Posted on 08/03/2015 9:00:59 AM PDT by ek_hornbeck
Donald Trump keeps warning the Republican National Committee to treat him “fairly” and “with respect” during the primary, or else he might run in the general election as an independent. This is meant to be a threat, but it’s a fairly empty one. Trump is a bigger threat to the party on the inside than on the outside.
Today, Trump looks like a populism-spouting insurgent with the potential to split the party, giving Republicans cause to keep him in the fold. But that’s because for the moment, he’s running in a Republican primary, solely focused on conservative base voters.
Running as an independent, Trump’s calculus changes. He would then want to pick off votes wherever he could find them, regardless of party affiliation or ideological bent. He would look more like the last billionaire populist to pursue the White House: Ross Perot.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
One is quantitative, recently reiterated by MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki. The 1992 exit poll asked Perot voters who was their “second choice.” They split evenly between Clinton and Bush, 38 percent for each. (State exit polls indicate that Perot may have tipped the tight races in Georgia, New Hampshire and Ohio to Clinton, not enough to change the Electoral College outcome.) Kornacki also notes that spring polls showed Perot “splitting the anti-Bush vote and cutting deeply into what should have been Clinton’s base.” When Perot was out of the picture in the summer, Clinton was beating Bush handily in two-way trial heats.
How many times have we heard the canard "Ross Perot gave us two terms of Bill Clinton?" It's wrong on several counts.
First, Perot voters were about evenly split among Democrats and Republicans. A lot of them (myself included) were people who may have stayed home and not bothered to vote if Perot weren't running.
More importantly, blaming Perot is a convenient way for Republican party hacks to sidestep the real reason Bush and Dole lost: they were lousy candidates (especially Dole). Perhaps if the RNC didn't back such lackluster, mealy-mouthed, and uninspiring candidates, people wouldn't feel the need to vote for third party candidates to begin with.
I'm not fan of Trump, but if the GOP nominates a candidate like Jeb and Trump runs third party, the blame for Jeb's loss will still fall squarely on Jeb being a terrible candidate and on the GOP, not on Trump.
PERFECTLY stated. Indeed. Perot voters were both GOP and DIM.
I didn’t vote for Perot. He made his money with crooked no bid contracts. And he was a populist candidate not a conservative just as Donald Trump is.
I was, however, a write in voter for Alan Keyes.
That said, Perot would have won had he not withdrawn and the reentered the race.
If the Republicans run an open borders candidate I believe that Donald Trump could take the presidency in a three way race.
I agree completely. 3rd partiers like Perot stole votes from both parties - they’re always centrists.
What we need is for BERNIE SANDERS to go third party - to the “Socialism” or Green Party.
Someone needs to start writing articles about how awesome and necessary that is.
I guess it's appropriate that the Democratic and Republican parties are pushing two candidates with a sense of entitlement to high office (Bush and Clinton) when the whole party mindsets seem to be about entitlement to votes.
If the Republicans run an open borders candidate, they deserve to lose, either to third party votes or just low voter turnout. I probably won't vote for Trump because his Johnny-come-lately views on immigration seem completely insincere, but it isn't as though Hillary or someone like Jeb Bush offer a better alternative.
Such is no longer the case. All that matters is the D after their names and the common knowledge that Ds give away more free stuff. Herding DIM voters is like herding sheep. Herding GOP voters is like herding cats.
It's true that Perot wasn't conservative on social issues, but I see a world of difference between Perot and Trump.
Perot ran on the issues of a balanced budget, increased funding for infrastructure, protective tariffs, and (to a lesser degree) securing the border. Whether or not you agree with these views, he spent many decades of his life and a lot of money out of his own pocket to lobby and publicize these issues before he ran for President.
Why hasn't Trump used his billions and his vast media connections to push for secure borders until just a couple of months ago? Because he was saying the opposite on this and most of his other issues just a few years ago.
If it were a Bush-Clinton-Trump election...I think debate-wise...both Hillary and Jeb will suffer greatly. Trump would get ten to twenty percent of Democratic voters, and Trump might collect forty percent of Republicans. Depending on the electoral college episode...I could see this being a tough election for both parties.
One of the most liberal people I know is supporting Trump. And one of the most conservative people I know is also supporting Trump.
Kind of a bizarre world. I guess people are sick of the Beltway thugs.
There's certainly a world of difference between your average Hubert Humphrey supporter and your average Obama supporter. The Democratic Party has basically written off white working and middle class voters completely. For all intents and purposes, it is the official party of the "minority" underclass and a small group of media/legal/entertainment/academic elites who cater to the needs of this underclass.
This transition was partly underway as early as the 1960's, but even 16 years ago Clinton had to pay some lip service to the interest of middle and working class voters. In 2008, Obama completely ignored them, and this will be the MO of the Democrats from now on.
I disagree, the fault will not lie with Jeb being a terrible candidate, it will lie with the Republican Insider cabal who have worked to suppress all Conservative candidates, especially Ted Cruz.
See my tagline.
OK so what if Walker is the nominee and Trump runs third party? Who gets hurt the most in that scenario?
And if Perot wasn’t running, a lot of those who did vote for him, wouldn’t have voted, period. It was Tweedle-Dee vs Tweedle-Dum, which hopefully won’t occur again in 2016.
My vote is for Cruz, also, but I will take Trump if they won’t let us have Cruz.
I have seen a lot of posts on the internet, calling for a Trump - Cruz ticket.
In that scenario, Walker should work to earn the votes of Trump supporters. Those votes don't belong to him nor to the GOP, and I would still say that blaming a third party spoiler is just a way of a poor candidate passing the buck.
As to my own votes in a 3-way race between GOP Nominee, Hillary, and Trump (assuming Trump isn't the nominee, and ignoring 1% zero-chance candidates):
GOP Nominee = Cruz, I would vote for Cruz.
GOP Nominee = Walker, Paul, Carson. I would probably hold my nose and vote for the GOP nominee.
GOP Nominee = Bush, Rubio, Huckabee, Christie, Kasich, etc. I would probably either stay home or vote for Trump.
He plan was to destroy Bush not to be president and he succeeded.
Can he come back and destroy Jeb?
I wish.
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.