2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

IRT Walker, I've heard a bit about him generating a surplus in the state and producing a lot of new jobs. Have this things had a positive impact in WI?

No sir. Even ignoring the job market (which has grown steadily worse over the last four years), he keeps blowing the surplus on tax cuts and then claiming we need spending cuts to compensate for the deficits he creates...and targets education to do that.

You know where employers don't want to move their operations? To a state where they can't count on a pool of educated workers.

You know what Wisconsin hasn't spent the last four years doing? Supporting education.

Do the math. Scott Walker can't.

Originally Posted by mckerney

He's claimed that, but in reality he's run a deficit every year he's been in office and is facing another $2 billion deficit over the next biennium. On new jobs Wisconsin has been behind neighboring states and in his first term saw about half the job growth he said his policies would create. His main jobs program, aside from putting Open for Business on state signs, the WEDC has been a complete failure.

~40k jobs added the last four months of 2014. ~146k estimated added for his entire first four years. That means we spent 3 years, 8 months with thumb-in-ass disease attributable in no small part to his policies.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But it, and the post-war boom, at least tell us that current taxes can be raised without an economic meltdown.

Difficulty: the post-war boom was fueled in large part by the devastation in Europe during the war. The American economy was the only Western economy not in an absolute shambles. When you're producing things for the entire world to consume, income growth is going to be strong enough to sustain 1950s-level marginal rates.

Comparing the current economic climate with that of the post-war era and concluding that the top marginal rate has room to go up as a result is kind of a specious comparison. Do I think that the economy could sustain Clinton-era tax rates? Yes.

But Eisenhower-era rates are another question, and I don't think we can rely on past performance as an indicator of future results there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

~40k jobs added the last four months of 2014. ~146k estimated added for his entire first four years. That means we spent 3 years, 8 months with thumb-in-ass disease attributable in no small part to his policies.

Something else I'd point out also is that leading up to the recall election, Walker and the state DWD began reporting job creation/unemployment data using a completely different method than that used by literally every other state in the nation to make the picture look better.

That accounting change let him claim 23k jobs created for all of 2011 rather than the 30k or so lost that were being reported by other numbers.

So that 146k, does that include his handwavery (which represents a 50k job swing by itself), or is that using the more traditional numbers that the other 49 states use?

[Dutch]

Not saying I'm interested in this dude, but I didn't feel like I was getting the whole story on him. So back to Wikipedia! I'm sure there are better places for information, but I don't know where and depending on it's layout, probably wouldn't care enough to research. Wiki is nice and succinct...albeit very tricky to determine the intent of the writer's tone.

Anyway, cliff notes.

Re-reading the Wiki page....more on Walker...He boosted state health care by $1.3B to account for increases in Medicaid costs at one point. $400M increase in the transportation budget. He saved nearly $1B by turning down federal money for a high speed railway that wasn't expected to make money. In 2012, after 10%-20% of all Democrat recall signatures were suspected to be fraudulent, he still won the recall more handily than the election. Following the Democrat corruption of signatures demanding his recall, he implemented Voter ID requirements which the Democrats sued him for saying that wasn't legal. Kind of ironic. He did in fact eliminate $800M from education budget. It doesn't mention a $4B loan, but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Dutch

but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

He likes to say he wiped it out but it's another instance of Walker moving the goalposts. My understanding of this may not be perfect but from the way I do understand it, the $3.6 billion deficit was based on an accrual accounting system instead of cash. During his campaign, Walker talked about using the accrual method of accounting, but once he realized he couldn't close the deficit based on the accrual method, the cash accounting method was once again good enough for him. Yet he'll still cite the $3.6 billion deficit that he closed (using two different accounting systems).

Doyle never had a cash deficit because Wisconsin has a balanced budget law. So really, Walker may have reduced the accrual deficit but he certainly hasn't wiped it out or even come close. But he likes to claim he did.

[Dutch]

I am sure he loves to say it. I only was referencing the wiki article, though. I guess its possible he wrote it, though! Its Wiki, after all!

[Shkspr]

If you can't trust the puffery and/or vitriol of a Wikipedia political page, what can you trust?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Not saying I'm interested in this dude, but I didn't feel like I was getting the whole story on him.

Quite possibly. That cuts both ways.

So back to Wikipedia! I'm sure there are better places for information, but I don't know where and depending on it's layout, probably wouldn't care enough to research. Wiki is nice and succinct...albeit very tricky to determine the intent of the writer's tone.

If you're basing it off of the writer's tone rather than examining the sources cited by the article, you're doing it wrong.

Anyway, cliff notes.

Re-reading the Wiki page....more on Walker...He boosted state health care by $1.3B to account for increases in Medicaid costs at one point.

You want "the whole story"? Yeah, he boosted spending on Medicaid by $1.2 billion. He also drastically overhauled the state's "BadgerCare" program. Cliffs notes on THAT: BadgerCare was the state's low-income health insurance program; you had to be at or below 200% of the federal poverty line to qualify, and benefits differed between childless adults and parents. If you were between 200-300% of the poverty line, your children could qualify (although their parents would not) as long as you paid some of the premium.

The change? Reduce eligibility to those between 0-100% of the federal poverty line, but eliminate the waiting list for those who met those requirements. Everybody from 101%-300% who previously qualified no longer does.

Gov. Scott Walker says he didn’t cut Medicaid, but instead added $1.2 billion | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Walker's Medicaid gamble: Shrinking BadgerCare could cost Wisconsin in the long run - Isthmus | Madison, Wisconsin

$400M increase in the transportation budget. He saved nearly $1B by turning down federal money for a high speed railway that wasn't expected to make money.

Walker bypasses gas tax hike, wants $1.3 billion in transportation bonds

From the article:

Paying past debt takes up about 19% of the state money that flows into the transportation fund each year. That percentage would rise under Walker's plan, though his office did not provide specifics.

If you fund a department at an increase but borrow all the money that's going to the budget increase, which results in a greater percentage of that budget being used for debt service, are you really increasing spending?

In 2012, after 10%-20% of all Democrat recall signatures were suspected to be fraudulent, he still won the recall more handily than the election. Following the Democrat corruption of signatures demanding his recall, he implemented Voter ID requirements which the Democrats sued him for saying that wasn't legal. Kind of ironic. He did in fact eliminate $800M from education budget. It doesn't mention a $4B loan, but it does say he wiped a $3.6B deficit left to him from the previous governor.

Three things:

1) Used as an adjective rather than an appellation, it's "Democratic," not "Democrat." That's what the party calls itself: "The Democratic Party." They don't, and never have, called themselves "The Democrat Party." Using the pejorative variant pushed by conservative talk radio doesn't do much to make anybody think that you're just an open-minded bloke looking for the truth.

2) You know what the thing is about petition/recall signatures? There's a difference between "fraudulent" and "unverifiable." If I, John Doe, sign a petition naming myself as John Doe, living at 123 Deer Hunt Drive in Podunk, WI, but I'm renting a room from a homeowner or something like that and my name doesn't show up on any kind of paper trail (utility bills, home ownership deeds, that sort of thing), that doesn't mean my signature is fraudulent. It means it's unverifiable.
2a) that 10-20% was of a limited sample, and STILL wasn't remotely close enough to head off the recall. Think about that. They still needed valid signatures accounting for at least 1% of the voter base from the previous general election to trigger a recall, and that threshold was easily crossed, even with the irregular signatures.
2b) Revisionist history. Scott Walker signed the voter ID bill in May of 2011, just a few scant months after he took office. The gubernatorial recall was in June of 2012. That's not ironic, that is a flat out lie.

3) He eliminated more than that. You're looking only at the K-12 aid. Technical schools and the state university system lost another $250 million each. And that was just the funding cut under Act 10, and ignores later funding cuts (including the $300 million he wanted to cut from the state university system in this year's biennial budget).

Recall candidate Kathleen Falk says Governor Scott Walker enacted "the biggest cuts to education in our state's history" | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Scott Walker cut school funding more than any governor, Greater Wisconsin Committee claims | PolitiFact Wisconsin

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

If you can't trust the puffery and/or vitriol of a Wikipedia political page, what can you trust?

. Oh, trust me, I agree.

[albionmoonlight]

What am I missing about Rubio? I know that it is very early, but it seems to me like he should be the pretty clear favorite. Conservative enough for the base. Has not been portrayed by the media as crazy conservative (a'la Ted Cruz), so he has mainstream appeal. Charismatic. Establishment (he's a senator after all). Hispanic. Has a political machine in one of the most important swing states. Freshness and youth that seems like it would play well against Clinton.

What am I missing? Where are his warts?

[Kodos]

On his genitals.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

What am I missing about Rubio? I know that it is very early, but it seems to me like he should be the pretty clear favorite. Conservative enough for the base. Has not been portrayed by the media as crazy conservative (a'la Ted Cruz), so he has mainstream appeal. Charismatic. Establishment (he's a senator after all). Hispanic. Has a political machine in one of the most important swing states. Freshness and youth that seems like it would play well against Clinton.

What am I missing? Where are his warts?

Were it not for the uproar over his participation with the Gang of 8 on immigration reform, he would be the clear favorite. He was clearly moving that direction, then shot himself in the foot over immigration.

But every candidate in this primary has his trouble spots. If Rubio can recover from that political blunder, he could become a favorite again. Definitely one to watch.

[Solecismic]

The apparent word is Walker declares in a couple of weeks, Kasich a little later. Making this a full field of 16.

Going to 16 marked the end of the Big West, but at least it entitled them to a conference championship game.

Sideshow Trump has declared war on Univision. Perhaps Omarosa will agree to be his VP candidate.

[SackAttack]

Maybe I'll get super lucky and Walker/Kasich will cannibalize one another's support in Iowa and one of the other 14 will carry momentum to New Hampshire.

[bob]

Let's just go 16 candidate tournament.... Debate and feats of strength.

Would be more entertaining than what we'll really have.

[Dutch]

They should do It on ESPN. First round is a one on one basketball tourney. Then a homerun derby, then a two on two football game and end it with a 5 round MMA cage match.

[NobodyHere]

Chris Christie officially joins the race.

[tarcone]

The mafia trying to get back into the White House. I guess if the Chicago political machine can get there, why not the mafia in a more pronounced position

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Chris Christie officially joins the race.

Well that oughta ... tip the scales.

[Coffee Warlord]

Ba dum ching.

[Dutch]

Hehe

[stevew]

The polling is pretty bizarre looking. 16+ candidates and nobody has much individual support.

[albionmoonlight]

Just read an excerpt of Cruz's book talking about his time clerking on the Supreme Court. I think that I would like Cruz as a person, even though I disagree with pretty much all of his platform as a candidate.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by stevew

The polling is pretty bizarre looking. 16 canidates and nobody has much individual support.

Aren't there more than 16 who have formally filed for candidacy?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Well that oughta ... tip the scales.

(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)

YEEEEAAAHHHHH!!!!!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Aren't there more than 16 who have formally filed for candidacy?

Don't think so, at least not with any name recognition.

There are a bunch who have made noises and are expected to run, but by waiting to formally declare, they can do some fundraising that doesn't run afoul of FEC guidelines for declared candidates.

Walker is one of those, and I know there are others, though names escape me.

[Desnudo]

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

Go for it, Arnie. Hell, we elected Obama twice, and he's not a citizen.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Can we just eliminate the dumb native born requirement and let Arnold run? Trump is native born for gods sake. That doesn't say much for the requirement. I would bet that an immigrant who is grateful for his citizenship would be a hell of lot more reliable than some silver spooned buffoon.

Just redefine "Natural Born Citizen". It worked for Ted Cruz after all.

[Solecismic]

So... Trump is still a "birther" and he proposes bombing Iraq's oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

And he's gaining in the polls.

It's past time to get him off the stage. Though he's threatening to run as a third party.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's Hillary's secret campaign manager.

[Dutch]

Agreed, he's almost single-handedly making people vote for Hillary...or not vote...thats for sure.

[lungs]

Scott Walker is official.

[ISiddiqui]

15 in!

We need a reality show for this!

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So... Trump is still a "birther" and he proposes bombing Iraq's oil fields in order to strike at ISIS.

And he's gaining in the polls.

It's past time to get him off the stage. Though he's threatening to run as a third party.

I'm beginning to wonder if he's Hillary's secret campaign manager.

Do you think he's really hurting the GOP, though? The serious candidates can criticize him as needed. And he sucks up a lot of the media spotlight at a time when attention would mostly be bad. I do not get the sense that moderate voters are going to hold it against Bush/Walker/Rubio that they happen to be in the same party as Trump.

I guess if I were a GOP longshot, I would be mad at Trump because he is taking up a lot of the free media that I would hope to use at this time to get propelled into the higher tier of candidates.

[ISiddiqui]

I actually think Jeb Bush doesn't mind, because while Trump is being a blowhard, Bush is amassing a massive war chest - his PAC raised a ridiculous amount of money last quarter.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I think that Trump will be a distant memory by the time the conventions roll around. It is one thing to run for President and give some fire and brimstone speeches as a vanity project. It is another to actually go through the grind of running for President. He's going to get bored soon enough.

And even if he runs as a third party, I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure he'll last to the financial disclosure forms.

[NobodyHere]

Well now that Donald Trump has alienated veterans as well as Hispanics, what group will he piss off next?

[JPhillips]

This is astounding:

In a Monmouth poll released a month ago, Trump had the worst favorability rating of any Republican candidate among Republican voters, 20 percent favorable to 55 percent unfavorable, a fact cited by many political observers in pooh-poohing his viability. In the poll out this week, Trump’s favorability has pulled nearly even at 41-40. The swing was even more dramatic among self-identified tea party voters, who went from viewing him unfavorably, 55 percent to 20 percent, to viewing him favorably 56 percent to 26 percent.

[Solecismic]

We're in a new age of polling, though. I wouldn't discount his popularity entirely, but he does have enormous name recognition while most do not. If you're reading a list of 16 people (maybe 15 - Pataki has all but disappeared), that name will stand out.

On the favorability issue, interesting. I'd have to see more. Because the more Trump speaks, the less presidential he seems to me - and he started fairly low on that scale as it is. I find it hard to believe that his negatives are going down. If that really is the case, then he will have opportunity to make a real move if he tones it down and finds a message other than grumpy old real estate mogul.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...Bush is amassing a massive war chest - his PAC raised a ridiculous amount of money last quarter.

How much?


Presidential Campaign Finance Reports: A Data Visualization - Bloomberg Politics


Bloomberg's got Clinton at $48M to date and Bush at $11M.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We're in a new age of polling, though. I wouldn't discount his popularity entirely, but he does have enormous name recognition while most do not. If you're reading a list of 16 people (maybe 15 - Pataki has all but disappeared), that name will stand out.

On the favorability issue, interesting. I'd have to see more. Because the more Trump speaks, the less presidential he seems to me - and he started fairly low on that scale as it is. I find it hard to believe that his negatives are going down. If that really is the case, then he will have opportunity to make a real move if he tones it down and finds a message other than grumpy old real estate mogul.

It's the favorability that I find amazing. With that high name recognition, favorables just don't move much. I'm not sure I've ever seen a flip like that.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How much?


Presidential Campaign Finance Reports: A Data Visualization - Bloomberg Politics


Bloomberg's got Clinton at $48M to date and Bush at $11M.

Most of Bush's money has gone to his PAC. He reported 103 million for the first six months of 2015.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

Depends upon the nominee.

If you froze Trump's popularity & imagine where it is right this second & put him as the third man in a race that involved Dem X and a pseudo-con R, he'd pull at least 1/3rd of the non-Dem vote.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola:


And even if he runs as a third party, I think that the Nader experience will keep conservative-leaning voters from choosing him.

Or maybe he is Perot and once again will split the Bush vote and hand Clinton a victory.

[NobodyHere]

Courtesy of the Trump campaign:

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Courtesy of the Trump campaign:

Doesn't appear to have any NAZIs in it, should work for the campaign.

[stevew]

I think the bar for a good president is set pretty low. I find Trump somewhat intriguing. But I'd never vote for him. He can basically run as right as he wants to but actually governing that way would be pretty unsustainable. He'd fracture the GOP caucus. In many ways he's the right man in a time where a nation that pines for superhero movies and he certainly has that Tony Stark element. Guys like Bush are pretty boring.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's the favorability that I find amazing. With that high name recognition, favorables just don't move much. I'm not sure I've ever seen a flip like that.

Is he basically playing to the "rebel" vote? One that may have mistrusted him initially for his big city, New York veneer but love that he is pulling no punches and attacking targets they're not particularly fond of? And doing so while other candidates might be seen as tiptoeing around things?

[stevew]

I had no idea Trump wasn't still married to Martha maples.

Also I think we know where he stands on immigration from Eastern Europe, guys amirite.

[bhlloy]

Good to see he has at least one policy in line with Stalin