Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Quick thoughts on the Iowa Caucus

1. Ted Cruz won. He wasn't "supposed to;" polls had him below Donald Trump by five percentage points or more. He won by almost this many points.

2. He won while vowing to eliminate ethanol subsidies. This should be the most important story of the caucuses, but it is largely ignored. The Republican governor of Iowa specifically condemned Cruz and called for his defeat. Cruz won.

3. Jeb Bush outspent everyone else. He spent more than Cruz and Trump combined, yet scored worse (2.8% of votes) than Ben Carson (9.3%) and Rand Paul (4.5%).  So much for money determining everything.

4. Trump failed miserably.  If either Cruz or Rubio weren't in the race, I suspect most of their voters would not go to Trump.  That's likely true of Carson and certainly Paul supporters.  I don't believe any or them systematically "steal" votes from Trump, but I think they steal votes from each other.  If the pack thins out, a non-Trump bloc will grow.

5.  Hillary Clinton barely won.  This is a catastrophe for Clinton, since she had a 30% lead in the polls at one point.  This isn't her collapse, but she's in a mess.  She'll get a drubbing in New Hampshire.

6. Of course, the Iowa Democrats' caucus methods are obscure and non-transparent, so Bernard Sanders is expressing a bit of skepticism over the results.

7. I can hardly wait for Bush to leave the race.  I hope he takes Kasich and Christie with him.

8. Sanders supporters are in a tizzy because some ties were broken with a coin toss, and Clinton allegedly won 6 of 6.  But even "worse," one of Bernie Sanders' precinct captains was an illegal alien, and he and his illegal alien roommate could have broken the tie had they been allowed to caucus.  Unfair, he says.  On the other hand, "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies think this bastard should be arrested, jailed, and then unceremoniously deported.  Hector, go home, you socialist idiot.



Friday, January 29, 2016

Wisdom on Trump: Bill Whittle


Friday, January 22, 2016

Bernie Sanders' New Ad

Bernie For Glorious Leader from Aleister on Vimeo.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Donald Trump: Stupidity, Statism, and the End of America?

Stupidity, statism, and destruction. Here's the case.  I've tried to hold off commenting directly on the current presidential candidates, because it has been such a messy campaign.  On the Republican side, one candidate in particular -- Donald Trump -- has been extremely opaque.  I have always been extremely skeptical of Trump; he's always seemed to me to be a con man.  But this impression of mine was just that, only an impression, and I try to emulate David Ricardo -- I only want to opine when I understand a subject well...or when I can make a case that strikes me as close to irrefutable.  Well, I am ready.

From a libertarian, free market, individual liberty, limited government position, there are a number of very good Republican candidates for President in 2016: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Carly Fiorina...pretty good, but not as good: Ben Carson and Marco Rubio...bad: John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie...awful: Hillary Clinton, Bernard Sanders, Martin O'Malley.  I will address all of these later, in other posts, if they seem sufficiently important to warrant it.  But none of them are mysteries.  There is, however, one opaque figure in all of this, Donald Trump, and he has finally revealed his true colors.  He would be an awful president.  I'll show this, using his own words.

Trump is a big government man who would expand government.  He's an opponent of the Constitution, a dictator wannabe similar to Obama, and a liar.  He also seems to be an ignoramous, although "seems" is important since one can't be sure how serious he is about some of things he says.  Let's not monkey around... on to the budget.

Trump will raise taxes.

Tea Party Patriots (TPP), a Tea Party organization, sent a survey to candidates they are considering endorsing: Carson, Cruz, Paul, and Trump.  Yesterday they released the results.  One question was whether the candidate would commit to the Penny Plan, which calls for an across-the-board $0.01 cut per year to each dollar of Federal spending, unless and until Congress balances the budget.  This is actually a rather drastic cut to spending, given our history.  Carson and Paul said yes.  Cruz said no, because instead he would propose targeted cuts in spending, including abolishing some government agencies (i.e. 100% cuts).  I think both are acceptable positions.  But Trump also disagreed.  He said:

"I will not support the Penny Plan but will propose strict budget discipline. I will propose budgets that freeze overall spending levels until such time as the budget comes into balance. This approach eliminates the criticisms associated with constantly increasing spending and allows the Executive branch to find the funds necessary within existing resources to reshape spending priorities. Congress, knowing that I will not sign a budget that increases spending until the budget is balance, will work with the Executive branch and the American people to do what is best for the country."

Trump will freeze, not reduce, overall spending until the budget is balanced.  Necessarily, the only way that the budget can balance then is by increasing tax revenues by more than half a trillion dollars annually.  That will happen only by raising taxes.  There's no other way.

Trumps' revenue proposals are incoherent and would lead to national bankruptcy.

Even worse, Trump has defended Medicare as being one government program that has worked.  Yet CBO projections show that Medicare is a financial catastrophe.  Medicare, along with Social Security and Medicaid (all three of which Trump has vowed not to cut) and interest payments on debt (which can't be cut without effectively declaring national bankruptcy) by themselves will, on the current course, lead to catastrophic increases in the national debt.  The CBO projections in the previous link assume that discretionary spending will fall as a share of GDP.  Trump won't cut the budget.  Trump won't cut entitlements.  None of what Trump says on this issue makes any sense... unless he drastically raises taxes. Yet two independent analyses of Trump's tax proposals find they would reduce Federal revenues.  Debt explodes under Trump.  This is national suicide.  (That's the "end of America" part.)

Trump will expand government.

In his response to TPP, Trump expresses willingness to expand the size of government if the budget is balanced.  What might he spend it on?  How about mandatory ethanol fuel programs and subsidies, for a start.  Trump has declared he will expand ethanol subsidies.  I've sat in on numerous presentations of economic analyses of the federal ethanol programs.  Every single one has concluded that ethanol is a terrible government boondoggle, a complete waste of citizens' funds that is economically and environmentally destructive.  Yet Donald Trump endorsed these ethanol programs, and accused Ted Cruz of having been purchased by "Big Oil" for opposing these insane and corrupt subsidies.  Trump offers no evidence that Cruz was paid by oil companies for opposing ethanol -- Trump is thus a liar -- but also, it does not make sense that ethanol would be any sort of threat to "Big Oil."  (There's no such thing as "Big Oil," by the way, unless one means Saudi Arabia and OPEC.  That's a long story, but it is pretty easy to show that the alleged powers of the so-called "majors," the big oil companies such as Exxon, Shell, and BP, are a myth.)

Ethanol is extremely expensive and would never survive as a vehicle fuel if left to the free market.  Gasoline is cost effective and less environmentally destructive.  The only use of ethanol programs is enriching mercantilists (a.k.a. crony capitalists) and gaining political power.  Trump insists on expanding this.  He's anti-free market and in favor of the political establishment; mercantilism, crony capitalism, is the fundamental establishment enterprise.  Trump is "all in."

Am I exaggerating?

Trump loves Kelo.

In Kelo, SCOTUS voted that private developers can use government to seize other peoples' private property if they think they can profit thereby.  Trump loves it.

Trump is actually opposed to the free market and support mercantilism, systematic rent-seeking, crony capitalism.

Trump is a liar, and possibly an ignoramous.

Tea Party Patriots again:  WHAT WILL YOU DO ON DAY 1 OF YOUR PRESIDENCY AFTER BEING SWORN INTO OFFICE?

"Sign a repeal of Obamacare."

No, that's impossible.  He's a liar.  Never mind his slander of Ted Cruz.  The PPACA, Obamacare, is a law passed by Congress.  The President is not a dictator who can eliminate legislation.  If Trump believes he can, he is also a stupid, ignorant man.  It's hard to believe Trump is that stupid, but who knows.

Trump's answer goes on to state other things he would do, and he makes it very clear he really means the first day.  It's number 8, read it.  Trump is a liar, placing his faith in what PPACA designer Jonathan Gruber called "the stupidity of the American voter."

Trump really is an ignoramous.  He doesn't understand Obama's Iran deal.

In the second Republican debate, when a number of candidates were trashing Obama's horrible nuclear agreement with Iran and saying the would "rip it up" on entering office (Ted Cruz' words), Trump agreed it was bad, but then observed that it is a contract and we have to abide by it, but that he would renegotiate harder terms.  Good grief!

No, it is not a contract.  It is not a treaty, it was never ratified in Congress.  It is not binding and has no enforcement mechanism. Congress did indeed allow some legislation -- sanctions -- to elapse based on signing of the agreement, and those can't be reimposed by tearing up the agreement.  But everyone paying attention knows that this is a "gentlemen's agreement (sans gentlemen) between Obama and Khamanei.  Cruz, Paul, Fiorina, and the others who said they would trash the agreement were correct, and on on completely solid ground from a moral, Constitutional, and strategic respect.  Trump really does not understand this, I think.  He's a boob who has no understanding at all of the Constitution.   Maybe he really does think he can single-handedly repeal Obamacare.  And no, he's not going to renegotiate anything.  Does he imagine he can simply fly into Iran and start haggling with the mullahs?  One can certainly do this in the private sector... good luck with doing this in international diplomacy.

Trump is a demagogue, without principles.

The above are not small points.  They are fundamental.  Everyone can be taken down on petty points.   But Trump's flaws are not petty errors, they are major flaws.  And on top of them,Trump's blathering is incoherent.  He tends to speak without framing complete sentences.  He almost never makes clear statements.  He throws labels around -- good, bad, fantastic... he makes judgments such as "no one likes him, he's not liked," he says he'll do things that are "great..." none of this makes any sense.  No specifics, no facts, no details, no substance, no meat... no principles.  It's all image.  Because Trump cannot be intimidated (an admirable trait) he can get away with it.  And it is very dangerous.

As late as 2012 Trump said about Hillary Clinton:

"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman.  I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard...I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her.”

Or on gun control: "...I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."  There is no federal waiting period for buying a gun, and I believe none anywhere for buying a long gun.  That one ever supported confiscation of firearms, including so-called "assault weapons, is enough to disqualify one for the Presidency.  Of course, his new position on guns is entirely different, it's one I endorse wholeheartedly.  But does Trump really endorse it?  Why did he change his mind?  He never talks about pis principles.  I think he has none.

Trump's donation to political campaigns have overwhelmingly been to Democrats.  This is not something way back in the past; he donated $50,000 to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago.  He donated large amounts to Harry Reid.  He donated to Hillary Clinton.  Good grief.  He's a big government Democrat, by all evidence.

Conclusion: Unprincipled and Dangerous Opportunist

So who is Donald Trump?  I still can't figure out exactly what he would do as President, but he is not a libertarian, not a conservative, not a Constitutionalist.  He never makes arguments for any of these positions.  He never makes logical arguments, for that matter.  But in "Art of the Deal" he lays out a strategy for negotiating that advocates staking out an extreme starting position, and then negotiating to a different deal.  That's what he's doing now.  Trump's bombastic and admittedly intoxicating pronouncements stake out a position that many find extreme.  Some love it, some hate it.  But it is incoherent and by all evidence it is insincere.  Trump is a dangerous demagogue.

Postscript: what if the election comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, Trump vs. Sanders (i.e. Juan Peron vs. Hugo Chavez), or Trump vs. Warren or some other last minute entrant?  Well, Trump's politics appear to be a throwback to 1960s Hubert Humphrey-LBJ Democrat party.  If I am right about that, Trump stinks, but is certainly preferable to today's neo-Marxists.  At least he doesn't seem to want to destroy the United States.  But if these are our choices, Trump vs. some Marxist, terrible things await us.

Friday, January 15, 2016

The Market Speaks

Is unrestricted immigration by "Syrian" muslims a good idea?  For those who believe in the market test (and there's good reason to pay it heed), here's an interesting bit of evidence: applications for firearms permits in both Germany and Austria have quadrupled since the Köln attacks.  And well before then, shotguns were sold out in Austria (no permit required, unlike rifles and handguns).  Women are the primary buyers, and self defense against criminal aliens is the primary reason given.  There's the success of multiculturalism and open borders for you.

On the day of the terror attacks by Muslims in San Bernadino, I went with Julie R. on a shopping trip to a nearby gun store -- a trip we'd been planning anyway, and given the events of the day and the propensity of the dictator-wannabe in the Whitehouse to issue decrees, we supposed the time was auspicious.  What we encountered was quite interesting.  The small (but well stocked) store was surprisingly crowded, more than the usual number of patrons, for sure... and almost all of the customers were women, ranging from middle age to one whom I guessed was in her mid 70's, although Julie thought I was underestimating her age by 15 years.  Most of them were purchasing handguns and asking about shooting classes, although one walked out with a lovely new blackpowder hunting rifle.  In addition to me, I believe there were only two male customers (one of them accompanying the gal who bought the rifle) and at least half a dozen women in addition to Julie.

Evidence suggests that in the U.S. firearm sales are easily at record highs.  Already record level rates of buying jumped with the San Bernadino terror attacks.  And according to the FBI, December 2015 set a record of 3.3 million NICS checks (National Instant Criminal Check System, background checks for purchases of new firearms) and over 23 million checks for the year.  Compare that to the 8.5 million checks of 2000, or the 12.7 million in 2008 at the end of Bush 43's tenure.  Firearm sales have effectively doubled under Obama.

Of course, NICS checks probably underestimate sales.  Those of us who are concealed carry permit holders are not subject to NICS checks (in obtaining a permit one goes through a more rigorous check than the NICS).  The number of such permit holders has more than tripled since 2000, with most of the increase coming since Obama was elected to his first term.

Yes, the market is speaking.

Photo: Glock 26, arguably the finest small defensive weapon in the world. That's not what we were buying, though.

"As Germany Welcomes Migrants, Sexual Attacks in Cologne Point to a New Reality"

 New York Times reports.

Hahahahaha!  ("die Schadenfreude," what a wonderful German word.)  The above is a New York Times headline from yesterday; I find it hilarious.  After all the moralistic lecturing we opponents of unrestricted immigration by Mohammedans have been getting from idiots like Angela Merkel, Barack Obama,The New York Times, Mssrs. Bier, Nowrasteh, et al. at FEE, etc., it's gratifying to see this demonstration that reality is not optional.  The fantasy of multiculturalism is being destroyed before our very eyes, and it's a beautiful thing.  (For the logic-challenged, "we" at Unforeseen Contingencies should point out that the brutal and awful assaults on women and men are not beautiful, they are terrible.  The beautiful thing is seeing the idiots who promote multiculturalism being refuted and publicly humiliated.)

For those who missed it, on New Years eve, across Germany there were waves of sexual assaults and other violence, committed by muslim immigrants.  The most attacks seem to have been in Köln (Cologne) although rapes and other violence occurred elsewhere.  Perpetrators were muslims, and a high percentage seem to have been recent immigrants.  Police responding to the attacks were so overwhelmed by the numbers that they were powerless (or so they claimed -- I believe German police carry firearms so I think "impotent" would be a better term).

On his "I Want a New Left" Dr. John Pepple wonders if this might lead to an awakening among feminists that the left is not their friend.  I suspect so, at least for those who are serious about the rights of women.  And certainly the progressive left seems to be self-destructing rapidly.  They've taken on too many things that are completely incompatible with an "open society" (George Soros' term for the progressive ideal).  I predict a backlash on this and other issues that will shock the left.

Photo: German girls.  Would they be willing to do this at Cologne train station next New Years?



Thursday, January 07, 2016

Happy Christmas (Julian) and Happy New Year!

Happy 2016 and Happy Orthodox Christmas to all our readers (if any) from the entire staff of Unforeseen Contingencies.  

I'm still in Montana with no internet access, save for a trip to Starbucks every three days or so.  Hence no blogging on mass sexual molestations by gangs of "Syrian refugees" in Germany, nor Obama's attempt to dictatorially impose gun controls, nor North Korea's nuclear test, nor Iran's attack on the Saudi Embassy in Teheran and the well-deserved bombing of the Iranian embassy in Yemen in apparent response... not even on the growing Obamacare debacle (which, true to form, the administration is heralding as another "triumph."  Not even time to comment in detail on the growing evidence of Hillary Clinton's felonious behavior, nor the reconsideration of the charges of rape against Bill Clinton.

But once I'm back in action, expect some fun posts...

Meanwhile, Happy New Year!

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

2016: Ten Predictions!

Photo: Man of the Year, Ted Cruz


Once again, here are the annual Unforeseen Contingencies predictions for the coming year. The entire staff at UC has been hard at work on these. By “our” count, we scored 70% right on our 2015 predictions (analysis will follow before the end of January, we hope). We aim to exceed this score for 2016. A number of these deal with the 2016 election, so before reading be sure to read the previous post. Predictions are always conditional, and the set of events on which I’m conditioning are themselves sufficiently complex and in flux that predicting is fairly hard. But enough of this chatter. Here goes:

1. Hillary Clinton the Democrat nominee, but with potential criminal charges hanging over her head. The investigation will be stymied, and FBI officials will publicly state this. For a hit on this prediction, two things must happen: Clinton is nominated and FBI whistleblowers complain about official interference. (This one is easy, since the second thing has already happened once. It must happen again in 2016 for a hit.)

2. Dirty deal at the Republican convention. Cruz or Trump (or some other non-establishment candidate) will enter the convention as the leader, but the party leadership will attempt to push an establishment candidate, Bush or perhaps Ryan, possibly Kasich or even Romney, upon the electorate. I do not predict the outcome, just that the convention will be acrimonious and bitter over this, not triumphal. That’s really something, because Obama’s policies are unpopular and the Republicans ought to be celebrating the strong hand the Democrats have dealt them.

3. Republican party split. The establishment won’t support Cruz or Trump. The base won’t support Bush, Kasich, Ryan, or Romney.

4. Meanwhile, a Mumbai-style attack by Islamists in the United States will result in at least 100 casualties, and race riots in at least one U.S. city that will exceed the damage done in Ferguson. (I’m making it harder on myself by making a joint prediction; both must occur for a hit. Each one has a strong probability attached. What else can you expect when the Obama administration strongly discourages investigation of Muslims suspected of links to Islamist groups, and when the mainstream media and Democrat party effectively endorse a movement – Black Lies Matter – that calls for race war.)

5. In response, there will be increasing grassroots activism in the U.S. that will be condemned by the political class (defined as politicians of both parties, bureaucrats, mainstream media, and academia – at least in the humanities). This activism will consist of things such as the Convention of States movement, Tea Party activism, conservative civil disobedience, and Americans continuing to arm themselves and otherwise prepare for the worst at rates that exceed 2015. (In November and December of 2014, firearm sales reached record highs. These records appear to have been easily broken in the same months of 2015.) It’s hard to state a single solid criterion for a hit, but this phenomenon will be of sufficiently great importance that I must place it on the list. In fact, I think it is the single most important development of 2016. If Clinton is elected, she’ll face formidable opposition. If Cruz or Trump is elected, the leftist project to remake America will be in disarray that far exceeds loss of the election. 

6. OK, the election: Cruz, Trump, or any other non-establishment Republican beats Clinton beats Bush, Kasich, Christie, Rubio (who will prove to be more establishment than not), Ryan, Romney. When the base stays home, the Republican loses. If they turn out and bring with them independents disgusted with political correctness and Democrat insanity like catering to Black Lies Matter rioters and “Syrian” immigrants, the Republican wins. OK, OK, if I have to pick a winner, I’ll say Ted Cruz. See my previous post.

7. Chinese military forces will fire on a U.S. ship or aircraft. This article from National Interest explains the possible triggers of an Asian conflict and how they might be defused and peace preserved by careful American policy. But this would require a desire and strategic vision that the current administration lacks. As an aside, libertarians who want Pax Americana dismantled are stupid – the replacement will be a clash of civilizations, and all the participants will be anti-liberal authoritarians.

8. The Chinese and Russian economic crises will worsen. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy will not undergo a crisis and will appear, at least on paper, to be strengthening, at least until November 9. Not part of the prediction, but the respective presidents of all three countries will tighten their authoritarian rule in response to their economic situations.

9. Angela Merkel’s political career a shambles. As Germans wake up to the reality of what it means to take in one million mostly unemployable, inassimilable Muslims a year, her domestic political popularity will collapse. Externally, within the E.U. her de facto leadership will vanish, as the French, Italian, and now Spanish governments revolt against austerity and demand more subsidization from German taxpayers. I predict her political career will end, although she might get a spot in the U.N. or E.U. bureaucracies (or maybe even the U.S. Republican nomination in a brokered convention!) Note that her term runs until 2017, though, so this is not a prediction that she’ll leave office.

10. The discovery of extra-terrestrial life will be announced. This is a perpetual prediction of mine, and eventually I will get it right. But this past summer a noted scientist who studies this subject stated that he believes life will be discovered within the next ten years.

11. Wild Card prediction: After a brokered convention selects an establishment candidate for the GOP, Donald Trump runs as an independent. No one wins a majority of the electoral votes in the ensuing election, and the determination of the president goes to the House of Representatives. Wild enough for you?

There are other things I could predict. For example, Obama will be increasingly dictatorial in his last year in office (I hope it’s his last year… that would sure throw my predictions off!) which will further fuel the hatred of the Republican base for the Republican leadership when the leadership permits it to continue. Another would be that nothing will be done to stop or even slow the growth of America’s national debt. But predicting these is similar to predicting sunrise in the morning. So long as the world keeps turning, they’ll happen.

Predicting 2016...an exercise in conditional, joint, and discombobulated probabilities

Four years ago at this time I predicted that Mitt Romney would be the Republican nominee for president and that Barack Obama would beat him in the general election. I thought it was easy to predict these matters. Romney was facing apparently strong challenges from Santorum, Huckabee, Gingrich (the frontrunner in polling), and Ron Paul. But Romney was well-financed compared to the others, and he had a nationwide organization which the others lacked. (Santorum, who ultimately mounted the strongest challenge, failed to even have sufficient organization to file for primary ballot status in several states!) I was aware of these differences and predicted Romney as the eventual nominee, with Obama winning owing to the generally inferior grassroots organizing of the Republican establishment (and, we now know, because of the effectiveness of Obama’s IRS in blocking formation of conservative grassroots organizations!) and the generally uninspiring message of the GOP establishment and their man Romney. I was right on both counts, and for the reasons I suggested.

2016 is not so clear at all. Consider the two GOP frontrunners. Ted Cruz (my favored candidate) appears to already have fairly strong nationwide grassroots organization, and is financially strong. Donald Trump doesn’t have a nationwide organization, but appears to be building one, and has obvious financial resources. Marco Rubio is not exactly a frontrunner and doesn’t have a nationwide organization, but does seem to be getting some interest from donors to the Republican establishment. Whether one likes them or not, none of these men is boring. Each can inspire in his own way.

Imagine the presidential debates, Hillary Clinton vs. an as-yet undetermined Republican.  Clinton is not particularly intelligent, well-informed, nor principled -- i.e. she lacks characteristics that stand one in good stead in a debate.  She tends to speak in terms of slogans, appeals to emotion, and fabrications.

Now consider her possible opponents.  Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Carly Fiorina – the non-political class/non-establishment candidates – would beat her soundly in a debate, as they have all the characteristics she lacks, and are passionate and articulate.  I think they'd also clobber her in the election.  They'd not tolerate her nonsense, they'd expose her as a liar and crush her with facts, logic, and emotionally appealing rhetoric.  The American people will by and large respond favorably to someone who emphasizes liberty, limited government, and a hopeful future.  Most Americans oppose importing Syrian Muslims at taxpayer expense, confiscating our firearms, raising our taxes, floundering around against Daesh, shutting down our economy because it's the "green" thing to do, and the like.

Next consider Clinton vs. the GOP political establishment candidates, Jeb Bush or John Kasich, probably Chris Christie as well.  One can imagine such a debate beginning with the Republican candidate thanking Mrs. Clinton for her service as Secretary of State -- "service" for which she should have been impeached and for which she is being investigated for multiple felonies by the FBI, felonies of which she's certainly guilty.  The Republican side of the debate would go downhill from there, with “Bushich” apologizing for various positions favored by the conservative base.  The Republican would lose the debate, and the election.

What about Trump? Trump never relies on anything like principles and it is hard to know what he would do. I’m rejecting the “Trump is a Democrat operative” hypothesis and take him at face value. He says what he thinks – which varies considerably at times because he doesn’t have a particular ideology or set of principles – and he wants to be president. A Clinton vs. Trump debate would be a real show. Trump would be quite willing to call her a liar (this should be done). He regularly uses ad hominem arguments and is ruthlessly politically incorrect – something for which he deserves great praise. I can’t predict such a cage match and popularity contest, other than to say that the debates and election would be a free-for-all. The United States would become a reality TV program. Trump might well win the debates, and the election, but it is not easy to say.

Rubio? Rubio combines characteristics of the first two camps, the non-political class and the GOP establishment. As with Trump, I think this is similarly hard to predict. Rubio doesn’t seem to be particularly principled and this doesn’t serve him well. But he is quite articulate and has passion. I suppose he’d have an edge in the debates and the election. (Note, BTW, that on the Democrat side I entirely discount Sanders and O’Malley. The nomination is Clinton’s. She is being investigated for felonies and no doubt could be indicted. She has patrons who are keeping this from happening, and that’s for a reason.)

This might make it sound like I’m predicting a GOP victory in 2016, but these are analyses, not predictions. This is already a complex problem to analyze, but it is made far messier by the internal dynamics of the GOP. The GOP leadership and establishment hate people like Cruz, Trump, Paul, Fiorina, and Carson. (I ignored Carson because he’s not sufficiently aggressive to even sound like a candidate, unfortunately. He’s a good man, but his campaign will not succeed.) “Country club Republicans,” “patrician conservatives,” “crony capitalists” describe the GOP establishment. They are advocates of big government, which they use to benefit themselves, and they hate their own base. The base hates them back, rather reasonably, because they are absolutely useless in standing up to the left and preventing the destruction of the country. They simply want to manage its decline while preserving corporate welfare.

These dynamics pose two problems for predicting. First, the establishment candidates inspire no one and will continue to fail, hence the establishment will attempt dirty tricks at the convention. If they succeed in foisting an establishment candidate upo the country, that alone will ensure a Democrat victory as the outraged base deserts them. [Memo to GOP establishment: your boy Paul Ryan is hated by the base for what he did to us with his budget deal.] Second, if a non-establishment candidate does get the nomination, there’s a good chance the establishment will sabotage the republican candidate and throw its support behind Clinton. (For example, John McCain suggested he would do this if Rand Paul were the nominee.) Clinton still might lose, but predicting the outcome of such a mess is… a mess.

So who will be the Republican nominee? Cruz? Trump? Rubio? Bush/Kasich/Ryan? (Don’t count out Ryan at a brokered convention.) It’s just a big mess. All of this is simply background for my predictions for 2016... forthcoming soon!

Happy New Year 2016!

Greetings from Unforeseen Contingencies in Montana, and Happy New Year!  I am looking forward to some great things this year.  I hope all of our readers (always the optimist, I assume there are some of you!) are as well.  May 2016 be a good one for liberty and prosperity.

I will be posting a couple of end-of-year posts shortly, including my traditional predictions for the coming year..  My internet access remains poor at present, so I wrote these up in Word trying to remember as much html code as I could, and will post as is.  If they are a mess, perhaps I will edit later...or perhaps not.

But Happy New Year!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?