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.
― clemenza, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:05 (eight years ago) link
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?
― timellison, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:08 (eight years ago) link
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.)
― clemenza, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:08 (eight years ago) link
People are gonna vote for who Mitch McConnell likes?
How about that Bernie, you guys?
― Iago Galdston, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:08 (eight years ago) link
the question is, will the GOP nominate Bernie over Hillary?
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 11 January 2016 02:12 (eight years ago) link
"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.
― earlnash, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:16 (eight years ago) link
Endorsements and local machinery matter― Οὖτις, Sunday, January 10, 2016 7:04 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― 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
― intheblanks, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:18 (eight years ago) link
earlnash otm, makes the point I was trying to in far stronger fashion
― intheblanks, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:19 (eight years ago) link
you guys only get to play this game for another 5 months or so
baseball can't start soon enough
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 02:20 (eight years ago) link
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.
― timellison, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:27 (eight years ago) link
Getting vote out can be handled by campaigns
Not really
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:31 (eight years ago) link
Coordination w local resources is always key, canpaigns dont have the time/money to create local political infrastructures in every state
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:33 (eight years ago) link
I can imagine it would be key if there was a close race. I'm not sure that an "establishment candidate" will ever get close this time.
― timellison, Monday, 11 January 2016 02:38 (eight years ago) link
Trump's campaign is hurting his brand in a big way.
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 11 January 2016 17:58 (eight years ago) link
ha
― Very selfish, and very ironic (DJP), Monday, 11 January 2016 18:02 (eight years ago) link
when the ruling classes decide you have no class, that's as low as it goes
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 18:06 (eight years ago) link
i saw a headline that sam wang think's trump will be the nominee, but digging around a little on the PEC website i can't see that claim specifically
http://election.princeton.edu/
the 'trump will fail' punditry all seems pretty tautological to me. he just has to fall at some point, so he will!
― goole, Monday, 11 January 2016 18:50 (eight years ago) link
damn stray apostrophe
― goole, Monday, 11 January 2016 18:51 (eight years ago) link
i was asked, god knows why, to explain to a stranger why he won't be president the other night and went with
1) no one like this has been nominated, at least not since we got running water
2) a steady third of our populace is congenitally stupid, not 45%+
3) the GOP will change the rules/sabotage him rather than commit certain downballot suicide
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 18:53 (eight years ago) link
3) is the most compelling reason
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 18:54 (eight years ago) link
Sam Wang // Jan 10, 2016 at 2:32 pmJesse, a quick take.In summer/fall, it was probably appropriate to rely heavily on The-Party-Decides because polls lacked any predictive power. The question in my mind is why the FiveThirtyEight people have not updated that prior using polls. It is Silver’s style to react slowly to new data.Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think they have done an analysis like what I posted last week. Even if they did, they (and I) now have a problem: The-Party-Decides and poll-based indicators are now pointing in very different directions. What now???In my view, this is because the national GOP has been moving toward crisis since 1994. Therefore I would sayProbability that The-Party-Decides will fail = 30%.Probability that poll-based predictions will fail =15%.Based on that, I would guess that Trump is favored now over Rubio. (For now, I think Cruz is less likely because he scores so low on ranked-preference polls.)As for “Why Rubio?,” this is a consequence of The-Party-Decides. If one accepts that premise, then the only alternative is Jeb Bush based on endorsements, money, and officeholding experience. This prediction fails is if The-Party-Decides has waning influence. In national HuffPost averages, in January 2012 current and former officeholders were supported by about 80% of respondents. As of today that number is about 25%.
Jesse, a quick take.
In summer/fall, it was probably appropriate to rely heavily on The-Party-Decides because polls lacked any predictive power. The question in my mind is why the FiveThirtyEight people have not updated that prior using polls. It is Silver’s style to react slowly to new data.
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think they have done an analysis like what I posted last week. Even if they did, they (and I) now have a problem: The-Party-Decides and poll-based indicators are now pointing in very different directions. What now???
In my view, this is because the national GOP has been moving toward crisis since 1994. Therefore I would say
Probability that The-Party-Decides will fail = 30%.Probability that poll-based predictions will fail =15%.
Based on that, I would guess that Trump is favored now over Rubio. (For now, I think Cruz is less likely because he scores so low on ranked-preference polls.)
As for “Why Rubio?,” this is a consequence of The-Party-Decides. If one accepts that premise, then the only alternative is Jeb Bush based on endorsements, money, and officeholding experience. This prediction fails is if The-Party-Decides has waning influence. In national HuffPost averages, in January 2012 current and former officeholders were supported by about 80% of respondents. As of today that number is about 25%.
comment from his 1/7 post
― iatee, Monday, 11 January 2016 18:55 (eight years ago) link
i honestly don't think it'll get that far, Shakes. but i spose i could be wrong.
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 18:58 (eight years ago) link
GOP knows that if Trump gets the nomination, opposing voters will hit the polls in droves. They need someone less noxious or they're basically handing the presidency to Hillary.
― Reckless Recluse (Old Lunch), Monday, 11 January 2016 18:59 (eight years ago) link
I don't think so either but the x factor here (as I've said before) is what happens when Trump loses primaries - at this point I would bet he loses Iowa, for ex. But what his reaction to being a LOSER are instead of a winner will be, I have no idea. He's unpredictable.
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:02 (eight years ago) link
are
does the GOP have the power to manage 3) these days?
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:03 (eight years ago) link
if he wins he'll be a black swan but those happen all the time.
― Mordy, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:04 (eight years ago) link
Even when he loses, he'll spin it as a win somehow. It'll be the people of Iowa who are a bunch of losers.
― Reckless Recluse (Old Lunch), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:04 (eight years ago) link
With the republican establishment looking so weak these days, it is easy to forget how much control they exert over the nominating convention, esp. the rules committee.
― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:05 (eight years ago) link
^^^
they may not control much in terms of candidates or policy, but they control the party machinery - that's pretty much *all* they control at this point
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:06 (eight years ago) link
and that is to a large degree why Sanders won't be nominated by the other assholes
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:13 (eight years ago) link
(assuming he wins some primaries)
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, January 11, 2016 1:53 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Οὖτις, Monday, January 11, 2016 1:54 PM
but changing the rules to sabotage him could be a form of suicide for the GOP as well. imagine that he maintains his hold on ~35-40% of republican voters. then the GOP sabotages him and someone like rubio becomes the candidate, and he loses to clinton in the general election. is it likely that trump would stay relatively quiet about how he was sabotaged, with his former supporters continuing to vote republican, remaining as part of the GOP base? or is it more likely that trump would never shut up about what happened, ever, while his supporters lose the remaining scraps of their minds obsessing about a conspiracy theory that's actually true?
― Karl Malone, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:14 (eight years ago) link
look, a split is coming for the party either way, my prediction is they go down trying to preserve their own power, and this is how they would do that.
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:15 (eight years ago) link
cults of personality haven't been so good, historically speaking, at upsetting the two-party balance, I don't see any reason why Trump would be any different. Trump might bolt the party and take chunks of the base with him, and the party would be weakened (at least temporarily) but it's a tall order for Trump to be able to thoroughly destroy the GOP in such a manner.
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:16 (eight years ago) link
i'm not convinced trump *would* be downballot suicide, just on an instinctual level, but i'd need to look into the polling nerd stuff on that
― goole, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:20 (eight years ago) link
he would def be downballot suicide, the Dem turnout would get a huge boost, significant chunk of GOP voting bloc would possibly not vote at all
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:24 (eight years ago) link
Maybe if Trump loses Iowa by a significant margin his subsequent rants to his followers will finally transform the "Fuck Iowa, why do they get to go first anyway" feeling that everyone expresses every four years into an actual movement?
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:24 (eight years ago) link
changing the rules to sabotage him could be a form of suicide for the GOP as well
yeah, this passed through my mind, certainly. My main argument against it would be that the mean national memory is now -- how long does a Real Housewives season last?
I've been reading Dem forecasts of the Death of the GOP for about 20 years...
― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:24 (eight years ago) link
a single-issue 3rd party dedicated to kicking iowa out of the union
― iatee, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:26 (eight years ago) link
sadly agree with Morbz here
― Nhex, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:26 (eight years ago) link
he would def be downballot suicide, the Dem turnout would get a huge boost, significant chunk of GOP voting bloc would possibly not vote at all― Οὖτις, Monday, January 11, 2016 12:24 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Οὖτις, Monday, January 11, 2016 12:24 PM (24 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Also, specifically, the percentage of Latinos turning out and voting for Democrats will rise significantly. It was already 71% in 2012, and I could see it moving to the high 80s in 2016 if Trump is the GOP nominee.
― intheblanks, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:28 (eight years ago) link
yup
― Οὖτις, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:35 (eight years ago) link
exactly. what the GOP *becomes* is up for debate, but that party apparatus - creaky and dysfunctional as it may be - is not going anywhere
i can't imagine GOPers would sit out a chance to vote against HRC but maybe i should be more optimistic
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 11 January 2016 19:36 (eight years ago) link
No optimism for USA. My parents are boomers, retired last year, and immediately started watching Fox News daily. I wish I was joking. My dad hates Hillary and they're both voting for Trump. ...and they're immigrants, sigh.
― Nhex, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:38 (eight years ago) link
yeah, it's definitely possible that everyone will just forget and move on. but i don't view that as a certain outcome. there's something about the combination of the people involved, who are primed for conspiracy theories and the thought that "they" are going to take something away from them, along with the thought of "they" ACTUALLY taking something away from them for once
― Karl Malone, Monday, 11 January 2016 19:39 (eight years ago) link
Jeb Bush: "If Donald Trump wins the nomination, and he might, Hillary Clinton will beat him like a drum. Just tear him up. I mean, it will be ugly to watch."
That's an awesome quote. Almost Nixonian in its phrasing.
― the top man in the language department (誤訳侮辱), Monday, 11 January 2016 21:23 (eight years ago) link
that is ok, if he loses he can just get the supreme court to ignore the popular vote and instate him as president. worked out fine for your brother, Jeb!
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Monday, 11 January 2016 21:52 (eight years ago) link