In response to an FT article by Ed Luce on 16th March 2016, entitled 'Super Tuesday 2: Donald Trump’s scorched earth advance'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60c3ca88-eb29-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4.html#ixzz433Nf3zpW
'Other Republican figures point out that even if Mr Trump gains a majority of delegates before July, party fixers can still bend the rules to deny him the nomination. Such a prospect would be incendiary. Yet the chances of an open Republican split cannot be ruled out. The divisions between Mr Trump and what remains of the Republican establishment are only growing as the primary season continues'
This isn't about Donald Trump - it's about the establishment losing control and not liking it. They want a selection not an election.
Having failed to derail Trump with a procession of mediocre establishment stooges, the GOP want a contested convention so that delegates can vote for whomsoever they wish in the 2nd round. I.E. They will select the 'chosen' candidate, who may even be Mitt Romney, but could be anyone with a pulse if he will do what he is told.
The GOP would much rather have Hillary in the White House than Trump. This demonstrates that whilst on the surface it looks like the US has two parties, there is in fact a 'club' that spans both. The thing that most scares them is the threat to their cushy jobs, the 'pork barrel' deals that decades of corrupt government have cemented, and the fact that Donald Trump would not sign whatever was put in front of him.
If the GOP succeed in 'stealing' the convention, Trump will run as an independent, and will take the gloves off what he knows about the dealings that go on 'behind the curtain'. If he loses the general, there will be an army of Donald Trumps running in the mid-terms. This isn't about Donald Trump - it's about the sell-by date of a political system that is rotten to the core. This story has a very long way to run.
***
A fellow reader replied:
"Interesting comment but could you tell me who exactly are the 'establishment'? A few names (Rudh Limbaugh? the Koch brothers?....) would be useful.
MarkGB:
Conservative media chiefs like Roger Ailes at Fox, the neocons - the Cheney crowd, the Nuland crowd, the Bushes, the guys on the influential committees in Congress, the 'country club' conservatives like John Boehner. The large campaign donors from Wall Street and elsewhere, The superpacs:
E.G.1 'Conservative Solutions' is a super PAC that has been supporting Marco Rubio - they funded a $4.5 million anti-Trump campaign in March
E.G.2 Just before Iowa caucuses, Katie Packer, a former Mitt Romney campaign staffer, established a super PAC dedicated to discrediting Trump. 'Our Principles' has spent about $4.4 million on anti-Trump ads that cast him as a liberal
E.G.3 'American Future Fund' which is linked to the Kochs is focussing on his disastrous Trump University, using students in their ads and catchy phrases like “I was trumped by Trump” and “I was duped by the Donald.”
In short - follow the money.
Fellow Reader:
"Thank you for answering. Do these rather disparate odds and sods add up to an 'establishment'?"
MarkGB
I don't think it's a group of old men who meet in a candle lit room with one trouser leg rolled up, and say 'hi' with a funny handshake, if that's what you mean :-)
'Elites' or 'Elite beneficiaries' might be better terms. It adds up a number of people from disparate groups who do very well out of a corrupt system, the status quo - who would rather see someone from within that status quo in the White House even if they are from the other side, like Hillary, rather than an 'outsider', like Trump - who cannot be controlled. 'Better the devil you know' etc.
In Brazil right now, politicians are being arrested for 'corruption' over the Petrobas affair - taking 'bungs' in exchange for government contracts, special treatment, jobs in high places etc. In the US it's called 'campaign finance' and it's 'legal'