2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[albionmoonlight]

Rubio has been too open with his strategy. It is fine for a candidate and his team to say, internally, that we are going to do a 3-2-1 strategy, or that we are going to wait for a contested convention, or that we just need to wait for Cruz and Kasich to drop out.

But I should not be privy to all that. It does not project confidence. It seems calculating and too cute by half. And, most fundamentally, it makes it seem like the candidate himself is not confident in his ability to just win.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Think there is any chance Cruz runs as a third party? Given his alienation from Washington republicans it would seem no love loss.

Ahem....

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Heard elsewhere that the candidate most likely to bolt and run independent would actually be Cruz, not Trump. Reasons:

1. The GOP hates him and he hates the GOP (establishment)
2. He's still raising money
3. Unlike Trump, who might deal, or Rubio, who is clearly establishment (although he was elected as a TP candidate in 2010 - how times change!), he's a true believer


Now that would be interesting....

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't really see it, just from the standpoint of who would be dumb enough to fund it?

Probably this guy: Ted Cruz's billionaire hedge fund backer emerges as top 2016 donor | MSNBC

Point being that Cruz doesn't need the Establishment to be financially viable.

Plus, as 2012 showed, there are plenty of rightwing billionaires who are more than happy to pump tons of money in the campaigns of no-hopers, and right now Cruz isn't even a no-hoper.

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

We're talking about the presumptive nominee. I don't see how we can say anything else at this point.

Yep. He's won 3 of 4 states, and not by slim margins. And in Nevada he's outperformed the last polls before the caucus (which probably doesn't really mean a lot, but still). He leads in every Super Tuesday state except Arkansas & Texas, and he's not far behind in either of those. And he leads Florida & Ohio, the home states of 2 of his remaining contenders (I'm not sure what Carson's home state would be, so I'm not including him).

If we were saying this about literally any other GOP candidate who started in the race (back when there were 17), we'd be calling it.

[flere-imsaho]

At this point it's hard to see Cruz or Rubio beating Trump unless:

1. Trump finally does something so horrible that his support evaporates.

2. One of Cruz or Rubio drops out.

Sure, Kasich dropping might help Rubio a bit, but not enough. And Carson's support is so small and so enigmatic that I don't think you can count it to anyone.

But here's the thing. If Cruz or Rubio were to drop out, would they really gain from each other's support? I don't think it's likely, and becomes less likely every day now that they've declared war on each other.

[flere-imsaho]

After reading Nate Silver's analysis, which is a good & short read btw, another thing occurred to me:

Before Iowa a lot of us posited that Trump's support might be fickle, in the sense that they might not show up to the polls. Iowa supported this theory, but Trump rebounded in NH. Silver has also pointed out that Trump fares terribly among late-deciding voters.

I think what this tells us is that Trump has a solid core of support that isn't going anywhere (in fact, has been in place since he started leading polls - and hasn't given up that lead, nationally - last July). Yes, there was a chance they could have been disillusioned by early losses, but now that Trump's gone 3 of 4, I'd say that train has left the station. Now they know they're on the bandwagon, and Trump's clearly the best cheerleader in the field.

I guess what I'm predicting is that the 30-40% (nationally) that's consistently polling for Trump is simply going to keep turning out for him, with some state variations. An anti-Trump candidate is going to have to find a way to cobble together a coalition that gets over that number.

Edit: Key points from Nate Silver's analysis:

1. Trump beat Cruz again with white, born-again or evangelical Christians, as he did in NH (no one cares) and SC (a big deal). My comment: should Cruz drop out, how much of his support actually goes to Trump? If Cruz continues to underperform, is it possible Trump actually makes a deal with Cruz for his support, which seems more likely than a Rubio-Cruz deal?

2. Rubio got blown out by Trump in a state that once upon a time was considered favorable for him. My comment: Rubio's done very well from a "narrative" standpoint, this election, starting with his surprise result in Iowa. But Trump clearly and unambiguously won the narrative in Nevada.

3. News organizations indicate that big conservative money is still currently sitting on the sidelines. My comment: Why? Trump doesn't need them. Cruz doesn't (really) need them. Rubio's the only other viable candidate at this stage. Why not pour the money in and go for broke? The obvious answer seems to be that they don't think he's any more likely to win than Bush was. Perhaps better to be prepared to back the final candidate in the general in order to get an ROI on their money. This is terrible news for Rubio, given indications that he might be almost out of money.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yep. He's won 3 of 4 states, and not by slim margins. And in Nevada he's outperformed the last polls before the caucus (which probably doesn't really mean a lot, but still). He leads in every Super Tuesday state except Arkansas & Texas, and he's not far behind in either of those. And he leads Florida & Ohio, the home states of 2 of his remaining contenders (I'm not sure what Carson's home state would be, so I'm not including him).

If we were saying this about literally any other GOP candidate who started in the race (back when there were 17), we'd be calling it.

I agree with you. Less than a week from Super Tuesday, which in my lifetime has been the kingmaker. Trump is on the way to a big night there, but the narrative just isn't following the results.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

At this point it's hard to see Cruz or Rubio beating Trump unless:

1. Trump finally does something so horrible that his support evaporates.

If "I love the poorly educated!" doesn't have an impact, nothing will. Lol.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If "I love the poorly educated!" doesn't have an impact, nothing will. Lol.

Why would it? The GOP has cultivated a distrust in intellectuals going back to George W. Bush's run in 2000. It's worn as a badge of honor among the base. Reap what you sow.

[PilotMan]

Pick any other year, any other candidate and that right there ends up all over the the morning shows and ends up being the narrative from the win.

Maybe we're seeing the passivity from the media because they really, really want Trump. They want to wait until it's down to the National Campaign then unleash all the goods on Trump as part of some larger strategy to influence voters? Media being so left and all.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by stevew

Also why is it called a caucus when it's run like a primary basically?

Because on the Dem side at least, if you're not there when the caucus starts, you don't get to vote. Which made for a huge clusterfuck last Saturday, and basically ate a large portion of the day due to terrible organization because of far higher turnout than expected at my caucus place.

Under the rules, check-in doesn't start until 11, but the line closes at noon. End result: We didn't start the caucus in my precinct until 1:30, and we didn't get out of there until 3 pm. There were a couple people who needed to leave because of work, but if you left before the voting was done, your vote didn't count, so they stuck around.

Republican caucus may be different. All I know is, I fucking hate the caucus system.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Republican caucus may be different. All I know is, I fucking hate the caucus system.

I have never heard one good argument for a caucus system over a primary system.

[flere-imsaho]

The caucus system probably made a lot of sense in the 18th and maybe 19th centuries.

[Ben E Lou]

Heh.

It’s time to start speculating about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick - The Washington Post

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

If "I love the poorly educated!" doesn't have an impact, nothing will. Lol.

Can't stand Trump but that comment was pretty innocuous within the speech. Sounds far worse when the line is thrown out there by itself.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Because on the Dem side at least, if you're not there when the caucus starts, you don't get to vote. Which made for a huge clusterfuck last Saturday, and basically ate a large portion of the day due to terrible organization because of far higher turnout than expected at my caucus place.

Under the rules, check-in doesn't start until 11, but the line closes at noon. End result: We didn't start the caucus in my precinct until 1:30, and we didn't get out of there until 3 pm. There were a couple people who needed to leave because of work, but if you left before the voting was done, your vote didn't count, so they stuck around.

Republican caucus may be different. All I know is, I fucking hate the caucus system.

Yeah, the Dem caucus was a disgrace and somehow the GOP caucus was even worse.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Ryche

Can't stand Trump but that comment was pretty innocuous within the speech. Sounds far worse when the line is thrown out there by itself.

They are going to pick 5 words out of the speech that sound bad and try to make everything all about that. Anything to make Trump look bad.

I'm not saying this is new for Trump. That's the way the political media works, hell all media for that matter.

[larrymcg421]

Glad I bought my Trump nomination shares when they were 48 cents.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh.

It’s time to start speculating about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick - The Washington Post

I think there's a lot of risk in accepting a VP run for a young, establishment Republican. Even if he wins the general there's a pretty sizable risk of alienating enough people in the party to kill a future Presidential run. If he loses, especially in a blowout, any future in politics is over.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think there's a lot of risk in accepting a VP run for a young, establishment Republican. Even if he wins the general there's a pretty sizable risk of alienating enough people in the party to kill a future Presidential run. If he loses, especially in a blowout, any future in politics is over.

Agree 100% there.

[cuervo72]

Ooh shit - I figured out who Trump should pick for VP. Craig James!

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh.

It’s time to start speculating about Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick - The Washington Post

Is there any doubt it's gonna be either:

a. Don Jr.
b. George Ross
c. Bill Rancic
d. Piers Morgan (would the general public even notice/care)

[cartman]

My pick for Trump's VP would be Kanye.

[JPhillips]

Vice President Glen Beck

[albionmoonlight]

Linda McMahon

[heybrad]

Omarosa?

[larrymcg421]

Mia Love
Sharon Angle
Christine O'Donnell

[NobodyHere]

Ralph Wiggum?

[Solecismic]

Kasich would make sense. If Trump is going to struggle in one area, it's the Midwest. But he might be tempted by Christie, who is a better debater and won't pull punches. The value of choosing a somewhat successful governor is in ensuring the Republican machine will get involved.

Megyn Kelly would be the most interesting. I get the feeling he wants to pick a woman. Nikki Haley really seems to dislike him. Kelly Ayotte would be a fantastic choice for any of the Republicans, but doesn't bring Trump anything geographically.

[NobodyHere]

It may have just been posturing, but Kasich has said before that he doesn't want to be VP.

John Kasich: I'd be the worst vice president - POLITICO

[flere-imsaho]

Dark Horse: Tom Cotton

Veteran
Relentless critic of Obama
Senator
Geography (represents Arkansas)
Currently palatable to both the TP & GOP Establishment (increases ticket's range)

[nol]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

We're talking about a candidate who said that Mexico sends criminals over here and who won the Hispanic vote 44-29-18 over dudes named Rubio and Cruz last night

These Latino Twitter Accounts All Have Suspiciously Identical Praise of Trump

Politics, 2016 edition. Perception is reality.

[AENeuman]

It seems the nomination process does not care too much about specifics- Trump and Bernie. I just can't imagine that pass will carry through the summer and fall. To get voters beyond his base I think will require a more specific and nuanced narrative (and I'm not sure Trump has that in him).

[vex]

Once he gets in office he's going to figure out what is going on.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

By the way, I'm assuming that the "Chris Rock Effect" would explain this for a fairly significant number of Republican Hispanic voters. ("...a black woman with two kids at home bustin' her ass going to work every day HATES a bitch on welfare with nine kids...")

Even ignoring the small sample size caveats, think about what Latino voter in Nevada (not quite a border state, but still in the Southwest and presumably frequently touching on illegal immigration issues) self-identifies as a Republican. Anyone who's strongly against "border security" or cares about the thinly veiled racism behind the sentiment would have long since left the Republican party.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Vice President Glen Beck

Well, he was warming up the crowd for Ted Cruz last night, so I think we can safely rule him out (thank god!)

If we're throwing completely out of the box picks out there, what about Rudy Giuliani? The geography doesn't work (Haley and especially Kasich make a ton of sense there) and neither does age, but if you're basically running on national security Giuliani still has a good reputation in that area. Clearly the marriage issues that sidetracked his own political career would not be an issue!

Originally Posted by nol

These Latino Twitter Accounts All Have Suspiciously Identical Praise of Trump

Politics, 2016 edition. Perception is reality.

Is that praise? It points out that there was 1300 voters.

Originally Posted by AENeuman

It seems the nomination process does not care too much about specifics- Trump and Bernie. I just can't imagine that pass will carry through the summer and fall. To get voters beyond his base I think will require a more specific and nuanced narrative (and I'm not sure Trump has that in him).

No, it doesn't. It requires an opponent that is strongly disliked, with overbearing, condescending supporters. Oh, hello Hillary!

Now, I think there is a strong argument that the nomination process is pretty fatally flawed and should be overhauled, but stick Trump head to head vs Hillary (or Bernie) and he's getting 45% of the vote minimum. And Hillary's a bad enough campaigner to gift him the 3% more needed to win.

[nol]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Is that praise? It points out that there was 1300 voters.

No, it's showing how a single exit poll of 130 or so Nevada voters combined with some Astroturfed Twitter accounts is apparently enough to go forward with the narrative that Trump has Latino support.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by vex

Trump "I love the poorly educated."
Would be a terrible, terrible statement for anyone else.

Out of context, it's horrific.
IN context (which is how I read it initially) it's still "damn, did you really just ... "

It actually wasn't bad in context but it still sounded bad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Kasich would make sense.

Only if he wants to pick a RINO that would cost him credibility.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Now, I think there is a strong argument that the nomination process is pretty fatally flawed and should be overhauled, but stick Trump head to head vs Hillary (or Bernie) and he's getting 45% of the vote minimum. And Hillary's a bad enough campaigner to gift him the 3% more needed to win.

But to be fair, aren't both sides pretty much assuming 45% out of the gate, almost regardless of the nominee? The battleground is that final few percent that will give them a win.

If it's Trump-Clinton, they both would have some of the highest unfavorable ratings a candidate has ever seen. They both would be making more than enough campaign mistakes to fill plenty of air time. I just don't see Trump winning over a ton of undecideds with his extreme hyperbole and hyper-aggressive negativity. I guess we're gonna find out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The whole VP discussion presents a serious headache for me.

I've said all along that Trump is always one step away from a landmine that derails his entire candidacy. Wouldn't winning the nomination & then sinking himself in November with a horrific VP choice just be the ultimate horribly mistimed mistake? Even I see the comedy aspect of that outcome.

And if you think it isn't possible, you're kidding yourself. But hey, go ahead & poo poo the idea. I mean, I've been sooooo wrong about Trump's arc in this thread so far, so what the hell do I know?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The whole VP discussion presents a serious headache for me.

I've said all along that Trump is always one step away from a landmine that derails his entire candidacy. Wouldn't winning the nomination & then sinking himself in November with a horrific VP choice just be the ultimate horribly mistimed mistake? Even I see the comedy aspect of that outcome.

And if you think it isn't possible, you're kidding yourself. But hey, go ahead & poo poo the idea. I mean, I've been sooooo wrong about Trump's arc in this thread so far, so what the hell do I know?

I think I have a sense of who you would consider a bad VP choice by Trump.

Who would be some good choices in your view?

[Dutch]

Maybe his hair? If he's assassinated, that should last long after he's dead and at least through re-election.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by nol

No, it's showing how a single exit poll of 130 or so Nevada voters combined with some Astroturfed Twitter accounts is apparently enough to go forward with the narrative that Trump has Latino support.

Trump won around 40% of the latino vote in Nevada, but that accounts for about 1,300 votes. Still, more than the two hispanics on the ballot

If you're trying to support Trump (or his narrative), you certainly don't point out the incredibly small sample size, you just point out that he won 40%+, as he did in his speech. The astroturfing is weird as shit, and it's certainly not criticism, but that statement doesn't read as praise to me. Just kinda stating facts.

But I also have no problem believing that "Latinos" who still self-identify as Republican in 2016 would support him in equal numbers to other Republican voters. (And who knows, maybe one day we can even stop lumping Mexicans, Cubans, Brasilians etc in the same bucket and pretending they're a unified voting bloc incapable of looking past race.)

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

But to be fair, aren't both sides pretty much assuming 45% out of the gate, almost regardless of the nominee? The battleground is that final few percent that will give them a win.

If it's Trump-Clinton, they both would have some of the highest unfavorable ratings a candidate has ever seen. They both would be making more than enough campaign mistakes to fill plenty of air time. I just don't see Trump winning over a ton of undecideds with his extreme hyperbole and hyper-aggressive negativity. I guess we're gonna find out.

How many truly undecided people are there? I think both sides have done a terrible job pandering to their base vs trying to expand it over the last 10-15 years, but if it's Trump vs Hillary who's really undecided at this point? It really would be about driving the base out to vote, and anger at "the other" is really effective at that.

Weirdly, I don't think Trump engenders the same anger and passion that Hillary does. In my limited sample size "liberals" hate people that support Trump, but most view Trump himself as a buffoon. And I really don't think Democratic supporters grasp how terrible of a campaigner Hillary is. As I said in the Dem thread, with any competent younger Democrat they'd have the whole election locked up by now, but someone like Gillibrand didn't want to run against Hillary out of respect.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The whole VP discussion presents a serious headache for me.

I've said all along that Trump is always one step away from a landmine that derails his entire candidacy. Wouldn't winning the nomination & then sinking himself in November with a horrific VP choice just be the ultimate horribly mistimed mistake? Even I see the comedy aspect of that outcome.

Has anyone ever reneged on their VP choice? Normally I'd suspect we'd see a number of trial balloons, but Trump could just nominate someone then replace them 2 weeks later.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Has anyone ever reneged on their VP choice? Normally I'd suspect we'd see a number of trial balloons, but Trump could just nominate someone then replace them 2 weeks later.

THE APPRENTICE: PRESIDENTIAL EDITION

Holy shit.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by nol

These Latino Twitter Accounts All Have Suspiciously Identical Praise of Trump

Politics, 2016 edition. Perception is reality.

If Democrat activists tells you that I made a Tweet, then that’s that. I may have missed one Tweet this year but if somebody says he messed up one tweet of all the tweets this year, then that’s enough to get a whole lot started. I told the activists that you don’t have to give the people of Nevada a reason to think about bashing me or anything like that. If you bash somebody, you bash them to make your team better…simple as that. I’m cool with that. I’m all about that. The people in Nevada deserve to have a winner. It’s simple as that. It goes further than that … If I can’t do Twitter, I can’t tweet. It is as simple as that. It ain’t about that at all. It’s easy to sum it up if you’re just talking about Twitter. We’re sitting here, and I’m supposed to be the GOP franchise player, and we’re talking about Twitter. I mean listen, we’re sitting here talking about Twitter, not a game, not a game, not a game, but we’re talking about Twitter. Not the game that I go out there and die for and play every game like it’s my last but we’re talking about Twitter man. How silly is that? … Now I know that I’m supposed to lead by example and all that but I’m not shoving that aside like it don’t mean anything. I know it’s important, I honestly do but we’re talking about Twitter. We’re talking about Twitter man. We’re talking about Twitter. We’re talking about Twitter. We’re not talking about the game. We’re talking about Twitter. When you come to the rally, and you see me speak, you’ve seen me speak right, you’ve seen me give everything I’ve got, but we’re talking about Twitter right now. … Hey I hear you, it’s funny to me too, hey it’s strange to me too but we’re talking about Twitter man, we’re not even talking about the game, when it actually matters, we’re talking about Twitter … How the hell can I make my party better by Tweeting?

[Kodos]

I mean, we're talking about PRACTICE man.

[Dutch]

Riiight???

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Christine O'Donnell

I'm not sure Trump can afford to throw away the witch vote.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think I have a sense of who you would consider a bad VP choice by Trump.

Who would be some good choices in your view?

Oh FFS, I've replied at some length TWICE, suffered a posting glitch both times.

So even MORE briefly than those two tries:
That's a hard question.

I thought Cruz was close to perfect for quite a while, I think the acrimony between them has killed that.

I think outside politics might be the most consistent place to look, beats hell out of me who it would/should be.

If chosen from within politics then probably comes down to polling data, someone that could help in a weaker but still viable area(s) while not being inconsistent with Trump's positioning or messages. And I don't know who that is because a) I don't have the polling data and b) I haven't vetted the prospects thoroughly enough at this point to know who might have stepped on a third rail somewhere.

In short: beats the hell out of me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

THE APPRENTICE: PRESIDENTIAL EDITION

Holy shit.

If they just use the upcoming season for this, to me it'd come down to Boy George or Snooki.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh FFS, I've replied at some length TWICE, suffered a posting glitch both times.

So even MORE briefly than those two tries:
That's a hard question.

I thought Cruz was close to perfect for quite a while, I think the acrimony between them has killed that.

I think outside politics might be the most consistent place to look, beats hell out of me who it would/should be.

If chosen from within politics then probably comes down to polling data, someone that could help in a weaker but still viable area(s) while not being inconsistent with Trump's positioning or messages. And I don't know who that is because a) I don't have the polling data and b) I haven't vetted the prospects thoroughly enough at this point to know who might have stepped on a third rail somewhere.

In short: beats the hell out of me.

He's stated he would prefer an establishment-type for VP, to help him pass legislation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He's stated he would prefer an establishment-type for VP, to help him pass legislation.

I wasn't asked what HE wanted

Seriously though, that comes back to the third rail potential of the question.

With an eye toward that though, here's a WaPo piece on effectiveness in passing legislation written in late 2015
These are the 10 most effective lawmakers in the U.S. Congress - The Washington Post

Of the 5 highest scoring Rs, only 3 are still in Congress. 62 y/o Dave Camp (MI) and 72 y/o Doc Hastings (WA) didn't seek re-election. Who does that leave?

Darrell Issa (CA), Edward Royce (CA) and Don Young (AK)