2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[Solecismic]

I thought we could use items dedicated to the primary issues. Candidacies, polls, issues, attitudes.

As always, let's try to keep these items pleasant.

Candidates...

Donald Trump, former host of Celebrity Apprentice, formerly in Reform Party and Democratic Party, now Republican. Now the presumptive Republican nominee.

John Kasich, former Congressman from Ohio, current Governor of Ohio. Withdrew on Star Wars Day (May the 4th be with him).

Ted Cruz, current Senator from Texas. Withdrew on 5/3/16.

Marco Rubio, current Senator from Florida. Withdrew on 3/22/16.

Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon, M.D. from The University of Michigan. Withdrew on 3/2/16. Endorsed Donald Trump.

Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida, former President's Brother, former President's Son. Withdrew on Freedom Day, 2016. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Jim Gilmore, former Virginia Attorney General, former Governor of Virginia. Withdrew on 2/12/2016.

Chris Christie, current Governor of New Jersey. Withdrew on 2/10/16. Endorsed Donald Trump.

Carly Fiorina, former CEO of HP. Withdrew on 2/10/16. Endorsed Ted Cruz. Became his VP candidate.

Rand Paul, current Senator from Kentucky. Withdrew on 2/3/16.

Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Withdrew on 2/3/16. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Mike Huckabee, television host, former Governor of Arkansas. Withdrew on 2/1/16.

George Pataki, former Mayor of Peekskill, former Governor of New York. Withdrew on 12/29/15. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Lindsey Graham, current Senator from South Carolina. Withdrew on 12/21/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Bobby Jindal, former Congressman from Louisiana, current Governor of Louisiana. Withdrew on 11/17/15. Endorsed Marco Rubio.

Scott Walker, current Governor of Wisconsin. Withdrew on 9/21/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Rick Perry, former Governor of Texas, former Democrat. Withdrew on 9/11/15. Endorsed Ted Cruz.

Cruz won Iowa on February 1, with Trump second and Rubio a close third. Carson was a distant fourth and Paul was fifth.

Trump won New Hampshire on February 9 by a wide margin. Kasich was second, Cruz edged out Bush for third. Rubio was a close fifth and Christie was sixth (prompting his exit from the race).

Trump won South Carolina on February 20 by a wide margin. Rubio and Cruz were pretty much tied for second. Bush edged Kasich for fourth and Carson was sixth. Bush left the race that evening.

Trump won Nevada on February 23 by a wide margin. Rubio was second and Cruz a close third.

On Super Tuesday, March 1, Trump won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Cruz won the big prize of the night, Texas, by a wide margin. He also won Oklahoma and Alaska. Rubio won Minnesota. Carson scored about 3 of the 595 delegates for the evening, and left the race the next day.

On March 5, Trump won Kentucky and Louisana, while Cruz won Kansas and Maine.

On March 6, Rubio won Puerto Rico.

On March 8, Trump won Hawai'i, Michigan and Mississippi, while Cruz won Idaho.

On March 12, Rubio won the District of Columbia.

On March 15, Trump won Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and the Northern Marianas while Kasich won Ohio. Rubio dropped out of the race.

On March 22, Trump won Arizona while Cruz won Utah.

Since then, Cruz has been winning the caucuses while Trump wins the primaries. Trump will have at least a large plurality entering the convention, though it's still up in the air whether he'll have a majority of the delegates.

The first round of debates was August 6, in Cleveland, on Fox News.

The second round of debates was September 16, in Simi Valley, CA., on CNN.

There have been ten debates since. Notably, Trump skipped the seventh debate in Des Moines on Fox News as part of his long-running feud with Megyn Kelly. Trump was also responsible for the cancellation of the 13th debate, also presumably part of this feud.

On May 3, Trump led in the delegate count with 1057 to Cruz's 570. Rubio had 173 and Kasich 157. Control of 1,237 delegates is needed to win.

With a strong win in Indiana and Cruz's withdrawal, Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, almost exactly nine months after the race began.

[molson]

I think Trump could have hung in the race for a while if he ran about 15 years ago, at the height of American society's acceptance of him.

[Solecismic]

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

How do you arrange 14 candidates and 90 minutes of air time? It's going to look like a circus. I'd imagine there's a lot of pressure going on behind the scenes to weed people out.

However, when you do that, the more extreme one-issue candidates (like Santorum) or the ones who know they can't win but want to influence the platform (like Huckabee) stay firm.

I think there's a high probability the Republicans self-destruct a little going into Iowa. The Democrat will remain a favorite in polling (Clinton leads everyone just about everywhere in head-to-head) for a while.

I don't have a good sense yet of how the General will shape up in 2016. I think this is Walker's to lose right now, but Walker will struggle in New Hampshire - he's not the type they prefer.

[JPhillips]

I think it's going to be a lot like 2012 where a number of candidates have their time as the frontrunner. The question is who will be left standing at the end? I think it will be one of Bush, Walker or Rubio.

[ISiddiqui]

Though, interestingly enough Walker still hasn't thrown his hat into the ring. I wonder why.

[Kodos]

We need Newt Gingrich to get in the race!

[revrew]

I'm in Iowa, working with an organization that gets a real, front-row seat to GOP politics. I have already met or interviewed or sat in strategy discussions with several of these candidates. I've been to handful events with these candidates present, will go to a few more, and I've got ears on the ground here in Iowa, where the political process is unlike any other state in the union.

There's a lot of questions I cannot answer, but I'm happy to share perspective on my personal opinions of what we're seeing here.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

How do you arrange 14 candidates and 90 minutes of air time? It's going to look like a circus. I'd imagine there's a lot of pressure going on behind the scenes to weed people out.

However, when you do that, the more extreme one-issue candidates (like Santorum) or the ones who know they can't win but want to influence the platform (like Huckabee) stay firm.

I think there's a high probability the Republicans self-destruct a little going into Iowa. The Democrat will remain a favorite in polling (Clinton leads everyone just about everywhere in head-to-head) for a while.

I don't have a good sense yet of how the General will shape up in 2016. I think this is Walker's to lose right now, but Walker will struggle in New Hampshire - he's not the type they prefer.

I think Fox News has announced that they're only going to invite the top 8 candidates to their debate, so that'll whittle down the numbers right there.

[Thomkal]

well as I told my twin brother long ago-if Hilary runs she wins. Well she's running, but I'm not 100% convinced she wins yet-she's taken some blows lately like the stupid personal email account stuff that was just a horrible decision. I think the Repubs I worry about are the ones that are sure to take some of her sure votes away like Hispanics to Rubio or women to Fiorina. I've not heard Fiorina speak before so not sure how compentent she would sound as President. Walker has no chance against Hilary-isn't he big anti-union? Bush making too many mistakes early, will have to recover from those if he wants any real chance of beating her.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think Fox News has announced that they're only going to invite the top 8 candidates to their debate, so that'll whittle down the numbers right there.

and they will have some public forum or event for the others to attend.

[NobodyHere]

dola, it's top 10, not 8.

[Izulde]

Walker is anti-union and anti-education. He'll get destroyed in the general. Since Jim said to keep this pleasant, I'm not going to say anything further. Those of y'all who are my FB friends know my opinion of Walker, however.

[BillJasper]

I can see the Carly Fiorina slogans now...

"See what she did to Hewlitt-Packerd, imagine what she'll do to America!"

[Dutch]

I think its Rubio. Best of that bunch.

[tarcone]

I hope there is a real strong independent candidate if it ends up Bush/Clinton.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Walker is anti-union and anti-education. He'll get destroyed in the general. Since Jim said to keep this pleasant, I'm not going to say anything further. Those of y'all who are my FB friends know my opinion of Walker, however.

+1

I am rabidly opposed to Walker but I still can't see how he is considered to be even mildly Presidential. Republican opponents should conceivably have a lot of fodder to lob at him especially with some of the latest stuff on his big Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation idea that was supposed to bring all these jobs to the state.

Then again, I can't conceive how Wisconsin has elected him three times (though his s Dem opponents were so uninspiring)

[RainMaker]

Wisconsin is doing well fiscally. On the other side of the coin, Illinois has given unions whatever they wanted and is in a complete and utter financial mess. That's probably why he's gotten elected. Teachers are well paid in Wisconsin despite what some people want you to think.

I do think he stands no chance in a general election. However, he has to be a top choice for a VP.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wisconsin is doing well fiscally. On the other side of the coin, Illinois has given unions whatever they wanted and is in a complete and utter financial mess. That's probably why he's gotten elected. Teachers are well paid in Wisconsin despite what some people want you to think.

I do think he stands no chance in a general election. However, he has to be a top choice for a VP.

This hasn't exactly been an easy budget because revenues aren't meeting expectations. It's not just the teacher stuff, that was four years ago, Walker has been utilizing Kansas style trickle down economics and predictably it's not working. (From by biased lenses anyway).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Walker is a wonderful (hypothetical) cabinet member. Not sure that he's Presidential yet.

Then again, how many of the hopefuls are?

My intent for entering the thread was actually this quote

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't) have a legitimate claim to participation in a serious debate.

Which prompted me to consider the alternate notion that if there's 16 candidates then perhaps virtually none of them belong in a serious debate.

[revrew]

There are some very gifted communicators in that bunch; folks who may have an ugly or tainted image in the wider media, but when given a microphone and a stage or a handshake and an honest question are very winsome. If said folks actually get their time in the spotlight, they will shine. They will surprise people if they can emerge from the pack and the wider U.S. gets to take a more genuine look at them.

I wonder if most folks' opinions of these candidates right now are shaped too heavily by news stories instead of actually seeing them deliver speeches or answer questions. As an Iowan that aggravates me, because we do get to see these people up close and get to know them comparatively well, and it's evident the national media is really spinning some yarns about who is what and who isn't.

On the flipside, there are some in that bunch who may be well-liked in general or are faring well in polls, but put the spotlight on them ... and they wilt. Badly.

[BillJasper]

Pretty uninspiring bunch, from both parties. I'd rather have George W. Bush back (or keep Obama) than hand the country to any of the candidates currently running.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'd rather have George W. Bush back

No.

[stevew]

I might vote for Kasich if he declares. He'd be wise to let all the dreck fight it out and then swoop in as the great hope. Most of these guys are so completely unelectable.

[JPhillips]

Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA. He has no shot of winning the primary.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Kasich accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA. He has no shot of winning the primary.

He also won re-election as governor of Ohio with 64% of the vote. Many Republicans drool at that number.

[Solecismic]

Everybody has something unpalatable to a wide number of people. Momentum is a funny thing. There was a time when Howard Dean looked like a presumptive nominee. People loved him - he had that doctor thing going for him. They said his wife was reluctant, but she gave a national interview with him and seemed quite nice. He was getting the full anointment.

John Kerry was struggling in New Hampshire, where Dean had a 30-point lead. Then Dean had his scream when losing in Iowa (everyone knew he would lose in Iowa anyway), and plummeted in New Hampshire. It wasn't about the issues. He simply didn't look presidential. Would Bush 43 have won his second term against Dean? One scream may have changed history.

The media has tried to downplay all the attention the scream received, but I remember watching it live and simply staring at the television in astonishment. The roll call of states was funny, but the scream was one of those things that simply defied logic. It defined Dean.

Someone is going to emerge from this morass. It may be a retread, but the Republicans keep losing with retreads. Really, both sides lose with retreads. Once we've had a candidate out there for the beauty pageant, and he or she loses, the ennui sets in. GOTV for the General seems less effective.

Right now, what's interesting is that there aren't many retreads. And the ones who are out there aren't polling well at all. Does Bush count as a retread? Probably. I'm hoping he doesn't gain traction.

Revrew, I would be interested in your assessment of the candidates' speaking skills. I enjoyed my years in New Hampshire, where candidates are seemingly everywhere from the summer before the mid-term onward. I felt much more aware then. It's a lot of fun being in one of the early states and getting that opportunity. The bottom line is that only a handful of states matter when it comes to electing a president - the primary/caucus states that draw the candidates and the few mid-to-large purple states that decide the General.

[SackAttack]

My (perhaps wishful) hope is that Walker's GOP rivals destroy him in the primary. He's given them no shortage of fodder; the question is whether any of his rivals can use it effectively.

I would take literally any other Republican in the race as President if it meant Scott Walker had to buy a tour ticket to get anywhere near the Oval Office.

Hell, there aren't many Republicans *not* in the race I wouldn't take over Scott Walker. There are a few I'd rank him above, but you're scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[stevew]

President Santorum?

[SackAttack]

I have some issues with Santorum, but I'd still put him ahead of Walker, yeah.

[Solecismic]

My wife's family is mostly in Wisconsin. And in education. Their feelings about Walker are fairly similar. So negative that they would prefer, barely, a candidate like Santorum. When I first told her, a few months ago, that I felt Walker was emerging as a favorite to win the nomination, I could almost literally see the five stages of grief. It would be like telling a Libertarian that Obama had just issued an executive order allowing a third term as President.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My (perhaps wishful) hope is that Walker's GOP rivals destroy him in the primary. He's given them no shortage of fodder; the question is whether any of his rivals can use it effectively.

Why would anyone go after him though ... unless they want to lose the conservative vote almost entirely?

Gallup polling, as of March (latest version of it I could find), Walker had the lowest disapproval rating of ANY candidate in the GOP field not named Ben Carson. Second lowest amongst moderate/liberal GOP voters as well.

Yeah, you could target him & try to drive that number up but, well ... why?
His positive numbers aren't strong enough to make him a threat yet.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What's weird about this is that all 16 of these candidates (assuming they all declare, and my guess is that Christie and Jindal won't)

Looks like you were wrong about Jindal, he's set to declare today.

[Dutch]

He's a good speaker. I'd be curious to know more about him. I remember when he was up and coming in La politics...seemed pretty good.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Dutch

He's a good speaker. I'd be curious to know more about him. I remember when he was up and coming in La politics...seemed pretty good.

I was just home in NOLA for a vacation. Jindal is getting no love down there. Not really his fault. When oil prices are high, the state has money, everyone is happy, and the governor is a genius. When oil prices are low (like now), the state has a deficit, and the governor is an idiot.

Jindal's GOP rivals will have no problem finding local political leaders (on both sides) who will go on record as saying Jindal has failed Louisiana. That will make it hard for him to get momentum.

And, if gas were $5/gallon right now, he'd have 65% approval in Louisiana and probably win the nomination.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

He also won re-election as governor of Ohio with 64% of the vote. Many Republicans drool at that number.

But that's not as impressive when you look at the numbers for 2014. All but one statewide office went GOP with 60% or more and eleven of twelve GOP congressmen were elected with 60% or more. Unlike Christie, Kasich didn't outperform the rest of his party.

[tarcone]

Ted Cruz is on my radar. I like what I've read and heard, but that has been limited.
Can you guys give me the positives and negatives, in your opinion, of Cruz and his politics.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Everybody has something unpalatable to a wide number of people. Momentum is a funny thing ...

QFT !

When it comes to understanding what REALLY goes on in Iowa (the pundits on national TV are shockingly clueless. I work with the media, including the NYT, WaPo and other publications, who send their reporters out here every four years, and every four years we have to correct so many of their misunderstandings), I've rarely found a better "mythbuster" article than this one, written by an Iowa talk radio firebrand: STEVE DEACE: Lies, clever myths and the Iowa caucuses - Washington Times

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Revrew, I would be interested in your assessment of the candidates' speaking skills.

Some of the candidates - Bush, Rubio, Christie, Kasich, Walker, Graham, Pataki, etc. - really haven't made a major play in Iowa yet (outside of a couple of appearances and whatever organizing they're doing in the background). Shoot, Rand Paul hasn't really made a splash here yet, so I don't have any more insight on them than what we all see on the news. Yet.

Some of the candidates have shown they need some serious polishing - Carson and Trump come to mind. They have a lot of goodwill with voters, but in both private and on stage (I've interviewed them both personally and seen them deliver speeches), they haven't shown a depth and breadth of understanding to speak well and connect beyond their specialty issues.

Some are better in folksy meetings than they are on stage. Santorum comes to mind here, as people love to shake his hand, but he's a bit ho-hum on stage. That worked in the last Iowa caucus, but this time around, it may not be enough, and it may not be sustainable when people are primarying Santorum in multiple states at once.

When Ted Cruz enters a room, he's a rock star, meaning, he has a lot of charisma and people are excited to hear him, but it sometimes comes off too polished and showy. In one-on-one meetings, however, this guy is charming, persuasive and professional. There's a good reason he's raising a lot of money. He's definitely one to watch.

Fiorina I haven't seen in person, though she is a scathing and capable attack dog who can score points even in hostile interviews.

Perry would be fine in a typical cycle, but he's getting overshadowed right now by Cruz, the anticipated (if unfulfilled) excitement about Carson and Trump, and the these other two charmers:

Huckabee is very smooth, very well spoken, charming and intelligent. His time at Fox may have sharpened his oratory skills. He's the most "Reaganesque" in delivery, and every time he gets on stage, he's in the running to have left the best impression. As a candidate, he carries some baggage, but if people aren't aware of that and they simply hear Huckabee for the first time, he's very persuasive.

But the real stud in waiting is Jindal. I've interviewed him, seen him on stage multiple times and was in the room watching him handle a hostile reporter's interview. He is a masterful and brilliant communicator. I'm not talking about his policies or track record here now, just his communication skills. I've watched him walk into a room with Cruz's light show and Huckabee's down-home charm and smoke them both, winning the audience. Every time he gets a chance to speak, Jindal wins supporters. The only question is, can he rise from his relative obscurity fast enough to be a real contender?

[spleen1015]

I don't care who the candidate is as long as the win so that this country can be saved.

[bob]

Its still weird to me that we have a system in which the local politics of a few states drastically narrow down the candidates for a national office.

[cartman]

Bobby Jindal Should Have Run In 2012, Not 2016 | FiveThirtyEight

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Why would anyone go after him though ... unless they want to lose the conservative vote almost entirely?

Gallup polling, as of March (latest version of it I could find), Walker had the lowest disapproval rating of ANY candidate in the GOP field not named Ben Carson. Second lowest amongst moderate/liberal GOP voters as well.

Yeah, you could target him & try to drive that number up but, well ... why?
His positive numbers aren't strong enough to make him a threat yet.

Walker is the conservative Bill Clinton, and I mean that in more ways than one.

He's charismatic enough to get away with shit. He's calculating, by which I mean whatever position he holds on a particular subject is less about core values and more about "how will this get me what I want?" This has led to him holding multiple opposing viewpoints on the same issue - just in the last four years, in some cases. You want to know why Scott Walker is popular among the base? It's not because he's "conservative." He isn't. Not unless your definition of conservative is "we should cut school funding every year so we can give that money back to the wealthiest taxpayers." Not unless your definition of conservative is "the best way to handle infrastructure spending is to cut it and then have to pay triple OT for a rush repair job when a bridge needs emergency repair work." Not unless your definition of conservative is "taking out $250 million in bonds (which will cost more than that over the life of those bonds) for corporate welfare is good for the state but spending $250 million on higher education isn't."

And his charisma makes him a threat to win the nomination because otherwise reasonably smart people will be seduced by what he has to sell them. Those are all traits Clinton embodied. Clinton was charismatic, he was calculating, and he was able to present himself as a "New Democrat," claiming to represent liberal thought while governing closer to the center.

His popularity with the base isn't because he's Presidential material (he's not). It's because what most of the GOP base knows about is Act 10. FUCK YEAH HE PISSED OFF THE LIEBRULS.

Popularity with the "anything that pisses off the Democrat Party works for me" mouthbreathers doesn't make you a conservative. And there are at least three or four candidates in the GOP primaries more closely aligned with conservative principles (and less likely to be a walking disaster) than Scott Walker. If pointing out that the emperor has no clothes would cost a GOP candidate the "conservative" vote in the primaries, the GOP is fucked next November anyway.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Like I said, Walker strikes me as a perfect Sec of Labor, a cabinet guy.

As Presidential candidates go at the moment he runs somewhere around 5th or 6th with me (something like 75% agreement on some 30-40 issues, compared to the high 90s scores for Rubio & Santorum)

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You want to know why Scott Walker is popular among the base? It's not because he's "conservative." He isn't. Not unless your definition of conservative is "we should cut school funding every year so we can give that money back to the wealthiest taxpayers."

That's pretty much the textbook definition of conservative by anyone on the left.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's pretty much the textbook definition of conservative by anyone on the left.

Only if you want to caricaturize the left as all being raging ideologues. Simply ain't the truth.

Hell, I'm probably 'left' by modern standards. Not very far left, but left all the same.

I do not consider any of those to be conservative positions.

I consider them to be asshole positions; whether or not assholery is equivalent with conservatism I leave entirely as an exercise to the reader.

[Bisbo]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't care who the candidate is as long as the win so that this country can be saved.

LOL

[Solecismic]

Sack, that's the kind of character assassination I want to avoid here. I understand your politics. That doesn't make most people who disagree with you mouth-breathers or assholes.

[Neuqua]

I'm fascinated by the extents Jindal has gone through to shy away/hide from his Indian heritage.

Not that I imagine that demographic is a huge influence in voting, but his reluctance to acknowledge any connection has frustrated the majority of the community.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

I'm fascinated by the extents Jindal has gone through to shy away/hide from his Indian heritage.

Not that I imagine that demographic is a huge influence in voting, but his reluctance to acknowledge any connection has frustrated the majority of the community.

I'm gonna guess most of the frustration comes from his political opponents, so take it with a grain of salt. Here's the non-pol entries in the wiki page on him.

Early life and professional career

Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, immigrants from Punjab, India, who came to the U.S. six months before he was born.[5] Jindal attended Baton Rouge Magnet High School, graduating in 1988 at the top of his class. While in high school, he competed in tennis tournaments, and started a computer newsletter, a retail candy business, and a mail-order software company. He spent his free time working in the stands at LSU football games.[6] Jindal was one of 50 students nationwide admitted to the Program in Liberal Medical Education (PLME) at Brown University, guaranteeing him a place in medical school. Jindal completed majors in biology and public policy. He graduated in 1991 at the age of 20, with honors in both majors.[6][7] Jindal was named to the 1992 USA Today All-USA Academic Team. He applied to and was accepted by both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, but studied at New College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar. He received an M.Litt. degree in political science with an emphasis in health policy from the University of Oxford in 1994, where the subject of his thesis was "A needs-based approach to health care".[6] He turned down an offer to study for a D.Phil. in politics, instead joining the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.[8] He then interned in the office of Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana, where McCrery assigned him to work on healthcare policy; Jindal spent two weeks studying Medicare to compile an extensive report on possible solutions to Medicare's financial problems, which he presented to McCrery.[9]

As a young convert to Christianity, Jindal wrote several articles about his spiritual journey that were published in the New Oxford Review.[8]

Jindal was raised in a Hindu household. He converted to Christianity while in Baton Rouge Magnet High School. During his first year at Brown University, he was received into the Roman Catholic Church. His family attends weekly Mass at Saint Aloysius Parish in Baton Rouge.[35]

Jindal's father, Amar Jindal, received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Guru Nanak Dev University.[159][160] Jindal's mother, Raj (Pal) Jindal,[159] is an information technology director for the Louisiana Workforce Commission (formerly the Louisiana Department of Labor) and served as Assistant Secretary to former State Labor Secretary Garey Forster during the administration of Gov. Murphy J. "Mike" Foster, Jr.[161] Prior to immigrating to the United States, both his parents were lecturers at an Indian engineering college.[162] According to Jindal, his mother was already four months pregnant with him when they arrived from India.[163] Jindal has a younger brother, Nikesh, who is a registered Republican and supported his brother's campaign for governor.[164][165] Nikesh went to Dartmouth College, where he graduated with honors, and then Yale Law School. Nikesh is now a lawyer in Washington, D.C.[160]

Jindal's nickname dates to his childhood identification with an ABC sitcom character. He has said, "Every day after school, I'd come home and I'd watch The Brady Bunch. And I identified with Bobby, you know? He was about my age, and 'Bobby' stuck."[166] He has been known by his nickname ever since, though his legal name remains Piyush Jindal.[167]

In 1997, Jindal married Supriya Jolly who was born in New Delhi, India and moved to Baton Rouge with her parents when she was four years old.[168] They attended the same high school, but Supriya's family moved from Baton Rouge to New Orleans after her freshman year and they did not begin dating until later, when Jindal invited her to a Mardi Gras party after another friend had canceled. Supriya Jindal earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering and an M.B.A. degree from Tulane University.[169] She is working on a PhD in marketing at Louisiana State University.[170] She created The Supriya Jindal Foundation for Louisiana's Children, a non-profit organization aimed at improving math and science education in grade schools.[171] They have three children: Selia Elizabeth, Shaan Robert, and Slade Ryan. Shaan was born with a congenital heart defect and had surgery as an infant. The Jindals have been outspoken advocates for children with congenital defects, particularly those without insurance. In 2006, Jindal and his wife delivered their third child at home. Barely able to call 911 before the delivery, Jindal received medical coaching by phone to deliver their eight-pound, 2.5-ounce boy.[172]

[tarcone]

Nothing on Cruz?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Nothing on Cruz?

Not much more than my gut reaction to him, but if you want that ...

He's a marvelous thorn in some sides that I enjoy seeing punctured. On the issues where I've found indications of his positions (reviewed via this link) I'm generally happy & on the ones where we disagree he benefits from them being relatively minor concerns for me.

But I haven't yet gotten past the nagging feeling there's something -- some fatal flaw -- that I've either missed or that hasn't yet been revealed.

He's a candidate I'm open to considering for my vote if he wins the nomination -- and there's quite a few I can't say that about -- but he's not really a frontrunner for my primary vote at this point.