The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

But don't we WANT horse-trading from our politicians*? Fundamentally, that's not an establishment thing, it is a politics thing. That's something that is fundamental to politics.

Either way, I'm curious why you lump Kasich in with the others. He has been a politician for a long time, but I also think he's made a good case that he accomplishes things. Sometimes things don't end up looking like he would want them to look, but he doesn't let "best" be the enemy of the "good." Of the 3 non-Trump candidates, the only reason I can think of for not voting for him is that he has no chance of winning. That decision was kinda taken away from me.





* As long as "we" get the better end of the bargain.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

[/LIST]
If you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin.

Not to be overly flippant about it, but pushing the edge is usually what Dems do. I'm ok with a certain amount of that from Rs.


[/LIST]
Issues matter less to me than principles. Even then, some more than others.


With the exception of the Dominionist and proselytizing, those are all pretty "inside baseball" type stuff. And frankly, the religious part is what gives me the most pause. I prefer a religious person in politics generally, because it helps me understand their principles. But, there can be too much of a "good" thing.

All of those are preferable trade-offs to what I foresee getting from Trump.

50 or so years ago, when JFK was running for president, wasn't there this sort of panic about whether he, being a Catholic, would be more faithful to the Pope than serving and protecting the Constitution?

Let's say this church Cruz goes to is preaches this dominionism. Which, with my limited reading so far, seems to advocate Christian influence over various aspects of society (culture, the "7 mountains, or whatever). So far, it seems like over reaction. If a Catholic can resist the urgings of a pope, then I think Cruz can avoid establishing this theocracy-boogie-man people seem to have their panties in a twist over.

 

[chipbennett]

But don't we WANT horse-trading from our politicians*? Fundamentally, that's not an establishment thing, it is a politics thing. That's something that is fundamental to politics.

The point of a "movement" or "outsider" candidacy is to short-circuit the political games, and act/legislate according to the will of the people. It's not a matter of being unwilling to negotiate/compromise, but rather the nature/degree of the compromise/negotiation.

Either way, I'm curious why you lump Kasich in with the others. He has been a politician for a long time, but I also think he's made a good case that he accomplishes things.

Kasich lost my (primary) vote when he enacted the ObamaCare exchange in Ohio. He's far too liberal ever to get my support.

 

[T.Lex]

Kasich lost my (primary) vote when he enacted the ObamaCare exchange in Ohio. He's far too liberal ever to get my support.

I found this article compelling:
John Kasich broke with the GOP on expanding Medicaid. And he?d do it again. | The Washington Post

“I’m the CEO of this state,” Kasich responded. “I have a chance to bring [$13 billion] out of Washington to me, to the people here in my state who need this help.”

Frankly, expanding current social programs to meet specific needs seems a BETTER strategy than Obamacare. That's what I personally advocated back in that timeframe. Some reforms were necessary (and a good idea, which doesn't always align), but Obamacare was certainly too far-reaching.

Kasich did what he believed was right for Ohio, not what was politically expedient, and bucked GOPe in the process. That's not a bad data point.

ETA:
Also, states' rights.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not nearly as concerned with the presentation of facts as I am with the facts themselves. I'm not looking to change your mind about Cruz. If the things that are issues for me are not issues for you, that's perfectly understandable.

I have begun reading and branching out from your links. I started with the dominionism stuff because it appears this is some sort of Jim Jones style cult stuff--especially amongst the progressive left, right, center, up, and down. I find Jews, especially Othodox Jews' beliefs and practices strange; same with the Amish, some Pentecostal churches I went to; and the same with Catholics, and even now the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches I went to in my younger days. Is Cruz some sort of Christian version of the 12'ers? Is he going to bring about the end times? I doubt it. Does he believe that? I don't know. I haven't seen anything yet that would indicate so. His dad may be a bit zealous but that's his dad and not him. The non-religious and the biblically errant find people that try to adhere to biblical truths, as best they can, as weird and scary. *Shrug* I can't help what they believe. And so far, I don't see this as a deal breaker. But I'll keep looking.

*looks at self*

Nah, I don't think I'm going to call out anyone on their looks...

My mom (God rest her soul) voted, in large part, on how people look. We're electing a leader, a president, not a magazine centerfold.

 

[chipbennett]

I found this article compelling:
John Kasich broke with the GOP on expanding Medicaid. And he?d do it again. | The Washington Post


Frankly, expanding current social programs to meet specific needs seems a BETTER strategy than Obamacare. That's what I personally advocated back in that timeframe. Some reforms were necessary (and a good idea, which doesn't always align), but Obamacare was certainly too far-reaching.

Kasich did what he believed was right for Ohio, not what was politically expedient, and bucked GOPe in the process. That's not a bad data point.

Here's a good write-up on Kasich and ObamaCare exchanges:

Forbes Welcome

 

[T.Lex]

Here's a good write-up on Kasich and ObamaCare exchanges:

Forbes Welcome

Interesting counter-take. But, again, all those articles say is that Kasich played politics. I don't think it would be fair to say that Kasich wasn't acting to try to make lives better for people in Ohio. His principle appears to be - for good or bad - to put Ohio first. As part of the rust belt, Ohio was/is in bad shape financially. Getting an infusion of money for the healthcare stuff was probably an objectively good idea.

Again, though, and somewhat ironically in the bigger picture of this cycle, it shows that he isn't beholden to the GOPe.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting counter-take. But, again, all those articles say is that Kasich played politics. I don't think it would be fair to say that Kasich wasn't acting to try to make lives better for people in Ohio. His principle appears to be - for good or bad - to put Ohio first. As part of the rust belt, Ohio was/is in bad shape financially. Getting an infusion of money for the healthcare stuff was probably an objectively good idea.

Again, though, and somewhat ironically in the bigger picture of this cycle, it shows that he isn't beholden to the GOPe.

No, he's beholding to big government, in general...whoever signs the checks.

 

[T.Lex]

No, he's beholding to big government, in general...whoever signs the checks.

If that's the case, he kinda did it wrong. Medicaid expansion seems to me a smaller increase than full fledged Obamacare.

Granted, given that Obamacare WAS enacted, it is hard to separate what he might've done if that weren't the case.

If we accept that some healthcare reform was necessary and prudent - and I do believe that - then some form of government action was necessary. For me, expanding existing programs to accomplish certain goals makes more sense than Obamacare. It looks to me like that's what Kasich's goal was. On top of that, he leveraged what was actually happening - whether he agreed with it or not - to help his state.

A sports analogy. If a ref is going to call a foul that helps your team, you go along with it. Makes no sense to protest it too strongly, even if it is a bad call, if it helps.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If that's the case, he kinda did it wrong. Medicaid expansion seems to me a smaller increase than full fledged Obamacare.

Granted, given that Obamacare WAS enacted, it is hard to separate what he might've done if that weren't the case.

If we accept that some healthcare reform was necessary and prudent - and I do believe that - then some form of government action was necessary. For me, expanding existing programs to accomplish certain goals makes more sense than Obamacare. It looks to me like that's what Kasich's goal was. On top of that, he leveraged what was actually happening - whether he agreed with it or not - to help his state.

A sports analogy. If a ref is going to call a foul that helps your team, you go along with it. Makes no sense to protest it too strongly, even if it is a bad call, if it helps.

Not really. The theory behind the bad call is it tends to even out, over the course of the game. You get some calls that go against you and you get calls that don't.

Kasich is a big government guy. As he's stated, he knows how to navigate those waters and play the game. Some people like that in a candidate.

 

[BugI02]

Cruz is dirty. The way he is running his campaign (along with things that have come out while vetting him) is why I went from wanting him as VP a year ago, to all but despising him now.

I'm totally fascinated by this election. But unfortunately, there's nobody I eagerly want to vote for.

Right with you. Its had the same effect on me. The wife keeps needling me about it but it's quite the drama

 

[Thor]

• Has or has not Cruz

Even if true-ish this is all minor league stuff compared to what the current misadministration is doing. Tell me what who you support is going to do and how consistent they are in comparison. I'm more in with the 5 for freedom idea. Time to cut the monolith down. Who's for doing that and not just managing the leviathan? Balanced budgets mean nothing if the budget includes everything.

So, has Cruz engaged in campaign politics? I would imagine so.
Has he played political brinksmanship as a politician? Yup
Was his wife gainfully employed? Probably, so was mine. I'm sure that means I've sold my soul to the machine.
Did he submit a poisoned pill to the Gang of 8 amnesty plan? And so?
Who the flock is Fisher?
Data mining...who is not? If not are they still running? How do you think they do this? Even the county and city candidates data mine and have for a decade or more. I'm okay with making it stop but those are not the rules today.
Dominionists? YGBSM. Constitutionalist yes.

I do know that he did what he said what he was going to do for the people who voted for him. Even if that meant calling people liars on the floor of the senate and not making friends with the after dinner party crowd. That all works for me.

Proselytizing...I could do with less of that but it's not a deal breaker. Every other candidate I see does have some deal breakers in their past, some not so distant pasts.

I am not interested in providing click bait to a dozen websites. The argument of shut up and go read what I believe in is just sad.

 

[BugI02]

Interesting counter-take. But, again, all those articles say is that Kasich played politics. I don't think it would be fair to say that Kasich wasn't acting to try to make lives better for people in Ohio. His principle appears to be - for good or bad - to put Ohio first. As part of the rust belt, Ohio was/is in bad shape financially. Getting an infusion of money for the healthcare stuff was probably an objectively good idea.

Again, though, and somewhat ironically in the bigger picture of this cycle, it shows that he isn't beholden to the GOPe.

T.Lex part of this was a self-inflicted wound. Right out of the box he drastically cut state taxes which worsened the states finances. Then he pushed the shortfall down to the county level by reducing state transfers to them and following the GOPe/Walker playbook he tried to ram through legislation allowing said counties to abrogate their contracts with employee unions. That particular point went to referendum and he got spanked 2 to 1

 

[BugI02]

First, Chip, I need to thank you. This was something I just kinda grew up "knowing about" but I don't think I ever really looked it up. Now I have, thanks to your invitation.


Ironically, the first google hits for Indiana for me were the dems.

http://www.indems.org/files/2016INdemsDelegateSelection.pdf

The process has the candidate delegates file with a "presidential preference." So, they have to select which presidential candidate they support. Then, amongst themselves, they decide which of those supporters will be the delegates. I have heard of people "splitting" them and getting half a vote.

Some snippets (generally page 5-6):


Also, on the Republican side, it looks like the rules changed this year - more in line with what you describe.

Process for picking GOP delegates rankles some | Local News | tribstar.com

Kinda whacked.

ETA:
Found the Indiana GOP rules on the topic - and Chip, you are right about the current rules (pg. 45).
http://www.indiana.gop/sites/default/files/Party Rules.pdf


And, it does not appear that the presidential candidate's team has any input on who goes.

I was wrong.

Lex it is also my understanding that many delegates wind up being politicians themselves at some level. These people would be vulnerable to pressure from the GOPe.

"If the presidential candidate who wins the congressional district is not on the ballot at the Republican National Convention, the congressional delegates are no longer bound" From the abstract you posted. If Rubio drops out do you suppose his then unbound delegates will vote their conscience or vote how they're told?

 

[chipbennett]

Even if true-ish this is all minor league stuff compared to what the current misadministration is doing. Tell me what who you support is going to do and how consistent they are in comparison. I'm more in with the 5 for freedom idea. Time to cut the monolith down. Who's for doing that and not just managing the leviathan? Balanced budgets mean nothing if the budget includes everything.

Illegal immigration, amnesty, and TPP are not "minor league stuff". Cruz being part of the Establishment, and in the pocket of Goldman Sachs is not "minor league stuff".

So, has Cruz engaged in campaign politics? I would imagine so.
Has he played political brinksmanship as a politician? Yup

My biggest problem with those is that he does so out of one side of his mouth, while pandering to Christians out of the other side of his mouth. Don't claim to stand for my beliefs, and then lie through your teeth, all in the same breath.

Was his wife gainfully employed? Probably, so was mine. I'm sure that means I've sold my soul to the machine.

If the Goldman Sachs connections (and undisclosed/lied-about loans) don't concern you, fair enough.

Did he submit a poisoned pill to the Gang of 8 amnesty plan? And so?

I disagree as much with his reasoning as with his excuse. The GOP doesn't need to "do something" about illegal aliens, other than find them and deport them.

Who the flock is Fisher?

Maybe you should look it up.

Data mining...who is not? If not are they still running? How do you think they do this? Even the county and city candidates data mine and have for a decade or more. I'm okay with making it stop but those are not the rules today.

I'm guessing you didn't bother to read about the actual app, and how it so comprehensively invades not only the privacy of the user, but of that user's contacts. But the biggest issue, again, is that Cruz crusades for privacy rights, while at the same time using an app like this one. It is wholly hypocritical.

Dominionists? YGBSM. Constitutionalist yes.

I'm not okay with electing someone who thinks that he has a divine appointment to rule. So, understanding how much Cruz buys into Dominionism is relevant.

I do know that he did what he said what he was going to do for the people who voted for him. Even if that meant calling people liars on the floor of the senate and not making friends with the after dinner party crowd. That all works for me.

Again: it is the height of hypocrisy to campaign as such a staunch Christian, and then blatantly and routinely violate the ninth commandment.

Proselytizing...I could do with less of that but it's not a deal breaker. Every other candidate I see does have some deal breakers in their past, some not so distant pasts.

...alone, it is not a deal-breaker. But it *is* a concern, and comes across as pandering.

I am not interested in providing click bait to a dozen websites. The argument of shut up and go read what I believe in is just sad.

I could merely have listed my concerns with Cruz, but I was specifically asked to provide links, and did so. Whether you click through them or not is of no concern.

 

[T.Lex]

T.Lex part of this was a self-inflicted wound. Right out of the box he drastically cut state taxes which worsened the states finances. Then he pushed the shortfall down to the county level by reducing state transfers to them and following the GOPe/Walker playbook he tried to ram through legislation allowing said counties to abrogate their contracts with employee unions. That particular point went to referendum and he got spanked 2 to 1

Not being a Buckeye (thank God!) I'm having to learn about Kasich after the fact. Some of these things make sense to me: lowering taxes, while inducing a short-term hit for the state, is long-term something I like in a governor/conservative; playing hardball with unions that are themselves creating part of the financial problem is also probably a good thing.

Is he perfect - hayl no. But, I do find myself viewing his positions as a refreshing change to the other GOP candidates.

Lex it is also my understanding that many delegates wind up being politicians themselves at some level. These people would be vulnerable to pressure from the GOPe.

"If the presidential candidate who wins the congressional district is not on the ballot at the Republican National Convention, the congressional delegates are no longer bound" From the abstract you posted. If Rubio drops out do you suppose his then unbound delegates will vote their conscience or vote how they're told?

On the Republican side, yes, and what Chip was warning about earlier is right on point. The delegates themselves are the product of a political process that likely favors insiders and GOPe.

Interestingly, I think the Dems have a more candidate-centric system that is more likely to result in candidate-pledged delegates personally favoring that actual delegate. Using your example, Rubio's delegates would be aligned with Rubio at something more than a superficial level. Now, they also rely more heavily on super-delegates, so it probably ends up a wash.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I hear Satan isn't part of the "Establishment". .. (AP ducks before someone throws rotten fruit...)

I think that we're lobbing that label around way too freely and using it (in the pejorative sense) to label people way too much.

It seems like everyone but Trump is "da Establishment" and Trump gets a pass on everything because it's all about "F da Establishment"

It would be helpful if someone would define what they mean. (e.g. if by the "Establishment" you mean - "beholden to special interests" then lets call it that).

 

[chipbennett]

I think GP posted this poll earlier:

ABC/WaPo national poll: Trump?s lead declines, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich all gain « Hot Air

While Trump support dipping doesn't surprise me, given the scorched-earth tactics the GOPe are bringing to bear since shortly before Super Tuesday, three things stand out to me:

1. Why no February results?
2. Rubio is currently crashing and burning, yet he is shown as UP almost 80% from his previous polling point?
3. Other than Vermont, where has Kasich ever even approached 13%?

This poll seems as reliable as the one that recently showed Trump up almost 20 points in Florida. The reality is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Landon]

New poll just released for Florida shows Trump up by 20.

Exclusive Florida Decides Poll: Trump, Clinton lead Fla. primaries

 

[jamil]

Not being a Buckeye (thank God!)

Word!