# Trump's Republican primary campaign **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 3, 2015, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828 "2015-09-03T18:00:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/181 "2015-09-15T22:51:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Can’t win the election? That’s nuts. Maybe you think she doesn’t have a great chance at it, but _can’t win_? Even if Cruz is nominated? Or Trump? Or a Bush weakened by a primary with a third party Trump (or other)? You really believe she cannot win? That’s totally crazy insane. I can’t say 100%, she won’t win, I just think that it’s very unlikely that events will conspire to get her through both the nominating convention and the general election on top. She has to overcome Sanders, and possibly Biden, and it’s starting to look pretty bad with her numbers not even bottoming yet. Then she has to hope for a lucky break in the general election. Yes, she will beat Cruz. She can beat Trump, but it’s not a sure thing anymore. She will almost certainly lose to any non-scary Republican like Kasich, Bush, Rubio, or even Carson, who gets better as a candidate with every passing week. > [@](#): > > That’s ludicrous, not reasonable. What is Carson’s chance at the nomination? I think it’s about 3-5% at best. If he wins the nomination, what are his chances to win the presidency? I’ll be generous and say 50% (in reality I think it’s more like 10%). That means he has a 1.5-3% chance at the Presidency. There’s nothing wrong with you predicting that(Silver agrees with you), but you’re not basing that on the current numbers. Carson is gaining fast on Trump and outperforms all other Republicans in general election polling. Has he peaked? Maybe. Maybe not. > [@](#): > > Let’s compare that to Clinton: she has about an 80% chance at the nomination, in my view. Let’s say you’re right and she’s in big trouble – let’s say she has a 50% at the nomination. I think she’d then have at least a 50% chance at winning the general election, but let’s pretend you’re right and she’s in big trouble nationally – even if her chances in the general election are only 20%, that’s still a 12.5% chance overall for her to win the presidency, which dwarfs Carson’s 1.5-3%. That’s with the best possible estimate for Carson and the worst for Clinton. > > It’s just totally ludicrous, and an indication that you’re blinded by bias or something with this. Hillary has a good shot at the nomination, and a decent shot at the presidency in the general election (consider that she might face Trump, or Bush, or Cruz, or a combination of these). That’s reasonable – Carson having a better chance is not. The numbers right now say that Carson has a better shot. What you’re saying, without admitting it, is that it’s ludicrous for me to expect that Carson won’t falter and Clinton won’t rise. It might happen that way, but I don’t know what’s ludicrous about expecting current polling trends to continue. Carson is rising, Clinton is falling. Carson is currently doing better than Clinton. That means that unless something changes, Carson has a better shot. That’s actual data. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/182 "2015-09-15T22:54:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Trump strikes me as a lot like Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly was a pretty reviled figure until he actually went on other talk shows and let them make fun of him and he took it like a sport and now he and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are like BFFs and liberals are pretty much over him. I wonder if Trump’s trodding down that same path. Because aside from his immigration rhetoric and generally being a dick there’s not too much of his platform that Democrats would object to. His actual positions look like something Bush 41 might have supported. If that is the case he’s even more brilliant. Swing voters who vote for issues can vote for him for that reason. His persona and anti-immigration stance should be enough to get the conservative vote. The criticism against him from conservatives because he wants to raise taxes on the rich is retarded. Most conservative voters are not rich, I bet they would much rather have a wall protecting them from Mexicans who are going to steal their jobs, than hear about some economic theory that giving rich people more money will somehow benefit them in the long run. Errr… just to make it clear, I don’t think building a wall is a good idea, I’m just saying I can see how it would make a lot of sense and be very popular to people who are looking at the world through another lens than me. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/183 "2015-09-15T23:02:01Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I can’t say 100%, she won’t win, I just think that it’s very unlikely that events will conspire to get her through both the nominating convention and the general election on top. She has to overcome Sanders, and possibly Biden, and it’s starting to look pretty bad with her numbers not even bottoming yet. Then she has to hope for a lucky break in the general election. Yes, she will beat Cruz. She can beat Trump, but it’s not a sure thing anymore. She will almost certainly lose to any non-scary Republican like Kasich, Bush, Rubio, or even Carson, who gets better as a candidate with every passing week. I’ll go with Silver over your “very unlikely” – you’re just not making a good case. You’re making a good case that she is not in nearly as good a position as she was a few months ago, but you’re not making a good case that she’s “very unlikely” to get there. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with you predicting that(Silver agrees with you), but you’re not basing that on the current numbers. Carson is gaining fast on Trump and outperforms all other Republicans in general election polling. Has he peaked? Maybe. Maybe not. Yes, I’m basing it on the current numbers (plus other real data, like fundraising, campaign staffing and volunteers, and endorsements). I see no reason why Carson is more likely to win than Bachmann or Cain was in 2012. I just can’t believe that you’re jumping on candidates this early with showy poll numbers when the last few elections have shown us that early high-risers with little or no experience and ludicrous political positions go absolutely nowhere. Why is it reasonable to believe that Carson has a much better chance at the nomination than Bachmann or Cain did? > [@](#): > > The numbers right now say that Carson has a better shot. No they don’t. That’s ludicrous. > [@](#): > > What you’re saying, without admitting it, is that it’s ludicrous for me to expect that Carson won’t falter and Clinton won’t rise. It might happen that way, but I don’t know what’s ludicrous about expecting current polling trends to continue. Carson is rising, Clinton is falling. Carson is currently doing better than Clinton. That means that unless something changes, Carson has a better shot. That’s actual data. It’s ludicrous to believe that Carson’s present polling this early, before any actual race, is any more indicative of a chance for victory than Bachmann’s and Cain’s were in 2012. Carson is not currently doing better than Clinton – Clinton is leading big (but not as big as in past weeks) in her race, and she’s winning most of the general election polls being put out. Carson’s numbers are not better. Momentum means pretty much zilch this early in the race. Have you really learned no lessons from 2012? Why is this election so incredibly different in your mind? Why is Carson so much more likely to succeed than Bachmann and Cain, who nearly everyone recognized back then had no chance? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/184 "2015-09-15T23:08:33Z")
If you think Carson’s got a better shot at the presidency than Hillary, then show me your math – what % chance do they have at the nomination, do you think, and what % does each of them have to win the general if they win the nomination, in your view? I can’t figure out how to manipulate the numbers to give Carson a better shot… he’d have to have at least a 30% chance or better at the nomination, and that doesn’t seem remotely believable. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/185 "2015-09-15T23:13:14Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, I’m basing it on the current numbers (plus other real data, like fundraising, campaign staffing and volunteers, and endorsements). I see no reason why Carson is more likely to win than Bachmann or Cain was in 2012. I just can’t believe that you’re jumping on candidates this early with showy poll numbers when the last few elections have shown us that early high-risers with little or no experience and ludicrous political positions go absolutely nowhere. Why is it reasonable to believe that Carson has a much better chance at the nomination than Bachmann or Cain did? You’re not basing it on poll numbers. Fundraising and endorsements, okay, but in the end it comes down to votes, so you’re making a prediction that Clinton’s numbers will improve due to her advantages in those areas. Because as of today, Sep 15, she trails Carson in favorability and general election matchups and is further behind her opponent in the first two state contests. She does have a national lead whereas Carson doesn’t, but I think we both know how meaningless national leads are in primary contests. As for comparisons of Carson to Cain and Bachmann, Carson is miles ahead of them. He’s a much more accomplished person with a much more compelling biography. There’s really never been anyone like him in a Presidential campaign before. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/186 "2015-09-15T23:18:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > You’re not basing it on poll numbers. Not only poll numbers, but they’re definitely part of it. > [@](#): > > Fundraising and endorsements, okay, but in the end it comes down to votes, so you’re making a prediction that Clinton’s numbers will improve due to her advantages in those areas. Because as of today, Sep 15, she trails Carson in favorability and general election matchups and is further behind her opponent in the first two state contests. She does have a national lead whereas Carson doesn’t, but I think we both know how meaningless national leads are in primary contests. Her numbers don’t need to improve – she’s already leading the Democratic primary by a big chunk, and she’s leading most of the Republicans in most of the recent general election polls. If her numbers stay exactly the same as they are now, she will probably win the primary, and will have a decent shot at winning the presidency. If Carson’s numbers stay exactly where they are now, he has very little chance at the nomination, and a decent shot at the presidency were he nominated. The numbers won’t stay the same, of course, but we can’t predict where they will move. Again, if you think Carson’s chances are better, show me your math. > [@](#): > > As for comparisons of Carson to Cain and Bachmann, Carson is miles ahead of them. He’s a much more accomplished person with a much more compelling biography. There’s really never been anyone like him in a Presidential campaign before. Says you – from what I can see, his political positions are as wingnutty as Bachmann and Cain, and he’s far less charismatic than Cain. Except in the field of neurosurgery, he doesn’t seem to me to be any smarter than either. He seems to me like just another Christian fundamentalist anti-science wingnut who happens to be a skilled doctor. Being a skilled doctor is great, but it doesn’t make up for Christian fundamentalism or opposition to science. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/187 "2015-09-15T23:45:23Z")
One of the things Nate silver constantly mentions is the difficulty and uselessness of making predictions in the extremely early phases of a race. I will add this one to the big list of your predictions that I think are very unwise, and look forward to bringing them up in the future. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2015, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/188 "2015-09-15T23:57:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Her numbers don’t need to improve – she’s already leading the Democratic primary by a big chunk She’s losing in the first two states, and if she loses there, her numbers do not go up from there. The only debate after that is how far they go down vs. how much Sanders’ go up. , > [@](#): > > and she’s leading most of the Republicans in most of the recent general election polls She was leading in all of them recently, now just most of them in the last month, and half of them in the last week. Where will she be next week? > [@](#): > > Again, if you think Carson’s chances are better, show me your math. Favorables, which Silver recognizes as important data, much more important than national primary polls. > [@](#): > > Says you – from what I can see, his political positions are as wingnutty as Bachmann and Cain, and he’s far less charismatic than Cain. Except in the field of neurosurgery, he doesn’t seem to me to be any smarter than either. He seems to me like just another Christian fundamentalist anti-science wingnut who happens to be a skilled doctor. Being a skilled doctor is great, but it doesn’t make up for Christian fundamentalism or opposition to science. A lot of Democrats can’t see a difference between Biden and Clinton either, so I’m not surprised. The Presidency is about more than candidates’ issue stances. People who have seen Carson like him. He’s way ahead of everyone else in favorability at +12. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/189 "2015-09-16T00:21:14Z")
To quote myself from the previous page, “Bush, Rubio, and Carson aren’t going to look good when they’re seen up close and personal.” Carson in particular, because he really is a wingnut’s wingnut. He’s slipped under the radar so far during his rise in the polls, because of Trump, and also I think because of his soft-spoken manner. (People can get away with saying crazier things if they say them in a calm, even tone of voice.) He cannot win even the GOP nomination: when the party as a whole gets a good look at him, the vast majority even of Republicans will say, “WTF?!” ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/190 "2015-09-16T00:33:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > She’s losing in the first two states, and if she loses there, her numbers do not go up from there. The only debate after that is how far they go down vs. how much Sanders’ go up. In some polls of the early states she may be losing, but how about the aggregate of recent polling? Further, the campaign is only just beginning. I’m saying your predictions are ridiculous because they are so early, in addition to the nuttiness about Carson being more likely than Clinton. > [@](#): > > She was leading in all of them recently, now just most of them in the last month, and half of them in the last week. Where will she be next week? Nate doesn’t know and neither do you. > [@](#): > > Favorables, which Silver recognizes as important data, much more important than national primary polls. This early? Cite? > [@](#): > > A lot of Democrats can’t see a difference between Biden and Clinton either, so I’m not surprised. The Presidency is about more than candidates’ issue stances. People who have seen Carson like him. He’s way ahead of everyone else in favorability at +12. What do you like about him? How is he not a Christian fundamentalist? How is he not an anti science nutbar? How are his Nazi metaphors not batshit insane? I’ve seen him and I don’t like him. I see no reason why he’d be likeable in a general election. We’ll see, but you’re breaking a lot of Nate’s rules by putting so much emphasis on early polls, early momentum, and early dismissing of a front runner. McCain was well known in 08 and started very slow, with numbers much worse than Hillary at the same time. I’ll be keeping track. I don’t understand why you’re so willing to risk making the same mistakes you’ve made before. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/191 "2015-09-16T00:53:23Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Thank you. Now I am emboldened enough to keep going… > > I used to be in the ”Trump is a clown”-camp but that was before I actually saw some interviews myself, I was going only on what I had read about him and others opinions. Now I think that most people have completely missed what he is about, though of course I may be completely wrong. He’s basically bypassing the neo-cortex and going straight for the limbic system. > > The way he speaks is actually very impressive when you understand what he is doing. I think the problem here for some other progressives is that they over value the actual words and contents of a speech, which are not that important in a live debate. People don’t remember what you say, they remember how you made them feel. And Trump makes you feel like he’s a winner, like he’s strong and passionate, and like he doesn’t take crap from anyone. At the same time he displayed a real sense of humor on the Fallon show. That bit in the mirror was both funny AND disarming. He made fun of himself, which relaxes people and make them drop their defenses. > > Just look at the mirror bit and think about what the symbolism is. Fallon is basically this small, skinny but smart and funny nerd, and he is sitting down with the biggest guy in school that everyone is a bit scared of. He has a reputation of being a bully. But not only does the big presumed bully NOT beat up the guy when he makes fun of him, he joins in the joke in a very funny and disarming way, showing he is not a threat. After that he is on YOUR side and now his displays of strength are not only not frightening, they are comforting. Since he is not a bully, he can protect us against other bullies. Now we are admiring his strengths and forgiving him of his trespasses, and we know it is even safe to joke with him. Now WE want HIS approval, so we show how much we love him by applauding and laughing at his jokes. > > Imagine two tribes of hunter gatherers in the wilderness. One tribe is lead by Hillary Clinton and the other tribe is lead by Donald Trump. Resources are scarce and you are fighting for survival every day, and the threat of another tribe attacking is imminent. Where would you feel safer? I would honestly have to say with Trump. Now you can argue that being the president has nothing to do with that, and you would intellectually be right, we are now living in a post-industrial civilization that bears no resemblance to a small hunter gatherer tribe on the savannah, **but our biology does not know that**. Trump is responding to our biological need of a strong leader when we feel threatened, and he is doing it incredibly well. > > Same thing goes for his interaction with Megyn Kelly. What I saw happening was this: > > The big silverback was attacked by a high ranking female. The liberal response here would be to apologize, defend or acquiesce in some way. Not him. He basically growls at her and gets her to back off. A show of strength and domination, while still staying within allowed parameters. In our mammal brain we are basically relieved he didn’t punch her in the face. She backs down and he once again shows he’s the alpha male by winning the fight. He doesn’t tolerate challenges to his authority but he didn’t resort to violence, some clear posturing to show his strength was enough, so he even gets bonus points from our monkey brain for not over reacting. > > People tend to forget that humans are still primates, and the more threatened we get, the closer we get to our animal nature, and the US is a very fear based culture. Lots of Americans feel threatened and will vote for the candidate that makes them feel safe or that can channel their anger. Trump does both like nobody else. Are you afraid? Trump will protect you if you’re part of his tribe. Are you angry at someone? Trump is gonna get them in the ring and kick their ass for everyone to see. > > If trump was the candidate and the election was sooner, I would say Joe Biden would be the Democrats only hope of winning. He’s the only one of the D candidates that projects strength and confidence. Not at the levels of Trump, but he has him beaten when it comes to compassion, likability and experience so I think he’d take it. Hillary and Sanders would not stand a chance IMHO. They’re two chimps, you need another silverback gorilla. > > The only thing working against Trump as I see it is time. He gets people pumped up and he might have started the party a bit early, there’s a risk people are going to be hung over when it’s election time. He’s also going to be saying some really offensive things, and the more time he has to do that, the bigger the risk that he actually throws something out that could be a deal breaker. Another excellent and insightful post. I agree also that while time is on Trump’s side now it may work against him in the long run. The more time that goes by the greater is the chance that like you say he might say something that really causes him harm (or accumulate enough lesser offenses that in the aggregate they do him in). I’m also concerned that given enough time people will just become used to him and his ways and the sheen will wear off to the point that he becomes just another candidate. And the media hasn’t really started in on him yet. I’ve expected all along that once he becomes a genuine threat to win with presidency the media will go after him with more determination and perseverance than we’ve seen since their 20-year vendetta against Richard Nixon. Still, I think Trump pretty much had to jump in when he did to get out in front of the other candidates before they had a chance to develop their own national image and following. By entering when he did and in the way he did, he’s pretty much managed to suck all the air out of the room for the other Republican candidates and made them look like wimps of no consequence. Had he waited longer it would have been much harder to get out in front like he has. It’s easier to capture uncommitted voters than it is to try to get them to switch allegiances once they’ve decided they like someone else. The time factor could be another reason Trump is resisting spending money and campaigning more vigorously. Rather than this being a sign he’s not really committed to winning the presidency, it may be a sign that he’s pacing himself so that voters don’t tire of him and his message/style. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/192 "2015-09-16T01:35:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Trump strikes me as a lot like Bill O’Reilly. “We’ll do it live… WE’LL DO IT LIVE! FUCK IT! DO IT LIVE… look, I’ll write it and we’ll do it live! Fucking thing SUCKS!” ranted the commander-in-chief, one hand wavering angrily over the launch button. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/193 "2015-09-16T02:28:47Z")
Wow. Ne just charged people $1000 bucks a head for a 12 minute speech that had no content whatsoever. Made GWB’s “Mission Accomplished” event look like a Winston Churchill speech. I have absolutely no confidence that This will make a bit of difference to the Republican base, but that was soooo stupid. The Dems should run Bill Pullman and have him recite his “Independance Day” speech and he’d win over 90% of those people. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/194 "2015-09-16T04:08:30Z")
To follow up on **Stoneburg** ’s analysis - here’s a very good one from Politico: [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/15/will\_fiorina\_fall\_into\_trumps\_trap\_128089.html](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/15/will_fiorina_fall_into_trumps_trap_128089.html) My take on Trump is fairly simple: He’s a visceral response to a feminized culture. Talk to a selection of Trump admirers, and you’ll hear the same line over and over again: “He has balls.” (Or, as one of the less-blunt responders put it, “testicular fortitude.”) This is not a coincidence, nor a meaningless turn of phrase. Trump is, in a sense, walking testosterone. He does not care that your women’s studies class says gender is a social construct. He is fearless, and as such, he is the perfect foil for America’s growing victimhood obsession. Show Trump a trigger warning and he’ll give that trigger warning a painful wedgie. In a proverbial sense, Trump himself is a trigger warning, but one that he has easily defeated, then inverted, and then bedazzled with a set of terrific, one-of-a-kind diamond spikes. For this, to be frank, I give him one and a half—maybe even two—cheers. Sure, Trump acts like a jerk, but I’d rather have dinner with him than with some hyped-up, tortured university administrator insisting that I use “gender-neutral” pronouns like “ze” and “zir.” Like many Americans, I’m weary of the grievance culture, and even wearier of the constant offense parade that swallows up so much of our discourse. Heck, I’m even tired of the word “offended.” Who isn’t offended these days? Of course, she follows this up with the old tired “he’s not presidential material” shtick. You know what - no, he’s not. But then the “presidential material” concept is a (to coin a phrase :)) “social construct”. And maybe it’s time the President is elected that does not conform to the construct. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/195 "2015-09-16T04:43:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Of course, she follows this up with the old tired “he’s not presidential material” shtick. You know what - no, he’s not. But then the “presidential material” concept is a (to coin a phrase :)) “social construct”. And maybe it’s time the President is elected that does not conform to the construct. :rolleyes: Actually, no, no it isn’t. Considering the consequences, you know, like Trump holding the nuclear football, or, indeed, Trump or anyone anything like him holding any political executive power whatsoever. No, no it isn’t. Sanders **is** “presidential material” because, “feminized” or not, he could safely be trusted with all of that. That’s just the difference. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/196 "2015-09-16T09:10:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > To follow up on **Stoneburg** ’s analysis - here’s a very good one from Politico: > > [Will Fiorina Fall Into Trump's Trap? | RealClearPolitics](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/15/will_fiorina_fall_into_trumps_trap_128089.html) > > My take on Trump is fairly simple: He’s a visceral response to a feminized culture. Yeah, a feminized culture. Boy howdy, what insight! I’ve only been hearing that old chestnut since, what, the 1970s? Hell, Rush Limbaugh first ranted on air about ‘feminazis’ when, 1987 maybe? Cool argument, dude. Now go make me a sammich. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/197 "2015-09-16T09:40:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Against the phony Clinton, his authenticity will put him over the top. Apparently, her ‘authenticity’ problem is [largely among Republicans](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/09/exclusive-republicans-really-hate-hillary-clinton). Not worried. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/198 "2015-09-16T11:03:19Z")
Apropos of Jindal calling him a madman and the Club for Growth launching attack ads (saying Trump is really a politician), I read this article yesterday: > **[The Republican plan to destroy Donald Trump](https://www.businessinsider.com/how-republicans-will-try-to-defeat-donald-trump)** > > What to do. What to do ... The article describes 4 lines of attack the GOP can use against Trump. 1. “Trump can’t be trusted because he is an egomaniac with a bad character.” 2. “Trump is a liberal and unprincipled.” 3. “Trump is not close to being fit to be a serious president or commander-in-chief.” 4. “Trump is a politician, not a businessman/outsider.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/199 "2015-09-16T12:32:16Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#): > > Apropos of Jindal calling him a madman and the Club for Growth launching attack ads (saying Trump is really a politician), I read this article yesterday: > > [How Donald Trump Can Be Beat, According to GOP - Business Insider](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-republicans-will-try-to-defeat-donald-trump) > > The article describes 4 lines of attack the GOP can use against Trump. > > 1. “Trump can’t be trusted because he is an egomaniac with a bad character.” > 2. “Trump is a liberal and unprincipled.” > 3. “Trump is not close to being fit to be a serious president or commander-in-chief.” > 4. “Trump is a politician, not a businessman/outsider.” GOP strategist Liz Mair, apparently in between jobs, came up with a list of ten anti-Trump ideas [at the Daily Beast](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/06/this-is-how-you-beat-donald-trump.html). I’ll try to come back to this later, but for now I’ll just say that most of her ideas have obvious problems as soon as you think about them. Like: > [@](#): > > 1. Do you have non-political experience? Talk about that. Rubio’s been in politics for pretty much his entire adult life. So had Jeb, until he finished his second term as FL governor. And I bet Jeb! would rather NOT talk about his days as [Lehman Brothers’ ‘secret weapon.’](http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/09/15/monday-evening-open-thread-never-forget/) 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2015, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828/200 "2015-09-16T12:37:28Z")
And old Romney hands now working for various campaigns are all on the same wavelength in an effort to [stop Trump](http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/09/10/new-mission-for-team-romney-stop-trump/JIN7O8C75remtPNDaTs2FO/story.html). I liked this quote: > [@](#): > > “It would be ironic if it wasn’t like every single person in the political wing who can stare more than five seconds into the future wasn’t mortified or petrified at the prospect of Trump being the nominee,” said Florida-based GOP strategist Rick Wilson who called a Trump nomination “an existential threat” to the party. Lord forgive me, but I’m enjoying this whole business far more than I should. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trumps-republican-primary-campaign/729828.md?page=11)