How to Win in 2016

Opinion

The present presidential race is unprecedented. In no other time since our country’s founding have the stakes been so high. Our core values and our very survival hang in the balance. Winning in 2016 by definition means putting a principled, conservative, honest, trustworthy, intelligent, Christian problem-solver in the Oval Office in 2017 – a man who will mean it when he places his hand on the Bible and pledges to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Of the current slate, which candidate best meets the winning criteria and at the same time has a viable path to the White House? And given that, what is the path and how can it reasonably happen? Arriving at an answer might involve compromises. Picking the candidate who best meets the winning criteria might mean picking a candidate who is not electable.

I think it obvious, but should be stated for clarity, that another Democrat in the White House is not the winning solution. The Democratic nominee will most certainly fail to meet the “conservative” attribute, which is a deal breaker. The country literally cannot stand another liberal justice on the Supreme Court. So we must look for a president from the Republican side.

Analysis

At this very moment in the campaign, which is post-Super Tuesday, it looks like Donald Trump could run the tables. With 100% of the votes counted and with 91% of the Super Tuesday delegates allocated, Trump has a to-date total of 43% of the delegates, Cruz 31%, Rubio 15%, and Kasich and Carson 3% each. Rubio is at significant risk of losing his home state of Florida to Trump, currently trailing by 19 points in the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average. Florida is winner-take-all. 

Trump is about as far removed from having the winning criteria above as Satan is from our Lord. In fact, the only winning attribute that he might have would be “problem-solver”, but without the benefit of the “principled, conservative, honest, trustworthy” attributes. As for his faith, that is between him and our Creator. So why is he so popular? The short answer is that he isn’t. He has high negatives. Roughly 57% of the primary Republican popular vote has been against him. In today’s RCP averages looking at head-to-head contests between the Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton, Trump would lose by the most at minus 3.0. Trump is not the winning solution. 

The problem with defeating Trump is that the votes of those who oppose him are spread across four other candidates. It is speculation on my part that this problem could be changed by a consolidation, anti-Trump candidate. It could be that much of the support for other candidates would go to Trump. But my speculation is not without basis. Analyzing the numbers, from this point forward and based on a projection spreadsheet I created, if the remaining primary were Trump head-to-head with one consolidation candidate, Trump would have to win more than 54% of the remaining delegates. That is 11 points better than he has done on average to date. Stated another way, this means that approximately 31% of delegates that would have otherwise gone to the Trump opposition that steps aside would have to switch to Trump. I have missed every prediction I have made about Trump in this election. This one is “too close to call” based on the numerical analysis. But also supporting my assumption is a belief that the common denominator of all Trump voters is anger at the establishment. Subjectively, I don’t see too much anger in the Carson and Kasich supporters, and thus I would not expect many of their supporters to switch to Trump. Rubio and Cruz have some angry supporters. So, right or wrong, the assumption is that the best path to winning is narrowing the anti-Trump field to one consolidation candidate who can defeat Trump and who can also defeat Clinton.

Solution rollout

The first step in this process of elimination should be to examine who can win in November against the Democrats. Again looking at Real Clear Politics averages for head-to-head contests between the Republican candidates and Hillary Clinton, Kasich would win by 7.4 points, Rubio by 5.0 and Cruz by 1.5. Carson would lose by 1.3. So we must also eliminate Carson from the solution space. Kasich, Rubio and Cruz advance.

Currently, John Kasich has 22 delegates out of the 728 delegates won. Kasich would have to win 70% of the remaining delegates in order to win the nomination. This will not happen, even if he wins Ohio. Exit Kasich. This leaves Rubio and Cruz. 

Rubio is a well-qualified candidate. Of my attributes for a winning candidate, the only one he has disappointed on is “trustworthy”. Concerning the immigration issue, what he promised voters and what he actually did in the Senate is well-documented. He promised that he would not support “blanket amnesty”, but the bill he helped write would have granted legalization and even eventual citizenship to qualifying illegal aliens. He continues to justify his position by arguing that the 13-year pathway to legal status and eventually citizenship was not “amnesty. “ That is an arguable point. We all make mistakes. He has many positive attributes which will make him a good, if not a great, president.  In 2011 he gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor debating increasing the debt ceiling.  I wrote this about him after watching that speech: “He is brilliant, passionate, a gifted speaker and a breath of fresh air in Washington. I hope Marco Rubio is President Rubio soon - the sooner the better.” 

Ted Cruz is also a well-qualified candidate. I voted for him last week. I have been with him from the beginning and he is the only candidate I have supported financially. He has all the attributes I listed above. I genuinely believe that he would be the best president for our country given the problems we face, and that is why I voted for him. But he has detractors. Charles Hurt on FNC Special Report used a word to describe Ted which I think best summarizes the negative impressions people have about Ted, and that word is “flinty.” Flint is the go-to material for solving hard problems like making fire and holding a sharp edge for cutting tools and it is always there when you need it. But it is not the warm, soft, cuddly fleece material one wants to sleep with. After Super Tuesday (again with 91% of the Super Tuesday delegates allocated), Cruz has 225 delegates to Rubio’s 107. I don’t expect this to change significantly when all the states complete delegate assignments.

The scenario then becomes that every Republican candidate except Trump and one other, by hook or crook, drops out of the race and throws their wholehearted support behind either Marco or Ted. The anointed one defeats Trump and then defeats Clinton. 

Now to the hard part – how can this scenario be made to happen? It will require a supernatural amount of leadership to convince three of the four to drop out. The primary responsibility to do the convincing I believe falls to Rubio and Cruz. It is fitting that the first leadership challenge on the nominee’s way to the White House would be such a monumentally challenging one. As a first step, two honorable men (Cruz and Rubio) should sequester themselves in a room and not leave until they decide who will advance and who will step aside. Both cannot be president, and if one doesn’t step aside, neither likely will. The analogy is two men adrift in a rapidly-deflating life boat with one floatation vest. The campaign will not survive their continued splitting of the anti-Trump vote another week. They must set aside their most assuredly strong ambitions, the huge adrenalin surges that the campaign has caused, promises made to investors, weeks of visions of sitting behind the big desk, and a fair bit of denial of reality. Overcoming all the reasons to stay the course will require the proverbial “brick to the head.” They must put love of country first. To do this will require extreme strength of character and impressive leadership on both parts. There is no way to overstate the challenge.

But neither would leave empty handed. Rubio could promise Cruz Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. This would be a life-tenure job rather than a 4-8-year one and more fitting to his qualifications. He would be a protector of liberty for decades. Cruz could promise Rubio a powerful cabinet head, perhaps Secretary of Defense or State.

The next step is to convince Kasich and Carson to step aside. They must convene two three-way meetings – Rubio, Cruz and Kasich and Rubio, Cruz and Carson. The one who has already agreed to step aside makes the pitch for the good of the country, pointing out that his sacrifice is proof of his sincerity. He must find out why each is still in the race, so that proposed solutions can ameliorate their needs. The one advancing then begins the negotiation. He must find out what the other, Carson or Kasich, need in return for their stepping aside and make the necessary promises. Kasich might be offered the VP slot. This would moderate the ticket and draw on Kasich’s experience and his Midwest connections. I would ask Carson which important position he would like and then offer it – perhaps Surgeon General. Carson and Kasich have no chance of winning, and they know it. The meetings with Kasich and Carson should be easy compared with the first meeting. 

Notwithstanding my foregoing assertions, there is also a distinct possibility that Trump could be eliminated in a contested convention, assuming he arrives in Cleveland without the necessary 1237 delegates. I’d rather not take that chance.

If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, this will be a sure sign that God has turned his face from our country, in disgust. May God have mercy on our wayward country a little longer.

Please excuse me – I have to go call Ted and Marco.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer – anti-Nazi dissident 

(4 February 1906 – 9 April 1945)