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.
No one outside the Trump core supporters are in the Trump camp any more. The Trump version of the Don Rickles show has run its time. It has peaked and is now collapsing. Trump is turning into the very politicians that he railed against.
That is the danger of politics of personal destruction, when that is all you have got. It eventually destroys the people who employ the tactic. Hatred is just plain ugly.
Hoodat wrote: “I wouldn’t characterize this as disagreeing. I stated my preference, and at the same time acknowledged what turns out to be yours. I like BK Whoppers because I like tomatoes on my burger. You like McD’s Big Macs because you hate tomatoes on your burger. It is a matter of preference.”
Perhaps on some level, but the essence of my disagreement is this: while I might prefer candidate A more than B, if A is not electable, then there is no reason to vote for him.
It’s like this, I’m trying to maximize A time B where A is probability of being elected and B is my preference for a candidates policies. Each candidate has an A and a B.
An hypothetical: suppose there are three candidates. You agree with A on 90% of the issues. You only agree with B on 75% of the issues. You find C unacceptable on all the issues. Now if it’s either A or B to oppose C, and if the polls indicate that A will surely lose to C but B may win against C, would you switch to B?
And this suggestion that the one candidate who puts America and Americans first, is driven by "hate," is an insult to all our patriotic countrymen. Trump is not the candidate who is trying to change American culture--quite the opposite.
Depends on the issues and how much weight you put on each issue. For example candidate A is anti abortion and candidate B is pro choice then who does one pick if that person opposes abortion on moral grounds? Just whom do they choose?
You are sadly right about the visceral dislike of Trump that he and his supporters have generated by their bullying, nastiness, and uncivil discourse, especially here of FR. If you go back and review just the postings in this thread you will see that virtually all the vile, foul mouthed postings come from Trumpets, while Cruzers argue substance, facts, and with civil language. Like an earlier poster, I was once willing to vote for Trump if he beat Cruz. But now I am wondering if I can hold my nose long enough to cast a vote for Trump, especially after his latest over the past couple of days.
If Trump is going to unite the Party behind him he’d better tell his frothing at the mouth supporters to tone it down and be more civil!!
Yeah, your concern is duly noted. If Republicans can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump over Hillary, they aren’t actually Republicans.
LOL! Trump followers have imitated his the Don Rickles’ style of campaigning and in doing so have succeeded in pointing out the differences between their candidate and Ted Cruz.
There is absolutely no substance to any of their arguments, nothing but ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations against both Ted Cruz and his supporters. In doing this, they have assured that the rift will not heal before November, especially now that Trump has promised to become more Establishment.
The attack style of campaigning is typical Libertarian. They started the attacks on Cruz when he was running for the Senate in Texas. That is where the unlikable meme came from. The reason that he was unlikable was because he is an Evangelical Christian with unbending Conservative values. The Libertarians call all social Conservatives, judgmental knuckle draggers.
The Libertarians attacked me about the same time because I exposed the fact that there candidate who was running for the Senate was really a Pauler, running on the Republican ticket. I mentioned that he had done a radio show with Ron Paul and that his foreign policy was a disaster waiting to happen. They called me a liar and denied that the candidate was a Pauler and claimed that the radio show was a figment of my imagination.
In your scenario, A is Trump and B is Cruz. The flaw for me is that the poll predictions of what will happen in November do not necessarily reflect what will happen. The track record of previous predictions of this nature prove them unreliable.
The disapproval rating is a more reliable indicator of future performance. Overcoming high disapproval is far more difficult than overcoming low approval. The former indicates that voters are familiar with that candidate and have already formed an opinion while the latter indicates an unfamiliarity with that candidate. Historically, candidates with such high disapproval lose general elections.
2016 is a golden opportunity for the GOP because Hillary Clinton carries such a high disapproval rating into the election. Yet the Stupid Party is poised to match her up with someone even higher.
Correctamundo.
central_va wrote: “Depends on the issues and how much weight you put on each issue. For example candidate A is anti abortion and candidate B is pro choice then who does one pick if that person opposes abortion on moral grounds? Just whom do they choose?”
Life is full of choices. The one alternative that is not available is to insist that you shouldn’t have to choose. Either you choose, or life will choose for you.
So your “formula” is BS.
Hoodat wrote: “2016 is a golden opportunity for the GOP because Hillary Clinton carries such a high disapproval rating into the election. Yet the Stupid Party is poised to match her up with someone even higher.”
I disagree. The GOP isn’t poised to match someone with high disapproval ratings against Hillary. The GOP voters are.
The exit polls are so revealing. I’ve seen where only 12% of those polled considered ability to win as important in their choice. “Telling it like it is” rated much higher. Why?
Very much like in the Clinton years. I would ask liberals why they would support a person with Clinton’s penchant for telling lies? They would respond that “they liked what he said”. Really, you support someone who because of what he says even when you know he doesn’t mean it?
central_va wrote: “So your “formula” is BS.”
Not BS. You have to personalize the formula using the weights and values you feel appropriate. Regardless of what you think, you’re probably doing a version of that formula. I’m saying that your preferences for certain positions are nice, but you also have to choose a candidate with a probability of actually implementing those policies.
Here’s an example: We both know you like protecting jobs. I’m not trying to revive that discussion, but to use that to make a point. Suppose there are two candidates running in the primary who profess to have plans that will save jobs.
Your personal assessment is that A’s plan is better and will save 100,000 jobs. B’s plan will also save jobs, in your opinion, but will only save 20,000 jobs. In your opinion, A only has a 10% chance of winning the general election while B has a 70% chance of winning. Who do you vote for in the primary?
They already have. Your opinion is interesting but is not reflected on the ground
Compare how Trump did in NY to how well Romney and McCain did!
Trump got about 5X the vote they did!
And millions of Independents didn't vote in that primary as well.
And in Texas, Trump held Cruz below 50%, which means Cruz should drop out, that was the criteria for Trump in NY.
It seems that Cruz never has to follow the criteria that he sets for others.
You've nailed it ALL and hopefully enlightened the dummies here, who've never had to deal with local and state governments or else they couldn't do business and so get on their high horses and look down their noses at those who do!
Yes, Trump learned what he had to do to, in order to build buildings and master it all at a young age. The man is a LOT more intelligent than he is given credit for and he's also someone who does want to change it all, as he hates the corruption in all government areas.
And politics is THE dirtiest business of them ALL! The people who imagine that there is even one "clean", "pure" pol, are just childishly naive!
And just WHERE in N.Y. do YOU live and how long have you been an "expert" in N.Y. politics?
Just a cursory glance at the daily letters to the editors of N.Y. State newspapers would educate you and disabuse you of your completely and utterly STUPID remarks!
And psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst......even WITH voter fraud, BRIBES, and ACORN's help, Hillary barely won her Senate seat; you bloody moronic git!
Trump, unlike EVERYONE ELSE, puts N.Y. ( and many other BLUE STATES ! )in play; forcing Hillary or whoever, to spend a vast amount of money and time in states that otherwise they could ignore! And THAT, alone, is a very BIG DEAL!
You neither know nor understand ANYTHING at all about American politics! LOL
I'll answer the rest of your post's questions and a bit more, in FRmail. :-)
The second part could well true.
The first remains to be seen.
Democrats and #NeverRepublicans tend to be more loyal nowadays than Republicans, so even a lousy candidate like Hillary can count on people who hate her still voting for her.
Republicans nowadays are like Democrats used to be and are more picky about whether they'll support the party's nominee.
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.