Robert Campbell

Michael, What Mitch McConnell (or ... fill in the establishment Republican you most love to hate) says they ought to do isn't going to have any discernible influence on Wisconsin voters in November. Such admonitions might have some effect somewhere else. Each state has its own political dynamics. But if you think there is a Republican establishment machine in Wisconsin in 2016, you don't know the first thing about Wisconsin. You're in good company, I suppose; your candidate doesn't either. From Donald Trump is not part of the Republican Establishment (True) it does not follow that Anyone who opposes Donald Trump is part of the Republican Establishment (False). Robert

RCP shows 3 delegates for Trump now. I'm figuring he's carrying District 7, which pre-election analysis suggested would be the most likely to go for him. Robert

Some parts of Wisconsin are notoriously tardy in reporting vote totals. Robert

Michael, You imagine there's a Republican machine in Wisconsin. I suppose Donald Trump does, too. One of the things neither your candidate nor his supporters have gotten their heads around is that, for many in Wisconsin, Paul Ryan is a guy who has supported Scott Walker and other Republicans at the state level when they needed it. People from the rest of the country now see him solely as the handpicked successor to John Boehner, the architect of Congressional surrenders on spending, and so on. Then they project Ryan's Washington establishment connections back into the state. If there were a Republican machine in Wisconsin, run by and for the benefit of interests in Washington, DC, and it was what got Scott Walker elected, got him through a recall with a bigger margin than he'd first been elected by (he's the only governor to be subject to a recall who won the recall election), then got him reelected, you'd think that same machine could have arranged for Mitt Romney to carry Wisconsin against Barack Obama. It couldn't and it didn't. You'd think that machine could have propelled Tommy Thompson into the US Senate, over Tammy Baldwin. It couldn't. Somehow a critical subpopulation of Wisconsinites were a lot more enthusiastic about Walker than they were about Mittens, or about a guy like Thompson who should have stayed retired. If Donald Trump is the nominee, I don't know whether he'll be able to carry Wisconsin. We'll see how whether Trump meets current expectations in the New York primary, but I'm thinking he might actually have a better shot at beating Hillary Clinton in New York than in Wisconsin. What I do know is that, if he gets nominated and then loses in Wisconsin, it won't be because Karl Rove or Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell said "Better Hillary than Trump." Robert

Returns by Wisconsin congressional district are here: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2016/by_cd/WI_GOP_0405_VD.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS Robert

Michael, Cruz is up on Trump by 19.8%, with 42% of the vote counted. I think (as I noted in my Cruz Nuz post, a few minutes ago) that the exit poll results will be as interesting as the final delegate counts. Attempting to re-stomp Scott Walker wasn't just unethical behavior. It wasn't a winning strategy. Robert

Michael, If you can't see Donald Trump the politician (he's been a constant, inescapable presence since July of last year), you must be thinking that somehow Trump the politician is a different person from Donald Trump the producer. What has Donald Trump's nearly full-time activity been, these 9 months or more? He has been markedly exceeding any of his rivals in doing the worst things thet American politicians are prone to do. Surely all of his lying is not an expression of his producer values. Surely all of his vindictiveness is not an expression of his producer values. Surely his unending egocentrism is not an expression of his producer values. You can say that Trump supporters are still growing in number, and I can say they probably are not. Neither of us will really know till June 7, possibly not till well after that. What we know, on this particular day, April 5, is that Donald Trump has lost the Wisconsin primary to Ted Cruz, who is ahead of him by nearly 20% with 40% of the votes counted. We won't know, till returns come in from all over that state, whether Trump has merely lost to Cruz, or has had his ass handed to him. What we are definitely not seeing, in April in the state of Wisconsin, is growing support for Donald Trump. There is some interesting material in the early exit poll analyses for Republican primary voters. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/live-republican-primary-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=38164180 "nearly four in 10 GOP primary voters in Wisconsin say they'd [be] "scared" of what Trump would do in office if elected president — hitting nearly six in 10 among Cruz and Kasich supporters. Those are far greater than the levels of concern among Trump supporters we see about Cruz or Kasich (fewer than two in 10 Trump supporters are scared of a Kasich win, a quarter for Cruz)." "Many more people think Trump has run the most unfair campaign — more than half say so, vs. a quarter for Cruz and one in 10 for Kasich." (Bolding is mine.) I don't know whether ABC asked a question about the primary candidates' attitudes toward Scott Walker. If so, the results haven't been reported yet. (Unless all of the polling was designed by fools, some organization's exit polls did include such a question.) But the proposition that Trump ran an unfair campaign has to be related. It doesn't look as though re-stomping Scott Walker—misrepresenting his record as governor to voters in his own state, running him down with "perfect statistics" that many Republicans in Wisconsin must have realized Trump was pulling out of his rear end—was a winning strategy. Is the re-stomping of Scott Walker an expression of producer values? Robert

Adam, I agree, actually. Bobby Jindal's appeal is too narrow. Go Carly. Robert

Michael, Apparently Donald Trump the politician and Donald Trump the producer are not even like Mister Hyde and Doctor Jekyll. The two Donald Trumps are entirely different people. But most of us, in our unclued state, wrongly persist in confusing them. Cause otherwise, we'd have to note that Trump the politician trashed Ben Carson's life work as a neurosurgeon. Also claimed, if memory serves, that Carson is mentally unstable. Carson has entirely forgiven Trump, then, because Trump the producer has unwaveringly respected Carson the producer, and all that unpleasantness was merely the work of Trump the politician trashing Carson the politician. Forgive me for being skeptical. See, I'm pretty sure Donald J. Trump is all one person. It wouldn't be unusual, actually, if politics brought out the worst in a guy who otherwise had quite a few redeeming features. I've always thought Mitt Romney was both productive and a genuinely nice guy, outside of politics. Getting mixed up in politics made him a ditherer and a panderer, not to mention downright unconvincing to the average potential voter. So I don't see why getting mixed up in politics couldn't be bringing out the worst in Donald Trump: the vaunting, the boasting, the compulsive putdowns, the vindictiveness, the demands for humble servitude or else, the nonstop lying, the pulling of "perfect statistics" out of his rear end, the presumption that if elected President he'll be reigning as Emperor. Except, apparently, I've been mixing up the productive Donald Trump with some imposter. Was Donald J. Trump separated at birth from an evil identical twin? It would make for great show-biz, if nothing else. Robert

WSS, Interesting reading. Apparently every step of it will be done by executive action. Executive action under the USA Patriot Act (to block remittances). Executive action under who knows what, to impose or increase tariffs on Mexican goods, revoke visas, and raise visa fees. Move over, Barack Obama. There's a new Emperor in town. Robert

Bobby Jindal.

Michael, The faithful servant to Trump would be livid at the thought of Trump being deprived of the nomination through maneuvers at the convention. And overjoyed at the thought of Cruz being so deprived. Besides, Carson is Cruz's victim, no? Really, how hard is any this to understand? Robert

Adam, Your first line is capable of multiple interpretations. We'll move right along, though, won't we? Carly Florina would be a pretty good complement to Ted Cruz. She can rip Hillary Clinton all day and all night without being denounceable as sexist. See the Cruz Nuz thread for Nimrata's record as governor. She's been what Trump wants everyone to think Scott Walker has been—basically a nice person, and thoroughly ineffectual. Republicans' enthusiasm for Nikki Haley is inversely proportional to their distance from Columbia, South Carolina. If Cruz wants an Indian running mate, he should go with Piyush. Robert

Jonathan, Thank you. Robert

I see that Trump is now comparing Scott Walker to Nimrata Randhawa (aka Nikki Haley). Nikki Haley endorsed Marco Rubio. Trump came to South Carolina, and stomped. Scott Walker has endorsed Ted Cruz. Trump has come to Wisconsin, and will stomp. What's wrong with this comparison? Umm, though elected and reelected (Democrats can find only the hapless to run statewide), Nikki Haley barely enjoys the approval of a majority of Republicans in South Carolina. While, after being elected, winning a recall election, and being reelected, Scott Walker draws the approval of 70 to 80 percent of Republicans in his state. Under Scott Walker, the Wisconsin legislature has passed Act 10 (curbing the power of public employee unions), a right to work law, tax cuts, voter ID, and abolished the office of the State "Ethics" Board counsel (who helped to run the "John Doe" investigations for the benefit of the state's Democrats). Under Nikki Haley, the South Carolina legislature has passed voter ID, and taken down the Confederate flag that was flying on that 100-foot flagpole (only after Dylann Roof committed his massacre of black churchgoers). Oh, and all of the state income tax records were obtained by hackers. To be fair to Haley, she has the least position power of any governor in the country. South Carolina is effectively run by the leaders of the two houses of the state legislature. Nominally, both of those houses have large Republican majorities. In fact, legislators belong to the Good Ole Boy party. Formerly, most in the GOBP were Democrats. Largely the same bunch, then and now. To accomplish any more, a Republican governor would have to attack the legislature's various devices for incumbent protection, such as secret votes in committee and retroactive disqualifications of primary challengers, and recruit something like 150 Republicans to challenge every conceivable incumbent in the primaries. After two years of fighting the legislature, Mark Sanford saw what was in front of him, and gave up. Nikki Haley ran up the white flag before taking office. Robert PS. It's true that Nikki's Lieutenant Governor, Henry McMaster, has endorsed Donald Trump. (Governor and Lt. Gov. are not on a single ticket in SC elections, and they often end up being rivals.) A few years back, in Will Folks' rundown of political players in South Carolina, the space that would normally go to McMaster's portrait was occupied by a photo of a box of rocks. There is an endorsement Trump is better off not boasting about.

Michael, Stirring from his recent slumbers, Ben Carson is maybe beginning to chafe, just a little, at remaining someone's humble servant. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/275056-carson-dems-will-be-dancing-in-the-streets-if-nominee-isnt-trump-cruz Robert

Michael, As I thought. An apology after the election will mean nothing, and is meant to mean nothing. If Cruz lieth once, he shall be repaid one hundredfold. Of course, Donald Trump was making untrue statements on a regular basis, before Cruz allegedly stole Iowa from him. Trump was also employing Roger Stone, the dirty-trick specialist, before Cruz allegedly played that dirty trick on him. No matter. Cruz was going to lie, sooner or later, so the repaying just started early. Robert

Michael, As soon as Ted Cruz says, in public, in answer to a direct question, that he's been faithful to his wife, what do you post? Tell me, do you really care whether any of these stories are true? Or is it that so long as enough people believe them, the damage you so badly want to see done will be done? Robert

Michael, Whenever I click the button, I hear the latest robot voice. Perhaps the audio files are set so Trump supporters can't activate them Neahhhh, much more likely, it's a plug-in problem. Robert

Michael, If Donald Trump is merely the mouthpiece of his supporters... How come he doesn't contradict himself more often than he's already been doing? For his supporters surely do not think with one mind and surely do not all arrive at a single conclusion... How come you, in particular, don't you know what he is going to do regarding every matter big or small; say, ethanol mandates? For you are one of his supporters and surely he will give voice to precisely your concerns; surely what he will do is exactly what you want done... How come his supporters aren't, by the millions, as uniformly egotistical as he gives the appearance of being? For he is their mouthpiece, and their mouthpiece can't make a public statement about virtually anything, unless in the process he vaunts and he boasts and he calls every opponent a loser and he displays one or more marks of his superior status... Robert

Michael, What I see constantly in your defenses of Donald Trump and his methods is arguments of the following form: Donald Trump is not a neoconservative. (Obviously True) Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is a neoconservative. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not corrupt. (We'll Assume It's True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is corrupt. (Obviously False) Donald Trump is not Karl Rove (Obviously True). Therefore, anyone who is against Donald Trump is Karl Rove. (Huh?) Robert

Michael, If Trump has 1300 delegates before the convention, it will be awfully difficult to dispute that. Should it come to pass, I certainly wouldn't try to deny it. Are political campaigns 100% fact-free zones? Robert

Michael, We'll know what's happening tomorrow night, when the returns are in. Robert

Michael, Hmmm. So if Trump is able to leave no other Republican unstomped, and no media outlet that doesn't hate Republicans unpunished, everyone who presently votes for Democrats will admire his handiwork, every media outlet that favors Democrats will fall in love with him, all of them will flock to him, and Hillary won't get a single vote outside of DC. Meanwhile, I guess all of those who were previously stomped will either have learned to love their stomper—or they won't have recovered enough to be able to vote in November. 535 to 3 in the Electoral College. Unstoppable. Of course, if Trump is merely a vessel for the aspirations of those who vote for him, the program he puts into effect after being elected probably won't much resemble the one he presently is pretending to run on. Robert

Jonathan, That's mild—for Chris Matthews. (One might ask why Donald Trump won't allow Megyn Kelly to ask him questions, but he's OK with the likes of Chris Matthews.) But, look, both the anti-arbortion ("pro-life") and the pro-abortion ("pro-choice") positions have serious difficulties, in the forms into which they hardened in the early 1970s. If the anti-abortion advocates are correct, and all stages of prenatal development, starting from the moment of conception, are fully human from the rights standpoint, then, as you note, abortion is murder, the murder of an embryo or fetus, and it should in every case be penalized like the murder of a child or the murder of an adult. So, of course, the woman who gets an abortion is just as guilty of the murder as the doctor who performs it. Yet the pro-life crowd never endorses this proposition or campaigns on it. There are other propositions that the pro-life crowd tends to shrink from. Logically, if abortion is murder, there can't be an exception for rape, or for incest. The embryo or fetus has just as many rights in those cases as he or she would in any other. And even an exception for the life of the mother gets dicey. Why not set priorities the way some Catholic hospitals once did? Because he didn't care for the rape exception, Todd Akin made his stupid remark about conception supposedly being unlikely after rape, and ended his political career. Richard Mourdock ended his when he merely indulged in some theological speculation, about God's view of an embryo conceived as the result of rape. Now, to the pro-choice side. It has become dogma for the pro-choice that abortion is OK all the way till, I don't know, 10 seconds before labor begins. This pays no heed to the stage of development that the fetus has reached in the third trimester, or a premature baby's viability outside the womb. Worse yet, viability is partly a function of advances in medical technology. So, the anti-abortion crowd wants a ban on the abortion of any fetus past 20 weeks gestational age, or extremely heavy restrictions. Of course, this isn't all they want. The pro-choice crowd doesn't want to set a gestational age limit, and make it clear that this is it. The pro-choice crowd wants no gestational age limit at all—and wants to cover up any abuses, as we saw in the Kermit Gosnell case. Maybe it will get sorted out quicker than there will be peace in the Middle East... The point is that, illogical though their move may be, the anti-abortion crowd has long and largely learned to refrain from endorsing certain consequences of their position. If they call for pregnant women to be tried and punished for murder if they get an abortion, they forfeit their political support (much of which comes from women). If they don't allow exceptions for rape or incest, they lose most of it. (We might also mention that their position logically requires a right to life pre-implantation, yet Ron Paul memorably refused to push for a ban on RU-486.) The pro-choice crowd, meanwhile, keeps defending their own sclerotic position à l'outrance, and it is costing them support. I don't think that they would have to give up that much, but obviously they don't see it that way. So that, unfortunately, is where we are. As I noted previously, I very much doubt Donald Trump sees anything wrong with abortion now, or that he has ever seen anything wrong with it. He has merely proclaimed his sudden devotion to the pro-life cause because, unfortunately, that is among the terms of entry into Republican politics. (His recently proclaimed love of the 2nd Amendment, a term of entry that I think a lot more highly of, may not be any more sincere, but at least he knows how to make it sound convincing.) So when asked whether a woman who gets an abortion should be punished, Trump put his foot in it. In a way, truly, that a man as bigoted and stupid as Todd Akin would never have thought of doing. Robert