2016 Presidential

[Crafty_Dog]

No idea as to the reliability of this site:

http://reviveusa.com/trump-beats-bush-with-hispanics-in-florida/

Do note that most Latinos in Florida are Cuban-Americans and they tend to have very different voting patterns from Mexicans, Central Americans, and South Americans.

[ppulatie]

Doug,

Just watch and listen to me............I AM the trend.......

[ccp]

"Do note that most Latinos in Florida are Cuban-Americans". 

Also depends on which county.  Miami-Dade yes.  Some of the orange groves and agricultural counties are mostly Mexican Latins.  Others like Orange (Orlando) are majority Puerto Ricans:   

http://www.floridatrend.com/article/15517/hispanic-diversity-in-florida-map

[Crafty_Dog]

Fair enough.

[ppulatie]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-primary-rules-might-doom-carson-and-cruz/

This article addresses the advantage of moderates with the Primary Rules, but IMO, he misses the mark. Essentially he is talking about delegate numbers going into the convention and how the distribution of delegates in the larger states favor the moderates.

Wasserman is correct as far as he goes, but he does not address the elephant in the room. A candidate must win 8 states to have his name placed into nomination. Without this, the candidate is DOA at the convention unless the GOPe changes Rule 40 to allow candidates to have their named placed into nomination with less than 8 wins.

[ppulatie]

I just took another look at Rule 40 for the RNC Convention. This rule governs placing a name in nomination. It took effect for this election cycle.

2012:  RNC rule No. 40(b) states:
Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination.

2016:
a candidate to have a majority of delegate votes in at least eight states as a prerequisite to nomination.

Under the change, the winner of a state must have 50% + 1 of the total votes case to count towards the 8 needed states.

Who does this benefit? The candidates with the most money to be able to run strong in all 50 states. And at this point, probably the only people are:

Jeb
Rubio
Carson
Cruz
Trump

In reality, what does this mean?

1. While the dwarfs remain in the process, each will drain votes away so that no one will obtain a majority of votes to count towards the 8 wins needed for nomination. So essentially all the states prior to Mar 15 will not otherwise count towards the 8 wins.

2.  After Mar 15, majority wins will be difficult until at least 2 and probably 3 others fall out. So if all 5 remain running until the last primary in Jun, it is likely that no one will have the 8 wins needed.

3. If no one has 8 wins, then Rule 40 must be changed so that one or more candidates can have their names placed into nomination.

The strategy:

1. Trump - Trump must stay in the race and continue to gain votes. His strength must persuade at least three others to drop out, including Cruz and Carson. Otherwise he cannot win the 8 states necessary and any change in Rule 40 would have negative consequences to him. After all, all delegates that are pledged to a candidate that does not get placed into nomination are free to go to whom they want, probably to RNC favored candidates.

2. Carson - Carson must employ the same strategy, and really focus on Trump and knocking him out.

3. Cruz - Cruz has the same issues with Carson and Trump.

Here is where either Rubio or Jeb have it different.

They only need to keep everyone running past Mar 15. This dilutes the primary voting so that no one gets 8 wins. Then Rule 40 comes into play and everything gets manipulated so that either Bush or Rubio are the nominee.

For the GOPe, if it appears that the nomination has been manipulated in favor of Bush or Rubio, all credibility for the future is lost. The mini-revolution in the party will result in all out warfare that will tear the party apart for a decade or two. The reason is that the GOPe will be seen as pushing their own interests and not that of the people who make up the party.

If Rubio can win under these circumstances, and using Romney as an example of not winning, Rubio cannot keep advancing the goals of the COC and Wall Street. He will have to pay attention to the Trump/Carson/Cruz faction. If he does, he can help heal the party. But if he takes the GOPe route, it will do even greater harm to the GOP and end any hope of future control.

[Crafty_Dog]

That was very helpful Pat, thank you.

Inter alia, it sheds light on why yesterday I heard Rubio expressing regret at Christie and Huckabee not being included.

[ppulatie]

Now you see why I say that Rubio will be the nominee, assuming a complete Bush collapse. There is simply no way that the GOPe would ever allow Trump, Cruz or Carson to be the nominee, even with overwhelming support for one of them.

And you can see why if Rule 40 is invoked, it is all over for the GOP in the future.

[Crafty_Dog]

Something upon which to reflect.

Changing subjects:

A quick list please of who is for and who is against the TPP Treaty?

[Crafty_Dog]

By Janet Hook
Updated Nov. 8, 2015 10:26 a.m. ET
17 COMMENTS

Two of the presidential candidates who gained the most traction out of the last Republican debate are a pair of 44-year-old Cuban-Americans who are first-term U.S. senators.

There the similarity ends, and their differences define a fork in the road for the Republican Party.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, after standout performances at the debate in Colorado last month, have both seen a spike in media attention, donations and poll standings. But they are appealing to very different wings of the GOP electorate, with Mr. Cruz rallying anti-Washington conservative forces and Mr. Rubio drawing strength from to the party’s business-friendly establishment wing.

Their differences of both style and substance will surface again Tuesday in the fourth GOP debate in Milwaukee, where both senators will try to keep the momentum going in a forum focusing on economic issues.

Mr. Cruz rails against illegal immigrants; Mr. Rubio takes a more welcoming approach. Mr. Cruz opposed President Barack Obama’s fast-track trade bill; Mr. Rubio supported it. Mr. Cruz traffics in the highflying oratory of an evangelical minister’s son; Mr. Rubio’s brand of eloquence is more low key.

Both senators still trail the political novices— Donald Trump and Ben Carson—who lead the GOP field. But the Cruz-Rubio surge raises a surprising prospect: Two Cuban Americans are moving from long-shot to top-tier candidates in a party that has struggled to win support from Hispanic voters.

Mr. Cruz said in a recent CNN interview it was “plausible” that the primary would wind up being a Rubio-Cruz faceoff, citing a history of GOP contests that pitted a conservative against a more-moderate candidate.

“I think Marco is certainly formidable,” Mr. Cruz said. But, he added, ”once it gets down to a head-to-head contest between a conservative and a moderate…I think the conservative wins.”

A super PAC supporting Mr. Cruz took off the gloves last week in an ad in Iowa that attacked Mr. Rubio for his record on immigration.

“We all loved how Marco Rubio took apart Jeb Bush in the debate,” says the narrator of an ad from the pro-Cruz PAC, Courageous Conservatives. “But what’s Rubio ever done?…Marco Rubio looks good on TV, but that’s about it.’’

That is very different from the tone of a major Senate debate in 2013—the filibuster to block funding for Obamacare—when Mr. Cruz showered his colleague with praise. “I don’t know if there is anyone more effective, more articulate, or a more persuasive voice for conservative principles than my friend Marco Rubio,” Mr. Cruz said.

Mr. Rubio’s spokesman declined to comment.

Both senators were propelled to new prominence by signal moments in the Colorado debate. Mr. Cruz grabbed center stage when he attacked the CNBC moderators for what he said were biased questions. That drew viewer interest so strong that his campaign website crashed during the debate. In the 22 hours following the debate, he raised $1.1 million.

Mr. Rubio’s standout moment came in his withering riposte to Jeb Bush, after the former Florida governor tried to scold him about his Senate attendance record. Just days later, Mr. Rubio picked up the coveted endorsement of GOP megadonor Paul Singer, a wealthy hedge-fund investor. He was also endorsed by three members of the Senate, an institution where Mr. Cruz has alienated many colleagues.

Their poll ratings also rose after the debate, and they consistently showed in third and fourth place behind Messrs Carson and Trump.

The two are colliding after following parallel paths to the Senate: Both were elected—Mr. Rubio in 2010 and Mr. Cruz in 2012—with tea-party support in primaries against establishment-backed candidates.

They have similar immigrant-family roots, but they tell their story to different ends in their campaigns, and have arrived at different conclusions on immigration policy.

Mr. Rubio, who speaks fluent Spanish, is the son of a bartender and maid who emigrated from Cuba in 1956. Hs life story is a cornerstone of his stump speech, and he tells it—sometimes in Spanish—in part to build appeal with Hispanic voters.

He was an architect of the comprehensive 2013 immigration bill, which included a path to citizenship for the millions of people in the U.S. illegally. He backed away from the bill when it died in the House. He now argues for a piecemeal approach to policy change. And he has hardened his position against President Barack Obama’s executive order granting legal status for young, undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Cruz is a harsh critic of offering citizenship to illegal immigrants, which he calls “amnesty,” and focuses like a laser on securing the border. Javier Palomarez head of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, sees that hard line as rooted in Mr. Cruz’s training in the law and constitutional conservative theory.

“He welcomes and celebrates legal immigration—but he will stop right there and not go one inch further,” said Mr. Palomarez, who has held a question-and-answer forum with Mr. Cruz and is awaiting one with Mr. Rubio.

Mr. Cruz doesn't speak fluent Spanish, and he tells his family story less to connect with Hispanics than to appeal to evangelicals. His father, who left Cuba to escape the Batista regime, developed a drinking problem and left his son and wife; but he recovered when he found God, came home to his family and became an evangelical minister.

While both senators benefited from initial tea party support, Mr.Rubio kept his distance from the movement after going to the Senate. Mr. Cruz, by contrast, is a tea party icon, and the movement’s support is central to his presidential campaign. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that Mr. Cruz was the first choice of 22% of tea party voters; 9% picked Mr. Rubio.

The senators share a history of supporting free trade policies. But Mr. Cruz, facing a backlash from tea party activists and conservative media, this year switched positions and ended up voting against “fast track” legislation to expedite approval of trade deals. Mr. Rubio supported fast track. Mr. Cruz is “skeptical” of the Trans Pacific Partnership; Mr. Rubio is inclined to support the deal, a priority of business groups.

Scott Reed, political analyst for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, declined to comment on the GOP candidates but said the election will be hugely consequential for the business community.

“The country is at a real fork in the road,“ Mr. Reed said, ”and this is shaping up to be the most important election of our lifetime.”

[DougMacG]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/08/meet_the_press_panel_hugh_hewitt_and_rachel_maddow_battle_over_ben_carson.html

The first argument is interesting, Hugh Hewitt vs. Rachel Madow .  Gwen Ifill and Politico's Mark Caouto.

They also get into the non-story on Rubio's credit card.

[objectivist1]

We cannot allow Hillary Clinton, 'midwife to chaos' and a public liar, to be our next president

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Published October 29, 2015
FoxNews.com

The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd captured the moment last weekend when she referred to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as “the midwife to chaos” in Libya. Dowd apparently came to that conclusion after watching Clinton bobbing and weaving and admitting and denying as she was confronted with the partial record of her failures and obfuscations as secretary of state, particularly with respect to Libya.

The public record is fairly well-known. In March 2011, President Barack Obama declared war on Libya. He did this at the urging of Clinton, who wanted to overthrow Libyan strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi so she could boast of having brought “democracy” to the region.

She and Obama conspired to do this even though former President George W. Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had publicly praised Gadhafi as an ally in the war against terrorist groups and even though the U.S. was giving the Qaddafi government more than $100 million a year in foreign aid.

Obama did his best to avoid constitutional norms. He deployed American intelligence agents on the ground, not troops, so he could plausibly deny he had put “boots” on the ground. He did not seek an American national consensus for war because Libya presented no threat whatsoever to the U.S. He did not obtain a congressional declaration of war as the Constitution requires because he couldn’t get one. And he did not seek United Nations permission, which is required to attack a fellow U.N. member.

Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar?

He did obtain a U.N. embargo of the shipment of weapons into Libya, and he secured a NATO-enforced no-fly zone over portions of Libya. In order to enforce the no-fly zone, NATO sent jet fighters over the skies of Libya. The jets were guided and directed by American intelligence agents on the ground to bomb Libyan planes on the ground, which had been paid for by American taxpayers.

To pursue her goal of a “democratic” government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government. So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming -- unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.

Once this plot was hatched, Clinton and her fellow conspirators realized that some of these rebel groups were manned by al-Qaida operatives; and selling or providing arms to them is a felony -- hence the reason for months' worth of missing and destroyed Clinton emails. How could someone running for president possibly justify providing material assistance to terrorist organizations in the present international climate?

Flash-forward to Clinton’s public testimony before the House Benghazi Committee last week. Clinton had three audiences to address. Her immediate audience was the committee, whose members generally did not know how to ask questions of a witness trying to hide the truth. Her second audience was the American people, who will recall little more than 15-second sound bites and general impressions of her testimony. Her third (unseen) audience consisted of the FBI agents and federal prosecutors who are investigating her.

That audience was looking for perjury, misleading statements and what federal law calls “bad acts.” Perjury is lying under oath. Misleading Congress is criminal and consists of testimony that employs deceptive language so as to create an untruthful impression. Bad acts constitute repeated behavior demonstrating moral turpitude -- usually a pattern of deception.

The FBI agents surely heard Clinton mislead Congress when she answered a hard question about arms going to rebels by saying “I think the answer is no” and again when she answered a question about arming private militias by saying it may have been considered but wasn't “seriously” considered. And they heard her directly commit perjury when she was asked whether she knew about our country's supplying arms to Libyan rebels directly or indirectly and she answered, “No.”

How could she answer "no"? She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it. How could she answer "no"? The FBI and CIA advised her -- in documents that are now public -- that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives. How could she answer "no"? This reached a crisis point when some of those operatives used their American-made weapons to murder U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Then the cover-up began. At the same time Clinton was telling her daughter and the Egyptian prime minister within hours of Stevens’ death that al-Qaida killed him and after the CIA told her the plot to kill Stevens had been hatched 12 days earlier, she told the public that Stevens was killed by spontaneous demonstrators angered about a cheap anti-Islam video, the producer of which she vowed to “get.” She later angrily dismissed questions over this cover-up by arguing, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The difference it makes goes to the heart of the American electoral process. Every four years, we entrust awesome power to a person who swears to protect the Constitution. How could we give that power to a consistent public liar who, for personal political gain, midwifed terror and chaos in a country that was our ally and whose words and behavior have continually demonstrated that she is utterly unworthy of belief?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.

[ppulatie]

One question.

What presidential candidate does not lie?

[DougMacG]

One question.

What presidential candidate does not lie?

If it is only a matter of degree, then let's study the different degrees.

If you tell a small lie to one person in order to save a hundred lives, maybe that it is one on a scale of 0-100.  A justifiable lie.

The Susan Rice episode, going out on all shows and all networks to give a known false explanation of events that involved live and death, 4 times over, was done intentionally,  to draw the false understanding with the viewers in the hundreds of millions, was done strictly for partisan political gain -  that would be a 100, full scale, world class, pathological lie.  Rice was the mouthpiece, but Obama and Clinton were the ones who knew it was false, and proved by their own statements and actions they were complicit in the whole deception.

How many other politicians are THAT BAD?  None that we would ever knowingly put up with.

[ppulatie]

If I were the other side, I would argue Bush, Cheney and others on WMD in Iraq.  (Yes, I do know all the arguments.)

However, there are reports, reliability unknown, that Bush and Cheney were plotting on taking Saddam out prior to being elected. If this is so and the WMD was simply an excuse, then this would certainly go above and beyond Hillary. (Can't believe that I am writing that?)

[DougMacG]

WMD in Iraq as an 'excuse' to go to a war that killed thousands of Americans would be the biggest lie IF not for the fact that all the best intelligence agencies in the world at the time said yes, Saddam had WMD, making it not a lie.   In fact it was the ones knowingly false accusing that as a lie who where telling the biggest lie.  IMHO.  They knew better.  Read Hillary's explanation of her vote.  Read the 23 reasons written in the Authorization:  https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-joint-resolution/114/text

Of course reasonable and humane people wanted Saddam, tyrant of millions, deposed.  I hope we all did.  Read the case he was hanged for ( du Jaille sp?).  Hanged once was not enough punishment for him.  Used WMD on his own people.  Attacked 4 neighbors.  State sponsor of terrorism.

[objectivist1]

ppulatie is accepting the Left's false premise that the primary reason the Bush administration decided to go into Iraq was that they were presumed to have had WMD.  By the way - it has now been established that they DID IN FACT have WMD - as demonstrated by the stockpiles of chemical weapons later uncovered.

That aside - the PRIMARY reason we went into Iraq is that Saddam Hussein had defied multiple U.N. resolutions mandating inspections.  The Bush administration decided this could not be tolerated any longer.  I suggest you read David Horowitz's superb book "Party of Defeat," which sets the record straight in excruciating, precise detail.  The Left has re-written history regarding the reasons for going to war in Iraq with the willing participation of the establishment media and the Democrat Party.

There simply is no parallel whatsoever with Hillary Clinton's career-long record of virtually non-stop lies going back at least as far as the Watergate committee, where she was fired by a Democrat, who explicitly stated that she was dishonest and had deliberately tampered with evidence.  This was the reason for her termination.  But once again - the establishment media - a virtually fully-owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, has chosen to downplay and/or not report this and any of countless other instances of dishonesty by Mrs. Clinton and her husband.

[ppulatie]

Objectivist1,

I did not say I was accepting it, I said that if I  were on the other side, here is what I would argue. A bit difference...........and I like to point such things out from the opposite perspective.

Yes, WMD has been found, but was it in the amounts represented to exist? And how much was shipped out to Syria? The info has not been disclosed by anyone. Why not?

As to the reports that Bush and Cheney had been considering going to war with Iraq prior to the election, does one just dismiss that, or does one check it out. I remember in all to vivid detail what was going on in the UN, with Inspections and everything else. But do I just accept the Horowitz book and believe that there might be other unstated reasons for acting in Iraq? Personally, I would like to know more about whether Bush/Cheney did plan to go in prior to the election, if it did so occur. If so, it would have to change my perspective even more on Bush.

Yes, I am well aware of Hillary's lies, and that the media will not report it. But what if the same exists on the GOP side?

In an email I sent to Doug, I tried to describe where I was coming from. It might be time to post it here. Here is the relevant part:

"To give you an idea of the way I think, for the past 8 years I have had to look at every piece of paper, document, legal filing, etc with a critical eye. Nothing is sacrosanct. And when I look at this stuff, I am evaluating things on the basis of “intent, wording, actual processes, time line, and motivation”. I accept nothing as written or said, but look to see the other motivations, etc that might exist."

I do the same with the political and economic arenas. I trust what no one says any longer in either arena. The simple fact is that all are misrepresenting things,  manipulating statistical analysis and trying to claim that everything is right in this country. Each side does it and will continue to do it.

Frankly, each side has the US pointed in the same direction. The only difference is how long it takes to get to the next point. Unfortunately, not a damned one of them has any clue of how to get there, even if the goal is good. Anything that they do will further screw things up. '

All I  know is that the next crisis is going to be much worse that the last, and it will fundamentally remake this country, but who knows how?

[ppulatie]

Here is the latest out in South Carolina from PPP.  Carson is neck and neck with Trump and leading by 1 point. Carson has almost doubled in strength since last August.  BTW, the owner of PPP is a democrat supporter.

But what did I find of interest? 65% of all the people polled were evangelicals.  How absurd is that? Of course Carson is going to surge.  See why I don't believe crap anymore?

[objectivist1]

ppulatie,

One cannot compare documented evidence with "what IF the other side does this too?" and then say that there is equivalence.  There is a HUGE difference between documented evidence of lying and criminal activity, and rumor and innuendo without any proof.  The former generally applies to Hillary Clinton and her husband, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Lois Lerner, et. al.  Accusations without evidence form the bulk of the "argument" the Democrats present against going to war in Iraq.  Yes - there is corruption in both parties - but it cannot be said that it is unknowable which side is more credible in a particular circumstance.  Horowitz's book presents mountains of documented evidence.  One needn't "take his word" for anything.  Show me the evidence that Bush and Cheney were plotting to go to war with Iraq before 9-11, and I will take that assertion seriously.  Certainly the liberal press would love to prove this.  Yet they haven't been able to.  Yet we have mountains of evidence of Bill and Hillary's wrongdoings.  Show me the equivalence.

[ppulatie]

Absence of proof does not mean innocence. Just like absence of a body does or does not mean a person is dead or murdered.

I deal with this type of stuff every day. Just because the proof is currently not available does not mean that it does not exist. It has simply not yet been uncovered. Just take Nixon and the tapes.............

[objectivist1]

No sh*t Sherlock.  That's not what I'm arguing and you know it.  A wise man considers the evidence before believing a claim.  You can't PROVE I didn't fly to Mars yesterday and have sex with an alien, so that claim deserves equal weight to the evidence that Hillary lied under oath, I suppose???  Let's not play childish games here on a serious forum.

[ppulatie]

I am being serious and not playing games. I don't believe that Bush and Cheney had plans prior to the election for invading Iraq, but to just dismiss the claims outright is the same thing that Dems do every day with Pubbies, making the Pubbies angry.

Maybe you just have more trust in various government agencies and politicians that I have. Personally, I have no trust in any of them, Dems or Pubs. 

[DougMacG]

Again, on a channel that I don't get.  Whatever happened to using free TV.  I criticized Obama for having a press conference with corporate sponsors, now the GOP does it with debates.

On the agenda other than pressing economic issues, is Carson a pathological liar, Trump a comic villain?  Will pro-life Bush attack pro-life Rubio for being too pro-life to get elected.  And now a word or two from our sponsors.  

Will Carson score a point on Trump for jumping on the attack bandwagon before getting the facts?  Will he do the same in war policy as President?

Will someone get Bush to explain why his focus is on his known friend when Trump and Carson have 2-3 times the support?

Will they attack each other over the details of their similar tax plans or will they join together in condemning the damage that the current tax code is doing to our country?

Will Trump demagogue TPP or give a plan of how he would get 20 nations to sit down again in 18 months and get it right, and what that would entail.  Will anyone acknowledge that it will take at least a month full time to even know the implications of the terms of the agreement?

[objectivist1]

Doug:

If you have Internet access, you can go to the Fox Business Network site, and watch the debate live online.  Also - many local Fox affiliates are carrying the debate on their channel tonight.

[DougMacG]

Doug:
If you have Internet access, you can go to the Fox Business Network site, and watch the debate live online.  Also - many local Fox affiliates are carrying the debate on their channel tonight.

Thanks. My internet will be too slow for streaming and our local Fox has Judge Judy and Scream Queen to play.  I will follow it on radio and others can tell me how they looked.  Fox and the RNC would rather have maximum revenues than maximum viewership.  If you are watching a Republican debate on Fox Business Channel, Channel 778 on the local tuner, you were probably already planning to vote Republican.  Not much of a reachout.  I wonder how many inner city blacks, how many Hispanic Trump hotel workers, how many white kids attending liberal colleges will see it.  Probably close to none, none, and none..

[DougMacG]

Both Carson and Rubio can easily predict the attacks that will be made on them by the questioners and the opponents.  Because of that, look for them to be ready with a response.  That is what Bush got wrong last time.  He opened the door for Rubio with a lame and predictable charge and got back what he had coming.

I would look for Trump to go after Carson on policy and leadership skills, but to back off of the character charges floating around.  I could be dead wrong on that.

The Cruz moment of the last debate was where he took his own time away from an answer to recap and attack the quality of the  questions.  He showed courage, but also showed off his superb ability to accurately track and recount all that had just occurred.  You can't rehears that.  From Cruz' perspective, he hopes to be handed a similar opening.

If Rubio is rated the best prepared and best communicator of this group for the 4th straight time, this could finally be his big breakout.  He also could be stung by the attacks if his rebuttals are not persuasive.  We have not yet seen that happen.

I am looking for Trump or Carson to make a perceived mistake on policy, knowledge or delivery.  It is quite unusual for anyone at all much less an inexperienced frontrunner to go through ths entire campaigns without a major gaffe.  I don't wish it anyone but we are due.

Mentioned earlier, I would like to see who takes the argument best to the real opposing view, Obama-Clinton, rather than to see how well they attack and respond to each other.  I look to see Rubio rise above the fray and do that, but that challenge is open to all.

[ppulatie]

Santorum in the debate Tax Proposal

Flat Tax

20% on Corporations
20% on People

What the hell?  Doesn't he understand that the 20% on corporations will be passed on to the consumer?  But I guess that this is happening anyway now, so it makes no difference.

[DougMacG]

Santorum in the debate Tax Proposal

Flat Tax

20% on Corporations
20% on People

What the hell?  Doesn't he understand that the 20% on corporations will be passed on to the consumer?  But I guess that this is happening anyway now, so it makes no difference.

That's a way better plan than what we have now.

That said, it sounds like he doesn't plan to win the nomination.

[ppulatie]

Grew bored with the kiddie debate.  Decided to work on a potential lawsuit against lenders.  Shows how boring it was....

[Crafty_Dog]

Actually I thought the JV debate was quite good, with Christie really showing well.  Having only four candidates allowed for much more time and substance in the answers.

Halfway through the main event right now, taking a breather.

[DougMacG]

It seems like the final stretch, yet it is a year until the election and more than a year left of Obama.

I watched the whole main debate and heard a few clips of the early one.   Hard to recap, most of it went according to expectations, each hitting what their supporters wanted to hear.  Observers I have read basically say this won't cause any re-shuffling.

Trump didn't have a great night but came across very strong on his strong issue, immigration/deportation.  Won't go up but won't go down either at least based on just this.  He acts more Presidential over time, observers called it a pivot.  But still he couldn't help himself from taking a couple of elementary school plyaground cheap shots at candidates who most likely pose no threat to him, Kasich and Fiorina.  One thing a good debater needs to learn is to let your own answer already delivered stand on its own two feet, not needing to keep repeating it and attacking those who see it differently.

I thought Carson was a little weak at times and largely out of the fray, but he hit his own home runs, thanking the questioner for not asking him what he said in 10th grade and turning policy matters back to the core principles that made this country great.

Rubio was strong for the 4th time in a row and he managed to stay out of the fray on his biggest vulnerability, the immigration argument.  Rubio was among the strongest on foreign policy / commander in chief questions and in articulating how big government favors big business and big banks over everyone else.

Cruz did fine, had his own great moments.  He was first to back up Trump on deportation and rule of law against the compassion arguments of Bush and Kasich, and one of the best to explain why American leadership is necessary around the world in response to Rand Paul.  Still I don't see Trump voters flocking to Cruz if Trump gets out or see any reason why Trump would get out.

Fiorina had great moments.  I don't see her winning but having her in 5th or 6th place proves this is still a very strong field.  She would make a fine President, a thousand times better than the Dem alternative.

Bush did a couple of things right but probably doesn't move up either.  He rose up to just short of the level where he should have been 3 debates ago.  Wisely he changed his strategy from attacking his friends to pivoting on each answer to draw the contrast with Hillary.  He stumbled slightly a couple of times, looked a little uncomfortable, and didn't budge at all on illegal immigration.  Ironically though, the comparison with Hillary reminds us that we don't want a candidate that causes our own side to stay home and lose to her.

Kasich was mostly annoying but had a moment where he took us around the world and commented in lightning round fashion on all the key spots.  Again, I don't like this guy but Democrats would kill to get a candidate in 8th place with his background and readiness.  Like Bush, he had no answer to Trump on how we are a nation if we don't have borders or a basic rule of law.

I also find Rand Paul annoying.  He made his main point very clearly and repeatedly, that you aren't a (fiscal) conservative if you favor unlimited defense spending.  But then he has no answer to the charge that the world goes to hell without American leadership, instead he just repeats the hollow point he already made.  He is the perfect candidate for the 2-3% of Republicans who agree with him.  If he wanted to broaden his appeal, he would lead with the areas of agreement, smaller government at home and greater individual liberties.  

Christy seemed to win the early debate.  He is the only one who could move up.  He is strong and still young, I wonder if his turn is later...   Jindal put too much emphasis on attacking Republicans.  Too bad Santorum doesn't have more appeal, he is pretty close to right on the big issues, fiscal conservative, tough on immigration and national security, etc.  Everybody needs to play a role; his isn't going to be serving as President.  He should have been a Senator from a red state where he could have been reelected and made more of an impact.  As with my complaint with others, he speaks conservatism well but doesn't lead more people over to our side.  Lindsey Graham is also not going to be Republican nominee or President.
------------------------------------

What should come out of this?  No serious re-shuffling, but if there is no re-shuffling and no more debates for a long time, some should reconsider their chances and get out.  I can't say who should get out without throwing my own bias into it, but here goes...  The top 4 should stay in, Carson, Trump, Rubio and Cruz.  Carly, maybe yes too.  For Rand Paul, Kasich and Bush, they should consider this a win of sorts and go out on top.  )   I don't expect Kasich to get out, he can wait and see if he inherits Bush's support.  Two problems with that, there isn't any and we don't know that Bush will get out.

And for Jeb Bush.  His candidacy only makes sense as a frontrunner.  If he was far and away the strongest Republican, the question would remain - do we really want to nominate another Bush?  As a 5th or 6th place guy, still learning how to campaign and debate in his 60s, when his last contested primary was 22 years ago, he is not exactly young and exciting and has decided to carry the full baggage of his father and brother.

[Crafty_Dog]

I would like to begin by saying I thought it was a very well thought out and very well run debate. The questions were excellent and everyone got a fair amount of time. The overall level of the candidates was quite good, even the under card. The longer time allotted for answers enabled more substantive discussion and most of the candidates stepped up their respective games.

Some snap impressions:

Under Card:

While Santorum made the best of his weak hand, I thought Christie showed very well here and showed some grit as a man in how he dealt with the fact of being there. Maybe he will return to the main stage?

Main Event in no particular order:

Kasich: The man has a very strong resume (serious work on serious committees as a long time Congressman and as governor of Ohio) and seems very angry that the voters are interested in non-politicians. On a human level I can understand that, but on a number of issues he misses the mark for me. With regard to the back and forth Cruz and he had over whether to bail out a large failing bank, I confess to being baffled at the idea that depositors might be wiped out. What about the FDIC? (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) Isn't if for exactly this sort of situation? Anyway, I think he comes out of the night worse for the wear.

Bush: Did much better than previously, and scored well against Trump with the need for America to be the Leader and not the Policeman. Did well in describing how Dodd-Frank favors the big banks over community banks, but then got too far into the weeds (along with Kasich) I think with the capital requirement thing, though perhaps the point was to show his depth. His plain statement in favor of Amnesty will remind the great majority of Rep voters who oppose this of just how much he means it. Scored well against Trump on Trump's "Fine with me to have Putin in Syria" strategy. Still, I think it was not enough to change his rankings or flat trajectory-- and his closing statement was very weak.  Doug's assessment that his candidacy only makes sense if he is a front runner (who can win) seems dead on to me.

Fiorina: Once again, impresses, I particularly liked her point about how the government created the bubble and when it burst created the "solutions" that it now creates the problems it will "solve" with even more government and how this is the road to socialism. She through a really nice elbow at the Donald after he did a name drop thing about getting along with Putin when they both appeared on "60 Minutes" when she commented that she too had met with Putin but that it had not been in the waiting room for a TV show. Not sure why, but my intuition is that despite another strong showing she will not get a big bump in the polls. She remains positioned well for VP however.

Rand Paul: A very good night for him, he seems to have found his mojo. A major bitch slap scored against Trump when in response to a question about the TPP Trump blathered on about China and it's currency manipulations Rand interjected to point out that China was not a signatory to the TPP. Though Rubio answered well, he engaged strongly with Rubio on Rubio's family credit in his tax proposal and spending increases. Although I don't see him as becoming a major contender, I feel he added to the night and very much hope he is reelected in Kentucky-- and given how much noise he made about coal it would appear that this is on his mind wink emoticon

Cruz: A very good night for Ted. I have always had great respect for Ted. His legal career is simply extraordinary. His grasp and love for our Constitution is superb. He has shown political courage. That said I have worried about the narrowness of his life experience and his political skills in reaching those less intelligent than him (i.e. most people) but he continues to move up in my estimation in these things e.g. his tax plan and his ability to describe it as benefiting real people.

Rubio: As usual displayed tremendous ability to handle questions on his own terms, tremendous preparation on a wide range of issues especially foreign affairs, and superb speaking skills. As other candidates drop out I can see him picking up a lot of their supporters.  

Carson: Of course everyone was curious to see how he would handle the inevitable question about the challenges to the credibility of his life story and I thought he came through with flying colors. Turning to the merits I confess to being pleasantly surprised at the depth and specificity of his answer to a "what to do in the Middle East?" question. Though he does not push for the spotlight as the others do, he turned in a fine night. Superb closing statement. In the spin zone after he continued to invite deep substantive questions on all issues; it would not surprise me if he surprises with quality answers when those questions come.

Trump: Though his numbers may remain where they are, IMHO this was not a good night for the Donald. No more domineering the stage and the moderators for him as the substance level goes up! He statements that previously seemed bold now seem lacking and his insults (to Kaisch and Fiorina last night) small and petty instead of witty. IMHO Trump has peaked. He has the support he is going to get and will not go up from here. He has served the process well by breaking the mold by taking on the PC police and the media but my prediction is that as various candidates drop out, their supporters will not go to him but instead to other of the remaining candidates.

Overall I came away from the night encouraged by the depth of the Rep bench. The contrast with the Dem bench is glaring. Name me 12 Democrats you could put to a crucible like last night. Regardless who gets the nomination, should the Reps win a lot of these people would make for an absolutely extraordinary cabinet. Should the Reps hold both houses of the Congress, amazing things could get done and maybe, just maybe, America can turn things around.

The three that have most of my attention in this moment are Carson, Rubio, and Cruz.

[DougMacG]

Picking a couple of things out of Crafty's excellent post:

"I confess to being baffled at the idea that depositors might be wiped out. What about the FDIC? (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) Isn't if for exactly this sort of situation?"

   - Exactly my thought.  The depositor gets bailed out for exactly the limit of the FDIC insurance.  That is a different question from rescuing the institution, which is wrong.  That's how they got too big to fail!  The Fox Business commentators thought Bush and Kasich looked like idiots on this, and they both work for big banks.

Crafty again:  "Fiorina: Once again, impresses, I particularly liked her point about how the government created the bubble and when it burst created the "solutions" that it now creates the problems it will "solve" with even more government and how this is the road to socialism."

   - I just wanted to repeat that!  Almost all of what we are arguing are government 'solutions' for government-caused problems - and we never hear that.   It is quite a good sign that she gets that.

Crafty excerpt on Carson:  "Superb closing statement"

   - That was one of many times that he completed his answer without talking over the bell, unlike others.  It reflects and internal confidence to not have to repeat endlessly, make canned points or shout others down.

Comments missed in my first post: 

Cruz made a nice dig at "sugar subsidies" - without naming Rubio.  He made the point gracefully and substantively without making it unnecessarily personal and by doing it that way took away Rubio's opportunity and obligation to respond.

Lastly, doesn't Bush have a lot of other cool things he could be doing.   )

[ppulatie]

Time for my thoughts after watching the Big Dogs play:

The debate format and moderators set the standard hopefully for future debates. This was not “gotcha” questions, but actually went to real issues.

Kasich:
 
His comments on the Bail Out obfuscated the issue at the very least. FDIC insurance covers any single account up to $250k in the event of a bank failure. Depositors can change the names on the account in various ways that will provide for each account having $250k of insurance. So this is a non-issue.
Kasich also talked about increasing the capital requirements held by banks so that depositors would not be wiped out in the event of a failure.  This is a technical issue covered by BASEL 3. The requirements have already been increased from 3.5% to a range of from 8% to 12.5%. Is this enough? Probably not, but this increase is designed to protect banks from runs, and with the Fed as lender of last resort, probably be enough to stop failures caused by runs.

Let the banks fail? The plans are now in place to deal with failures, so to hell with bailouts unless the entire financial system will collapse. And if that is the case, bailouts won’t help anyway. Kasich had to avoid this part since it would cost him financial entities campaign contributions.

Kasich came off okay in the early going, but got very annoying as time went on. He needed a breakout moment, but that did not come. He should have no movement up in the polls.

Maybe he is playing for VP.

Bush:
Better performance than before, but still lackluster. He hurt himself on amnesty for sure. And his statements on bank bailouts was too wonkish as well. His comments on Syria may have to be walked back. Putin has apparently been bombing the hell out of ISIS positions in the last 72 hours. Over 448 sorties.
Did not help to stop the bleeding of support overall. He might get a short boost, but it will quickly disappear. (More on this in next post.)

Fiorina:

Did well and may pick up of bit of support, but she was constantly jumping in. Her comments on Syria and the No Fly Zone and further military action scare the hell out of me. Her posturing would mean a return to the Cold War.

Also with Fiorina, when she talks and I watch, I cannot get her head and body movements and  facial expressions out of my mind. They are very distracting and IMO seem to lessen her arguments and appealability. Each time, it is like being lectured to by an ex-wife.


Paul:

Seemed impressive until his views are considered. The question on military spending was way off as mention by Doug and CD. But he misrepresented TPP and Trump. Trump said that China had a backdoor into TPP whenever they wanted it, and this is true. In fact, this is evidenced by Kerry just offering China to joint TPP.

He should drop out and go back to Kentucky.


Cruz:

A very good night for him. He may pick up a bit of support from Carson people, but not much elsewhere. If Trump drops out, he might get some support. The problem is that he cannot win in the general election. Tea Party associations will destroy crossover appeal. And he probably cannot beat Rubio at the convention.



Rubio:
Good performance, but showed again his true colors on Immigration. He is the new GOPe candidate if Bush crashes. (More on this in next post.)

Carson:

Did good to stop the questions on the 10th grade. This will help him, but has damage already been done? Still, TPP, Immigration and other issues will continue to haunt him. Syria? Contrast that with his comments after 9-11 and Afghanistan. He may temporary pick up some support, but should drop to previous levels.


Trump:

Did what he had to do………….not harm himself. The comment about Snarly interrupting will be viewed solely in the mind of where the person stands with regard to Trump and Snarly. It won’t have any affect except in the media’s mind.

TPP, he is against as is only a couple of other candidates. As the details become know, it might help him, but it is still a wonkish issue.

Immigration is still the biggest issue in the campaign. Watch to Europe and as things worsen there, it will only help Trump.

It appears that the goal of the moderators and GOPe is to keep Trump out of the spotlight since it only appears to help him. That is why he is being “ignored” in the debates for all intent and purposes.

[Crafty_Dog]

"Cruz made a nice dig at "sugar subsidies" - without naming Rubio.  He made the point gracefully and substantively without making it unnecessarily personal and by doing it that way took away Rubio's opportunity and obligation to respond."

I too noticed this , , , and forgot to mention it in my commentary above.  Very shrew play by Cruz, including not mentioning Rubio by name.  It seems quite likely we will be hearing more about this    Also, his one liner about illegals with journalism degrees was devastating IMHO.

"Lastly, doesn't Bush have a lot of other cool things he could be doing.   )"

 

"Trump said that China had a backdoor into TPP whenever they wanted it, and this is true. In fact, this is evidenced by Kerry just offering China to joint TPP."

I missed this.  Someone please flesh this out on the TPP thread.

"Also with Fiorina, when she talks and I watch, I cannot get her head and body movements and  facial expressions out of my mind. They are very distracting and IMO seem to lessen her arguments and appealability. Each time, it is like being lectured to by an ex-wife."

   I think you may have nailed it.    OTOH major kudos to Carly for her repeated attacks on baseline budgeting!!! 

"TPP, he is against as is only a couple of other candidates. As the details become know, it might help him, but it is still a wonkish issue. Immigration is still the biggest issue in the campaign. Watch to Europe and as things worsen there, it will only help Trump."

Good points.

[ppulatie]

Okay, now from the Primary/Nomination view.......

For the first four primaries, this debate and others will have no effect at all on the outcome towards nomination. None of the candidates will have 50 plus one to win the state under Rule 40. So it is all about just winning delegates that are to be split.

The next few primaries in Feb sill also have little substance towards the nomination other than delegates. That is because there will still be at least 6 candidates in the running, Carson, Trump, Rubio, Jeb, Cruz and Fiorina which all serve to split the vote and will prevent anyone winning a majority of votes.

Once March 15 hits, the goal will be to either eliminate Trump, but if not possible, keep the others in the race to split the vote and deny the nomination to Trump using Rule 40. This allows for the GOPe to go into the  convention and "back room" pick the nominee.

So the debates really mean nothing at this stage, other than keeping many candidates in the race to blunt Trump  Force in the first four primaries. And unless Trump steps on his crank, no harm can really come to him.

[ppulatie]

Did RNC pack debate audience with Rubio supporters?

http://dcwhispers.com/say-it-aint-so-marco-gop-stuffed-debate-hall-with-pro-rubio-supporters/

[ppulatie]

Trump and Cruz tied in Texas. Is Cruz piking up Carson supporters?  (This is the first poll of Texas by this firm since Jun.)


http://www.texastribune.org/2015/11/12/uttt-poll-cruz-trump-tied-clinton-well-ahead/

[DougMacG]

Did RNC pack debate audience with Rubio supporters?

http://dcwhispers.com/say-it-aint-so-marco-gop-stuffed-debate-hall-with-pro-rubio-supporters/

No mention that Scott Walker (or Reince Priebus or hardly anyone else) has endorsed Rubio yet.

It seemed to me the crowd went wild for a number of things not related to Rubio.  They booed Trump a couple times when he reverted to old, immature ways.  That is helpful feedback for him IMO and insulates the party from endorsing the playground insults.  Overall the crowd seemed polite, attentive and well-behaved.  Kudos to the organizers.  )

It should be no surprise that outsiders don't have as much influence on the inside.  Isn't that the point of being an outsider?  On the other side of it, isn't it the point of doing thankless political work (in Wisconsin or anywhere) should come with some perks like being able to attend big events like this?

In our area in recent years it was the Ron Paul people who tried to disproportionately take leadership in the party, but only to advance their candidate not to advance the interests of the party.  Many Trump supporters like yourself (pp) make clear their interest to support only one candidate, not the eventual nominee if he loses or the down ticket work.

Next up on the site:  http://dcwhispers.com/marco-rubio-hates-little-white-kids/

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.dickmorris.com/the-key-to-2016-reagan-democrats-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports

[ppulatie]

Doug,

How can you advance the interests of the Party, when the party only cares about itself and just continuing to serve corporate interests only?  The GOPe regularly dismisses what their supporters want, and then do what benefits themselves financially?  Think Boehner and McConnell................

Also, think how the RNC has come out and stated that those who support Trump are no longer welcome in the Party unless they conform to RNC wishes. Does this sound like a Party interested in considering all sides and that people could work within to improve?  Think what the GOPe did in 1976 and 1980, going against Reagan and wanting Bush. Here we have the same again, except Trump is now Reagan, and we still have a Bush.

Work within the party to support an eventual nominee who will once again lose to the Dems? Work with a nominee who could just as easily be a member of the other party?

The GOP is in a fight for the soul of the Party. This fight has been ongoing since 1960 at the very least. It pits moderate republicans against conservative republicans.

Why do you think more and more people are leaving the GOP party and going Independent? They are fed up with the Party. But that does not concern the GOPe for one reason....it makes its favored candidate easier to get on the ballot because it reduces opposition to their goals. And, they know that generally those Independents will vote for the GOP in the end, so what does it matter?

After the Primary in CA, I am re-registering as an Independent. I am through with the Party. I will "waste" my vote on a candidate who says what I believe in from now on, over someone just pretending to believe in the things I want. To hell with the GOP.

[Crafty_Dog]

GOP Voters: See You in Cleveland
​None of the candidates is likely to win a majority of primary delegates.​
By Daniel Henninger
Nov. 11, 2015 6:54 p.m. ET
490 COMMENTS

Dive into the political Web and somewhere you’ll find this now-unavoidable headline: 10 Things We Learned From the GOP Debate. Let’s keep it simple. What we learned at the debate in Milwaukee was one thing: This campaign won’t end until it gets to Cleveland.

None of these candidates looks likely to pull away and capture the majority of primary delegates before the party’s nominating convention in Cleveland next July.

After Tuesday’s debate, the fourth evening we’ve all spent with these people, it’s hard for me to see why a round of brokering in Cleveland isn’t the most likely outcome.

This is the most volatile presidential nominating race in memory. Opinion polls, with all their statistical limitations, are playing a dominant role determining who stays on Debate Island and who gets thrown off.
After the GOP presidential debate in Milwaukee, Nov. 10. ENLARGE
After the GOP presidential debate in Milwaukee, Nov. 10. Photo: joshua lott/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Buried in this polling, however, is the reality that these preferences aren’t much more than sentiments. Most voters admit they haven’t picked a horse. Tuesday’s debate showed why.

In the third debate, on Oct. 28, after strong performances by Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, conventional tea-leaf reading said they would rise as Donald Trump and Ben Carson inevitably faded.

Ben Carson just spent a week passing through an intense crucible over his biographical credibility. After Tuesday evening’s good performance, I’d say Ben Carson isn’t going to fade.

As to Donald Trump, well, we’re close to the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, and every year you simply marvel at how those fabulous balloons stay afloat.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump, wending his way through the minimum wage issue, said: “Wages are too high.” He survived saying John McCain isn’t a war hero and George W. Bush didn’t keep us safe on 9/11. But this?

Mr. Trump’s blue-collar base is entering its eighth year of Barack Obama’s low-wage economy. If saying wages are too high doesn’t sink him, then he isn’t going to fade from the primaries.

Still, that crack just gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign its Mitt Romney Moment. They would plaster the billionaire’s “wages are too high” across every TV market in the Midwest’s battleground states.

These debates are largely presentation exercises, and Donald Trump survives because his presentation skills are astonishing. Last Friday evening on “The O’Reilly Factor,” Mr. Trump blew right through every direct question Bill O’Reilly asked him. It’s an amazing performance, when he isn’t bellowing.

Jeb Bush, meanwhile, is obviously prone to brain cramps. The people of Washington, Iowa, likely will forgive him for clutching on why they aren’t like Washington, D.C. John Kasich’s remark about what Jeb was “trying to say” about bank capital requirements was nasty if irresistible.

But Mr. Bush did what everyone knew he had to. He kept himself on the field with strong comments on the Obama regulatory blizzard, energy policy and especially his own mockery of Hillary’s “A” grade for the wheezing Obama economy.

Mr. Bush needs to finish no worse than fourth in Iowa’s February caucuses and notch a win or second in New Hampshire. If he survives those tests, the Bush money and campaign machinery will make him competitive through South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

But “competitive” is his minimum baseline now, not last June’s “front-runner.” Mr. Bush looks like a Kentucky Derby favorite running deep in the pack along the rail on the backstretch. His fade tightened the odds for everyone else in the race.

Maybe it’s unfair that the debates have such an outsize role in sorting candidates for the U.S. presidency, but the presentation exercises are useful and revelatory.

Take Ted Cruz. His strategy is to collect “outsider” support if the Carson or Trump campaigns falter. It’s a plausible gambit. But . . .

On one hand, Mr. Cruz Tuesday gave a handsome summary of how to achieve higher growth through Reaganomics: low taxes, deregulation and sound monetary policy. He’s impressive on these important but complex subjects.

But his top pander line—“If Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose”—fell flat with the Milwaukee audience. Set aside the substance of this issue. The problem is that it was so patently opportunistic. It’s a Cruz quirk and liability. At the margin, it could suppress his vote in big-state primaries, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—battleground states in the general election.

Marco Rubio swings from home-run rhetoric (the minimum wage will “make people more expensive than a machine”) to trite plug-and-play speeches. Did you know his father was a bartender?

Carly Fiorina often starts strong, then talks past any point of interest. Rand Paul demolished Marco Rubio’s family tax credit as a trillion-dollar outlay, then left his chin hanging on national security. Mr. Rubio ducked the tax credit and flattened him.

Undercard king Chris Christie is now the contest’s legitimate dark horse. If he talks personally to every GOP voter in New Hampshire, he may win there. But he’s sooo far back everywhere else.

Get used to hearing “no clear winner” and “no clear front-runner.” Until Cleveland. 

[ppulatie]

" round of brokering in Cleveland isn’t the most likely outcome"

Yep, true............

[DougMacG]

Doug,

How can you advance the interests of the Party, when the party only cares about itself and just continuing to serve corporate interests only?  The GOPe regularly dismisses what their supporters want, and then do what benefits themselves financially?  Think Boehner and McConnell................
...

I'm not saying that view isn't valid. (My congressman called me for my endorsement when he first ran.  Now he won't return my calls or respond to my emails, positioning himself as a centrist and knows that he is pisses off conservatives every time he funds liberalism.)   I'm just saying that's not how you get the seats on the inside, when now you want a say in the debates, the primary rules, timing, etc.

NH has independents in the primary, but for the most part these are Republican primaries heading to a Republican convention.  You (Trump, Carson, etc.) can't blow off party work and then wonder why you're not fully represented on the inside.

Just before my mom passed away, we attended a political function featuring her good friend Phyllis Schlafley, a VERY conservative woman, also age 90, who among other things wrote the Goldwater book, "A Choice, Not an Echo", also led the fight to defeat the 'equal rights amendment' which slowed down today's liberalism by a couple of decades.  Certainly the betrayal of RINOs was among her biggest concerns, but one of her central points in closing was that this is a two party system, a two party country.  Conservatives are always fed up and tempted to go their own way, but you make a difference by winning IN the party and by winning in the elections.  Boehner and McConnell have/had power because we don't win enough primaries and elections.  

Still, the activists in the party tend to be more conservative, not less conservative, than the party voters and the country at large.  That the insiders favor Rubio (allegedly) does not mean they are Chamber of Commerce liberals.

[ppulatie]

I guess that you see a much greater difference in the two parties than I do.  There may be significant differences on Gun Control but not much else.

[DougMacG]

I guess that you see a much greater difference in the two parties than I do.  There may be significant differences on Gun Control but not much else.

Distracted by the problems on our side, I think you are in denial of exactly where the Democrat party is today.
Maybe others can help fill in the details here, let's get this list of questions right.

Do you believe government should set your pay, your benefits, your hours, and all your work rules?
Do you think government should own or control all businesses?
Do you think Derek Jeeter's batboy should make the same income as Derek Jeeter (or same analogy for some other great performer) and the same as some guy too drunk or high to work at all?
Are you ready for world government to replace all cities, counties, states, countries and private decision making?
Should (world government) decide how much water you can use, how much energy, what kind of energy you can use?
Would you like government to decide for you what you eat, when you eat, how much you can eat?  How about what you drink?
Would you like them to decide for you what you can drive, when you can drive, how far you can drive?
Would you like them to decide for you where you can live, how big your house can be, what it is made out of, and have routine inspections?
Would you like them to decide for you that you cannot fly, while they jet unlimited distances to advance their control over you?
Would you like them to decide when you can speak, where you can speak and what you can say?
Are you ready to have all of us register and then surrender our weapons?  (I think you already conceded this point.)
Do you think they should be able to take your home on a whim?  (Okay, skip that one.)
Do you think an Iran-Palestine alliance should rule the world and Israel should be destroyed?
Do you believe constitutional limits on power should be waived when it is for a good liberal cause?
Do you fear freedom more than you despise tyranny?
If so, you may be a Democrat.
Do you think I exaggerate?
Do you think someone like Rubio or Carson or Ryan, Priebus, Gigot, Boehner or McConnell are the same as today's Dem on these points?
I don't.
Let me know if you found this helpful.   )

[G M]

The majority in this country would say yes, as long as they still get the free shiznit.

I guess that you see a much greater difference in the two parties than I do.  There may be significant differences on Gun Control but not much else.

Distracted by the problems on our side, I think you are in denial of exactly where the Democrat party is today.
Maybe others can help fill in the details here, let's get this list of questions right.

Do you believe government should set your pay, your benefits, your hours, and all your work rules?
Do you think government should own or control all businesses?
Do you think Derek Jeeter's batboy should make the same income as Derek Jeeter (or same analogy for some other great performer) and the same as some guy too drunk or high to work at all?
Are you ready for world government to replace all cities, counties, states, countries and private decision making?
Should (world government) decide how much water you can use, how much energy, what kind of energy you can use?
Would you like government to decide for you what you eat, when you eat, how much you can eat?  How about what you drink?
Would you like them to decide for you what you can drive, when you can drive, how far you can drive?
Would you like them to decide for you where you can live, how big your house can be, what it is made out of, and have routine inspections?
Would you like them to decide for you that you cannot fly, while they jet unlimited distances to advance their control over you?
Would you like them to decide when you can speak, where you can speak and what you can say?
Are you ready to have all of us register and then surrender our weapons?  (I think you already conceded this point.)
Do you think they should be able to take your home on a whim?  (Okay, skip that one.)
If so, you may be a Democrat.
Do you think I exaggerate?
Do you think someone like Rubio or Carson or Ryan, Priebus, Gigot, Boehner or McConnell are the same as today's Dem on these points?
I don't.

[DougMacG]

quote author G M
"The majority in this country would say yes, as long as they still get the free shiznit."

Yes, the goodies, I think Carson called them.  Those are the Dems.  Don't be that guy.

[DougMacG]

They want as few debates as possible and as few people as possible to see it.