2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[stevew]

There's probably tons of other babies you could kill and be as/more effective than killing little Adolf. Kinda feel like National Socialism would have still been there.

[bhlloy]

Again, way off the thread topic (and if a mod wants to move this into its own thread that would be cool) but I don't think there's even close to the Nazi party that ended up coming to power without Hitler. There is still a massively divided Germany and the far right would have been in the mix but it's so different without Hitler that the ramifications are enormous

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Again, way off the thread topic (and if a mod wants to move this into its own thread that would be cool) but I don't think there's even close to the Nazi party that ended up coming to power without Hitler. There is still a massively divided Germany and the far right would have been in the mix but it's so different without Hitler that the ramifications are enormous

They still needed a bogey man to blame their woes on.

[NobodyHere]

I think Rand reminding Trump that China isn't part of the TPP has been my favorite moment of the debates so far.

[NobodyHere]

My thoughts on the debate:

8 candidates is better than 10

The moderators need to have a better system in determining who gets to reply to a statement. There has to be something better than just having the candidates talk over one another.

I think Paul had his best showing.

Kasich made a few good points but often he just rambled too often.

Bush looked lost

Cruz had a pretty good showing

I wasn't impressed with Carson but he did have a good closing statement.

Fiorina just seemed desperate to score some points.

The debate was overall better when the candidates were clashing with each other.

No baby Hitler questions.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The moderators need have a better system in determining who gets to reply to a statement. There has to be something better than just having the candidates talk over one another.

Around the Horn style... Put them all on video feeds and give them a mute button.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Around the Horn style... Put them all on video feeds and give them a mute button.

They'd have to spend way too much time with the fact checker guy at the end tho...

Hrm, maybe that's a different show.

[Solecismic]

Some thoughts on the varsity debate (I haven't yet watched the undercard - it was bar trivia night and we had a fight on our hands - a fight for the future of our country).

The moderators from Fox Business Network seemed determined not to be part of the story. At times I worried they would lose control of the debate, but with eight candidates determined to get a word in, that's understandable.

Candidates were given 90 seconds, with chimes interrupting when time was up. That seems like a better length of time. Unlike the other debates, candidates weren't encouraged to fight each other, though some tried.

My impression was that this was the point where the tide finally turned against the "outsiders." Longer answers to specific questions about the economy forced candidates to have broader knowledge. Trump, in particular, looked very bad at times. Dr. Carson got a lot quieter, though he's never one to say a lot.

The rundown...

Rand Paul: A better haircut and, more importantly, less anger. Paul was clear and concise. I'm not sure his "one true conservative" message is all that compelling. He remains vulnerable to criticisms that he's an isolationist. But, for the first time all year, he looked like he belonged on the stage. Maybe too little, too late, but this is the Rand Paul that his supporters have been longing to see.

John Kasich: He tries to say everything at once. I'm convinced he knows a lot more than he's able to get out, which is a good thing. But he seems to get flustered under pressure and a bit whiny. I remain convinced that he's someone we need in Washington, but not in the White House.

Carly Fiorina: I still have a problem thinking of her as an outsider. She's really good with insider sound bytes. She's doing a great job capturing people's frustrations and boiling them down to a few seconds. Of the three who have no political experience, she's by far the best candidate. Does she have enough substance, though? Or is she simply there to be a VP candidate?

Jeb Bush: This was his best performance so far, but that's not saying a lot. He's starting to lose that impatient "I don't want to be here" attitude, and that helps. I guess I don't want to hear lectures about banking abuses from someone whose brother is Neil Bush.

Ted Cruz: His delivery is excellent. He has assembled a solid wealth of mini-speeches that make a lot of sense. It boils down to whether he's too right-wing for the country. I think he is, and he'll have trouble in the general because of it.

Marco Rubio: He's looking far more comfortable up there. He knows from audience reaction that he's hitting the right notes. He's positioning himself as someone more positive about the country than the other candidates. And seeing him laugh a little was effective, too. I don't think he's far from taking a lead in this race.

Dr. Ben Carson: He handled the media question well, but it was a softball - a friendly environment. When asked to expound on ideas, he seems uninterested. I think he was exposed a bit as someone who doesn't have a great grasp on many issues. He has had a terrible week and I think it will show in the polls.

Donald Trump: I think we have a good and diverse set of Republican candidates. But then there's this Trump guy sucking all the air out of the room. He sounded completely out of his depth on the trade issue - all adjectives and no substance. For a guy who is trying to sell his business experience, I was very disappointed in his lack of substance on issues that should be right up his alley. I'd fire him right now.

[RainMaker]

Rubio feels like the man to beat.

Paul can't seem to connect for some reason, Kasich seems smart but nothing really clicks (reminds me a bit of Pawlenty's problem), Fiorina is grossly incompetent, Jeb is a bore, and Cruz will end up being too right-wing to win in a general. Carson and Trump are clown shows that will fade in time.

I also thought Paul made Trump look stupid on the TPP question. Really the first time that a candidate has been able to show everyone that he's way out of his element on this stuff. If the media picks that part of the debate up and runs with it, it'll help Paul out a lot I think. He seemed to be the only one on that stage who understood what TPP entails.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Around the Horn style... Put them all on video feeds and give them a mute button.

Quite frankly I would love this.

[Solecismic]

JV debate thoughts...

Serves me right for assuming the JV debate would end on time - I missed the end of it. Hopefully not much more than the closing statements, which are never that interesting.

Bobby Jindal: The debate was overshadowed by Jindal's constant attacks, even when the audience started to tire of the repetition. That kind of anger doesn't draw votes. I don't see him moving past this stage.

Rick Santorum: He struggled to find his mark. I think he's done this so many times that the questions don't even matter any more. He's not going to connect well in this format.

Mike Huckabee: His usual champion of the people performance. I don't think it's what the Republicans want this time around. People don't want empathy, they want answers.

Chris Christie: He kept pivoting everything to an attack on Hillary. That act wears thin, too. Of the people on this stage, he's the only one who has any kind of chance, but at a certain point, you have to ask what the message is - and it's "I'm a conservative governor of a blue state, I hate everyone in New Jersey, so I can attack Hillary better than anyone else." So we know he has no chance of continuing as New Jersey governor.

Overall, I was a little underwhelmed with this group. Probably it's best to blame Jindal for that, but Christie missed an opportunity to score some points.

[QuikSand]

Great summaries, Jim, as usual. I haven't had a chance to watch either, but for now your narrative will do fine.

[wustin]

GOP is really pushing for a moderate candidate...again.

[Dutch]

The President should be a moderate when the vote is normally 55%-45%.

[Arles]

After watching these debates, it's pretty clear that Trump is about as "non-presidential" as you can get. I can see him having a discussion with some world leader, having it start to go sideways and then Trump ending it with a "I'm a billionaire, why am I even talking to this nitwit" comment.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by wustin

GOP is really pushing for a moderate candidate...again.

Some say moderate, some say viable, some would even go so far as to say sane.

When Rubio made a nice defense of his support of child tax credits to working families and Rand Paul? kept hammering him about whether that was "conservative" I was hoping Rubio would tell him that if supporting working families wasn't conservative then the problem is with conservatism (or at least Rand Paul's definition of it if you don't want to risk alienating primary voters). Almost a Sista Souljah moment. It seemed like Kasich picked up that torch later, but just started rambling too much and got booed harshly. But maybe you do need to get by the Evangelical dominated Iowa Caucuses driving the narrative until you can make that pivot to start campaigning for the general.

Btw, do they vet the audiences for these things at all? If I was a campaign I would absolutely plant a few experienced people in the audience to guide audience reaction.

[miked]

Trump and Carson looked done last night. Trump was really bad at most points. Kasich is the only one making sense (especially on immigration and taxes) but people don't seem interested in hearing it.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So Jeb! is getting some flak for saying he would kill baby Hitler.

What is the correct answer to that question?

Now someone just needs to ask him if his view would change were he only given the choice to abort unborn Hitler.

[nol]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Now someone just needs to ask him if his view would change were he only given the choice to abort unborn Hitler.

Ben Carson would not. That's PFTCommenter getting perhaps the biggest scoop of the election cycle.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Some say moderate, some say viable, some would even go so far as to say sane.

When Rubio made a nice defense of his support of child tax credits to working families and Rand Paul? kept hammering him about whether that was "conservative" I was hoping Rubio would tell him that if supporting working families wasn't conservative then the problem is with conservatism (or at least Rand Paul's definition of it if you don't want to risk alienating primary voters).

Personally I agree with Rand in that exchange. Rubio IMO comes off as just another typical politician in saying he wants child tax credits, wants increased military spending, wants to cut taxes yet we'll magically have a balanced budget. That's just fiscally irresponsible and not fiscally conservative. It's a big reason why we're always running budget deficits.

In regarding the military, why do most conservatives want to keep throwing money at it when we spend more than the next 10 nations combined. They should be calling for audits instead to make sure we're spending the money in a responsible manner.

[NobodyHere]

dola

In regards to what would happen to depositor accounts if Bank of America should ever shut down, haven't any of the politicians ever heard of the FDIC? Isn't protecting depositors it's primary purpose?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Personally I agree with Rand in that exchange. Rubio IMO comes off as just another typical politician in saying he wants child tax credits, wants increased military spending, wants to cut taxes yet we'll magically have a balanced budget. That's just fiscally irresponsible and not fiscally conservative. It's a big reason why we're always running budget deficits.

In regarding the military, why do most conservatives want to keep throwing money at it when we spend more than the next 10 nations combined. They should be calling for audits instead to make sure we're spending the money in a responsible manner.

Yeah it reminds me of Ron Paul. "To lower taxes... I'll cut the department of education, the department of energy..." CRAZY!!! Generic Republican Politician "I'll cut taxes and magically we can still pay for everything!" Hooray!!!

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Personally I agree with Rand in that exchange. Rubio IMO comes off as just another typical politician in saying he wants child tax credits, wants increased military spending, wants to cut taxes yet we'll magically have a balanced budget. That's just fiscally irresponsible and not fiscally conservative. It's a big reason why we're always running budget deficits.

In regarding the military, why do most conservatives want to keep throwing money at it when we spend more than the next 10 nations combined. They should be calling for audits instead to make sure we're spending the money in a responsible manner.

I agree that Rubio is a typical politician over promising during the campaign in general, but in that specific exchange it was a minor tax cut ("only" $170b iirc) and something that would be widely supported. There is a caricature that Republicans/Conservatives would let a poor person starve before giving them assistance, but Rand Paul actually believes in it and was trying to get Rubio to agree to that extreme position where not a single dollar redistributed* by the government is ever okay. And I not only strongly disagree personally with that position, but also think it clearly won't win a general election.

* redistributed, refunded, call it what you want. The actual specifics beyond "putting the welfare of our nation's children above ironclad theoretical principles" is irrelevant.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Personally I agree with Rand in that exchange. Rubio IMO comes off as just another typical politician in saying he wants child tax credits, wants increased military spending, wants to cut taxes yet we'll magically have a balanced budget. That's just fiscally irresponsible and not fiscally conservative. It's a big reason why we're always running budget deficits.

In regarding the military, why do most conservatives want to keep throwing money at it when we spend more than the next 10 nations combined. They should be calling for audits instead to make sure we're spending the money in a responsible manner.

Rubio basically wants the Bush plan times two. Hopefully we won't fall for the growth will erase the deficit mumbo jumbo a third time.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I agree that Rubio is a typical politician over promising during the campaign in general, but in that specific exchange it was a minor tax cut ("only" $170b iirc) and something that would be widely supported. There is a caricature that Republicans/Conservatives would let a poor person starve before giving them assistance, but Rand Paul actually believes in it and was trying to get Rubio to agree to that extreme position where not a single dollar redistributed* by the government is ever okay. And I not only strongly disagree personally with that position, but also think it clearly won't win a general election.

* redistributed, refunded, call it what you want. The actual specifics beyond "putting the welfare of our nation's children above ironclad theoretical principles" is irrelevant.

I think actually finding a way to pay for these tax credits is extremely relevant. Having the government live within its means is a pretty good theoretical principle.

[cody8200]

This field really makes me wish for the good old days of McCain and Romney - neither of which were good candidates but comparatively... Not a single viable candidate in the bunch.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think actually finding a way to pay for these tax credits is extremely relevant. Having the government live within its means is a pretty good theoretical principle.

We can argue about specifics elsewhere and I think my views are fairly clear on government spending, but either way during a debate isn't the time to be crunching numbers on specific budget plans. It's the time to be establishing/conveying your principles, and supporting the children of working families is the right answer, both in general and especially as a politician outside of anything but the most extreme fringe of the party. If you really need him to throw in a caveat that "he'd cut money elsewhere" to pay for it, fine, but Rand Paul was putting him in a specific position where he tried to make Rubio choose between the children of working families and "conservative principles", at which time the correct answer is to tell Paul he's wrong about what conservative principles are.

[BishopMVP]

"Do you support raising taxes?" No
"Do you support children starving?" No
"Would you raise taxes if it's necessary to prevent children from starving?" Of course
"But you just said you'd never raise taxes!"

Exaggeration for effect, but yes some people (not here) are that dumb. Committing to absolutes on any issues is generally a losing governing strategy. Just as Jeb Bush agrees sometimes you have to kill a baby, sometimes a small targeted handout/refund is the correct answer for even the most fiscally responsible person I'd ever want elected.

[miked]

But Grover Norquist!!!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

We can argue about specifics elsewhere and I think my views are fairly clear on government spending, but either way during a debate isn't the time to be crunching numbers on specific budget plans. It's the time to be establishing/conveying your principles, and supporting the children of working families is the right answer, both in general and especially as a politician outside of anything but the most extreme fringe of the party. If you really need him to throw in a caveat that "he'd cut money elsewhere" to pay for it, fine, but Rand Paul was putting him in a specific position where he tried to make Rubio choose between the children of working families and "conservative principles", at which time the correct answer is to tell Paul he's wrong about what conservative principles are.

Honestly, yes I would like him to spell out what he'd cut and I do realize that it is generally not a good campaign strategy to announce cuts, which is really the fault of the American voters because they rarely call candidates out on this bullshit.

Right now the only tried and true conservative principle that I'm seeing from Rubio is promising the moon and stars but only paying for the moon. It's easy to look principled when you can promise to spend money on whatever looks good to you w/o getting into the details of how to pay for it. This kind of mentality is part of the reason the deficit never gets fixed.

[NobodyHere]

Also in regards to Trump, is it really possible to "Make America Great Again" by driving down wages like he wants? This is why many Americans believe Republicans are the party of the rich.

ETA: I think that quote will really come back to haunt Trump if he manages to make it into the general election.

[PilotMan]

So there, one of greatest unintentional trolls.

[Coffee Warlord]

That's Secretary of the Interior Not Sure, thankyouverymuch.

[wustin]

Well it's an internet based survey, that alone should tell you the demographics.

[JPhillips]

They still aren't the gold standard, but online pools have gotten much better and are nearly equal in comparison to phone polls.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They still aren't the gold standard, but online pools have gotten much better and are nearly equal in comparison to phone polls.

Not when they're opt-in. It's a self-selecting pool.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They still aren't the gold standard, but online pools have gotten much better and are nearly equal in comparison to phone polls.

last month one of the online polls had Jim Webb at like ~20% from votes after the Dem. debate. Most of those votes were manufactured from a script written by a person from a certain imageboard...

Poll: Who do you think won the first Democratic debate? | MSNBC

At least half of those 7000 votes are not legitimate. Now I'm not saying that republican poll isn't legitimate but there's a good chance Trump's numbers are inflated because the disparity is ridiculous.

[Solecismic]

One of the more interesting results of the season was Kentucky's gubernatorial race this month.

The Democratic incumbent was term-limited, and Larry Sabato, who is one of the better poll analyzers around, predicted this as a lean toward the Democrat, state Attorney General Jack Conway. Nate Silver expressed the same opinion, though he hedged it a bit more than Sabato.

Yet businessman Matt Bevin won by a rather comfortable nine points. Of the four polls done in October, the average margin was D +2.

There have been two other gubernatorial elections this year. In Mississippi, incumbent Republican Phil Bryant won by 34 points over truck driver Robert Gray. That was to be expected (Gray really didn't campaign at all), but what was surprising was that Gray, an outsider, won the Democratic primary rather easily.

In Louisiana, Bobby Jindal is term-limited. Louisiana has this bizarre two-tier election process that skips the primaries. If no one gains 50%, then the top two vote-getters have a runoff. This has happened.

That runoff takes place in two weeks. The Democrat leads by 10-20 points in polling, but the analysis is very difficult. This is what Sabato has to say:

After Gov.-elect Matt Bevin’s (R) strong victory in Kentucky last week — a nine-point win that surprised almost all political observers, including us — we’re again confronted with a difficult-to-handicap red state gubernatorial race, this time in Louisiana.

There, Sen. David Vitter (R) appears to be trailing state Rep. John Bel Edwards (D) despite the state’s strong Republican leanings. Vitter has been under fire for months for his 2007 admission that he used a prostitution service in Washington D.C. and appears weak in other ways. He won just 23% of the vote in the initial round of voting to edge out two Republican rivals and advance to a runoff with Edwards. While Republicans will try to link Edwards to President Obama — a surefire strategy in any red state — Democrats appear to be successfully tying Vitter to very unpopular outgoing Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). (Supporters of each candidate will quibble with these comparisons: Unlike Obama, Edwards is culturally conservative while Vitter and Jindal are longtime bitter rivals.)

Still, using Kentucky as a precedent suggests a clear outlook: Both states are very Republican at the presidential level, and polls showing Edwards with a solid lead over Vitter could very well be wrong, just like the polls showing Bevin trailing state Attorney General Jack Conway (D) were. The state’s underlying partisan fundamentals strongly favor Republican Vitter, just as they strongly favored Bevin.

Despite this, we’re downgrading Vitter’s chances of winning, moving the state from Leans Republican to Toss-up in advance of the state’s Saturday, Nov. 21 runoff.

This is a tough one. I don't think Edwards will win by 20, but I have a hard time seeing a Vitter victory based on the polling unless polling has become completely futile (a good thing, really).

[flere-imsaho]

Are there any Democrats left in Mississippi?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are there any Democrats left in Mississippi?

Last I checked (within the last 3-4 years, I'm pretty sure,) Mississippi had the highest percentage of black population in the country. It was somewhere north of 35% iirc. And then there are the three white Democrats there.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Last I checked (within the last 3-4 years, I'm pretty sure,) Mississippi had the highest percentage of black population in the country. It was somewhere north of 35% iirc. And then there are the three white Democrats there.

Yes, it's 37.3%, which is the highest in the country.

Making assumptions about turnout being equal, which probably isn't the case...

In 2012, Romney had 674,302 votes and Obama 528,260 (R +12%).

Exit polls showed white voters favored Romney 89%-10% and black voters favored Obama 96%-4%.

So, assuming 754,006 white voters, seems like you'd find about 75,000 white Democrats in the state. However, the exit polls also asked what each voter thought of Romney, and half of that 75,000 answered, "Romney? I thought I was voting for George Wallace... how's ol' George doing these days?"

Meanwhile, this Trump campaign stuff is getting truly disturbing. Not that it wasn't before. If he doesn't start declining severely in the polls, it's definitely an indication that people are flat-out furious at Washington.

I still think this is only temporary and when it gets time to actually vote, Trump will be an afterthought.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I still think this is only temporary and when it gets time to actually vote, Trump will be an afterthought.

Yup. Saying that you would vote for Trump in November is just another way of saying "I'm really angry at things right now." It's costless, and it's a more interesting thing to say to a pollster than "I'm probably going to vote for Bush" or "I like Ted Cruz."

The thing that has surprised me a bit is that we haven't seen the angry/protest vote rotate more. It's pretty much been Trump and (more recently) Carson. I kind of thought that a lot of the more conservative outsider candidates like Jindal or Huckabee would get their 15 minutes atop the polls.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

And am I crazy to think that, of all people, Christie is possibly well positioned? I'm not saying that he's likely. But let's say that Bush stays unenthusiastic and does not recover. And let's say that Rubio starts to get taken down a bit as the other candidates's attacks on him sharpen and increase because of his frontrunner status.

And then let's say an establishment-unacceptable outcome in Iowa happens (Trump and Carson dominating). And then Christie (who's doing well in NH) pulls out NH. I could, in that world, see the establishment panic-endorsing Christie in order to prevent a long primary season of Trump/Carson/Cruz.

I know that a lot of dominoes have to fall to get that to happen, but no one domino seems so incredibly unlikely.

[ISiddiqui]

I think Rubio falling so much that the establishment backs Christie is a very unlikely domino.

[Solecismic]

The establishment is thinking, "OK, we know it's Hillary now, so who can beat Hillary?"

As far as the issues go, the Republicans and Democrats have probably never been further apart. I can't remember a time when it was this crazy.

So the establishment doesn't particularly care whether it's a more right-wing candidate like Cruz or a more centrist candidate like Bush or Rubio.

What I see from Rubio is that he's trying to be likable. What do we remember most from 2008 and the Democratic Primary? It's Obama saying, "you're likable enough, Hillary" (or something along those lines). That was an absolutely killer line because it resonated. It's something you can think about when you're in the voting booth and looking at names.

Rubio is truly running for the presidency now while the others are trying to beat each other. Is he a "true conservative?" Absolutely not. But, realistically, is either side going to be able to pass everything they talk about? If we elect Huckabee (maybe 1,000-1 odds right now), are we going to get a VAT and abolish income taxes? If we elect Cruz, is the Department of Education going to go away? If we elect Sanders, are we going to make universities free?

When Bush beat Kerry in 2004, despite Iraq looking like a disaster even then, he won because his personality came across in debates and Kerry didn't seem quite as trustworthy.

I think Rubio has a real shot at this. If the anger is real and Trump somehow gains momentum the more he insults people, Hillary will be likable enough because it's hard to like Trump. Republican primary voters are obviously a lot angrier at Washington than the rest of the country.

When Trump insults Hillary during a prime-time debate three weeks before the election, people will cringe. All she'll have to do is show a little vulnerability and stay on issues to beat him. That was the one mistake Obama made in 2008 - he came on a little too aggressively after Iowa and Hillary played it well in New Hampshire. It almost gave her enough momentum to win - though that remains the closest primary race we've had in modern times.

I think Christie has a lower ceiling, just like Trump. Christie is a great debater, and much more solid on the issues, but he is hard to like. He leans forward on the podium, tries to get in your face. He makes people a little uncomfortable. I don't imagine I would enjoy a beer with Chris Christie. It's certainly possible Christie can gain momentum - he's tied with Rubio for second in key endorsements. But I don't see him going head-to-head with Rubio or Cruz and coming out winning.

[Thomkal]

The GOP apparently has a secret plan in case the likes of Donald Trump or Ben Carson continue to lead in the polls:

GOP operatives have a secret plan to make Mitt Romney the Republican nominee

In light of the Supreme Court decision this summer over gay marriage and the recent anti-gay stance announced by Mormon leaders, I cannot imagine Romney would have near the same support as he did when he ran before.

[Solecismic]

Gravis has a new New Hampshire poll. Trump 29, Cruz 12, Rubio 10, Christie 8, Bush 8, Carson 7.

Now Gravis has been a little higher than others on Trump, but it calls into heavy question the theory that Trump has been hurt by his vague and illogical ramblings during recent debates.

It's also maybe a sign that Carson is in steep decline. He had been 11-17 in all the other New Hampshire polls the last six weeks.

Cruz and Christie seem to be the other beneficiaries. Kasich's 5 matches his low in any poll in new Hampshire since well before he entered the race.

The only other polling we have since the last debate is from Florida and Georgia - snap polls from local media. These suggest Carson has not been hurt.

We'll know a lot more in the next few days. As always, keep in mind that lots and lots of voters don't pay close attention until after Christmas.

[PilotMan]

I would have thought that if Kasich had anywhere where he needed to be strong it's New Hampshire. That should be more in his political wheelhouse than anywhere. You have to think he is really pushing hard for VP right now with those numbers still so low.

The recent attacks have made FB blow up with memes. I'm beginning to think that the corpse of Reagan is going to take the lead in the Republican polls.

[molson]

Bobby Jindal drops out.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

Bobby Jindal drops out.

Where will his supporter go to now?