2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[TCY Junkie]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"I love the poorly educated."

He thinks about money so he spelled with Yen..... Wish I naturally thought about how many Yens I would have if I converted my dollars.

[Dutch]

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.

The good news, I suppose, for you, is that after we shut down the border and get the floodgates closed to a trickle....we still have the capacity to find, apprehend, and deport up to 400,000 illegals a year.

So the Amnesty crowd better operate quickly after we shut down the illegal stuff at the border....maybe Trump slow rolls that process and we clean house....maybe we don't and get some of these people recognized as citizens.

I'm personally okay with amnesty...I'm not okay with the revolving door of criminals coming across our border because we are too scared of voter bloc's to stop it. It's simple logic to me. Criminals=Bad; Workers=Good.

[flere-imsaho]

Rednecks idling away on ginned-up disability claims are far worse for this country than industrious illegal aliens who prop up both the hospitality and agriculture industries, and probably many others as well.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

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.

I'm glad I don't live in Texas more and more those two are scary.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I'm glad I don't live in Texas more and more those two are scary.

Well, he's Travis County (a.k.a. Austin, a.k.a. easily the most liberal/hipster part of Texas) but yeah, the jokes write themselves sometimes!

[albionmoonlight]

GOP lobbyists ignore Trump, turn to keeping Congress - POLITICO

This election seems poised to break a lot of rules. Now that outside money is so much better organized and independent of the parties and candidates, I wonder if the typical coattail rules will apply.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Well, he's Travis County (a.k.a. Austin, a.k.a. easily the most liberal/hipster part of Texas) but yeah, the jokes write themselves sometimes!

I'd hate to see a more conservative area then geez.

[flere-imsaho]

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

I figured out how Trump's going to get Mexico to "pay for that wall".

The U.S. gives Mexico about $500M/year in foreign aid. He'll just cut that until it matches the cost. Can be a multi-year cut.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

I don't think being black and white is all that black and white. Being B/W on personal, impactful and intimate issues is different than being B/W on abstract, impersonal and far removed issues, at least I thought it was until Trump.

Being intolerant of issues that merely requires a declaration of intolerance seems to be the essence of Trump. Being intolerant of issues that requires personal sacrifice or consequences seems all together different.

This is not to just pick on Trumpers, For example, my Facebook has been flooded with people saying, "unfriend me if you support Trump." Knowing 1) they have no Trump friends, 2) that is about the extent of their political activism. I think it's a 21st century problem. New media has promoted the idea all opinions are equal in passion and intent.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't think being black and white is all that black and white. Being B/W on personal, impactful and intimate issues is different than being B/W on abstract, impersonal and far removed issues, at least I thought it was until Trump.

Being intolerant of issues that merely requires a declaration of intolerance seems to be the essence of Trump. Being intolerant of issues that requires personal sacrifice or consequences seems all together different.

But where is the line on "impactful" drawn, or more to the point, who draws it?

{grasping for analogy} That kind of reminds me of the phrase "that's the worst pain I've ever felt". One person might say that about losing an arm in a threshing machine, another might say it about stubbing there toe. The two things aren't comparable but the statement by each can still be equally true.

No, I don't love that analogy much but maybe it helps lift the fog about what I'm getting at.

Issues that are personal, impactful, whatever to me may be zero to someone else, might even be zero to half the population or even the majority of the population. And vice versa.

But that doesn't make them less personal, impactful, etc. Perception does matter.

[stevew]

Ted Cruz: “Donald has done well in the southeastern states. He has had a good base of support. We’ve done well as well, we’ve been typically second in each of those states, and we’ve racked up delegates. Now Donald has a harder problem in the west, it’s interesting, his location he does well in the southeast. He does well with a certain demographic of voter. Donald gave a press conference where he said, to quote him, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ Listen, part of it is I think Donald is taking advantage of his voters because I understand what they’re angry about, but Donald if you’re angry at the corruption of Washington, you don’t solve it by supporting someone who has been enmeshed in the Washington corruption for forty years.”

Ted Cruz: “Listen, Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information, who are not that engaged and who are angry and they see him as an angry voice. Where we are beating him is when voters’ get more engaged and they get more informed. When they inform themselves, they realize his record. He’s what they’re angry at. He is the corruption, and if you want someone to stand up to Washington, the only one who has been doing so in this race is me.”

Cruz firing shots.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

I figured out how Trump's going to get Mexico to "pay for that wall".

The U.S. gives Mexico about $500M/year in foreign aid. He'll just cut that until it matches the cost. Can be a multi-year cut.

So if engineers estimate the wall costs between 4 and 8 billion dollars, I'm guessing the government will end up spending something like 11 billion on it via cronyism and that means Mexico will get nothing from the US until 2038. When Trump is 92 years old and in the middle of his 6th term in office(and 5th wife)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by stevew

Cruz firing shots.

That would be effective if it were businessman Cruz running against Senator Trump.

Instead, it illustrates exactly why Cruz has no friends in the Senate: he will sacrifice accomplishment for rhetoric every time.

ETA: It seems he has one friend; he finally got his first Senate endorsement today.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That would be effective if it were businessman Cruz running against Senator Trump.

Instead, it illustrates exactly why Cruz has no friends in the Senate: he will sacrifice accomplishment for rhetoric every time.

ETA: It seems he has one friend; he finally got his first Senate endorsement today.

Plus his wife works for Goldman Sachs so it's not like Cruz hasn't benefitted directly from Washington corruption.

[GrantDawg]

Reports are Ben Carson is going to endorse Trump. What?

[dave731]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Reports are Ben Carson is going to endorse Trump. What?

Gahh...Carson is going to get close enough to perform a lobotomy. He's the only person that can fix Trump.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Reports are Ben Carson is going to endorse Trump. What?

Of all the crazy stuff that has happened in this election cycle, this would be the biggest wtf moment to me so far.

[Dutch]

Well, on top of that Carson said he would only endorse the nominee....whatever...politicians being politicians...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Of all the crazy stuff that has happened in this election cycle, this would be the biggest wtf moment to me so far.

Maybe it was the dazzling array of Trump products on the table from the other night that won him over. In Whoville, they say his eyes opened three sizes that day.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by stevew

So if engineers estimate the wall costs between 4 and 8 billion dollars, I'm guessing the government will end up spending something like 11 billion on it via cronyism and that means Mexico will get nothing from the US until 2038. When Trump is 92 years old and in the middle of his 6th term in office(and 5th wife)

Look, I didn't say it was a good idea....

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Trump just channeled FOF MP DickSand/BELCO.

"It's a terrible loophole. I exploit it because you gotta do what you gotta do to win. But it should be illegal."

[cartman]

[NobodyHere]

Question for FOFCers:

So the candidates are saying tonight that we need to raise the retirement age for future generations.

Let's say a bill like that is signed today. When it is time to raise the the retirement age, will we actually follow through? Or will we get some stop-gap bills to keep the retirement age as-is?

[Ben E Lou]

Rubio is on fire in the foreign policy area.

[Easy Mac]

For real, he's showing Trump to be the moron he is, but it will make no difference.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

For real, he's showing Trump to be the moron he is, but it will make no difference.

Agreed.

[cuervo72]

Thought this entry of the 538 live blog was pretty interesting:

Authoritarianism Is For Other People

I’ve seen three compelling analyses of what explains the support for Donald Trump so far. There’s the authoritarianism argument, which suggests that what distinguishes Trump supporters from other Republican voters is their preference for strong leadership and intolerance for deviation. Then this week, two political scientists wrote a piece for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog arguing that Trump supporters are not authoritarians but populists who identify with those out of power.

And on Vox’s Mischiefs of Faction blog (where I am a regular contributor), Lilliana Mason and Nicholas Davis find that Trump supporters have a fully “sorted” Republican social identity — that is, strong identification with all three groups associated with the Republican Party: whites, traditional Republicans and conservative Christians.

Can these theories all be true? Perhaps one explanation will emerge as the correct one. But I wonder if this also suggests that Trump supporters simultaneously embrace authoritarian values when it comes to those who don’t share their politics, race and religion, and have a healthy populist suspicion of power for themselves and those like them. This would be consistent with research on the tea party that suggests its appeal is not so much about limiting government programs, but limiting programs that provide for undeserving outsiders.

But yeah - I don't know if foreign policy for Trump supporters needs to be any more nuanced than "screw em all - they're not us!"

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Heh. Trump just channeled FOF MP DickSand/BELCO.

"It's a terrible loophole. I exploit it because you gotta do what you gotta do to win. But it should be illegal."

Great. It's great.

[Drake]

That was actually a really interesting debate. When I'm talking back to the TV, that means you're doing a good job of communicating with me -- even when I disagree with your premise.

[Drake]

Dola: It might also mean that I'm crazy.

* pets a cat or five *

[Drake]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Thought this entry of the 538 live blog was pretty interesting:

My debate format has become watching the debate, then hitting up 538 during the commercials. It makes me feel like a smarticle.

[tarcone]

Unity ticket: Cruz/Rubio

It happens within the next 3 days.

[Solecismic]

So, we reverted to the debates from early on, only less people and the candidates are a little better at it now. I thought it was much better overall in I could sit through it without wanting to strangle someone.

Rubio reminded people of why he was considered a rising star, with multi-generational appeal. Is it too little, too late? He had strong command of the issues, but does he pick positions based on focus groups?

Cruz is the most natural debater. If you could score it based on some scientific metric, he'd do the best. But Rubio can add that missing piece where people more easily see how it relates to them. Cruz has to spell that out.

Kasich is a little more focused than in earlier debates, but still seems too wonky and not that much like a leader. That was fine when the others were pretending they were in a cage match. Tonight, it was more like he was providing closed captioning for the politically impaired.

Trump is more effective when he's not name-calling, but his command of some of these issues leaves a lot to be desired. At what point does his stock answer of "I'm going to make a better deal" become a punchline rather than an argument? Every time he opened his mouth about Cuba or Israel or Muslims it was almost painfully awkward.

We pass the half-way point on Tuesday. This is now about specific contests, mainly winner-takes-all contests.

Did Rubio do enough to put Florida in doubt? Well, ordinarily I'd say yes, he had a great night. But Florida embraces early voting. I think parts of Florida voted early enough that Reagan himself has some support. And, like Nevada, Florida is a state that naturally embraces a personality like Trump's. So I think Trump did enough to stay comfortably above 35% in Florida, which would give him the win.

What about Ohio? An open primary, and Kasich has momentum. This had become a Trump/Kasich race. In this case, I think Trump wins by not rolling in the mud while Kasich loses by continuing to throw out these wonky answers that don't demonstrate leadership qualities. Kasich lost some votes tonight to Rubio, who had dropped into single digits in Ohio polling. The winner could get as low as 32-33% here.

Ordinarily, I couldn't imagine someone almost babbling about key issues "winning" a debate at this stage. But I think Trump "wins" by not overtly losing and because the math with four candidates greatly favors him. The others had a chance to consolidate. Today would have been the perfect moment. They let ego rule the day. If Trump wins Ohio and Florida with under 40% in both, that's the reason. Then he really could reach 1,237.

(How is 50% + 1 a "random" number? Sometimes I think Trump is almost certainly trolling the audience).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Question for FOFCers:

So the candidates are saying tonight that we need to raise the retirement age for future generations.

Let's say a bill like that is signed today. When it is time to raise the the retirement age, will we actually follow through? Or will we get some stop-gap bills to keep the retirement age as-is?

Well the last time it was moved up it took 22 years to fully vest.

In 1983, Congress passed amendments to Social Security that gradually increase the retirement age (NRA) from 65 to 67 over the 22-year period from 2000 to 2022. Effectively tied to your birthdate, depending on the year you were born, you may retire at 66 years and 6 months (née 1957) or at 67 (née 1960 or later).

With that short of graduality I don't think you'd see something to stop it as another countdown expired. Something moving quicker than that (in a hypothetical increased from, say, 67 to 70 or whatever) however would stand a chance of getting waylaid.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't think being black and white is all that black and white. Being B/W on personal, impactful and intimate issues is different than being B/W on abstract, impersonal and far removed issues, at least I thought it was until Trump.

Being intolerant of issues that merely requires a declaration of intolerance seems to be the essence of Trump. Being intolerant of issues that requires personal sacrifice or consequences seems all together different.

This is not to just pick on Trumpers, For example, my Facebook has been flooded with people saying, "unfriend me if you support Trump." Knowing 1) they have no Trump friends, 2) that is about the extent of their political activism. I think it's a 21st century problem. New media has promoted the idea all opinions are equal in passion and intent.

I agree with that part. Have to think about the other parts and the other reasons behind it, but that certainly rings true in my world.

Originally Posted by stevew

Ted Cruz: “Listen, Donald does well with voters who have relatively low information, who are not that engaged and who are angry and they see him as an angry voice. Where we are beating him is when voters’ get more engaged and they get more informed. When they inform themselves, they realize his record. He’s what they’re angry at. He is the corruption, and if you want someone to stand up to Washington, the only one who has been doing so in this race is me.”

Cruz firing shots.

This actually might have been an amazing campaign platform. "You hate politicians, and fear candidates will say one thing and do another? Well I've gone to Washington, I've stood on principle, and every single person there hates me for it. Do you trust Donald Trump to follow through when even his own party is pushing him to compromise? Why elect an outsider who might follow through instead of the person who is clearly despised for doing it."

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Question for FOFCers:

So the candidates are saying tonight that we need to raise the retirement age for future generations.

Let's say a bill like that is signed today. When it is time to raise the the retirement age, will we actually follow through? Or will we get some stop-gap bills to keep the retirement age as-is?

Like Jon said, we've already raised it. An absurdly low amount to be sure, but gradual increases are really not controversial. The amount of physical stress in most jobs is much lower, general health care is much better, thus it's a no brainer that the theoretical ideal retirement age should be raised. If you told 62 year olds today their SS qualifying age would go from 65 to 70? Good luck. But if you tell 55 year olds it'll go up 1 year, 45 year olds 2 years, 35 year olds 3 years, and phase things in gradually and with a long lead time it's easy.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

I figured out how Trump's going to get Mexico to "pay for that wall".

The U.S. gives Mexico about $500M/year in foreign aid. He'll just cut that until it matches the cost. Can be a multi-year cut.

And increasing tariffs. I certainly have no idea nor care to learn the specifics, but I fully believe there's a ton of dumb stuff in NAFTA that's poorly understood by politicians and taken advantage of by companies (companies on both sides of the border and often benefits American companies or consumers sure, but there's clearly corruption and loopholes on every side of a large issue like that). Anyone implying Trump's going to just ask the Mexican government to cut a check is clearly not worth engaging.

(I'm also strongly pro free-trade, but it clearly benefits hard working foreigners (and American consumers!) at the expense of lazy or dumb Americans. I just don't think that's a bad thing.)

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Let's say a bill like that is signed today. When it is time to raise the the retirement age, will we actually follow through? Or will we get some stop-gap bills to keep the retirement age as-is?

Once the Boomers have comfortably aged past any date to which it would be raised I have no doubt they'll be happy to pull up the ladder behind them as they've done consistently throughout their lifetimes.

Originally Posted by Drake

My debate format has become watching the debate, then hitting up 538 during the commercials. It makes me feel like a smarticle.

What, no drinking?

[albionmoonlight]

Rubio camp now telling supporters in Ohio to vote for Kasich.

Not a bad play by Rubio in a "down by 28 points in the 4th quarter" sort of way.

If Kasich wins Ohio, which was a coin flip anyway, he can then take credit for having made that happen "for the good of the party."

Rubio is young. Turning the narrative of 2016 from "he got his ass kicked" to "he threw himself on a grenade to stop Trump" can only help him in the future.

[digamma]

The Breitbart reporter story is a really strange one.

She's now supposedly filed criminal charges in Florida against Trump's campaign manager, who continues to deny the incident. She's also released a tape of her reaction immediately following the incident.

Just really weird all the way around, from the players involved to the incident to the denial to the pursuit of "justice."

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Unity ticket: Cruz/Rubio

It happens within the next 3 days.

Smarm and youth. Sounds like a winning combination...if you want to be an expat.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Reports are Ben Carson is going to endorse Trump. What?

Ben Carson's debate song finally makes some sense

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Rubio camp now telling supporters in Ohio to vote for Kasich.

Can't help but appreciate the quote from the Kasich spokesman a little bit

"We were going to win in OH without his help, just as he's going to lose in FL w/o ours"

[Dutch]

Ugly. As entertaining as its been, I really hate the strategy employed by all this dudes. Disastrous all the way around. All the GOP had to do was beat Hillary and I just don't see any scenario where that happens.

[Jas_lov]

I don't either. Trump keeps citing these pollls that he's way ahead of Hillary but the last one I saw he was down 13 points to her nationally, down 16 in Michigan, down 7 in Florida and down 7 in Ohio. Those don't mean much now but I don't see him winning with Hispanics in CO, NV, NM so he'll have to win Florida and Ohio. And does Hillary put Arkansas and NC into play? I don't see Trump putting any NE states into play like he says he will. Romney didn't.

[albionmoonlight]

If you believe in Trump, you believe that he's going to reset the map. We've had a very stable EC map since 2000. Trump is a candidate who can upset that stability.

Now, cutting against that idea is that Trump has not really outperformed his polling. This isn't a situation where Trump is behind going into all these primaries and pulling out victories. He polls as the leader, and then he wins. In fact, considering what a disruptive presence Trump is, it is kind of amazing how good the pollsters have been at pegging his support. So, if those same pollsters are having him lose to Hillary, then they might be right.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

But it is worth noting that pollsters make a lot of assumptions when weighing their samples about turnout, etc. If Trump succeeds in getting a bunch of working class white folks to the polls as first time voters, that might be something that the polls miss.

(A lot of times, polls attempt to judge turnout by questions like "did you vote in the last election?")

[Solecismic]

So, does the Ben Carson endorsement mean anything? For a while this fall, Carson led in the national polls. He then became known for his odd knife story and his complaints about speaking time during debates. There's no question he knows the Preamble to our Constitution.

I'm not a Trump guy, so this is a hard question to answer. I liked the idea of Carson, but I found his lack of interest in foreign policy tough to reconcile.

Part of the appeal of Trump or Carson or Fiorina or, to a certain extent, even of Cruz is that they essentially give us a third party - albeit from the ashes of the Republican Party.

I find it compelling that Carson talks about this intellectual component to Trump, because that's the approach that made me like Carson in the first place. I don't know if I believe it. Because I'm not sure that Carson was ever in this to win it. Like Sanders, I think he was genuinely surprised that he was still in the game for a while, and was only trying to influence the debate itself.

The difference, of course, is that Sanders has found himself the leader of an enormous number of young, mostly white people who feel the Baby Boomers have consumed their future. I don't agree with Sanders on policy at all, but I can see where the anger comes from that has made him a legitimate contender.

So is Carson just trying to blow thing up, or is this a heartfelt endorsement? We can dismiss Chris Christie's endorsement as mostly opportunism. Wasted as he stood there looking like a deflated balloon as he realized Trump had no intention of making him his BFF. But what is Carson's angle? Trump says he wants an "insider" running mate. This wouldn't be a good choice. So I don't know the motivation, but I find it interesting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

So, does the Ben Carson endorsement mean anything?

Worth a few votes probably, not any meaningful amount that I can image.

Carson's announcement was exciting ... for about 10 minutes, or however long it took to research the guy at a Presidential vote level. Once you got beyond his general imaging there simply wasn't much to be excited (or even lukewarm) about that I could find.

So is Carson just trying to blow thing up, or is this a heartfelt endorsement?

My gut says its relatively sincere though I can't imagine the potential opportunity is lost on him & isn't entirely absent as a factor. But isn't that true for all of us to some extent? That we see things through the prism of "what does X mean for me"? There's nothing nearly as glaring to me as the Christie deal, I can readily believe that Carson does see Trump as the best of the remaining options.

[flere-imsaho]

Carson's endorsement is opportunism. As someone else mentioned, maybe the Surgeon General slot? Frankly, the guy's so full of himself, maybe he thinks a SCOTUS seat?

[JPhillips]

What else is Carson going to do? He hates Cruz and has to realize Rubio has no shot.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Carson's endorsement is opportunism. As someone else mentioned, maybe the Surgeon General slot? Frankly, the guy's so full of himself, maybe he thinks a SCOTUS seat?

It'$ obvious$ what thi$ whole exerci$e wa$ about for Car$on