2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[nol]

I'm sure the people offended by all that would never insult Republicans as a group.

It's not really offensive on its own, it's more that the act of "golly shucks, I'm a good 'ole boy without an agenda just tryin' to figure out the truth" while parroting the Rush Limbaugh/chain e-mail talking points contributes nothing to any discussion. Whether it's through deliberate trolling, ignorance, or plain old stupidity is irrelevant since the end result is the same.

[Kodos]

"Demoncrat" is pretty funny.

[Dutch]

Well, like I said, I blame ignorance. I'm curious of the origin, I've called it the Democrat Party for as long as I remember. Probably a Suthren thing.

[stevew]

See what happens when you don't just stick with Demoncrat?

C'Mon, it's "libtard"

[EagleFan]

Oh that silly Democrat Party...


If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

[JPhillips]

Oh that silly Democrat Party...


If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

Typical of an Eagles fan.

If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

[Dutch]

Well, like I said, I blame ignorance. I'm curious of the origin, I've called it the Democrat Party for as long as I remember. Probably a Suthren thing.

Oh, fwiw, I probably should also note that I've not used it exclusively...I say Democratic Party as well...I've always used them interchangeably.

[Solecismic]

This was a joy to read after a long road trip. Thanks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Once again I repeat my recommendation of the candidate matching quiz at
ISideWith.com

No matter who you back, no matter what your leanings, it'd be really hard not to come away from it better informed if you: answer the expanded questions, use the "other answers" options to provide more nuanced replies and then actually look at the detailed summary of why your score for a candidate was what it was.

Things I learned today from a rescoring?
-- Trump lands 13th of 15 GOP candidates ... due to having so many items without an attributed position. That matches up perfectly with my comment earlier in the week (elsewhere) that I'm not convinced he has the portfolio to be a top choice. It can change, but it isn't there for me right now.

-- Walker took a big jump upwards in my match score ... but in the details I see his flag Tweet (supporting Haley in SC). That means he's effectively eliminated from getting a primary vote for me. He might still have a chance at a hypothetical vote in November but that means he's all but eliminated himself in the primary barring some really unusual combination of candidates by the time I vote.

Note: those points are meant to be illustrations of what I think can be taken away from the quiz, they aren't meant to be enormously political statements

[miked]

You vote based on somebody's position on a flag? And not even the American flag? I thought you claimed to have some level of intelligence. It would seem from all your big talking that the only person who is ever deserving of a vote is you

[JonInMiddleGA]

You vote based on somebody's position on a flag? And not even the American flag? I thought you claimed to have some level of intelligence. It would seem from all your big talking that the only person who is ever deserving of a vote is you

Not quite, but that's close. I'd certainly prefer me as dictator over any presidential option ... but that's true every year.

Look, there are "third rails" for candidates -- get one of those wrong & I'll skip your ass in November on the basis that if you can't even get simplest & most obvious shit right then wtf difference does it make if you're in or not?

And then there's this particular "rail". It eliminates Walker from the primary for me because he's proven (afaic) that he doesn't get it and that he's too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he doesn't get it. He's roughly 4th with me in terms of matching other positions so the odds are good that I'll have an equal or better match to choose from.

It's not a true absolute third rail for me (in the general election) however because ... well the way I've explained my exception elsewhere is this: he's not from here, I don't really expect him to get it. In short, he's a damned Yankee & I make allowances for him because of it. A Southron would not get that degree of slack,they'd be eliminated permanently & absolutely.

[albionmoonlight]

Not surprisingly, I am a isidewith match with Sanders and Clinton.

My least match is Fiornia and Cruz.

The two GOPers who get over 50% from me are Paul and Christie.

[Neuqua]

I got 78% with Bush.

My top 3 were Republicans which did surprise me slightly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My least match is Fiornia and Cruz.

Interesting pairing that shows how the nuances can kick in, how weighting issues impacts it,etc.

Cruz shows up in my own top 4-5 while Fiornia was dead last among GOP for me until Kasich jumped in.

[digamma]

I too was Clinton/Sanders, but with Jeb as the top Republican not far behind (something like 70%).

[BillJasper]

I matched up with Sanders (95%), Clinton (89%) and O'Malley (81%). Trump was the closest Republican at 52%.

[molson]

I'm always all over the place with these

Rubio 77%
Sanders 66%
Christie 64%
Clinton 63%
Cruz 62%

(Very liberal on environmental and most social issues, conservative on immigration and foreign policy/national security, pretty moderate everywhere else. Right now I'm leaning towards voting Clinton. I like a lot of Republicans, but I don't want any in the white house.)

Though there's always questions I don't know what to do with, like:

"Should Wall Street executives be criminally charged for their roles in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis?"

Well, ya, if the government can prove that particular individuals actually and personally committed crimes that existed at the time of their actions. Which is tricky to do with members of organizations. We shouldn't just decide we want to prosecute "wall street executives" and then desperately try to find some criminal statute that kind of fits. I think there's things you can do with the law and regulations to make executives more accountable for their actions, and make those actions more transparent, but you can't go backwards in time with criminal law.

[Dutch]

Rubio 91%
Jindal 88%

Clinton 65% was top Dem.

[Chief Rum]

How about this?

Clinton 85%, Sanders 75%. Jeb was the top Pub (#4) at 64%, and then Rand Paul was in the 50s (which makes sense).

Like molson, I think the issues presented put more emphasis on my social beliefs (left leaning), and less on the foreign policy and role of government issues on which I believe I have less congruency with the Dem side.

[JonInMiddleGA]

How about this?

Clinton 85%, Sanders 75%. Jeb was the top Pub (#4) at 64%, and then Rand Paul was in the 50s (which makes sense).

Like molson, I think the issues presented put more emphasis on my social beliefs (left leaning), and less on the foreign policy and role of government issues on which I believe I have less congruency with the Dem side.

If you have the patience for it, try re-weighting the social issues to minimal & the other stuff to maximum & see how much it changes your results. (assuming you didn't have them shoved left & right on the first pass)

[Chief Rum]

If you have the patience for it, try re-weighting the social issues to minimal & the other stuff to maximum & see how much it changes your results. (assuming you didn't have them shoved left & right on the first pass)

Yeah, I went individually with the weighting and left a lot in the middle. I'll see what happens with some different measures.

[Grover]

97% Bernie, 85% Clinton, top repub was Christie at 33%

[Dutch]

97% Bernie, 85% Clinton, top repub was Christie at 33%

Yowzers!

[NobodyHere]

Paul 81%
Sanders 76%
Santorum 73%
Carson 69%
Rubio 67%

[lighthousekeeper]

Uh oh - i got an R/D tie:

71 Rubio (R)
71 Clinton (D)
----------------
70 Paul (R)
69 Sanders (D)


Time to re-check those hanging chads.

[Kodos]

Sanders 91%, Clinton 86, O'Malley 73, Christie 44, Trump 39, Bush 34... Cruz in last with 10%.

[RainMaker]

I had Rubio at 84%, Clinton at 67%.

[albionmoonlight]

something to look for to see if the GOP is really worried about the Trump sideshow.

If swing states with GOP legislatures start to try and quietly pass bills making it harder to qualify as a third party candidate, then I would have to think that the RNC is actually worried about him.

I don't think that we are close to that point, yet.

[Izulde]

Sanders 92%
Clinton 61%
O'Malley 60%
Huckabee 56% (once again the top Republican for me)

[lighthousekeeper]

How interesting would it be if, when you went to the voting booth, you just had to answer these isidewith.com questions instead of directly picking a candidate. Then your vote would automatically go to the candidate with the closest ideological match.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I had Marco Rubio by a pretty wide margin.

[Dutch]

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

[lighthousekeeper]

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

hey - just bake that into the poll (make those intangibles tangible). "How pretty should a president be? Is smiling important to you? Can a president ever have a comb-over? "

[BillJasper]

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

I'm not sure the results would be any worse than what we have now. I'd extend it to Congress and state governments as well.

[path12]

Sanders 94%
Clinton 87%

Christie was my top Rep with 36%. My lowest was Perry at 4%.

[SackAttack]

I've been telling anybody who'll listen that I'd take Trump over Walker. ISideWith apparently concurred in that.

It has, however, far too many Republicans listed behind Walker. S'not true. Every single Republican in this race is more palatable to me than Scott Walker.

The 94% for Bernie Sanders was a surprise, though.

[Solecismic]

As always on tests that limit themselves to reasonable stances (not doing something crazy like eliminating public schools), I score heavily Libertarian.

Rubio stands out in most areas. Sanders on social issues. I suppose Rand Paul isn't his father and I should take another look in his direction. It says I should like Walker, though I'm not a fan.

The recent shift in the Democratic party means I probably will vote Republican for president for the first time in my life. Though I will regret it if they win and see that as some sort of mandate to go nuts on social issues.

[albionmoonlight]

What’s Wrong With Rand Paul’s Campaign? | FiveThirtyEight (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/whats-wrong-with-rand-pauls-campaign/?ex_cid=538fb)

I don't think that Paul really had a chance of winning the nomination, but I do hope that he does not fall out before the contest really begins. I think that it is very healthy for a political party to have the kinds of internal debates that Paul forces the GOP to have. If Paul is not in the picture in a relevant way, then there will not be anyone else to ask the kinds of questions that he is willing to ask.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - 2016 Republicans use Trump, TV to make debate cut (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150726/us--gop_2016-debate-9846b67d20.html)

[revrew]

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

They're really going to exclude Fiorina (the only female running and a perfect attack dog vs. Hillary)? The RNC has this prime opportunity to grab women voters, demolish Hillary even more, and they're going to toss that out the window because of some meaningless (at this early stage) polls?

The sitting governor of New Jersey? Naw, he's not going to be in the debate. Sitting governor of Louisiana? Naw. He just kicked the a$$ of 9 other candidates on stage in Iowa and is one of the fastest rising candidates in the state ... but naw, the RNC would rather have Donald Trump on stage (no slam on Trump, personally, but you KNOW the RNC hates his guts).

I swear, the DNC is run by fools (I'm using biblical language here, not just an insult) and the RNC by idiots. Here in Iowa especially, but I wonder if it isn't just a national problem, the GOP loses elections and policy battles more out of sheer stupidity and ineptitude than they do out of actually being defeated by Dems.

And I'm not even going to touch ... OK, now I am ... how the GOP leadership decided to slam Ted Cruz for giving one of the clearest, most populist, most independent-grabbing, party-expanding speeches on the floor of the Senate in my lifetime. They throw him under the bus, instead, thus proving the point that GOP leadership is so out of touch with the general populace that they wouldn't be able to feel the pulse of the nation if it was crammed up their collective a$$.

Can ... not ... believe how stupid the GOP is. And I say all this as someone who generally votes Republican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

Eh, even with my #1 guy almost certainly on the outside looking in, it's a practical reality. There's only so much TV time, only so many people that will fit on a stage, only so many people that can be comprehended in one event.

What [might] happen is that the bottom of the ten will effectively eliminate themselves with a poor or even non-existent showing in the main debate while a breakout star of the secondary event could propel themselves at least into the top ten.

Honestly though, at this point, if you're running at the 2% mark or lower (which is roughly where the cutoff seems likely to be) your chances of being relevant to the overall discussion are extremely low anyway.

edit to add: fwiw, I shared that story because I knew there was some sort of cutoff but until reading that article I didn't know exactly what it was nor how it would be determined. Figured I might not be the only person who didn't know the details.

[revrew]

Honestly though, at this point, if you're running at the 2% mark or lower (which is roughly where the cutoff seems likely to be) your chances of being relevant to the overall discussion are extremely low anyway.

See, I'm arguing that's not even remotely true. That's not how the process works. If you look at the history of the polls, those that come out this early are completely clueless.

At this point in 2008, for example, Giuliani was the national poll leader. He was GONE by the time of the Iowa caucus.

At this point in 2012, Santorum wasn't over 2 percent nationally, wasn't over 3 percent in Iowa, but he not only won Iowa, he won 11 other states and came in 2nd.

Limiting to 10 is fine. Or doing two "heats" of 8. But NOT based on these polls. Putting any faith at all in these polls is the part I'm lambasting.

[Solecismic]

I agree. But I don't see why we need a debate* half a year before the Iowa Caucus.

Are these people so much in love with themselves that they feel it's relevant today?

* - by debate, I mean trivial sound-byte contest with all the depth and nuance of the annual Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest.

The lock-step ritual condemnation of Cruz is far more troubling.

Trump is ahead in polls because he's the only one who isn't choosing issue positions based on the Republicans' new love affair with computer targeting. Trump, however, will fade as soon as one of his opponents emerges as not being a clone of the other 14 candidates.

He isn't going to win. The only lesson Republicans should take from having this bombastic real-estate celebrity personality leading the pack at this stage is that a computer program isn't going to win this race (unless we all go to internet-based voting and Putin winds up winning because of some clever hacker in a Moscow basement).

[NobodyHere]

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

They're really going to exclude Fiorina (the only female running and a perfect attack dog vs. Hillary)? The RNC has this prime opportunity to grab women voters, demolish Hillary even more, and they're going to toss that out the window because of some meaningless (at this early stage) polls?

The sitting governor of New Jersey? Naw, he's not going to be in the debate. Sitting governor of Louisiana? Naw. He just kicked the a$$ of 9 other candidates on stage in Iowa and is one of the fastest rising candidates in the state ... but naw, the RNC would rather have Donald Trump on stage (no slam on Trump, personally, but you KNOW the RNC hates his guts).

I swear, the DNC is run by fools (I'm using biblical language here, not just an insult) and the RNC by idiots. Here in Iowa especially, but I wonder if it isn't just a national problem, the GOP loses elections and policy battles more out of sheer stupidity and ineptitude than they do out of actually being defeated by Dems.

And I'm not even going to touch ... OK, now I am ... how the GOP leadership decided to slam Ted Cruz for giving one of the clearest, most populist, most independent-grabbing, party-expanding speeches on the floor of the Senate in my lifetime. They throw him under the bus, instead, thus proving the point that GOP leadership is so out of touch with the general populace that they wouldn't be able to feel the pulse of the nation if it was crammed up their collective a$$.

Can ... not ... believe how stupid the GOP is. And I say all this as someone who generally votes Republican.

Shouldn't the republicans at the bottom be pulling themselves up by the bootstraps instead of complaining about how unfair the system is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

See, I'm arguing that's not even remotely true. That's not how the process works. If you look at the history of the polls, those that come out this early are completely clueless.

At this point in 2008, for example, Giuliani was the national poll leader. He was GONE by the time of the Iowa caucus.

At this point in 2012, Santorum wasn't over 2 percent nationally, wasn't over 3 percent in Iowa, but he not only won Iowa, he won 11 other states and came in 2nd.

Limiting to 10 is fine. Or doing two "heats" of 8. But NOT based on these polls. Putting any faith at all in these polls is the part I'm lambasting.

And (to my deep chagrin) ultimately Santorum amounted to nothing in 2012.

There have to be some limits to how many bodies are on that stage -- that's a practical reality for television (not the size of the stage, the amount of time each can get) -- so if not the polls then WHAT?

[JonInMiddleGA]

The lock-step ritual condemnation of Cruz is far more troubling.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

It's why I made the point elsewhere yesterday that we might be reaching a critical mass for a party split, or at least a party that loses a major chunk of its supposed core support.

At this point I'm simply taking note of those who blasted Cruz and eyeballing them hard for whether they serve any useful purpose at all going forward.

[panerd]

Yikes!

Sanders 87%
Paul 72%
Carson 57%
Clinton 51%
Bush 15%

I expected to be close to Paul though I certainly see big differences between him and his dad. Sanders was likely due to me weighting several social issues and foreign policy high and a lot of domestic/environmental low. Since there is about 0% chance that Sanders or Paul gets the nod I likely would probably vote Clinton if any of the Bible beaters get nominated and generic Libertarian if the GOP at least puts in a normal person. (I know normal is a bit of a stretch! :) )

[SackAttack]

And (to my deep chagrin) ultimately Santorum amounted to nothing in 2012.

There have to be some limits to how many bodies are on that stage -- that's a practical reality for television (not the size of the stage, the amount of time each can get) -- so if not the polls then WHAT?

Well, as Jim pointed out, the bigger issue is having debates this far in advance. Part of why the RNC is limiting participation is they feel like the circus in 2012 before Romney eventually pulled away hurt them in the general election. They're trying to avoid that.

So...a 10-candidate debate with an undercard is supposed to get rid of the circus atmosphere? Really?

[panerd]

I agree. But I don't see why we need a debate* half a year before the Iowa Caucus.

Are these people so much in love with themselves that they feel it's relevant today?

* - by debate, I mean trivial sound-byte contest with all the depth and nuance of the annual Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest.



I still can remember a Yahoo article back during the 2012 GOP primary that said Ron Paul kept trying to cover obscure topics like monetary policy. Boxers or briefs please!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Part of why the RNC is limiting participation is they feel like the circus in 2012 before Romney eventually pulled away hurt them in the general election. They're trying to avoid that.

They'd be better served trying to avoid having a worthless candidate like Romney as the nominee

[SackAttack]

They'd be better served trying to avoid having a worthless candidate like Romney as the nominee

See, we're not in disagreement that Romney was a worthless candidate, but I suspect we would be as to why. :lol:

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Of course Sarah Palin posted this on her Facebook.

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11800031_10153515444903588_8211543541358575029_n.png?oh=288289c49c80ab4c6d27a57635985027&oe=5652BE11

[Izulde]

Trump got the all important Dennis Rodman endorsement today. :D

[JPhillips]

Can we please, please stop obsessing over what a candidate orders on his cheese steak sandwich? It really doesn't matter.

Also, too, nobody cares what lettuce a candidate prefers.

[path12]

Can we please, please stop obsessing over what a candidate orders on his cheese steak sandwich? It really doesn't matter.

Also, too, nobody cares what lettuce a candidate prefers.

I don't know man. I've got to look pretty sideways at an iceberg candidate.

[JPhillips]

Monmoth has Trump going from a -28 net approval in April to a +17 now. That doesn't say much of anything good about a large chunk of the GOP primary electorate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Monmoth has Trump going from a -28 net approval in April to a +17 now. That doesn't say much of anything good about a large chunk of the GOP primary electorate.

{shrug} He's the only guy who has said much that needed to be said thus far. And that he's done it with a relatively sharp stick, that's even better.

And to be honest, with a field this absurdly large, very few other people have done anything to give themselves any sort of boost. He has, and that's weighing mighty heavily in his favor thus far.

It's like he's one of the few candidates that's even started his engine yet, those idling in neutral make him look even faster by comparison.

[molson]

They're actually having a "loser's debate" for candidates outside the top ten in the polls by today's cut-off. That's kind of sad.

I think it could be kind of a big deal who makes that cut-off, its a clear line of contendership being drawn. And in the bottom of that 10, it could come down to just how they round the numbers.

Log In - The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/upshot/2016-presidential-election-who-gets-into-the-republican-debate-rounding-could-decide.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1)

[Neuqua]

That's what I find silly about this. The bottom few are all in the margin of error, so essentially it's the network that is deciding who can and can't have a chance at being President.

Why not just have two debates, mix and match the candidates and let everyone have a shot? I would think that would do just fine ratings wise as well.

[JPhillips]

Can you imagine the outcry if any network other than Fox puled this?

[albionmoonlight]

Someone at 538 suggested having multiple debates going on at the same time, each limited to three contenders. Then simulcast them NFL Red Zone style. And put each full debate up on the web as soon as it is done. And any given debate can have its own channel for people who really want to watch it.

Wouldn't ratings for that be through the roof?

[albionmoonlight]

Less insane idea. Instead of having a "real" debate and a "consolation prize" debate, have two debates. Pick the participants at random. Put them on back to back nights.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Less insane idea. Instead of having a "real" debate and a "consolation prize" debate, have two debates. Pick the participants at random. Put them on back to back nights.

Viewer fatigue sets in pretty quickly.

There's a reason that the networks have limits on time & what not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wouldn't ratings for that be through the roof?

I have to assume, well at least HOPE, that's sarcasm.

My detector may need new batteries though.

[albionmoonlight]

Not sarcasm. But in context.

By "through the roof" I meant, "through the roof in comparison to Fox News typical programming and compared to the ratings for a typical primary debate"

I would assume that any given episode of NCIS or Big Bang Theory would dwarf the ratings of any political programming.

[albionmoonlight]

dola: so, like, through a very short roof :)

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Trump makes it worth the price of admission. Love him or hate him, it'll be entertaining.

[Solecismic]

Trump makes it worth the price of admission. Love him or hate him, it'll be entertaining.

Right now, he's getting the "I hate politicians" vote. But his ceiling is low. He's probably nearing his peak.

He'll get better ratings for the debate, though. People will tune in just to see how he handles the stage and the other candidates handle him.

What's interesting to me is how old the candidates are on both sides. Reagan, at 69, is the oldest ever to become president. Reagan was also the oldest to win a nomination when running for his second term, though that record was beat by Bob Dole. Dole would have been 73 when taking office had he won in 1996.

We have several candidates who will be in the 69-75 range on 1/20/17. Trump will be 70. Clinton 69, Sanders 75. They're trying to draft Biden, who will be 74.

Maybe we're doing everything so absurdly early this time through because all the candidates have to be in bed by next summer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not sarcasm. But in context.

By "through the roof" I meant, "through the roof in comparison to Fox News typical programming and compared to the ratings for a typical primary debate"

I would assume that any given episode of NCIS or Big Bang Theory would dwarf the ratings of any political programming.

I'll borrow a few things from this article
Will Trump be ratings gold for Fox News? | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/249379-will-trump-be-ratings-gold-for-fox-news)

2012 cycle, primary debates ranged from a low of 3.2 million (an early CNN clash) to a high of 7.6 million (for an ABC encounter in the month preceding the Iowa caucuses).

The 2012 cycle featured one debate that bears close comparison to the Aug. 6 event. On Aug. 11, 2011, a Fox-hosted Republican primary debate drew 5.1 million viewers

A similar number would have beaten every program on cable last week except for one show on Disney ("Descendants", whatever that is)

A similar number would be pretty much identical to the CBS primetime average last week (they were #1 for the week of 8/2). It would also have ranked about 19th among all broadcast programs ... but remember, it's repeat season & low viewership season so numbers are down from what you'd see at other times of the year.

Last week, a couple of O'Reilly episodes on FXNC did about 2.8 million viewers for some sort of direct comparison for the network.

[molson]

Trump, Bush, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, and Kasich make the cut.

Perry, Santorum, Graham, Gilmore, Jindal, Pataki invited to loser's debate.

[stevew]

If they were going to use polling, why wouldn't they do something actually effective like "list your top 8 choices for the GOP presidential candidate" and poll that way.

[Dutch]

Eventually the numbers dwindle down. Going out on a limb early, this is how I think I shakes out.

I predict the final four as Bush, Walker, Rubio and Trump.

Then Trump drops.
Then Walker drops.
Then Bush drops.
Rubio vs Clinton.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Trump, Bush, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, and Kasich make the cut.

That's actually the top 10 at the moment in the RCP average
Almost in the same order in fact (the only diff is flip Carson/Huckabee in 4/5)

edit to add: the way you typed them is actually the exact order of the most recent Fox News poll

[JPhillips]

Eventually the numbers dwindle down. Going out on a limb early, this is how I think I shakes out.

I predict the final four as Bush, Walker, Rubio and Trump.

Then Trump drops.
Then Walker drops.
Then Bush drops.
Rubio vs Clinton.

I agree except it ends Bush vs Clinton. He has a shitton of money.

[Solecismic]

I still think we have very little idea.

The height of the Rick Perry madness in 2011 was a Politico poll at the end of August. He had 36%, Romney 17%, Gingrich 10%, Bachman 10%.

Herman Cain peaked at 30% in October.

Newt Gingrich peaked at 40% in December.

Romney took the lead in January...

but Santorum won the Iowa Caucus and peaked at 39% in February.

Momentum is a funny animal. It seems far too early to predict anything. But I'll go ahead and predict that Trump is gone by the end of the evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, after scoring in single digits.

[Dutch]

I agree except it ends Bush vs Clinton. He has a shitton of money.

If that were always the case, how did Obama beat Clinton?

[Dutch]

I still think we have very little idea.

The height of the Rick Perry madness in 2011 was a Politico poll at the end of August. He had 36%, Romney 17%, Gingrich 10%, Bachman 10%.

Herman Cain peaked at 30% in October.

Newt Gingrich peaked at 40% in December.

Romney took the lead in January...

but Santorum won the Iowa Caucus and peaked at 39% in February.

Momentum is a funny animal. It seems far too early to predict anything. But I'll go ahead and predict that Trump is gone by the end of the evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, after scoring in single digits.

Agreed, going out on a limb is never a sure thing.

[panerd]

That's what I find silly about this. The bottom few are all in the margin of error, so essentially it's the network that is deciding who can and can't have a chance at being President.

This has happened every year this year just happens to have more candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This has happened every year this year just happens to have more candidates.

Hardly any of whom are actually serious contenders for anything aside from a hypothetical cabinet (or lower) position.

[JPhillips]

If that were always the case, how did Obama beat Clinton?

Obama was basically even with her when the primaries started and then blitzed by her in the first quarter of 2008. He raised over 130 mil just in the first quarter of 2008.

[Dutch]

Oh, I thought people liked him better. Didn't realize the machine backed him.

[Kodos]

http://i1060.photobucket.com/albums/t446/KodosForPrez/Rick_zps2x0gqu5e.png (http://s1060.photobucket.com/user/KodosForPrez/media/Rick_zps2x0gqu5e.png.html)

[Butter]

Just kills me that we are really starting this a full 15 months before the election.

[Dutch]

Just kills me that we are really starting this a full 15 months before the election.

+1

Hate this.

[NobodyHere]

Well it's only 6 months until the first caucus.

[revrew]

Hardly any of whom are actually serious contenders for anything aside from a hypothetical cabinet (or lower) position.

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point, but he went on and won the GOP nomination. Huckabee and Santorum, similarly, were less than 3% at this point in the years they both finished #2 for the nomination.

We deal with this all the time in Iowa. The rest of the country has election "years," we have election cycles that run 2-3 years. While the rest of the country is still sleeping on the election, we're already meeting, interviewing, etc.

And I can tell you right now that America is getting royally screwed by this new debate process. There are some in that top 10 who are not serious candidates (not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency), and there is at least 1 candidate cut out by this idiotic national poll criterion who will finish top 3 in Iowa, and should Ted Cruz falter, could finish top 2 for the nomination nationally.

Fox/RNC are pissing on America right now and telling you it's just raining.

[Honolulu_Blue]

(not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency)

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Solecismic]

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point, but he went on and won the GOP nomination. Huckabee and Santorum, similarly, were less than 3% at this point in the years they both finished #2 for the nomination.

We deal with this all the time in Iowa. The rest of the country has election "years," we have election cycles that run 2-3 years. While the rest of the country is still sleeping on the election, we're already meeting, interviewing, etc.

And I can tell you right now that America is getting royally screwed by this new debate process. There are some in that top 10 who are not serious candidates (not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency), and there is at least 1 candidate cut out by this idiotic national poll criterion who will finish top 3 in Iowa, and should Ted Cruz falter, could finish top 2 for the nomination nationally.

Fox/RNC are pissing on America right now and telling you it's just raining.

I see this debate as less important. The ground game in Iowa and New Hampshire should be everyone's focus right now. Getting those key local endorsements, getting known.

Sure, the debate is a piece of getting known. It's an opportunity. But for what? A memorable one-liner? Not in a room of ten type-As battling for air time.

You're out on the ground, so you know things I can only guess about, but I just don't see Trump getting much stronger. Can you really have an entire candidacy revolving around "I'm not a politician!"

Trump would have to be Superman to gain from the debate. We already expect him to command the stage and make those politically incorrect comments that force Ozzy Osbourne's children out of their cozy comfort zone.

Where does he go from here? At what point can he pivot from showing people what's wrong with the system to providing people with hope that he's the guy who can fix it? He's peaking too early and he's too old and too cranky to pivot and stay in this, long-term.

[rowech]

To me, Trump has just consolidated some of the more extreme voters into a single candidate. At first glance, it seems like he's rolling but as people drop out, I don't think those supporters of previous candidates will jump to Trump. (although that makes a great motto for him) I think his numbers will probably stay right around where they are now for the duration, he'll hang around longer than people think, but in the end, it won't be enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point

And he, nor anyone in recent memory, has had a field this insanely large to try to weave their way into actual contention through.


Maybe I'm looking at the RCP data wrong or something but McCain had a rather massive lead at this point best I can tell. That would erode for a while later but we know the outcome, don't we?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Republican Presidential Nomination (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html#polls)

And, come on, look at the candidates that weren't in the top ten. Of those omitted there MIGHT be two (Perry on name recognition, Jindal cause youth or energy or something) with even a snowball's chance in hell at making even a top five run. The rest would very likely do well to remain ahead of Joe The Plumber if he entered tomorrow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Can you really have an entire candidacy revolving around "I'm not a politician!"

These days? Maybe.



At what point can he pivot from showing people what's wrong with the system to providing people with hope that he's the guy who can fix it?

re: fix ... He's already made the short list simply by being one of the few who actually seems to WANT to fix stuff. Given how little confidence sane voters have that any plan worth a damn could actually be implemented, simply wanting (or wishing) to may carry more weight than you'd suspect.

[revrew]

And, come on, look at the candidates that weren't in the top ten. Of those omitted there MIGHT be two (Perry on name recognition, Jindal cause youth or energy or something) with even a snowball's chance in hell at making even a top five run. The rest would very likely do well to remain ahead of Joe The Plumber if he entered tomorrow.

I'll make this prediction right now: If Cruz or Trump slip, you should expect Jindal to win Iowa. Then we'll see about his ability to organize nationally or capitalize on that momentum.

Here's my reasoning: As it is, Jindal is fighting with Cruz for the same audience, so that's his big hurdle. But getting into Iowa's top 3 is critical, and right now it looks like Trump, Walker and either Cruz/Jindal are those three (they are top 4 in most recent polling). Yes, I know I cut out Bush, but the dude is running BACKWARDS here in Iowa. Walker definitely looked like he peaked too early, so if Trump did, too, the top spot is wide open for the Cruz/Jindal candidate.

As for laughing at Trump ... what do you think will derail him? He called Latinos "rapists," and his numbers went up. He called a POW "not a war hero" and his numbers went up. I swear, if the dude flips the moderator the bird at the debate or moons his fellow candidates, his numbers will go up. The #1 thing people in this country care about right now is not immigration, the economy, or foreign policy. It's our collective disgust with Washington, D.C. Trump is scoring that HUGE right now. Hillary is dropping through the floor. Trump is in the driver's seat. Peaked too early? Maybe. I'll give you that possibility. But as long as he says, "Every one of you on this stage is a politician. That's why you don't deserve to be president," he's going to keep surging. He's a very, very dangerous candidate right now.

[Kodos]

I have to think independents would avoid voting for Trump in droves in the general election.

[JPhillips]

With the exception of one Quinnipiac poll, Clinton's numbers have stayed very steady, both in terms of the nomination and general election matchups.

As for Trump, I read an interesting take yesterday that argued he's surging not in spite, but because of his TV show. The writer suggested that the format of the show, seeing him always presented as the most capable and accomplished guy in the room, showing him browbeating everyone that comes before him, and presenting him as a quick and strong decision maker, has created an image of what a lot of people want from their president. I think there's a lot of truth there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

As for Trump, I read an interesting take yesterday that argued he's surging not in spite, but because of his TV show. The writer suggested that the format of the show, seeing him always presented as the most capable and accomplished guy in the room, showing him browbeating everyone that comes before him, and presenting him as a quick and strong decision maker, has created an image of what a lot of people want from their president. I think there's a lot of truth there.

Feels like a reach to me. I mean, there are vast swaths of the country who have never seen more than 10-15 minutes of the show. We know it exists but actually watching enough for impact? That's a relatively small number of people.

Again, I'm not sold on him having the answers ... but at least he seems to know some of the questions. That resonates better than a tone deaf (for conservatives) courting of liberals like Bush is doing.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I'd like to see a poll ask Trump supporters if they have watched the show.

[cuervo72]

These days? Maybe.

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

[JAG]

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

Against Bush and Clinton...

[Dutch]

:)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

And 1924 LaFollette ran 3rd with a strong 16.6%, Wallace in 1968 pulled nearly 14%.

[SackAttack]

That resonates better than a tone deaf (for conservatives) courting of liberals like Bush is doing.

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

Look, I seriously doubt Trump is a 100% match for me. I'm not sure my still top choice Santorum is either tbh.

But if you can't get the basics of something as simple as immigration right, specifically by not just shrugging & accepting defeat at the hands of invaders, well then fuck you Mister (or Ms.) Candidate because you're too worthlessly stupid to do any meaningful amount of good.

We've got a lot of people in the field right now who fail to be worth the oxygen they consume afaic, why the fuck would I be interested in whether they're in the White House versus some left-wing whackjob? They're not going to accomplish jack while in there either, any good they'd do would likely be by accident (same as the whackjob).

[revrew]

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

I think this also ties into why Trump's "I'm not a politician" rhetoric is winning right now, especially among conservatives who otherwise don't match well with his record.

The answer to your question is because conservatives have been holding their nose and voting for the guys who supposedly "most closely aligns with our values" for years, for decades. And those very bozos have actually done more harm to our issues than good! By wearing the false flag of conservativism or of the GOP (hence, the term RINO), they actually set the cause backwards.

Case in point: George W. Bush. His disastrous faux-conservative presidency gave endless fodder to the wave of progressivism we're awash with today.

On the flipside: Obama's sudden lurch to a neo-socialist, progressive agenda gave rise to the tea party and a surge in conservative engagement that has led to huge political gains in the legislature and in the states.

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

That's why they won't vote for Romney. They didn't vote for McCain. And they won't vote for Bush. If Bush wins the nom, and Trump is still viable at that point (big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Trump actually beats Bush in the general, because many conservatives hate the dishonest betrayal of their so-called "friends" in the GOP more than the honest opposition of the Dems.

[bob]

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

Given the length of supreme court tenures, I don't agree with you. If W hadn't been elected, but Gore was, this country could be very different in many ways due to the makeup of the court.

[molson]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention to him enough, but I don't even remember Trump over the years as being a guy known for his conservative values. This only started fairly recently when he decided he was going to go all-in on this PR stunt. I question his sincerity. He's more Hollywood than middle america. I think he really enjoyed being accepted as an almost-mainstream entertainment industry celebrity around 2003-2007, and he misses that. That's all this is.

[ISiddiqui]

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

Of course it also works the other way too. I roll my eyes quite a bit at the Sanders folk who complain that Hillary is a DINO and real liberals are just going to stay home.

It seems like its just nonsense hyperbole for backers of those closer to the extremes and no one actually does it.

[lighthousekeeper]

...George W. Bush. His ... faux-conservative presidency...

:confused:

[Dutch]

He was a neo-con with a big heart. So it gets confusing. :)

[revrew]

:confused:

Fundamental difference between conservatives and establishment Repubs: Do you stick to principles even when it ticks off the big-money backers (conservative), or do you work to preserve the party and its position of influence from idealistic extremes (establishment)?

Most RINOs come in talking like a lion conservative, and leave like a lamb.

Bush's biggest offense was TARP - Screw conservative and constitutional economic principles, we're going to bail out our big-money backers! That was a major reveal.

No Child Left Behind was a major strike, too, because most conservatives don't see justification for federal involvement in public education.

On social issues he was hit and miss, sometimes very conservative, sometimes just clueless.

And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

He called it "conservative." The press loved to call it conservative, because it gave conservative a bad name. But Bush's presidency was only conservative in facade.

[molson]

Bush's biggest offense was TARP - Screw conservative and constitutional economic principles, we're going to bail out our big-money backers! That was a major reveal.


So then why would people upset about that flock to Trump, who supported TARP and the auto company bailout.

https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/donald-trump#article-9

Edit: He also supported the assault weapon ban, NSA data collection, and has advocated for a universal health care system and a one time 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of over $10 million.

[Subby]

Good article about the appeal of Trump and from where he draws his base:

Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/27/donald-trumps-surge-is-heavily-reliant-on-less-educated-americans-heres-why/)

[lighthousekeeper]

And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

I disagree there.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167471/americans-view-afghanistan-war-mistake.aspx

...unless you were to argue that the GOP is just filled with RINOs skewing the poll results.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

That's why they won't vote for Romney. They didn't vote for McCain. And they won't vote for Bush. If Bush wins the nom, and Trump is still viable at that point (big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Trump actually beats Bush in the general, because many conservatives hate the dishonest betrayal of their so-called "friends" in the GOP more than the honest opposition of the Dems.

Bravo.

[Solecismic]

When you look at it that way, you have 100 million voters, 100 million parties. We all hold our noses when we vote.

Some things affect us directly. Some things affect us when we read about them. The internet allows us to read a lot and get affected a lot.

Polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.

The Democrats are losing white voters. The Republicans lose with everyone else. The theory is that you win elections by motivating the people who identify with you.

But a good question is whether you also win elections when your opponents upset people. Would Trump motivate millions of sort-of Democrats to get out there and vote? Has the Democrat move to the left motivated millions of sort-of Republicans?

An argument could be made that your party's best move is its safest one. Yet the Republicans did this with Bob Dole in 1996 (it's hard to dislike Bob Dole) and Mitt Romney in 2012 and lost elections to second-termers that many people felt were winnable. The Democrats settled for safe and familiar with John Kerry in 2004 and lost to George W. Bush (whose faults are well outlined above).

Trump may be tapping into hope and change. I don't see it, but it's not a safe move in the slightest. I still think he has a low ceiling, doesn't have the organization necessary to win the early contests, and would lose the general in a landslide.

More likely, Trump is an over-reaction to the "Obama Unplugged" president he became after his second inauguration. Things will settle down when it's finally time to make decisions. Of course, that probably means Scott Walker or YAB (yet another Bush).

[molson]

Well Trump has this going for him - he's the only presidential candidate to have met the Boogyeman, and he was not afraid at all. This speaks well of how he may deal with America's enemies.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/u2vJN3st5T4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[JonInMiddleGA]

...unless you were to argue that the GOP is just filled with RINOs skewing the poll results.

Well ...

Actually (and I had problems with the linked page not wanting to load very well so I can't see the details) the wording of the question could lead to an answer of "it was a mistake".

I might even tell you that it was a mistake in hindsight because of the errors we've made in following up on it. Primarily in thinking that there was hardly anyone in the region capable of competent self-government.

[Solecismic]

Yesterday's poll releases:

http://oi58.tinypic.com/24oq29u.jpg

I assume Trump has no ground game in South Carolina. This is what scares people. Even though, as I keep repeating, we're still in the flavor-of-the-day period before things get serious.

However, look at New Hampshire and Clinton. New Hampshire is essentially a blue state. The population density increases in the southern areas that are commuting distance to Boston jobs have given New Hampshire a significant and reliable liberal voting block.

Clinton even beat Obama there in 2008.

She has name recognition, and she's statistically tied with the Republican front-runners - some who have name recognition and some who don't. That's bad news for the Democrats (though, again, it's too early to care too much).

Except for Trump. She touches 50 against Trump, who also has name recognition.

Put together, you see what the Republicans are thinking right now. It's the establishment against Trump. Which plays right into any conceivable model of Trump lasting in this race.

Odds are, he'll do something so bizarre that even the anti-establishment vote will fade. But he does have an opportunity. He'll go out tonight and say, "I'm running for president. They're running for the Republican nomination. They're trying to tell you what you want to hear. I'm out here telling you like it is."

It's a winning message. But he's also, in Jeb's words, a "buffoon and an asshole." The media will continue to portray him as such, and he will frequently confirm their portrayal.

Too much has to happen to get Trump past the early contests. It's still just a circus around him.

[Dutch]

My criteria for Prez must be screwed up because I can't get past Trumps goofy assed haircut to consider him seriously.

[JPhillips]

Bush/Walker/Rubio need to make a deal with one of the lower candidates to go hard at Trump and mock him until he rage explodes.

[ISiddiqui]

Christie would be perfect for that, really. Maybe he can parlay it into a promised Cabinet position?

[albionmoonlight]

Too much has to happen to get Trump past the early contests. It's still just a circus around him.

And IIRC, part of the way the President beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries was through superior organizing. His campaign was able to translate his support into a tangible delegate lead though getting people to the polls and through understanding the arcane delegate distribution systems that some state caucuses use.

Trump, I would assume, has none of that. His team lacks the ability to maximize his delegate count. Even if (as I doubt) he "wins" in Iowa, NH, and/or South Carolina, he will not have the ground game to transition that into a delegate win at the convention.

[JPhillips]

I think Christie is still delusional enough to think he can win. Perry would be perfect, but he's not visible enough.

[molson]

A debate rage explosion would only help Trump in the polls.

[JPhillips]

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

[lighthousekeeper]

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

I volunteer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2015-08-05/poll-donald-trump-leads-among-georgia-republicans



Trump 30, Bush 17, Carson 10, Huckabee 7, Cruz 6, Walker 5, the 5 with 3% each, Jindal & Perry 2% each. Coming in at 0% were Graham, Pataki and Santorum.

Here's what actually caught my eye though:
2012 Georgia primary results
Gingrich 47, Romney 26, Santorum 19.6, Paul 6.6

From 20% to 0%, with really no meaningful difference for Santorum then & now? That's the impact of the field and suggests to me that people are looking considerably less at the candidate as individuals but rather for the one that most fits a certain role. Santorum's support here 4 years ago appears to have largely been based on "not being Romney and not being Newt" ... a role that's now filled by a variety of other candidates.

[Solecismic]

And IIRC, part of the way the President beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries was through superior organizing. His campaign was able to translate his support into a tangible delegate lead though getting people to the polls and through understanding the arcane delegate distribution systems that some state caucuses use.

Trump, I would assume, has none of that. His team lacks the ability to maximize his delegate count. Even if (as I doubt) he "wins" in Iowa, NH, and/or South Carolina, he will not have the ground game to transition that into a delegate win at the convention.

Nothing arcane about understanding that in a close race, the superdelegates decide it. Early, they declared for Hillary. Later, when they saw the reaction Obama was receiving at campaign events, they re-declared for Obama.

You could even argue that based on Obama withdrawing from Michigan (though he did campaign for an anti-Hillary vote to embarrass her) and Florida not being counted, that she had more popular votes. Nothing arcane about the national committee refusing to seat delegates from states that broke their rules.

She had enough organization to win. What she lacked was enthusiastic crowds. The Democrats got the right candidate out there, and that's exactly what the superdelegates are supposed to do.

You're right that Trump will have an impossible time convincing Republican superdelegates. But the Republicans have a far lower proportion of superdelegates (and higher proportion of those are bound to the state vote), so that won't be as big a hurdle. More likely, as the extras drop out, someone will emerge with a higher ceiling than Trump's. And he'll (sorry Carly) start winning those bigger winner-take-alls.

[Solecismic]

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

Trump is a clown, but if he were easily mocked and annoyed, he wouldn't have made it in New York real estate.

He thrives on this stuff. Mocking and annoying him won't make him go away. Ignoring him, however...

[JPhillips]

But he's also really thin skinned. He doesn't take well to being mocked.

[Solecismic]

But he's also really thin skinned. He doesn't take well to being mocked.

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

Agreed. Anyone that thinks they can go to war with him by inciting him is going to end up looking bad. Trump doesn't care if he looks bad and that's honestly a good thing for him.

It's somewhat like a poker pro playing against a billionaire in a high-stakes poker game. While the poker pro needs to keep focused and make continued optimal plays, the billionaire doesn't care if he blows off several million on a couple bluffs as long as he's able to turn over at least one blatant bluff to show the poker pro that he bluffed him.

[JPhillips]

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

You can't ignore him when he's the front runner and debating policy won't work. Now I agree that the person that does this is giving up any chance to win, that's why I think the mainstream conservatives need to find a rabbit that do the work for them.

[Solecismic]

So... thoughts on the JV debate?

Perry seems to have his patter down. But a little too much like a used car salesman to me. I think his numbers will go up a little, though. I want to like Jindal more, but the extreme conservatism is a deal-breaker. Pataki's too far past his prime. Gilmore has a great background, but I don't see him making inroads. Graham looks and sounds like he's reading from a children's book. Fiorina seems a little silly. I see Santorum's appeal to the religious base, but question whether he can represent anyone else.

I didn't see anyone I wanted to learn more about. Except maybe Gilmore, who I want to like more than I do. But when he ran for the Senate in Virginia in 2008, it didn't go well at all.

For me, I think these seven should stay on the sidelines. Too many candidates.

[Arles]

You can't ignore him when he's the front runner and debating policy won't work. Now I agree that the person that does this is giving up any chance to win, that's why I think the mainstream conservatives need to find a rabbit that do the work for them.
Enter Rick Perry, right on cue....

[stevew]

Gilmore who basically almost bankrupted Virginia, Gilmore?

[NobodyHere]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

Might not be another complete outsider but I'd lean toward guessing someone that isn't in this field.

In that scenario at some point they'll all have to take some sort of shot at him & I don't see him looking past that very
easily.

edit to add: Tell you a name that might be interesting though: Herman Cain

[molson]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

He and Sarah Palin have been saying nice things about each other in the media for a while.

I can't see him picking a boring politician if he actually won the nomination on the platform of him not being a politican. So I'd say a celebrity-politician like Sarah Palin or Linda McMahon or Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Solecismic]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

Well, Admiral Stockdale died ten years ago. And we know Trump prefers former military who never were captured anyway.

Who knows which way he'd go. I still say Omarosa's the odds-on favorite. He'd look like a hypocrite if he went with one of the other candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

He and Sarah Palin have been saying nice things about each other in the media for a while.

Palin crossed my mind. To some extent both she & Cain have been through some of the wars that would lie ahead, I think he's smart enough to know that has some value.

[SackAttack]

Look, I seriously doubt Trump is a 100% match for me. I'm not sure my still top choice Santorum is either tbh.

But if you can't get the basics of something as simple as immigration right, specifically by not just shrugging & accepting defeat at the hands of invaders, well then fuck you Mister (or Ms.) Candidate because you're too worthlessly stupid to do any meaningful amount of good.

But Jon, here's the thing: the House and Senate will dictate the tone of the bills sent to the President. The House is not in imminent danger of flipping to the Democrats. The way districts are drawn right now, unless there's a wave of state referenda handing districting over to a non-partisan board, or there is an absolutely massive scandal involving one or more prominent Republicans, I'm not sure the Democrats take that chamber back before 2020.

So it doesn't fucking MATTER if the President "accepts defeat at the hands of invaders," unless the tone of "accepting defeat" is "I'm going to veto every bill sent to me that isn't amnesty." And a guy with an attitude like that doesn't get the nomination in the first place. There is some stuff the President can do using executive orders one direction or the other on immigration, but the real heavy lifting comes from Congress.

We've got a lot of people in the field right now who fail to be worth the oxygen they consume afaic, why the fuck would I be interested in whether they're in the White House versus some left-wing whackjob? They're not going to accomplish jack while in there either, any good they'd do would likely be by accident (same as the whackjob).

the "left-wing whackjob" can actively obstruct legislation that comes from Congress unless there's supermajority support for it. A President who tried to obstruct legislation from his own party is a President who's getting primaried before he could have a second term. Even if you think he's a worthless empty suit who's not worth the air he's breathing, he can rubber-stamp legislation from Congress (which is currently significantly more conservative than your opinion of the Presidential nominee pool). That's more than you'd get out of a Democrat, so I really don't get why the "welp conservatives will just not vote if they don't get Republican Jesus as a candidate" view from many on the right.

The answer to your question is because conservatives have been holding their nose and voting for the guys who supposedly "most closely aligns with our values" for years, for decades. And those very bozos have actually done more harm to our issues than good! By wearing the false flag of conservativism or of the GOP (hence, the term RINO), they actually set the cause backwards.

So why is it that when conservatives make up so much more of the GOP primary base than moderates or (ha ha good one) liberals do, that "RINOs" keep getting nominated? Are conservative voters just that bad at identifying "one of us"?

Case in point: George W. Bush. His disastrous faux-conservative presidency gave endless fodder to the wave of progressivism we're awash with today.

The thing is that "conservative" isn't a monolithic term. There are at least three separate conservative constituencies. There are security conservatives, who I'll call War Republicans. They did well in Bush's term. There are social conservatives, for whom I don't have a glib moniker. Between the "faith-based charity" initiatives that Bush pushed in his first term and his campaign's support for the same-sex marriage bans on the ballot leading up to November 2004, that group can reasonably say that Bush did well by them. It's the fiscal conservatives who got completely and utterly hosed.

On the flipside: Obama's sudden lurch to a neo-socialist, progressive agenda gave rise to the tea party and a surge in conservative engagement that has led to huge political gains in the legislature and in the states.

I have about three different problems with that statement, but I'm not going to start an argument. Just know that that coughing sound coming from me ain't a cough.

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

You could argue that, but I'm not sure why you think a phony conservative is likely to do more damage to the country than "a conservative's worst nightmare." How many phony conservatives have been elected? Two Republicans since Reagan have won, and they were both Bushes. Where's the evidence that a phony conservative (assuming that appellation applies to the Bushes) was worse than Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry would have been?

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

You haven't HAD decades of RINOs, let alone those capable of undermining the country. Unless this is a tacit admission that the Bush Presidency was much more damaging than a Gore Presidency would have been? Again, I'm not quite sure what the right-wing argument is here.

Of course it also works the other way too. I roll my eyes quite a bit at the Sanders folk who complain that Hillary is a DINO and real liberals are just going to stay home.

I kinda despise the RINO/DINO terms, to be honest. It smacks of ideological purity, the idea that nobody who identifies with a party can ever have regional differences with that party. "I'm a Texan and that Republican from Maine is a commie in disguise!" Uh, no, politics in that part of the country have a different tenor than they do in Dixie. Or did, maybe things are changing.

But I don't like the idea that you have to follow a checklist if you want to call yourself a Republican or a Democrat. That just gives the Kochs and Soros' of the world more power.

Fundamental difference between conservatives and establishment Repubs: Do you stick to principles even when it ticks off the big-money backers (conservative), or do you work to preserve the party and its position of influence from idealistic extremes (establishment)?

conservative ideology is an "idealistic extreme", then? Is that the position you're taking?

Bush's biggest offense was TARP - Screw conservative and constitutional economic principles, we're going to bail out our big-money backers! That was a major reveal.

And it happened at the end of his second term as the economy was in meltdown and there were fears of a second Great Depression. What's the choice, there? The banks get deregulated, you don't do anything about RE-regulating them during your 8 years in office because, gosh, that would be government action and thus clearly not conservative, and when they blow up the system in their greed, you do...what? You let them fail and let the average citizen bear the brunt of the regulation you thought it was unAmerican to re-institute? I mean...yeah, okay, I'm going to go with "idealistic extreme" on that one. Bush reacting to a financial emergency is hardly a sell-out of conservative principles - except maybe the conservative principles that enabled that emergency in the first place.

No Child Left Behind was a major strike, too, because most conservatives don't see justification for federal involvement in public education.

The problem is if you're going to agitate that "our schools suck and need improvement," you need a solution. "Let the states handle it" isn't a solution, because then you end up with 50 different educational systems as some states hand out vouchers like candy for religious education, some states try to build a robust public school system that serves all of the kids, and some states try a bastardized hybrid. Somebody eventually falls behind, and that's a generational thing, as I've said before. When you have five or ten years of failing schools in a state, it'll take you 20 or 30 to recover from that. One could argue that letting the states be the laboratory for education is playing high-stakes poker with the futures of the kids in those states.

On social issues he was hit and miss, sometimes very conservative, sometimes just clueless.

That's about as astute a description of GWB as I've ever read.

[=revrew;3045919]And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

It's not a universally conservative principle, but as I said up-post, there are at least three different poles in the conservative tent. It's not a monolithic entity. You've got War Republicans, Jesus Republicans and Tax Republicans. There is very much a hawk wing of the Republican Party. Even if the hawks don't speak for conservatives as a whole, there are self-professed conservatives who are very much in favor of "warmongering." Ask Jon how he feels about the Middle East sometime. I'm reasonably sure "glass parking lot" will come up in the conversation. He's not alone, and he has enough company that the left can drive that narrative, even if it's only a partial truth.

Agreed. Anyone that thinks they can go to war with him by inciting him is going to end up looking bad. Trump doesn't care if he looks bad and that's honestly a good thing for him.

See, I look at this race, and my thought is that nobody's winning the nomination by taking Trump's support from him, unless he gets a stronger plurality than he's got. Trump, then, is the best general election gift the Republicans have had since Reagan. Ignore him, play as the "adult in the room," and let his supporters gush over him. Take your support from the other candidates, either because you're better than them, or they're too busy chasing Trump to realize how they're shooting themselves in the foot. The candidate who emerges having not played Trump's game is a candidate who doesn't have as much "oh shit" to worry about in the general. At least, not self-inflicted.

[SackAttack]

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Twelfth Amendment says "nope."

The Veep has to be eligible to succeed to the Presidency in the event of incapacitation of the sitting Prez. Arnold isn't eligible to be elected President, and so isn't eligible to be VP.

[cuervo72]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

He should pick the guy from Shark Tank.

[NobodyHere]

Donald Trump and Mark Cuban would make for an interesting ticket...

[cuervo72]

So why is it that when conservatives make up so much more of the GOP primary base than moderates or (ha ha good one) liberals do, that "RINOs" keep getting nominated? Are conservative voters just that bad at identifying "one of us"?

No true Scotsman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

[cuervo72]

Donald Trump and Mark Cuban would make for an interesting ticket...

No no, the bald one. But yes, Congressmen could pitch their ideas to him and he could say yay or nay. It'd be a hell of a way to create the budget.

[panerd]

No no, the bald one. But yes, Congressmen could pitch their ideas to him and he could say yay or nay. It'd be a hell of a way to create the budget.

"Mr Wonderful" Kevin O'Leary. I think he might be Canadian though. The mention of Jessie Ventura though would be fantastic for the VP debates.

[digamma]

This is really bizarre debate coverage/running by Fox.

[NobodyHere]

"Mr Wonderful" Kevin O'Leary. I think he might be Canadian though. The mention of Jessie Ventura though would be fantastic for the VP debates.

I think Ventura has at least 3 problems though:

1) He veers too much into tin foil hat territory. Granted that will give him the anti Jade Helm conspiracy theorists but most people think he's crazy

2) His lawsuit against the estate of the American Sniper guy will get him in water with the pro military crowd.

3) And worst of all is that Ventura made Abraxas.

[NobodyHere]

Well it looks like Fox is trying its hardest to make the debate about Trump.

[Dutch]

Donald Trump and Mark Cuban would make for an interesting ticket...

Or Charles Barkley. :)

[miked]

That screeching sound you hear is the brakes on the Trump machine.

[PilotMan]

I don't know about you guys, but I feel entertained.

[Abe Sargent]

Damn Paul/Christie is fire

[NobodyHere]

Damn Paul/Christie is fire

True Dat


Though I was disappointed with Paul on his last exchange with Trump

[PilotMan]

Cruz, Walker and Carson seem to be falling flat, while Rubio seems to be having a good night.

[SackAttack]

I had to stop watching because I was getting freezes and buffering, but I was impressed with Rubio's intro.

[JPhillips]

I'm seeing Facebook friends that never say anything political falling over themselves to praise Trump.

[PilotMan]

I guess that means Rand supports polygamy then.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Honestly, the biggest thing I took out of this debate is that the Fox personalities have no business running a debate.

Rubio has looked very good and Trump has shown that he's not going to back down to anyone regarding his previous statements (which is great for those people who love him because he doesn't act like a politician).

[JPhillips]

And he quite publicly refused to rule out a third party run. That has to be the scariest moment for the RNC.

[Abe Sargent]

Im moving towards Kasich. I'm interested

[Abe Sargent]

I think Carson would make an interesting Surgeon General

[PilotMan]

Kasich certainly seems to be having a good night.

[cuervo72]

I think Carson would make an interesting Surgeon General

Heh, I was going to suggest that earlier when it was mentioned that someone should take out Trump for the good of the team in exchange for a spot in the administration.

[JonInMiddleGA]

2) His lawsuit against the estate of the American Sniper guy will get him in water with the pro military crowd.


This.

That sumbitch is a non-entity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think Carson would make an interesting Surgeon General

I think he's a very useful guy in some role ... just not president.

Wrong on amnesty, wrong on national security & surveillance. He's too dangerous to let near issues like that. But he's a smart guy & could have value in some role.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And since 99% of you aren't on my facebook, this isn't even a duplicate post.

FWIW, my quick takeaways after hitting the recaps of the debate.

Don't like Christie but happen to see him put Lunatic Jr (aka Paul) in his place. Jeb Bush seems determined to surrender more than the French. Fox surely does seem in attack mode on Trump and, right now, that's looking like a bad play for them. Probably good to take Kelly & Co. down a notch frankly. I'm pro-choice but it isn't a third rail issue for a candidate afaic, but those who make it a centerpiece of their campaign (looking at you Rubio) will lose my interest quickly.

For an FOFC exclusive, I'd figure Trump gets another 5% boost in the next poll(s), Carson gains a little bit. Uncertain about the others.

[lighthousekeeper]

Fox surely does seem in attack mode on Trump

Yeah that was obvious and seemed really weird to me. The debate was not only an opportunity for the candidates, but also an opportunity for Fox News to reach out to a wider audience who wouldn't otherwise watch and potentially gain viewers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah that was obvious and seemed really weird to me. The debate was not only an opportunity for the candidates, but also an opportunity for Fox News to reach out to a wider audience.

They seem determined at this point to cater to a rather curious sub-section, those who are allegedly angry but not really all that angry. When all is said & done, if they maintain the same tone that came across in the recaps at least, they could turn out to be the big losers of the whole election season.

I think perhaps they're falling victim to that old saw about absolute power, if a new network wasn't cost prohibitive for entry they might almost be a bit ripe to be chewed on.

[stevew]

Im moving towards Kasich. I'm interested

I don't like many republicans, but I can't really hate him. But the compassionate conservative won't actually win ever again.

[stevew]

Who's going to be out by October? Looking at some old electoral history shows that a bunch of people drop out by then.

[BishopMVP]

I thought Rubio killed it tonight. Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Carson (and I guess Trump) all appear genuine, but have no chance. Jeb Bush was pretty brutal, but can bounce back.

[Solecismic]

Some thoughts:

The establishment isn't going to like Donald Trump. He isn't going to make a third-party run, but he likes to threaten it because he perceives it as leverage. Trump won in some respects because Fox made the debate about him in the first minute. But he was vague in other respects. He doesn't have detailed policy ideas. He had a Gore "invented the internet" moment over the immigration issue. His caustic response on the women-bashing question was his worst moment. Bashing Megyn Kelly was not smart. So I think overall he did OK because he was the focus of attention and he didn't completely self-combust.

Rand Paul looked awful. He took on Trump and it didn't work. He took on Chris Christie and got handled.

Christie helped himself, but you can't help feeling he's running for president because he can't win any more in New Jersey. The whole John Edwards thing.

Dr. Ben Carson looked like he might be asleep for a long time. I liked him, and maybe being likable is what's important at this stage. But I don't like his lack of experience, even though he seems more clued in on issues than the other political outsider.

John Kasich needs to stop waving his hands around. He stayed safe, but he seems too anxious to prove his conservative credentials.

Ted Cruz did what he had to do he establish himself as the right-wing choice. I can see him gaining.

Everyone says Marco Rubio was very good. I don't agree. I want to see more from him because he's my closest match on the issues web site. He seemed very nervous and in-and-out of campaign commercial mode.

Mike Huckabee did what he always does. He's relaxed and on message. If you haven't seen him before, you'd think, "wow, a real presence." He's just too right-wing to gain traction.

Scott Walker seemed to fumble his message. I think he missed an opportunity to move forward.

Jeb Bush was stronger than I thought he would be. For a while, I thought he would be the big winner tonight. But he is running against his family, too.

I come away from this more certain that Trump has a ceiling and is just flavor-of-the-day. But there's no one that seems inspiring out there. Maybe if Rubio can relax a little more. It's still so early.

[PilotMan]

I honestly think Trump will lose a lot as people see him for who he is. Maybe they were simply ignoring that earlier, but they can't now. Plus he's now doubling down on Megyn Kelly. General public won't care for that either.

[Butter]

Living in Ohio, I wouldn't HATE Kasich. He hasn't done badly in this state. I also have a hard time seeing how it doesn't end up being Jeb Bush. It's kinda like Hillary on the Dem side. Seems like the safest choice, and a legacy name doesn't hurt. Jeb seems like he is somewhere between his dad and W on the ideological scale.

I'm just going to enjoy the inevitable Trump meltdown, whenever it occurs. And it will.

[QuikSand]

Some thoughts:

The establishment isn't going to like Donald Trump. He isn't going to make a third-party run, but he likes to threaten it because he perceives it as leverage. Trump won in some respects because Fox made the debate about him in the first minute. But he was vague in other respects. He doesn't have detailed policy ideas. He had a Gore "invented the internet" moment over the immigration issue. His caustic response on the women-bashing question was his worst moment. Bashing Megyn Kelly was not smart. So I think overall he did OK because he was the focus of attention and he didn't completely self-combust.

Rand Paul looked awful. He took on Trump and it didn't work. He took on Chris Christie and got handled.

Christie helped himself, but you can't help feeling he's running for president because he can't win any more in New Jersey. The whole John Edwards thing.

Dr. Ben Carson looked like he might be asleep for a long time. I liked him, and maybe being likable is what's important at this stage. But I don't like his lack of experience, even though he seems more clued in on issues than the other political outsider.

John Kasich needs to stop waving his hands around. He stayed safe, but he seems too anxious to prove his conservative credentials.

Ted Cruz did what he had to do he establish himself as the right-wing choice. I can see him gaining.

Everyone says Marco Rubio was very good. I don't agree. I want to see more from him because he's my closest match on the issues web site. He seemed very nervous and in-and-out of campaign commercial mode.

Mike Huckabee did what he always does. He's relaxed and on message. If you haven't seen him before, you'd think, "wow, a real presence." He's just too right-wing to gain traction.

Scott Walker seemed to fumble his message. I think he missed an opportunity to move forward.

Jeb Bush was stronger than I thought he would be. For a while, I thought he would be the big winner tonight. But he is running against his family, too.

I come away from this more certain that Trump has a ceiling and is just flavor-of-the-day. But there's no one that seems inspiring out there. Maybe if Rubio can relax a little more. It's still so early.

Agreed on nearly all of this.

I think Rubio accomplished more than you do, though. He's younger and less accomplished than his foes here, and his main goal (I think) had to be to get pat that and sound credible and articulate... just to offer an answer to "why is this guy even running?" (cf Fiorina in the JV event) I'd say he did that, and in doing so without any meaningful gaffe (I'd generally grant your reservations but dismiss them as pretty subtle) I think he may have been among the real winners last night.

I'd also say that I think Rubio was a winner by Walker coming out fairly flat. Not awful, but definitely not exciting.

I thought Kasich had a good debate (though I really wanted him to use a word other than "studying" when talking about his foreign affairs congressional experience) but it's hard to know whether he's got enough kindling there to really make much of it. I guess him making the cut for the big league debate in such short order suggests he does have some appeal and potential.

[digamma]

I think Rubio accomplished more than you do, though. He's younger and less accomplished than his foes here, and his main goal (I think) had to be to get pat that and sound credible and articulate... just to offer an answer to "why is this guy even running?" (cf Fiorina in the JV event) I'd say he did that, and in doing so without any meaningful gaffe (I'd generally grant your reservations but dismiss them as pretty subtle) I think he may have been among the real winners last night.

I'd also say that I think Rubio was a winner by Walker coming out fairly flat. Not awful, but definitely not exciting.

I think if I had been listening to the debate rather than watching, I'd more fully agree with you. Rubio sounded great, but he looked very jittery and unsteady to me, and well, yeah, young.

Walker was the least impressive of the lot to me, and that's saying something.

[JPhillips]

Dr. Ben Carson looked like he might be asleep for a long time. I liked him, and maybe being likable is what's important at this stage. But I don't like his lack of experience, even though he seems more clued in on issues than the other political outsider.



Serious question, how do you square your desire for more civil discussion with Carson? Yesterday he said that secular progressives were purposefully using the debt to destroy America.

[Warhammer]

I can come up with several ways of having a civil discussion with Carson's views. However, it takes two to have a civil discussion, and all it takes is the other side to get hysterical and there goes the civil discussion.

[Warhammer]

I think Kasich will be the one to eventually get the nod. I look at him as an anti-GW, he speaks liberally and governs conservatively vs the other way round.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, the problem is the progressives won't be civil when they're told they're purposefully destroying America.

That's like saying the problem is you got mad when all I wanted to do was have a civil discussion about your mom being a whore.

[Grover]

I think Kasich will be the one to eventually get the nod. I look at him as an anti-GW, he speaks liberally and governs conservatively vs the other way round.

I would vote Kasich over Hillary.

I'm very liberal and a staunch Bernie supporter, but I cannot and will not bring myself to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.

[ISiddiqui]

See, I told you there were those Tea-Party like types on the left that say they wouldn't vote for the moderate option. :)

[Grover]

See, I told you there were those Tea-Party like types on the left that say they wouldn't vote for the moderate option. :)

I don't trust her. Plain and simple.

[molson]

A lot of people don't like Hillary. I think that's partly why there's 17 Republicans running. They know their nominee actually has a chance, which they really shouldn't when you see the trends and the state of the country and economy as Obama's term winds up.

[path12]

I'm pro-choice but it isn't a third rail issue for a candidate afaic, but those who make it a centerpiece of their campaign (looking at you Rubio) will lose my interest quickly.

I legit did not know you were pro-choice. I thought many of your views were faith-based?

[Dutch]

I legit did not know you were pro-choice. I thought many of your views were faith-based?

Ugh, Democrats are not atheists.

[path12]

Ugh, Democrats are not atheists.

I didn't mean it that way, I just thought JimGA was evangelical and was surprised about the pro-choice thing, that's all.

For the record though as a Democrat, I'm Catholic turned agnostic.

[Grover]

Ugh, Democrats are not atheists.

I am! ;)

[Chief Rum]

I can come up with several ways of having a civil discussion with Carson's views. However, it takes two to have a civil discussion, and all it takes is the other side to get hysterical and there goes the civil discussion.

Sounds like some conversations I have had with my last ex-GF.

[Kodos]

Yeah, the problem is the progressives won't be civil when they're told they're purposefully destroying America.

That's like saying the problem is you got mad when all I wanted to do was have a civil discussion about your mom being a whore.

:D

[Coffee Warlord]

Saddens me that pretty much the only pro-privacy / civil liberties candidate completely flopped.

[JPhillips]

Saddens me that pretty much the only pro-privacy / civil liberties candidate completely flopped.

In his attempt to double his support and appeal to both libertarians and mainstream Republicans he's instead not enough of either to get anywhere.

[Solecismic]

Serious question, how do you square your desire for more civil discussion with Carson? Yesterday he said that secular progressives were purposefully using the debt to destroy America.

By liking him, I meant in the sit down and have a beer sense. He's intelligent and accomplished and has an interest in the country.

But his views on many issues mean that out of the 17, he's near the bottom as far as my own voting will go.

He didn't say that Obama was trying to destroy America, though. He said that if he were trying to destroy America, he would adopt many of Obama's policies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I legit did not know you were pro-choice. I thought many of your views were faith-based?

I'm adopted. Given up at birth, adopted around 4 months old give or take (hey, my recollection is a little fuzzy). As I understand the story I was the unexpected bastard product of two divorcees who had mutual rebound encounter that lasted very briefly.

That considerably colors my perception of what becomes a quite personal issue (apparently) irrevocably since my feelings about it have only gotten stronger over the past 20-30 years.

edit: it is not strong enough to be a political third-rail for a candidate with me, but there's no lack of feeling on the subject where I'm concerned either

[JonInMiddleGA]

I am! ;)

Mr Grover, are you Arian Foster in disguise?

;)

[Grover]

Mr Grover, are you Arian Foster in disguise?

;)

I wish.

[stevew]

I would vote Kasich over Hillary.

I'm very liberal and a staunch Bernie supporter, but I cannot and will not bring myself to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, I'm anyone but Hilary too. I'd probably vote for Kasich or Christie, but other than that I'm tossing my vote away for the Greens again.

[Kodos]

Yeah, I'm anyone but Hilary too. I'd probably vote for Kasich or Christie, but other than that I'm tossing my vote away for the Greens again.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rAT_BuJAI70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Solecismic]

Saddens me that pretty much the only pro-privacy / civil liberties candidate completely flopped.

He is his father's son.

Rand Paul came across angry. One of the big goals of the debate is to look and sound presidential. He looked like a firecracker and sounded like my high school history teacher.

It is too bad that the one candidate who presumably could move in a direction that would make libertarian-leaning conservatives happy just isn't likable enough.

But why does that candidate have to come from the Republican side, necessarily? A recent survey indicated 52% of Democrats are happy with a socialist government. Obama has taken us in that direction. Hillary has morphed into a candidate who says she wants to keep us there and Sanders has real socialist credentials.

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?

There's a real opportunity to move to a solid position, from either side. Paul isn't the candidate to do it. Maybe the Democrats can't or are locked into a growing the government model. I was disappointed that Paul is the only one who moved at all in that direction, and he's more an isolationist than I'd like.

[ISiddiqui]

But why does that candidate have to come from the Republican side, necessarily? A recent survey indicated 52% of Democrats are happy with a socialist government. Obama has taken us in that direction. Hillary has morphed into a candidate who says she wants to keep us there and Sanders has real socialist credentials.

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?

Uhhh... most Democrats would strongly disagree that Obama has taken us to socialism. That's the problem you have in reading that poll, I think.

[Chief Rum]

Uhhh... most Democrats would strongly disagree that Obama has taken us to socialism. That's the problem you have in reading that poll, I think.

Imran, you don't know what survey he is talking about, how well that survey was run, how scientific it was, how it defines socialism and what method of identifying Democrats it uses, nor do you offer up how you come to your own characterization of how Dems feel about Obama and socialism in general.

I would ask Solecismic for the survey he was talking about if you want to engage him on that.

I, too, would be interested to see if there is any portion of the Dem side that leans toward a libertarian mindset, although I suspect it is a tiny subset at best and certainly not enough for a Dem candidate to run on and expect to win.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't know the survey he's talking about, but I disagree with the general statement of Democrats thinking Obama is anything close to socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and I'm guessing he got his numbers from here, which merely asks Democrats if they viewed socialism favorably:

Friendly Reminder: 52 Percent Of Democrats View Socialism Favorably - Matt Vespa (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/04/29/friendly-reminder-52-percent-of-democrats-view-socialism-favorably-n1992316)

Nothing in that question (click through to Reason) was about Obama or whether Obama was a socialist.

[Grover]

Anybody who thinks Obama is a socialist needs to get their head checked.

[Chief Rum]

I don't know the survey he's talking about, but I disagree with the general statement of Democrats thinking Obama is anything close to socialism.

You may be right, but there are too many variables in that simple statement to say what the truth of the matter is. Plus, it's not helped that the concept of socialism is regarded with negativity, and many Dems identify themselves through Obama and his policies (less now than originally, I think, but still, Obama has a certain cult of personality appeal even now). So it would take an unusually introspective person to accept linking a negative connotated socialism tag with a politician he/she admires and with whom he/she somewhat establishes his own identity.

Republicans struggle with this and Reagan, I think.

[Chief Rum]

Anybody who thinks Obama is a socialist needs to get their head checked.

See? This kind of knee jerk hostility to the concept is the kind of thing which poisons any such polls.

[Honolulu_Blue]

See? This kind of knee jerk hostility to the concept is the kind of thing which poisons any such polls.

I dunno. That didn't seem all that hostile. I mean, it's really kind of true. Maybe they don't need their head checked, but they do need to go read up on Socialism and Obama's policies at the very least. Because, he's totally not a Socialist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

One thing that impressed my about Trump is that he actually has me liking Megyn Kelly for a tiny little bit here. Impressive!

[Chief Rum]

I dunno. That didn't seem all that hostile. I mean, it's really kind of true. Maybe they don't need their head checked, but they do need to go read up on Socialism and Obama's policies at the very least. Because, he's totally not a Socialist.

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

[albionmoonlight]

It is anything but a representative sample, but my conservative friends and family on facebook are generally coming out at pro Ben Carson this morning. I had not really considered him at all. But maybe when Trump goes away, he'll be the guy to consolidate the religious vote and make a surprise showing in Iowa and South Carolina before giving way to Bush/Walker/Rubio.

Or maybe I am facebook friends with a self-selected group of Carson fans.

[Solecismic]

When I say Obama has moved us in that direction, I'm referring to processes like government control over health insurance, increased regulation of industry, that type of thing.

We're not a purely socialist country by any means. We're just experiencing a massive increase in the size of our government and the philosophy of our government, which is an important step toward pure socialism.

As we continue to set records in terms of low labor force participation and high debt, that type of movement is a big concern.

I know it can be upsetting to see viewpoints you don't agree with. I'd still prefer that both of these primary threads remain free of hostility.

[Chief Rum]

I know it can be upsetting to see viewpoints you don't agree with. I'd still prefer that both of these primary threads remain free of hostility.

Personally, I think it has been pretty civil, which is nice for once.

[Warhammer]

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.

Now we may not be too far in that direction, but once the wall is broken, it is much easier to move that direction. Now there are a lot more opportunities for the government to interfere in our lives, all in the name of the public good.

[Honolulu_Blue]

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

Note to self: Remember to tell CR to have his "head checked" next time he thinks the Ducks are going to win a Game 7 on home ice.

[ISiddiqui]

To me, saying someone needs to get their head checked qualifies as at least somewhat hostile to the concept.

Any different than saying someone is ridiculous when they make the comparison? Obama is as socialist as George W. Bush was fascist.

[ISiddiqui]

When I say Obama has moved us in that direction, I'm referring to processes like government control over health insurance, increased regulation of industry, that type of thing.

I think that's a bit silly. It's like saying someone who has cut taxes has moved us in a libertarian direction. Maybe in some weird vague grand scheme of things where you only have 2 directions or something...

[Grover]

You can take my comment as hostile if you'd like, and I certainly didn't mean it that way, but people who call Obama a socialist have no idea what a socialist truly is.

Sure, some of his policies have moved the country in that direction, some I agree with, some I don't. But like ISqiddiqui said above, he's as much of a Socialist as George was a Fascist.

If we had a single payer healthcare system, I'd say the government has control of it. The only control they really have is the mandate that we have it. The private insurance monsters have the rest of us by the balls because we have to buy their product.

In a previous political climate (20 years ago), Obama is center-right more than anything. Everything has gone to such extremes (both left and right) since 9/11 and especially since 2008 that even a moderate is labeled something they don't fit by the other side.

No country is going to be successful without a mix of both capitalism and socialism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The only control they really have is the mandate that we have it.

And that's far far too much socialism.

I'll be honest -- not blatantly hostile, just honest -- those who proclaiming the non-socialistic tendencies of the current occupant of the WH remind me a lot of Dan Rather's claim that he was some sort of centrist. You're bent so far left that you've lost touch with what center even looks like.

[lighthousekeeper]

all in the name of the public good.

ew gross

[ISiddiqui]

I'll be honest -- not blatantly hostile, just honest -- those who proclaiming the non-socialistic tendencies of the current occupant of the WH remind me a lot of Dan Rather's claim that he was some sort of centrist. You're bent so far left that you've lost touch with what center even looks like.

Since he won both Presidential elections he's been in quite easily, I guess the center is socialist now ;).

[cartman]

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.


How so? The definition of socialism is when the government controls the production and distribution of a product in a market. The hospitals aren't owned by the government, and medical professionals are not federal employees. Yes, because of the ACA more people became eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, but many more became customers of private insurers. If there was a move to single payer, then there is a case to be made for a strong move towards socialism.

[albionmoonlight]

The ACA is more conservative than health care reform proposed by Nixon, and it is seen as liberal.

Gay marriage is legal across the country, and that is seen as moderate.

In general, I would argue that we've gotten more conservative economically and more liberal socially over the last 40 or so years. But there are individual exceptions even to that.

Basically, ISiddiqui is right. There are more than 2 directions to go. In some ways, we've gotten more left. In some ways, more right. And in others, stayed the same. It all depends on what you look at.

[cuervo72]

How so? The definition of socialism is when the government controls the production and distribution of a product in a market. The hospitals aren't owned by the government, and medical professionals are not federal employees. Yes, because of the ACA more people became eligible for Medicare/Medicaid, but many more became customers of private insurers. If there was a move to single payer, then there is a case to be made for a strong move towards socialism.

I think to some socialism is any cooperation that goes against the idea of every man, woman, and child for themself.

[Chief Rum]

Note to self: Remember to tell CR to have his "head checked" next time he thinks the Ducks are going to win a Game 7 on home ice.

Haha I wouldn't regard that as a hostile opinion, but an unfortunate statement of fact based on past results.

[Chief Rum]

Any different than saying someone is ridiculous when they make the comparison? Obama is as socialist as George W. Bush was fascist.

The comparison of Obama to a socialist? Not sure I get you here. I don't see anyone who even used the term ridiculous on this page at least before you did here.

I would say, though, that your last statement is a rather over-reaching comparison. Socialism as a term has negative connotations for most Americans, but it's not the level of fascism, which most of the world pretty much equates with evil. I would say Bush was quite a good deal further away from fascism than Obama is from socialism, but that's more about the fact that you chose such a loaded extreme example as fascism as it is anything to do with Bush and Obama.

[Chief Rum]

For the record, when I refer to hostility, I am not talking about hostility between posters here (I think we're all doing just fine), but hostility toward the concept of socialism.

The posts I see from ISsidiqui and Grover about socialism as it relates to Obama's policies suggest to me a hostility to the concept of socialism and any possibility that Obama (Dem white knight) could be associated with it.

Personally, I would need a clear definition of socialism before I would make that call. They're both probably right that Obama is nowhere near the level of some our more socialist European leaders, but I also think it is foolish to not see that Obamacare is a massive step toward socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

The comparison of Obama to a socialist? Not sure I get you here. I don't see anyone who even used the term ridiculous on this page at least before you did here.

Yes. Calling someone ridiculous for a view is just as "hostile" as saying someone needs to get their head checked. People have said views are ridiculous all up and down this site and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it.

I would say, though, that your last statement is a rather over-reaching comparison. Socialism as a term has negative connotations for most Americans, but it's not the level of fascism, which most of the world pretty much equates with evil. I would say Bush was quite a good deal further away from fascism than Obama is from socialism, but that's more about the fact that you chose such a loaded extreme example as fascism as it is anything to do with Bush and Obama.

I find it interesting that fascism is considered loaded and extreme though socialism is not... ;). Socialism has definitely had that connotation in this country, though it seems like it may be changing. I think that the creation of a mass surveillance state and approving torture could be "moving the direction" of fascism, no?

Or maybe, just maybe there is a massive overreach by saying Obama is moving in the direction of socialism? ;)

[cartman]

Personally, I would need a clear definition of socialism before I would make that call. They're both probably right that Obama is nowhere near the level of some our more socialist European leaders, but I also think it is foolish to not see that Obamacare is a massive step toward socialism.

So which definition are you using?

[Arles]

My hope is that either Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination and goes against a Dem not named Hillary. At that point, I may actually have a decision to make on my vote. Worst case would be Hillary vs. Ted Cruz/Huckabee. With that matchup, I may even hold my nose and vote for Trump if he ran as a 3rd party guy :eek: Nah, I'd probably just not vote :D

[ISiddiqui]

So which definition are you using?

:D

[ISiddiqui]

My hope is that either Rubio or Kasich wins the nomination and goes against a Dem not named Hillary.

My worst nightmare, really. Kasich vs. Sanders would likely make me vote Kasich, tbh. Thought I think I'd vote Sanders over Rubio... O'Malley or Webb would just be ghastly Dem choices.

[Solecismic]

I don't want to belabor this or try and tell other posters what they think rather than letting them think for themselves, but there are definite steps toward socialism (a government-run economy replacing private business).

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

The whole "you didn't build that" train of thought is another important step, in my opinion.

Some of the popular themes in the '60s and '70s was certainly more along the lines of socialism than what's mainstream in the Democratic Party today. Was that mainstream then? Doubtful. Because our percentage of entitlement spending versus GDP is higher today than ever before.

You can go back to huge conflicts related to Woodrow Wilson and the buildup to World War I if you want to look at socialist ideology and popular discussion. These aren't new ideas.

I see the ideological scale as more a circle than a right/left. The further you get to one side, the closer you get to the other side. Fascism, to me, is both further to the right than anything we've seen in America's history and further to the left than socialism.

If you feel the need to argue by name-calling, please take a couple of weeks away from this thread instead.

[Arles]

I honestly need to wait until October to start forming opinions on the democrats. Outside of Hillary and Sanders, I don't know much about the pool.

[ISiddiqui]

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

Heavy regulation and leaving the means of production to private companies has always been seen as "Third Way" politics - meaning a different path rather than just capitalism or socialism. It's a blend of each, which doesn't mean you are moving towards one or the other.

The ACA is nothing other than third way health care. The means of production are firmly in private hands. Working under heavy governmental regulation is merely a part of public-private partnership, which is neither capitalist or socialist. It's German, I guess (they go even farther, with works councils and whatnot), but no one thinks the Germans are more socialist than, say, the French.

I mean there is a reason that left wing Dems and socialists can't stand Bill Clinton's presidency and keep dumping on him these days - he was a third way guy.

[JPhillips]

Obama has moved us in a socialist direction. Heck, ObamaCare alone is a huge step in that direction.

Now we may not be too far in that direction, but once the wall is broken, it is much easier to move that direction. Now there are a lot more opportunities for the government to interfere in our lives, all in the name of the public good.

Well hell if you want to look at it like that public education began the slide to socialism.

[ISiddiqui]

I sometimes wonder if people would call President Eisenhower socialist for spending so much money on the Interstate Highway System.

--

So I was seeing that people are talking about how well Fiorina did in the loser debate. Any chance she can climb into the Top 10? Are they going to do that whole 10 is it thing for future debates?

[cartman]

I don't want to belabor this or try and tell other posters what they think rather than letting them think for themselves, but there are definite steps toward socialism (a government-run economy replacing private business).

One of those steps, and it seems clear to me, is heavy regulation and consolidation of insurance companies as a middle-man between people and the health-care industry.

Just curious, how is it clear that is a move to socialism? Regulations are not a component of the definition of socialism. There is quite a bit of consolidation that occurs frequently across many industries, but unless the government privatizes the industry, the insurers are privately owned. Like I mentioned earlier, if there was a move to single payer, then that is socialism. If all hospitals became government owned and caregivers became federal employees, then that is socialism. There hasn't been anything like that occurring.

It seems like people want to latch on to the term as a perjorative for things they don't like, instead of the true meaning of the word. It goes back to when the ACA was first implemented, that it amounted to the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, when that simply isn't the case. Just because the government is involved in something, doesn't mean that they have taken it over.

[JPhillips]

What about the other 48%? Where is the Democrat who wants a smaller government and leans libertarian?


There's plenty of social libertarianism in the Dem party, but the GOP strain of lib is far more concerned with economic libertarianism to join forces.

As to why the Dems aren't advocating for smaller government, it's because one party is committed to that above everything else, so anyone that sees that as a dominant issue votes Republican.

[sabotai]

Donald Trump's reaction today to the debate last night and the questions he had to answer.

Trump's reaction (https://youtu.be/qS7nqwGt4-I)

[JPhillips]

I sometimes wonder if people would call President Eisenhower socialist for spending so much money on the Interstate Highway System.

--

So I was seeing that people are talking about how well Fiorina did in the loser debate. Any chance she can climb into the Top 10? Are they going to do that whole 10 is it thing for future debates?

I'm still upset that socialism led to D-Day.

[cartman]

Dola,

I also find it amusing that the people that are most adverse to the term 'socialism' are also likely to be big supporters of the military, when the Department of Defense is one of the biggest examples of socialism in the US today. Military bases? Owned by the government. Soldiers and military personnel? Government employees. Military equipment? Government property.

[JPhillips]

Apparently Christie fibbed a bit on his Sept 10, 2001 appointment line. It isn't a big deal, but why would you lie about something so easy to fact check?

[sabotai]

Apparently Christie fibbed a bit on his Sept 10, 2001 appointment line. It isn't a big deal, but why would you lie about something so easy to fact check?

The same reason the scorpion stung the frog.

[cuervo72]

TR, America's great socialist.

[molson]

Looking at a NY Times article from the time of the appointment, I think Christie was told get was getting the job right before 9/11, perhaps on 9/10, but things kind of hit the fan and it didn't become official until months later.

[Chief Rum]

Yes. Calling someone ridiculous for a view is just as "hostile" as saying someone needs to get their head checked. People have said views are ridiculous all up and down this site and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it.

But who said that? I certainly didn't.



I find it interesting that fascism is considered loaded and extreme though socialism is not... ;). Socialism has definitely had that connotation in this country, though it seems like it may be changing. I think that the creation of a mass surveillance state and approving torture could be "moving the direction" of fascism, no?

Or maybe, just maybe there is a massive overreach by saying Obama is moving in the direction of socialism? ;)

Maybe 50 years ago, socialism is on the same level as fascism. I think we moved away from equating those two a long, long time ago. So, yes, putting the two on the same plane, IMO, is a massive overreach on your part (and basically invalidating any comparison as apples/oranges).

[Chief Rum]

So which definition are you using?

Yours above is a fair approximation, but I never had a strict definition in mind, just the general concept of the state providing for social and economic products/services at the cost of either having public control or massively taxing to provide same.

Universal health care is definitely a step toward that from where this country has generally been in its history.

[Solecismic]

Just curious, how is it clear that is a move to socialism? Regulations are not a component of the definition of socialism. There is quite a bit of consolidation that occurs frequently across many industries, but unless the government privatizes the industry, the insurers are privately owned. Like I mentioned earlier, if there was a move to single payer, then that is socialism. If all hospitals became government owned and caregivers became federal employees, then that is socialism. There hasn't been anything like that occurring.

It seems like people want to latch on to the term as a perjorative for things they don't like, instead of the true meaning of the word. It goes back to when the ACA was first implemented, that it amounted to the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, when that simply isn't the case. Just because the government is involved in something, doesn't mean that they have taken it over.

( Step_toward != fait_accompli )

We can continue assuming the opposite as a straw man if you like, but it's not something I'm terribly interested in arguing.

We can also argue whether infrastructure, schools, health care and military are all necessary and how best to accomplish them. Technically, having roads and a military is a good example of a step toward socialism (from people taking up arms and renting earth-movers themselves). In fact, I really hate it when politicians talk about privatizing the roads in order to raise more tax revenue.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to argue everything as equivalent in terms of meeting a theoretical goal. Not all ideas that move us toward socialism are bad ideas. But some are, IMO.

I think of theory as often too simplistic. I prefer single-payer to Obamacare, but I also prefer nothing to Obamacare. And I might prefer making all health-care workers state employees to single-payer. But I really don't want to go there.

I see Obamacare basically as the lobby for giant health insurance corporations suddenly winning the lottery. Which, of course, is also too simplistic. Getting people the health care they need and deciding how health care workers should be compensated for their training and expertise is an enormously complex issue.

Forcing people to purchase this health insurance is a move in the direction of socialism. That's all. Nothing pejorative intended with that characterization. But it's a move I oppose.

And the "you didn't build that" mentality is a mentality I oppose. Not on the pure theory behind the statement, because it's easy to argue that without our collective infrastructure and military and schools, it's hard to build anything. But because reminding us seems like an attack on the entrepreneurial spirit that also helped build this country.