I think we could survive a GOP president who’s a bit off his or her rocker. The one exception is Cruz; I think he would really be a disaster. So, I’d be happy with Trump or Carson getting the nomination to increase the chance of a Democratic winning, or Christie or Kasich, who are not my cup of tea but acceptable if they pull it off.
I agree Rubio could be trouble, but I don’t see him really wanting to accomplish much as president, so perhaps it would just be four years of feeding his ego. I was in Iowa last week and therefore saw a lot of Rubio ads, the guy sure says some stupid shit. He’s like Trump, with a softer voice. “Our country has been ruined by Obama, and I’ll make us so great you won’t believe it” kind of crap.
I pretty much agree with this. I don’t know much about Kasich, but he seems to be the other one who is not batshit insane, however much I might disagree with him. Bush is a vapid weenie, but I don’t think he’d be a Trump-level disaster. Although, I didn’t really think George W. Bush would be a Bush-level disaster either, so what do I know?
But anyway, I’m not at all convinced that Trump would be an easy victory for Clinton or Sanders. I think he’d probably lose, but like Trinopus, I think the possibility of him winning is so horrible that I don’t want to risk it. There was an article a while back comparing Trump to Silvio Berlusconi. It argued that, like Trump, Berlusconi was a lightly regarding nincompoop who blustered his way to office. I’m not certain that can’t happen here.
That’s what I thought about G.W. Bush. But that did not work out well. Choosing among Trump, Cruz and Rubio to actually be President is a tough choice – the three are so very different – but at least Trump (strong-willed) and Cruz (intelligent) might avoid being manipulated by a Cheney clone. Having the callow liar Rubio in the Oval Office might be the most dangerous choice of all.
For the good of the country, I think the current version of the Republican party needs to shatter/implode. I’m for whatever candidate makes that more likely.
Trump, since I think he’s said and done so many stoopid things that he could never win in November. I also wouldn’t mind terribly if he ran as an independent and split the conservative vote.
Of the entire GOP field, I think Jeb!, Christie and Kasich are most capable of governing effectively, and even they have very big shortcomings, and I disagree with them on most issues.
I think it it bad for the country when either party nominates someone truly horrible. Only two Republicans fit that bill for me: Trump and Cruz.
I don’t think either of them would win. But I don’t want them nominated. I don’t want them legitimized.
Rubio is more likely to win the general, I think. He’s dangerous in that way. But he’s not as disgusting as Trump and Cruz. Bush and Kasich are more moderate, which of course is appealing, though more likely to win in the general. So they’d be who I would choose, despite the risk of them winning it all.
I don’t think the individual candidate matters very much. Maybe their personality and ideology account for like 10% of their presidential conduct, while party and national circumstances account for the rest.
I suspect that a Trump or Cruz presidency wouldn’t look that different from a Bush or Kasich one. It’s the same shortlist of judicial nominees. It’s the same room for action in a gridlocked Congress. It’s largely the same foreign policy.
So it’s easy for me to just pick the candidate least likely to win if nominated: Donald Trump.
I think you underestimate Cruz. [Everything I start typing about him sounds like the crazy stuff the right wing says about Obama, so I’m just going to say he’s one evil and dangerous man that should not be given a taste of power.]
I get where you’re coming from, but conservative Republicans don’t want Trump. They want Cruz, but I think they’d be cool with Rubio. So, would the scenario you describe actually play out, we’ll hear the same old song from the GOP in 2020.
Disclaimer: I’m not an official, registered Democrat, but I keep leaning more and more that way as the Republicans keep getting more and more unbearable.
I want the Republican nominee to be the most reasonable, competent, decent person possible. Because if they lose, I want the Democratic candidate to have won based on how strong he/she is, not on how objectionable his/her opponent is. And if they win, we’ve got to live with them for four years.
I don’t know who “the most reasonable, competent, decent person possible” is among the remaining candidates, but it’s not Trump. Or Cruz.
Plus, I want Donald Trump to shut up and go away, and the sooner he’s eliminated from contention the sooner that will happen.
I doubt it. I think he is a megalomaniacal, unusually clever extremist who, if given the chance, would happily transform the United States into a Christianist version of the worst aspects of Hong Kong, but would settle for just blowing up the federal government entirely.
I just don’t think it matters. To the extent his choices would fall outside the mainstream of his party, the presidency doesn’t have much power to make them happen. And to the extent they fall within the mainstream of his party, then it doesn’t matter if you pick him or someone else.
If you believe the theory that elections are mainly won or lost on the fundamentals, with candidate quality only accounting for a few points, then you only want Trump to be the nominee if you think the race will be close and that Trump will swing it to Clinton where otherwise she might lose.
But if we go into recession this year, the theory of fundamentals says that a Republican is going to win, full stop. So you’d want it to be the least objectionable.
Of course if we have a great year economically and the President heads into the election with a 60% approval rating, then Clinton probably wins no matter what, so then the nominee on the GOP side doesn’t matter at all.
The argument for Trump is that he’s such a weak candidate, he could either swing the election, or if Clinton would have won anyway, provide a better coattails effect.
That said, my answer to the OP is Bush. Very unlikely to win a perceived Bush vs. Clinton rematch, and if by some crazy set of circumstances he does win, I think he does the least damage of all the Republicans.
Sorry but regarding Berlusconi: As far as I gathered from asking italians about him when I lived there(I studied in Italy while he was still in office… bunga bunga), he got elected on a bunch of promises he never followed through on. He apparently ran a pretty succesful campaign raising moderate issues like tax reform, continued trade with America and the international community, and among other things signed a “contract” with the italian people, which apparently impressed much of the electorate. So far as I’ve understood, he didn’t bluster his way into the office; he waited with bunga bunga until after getting elected. He also managed to build a massive, bat-shit insane, idolizing, fan base, that would eventually end up campaigning in front of his giant mansion demanding his release from “house arrest”, for among other things having had sex and facilitating for others to have sex with underage prostitues.
Not that he was not a nincompoop before entering office the first, second and third time, it’s just that he was a bit more skilled with brylcreem and comb than Trump.
Worst for me would be Rubio or Cruz. Whatever may lie beneath, they both have the veneer of reason and sanity.
If the Republicans win the 2016 election, at the very least I want them to double down and vote in an obvious maniac and/or idiot.
And oddly enough, I think Trump, of all the remaining viable candidates, would probably be the most reasonable and tractable once in office. Just for example, I can’t imagine a Senator Trump threatening government shutdown over the budget, which several of his opponents and fellow party have shown themselves amply willing to do.
If it is a matter of the easiest course for Hillary/Democrats, it would be Trump. But I doubt he’ll be nominated.
If I wanted a capable candidate that I could live with if he won the election, Christie, Kasich (sp) and Bush (in that order) would be acceptable.
Like many here, I would do something I’ve never done in my life and do some campagning if Cruz was nominated…I do not trust him as far as I could throw him…when I was 3 years old.
Sean Illing writes that it is now down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio – none of the rest have a chance. Of those three I’d pick Rubio – the hardest to beat in November, but the easiest to live with if he wins, and reassuring proof, if he gets the nom, that the GOP has not quite gone completely and incurably insane just yet.
I’m going to go with Trump - as much as it pains me to say it.
(I’m trying to be as ruthlessly logical about it as my squishy brain will let me.)
IMHO he could have just as easily decided to run as a democrat. I really don’t think he believes half of what he says, IMHO he’s just pandering to the base voters. I think he made a calculation and decided that he could be successful with the GOP so that’s where he went. He is more of a non-aligned independent at heart - which a lot of people IRL say they are anyway.
So, Trump getting the nomination would either result in a Hillary win, or if he did win he would do less damage than any of the others as he’s not a movement conservative. And he might actually get some things done that would please the democrats.