Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make sense. Republicans are not at all united or even with a consistent majority behind a “constitutional conservative” candidate, and Trump’s success is proof of that.
And if there is not global support for a CC in the Repilublican party itself, it’s obvious - well, should be obvious - that there is even less among independents as a bloc.
Good read.
(More characters please)
I don’t post much anymore, but that’s a great post.
Apparently Cruz, in Indiana and trying to invoke a scene from the iconic movie “Hoosiers” to connect with real Hoosiers, referred to the hoop as a “basketball ring”.
Real man of the people you got there, boys.
This is small potatoes and won’t move any votes I don’t think, but it’s amusing.
Here’s a good rundown of Cruz’s limitations as represented in exit polls. He’s an ideologically factional candidate - then add to that the fact that he isn’t appealing on a personal level. He can’t even secure the “somewhat conservative” crowd among GOP voters in the primaries. If GOP voters can’t unify around him and his brand of conservatism, how would he fare in a general election populated by independents?
So by this point we are well aware of your somewhat irrational disdain for Cruz, but what do you offer as an alternative? Which of the remaining candidates even want to shrink government, at all?
Also, independent and moderate are not interchangeable. We have been through this.
[quote=“Alrightmiami19c, post:369, topic:215570, full:true”]
So by this point we are well aware of your somewhat irrational disdain for Cruz, but what do you offer as an alternative? Which of the remaining candidates even want to shrink government, at all? [/quote]
Shrinking government is a losing campaign promise, so it doesn’t matter. Had Trump been less of a liar, less off a misogynist, less of a torture pervert and over the top xenophobe, he’d actually have had a chance to beat Hillary. Since he’s promised to not touch entitlement outside of “waste, fraud, and abuse,” which amounts to nothing.
There’s nothing irrational about my disdain for Cruz - he’s an incredibly flawed candidate, and I’ve simply pointed out the flaws.
As for an alternative, you assume I want a candidate who shares something close to Cruz’s ideology - but I personally do not.
I’m on the record as saying I might vote for Kasich if he was the nominee - and that is very much a might. Nothing substantive is happening until we get some competent, reasonable adults in the room in Washington.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Also, independent and moderate are not interchangeable. We have been through this.
[/quote]
Yes, we’ve been through it ad nauseum and one thing’s clear - you don’t understand independent voters in the country and how they impact national elections.
How does Kasich not meet your “flawed candidate” criteria? You let me know when you find the perfect candidate.
Thanks Brokaw.
If Trump keeps getting the majority of the independent vote (and a bunch of democrat ones) in the primary, why wouldn’t he get those same votes in the general?
Why should he still run, if he can’t mathematically win? Why’s aka sick still around?
Edit: lol aka sick = Kasich
He will, those who hate him with a passion are allowing their emotions to color their view. In fact should Trump be the nominee of the party (and I’m still pulling for Cruz) he will get more crossover democrat votes than any republican since Ronald Reagan (and no I am not comparing Trump to Reagan in any other way).
60 some thousand voters in PA changed their registration from dem to rep in time to vote this past Tuesday.
I think you are very much correct on this one.
[quote]"Alrightmiami19c wrote:
How does Kasich not meet your “flawed candidate” criteria? You let me know when you find the perfect candidate.[/quote]
Not interested in a perfect candidate, there’s not one - I’m interested in one that is not fundamentally flawed. I’m not a Republican, and don’t pretend to be, and Kasich while not perfect appears to be reasonable and with executive experience, and bonus points that he was governor of a purples state. Congress is sharply divided and will be for the foreseeable future, and someone who’s got the chops to govern in that situation is at a premium.
[quote]Thanks Brokaw.
If Trump keeps getting the majority of the independent vote (and a bunch of democrat ones) in the primary, why wouldn’t he get those same votes in the general?
[/quote]
He could, but I don’t think he’s likely to for at least a couple of reasons. One, he’s capturing those groups that are willing to vote in primaries - that’s not the same as those groups in the general election. Voters that don’t participate in primaries tend to be more moderate, and even if Trump’s policy positions are more moderate (Mexican wall aside, he sounds not far from a moderate Democrat purely on policy), his pandering bombast and complete lack of skill or acumen will turn these voters off.
Two, once the candidates for the general election are set, the scrutiny gets higher along with people paying more attention. The higher the scrutiny, the more ghastly Trump will appear as more is revealed.
The support and promotion of democracy isn’t of the Neocon variety. The U.S. should absolutely leverage its soft power to those ends. It’s within American interests to be a champion of democracy. The evidence supporting dyadic democratic peace theory is significant. In regard to invoking Realism, it’s clear that America should be guided in international affairs by both systemic and material factors and by principled ideas. In this case, democracy serves both these schools of thought.
The promotion of liberal economic regimes isn’t the idealism of Norman Angell, who predicted shortly before WWI that economic interdependence had made great power war in Europe obsolete.The United States has benefited tremendously from being a champion for liberal economic principles. A dynamic economy has long served as the foundation of American hard and soft power.
I strongly disagree with you here. Of Trump’s foreign policy “postulations”, his from the hip prescriptions for America’s alliance system are among the most dangerous. NATO is a keystone of American and international security, as are our close political, economic, and security ties to Japan and the Republic of Korea. With a rising and increasingly assertive China and a revanchist Ruasia, the United State’s alliance system has never been more relevant. There’s a reason Chinese strategists lament the fact that the U.S. has over 50 formal allies and that Russian bad behavior in its near abroad is a result of NATO expansion. To add folly to a solid foundation of foolishness, Trump has suggested that our Asian allies seek their own nuclear deterrent. He is the most unqualified candidate to become commander and diplomat in chief in the modern history. He is also a disgrace to the United States and actively undermining American security.
While Gallup puts independents at 42 percent of the electorate and Pew at 39, only 13 percent of voters are independents that don’t lean toward either party. Political science research makes it clear that self proclaimed independents are not middle of the road moderates, but closet partisans. They identify as independents because of the perceived and actual social benefits derived from not associating themselves with either the Democratic or Republican Party. Basically, they call themselves independents because they are embarrassed of the disfunction in Washington, they think it makes them cool, or both. Independents don’t decide elections, they won’t lay the ground work for a 3rd party, and they aren’t moderate swing voters.
Don’t you think it’d be more truthful to actually cite the article from which you pulled this information and content rather than pass it off as your own? You’re tracking pretty close.
Glad to see someone give Hillary a kick in the pant suit.
I maintain that will hurt her in the 5 major coal states.