Trump

[pogo]

She is the best of a mostly bad bunch. Sanders has by our standards pretty mainstream policies. They are just far too left wing for America. E.g. universal healthcare has no hope in the current climate. Nor does making university tuition free for all. And his sums don’t add up: does not make it clear how expensive his program will be.

The Republicans are of course all differing degrees of crazy. E.g. they all promise tax cuts that don’t add up. Rubio was the most electable but he was still pretty extreme, economically and socially.

Clinton has more realistic policies than any of them, has the most impressive experience, and has the best grasp of policy, certainly better than all the Republicans. This makes her less inspiring, more wonkish. She is no Obama. But then he was unable to translate his inspirational rhetoric into progress in many of the issues dear to Democrats.

[Absolute_Zero]

BTW, Trump's failure to beat Kasich in Ohio gives Cruz a reasonable chance of winning the nomination. This is not a good thing.

Assumption: Kasich will suspend his campaign soon and endorse Cruz. Kasich + Rubio + Cruz = tough for Trump in the context of a narrowing field.

[gumboot]

When a quitter endorses somebody, are their delegates automatically reassigned that way, or are they free to do as they please?


And does Cruz really have a chance against Hillary?

[Absolute_Zero]

Not necessarily [it depends, it's complicated] but they will tend to... an endorsement will tend to influence the votes of the drop-out's zombie support in the upcoming caucuses.

I expect Hillary would beat Cruz, as things stand, but it should be closer. Trump horrifies whole swathes of natural Republican support; I can't imagine how Cruz could do worse.

[pogo]

When a quitter endorses somebody, are their delegates automatically reassigned that way, or are they free to do as they please?
And does Cruz really have a chance against Hillary?

No and No. In more detail: it depends and not a hope in hell.

OK, more detail. What delegates get to do if their candidate quits depends on the state. Not sure where I read this and can’t remember all the details but delegates might be free to vote how they choose (delegates being people), or reassigned proportionately to remaining candidates, or they might re-run a poll for them. It all means it won’t make much difference: it’s not like they can all go to Cruz.

Cruz is in many ways as unelectable as Trump. He is extreme, even more so than Trump, which goes down well with the Tea Party but no-one else. He has extreme (but orthodox for a Republican) policies like unfunded tax cuts for the rich, bashing immigrants and seeking to outlaw abortion. And he has some crazy policies all of his own, like making the Supreme Court more political/accountable, abolishing the Federal Reserve, putting the dollar back on the gold standard. I think he is the most bullish too on foreign policy and would look to expand military spending, without paying for it of course.

[KlaxonCow]

abolishing the Federal Reserve, putting the dollar back on the gold standard

Oh dear. He's one of them, is he?

Yeah, against that - economic policy based on conspiracy theories - then I'd seriously consider voting for Trump too.

What's his other policies? Cutting the NASA budget because they faked the Moon landings? A new special fund for the crypto-conservation of Bigfoot in the wild? And offering compensation to those anal probed by space aliens?

#JetFuelCannotMeltSteelBeams

[F-ZeroOne]

Er, the horrific part is they actually believe things similar to what you're saying - Cruz is a climate change denialist, and Trump has stated that vaccines are administered by the same syringes they use on horses (he apparently doesn't believe that vaccines don't work, but is one of those of the "too many, too soon" persuasion - though a rather unique variant of it, as I don't think anyone else thinks that the vaccines are given all at once with vetinary equipment... ).

[pogo]

The scary thing for Republicans (apart from him being unelectable) is that no-one really knows what Trump believes. He seems to be moderate on many issues. He has in the debates come out in support of Planned Parenthood, which most Republican’s demonise as it facilitates abortions. He has given interviews where he has reportedly supported more immigration. And he has donated to Democrats in the past.

His platform is nonsense. He is never going to get Mexico to build a wall, or lock up all Muslims, or stop China manipulating their currency (as they aren’t doing so). He is not good at taking advice, seems to be making a lot of it up as he goes along. So in power who knows what he will do. This is scary not only as he could do exactly the opposite of what Republicans want, but he could seriously damage the Republican brand, perhaps even split the party.

No-one thinks he can win though. Clinton should wipe the floor with him. Which is even scarier, not only for the loss again of the Presidency, but because there could be serious collateral damage in other races if Republican voters stay home.

[PumaG]

Trump is wrong on trade, as he is on almost everything else. Globalisation and free trade has been a massive force for good for everyone. It certainly has helped poorer countries most, but it has benefitted rich countries too.

Trump’s argument (“Make America great again”) is largely that everything was better 30 or more years ago, before it was ruined by Democrats/immigrants/globalisation. But was it? On globalisation in particular, the reason Japanese goods took over the world is they were better, not cheaper – at the time Japan was a high cost, high wage place. Later waves of globalisation brought low-income countries like China into the world economy, driving down costs but with the same quality.

You can’t roll back globalisation and undo all this progress. Trump knows that, being a large beneficiary of global trade. Even if you tried, by e.g. introducing trade barriers, it would not bring back the high paying manufacturing jobs that have been lost. Firms would do it with far fewer people, such as automation, or not at all. People would still buy foreign goods with the added cost of the new tariffs.

The Japanese example is not accurate. Japan were ableoffer a superior product and to be very competitive with electronics and motorcycles as two examples. They were manufacturing quality in high numbers, bettering more expensive brands manufactured in lower numbers.
China is nothing like Japan, they're being forced to make the same high quality products the same way Japan did, just with cheaper overheads. China is slowing becoming more expensive. Globalisation wasn't bad at all, but theres nothing wrong with eventually looking at bringing back manufacturing back home 'To make America great again' although IMO it would be short and at some point the cycle would start all over gain.

[pogo]

It was a gross simplification. My point simply was that it is wrong to treat globalisation like a zero sum game of low wage countries like China stealing jobs. Top exporters down the years have often been rich countries like Japan, Germany, S Korea, Australia, competing on quality and innovation, not price.

In particular China are not as Trump has said manipulating their currency, holding down the RMB to unfairly compete. They might have been a few years ago but today they are burning through reserves propping up their currency. After several years of high inflation and growth China is much less competitive and is losing business to countries like Vietnam. Labour force growth has gone into reverse due to the One Child Policy, forcing up wage costs.

Globalisation is global; you can’t look at the trade deficit between just two countries and say there is a problem because of the bilateral trade deficit. China is a major trading force as it is the largest economy by some measures, but that does not mean it is competing unfairly.

[pogo]

In other news Obama has nominated someone to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court bench. And it is a fascinating choice, Merrick Garland. Who? No-one I had heard of before, but seems he is quite moderate, not liberal. And old, for a new Supreme Court justice. edit: and highly qualified.

This makes him the ideal compromise candidate, and puts the Republicans in a bit of a bind. If they block his confirmation, as they have said they will, there is no guarantee they will get a better outcome. If Clinton wins as seems likely she will be free to renominate him or pick someone more liberal and young enough to serve for decades. She will have the mandate and all the time she needs. If Trump beats the odds and is elected then his preferences are unknown, and there is no guarantee he will nominate a conservative judge.

So the best thing for Senate Republicans would be to confirm him. That would also improve their image, and maybe give them a small boost in November. Blocking him would seem by far the worst option. They are so short sighted and partisan though that they probably will still do it.

[pogo]

[venusian]

On the BBC this morning, highways blocked by anti-Trump protesters and it not even the actual election for 6+ months. I wonder what it would take to precipitate a second civil war.

[pogo]

Trump brought it on himself. There is a long tradition, here and in the US, of protesting and heckling politicians, at official rallies or other public appearances. The usual way to deal with them is to ignore the hecklers or engage them. Obama is a master at this:

Trump though threatens them, says or suggests they should be physically harmed and encourages his supporters to do so. And protesters have been assaulted. So some are organising into larger groups for safety, causing more disruption in the process. Trump complains but he has only brought it on himself, by being highly objectionable but making normal protest impossible.

edit: also:

[Absolute_Zero]

Assumption: Kasich will suspend his campaign soon and endorse Cruz. Kasich + Rubio + Cruz = tough for Trump in the context of a narrowing field.

Hasn't happened yet. Probably because the establishment [correctly] believes that only Kasich has the breadth of appeal to beat Hillary.

Two big problems:

#1 Trump has to fall short of the 1,237 delegates necessary.

#2 The 2012 [stop Ron Paul] rule 40b that requires candidates to win the "support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight or more states" in order to have their name placed on the nominating ballot.

They dreamed up #2 to manipulate the convention in favour of Romney, so I guess they can remove it likewise. But then the smell would become a stench... and I wouldn't be surprised if Trump tore up his pledge to not stand as an independent. Sounds ideal to me.