Why Trump Will Win the GOP Nomination

[SLD]

In the general election, there will be another factor to contend with. Young millenials voting for the first time. They grew up with Bush lying us into a war supported by the GOP. Cheney, torture et al. The worst economic collapse since the depression. And on and on. Young voters tend to not vote as much as older cohorts, but this cycles new voters will offset that by being more Democratic than Republican by 2 to 1 margins if Pew surveys are correct. Some commentators have spun theories how the GOP could win by energizing the white voters but these millenial voters will throw that sort of political calculations into the round file. Some years back, Rand Paul thought he could rally younger voters to his Libertarian tinged brand of conservatism, but polls suggest its Bernie Sanders that has been energizing younger cohorts. The problem is, many voters will not be paying all that much attention to the elections until some months down the line, and then things may differ quite a bit from today's political junkies that are making a big splash in early voting states.

I hope they have enough sense to turn out in droves. Their lives might actually depend upon it. War is not good for young people. Unfortunately a lot of them think it's fun.

SLD

 

[funinspace]

In the general election, there will be another factor to contend with. Young millenials voting for the first time. They grew up with Bush lying us into a war supported by the GOP. Cheney, torture et al. The worst economic collapse since the depression. And on and on. Young voters tend to not vote as much as older cohorts, but this cycles new voters will offset that by being more Democratic than Republican by 2 to 1 margins if Pew surveys are correct. Some commentators have spun theories how the GOP could win by energizing the white voters but these millenial voters will throw that sort of political calculations into the round file. Some years back, Rand Paul thought he could rally younger voters to his Libertarian tinged brand of conservatism, but polls suggest its Bernie Sanders that has been energizing younger cohorts. The problem is, many voters will not be paying all that much attention to the elections until some months down the line, and then things may differ quite a bit from today's political junkies that are making a big splash in early voting states.

I hope they have enough sense to turn out in droves. Their lives might actually depend upon it. War is not good for young people. Unfortunately a lot of them think it's fun.

FWIW, my 24 year old son like Bernie, and would certainly go for him as president, and votes. Our friend's son who will get to vote for the first time, also likes Bernie. And he seriously asks if the Republicans are insane with their leading primary candidates. I think he will also be voting, though he can be flighty at times.

Though I still think the biggest factor is the growing Hispanic vote. If they thought Romney got bad minority percentiles (27), I think only Rubio/Bush would be able to not do worse than Romney.

 

[funinspace]

More about Cruz than Trump, but still the "outsider" view

I thought this was an interesting introspection by a True Conservative writer…and just how out of touch they appear. It starts off sniveling about the Repug 2012 post-mortem and how he thinks the report recommended to “out-Democrat the Democrats” and how establishment Repugs only pander and sometimes scoff at the True Believers. Hey, didn’t you know the SC has been hard on them…LOL. But for gay marriage, I’m not sure where they are coming from. But hey, just give Carnival Cruz a chance, cuz we all know they just need to energize the 50 million fundagelicals that didn’t go out and vote the last 2 elections. Cruz will micro-target his base to activate them. I think the author must have watched the American Sniper movie a few too many times…either that or he thinks their batteries have run low. Anywho, an interesting read:
https://pjmedia.com/blog/does-the-g...conservative-sheeps-clothing/?singlepage=true

This should have been evident from the conclusions it drew from the post-mortem it conducted after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012: namely, that the party’s key weakness is its inability to appeal to political blocs that typically vote Democratic, and more importantly that the antidote is to advocate policies antithetical to conservatism. Rather than heeding the call of its conservative base to make a compelling case for why conservatism benefits all Americans — especially those Democratic voters who have been stuck in progressive purgatory for 50 years in our nation's cities…
<snip>
We have heard over and over the last eight years from Republicans that "if you just give us control of the House, we will stop the Obama agenda." Then, "If you just give us control of both Houses of Congress, we will stop the Obama agenda." Then, "We just need a Republican president in order to undo the Obama agenda that we aided, abetted and enabled after you gave us your vote." Next up will be, "We just have to wait until we can nominate conservative Supreme Court justices." How has that worked out in the past, by the way?
<snip>
Cruz has not specifically laid out his general election strategy, but from what we do know, it appears he is in fact echoing that of President Obama. Cruz intends to activate the most ideological part of the party base via micro-targeting, drastically increasing conservative voter turnout, rather than catering to the "middle." This challenges the conventional wisdom, and it may prove unsuccessful.
<snip>
If not truly an issue of character or "electability," perhaps Republican opposition to Cruz is attributable to something else. Could it be that Republicans think that as a consequence of his being a cunning political animal Senator Cruz is a RINO in conservative sheep's clothing, seeking to dupe voters into falling for the same old milquetoast presidential candidate? Or does it come down to fear that Cruz might actually win the presidency and govern as a conservative? Perhaps it is not really about his "slickness," narcissism or ambition, but rather that all of these traits combined with his intellect might enable the most conservative candidate to triumph, even in a center-left country. If this is the case, why should a Republican Party that rests on a conservative base be afraid? Does the party not share the values and principles of its voters? Does the party feel that a conservative president threatens its political power? Does the party fear retribution?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

One group of people who rarely get the pundit scrutiny they deserve are the voters who do show up at the polls but don't engage with politics until the last few months of he campaign. Sometimes, like Obama, it is a matter of energizing voters, in that case black voters. In some cases its wedge issues that matter. So its going to be interesting to see how all of this develops about September of 2016. Its at these later times the big PAC spending on ads starts to flood the airwaves.

Who's going to show up then who are not paying attention now and what is going to motivate them? The right's long standing almost hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton will be front and center of GOP efforts but its hard to predict if that will work or backfire.

 

[funinspace]

One group of people who rarely get the pundit scrutiny they deserve are the voters who do show up at the polls but don't engage with politics until the last few months of he campaign. Sometimes, like Obama, it is a matter of energizing voters, in that case black voters. In some cases its wedge issues that matter. So its going to be interesting to see how all of this develops about September of 2016. Its at these later times the big PAC spending on ads starts to flood the airwaves.

Who's going to show up then who are not paying attention now and what is going to motivate them? The right's long standing almost hysterical hatred of Hillary Clinton will be front and center of GOP efforts but its hard to predict if that will work or backfire.

Obama got the black vote to creep up a few percentage points up, which obviously helped some. However, blacks only make up about 12-13% of the population. Evangelicals are supposedly about 26% of the population. And they voted a few percentage points higher (@63%) than the general population in 2012, which has been true for several election cycles. And they voted 79% for Romney per 2nd linky. I can't see how that can get higher, as that matched the 2004 high percentage. I don't see the conservative voters voting any more fervently, than they did against Obama with Clinton. The only thing that could hurt Clinton was if lots of liberals and un-affiliated voters stayed home. The Repugs have been working overtime in alienated themselves from the Hispanic vote this cycle, which will only make it harder to overcome the basic equation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...evangelical-turnout-but-he-has-a-good-reason/
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/11/07/how-the-faithful-voted-2012-preliminary-exit-poll-analysis/

 

[SLD]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-donald-trump-still-leads-gop-field-n490116

Trump still well ahead of any close rivals, almost +20 points. Interestingly, his supporters are more sure of their support than Cruz's or Rubio's. Trump gets his biggest support from white evangelicals. I wonder if that is the key; Trump is both white and Protestant. Cruz is Hispanic. So is Rubio and catholic to boot. Carson is black. As I said, racism is at the core of the Republican Party. Nixon reinvents the party to appeal to southern white racists and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

ETA: From another article:

This, in turn, has fed disillusionment with established political elites. Donald Trump may stand very little chance of being elected President, yet he speaks for the frustrations and growing alienation of the many. Solace is sought in bigotry, protectionism and nostalgia for a past which may never have truly existed but is fondly remembered as a golden age of advancement and prosperity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...rican-dream-Unfortunately-it-got-Trumped.html

SLD

 

[hinduwoman]

If young educated liberals, blacks, gays, Hispanics all band together to vote against Trump, it will just prove Trump's voting base right --- the old white USA is lost. Curiosuly then, Trump will have been telling the truth.

 

[Sarpedon]

Rubio isn't Catholic, he found that politically inconvenient long ago.

 

[Canard DuJour]

A revealing vid about The Donald's speech patterns :

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI[/YOUTUBE]

IMO they somewhat miss his dirtiest trick - the salesman's trick of slowing down mid-sentence as if inviting response or acknowledging agreement, then accelerating into the next sentence, so the only way to respond is by shouting over the top.

 

[maxparrish]

He will win the nomination and the Presidency, because it's now confirmed, there is such a thing as reincarnation:

"Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That's why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.

And I don't want any messages saying 'I'm holding my position.' We're not holding a goddamned thing. We're advancing constantly and we're not interested in holding anything except the enemy's balls. We're going to hold him by his balls and we're going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living shit out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We're going to go through the enemy like shit through a tinhorn."

TRUMP - The nation's Toughest, Biggest, Baddest REAL American:

(This message was approved by the "Elect a Real American" Committee).

 

[angelo]

America never lost a war? Care to retract that statement?

 

[maxparrish]

America never lost a war? Care to retract that statement?

I don't retract a quote of someone else. Or don't you recognize who said that?

 

[Colonel Sanders]

America never lost a war? Care to retract that statement?

I didn't read the post that prompted your question, so whatever.

Anyway, I think it depends on what "lost" means in this context. In Vietnam the U.S. certainly lost a lot of blood and treasure to not accomplish its goals. Korea is considered a stalemate, but the success of keeping SK free from NK was certainly a worthy achievement. And while Iraq II was poorly conceived, executed, and managed, along with the loss of blood and treasure, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. gained access and control over the second largest oil reserves in the world. The question in that case though is whether it was worth it. Practically speaking, it remains to be seen.

And in traditional terms, the losing of a war means that the victor controls the government of the loser and possesses its territory and assets. The U.S. hasn't been invaded since 1812. So in that sense, one can look at Vietnam (the most obvious "loss" when discussing this issue) more as a failed war-like action designed to keep another government intact. Losses were certainly sustained, but America itself was untouched, its economy grew, and civil rights were expanded. There was much discontent about that war, but the net effect has been to prevent the U.S. from engaging in conflict on such a massive scale since then. And to this day, the U.S. is still the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. It's difficult to think of a country as losing a war when it only grew more powerful afterward.

Then there's the legalistic definition of "war." The United States isn't at war unless Congress declares it. While on first glance it might not seem to make any difference--that if certain actions are equivalent to war, then it's war. However, with a declaration of war, the United States' Federal Government gains plenary power in order to wage war. This means the taking over of the means of production to produce everything that's needed to achieve the desired outcome. It can suspend certain rights as well in order to bring what it needs to bear upon the nation that war has been declared upon. For example, in 1951 Truman seized the nation's steel mills in order to ramp up production for the Korean conflict, but was quickly put in his place due to the fact that Congress had not declared a war, and that without such a declaration, the executive branch could not seize private property for such use.

Now, let's look at at some countries who can, without debate, said to have lost a war. Take Japan in WW2. They lost in every sense of the word. In a less extreme example, Argentina lost the Falklands War. It seized territory and assets (mostly sheep) from the UK. Then the UK, desirous of recovering said sheep, set sail to the Falklands and gave Argentina the boot. Argentina took assets, controlled them, then lost those assets in an armed conflict, and to this day, the UK still possesses those assets.

Nothing of the kind has happened to the U.S.

 

[angelo]

America never lost a war? Care to retract that statement?

I didn't read the post that prompted your question, so whatever.

Anyway, I think it depends on what "lost" means in this context. In Vietnam the U.S. certainly lost a lot of blood and treasure to not accomplish its goals. Korea is considered a stalemate, but the success of keeping SK free from NK was certainly a worthy achievement. And while Iraq II was poorly conceived, executed, and managed, along with the loss of blood and treasure, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. gained access and control over the second largest oil reserves in the world. The question in that case though is whether it was worth it. Practically speaking, it remains to be seen.

And in traditional terms, the losing of a war means that the victor controls the government of the loser and possesses its territory and assets. The U.S. hasn't been invaded since 1812. So in that sense, one can look at Vietnam (the most obvious "loss" when discussing this issue) more as a failed war-like action designed to keep another government intact. Losses were certainly sustained, but America itself was untouched, its economy grew, and civil rights were expanded. There was much discontent about that war, but the net effect has been to prevent the U.S. from engaging in conflict on such a massive scale since then. And to this day, the U.S. is still the richest and most powerful nation on the planet. It's difficult to think of a country as losing a war when it only grew more powerful afterward.

Then there's the legalistic definition of "war." The United States isn't at war unless Congress declares it. While on first glance it might not seem to make any difference--that if certain actions are equivalent to war, then it's war. However, with a declaration of war, the United States' Federal Government gains plenary power in order to wage war. This means the taking over of the means of production to produce everything that's needed to achieve the desired outcome. It can suspend certain rights as well in order to bring what it needs to bear upon the nation that war has been declared upon. For example, in 1951 Truman seized the nation's steel mills in order to ramp up production for the Korean conflict, but was quickly put in his place due to the fact that Congress had not declared a war, and that without such a declaration, the executive branch could not seize private property for such use.

Now, let's look at at some countries who can, without debate, said to have lost a war. Take Japan in WW2. They lost in every sense of the word. In a less extreme example, Argentina lost the Falklands War. It seized territory and assets (mostly sheep) from the UK. Then the UK, desirous of recovering said sheep, set sail to the Falklands and gave Argentina the boot. Argentina took assets, controlled them, then lost those assets in an armed conflict, and to this day, the UK still possesses those assets.

Nothing of the kind has happened to the U.S.

I was referring to the Vietnam conflict where the Viet Cong overan South Vietnam while the US evacuated under fire.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm pretty sure that running away while your allies are overrun and conquered by your enemies counts as a tie.

 

[angelo]

I'm sure that had public opinion back home not massively turned against the Viet war, the results would still most likely have been the same.

 

[angelo]

A commie take over.

 

[Sarpedon]

Actually: Rubio might be back to being a Catholic. I have conflicting reports.

I'd find out and report back, except I don't care.

 

[SLD]

I'm sure that had public opinion back home not massively turned against the Viet war, the results would still most likely have been the same.

OK, we're getting way off topic, but I don't think you're right. If the US had remained committed to South Vietnam enough to send 500,000 ground troops (as it had previously done in 68) I don't think it likely that North Vietnamese troops would've managed to take Saigon. Whether they should or shouldn't have stayed or been redeployed is another question. But had the US not intervened in the early 60's, South Vietnam would've fallen to the North likely quite soon. US troops did succeed in keeping the government afloat. It was when we pulled out that it became vulnerable again and collapsed.

OK enough! Back on topic of Trump! Here's an article from the NYT re how Trump loses. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/o.../how-donald-trump-loses.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I think he's kind of pipe dreaming. The same arguments can be made about any and all candidates in the race.

SLD

 

[thatsneakyguy]

I'm sure that had public opinion back home not massively turned against the Viet war, the results would still most likely have been the same.

OK, we're getting way off topic, but I don't think you're right. If the US had remained committed to South Vietnam enough to send 500,000 ground troops (as it had previously done in 68) I don't think it likely that North Vietnamese troops would've managed to take Saigon. Whether they should or shouldn't have stayed or been redeployed is another question. But had the US not intervened in the early 60's, South Vietnam would've fallen to the North likely quite soon. US troops did succeed in keeping the government afloat. It was when we pulled out that it became vulnerable again and collapsed.

OK enough! Back on topic of Trump! Here's an article from the NYT re how Trump loses. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/o.../how-donald-trump-loses.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

I think he's kind of pipe dreaming. The same arguments can be made about any and all candidates in the race.

SLD

I don’t think the article is that farfetched.
I think he’s basically saying that that Cruz’s win in Iowa will push out all other bible-thumping candidates and Cruz will consolidate the bible thumping voters. This would give Cruz a bump in the polls and make him more attractive and seem like a viable candidate to the Republican establishment who want anybody but Trump. If Cruz had the bible-thumpers and enough mainstream Republicans he could get the nomination.


Anyway,
The 2012 GOP nomination seemed to between Romney and “Not Romney”.
IMO this time it’s kind of like Trump vs “Not Trump”.

Initially Bush was "Not Trump", then Carson was "Not Trump".
So now Cruz is "Not Trump".
But it kind of feels too late in the race for Cruz. The first primaries are a month away and I don't think he can catch up.
Last time, Santorum was the last candidate to be "Not Romney" and he couldn't catch Romney. This time I think Cruz will be the last "Not Trump" and won't be able to catch up to Trump.

Trump has been polling above 15% for about 6 months now. Above 20% for 5 months. You just can't dismiss him as a fluke at this point.

Maybe a brokered convention might happen.