2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[lighthousekeeper]

2016 Presidential Media Blackouts: Not Just Conspiracy – Decision Data

[flere-imsaho]

More than anything, I think it's simple alpha male behavior (i.e. "belittle your opponents").

[wustin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tax rates for the highest earners under Eisenhower were 90%. Government investment in the U.S. under Eisenhower was a big contributor to America outperforming the world, economically, for at least the next 50-60 years.

I sympathize with the notion that we don't want to give today's politicians lots of money to waste, but let's not act as if historical fact doesn't exist.

Those back then in the 50s who were in the tax bracket to have 90% taxed on their income didn't pay that much. The effective tax rates those people paid were very low (less than 40%) due to there being so many breaks, deductibles, and loopholes to exploit. Reagan's tax reform would cut taxes and simplify the tax code, but it also removed those loopholes.

[JPhillips]

As the Congressional Research Service reported last year(2012), average rates for the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers dropped from over 60 percent just after World War II to the mid-20-percent range in recent years.

You're confusing things by saying, "who were in the tax bracket to have 90% taxed..." Of course they wouldn't be paying 90% total because tax brackets don't work that way. In the fifties there were way more tax brackets than there are currently(26 for HoH in 1954), so the drop of of total effective rate would be fairly rapid for those making just enough to hit the top marginal rate.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's not life or death for us - it's more Scandinavia 40 years ago versus Scandinavia today and today's Greece 40 years from now. I'll be OK regardless. I think my son will be OK. But what we're spending today means my son's children, if he goes that route, might have a difficult future.

And I don't even think the spending helps. If it did, it would be an investment in the future that might pay off. We do a lot more for people in need than we did 50 years ago, but the gulf seems even wider. Doubling down on this failed policy isn't a wise decision, but what's the alternative? Rampant spending is addictive and if we go the wealth confiscation route, that's a temporary fix and a lot more pain when that high wears off.

I'm not necessarily saying that whomever wins won't end up with some bad policy down the line. I'm simply saying there's not really a difference. Neither party is all that interested in fiscal responsibility. Democrats want to spend up to the "cap" to pay for health care, protecting the environment, doubling down on the current social security system, maybe some kind of middle class tax cut and other priorities. Republicans want to spend to the "cap" on defense, paying for tax cuts, doubling down on fossil fuel excavation, removing illegals and other priorities. At the end of the day, all the money available to the politicians will be spent and at no point will we actually look at the budget and try to be responsible with spending - until we are absolutely forced to (a la Banks with the subprime situation).

So, I might save a little money with a democrat middle class tax cut and if republicans change Obamacare I might have a little more stability with my employer-funded health care. Still, neither my taxes or health care plans will change all that much whether Hillary, Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders or Marco Rubio is president. Having to listen to Trump bloviate for 4 years is enough for me to make a token effort to stop him, but the country will be fine the next 4 years independent of the president. No candidate or party is willing to take the real steps that need to be started to help long term solvency for our children:
1. Trying to keep spending at a more responsible level
2. Reforming social security so there is some feasible plan to aid in the retirement for people between the ages of 20 and 40 that doesn't bankrupt the country.
3. Changing Obamacare to focus more on the under 50K earners who don't get good employer covered insurance; and not setting up a system that actually dis-incentivizes certain employers from offering coverage or hiring more people.
4. Investing more in trade schools and taking the power away from these bloated universities that charge a kid $40,000 to get a degree that will pay them slightly above poverty in the real world.

There are many other things that could help but aren't even priority 50 to either party. In the end, the election is like a bad sitcom where two siblings compete with each other to land access to their parent's black Amex card. So, I'll enjoy the show as much as I can - but I won't sweat out the result much.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Tax rates for the highest earners under Eisenhower were 90%. Government investment in the U.S. under Eisenhower was a big contributor to America outperforming the world, economically, for at least the next 50-60 years.

If you look at the data for top earners during that time (early 50s), their effective tax rate was closer to 49%. What's also interesting is that earners who made over $100,000 (big money at the time) paid less than 5% of the total tax bill. Nowadays, the top tier shoulders nearly half the tax burden. "Soaking the rich" to get more taxes (a la Bernie Sanders) doesn't give that much more money and you always run the risk of reducing the number of eggs that come out of the Golden Goose in the process.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by Arles

If you look at the data for top earners during that time (early 50s), their effective tax rate was closer to 49%. What's also interesting is that earners who made over $100,000 (big money at the time) paid less than 5% of the total tax bill. Nowadays, the top tier shoulders nearly half the tax burden. "Soaking the rich" to get more taxes (a la Bernie Sanders) doesn't give that much more money and you always run the risk of reducing the number of eggs that come out of the Golden Goose in the process.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inratesnap.pdf

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by wustin

Those back then in the 50s who were in the tax bracket to have 90% taxed on their income didn't pay that much. The effective tax rates those people paid were very low (less than 40%) due to there being so many breaks, deductibles, and loopholes to exploit. Reagan's tax reform would cut taxes and simplify the tax code, but it also removed those loopholes.

Those in the top bracket generally aren't paying anywhere close to what that bracket requires, either. If you think the loopholes were removed, I've got news for you....

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Those in the top bracket generally aren't paying anywhere close to what that bracket requires, either. If you think the loopholes were removed, I've got news for you....

Didn't Romney report paying about 15% in taxes in 2012? Obama's most recent effective tax rate was just shy of 20%.

[nol]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Those in the top bracket generally aren't paying anywhere close to what that bracket requires, either. If you think the loopholes were removed, I've got news for you....

What?! Next you'll be telling me there are Internet sites where you can look at all the porn you want to for free without having to download anything to your computer.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by wustin

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09inratesnap.pdf

That only looks at income taxes. When you look at total federal taxes the difference isn't as extreme.

But income taxes are about income and the bottom 50% has only about 15% of the income. The top 1% has 22% of the income and pays 24% of the taxes. What's so crazy about that?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by wustin

Those back then in the 50s who were in the tax bracket to have 90% taxed on their income didn't pay that much. The effective tax rates those people paid were very low (less than 40%) due to there being so many breaks, deductibles, and loopholes to exploit. Reagan's tax reform would cut taxes and simplify the tax code, but it also removed those loopholes.

Yeah, you can't compare rates from different eras. You used to be able to write off everything. Houses, cars, wait staff, jewelry, etc. They actually had to put the Alternative Minimum Tax in because the richest people in the country were not paying any taxes.

I don't have a problem with raising the capital gains tax because it's used as a loophole right now. But no one has ever paid 90%.

[PilotMan]

When I'm working with people who spend too much time bitching about all the taxes they have to pay (keep in mind that I'm working with people who are squarely in the top 3% of income earners in the US) I tell them that they should be so lucky. That typically ends the conversation.

[NobodyHere]

Ted Cruz Didn’t Disclose Loan From Goldman Sachs for His First Senate Campaign

[flere-imsaho]

Luckily the GOP has eviscerated the FEC, so nothing will come of it for Cruz.

[JPhillips]

[Thomkal]

god, hate when parents let their kids be used in political statements

[nol]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

OK I'll bite: is this supposed to be some Tim & Eric type of thing?

[digamma]

Jeb seems angry tonight.

[digamma]

I think Rubios ears are takeing HGH

— PFTCommenter (@PFTCommenter) January 15, 2016

[NobodyHere]

I really can't take this w/o at least a .100 BAC

[tarcone]

Much easier to watch the soon to be indicted HRC and self proclaimed socialist Bernie?
These guys have fire, at least. I'll take passion any day.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by tarcone

the soon to be indicted HRC

If you clap loud enough...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Much easier to watch the soon to be indicted HRC and self proclaimed socialist Bernie?
These guys have fire, at least. I'll take passion any day.

Dems don't have much going for them but this crop of candidates is a clown show.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If you clap loud enough...

I'm sure if they wish really hard.. this time.. this time will be different

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

I'm sure if they wish really hard.. this time.. this time will be different

If at first you don't succeed... try 726 times more while wasting the taxpayers' money... over the course of 2+ decades.

[flere-imsaho]

Quoting my post from December 21st, here's an update with:

• 2 weeks until Iowa
• 3 weeks until New Hampshire
• 4 weeks (approximately) until Nevada / South Carolina
• 6 weeks until Super Tuesday

Of interest is this 538 article from late last year pointing out that most Iowa (and NH, to an extent) voters don't make up their mind until pretty close to the caucus: Dear Media, Stop Freaking Out About Donald Trump’s Polls | FiveThirtyEight .

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Trump - currently @ 34.4%

Translate polls into votes & wins. It's that simple. He trails Cruz in Iowa but leads the field in NH. Current analysis says his supporters are of a demographic that doesn't turn out. If that's true, he probably needs to win either Iowa or NH or risk his supporters not turning out in other states. But Trump has bucked all the other common wisdom, so....

He's currently at 34.5% in the RCP average. No change. Who saw that?

We're past the holidays, past New Year, and now people are actually talking about Iowa & NH. And his support is steady.

His path to victory remains as above: translate polls into votes, despite the "common wisdom" that his supporters won't come out to the polls. If he runs 2nd to Cruz in Iowa and wins NH (as current polls suggest) and retains his polling numbers through Super Tuesday (and, at this point, there is nothing "historically" for the past 6 months for which he's been the front-runner to indicate otherwise), he'll be hard to beat.

Cruz - @ 17.1%

Continue to position himself as the 2nd choice for Trump supporters and hope that the Trump train derails itself. He's already clearly picked up a bunch of former Carson supporters, but I don't see who else from the field has supporters who would view him as their 2nd choice (maybe Paul, but he only has 2.4% anyway).

Alternatively, keep Rubio, Bush & Christie enough at bay so that the GOP Establishment has no choice but to annoit him to avoid Trump. But are Rubio, Bush & Christie supporters going to vote for Cruz as a 2nd choice, or simply stay home?

He's currently at 19.3%, up 2 points, essentially.

I think his path to victory remains the same, to be honest. Hoping for the Trump train to derail maybe isn't so realistic given the way they went at each other last night, but being the "choice" of the Establishment just might be. I use those quotes on purpose.

Rubio - @ 12.3%

He's currently in a downward trend, which seems to indicate he's hit his ceiling until people start dropping out. So he needs a LOT of candidates (i.e. anyone with a passing familiarity with GOP "moderation" - Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Graham, Pataki) to drop out, and soon.

Alternatively, hang in there long enough to make a late delegate surge as the GOP electorate wakes up and realizes it doesn't want Trump or Cruz. But is that enough of the remaining GOP electorate to push him over?

Currently at 11.8, down essentially a point, but also crucially without any particularly strong path to a win in the pre-Super Tuesday states. Unless he does something dramatic, it seems likely he's going to lose out in the 3-way between Bush, himself & Christie, with the latter "winning".

But pragmatically if Bush, Christie, Fiorina, Kasich and Huckabee all drop out and he gets their polling percentages (some BIG ifs), he'd be at 27%.

Alternatively, he's tacking pretty right, perhaps trying to position himself as a reasonable alternative for Trump & Cruz supporters. I kind of have a hard time seeing that actually work, but I don't think you can discount anything at this point.

Carson - @ 10%

The protest vote that's currently with Trump and probably half of Cruz's support has to go to him via them dropping out, which seems exceptionally unlikely. Given this and his clear downward trend, I really can't see a path forward, barring some sort of miracle.

Currently at 9%, and his campaign is imploding. I wouldn't be surprised if this is about the percentage who are going to support him regardless. I hate to be cynical, but he'll probably stay in for as long as his candidacy remains profitable for him.

Bush - @ 4.6%

Rubio & Cruz dropping out prior to Super Tuesday is probably the bare minimum (or them losing their support and him gaining it). A resurgent Christie doesn't help him at all.

Alternatively, there's plenty of indicate (from 538 at least) that the electorate doesn't really wake up until 2 weeks before Iowa. So maybe there's an awakening and Bush surges back into to race. A lot of ifs there, though.

Currently at 4.8%, so essentially the same. The narrative says he's losing ground to Christie as the "Establishment" candidate. His path to victory at this point definitely involves Rubio & Christie imploding quickly (and Christie cannot do better than him in NH) and Trump and Cruz cratering.

Christie - @ 3.1%

I could see him picking up Cruz, Rubio & Bush votes should they drop out. But it requires that they drop out and Trump melts down.

Currently at 3.5%, but, again the "narrative" has him picking up steam. Like Rubio & Bush, he needs a) the other two to drop out soon (before Super Tuesday at the very latest) and something dramatic to happen to Trump and/or Cruz or a big part of the GOP primary electorate who has maybe been silent (do they exist) to wake up and vote for him. Could happen, but?


I don't think any of the remaining have any chance, and I'm probably being generous to some of the above.


For reference, on this date in 2012 Gingrich led Romney by 11 points (Trump is leading Cruz by 15) and in 2008 Giuliani led Huckabee by 2, Romney by 8 and McCain by 10 (roughly). There is still absolutely potential for big shifts between Iowa & Super Tuesday, but Trump has a pretty big lead.

As I stated on December 21st, this all still hinges on whether Trump's supporters come out between Iowa & Super Tuesday. If they do, then something really dramatic needs to happen downfield, the most likely of which seems to me to be the Establishment holding its nose and coalescing around Cruz. But hoo boy that's some nose-holding.

If Trump's supporters don't come out and he disappears (functionally) before Super Tuesday then it's a straight-up Cruz vs. Rubio/Bush/Christie race. If Trump's vestigal support, at that point, migrates to Cruz, then it's hard to see a path to nomination for the Establishment. If they don't, then the Establishment must coalesce around one of those three if they want to beat Cruz. We've seen patching up of relations to make this happen before, so I could see it happening but, on the other hand, at this point Rubio + Christie + Bush = 20.1%, so even with Cruz. OK, possible.

Another wild card, of course, is where Carson's 9% go if/when he drops out.


So, final word, still crazy stuff.

[QuikSand]

great summary, flere

I am most fascinated by the battle-among-the-establishment and the apparent disconnect between the narrative/pundits and the polls. Can Christie really be making meaningful ground without it registering with anyone? It's sort of like... if everyone agrees they heard the tree fall in the forest, did it really even have to fall? Fun stuff.

[flere-imsaho]

Thanks QS.

With Christie I think what we're seeing is the inverse (to an extent) of the "anyone-but-Romney" sequence from 2012, only the Establishment (and their pundits) are flailing about madly to find the candidate who will beat Trump and Cruz.

I say "to an extent" because while we are seeing distinct shifts in narrative and mentions, there's not a whole lot of polling change among those three like there was with the "anyone-but-Romney" crowd. Save, perhaps, Christie's gradual climb in NH (where he's still behind Trump, Rubio, Kasich and Cruz).

[JPhillips]

The big problem for the GOP in a nutshell - the establishment candidates pull in about 20% and Trump/Cruz/Carson pull in about 63%. Unless the polls are wrong or the voters stay home, the establishment candidates look like significant underdogs at this point.

[albionmoonlight]

I've long been on the "probably Rubio, but Christie is an underrated darkhorse" train for a while.

But I am starting to think that it might be Cruz. The pundit class says that he is too radical, but unlike Trump who is openly so, Cruz seems able to pivot in a general election.

Trump's presence may actually help him in an Overton window sort of way. If, come general election time, people remember Trump as the extreme, then Cruz becomes an electable moderate simply by being more moderate than Trump.

Does the fact that he pissed off a bunch of senators a while back really matter? Would the GOP powerbrokers really be so petty if it became apparent that he was their best chance of getting multiple Supreme Court nominees appointed in the next four years?

[flere-imsaho]

In the final analysis, Romney got 52% of the popular vote in the 2012 GOP primaries. Even if that's inflated, we're still talking about a drop from 52% to 20% for the "Establishment". What happened to roughly 30% of that electorate?

[flere-imsaho]

I could absolutely see that happening, albion.

[panerd]

Any thoughts on what Trump would do for a VP if he wins the nomination? Would he have to pick one of these guys (Cruz, Rubio) that he fought with? Would they even want it? He is so arrogant I could see him picking Donald Jr. unless the GOP has more say in it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Does the fact that he pissed off a bunch of senators a while back really matter? Would the GOP powerbrokers really be so petty if it became apparent that he was their best chance of getting multiple Supreme Court nominees appointed in the next four years?

Maybe. They've certainly let him twist in the wind over the Canadian birth issue.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Any thoughts on what Trump would do for a VP if he wins the nomination? Would he have to pick one of these guys (Cruz, Rubio) that he fought with? Would they even want it? He is so arrogant I could see him picking Donald Jr. unless the GOP has more say in it.

I can see a reworking of the "Apprentice" being televised around that date

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by panerd

Any thoughts on what Trump would do for a VP if he wins the nomination? Would he have to pick one of these guys (Cruz, Rubio) that he fought with? Would they even want it? He is so arrogant I could see him picking Donald Jr. unless the GOP has more say in it.

Before he & Cruz went all handbags, I figured it would probably be Cruz.

If he continues to confound expectations, I think he'll pick some sort of seasoned politician who can stand him to add "OK, that's not so crazy" to the ticket. Otherwise I think he picks some sort of business associate.

I'm reasonably certain he's barred by law from picking an actual relative.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I can see a reworking of the "Apprentice" being televised around that date

Or this.

[Solecismic]

Review of the latest round of debates, last night in North Charleston, SC, on Fox Business:

The candidates are taking on different roles as we've had a few months to digest poll changes and Iowa is coming soon. They realize there are very few tomorrows remaining, and poor performances in Iowa and New Hampshire will dry up their financial support.

I was surprised how much some of these candidates have changed as they struggle with this unprecedented number of candidates and, at least according the polls, this truly strong desire to see an "outsider" in the White House.

Undercard:

Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee: As Carly Fiorina aptly noted, the undercard featured the last two Iowa Caucus winners. It's also worth pointing out that Santorum was polling sixth in Iowa with 17 days remaining in 2012 and ended up winning. However, both seem to have given up and would like to focus instead on building a religious right block that can be delivered to another candidate... for a price... later on. This is a familiar refrain after Iowa.

Carly Fiorina: She hasn't given up and she has done a good job refining her phrasing. She's very precise and on message. The problem is that the Republicans really don't need someone whose specialty is poking Hillary Clinton. This isn't a baseball game where the opponent has David Ortiz coming up third in the ninth inning so it's time to warm up the LOOGY. Is she running for the VP slot? Maybe, but there's no contingency she can offer other than the vague idea that women will choose identity politics if the Republicans don't have a woman on the ticket. That's not enough, and she hasn't offered anything new in a long time.

Rand Paul: There wasn't an empty chair out there, but his absence spoke volumes. I understand his frustration with the demotion to the JV debate, but what message does it send your followers if you decline the opportunity to talk in front of a few million people? He probably should have withdrawn from the race instead.

Varsity:

John Kasich: He's finally relaxing a little out there, and his performance was much stronger. However, let's say you asked the question, "Governor Kasich, what do you think about trousers?" He would likely answer, "Well, to answer that question, you need someone qualified to wear trousers. And I've worn trousers in Washington for 18 years. And I've worn trousers as the governor of Ohio, where we wear more trousers per capita than in any other state. So I'm uniquely qualified to wear trousers in the White House." Yes, OK, but what do you think? So this, IMO, makes him a much better VP candidate than Fiorina, but how would he do in the all-import VP debates?

Jeb Bush: I think he could far more accurately and eloquently explain why he's in sixth place than I could. He's John Kerry. The irony of his trying to explain his wishy-washy everything won't work so let's do nothing when Trump was blustering about China was so similar to why the Republicans are angry about ISIS and Iran. Knowledge of the issues is great, but when it hog-ties you to destructive inaction out of fear of offending someone, it becomes a liability. If only Jeb could be merged with W, there might actually be some greatness there instead of one bottom-quartile president and one guy who will be out of the race in a month.

Chris Christie: Once again, Christie seems to be the debater we were promised years ago - back before the Bridges of New Jersey and the Hugs o' Sandy and a host of other fairly specious incidents knocked him back from the assumption that he would take this nomination rather easily. There's a lot of appeal to this forceful, knowledgeable, law-and-order guy. But very little warmth, which explains why we keep turning to him wondering if he'll be the guy who takes charge of this race, and we keep turning away, saying he doesn't actually inspire us. Rather unfairly, he has contend with being the person he had to be to win New Jersey in the first place. He couldn't care less about defunding Planned Parenthood, and might actually support it. However, if you need someone to scare small children into thinking Hillary Clinton is hiding under their beds, ready to emerge and devour them, Christie is your man. I think he did really well yesterday, maybe enough to put a serious dent in Rubio, but he's not in the top tier and I think he'll run out of time if he doesn't convey a little more warmth.

Dr. Ben Carson: Giggling like a schoolgirl at his own jokes is endearing. I like the guy, but I have no idea what he's doing in the race at this point. He seems to have returned to wanting to be likable. It's just too late for introductions. Now, imagine a two-person race between the hybrid Jeb/W Bush and the hybrid Dr. Ben-Chris Christarson. That could be great.

Marco Rubio: Our friendly always-positive Rubio-bot turned mean on us. Now I'm thinking angry hobbit with smoke pouring out of those ears. Some people should never, ever try attacking. He was graceful as a counter-puncher because he could remain positive. He derailed going after Cruz and Christie. My sense is that this was a disastrous performance, though there's a little debate fatigue right now and ratings were lower than previous debates (10-12 million watched). His appeal was going to have to lie in him not seeming like just another establishment politician. Out of all the candidates, I think he hurt himself the most with those who are inclined to support him.

Ted Cruz: His rise in the polls, and clear position as the leader of the right wing has made him a target. So he spent most of the debate on defense, and he was OK there. But the attacks force voters to consider whether he's too right-wing to be a major party candidate. I think he did well in the eyes of the Iowa bloc that will turn out for him. My gut (the one that is always wrong and always craving pop-tarts) says he wins Iowa easily. I think his instincts yesterday were good. But he has a lot to overcome, and the MSM has decided that the Cruz birther issue is a real one. I remember caring about this one myself a long time ago, not that I would ever want to be a politician. I was born when my parents were working overseas (and not with the military). But they were both born in the US and full citizens. I've spent most of my life in the US and identify as American and have always had a US passport. I think it's clear that I'm "natural born," but the terminology itself is confusing.

Donald Trump: He's getting a lot better at this, and, while he still has enormous trouble articulating details, when he was talking about China, he actually managed to command the respect of both the audience and the other candidates. That's something he hasn't even come close to doing in the past. You almost saw a glimmer that maybe he knows what he's doing sometimes. He absolutely owned Bush on that exchange. Here we are, afraid of retaliation on so many fronts, and so we've created a business scenario where competitive businesses are forced to move overseas. Trump's approach is that businesses have to seek profits. He takes that for granted as what's necessary to survive in a tough business world. Others question whether businesses should be forced to behave differently without thinking of what that might mean for US businesses trying to compete for our own consumers. What Trump hasn't done is convince us that he's the guy who can make China and others behave more fairly. He definitely sees the business side of what seems to paralyze candidates like Bush, who try and see every side. It's so interesting that Trump joins the Democrats against Obama and the Republicans when it comes to arguing against the TPP. But, then again, I'm still not certain Trump knows that China is not part of the TPP. At any rate, if you compare Trump in the first debate to Trump last night, he has come a long way. And, on the other hand, you're reminded that he remains largely a reactionary, and you wonder if his ego will get in the way - as it has with his insistence that we need to temporarily ban all Muslims from traveling to or immigrating to the US.

Overall...

I still think Trump isn't going to win, but Rubio had his moment a while back and then his momentum stopped. And now he's falling back and not reacting well at all. Cruz may have a lower ceiling because he doesn't have friends in Washington. Christie is emerging, but he doesn't feel your pain. Kasich feels your pain, but doesn't inspire you. Who is going to step forward to stop Trump? If that answer is nobody, he wins by default. I figured with 17 candidates originally, nobody wasn't an option. Now it is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

In the final analysis, Romney got 52% of the popular vote in the 2012 GOP primaries. Even if that's inflated, we're still talking about a drop from 52% to 20% for the "Establishment". What happened to roughly 30% of that electorate?

a) they still have options at the moment.
and
b) a good portion appear to have grown weary of frauds, pseudocons, and others that are not just willing but downright eager to capitulate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

There is still absolutely potential for big shifts between Iowa & Super Tuesday, but Trump has a pretty big lead.

With Trump, there's absolutely potential for big shifts from one minute to the next.

There's still a LOT of time left for him to make an unrecoverable mistake. Right now he has a lot of people willing to believe, he could shatter that with one false move.

So far he's done a downright remarkable job of saying the right things to those voters, say the wrong thing at the wrong time & *poof*. (I do think a lot of those voters are likely to stay away from the polls entirely if that happens however)

That potential is the only reason I've not endorsed or actively campaigned for Trump. I'm willing to take him at face value right now ... but I still don't trust that he won't f. that up.

[AENeuman]

I'm starting to appreciate the republican eye roll of the 2008 Obama campaign - it seems similar to the dem eye roll of trump now. Both winning on cult of personality. They both do an emotional but vague appeal to voters, taking the position that past events or friends does not matter to the voters as much as making them feel good.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm starting to appreciate the republican eye roll of the 2008 Obama campaign - it seems similar to the dem eye roll of trump now. Both winning on cult of personality. They both do an emotional but vague appeal to voters, taking the position that past events or friends does not matter to the voters as much as making them feel good.

If you didnt see it with Obama, you are blind to good agreeable charisma.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you didnt see it with Obama, you are blind to good agreeable charisma.

That's my point. Would you say trump supporters are also being blind to agreeable charisma?

[Coffee Warlord]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If you didnt see it with Obama, you are blind to good agreeable charisma.

Well, a majority of voters were blind to it in 2008.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I'm starting to appreciate the republican eye roll of the 2008 Obama campaign - it seems similar to the dem eye roll of trump now. Both winning on cult of personality. They both do an emotional but vague appeal to voters, taking the position that past events or friends does not matter to the voters as much as making them feel good.

How is that different from Bush or Clinton or Reagan? Couldn't cult of personality be seen as will of the voters?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How is that different from Bush or Clinton or Reagan? Couldn't cult of personality be seen as will of the voters?

I don't recall, but I don't seem to think opponents of those guys said electing them will be apocalyptic, like they said about Obama, and now trump.

[JPhillips]

But that's not the fault of the candidate. I don't think you can win the job without some level of personality cult.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't recall, but I don't seem to think opponents of those guys said electing them will be apocalyptic, like they said about Obama, and now trump.

Although if you go back a little farther...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Well, a majority of voters were blind to it in 2008.

Also 2000*, 1992**, 1980*** and holy shit 1960.

* "I'd have a beer with him."

** "Bubba. Regular guy."

*** Actor as President

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't recall, but I don't seem to think opponents of those guys said electing them will be apocalyptic, like they said about Obama, and now trump.

You must have forgotten the whole "you're either with us or against us" theme of the second Bush Presidency, which leaked very heavily into GOP campaigns.