Posted on 04/22/2016 12:18:37 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Have we not all learned that this is a terrible year for broad pronouncements? The past months are littered with the failed assertions of oh-so-smart people who just knew they had everything figured out.
Trump is a joke. No, wait, he’s inevitable. He’s out of control. No, now he’s more disciplined, He’s got this. No, he’s a loose cannon.
Cruz has no chance to be the nominee. No, wait, now he has the inside track. His campaign operation has too many flaws. No, now they are the smart ones with the best delegate roundup skills.
It’s the Year of the Governor. Nope, all the Governors are gone. Wait, there’s one. It’s John Kasich. He’s a terrible choice. No, wait, he’s great because he matches up well against Hillary. But he can’t win anything outside his own state and Manhattan.
Stop. Everybody just stop.
It’s hard, especially for people in the analysis business. We are supposed to be able to read tea leaves and tell the world what to expect miles down the road. Now it’s a minefield just trying to suggest what might happen in the next few weeks. For the first time in the memories of most people, we have an election year with races not yet settled in the springtime. The usual drill is Iowa, New Hampshire, maybe another state or two, then the concrete sets and we wait six months for the predictable infomercials of the conventions.
You could say this year has been wildly different.
And yet, all through the shows I host and the others I listen to, and across the television landscape, the habit persists: people shooting off at the mouth as if they know what will happen in November.
Since there are many possibilities, any one of a number of these smarty-pants folks may wind up right. But that doesn’t mean there is cause for certainty right now.
The foremost cases in point: “Trump can’t win” and “Cruz can’t win.” These sad-sack defeatist themes are everywhere, and every Republican should know they are highly flawed.
Let’s first dismiss their use by the two campaigns in question. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz will obviously cast doubts on each other’s electability. That’s campaign piffle.
The truth of the matter is that there is a plausible path forward for either man to be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. It is important to solidify this argument now because there will be mischief afoot this summer in the form of urgent calls for some third way, some brave knight to ride in to save us from the certain failure of our actual frontrunners against Hillary Clinton. John Kasich wants to be fill that role. Paul Ryan says he does not, but I’ll believe it when I don’t see it. There are even some noble and palatable names who did offer themselves up this year who might deserve a rethink. Okay, there’s one: Scott Walker.
But none of this is necessary. Trump can win. Cruz can win. Here’s how:
We begin with Trump because, well, everything begins with Trump. Are his negatives high? Sure they are, and there is nothing he can do about some of that. Some people just hate his guts, and the loudest of those seem to be Republicans terrified of having their comfort zones redrawn by a very different kind of nominee.
Most “Never Trump” tantrums will subside if he is the standard bearer. Maybe not among elites and pundits who may not recover from the vapors, but real voters will stare down the barrel of a Hillary presidency come October and get clarity in a hurry. The wild over criticism of him will subside, as will obsessions over some criticisms that may indeed hold water. The realization will dawn that even the brash, inconsistently conservative Trump presidency is infinitely preferable to the certain disaster that would accompany the election of Hillary Clinton.
Once his own party wises up and realizes this, his negatives will drop. They will drop further when they see him do something a Republican nominee has not done in a long while— go after a Democrat opponent with some energy and spine.
After watching John McCain and Mitt Romney’s soft touch against Barack Obama candidacies that swelled into the most harmful presidency in our history, this is the year for the GOP nominee to boldly identify the consequences of bringing about Obama’s third term. Does anyone doubt that Trump will do this?
Ted Cruz would as well, which is a good place to start the case for his electability. Hillary Clinton will dread debate nights with either man. My bet is she will agree to precisely one debate up against the hammer of Trump or the scalpel of Cruz.
Cruz is the embodiment of everything Republicans have sought since Reagan. His consistent conservatism has earned him scorn from Democrats, who know he is a genuine fighter, and from meek Republicans whose inadequacies are unveiled by his steadfastness.
His negatives are high as well. But it’s April. Can we remember that this is the rough and tumble primary season where Republicans in particular relish the circular firing squad? If Cruz carries the nomination out of Cleveland in July, the party will have finally offered up a candidate whom the faithful can vote for with no need to hold noses or make excuses.
The only serious Cruz concerns seem to involve those hard-to-define properties of likability, relatability and personal charm, found in abundance in candidates like Marco Rubio and Chris Christie (and Presidents like Reagan and Bill Clinton).
These are not irrelevant matters, but there is good news on that front. As someone who has known Cruz since his Texas Solicitor General Days, I can tell you he is an affable and good-humored man with connective qualities that will become more apparent when the post-convention smoke clears.
Most Americans have consumed Cruz in sharp doses— a sound bite of a contentious Senate speech, a brief segment on a cable channel— likely on the occasion of a lonely struggle against the Obama administration or a Republican party unwilling to thwart it. Given the time to offer up a positive vision for post-Obama America, Cruz will reveal the talents I have seen him deploy on numerous occasions— the gift of an inspiring and uplifting message that will explain better than most rivals why conservatism is good for rich and poor, young and old, men and women, Americans of all races. He will speak of opportunity and jobs and the rule of law and getting control of insane Washington spending.
And millions will eat it up.
How many millions? I wish I knew. I can’t guarantee a Cruz win any more than I can guarantee a Trump win. But the Cruz campaign will be so energizing to long-starved conservatives that many would crawl on shards of glass to make him President.
So enough laments that Cruz or Trump cannot win. When you hear them, know that it is not likely a heartfelt judgment, but a bat swung from an opposing camp. The Trump people want to win his way, the Cruz people want to win his way. It gives an extra zing to say your guy is the only path to victory, but don’t believe it.
Hillary might beat either man. But either man might beat her. Yes, she will have that infernal let’s-make-history fuel in her tank. But the first woman president thing may lose some appeal after a few months of ads reminding America of her mountain of scandal and proven mishandling of national security matters. Add her complete lack of campaign skills and her inability to count on the raw enthusiasm that propelled Obama, and maybe the prospects look a little brighter. And amid all the wailing over whether Republicans will coalesce, it may be the Democrats who face the harder problem, with millions of Bernie Sanders voters who don’t give a flip about her.
And on that electoral college map that everyone says is so hostile to any Republican, remember that Mitt Romney lost vital Ohio by less than three points and vital Florida by less than one.
This November, either Trump or Cruz will be better than Romney, and Clinton will be weaker than Obama.
So everybody buck up. Enough Republicans bellyaching about how Trump or Cruz cannot win. We’re all caught up in the dramas of today, and more are on the horizon. But the time will come when all of the preliminaries are over and the battle for our nation’s future will be at hand, from the end of July to November 8. In the hands of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, we will mount that battle with genuinely heavy artillery.
Since ONLY registered GOPs could vote in the N.Y. State GOP presidential primary, your patently ludicrous statement, that Trump only got 20% of that state's votes is about THE most asinine lie, in a post, that I have EVER seen on FR!
Cruz barely managed to get something a bit over 43% of the vote in his ADOPTED home state. He also lost the rest of the Southern states, which were all supposed to be all his!
KaSICKO has ONLY won the state that he is the sitting governor of. LOL
IT IS WAY PAST TIME TO GET BEHIND THE PRESUMPTIVE GOP NOMINEE....DONALD J. TRUMP!
By FRAUD !
You were PROTESTING the Dem Convention in ‘68?
Donald Trump-Jan Brewer
well, it was the machine that Daily had
It was the “rules” you know, like how Cruz lives by “the rules”
Hon. R.Daily brought in the vote, “by the rules”
This is why some of us old enough to see what happened get pissed off when some machine politicians start bringing in “the rules” to get what they want.
But the fact remains, Nixon should have won that by a landslide. Il only brought a few more delegates to the table that tipped (I mean TIPPED JFK over the top). If I remember, Nixon actually won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college.
For the whole election cycle, Nixon had that in the bag until he got on TV.
Don’t take my word for it, I am sure there are other accountings from folks my age.
Now that really scrapes the bottom of the barrel
No, me and a few buddies went to watch the hippies and find my sister.
It was quite the specatacle. The cops were fire hosing the hippies and sending dogs on them and it was on TV for the previous 3 nights, so we wanted to go.
My sister was in love with the hippies (go figure right?), and I was on leave and went down there because my dad sent me to find my sister (we lived on Addison and Leavitt, a few miles from the protests).
So I hopped on a bus (in uniform) with a school buddy (not in uniform) and we went to Grant Park. Well, the police started putting up barricades and making like a cattle coral, and you had to go only one way, and me and my buddy ended up jumping out of the barricades, and we got grabbed by some cops on horseback.
We were put in a paddy wagon, and sat there with the hippies, who dared not look me in the eye while I was wearing my fancy ass spec 4 stripes! heh
We got to the Belmont station and the hippies were sent inside, the cops saw me in uniform, asked what was going on, I told them about my sister, they told me to take a hike. I said “he’s with me” and pointed to my friend, and they sent us both on our way.
BUT, don’t get the impression that I was a Republican. I was not. I come from Chicago, and from a Chicago family of welders, plumbers and pipefitters. My dad and his brothers, everyone I knew were dems (I was a registered dem until this year). But, that was old school dems, and even Hon Daly had no use for hippies, nor did the cops. So we wanted to see the hippies get busted up.
I’d say our family was the Archie Bunker type D.
Now, don’t jump on me and ask why I’ve been a registerd D all these years (my last vote was for Perot, before that was Reagan 2x then “read my lips” Bush). I haven’t voted since, until this primary.
But that story of why I was a dem will either just piss you off and take up about twice a post this size, which you probably won’t read, OR you’ll just understand and not really need the diatribe as to why a Chicago contractor needs to be a registered D to function.
It would be useful to note how many republicans actually exist in NY
In the general many new voters and Reagan democrats will vote for trump but would never show up for Cruz
Millions of New Yorker’s didn’t even vote, those are Independents who will vote for Trump.
And NEVER forget that the CATHOLIC vote turnout was HUGE!
I saw that debate. Mr. Nixon was ill, looked awful, but sounded great. Those who heard the debate on the radio said that Nixon had WON! Those that saw it on T.V., mostly gave the win to JFK.
LOL...yes, that "rules" thing sticks in many a craw!
Though a GOPer, I was sitting in the living room, in Manhattan, glued to the T.V., cheering on Da Mayer and the cops.
A few years later, I was living in Chicago and did so for 17 years, so you truly don't have to explain anything at all to me about the place. LOL
yeah, we were a catholic family, and JFK was the first catholic to run, it was HUGE
but that’s where I first heard the term “a face built for radio”
In the radio debates, Nixon cleaned JFK’s clock. He had it wrapped up. I remember the nuns and the folks in our town (german / polish neighborhood) were distraught Nixon was beating down a good clean Catholic boy like Kennedy.
But then that TV debate... man, it was OVER.
That next week, the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun Times endorsed JFK (and they were both conservative papers at the time, not anymore or for years).
But Illinois, in 1960 was the same as the Florida recount.
It had that much impact.
Younger folks don’t know, Daley became a king-maker after that.
After JFK won, Chicago BOOMED. Daley got paid back (and Chicago) 1000 fold for what Daley promised.
Thus the true machine was born.
Politics was no longer about ideology, it was about a paycheck.
At least here in Chicago and many big cities. Endorse the right candidate and you will have a fat wallent, endorse the wrong one, and you will be looking for a job.
Yeah, I'm so worried about Trump's negatives. I don't give a ____ about what a bunch of whiney lefty liberals and lying republicans think about Donald Trump. The liberals wouldn't vote for any Republican and the Republicans will vote for Trump when push comes to shove, especially fater they have had ample opportunity to compare and contrast Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Chicago politics was ALWAYS a "MACHINE" run place, like NYC and Tammany Hall, who built the Dem Irish vote and bribes and booze and threats first. Boss Tweed makes Daley Sr. look like a "saint"/amateur! :-0
-—so you truly don’t have to explain anything at all to me about the place. LOL
.
.
.
Thank you for that. Many here just won’t understand, or can’t understand.
You saved me typing away with 2 fingers for the next 20 minutes!
:)
We should talk about Chicago, some time, just for fun. :-)
Yeah, you could run circles around me about other machines, I really have no idea. I’ve lived here my whole life.
But.. I do know all big cities have them, and that is why I don’t begrudge Trump for paying off politicians. I have to do the same thing, and I just consider it a tax.
I have given to Operation Push, the Rainbow Coalition, Daley’s Chicago, Rahm’s Chicago and every politician in 3 counties, that includes council members, judges, unions, those in office an those running FOR office (you have to hedge your bets).
It’s the cost of doing business, I learned that after banging my head on a wall and being “principled” for a few years.
“Principled” don’t buy you groceries or pay your workers where I live.
It don’t get you contracts, it gets you parking tickets and hassle.
Trump is way more a business man than I will ever be, and I am impressed he learned “The Business” at such a young age and mastered it so well.
Over the last ten years, you can bet I have given at least 4x as much to dems as Repubs, just a cost of doing business in Cook County IL. I am utterly AMAZED that Trump over the last ten years was able to still donate more to R’s than D’s in a place like NY.
Here, they would be wailing and have my ass tacked up against a wall.
People don’t give him credit for that.
I’d love to.
I am retiring this year, and I can’t wait to get out of the area (I actually live outside of Chicago, but must maintain a Chicago address for contracting).
I won’t go far (northern WI) as my family has roots here, but I’m as Chicago as Uno’s Pizza.
Northside, Wrigleyville, my whole life until 5 years ago I moved to the ‘burbs.
Where did you reside? I’m curious. And why temporarily?
I agree, Trump would make a great VP.
Eva, of all the replies on this thread yours is at least dealing with the actual issue that either candidate will face: flipping enough states from Blue to Red to get to 270 electoral votes.
Mitt Romney only got to 206.
If one assumes that either man would carry all the states that Romney carried, then you need to find 64 more Electoral Votes somewhere.
Florida is one obvious place to start, with 29. Trump did very well in Florida. Could either Cruz or Trump flip Florida Red? I would say Trump has a lot better chance.
I see the Great Lakes region as the big battleground this time, as it has been so many times in the past. Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin ane Pennsylvania between them have 73 votes. Win them all and you don't need Florida, win Florida and any three of the four will get you there.
Again, who has greater appeal in those States? Kasich won Ohio, with Trump a respectable 2nd. Cruz won Wisconsin (the smallest prize of the four), with Trump in 2nd. Trump won Michigan and looks likely to win Pennsylvania.
And of course general electorates are less conservative than GOP primary voters, and seem less likely to reward Cruz's hard-core conservatism.
My take is that Trump's strong anti-free-trade positions, and slightly more moderate social positions might be pretty attractive to these so-called "Rust Belt" states, and give him a real chance to get to 270 in the Electoral College.
I think Cruz's appeal is stronger in the Red State strongholds.
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.