Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
The problem is that he was swinging at other Republicans - right from the start as you noted. Whether it is only "wussies" who reacted negatively to that is irrelevant, because a general election vote by a wussy counts the same as anyone else's.

Making committed enemies out of people you will later need as allies is stupid, and is part of the reason for the 11th Commandment. So when Trump loses in November, he'll have nobody to blame but himself.

No, this does not compute. The case could easily be made that attacking (R)epublicans buys you votes in the general election, which is what you were specifically talking about.

The calculation that 'he will need them later' is pardon the pun, trumped by the fact that you need to get elected President *before* you get to worry about who you are dealing with. Thanks to the warped electoral map and demographics, any (D)ummycrat can be elected. Almost no (R) can be elected President now. The myth of nominating the perfect dude is over. You must nominate someone who can win ( which ironically is what Bill Buckley actually said and what Rush and Levin completely ignore ).

Beating up (R)epublicans? In the primaries it is a calculated risk. But likely a positive risk. Trump is running a variation of Nixon's apocryphal: "Run to the base in the primary, run to the middle in the general". It is not a bad gamble in my estimation because the most votes are on the other side.

It pains people to accept this fact, but (R) is a minority and (C) is a minority of that. The most valuable votes are direct (D)ummy crossovers, those who voted for (D)umbo last time. Any new or existing vote gets you an (R)+1, but a direct crossover gets you (D)-1 and (R)+1 for net 2. They are twice as valuable as me or you. And this is exactly how you can win the swing states. Trump is showing great strength so far right where he needs to, FL, OH, PA, MI, NC, and WI, is coming up fast. ( Look for USA Today article 3/29 describing movement in PA for Trump ).

Attacking (R)epublicans ( c'mon, it is such a target rich environment! ) gets (D)emocrats to crossover. They will never cross over for a (R) party loyalist. Coupled with his donations to both parties ( constantly decried by Cruzers and other pubbies ) means he gets to run as a legitimate non-partisan, the exact opposite of a bible thumping "conservative" Cruz who they despise.

Even on the merits your comment about 11th Commandment attacking pubbies is wrong IMHO. We have almost NONE who deserve this favorable treatment. I mean why? Because they have an (R) after their name? How much more treachery does one have to take to forget the party?

I suggest everyone call their local election board ASAP and get familiar with the write-in process, just in case the (R)epublicrat snakes steal the nomination. They cannot be rewarded with your votes who so many have died to protect.


Country before Party

159 posted on 03/30/2016 8:48:55 AM PDT by Democratic-Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]


To: Democratic-Republican
Beating up (R)epublicans? In the primaries it is a calculated risk. But likely a positive risk. Trump is running a variation of Nixon's apocryphal: "Run to the base in the primary, run to the middle in the general". It is not a bad gamble in my estimation because the most votes are on the other side.

I agree with that. But the variation Trump is running is fundamentally flawed. The point is to appeal to your own party in the primary, then appeal to independents in the election.

As much as Trump supporters like to portray themselves as "the base", they aren't. They are only one part of the base, and Trump has managed to piss off much of the rest of that base.

Now if he was pissing off part of the base but gaining more independents in the process, that might work. The problem is that the things that are pissing off a lot of the base are also pissing off a lot of independents. Exactly whose votes is he gaining with comments about penis size and retweeting nasty pictures?

Nixon's strategy revolved around issues. Take a more conservative position on issues during the primary, then move to the middle. Trump's core problem is not the issues. Trump's core problem is personal conduct/statements that gain him very few votes while losing him many more.

To put it differently, are there really people out there who weren't going to vote for Trump until he retweeted that picture of the wives? That his retweet is what convinced them to support Trump?

If they're out there, I haven't met them.

161 posted on 03/30/2016 9:00:09 AM PDT by Bruce Campbells Chin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson