2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[rowech]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Also 2000*, 1992**, 1980*** and holy shit 1960.

* "I'd have a beer with him."

** "Bubba. Regular guy."

*** Actor as President

The advent of TV drastically changed what the American Public looks for in a president. The internet took it up a level. The elections have become entertainment.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

That's my point. Would you say trump supporters are also being blind to agreeable charisma?

Yes, of course, that's not intended to be a partisan point. Highly charismatic personalities, I would imagine, are typically positive for proponents and typically negative for opponents. The opponents therefore, typically don't feel like they are "falling for his/her crap" while the proponents are more likely saying, "What crap? This is awesome!"

[JPhillips]

Maybe he can win.



Asked of GOP voters.

[larrymcg421]

PredictIt Values

Republican Nomination

Trump .42
Rubio .28
Cruz .24
Bush .10
Christie .04
Kasich .03
Paul .02
Carson .01
Romney .01 (LOL)

Democratic Nomination

Clinton .69
Sanders .33
Biden .05
O'Malley .01
Warren .01

General Election

Clinton .45
Sanders .26
Trump .24
Rubio .11
Cruz .09
Bush .03
Biden .02
Christie .01
Kasich .03
Carson .01
Bloomberg .01

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't think I could illustrate my point about Democrats any better than that. You genuinely believe anyone who doesn't agree with you about the issues is just a bad person. There's no room for discussion about it. It's all hate.

How were Cruz's statements about "New York values" markedly different from this?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You must have forgotten the whole "you're either with us or against us" theme of the second Bush Presidency, which leaked very heavily into GOP campaigns.

Where there people (here and abroad) that weren't one of those two things?

[albionmoonlight]

As of this writing, the predictit market for undivided government under the GOP after the election is 20/80 against.

It would seem that if you believe that the GOP will win the White House, then that is the play you would want to make. Everyone agrees that the House will stay GOP (barring the sort of electoral disaster that would mean they also lose the other two branches).

Which means that you are really betting that, if the GOP wins the presidency, they would also keep the Senate. And, seeing as those elections are roughly correlated in term of turnout/coattails/etc., it seems very unlikely to me that you could somehow have the GOP win the White House and lose one of the other two electoral branches.

And buying a GOP win at 20% seems like pretty good odds.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

How were Cruz's statements about "New York values" markedly different from this?

That's a good question, but it's apples and oranges. One is a mindset that's popular in left-leaning media and the other is a politician desperate to gain votes and probably (hopefully) sabotaging his own campaign in the process.

I am profoundly disappointed in the quality of the candidates for the presidency. We have only ourselves to blame. We respond to negative ad campaigns and we ignore positive stories. We place everyone under this withering "gotcha" microscope, and only the viruses that thrive on poison survive.

I thought for a while that maybe Rubio could rise above this, but I like him less and less the more that I see he's just a different tilt at the same anti-windmill. Plus, there are some really disturbing key mistakes he has made in his support of particular foreign policies (like Libya).

I think I'm more-or-less behind Christie at this point. My hopes being that the side of him we saw with the bridge issue could be blamed on staffers. The appeal being his landslide victories in a heavily blue state. But I worry that he can't empathize with voters and I worry that he will do what so many others have done in recent years upon victory - "I won - deal with it." His command of the issues is good. I agree with him less than I do with several others, but I think I need to let go of the idea that I need to agree with someone 90% of the time to feel he or she should win. What we lost when Jon Huntsman's campaign was a non-starter four years ago seems enormous. What we will lose if Trump (probably Cruz as well) wins the nomination seems even greater.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think I'm more-or-less behind Christie at this point.

Thus ending any "conservative" credentials you'd ever have.

What we lost when Jon Huntsman's campaign was a non-starter four years ago seems enormous.

Oh wait, suddenly the support of Christie seems downright palatable.

I'm not actually bashing you here, I'm intentionally picking on your comments to make a point, a point that is extremely relevant for this election & every election going forward: those two statements I just picked on, using your comments to do so, they are a clear indication that you & I have no business whatsoever being under the same political party. Neither of those candidates is fit to be dogcatcher in Dogpatch afaic, the latter candidate being a particularly disgusting SOB. (I like Huntsman about as well as I like Sanders, and respect Sanders slightly more). That the candidacy JH was dismissed with all the respect & interest it deserved, his candidacy being so thoroughly repudiated has actually been one of the brighter political moments I can think of over the past decade, proving that we may suck at picking candidates but we don't lack THAT much judgement.

It's past time for a practical split of the GOP, not just one on paper or at the polls. At this point association with the other elements of "the party" does little except make the other side feel dirty and discourage political activity at all. There simply isn't a tent big enough, trying to tolerate the other elements is merely tainting the brand (no matter what you think the brand is).

Your comments got picked on/picked out because they're as perfect an illustration of the situation I've seen in a while, it wasn't even a topic on my mind until I read the post. I don't care one bit who gets custody of the letterhead or the office space, but the wings of the party need to just share the mailing lists & databases and get the divorce moving already.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's a good question, but it's apples and oranges. One is a mindset that's popular in left-leaning media and the other is a politician desperate to gain votes and probably (hopefully) sabotaging his own campaign in the process.

I'm not sure it's that different. Cruz is far enough right - or representing those far enough right - who think the left is destroying or even actively sabotaging the country. And they probably think most New Yorkers are going to Hell. So...kinda bad.

[cuervo72]

And, perhaps it's time for a third, moderate party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And, perhaps it's time for a third, moderate party.

I suppose there's room for somebody everyone can hate.

[albionmoonlight]

The idea of a moderate party always polls well in the abstract. That's because everyone sub-consciously fills in the party with their own ideas. But, in practice, the party is going to have to take real positions and still piss off people.

A guy who believes that the government should have the power to criminalize homosexual sex (conservative) but wants payroll taxes cut (liberal) thinks of himself as a moderate. But so is someone who would hold the exact opposite views. Both of those guys would say that they favor a "moderate" third party.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The idea of a moderate party always polls well in the abstract. That's because everyone sub-consciously fills in the party with their own ideas. But, in practice, the party is going to have to take real positions and still piss off people.

A guy who believes that the government should have the power to criminalize homosexual sex (conservative) but wants payroll taxes cut (liberal) thinks of himself as a moderate. But so is someone who would hold the exact opposite views. Both of those guys would say that they favor a "moderate" third party.

I think it's going to take a specific personality to create one. Someone with Ross Perot's maverick but not Ross Perot's insanity. I've never voted for a Republican for president - the party is far too socially conservative for me. I'm more Bernie Sanders when it comes to social issues. But I'm to the right of the Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues. Some would say that's Libertarian, but I'm not an isolationist or against school funding, either. I really don't fit in any party, and sometimes I just don't have any idea of how I should vote. Of the group out there now, I think Christie is the most likely to figure out a way to get Democrats and Republicans talking again. Though he is certainly up there when it comes to anti-Hillary rhetoric, so there's also a good chance he's as much a "screw you, you lost" guy as anyone else.

We are getting far too good at seeing the bad in people. Cruz and his "New York values" attack is divisive. So is the left and its "you're stupid if you think..." response to almost everything these days. We need to recognize that most people agree about what's a problem, but there are often entirely different ideas about how to fix those problems. What ends up happening is that both the Democrats and the Republicans throw up their hands and spend/waste a giant haul of money, and then go back to hating each other because the problems grow worse with the more money they spend.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Where there people (here and abroad) that weren't one of those two things?

I know you used a smiley, but George W. Bush said I was the enemy, because I opposed the Iraq War. That kind of stuff lingers, you know.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think I'm more-or-less behind Christie at this point. My hopes being that the side of him we saw with the bridge issue could be blamed on staffers.

You can't be this naive. I'm not sure even core Christie supporters believe this.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

And, perhaps it's time for a third, moderate party.

Define "moderate".

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think it's going to take a specific personality to create one. Someone with Ross Perot's maverick but not Ross Perot's insanity. I've never voted for a Republican for president - the party is far too socially conservative for me. I'm more Bernie Sanders when it comes to social issues. But I'm to the right of the Republicans when it comes to fiscal issues. Some would say that's Libertarian, but I'm not an isolationist or against school funding, either.

Wouldn't this be "Rockefeller Republicans", updated for the 21st century? Serious question.

Of the group out there now, I think Christie is the most likely to figure out a way to get Democrats and Republicans talking again.

Based on what evidence?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Define "moderate".

Albionmoonlight did a pretty fair job of it a few posts back.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah, that was my point.

[nol]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wouldn't this be "Rockefeller Republicans", updated for the 21st century? Serious question.

hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good

— Ernie Monies (@crushingbort) May 5, 2014

[cuervo72]

Fine, maybe a moderate party wouldn't work. But I'm getting a little tired of the existing ones both telling me I don't belong.

[JPhillips]

There is no third party savior, regardless of your beliefs. The system is stacked against a third party. If you want to see your ideas implemented you need to do the hard work of persuading and organizing within the two party system.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

those two statements I just picked on, using your comments to do so, they are a clear indication that you & I have no business whatsoever being under the same political party.

Same thing applies to the Democrats though. There are Dems who are big fans of BILL Clinton's New Democrat ideas, including reforming welfare, etc. and there are Dems who think Clinton (well both of them) is basically a RINO and who are firmly in Sanders-ville.

It's the nature of the beast in First-Past-The-Post systems - two massive parties tend to develop.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You can't be this naive. I'm not sure even core Christie supporters believe this.

Actually, I believe that it can be blamed on petty staffers. I have found in politics that the pols themselves are far more pragmatic than their 'true believers' who want to destroy any 'enemy'.

Based on what evidence?

He did hug Obama (as any Republican running against him says with incredible frequency)

[larrymcg421]

Christie's reaction to the Ebola crisis would be a much bigger problem for me than Bridgegate.

[larrymcg421]

And yes, a third party won't work in this country until we have major electoral reform. First past the post leads to two parties, especially when the post isn't even 50% because many states have no runoff mechanism.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Christie's reaction to the Ebola crisis would be a much bigger problem for me than Bridgegate.

Ebola was too scared of Christie to infect that nurse, so I don't see how that's a negative.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There is no third party savior, regardless of your beliefs. The system is stacked against a third party. If you want to see your ideas implemented you need to do the hard work of persuading and organizing within the two party system.

Except black people, they get one party and that's final. (just joking! Don't light me up, JPhillips.)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And yes, a third party won't work in this country until we have major electoral reform. First past the post leads to two parties, especially when the post isn't even 50% because many states have no runoff mechanism.

A third party won't win overnight. And there's no guarantee of success, even in the long term. The goal can't be to win the presidency and hold onto it. The Liberal party in the UK last held Prime Minister in 1918, and that was with just 13% of the vote and a coalition of other parties that wanted to deny the Conservatives.

The initial goal has to be regional, and to control a certain number of seats - enough that both major parties need to work with that party in order to pass legislation without "bipartisan" support.

But, in terms of our Electoral College, it is first to 270. If no one gets there (of course, that requires winning a handful of states - which won't happen overnight), coalitions need to be formed.

That said, there's no guarantee that the third party in will magically agree with what we personally want, anyway. Remember Pat Buchanan and the aftermath of Ross Perot's Reform Party? It started so well, and then Buchanan got in there, and Trump got in there, and David Duke got in there, and Jesse Ventura even won a governorship - all with very different ideas of this third party.

"So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."

- Donald Trump, February 2000, as quoted in The New York Times

When Trump is your voice of reason (he was pro gay rights before it was considered mainstream), you're in a world of trouble.

I think that's a bigger obstacle for this concept of forming a so-called coalition of the center. There are some strange and unpleasant bedfellows who also consider themselves part of the center.

[JPhillips]

Another problem is one of the two large parties will co-opt any popular platform ideas from a third party. It would be very difficult to have a clearly delineated message. I think that's partly why they tend to be personality driven rather than policy driven.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Another problem is one of the two large parties will co-opt any popular platform ideas from a third party. It would be very difficult to have a clearly delineated message. I think that's partly why they tend to be personality driven rather than policy driven.

I think we kind of see the variations within the parties though.

HRC is the moderate left (Establishment Democrat)
Rubio is the moderate right (Establishment GOP)
Sanders is the further left (Democratic Socialist)
Trump is the further right (Capitalist GOP)
Cruz is a different kind of further to the right (Tea Party GOP)

At the end of the day, it's not to unlike coalitions that are formed elsewhere.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think we kind of see the variations within the parties though.

HRC is the moderate left (Establishment Democrat)
Rubio is the moderate right (Establishment GOP)
Sanders is the further left (Democratic Socialist)
Trump is the further right (Capitalist GOP)
Cruz is a different kind of further to the right (Tea Party GOP)

At the end of the day, it's not to unlike coalitions that are formed elsewhere.

Sure.

The most relevant example is Perot and the deficit. That wasn't an issue for either party until Perot, but by 1994 the GOP had co-opted it completely. I thin that kind of thing will quickly happen to any idea from a third party that really gains traction.

[QuikSand]

Trump: Christianity 'under siege' | TheHill

Love this bit:

Trump, however, caught flack on social media after he called Second Corinthians, "Two Corinthians" when he referenced the book of the Bible made of Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
“Two Corinthians, right?” he said. “Two Corinthians 3:17. That’s the whole ballgame.”

The verse reads: "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

The slip comes after Trump called the Bible his favorite book last year, but wouldn't share his favorite Bible verse. On Monday, he said it was the only book better than his No. 1 bestseller "The Art of the Deal."

[Arles]

The Republican field right now:

[Dutch]

So he's a moderate Christian? Thank God.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks for making me feel old, Arles.

[Arles]

I'm right with you - the golden age of SNL.

[albionmoonlight]

Iowa Gov. Branstad Wants Cruz To Lose: He'd Be 'Damaging To Our State'

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said on Tuesday, according to the Des Moines Register. "He actually introduced a bill in 2013 to immediately eliminate the Renewable Fuel Standard. He’s heavily financed by Big Oil. So we think once Iowans realize that fact, they might find other things attractive, but he could be very damaging to our state."

"I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him," Branstad added, according to the Des Moines Register.

revrew: Is this the kind of "all politics is local" thing that could make a difference? Or is this just some hot air that the national media is latching onto because conflict gets clicks?

[JAG]

A quick search shows Cruz has been under attacks for weeks because of his stance on this, so probably doesn't significant move the needle I would guess.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

revrew: Is this the kind of "all politics is local" thing that could make a difference? Or is this just some hot air that the national media is latching onto because conflict gets clicks?

This is a fully expected, predictable consequence of the civil war within the Republican Party.

It's hard to get more RINO, more establishment in Iowa than Gov. Terry Branstad. (He's also a closet Christie backer).

The establishment has been in full-scale war here against Cruz for a few weeks now. This will put a dent in Cruz, cost him some generic voters who might have been persuaded his way on Caucus night, but let's be honest: Cruz doesn't have very many establishment types backing him as it is. His volunteers, his organization, the strength of his campaign here are not Branstad fans.

[Ben E Lou]

404 - StoryLine

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by revrew

This is a fully expected, predictable consequence of the civil war within the Republican Party.

It's hard to get more RINO, more establishment in Iowa than Gov. Terry Branstad. (He's also a closet Christie backer).

The establishment has been in full-scale war here against Cruz for a few weeks now. This will put a dent in Cruz, cost him some generic voters who might have been persuaded his way on Caucus night, but let's be honest: Cruz doesn't have very many establishment types backing him as it is. His volunteers, his organization, the strength of his campaign here are not Branstad fans.

I wonder what the point is of running, if it's doomed to fail. This isn't directed only to Cruz, but other candidates who seem satisfied to only court a small minority of voters. I'm sitting here as a moderate wondering, "is anyone even trying to win my vote?"

[revrew]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I wonder what the point is of running, if it's doomed to fail. This isn't directed only to Cruz, but other candidates who seem satisfied to only court a small minority of voters. I'm sitting here as a moderate wondering, "is anyone even trying to win my vote?"

This is a bad year for moderates. In the GOP, moderates have been in positions of power for so long that the more conservative base is beyond frustrated, they're irate, so the division between Bush/Kasich/Christie/Rubio is coming at ta really bad time. If one of those 4 would emerge as viable and pick up the support of the others, we'd have a race ... but nope. To be honest, this is what many conservatives have felt for years, as multiple candidates have divided the support and moderates got the nomination instead. It's a reversal of the usual for the GOP.

Even for the Dems ... hard-left Clinton and extreme-left Sanders? The moderates aren't doing so well over there, either.

But I take issue with the "small minority of voters" comment. Conservatives aren't a small minority of the GOP. And socialists aren't a small minority in the Dem Party any more, either. Both likely represent the most vocal, active, and engaged base in their respective parties.

Running to the middle didn't help Presidents McCain or Romney. And at least talking like a hard lefty gave Obama a boost. I think both parties are banking on the notion that gaining the "middle" won't do you any good if you don't secure your base (see Romney, who trounced McCain among moderates, but lost his base ... and lost the election).

[JPhillips]

Hard left Clinton and Obama.

LOL

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hard left Clinton and Obama.

LOL

This is especially amusing considering all of the annoying people on my Facebook feed who keep going on and on about the DINO Hillary Clinton who is "basically a Republican".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

But I take issue with the "small minority of voters" comment. Conservatives aren't a small minority of the GOP. And socialists aren't a small minority in the Dem Party any more, either. Both likely represent the most vocal, active, and engaged base in their respective parties.

This.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I'm sitting here as a moderate wondering, "is anyone even trying to win my vote?"

Don't take this personally ('cause it's not at all personal) but honestly, no I don't think either are.

The politically engaged on both sides would prefer that you stay home & stay the hell away from the polls entirely to be honest.

To coin a phrase "you're either with us or against us", the principle to which I've long ascribed is coming around into the mainstream of politics.

It's hell to be ahead of the curve.

[ISiddiqui]

Well that works up until an election cycle where, say, you have a Sanders vs. a Cruz and all of a sudden a Bloomberg comes up as a third party candidate and goes for the moderates. Then both parties have an "oh shit" moment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well that works up until an election cycle where, say, you have a Sanders vs. a Cruz and all of a sudden a Bloomberg comes up as a third party candidate and goes for the moderates. Then both parties have an "oh shit" moment.

Moderates most likely lack the passion to actually win even in that scenario.

Not being ugly, just being honest.

[larrymcg421]

Cruz wins that scenario easily. His main advantage is that he wins any scenario where no one gets 270, since Congress would vote him in.

He also has the entire south and plains states uncontested, whereas Bernie and Bloomberg will be forced to spend precious time in the northeast and west coast instead of shoring up those swing states.

[Ben E Lou]

Sarah Palin is endorsing Trump.

Log In - The New York Times

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Sarah Palin is endorsing Trump.

Log In - The New York Times

Not really too big a surprise I don't think.

But she seemed to fall into a noticeable "endorse for the right payback" mode in the last cycle so I'm not sure whether this is particularly meaningful frankly (at least not to anyone who pays attention)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Moderates most likely lack the passion to actually win even in that scenario.

Not being ugly, just being honest.

I find that statement a bit ironic considering that you have been very vocal in your disappointment that in the last two Presidential elections, the moderates in the GOP were able to trump over the right-wing. Arguably their passion won out?