Hillary's predicament is a perfect set-up for Trump.
Posted on 04/19/2016 11:12:11 PM PDT by goldstategop
How bad was Cruz’s night? He’s losing to Ben Carson in some places — a guy who hasn’t been in the race in weeks.
Cruz can still win the nomination on the first convention ballot, mind you, but he needs to win about 88.5 percent of the outstanding delegates, bound or unbound, per Daniel Nichanian’s excellent calculations. That's not likely to happen either.
Trump isn’t the only big winner tonight! Congratulations to John Kasich, who will almost certainly end up with his first delegate in more than a month. Can Kasich pull off a come-from-behind victory? No. The end.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“When Sanders is eliminated, many of his disenfranchised supporters are going to support Trump.”
Don’t you consider that more of a problem than a benefit? When a candidate is appealing to those that support Marxism, then shouldn’t take a minute to think about that candidate’s positions?
This isn’t a “our team” vs “their team” sporting event. This is a Liberty vs Tyranny decision...
Those voting for the socialist? It’s the same reason we’re voting for a billionaire. These are votes to end the corrupt system perpetuated by both parties. A lot of those dissatisfied dems will still be dissatisfied; they’ll vote for the outsider for President.
“Looking forward to your desperately-deserved ZOT.”
You’ve said this twice with regards to posts that were in no way offensive. Why are you so afraid of discussion? What is your reasoning for dreaming of a brown shirt regiment?
Of course, if FR has now changed from a discussion forum to a cheer leading site, then point me to the new policy and I will gladly find a better home.
Read a week or two of my posts (or a month, but that is a lot of reading) and see if you think I'm sincere on supporting Trump and on voting Trump in six days. I want Trump to win on the first ballot. It's not guaranteed with or without Cruz dropping out now, but I believe based on professional experience that the best odds for Trump are if Cruz stays.
The "honorable thing" is for Cruz to stay and earn as many delegates as he can. The honorable thing is for Trump to (finally!) start playing for the win and earn as many CA, OR, WA, NM delegates as he can, while also guaranteeing wins in the winner-take-all states where he is winning. Both honorable choices together leave the establishment (Kasich and his supporters) with the fewest possible delegates, and that is the critical point.
The most important issues to me are immigration, gun rights, Obamacare, and religious freedom. Cruz is better than 99% right on all four, and Trump is close to that level (not quite as strong as I'd like on the gay mafia and forcing to bake a custom gay cake in my view, but otherwise great). Those are the only two candidates who hold the right views on both issues, and I want what is best for a win on those issues - a Trump nomination, with Cruz in a strong position if Trump falls short.
“Don’t you consider that more of a problem than a benefit? When a candidate is appealing to those that support Marxism, then shouldn’t take a minute to think about that candidate’s positions?”
Hell, no. Bernie supporters wouldn’t support Trump because they think he’s a socialist, but because they’d see him as an outsider (and they would be right).
I think the bigger picture is that Clinton won’t be able to pivot to the center like she expected to. She’s going to have to continue to offer freebies and socialist policies to keep the Bernies happy and in her camp. This is a perfect set-up for Trump.
LOL!
( then again, only a 1/2 lol.....he probably will do just that.)
“If Trump can unify the party, NY is in play in November.”
That is a mighty big if. He has spent months trashing his Conservative opponents. In addition a significant number of his supporters have scorched the earth.
Those two things are very hard to recover from....
“would it be better off if somebody who shared 50% or 70% of the positions of their favored candidate won, instead?”
I might consider it, if the candidate could even break the 50% threshold. Donald doesn’t.
“who supports a very strong national defense, tax cuts, massive reductions in regulations and the federal bureaucracy, taking the leash off the oil companies, building the pipeline from Canada, getting control of our borders, having a foreign policy that is actually pro-American, not appointing judges who are likely to continue destroying our Constitution, and trying to reduce the welfare mentality and the welfare state as much as possible?”
Most of that is made up projection. The fact is that he is running on building the wall, but that is about it. You can’t claim that the candidate is going to reduce the size of government if that same candidate has espoused increases in ethanol subsidies and continued funding of Planned Parenthood. Period.
Those 2 things are the lowest pieces of hanging fruit and any candidate not willing to take a conservative stance on such easy items, will not take them on the harder ones.
He has stood firm on the Wall and “making deals.” But that is about it.
Hillary's predicament is a perfect set-up for Trump.
“Practical conservatism is the way to go. Get used to it.”
Please define “Practical Conservatism” for me.
I don’t know what the reason is. But in the last decade more and more Americans are becoming less religious. And that means that candidates like Cruz are doomed on the national stage.
If you call less than 50% of the vote in any given state except NY a “sweep”. All of those (conservatively saying) 55% of the people that didn’t vote for Trump.what about them? Their vote was stolen.
He has to win 85%??? Not likely to happen?? Understatement of the year...
“Those voting for the socialist? It’s the same reason we’re voting for a billionaire. These are votes to end the corrupt system..”
That’s funny right there! In other words, the Bernie supporters and Trump supporters have no core principle regarding individual rights, constitutionalism or liberty. I find that interesting.
I’d also like to point out that the only reason such corruption exists today is because the federal government is just too big. It will just get bigger under a socialist or under Trump with the growth of cronyism that will come with high tariffs.
Let me clarify the above for you. The Bernie supporters would align with Trump because the end results are generally the same. Big government that they think will protect them.
As I said, this should be a concern for Trump supporters, not an advantage.
And what happened? Republican elitist "leaders" backstabbed us, AGAIN, and caved even faster and more thoroughly to Obama's agenda. So what is the point of putting one of their faves in office? The best thing we can do is destroy the beast that the Republican Party has become.
Dems feel the same way. Their primary system is even more worse, as it doesn't even take slick underhanded maneuvers to deprive voters of the choice.
So, yeah, we have core principles. Only problem is the insider pols can no longer say with a straight face that they're the "lesser of two evils". They're just the other side of the coin.
How many times does this has to be spelled out? The insiders? A whole lot of us don't trust you at all. After these attempts to steal the nomination, we don't even like you any more.
One example: Eminent Domain is necessary to get the Keystone pipeline through - don’t knock it.
That is why the Cruz guys mention it, they hope that people don’t realize that little fact.
I'm conservative, but I want to win. A major shift in my thinking has been Social Security. On the face of it that's one of the worst, most fraudulent programs. An outright Ponzi scheme. However... the demographics of the GOP base skew older. To run against Social Security is to cut the legs off a good percentage of the GOP base. So I don't argue about Social Security anymore. Trump gets this instinctively.
That's practical politics. Is it less conservative than the guy who says "Stand on principle, lose every election!" That was Ron Paul's approach to running for president. How did it work out?
Long ago, when it was absolutely taboo here, I hinted that invading Iraq was a major political mistake. Trump gets that too. There was never any benefit to the GOP base. Just vague theories about democracy and turning Iraqis into modern capitalists. Why is the GOP on a losing streak? Because the core of the party leadership is still dedicated to globalist schemes like the Iraq invasion, free trade and open borders. All of those "conservative principles" are right out of The New Republic. So this is far worse than Ron Paul, who at least is being economically conservative when he attacks Social Security. This is leftism calling itself conservatism.
Trump has shot to the top by very cleverly throwing out the leftist globalism, downplaying issues that hurt the base, and putting forward anti-globalist patriotism to appeal to a wider public.
Is it conservative? In some ways it's far more conservative than anything we've had to choose from since Reagan. It doesn't check off every box on a right wing think tank's wish list, and it's not libertarianism, but it's a winning combination.
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.