Posted on 09/24/2015 6:43:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
I liked Scott Walker, I really did. I still do. His record of accomplishment as governor of Wisconsin is unrivaled, both by his fellow governors and by its success. That being said, he was a horrible presidential candidate.
Still, Walker dropping out of the race so early came as a shock to the political world. He’d been the frontrunner most of the spring and summer. But once he started to slide, as all early frontrunners do, he seemed lost as to how to stop it.
The Walker campaign had a lot of problems, and every one of them was self-inflicted. A lot of pundits say the emergence of Donald Trump killed the Walker campaign. It did not. Scott Walker’s campaign failed because he, like many before him, drew his line in Iowa.
Iowa has a lot of allure for Republican presidential hopefuls. It goes first and starting strong “feels” like the right way to win. It’s rural, so a limited government appeal will work with people who simply want to be left alone by Washington. It’s a caucus, so you need dedicated supporters willing to put in some time to have their votes count.
The last point is true, but it costs a lot of money, which helped kill Walker. The first two couldn’t be more wrong.
Iowa is the fool’s gold of Republican politics.
Winning the Iowa caucus is not the key to winning the Republican nomination. Since 1980, the Iowa caucus has been an abysmal predictor of who the eventual GOP nominee will be. The only Republican candidates who were not running unopposed to win the caucus and the nomination are Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Every other “winner” went on to lose the nomination.
George H. W. Bush beat Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole beat George H. W. Bush in 1988. Reagan won in 1984, Bush the elder in 1992, and Bush the younger in 2004, but all were unopposed and incumbents.
Remember President Mike Huckabee’s tenure in the White House? How about President Rick Santorum? They won Iowa in 2008 and 2012, respectively, and lost the nomination. Dole at least won the caucus and the nomination in his 1996 try but was beaten soundly in the general election.
Iowa is the race you don’t want to win. It may seem like a sprint, like you have to hit the ground running. But this isn’t a 100-yard dash; it’s a marathon. The fastest person off the starting line is rarely the first one across the finish line.
What Iowa should be is a place for candidates to get their sea legs and get used to the scrutiny that comes with campaigning on a bigger stage than they’ve ever been on before. It helps weed out candidates but usually only candidates who decree Iowa their “make or break” state. Walker did just that.
All the time and money Walker spent in Iowa was wasted. Not just because he’s now out of the race, but because it wouldn’t have mattered.
Iowa voters, as history shows, are not indicative of Republican voters throughout the rest of the country. They like subsidies. No, they LOVE subsidies. If you don’t support tax dollars for ethanol forget it.
That doesn’t sell with conservatives outside of Iowa. Candidates are left with a political dilemma – sell out conservative principles to appeal to voters in a state you probably won’t win in the general election, or tell a bunch of Americans you want to derail their gravy train and ensure you won’t win the state in the general. They can’t win, and they shouldn’t play.
Scott Walker put all his eggs in the Iowa basket.
Where Iowa fails, New Hampshire succeeds. Although not a perfect indicator, the Granite State picked non-incumbents Reagan in ’80, Bush in ’88, McCain in ’08, and Romney in ’12. Winning Iowa doesn’t help win anything else; winning New Hampshire, or even performing well, does.
Walker’s campaign spent a lot of time and money in Iowa, appealing to Iowans on issues Iowans care about. Although there is a Venn diagram overlap in what Iowa caucus goers and the following primary state voters care about, it’s a small group. By focusing on Iowa, Walker ignored the rest of the country. The rest of the country noticed…or, more precisely, didn’t notice Scott Walker.
Then, as always happens, Iowans noticed someone else, Walker’s support dried up, the basket was gone. And now, so is Scott Walker.
The shiny appeal of Iowa now will set about seducing its next mistress, who will spend a lot of time and money trying to seduce caucus goers – and perhaps will. If you have a favorite candidate left in the race, you’d better hope he or she can resist the allure of that fool’s gold.
Not at all. Trump has been far more successful at doing SOMETHING besides getting elected than anyone in the field. Put it in the real world.
Okay sea lawyer, how would YOU go about it? You have no idea, do you? And don’t give me any BS about congress, courts, etc. Because if you do, you’re just another same-old-same-old hack who is part of the problem.
YUP
So you don't care about the Constitution. I see. You call yourself an American too I'd bet.
Okay sea lawyer, how would YOU go about it? You have no idea, do you?
The bill currently authorized only funds 700 miles of fencing. It's a start, but not nearly enough. We got that through Congress, so in this climate a bill to finish it should not be nearly so difficult. In that bill, make it clear the courts have no jurisdiction over its construction. That's step two.
Step one is what I've been talking about for years on this forum: A bounty system for their arrest and detainment under a Congressional letter of marque. It beats e-Verify in that it doesn't give FedGov control over whether or not you can work.
The same tool can be used to root out Islamic terrorists very quickly.
The President can post the names, nationalities, entry points, entry dates, last known addresses, and dates of expiry on all legal aliens on a web site. Those who overstay those limits would then be fair game under the bounty system.
That's what I would do. It's legal and doesn't abet institutional dictatorship, unlike your preferences.
yes, and that goes back to my previous pint. The things Mr. Trump has done “in the real world” hardly indicate that he will be a conservative champion.
People who have “done” something for the conservative cause both inside and out of politics would include Ted Cruz, Scott Walker,and Bobby Jindall.
As part of it, the government must institute an orderly process for assuring that the enforcers understand the law. Putting up web sites with educational materials and tests by which to qualify for the program would meet that test. Thus turning the public into law enforcement finally gets the public to confront the maze of laws, court precedents, and union contracts governing "professional" (unionized) law enforcement. They'll be much more likely to vote for representatives who will simplify those laws and rein in the courts. The exclusionary rule would be at the top of my list.
Next?
I guess we’ll wait and see. But apparently you’ve changed the argument to “electability” now, since you are quoting polls. That’s an entirely different can of worms.
I live in eastern Iowa.
Walker was not well liked. He didn’t protect his people when the “John Doe” SWATing started. Many of them fled to Iowa.
I suspect Trump will take Iowa for the GOP, and Sanders for the Dems.
It has always been about vision. Voters do not care about nuts and bolts. That is why they are hiring someone to complete their vision of what they want.
This is more important now than it ever was.
Trump's favorabilities have completely flipped, 2:1 favorable now, and he beats Hillary head-to-head in one poll, tied in another.
Sorry, incorrect again.
Perry led Romney up until the last week of September in 2011. Then Romney and Cain traded places until Veterans Day. Then Gingrich led all of the polls until 2012.
Polls at this point in a race are very fluid, have questionable sampling data, and are entirely reliant on name recognition.
I saw it myself. O'Reilly was one, and I've heard him asked more than once. Believe me or not, I don't care.
Wrong. It has been stopped by the courts. It is effectively no longer on the books, nor was what was authorized complete.
So where is your source? What lawsuit?
It's not an abuse when it is an actual national security emergency. The border invasion qualifies in my book.
Trump recognizes he needs to beat back #2 only. He isn't worried about #10. Moreover, he has money that Cain and Gingrich only dreamed of having, and has far more money than Carson and Cruz put together. Finally, the states where Carson is #2, quite often the next state up has someone else in #2 slot. So in terms of delegates, it's pretty much a done deal.
I do not expect Obama to go quietly into the night like the Bushes did while their successors wreaked havoc for eight years.
I expect Obama to behave like a Presidente in Exile, trying to still run things from the outside, using Democrats in the Senate to block changes, and the MSM to be his daily press briefing on what he thinks and wants.
The next President will have to be BIG enough, and assertive enough, to go head-to-head with a "no-rules" Obama, and not let the rules of Presidential decorum be used as a weapon against him by former President Obama as he still tries to control the agenda post-presidency.
-PJ
Totally agree. I also think that is why Obama would prefer Biden in the WH ... it would be the same as a 3rd term. Loyal Joe wouldn’t want to change anything & would be very ‘agreeable’ to an Obama influence, in my opinion, People think Obama will be gone Jan 20, 2017 .... I think we’re stuck with this guy trying to be a big cheese & political influence until he croaks.
McConnell keeps saying so, but he says a lot of things he doesn't follow through on.
-PJ
I don't. Want to know why? You don't read the thread before posting.
So where is your source? What lawsuit?
See post 37 on this thread.
It's not an abuse when it is an actual national security emergency. The border invasion qualifies in my book.
Without an actual event (and 9/11 won't count, even if it should), you won't have any luck selling that one. What's worse, is that it is totally unnecessary. There is an easier way to do this.
If 20 million people were headed to the border and about to cross over, would that be "an event"? Just because it's happened over time doesn't make it less of a threat.
There is an easier way to do this.
Your original premise was that it can't and won't be done. So now you are contradicting yourself. But feel free to enlighten us on what that way is.
I'm sure going the national security EO wouldn't be Trump's first choice, he would have a lot of other weapons to use. I'm just saying he could do it if it came down to it.
One more thing...you keep talking about “dictatorship”. For the president to follow through on a law passed by Congress is not dictatorship. For any federal judge to have the power to override it is. I’m more concerned with judicial dictatorship at this point.
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.