2016 Republican Primary

[BDKJMU]

Going after Bill wont win Trump any votes he doesn't already have

but Trump has put into plain language the bad position Hillary is in when it comes to putting herself forward as the womens issues candidate

she'll bluster and flounder around with it, and just maybe she will (in her own special way) turn a few more base voters over to Bernie. It won't matter because she is the nominee anyway, but Trump broke the seal and whoever the GOP nominee is will rightly beat her over the head with it if she insists on trying to paint him as a misogynist

Agree with this and your previous post. Trump is the best bet the Republicans have. Although I did read somewhere recently that if you add up the women and minority voters that equals 81% of electorate which is very big hurdle to overcome.

IThe entire rest of that field (except maybe Paul who's out of it) would simply continue the Obushma legacy.

I do find it interesting that a contrarian like JSO is so anti-Trump. Must be his wife's pro-establishment influence.

That is impossible. 2012 census non hispanic whites = about 63% of the population. So white males = about 31-32%. Probably close to 35% of the electorate. Women and minorities couldn't be more than about 65%. No where close to 81%..

[houndawg]

Agree with this and your previous post. Trump is the best bet the Republicans have. Although I did read somewhere recently that if you add up the women and minority voters that equals 81% of electorate which is very big hurdle to overcome.

IThe entire rest of that field (except maybe Paul who's out of it) would simply continue the Obushma legacy.

I do find it interesting that a contrarian like JSO is so anti-Trump. Must be his wife's pro-establishment influence.

That is impossible. 2012 census non hispanic whites = about 63% of the population. So white males = about 31-32%. Probably close to 35% of the electorate. Women and minorities couldn't be more than about 65%. No where close to 81%..

The 81% probably includes the whites not voting for the Trumpster. Either way it looks like Four more years baby!

[BDKJMU]

So you're saying that, if the general election came down to Trump and Clinton, and somebody put a gun to your head and told you to vote for one of them, you'd say "pull the trigger"?

No. If it really came down to that as horrible as it would be I would have to vote for Hillary. Just like if you told me that it was SO close and I was in a State that was like Florida was in the Bush Gore election and MY vote was going to decide who is going to be President I'd have to vote for Hillary. THAT'S how bad Trump is. He's totally unqualified and he has no core values at all. He's just an ego that can now see he's doing well.

And let me tell you: It has to be pretty bad for me to say I'd vote for HIllary under ANY circumstances. But at least with Hillary we would have a rational person in the office.

But the reality is the State I live in probably won't be close so I can just vote for some third Party candidate or not vote at all.

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

[BDKJMU]

LONG but pretty good read on the Republican primary of the last year:
One year, two races: Inside the Republican Party’s bizarre, tumultuous 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... tics_pop_b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[UNI88]

No. If it really came down to that as horrible as it would be I would have to vote for Hillary. Just like if you told me that it was SO close and I was in a State that was like Florida was in the Bush Gore election and MY vote was going to decide who is going to be President I'd have to vote for Hillary. THAT'S how bad Trump is. He's totally unqualified and he has no core values at all. He's just an ego that can now see he's doing well.

And let me tell you: It has to be pretty bad for me to say I'd vote for HIllary under ANY circumstances. But at least with Hillary we would have a rational person in the office.

But the reality is the State I live in probably won't be close so I can just vote for some third Party candidate or not vote at all.

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

Please define conservative? Because I don't think there is one all encompassing definition. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, let's go back to the good ole days conservatives, neocons and probably a few dozen more that I can't think of right now.

And I could absolutely see a neocon voting for Hillary. She really isn't much different from Dubya - believes in big government solving problems (with slightly different opinion on what that big government should focus on), beholden to Wall St, and gung ho to engage the American military in overseas adventures.

[JohnStOnge]

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

Sure they would if the only other viable alternative in the election would be worse.

Look, I'm going to go out of bounds because I actually thought of this. Donald Trump is like a HItler. That's what he is. Now, I'm not saying that he'd get in office and try to kill six million Jews or start a world war by conquering Canada and Mexico. But he's the Hitler type. He's a complete demagogue. You can't believe a single word he says. And he's just pushing buttons to get rabid crowds out. And he is an autocrat. Him being President of the United States would be completely intolerable. As bad as something like Hillary would be Trump would be worse. MUCH worse. And if you're going to pick the lesser of two evils the choice between HIllary and Trump is clear. Hillary would CLEARLY be evil but she would also CLEARLY be the lesser evil of the two.

It's just too bad that we have enough idiots among Republican primary voters to put us in this position.

[AZGrizFan]

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

Sure they would if the only other viable alternative in the election would be worse.

Look, I'm going to go out of bounds because I actually thought of this. Donald Trump is like a HItler. That's what he is. Now, I'm not saying that he'd get in office and try to kill six million Jews or start a world war by conquering Canada and Mexico. But he's the Hitler type. He's a complete demagogue. You can't believe a single word he says. And he's just pushing buttons to get rabid crowds out. And he is an autocrat. Him being President of the United States would be completely intolerable. As bad as something like Hillary would be Trump would be worse. MUCH worse. And if you're going to pick the lesser of two evils the choice between HIllary and Trump is clear. Hillary would CLEARLY be evil but she would also CLEARLY be the lesser evil of the two.


It's just too bad that we have enough idiots among Republican primary voters to put us in this position.

Your description of Trump sounds EXACTLY like Obama.

[GannonFan]

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

Sure they would if the only other viable alternative in the election would be worse.

Look, I'm going to go out of bounds because I actually thought of this. Donald Trump is like a HItler. That's what he is. Now, I'm not saying that he'd get in office and try to kill six million Jews or start a world war by conquering Canada and Mexico. But he's the Hitler type. He's a complete demagogue. You can't believe a single word he says. And he's just pushing buttons to get rabid crowds out. And he is an autocrat. Him being President of the United States would be completely intolerable. As bad as something like Hillary would be Trump would be worse. MUCH worse. And if you're going to pick the lesser of two evils the choice between HIllary and Trump is clear. Hillary would CLEARLY be evil but she would also CLEARLY be the lesser evil of the two.

It's just too bad that we have enough idiots among Republican primary voters to put us in this position.

Please, Trump's a populist, for sure, but he's no Hitler. Come on, that's too much of a stretch. I'd agree with the demagogue comparison, but that's about it. And really, once he's in office, if he did win, he'd be right where Obama is now - he'd have the pulpit but without being about the handle the political reins of the job he'd be muted by a Congress that he can't and won't get along with to do anything really of note. I don't see him reforming the government to take ultimate control and I don't see him launching a world war or a genocide. He'd be a loud mouth and often a buffoon, but to make any comparison to Hitler is pretty much betraying a significant ignorance of history.

[kalm]

88 and Ganny are nailing it.

In your face, Ivy!!!

[Ivytalk]

88 and Ganny are nailing it.

In your face, Ivy!!!

What the hell are you talking about? I just have a bet with Jizzang that Trump won't get the nomination. I never said anything about Hitler.

[dbackjon]

88 and Ganny are nailing it.

In your face, Ivy!!!

What the hell are you talking about? I just have a bet with Jizzang that Trump won't get the nomination. I never said anything about Hitler.

Hitler is a little short on cash, and has missed all the debates - barring a convention floor miracle, he is DOA

[kalm]

88 and Ganny are nailing it.

In your face, Ivy!!!

What the hell are you talking about? I just have a bet with Jizzang that Trump won't get the nomination. I never said anything about Hitler.

I'm the misunderstood liberal

Chizzy is the smug prick

88 and Ganny are fence sitters

Dback is the Daily Kos op

You're the moderate hater.

Know your place, dammit!

[JohnStOnge]

You know I was talking to my son this morning. He is a Republican. And without me telling him how I was thinking first he said the same exact thing I did. By that I mean he said if it came down to it and it mattered he'd have to vote for HIllary over Trump. Also, when I started to tell him about the Hitler angle he immediately knew what I was talking about and agreed. It's a certain personality type. And, no, I don't think Obama is quite there. But Trump is.

Anyway I think just the fact that people like me and my son are thinking like we are pretty much tells you Trump has no shot in a general election. It's not a scientific sample and it's just two people but if you'd have asked either of us a year ago if there is ANY way we'd consider voting for HIllary over ANY Republican candidate we'd have laughed you out of the room. Now with the reality of Trump looming we both say we'd have to vote for HIllary if it came to it.

I think it's likely that there are a pretty good number of others who feel like that. I've heard Joe Scarborough talk about it on that Morning Joe show. About how he's got Republican friends who say that if it comes down to it they'd have to vote for HIllary over Trump.

If he gets to the general election he's going to get slaughtered. Right now he's down in the polls to Hillary head to head but I think the polls as they are actually understate how bad he'll get thrashed.

[JohnStOnge]

I think that the difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama is honestly trying to do what he thinks is right. I disagree with him. I think he's wrong headed. I think he's fundamentally wrong with respect to his view of how government should work and what it should do. I don't think he has respect for the original principles behind the foundation of this country. But I also think the he honestly is trying to do what he believes to be right.

I don't think Trump is like that. I think Trump is just a self-centered, egotistical maniac who wants to win in order to assuage his ego. I don't think he HAS any core, consistent set of principles related to what he thinks is "the right thing." He has all the depth of a sheet of Saran Wrap. A total phony. And I can't believe there are ANY people either stupid enough or misguided enough to be saying they are going to vote for him much less 30 to 40 percent of potential Republican primary voters.

Thanks rendering years of trying to argue that Republican voters aren't stupid pointless. Dumbasses.

[Chizzang]

Please, Trump's a populist, for sure, but he's no Hitler. Come on, that's too much of a stretch. I'd agree with the demagogue comparison, but that's about it. And really, once he's in office, if he did win, he'd be right where Obama is now - he'd have the pulpit but without being about the handle the political reins of the job he'd be muted by a Congress that he can't and won't get along with to do anything really of note. I don't see him reforming the government to take ultimate control and I don't see him launching a world war or a genocide. He'd be a loud mouth and often a buffoon, but to make any comparison to Hitler is pretty much betraying a significant ignorance of history.

This ^ a thousand times this...
We've seen over the decades that Presidents don't actually do much
other than lie to our faces and feather their own landing pad for future endeavors

Trump would just be a louder version of any of these clowns

[JohnStOnge]

He'd be a loud mouth and often a buffoon, but to make any comparison to Hitler is pretty much betraying a significant ignorance of history.

Just what do you think I don't know about history that would account for me making the comparison? As someone else said, two things don't have to be the same in all respects in order to have similar aspects. The phenomenon we're seeing with Trump now is indeed similar to the phenomenon associated with Hitler during the 1930s in certain respects.

As I wrote, that doesn't mean we can expect Trump to try to engage in massive genocide or start invading neighboring countries if he gets elected. But his methodology is similar. And the underlying factors that make his methodology successful to the extent that it is are similar.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if you take the Real Clear Politics polling averages up at this time and rank the Republican candidates with respect to how well they would do in a general election match up with Hillary this is what you get:

1 Rubio
2 Cruz
3 Carson
4 Christie
5 Bush
6 Fiorina
7 Paul
8 Trump
9 Kasich (tie)
9 Huckabee (tie)

And I have no doubt it'd get worse for Trump if he actually gets IN to the general election and the Democratic machine opens up on him. He is a target rich environment. Easy to portray as a complete buffoon who has no business being President because that is what he is.

[CAA Flagship]

What the hell are you talking about? I just have a bet with Jizzang that Trump won't get the nomination. I never said anything about Hitler.

I'm the misunderstood liberal

Chizzy is the smug prick

88 and Ganny are fence sitters

Dback is the Daily Kos op

You're the moderate hater.

Know your place, dammit!

27k+ posts and you can't be understood? I guess it's our fault.

[kalm]

I'm the misunderstood liberal

Chizzy is the smug prick

88 and Ganny are fence sitters

Dback is the Daily Kos op

You're the moderate hater.

Know your place, dammit!

27k+ posts and you can't be understood? I guess it's our fault.

I guess you have a point.

[GannonFan]

He'd be a loud mouth and often a buffoon, but to make any comparison to Hitler is pretty much betraying a significant ignorance of history.

Just what do you think I don't know about history that would account for me making the comparison? As someone else said, two things don't have to be the same in all respects in order to have similar aspects. The phenomenon we're seeing with Trump now is indeed similar to the phenomenon associated with Hitler during the 1930s in certain respects.

As I wrote, that doesn't mean we can expect Trump to try to engage in massive genocide or start invading neighboring countries if he gets elected. But his methodology is similar. And the underlying factors that make his methodology successful to the extent that it is are similar.

If you simplify anything far enough, then everything becomes the same. I can, by your same methodology, simplify Hillary Clinton's political campaign, especially the parts that are truly populist, and make her out to be following the same methodology as Hitler. It doesn't make it so, but like I said, if you leave out enough of the details and nuances you can easily make that connection. Who would you vote for then since both candidates would be like voting for Hitler?

[houndawg]

Then you're no true conservative. No true conservative could EVER under ANY circumstances vote for Hillary...

Please define conservative? Because I don't think there is one all encompassing definition. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, let's go back to the good ole days conservatives, neocons and probably a few dozen more that I can't think of right now.

And I could absolutely see a neocon voting for Hillary. She really isn't much different from Dubya - believes in big government solving problems (with slightly different opinion on what that big government should focus on), beholden to Wall St, and gung ho to engage the American military in overseas adventures.

Trut so pure...

[houndawg]

BTW, if you take the Real Clear Politics polling averages up at this time and rank the Republican candidates with respect to how well they would do in a general election match up with Hillary this is what you get:

1 Rubio
2 Cruz
3 Carson
4 Christie
5 Bush
6 Fiorina
7 Paul
8 Trump
9 Kasich (tie)
9 Huckabee (tie)

And I have no doubt it'd get worse for Trump if he actually gets IN to the general election and the Democratic machine opens up on him. He is a target rich environment. Easy to portray as a complete buffoon who has no business being President because that is what he is.

The real question is how will these political laughingstocks do in the general elections against Bernie Sanders.

[BDKJMU]

Libs should stop their teeth gnashing over Citizen's United....

"GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s relatively cheap campaign — contrasted with the millions of dollars spent on behalf of Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Scott Walker and Rick Perry — has left donors, fundraisers and conservative leaders questioning the value of super-PACs, which got a boost from the 2010 Supreme Court decision that allowed independent groups to raise unlimited cash.

“People are upset about the Citizens United decision; people are upset about all this money flowing into politics, but at the end of the day it has no impact,” said New York financier Anthony Scaramucci, who was a national finance co-chair for Scott Walker’s presidential campaign before moving to raise funds for Bush when Walker quit the race.

“I mean, with the free media, or whatever the term is, when they allow Trump to go on to every TV station in America — if there’s evidence that PACs are so consequential, please explain it to me,” Scaramucci said.

John Jordan, a California winery owner who is running a super-PAC to support Marco Rubio’s bid, agrees.

“Despite all the talk about money in politics, we are entering an era where big money is less and less important,” said Jordan, who nonetheless spends millions on politics, largely through his own super-PACs.

The cautionary tale cited by nearly every donor or fundraiser interviewed on or off the record has been Bush. He has fallen in polls despite the more than $50 million already spent on his behalf by the group Right to Rise, which far outraised every other super-PAC with its mid-year haul of $103 million.

“I think the whole idea of super-PACs has been overrated,” said Fred Malek, finance chairman of the Republican Governors Association.

“Super-PACs can only do so much,” Malek added, pointing out that they pay vastly higher rates for TV ads than campaigns do, meaning that eye-popping super-PAC bank accounts might not have as much buying power as they appear to.

In conversations over the past six weeks, a number of major Right to Rise donors have privately told The Hill that they are holding on to hope that the political action committee can turn things around.

And, while doubts are mounting, none of the super-PAC’s largest donors interviewed was willing to publicly abandon the group’s leader, Mike Murphy. Murphy has been trying to reassure them that his is a winning strategy and that their six- and seven-figure checks are being judiciously spent.

But Republican doubts about super-PACs’ efficacy go much deeper than questioning Right to Rise’s performance.

Jordan, the Rubio supporter, says the conservative donors he talks to “are in the head-scratching phase.”

“They haven’t figured out what is going on,” he said. “They just know that the usual stuff is not working.

Jordan says he is focused on generating “earned media,” content that will be entertaining enough for people to watch and share with friends. He believes that large ad campaigns have mostly been a waste of money this election cycle.

“The ads have become so familiar, so formulaic and so predictable,” Jordan said. “Political consultants think that if you buy enough gross rating points, it will move numbers. That has been true in the past. It’s not true now.”

Ray Sullivan, a former co-chair of Perry’s presidential super-PAC who switched to help Bush after Perry exited the race, agrees that big spending is showing fewer results.

“The reality show nature of this campaign cycle … diminishes the role of big money. Fundraising prowess really sets a floor for possible success but doesn’t always raise the ceiling.”

“Super-PACs can only do so much,” Malek added, pointing out that they pay vastly higher rates for TV ads than campaigns do, meaning that eye-popping super-PAC bank accounts might not have as much buying power as they appear to.............."
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/26 ... -our-money" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LeadBolt]

BTW, if you take the Real Clear Politics polling averages up at this time and rank the Republican candidates with respect to how well they would do in a general election match up with Hillary this is what you get:

1 Rubio
2 Cruz
3 Carson
4 Christie
5 Bush
6 Fiorina
7 Paul
8 Trump
9 Kasich (tie)
9 Huckabee (tie)

And I have no doubt it'd get worse for Trump if he actually gets IN to the general election and the Democratic machine opens up on him. He is a target rich environment. Easy to portray as a complete buffoon who has no business being President because that is what he is.

The real question is how will these political laughingstocks do in the general elections against Bernie Sanders.

Nah, there's nothing to say Hillary can't run while out on appeal...

[ASUG8]

The real question is how will these political laughingstocks do in the general elections against Bernie Sanders.

Nah, there's nothing to say Hillary can't run while out on appeal...

I hope you're right.

I had dinner with my mom last night (who I believe votes Dem) and she asked "you don't really think Trump could win, do you? That scares me to death." I said "pick your poison, mom. Do you really think Hillary doesn't have at least as many skeletons in her closet?".

There really isn't a good answer this year, more so than any other election cycle I remember. I kind of have to eat my words about Trump fizzling out (from last summer) but it really speaks to how effectively he can suck the air out of the room so badly that no one else gets a chance to speak their minds.