Posted on 02/23/2016 6:25:27 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
How best to respond to the dramatic rise of outsiders like Donald Trump or the demise of the Bush dynasty? These conservative Americans share their thoughts.
Emily Zanotti
The 2016 Republican campaign has been unlike anything I've experienced in my time working in or covering politics. Since the early 2000s, I have thought that partisan politics and reality television-style entertainment have been heading for a collision course, but few could have predicted they would intersect so quickly and with such a dramatic impact on the Republican field.
Certainly, the Republican party has always been trying to reach beyond its borders to find fresh blood for its team, but there is good outreach and bad. On one hand, we had a more diverse slate of candidates in 2016 than ever before - black, Hispanic, female, immigrant, middle class, even libertarian. It demonstrated a deeper bench than in 2008 or 2012, when the fields were, predictably, white, old, rich and male.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has subverted the traditional campaign almost entirely, drawing from the hardline margins - especially where immigration is concerned - and from the aggressively, tribally partisan to find support. The former is a good development for the Republican party; the latter is a bad development for politics in general....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
The Republican Party supports amnesty. They support Muslim refugees coming in. 300,000 approved so far. 600,000 more Muslims a year coming in through regular immigration. We racked up 20 trillion in debt and republicans did nothing. They are crony capitalist anti American open borders country club delusional asshats.
Trump is going to destroy the GOPe and defend our country. Nobody else has the balls to do it.
Cruz is a good scotus pick.
“Panel of Conservative voters”
Like Michael Medvev(sp) I suppose.
Trump upended their carefully laid-out playbook where Yeb! emerges from a crowded field victorious with 25% victories.
Now they need the field cleared of all but Amnesty Boy to have a shot at blocking us from electing a President who would stop the illegal alien inundation.
The Cheap Labor Express still expects to get their Designated Loser amnesty candidate.
Memorizer Bunny is that Designated Loser
The people have other ideas
Did I get in before the “British people are stupid” posts from trump supporters?
Thanks. I thought the Manchester Guardian was in New Hampshire!
>>aggressively, tribally partisan<<
Uhh . . . yeah.
Trying to stop the American economy from hemorrhaging many thousands of jobs and almost a trillion dollars in trade deficit each year is tribal: THE AMERICAN TRIBE.
Trying to stop an invasion of millions or immigrants . . . mostly peaceful at the moment . . . until sufficiently strong . . . TRIBAL.
Its the people who don’t agree with these positions that are sketchy.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has subverted the traditional campaign almost entirely, drawing from the hardline margins - especially where immigration is concerned - and from the aggressively, tribally partisan to find support.
Trump hasn't subverted anything, he's using the political process like all the other candidates, but without being hidebound to party or ideological/label constituencies. What he has subverted (or better, I think, co-opted) is the mechanism by which the established elites control the message. Trump is talking over the press, the pundits and the political class.
The "tribally partisan" groups are the party insiders, by definition. Partisan being attached to a political party just because of loyalty to the party. Trump's positions with regard to national identity and jobs transcend party identity, and finds support from wide swaths of voters who nominally associate with both parties.
It is telling that the author sees national identity (a kissing cousin of patriotism) as an attribute of a "hardline margin."
I actually linked to the sourced site to check the names of the participants, but not recognizing any of the names, I didn’t bother to read any of their screechings.
” but I hope the field will have winnowed down to more serious candidates by then – and that our dalliance with fame as a substitute for leadership will have ended.”
It has, honey. We no longer are voting for FAME (i.e., the Bush family), but for LEADERSHIP (as in Trump business empire).
Your wish has been granted.
Excellent. You nailed it..
Wouldn’t the tribally partisan vote for Jeb?
Well now, they are looking to pass a law that would allow followers of mad mo, who have multiple wives, to claim all their wives, so they can get more free money from government. Just as long as they were married overseas, because polygamy is illegal in Britain.
I came across the little hater Steve Deace’s twitter and get this - he states ‘all the important people won’t vote for Trump’.
Now I have to say, I didn’t know that in America one voter was more important than another.
What a pos that guy is, and anyone else who thinks like that.
Then it was Wall Street that took over the GOP and we did nothing.
Then it was Free traders that took over the GOP and we did nothing.
Then it was the fundamentalists that took over the GOP and we did nothing.
That's how conservatives got schlonged again.
I mentioned in another post, a few days ago, “so much for the pledge!” I figure the usual suspects (GOPe and pundit class) are closet DEMs anyway, so it’s no surprise they vote their conscience when they can’t get in on the corruption by pretending to be for smaller, less intrusive government and something resembling nationalism.
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.