A debate without Trump

 Donald Trump will not participate in tomorrow night's spectacle, making it a very different kind of irrelevant spectacle from the kind of irrelevant spectacle that it would have been if Donald Trump had been there.  Remember, first, that debates almost never matter.  One can make the case that Rick "Oops" Perry oops-ed himself out of the GOP nomination, but the most famous debate moments are essentially irrelevant to electoral outcomes.  Remember, after all, that George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis despite Dan Quayle not, in fact, being Jack Kennedy.  Debates do not matter, and they have gotten worse, with their nadir being Trump-Biden 1:  "Please, For The Love Of Cicero, Make It Stop."  I have argued for years that all debates should be canceled.  This year, the GOP is skipping its nomination contest.  It simply is not happening.  It would be difficult to find any party in any era of American history as devoted to one man as the Republican Party is to Donald Trump.  He is under multiple indictments and most of his nominal opponents are rallying to his defense.  Why?  Regardless of the answer you give, the observation tells you what you need to know about any of those individuals' chances of defeating Trump.  This is not a race.  This is not a contest.  It's already over.

With Trump there, they bow and scrape and kowtow, while Chris Christie tries to get in a futile jab or two.  Those fantasizing about a good scrap forget.  Trump has what he thinks to be an unbeatable "debate" "strategy."  I put each word in separate sarcasm-quotes.  Yell incoherently so that the other person can't talk, and you "win."  It is like playing chess with a pigeon.  The pigeon shits all over the board, knocks over the pieces, then flys back to its buddies to brag about its great victory.  If you tried playing chess with the pigeon, you made a mistake because the entire endeavor was a farce from the get-go.  What makes anyone think that Trump would give Christie two uninterrupted microseconds to speak?  Would Fox cut Trump's mic?  They'd lose nearly every viewer they have.

So why bother?

And without Trump?  It will be a bunch of munchkins arguing about who gets to be Number 1 when nobody has the courage to take a swing at the real Number 1, and it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing!

With Trump, without Trump, it doesn't matter.  Any time we consider these issues, remember the following basic puzzle.  In order for anyone to defeat Trump for the Republican nomination, you have to address the basic process of how a party uniquely devoted to one man flips, without having flipped yet, when everything so far has merely reinforced his base's support.  I have yet to hear an answer to the question of what turns a loyal Trump fan against him.

So why bother?