The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[MisterChester]

This ought to be a fun convention season to watch, that's for sure.

Yep. Kasich hasn't dropped out yet, even though it's mathematically impossible for him to win. I'm sure the national party would have asked or made him step aside by now, but the fact that they haven't (at least openly) means they might fully intend this to go to Cleveland with the plan to nominate him in a contested convention. Why else is he staying in the race? He cannot make a huge impact on either one's delegates. If anything he is hurting Cruz the most. Cruz needs almost 90% of remaining delegates and Trump only needs about 55%. We are going into truly Trump friendly territory in the future, so what is the point of Kasich staying in the race? He could have been told to stay in the race in the event of a contested convention. If the GOP did not want that they would have told him to bail.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yep. Kasich hasn't dropped out yet, even though it's mathematically impossible for him to win. I'm sure the national party would have asked or made him step aside by now, but the fact that they haven't (at least openly) means they might fully intend this to go to Cleveland with the plan to nominate him in a contested convention. Why else is he staying in the race? He cannot make a huge impact on either one's delegates. If anything he is hurting Cruz the most. Cruz needs almost 90% of remaining delegates and Trump only needs about 55%. We are going into truly Trump friendly territory in the future, so what is the point of Kasich staying in the race? He could have been told to stay in the race in the event of a contested convention. If the GOP did not want that they would have told him to bail.

Indeed so. What really irritated me is that I heard him on the radio the other day making the comment that he knew he can't win, but his goal is not the nomination but to gather as many delegates as possible, or in other words, to skew the outcome as much as possible. When someone makes it clear that he is doing nothing but serving as an obstruction to my getting what I vote for, I have no use for him (as if I would otherwise).

I would say that you are right that his hope is to be the last man standing when the backroom throat cutting is finished.

 

[Lowe0]

Yep. Kasich hasn't dropped out yet, even though it's mathematically impossible for him to win. I'm sure the national party would have asked or made him step aside by now, but the fact that they haven't (at least openly) means they might fully intend this to go to Cleveland with the plan to nominate him in a contested convention. Why else is he staying in the race? He cannot make a huge impact on either one's delegates. If anything he is hurting Cruz the most. Cruz needs almost 90% of remaining delegates and Trump only needs about 55%. We are going into truly Trump friendly territory in the future, so what is the point of Kasich staying in the race? He could have been told to stay in the race in the event of a contested convention. If the GOP did not want that they would have told him to bail.

There is one other possibility: the party leadership is so afraid of backlash if they're perceived as meddling, that they're afraid to put a thumb on the scale until they absolutely have to.

 

[Hohn]

Does anyone remember Zell Miller's speech at the RNC convention? The part where he talks about the Democrat Party leaving him behind?

How many Republicans feel the same way today? How many Republicans are frustrated by a party that no longer seems to care about shrinking the scope and cost of government even a tiny bit? The GOP is leaving us behind-- and that abandonment is where the Trump appeal originates, imo.

The GOP today seems to think that the problem with Democrat government programs is that the wrong bureaucrats are empowered-- the GOP would choose different bureaucrats. The GOP criticizes Obamacare without end, but it's own ideas consist of government programs just the same. Even something as "radical" as block-granting all Medicare/Medicaid money to the States is hugely controversial within the party that is ostensibly "Conservative."

The GOP doesn't mind big government-- it only minds it when the other guy's cronies are getting rich instead of their own. Where is the proposal to eliminate entire Cabinet departments? Where is the legislation to repeal NFA 1934?

I've grown rather tired of the cutthroat negotiations over how much additional liberty we will lose. Shutting the government down for small politics? FAIL.

If you're going to shut the government down, it better be over something like restoring the 10th Amendment or a major idea, not just small minded politicking.


The GOP is out of ideas because it no longer believes in small government and high amounts of liberty. So it is stuck between lambasting collectivist Democrats and ideas it doesn't really believe. There are lots of principled, freedom-based arguments out there that easily and conclusively demonstrate the failure of Demcorat ideas.

But the Republicans don't have the courage to make those arguments even in the rare cases when it actually believes them.

 

[jamil]

There is one other possibility: the party leadership is so afraid of backlash if they're perceived as meddling, that they're afraid to put a thumb on the scale until they absolutely have to.

I've read of conversations that the RNC has about all this. I think you're right. They're keeping all options open, but they are aware and afraid of the backlash. And there would be backlash.

 

[Hohn]

Kasich's remaining in the race is an ego play only. It's selfish and should completely disqualify him from national nomination in perpetuity.

But flattering his ego is a useful means of playing him like a fiddle, which is what the GOPe is doing.

 

[MisterChester]

Kasich's remaining in the race is an ego play only. It's selfish and should completely disqualify him from national nomination in perpetuity.

But flattering his ego is a useful means of playing him like a fiddle, which is what the GOPe is doing.

I'm sorry, GOPe?

 

[MisterChester]

Indeed so. What really irritated me is that I heard him on the radio the other day making the comment that he knew he can't win, but his goal is not the nomination but to gather as many delegates as possible, or in other words, to skew the outcome as much as possible. When someone makes it clear that he is doing nothing but serving as an obstruction to my getting what I vote for, I have no use for him (as if I would otherwise).

I would say that you are right that his hope is to be the last man standing when the backroom throat cutting is finished.

The elephant in the room still has to be dealt with... If Trump doesn't get it, I think he will run 3rd party because he has the most support and I'm sure he'd have no problem saying F.U. To the party, effectively handing Hillary the election. But it would be crazy if we had 3 candidates in the general, and no one reaches 270. Then it goes to congress, for MORE back room deals. I think I'm going to be sick.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There is one other possibility: the party leadership is so afraid of backlash if they're perceived as meddling, that they're afraid to put a thumb on the scale until they absolutely have to.

While I can understand the idea behind this, I would have a hard time believing that it is an issue, given that they have gone all in on opposing Trump, and made little effort to hide the fact. Telling Kasich that it's time to go home would be minuscule by comparison.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The elephant in the room still has to be dealt with... If Trump doesn't get it, I think he will run 3rd party because he has the most support and I'm sure he'd have no problem saying F.U. To the party, effectively handing Hillary the election. But it would be crazy if we had 3 candidates in the general, and no one reaches 270. Then it goes to congress, for MORE back room deals. I think I'm going to be sick.

Yes, it has all the appearances of an impending train wreck that just keeps getting worse.

 

[jamil]

I used to think that we should work within the party to change it from the inside. I no longer believe that is possible. We've already replaced a lot of RINOs with TEA Party Republicans and what good has it done? They do stupid **** like shutting down the government, really for no other reason than to show that they're not "establishment", so they can aspire to higher office. And then they cave in anyway.

Now a lot of people are pissed at their government because both parties have devolved into what they are now, and what they are now doesn't really represent the people. As long as there are two parties it doesn't matter if we blow up the GOP. There will be another opposition party, and perhaps it might start out as the opposition we want. But eventually it will devolve again into much of what it is now because there are only two pigeon holes into which the entire diversity of political opinion must fit. Not only must I share the party with like minded conservatarians, I must share it with the chamber of commerce types, the "social conservatives", the Fudds, and etcetera. The aggregate result of which is all the nonsense that is the Republican Party.

It is a party that is out of touch with its diverse constituency because it can't be all things to all Republicans and be faithful to any one particular group. I don't want to blow up the Republican Party. I have no faith that what takes its place would be any better. I want to blow up the thing that perpetuates the two party system. Our ideas don't fit into neat dichotomies.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Our ideas did fit into a two party structure under the circumstances of both parties pursuing the furtherance of the constitutional republic with disagreement on how best to go about doing so. When Adams, Hamilton, et alia were headbutting Jefferson and associates, the question was not whether or not to improve the republic and its standing in the world, but how to go about it. Unfortunately, we have reached a point at which most people who aspire to leadership do not care in the least for the well-being of the republic, but rather for properly representing the interests of their owners for private gain, leaving us with a few offering a half-hearted effort to maintain the republic while the others are sharpening up the knives to cut up the corpse. The key is to treat domestic enemies of the republic and outright traitors as such, be rid of them, and replace them with people who are free to disagree about HOW TO MAINTAIN THE REPUBLIC AS THE GREAT ESTABLISHMENT IT HAS BEEN AND COULD ONCE AGAIN BE. In recent memory, I seem to recall only one person with a national platform saying much about this, and he get bricks thrown at him for not being pure enough.

 

[MisterChester]

I used to think that we should work within the party to change it from the inside. I no longer believe that is possible. We've already replaced a lot of RINOs with TEA Party Republicans and what good has it done? They do stupid **** like shutting down the government, really for no other reason than to show that they're not "establishment", so they can aspire to higher office. And then they cave in anyway.

Now a lot of people are pissed at their government because both parties have devolved into what they are now, and what they are now doesn't really represent the people. As long as there are two parties it doesn't matter if we blow up the GOP. There will be another opposition party, and perhaps it might start out as the opposition we want. But eventually it will devolve again into much of what it is now because there are only two pigeon holes into which the entire diversity of political opinion must fit. Not only must I share the party with like minded conservatarians, I must share it with the chamber of commerce types, the "social conservatives", the Fudds, and etcetera. The aggregate result of which is all the nonsense that is the Republican Party.

It is a party that is out of touch with its diverse constituency because it can't be all things to all Republicans and be faithful to any one particular group. I don't want to blow up the Republican Party. I have no faith that what takes its place would be any better. I want to blow up the thing that perpetuates the two party system. Our ideas don't fit into neat dichotomies.

As long as we have a first past the post system of voting, it will split and rejoin over and over again.

 

[MisterChester]

Our ideas did fit into a two party structure under the circumstances of both parties pursuing the furtherance of the constitutional republic with disagreement on how best to go about doing so. When Adams, Hamilton, et alia were headbutting Jefferson and associates, the question was not whether or not to improve the republic and its standing in the world, but how to go about it. Unfortunately, we have reached a point at which most people who aspire to leadership do not care in the least for the well-being of the republic, but rather for properly representing the interests of their owners for private gain, leaving us with a few offering a half-hearted effort to maintain the republic while the others are sharpening up the knives to cut up the corpse. The key is to treat domestic enemies of the republic and outright traitors as such, be rid of them, and replace them with people who are free to disagree about HOW TO MAINTAIN THE REPUBLIC AS THE GREAT ESTABLISHMENT IT HAS BEEN AND COULD ONCE AGAIN BE. In recent memory, I seem to recall only one person with a national platform saying much about this, and he get bricks thrown at him for not being pure enough.

Yeah, it's a real shame what they did to Lindsey Graham

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Does anyone remember Zell Miller's speech at the RNC convention? The part where he talks about the Democrat Party leaving him behind?

How many Republicans feel the same way today? How many Republicans are frustrated by a party that no longer seems to care about shrinking the scope and cost of government even a tiny bit? The GOP is leaving us behind-- and that abandonment is where the Trump appeal originates, imo.

The GOP today seems to think that the problem with Democrat government programs is that the wrong bureaucrats are empowered-- the GOP would choose different bureaucrats. The GOP criticizes Obamacare without end, but it's own ideas consist of government programs just the same. Even something as "radical" as block-granting all Medicare/Medicaid money to the States is hugely controversial within the party that is ostensibly "Conservative."

The GOP doesn't mind big government-- it only minds it when the other guy's cronies are getting rich instead of their own. Where is the proposal to eliminate entire Cabinet departments? Where is the legislation to repeal NFA 1934?

I've grown rather tired of the cutthroat negotiations over how much additional liberty we will lose. Shutting the government down for small politics? FAIL.

If you're going to shut the government down, it better be over something like restoring the 10th Amendment or a major idea, not just small minded politicking.


The GOP is out of ideas because it no longer believes in small government and high amounts of liberty. So it is stuck between lambasting collectivist Democrats and ideas it doesn't really believe. There are lots of principled, freedom-based arguments out there that easily and conclusively demonstrate the failure of Demcorat ideas.

But the Republicans don't have the courage to make those arguments even in the rare cases when it actually believes them.

I used to think that we should work within the party to change it from the inside. I no longer believe that is possible. We've already replaced a lot of RINOs with TEA Party Republicans and what good has it done? They do stupid **** like shutting down the government, really for no other reason than to show that they're not "establishment", so they can aspire to higher office. And then they cave in anyway.

Now a lot of people are pissed at their government because both parties have devolved into what they are now, and what they are now doesn't really represent the people. As long as there are two parties it doesn't matter if we blow up the GOP. There will be another opposition party, and perhaps it might start out as the opposition we want. But eventually it will devolve again into much of what it is now because there are only two pigeon holes into which the entire diversity of political opinion must fit. Not only must I share the party with like minded conservatarians, I must share it with the chamber of commerce types, the "social conservatives", the Fudds, and etcetera. The aggregate result of which is all the nonsense that is the Republican Party.

It is a party that is out of touch with its diverse constituency because it can't be all things to all Republicans and be faithful to any one particular group. I don't want to blow up the Republican Party. I have no faith that what takes its place would be any better. I want to blow up the thing that perpetuates the two party system. Our ideas don't fit into neat dichotomies.

People don't want change. Not real change. They don't want to lose their jobs at Crane that might happen if we were to really have (or not have) the standing army prescribed by the Constitution. We don't want to lose our farm subsidies because we might have to sell the family farm to someone else that can do it more efficiently. We don't want the poor and indigent to go hungry or without medical care so we won't want to government to stop all those related charities. We all have our oxen we don't want to see gored. These politicians are all a reflection of us. Maybe not "you" individually nor me but as a group. Other than the obviously corrupted, it really does no good to point fingers at one party or the other. All of them have their flavor of centralized, omnipotent government they want to use to rule the country.

 

[IndyDave1776]

People don't want change. Not real change. They don't want to lose their jobs at Crane that might happen if we were to really have (or not have) the standing army prescribed by the Constitution. We don't want to lose our farm subsidies because we might have to sell the family farm to someone else that can do it more efficiently. We don't want the poor and indigent to go hungry or without medical care so we won't want to government to stop all those related charities. We all have our oxen we don't want to see gored. These politicians are all a reflection of us. Maybe not "you" individually nor me but as a group. Other than the obviously corrupted, it really does no good to point fingers at one party or the other. All of them have their flavor of centralized, omnipotent government they want to use to rule the country.

I would have to say that while you are correct, irrational fear is the substance at hand. If the money poured into Crane were to remain in the private sector, it would be used to fund the economy, thus creating different jobs, but nevertheless jobs. The farm subsidies are written to subsidize farmers surnamed 'Corporation'. Sure, there are some crumbs that fall to the floor for guys who ride tractors, but without the subsidies, the 'efficient' commercial farms wouldn't be able to compete against real farmers. If we are really bent on helping the poor/indigent, well, charity wasn't invented with the advent of state-sponsored welfare. If you want to be charitable, then do so, on your own. You are right that most people have oxen they don't want gored, but the hell of it is that to a great extent, their oxen are imaginary.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would have to say that while you are correct, irrational fear is the substance at hand. If the money poured into Crane were to remain in the private sector, it would be used to fund the economy, thus creating different jobs, but nevertheless jobs. The farm subsidies are written to subsidize farmers surnamed 'Corporation'. Sure, there are some crumbs that fall to the floor for guys who ride tractors, but without the subsidies, the 'efficient' commercial farms wouldn't be able to compete against real farmers. If we are really bent on helping the poor/indigent, well, charity wasn't invented with the advent of state-sponsored welfare. If you want to be charitable, then do so, on your own. You are right that most people have oxen they don't want gored, but the hell of it is that to a great extent, their oxen are imaginary.

I've lost the link now, but you can go online and see what farmers in your area (or any area you're interested in) are getting in subsidies. While it's often true, the larger the farmer, the more the subsidy is, that's just another example of how cronyism evolves. But the guy riding on the tractor gets his fair share too, as evidenced by that site.

Yeah, those proverbial oxen are imaginary but that's the point...people don't want real change. They like all those regulations and court decisions that stop people from doing stuff they don't like or making them do stuff they do like.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I've lost the link now, but you can go online and see what farmers in your area (or any area you're interested in) are getting in subsidies. While it's often true, the larger the farmer, the more the subsidy is, that's just another example of how cronyism evolves. But the guy riding on the tractor gets his fair share too, as evidenced by that site.

Yeah, those proverbial oxen are imaginary but that's the point...people don't want real change. They like all those regulations and court decisions that stop people from doing stuff they don't like or making them do stuff they do like.

You are missing my point. The guy on the tractor NEEDS those subsidies in order to make ends meet so long as FarmCorp is getting them. Take them all away, and the guy on the tractor NO LONGER NEEDS those subsidies as he will handily outperform FarmCorp. Problem solved. The bottom line is that if the government is giving your competitor money, you also need money to offset that, even if what you get is just enough crumbs to squeak by on, which is what is happening. Take it all away, and the problem goes away. On the other hand, FarmCorp is really addicted to that money. How do you think Richard Lugar became a millionaire?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You are missing my point. The guy on the tractor NEEDS those subsidies in order to make ends meet so long as FarmCorp is getting them. Take them all away, and the guy on the tractor NO LONGER NEEDS those subsidies as he will handily outperform FarmCorp. Problem solved. The bottom line is that if the government is giving your competitor money, you also need money to offset that, even if what you get is just enough crumbs to squeak by on, which is what is happening. Take it all away, and the problem goes away. On the other hand, FarmCorp is really addicted to that money. How do you think Richard Lugar became a millionaire?

No, I got your point. That's one of the greatest ideas the progressive's ever had -- get middle class people addicted to subsidies. When the cronies get theirs, as long as the little guy gets theirs as well, the complaining all but stops.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, I got your point. That's one of the greatest ideas the progressive's ever had -- get middle class people addicted to subsidies. When the cronies get theirs, as long as the little guy gets theirs as well, the complaining all but stops.

I will agree to an extent. Some have become addicted and happy. Others can see as I said that it is poison, not candy, and they would be far better off without it, but they have to take it so long as FarmCorp is getting tons of free money.