
2. Trump will get the GOP nomination, barring lack of funds to carry him through the primary or some scandal enough to sink even him. At that point, the election is really a wild card and I honestly can't say if he or the Democrat would win it - if it's Hillary, there's a chance she'll lose. If it's Sanders, he might be able to beat Trump with grassroots numbers (that's assuming those same numbers can get him through the primary first).
3. Trump will bow out of the race at some point for some reason (lack of funds, or enough encroachment from unhappy stakeholders on his business-related income to get his attention and make him drop out), at which point the race becomes unpredictable again, at least for me.
A footnote: When the GOP lost again in 2012 its leadership vowed to reexamine and be "less stupid" (the chairman's words) and recraft its message to reach more voters who weren't middle-aged and old white males. While whatever they did worked for the 2014 Congressional race, that was no real surprise since old people with money are the most likely to turn out for midterms anyway - they have the time and the financial incentive to vote, and there's nothing glamorous about midterms, let's face it. I don't think they've done anything at all toward that 2012 goal, except to scrape around and find a handful of token women and minorities willing to sell out and support the GOP brand in exchange for ... what, money? Attention? A secure job? Media exposure to be hired by Fox News later? Pick one. I believe a few may be disillusioned by the unfulfilled promise of the Democrats to look out for their interests, but I don't think it's a high percentage.
Someone asked me the other day why he never heard anything about the Tea Party anymore. I told him it's really simple: They're no longer a fringe element. They've taken over the GOP. If moderate Eisenhower Republicans want a party, they're going to have to break away and create a third. They are not getting their old wealthy mailing list back.
Also: Watching the three moderators at the Fox News debate-circus aggressively questioning their own kind made me wonder about something. You know how if a studio has a successful movie and wants to make a sequel, the general storyline is to somehow bring down or otherwise try to break the beloved character(s) in order to create conflict and build interest? (Then the third installment is generally a rebuilding of the origins story from the first movie ... but that's not important for this analogy.) It occurred to me Fox has spent about 25 years striving to create the GOP monster we now see; it would make cinematic sense for them to start trying to break it down, but in a way to appeal to its vast underpaid, older, easily-led viewership. Too, not only do they no longer have the likes of Jon Stewart to compete with, they don't yet have ANYBODY like him to compete with - it makes sense to take advantage of this vacuum to try to leap in and fill that hole in some way that won't leave them exposed to his brand of ridicule and investigation. I mean, come on, did anybody else wonder why their big debate was scheduled the same night as his last show? ;-)
1. Trump will not get the GOP nomination and will break away to run as an Independent, Ross Perot-style. Unless he runs out of money before next November, the Democrat nominee is almost certain to win, since he will split the conservative vote.
2. Trump will get the GOP nomination, barring lack of funds to carry him through the primary or some scandal enough to sink even him. At that point, the election is really a wild card and I honestly can't say if he or the Democrat would win it - if it's Hillary, there's a chance she'll lose. If it's Sanders, he might be able to beat Trump with grassroots numbers (that's assuming those same numbers can get him through the primary first).
3. Trump will bow out of the race at some point for some reason (lack of funds, or enough encroachment from unhappy stakeholders on his business-related income to get his attention and make him drop out), at which point the race becomes unpredictable again, at least for me.
A footnote: When the GOP lost again in 2012 its leadership vowed to reexamine and be "less stupid" (the chairman's words) and recraft its message to reach more voters who weren't middle-aged and old white males. While whatever they did worked for the 2014 Congressional race, that was no real surprise since old people with money are the most likely to turn out for midterms anyway - they have the time and the financial incentive to vote, and there's nothing glamorous about midterms, let's face it. I don't think they've done anything at all toward that 2012 goal, except to scrape around and find a handful of token women and minorities willing to sell out and support the GOP brand in exchange for ... what, money? Attention? A secure job? Media exposure to be hired by Fox News later? Pick one. I believe a few may be disillusioned by the unfulfilled promise of the Democrats to look out for their interests, but I don't think it's a high percentage.
Someone asked me the other day why he never heard anything about the Tea Party anymore. I told him it's really simple: They're no longer a fringe element. They've taken over the GOP. If moderate Eisenhower Republicans want a party, they're going to have to break away and create a third. They are not getting their old wealthy mailing list back.
Also: Watching the three moderators at the Fox News debate-circus aggressively questioning their own kind made me wonder about something. You know how if a studio has a successful movie and wants to make a sequel, the general storyline is to somehow bring down or otherwise try to break the beloved character(s) in order to create conflict and build interest? (Then the third installment is generally a rebuilding of the origins story from the first movie ... but that's not important for this analogy.) It occurred to me Fox has spent about 25 years striving to create the GOP monster we now see; it would make cinematic sense for them to start trying to break it down, but in a way to appeal to its vast underpaid, older, easily-led viewership. Too, not only do they no longer have the likes of Jon Stewart to compete with, they don't yet have ANYBODY like him to compete with - it makes sense to take advantage of this vacuum to try to leap in and fill that hole in some way that won't leave them exposed to his brand of ridicule and investigation. I mean, come on, did anybody else wonder why their big debate was scheduled the same night as his last show? ;-)
