Buttload of Faith: the 2016 Presidential Primary Thread (Pt 2)

really wouldn't be too worried about this

https://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/3/A70-1888

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Ben-Carson-asks-kids-to-point-out-the-class-dummy-6745838.php

pobrecito:

Koch said he was unimpressed by the rest of the Republican field.

"It is hard for me to get a high level of enthusiasm because the things I'm passionate about and I think this country urgently needs aren't being addressed," he explained.

And though the Kochs' political operation has highlighted their priorities to the candidates, "it doesn't seem to faze them much," Koch said. "You think we could have a little more influence."

He can console himself with the knowledge that the dough invested in buying state legislatures was well spent.

"FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUCK THIS"
http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/568f991c1a00002d005941f1.jpeg?cache=hhswptd1jp

http://www.people.com/article/ben-carson-fifth-grader-worst-student?xid=socialflow_facebook_peoplemag

He did have a valid point--maybe not the best way to make it.

~maybe~

this 1993 esquire piece on hillary clinton (annotated by the author) has some interesting stuff in it.

"I find Hillary to be very conservative," argues Maggie Williams. "When she talks about rights and responsibilities, it's a very big deal for her." Maggie, to be sure, is Hillary's chief image-maker, but that view is reinforced by a close adviser to the President who says, "In all the meetings I've attended with Hillary, she has never been more liberal than the consensus in the room. And often she's more conservative."

Could the First Lady be a secret soul mate of Bob Dole? I read that last quote to Hillary. Her unhesitating response: "That's probably true."

The marginalia fascinated me. Guess it makes sense that Reagan's two landslide victories would chill the Clintons forever.

Recent media coverage for Bernie seems to be about the fact that Hillary attacked him on guns, whether or not he's mentioning Bill Clinton in his speeches, and nothing else.

this guy's predictions have been v stable and he's been completely unmoved by ... events (i mean there haven't actually been any events, but i guess the failure of trump to drop out is an event)

http://predictwise.com/blog/2016/01/state-of-election-markets-303-days/

is this how it stands?

This is where Rubio’s advantage lies; it is likely that the establishment will consolidate before the non-establishment.

I don't know where this assertion comes from. I mean I get that Trump and Cruz would both seem to be in it until the end. But if you add up Rubio/Christie/Bush/Kasich, it only adds up to 20% total! Carson continues to hang around at ten percent and there are still Rand Paul and Fiorina and Huckabee supporters.

Latter point being it's not at all clear to me that even if Carson, Paul, Fiorina, and Huckabee are all out by a certain point, why would anyone assume those votes go to Rubio?

i think its the idea is that most gop voters are undecided and not captured by those poll numbers, so that when push comes to shove between cruz, trump, or rubio, theyre more likely to say fuck it and vote rubio

and the idea that theyll be more likely to go rubio than cruz or trump is a hunch, really, and not a bad one. trump has some high negs in the party and im guessing theres a lot of "conventional" republicans who dont see him as a true conservative. however, i think a lot of em will go cruz rather than rubio bc of "purity" or something idk i dont get this party.

Yeah, it's not at all clear to me that "the establishment" is a winning voting block or even enough of a winning voting block to overcome splitting between Cruz and Trump.

yeah, thats where im at. like maybe there is a silent majority of gopers who long for prudent leadership to right the ship and rubio is the mccain/romney they rly want, but i think these folks really and truly believe in their stupid hearts that they lost to obama two times because they werent aggressive and conservative enough

like i get their respective negatives, but were McCain, Romney or Dole anywhere near as feckless as Rubio?

its a 3 person race, rubio (i have elected experience and i have "gotten stuff done") has gotta position himself as the anti-trump (i'm an irredeemable asshole and i hate the same people you hate), cruz (im an asshole and i have elected experience) is gonna try to play between the two and probably win

xp

xp my reading says, nah, rubio has way less feck than all of them

Rubio is not getting the nomination.

I'd be more inclined to say Cruz won't get the nomination. That's what I got out of all the talk this morning: just how hated Cruz is within the party, borne out by the reaction to the eligibility flare-up, where even McCain (who obviously hates Trump) wouldn't defend him. Trump is supposedly now being viewed as an acceptable alternative to Cruz.

As a non-American blessedly free from much media coverage of this nonsense, I heard Rubio's voice for the first time today, and that alone made him seem unlikely as a presidential figure

Wait'll you hear Cruz's voice...

You can go through every single one of these, and I'd say 'xx is not getting the nomination'. They should do that thing competitions sometimes do, and say 'no deserving winner', then nominate Ryan for vice president again.

I'd be more inclined to say Cruz won't get the nomination. That's what I got out of all the talk this morning: just how hated Cruz is within the party, borne out by the reaction to the eligibility flare-up, where even McCain (who obviously hates Trump) wouldn't defend him. Trump is supposedly now being viewed as an acceptable alternative to Cruz.

― clemenza,

What's left of the party establishment, which exists only in Sunday morning green rooms, is as usual being stupid. Loathsome or not, Ted Cruz would preserve if not advance their goals. Trump is someone over whom they have no control.

trying to figure out who i should throw my vote to in TN's open primary: Trump or Cruz.

and for me it kind of goes beyond some Operation Chaos shit. like i really, really want these dimbulbs to get the pure, unadulterated loon they've been pining for all these years. it's only fair.

and i say that with the perhaps misguided notion that Cruz would fair little better than Trump against Clinton in the general.

buttload of feck

(xxxpost) Again, going only by the talk this morning--haven't a clue how these people think--that was the specific point that was made, that whereas Trump would sort of fall in line and "make deals," Cruz was a loose cannon.

I can believe they can be so stupid as to shoo away the one nominee who incarnates their contempt for governance. To play that part convincingly you must show contempt for Senate colleagues, and he's done that.

Wait'll you hear Cruz's voice...

I actually think his voice is what's putting him well over Rubio at this point. He offers big pronouncements about the great evil more convincingly because that's his whole schtick. Rubio is less convincing, I think, because he's more detail- and policy-oriented.

I realize the "establishment" is dying or dead. But just as a practical matter, I would think it would be tough to get the nomination if most of the other senators hate you. You've got to go into their states and win primaries--if you've got Trump on one side and a sitting senator or two who hates you on the other, that'd be a difficult needle to thread, wouldn't it? If his unpopularity in the Senate actually is an advantage, then this is a weirder nomination than I even thought.

Cruz sounds other-worldly to me--i.e., not human.

yeah I dunno what's gonna happen. Maybe Reagan will finally get in this.

I don't see why sitting senators are going to have much impact at all.

Endorsements and local machinery matter

I guess it depends on whether they're liked themselves by their constituents. If they are, and they have negative things to say about Cruz, I think it'd matter a little; if they're not, then no.

I would question how much any of they are liked in general in spite of their ability to win re-elecitons. Like what would be an example of a sitting GOP senator that could exercise influence over how a state votes?

Anyway, they still have a secret weapon.

http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1VQR4JFXXXXaSXpXXq6xXFXXXz/Superman-Mitt-Romney-OIL-PAINTING-ON-CANVAS-Hand-Painted-Classical-ART-FREE-SHIPPING-TO-ALL-OVER.jpg

(Kidding, yes.)

People are gonna vote for who Mitch McConnell likes?

How about that Bernie, you guys?

the question is, will the GOP nominate Bernie over Hillary?

"People are gonna vote for who Mitch McConnell likes?"

Don't think it is necessarily that people care who McConnell likes, but a guy like that has his state' contacts in a state party structure to get the vote out and the connections to people with cash to cut checks for distributing signage etc. Literally the people in the GOP offices in the state often are those senator's people, many are there because of past elections working with such a senator.

Endorsements and local machinery matter

― Οὖτις, Sunday, January 10, 2016 7:04 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otm, they're also important in opening donor's pockets. weird to see everyone arguing that because senators are lame that they are somehow not major power players within their state.

xp

earlnash otm, makes the point I was trying to in far stronger fashion

you guys only get to play this game for another 5 months or so

baseball can't start soon enough

I'm questioning the extent of their power. Getting vote out can be handled by campaigns and I don't think Cruz and Trump are going to suffer from not having enough signage.

Getting vote out can be handled by campaigns

Not really

Coordination w local resources is always key, canpaigns dont have the time/money to create local political infrastructures in every state