What if the three candidates for president in November 2016 are Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump? That would make for a different kind of debate on the U.S. role in regime change.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is, in some ways, like a salesman’s pitch to a prospective car buyer who has come in to the dealership. He is all about making his target demographic comfortable and confident, and keeping them on the lot until they sign on the dotted line. But here’s the thing, salesmanship is not sufficient for getting elected President of the United States. Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution designed the presidential selection process to guarantee that salesmanship (or more precisely its evil twin demagoguery) would not be enough. The two major political parties designed their nomination processes to be similarly resistant to mere “salesmanship” as well.

The job of a president as communicator in chief is to remind us of the "better angels of our nature." Last night's debate called us not to our aspirations but to our fears. Disregard today's "winner and loser" columns; there were only losers.

Viewers expecting to see a game changing moment or learn something about the candidates are likely to be disappointed by tonight's Republican debate in Las Vegas.  But it will be an excellent forum to see who the candidates think we are.

Even the worst of people are never entirely friendless. Donald Trump, for instance, has talk radio.

Likely GOP primary voters presently registering support for fascism, theocracy, and a number of other absurdities, may really be engaging in “tactical partisanship” as members of Team Conservative or Team Republican.  The ubiquity of partisan “talking points” in the Information Age suggests that an instrument once reserved for professional pols and media spokesmen is now a tool of voter mobilization, used by voters themselves. Increasingly, voters are enlisted as political spokesmen and many (judging by internet comment sections, Facebook, and Twitter) are embracing the role.

Donald Trump has once again traumatized the political world with his announcement that he would not permit any Muslims to enter the country. But Trump is not the entire problem. Save some blame for a paralyzed Republican Party.

Yes, there are various denunciations of his latest statement. But let’s consider a New York Times story from December 2, Wary of Donald Trump, G.O.P. Leaders Caught in a Standoff. Republican leaders have two basic reasons for fearing Trump. First, party pros understand that if Trump is the nominee he is going to get pasted by Hillary Clinton and drag down Republicans like Senators Rob Portman and Kelly Ayotte. Second, the big money contributors who would fund a Trump take down hyperventilate that Trump would be mean to them and call them names.

That may seem unduly belittling of billionaire masters-of-the-universe, but consider this from the Times story:

Two of the most potent financial networks in Republican politics, that of the hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer and another led by the industrialists Charles G. and David H. Koch, have each had preliminary conversations about beginning an anti-Trump campaign, according to strategists involved. But Mr. Trump has already mocked Mr. Singer and the Kochs, and officials linked to them said they were reluctant to incur more ferocious counterattacks.

Until yesterday’s remarks about banning Muslims, very few political professionals were keen to take on Trump either. One person who was willing to speak truth to bombast is presidential candidate Senator Lindsey Graham, who described a Trump nomination this way: “It would be an utter, complete and total disaster. If you’re a xenophobic, race-baiting, religious bigot, you’re going to have a hard time being president of the United States, and you’re going to do irreparable damage to the party.”

Senator Graham is a serious and thoughtful, and extremely conservative, South Carolina Republican with a particular background in national security. I have heard former Massachusetts Senator Mo Cowan recognize Graham’s stature on several occasions. Few students of the presidency or serious observers of American politics would disagree with Senator Graham’s assessment of Trump’s potential as a president.

So which of these candidates is presented to the public as a potential president in televised debates, and which is relegated to the kids’ table? Trump’s sole “qualification” for the office is his lead in polls, a function of his celebrity. When the Republican National Committee delegated debate participation decisions to the networks (gee, who’d help ratings?) which then sub-contracted the decision to polls, (gee, who could guess that a reality show celebrity could poll so highly?), this is what you get. Kim Kardashian in 2020!

To be fair to the GOP, it was in a box that the Democratic Party could scarcely escape in similar circumstances. By limiting its candidate pool to serious people who could actually handle the job of president, the GOP would have enraged its dissident wing. It could scarcely refuse its polling leader a central place at party debates. Polls are of marginal use in predicting the actual nominee, but they are roiling the process.

The most influential theory in political science about the presidential nomination process is that The Party Decides during the invisible primary – the period before Iowa and New Hampshire. TPD theorizes the party as not only elected and organizational officials but “intense policy demanders.” The voters ratify their choice. So far that isn’t playing out. Trump has no endorsements from governors or members of Congress, but those folks haven’t coalesced behind anyone else either.

We've replaced mob rule with the heavily armed gunman, but America has seen this before. In his Perpetuation Speech of 1838, Abraham Lincoln addressed deteriorating faith in government and the rise of the demagogue.

The job of President of the United States is the most serious in the world. Then why do the parties select their candidates by delegating to television advertising and reality show buffoonery?

Planned Parenthood protesters win not in changing women’s minds but in changing their calculus. Protesters inculcate fear and shame amongst women seeking to receive the healthcare that is their right. Protesters win even on days when they are not there by inculcating the mental anguish potential patients feel when thinking about their presence. They win by necessitating bulletproof glass and screenings for weapons upon to enter a healthcare clinic. They win by making the threat of violence a part of accessing women’s healthcare.