All over the internet and from many journalists on both sides of the political spectrum is word that 2016 is “the year of the outsider”. A strong anti-establishment calling for change obtains on both sides within the electorate. This year things have changed in ways that experts did not predict. Statistician Nate Silver renowned for his accurate analysis has apparently changed (Sept.15, 2015) his view on the likelihood (Sept 10, 2015) of the republican establishment holding enough power to decide who their presidential candidate will be.
Donald Trump is not the GOP establishment choice, but according to Nate Silver’s recent reassessment, that may not matter. Trump may win the nomination despite the GOP leadership efforts otherwise:
Which brings me to Silver’s Wednesday post about Donald Trump’s chances, and whether Republicans should regard him as their party’s new frontrunner. After a whole lot of build-up and numerically rich hemming and hawing, his answer, in a word, is yes:
It would be easy enough to overreact to Tuesday’s results. With only two states having voted so far, we don’t really have enough data to know why Trump finished with 24 percent of the vote in one of them but 35 percent in the other, or which result represents the better baseline going forward … Prediction markets regard Trump as more likely than any other candidate to win the Republican nomination but nevertheless slightly worse than even money against the field, an assessment that strikes me as pretty reasonable.
But for anti-Trump Republicans, there’s a danger to underreaction, too.
One reason that candidates like Trump have rarely won nominations in the past is because parties take a lot of steps to fight them.
If the Republican Party’s defense mechanisms are broken, or if it assumes Trump will go away without intervention, the rest of the party may be competing for second place.
I ask these questions because Nate Silver wasn’t alone in his appraisal of the 2016 presidential race. He, like many, assumed it would end up a contest between the Democratic leadership vs the GOP leadership. So far, change has over-ridden that prediction. What caught my attention was this from Mr. Silver:
“One reason that candidates like Trump have rarely won nominations in the past is because parties take a lot of steps to fight them.
If the Republican Party’s defense mechanisms are broken, or if it assumes Trump will go away without intervention, the rest of the party may be competing for second place.”
While it’s true, the Dem establishment ‘party mechanism’ to defend against primary/caucus challengers is clearly not broken’, it is also true that, right now the Dem leadership’s candidate IS competing to maintain ‘first place’ with its most reliable rank & file base of liberal voters
Dem leadership definitely holds the advantage, but not only may that not last, it could prove to become an anchor, to a party that must remain nimble when an unexpected tipping point is happening requiring immediate course changes. That status quo defense mechanism becomes a liability.
Nate Silver didn’t give Bernie Sanders much of a chance awhile ago:
...but perhaps he will evolve on this too. Whether he does or not, and taking Nate Silver’s own admonition to the republican establishment to heart (in my own words — that is):
Donald Trump is not the GOP establishment choice, but according to Nate Silver’s recent reassessment, that may not matter. Trump may win the nomination despite the GOP leadership efforts otherwise
If one just replaces the candidate and the party in that sentence; doesn’t the same apply to the Dem leadership?
It seems to me that since the republican candidate and our opposition may not be the choice of the GOP leadership as assumed by both right and left leadership and historical norms, it is also something that the Dem leadership should keep in mind when assessing which Dem candidate has the best Head-to-Head chance of defeating the GOP..if, (and I’m hoping I’ve gauged this correctly) the corpo blue-dog wing of the Dem leadership would prefer a democratic socialist over Trump and fight 100% all out if that came to be — that is
note: I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, yet this is not another story about how good or bad or who rocks/sucks or any of that. I will always vote for our Dem candidate. Never a republican
This is a sincere question about the Dem leadership response time and ability to adapt to what appears to be a wholly unexpected electoral anomaly kind of year.
Already, the GOP has lost the ability to ensure their preferred candidate is the front runner with the best chance to go on to the general election. This is not unprecedented but rare. On the Dems side, plans are put in place to compete with the GOP’s chosen candidate, not a Donald Trump. This year is very different and so is the challenge now.
This is what has me and even long time Daily Kos member and strong Hillary Clinton supporters questioning if Dem leadership, in an anti-establishment/outsiders year has the full understanding of what it takes to meet that challenge.
So far, with the poorly managed scheduling of debates allowing for republicans to dominate the msm, the number of poor decisions on a range of issues, the questionable judgment regarding super-delegates, and finally the aggressive nature towards the liberal base has me wondering if the DNC/Dem establishment knows what it is up against...
...and has it chosen the best candidate to meet defeat that challenger
* * *
I’m posting this story @ a lower traffic time to preserve room for other topics. Just hope these questions turn out to be good ones to think on for others too — it’s late & time to turn in — thanks for stopping by