2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[nol]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm sure the people offended by all that would never insult Republicans as a group.

It's not really offensive on its own, it's more that the act of "golly shucks, I'm a good 'ole boy without an agenda just tryin' to figure out the truth" while parroting the Rush Limbaugh/chain e-mail talking points contributes nothing to any discussion. Whether it's through deliberate trolling, ignorance, or plain old stupidity is irrelevant since the end result is the same.

[Kodos]

"Demoncrat" is pretty funny.

[Dutch]

Well, like I said, I blame ignorance. I'm curious of the origin, I've called it the Democrat Party for as long as I remember. Probably a Suthren thing.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See what happens when you don't just stick with Demoncrat?

C'Mon, it's "libtard"

[EagleFan]

Oh that silly Democrat Party...


If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Oh that silly Democrat Party...


If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

Typical of an Eagles fan.

If that is viewed as an insult that shows pathetic weakness of character.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, like I said, I blame ignorance. I'm curious of the origin, I've called it the Democrat Party for as long as I remember. Probably a Suthren thing.

Oh, fwiw, I probably should also note that I've not used it exclusively...I say Democratic Party as well...I've always used them interchangeably.

[Solecismic]

This was a joy to read after a long road trip. Thanks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Once again I repeat my recommendation of the candidate matching quiz at
ISideWith.com

No matter who you back, no matter what your leanings, it'd be really hard not to come away from it better informed if you: answer the expanded questions, use the "other answers" options to provide more nuanced replies and then actually look at the detailed summary of why your score for a candidate was what it was.

Things I learned today from a rescoring?
-- Trump lands 13th of 15 GOP candidates ... due to having so many items without an attributed position. That matches up perfectly with my comment earlier in the week (elsewhere) that I'm not convinced he has the portfolio to be a top choice. It can change, but it isn't there for me right now.

-- Walker took a big jump upwards in my match score ... but in the details I see his flag Tweet (supporting Haley in SC). That means he's effectively eliminated from getting a primary vote for me. He might still have a chance at a hypothetical vote in November but that means he's all but eliminated himself in the primary barring some really unusual combination of candidates by the time I vote.

Note: those points are meant to be illustrations of what I think can be taken away from the quiz, they aren't meant to be enormously political statements

[miked]

You vote based on somebody's position on a flag? And not even the American flag? I thought you claimed to have some level of intelligence. It would seem from all your big talking that the only person who is ever deserving of a vote is you

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

You vote based on somebody's position on a flag? And not even the American flag? I thought you claimed to have some level of intelligence. It would seem from all your big talking that the only person who is ever deserving of a vote is you

Not quite, but that's close. I'd certainly prefer me as dictator over any presidential option ... but that's true every year.

Look, there are "third rails" for candidates -- get one of those wrong & I'll skip your ass in November on the basis that if you can't even get simplest & most obvious shit right then wtf difference does it make if you're in or not?

And then there's this particular "rail". It eliminates Walker from the primary for me because he's proven (afaic) that he doesn't get it and that he's too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he doesn't get it. He's roughly 4th with me in terms of matching other positions so the odds are good that I'll have an equal or better match to choose from.

It's not a true absolute third rail for me (in the general election) however because ... well the way I've explained my exception elsewhere is this: he's not from here, I don't really expect him to get it. In short, he's a damned Yankee & I make allowances for him because of it. A Southron would not get that degree of slack,they'd be eliminated permanently & absolutely.

[albionmoonlight]

Not surprisingly, I am a isidewith match with Sanders and Clinton.

My least match is Fiornia and Cruz.

The two GOPers who get over 50% from me are Paul and Christie.

[Neuqua]

I got 78% with Bush.

My top 3 were Republicans which did surprise me slightly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My least match is Fiornia and Cruz.

Interesting pairing that shows how the nuances can kick in, how weighting issues impacts it,etc.

Cruz shows up in my own top 4-5 while Fiornia was dead last among GOP for me until Kasich jumped in.

[digamma]

I too was Clinton/Sanders, but with Jeb as the top Republican not far behind (something like 70%).

[BillJasper]

I matched up with Sanders (95%), Clinton (89%) and O'Malley (81%). Trump was the closest Republican at 52%.

[molson]

I'm always all over the place with these

Rubio 77%
Sanders 66%
Christie 64%
Clinton 63%
Cruz 62%

(Very liberal on environmental and most social issues, conservative on immigration and foreign policy/national security, pretty moderate everywhere else. Right now I'm leaning towards voting Clinton. I like a lot of Republicans, but I don't want any in the white house.)

Though there's always questions I don't know what to do with, like:

"Should Wall Street executives be criminally charged for their roles in the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis?"

Well, ya, if the government can prove that particular individuals actually and personally committed crimes that existed at the time of their actions. Which is tricky to do with members of organizations. We shouldn't just decide we want to prosecute "wall street executives" and then desperately try to find some criminal statute that kind of fits. I think there's things you can do with the law and regulations to make executives more accountable for their actions, and make those actions more transparent, but you can't go backwards in time with criminal law.

[Dutch]

Rubio 91%
Jindal 88%

Clinton 65% was top Dem.

[Chief Rum]

How about this?

Clinton 85%, Sanders 75%. Jeb was the top Pub (#4) at 64%, and then Rand Paul was in the 50s (which makes sense).

Like molson, I think the issues presented put more emphasis on my social beliefs (left leaning), and less on the foreign policy and role of government issues on which I believe I have less congruency with the Dem side.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

How about this?

Clinton 85%, Sanders 75%. Jeb was the top Pub (#4) at 64%, and then Rand Paul was in the 50s (which makes sense).

Like molson, I think the issues presented put more emphasis on my social beliefs (left leaning), and less on the foreign policy and role of government issues on which I believe I have less congruency with the Dem side.

If you have the patience for it, try re-weighting the social issues to minimal & the other stuff to maximum & see how much it changes your results. (assuming you didn't have them shoved left & right on the first pass)

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you have the patience for it, try re-weighting the social issues to minimal & the other stuff to maximum & see how much it changes your results. (assuming you didn't have them shoved left & right on the first pass)

Yeah, I went individually with the weighting and left a lot in the middle. I'll see what happens with some different measures.

[Grover]

97% Bernie, 85% Clinton, top repub was Christie at 33%

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Grover

97% Bernie, 85% Clinton, top repub was Christie at 33%

Yowzers!

[NobodyHere]

Paul 81%
Sanders 76%
Santorum 73%
Carson 69%
Rubio 67%

[lighthousekeeper]

Uh oh - i got an R/D tie:

71 Rubio (R)
71 Clinton (D)
----------------
70 Paul (R)
69 Sanders (D)


Time to re-check those hanging chads.

[Kodos]

Sanders 91%, Clinton 86, O'Malley 73, Christie 44, Trump 39, Bush 34... Cruz in last with 10%.

[RainMaker]

I had Rubio at 84%, Clinton at 67%.

[albionmoonlight]

something to look for to see if the GOP is really worried about the Trump sideshow.

If swing states with GOP legislatures start to try and quietly pass bills making it harder to qualify as a third party candidate, then I would have to think that the RNC is actually worried about him.

I don't think that we are close to that point, yet.

[Izulde]

Sanders 92%
Clinton 61%
O'Malley 60%
Huckabee 56% (once again the top Republican for me)

[lighthousekeeper]

How interesting would it be if, when you went to the voting booth, you just had to answer these isidewith.com questions instead of directly picking a candidate. Then your vote would automatically go to the candidate with the closest ideological match.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I had Marco Rubio by a pretty wide margin.

[Dutch]

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

hey - just bake that into the poll (make those intangibles tangible). "How pretty should a president be? Is smiling important to you? Can a president ever have a comb-over? "

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

That would be fine if there weren't intagibles like personality required to be a good president.

I'm not sure the results would be any worse than what we have now. I'd extend it to Congress and state governments as well.

[path12]

Sanders 94%
Clinton 87%

Christie was my top Rep with 36%. My lowest was Perry at 4%.

[SackAttack]

I've been telling anybody who'll listen that I'd take Trump over Walker. ISideWith apparently concurred in that.

It has, however, far too many Republicans listed behind Walker. S'not true. Every single Republican in this race is more palatable to me than Scott Walker.

The 94% for Bernie Sanders was a surprise, though.

[Solecismic]

As always on tests that limit themselves to reasonable stances (not doing something crazy like eliminating public schools), I score heavily Libertarian.

Rubio stands out in most areas. Sanders on social issues. I suppose Rand Paul isn't his father and I should take another look in his direction. It says I should like Walker, though I'm not a fan.

The recent shift in the Democratic party means I probably will vote Republican for president for the first time in my life. Though I will regret it if they win and see that as some sort of mandate to go nuts on social issues.

[albionmoonlight]

What’s Wrong With Rand Paul’s Campaign? | FiveThirtyEight

I don't think that Paul really had a chance of winning the nomination, but I do hope that he does not fall out before the contest really begins. I think that it is very healthy for a political party to have the kinds of internal debates that Paul forces the GOP to have. If Paul is not in the picture in a relevant way, then there will not be anyone else to ask the kinds of questions that he is willing to ask.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My Way News - 2016 Republicans use Trump, TV to make debate cut

[revrew]

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

They're really going to exclude Fiorina (the only female running and a perfect attack dog vs. Hillary)? The RNC has this prime opportunity to grab women voters, demolish Hillary even more, and they're going to toss that out the window because of some meaningless (at this early stage) polls?

The sitting governor of New Jersey? Naw, he's not going to be in the debate. Sitting governor of Louisiana? Naw. He just kicked the a$$ of 9 other candidates on stage in Iowa and is one of the fastest rising candidates in the state ... but naw, the RNC would rather have Donald Trump on stage (no slam on Trump, personally, but you KNOW the RNC hates his guts).

I swear, the DNC is run by fools (I'm using biblical language here, not just an insult) and the RNC by idiots. Here in Iowa especially, but I wonder if it isn't just a national problem, the GOP loses elections and policy battles more out of sheer stupidity and ineptitude than they do out of actually being defeated by Dems.

And I'm not even going to touch ... OK, now I am ... how the GOP leadership decided to slam Ted Cruz for giving one of the clearest, most populist, most independent-grabbing, party-expanding speeches on the floor of the Senate in my lifetime. They throw him under the bus, instead, thus proving the point that GOP leadership is so out of touch with the general populace that they wouldn't be able to feel the pulse of the nation if it was crammed up their collective a$$.

Can ... not ... believe how stupid the GOP is. And I say all this as someone who generally votes Republican.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

Eh, even with my #1 guy almost certainly on the outside looking in, it's a practical reality. There's only so much TV time, only so many people that will fit on a stage, only so many people that can be comprehended in one event.

What [might] happen is that the bottom of the ten will effectively eliminate themselves with a poor or even non-existent showing in the main debate while a breakout star of the secondary event could propel themselves at least into the top ten.

Honestly though, at this point, if you're running at the 2% mark or lower (which is roughly where the cutoff seems likely to be) your chances of being relevant to the overall discussion are extremely low anyway.

edit to add: fwiw, I shared that story because I knew there was some sort of cutoff but until reading that article I didn't know exactly what it was nor how it would be determined. Figured I might not be the only person who didn't know the details.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Honestly though, at this point, if you're running at the 2% mark or lower (which is roughly where the cutoff seems likely to be) your chances of being relevant to the overall discussion are extremely low anyway.

See, I'm arguing that's not even remotely true. That's not how the process works. If you look at the history of the polls, those that come out this early are completely clueless.

At this point in 2008, for example, Giuliani was the national poll leader. He was GONE by the time of the Iowa caucus.

At this point in 2012, Santorum wasn't over 2 percent nationally, wasn't over 3 percent in Iowa, but he not only won Iowa, he won 11 other states and came in 2nd.

Limiting to 10 is fine. Or doing two "heats" of 8. But NOT based on these polls. Putting any faith at all in these polls is the part I'm lambasting.

[Solecismic]

I agree. But I don't see why we need a debate* half a year before the Iowa Caucus.

Are these people so much in love with themselves that they feel it's relevant today?

* - by debate, I mean trivial sound-byte contest with all the depth and nuance of the annual Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest.

The lock-step ritual condemnation of Cruz is far more troubling.

Trump is ahead in polls because he's the only one who isn't choosing issue positions based on the Republicans' new love affair with computer targeting. Trump, however, will fade as soon as one of his opponents emerges as not being a clone of the other 14 candidates.

He isn't going to win. The only lesson Republicans should take from having this bombastic real-estate celebrity personality leading the pack at this stage is that a computer program isn't going to win this race (unless we all go to internet-based voting and Putin winds up winning because of some clever hacker in a Moscow basement).

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by revrew

That the RNC is limiting the debate to 10 candidates based on poll numbers (!) at this point is an absolute travesty of democracy. Poll numbers at this point mean precisely jack, save for pure name recognition and celebrity.

They're really going to exclude Fiorina (the only female running and a perfect attack dog vs. Hillary)? The RNC has this prime opportunity to grab women voters, demolish Hillary even more, and they're going to toss that out the window because of some meaningless (at this early stage) polls?

The sitting governor of New Jersey? Naw, he's not going to be in the debate. Sitting governor of Louisiana? Naw. He just kicked the a$$ of 9 other candidates on stage in Iowa and is one of the fastest rising candidates in the state ... but naw, the RNC would rather have Donald Trump on stage (no slam on Trump, personally, but you KNOW the RNC hates his guts).

I swear, the DNC is run by fools (I'm using biblical language here, not just an insult) and the RNC by idiots. Here in Iowa especially, but I wonder if it isn't just a national problem, the GOP loses elections and policy battles more out of sheer stupidity and ineptitude than they do out of actually being defeated by Dems.

And I'm not even going to touch ... OK, now I am ... how the GOP leadership decided to slam Ted Cruz for giving one of the clearest, most populist, most independent-grabbing, party-expanding speeches on the floor of the Senate in my lifetime. They throw him under the bus, instead, thus proving the point that GOP leadership is so out of touch with the general populace that they wouldn't be able to feel the pulse of the nation if it was crammed up their collective a$$.

Can ... not ... believe how stupid the GOP is. And I say all this as someone who generally votes Republican.

Shouldn't the republicans at the bottom be pulling themselves up by the bootstraps instead of complaining about how unfair the system is?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by revrew

See, I'm arguing that's not even remotely true. That's not how the process works. If you look at the history of the polls, those that come out this early are completely clueless.

At this point in 2008, for example, Giuliani was the national poll leader. He was GONE by the time of the Iowa caucus.

At this point in 2012, Santorum wasn't over 2 percent nationally, wasn't over 3 percent in Iowa, but he not only won Iowa, he won 11 other states and came in 2nd.

Limiting to 10 is fine. Or doing two "heats" of 8. But NOT based on these polls. Putting any faith at all in these polls is the part I'm lambasting.

And (to my deep chagrin) ultimately Santorum amounted to nothing in 2012.

There have to be some limits to how many bodies are on that stage -- that's a practical reality for television (not the size of the stage, the amount of time each can get) -- so if not the polls then WHAT?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The lock-step ritual condemnation of Cruz is far more troubling.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

It's why I made the point elsewhere yesterday that we might be reaching a critical mass for a party split, or at least a party that loses a major chunk of its supposed core support.

At this point I'm simply taking note of those who blasted Cruz and eyeballing them hard for whether they serve any useful purpose at all going forward.

[panerd]

Yikes!

Sanders 87%
Paul 72%
Carson 57%
Clinton 51%
Bush 15%

I expected to be close to Paul though I certainly see big differences between him and his dad. Sanders was likely due to me weighting several social issues and foreign policy high and a lot of domestic/environmental low. Since there is about 0% chance that Sanders or Paul gets the nod I likely would probably vote Clinton if any of the Bible beaters get nominated and generic Libertarian if the GOP at least puts in a normal person. (I know normal is a bit of a stretch! )

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And (to my deep chagrin) ultimately Santorum amounted to nothing in 2012.

There have to be some limits to how many bodies are on that stage -- that's a practical reality for television (not the size of the stage, the amount of time each can get) -- so if not the polls then WHAT?

Well, as Jim pointed out, the bigger issue is having debates this far in advance. Part of why the RNC is limiting participation is they feel like the circus in 2012 before Romney eventually pulled away hurt them in the general election. They're trying to avoid that.

So...a 10-candidate debate with an undercard is supposed to get rid of the circus atmosphere? Really?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I agree. But I don't see why we need a debate* half a year before the Iowa Caucus.

Are these people so much in love with themselves that they feel it's relevant today?

* - by debate, I mean trivial sound-byte contest with all the depth and nuance of the annual Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest.

I still can remember a Yahoo article back during the 2012 GOP primary that said Ron Paul kept trying to cover obscure topics like monetary policy. Boxers or briefs please!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Part of why the RNC is limiting participation is they feel like the circus in 2012 before Romney eventually pulled away hurt them in the general election. They're trying to avoid that.

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