2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

"More likely", isn't saying a lot, though. Rubio's a guy who famously couldn't be bothered to do the work of being a senator. He's clearly not going to get heavily involved in the actual work of negotiating legislation.

But yes, Cruz & Trump would immediately have a hostile working relationship with Congress, even if it's still a GOP-controlled Congress.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

Yes. Because of Trump, none of the other candidates have had a lot of scrutiny. Rubio's biggest weakness is probably going to be his youth. I'm betting in debates his broad generalizations and lack of experience is going to come off badly against a Clinton who can talk specifics from experience. It's still not going to sway the 45% of the electorate who's going to vote for him because team, but it doesn't need to.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"But yes, Cruz & Trump would immediately have a hostile working relationship with Congress, even if it's still a GOP-controlled Congress.

But with Congress' approval rating between 9-13% is that a bad thing ... or a good thing?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

Considering all of the people on the stage at the GOP debates, the most savvy position to take would be to come off as competent and charismatic and save any bold positions for when the field winnows. Because at this point in time, saying something bold or interesting will be lost in the 7 other candidates on stage and the media will have to flesh it out. When there are more like 4-5 people on stage, Rubio would have a better chance of explaining his stance on stage.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that Rubio is playing the really smart game. His path to the nomination is through party elites, and they seem to already be in his corner.

If he gets the nomination, then suddenly he's the moderate, and he can judo-like use the Trump/Cruz extremism to his advantage in the general.

In my view, he's the frontrunner, but because he's not the poll frontrunner, he's not getting the fire that tends to come with it.

My pre-Christmas prediction: Cruz will win Iowa. Rubio will win NH. Rubio will become the nominee.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

"More likely", isn't saying a lot, though. Rubio's a guy who famously couldn't be bothered to do the work of being a senator. He's clearly not going to get heavily involved in the actual work of negotiating legislation.

But yes, Cruz & Trump would immediately have a hostile working relationship with Congress, even if it's still a GOP-controlled Congress.

Well, with all things being equal, if the reality is that Rubio can't work with Congress, then Trump easily becomes the better choice.

[JPhillips]

I'm not sure I can find a option where Trump is the better choice.

[ISiddiqui]

Seriously. I'd vote for literally anyone else running right now over Trump.

[Coffee Warlord]

I'd vote Trump over Cruz or Carson, honestly.

Though, more likely, I'd vote for none of them. But if you held a gun to my head, I'd take Trump over those two.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Trump is as close to a solid candidate as I've seen for President -- backmarkers not withstanding -- in a very long time.

I just wish I actually trusted him to act as he speaks.

edit to add: Then again, if I've learned one thing in 48 years it might be that trusting a politician is ALWAYS a bad idea. So maybe that lack of absolute confidence/faith in Trump that I suffer is simply part & parcel of the process.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I just wish I actually trusted him to act as he speaks.

yeah except for that minor bugaboo

[ISiddiqui]

So now Rubio wants to reverse Obergfell (aka, the same sex marriage ruling). This is not a winning argument for the general election, if you make it there, Marco.

[flere-imsaho]

The graph here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ion-3823.html), as of December 15, has everyone but Trump trending downward. Carson with a continuation of his slide, and Cruz & Rubio looking like their blips are over. No one else with enough of a trendline to show anything. Unreal.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The graph here (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ion-3823.html), as of December 15, has everyone but Trump trending downward. Carson with a continuation of his slide, and Cruz & Rubio looking like their blips are over. No one else with enough of a trendline to show anything. Unreal.

You included an extra parentheses in that link btw

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So now Rubio wants to reverse Obergfell (aka, the same sex marriage ruling). This is not a winning argument for the general election, if you make it there, Marco.

An overreaching federal court system made a horrifyingly bad ruling,quite possibly the single most inane ruling in the 200+ years ... and you think you couldn't find support for overturning it in enough states to win the electoral vote? Remember, more states passed amendments to prevent it than to allow it, and winning states - not total votes - is what wins Presidential elections.

If he (or any GOP candidate) is going to win then it's doable. And if it isn't then it's highly unlikely to change the outcome, a conservative wasn't going to win anyway in that scenario.

[lighthousekeeper]

If someone other than Trump eventually gets the nomination, this should reflect poorly on the pollmakers, or at least force pollsters to question their approach to accurate early polling. Look at the wide discrepancy between the polls and the betting odds. If you were putting your money on the line, which would you say is more accurate? The betting lines.

People are smart - when a pollster asks them "who will you vote for in the primary?", they know that they are really answering the following question: "what do i want today's poll to look like?" This is pure speculation, but there could be a large contingent of poll responders who are simply enjoying the "Trump episode" in the Real Lives of Primary Contenders show. They tried out the "Carson Episode", got bored, and went back for more Trump episodes. If that speculation is true, even somewhat, then the pollsters are in some way failing their objective.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

you think you couldn't find support for overturning it in enough states to win the electoral vote?

Nope. In fact, independents, who you need to attract to win the Presidency, are definitely pro-gay marriage (61% in favor back in July, self-described 'moderates' are at 64% in favor). Therefore this position dooms you in many swing states. The more intelligent political play would be the Kasich model - disagree with the ruling, acknowledge it is the law, and speak about protecting religious 'opt-outs'. Independents don't particularly like that either, but it isn't as big a deal.

And the public opinion in general has shifted dramatically. More people were opposed to gay marriage than for it in 2010, when most of those state bans were already enacted. By July of this year it was 55%-39% in favor of gay marriage - a seismic shift.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

If someone other than Trump eventually gets the nomination, this should reflect poorly on the pollmakers, or at least force pollsters to question their approach to accurate early polling.

Eh... I don't think so. I think early on, people are much more willing to support those who are more out there, and when it comes closer to actually voting, folks tend to think about it more and realize, you know... maybe my earlier support was kind of dumb.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not sure I can find a option where Trump is the better choice.

The point I was angling for was, if a moderate is going to get shit on, might as well go for the gusto and get half of it implemented than none at all. A half-assed Moderate is a "Do Nothing President" and a half-assed Trump simply becomes a "successful moderate". Or something like that.

I really don't believe we need to be like this though. So the moderate--Rubio is the right guy for our system of government.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Considering all of the people on the stage at the GOP debates, the most savvy position to take would be to come off as competent and charismatic and save any bold positions for when the field winnows. Because at this point in time, saying something bold or interesting will be lost in the 7 other candidates on stage and the media will have to flesh it out. When there are more like 4-5 people on stage, Rubio would have a better chance of explaining his stance on stage.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that Rubio is playing the really smart game. His path to the nomination is through party elites, and they seem to already be in his corner.

If he gets the nomination, then suddenly he's the moderate, and he can judo-like use the Trump/Cruz extremism to his advantage in the general.

In my view, he's the frontrunner, but because he's not the poll frontrunner, he's not getting the fire that tends to come with it.

My pre-Christmas prediction: Cruz will win Iowa. Rubio will win NH. Rubio will become the nominee.

I thought so too until about 2 weeks ago when Trump started taking his most extremist positions and continued gaining in the polls. He's not going away if you just wait him out, and someone needs to present an alternative plan and path - so far that's only Cruz.

I don't have time to click the link, and what really matters is what (if anything) he pushes tonight, but no Marco, tacking to the right and trying to win evangelicals is not your play. Forget whether it's even a good idea, or would help you in the general, it won't help you in the primaries - that part of the field is saturated with candidates.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Eh... I don't think so. I think early on, people are much more willing to support those who are more out there, and when it comes closer to actually voting, folks tend to think about it more and realize, you know... maybe my earlier support was kind of dumb.

This, plus people have different definitions of what pollsters should be doing, or even what polls should be measuring. Some people think pollsters should be analyzing their polls and what they mean (and if a politician is paying you damn well better), but I think some should just be measuring a snapshot in time. Other people can analyze how things will play out in the future, or even if people are being honest with the pollster (or themselves), the pollster's job is to collect the data and publish it.

[Solecismic]

Polling isn't as accurate as it was in the past, but it's still a reasonable picture of the current race.

The question is how many likely voters are even paying attention at this stage.

Also, the MSM is absolutely all-in trying to kill off Trump. In the past, this would have worked. But the biggest applause line in the entire debate series so far is Cruz going after the CNBC moderators for media bias.

I'm not sure by any means, because I'm not a Republican. But maybe Republicans have reached a tipping point with the MSM where the more they go after Trump, the better his numbers get. In which case, all of this could hold up.

In the long run, the MSM is killing itself off. Less people than ever before look to networks for news. Not sure about the short run, and this election. I think Cruz will win Iowa easily. I think New Hampshire will be close. And Rubio is well-positioned to make his move.

But it's hard to ignore a 25-point lead. And it's hard to ignore that the anti-establishment candidates have been in the 50s again after dropping into the 40s immediately after Paris. With Carson and Fiorina having faded, that increase has all gone to Trump.

The media is optimistic about Christie. And I see it - his performance in the debates has been effective and the climate is right for his type of personality. But Christie has banked everything on New Hampshire. So did Huntsman four years ago. Huntsman did well, but he didn't come close to winning. Christie will probably get a similar result. Then what... Huntsman decided not to spend his own money continuing. Christie doesn't have funding. I think he has to be top two in New Hampshire to remain viable, and that's a long shot.

[JPhillips]

This is the problem with the small state primaries running the show. I can't see how a candidate can win without a win in one of IA, NH or SC. Those states represent a very small percentage of even primary voters, but combined they have veto power over most of the field. Rubio looks like he has no chance in IA, so he has to win either NH or SC.

I think he'd look a lot better if one of the bigger states was involved early.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nope. In fact, independents, who you need to attract to win the Presidency, are definitely pro-gay marriage (61% in favor back in July, self-described 'moderates' are at 64% in favor).

I want them so distinerested that their stand-for-nothing asses stay at home & out of the damned way, just tbh.

edit: and if backing the single worst fucking court decision in history is what interests them, then hell we're f'ed anyway.

[GrantDawg]

My early impression of the undercard: Graham thinks he is right, and he is very loud about it.

[NobodyHere]

Well Trump mentioned one thing that was on my mind, which is that we spend trillions of dollars on bombing the middle east to no positive results when that money would've been better spent here in the US.

[JPhillips]

My God this debate is chaotic. Everybody is anxious to show their MSM hating cred by ignoring the time limits.

edit: Most of them are arguing for pushing towards war with Russia.

[Swaggs]

This debate feels like it is being produced by Vince McMahon.

[JPhillips]

Using Reagan as an example of standing tough against amnesty seems a poor choice.

[JPhillips]

As far as I can tell the GOP foreign policy includes carpet bombing ISIS, overthrowing Assad, directly arming the Kurds, reoccupying Iraq, threatening war with Iran, shooting down Russian planes, launching massive cyber attacks on China and building lots of new ships, planes and missiles.

Sounds doable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As far as I can tell the GOP foreign policy includes carpet bombing ISIS, overthrowing Assad, directly arming the Kurds, reoccupying Iraq, threatening war with Iran, shooting down Russian planes, launching massive cyber attacks on China and building lots of new ships, planes and missiles.

Sounds doable.

Sadly I agree. Will be interested if Rand Paul gets any bump in the polls because he is knocking out of the park against these clowns. More likely Trump will rise in the polls and I will be voting Libertarian or Hillary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Happened to room surf through & see a few mins of Ted Cruz in the post-debate coverage. Has he always had so many mannerism of Bush II, or is that new? I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about the cadence when he speaks & how he uses his hands while talking.

Either that's always been around & I just never picked up on it or he's got someone coaching him.

edit to add: he even used a classic Bush I-styled thing "Legal good ... illegal bad"

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sadly I agree. Will be interested if Rand Paul gets any bump in the polls because he is knocking out of the park against these clowns. More likely Trump will rise in the polls and I will be voting Libertarian or Hillary.

I agree with this except that I will never vote for Hillary. Rand seemed like the only one up there that knew what he was talking about. I always had a hate/love opinion about Rand but he was definitely the Republican I'd most likely vote for.

[Solecismic]

That was brutal tonight.

CNN realized that asking the same question, over and over, for what seemed like ten hours would produce a rather unpleasant spectacle. Smart thinking on their part.

By the midway point, even the audience that mostly included Republicans gave up cheering. By the end, I think both ISIS and Putin surrendered and the Mexicans spontaneously built a wall along the border to keep us out.

The problem? By and large, the candidates don't differ much on their views about ISIS. ISIS is bad. Terrorism is bad.

In the JV debate, the focus was a little more on the San Bernardino shooting - why is the government refusing to look at social media when checking visa applicants. Seems relevant. Again, not enough for an entire debate. And the problem is that the government isn't doing it because they feel it's a waste of time, not because big bad Obama is trying to be PC. We have an example where it would have paid off, however, if the State Department had somehow wangled its way onto this terrorist's friends list. Maybe that's worth doing, but I don't see how. So I'm not hitting the Like button on this issue.

So there was some genius in letting the Republicans go on and on for 15 hours on an issue where they generally win. Because they battled each other more than they normally would battle each other. And about silly stuff, too.

However, before the Democrats get too smug about it, some of these questions will be a serious problem for Hillary because the answers will be different. Whoever wins the Republican nomination can score points here.

And the Republicans got their sound byte from Ben Carson of all people. When Hugh Hewitt, not exactly Mr. Liberal, for some reason started to try and pin down Carson on whether he would enjoy killing babies in an air strike on Raqqa, the audience turned quickly. So it was a difficult debate, but Republicans will spin it as CNN bias.

Grades for the debate (this is difficult, because there was little real opportunity to differentiate candidates on the issues):

JV
Graham: B+
Pataki: B
Huckabee: C+
Santorum: C

There was a lot of agreement here, but no one stepped forward and had a moment. Graham sounded more competent - he should, given his experience. It's just not enough to suddenly make a difference in a campaign that's not going anywhere. His negatives are sky-high for a guy getting less than 1% of the vote. He needs to start thinking about cabinet positions.

Varsity

Carson: B. He was calm and likable again. He was anxious to show he had studied the issues. This will help stop the bleeding after last month's botched surgery, but I think it's too late.

Fiorina: B. She has a way of focusing the issues in a way that makes them seem reasonable, but the way she made Silicon Valley seem like a willing tool in the fight against privacy is simplistic and an unrealistic view of what's reasonable or possible. You put a back door into an encryption algorithm and it's as useless as encrypting with the secret decoder rings from Cap'n Crunch.

Kasich: B. There's an appeal to the "why can't we all get along" approach, but he doesn't seem like a leader.

Bush: B-. He was surprisingly effective in what he said, but he's back to looking like he'd rather be anywhere other than running for president.

Cruz: B-. Getting into tit-for-tats with everyone doesn't help. But Trump seems to genuinely think Cruz will be his running mate, so it's good for laughs, at least. Cruz's problem is that he is weakest on foreign policy, and he's too straight-forward not to hide it well.

Christie: B-. Too doom-and-gloom today, when this should have been his night. I should grade him lower because this was his opportunity and I think he blew it by trying to scare people instead.

Paul: B-. His isolationist inclinations worked as a counter to all the ISIS-killing mutant soldier-beasts backed by Silicon Valley and, strangely, Saudi Arabia (I'll believe it when I see it). But he's annoying and seemed to have a nasty case of the sniffles. And he can't resist rolling in the mud - hence the Christie bridge reference. It always seems to be personal.

Rubio: B-. He was being attacked like he's the front-runner, which he probably is, based on the betting sites. His usual note of positive thinking, which has worked very well in the past, was difficult to maintain. Both because of Cruz's attacks and because the issue doesn't lend itself well to optimism. It was clear he was the audience favorite, though. He needs to be smarter about engaging Cruz, who can eat him alive if he's not careful.

Trump: B-. Bush had him at one point. He can't get specific on his plans because he hasn't got any real plans - just ideas and thoughts. However, he is getting better at this, and had the only real "moment" of the debate by going positive over Hewitt's question about running as an independent. He may win just by not losing big in these things. Certainly, he's helped by there being nine up on there on the stage.

Overall, we've long since reached a point where there are too many Republicans in the race. It showed tonight. It will get worse next month when more people are tuned into the race.

[NobodyHere]

Awwwwwwwww Booooooooooooooo

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Happened to room surf through & see a few mins of Ted Cruz in the post-debate coverage. Has he always had so many mannerism of Bush II, or is that new? I'm not talking about policy, I'm talking about the cadence when he speaks & how he uses his hands while talking.

Either that's always been around & I just never picked up on it or he's got someone coaching him.

edit to add: he even used a classic Bush I-styled thing "Legal good ... illegal bad"

Cruz just overall seemed "better." He becoming a little more polished, and maybe he is getting coached by GWB's old handlers or something. He has always seemed whiny. Last night he just seemed a little more confident-under-control I guess is the best way to describe it.

I disagree to some extent with Jim. Giving the field a B range grade seems justified because no one really knocked out of the park, but no one actually fell on their face ether. I do believe that Cruz and Christie did slightly better than the rest (maybe A- range). I actually had the three he ranked highest more in the C range (Carson still didn't really score to me. Fiorina didn't catch the magic of her earlier debate appearances. Kasich just lacks the charisma to really stand out).
And I'd actually give Trump a D-. His zingers really didn't seem to score last night, and didn't fit the seriousness of the debate subject. He really couldn't defend some of his positions (killing family members of terrorist is just ridiculous. Are we really going to send troops to kill women and children in their homes? Imprison moms for the charge of being the parent of terrorist? Are we supposed to kill the infant baby of the San Bernardino shooters? Come on).

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That was brutal tonight.

CNN realized that asking the same question, over and over, for what seemed like ten hours would produce a rather unpleasant spectacle. Smart thinking on their part.

...

Overall, we've long since reached a point where there are too many Republicans in the race. It showed tonight. It will get worse next month when more people are tuned into the race.

Yeah, I have been saying to my pol friends that they don't realize that we are making history - that this is the best and most intriguing Pres primary race we are ever going to see. Last night, though, I felt it "tip" in my own mind, and by the end of the debate I felt really fatigued, and if I had a magic wand I'd parse this group down to about 5.

I thought Christie did better than you did, I find that interesting. I thought his prepared riff on Senators debating while executives do things was pretty good, and delivered well. I think he needs to finish one of his sentences talking about being a prosecutor, though...just with a pithy phrase like "we put those guys behind bars" or "we made our country safer." Anyway, I agree the flow of issues favors him, and I guess it's true that he didn't knock it out of the park. Regardless, he'd be in my five going forward, if I were the all-powerful one here.

In Bill Simmons fashion, I'm ready to "cross off" Fiorina now. I think she's done. Not an awful performance, but I just don't think she has anything else to offer beyond an occasional stern look and dour tone. She's a woman, and a business leader, and that might make her an obvious running mate target - but all told I don't see any path for her to win this thing now.

And as much as I keep hearing people say they like Kasich, I don't see how he gains ground in the next six weeks. He's not built for Iowa at all, and in NH he missed out on the Union Leader endorsement, which could have been even bigger for him than it is proving to be for Christie. He's pragmatic and likable, but that and four bucks will get you a cup of coffee these days, in this setting.

Rand Paul should drop out now, too. He's not getting anything accomplished, the television time is over, and I don't see his angle. I don't expect him to leave, but he's not adding any value any longer, if he ever was. We had a thread here on the generic viability of a liberty-themed campaign or candidate - I don't know whether his run disproves anything, but even in a gigantic field he couldn't get those matters to really resonate. If you're in a room full of GOP faithful and Trump crazies, and you're the one shouting "uphold constitutional right" while the other guy is shouting "kill the bad guys" you're just done for. The only time we Americans care about these issues is when we are scared... so privacy and anti-authority issues by definition are hard to get above the fold as an asset to that campaign.

Carson is done, that's plain as day.

Jeb, to me, is the most interesting guy sitting on the bubble. Clearly an uninspiring campaigner, to the surprise of many (me included). But he really does still have a path to victory. Establishment hates both Trump and Cruz, we get that. Rubio is taking up all that oxygen right now, but if you buy that he's only inches deep (and reports from the ground in Iowa and NH suggest that might be true), then there's still room for a less vulnerable player there. Maybe Christie is moving into that slot, but I think there's still room at the table for Jeb. If I were running that campaign, I'd be targeting that angle now... sort of like a running back who has the patience to wait for his blockers to open things up before finding a hole to make his move. Nobody thought that's where he would be at this point, but I think he could have a second wind in him, especially if Christie fails to surge.


I am basically with the prediction above from (albion?) that Cruz wins Iowa, maybe even does so pretty easily, but that NH is a free-for-all and probably too hard to predict right now, but it could be a throw-a-blanket-over-them finish among Trump, Christie, Rubio, and Cruz that doesn't really anoint a serious frontrunner. If then you look southward and into states where the less moneyed players haven't gotten much of a foothold, then Bush could remain in play there, even if he runs fifth in NH.

It looks to me like Cruz then occupies the Santorum seat from last go-round and accumulates delegates even if he doesn't have the appearance of really being "the choice." And the rest of the field is trying to win the contest of endorsements, fundraising, and momentum to take the inside track. Rubio is the darling for that slot right now, and I agree he's got the edge, but there are multiple ways he could call apart once people stop kicking the tires and actually take him for a test drive. (Sorry for the tortured analogy)

And we know that there's time for a new issue to pop up and become "the thing" between now and mid-February. No clue what it might be, but we know there's ample time for some scandalous political gotcha film, or some controversial Senate floor vote, or some child who refuses to say the Pledge or something to suddenly explode and become "the thing." It's a near certainty.

[digamma]

Nice post, Quik. The delegate race will be intriguing to watch. Was going to say fun, but that may be too strong.

[RainMaker]

Cruz doesn't understand what carpet bombing is which is sad because he is on the Armed Services committee.

[albionmoonlight]

Depending on how the field winnows, there may be a bit of a danger to the GOP with Rubio. I could easily see a world where Trump goes from frontrunner to out pretty much overnight. Then the establishment quickly anoints Rubio. Indeed, I see that as the most likely outcome at this point.

Then you will have Rubio as the nominee without the normal media and other-candidate vetting that a frontrunner normally gets during the primary. One thing that a party likes about a contested primary is that all of the dirt is slung before the general election campaign starts.

If Rubio has skeletons or otherwise cannot take the sustained heat of being a frontrunner, it may be something that the GOP learns (to its dismay) after it is too late to change horses.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Depending on how the field winnows, there may be a bit of a danger to the GOP with Rubio. I could easily see a world where Trump goes from frontrunner to out pretty much overnight. Then the establishment quickly anoints Rubio. Indeed, I see that as the most likely outcome at this point.

Then you will have Rubio as the nominee without the normal media and other-candidate vetting that a frontrunner normally gets during the primary. One thing that a party likes about a contested primary is that all of the dirt is slung before the general election campaign starts.

If Rubio has skeletons or otherwise cannot take the sustained heat of being a frontrunner, it may be something that the GOP learns (to its dismay) after it is too late to change horses.

He might not be able to take the heat of the spotlight (in fact I'm starting to lean that way), but I doubt he has skeletons. The media tried that weird hatchet job on his wife's personal finances, but he's so young, he's basically been in politics since graduating law school, and it's just harder for people in the internet era to have hidden secrets imo.

I see Quik had a more elegant take, but pretty much the same thoughts on Jeb vs Christie I posted in the other thread.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Depending on how the field winnows, there may be a bit of a danger to the GOP with Rubio. I could easily see a world where Trump goes from frontrunner to out pretty much overnight. Then the establishment quickly anoints Rubio. Indeed, I see that as the most likely outcome at this point.

Then you will have Rubio as the nominee without the normal media and other-candidate vetting that a frontrunner normally gets during the primary. One thing that a party likes about a contested primary is that all of the dirt is slung before the general election campaign starts.

If Rubio has skeletons or otherwise cannot take the sustained heat of being a frontrunner, it may be something that the GOP learns (to its dismay) after it is too late to change horses.

I'm fine with the idea of hitching the wagons to Rubio on the GOP side and seeing what happens. I see some similarities to Obama on the Rubio end (he's kind of a poor man's Obama). He's a minority, charismatic, not overly jaded by years in politics and a little green - but savvy enough to use his likeability to get out of dodge.

In the end, likeability is what matters. Reagan > Mondale, Clinton > Bush/Dole, W > Gore/Kerry, Obama > McCain/Romney. In every case, the public went with the guy they liked on a personal level. Hillary is going to have a hard time beating Rubio in the likeability department so I'd roll with him and deal with any skeletons that pop up. Heck, Clinton, W and Obama had some pretty big skeletons (Women, DUI, prior associations) and shrugged them off pretty easily.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cruz doesn't understand what carpet bombing is which is sad because he is on the Armed Services committee.

That was driving me crazy last night as well.

[Solecismic]

Well, you know, some of the modern microfibers are quite a technological marvel.

[Kodos]

They're bombing us with carpet?!?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Cruz doesn't understand what carpet bombing is which is sad because he is on the Armed Services committee.

He's also the chairman of the NASA committee despite being kind of a doofus on science issues, so...y'know.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

He's also the chairman of the NASA committee despite being kind of a doofus on science issues, so...y'know.

that may scare me more than the fact that he doesn't know what carpet bagging is

[Edward64]

I got a headache watching the debate. Way too many people on stage. I wish they would just do 4-5 and give everyone more time to talk and debate.

FWIW, I liked Christie's performance. I don't agree with some of the stuff he said but he performed well IMO.

The Cruz-Rubio was interesting. I've not read fact-checks yet to see who was right on each other's records.

Bush, eh. Although I think he would be my "safe" choice if voting GOP, he didn't seem to help himself that much in the debate.

Donald is still an ass. He's my guilty pleasure for a really interesting and exciting presidency but I don't think I can vote for him. There's too much chance for a World War during his tenure.

Carson seemed like an adult in the debate but some of his answers seemed off to me.

Not sure about Kaisch or Paul yet. I don't think they did anything to hurt their case but they (and Carly) should just drop out.

So far, I think its Bush or Christie, and then Rubio that I would like to see against Hillary.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I cannot, and do not, vouch for the polling source cited here. I share this simply for whatever you think its worth.

Poll: Trump won fifth GOP debate | TheHill

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I got a headache watching the debate. Way too many people on stage. I wish they would just do 4-5 and give everyone more time to talk and debate.

FWIW, I liked Christie's performance. I don't agree with some of the stuff he said but he performed well IMO.

The Cruz-Rubio was interesting. I've not read fact-checks yet to see who was right on each other's records.

Bush, eh. Although I think he would be my "safe" choice if voting GOP, he didn't seem to help himself that much in the debate.

Donald is still an ass. He's my guilty pleasure for a really interesting and exciting presidency but I don't think I can vote for him. There's too much chance for a World War during his tenure.

Carson seemed like an adult in the debate but some of his answers seemed off to me.

Not sure about Kaisch or Paul yet. I don't think they did anything to hurt their case but they (and Carly) should just drop out.

So far, I think its Bush or Christie, and then Rubio that I would like to see against Hillary.

Christie is either engaging in empty blustering on fighting Russia or he's willing to risk nuclear war over a no-fly zone in Syria. Neither one speaks highly of him.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I cannot, and do not, vouch for the polling source cited here. I share this simply for whatever you think its worth.

Poll: Trump won fifth GOP debate | TheHill

Kind of funny how that basically stacks up with polling numbers. May as well call it "who I'm voting for".