2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by 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.

Likely, yes. But it becomes a far more tense thing.

It becomes even more interesting (to your point about Cruz-like person getting the South and plains) if someone who is a moderate Southern Dem runs... like former Gov. Steve Beshear from Kentucky (I realize that Kentucky isn't "the South" per se... but close enough for this purpose).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Sarah Palin is endorsing Trump.

Log In - The New York Times

Stolen from Fark:

Politician turned reality TV personality endorses TV personality turned politician

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

And it got them ... what?

15 minutes of fame as a glorious flop of a candidate in the end.

Cowards & fools selected them, earning exactly jack shit in the process.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And it got them ... what?

15 minutes of fame as a glorious flop of a candidate in the end.

Cowards & fools selected them, earning exactly jack shit in the process.

Irrelevant. The passion does indeed exist - whether or not it results in victory has to do with other factors.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Irrelevant. The passion does indeed exist - whether or not it results in victory has to do with other factors.

That's not "passion", that's cowardice. Eager capitulation.

In a three horse race, there's no need to surrender to the enemy.

[Ryche]

Someone like Jim Webb might actually have a snowballs chance if it's Bernie against Trump or Cruz

[Solecismic]

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?"

There's a delicate calculation going on. The caucuses include only the hard-core involved partisans. The primaries typically don't include moderates. And the election itself centers around a handful of states where turnout means everything.

The Republicans are angry. Heck, I'm angry and it wasn't that long ago I leaned Democrat (I remember being glad when Clinton won, though Perot had some appeal early on). When I lived in North Carolina, I loved those "I'm from North Carolina and I DON'T support Jesse Helms" bumper stickers.

The Republicans have tried McCain and Romney and it didn't work well for them. This Trump/Cruz thing is more real than I'd like to admit.

And the bottom line is that very few of us actually matter when it comes to choosing a president (though I will probably be a voter in one state that matters a lot by November, and, while Sanders or Hillary Clinton aren't options for me, who the Republicans put up in response is very important to me).

Interesting to see Kasich touch 20 in a New Hampshire poll this week. But New Hampshire has a habit of moving 20 points this way and that as you're driving to the polls.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Someone like Jim Webb might actually have a snowballs chance if it's Bernie against Trump or Cruz

Jim Webb couldn't get any Democrats to support him. And I don't know if there's hardly any Republicans that will vote for him.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

And the bottom line is that very few of us actually matter when it comes to choosing a president.

I'm 47 years old, and for the first time in my life I'll feel like my vote for President might actually matter.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm 47 years old, and for the first time in my life I'll feel like my vote for President might actually matter.

Honestly, I think if the Democrats can put North Carolina in serious play, it's already over.

[JonInMiddleGA]

quick review re: NC

Romney only won by 92,000 votes out of 4.5 million in 2012, a scant 50.39% total (Gary Johnson managed around 45k votes to account for the math).

NC is in play, same as 2012 and 2008.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Honestly, I think if the Democrats can put North Carolina in serious play, it's already over.

I'm thinking that this election will have significantly more "bah, not voting for either" types, thus putting some states into play for both sides that might not normally be in play in a close election.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Jim Webb couldn't get any Democrats to support him. And I don't know if there's hardly any Republicans that will vote for him.

Webb is Jeb! without the exclamation point.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Jim Webb couldn't get any Democrats to support him. And I don't know if there's hardly any Republicans that will vote for him.

He's more right than Hillary, almost a moderate Republican. I'm sure he would gain a lot of interest from the right. One thing to note, Webb wanted to cut corporate taxes and increase tax on capital gains.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's not "passion", that's cowardice. Eager capitulation.

In a three horse race, there's no need to surrender to the enemy.

Nope. Sorry, it's passion. And they whupped you.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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.

But that's exactly the problem. You don't end up with 45 Democrats, 45 Republicans, and 10 people from this mythical moderate party like it's the Supreme Court. You end up with 45 Republicans, 45 Democrats, maybe 4 of those moderates, but also 2 Communists, a neo-nazi, some guy who only cares that open-carry laws should be nationwide, one person who still wants to ban gay marriage, and one who thinks wind power is the solution to this country's energy needs. And suddenly these insane fringe parties get whatever they care about passed because both main parties are so desperate to get to/maintain 51 votes.

Originally Posted by 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.

Would they? Has it changed to where they're forced to vote for somebody who received an electoral vote, or could the Republican Party go off the board and elect "an establishment guy" Granted, the fighting over Speaker of the House showed that reaching a consensus there would impossible, but everything I've heard about Ted Cruz says that he might literally be the most unliked person in Washington.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

The "until we figure out what is going on" line is just so amazing.

[Thomkal]

Looks like Trump has the "idiot vote" secured with the Sarah Palin Endorsement:

Palin Endorsement Widens Trump’s Lead Among Idiots - The New Yorker

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Would they? Has it changed to where they're forced to vote for somebody who received an electoral vote, or could the Republican Party go off the board and elect "an establishment guy" Granted, the fighting over Speaker of the House showed that reaching a consensus there would impossible, but everything I've heard about Ted Cruz says that he might literally be the most unliked person in Washington.

Per the 12th Amendment:

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President

Even without that provision, I can't imagine the GOP risking the complete implosion of their party that would take place if Cruz won the primary, won the most electoral votes in the general, and was then denied the Presidency in favor of an establishment candidate.

[JPhillips]

The establishment is panicking.

GOP strategist Rick Wilson dismissed the “childless single men” who support Trump’s presidential bid.

“The fact of the matter is, most of them are childless single men who masturbate to anime.”

[RainMaker]

It is kind of fascinating to watch unfold. Establishment is losing it and the media is already melting down.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It is kind of fascinating to watch unfold. Establishment is losing it and the media is already melting down.

All before one vote has been cast . . .

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Even without that provision, I can't imagine the GOP risking the complete implosion of their party that would take place if Cruz won the primary, won the most electoral votes in the general, and was then denied the Presidency in favor of an establishment candidate.

That makes sense it needs to be somebody who received an electoral vote (although that wording is incredibly confusing, apologies if I'm reading it wrong!)

But if the party hasn't imploded from all the internecine warfare of the past few years, or from an eventual nomination of literally any of these candidates since they're all hated by a large part of "the party", I think it's un-implodable. Especially as long as there is an OBama or Clinton boogeyman out there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nope. Sorry, it's passion. And they whupped you.

LOL, a Romney supporter with {cough laughter cough} passion. Oh that's a good one.

That's not passion. That was outright fucking stupidity and a wasted vote on that useless piece of pseudocon shit, along with no shortage of liberal crossover voting.

[flere-imsaho]

I doubt a lot of people voted for Romney out of passion. But I don't think it's accurate to call their decision stupid, either. Romney clearly had the best chance of the available candidates in 2012 against Obama. It may be stupid in the eyes of Jon and people like him, to vote for a perpetuation of "moderate" GOP nominees, I'll grant.

[ISiddiqui]

They voted against Huckabee and Santorum, etc. with a passion, however. Just because Jon doesn't like that sort of anti-passion doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Though, I'm sure they are fine with Jon dismissing them. It makes it easier for them to outmaneuver the far-right - though they can't win them all (like this year).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They voted against Huckabee and Santorum, etc. with a passion, however.

Maybe. You're essentially contending (unless I misunderstand you) that a large percentage of GOP primary voters went to the polls saying "Santorum & Huckabee are horrible! I'm voting for the future of the Republican Party! Romney is our man to take us forward to a bright new future!"

I mean, it's possible. I just think it's unlikely.

[Ben E Lou]

Um, yeah...ok....

GOP Strategist: Trump Supporters Are 'Single Men Who Masturbate To Anime'

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe. You're essentially contending (unless I misunderstand you) that a large percentage of GOP primary voters went to the polls saying "Santorum & Huckabee are horrible! I'm voting for the future of the Republican Party! Romney is our man to take us forward to a bright new future!"

I mean, it's possible. I just think it's unlikely.

That's not at all what I saw on the ground in Iowa. The large majority of GOP voters were in "anyone but Romney" mode. The problem is, the 30% establishment had unified around Romney, while 70% of the party was divided up, trying to choose from a bunch of other candidates who couldn't get the job done.

Bachmann was an early favorite, but her campaign (predictably?) imploded.

Gingrich was touted by some, but his personal life was a turnoff to a lot of religious conservatives, while his "insider" persona turned off the Tea Party and libertarian types.

Ron Paul grabbed the libertarian vote, further fracturing the anti-establishment crowd.

The polls showed the anti-Romney sentiment was starting to gravitate toward Herman Cain ... until is infidelity charges sabotaged the campaign.

All that left was the uninspiring, uncharismatic, and woefully underfunded Santorum. Iowa, because of our retail, grassroots political system, was able to push Santorum to a strong finish, but he had no money after that. South Carolina, if I remember correctly, tried to give Gingrich a shot, but for many good reasons, Gingrich fizzled.

All the GOP was left with in 2012 was Romney. 70% of Republicans hated him, but he had the money and backing of the establishment, so he got the nom.

Consequently, when the general election came, a HUGE chunk of GOP voters just stayed home. They would rather not go to the prom at all than take their ugly cousin (Romney).

[flere-imsaho]

Well, talking about the issues substantively hasn't worked against Trump, why not try to meet him on his rhetorical level?

[flere-imsaho]

revrew - read what I wrote again: I'm not disagreeing with you.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Um, yeah...ok....

GOP Strategist: Trump Supporters Are 'Single Men Who Masturbate To Anime'

Way to try to smear the reputation and character of guys who masturbate to anime.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Um, yeah...ok....

GOP Strategist: Trump Supporters Are 'Single Men Who Masturbate To Anime'

I know. Everyone knows all the anime nuts are Sanders people.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by revrew

Consequently, when the general election came, a HUGE chunk of GOP voters just stayed home. They would rather not go to the prom at all than take their ugly cousin (Romney).

If that's true then the Republicans have a huge problem. If they go right wing or crazy (Cruz or Trump respectively), then you're going to have a huge chunk of GOP voters stay home on the other end as well as pushing independents away once the general comes around.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe. You're essentially contending (unless I misunderstand you) that a large percentage of GOP primary voters went to the polls saying "Santorum & Huckabee are horrible! I'm voting for the future of the Republican Party! Romney is our man to take us forward to a bright new future!"

I mean, it's possible. I just think it's unlikely.

Why would passion take the form of the idealist rabble rousers? No one thought Romney was the man to "take us forward to a bright new future", and he was fortunate in the right wing was divided, but to blame everything on the "establishment" is a bit ridiculous. He had scores of dedicated supporters who were with him from early on. You can see that in this election, the "establishment' was behind Jeb Bush and Rubio, but neither of them have the level of dedicated supporters that Romney did.

I also see it among the far left in referring to Hillary Clinton - the whole it's all the establishment, no one is excited or passionate for Hillary Clinton, etc. It's just not true, but the extremes can't perceive of dedicated supporters who are passionate about a moderate candidate.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by revrew

That's not at all what I saw on the ground in Iowa. The large majority of GOP voters were in "anyone but Romney" mode. The problem is, the 30% establishment had unified around Romney, while 70% of the party was divided up, trying to choose from a bunch of other candidates who couldn't get the job done.

Iowa (and it's caucuses in particular with the heavy evangelical slant) don't represent the country's views. New Hampshire used to be a nice neutral/independent barometer for both campaigns, but it's been pretty politicized recently, especially with all the Boston people moving up to Southern NH. The truth is, the Republicans should hold their first primaries in Massachusetts, California, and Minnesota (or maybe go for a strict swing-state interpretation and go with Florida, Ohio, and idk, Virginia?) Just like the Democrats should hold their first ones in Texas, North Carolina, and maybe Missouri (or those same 3 swing-states).

With the long lead time to these primaries and the existence of a national media that actually takes something said to an Iowa or South Carolina voter and reports it everywhere, it only serves to encourage those parts of the party and force candidates to pander with more far-right positions than they normally would be forced to commit to. It doesn't mean your ideas are wrong or you're a bad person, and I love hearing your viewpoint, but you live in a completely different culture than I do, and one that doesn't have a prayer of winning an election if it set the whole party platform. (And I'm certainly not saying I have the right answers, because at least on social issues I'm so far to the liberal side of the spectrum I would be laughed out of an Iowa caucus. Or politely thanked for my contribution and then ignored, because midwesterners really are much more polite.)

All the GOP was left with in 2012 was Romney. 70% of Republicans hated him, but he had the money and backing of the establishment, so he got the nom.

Consequently, when the general election came, a HUGE chunk of GOP voters just stayed home. They would rather not go to the prom at all than take their ugly cousin (Romney).

Romney got more votes than McCain in 2008, and 10 million/17% more than George Bush did in 2000 (Granted, Bush in 2004 did top him by 1-2 million). Now, I know population and registered voters both increase all the time, but the idea that Romney caused a huge swath of voters to stay home or vote 3rd party out of spite isn't borne out by the data.

Shurg, Mitt's a little weird (even for a Mormon ), but he was a pretty solid Governor and he would have been a pretty decent President. Having an executive with malleable positions who is willing to compromise to more accurately represent the will of his constituents isn't the worst thing in the world.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why would passion take the form of the idealist rabble rousers? No one thought Romney was the man to "take us forward to a bright new future", and he was fortunate in the right wing was divided, but to blame everything on the "establishment" is a bit ridiculous. He had scores of dedicated supporters who were with him from early on. You can see that in this election, the "establishment' was behind Jeb Bush and Rubio, but neither of them have the level of dedicated supporters that Romney did.

I also see it among the far left in referring to Hillary Clinton - the whole it's all the establishment, no one is excited or passionate for Hillary Clinton, etc. It's just not true, but the extremes can't perceive of dedicated supporters who are passionate about a moderate candidate.

Ah OK, now I see where you're coming from. Thanks for explaining.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Maybe. You're essentially contending (unless I misunderstand you) that a large percentage of GOP primary voters went to the polls saying "Santorum & Huckabee are horrible! I'm voting for the future of the Republican Party! Romney is our man to take us forward to a bright new future!"

I mean, it's possible. I just think it's unlikely.

I can tell you that I have absolutely voted in the GOP primaries to vote against a specific candidate. Gubernatorial and Presidential, both. It happens.

It may not be an organized DEFEAT THAT JACKASS sort of passion where they all sort of rise up in favor of one specific candidate over another, but it happens. What Romney had going for him was money. He was able to wait out the "anybody but Mitt" flavor of the week that was going on with the Bachmanns and Santorums (Santorii?) and what-have-you. And when the dust cleared, he remained.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why would passion take the form of the idealist rabble rousers? No one thought Romney was the man to "take us forward to a bright new future", and he was fortunate in the right wing was divided, but to blame everything on the "establishment" is a bit ridiculous. He had scores of dedicated supporters who were with him from early on. You can see that in this election, the "establishment' was behind Jeb Bush and Rubio, but neither of them have the level of dedicated supporters that Romney did.

I also see it among the far left in referring to Hillary Clinton - the whole it's all the establishment, no one is excited or passionate for Hillary Clinton, etc. It's just not true, but the extremes can't perceive of dedicated supporters who are passionate about a moderate candidate.

The thing about passion is it needn't be positive passion, necessarily. I mean, it CAN be and often it IS - the moderate candidate has just the right mix of positions to excite her base - but it can just as well be "of all of these jokers, you're the one I can most easily support and at least you're not THAT fuckwit."

Which, again...been there. And the irony is that Jon has expressed that opinion in the run-up to these primaries, but he's still castigating the people who vote for a candidate who isn't willing to go full fascist as being cowards and fools. Even if their passion manifests itself in exactly the same way - "at least you're not THAT fuckwit" - it doesn't count for him because it isn't the "right" passion. The candidate they've identified as the fuckwit is the candidate he actually likes, so in his mind they're cheese-eating surrender monkeys willing to placate the evil liberals, rather than people who see his candidates as being dangerous to the Republic in the same way that Jon thinks moderates/liberals are dangerous.

I'm reasonably sure he literally cannot conceive of people having that sort of vehement passion against his preferred politicians even as they share at least general worldview with him (or else they probably wouldn't be Republicans). And that's not meant as an insult. Just callin' it like I see it.

[Easy Mac]

Can we just give Alaska back to Russia?

Palin Blames Son's Domestic Violence on Obama - The Daily Beast

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They voted against Huckabee and Santorum, etc. with a passion, however. Just because Jon doesn't like that sort of anti-passion doesn't mean that it didn't exist. Though, I'm sure they are fine with Jon dismissing them. It makes it easier for them to outmaneuver the far-right - though they can't win them all (like this year).

Again, I saw no signs of anti-anybody passion for Malleable Mitt, just deviating to the least meaningful of the options.

The weak-willed people who nominated that useless bastard are no better than the ones that elected Obie afaic. Both are detrimental to the future of the country.

At least the Obie voters occasionally admit to what they are, I can respect that a lot more than anymore claiming to be "conservative"* while voting for thinly veiled Democrats.

*They're welcome to claim to be Republicans, that label has been eroded by so many pseudocons that it really can't be equated with conservative at this point.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Can we just give Alaska back to Russia?

Palin Blames Son's Domestic Violence on Obama - The Daily Beast

Her blaming it on the President not respecting the troops enough is, of course, pure stupid.

However, she does have a point about PTSD. One of the more shameful things we do as a country is send our young boys out, fuck em up in the head, and then not provide the proper resources for them back home. Just let the criminal justice system take the worst of them.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle should feel great shame at how woefully underfunded/underresourced veteran care is. War is a necessary evil. Undertreated mentally ill veterans is a preventable sin.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Romney got more votes than McCain in 2008, and 10 million/17% more than George Bush did in 2000 (Granted, Bush in 2004 did top him by 1-2 million). Now, I know population and registered voters both increase all the time, but the idea that Romney caused a huge swath of voters to stay home or vote 3rd party out of spite isn't borne out by the data.

All in how you read the numbers. Romney did get 1 million more votes than McCain, total. He did a much better job getting the independents, but that's to be expected, given the surge of independent votes for Obama in 2008 that weren't quite as enthusiastic for Obama in 2012. Obama lost 4 million votes from 2008 to 2012.

However, Romney did significantly worse with his own party. In fact, if Romney had captured the same percentage of GOP voters that McCain did, Romney would have beaten Obama in the popular vote. But Romney lost so many Republicans, even his net gains among independents wasn't enough. Obama won again.

Now, there's a hot debate right now as to what the better approach is for the GOP: Try to beat Romney's turnout with independents/moderates or try to regain the GOP base, which was turned off by both McCain and Romney.

Given the current rage among the GOP base against establishment candidates, Cruz, for example, is banking on the latter.

That's a gamble, but I find the opposite gamble even more risky. Is there a GOP candidate who could both match Romney's appeal with moderates AND match or top McCain with the GOP base? Given how upset the GOP base is right now with its more moderate establishment?

I think Cruz has the better path to a victory in the general. Especially if Hillary, who is ferociously despised by all camps of the GOP and not even well liked with her own base.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I can tell you that I have absolutely voted in the GOP primaries to vote against a specific candidate. Gubernatorial and Presidential, both. It happens.

It may not be an organized DEFEAT THAT JACKASS sort of passion where they all sort of rise up in favor of one specific candidate over another, but it happens.

I'm probably not expressing myself all that well but yes, this is what I meant.

Clearly lots of the GOP voted for Romney in 2012 as an anti-clowncar vote. I don't dispute this.

Clearly some of them did so "with a passion" for, say, the good of the GOP.

Clearly some voted for Romney with a passion for him as a candidate.

But I would expect that the majority of people who voted for Romney in that primary did so because either a) he most fit their views or b) they thought the others were crazy so voted for the least crazy. In both of those cases I don't expect there was a lot of passion, as its typically understood, for Romney.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by revrew

Especially if Hillary, who is ferociously despised by all camps of the GOP and not even well liked with her own base.

So, to be clear, a 57% net favorable rating among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents constitutes not being well liked with your base.

[flere-imsaho]

To contrast: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/pollin...campaign=tiles

[flere-imsaho]

Based on the above, alone, only Rubio & Carson have a viable path to victory in the General vs. Clinton. Everyone else, even Kasich & Bush, has an uphill battle with Independents, and no hope with Democrats. And this is even more true for the two current front-runners.

I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just stating what the current data indicates.

[JPhillips]

I don't think Cruz could win the general with all of the ready to go GOP quotes against him. I would expect independents to be turned off by party leader after party leader calling him too extreme and too unlikable.

That being said, I don't think much of head to head matchup numbers at this point.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

No you don't get it. The GOP doesn't need independents and moderates to win - instead it just needs the secret super-conservatives to emerge from the shadows and vote. Also, the percentage of Americans who are Christian is steadily rising, as are the percentage of Americans who are white. So this plan to appeal only to the true Scotman can't fail.

Well, shit.

[Coffee Warlord]

I'm actually surprised Cruz doesn't have an even bigger negative from the Democrats.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So, to be clear, a 57% net favorable rating among Democrats and Democratic-leaning Independents constitutes not being well liked with your base.

Correct. You've got to look deeper into the numbers.

95% of the Dems have an opinion on her, which is sky high (name recognition, naturally). Of those, 20% have a negative opinion. That IS a significant "don't like" faction. It's higher than, I think, everyone not named Trump (he has a MAJOR problem with his unfavorable numbers).

Ben Carson, for example, doesn't have nearly a 95% opinion among GOP, so his net of 58% isn't really comparable to Clinton's net of 57%. Because people aren't as opinionated about him. His negatives are much smaller.

Rubio has a 59% net among GOP, same story. Heck, Cruz (who is supposedly hated by everyone, so the mainstream media narrative goes) has the highest net favorables of any candidate in his own party, 65%. And that's without Hillary's 95% opinion rating.

Just like Romney, Hillary is going to have to fight the people in her own party who don't like her. That 20%. Then, she'll have to fight against the Bern letdown (if she's the nominee), as many of Bernie's supporters won't switch to voting for her.

We're getting to the point where the GOP will have to decide between the Cruz strategy (fire up the base) or the Romney strategy (run to the middle). Otherwise Trump wins ... and his net favorables among all groups are U.G.L.Y.