2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[digamma]

Actually, here's the Rule 40 flap. Essentially, it's there to be amended if necessary.

Frontloading HQ: The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We are teetering on the verge of a single party for the executive branch as is. I dont see a scenario where any party can beat, "I stand for (name your demographic) and to prove it we will give (said demographic) free shit."

The two-party system is about to be relegated to minor political status....until (name your demographic) has a choice in politics.

Time to trot this one out again.

[Dutch]

Trying to offer my honest opinion, Kodos. Shut me down!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We are teetering on the verge of a single party for the executive branch as is. I dont see a scenario where any party can beat, "I stand for (name your demographic) and to prove it we will give (said demographic) free shit."

The two-party system is about to be relegated to minor political status....until (name your demographic) has a choice in politics.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Who are some names that could be possible as compromise candidates out of the blue?

Romney
Ryan
Eric Cantor
Chris Christie
Nikki Haley

"Comproise" candidates? Those are more like capitulation/collaborator candidates.

Might as well just give the nomination to Rubio if you're going to hand it to those worthless gits.

And I'll vote for Hilary before I'll vote for that @$# Haley. At least Hils is pretty up front about her evil unlike that treacherous bitch.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So between .75 and 2.75 annual spending.

According to that, we're both voting for the wrong party.

[JAG]

The Sun Sentinel endorsed Montgomery Brewster's choice on the Republican side.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So, Michigan.

Is the narrative that Rubio is more toast after this than he was before?
Or does he get a pass 'cause "Kasich just got his votes"?

Seriously, I'm asking 'cause I haven't looked to see what the spin on this outcome is.

edit to add: The early results seem to match roughly where the polling was, I just don't know if the polling was expected to be accurate or if there was some notion that "oh Rubio can't do THAT bad, surely"

[NobodyHere]

Trump wins Michigan.

I for one welcome our new Trump overlords.

[cuervo72]

Wonder if they can band together as one candidate. Rubisch! Kasio!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Wonder if they can band together as one candidate. Rubisch! Kasio!

Kasio -- he's one to watch!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Wonder if they can band together as one candidate. Rubisch! Kasio!

Would it really matter? They'd still be getting the crap kicked out of them.

Whatever flavor the voters want this cycle, it clearly isn't vanilla.

[Jas_lov]

The race is over. If they wanted Cruz to be the alternative to Trump they should have all gotten behind him after Iowa. They've already gone through the SE states that Cruz had a chance to win, and Trump won all of them.

Even if Rubio and Kasich dropped out tonight Ted Cruz won't beat Trump in NY, NJ, CA, IL, MD, PA. Kasich would be a better challenger in those states.

[Kodos]

Kasio! He's Rubisch!

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Would it really matter? They'd still be getting the crap kicked out of them.

Whatever flavor the voters want this cycle, it clearly isn't vanilla.

Agreed. Clown flavored it is.

[EagleFan]

There should be a license required to vote. Weed out the idiot Trump sheep.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

There should be a license required to vote. Weed out the idiot Trump sheep.

Go troll another thread.

[EagleFan]

I call it like I see it.

[Solecismic]

Seems like the Sheep scored an upset over the Eagles tonight.

Trump is the story of the night, winning three states and remaining competitive in Idaho. Cruz had a solid night, finishing second in three states and winning Idaho easily.

Estimated Delegate totals for March 8 (and overall) so far: Trump 73 (464), Cruz 59 (364), Kasich 17 (54), Rubio 1 (154).

Kasich stays in the race as the potential compromise candidate if Trump doesn't reach 1,237. However, there will be more pressure on him to get out if he fails to win Ohio next week.

Rubio has admitted Florida is his do or die. But to come out of all these contests with one delegate - by virtue of reaching 12% in Hawaii, which has a closed caucus? He had two fourths today. If Florida were any later, he'd probably have to drop out now.

Trump has stopped the bleeding from the ABT campaign, but he's a little weaker and still not on pace to reach 1,237. For everyone else, 1,237 is pretty much impossible.

Cruz has a solid lead in the ABT primary, but geography becomes more difficult for him. He needed to have a huge overall lead at this point.

There are 367 delegates on the line next Tuesday, but it's also the beginning of WTA states. Stopping Trump in both Florida and Ohio probably leads to a contested convention. Trump wins in both states would put him on pace for the nomination, with momentum.

Has Kasich done enough to make it close in Ohio? I think so. Has Rubio done enough to make it close in Florida? Probably not, but Florida is a closed primary and this will be a very long week. The deadline to register for a party in Florida was 2/16.

[Dutch]

If all these races happened on the same day, I would probably have been more likely to vote.....as it stands now, I'm more likely to just save my afternoon skip voting and go to a movie.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If all these races happened on the same day, I would probably have been more likely to vote.....as it stands now, I'm more likely to just save my afternoon skip voting and go to a movie.

That's kind of how I feel. The Indiana Primary is May 3. This should all be decided by then.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is the narrative that Rubio is more toast after this than he was before?
Or does he get a pass 'cause "Kasich just got his votes"?

The Rubio proxy I heard on NPR this morning was still going with the "it all starts with a big win in Florida*" line. He also trotted out the scare number that Trump has to win 60% of the remaining delegates to get a majority, while conveniently forgetting that WTA states start with March 15th, and the whole GOP primary calendar is set up to let the guy with momentum get crowned in the 2nd half of the race.

*Nevermind he's behind Trump by 20 points in Florida.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Kasich stays in the race as the potential compromise candidate if Trump doesn't reach 1,237. However, there will be more pressure on him to get out if he fails to win Ohio next week.

Given that Mr. Contested Convention is still the odds-on favorite, I personally think it would be silly for any of the four remaining candidates to drop out, unless they literally have no money left. There's still 5 months until July. Build a story, grab a state or two, etc... and then hope you're in the running for the second convention vote.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

That's kind of how I feel. The Indiana Primary is May 3. This should all be decided by then.

Over 400 delegates will be assigned after May 3. Even if the final result looks clear, there's no way this will be over before at least CA.

[flere-imsaho]

Yep. This could be the first time in a long time where CA's actually a meaningful part of the primary.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Don't be shocked to see this story start hitting the campaign trail. Would seem to be playing right into Trump's hands. Man was supposed to be deported but wasn't. Ended up killing five people and it could have been worse.

Cops Arrest Quadruple Homicide Suspect Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino - NBC News

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Don't be shocked to see this story start hitting the campaign trail. Would seem to be playing right into Trump's hands. Man was supposed to be deported but wasn't. Ended up killing five people and it could have been worse.

Cops Arrest Quadruple Homicide Suspect Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino - NBC News

Yeah, I saw that early this morning and thought "Trump's gonna eat this one up."

[Logan]

I checked Snopes, we're cool on that one.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Logan

I checked Snopes, we're cool on that one.

I saw it while channel surfing this morning, I think on CNN.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Don't be shocked to see this story start hitting the campaign trail. Would seem to be playing right into Trump's hands. Man was supposed to be deported but wasn't. Ended up killing five people and it could have been worse.

Cops Arrest Quadruple Homicide Suspect Pablo Antonio Serrano-Vitorino - NBC News

I see this as a problem Trump will only make worse. The suspect was supposed to be deported already so it isn't like more laws will solve this problem. (And it also isn't like the San Francisco sanctuary situation, it was clearly a screw up) Government is already overloaded all Trump will do is make it that much worse.

Border patrol on the other hand is a completey different issue to me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by panerd

I see this as a problem Trump will only make worse. The suspect was supposed to be deported already so it isn't like more laws will solve this problem. Government is already overloaded all Trump will do is make it that much worse.

Border patrol on the other hand is a completey different issue to me.

"How Trump Will Use This On The Campaign Trail To His Great Advantage" != "How Trump Would Handle It"

I'll take a swing...

"Did you hear about this guy? This guy from Mexico who killed five people! He's an illegal alien. We kicked him out of here and then he snuck back in. And the worst part of it is our border guys. Our border guys LET HIM GO. He killed FIVE people in Kansas after our border guys let him go! If my wall had been in place, he never woulda got in here in the first place. We're gonna build this wall and we're gonna make Mexico pay for it. They're not going to send their murderers over here to kill Americans any more!"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"How Trump Will Use This On The Campaign Trail To His Great Advantage" != "How Trump Would Handle It"

I'll take a swing...

"Did you hear about this guy? This guy from Mexico who killed five people! He's an illegal alien. We kicked him out of here and then he snuck back in. And the worst part of it is our border guys. Our border guys LET HIM GO. He killed FIVE people in Kansas after our border guys let him go! If my wall had been in place, he never woulda got in here in the first place. We're gonna build this wall and we're gonna make Mexico pay for it. They're not going to send their murderers over here to kill Americans any more!"

Oh I agree 100% that Trump will use it and likely get some traction with it as well. Just like most issues though more laws aren't going to stop people who are already breaking the current laws. Like I edited in my last post if Trump wants to make sanctuary cities an issue he then has a useful and valid debate.

[molson]

What scares me is how Trump would handle a shooting like that if it happened while he was president .

[panerd]

Originally Posted by molson

What scares me is how Trump would handle a shooting like that if it happened while he was president .

Are we thinking burning of the Reichstag here?

[Dutch]

So...if we have 400,000 illegals cross the border every year and deport 400,000 every year. Doesn't it make some sort of fiscal sense to secure the border and have say....5,000 illegals cross every year?

Wouldn't we all be on board with a potential amnesty deal at
That point as well?

That's how I would hope Trump "uses" that.

[flere-imsaho]

Bear in mind about half of the illegal immigration each year comes from visa overstay, not illegal entry. So "securing the border" drops the number by half, at best.

[miked]

We should just microchip folks on visas.

[cartman]

Trump Doesn't Own Most Of The Products He Pitched Last Night : NPR

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Wouldn't we all be on board with a potential amnesty deal at That point as well?

No. That's a zero tolerance under any circumstance item.

[larrymcg421]

Considers mentioning that fines for companies hiring illegal immigrants need to increase as a part of any solution, but remembers that Citizens United is still the law of the land, so increasing fines on corporations is about as likely as Bernie getting $15 minimum wage passed.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No. That's a zero tolerance under any circumstance item.

For you and a swath of the country, I agree. But I'm talking national politics, not county politics.

[Ben E Lou]

"I love the poorly educated."

[QuikSand]

with a big...

...

...

...apostrophe.

[PilotMan]

I keep waiting for Trump to make all his entrances to "Cult of Personality."

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For you and a swath of the country, I agree. But I'm talking national politics, not county politics.

Amnesty -- surrender in other words -- is not an option.

Perhaps more of the country will grow some balls if progress is ever made.

The fiction that "there's not a solution" being disproven might be one of the great moments in national history. We might even recover enough to be fit to call ourselves a nation again.

And if not, well, we're already circling the drain rapidly enough that it won't be that much longer til we leave the bowl.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Erm, can't really knock his theory about that particular race however.

First-listing bias is a long known phenomenon, and the effect is more pronounced in primaries and also stronger in down ballot races.

Now if Texas shuffles the ballot order randomly or something and he wasn't aware of that then, yeah, he looks like an idiot for not knowing. But he's got a pretty reasonable point about a campaign for such a position not being brain surgery.

Indeed, but that's not why I called him crazy. I'm sure you've seen discussion of him by now - this is a guy in Austin tweeting that LBJ killed more people on a bad day than Charles Whitman did on a good day, or tweeting vulgar comments about Barbara Bush (amongst many others, but she's the most ridiculous target.) His reasoning there just proves he's not clinically insane, he's a 4chan troll in the real world.

Originally Posted by digamma

Actually, here's the Rule 40 flap. Essentially, it's there to be amended if necessary.

Frontloading HQ: The Real Import of Rule 40 in 2016

Oh god, so in the case of a contested convention we're totally getting Ted Cruz's campaign suing to hold up Rule 40 and turn it into a choice between him and Trump, right?

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Why do you think that is happening?

I'm smart enough to realize I don't have the answer, but I'll take a stab. (This is also me trying to put myself in other people's shoes, so I'm attempting to do my best to clearly delineate between my thoughts and what I believe other people's thoughts are.)

- I do think many people look too closely at general demeanor, and for all of Trump's buffoonery at times, he's clearly extremely ambitious, hard-working, and proud... and people like those traits. (And I agree those traits are good in a President, although they can certainly be taken too far.) The biggest snap judgment difference between him and Kasich (the other social "moderate") or Carson (the other outsider) is that he's high energy. The pride thing is a little harder to articulate, but I think even though his rhetoric implies America isn't great, and some Dems/Mitt Romney love to use the Shining City on a Hill line, Trump comes across as proud and encourages everyone to be proud of America and American values/ideals while the others constantly remind us of everything that's wrong. I think authenticity is another very positive characteristic for disaffected voters fed up with "typical politicians", and Trump certainly projects that in his demeanor even if the words say otherwise.

- Massachusetts has a particular affinity for business leaders and Trump may have quite a checkered record, but he has one. More importantly the Northeast (and I assume the West Coast as well) despises the religious right, and looks down on any candidate who tries to refer to biblical text as a governing principle. People aren't anti-religion and don't care whatsoever about a candidate's personal beliefs, but they're strongly against any attempt to use that. For whatever reasons, there's also a tendency to view lies or pandering on most subjects as normal politician bullshit, but if it's a candidate couching it in religious terms a large segment automatically discounts them. (I'm not 100% sure if that's just because it's religious, or because it's nakedly transparent that even the politician can't believe that. Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum are despised up here, I think people like Huckabee and think he's at least a genuine guy albeit not the brightest bulb.)

This is something beyond Massachusetts though, if even MBBF and people from the midwest are saying things like this.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's good for the Republicans as well. This party has been a clusterfu%# over the last 8-10 years. I'm a Republican who harbors a great amount of disdain for the current party leadership. Let the religious right jump off the ship and form their own party. I'm tired of them forcing their beliefs into the political process. They look as stupid as the preachers in Salem a few hundred years ago right now. Cruz looks and acts like Jimmy Swaggart in a politician's suit. Antiquated belief systems that don't match the clear laws that are being rightly formed by our courts. No thanks.

Forget the religious aspects, the Republican party used to be united by themes like independence and personal choice/responsibility. I think most people are elitist whether they admit it or not, but if I can be a little flippant the main difference here is that the ones who want to impose their beliefs on others go Democratic while those who think people in South Carolina or Texas can make their own laws (obviously within reason) list themselves as unenrolled and vote Republican in local elections. Either way, both sides are firmly united against the idea of somebody trying to impose Texas or South Carolina values on us, which is why the national Republican party is something people don't want to associate with. That fundamentalist strategy produced some phenomenal victories in the 1990's, but it's neither a viable long-term strategy nor traditional conservative values. But I was always taught politics are more of a circle, where both communists and fascists are equally reprehensible, and somehow that totalitarian side of each has greatly increased its power (or at least visibility) in my lifetime.

- Now, if we're tying this back in to Trump's supporters and that article I think it does touch on a important point. I guess Ferguson was the biggest hot button topic recently, and fair or not there is a feeling that if you say Michael Brown was a criminal and his actions contributed to his getting shot you will be automatically shouted down as a racist. Are some of the people saying that racist? Of course. Are there equal demagogues on the right side? Of course. But that's a valid thing to point out if we're talking about solutions or preventing future incidents, and I can feel that way while still thinking there is over-militarization of local police, and a lot of racially/economically targeted differences in policing, and that the officer involved was also at fault. But without a doubt there is a strong totalitarian bent within the Occupy/BLM/Serial Activist wing that is driving much of the Democratic debate and platform. You see it writ large when a BLM protestor confronts Hillary, or the Yale professor, or the Missouri professor telling student journalists they can't cover the protest goes viral that the extreme fringe would rather shout down dissent than engage in an actual debate, and if I can propagate their language there are a lot of constant micro-aggressions in that vein that have discouraged a large swath of people from engaging in any debate while hardening their views.

We've also ended up in a situation where people look at politics like they're picking a team, and one where you have to be 100% on a side. So if you have "Michael Brown was an innocent angel." and "He was a disgusting thug who already should have been locked up." and you're somewhere around 50/55/60% towards the latter, there's not even a point in arguing because if you open your mouth you'll be tarred with the extremist fringe. JPhillips helpfully gave us an example of this point with his response, and I'll tag the first sentence of Butter's as well although his post did have a legit point.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Oh boo hoo.

In my adult life I've seen four Dem general candidates. One was impeached. One lost after the Supreme Court changed the rules. One lost fair and square. And one won, but had the opposition declare they wouldn't support anything he did no matter what before he was even inaugurated.

And yet somehow I'm not organizing my precinct to vote for Louis Farrahkan.

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I don't think anyone actually said EVERY Trump voter is a poor dumb bigot. But when your support starts there with its biggest support and spreads from there, it does make you wonder.

So if I had to pick the Trump supporter response to this, it's that comparing him to Louis Farrakhan is so over the top it's laughable, of course nobody here would explicitly say EVERY one, but clearly it's heavily implied (although I do frequently see it explicitly stated on social media amongst my generation/region by Bernie activists), and most importantly I just don't care this much to argue constantly about it, especially if I know the other person has no interest in actually changing their views. So they've checked out. They'll show up and vote, and maybe they'll wear a hat or buy a sticker, but they're not proselytizing and they're not bothering to listen to anybody else either, which is why he's so teflon. It's not that they agree with Donald, it's that they know they disagree with the vocal contingent against him and that's enough.

I think the David Duke kerfuffle illustrated this. Is David Duke a racist? Of course! Are there racists supporting Donald Trump? Of course! Is there some rhetoric Trump uses that probably appeals to them an uncomfortable amount? Of course! But is The Trump campaign trying to appeal to the KKK, or do even a significant minority of their supporters support them? Fuck no! Like Ron Paul said in that link, why the hell are we talking about them? They have like 12 people left in this country. It's like the Westboro Baptist Church... nobody wants them on their side, and the only people mentioning them are ones who want to tie Trump to them if/when other attacks aren't gaining traction.

But hey, I also realize even the people I know who support Trump are a fairly self-selected group, so maybe I'm way off base. I'm just tired of the implication that anyone who supports him has racist motives or must be an idiot, because it does shut down that debate and increase the polarization. Especially when idiots up here can't believe that people would vote for him when the alternatives were Cruz & Rubio.

Missed if this was already posted:
Who Are Donald Trump's Supporters? - The Atlantic

Well-educated Conservatives are largely rejecting Donald Trump... that's where he gets the least amount of support. And yes, Trump does play well to those who are tired of the GOP establishment, but I wonder why that really is? Trump has publicly backed high profile Democrats in the past. Now I'm supposed to believe that he has broad-based support from many different factions of the party?

He does not. He plays well to voters who normally wouldn't vote in a primary because he is delivering a different kind of message, one that supposedly speaks "truth to power". That's not his ONLY support, but when you combine the support of those who don't normally vote with someone who is the third choice of likely voters in a race where just a few percentage points creates massive swings, you get a winner.

But it's not that he only wins that segment, and that's why I posted a little on this. Because he *does* win with college educated voters (or women, or pick your demographic)... it's just 28-25% instead of 40-20% like it is with HS educated white male voters. So it's an interesting question why he's doing so much better with that group, but it's also an interesting question why his support holds steady at at least that 25% mark in almost every traditionally measured demographic. The Atlantic article does point out one very big difference between my world and yours - you live in a state that's lost a lot of manufacturing jobs. I know there are a few around, but for the most part our manufacturing sector shut down 100 years ago (and moved to the midwest for cheaper labor!), and it's just not something that's personally affected anyone or even enters the debate.

[BishopMVP]

I did try to watch parts of the candidates town halls tonight, and Rubio comes off sooooo much better in that environment it reminds me why I liked him back in August. If he can present that image and not resort back to the attacks that wounded Donald and murdered him, he should stay in because I think he can rehabilitate his image for a future run. Drop out now and the Robot Rubio or ineffective attack dog posturing would be his lasting legacy, but a few months of white noise could get people to forget those and let him chalk those up to naivete and an inexperienced candidate making his first national foray.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Indeed, but that's not why I called him crazy. I'm sure you've seen discussion of him by now - this is a guy in Austin tweeting that LBJ killed more people on a bad day than Charles Whitman did on a good day, or tweeting vulgar comments about Barbara Bush (amongst many others, but she's the most ridiculous target.) His reasoning there just proves he's not clinically insane, he's a 4chan troll in the real world.

Actually, and this is strictly a trivial thing for me to even mention but {shrug} ... I hadn't. The sum total of what I knew about the guy was that some non-comformist (for lack of a better word) had won some local party leadership position and that he'd said a couple of odd-to-the-point-of-maybe-being-nuts things on Twitter. Well, that and the quote you shared that I commented on.

Other than that, the guy simply hasn't hit my radar at all outside of here (and I think one person ended up Liking a post about him somewhere, causing the link to pop into my FB feed).

So, basically, all that detail actually IS news to me.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Amnesty -- surrender in other words -- is not an option.

Perhaps more of the country will grow some balls if progress is ever made.

The fiction that "there's not a solution" being disproven might be one of the great moments in national history. We might even recover enough to be fit to call ourselves a nation again.

And if not, well, we're already circling the drain rapidly enough that it won't be that much longer til we leave the bowl.

Well maybe that's it. I feel like a person only gets to say and feel these types of words about very few, ersonal things, in order to be taken seriously. Maybe Trump is breaking the fourth wall of discretion. Everything, be it steaks, your same party opponent, foreigners, news reporters, all go nuclear.

Maybe that's tapping into something, this post modern mid life cris. Where the abstract is much more interesting than real life.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Well maybe that's it. I feel like a person only gets to say and feel these types of words about very few, ersonal things, in order to be taken seriously. Maybe Trump is breaking the fourth wall of discretion. Everything, be it steaks, your same party opponent, foreigners, news reporters, all go nuclear.

Allow me to attempt a different phrasing that actually -- sort of -- says the same thing.

Trump is a relatively black & white kind of guy, or at least that's the persona he's playing during the campaign. That has tremendous appeal to those of us who see relatively few shades of grey.

Alternately, we could try another comparison I used here at home the other day: "He has a rather large Fuck You button ... nearly the same size as mine"

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Actually, and this is strictly a trivial thing for me to even mention but {shrug} ... I hadn't. The sum total of what I knew about the guy was that some non-comformist (for lack of a better word) had won some local party leadership position and that he'd said a couple of odd-to-the-point-of-maybe-being-nuts things on Twitter. Well, that and the quote you shared that I commented on.

Other than that, the guy simply hasn't hit my radar at all outside of here (and I think one person ended up Liking a post about him somewhere, causing the link to pop into my FB feed).

So, basically, all that detail actually IS news to me.

Sorry, I thought he'd entered the general consciousness, enjoy 2.5 minutes that hits some of his main talking points. The best part is that there's no mechanism for removing him (unless he dies or is convicted of a felony), so he'll technically be party chair for 2 years.