The worst GOP nightmare for both 2024 and 2028?

With Trump getting a mugshot, complete with #BlueAnon gloat, in the news recently, and the appearance that Nikki Haley took the inside lane among Never Trumpers at the Republican debate last week, yes, there is a worst nightmare for the party both this year and five years from now. In a sense, it would also be the worst nightmare for the country. #IBlameHillary and I blame the DNC for stoking #Russiagate on top.

The worst possible GOP outcomes for both now and 2028, to riff on this Politico piece about all the main 2024 candidates and this one about how the cascade of indictments will hurt Trump in the general?

Trump gets the 2024 nomination and loses. And, assuming he doesn't stroke out from his "215 lbs" weight, he runs AGAIN in 2028. Even if from a jail cell; the Constitution doesn't ban it, and Eugene Debs, with much more rightness, did it in 1920.

First? Odds of Trump being this year's Republican nominee? Short of death, 10-1. 

Second, despite the low ratings of Inflationmonger Joe, per the second link in the second paragraph? 3-2 against. So, we have a 60 percent chance, rounding that 10-1 up to 100 percent, of this indeed happening in 2028.

With that, we look at some of this year's field and four years ahead.

We start with the Super-Trumper, if you will. Meatball Ron would be even more yesterday's goods, and likely will have a bruising 2026 Florida gubernatorial re-election campaign. (Neither Rick Scott nor Marco Rubio is up for Senate re-election in 2026, and neither would step aside anyway.)

Now, to the various Never Trumpers.

Haley would be out of office and off the radar screen four more years, unless she can get elected to something else in 2026. Huckleberry J. Butchmeup, aka Lindsay Graham, has his Senate seat up in 2026. But, he's said nothing about stepping down. And, if Haley fought him for that and won, she'd look horrible turning around to run for president.

Pence, ditto on out of office, and would have four more years to not have an actual backbone.

Tim Scott? His Senate term is expiring, and unless he drops out of the prez race early to get into a new Senate race, he's out of office. He too could run against Huckleberry, but, see above.

Asa Hutchison? Older, not coming back in 2028.

Chris Christie? I can't see him getting enough traction this year, and like others above, he'll be another four years out of office by 2028.

Doug Burgum? Keep an outsider's eyeball on him. That said, as the Bakken oil continues to dry up, if he's re-elected North Dakota governor, he could have a state fiscal black eye in 2028.

Of candidates not in this year's race? Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin would be the person to keep your eyes on. (Contra the first link, I do NOT expect Youngkin to try to do a late parachute into the 2024 race; he's way too smart for that, from what I see of him.)

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem will be past her second term and term limited, but leaving at the start of 2027 frees her up. She could have appeal to a mix of Trumpers plus DeSatan-like Super Trumpers on the COVID issue. Contra NPR saying no national name, she does have it within the GOP, and was a Congresscritter before becoming governor.

Would Lil Marco or Havana Ted consider another shot at the brass ring in 2028? Not if Trump is in it again; I think both would be seen as 2016 damaged goods, still, within the GOP. Both might perceive themselves that way vis-a-vis standing up to Trump. And, Cruz would have Jan. 6-related baggage, too. Nobody else from Tex-ass will enter the race.

Other than the above, among current GOP governors, Never Trumper Chris Sununu is the only one who might be on a 2028 A list. Of course, his "do as I say, not as I do" for this go-round may not stand him in good stead for 2028, though he can always cite a crowded 2024 field, and we'll see what happens with the "first in the [Republican] nation" primary.

Trumpian Mini-Me Ramaswamy would look like even more of an empty suit if he tried the Running In Name Only a second time, per that second link.

 

==

 

The nightmare will likely be compounded in one way. Despite Never Trumper darling Nikki Haley's relative nuance, for today's GOP, on abortion, and despite Trump's own nuance, "federal full ban" thoughts are likely to dominate the party and perhaps become platform language. Both Trump and the Religious Right will do their best to swallow their mutual cognitive dissonance, but, probably with less success than in 2016 and 2020. But, NOT with zero success.

Maybe Trump will tie both parties, and #neoliberals, into knots on #freetrade (updated)

Most people have heard about the keeping of 1,000 850 Carrier jobs in the US, with the flip side of approximately $7 million in incentives for Carrier's parent company, United Technologies. (It should be noted that the deal doesn't save as many jobs in the US as Trump first claimed, but, does require Carrier to make new investments in the Indiana plant.)

Setting aside issues of the military-industrial complex, it seems the biggest mouth-foamers on this one (Kevin Drum was the first I saw) are majority neoliberals, follow by people who, whether neoliberal or not, would be identified as Democratic Party apparatchiks above all.

Well, Trumpy ain't done yet.

First, he's targeted another company, Rexnord, that has announced plans to move jobs to Mexico. This one, like Carrier, is headquartered in Indiana, which makes one wonder how much power to cut deals like the Carrier one Trump will have after Jan. 20, 2017, when Mike Pence becomes vice president and stops being governor of Indiana. No matter. That bridge will be crossed then.

Second, and in clear disagreement with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Trump has openly espoused a "buy American" requirement for iron and steel in water infrastructure projects. Yes, per the story, he's arguably hypocritical, as his skyscrapers have used imported steel.

So what? If he wins this battle, it will send out shock waves. First, by the number of Congressional Democrats that are already supporting him, Trump may force those Party apparatchiks to do what they don't want to do on their own — accept non-free trader, non-hardcore neolibertarians into party leadership, and apropos the just finished presidential primaries, to accept them as candidates, as well.

As the likes of Matt Stoller have already said on Twitter, Trump may well actually deliver more on jobs protection than Obama promised.

And, on cost savings from federal contractors, too.

It remains to be seen how it pans out, but, The Donald bashing Boeing over estimated costs for a new Air Force One is refreshing. (And, contra Politico, on paper at least, more robust than Presidents Obama or Clinton on the Democratic side.)

And, even St. Bernard of Sanders is wrong on this one, and I presume acting as Democratic (because he really is a Democrat) apparatchik first, labor backer second.

As Stoller has also noted, as have others, in the case of Carrier, presidential administrations both Democrat and Republican have given trade preferences to defense-related industries. And (although I disagree with them) states and municipalities have long had economic incentive grants. Bet you did as Burlington mayor, Bernie.

Survey says?

Per this piece, Mayor Bernie supported a bond issue that helped benefit a high-end development. When it didn't get a two-thirds majority, he used an eminent-domain lawsuit in conjunction with the state. Per The Nation (which mentions part of the Lake Champlain development but "overlooks" the suit) Bernie provided seed money for start-up businesses. The Nation also says he "helped" other businesses, not just start-ups, but again, no details, except in one case where it says he "provided capital." This was all part of the Community and Economic Development Office that Sanders created as mayor.

Yes, Bernie did help nonprofits, help get affordable housing, and more, but! He gave already established businesses money — possibly after hints they'd move elsewhere or something.

And we haven't even mentioned Senator Sanders voting to increase federal handouts to Big Ag dairy farmers, and Rep. and Sen. Sanders lusting after F-35s.

Of course, when other people are having buyer's regret over voting for a man whose Treasury Secretary-designee foreclosed on their houses during the Great Recession (setting aside that the woman in question induced her own moral hazard by buying the property in the SoCal bubble market for rental income), things will be very fluid politically for some time. That itself is generally good.

And, even there, blame Obama's Treasury Secretary, Tim Geither, and Obama himself, for setting up an alleged "bailout" plan for homebuyers that was really a way to launder more money to banksters. Trump is replacing an incrementalist and knocked off another; again, the fluidity is generally good, IMO.

And, Trump might upend the GOP as well. Paul Ryan's Wisconsin district has a fair amount of blue-collar workers. If he opposes Trump on issues like this repeatedly, I would in no way be surprised if Trump tried to get Ryan "primaried" in 2018.