Is Donald Trump actually preparing to lose?

Donald Trump pitches himself as a 'winner,' and his tirades against an allegedly rigged delegate system could allow him to maintain that claim, even if he loses.

Mel Evans/AP
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally on Sunday in Staten Island, N.Y.

Is Donald Trump getting ready to lose the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention?

Yes, yes, this seems like a crazy question at the moment. In public, Mr. Trump and his aides are currently spitting fire about the possibility that a contested convention might turn to someone other than him. At a rally in Syracuse, N.Y., over the weekend, the real estate billionaire said that the GOP would have a “rough July at that convention” if Ted Cruz or some white knight candidate walks off with the crown.

In other words, he’s predicting some sort of unrest. This follows on the heels of a Trump op-ed in The Wall Street Journal that insisted the complicated Republican delegate rules are “rigged.”

Trump’s primary goal with this bluster is probably to galvanize supporters and perhaps give some unbound or possibly faithless delegates second thoughts about bolting to Team Cruz. But as Caitlin Huey-Burns points out Monday in RealClearPolitics, it might also provide him with an escape route from humiliation.

“If he falls short of the 1,237 requisite delegates, and can’t use this message to woo more his way before or at the convention, Trump can tell his supporters that the party establishment wronged him,” Ms. Huey-Burns writes.

In other words, Trump would be able to claim he won, even if he loses. That would protect his brand and his image and allow him to forever brag he’d have been president if it weren’t for those meddling kids. Excuse me, insider politicians.

Some pundits think this has been his strategy all along. He’s never wanted to be president, or even the nominee, goes this theory. The whole thing is an exercise in publicity that went wrong by being too successful.

Thus his inability to win insider delegate contests isn’t a failure. It’s a tactic, in this view. (Which is admittedly a bit out there.) He’ll lose a multiple-ballot contested convention, then walk relatively unscathed as candidate Cruz loses to Hillary Clinton.

“All of the anger he’s ginned up over the course of his campaign would be directed at party elders, with no danger of it ever reflecting back onto Trump himself,” writes Drew Magary at GQ.

What’s our view? This is overthinking. Trump’s not executing a clever plan to extricate himself from the race without appearing to quit. He’s doing what he’s always done: being Trump.

If he wanted to lose, or even lay the groundwork for a graceful exit if necessary, would he have hired GOP operatives Rick Wiley and Paul Manafort to run a new delegate and convention-prep effort? That’s expensive. Would he be trying to improve his delegate ground game at all? No, he wouldn’t. He’d be insisting that his poll numbers prove he’d win at the convention no matter what, while doing little behind the scenes.

Meanwhile, some Republican National Committee officials seem to have tired of the abuse and are beginning to push back against Trump’s tirades. On Monday, RNC chief strategist Sean Spicer said in an MSNBC interview that “close” doesn’t cut it in the nomination fight, and that you have win a majority of 1,237 delegates to claim the nomination. Period.

“It’s not horseshoes,” he said.

If Trump doesn’t reach the 1,237 threshold, the weeks prior to the convention will be some of the most interesting in recent American politics, as the various factions involved struggle to gain the upper hand before the TV lights switch on in Cleveland.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.