Are You A “Hostile Sexist” According to Vox? Take the Quiz!

A Vox piece highlighting a “study” purporting to show that sexism and racism were the leading factors in Donald Trump’s victory has been making the rounds for the last 24 hours. But the questions the study used to define “hostile sexism” focused more on measuring skepticism about the goals of modern feminism than actual hostility to women. Read on to discover whether you are, in fact, a deplorable sexist, according to and a couple of University of Massachusetts professors.

  1. Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.

If you agree with this statement, you’re well on your way to being an evil sexist, according to Vox. Never mind that feminism has infantilized women to the point of being unable to deal with almost any interaction with a man without labeling it sexism. Rude men on the subway are “manspreaders.” Men who interrupt are “manterrupters” (my bad habit of interrupting men is obviously not sexist, because intersectional oppressions, ‘natch). And Heaven forbid men attempt to chat with women on the street by saying something terrifying like “smile.” Bikini cakes are sexist. Christmas songs are sexist. In fact, believing that men and women are equals in the United States in 2017 is sexist, you oppression-denying bigot, you. If you disagree with any of this, reread sentence number one.

  1. Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.

There’s no way a non-woman-hating person could answer this question in the affirmative. It’s not like the New York Times has praised legal quotas for women in executive boardrooms, entire organizations are dedicated to making sure more women get hired in technology fields, or articles are written calling for – wait for it – hiring more women in order for those women to hire more women.

  1. Feminists are not actually seeking for women to have more power than men.

As feminists on the internet will be happy to femsplain (when they’re not busy calling conservative women the c-word), feminism is just supporting equality between men and women. You’re not against equality, are you? That why there are popular songs with the refrain “Who run the world? Girls,” academic papers published alleging that women make better decisions than men do, and Buzzfeed pieces suggesting that men are dopes who need, as the headline suggests, women to “Rule the World.” Equality is also the reason that when two equally-intoxicated college students hook up, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim.

  1. Feminists are making entirely reasonable demands of men.

David French has a phenomenal article over at National Review on why the progressive push to make men less manly and more feminine has been a disaster for men and boys:

There are good reasons why generations of fathers have taught their sons to “man up,” and it’s not because young boys are blank canvases on which the patriarchy can paint its oppression. It’s because men in general have essential natures that are different from women. We tend to be more aggressive, more energetic, and less nurturing than women, and the fundamental challenge of raising most boys is in channeling that nature in productive ways, not in denying or trying to eradicate its existence.

It’s fair to say that if the feminist demand is that men not be, well, men anymore, then feminism is not making reasonable demands on men. But then again, you may not want to take my word for it; I’m a 100 percent “hostile sexist” according to

‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ Gets Feminist Harpy Makeover

The Huffington Post is ecstatic over a new version of the Christmas classic, “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” created by a singer-songwriter couple who found the original song “aggressive and inappropriate.”

Apparently, Lydia Liza and Josiah Lemanski found themselves tortured by the unrevealed fate of what they imagine is the date-rape victim described in the tune. “You never figure out if she gets to go home,” worries Lydia to CNN. So they made up new, consent form-approved lyrics, complete with phrases like “You reserve the right to say no,” and hipster favorite Pomegranate La Croix sparkling water replacing that suspicious drink.

Since the dawn of time, men have been trying to convince women to get it on, and women have made them jump through hoops to get there. This basic, politically-incorrect male-female dynamic seems to be lost on millions of my fellow Millennials, so allow me to relieve Lydia, Josiah, and their fellow feminists of their anxieties about the lady’s well-being.

The man and the woman in the song had sex, and they both enjoyed it.

(For my next trick, I’ll explain to you why Jimmy Stewart does a double-take when he sees the bed in his new married home in “It’s A Wonderful Life.”)

Every year, campus feminists and their hysterical media counterparts reiterate their concerns about the song’s “problematic” nature. One feminist columnist could barely stand to listen to the lyrics; “even typing those four, slimy words forced me to take seven showers,” she wrote. Though the critiques range from the laughable to unhinged, all of them focus around the idea that the man in the song is convincing his unwilling partner to stick around, and perhaps drugging her – “say, what’s in this drink?” – to do so.

These staggering misinterpretations of the courtship dance between a man and a woman can only sound reasonable in a culture that insists that there are no differences between male and female sexuality, sex differences in general are a societal construct, and traditional masculine and feminine behaviors are problems to overcome through indoctrination.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, most women enjoy being the object of male pursuit. Most men enjoy pursuing women more when that pursuit has at least the veneer of a challenge. That this even has to be spelled out shows how confused relations between men and women have become in the modern era.

If the 1960s were about sexual “liberation,” the 2000s have been about trying to put that genie back in the bottle through an ever-expanding notion of consent. If the only legitimate reason to condemn sexual activity is lack of consent, it stands to reason that the concept of consent will have to be stretched to cover territory previously governed by archaic notions like fidelity, morality, and loyalty. Enter the affirmative consent contract, because contracts are such well-known aphrodisiacs.

The world wrought by the contradictions and fantasies of modern feminism, besides being ruinous to many young men, is just so d*mned unsexy. No wonder women having casual sex aren’t even getting orgasms out of the deal, and women today report being more unhappy than they did under the dark days of The Patriarchy. Their partners, boyfriends, and husbands (throuple partners?) are asking “may I?” before every step of the deed.

In the new version of the song, when Lydia croons that she really “can’t stay,” Josiah responds with “Baby, I’m fine with that.” Ladies, let me give you a piece of advice. If you’re dating a man who responds to your flirtations with resigned acquiescence, walk out that door and don’t bother coming back, no matter how cold it is outside.

RIP Social Conservatism: Trump Tape Response Highlights Triumph of Progressive Culture

The argument that social conservatives have debased themselves and invalidated the credibility of their future arguments by supporting Donald Trump has been made in a number of places since the tape showing Trump bragging about sexual assault surfaced on Friday.

However, less attention has been paid to the capitulation of a number of high-profile conservatives on one of the left’s core arguments against social conservatism: that those advocating for some level of cultural moral standard are merely repressed hypocrites, saying one thing publicly while acting differently behind closed doors. According to the left, conservatives are merely afraid to be honest about their licentiousness; “fun for me but not for thee.”

The push for “openness” around sex has undergirded some of the most radical sexual policies of the left for decades, including hiring Planned Parenthood to teach students about pornography and other explicit sexual practices in public schools. To object to the explicit sex talk, and introduction of what were once deviant behaviors privately practiced by a tiny minority into the mainstream, in any venue, is to be labeled by the left as a hypocrite, in favor of “repression” instead of “honesty” about the subject.

(Just don’t try to introduce any honesty about the differences between male and female brains, that’s truly offensive.)

In the course of defending Trump’s comments, his surrogates have downplayed them as “locker room talk,” and argued that men all over the country brag about groping women’s private parts and pursuing unwilling married women. Whether consciously or unwittingly, Trump’s surrogates are ceding victory to the left on one of its key attacks, and making defending the rest of the social conservative platform a virtually impossible task going forward.

Billionaire Trump investor Carl Icahn told CNBC, “it’s amazing that everyone is outraged by something that everyone knows is going on in every locker room in the country.” Rudy Giuliani told Jake Tapper on CNN, “men talk like that.” Supporter Scottie Nell Hughes defended the comments as just the talk of a man who did not yet realize he was going to be a politician, implying that only polished, insincere candidates would never say similar things behind closed doors.

Trump surrogates attempting to normalize the behavior on the tape – which, lest we forget, includes criminal sexual assault as well as adultery – are just reflecting the old leftist trope that holding men and women to any kind of sexual moral standard is just a hopeless exercise in pearl-clutching prudishness.

Even before the Trump tapes were released, his utter disregard for sexual morality has forced his Republican surrogates to fall back back on this old liberal argument in a way that shows just how internalized leftist cultural mantras have become. Giuliani, for instance, responded to a question about his own infidelities with a glib, “everybody does [it],” before walking those comments back in another interview.

The acceptance of these culturally-progressive attitudes and arguments on the right probably spell the short-term electoral death knell for social conservatives, especially when many of their leaders have shown that their votes can be bought so cheaply.

The power of social conservatives and Evangelicals in party politics is clearly much lower than it was even four years ago, when, with just an email, FRC’s Tony Perkins was able to muster his base to counteract Mitch Daniels’ presidential explorations because of the latter’s comments about focusing on economic freedom.  Although it’s been decades since personal moral failings in the past, like multiple marriages and affairs, have been disqualifying for the Republican nomination, in 2012 Newt Gingrich was called on to publicly atone for his nuptial merry-go-round before he was forgiven by voters.

If there is a future for traditional conservatives, it lies in co-opting, not the values of the left as Trump and his surrogates do, but the tactics of the left. While the conservative coalition was busy celebrating Ronald Reagan’s political triumphs in the 1980s, they were turning a blind eye to the complete leftist takeover of key cultural institutions: the education system, media, and entertainment. Any hope of an electoral revival for conservatism depends on our ability to recapture these institutions from the left in the coming years, as 2016 has made the extent of leftist cultural victory, even among Republicans, depressingly clear.

Thank Feminists for America’s Flippancy About Sexual Assault Admission in Trump Tapes

This weekend, American politics came full circle as feminists railed against the “rape culture” they’ve enabled and normalized.

Friday’s Trump tape, where the nominee of the “socially conservative” party can be heard bragging about how his preferred seduction technique upon meeting beautiful women is to “grab them by the p***y,” has thrown a totally predictable bomb into a news cycle that should have been about Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches to donors.

On top of the horrendous remarks by the candidate, both liberal Democrats and #NeverTrump Republicans have been appalled by the reactions of Trump surrogates, who have downplayed the comments as mere “locker room talk.”

To be clear, touching a person in a sexual way without her consent – and grabbing a woman “by the p***y” certainly qualifies – is abhorrent and criminal. But it’s liberal feminists and social justice warriors on America’s campuses who are to blame for America’s lackadaisical attitude towards Donald Trump’s hot mic admission that he engages in criminal sexual assault.

By expanding the definition of rape and sexual assault to include all kinds of what might be termed boorish behavior that falls fall short of the criminal standard, campus feminists have finally managed to do what the right has warned them would happen all along: they’ve lessened the stigma of being accused of sexual assault and made accusations more likely to be greeted with an eye roll than the condemnation of past eras. While in the “patriarchal” past, the kind of behavior Trump described would have ended a politician’s career instantly upon being made public, in a culture where pointing out the negative results of casual sex is called “slut-shaming” and the word “rape” is used to describe consensual but regretted trysts, even many former conservatives are failing to see how what Trump described is anything worse than a lewd description of the new normal.

Americans have been bombarded by stories of wrongfully-accused college men, who wake up after seemingly-consensual, frat-party-fueled hookups to find themselves permanently smeared as rapists before the eyes of the whole country, while watching their due process rights steamrolled. The average voter has watched as feminists (and our President) wring their hands over the obviously-false “rape culture” statistic that one in four college women suffer sexual assault, an account that would make American college campus rape rates higher than those in war-torn Darfur.

As Mollie Hemingway has astutely pointed out, feminists who glorify casual sex have left themselves with no language with which to talk about “bad” sex other than lack of consent. By characterizing regretted sexual decisions and post-hookup hurt feelings as evidence of lack of consent, rather than bad judgment and the inherent differences between female and male sexuality, feminists have effectively flipped the country’s default sympathy dial from accuser to accused.

Saturation in this hysterical message was bound to have an effect. The typical American now hears “sexual assault” and thinks about a regretted one-night stand, or loutish frat-boy behavior, instead of a brutal, criminal act. As some rape victims have been asserting for some time now, the most tragic casualty of the rape culture myth will be real victims, women (and men) who will now have to fight against a culture that will hear a man – a presidential candidate – bragging about criminal sexual assault, and shrug.

5 Reasons #NeverTrump Must Run a Conservative Third-Party Candidate


As conservatives come to the end of sitting shiva over Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party, many in the #NeverTrump movement are wondering: what next? After all, honorary American citizen Winston Churchill had a little something to say about surrender. A third-party conservative candidate can accomplish something positive this election cycle even if winning the White House remains the remotest of wild dreams.

  1. A conservative third party will lay out the principles of the conservative movement of the future – a new Sharon Statement of non-negotiables. 

Not only would a third party give us a candidate to rally around, but it would also give us a platform. With the virtual implosion of the “establishment,” this is the opportunity for conservatives to decide what principles and policies are truly important to the cause, and build a constitutional restorationist party platform. Additionally, like the Against Trump issue of National Review, it would provide a line in the sand for future historians, when liberals begin the inevitable attempt to sling the albatross of Trump’s misdeeds around conservatives’ necks.

  1. It will deny Trump the White House.

The pundits who assured us that Trump could never secure the nomination are the same ones assuring us that he’ll never get to hang his gold-lettered nameplate on the White House gates. Conservatives should prefer divided government to President Trump, for the reasons detailed here. Recent polls have shown toss-ups in key states.

A reasonable goal for a conservative third party would be to aim for 15 to 20 percent of the popular vote and victories in a state or two. Utah, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas – states that have shown real resistance to Trump’s nomination, but have low Democrat registration numbers – could be potential targets for a conservative candidate.

  1. It will give conservatives a reason to turn out and vote down ticket, when many might otherwise stay home and create a disastrous year for state and Congressional races.

Practically speaking, staying home in protest dooms Republicans down ticket – Republicans conservatives will desperately need to oppose either a Trump or Clinton administration. The new Trump voters are unlikely to vote a straight Republican ticket, since many are crossover Democrats themselves. Having an exciting third party candidate to rally around will bring conservatives out to polling stations in November, many of whom may not bother to vote at all when the Presidential choices are so unappealing.

  1. It will get a conservative on stage to communicate the conservative message to the country.

The presidential election every four years provides an opportunity for millions of Americans who do not normally follow politics very closely. If no conservative third-party candidate emerges to communicate that message, the next six months will be a conservative message-free zone. A candidate with high enough name ID to break through the polling barriers to get onto the debate stage would ensure that Americans hear conservative ideas while they’re tuned in to hear them.

  1. It will make it more difficult for Trump to ignore conservatives as a voting bloc.

Quietly staying home will not give Trump much incentive to placate conservative voters, something he’s proven he’s disinclined to do anyway. There are thousands of Republican voters preparing to hold their noses and vote for Trump who will think twice when presented with an even minimally-viable alternative. The threat of losing these voters will restrain Trump’s inevitable liberal pivot for the general election.

This year, Tea Party conservatives have learned the hard lesson that we are not just the minority of the electorate, we’re a minority even within the Republican Party. But a determined minority can do a great deal to sway the path the country; self-described liberals have never broken 25 percent in polls, yet they’ve undeniably deeply influenced the history and culture of the United States. An organized conservative third party bid has real, tangible benefits, and declares us as what we ought to strive to be – a vocal, organized remnant standing athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’”

Why Conservatives Should Prefer Divided Government to President Trump

As the media (erroneously) try to give the Cruz/Carly ticket its last rites, it may be worth examining what those twin horrors – a Trump or Clinton Presidency – might look like.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump overlap on many policy positions; Trump has waffled on abortion, said he backs government-run healthcare, and expressed his support for touchback amnesty. However, for the sake of argument, assume that he is to the right of Hillary on at least a few important issues. As Dennis Prager is fond of remarking on his radio show, should conservatives bet that Trump will do less damage to the country than the known disaster that will be President Hillary?

A key missing piece in this analysis of Trump as the lesser evil, however, is the opposition factor: how will the rest of the Republican Party react to policies advanced by a Clinton versus a Trump administration? If the last three decades have proven anything, it’s that Republicans in Congress are unlikely to stand up to liberal policies pushed by anyone with an (R) after his name in the White House.

Under both George Bush, Sr. and George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich’s once-revolutionary Republican Congress gave its stamp of approval to big-government programs like No Child Left Behind and Medicare Part D, allowing the deficit to continue growing. That same Republican Congress was poised to pass comprehensive amnesty in 2006 on direction from the White House, stymied only by the popular revolt against it that preceded similar Tea Party demonstrations three years later.

Conservatives can rest assured that Hillary Clinton’s picks for the Supreme Court will be opposed by Republican members of the Senate, forcing her to pick centrists. After President Trump’s initial conservative picks are rejected by Senate Democrats, can those same Republican Senators be counted on to filibuster his inevitable liberal nominees?

In California, conservatives have already seen this dynamic play out. Shamefully shunting aside the state’s rock-ribbed conservative Tom McClintock (in an election with eerily similar dynamics to today’s Trump-Cruz contest, right down to Sean Hannity’s betrayal), California Republicans bet on a celebrity who said some conservative-sounding things during the primary, but had known liberal leanings on many issues. Arnold Schwarzenegger gave several decent conservative reforms a shot in the first two years of his governorship, but when he realized that passing conservative policy in the state was going to be a tough political battle, he shifted to the parts of his agenda that were easier to pass through the Democrat-laden legislature, where he was able to mute most of the opposition within his own Republican ranks.

What did California conservatives get out of Schwarzenegger’s tenure at the helm? Cap and Trade and raised fees that a Democratic governor could never have passed over Republican opposition.

Both Trump and Clinton would be disasters for conservatism and for our constitutional republic. But with a Clinton administration, conservatives can at least rely on the partisan opposition of the Republican Party, and the systemic checks the Founders wisely placed in the system to slow down her “fundamental transformation[s].” Relying on the Republican Party to actively oppose the liberal and disastrous policies of a Republican President is a worse bet. Between the terrible options presented by the possibility of a Trump-Hillary race, conservatives should sit this one out or vote third party.

Coming State Battles Over Same-Sex Marriage Could Be Huge Opportunity for Conservatives

Despite the political focus on same-sex marriage, arguably the most disastrous marriage policy – no-fault divorce – was implemented, with bipartisan support, 40 years ago. However, arguing against the devastation caused by no-fault divorce laws will require conservatives to do some soul-searching about our own failings. If the current rumblings about marriage privatization as a means to resist a Supreme Court mandate on same-sex marriage materialize into concrete policy, it will provide the perfect opportunity for conservatives to contract around liberal divorce laws that undervalue the principle of marital permanence in their own marriages.

What is Fault Divorce?

Prior to the 1970s, most state laws recognized only fault divorce: in order to obtain a divorce, the divorcing spouse had to prove the “fault” of the other spouse in court. In non-legalese, in order to break the marriage contract, the divorcing spouse had to show good reason – wrongdoing by the other party. The grounds for granting divorce differed in each state, but the four most common, legally-accepted reasons were adultery, abandonment, abuse, and felony conviction. The most common reason given today, “irreconcilable differences,” was not accepted as a legal ground for divorce.

While the earliest known no-fault divorce regime was enacted in post-revolutionary Russia in 1918,[1] the first no-fault law in the United States was passed in California in 1969. It was signed by none other than then-Governor Ronald Reagan, reacting to the pain of having to accept a court designation of “mental cruelty” in order to obtain his own divorce in 1948.  He later called it one of the biggest mistakes of his political career, but other states followed at whirlwind speed; by 1987 some form of no-fault divorce was available in all 50 states.

The effect of no-fault divorce has been devastating and nearly as immediate as its high-speed implementation. Although proponents insisted that the reforms would not increase divorce rates, and would instead merely make divorce less acrimonious to the benefit of children, the divorce rate nearly doubled from 27 percent in 1965 to 48 percent in 1975, after the vast majority of no-fault laws were on the books.[2] (The New York Times dishonestly quotes the marginal fall in divorce rates from 1979, well after most no-fault laws were in place, to today in support of the policy.)

While there were certainly other factors in play as the “free love” principles of the sexual revolution metastasized in the 1970s, it seems likely that the sudden increase in divorce rates was connected to the liberalization of divorce laws and consequent cultural acceptance of divorce.  While fewer than 20 percent of couples who married in 1950 divorced, about 50 percent of those who married in 1970 did so. The American divorce rate, despite going through ups and downs throughout its history, never broke 30 percent until the introduction of no-fault laws.[3]

To be clear, the fault divorce system still allowed couples to divorce under the most extreme circumstances, including violence, substance abuse, infidelity, or abandonment. What it did not do was give legal imprimatur to what are now culturally-accepted, but ultimately frivolous, reasons for marriage dissolution, such as adult unhappiness that does not rise to the level of abuse or infidelity.

Contractual opt-outs for those who want conservative marriages

Although many conservatives have brought up some serious challenges to those advocating the privatization of marriage, there is an upside for conservatives that many neglect: the ability to contract around liberal divorce laws in our own marriages in a privatized system. I’ll confess to having some skin in the game; with my own wedding approaching in July, I would very much like to legally obligate both my fiancé and myself to the traditional marital order. In our “Eat, Pray, Love” culture, which celebrates abandonment of martial vows and family obligations on the heady whims of emotional fulfillment, it would benefit conservative couples to unambiguously lay out from the beginning that “putting asunder” is only an option in the most extreme circumstances.

University of Virginia marriage researcher W. Bradford Wilcox wrote in National Affairs:

In this new psychological approach to married life, one’s primary obligation was not to one’s family but to one’s self; hence, marital success was defined not by successfully meeting obligations to one’s spouse and children but by a strong sense of subjective happiness in marriage — usually to be found in and through an intense, emotional relationship with one’s spouse.

Explicitly placing the principle of permanence at the legal heart of our own marriages would stand as an example to the larger culture, as well as probably helping to reduce the red-state divorce rate. While the Supreme Court bolsters the liberal marriage culture by defining the importance of marriage for those who “seek to find its fulfillment for themselves,” opting out of no-fault divorce will allow conservatives to put their money where their mouths are and place marital stability and children’s outcomes before chasing personal happiness. As the late, great, Andrew Breitbart was fond of saying, politics is downstream from culture. That the Republican front-runner is a twice-divorced unrepentant philanderer should be a wake-up call for all of us that the liberal marriage culture has hit Americans, even those generally in the conservative camp, hard. Regardless of their opinions on privatizing marriage, conservatives should seize the silver lining privatization offers to lead a resurgent marriage culture.


[1] No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?, David Bolas, 14 Family L. J. 31 (1975); “The Russian Effort To Abolish Marriage”, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926, p. 108-114.

[2] Austin Caster, Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Not Repeat the Errors of No-Fault Divorce, 38 W. St. U. L. Rev. 43, 46 (2010)

[3] Id.

Cruz and Rubio Do Not Have to Give Up Presidential Ambitions for a Unity Ticket

In the past few weeks, and especially since Super Tuesday, there have been many calls for a Cruz-Rubio “unity ticket,” to unite the moderate and more conservative wings of the party against the rising candidacy of Donald Trump, who has corralled a 30 to 40 percent plurality. Jonah Goldberg compared the possibility of a unity ticket to conservative Ronald Reagan’s pick of his primary opponent George H. W. Bush in 1980, which similarly fused together establishment and Goldwater voters for a united Republican Party in the general election.

However, there are several problems with the possibility of a Cruz/Rubio or Rubio/Cruz ticket: no one can agree on who gets the top slot, it’s far from clear that current Cruz voters would accept Rubio as their candidate, and – perhaps most implausibly – it requires one of the candidates to demonstrate almost Washingtonian political self-sacrifice in order to work. If we accept that a run for President today requires nearly delusional levels of self-confidence and that capitulation for the good of the conservative movement and the country is unlikely, is there any way to save the unity ticket?

The answer is yes, but it requires us to reach back to the example of pre-Twelfth Amendment America, where who would be President and Vice President was not decided before ballots in the Electoral College were cast. Instead, each delegate was given two votes, and the man with the highest delegate vote count became President, while the runner-up took the Vice Presidential slot. This system nearly catapulted a man widely regarded as dishonest, unprincipled, and dangerous, Aaron Burr, to the Presidency (sound familiar?), and was rightly checked by the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment in 1804. However, the idea of deciding the President and Vice President by delegate winner and runner-up, if applied within the Republican Party convention, could save the idea of the unity ticket by making it more politically palatable to Senators Cruz and Rubio.

Senators Cruz and Rubio should make a joint announcement that each will choose the other as Vice President, with the order of the ticket decided only in July by whoever ends up with the higher number of delegates at the convention. This pledge requires only a lesser sacrifice on each Senator’s part. Rather than abandon a bid for the highest office in the land, such a pact would only demand that each plays nice with the other on the campaign trail going forward, limiting attacks to substantive policy distinctions – a tactic they both seem to have embraced anyway starting with the last Republican debate.

The most difficult aspect of the alliance will come in winner-take-all states, where each candidate’s supporters voting for their man virtually assures a Trump victory. The Cruz and Rubio campaigns should divvy these states by who has the better shot to win in each, and make a limited endorsement for the man most likely to win within each state. Alternatively, if this still involves too much political sacrifice, the presumptive third-place finisher in each winner-take-all state should pull out all advertising in that state other than ads hitting Donald Trump.

The unity ticket pledge will calm the rancor between Cruz and Rubio voters. Each can keep their bid for President, but the American people can be assured that each candidate’s delegates at the convention will be effectively pledged for the winner between them. The nomination structure of the early Republic may be the best way to stop the coronation of Donald Trump and unite the anti-Trump majority of the Republic Party.