2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

They'd be better served trying to avoid having a worthless candidate like Romney as the nominee

See, we're not in disagreement that Romney was a worthless candidate, but I suspect we would be as to why.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Of course Sarah Palin posted this on her Facebook.

[Izulde]

Trump got the all important Dennis Rodman endorsement today.

[JPhillips]

Can we please, please stop obsessing over what a candidate orders on his cheese steak sandwich? It really doesn't matter.

Also, too, nobody cares what lettuce a candidate prefers.

[path12]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Can we please, please stop obsessing over what a candidate orders on his cheese steak sandwich? It really doesn't matter.

Also, too, nobody cares what lettuce a candidate prefers.

I don't know man. I've got to look pretty sideways at an iceberg candidate.

[JPhillips]

Monmoth has Trump going from a -28 net approval in April to a +17 now. That doesn't say much of anything good about a large chunk of the GOP primary electorate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Monmoth has Trump going from a -28 net approval in April to a +17 now. That doesn't say much of anything good about a large chunk of the GOP primary electorate.

{shrug} He's the only guy who has said much that needed to be said thus far. And that he's done it with a relatively sharp stick, that's even better.

And to be honest, with a field this absurdly large, very few other people have done anything to give themselves any sort of boost. He has, and that's weighing mighty heavily in his favor thus far.

It's like he's one of the few candidates that's even started his engine yet, those idling in neutral make him look even faster by comparison.

[molson]

They're actually having a "loser's debate" for candidates outside the top ten in the polls by today's cut-off. That's kind of sad.

I think it could be kind of a big deal who makes that cut-off, its a clear line of contendership being drawn. And in the bottom of that 10, it could come down to just how they round the numbers.

Log In - The New York Times

[Neuqua]

That's what I find silly about this. The bottom few are all in the margin of error, so essentially it's the network that is deciding who can and can't have a chance at being President.

Why not just have two debates, mix and match the candidates and let everyone have a shot? I would think that would do just fine ratings wise as well.

[JPhillips]

Can you imagine the outcry if any network other than Fox puled this?

[albionmoonlight]

Someone at 538 suggested having multiple debates going on at the same time, each limited to three contenders. Then simulcast them NFL Red Zone style. And put each full debate up on the web as soon as it is done. And any given debate can have its own channel for people who really want to watch it.

Wouldn't ratings for that be through the roof?

[albionmoonlight]

Less insane idea. Instead of having a "real" debate and a "consolation prize" debate, have two debates. Pick the participants at random. Put them on back to back nights.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Less insane idea. Instead of having a "real" debate and a "consolation prize" debate, have two debates. Pick the participants at random. Put them on back to back nights.

Viewer fatigue sets in pretty quickly.

There's a reason that the networks have limits on time & what not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Wouldn't ratings for that be through the roof?

I have to assume, well at least HOPE, that's sarcasm.

My detector may need new batteries though.

[albionmoonlight]

Not sarcasm. But in context.

By "through the roof" I meant, "through the roof in comparison to Fox News typical programming and compared to the ratings for a typical primary debate"

I would assume that any given episode of NCIS or Big Bang Theory would dwarf the ratings of any political programming.

[albionmoonlight]

dola: so, like, through a very short roof

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Trump makes it worth the price of admission. Love him or hate him, it'll be entertaining.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Trump makes it worth the price of admission. Love him or hate him, it'll be entertaining.

Right now, he's getting the "I hate politicians" vote. But his ceiling is low. He's probably nearing his peak.

He'll get better ratings for the debate, though. People will tune in just to see how he handles the stage and the other candidates handle him.

What's interesting to me is how old the candidates are on both sides. Reagan, at 69, is the oldest ever to become president. Reagan was also the oldest to win a nomination when running for his second term, though that record was beat by Bob Dole. Dole would have been 73 when taking office had he won in 1996.

We have several candidates who will be in the 69-75 range on 1/20/17. Trump will be 70. Clinton 69, Sanders 75. They're trying to draft Biden, who will be 74.

Maybe we're doing everything so absurdly early this time through because all the candidates have to be in bed by next summer.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Not sarcasm. But in context.

By "through the roof" I meant, "through the roof in comparison to Fox News typical programming and compared to the ratings for a typical primary debate"

I would assume that any given episode of NCIS or Big Bang Theory would dwarf the ratings of any political programming.

I'll borrow a few things from this article
Will Trump be ratings gold for Fox News? | TheHill

2012 cycle, primary debates ranged from a low of 3.2 million (an early CNN clash) to a high of 7.6 million (for an ABC encounter in the month preceding the Iowa caucuses).

The 2012 cycle featured one debate that bears close comparison to the Aug. 6 event. On Aug. 11, 2011, a Fox-hosted Republican primary debate drew 5.1 million viewers

A similar number would have beaten every program on cable last week except for one show on Disney ("Descendants", whatever that is)

A similar number would be pretty much identical to the CBS primetime average last week (they were #1 for the week of 8/2). It would also have ranked about 19th among all broadcast programs ... but remember, it's repeat season & low viewership season so numbers are down from what you'd see at other times of the year.

Last week, a couple of O'Reilly episodes on FXNC did about 2.8 million viewers for some sort of direct comparison for the network.

[molson]

Trump, Bush, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, and Kasich make the cut.

Perry, Santorum, Graham, Gilmore, Jindal, Pataki invited to loser's debate.

[stevew]

If they were going to use polling, why wouldn't they do something actually effective like "list your top 8 choices for the GOP presidential candidate" and poll that way.

[Dutch]

Eventually the numbers dwindle down. Going out on a limb early, this is how I think I shakes out.

I predict the final four as Bush, Walker, Rubio and Trump.

Then Trump drops.
Then Walker drops.
Then Bush drops.
Rubio vs Clinton.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump, Bush, Walker, Carson, Huckabee, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Christie, and Kasich make the cut.

That's actually the top 10 at the moment in the RCP average
Almost in the same order in fact (the only diff is flip Carson/Huckabee in 4/5)

edit to add: the way you typed them is actually the exact order of the most recent Fox News poll

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Eventually the numbers dwindle down. Going out on a limb early, this is how I think I shakes out.

I predict the final four as Bush, Walker, Rubio and Trump.

Then Trump drops.
Then Walker drops.
Then Bush drops.
Rubio vs Clinton.

I agree except it ends Bush vs Clinton. He has a shitton of money.

[Solecismic]

I still think we have very little idea.

The height of the Rick Perry madness in 2011 was a Politico poll at the end of August. He had 36%, Romney 17%, Gingrich 10%, Bachman 10%.

Herman Cain peaked at 30% in October.

Newt Gingrich peaked at 40% in December.

Romney took the lead in January...

but Santorum won the Iowa Caucus and peaked at 39% in February.

Momentum is a funny animal. It seems far too early to predict anything. But I'll go ahead and predict that Trump is gone by the end of the evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, after scoring in single digits.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I agree except it ends Bush vs Clinton. He has a shitton of money.

If that were always the case, how did Obama beat Clinton?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I still think we have very little idea.

The height of the Rick Perry madness in 2011 was a Politico poll at the end of August. He had 36%, Romney 17%, Gingrich 10%, Bachman 10%.

Herman Cain peaked at 30% in October.

Newt Gingrich peaked at 40% in December.

Romney took the lead in January...

but Santorum won the Iowa Caucus and peaked at 39% in February.

Momentum is a funny animal. It seems far too early to predict anything. But I'll go ahead and predict that Trump is gone by the end of the evening in Manchester, New Hampshire, after scoring in single digits.

Agreed, going out on a limb is never a sure thing.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

That's what I find silly about this. The bottom few are all in the margin of error, so essentially it's the network that is deciding who can and can't have a chance at being President.

This has happened every year this year just happens to have more candidates.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

This has happened every year this year just happens to have more candidates.

Hardly any of whom are actually serious contenders for anything aside from a hypothetical cabinet (or lower) position.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If that were always the case, how did Obama beat Clinton?

Obama was basically even with her when the primaries started and then blitzed by her in the first quarter of 2008. He raised over 130 mil just in the first quarter of 2008.

[Dutch]

Oh, I thought people liked him better. Didn't realize the machine backed him.

[Kodos]

[Butter]

Just kills me that we are really starting this a full 15 months before the election.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Just kills me that we are really starting this a full 15 months before the election.

+1

Hate this.

[NobodyHere]

Well it's only 6 months until the first caucus.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hardly any of whom are actually serious contenders for anything aside from a hypothetical cabinet (or lower) position.

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point, but he went on and won the GOP nomination. Huckabee and Santorum, similarly, were less than 3% at this point in the years they both finished #2 for the nomination.

We deal with this all the time in Iowa. The rest of the country has election "years," we have election cycles that run 2-3 years. While the rest of the country is still sleeping on the election, we're already meeting, interviewing, etc.

And I can tell you right now that America is getting royally screwed by this new debate process. There are some in that top 10 who are not serious candidates (not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency), and there is at least 1 candidate cut out by this idiotic national poll criterion who will finish top 3 in Iowa, and should Ted Cruz falter, could finish top 2 for the nomination nationally.

Fox/RNC are pissing on America right now and telling you it's just raining.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by revrew

(not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by revrew

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point, but he went on and won the GOP nomination. Huckabee and Santorum, similarly, were less than 3% at this point in the years they both finished #2 for the nomination.

We deal with this all the time in Iowa. The rest of the country has election "years," we have election cycles that run 2-3 years. While the rest of the country is still sleeping on the election, we're already meeting, interviewing, etc.

And I can tell you right now that America is getting royally screwed by this new debate process. There are some in that top 10 who are not serious candidates (not talking about Trump, here. To be honest, I think he's the current odds favorite to win the presidency), and there is at least 1 candidate cut out by this idiotic national poll criterion who will finish top 3 in Iowa, and should Ted Cruz falter, could finish top 2 for the nomination nationally.

Fox/RNC are pissing on America right now and telling you it's just raining.

I see this debate as less important. The ground game in Iowa and New Hampshire should be everyone's focus right now. Getting those key local endorsements, getting known.

Sure, the debate is a piece of getting known. It's an opportunity. But for what? A memorable one-liner? Not in a room of ten type-As battling for air time.

You're out on the ground, so you know things I can only guess about, but I just don't see Trump getting much stronger. Can you really have an entire candidacy revolving around "I'm not a politician!"

Trump would have to be Superman to gain from the debate. We already expect him to command the stage and make those politically incorrect comments that force Ozzy Osbourne's children out of their cozy comfort zone.

Where does he go from here? At what point can he pivot from showing people what's wrong with the system to providing people with hope that he's the guy who can fix it? He's peaking too early and he's too old and too cranky to pivot and stay in this, long-term.

[rowech]

To me, Trump has just consolidated some of the more extreme voters into a single candidate. At first glance, it seems like he's rolling but as people drop out, I don't think those supporters of previous candidates will jump to Trump. (although that makes a great motto for him) I think his numbers will probably stay right around where they are now for the duration, he'll hang around longer than people think, but in the end, it won't be enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

Not true.

Going back and looking at the early polls in previous elections, John McCain was nowheresville in the polls at this point

And he, nor anyone in recent memory, has had a field this insanely large to try to weave their way into actual contention through.


Maybe I'm looking at the RCP data wrong or something but McCain had a rather massive lead at this point best I can tell. That would erode for a while later but we know the outcome, don't we?
RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - Republican Presidential Nomination

And, come on, look at the candidates that weren't in the top ten. Of those omitted there MIGHT be two (Perry on name recognition, Jindal cause youth or energy or something) with even a snowball's chance in hell at making even a top five run. The rest would very likely do well to remain ahead of Joe The Plumber if he entered tomorrow.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Can you really have an entire candidacy revolving around "I'm not a politician!"

These days? Maybe.

At what point can he pivot from showing people what's wrong with the system to providing people with hope that he's the guy who can fix it?

re: fix ... He's already made the short list simply by being one of the few who actually seems to WANT to fix stuff. Given how little confidence sane voters have that any plan worth a damn could actually be implemented, simply wanting (or wishing) to may carry more weight than you'd suspect.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And, come on, look at the candidates that weren't in the top ten. Of those omitted there MIGHT be two (Perry on name recognition, Jindal cause youth or energy or something) with even a snowball's chance in hell at making even a top five run. The rest would very likely do well to remain ahead of Joe The Plumber if he entered tomorrow.

I'll make this prediction right now: If Cruz or Trump slip, you should expect Jindal to win Iowa. Then we'll see about his ability to organize nationally or capitalize on that momentum.

Here's my reasoning: As it is, Jindal is fighting with Cruz for the same audience, so that's his big hurdle. But getting into Iowa's top 3 is critical, and right now it looks like Trump, Walker and either Cruz/Jindal are those three (they are top 4 in most recent polling). Yes, I know I cut out Bush, but the dude is running BACKWARDS here in Iowa. Walker definitely looked like he peaked too early, so if Trump did, too, the top spot is wide open for the Cruz/Jindal candidate.

As for laughing at Trump ... what do you think will derail him? He called Latinos "rapists," and his numbers went up. He called a POW "not a war hero" and his numbers went up. I swear, if the dude flips the moderator the bird at the debate or moons his fellow candidates, his numbers will go up. The #1 thing people in this country care about right now is not immigration, the economy, or foreign policy. It's our collective disgust with Washington, D.C. Trump is scoring that HUGE right now. Hillary is dropping through the floor. Trump is in the driver's seat. Peaked too early? Maybe. I'll give you that possibility. But as long as he says, "Every one of you on this stage is a politician. That's why you don't deserve to be president," he's going to keep surging. He's a very, very dangerous candidate right now.

[Kodos]

I have to think independents would avoid voting for Trump in droves in the general election.

[JPhillips]

With the exception of one Quinnipiac poll, Clinton's numbers have stayed very steady, both in terms of the nomination and general election matchups.

As for Trump, I read an interesting take yesterday that argued he's surging not in spite, but because of his TV show. The writer suggested that the format of the show, seeing him always presented as the most capable and accomplished guy in the room, showing him browbeating everyone that comes before him, and presenting him as a quick and strong decision maker, has created an image of what a lot of people want from their president. I think there's a lot of truth there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for Trump, I read an interesting take yesterday that argued he's surging not in spite, but because of his TV show. The writer suggested that the format of the show, seeing him always presented as the most capable and accomplished guy in the room, showing him browbeating everyone that comes before him, and presenting him as a quick and strong decision maker, has created an image of what a lot of people want from their president. I think there's a lot of truth there.

Feels like a reach to me. I mean, there are vast swaths of the country who have never seen more than 10-15 minutes of the show. We know it exists but actually watching enough for impact? That's a relatively small number of people.

Again, I'm not sold on him having the answers ... but at least he seems to know some of the questions. That resonates better than a tone deaf (for conservatives) courting of liberals like Bush is doing.

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I'd like to see a poll ask Trump supporters if they have watched the show.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

These days? Maybe.

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

Against Bush and Clinton...

[Dutch]

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Even 20 years ago Perot got nearly 20 million votes.

And 1924 LaFollette ran 3rd with a strong 16.6%, Wallace in 1968 pulled nearly 14%.