2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[JPhillips]

How do you call that fabricated crime stats tweet anything but racist?

[RainMaker]

The actual numbers are:

Whites killed by blacks 15%
Whites killed by whites 82%
Blacks killed by blacks 91%
Blacks killed by whites 8%

They do classify hispanics under the white category for what it's worth. I'm guessing a lot of the interracial homicides are between black and hispanic gangs.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do you call that fabricated crime stats tweet anything but racist?

You call them fabricated. What if they used a bad source to get them? Maybe a staffer pulled them from the wrong place?

I think a lot of people jump to conclusions to make these types of situations into what they want them to be.

[NobodyHere]

Trump just made a deal with reality, that's all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There's a hell of a lot of difference between Trump's more and more openly racist vitriol and Sanders calling for a higher top marginal tax rate.

The problem with Trump and he roughly one third of the GOP he currently represents is that he's George Wallace in 2015. That and no one has the guts to call him out because they're worried about the one third that supports him. The GOP is damn close to a full out white nationalism party ala some of the Euro far right. In a two party system, that should terrify everyone.

Trump tells unfortunate truths that don't match the leftist social agenda and he's supposed to be a bad guy ... and a vile excuse for a human being like Sanders - fucking worse-than-worthless communist piece of shit - is gonna be Man Of The Year from Time (do they still make that?)

And you wonder why I'd sooner see this country burn to ashes than continue as is?

[flere-imsaho]

What truths are these that Trump is telling? Are any of them backed up by, you know, facts?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think there's some degree of cried-wolf syndrome here at work, which is insidious in a weird way.

The left, especially the intelligentsia left, has long suffered from an extra helping of the righteous indignation that shows up in politics. It's not just that the other guy has a bad idea, but goddammit the other guy has the wrong idea, which is far worse. It's hard to articulate, but this is a different flavor than just the run of the mill "we're right, they're wrong" stuff. Lots of political intellectuals (largely liberal sorts) effectively want to do the thinking for everyone across the political spectrum.

So here, I basically agree with CC's argument. I find this stuff repellent. But those of us who do have already invested a lot of breath making similar-sounding claims about a wide range of topics... maybe global warming being the latest such case, but that's not the point.

Anyway...yelling "that's false" sounds an awful lot like "that's wrong" and that sounds an awful lot like "I disagree with you" and everyone knows that doesn't mean a thing in politics. Especially when the source of the critique is already known for nose-up sneering at the rest of the little people with their mistaken ideas.

I agree with this, and I think it helps articulate why Trump is still in the lead, even though he is definitely not acting very presidential and won't do well once the crowd thins out.

He's really got the left upset. There are cover stories in the mainstream media not just every time he tweets, but every time he "likes" a tweet.

There's an appeal to that. I'm not going to vote based on what upsets the ivory tower, but I like seeing them react to it. When polls come out saying nearly half of Republicans are "angry" with Washington, this is what you get.

These days you're told you're not only wrong, but a bad person when you disagree with the left. Trump is somewhat cathartic. As long as he doesn't get the nomination, I kind of like it even though his solutions are shallow and won't work.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Trump tells unfortunate truths that don't match the leftist social agenda and he's supposed to be a bad guy

So you're telling us that you believe those crime stats he posted on Twitter are true? You're telling us you think it's true that thousands of people in Jersey City were cheering in the streets on 9/11?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

You call them fabricated. What if they used a bad source to get them? Maybe a staffer pulled them from the wrong place?

I think a lot of people jump to conclusions to make these types of situations into what they want them to be.

"Pulled" from the wrong place?! You think a staffer was looking for crime stats, this one popped up on google, image and all, and the staffer thought, "perfect, that's what we've been talking about!"?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Rand Paul is talking about cutting defense spending (gasp!), Rubio is talking about increasing entitlements for families (double gasp!) and Kasich has already done the whole "I'd support a gay couple's marriage" (passes out!!!!). These are massive shifts from 8 years ago.

Massive shifts?

Ron Paul, who has long advocated cutting defense spending, remained a candidate through June, 2008.

Rudy Giuliani, who was the odds-on favorite through much of 2007, was both pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

Fred Thompson supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

At this stage of the "campaign", there are always some "new ideas" available as candidates seek to differentiate themselves. The litmus test is what shows up in the actual party platform. I feel pretty confident that what shows up in the GOP's platform in 2016 will be pretty off-putting for those moderates, who will find that although they're open to "a" republican party, it's not "this" republican party.

[RainMaker]

I don't think Trump stands a chance at winning. I think his appeal comes from a backlash to some on the left. The people who claim that if you don't agree with them on an issue it's because you are racist, sexist, hate poor people, or whatever else they can come up with to demonize you. It causes a lot of people to hold back on their beliefs for fear of being labeled as such. Trump doesn't care what people say about him in that regard.

I'd never vote for him but I can see how he says things that are appealing. He's the only politician I've ever seen call out Zuckerberg's phony immigration charity.

Also this happens on both sides. The right used to label anyone against the wars un-American. They label people who support contraceptives and Planned Parenthood baby killers. Politics has a segment of people who want to label their opponents in the most exaggerated terms. When one side goes too far with it there is an eventual backlash. I think we're just in a time where there is going to be some backlash to the left for some of the PC stuff over the years.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

"Pulled" from the wrong place?! You think a staffer was looking for crime stats, this one popped up on google, image and all, and the staffer thought, "perfect, that's what we've been talking about!"?

And the stats are fabricated whether his campaign did it or not.

But, yeah, what was the conversation,

Trump: I think blacks commit most of the murders of whites.

Staffer: Let me look that up..... YEP!!!

[Solecismic]

Trump plays on the fears of those who feel marginalized.

We are only 25 years removed from Terry Rakolta. Same concept, other side of the coin.

But this is where we're seemingly headed. The article below is not from the Onion.

Free Ottawa yoga class scrapped over 'cultural issues' | Ottawa & Region | News

Whenever there's a generational shift, there are reactions and overreactions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sabotai

So you're telling us that you believe those crime stats he posted on Twitter are true? You're telling us you think it's true that thousands of people in Jersey City were cheering in the streets on 9/11?

Haven't looked at his crime stats, no idea (seriously, didn't even know there was some "thing" about them until saw it mentioned here)

As for the Jersey City thing, I think thousands might be a stretch but hundreds isn't hard for me at all ... and I can tell you exactly why:

On 9/12, went to lunch in my little bucolic Mayberry/Peyton Place still stunned after watching all night just like the rest of most folks. Okay, if you knew me then you might even remember the little restaurant around the corner during my stay-at-home dad days, I ate there 3-5 times a week with baby in tow, I credit them with keeping me AND the kid alive. Point being, I knew everybody there -- only 4-5 employees -- very well.

And on 9/12 I had the very normal middleclass -- she waited tables, her husband was a longtime bus driver for the school system, black waitress go into a full blown wide-eyed rant about how she couldn't understand what the big deal was ... it was just a bunch of rich white people in that building, why the fuck should anybody care if it came down?

That's in Monticello, Georgia. In f'n faux Mayberry.

And you think I've got a problem believing there were open celebrants in Jersey City*?


*being more urban, not because it's Jersey/northeast

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Massive shifts?

Ron Paul, who has long advocated cutting defense spending, remained a candidate through June, 2008.

Rudy Giuliani, who was the odds-on favorite through much of 2007, was both pro-choice and pro-gay rights.

Fred Thompson supported a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

At this stage of the "campaign", there are always some "new ideas" available as candidates seek to differentiate themselves. The litmus test is what shows up in the actual party platform. I feel pretty confident that what shows up in the GOP's platform in 2016 will be pretty off-putting for those moderates, who will find that although they're open to "a" republican party, it's not "this" republican party.

I think the fact that many mainstream candidates are considering cutting defense spending, increasing the child tax credit, stopping the fight against gay marriage and taking a step back on the "repeal abortion" rhetoric shows a much different party than the one who ran in 2008. I think that's a good thing and, unless Ted Cruz is the winner, the eventual nominee will reflect those changes.

I don't see much of a difference on the left from John Kerry back in 2004. Be it Hillary, Bernie or O'Malley, you are pretty much going from Obama back to Gore/Kerry.

[lighthousekeeper]

I very clearly remember back in 2012 following Romney's defeat, a common narrative in the media was that this was a wake up call for the GOP: this defeat was clear evidence that the GOP needed to evolve in order to stay relevant. With the country's shifting demographics (growing hispanic population), the GOP would now need to rethink their position in certain areas to increase their appeal to minorities.

It's interesting to see that sentiment in contrast to the current climate.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Trump plays on the fears of those who feel marginalized.

We are only 25 years removed from Terry Rakolta. Same concept, other side of the coin.

But this is where we're seemingly headed. The article below is not from the Onion.

Free Ottawa yoga class scrapped over 'cultural issues' | Ottawa & Region | News

Whenever there's a generational shift, there are reactions and overreactions.

encourage your children to become attorneys: the future, it seems, will need a ton of them

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I agree with this, and I think it helps articulate why Trump is still in the lead, even though he is definitely not acting very presidential and won't do well once the crowd thins out.

He's really got the left upset. There are cover stories in the mainstream media not just every time he tweets, but every time he "likes" a tweet.

Woah there.

You're conflating the media's use of Trump to grab eyeballs/headlines/etc... with the left being upset. I can assure you that the left is more than happy to see Trump lead the pack for the GOP nomination, as it (in our opinion) only makes it less likely the GOP candidate will win the Presidency.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't see much of a difference on the left from John Kerry back in 2004. Be it Hillary, Bernie or O'Malley, you are pretty much going from Obama back to Gore/Kerry.

I think one brings one's own biases to the discussion.

You may (rightly) see no real change from Clinton - Gore/Bradley - Kerry - Clinton/Obama - Clinton/Sanders, but I don't see any real change from Dole - Bush/McCain - McCain/Romney - Romney - Rubio/Bush, except that neither Rubio nor Bush have the same support Romney did at this stage of the game.

[JPhillips]

We're really equating a cancelled yoga class with the months long front runner for the GOP nomination encouraging his supporters to beat protesters?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Haven't looked at his crime stats, no idea (seriously, didn't even know there was some "thing" about them until saw it mentioned here)

As for the Jersey City thing, I think thousands might be a stretch but hundreds isn't hard for me at all ... and I can tell you exactly why:

On 9/12, went to lunch in my little bucolic Mayberry/Peyton Place still stunned after watching all night just like the rest of most folks. Okay, if you knew me then you might even remember the little restaurant around the corner during my stay-at-home dad days, I ate there 3-5 times a week with baby in tow, I credit them with keeping me AND the kid alive. Point being, I knew everybody there -- only 4-5 employees -- very well.

And on 9/12 I had the very normal middleclass -- she waited tables, her husband was a longtime bus driver for the school system, black waitress go into a full blown wide-eyed rant about how she couldn't understand what the big deal was ... it was just a bunch of rich white people in that building, why the fuck should anybody care if it came down?

That's in Monticello, Georgia. In f'n faux Mayberry.

And you think I've got a problem believing there were open celebrants in Jersey City*?


*being more urban, not because it's Jersey/northeast

I agree with the idea that there were more people than anyone wants to admit who were agnostic at best about the Towers coming down. Not a chance I buy the idea that people were happy enough to actually celebrate in the streets, the idea that this happened without a backlash or media coverage, and especially the idea that this was broadcast by the media and subsequently erased. Because he (and now Carson) aren't saying some people were happy, they're saying they personally saw the footage. (In which case the most charitable explanation is that they saw some footage of people celebrating the attacks overseas, which definitely did happen, and have conflated it in their mind with Jersey City for some reason.)

It's the same thing as that chart. Pointing out that a black person is 90x more likely to get shot by another black person than by a police officer is a very valid point. Instead you publish a chart that exaggerates at the fringe and puts the focus on Trump being wrong instead of the other point. Same thing here - I wouldn't like it if Trump argued that there were large numbers of Muslims in America who were happy when the Towers came down, but it would make the same point and couldn't be disproven. For whatever reason he feels the need to double down and say he saw the footage which is objectively wrong.

Btw, re: Molson's charts from the top, how was Scott Walker getting between 15-20% for so long? What was I missing with him that ever made him a viable candidate?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Btw, re: Molson's charts from the top, how was Scott Walker getting between 15-20% for so long? What was I missing with him that ever made him a viable candidate?

I always thought Walker was cruising on the electability angle. He won three elections in a blue state despite a very strong push from the left to defeat him.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but horrible charisma. One has to wonder, who's the last charismatic Presidential aspirant from the northern Midwest? Before Walker, it was Pawlenty who folks thought had a chance, but turned out even duller than Walker was this go around.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think the fact that many mainstream candidates are considering cutting defense spending, increasing the child tax credit, stopping the fight against gay marriage and taking a step back on the "repeal abortion" rhetoric shows a much different party than the one who ran in 2008. I think that's a good thing and, unless Ted Cruz is the winner, the eventual nominee will reflect those changes.

I don't see much of a difference on the left from John Kerry back in 2004. Be it Hillary, Bernie or O'Malley, you are pretty much going from Obama back to Gore/Kerry.

Paul, asking to cut defense spending, is getting nowhere. Kasich, trying to stop the fight against gay marriage is getting nowhere and being declared a RINO. I have no idea who is supposed to be backing down from the repeal abortion stance, I've missed that. And increasing the child tax credit is just another tax cut which any Republican with a shot will support.

Both parties and their bases are doing their best to pull their candidates away from the middle.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I always thought Walker was cruising on the electability angle. He won three elections in a blue state despite a very strong push from the left to defeat him.

Is Wisconsin that blue a state? I get the sense that Obama drove strong minority turnout in Milwaukee/Madison to large margins, but it was a toss-up state the prior 2 elections, with another Republican governor (Tommy Thompson) for 4 terms before 2003.

No question that the only two things I ever heard the national media associate with him were his strong anti-Teachers union views and the college dropout furor. Granted I wasn't paying attention back in February, but since the summer Kasich has been always the "electable" swing-state governor in my mind so I'm shocked Walker's support held on so long past his entrance and even had that spike in August.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I always thought Walker was cruising on the electability angle. He won three elections in a blue state despite a very strong push from the left to defeat him.

And he won all three of those in non-Presidential elections.

That's the thing about Wisconsin's "blueness" - there's a lot of rural counties out here, and the liberal strength is mostly concentrated in Dane County and in Milwaukee proper. Statewide elections in non-Presidential years are much more competitive.

That, of course, is especially true since liberals/Democrats made the mistake of sitting at home and pouting in 2010 because Barack Obama wasn't able to steamroll Republican obstructionism in the Senate. Republicans swept statewide offices (remember what I said about non-Presidential years?) and oh look it's a census year and oh look shit got gerrymandered as FUCK and welp bed made go lay down.

Republicans still tend to lose here in Presidential elections, which is how you have both Tea Partier Ron Johnson (2010) and liberal lesbian Tammy Baldwin (2012) representing the state at the same time. The former got elected in an off year but would have been steamrolled in a Presidential year.

Interesting story about that, actually. The recall paperwork was filed on Scott Walker not by the union protesters, but by his own campaign. Why? It started the ball early on his ability to engage in unlimited campaign contribution solicitation for the recall effort, and it meant that they were able to angle for a special election in June of 2012 - when Democrats would be less likely to vote - instead of having Walker's recall on the same ballot with Barack Obama's re-election and Tammy Baldwin's election efforts.

To the extent that Scott Walker "won three elections in a blue state," he did so by winning in a midterm (2010), a recall election for which his campaign pushed the state to spend extra money so he wouldn't have to stand recall at the same time of year as Democrats would be out voting (2012) and a midterm (2014). None of those exactly scream "HEY I CAN BEAT DEMOCRATS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION."

But he had that and "I can fight ISIS because I broke the unions" so he had that going for him, I guess.

[RainMaker]

The early primaries always benefit the fringes of the party. The only people who really care are the hardcore partisans. Once the voting begins and the moderate people get involved you end up with moderate candidates in the general election.

[larrymcg421]

The last Democrat to lose Wisconsin was Walter Mondale. If you go back to 1980, there was only one election (1992) where it was less blue than the nation overall, and even there you could argue that Perot skews the numbers.

Wisconsin vote margin for Dem minus National vote margin for Dem

2012 - 3.08
2008 - 6.63
2004 - 2.08
2000 - 5.06
1996 - 1.81
1992 - -1.21
1988 - 11.35
1984 - 9.04
1980 - 5.02

I'm not giving Scott Walker credit for being some kind of political mastermind. I'm simply explaining why he probably had some early enthusiasm. A Republican Governor who wins twice (even in a light blue state) is going to get some attention. What they do with it is a different story.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The last Democrat to lose Wisconsin was Walter Mondale. If you go back to 1980, there was only one election (1992) where it was less blue than the nation overall, and even there you could argue that Perot skews the numbers.

Wisconsin vote margin for Dem minus National vote margin for Dem

2012 - 3.08
2008 - 6.63
2004 - 2.08
2000 - 5.06
1996 - 1.81
1992 - -1.21
1988 - 11.35
1984 - 9.04
1980 - 5.02

I'm not giving Scott Walker credit for being some kind of political mastermind. I'm simply explaining why he probably had some early enthusiasm. A Republican Governor who wins twice (even in a light blue state) is going to get some attention. What they do with it is a different story.

Right. Like I said, Republicans are competitive for statewide office (such as governor) if the election is in an off-year. Walker won three times in large part because of quirks of the calendar. I'm reasonably sure that if Scott Walker's recall is on the same ballot as Barack Obama's re-election he loses by ten points. That's why they fought so hard to have the recall held in mid-summer instead.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The last Democrat to lose Wisconsin was Walter Mondale. If you go back to 1980, there was only one election (1992) where it was less blue than the nation overall, and even there you could argue that Perot skews the numbers.

Wisconsin vote margin for Dem minus National vote margin for Dem

2012 - 3.08
2008 - 6.63
2004 - 2.08
2000 - 5.06
1996 - 1.81
1992 - -1.21

It's a minor quibble because I merely think Wisconsin is purple leaning blue, rather than blue, but fwiw Dems won in Wisconsin by .2% in 2000 (and '04 by .4%, although I guess the Republicans did win the national vote by close to 2% that year). Put the right number in there for 2000 and '08 is the outlier. Plus as a Massachusetts voter I'm well aware that gubernatorial results aren't indicative of a state's presidential leanings, especially if you can jury rig the calendar like Sack points out.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The early primaries always benefit the fringes of the party. The only people who really care are the hardcore partisans. Once the voting begins and the moderate people get involved you end up with moderate candidates in the general election.

Since 1980 the nominee of both parties has won either Iowa or New Hampshire with the sole exception of Clinton in 1992.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's a minor quibble because I merely think Wisconsin is purple leaning blue, rather than blue, but fwiw Dems won in Wisconsin by .2% in 2000 (and '04 by .4%, although I guess the Republicans did win the national vote by close to 2% that year). Put the right number in there for 2000 and '08 is the outlier. Plus as a Massachusetts voter I'm well aware that gubernatorial results aren't indicative of a state's presidential leanings, especially if you can jury rig the calendar like Sack points out.

My bad. I had the wrong number for 2000. But it's not a big deal. Whether we call Wisconsin purple, blue, or toss-up, a Republican candidate that wins such a state is always going to get some early attention as a potential Presidential nominee. That was my main point.

[JPhillips]

New CBS poll has seventy percent of Iowa GOP supporting Trump, Cruz or Carson.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The left, especially the intelligentsia left, has long suffered from an extra helping of the righteous indignation that shows up in politics. It's not just that the other guy has a bad idea, but goddammit the other guy has the wrong idea, which is far worse. It's hard to articulate, but this is a different flavor than just the run of the mill "we're right, they're wrong" stuff. Lots of political intellectuals (largely liberal sorts) effectively want to do the thinking for everyone across the political spectrum.

So here, I basically agree with CC's argument. I find this stuff repellent. But those of us who do have already invested a lot of breath making similar-sounding claims about a wide range of topics... maybe global warming being the latest such case, but that's not the point.

Anyway...yelling "that's false" sounds an awful lot like "that's wrong" and that sounds an awful lot like "I disagree with you" and everyone knows that doesn't mean a thing in politics. Especially when the source of the critique is already known for nose-up sneering at the rest of the little people with their mistaken ideas.

You can turn around this argument and use it just as easily to describe the concept that arose during George W. Bush's administration best described by Colbert as "truthiness", or, as Bush himself put it, making decisions "from the gut".

In fact, you could make the case that the lack of care for facts & reality in today's GOP is a direct result of Rove, Luntz, et. al., building a party that wins elections on the back of a good narrative above all else, including facts. There's a reason the term "epistemic closure" started getting thrown around when talking about the GOP.

Left-wing intellectuals are a great bogeyman and all, but do you remember how much people on the left were excoriated from, say, 2001 to 2006 for not supporting the President? It's one thing to have a professor sneer at you, it's quite another to be told you're anti-American because you deign to question the President's policies.*

But the creation of the left-wing bogeyman is part of the narrative itself. So, I would propose that if you're frustrated at the state of discourse, you should not be complaining about the manufactured bogeyman, but those who created and continue to support the narrative that uses that bogeyman.



*see also: "Support the Troops", "Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys", "Terrorist Sympathizers", etc....

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Left-wing intellectuals are a great bogeyman and all, but do you remember how much people on the left were excoriated from, say, 2001 to 2006 for not supporting the President? It's one thing to have a professor sneer at you, it's quite another to be told you're anti-American because you deign to question the President's policies.*

What university were you at where the professors were supportive of Bush during the Bush years? That is not normal.

[Kodos]

I think you're misinterpreting what flere was trying to say. I think he was saying having a liberal professor sneer at you and think they are superior to you is not the same as being told you're anti-American because you disagree with Bush's policies.

Look at the death threats the Dixie Chicks got for questioning Bush.

[molson]

Ah, I see.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks Kodos.

Edit: Yeah, wow, bad sentence construction there.

[flere-imsaho]

Like all good things, we've talked about this before: OT - How Conservatives Lost the Educated Class - Front Office Football Central

[Solecismic]

Quinnipiac showing Cruz within MoE in Iowa. Now that Carson is in decline, the conservative side is starting to coalesce around Cruz. Since the actual caucus tends to run more conservatively in general, I wouldn't be surprised if Cruz wins it handily in couple of months. Still a long way to go, but I have a feeling the race is starting to shape up as a Cruz/Rubio battle, with Trump getting a few delegates here and there.

The RNC does need to be careful, though. Now that it is openly anti-Trump and SuperPacs like Kasich's are starting to run "very mean" ads, he's starting to mumble about a third-party run. Which, of course, would mean Hillary as president.

[Arles]

There are two republicans I would not vote for: Trump and Cruz. So, if Cruz wins the nomination I hope Trump runs 3rd party.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Still a long way to go, but I have a feeling the race is starting to shape up as a Cruz/Rubio battle, with Trump getting a few delegates here and there.

I keep expecting voters to coalesce around Rubio much as they did for Romney the last time, but Cruz has some serious staying power.

The RNC does need to be careful, though. Now that it is openly anti-Trump and SuperPacs like Kasich's are starting to run "very mean" ads, he's starting to mumble about a third-party run. Which, of course, would mean Hillary as president.

And if he doesn't run third-party, they have to answer the question as to how much they let him be involved in the convention and, to a lesser extent, the run-up to the general. At this point he's probably done enough to earn a speaking slot at the convention. If he wins a few primary states, it's probably in prime time. I would imagine that's the worst fear for GOP operatives out there.

[digamma]

I don't really think that Trump speaking at a convention for a ticket he's not on is really his game.

[flere-imsaho]

You think Trump's going to turn down a chance to be on prime time TV?

[revrew]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

I very clearly remember back in 2012 following Romney's defeat, a common narrative in the media was that this was a wake up call for the GOP: this defeat was clear evidence that the GOP needed to evolve in order to stay relevant. With the country's shifting demographics (growing hispanic population), the GOP would now need to rethink their position in certain areas to increase their appeal to minorities.

It's interesting to see that sentiment in contrast to the current climate.

Frankly, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the media narrative was complete B.S. following Romney's defeat.

I'm not suggesting that the GOP long-term doesn't face these demographic issues, but Romney's defeat had nothing to do with the GOP not being moderate enough. In the short term, Romney lost not because he couldn't grab moderates (which he did comparatively well with), but because a huge percentage of the Republican base stayed home. McCain faced the same thing to a lesser extent, but Romney was significantly so.

So there is a popular narrative in the GOP now that if the nominee can inspire the base to actually show up and vote, like they did even at George W. Bush levels, their surge of votes could drown out the loss of moderates and drive a GOP candidate to general victory.

In part, I think the Trump/Carson/Cruz phenomenon is feeding off that narrative. In fact, even the "establishment" candidate, Rubio, was formerly known as a "tea party darling," so you can see how the GOP is just NOT favoring moderates right now. It looks right now like the GOP is going to put that narrative to the test.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Romney's defeat had nothing to do with the GOP not being moderate enough. In the short term, Romney lost not because he couldn't grab moderates (which he did comparatively well with), but because a huge percentage of the Republican base stayed home.

I didn't say anything about moderates, but about minorities.

Originally Posted by revrew

So there is a popular narrative in the GOP now that if the nominee can inspire the base to actually show up and vote, like they did even at George W. Bush levels, their surge of votes could drown out the loss of moderates and drive a GOP candidate to general victory.

Since the US is 8% less white than 10 years ago and 12% less self-identifying Christian, that puts a huge burden on the GOP to 'rock the vote'.

Originally Posted by revrew

In part, I think the Trump/Carson/Cruz phenomenon is feeding off that narrative. In fact, even the "establishment" candidate, Rubio, was formerly known as a "tea party darling," so you can see how the GOP is just NOT favoring moderates right now. It looks right now like the GOP is going to put that narrative to the test.

well right now is just primary season, so that narrative would be short-sighted.



Taken as a whole, that sentiment just seems like doubling down on a losing strategy.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Taken as a whole, that sentiment just seems like doubling down on a losing strategy.

Perhaps it is.

But then, after McCain and Romney, nominating a moderate would be tripling down on a losing strategy.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by revrew

Perhaps it is.

But then, after McCain and Romney, nominating a moderate would be tripling down on a losing strategy.

touche

[JPhillips]

If the GOP isn't going to moderate in respect to minorities, they have to significantly increase the percentage of white voters that vote GOP. If turnout is 70% white, they need to increase the GOP share from the 60% of the past three elections to closer to 64%. It's tough, but they might pull it off.

If whites stay at 60% they'll need 40% of more of Latino voters to win, and that seems very unlikely.

This is a fun vote calculator that lets you adjust demo percentages.

http://www.latinodecisions.com/2016-calculator/

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by revrew

But then, after McCain and Romney, nominating a moderate would be tripling down on a losing strategy.

The GOP may nominate a moderate, but the platform they're saddled with (and must represent on the campaign trail) is anything but. Both McCain and Romney ran campaigns that demonstrably deviated from their previous positions on a number of political issues.