2016 Presidential Horse Race

[phgreek]

Tucker Carlson just published an article in Politico titled "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right":

gotten pretty smart since he ditched the bow tie...

I get what he is saying, but I'm not in DC, and I think Trump is a bad idea. Largely because his mouth belies a critical lack of judgement IMHO.

 

[wizards8507]

Tucker Carlson just published an article in Politico titled "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right":

The argument he lays out for Trump's electability is conventional wisdom hogwash. Winning elections is not just about winning over moderates, it's also about turning out the base. Carlson seems to assume that Trump would go into the general election with at least McCain-Romney levels of support and turnout from the Republican base, and that all he'd need to do is swing a percentage of moderates and Democrats from the battleground states to win. It's a huge mistake to assume that McCain-Romney is the minimum base support Trump would get, because he's going to lose some portion of GOP support that will offset any gains he's able to make with independents and Blue Dogs. If Trump is the nominee, I'm voting for Secretary Clinton. Either one of them is going to send the country up in flames, and I'd rather the Democrats get blamed for it than the Republicans. I'm also terrified at the notion of Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for American Conservatism. He's a real-life strawman that Democrats will point to for decades, making it impossible for conservatives to ever win an intellectual argument outside of Philosophy classes at BYU.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The argument he lays out for Trump's electability is conventional wisdom hogwash. Winning elections is not just about winning over moderates, it's also about turning out the base. Carlson seems to assume that Trump would go into the general election with at least McCain-Romney levels of support and turnout from the Republican base, and that all he'd need to do is swing a percentage of moderates and Democrats from the battleground states to win. It's a huge mistake to assume that McCain-Romney is the minimum base support Trump would get, because he's going to lose some portion of GOP support that will offset any gains he's able to make with independents and Blue Dogs. If Trump is the nominee, I'm voting for Secretary Clinton. Either one of them is going to send the country up in flames, and I'd rather the Democrats get blamed for it than the Republicans. I'm also terrified at the notion of Donald Trump as the standard-bearer for American Conservatism. He's a real-life strawman that Democrats will point to for decades, making it impossible for conservatives to ever win an intellectual argument outside of Philosophy classes at BYU.

I largely agree with this, but Carlson's article wasn't primarily about Trump's electability. I shared it mostly because it points out that: (1) Trump's candidacy is the direct result of decades of GOP failure; and (2) there is virtually no public recognition of that fact coming from the GOP itself. So I'm not optimistic about the future of the party, since its intellectual leaders keep insisting the party has been betrayed by the rubes supporting Trump, and not the other way around.

 

[wizards8507]

So I'm not optimistic about the future of the party, since its intellectual leaders keep insisting the party has been betrayed by the rubes supporting Trump, and not the other way around.

I know you have a more robust understanding of the situation than this statement lays out, because here you're framing it according to the two-way conventional wisdom of establishment-versus-non-establishment. You lump intellectual leadership with party leadership, and I think it's more triangular than that. Party leadership (Priebus, Rove, Boehner, Cantor) has betrayed intellectual conservatism (National Review, TAC, Spectator). The agro-populists are using that betrayal to drive Trump's candidacy, ignorant of the irony that they're rebelling against a non-conservative party establishment by supporting a non-conservative so-called "outsider."

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I know you have a more robust understanding of the situation than this statement lays out, because here you're framing it according to the two-way conventional wisdom of establishment-versus-non-establishment. You lump intellectual leadership with party leadership, and I think it's more triangular than that.

I don't think that's accurate. The conservative movement is the GOP Establishment now, as argued by Michael Brendan Dougherty and Damon Linker. There are no more Rockefeller Republicans.

Party leadership (Priebus, Rove, Boehner, Cantor) has betrayed intellectual conservatism (National Review, TAC, Spectator).

How so? The preferred policies of National Review have been the GOP's platform for decades. And TAC's views have virtually no representation in the party at all. You can't lump those two together.

The agro-populists are using that betrayal to drive Trump's candidacy, ignorant of the irony that they're rebelling against a non-conservative party establishment by supporting a non-conservative so-called "outsider."

As I recently argued in the Politics thread, it's becoming apparent that "American conservatism" is an oxymoron. My point here is that the GOP has long ignored the devastating effects its platform has had on one of its core constituencies, and they're now in open revolt. The fact that this has prompted absolutely no soul-searching by most intellectual leaders within the Establishment--which includes the GOP, the National Review, the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, etc.-- does not bode well for stability in the future.

 

[wizards8507]

How so? The preferred policies of National Review have been the GOP's platform for decades. And TAC's views have virtually no representation in the party at all. You can't lump those two together.

I'm not lumping them together in terms of ideology, but in the mere fact that at least the folks at those institutions have principles, while the GOP political leadership does not. The Republican Party platform is built on the principles of the intelligentsia, but they don't govern by the principles on which they're elected. For example, the party claims to be behind the Rule of Law, border security, and constitutionalism when they run for office, but then they govern with the Patriot Act, amnesty, and undeclared wars.

As I recently argued in the Politics thread, it's becoming apparent that "American conservatism" is an oxymoron. My point here is that the GOP has long ignored the devastating effects its platform has had on one of its core constituencies, and they're now in open revolt. The fact that this has prompted absolutely no soul-searching by most intellectual leaders within the Establishment--which includes the GOP, the National Review, the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, etc.-- does not bode well for stability in the future.

I think that's absolutely backwards. The devastating effects felt by the Trumpians are not due to the Republican platform, but because the Republicans have abandoned their platform the second they're elected to office.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm not lumping them together in terms of ideology, but in the mere fact that at least the folks at those institutions have principles, while the GOP political leadership does not. The Republican Party platform is built on the principles of the intelligentsia, but they don't govern by the principles on which they're elected. For example, the party claims to be behind the Rule of Law, border security, and constitutionalism when they run for office, but then they govern with the Patriot Act, amnesty, and undeclared wars.

I think that's absolutely backwards. The devastating effects felt by the Trumpians are not due to the Republican platform, but because the Republicans have abandoned their platform the second they're elected to office.

How long have you been reading the National Review? They've supported the Washington Consensus in favor of open borders and free trade for decades. As has the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and virtually every other respectable right-wing think tank. To even imply that open borders were a bad idea was to be branded a racist, an economically-illiterate protectionist, or both. Thus repeated attempts by the GOP to pass "comprehensive immigration reform". It's only recently, which the rise of Trump, that one can question that consensus in polite company.

So no, I reject the idea that the "Establishment" has somehow betrayed an otherwise pure "conservative" intellectualism. The movement's leading intellectuals have been in bed with the GOP power brokers for a long time already. Buckley's goal of creating a conservative counter-Establishment was successful; Goldwater lost, but his movement won eventually. There are no more Rockefeller Republicans.

And that's why they refuse to accept any responsibility for Trump. Because his campaign is an indictment of the movements' ideological bankruptcy. It's absurd watching all of these powerful influential Republicans and conservatives finger-pointing about who really belongs to the "Establishment"; you're all f*cking part of it. It's no less absurd than Hillary trying to claim she's anti-Establishment.

 

[wizards8507]

How long have you been reading the National Review? They've supported the Washington Consensus in favor of open borders and free trade for decades. As has the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and virtually every other respectable right-wing think tank. To even imply that open borders were a bad idea was to be branded a racist, an economically-illiterate protectionist, or both. Thus repeated attempts by the GOP to pass "comprehensive immigration reform". It's only recently, which the rise of Trump, that one can question that consensus in polite company.

So no, I reject the idea that the "Establishment" has somehow betrayed an otherwise pure "conservative" intellectualism. The movement's leading intellectuals have been in bed with the GOP power brokers for a long time already. Buckley's goal of creating a conservative counter-Establishment was successful; Goldwater lost, but his movement won eventually. There are no more Rockefeller Republicans.

And that's why they refuse to accept any responsibility for Trump. Because his campaign is an indictment of the movements' ideological bankruptcy. It's absurd watching all of these powerful influential Republicans and conservatives finger-pointing about who really belongs to the "Establishment"; you're all f*cking part of it. It's no less absurd than Hillary trying to claim she's anti-Establishment.

...or Donald Trump trying to claim he's anti-establishment. He's a peddler of influence just like the rest of them. Just ask him. He gets along with everybody. He's a deal-maker. He did very well in Atlantic City (frankly).

 

[wizards8507]

Back to the topic of the debate, I think the most impact moment was when FOX showed the clips of Ted Cruz' comments on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Rand Paul made an excellent point about Cruz' attempts to position himself as the sole intellectual heir to conservatism, and that message really hit home for me. The one knock against Rubio's conservatism was his support for the Gang of Eight bill, but the clips of Cruz served as a powerful reminder that Rubio is a much stronger conservative than people give him credit for. I think much of the criticism of him from Cruz supporters was seriously eroded last night.

 

[RDU Irish]

Rubio picked up the most and Cruz lost the most IMO. Cruz whining about Fox being "mean" was f-ing pathetic. Took the whiny bitch mantle from Jeb who looked pretty stoked not to have Trump around.

 

[kmoose]

...or Donald Trump trying to claim he's anti-establishment. He's a peddler of influence just like the rest of them.

While Donald Trump is a peddler of influence, he is a peddler of influence quite unlike the rest of them. The influence he peddles is influence that he owns, not influence that an electorate has entrusted to him. And that means that he is not beholden to the whims of public perception like the rest of them are.

 

[wizards8507]

While Donald Trump is a peddler of influence, he is a peddler of influence quite unlike the rest of them. The influence he peddles is influence that he owns, not influence that an electorate has entrusted to him. And that means that he is not beholden to the whims of public perception like the rest of them are.

BS. Sure, the influence Trump has sold throughout his career is his own, but the influence he has bought throughout his career is that of politicians. I can't fathom the Trump supporters who get outraged at politicians selling influence to businessmen but have no qualms about Donald Trump buying influence from politicians as as businessman. It's the flip side of the same shitty coin.

 

[kmoose]

BS. Sure, the influence Trump has sold throughout his career is his own, but the influence he has bought throughout his career is that of politicians. I can't fathom the Trump supporters who get outraged at politicians selling influence to businessmen but have no qualms about Donald Trump buying influence from politicians as as businessman. It's the flip side of the same shitty coin.

You seem to be missing the point.......... Jeb Bush(or insert other politician here) only has influence to peddle because he is an elected public official. If he were recalled tonight, he would have almost NO influence tomorrow. So Jeb Bush has to pander to the power brokers that bring the votes that keep him in office.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has amassed his influence via his own personal making. His business success; his campaign contributions, etc., have amassed him a tremendous amount of influence to peddle. If he doesn't get elected, or gets elected and then gets recalled, his reputation will take a hit, and some of influence will suffer for that. But he will still own tremendous influence, and will likely earn back what little he lost in short time.

That distinction is what sets him apart from career politicians, in the arena of influence peddlers. And if you don't understand the distinction, then please do us all a favor and don't get out of bed on Election Day? Thanks.

 

[Rack Em]

Back to the topic of the debate, I think the most impact moment was when FOX showed the clips of Ted Cruz' comments on a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Rand Paul made an excellent point about Cruz' attempts to position himself as the sole intellectual heir to conservatism, and that message really hit home for me. The one knock against Rubio's conservatism was his support for the Gang of Eight bill, but the clips of Cruz served as a powerful reminder that Rubio is a much stronger conservative than people give him credit for. I think much of the criticism of him from Cruz supporters was seriously eroded last night.

Rand will never get the credit he deserves, but he showed up in a big way last night. I'm proud of the message he continues to carry and hope that it will eventually gain more traction. He was the only person on that stage who takes the Constitution and personal liberty seriously. The rest use it as a tool to fight Obama, but respect it as much as the man in moon.

In order of best performance to worst (IMO):
Rubio
Paul
.
.
Christie (Hey Chris, there's a rumor you were once a federal prosecutor. Can you confirm?)
.
.
.
.
.
Bush, Carson, Kasich, Cruz

 

[ND NYC]

cant believe Cruz running second in the current polls...dude's a complete tool.

about as "unlikeable" as it gets.

 

[NDRock]

Rand will never get the credit he deserves, but he showed up in a big way last night. I'm proud of the message he continues to carry and hope that it will eventually gain more traction. He was the only person on that stage who takes the Constitution and personal liberty seriously. The rest use it as a tool to fight Obama, but respect it as much as the man in moon.

In order of best performance to worst (IMO):
Rubio
Paul
.
.
Christie (Hey Chris, there's a rumor you were once a federal prosecutor. Can you confirm?)
.
.
.
.
.
Bush, Carson, Kasich, Cruz

Agree on Paul, easily my favorite Republican candidate.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

cant believe Cruz running second in the current polls...dude's a complete tool.

about as "unlikeable" as it gets.

He's a constitutional conservative. Does it shock you that so many people don't share your views?

 

[GoIrish41]

He's a constitutional conservative. Does it shock you that so many people don't share your views?

Lots of room in the toolbox.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He's a constitutional conservative. Does it shock you that so many people don't share your views?

It's pretty well documented that most people who know Ted Cruz don't like him.

 

[connor_in]

cant believe Cruz running second in the current polls...dude's a complete tool.

about as "unlikeable" as it gets.

Cruz...Hillary
Hillary...Cruz

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

It's pretty well documented that most people who know Ted Cruz don't like him.

I work for a company of 20,000 employees. Would I want to grab a beer with all of them? No, but it doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Lots of room in the toolbox.

Said it months ago and I'll say it again: there's no such thing as the perfect candidate and I don't know who the GOP nominee will be, but they won't be a socialist and they won't be indicted by the FBI.

 

[drayer54]

I work for a company of 20,000 employees. Would I want to grab a beer with all of them? No, but it doesn't mean they aren't good at what they do.

What's he done to be considered good? I go back to his only real action as a senator... Shutting down the government to hold obamacare hostage in a stunt that went terribly. He's also arrogant. It's hard to see when Trump is nearby, but I don't think the new McCarthy is electable.

I'm caucusing Monday for the most electable IMHO. Rubio.

 

[drayer54]

Said it months ago and I'll say it again: there's no such thing as the perfect candidate and I don't know who the GOP nominee will be, but they won't be a socialist and they won't be indicted by the FBI.

The bar is so high on the left these days.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What's he done to be considered good? I go back to his only real action as a senator... Shutting down the government to hold obamacare hostage in a stunt that went terribly. He's also arrogant. It's hard to see when Trump is nearby, but I don't think the new McCarthy is electable.

I'm caucusing Monday for the most electable IMHO. Rubio.

Caucus on Monday for whomever you want. All good, my friend. But if you're saying Cruz is responsible for the government shutdown I'll laugh my ass off

 

[pkt77242]

Caucus on Monday for whomever you want. All good, my friend. But if you're saying Cruz is responsible for the government shutdown I'll laugh my ass off

Then laugh. Cruz doesn't believe in compromise. It is his way or the highway. Great for getting elected, but shitty for governing.

 

[pkt77242]

What's he done to be considered good? I go back to his only real action as a senator... Shutting down the government to hold obamacare hostage in a stunt that went terribly. He's also arrogant. It's hard to see when Trump is nearby, but I don't think the new McCarthy is electable.

I'm caucusing Monday for the most electable IMHO. Rubio.

Now this makes sense. I might be liberal but I understand voting for Rubio.

 

[GATTACA!]

Rand will never get the credit he deserves, but he showed up in a big way last night. I'm proud of the message he continues to carry and hope that it will eventually gain more traction. He was the only person on that stage who takes the Constitution and personal liberty seriously. The rest use it as a tool to fight Obama, but respect it as much as the man in moon.

In order of best performance to worst (IMO):
Rubio
Paul
.
.
Christie (Hey Chris, there's a rumor you were once a federal prosecutor. Can you confirm?)
.
.
.
.
.
Bush, Carson, Kasich, Cruz

Agree completely. As a conservative it's embarrassing that Cruz and Carson are in the "top 8"

cant believe Cruz running second in the current polls...dude's a complete tool.

about as "unlikeable" as it gets.

Cruz gives me the creeps.

 

[drayer54]

Cruz just seems to be cocky to a fault and not likely to win nationwide.

I've met Rubio and I felt comfortable with him. I did feel he was a little awkward with the religious stuff, clearly trying to say Jesus for the stereotypical Iowa message. I fear the Trump thing, but I am kind of excited to see if his supporters walk upright.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Then laugh. Cruz doesn't believe in compromise. It is his way or the highway. Great for getting elected, but shitty for governing.

You seem to be forgetting our president's "I've got a pen and a phone" line. Compromise? Haha. If Congress doesn't do what he wants, he goes off and does it on his own via executive order.