The GOP Nomination--The Donald and So Much More!

[/dev/null]

No. That's a fedora.

[Ozymandius]

Yep, this sounds about right:

 

Fox News contributor and Democratic pollster Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that up to one-third of Republicans are ready to call it quits as members of the GOP.

“The alienation among Republican voters is so high,” says Caddell, that conservatively “a quarter to one-third of the Republican party are hanging by a thread from bolting.” Caddell argues that GOP voters’ attitudes are “so anti-establishment,” and they give Republican leadership poor ratings.

The revelation comes on the heels of polling data supervised by Caddell Associates andreported on Friday by Breitbart News that a stupefying 60% of Republicans who voted in the November elections either definitely or probably want someone other than Ohio Congressman

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

35%

to be the Speaker of the House.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/05/pollster-pat-caddell-one-third-of-gop-hanging-by-a-thread-from-bolting/

[Ozymandius]

Here you have an insurgent candidate, a populist who is turning his supporters into devoted cultists. Slowly but surely, his supporters are abandoning their conservative principles into this nationalistic, protectionist form. Free market capitalists? No, if Trump believes that the government should confiscate your land, he will he has stated as such , for the " greater good".

 

Actually, all candidates are a compromise in one way or another since you will rarely match up with your chosen candidate's positions 100%. Therefore, you have to prioritize what you really want.

 

For most Trump supporters, three things are important. (1) That he's anti-establishment and self-funded for the most part, (2) That he speaks plainly, and (3) That he limits immigration, both illegal and legal.

 

The best candidates are those that can meld the base of the party with the more moderate establishment types, who can draw some appeal to people who are not aligned with either party. His supporters will claim that is Trump. No, it is not Trump and the numbers consistently bare that. He is one of the most unlikable politicians. He has more negative favor ability ratings than any one in the GOP, even more so than Hillary. When the question is polled, would you vote for Trump or someone else (meaning a hypothetical two person race), he consistently loses by a wide margin.

Those numbers have improved a ton since his campaign started. Let's see where they stand in a month or so.

In other words, he has managed to split the GOP, someone like me and I know that there would be many others would never pull the lever for this toxic candidate. He has managed to turn off the vast majority of Latinos. And there are tons of moderate tempered folks that would never vote for him and that is reflected in the polls. Right now, for the most part the media is taking it easy on him, sure there are plenty of mainstream detractors, but they are relishing in the higher TV ratings and want to see the Trump train blast on through. If he were to be nominated, which he won't but if he were, the coverage would turn so decisively against him once it became a two person race.

The split was going to happen anyway. The base is extremely unsatisfied that the establishment passed the CRomnibus bill and also managed to turn the Iran deal approval from 67-votes needed to approve to 67-votes needed to disapprove. That was just retarded.

The Party can be mended in time for the general election, but the Establishment will have to play their cards right.

[Magox]

Yep, this sounds about right:

 

 

Fox News contributor and Democratic pollster Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon that up to one-third of Republicans are ready to call it quits as members of the GOP.

“The alienation among Republican voters is so high,” says Caddell, that conservatively “a quarter to one-third of the Republican party are hanging by a thread from bolting.” Caddell argues that GOP voters’ attitudes are “so anti-establishment,” and they give Republican leadership poor ratings.

The revelation comes on the heels of polling data supervised by Caddell Associates andreported on Friday by Breitbart News that a stupefying 60% of Republicans who voted in the November elections either definitely or probably want someone other than Ohio Congressman

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)

 

 

 

 

 

35%

What the hell kind of poll is that? They either "maybe" or "definitely" want someone other than Boehner as the the head of the house? You mean to tell me that the leader of the house isn't popular? Shocking! Oh, and count me in that 33% of people who want to bolt. Problem is there is nowhere to go.

 

 

 

 

 

to be the Speaker of the House.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/05/pollster-pat-caddell-one-third-of-gop-hanging-by-a-thread-from-bolting/

[Ozymandius]

I would argue that his supporters really aren't so much true blue conservatives but more so are singular issued voters, which is nativistic in nature. As Domenech noted, there seems to be a strain within the GOP that endangers the future relevance of the party.

 

Like I said, the GOP messed things up since the 2014 midterms and hasn't done anything to try to mend fences with the base.

 

Have you read any articles about Trump's supporters by the way? Here are two:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-22/trumpus-maximus-goes-to-mobile

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/

 

They are just decent Americans who are fed up with the ineffective, corrupt, dishonest Republican Party.

[keepthefaith]

g

 

What you call rant, I call facts. And what does I am am crow about NC mean? Did you even read what I wrote? I said they have a rapidly growing Hispanic population. Keep pretending the white only strategy is a winner. The Asians just 23 years ago voted for Replublicans with 65% of the vote. You wanna take a guess where that is today? Less than 30%.

 

You obviously are one of these people who support shipping out these folks, you support Trump and you've made comments that suggest that it's no big deal to deport them home with fallacious comments such as 200 million people Americans support this And that there are plenty of states that would be ok with this. Which of course you mentioned Florida and Colorado. News flash, GOP loses Florida and Colorado, they lose the elections.

Well, you're letting your disdain for Trump get the best of you. Again and now for the record, Trump is not my top choice in the field and I'm very undecided at this point. My original point was that a tough stance on illegal immigration (which doesn't have to go as far as mass deportation and could be adopted by the eventual Republican nominee) might be a winning stance. There's a poll or two floating around that shows that about 1/3 of combined dem and independent voters support deportation. So the pool of non-Republican votes that could vote for the Republican if swayed by a strong stance on illegal immigration is far larger than the small percentage of votes lost to pissed off latinos who would have otherwise voted Republican even in a swing state with 20% latino population. The Dem candidate will likely run soft on the issue giving many Independents and dems a reason to vote the other party. Couple that with Hillary limping to the finish line and it could be a winner.

 

Some approximate numbers...

 

Overall percentage of voters who are independent or democrat about 60%, One third of these are pissed off about immigration so they make up 20% of voters.

In a state with 20% latino voters, assuming 70% usually vote dem, then tough immigration stance puts 6% (30% of 20%) of overall votes at risk to Republican. So the question is can the Republican get an additional 7% or non-latino voters (dem and independent) to vote for them with a tough stance, a solution to the problem which protects American workers and solves the madness at the border. I say it's not a huge stretch and in states with smaller Latino populations the numbers are much easier to achieve.

 

Agree that CO and FL are absolutely key states and that this is a tougher proposition there.

 

CNN/ORC Poll. July 22-25, 2015. N=1,017 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

 

"What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration: developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?"

 

RV = registered voters Legal Status Stop Flow, Deport Undecided

% % %

7/22-25/15 All 56 42 3

 

Democrats 69 29 2

 

Independents 58 39 3

 

Republicans 34 63 2

 

Edited August 24, 2015 by keepthefaith

[Magox]

Well, you're letting your disdain for Trump get the best of you. Again and now for the record, Trump is not my top choice in the field and I'm very undecided at this point. My original point was that a tough stance on illegal immigration (which doesn't have to go as far as mass deportation and could be adopted by the eventual Republican nominee) might be a winning stance. There's a poll or two floating around that shows that about 1/3 of combined dem and independent voters support deportation. So the pool of non-Republican votes that could vote for the Republican if swayed by a strong stance on illegal immigration is far larger than the small percentage of votes lost to pissed off latinos who would have otherwise voted Republican even in a swing state with 20% latino population. The Dem candidate will likely run soft on the issue giving many Independents and dems a reason to vote the other party. Couple that with Hillary limping to the finish line and it could be a winner.

 

Some approximate numbers...

 

Overall percentage of voters who are independent or democrat about 60%, One third of these are pissed off about immigration so they make up 20% of voters.

In a state with 20% latino voters, assuming 70% usually vote dem, then tough immigration stance puts 6% (30% of 20%) of overall votes at risk to Republican. So the question is can the Republican get an additional 7% or non-latino voters (dem and independent) to vote for them with a tough stance, a solution to the problem which protects American workers and solves the madness at the border. I say it's not a huge stretch and in states with smaller Latino populations the numbers are much easier to achieve.

 

Agree that CO and FL are absolutely key states and that this is a tougher proposition there.

 

 

CNN/ORC Poll. July 22-25, 2015. N=1,017 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

 

 

 

 

 

y

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration: developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?" RV = registered voters

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal

residency

 

Stop flow,

deport

 

Unsure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%

 

%

 

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7/22-25/15

 

 

56

 

42

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats

 

 

69

 

29

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independents

 

 

58

 

39

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Republicans

 

 

34

 

63

 

2

 

 

Best of me? No dude, I see through his bull ****, you don't. Wake the !@#$ up!

 

If you truly are a conservative, you should be worried about the direction this is going as well. Trump is no conservative, that has been established through his body of work and the proposals he is throwing out, which aren't conservative either.

 

Not withstanding the talk radio right wingers, just about every conservative respected thinker is able to see right through the snakeoil salesman Trump. The problem is that people maybe even you have such a visceral view of illegal immigrants that they honestly don't care what positions Trump holds or how many times he flops. Unfortunately, this nativist sentiment that runs rampant within the certain segments of the GOP is their # 1 issue. This issue is more important than anything else for these folks, which is why they are willing to compromise their previous beliefs for someone who is so outspoken as Trump.

 

By the way, remember when Trump was saying how if a donor wants to give a million.dollars to a campaign, that they will always want something in return? Which I don't believe is the case for many donors, but none the less he said that. And that he wouldn't take any money from large donors.

 

He flopped on that position. But I'm sure you and Ozy don't care about that or will attempt to spin and explain his most recent flop.

Edited August 24, 2015 by Magox

[3rdnlng]

 

Well, you're letting your disdain for Trump get the best of you. Again and now for the record, Trump is not my top choice in the field and I'm very undecided at this point. My original point was that a tough stance on illegal immigration (which doesn't have to go as far as mass deportation and could be adopted by the eventual Republican nominee) might be a winning stance. There's a poll or two floating around that shows that about 1/3 of combined dem and independent voters support deportation. So the pool of non-Republican votes that could vote for the Republican if swayed by a strong stance on illegal immigration is far larger than the small percentage of votes lost to pissed off latinos who would have otherwise voted Republican even in a swing state with 20% latino population. The Dem candidate will likely run soft on the issue giving many Independents and dems a reason to vote the other party. Couple that with Hillary limping to the finish line and it could be a winner.

 

Some approximate numbers...

 

Overall percentage of voters who are independent or democrat about 60%, One third of these are pissed off about immigration so they make up 20% of voters.

In a state with 20% latino voters, assuming 70% usually vote dem, then tough immigration stance puts 6% (30% of 20%) of overall votes at risk to Republican. So the question is can the Republican get an additional 7% or non-latino voters (dem and independent) to vote for them with a tough stance, a solution to the problem which protects American workers and solves the madness at the border. I say it's not a huge stretch and in states with smaller Latino populations the numbers are much easier to achieve.

 

Agree that CO and FL are absolutely key states and that this is a tougher proposition there.

 

CNN/ORC Poll. July 22-25, 2015. N=1,017 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

 

"What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration: developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?"

 

RV = registered voters Legal Status Stop Flow, Deport Undecided

 

% % %

7/22-25/15 All 56 42 3

 

Democrats 69 29 2

 

Independents 58 39 3

 

Republicans 34 63 2

 

 

That's a terrible poll. How about another option consisting of "Legal Status/Stop Flow". We all know that deporting 12 million illegals isn't going to happen. All Trump is doing is pandering to those of us who are frustrated. He's fanning the flames when he should be putting out the fire by proposing a solution that works. This is what I want:

 

1.) A secure border. This is non-negotiable.

 

2.) No citizenship for people who are in this country illegally. We are a nation built on laws and should not reward those that break them.

 

3.) No birthright citizenship. This is a tough one but I think that not only would it help secure our borders but would also not reward those that have broken our laws.

 

I'm willing to give legal status and the right to remain here on a permanent basis to our present illegals, but only if the first two conditions are locked up. I realize that #3 is going to be difficult but I want to feel confident that it's on the fast track agenda.

 

Now, for those of you embracing Trump and still calling yourself conservative, what are you, nuts? He's sucked you in with a single issue that's important for sure, but with "feel good" rhetoric that soothes your frustration but in reality does nothing when an actual thought process is involved. Keepthefaith, I've always considered you a reasonable, conservative poster with decent insights. Ozy, you don't post much, but I don't recall ever thinking poorly of your opinions. It just amazes me that you guys think he is an actual option to be the president.

[GG]

 

For most Trump supporters, three things are important. (1) That he's anti-establishment and self-funded for the most part, (2) That he speaks plainly, and (3) That he limits immigration, both illegal and legal.

 

 

 

Yes, he speaks like a 9th grader, with adjectives limited to fantastic and awful.

 

Kind of ironic that the president of Mexico probably commands a better English vocabulary than Trump.

[IDBillzFan]

 

Yes, he speaks like a 9th grader, with adjectives limited to fantastic and awful.

 

One of the first rules I learned in journalism class was to write at an eighth-grade level so your article is understood by the most readers, and I'm sure that concept isn't lost on Trump.

 

Not to mention, the repetition of your simplest points to your target audience is basic marketing, something else he's good at.

 

Watch every time Ted Cruz mention his website. He says it twice every time like he's Rain Man.

[Joe Miner]

 

One of the first rules I learned in journalism class was to write at an eighth-grade level so your article is understood by the most readers, and I'm sure that concept isn't lost on Trump.

 

Not to mention, the repetition of your simplest points to your target audience is basic marketing, something else he's good at.

 

Watch every time Ted Cruz mention his website. He says it twice every time like he's Rain Man.

My grandfather only had an 8th grade education, and I guarantee he had a greater mastery of the English language than Trump does.

[Tiberius]

 

One of the first rules I learned in journalism class was to write at an eighth-grade level so your article is understood by the most readers, and I'm sure that concept isn't lost on Trump.

 

Not to mention, the repetition of your simplest points to your target audience is basic marketing, something else he's good at.

 

Watch every time Ted Cruz mention his website. He says it twice every time like he's Rain Man.

What in the world were you doing in a journalism class?

 

I mean besides failing...

[Adam]

 

Like I said, the GOP messed things up since the 2014 midterms and hasn't done anything to try to mend fences with the base.

 

Have you read any articles about Trump's supporters by the way? Here are two:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-22/trumpus-maximus-goes-to-mobile

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/

 

They are just decent Americans who are fed up with the ineffective, corrupt, dishonest Republican Party.

I won't disagree on the corruption, but the system itself has a history of corrupting even good people in it

 

In order to have a reasonable FRANK discussion, we need to call out a driving force in Trumps campaign, which is this nationalistic nativist and very divisive tone and policies that he is proposing. I think most of us agree in what needs to be done, but the political will to do it gets destroyed by people who have this fear of illegal immigrants. Again, no one here or even the politicians from the right are advocating open borders. People want to secure the borders, that's not in dispute. What is holding up the process is what to do with the illegals here. You can do one of three things 1) deport them all home 2) let them keep staying here in the shadows not paying into SS and federal state income taxes or 3) Attempt to fix the system and give them legal status. Which means they couldn't vote.

There are problems in every possible option. Deportation is unrealistic at this point, there are just too many to be effective at that (and it would be expensive to try to make it work). Amnesty only encourages the problem to continue. Having them be legal and not be able to vote can't work either. I think punishing those who hire illegals- and making sure that punishment harms them significantly is part of the solution.

Wrong. There are different mediums for speech, and they have different costs associated with them. A television add is a type of speech, just as newspaper print is, as is holding a sign over your head on the State House lawn. The fact that each medium has different associated costs does not make any one of them less valid as protected speech than the others. Nor does the inability of some, many, or even most members of our society to afford using some of those mediums invalidate them; we all have the right to purchase a Lamborghini, even if most of us can't afford one, and someone who can afford one's right to purchase said Lamborghini is not tempered in any way by my relative inability to do so.

I grudgingly agree, but only to a point. These businesses buy influence and power. That power is of the government, this making them part of the government. There is a problem in that sense, but again, finding a solution isn't so easy

[Tiberius]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/can-the-republican-party-survive-trumo/402074/?utm_source=yahoo

 

So many directions this can go. From now on every blow hard with a lot of money might decide to run.

But many Republican strategists, donors, and officeholders fret that the harm goes deeper than a single voting bloc. Trump’s candidacy has blasted open the GOP’s longstanding fault lines at a time when the party hoped for unity. His gleeful, attention-hogging boorishness—and the large crowds that have cheered it—cements a popular image of the party as standing for reactionary anger rather than constructive policies. As Democrats jeer that Trump has merely laid bare the true soul of the GOP, some Republicans wonder, with considerable anguish, whether they’re right. As the conservative writer Ben Domenech asked in anessay in The Federalist last week, “Are Republicans for freedom or white identity politics?”

 

 

[Ozymandius]

Now, for those of you embracing Trump and still calling yourself conservative, what are you, nuts? He's sucked you in with a single issue that's important for sure, but with "feel good" rhetoric that soothes your frustration but in reality does nothing when an actual thought process is involved. Keepthefaith, I've always considered you a reasonable, conservative poster with decent insights. Ozy, you don't post much, but I don't recall ever thinking poorly of your opinions. It just amazes me that you guys think he is an actual option to be the president.

 

If this were a typical election, the conservatives would split themselves among Cruz, Carson, Jindal, etc and the establishment would just grind those guys down over time with Jeb's money and infrastructure advantages. Maybe it's just serendipity with Trump, but it's also possible conservatives learned a lesson over the years from backing the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich.

 

With Trump's money and celebrity (which leads to free media), the base has a puncher's chance of winning this time around, although I'd still bet against it.

 

Trump's supporters are disaffected with the Party and are accepting less purity in exchange for a better chance of defeating Jeb.

 

Will the establishment really try to win a general election with Jeb? That seems ridiculous to me, but we'll see.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I grudgingly agree, but only to a point. These businesses buy influence and power. That power is of the government, this making them part of the government. There is a problem in that sense, but again, finding a solution isn't so easy

By limiting the power and scope of the government, you dissolve the product being purchased.

[Adam]

By limiting the power and scope of the government, you dissolve the product being purchased.

The problem is that nobody has made an attempt to limit it in decades. And it's highly doubtful anyone will. If it was limited, a person like Trump wouldn't want in.

[GG]

 

If this were a typical election, the conservatives would split themselves among Cruz, Carson, Jindal, etc and the establishment would just grind those guys down over time with Jeb's money and infrastructure advantages. Maybe it's just serendipity with Trump, but it's also possible conservatives learned a lesson over the years from backing the likes of Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich.

 

With Trump's money and celebrity (which leads to free media), the base has a puncher's chance of winning this time around, although I'd still bet against it.

 

Trump's supporters are disaffected with the Party and are accepting less purity in exchange for a better chance of defeating Jeb.

 

Will the establishment really try to win a general election with Jeb? That seems ridiculous to me, but we'll see.

 

Let met get this straight. The "conservative" base is upset over their dalliances with Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich, and now are turning to Trump as their savior?

 

Maybe the problem IS this base, which thought that Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich were viable candidates, and compared to them, Trump is a savant?

[TakeYouToTasker]

The problem is that nobody has made an attempt to limit it in decades. And it's highly doubtful anyone will. If it was limited, a person like Trump wouldn't want in.

Very true. Though I'll point out that expanding federal power is perhaps the worst reason to infringe on the rights of individuals to express themselves politically.

[Adam]

Very true. Though I'll point out that expanding federal power is perhaps the worst reason to infringe on the rights of individuals to express themselves politically.

I'd say its a huge problem right now. And both parties are more interested in how this can be used to benefit them than fixing it.