2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That resonates better than a tone deaf (for conservatives) courting of liberals like Bush is doing.

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

Look, I seriously doubt Trump is a 100% match for me. I'm not sure my still top choice Santorum is either tbh.

But if you can't get the basics of something as simple as immigration right, specifically by not just shrugging & accepting defeat at the hands of invaders, well then fuck you Mister (or Ms.) Candidate because you're too worthlessly stupid to do any meaningful amount of good.

We've got a lot of people in the field right now who fail to be worth the oxygen they consume afaic, why the fuck would I be interested in whether they're in the White House versus some left-wing whackjob? They're not going to accomplish jack while in there either, any good they'd do would likely be by accident (same as the whackjob).

[revrew]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

You vote for the dude who aligns most closely with your values. If you stay home because the candidate isn't a 100% match, you forfeit any right to bitch about the guy (or gal, one of these days) who swears the oath.

And yet, that's what I hear every four years, is the drumbeat that if the candidate is insufficiently conservative, conservatives will just stay home and spend the next 4 years bitching about the guy they couldn't be bothered to get out and vote against.

I think this also ties into why Trump's "I'm not a politician" rhetoric is winning right now, especially among conservatives who otherwise don't match well with his record.

The answer to your question is because conservatives have been holding their nose and voting for the guys who supposedly "most closely aligns with our values" for years, for decades. And those very bozos have actually done more harm to our issues than good! By wearing the false flag of conservativism or of the GOP (hence, the term RINO), they actually set the cause backwards.

Case in point: George W. Bush. His disastrous faux-conservative presidency gave endless fodder to the wave of progressivism we're awash with today.

On the flipside: Obama's sudden lurch to a neo-socialist, progressive agenda gave rise to the tea party and a surge in conservative engagement that has led to huge political gains in the legislature and in the states.

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

That's why they won't vote for Romney. They didn't vote for McCain. And they won't vote for Bush. If Bush wins the nom, and Trump is still viable at that point (big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Trump actually beats Bush in the general, because many conservatives hate the dishonest betrayal of their so-called "friends" in the GOP more than the honest opposition of the Dems.

[bob]

Originally Posted by revrew

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

Given the length of supreme court tenures, I don't agree with you. If W hadn't been elected, but Gore was, this country could be very different in many ways due to the makeup of the court.

[molson]

Maybe I haven't been paying attention to him enough, but I don't even remember Trump over the years as being a guy known for his conservative values. This only started fairly recently when he decided he was going to go all-in on this PR stunt. I question his sincerity. He's more Hollywood than middle america. I think he really enjoyed being accepted as an almost-mainstream entertainment industry celebrity around 2003-2007, and he misses that. That's all this is.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing I don't get is this trope that claims that if it's not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE candidate who ONLY FOCUSES ON THE TRUE CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT THEY WANT, conservatives will just stay home and let the OMG SOCIALIST get elected instead. That's not rational behavior by any standard.

Of course it also works the other way too. I roll my eyes quite a bit at the Sanders folk who complain that Hillary is a DINO and real liberals are just going to stay home.

It seems like its just nonsense hyperbole for backers of those closer to the extremes and no one actually does it.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by revrew

...George W. Bush. His ... faux-conservative presidency...

[Dutch]

He was a neo-con with a big heart. So it gets confusing.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Fundamental difference between conservatives and establishment Repubs: Do you stick to principles even when it ticks off the big-money backers (conservative), or do you work to preserve the party and its position of influence from idealistic extremes (establishment)?

Most RINOs come in talking like a lion conservative, and leave like a lamb.

Bush's biggest offense was TARP - Screw conservative and constitutional economic principles, we're going to bail out our big-money backers! That was a major reveal.

No Child Left Behind was a major strike, too, because most conservatives don't see justification for federal involvement in public education.

On social issues he was hit and miss, sometimes very conservative, sometimes just clueless.

And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

He called it "conservative." The press loved to call it conservative, because it gave conservative a bad name. But Bush's presidency was only conservative in facade.

[molson]

Originally Posted by revrew

Bush's biggest offense was TARP - Screw conservative and constitutional economic principles, we're going to bail out our big-money backers! That was a major reveal.

So then why would people upset about that flock to Trump, who supported TARP and the auto company bailout.

https://www.conservativereview.com/2...rump#article-9

Edit: He also supported the assault weapon ban, NSA data collection, and has advocated for a universal health care system and a one time 14.25 percent tax on individuals and trusts with a net worth of over $10 million.

[Subby]

Good article about the appeal of Trump and from where he draws his base:

Donald Trump’s surge is all about less-educated Americans - The Washington Post

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by revrew

And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

I disagree there.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167471/am...r-mistake.aspx

...unless you were to argue that the GOP is just filled with RINOs skewing the poll results.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

That's why they won't vote for Romney. They didn't vote for McCain. And they won't vote for Bush. If Bush wins the nom, and Trump is still viable at that point (big if), I wouldn't be surprised if Trump actually beats Bush in the general, because many conservatives hate the dishonest betrayal of their so-called "friends" in the GOP more than the honest opposition of the Dems.

Bravo.

[Solecismic]

When you look at it that way, you have 100 million voters, 100 million parties. We all hold our noses when we vote.

Some things affect us directly. Some things affect us when we read about them. The internet allows us to read a lot and get affected a lot.

Polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.

The Democrats are losing white voters. The Republicans lose with everyone else. The theory is that you win elections by motivating the people who identify with you.

But a good question is whether you also win elections when your opponents upset people. Would Trump motivate millions of sort-of Democrats to get out there and vote? Has the Democrat move to the left motivated millions of sort-of Republicans?

An argument could be made that your party's best move is its safest one. Yet the Republicans did this with Bob Dole in 1996 (it's hard to dislike Bob Dole) and Mitt Romney in 2012 and lost elections to second-termers that many people felt were winnable. The Democrats settled for safe and familiar with John Kerry in 2004 and lost to George W. Bush (whose faults are well outlined above).

Trump may be tapping into hope and change. I don't see it, but it's not a safe move in the slightest. I still think he has a low ceiling, doesn't have the organization necessary to win the early contests, and would lose the general in a landslide.

More likely, Trump is an over-reaction to the "Obama Unplugged" president he became after his second inauguration. Things will settle down when it's finally time to make decisions. Of course, that probably means Scott Walker or YAB (yet another Bush).

[molson]

Well Trump has this going for him - he's the only presidential candidate to have met the Boogyeman, and he was not afraid at all. This speaks well of how he may deal with America's enemies.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

...unless you were to argue that the GOP is just filled with RINOs skewing the poll results.

Well ...

Actually (and I had problems with the linked page not wanting to load very well so I can't see the details) the wording of the question could lead to an answer of "it was a mistake".

I might even tell you that it was a mistake in hindsight because of the errors we've made in following up on it. Primarily in thinking that there was hardly anyone in the region capable of competent self-government.

[Solecismic]

Yesterday's poll releases:



I assume Trump has no ground game in South Carolina. This is what scares people. Even though, as I keep repeating, we're still in the flavor-of-the-day period before things get serious.

However, look at New Hampshire and Clinton. New Hampshire is essentially a blue state. The population density increases in the southern areas that are commuting distance to Boston jobs have given New Hampshire a significant and reliable liberal voting block.

Clinton even beat Obama there in 2008.

She has name recognition, and she's statistically tied with the Republican front-runners - some who have name recognition and some who don't. That's bad news for the Democrats (though, again, it's too early to care too much).

Except for Trump. She touches 50 against Trump, who also has name recognition.

Put together, you see what the Republicans are thinking right now. It's the establishment against Trump. Which plays right into any conceivable model of Trump lasting in this race.

Odds are, he'll do something so bizarre that even the anti-establishment vote will fade. But he does have an opportunity. He'll go out tonight and say, "I'm running for president. They're running for the Republican nomination. They're trying to tell you what you want to hear. I'm out here telling you like it is."

It's a winning message. But he's also, in Jeb's words, a "buffoon and an asshole." The media will continue to portray him as such, and he will frequently confirm their portrayal.

Too much has to happen to get Trump past the early contests. It's still just a circus around him.

[Dutch]

My criteria for Prez must be screwed up because I can't get past Trumps goofy assed haircut to consider him seriously.

[JPhillips]

Bush/Walker/Rubio need to make a deal with one of the lower candidates to go hard at Trump and mock him until he rage explodes.

[ISiddiqui]

Christie would be perfect for that, really. Maybe he can parlay it into a promised Cabinet position?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Too much has to happen to get Trump past the early contests. It's still just a circus around him.

And IIRC, part of the way the President beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries was through superior organizing. His campaign was able to translate his support into a tangible delegate lead though getting people to the polls and through understanding the arcane delegate distribution systems that some state caucuses use.

Trump, I would assume, has none of that. His team lacks the ability to maximize his delegate count. Even if (as I doubt) he "wins" in Iowa, NH, and/or South Carolina, he will not have the ground game to transition that into a delegate win at the convention.

[JPhillips]

I think Christie is still delusional enough to think he can win. Perry would be perfect, but he's not visible enough.

[molson]

A debate rage explosion would only help Trump in the polls.

[JPhillips]

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

I volunteer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2015-...ia-republicans



Trump 30, Bush 17, Carson 10, Huckabee 7, Cruz 6, Walker 5, the 5 with 3% each, Jindal & Perry 2% each. Coming in at 0% were Graham, Pataki and Santorum.

Here's what actually caught my eye though:
2012 Georgia primary results
Gingrich 47, Romney 26, Santorum 19.6, Paul 6.6

From 20% to 0%, with really no meaningful difference for Santorum then & now? That's the impact of the field and suggests to me that people are looking considerably less at the candidate as individuals but rather for the one that most fits a certain role. Santorum's support here 4 years ago appears to have largely been based on "not being Romney and not being Newt" ... a role that's now filled by a variety of other candidates.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

And IIRC, part of the way the President beat Clinton in the 2008 primaries was through superior organizing. His campaign was able to translate his support into a tangible delegate lead though getting people to the polls and through understanding the arcane delegate distribution systems that some state caucuses use.

Trump, I would assume, has none of that. His team lacks the ability to maximize his delegate count. Even if (as I doubt) he "wins" in Iowa, NH, and/or South Carolina, he will not have the ground game to transition that into a delegate win at the convention.

Nothing arcane about understanding that in a close race, the superdelegates decide it. Early, they declared for Hillary. Later, when they saw the reaction Obama was receiving at campaign events, they re-declared for Obama.

You could even argue that based on Obama withdrawing from Michigan (though he did campaign for an anti-Hillary vote to embarrass her) and Florida not being counted, that she had more popular votes. Nothing arcane about the national committee refusing to seat delegates from states that broke their rules.

She had enough organization to win. What she lacked was enthusiastic crowds. The Democrats got the right candidate out there, and that's exactly what the superdelegates are supposed to do.

You're right that Trump will have an impossible time convincing Republican superdelegates. But the Republicans have a far lower proportion of superdelegates (and higher proportion of those are bound to the state vote), so that won't be as big a hurdle. More likely, as the extras drop out, someone will emerge with a higher ceiling than Trump's. And he'll (sorry Carly) start winning those bigger winner-take-alls.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But if they keep at it for the next four months I'm willing to bet they'll drive Trump over even what his supporters can tolerate.

It would take someone willing to throw away any chance at winning so they can do almost nothing but mock and annoy Trump 24/7.

Trump is a clown, but if he were easily mocked and annoyed, he wouldn't have made it in New York real estate.

He thrives on this stuff. Mocking and annoying him won't make him go away. Ignoring him, however...

[JPhillips]

But he's also really thin skinned. He doesn't take well to being mocked.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But he's also really thin skinned. He doesn't take well to being mocked.

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

Agreed. Anyone that thinks they can go to war with him by inciting him is going to end up looking bad. Trump doesn't care if he looks bad and that's honestly a good thing for him.

It's somewhat like a poker pro playing against a billionaire in a high-stakes poker game. While the poker pro needs to keep focused and make continued optimal plays, the billionaire doesn't care if he blows off several million on a couple bluffs as long as he's able to turn over at least one blatant bluff to show the poker pro that he bluffed him.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The man's been mocked for generations. He's almost 70. He still wears that absurd colored comb-over.

I would say he's many things, but not thin-skinned. Mocking him or yelling at him plays right into his wheelhouse. He can command a room when you play on his turf.

You can't ignore him when he's the front runner and debating policy won't work. Now I agree that the person that does this is giving up any chance to win, that's why I think the mainstream conservatives need to find a rabbit that do the work for them.

[Solecismic]

So... thoughts on the JV debate?

Perry seems to have his patter down. But a little too much like a used car salesman to me. I think his numbers will go up a little, though. I want to like Jindal more, but the extreme conservatism is a deal-breaker. Pataki's too far past his prime. Gilmore has a great background, but I don't see him making inroads. Graham looks and sounds like he's reading from a children's book. Fiorina seems a little silly. I see Santorum's appeal to the religious base, but question whether he can represent anyone else.

I didn't see anyone I wanted to learn more about. Except maybe Gilmore, who I want to like more than I do. But when he ran for the Senate in Virginia in 2008, it didn't go well at all.

For me, I think these seven should stay on the sidelines. Too many candidates.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't ignore him when he's the front runner and debating policy won't work. Now I agree that the person that does this is giving up any chance to win, that's why I think the mainstream conservatives need to find a rabbit that do the work for them.

Enter Rick Perry, right on cue....

[stevew]

Gilmore who basically almost bankrupted Virginia, Gilmore?

[NobodyHere]

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

Might not be another complete outsider but I'd lean toward guessing someone that isn't in this field.

In that scenario at some point they'll all have to take some sort of shot at him & I don't see him looking past that very
easily.

edit to add: Tell you a name that might be interesting though: Herman Cain

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

He and Sarah Palin have been saying nice things about each other in the media for a while.

I can't see him picking a boring politician if he actually won the nomination on the platform of him not being a politican. So I'd say a celebrity-politician like Sarah Palin or Linda McMahon or Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

Well, Admiral Stockdale died ten years ago. And we know Trump prefers former military who never were captured anyway.

Who knows which way he'd go. I still say Omarosa's the odds-on favorite. He'd look like a hypocrite if he went with one of the other candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

He and Sarah Palin have been saying nice things about each other in the media for a while.

Palin crossed my mind. To some extent both she & Cain have been through some of the wars that would lie ahead, I think he's smart enough to know that has some value.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Look, I seriously doubt Trump is a 100% match for me. I'm not sure my still top choice Santorum is either tbh.

But if you can't get the basics of something as simple as immigration right, specifically by not just shrugging & accepting defeat at the hands of invaders, well then fuck you Mister (or Ms.) Candidate because you're too worthlessly stupid to do any meaningful amount of good.

But Jon, here's the thing: the House and Senate will dictate the tone of the bills sent to the President. The House is not in imminent danger of flipping to the Democrats. The way districts are drawn right now, unless there's a wave of state referenda handing districting over to a non-partisan board, or there is an absolutely massive scandal involving one or more prominent Republicans, I'm not sure the Democrats take that chamber back before 2020.

So it doesn't fucking MATTER if the President "accepts defeat at the hands of invaders," unless the tone of "accepting defeat" is "I'm going to veto every bill sent to me that isn't amnesty." And a guy with an attitude like that doesn't get the nomination in the first place. There is some stuff the President can do using executive orders one direction or the other on immigration, but the real heavy lifting comes from Congress.

We've got a lot of people in the field right now who fail to be worth the oxygen they consume afaic, why the fuck would I be interested in whether they're in the White House versus some left-wing whackjob? They're not going to accomplish jack while in there either, any good they'd do would likely be by accident (same as the whackjob).

the "left-wing whackjob" can actively obstruct legislation that comes from Congress unless there's supermajority support for it. A President who tried to obstruct legislation from his own party is a President who's getting primaried before he could have a second term. Even if you think he's a worthless empty suit who's not worth the air he's breathing, he can rubber-stamp legislation from Congress (which is currently significantly more conservative than your opinion of the Presidential nominee pool). That's more than you'd get out of a Democrat, so I really don't get why the "welp conservatives will just not vote if they don't get Republican Jesus as a candidate" view from many on the right.

Originally Posted by revrew

The answer to your question is because conservatives have been holding their nose and voting for the guys who supposedly "most closely aligns with our values" for years, for decades. And those very bozos have actually done more harm to our issues than good! By wearing the false flag of conservativism or of the GOP (hence, the term RINO), they actually set the cause backwards.

So why is it that when conservatives make up so much more of the GOP primary base than moderates or (ha ha good one) liberals do, that "RINOs" keep getting nominated? Are conservative voters just that bad at identifying "one of us"?

Originally Posted by revrew

Case in point: George W. Bush. His disastrous faux-conservative presidency gave endless fodder to the wave of progressivism we're awash with today.

The thing is that "conservative" isn't a monolithic term. There are at least three separate conservative constituencies. There are security conservatives, who I'll call War Republicans. They did well in Bush's term. There are social conservatives, for whom I don't have a glib moniker. Between the "faith-based charity" initiatives that Bush pushed in his first term and his campaign's support for the same-sex marriage bans on the ballot leading up to November 2004, that group can reasonably say that Bush did well by them. It's the fiscal conservatives who got completely and utterly hosed.

Originally Posted by revrew

On the flipside: Obama's sudden lurch to a neo-socialist, progressive agenda gave rise to the tea party and a surge in conservative engagement that has led to huge political gains in the legislature and in the states.

I have about three different problems with that statement, but I'm not going to start an argument. Just know that that coughing sound coming from me ain't a cough.

Originally Posted by revrew

You could argue it's better to elect a conservative's worst nightmare than a phony conservative.

You could argue that, but I'm not sure why you think a phony conservative is likely to do more damage to the country than "a conservative's worst nightmare." How many phony conservatives have been elected? Two Republicans since Reagan have won, and they were both Bushes. Where's the evidence that a phony conservative (assuming that appellation applies to the Bushes) was worse than Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry would have been?

Originally Posted by revrew

And in fact, I think many conservatives have come to that conclusion. Decades of RINOs have not only accomplished nothing, they've undermined both conservatives and the country as a whole. When many folks today say, "Look how f'd up the Republicans are. They're awful for this country," many conservatives have to reluctantly agree.

You haven't HAD decades of RINOs, let alone those capable of undermining the country. Unless this is a tacit admission that the Bush Presidency was much more damaging than a Gore Presidency would have been? Again, I'm not quite sure what the right-wing argument is here.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course it also works the other way too. I roll my eyes quite a bit at the Sanders folk who complain that Hillary is a DINO and real liberals are just going to stay home.

I kinda despise the RINO/DINO terms, to be honest. It smacks of ideological purity, the idea that nobody who identifies with a party can ever have regional differences with that party. "I'm a Texan and that Republican from Maine is a commie in disguise!" Uh, no, politics in that part of the country have a different tenor than they do in Dixie. Or did, maybe things are changing.

But I don't like the idea that you have to follow a checklist if you want to call yourself a Republican or a Democrat. That just gives the Kochs and Soros' of the world more power.

conservative ideology is an "idealistic extreme", then? Is that the position you're taking?

And it happened at the end of his second term as the economy was in meltdown and there were fears of a second Great Depression. What's the choice, there? The banks get deregulated, you don't do anything about RE-regulating them during your 8 years in office because, gosh, that would be government action and thus clearly not conservative, and when they blow up the system in their greed, you do...what? You let them fail and let the average citizen bear the brunt of the regulation you thought it was unAmerican to re-institute? I mean...yeah, okay, I'm going to go with "idealistic extreme" on that one. Bush reacting to a financial emergency is hardly a sell-out of conservative principles - except maybe the conservative principles that enabled that emergency in the first place.

The problem is if you're going to agitate that "our schools suck and need improvement," you need a solution. "Let the states handle it" isn't a solution, because then you end up with 50 different educational systems as some states hand out vouchers like candy for religious education, some states try to build a robust public school system that serves all of the kids, and some states try a bastardized hybrid. Somebody eventually falls behind, and that's a generational thing, as I've said before. When you have five or ten years of failing schools in a state, it'll take you 20 or 30 to recover from that. One could argue that letting the states be the laboratory for education is playing high-stakes poker with the futures of the kids in those states.

That's about as astute a description of GWB as I've ever read.

[=revrew;3045919]And contrary to the leftist narrative, "warmongering" is not a conservative principle. Bush's foreign policy was called conservative, but was more establishment-supporting than principle-based.

It's not a universally conservative principle, but as I said up-post, there are at least three different poles in the conservative tent. It's not a monolithic entity. You've got War Republicans, Jesus Republicans and Tax Republicans. There is very much a hawk wing of the Republican Party. Even if the hawks don't speak for conservatives as a whole, there are self-professed conservatives who are very much in favor of "warmongering." Ask Jon how he feels about the Middle East sometime. I'm reasonably sure "glass parking lot" will come up in the conversation. He's not alone, and he has enough company that the left can drive that narrative, even if it's only a partial truth.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. Anyone that thinks they can go to war with him by inciting him is going to end up looking bad. Trump doesn't care if he looks bad and that's honestly a good thing for him.

See, I look at this race, and my thought is that nobody's winning the nomination by taking Trump's support from him, unless he gets a stronger plurality than he's got. Trump, then, is the best general election gift the Republicans have had since Reagan. Ignore him, play as the "adult in the room," and let his supporters gush over him. Take your support from the other candidates, either because you're better than them, or they're too busy chasing Trump to realize how they're shooting themselves in the foot. The candidate who emerges having not played Trump's game is a candidate who doesn't have as much "oh shit" to worry about in the general. At least, not self-inflicted.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Twelfth Amendment says "nope."

The Veep has to be eligible to succeed to the Presidency in the event of incapacitation of the sitting Prez. Arnold isn't eligible to be elected President, and so isn't eligible to be VP.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

So if Trump wins the nomination, who does he pick as VP? Will it be a politician such as Kasich or Rubio to give himself some political credibility or does he double down on his "rich guys know best" mantra and pick another wealthy businessman?

He should pick the guy from Shark Tank.

[NobodyHere]

Donald Trump and Mark Cuban would make for an interesting ticket...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So why is it that when conservatives make up so much more of the GOP primary base than moderates or (ha ha good one) liberals do, that "RINOs" keep getting nominated? Are conservative voters just that bad at identifying "one of us"?

No true Scotsman.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Donald Trump and Mark Cuban would make for an interesting ticket...

No no, the bald one. But yes, Congressmen could pitch their ideas to him and he could say yay or nay. It'd be a hell of a way to create the budget.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

No no, the bald one. But yes, Congressmen could pitch their ideas to him and he could say yay or nay. It'd be a hell of a way to create the budget.

"Mr Wonderful" Kevin O'Leary. I think he might be Canadian though. The mention of Jessie Ventura though would be fantastic for the VP debates.

[digamma]

This is really bizarre debate coverage/running by Fox.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by panerd

"Mr Wonderful" Kevin O'Leary. I think he might be Canadian though. The mention of Jessie Ventura though would be fantastic for the VP debates.

I think Ventura has at least 3 problems though:

1) He veers too much into tin foil hat territory. Granted that will give him the anti Jade Helm conspiracy theorists but most people think he's crazy

2) His lawsuit against the estate of the American Sniper guy will get him in water with the pro military crowd.

3) And worst of all is that Ventura made Abraxas.

[NobodyHere]

Well it looks like Fox is trying its hardest to make the debate about Trump.