Are you ready for Iowa?
Here’s a thread for tonight’s festivities.
The results won’t be out till very late, I assume. I’m not going to pay attention till then.
This explains how the caucuses work. It’s pretty interesting, especially the difference between how the Democrats and Republicans run them:
10:24 PM: ABC projects a Donald Trump loss. I, for one, am glad. Rubio is doing rather well, and Cruz is ahead, while Clinton and Sanders are neck and neck.
If you had met a time-traveler, and a year or two ago he had told you that these would be the 2016 results in the Iowa primary, what would you have said?
11:09 PM: O’Malley and Huckabee both have dropped out.
12:20 PM: So, here’s my next question: when will Jeb Bush drop out? Yeah, I know the answer is that it almost certainly won’t happen any time soon. Another question: did Trump hurt himself in Iowa by not debating? It does seem that his absence allowed Rubio to come forward, and Rubio took full advantage of the opportunity.
[Hat tip: Legal Insurrection.]
Republican caucuses here in Utah are similar for 2016. In previous years there was a presidential primary, but this year the primary will be part the caucus. At the caucus we also select candidates who represent us at a state party convention where candidates for state offices and US Congress are chosen.
I was taken aback a bit when I read an earlier article by Neo about some people being afraid and it occurred to me that perhaps we all should be afraid. We have had a lot of confusion at the national level trying decide what our nation should be and I am afraid now that we have turned the corner into becoming a banana republic (lower case) we have not had a real war for a number of years but we have over decorated flag officers who never lead any one into harms way but they were careful of the feelings of those they command.
We have all sorts of failures in almost every part of the executive branch and no one in any party has the guts to hold anyone accountable. The appointments to high levels are worse than Grant’s when he took care of his buddies.
So yep, it is time to pay attention and see if we can work our way out of this as a democratic (lower case) nation. Lots of folks much smarter than I have been pointing concerns so let’s hold our breath and see if tonight’s news makes any sense.
It is early, (41% reporting), but Cruz and Rubio both seem to be doing better than expected while Trump is not doing quite as well. In Cruz’ case, I attribute it to a better ground game: political analysts have been saying for weeks that he has a very good organization on the ground. In Rubio’s case, I think he did very well in the last debate and people who pay little attention to politics woke up and said “hey, there’s a good looking guy to vote for!” In Trump’s case, I think his turnout is not as good as the pundits predicted.
And finally, Carson is doing very well. That is good. My only regret so far is that Fiorina is not doing better.
We shall see, but right now I’m cautiously optimistic about how things are trending.
Good tracking site:
https://www.iagopcaucuses.com/#/state
Looking good for Cruz so far. Trump is seriously underperforming, and Rubio is doing better than expected.
Decision Desk HQ twitter (Ace) is calling it for Cruz.
Results from my caucus:
Cruz 39
Carson 22
Rubio 19
Jeb! 7
Paul 7
the donald 5
Kasich 4
Fiorina 1
Christie 1
A large turn out for my caucus. Rubio has come on strong. BTW, I received a call a bit too late from the coordinator I report to that stated Carson has announced he will drop out of the race. That is good news, now if some others who have absolutely no chance of winning the nomination would fold their tent we could see Trump fall back to 3rd or even 4th. Very quickly.
I enjoy the caucus process. After the votes are counted and party business has been decided; many people stay for informal discussion.
It will be interesting to see if the Trump bubble bursts. I like it when things get interesting.
Cruz on top. Thank you Iowa!
parker: thanks for all your hard work! It paid off! I heard Carson IS NOT dropping out. Huckabee just dropped out though.
Congrats to Ace’s Decision Desk calling it more than half an hour before anyone else.
> It will be interesting to see if the Trump bubble bursts.
I waiting to see what insults Trump can come up with that he hasn’t already used. My guess is that he will start by writing off the population of Iowa, but there must be something he hasn’t said about Cruz and it is about time he gets started on Rubio.
Parker writes “Jeb!”
For whatever reason that made me laugh.
parker:
I want to personally thank you for all your very hard work.
Cornhead, too.
Nate Silver had a good piece a day or two ago, about the consequences if Cruz won and Rubio did well (second or a strong third). At that point, it will begin to look like a conventional Republican race, with an extremely conservative, evangelical favorite winning Iowa, and an establishment-favored moderate conservative hoping to overcome in the succeeding primaries. The establishment-favored moderate conservative usually–always, actually–wins these contests.
I think that is where we are.
@Chuck: Trump’s speech was gracious. He congratulated Ted and the GOP field. His only snide remarks were directed at Hillary.
Looking to see what Cruz says.
y81:
Well, just as I said if Trump won Iowa it wasn’t over for the others, I say that even after this we’ve not seen the last of Trump. Or the people who have loved him.
But still, I’m having a very happy night. Although I hoped for this result I didn’t expect it. I knew that Iowa polls are unreliable, at least based on history, so I kept some hope, but I had no clue what was going to happen.
Trump did give a good speech. I half way expected a reprise of his “How stupid are the people of Iowa?” thing he did awhile ago.
Remember – only 1 winner of Iowa has won the nomination in the last 8 or 9 primaries. Cruz needs to keep the ground game going.
My daughter made an interesting observation during Trump’s speech: the audience was holding up thousands of cellphone cameras. It was not that way for Rubio’s speech: those were not there for the celebrity, they were there for him and for America. Trump’s supporters were there for the photo op. Different tenor in the two camps.
I’d like to add my thanks to Parker and Cornhead. Their insights and experiences have added much to our understanding of how things have shaped up in Iowa.
Special kudos to Parker for getting deeply involved in the campaign. That’s citizenship at its very best. We should all do our parts in our states as well.
Parker did a job. I watched the Carter Lake caucus. Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Two votes for Carly.
Report on Power Line tomorrow.
Neo,
This has been a really energizing campaign. I feel like I am 40. 😉 I truly believe Cruz is the real deal. I have not been so enthusiastic about a presidential candidate since Reagan. I spoke with Cruz very briefly on Sunday after the rally and asked him to put Fiorina at the top of his VP list. What a great ticket that would be.
parker,
Congrats, the ground game did indeed count.
I’d also like to add my thanks to Parker. Many of us here have been very impressed by his hard work.
Since I grew up in Iowa, the process has a little extra meaning for me, and I’m not talking about nostalgia.
To my eyes, Trump has been like a mass psychosis infecting some of the sanest people in the country. Fighting that kind of thing couldn’t have been fun. Now it’ll be interesting to see how the people of New Hampshire react to this plague. I’m still nervous about how it will end.
I’m only surprised at how strongly Rubio surged.
I’m glad Trump is in the race — expanding the Overton window.
Colbert has a video up — Donald versus Mr. Trump.
It was effortless for The Daily Show to find clips showing instant pivots// flip flops etc.
It’s impossible to build a big base — when you’re comedy material.
Trump has been in the public storm for so long —
If nominated, the Left will really pour on the coals.
Right now they just want to have fun with him — but keep it light as the Left hopes that Trump gets the nod.
&&&&&
Dr. Carson has lost momentum — and should drop out.
The Dole faction — GOPe — pulled out all the stops — to stop Ted.
&&&&
H1b is a talent scam — but does not generate waves of illegal aliens. After the indenture is finished, the alien has to leave.
Barry Soetoro is trying to tweak the program via EO so that he can morph the scheme into more Indians and Chinese.
The average Joe is not hip to poison pill amendments — so Ted’s being tarred as flipping on immigration.
Whereas he’s always been a Constitutionalist.
I have been one tiny part of the Cruz victory, others have done much more than parker. It was a real grassroots effort. Cruz has a smart ground game (yes GB, the ground game is extremely important). I don’t expect him to win NH, 3rd would be a ‘victory’. I hope he takes SC, and gains unstoppable momentum. Its a long dusty, gravel road ahead. I offer no prediction about the outcome.
Good news IMHO, Cruz wins it!!!!
And, Rubio is nipping at Trump’s heels.
Now the Dems are in for interesting times with that Clinton/Sanders tie as of this commenting.
Cruz’s speech was fantastic if a bit long. Still he held people’s attention and came out very strong with a real vision.
liberty wolf:
That’s a wonderful image–Rubio nipping at Trump’s heels. I can see Rubio as a pesky dog, maybe a Lhasa Apso.
Nothing against Rubio or Lhasa Apsos.
Whew!
Let’s hope the focus will now shift. I really believe that if the media quits talking about Trump incessantly, he will eventually become an after thought. Unfortunately, at 10pm PST, the FNC Peeps are still talking about Trump. Turns out, according to talking heads, Iowa was never a good venue for Trump. Who knew?
This is Iowa. It has not picked the winner in decades. Cruz staked everything on Iowa and won. But will it help him in New Hampshire and South Carolina?
The big winner was Rubio because he far outperformed the rest of the establishment field. Look for the GOPe money to start moving in his direction.
Trump lost. He invested heavily in Iowa and came in second. Rubio almost beat him.
The most fun result was on the Democrat side.
I give Ted Cruz lots of credit for coming out against the ethanol mandate. The conventional wisdom is that doing so is the “kiss of death” in Iowa. Trump, to his discredit, pandered and lost.
PatD,
Itis so difficult for me grok you. One post I agree, the next post I see you as a dnc shill. Who is the real PatD? Perhaps or perhaps not you are what? I want to find a middle ground, but just as I think it may exist, you go squirrelly.
I’m VERY relieved that Trump didn’t take Iowa, glad that Cruz won even if it was a plurality, but less than happy that Rubio seems to be gaining. The results don’t really mean there was a clear favorite however. I hope we are not seeing a pattern here with Cruz and Rubio fighting each other that could give Trump an opening in other less evangelical leaning states. Watch for a major shift in Trump’s speeches if his one tonight is any indication.
@Parker: The Carson campaign is calling the Cruz campaign out for falsely claiming Carson was dropping. You got the memo and reported it on this thread.
Glad to have confirmation from you that the Cruz campaign actually did make that false claim.
Just a thought – the 11th hour timing of a word about Carson dropping out makes me wonder if someone tricked the Cruz campaign into getting egg on their face. In the heat of the final push, when they are scrambling for every voter they can persuade, you know they will use data like that if it’s handed to them and it appears legit. It’s still incumbent on the Cruz campaign to verify before using, but if you were trying to manipulate them into using false info, that would be the timing to go for, when they would be most over-stretched and likely to buy into it. On the other hand, maybe someone inside the campaign got a little too tricky. It will be interesting to get more information.
Early this pm, Carson announced he was going home – not on to SC or NH. Later, the networks had to clarify that he was NOT dropping out. Implying that that’s what people were mistakenly thinking. I hope Carson’s campaign doesn’t act bitter like Santorum and Huckabee did. Not very Christian of them. Besides, Carson got close to the 10% he was expected to win – so it must not have damaged him.
The polls were way off on Iowa.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lead-iowa-caucus-polls-2016_us_56af5e53e4b077d4fe8ea9ae?utm_hp_ref=%40pollster
Polls: Rubio at 17.4%, Cruz at 23.8% and Trump at 30.7%.
Result: Rubio at 23.1%, Cruz at 27.7% and Trump at 24.3%.
While Iowa is not a good predictor of winners, it is a sure predictor of losers. The 2012 results were:
Santorum: 24,6%
Romney: 24.6%
Paul: 21.5%
Gingrich: 13.3%
Perry: 10.4%
Bachmann: 5%
Anyone under 10% was a sure fire loser. So now it is a 3 man race between Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I list them in that order because it is Outsider, Semi-Outsider and Insider. I expect the GOPe will back Rubio over Cruz and Trump.
The huge field of GOP candidates has been whittled down to three in the first contact with actual voters. If history is any guide, Rubio has the inside track because he is the insider. Just like Romney was.
Parker, Cornhead, and Nen Neocom, for your efforts to date, you are hereby adjudged BADGER APPROVED!
I’m not a BADGER, but I second SCOTT. Thanks for helping us keep this race a few miles above the MSM version.
I am delighted that Cruz was able to prove that serious conservative value are important to voters. Maybe candidates for congress will learn something so that whoever the next president is will have real backing to make the changes we need. I am also happy that he defied the conventional wisdom on the necessity of subsidies. If the I
owans are willing to give up ethanol, can we expect less of other states?
I am also happy that Rubio has shown that one bad decision is not enough to ruin a candidate. It should be possible to listen to the public and change your mind, although not every ten minutes as Trump does. I am also happy that he has widened the issues being considered by the people and talked about foreign policy.
I am happy that instead of talking about his great polling numbers, Trump will now have to talk about real votes. If he doesn’t shut up and go away, he could at least stop making faces. I hope the MSM sends him a bill for all the air time they have given him.
I hope that the other candidates will soon drop out and form some sort of team that defines Republican issues. They should celebrate the end of the circular firing squad and promise to continue working, in whatever capacity, to bring about meaningful changes in our goverment. Carly should be recognized for her efforts to simplify and downsize government, and Carson should be praised for showing that a coversational tone is a good way to talk to people.
Finally, I hope that the Trumbots find something else to do with their time. Maybe they could read up on issues or plant a garden or lose their money at a casino.
Blizzard in Omaha right now. School cancelled. Turnout would have been drastically cut if blizzard was yesterday.
My report is posted now on Power Line.
I knew from the first time I saw Ted he would be first or second given his appeal to churched people and ground game in Iowa. Trump has the vote of those who are fed up. Rubio now has the other conservative voters.
Disappointed and sad for Carly. Only two votes for her out of 133 cast at my event. I suspect voters who might have been hers went to Rubio just as a pragmatic matter. Bush had zero votes even though the former Omaha mayor spoke for him.
Trump’s good ship Inevitability Factor has taken a hull breach. If Rubio and Cruz continue to move up and the Donald’s run in his new hit reality show, The Choice, ends in the semi-finals, what happens to the rabid Trumpers, whose activism would be sorely needed by the eventual nominee to fight off the Alinsky kamikazes on the left?
Since Cruz took took all Trump’s heat until now, many of his fans (at least on Breitbart) painted themselves into a corner, saying they could never vote for a Goldman-Sachs Canadian anchor baby. However, a fair number said he was their second option. In any case, since their most important issue was illegal immigration, their only option would be Cruz.
Once the GOPe money is all behind Rubio, Cruz has to expose Rubio’s amnesty preferences. And Trump had better back Cruz at that point or expose himself as the fraud he probably has been all along on immigration.
Jeb Bush will drop out after Super Tuesday, March 1.
I’m going to say nothing new. The Iowa results just seem to validate it and make it a reality. Rubio is actually in the cat bird’s seat. Many people think Trump’s numbers were always his max. Cruz also has the same issue I think. It is Rubio, who by doing better than expected, will become the establishment candidate, because he has tried hard to straddle the fence. As the others drop out, I think Rubio becomes the natural place for their votes to end up, making him stronger and stronger as this goes on. The only thing that will derail him is if Kasich (Ohio-critical state) and Bush (Florida-critical state) stay in it. I don’t put it past either of them. I have long liked Ted Cruz but thought him unelectable in the final race. Trump? No comment. I’ve been a Rubio fan but not sure he’s ready. But one thing for sure, he’s electable. If Bush and/or Kasich can’t see that by staying in it past NH (add Carson etc as well) they hand the election to Trump or the Demoncrats, then they are either egotists or selfish.
The entrenched interests in larger government power have already selected Sen. Rubio as their man. This isn’t a matter of future development.
Jeb! who says “I am my own man” shows he is his own man in the same sense in which a slave says as much. Jeb! will not vary from his enlistment with the entrenched interests of power should he leave the race. We can expect he throws in with Sen. Rubio in that event.
Sen. Cruz has a difficult problem to overcome, for he must fight not merely the entrenched interests of Washington power — i.e. both political parties to the extent that both have been captured by greed for more power to the detriment of the people — but also the pretend “outsider” Trump, and the political media (which for practical purposes is all of the commercial media, including the supposed “opposition” media Fox). This isn’t to say that Sen. Cruz cannot succeed, but to say he will only succeed with the aid of us little people recognizing our own interests opposed to those interests of the entrenched powers. To that end, Sen. Cruz must lead our fellow citizens to recognize their common cause with those of us who already recognize our common cause against the “powers that be”. It’s not a given. But it is the rhetorical task at hand.
As a possible sign that Sen. Cruz is up to the task I’ve posited for him, I suggest we regard neo-neocon’s question
in a slightly narrower light: namely, what would you have said if someone claimed a campaign entered Iowa with stalwart opposition to corn-ethanol subsidies and still came out the victor? This, I assert, may be a sign of two distinct things together, 1) that Sen. Cruz is a capable rhetorician, and 2) that Americans are independently beginning to catch a clue for themselves what a peril their governance is in.
Cruz had a year or more to focus exclusively on Iowa and the development of his marvelous ground game. It will be interesting to see if he can carry this forward as the primaries accelerate and compress. A superior data-driven ground game has been our nemesis for the last two general elections.
Trump:
Oh, there’s nothing halfway
About the Iowa way to treat you
When we treat you… which we may not do at all!
And when the man dances,
certainly boys! What else!
The piper pays him!
Yesss sir! Yesss sir!
But he doesn’t know the territory!
Very pleasing to have Cruz win definitively in Iowa.
Would that he can do that in New Hampshire and South Carolina and forward.
Time for Trump to stop smearing Cruz.
Hillary won SIX coin tosses. Who actually believes that ? They even cheat at the level of coin tosses.
The polls (properly interpreted) were right and the reason for Cruz’s pre vote intense focus on Rubio now becomes apparent. Or does it? Actually, it was apparent all along for those of us who kept an open mind and looked at the data carefully like Cruz did. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t surprised by this.
‘Trump, Cruz and Rubio. I list them in that order because it is Outsider, Semi-Outsider and Insider.’
Sheesh? Where do you get this stuff? Trump is the insider of all insiders from the other side; he’s been bribing politicians all his life.
And if Rubio is a insider the establishment is scrapping the bottle of the barrel these days.
Sen. Rubio isn’t a bad guy just because the entrenched interests of power have selected him. After all, he can reject them if he chooses. But that the confirmed big-government interests have selected Rubio as their preferred next resort to the failure of Jeb! is every day more apparent. Poor Dana Perino, to have to maintain a perky mien as her favorite Jeb! drowns in his own incompetence.
But Sen. Rubio for his part made his major mistake allying with the Gang of Eight, and with it the policy direction chosen by those who push an amnestied solution to our massive illegal alien problem. So he showed a lack of political prudence early in his national career, justifying our skepticism of his wisdom in decision.
And yet, he hasn’t moved off that position. Yeesh, doesn’t that confirm that Sen. Rubio doesn’t learn from his mistakes, but chooses instead the classic hack politician’s option to dissemble, or to attack his actual opponent on that particular issue (Sen. Cruz) with a sophistical attempt to paint Sen. Cruz as a proponent of the very thing Rubio himself erred in? So he can change, but first he’d have to change what he seems unwilling to change. It’s up to him. Americans didn’t ask he favor amnesty, particularly when he ran his Senate campaign saying he would oppose it.
Steve:
“And if Rubio is a insider the establishment is scrapping the bottle of the barrel these days.”
He’s actually the logical candidate for both the GOPe and the Marxists, now that Jeb is tanking. Not only is he pretty, charming, articulate, with a great teary-eyed life narrative, but he’s still all in for amnesty for illegals, which is now the defining issue of this campaign.
If he wins the nomination, he’ll be in the unenviable position Romney was, unable to attack whichever Bolshevik he’s up against on illegal immigration, which is generating all the anger and activism coming from Trump’s supporters and many others in all demographics.
What’s he gonna say – “Yeah, but I won’t grant amnesty until I say the border is secure”?
Even with Rubio as POTUS, the Marxists win, they just won’t get their new 20-30 million reliable Democrat votes in time to take back both houses of Congress in 2018, that’s all. They can wait another couple years, after all, they’ve been at it since 1917. And the Chamber of Commerce gets the benefit of cheap labor until 2020, when Pres Michelle Obama signs the EO forcing them to sell her all the rope – at a loss.
I wish the Rubio supporters who are not deliberately pro-RINO would understand what’s at stake.
The prospect of Rubio as POTUS is disquieting. I do not trust him, can’t say why, but just do not.
At best we had a maybe… the others were certainties for a marxist end… the maybe might have been in too, but thats all we had… there were no other choices, and going forward there are less and less
which i guess is the point of working things they way they do… that way, a loss is just a lesser win and the rubes get played either way. heads they win big, tails they win small – and ultimately in the long run, everyone but them loses – which is why they are in it and colluding in the first place. in the wprld they like you only have two types of people, the people on the bottom, unter menchen, the people on the top, uber menchen.
given their williingness to rule in hell of their own making rather than a heaven of anothers, and their victims desire to have saints over humans, they win and will always win, as they have will and will cooperate while others are scattered and argue.
@Steve D:
It is their position relative to the GOP establishment. They hate Trump despite the vast sums he donated to the GOP over the years. They dislike Cruz. They like Rubio.
Rubio is the next Romney.
When it all started, I had high hopes. Not so much any longer. There were by my count seven sitting, or former, successful Governors who had proven themselves. Everyone rejected.
While the picture is not completely clear, it is coming into focus. Looks as though America will elect either another first term Senator with a thin resume; or a corrupt political hack, who rode into town on her husband’s coat tails; or an avowed Socialist with his hair on fire; or a blustering bully with too much hair. Did I miss anyone? As G. W. Bush would say, “God Bless the United States of America”– because we will need Divine guidance, and likely intervention.
Of the choices available, I do hope for Cruz.
“It is their position relative to the GOP establishment. They hate Trump despite the vast sums he donated to the GOP over the years. They dislike Cruz. They like Rubio.”
Let’s distinguish a few things. First off, it may not be necessary to formally separate the Republican establishment types from the Democrat establishment types, to the extent that they cooperate to work hand in hand with one another to maintain their mutual interests. Granted, they pretend to differences, but these are as they well know minor differences kept for the sake of appearances.
Second, the ruling class sorts fear you. You. They fear the people seizing back power proper to the people as such. Any politician who acts as a representative of the people recovering their sovereign power will be the primary target of the ruling class. In this instance, this politician is Ted Cruz. He is the primary danger to the ruling class. They know it, and will do everything in their power to prevent this outcome.
As to Donald Trump, who will use the anger of the country class toward the ruling class to his own advantage to obtain power, him the ruling class will instantly recognize as one of their own. The ruling class may doubt how fully they can control such a person once he attains to power, but they understand him very well. They will seek to work with him, to mold him, to shape him to their needs. But they will hold something in reserve insofar as they do not control him fully now.
Rubio offers some measure of the same position (rhetorically) as Sen. Cruz to the people. The question with Rubio, however, remains whether he succeeds in departing from his current alliance with the ruling class. He’s fence riding, so to speak. So on the one hand he’s already a known entity to the ruling class, but on rhetorical grounds at least is not entirely in their camp, and therefore poses a slight danger to them. Of these three alternatives though, he’s their best bet. They know this too.
sdferr:
Very appropriate use of The Music Man.
Come to think of it, Trump is a lot like the Music Man, except (to me) without the charm. He obviously charms a lot of people though.
There’s also that song about Iowa: “Iowa Stubborn.”
I don’t think I’ve ever gone into this on the blog, but I have encyclopedic knowledge of Broadways musicals of the 40s through early 60s. If I do say so myself. I saw them all as a child (on Broadway), and had the records. There was no internet then, and I used to amuse myself (when I wasn’t reading or with my friends) by playing solitaire and listening to the records.
Without the charm, and without the actual falling in love story to give him roots.
And it may go without saying Hill falls in love with a woman who reads Rabelais.
And too, Daniel started it.
PatD:
You seem to be in the habit of making comparisons based on a single characteristic. And interestingly enough, it seems to be the same characteristic for each comparison: what the “establishment” thinks of a candidate.
First it was Reagan and Trump, two men who practically are opposites as human beings and in background and political philosophy. You pointed out their likeness because the establishment didn’t like them initially. Now it’s Rubio and Romney, who you think are alike because the establishment likes them. Otherwise—in experience, background, age, wealth, and even politics (Rubio was originally a Tea Party candidate, and he has remained in that mold except for a softening—and then a slight hardening again—on illegal immigration).
sdferr:
Oh, I didn’t see Daniel’s. That’s “Iowa Stubborn,” the one I mentioned.
Nice.
neo-neocon:
You mentioned playing solitaire when you were a youngin. Don’t know if you have seen that Donald Rumsfeld created an app for Churchill Solitaire. A version of solitaire that was passed down to him when he was the NATO ambassador. It uses two decks of cards, 10 instead of seven columns and other stuff. Supposedly much more complex to play then regular solitaire.
PatD, I am sorry but I think that is nonsensical. Romney was a man with broad accomplishments and proven executive ability. Rubio speaks well, has a nice smile and a very sparse resume.
I have something to say on this idea of “the establishment”. I am puzzled by what people are bitching about (excuse me). By the establishment, folks apparently mean the people who contribute their time and money, and work to get Republican candidates elected; and the very politicians who represent the political party in government. So, what is the anti-establishment? A bunch of renegades who want to tear down the Republican party? Hey, start your own party if you are unhappy. It just seems nonsensical to constantly demonize the very people who hold the party together.
The manner in which the term RINO is used is also ludicrous. In my humble opinion, the people who throw that term around fit the description of “Republican in Name Only, closer than do the ones the pejorative is aimed at. It is just silly to label a Romney, or others, who ran and governed as Republicans with that term. Like it or not, they are the mainstream of the party.
Why do people who cannot accept the Republican Party as it is constituted; who withhold support from the party, and even threaten to boycott candidates even call themselves Republicans? If they feel so far removed from the Republican establishment, which by definition is the core of the party, they should seek alternatives.
Heh. For some reason unknown to me, “Come up to my place” has invaded my internal musical playlist.
Frog
1. If Marco went to the border and “confessed” on immigration I think it would help immeasurably.
2. Read Powerline’s endorsement of Marco. John Hinderaker is a solid conservative.
” Like it or not, they are the mainstream of the party.”
Then like it or not Oldflyer, if there is no alternative to the “as constituted” Republican party (such as harsh criticism, for instance, rebuke and solid opposition) then the “as constituted” Republican party which refuses to abide by the Constitution as written succeeds in throwing that compact out the window, or worse, makes it into dead letter. Which is what progressivism so strongly desires. Let’s go with severe criticism for awhile. Maybe we’ll either persuade these Republican sell-outs to change their actions, or replace them with men and women who’ll do right by our national compact.
Okay, Neo, here a test:
“Think about the game, the game, the game
Think about the game!”
People, the primaries are the scrimmage, not the game. Stop thinking about who is the most “principled conservative.” A principled conservative cannot win a national election. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
Think about who can beat Hillary, or more likely, Biden. Cruz will not get any independents or Reagan Democrats, who are necessary to win. Who is the best candidate to do that?
Neo:
“If you had met a time-traveler, and a year or two ago he had told you that these would be the 2016 results in the Iowa primary, what would you have said?”
First, I’d echo Oldflyer. What happened to the governors and more-established Congressmen?
Second, I’d ask him to explain why Donald Trump of all people is so high on the leaderboard.
Third, I’d ask him what to make of the 180K turn-out compared to the 120K expected turn-out. That’s a lot of variable to throw off predictions. How was that turn-out brought about, what were the voters’ motives, and which candidate(s) did the unexpected increase benefit?
Fourth, credit where credit is due to the Tea Party. I remain critical that they curtailed their cultural grassroots campaign to focus inside the GOP (they should do both) but the Cruz campaign, compared to the establishment candidates, shows they’ve made progress within that context.
Fifth, Clinton vs Sanders. Compare to Clinton vs Obama, 2008.
geokstr:
“what happens to the rabid Trumpers, whose activism would be sorely needed by the eventual nominee to fight off the Alinsky kamikazes on the left?”
That the Cruz campaign may have misled Carson supporters – which as PatD points out parker corroborated – perhaps to try to pull them over to the other religion-oriented candidate, indicates their ground game may not be the only set of tools they’ve signed out of the activist workshop.
Would the Trump-front alt-Right activists aid another candidate’s campaign, particularly Cruz?
I tend to think so.
Entryism is part of the Left activist playbook, and for their long march, alt-Right activists are mimicking the Left.
The engine of the Trump phenomenon – his core constituency – is supporters, not “cult” followers. So far, the Trump campaign has served their interests. If he stops serving their interests, they’ll go wherever their interests are served.
If re-guising and shifting to another, likely Cruz, campaign brings them a step closer to their goal of displacing mainstream conservatives and taking over the GOP, I assume they’ll weigh their interests accordingly.
“By the establishment, folks apparently mean the people who contribute their time and money, and work to get Republican candidates elected; and the very politicians who represent the political party in government.” Oldflyer
I’m one of those who frequently uses the term RINO.
Sir, you’re living in the past. Today;
Sadly, the great majority of people who contribute their time to the GOPe are the establishment’s useful idiots, who foolishly or ignorantly, still believe that the GOP has America’s interests at heart.
The people who contribute large amounts of money expect to be compensated in a quid pro quo arrangement. In the 2012 election, 66% of the contributions to Romney’s campaign came from big donors. Those big donors want immigrants, though 87% of republicans oppose it, yet the politicians support their donor’s wishes.
The people who work to get Republican establishment candidates elected and are paid to do so, are the establishment’s servants… good servants place their master’s interests first.
And 98% of the Republican politicians represent the GOPe’s interests in government.
Other than the useful idiots, NONE of these people place their country before their own interests.
The proof of this is that the Republican establishment heavily favors open borders and a path to citizenship. 70+% of immigrants favor a socialist society, where liberty is at best a secondary consideration. That demographic deluge left unchecked ensures both one-party rule in America and the destruction of our Constitutional guarantees. Whatever they may be, such are NOT conservatives, who seek to conserve what is best in the American way of life. Indeed, they are the very definition of RINO.
Richard Saunders:
You call that a test? Gimme a hard one.
First of all, with Google, you can’t tell if I’m looking it up or if I know it without looking it up—but yes, “Damn Yankees” is one of the many I know all the words to— including all the patter, by they way.
Seen the play, seen the movie. In the case of “Damn Yankees” and some of the others that were even earlier (“Oklahoma,” for example) I was a bit too young to be taken to the original productions and I saw the revivals at City Center. But beginning with “My Fair Lady” and moving all the way through “Fiddler,” I saw all the originals (except “West Side Story,” which my parents must have thought too upsetting or something). The movies can’t compare.
I even saw some obscure ones and know all the words. “Take Me Along,” for example.
A favorite in terms of politics was “Fiorello.” Some great songs in that one about politics, including “The Bum Won.” Speaking of which, see this.
Frog,
“Read Powerline’s endorsement of Marco. John Hinderaker is a solid conservative.”
I did, Hindraker is saying that electibility is all that counts. He’s forgetting the law of unintended consequences.
Electibility is important but whether intentionally or not, Rubio will ensure that within 20 years there will be one party rule in America and perhaps unintentionally, that the good things he does support are swept away.
As President, his support for a path to citizenship for illegals and lip service to controlled borders, along with a RINO congress in collusion with the dems, will doom America.
Whether the maliciousness of Hillary or the opportunistic fool that is Rubio, the destination is the same.
Geoffrey Britain:
You write, “[Rubio’s] support for a path to citizenship for illegals and lip service to controlled borders” as though that’s a fact.
Now, there is no doubt that Rubio supported the Gang of 8, and therefore if you don’t trust him on citizenship it is understandable. But ever since the Gang of 8 bill fell, his rhetoric for controlled borders has been strong (actually, it even was then; his error there was believing that the bill would accomplish it). The bill supported a path to citizenship, supposedly after the borders were secure.
Since then he has said he is against deportation. And he supports SOME illegal immigrants being able to get a green card. You may think he secretly still supports a path to citizenship, but it is not his platform. So don’t state it as a given; it is not.
Interestingly enough, Trump says he supports deportation and then he says, well, he’ll let them back (but doesn’t specify how this plan would actually work). And many times he has said “the good ones stay” and I don’t think he’s ever said he’s against a path to citizenship for “the good ones.”
In fact:
That’s pretty explicit. And I don’t think he’s ever explicitly disavowed it, although I haven’t done an exhaustive search (if you can find where he has, please offer it). And it was said in 2013, around the same time as the Gang of Eight.
So, Geoffery Brittain you are a RINO, eh?
Neo,
“ever since the Gang of 8 bill fell, his rhetoric for controlled borders has been strong (actually, it even was then; his error there was believing that the bill would accomplish it). The bill supported a path to citizenship, supposedly after the borders were secure.”
Surely we can agree that Rubio is not stupid nor politically naive?
NO Republican ever supposed the democrats to be sincere on controlling the borders. They all, including Rubio know (and knew) that the democrats are/were insincere and would never vote for legislation that did not ensure that the legislation’s verbiage contained a loophole so that the border could remain open.
Given that certainty, it’s ludicrous to assert that Rubio ever actually believed that the bill would enable the borders to be controlled.
As for Rubio’s rhetoric, it is exactly that, rhetoric. He’s already proven that rhetoric holds no loyalty to him. His promises to the Tea Party to NEVER support amnesty proves that beyond dispute. And proved him to be a political opportunist. So, since it blew up in his face, naturally he’s backpedaling as fast and hard as he can.
“Since then he has said he is against deportation.”
Red flag. Any politician actually serious about illegal immigration would be touting self-deportation. No jobs and no benefits = no illegals. They’re here for the money and benefits, cut that off and they leave. Go hard after the employers and the issue quickly dissipates.
“And he supports SOME illegal immigrants being able to get a green card.”
That is an admission of defeat, lawbreakers cannot be rewarded or you encourage law breaking.
“You may think he secretly still supports a path to citizenship, but it is not his platform. So don’t state it as a given; it is not.”
Neither leopards nor political opportunists change their spots. Hold Rubio to the same standard of circumstantial evidence that you do Trump.
I in no way support Trump, so when it comes to his flaws, you’re preaching to the choir.
Oldflyer,
??? Please explain your ‘logic’.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, I believe that as a young freshman senator Rubio was somewhat naive.
I also believe—and this is important—that he meant what he said when he said one of the main reasons he supported the bill is that he knew that Obama was going to do stuff by executive order re immigration, and he felt this was the only way to control it and stop some of it, and that was his motivation.
As I said, you don’t have to believe it. And of course, for all the others, their rhetoric on the border is ALSO just rhetoric. However, Rubio does not now support a path to citizenship and hasn’t since the bill fell through (it was a concession of his to the left in the bill, not his own preference). You may believe he does support it in his heart of hearts, but it is not his stated position.
And of course it’s Trump’s stated position–or at least it was in 2013, and I don’t think he’s ever disavowed it.
@neo-neocon:
In my mind, it was the GOP establishment that passed the Omnibus bill. It was a complete capitulation to Obama and a betrayal of conservative voters.
Rubio didn’t bother to vote on Omnibus.
Cruz voted against it,
Trump had harsh words for it.
The Omnibus bill represents everything that is wrong with the GOP establishment. It also explains why candidates perceived as outsiders, esp. Cruz and Trump, have the most traction. So, I think positioning candidates based on their Omnibus vote/record is a reasonable measure.
WRT Trump on immigration. The video is from 2013 and Trump was spouting conventional wisdom. Since then, his position has evolved. The explicit disavowal is the detailed Position paper on his campaign website. I understand he was influenced by Ann Coulter’s book “Adios America” and he consulted with Jeff Sessions before announcing his policy. Who counts as “good”? In his immigration policy position, Trump writes:
So, the “good” deportees who want to return legally would have to pass that barrier. Can we trust Trump on his new position? Who knows? It’s a crap-shoot. But I don’t trust anyone else, and I especially don’t trust Rubio.
Maybe Cruz can be trusted. Like Trump, he has some baggage on Immigration policy that he needs to shed. He recently called for a huge increase in H-1B visas, and he has evolved on the legalization issue. Cruz has more detail than Trump on his immigration plans on his web-site. There is quite a lot of overlap. Like Trump, he would end birthright citizenship. If his policies were implemented, a lot of illegals would be deported or forced to return home.
If illegal immigration is your primary issue, then it comes down to trust. The choices aren’t good because that evil GOP establishment has no interest in securing the border, as proven by the Omnibus bill. Candidates aligned with the GOP establishment won’t do anything effective about illegal immigration. In the end, we are left with just two options: Mr. Clown Car or Mr. Slick Lawyer.
Neo — well then, I have no doubt we agree that Hillary’s theme song should be “A Little Tin Box.”
neo,
“Yes, I believe that as a young freshman Senator Rubio was somewhat naive.”
Rubio’s political resume since the late 1990s:
>elected City Commissioner for West Miami
>elected to the Florida House of Representatives
>Rubio promoted to be one of two majority whips
>appointed House Majority Leader
>elected Speaker of the Florida House in 2005, and served as Speaker for two years.
>elected to the United States Senate in 2010
That is not the resume of a naive newcomer to politics. In the Senate, he knew from day one how the political ‘game’ is played.
“I also believe–and this is important–that he meant what he said when he said one of the main reasons he supported the bill is that he knew that Obama was going to do stuff by executive order re immigration, and he felt this was the only way to control it and stop some of it, and that was his motivation.”
I suspect that is the rationale he told himself to justify the betrayal of his emphatic promises to the constituents who elected him. A man of principle knows when he is rationalizing something his principles forbid.
Executive orders are revocable. History proves that political compromise with the dems always means giving up much more than you get.
It’s highly likely that many republicans advised him against joining the gang of eight. He’s another McCain, Boehner and McConnell. The party had already telegraphed his future acceptability as a nominee by having him give the rebuttal to an Obama SOTU address. Political ambition then led him to disregard the warnings because he needed substantive legislation on his resume.
“As I said, you don’t have to believe it.”
Well, I don’t believe it but I’m certainly willing to be proven wrong.
“And of course, for all the others, their rhetoric on the border is ALSO just rhetoric.”
Since none are also speaking of self-deportation, removing incentives and going after employers, I can’t disagree.
“However, Rubio does not now support a path to citizenship and hasn’t since the bill fell through (it was a concession of his to the left in the bill, not his own preference).”
That’s meaningless, as he’s already demonstrated that, what he now supports and does not support… will easily change when political calculation dictates otherwise.
“You may believe he does support it in his heart of hearts, but it is not his stated position.”
Only he knows what is in his heart. But given his track record*, his “stated position” is meaningless.
*Again, why does Trump’s track record matter but not Rubio’s? Might your understandable desperation to see someone beat the dem nominee be leading you to ignore in Rubio what you find unacceptable in Trump?
Geoffrey Britain:
Of course Rubio’s record matters. Why else would I be going into it? And the reason I compare it to Trump’s is that, for reasons that escape me, Trump is considered (by his supporters, that is, and I know you are not a supporter) so much more tough on immigration and so much more trustworthy than Rubio, but his record is essentially the same.
And for most people who oppose Rubio, Rubio’s immigration stance is the only reason—or certainly the main reason—they don’t like him, the one thing they have against him, and yet they cannot forgive him and that’s that. And yet there are far more things to hold against Trump (his immigration flip-flopping is something I find the LEAST objectionable of my very long list of objections), and he has the same flip-flopping record on amnesty, and yet they forgive him because he’s “evolved” and changed his mind.
Simply bizarre.
As for Rubio, I think he was somewhat naive about the Senate, where he was a new arrival. I don’t think he’s naive about it any more. I also think he was sincere in feeling they had to do something to stop Obama because of executive action, and Rubio felt the proposed bill was better than Obama because at least it contained stricter border provisions and a more controlled amnesty. He felt Obama was going to do amnesty as an executive action anyway.
This all seems quite plausible to me. Rubio has been conservative otherwise, including doing some very good stuff on Obamacare. But don’t just take my word for it—take Rush Limbaugh’s.
If Rubio’s record matters, then his sponsoring legislation directly contrary to his explicit promises, on a fundamental issue, should be especially noteworthy.
Nor is Rubio being ‘new and naive’ a credible explanation, given that Rubio joined the Senate in Jan of 2011 while the gang of eight legislation was crafted in the spring of 2013. So Rubio had been a Senator for more than two years… given his resume, it strains credulity to suggest that he was that ‘naive’. Plenty of people wrote, called and commented on the internet as to why the dems could not be trusted and Rubio ignored them.
He never withdrew his support, the legislation failed to garner the needed support. Only after it failed, and Rubio finally realized the critical political blunder that he had committed, did he start to spin it for damage control.
And, since Obama has never enforced the illegal immigration laws we already have and, does so with Congressional protection… what basis would there be for Rubio to assume that the proposed bill’s purported ‘stricter border provisions and more controlled amnesty’ would be honored and enforced?
Plus, when you consider that Rubio is acceptable to the GOPe, who strongly support open borders, how probable is it that he is actually opposed to amnesty?
Nor is Rubio betrayal on immigration the only issue.
Rubio has voted in support of much of Obama’s foreign policy, such as Libya and Egypt and arming “rebels” in Syria.
After Michele Bachmann and few other Congressmen called for an investigation of Muslim Brotherhood penetration into the Obama administration and government agencies, Sen. John McCain took to the Senate floor to condemn them. Sen. Marco Rubio joined McCain. Yet we all know that the Obama administration is filled with Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers and agents.
The reason people are unwilling to forget what Rubio has done is because of the cultural and demographic-electoral threat that open borders and unchecked immigration (legal and illegal) present to America. It is of singular importance because it is a mortal threat to America.
In running for the Senate, Rubio emphatically presented himself as on the right side of that issue and then joined with Congress’ most deceitful Senators (Schumer, Durbin , Flake, McCain and Graham) with a specious justification that working with Schumer was how to rein in Obama… please.
It’s not a matter of ‘forgiveness’, it’s a matter of what it reveals about the character of Marco Rubio, which is that he’s a political opportunist. One who has already betrayed fundamental American interests. That others are even worse, does not absolve him in the least.
“Flake” says it all. IMO Rubio is at best an opportunist. A vulture feeding on a carcass. I trust him less than trump, and I do not trust trump 1/1,000,000,000,000 of an inch.