Scenarios Where Trump Wins the Presidency Back in 2024

It is now March of 2021, Joe Biden's term is barely 6 weeks old.  It is a long time to the 2024 election.  A lot can happen.  I can see 100+ different scenarios going into the 2024 election.  I know many Trump supporters want to see the former president back in 2024.  Some of those who have spoken against him are consigned that he will run again.  If he does, he will likely win the nomination.  I do not see many scenarios where he wins in 2024.  I will go over three of them after I relate to you some history.

There have been 5 presidential election rematches.  Three of those have a flipped the results, sort of.  It's complicated.  Truthfully, 3 of the 5 saw the other candidate become the president.  2 of the 5 flipped the electoral college.  Only one flipped the popular vote.

In 1796, John Adams won the presidency and Thomas Jefferson finished second.  In those days, before the 12th Amendment, the first place winner was the president.  The runner up was the Vice President.  Beginning in 1800 after the 12th was ratified, that changed.  The President and the Vice President ran together.  The rematch saw Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr beat out John Adams/Charles Pickney.

In 1824 there was only one political party in the United States, the Democratic Republicans.  This year, rather than choosing one candidate, they chose four.  Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay.  Jackson won both the Electoral College and the popular vote, but he did not secure enough electoral votes to claim the presidency.  The election went into the House of Representatives.  Henry Clay was eliminated as only the top three move on when the election goes to the House.  You would think that because Jackson won the popular vote, he would have simply walked away from the contingent election as the President Elect.  That is not what happened.  Clay was very influential and hated Jackson.  He used his influence to ensure that Adams was elected.  In the 1828 rematch, Jackson won by a landslide.

In the election of 1888, incumbent president Grover Cleveland lost to Benjamin Harrison.  Cleveland won the popular vote by less than 500,000 votes.  But he did not secure the Electoral vote.  There were some things that changed in 1892 rematch.  One is that there was a strong 3rd party candidate who carried 5 states.  That did not stop Cleveland from flipping New York and Indiana to carry the election and become the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.

In 1896, William McKinley had a comfortable win against William Jennings Bryan.  In 1900, McKinley won an additional 5 states, winning by a landslide in the rematch.

In 1952, Dwight D Eisenhower won by a landslide.  In 1956, Adlai Stevenson managed to flip Missouri.  Ike flipped four other states and won by a landslide again.

There has never been a rematch involving a former president.  Most presidents, whether they serve one term or two, will accept the role of a senior statesman and never run for public office again.  There are some exceptions.  John Quincy Adams was elected to the House of Representatives after leaving the White House.  Two former presidents ran for the highest office after either losing or stepping aside.  Martin Van Buren represented the short-lived Free Soil Party in 1848.  He won 10% of the vote without securing any electoral votes.  The other incident that is well know is what Theodore Roosevelt did in 2012 against incumbent William Howard Taft.  He essentially split the Republican party and handed the White House to Woodrow Wilson.

I have little doubt that Biden will win again if he runs against Trump in 2024.  The most likely scenario is that Biden increases his share of the popular vote at least 2% and flips North Carolina.  Most presidents increase their vote the second time if they win a second term.  The only exception in recent history was Obama.  But it is not automatic at this point.  It will be Biden's election to lose if there is a rematch.  Out of the 100+ scenarios I can think of at this point, I see Trump winning three.

The first scenario: The GOP wins control over both houses of Congress in the 2022 mid-terms.  The two branches of government are constantly fighting.  There is veto after veto.  There are government shutdowns.  The economy suffers.  Biden is shown to be ineffective.  The Democrats become so frustrated that many stay home on election day.  Trump wins the rematch.

The second scenario will take a little history to explain.  Vice presidents have been elected president in their own right, but only under one of three conditions.  The first condition was set by the first Vice President to win a term on his own, namely John Adams.  The president must serve two terms.  The Vice President does not need to be with the president for both terms (Martin Van Buren), but the president must serve two terms.  This condition applied to John Adams, Martin Van Buren, Richard Nixon, George HW Bush and Joe Biden.  The second condition is the president dies in office.  This applies to Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson.  The third condition, your name is Thomas Jefferson.  Outside of these three conditions, no Veep has become the POTUS.

The second scenario is that Biden finishes his term, but declines to run again and the Democrats select Vice President Kamala Harris to be their nominee in 2024.  If the president only serves one term, the Vice President does not get elected.  This happened to Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey and John C. Breckenridge.  True that each one of these cases was different.  Jimmy Carter was defeated.  Lyndon Johnson decided not to run again for another term early in the election cycle.  James Buchanan pledged to only serve one term before he was elected.  Each of their vice presidents failed in their presidential bids.  There is only one exception to this rule, again the name is Thomas Jefferson.

The third condition where Trump can win is if Biden dies in office, but Harris is not selected as the Democratic party nominee.  This happened in our country four times.  The president died,  those presidents were William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Abraham Lincoln and James Garfield.  Their Vice Presidents were John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson and Chester A. Arthur respectively.  In each case, the successor was denied their party's nomination.  In each case, the other party won.  The third scenario where Trump wins is Biden dies, the Democrats select someone other than Kamala Harris in 2024.  This will surely result in a Republican win.

Again, a lot can happen between now and 2024.  Trump has beaten history simply by being elected.  He may beat history again.  But the odds are against him and he is no Thomas Jefferson.

Is there A Role for Donald Trump as an Elder Statesman?

 As a matter of fact, there is a role that Former President Donald Trump can play in the Republican Party and in the United States if he chooses to take it.  That is the role of an Elder Statesman.

An Elder Statesman is a man, usually retired, is one who gives advice to those who are serving their state, country and world.  Trump, as a one term president, could occupy the role once served by George HW Bush, who recently passed away or Gerald R. Ford who also recently passed away.

There are now five former US presidents living.  Jimmy Carter, who is nearing the Century Mark is frail and well respected, in spite of only serving one term himself.  George W. Bush, whose presidency gains more respect as time rolls on is the only other former Republican president still serving.  The other two Elder Statesmen that served in the presidency are Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama.

Even though many people now consider Trump to be one of the worst presidents in history, once the angst of his election fades, his status will likely improve.  It will be tough to be worse than the string of presidents which proceeded the US Civil War in the eyes of history.  Only if Trumps actions actually lead to a Civil War would his presidency be considered worse.  There will be some tough things that will always taint his legacy.  

In order to transition to the role of an Elder Statesman, Donald Trump will need to have a sense of humility, be somewhat repentant about his mistakes and own up to them.  Unfortunately, this is something which is very un-Trump like.  It will have to be the Donald Trump that we have not yet seen.  Rumors of a third party are springing.  This is what I will address next.

Why the .05 DUI limit should not be law in Utah...yet.

Utah has made another alcohol law that seems silly.  That is until you do your research.  Even though sound research backs it up, there are good reasons that Utah should not be the first state that should pass this law.

About the science.  We must recognize that every body is different and we all metabolize alcohol differently.  Some people who have had enough to drink to put their BAC at .05 may be perfectly sound and safe to drive.  Other people may not be.  .05 is considered legally intoxicated in Germany, the beer capitol of the world.  If the beer capitol of the world thinks it should be .05, I'm not going to argue.   However, most Germans will not drive their newly purchased Mercedes to the pub and then drive home.  Most will ride home with a non-drinking friend or take a cab both to and from the place where they will get stoned out of their minds.

That is the standard that I would like all Americans to adopt.  If you are going out to drink, don't drive there.  Take a cab to the place where you will drink.  If you take a cab there, you will take a cab home.  If you don't drive there, you won't be tempted to drive home.  Simple enough?

Utah is not a good state to begin the push for .05 in the US.  There are two reasons for this.  First, it deepens the divide between Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah.  Yes, there are judgmental and pretentious Mormons, just like every other Christian sect.  There are some Latter-Day Saints, such as myself, who enjoy and cherish our relationships with our non-LDS friends and wish that the Utah State Legislature would do less with our liquor laws and focus efforts elsewhere, like fighting bankruptcy or air pollution or some real problem in this state.  DUIs are not really a big problem in Utah.  Which brings me to point 2.

Utah already has the lowest DUI rates in the country.  It is not because of our liquor laws.  Therefore, it is not a good test ground for .05 BAC.  States that are in the middle ground for DUI rates, like Georgia and Illinois would be better test grounds for this than Utah.  States where lowering the DUI to .05 would make a difference in the DUI rate.  People who drink in Utah are probably not going to be persuaded to stop because of a lower BAC.  Perhaps it will have the opposite effect.

Governor Herbert plans to call the legislature into special session to fix some problems with the law.  You might say that he should have vetoed the bill.  I think if he had, the veto could have been overridden with little chance to negotiate for something better.  The law will not go into effect until December of 2018.  There is time.  If I were in the legislature, I would want a provision for the law not to go into effect until at least 9 other states have done the same thing.  If it really is a good thing, it will catch on.

Myths About Term Limits Debunked...

1.  Term Limits will end career politicians.

Here is a career that fits will within term limit laws:

Politician A.

Spends 12 years as a City Councilwoman, First Elected at age 25
Spends 8 years as City Mayor, First Elected at age 37
Spends 8 years in State Legislature, First Elected at age 45
Spends 12 years in US House of Representatives, First Elected at age 53

Years in Politics: 44 Years, Retires at age 65.
Sounds like a good career to me.

Truth.  Term limits will do nothing more that limit the number of years a person spends in Congress.  Period.  It all depends on the context of the term, "Career Politician."

2.  Term Limits will promote new ideas.

The idea here is that with new people coming into the office every 12 years, that the new person will bring new ideas with them.  That the old ideas will go away when the old politician is forced out of office.

There are 15 states that have term limit laws.  One of them is California.  Their law has been on the books for 27 years.  I have found, in my research, at least three attempts to change the law over the years.  Why?  If California's term limit laws are so effective, why are they trying to change it?

New ideas are needed.  The real problem is that those who are new in office and more likely to bring new ideas to the table, are often shuffled to the back of the room by those who have been in office for a long time.  The most powerful in Congress today are those who serve as committee chairs.  Those who serve as committee chairs are those who have paid their dues, who have been in office for years.

The reason for this is experience.  It mimics what is done in the real world.  How many companies are run by those who are fresh out of college?  Companies that turn a nose to the new ideas brought to the table by recent college graduates tend to pay the price.  But, if a company is not run by the founder, it is run by someone with experience.  There is a reason for this.  Perhaps there is a better way to remind those who are at the top levels of congress to listen to the new representatives, but at the end of the day, experience will rule out.

3.  Term limits will end corruption.

The idea is that the longer people are in power, the more they are corrupted by it.  However, it's not hard to find honest, hard-working people who have been in congress a long time.  One must remember that a US Senator serves for 6-year terms.  With term limits, what would they do with the second 6 years?  Whatever they want.  It may actually weaken the resistance to "cash in" before their time is up.  What would you do in your job if you had no accountability for six whole years?

There is nothing about term limits that will prevent special interest groups from buying influence...if you believe that that goes on.  It is also possible that that money will be used to hand-pick successors where it now goes to helping incumbents.  This might actually increase political corruption instead of ending it.  But there really have been no studies on this and one could effectively argue both sides of this coin.

In some states with term limits, those trying to buy-in simply go to the executive branch instead of the legislative.  At the federal level, if you can't go to the Chief Executive, you go to the bureaucrats.  Legislation may end up getting replaced by uncontrolled regulation or deregulation by those who aren't accountable to the voters, and this is something that the same people who argue for term limits are definitely against.  It goes on now and it will continue to happen with term limits and might even increase with an inexperienced Congress.  This is likely something that neither major political party really wants.  Term limits will do nothing to address bureaucratic corruption, but yet give that extra-constitutional fourth branch of government more power.

Let me offer some alternative solutions

1.  End the practice of gerrymandering.  Require that congressional district boundaries be drawn by non-partisan panels, that they are not only contiguous, and as geographically proportional as possible.  No more congressional districts designed to favor any political party, any race, any gender, any religion.

2.  Allow members of Congress to be impeached and removed from office by their state legislatures.  The only real way to end corruption is to punish it.  As of today, the only people who can punish members of the US Congress are members of the US Congress.  As much as I respect The Founders, I think that they missed something here.  In all areas, members of Congress should ultimately be accountable to the people they represent, especially in wrong-doing.

3.  Support reforms that make it harder for members of Congress to get reelected, instead of easier.  In too many states, and especially in gerrymandered districts, incumbents get a free pass to re-election.  This should not be the case.  Incumbents should be forced to justify keeping their job every single election.  The harder they work to return to officer, the more accountable they will be and the less corrupt they will be.  Term limits will do not a thing to accomplish this.

Who could be the first female president

We did not make history by electing the first female president in 2016.  Having experienced strong female leaders in my career, too many to mention, I have no doubt that a woman will one day win the presidency.  It will probably be soon.

Hillary Rodham Clinton just turned 69 years old.  If she were to run and get elected in 2020, she would become the oldest person to be elected president for the first time at age 73, beating Donald Trump by about 3 years and Ronald Reagan by just a few days longer than Trump.  Sooner or later, her age and health will catch up to her.  It is likely that Hillary will not run for political office again.

Here is a list of women who could, perhaps as soon as 2020, win the White House:

The governorship of a state is the most common path the the White House, here are the current female governors.  There are six currently serving, about half and half from each party.

Susana Martinez, Republican, New Mexico, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Mary Fallin, Republican, Oklahoma, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Kate Brown, Democrat, Oregon
Gina Raimondo, Democrat, Rhode Island
Nikki Haley, Republican, South Carolina, term expires in 2019 and she is not eligible to run again
Muriel Brewster, Democrat, DC, which has just voted to accept statehood, however it still needs to be approved by Congress and signed into law by the President.

The US Senate is a path that many have used to become the president.  Here is a list of female US Senators in the 115th Congress.

Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Alaska, just re-elected, term up in 2022
Diane Feinstein, Democrat, California, term up in 2018
Kamala Harris, Democrat, California, just elected, term up in 2022
Mazie Horono, Democrat, Hawaii, term up in 2018
Joni Ernst, Republican, Iowa, term up in 2020
Susan Collins, Republican, Maine, term up in 2020
Elizabeth Warren, Democrat, Massachusetts, term up in 2018
Debbie Stebenow, Democrat, Michigan, term up in 2018
Amy Klobuchar, Democrat, Minnesota, term up in 2018
Clair McCaskill, Democrat, Missouri, term up in 2018
Deb Fisher, Republican, Nebraska, term up in 2018
Maggie Hassan, Democrat, New Hampshire, just elected, term up in 2022

Jeane Shaheen, Democrat, New Hampshire, term up in 2020

Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat, New York, term up in 2018

Heidi Heitkamp, Democrat, North Dakota, term up in 2018

Patty Murray, Democrat, Washington, just re-elected, term up in 2022

Maria Cantwell, Democrat, Washington, term up in 2018

Shelly Moore Capito, Republican, West Virginia

Tammy Baldwin, Democrat, Wisconsin, term up in 2018

Having a term in an off-year, such as after the 2018 mid-term election.  This will give that person two years to focus on the White House, without having another job to do.

List of female CEOs.  Now that Donald Trump has opened the door for a corporate CEO to become president, the next person to step through it might be a woman.  I do not know the political affiliation of any of these women.  These women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies.

Mary Barra, General Motors (Possible Democrat)
Heather Bresch, Mylan, Inc (Democrat)
Ursula Burns, Xerox (Democrat)
Debra Cafaro, Ventas (Possible Democrat)
Susan Cameron, Reynolds (Possible Republican)
Safra Catz, Oracle (Possible Democrat)
Lynn Good, Duke Energy (Political Leanings Unknown)
Shira Goodman, Staples (Possible Democrat)
Tricia Griffith, The Progressive (Political Leanings Unknown)
Marilyn Hewson, Lockheed Martin (Possible Republican)
Vicki Hollub, Occidental Petroleum (Political Leanings Unknown)
Gracia Martore, TEGNA (Possible Democrat)
Marissa Mayer, Yahoo (Possible Democrat)
Beth Mooney, Key (Possible Republican)
Denise Morrison, Campbell Soup (Possible Democrat)
Indra Nooyi, Pepsico (Possible Democrat, but has been critical of policies of both parties.)
Phebe Novakovic, General Dynamics (Political Leanings Unknown)
Patricia Poppe, CMS Energy (Political Leanings Unknown)
Debra Reed, Sempra Energy (Possible Republican)
Barbara Rentler, Ross Stores (Political Leanings Unknown)
Virginia Rometty, IBM (Possible Democrat)
Irene Rosenfeld, Mondelez International (Political Leanings Unknown--Criticized by both political parties, likely a Libertarian.)
Meg Whitman, HP (Possible Republican)

Probably, the first female president in on one of the lists above  Many of these women, whether you like what they have accomplished or not, have accomplished as much or even much more that Hillary Rodham Clinton ever did.  They just do not have the name recognition right now.  Name recognition is why one of the above women have not yet run for the presidency.  Perhaps one of these women will get the name recognition they need to run in 2020.

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald Trump

As the Election of 2012 was beginning to ramp up, Donald J. Trump, a man who had no political experience was beginning to explore the idea of running for the presidency.  At that time, I wrote that he would divide the Republican party.  That turned out to be true in 2016.  Yes, in spite of that party division, and all other odds, Donald Trump succeeded to become the first person to became elected president who had neither served before in public office nor rose to the rank of Major General in the United States military.  If Trump is successful, he opens the doors for many with a background like his to run for this office in the future.  Perhaps the change the country needs.

I saw data in my office before I finished work for the day.  Exit polling in the evening was showing an interesting trend.  In my house were expecting a Clinton landslide, even though none of us voted for her.  However, leaked evening exit polls that I saw began to show that Trump had a chance in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and even Pennsylvania.  It was beginning to look like Trump had a chance as returns began to come in.  If Trump could get two of those states, he may have a chance to win.  It turns out that about 3:00 ET, 1:00 MT, that Trump was declared the winner in Pennsylvania and the winner of the election after getting all of these states.

Trump did not win the traditional republican way...family values, points of light, etc.  He built a new coalition.  He gathered together people that both parties forgot and left behind.  Those whom the Democrats called deplorable and those whom Republicans simply ignored.  He knew something that others forgot, or didn't understand, and took advantage.

I won't go into all of the reasons why Trump won.  It will take academics years to understand what happened.  I do believe we just witnessed a counter-revolution.  I hope it remains peaceful.  It seems that his election has brought some unity to the Republican party, at least for now.

I will say that there is one thing I have learned.  I have to change my thinking.  It seems that too many of us think that there are only two kinds of people, those who think like I do and those who should think like I do.  That kind of thinking needs to change.  Not all problems are simple and mathematical and can be resolved with logic.  Some problems take a coalition of people who think very differently to solve.

Clinton may still win the popular vote.  However, keep in mind that as of now, instead of having one big election, we have 50 small ones.  This is only the 5th time in history that this will happen.  If Utah and Idaho had gone to McMullin, we would still be fighting this battle.  Instead, we get a quick and peaceful transition.  In a future election, it may be the Republicans that win the popular vote, with the Democrats winning the electoral college.  Remember, our government is a coalition, not a pure democracy.  Our founders wanted it that way.

Good luck with the new coalition, President Trump.

Why Evan McMullin is Not a Smart Alternative to Trump

Outside of Utah, very few people have heard of presidential candidate Evan McMullin.  Here is a link to his Wikipedia page.  In Utah he is polling at 22% where Trump and Clinton are tied at 26% where 12% are undecided.  His popularity is surging, especially among Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) who are looking for a Moral alternative to Donald Trump, who is suffering in the polls due to his sex-life revelations.

There is only one argument you need to look away from McMullin as a candidate, it's his experience.  Yes, he's had a job.  He has been a CIA operative.  He's also had experience as an adviser to Congress.  That's it.

It's as if the organization, Better for America, couldn't actually find anyone better for America, and settled for this guy.

Would you hire someone who has never changed a diaper to babysit your children?  That is basically what Evan McMullin represents.  He's the good kid around the corner that all of the neighborhood kids look up to.  That doesn't make him a worthy candidate.

The Presidency of the United State is a tough job.  The lives of 385,000,000 souls hang in the balance.  Experience is important.  It's not the place to learn on the job.

Every small business owner in America has more executive experience than Evan McMullin and is therefore more qualified.

Utahans are falling for this because McMullin represents a value vote.  But, that does not mean its a smart vote.

If you are looking for a value vote, write in Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman, or someone who you think represents values, but also has the experience needed to do a good job.  There are probably more than 200 men and women who would make better write-in candidates.

Not just anyone can be president and not just anyone should be.  Evan McMullin is just anyone.  He's a good guy, but he's just anyone.

Its less than one month from Election Day.  Let's take a moment to breath deeply and think before we make the wrong choice.

Trump Comments on Women

Donald Trump...we knew what we were getting when we selected him as our nominee.  Republicans as a whole deserve this.  That being said, let me clue the world in on a few things.

In the locker room, when there are no women around, men speak differently.  I'm certain that women speak differently when there are no men around, although I'm not certain of the language.  You all know what I am talking about.  If you do not, then consider yourself lucky.  However, Donald Trump's remarks go beyond either disgusting locker room talk.  Sure, its the same language, but is it not the same type of talk.  He justifies abuse and adultery.  Most locker room talk never goes to that level.

He is giving advice on one of the advantages to being a celebrity when it comes to taking advantage of the opposite sex.  This is a privilege accorded to so few outside of the world of celebrities.  As bad as they are, I would like to find some male who has not made similar remarks outside of the rich and famous who would get a away with comments like that.  Remember what we all thought of Bill Cosby a few years ago?  We simply don't know how those who are on the public pedestal talk like when they are in the locker room.  I'm not shocked by what I heard, just disgusted.

I do not wish to excuse Donald Trump, nor do I wish to endorse him.  Vote for the person who you feel represents you the best, even if it leads to Hillary Clinton winning by a landslide...which it will as long as Trump remains in the race.  I am calling for the presidential election process to be reformed to prevent someone like Donald Trump, who knows how to manipulate the media to his advantage, from ever again becoming a major party nominee.

First and foremost, we need more faith in conventions.  For the most part, the convention delegates have put in time and effort it takes to produce an acceptable nominee.  Today the delegates are called on to rubber stamp what has been produced in the primaries.

Second, we put way too much stalk in the early primaries.  Iowa and New Hampshire shouldn't be the states that narrow down the field.  Between the two, there are only 10 electoral votes.  I think we can have the primaries take place nationally, or have a calendar reduced to 4-12 weeks.  Try this out for a primary schedule:

Week 1: States with 4 or fewer electoral votes: Alaska, DC, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

Week 2: States with 5 to 7 electoral votes: Nebraska, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut, Oklahoma and Oregon.

Week 3: States with 8 to 12 electoral votes: Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, South Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Washington.

Week 4: States with more than 13 electoral votes: Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas and California.

Third, no winner take all primaries.

Fourth, end the "Utah" rule.  The Utah rules states that if the candidate that the state's delegates are pledged to is no longer in the race, the state's delegates will go to the candidate with the most votes.  It should be that if the candidates that the state's delegates are pledged to is no longer in the race, the delegates are free to vote their conscious.

Fifth, suspending the campaign is not dropping out.  If a candidate suspends the campaign, they are still an active candidate at the convention.  The only way their campaign ends is if they drop from the race.

If someone is so totally awesome that they get to the convention as the sole candidate, the convention can be a coronation.  Otherwise, the delegates will have the final say.  Remember that Donald Trump won 60% of the delegates with only 40% of the votes.  With these rules, likely there would have been four or five active candidates going into the convention.  Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and possibly either Jeb Bush or Ben Carson.  In the end, we may have ended up with either Marco Rubio or John Kasich as the final GOP nominee.

When will it be time for Trump to quit.

If you ask me about the prospects of a Trump presidency, I will answer the way a friend of mine did recently.  Even after sitting on the bottom of the ocean for over a century, the Titanic's pools are still full.  In other words, it is difficult to see the problem when you are not looking at the whole picture.  The country isn't only run by the president, but congress and the courts as well.  I would advise everyone to look at the whole picture before casting votes this summer.

Asking Donald Trump to quit is not really a move that will put a Republican in the White House.  Even though it could work.  It also may help the GOP avoid a certain disaster  That disaster would be the loss of a majority in the houses of Congress as well as a loss in the electoral college.

Question 1: Does this mean that the GOP is conceding the presidency?  Hardly.  If you are in the early innings of a baseball game, and your starting pitcher is giving up home run after home run, you have a choice.  You can leave the poor pitcher on the mound a few more innings, or bring someone else in who can reach the plate, staunch the bleeding and give you a chance to win the game.  If Trump is truly a certain loss, and will bring members of congress down with him, better give someone who has a slightly better chance a shot.

Question 2: Who would replace Donald Trump on the ticket?  Most likely the chosen VP candidate, Mike Pence would be asked to take up the torch in Donald Trump's place.  Governor Pence would then choose a running mate.  If Mike Pence declines, then the National Committee would have to pick a new Presidential candidate and that person would select a running mate.

Question 2a:  What about Ted Cruz or the others who lost to Trump in the primary?  There would be a certain known risk to doing so.  If Ted Cruz or any of the others couldn't beat Trump in a primary election, what are their chances against Clinton?  Even if they polled better against Clinton in some polls than Trump did, the risk of losing is far greater.

Let's compare this to the Super Bowl.  In the AFC Championship game, the Patriots have defeated the Colts 45-3.  But the next day, it is found out that the Patriots have cheated and are declared ineligible for the Super Bowl.  You can put the Colts in the Super Bowl against the Seahawks, but it does not man that the Colts would be more favored to win than the Patriots would have been.

Also remember that politics isn't sports.  The winner of the Super Bowl is really inconsequential to your daily life.  The winner of the elections this fall is.

Question 3: Is there a risk to all of this?  Absolutely.  I will remind you that the majority of those who cared enough to vote in the primary election chose Donald Trump.  If there was any inkling that someone other than Trump brought this on, it will backfire.  Many of those voters could turn on the GOP, vote for Hillary, or a third party candidate or not vote at all.  Having Trump may negatively affect the chances of GOP candidates in other races in November.  Having Trump step aside may make things worse.

Question 4: If Mike Pence doesn't want to pick up the baton and be the GOP presidential candidate, who would be the likely choice.  That is an interesting question.  Some might think the party would then turn to Ted Cruz or someone else who dropped out of the GOP race before Trump secured the nomination.  However, keep in mind that none of these men and women were strong enough to defeat Trump in the primaries.  That fact would be too much of a liability, and the Hillary campaign would do nothing but, for lack of a better term, trump it up.  You really would want to get someone else.  But no one else would have the name recognition to build up a strong enough campaign to defeat Hillary, except for Mitt Romney or John McCain.  You probably already know how well that will go over.  The real choice is for Mike Pence to pick up the baton for Trump if does not wish to continue.

There is probably one person who has the name recognition to do it, but I doubt she will.

Question 5: Has this ever happened before?  No.  In 1972, George McGovern had to replace his original choice for VP, Thomas Eagleton with Ambassador Sergeant Schriver, who most people today would know as Arnold Schwarzenegger's late Father-in-Law, or the late brother-in-law of John and Robert Kennedy.

Question 6: What difference does it make?  Trump may likely lose.  If Trump steps aside, the replacement is likely to lose.  The difference is that Trump will no longer be around to drag down the members of the Republican Party running for seats in Congress.  Thus, the only reason for Trump to step aside from a big picture standpoint is if he is going to take down enough members of Congress with him to cost the GOP their majority.

Remember in all of this, even if it looks like Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide, it does not mean that Trump should quit.  If Donald Trump is going to take Congress down with him, then it is time for The Donald to quit.

Who should really be the nominees.

The GOP problem, Donald Trump.  The real reason why Trump is a liability to the party is not because of his mouth.  If being a smart-a@@ was a presidential dis-qualifier, then Andrew Jackson, US Grant and many others would never have sat behind the big desk in the oval office.  The real reason Trump is a liability is because he doesn't have a presidential resume.

And yes, I can see all of those Trump supporters rolling their eyes for the umpteenth time as they read this.  If you you are rolling your eyes at this suggestion then you do not understand history.  The constitution says that you only have to be 35 years of age and a natural-born citizen. However, no one has ever been elected who has not served in one of the following offices: A military officer with the rank of O-2 or higher, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, State Governor, US Senator or US House of Representatives.  We have never elected anyone outside of one of these offices.  Many have tried, and they have all failed.  If you are a Trump supporter, you want Hillary and her baggage on the other side of the ballot.

Unfortunately, out of all of the candidates who stepped up to run on the GOP side, none had good credentials.  They were qualified, but their negatives where all too high.  Therefore, I would suggest none-of-the above for the GOP and put forward a new compromise candidate.

Here is your GOP Presidential Candidate for 2016.  South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley.  Is she perfect?  No.  Opportunity doesn't come in a neatly-wrapped Christmas gift.  She can get the job done, just like she has in North Carolina.

For her running mate, I would choose someone from the rust belt to balance the ticket.  Someone from a state that the GOP must win in order to win the elction.  Someone who may not be a Tea Party conservative, but is not in their cross-hairs either.  I would choose Pennsylvania Congressman Charlie Dent

The Hailey-Dent ticket for 2016.  A winning combination?

The Dems have more motivation to replace Hillary.  If they have a nominee without any baggage, they are bound to trump Trump in a way that Clinton no longer can.  But they have to nominate someone who will be perceived as a Obama ally.  I have just the nominee for them.

That is Maggie Hassan.  She is the only female two-term democratic party governor is the US.  She is from the very important state of New Hampshire.  She is a lawyer, went to Brown and has experience in the medical industry...not as a doctor, but as an attorney.

The VP pick, to balance the Democratic ticket.  

  

Those of us from the West will recognize Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper.  Probably the most progressive governor in the West since Brigham Young.

Hassan-Hickenlooper doesn't exactly roll off your tongue.  But it could be the ticket the Democrats need in 2016.

Even with the negatives that Trump and Clinton have this election, the chances of either one of them getting replaced are nil.  But I have to put this post out there.  Nothing will happen if people don't begin to think about good alternatives.  We all know Trump has an ego big enough to fill the Grand Canyon.  Hillary has a huge entitlement issue, meaning that she thinks that she is entitled to be the first female president.  Neither one of them has the humility to step aside and neither party has the balls to stand up to presumptive candidates (and their supporters) and force them to step aside.

These women and men here do not have the negative baggage.  They have proven that they can get the job done, because they have been getting the job done for their states.  They are good candidates, even if you do not agree with their policies.  And if we have good candidates in 2016, and a positive campaign, we will have a good turnout.  A good turnout will mean quality at the lower end of the ticket as well.  We might replace some of the screw-ups we now have in Congress with people who will do their job.  And that is what we really want, isn't it?

Now think about this for a moment.  Do you really want to rein in Washington?  Do you really want a responsive government?  If you do, it starts at the top.  Donald Trump will not go anywhere unless people step up to the mat and get involved.  You may not like these people, that's fine.  But you can press the stop button on this campaign.  You can put a stop to people buying their way into the White House if you contact the party leaders from your state and demand action, and demand it now.