I think Bush is going to do well in what 538 calls the "invisible primary": influence with party elite and big donors. It's certainly not just about money, but if you can convince those that run the superPACs to back you it doesn't matter if Trump has a lot of money. No candidate is going to bankrupt him- or herself trying to outspend another candidate who has the PAC money.
For all of the circus act going on right now, Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election. Remember that the name Bush isn't as toxic as it once was among the middle. For the time being the base can entertain notions of the "ultimate conservative" grabbing the nomination because it's so far out. Pie in the sky can be enjoyed so early.
I know I'm probably going to take flak because of Godwin's Law, but I'm realizing a surprising amount of similarity between Trump's campaign and Hitler's rise to power. They're both taking a poor economic situation and blaming a minority group that really has had very little to do with it, and promising radical action to eliminate that group from the country. This has been more or less the crux of Trump's campaign thus far, and he's been repeatedly awarded surges in popularity because of it. Trump has also advocated for a more aggressive, expansionist military policy (e.g. seize oil fields by force from ISIS).
Now, I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, or even that he's remotely close, or that I think that his election would inevitably lead to genocide and world war. I'm merely pointing out some patterns that appear to be repeating themselves. I still don't think Trump can win the Primary nomination, or even that that's his goal. He's almost certainly running as a distraction, to keep people focused on how awful he is and how comparatively sane the rest of the field is. Which makes me even more concerned over the number of people who seem to be taking him seriously as a candidate and actually advocating that anything he's saying is positive.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I know I'm probably going to take flak because of Godwin's Law, but I'm realizing a surprising amount of similarity between Trump's campaign and Hitler's rise to power. They're both taking a poor economic situation and blaming a minority group that really has had very little to do with it, and promising radical action to eliminate that group from the country. This has been more or less the crux of Trump's campaign thus far, and he's been repeatedly awarded surges in popularity because of it. Trump has also advocated for a more aggressive, expansionist military policy (e.g. seize oil fields by force from ISIS).
Now, I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, or even that he's remotely close, or that I think that his election would inevitably lead to genocide and world war. I'm merely pointing out some patterns that appear to be repeating themselves. I still don't think Trump can win the Primary nomination, or even that that's his goal. He's almost certainly running as a distraction, to keep people focused on how awful he is and how comparatively sane the rest of the field is. Which makes me even more concerned over the number of people who seem to be taking him seriously as a candidate and actually advocating that anything he's saying is positive.
Why does he need to be running as a distraction when he is winning so far. I am not saying that he will win the nomination but right now... he is clearly in the lead. Hilary has been doing terribly due to her email scandal lately and Trump has been managing the media quite well on the other hand the last few weeks.
I don't understand the idea that people think he isn't "trying to win" when currently he is doing a fairly good job with his run. He is always going to be who he is but so far, I would say he has actually been improving since he decided to start running.
I haven't decided where I stand with him yet but I think so far he is interesting.
Why does he need to be running as a distraction when he is winning so far. I am not saying that he will win the nomination but right now... he is clearly in the lead. Hilary has been doing terribly due to her email scandal lately and Trump has been managing the media quite well on the other hand the last few weeks.
At the moment he is as you say the front runner but that does not mean that his campaign wasn't intended to be a distraction and the law of unintended consquences is at play here.
As Wildfire says it is possible that the GOP decided they needed some one to go full out radical rightwinger to show how stable and sane the rest of the nominees are and picked Trump. Only for it now to come round and bite them hard in the arse as he currently appears to strolling away with the nomination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Why does he need to be running as a distraction when he is winning so far. I am not saying that he will win the nomination but right now... he is clearly in the lead. Hilary has been doing terribly due to her email scandal lately and Trump has been managing the media quite well on the other hand the last few weeks.
I don't understand the idea that people think he isn't "trying to win" when currently he is doing a fairly good job with his run. He is always going to be who he is but so far, I would say he has actually been improving since he decided to start running.
I haven't decided where I stand with him yet but I think so far he is interesting.
He's winning so far, but still trailing significantly in the places it actually matters, the early Primary states. There's not a single projection that actually puts him as being able to win those, and without those, he doesn't stand an actual chance of taking the nomination. This has been evident from the very beginning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
He's winning so far, but still trailing significantly in the places it actually matters, the early Primary states. There's not a single projection that actually puts him as being able to win those, and without those, he doesn't stand an actual chance of taking the nomination. This has been evident from the very beginning.
He's currently leading in both New Hampshire and Iowa in the polls. Do you mean something different than that by "projection"?
He's currently leading in both New Hampshire and Iowa in the polls. Do you mean something different than that by "projection"?
This was not the case the last time I had seen those numbers, but admittedly my data may be out of date. If that is indeed the case, well, I don't really want to think about that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I think Bush is going to do well in what 538 calls the "invisible primary": influence with party elite and big donors. It's certainly not just about money, but if you can convince those that run the superPACs to back you it doesn't matter if Trump has a lot of money. No candidate is going to bankrupt him- or herself trying to outspend another candidate who has the PAC money.
But they don't have to bankrupt him. Bush's support dropped last debate. He was perceived as weak and as handling debate questions poorly. If Bush doesn't change that image, it won't matter how much money he spends.
For all of the circus act going on right now, Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election.
Mitt Romney.
Remember that the name Bush isn't as toxic as it once was among the middle. For the time being the base can entertain notions of the "ultimate conservative" grabbing the nomination because it's so far out. Pie in the sky can be enjoyed so early.
Yeah, not buying it. Bush has the name Bush, which brings a lot of bad memories of George W. Bush. On top of that, he's also running with the name Bush at a time when Washington D.C.'s popularity levels are at an all-time low, and someone like Donald Trump can get a quarter of the votes just by giving the middle finger to the establishment despite having no actual qualifications (similarly, the last president we elected was Barack Obama).
People are very dissatisfied with their leadership. They, at least nominally, want to see something different. Running as yet-another-Bush is not going to help Jeb Bush, especially not against Hillary.
But they don't have to bankrupt him. Bush's support dropped last debate. He was perceived as weak and as handling debate questions poorly. If Bush doesn't change that image, it won't matter how much money he spends.
Bush would have to pull a "I can't remember the third thing," level gaffe in a debate to lose the support of the party elite. Remember that the ones that control the PACs aren't looking for populist messages. They want someone who knows how the game is played and won't be labeled a total nutjob come the general election because of things that were said during the primary. Every primary features fringe candidates getting a surge of support from the base because that's who is really paying attention. However, as the season continues these flash in the pans lose support because of a gaffe (Rick Perry) or when people actually start looking at the viability of the candidate's agenda (Herman Cain).
For all of the circus act going on right now, Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election.
Mitt Romney.
Romney was the compromise candidate for the party. He wasn't exactly what all the factions of the Republican party wanted, but he was certainly the most electable. Romney's problem come the general election was that his internal polling had him campaigning in all the places and in all the wrong ways. And the fact that he was up against an incumbent who was far more popular than the media portrayed.
On top of that, he's also running with the name Bush at a time when Washington D.C.'s popularity levels are at an all-time low, and someone like Donald Trump can get a quarter of the votes just by giving the middle finger to the establishment despite having no actual qualifications (similarly, the last president we elected was Barack Obama).
Let's go back to this time in 2011. Rick Perry announces his campaign and sees a surge soon. By mid September Perry's support is around 30% while Romney's is around 20%.
A month later Cain's support matches Romney's at around 25%. Six weeks after that Newt's support hits around 35% while Romney has been stalled at 20%. Then a couple months later Santorum surges to around 30% again above Romney. What happened? All of these candidates were anointed the not-Romney in turn but fell for various reasons. Romney just had to not say or do something completely stupid (47% came after he had the nomination). Bush will do the same.
Trump's support now a bit like Ron Paul's in 2012. He's saying things a part of the party have wanted said for a couple election cycles and it's playing well with some of the rest of the party. I admit I'm surprised his support has lasted as long as it has, but we're a long way from wrapping up the nomination. As candidates drop out I don't see them lining up behind Trump, especially when he said he's not going to play nice if he doesn't get the nomination.
[quote from="Highroller »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/624050-donald-trumps-presidency?comment=86"]Bush would have to pull a "I can't remember the third thing," level gaffe in a debate to lose the support of the party elite. Remember that the ones that control the PACs aren't looking for populist messages. They want someone who knows how the game is played and won't be labeled a total nutjob come the general election because of things that were said during the primary. Every primary features fringe candidates getting a surge of support from the base because that's who is really paying attention. However, as the season continues these flash in the pans lose support because of a gaffe (Rick Perry) or when people actually start looking at the viability of the candidate's agenda (Herman Cain).
Again, if Bush can't get people to want to vote for him, he could have trillions over every candidate combined and it wouldn't matter. Votes determine who wins the primary.
Romney was the compromise candidate for the party. He wasn't exactly what all the factions of the Republican party wanted, but he was certainly the most electable. Romney's problem come the general election was that his internal polling had him campaigning in all the places and in all the wrong ways. And the fact that he was up against an incumbent who was far more popular than the media portrayed.
In other words, Romney alienated moderates. So saying "Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election" is a silly statement, isn't it? I don't need to bring up Sarah Palin, do I?
And look, I'm not saying Bush won't pull it off. That would be presumptuous. But I think it's equally presumptuous to say this is his candidacy to lose, especially since he's been dropping in the polls.
There's still a long way to go, the polls don't really matter at this point unless someone jumps way out in front (which has not happened) or drops off the bottom (ie Jindal, Christie, etc).
All the rest is just a list of people who are still in the mix with many months left to go for things to happen.
Again, if Bush can't get people to want to vote for him, he could have trillions over every candidate combined and it wouldn't matter. Votes determine who wins the primary.
There's the rub. It's a long time until the primaries. By the time the voters actually vote their choices are most likely going to be Bush and a somewhat not-Bush (Walker, Rubio). The more extreme are going to find their support quickly drying up; it's diminishing returns when you cater to just a part of the base.
In other words, Romney alienated moderates. So saying "Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election" is a silly statement, isn't it? I don't need to bring up Sarah Palin, do I?
First off, Palin was a hail mary play by McCain that ended up not working out because Palin wasn't vetted enough and couldn't be controlled. McCain himself didn't alienate moderates; he just allowed someone into his campaign that did. Palin quickly figured out this was her ticket to national recognition and was deluded enough to think she didn't have to settle for VP.
As for Romney, he didn't screw up with the middle until after he was already the Republican nominee (as I've already pointed out). In fact, I don't think his 47% gaffe hurt him with the middle enough to lose him the election. Romney just campaigned in all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways. He didn't setup an online system to motivate voter turnout until it was too late and he ignored the Latino vote completely. The Republicans didn't understand that they need to more than just old white folks to vote for them. Obama capitalized again on getting the young and the minorities to actually vote for him. If Romney had better internal polling it might have actually been close instead of Carl Rove trying to do electoral map napkin work on Fox News.
There's the rub. It's a long time until the primaries.
Correct, and anything can happen between now and that time. Therefore, it makes no sense to say this is anyone's race to lose.
By the time the voters actually vote their choices are most likely going to be Bush and a somewhat not-Bush (Walker, Rubio). The more extreme are going to find their support quickly drying up; it's diminishing returns when you cater to just a part of the base.
Again, how do you know Bush will still be running by that time? Answer: you don't.
Again, it is presumptuous to say this is between Bush and some Bush-alternative.
Again, how do you know Bush will still be running by that time? Answer: you don't.
Very true. I just think the chances of Bush dropping out are the same as Hillary dropping out. Of course Hillary could be facing some legal trouble soon so...
It feels like sooner or later, the Republican Party is going to collapse on itself. We are turning on the last year of Obama before the general election and they are still 5-6 candidates who might seriously take the nomination, but another 6+ who are still in the race, primarily due to a seemingly endless supply of SuperPACS. How anyone non-white, non-male could even consider tossing a vote towards Trump would astonish me to no end (but then, 1 issue voters are a thing).
Nis said it best though: The Republicans have to realize that if they want to have any footing in a state that isn't completely red, they need to appeal to other factions other than the white/male one. The only reason they have been able to slide so far is that the age group that tends to favor them (Retired/elderly) happens to have the highest voter turnout from age groups. If a candidate like Clinton or Sanders can rally the youth, like Obama did in 2008, or Bill Clinton in 1992, I don't see how Trump or any candidate could stand a chance in the 2016 election.
If a candidate like Clinton or Sanders can rally the youth, like Obama did in 2008, or Bill Clinton in 1992, I don't see how Trump or any candidate could stand a chance in the 2016 election.
The problem is that the Dems' field is looking really weak as well. Sanders is drawing big crowds and exciting people on the left, but he is an actual card-carrying socialist, which means that his support base has hard limits outside of which he will get no votes at all, somewhat like Ron Paul during his two campaigns. And Clinton is definitely not exciting people. She's looking vulnerable with the email server thing, and she hasn't presented a sexy message like Obama's "Hope and Change". This is why Biden is reportedly weighing his options... but his problem, of course, is that he's still Joe Biden.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It feels like sooner or later, the Republican Party is going to collapse on itself.
The thing is, that's what they said after Obama was elected: that it was the end of the GOP. And after Bush was elected, it was the end of the Democrats. Yet here we are.
We are turning on the last year of Obama before the general election and they are still 5-6 candidates who might seriously take the nomination, but another 6+ who are still in the race, primarily due to a seemingly endless supply of SuperPACS.
"Still?" There's been exactly one debate thusfar, and it's not even September.
Nis said it best though: The Republicans have to realize that if they want to have any footing in a state that isn't completely red, they need to appeal to other factions other than the white/male one. The only reason they have been able to slide so far is that the age group that tends to favor them (Retired/elderly) happens to have the highest voter turnout from age groups. If a candidate like Clinton or Sanders can rally the youth, like Obama did in 2008, or Bill Clinton in 1992, I don't see how Trump or any candidate could stand a chance in the 2016 election.
Except how did Obama turn out? Yeah, exactly.
Moreover, the "riding on a wave of great change" position isn't going to work for Hillary because no one will believe she's going to change anything, and isn't going to work for Sanders because everyone knows he's going to try to change everything, especially the stuff that works.
The thing is, that's what they said after Obama was elected: that it was the end of the GOP. And after Bush was elected, it was the end of the Democrats. Yet here we are.
It has nothing to do with a democrat being elected versus a republican. It has to do with that fact that the group of people GOP policies most appeal to have been slowly declining.
"
Still?" There's been exactly one debate thusfar, and it's not even September
How many serious contenders for the Democratic Ticket are there at this stage? Clinton and Sanders are pretty much the top two, and there was maybe word of Biden trying his luck, but that was mere speculation last I checked.
Except how did Obama turn out? Yeah, exactly.
In regards to what? Are we talking voting statistics? For ages, the only two groups Romney had the majority on were 45-64 and 65+, both of which being simple majorities. When it came to race, Obama had 93% of the African American Vote, 71% of the Hispanic Vote. For gender, Obama had 55% of the female vote, and while Romney had 52% of the male vote, women were the majority voters. Statistics here.
Moreover, the "riding on a wave of great change" position isn't going to work for Hillary because no one will believe she's going to change anything, and isn't going to work for Sanders because everyone knows he's going to try to change everything, especially the stuff that works
Hilary Clinton seems to be hung over the whole e-mail scandal, which she was just cleared of any wrong doing. Her biggest obstacle right now is probably Sanders to make it to the ticket. Here's the thing though: Sanders is rising fast, and with barely any news coverage compared to Trump or Clinton. He is going to shake things up, and might do it in a way most people thought Obama would have.
It feels like sooner or later, the Republican Party is going to collapse on itself.
The thing is, that's what they said after Obama was elected: that it was the end of the GOP. And after Bush was elected, it was the end of the Democrats. Yet here we are.
I don't think you realize just how fractured the GOP is right now. The Tea Party split that happened in 2010 is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a very, very, very deep divide between typical establishment Republicans and "normal" Republicans that have zero connections to Washington. The latter group has reached wit's end with supporting establishment Republicans. They are not going to support the likes of Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, etc. Those people may have supported those politicians in the past but due to the stagnation of the economy over the past 7 years and the general direction they feel the country is going in they are taking out their frustration by supporting Trump.
Additionally, the GOP is living on borrowed time due to the shifting demographics of the US. Texas will eventually become a blue state in 10-15 years. When that happens, the GOP will never win a presidential election ever again.
How many serious contenders for the Democratic Ticket are there at this stage?
"At this stage"? The primary just started.
In regards to what?
... The part that came after his being elected?
Hilary Clinton seems to be hung over the whole e-mail scandal, which she was just cleared of any wrong doing. Her biggest obstacle right now is probably Sanders to make it to the ticket.
Her biggest obstacle is actually herself. She's a career politician in a time where Washington has all-time low approval ratings.
He is going to shake things up, and might do it in a way most people thought Obama would have.
He's a socialist. People know he'll try to shake things up. That's why they won't vote for him.
I don't think you realize just how fractured the GOP is right now. The Tea Party split that happened in 2010 is only the tip of the iceberg.
The Tea Party split happened in 2010 and since then they've gone on to do nothing. The Tea Party is a joke.
There is a very, very, very deep divide between typical establishment Republicans and "normal" Republicans that have zero connections to Washington.
That's kinda how a party works. You bring people who are very different in terms of interest together.
The latter group has reached wit's end with supporting establishment Republicans. They are not going to support the likes of Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, etc. Those people may have supported those politicians in the past but due to the stagnation of the economy over the past 7 years and the general direction they feel the country is going in they are taking out their frustration by supporting Trump.
Dude, everyone keeps talking about this every election. "How is ___ going to energize the base?" "Oh, Republicans don't trust John McCain." "Republicans don't like Romney."
You know what Republicans do come election-time? They vote for Republicans.
Additionally, the GOP is living on borrowed time due to the shifting demographics of the US.
I assume you're referring to the growing Latino demographics in the voting electorate? What specifically makes you think they'll keep voting Democrat?
I assume you're referring to the growing Latino demographics in the voting electorate? What specifically makes you think they'll keep voting Democrat?
Abso-freakin'-lutely. The Latino voting bloc is pretty close to the evangelicals so they would really like to vote for a faith-based candidate. But they also don't want a candidate who appears to want to marginalize them or their heritage. The GOP isn't stupid: Once they can get the fringe candidates to shut up about having Mexico pay to build a wall they can start to draw in the Latino voters they should've had last election.
Now, my understanding is these polls are taken as phone polls, so they're probably not accurate at all. But hey, numbers are like shiny objects, they're fun to clamor over.
What I do think is useful to note are the candidates who had the numbers:
Ben Carson: 23%
Donald Trump: 23%
Carly Florina: 10%
Ted Cruz: 9%
Scott Walker: 7%
Jeb Bush: 5%
John Kasich: 4%
Marco Rubio: 4%
Rand Paul: 3%
Mike Huckabee: 2%
Rick Santorum: 2%
The rest of the candidates polled under 1%.
The reason I find this interesting is if you look at the top five of the contenders, we have, respectively, a black male, a white male, a white female, a Hispanic male, and a white male.
Less than half are white males. Rather noteworthy considering this is the supposed "white male party."
Related to this, 538.com has a piece on Carson's uptick and, more importantly, what it might signal for Trump. If Trump loses most of his support as Carson surges then Trump is the "flavor-of-the-month." If Trump's sustains his support then he's got a pretty strong base.
The relevant issue is whether Bush has anything other than his family name to fall back on. Right now, the opinion seems to be no. Time will tell.
For all of the circus act going on right now, Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election. Remember that the name Bush isn't as toxic as it once was among the middle. For the time being the base can entertain notions of the "ultimate conservative" grabbing the nomination because it's so far out. Pie in the sky can be enjoyed so early.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Now, I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, or even that he's remotely close, or that I think that his election would inevitably lead to genocide and world war. I'm merely pointing out some patterns that appear to be repeating themselves. I still don't think Trump can win the Primary nomination, or even that that's his goal. He's almost certainly running as a distraction, to keep people focused on how awful he is and how comparatively sane the rest of the field is. Which makes me even more concerned over the number of people who seem to be taking him seriously as a candidate and actually advocating that anything he's saying is positive.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Why does he need to be running as a distraction when he is winning so far. I am not saying that he will win the nomination but right now... he is clearly in the lead. Hilary has been doing terribly due to her email scandal lately and Trump has been managing the media quite well on the other hand the last few weeks.
I don't understand the idea that people think he isn't "trying to win" when currently he is doing a fairly good job with his run. He is always going to be who he is but so far, I would say he has actually been improving since he decided to start running.
I haven't decided where I stand with him yet but I think so far he is interesting.
Signature by Inkfox Aesthetics by Xen
[Modern] Allies
At the moment he is as you say the front runner but that does not mean that his campaign wasn't intended to be a distraction and the law of unintended consquences is at play here.
As Wildfire says it is possible that the GOP decided they needed some one to go full out radical rightwinger to show how stable and sane the rest of the nominees are and picked Trump. Only for it now to come round and bite them hard in the arse as he currently appears to strolling away with the nomination.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
He's winning so far, but still trailing significantly in the places it actually matters, the early Primary states. There's not a single projection that actually puts him as being able to win those, and without those, he doesn't stand an actual chance of taking the nomination. This has been evident from the very beginning.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
He's currently leading in both New Hampshire and Iowa in the polls. Do you mean something different than that by "projection"?
This was not the case the last time I had seen those numbers, but admittedly my data may be out of date. If that is indeed the case, well, I don't really want to think about that.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
Mitt Romney.
Yeah, not buying it. Bush has the name Bush, which brings a lot of bad memories of George W. Bush. On top of that, he's also running with the name Bush at a time when Washington D.C.'s popularity levels are at an all-time low, and someone like Donald Trump can get a quarter of the votes just by giving the middle finger to the establishment despite having no actual qualifications (similarly, the last president we elected was Barack Obama).
People are very dissatisfied with their leadership. They, at least nominally, want to see something different. Running as yet-another-Bush is not going to help Jeb Bush, especially not against Hillary.
Bush would have to pull a "I can't remember the third thing," level gaffe in a debate to lose the support of the party elite. Remember that the ones that control the PACs aren't looking for populist messages. They want someone who knows how the game is played and won't be labeled a total nutjob come the general election because of things that were said during the primary. Every primary features fringe candidates getting a surge of support from the base because that's who is really paying attention. However, as the season continues these flash in the pans lose support because of a gaffe (Rick Perry) or when people actually start looking at the viability of the candidate's agenda (Herman Cain).
Romney was the compromise candidate for the party. He wasn't exactly what all the factions of the Republican party wanted, but he was certainly the most electable. Romney's problem come the general election was that his internal polling had him campaigning in all the places and in all the wrong ways. And the fact that he was up against an incumbent who was far more popular than the media portrayed.
GW Bush's legacy is toxic to liberals. It's been improving for moderates. Jeb Bush doesn't have to go after liberals.
Let's go back to this time in 2011. Rick Perry announces his campaign and sees a surge soon. By mid September Perry's support is around 30% while Romney's is around 20%.
A month later Cain's support matches Romney's at around 25%. Six weeks after that Newt's support hits around 35% while Romney has been stalled at 20%. Then a couple months later Santorum surges to around 30% again above Romney. What happened? All of these candidates were anointed the not-Romney in turn but fell for various reasons. Romney just had to not say or do something completely stupid (47% came after he had the nomination). Bush will do the same.
Trump's support now a bit like Ron Paul's in 2012. He's saying things a part of the party have wanted said for a couple election cycles and it's playing well with some of the rest of the party. I admit I'm surprised his support has lasted as long as it has, but we're a long way from wrapping up the nomination. As candidates drop out I don't see them lining up behind Trump, especially when he said he's not going to play nice if he doesn't get the nomination.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
In other words, Romney alienated moderates. So saying "Republican voters aren't naive enough to pin their hopes on somebody who will alienate the coveted middle come the election" is a silly statement, isn't it? I don't need to bring up Sarah Palin, do I?
And look, I'm not saying Bush won't pull it off. That would be presumptuous. But I think it's equally presumptuous to say this is his candidacy to lose, especially since he's been dropping in the polls.
All the rest is just a list of people who are still in the mix with many months left to go for things to happen.
There's the rub. It's a long time until the primaries. By the time the voters actually vote their choices are most likely going to be Bush and a somewhat not-Bush (Walker, Rubio). The more extreme are going to find their support quickly drying up; it's diminishing returns when you cater to just a part of the base.
First off, Palin was a hail mary play by McCain that ended up not working out because Palin wasn't vetted enough and couldn't be controlled. McCain himself didn't alienate moderates; he just allowed someone into his campaign that did. Palin quickly figured out this was her ticket to national recognition and was deluded enough to think she didn't have to settle for VP.
As for Romney, he didn't screw up with the middle until after he was already the Republican nominee (as I've already pointed out). In fact, I don't think his 47% gaffe hurt him with the middle enough to lose him the election. Romney just campaigned in all the wrong places and in all the wrong ways. He didn't setup an online system to motivate voter turnout until it was too late and he ignored the Latino vote completely. The Republicans didn't understand that they need to more than just old white folks to vote for them. Obama capitalized again on getting the young and the minorities to actually vote for him. If Romney had better internal polling it might have actually been close instead of Carl Rove trying to do electoral map napkin work on Fox News.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Again, how do you know Bush will still be running by that time? Answer: you don't.
Again, it is presumptuous to say this is between Bush and some Bush-alternative.
Very true. I just think the chances of Bush dropping out are the same as Hillary dropping out. Of course Hillary could be facing some legal trouble soon so...
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
Nis said it best though: The Republicans have to realize that if they want to have any footing in a state that isn't completely red, they need to appeal to other factions other than the white/male one. The only reason they have been able to slide so far is that the age group that tends to favor them (Retired/elderly) happens to have the highest voter turnout from age groups. If a candidate like Clinton or Sanders can rally the youth, like Obama did in 2008, or Bill Clinton in 1992, I don't see how Trump or any candidate could stand a chance in the 2016 election.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"Still?" There's been exactly one debate thusfar, and it's not even September.
Except how did Obama turn out? Yeah, exactly.
Moreover, the "riding on a wave of great change" position isn't going to work for Hillary because no one will believe she's going to change anything, and isn't going to work for Sanders because everyone knows he's going to try to change everything, especially the stuff that works.
It has nothing to do with a democrat being elected versus a republican. It has to do with that fact that the group of people GOP policies most appeal to have been slowly declining.
"
How many serious contenders for the Democratic Ticket are there at this stage? Clinton and Sanders are pretty much the top two, and there was maybe word of Biden trying his luck, but that was mere speculation last I checked.
In regards to what? Are we talking voting statistics? For ages, the only two groups Romney had the majority on were 45-64 and 65+, both of which being simple majorities. When it came to race, Obama had 93% of the African American Vote, 71% of the Hispanic Vote. For gender, Obama had 55% of the female vote, and while Romney had 52% of the male vote, women were the majority voters. Statistics here.
Hilary Clinton seems to be hung over the whole e-mail scandal, which she was just cleared of any wrong doing. Her biggest obstacle right now is probably Sanders to make it to the ticket. Here's the thing though: Sanders is rising fast, and with barely any news coverage compared to Trump or Clinton. He is going to shake things up, and might do it in a way most people thought Obama would have.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I don't think you realize just how fractured the GOP is right now. The Tea Party split that happened in 2010 is only the tip of the iceberg. There is a very, very, very deep divide between typical establishment Republicans and "normal" Republicans that have zero connections to Washington. The latter group has reached wit's end with supporting establishment Republicans. They are not going to support the likes of Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, etc. Those people may have supported those politicians in the past but due to the stagnation of the economy over the past 7 years and the general direction they feel the country is going in they are taking out their frustration by supporting Trump.
Additionally, the GOP is living on borrowed time due to the shifting demographics of the US. Texas will eventually become a blue state in 10-15 years. When that happens, the GOP will never win a presidential election ever again.
... The part that came after his being elected?
Her biggest obstacle is actually herself. She's a career politician in a time where Washington has all-time low approval ratings.
He's a socialist. People know he'll try to shake things up. That's why they won't vote for him.
The Tea Party split happened in 2010 and since then they've gone on to do nothing. The Tea Party is a joke.
That's kinda how a party works. You bring people who are very different in terms of interest together.
Dude, everyone keeps talking about this every election. "How is ___ going to energize the base?" "Oh, Republicans don't trust John McCain." "Republicans don't like Romney."
You know what Republicans do come election-time? They vote for Republicans.
I assume you're referring to the growing Latino demographics in the voting electorate? What specifically makes you think they'll keep voting Democrat?
Abso-freakin'-lutely. The Latino voting bloc is pretty close to the evangelicals so they would really like to vote for a faith-based candidate. But they also don't want a candidate who appears to want to marginalize them or their heritage. The GOP isn't stupid: Once they can get the fringe candidates to shut up about having Mexico pay to build a wall they can start to draw in the Latino voters they should've had last election.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Now, my understanding is these polls are taken as phone polls, so they're probably not accurate at all. But hey, numbers are like shiny objects, they're fun to clamor over.
What I do think is useful to note are the candidates who had the numbers:
Ben Carson: 23%
Donald Trump: 23%
Carly Florina: 10%
Ted Cruz: 9%
Scott Walker: 7%
Jeb Bush: 5%
John Kasich: 4%
Marco Rubio: 4%
Rand Paul: 3%
Mike Huckabee: 2%
Rick Santorum: 2%
The rest of the candidates polled under 1%.
The reason I find this interesting is if you look at the top five of the contenders, we have, respectively, a black male, a white male, a white female, a Hispanic male, and a white male.
Less than half are white males. Rather noteworthy considering this is the supposed "white male party."
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.