Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Trump and Sanders win New Hampshire?

Most of last year, all I kept hearing was that Hillary was inevitable as both the Democratic nominee and the winner of the general election. She's a woman, after all - very accomplished, very impressive.

It never sat too well with me, since 'inevitable' was a term that got thrown around a lot regarding her in 2008, and that turned out to be a tremendous load. What a non-surprise to have it once again turn out to be a load.

Meanwhile, I've been hearing forecasts of Trump's imminent demise since he entered the race, along with the inevitability of Jeb! Bush - or perhaps the Great Republican Ever, Marco Rubio. Bush has turned into a punchline, and the great Rubio machine (sorry, fellow Catholics) went haywire at the last minute.

But my question is this.

Given the utter inability for these pundits to have, months ago, predicted this current state of affairs... exactly how much stock should I put in their claims about the general election, or whether Trump really COULD  build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it?

2 comments:

James Parliament said...

I remain just slightly ambiguous about the wall, which in this climate counts for absolute certainty that Trump will build it.

Forced to take a position, I would say that Trump will build a nontrivial length of wall on the border. Mexico will pay for a significant portion, enough to confirm the claim. I don't know how, but I suspect by some combination of economic and other threats Trump could level at them. They might not be paying the invoices for the bricks, but there'll be a clear net positive on the Mexico balance sheet.

More interesting, to me, is how many intelligent people just can't figure this out. I'm with you - there's nothing inevitable about Hillary, and there's a good chance we're talking about President Trump's inaugural address 11 months from now.

Crude said...

I remain just slightly ambiguous about the wall, which in this climate counts for absolute certainty that Trump will build it.

I'm not naive enough to believe Trump's every word, or even the general trajectory of the image he puts out. But I'm also not so blind as to not see the positive effect he's having on the culture, whether he realizes it or not. Nor am I so naive as to think Cruz or, God help me, Rubio is noticeably more trustworthy.

If it came down to Rubio v Hillary, I'd want Hillary to win. She's a disaster. Rubio would contribute to something I regard worse and more threatening than bad legislation or terrible justices.