Posted on 12/18/2015 6:24:09 AM PST by Kaslin
In December 2011, the candidate who led in the Iowa polls was not Rick Santorum (who ultimately squeaked out a victory there), nor Michelle Bachmann (who had driven Gov. Tim Pawlenty from the race by winning the Iowa straw poll earlier in the year), nor Mitt Romney. No, the leader was Ron Paul, with 23 percent. Public Policy Polling provided this analysis in mid-December:
"Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Paul is ... cleaning up 35-14 with the 24 percent of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off."
He couldn't. The final results were 24.6 percent for Santorum, 24.6 percent for Romney (34 votes separated them) and 21.5 percent for Paul.
It's important to remember that the mid-December poll showing Paul in the lead was a mere two weeks before the caucuses, which were held on Jan. 3 that year. This year, the caucuses will be held on Feb. 1.
In national polling in December of 2011, the leader among Republicans was Newt Gingrich, with 37 percent, followed by Mitt Romney, with 22 percent. Everyone else was in single digits. On Feb. 18, 2012, Rick Santorum was on top with 34.3, according to the RealClearPolitics average.
All of this is by way of encouraging a certain amount of skepticism about the polls we're seeing. Recent elections in Kentucky, Great Britain, Argentina and Israel also featured outcomes that were not predicted by pre-election polling.
Does this mean Donald Trump's standing is illusory? No, his lead has remained steady for six months. But to believe that he will be the nominee you must believe that Republican voters from Iowa to Pennsylvania to California to Michigan will choose as their standard bearer someone who has favored single-payer health care, racial preferences, a ban on "assault" weapons, drug legalization, abortion, eminent domain (oh, does he favor eminent domain) and who invited Hillary Clinton to his wedding (one of them). You must convince yourself that Republicans will choose a man who opposes entitlement reform, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, free trade and elementary good manners. Above all, Republicans would be choosing someone whose policy proposals are essentially barroom blurts.
While Trump floats above all normal categories of Republican politics, the other candidates are proceeding on the assumption that conservative credentials still matter. The question that came into relief at the Las Vegas debate is: What is conservatism in 2015? For Rubio, it's (at least in part) a commitment to American world leadership. For Cruz, it sometimes seems to be more a mood (an angry one) than a philosophy.
Ted Cruz is angling to be the outsider -- referring contemptuously to the "Washington cartel" and sidling up to Trump at every opportunity -- while also claiming the mantle as the purest conservative. But he has embraced Paulite positions that overlap with liberal ones, such as his vote for the USA Freedom Act that scaled back the capacity of the National Security Agency to do bulk data collection. He lambastes Rubio for teaming up with Charles Schumer on immigration reform (which Cruz also supported at the time, if with reservations), but he teamed up with Schumer himself on the NSA (which Rubio opposed unreservedly).
Sen. Cruz is known for his high intelligence, which is usually an asset. But it has disadvantages, too. When he disparages fellow Republicans as "crazy neocon-invade-every-country-on-Earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East" types, you know he didn't choose his words carelessly. He seems satisfied to reinforce one of the caricatures the left employs about Republicans. Similarly, when he invoked "America first" as his foreign policy during the debate, you wonder what he's up to. If Trump (what nuclear triad?) had said it, it would be fair to assume historical ignorance. Not in Cruz's case.
No political figure is perfectly virtuous or ideologically pure. One difference between Cruz and Rubio is that Rubio has acknowledged his apostasy on the subject of immigration and has changed his position. Cruz, by contrast, has changed positions, but claims perfect conservative rectitude no matter which side he's on. Successful politicians think and act strategically, but when it looks like scheming, or outright dishonesty, it leaves a bad taste.
Rush settled the issue with Cruz.
Establishment thinks the Conservatism means open borders, “Free” Trade and business as usual. That’s the problem the old labels don’t mean anything anymore.
Don’t let the smoke blind you. The GOPe and the Left (like there’s a difference) are working to expel conservatives from the party before the Convention. This latest budget legislation is the proof. Their only hope for the Rubios and Jebbies of the world is to reduce the party to only those they can manipulate. Hillary is their hope to retain their power. They want another Juan or Mittens so they can suck up the money, loose the election and screw America with impunity.
Yawn....these attempts to drive the narrative away from Trump and Cruz are getting past the point of tiresome.
You know, the whole word “conservatism” has lost a lot of its meaning over the past few years, when I’ve seen so-called self-professed “conservative” pundits, bloggers, and politicians expressing not just pro-amnesty, pro-fag marriage, and pro-dope views, but all bloomin’ three!
If the defining perimeters are now so broad to include crap like that, then to hell with it. Count me out. I don’t want to be allied with such a crowd, in any way, shape or form.
If Gingrich had had Trump’s money, Romney would have lost.
No.
You, and a lot of others, get it like I do.
Thanks, Steamburg.
If it did, Santorum wouldn’t be at the kids table
All that has ever mattered for The Stupid Party is who the media and the donor class tell us can win. It matters to about 25% of us and we’re all voting for Cruz. And if conservatism doesn’t matter, reality doesn’t matter, and we don’t deserve a free country.
Let me ask you a question : Suppose post war “conservatism”is dead. Killed by the Bushes, Karl Rove, the neocons, the “Christians”, etc.
Are you prepared to go into coalition with patriotic Democrats who want to Make America Great Again, but who also want a bigger state with higher taxes, or do you prefer to watch it burn?
That’s what the Cruz-Trump FR disagreement is all about. I agree it’s being poorly carried on by many, but it really IS about fundamentals.
The Trump premise is that there are enough Americans left to save the country. Your stated premise is that, if there is not a conservative majority, the country isn’t worth saving, so why not vote for Cruz?
Rush, Sessions and Lee tried to resolve it.
Did Cruz vote for it? No. The subtle difference if it were true is a tiny sliver.
I would wager Cruz knows more than the author about history. Really glad to see a pubbie give up on nation building.
PS - does anyone really believe Trump would do a mass export of all illegals?
Meanwhile the one being knocked as “not a Conservative” is busy staking out the most conservative potions of all of them
- December 17, 2015 -
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON BUDGET DEAL
(New York, NY) December 17, 2015 “If anyone needed more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent President, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.
The American people will have to absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty and more corporate welfare. Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?
The only special interest not being served by our government is the American people. It is time we imposed budget discipline by holding the line on spending, getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, and by taking on our debt. To do these things, we need a President who can lead the fight to hold Congress and the rest of government accountable. Together, we can Make America Great Again.†â€“ Donald J. Trump
Where your “true Conservative” today?
This is what Leadership looks like.
- December 17, 2015 -
DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON BUDGET DEAL
(New York, NY) December 17, 2015 “If anyone needed more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent President, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.
The American people will have to absorb higher deficits, greater debt, less economic liberty and more corporate welfare. Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?
The only special interest not being served by our government is the American people. It is time we imposed budget discipline by holding the line on spending, getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse, and by taking on our debt. To do these things, we need a President who can lead the fight to hold Congress and the rest of government accountable. Together, we can Make America Great Again.†â€“ Donald J. Trump
I was formulating an answer in my head until you used the word “fundamentals.” What do you mean when you say “it really IS about fundamentals”?
Conservatism hasn’t mattered in a long time in deciding the president
Smart conservatives know it. They know that a conservative can win if he has pure conservative positions but only along with a personality strong enough to plow his campaign over or give up on the media obstacle, the Clinton machine, and Obama supporters
The pursuit of that perfect candidate is a silly venture
They know they can be lied to. Look at Paul Ryan
Ding, ding, ding - we have a thread winnah!
What do you choose?
You have to choose between stupid policy (raising the minimum wage) or losing policy (cutting or eliminating it). What do you choose?
You have to choose America, or world government. But, if you choose America, you have to find allies among the "Dems" that "God hates", or you will get planetary tyranny. What's your choice?
I’m for fundamental transformation to return to the fundamentals by any means necessary. Anything short of that is a game that’s rigged for us to lose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.