The GOPe Strategy from Here (Vanity)

VANITY

[TigerClaws]

Trump and Cruz are poised to do well in the south. Trump can close it out on the east coast and a solid performance on the west coast.

The Uniparty does what from here?

They were backing RoboRubio big, but he had the debate malfunction. They tried to minimize the damage, but to no avail. Christie destroyed Rubio for this election round. He's done.

That leaves Kasich and Bush. Bush is spending $3,000 a vote and at 4% in Florida. Kasich is out of money and doesn't appeal to anyone in the south.

Cruz they hate, but he needs their money and his wife works for Goldman Sachs.

Which of these do they try:

1. Push Cruz knowing he'll likely lose the general election and might be co-opted?

2. Convince Bush, Rubio, and Kasich to get behind ONE of the three. Christie is done and he will be out. If ONE of them emerges as the only establishment guy, that's 40% of the vote and they might be able to stop Trump/Cruz.

3. Continue forward in denial as Trump and Cruz carve up the south in the new few weeks.

I'm expecting them to encourage Trump and Cruz to fight each other to bash each other down.

Then they tell one of the three left (Bush Kasich Rubio) that he will be the one to get money and tell the other two to step aside. They need Florida and Ohio so a VP slot might be offered as part of that deal.

Thoughts?

[Caipirabob]

Well said.

Elizabeth Warren has charisma? Wow, I will have to read up on her as seriously, I believe Hillary is not going to make it to the end of this race.

And that alone is enough to put a smile on my face.

[LS]

Obviously this will continue through Super Tues. if Cruz doesn’t win big (he can’t) he will emerge down maybe 200 delegates. Trump will sweep NE, PA, MN, WA, OR. Cruz will take TX and possibly UT.

Cruz will then have to decide if he wants to be a senator of one, AG, or a USSC Justice. That won’t be a hard choice.

[LS]

Good. Works for me ... And America.

[jch10]

The Establishment had rather crash and burn than allow Cruz or Trump to be elected.

[9YearLurker]

Any pushing of Cruz would not be for him to be the nominee, but to dent Trump enough to get to a brokered convention—that they could effectively steal.

NH was terrible for them in that Bush, Rubio and now Kasich are all going to try to force themselves through what right now is a narrow Establishment door to competitiveness in the race.

But Cruz continuing along (and going after Trump the way he is) is just what could help them despite that.

[Carthego delenda est]

“I’ll add, there’s not one other than Trump in our party that can beat Hillary or Bernie”

I tend to agree with that.

[Mamzelle]

I’ve thought from the beginning that Trump boosted Cruz. Cruz is smart enough to know it. And trump is smart enough to know that Cruz is really smart. Looks like it’s Trumo for me—

[Mamzelle]

Yes, at all cost avoid a brokered convention. Have been back and forth with Cruz and Trump—

[Mamzelle]

Not really. I want her to crawl to the finish line. Every day she damages the Dem brand.

[HoosierWordsmith]

Door #2 is the GOPe only hope...clear the RINO field, fully fund Kasich, and hopefully get Trump and Cruz to destroy each other....

[Leto]

Let’s see Trump won’t get rid of Obamacare, will expand socialized medicine, in favor of touch and go amnesty, willing to make deals with Pelosi Reid and the like.

I’d say the GOPe has found their boy not perfect but give Trump Corp so juicy deals to build a fence, he is ready to go the family get rich his ego is massaged and basically business as usual.

ALthough with his Yuge negatives among indies he will probably lose to Biden.

[Caipirabob]

Crawl to the finish line? I like that thought. Gives me more time to poke her with a sharp stick...

[refermech]

The flip side is also possible. He could become a thoughtful but effective bargainer for the country. His outrageous claims now are simply to grab attention and establish a beginning bargaining position. He knows he will not get what he wants, but he will get enough to move us forward. That’s my devils advocate take on the Donald.

[lafroste]

It is almost criminal to throw away this one chance in a generation to elect an actual conservative in favor of a narcissist with no fundamental conservative principles apart from the opportunistic advancement of his own ego.

I have to call a major BS on that one. Have you no eyes to see what is happening? Trump is, by all accounts (especially his children) an excellent father. He is by all accounts a very successful businessman (which means he functions in the real world not some platitudinous cloyed and sequestered world.) He is nearly 70 YO. He is not doing this to stroke his ego. That is what hillary does. He's not doing this to increase his wealth, he is already fabulously wealthy. He is doing this because he sees that the world is in serious trouble, and after careful analysis, has decided that he is the best person to fix it. And he probably is. But even if he isn't "the best" then who the hell is? Nobody else that I see.

Even if Cruz is not pusillanimous (ie. pussy - look it up), even if Carson is a great man in his own right, even if bush is a competent administrator (ak!), none of them engender the quality of looking at a problem, perceiving the cause of the problem, then fixing the damned thing the way Trump can. That's why he's so rich.

I have had it with you sanctimonious Trump bashers here at FR who pompously sit in judgement and cast simple one thought aspersions at a man, admittedly just another human, because he doesn't fit your far more limited concept of greatness. Get over yourselves! If you know so much more then you go do it! Put up- or shut up. Calling him "ego driven" after all he has accomplished is the height of conceited arrogance an I for one am sick of hearing it.

[nathanbedford]

The flip side is also possible.

Yes Donald Trump might confound the lessons of history. He might be the only politician who goes to Washington and keeps all his promises when those promises contradict his biography, his modus operandi, his public statements, his political affiliations, his penchant for making "deals," and his crony capitalist involvement with big government.

A very optimistic possibility upon which to bet our kids futures, how much better for them and how much more prudent to bet their futures on a tested, proven, consistent conservative.

[jpsb]

how much more prudent to bet their futures on a tested, proven, consistent conservative.

Your "proven, tested, consistent conservative" sold us out to the globalist on TPA and TPP, he sold us out to the Chamber of (cheap labor) Commerce on H1B visas and legalization of illegals. The two most important issues of the day and he sold us out. Plus he has a habit of telling untruths. Hardly the "proven, tested, consistent conservative" he claims to be.

[nathanbedford]

At the risk of trespassing across the threshold of your tolerance once more, I submit that you do not understand the urges which motivate the walking ego with the comb-over.

Trump has made his billions and made his mark in the accumulation of money which, of course, translates to power. Now he wants to take the next step to which so many wealthy men are tempted, he wants to succeed in the grandest arena of all, the arena which will give him the most scope to gratify his ego, politics.

Politics is the means by which we govern ourselves which also means how we distribute wealth, how we force other people to do our bidding, how we force other people to refrain from doing their own bidding, in short, politics is the way we decide whether we are going to control or refrain from controlling other people.

We are conservatives because we abhor controlling other people more than is indisputably necessary for the common good. We understand the common good to be identifiable, limited and, indeed, enumerated in the Constitution. Leftists define the common good as whatever flavor tickles them this cycle.

A narcissist necessarily defines the common good to be identical with his own selfish interests. That is the definitional foundation of a narcissist. It is perfectly understandable that Donald Trump "sees that the world is in serious trouble, and after careful analysis, has decided that he is the best person to fix it."

It is absolutely predictable that an egoist like Donald Trump will seek to gratify his needs in the public arena and at the public expense.

[refermech]

It’s true, there are more conservative candidates and I will support whoever we nominate. With 5-4 decisions the norm on the supreme court I hope we will find a way to rally behind the eventual candidate. It’s really in the conservatives hands. If they can’t nominate their guy, will they stay at home come election day. If they do, does this further our cause? For myself, The point is, to keep moving forward.

[nathanbedford]

On January 9, I posted this reply concerning Ted Cruz' role in TPA. Contrary to the contents of your reply, Cruz is unalterably opposed to TPP.

At the time Cruz did not "sell-out" on TPA because he had never promised the contrary of what he did. Indeed, he published an op-ed with Paul Ryan in the Wall Street Journal arguing for TPA because, otherwise there would be no trade deal and trade was and is absolutely essential to the American economy. As you are well aware Cruz voted against TPA, but not on the closure vote where his vote might have made the difference.

The reply is designed to demonstrate that, although Cruz might've been aware of the malicious intent of Barack Obama, there is a legitimate need for some trade agreements and that means fast-track. Accordingly, a trade deal is perfectly in keeping with the venerable conservative ideology advance by the likes of Milton Friedman.

When you read the replies to this you will be told that Cruz should have anticipated the contents of the treaty. If that is fair you "must" at least concede the possibility that Trump's heavy-handed negotiations with foreign powers could lead to a trade war and a devastating depression.

Here is that reply which, typical of Trump supporters, was criticized because it allegedly presumes to tell people what they "must" do rather than recognizing a literary device for what it is.

Here is that reply:

Nor did he enable ObamaTRADE, like Cruz

Enough already. Enough of this bashing of Ted Cruz for voting on cloture for TPA.

In order to place blame on Cruz for that vote you must be able to unequivocally establish several unprovable propositions:

1. That Ted Cruz knew or should have known that the provisions of the subsequent trade treaty (TPP) would be, on balance, negative for the American economy. You must be able to impute future knowledge to Ted Cruz at the time of the cloture vote on TPA.

2. You must be able to establish that proposition for a time in which no treaty had been negotiated.

3. That it was knowable at the time of the TPA cloture vote that foreign trade negotiators would consent to negotiate with the United States if our negotiators did not possess fast-track authority authorized by TPA even though they declared that they would not.

4. You must be able to prove that proposition when history unequivocally demonstrates the contrary.

5. If you concede the treaty negotiations would not have occurred in the absence of TPA, you must then unequivocally demonstrate that no treaty would be better for the American economy while other nations participated in a treaty arrangement, a treaty agreement which of course is unknowable and certainly unknown to Ted Cruz at the time of the cloture vote.

6. You must be able to establish unequivocally the proposition that TPP would have failed a two thirds majority in the Senate when it eventually arrived there for confirmation and you must impute that knowledge to Ted Cruz at the time of the cloture vote when no one has any idea what will be in that treaty. You must prove unequivocally that TPP would have been defeated by a two thirds vote.

[lafroste]

With respect, your characterization of Trump as narcissist and ego driven could reasonably be said of any politician or anyone at all who pursues such power. Was George Patton a narcissist? He certainly had an ego, and that ego certainly drove him. The same could be said of Churchill or Washington or any of hundreds of men regarded as heros. Were all those men narcissists? No. Were they driven by their egos? Absolutely. That is not a bad thing for a leader. The bottom line is that I disagree with your assertion that Trump is narcissistic, he simply does not fit the pattern, and I refuse to criticize a leader who has an ego because ALL leaders have an ego.

And like it or not, Trump is a leader.