Way too early republican primary thread

[Larry T Spider]

There are a million polls out there and they are all pretty meaningless at this point. The real test is who can survive the beginning and pick up supporters from the guys that drop out. Most of the polls are along the lines of this one at this point. I thought it would be fun to track this over the coming months to see who has the best predictions and just to see how the whole thing plays out. I love elections and find them fascinating even when they don't go the way I want.
Scott Walker 13.3%

• Marco Rubio 13.1%

• Jeb Bush 10.3%

• Ben Carson 9.4%

• Rand Paul 9.2%

• Mike Huckabee 8.9%

• Ted Cruz 8.2%

• Chris Christie 4.7%

• Rick Perry 2.4%

• Carly Fiorina 1.8%

• John Kasich 1.8%

• Rick Santorum 1.3%

• George Pataki 1.2%

• Bobby Jindal 1.1%

• Lindsey Graham 1.0%

My personal favorites are Kasich and Walker. I don't agree with Kasich on education or Walker on labor (sometimes) but they have more influence over those topics at the state level. I would probably support most of their presidential agendas. They can make some comments that are a little too snarky for me but aren't flat out ******** to the opposition like many on the list. They actually have to work with the opposition in those states and have done so pretty damn well. Some on the list would turn me into a HRC voter. Did I just say that?

Anyway, I would love to hear predictions and keep up with the thread as time goes and people drop off the list. I would guess that most people on the board will end up voting for one of these guys for president so it will be interesting.

Prediction: Scott Walker keeps it close with the others just long enough to start picking up support when the guys with no chance start dropping out. He looks the part, has an impressive track record working in a purple state, and won't turn off a large section of the voters on a particular issue. He is religious enough to get republican primary voters to vote for him but not so over the top that it turns people off. I'm going to also predict that he will be our next president with HRC being unable to overcome her high negatives.

 

[Crockett]

I was amazed and worried when Ted Cruz broke out of the gate with a surge of support. I'd like to see someone with experience building a winning coalition and executive experience as the chief executive and I think there is a good chance a Republican wins in 2016. Cruz is a fighter, admirable sometimes for a legislator, not the stance to lead a united nation.


I saw an article likening Cruz to Ronald Reagan as a candidate. I see big differences.

Reagan was an actor who was certainly capable of angry rhetoric. But he could be warm, charming, funny and had an internal genial nature that showed through even when he put on the angry facade. Cruz comes across as angry and in his typical photo, even the ones put out by his campaign, the facial expression is an angry sneer. Cruz can do a smile and laughter, condescending smile and mocking laughter.

 

[Mr. Deez]

None of these guys could turn me into a HRC voter, but they could turn me into a Libertarian voter. I like your take on Scott Walker and Kasich. Both are good candidates with broad appeal who could defeat HRC in the general. Of course, if Walker wins the nomination, get ready for people to hype up the fact that he didn't graduate from college. However, if HRC acts like the smug ***** that she is, it could backfire.

 

[chango]

This is a great thread idea, Larry. I will mostly observe but I look forward to the updates.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I saw an article likening Cruz to Ronald Reagan as a candidate. I see big differences.

Reagan was an actor who was certainly capable of angry rhetoric. But he could be warm, charming, funny and had an internal genial nature that showed through even when he put on the angry facade. Cruz comes across as angry and in his typical photo, even the ones put out by his campaign, the facial expression is an angry sneer. Cruz can do a smile and laughter, condescending smile and mocking laughter.

I don't think Cruz is anything like Reagan. Reagan's typical demeanor was charming and kindly. He knew when to be belligerent, but that wasn't his normal rap. Furthermore, though he articulated strong principles, he put forth an impression of unity and cooperation. He was also a very good looking guy, especially for his age and had a smile that exuded sincerity.

Cruz' norm is to spit out inflammatory rhetoric in vitriolic and sanctimonious tones and rarely reaches beyond the obvious base. Belligerence is the general rule, and he puts forth an impression of division and hostility to any solutions that don't involve him getting 100 percent of what he wants. He's not a good looking guy - looks like a big nerd, and his smile looks forced.

 

[Larry T Spider]

None of these guys could turn me into a HRC voter, but they could turn me into a Libertarian voter. I like your take on Scott Walker and Kasich. Both are good candidates with broad appeal who could defeat HRC in the general. Of course, if Walker wins the nomination, get ready for people to hype up the fact that he didn't graduate from college. However, if HRC acts like the smug ***** that she is, it could backfire.

I'm really hoping that they would turn me into an o'malley voter. I know it's a long shot but I'm holding out hope. I think the dems would love to bail on hrc if they could find a legit contender. The old adage is that republicans fall in line, democrats fall in love. HRC isn't all that lovable these days but the dems may fall in line republican style. Fwiw I think that adage isn't really true of republicans anymore as so many have grown to distrust the establishment.

 

[theiioftx]

I like what Walker has accomplished, but think he ultimately drops due to lack of education. I am not putting him down for this, but I think his competition will and the polls will follow.

Cruz would be my pick, but he has already been personally demonized by the Left and the public has joined that view. He is the most principled candidate in my view, but does not get the nomination.

Bush is the likely nominee which is a big reason I have fallen away from the Republican Party. I am not interested in another Romney/McCain type candidate.

My dark horse is Fiorina. If she can get serious financial backing, she could be the anti-Hillary candidate the republicans need. America has likely seen its last white male President for a while.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm really hoping that they would turn me into an o'malley voter. I know it's a long shot but I'm holding out hope. I think the dems would love to bail on hrc if they could find a legit contender.

I don't see why they wouldn't be looking to bail. Like I've said several times, she is a poor candidate. Her poll numbers have been high before, but as soon as she enters "candidate mode" (meaning she has to actually talk about real issues in a non-controlled environment), her numbers drop. She just flat-out isn't a good candidate, and the more she's out there the worse she looks. See link. Yes, the article is by S.E. Cupp, who's a right-winger, but her analysis is backed up by current polling data and is basically correct. Democrats take solace in her lead against Republican nominees, but she's in a different position than they are. Most of them have barely started their campaigns are unknown outside of the political class. They can improve their standings. In contrast, she is a known commodity to almost everybody with little room to improve.

I'm not sure why more Dems aren't taking a closer look at O'Malley. I know a lot of hardcore liberals are liking Bernie Sanders, but they can't be taking him seriously as a nominee. The guy is a freak show and way too extreme for a general election candidate. O'Mailley isn't as passionate, but he's a far more conventional candidate - looks the part, doesn't call himself a socialist, owns a comb, hasn't written about beating off thinking about weird things, doesn't talk like a homeless person from Brooklyn, etc.

he old adage is that republicans fall in line, democrats fall in love. HRC isn't all that lovable these days but the dems may fall in line republican style. Fwiw I think that adage isn't really true of republicans anymore as so many have grown to distrust the establishment.

I agree. Republican voters will stay home if they aren't motivated by their candidate. Republican turnout was down in 2012, even with a chance to beat Obama, because Romney was such a mediocre candidate. By contrast, even though some Dems were disappointed with Obama, they did fall in line.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I like what Walker has accomplished, but think he ultimately drops due to lack of education. I am not putting him down for this, but I think his competition will and the polls will follow.

I think it depends on who's putting him down. Obviously, your elite types in the Northeast as well as the media aren't going to like it, but they're not voting Republican anyway. Walker may not have a strong formal education, but he's not a Sarah Palin. He speaks like an intelligent person, and I think if the criticisms are coming from an aloof and smug Democratic nominee (like HRC), they could backfire with middle class people in states like Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. (outside of the Northeast).

Bush is the likely nominee which is a big reason I have fallen away from the Republican Party. I am not interested in another Romney/McCain type candidate.

I don't think most Republicans are interest in another Romney/McCain type either. The key is to coalesce around a viable candidate who isn't named Bush.

My dark horse is Fiorina. If she can get serious financial backing, she could be the anti-Hillary candidate the republicans need.

She has done much better than expected. I'd be worried about her record at HP. I hear her performance with the company was bad, and if it was, you'll hear people say, "if you can't run a business, then you shouldn't be trusted with the government." It's sorta ironic coming from a party that hasn't nominated a candidate who had a real job in 35 years, but the issue will be raised.

 

[chango]

I like what Walker has accomplished, but think he ultimately drops due to lack of education

Before yesterday I didn't even know Walker didn't finish college. Doesn't impact me one way or the other.. I think the people in the 'middle' of the political spectrum who will decide the election will care more about his stance on abortion and LGBT rights than a meaningless degree.

 

[nashhorn]

The $$$ and the power associated with it get Hillary the nod, that and the press. Likewise the GOP will narrow down to whomever the media choses, end of story per my cynical opinion. I respect the 'ballsyness' of Rand Paul more than any candidate but even with a more acceptable foreign policy approach the media will do to him, and others, what they did to his father: even those caucuses and primaries he may win or do well there will be little or zero coverage, yet should he do poorly it will be front line. They know exactly what they are doing, including Fox. I've noticed already how they pick candidate coverage NOT according to polling results, but their favorites.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Oops. . .

 

[Crockett]

Perry should help ratings and provide comic relief. I know one Dallas Morning News letter writer said he stopped watching Republican Presidential Debates after Perry dropped out in 2012. "It was like watching an episode of Gilligan's Island without Gilligan," he lamented.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Kasich expected to announce soon. Sounds like he doesn't follow anybody's script - one person called him a Republican Joe Biden. I like that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Scott Walker just made his formerly viable campaign unviable. Democrats are rejoicing.

 

[nashhorn]

Agreed, but agree.

 

[Larry T Spider]

I guess my prediction was the kiss of death for walker. Too late to say Rubio?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess my prediction was the kiss of death for walker. Too late to say Rubio?

Rubio and Kasich are really the only ones who don't excessively alienate the base but also don't make themselves radioactive in the general election.

However, even they have their problems. Rubio was on board with immigration reform. Of course that will help him in the general but might sink him in the primary. Kasich expanded Medicaid in the wake of Obamacare, which creates the same problem.

I think Kasich's problem is easier to get around though. The Medicaid expansion is more complicated, which means the average dumb GOP primary voter will have to think a lot harder before deciding he's a traitor. Rubio can be easily branded as a supporter of "amnesty." That one word can pretty much kill his chances.

 

[Larry T Spider]

I definitely agree with what you are saying. Kasich is a good choice IMO, but always seems to have trouble getting the ball rolling in the primary. I don't know what he is going to do differently this time in a crowded field. I think that he needs to dump everything into the first few to prove that he is a contender and maybe get lucky as people drop out picking up some of their supporters.

 

[Larry T Spider]

FebruaryEdit

• Monday, February 1: Iowa caucuses
• Tuesday, February 9: New Hampshire
• Saturday, February 20: South Carolina
• Tuesday February 23: Nevada caucuses

MarchEdit

• Tuesday, March 1: Colorado caucuses;[citation needed] Massachusetts; Oklahoma; Tennessee; Texas; Vermont; Virginia; North Carolina
• Saturday, March 5: Louisiana
• Tuesday, March 8: Alabama; Hawaii caucuses; Mississippi; Ohio; Michigan

Here are the early dates according to wiki. There are plenty more after this but I think we will have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen after march 1st. If not by then, march 8th becomes a huge date.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I definitely agree with what you are saying. Kasich is a good choice IMO, but always seems to have trouble getting the ball rolling in the primary. I don't know what he is going to do differently this time in a crowded field. I think that he needs to dump everything into the first few to prove that he is a contender and maybe get lucky as people drop out picking up some of their supporters.

Kasich isn't a hater. He's not going to give a speech ripping his opponents. He'll rip their policies and proposals, but he sticks with substance and ideas, not personal attacks. Unfortunately, people who vote in primary elections mostly remember and get motivated by personal attacks, not real ideas. That's why Republicans can unify behind "Obamacare sucks," but they can't unify around an alternative.

To the extent that primary voters care about issues, it's the junk issues - abortion, gay-bashing, and deporting Mexicans. Kasich has a generally conservative record on that stuff, but he has never emphasized them. Instead, his rap has always been balancing the budget, which is infinitely more important. Hell, while Bill Clinton and the Democrats were blabbing about how we'd have children starving to death and have elderly people kicked out onto the street and forced to live on dog food if we slowed the growth in social spending, Kasich was successfully pushing through the balanced budget that Clinton now brags about. He has more credibility on fiscal responsibility than any politician of the post-New Deal era. However, that doesn't get the base excited. Kasich's approach also doesn't motivate the business element of the GOP, because though he's a tax cutter, he's not a rabid tax cutter who doesn't care if the budget is balanced.

 

[Larry T Spider]

I agree with all of that and would add that he knows how to operate in a purple state. If you were him, how would you go about trying to win the primary? Start gay bashing and **** flinging? That works but I also think it's going to be a crowded market for those types this year. Seems like a tough road for him unless all of the somewhat moderate republican primary voters jump on his bandwagon. Maybe he can really make a push and be the "balanced budget guy" and try to attract all of the pubs that don't really care about gays and abortions as much. Let the other guys split that vote 13 different ways.

 

[Crockett]

Maybe he can really make a push and be the "balanced budget guy" and try to attract all of the pubs that don't really care about gays and abortions as much. Let the other guys split that vote 13 different ways.

That's sounds like a guy I would support and I typically vote in the Republican Primary. I'm not an enthusiast for either party, but in Denton County, the Republican Primary is the only way to have a say in local races.

 

[Larry T Spider]

I also wanted to add that this seems like it is going to be a war of attrition as much as anything. The first four states are all very different with one from each of the Midwest, New England, south, and west being present. It's hard to imagine the same guy doing well in each of those states. Maybe take it slow and let the other goobers say stupid things to knock themselves out.

 

[theiioftx]

It is sad that people fall prey to the media spin and then go along by calling them "goobers" or "stupid" because they have different beliefs. I believe the article states that he is in favor of state rights regarding banning gay marriage. Someone's position on marriage between a man and woman is hardly "gay bashing." Hell, Obama and HRC had the same position just a couple of years ago until they calculated more votes by changing their position. Are they goobers too?

 

[Larry T Spider]

My post where I used the word goobers said nothing about any policy position such as gay marriage, you added that. I was simply pointing out that many in this large field will knock themselves out by saying stupid things a la Rick perry last time around. I'm pretty confident in calling him and people like him a goober and it has nothing to do with his policy stance on anything.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It is sad that people fall prey to the media spin and then go along by calling them "goobers" or "stupid" because they have different beliefs. I believe the article states that he is in favor of state rights regarding banning gay marriage. Someone's position on marriage between a man and woman is hardly "gay bashing." Hell, Obama and HRC had the same position just a couple of years ago until they calculated more votes by changing their position. Are they goobers too?

They aren't stupid for opposing gay marriage. They are stupid for pushing a constitutional amendment to enable states to ban it. That would take 67 senators and 290 House members just to send the issue to the states for ratification. (They could also get 2/3 of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention and propose an amendment, but that's even less likely to happen.) That's not going to happen or get anywhere near happening, and it's a waste of time and an even bigger waste of political capital to push for it. If the anti-gay marriage crowd wants to push the issue, it needs to learn to convince the public on the merits before it starts pushing something as ambitious as a constitutional amendment.

 

[theiioftx]

He said he would "support" it. Big difference between "pushing" and "supporting." The media will continue to ask those questions because there is no right answer. If he says he supports it, it generates noise like this OP. If he says he does not support an amendment, he gets destroyed by the religious right. If he refuses to answer questions, he becomes the apparent Democrat front runner.

Stating he is no longer a viable candidate because he answered to his party's leaning is a stretch.

 

[Mr. Deez]

He said he would "support" it. Big difference between "pushing" and "supporting." The media will continue to ask those questions because there is no right answer. If he says he supports it, it generates noise like this OP. If he says he does not support an amendment, he gets destroyed by the religious right. If he refuses to answer questions, he becomes the apparent Democrat front runner.

Stating he is no longer a viable candidate because he answered to his party's leaning is a stretch.

His exact quote was, ""I personally believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. If the court decides that [gay marriage bans are unconstitutional], the only next approach is for those who are supporters of marriage being defined as between one man and one woman is ultimately to consider pursuing a constitutional amendment."

You are right. There is no good answer, which is why the question is being asked. The media isn't going to make gay marriage an easy issue for the GOP, and their candidates need to be prepared for that. He didn't use the term "push," but he did use the term "pursue" and associated himself with those who would do so. That's a bad move, and he handed HRC an opportunity to brand him as the guy who will try to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage (even though that's not what he said) if he gets the nomination.

The issue has become an albatross, and it needs to be dropped at least from an official standpoint. It turns off a massive voting bloc with no policy upside, and it undermines progress that has been made on abortion.

 

[Crockett]

Agree with Theii. Don't think "supporting" a constitutional amendments is a big deal since all the adults in the room know it's never going to happen. I favor gay marriage because I think it is a social good but I'd no more expect a Republican presidential candidate to be in favor as I would a global warming position consistent with the preponderance of scientific evidence. A candidate y gotta win in the primary and being reasonable on gay marriage, global warming or evolution would leave them dead before a race begins.