Replies

"I’d be all for Trump if I can get myself to believe he is electable. But given the nationally high percentage of those who will definitely not vote for him, I think we must follow the Buckley principle. We elect the most conservative and the one who could win. In my opinion that leaves out Trump. Of those still standing I would like Cruz to capture the nomination. Absolute No to Bush, Kasich, Graham"

~sigh~ In some ways Buckley is still killing us. No doubt this is the core of the myth pushed by Rush that we are a "Conservative" country. At the Presidential level it most certainly is not. People are not waiting around for the superhero anti-Liberal to appear so they can crawl over broken glass to cast their votes. Indeed we are, but the vast majority are not, and that number is only getting worse each and every day.

First of all, your point about electing the most conservative who can win appears rational and logical on the surface. But your application of it seems to stop at the first part, ignoring the bold part, and that is quite irrational and illogical. Furthermore, that first part, did NOT work even way back in Buckley's day. Consider the 1980 election ( which was -100 million in total population ago ).

In that year Reagan was an unabashed Conservative, Goldwater supporter, Buckley friend, ex-(D)emocrat and did not hide any of these facts. While it is true he got an electoral landslide, he just received 50.8% of the vote ( 49.2% voted AGAINST the Conservative ). The important thing to note is that four years later after massive attention to Jobs/Taxes/Military he received 58.8% of the vote. He did this by reaching in a taking tons of enemy votes, the so-called Reagan (D)emocrats and (I)ndependents, not by finding "Conservatives" who sat out the 1980 election. These people, like so many you are seeing today, are voting "pocketbook" issues, of which JOBS and TAXES are right at the top, equaled only by ILLEGAL ALIENS. It is pure populism. But even though populism has risky connotations, the current subject is pro-America populism and has a direct parallel to 1984.

Keep in mind that the 50.8% Reagan received in 1980 happened with the demographics far, far, FAR more favorable than today, and in an even worse economy. The myth is that it was "Conservatism" that won that battle, or any Presidential election. It is a dangerous myth ( for us ) to believe. It is perfectly true for all local and most State elections, but not the Presidential one which is big-Personality, big-Money, big-Party, and big-Media driven. Hence, the Buckley principle is only applicable if you recognize your target audience.

The demographics are so bad right now ( the enemy has 250+ electoral votes at the starting line ) that it already may be over. I've described this possible victory as threading a needle. See my post a few back with the electoral map. Purity testing the candidate for doctrinaire "Conservatism" is not going to gain electoral votes in those "purple" states we don't already have, and neither is GOPe establishmentarianism either ( demonstrably proved over and over including 2012 ). The needle is thread by somehow getting those (D)amn (D)ummycrats to vote for populist pocketbook issues that are pro-American rather than the usual selfish liberal platform. This so far, appears to be Trump's plan.

Someone has to say it, so I will ... this Presidential election is NOT about "Conservatism" ( or (R)epublicanism, or (D)emocratism ) it is about America, and nothing else. Period. Country before Party.