I do not like the tone of your post. I did not read past this sentence, I am not interested in responding to your post.
Sorry, it sounded harsher than I intended.
The thing is that that’s true, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. In terms of policy, there wouldn’t be that much difference between a Cruz Presidency and a Rubio Presidency. They’d both appoint right-wing Justices and judges to the Federal judiciary. They’d both abandon any attempts to address global warming. (Hey Marco, Miami may not survive my lifetime, let alone yours.) They’d both oppose any efforts to raise the minimum wage or otherwise improve the compensation of working people. They’d both let a GOP Congress repeal Obamacare, and voucherize Medicare for dessert. They’d both work to gut environmental laws and regs unrelated to global warming. Their Supreme Court appointees would do away with the right to an abortion. And so forth.
The main difference is that the media have been portraying Rubio as a reasonable conservative, but they haven’t yet abandoned their conception of Cruz as a Neanderthal. And of course Trump appalls them.
So it’s important to me for Republicans to choose one of the Neanderthals who look like Neanderthals, rather than a Neanderthal with boyish good looks who talks politely in public. I know which ones would be easier for Hillary to beat, and which one’s nomination might lead to a replay of Bush v. Gore.
Rubio’s also got decent favorable ratings with independents, too. Cruz, not so much.
With less than two weeks to go until actual delegates are chosen I stand by my thesis that it feels different this time. Last time we had crazy of the month. This time it appears to me that it’s all Trump all the time.
Cruz’s efforts recently to define the race as ‘two person’ - he and Trump - is an attempt to sideline Rubio et al. He’s counting on Trump’s support disappearing when it’s live-fire and wants to be perceived as the only alternative.
SDMB should have a field trip so that eventual Clinton supporters can actually see who is doing the heavy lifting electorally in their party. They will be astonished to find that they actually share quite a bit in common with the stereotypical Trump supporter lampooned above. Then they’ll get back on the bus to their colorless exurban oasis.
Trump may be punking us all and revert back to Trump circa 1980’s and be a little to the left of Hillary Clinton at the time.
Have you MET America? That’s a winning coalition.
There is no “good” Republican party and evil interlopers. The Republican party is an unholy alliance between socially conservative folks who are really pissed off about abortion and rich folks who are really pissed off about paying taxes.
Yep. His really competition is Rubio but he can’t attack him directly, he has to make Rubio look like collateral damage.
While I disagree with your central thesis - American voters are dumb - I’d just like to point out that it’s this sort of ‘outsider’ message that gave Minnesota Jesse Ventura back in the 90s. A late surge over the last few weeks is what vaulted Ventura - for the younger set most known as a pro wrestler and action hero. I advance the movie ‘Predator’ to you all highly - into the gubernatorial office.
A candidate like Trump or Ventura - media savvy, non-traditional on the issues and willing to say anything to get attention - has the ability to bring non-traditional voters - in Ventura’s case low-information young white males who were initially attracted by Ventura’s wrestling background.
We’ll know in two weeks whether Trump - like Ventura before him - can bring first time or infrequent voters to the polls. It all hinges on that. It’s not the same merry-go-round of crazies we had last time (Michelle Bachmann? Really?). This time we have a genuinely nutty - but very media-friendly guy - making a play for voters interest. Not hearts and minds, just their attention.
I think Trump will win the GOP nomination. If I was a betting man, I’d bet on that. I think the relative newness of his political career has people predicting that his voters won’t show up and all that, but I think that’s idle speculation because 1) some media people want to be seen as smart if the fall does happen (you don’t get views and prestige if you pick a safe bet like everyone else. If you pick against the grain and are right, everyone remembers you. If you’re wrong, nobody remembers), and 2) its boring if you just back up what the polls are saying and there’s no drama.
Here’s why I think Trump will win: he’s led the pack from as soon as he got in. Unlike Carson, he’s highly motivational and his backers have enthusiasm. He’s also going after the meat of the most fanatic part of the party, the angry white racists, who traditionally goes out to vote more than the moderates.
I do think that we won’t know for sure until probably Super Tuesday. As this graph shows, Romney didn’t pull out to a permanent lead until the end of February. But even he dipped at times and was 10 points behind Perry for a while, 10 points behind Gingrich, and 5 points behind Santorum. Trump has led in pretty much every national poll from the start. Those people aren’t going to suddenly abandon him when the votes start, I think.
Also, unlike Dean in 2004, Trumps not a guy who made a run from the middle of the pack, he’s started in front and stayed in front. There was no temporary dipping of his momentum behind joke candidates as the primary voters ebbed and flowed, they’ve picked Trump from the start. And also, unlike the Dems in 2008, this hasn’t been a 2 person race where one’s just waiting for the other to stumble, its been Trump and whoever’s in 2nd or 3rd. So even if he falls a bit, his supporters aren’t going to a clear number 2 for that person to steal the momentum. Right now, it could fall to Cruz or Rubio, who both trail Trump nationally. So Trump can afford to lose some supporters and still his opponents would be split.
The first few contests are more important for the #2 and #3 guys, not Trump. Trump can win one of the first 3, come in 2 or 3 in the others, and still be leading. Those contests are make or break for Cruz and Rubio. They don’t have the support, I think, to maintain their voters without a strong showing. Its Trump or no one
Yes, I remember that too.
In my home, there is a slim volume titled, “The Begatting of a President,” which tells the political stories of the Sixties in mock-Biblical style. One of its chapters, “LBJenesis,” tells how LBJ created the Great Society in six days, and on the seventh he threw a barbecue.
Then LBJ said, “Shucks, let there be an eighth day.” And on the eighth day, he escalated.
Welfare reform was a largely Republican idea; only an extreme supply-sider could think policies would have been better for blacks under a GOP President. The graph near the top of this page shows median black household income rising by $10,000 during the Clinton years, more even in absolute terms than white or hispanic income.
Based on today’s news cycle, a CNN poll showing Trump taking a double digit lead in Iowa, and myriad ‘establishment’ republicans flocking to the garrulous huckster, this nomination reality show is now over, barring some unimaginable faux pas. Considering the fact that every single outrageous statement/action perpetrated has only increased his numbers, I can’t imagine what it would take for his seemingly insurmountable lead to somehow be reversed.
What can he say/do to change his own momentum, because it seems to be all in his hands, coddled as he has been all the way by a largely compliant, subservient media?
And please spare me the hoary cliché/myth of a liberal media, one of the most outrageous lies ever foisted upon a low information media-consuming public.
check this link and draw your own parallels from Edward Bernays to the ‘conservative’ opinion making machine of the last fifty plus years. And don’t forget the Straussian ‘noble liars’ who were instrumental into duping America (democratic senators and representatives as well) into the quagmire that makes Vietnam look like, oh, say, Grenada:
http://www.cambridgehistory.org/discover/innovation/Edward%20Bernays.html
Free trade, welfare reform, shrinking the federal government, and zero tolerance crime policies work. Who knew?
President The Donald! What is the world coming to? Hey at least he’s proof that you don’t have to be a career politician to govern.
Or maybe an economic boom that is allowed to continue to the point where there are genuine labor shortages actually helps those on the bottom of the ladder, regardless of what else is going on.
That’s true. And good, conservative fiscal policy helps build confidence. Pro-business deregulation bills and free trade don’t hurt either for prolonging expansions. A little kick in the ass to encourage people who hadn’t been working to explore the possibilities of getting a job didn’t hurt either to lift all boats.
This reminds me of a Garrison Keillor essay from ten years ago, about Republican senators voting to suspend habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.
Rachel Maddow makes a compelling case that Trump’s tactics in this election harken back to George Wallace in 1968: Trump campaign style harkens back to George Wallace in 1968
Very similar rhetoric and language building on the same feelings in the electorate.
This bears repeating.
Yes, given the long-term trends in the global economy and its effects on job security in most of the US, some of the “anger” among white, blue-collar Trump supporters is understandable (though woefully misdirected).
Yes, there is some condescension and dismissiveness among educated liberals.
But is it too much to expect people to recognize that these issues (the economy, ISIS, immigration, climate change, etc.) are complicated? That’s the divide here: between those who understand this, and those that don’t.
The only way liberals can avoid sounding condescending about that is by giving Trump supporters the benefit of the doubt: that they aren’t morons, that they are just willfully suspending their brain power for a while, because they’re physically fatigued, or something.