Monday, December 21, 2015

Third Party Challenge?

Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?Experts—and history—suggest it's an increasingly plausible scenario. And could end in disaster.

"Aside from I can't stand to watch the GOP debates or listen to any of the candidates speak, it is a very interesting to observe the race in general and try to figure out where it is headed. " Laurie


I agree...  Listening to the "vote for me and I will give you free stuff with no negative consequence" Democrats frustrates me... G2A



42 comments:

Laurie said...

since this new post is still Trump related I'll past my link here - about the award he received today - to no one's surprise:

2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump

for people who don't bother to click on links here is the summary:

PolitiFact has been documenting Trump’s statements on our Truth-O-Meter, where we’ve rated 76 percent of them Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, out of 77 statements checked. No other politician has as many statements rated so far down on the dial.

Laurie said...

I must have missed the part about getting free stuff from the dem candidates. What should I expect when Hillary wins next year?

jerrye92002 said...

Interesting. Politifact declares that 76 of 77 Trump statements are lies. How many of THOSE statements, by Politifact, are lies? Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? It's not in Trump's interest to go third-party at this point, and I don't think he even wants to win, now. He's just paving the way for his graceful exit and endorsement of the Republican nominee.

John said...

Jerry,
The reality is that Trump is a show man who is not concerned with the truth. Here is some of what Laurie linked to.

"To the candidate who says he’s all about winning, PolitiFact designates the many campaign misstatements of Donald Trump as our 2015 Lie of the Year.

When it comes to inaccurate statements, the Donald was on fire:

• "I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down," he said at a Nov. 21 rally in Birmingham, Ala. "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering." Pants on Fire. There is no video of thousands of people in Jersey City cheering. Weeks later, Trump continues to stand by his claim but has not been able to point to evidence to back it up. Public safety officials on the ground in New Jersey say it never happened.


• "The Mexican government ... they send the bad ones over." Pants on Fire. There’s no evidence to show the Mexican government encourages criminals to cross the border. Most illegal immigration comes from people seeking work. Recent estimates show illegal immigration from Mexico dropped off dramatically during the recession and has remained low.


• "Whites killed by whites — 16%. Whites killed by blacks — 81%," said an image he shared on Twitter. Pants on Fire. Most people are killed by someone they know, and someone of the same race. The correct number for whites killed by whites was 82 percent in 2014, while the number of whites killed by blacks was 15 percent.


When Bill O’Reilly of Fox News challenged Trump’s tweet of inaccurate murder rates, Trump suggested being accurate wasn’t so important: "Hey, Bill, Bill, am I gonna check every statistic? I get millions and millions of people ... @RealDonaldTrump, by the way."

Trump hasn’t apologized or backtracked on his statements. Instead, when challenged, he offers flimsy explanations and suggests he shouldn’t be held accountable -- or simply insists he’s right.

"People maybe call me out, but they turn out to be wrong, also," he said in an interview Sunday with George Stephanopoulos. "And many of the things I've said -- and I think just about all of them -- they may have been controversial at one point, George, but they're not controversial in the end, because people start to say, you know, Trump's actually right."

John said...

I don't know if he will bail if thinks he has a chance... Please remember that this is a man who's ego is as big as TEXAS... The chance of being the "Leader of the Free World" would draw him like a moth to a flame.

Laurie said...

Here is a link to a long essay by D. Frum, a consevative writer I enjoy reading. It's about whats happening in the GOP and what the establishment might do.

The Great Republican Revolt
The GOP planned a dynastic restoration in 2016. Instead, it triggered an internal class war. Can the party reconcile the demands of its donors with the interests of its rank and file?


the last option seems the most likely / sensible to me. Just give up on winning the presidency for now.

Laurie said...

Maybe the base will go with Cruz. I don't think the establishment likes him either, but maybe they can live with that. That's my new prediction, once again this is very uncertain.

jerrye92002 said...

"Maybe the base will go with Cruz. I don't think the establishment likes him either,..."

Laurie, I certainly agree with you, and with reasons. First, the GOP base (conservatives) are at war with the GOP "establishment" and Trump only succeeds as a poke in the eye to the establishment of BOTH parties. It's a great populist position but in Trump's case he not only lacks specifics and charisma to pull it off, but when the conservatives in his coalition of the angry find out his real positions on social issues and such, he'll be toast. Ted Cruz is there to pick up all the pieces by being staunchly conservative, a proven record against the establishment, a great speaker and debater and gaining in the ability to connect to an audience.

I believe this election will be won by an "anti-establishment" candidate-- an "outsider." That leaves Hillary out, but the GOP nominee will need the GOP base, PLUS independents, to win. Trump can get the independents, who often don't scrutinize their candidates carefully, but he cannot get the GOP conservative votes, IMHO. Cruz can get the GOP base vote easily, and is on track to get those independents feeling "anti" at the moment. Don't look for the "establishment" to mollify those folks in the coming year, either-- more likely the opposite.

jerrye92002 said...

The problem with the "Trump lies" meme is that, as Flip Wilson famously said, "A lie is as good as the truth if you can get people to believe it." And most of what Trump says not only contains a grain of truth, it's what millions of us kinda believe already. OK, maybe we didn't have "thousands and thousands" cheering in NJ. But it was probably hundreds in NJ, and certainly many thousands overseas. The salient point is that Muslims were cheering American deaths and destruction.

That's one big problem with Politifact and other left-leaning "fact-checkers." A GOP candidate quotes a statistic like "82% of blacks killed by blacks" or somesuch, and because it's really 81%, they label the whole statement a "lie." That's a lie, in itself. If they want to simply "correct a misstatement" they could do that, but NO... that wouldn't damage the GOP candidate sufficiently. It's reprehensible.

Sean said...

"And most of what Trump says not only contains a grain of truth, it's what millions of us kinda believe already. OK, maybe we didn't have "thousands and thousands" cheering in NJ. But it was probably hundreds in NJ, and certainly many thousands overseas. The salient point is that Muslims were cheering American deaths and destruction. "

There's precisely zero evidence of any large number of American Muslims gathering to cheer 9/11. Trump's story is bogus. So is Rudy Giuliani's. That's salient to the debate we're having.

"A GOP candidate quotes a statistic like "82% of blacks killed by blacks" or somesuch, and because it's really 81%, they label the whole statement a "lie." "

Um, but Trump said "Whites killed by blacks — 81%". That's not just an innocent "oops". That is designed to preach to a certain ignorant segment of the electorate.

Laurie said...

since this is sort of a new Trump thread I will throw in another Trump link here:

The Right's Post-Constitutional Moment

"Trump exists in a plane where there isn’t a Congress or a Constitution. There are no trade-offs or limits. There is only his will and his team of experts who will figure out how to do whatever he wants to do, no matter how seemingly impossible.

"The thought you can’t do that never occurs to him. He would deport the American-born children of illegal immigrants. He has mused about shutting down mosques and creating a database of Muslims. He praised FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II."

Lowry compares Trump to Obama but I think there is no comparison as nothing Obama has done has been found to be illegal.

Laurie said...

about Cruz - maybe the base can be persuaded to not trust him:

How Trump Beats Cruz
The populist real estate magnate can define Cruz as just another politician controlled by special interests.


its all so confusing this year and hard to predict!

jerrye92002 said...

"There's precisely zero evidence of any large number of American Muslims gathering to cheer 9/11." Sean, what about the story in the NJ newspaper? And a lack of evidence is not proof. It /could/ have happened and most Americans would not be surprised if it did. Once again, Trump tells a "lie" that is "as good as the truth."

Here's another example: "Um, but Trump said 'Whites killed by blacks — 81%.' That's not just an innocent 'oops'. That is designed to preach to a certain ignorant segment of the electorate."

That IS an innocent (or not so innocent) "oops." The exact statistics aren't as important as the idea that black-on-black murders are significantly disproportionate to white-on-black murders (about 6:1), and that "black lives matter" more to whites, and especially to white cops, than to black thugs. The truth hurts; calling it a lie because of a numerical misstatement denies that truth.

Now where I think you are correct, even provably so, is that Trump appeals to "an ignorant segment of the population." But it is a HUGE segment, and that should worry all of us. It would be one thing if Trump's bombastic "misstatements" were recognized as hyperbole, vagaries and misstatement (deliberate or not), while knowing that the underlying "truth" is similar but a little less clear-cut. But I don't think that's what "the Trump phenomenon" is. I'm convinced he's leading a coalition of the angry-- angry at government for either not solving the problems, or for actually creating the problems. They don't especially like him for WHAT he says, but rather for HOW he says it, and for offending the people --the media and the establishment-- that THEY don't like.

jerrye92002 said...

"Trump exists in a plane where there isn’t a Congress or a Constitution. There are no trade-offs or limits. There is only his will and his team of experts who will figure out how to do whatever he wants to do, no matter how seemingly impossible."

Laurie, I think you and Rich Lowry are right. Trump isn't in the solutions business, that would get messy. Again, it's why I don't think business people and military people make poor Presidents (as do community organizers), because they are used to a "command and control" environment where they CAN do anything they want, or seemingly so, by virtue of their rank and position. Trump's pronouncements are vague, deliberately, and reflect more about his own overconfidence, certainly, than any real idea about how to get those things done. I would say it was impossible to get elected President on such nonsense, but we have two recent elections that say it CAN.

And you were doing just fine until "Lowry compares Trump to Obama but I think there is no comparison as nothing Obama has done has been found to be illegal." Good thing I read your citation, because Lowry compares them by saying they are BOTH "post-constitutional." And Obama's imperial dictates have the additional disadvantages of being unwise, as well as unconstitutional. Illegal doesn't matter after that.

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, I think what you have posted before more or less refutes the "Trump beats Cruz" idea. It might be possible for another candidate (Rubio is trying) to paint Cruz as inconsistent or untrustworthy, but Trump cannot. The conservative Republican base never has trusted Trump. They've not been happy when he attacked other GOP candidates, either, unless they were "establishment" candidates like Bush. In the last debate, Trump went out of his way to be complimentary to Cruz (having caught flak for previous criticism), and vice versa, so he cannot change course now.

I think what you are pointing out is that Democrats hate Cruz and would rather run against Trump.

Laurie said...

I don't think GOP voters care about tax plans or deficits or that Trump supporters care at all about details as to what he would do as president, but we liberals care so here is a summary of the Trump tax plan (analysis provided by the tax policy center):

Donald Trump's Tax Plan Is Far More Sensational Then Jeb Bush's

Anonymous said...

The stories in the paper referring to celebrations in the United States seem to be second hand anecdotal accounts of rumors published at a time of national hysteria. As evidence, they count for nothing.

Trump lies fairly routinely. He certainly lied about Obama's citizenship issues, and about his efforts to verify them. Indeed, I think he is fairly indifferent to the notion that truth has value. He prefers the use of power to overwhelm those silly nit pickers who insist on truth, one reason why I for one, see him as a fascist.

--Hiram

Laurie said...

it is interesting about how much attention was given to the nonsense birther issue with Obama and how the same people seem not to care one whit that Cruz was born in Canada

of course there is link for that;

GOP’s birther hypocrisy exposed: Why conservatives are conveniently mum on Ted Cruz

jerrye92002 said...

Laurie, thank you, again, for your research. Unfortunately, I hesitate to call the Mother Jones article on Trump's tax plan "research." First of all, it quite obviously uses "static scoring," the notion that we can raise or lower taxes on this or that activity and that people will soldier bravely on, completely oblivious to the tax consequences. It is why those politicians who want to raise taxes on cigarettes insist that people will quit smoking, yet are surprised when their tax revenue drops. It is why state "millionaire taxes" actually bring in LESS revenue to the state, because millionaires can move. "Dynamic" scoring (something akin to clairvoyance) would allow for these reactionary results-- tax increases stifling economic activity, generally, and tax cuts increasing it.

The second problem is the notion that "the rich" should be penalized more and more every time we make the tax code more "fair." Remember that, after the Bush tax cuts, the "rich" paid a HIGHER percentage of total taxes, and the bottom 50% paid essentially nothing? How much more "fair" do you want? I mean, if everybody paid 10%, the poor schlub making $22,000/yr would pay $2200, and the guy making $220,000/yr (top 1%) would be paying $22,000, the entire schlub's pay! Yet the current tax code is considerably MORE unfair than that!

Finally, from what I can see, Trump's tax plan is the same smoke and mirrors and "Yes I can" that he uses on other issues. I don't think it counts as a plan so much as an inclination, or just braggadocio.

jerrye92002 said...

As for hypocrisy from the Right, let me say what I always say. It is not possible to accuse a liberal of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when one acts contrary to one's stated values, and since liberals hold no fixed values, they cannot be guilty of hypocrisy.

http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/mikeshelton

Anonymous said...

Bear in mind, we have to penalize the rich with higher taxes because they have the money. If, instead, we chose to penalize the poor, we just wouldn't have the cash to pay for stuff because the poor are, after all, poor.

--hiram

John said...

Jerry's Cartoon

jerrye92002 said...

"Bear in mind, we have to penalize the rich with higher taxes because they have the money."

That's an interesting statement. First of all, we don't "have to" distribute the tax burden in any particular way. After all, we have sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, FICA taxes, etc., each of which allocates the tax burden differently. That some seem to think the income tax is where all the "fairness" must be placed, when "fairness" is not the purpose of the tax system, is borderline nonsensical.

Therefore it follows that the purpose of the tax system should not be to "penalize" anyone, because such a statement says, just as you do, that we have to be unfair to be fair. My example, of everyone paying 10%, would result in the rich paying far more in dollars than the poor would. That's borderline unfair, but wouldn't raise the revenue needed because the rich, as you say, have more money. That's why all flat tax proposals have a higher rate AND an exclusion of some amount. So the tax is only paid on "disposable income," of which the rich have much and the poor have none. Since it is the same percentage for everybody above that exclusion, it is arguably fair, yet it is perfectly progressive in that the percent of total income for someone just above the exclusion is very small, and approaches the full rate only for the very rich. That's far better than the current system, where the poor pay an "unfair" percentage and the rich pay an unfair amount of dollars.

Anonymous said...

To start at the beginning, taxation is inherently unfair. We tax people with money and don't tax people without money, because that's the only way to raise revenue, which is the purpose of the tax system. Your system of everyone paying 10 percent, doesn't address that issue since rich people would still pay more in taxes. And while such a system is arguably fair, it's arguably unfair too, and while we are having our long discussion about fairness, the bills still have to be paid.

Given the context of wealth inequality, it is unfair to raise taxes on the depressed wages of the middle class, to the benefit of the one percent whose wealth is increased because of such depressed wages. Basically, the policy of many to cut taxes on the wealthy to be financed by cuts in social security, Medicare and borrowing, fair though some may view it, shouldn't have much appeal to the vast majority of Americans.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"...fair though some may view it, shouldn't have much appeal to the vast majority of Americans."

Of course not, as long as Democrats keep painting the choice in this fashion. They're saying, in essence, to be fair, we have to be unfair to the rich because we need the money to buy votes from the poor.

Back on topic, much of Trump's support comes from those who suspect or have seen through the lies.

Anonymous said...

So it's a question of which segment of the population we choose to be fair to? The rich or the poor? In that case doesn't it make sense to be fairer to the poor since the rich have the resources to alleviate the consequences of any unfairness to them?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

That's not an unreasonable interpretation, but the reality is that the current tax code and tax system is unfair to everybody. It's true the rich can afford tax lawyers, etc. to find the loopholes so that they pay a lower rate than those of more modest means, which is unfair to the poor, but they still pay a higher percent of the total taxes, and at a rate higher than their share of the total income, which is unfair to them.

The only fair tax, IMHO, is the FAIR tax.

Anonymous said...

That's not an unreasonable interpretation, but the reality is that the current tax code and tax system is unfair to everybody

That's something that can be easily argued. But we do need to ask ourselves,is the purpose of the tax code to be fair? Or to raise revenue?

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I've always said it is to raise the "necessary" revenue, with my definition of "necessary" being far less than what is currently being spent, and without deficit spending. And I note that every time someone tweaks the tax code to make it more "fair," it gets more complicated and therefore even LESS fair, to somebody. Their tired old argument is that if somebody gets a tax cut, somebody else has to pay more. They never allow that government might be able to spend less, or that people might spend their own money more efficaciously than government can.

The unions and the DFL in Minnesota keep citing their "tax incidence study" which shows total percent of income paid in taxes, across all tax systems. It clearly shows that, because of regressive taxes like FICA and sales taxes, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich do. We MUST raise taxes on the rich, they proclaim, to make taxes "fair." Didja ever notice they NEVER consider the possibility of cutting taxes for the poor? Same result insofar as "fairness" is concerned, so why the blindness to the choice that benefits more people, rather than punishing the few?

Anonymous said...

I've always said it is to raise the "necessary" revenue, with my definition of "necessary" being far less than what is currently being spent, and without deficit spending

Oh sure, I think we should spend money on necessary stuff too. But what is necessary is what we hold elections to find out.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

If ONLY that were true. I'm guessing at least 2/3 of voters don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt. Numerous studies have shown widespread ignorance of the federal budget. I've always wondered what would happen if every taxpayer were provided with a chart telling them how their money would be spent-- x% for this, y% for that-- in considerable detail, and then letting everyone adjust those percentages to suit themselves AND setting the budget accordingly. My guess is the budget would change substantially. Most people wouldn't bother, of course, but it's still an interesting speculation.

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing at least 2/3 of voters don't know the difference between the deficit and the debt.

Having talked to a lot of voters, I can tell you there is a lot voters don't know. But that said, they are the ones in charge. In Minnesota, the legislators and governors people have elected say that the government should pay for health care and education in roughly equal amounts. I don't know if given the chance to vote directly instead of indirectly, that outcome would change much.


--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

The difference in my scenario is that people would see this as spending THEIR money, not as having government give them "free money" in the form of benefits. There is a Federal Reserve study which went out and asked "man on the street" this question: "When the government spends money, does it take from the public, or do they have their own money?" Well over 50% said government "has its own money" (from the magical money tree, no doubt). Sure, asked if they want free stuff, most people would agree. If you say should we give free stuff to other people, a few back away, but ask them if they want to PAY to give free stuff to other people, the number goes WAY down. Too bad politicians continually lie and deceive about the reality that money comes from SOMEbody.

Anonymous said...

The difference in my scenario is that people would see this as spending THEIR money, not as having government give them "free money" in the form of benefits.

But they would also understand that the money is being spent on them. While not conversant on the details, the public does understand that the money they receive came from taxes. I think what they don't understand is that somebody must bear the burden of taxes not paid.

In the 2000's, the Republican party policy which nearly ruined our country was to cut tax cuts on the wealthy, cut that needed and would be paid for borrowing from abroad, the burden of which would fall on those who didn't really benefit from the tax cuts. That worked for the rich, it explains why the inequality gap is increasing, but as the events of 2007 and 2008 showed, it didn't work for the rest of us.

Currently we are engaged in a presidential campaign where the leading Republican candidate is using her husband's infidelities against the leading Democratic candidate. Not surprising, really, it is for them a welcome diversion from issues of substance on which his party performed so miserably when the voters gave them a chance.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

I think that is a misinterpretation of history. Republican tax cuts, even though the "wealthy" got to keep more of their own dollars, though almost always through a lower percentage rate "cut," federal revenues actually increased. Our difficulties stem from the fact that spending increased faster. As for those who "benefitted" from the tax cuts, how about we really "sock it to" those people who got a 100% tax cut from the Republicans?

Anonymous said...

Republican tax cuts, even though the "wealthy" got to keep more of their own dollars, though almost always through a lower percentage rate "cut," federal revenues actually increased.

If tax cuts actually increased revenues, Democrats would be for them and Republicans would be against them. The Clinton era was one of high taxes and high prosperity. Bush era was one of low taxes, and low taxes, culminating in economic catastrophe. Such are the lessons of history and economics.

--Hiram

jerrye92002 said...

"If tax cuts actually increased revenues, Democrats would be for them and Republicans would be against them." You would think that, wouldn't you? But what if Democrats see the tax code as a way to create "fairness" or even just "punish the rich," and not as a way to "raise the necessary revenue"? What is "fair" about putting your grandchildren $300,000 in debt the day they're born? Given the choice between raising taxes and raising spending, or cutting taxes and spending, Republicans say they want to cut taxes but not successfully cut spending, which is wrong. Democrats always want to raise taxes and spending, which is wronger.

Anonymous said...

But what if Democrats see the tax code as a way to create "fairness" or even just "punish the rich," and not as a way to "raise the necessary revenue"?

I think we primarily see the tax code as drafted in a way to preserve wealth. And that's one of the things we don't challenge much. Many Democrats, after all, voted for the Bush tax cuts. Many Democrats are friendly to the view that cuts in taxes are inherently stimulative to the economy. For myself, I am largely indifferent to the notion that fairness should be a primary goal of tax policy. A rich guy may pay a thousand times more in taxes than a poor guy, but the fire department doesn't come to his house a thousand times faster. The unfairness of that doesn't keep me up at night.

--Hiram

John said...

How about when the rich who pay 1000X in taxes decide to take THEIR wealth and move to a more tax friendly state or country, thus reducing the revenue stream that the government wants to use for redistribution and expenses.

Does that cause you any angst?

Anonymous said...

"How about when the rich who pay 1000X in taxes decide to take THEIR wealth and move to a more tax friendly state or country, thus reducing the revenue stream that the government wants to use for redistribution and expenses."

I don't see a lot of rich people moving to Haiti. Wealth comes from wealthy and productive communities. And it's in wealthy communities that wealth is valued. You are spending time in Florida, I think. I just returned from there. One of the most striking things in economic terms is how wealth migrates from the rest of the world to Florida, seeking to benefit from our law, and our prosperity. I don't expect that to change any times soon.

A couple of years back, there was a bit of coverage in the Wall Street Journal about how Maryland was running short of millionaires, arguably because of high taxes. Upon further example, it was found that the effect was mostly the result of declines in real estate prices due to the bursting of the housing bubble, and that on the whole the average Marlylander was doing fine. What wasn't a factor was millionaire Washington lobbyists pulling up stakes to move to lobbying firms in Pierre, because South Dakota's income tax rates were lower.

--Hiram

John said...

As the baby boom hits that age, time will tell where the upper 10% of retirees will retire to.

jerrye92002 said...

The rich do not have to move to escape taxes. John Kerry just anchored his boat in Rhode Island rather than pay the exorbitant Mass. tax on it. They can hire armies of accountants and lawyers to find all the loopholes. Worst of all, they can defer or hide their income in all sorts of ways, and that is why so many stories of states passing a "millionaire tax" result in LESS revenue to the State. The Laffer curve is real, and any notion of getting us on the positive side of it is a good one. Of course, that would require admission that the purpose of taxation is to raise revenue, not to punish the successful.