The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[GodFearinGunTotin]

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..."

The family and I were playing a game or watching Jeopardy or something one day when I cleaned their clocks. In a joking/bloviating/pompous manner, I made the announcement there should be no doubt now that I was the smartest one in this house. Boy, has that one come back to bite me more than once.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Again, we agree. That's the great risk with Trump, IMHO. It isn't that he's a closet Democrat, running a stealth campaign; I don't buy that line at all. Rather, the risk is that he'll be ineffective at achieving his economic policies, or that he'll be effective but that the policies will be a failure. Or that his neophyte politician status will adversely impact the other duties of POTUS.

 

[T.Lex]

It isn't that he's a closet Democrat, running a stealth campaign; I don't buy that line at all.

Here's a question that you brought to mind: do you think Trump's actual beliefs are more like the Dem's platform 10 years ago, or the Republicans?

Here's why I ask: I think Trump really thinks of himself as a Republican. I basically agree that he isn't a "closet Democrat" if that means that he identifies as a Democrat privately, but presents himself as a Republican. But, I also don't think that his actual beliefs are very much in line with traditional Republican positions.

I think 10 years ago, he would've been labeled with the then-dreaded RINO tag.

This is setting aside his personality issues.

 

[chipbennett]

Here's a question that you brought to mind: do you think Trump's actual beliefs are more like the Dem's platform 10 years ago, or the Republicans?

Here's why I ask: I think Trump really thinks of himself as a Republican. I basically agree that he isn't a "closet Democrat" if that means that he identifies as a Democrat privately, but presents himself as a Republican. But, I also don't think that his actual beliefs are very much in line with traditional Republican positions.

I think 10 years ago, he would've been labeled with the then-dreaded RINO tag.

This is setting aside his personality issues.

That's a good question. I think the best analog for Trump might be Scott Brown. Northeast Republican, not a limited-government conservative Republican.

 

[T.Lex]

That's a good question. I think the best analog for Trump might be Scott Brown. Northeast Republican, not a limited-government conservative Republican.

Democratic Party Platforms: Democratic Party Platform of 2004

The 2004 Dem platform. Even the interesting parts are too long for INGO. There is much gnashing of teeth about Bush and normal election rhetoric. But, "Together, we can make America safer, stronger, and more respected."

Also, had to quote this part:

We believe in progress that brings prosperity for all Americans, not just for those who are already successful. We believe that good jobs will help strengthen and expand the strongest middle class the world has ever known.
We believe the private sector, not government, is the engine of economic growth and job creation. Government's responsibility is to create an environment that will promote private sector investment, foster vigorous competition, and strengthen the foundations of an innovative economy.
We believe Americans are the smartest, toughest competitors in the world. Our products and ideas can compete and win anywhere, as long as we're given a fair chance. And our companies can keep and create jobs in America without sacrificing competitiveness.
We will fight for American jobs and we will fight for American workers. ... [W]e will revive America's manufacturing sector, create new jobs and protect existing ones by ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas and cutting taxes for companies that create jobs here at home; by fighting for free, fair and balanced trade; by encouraging investment in small businesses and helping companies deal with rising health care costs; by promoting new technologies, like energy, that will lead to the companies and jobs of tomorrow; and by ensuring that people of every age learn the skills to succeed in today's economy.

Tax reform to create jobs. Today's tax law provides big breaks for companies that send American jobs overseas. Current "deferral" policies allow American companies to avoid paying American taxes on the income earned by their foreign subsidiaries. [We] will end deferral that encourages companies to ship jobs overseas, and they will close other loopholes to make the tax code work for the American worker. They'll use the savings to offer tax cuts for companies that produce goods and create jobs here at home. Under [our leadership], 99 percent of American businesses will pay lower taxes than today.

Republican platform.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 2004

One quote:

We strongly support President Bush's call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage.

 

[AA&E]

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.

But the conversation was in regards to united the party. The tone of debate will be the biggest obstacle to overcome for unification. Hell, establishment republicans can't even get on board with policy and what they want. I mean sure, the talking points are always present, but the reality? Typically falls exceptionally short of the practice.

 

[AA&E]

In fact, a chunk (hard to tell how much) of Trump's support is from people who HAVEN'T been Republicans - the crossover voters.

Based upon what? I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.

 

[AA&E]

It has separate, equal branches that have different functions.

While that may have been the original intention, I truly doubt you believe that to be the case today.

 

[T.Lex]

But the conversation was in regards to united the party.

That's what Ryan was talking about. I never said Trump had that obligation, let alone the ability.

The tone of debate will be the biggest obstacle to overcome for unification.

What debate? Trump is the presumptive nominee. In fact, the primary driver of unity will be vilifying HRC, which should be pretty easy.

Hell, establishment republicans can't even get on board with policy and what they want. I mean sure, the talking points are always present, but the reality? Typically falls exceptionally short of the practice.

I am genuinely curious to see how Trump fares in this regard. Both in articulating policy and achieving results.

 

[T.Lex]

Based upon what? I'm curious how you came to this conclusion.

Numbers and math. It isn't hard to look at numbers of primary voters/caucus goers this cycle compared to past ones. I encourage you to do the comparison.

 

[AA&E]

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.

Could that be a segment of the population that usually voted in the general elections but never in the primary? I feel it's hard to energize most people when they view every option is a vote for the same thing year after year. With the exception of Cruz and Trump, who else that stood on the stage during republican debates truly had a different opinion on any key factor? All the others did was argue about who was more qualified to be making the decisions others agreed with.

Trump has had a completely different message, that for many, has resonated.

 

[jamil]

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!

But what if we don't really want to shape anyone into any mold. What if we mostly want to be left the hell alone? Let people mold themselves.

 

[AA&E]

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.

I believe these people you described, if present in any significant number, would find themselves feeling unrepresented in the LGBT champion democratic party of today. Who has the democratic party fought for over the past eight years? LGBT rights. Islamic refugee rights. Hispanic immigrant rights, regardless of their illegal presence within this nation. Global economic building trade initiatives that screw the American worker, while further enriching their corporate donors (this goes for both parties unfortunately).


Someone is finally voicing the concerns of the extremely large blue collar work force of this nation... and surprised when their corporate whores don't get the nod?

 

[AA&E]

Again, we agree. That's the great risk with Trump, IMHO. It isn't that he's a closet Democrat, running a stealth campaign; I don't buy that line at all. Rather, the risk is that he'll be ineffective at achieving his economic policies.

I think the biggest threat in that regard is getting the establishment politicians to vote for the change, which could ultimately sink their campaign contributor relationships.

Washington DC is overrun with political whores. I don't really see any way of fixing that in the short term.

 

[AA&E]

That's what Ryan was talking about. I never said Trump had that obligation, let alone the ability.



What debate? Trump is the presumptive nominee. In fact, the primary driver of unity will be vilifying HRC, which should be pretty easy.


I am genuinely curious to see how Trump fares in this regard. Both in articulating policy and achieving results.

As we both are. Personally, I expect to be disappointed. I cannot remember a time I felt a politician lived up to the expectation. Call me cynical.

 

[AA&E]

Numbers and math. It isn't hard to look at numbers of primary voters/caucus goers this cycle compared to past ones. I encourage you to do the comparison.

If you have two or three guys (in previous years) that all fail to truly distinguish themselves in any meaningful way.... all agree on the general merits. Pro-life second amendment. etc. And the only thing they differ on is who they feel is best suited to do the job based upon their resumes, how do you motivate the voters to show up for the primary vote?

Compare that to this year. With a completely different voice on that stage, willing to take on issues that these people believe to be the root of the decline of their livelihoods. Participation could also swell under this scenario.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But what if we don't really want to shape anyone into any mold. What if we mostly want to be left the hell alone? Let people mold themselves.

If I wanted to play devil's advocate, even so, you're shaping the people that want to control you, your diet, your exercise of religion, what you do with your property, etc. into a mold that suits you. By changing their proclivities and stopping their desire to control what other people do, that's reshaping.

 

[jamil]

If I wanted to play devil's advocate, even so, you're shaping the people that want to control you, your diet, your exercise of religion, what you do with your property, etc. into a mold that suits you. By changing their proclivities and stopping their desire to control what other people do, that's reshaping.

They'll still have the proclivities either way. I'm just saying that in a free society people don't have a right nor a responsibility nor a legitimate mandate to mold me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They'll still have the proclivities either way. I'm just saying that in a free society people don't have a right nor a responsibility nor a legitimate mandate to mold me.

I know. And I know you know I know. In case it went by you, I was goofing around in that post...the written form of an evil scientist laugh (as best as I could do anyway) should be an indicator.

 

[T.Lex]

Could that be a segment of the population that usually voted in the general elections but never in the primary?

Sure. And again, my point is that those people are not particularly enthusiastic Republicans. Particularly in Indiana. People who don't vote in their party's primaries ought not be considered active members of that party. Voting in the primary is a defining characteristic of a member of the party.

Trump has had a completely different message, that for many, has resonated.

No doubt. "Message" is clearly what is important this cycle.

"Policy" or "experience" - not so much.

Call me cynical.

Ok. Maybe a mod can change your username?

But seriously, I am very cynical, too. My biggest hope has long been for gridlock. In today's America, that government governs best that can't effectively govern.

... how do you motivate the voters to show up for the primary vote?

You shouldn't need to. Now, I will grant you that in the presidential cycles, Indiana's primaries haven't usually been particularly important.

Compare that to this year. With a completely different voice on that stage, willing to take on issues that these people believe to be the root of the decline of their livelihoods. Participation could also swell under this scenario.

Yes, but this is the Republican Primary thread, so let's stop talking about Sanders.