I mean, everyone aside from Trump is a clearly conservative candidate. They've all either bashed unions, opposed Obama 90% of the time, tried to defund planned parenthood, moved to strangle government in a bathtub or some other mix of that sentiment. There is no question whether or not they are conservative, but they must do it anyways, and it just means they have to make really dumb statements or be that much more severe. And since Trump is an egotist with no political capital on the line he's perfectly fine going five miles further than any of them would. "Build a wall", "Everyone loves me", etc.
Agreed. He is also the most likely to cross political lines, and there is clearly frustration about how neither party can support anything the other says is good, and most likely to someone breaking the Democrat/Republican stranglehold. Kind of the same reason Sanders was surging in popularity.
That mystical guy that Republicans invented, that would be the best leader ever already existed and his name was Trump. Now they can't undo the damage they've created because even though they're all principally crazy; Trump is just crazy in a bottle with a wig.
I think Trump isn't crazy. He knows exactly what he is doing, and it's astonishing how much they hate Trump, but are unwilling to take a stance against anything he says.
The division lines are real though:
1. Libertarians: who are socially quite liberal, but financially believe in a lot of (unfortunately false) Ayn Ryand type stuff about limited government intervention.
2. Social Conservatives: who believe in legislating god into law, but don't realize this contradicts everything libertarians want
3. War Hawks: Who just want to spend a lot of money protecting everything, but who conflict on foreign engagement with libertarians and who want to spend more than other groups of the party.
4. "Fiscal" Conservatives: Who believe largely that huge companies can regulate themselves and that any regulation of any kind is awful. This doesn't conflict with anything except war hawks who don't want to cut defense spending. But it does mean the party aims to cut a bunch of stuff from programs that benefit the fastest growing electorates (non-whites).
5. Racists: I'm sure there are racist democrats too, but nothing stands for old white america like the GOP. A minor group of people to be sure, but people who hate mexicans, or black people or some other country do make up an angry segment of trump's electorate. At odds with some libertarians and social conservatives.
These 5 factions used to be pretty homey together, but without a uniter, they're splitting the party.
They have been splitting the part for a while. Even in your own words, several of their own beliefs directly conflict with each other. They might be able to play nice now and then, but they have been burs in each other saddles since these coalitions formed.
Ignoring the fact that a champion that identify from factions 2, 4, and 5 are unlikely to ever be electable to the general populace.
But lets be clear, there isn't a single liberal bone in any of these candidate's bodies. Trump isn't liberal, he's an opportunist. Bush may be popular among republicans, but Trump's calculations aren't based on some liberal policy of non-intervetion, he just thinks the Iraq war held no value. And he knows that a lot of moderates look at Bush as a huge mistake and positioning himself as "anti-bush" is good for the general electorate race.
No disagreement here.
Cruz and Rubio were part of the crusade to rid the republican party of moderates. Kasich, while having to deal with reality and govern still took every opportunity (along the lines of Walker) to move his state rightward.
Crusade seems a little strong. Cruz and Rubio are simply the products of where the Republican Party has led itself to become. Kasich I admit know little about outside of the debates, but sadly his failure will likely accelerate the process towards the right. He realized he either has to go full liberal, or father right. His moderate stances do him no favors.
Trump isn't an idiot. He figured out out that this party was dead and that if he wanted to be president it was the smartest place to run because he actually had a shot. His policy objectives are moronic, though. I can't imagine a worse person to lead this country without starting to pull Hitlers out of the closet. (Sorry Godwin)
I see Trump as more of a Mussolini personally: A dictator that while being tyrannical, is more of a clown than an actual threat. Too many people I think underestimate exactly how much power a president can have, especially with a Congress that won't work with him.
That mystical guy that Republicans invented, that would be the best leader ever already existed and his name was Trump. Now they can't undo the damage they've created because even though they're all principally crazy; Trump is just crazy in a bottle with a wig.
I've been seeing this theory a lot in liberal thinkpieces, that Trump is a doom the GOP brought upon itself. But I don't buy it. It smells more of the narrative tidiness of a morality-play villain getting his comeuppance than of reality. If we were speaking of Ted Cruz as this Frankenstein's Monster, it would make a lot more sense, but Trump is simply nowhere near the ideal right-wing Republican candidate: he's only nominally Christian, soft on Planned Parenthood, friendly to unions, and says in no uncertain terms, "We must have universal healthcare." Trump is winning in spite of the GOP establishment trying to whip up the base about these things. What he indicates is not that they have succeeded too well; it's that they have failed completely.
But as long as the Republican Party is assumed to be responsible for creating the opinions of its base, then the anti-liberal mood that Trump is riding -- the hostility to political correctness and immigrants and Muslims and women -- can be written off as just the GOP's fault again, and not something real that the left as well as the right might actually have to examine and address.
Trump is winning in spite of the GOP establishment trying to whip up the base about these things.
This is somewhat true. Though, you seem to lump Cruz in with the Establishment, but the guy is hated among that clique, so it is difficult for me to see. I think it's a bit more complicated, as what the Establishment wants actually doesn't fall that far outside of Trump's platform.
These narratives that the Republican Party has created the "beast" of Conservativism and the Tea Party are very fanciful and miss the point. For one, it's a grassroots movement. Second, Classical Liberalism, which forms the roots of these political ideas, goes back well before the founding. If anything, the 20th century experienced a regressive push back to statism, which has attempted to repress the basic beliefs of this country.
Edit: I think its fair to say that the Republican party (pre-2008 establishment) has failed. How much of that is due to them becoming the party that rejected scientific thought? How much of that is because they're the party who didn't want a black man to be president? How much of it is because a core tenant was that government couldn't accomplish anything? How much of it is the hero worship of the wealthy? How much of it is the jingoist sentiment of being the war hawk party?
Why would these be reasons why registered Republicans would vote for Donald Trump?
People are voting for Donald Trump because they are angry at the Republican party and see Trump as the anti-thesis of a regular politician, not because he's some sort of super-conservative.
So... What options do we have for third-party candidates for this election?
Amazingly, though, I actually was sad Trump did not win Texas. At least then Cruz, one of the few options worse than Trump, would probably have had to drop out. Instead he's staying in.
Kasich doesn't have a prayer at this point. I would have settled for Rubio but he's struggling to win anything.
1. He runs his business well, he'd probably be good at running the country.
2. He knows how to make a deal.
3. He's very successful.
4. He's promising to make this country great again.
5. He understands my fears (usually directed at "threats" such as mexicans, other immigrants, white culture dissapearing, or terrorism)
6. He's overthrowing the current politics which is clearly broken.
7. He couldn't possibly be serious, I think he gets it and is just that great at playing the game.
The thing you have to realize is that, with the exception of the business thing, this has been said about politicians in the past. Hell, remove the business thing and the same things were said about Obama. There's nothing specific to the Republicans about this.
Again, the answer is no. You're saying the GOP is responsible for something that those of the mainline GOP clearly abhor. This is not because Trump is some kind of super-conservative, it's because the loose coalition of scattered interest groups that is the GOP is splintering apart.
This is true. Though, you seem to lump Cruz in with the Establishment, but the guy is hated among that clique, so it is difficult for me to see.
Cruz is hated because of his horrid personality. But his politics are fundamentally establishment republican politics.
Yes, that's why the Republican controlled Congress is doing everything Cruz supports. Except, wait. They are not? That doesn't make any sense. Interestingly Boehner's resignation was only due to pushes from the Freedom Caucus. McConnell jokes about getting away with murder in the Senate if the victim were Cruz. Seems like some prime time Estabishment material there.
If you want to argue that Cruz is a big meanie that people don't like so that's why they don't work with him, that's ridiculous. Trust me, in politics consideration of personality comes a distant second to making deals. You're confusing conservatives with Establisment Republicans.
Jeb, Kaisch are your establishment boys, and I think you'll notice the differences if you actually looked at their positions vs Cruz. I'd mention Rubio, but that guy has turned out to be quite the slickster.
Yes, that's why the Republican controlled Congress is doing everything Cruz supports. Except, wait. They are not? That doesn't make any sense. Interestingly Boehner's resignation was only due to pushes from the Freedom Caucus. McConnell jokes about getting away with murder in the Senate if the victim were Cruz. Seems like some prime time Estabishment material there.
Help me out here. Which of his platform policies are out of line with the traditional republican establishment? From my quick search he seems entirely in line with the republican base.
Dox: I agree with you. Cruz is very in line with the Republican base. That doesn't mean he's on the same page with Establishment Republican leadership in Congress.
Dox: I agree with you. Cruz is very in line with the Republican base. That doesn't mean he's on the same page with Establishment Republican leadership in Congress.
Then what makes someone establishment or not establishment? I was lead to believe those who supported the typical party ticket were "the establishment." please forgive my confusion if this is not correct. (serious not sarcastic, If I am mistaken I would like to know)
Cruz is the actual conservative nightmare that liberals scream about; you're right on that count. He's a true believer. But, I don't think my vision of that "mystical guy" is a true believer. To me, the "mystical guy" has always been the guy who talks loudest, he claims to not be part of the system, who is good at business and therefor good at life. These are things that a lot of conservatives have pointed out to me in conversations that are qualities they are looking for. And, the establishment that was the anti-establishment 8 years ago kind of created this mess. When Cruz, Rubio, and the Tea Party took over the republican government they trashed a lot of the names and people in the party and took it over, but they did that on a populist wave without a lot of foresight. And they did it by describing themselves as the "mystical men". The outsiders that would fix washington by bringing common sense and greatness to government as only an outsider can. Cruz & Rubio were those guys 8 years ago, but now you have to be a level beyond that. You have to be trump.
In what sense did the anti-establishment establishment "create this mess"? I agree with you that the Tea Partiers were riding a wave and now Trump is riding it better than they are. But that's sort of my point. The GOP establishment didn't create this wave, didn't even understand the source of it, and certainly couldn't direct where it was going. They thought it was an upwelling of conservative orthodoxy, or that they could turn it into such, but it wasn't and they couldn't. Had the Tea Party never happened, the wave would still be there waiting for somebody to ride it. Maybe it would still be Trump, maybe it would be somebody else.
Its true that there is a base that hungers for this and that's why its popular, but I also believe that a lot of the party members of the GOP helped construct this scenario. I tend to use party in the looser sense (as in "the party decides"). A party is yes the political organization, but also the base, the media outlets, elected officials, brand names and everything else that kind of goes into what is "Party Think" at a high level. And the Republican party think has been calling for a business centric outsider for some time. Those qualities go above and beyond conservatism, and are in a lot of ways easier to understand and relate too.
Can I ask that you not use "party" in the looser sense, or at least somehow keep clear at any given mention whether you're talking about the Joe the Plumbers, the Ted Cruzes, the John Boehners, or the Ross Douthats?
This is going to be very controversial, but.... Maybe, perhaps, the Republican party was always more of those despicable things and "conservatism" was the distraction? (not necessarily for everyone, but for the 30-40% of the vote that trump is carrying)
The left obviously hates that hostility and would prefer to find ways to reduce that anger and tension.
Are you sure about this?
Generalities can be misleading. Obviously, some on the left are trying to reduce the tension. But there are also some on the left who look at the Trump base folks like they're pond scum and speak about them as such. The concern about "political correctness" is key to understanding the whole thing. The hard left has been getting increasingly confrontational over issues that the right sees as increasingly trivial. Irrespective of its policy merits, this behavior is not the left reducing anger. Quite the reverse. The recipients of this left-wing anger feel like they are under siege. Look at the term "Social Justice Warrior" again. It says the speaker sees whomever they're talking about as a warrior. And they're not wrong. Call them "SJWs" or not, that wing of the progressive movement is spoiling for a fight. And it's that wing of the progressive movement that these reactionaries are, well, reacting to.
Maybe you had something different in mind though? I might be out on a tangent.
Here's what I'm talking about:
Problem: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left, so they vote for a loud and tough guy who can hit back for them.
Hypothesis 1: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left because the GOP establishment has created this idea that they're being insulted and condescended to by the left.
Hypothesis 2: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left because the left is actually being insulting and condescending.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is somewhat true. Though, you seem to lump Cruz in with the Establishment, but the guy is hated among that clique, so it is difficult for me to see.
First of all, others have already mentioned Cruz's personality flaws. And regardless of what you think, personality flaws absolutely can get in the way of making deals, especially when one of those personality flaws is "despises deals and those who make them".
But even setting that aside, the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is kind of the point. Frankenstein didn't like Frankenstein's Monster either. Cruz is establishment philosophy and policy goals turned up to eleven, and the establishment doesn't actually want those at eleven. (Trump, in contrast, is using different dials entirely. Like if Frankenstein met Cthulhu.)
I saw an interesting theory somewhere (maybe one of the fivethirtyeight live blogs) that the best option the party has for defeating Trump is now to keep everyone (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson) in the race. If any of them drops out, some portion of their support will go to Trump. It might be less than the other remaining candidates get, but it will push Trump closer to getting a full majority of delegates. If all of them stay in, that's the best chance that Trump won't be able to go the convention with enough delegates to win on the first-round vote. Once the first-round vote fails to find an outright majority, delegates are no longer bound by the state results, and the party elites can then broker their way to a non-Trump nomination.
I saw an interesting theory somewhere (maybe one of the fivethirtyeight live blogs) that the best option the party has for defeating Trump is now to keep everyone (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson) in the race. If any of them drops out, some portion of their support will go to Trump. It might be less than the other remaining candidates get, but it will push Trump closer to getting a full majority of delegates. If all of them stay in, that's the best chance that Trump won't be able to go the convention with enough delegates to win on the first-round vote. Once the first-round vote fails to find an outright majority, delegates are no longer bound by the state results, and the party elites can then broker their way to a non-Trump nomination.
The problem is it's not enough to say anyone but Trump, because right now, Cruz is the most successful non-Trump candidate, and he's actually worse than Trump is.
In fact, we could actually have a discussion over which is the worst candidate for president, Trump, Cruz, or Carson.
No, it's not enough to say, "Anyone but Trump." Not if the alternative is Cruz or Carson. It needs to be either Rubio or Kasich - one of the non-disaster candidates - that ends up being the nominee. Otherwise it's academic who ends up being the nominee.
I saw an interesting theory somewhere (maybe one of the fivethirtyeight live blogs) that the best option the party has for defeating Trump is now to keep everyone (Rubio, Cruz, Kasich and Carson) in the race. If any of them drops out, some portion of their support will go to Trump. It might be less than the other remaining candidates get, but it will push Trump closer to getting a full majority of delegates. If all of them stay in, that's the best chance that Trump won't be able to go the convention with enough delegates to win on the first-round vote. Once the first-round vote fails to find an outright majority, delegates are no longer bound by the state results, and the party elites can then broker their way to a non-Trump nomination.
This has definitely been touted as a way for the establishment to knock off Trump. In fact, it's probably their only option left.
It would also be the one thing that would send the GOP into the dustbin of history. The backlash from such a move would be beyond catastrophic given the already huge divide between average Joe GOPer and Beltway GOPer.
The problem is it's not enough to say anyone but Trump, because right now, Cruz is the most successful non-Trump candidate, and he's actually worse than Trump is.
In fact, we could actually have a discussion over which is the worst candidate for president, Trump, Cruz, or Carson.
No, it's not enough to say, "Anyone but Trump." Not if the alternative is Cruz or Carson. It needs to be either Rubio or Kasich - one of the non-disaster candidates - that ends up being the nominee. Otherwise it's academic who ends up being the nominee.
The delegates don't have to go to Cruz or Carson. Once they've been unbound from their commitment, delegates can vote for anyone.
If Trump fails to win the nomination on the first vote cast at the convention, the establishment can install their puppet of choice by giving him enough delegates so he wins the nomination. Effectively voiding the whole primary season and telling the voters "Your votes didn't matter in the end! We make the rules."
But even setting that aside, the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is kind of the point. Frankenstein didn't like Frankenstein's Monster either. Cruz is establishment philosophy and policy goals turned up to eleven, and the establishment doesn't actually want those at eleven.
...
The establishment wants the United States to continue to function as a civilized nation. That is completely inconsistent with Trump's platform.
I'm not sure if we talking politics or literature at this point? The analogy is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
What makes the Establishment hate him is that he is working against the interests of entrenched elites and has very direct about that. Specifically he has been successful at pushing back those interests in a couple of key battles in Congresss. He also, as a side note, beat a sitting Republican Governor in the primary for his Senate seat. He's hated in the same way that any whistleblower is hated.
Besides, it all misses the point that the Freedom Caucus is a thing. Unless somehow there are 47 Frankenstein monsters out there? I feel like this whole argument stems from a huge misunderstanding of what the Conservatives and the Tea Party are all about.
As far as Trump: eh? Well, that's your opinion. Given debt levels and our current track of having 100 billion in unfunded liabilities due to insolvent entitlement programs, I think continuing down the track we've gone down with the Establishment until it all implodes is not what I'd call successfully "functioning as a civilised nation."
This is somewhat true. Though, you seem to lump Cruz in with the Establishment, but the guy is hated among that clique, so it is difficult for me to see.
First of all, others have already mentioned Cruz's personality flaws. And regardless of what you think, personality flaws absolutely can get in the way of making deals, especially when one of those personality flaws is "despises deals and those who make them".
But even setting that aside, the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is kind of the point. Frankenstein didn't like Frankenstein's Monster either. Cruz is establishment philosophy and policy goals turned up to eleven, and the establishment doesn't actually want those at eleven. (Trump, in contrast, is using different dials entirely. Like if Frankenstein met Cthulhu.)
I think it's a bit more complicated, as what the Establishment wants actually doesn't fall that far outside of Trump's platform.
The establishment wants the United States to continue to function as a civilized nation. That is completely inconsistent with Trump's platform.
Quite frankly being too civil hasn't gotten us anything recently. Unless you have the right college degree and know the right people the job market sucks. Despair deaths among whites are at an all time high. Mass homicides, losing the drug war, a war against Islam where anyone can try to kill you because you don't follow their creed. Trump voters don't want civility we want results. We haven't had any good ones since the Berlin Wall.
Dox: I agree with you. Cruz is very in line with the Republican base. That doesn't mean he's on the same page with Establishment Republican leadership in Congress.
Then what makes someone establishment or not establishment? I was lead to believe those who supported the typical party ticket were "the establishment." please forgive my confusion if this is not correct. (serious not sarcastic, If I am mistaken I would like to know)
Well, what is the typical party ticket? Is it the same ticket that they run on to appease their base, and then flip flop on once in office?
For example, Rubio ran for his Senate seat as a Tea Party guy on a platform emphasising his opposition to amnesty. When he got into office, he was the members of the Gang of Eight that wrote the amnesty bill (a bill pushed by both the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans). He now calls Cruz a liar for voting for a poison pill amendment on that very bill, somehow claiming to now be against Amnesty again.
Jeb Bush at least was a bit more honest about his intentions of, as he said, "losing the primary to win the general." In otherwords, win the nomination without winning the base. He was all for amnesty. Some of his other positions and his history as Governor (expanding the budget by 25%) show him to be all for expansion and use of big government.
The Establishment had it a bit easier pulling the wool over people's eyes years ago. However, since the 2010 and 2014 midterms where many Tea Party candidates won seats, there has been a lot more transparency of the ongoings of the party. A lot of these flaky positions are being exposed for what they are. And the reality is that the Leadership's agenda does not comport with their own base.
Amnesty? They are all in. Obamacare? They've given up trying to change anything, assuming they ever had a genuine drive to. TPP? This will be pushed whether or not their voters want it. The people pushing back against this like Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and the Caucus, they are the ones that could probably be described as best aligned with the base. And yet, this also means that they are the outsiders when it comes to the Establishment.
Maybe Cruz will spread the word that Carson had endorsed him. It's the only reasonable conclusion, after all.
Unacceptable. We cannot have Cruz stealing both of the people still supporting Carson
Joking aside
dear lord I just went to check and he only had eight delegates. Carson dropping out should have happened when he didn't quite feel like walking on that debate stage.
As far as Trump: eh? Well, that's your opinion. Given debt levels and our current track of having 100 billion in unfunded liabilities due to insolvent entitlement programs, I think continuing down the track we've gone down with the Establishment until it all implodes is not what I'd call successfully "functioning as a civilised nation."
Trump's track record with debt is... not good.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as Trump: eh? Well, that's your opinion. Given debt levels and our current track of having 100 billion in unfunded liabilities due to insolvent entitlement programs, I think continuing down the track we've gone down with the Establishment until it all implodes is not what I'd call successfully "functioning as a civilised nation."
Trump's track record with debt is... not good.
Unfortunately, the Drumpf supporters always come up with reasons why this should not matter or is not real.
Agreed. He is also the most likely to cross political lines, and there is clearly frustration about how neither party can support anything the other says is good, and most likely to someone breaking the Democrat/Republican stranglehold. Kind of the same reason Sanders was surging in popularity.
I think Trump isn't crazy. He knows exactly what he is doing, and it's astonishing how much they hate Trump, but are unwilling to take a stance against anything he says.
The division lines are real though:
They have been splitting the part for a while. Even in your own words, several of their own beliefs directly conflict with each other. They might be able to play nice now and then, but they have been burs in each other saddles since these coalitions formed.
Ignoring the fact that a champion that identify from factions 2, 4, and 5 are unlikely to ever be electable to the general populace.
No disagreement here.
Crusade seems a little strong. Cruz and Rubio are simply the products of where the Republican Party has led itself to become. Kasich I admit know little about outside of the debates, but sadly his failure will likely accelerate the process towards the right. He realized he either has to go full liberal, or father right. His moderate stances do him no favors.
I see Trump as more of a Mussolini personally: A dictator that while being tyrannical, is more of a clown than an actual threat. Too many people I think underestimate exactly how much power a president can have, especially with a Congress that won't work with him.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
But as long as the Republican Party is assumed to be responsible for creating the opinions of its base, then the anti-liberal mood that Trump is riding -- the hostility to political correctness and immigrants and Muslims and women -- can be written off as just the GOP's fault again, and not something real that the left as well as the right might actually have to examine and address.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is somewhat true. Though, you seem to lump Cruz in with the Establishment, but the guy is hated among that clique, so it is difficult for me to see. I think it's a bit more complicated, as what the Establishment wants actually doesn't fall that far outside of Trump's platform.
These narratives that the Republican Party has created the "beast" of Conservativism and the Tea Party are very fanciful and miss the point. For one, it's a grassroots movement. Second, Classical Liberalism, which forms the roots of these political ideas, goes back well before the founding. If anything, the 20th century experienced a regressive push back to statism, which has attempted to repress the basic beliefs of this country.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Cruz is hated because of his horrid personality. But his politics are fundamentally establishment republican politics.
People are voting for Donald Trump because they are angry at the Republican party and see Trump as the anti-thesis of a regular politician, not because he's some sort of super-conservative.
Amazingly, though, I actually was sad Trump did not win Texas. At least then Cruz, one of the few options worse than Trump, would probably have had to drop out. Instead he's staying in.
Kasich doesn't have a prayer at this point. I would have settled for Rubio but he's struggling to win anything.
The thing you have to realize is that, with the exception of the business thing, this has been said about politicians in the past. Hell, remove the business thing and the same things were said about Obama. There's nothing specific to the Republicans about this.
Again, the answer is no. You're saying the GOP is responsible for something that those of the mainline GOP clearly abhor. This is not because Trump is some kind of super-conservative, it's because the loose coalition of scattered interest groups that is the GOP is splintering apart.
Yes, that's why the Republican controlled Congress is doing everything Cruz supports. Except, wait. They are not? That doesn't make any sense. Interestingly Boehner's resignation was only due to pushes from the Freedom Caucus. McConnell jokes about getting away with murder in the Senate if the victim were Cruz. Seems like some prime time Estabishment material there.
If you want to argue that Cruz is a big meanie that people don't like so that's why they don't work with him, that's ridiculous. Trust me, in politics consideration of personality comes a distant second to making deals. You're confusing conservatives with Establisment Republicans.
Jeb, Kaisch are your establishment boys, and I think you'll notice the differences if you actually looked at their positions vs Cruz. I'd mention Rubio, but that guy has turned out to be quite the slickster.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Help me out here. Which of his platform policies are out of line with the traditional republican establishment? From my quick search he seems entirely in line with the republican base.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Can I ask that you not use "party" in the looser sense, or at least somehow keep clear at any given mention whether you're talking about the Joe the Plumbers, the Ted Cruzes, the John Boehners, or the Ross Douthats?
I think that's exactly what I'm saying, in a way.
Are you sure about this?
Generalities can be misleading. Obviously, some on the left are trying to reduce the tension. But there are also some on the left who look at the Trump base folks like they're pond scum and speak about them as such. The concern about "political correctness" is key to understanding the whole thing. The hard left has been getting increasingly confrontational over issues that the right sees as increasingly trivial. Irrespective of its policy merits, this behavior is not the left reducing anger. Quite the reverse. The recipients of this left-wing anger feel like they are under siege. Look at the term "Social Justice Warrior" again. It says the speaker sees whomever they're talking about as a warrior. And they're not wrong. Call them "SJWs" or not, that wing of the progressive movement is spoiling for a fight. And it's that wing of the progressive movement that these reactionaries are, well, reacting to.
Here's what I'm talking about:
Problem: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left, so they vote for a loud and tough guy who can hit back for them.
Hypothesis 1: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left because the GOP establishment has created this idea that they're being insulted and condescended to by the left.
Hypothesis 2: The base feels insulted and condescended to by the left because the left is actually being insulting and condescending.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But even setting that aside, the fact that the establishment hates Cruz is kind of the point. Frankenstein didn't like Frankenstein's Monster either. Cruz is establishment philosophy and policy goals turned up to eleven, and the establishment doesn't actually want those at eleven. (Trump, in contrast, is using different dials entirely. Like if Frankenstein met Cthulhu.)
The establishment wants the United States to continue to function as a civilized nation. That is completely inconsistent with Trump's platform.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
He was able to handily beat both Trump and Cruz in Minnesota. Ok! That's a start!
In fact, we could actually have a discussion over which is the worst candidate for president, Trump, Cruz, or Carson.
No, it's not enough to say, "Anyone but Trump." Not if the alternative is Cruz or Carson. It needs to be either Rubio or Kasich - one of the non-disaster candidates - that ends up being the nominee. Otherwise it's academic who ends up being the nominee.
This has definitely been touted as a way for the establishment to knock off Trump. In fact, it's probably their only option left.
It would also be the one thing that would send the GOP into the dustbin of history. The backlash from such a move would be beyond catastrophic given the already huge divide between average Joe GOPer and Beltway GOPer.
The delegates don't have to go to Cruz or Carson. Once they've been unbound from their commitment, delegates can vote for anyone.
If Trump fails to win the nomination on the first vote cast at the convention, the establishment can install their puppet of choice by giving him enough delegates so he wins the nomination. Effectively voiding the whole primary season and telling the voters "Your votes didn't matter in the end! We make the rules."
I'm not sure if we talking politics or literature at this point? The analogy is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.
What makes the Establishment hate him is that he is working against the interests of entrenched elites and has very direct about that. Specifically he has been successful at pushing back those interests in a couple of key battles in Congresss. He also, as a side note, beat a sitting Republican Governor in the primary for his Senate seat. He's hated in the same way that any whistleblower is hated.
Besides, it all misses the point that the Freedom Caucus is a thing. Unless somehow there are 47 Frankenstein monsters out there? I feel like this whole argument stems from a huge misunderstanding of what the Conservatives and the Tea Party are all about.
As far as Trump: eh? Well, that's your opinion. Given debt levels and our current track of having 100 billion in unfunded liabilities due to insolvent entitlement programs, I think continuing down the track we've gone down with the Establishment until it all implodes is not what I'd call successfully "functioning as a civilised nation."
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Quite frankly being too civil hasn't gotten us anything recently. Unless you have the right college degree and know the right people the job market sucks. Despair deaths among whites are at an all time high. Mass homicides, losing the drug war, a war against Islam where anyone can try to kill you because you don't follow their creed. Trump voters don't want civility we want results. We haven't had any good ones since the Berlin Wall.
Well, what is the typical party ticket? Is it the same ticket that they run on to appease their base, and then flip flop on once in office?
For example, Rubio ran for his Senate seat as a Tea Party guy on a platform emphasising his opposition to amnesty. When he got into office, he was the members of the Gang of Eight that wrote the amnesty bill (a bill pushed by both the Democrats and the Establishment Republicans). He now calls Cruz a liar for voting for a poison pill amendment on that very bill, somehow claiming to now be against Amnesty again.
Jeb Bush at least was a bit more honest about his intentions of, as he said, "losing the primary to win the general." In otherwords, win the nomination without winning the base. He was all for amnesty. Some of his other positions and his history as Governor (expanding the budget by 25%) show him to be all for expansion and use of big government.
The Establishment had it a bit easier pulling the wool over people's eyes years ago. However, since the 2010 and 2014 midterms where many Tea Party candidates won seats, there has been a lot more transparency of the ongoings of the party. A lot of these flaky positions are being exposed for what they are. And the reality is that the Leadership's agenda does not comport with their own base.
Amnesty? They are all in. Obamacare? They've given up trying to change anything, assuming they ever had a genuine drive to. TPP? This will be pushed whether or not their voters want it. The people pushing back against this like Cruz, Lee, Sessions, and the Caucus, they are the ones that could probably be described as best aligned with the base. And yet, this also means that they are the outsiders when it comes to the Establishment.
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
http://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/ben-carson-suspends-campaign-sources
For real this time or is it more Cruz propaganda?
Maybe Cruz will spread the word that Carson had endorsed him. It's the only reasonable conclusion, after all.
Unacceptable. We cannot have Cruz stealing both of the people still supporting Carson
Joking aside
dear lord I just went to check and he only had eight delegates. Carson dropping out should have happened when he didn't quite feel like walking on that debate stage.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.