Posted on 01/01/2016 7:13:20 AM PST by RKBA Democrat
During the last half of 2015, a specter haunted the Republican "invisible primary" for the 2016 presidential nomination: an independent run for president by Donald Trump that would split the GOP base and send a Democrat gliding into the White House.
As he consolidated a position in the polls as the GOP front-runner, Trump was maneuvered into signing a party loyalty pledge (required to get onto the ballot in South Carolina), and then ruled out an indie run at and after a December candidate debate. With a guy like Trump, an abandonment of this doubled-down oath is always possible, especially if an Establishment cabal emerges to anoint, say, Marco Rubio as the designated Trump-killer. But he's sure poured a lot of gratuitous cold water on the idea of late.
Instead, as the year ends, there's suddenly buzz about a very different indie presidential run: one by former Democratic senator (and, briefly, 2016 presidential candidate) Jim Webb. The possibility makes some intuitive sense. Webb definitely seems to have the psychological profile of a cranky spoiler who can find fault with both parties, and even claim (as a former Reagan cabinet member and then Democratic senator) to represent both parties' best impulses. The talk from Team Webb seems to regard Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign as a model, which means its goal would be attention and leverage, not some remote chance of victory. Ballot access has gotten easier since 2000. And depending on what happens in the 2016 primaries, there could be a pool of disgruntled partisans that, in combination with disgruntled independents, could in theory lift a third option like Webb from nuisance to threat.
currently expected dispatching Bernie Sanders and has to rely on extra help from the DNC and other party elites in doing so. And let's say Donald Trump's support doesn't just melt away, but that instead his candidacy is defeated by a vicious and massively financed negative ad campaign from a pan-GOP coalition. You could at least imagine a Webb candidacy focused on HRC's support for military interventions and past alliances with Wall Street tapping some former Sanders and Trump voters. And if either Sanders or Trump actually wins his party's nomination, any pre-positioned indie candidate could suddenly inherit a lot of support.
Now, either scenario for a Webb boomlet has a lot of logical gaps. Democratic voters show every sign of uniting behind either Clinton or Sanders. For all his self-projection as a tribune of downscale white folks (especially the Scots-Irish Appalachian people), Webb's appeal to Trump's white working-class following is entirely theoretical. Yes, he's been warier of comprehensive immigration reform than most Democrats, but it's hard to imagine him embracing Trump's deport-'em-all stance or his Islamophobia. And talk aside, Jim Webb has run exactly one political race in his life, and in narrowly winning a Senate seat in Virginia in 2006, he didn't do any better among white mountain folk than urban civil-rights lawyer Tim Kaine a year earlier — which is to say not well at all. His stubborn Confederate nostalgia has probably cost him what little chance he had to appeal to African-Americans. And given his hostility to free-trade agreements and his lack of passion for deficit reduction, Webb's an unlikely champion for the elite "centrists" of the Simpson-Bowles variety, or for the small if legendary cadre of true independents in the electorate.
What makes a possible Webb indie run (or even a sustained threat of one) relevant is the fear it strikes in the hearts of Democrats who remember 2000 and Nader's role in taking enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to make it possible for George W. Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court to pull off a bit of a coup. Even if he is a nonentity nationally, Webb presumably retains enough juice in Virginia to tilt that battleground state in a very close two-party race. But while some Democrats to this day believe in retrospect that Gore could have won by tilting a bit "left" and robbing Nader of a rationale for candidacy, it's not clear at all what a Democratic nominee could do to deal with a Webb indie candidacy other than to ignore it. Emulating his eccentric positioning — to the "left," in conventional terms, on foreign policy, and to the "right" on issues like affirmative action — just isn't in the cards for Hillary Clinton, who seems to have decided some time ago to cozy up to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders on domestic matters while depicting herself as "tougher" and more intervention-minded than Barack Obama on foreign policy. And beyond that, there's always the chance Webb would eventually pull more votes from Republicans disgruntled for one reason or another with their party's nominee.
In any event, Webb, always a diffident vote-chaser, will likely give an indie race a pass. But the year-end discussion he's spurred is a reminder that there's no guarantee at all that the political convulsions of 2015 will give way to a placid and predictable 2016.
Where is Cruz' path to victory? There is none. Whites will stay home again. Blue collar voters won't trust his and his wife's Wall St. connections. And how does Cruz help downticket races dominated by a GOPe that despises him?
According to Pew, The GOP could get a lowest-ever 20% of the Hispanic vote, 5% of the Black vote and still win with just an additional 4.5% of the White vote. The only poll I've seen asking this, by Gallup in September, showed a startling +8.5% boost for Trump among Whites. That is a landslide.
Wow. Your perspective is completely wrong.
And Anderson did not have any impact on any state in 1980, despite representing the George Will Republicans' hatred for and motivation against Reagan.
Or Ronald Reagan, a fellow actor, entertainer, former Democrat, and former union president for two terms.
Perhaps, but lately he’s been railing against both Obama and Clinton on his Facebook page, and he does have a small group of loyal followers who are capable of disrupting the DNC’s best laid plans, at least in Virginia.
If Jim Webb wants to challenge Hillary and Bernie, he has a better stage to do so at the debates.
If he wants to siphon off moderate Democrat votes from Trump or a Republican challenger, he’s in it to aid Hillary Clinton.
Al Gore's boast of winning the popular vote in 2000 was within a 0.51% margin. Half a percent.
I respect the nonvoters far more than those who go along to get along. Voting for lesser evils is how we ended up with mcinsane, the gobbler, and eddie munster. More often than not what we think of as the lesser evil during the campaign turns out to be the greater evil when they’re in office.
Voting at all is usually a bad idea. Voting for someone you don’t strongly agree with is an even worse idea.
How?
The thing with Trump is that he's bringing in all of those moderates and independents that the GOPe keeps telling us we need to "reach out" to. Plus the conservative base, and blue-collar Democrat types are crossing over for Trump.
That leaves the hard left. They're going to vote for Hillary because Webb isn't liberal enough. That leaves no support for Webb. His candidacy will have no reason to exist and I'd doubt he'll even run.
Probably from elected moderate Republicans, but not actual voters.
Now, I wasn’t even a gleam in my parents’ eyes in 1980, by from what I heard, you could say that ‘courting the white vote’ is what Reagan did. But not because of racism, not because what’s important to the white voter is important to everyone else too. We’re not as different as we think we are.
I think this is one reason Dems want us Balkanized like we are becoming.
>>If Trump is the Republican candidate, the Democrat machine of ballot-management, crime and fraud will destroy him. The damage will also continue down-ticket.
>>Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate. Pure and simple. You want Hillary and a Democrat Senate? Nominate Trump.
The democrat vote fraud will happen regardless of who our candidate is. If the Trump-haters choose to stay home and not vote, then the defeat is on them.
I assure you that almost EVERY Trump supporter will be there to vote for Cruz if he is the nominee. The only petulant brats in this race who can “damage the down-ticket” are the Trump-haters (unless the GOPe brokers the convention and “choose” Yeb, Rubio, Romney, or someone else that didn’t actually get any votes in the primaries).
Sir, while I respect your views I find myself wondering about WHAT is your basis for saying Trump will ABSOLUTELY lose to Hillary Clinton and never mind the Senate.
Unless you know something I don’t know, the ONLY objective measuring stick regarding voter pre-direction available to ANYBODY on the planet are the various polls. Some no doubt start out trying to prove a point or to sway voter opinion. But, it is a fact that some of the more reputable polls show Trump losing by a couple points to Hillary and some show him winning by a couple points.
So, about the only reasonable conclusion the rest of us peasants can draw is that, according to the most reputable top 3 or 4 or 5 polls, this race, right now, is a toss up. You seem to argue that Trump does not have a chance against Hillary?
To be sure, there is a sub-set of freepers tootin the same horn so you are not the only one. But, a lot of us would like to hear some objective facts to support the “proclamation” that Trump is a SURE LOSER against Hillary.
So stay home and don’t complain about the increase in your property taxes went up because your city asked for $1.3 billion in bonds for stupid stuff and those who showed up passed it.
At least do a protest vote. Vote for who and what you DO agree with. And if you don’t, at least someone who won’t win but can be seen as a protest vote. Otherwise you don’t exist.
Voting at all is a bad idea? I guess you like being told what to do and how to live by others without your consent or input. Have fun with that.
Voting is a bad idea? Yeah. Please stay home. The rest of us will decide things for you.
Never happen.
Unlike the GOP-e, the RATS learn from the past.
It will either be Hillary or Bernie.
It all depends on where VJ goes.
If she and Obama go to the UN, it will be Hillary.
If she is Chief of Staff for Bernie, it will be Bernie.
Yup. You’ll get to pick between a uniparty shill with an R after their name versus a uniparty shill with a D after their name.
Rah. Lemme know how that works out for you.
To my way of thinking, Trump is not the problem. Hillary is. Hillary winning the nomination of her party is Hillary too close to the White House for comfort.
She should have been knocked out by now. Benghazi, emails, whatever. Instead, she’s still running and it looks almost unopposed, unless you take Sanders seriously.
STFU, Jeb!
Ronald Reagan was a two-time governor who spent 20 years on the speaking circuit, courtesy of GE, extolling solid conservative principles of limited government and personal freedom. Does that sound like Donald Trump?
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.