2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[QuikSand]

Libertarians... your answer has arrived.

John McAfee: 'I'll have no problem' winning 2016 election | TheHill

You simply cannot make this shit up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Would that spell the end of the GOP if they performed that coup?
Im thinking the anti-establishment votes are not going to just Trump, but Cruz as well.
If the party pushed Rubio in, Im thinking bad things would happen.

In all seriousness, is the party -- as we know it from let's say the "Revolution" since -- not basically finished at this point?

I don't see everybody staying if Trump wins, I don't remotely see a large chunk of the more enthusiastic Trump supporters ever really coming back.

The pool of "Independents" grows after this cycle no matter who wins what.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In all seriousness, is the party -- as we know it from let's say the "Revolution" since -- not basically finished at this point?

I don't see everybody staying if Trump wins, I don't remotely see a large chunk of the more enthusiastic Trump supporters ever really coming back.

The pool of "Independents" grows after this cycle no matter who wins what.

I was going to post something along these lines exactly. A Trump win in the general might be the only thing that can keep the Republican Party as we know it together. A lot of sins can be overlooked if he wins them back the WH. Other than that, I don't see it ending well.

[corbes]

What exactly is Romney announcing tomorrow?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by corbes

What exactly is Romney announcing tomorrow?

He probably doesn't know yet. Waiting to see which way the wind blows before deciding.

[Thomkal]

Even Fox News is giving up on Rubio:

Report: Fox News 'finished with Rubio' | TheHill

[Thomkal]

I guess God didn't want Carson to be President after all.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Libertarians... your answer has arrived.

John McAfee: 'I'll have no problem' winning 2016 election | TheHill

You simply cannot make this shit up.

A McAfee Trump debate would be fantastic. I'm pretty sure it would end with a duel.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by corbes

What exactly is Romney announcing tomorrow?

He's creating a new fried chicken fast food franchise.

[larrymcg421]

I hope he's announcing his candidacy tomorrow, just to add more craziness to this primary season.

[cuervo72]

I didn't know that McAfee was even allowed in the country anymore.

[EagleFan]

A vote for Trump in the primary is a vote for Hillary in the general election. Trump supporters can't understand that.

Basic order of acceptable candidates...

Kasich
...
Rubio
...
...
...
...
Hillary/Cruz (I would be torn on this one)
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Random vote in name
...
...
...
...
(descend to the depths of hell)
Trump
...
...
(descend below the depths of hell to infinity)
Sanders

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

A vote for Trump in the primary is a vote for Hillary in the general election. Trump supporters can't understand that.

I'd say you're confusing "can't understand" with "aren't yet willing to concede the country is that misguided, that stupid, that utterly worthless, not after 8 years of the current administration"

I'm not known as an optimist -- hell, not many people have a lower opinion of the 'average american' than me -- but if I'm at "there's a chance for a win" then imagine the hope that even vaguely optimistic backers have.

[EagleFan]

Trump won't beat Hillary so how is voting for him in the primary a good move?

He is worse than a career politician.

[molson]

I keep reading on facebook and reddit that a vote for Clinton is a vote for Trump. I don't think there's any guarantees about what the mood of the electorate will be in November. Eight months ago, not a lot of people thought Trump would get this far.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Trump won't beat Hillary so how is voting for him in the primary a good move?

I simply don't believe that's a given. I don't give any non-D candidate better than a 49% chance anyway, I think the country is too far in the toilet & likely only has circling the bowl left for it to happen frankly.

But there are too many variables in play, given the turnout issues that both leading candidates could face, for this to be the absolutely slamdunk that so many -- especially from the left & pseudo-right -- like to portray.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by molson

I keep reading on facebook and reddit that a vote for Clinton is a vote for Trump.

I guess its not too much of a surprise given Reddit's demographics, but holy shit I am so tired of reading Reddit's collective feelings about Bernie Sanders, savior of the world. I say this as someone who will likely vote for him in the NC Primary.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I simply don't believe that's a given. I don't give any non-D candidate better than a 49% chance anyway, I think the country is too far in the toilet & likely only has circling the bowl left for it to happen frankly.

But there are too many variables in play, given the turnout issues that both leading candidates could face, for this to be the absolutely slamdunk that so many -- especially from the left & pseudo-right -- like to portray.

Trump is all talk...he's a great bully speaker, but you can't bully the Senate or the House or foreign leaders and their advisors. He simply won't be affective anywhere but in front of a microphone unless he works with and becomes a part of the establishment. Sorry, bro, you've been had.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

A Trump win in the general might be the only thing that can keep the Republican Party as we know it together.

A Trump loss in the general arguably does the same thing. That group of supporters get their shot, there's no particular ill-will from them towards the GOPe, and they're potentially on board for the right compromise candidate next cycle (examples like Jon notwithstanding).

What splits the GOP is an actual split, like Trump running independent after losing at the convention (or even just sniping at the GOP nominee through the general election), or Trump being the nominee and the Establishment sniping at him or even splitting into the third party we're starting to hear about.

[Dutch]

A third party could potentially align center-right and center-left voters together. That could potentially make the Sanders and Trump clans the weak fringe. Don't know what these three parties would be called though.

So ultimately, I think the Establishment D and R will prevail but who knows. The times are a changin.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Christie is really taking a beating in the New Jersey media. What does he gain from this Trump thing? Are we going to see a Chris Christie-themed casino on the Atlantic City boardwalk soon?

Originally Posted by Logan

Local media has hated him for probably 3-4 years.

Seems like the last of the local papers has finally demanded he resign. People don't seem to like the campaigning while we're a week away from a transit strike that he's ignoring.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Trump clans

I laughed.

[JPhillips]

From Mitt's anti-Trump speech:

"In 1964, days before the presidential election, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America that it was a 'Time for Choosing.' He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path," he said in the prepared remarks.

Wouldn't there be a pretty good argument that Trump's nomination has it's closest parallel in Goldwater? I know Romney just wants to connect Reagan to anti-Trump fervor, but historically this comparison makes little sense.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A third party could potentially align center-right and center-left voters together.

Not that I disagree, but we keep saying than an actual moderate third party could find space in American politics, but it seems to me the real hurdle would be the typical "binary" single-issues of American politics, such as guns & abortion (as the two best examples).

The two parties have spent so many years making these issues litmus tests that we the voters are now conditioned to take even nuanced views, slot them into a category, and think no more of them.

So, what's this party's platform?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A McAfee Trump debate would be fantastic. I'm pretty sure it would end with a duel.

I think you're selling it short. I'm thinking cannibalism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

(examples like Jon notwithstanding).

Except that my vote for Trump was relatively soft all the way to the voting booth. I literally put myself through the hassle of the voting line because I didn't trust him enough to vote early. I do not seem to be the typical Trump voter at all in that regard. Most of those that I've come across are gone, as far as being automatics, and gone for good IMO.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I laughed.

I'm here to entertain all.

[Neuqua]

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of Romney's speech today. I can't see how this doesn't strengthen Trump's hold on his followers.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of Romney's speech today. I can't see how this doesn't strengthen Trump's hold on his followers.

I guess its to get undecided normally Republican voters (in upcoming primaries) and independents to vote for one of the "establishment" candidates. And who knows maybe Romney will try to run again. Though his religions' recent move against gays probably makes him more of an enemy of the left than he ever was in the last election.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

I'm trying to figure out the purpose of Romney's speech today. I can't see how this doesn't strengthen Trump's hold on his followers.

He wants to make sure that he's the guy who will get the nod if there's a real deadlock before/at the convention and they need an outsider to break it.

Or (much less likely) he's laying the stage for a 3rd party run.

[Kodos]

I wonder if a Trump Presidency could unite Republicans and Democrats in Congress? Maybe they'd reach across the aisle to neuter Trump as much as they could.

"Come on people now, smile on your brother..."

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

If you are Romney, you are already ESTABLISHMENT. There's no hope whatsoever in trying to appeal to the voters frustrated with the establishment.

So it makes sense for him to double down with that strategy. If you are Establishment, you may as well come in making wise speeches as the party elder. Stay in the public eye as the most visible and adult anti-Trump in the room.

[albionmoonlight]

His audience for this speech isn't the GOP voters. It's the GOP media and political class. He's auditioning for them.

[JPhillips]

Other than the fact that he'd almost certainly lose, getting picked at the convention has to be the perfect scenario. It's like skipping Spring training and still starting Opening Day.

[panerd]

He got beaten quite handily in 2012 . Seems like a real easy one to blow off for Trump... "Why do I care what this loser has to say? I'm trying to actually win an election" Running Romney again seems worse than any of the crappy candidates they already have.

[digamma]

The Trump argument that he's bringing people into the party and getting those out to vote who stayed home in 2012 is actually pretty effective against the Mittster.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

He wants to make sure that he's the guy who will get the nod if there's a real deadlock before/at the convention and they need an outsider to break it.

That's my guess. And I'd expect to see more of this - various GOP politicians auditioning for name recognition for the first unbound convention vote.

Originally Posted by Kodos

I wonder if a Trump Presidency could unite Republicans and Democrats in Congress? Maybe they'd reach across the aisle to neuter Trump as much as they could.

Depends. If Trump's actual policies are more in line with the Freedom Caucus then I could see Democrats and "moderate" Republicans working to keep gridlock alive.

If Trump's actual policies turn out to be left of what his rhetoric has been and/or if he's more of a pragmatist, then I could actually see the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans working with Trump (though the nature of this coalition would still be issue-by-issue) to neuter the Freedom Caucus.

Either would be entertaining and horrifying at the same time.

[Arles]

One of the healthiest things for the Republican part would be for Trump to run and get destroyed. It would pretty much put to bed this fad and let the party regroup for 2020. If they slide in Cruz or Mitt through the side door, then all the Trumpites will cry foul (esp if they lose). Better to let him have his shot and put it to bed after he loses than to steal the chance from him and have four years of Trump anger to deal with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If you are Romney, you are already ESTABLISHMENT. There's no hope whatsoever in trying to appeal to the voters frustrated with the establishment.

So it makes sense for him to double down with that strategy.

I can't argue with this point at all.

He's already an irredeemably useless p.o.s., he's unlikely to rehab that image so he might as well embrace it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

One of the healthiest things for the Republican part would be for Trump to run and get destroyed. It would pretty much put to bed this fad and let the party regroup for 2020. If they slide in Cruz or Mitt through the side door, then all the Trumpites will cry foul (esp if they lose). Better to let him have his shot and put it to bed after he loses than to steal the chance from him and have four years of Trump anger to deal with.

If Trump loses we're in for yet another four years of, "We didn't nominate a true conservative!"

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If Drumpf loses we're in for yet another four years of Ted Cruz whining that "We didn't nominate a true conservative!"

fixed

[bob]

Someone sent this to me over IM.... any chance of it happening:

"I just read the "republican go nuclear option" and it's fascinating. They could pick their establishment choice to run as a "third party" in November and hope and pray that neither Trump, Hillary, or the third party get enough of the required 270 electoral college votes. If that happens the US House of Reps gets to pick from the 3 choices and they would obviously pick the third party as President."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by bob

Someone sent this to me over IM.... any chance of it happening:

"I just read the "republican go nuclear option" and it's fascinating. They could pick their establishment choice to run as a "third party" in November and hope and pray that neither Trump, Hillary, or the third party get enough of the required 270 electoral college votes. If that happens the US House of Reps gets to pick from the 3 choices and they would obviously pick the third party as President."

Sure. It could happen. But it is not likely.

No one getting to 270 is great for establishment GOP. That part seems clear.

But I am not sure how a right wing third party helps that. It seems like instead of having states go 52-48 Hillary over Trump or 52-48 Trump over Hillary, you would have a lot of states go 52-28-20 Hillary or 48-30-22 Hillary.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Arles

One of the healthiest things for the Republican part would be for Trump to run and get destroyed. It would pretty much put to bed this fad and let the party regroup for 2020. If they slide in Cruz or Mitt through the side door, then all the Trumpites will cry foul (esp if they lose). Better to let him have his shot and put it to bed after he loses than to steal the chance from him and have four years of Trump anger to deal with.

If I am a GOP Establishment insider, I let Trump get the nomination, then I spend the party money on Congress and state races. That seems to be the best long term strategy.

8 years of President Obama has shown that a Democrat in the White House is not bad for the overall health of the GOP. 4 years of Hillary is just four more years of fundraising from the same playbook.

[spleen1015]

This is what's wrong with politics in this country.

The people want Trump and the career politicians are going to do everything they can to go against what the people want.

That's why we need a guy like Trump.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

If I am a GOP Establishment insider, I let Drumpf get the nomination, then I spend the party money on Congress and state races. That seems to be the best long term strategy.

Is it, though? With someone as divisive as Trump, I'd expect that pretty much every downballot candidate for the Republican Party is going to have to go on the record as supporting or denouncing him.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

This is what's wrong with politics in this country.

A minority of Americans want Trump and the career politicians are going to do everything they can to go against what the people want.

That's why we need a guy like Trump.

Fixed.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Is it, though? With someone as divisive as Trump, I'd expect that pretty much every downballot candidate for the Republican Party is going to have to go on the record as supporting or denouncing him.

Yup. Either denounce him and potentially kill your republican turnout or don't and potentially get independents and dems motivated to turn up and vote against you. Realistically I think the republican establishment is far more worried about this affecting the house races than actually losing the presidential election again.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by bob

Someone sent this to me over IM.... any chance of it happening:

"I just read the "republican go nuclear option" and it's fascinating. They could pick their establishment choice to run as a "third party" in November and hope and pray that neither Trump, Hillary, or the third party get enough of the required 270 electoral college votes. If that happens the US House of Reps gets to pick from the 3 choices and they would obviously pick the third party as President."

Nope.

With two GOP parties (effectively), what happens on a state-by-state basis is something like:

Clinton: 45%
Trump: 30%
Mitt: 20%

And then Clinton wins in a landslide.

The thing your IM misses is that aside from two states (Nebraska & Maine), states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Yup. Either denounce him and potentially kill your republican turnout or don't and potentially get independents and dems motivated to turn up and vote against you.

Wait though, did I get lost somewhere?

Denounce nominee Trump as a congressional candidate & you're not going to impact turnout in a Presidential election year, you're only going to put your own vote total at risk.

Did I get confused & you meant something else?