I'm truly confused by this.
In a Kobayashi Maru scenario, defeat is certain/preordained. But that's not actually what you're arguing -- you're just saying that it is "likely". So given that your stated goal is to avoid defeat, your position must be that your alternative is less likely to lose. Or at a minimum, equally likely. But you haven't even attempted to make that argument. Every single time someone has stated why they believe Sanford is even less electable than Trump, you've dodged it. So are you claiming that Sanford is more electable than Trump, or not?
My apologies for the imprecision. Here's what I believe - that Trump as the nominee is almost certain to lose. Among the reasons:
1. Trump's poll numbers are absolutely terrible, especially given the favorable economy. Yes, you cannot trust a single poll, but a series of them is ignored at your peril. And he is being beaten in places like Texas, which if lost will almost alone lead to Trump's defeat.
2. The midwestern battleground states that provided his margin of victory are trending against him. Those are states where suburban women hold the key, I can think of few groups that are more viscerally anti-Trump.
3. His rural base is being buffeted by his tariff policies. He'll retain most of those blue states, to be sure, but how will the loss of even two or three be made up elsewhere?
4. Putting aside the nitty gritty of constructing a plausible electoral college strategy, Trump is unable or unwilling to grow his base and the opposition is salivating at the prospect of a referendum on Trump.
5. He is a gaffe machine who cannot retain good counsel. A parade of national security advisors and other top officials cast doubt in voters minds about his basic competence as a leader. He scares people.
6. The Dems sense opportunity and blood in the water. Folks of all stripes are clearly tired of the Reality Show. Even those who support Trump hasten to concur that he's an erratic autocrat.
Why is Sanford more electable than Trump?
a. I think he has the good sense to make his message not so much as a repudiation of Trump but as an advocate of traditional Republican verities such as fiscal responsibility and free trade. Meanwhile, he will agree with the President, and his supporters, with respect to (among other things) judicial nominations and the rejection of identity politics.
b. Trump supporters aren't stupid - I fail to see them staying home in a fit of pique, not when this election will decide the direction of the federal courts for a generation. Sanford is a serious conservative with an attractive message to those willing to listen.
c. The Dems seek to exploit Trump angst by installing a full-throated socialist in the White House. What better way to counter that message than with a champion of fiscal rectitude? Fiscal profligacy countered by a call for a return to responsibility. Sanford can, I think, articulate conservative perspectives far better than the Game Show Host-in Chief, and frame the choice well regarding the future direction of the leviathan state.
d. If Trump's not the nominee, the Dems can no longer hide behind their bogeyman. They must present their message of open borders, race hatred and socialism out in the open where, like roaches, they can be exposed and extinguished.
