The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[AA&E]

Well, here we go. House Speaker Paul Ryan (a Republican) is saying that at this point he can't support Trump, according to Yahoo news.

Says Trump needs to do more to unify the party.

I'm wondering if this is his first step toward the shining armor. I mean, really, what could Trump do to unify the party? Anything he says is unlikely to be believed by some/most of us who are now disillusioned. Ryan is asking him to unring a bell.

Now, maybe he just wants Trump to take the actions, regardless whether they are effective. I guess that would make sense. In a way, he's putting Trump in his place within the party. If Trump appears to act the part of unifier, it then looks like Ryan is calling the shots to some extent. If Trump pushes back, then Ryan is justified in withholding support.

Cruz (and to a lesser degree Rubio) engaged in many of the same childish attacks Trump did. If Cruz had emerged the victor, would you still have the same opinion? Or rather, is your opposition still rooted in the fact it just wasn't the guy you preferred and are letting that cloud your judgment?

 

[cobber]

Why do I picture Soros, just doing the evil laugh if asked?

Shoe fits.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

At least one of the three isn't hell-bent on destroying the republic as a matter of personal principle.

I'm sure none of the three thinks that's what they're doing... or would admit it in public.

Why do I picture Soros, just doing the evil laugh if asked?

Shoe fits.

All three are doing just what we are -- trying to shape the country and society into the mold they envision is best.

They're all wrong of course. I am the only one with the correct vision! Mwaha--Muwahaaa--Muwhaaaa---haaaa---haaaaaaa!

 

[T.Lex]

Cruz (and to a lesser degree Rubio) engaged in many of the same childish attacks Trump did. If Cruz had emerged the victor, would you still have the same opinion? Or rather, is your opposition still rooted in the fact it just wasn't the guy you preferred and are letting that cloud your judgment?

First, my judgment is not clouded. Rather, it has been consistent.

Second, in politics, attacks are part of the game. I'm not sure where you got the idea that my problem with Trump is related to attacking his opponents, unless you just aren't reading my posts.

My problems with Trump are, in no particular order:
- his dearth of meaningful statements of policies;
- his lack of meaningful principles;
- his lack of any meaningful experience in public service;
- his narcissism, that I believe will make him a terrible elected official.

His pettiness might be part of narcissism, but it is also part of a candidacy. Along those same lines, to run for POTUS, a candidate needs confidence, maybe even hubris. But that's different from Trump's narcissism.

I guess it is also worth saying that if I were to pick a Republican nominee from the field at the beginning, Cruz probably wouldn't have been in my top 3, maybe not even top 5 now that I think about it. But, to echo chip's point, I find him nominally above the low water mark for holding my nose and voting for him.

Right now, Trump is below the line. But, a combination of 2 things could change: the line gets even lower depending on what the Dem nominee does, or Trump floats above the line with his actions. Six months is a long time in a presidential campaign.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm done trying to change folks' minds. I'm at peace with my decision. They can call me names and cast aspersions...They're only words and I don't care. All this doesn't mean I won't post up observations or articles I find interesting but if you're a dyed in the wool Trump supporter, I say God bless. I'll still be with you trying to get the best conservatives we can to Congress and to Indianapolis. We just are not going to see eye-to-eye on Trump.

Would that this were the only thing that mattered to us, as individual citizens. I think that it is symptomatic of the growth and over-reach of the federal government, that people like you and I need to invest so much time and energy worrying about who will be elected President.

The federal government - including the President - shouldn't have so much involvement in or influence over our daily lives that we much care who holds the office.

 

[Landon]

Well, here we go. House Speaker Paul Ryan (a Republican) is saying that at this point he can't support Trump, according to Yahoo news.

Says Trump needs to do more to unify the party.

I'm wondering if this is his first step toward the shining armor. I mean, really, what could Trump do to unify the party? Anything he says is unlikely to be believed by some/most of us who are now disillusioned. Ryan is asking him to unring a bell.

Now, maybe he just wants Trump to take the actions, regardless whether they are effective. I guess that would make sense. In a way, he's putting Trump in his place within the party. If Trump appears to act the part of unifier, it then looks like Ryan is calling the shots to some extent. If Trump pushes back, then Ryan is justified in withholding support.

In my opinion Mr. Ryan has just as much responsibility to help unify the party as Trump. As one of the top Republicans he needs to be working WITH Trump to do so. Making such states as he is does not help that.

 

[T.Lex]

In my opinion Mr. Ryan has just as much responsibility to help unify the party as Trump. As one of the top Republicans he needs to be working WITH Trump to do so.

He's walking the edge of the chasm. Part of the issue is that it isn't just the GOPe that don't want Trump. There are a whole bunch of "normal" Republicans that don't want him. In fact, a chunk (hard to tell how much) of Trump's support is from people who HAVEN'T been Republicans - the crossover voters.

While that bodes well for Trump in the general, it somewhat undermines the argument that he is the Chosen One of the rank and file.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

In my opinion Mr. Ryan has just as much responsibility to help unify the party as Trump. As one of the top Republicans he needs to be working WITH Trump to do so. Making such states as he is does not help that.

That perspective must be rather annoying for the narrative-makers.

Ryan doesn’t have to cave to anyone. He’s the Speaker of a separate branch, for which Trump—who has been elected to nothing—isn’t running. The US does not have a parliament. It has separate, equal branches that have different functions. So Ryan disagrees with Trump? Big deal. This isn’t a perfect analogy. But if you believe in separation of powers and federalism, you don’t need national unity.

 

[chipbennett]

He's walking the edge of the chasm. Part of the issue is that it isn't just the GOPe that don't want Trump. There are a whole bunch of "normal" Republicans that don't want him. In fact, a chunk (hard to tell how much) of Trump's support is from people who HAVEN'T been Republicans - the crossover voters.

While that bodes well for Trump in the general, it somewhat undermines the argument that he is the Chosen One of the rank and file.

I don't know that the voters are so much "crossover" voters as they are "normally disengaged" voters - i.e. normally non-voters. There very well may be many crossover voters - i.e. people who normally vote, and vote Democrat, who will support Trump over Clinton. And I believe that, should it happen, that number will be much larger than the analogous crossover from the Republican side. But by and large, I think Trump is engaging people who generally don't participate.

And as for Ryan: he's in favor of "immigration reform"/amnesty, passing Omnibus spending but not passing budgets, not repealing ObamaCare, and passing TPP. I'm not ready to support Ryan's agenda any more than Trump is.

 

[chipbennett]

That perspective must be rather annoying for the narrative-makers.

Ryan doesn’t have to cave to anyone. He’s the Speaker of a separate branch, for which Trump—who has been elected to nothing—isn’t running. The US does not have a parliament. It has separate, equal branches that have different functions. So Ryan disagrees with Trump? Big deal. This isn’t a perfect analogy. But if you believe in separation of powers and federalism, you don’t need national unity.

There is a difference between party/policy unity, and separation of powers.

 

[T.Lex]

I don't know that the voters are so much "crossover" voters as they are "normally disengaged" voters - i.e. normally non-voters. There very well may be many crossover voters - i.e. people who normally vote, and vote Democrat, who will support Trump over Clinton. And I believe that, should it happen, that number will be much larger than the analogous crossover from the Republican side. But by and large, I think Trump is engaging people who generally don't participate.

Which, at a certain level, is a distinction without a difference. I've voted in every Republican primary since college (and I suspect you could say the same). Trump has attracted a bunch (hard to quantify) of people who have not.

Whether they previously didn't vote Republican because they were Dems or because the were "disengaged" doesn't change 2 things:
1) They have the right to vote in the primary;
2) I have the right to say they are not traditional Republicans.

In that sense, Trump may not be the choice of traditional Republicans. We will never know. This is a bit like the angels-on-a-pin thing, and I'm NOT questioning Trump's legitimacy as the apparent winner of the Republican primary. He is absolutely winning, fair and square.

And, like I said, that he is getting those votes in the primary does bode well for him in the general.

 

[indiucky]

Chip and Indiucky are both smart guys. But smart people can be mistaken.

Awwwww...Thanks brother......

My wife points out how wrong I am daily...

I remember something my dad said to me right before I got married...

"Hey son...You know how since you were young you liked to point out how smart you are???"

"Yes sir...Not that I am smart but just that I am consistently right.."

"Well boy your getting married...Trust me....Here before long you are going to find out how big a dumb a$$ you really are..."

 

[chipbennett]

Awwwww...Thanks brother......

My wife points out how wrong I am daily...

I remember something my dad said to me right before I got married...

"Hey son...You know how since you were young you liked to point out how smart you are???"

"Yes sir...Not that I am smart but just that I am consistently right.."

"Well boy your getting married...Trust me....Here before long you are going to find out how big a dumb a$$ you really are..."

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to indiucky again."

Dangit. What's with the Rep Nazis this week?

 

[T.Lex]

Dangit. What's with the Rep Nazis this week?

Celebrating victory in the Republican primary?

[Ouch.... that was probably a cheap shot.]

 

[chipbennett]

Which, at a certain level, is a distinction without a difference. I've voted in every Republican primary since college (and I suspect you could say the same). Trump has attracted a bunch (hard to quantify) of people who have not.

Whether they previously didn't vote Republican because they were Dems or because the were "disengaged" doesn't change 2 things:
1) They have the right to vote in the primary;
2) I have the right to say they are not traditional Republicans.

In that sense, Trump may not be the choice of traditional Republicans. We will never know. This is a bit like the angels-on-a-pin thing, and I'm NOT questioning Trump's legitimacy as the apparent winner of the Republican primary. He is absolutely winning, fair and square.

And, like I said, that he is getting those votes in the primary does bode well for him in the general.

The question is: does the GOP *want* those voters? They are the working-class Americans who have been taken advantage of by the Democrat party, and hardest hit by the country's industrial decline, trade imbalances, and progressive policy (e.g. ObamaCare). They are middle-right, fiscally and socially - but identify as Democrats largely because that's what they and everyone they know have been, for generations.

To UniParty elites like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, those people don't matter - neither their needs, nor their vote support.

 

[chipbennett]

Celebrating victory in the Republican primary?

[Ouch.... that was probably a cheap shot.]

ISWYDT

 

[T.Lex]

The question is: does the GOP *want* those voters? They are the working-class Americans who have been taken advantage of by the Democrat party, and hardest hit by the country's industrial decline, trade imbalances, and progressive policy (e.g. ObamaCare). They are middle-right, fiscally and socially - but identify as Democrats largely because that's what they and everyone they know have been, for generations.

To UniParty elites like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, those people don't matter - neither their needs, nor their vote support.

A few things, but we mostly agree on diagnosis, and I suspect we only disagree on the cure.

First, of course the GOP wants those voters. Locally (and a bit on the statewide stage), I've been part of groups advocating to go out and get these voters. Conservativism has the principles to appeal to these groups.

Second, I narrowly disagree on the middle-right characterization of these people on social issues. Abortion, gay marriage, etc., show that these voters are really more middle-left on these things. Sorta. Really, I think most of these voters are goverment-conservative on these issues. They don't care. They would be open to a platform that reflected that the government shouldn't care, either. This is sorta where the ultra-progressive and ultra-conservative meet.

The GOPe formed mostly by Boomers probably hasn't cared enough for this segment. I think it is up to the GenXers to make that change.

Finally, I absolutely do not believe Trump represents these conservative values. He might echo them, but he does not believe them.

 

[chipbennett]

A few things, but we mostly agree on diagnosis, and I suspect we only disagree on the cure.

Yes, we're flirting with the SMOD, again.

First, of course the GOP wants those voters. Locally (and a bit on the statewide stage), I've been part of groups advocating to go out and get these voters. Conservativism has the principles to appeal to these groups.

I really should clarify. I'm largely talking GOP at the federal level. Local politics are completely different.

Second, I narrowly disagree on the middle-right characterization of these people on social issues. Abortion, gay marriage, etc., show that these voters are really more middle-left on these things. Sorta. Really, I think most of these voters are goverment-conservative on these issues. They don't care. They would be open to a platform that reflected that the government shouldn't care, either. This is sorta where the ultra-progressive and ultra-conservative meet.

I think abortion and gay marriage exemplify why these people are center-right. Voters - especially these voters - continually reject both (and are rebuffed by activist courts). But I agree that most are also "live and let live" types (as am I).

The GOPe formed mostly by Boomers probably hasn't cared enough for this segment. I think it is up to the GenXers to make that change.

Finally, I absolutely do not believe Trump represents these conservative values. He might echo them, but he does not believe them.

As I've always maintained: Trump is Trump. He is who he is, which is someone raised in the northeast Republican tradition. He is also a neophyte politician. The combination of those two will probably cause a good deal of friction. Even moreso, when including his personality.

But I think that Trump has, for decades, seen the fundamental problems facing our country economically, and genuinely wants to address those issues.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Would that this were the only thing that mattered to us, as individual citizens. I think that it is symptomatic of the growth and over-reach of the federal government, that people like you and I need to invest so much time and energy worrying about who will be elected President.

The federal government - including the President - shouldn't have so much involvement in or influence over our daily lives that we much care who holds the office.

Buddy, I agree!

 

[T.Lex]

But I think that Trump has, for decades, seen the fundamental problems facing our country economically, and genuinely wants to address those issues.

Oh sure, bring it back on topic.

I think he does want to address the economic issues, but mostly for his own benefit. But, accepting at face value that he wants to help the overall American economy, his desire isn't the problem for me. His abilities are. Based on my experience seeing how "business people" handle a government, they are generally bad at it. (There are some exceptions, of course. Mitch Daniels being one. But Trump is no Mitch Daniels.)

My observation of what happens when a narcissist gets power: the excess exercise of that power becomes the norm.