2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Seriously, Jeb Bush's campaign is like an episode of "Veep".

It's interesting, because I remember thinking that if we had to get a Bush, why couldn't we get a competent one like Jeb instead of Dubya. And now it makes sense. I have no doubts that Jeb is smarter, but George is a much better politician.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Arguably not any worse than Bush people failing to secure the JebBush.com domain.

It's bad, don't get me wrong, a creative director in charge of approving the images ought to be on the unemployment line by sundown for this gaffe ... but the Bush screwup is funnier.

Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but I assume that it's this?

Jeb Bush on Twitter: "America. https://t.co/TeduJkwQF3"

[mckerney]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Took me a while to figure out what you were talking about, but I assume that it's this?

I'm guessing it wasn't actually MY comment that you couldn't figure out (but rather the one that followed about the don't clap line) buuuuut just in case

The story has actually been around for a couple of months apparently but gained momentum in the past 24 hours or so
Jebbush.com redirects viewers to Donald Trump website - Washington Times

And here's the "please clap" line/item
Jeb Bush to unimpressed New Hampshire crowd: ‘Please clap’ - Politics - Boston.com

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

The domain thing isn't something that Jen necessarily had control over. I'm sure the domain was already owned. And he couldn't just force someone to sell it to him. Trump may have just had deeper pockets to secure the domain from a 3rd party, or the person who owned it may have been a Trump fan. If I had the fortune of already owning that domain, I'd be asking six figures for it (or 7 figures of the buyer was Trump)

It was previously owned, but he declined to buy it for the $250k asking price.
'Hillary' websites going for up to $295K - Apr. 6, 2015

[Easy Mac]

Political ads are insane in South Carolina right now. Had HGTV on in the background yesterday. Literally, the entire commercial break was an anti-Trump ad on a loop, just 5 consecutive times, the same ad.

[albionmoonlight]

With the normal Nate Silver caveats about this being one poll, etc, etc, etc.: National (US) Poll - February 17, 2016 - Trump Surges To 2-1 Lead Among | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Trump at 39% seems like a really big deal. The general Trump-won't-win cases I am reading all flow from the same core belief that his support within the GOP is capped at 25-30%. And, though the think pieces all take different routes to get there, the overall premise ends up being that everyone else drops out, and then whoever is left consolidates the 70-75% of the anti-Trump vote and wins the nomination.

That all goes away if Trump starts getting 40%+ of the support.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And, though the think pieces all take different routes to get there, the overall premise ends up being that everyone else drops out, and then whomever is left consolidates the 60-75% of the anti-Trump vote and wins the nomination.

That all goes away if Trump starts getting 40%+ of the support.

It seems to rely on the presumption that those votes remain to consolidate rather than simply going away. More than ever, the vibe I'm getting is that won't be the case ... no matter who the nominee(s) is/are.

[QuikSand]

Nikki Haley endorses Marco Rubio. Seems like that really could matter.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Nikki Haley endorses Marco Rubio. Seems like that really could matter.

Tim Scott has endorsed him as well-we'll see if it helps him with the African-American and women voters in the state

[dave731]

Rubio just standing there letting Haley talk is his best shot at coming in second. She could be his Paul Heyman...

[Thomkal]

Let's see if the Pope can derail the insanity that is Donald Trump

Log In - The New York Times

[larrymcg421]

My thinking is that a war with the Pope can only help Donald Trump in the primary, given the pope's general liberal perception these days.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, huge risk what with all those Catholics in the South...

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My thinking is that a war with the Pope can only help Donald Trump in the primary, given the pope's general liberal perception these days.

well he is a bleeding heart.

[albionmoonlight]

What do you do when the governor endorses your opponent? Pick a fight with the Pope!

The man understands the media.

[albionmoonlight]

You can almost see Rubio's media people calling the local stations "Um, so our guy just got endorsed by the state's leading elected official. Can you, like, mention it or something?"

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My thinking is that a war with the Pope can only help Donald Trump in the primary, given the pope's general liberal perception these days.

In some demographics. Trump wins with Ron Paul's voters and he wins with Rick Santorum's voters. That's an odd combination.

Maybe this will be a wake-up call for many on the religious right. The Pope said his positions weren't Christian.

My guess is that this will only fire up those who are already fired up, and are already inclined to think of the Pope as a political figure rather than a spiritual leader.

However, Santorum is Catholic. That side of Trump's support will either like this or hate this. Given that these voters are likely already to support Trump, I can't see this helping at all.

In the end, it probably does nothing but increase the number of people who are ABT or will simply sit this one out if Trump wins the nomination. It will not affect South Carolina.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My thinking is that a war with the Pope can only help Donald Trump in the primary, given the pope's general liberal perception these days.

Do you think Catholics might not vote for him now?

[ISiddiqui]

I think they'd be more inclined to vote for Rubio, who is Catholic himself.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Maybe this will be a wake-up call for many on the religious right. The Pope said his positions weren't Christian.

I'd argue that anyone on the religious right who didn't already realize this probably should have dropped the "religious" part of the moniker a couple decades ago.

Than again, I feel the same way about Ted Cruz.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My thinking is that a war with the Pope can only help Donald Trump in the primary, given the pope's general liberal perception these days.

I'd say you're absolutely spot on. It's been one of the best reasons to vote for Trump I've seen in quite a while.

The current occupant of the pointy hat is, apparently, utterly & completely batshit nuts. Regardless of his sanity, he appears to be far more interested in promoting socialism than anything to do with Christianity. This most definitely does at least as much to help Trump as hurt him.

[larrymcg421]

It will definitely hurt Trump with moderate Catholics in swing states for the general election. It may even kill whatever small chance he did have in the general (which I think was already close to zero).

But I don't think a Catholic who is already supporting Trump will be affected by this, since they probably have very conservative immigration views. Kinda like how northeastern Catholics vote for pro-choice liberals.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Drake

I'd argue that anyone on the religious right who didn't already realize this probably should have dropped the "religious" part of the moniker a couple decades ago.

Than again, I feel the same way about Ted Cruz.

But Trump tries to play the religious game. I'd argue that, despite the maverick outsider non-politician persona, he's the biggest pander-bear among the Republicans.

Romney lost four years ago because the religious right didn't turn out. Why? Probably because he didn't try to play the religious game. Also probably a smart move given he's a Mormon and he couldn't play it right without seeming like a hypocrite.

Things are lining up badly for the Republicans. This is the right time for a Romney. I don't think Trump can win the general at all, though it would be entertaining seeing the two angry populists debating each other (I'd vote for a Palin/O'Malley ticket ahead of either one of them).

I know Rubio's the candidate who scares the Democrats, but they said the same thing about John Edwards and the Republicans, and what they both seem to share is the more you listen to them, the less you trust them.

For me, Rubio has that backpfeifengesicht thing we're all talking about. Though the idea of wanting to punch someone because of his face bugs me. I keep wanting to hear Rubio out, it just isn't working for me.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

If Jesus were around today, I shudder to think what you'd call him.

Well it darned sure wouldn't be Pope Nutjob.

And before anyone gets their religious panties wadded up I'll just make this clear: his concentration on being a political figure has removed any & all restraint about treating him as such. He's about as much a religious leader as I am a soup spoon.

[ISiddiqui]

Jesus was a political figure as well... why do you think the Romans had Him killed?

[EagleFan]

Can someone explain to me how Ted Cruz ever got elected to his position? I want to punch him every time I hear him talk. He is like that whiny obnoxious kid in school that would never shut up.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Can someone explain to me how Ted Cruz ever got elected to his position? I want to punch him every time I hear him talk. He is like that whiny obnoxious kid in school that would never shut up.

Tea Party helped him get the nomination, and the Dems spent no money in the general election. If they knew Cruz was gonna be the nominee, they probably would've recruited a better candidate (Castro?).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Tea Party helped him get the nomination, and the Dems spent no money in the general election. If they knew Cruz was gonna be the nominee, they probably would've recruited a better candidate (Castro?).

It was a bit of a surprise. The former Lt. Gov., David Dewhurst, won 44% of the vote in the primary, getting 150k more votes than Cruz. But since he didn't get 50%, it went to a runoff. The runoff election went 56-43 in favor of Cruz, with Cruz getting the 150k vote margin. Their vote totals were near mirror images of each other between the primary and the runoff.

United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Things are lining up badly for the Republicans. This is the right time for a Romney.

Jim, what would you put the odds of Romney getting the nomination at? <1%. To me, it feels like he might be between 1-3%. If we get a contested convention and there's anything like a deadlock, I could see Romney (who clearly wants the job) coming in as the outsider to break the stalemate. He has the experience to jump in late, the money to help fund a campaign, and he would then get a lot of the Super PAC money to come in behind him.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Jesus was a political figure as well... why do you think the Romans had Him killed?

Because they were manipulated by teh Jews!!!!!!!!

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jim, what would you put the odds of Romney getting the nomination at? <1%. To me, it feels like he might be between 1-3%. If we get a contested convention and there's anything like a deadlock, I could see Romney (who clearly wants the job) coming in as the outsider to break the stalemate. He has the experience to jump in late, the money to help fund a campaign, and he would then get a lot of the Super PAC money to come in behind him.

I think <.1% because that scenario means a 100% chance of a Trump third party run.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Because they were manipulated by teh Jews!!!!!!!!

Didn't know Mel Gibson posted here....

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well it darned sure wouldn't be Pope Nutjob.

And before anyone gets their religious panties wadded up I'll just make this clear: his concentration on being a political figure has removed any & all restraint about treating him as such. He's about as much a religious leader as I am a soup spoon.

If you read the Gospels, they are much closer to Socialist or even Communist in outlook than they are Capitalist. That said, the poor have the responsibility to improve themselves and not be a burden to the rest of society.

Pope Francis may be misguided regarding politics, but he is spot on regarding his outlook on religious matters. Jesus did not hang out with the Sanhedrin or the Pharisees, he hung out with the outcasts of society.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Jim, what would you put the odds of Romney getting the nomination at? <1%. To me, it feels like he might be between 1-3%. If we get a contested convention and there's anything like a deadlock, I could see Romney (who clearly wants the job) coming in as the outsider to break the stalemate. He has the experience to jump in late, the money to help fund a campaign, and he would then get a lot of the Super PAC money to come in behind him.

The "establishment" would settle for any candidate other than Cruz or Trump. Most likely, Bush will drop out on Monday and Kasich will after the SEC primary. That will establish Rubio as the establishment candidate. There's no reason for Trump, Rubio and Cruz not to go to the convention.

The odds of a brokered convention are still small, but relevant (maybe 20%?). What then? If Trump has the plurality, then Cruz is likely in a king-maker role, but he knows if he doesn't pick Trump, then that's pretty much waving a red cape in front of Trump and telling him to run as a third party. So, given Cruz hates the establishment maybe as much as Trump does... it seems possible to me that if Trump can get to about 35-40% of the delegates needed, and if they can somehow avoid killing each other in the next three months, Cruz will make some sort of deal with Trump.

On Trump's end, he craves acceptance, flattery, most importantly legitimacy. He has every reason to deal, and in whatever way Cruz would prefer (VP role, platform, you name it). He has no reason, unless Cruz wounds his precious ego, not to embrace it whole-heartedly.

Romney stayed out because the C.W. said there are 17 candidates, and most are relatively high quality. But the higher quality candidates couldn't gain traction and Rubio is proving to be more flawed than people realized. It's just too late to add someone new to the primary process - and Biden is likely staying out for the same reason on the other side.

So, it's not going to happen unless there's a brokered convention without that kind of a deal, and some sort of agreement is made to get Trump behind a consensus candidate. Could that be Romney? I guess it's possible, but I think it's more likely Paul Ryan, and Trump has to get something out of it - not sure exactly what. I'd personally hope for Ambassador to Mexico.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If you read the Gospels, they are much closer to Socialist or even Communist in outlook than they are Capitalist. That said, the poor have the responsibility to improve themselves and not be a burden to the rest of society.

The difference I see is Jesus wanted you to help and serve others yourself as opposed to telling everyone to hand over what they had to the government (or even Himself) so it could be properly redistributed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by heybrad

The difference I see is Jesus wanted you to help and serve others yourself as opposed to telling everyone to hand over what they had to the government (or even Himself) so it could be properly redistributed.

But Jesus basically created a commune - a semi-governmental organization. The early Church was definitely organized in a commune style, where everyone had to give their entire wealth to the community to be distributed to those in need. Ananias and Sapphira were struck down for not giving everything.

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[cartman]

He also was reported as saying "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

[NobodyHere]

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24

[digamma]

I yell at the poor people I see on my drive home every night...."Improve yourself, poor people. Do your duty. It's your responsibility. Improve now!"

[Solecismic]

From a philosophical perspective, the safety nets we already have in place seem to be at a much higher level than our perceptions of life for the poor 2,000 years ago. And the rich may be evil people, but that's on them. Coveting, however, is so frowned upon someone made it a Commandment.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

From a philosophical perspective

I would argue that the proper way to view the Gospels is from a theological perspective, not a philosophical perspective.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

But Jesus basically created a commune - a semi-governmental organization. The early Church was definitely organized in a commune style, where everyone had to give their entire wealth to the community to be distributed to those in need. Ananias and Sapphira were struck down for not giving everything.

Ananias and Sapphira - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To be correct, they were struck down for lying that they had given everything, not that they merely hadn't given everything.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But Trump tries to play the religious game. I'd argue that, despite the maverick outsider non-politician persona, he's the biggest pander-bear among the Republicans.

I'd agree with this completely. Trump doesn't bother me because he's so clearly pandering -- and the elements of the religious right that find him appealing can't honestly believe that it's their religious side he's appealing to. He appeals to the angry side of their lost American nostalgia that inevitably gets confused with their religious comfort food in a way that leads them to believe all of those ahistorical fantasies were of a piece.

That's why I find Cruz even more disturbing...because he's a True Believer(tm). He thinks he *is* modeling Jesus, when all I see from him is the sneering face of Evangelical Jihadism.

(FWIW, all the flack that Trump caught for the "Two Corinthians" debacle at Liberty University struck me as a bit parochial...given that most of the British and Australian Christians I've known over the years thought it was odd that we called it "Second Corinthians". I don't think Trump has a Christian instinct in his body...but I'd vote for him thirty times in Chicago before I voted for Cruz. Which is all a bit of a red herring, because I'm a democrat-leaning independent. But I'm also an evangelical in the Midwest, so it's not much of a lean.)

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

To be correct, they were struck down for lying that they had given everything, not that they merely hadn't given everything.

Though the reason they lied was, of course..

(from the same wiki)

Acts chapter 4:32 closes by stating that the first followers of Jesus did not consider their possessions to be their own but rather held in common, in order to use what they had on behalf of those in want.

Acts 4:32 NIV: "All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had."

[vex]

Originally Posted by Drake

(FWIW, all the flack that Trump caught for the "Two Corinthians" debacle at Liberty University struck me as a bit parochial...given that most of the British and Australian Christians I've known over the years thought it was odd that we called it "Second Corinthians". I don't think Trump has a Christian instinct in his body...but I'd vote for him thirty times in Chicago before I voted for Cruz. Which is all a bit of a red herring, because I'm a democrat-leaning independent. But I'm also an evangelical in the Midwest, so it's not much of a lean.)

I don't think he took enough heat for that, actually.

[Drake]

In some ways, I wonder if that wasn't actually a calculated stroke.

I mean, Trump isn't an idiot, and he's lived in the public eye for too long to know that he's not going to convince evangelical voters that he's one of the tribe on merit. I think he's also too smart to know that "Two Corinthians" isn't the way it's pronounced in America generally. One of his advisors would have known so, at the very least.

And yet he said it. He said it on a stage where he knows he doesn't have any evangelical bona fides. It almost amounts to meta-pandering. I *see* you seeing me pandering to you. So let's just flat acknowledge that and move on to other points we have in common. I'm Donald Trump, I want your vote, and I'm going to pander to you so obviously that it's a wink-and-nudge form of honesty.

I'm not sure a career politician could pull off something that cheeky, but a seasoned entertainer (which Trump is at this point, just as much as he's a businessman) can.

There's nothing to be gained by trying to fight Cruz and/or Rubio on this piece of ground...so my take is that Trump cedes it in a way that's almost charming for its obvious clumsiness.

[JPhillips]

WTF is up with Cruz promising to ban gluten free MREs so as to fight political correctness?

[Drake]

Gluten is the devil's sex juice. It's in 2 Corinthians.

[EagleFan]

Who really cares that he said 2 Corinthians?