2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Kodos]

Here's my full list. Surprised that Clinton edged Sanders. It was probably the gun issue that swung it away from Sanders.

Clinton 92
Sanders 90
O'Malley 71
Trump 55
Kasich 54
Huckabee 53
Weebb 53
Christie 52
Bush 46
Rubio 44
Fiorina 39
Paul 34
Cruz 31
Carson 30
Santorum 18

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was responding to your specific response to Jim.

There's a lot of posts. I get confused. Cut me some slack.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There are also tons of non-political products, gold coins, prepper supplies, reverse mortgages, nutritional supplements, etc. that make extremely dubious claims in order to get money.

Did you seriously just go to The Blaze and copy the first 4 ad's you saw there?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There's a lot of posts. I get confused. Cut me some slack.

Of course! It's give and take. You've cut me some slack from time to time too.

[revrew]

Of note: Rick Perry endorses Ted Cruz.

Previously, Graham endorsed Bush. I believe those are the only two former candidates in this race to endorse their former rivals for the nomination.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know if that's super surprising, considering Perry and Cruz are both from Texas.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by revrew

Of note: Rick Perry endorses Ted Cruz.

Previously, Graham endorsed Bush. I believe those are the only two former candidates in this race to endorse their former rivals for the nomination.

I had wondered who the Graham supporter would move to.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Wow, you guys are in the 80's and my highest was with Hillary at 76% and Rubio at 75%.

I guess this puts me in the undecided with 2 establishment candidates.

My current highest is at 90%, I usually get somewhere in the 93-96 range as a high.

Buddy of mine got a 98% on this go 'round though. Assuming he answered everything & gave it importance weight and all, and still got that I think it might be okay for him to take the rest of the campaign season off at this point

[Dutch]

Trump 91% (I still don't trust him)
Cruz 90% (I still don't like him)
Carson 88% (I still think he's a goofball)
Rubio 88% (Establishment FTW)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hmmm, isn't "...because...dirty little secret...the establishment needs (the tin-foil crazies) votes" something that tin-foil crazies would say?

Perhaps if the GOP establishment hadn't spent the last eight years blowing dog whistles as hard as they could, you'd have a point. There's an "oh crap what have we done" undercurrent right now, but there's not much left to be done at this point except hang on tight or bail out.

[Scarecrow]

My iSide (no shock at the top)...

R Paul 85%
T Cruz 78%
J Bush 73%
B Carson 71%
C Fiorina 71%
M Rubio 70%
D Trump 67%
R Santorum 65%
M Huckabee 61%
J Kasich 58%
B Sanders 57%
H Clinton 46%
C Christie 44%
J Webb 44%
M O'Malley 37%

[AENeuman]

I wish the isidewith put more weight on specific, core issues. I have a very high Sanders (who I can't stand) but disagree with most of his stump speech issues: student loans, healthcare, wall street, environmental and welfare reform. Also, most of the Foreign Policy questions do not even have a Bernie stance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I wish the isidewith put more weight on specific, core issues. I have a very high Sanders (who I can't stand) but disagree with most of his stump speech issues: student loans, healthcare, wall street, environmental and welfare reform. Also, most of the Foreign Policy questions do not even have a Bernie stance.

There is a weighting option for all the issues/questions individually, and there isn't a limit on how many you set to "most important" or "least important". If I understood your wish correctly setting all the items under a single category to very high or very low would have the effect you're seeking I think.

And the absence of positions on specific topics is something that can definitely swing the score for a candidate one way or the other. I saw that in the early going with Trump who had a large number of questions that simply weren't attributed one way or the other. They do seem to be doing at least a decent job of updating the positions, there were around two dozen new items (counting new questions) since I'd logged in last.

[flere-imsaho]

With 6 days to go before Iowa....

National (via RCP aggregated polls)

• Trump's lead is trending upwards. He's currently roughly at 36% vs. Cruz at roughly 20% (Cruz is currently trending flat)
• Rubio (11%) and Carson (8%) continue to decline
• No one else is showing any movement

Iowa

• Recent polls have given Trump a 6-point lead over Cruz (33 to 27), although Cruz is trending upwards, too.
• Were Trump's or Cruz's recent change in polls attached to any other GOP candidate, it would absolutely be called a surge
• Everyone else is in decline, including Rubio (12%), who did see a slight dip upwards

New Hampshire

• Trump has a 20 point lead. Let that sink in.
• There's plenty of noise in the other candidates' trendlines, but none are as dramatic as Trump's upward trend, so functionally they're all status quo, except....
• Christie's surge seems over, and he's trending down

Suggested reading: 538 & the Cook Political Report using data to map out paths to the nomination for Trump, Cruz & Rubio: Beware A GOP Calendar Front-Loaded With States Friendly To Trump And Cruz | FiveThirtyEight

(NOTE: I don't find Rubio's path all that compelling. It assumes he'll pick up states where the GOP electorate is going to be equally turned off by Trump and Cruz. That would be fine except:

1. By the time those states vote, if it's a two-horse race anyway, those voters will probably stay home and write the election off.

2. A bunch of those voters are actual GOP moderates and Rubio's actually quite conservative.


My thinking hasn't changed much, but here's where I am today:

1. If Trump is competitive in Iowa and wins NH then I think we can assume he wins SC & NV (where he also leads, though with less polling) because the question mark over whether his people show up at the polls will be answered.

2. If #1 happens, it's a Trump vs. Cruz race unless the "Establishment" can coalesce around Rubio before Super Tuesday, which functionally means everyone else dropping out and endorsing Rubio, and even then it looks tough.

3. If #1 doesn't happen, then it's a Cruz vs. Rubio battle, and if Trump's support (even a portion) moves to Cruz (which, to me, seems most likely), then it's over and Cruz wins.


Paths to Victory

Trump

• Voters show up.
• Win 3 of 4 states before Super Tuesday.
• Find a way to dent Cruz' appeal to evangelicals to put some "SEC" states into play (note: this will require actual tactical analysis by his campaign)
• Neutralize or capitalize on Cruz's attacks
• Goad the GOP Establishment into attacking him (Trump)
• Don't do the one thing that would actually kill the campaign (which I'm no longer convinced exists for Trump

Cruz

• Win Iowa or be within a few points of winning
• Lock down states you should win and accumulate delegates in states where you can't (but who assign proportionally anyway) - like Obama's 2008 strategy
• Continue to gut any Establishment hopeful
• Find a way to get Trump to do something radically stupid (see last point above) in a way that doesn't backfire on you

Rubio

• Ideally, have Trump & Cruz split the first four states (maybe not in actual delegates, but in "results")
• Get the rest of the field to narrow, fast.
• Have a strong Super Tuesday and nail that message
• Work extremely hard to win states you can and accumulate delegates where you can't (see bullet 2 under Cruz)

As it has been for months, the key question here remains if Trump's supporters get out to vote. We'll know in 6 days.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

2. If #1 happens, it's a Trump vs. Cruz race unless the "Establishment" can coalesce around Rubio before Super Tuesday, which functionally means everyone else dropping out and endorsing Rubio, and even then it looks tough.

The problem with that is that it would be such an obvious play by the establishment that it would feed right into the Cruz/Trump anti-establishment narrative.

If the establishment were to make a play, it would have to look more organic than I think it is going to.

[flere-imsaho]

Agreed 100%, albion.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The problem with that is that it would be such an obvious play by the establishment that it would feed right into the Cruz/Trump anti-establishment narrative.

If the establishment were to make a play, it would have to look more organic than I think it is going to.

Latest CNN poll
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politi...ing/index.html

Trump - 41%
Cruz - 19%
Rubio - 8%
Carson - 6%
Bush - 5%
Christie - 4%
Others - 17%

Let's assume the moderates stick with Rubio and Carson/Bush/Christie drop out, that's probably 10 points for Rubio, 3 for Trump and 2 for Cruz...give or take a point or two...

Trump - 44%
Cruz - 21%
Rubio - 18%
Other - 17%

And of the remaining 17%, it's probably another split along those lines (because I assume they are moderates)....10 for Rubio, 4 for Trump, 3 for Cruz...

Trump - 48%
Rubio - 28%
Cruz - 24%

Suddenly, we have a fight. What happens if Rubio or Cruz drops out? How much of that transfers to Trump?

If Rubio drops, it's probably 50/50...

Trump 62%
Cruz 38%

...And Trump wins it all.

But if Cruz drops, it's possible it could be 75/25 for Rubio.

Trump - 54%
Rubio - 44%

And now we are in the room where Trump could really get beat up, especially if folks start to coagulate around the moderate...

Basically, from what I can tell, it's Rubio or bust at this point for the GOP.

[flere-imsaho]

Nice analysis, Dutch.

Given the recent Establishment onslaught on Cruz, it seems to me the strategy is to weaken Cruz enough for a preferred candidate to benefit (probably Rubio) while simultaneously hoping that Trump's polls have simply been a terrible nightmare.

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, looking ahead, and we haven't talked about this for a while, let's say everything reverts to "normal" and an Establishment candidate like Rubio wins the primary without the need for negotiations. The GOP still have to figure out what to do with Trump (and Cruz, for that matter) at the convention and do enough to keep their voters heading to the polls in November.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The GOP still have to figure out what to do with Trump (and Cruz, for that matter) at the convention and do enough to keep their voters heading to the polls in November.

This where Hillary fits. The GOP will be there to vote. I'm still not sure the Democrats have had enough air-time to rally fringe voters, they are still viewed like they are in auto-pilot...but the GOP certainly has the air time. They've been beat up, but the winner will look tough as hell. It's as if the GOP is an NFL wildcard team that won three straight in agonizing OT games while Clinton is fat, dumb and happy with the home field advantage and a bye week. It might end up like that Patriots/Giants Super Bowl.

[flere-imsaho]

Depends. If it's ugly enough that Trump & Cruz withhold their endorsements or, worse, continue to attack the Establishment, then a % of the base stays home. I guarantee there's a % of the GOP base that would rather have Clinton win then vote for Rubio and perpetuate the GOP "Establishment". We should ask Jon, tbh.

[Dutch]

Jon is far right, he may sit home for a moderate, but no matter how much he despises Rubio, I'm pretty sure he would rather that than Clinton. He'd likely call it a pause in the action. If I can read Jon at all, that is.

[lighthousekeeper]

I was having a debate with my wife about strategy for electing president. By default, we initially think we should vote for the person who we align with ideologically (that's the whole drive behind www.isidewith.com). But perhaps that isn't the best strategy. Maybe the opposite works better to further your goals.

You vote for Bush over Gore hoping for less government spending and a stronger economy, but you get the opposite. You vote for Obama in hopes for greater racial and economic equality, that healthcare problems get addressed, that we reduce fascist spying on our own citizens and lessen pussy drone bombing, but the opposite happens.

I was arguing for voting for Trump for president (even though our household aligns most ideologically with Sanders). Maybe if Trump became president, he would become a common enemy of both the GOP and Dems, and both sides of the House and Senate would naturally assume more responsibility for running the government (kinda like kids who have dirtbag absentee alcoholic parents and are forced to look after themselves and be responsible), and make more sensible bi-partisan decisions.

[flere-imsaho]

I doubt that would happen.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I was having a debate with my wife about strategy for electing president. By default, we initially think we should vote for the person who we align with ideologically (that's the whole drive behind www.isidewith.com). But perhaps that isn't the best strategy. Maybe the opposite works better to further your goals.

You vote for Bush over Gore hoping for less government spending and a stronger economy, but you get the opposite. You vote for Obama in hopes for greater racial and economic equality, that healthcare problems get addressed, that we reduce fascist spying on our own citizens and lessen pussy drone bombing, but the opposite happens.

I was arguing for voting for Trump for president (even though our household aligns most ideologically with Sanders). Maybe if Trump became president, he would become a common enemy of both the GOP and Dems, and both sides of the House and Senate would naturally assume more responsibility for running the government (kinda like kids who have dirtbag absentee alcoholic parents and are forced to look after themselves and be responsible), and make more sensible bi-partisan decisions.

Pussy drone bombing? Let me go talk to the recruiter, we got a hero over here! Get him a gun! No wait, a hunting knife...he's goin in.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I was having a debate with my wife about strategy for electing president. By default, we initially think we should vote for the person who we align with ideologically (that's the whole drive behind www.isidewith.com). But perhaps that isn't the best strategy. Maybe the opposite works better to further your goals.

You vote for Bush over Gore hoping for less government spending and a stronger economy, but you get the opposite. You vote for Obama in hopes for greater racial and economic equality, that healthcare problems get addressed, that we reduce fascist spying on our own citizens and lessen pussy drone bombing, but the opposite happens.

I was arguing for voting for Trump for president (even though our household aligns most ideologically with Sanders). Maybe if Trump became president, he would become a common enemy of both the GOP and Dems, and both sides of the House and Senate would naturally assume more responsibility for running the government (kinda like kids who have dirtbag absentee alcoholic parents and are forced to look after themselves and be responsible), and make more sensible bi-partisan decisions.

I think some people use your theory but it involves voting for the person opposite of whomever controls Congress. Thus Obama in 2012 or Clinton in 2016. This at least cuts down on what they get "accomplished" because as you mentioned neither of the parties gives a damn about spending or endless warfare and when you give them the keys to everything the government gets even bigger.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Jon is far right, he may sit home for a moderate, but no matter how much he despises Rubio, I'm pretty sure he would rather that than Clinton. He'd likely call it a pause in the action. If I can read Jon at all, that is.

I can definitely tell you there's no chance of me voting for Rubio. For anything.

The only candidate whose campaign still has a pulse that has any chance of getting me to the polls (aside from Trump) is Cruz. Anyone else, ya'll can pretty much settle it amongst yourselves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Depends. If it's ugly enough that Trump & Cruz withhold their endorsements or, worse, continue to attack the Establishment, then a % of the base stays home. I guarantee there's a % of the GOP base that would rather have Clinton win then vote for Rubio and perpetuate the GOP "Establishment". We should ask Jon, tbh.

I'll agree that there's a portion that "would rather" but I'll suggest that there's a much higher portion that simply doesn't see any meaningful difference in the two.

When your two options both suck hard, sometimes the difference in how hard stops being all that meaningful.

[Dutch]

Well then, I could be in real trouble here.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure I buy the 75% of Cruz voters going to Rubio. Isn't Rubio's past on immigration almost heresy for the far right folk?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure I buy the 75% of Cruz voters going to Rubio. Isn't Rubio's past on immigration almost heresy for the far right folk?

His past or his current stance (not sure what his past stance was)? Far Right folks are absolutely angry that Trump donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton...and yet, here he is. I don't think anything he said in the past matters as much as what he's saying now.

But I agree with Jon, not Rubio nor Clinton is going to do much of anything regarding illegal immigration if they are President...and Trump probably won't either, but I think his chances are better.

[JPhillips]

An obese, anti-government militia member wearing a diaper and challenging Chris Christie to a sumo wrestling match with the stakes being the continued occupation of a bird refuge is possibly the strangest moment of this incredibly strange presidential campaign.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

His past or his current stance (not sure what his past stance was)? Far Right folks are absolutely angry that Trump donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton...and yet, here he is. I don't think anything he said in the past matters as much as what he's saying now.

But I agree with Jon, not Rubio nor Clinton is going to do much of anything regarding illegal immigration if they are President...and Trump probably won't either, but I think his chances are better.

It just seems like more people on the right are angry about Rubio's past immigration stance than they are with Trump's past.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It just seems like more people on the right are angry about Rubio's past immigration stance than they are with Trump's past.

Trump is at least ostensibly making amends. Rube on the other hand, well, here have a look at these.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Internati...mmigration.htm

Watching him flip flop back & forth over time kind of makes it tough to consider anything he says believable. His immigration position is kind of like Southern weather, if you don't like it just wait a day & it'll change.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can definitely tell you there's no chance of me voting for Rubio. For anything.

A ha! I was right!

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well then, I could be in real trouble here.

Suck it, Dutch!


TBH, I had that 50/50 Jon's answer going either way.

[Dutch]

[Arles]

I really don't see a tangible difference from any candidate in terms of practicality. Maybe if I cared a ton about who puts in Supreme court justices - that might be a realistic difference. Still, I tend to side more with the left on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, ...) - so I am fine with either side naming judges. Here's my crystal ball on presidencies for each:

1/2. Trump/Cruz: For Trump, he hires a bunch of people to help him with policy and appear smarter than he is. For Cruz, he makes more token efforts to the religious right on social issues. Both try to get a business-friendly tax plan through congress (and might succeed) but don't do much else of note (maybe get some changes to Obamacare). They spend more on defense, don't cut debt spending, try (and fail) on a big bombastic immigration policy, attack Oabamacare (maybe that's their one big win) and are each insufferable to listen to for 4 years.

3. Sanders: Tries to take on everything in the government. His first year is akin to giving a kid an empty jar next to a bee hive and having them try to catch as many bees as possible. He'll end up coming back with more stings than successes. His tax plan will never make it through congress, nor will his "the rich pay for student loans" ploy. He will show a lot of passion in speeches, but will need to resort to executive orders to get anything through. In the end, he will end up capitulating in more fights than he thinks going in.

4/5. Hillary/Rubio. Their presidency would practically be very similar. Hillary would move to the right a bit on taxes, focusing on more breaks for the lower income than Rubio - but neither to the Cruz/Trump level. Both put in more support for family-based credits and both try to get as many "consensus wins" as possible. They both try to reform Obamacare, but neither gets it fully repealed. There will be small differences in rhetoric and stated priorities, but both would try to lead from the middle.

So, I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Trump would have so much animosity against him because of his pompous nature. Cruz and Sanders would both fail to get anything through congress that is their main talking points (Cruz- immigration and social issues, Sanders - tax increases and environment/regulation). Hillary and Rubio would start at 35 and 65 on the left/right spectrum and end up with each around 50 by the end of their 4 years. If Trump/Cruz wins, maybe Obamacare goes away and there's a lower tax rate. If Bernie wins, maybe we get some more regulation and slightly higher taxes. If Rubio/Hillary win, it's probably business as usual. Yet, despite this election being a practical distinction without a difference, I'm readying myself to hear how it's the "most important election of our lifetimes" and "Candidate X is going to kill the country, starve our kids, throw our elderly out on the street and end life as we know it if they are elected!!!"

[flere-imsaho]

I don't know, if the Senate and House stay Republican, I think a Republican President does successfully repeal Obamacare (or gut it beyond recognition), passes sweeping tax breaks, and makes deep and painful cuts in government everywhere besides, maybe, defense unless (with all of this) the Democrats manage to maintain a series of successful filibusters (and even then, the GOP could go the reconciliation route).

If Cruz, especially, wants to gut the government, how many non-TP GOP Reps & Senators are going to stand against him when they know he'll raise the TP to primary them? Sure, they might stop the very most egregious cuts, but there'll be plenty they won't.

[JPhillips]

Trump's a wildcard, I literally have no idea what he might do in office. That's certainly no endorsement.

Cruz is entirely the opposite. We know clearly what he'll try to do, and his past makes it pretty obvious that he's willing to burn down the place in order to get his way.

[flere-imsaho]

President Cruz would also be known as President Furlough.

[PilotMan]

Cruz will gut the the US government as much as practical to allow the New South to rise up and secede. With the US government weaker the south will win separation without much bloodshed and a new NeoConfederate nation will be born.

Or maybe not, but he and Paul both have been sewing the seeds of discontent with the government for so long that getting rid of it (or at least it's strength) nationally isn't too far a stretch. They would love to see each state essentially become a stand alone country. Cruz especially envisions Texas as the cultural and military center and anchor of the new political power base of the next governmental iteration.

Cruz is probably having wet dreams at night thinking about it. Jon too for that matter.

[PilotMan]

dola

of course the counter to that would be the both parties band together and isolate Cruz in a lot of ways. Perhaps they find more common ground in the hatred of Cruz than they currently find now.

Frankly, Sanders, as on point (and horribly, horribly off) as a lot of his message is, would find himself in a similar situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Jon too for that matter.

Nah, cause there's no way to have a meddling U.S. as a peaceful neighbor. That's the downside of any secession dreams.

It'd be a great start but ultimately it can't end peacefully.

[Solecismic]

Trump has said he will not participate in Thursday's debate on Fox. Interesting strategy. Especially since he outperformed (admittedly lousy) expectations in the last debate.

Given that he's polling consistently above what I thought was his absolute ceiling, I have no idea if this strategy is wise.

There will still be seven out there, as Rand Paul qualified for the varsity.

I ran that site again - about six candidates clustered from 79-84%. When it's that close, other factors are more important, like whether I feel I would like to have a beer (or split a pack of pop tarts) with the candidate.

[JPhillips]

My guess is there's some deal made where Kelly won't ask him questions and he claims victory and shows up at the last minute.

[PilotMan]

Paul actually got a good pop through a Twitter storm during the debate. My guess is Trump will just free wheel social media throughout the entire thing. Anything to keep himself as the focus without actually having to do anything.

[Dutch]

Trump needs to man up!

[JPhillips]

It's all so reality TV of him. I bet Omarosa gave him the idea.

[Dutch]

So...in the back of my mind...Im still waiting for Trump to quit and say, "Just kidding!"

That would be hilarious but pretty disastrous at the same time. Lots of people are believing in this dude.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

When it's that close, other factors are more important, like whether I feel I would like to have a beer (or split a pack of pop tarts) with the candidate.

Agreed. That's a factor in my Trump leanings at this point, at least subconsciously I'm sure.

At this point he's on the very short list of the ones I figure I could spend at least five minutes with without the urge to punch them in the face ... with a baseball bat .. wrapped in barbed wire ... repeatedly.

Whether we get past five minutes {shrug}, not all that many people do so I don't know what's a reasonable standard to hold a candidate to beyond that.