2016 Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

greg's nightmare for Lawrence, Kansas.

 

https://twitter.com/WORLDSTARC0MEDY/status/...235074691076096

[caulfield12]

Iowa has gone a long time without picking a winner.

 

They picked GH Bush in 1980, and then Huckabee and Santorum in recent years.

 

Everyone knows that Christie, Kasich, Bush and Rubio are the four that would have the best chance in a general election, if you went back to the 1912 system and had a smoke-filled backroom of political insiders making the call and forcing Roosevelt despite winning a majority of primaries to form his own Bull Moose Party.

 

The irony here is that if the GOP leadership could pick their own guy, Trump and Cruz would be last on their lists. Ah, democracy. Of course, there's a long list of establishment guys like Dole, McCain, Bush and Romney who ended up as the eventual nominee. Just harder to see how they get there from now, and how they keep all those supporters of Cruz and Trump inside the same tent.

 

Does Trump go 3rd party? Bloomberg? With Cruz's vanity and blind ambition, you can almost imagine him mounting a 3rd party bid since everyone in his own party seems to hate him already...and run a campaign strictly targeting every Christian/values voter, the ones who went for Huck and Santorum the last two caucuses and refused to vote for Obama. That might get you 15-20%, but not enough to win.

Edited February 1, 2016 by caulfield12

[EvilMonkey]

... you can almost imagine him mounting a 3rd party bid since everyone in his own party seems to hate him already...

Only the 'establishment' types that are afraid that he will end THEIR opportunities for graft as well. Both parties are for big government, the difference is just what part is big and what isn't.

[caulfield12]

Only the 'establishment' types that are afraid that he will end THEIR opportunities for graft as well. Both parties are for big government, the difference is just what part is big and what isn't.

 

 

Many were idealistic about Obama being largely an outsider to the system.

 

What is there in Cruz's reform/ist background that would cause one to believe he has so much integrity and righteousness in his make-up to actually reform and improve the system and not be corrupted and co-opted by it in the process?

 

What happened with Gingrich's revolution in 1994 and the Tea Party when they moved from outsiders to insiders?

 

I'm not talking here about squeaky clean Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, that's hopelessly naive...but why would Cruz be any different? To reform the system, you have to become part of it, and therein lies the danger.

 

Wouldn't an outsider who has less to gain from graft like Trump or Bloomberg be the better reformer? Or at least a governor like Kasich or Christie who aren't part of the same Washington/Beltway system? (I'll leave Bush out for now because of his family name).

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

Right now, with around 20% reporting, Rubio looks like the biggest early story...jumping from low teens all the way to 19%.

 

He has been stuck with 9-13% for much of the last year.

 

It wasn't enough of a late surge like Santorum got to win, but all of the "establishment" is going to coalesce around him if it hadn't already happened.

 

Bush will fight at least through SC, but just don't see any avenue for him to get back in.

 

Kasich and Christie both hoping to get bounces out of NH, especially Kasich.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[LittleHurt05]

If any state truly represents the makeup of our country, it's Iowa.

[caulfield12]

If any state truly represents the makeup of our country, it's Iowa.

 

 

So you're suggesting Ohio or Florida have a primary to start the process every four years?

 

I think the combination of Iowa, NH, South Carolina and Nevada carries a good cross-section...some have argued for years and years that the South has too much influence because of SC and the Super Tuesday primaries being primarily southern states.

 

And those first three are all small states selected that force the candidates to do "retail," door-to-door/restaurant/Lions Club type politicking...whereas the big states lend themselves more to advertising dollars and larger-sized events.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[Soxfest]

She's got an 80%+ favorable rating on dems. Assume a 50/50 split of dems/republican. 80% x 50%= 40%

 

Math don't lie. ?

80% favorable is nonsense.

[caulfield12]

Rubio is up to 21% now. Trump down to 25% with 50% of the votes in...

 

 

28/25/22 with 75%.

 

 

Unless Sanders can upset Clinton, the story of tonight will be Rubio's ascendancy and the potential beginning of the end for Trump...but he can still win NH and South Carolina.

 

The GOP has to hope they destroy each other and that Rubio clearly becomes the only realistic chance for beating Clinton in the general.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[jasonxctf]

80% favorable is nonsense.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/poll...-clinton-216422

 

 

[caulfield12]

There's not even a 50/50 split.

 

It's something like 35-40% registered Republican, 30-35% registered Democract and the rest independent/moderate/centrist.

[jasonxctf]

There's not even a 50/50 split.

 

It's something like 35-40% registered Republican, 30-35% registered Democract and the rest independent/moderate/centrist.

 

http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-d...ty-affiliation/

 

Check out the including partisan leanings section....,

[StrangeSox]

Only the 'establishment' types that are afraid that he will end THEIR opportunities for graft as well. Both parties are for big government, the difference is just what part is big and what isn't.

Lol

[caulfield12]

Before tonight, the nomination was Trump's to lose.

 

Now it's likely to be Rubio's.

 

The irony is that it would be the complete reverse of 1992 (the first of the Baby Boomers to break through), when her husband and Gore ran against Bush's father...and then Dole/McCain/Romney against the much younger and more vibrant/energetic candidates.

 

That's IF she can survive tonight. An Iowa loss again would be absolutely devastating. If it weren't for O'Malley's 7 out of 1,224, they would be exactly tied with 12% still to report.

 

Nobody thought it would be that close.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

Rubio is up to 21% now. Trump down to 25% with 50% of the votes in...

 

 

28/25/22 with 75%.

 

 

Unless Sanders can upset Clinton, the story of tonight will be Rubio's ascendancy and the potential beginning of the end for Trump...but he can still win NH and South Carolina.

 

The GOP has to hope they destroy each other and that Rubio clearly becomes the only realistic chance for beating Clinton in the general.

Cruz and Trump are both nuts so Rubio is the only chance the GOP has.

[caulfield12]

Cruz and Trump are both nuts so Rubio is the only chance the GOP has.

 

 

Bush has really resented the "upstart" Rubio jumping his place in line as they're from the same state and Bush was sort of a mentor to him at one time...not unlike Hillary's camp thinking Obama should have waited his turn eight years ago.

 

It would be nice to see Kasich and Christie and the reasonable candidates left pushing their supporters in the direction of Rubio. Kasich has one final shot in NH to gain some ground, and I actually think Rubio and Kasich would make an excellent pairing for a general election, because of his popularity in Iowa.

 

You need to balance Rubio's youth with someone more experienced.

 

That said, because of Hillary's expected advantage with women, there's at least a 50/50 chance he tries to counter with a Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez type. Don't see Fiorina and Rubio fitting together, although that would be interesting as well.

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[RockRaines]

Bush has really resented the "upstart" Rubio jumping his place in line as they're from the same state and Bush was sort of a mentor to him at one time...not unlike Hillary's camp thinking Obama should have waited his turn eight years ago.

 

It would be nice to see Kasich and Christie and the reasonable candidates left pushing their supporters in the direction of Rubio. Kasich has one final shot in NH to gain some ground, and I actually think Rubio and Kasich would make an excellent pairing for a general election, because of his popularity in Iowa.

 

You need to balance Rubio's youth with someone more experienced.

 

That said, because of Hillary's expected advantage with women, there's at least a 50/50 chance he tries to counter with a Nikki Haley or Susana Martinez type. Don't see Fiorina and Rubio fitting together, although that would be interesting as well.

Once people really start paying attention to Cruz's policies he's going to drop off. Dude is nuts. Rubio is going to get a s***load of money based on tonight's results and I think you are right on pairing him with a woman.

Edited February 2, 2016 by RockRaines

[RockRaines]

Cruz's entire speech is contradicting his policies.

[caulfield12]

Cruz simply can't win a general election based predominantly on promoting Judeo-Christian principles. He will learn that quickly enough in New Hampshire next week.

 

Maybe 25-30 years ago, this was possible, but not in a modern, closing in on minority-majority America that's largely moved on from fighting social values wars over gay rights, abortion, school prayer, etc.

 

And graduating from Princeton, it's pretty hard to be completely anti-establishment, no matter how much you try to run from your past as an "outsider".

 

Rubio gave the right speech to the entire country...from Iowa. Cruz is taking the tone-deaf strategy which won't broaden his tent and be more inclusive or uniting.

 

And Rick Perry and Glen Beck aren't exactly who I'd want on my side against the "Washington Cartel" he's very much a part of. Reagan Democrats for Cruz? Is he completely nuts? I feel like I'm watching a Kirk Cameron documentary. Even that would be more entertaining.

 

 

 

 

 

Sen. Cory Gardner twists the knife in Trump

Sean Sullivan · 11:31 PM

DES MOINES — In a celebratory mood after Sen. Marco Rubio’s projected third-place finish in Iowa, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) took a dig at Donald Trump, who was barely ahead of Rubio for second place in the latest tally.

 

After a Washington Post reporter noted to him that Rubio did not mention Trump in his speech, Gardner interjected.

 

“I’m not so sure Iowa did either in their votes,” Gardner said with a laugh.

 

Gardner said Rubio heads into New Hampshire with a “full head of steam.” He said the endorsement of his colleague, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is “a big deal” in South Carolina, which votes after New Hampshire.

 

Gardner summed up Rubio’s pitch by calling him “the unity candidate.”

 

Washington Post

 

 

 

https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_RCONV16.cfm

Rubio now the clear favorite for the nomination, Trump in 2nd, Cruz 3rd, Republican Field 4th and Carson 5th

Edited February 2, 2016 by caulfield12

[Buehrle>Wood]

I'd pull a greg and go bet the farm on trump then. He's way way ahead in the next three primaries and I'd fully expect him to win there. Not like iowa where polling was always close. Iowa is just weird for the GOP vote.

[NorthSideSox72]

Trump losing Iowa is news, but to me the fact that Rubio is in a near-tie with him for 2nd is the biggest news here. And allows the GOP to continue having some chance of winning the general.

 

Also...

 

Both parties are for big government, the difference is just what part is big and what isn't.

 

100%, my man.

 

[caulfield12]

I'd pull a greg and go bet the farm on trump then. He's way way ahead in the next three primaries and I'd fully expect him to win there. Not like iowa where polling was always close. Iowa is just weird for the GOP vote.

 

Let's see how he responds to clearly "not winning" when that's been his brand all along.

 

He has about a week to get serious about a ground game in NH, and all of the pressure's going to be on him to win.

 

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/electi...ire-republican/

 

Trump is still favored, but Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Bush and Christie will pressure him...it's perfect for the GOP, in the sense they've got their top 4 "establishment" guys lined up behind Trump...and I'm going to assume Rubio is at least 2nd.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald...e-pat-buchanan/

Nate Silver is making the comparison with Trump and Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson/Ron Paul all with a huge surge of interest and then quickly deflated after Iowa.

 

 

 

2016 ELECTION 6:31 AM FEB 2, 2016

 

Donald Trump Comes Out Of Iowa Looking Like Pat Buchanan

By NATE SILVER

 

 

 

 

WHEN DECISION TO SUPPORT WAS MADE TRUMP CRUZ RUBIO

Just today 15% 22% 28%

In the last few days 13 27 31

Sometime last week 13 36 27

In the last month 23 32 27

Before that 39 26 13

SOURCE: IOWA REPUBLICAN ENTRANCE POLL

 

Could this have been a reaction to Trump’s failure to show up for last week’s GOP debate? It’s plausible. Trump, who seemed uncharacteristically chastened in his brief concession speech on Monday, might think twice before skipping a debate again. But there was no decline in his polls in New Hampshire or nationally after the missed debate, which suggests that something else might have been at work in Iowa. Could it have been his lack of a ground game in Iowa? That’s possible, too. If so, it has interesting implications for the rest of Trump’s campaign. On the one hand, it’s hard to build a field operation on short notice, so if Trump had a poor one in Iowa he may face similar challenges in the remaining 49 states. On the other hand, a field operation potentially matters less in primary states than in caucus states like Iowa.

 

But there’s good reason to think that the ground game wasn’t the only reason for Trump’s defeat. Republican turnout in Iowa was extremely high by historical standards and beat most projections. Furthermore, Trump won the plurality of first-time caucus-goers. There may have been a more basic reason for Trump’s loss: The dude just ain’t all that popular. Even among Republicans. The final Des Moines Register poll before Monday’s vote showed Trump with a favorability rating of only 50 percent favorable against an unfavorable rating of 47 percent among Republican voters. (By contrast, Cruz had a favorable rating of 65 percent, and Rubio was at 70 percent.) It’s almost unprecedented for a candidate to win a caucus or a primary when he has break-even favorables within his own party.

[cabiness42]

I say this as a Christian-Ted Cruz is a prime example of everything that is wrong with American Evangelical Christianity right now.

[caulfield12]

I say this as a Christian-Ted Cruz is a prime example of everything that is wrong with American Evangelical Christianity right now.

 

Uh-oh, you just pushed Greg out of the Cruz camp...

 

Actually, even though I'm a Democrat, why? You think he's hypocritical? Gay rights? About spending more money on military and cutting back on "social" programs? There are very few Christian/Catholic political leaders who can easily negotiate the Social Gospels (Jesus was pretty clearly anti-death penalty!) and come out looking good on the other side of it. There was the now famous example of the time he argued before the Supreme Court on a purely technical issue pushing for a shoplifter to get something like 12-13 years in prison, whereas 3-5 was pretty extreme at that time.

 

http://thedailybanter.com/2016/01/conserva...stian-behavior/

Articles like this must be what you had in mind...

 

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

 

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that.

Actually the author is quoting David Brooks of the NY Times there within his article...

 

 

 

 

 

Found the following from looking up "Cruz is un-Christian"

 

 

 

Senator Ted Cruz, member of the GOP, who think they are the party of God...he (and the majority of Republicans) could not be more un-Christ like if they tried!! Forget bible passages. Go to the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ, whom Christianity is based on. Jesus said,

 

CARE FOR THE SICK AND THE POOR

 

Care for the sick...in other words health care! But self righteous Republicans say we should "stop the affordable care act". (Just how much stock does Ted own in big insurance and big pharma?) Stop 30 million people from receiving health care? Such action is more like Satan. It's not as if you didn't have HALF A CENTURY to develop and implement a health care system!! But this would have upset the insurance and pharma scam. Not to mention anger your wealthy donors who are major stockholders in these companies.

 

Why do evangelicals support this party??? Because they enjoy going against the fundamental teachings of Christ?? Perhaps all their time in church is just a charade? I dunno. But NOT wanting to see the sick and ill (or potentially sick and ill) have health care could not be more anti-Christ like. The same can be said of the GOP's actions against the poor.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251324654

 

[cabiness42]

The best conservatism balances support for free markets with a Judeo-Christian spirit of charity, compassion and solidarity. Cruz replaces this spirit with Spartan belligerence. He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind.

 

Evangelicals and other conservatives have had their best influence on American politics when they have proceeded in a spirit of personalism — when they have answered hostility with service and emphasized the infinite dignity of each person. They have won elections as happy and hopeful warriors. Ted Cruz’s brutal, fear-driven, apocalypse-based approach is the antithesis of that.

 

This I think spells it out pretty closely. His positions are extreme, even compared to other Christian conservatives, and he is flat-out hostile to anybody who disagrees. It's also that he was willing to go so far as to shut down the entire government over the funding of Obamacare and then Planned Parenthood. He's letting immediate moral absolutes obliterate any sense of compromise for the long-term good.

 

Another good line from that article:

 

[brooks'] painfully accurate analysis will fall on deaf ears where it is most needed. Why? Because Intellectualism and Republicanism are now completely incompatible, and calling out the likes of Ted Cruz or other idiotic Republicans in a thoughtful, rational way will actually make them stronger.

Edited February 2, 2016 by HickoryHuskers