Too Many Conservatives Running In 2016 Primary

Leo McNeil ^ | March 23, 2015 | Leo McNeil

[Responsibility2nd]

I see this “too many conservatives-not enough RINO’s” argument a lot. I always shut up this ridiculous argument with one question:

How did that work out for us in 2012 and 2008?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Scott Walker, perhaps the front runner in the race, still hasn’t formally announced his candidacy and there’s no telling when he might do so.

It will be this summer after he wraps up the biennial Wisconsin state budget. I believe this will be the time table for all governors who plan to run.

[USS Alaska]

If only we could get rid of some of these candidates, Jeb Bush could be defeated. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen.

If we could get rid of some of these negatives bastards that want to surrender before anything starts, maybe jeb bush could be defeated. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, why don't you go first, leo?

[Timber Rattler]

It’s Ted Cruz or no one for you...

Yep, pretty much, unless its Sarah Palin. No more lesser evils for me. The GOP-E can go straight to hell.

[Sans-Culotte]

While we’re nitpicking over candidates, can any of us say we wouldn’t prefer Scott Walker over Jeb Bush?

Amnesty is not nitpicking. A country that has no borders is not a country. I cannot vote for a candidate who is willing to turn over our sovereignty to an invading horde. There are a few issues that are deal-breakers for me. Amnesty is one of them.

[LeoMcNeil]

Surrender on what exactly? The differences between Walker and Cruz are limited. Frankly, Walker has a stronger track record of beating the left legislatively. Of course Walker isn’t perfect on one or two issues so it would be “surrender” to support him. As though Cruz is 100% perfect at all times. The end result of not “surrendering” is that we end up with total annihilation in the form of Jeb Bush.

[SoConPubbie]

Cruz and Walker split the conservative vote. Jeb rolls in on the GOPe Express. Brilliant!

Well, then since Cruz is the much better conservative, much better speaker and debater, Walker needs to drop out.

[tanknetter]

The issue is one of mechanics.

There simply isn’t enough money, and (more importantly) not enough capable/experienced campaign staff to support that many candidates.

There will be a winnowing process, like there always is. The problem isn’t have a bunch of extra candidates at the start; it’s having two Conservative candidates in the middle, allowing the moderate to take the nomination with a plurality.j

[LeoMcNeil]

You wouldn’t have voted for Ronald Reagan then. Without Reagan the road to Obama socialism would have been completed 25 years ago. God only knows where we would be now.

[NorthMountain]

I voted FOR Ronald Reagan.

I have not voted FOR a presidential candidate since.

I hope to have the opportunity to vote FOR Ted Cruz.

TED CRUZ FOR PRESIDENT!!!

[jjsheridan5]

The problem, ever since Reagan, has not been that there have been too many non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries. The problem has been that there have been too many awful non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries, but no electable ones. While people may argue whether both are actually conservative (and, to a point, this argument is healthy for conservatism, and for the country), there are now two conservative, non-establishment candidates who blow away all of the candidates since Reagan (Cruz and Walker).

Leo, your argument is flawed. There will come a time when conservatives have to choose, but that time is not now. The competition between Cruz and Walker will be epic, and both the winner and loser of that competition will emerge stronger as a result. As a result of not following your advice, Jeb Bush is going to not have the advantage held by Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., McCain, and Romney, of just having to be the least worst candidate emerging from the clown car.

Let the competition heat up. Let the candidates fight it out, in a debate centered around the constitution and conservatism, and let these candidates reveal to the country who they are. Bush will be an irrelevancy in this competition, since both Cruz and Walker have proven themselves to be so much superior to any since Reagan, and, because both clearly care more about this country, than themselves. While Bush would be in trouble against either candidate, the strengthening that would emerge from a healthy competition would eliminate any chance that Bush might have had in terms of framing his opponent.

[Buttons12]

do Republicans really believe the country is going to elect a first term Senator again?

The only thing they have in common, and of course the only thing that will matter. Such reasoning makes my head throb. Can't you just hear the LIV's tut-tutting about this? "A first-term senator, again?? Oh, that just won't do!"

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

It will be down to Ted, Scott and Jeb soon enough, with Jeb bringing up the rear.

[LeoMcNeil]

In theory that sounds right. In practice, by the time Iowa and New Hampshire voted in 2012 only one conservative had withdrawn from the race. That was Herman Cain, who was forced out by a bogus scandal created by Obama’s henchmen.

Romney was able to win “momentum” by tying Santorum in Iowa and winning big in New Hampshire. The next several states rolled through a couple different conservatives as conservative voters latched on to any conservative they thought might be able to defeat Romney. The end result is that none of them had enough money, none of them had enough delegates and none of them had a chance. We’re setting ourselves up for that again, with Bush replacing Romney.

The one thing that will be different is that Ron Paul won’t be eating up a substantial portion of votes. I don’t think Rand will be able to keep his father’s libertarian wing together. The question is what do these voters do. I think a lot of them stay home, which changes the dynamic of the primaries. I see the rest sticking with Rand or maybe moving towards Cruz.

[Kenny Bunk]

In our history there has never been a sustained shift to three or more parties. Every few elections a third party comes around only to lose badly and never be heard from again.

That is our history, for sure. That is our challenge, too. The "Two Big Tents" theory is simply not working very well. What we have at the end of the day is a center-LEFT government that for all practical purposes is no different than the socialist coalition parliaments of the EU.

This is, IMNVHO, much exacerbated by the popular election of the Senate. Perhaps we can squeeze a bit more life out of the moribund two-party deal by repealing that 17th Amendment.

I'll back Cruz. But what I am not hearing are the plans for structural reforms that will reset the course toward constitutional government and redress the state/federal imbalance.

Perhaps if the RINOs had a strong Conservative Party to keep them honest, that would help. On the other side of the aisle, the Centrist Democrats would have to accept and respond to their Socialist and Marxist roots.

This is the move FDR made when running for Governor of New York State, that is bringing the Socialists and Communist Parties into the Democrats' Big Tent to defeat the Republicans. On a national level, this political move has managed to keep them on the short end of the tally ever since, with very brief interludes of sanity. IOW, The Center/LEFT coalition has been increasingly running the country toward Socialism since the 1930's..

[LeoMcNeil]

If the race were between Cruz, Walker and Bush I would not have a problem with both Walker and Cruz battling it out. My issue isn’t really with those two as much as it’s with Paul, Huckabee, Santorum, Rubio and whatever other conservatives throw their hat in the ring. As it stands now, we’re looking at 6-10 conservatives running. Our vote will get split apart, as will all the money. Meanwhile Bush has all the moderate money and most of their votes.

I really would prefer only one conservative run against Bush but I fully recognize that isn’t possible. We can, however, have fewer than 10 run and still end up with a solid conservative or two battle it out with Bush.

[ek_hornbeck]

The problem, ever since Reagan, has not been that there have been too many non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries. The problem has been that there have been too many awful non-establishment candidates running in the Presidential primaries, but no electable ones

Not only were most of them unelectable, but they were pseudo-conservatives (i.e. conservative rhetoric on some hot-button issue, establishment on all others). Cases in point: Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee. They sound "far right" on social issues, but on economic issues they were probably more liberal than Romney. Another example (and an even bigger clown than Rick or Huck) was perennial candidate Alan Keyes, who supported affirmative action and slavery reparations.

[LeoMcNeil]

The 17th amendment is a huge problem because it entrenches the two party system. By having Senators accountable to the people, just like Congressmen, rather than the states their interests are no different and the Congress might as well be only one house.

We’ve seen in the last 20-30 years a shift away from two big tent parties. The Democrats have, once and for all, rid themselves of blue dog conservatives. The ideological battle in the Democrat Party isn’t between conservative and liberal but between fascists, socialists and communists. The battle is entirely on the left for them. The GOP now resembles what the Democrats used to look like. Our battle is between moderate, left of center types and conservatives. Like the old Democrats, the moderate to liberals control though they have to throw bones to conservatives once in awhile. The conservative error was not uniting Republican and Democrat conservatives in one party 75 years ago.

The writing is on the wall for us conservatives already. In just 20 years the Christian evangelical movement is completely dead. The government schools are churning out a generation of ignoramuses who don’t know how to think unless they’re told what is acceptable. The schools have been bad for a century, they have gotten exponentially worse in the last generation. With the Republicans slowly pushing conservative away and with our ranks dying off, in 25 years we may not exist as a political force anymore. That’s why this election is so important. A Walker or Cruz victory could put off that death another couple decades.

[jjsheridan5]

That is why I said “too many non-establishment candidates”, and not “too many conservative candidates”. I couldn’t bring myself to call idiots like Santorum and Huckabee “conservative”. But “non-establishment” is, as you point out, also incorrect. Maybe these candidates defy any label other than “unelectable”?

[SoConPubbie]

You wouldn’t have voted for Ronald Reagan then. Without Reagan the road to Obama socialism would have been completed 25 years ago. God only knows where we would be now.

Oh B.S. on two counts:

1. Reagan did not campaign on Amnesty.
2. Reagan admitted that Amnesty was his biggest political mistake. He wished he never had done it.