2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

I'm actually surprised Cruz doesn't have an even bigger negative from the Democrats.

I think Trump is a bit like the "Rex Ryan" of the GOP. He's an easy target and takes most of the criticism because of his personality. Cruz is like the Geno Smith in that once Rex/Trump is gone, a lot of the focus will be on his shortcomings.

[JPhillips]

The people who voted against X in the primary almost always come back to the candidate that is nominated. We see this year after year. Almost all the Sanders voters will eventually vote for Hillary when they see that Cruz or Trump or whomever is the alternative.

I'm so old I remember when the Hillary supporters all abandoned Obama and McCain won.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think Trump is a bit like the "Rex Ryan" of the GOP.

He has a foot fetish?

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He has a foot fetish?

Only when it helps him dodge the Vietnam War draft.

[nol]

'I thought the "2 Corinthians" thing from earlier on was pretty funny because my initial reaction was "Come on, how can you focus on that as evidence for Trump being a phony Christian when the vast majority of church-going Americans would make the exact same mistake?" before realizing that the two are not necessarily contradictory.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by revrew

Correct. You've got to look deeper into the numbers.

OK

Just like Romney, Hillary is going to have to fight the people in her own party who don't like her. That 20%. Then, she'll have to fight against the Bern letdown (if she's the nominee), as many of Bernie's supporters won't switch to voting for her.

Candidate - "Unfavorable" % among Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents:

Cruz - 16
Carson - 19
Rubio - 20
Trump - 35
Christie - 26
Bush - 45

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/188069/je...campaign=tiles

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think Trump is a bit like the "Rex Ryan" of the GOP. He's an easy target and takes most of the criticism because of his personality. Cruz is like the Geno Smith in that once Rex/Trump is gone, a lot of the focus will be on his shortcomings.

Wow, I love that.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Wow, I love that.

So playing this out, does that make Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul or Lindsay Graham IK Enemkpali?

And Jeb! as Ryan Fitzpatrick?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by digamma

So playing this out, does that make Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul or Lindsay Graham IK Enemkpali?

And Jeb! as Ryan Fitzpatrick?

I can buy Jeb! as the guy that had the playoffs sewn up, but threw pick after pick and ended up sitting at home.

[flere-imsaho]

LOL:

Carly Fiorina accused of 'ambushing' children for anti-abortion rally | US news | The Guardian

Carly Fiorina has been accused of “ambushing” a group of children, after she ushered pre-schoolers, who were on a field trip to a botanical garden, into an anti-abortion rally in Des Moines.

Live Hillary Clinton attacks Sanders on healthcare in Iowa – campaign live
Join us on the campaign trail in Iowa and New Hampshire as Republicans try to dig into Trump’s commanding lead in the Granite State
Read more
On Wednesday, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive embarked on a day of campaigning across Iowa, in an attempt to boost her ailing presidential campaign.

The alleged ambush occurred when Fiorina hosted a “right to life” forum at the Greater Des Moines botanical garden. Entering the rally, before a crowd of about 60 people, she directed around 15 young children towards a makeshift stage.

The problem, one parent said, was that the children’s parents had not given Fiorina permission to have their children sit with her – in front of a huge banner bearing the image of an unborn foetus – while she talked about harvesting organs from aborted babies.

“The kids went there to see the plants,” said Chris Beck, the father of four-year-old Chatham, one of the children Fiorina appeared with. “She ambushed my son’s field trip.”

[QuikSand]

Log In - The New York Times

Kasich backed by former NH state party chairman | TheHill

Hmmmm...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by revrew

We're getting to the point where the GOP will have to decide between the Cruz strategy (fire up the base) or the Romney strategy (run to the middle). Otherwise Trump wins ... and his net favorables among all groups are U.G.L.Y.

But is choosing Marco Rubio actually running to the middle a.k.a. is he actually a moderate? He certainly came off that way early, when I liked him, but he doesn't really have positions, and the more he talks the more some of those super-conservative positions I dislike come out of his mouth. I mean, he's certainly not Huckabee/Santorum with the bonafides that base respects, but I genuinely don't know where he falls on a lot of those issues.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At least the Obie voters occasionally admit to what they are, I can respect that a lot more than anymore claiming to be "conservative"* while voting for thinly veiled Democrats.

*They're welcome to claim to be Republicans, that label has been eroded by so many pseudocons that it really can't be equated with conservative at this point.

And I'd counter that what you're calling "conservative" is actually reactionary. Abortion is the one you can never say anyone's wrong on because it really does depend on when you believe "life" begins (whether at conception, once the fetus is viable, once the fetus is viable without machines, once the baby takes a breath, whatever line you draw), but gay marriage/marijuana legalization? You lost those fights, and each successive generation cares less about them so it's never going to swing back, so tying the party to those positions only makes it harder each election. But even if you oppose those for moral reasons, since when did believing people should be able to do whatever they want in their own home if it doesn't harm others stop being a conservative value? Strange bedfellows indeed.

[wustin]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

But is choosing Marco Rubio actually running to the middle a.k.a. is he actually a moderate? He certainly came off that way early, when I liked him, but he doesn't really have positions, and the more he talks the more some of those super-conservative positions I dislike come out of his mouth. I mean, he's certainly not Huckabee/Santorum with the bonafides that base respects, but I genuinely don't know where he falls on a lot of those issues.

Cruz and Trump doing so well is pulling him to the right. It's kinda like what Bernie is doing with Hillary.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Log In - The New York Times

Kasich backed by former NH state party chairman | TheHill

Hmmmm...

I'm all for it, but his numbers on that link flere shared are absurd. Only a 4% negative from Democrats? (Next lowest is Christie at 24%) ... but only a 7% positive spread from Republicans (other than Jeb and all his current backlash, the next lowest is Christie at 23%) Anti-Hilary sentiment would probably be enough to keep it a toss-up in the fall, but how does this guy actually get any traction with the hoi polloi that only hear things secondhand from their friends facebook feeds?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by wustin

Cruz and Trump doing so well is pulling him to the right. It's kinda like what Bernie is doing with Hillary.

They (and the early primaries in Iowa/SC) are making him publicly say more right-wing things than I think he and his team want to before the general, but I'm not sure those aren't what he'd actually do in office. If that makes any sense. As misguided as all these others are, I completely believe that all the other candidates legitimately think they'd be the best president, or at least have some pet causes they want to force through. I can't figure out what Rubio wants or why he wants to be President, and honestly that's starting to scare the shit out of me. Donald Trump might be a clown, and I'm not sure he really believes in some of the positions he's taking or he's doing it to fool people, but I fully believe he believes he's the smartest guy on that stage.

[QuikSand]

[Thomkal]

In the same vein Quik, a group including some actors, have come up with this:

StopHateDumpTrump

[JPhillips]

The more this goes on the more I think Cruz will be what splits the GOP rather than Trump.

[Dutch]

I was listening to Trump on CNN last night. I'm starting to like him.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was listening to Trump on CNN last night. I'm starting to like him.

Burn your TV right now before its too late!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was listening to Trump on CNN last night. I'm starting to like him.

I'd probably take him over Hilary at this point.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Burn your TV right now before its too late!

Haha, it was a hotel TV.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I'd probably take him over Hilary at this point.

Establishment politicians are in big trouble this cycle.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Establishment politicians are in big trouble this cycle.

Well I like Trump mostly for the entertainment value.

I'm jaded right now and think that any big ideas are going to get stonewalled by the other side. So why not go for some mirth.

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well I like Trump mostly for the entertainment value.

I'm jaded right now and think that any big ideas are going to get stonewalled by the other side. So why not go for some mirth.

Because there is plenty a president can mess up without needing approval. The idea of Trump representing the US as its leader truly terrifies me even though I believe his policies would be a lot more moderate than his supporters anticipate.

[flere-imsaho]

If given the choice, in the general, of only GOP candidates (so, say, the current clown car), I'd vote for Trump, easily.

[flere-imsaho]

After a brief Cruz surge in Iowa, he & Trump are now neck-and-neck there in the polls (via RCP poll aggregate, of course).

Likewise, after a brief Kasich surge in NH, Trump's lead there (which he never lost) is now up to 20% and climbing (again RCP poll aggregate).

For a while I was thinking it would be interesting if Cruz took Iowa and Kasich took NH. But now I'd say it'll be interesting if Trump takes both.


Also, I happened to be looking at Iowa results from 2012 and was reminded that although Santorum won the popular vote, Ron Paul's supporters gamed the process to get him 22 of the 28 delegates (Romney picked up 6): United States presidential election in Iowa, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good times. I assume they've changed the rules in the past 4 years.

[flere-imsaho]

Since I'm perusing the site....

In 2008 with 10 days to go before the Iowa Caucus Gingrich & Romney had essentially the poll totals that would be mirrored in the vote, with them finishing in that order. Thompson & McCain were tied and at the Caucus Thompson just pipped McCain to 3rd.

In 2012, however, a very different story. With 10 days to go the eventual winner, Santorum, was 6th place with 7%. He would rocket up to 24.6% of the caucus vote, "winning" it, as I mentioned above. Romney, who was in 2nd with 10 days to go, held his percentage and finished 2nd. Paul faded from a strong 1st to 3rd and Gingrich & Perry held their relative positions.

Can we take anything from this? Both Huckabee & Santorum spent a crapload of time in Iowa in the last couple of weeks leading up the Caucus, and it definitely worked for them. Who's doing that this time? Cruz, definitely. And it rewarded him with a surge which took him comfortably about Trump, but has now subsided somewhat.

Can anyone else replicate this in the next 10 days? The only other candidates within striking range (if we take 2012 example, are Carson & Rubio). Neither have shown an ability or desire to hit the pavement to the extent of Cruz or even Trump, so, frankly, it seems unlikely.

At this point I really have to say it's either Cruz or Trump who wins it (delegate shenanigans notwithstanding). I'd give Cruz the advantage, given that he's practically living there at this point, and he also looks like he's written off NH for now (though he's comfortably in 2nd, though 16 points behind Trump there).


By the way, this polling is mirrored in South Carolina (though with a lot less data). Trump way out ahead trending upward, big gap to Cruz, big gap to third, everyone else essentially bunched in the single digits. Obviously every later primary/caucus is influenced by prior results, so we shouldn't take the SC polls too seriously right now, but if you're a Trump supporter, things look pretty good 10 days out from Iowa.


So, again, at this point, barring some major crazy development, the safe money would be for Trump to head into Super Tuesday with the delegate lead and wins in 3 or 4 (of 4) states (he's also leading in Nevada). The most likely "crazy development", IMO, is Trump's supporters not actually turning out to vote, which we would absolutely see in Iowa if it was going to happen.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

That's a dying paper, it's pretty much a dead paper.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't think that's the point. The point is the list of folks "against Trump".

[albionmoonlight]

Two theories I have heard on why the Establishment is getting more anti-Cruz:

"The establishment would rather lease the party to Trump for four months than to take the chance of selling it to Cruz for four years."

"Trump is a buffoon, and the establishment is getting used to the idea that it could control him in the White House. Cruz is a genius and a maverick and he really would freeze them out if he won."

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I don't think that's the point. The point is the list of folks "against Trump".

Who cares what the point is? I was reciting what I heard Trump say on MSM.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who cares what the point is? I was reciting what I heard Trump say on MSM.

Ahh, now that I repeat that sentence in Trump's voice, sounds much better.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Ahh, now that I repeat that sentence in Trump's voice, sounds much better.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Two theories I have heard on why the Establishment is getting more anti-Cruz:

"Trump is a buffoon, and the establishment is getting used to the idea that it could control him in the White House. Cruz is a genius and a maverick and he really would freeze them out if he won."

This.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

"Trump is a buffoon, and the establishment is getting used to the idea that it could control him in the White House. Cruz is a genius and a maverick and he really would freeze them out if he won."

I don't believe this is your quote (due to the quote signs), so this isn't a direct response to you.

On Trump, I think they're kidding themselves. Unless by "control" they mean shut him down legislatively. Sure, I can see that. But there's plenty else for the President to do, and he still has the veto pen. The most likely scenario, to me, is the GOP in Congress spending 4 years swinging between acceding to Trump's demands and scrambling to get Democrats on board to override vetos. And if they do the latter, they'll get primaried and Trump will probably help.

On Cruz, I don't think he'd freeze them out, I think he'd co-opt them. The GOP Establishment already can't control his cronies in the House, imagine what they'd be like with their guy in the White House. Although, at the end of the day it's still probably gridlock.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who cares what the point is? I was reciting what I heard Trump say on MSM.

You drank the kool-aid, didn't you? What did I tell you about drinking the kool-aid?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

So, the RNC has dropped The National Review as a debate sponsor.

"We expected this was coming," National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote in a blog post early Friday, calling the RNC move a "small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald."

I certainly agree with the reasoning behind opposing Trump. I don't think it can be said any better than the frustrated Jeb Bush and his "you're not a serious candidate" accusations.

But the media's job is to report facts, not to tell us what "the truth" is. It's not always a clear line, but it is a line. Republican frustration with the media goes back at least as far as Newsweek and their "wimp" cover about Bush 41.

This will actually help Trump.

I agree that the RNC is looking at a Cruz/Trump battle and realizes that Cruz has the ability to ignore them while Trump's own vanity will force him to modify his mission. As long as they say he's great, they will have his ear. Trump is hardly stupid, though. It's an interesting idea; Trump has the potential to improve while Cruz would walk in there like Obama did, so sure of himself that he will surround himself with yes-men.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You drank the kool-aid, didn't you? What did I tell you about drinking the kool-aid?

We're all drinking Kool-Aid, just depends what flavor you like best, none of which are particular fav's of mine.

Rubio = Tropical Punch Kool-Aid
Trump = Bunch Berry Kool-Aid
Cruz = Man-o-Mangoberry Kool-Aid
Hillary = Purplesaurus Rex Kool-Aid
Sanders = Scary Blackberry Kool-Aid

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But the media's job is to report facts, not to tell us what "the truth" is.

That's the most naive thing I've heard in a long time.

[ISiddiqui]

Besides, The National Review is an outwardly editorial magazine. It's not portraying itself as anything objective.

[Dutch]

The media reports the facts if you watch a lot of media. They all just report the facts they want you to know based on their bias.

Jim is suggesting some sort of ethics in reporting, which either is long gone or never existed anyway.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Besides, The National Review is an outwardly editorial magazine. It's not portraying itself as anything objective.

The handful of people that even know this are few and far between. Most see it as "unethical journalism".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The media reports the facts if you watch a lot of media. They all just report the facts they want you to know based on their bias.

Jim is suggesting some sort of ethics in reporting, which either is long gone or never existed anyway.

I analogize it to the Bible. You can simply read out the words if you want, but everyone in attempting to explain it adds their own gloss and bias, regardless of how 'objective' they are thinking they are being.

You cannot explain 'the facts' without your bias entering into it. There was never an era of reporting that avoided this (as you pointed out). People just liked the bias from previous eras.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

That's the most naive thing I've heard in a long time.

It's in the use of the term "the truth," which ties in with the notion that the MSM has a narrow, homogeneous set of views. This picture of a comfy group of elites who respond the same way to every challenge - dismissal of the opposing viewpoint as "stupid" or "rural" or "mean-spirited." I think we've grown so accustomed to the media behaving in this manner that we don't see that difference. The media is supposed to report the facts and let the readers draw a conclusion.

Even a journal started to express a political opinion (Willliam F. Buckley was a respected conservative) should respect that difference. They did at one point. Make the argument, and let the reader draw the conclusion. I understand this may seem like a subtle distinction today, but it's night and day and it's exactly why none of these newspapers and magazines will be around 20 years from now.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The media reports the facts if you watch a lot of media. They all just report the facts they want you to know based on their bias.

Jim is suggesting some sort of ethics in reporting, which either is long gone or never existed anyway.

That's why we don't trust them. When I was in journalism school, we were taught to write editorials from a very different perspective. We could only write about what we didn't believe. That way, we wouldn't ignore important facts that might invalidate the opinion.

It seems like a cop out to say that there's no ethics possible in reporting. Just because some figurative ideal neutrality is impossible doesn't mean you can't be conscious of bias and do your best to eliminate it.

That's not to say what The National Review wrote is invalid. It's in how they presented it. That point might seem trivial, but it means everything.

[flere-imsaho]

There's a lot of good WTF in the National Review Open Letter:

Describing Trump:

philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones.

I, for one, am pretty surprised by the news that there's a "broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP". I mean, there's not even a "broad conservative ideological consensus" within the House GOP.

The movement that ground down the Soviet Union and took the shine, at least temporarily, off socialism would have fallen in behind a huckster

Remember kids, you're not a real conservative unless you take credit for the fall of the Soviet Union.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Jim is suggesting some sort of ethics in reporting, which either is long gone or never existed anyway.

It certainly hasn't existed in the lifetime of anyone able to post here.

Maybe some people here retained the illusion (delusion?) of it, but it hasn't been around even in Bucc's lifetime.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Nice Saints Row homage.

I feel like this only helps Trump. His whole thing is that he's the outsider, the anti-establishment candidate. Doesn't it help him to point to that and say "see, the establishment doesn't want this"?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The media is supposed to report the facts and let the readers draw a conclusion.

That's literally never happened. Even the facts they chose to report or how they present the facts has always been biases - and that's whether its portraying itself as mainstream (CNN. NY Times, CBS w/Cronkite) or openly slanted (Fox News, MSNBC)