cross-posted at MN Progressive Project
I must disappoint any Trump supporters reading this, because the Democratic conundrum isn't what you're thinking. No, Democrats weren't thinking the presidential election was in the bag thanks to that clown car of candidates the GOP produced and then, oh no, Donald Trump came along to smack away Democratic hopes. Well, if that's what you'd prefer to think, don't let me stop you.
For Democrats, the conundrum is that Democrats look at Trump and see that he's crude, authoritarian, dishonest, and probably some other adjectives we'd generally agree upon, and it would be an epic disaster if he somehow actually became president. There's a case to be made that someone so dangerous should be stopped as early as possible, so if Democrats can do something to convince Republicans to deny him their nomination, they should, even at the cost of Republicans picking a better candidate.
On the other hand, there's the case that Trump is the GOP albatross, that the GOPers getting desperate to find some way to get rid of him are right. The blowhard is blowing through their chance of winning the presidency when it's an open seat. I don't know if Republicans see it, but some Democrats see Trump as a proverbial club for bashing Republican hopes all the way down the ballot. There's the delicious dream of asking every Republican candidate, not just Trump's presidential opponents but Republican running for everything, to respond to the latest offensive thing their top of the ticket just said. Assuming we could do something to beat Trump in the primaries or to help him win the nomination (not a safe assumption, but assume for the purposes of thinking things through), it's risky either way.
If we can, but don't, stop Trump getting nominated, there's a chance he could win. I like the odds for whomever we nominate, but even a %70 chance of winning would mean running the same election ten times, we ought to lose three times, and this could be one of the three. Would we regret not having tried to convince the GOP to nominate someone else? Given the disaster for the country, that seems like a given.
However, if we get the GOP to nominate someone else, their odds of winning go up. Would Republicans pick someone better? They would pick someone different, but how about better? A better candidate would have higher odds of winning, and higher odds of being a positive down the ballot.
So that's the question: do we risk a Trump presidency for the gain of the problems he inflicts on Republicans, or do we risk a more electable candidate to avoid the chance of a Trump presidency?
If portraying Trump as the Ancient Mariner's albatross doesn't answer the question, then I'll state outright I take choice one. Let Trump win, and use him to go after the rest of the GOP ticket. I say that conscious that polls showing Trump with a big lead are polling just likely Republican primary voters may prove false comfort if his prejudices enjoy more appeal than we expect in a general election. Authoritarians like Trump have a strong psychological appeal to scared people, and when something scary happens, let's face it, "home of the brave" becomes a strange self-description. Most Americans got wigged out over ebola and ISIL when they're literally at many times greater risk from lightning strikes, or car accidents, or junior finding daddy's loaded gun in the sock drawer. But we're generally terrible at assessing risk, and a strong Democratic lead could turn around in an instant if there's a scary event shortly before the election.
Then again, the Republicans have to nominate somebody. Do the rest of the clowns look better than Trump, or just differently awful? Any doubts that Ted Cruz is as much of a fearmongering demagogue as Trump, with merely a different way of expressing himself? Is Marco Rubio winning the billionaire primary because he's a civic-minded policy wonk? Any remaining doubts that Ben Carson is thoroughly reality-detached? Is it not clear by now that Dubya is Jeb's smarter brother? In other words, as much as I might not want to risk a Trump presidency, the fact is his opponents are just variations of demagogues, ideologues, crooks and loons.
So I say let's have the GOPer who inflicts the most damage on his own side, and that's clearly Trump. That's why, for whatever effect we can have on the choices Republicans make, Trump has largely been left alone in those "this guy wants to be president" posts and tweets. That's been partly about targeting the candidates who have a better chance in the general election. Maybe it amounts to merely squirting them with a water pistol while they're being rained on, but maybe that rain is lots of us with water pistols. No way to really know. I certainly wanted to claim some credit when Scott Walker dropped out, I admit that much.
Most of the point of "this guy wants to be president" is the obvious, namely, storing up the stupidity and chicanery of the Republican candidates with a chance of winning the nomination so that we can find it again once Republicans have a nominee. Trump may be the exception as with so many other things, given the intense media attention he gets, but for other candidates, something from way back in 2015 is likely to be forgotten by summer 2016, when it's down the memory hole and the media focuses on whatever is the newest shiny thing off the campaign bus. There's going to be a tendency to forget even what happens now in early 2016 by the time the conventions are done. So let's at least make things easily searchable.
So to finish with a note on who we're following, I grouped the multitudinous GOP candidates back in August to figure out who was really worth our attention given that, if you're like me, politics is a spare time activity, and we can't be bothered to carefully follow every undercard debater barely blipping in the polls. The first candidate I moved from one group to another was Bobby Jindal, whose last gubernatorial term was expiring and he was politically toxic at home, so I moved him to the not worth following group shortly before he dropped out. I'm now thinking Ted Cruz could win, so I'm moving him from in office or might run for something else to might win and might run for something else. I thought he was too despised by other Republican politicians, but now Republican voters seem to actually like that. There's no denying that Trump and Cruz together have a majority, and Carson is third, so the message is clear. I'm almost, but not quite, ready to move Kasich from the might win group. The groups are otherwise the same, except for dropped candidates, and with some the strikethroughs through their names are mild schadenfreude. I'm striking through Jim Gilmore even though he hasn't announced a drop because come on, he's clearly out and just won't make an announcement no one cares about.
Not worth following, because they're highly unlikely to either win the nomination or run for something else (maybe another pointless campaign for president): Bobby Jindal, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, George Pataki.
Follow while they have a shot at the nomination, but they are unlikely to run for anything else: Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson.
Follow because they're in office or might run for something else, though they won't be the nominee: Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina (VP possibility, though I can't see her running for anything else).
Might win the nomination, and they're either in office or might run for something else: Scott Walker, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio.
One last point, apropos of Trump being a self-inflicted problem for Republicans: Wow, the Republicans really don’t understand how they created Donald Trump.