Donald Trump's Great Weakness

Under pressure from President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions just fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.  On the heels of this announcement, Trump's attorney, John Dowd, called on the Justice Department's Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, to close Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Donald Trump's potential collusion with Russia during and after the 2016 Presidential campaign.  (See https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/17/politics/john-dowd-mueller-russia-investigation/index.html.)  This seemingly heavy-handed announcement could be read to imply that if Rosenstein doesn't close the investigation, he'll be fired. 

But so what?  What if Trump fires Rosenstein, and later engineers the firing of Mueller?  Rosenstein and Mueller could easily become martyrs in the eyes of large numbers of people, and end up making big money at prestigious law firms.  They might also get lucrative book deals and become featured commentators on network television.  Look at what happened when Trump fired FBI Director James Comey:  Comey got a multi-million dollar book deal and a position teaching law (which probably would give him time to write the book). 

But what would happen to Trump if he fired Rosenstein and Mueller?  He would look like a demagogue trying to undermine the rule of law.  He could easily trigger a constitutional crisis, in which there would be considerable pressure on members of his own party to impeach him.  If the Republicans in Congress failed to impeach Trump, they would look weak and ineffectual--just as they usually appear.  Thus weakened, their ability to deliver further on the Republican agenda would diminish.  Trump and his Republican cohorts in Congress would end up flailing around futilely even more than they do now.

Donald Trump's great weakness is he doesn't understand people like Rosenstein and Mueller.  They proceed on the basis of law, truth, principle and integrity.  These concepts are utterly foreign to Trump, who seems to believe that he can use money to solve any problem he has (although the Stormy Daniels contract doesn't seem to be working out so well).  Trump can't effectively deal with Mueller's investigation because he doesn't even begin to understand the rules--in this case, the rule of law.  He threatens, like a fascist dictator, to fire anyone who gets in his way.  But in a nation of law, as America is, Trump can't win because he doesn't want to comply with the law.   He's like a player in a basketball game who wants to move the ball without dribbling and tackle opposing players without being called for a foul.  That's not the way to win the game, and Trump won't win, either.

Why Children Are Afraid of Donald Trump

After the election, newspapers and news services were filled with stories about children crying and suffering anxiety and distress over the election of Donald Trump as President.  Many adults may have thought this to be an over-reaction.  But we're talking about our youngest citizens, who have the sometimes disarming and sometimes disquieting tendency to speak the truth without the convenient filters adults use to soften the harshness of reality.  Why would kids harbor such fear?  There's a simple reason.

The generation that's now in primary schools is approximately half minority.  By 2020, children under 18 will be majority minority.  https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html When Trump blew a fuse over a racial category, a religion, or an ethnic group, the blast hit perhaps up to half these kids in a very personal way.  And when Trump delved into misogynistic ranting about women, a partially different half of this generation was directly impacted.  They've been raised to believe that girls and women are worthy, and deserving of dignity and respect.  The specter of a boorish pig in the White House flies in the face of everything that today's parents and schools try to teach.   And remember also that large numbers of white children believe in diversity and respectfulness for all.  They're more colorblind than the Boomer Generation.  Many of their good friends aren't white, and they cherish and value their friends.

So, it would seem that Donald Trump, with his hateful cacophony, has likely frightened and offended over half of today's children one way or another.  As they grow older, these childhood fears may well morph into anger and a desire for change.  By the 2040s, America as a whole will be majority minority.  Today belongs to the Republican Party.  But its victory may have sown the seeds for its demise.

Winners and Losers in the 2016 Election

This was one wacky election, and there are some unusual winners and losers.
 
Winners.  Among the least obvious, but most important winners are liberal Democrats.  The middle-of-the-road, milk-the-liberals-for-votes-and-then-abandon-them strategy of Bill and Hillary Clinton is definitively dead, with a stake driven through its heart.  Bernie Sanders is a major victor from yesterday's election, as he now has a chance, along with Elizabeth Warren, to reshape the Democratic Party.  The Clintons' decades old strategy of cozying up to Wall Street and other obscenely rich donors while talking but not walking like progressives blinded them to the prairie fire boiling up from people who work hard but for not a lot of money.  Sanders and Warren, who may be the most influential Senators today, won't make that mistake.  They will reach out and try to help the people who are driving politics today.  Politics is ultimately about the flow of crowds, and you can't capture the energy of insurgents by condemning them as deplorable. 

Another major winner is the FBI.  Had Hillary Clinton been elected, the specter of possibly wholesale "personnel changes," shall we say, might have hung over the FBI, crippling its ability to function in numerous crucially important arenas.  Donald Trump and whoever he appoints as Attorney General would be wise to leave the FBI unconstrained to conduct business regular way, with no hint of a political agenda.  Everyone benefits when law enforcement is evenhanded. 

And, of course, another winner is that . . . what's his name?  Oh, yes, Trump.  That Trump fellow will find out that running for President is a whole lot easier than being President.  It's one thing to make speeches.  It's another altogether to make things happen.  Even though the Republicans control both the House and the Senate, that doesn't mean Trump will have a successful Presidency.  Barack Obama had the advantage of a Democratically-controlled Congress at the beginning of his first term, and his approval ratings have fallen dramatically since then.  Donald Trump will have to find a way to work with all kinds of people, and lashing out at them isn't likely to be productive.

Losers.  One of the biggest losers is the Establishment.  Both the Democratic and Republican establishments got their heads handed to them yesterday.  An outside observer can readily tell that it's time for change.  But people holding power rarely give it up without a struggle.  George Washington set a noble example when he refused to run for a third term as President and returned to Mount Vernon.  Try to find someone as noble as that in today's political establishment and you'll have more luck seeking the Seven Cities of Cibola.  Things are likely to get ugly as both parties struggle to change. 

Big Money Donors got hammered in this election.  They bet on Hillary Clinton and a platoon of mainstream Republican primary candidates, and wound up only with much smaller bank accounts.  It turns out that, in democratic politics, money isn't everything.

The Democratic Message was lost.  In fact, perhaps the most important reason Hillary Clinton lost was she had no message.  All she seemingly did was attack Trump and proclaim, ad nauseum, that she wasn't Trump.  Trump had a message, a message of hope for working people who usually have only stagnation and despair.  This was not a message that Clinton or the elitist mainstream press clearly discerned.  But Trump got through loud and clear to his supporters.  Nothing drives voters as much as hope.  Trump instilled hope in his constituents.  Clinton didn't seem to have hardly anything positive to say about the future, and her potential constituents lacked the most powerful motivation in politics to vote.

Of course, there is Hillary Clinton.  Bill and Hillary's time in politics is over.  One wonders if they know it and will be able to step aside graciously.  The successful resurrection of the Democratic Party depends on the establishment of new leadership.  But the tremendous cash flow the Clintons have enjoyed since Bill left the White House appears closely linked to their power in the Democratic Party.  If they give up the power, the cash is likely to flow to the new power players.  Since Bill and Hillary have an obvious love of money, the struggle to rebuild the Democratic Party could be grisly. The Clintons, now more than ever, need to think about their legacy.  They already have more than enough money to live in luxury for the rest of their lives.  But, given their baggage that was recounted ad infinitum during the campaign, their legacy needs a lot of work.  Graciousness would be a very valuable first step.
 

Did Ted Cruz Make Trump More Liberal?

Ted Cruz's up your's speech at the Republican National Convention may end up pushing Trump toward the political left.  By advocating "vote your conscience," Cruz encouraged far right members of the Republican Party to abandon Trump.  To make up for this loss, Trump may shift to the left to win over voters in the political middle.  Indeed, he could be doing so already, with a favorable nod toward the gay community in his acceptance speech last night, and with his daughter Ivanka's promise that he would address the gender gap in pay.

If Trump wins in November, a possibility even though polls indicate that it's Hillary Clinton's election to lose, then as President he may prove to be more liberal than he now seems.  That's because Cruz and other far right members of Congress will probably obstinately refuse to compromise with him, just as Cruz wouldn't compromise at the convention.  Trump is a wheeler and dealer.  If he can't do deals with the far right, he might do deals with moderate Democrats.  This wouldn't be hard, since Trump has been a moderate Democrat at times in his life. 

It's debatable whether Ted Cruz helped or hurt himself by digitally saluting Trump at the convention.  But he may have given Trump more latitude to go more liberal.  And if Trump wins, Cruz may have empowered moderate Democrats. 

How the Libertarian Party Could Win the White House

Polls persistently show that many, if not most voters, reach for one of those little white airline bags every time they think of the two leading Presidential candidates.  Never before have so many voters been so nauseated by so few candidates.

But if you look away from the mainstream press for a moment, you'd find out there are two other parties fielding Presidential candidates.  The Libertarian Party has nominated Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, for President, and William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts, for Vice President.  The Green Party has nominated Jill Stein for President and Cheri Honkala for Vice President.  The Green Party has only a tiny presence in national politics.  But the Libertarian Party, seemingly a minor player, might actually have a shot at the White House.  Here's how.

To be elected President, a candidate in the first instance has to win a majority of the electoral votes (i.e., 270 of the 538 total electoral votes).  The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution provides that if no candidate has a majority, the House of Representatives then selects the President from the top three candidates. 

If the two leading candidates are running neck-and-neck in electoral votes, a third party could deny each of the two top candidates a majority by winning one, two or a few states (and thereby denying the electoral votes from those few states to either of the leading contenders).  Even though the third party might not have anywhere near a majority, it could force the election into the House.

The contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is likely to be close; neither seems to be able to open up much of a lead over the other.  More importantly, Clinton's unremitting tawdriness and Trump's unerring aim at his own feet ensure that many voters will yearn for an alternative.  Johnson and Weld are experienced politicians will real electoral credentials, having respectively served as governors of their home states.  They are polling between 5% and 10% nationally.  But, in some conservative states, they might be able to become real contenders.  The Libertarian agenda of small government and low taxes might resonate strongly in states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas, all of which gave primary victories to Ted Cruz over Donald Trump.  If Johnson and Weld won one or more of these states, and the electoral breakdown between Clinton and Trump is close, it's possible no candidate would have a majority of the electoral votes and the election would go to the House.

In the Republican-controlled House, Clinton would be toast.  Period.  Trump would have supporters.  But he'd have detractors, too.  The Libertarian platform would appeal to many Tea Party and other right-wing members of Congress.  Both Johnson and Weld were Republicans when they served as governors, and perhaps many members of the House would prefer them to the unpredictable Trump, who in the past was sometimes Democratic and sometimes Independent.  Johnson and Weld would have to demonstrate flexibility and open-mindedness.  The zealotry of many past Libertarian candidates has ensured the party would be marginalized.  But, having had much real-life experience in politics, Johnson and Weld might talk turkey well enough to win over a majority of the House.  And Speaker Paul Ryan's extremely tentative, to say the least, support of Trump would probably not present much of a barrier to a Libertarian victory if most of his Republican colleagues wanted to vote that way.

Of course, many mainstream Republicans in the House might well balk at supporting the Libertarian candidates.  But when they consider the alternative--Mr. Maniacal Mouth--they'd probably give Johnson and Weld a pretty close look.  All this may sound like an overly elaborate speculation on a very long shot.  But, given how weird this election has already been, it just might be the way things turn out.

Brexit and the Globalization Bubble

The stock market has returned to pre-Brexit levels.  So the crisis is over and everything is fine.  After all, if you're not losing money, what's the problem?  Let's think about what craft beer to try next.

Actually, Brexit is still very much affecting the financial markets.  The British pound is moribund.  The Euro isn't looking pretty.  And the Yen is strong, much to the unhappiness of the Japanese, who want a weak currency that gives them an advantage in exporting.  The bond market continues to show a flood of financial refugees into U.S. Treasury securities.  The crisis isn't over.

The volatility in stocks was more about short term speculation over the outcome of the Brexit vote, than about Brexit itself.  Shortly before the vote, much of the fast money crowd had placed large bets on the UK voting to remain.  When the vote went the other way, the speculators had to unwind their now stinky positions muy pronto.  But this volatility didn't reflect the impact of Brexit itself.  Brexit will take years, and its impact is largely unknowable at this time since we don't yet know the terms of the UK's decampment.

The EU is talking tough about the terms of divorce.  That's perhaps an understandable emotional reaction.  After all, the EU is afraid that the insurgents in other member nations will engineer more exits.  Taking a tough line, it apparently thinks, discourages further desertions. 

But the EU is missing the point.  What impelled a majority of British voters to choose exfiltration was that globalization and the benefits of the EU were oversold.  Britons were promised a glowing future if they cozied up to continental Europeans, who they haven't really trusted since before the Hundred Years War.  EU membership may have boosted British GDP, but there was a problem with most of the boost going to a small number of people who were doing pretty well to begin with.  And there was a perception that the EU's open borders policy allowed immigration that took jobs away from native-born Britons.  All this occurred under a legal regime in which many Britons felt they had no voice.  They apparently felt that, contrary to the principles of democracy, they, although voters, were being ruled instead of ruling. 

By playing tough with the terms of Britain's exit, the EU fails to address the real, legitimate grievances leading to Britain's vote.  The truth is that globalization is an oversold political bubble and the bubble is bursting.  Those with grievances aren't confined to the UK; they can be found throughout the other 27 member nations.  A punitive approach to the terms of Brexit could leave both the UK and the EU poorer, while the forces of insurgency would continue unabated.

The distribution of wealth isn't merely something for social scientists to study.  It really matters--politically and economically.  The elites who have led the way toward globalization must find ways to improve the lives and fortunes of all, or face much bigger problems than Brexit. 

This is true in America as well as across the pond.  Donald Trump hopes to emulate the Leave campaign.  Hillary Clinton has gotten a certain amount of mileage  from running as not-Donald-Trump.  But she is one of the elites who has pushed globalization.  She now purports to have changed her mind, but only after severe pressure exerted by Bernie Sanders.  It's not hard to wonder if she's really changed her stripes.  The widespread perception of her untrustworthiness will hinder her ability to convince the blue collar voters in swing states that she's really on their side.  She doesn't inspire or excite hardly anyone.  If she doesn't acknowledge the overselling of globalization in a clear and convincing way, and offer real relief for the distressed, Trump may yet strut to the tune of Hail to the Chief.

Will the GOP Set Up Ted Cruz?

With his victories in Wisconsin and Colorado, Ted Cruz is now well-positioned to prevent Donald Trump from getting a majority of delegates for the Republican Convention.  The Republican Establishment can't stand Cruz, but they can't stand Trump even more.  The Establishment could give Cruz enough support to block Trump for two rounds of voting at the convention.  After two rounds of inconclusive voting, nearly all the delegates would be free to vote for whatever candidate they choose.  The Establishment could then propose a compromise candidate (think Paul Ryan; sorry, John Kasich but you simply aren't a heavy enough hitter), and lean on delegates to support the candidate anointed by the Establishment.  In order to break the deadlock and get on with the general election, a majority of delegates might be willing to abandon Trump and Cruz, and go with the inside favorite.  Cruz would be left in a ditch by the road, but then again the Republican Establishment can't stand him.

How the Federal Reserve Destabilizes the Markets and Influences Politics

The Fed is being hoisted on its own petard.  Since 2008, it has suppressed interest rates, keeping them exceptionally low and forcing investors to put savings into risk assets such as stocks and high-yield bonds.  While there were good reasons for taking extraordinary action in 2008 and 2009, the Fed left rates so low for so long that investors, corporate America and borrowers have come to expect that really easy money is the norm, the default.  This dependency has made it virtually impossible for the Fed to normalize interest rates.  If the Fed raises rates, risk assets fall in value (as they did in recent months when faced with the specter of short term rates reaching a ghastly 1% to 1.25% by the end of this year).  The markets simply won't stand for interest rate increases, and the Fed sees itself as having no choice but to do the markets' bidding.  However, as the Fed continues to suppress interest rates, it only increases the markets' dependency, making future rate increases even more difficult. 

The Fed claims its interest rate policy is data dependent, and that it will raise rates as warranted by the data.  The U.S. economy is now at full employment and growing moderately.  Although last month's inflation data show stable prices, the recent rise in oil and gasoline prices will push up inflation numbers for March.  Yet, when it comes to the decision whether or not to increase rates, there is only one data point that matters.  That is the willingness of the financial markets to accept an increase.  With the markets' long term addiction to low rates deeply embedded, and their turbulent hissy fits every time the Fed hints at rate normalization, there is no foreseeable time when interest rates will return to historical norms. 

The Fed is undermining deeply rooted foundations of our society.  Highly rated long term bonds are essential to the stable retirements for which Americans and many other peoples hope.  Shorter term interest rates provide important supplemental income to savers, and promote financial stability and responsibility that mitigate the impact of economic cycles.  When people face lousy retirements (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2015/04/is-federal-reserve-wrecking-retirement.html), and can't count on much of any return on savings (especially after netting out inflation), you can get the political unrest that we see today. 

The Fed is missing an important part of the picture.  People don't just want cheap credit.  They want stable long term prospects.  During the 1950's, 60's and 70's, the World War II generation endured many layoffs and cutbacks, due to recessions, factory retoolings, labor strikes and so on.  But their fundamental faith in the future was unshaken, because they knew they had pensions and Social Security to take care of them in their golden years (which in fact were golden for many of them).  This kind of long term stability isn't evident today.  Instead, havoc permeates today's politics.  Angry voters in America and Europe are upending established political orders because they fear the future.

Personal consumption and wealth have suffered greatly from low interest rates.  From 2008 to 2013, savers lost about $750 billion due to low interest rates (see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-low-interest-rates-have-cost-consumers-750-billion/).  Adding in likely losses for 2014 through today, the amount now is probably around $1 trillion.  That's real money.  Take that much out of people's hands, and they feel less secure, less inclined to spend, less inclined to borrow (you borrow less if you have less income), and more angry about the status quo.

What's more, the Fed's insistence on favoring risk assets has exacerbated the increasing inequality of income and wealth.  Rich people have the capital to invest in risk assets, and they become increasingly wealthy when cheap money pumps up the value of those assets.  Those getting the short end of the stick are now turning toward political extremism, because they feel they have no other choice.

The last thing the Fed wants to do is get entangled in politics.  It is supposed to be an independent agency that dispassionately dispenses policy in the public interest.  But the Fed's inability to act independently of the financial markets' short term tantrums is having significant impact on social stability and political trends.  Things will only get worse.  As the fall election approaches, the Fed will find itself in the horns of a dilemma largely of its own making.  If it raises rates because inflation is flaring (which is possible given the recent sharp increases in oil and gasoline prices), it will be accused of tilting the political picture one way.  If it does not raise rates despite an upswing in inflation, the markets will hum along on their cheap credit high, and the Fed will be accused of tilting the political landscape another way. 

The Fed is largely staffed and run by economists.  The economists there have failed to appreciate the diminishing returns of continuing the cheap money IV for the markets.  They have also failed to appreciate the costs of their cheap money policy.  If all they acknowledge is the upside (the return to full employment and moderate growth), and fail to acknowledge the pain they inflict on savers and workers who want to retire, then of course they will continue to inject cheap credit into the markets because they only see the benefits and not the costs.  Economists who don't acknowledge diminishing returns and see only benefits but not costs are bound to get policy wrong. 

The Fed measures its performance by short term metrics--current GDP growth, current unemployment, current inflation.  It doesn't appear to pay much attention, if any, to long term factors.  Long term factors are harder to measure.  But that doesn't mean they aren't important.  By focusing on the short term, and ignoring the long term, the Fed inevitably creates problems.  And we all have to live with the consequences of those problems.

Bernie Sanders is the Most Electable Candidate for President

The latest CNN/ORC poll shows that Bernie Sanders is the most electable candidate for President.  He would beat Trump (55% to 43%), Cruz (57% to 40%) and Rubio (53% to 45%).  By contrast, Hillary Clinton would beat Trump (52% to 44%), but would trail Cruz (48% to 49%) and Rubio (47% to 50%).  In other words, Sanders is the candidate most likely to win the Presidency in the general election, should he become the Democratic nominee.  Clinton's well-known negatives continue to dog her.

Clinton is supposed to be more electable than Sanders, but the latest poll negates that notion.  While Clinton has numerous advantages that give her the lead in the primaries for the Democratic nomination, she appears more likely to lead the party to defeat in the fall.  Sanders faces a difficult, uphill path in the primaries.  But if he succeeds in getting the nomination, he may well be the next President of the United States.

So if you're voting Democratic, and want to increase the chances for a Democratic President for the next four years, choose Bernie Sanders.  You can find the new CNN/ORC poll here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/index.html.

Hillary's Obama Gambit

Hillary Clinton has embraced Barack Obama's policies and legacy, and has promised to continue them if she is elected President.  This has helped her draw the support of African-American voters, who she desperately needs to counteract Bernie Sanders' appeal to the young and the independent.  It's helping her now, in South Carolina and other Southern states.  But she will pay a price if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

The key to the general election will be the ability to attract the support of independents.  The Republican and Democratic nominees, whoever they may be this year, will have the support of the conservative right and liberal left, respectively.  The winning candidate will be the one to whom independents flock.  Independents, to be sure, aren't always the same as moderates or middle of the road voters.  They are often beyond classification, very conservative on some issues while simultaneously very liberal on others.  But if you try to paint them as libertarians, they will turn out to be staunch supporters of big government safety net programs like Social Security and Medicare.  These are the disaffected drawn to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.  They often don't like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.  And they are likely to dislike Clinton even more for embracing Obama's legacy.  By positioning herself as Barack Obama's ideological successor, Clinton makes herself less attractive as a candidate to a large group of voters who are likely to be crucial to victory. 

Barack Obama had an almost unique ability to draw the support of traditional Democratic constituencies and independents.  Hillary Clinton doesn't have that ability.  By promising to take up Obama's mantle, she has made herself into a target which, in the general election, the vast right wing conspiracy will bombard with Super PAC funded ads highlighting her sworn fealty Obama.  Many of the Obama haters will turn against her, and vote for the other candidate.  Traditional Democratic constituencies may not be enough to elect her.  She's gained a short term advantage, but a long term problem.

How The Donald Could Beat Hillary

The stolid burgermeisters who run the Republican Party shrink with horror at the thought of nominating Donald Trump as their presidential candidate.  His verbal atrocities are reaching the level where they might offend Attila the Hun, and the conventional Republican wisdom is that there is no way Trump could beat Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee.

However, the latest polls that follow Trump's bloody comments directed at Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly show that Trump's support among the electorate remains essentially unchanged.  If this persists, The Donald will be a force to be reckoned with in the Republican primaries.  Democratic strategists are probably delighted, because they, too, are likely to believe that Clinton can easily beat Trump.

However, Clinton's 2008 campaign also thought she could beat Obama, and there was a problem with that line of thinking.  How could Trump beat Clinton in 2016?  By doing pretty much what he is doing now.

Within living memory, Trump has been a political centrist, and has even expressed support for liberal positions on some issues.  He's made donations to Democratic candidates.  He even made donations to the Clinton Foundation and invited the Clintons to his 2005 wedding.  As a candidate for the Republican nomination, Trump has slid dramatically to the right, proposing a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border that Mexico would have to pay for and the defunding Planned Parenthood, and generally foaming out of the right side of his mouth.  Plain talk pays off in this election cycle (see http://blogger.uncleleosden.com/2015/05/a-winning-strategy-for-2016.html) and Trump is presumably saying what he thinks will help him win the primaries.  Plain talk is certainly paying off for Bernie Sanders.

In the general election, however, if Trump is the Republican nominee, he could easily slide leftward, shifting his views to draw enough support from the political middle to win.  It wouldn't be hard for him to adopt centrist positions, since he's been a centrist for much of his life.  There is plenty of precedent for candidates from both parties to shift toward the middle in the general election.  The advantage that Trump has over Clinton is that he appears sincere, unscripted and bold.  Clinton seems unable to emerge from her cautious, calculated, too well-burnished image.  We can't see the real Hillary; and her destruction of e-mails only compounds the sense that we'll never get to truly know her. 

Both Trump and Clinton have tarnished images.  But Trump appears to have a way to overcome the tarnishes in his image.  Clinton seems bedeviled by the tarnishes in her image, and apparently can't prevent them from dominating the news coverage of her candidacy.  If this state of play continues, The Donald just might beat Hillary if they were to meet in the general election.

A Winning Strategy for the 2016 Presidential Election

Be unscripted.  That's the way to win the Presidential election in 2016.  The American people are looking for an authentic, sincere, unscripted candidate they can, for the most part, agree with.  Someone who speaks from the heart, and empathizes and sympathizes with them.  Someone they can sit down and have a beer with.  Not that they need to agree with everything the candidate advocates.  You can disagree with your friends and still like them.  But you can't be friends with a phony.

Unfortunately, scripting is what modern politics is all about.  Data-driven, Internet-interfaced, bet-hedged down to the last precinct, today's politics is a game of angles, maneuver and percentages.  There is a lot of well-deserved publicity about money in politics. But the money has to be spent wisely.  As Mitt Romney demonstrated in 2012, simply having a lot of money doesn't win the election.  It's important to appear genuine.  Mitt couldn't pull that off when it came to hunting or being a right wing maniac (a prerequsite for bringing the far right to the polls).  He is basically a moderate who tried to pose as a conservative and came across as implausible.  That cost him the election.

The political cognoscenti understand the importance of appearances.  Armies of political scriptwriters are furiously working on scripts for how to appear unscripted.  Candidates are making appearances in very small towns in Iowa with real people, as in folks who might drive nine-year old cars because they can't afford anything better.  Candidates appear in shirtsleeves and eat ethnic food, preferably the kind that's not healthy so that you don't appear preachy about diet. 

But the electorate isn't fooled.  Hillary Clinton seems to have used her financial war chest to scare off serious primary challengers.  But she's so heavily scripted she's having trouble generating enthusiasm outside her longtime coterie of loyalists. Jeb Bush was against the invasion of Iraq, then he was for it, then, last we heard, he was against it.  At this rate, he won't have a chance even with the ardent support of the Republican establishment.  There are genuine, sincere wackos on the far left and far right.  But the general election won't be won by a mouth-foamer.  It will be won by a charismatic, empathetic, reasonable candidate who captures the public's imagination.  And that candidate will . . .  uh . . . perhaps . . . um . . . arrive with Godot.