so, ted cruz wants to be obama? what? you are no doubt confused by this turn of events. has he received the memo from the heritage institute on the mandate?
yet, you shouldn't be. see, this is actually one of those situations where the banks just let slip what you're not supposed to know: that ted cruz is, in fact, the continuity candidate. the bankers switch parties every eight years, remember. ted cruz is indeed brought to us by the same bankers that brought us barack obama. hillary's not even their second choice- not even their tenth choice, really. but, they seem to have lost their minds over the last four years. i've pointed this out a few times: it's probably his wife's fault. you lose objectivity when you're trying to get your spouse elected. and, this entire cycle - hillary, trump, sanders - is all essentially a consequence of this monumental fuck-up. the banks picked a limp horse and stuck with it.
yes - you will lose, ted. third place, tonight. get used to this....
now, note this: it seems like kasich won manhatten. an island of teal in a sea of red. the obvious choice there is actually cruz - because he's the banker candidate. but, the whole plan is in tatters. note that, despite of this, trump still loses manhatten. and, that is telling.
so, how do you beat trump, now? listen - i may be non-committal in terms of support. don't expect me to hit the boards arguing for hillary. i think she's a war criminal, and makes a better republican than trump does. if sanders doesn't run, i'm going to endorse stein. but, this is a math problem, so i seek a solution. how do you beat this guy?
well, i think enough time has gone on to make his base clear, right. he's not swinging conservatives. at all. i will state for at least the third time that i think hillary will run to his right, and beat him on it. she will swing evangelicals and all manners of "moderate conservatives" that think he's some kind of raving liberal. rather, i think the danger is that clinton tries to present him as an extreme right-winger. her better tactic is to run against him the same way she's been running against sanders, and try and paint him as an unrealistic leftist. the early indications suggest she's not doing that, and it's going to come out in the end as an error.
again: he's not swaying conservatives. conservatives are actually up for grabs, here. and, hillary is a conservative. so, it makes more sense for her to go after them than to alienate them. they're supposed to be all about rational choices. hillary is their rational choice. they will grudgingly accept this.
rather, what he's swaying are these authoritarian types that want a "strong leader" to save them from evil. bush voters. he fucked up himself in attacking bush' legacy. that's his base. and, what they want is....let's say they want bismarck. or, maybe stephen harper? see, i've got some recent experience with this.
now, has what we've seen over the last year or so suggested that donald trump is actually a leader? i don't think it has. i think he's been a follower of the most blatant sort. he's bleeting the republican line on point after point. he changed his position on abortion to win votes (and nobody believes that he believes what he said, so don't bother with that). he changed his position on health care. he's changed position after position. that's not strong leadership, that's just following the herd.
the whole debate may seem facile and childish. and i don't want to fall into this narrative that voters are stupid. but, this particular type of voter is not so bright. and, this is how you get in their head: donald trump is not a leader.
and, he isn't. on party orders, he has taken foolish positions that he doesn't believe in. the reality is that he's doing what he's told. so, why should you believe he'll pull out of these trade deals? or anything else he says...
