Krugman: "Trump would be a very weak general election candidate — the conditions that have let him

[pampango]

flourish in the GOP are really unique to that party. So I think that progressives should be cheering Trump on (which is why my secret committee has been orchestrating that conspiracy Cruz talks about.) But you may differ.

The Geometry of Progressive Trumpism

So let’s think of the choice being between Trump and Not-Trump, who is somewhat less awful but more likely to win in the general. (This worked better before Marco Rubio’s implosion; Cruz may be just as awful and just as bad a candidate as Trump.) Then the comparison is between the expected awfulness to come if the GOP chooses Trump versus choosing non-Trump. In the figure, I use orange to represent Trump (I tried to replicate the spray tan, but this was as close as I could get), and red to represent non-Trump. In each case, the expected awfulness is the product of the probability of election versus the awfulness if elected, i.e., the area of a rectangle whose base is the probability and whose height is the awfulness:



As you can see, the downside of a Trump nomination is his extra awfulness multiplied by his chance of winning; the downside of Non-Trump is his own awfulness, multiplied by the extra chance of a GOP victory.

My sense is that Trump is awful, but not that much more awful than the others — Rubio, for example, is among other things the candidate of the people who brought you Iraq and want to do it all over again. Meanwhile, I think that Trump would be a very weak general election candidate — the conditions that have let him flourish in the GOP are really unique to that party. So I think that progressives should be cheering Trump on (which is why my secret committee has been orchestrating that conspiracy Cruz talks about.) But you may differ.

And that was a good way to waste a bit of time, wasn’t it?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/the-geometry-of-progressive-trumpism/

[metroins]

1. I think Trump has a good chance

Guy is nuts.

He brings people out and I think dem turnout us low.

[Downtown Hound]

4. Polls and electoral math disagree with you. n/t

[LannyDeVaney]

5. What state would he win that they didn't get in 2012?

Serious question. People seem to forget the 2012 election wasn't close.

[Angel Martin]

7. Florida

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

[LannyDeVaney]

8. He would need more than Florida

Prior to the primary season, the problem that Republicans have with delegate math in the general election was heavily discussed. They are way behind, and would have to add voters from several states to even keep it close.

If they run a wall-building cross-burning candidate, they won't be adding those voters.

[Angel Martin]

12. this is from Oct but Penn is dicey as well

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html

also Minn
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton-5591.html

[Bucky]

14. I fearfully agree with you

[CTyankee]

2. Krugman is enjpying the spectacle. It's theatre of the absurd and he gets it!

I love my man Krugman....

[joeybee12]

3. Krugman isn't alone in thinking this...

The rhetoric from tRump really is off-putting to many, but it's the sort...vague and thundering...that appeals to the repuke base...though not many others.

[lindysalsagal]

6. Trump will get some independents, but not enough to beat Hillary.

Most Americans know we can't let this monster run the free world, not to mention hold the nuclear codes.

[oberliner]

9. Disagree

Everyone has been completely wrong about him so far. That will sadly continue.

[lapislzi]

10. To paraphrase Louis Reynaud, the ultimate pragmatist

"for me, I blow with the wind. And for now, the prevailing wind is from (Drumpf.)"

Remember, Reynaud is the guy who eventually chucked the bottle of Vichy water into the trash and went to fight for the Resistance.

Just sayin'. It's a long war, and we have to hunker down.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

11. I hope this is the case, but I'm not certain it will work out that way.

I think we are going to screw ourselves by underestimating Trump. I think we should assume he is a real threat and continue to treat him that way until the election is over. Democrats need to stop downplaying these republicans all the time. I have seen many times in recent years where some republican is deemed unelectable and a non-threat to the dems and then that same republican ends up winning.

[Bucky]

13. Disagree. The problem with Trump isn't his policies. It's the violence he incites.

Cruz is a horrible person. His policies are worse than Trump's, sure. But he doesn't directly encourage violence. Trump does. It's maybe, maybe, better for the Dems if Trump gets nominated. But it's far worse for democracy, and far far worse for the people who will be beaten or killed by the random acts of violence inspired by Trump-fueled reprobates.

For the record, I think Trump's also more viable in November than Cruz is. Cruz is a true believer: he will make the Republican Party his Alamo and will go down singing the same crazy songs he's sung since he started. And strategically, if he loses the nomination, he'll come back here to Texas and get reelected. Trump is a chameleon as well as egomaniac. If he wins the nomination, he'll line up the Republicans behind him and he has the perfect sales pitch to knock Clinton around from July to November. If he loses the nomination to Cruz, he'll bolt. Cruz is no threat at all. Trump pulls well from crazy independents and crazier non-voters. He's a big damned threat.

But really, it's the violence thing that scares me.


(on edit)
If I was Obama, I'd start laying out a plan to transfer all our nukes to PM Trudeau in case Trump actually gets elected. It would give our leading generals and admirals a reason not to quit their jobs too, since they'd need to stick around and ensure nobody followed Trump's subsequent plan to invade Canada