Yeah, but can they win?
Commenter “Ira” asks an interesting question—particularly for those among us who think that, if nominated, Donald Trump either would lose in the general or if elected would be a poor president (I happen to think both are true). Here’s what he wants to know:
I think we conservatives should be supporting a single candidate sooner rather than later to prevent Trump from gathering more momentum and to reduce the risk that good candidates will do harm to each other…
So, I ask who should that candidate be, taking into account conservatism and electibility?
That last sentence is the most important part of all. Conservatives would be likely to want someone who is conservative, and who will win—and the latter, always important, is particularly important this go-round because of the terrible inroads the left has made recently on almost all fronts, and because the almost-certain Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is almost certain to continue in that direction.
“Cruz” is the very obvious answer if the criterion is “conservative principles and the ability to articulate them, as well as demonstrated adherence to them.” But what about that “electability” factor? In other words, can Cruz win?
A lot of people would answer as commenter Richard Saunders did:
Cruz is a brilliant man and a great lawyer ”” but does anybody here actually think he could get any votes outside the Republican base? (I mean outside of our little corner of the Republican base?) The guy is so anti-charismatic I think he’s an actual phenomenon. If Cruz is the top of the ticket, we will go down to defeat as badly as Goldwater did in 1968. I know ”” I was there.
That is my fear as well, which is one of the many reasons I am strongly considering the alternatives to Cruz—and of course that’s one of the things, writ large and multiplied by many people, that keeps so many candidates in the race and splits the “anyone-but-Trump” vote into fragments, weakening it.
Understanding that a lot of this is hunch and guesswork at the moment, and that things can change over time, I turn to polls for information. They may not be such great prognosticators, especially this early in the game, but they still are pretty much the only fact-based indications we have right now. In particular, I notice trends over time, and averages of many polls indicating those trends, and I also give greater weight to polls that report their data in more detail and have higher sample sizes.
And so far, over time, Rubio has been the candidate who has done best in head-to-head battles against Clinton. He has consistently been beating her for months in these polls (Trump has consistently done worst* of all the candidates against her, but let’s not worry too much about that for the purposes of this post, although sometimes I’ll use him for comparison).
So at the moment, if we want a Republican with the best chance of actually being elected, I’d say Rubio. But what about his conservatism; Gang of Eight and all that? Yeah, I know, I’ve heard it all a million times. But still, he is a stalwart conservative compared to Hillary Clinton, and has received high ratings on everything but immigration from just about every conservative group. See this and this, for example:
The American Conservative Union gave Rubio a 96 rating (out of 100) for 2014 and 98 across his Senate career. Heritage Action handed Rubio a 94 last year and 91 lifetime. The equivalent Club for Growth numbers are 92 and 93.
Maybe Rubio’s Gang of Eight membership is a dealbreaker for you. Maybe you just don’t like him for other reasons. For me, he’s acceptable, and I am drawn to him for—yes, I’ll dare to say it—his electability, which I value especially highly this year.
Here’s an unusually detailed national poll that was taken relatively recently (December 17-21; there’s been no national polling that I’ve found on this since December 23). I chose it because it reports on a lot more data than most. In it, you can see the sources of Rubio’s electoral chops. He does well with men vis a vis Hillary (better even than Trump, for example, who is usually considered to do so well with men). Hillary is ever-so-slighly ahead of Rubio with women, but only slightly. Rubio does well against her with non-whites (he gets 30%) and very well with whites (56%) (and both these figures are somewhat better than Trump’s against her with the same groups, interestingly enough). Rubio does better with voters who lean Democrat (14% against Hillary’s 11% lean Republican and Trump’s 11% lean Democrat). Rubio does slightly better with Democrats than Trump does (12% vs. 11%). The biggest difference is that Rubio pulls in a lot more Independents than Hillary (and than Trump), beating her with them 52/40 versus Trump’s breaking even with her. You may look down on Independents, but they are a very important bloc, and there is where Rubio shines. But he does well with all demographics, including Republicans (he draws the same percentage as Trump, 86%), which could put to rest the fears that the base would stay home if Rubio ran (a fear I retain somewhat, by the way).
Then there’s the supposedly less-electable Cruz. Over time, he’s certainly been doing worse than Rubio has against Clinton, but recently he’s been rising. Similarly to Rubio, Cruz does well with men, and a bit more surprisingly he does just as well with women. Where Cruz drops a bit compared to Rubio is with Democrats (7% to Rubio’s 12%) and lean Democrats (95 to Rubio’s 14%). However, Cruz is very strong indeed with Independents, which I must say surprised me: 52% to Hillary’s 40%, which is exactly the same as Rubio (versus Trump’s breaking even with her with Independents).
So, at least in this poll, Cruz looks almost as “electable” as Rubio. If that trend continues, it could matter—a lot.
Unfortunately, the poll doesn’t break down other candidates’ support that way; I think probably they had too little support for the numbers to have a small enough margin of error. I’d be especially interested in a Christie breakdown, because I’ve been more impressed with him as time goes on (and no, I don’t care about the Obama-hug-that-wasn’t-really-a-hug).
[ * NOTE: By the way, this NY Times article from yesterday entitled “Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat” caught my eye for obvious reasons. But when I read it, I found it very odd. It had very few numbers, and I couldn’t find any links to anything that contained them. So it was almost impossible to evaluate, and of course we’re dealing with the NY Times here. The group doing the polling was described as “a Democratic data firm.”
Here’s the gist of it:
[Trump’s] very best voters are self-identified Republicans who nonetheless are registered as Democrats. It’s a coalition that’s concentrated in the South, Appalachia and the industrial North, according to data provided to The Upshot by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm.
Mr. Trump’s huge advantage among these groups poses a challenge for his campaign, because it may not have the turnout operation necessary to mobilize irregular voters.
So Trump appeals to Republicans who are registered Democrats, and they are Republicans only by self-report? How many such people exist? I certainly don’t know any, which doesn’t mean much, since I mostly know liberal Democrats anyway. But why would a Republican register as a Democrat? An Independent, yes; but a Democrat? I don’t see these as the classic “Reagan Democrats,” either. Reagan Democrats were Democrats who crossed over for Reagan, not Republicans registered as Democrats. And apparently a lot of these Trump supporters may not vote, much less vote in the primaries.
In other polls, Trump does not do especially well with Democrats or those who lean Democrat, or with Independents, as I wrote in the post. I wish the Times had reported more detail about this survey of the Republican Democrats, whoever they are, so I could do a better evaluation of what’s going on here. All it really says is that the results are “estimates” based on 11,000 interviews since August (things have changed a lot since August) of those who are leaning Republican. The results only reflect these estimates of the support of each Republican candidate against other Republicans, not against Hillary in the general, so of course the non-Trump vote is split among all the other Republicans. What’s more, “The margin of uncertainty around the congressional district estimates is plus or minus 8.7 percentage points.” That’s rather large, to say the least.]
“I think we conservatives should be supporting a single candidate sooner rather than later to prevent Trump from gathering more momentum ”
Somewhat clueless premise. Conservatives can’t agree on the over or under of toilet paper on the holder, so there’s no reason to think they’ll agree on the nominee other that to say they won’t vote for the party’s candidate that they don’t like.
Not joiners these conservatives and when they are they become cuckservatives.
Good. I like Cruz. I’m glad he does almost as well as Rubio because I think Cruz will make a much better president.
It’s not up to me and it’s not up to us. I am not going to engage in the poli sci of analyzing polls. I leave that to Sabato.
I will vote for a three-legged mongrel dog over a Democrat, and that is all I can do.
HNY, Neo!
I have questioned the validity of polls of a few hundred, self reported Republicans for a while.
I am not sure who my favorite is any longer. I do like Cruz a bit more than Rubio. Rubio just doesn’t connect, although I would be able to support him without reservation if he wins the nomination.
I, too, am liking Christie better as time goes on.
As an antidote to “[Cruz] is so anti-charismatic I think he’s an actual phenomenon,” …
Watch this:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/14fcb204-b707-4200-b543-5ed02dede239
In partial answer to your question: some Republicans will register as Democrats if they are in a Democrat-dominated state, and the only contested races are in Democrat primaries. That used to be the case in my state, and I registered Democrat so that I would at least be able to vote for the lesser of two evils. However, my state has swung much more Republican, and that is not the case any more.
I suspect there are other reasons, too. For example, when I was growing up in Pittsburgh, the only way to get a city job, even a summer job, was if you and/or your parents were registered Democrat.
“If Cruz is the top of the ticket, we will go down to defeat as badly as Goldwater did in 1968.”
Just to set the record straight, Goldwater ran in ’64, not ’68.
Thank you for sharing. Now back in the teapot.
Since I’ve seen them ALL. in person I will weigh in.
On pure extemporaneous speech and likeability, Rubio wins. He is the most like Reagan in the way he talks. Obviously distrusted due to his Gang of 8 deal. A buddy calls him Slick Marco.
I’ve written before he really has the JFK-movie star thing going for him.
Ted can seem stiff and not real personable, but he is better in person. Much better.
Ted is off the charts smart but Marco can hang with him.
This is a tough business and both are playing to win.
Marco needs a “read my lips” moment to fix his immigration problem. Ted is working on his stiffness problem via his wife and kids. Expect to see more of Heidi Cruz going forward to soften Ted. WaPo cartoonist did Ted a favor.
I like and trust Ted but could live with Marco as POTUS.
I am a huge college basketball fan and my experience from it is to let’s have elections and see who wins.
Ted wins Iowa going away and I wrote that prediction on Power Line in the summer. He has a great organization in Iowa and I suspect similar strength in the South. He has church people lined up and as a Catholic (Jesuit schooled) in Omaha that concept is very foreign to me. Cruz has had great success with small donors and that is very significant. Not so for Rubio. Grassroots for Ted.
Dr. Carson is probably out after Iowa or SC. His voters go mostly to Ted. That is a lock.
When will Jeb drop out? Will he back Marco or be silent? Big questions.
I’m still loyal to Carly and I will vote for her in May. I cannot understand why more women have not backed her. She still has a chance if she adopts my plan: Be the news and make the news with bold ideas. OPEC oil tariff. Attack AGW and Greens. My latest is to dish the dirt on Donald and start with his WWE character, then his four bankruptcies, frivolous lawsuits and Mob connections seritiam. By exposing Trump’s weaknesses people will realize he can’t beat Hillary. This is important and she will climb up if she does it.
Carly has been fired from her job and she beat cancer. Roll the dice, baby. It’s not like you are going to die or end up broke.
I live in Appalachia and yes, I know people who are very conservative but are registered Democrats. I don’t understand it, but have come to accept it. I’ve tried to get a couple of them to switch to “unaffiliated”, which would allow them to vote in the primary of their choice.
We’ll be having the election after TEN MORE MONTHS of Mr. “I’ve Got A Pen” tearing our country and constitution apart. By then I suspect sixty percent of the voters will be pulling the Republican party levers simply for revenge and out of desperation. They, and we, shouldn’t worry too much about the name on the ballot, as every conceivable Republican candidate is a hundred times better than Clinton, and we can’t do much to influence the primaries anyway. Turnout is the vital variable, and EVERYONE can and should help with that – volunteer locally, drive people, man the phones.
What’s more important NOW is that we keep provoking all the usual suspects in their hectoring, badgering, pontificating, and identity politics; and publicize it every time their stooges on the bench push leftist garbage down our throats or their lapdog government agencies punish the liberty-minded. “Not-the-Democrat” picks up more votes every time those weasels open their mouths, and while we can’t really influence the candidate selection, SJW trolling is completely within our powers.
Meantime, go read Scott Adams on Trump. Trump can win, and the way things are going now – he will. That may be a very good thing, or a kinda bad thing in some ways, but it is reality. Let Adams help you understand it.
Membership of the Gang of Eight is a deal breaker for me.
The only reason their amnesty bill did not become law is the unexpected defeat of Eric Cantor by David Brat. Brat ran on illegal immigration and the votes that Boehner had whipped into line evaporated. Worse, Rubio had won his come-from-behind campaign with Tea Party support. He broke all his promises on immigration by joining the amnesty crowd. It is telling that Trey Gowdy endorses Rubio. Gowdy is firmly in the “path to citizenship” camp..
The voters twice elected a first-time Senator with no executive experience. Look how well that turned out. Rubio has been a politician almost from the time he graduated college. He hasn’t run anything, built anything or accomplished anything outside of politics. His lack of executive experience is a huge negative. Cruz, by comparison, had a solid tenure at the FTC and as Texas Solicitor General.
Rubio is a little too slick. His compelling family story about his parents fleeing Castro turns out to be a lie. His parents left Cuba in 1956, during the dictatorship of Batista.
Every establishment Republican, with the possible exception of Cruz, will do what they always do: talk conservative on the campaign trail and vote with the Democrats in DC. The Omnibus bill is proof of that.
Some recent polls have Trump in a statistical tie with Clinton. The Rasmussen poll shows this. Blogger Sundance at Conservative Treehouse breaks down the support for each candidate:
It is going to be easier for Trump to get GOP loyalists to vote for him than it will be for Clinton to pick up the independents. It does appear that Trump is appealing to independents.
Remember Cruz won his senate seat in Texas by beating, rather soundly, the supported republican lt gov. He is better at getting votes than this article implies.
Ha, ha! I love Dilbert, but I do not think I will throw in all of my chips based on what the creator of “Wally” says about politics.
Raincityjazz
Go to the WWE website and watch some Trump videos.
Donald is playing a WWE character in his campaign: rich, smart business guy who will fix things and make America great again by hiring Top Men. Details to be decided later. He is a loving guy and not like mean Mr. Potter in the wheelchair. Virile too. Ask his doctor, Putin and his young wife.
Notice the absence of policy and his history in his WWE character.
Scott Adams’ analysis is essentially based in why WWE works and it is popular. Emotions and popular prejeduices work for most people.
I continue to worry that Trump will run independently if he doesn’t get the nomination. If that happens we will certainly face another 8 years of wanton destruction at the hands of the Clintons. These days, I’m watching Christie more and more and mourning Carly’s slide.
As for Rubio being considered “Slick Marco”, I don’t know how anyone could get much slicker than Cruz in his classic D.C. jiu-jitsu re his now disavowed 2013 position on legalization for the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country.
None of these candidates strike me as being charismatic. When I watch Rubio, I cringe like I’m watching a High School play. Like, I know he’s not going to hit the high notes; I’m just hoping he doesn’t forget the words. Cruz has no idea how to, as the old saying goes, disagree without being disagreeable. That’s a terrible problem for someone who doesn’t have a long history of working together with others and accomplishing things. He also has the second worst case of Sneer Face I’ve ever seen on a politician. (Dick Cheney is the worst.) Cruz may be a bully, and Christie acts like one, but Trump is a bully through-and-through, in appearance and in action. I wouldn’t want any one of these people over for lunch. Then again, the Democrats might as well be nominating fingernails dragging across a chalkboard, in terms of likability.
If Trump gets the nomination, I think he does have a shot at winning because he will expose all of Hillary’s sins and beat them like a drum. Trump won’t be a good President but as President he will fatally wound political correctness, stop the Islamization of America and secure the border. Since those are the big 3, anything else would be gravy.
If Cruz gets the nomination a lot of Trump’s support will vote for Cruz. The ONLY chance that the GOP has for its future political viability is if Cruz is the nominee. Cruz is the only candidate who has the smarts and will to attempt to stop the Gramscian march. Cruz is the only candidate who will give credibility to the GOP’s claim to be loyal to the Constitution.
If Rubio gets the nod and wins, it’s the same as if McConnell or Boehner were to be elected President. America’s slow slide to oblivion will continue with a democrat taking over in 2020 because after 4 years of RINO Rubio the base will permanently leave the GOP… Rubio, if nominated and elected will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory.
Rubio is unacceptable to me. Period. If he is the nominee I will either vote Libertarian or write in Cthulhu.
I’m not a Trump fan, having lived in NYC and watched him for 30 years, but he’d probably be a pretty good president. He has been a competent executive, an excellent project manager, a skilled negotiator, and a superior salesman. His actual politics, however, are probably pretty MOR, so his current conservative stands should probably be viewed as sales and negotiation tactics.
When I watch Rubio, I cringe like I’m watching a High School play. Like, I know he’s not going to hit the high notes; I’m just hoping he doesn’t forget the words.
I don’t know which Rubio you’ve been following, but when I watched and listened to him talking about his opposition to the Iran deal on the Senate floor a few months ago, I saw nothing remotely “high school” about it. He comes across as not only deeply knowledgeable, but also presents his case in a way understandable to people who don’t necessarily keep up with the news.
PatD:
The only problem with that reasoning is that polls that actually break down Trump vs. Hillary support into Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and then compare that support for Trump against Hillary to the support for other candidates (Rubio vs. Hillary, Cruz vs. Hillary) find three things.
The first is that in most polls Trump loses to Hillary, and Rubio wins (Cruz is starting to win).
The second is that Rubio and Cruz do much better with Independents than Trump does with Independents, or than Hillary does with Independents.
The third is that Rubio does better with Democrats than Trump does. Cruz does somewhat worse, but the difference are small among the 3 Republicans, Trump, Cruz and Rubio, and in addition their support among Democrats is small.
In addition, that Rasmussen poll you cite is nonsensical if you’re trying to figure how a candidate would do in a head-to-head matchup against Hillary. It has both Trump and Hillary pulling a third of the voters, and everyone else voting for someone else, which is not ordinarily anything like what happens in a head-to-head matchup. The “someone else” voters are so numerous that the poll tells us virtually nothing about a Trump vs. Clinton election.
Cornhead is correct in that Cruz is well positioned to win Iowa. Right now it looks more of a matter is by what margin.
BTW, factcheck.org is a creature of the Annenburg Foundation. I seem to remember a connection between Bill the bomber Ayers and a young bho with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. 😉
Neo nails it when she points to the numbers that Trump loses the Independents. I suspect that includes a lot of young voters.
Fred Barnes had an excellent piece in The Weekly Standard reminding the reader it is still an election of states. Winning Nebraska 60-40 still is only 3 Electoral College votes. GOP must win purple states like WI. GOP will never win CA so don’t spend a dime there.
Cornhead, you are absolutely right. And since emotions and popular prejudices work for most people, that is the way the vote will go. Citizens don’t become different people in the voting booth. Win, lose, or die before the election, Trump has kicked over Presidential politicking and the GOP establishment. Obama has gone a long way towards making the Presidency a celebrity brand, and Trump won’t turn that around; the American people like it too much. Perhaps in time we can work our way back to a more restrained and intellectual style of Presidential politics, but as long as Obama and Trump can find a microphone, what we have is what we’ll have.
Please don’t assume from this that I’m a Trump fan. My own choice, by far, would be Cruz, yet my main concern is that we keep the Clintons away from the White House. I worked as a lobbyist in DC during Bill’s presidency, and the sleaze was so deep I always wondered what kept it from leaking out of the second story windows. Hillary is a mean, bitter, greedy human being who is utterly corrupt. I said during the 2008 primaries that we’d be better off with Obama than with Clinton, and I still believe that to be true, even with all the damage Obama has done. Obama is a narcissist and a heart-deep Marxist, but at least has friends and a solid rep as a good father. Hillary hasn’t ever had a real human connection and is a fatally flawed sociopath. Most of my buddies inside the beltway, D’s and R’s, will admit privately that she’s a weird and scary person, and wish she could just disappear permanently.
Adams’ insights into human nature can help us understand how to fight the fight we’re in, that is all I am saying. We’re not part of a country consisting mostly of educated, engaged voters who read erudite policy debates and make rational choices based on the greater good. We need to win an election where Kardashian fans are a good portion of the voting bloc. Trump knows how to get that done. If the nomination does go to Cruz, in my dreams he’ll get Trump as a campaign advisor and showhound. Call me a trailer-park street-rumble fan for that if you like, but for the sake of our country, I want Hillary to lose. Electing Trump, the P.T. Barnum of today, is a price I would cheerfully pay.
(And by the way, for a short time Barnum was a politician. He made quite a creditable job of it, too.)
I disagree that Ted Cruz lacks the charisma to be elected. Having seen videos of his interactions with smaller groups and in various interviews, he shows a good sense of humor and comes across quite well. I think that with the exposure he would get as the nominee, voters would warm up to him, especially when the alternative is Hillary. Also, this country might be in such bad shape as the election draws near that “charisma” won’t be the most important consideration for most people. I think Cruz will be very electable.
I also like Rubio and could easily support him. I’m warming up to Christy and love Carly. I hope whoever gets the nomination picks her as VP.
As for Trump, I think that the democrats are praying that he is the nominee so that they can unleash all the opposition research they are saving up for the general election.
In the end though, I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for whoever runs against Hillary.
I watched that Cruz video, Cornhead, and it still doesn’t get me excited.
To win we have to get every single Republican, every single one, PLUS a large number of independents and even some crossover Democrats. Remember that the Dems have all the dead and no-identification people voting for them. (As we say in Philadelphia, “Vote early and vote often!”)
The actual primary votes will tell, but as of now, I still think the winning candidate is the one who is best able and willing to challenge the fawning media lackeys of the left and to go after Hillary with hammer and tongs on lying, corruption, total failure of foreign policy, failure to confront Jihadism, ineptitude, the server, the economy, etc., etc., etc.
So far, I rank them on that criterion as Trump, Fiorina, Christie, Cruz, Rubio. And they must do that on the stump, on television, and in the debates.
How do you see it?
Raincityjazz Says:
January 1st, 2016 at 6:15 pm
Great comment! The American Republic died 100 years ago with the 16th and 17th amendments. (And I have serious doubts about the 19th.)
We’re a democracy now. The Founders knew very well that that would lead to ruin. Fully half of the people who are currently allowed to vote have no damn business doing so.
Raincityjazz
I found your comment about DC insiders consider Hillary to be a “weird and scary person” very significant and that needs to be directly called to the public’s attention. What kind of woman would stayed married to Bill Clinton? Repeatedly and publically sexually humiliated. I think the shorthand is we don’t need more Clinton drama in the WH.
Not enough space to cover their corruption.
Scott Adams predicts Trump will suggest Hillary is too sick and old to be President. I agree he will do so within two weeks.
Cruz has tons of appearances in Iowa next week.
Correction: NE has 5 votes; 3 house and 2 Senate.
Richard Saunders:
For the purposes you described, I agree on your order.
The thing that impressed me about Ted’s charisma was the big production in Des Moines at the rally for religious liberty.
Nixon was terrible on TV and he won twice. Cruz is not Nixon in any way. Just pointing out that charisma is not everything.
No candidate is perfect. Not even Ronnie.
Cornhead, do folks in Iowa know about Cruz’s wife’s career with Goldman Sachs? Amazing to me if no one seems concerned about that, given his populist, anti-corporatist messaging. And then there’s the ethanol thing and now Huckabee and Santorum going after him on cultural issues.
Cruz and Carly.
Those that go through college and the elitist process ALWAYS side against the natural talent of another or the non educated in top position… funny thing is, that with all that schooling, the people who actually start, build, and do that kind of thing… are not elite, and much more capable. some even did get degrees, but are not like their elite contemporaries.
AND all of them run empires with thousands of employees, investments, law jurisdictions beyond just the US, and a whole lot more..
and yet… they wont be as good…
No degrees
Ted Turner 2 billion empire
Ralph Lauren 7 billion empire
Mark Zuckerberg – 13 billion
Michael Dell – 15 billion
Sheldon Adelson – 26 billion
Larry Ellison – 43 billion
Bill Gates –
Steve Jobs – 8 billion
for some reason, i think that if the job of president can be handled by malcontents and community organizers, and the world did not blow up… a business leader with organization skills that put them in the top organizers in human history… would not do worse…
and if you think they cant, then look to yourself mor than they, as its your prejudice and judgement over inane things… yeah… trump would ruin his whole empire and such by causing real trouble
Trump has 34,000 employees paid for with self sustaining profits, and has outshined ny state government privately.
name one president who ran a firm or organization that large they built themselves…and then say such competency is dangerous for the presidency..
are you all that say that nuts?
if a community organizer who has a penchant for stalin and mao, and race and islam, and was diretly connected with revolutionaries who set off bombs and killed people… was not dangerous. how can a man who maintains 34,000 paid employees, has never done a thing illegal, pays women fairly, operates in over 20 countries with their laws and more… be a problem?
you deserve what you get if that is the logic as ted cruz will not roll back the long list of things that are not good… and the others are worse.
none of them have the organizational skills and so on of a billionaire… how is blazio doing compared to bloomberg?
we no longer have a meritocracy as we are afraid of those who have lots of merit and ability, what we prefer are liars that sooth us, lie to us, give us excuses, fail and claim more money would have done the trick, hurt us to gain more… and you think someone NOT like that is bad?
If that is the case, then the US deserves to end and everyone deserves to be slaves as the people we need to make the world better without slavery, are too feared
neo-neocon, 5:52 pm — “PatD:” [et cetera]
Poll results noted.
Sez me, until we can get reliable polls that take into account the electoral vote breakdown, I don’t know enough yet.
Okay, forget the “reliable” part; we’ve gone ’round and ’round on this on this forum.
Until we get hmmmm, ballpark polls that take into account the electoral vote breakdown, I don’t know enough yet.
But if Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Christie/whomever garners (strictly for example) 56 percent of the popular vote to Mzz. Hillary’s 44 percent, but Mzz. Hillary ends up winning the electoral vote, the good guys still lose. We-all obviously know that going in.
And by the way, as I am happy to keep pointing out, the polls as well as the eventual vote by state have to take into account the votes of people who are dead or illegal or both. Pew and Rasmussen and Quinnipiac and ABC/WaPo and all those guys fail to telephone dead or illegal dudes.
The ballpark is cavernous, but I understand there’s a lot of populated but overlooked real estate over yonder in left field.
Ann:
Heidi Cruz is just a beautiful wife and mother. I doubt many know about GS. Few would care.
My view is that the power of her intellect got her to GS. GS hires only the best. Those two kids are probably geniuses.
M J R, 7:00 pm — “The ballpark is cavernous, but I understand there’s a lot of populated but overlooked real estate over yonder in left field.”
Lotta cemeteries, I hasten to add (and should have included). Whole lotta cemeteries over there . . .
I would also call to everyone’s attention that few Iowa voters are firmly committed to one candidate per the polls. Current polls are not set in stone. With Carson in chaos, lots could change this month. Supposedly he is going to be very different and more aggressive.
Artfldgrs Says:
January 1st, 2016 at 6:56 pm
Exactly so.
Neo needs to read Fountainhead again… if ever..
and then go to history to see the aweful people that made great leaders in the early day of the US…
by the way, they said the same thing as to Reagan neo, and you know what? that was the largest growth of prosperity in the history of human kind
yeah… you like the administrative state as its safe.
its WHY the left chose their army for its ease of manipulation and its desire to avoid risk, and their lack of accepting that this can play them if you just tell them that there is no nature to them.
only the fool can admite the spirit, life, and amazing existence of a stallion… but have to break it to ride..
shame… if you fear freedom and the free
how can you even hope to have it, preserve it, or really experience it?
this past week my family has all been a twitter in that my son, my wife and i were standing right whre a volcano is erupting today… we were free to stand there, which would never happen here in the US… yes, we risked our lives and that which set us free was very scary… but to not take that rout would have been safe, but not half as alive.
so many of us are dead inside, live in fear, and dont even think that is what it is, or that they live that way, but they do… as that is the source of our judgements and petty jealousies… and even our entertainment as we watch others braver than us, and say, how scary they are for taking the leaps we cant take… even if offered to us.
sad… so sad..
i am glad i never had that inner death
my sadness comes from not being able to do that any more and be allowed to win (no matter what i do, achieve, etc)… without that i am dead, i am a ghost…
USA deserves its enslavement and end…
the adventurous individual dreamer worker and hard successful man or woman is too scary to the people any more… we no longer admire a ford, we fear ford… we dont admire and measure the success as a skill and its good, no we fear it.
revolutionary agit propped community organizers are ok… but people who are in the top of mankinds organizers and self successful against the politics and people that hate them, foul them, fear them, and all legally and make it look easy…. so easy you think they cheat and you dislike them too… are bad.
amazing… freaking amazing
Artfldgr:
Reagan and Trump—about as similar as oil and water.
The only similarity is that people said Reagan couldn’t win. That’s not enough similarity, however, to be similar.
Among other things—Reagan was an articulate conservative with a deep grounding in conservative thought, and a deep commitment to it. Oh, and another little detail—he’d been elected governor of California, twice, and had been the governor for two full terms by the time he became president, and also had long long been active in Republican politics. He made a speech in 1964 to show his support for Goldwater, 16 years before his election as president. The speech established him firmly as a conservative mover and shaker, and he was elected governor of California in 1966.
If Trump would like to run as a Republican in New York for the governorship, and serve some time there and show us his conservative stuff, he’s welcome to do so as far as I’m concerned.
@neo-neocon
The Rasmussen poll does break voters out by Democrats, Republicans and Independents. It was specifically Trump vs Clinton and matches similar polls in the margin between the two.
The Real Clear politics trending graph show Rubio catching up to Hillary and passing her in some polls.
The comparable graph for Trump shows him catching up to Hillary, matching her for a while, and falling behind a little lately.
However, in the GOP race, Rubio is easily beaten by Cruz, who is easily beaten by Trump.
I don’t see Rubio improving. Illegal Immigration is a huge election issue and Rubio is on the wrong side of the debate. Cruz is on both sides, which will turn into a problem for him. We know where Trump the candidate stands.
Artfldgr:
Oh, and I’d wager that none of the commenters here who don’t think Trump would be much of a president did NOT also think that “agit propped community organizers are ok.” Au contraire.
In addition, I think you’re reading the opposition to Trump wrong. It’s not because he’s a businessman and hasn’t held office. In fact, many people who don’t care for Trump support Fiorina (whom I seem to recall you think is on the left, an unsuccessful businessperson, etc.), or Carson—and she is another businessperson who has never held office, and Carson is a doctor who never held office.
As far as I’m concerned, the problem is Trump’s narcissism, his blowhard self-aggrandizing persona, his drifting back and forth between liberal and conservative positions (and changing of positions just in the last couple of years on many,.many issues), his contributions to people like the Clintons, his lack of interest in the constitution, his denial of saying things he actually said, and the cult of personality around him.
And that’s just for starters.
Rubio still wants amnesty, he just talks tough about securing the border first and enforcing the immigration laws. If he is the nominee and wins the general, even if we have a Republican Congress, it’s all over. We’ll have a POTUS pushing for amnesty, and Congressional leadership of both parties backing him. One party Marxist rule would follow the first election after the new 10-20++ million are sworn in as citizens and registered as Democrats.
The only way Rubio might be acceptable is with Cruz as VP to hold him in check. Best scenario for me if Cruz can’t overtake Trump is a Trump/Cruz ticket. President Donald could handle the PR, international negotiations, the sale of hundreds of millions of acres the fed owns, the privatization of lots of park land, the disposal of the thousands of federal buildings and office space vacant for years, building the wall and using the bully pulpit. That’s what he’s good at.
Let Cruz be in charge of the government reorganization, downsizing, weeding out the thousands of Marxist high level civil service employees Obama packed the entire bureaucracy with, finding the best conservative judicial nominees, identifying all the odious regulations, executive orders/memos that needed to be rescinded and repealed by The Donald’s pen.
Then 2020-2028 with President Cruz.
I can only dream. (sigh)
Rubio is a McCain super hawk – no thanks. As far as I know, Cruz is the only one to bravely touch the ethanol third rail in Iowa. And although this is an interesting exercise, the early states will make the decision for us.
Ann,
I am curious about your faith in factcheck.org/Annenberg that you linked to above and your comments about Heidi Cruz. Heidi Cruz is an investment banker, and while I am no fan of the big banks, I can understand why GS recruited someone with her credentials. She is currently on an unpaid leave to support her husband’s presidential campaign. BTW, GS supports politicians from both sides of the aisle.
Politely, I ask are you of anyone but Cruz persuasion? Or do you support a particular candidate from either party? Now. its supper time so I will check back latter to see if you respond. And, I am really interested in your thoughts although I will admit up front that referring to factchecker.org as a non-partisan info source puzzles me.
If, the Democrats find Rubio more acceptable than Cruz, that tells me something about the depth of Rubio’s conservatism. Scratch deep. My opinion only.
It’s already beginning to look like a uni-party House of Representatives. Simply to do not trust Ryan, Rubio, Gowdy to be anything other than younger lighter GOPe.
Worked hard for Rubio before and after he defeated Charlie Crist. He’s my Senator. Now I wouldn’t vote for him unless he was this country’s absolute almost guaranteed to win last hope. And after that I would expect nothing.
parker,
I found lots of other sites that had some of the same information offered in that FactCheck.org piece. The only reason I linked to the FactCheck piece was because it offered most of that information in just one place, plus it was well organized and provided links to what looked like impartial sources, some of them the candidates’ own websites.
I’ve also found the site to pull no punches in examining Hillary’s statements.
Since you ask so politely, I’ll fess up — I’m totally in the tank for Rubio.
Wow! 48 comments on a holiday!
Thank you neo for the insightful and deep analysis of the CNN-ORC poll.
As Ann implied, let’s hope that whoever is the candidate for our side (i.e., the conservative side) has been thoroughly vetted. As implied by Cornhead, perhaps we need to actually go through a few primaries so that the vetting occurs, although I think the RNC would do itself a lot of good by vetting now and informing respective candidates of their potential weaknesses.
Cornhead, who, like me, has Carly Fiorina as his favorite choice for the person to be sworn in as President come January 20, 2017, suggests the following for Carly (which believe ALL the candidates should be doing):
With respect to Cornhead’s suggestion above regarding attacking Trump, Jeb Bush’s current national TV spot is doing that.
My version of that suggestion would be to lump Hillary and Trump together when making the attack (the connection of course is Trump’s prior favorable comments about Obama and Hillary).
In any event, from reading neo’s post and the 48 comments, it appears to me that we are coalescing behind a Cruz/Fiorina ticket, which would thrill me fantastically, and almost as much as a Fiorina/Cruz ticket.
Cruz-Carly would be my dream ticket.
Hillary’s VP would get smashed to bits in a debate.
American Citizens First.
My new slogan for Carly.
> In partial answer to your question: some Republicans will
> register as Democrats if they are in a Democrat-dominated
> state, and the only contested races are in Democrat primaries.
For instance, Chicago. In Chicago, the Democrats win all the elected offices in the general election. So if you want to actually participate in deciding who will hold the office, you need to vote Democratic in the primary, because that’s where the offices are all contested. Then you’re a registered Democrat.
Also, once you’ve chosen that primary ballot, your party affiliation becomes public information. So if you’re a Republican that wants to protect yourself from political retaliation, you might choose to vote Democratic in the primary to stay under the radar. Ugly, but that’s how Chicago works.
Ann,
Thanks for the response. I tend to believe Cruz’s explanation that he was attempting to insert a “poison pill” into the gang of 8 bill, you obviously consider his explanation as a flip flop. That is your opinion and I respect that even if my opinion differs. However, anyone or thing associated with the Annenberg Foundation is immediately suspect as a “commie pinko” as far as I am concerned.
I can appreciate Rubio’s positions on foreign policy, though I am not in 100% agreement. Nor am I in 100% agreement with positions of Cruz or Fiorina who are my choices. I am knocking on doors for Cruz in Iowa because Fiorina has fallen far behind here in flyover country. Bottom line is anyone but cankles, so if its a choice of hrc or Rubio I will vote for the far lesser evil.
“the problem is Trump’s narcissism, his blowhard self-aggrandizing persona, his drifting back and forth between liberal and conservative positions (and changing of positions just in the last couple of years on many,.many issues), his contributions to people like the Clintons, his lack of interest in the constitution, his denial of saying things he actually said, and the cult of personality around him.”
This is a totally accurate, but I’ve been in New York real estate for 30 years, and you must remember that most of what Trump does is an act. He’s capable of being modest, quiet, focused and tactful when he needs to in order to get a deal done and make some money; he’s just learned that narcissism and vulgarity are better strategies for selling overpriced condominiums to nouveaux riches, and obtaining high leverage financial packages from dweeb bankers. Me personally, I would rather have someone I respect and trust as president, but good public officials are not always good people.
HRC would blow a fuse if she’s up against Cruz and Fiorina.
Just no doubt about that.
Carly has always been running to be V-P.
As an outsider with no political office under her belt — being V-P would be an astounding achievement.
I want Trump to turn his guns on Hill.
I want Cruz to tun his guns on Hill.
The Democrat primary is OVER.
Therefore, the only way to judge the merits of any GOP nominee is how they begin the fight that must be fought.
It’s the ONLY standard by which the contest can now be measured.
ALL of the GOP are such a staggering improvement over the demon that the nomination must go to the one who can slay Medusa.
And that’s without looking away.
This real world Medusa has vices — not vipers.
This nation can’t suffer a General Secretary of the Democrat Machine.
A commentator at Ann Althouse grasps why Trump and Sanders have traction.
PatD quotes “A commentator at Ann Althouse” at length – Amen, brothers.
PatD says “Cruz is on both sides [of immigration], which will turn into a problem for him.”
Both Senator Jeff Sessions and Rand Paul say this is false: Cruz has ALWAYS been against open, unrestricted immigration and “amnesty.”
I consider these Tea Party and libertarian sources within the most exclusive club in the world as definitive.
Liars, on the other hand, will always lie.
Neo writes on Trump, “drifting back and forth between liberal and conservative positions (and changing of positions just in the last couple of years on many,.many issues)”….
This is always silly because it flies in the face of his novice status and thus it is irrelevant to most voters for president – which is why every four years, the LIVs – if properly prepped – come out in droves, unlike other election years.
And then “his contributions to people like the Clintons” – sheesh, can a Big Big businessman ever get a break from you, neo?
I am so over neon’s whining – let’s see some real votes counted before Trump get’s drummed out for the misfortune of being convicted of narcissism.
As a newly minted therapist said to me, when we shared our experiences in talk therapy: “people need leadership. That’s why we (in the socio-psychological sense) have narcissists.” Or, as Wood Allen famously mused, we don’t have them committed because we “need the eggs.”
Perhaps politics isn’t really your game, if you can’t get over Trumps’s narcissism? Because you can’t sort the corrupt and pathogenic narcissists from the benign? It seems that y81 can.
geokstr writes “Rubio still wants amnesty, he just talks tough about securing the border first and enforcing the immigration laws. If he is the nominee and wins the general, even if we have a Republican Congress, it’s all over.”
He does – I’m certain of it, too. And while the USA’s future is clearly now on life-support, we are doomed by Rubio’s success in higher office. As much as I deeply admire his political talents, his policy bent is utterly self-immolating to the very ideals he says his life story embodies. Why he cannot be reached on this score by simple math on the issue troubles me far more than any collection of insults Trump enjoy delivering, because I know that the latter is mere spleen venting, while the former is irrationally destructive to the entire American experiment.
I actually think that Cruz is charismatic and a very talented politician. But, maybe I’m just weird. He does sometimes seem a bit too staged, but he ‘s also been losing that quality lately. He is a fantastic debater and a man who apparently does what he says he will do. I think he’s a winner however… I would also go with Rubio if things begin to turn. He may have more appeal to people who are independents or Democrats who are unhappy with Clinton and Obama (not Sanders types obviously). I think it is one or the other though someone else (Christie) may sneak up on us. I am still putting my money on Cruz… for now.
Cruz may be too socially conservative or identified with extreme social conservatism for many people to vote for. That bothers people who are not, social conservatives. That is my worry, not his political talents or charisma.
The Gang of Eight issue with Rubio is important especially since so many Americans are gravitating to Trump primarily because of immigration issues. I think people are feeling imperiled and put upon by illegal immigration and even legal work permits for tech (H1-B visas). So that is a factor in Rubio losing popularity however — I have heard people who were not Republicans say they like Rubio more than Clinton so… Again, I think Rubio seems more approachable and less socially conservative in a scary way to many folks.
I am supporting Cruz at this time. However… Time will tell. It is really too early to tell.
My issue with Rubio is amnesty. For if amnesty becomes reality then conservatism has no future in the US.
I keep repeating myself: President Rubio appoints Sen Cruz to the Supreme Court. Wouldn’t you want Justice Cruz for 30 years instead of President Cruz for 8.
Orson:
I am so over those who make excuses for actions of Trump that, in any other candidate, they would be roundly condemning.
Cult of personality, whether you recognize it or not.
I am also so over a commenter such as yourself referring to what I write as “whining.”
So you think that Trump had to prostitute himself in order to make money. No doubt he also had to praise Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi; just no way to avoid that, right? His biggest beef with Pelosi was that she didn’t try to impeach George W. Bush, who was the “evil” one (according to Trump, that is). I suppose his business interests required that, too? (Read the post I just linked to if you don’t recall what Trump said.)
This in potentially interesting as well.
As far as Trump going back-and-forth on issues goes, you write that this is “irrelevant” to most voters, including LIVs. But I was not evaluating whether this trait of Trump’s (or the others on my list) appeals to most voters or not, or whether they care about it. That list was not a list of why most voters will like or dislike him—although it just so happens that polls indicate most voters do not like him. But that’s not what that list was illustrating. If you actually read and understood what I was saying, I was listing the reasons that people who oppose Trump might give for opposing him.
Trump’s cult of personality is broken when the dirt is dished on Donald. He has dealt with the Mob for years. Hundreds of lawsuits. Four bankruptcies. The United States can’t file Chapter 11.
There must be a better list somewhere. Government is not some private business where it is a matter of relative moral and legal and associative indifference if it is run as a private estate by an imperious self-serving semi-sociopath egomaniac.
At least that is not what a republic is supposed to allow; and no citizen worth considering as a moral peer in a republic, would want Zuckerberg, or Turner, or Jobs, any other amoral manipulative egocentric son-of-a-bitch like them meddling in his life through the agency of government.
Raincityjazz, is unfortunately, probably right in his surmise concerning the Kardashian class of moral zombie infesting our body politic as part of the Democrat Party Client Class.
It only feeds my own conclusion that half the population inhabiting this country is simply not constitutionally fitted by nature, education, temperament, or culture, to be part of a self-governing liberty oriented polity.
Any reading of history of course shows that most political arrangements have been overflowing with these kinds of destructive and nihilistic appetite entities. Eventually they wreck or taint the quality of life for anyone who is forced, or acquiesces, to associate with them in a cost distributing arrangement.
The relative genius of our system, at one time, was that they were constitutionally limited in the amount of damage they could do when trying to spread the spillover costs of their brainless emotional neediness.
It is of course their first order of business – reproductively you might even say – to make sure that keeping them at arm’s length, is the last thing you can do.
Unless I have misread much of what Neo has posted links to, a good deal of Trump’s supposed “strength” lies with people who are among the most unlikely to actually vote in the first place. An army that cannot be counted on show up for the real battle; or on your side if they do.
An army that cannot be counted on show up for the real battle; or on your side if they do.
That was only ever true in an age that didn’t have social media and the internet. Do you know that people organize flash mobs using twitter and FB now a days?
Had some talks with folks, real and internet type.
I think somebody already described this type but I’ve forgotten the acronym. It’s not Low Information Voter. It’s Low Cognition Voter. This doesn’t mean stupid or ill-informed.
It means believing that, for example, republican or conservative policies are evil without knowing or wanting to know what they are. It’s like believing the Tea Party is violent despite the complete absence of evidence that it’s true and the enormous amount of evidence that it is false.
I have been used to thinking these people lied and knew they lied but underestimated the number of people who knew they lied.
I now think they actually believe these things. That’s why the term “low cognition” fits them, despite any education they may have and expertise in other fields.
Far as I can tell, there are far more of them on the left. Probably because it’s a defense mechanism to protect them from consciously understanding how wrong the are. And those on the left seem to be considerably more wrong about various things than those on the right. Examples would be communism, the economic stability of socialism, how many tens of millions died of lefty ideas. How government power inevitably corrupts.
And I think I see more low cognition voters than ever before.
Self-interest, along with “fear” is the usual go-to concept for “explaining” why people filter out information which would contradict the reality they have constructed for themselves.
Let’s grant the paradigm as applying to all persons, for the sake of argument.
We can see (hypothetically) that whereas the left critiques the right’s supposed blinders on the basis of a putative personal selfishness which operates by appropriating parts of the material world for exclusive use and direction, and which finds its political expression in the term “individualism; we could also easily construct a parallel in which the self-interests of the organisms which we call the left-wing type, would be met by a system of interpersonal appropriation we call “collectivism”.
Altruism, would then, merely be their word for a collectivist strategy which advances their practical interest in farming the farmers, so to speak.
This is where the fundamental breakdown occurs in the imagined old-timey system of moral action which is predicated on, and only justified by, a supposed reciprocity and distributive benefit.
Again for the umpteenth time, the organisms of the left need from the right, what the right neither needs nor wants from them. It is easy to see their filtering [where and to whom applicable] as a psychological defense mechanism for those on the left who still – unlike so many of their contemporaries in recent years- are unwilling to completely abandon the notion that they inhabit and believe in an objective morality. For them, their residuum of classic moral conceptions gets in the way of admitting their amoral instrumental version of social action.
Now of course, most of the more ardent voices on the left have long ceased to believe in objective morals, and have quit pretending that their social engineering feats have a distributive benefit. They are content to see compromise as a mere strategy in the war of what are fundamentally incompatible interests and life ways jockeying for eventual dominance within a given polity and geography.
The run of the mill “liberal” is probably not quite yet prepared to go so far; and therefore needs this defense mechanism you refer to, in order to convince himself that he is not just seeking to become an exploiter and murderer himself.
The upcoming generation will have no such residual inhibitions if their teachers continue to be as successful as they have been.
They will then cheerfully admit that they are nihilists, between belches, as they dine on your flesh.