2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[corbes]

From today's NYT: Inside the Republican Party's Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump

[cuervo72]

What I don't get is why if they didn't want to risk his nomination they even invited him to the debates at all (other than for eyeballs).

[Zinto]

Rubio is stepping up his shade game!

"Donald Trump likes to sue people. He should sue whoever did that to his face," @MarcoRubio says of Trump's spray tan.

— Todd J. Gillman (@toddgillman) February 27, 2016

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

What I don't get is why if they didn't want to risk his nomination they even invited him to the debates at all (other than for eyeballs).

because A) Eyeballs

and

B) They thought they could siphon away his supporters when he finally stepped over the line" without pissing off those same people.

of course...he's stepped over what most people would consider lines in the past and his base loves him more for it.

[SirFozzie]

I think the most interesting thing about the NYT article is that LePage went on to Endorse Trump this week.

And really, the GOP Establishment is reaping what they're sowing. If you'll forgive a more than slightly uncouth analogy, to a large portion of the base, the GOP establishment are like the biggest cockteases in the universe.

"We'll stop the Affordable Care Act" -- Nope.

"We'll make Obama a one term president" -- Didn't happen

"We'll shut down the government to force the ACA out" -- There are folks unhappy that the entire nation's not still burning as a result of the shutdown lasting until Obama caved.

"we'll defeat the ACA in the courts" Failed twice

"We won't countenance Gay Marriage" -- It's now considered a fundamental right

"We'll defund Planned Parenthood" -- Shutdown 2 Electric Boogaloo never happened.

So basically, the GOP Establishment riled up the base so many times for political gains in 2010 and 2014, without being able to follow through, that the right of right wing is blue balled beyond belief, and are willing to only support someone who says flat out what they've been thinking.. and Trump's willing to say anything to get ratings/attention.

[larrymcg421]

Kirk Cameron just called and told me to vote for Ben Carson. Highlights include:

"He has the right reflexes as commander-in-chief." - I guess this is good so he can dodge all the stuff people will be throwing at him.

"He listens to god and I believe god listens to him." - So why does he need my vote?

[digamma]

Rubio seems to be playing a game with which he's unfamiliar. If it works against Trump, it would seem to bite him in the general. Or it doesn't work against Trump and he looks silly. I'm not sure what alternatives he has, as has been previously discussed.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Yup. Notice my use of "perception" in my response to Jim on this.

I agree that Cruz and Rubio are very similar in policy and different in style, but I still think that a bigger issue is that a ticket with
two Cuban-American freshman Senators on it makes no sense. You need Kasich as VP. *MAYBE* if Rubio is #3 on Super Tuesday, you could get him to subjugate his ego "for the good of the party" and accept Secretary of State or something, but I can't imagine Cruz settling for anything less than VP.

The other issue is the concern about the party losing Tribe Trump pretty much permanently if you make an unprecedented and obvious effort to force Trump out, then turn around and lose in the general election. Therefore any ticket with Cruz at the top doesn't make sense. So again, you're left with Rubio-Kasich, in which case Cruz very likely stays in this thing and therefore hands the nomination to Trump anyway.

I see ideology as three-dimensional. There's the two-dimensional placement on issues and then there's the degree of passion behind the position. This allows candidates to tack one way during the primary and back toward the middle in the general. It also determines how they'll govern.

If Cruz or Sanders tried to tack to the middle, they couldn't do it. Rubio, however, like Clinton, appears to choose positions based on perceived strategies. He was Mr. Nice for months, and now he's Trump Junior. He ended the Iowa and South Carolina debates with heavily religious messages, but not other debates.

I agree that it probably won't work because of the personalities involved. There's no leadership in the Republican party. There's even now a threat that PAC money will go toward funding a third-party candidate on the right, though I think common sense will prevail in that while Trump may be quite a mess, why spend a fortune to elect Clinton or Sanders?

The next three weeks are probably going to be quite enjoyable for Democrats. Especially the next debate, which will be choreographed by Vince McMahon.

[molson]

I hear a lot about promises of cabinet spots in exchange for candidates dropping out of races. Has that been a common thing in modern presidential elections? I guess its something that can never be made public, but are there recent VP nominees who are suspected making a deal like that?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Zinto

Rubio is stepping up his shade game!

"Donald Trump likes to sue people. He should sue whoever did that to his face," @MarcoRubio says of Trump's spray tan.

— Todd J. Gillman (@toddgillman) February 27, 2016

Hey, Donald! The jerk store called, and they're running out of you!

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by digamma

Rubio seems to be playing a game with which he's unfamiliar. If it works against Trump, it would seem to bite him in the general. Or it doesn't work against Trump and he looks silly. I'm not sure what alternatives he has, as has been previously discussed.

I think it comes very naturally to Rubio. It has helped me figure out why I haven't trusted him from day one, even when it seemed like he should be the candidate who could step forward for more moderate Republicans.

If you look at betting odds, Rubio has dropped considerably in the last 24 hours. The beneficiary? Hillary.

What are his alternatives? Try and forge a deal or remember that Republicans took a pledge a few months ago. Just because the clown looks like he going to win doesn't mean you should blow up the circus.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by corbes

From today's NYT: Inside the Republican Party's Desperate Mission to Stop Donald Trump

Mitch is a genius. He's spent the last month telling everyone to let the next president pick the Supreme Court. Now he's telling his own Republicans to be prepared for a Hillary term and feel free to throw the nominee under the bus.

Well played.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Hey, Donald! The jerk store called, and they're running out of you!

Yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!

[stevew]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah? Well I had sex with your wife!

his wife is in a coma

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I think the most interesting thing about the NYT article is that LePage went on to Endorse Trump this week.

Which is ironic, given that LePage himself has pretty much divided the GOP in Maine.

Originally Posted by molson

I hear a lot about promises of cabinet spots in exchange for candidates dropping out of races. Has that been a common thing in modern presidential elections? I guess its something that can never be made public, but are there recent VP nominees who are suspected making a deal like that?

Well, we generally haven't had this many nominees actually in the race by Iowa, so it's maybe a little more obvious now, plus the Internet, etc....

Trading favors, however, goes way back. I'm sure there are plenty of examples where positions were promised if folks a) stayed out of the race or b) gave an endorsement. Or even money. Note that ambassador positions (except in dangerous posts) tend to be given to high-profile donors and/or supporters.

[Solecismic]

I don't know this site, but it's an interesting story - especially if it turns out the Koch Brothers are really bad at math and are thinking anything other than a brokered convention.

Bombshell: Insider Leaks Koch Bros, Rubio Plan to Stop Trump » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Summary: the promise to support Rubio if he wins Florida, but he has to drop out and support Romney if he doesn't. Sounds like a deal Rubio can't refuse.

[Solecismic]

OK, this is one bat---- crazy web site. I'm really enjoying the Scalia conspiracy stuff.

[flere-imsaho]

Yeah.... that's not a good source, Jim.

[stevew]

yeah, it's pretty much stormfront without the outright racism.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by stevew

yeah, it's pretty much stormfront without the outright racism.

I don't want to even know what stormfront is. I'll wait until this story gets picked up elsewhere (if it does). It hasn't hit the prediction markets at all.

Meanwhile, I've been reading about Trump University. The circus clown apparently brought his own VW Bug full of issues. Something has to be done, I just don't think Rubio is the right guy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I don't want to even know what stormfront is. I'll wait until this story gets picked up elsewhere (if it does). It hasn't hit the prediction markets at all.

Let's just say that Alex Jones might not even have the track record of a stopped clock.

He's been described as the most prolific conspiracy theorist around, I can't say I'd argue with that title. In the process he makes me look like Bernie Sanders on occasion and like Hilary on even his best days.

[stevew]

Agreed about the Trump University thing. That's a real CF and at this point I'm sure he'll just pay to make it go away if he still can.

[Ben E Lou]

So, uh, this happened.

"@ilduce2016: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” – @realDonaldTrump #MakeAmericaGreatAgain"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2016

[Edward64]

The Romney angle is interesting for me. He's a guy that I could have supported in 2012 except that preserving Obamacare (such as it is) was the major issue for me then.

With Obamacare having won the legal challenges and now firmly (?) law of the land, I think Romney is a viable GOP candidate for me (and I don't think Romney really wanted to completely do away with Obamacare in 2012 anyway).

Donald, Cruz, Rubio, Carson are no's for me. I don't even know Kasich's positions other than he seems to be the mature, conversant adult in the GOP room and he is the default GOP candidate for me.

I struggle with Hillary and Bernie. Bernie seems "honest" whereas Hillary is too smooth as a politician. Between Bernie and Hillary, its a 40-60 right now.

[miked]

You know you are on fire when you can quote Mussolini and still probably increase in the polls.

[Ben E Lou]

Rubio is taking it too far with the stuff about his spray tan and whatnot. I think the comment about foreign workers typing his Tweets was--for this election--in the perfect space. It's cutting, but it points to an issue that could be a big deal to Republican primary voters.

That speaks to another point: I think that the other GOP candidates and the GOP big dogs in general are going to look back on this primary cycle and see that the big mistake was not taking Trump seriously much earlier. None of the stuff about Trump U, foreign workers, Israel, Planned Parenthood, donations to Democrats, etc. is new, but it's still likely to be too little, too late. If they'd brought up his many inconsistencies and deviations from the base on some key issues in the debates when he was at 20% and before anyone had voted, I think we'd be looking at a very different race, but instead they chose to--if they confronted him at all--just call him a joke candidate.

[albionmoonlight]

I don't think it's a big secret Romney wants to be President. I'm sure he will be available if the party needs him after a deadlocked first vote at the convention.

[albionmoonlight]

Question: how are the actual people who are delegates chosen? Trump won 50 from SC. Does he pick them? Or is it the same 50 people who were gonna go no matter who won, and they are required to vote for the winner on the first ballot?

[corbes]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

So, uh, this happened.

"@ilduce2016: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.” – @realDonaldTrump #MakeAmericaGreatAgain"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 28, 2016

Check the polls. Everybody loved Mussolini!

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Rubio is taking it too far with the stuff about his spray tan and whatnot. I think the comment about foreign workers typing his Tweets was--for this election--in the perfect space. It's cutting, but it points to an issue that could be a big deal to Republican primary voters.

That speaks to another point: I think that the other GOP candidates and the GOP big dogs in general are going to look back on this primary cycle and see that the big mistake was not taking Trump seriously much earlier. None of the stuff about Trump U, foreign workers, Israel, Planned Parenthood, donations to Democrats, etc. is new, but it's still likely to be too little, too late. If they'd brought up his many inconsistencies and deviations from the base on some key issues in the debates when he was at 20% and before anyone had voted, I think we'd be looking at a very different race, but instead they chose to--if they confronted him at all--just call him a joke candidate.

yes, yes

[digamma]

The Mussolini thing is a Gawker troll of Trump and he bit.

[AlexB]

Surely his continual biting at trolls/criticism can't be a good tendency to have when you want to be President of the USA?

[Solecismic]

The point Ben made is important. We can sit here and discuss the qualifications for the Presidency. We can agree that Trump simply doesn't have the temperament for the office. That's what Jeb! Bush did, and look where it got him.

I think we, and many experienced analysts out there flat out underestimated the anger many people are feeling about various issues. They want to change how government works because they don't think Washington is working for them.

I don't think Trump wants to be Mussolini. But he certainly won't be benign if he's elected. And he's illustrating the dangers inherent in what we've turned politics into in America. You need a giant ego, good sound bytes and a willingness to pander shamelessly to specific audiences if you want to gain votes in a world where most people spend about 15 seconds thinking about their choices.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AlexB

Surely his continual biting at trolls/criticism can't be a good tendency to have when you want to be President of the USA?

{raises hand} Oooh, oooh, oooh, can I take a stab at this question?

I'd rather have a President that would use our nuclear arsenal on a whim, see the country eaten by zombie hordes, or time simply cease to exist due to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy OR a random spill by the great spaghetti monster than to see what little is left of the nation continue under the current, or similar, administration.

And you think I'm bothered by his tendency to swat at trolls?

Srsly?

edit to add:
See, the smart folks in the thread will get the point I'm trying to make with this. Multiple points actually.
The anger.
The desperation.
The (recently discussed) authoritarian appeal of Trump.

Not only do many not view the trait as a serious negative, some actually enjoy it & appreciate it.

I know I was personally disappointed that he didn't let the hispanic reporter chick have it between both eyes during the last debate. I understand why he had to take it easy on her but even knowing that he was very likely thinking pretty much what I was saying at the TV as she yapped, that's a comforting feeling & appealing in a candidate.

[JPhillips]

[EagleFan]

Trump is a piece of shit dirtbag that does not belong anywhere near the office. Only Sanders ranks as a worse choice than Trump (of the current gang of seven).

[Solecismic]

Updating Super Tuesday expectations based on RCP averages:

Trump 211, Cruz 157, Rubio 130, Carson 49, Kasich 44.

All these polls reflect the landscape before the last round of crazy (many of the smaller states have little or no recent polling, so this is rough).

The question Tuesday is whether Trump accumulates more than 200 delegates. If not, the window is clearly open. Whether someone can enter is entirely another story.

To continue my stretches with sports analogies, let's say Trump receives 180 delegates on Tuesday. That would be like the first minute of Ronda Rousey's fight with Holly Holm, when Holm's jab was quite effective, but Rousey kept charging and most were still expecting the inevitable.

[QuikSand]

As much of a math guy as I can be, I don't think it's about math here. It's about the perception of where things are going - particularly with Cruz. If Cruz manages to post impressive enough numbers that Tuesday isn't a runaway for Trump, then I guess we carry something like status quo for a while longer.

But if Cruz get swamped, and the air really comes out of his sails, then there's at least the possibility that the anti-Trump faction really coalesces on Rubio (almost regardless of whether he does well Tuesday). In my mind, that's the only real remaining hurdle for Trump to clear. (Other than the various brokered convention scenarios that are bubbling up like fan fiction)

That makes for an odd dynamic...if Trump crushes his nearest numeric contender here he might have a tougher race ahead. If it's closer, he's in better shape to prevent any one rival from catching up numerically.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Trump is a piece of shit dirtbag that does not belong anywhere near the office. Only Sanders ranks as a worse choice than Trump (of the current gang of seven).

I have to chuckle a bit at this. Trump and Sanders rise in the ranks is mostly due to how poor the other options are rather than being better than Trump/Sanders. Call it the best of the least on both sides of the election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I have to think the pro-Rubio crowd (assuming they actually want the WH) are either counting on a lot of crossover D votes or an significantly low turnout across the board.

They can't honestly think that Trump, nor even a huge number of Cruz, backers are going to vote for him.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As much of a math guy as I can be, I don't think it's about math here. It's about the perception of where things are going - particularly with Cruz. If Cruz manages to post impressive enough numbers that Tuesday isn't a runaway for Trump, then I guess we carry something like status quo for a while longer.

But if Cruz get swamped, and the air really comes out of his sails, then there's at least the possibility that the anti-Trump faction really coalesces on Rubio (almost regardless of whether he does well Tuesday). In my mind, that's the only real remaining hurdle for Trump to clear. (Other than the various brokered convention scenarios that are bubbling up like fan fiction)

That makes for an odd dynamic...if Trump crushes his nearest numeric contender here he might have a tougher race ahead. If it's closer, he's in better shape to prevent any one rival from catching up numerically.

It's hard to say which is better. As others drop out, it benefits the establishment candidates more than Trump, because he's the second choice of fewer voters. However, as others drop out, it reduces the possibility of a brokered convention as states with proportional delegate assignments still accumulate.

The ideal balance may be consolidation after Tuesday, since WTAs become the norm. But you have both Rubio and Kasich with personal WTA firewalls on March 15, and it's a lot to expect either to drop out before then, even though both may well not have a single victory before that date.

The schedule is set up to build a sense of inevitability, so that when the convention hits, it's the culmination of a victorious battle. Back before conventions were televised, they were quite different - more suited to the expectation that brokered conventions were possible, even desirable.

Establishment Republicans are all-in on defeating Trump. I understand that. I even welcome that, because I think he's completely unqualified for the job. But Republicans have to understand what will happen if Trump loses in a brokered convention. A lot of these angry voters aren't going to support the nominee, and there's a high risk Trump will go independent. As often stated, his ideology is Trumpism and that doesn't seem to line up well with either party. Ordinarily, I'd say that's a plus, but I have a bad feeling that it isn't.

The Democrats have a system where they can put their fingers on the scale in a race like this. They have superdelegates who are not bound by votes at any time. In 2008, they aligned behind Hillary. But Obama started winning, and they realized what would happen if they continued to keep that finger on the scale. What if Obama had his small lead with the voters going into the convention, but the superdelegates had done what they were designed to do? Tilt a close race the other way if the establishment was unhappy. Obama voters - young voters in particular - would have abandoned the party. To their credit, the Democratic establishment realized what was happening and the superdelegates switched sides.

The same will happen if Sanders is very close headed into the convention and ends up losing. That looks almost impossible, though. Bullet dodged.

This is an ugly battle on the Republican side right now. It's going to take something really unusual and dramatic to fix this problem. Coalescing behind Rubio and having him win a brokered convention is almost the worst thing that could happen for them. However, Trump winning may actually be the worst thing that could happen.

[digamma]

A couple of us were musing on Friday when they would bring out the small dick jokes. Didn't have to wait long.

Rubio says Trump has small hands for how tall he is "and you know what they say about men with small hands...you can't trust em!"

— Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) February 29, 2016

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The Democrats have a system where they can put their fingers on the scale in a race like this. They have superdelegates who are not bound by votes at any time. In 2008, they aligned behind Hillary. But Obama started winning, and they realized what would happen if they continued to keep that finger on the scale. What if Obama had his small lead with the voters going into the convention, but the superdelegates had done what they were designed to do? Tilt a close race the other way if the establishment was unhappy. Obama voters - young voters in particular - would have abandoned the party. To their credit, the Democratic establishment realized what was happening and the superdelegates switched sides.

The same will happen if Sanders is very close headed into the convention and ends up losing. That looks almost impossible, though. Bullet dodged.

This is an ugly battle on the Republican side right now. It's going to take something really unusual and dramatic to fix this problem. Coalescing behind Rubio and having him win a brokered convention is almost the worst thing that could happen for them. However, Trump winning may actually be the worst thing that could happen.

Republicans have the same system. It's just that their unpledged delegates amount to a lesser percentage of the whole. I think it's something like 20% of overall delegates are "superdelegates" for the Democratic Party, and it's closer to 13% for the Republicans.

[Solecismic]

Look it up. It's very different.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Someone tonight needs to call Trump a short-fingered vulgarian.

...and then, days after...

Originally Posted by digamma

A couple of us were musing on Friday when they would bring out the small dick jokes. Didn't have to wait long.

Rubio says Trump has small hands for how tall he is "and you know what they say about men with small hands...you can't trust em!"

— Alexandra Jaffe (@ajjaffe) February 29, 2016

Ask and ye shall receive.

Praise be unto Spy.

[flere-imsaho]

So, is that saavy by Rubio, or desperate?

I'd say desperate, but I can own the fact that I'm a partisan, which is why I'm asking.

[QuikSand]

I think it's less than savvy, but along that path. Low risk, some possible reward. If it made him the darling with a dozen bloggers, he'd be okay with that, right? He's already the guy angling for the "well educated" subset.

[larrymcg421]

Ummmmm....

Today's CNN poll: Trump 49, Cruz 15, Rubio 16, Carson 10, Kasich 6

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ummmmm....

Today's CNN poll: Trump 49, Cruz 15, Rubio 16, Carson 10, Kasich 6

The remarkable thing is how consistent across all the various lines (Tea Party, Evangelical, neither) the results are.

This feels like a high-end outlier poll, even to me, but it's a remarkable set of numbers.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Ummmmm....

Today's CNN poll: Trump 49, Cruz 15, Rubio 16, Carson 10, Kasich 6

This poll is also showing a deeply divided Republican Party. 35% of registered Republicans said they would "definitely not" back Trump. 13% said they would "probably not" support him. That's closer to my read than the article I posted a day or two ago that claims Trump would beat HRC.