2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We talk about punching people in the face. Who does that?

Anyone who has ever listened to Ted Cruz speak.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I whole-heartedly agree with this, especially with the part about us being the problem. We react to negatives. We vote based on negatives. We talk about punching people in the face. Who does that?

I'd add one more piece to this summary: anyone who is actually capable of ruling has long since realized that the path to the Presidency is undignified and far too unpleasant to be worth the trouble. Whatever declares is likely suffering from psychological disorders on a truly Napoleonic level.

To add to your sentiment, I find it disheartening that Google's Knowledge Graph (that little wikipedia box that appears when you google search something) for Rubio, Bush, Paul, Christie list their height. When you consider that google displays this information only when people are searching this information often (SEO by the Sea. It's just another indication of how shallow people tend to be. With such limited space, is Marco Rubio's height the important thing that we need to know at a glance?

Edit: it is interesting to see the differences in Google Knowledge Graph info for each candidate. With only 5 wikipedia items to list, sometimes a candidate has something listed that no other candidates have. Here's the information unique to each candidate:

• Jeb Bush: siblings
• Trump: net worth
• Ben Carson: movies appeared in
• Ted Cruz: nationality (lol)
• Carly Fiorina: books written
• Hillary Clinton: appointed by
• Bernie Sanders: office held

[cartman]

The Germans even came up with a word for it: Backpfeifengesicht

I learned that from a tweet from his college roommate.

When I met Ted in 1988, I had no word to describe him, but only because I didn't speak German. Thank you, Germans, for "Backpfeifengesicht."

— Craig Mazin (@clmazin) January 20, 2016

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Anyone who has ever listened to Ted Cruz speak.

I don't care for him much. I certainly would rank him among the Huckabee-Santorum-Fiorina crowd at the bottom of my list. But the idea that the reaction to anyone outlining his or her vision of governance is violence? That's a big part of the reason why we're getting these seriously flawed candidates. This feeds upon itself. We are so far down the rabbit-hole of crappy politicians that gridlock may be the best we can hope for.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't care for him much. I certainly would rank him among the Huckabee-Santorum-Fiorina crowd at the bottom of my list. But the idea that the reaction to anyone outlining his or her vision of governance is violence? That's a big part of the reason why we're getting these seriously flawed candidates. This feeds upon itself. We are so far down the rabbit-hole of crappy politicians that gridlock may be the best we can hope for.

It isn't his outlining of his vision of governance that invokes the urge to punch. I could agree 100% with what he says, but that wouldn't lessen the urge.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

... is Marco Rubio's height the important thing that we need to know at a glance?

Agreed, they should probably list age there instead. That could be important. Bernie Sanders, for instance, based solely on age, is the most likely candidate to accidentally assassinate himself while in office.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't care for him much. I certainly would rank him among the Huckabee-Santorum-Fiorina crowd at the bottom of my list. But the idea that the reaction to anyone outlining his or her vision of governance is violence? That's a big part of the reason why we're getting these seriously flawed candidates. This feeds upon itself. We are so far down the rabbit-hole of crappy politicians that gridlock may be the best we can hope for.

You're talking about a guy who thinks it's perfectly fine to cause untold hardship through a government shutdown just to prove a political fight. Cruz himself clearly isn't interested in a meaningful conversation about governance. He's interested in foisting it upon people, even against their will.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Agreed, they should probably list age there instead. That could be important. Bernie Sanders, for instance, based solely on age, is the most likely candidate to accidentally assassinate himself while in office.

Well you will be comforted to know that age is the first thing listed for all candidates

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's a big part of the reason why we're getting these seriously flawed candidates. This feeds upon itself. We are so far down the rabbit-hole of crappy politicians that gridlock may be the best we can hope for.

Another big reason is how much scrutiny candidates now face. Who in their right mind would run for president knowing that every email or text message ever sent, every website ever visited, every google search term, every drunken FOFC post, could very well be unearthed and shoved back in your face? No one - that's who.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Another big reason is how much scrutiny candidates now face. Who in their right mind would run for president knowing that every email or text message ever sent, every website ever visited, every google search term, every drunken FOFC post, could very well be unearthed and shoved back in your face? No one - that's who.

There are a few folks who, in their right minds, would run for president knowing what faces them. Regrettably, those people just happen to have the minds of sociopaths.

[Kodos]

Saudi Prince Epically Burns Donald Trump: Remember Those Two Times I Bailed You Out Financially?

[Dutch]

Haha. Is Trump this cycle's version of the Teflon man?

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I whole-heartedly agree with this, especially with the part about us being the problem. We react to negatives. We vote based on negatives. We talk about punching people in the face. Who does that?

I'd add one more piece to this summary: anyone who is actually capable of ruling has long since realized that the path to the Presidency is undignified and far too unpleasant to be worth the trouble. Whatever declares is likely suffering from psychological disorders on a truly Napoleonic level.

We even put suspensions in sports sims for "saying that Hillary Clinton was a bonified hottie."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I really hate it when questions are directed at a single candidate. The debates just seem like a wrong forum for that line of questioning. I want to hear the differences where different candidates stand on the issues instead of Christie's reaction to BridgeGate or Cruz answering why he is such a douchebag.

That's kind of why I've wondered whether "debate" is really the right terminology for some of these events.

Then again, when you need a f'n Garth Brooks stage to fit all the candidates it's kind of hard to have a more traditional debate format that covers more than 1-2 questions.

[JPhillips]

If Trump sweeps IA, NH, and SC can he be stopped?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's kind of why I've wondered whether "debate" is really the right terminology for some of these events.

I commented to my son that we should see if we could find a copy of Nixon/Kennedy to compare.

[Solecismic]

Yes. The big question today is whether the poll numbers will result in turnout on Monday (in a storm, no less). But it's a long road, and skipping yesterday's debate was probably a mistake. I think winning the first three would get him to about 50/50. But I think Cruz still wins Iowa, and Trump won't handle that well. That will open the door for Rubio, Bush or Christie to get back in this one. Seemed like Rubio for a long time, but Bush has been much stronger lately. Cruz is too far to the right for the party in general. I think this is still wide open.

We will see quite a few drop out in the next couple of weeks. I can't see Huckabee or Santorum remaining in after Iowa, and Kasich and maybe Christie are all in on New Hampshire.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Trump sweeps IA, NH, and SC can he be stopped?

Unless he stops himself (still a big possibility) I don't think the outcome of those first two are particularly relevant to the outcome regardless.

[JPhillips]

I agree that turnout is key and I still think Trump's turnout will underperform his polling.

But I do wonder what happens if he sweeps the first three contests. What could the establishment do at that point to beat him? Who could rise up after getting beaten repeatedly?

[Edward64]

Trump is too far ahead. He'll win the GOP nomination.

It'll be very entertaining when he runs against Hillary/Bernie.

[sabotai]

I guess this is bold prediction territory now. I still think Marco Rubio pulls off the nomination.

Although, I really hope it's Trump. The Republican Party could use a good implosion, and after the last several years, they deserve it.

[bhlloy]

The other interesting thing to me is how accurate Trumps polling actually is. The polling industry is generally heading downhill with the failing of their traditional gathering methodologies and I can definitely see the kinds of people who actually still respond to those surveys skewing towards Trump. I think the establishments last hope is probably a combination of turnout and polling issues, he's pretty clearly not gonna do anything to implode given the race so far

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But I do wonder what happens if he sweeps the first three contests. What could the establishment do at that point to beat him? Who could rise up after getting beaten repeatedly?

But does it better the chances for one since the possibility of the bottom finishers being the same across multiple states could cut the remaining field by half or so?

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

The other interesting thing to me is how accurate Trumps polling actually is. The polling industry is generally heading downhill with the failing of their traditional gathering methodologies and I can definitely see the kinds of people who actually still respond to those surveys skewing towards Trump. I think the establishments last hope is probably a combination of turnout and polling issues, he's pretty clearly not gonna do anything to implode given the race so far

I do wonder whether he has the necessary boots on the ground to get people out to vote. That is massively important, especially outside a normal election.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But does it better the chances for one since the possibility of the bottom finishers being the same across multiple states could cut the remaining field by half or so?

Sure, but does the stink of losing stick to those in the field? I guess the question I'm asking is how many losses can a candidate withstand without having a victory? It seems to me that there's a huge difference between three Trump victories and two Trump victories after three contests.

[Ryche]

Potential snowstorm in Iowa on Tuesday.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sure, but does the stink of losing stick to those in the field? I guess the question I'm asking is how many losses can a candidate withstand without having a victory? It seems to me that there's a huge difference between three Trump victories and two Trump victories after three contests.

I think its pretty manageable. I don't know that the base -- or even just "likely voters" really feels anywhere near the attachment / attaches the importance to Iowa/NH that the media & some politicos still do.

SC is a bit more meaningful, at least as a third, but I think the potential desperation of opposition would probably negate any 3rd loss stigma.

[NobodyHere]

Now I'm a fan of mudslinging as much as anyone but this just goes too far!

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Haha. Is Trump this cycle's version of the Teflon man?

He is beyond Teflon at this point. Just like he said, I think gunning down an old lady wouldn't hurt his polling numbers. What I wonder, is this the beginning of the celebrity candidate taking over the government? In general, celebs have had good success at wining when running for office. It seems people will not judge them as harshly as they would a unknown candidate with the same issues (probably stemming from people feeling like they "know" them). Trump has taken this to another level at this point. Kayne West joking about running in 4 years just doesn't seem as unfeasible as it once was.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Potential snowstorm in Iowa on Tuesday.

Good thing the caucus is on Monday.

[tarcone]

And its only 14 inches. It wouldnt keep many away from the caucus. Even it hit Monday.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by stevew

Good thing the caucus is on Monday.

Doh. Thought these things were always on Tuesdays. Well that's not nearly as fun.

[JPhillips]

The final Selzer Des Moines Register poll is out. Trump is up five, but is the second choice of few. Given the rules about switching candidates if a threshold isn't met, it should be a really close race.

[Solecismic]

The non-viable votes will add up in many caucuses. The concept that so many are anyone-but-Trump won't work to his advantage. Long-time caucus-goers will understand that, further eroding his support. Cruz campaigned in all 99 counties (don't know if others did) because he knows being viable in as many places as possible is the key to a vote split this many ways. I think he wins by a significant margin. The question is whether Rubio can challenge for second. That may not be as much a long shot as people think.

My prediction:

Cruz 31, Trump 22, Rubio 21, Carson 7, Paul 6, Bush 6.

[JPhillips]

I just read that the GOP process is actually a one time secret ballot rather than having a second round after viability checks. If that's the case it's really about Trump's new caucus goers showing up. It also makes a Rubio surprise much more difficult to predict.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump is too far ahead. He'll win the GOP nomination.

It'll be very entertaining when he runs against Hillary/Bernie.

You are assuming entirely too much about Trump's ground game and understanding of how delegate math works.

I mean, his campaign team may be more astute than Hillary Clinton's was in 2008. But I don't think we can make that case yet based on polls showing a Trump lead in a state where Trump's supporters would be buttressed by first-time caucusers and oh by the way it's an all day thing are you ready to go out in a snowstorm for an entire day to caucus for your rage against the machine candidate iowans

I mean, don't get me wrong. I figured him for the political graveyard months ago and he's defied those expectations, but he's *still* a plurality candidate in a nomination process which has yet to begin counting votes, and the reportage has consistently been that he's relied on media manipulation to stay in the hearts and minds of voters (which is being reflected in the polls) rather than retail campaigning and outreach. So it's still anybody's guess how much of that plurality support he's going to be able to drive to the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and how much of the 70%-odd base which currently supports other candidates comes home to him after their candidates drop out.

He's definitely a threat to win the nomination. If you're that confident that he WILL win the nomination, mortgage your house and place a bet. Let us know how it works out.

(Not intending a personal dig here, just sayin' - wait until the political neophyte starts cashing the checks his mouth is writing before we start throwing around fait accomplis.)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just read that the GOP process is actually a one time secret ballot rather than having a second round after viability checks. If that's the case it's really about Trump's new caucus goers showing up. It also makes a Rubio surprise much more difficult to predict.

You're right. I've been assuming it works the same way the Democrats work, and it's entirely different and much more secret. So there's no necessary advantage to passing a threshold, meaning places where a candidate doesn't get high turnout still could mean votes.

That, plus Cruz's idiotic mailer I just read about... I have to rethink this, but it seems like I have to consider Trump's chances as much greater than I had.

[JPhillips]

Cruz's mailer is fascinating. It fits into the sociological data that shame will make people more likely to vote, but it sure seems over the top. It should make a great case study some day.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

He's definitely a threat to win the nomination. If you're that confident that he WILL win the nomination, mortgage your house and place a bet. Let us know how it works out.

(Not intending a personal dig here, just sayin' - wait until the political neophyte starts cashing the checks his mouth is writing before we start throwing around fait accomplis.)

Com'on, I'm not that confident to bet the farm but the odds are pretty darn good. There's been numerous things that Trump has done or said that I (and the establishment) thought would end his campaign/popularity ... still hasn't happened.

That's part of the establishment problem, denial about Trump's viability and threat until its too late. If what Trump has done up to this point hasn't shown this ... I guess we'll wait for the early caucuses to prove (or not) the point.

[tarcone]

One of our local talking heads just predicted the Iowa caucus to go Trump, Rubio, Cruz. Thus, virtually ending the Cruz campaign.
He worked for Gephardt and compared it to that.

[miked]

I think it's fascinating that people like Jon are enamored with Trump. Here is somebody who was a democrat, believed in democrat policies, supported "the enemy", and years ago made fund of exactly how we could win the republican nomination (and is doing it). Here is somebody who talks a lot with no action and is probably one of the more likely to work with people and negotiate. I would figure hardcore guys like Jon would love Cruz. Here is somebody who believes he is always right, has shut down the government rather than working with people, would rather default our entire country than "compromise" and seems to frequently do what he says. Support for Trump is beyond baffling.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Cruz's mailer is fascinating. It fits into the sociological data that shame will make people more likely to vote, but it sure seems over the top. It should make a great case study some day.

Yeah, the manner in which he did it though would make me inclined to say 1) ok, I'll make sure I'll vote; 2) I'll make sure it is not for you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by miked

I think it's fascinating that people like Jon are enamored with Trump. Here is somebody who was a democrat, believed in democrat policies, supported "the enemy", and years ago made fund of exactly how we could win the republican nomination (and is doing it). Here is somebody who talks a lot with no action and is probably one of the more likely to work with people and negotiate. I would figure hardcore guys like Jon would love Cruz. Here is somebody who believes he is always right, has shut down the government rather than working with people, would rather default our entire country than "compromise" and seems to frequently do what he says. Support for Trump is beyond baffling.

Trump hates the right people. (or at least claims to)

[Dutch]

I would classify Trump a lot of things, but one who "takes no action" ain't one of them.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by miked

I think it's fascinating that people like Jon are enamored with Trump. Here is somebody who was a democrat, believed in democrat policies, supported "the enemy", and years ago made fund of exactly how we could win the republican nomination (and is doing it). Here is somebody who talks a lot with no action and is probably one of the more likely to work with people and negotiate. I would figure hardcore guys like Jon would love Cruz. Here is somebody who believes he is always right, has shut down the government rather than working with people, would rather default our entire country than "compromise" and seems to frequently do what he says. Support for Trump is beyond baffling.

Agreed. That said, most of the thoughtful voters I know detest Trump. Most of the support I see comes from those that are looking for a sound bite. Essentially, the same people that supported Obama early in the 2008 process, but on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

Not to say that people that supported Obama in 2008 were not thoughtful, but much of his support came from unreliable sources of votes.

[Dutch]

Obama and Trump are selling the same shit. Hope.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

but much of his support came from unreliable sources of votes.

And how did that work out again?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

I think it's fascinating that people like Jon are enamored with Trump. Here is somebody who was a democrat, believed in democrat policies, supported "the enemy", and years ago made fund of exactly how we could win the republican nomination (and is doing it). Here is somebody who talks a lot with no action and is probably one of the more likely to work with people and negotiate. I would figure hardcore guys like Jon would love Cruz. Here is somebody who believes he is always right, has shut down the government rather than working with people, would rather default our entire country than "compromise" and seems to frequently do what he says. Support for Trump is beyond baffling.

I can actually explain that a bit, I think, because I have actually pondered it in recent days/weeks.

You can be wrong, make all sorts of mistakes ... IF you recant and/or repudiate them and then don't repeat them.

The last bit is key for me. It's why Trump being off base previously but on track now is conceivably forgivable while persistent flip-floppers can go hang.

I'm reminded a bit of people I've seen (particularly in the public eye) "get religion" ... over & over & over & over. I know one elected official that comes to mind who have been "saved" about six times in 12 years, and ended up being a member of at least five different congregations in four different religious brands. Right or wrong, at some point I got a bit skeptical about his conversions and epiphanies.

---

As for Cruz, I do like the guy ... when he's right. Problem with him is that I think he has trouble picking & choosing which windmills to tilt at too often.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And how did that work out again?

Yep, so unreliable that he won two Presidential elections.

Although I get what Warhammer's saying. Obama got turnout from demographics that typically don't turnout well. The same could be said of Trump and Sanders this time around. Whether it ends up true or not we'll know in 24 hours.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Com'on, I'm not that confident to bet the farm but the odds are pretty darn good. There's been numerous things that Trump has done or said that I (and the establishment) thought would end his campaign/popularity ... still hasn't happened.

That's part of the establishment problem, denial about Trump's viability and threat until its too late. If what Trump has done up to this point hasn't shown this ... I guess we'll wait for the early caucuses to prove (or not) the point.

See, that's the thing. I'm not denying that Trump is a threat. What I'm saying is that HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN up to this point has been about saying ludicrous things, getting free airtime for it, and watching his poll numbers rise as people go WOO YEAH TRUTH TO POWER.

And that could well translate into performance in the caucuses and primaries. But he hasn't, from everything I've seen and heard, put anything into building a ground game. He hasn't bothered to advertise much, if at all, because he assumes that his control over the news cycle makes advertising irrelevant. Fair, possibly.

He hasn't, from what I've heard, built any kind of a GOTV machine. His favorables are such that, at least for the nomination, he's got a pretty rigid ceiling of support. That'll change if he gets the nomination and people start voting for laundry over likeables, but right now, what he's got is 60% of the GOP base wants nothing to do with him, but their support is so scattered that he's the big cheese. What the establishment has repeatedly insinuated is that as the field winnows, whoever emerges in opposition is the probable candidate as a result.

They're not wrong.

The problem for them is one of timing. It's like grilling a steak. You know exactly what the steak will look like if you grill it properly, but the longer you leave it on the grill, the likelier you are to wind up with a smoking brick when all is said and done.

To be clear, the steak in this metaphor is the Republican nomination, and Donald Trump is the smoking brick.