@Njordsier's banner p

Njordsier


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 06 12:36:04 UTC

				

User ID: 848

Njordsier


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 06 12:36:04 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 848

I'm gonna assume the two elections prior to 2016 that you're referring to are 2000 (where he ran in the Reform Party primary) and 2012, where he drummed up birtherism but declined to run.

The obvious explanation for why he didn't take off in 2000 was because he was running in the primary of a third party that included such disparate figures as Ralph Nader and David Duke, and which was falling apart with Jesse Ventura leaving. He could have won the primary but doing so wouldn't have gotten him anywhere in the general with the party hollowed out by infighting while the two mainstream parties fielded serious candidates.

And the obvious explanation for why he didn't take off in 2012 is that he chickened out after Osama Bin Laden was killed, crimping his plan of hammering Obama for being soft on terror and darkly insinuating that he's One Of Them. He maybe could have won the nomination in 2012 but he would have been competing with the rest of the parade of anyone-but-Romney caricatures who got a week each in the spotlight before the media and polls moved on to the next one.

The difference in the 2016 primary? There wasn't a consensus establishment pick for the nominee so the non-establishment candidates were on equal footing with the establishment ones, and Trump could outcompete the others on non-establishment bona fides, or more generally just staying in the spotlight and making the conversation about him all the time. And he could expect to face off against a general election opponent that he thought he could beat (though, notably, he didn't seem to think it was a sure thing).

Same thing on 2024, the establishment was split between DeSantis and Haley, but neither had the charisma to get grassroots support. But more importantly, Trump had successfully spent the last eight years reinforcing, through constant jousts with the media, that any criticism of him must be coming from the Bad Guys who are Out To Get You so any challenger in the primary couldn't possibly criticize him without inheriting the stink of the dreaded Enemy.

The trajectory of a political campaign depends on a lot of things that aren't necessarily in the control of the candidate. It matters who else is running and what else is happening in the world. Very talented figures who could do well in a general election can easily get passed over if they don't get their foot in the door with party insiders. And very counterproductive figures can be elevated to placate insider groups.

I have often fantasized (ever since 2004) about a Republican winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college and galvanizing support on the right for an EC reform amendment or more states signing into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but realistically I can't assume that Democrats would continue to be interested in such a reform after the EC turns out to benefit them, even if I can promise that I personally would.

Once Trump is gone, one way or another, there might be bipartisan interest in clarifying the scope of some executive privileges that he has laid claim to, but that all needs to be far enough in the rear view mirror, like FDR's four terms, for it to not get polarized.

The concept of contingent elections, where state delegations of House representatives choose the president in the case of no electoral college majority, will not last long after the next time one happens.

If a foreign adversary tries to take advantage of US weakness during a chaotic lame duck session, for example if Trump wins after a campaign promising to dismantle NATO and China thinks it's a good time to make a move on Taiwan while the US is distracted, we might get a new amendment like the 20th that shortens the lame duck period.

But I doubt you'd be able to pass anything more than boring no-brainer kind of amendments like the 27th. Maybe one that requires Officers of the US (maybe clarifying that to include the President) from trading stocks, but again, only after the immediate controversies with a partisan valence are well in the rear view mirror.

I would prefer the remedy to "the laws are bad" to be "change the laws to be good" rather than "don't enforce the laws".