The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's campaign is
most likely to be upended or stymied if the candidate is indicted (beyond
Manhattan) and GOP voters become considerably wary that the ex-President could
not be elected because of his legal troubles. However, not only is there
another path to defeating Trump as the nominee but it the one which Tim Scott-
and perhaps others- believe is more likely.
Consider a little bit of history, which may or may not be
applicable. In an article which appeared in the May, 2004 issue of The
Atlantic, Paul Maslin, one of the four chief strategists for Howard Dean,
detailed the presidential campaign
strategy of his candidate in the run-up to the Iowa caucus, which largely
decided the nomination. Shortly before caucus day, as the two top candidates
were expected to be John Kerry and Dean, the campaign ran a television ad
criticizing Dean's strongest opponent. Maslin wrote
When we ran the ad, it barely brushed the intended
targets—Kerry and Edwards—but delivered a devastating blow to (Dick) Gephardt.
Quite naturally, he fought back—with a "kitchen sink" negative ad on
us, which ran midweek. That ad, which attacked Dean's views on Medicare and
Social Security, snuffed out what little chance we had left at victory—Dean and
Gephardt were both increasingly seen by Iowans as running negative campaigns.
The exchange, called off within days by both sides, nevertheless sent us
hurtling to a crushing defeat instead of a narrow loss that we should have been
able to endure. Had the vote been closer, I believe, there would have been no
"I have a scream" speech on caucus night. All the habits we had
learned so early in this race—work fast, use Iraq, be aggressive—were coming back
to haunt us.
As the front-runner, Dean had been criticized by several
candidates but most strenuously by Representative (and former Minority Leader)
Gephardt. Gephardt had gone hard after Dean, and Dean (inadvertently, according
to Maslin) retaliated robustly. Gephardt dropped out, Dean lost the primary and
subsequent to the much overhyped, infamous "scream," went on to
losing the nomination decisively.
The nomination went to the candidate, John Kerry, who mostly
had stayed out of the fray. Fast forward sixteen years to the 2020 contest for
the Democratic presidential nomination and before the Nevada caucus, when
Elizabeth Warren
launched her first broadside against Bloomberg just
minutes into the debate, setting the tone for the night.
“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” she
said. “A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’
And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”
About 40 minutes later, the debate returned to Bloomberg’s
alleged mistreatment of women when he was asked to address the accusations. He
responded by touting the number of women in leadership positions within his
foundation and business, noting, “I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that
the #MeToo movement has exposed.”
Bloomberg faces attacks for refusing to release women from
confidentiality agreements
“I hope you heard what his defense was: ‘I’ve been nice to
some women,’ ” Warren said, drawing applause. “That just doesn’t cut it.”
Warren then immediately zeroed in on the nondisclosure
agreements signed by women who sued Bloomberg, demanding that he release them
from the deals and allow their alleged accounts of harassment or discrimination
to become public. And from there, the situation only continued to spiral.
Warren repeatedly pressured Bloomberg to reveal how many
agreements were signed and attacked his character and electability in light of
the allegations, prompting the former mayor to issue defenses that many thought
made him look worse.
“None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they
didn’t like a joke I told,” Bloomberg said at one point, prompting boos and
gasps from the audience. He also declined to release women from the
nondisclosure deals saying, “They signed the agreements, and that’s what we’re
going to live with.”
Bloomberg was done, finished, obliterated while Warren was
boosted. This sort of reaction was common:
On CNN, Van Jones stated “Bloomberg went in as the Titanic —
billion-dollar-machine Titanic. Titanic, meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren.”
Bloomberg went in to the debate as an extremely plausible Democratic nominee
and came out shattered.
Warren had proven the giant-killer. Two days after the
debate, the Nevada caucus was held and Bernie Sanders emerged as the most(more?) viable progressive contender for the nomination as he pulled down 46.8%
of the voted. Joe Biden received 20.22%, Pete Buttigieg, 11.3%,, and Warren
9.7%.
The Massachusetts senator stayed in the race for a while but
she was essentially eliminated after Nevada. She was done in by Nevada voters,
who saw two Democrats fighting and decided that strife was not for them. Better
to hold hands and sign "kumbaya," and eventually Sanders lost out to
the milquetoast Joe Biden. That's the way it is with Democrats, anyway. "Can't we
all just get along?"
Republicans may be different. Joe
Scarborough and others in the mainstream media blather about Tim Scott having a lane in the
Republican nominating contest because he exudes a cheery optimism reminiscent,
they pray, of Ronald Reagan while Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are nattering
nabobs of negativism. They fundamentally miss the rationale of the Senator's
candidacy.
Republican voters believe
the country is going to hell in a handbasket, a major reason they are attracted
to DeSantis and especially Grump- uh, er, Trump. Many believe, additionally,
that the latter is the once, current, and future President.
Although something has to happen to Trump if he is to be
derailed, no Republican in the race is willing to criticize the 45th President.
They all are waiting around wishing and hoping that the other guy (or gal)
attacks Trump, erodes his numbers, and give them their opening.
Realistically speaking, there is one and only one
(potential) candidate who would do that.
Someone confrontational, brash, and not a little nasty, perhaps somebody who exudes a bit of that Sopranos, stereotypical Jersey impulse.
Each- but especially a Tim Scott, who has better than a
snowball's chance in hell- is waiting for former New Jersey governor Chris
Christie He can be, candidates believe, a modern Jesus Christ- sacrificing
himself to death (in this case of the political sort) on their behalf.
Ironically, there are GOP candidates whose best hope lies in the possibility
that Republican voters are similar to Democratic voters.
As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm that the only similarity
between Chris Christie and Jesus Christ is in the first six letters of the
former governor's name. And yes, Tim
Scott would like to demonstrate vote-getting ability in presidential primaries
so he can become vice-presidential timber. However, Scott won't attain even
that status unless someone puts a serious dent into the clear front-runner. A
former prosecutor, Christie likely believes he can prosecute the case against
Trump and, in either case, is probably the only one who can do so in the
belligerent manner necessary for Republican voters to sit up and take notice.
It's conceivable that Christie will stay out of the race. He
is, after all, more concerned with his own political future than anyone else's,
a characteristic of most politicians. Nonetheless, he is a very good retail
politician and unlike some candidates- such as Scott, DeSantis, and Nikki
Haley- has no chance to be a vice-presidential nominee. He'd be in it to draw
blood.
"If something changes," as Emily Jashinsky put it,
it probably would be a fellow Republican getting into a figurative knife fight
with Donald J. Trump. Like Richard
Gephardt and Elizabeth Warren, Chris Christie would take no prisoners. That
would be a confrontation worth watching and provide the best opportunity for someone to
thwart Donald J. Trump.
