Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 19, 2016


Last month I  posted on:

Let me take this analysis into a scenario which suggests the actual destruction of Republicanism as we know it today:  conservative, pro-military, protect the rich, no new taxes, anti-immigration, anti-social programs and anti-environment.  How they have succeeded so well over the past third of a century is a a mystery that continues to amaze me.  There is a growing majority of non-rich Americans who are beginning to get concerned about the environment, with a heart for immigrant children, feeling that we don't need major defense expenditures when terrorism is the only real danger and so on.

The catalyst for the above will have everything to do with Donald Trump, plus the obstinacy of the Senate leadership towards fulfilling their Supreme Court process obligation:
  • It is more and more looming that Trump will not secure the majority of votes (1237) to take the Republican nomination for President on the first ballot.  Donald Trump is funding his own campaign, and has largely ignored organizing the local ranks who will go to Cleveland for the 2016 Republican National Convention from July 18-21.   Ted Cruz has done a decent job, and all signs point to Cruz eventually prevailing over Trump.
  • Should this happen, there will be a bunch of unhappy Republicans.  Can Trump then run as an independent?  Not only can he, but he has the arrogance to do so.
  • Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, will not be inclined to run as an independent, although he is an independent, for his policies are essentially anti-Republican, and he knows that third party candidates were the crucial difference in the 1992 and 2010 presidential elections.
  • In recent history, there have only been three contested conventions, and all three--Thomas Dewey (R), Adlai Stevenson (D) and Gerald Ford (R)-- were beaten in the presidential election.  Again, bad for Republicans.
  • Losing the presidency would not be the decisive reason for the destruction of Republicanism: 
    • If the U.S. Senate does remain recalcitrant about the nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, the American people will only be further convinced that Republicans are just not cooperative for the good of the Nation.
    • Already, Republican Senator Mark Kirk has heard from his constituency, and publicly indicated that his party should "man up and vote."  The Democrats conveniently have a slogan:  DO YOUR JOB!
    • There are 246 Republicans and 188 Democrats in the U.S. House,  It would be difficult at this time for the leadership to change this Fall, but the above scenario could cause some problems for Republicans, with maybe a switchover.
    • In particular, Senate leader Mitch McConnell epitomizes the face of white, do-nothing, wuzzy Republicanism that will cripple Republicans running for Congress this Fall.
    • In the Senate, 54 Republicans and 44 Democrats, with Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont as Independents.  Republican control of the Senate could be challenged.
  • Worse, if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency, she will nominate a reasonably liberal associate justice candidate to seriously shift the nature of the Supreme Court.  Garland is mildly liberal.  In any case, with Clinton as president, the Supreme Court will become the most liberal since 1939.  And she could be in office for eight years, with:
    • Ruth Ginsburg just turned 83 (appointed by Bill Clinton)
    • Anthony Kennedy will become 80 in July (Ronald Reagan)
  • Thus, the U.S. Senate leadership could totally screw up Republicanism if it chooses to ignore the nomination of Merrick Garland.

My prediction?  Democratic control of the White House and Senate from 2017, but Barack Obama will not be nominated for that Supreme Court vacancy.


No comments: