Another perishable post on politics

The Hillary camp must be watching quickly unfolding GOPer moves with particular interest.  On Sunday, some pundits were openly doubting that the GOPer Establishment (i.e. Jeb! backers) were going to rush to the aid of Marco Rubio, as their last stand savior.  At the end of Monday, the Washington Post reported that this was exactly what happened during the day.  Jeb! had left the race, and without much in the way of a mourning period, his backers were "flocking" to Rubio.

Good news for Rubio, at least in terms of money.  He had far less that Cruz or Trump.  But being the hero of the Jeb! Establishment in a voting with the middle finger year, not so much.

The Post piece agreed with others, however, that Rubio's road to the nomination is pretty narrow and uncertain, if not downright unlikely.  His announced strategy is to accumulate delegates without winning any of the March 1 Super Tuesday states, and start win some winner-take-all states on March 15.  Just to do the former, he'll have to leapfrog Cruz with the Evangelicals who don't vote for Trump.  To do the latter is the to be or not to be question.

From the Hillary point of view, Rubio must be their least favorite opponent.  I've been thinking about the debates.  Facing a woman candidate is an unknown quantity in presidential debates for GOPer candidates.  The hard edge of Tail Gunner Ted might not go over too well if he gets too aggressive.  That prospect is even greater with Trump.

Aggressive unto the threat of violence.  Too much?  Then you missed Trump on Monday, telling his adoring crowd that he'd like to punch a protester in the face.  Nothing on Cruz of course, who said he'd get Immigration police to round up and deport permanently all 12 million undocumented.

Of all the people who try to explain Trump's methodology, the one who makes the most sense to me is conservative columnist David Brooks.  In a column he wrote, prematurely burying Trump after his Iowa loss, he put his finger on it: and it's studio wrestling:

Donald Trump was inducted into the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame in 2013. He’d been involved with professional wrestling for over a quarter century. At first his interest was on the business side, because so many of the events were held at his hotels. But then he began appearing in the ring as an actual character.

What Trump apparently learned in that arena--the aggressive bluster that WWF fans love--he transferred to his TV persona and especially to his candidacy.

Professional wrestling generates intense interest and drama through relentless confrontation. Everybody knows it’s fake at some level, but it is perceived as fake and real at the same time (sort of like politics). What matters is not so much who wins or loses, or whether you are good or evil, but the aggressiveness by which you wage each mano-a-mano confrontation.

Many have been waiting for Trump's cartoon aggression and bullying of women in particular to go too far and rebound on him.  It hasn't, and absent real violence against protesters or media at one of his rallies (which is a growing possibility,) it probably won't in the GOPer primaries, especially in the South.

  Brooks explains his core support this way: Social inequality is always felt more acutely than economic inequality. Trump rose up on behalf of people who felt looked down upon, made them feel vindicated and turned social conduct on its head. And especially with available targets like uppity blacks and uppity women, Trump can keep blustering away.

But it's one thing to bully women and the media remotely, or to do it for GOPer debate crowds.  It's another to do it face to face in the Finals, in the context of a one-on-one presidential debate.  With an audience of voters that do not fit the profile of GOPer primaries.

 As repulsive a spectacle that might be should Trump face Bernie Sanders, the more likely scenario of facing Hillary could be his undoing.  Although the ratings will be spectacular, which may be all that he really wants.

For this alone, Trump must be the candidate Hillary people wish for.  It may be that it's a case of careful what you wish for, and in that particular column Brooks was premature at best in sounding Trump's demise. But given the choices, I suspect the candidate the Hillaryites want to face least is Rubio, with his altar boy face and smile.  His youth might be especially appealing.  He's just as extreme as Cruz and Trump, and in some areas more extreme, both in domestic and foreign policy.  He would be just as much a catastrophe.  But even with his robotic demeanor, he might do better in debates than they.

Still, as long as GOPers are determined to vote with their middle fingers, Rubio is running for vice-president.