Posted on 01/01/2016 7:13:20 AM PST by RKBA Democrat
During the last half of 2015, a specter haunted the Republican "invisible primary" for the 2016 presidential nomination: an independent run for president by Donald Trump that would split the GOP base and send a Democrat gliding into the White House.
As he consolidated a position in the polls as the GOP front-runner, Trump was maneuvered into signing a party loyalty pledge (required to get onto the ballot in South Carolina), and then ruled out an indie run at and after a December candidate debate. With a guy like Trump, an abandonment of this doubled-down oath is always possible, especially if an Establishment cabal emerges to anoint, say, Marco Rubio as the designated Trump-killer. But he's sure poured a lot of gratuitous cold water on the idea of late.
Instead, as the year ends, there's suddenly buzz about a very different indie presidential run: one by former Democratic senator (and, briefly, 2016 presidential candidate) Jim Webb. The possibility makes some intuitive sense. Webb definitely seems to have the psychological profile of a cranky spoiler who can find fault with both parties, and even claim (as a former Reagan cabinet member and then Democratic senator) to represent both parties' best impulses. The talk from Team Webb seems to regard Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign as a model, which means its goal would be attention and leverage, not some remote chance of victory. Ballot access has gotten easier since 2000. And depending on what happens in the 2016 primaries, there could be a pool of disgruntled partisans that, in combination with disgruntled independents, could in theory lift a third option like Webb from nuisance to threat.
currently expected dispatching Bernie Sanders and has to rely on extra help from the DNC and other party elites in doing so. And let's say Donald Trump's support doesn't just melt away, but that instead his candidacy is defeated by a vicious and massively financed negative ad campaign from a pan-GOP coalition. You could at least imagine a Webb candidacy focused on HRC's support for military interventions and past alliances with Wall Street tapping some former Sanders and Trump voters. And if either Sanders or Trump actually wins his party's nomination, any pre-positioned indie candidate could suddenly inherit a lot of support.
Now, either scenario for a Webb boomlet has a lot of logical gaps. Democratic voters show every sign of uniting behind either Clinton or Sanders. For all his self-projection as a tribune of downscale white folks (especially the Scots-Irish Appalachian people), Webb's appeal to Trump's white working-class following is entirely theoretical. Yes, he's been warier of comprehensive immigration reform than most Democrats, but it's hard to imagine him embracing Trump's deport-'em-all stance or his Islamophobia. And talk aside, Jim Webb has run exactly one political race in his life, and in narrowly winning a Senate seat in Virginia in 2006, he didn't do any better among white mountain folk than urban civil-rights lawyer Tim Kaine a year earlier — which is to say not well at all. His stubborn Confederate nostalgia has probably cost him what little chance he had to appeal to African-Americans. And given his hostility to free-trade agreements and his lack of passion for deficit reduction, Webb's an unlikely champion for the elite "centrists" of the Simpson-Bowles variety, or for the small if legendary cadre of true independents in the electorate.
What makes a possible Webb indie run (or even a sustained threat of one) relevant is the fear it strikes in the hearts of Democrats who remember 2000 and Nader's role in taking enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to make it possible for George W. Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court to pull off a bit of a coup. Even if he is a nonentity nationally, Webb presumably retains enough juice in Virginia to tilt that battleground state in a very close two-party race. But while some Democrats to this day believe in retrospect that Gore could have won by tilting a bit "left" and robbing Nader of a rationale for candidacy, it's not clear at all what a Democratic nominee could do to deal with a Webb indie candidacy other than to ignore it. Emulating his eccentric positioning — to the "left," in conventional terms, on foreign policy, and to the "right" on issues like affirmative action — just isn't in the cards for Hillary Clinton, who seems to have decided some time ago to cozy up to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on domestic matters while depicting herself as "tougher" and more intervention-minded than Barack Obama on foreign policy. And beyond that, there's always the chance Webb would eventually pull more votes from Republicans disgruntled for one reason or another with their party's nominee.
In any event, Webb, always a diffident vote-chaser, will likely give an indie race a pass. But the year-end discussion he's spurred is a reminder that there's no guarantee at all that the political convulsions of 2015 will give way to a placid and predictable 2016.
Webb would attract Trump votes.
To clarify, Webb would attract many Trump voters.
Damn, I’m supporting you for President!
Lol. It’s interesting that you think that if you vote, you have to vote whey segment of the ballot. Whatever.
Ronald Reagan extolled Democrat principles until he converted.
If he thought those were Republican principles to value, he would have been a Republican. Unless, that is, you believe Reagan to be a liar or a dumb@ss.
Thanks, I plan to do just this very thing. And I have great expectations of a landslide victory.
What a whiner. Go away.
“Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate. Pure and simple. You want Hillary and a Democrat Senate? Nominate Trump.”
Pretty much my feeling, backed by most polls.
The media has laid off from attacking Trump, so far.
They are keeping it calm and quiet, watching and waiting. If he gets the nomination, boom out come boatloads.
Everything Trump has said, who it was about, will be back in play.
Since all POWs by definition, “got caught” Trump will have to explain that one—all over again.
While McCain was in POW prison, Trump was sitting out the war, instead getting a “small loan of one million” from his father.
And so forth. Just because things were dealt with for GOP primary purposes, don’t for a second doubt they will come up again.
McCain is an elitist open borders scumbag. BTW.... TRump doesn’t fear the media like the rest of gutless and cowardly GOPe candidates.
Just staying focused on Trump if you can, does it concern you the “got caught” phrase might be back, with efforts to discredit Trump’s lack of respect for all POWs since they too, “got caught?”
I content the media is allowing Mr. Trump to continue along his path, hoping he will be selected, and then release a fresh round of attacks.
As a veteran I found Trump’s disrespect to those who “got caught” quite offensive.
The idea that Trump has successfully fought through all the instances where he showed disrespect or offended groups, and therefore it is settled is sticking one’s head in the sand.
Those and likely other episodes will come back.
Reagan was a consistent conservative for at least 15 years before he ran for governor in California. He didn’t find his conservative principles a few months before running for office. His experience with Communist infiltration of the actors guild is what drove him to the right, back in the late 1940’s.
If Jim Webb is going to run as a populist he'd be unlikely to go up against Trump and do very well, since Trump has much populist appeal.
If Trump is the nominee, he smothers Webb and you'd be more likely to see a moderate Republican type try to make an independent or third-party run.
If, on the other hand, the GOP goes with a mainstream GOPe candidate there would be plenty of disaffected populist Trump voters for Webb to appeal to (assuming Trump doesn't run as an independent himself).
Oh hell no. No soft voters in this one. The polarization is complete, even before the primarieszzzz...
Trump IS Perot plus GOP base, for purposes of previous Presidential election measurement.
The rump indie in 2016 gets 2%, at best. In fact I'll be shocked if all outlier campaigns combined add up to 2% in the most-compelling 'take-a-stand' election since 1980.
Isn’t it too late for Webb? Somebody posted that he not much of an organization and little money. All that takes time.
As a veteran, I find McCains treason more offensive.
“As a veteran I found Trumps disrespect to those who got caught quite offensive.
As a veteran, I find McCains treason more offensive. “
So any POW is by definition not worthy to Trump. But you are cool with that, in order to express your dislike for McCain?
No criticism whatsoever of a rich draft dodger, who effectively disrespects POWs because they got caught?
If it's as bad as you say, then no candidate, including Jesus Christ Himself, would beat Hillary.
Therefore, I am still rolling the dice with Trump.
The dumbest thing you can do is “stay Home” and give up! The Country is at stake FGS!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.