2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[ISiddiqui]

For all the crap we do give him, Dubya could certain give a speech and definitely was charismatic in his own way. These days if you can't give a good speech or have even the slightest charisma you go the way of Pawlenty or Walker - leaving the campaign early.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So who's next to drop out?

My guess is Santorum.

I'll once again argue that I'm not sure he's actually even been IN this year.
Feels more like they just ran a cardboard cutout leftover from four years ago.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

For all the crap we do give him, Dubya could certain give a speech and definitely was charismatic in his own way. These days if you can't give a good speech or have even the slightest charisma you go the way of Pawlenty or Walker - leaving the campaign early.

For all his faults, people forget how good he was after 9/11.

George W. Bush - 9/11 Bullhorn Speech - YouTube

Emotional 911 Cathedral Speech - President Bush - YouTube

[digamma]

So a little local story here.

I did a Habitat for Humanity day for my company today. While we were working on the house, the family that will eventually make it their home came by. We said hello. They were very grateful for the work we were doing and we started making some small talk. Turns out they had come from being interviewed by Minnesota Public Radio. Well, actually, they had come from having their son interviewed by MPR.

He made a video over the weekend responding to Ben Carson's statement that Muslims should not become President, and it went viral (at least around here). Smart kid.

Story and video here.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Trump Reignites Feud with Fox News - NBC News

Can we get CNN and MSNBC to be "unfair" to him too?

I'm not sure there's a better way to show that he's a different candidate to most Republicans than to use this tactic. Most Republicans grow weary of Fox News and are tired of their coverage being so slanted to the extreme right.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Most Republicans grow weary of Fox News and are tired of their coverage being so slanted to the extreme right.

From a PPP poll in February:

“The extreme polarization in what media outlets people trust continues this year. Fewer than 25% of Republicans trust ABC, CBS, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, and NBC. They’re closely divided on PBS with 37% trusting it and 39% distrusting it. But really they just trust Fox News and nothing else with 66% saying they put their faith in it to just 25% who don’t.”

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

From a PPP poll in February:

Is that people who stated that they were Republican or actual registered Republicans?

I have little doubt that the extreme Republicans align themselves in that manner, but there are tens of millions that vote Republican that don't watch a lick of Fox News. I watch it for a good chuckle and that's about it.

[JPhillips]

There are a number of polls that say the same thing. There isn't any data to support your claim that most Republicans are tired of their coverage being slanted to the right.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There are a number of polls that say the same thing. There isn't any data to support your claim that most Republicans are tired of their coverage being slanted to the right.

But is Trump really pandering to the Republicans that you note? I'd argue he's got those in the bag no matter who runs against him in a general election. The people he's trying to secure are people like me who lean Republican, but aren't against voting for the other candidate if the Republican option is an extreme right candidate (which doesn't appear to be happening in this election cycle).

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But is Trump really pandering to the Republicans that you note? I'd argue he's got those in the bag no matter who runs against him in a general election. The people he's trying to secure are people like me who lean Republican, but aren't against voting for the other candidate if the Republican option is an extreme right candidate (which doesn't appear to be happening in this election cycle).

Trump isn't going to win the primary if he looks moderate, though. I mean, you can argue whether he's going to win the primary anyway, but "lean Republican" voters don't make up a huge chunk of the primary electorate. He's got to get the nomination before he can worry about tacking to the middle.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by digamma

So a little local story here.

I did a Habitat for Humanity day for my company today. While we were working on the house, the family that will eventually make it their home came by. We said hello. They were very grateful for the work we were doing and we started making some small talk. Turns out they had come from being interviewed by Minnesota Public Radio. Well, actually, they had come from having their son interviewed by MPR.

He made a video over the weekend responding to Ben Carson's statement that Muslims should not become President, and it went viral (at least around here). Smart kid.

Story and video here.

That kid is what America is all about. The good America.

I have two 12s - I would be livid if they were told they couldn't aspire to be President because they didn't subscribe to a particular religion or creed.

Dayur - Shue 2040. FOR AMERICA!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Trump isn't going to win the primary if he looks moderate, though. I mean, you can argue whether he's going to win the primary anyway, but "lean Republican" voters don't make up a huge chunk of the primary electorate. He's got to get the nomination before he can worry about tacking to the middle.

Could be right. It's fascinating to watch either way. Still time left, but the three leaders are the last three I would have expected at this point.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Trump isn't going to win the primary if he looks moderate, though. I mean, you can argue whether he's going to win the primary anyway, but "lean Republican" voters don't make up a huge chunk of the primary electorate. He's got to get the nomination before he can worry about tacking to the middle.

I'd argue that moderate Republicans are the ones winning their Presidential primary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd argue that moderate Republicans are the ones winning their Presidential primary polls.

Fixed.

We'll see who shows up for the votes that make the final decision on the candidate.

[ISiddiqui]

Well the last few Presidential primaries can indicate that the moderates are the ones who show up to vote.

[RainMaker]

Bush, McCain, and Romney were all fairly moderate.

[SackAttack]

But at least two of those three were trying to seem conservative. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and Romney was trying to convince the base he governed as a "severe conservative."

Whatever their actual bona fides may have been, the bottom line is that in the primary, they presented as conservatives.

[ISiddiqui]

Far more moderate than their chief competitors - McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2012.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Far more moderate than their chief competitors - McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2012.

Huckabee didn't run in 2012. Are you thinking Santorum? Or Gingrich? Or Cain? Yeah, the point still stands.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Far more moderate than their chief competitors - McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2012.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying...McCain's 2000 Straight Talk Express was more conservative than Bush's compassionate conservatism?

[ISiddiqui]

Yep. The moderates in these races won the Republican Primaries.

The Straight Talk express was about corruption in politics, but Bush was hammering home his compassionate conservatism, including being nicer to immigrants and more government spending in education.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Far more moderate than their chief competitors - McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2012.

Huckabee, you're thinking of 2008, but he also didn't really come to any kind of prominence until McCain had the nomination all but sewn up. It was a base revolt at a time when it didn't really do much good.


I also have never gotten the sense that, before 2008, McCain tried to present as a conservative. The brand he brought to 2000 was "trying to get big money out of politics" and "i'm a maverick i piss off both sides with aplomb"

See, I don't think it's (usually) that primary voters have a yen for moderates so much as that the more moderate candidates tend to be more establishment candidates, which gives them access to better fundraising. Better fundraising covereth a multitude of political sins.

That was the case with Romney in 2012 and Bush in 2000. McCain 2008 was just weird. By all rights he should have been dead in the water when his campaign ran out of money before Iowa and I'm really not sure how he recovered.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

but Bush was hammering home his compassionate conservatism, including being nicer to immigrants

Is this some sort of revisionism? Was Bush ever mean toward immigrants? (Hint: The answer is "no".)

[digamma]

Yeah, I don't think many people are going to call Bush the moderate between he and McCain in 2000. McCain also went nuts on the religious right that election cycle. While Bush certainly took a more moderate approach than in 2004, he was very establishment, while McCain played to the middle (see New Hampshire).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is this some sort of revisionism? Was Bush ever mean toward immigrants? (Hint: The answer is "no".)

I think you're misunderstanding. He's saying Bush was calling for a better immigration plan that would appeal to immigrants. Bush was the one being less mean than some other voices in the GOP.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So who's next to drop out?

My guess is Santorum.

It's usually money issues that get people out.

I think it's early for those who aren't trying to purchase Iowa. Gilmore may be de-facto out since he skipped the last debate. Lindsey Graham got a lot of angry airtime but didn't move the needle. Bobby Jindal is looking increasingly frustrated. I think those three are pretty much out.

Trump is another story. I still see no path to his election (unless it's Canada, according to South Park). This presents an interesting opportunity for Fiorina or Carson. They get to ride Trump until the ride ends, which may take one of them to a considerable lead in a month or two.

Still a long, long way to go.

McCain in 2000 was one of the few politicians who got me interested in potentially voting or even actively supporting. McCain in 2008 was angry, tired, and ultimately had all the life of a Ronda Rousey opponent. It's funny what time and bitter disappointment can do to someone.

[Dutch]

I'm waiting for the moment when Trump says, "Just kidding, I'm not really running for President."

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's funny what time and bitter disappointment can do to someone.

I always think of Michael Moore when I see sentiments like that. He went from a smart, funny TV/filmmaker to a crazy, bitter, cranky blowhard. Time and bitterness can be a toxic stew.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I don't see Fiorina winning the nomination. But she has to have helped herself more than anyone thusfar in the process. She started in the JV debate. Now she's got an outside shot at the nomination. And, if that does not work out, she seems well positioned for a prime cabinet spot or a media platform.

[QuikSand]

Hey, Let’s Chill Out

[nol]

Cue Jeb Bush roaring back in the polls:

In Greenville, South Carolina, Jeb Bush, arguing against calls for gun control after major tragedy, says, "stuff happens."

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 2, 2015

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

Cue Jeb Bush roaring back in the polls:

In Greenville, South Carolina, Jeb Bush, arguing against calls for gun control after major tragedy, says, "stuff happens."

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 2, 2015

Did a reporter ask him his thoughts and all he said was, "Stuff happens."?

[RainMaker]

No, but if you're a reporter with an agenda it plays into the narrative to frame it like that.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

No, but if you're a reporter with an agenda it plays into the narrative to frame it like that.

As always, quite a few steps ahead of you. The quote itself is irrelevant compared to the 2nd-degree backlash that will have the low-information voters saying "Hmm looks like Jeb pissed off the PC police, maybe he's not a dirty traitor RINO after all!"

[Dutch]

Well, to be fair, I'm kinda on your side. For instance, I'm really glad you don't own a gun.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

As always, quite a few steps ahead of you. The quote itself is irrelevant compared to the 2nd-degree backlash that will have the low-information voters saying "Hmm looks like Jeb pissed off the PC police, maybe he's not a dirty traitor RINO after all!"

Probably. It'll also have a bunch of dumbshits trying to turn him into an uncaring monster by picking out 2 words of a longer multiple sentence answer.

I mean I don't agree with Jeb Bush's answer to the question but the reporter was trying to frame it in a manner that was dishonest.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

Cue Jeb Bush roaring back in the polls:

In Greenville, South Carolina, Jeb Bush, arguing against calls for gun control after major tragedy, says, "stuff happens."

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) October 2, 2015

It’s a—we’re in a difficult time in our country, and I don’t think more government is necessarily the answer to this. I think we need to reconnect ourselves with everybody else. It’s very sad to see, but I resist the notion—and I had this challenge as governor, because we had—look, stuff happens. There’s always a crisis, and the impulse is always to do something, and it’s not necessarily the right thing to do.

The headline could've easily read, "It's very sad to see" - Jeb Bush

#yellowjournalism

[JPhillips]

I sure am going to be thrilled when you get this angry about a Clinton quote taken out of context.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by nol

As always, quite a few steps ahead of you. The quote itself is irrelevant compared to the 2nd-degree backlash that will have the low-information voters saying "Hmm looks like Jeb pissed off the PC police, maybe he's not a dirty traitor RINO after all!"

If only he instead could wear an American Flag pin and throw a bunch of bullshit out and then do nothing about it. That would make you happy!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I sure am going to be thrilled when you get this angry about a Clinton quote taken out of context.

Well, when that happens, say something. In the meantime, forgive me if I don't sit around waiting for you to question this instance of yellow journalism.

[Solecismic]

Gallup has announced it will stay out of polling about candidate preferences in this cycle.

Apparently response rates are so low, and so many people are unreachable, that projections involve too much guesswork.

The interesting thing is that the well-funded campaigns probably do have a decent idea about the races. Data-accumulators like Google know more about us than we'd like to admit. Sophisticated software can analyze past elections and use that information to project individual votes.

When it comes time to vote next year, we are going to be inundated with political phone calls with recordings tailored specifically to our past purchases and whatever Google and friends know about us personally. It's going to get very creepy.

[Solecismic]

The last couple of pages have solidly turned into every other political item on this forum. It may be time to delete the thread - this is absolutely pointless.

(ETA, a lot was just moved to the speaker thread, which albionmoonlight was kind enough to start).

[AENeuman]

You should put it to a vote

Have the same people who are making a mockery of the original text and intentions of the founder (you) decide if what they are doing is valuable to the rest of the FOF constituents.

[Solecismic]

I have well under 0.1% of the forum membership on ignore, and I have to sign out to read almost all of the recent posts here. I feel I have a responsibility to moderate this thread since I started it. I've asked people to step away when they go on a personal rant against someone else, and that gets ignored. No vote needed, this is the final warning. The last couple of pages, especially, couldn't be valuable to anyone.

[digamma]

Posts moved to Speaker thread for topical clarity. Though there have been a few flare ups, this thread has been relatively tame by comparison (and truthfully, the Speaker posts weren't that bad). I think it would be a disappointment if the thread were deleted, but obviously a poster has the capability to delete a thread if he/she desires.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Gallup has announced it will stay out of polling about candidate preferences in this cycle.

Apparently response rates are so low, and so many people are unreachable, that projections involve too much guesswork.

The interesting thing is that the well-funded campaigns probably do have a decent idea about the races. Data-accumulators like Google know more about us than we'd like to admit. Sophisticated software can analyze past elections and use that information to project individual votes.

When it comes time to vote next year, we are going to be inundated with political phone calls with recordings tailored specifically to our past purchases and whatever Google and friends know about us personally. It's going to get very creepy.

538 has a pretty sharp analysis of this. Gallup isn't getting out of polling, just focusing on issues instead of candidates. The consensus is that they are going this because they have had a few bad election cycles going back to 2010 -- in 2012, their final poll had Romney +1.

But as 538 points out, that's problematic because elections are really the only scorecards to determine if your polling process has any accuracy. If they don't do election polling, there is no reason to have any faith in their issue polling.

A big part of Gallup's problem is that they actually try to stick to solid statistical principles and not rely on gimmicky online polling or other nonsense. But that makes it very difficult to get the responses they need, and as a result their errors in the last few elections seem to be tied to problems with the diversity of their samples.

[stevew]

Is Jeb actually done? That would be shocking if he can't rally support but he really looks to be a 2nd or 3rd choice for much of the electorate right now.

I assume Carson is getting all of the fundie support right now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The last couple of pages have solidly turned into every other political item on this forum. It may be time to delete the thread - this is absolutely pointless.

(ETA, a lot was just moved to the speaker thread, which albionmoonlight was kind enough to start).

It's a political topic, the divisions that exist within the party itself are going to be hard pressed not to play out here. They are both relevant to and reflective of an enormous part of the race under discussion.

The phrase "lighten up Francis" comes to mind to be completely honest.

Politics is a contact sport- perhaps even a bloodsport - if you don't have the stomach for it then you'd probably be better served by avoiding it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

But as 538 points out, that's problematic because elections are really the only scorecards to determine if your polling process has any accuracy. If they don't do election polling, there is no reason to have any faith in their issue polling.

This.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's a political topic, the divisions that exist within the party itself are going to be hard pressed not to play out here. They are both relevant to and reflective of an enormous part of the race under discussion.

The phrase "lighten up Francis" comes to mind to be completely honest.

Politics is a contact sport- perhaps even a bloodsport - if you don't have the stomach for it then you'd probably be better served by avoiding it.

We have 100 different bloodsport items. I was trying to include a large number of people here who don't ordinarily comment on political items.

Frankly, it's the thought that politics should be a bloodsport that's left us with a uncompromising set of extremists in Washington (on both sides) and a president who thinks executive orders are a legitimate form of governance. Your side is losing this fight, BTW, and there's very little chance you're ever going to get close to the days of Ronald Reagan again.