Nope, that won't work; nope, that won't …

This morning in a NYT op-ed, former McCain agonist Nicolle Wallace (who now bigly suffers Donald Trump) observes:

Those in Mr. Trump’s inner circle are waiting for the political conversation to turn to events that they believe will determine the outcome of the election: the vice-presidential pick, the conventions and the debates.

As if anticipating Wallace, and no doubt anticipating Trump's "inner circle," former President Clinton adviser Doug Sosnik counter-observes in a Washington Post op-ed:

Breathless coverage notwithstanding, none of these has had a measurable impact in changing the outcome of a presidential election in at least 40 years.

The last time a vice presidential selection may have altered the outcome was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy’s choice of Lyndon B. Johnson assured Democrats of carrying Texas. (It should be noted that had Kennedy lost Johnson's state, he still would have carried the Electoral College.]

The last time a party’s convention may have changed the outcome was in 1968, when the Democrats suffered four days of rioting in the streets of Chicago.

And the last time a debate may have affected the outcome was in 1976, when Gerald Ford mistakenly asserted that "there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe," effectively ending his surge against Carter.

I'm still trying to identify even one advantage that Trump might hold, other than having a lock on that part of the electorate that brushes its tooth every night.

 

Comments

[Tunadaddy]

PM, that reminds me of the first West Virginia joke I ever heard:

"How do you know that the tooth brush was invented in West Virginia? Because if it were invented any where else, it would be called a teeth brush."

Here I am in the C-8 capital of the world, about 3 miles from Dupont Washington Works WV, 20 years a WV resident.

[Peter G]

Well if you heard the same speech I heard from Trump then you too might guess that his campaign finance problems just got quite a bit harder. He waxed eloquent on the subject of trade, so much so that he elicited condemnation from both the Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. And you might wonder, as I do, just how receptive the business wing of the Republican party, that place from which most large donations spring, is going to like Trump unilaterally reversing thirty years of Republican policy just so he could steal some of Bernie's populist thunder.

[Peter G]

Btw don't you just wonder what game changing VP selection is in the offing. My money would be on Chris Christie on the basis of the fact that the Donald is a true lover and connoisseur of fundament sniffing yes men. And Christie knows how to play fetch. Dare we hope he will outdo the fine choice that John McCain made?

[Sherrie]

My bet is Gingrich.

[Max]

One of the two. Remember in '12 Mitt had Christie vetted and did not pass muster. I've thought Gingrich all along. We'll know soon!