The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

Cruz has a role to play in this primary, and has played it well. His role was not as a legitimate contender, but rather as a vote/delegate splitter. The original "splitter" plan was designed to result in a Jeb Bush nomination. Once that plan became non-viable, the modified plan was to ensure a brokered convention.

So cool that I get to use this phrase 2 days in a row, but I think that's some retconning. If Cruz was intended to "play a role" as vote splitter, I don't think he knew that.

So, either way, Ted Cruz winning states/primaries helps the GOPe, because it hinders Trump.

If that's the case, then Carson had the same "role"?

I will absolutely agree that Trump is the antithesis of the GOPe. The last few election cycles - and debate stages chock full of candidates of arguable legitimacy - reveal divisions within the larger GOP and even the GOPe.

Cruz's candidacy was born from one part of the GOP. As the campaign played out, he has expanded that base - part by his actions/positions, and part by attrition. That doesn't make him necessarily a GOPe guy.

Going back to something I brought up earlier - and I apologize if I missed your response - do you automatically assume that every long-time Republican politician is beholden to the entirety of the GOPe? It just seems like you view the GOPe as monolithic, demanding oaths of fealty from every Republican politician. I think that misses significant differences, and nuances.

 

[olhorseman]

You realize that WSJ/NBC poll has proven itself to be the single, most laughably outlying poll in a campaign cycle fraught with inaccurate polls, right? It is conducted by a PR firm, not a polling firm. It's an agenda poll; nothing more.

The only polls I even look at are based on poll accuracy provided by Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight. WSJ/NBC are actually rated high by them (A-).
FiveThirtyEight?s Pollster Ratings | FiveThirtyEight

 

[printcraft]

Speaking of coattails, the elites rode back in and maintained their seats in the last election due to the fact that people wanted to put the brakes on obama.
They campaigned on this, they promptly gave everyone the finger once back in office, they rode a wave of anger into their seats.
Funny thing is, waves go both ways.

 

[jamil]

Polling is certainly not reliable, but it is never THAT bad, all in the same direction. (And polling in caucus/closed primary states does attempt to control for the closed nature of the election.)

At some point, someone will look at the probability of a single candidate out-performing polling by 15-20%, in a particular type of election, and realize that chances that it is happening randomly are quite slim. Oklahoma and Kansas, in particular, do not pass the smell test. (And if Cruz hadn't pulled his dirty trick against Carson in Iowa, Trump would have won that state.)

Carson didn't underperform the polls that badly. Certainly not enough to swing the election to Trump. Why do you assume that your guy didn't win because of nefarious tactics? If you find Trump employs nefarious tactics, will that be okay?

Cruz has a role to play in this primary, and has played it well. His role was not as a legitimate contender, but rather as a vote/delegate splitter. The original "splitter" plan was designed to result in a Jeb Bush nomination. Once that plan became non-viable, the modified plan was to ensure a brokered convention. So, either way, Ted Cruz winning states/primaries helps the GOPe, because it hinders Trump.

I think it's been Cruz's intention to run for President. I do think that Cruz is at least a little more "establishment" than he lets on. I think his endgame in the needless government shutdown he orchestrated was to play to the Republican base. I think his purpose in calling RINO Prime a liar was to solidify his reputation as non-establishment so that he could say among a crowded field that he IS the outsider. When you have your own senate caucus turn their backs on you, it tends to make you exactly that.

But honestly--and I don't mean this disrespectfully--I just don't see how your opinion is rationally derived. So it was the plan all along for Cruz to **** off the RINOs by calling RINO Prime a liar to become a non-contender vote/splitter. All so Jeb Bush could win the nomination? Holy **** that's some crazy stuff.

Romney crashed and burned with the centrist voters in 2012. Trump is pulling in independents in droves. And Rubio, for reasons known only to him, will stick through at least until Florida on 15 March.

Romny didn't crash and burn with centrists. He crashed and burned with conservatives. No one says that Romney lost because not enough RINOs voted for him. They say he lost because conservatives didn't show up.

A lot of democrats don't like Hillary and don't want to see her (or Bill) in charge. Bernie is a great human being, but he isn't likely to do much better than pull in the Gene McCarthy/Adlai Stevenson folks from the boomers and the kids. Hillary will get the nomination barring arrest by the FBI.

That leaves a sizable percentage of voters looking for a sane, centrist poilitician. A RINO. That's Romney. Or Huntsman. I think Mitt can win if he's learned anything from his prior run.

ps. I'll say it here because the truth isn't edited out on this forum; A sizable block of voters want a WHITE, MALE candidate with government experience. Trump never hit their radar. Romney is a serious man, with strong spiritual credentials (as viewed by most), good business experience and a governor of one of the most liberal states. Almost an ideal candidate in this field of uber-clowns.

I have to agree. A nominee like Cruz or Trump guarantee that the centrist independents will have to choose between Hillary and Sanders. But Trump and Cruz score very high no-****ing-way question.

In my lifetime, I've held my nose to vote for big-government/centrist/RINOs Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Every single one lost, and lost badly.

The electorate does not want, has never wanted, a RINO/centrist.

Trump is not a RINO/centrist; he is a populist. He's clearly connecting with a considerable amount of the electorate, in a way that RINO/centrists never will.

The electorate is not monolithic. It is comprised of individuals across the political spectrum. It wants liberals, conservatives, centrists, liberarians, progressives, socialists, etc. The proportions of which and which choices best fit voters' political sensibilities are what determines the outcomes of elections. The Republican base does not want, has never wanted, a RINO/centrist. The republican base is not "the electorate". There is no moral majority.

A centrist Republican can't win any more than a conservative Republican can. The center is afraid of Ted Cruz. The base is distrusting of RINOs like Romney. Add that to the inherent bias of the press against Republican candidates and you can see why special things have to be in place for any Republican to win.

Hey, I have my own reservations about Trump.

I have none about Hilary Clinton. I would vote for Satan to prevent her from winning the White House.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for Satan. A vote for Satan is a vote for Clinton. Some might speculate they are the same person.

 

[T.Lex]

Satan and HRC are different entities. One cannot sell one's soul to one's self.

And frankly, I think Satan's a bit freaked out by the prospect of an HRC presidency.

 

[chipbennett]

So cool that I get to use this phrase 2 days in a row, but I think that's some retconning. If Cruz was intended to "play a role" as vote splitter, I don't think he knew that.

It's certainly debatable whether or not Cruz was complicit in the strategy, or was merely an unwitting pawn in that strategy.

If that's the case, then Carson had the same "role"?

Yes, though I don't believe Carson was in any way complicit.

I will absolutely agree that Trump is the antithesis of the GOPe. The last few election cycles - and debate stages chock full of candidates of arguable legitimacy - reveal divisions within the larger GOP and even the GOPe.

Cruz's candidacy was born from one part of the GOP. As the campaign played out, he has expanded that base - part by his actions/positions, and part by attrition. That doesn't make him necessarily a GOPe guy.

No, his candidacy isn't what demonstrates that he's Establishment. It is his connections to the Bush faction, his ties to Goldman Sachs, and the "inside baseball" horse-trading he has engaged in as a Senator.

Going back to something I brought up earlier - and I apologize if I missed your response - do you automatically assume that every long-time Republican politician is beholden to the entirety of the GOPe? It just seems like you view the GOPe as monolithic, demanding oaths of fealty from every Republican politician. I think that misses significant differences, and nuances.

Sure, there are differences, and nuances. Take Scott Walker, for example: he's painted as an Establishment guy, but if he were still in the race, he'd get my vote.

But at this point, I am probably cynical enough to believe that every long-time politician is part of the Establishment, as well as most of the TEA party con men and women.

 

[Landon]

Carly Fiorina Just Endorsed Ted Cruz: Consolidation Begins | The Resurgent

The problem is this may very well help Trump. Bush had the GOPe backing and failed, so the GOPe went to backing Rubio and his polling has now tanked, if I'm Ted Cruz I would probably be telling the GOPe I don't want their backing. It just seems once the GOPe touts a candidate that the voters run from that candidate to someone else.

 

[chipbennett]

ps. I'll say it here because the truth isn't edited out on this forum; A sizable block of voters want a WHITE, MALE candidate with government experience. Trump never hit their radar. Romney is a serious man, with strong spiritual credentials (as viewed by most), good business experience and a governor of one of the most liberal states. Almost an ideal candidate in this field of uber-clowns.

Which is why, a mere two years after the Republican wave of 2010, Romney got trounced, 332-206, by the very same disliked President who caused that Republican wave.

 

[jamil]

... as well as most of the TEA party con men and women.

I have to agree with you there. When the TEA party started gaining steam EVERY RINO seemed to want to be associated with it. I mean Scott Brown? Really? Rubio was elected to the Senate under the TEA Party banner. If the TEA Party would have kept the neo-cons out and stayed with a strictly fiscal, truly non-partisan platform, they'd probably be much more respected. But now it's the party of Tina Fey's Sara Palin.

 

[T.Lex]

Sure, there are differences, and nuances. Take Scott Walker, for example: he's painted as an Establishment guy, but if he were still in the race, he'd get my vote.

But at this point, I am probably cynical enough to believe that every long-time politician is part of the Establishment, as well as most of the TEA party con men and women.

I respect cynicism.

But, I also know that your use of GOPe, then, is WAY too broad. In effect, whenever I read your references to it, I will translate it to "elected Republican." Particularly given that you associate it with the Tea Party folks.

And, for full disclosure, part of what informs my opinion on GOPe is familiarity. At least at the state and local level, I know quite a few elected Republicans and people who work for them. In my mind, there is a GOPe, but there are also huge swaths of people in government who are GOP and not part of the GOPe. People who, if they become part of the GOPe, will work (and are working) to change it.

But, I also recognize that, from the outside, it may be hard to tell the difference.

 

[chipbennett]

Carson didn't underperform the polls that badly. Certainly not enough to swing the election to Trump. Why do you assume that your guy didn't win because of nefarious tactics? If you find Trump employs nefarious tactics, will that be okay?

Trump isn't "my guy". I'm pretty sure I've said, repeatedly, that I don't have a guy.

I think it's been Cruz's intention to run for President. I do think that Cruz is at least a little more "establishment" than he lets on. I think his endgame in the needless government shutdown he orchestrated was to play to the Republican base. I think his purpose in calling RINO Prime a liar was to solidify his reputation as non-establishment so that he could say among a crowded field that he IS the outsider. When you have your own senate caucus turn their backs on you, it tends to make you exactly that.

But honestly--and I don't mean this disrespectfully--I just don't see how your opinion is rationally derived. So it was the plan all along for Cruz to **** off the RINOs by calling RINO Prime a liar to become a non-contender vote/splitter. All so Jeb Bush could win the nomination? Holy **** that's some crazy stuff.

No, I think the GOPe was more than willing to let Cruz be Cruz, and to use Cruz being Cruz as part of their larger strategy to nominate Jeb Bush.

But it also wouldn't surprise me in the least to find out that Cruz is complicit. After the 2014 Mississippi primary, absolutely nothing about the GOPe would surprise me. They will do literally anything to accomplish their ends.

Romny didn't crash and burn with centrists. He crashed and burned with conservatives. No one says that Romney lost because not enough RINOs voted for him. They say he lost because conservatives didn't show up.

Reagan won running as a conservative. GW Bush won in 2000 running as a ("compassionate") conservative, and was re-elected thanks to a combination of 9/11 support and an incompetent opponent. George HW Bush won on Reagan's coattails, and then lost his re-election bid due to acting as a moderate instead of as a Reagan conservative.

When was the last time a Republican centrist won an election?

A centrist Republican can't win any more than a conservative Republican can. The center is afraid of Ted Cruz. The base is distrusting of RINOs like Romney. Add that to the inherent bias of the press against Republican candidates and you can see why special things have to be in place for any Republican to win.

So at least we agree on that point.

I happen to think that there are far more people willing to take a gamble on Trump (and that's what it is), rather than see yet another UniParty candidate win, and continue with the status quo.

 

[chipbennett]

I respect cynicism.

But, I also know that your use of GOPe, then, is WAY too broad. In effect, whenever I read your references to it, I will translate it to "elected Republican." Particularly given that you associate it with the Tea Party folks.

And, for full disclosure, part of what informs my opinion on GOPe is familiarity. At least at the state and local level, I know quite a few elected Republicans and people who work for them. In my mind, there is a GOPe, but there are also huge swaths of people in government who are GOP and not part of the GOPe. People who, if they become part of the GOPe, will work (and are working) to change it.

But, I also recognize that, from the outside, it may be hard to tell the difference.

I should clarify: it is safe to bound my statements to inside the beltway. There are lots of honorable, non-Establishment GOP politicians at the state and local level. It is DC that is rotten.

 

[T.Lex]

I should clarify: it is safe to bound my statements to inside the beltway. There are lots of honorable, non-Establishment GOP politicians at the state and local level. It is DC that is rotten.

Ah - whew.

Then, there is little room between us. I think the Indiana GOP delegation is pretty good overall, but I totally see your point.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Satan and HRC are different entities. One cannot sell one's soul to one's self.

And frankly, I think Satan's a bit freaked out by the prospect of an HRC presidency.

NORMALLY I would have a problem with being on the same side of an issue as Satan...

 

[Alpo]

Which is why, a mere two years after the Republican wave of 2010, Romney got trounced, 332-206, by the very same disliked President who caused that Republican wave.

I think the electorate are a forgiving lot. In the last campaign, he was viewed as a plutocrat. And he didn't know when to keep his yap shut. Plus, Obama was a sitting president with overwhelming minority support. He would have been difficult to unseat in any event.

This time around, he's not the richest guy in the field (if you believe anything Trump says). He hasn't said much or appeared on the clown debates. Compared with Trump, he's George Washington reincarnated.

The Black Lives Matter and ANGRY BLACK stories in the press (including something so trivial as Jada Pinkett Smith and Spilke Lee boycotting the Oscars) has created a strong, silent backlash among middle class whites. They want a white guy to run and, frankly, a Latino isn't "white" enough.

Romney has a shot, and a very good shot, methinks, against Clinton.

 

[T.Lex]

Personally, I'd be really disappointed by a Romney redux. This isn't personal to Romney at all, I respect him and think he's a good guy. But, as conservatives, we should be able to do better. Frankly, part of that means younger.

Younger age, younger perspective, younger priorities.

IMHO.

 

[Tombs]

Sorry. Trump is scary. Dr. Strangelove. The uneducated love the 3-ring thrill of the circus, but his negatives are way too high to get elected.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, otherwise it's just sophistry.

As far as Mitt,
[video=youtube;RlD4hwzGhdY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwzGhdY[/video]

He's either a ardent Trump supporter or he's a lying flip-flopper. Pick your poison.

 

[Alpo]

I dunno, young GOP guy doesn't equate to a Kennedy. So far, young has meant an ineptness on the part of Rubio. Cruz is the real-life equivalent of Frank Underwood early in his career.

Old is OK. Look at the most popular guy in this cycle: Bernie. An old grumpy guy.

The general sense out there seems to be that republicans can't get anything done. They are obstructionists. A young obstructionist (and that is what "conservative" has proven to mean for 8 years) who hasn't rallied his party in Congress is just another snot-nosed kid. Rubio? When he shows up, hasn't rallied anyone and doesn't stand behind his own legislation. Cruz? Pure self-serve.

 

[T.Lex]

Old is OK. Look at the most popular guy in this cycle: Bernie. An old grumpy guy.

Popular? Just look at all the states he's won.

But seriously (a little), Trump is the most popular, and not exactly young. That youth thing was my own opinion of what the GOP needs, not an endorsement of any current candidate. I think Mitch Daniels is more connected with a youthful perspective, although not objectively young.

 

[olhorseman]

I think the electorate are a forgiving lot. In the last campaign, he was viewed as a plutocrat. And he didn't know when to keep his yap shut. Plus, Obama was a sitting president with overwhelming minority support. He would have been difficult to unseat in any event.

This time around, he's not the richest guy in the field (if you believe anything Trump says). He hasn't said much or appeared on the clown debates. Compared with Trump, he's George Washington reincarnated.

The Black Lives Matter and ANGRY BLACK stories in the press (including something so trivial as Jada Pinkett Smith and Spilke Lee boycotting the Oscars) has created a strong, silent backlash among middle class whites. WHITE GUYS want a white guy to run and, frankly, a Latino isn't "white" enough.

Romney has a shot, and a very good shot, methinks, against Clinton.

FIFY