bush does need to get a bounce and pretty soon. and, he needs to cut a deal with kasich yesterday.
it's inconceivable how rubio or cruz can win this - they're simply too right wing. as i've pointed out before, it makes trump look moderate in comparison. that's what is happening, and what everybody needs to understand. the field people are seeing is rubio and cruz on the right and trump in the center. so, they're picking trump.
it's insane. it can't possibly sustain itself. americans are stupid, sure, but they're not this bad. they cannot possibly settle on trump as the moderate/centrist republican. it's insane. but, as long as the banks keep pushing these right-wing blowhards (and the field stays split) it's the only outcome.
i remain convinced that kasich and bush are the only serious candidates, and that you can more or less forget about cruz and rubio - they're not serious candidates. they're too right-wing, even for primary voters. but, you can't write off trump the same way. rather, the harder the banks work to push the right (rubio/cruz) instead of the center (bush), the more trump seems certain to win.
the field has narrowed a little. but, it seems like he's not getting through.
if both bush and kasich drop, trump will coast to the win. in landslides.
trump will blow out rubio or cruz, head to head.
but, he'd lose to bush.
stated tersely: it seems like the banks are really fucking this up, and trump is really throwing a wrench in the whole thing. hillary is plan F, and she might not get through, either.
i mean, the root of the problem is not trump. he's an idiot. he shouldn't be running circles around goldman sachs like this. the problem is a terrible analysis by the banks, combined with what looks like nepotism in pushing through cruz.
now, they've got moderates split between bush and rubio, the right split between rubio and cruz and independents and populists coming out in droves for trump. they keep shifting directions and spinning around and falling over trying to react to trump, but it's not due to any brilliance in tactic - it's because he's incoherent.
the last time i saw something this bad was the liberal party of canada try to beat stephen harper. they couldn't figure it out. people concluded harper was a genius. but, in truth it was the liberals that kept running bad candidates and taking incomprehensible positions. they finally beat him with a little of his own medicine.
it's too late to find the anti-trump. the closest thing in the spectrum is sanders, and you're really better off floating trump a deal than thinking you can buy out sanders.
i still think bush is the guy. and, he got what he needed to get the bounce. but, now he needs to actually convert logic into votes.
and, if he can't?
president donald trump.
take a good look at that.
you want to know another good example of this kind of dynamic?
the soviets v. reagan.
the american right gives reagan credit for ending the cold war. it's of course nonsense. but, they are right in pointing out that reagan caused the soviets to stand down.
it wasn't due to brilliant tactical choices, though. it was precisely the opposite. after decades of rational analysis, game theory, mad and the like, the soviets came up against something they couldn't react to - an irrational actor.
they could no longer predict behaviour with any certainty, because they no longer had any faith in the inherent rationality of their opponent.
the only rational choice was to withdraw.
it was like an episode of inspector gadget.
given that truth, it might be time for plan F.
