The Republican Thread

[Jake]

The national polls don't mean anything anyway. The primary process is very undemocratic. Of course, Trump is winning each of the first three primary states, too...

 

Then again, these things have a tendency to change a lot before the elections. Here's a quick blow-by-blow of national GOP polling from 2012 nomination fight. Romney leads early, until September, hovering around 20-25%. In September, Rick Perry surges to 30+%. He falls and in October Herman Cain takes the lead with 25-27%. He falls and by mid-December Newt Gingrich is leading with 35%. Once the actual voting starts in January, Romney and Gingrich go back and forth a few times. By mid-February, Gingrich has fallen out of favor and Rick Santorum takes Romney's brief lead, Santorum getting about 35%. It's not until March that Romney gets the lead and keeps it as much of the rest of his competition drops out of the race.

[StrangeSox]

They didn't have a legacy candidate like Hillary though. Get her name recognition out of there, have a clean slate of basically unknown national candidates and the situation is much more similar.

2000,2004,2008 didn't run like that for the Democrats.

 

It's not the quantity of the candidates but the quality and substance, though if you remove trump this year is less ridiculous than 2012.

[greg775]

It looks like Trump is running away with the primaries. If he really wants the nomination he'll probably get it. He's really going to look like an asshole if he drops out while holding a big lead. Hillary basically gets a bye in the general election running against Trump. Of course she'd roll to victory no matter whom the Repubs came up with.

 

I mean it truly is impossible to see any of the boring Republican candidates emerging. That leaves Trump who just might win the Repub. nomination if he really wants it.

Edited August 14, 2015 by greg775

[greg775]

Harold Dean would be a better example.

 

Sanders has said many outlandish things as well.

 

 

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/female-vp-tr...-174100879.html

One way for Trump to counterbalance the feminist backlash...guaranteeing a woman would be his VP candidate.

 

Mentions Susana Martinez, Joni Ernst, Ayotte, Nikki Haley, C. Rice and even Oprah.

 

Fiorina might be a good choice, but then he would have to walk back last week's comments ripping her...Palin, Meg Whitman two other possibilities, although Palin's 15 minutes of fame are fading finally.

 

I wonder if Oprah would do it. That would be the best ticket. Take this to its logical conclusion. Trump/Oprah vs. a lifelong politician in Hillary. That would be funny cause Opray probably would tire of Trump during the campaign and say, "I only did this to make sure a woman was involved. Please everybody, vote for Hillary; I'm dropping out."

[StrangeSox]

It looks like Trump is running away with the primaries. If he really wants the nomination he'll probably get it. He's really going to look like an asshole if he drops out while holding a big lead. Hillary basically gets a bye in the general election running against Trump. Of course she'd roll to victory no matter whom the Repubs came up with.

 

I mean it truly is impossible to see any of the boring Republican candidates emerging. That leaves Trump who just might win the Repub. nomination if he really wants it.

 

He doesn't actually appear to be running a campaign, setting up ground organizations etc

 

[caulfield12]

The national polls don't mean anything anyway. The primary process is very undemocratic. Of course, Trump is winning each of the first three primary states, too...

 

Then again, these things have a tendency to change a lot before the elections. Here's a quick blow-by-blow of national GOP polling from 2012 nomination fight. Romney leads early, until September, hovering around 20-25%. In September, Rick Perry surges to 30+%. He falls and in October Herman Cain takes the lead with 25-27%. He falls and by mid-December Newt Gingrich is leading with 35%. Once the actual voting starts in January, Romney and Gingrich go back and forth a few times. By mid-February, Gingrich has fallen out of favor and Rick Santorum takes Romney's brief lead, Santorum getting about 35%. It's not until March that Romney gets the lead and keeps it as much of the rest of his competition drops out of the race.

 

 

Yes, but....

 

There are a number of articles making comparisons, and the Trump bump is turning out to have a lot more staying power than all of those examples from 2012 that were essentially 2-3 weeks in length.

[greg775]

Just took a long walk and listened to Trump's interview with Hannity as I walked. Hmmm. Trump gave a lot of specific policy issues.

 

-- Laughed at critics and said it would be easy, 100 percent assured, to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

-- Said he'd kill Obamacare immediately. Can the next president do that?

-- Repeated the bulls*** about China and bringing manufacturers back to the U.S. I still wont vote for Donnie because of the fact he makes his ties there because "it's business" when he could be a trailblazer and do the right thing and make the ties here. I wish Hannity would have grilled him on that. He merely let Trump say he'd bring manufacturing back here.

-- Said he's the best candidate far and away for the economy. Said he will turn it around. Says without him, if that deficit gets much bigger, it's the end of the world as we know it.

 

Once again, he sounded good. Can't imagine any of the Republican bores knocking him off the top spot. It's gonna probably be Hilly vs. Trump. He said he would probably bring up Bill Clinton's marital affairs during the debates with Hilly. Not 100 percent sure but said it's fair game. Said he'd be better for women than Hilly. Repeated that he paid Hilly's campaign money so she'd take his calls, go to his wedding, etc.

[caulfield12]

Just took a long walk and listened to Trump's interview with Hannity as I walked. Hmmm. Trump gave a lot of specific policy issues.

 

-- Laughed at critics and said it would be easy, 100 percent assured, to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

-- Said he'd kill Obamacare immediately. Can the next president do that?

-- Repeated the bulls*** about China and bringing manufacturers back to the U.S. I still wont vote for Donnie because of the fact he makes his ties there because "it's business" when he could be a trailblazer and do the right thing and make the ties here. I wish Hannity would have grilled him on that. He merely let Trump say he'd bring manufacturing back here.

-- Said he's the best candidate far and away for the economy. Said he will turn it around. Says without him, if that deficit gets much bigger, it's the end of the world as we know it.

 

Once again, he sounded good. Can't imagine any of the Republican bores knocking him off the top spot. It's gonna probably be Hilly vs. Trump. He said he would probably bring up Bill Clinton's marital affairs during the debates with Hilly. Not 100 percent sure but said it's fair game. Said he'd be better for women than Hilly. Repeated that he paid Hilly's campaign money so she'd take his calls, go to his wedding, etc.

 

http://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/tru...ant-them-46565/

 

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/what-donald-tru...6516827207.html

See the graph/chart here. It's a bogeyman argument, 90-95% of those jobs aren't ever coming back.

[Balta1701]

-- Laughed at critics and said it would be easy, 100 percent assured, to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

-- Said he'd kill Obamacare immediately. Can the next president do that?

1. it's not just critics, his plan is actually illegal. The North American Free Trade Agreement specifically says he cannot simply put tariffs on Mexico to make them do what he wants. Do you support overturning NAFTA? Does he? and how will he get Congress to agree with that? Ending NAFTA seems like it would be a major issue that deserves more focus.

 

2. A couple months ago I pointed out how the Republicans wanted to take health care coverage away from 15 million+ people. You couldn't believe that anyone would that callous at the time and now you endorse that.

 

I won't even bother noting that the Deficit has shrunk by almost 75% under the current President compared to the last budget of the previous administration or that the bill you wanted to repeal in #2 has been basically the biggest long-term deficit reduction bill since 1993 because you won't pay any attention to that.

[StrangeSox]

I dunno that you can read that as greg saying he wants Trump to overturn the ACA. I read it as him saying "this is what trump said he'd do. is that even possible?" The answer to that would be that the next President could deliberately hamstring the federal administration of it as much as possible, but for the most part, no.

[CrimsonWeltall]

2. A couple months ago I pointed out how the Republicans wanted to take health care coverage away from 15 million+ people. You couldn't believe that anyone would that callous at the time and now you endorse that.

 

He's not endorsing it taking away everyone's health coverage. Trump has specifically said he'd replace Obamacare with "something terrific". See? Policy done. He's going to make something terrific.

[StrangeSox]

He's not endorsing it taking away everyone's health coverage. Trump has specifically said he'd replace Obamacare with "something terrific". See? Policy done. He's going to make something terrific.

Gold-plated TRUMP plans for everyone. Very classy.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Just took a long walk and listened to Trump's interview with Hannity as I walked. Hmmm. Trump gave a lot of specific policy issues.

 

-- Laughed at critics and said it would be easy, 100 percent assured, to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

-- Said he'd kill Obamacare immediately. Can the next president do that?

-- Repeated the bulls*** about China and bringing manufacturers back to the U.S. I still wont vote for Donnie because of the fact he makes his ties there because "it's business" when he could be a trailblazer and do the right thing and make the ties here. I wish Hannity would have grilled him on that. He merely let Trump say he'd bring manufacturing back here.

-- Said he's the best candidate far and away for the economy. Said he will turn it around. Says without him, if that deficit gets much bigger, it's the end of the world as we know it.

 

Only one of these is a specific policy issue (the wall) and it's impossible.

[NorthSideSox72]

Um, John Edwards? Joe Biden? Dennis Kucinich?

 

They've all sad stupid things, repeatedly. It just doesn't get the play.

Edwards for sure, he fell apart spectacularly. But it was worse in a way because he didn't come off as a clown, he was very likeable. Biden is pretty clowny.

 

Kucinich is, in many ways, similar to Sanders.

 

[StrangeSox]

By "clown" I mean more their actual policy proposals and ideas (or lack thereof) than their demeanor.

[greg775]

2. A couple months ago I pointed out how the Republicans wanted to take health care coverage away from 15 million+ people. You couldn't believe that anyone would that callous at the time and now you endorse that.

 

I won't even bother noting that the Deficit has shrunk by almost 75% under the current President compared to the last budget of the previous administration or that the bill you wanted to repeal in #2 has been basically the biggest long-term deficit reduction bill since 1993 because you won't pay any attention to that.

2. He had some health care plan that included the market or something. I didn't understand it but he mentioned it. The deficit is shrinking? How so. I thought it gets bigger every day and is soon to cripple us from what they're saying. it will be the end of us when it reaches a certain number he said.

[StrangeSox]

2. He had some health care plan that included the market or something. I didn't understand it but he mentioned it.

sounds promising! But the ACA already includes the market. That's what the exchanges are all about.

 

 

The deficit is shrinking? How so.

by being smaller than it was previously.

 

I thought it gets bigger every day

no

 

and is soon to cripple us from what they're saying. it will be the end of us when it reaches a certain number he said.

 

you are probably thinking of the debt. Trump may have also conflated the two--many politicians and pundits often do. Anyway, people have been saying that the debt will cripple us for years now, but much of the scholarship underlying those claims has been shown to be less-than-persuasive at best in the last few years.

[Balta1701]

2. He had some health care plan that included the market or something. I didn't understand it but he mentioned it.

The market will not insure my spouse unless they are forced to do so. He mentioned health savings accounts, a favorite of "market" driven health care, and they're useless to me because of pre-existing conditions. Literally impossible to put enough funds into an HSA to pay for insurance when insurers won't insure you unless you're on a group plan. That's the whole point.

[greg775]

The market will not insure my spouse unless they are forced to do so. He mentioned health savings accounts, a favorite of "market" driven health care, and they're useless to me because of pre-existing conditions. Literally impossible to put enough funds into an HSA to pay for insurance when insurers won't insure you unless you're on a group plan. That's the whole point.

That's probably the only reason to elect Hilly. Any republican will take away the new health care plan. One thing that may doom Trump is the longer he's in the more it's going to be revealed that he is incredibly rich and has stepped on a lot of little people in his life. I get that people like me love his candidness and non/PC behavior, but he is not a savior for the little man at all. He's a rich guy who likes to step on the little man and anybody else to earn a buck.

 

We need a Trump demeanor wise who has heart and they are not out there. Hillary is too mean. Bush is too dull. maybe the former surgeon is the answer. I'll have to read about him.

Edited August 14, 2015 by greg775

[Balta1701]

That's probably the only reason to elect Hilly. Any republican will take away the new health care plan. One thing that may doom Trump is the longer he's in the more it's going to be revealed that he is incredibly rich and has stepped on a lot of little people in his life. I get that people like me love his candidness and non/PC behavior, but he is not a savior for the little man at all. He's a rich guy who likes to step on the little man and anybody else to earn a buck.

 

We need a Trump demeanor wise who has heart and they are not out there. Hillary is too mean. Bush is too dull. maybe the former surgeon is the answer. I'll have to read about him.

If you're picking candidates based on their demeanor and not based on any time actually spent learning about their policy proposals then you're part of the problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

Seems a bit harsh when "policy proposals" are usually pie in the sky dreams that they have no hope or actual desire to see implemented.

 

Demeanor is often a key characteristic. Does he/she look/act/sound "presidential" or not. Sure, basing it on that ALONE would be silly, but I don't see why that can't be factor or even a significant factor.

[Chisoxfn]

The market will not insure my spouse unless they are forced to do so. He mentioned health savings accounts, a favorite of "market" driven health care, and they're useless to me because of pre-existing conditions. Literally impossible to put enough funds into an HSA to pay for insurance when insurers won't insure you unless you're on a group plan. That's the whole point.

So a revised form of the HSA? HSA isn't their to pay for insurance, HSA is their to pay premiums / out of pocket medical costs in excess of what your insurance pays. That said, as you know, I do not support any plan which repeals the ACA without at least ensuring that people with pre-existing conditions and really all people who can't afford it, can get medical care. If their is a better way, fine (and I'm not smart enough to know...so I won't pretend to) but any plan to go back to the old system and leaving people with pre-existing conditions stuck (and people who can't afford it) isn't acceptable in my book.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seems a bit harsh when "policy proposals" are usually pie in the sky dreams that they have no hope or actual desire to see implemented.

 

Demeanor is often a key characteristic. Does he/she look/act/sound "presidential" or not. Sure, basing it on that ALONE would be silly, but I don't see why that can't be factor or even a significant factor.

I somewhat agree. I'd characterize it as leadership capabilities. Just like being the smartest guy in the room, it isn't a resume thing - but it is something you have to feel comfortable is there for someone in that role.

 

[Chisoxfn]

If you're picking candidates based on their demeanor and not based on any time actually spent learning about their policy proposals then you're part of the problem.

Reality is neither Hillary or Trump know anything about what it is like to be a normal person, so if you go by that metric, neither of them would exactly be fits. If you want to find someone who has risen and succeeded and lived the American Dream, you have to look in the direction of Rubio or Kasich (sp?) or on the democrat side, I suppose Biden / Sanders would fit the bill (Biden's family was well off, then not so much) and Sanders grew up in NY (and I think his grandparents had been killed during the holocaust).

[Chisoxfn]

I somewhat agree. I'd characterize it as leadership capabilities. Just like being the smartest guy in the room, it isn't a resume thing - but it is something you have to feel comfortable is there for someone in that role.

The smartest people are often times (if not more often) not the best leaders. Leaders need to be smart, but not the smartest. They need to be able to listen, teach, empower others, and unify. What we need more then anything in a president right now, is someone who could help unify this country (vs. further break it apart). Easier said then done and in this current environment it might be impossible (where people are scared of repub's hanging out with democrats on capital hill and being friends with each other). It is what I like about the Ohio Governor. He seems to do what he thinks is right and that includes going against the party lines.

 

Unfortunately, now, more then ever, it is more critical in the primaries to only do what the party line says and that is just stupid. Are we really to believe that one party gets things right 100% of the time. Come on, that is nonsenes. No one has all the answers and the sooner people come to some realization, the better. Then they'll realize it makes sense to have more moderate people (left and right leaning) who will do what they think is right (and also what the people think is right) vs. what their party tells them to do. I am largely fiscal conservative and the way the parties are splitting, now more then ever, their is a need for a 3rd party in the middle.