< Go Back

The Case for a Trump Landslide (Part 1)

The Case for a Trump Landslide (Part 1)

    The latest poll out of Iowa shows Carson ahead of Trump. And you know what that means?

    It means Iowa is about to become irrelevant. Here I am assuming evangelicals will band together to give Carson the win in Iowa before Trump goes on to run the table everywhere else.

    Keep in mind that if Carson wins the Republican nomination, and Clinton picks a young and appealing VP running mate, Republicans who back Carson are potentially looking at 16 more years of Democratic presidents and full liberal control of the Supreme Court. Iowa might want to make a pro-life point by supporting Carson, but I doubt Republicans in general want to bet on the horse that is the “nicest” but runs the slowest in a race against Clinton.

    A lot of things became irrelevant this election cycle.

    Old-guard Republican leadership became irrelevant after Trump emerged and rewrote the platform. Boehner literally quit and ran away. 

    The Huffington Post moved Trump to the entertainment section and sealed their reputation as a useless wart on society. 

    We all got to watch Trump domesticate FOX News, CNN,  and now CNBC. If Trump wins the presidency, every pollster and every pundit (except me) is wrong to the point of irrelevancy. 

    Hillary Clinton joined the bandwagon of destruction by declaring her gender an important selling point for a job, thus leaving both her candidacy and the reputation of modern feminism in tatters.

    I assume none of you saw any of that coming. And now you don’t believe Trump can win in a landslide. I will make that case over the next few blog posts. It will be more fun to watch the tumblers fall into place in slow motion. 

    You already expect Trump to be favored in the realm of economics. He wins that matchup easily, say the polls. 

    You probably also expect his tough-guy persona, his negotiating skills, and his attacks on Clinton’s record to make him the top choice for foreign affairs. The polls already bear that out.

    And in a recent post I described how Trump is setting up the immigration issue to be a third-act miracle that he solves without any mass deportation. So expect the immigration obstacle to melt aways because that is already in the script (according to my prediction).

    Today I want to talk about guns.

    What would it take for the United States to make progress on gun control while maintaining the right to bear arms? Well, top of the list, you have to beat the NRA into submission. History tells us that democrats are unlikely to win that fight. 

    If you want to take on the NRA, you need a politician who is pro-gun. Only a real gun-owner has credibility in that conversation. And you want the kind of gun-owner who has self-defense in mind, as opposed to hunting. That gives you the most credibility.

    To fight the power of the NRA, you might want a politician who turned his own political party into his personal bitch because they didn’t agree with him. You might want the sort of politician who can control the news cycle and dominate the major players in it. You might want the sort of person who puts success above party loyalty and dogma. You might need a world-class negotiator. You might even need the best persuader the country has ever seen. You might need the kind of politician who can label his opponents so hard it can never be washed off. You might want the only politician in the race who would not be owned by lobbyists. You might want the sort of politician who is willing to throw his colleagues in Congress under the bus if they disagree.

    If you want some sensible gun control, only one candidate has any chance of getting it for you. If you believe Trump won’t try to improve things with guns, I respect that opinion. But I think you would agree he is the only one in the race capable of making a change in that area. My take on Trump is that he is not dogmatic. I believe he would favor any law that seemed practical and did not dismantle the second amendment.

    So would Clinton. The difference is that she would have no power to get it done. If you want progress on gun control, only one candidate offers even a glimmer of hope.

    I will end on a reminder that this blog is for entertainment. I have no idea who would be the best president. I am not that smart. I write about Trump because his persuasion skills are the best I have seen. The gun issue needs a persuader.

    Bias alert: I am pro-gun because I weigh 147 pounds and I want to preserve the option of shooting people who are bigger than me. Sometimes they need it.

    Yes, I did write a book. Thanks for asking.

More Episodes