A “Compromise Candidate”?

If you’ve been on Facebook recently (like I have) and been paying attention to the news on the electoral college like me, then you may have heard about the Democratic (like the Democrat electors, well really just one of them) proposal to choose a “compromise candidate”, in this case John Kasich, as president of the United States.

This is a much more likely threat than the abolition of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote.

A past incidence of choosing a “compromise candidate”

The Republican Party picked a compromise candidate for president once. His name was James A. Garfield. Republicans feared the Republican Incumbent, Ulysses S. Grant, running for a third term (which was legal at the time), and they also disliked James G. Blaine, who had been involved in many fraudulent railroad stock activities. Since the Republican Convention liked neither candidate, they instead chose James A. Garfield as a “Compromise candidate”. He had served as a brigadier general in the American Civil War and wasn’t disliked that much by anyone. He and his VP, Chester Arthur then moved on to win the general election. As some of you may know, Garfield was later assassinated and Chester Arthur took over as President.

What Would Happen if a “Compromise Candidate” were chosen

Key to Terms used

Nationalists = Trump Supporters

Leftists = Leftist Globalists like George Soros and the uneducated far left, the latter of whom are currently rioting in cities across America.

The chances of this are still small, but there is a possibility that, due to some serious crime, Donald Trump becomes so disliked within the next month by the electors that a compromise candidate is elected. However there would have to be a crime so serious that the bulk of, or at least a large percentage of nationalist Trump supporters  would turn on the President-elect, for there to be a compromise candidate chosen without riots from the left and direct action, both peaceful and violent (I doubt that all Trump supporters will wave signs in the air at Capitol Hill), from the nationalist right. If there weren’t such a crime and if the John Kasich became the upcoming President, I’d expect more rioting from the ill-informed leftist protesters and more direct action from nationalist Trump supporters at Washington and Alexandria.

The latter would be a much more grassroots and less deadly movement (but also more direct), but it would ultimately fail in my view once some Trump supporters started to silently go violent (there would be a smaller chance of bomb threats on certain electors from the nationalist right), which would encourage President Obama to enact martial law. This martial law would only occur under the pretense of a right-winged armed threat. I doubt that in this scenario the left would be able to do enough to cause a declaration of martial law. While all of this was happening I see certain (Republican) state governors clamping down on the leftist rioting themselves given that most city mayors are Democrats and most would be unlikely to stop the violence. At this point I think that the silent nationalists would be temporarily subdued until the new President came into office.

Once John Kasich becomes president in this scenario, I expect at best a 45% approval rating for a President Kasich. And that’s peachy. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were at 20%, since only like ten people at best wrote his name on the ballot. Also after this point a President Kasich would try to peacebly shush the leftist protesters (this would take anywhere from two weeks to a month), but it would ultimately be to no avail. Crackdown on those protesters would be very swift and at most would take two months. Nationalists would also begin to restart their action in February (late) or March. By this point it would be March or April 2017.

The chances of a civil war in the U.S. would dramatically increase, but would still be low. I estimate that the situation would be on par with the Basque conflict and the North Caucasus insurgency, both of which were thorns in Russia and Spain, but the two could still move on with decisive action (although the opposing belligerents wouldn’t give up). At this point I see the situation staying like this, with sporadic nationalist attacks on the U.S. Government, most failed, and sporadic and brief leftist rioting. The governors of the states would most likely have to sign some sort of agreement with the Federal government, which would basically state that the Government and the States would work together to eliminate the leftist and nationalist movements, in order to improve the competence of state governors in executing martial law. Eventually the nationalists and leftists would be beaten back within time, and after four or five years (a very conservative estimate) the dissident pockets would most likely disappear. If there is an economic crash or if the U.S. military gets involved, I’d expect anywhere from a more drawn-out conflict to outright civil war (still unlikely).

The Leftist Strategy

The strategy with the leftist protesters, many hired by the likes of George Soros and Michael Moore, is to cause so much destruction in the cities and to block the police from helping (and President Obama is unlikely to do anything about it either if there aren’t enough local police officers), to force the government to concede. What rioting we see now may very well get a lot worse. Although one may think that not having guns and being anti-gun is a bad thing for these, having guns wouldn’t actually do much. It ever so slightly strengthens their chances of not being attacked by the police (which scares you more? a hammer pointed at you or a gun?), and as a result more destruction can occur. However there are a few problems with this strategy. The first is that state governors may decide to take action. Larry Hogan in my home state of Maryland has done this before during the Freddie Gray BLM (Black Lives Matter) riots in Baltimore. Within two days or so the riots ended with the presence of the National Guard. The second is that these rioters are a minority as of now. Most Americans still accept the results of the Electoral college, and aren’t rioting because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Only the uneducated, unemployed (not counting the paid protesters whose work is protesting over something that many of whom chose not to play a part in), and radical anti-American (how are you Pro-America when you burn the American flag?) left is protesting. That’s it.

The Democratic elector proposing this is simply taking advantage of the fact that Donald Trump is an outsider and hasn’t been the cleanest candidate in regards to his speech (for a politician). If someone like Marco Rubio was running for office then this wouldn’t be happening. I doubt that this proposal would succeed either. When taking into account that 38 of Trump’s electors would have to swing to this proposal assuming (and that’s a big assumption) that all of Hillary Clinton’s electors would have to swing to this as well makes choosing Kasich as a “compromise candidate” so unlikely.

Is this even likely?

No. There’s probably a 1% chance of this happening. It is possible and perfectly legal but highly unlikely to occur, considering the effects that it would have on society and the odds that the proposal is up against. However, it may happen. I wouldn’t worry too much about this far-fetched idea being able to succeed.