Support for AOC

To my complete surprise, I find myself in agreement with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She has proposed that elected representatives should be barred from becoming lobbyists upon 'retiring' from Congress.  This practice is similar to insider trading.  The problem isn't just elected representatives.  How many regulators leave the various government agencies to then turn around and lobby their former colleagues on behalf of the industry being regulated?  Ted Cruz offered support, suggesting a lifetime ban on former members becoming lobbyists.  Though I like the goal, I suspect courts would strike down such a law.  Are there other professions from which people can be banned except in the case of conviction of a crime?  Even so, I hope to see the Ocasio-Cortez-Cruz bill proposed in Congress.  I give it long odds at getting through the House or Senate but Trump would gladly sign it.

Cruz for Trump

Ted Cruz has endorsed Trump for President.  Unfortunately, this comes long after considerable damage has been done to his political prospects.  His re-elect numbers in Texas took a big hit with his explicit failure to endorse Trump at the Republican Convention.  Rather than a considered endorsement, this looks more like political calculus.  If it was principled to not endorse Trump then, what has changed to make it principled now?  The NeverTrumpers are beside themselves about Ted's defection.  Trump's rising poll numbers make the endorsement look more like a political calculation.  For a man who has made a name for himself in Washington by standing on principle, such political strategizing is anathema.  He shot himself in the foot at the convention and has been hobbling around since.  However, jumping on the Trump bandwagon before some of the other Republican candidates may improve his standing in comparison to those who have not yet endorsed Trump should Trump win.

 

I like Ted Cruz because he fights.  He doesn't try to get along with the Democrats which has only succeeded in the century long slide toward socialism.  A recent article accused the Republicans of being the Washington Generals, the team that always loses to the Harlem Globetrotters.  For my entire adult life, Republicans sing the praises of limited government but never seem to enact it.  Even when the White House, the Senate, and the House were all Republican, the government just got bigger and less limited.  Cruz called out his fellow Republicans for sticking with a losing playbook.

 

That he has botched the politics of this is, in a sense, a good sign.  It took him some reflection to realize that, whatever his principled opposition might be, the next president is going to be either Trump or Clinton.  For better or worse, he chose Trump.

Hamstringing a Future Presidential Run

In his speech tonight, Senator Ted Cruz failed to endorse his party's nominee, Donald Trump.  Instead, he said vote your conscience.  No matter the justifications, that is petty.  Such an open display of disunity and a failure to support the person the voters chose is a political blunder.  Very early in the primary season, the Republican candidates were asked if they would support the eventual nominee.  The whole purpose of that question was to prevent Trump from going rogue.  JEB, Cruz, Rubio, et al. said they would support the nominee, whoever it was.  Where are they now?

Let us suppose that Trump loses and Cruz runs in 2020.  Has he given a speech that will draw the voters to him?  No.  He has disrespected their choice and expects them to choose more wisely next time around.  Even those who voted for him might find this off putting.  He could have learned some political maneuvering from Richard Nixon.  Nixon went all in for Barry Goldwater in 1964.  Though Nixon was no where near as conservative as Goldwater, the Goldwater voters remembered his loyalty to the party.  Nixon won the nomination and the presidency in 1968.

Ideologically speaking, Cruz is probably closest to me.  If he gets some sense, he will stump for Trump during the campaign and make an appearance with Trump to undo this political faux pas.  It is not necessary to like your party's nominee but it is a requirement to support him.  The Bush wing of the party is notably absent but, as JEB's fabulous showing demonstrates, that wing is almost dead.  Don't go down that path, Ted.  Even if the quarterback is a jerk, be a team player.

Trump is the Nominee

With Ted Cruz suspending his campaign after his loss in Indiana, Trump is the presumptive nominee.  Indiana was a last chance for Cruz to prevent Trump from getting the 1237 that would preclude a floor fight at the convention.  No floor fight, no chance for Cruz.  As for Kasich, he is in Neverland and doesn't want to grow up.  He wins the state where he is the sitting governor and thinks that makes him a competitor.  I wonder how long before he suspends his campaign.  He may not.  He can't catch up to Cruz in delegates, so what is he thinking?  It will be fun while it lasts.

 

The Republican Party has no one but itself to blame for having Trump as the nominee.  After years of betraying their voters, the voters decided to pick an extreme outsider.  George Will thinks it is the duty of every Republican to vote for Hillary to prevent a Trump presidency.  The establishment will have its choice, the voters be damned.  If only we had this sort of fire from the establishment through the last 7 years, maybe the Republican base wouldn't have voted for Trump.  Ah, the schadenfreude!  Really, a desire to inflict pain on the establishment may explain the current situation.

 

Interestingly, there is now a poll that shows Trump beating Hillary.  Can he pick up enough independents and disaffected Democrats to make up for the conservatives and establishment Republicans that he will lose?

 

Trump is a mixed bag.  If he follows through with his plans on immigration, he may delay a descent into madness that is currently falling upon Europe.  As for other policies, I am doubtful.  He has admitted being a crony capitalist, is comfortable with a big and intrusive government, and spouts a foreign policy that Ron Paul could love (except for that bombing ISIS bit).  His Supreme Court picks are likely to be in the mushy middle, a serious problem with the power the court has accumulated.  His habit of attacking opponents on a personal level is troubling but it wouldn't be much different from the current president.

New Delegate Math

I have seen varying counts depending on which site I check but they are all pretty close.  Just for sake of discussion, let's go with this one.

Starting with the Republicans, Trump's commanding lead has become virtually insurmountable.  Baring a miracle, I don't see that Cruz can catch Trump, let alone surpass him.  With 749 delegates, Trump needs 498 more to secure the nomination outright.  That means that he needs 59% of the remaining 848.  That's a tall order.  However, he is almost certainly going to take California and New York, which is half of what he needs.  If he can pull of 42% of the rest, he wins.  I give him excellent odds of doing that and cancelling the idea of a contested convention.  Cruz has 465 delegates and needs another 772.  That's 91% of the remaining, which isn't possible as there are proportional states still to go.  He cannot win the nomination except through a contested convention.  Lastly, there is Kasich with 143 delegates.  There are not enough delegates left for even a miracle.  If he wins another state, I will be surprised.  Kasich can only hope to deny enough delegates to Trump to force the contested convention.  Even if that happens, why would someone who proved so lackluster through the campaign be selected as the nominee?  Consider also, under a winner-take-all system, Trump would have 22 states worth 1012 delegates to Cruz's 10 states and 429 delegates.  Cruz would be viewed as desperate and Kasich (1 state, 66 delegates) as a crackpot.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary has a lead even more commanding that Trump has among the Republicans.  With 1690 delegates, she needs only 692 (31%) of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination.  By contrast, Bernie needs 1436 (64%) to capture the nomination.  Yes, there is something funky about math.  Both can win.  Let me check the NY Times again.  Clinton has 1690: check.  Bernie has 946: check.  Democratic delegates remaining is 2245.  Add those three numbers together and we get 4881 delegates, 118 more than the 4763 available.  Well, that will teach me to trust the NY Times.  In any case, Hillary can be absolutely crushed by nearly a two to one margin for the rest of the primaries and still win.  At this point, even if she is indicted, she will win the nomination.

 

A Trump v. Clinton election is a virtual certainty.  Trump has a surprising amount of cross-over appeal but is anathema to much of the conservative base of the Republican Party.  Will he be able to attract enough Independents and disaffected Democrats to make up the gap?  Hillary owes her political career to her husband's charm and political skills.  Can that and the loyalty of the Democratic base push her to victory?  I cannot think of two more flawed candidates in my life time.  Would you like bad or bad?  Disaster or catastrophe?

Kasich the Spoiler

So far, 1404 delegates have been allocated in the Republican primaries.  With his narrow victory in the state where he is currently serving as governor, John Kasich has collected 143 delegates, which puts him 1,094 away from clinching the nomination.  There are 1,068 delegates that haven't been allocated.  Hmmm.  Let's suppose that Rubio will support Kasich and ask his delegates to vote for him.  In that event, he could count on 312 delegates and only require 925, which is 87% of the remaining delegates.  This is obviously not going to happen.  Just look at how he did in every other race held yesterday.  No chance.  At this moment, Rubio still has more delegates than Kasich and has won 3 primaries to Kasich's 1 and he has suspended his campaign.

 

As it is, Trump needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to capture the nomination outright.  Entirely doable, especially with some winner-take-all states like New Jersey (51), Arizona (56), Pennsylvania (71), and especially California (172) still to come.  Ted Cruz's path has become much tougher.  With Kasich still in the running, the anti-Trump vote will remain split.  Cruz needs 77% of the remaining delegates, which is nigh impossible now.  The most likely outcomes are a Trump victory or a contested convention.  It is possible that the absence of Rubio will boost either Cruz or Kasich to win close contests with Trump.

 

If no one has the 1237 delegates for the win, Kasich might be able to do some bargaining with either Trump or Cruz.  Perhaps even Rubio could play a hand since he has enough delegates that may make a difference.  It is a path fraught with peril.  Trump has already won 21 contests, more than double Cruz (9); Rubio (3) and Kasich (1) are historical footnotes.  Unless things turn dramatically in Cruz's favor tomorrow, Trump will have the plurality of delegates and be closest of anyone to 1237.  To choose another candidate is to risk a Trump walkout and guarantee his voters go with him.  If the Republican Party didn't want Trump, it should have coalesced around an anti-Trump candidate weeks ago.  Of course, the person who had the best shot, Cruz, is detested by the establishment.

 

A contested convention that doesn't end with Trump as the nominee will likely bring about the most impressive third party run since Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party in 1912; this was the only election in which a third party captured more electoral votes than one of the traditional parties.  There is a righteously indignant electorate and such a move could permanently crash the party.

Republican Delegate Mathematics

Why are Rubio and Kasich still in the race?  Is there a possibility that either can win?  Let's look at the numbers:

32 States and Territories have not yet voted in the Republican Primary:



• 17 States and Territories are winner-take-all for a total of 901 delegates.
• 9 contests are proportional with 325 delegates.
• 6 are oddballs with actual delegates elected based on how they say they will vote but not necessarily bound by that.  This pool has 167 delegates which might be considered analogous to Democrat super delegates.

Rubio has 151 delegates, 1,086 shy of what he needs to win the nomination.  If he swept the winner-take-all states, he would still be 185 short.  He would need to secure 38% of the proportional and oddball delegates to win the nomination.  Thus far, he has only secured 15% of such delegates.  There is no chance that he can win the nomination by winning delegates, he will not be selected the nominee in a brokered convention, and he will cripple future prospects if he loses Florida next week.  There is no upside.  The only reason to stay is to force that brokered convention in which case he is announcing his status as a pawn to the establishment in an anti-establishment year.  A pawn to the establishment that he ran against to secure his seat in the Senate.

 

Kasich is event further back than Rubio but at least he got some delegates on Tuesday with a good showing in Michigan.  Still, with only 54 delegates, he needs 1,183 more to secure the nomination.  If he wins all the winner-take-all states, he will be 282 short.  That would require 57% of all the proportional and oddball delegates.  So far, he has only captured 5% of the delegates.  There is talk that he is hoping to secure the Vice Presidency.  If he wins in Ohio - a very valuable state in the general election - he will have a stronger hand.  If he loses, he's out.

 

Cruz has 359 delegates, 878 short of the magic 1237.  He needs to get 61% of the remaining delegates to win the nomination.  Not possible as long as the Rubio and Kasich are in the mix.  It will become nigh impossible depending on the results of next week.  His best hope is that Rubio and Kasich suspend their campaigns and the anti-Trump vote goes to him.  If Trump really does have a ceiling of support in the high 30s to low 40s, the math could turn around very quickly.

 

Trump has 458 delegates, 779 away from the nomination.  He needs 54% of the remaining delegates.  If the field remains as crowded as it is, he should win pluralities in a lot of the winner-take-all states.  Had the races to date been winner-take-all, Trump would have almost 200 additional delegates.  By far, he has the best odds of securing the nomination and avoiding a brokered convention.

 

Kasich has no elective future after his current stint as governor and thus has no reason to leave the campaign.  Rubio can only damage future prospects for elective office by remaining and would be wise to bow out and throw his support to whichever of the frontrunners he prefers.  Cruz will be mathematically eliminated before Trump.  Will he bow out at that point or also push for a brokered convention?  I'll blog on that if it comes to pass.

Marco Poll Low

As of this writing, Marco Rubio has managed to finish a very weak 4th in the two biggest races of the day.  Compared with the support he was getting just last week, his campaign has collapsed.  The successor to JEB is proving to have about the same traction.  A one time darling of the Tea Party, Marco beat the establishment candidate for Senate then went to Washington to join the establishment.  That may be a bit harsh but it is how a lot of the base feels.  In a year when immigration is the hot button issue, a pro-amnesty candidate who sided with the other party against his base is going nowhere.  At least, not in the Republican party.  Rubio may get some delegates tonight in Idaho or Hawaii but he will be much further behind both Trump and Cruz.  Heck, Kasich will have gained ground on him.  The only reason to stay in the race is to force a brokered convention.  Every delegate he gets will give him more sway in that event.  However, if he loses Florida, which is looking likely, he will damage himself for future efforts.  Cruz won his home state and, if he falls short this year, can try again, but if Rubio loses Florida, his prospects will dim considerably.  If he bows out in the next day or two, he can remain viable for a future run.  I suspect he will stay until he loses Florida, then he will have to bow out.

Media is saving Bombshells for the General Election?

In this article, Ted Cruz suggests that the media has numerous bombshell stories to drop on Trump should he be the nominee.  That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  But is it?  If there are bombshells out there, why hasn't every Republican opposition research team dug it up and used it?  Or what about the conservative media that is hugely opposed to Trump?  Ben Shapiro blasted Trump pretty hard in a recent video which seems to have done nothing.  Romney - the man who lost the most winnable election against a Democratic incumbent since Reagan beat Carter - launched a massive attack and Trump replied with little more than a shrug.  After all, Romney's a loser.  Trump is an admitted adulterer, has acknowledged bankruptcies, admitted influencing government officials because that is how the game is played, and more.  He is still in the lead.  I'm doubtful there are worse failings to be uncovered.  Sure, the media will press hard on all these issues but Trump isn't the typical Republican who will wilt.  Also, Hillary has an equally huge number of bombshells, many of them relating to her performance as a public servant.  Unlike Romney vs. Obama, where Romney didn't hammer on Obama's record of failure, I'm pretty sure Trump is going to tear into Hillary in exactly the way Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, JEB, or any other Republican wouldn't.  Trump fights and he doesn't give a crap what the media thinks.  Yes, his attacks are often unfair and inaccurate; Cruz of all people should know that.  However, they stick.  I've talked to people who distrust Cruz because of what Trump said about him.  Look what happened to JEB after Trump called him 'low energy.'  I don't begrudge Ted his effort to use potential media bombshells to turn the electorate toward him but I also don't think Trump is an easy mark for Hillary.  This is an anti-establishment year and Hillary is the most establishment candidate still in the race.

Super Tuesday and Super Saturday

Two big election days have come in the last week and have mostly improved the standings of Trump and Hillary.

On the Republican side of things, Trump has now won a dozen states and has 382 delegates, 31% of the total needed for the nomination.  However, 35% of the delegates have been allocated.  Trump is behind where he needs to be to win the nomination outright.  He will need to win 53% of the remaining delegates to avoid a convention fight.  Cruz has won 6 states and 300 delegates, 24% of the delegates for the nomination.  He will need 58% of the remaining delegate.  Rubio only has 128 delegates and will need to run the table, winning 68% of the remaining delegates.  Kasich has won no states and has 35 delegates.  His presence can only make a convention fight more likely.  This may sound dire but part of the issue is that so many of these early states have offered proportional delegates (South Carolina being the only exception so far).  18 of the remaining states - constituting 901 delegates - are winner take all.  If the states to this point had been winner take all, Trump would have 526 delegates, Cruz 319, Rubio 38, and everyone else 0.  With that in mind, if Trump continues to win states by at his current rate, he will be the undisputed nominee.  There is a codicil: Cruz performs better in closed - Republican voters only - contests.  When Independents and Democrats don't vote, Cruz has won 5 of 8 contests.  Like the proportional contests, open contests are mostly front-loaded.  If he continues to win 63% of closed contests, he would get 640 additonal delegates.  That would still leave him 300 delegates short so he would need to perform quite well with the remaining contests that have 570 delegates.  As for Rubio, his only hope is to be chosen on a second ballot at a contested convention.  He can no longer accumulate enough delegates.  In short, Trump or Cruz are the likely nominee, Trump being more likely.

 

On the Democrat side, Hillary is leading.  She has won 11 states and 1121 delegates, giving her 47% of the delegates needed to win the nomination.  Bernie has won 8 states and 478 delegates, 20% of what he needs.  Unless he starts winning more often and by larger margins (or Hillary is indicted), he isn't going to win.  Much of the cause for Hillary's tremendous lead despite a relatively equal number of states won is super delegates.  Hillary has 458 to Bernie's 22, a huge margin.  However, even if the super delegates are factored out, she still leads in the delegate chase by 651 to 456.  If that pattern holds, Hillary will be the nominee.

 

The most likely result is still a Trump-Clinton contest in November though it is marginally possible that Cruz overcomes Trump's lead to become the nominee.

South Carolina and Nevada

Trump (32.4%) has another victory and all the Palmetto State delegates too.  Jeb! (7.9%) has finally admitted what has been obvious for months and suspended his campaign.  Where will his sliver of voters go now?  I doubt they will go to Trump, as Trump has been particularly abrasive toward Jeb.  It is pretty clear that it is a three way race with only Trump, Rubio (22.4%), and Cruz (22.3%) having enough support to reasonably stay in the race.  Kasich (7.6%) had over a hundred town hall meetings in New Hampshire to achieve a distant second; Santorum used the same strategy to win Iowa in 2012 but it gained him little traction thereafter.  Kasich and Carson (7.2%) will be the next two to suspend their campaigns, perhaps after Nevada but pretty certainly after Super Tuesday.  Trump will be best served if both Cruz and Rubio are still in the race after Super Tuesday so that the anti-Trump wing of the party can't coalesce around one of those two.  It is also possible that as the last 'establishment' candidate, Trump and Cruz will serve to split the anti-establishment vote and give Rubio his path to victory.  Interesting days ahead.

 

Meanwhile, Nevada chose Hillary (52.7%) over Bernie (47.2%), thus providing Hillary her first solid victory from the voters.  It could hardly be more appropriate that the land of gambling and prostitution chose Bill Clinton's wife rather than America's anti-capitalist scold.  Hillary is likely to win South Carolina as well.  Despite her apparent unpopularity, she has the Clinton network to manage her ground game.  Young voters prefer Bernie - much as they preferred Obama in 2008 - but turn out has been down among Democrats this year.  That's bad news for Bernie.  Low turnout tends to benefit the establishment.  Nevada participation was down by a third from 2008, showing the voters are less interested in the Clinton - Sanders race than they were in the Clinton - Obama race.

 

On the issue of turnout, the Republicans have had tremendous participation so far.  If the relative voter enthusiasm holds to the general election, this could be a Republican landslide.  As I said in an earlier post, the presidency almost always switches parties after a two term presidency.  Lacking a roaring economy only makes it more likely to flip.

New Hampshire Primary

A bit late on this but here's what I've got.  First, big money isn't what it used to be.  Here are a few charts that shows how much the candidates spent and how that broke down per vote.  In theory, if money is what makes you win, the dollars per voter figure should be roughly equivalent.  Therefore, if Candidate A spends $10,000 and Candidate B spends $20,000, Candidate B should get twice as many votes.  At least, that is what the 'money in politics' people will tell you.  But this didn't work out in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nearly $100 million was spent on Jeb's campaign, dwarfing his nearest competitor by a factor of 2.  And yet, in Iowa he came in 6th with less than 3% of the vote.  He did better in New Hampshire, achieving 4th place with 11% of the vote.  Again, according the money in politics people, Jeb should have won but he is barely registering.  He spent $2600 per vote.

By contrast, Ted Cruz won Iowa with 27.6% of the vote and, despite spending less than half a million dollars in New Hampshire, achieved 3rd place with 11.7% of the vote.  He has spent $472 per vote.

But here is the big one.  Trump, who is almost exclusively self-financed, was 2nd in Iowa and 1st in New Hampshire for a mere $87 a vote.

If big money was the secret to winning the nomination, the top three Republicans should have been Jeb, Carson, and Rubio.  That is not to say that money has no role, it clearly does.  However, lots of money behind no message vs. little money behind a popular message, the message is winning rather than the money.  At least, that is how it works on the Republican side.

Among the Democrats, we have something that looks undemocratic.  Iowa was a virtual tie, with Hillary getting 0.2% more votes than Bernie.  In New Hampshire, it was a rout.  Bernie got a shade over 60% of the vote to Hillary's 38%.  Between the tie and the slaughter, Hillary has a commanding lead in delegates, 394 to Bernie's 44.  How can that be?  The Democrats have super delegates, party members who can pledge for whichever candidate they like, regardless of voting.  As it happens, though the voting delegates of New Hampshire (24) were split between Bernie (15) and Hillary (9) based on the vote totals, the 8 super delegates were spit among Hillary (6) and Unpledged (2).  That means the 22 point landslide in Bernie's favor found him getting 15 delegates to Hillary's 15.  Sure does look like the party bosses have decided on the nominee before the rank and file voters even have a say.  That's why it's call the Democratic Party.

 

Historically, this should be a Republican year to win.  In the last 60 years, only once has the party not changed after two terms: George Bush in 1988.  Reagan was sufficiently popular even after 8 years of ups and downs to convince the voters not to switch parties.  I don't think Obama will have that same effect.

Iowa Caucus Results

Ted Cruz has pulled out a victory but that is a mixed blessing.  Only one Republican who won the Iowa Caucus - excepting those who were unopposed - went on to win the Presidency.

George Bush won it in 1980 but Reagan became the nominee

Reagan wasn't opposed in 1984

Bob Dole won it in 1988 but George Bush became the nominee

Bush was unopposed in 1992.

Dole won in 1996 and then went on to lose to the incumbent, President Clinton

George W. Bush won in 2000 and went all the way.  There's your path, Ted!  It is an ugly path that did not end well.

George W. Bush was unopposed in 2004.

Mike Huckabee won it in 2008 but McCain became the nominee.

Rick Santorum won in 2012 but Romney got the nomination.

Trump and Rubio are still sorting out 2nd and 3rd place.

Among the Democrats, Hillary currently has a slight lead.  However, the Democrat winner of the Iowa Caucus has always been the eventual nominee since 1996.  And it didn't really count in 1992 because Tom Harkin, an Iowa Senator, was running and demolished everyone.  If Hillary can hold on to her lead, history is on her side for being the Democratic candidate.

 

Already, Huckabee (R) and O'Malley (D) are suspending their campaigns.  Now that the voters have spoken, the culling will being in earnest.  Huckabee pulled better numbers than Christie and Santorum.  Christie has some hope of improvement in New Hampshire but Santorum needs to call it quits.  Beyond the top three Republicans, Carson and Paul showed best.  Kasich is polling well in New Hampshire and may reboot there.  I don't know what Jeb's plan is; I can hardly wait to hear him spin this into a positive.

A Record of Failure

A thumbnail sketch of the Republican Party - as it is cartoonishly portrayed - would be that of a stingy banker who wants low taxes.  The Republican doesn't want to fund a welfare state because he is mean.  The Republican is greedy, which is why he wants low taxes.  The Republican is a warmonger because he wants to invade other countries and steal their stuff.  This is a caricature that fails to plumb the depths of these policies but that is a discussion for another time.  Let us assume that this is indeed what the Republican voter wants.  Is he getting it?

Are taxes going down as a result of massive victories for Republicans in both the House and the Senate?  No.  They are going up as Obamacare is implemented.  Is the welfare state shrinking to satisfy the sadistic nature of these heartless voters?  No.  The welfare state has seen massive and continuing growth, from food stamps to healthcare to housing.  We are importing people so as to put them on welfare.  Is the military getting bigger and invading poor third world countries?  No, it is shrinking and being mostly withdrawn.  In short, Republican voters have not seen any of the heartless and mean-spirited policies that they support enacted.

All those experienced, establishment Republicans who promised the moon before the elections have delivered squat.  Why are they surprised that an outsider like Trump is getting traction?  They have no one but themselves to blame.  Even if Trump does eventually fumble - which is looking less and less likely - the next most popular candidate is Ted Cruz.  The party hates Cruz.  George Will has accused Cruz of not being a team player.  He meant that as a criticism but it translates as a compliment outside DC.  The senator who wants to throw away the playbook that has resulted in loss after loss after loss is the problem?

 

The Republican Party has done such a wonderful job on the national level that a Republican governor has suggested an Article V convention of the states to propose amendments to the Constitution.  The last time the states got together in such a fashion, they dumped the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution.  This is fraught with peril.  Such extreme measures are suggested because the government is running amok.  The debt has exceeded GDP for the first time since World War II, courts have imposed cultural changes that the people had voted down, the president is enforcing laws that Congress declined to pass and not enforcing laws that the Congress did pass, immigrants are flooding into the country and then using the welfare services at a higher rate than the native population (we are bringing in indigents who will only cost, not benefit), and the Republican shrug.

 

The party needs to be refocused by new leadership or replaced in much the same way that it replaced the Whigs.

Jindal's Misconception

Governor Jindal of Louisiana has challenged Senator Cruz of Texas to a debate on Obamacare.  Politically, this is a shrewd move.  Cruz (10.5%) polls much higher than Jindal (0.7%) and Cruz has also declared that he is willing to do as many debates as possible.  However, his choice of debate topics is risky.

“You get Ted Cruz who wants to shut down the government, but he’s never even come up with his own plan,” Jindal said. “We’ve written our own plan and campaigned on it, rather than just complaining about Obamacare.”

I have not read Jindal's alternative to Obamacare but, whatever it may be, it will remain an overstep of Constitutional authority.  The federal government has no place in healthcare.  There is no amendment, no clause, no delegated power on the subject.  As such, the Tenth Amendment returns it to the states or the people; the federal government should be silent on the issue.  States are another matter.  If Bobby Jindal wanted to develop a healthcare law for Louisiana, that's fine by me.  Oregon and Massachusetts both had healthcare laws prior to Obamacare.  Medicare and Medicaid remain intact.  This is likely the argument that Cruz will offer.  Replacing one unconstitutional law with another - even if it is better and less mandatory - would still be wrong.  Healthcare should return to the states, counties, cities, or even individuals to decide.  How is Jindal going to reply to that?

 

Trust in government is at a low ebb and proposing a new government program, even to replace an unpopular one, is the wrong path to take this election season.  The voters don't want the NSA to listen to them a little less, they want the NSA to not listen at all.  If you simply repeal Obamacare, all returns to what it was beforehand, which was much less expensive than now.  The pendulum is swinging back from big intrusive government toward smaller, hands-off government, most especially among Republican primary voters.

 

I like Bobby Jindal but I don't think this will improve his standing.  Unless some of the higher tier candidates crash and burn, Jindal isn't going anywhere this time around.