Lion of the Blogosphere

Establishment prefers Trump

According to today’s NY Times, the Republican establishment and big business types prefer Trump over Cruz.

This is good news for Trump. Don’t underestimate the power of the establishment.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 21, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

57 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. But we’re also getting those “better Hillary than Trump” and “if Trump is the nominee, decent GOP voters will stay home” messages from the Establishment’s minions…


    January 21, 2016 at 5:24 pm

  2. Presumably there’s more animosity towards Cruz because they’ve already dealt with him. Trump is an unknown quantity, bringing with him the potential of a fresh working relationship. But Cruz would be difficult to turn the page on mentally.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    January 21, 2016 at 5:59 pm

  3. Some are suggesting that this mean’s Trump isn’t a threat to change things as much as Cruz is, but I don’t think that’s true. I think it simply means that between Trump and his closest competitor, the establishment prefers Trump, because no one likes Cruz.

    Dave Pinsen

    January 21, 2016 at 6:07 pm

  4. I thought only uneducated blue collar proles liked Trump?

    What happened?


    January 21, 2016 at 6:16 pm

  5. I’m not entirely sure if this is meant to be droll.


    January 21, 2016 at 6:24 pm

  6. More evidence that the U.S. is becoming more like Argentina — a once successful country that was destroyed by immigration — and many Latin American democracies where dueling populists candidates align with different coalitions of elites and screw the middle class.

    Trump will make the Republican Party more like the Democrat Party with coalitions between low class voters and specific sets of wealthy interest groups. The Republican Party has migrated from being the upper-middle class party to a full-spectrum middle class party and Trump would turn it into another prole + special interest party, a mirror image of the Dems.

    Mercy Vetsel (@MercyVetsel)

    January 21, 2016 at 6:33 pm

    • Argentina is 90% White.

      Most important, Argentina eliminated its black demographic to the point of no return.


      January 21, 2016 at 8:37 pm

      • I’ve been there. The lack of brown/black people was the best part of my visit.


        January 21, 2016 at 10:43 pm

      • Argentina is 90% White.

        It absolutely is NOT!!

        It’s not even a majority White country. They have different standards than the US, with the exception of some state prison systems and the US census, when determining race.

        Argentina likes to think of itself as a Southern European country in the Southern Hemisphere.

        It isn’t. The people look mixed mestizo to a great degree.

        Of course there are maybe 40% White Spanish/Italian/ etc.


        January 21, 2016 at 10:47 pm

      • Argentinians don’t look Mestizo, more like Castizo (3/4 White, 1/4 Native). They’re Whiter than most Colombians, like Sofia Vergara.


        January 22, 2016 at 11:39 am

      • We already had a discussion of the whiteness of Argentina!


        January 21, 2016 at 11:59 pm

    • What are the special interests that Trump is allying with? I don’t personally see how anyone can tell how Trump will actually govern if elected.

      Lloyd Llewellyn

      January 21, 2016 at 9:02 pm

      • Trump will be a crapshoot that is for sure. I guess I am worried that he will end up being like Berlusconi (although not as sleazy) and America will just stagnate under him. I certainly will vote for him over Hilary and Bernie though.

        Larry, San Francisco

        January 21, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    • “The Republican Party has migrated from being the upper-middle class party to a full-spectrum middle class party and Trump would turn it into another prole + special interest party, a mirror image of the Dems.”

      So what are the non-Trump guys proposing?

      The Republican party, now, is a coalition of fruitcake religious anti-gay, anti-abortion wackos who have lost the fight but don’t know it yet, and low tax rich people who have convinced their employees that they don’t need or deserve health care, and gun nuts (of course), and perpetual war enthusiasts (chicken hawks mostly). Ted Nugent must be proud.

      The establishment *hates* anyone who might actually point out what’s in the interest of the Reagan Democrats, as they used to be called.

      That said, I have no real dog in this fight. All the Republicans are doing now is trying to convince the people they are slowly skinning alive that they are doing the right thing by being (cough) conservative.

      Supposedly Trump is an inevitable loser and the party is going to be in the wilderness for a decade or more. Please let this be so. The coalition is incoherent. I would be interested in a party of small government. I get the opposite from the Republicans. Least the Dems make a show of trying to help people.


      January 21, 2016 at 9:52 pm

      • “Least the Dems make a show of trying to help people.”

        As long as you’re the right sort of people. The New People, not bitter clingers.


        January 22, 2016 at 4:22 am

    • Tell me how Trump is anti middle class.


      January 22, 2016 at 12:31 am

    • Do you really believe that Argentina was destroyed by European immigration or are you suggesting that Amerindian immigration from Beringia is what destroyed it.

      Blinky Bill

      January 22, 2016 at 2:47 am

    • There is a lot to like in Argentina. What’s your point?


      January 22, 2016 at 10:03 am

    • Near the end of the 19th century Argentina was richer than its colonial power England and had a huge future in front of it thanks to immigration, good, old, hard-working European immigration. Its downfall, beginning in the 1920s and 30s had much to do with socialism, another European import, though a killer.


      January 22, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      • I knew a guy, of Italian descent, who claimed it was all the Italians. Corruption, etc.


        January 22, 2016 at 11:28 pm

  7. Cruz seems completely unfocused to me. He’s a great gadfly in Congress, but that doesn’t play for President.

    The GOP establishment may be accepting the inevitable as they did with Reagan. Will Trump accept them?


    January 21, 2016 at 6:47 pm

  8. This is bad. Trump needs to separate himself from the establishment. No association with them. They may get behind Trump to retain their privileges. They are all crooks and liers. Trump=revolution! This is the only way.


    January 21, 2016 at 6:49 pm

  9. Cruz supporters still think they have a chance. But the establishment knows Trump has it. Now they’re stopping the attacks so they don’t damage him in the general election. As well as trying to get in good with the winner so they’re not shut out when he’s elected.


    January 21, 2016 at 6:54 pm

  10. I’m surprised because Trump is more anti immigrant than Cruz is. Maybe the establishment doesn’t care about immigration that much?

    Otis the Sweaty

    January 21, 2016 at 7:27 pm

    • All the establishment picks, Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Fiorina, Christie… 14%, 1%, 3%, 1% and 1% in Iowa, in the latest CNN poll.

      Put all five together and you have a third-place contender.


      January 21, 2016 at 8:38 pm

  11. Of course the Times would say that.


    January 21, 2016 at 7:54 pm

  12. Once again we hear Lion argue that what should be a setback for a campaign (endorsement by the establishment Republicans and big business) is really an advantage. How can it help Trump to have these two groups in his corner? I thought he was popular with blue collar types and Evangelicals exactly because he wasn’t a typical big businessman or a the type who would be acceptable to the Republican establishment? If the people who were until recently beside themselves over the idea of a Trump nomination are now selecting him over Cruz then it means Trump is not as much of an outsider as he claims and that it is Cruz who would really shake things up if elected. Does Lion think Trump’s silent majority type voters are too stupid to understand this? This is the same argument that was used by many to predict a Giuliani victory in 2007 – that various segments of the electorate will each see a different thing they like in a candidate and ignore the fact that this candidate is also supported by people they normally have conflict with. No one seemed to see the contradiction between Giuliani’s evangelical support (in the polls of 2007) and the claim that he’d get the vote of socially liberal voters in November


    January 21, 2016 at 9:02 pm

    • Trump is campaigning on the promise that his deal-making abilities will enable him to persuade Congress to push through the conservative program he is advertising. Trump says no other person running has the ability do this, only him, and certainly not Cruz.

      Andrew E.

      January 21, 2016 at 9:39 pm

    • You Cruz supporters are irrational. Stop it already.

      With Trump as President Ted Cruz is on the Supreme Court. Which is good for conservatives. A younger Scalia.

      He is not that apealing in the political real world outside ideological conservative circles.

      He is not a people person or a skilled negotiator. That person is Trump.


      January 21, 2016 at 10:51 pm

      • Cruz is a true “movement conservative”. Ideologically he is a clone of Ronald Reagan but it isn’t 1980 anymore and that ideology is no longer electorally relevant and Cruz lacks Reagan’s mega charm and political skills. Reagan was the GOP version of political supermen like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama.

        What classifies as “conservatism” is becoming redefined in the current era. Conservatism is no longer about “small government” but rather is splitting into the National Review set and the populists. Cruz is a bit of a hybrid between the two but a hybrid isn’t going to get it done. We need a full scale populist who is otherwise middle of the road.

        Otis the Sweaty

        January 22, 2016 at 1:24 am

      • “Conservatism is no longer about “small government” but rather is splitting into the National Review set and the populists.”

        National Review has dedicated an entire issue to Trump; trashing him that is.

        Mike Street Station

        January 22, 2016 at 12:59 pm

      • This ^


        January 22, 2016 at 1:37 pm

  13. I thought the establishment’s come-to-Jesus moment would be uniting behind Cruz. I didn’t realize he was this hated.


    January 21, 2016 at 9:33 pm

  14. In the news today, Bob Dole throws heavy criticism at Cruz, says that “nobody likes him”.


    January 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm

  15. You mean to tell me that the richest real estate developer in Manhattan actually has the endorsement of elites and big business types? Makes you wonder how the hell he ever pulled it off…


    January 21, 2016 at 9:51 pm

  16. Bob Dole said he’d prefer Trump over Cruz if those were the only two choices, but he’s really hot for Jeb and Kasich.

    Mark Caplan

    January 21, 2016 at 9:54 pm

    • Dole was a moderate Republican, before it was an insult. I can see him thinking Trump has crossover potential–being liberal on lots of issues helps him in the general.


      January 22, 2016 at 11:30 pm

  17. This election is really redefining what the word “establishment” means. In todays social media and celebrity driven culture it is likes, clicks and sound-bytes that establish your candidacy and how it resonates with the public. Donald Trump has been very rich and very famous for a long, long time. Think about it…who is really more firmly planted in the American psyche…Him? Or a one term Senator named Marco who has 200 grand in student loan debt? Being knighted by the committee men is meaningless now. The old rules are out. In that sense, there is no GOP contender in this race who is more “establishment” than Donald J. Trump.


    January 21, 2016 at 10:09 pm

  18. Isn’t there still some third party talk in the GOPe? I read something somewhere about an anti-Trump conservative manifesto being issued on Friday.


    January 21, 2016 at 10:13 pm

    • National Cuckservative Review has their entire issue better Shrillary! than Trump.


      January 22, 2016 at 3:24 am

      • National Review has decided to light a fire under movement conservatism and burn it to the ground. Who do they think is going to get elected if not Trump? Hillary or Bernie. Thanks NR!

        Mike Street Station

        January 22, 2016 at 1:01 pm

  19. For the record, I prefer Cruz to Trump, and I rarely get what I want in politics. So that is a data point favoring LOTB’s assessment of this issue. Well, I haven’t got what I wanted since 1980 (and even back in the 1980s I was not surprised that Reagan was not as tough as the typical American would have liked when Americans were taken hostage in “Lebanon” or when Bork was slandered and libelled by ridiculously clueless liberals). Although, if I had had the misfortune to hear Cruz on the Howard Stern show again and again, as I had the misfortune to hear Trump on that show when it was on free radio, I might prefer Trump to Cruz = that being said, in Trump’s defense, he was just about the only interviewee of Stern I ever heard (Shatner was another) who did not try to “suck up” to the host, to use the vulgar expression). My advice to commenters here who want to understand the lower depths of a certain part of America is to relisten to those interviews – Trump did not come off badly, even in his liberal youth, and it is not completely uninteresting to hear those two frivolous children of fortune go at it.

    howitzer daniel

    January 21, 2016 at 10:42 pm

  20. Nate Silver has revisited his view on Trump’s chances because of this.


    January 21, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    • Nate Silver is guilty of retconning the history of his own prophecies.

      I was skeptical because I assumed that influential Republicans would do almost anything they could to prevent him from being nominated.

      Nate wasn’t skeptical of Trump. Here is what he said back in September:

      Nate Silver: ‘Calm down,’ Donald Trump won’t win the GOP nomination

      “I don’t think that Donald Trump is very likely to win the nomination in part because he’s not really a Republican,” Silver told journalist Mo Rocca at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan.

      “He’s very far to the right on immigration, but he also wants socialized medicine,” Silver said. “He wants to tax the rich, right?

      This guy is clueless.

      Silver said that at this stage, polls wouldn’t yield much accurate predictive information, a claim some political observers have cited as reason not to take Trump’s poll numbers too seriously.

      “People haven’t given [the candidates] more than two seconds’ worth of attention … Calm down — it’s not a tennis match where you’re going back and forth all the time,” Silver said. “Keep calm.”

      He based the claim that people weren’t paying much attention on past primaries. Nevermind the record ratings Trump got on TV in this primary season….

      In late December he claimed that Rubio was going to win, because the Establishment would use some complicated long run game theoretic scheme.

      National Review Against Trump (endorsed by all of NRO’s 47 editors)


      January 22, 2016 at 1:01 am

  21. I don’t like to be overly sensationalistic, but it reminds me a bit of how Hitler came to power. The conservative political establishment of Weimar Germany saw the Nazis as group they could work with, in contrast to the Communists who were just beyond the pale. Hitler seemed nuts, but they figured he was all bark and no bite and they assumed they could form a parliamentary coalition with him and call a lot of the shots.

    Hitler was of course operating on completely different assumptions, and the conservative old guard was actually the first to get the axe once he became chancellor and set about dismantling democracy.

    I don’t think Trump is anywhere close to Hitler, but it’s a valuable lesson none the less. Establishment people are powerful, but they also tend to have an inflated sense of their own ability to manipulate and control events. “We can control Trump” is the new “Trump will never catch on.”


    January 22, 2016 at 2:10 am

  22. If Trump is not enraging the establishment anymore. That kills a lot of my interest in Trump. It might be good news for Trump becoming president. But it is a bad sign that he’ll actually be like any other candidate. If the establishment has found a way to secretly agree terms with Trump and/or found a way to control him to basically be another politician, then what’s the point of Trump then?


    January 22, 2016 at 8:06 am

  23. If course this is good news for Trump. This is so easy I could write his response. “People are saying ‘What’s going on? The insiders like Trump. Has Trump changed?’ No, what changed is that they couldn’t beat me, so now they want to be with the winner. Everybody loves a winner. And every body knows I’m going to make America great again. I welcome anyone who wants to help me do that.”

    Bitter Clinger 13

    January 22, 2016 at 8:40 am

    • Yeah but writing Cruz’s response would be just as easy.

      “Friends, what we are seeing right now shouldn’t come as a great surprise. Donald has a long track record of giving money to Democrats. We know he invited Hillary Clinton to his wedding. We know he brags about being the ultimate deal maker. And so now the establishment is starting to take a second look at this New York billionaire with a long record of liberal positions and conclude: hey, this is someone we can do business with!”


      January 22, 2016 at 1:03 pm

  24. Isn’t Cruz’ wife a bankster exec. who wrote a treatise in favor of North American Union? That’s all I need to know about Cruz. I don’t want any more “conservatives” or “free traders.”


    January 22, 2016 at 11:35 am

  25. O/T – Lion, so the future of Manhattan to Williamsburg Brooklyn and vice versa, will look like this:

    It would only work perfectly, once NAMs are completely driven out from that section of Brooklyn. Otherwise, stabbings and assaults will take place in midair.


    January 22, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    • A la Colin Ferguson?


      January 22, 2016 at 11:31 pm

      • The East River Skyway is a delusional project at best. The sheer volume of passengers will be too much for the gondola operators, not to mention, the rowdy NAM underclass and undesirables in general (which infest Brooklyn like the plague). This isn’t Roosevelt Island with its tramway, that attracts tourists and serves as a commute for its tiny demographic of upper middle class SWPLs who live there.


        January 23, 2016 at 12:00 pm

      • And Brooklyn is the only borough in NYC, with job growth:

        Want a Job? Go to Brooklyn

        Notice the explosion of growth of local gov’t work. Want to work with NAMs? How about preventing them from becoming restive? That’s right, black workers infest government offices like SWPLs at Whole Foods.


        January 23, 2016 at 1:07 pm

  26. Is there a more “establishment Republican” group than National Review? They just came out with an entire issue (wow!) dedicated to knocking out Trump.

    January 22, 2016 at 2:34 pm

    • Yeah, I think they’re taking a huge risk by doing this. I actually think Trump could win the nomination. And if he does, that’ll be the end of them.The big donors want to win, after all.


      January 22, 2016 at 11:32 pm

  27. There is a very good author to check out named Sir John Glubb who wrote an interesting book called The Fate of Empires.

    He predicts that nations like the United States have life cycles that last around 250 years. So, the US as it is currently constituted will collapse sometime between 2026 and 2033.

    An excerpt:

    In the first half of the ninth century, Baghdad enjoyed its High Noon as the greatest and the richest city in the world. In 861, however, the reigning Khalif (caliph), Mutawakkil, was murdered by his Turkish mercenaries, who set up a military dictatorship, which lasted for some thirty years. During this period the empire fell apart, the various dominions and provinces each assuming virtual independence and seeking its own interests. Baghdad, lately the capital of a vast empire, found its authority limited to Iraq alone.

    The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, emphasizing particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office.

    The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The ‘pop’ singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar. In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age. Several khalifs issued orders banning ‘pop’ singers from the capital, but within a few years they always returned.

    An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’ Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed.

    The disorders following the military takeover in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead, at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five-day week.

    When I first read these contemporary descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I could scarcely believe my eyes. I told myself that this must be a joke! The descriptions might have been taken out of The Times today. The resemblance of all the details was especially breathtaking—the break-up of the empire, the abandonment of sexual morality, the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry of women into the professions, the five-day week. I would not venture to attempt an explanation! There are so many mysteries about human life which are far beyond our


    January 24, 2016 at 9:59 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: