2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[ISiddiqui]

It's only a strawman if you are propping up arguments that haven't been advanced - not when you are using Trump's own policy proposals to compare it to others in the past who used similar. What Trump is doing is almost to a tee what people like Mussolini and Hitler and Franco and Pinochet did as they were coming to power - blaming immigrants and minorities. Looking back to a more idyllic period where these undesirables hadn't weakened the country and pushing for a brand of hyperpatriotism to confront this. Or if that makes you too uncomfortable, the parallels to Jorg Haider or Marie Le Pen work as well, and perhaps slightly better because it takes away the totalitarian desires of the original fascists.

It isn't silly or wrong to confront this for WHAT IT IS.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But my whole point is that Trump is like the white, nationalist parties of Europe. Wouldn't comparisons to white, nationalist, European parties be appropriate for that comparison?

And I'm not sure why you're continuing to bring up Hitler when I specifically rejected the comparison to Nazis.

Because it seems pointless to say "A is like B, so I will debate A by bringing up what I don't like about B."

There's a long history to these parties that Trump isn't part of. It all amounts to wanting to call Trump a white supremacist in order to dismiss him.

I bring up Hitler because others are on that side of the debate in the last page or so. Your own rejection of the comparison is noted.

I think it's important to understand, as well, exactly what Trump is proposing (even though I'm not sure he always knows) rather than whatever serves the MSM interest in maximizing this story.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There is NO more heinous criminal than an illegal afaic, they threaten the very sanctity of a nation. A nation without control of its own borders is merely a suggestion, not an entity. Those here illegally are nothing short of an invading force and should be treated as such. Those who render aid or comfort to them should face the penalties for their actions in the face of wartime.

Now, the point to me repeating all that once again is actually this: If you think I'm alone on this subject, you really are nuts.

Modern media is really creating an existential crisis. Somehow things that are abstract and anecdotally experienced becomes one of our the most meaningful identities. I tend to lump/dismiss statements on this, the environment and hot or not in the same pile.

Other than your pride hurt by abstract strangers being on your metaphorical lawn, you have not demonstrated how immigration has effected you or the nation. Certainty not enough to take your violent desires as anything but fantasy.

But this is not about you. It seems this forum, and the like, exist just to exaggerate and exploit that which divides us. Somehow our opinion of the things we have very little control over and experience with are given the same weight as the things that really do impact us.

I read the "Fuck Cancer" thread and see real concern, struggle and loss. Then I read stuff like this, in very much the same tone, and all I can do is question of usefulness of discussions like this.

That is all, go Warriors.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Modern media is really creating an existential crisis. Somehow things that are abstract and anecdotally experienced becomes one of our the most meaningful identities. I tend to lump/dismiss statements on this, the environment and hot or not in the same pile.

Other than your pride hurt by abstract strangers being on your metaphorical lawn, you have not demonstrated how immigration has effected you or the nation. Certainty not enough to take your violent desires as anything but fantasy.

But this is not about you. It seems this forum, and the like, exist just to exaggerate and exploit that which divides us. Somehow our opinion of the things we have very little control over and experience with are given the same weight as the things that really do impact us.

I read the "Fuck Cancer" thread and see real concern, struggle and loss. Then I read stuff like this, in very much the same tone, and all I can do is question of usefulness of discussions like this.

That is all, go Warriors.

+1

While it was perfectly appropriate to quote JonInMiddleGA, you could have quoted several others as well, including those giddy about the use of nazism.

[JPhillips]

Apparently I do need to retract my Trump/Le Pen comparison. Le Pen says she isn't that radical.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front party, said Thursday that GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump’s proposal to prevent Muslims from visiting or immigrating to the U.S. was too extreme.

“Have you ever heard me say something like that?” Le Pen asked during an interview on a French TV program, according to The New York Times. “I defend all the French people in France, regardless of their origin, regardless of their religion.”

[lighthousekeeper]

it must absolutely suck to live in iowa or new hampshire this time of the year.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

but the question is whether or not Trump thinks he has enough backing now to pull a Perot. If he does that, it's over.

Don't most states either have a "sore loser" law that prevents you from running third party if you are on a primary ballot OR don't most states (most of which are in GOP control) have the ability to pass such a law very quickly?

It would seem that Trump would only go third party if he does not get the nomination. But by the time he didn't get the nomination, he would have already been on enough ballots to lock him out of a third party run.

Perot was third party from the start, so there was never a way to keep him off the ballot.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Apparently I do need to retract my Trump/Le Pen comparison. Le Pen says she isn't that radical.

Man, what a clusterfuck for Trump.

[Ben E Lou]

Dear 8-Pound, 6-Ounce, Newborn-Infant Jesus, PLEASE let this be real:

The absolutely epic trolling letter Jeb Bush’s leadership PAC sent to Donald Trump’s lawyer - The Washington Post

[Solecismic]

It's really apples and oranges when comparing the reactionary garbage from Trump with the organized rhetoric of the National Front. Both deserve contempt for entirely different reasons.

Also, Le Pen is sensing that she might actually win this thing. So there's a lot of scrambling going on to redefine her party. I wouldn't trust a word she says right now.

Now Carson is saying he'd consider a third-party run, in response to rumors that the Republicans are trying to prepare for a brokered convention.

Obviously, a third-party run would put Clinton in the White House, so it's more along the lines of a threat than an actual attempt to win the presidency.

Perot was unique, and I wish he had succeeded in creating a new party. The way the right wing descended upon that effort and turned it into something else was rather unpleasant. I think Sarah Palin helped do the same with whatever the Tea Party was at first. I follow politics fairly closely and I have no idea what the Tea Party is today. Seems more like a bogeyman for CNN than a real thing.

Unfortunately, our two parties have a lock on politics at the moment. New parties grow from local elections, but we don't seem to have that kind of organization or patience in America. I understand the frustration Trump and Carson have, but I think it would be better if they could channel that into something positive.

[larrymcg421]

A major third party isn't going to happen until we reform our election system. As long as the spoiler effect is in play, we are going to coalesce around two main parties.

[JPhillips]

The Tea Party is still what it always has been, the far right of American politics.

[molson]

It almost kind of feels like we have more than two parties in play this year.

[Edward64]

Trump's campaign is costing him some money. I wonder what his kids are thinking as they are helping him run the business?

Saudi Prince Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Calls Trump a Disgrace - NBC News

Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has called Donald Trump a disgrace to the United States following his call for a ban on Muslims entering the country, and demanded the Republican front-runner withdraw from the U.S. presidential race.
:
"You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America," Prince Alwaleed, the chairman of Kingdom Holding, said on his Twitter account, addressing Trump and referring to the Republican Party.
:
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S. politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do it when I get elected. #Trump2016
:
Trump's comments have already cost him business in the Middle East, with a major chain of department stores halting sales of his glitzy "Trump Home" line of lamps, mirrors and jewellery boxes.

On Thursday, Dubai real estate firm Damac, which is building a $6 billion golf complex with Trump, stripped the property of his name and image

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

it must absolutely suck to live in iowa or new hampshire this time of the year.

I can't speak for living there, but when I've traveled to NH in '08, it was non-stop, every other commercial. I can't even imagine living there.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dear 8-Pound, 6-Ounce, Newborn-Infant Jesus, PLEASE let this be real:

The absolutely epic trolling letter Jeb Bush’s leadership PAC sent to Donald Trump’s lawyer - The Washington Post

Jebbush.com

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dear 8-Pound, 6-Ounce, Newborn-Infant Jesus, PLEASE let this be real:

The absolutely epic trolling letter Jeb Bush’s leadership PAC sent to Donald Trump’s lawyer - The Washington Post

That was a great response.

[Thomkal]

Did Trump post that response to the Saudi Prince? That's what scares me about a Trump Presidency-he will act like he's President of the World and disrespect every other national leader and country so the world will hate the US even more than they do now.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Did Trump post that response to the Saudi Prince? That's what scares me about a Trump Presidency-he will act like he's President of the World and disrespect every other national leader and country so the world will hate the US even more than they do now.

He did via twitter.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Edward64

He did via twitter.

Nice. And what happens when someone goes to war with us/breaks off alliances/etc because you called someone dopey? and no I don't want to hear how many Muslims love you again Donald.

[cuervo72]

Aren't there like, dozens of Saudi princes though? I doubt this guy's the equivalent of Prince William.

[Dutch]

Is this the same Saudi Arabia that wont let Syrian refugees in?

[Dutch]

The Arab world’s wealthiest nations are doing next to nothing for Syria’s refugees - The Washington Post

I understand why they would ban all Muslims from Syria entering their country...but their lashing out at a country on the other side of the world for wanting to do the same doesn't ring true.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Trump's campaign is costing him some money. I wonder what his kids are thinking as they are helping him run the business?

Saudi Prince Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Calls Trump a Disgrace - NBC News

Who the hell cares what a Saudi prince says? They're even more regressive than Trump.

I'd be more worried if the guy had praised Trump.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Aren't there like, dozens of Saudi princes though? I doubt this guy's the equivalent of Prince William.

There are but I think this is one of the richer ones.

[Solecismic]

Debate coming up Tuesday on CNN with more stringent qualifications. This is the last debate of 2015 for the Republicans.

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina seem to have qualified, though Fiorina is hanging on by a thread based on New Hampshire polling alone.

The JV debate looks like Paul, Huckabee and maybe Santorum, though there's some talk that Paul will drop out if he doesn't make the varsity.

This is the Republicans' first opportunity to tell us how they feel about the Paris attack, so expect a lot of that early. Hopefully the moderators won't waste the entire segment on Trump's shenanigans.

There's an article out the on the Des Moines Register polling and its accuracy over the years. Interesting reading. The DMR just came out with a poll showing Cruz up by 10 points in Iowa.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The DMR just came out with a poll showing Cruz up by 10 points in Iowa.

It's not just a matter of polling. There are other major factors in play here, including Cruz picking up the biggest and most influential GOP endorsement here in Iowa, as well as the second and third biggest endorsements, a perfect trifecta (which has never happened before), driving a lot of momentum.

I'd put the odds at Cruz winning Iowa now (barring some foot-in-the-mouth collapse) at better than 70%.

[Edward64]

Do you think this is really pro-Cruz or more anti-Trump?

[JPhillips]

Trump vs. Cruz has to be a nightmare for the GOP establishment. I'm not sure any elected official is as disliked by his own party as is Cruz.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Do you think this is really pro-Cruz or more anti-Trump?

I can't speak for other states, but in Iowa, it's most definitely pro-Cruz.

There are 4 main "lanes" in Iowa, whereby you can secure one of the coveted top 3 positions (no candidate has ever won the nomination without finishing in the top 3 in Iowa): Evangelicals, establishment, libertarians, and protest votes.

Of the 4, evangelicals are the largest contingent, while the protest votes drive a lot of polling, but don't typically show up to actually caucus (thus, the inaccuracy of a lot of polls).

The evangelicals are coalescing behind Cruz, sucking life out of Carson, Rubio's efforts, and whatever slim hopes Santorum had (Huck supporters still think he has a play, but I sincerely doubt it). In a typical year, this largest lane is usually split between 2 or 3, but this year, Cruz is doing a masterful job of uniting this critical contingent.

The establishment, on the other hand, is split like I've never seen in my lifetime, between Bush, Christie, and Rubio.

The libertarians are split between Paul (who has only a shadow of his father's support), Trump, and Cruz.

The protest voters are the bulk of Trump's people, but again, it's typically the smallest group to actually show up and caucus.

As long as the establishment is divided and unless Trump can drive people to polls like no one has ever done before ... Cruz wins Iowa in a landslide.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Debate coming up Tuesday on CNN with more stringent qualifications. This is the last debate of 2015 for the Republicans.

Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, Kasich and Fiorina seem to have qualified, though Fiorina is hanging on by a thread based on New Hampshire polling alone.

The JV debate looks like Paul, Huckabee and maybe Santorum, though there's some talk that Paul will drop out if he doesn't make the varsity.

Paul and Fiorina make the cut for the main debate, with Huckabee, Santorum, Graham, and Pataki on the undercard.

So this debate is actually more inclusive than the last major one in Milwaukee. Everybody invited except poor Jim Gilmore.

[stevew]

I can't believe they still insist on having an undercard debate.

[Solecismic]

Interesting switch-up. For a while, they had said candidates had to have a current average of 4 in NH or IA or a 3.5 national average. And for the JV debate, at least four recent 1s or higher.

This helps Trump. Less individual time, plus it's more likely Paul will spend his time yakking about Trump, because he can't resist and he has nothing to lose.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by stevew

I can't believe they still insist on having an undercard debate.

Can't afford to piss someone off and lose access to them should they re-become someone important in the future. Thus is the nature of American news media in the 21st century.

[JPhillips]

Trump is over 40% in the new Monmouth poll. I'm so old I remember when I thought he couldn't break 25%. Exactly how high does he have to get before people start saying he can win?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump is over 40% in the new Monmouth poll. I'm so old I remember when I thought he couldn't break 25%. Exactly how high does he have to get before people start saying he can win?

I am a Trump doubter. What would it take for me?

He would have to either (1) start getting party elite endorsements or (2) win (or do very well) in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Basically, until actual VOTES start falling for him instead of poll responses, I think that a lot of it is protest.

[molson]

I know the polls aren't great predictors at this point and don't tell an accurate story especially when it comes to oddball candidates, but it does seem relevant that in the last two weeks, separate polls have had Trump up +20/+27 and at 36%/41%. Those two polls were his two very best showings since he entered the race. He's gaining momentum going into the primaries.

I'm not saying he's going to win, but he's only gotten stronger as we go. Instead of starting relatively strong and then fading, which is what we all thought would happen. Back in July he was usually around +12 and that seemed so wacky and temporary. His poll numbers have doubled since then (in a couple of polls, anyway) - and that's without anybody of consequence dropping out.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump is over 40% in the new Monmouth poll. I'm so old I remember when I thought he couldn't break 25%. Exactly how high does he have to get before people start saying he can win?

He can win.

[spleen1015]

He can win.

He's not being a politician. That's what this country needs.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

He can win.

Can and will are two different things though.

[flere-imsaho]

That's why I said "can".

[Grammaticus]

Are we talking Republican nominee or President?

[flere-imsaho]

I was saying nomination. I still don't think he can win the Presidency.

[Kodos]

Yep. You have to think people in the middle would break in favor of the Dems in great numbers if Trump was the Republican candidate.

[lungs]

I'm rooting for Ted Cruz to win the Republican nomination. I'm not going to kid myself and say I'd maybe vote Republican if they nominated somebody like Kasich. I believe it's time to put to the test the notion that Republicans need to run further to the right to achieve success. Trump would be entertaining but would still leave conservatives with an excuse after he gets slaughtered in the general.

[Solecismic]

It will be interesting to see if there's a lot of cross-over voting, since Hillary will win the Democratic side easily and probably only matches up well against Trump. She's had to tack far to the left to address Sanders, and while the media has largely ignored it, there's plenty of material for the general.

I have to admit I never expected to see a national poll top 40% for Trump on the Republican side. I also never thought I'd see 14 candidates still in the race seven weeks before Iowa.

Republicans are angrier than I thought. They went with Romney, thinking a moderate who didn't offend anyone could capture the center, and it didn't work. That's put us in uncharted territory.

One way or another, I expect the Republicans to trim to three or four after New Hampshire. It becomes a different game when you start to campaign for Super Tuesday, and it's an expensive game.

[ISiddiqui]

So far it appears Clinton matches up pretty well against Cruz as well. The GOP's best bet is Rubio. Polling shows that while Trump and Cruz far badly against Clinton, he's neck and neck with her.

[Dutch]

Added benefit would be that Rubio is more likely capable of working with Congress than Trump or Cruz.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Can't afford to piss someone off and lose access to them should they re-become someone important in the future. Thus is the nature of American news media in the 21st century.

I actually support "the media" on this one. They'll needlessly debate what will happen in Tuesday's main debate for days prior, and for 24/7 afterwards until something tragic happens. Actually giving people we wouldn't hear from a forum to speak? Awesome. Nobody's forced to watch (and few do), but who knows, maybe someone will say something interesting. It's not like it's cutting in to anything meaningful.

Originally Posted by Kodos

Yep. You have to think people in the middle would break in favor of the Dems in great numbers if Trump was the Republican candidate.

I would actually vote for Hilary over Trump. Would definitely vote Rubio or Kasich. Cruz/Hilary and I'm probably throwing my vote away on a 3rd party. Although I am a fan of orderly elections that prevent the need for violent takeovers.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

One way or another, I expect the Republicans to trim to three or four after New Hampshire. It becomes a different game when you start to campaign for Super Tuesday, and it's an expensive game.

Exactly. Some of these people are tapped in the head and actually think they have a chance to win, but most fringe candidates know they don't have a chance to win and either want to get a pet cause into the national discussion or start preparing themselves for a future run. Until it starts costing them real money.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So far it appears Clinton matches up pretty well against Cruz as well. The GOP's best bet is Rubio. Polling shows that while Trump and Cruz far badly against Clinton, he's neck and neck with her.

I do wonder just how much of Rubio's polling vs Hilary is real. What I mean by real, is that so far he's really defined as "not the crazy one" - even Kasich is pushing the "competent executive willing to compromise" as a selling point, while Rubio isn't actually proactively defining anything. He's just kind of there, seems somewhat competent (and charismatic) and hasn't said anything offensive. The longer that goes on the less I'll like him. And yes, he could probably point to policy proposals he's presented on his website, or in smaller interviews that the media hasn't run with because they're too busy discussing Trump, but he has the debate stages. At some point he needs to go out on a limb or take a strong position in that most watched forum.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have to admit I never expected to see a national poll top 40% for Trump on the Republican side. I also never thought I'd see 14 candidates still in the race seven weeks before Iowa.

It becomes a different game when you start to campaign for Super Tuesday, and it's an expensive game.

It's a shame you have me on ignore because +1 to all three of these statements.

Although with the third - I wonder....

Expense has typically come from media buys and GOTV operations. For Trump, how much media will he have to buy? So far, he's generated his own media attention. With TV viewership declining, and the internet being the main platform for candidates to get their message out, I'd expect Trump can get a long ways without spending a lot of money on media.

But they key for Trump, clearly, is going to be whether his polls translate to people actually getting out and voting (or even registering, first).


On "uncharted territory", I agree, and was thinking of this yesterday from a different angle. At this stage of the game in 2012 and 2008 (and really only 2012 was post-TP-emergence), there was always a "moderate" candidate still in the running. The best placed "moderate" candidate, at this point, is Rubio, and he's still pretty buried.

I honestly don't remember a campaign like it.