Trump's exit strategy

Donald Trump is probably not a graceful loser--does anyone doubt this? No, probably not. Also, his chances of winning the GOP presidential nomination are pretty small, at least according to the conventional wisdom of collective political scientists.

So, I've always expected Trump to bow out of the race at some point with complaints that:

• He coulda won if he stayed in.
• He was treated unfairly by the Republican party, or the media, or Fox News, or whomever.
• He's got better things to do.

This has been my expectation for a while, but why am I writing it now? Because of this:

Trump will negotiate directly with networks on debates

Well, maybe I'm reading too much into this. Trump might not demand too much, have his requests denied, and skip one or more debates in anger. But somehow, some way, he will get angry, go home in a huff, and blame someone else. Mark the prediction--it will be vindicated.

Image: quotesgram.com

Rubio scores with rhetoric and (gasp) truth

I'm very impressed with part of Rubio's performance in the recent debate. He took down criticism of a local paper, the debate moderators, and Jeb Bush, and he did it very well and cleanly.

This was perhaps the most talked-about moment in the debate. Rubio was able to turn the tables on Jeb Bush after Bush attacked him. It's worth looking at how Rubio did this.(Video here, transcript here.)

The moderator referred to recent criticism that Rubio is skipping a lot votes in the Senate while he's campaigning. Rubio handled this so deftly that it should be a blueprint for others. He said:

"in 2004, John Kerry ran for president missing close to 60 to 70 percent of his votes. I don't recall the Sun -- in fact, the Sun-Sentinel endorsed him. In 2008, Barack Obama missed 60 or 70 percent of his votes, and the same newspaper endorsed him again."

Then Jeb Bush piled on, saying he was criticizing him as a constituent. This is how Rubio answered him:

"...you're modeling your campaign after John McCain... You know how many votes John McCain missed when he was carrying out that furious comeback that you're now modeling after? ...I don't remember you ever complaining about John McCain's vote record. The only reason why you're doing it now is because we're running for the same position, and someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you."

How Rubio turned the tables

First, Rubio didn't deny that he was missing votes, He didn't get defensive about why it was OK for him to be missing votes. Instead, he pointed out the important issues facing the country, implying (correctly) that's where the focus should be, not on a tiny non-issue of a senator missing non-important votes:

"For the first time in 35 years, we have more businesses closing than starting. We have a world that's out of control and has grown dangerous and a president that is weakening our military and making our foreign policy unstable and unreliable in the eyes of our allies."

He also didn't get whiny, with his focus on the unfairness of it all. His focus was on the argument being made, and how weak it was.

Rubio pointed out the same newspaper that complained about him endorsed both Kerry and Obama for president, even though both missed many more votes than Rubio did. The clear implication is that 'missing votes' was a smokescreen, showing the complaint was likely a partisan attack, not a major point of principle. Well done!

When Jeb Bush piled on, Rubio was clearly ready. "Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you" is a very raw truth, and it definitely rings true. Bush is not politically very different from Rubio, so his attacks aren't going to be on major issues, but on minor kinks that he'll need to exaggerate in an attempt to gain an advantage.

Don't sweat the small stuff

The truth is that missing Senate votes isn't generally a huge issue for the few senators who are campaigning. However, it's used as an attack because it shows that the candidate isn't PERFECT. Well, duh, we know that. Candidates get into trouble by pretending they are perfect. Rubio definitely avoided this pitfall. Other candidates would be wise to study and learn that technique.

So what is the blueprint for handling attacks? If it's a nothingburger complaint, as this one was, point out how shallow it is, and how hypocritical your opponent is for making such an attack. Of course, this means that you have to live by that standard. I hope Rubio does, as I would hope that all candidates would.

Note that this strategy doesn't help with the big attacks on big issues. That's so different that it has to be a different post.

 Image: freehqphotos.com

Short: Conservatives love the new Romney

This reaction piece to the Wednesday night debate struck me as the most perceptive critique:

Conservatives Will Love Moderate Mitt as Long as He's Winning -- Atlantic Wire

Mitt can abandon some of the positions he espoused to win the nomination, but that doesn't matter as long as he kicks Obama's ass in the debates. The debates have been cherished opportunity that conservatives have have been anticipating for the entire primary and campaign season. I've read thousands of comments declaring that this or that candidate would absolutely murder Obama, or drive a stake through his socialist heart in the debates. Commenters declared that about Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, but especially Newt Gingrich.

To everyone's amazement, it was Romney delivering those sweet jabs and hard right punches. The Atlantic article covers the bases, with more "before-and-after" quotes than I'd research. It's a good read. However, I don't trust the word of the too-biased Atlantic Wire, so I did a bit of research at HotAir.

Out of the first 100 or so comments, only one person noticed the lack of conservative bedrock in what Romney said:

I didn’t hear any of these things from Romney last night:
- “Government as a whole is too big.” To be fair, I did hear “Parts of government are too big.”
- “Taxes are too high.” Romney was all about “revenue-neutrality” and “soaking the rich by taking away their deductions and only their deductions”.
- “We need to make sure a sizable majority, or at least a majority, of income-earners pay at least some income tax.” -- HotAir comment

So, in the primary for the GOP nomination, moderation is poison. In these debates, however, you can be moderate so long as you still make Obama look bad.

Hot damn, I know how to attack Obama really well--my one, two punch, for example. Can I be a conservative hero too?

Image: wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com

Awkward admission: I haven't watched the debate yet. A new assignment at work is eating too many of my waking hours. Watching the debate on my to-do list for the weekend, and I'll probably post an impression.