February 23, 2016

If the polls don't show John Kasich winning in Ohio...

... and they don't... shouldn't he get out now, while there's a chance to bolster Rubio enough to stop Trump?

Shouldn't Kasich get out now and support Rubio?
 
pollcode.com free polls

129 comments:

rhhardin said...

Kaisch is hated in Ohio for buying into Obamacare sites.

Steve said...

No. Kasich should do whatever he thinks is in his political interests. The primary system doesn't exist to defeat a single candidate but to provide options to the electorate.

And besides, Trump is going to collapse soon when people figure out that he might actually win. Trump is like that Goth look kids in high school put on to rebel. Once the rebellion is over they put away the spikey collar and are slightly embarrassed that they ever wore it.

Brando said...

I think he ought to drop out, because he doesn't have much chance of getting traction--he's a somewhat more successful version of Jon Huntsman for 2016--but I don't think it makes a big difference for Rubio either way. I don't think all Kasich voters and volunteers automatically go to Rubio.

Rubio needs to be able to rise on his own. If he cannot peel off significant Cruz and Trump voters, he's toast. Super Tuesday will be the day of reckoning--if he cannot win a primary outright I don't see much chance he'll stop the Trump steamroller.

traditionalguy said...

Kasich will be President Trump's useful Veep. He can carry the White House inter office Mail. And when he is sent to attend Heads of States funerals, he will cry and hug them all. And he can cure cancer...no wait, Biden did that already.

MadisonMan said...

Trump is going to collapse soon when people figure out that he might actually win

(snicker)

Sebastian said...

Yes. And I am willing to go and give him a hug if he does.

tshanks78 said...

There should be an option of "Yes...because what is the point". It doesn't always have to be about stopping someone.

Amexpat said...

No. Ohio is a winner take all state and according to the latest poll Kasich has a much better chance of winning there than Rubio (Trump 31%, Kasich 26%, Rubio 13%).

The best solution would be for Kasich and Rubio to enter into a strategic alliance in the winner take all states whereby the weaker candidate would drop out and encourage their supporters to vote for the other candidate. The main goal now should be stopping Trump from getting a majority of delegates. If there is a brokered convention, they could both end up on the ticket, with the one with the most delegates on the top. And, if the GOP carries Ohio and Florida, they most likely will win the election.

Unknown said...

I was hoping for a "No, stay in so Trump will win option"

Gusty Winds said...

Hillary must be stopped, and Trump is the one who can do it. And yes, my bar is low. I would vote for Caitlyn Jenner before I would vote for Hillary Clinton.

Cruz would get slaughtered by the media. Rubio would be treated as a moderate darling until the general election and then the media would go all Romney on him.

The only people that fear populism are those who would 'let us eat cake' in a absence of bread.

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jack Wayne said...

How about a choice for "Yes, he should get out because he would be a shitty President."

traditionalguy said...

Rubio. O Rubio! Wherefore art thou Rubio? This guy changes positions fast. He is Catholic and Southern Baptist. He is against legalizing gay Marriage. He is against deporting illegal immigrants, but wants to start enforcing the border. And he willingly takes mega donor money from anybody. He does not care whom.

But at least he is a natural born citizen. That is something he can build on. And he is the type of inspiring talker who makes a jury fall for his side's case, until they go home and sleep on it.

He is sort of a Cuban JFK. His wife was a Miami Dolphins Cheerleader. And he lives in upscale Coral Gables.

Mattman26 said...

Amexpat notes the closeness of the most recent poll; T31, K26 (with Rubio way behind). The second most recent is from late September/early October, which means it's utterly useless.

So I could imagine Kasich winning Ohio. But so what? Does anyone think he would take off like a bottle rocket from there? A sitting governor winning his own state? Woo-hoo!

Mike Sylwester said...

The solution is for Marco Rubio to give a long, thoughtful speech repenting -- or at least explaining -- his participation in the Gang of Eight.

The speech should include much detail and should name names. Exactly who convinced him, and what were the convincing arguments. Then, how was the bill negotiated, and what effect did he himself make? What compromises and deals did he make?

Then Rubio should commit himself publicly to insist on really effective enforcement before any legalization. For example, before any legalization begins ...

* a barrier must actually be built along the entire Mexico border

* E-verify must become mandatory for all hires

* All exits of foreign visitors must be recorded and matched with the previous entries

Also, Rubio should commit himself to a reform of birth-right citizenship, by Constitutional amendment if necessary. At least one parent must be a legal resident.

Also, no foreigner can obtain legal residence by marrying a US citizen if the foreigner is here on an expired visa or illegally.

If Rubio does that, then he will become the next US President.

Gusty Winds said...

The time to stop Trump was during the last four years. We handed the GOP the House and the Senate in 2014 and they have done nothing but capitulate to the Dems agenda like the Vichy.

The trade deals have screwed the middle class. Maybe we can now buy a $5 Iron Man T-Shirt at the Wal-Mart, but nobody can do much else. What's the future for our kids? $100G in debt to become programmed anti-free speech fascists who cant find a job or function in the workforce after college?

All these intellectuals sold our manufacturing base to cheap foreign labor, and we wonder why so many have completely dropped out of the workforce. Like Dennis Miller said the other day, if everybody would just stop looking for a job we could have unemployment down to zero.

We don't need saving from Trump. We need saving from these assholes that have sold us out.And yes, I am enjoying watching Trump do it with two middle finders a-blazing.

Unknown said...

Rubio lied to the voters of florida when he got elected. he was suckered by the dc and nyc establishment to support comp immigration reform. he is clearly no leader...and it is a big shame. Rubio also embezzled money from the florida gop, got caught, and paid it back. does anyone think that Rubio would have paid back the credit cards bills had it not been audited and discovered! cruz is faking us out with this whole poison pill issue he tried to get to kill Rubio-schumer bill. cruz actually supported legalization--although not a pathway to citizenship, which is what I consider amnesty. cruz is lying too when he was also for comp immigration reform, but not citizenship.

trump has sacrificed friendships, media success, business opportunities, reputation, and the good will of his colleagues in nyc and dc. he is spending his own money. trump is clearly the only one who can be trusted. he is the only one who put it all on the line in this race...and all because the media misquoted him during his announcement speech.

Unknown said...

and Kasich is the one gop candidate remaining that would force me NOT to vote since I was 17.

Tom said...

I like Amexpat's suggestion and it mirror's my own. Of the politicians, Kasich is easily the most qualified for the White House -- and I don't mean just based on experience -- I mean because he's gotten things accomplished in big government. Looking past his time in Congress and the balanced budget and just looking just at Ohio, his accomplishments are impressive. People may forget what Ohio looked like after Bob Taft (r) and Strickland (d) had been in the Governor's mansion. The state was a mess. Voinovich had been a very good governor but his replacement, Taft, and then Strickland had run the state into the ground. There were huge budget shortfalls, the state was bleeding jobs because it was so hard to do business, employee pensions were in peril, and taxes were high compared to many other states. Kasich ran on a platform to address these things and he did. Taxes are much lower today. The budget is balanced and there's a surplus. He asked public employees to work an additional two years and to give up spouse healthcare coverage in retirement in order to save one of the most generous pension programs in the country (full disclosure, my wife is in PERS) and they agreed. He's taken on the monumental task of streamlining state agencies and he's enabled that by a state-wide IT transformation. Manufacturing jobs are returning to Ohio. Now, the state did benefited some, but not as much as Trump claims, from fracking -- but Kasich wisely avoided heavy taxes on fracking. Kasich has also done some boneheaded things. First, contrary to his public perception, he's a bit of an asshole. He took the Obamacare medicaid money yet somehow didn't set up an exchange. He tried to take on the public employee unions and got his butt kicked (which he owned and acknowledged). And, then the thing that pisses me off the most, he's fought to keep LP candidates off the ballot in the state. I'm not saying all this qualifies or disqualifies him for the White House but I'm not sure anyone in the race has accomplished anything close across complex governmental systems. So I hope he stays in because I think he's the best candidate of the entire race.

Gusty Winds said...

Mike Sylwester said...

If Rubio does that, then he will become the next US President.

"That" meaning....take Trumps positions on immigration.

It ain't going to happen because big money Republicans don't want it, and Rubio's their man-boy.

tim in vermont said...

. Rubio also embezzled money from the florida gop, got caught, and paid it back. does anyone think that Rubio would have paid back the credit cards bills had it not been audited and discovered!

This is complete monkey shit. The kind of stuff that pushes me away from the monkeys throwing the shit on account of those monkeys' hands are covered in shit.

If your guy is so great, why do you need to lie?

Amexpat said...

So I could imagine Kasich winning Ohio. But so what? Does anyone think he would take off like a bottle rocket from there?

I don't think that. But Kasich winning Ohio decreases the likelihood of Trump getting a majority of the delegates, which should be the focus now. A brokered convention is the best the anti-Trump voters can hope for.

Mike Sylwester said...

Gusty Winds:
It ain't going to happen because big money Republicans don't want it, and Rubio's their man-boy.

Well, then Rubio will not become the next US President.

The choice is his.

Big Mike said...

Shouldn't Kasich get out now and support Rubio?

No, because Rubio's numbers are only half of Kasich's numbers. And that the simple reality is that if Kasich dropped out and threw his support to Rubio, it would not move Rubio from 13% to 39%. More likely it would move Rubio from 13% to 25% with the remainder of Kasich's supporters being split between Cruz and Trump.

And, frankly, Kasich might be the fourth horse in a three horse race, but it's a long time until the primaries are over. You may yet find yourself typing "President Kasich" in future blog posts, Althouse.

M Jordan said...

"Rubio. O Rubio! Wherefore art thou Rubio? This guy changes positions fast."

Okay, that was funny.

bbkingfish said...

Most of Kasich's support in Ohio would go to Trump.

Kasich has run in Ohio as an anti-politician, not as an ordained establishment wunderklutz, such as Rubio.

khesanh0802 said...

Why do we have to "stop Trump"? If the voters want him then that's what we are going to get. I think colluding against him is a stupid move and will alienate many of the voters the Rs are going to need to win. I am convinced that Trump will have Hillary speechless 5 minutes into any debate.

Do I think Trump's a nice guy? No. Do I think he is most "qualified"? No. (Obama was sure as hell not "qualified" and he makes Trump look like a 20 year veteran.) What's wrong with aspiring to "make America great again"? What's wrong with saying we've had enough illegal immigration? Yes, we are a nation of immigrants - legal immigrants.

This piece focuses on millennials' need to toughen up. I think the whole country could use a backbone transplant and that seems to be what Trump offers.

Andrew Pardue said...

My choice would be yes because he is just wasting money and the same goes for Ben Carson. Here is the thing, after Iowa Jeb, Carson, Rubio, Cruz and the rest should have focused their attacks exclusively on Trump. Instead they focused on who was the leader of the pack. It was like watching a pack of wolves chasing a buffalo turning on itself. The pack should take down the buffalo first then fight over who gets to eat it. Also by attacking each other they risk making Trump the 2nd choice candidate for significant portions of their supporters.

Nonapod said...

It's past time Kasich dropped out. Anyone who thinks he's got a chance in hell at this point is delusional. We're just days away from Super Tuesday and all he's doing is further subdividing the "not Trump" vote. Even if you're a big fan of Kasich and dislike Cruz and Rubio... you just have to look at the big picture. At this point realistically even if it were down to just Trump and one other guy it'd still be difficult to beat him.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of either Cruz or Rubio, but I'd prefer either of them to Trump.

Brando said...

"trump has sacrificed friendships, media success, business opportunities, reputation, and the good will of his colleagues in nyc and dc. he is spending his own money. trump is clearly the only one who can be trusted. he is the only one who put it all on the line in this race..."

So spending money and burning bridges means he can be trusted? You sound like an easy sell.

"Of the politicians, Kasich is easily the most qualified for the White House -- and I don't mean just based on experience -- I mean because he's gotten things accomplished"

Kasich has a lot going for him in terms of experience and accomplishments. But what looks good on paper doesn't always translate in the campaign--Huntsman had a conservative record as Utah governor and foreign policy experience on top of that, and got no traction in 2012. And Romney with his business experience and history governing a blue state should have been stronger in 2008 than McCain. But voter moods and campaigning can overcome what looks good on paper.

This year, the GOP plurality wants to express their anger and as long as Trump pisses off the people they hate, then they can overcome every serious defect he has as a candidate and human being. What are accomplishments against that?

M Jordan said...

Trump won 32% in S. Carolina, Cruz and Rubio 22%, the others about 22% combined. Bush is gone and Kasich will soon be when he realizes he might not win Ohio. Pride is the only reason he hasn't dropped out yet and losing Ohio would be a real blow. Carson may stick around but his support will dwindle to 2 or 3% and be a non-factor.

So let's divide up the 20% among the three remainers. Rubio will get half of it, Trump and Cruz a quarter each. That makes it Trump 37, Rubio 32, Cruz 27. Cruz begins to see the handwriting on he wall ... plus he gets hints he'll be the SC pick from both Trump and Rubio. So he gets out. His 27% goes 16 to 11 Rubio. Guess what that makes the race? Tied, 48 each.

The post Super Tuesday primaries will be a battle for the last 3 points. I think Rubio pulls it off because Trump is getting very, very tired. He's said so. Further, his boasts about self-funding will be tested since, in a protracted campaign he'll actually have to spend done money, his own. He will not like that one bit.

I realize this sounds like I'm wishcasting a Rubio win. I'm not. I no longer am able to pull for anyone. I've become an observer. I'll support whoever, even Caitlyn Jenner as a poster above noted he would do over Hillary.

It just seems a plausible scenario to me.

Brando said...

"Personally I'm not a huge fan of either Cruz or Rubio, but I'd prefer either of them to Trump."

I just don't think Kasich being in the race makes that much of a difference--if Rubio or Cruz are going to pull this off, they need to get Trump's numbers down. And that may be impossible in the year of the Primal Scream.

Dan Hossley said...

Should Kasich get out? He never should have gotten in. It is a testament to the decay of the old regime that guys like Kasich, Santorum, Huckabee, Gilmore, Carson, Bush, et. al. entered the race at all. With the exception of Kasich, the rest are out of work politicians that are perennial also-rans....like a dog sniffing around the kitchen table hoping for a scrap to fall. None of their campaigns made any sense. And Kasich is soon to be an out of work politician.

Rand Paul and Scott Walker actually had a story to tell. No one was interested but at least it was a story.

M Jordan said...

"Yes, we are a nation of immigrants - legal immigrants. "

The Pilgrims were legal? Jamestown? Sorry, but even given the fact that the Indians had no immigration laws, it's quite a stretch to say the original Europeans who disembarked here were "legal."

Amexpat said...

Why do we have to "stop Trump"? If the voters want him then that's what we are going to get.

If Trump had a majority of the GOP primary voters supporting him, then yes that's fair and there would be no stopping him. But if Trump only has around 30% supporting him, then it's fair for the candidates representing the other 70% to act on behalf of those that voted for them.

khesanh0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
khesanh0802 said...

@M Jordan As far as the pilgrims were concerned they had emigrated within the realm of Great Britain. The Indians were just neighbors, kind of like the Scots! I suppose once Adam and Eve left the garden they might have been deemed "illegal" in your eyes.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Kasich and Carson should both get out. Neither have a realistic path.

AReasonableMan said...

M Jordan said...
The Pilgrims were legal? Jamestown? Sorry, but even given the fact that the Indians had no immigration laws, it's quite a stretch to say the original Europeans who disembarked here were "legal."


Not sure any rational person is arguing that we should buy into the fate of native Americans. It would seem to be a salutary lesson on what happens when you lose control of the border.

khesanh0802 said...

@Amexpat Trump's 30+% puts him ahead of the pack. If it were a two man race who's to say where we would be. M Jordan has a pretty believable scenario above. I do not want to see this go to convention and have someone low on the voter totem pole be selected by the nobs who run the R party.

Nonapod said...

I just don't think Kasich being in the race makes that much of a difference--if Rubio or Cruz are going to pull this off, they need to get Trump's numbers down. And that may be impossible in the year of the Primal Scream.

Yeah, it doesn't seem likely. Trying to convince a Trump supporter to drop him is like trying to convince a devote Christian to stop believing in Jesus. It's ironic really, many of these big Trump fans are people who made fun of all the wide eyed kids who treated Obama like some kind of messiah back in `08. I guess it's just human nature.

eric said...

Rubio is not going to be the next President. If he does win the primary, he will be destroyed in the election.

The one big thing Rubio brings to this election is sure defeat for Republicans in the general if he wins the primary. It may be such a landslide victory for Democrats that Republicans lose the Senate as well. So big that Democrats will take it as a sign that they should move even further to the left.

No Rubio please.

tola'at sfarim said...

doesnt matter, unless it comes down to a 2 man race asap. For some reason many pundits think trumps ceiling is 30-35%. I think thats his floor. His ceiling prob isnt much higher, but in a 3 man-or more-race he has the advantage. With those numbers, plus whatever else he picks up from other dropouts, he leads a 3 man race and will clean up in winner take all states

Paul said...

"For some reason many pundits think trumps ceiling is 30-35%."

That's their fervent hope. Thinking has nothing to do with it.

jr565 said...

Someone on redstate recommended That Rubio should promise Kasich the VP slot to get him out of the race. Not sure if that's a wise move. But perhaps some incentive will do the trick.

Stan Smith said...

Mike Sylwester:

Rubio has said he would do everything you lay out in your scenario—secure the border, e-verify, visa tracking. I'm not sure where he stands on "anchor babies," but his attitude on immigration is much stronger than in his "gang of 8" days. He has apologized for that, has said is was a "mistake." I'm satisfied. Anyone who doesn't see that illegal immigration is a disaster, and that supporting it in any way is a guaranteed path to losing an election doesn't deserve to be president. I don't think Rubio is that dumb. Trump is the "Republican" version of Obama, an unqualified, arrogant, narcissistic blowhard. It would be 4 more years of the same c**p in a different package.

JAORE said...

Let the voters decide. This palace intrigue crap about, I'll do this, you do that and we'll take down the king.... feh.

It's stuff like that (and the super delegates on the Democratic side) that helped create Trump and Bernie.

As said above, it took four (or more) years of a get along Congress to create Trump. Wake up GOP. Wake up DNC.

Stan Smith said...

eric:

Rubio beats Hillary! by nearly 5% in the Real Clear Politics average. Trump loses by 2%.

Gusty Winds said...

Last night Wolf Blitzer went after Kasich because he said at a rally that back in the 70's or 80's "women came out of the kitchen" to campaign and vote for him. I think he meant it more as a figure of speech. He didn't mean to offend anyone.

But Wolf "I lost on Jeopardy" Blitzer did the "don't you want to take the opportunity to apologize" routine, and wouldn't let it go. Kasich capitulated.

I don't think we are at the point yet to let the media play their old games. Maybe if Romney had pushed back like Trump, he'd be President today.

The game hasn't changed enough to let go of Trump. On the PC issue alone he is valuable, and the only one who will take on the thought police.

jr565 said...

eric wrote:
The one big thing Rubio brings to this election is sure defeat for Republicans in the general if he wins the primary. It may be such a landslide victory for Democrats that Republicans lose the Senate as well. So big that Democrats will take it as a sign that they should move even further to the left.

I'd say the same about Trump. He is NOT going to win a general election. Do you not understand the degree to which he has pissed off huge groups of people he needs to win? redstate hates him. National review hates, him .He's pissed off Fox News. He called Ted Cruz the biggest liar. He insulted Bush. Does he count on their support in the general election? Let alone people on the other side who think he is the devil incarnate.
Rubio may be the best shot repubs have.

gerry said...

Kasich should get out because he is a putz, and every first responder I know (police or fire) hates his guts.

Original Mike said...

Ohio is winner take all. If the goal is to stop Trump, the best strategy is for Rubio to get out and tell his supporters to vote for Kasich. Not saying this should happen, and it certainly won't happen, but it is the best "stop Trump" strategy.

Bill Peschel said...

"Not sure any rational person is arguing that we should buy into the fate of native Americans. It would seem to be a salutary lesson on what happens when you lose control of the border."

This is why I like ARM commenting here. Don't always agree with him, but this is rational. I appreciate that.

Anyway, the answer depends on where you're standing and who you're answering for. If I'm answering as someone who wants to "stop Trump" (and I don't), then he should stay in. He's close to the margin of error and as a winner-take-all he would deprive Trump of delegates. Plus, who knows? Maybe he'll get a bounce. (In '12, Romney won over Santorum, but by less than a percentage point. But past results, yaddayaddayadda).

If I'm asking for what's best from the party, he should stay in and give the GOP voters the widest possible choice of candidates. I'm in favor of the most efficient result.

(Which is why I hate the primary system and wish they'd go to regionals, or at least a rotating system. Everyone apart from the primary states barely know the candidates at all--why pay attention when you can't vote for them anyway?--so the goombas in NH, Iowa, SC, Nevada and Ohio get most of the authority over the country's future.)

SayAahh said...

Carson just announced the "beginning" of his campaign Saturday night.. Where is the poll to see if he should stay in to trump Trump?

bbkingfish said...

This thread seems to be about polling and Rubio, it is interesting to note that Rubio is polling in the 10-15 percent range (among Republicans, of course) in Ohio, Michigan, Texas,...and even Florida!

I guarantee you they are lighting candles at Clinton headquarters for young Marco.

Anglelyne said...

M. Jordan: The Pilgrims were legal? Jamestown? Sorry, but even given the fact that the Indians had no immigration laws, it's quite a stretch to say the original Europeans who disembarked here were "legal."

Even given the fact this entire approach to the issue of immigration is absurdly premised, people still can't manage to free their brains from this muck.

The Pilgrims, the settlers at Jamestown, the conquistadores, all came and eventually succeeded in conquering. They took the land, and over time built nations, where other nations had prevailed before them - just as people had been doing, in the Old World and the New, for millenia. Over time, they let immigrants join them - sometimes prudently, sometimes fecklessly and foolishly.

That's the way things work. Land belongs to the people who have the will and the means to take it and keep it. (Or, they have powerful allies who can keep other people from taking and keeping their land.)

Given this perspective (aka reality), what do people think they are saying when they invoke the fact that "well, the pilgrims were immigrants!" or, sillier yet, "they weren't legal". As far as I can make out, to the extent that these appeals aren't completely mindless invocations of the non-existent Great Territorial Fairness Fairy of History, people seem to think they are meaningful arguments for why a nation either must allow migrants in, or not kick them out. They aren't.

DimeStoreDave said...

For all of you who are speculating where Cruz, Rubio and Carson support will go should they suspend their campaigns, here is a poll that shows some real information. I have no claim to its accuracy, but it is interesting in terms of Trump's over all strength. If accurate, Trump is not in much danger as candidates continue to drop out.

http://www.elon.edu/images/e-web/elonpoll/022216_ElonPoll_ExecSummary.pdf

Sebastian said...

"He is NOT going to win a general election." Correct. The GOP will implode. Few if any other GOP candidates will want to be seen with him. For moderates he is poison. For conservatives he is not conservative. Running Trump was Bill's stroke of genius. And of course, for some Trumpkins the GOP implosion is the point, country be damned. First order of business for Prez Hillary and the new Dem Senate: appoint lefty SCOTUS nominee.

Gusty Winds said...

JR565 said...

redstate hates him. National review hates

Nobody cares about Redstate or National Review.

The let them vote for Hillary in the general and really sell their souls.

This is all just our habitual in the moment righteous indignation syndrome we love in America.

Let's see Charlie Sykes and Jay Weber (Milwaukee Conservative anti-Trump Radio) vote for Hillary. I dare them.

Brando said...

" It's ironic really, many of these big Trump fans are people who made fun of all the wide eyed kids who treated Obama like some kind of messiah back in `08."

Yes, but that's because Obama was just a smooth talker with no experience who promised some vague change, and Trump....well he was really convincing on that reality show where he pretended to be good at business.

"Someone on redstate recommended That Rubio should promise Kasich the VP slot to get him out of the race. Not sure if that's a wise move. But perhaps some incentive will do the trick."

It'd be a bad move, and would look weak. If Rubio wants to win, he's got to win this on his own.

"Anyone who doesn't see that illegal immigration is a disaster, and that supporting it in any way is a guaranteed path to losing an election doesn't deserve to be president. I don't think Rubio is that dumb."

Here's the thing on the immigration issue alone--Rubio is the safer bet if you want secure borders and no amnesty, because he got burned on it and knows it'd be disaster for him if he backtracked. Trump though has plenty of leeway--his supporters will convince themselves that what he offers isn't really amnesty. If you don't believe me, ask yourself where in his many flip flops Trump's supporters ever abandoned him in significant numbers. Why would a man who is unaccountable think twice about doing whatever he thinks is convenient at the moment?

"Rubio may be the best shot repubs have."

It's still early, but out of the top 3 GOP contenders Rubio polls best against Hillary and Sanders (Trump loses to both). Sure, it's possible for Rubio to get demonized (the Clintons will do their damndest and their allies will pile on) but Rubio is smooth and a fighter with better political skills than any of the last five GOP nominees (going back to Reagan). If anyone can counter it, he can.

Trump though is an oppo researcher's wet dream--there's enough about him to piss off just about every group across the board, and he will not be hard for Hillary to cobble a coalition against. His promises of "trust me, I'll put in the right people and we'll win again" added to his stream of consciousness policy arguments (if you can even call them policy arguments) will make her job easier for appealing to the moderates that have repeatedly broken for the Dems in the past. The only hope with Trump as a nominee is (a) Hillary continuing to be a colossally bad campaigner and (2) a game changer which would help any Republican (recession, terror attack).

And if Trump actually got elected? Imagine a presidency so toxic no one considers putting a Republican in the White House for a generation.

Brando said...

"I guarantee you they are lighting candles at Clinton headquarters for young Marco."

Then why did Bill Clinton spend hours last year talking Trump into running?

He is doing exactly what the Dems need, and the GOP is obliging. Evil, but genius. I just don't think they suspected it would work out so well.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Let's say the Republican establishment has reached the conclusion that Trump voters might be their best not very good chance in November, but that explicitly supporting Trump might spoil his mojo. From what they have been doing for the last month or two, what's the evidence they have not already reached that conclusion?

The establishment might not like Trump and still like him better than Cruz and think Rubio is not ready. The establishment might be looking back at 1992 and concluding that Perot would have been better than Clinton.

Unknown said...

this is mystifying how gop can think that Rubio or Kasich will motivate the base come the general election. Rubio would have a hard time winning re-election in florida. Kasich is a winner, but comes across as whiny and compassionate conservative--the base is done with the gwbush politicking as evidenced by jeb's slide in south Carolina when gw could not save him. mitt lost because base did not vote.

I have no excitement for Rubio or Kasich. I have voted in every election since I was 18--across the board republican. however, the only reason I voted for McCain or mitt is because I knew exactly what barack was about.

I get the objections to trump but I do not know any trump supporters who actually think he is messiah a la barack. rather this about sending a message to the gop and dc.

Mike said...

YES yes and million times YES.

Mike Sylwester said...

Cruz begins to see the handwriting on he wall ... plus he gets hints he'll be the SC pick from both Trump and Rubio. So he gets out.

The above passage is the weak point in an otherwise smart comment.

Cruz will continue to win at least 20% of the votes -- Republican who ...

* insist on a hard line against massive illegal immigration

* do not like Trump's demeanor

I myself an example of such a Republican. I will not vote for Rubio until he adopts a hard line against massive illegal immigration. If that means that Trump wins the nomination, then so be it.

Cruz will continue to win enough votes to stay in the race until the convention.

mccullough said...

Rubio couldn't handle Christie so as a candidate he's got some noticeable flaws to go along with some pluses. As president, he would be as bad as W and Obama. He actually has more humility than those two but seems to have the same incredibly bad judgment they do.

I don't think he could beat Trump one on one or one on three. He's another bad debate performance from irrelevancy.

mccullough said...

Cruz should stay in and play the long game. He's upping his profile.

He can run again in four years on the I-told-you-so platform and the message "I'm an asshole but I'm going to be your asshole"

Nixon, Reagan, HW Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney all ran and lost for the GOP nomination. Cruz is in good position to be the nominee in 2020

Bay Area Guy said...

Yes, Kasich (and Carson) should get out, as they have no shot at winning, and it just further splinters the vote.

But, NO, this should not be done as a part of a Stop-Trump movement.

Ideally, you want two candidates, Trump v. Rubio or Trump v. Cruz, a fair fight, where one prevails, fair and square.

There's far too much worry-warting, caterwauling, hand-wringing, and nail-biting this political season. Focus on beating Hillary in the Fall!

Mike Sylwester said...

Stan Smith
... his [Rubio's] attitude on immigration is much stronger than in his "gang of 8" days. He has apologized for that, has said is was a "mistake." I'm satisfied.

Rubio has apologized for trying to pass one comprehensive bill instead of a series of smaller bills. His apology does not satisfy a large portion of the Republican electorate.

I am willing to be satisfied. I am willing to accept the legalization of most of the illegal immigrants if effective enforcement measures are imposed first and forever.

I am not willing to accept, however, mere promises of future enforcement and immediate legalization -- which was the Gang of Eight's bill. That's Rubio's betrayal that he needs to address and resolve.

When Barack Obama got into trouble about attending Jeremiah Wright's church, Obama gave a long, thoughtful speech that resolved the electorate's concerns. Rubio needs to do something similar.

traditionalguy said...

Some of you sound mighty scared of President Trump. His only fault is telling it like it is. That is the necessary antidote to minds under the unreality spell of liberalism, "the mental illness."

I suspect many are under the spell of Real Conservatism, "The mental illness."

Just calm down. The speed with which a realist Trump will lead a GOP Congress into fixing up the Aegean Stables Messes in DC is going to confuse you, but read Nehemiah and watch the Walls go back up.

Original Mike said...

"When Barack Obama got into trouble about attending Jeremiah Wright's church, Obama gave a long, thoughtful speech that resolved the electorate's concerns."

That's the one where he threw his dead grandmother under the bus, right?

Anglelyne said...

Brando: Here's the thing on the immigration issue alone--Rubio is the safer bet if you want secure borders and no amnesty, because he got burned on it and knows it'd be disaster for him if he backtracked.

Comedy gold.

Remember, folks, this is the feverish cultist often spotted in threads wearing that sandwich board that warns you to watch out for all the dangerous true believers out there.

mccullough said...

Rubio, like W and Obama, refuses to see illegal immigration as an important statement about the belief in the rule of law. It's not to say illegal immigration, which is a civil infraction unless it's of an alien who had already been deported (then it's a crime to re-enter) the US, is some horrible crime. But saying that 10 million people here get to flout the law, any law, destroys an important principle underlying our society. Most politicians don't think like this. It's all just a game to them.

Now they're frustrated and worried that the people are now playing a game against them in return. Donald Trump is the game. Trump undermines and violates the norms and rules of the political class. Fuck them. I hope Trump destroys the GOP and makes Rubio cry.

Anglelyne said...

Gusty Winds: Nobody cares about Redstate or National Review.

That's what's so funny about these guys. Ever run into a fundie who "proves" the truth of his religion to you by quoting his own holy writ? That's these clowns with their "Redstate! Weekly Standard! Club for Growth!" chapter and verse.

Mike Sylwester said...

Original Mike
That's the one where he threw his dead grandmother under the bus, right?

Yes, that speech.

It was an excellent speech that addressed the electorate's concerns thoughtfully and effectively.

Rubio could win the nomination and the Presidency, but he needs to explain himself convincingly to the Republicans who feel that he betrayed them on the immigration issue.

So far, Rubio's explanations have been superficial and glib.

He needs to convince all Republicans that he will adopt a much, much harder position on the immigration issue. Enforcement first. Legalization afterward.

Paddy O said...

"Some of you sound mighty scared of President Trump."

Some of you sound curiously enamored of Trump. Curiously, because it makes it like we're afraid of what he is saying. What I've been trying to say is that I don't think a case for Trump has been made other than cult of personality.

He's a real estate tycoon. He's a media expert. Two key things for popularity these days but don't translate into any real expertise on being President. What I've not heard from anyone is why what he brings to the table is somehow good experience for running this country. I've been told he's a Scot-Irish German Presbyterian Lutheran with New York Values and small town sensibilities, great at making deals but will stand strong on his values in contrast to those who will sway his views. He's to be trusted except for those things we know he is saying just to pull people in. He's all things to all people depending on what we most value in those we want to most value.

That's the arguments I'm hearing. And as an honestly entirely undecided voter, my perspective doesn't come out of fear but out of not being convinced whatsoever. I feel like I'm being sold a house by people who are telling me I don't need to have it inspected first, look at the view, look at the granite countertops.

If I'm pushing back here and there it's because I genuinely want to be given a reason to vote for someone besides cult of personality and if Trump has something to offer besides that I want to hear. But all I hear is his qualities and his mistakes and gaffes being trumpeted as somehow being the Answer.

And it's very weird to me because it sounds to me like what got Obama elected. Because it reaches for straws at his actual experience for the job by using rhetoric about his potential and personality traits. I don't want another Messiah to be elected, whether it's the Left's Messiah or the Right's.

I want a President to have the ability to wisely and thoughtfully run this country in a way that takes a stand for an informed and coherent positions.
But, maybe I'm strange that way.

Stan Smith said...

It's people like you that got Obama elected. Voting for the candidate that was "pure." Romney wasn't "pure" enough because of Massachusetts' version of Obamacare. McCain didn't "fight hard enough." Trump as a nominee will either a) ensure president Hillary! or b) be a slightly less left version of Obama. The man has a host of "liberal" positions in his past. The tiger doesn't change its spots. Even those who claim that he contributed to democrats because "that's what businessmen have to do" seem to ignore the fact that taking compromising policy positions is also "what politicians have to do." The man is interested only in "making Trump great again."

Stan Smith said...

The above was directed at "mccullogh"

jr565 said...

mccullough wrote:
Rubio couldn't handle Christie so as a candidate he's got some noticeable flaws to go along with some pluses. As president, he would be as bad as W and Obama. He actually has more humility than those two but seems to have the same incredibly bad judgment they do.

He addressed the flaw he had with Christie by simply not acting as robotic in the next debate. Meanwhile Chris christie is at home eating donuts. So, Christie took care of himself.
It was in fact a cheap shot on Christie's part, since all candidates have some canned speeches and he only called out Rubio. Regardless, he's now home, and Rubio is still coming in 2nd or 3rd in all the debates. My guess is, a lot of Christie's votes are actually going to Rubio.

Brando said...

"Remember, folks, this is the feverish cultist often spotted in threads wearing that sandwich board that warns you to watch out for all the dangerous true believers out there."

You're just so wise and worldly! But at least you don't waste your time explaining why I'm wrong that Rubio is less likely to backtrack on amnesty than Trump. That would obviously be beneath you.

jr565 said...

"It's people like you that got Obama elected. Voting for the candidate that was "pure." Romney wasn't "pure" enough because of Massachusetts' version of Obamacare" Even funnier that people would argue that Romney wasn't pure enough, but then want to vote for Trump. What the bloody hell? How does Romney fail that test, but Trump passes it?

jr565 said...

Stan smith wrote:
Even those who claim that he contributed to democrats because "that's what businessmen have to do" seem to ignore the fact that taking compromising policy positions is also "what politicians have to do."

The kock brothers aren't donating to groups that dont support their ideology. They are also businessmen. THey put their money where they want policy to go. Trump did the same. ANd until he converted to Republican very recently all his money in fact went to democrats, and not republicans. So he was a businessman who acted in his interest. And that interest was electing democrats.

Brando said...

"It's people like you that got Obama elected. Voting for the candidate that was "pure." Romney wasn't "pure" enough because of Massachusetts' version of Obamacare. McCain didn't "fight hard enough." Trump as a nominee will either a) ensure president Hillary! or b) be a slightly less left version of Obama. The man has a host of "liberal" positions in his past. The tiger doesn't change its spots. Even those who claim that he contributed to democrats because "that's what businessmen have to do" seem to ignore the fact that taking compromising policy positions is also "what politicians have to do." The man is interested only in "making Trump great again.""

It doesn't matter--as Paddy O points out, the Trump fan really boils down to a cult of personality. If he flip flops, that just shows how shrewd he is. If he promises to make deals, they trust those deals even though the GOP gets screwed on every deal (but Trump won't screw over his supporters, nope--his business career has been one of good ethics and sticking by those who counted on him). If his thoughts on major issues like immigration and health care seem incoherent and self-contradictory or even betray a complete misunderstanding of the facts, that's a feature of how much of a game changer he is, and not a sign of laziness or ignorance. See, because Trump says "trust me" and that's good enough because Trump.

It's like they watched way too much "Apprentice" and bought into the reality show a little too much.

jr565 said...

Trump likes to say he'll hire the best people and they'll solve the problems as if that's an answer to various policy questions. Its not like other candidates or presidents are opposed to hiring the best people. Usually, that's who gets picked. There is no indication that they will provide a good solution. That shoudln't be enough, then,for most people as a policy suggestion from a candidate. WHat candidate is suggesting that they will hire ok people who aren't that good at solving problems to solve the problems?

Gusty Winds said...

If you take Trump's 33% and Cruz's 23%, that's 56% of GOP voter that are clearly in the mood to stick it to the GOP leadership. I don't think you can just rearrange that into some magical combination of 3rd and 4th place runners to overcome it.

We're talking about defeating Hillary Clinton here folks.

I don't see that she holds any ethical, moral, or intellectual high ground against Trump. She's worse.

The most likely reason all these guys have stayed in, and will stay in, is because she is such and unlikable, flawed candidate that she can be beaten in the general election. So if you get the GOP nomination, you can be President.

I don't buy that Trump is unelectable simply because Hillary sucks so bad.

Anglelyne said...

Stan Smith @2/23/16, 12:28 PM:

You do realize that you just excoriated Trump supporters for supporting an impure candidate, while thumping them for not voting for other candidates just because they're not pure? And are pissy at them for supporting a man with know liberal proclivities while being pissy at them for not supporting candidates just because of their known liberal proclivities?

Iow, you exist in a toddler-like solipsistic state of being confused and angry that other people have different views on what's important and what's secondary.

'Sokay. Lot of that going around.

(Not to mention the unfounded confidence that "getting behind" one of the other GOPe clowns is the best bet to frustrate Hillary.)

hombre said...

Trump's tax plan proposes to reduce the tax rolls by "75 million families" or "50%."

He simply out-liberals Kasich. That new form of welfare works in a state like Ohio.

Just imagine, 50% of American families officially with no skin in the game. I can hardly wait.

Brando said...

"Trump likes to say he'll hire the best people and they'll solve the problems as if that's an answer to various policy questions. Its not like other candidates or presidents are opposed to hiring the best people. Usually, that's who gets picked. There is no indication that they will provide a good solution. That shoudln't be enough, then,for most people as a policy suggestion from a candidate. WHat candidate is suggesting that they will hire ok people who aren't that good at solving problems to solve the problems?"

What still boggles is why anyone would believe that Trump is capable of hiring "the best people." He certainly hasn't been associated with the "best" unless you think Trump Vodka is really top of the line, or Trump Airways was the epitome of class and so well run that it still flies (hint--it doesn't). Clearly, his "best people" got him some of the poorest run casinos and four bankruptcies. As for the political sphere, has he even mentioned some of these "brain trust" members he would put on his team to run the government?

Brando said...

"Just imagine, 50% of American families officially with no skin in the game. I can hardly wait."

Actually, considering 47% of Americans don't pay income tax, reducing the tax rolls by 50% would leave far more than 50% of families with no skin in the game.

Maybe he'll make up for the revenue shortfall by getting the Mexicans to pay us!

JackOfClubs said...

I don't care whom he supports as long as he gets out. He's a good man but he's had his chance and he clearly isn't going anywhere.

Bay Area Guy said...

@PaddyO

Some of you sound mighty scared of President Trump." Some of you sound curiously enamored of Trump

There's no reason to be scared or enamored of Trump. He's a celebrity businessman. Nothing more, nothing less. He has dipped his toes into the waters of politics, and fairly & squarely, won some major GOP primaries. Good for him. He is the likely GOP candidate, unless some specific candidate (Rubio or Cruz) stops him.

If you are angry at the "establishment" and have some strange belief that Trump will cast out the money-changers, and stop all these damn illegals, and slice down the bureaucracy, and save us from Isis and radical Islam -- YOU ARE DREAMING. He is not a savior. Like ALL politicians, he will make compromises in office to sustain his power, and will let you down, if it's in his political interest.

The problem, in America, is not the "establishment" -- it's the Left, who want to undermine and erode the Judeo-Christian values, protestant work ethic, Constitutional legal structure and the free market system on which our country was built. Hillary is the pied-piper of the Left. She is sneaky and powerful.

The focus should be on defeating Hillary, nothing more, and nothing less. If Trump can do it, vote Trump. If Rubio can do it, vote Rubio. It's much less complicated than some of you are making it out to be.

Tank said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Original Mike
That's the one where he threw his dead grandmother under the bus, right?

Yes, that speech.

It was an excellent speech that addressed the electorate's concerns thoughtfully and effectively.

Rubio could win the nomination and the Presidency, but he needs to explain himself convincingly to the Republicans who feel that he betrayed them on the immigration issue.


Rubio ran for Senate as a Tea Party favorite. He was picked up by Mark Levin and appeared on his radio show numerous times. He repeatedly said there: no amnesty.

Then, he got elected to the Senate.

On day one, he moved into his office and set out a picture of his beautiful wife.

On day two, he visited Chuck Schumer and plotted with him to jam amnesty through with the Gang of Eight.

You can't explain this away. He is, as they say, out of trust.

eric said...

I may have missed it in the comments but today's headline is

"With Bush out of the picture, Trumps lead expands"

Might cause havoc with your premise.

damikesc said...

The time to stop Trump was during the last four years. We handed the GOP the House and the Senate in 2014 and they have done nothing but capitulate to the Dems agenda like the Vichy.

This. If the Congress didn't shit the bed so badly, there'd be no demand for Trump. We'd have a Rubio vs Cruz matchup.

This is complete monkey shit. The kind of stuff that pushes me away from the monkeys throwing the shit on account of those monkeys' hands are covered in shit.

Yeah. I don't REMOTELY buy Rubio as personally corrupt. That credit card thing was a nothing.

My issues with him are purely political. Amnesty and college date rape bills he supports/supported are abysmal. But he isn't on the take to any appreciable degree that I've seen.

So spending money and burning bridges means he can be trusted? You sound like an easy sell.

The argument is that, more than anybody else, Trump has sacrificed to do this. Nobody else can claim a similar level of personal sacrifice.

If Trump had a majority of the GOP primary voters supporting him, then yes that's fair and there would be no stopping him. But if Trump only has around 30% supporting him, then it's fair for the candidates representing the other 70% to act on behalf of those that voted for them.

The problem with that, though, is that LARGER percentages are voting against the other candidates.

Rubio beats Hillary! by nearly 5% in the Real Clear Politics average. Trump loses by 2%.

Haven't we nominated enough guys who are "electable"? That argument holds little water for me at this point.

I'm all in for Cruz. He's better on the stump than Rubio, he won't cave on issues like Rubio and Trump, he's the smartest guy there...and he will decimate Hillary six ways from Sunday.

eric said...

By the way, I feel like pointing out something now that I have seen in tea party races since 2010.

The Republican Establishment would rather see the Republican lose, if they aren't establishment hand picked, than win.

Which tells me a new calculation is afoot. If you really want Bush, Walker, Kasich or Christie, your choice now is to throw a monkey wrench into the works until 2020, at which time you can shout, "We told you so!!!!"

Not sure how this will unfold yet. It may be that electing Trump at this point is the best way for them to say, "Ha ha!" As they mess with Trump for 4 years and screw up all his plans for reelection and then primary him.

Or, they may think four years of Hillary will be a guaranteed Bush in 2020.

Not that I think it'll work out like that. More likely Trump will win and then he will embrace them and work with them and they will love him.

jr565 said...

Gusty winds wrote:
I don't buy that Trump is unelectable simply because Hillary sucks so bad.

He's unelectable because he's a terrible candidate. Hillary might be worse. But Hillary is not running as a republican.

traditionalguy said...

Trump has a lifetime of experience navigating politics and Banks that NYC developer does. He excels at judging winners to work for him.

FDR's patrician family under a Calvinist mother he adored made Roosevelt a great leader and Commander in Chief over men. Trump is missing the patrician angle, but the rest of his New York approach to politics and men matches.

Add to that 18 years of masteringTV as owner, producer and star performer, and you see Reagan's talents added to FDR's .

And which other candidate has Presidential Experience? None, not one.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: You're just so wise and worldly!

Sorry Brando, I didn't realize you were so sensitive. I always thought your showing up in every thread to call Trump supporters gullible morons, true believers, irrational devotees of a cult of personality, etc. was all in good fun. I promise to transfer you to the "can dish it out but not take it" mental file and try to remember to respond more tenderly in future.

But at least you don't waste your time explaining why I'm wrong that Rubio is less likely to backtrack on amnesty than Trump. That would obviously be beneath you.

Actually why Rubio has no credibility on this issue has been discussed rather more extensively on this blog than you've discussed your reasons for believing that he does. Perhaps you've been to busy virtue-signaling with the other high-roaders to notice.

Brando said...

"With Bush out of the picture, Trumps lead expands"

I could believe it. When any of these guys drop out their voters don't necessarily go to any one candidate.

"The argument is that, more than anybody else, Trump has sacrificed to do this. Nobody else can claim a similar level of personal sacrifice."

Assuming he really sacrificed those things--which is arguable--how does that mean he can be trusted on any issue? Yes, it shows he is serious about running, but you could also argue Hillary Clinton sacrificed a lot over her life to run for office and I wouldn't trust her on anything. Sometimes people run for their own reasons.

"The Republican Establishment would rather see the Republican lose, if they aren't establishment hand picked, than win."

Aside from any odd outliers, which "establishment" spokesmen are saying this? I've seen a lot of fretting about how terrible Trump is as a candidate or how he would be as a president, but I haven't yet seen say Preibus come out saying "if not Rubio, we're tossing this for Hillary" or anything to that effect.

"Haven't we nominated enough guys who are "electable"?"

"Most Electable" doesn't mean they'll win--only that they're electable compared to the alternatives. Romney was (I think) the most electable out of his competition in 2012, and while he didn't win, I doubt Santorum or Gingrich would have passed 47% of the general election vote. Clearly, the GOP isn't picking people electable enough!

But then, everyone thinks their own candidate is "electable". We all think there is some coalition of voters who thinks like we do and will get our guy over the hump.

Brando said...

"Sorry Brando, I didn't realize you were so sensitive."

Don't interpret my response as a complaint. I would just prefer you address my argument if you're going to bother to reply.

"Actually why Rubio has no credibility on this issue has been discussed rather more extensively on this blog than you've discussed your reasons for believing that he does. Perhaps you've been to busy virtue-signaling with the other high-roaders to notice."

From what I've seen of the anti-Rubio comments on the blog, Rubio can't be trusted because he tried to support a deal that would have granted amnesty. If that disqualifies him, then Trump's previous (and weirdly, continuing at times) support for amnesty should disqualify him as well. The difference is Rubio has been paying a political price for it and has more incentive to stay away from such a policy (your theory that his GOP paymasters who want amnesty will force him notwithstanding) and Trump has never been taken to task by his supporters.

You seem appropriately cynical about many politicians on the amnesty issue, but either I missed some previous skepticism you displayed toward Trump or you have a blind spot towards him.

Yancey Ward said...

A hundred comment thread, but not a single one by Laslo? Talk about being disappointed! (and I am being serious)

damikesc said...

Assuming he really sacrificed those things--which is arguable

TV show gone. Deal with, I think, Macy's to carry his ties is also gone.

"Most Electable" doesn't mean they'll win--only that they're electable compared to the alternatives. Romney was (I think) the most electable out of his competition in 2012, and while he didn't win, I doubt Santorum or Gingrich would have passed 47% of the general election vote. Clearly, the GOP isn't picking people electable enough!

For what it's worth, Romney's loss was the one Presidential loss that actually hurt. But, in 2008, McCain was the "most electable" --- by some measure I'll never grasp. Romney would've been a far better choice. Romney in 2012 was just unwilling to run a campaign to win, which is tragic. The country was harmed, terribly, by not electing him. He ran a loser's campaign from the get go and he lost.

Could Gingrich have done better? Possibly. Obama never had an opponent who openly attacked him and I'd be amazed if he could have handled it all that well. Gingrich would've gotten the Romney treatment (left his wife on her death bed, etc) but he would've been far less willing to accept the narrative than Romney was.

From what I've seen of the anti-Rubio comments on the blog, Rubio can't be trusted because he tried to support a deal that would have granted amnesty. If that disqualifies him, then Trump's previous (and weirdly, continuing at times) support for amnesty should disqualify him as well. The difference is Rubio has been paying a political price for it and has more incentive to stay away from such a policy (your theory that his GOP paymasters who want amnesty will force him notwithstanding) and Trump has never been taken to task by his supporters.

One difference, though, is that Rubio ran on a quite specifically anti-amnesty platform. There wasn't wiggle room in what he was saying. He then won and did the opposite. Cruz basically killed that terrible idea off.

He is doing it now. But it's hard to trust after being burned before. He is still trying to explain away his bill instead of openly repudiating it, saying it was a terrible idea and saying he will never side with Schumer on any immigration issue in the future.

jr565 said...

WHy would he continue staying in? He only has a chance in Ohio.

damikesc said...

Aside from any odd outliers, which "establishment" spokesmen are saying this? I've seen a lot of fretting about how terrible Trump is as a candidate or how he would be as a president, but I haven't yet seen say Preibus come out saying "if not Rubio, we're tossing this for Hillary" or anything to that effect.

Folks like Kristol have openly discussed third party options.

Mike Sylwester said...

Tank
On day two, he visited Chuck Schumer and plotted with him to jam amnesty through with the Gang of Eight. You can't explain this away. He is, as they say, out of trust.

That is why Rubio won't win the nomination if he won't explain his betrayal.

Rubio needs to explain thoughtfully, convincingly and in much detail why he joined the Gang of Eight. He needs to overcome the wide-spread perception that he simply lied about his real immigration position in order to win election to the US Senate.

Obama had to explain why he joined and attended a church where the pastor prayed publicly to God to damn America. Obama gave the necessary explanation, and subsequently he was elected President.

Here is the text of Obama's speech:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90040477

The person whom Obama threw under the bus was Jeremiah Wright.

[quote]

... His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And, if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought, either. ....

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced, and that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today. ....

[unquote]

Rubio needs likewise to throw some people under the bus -- starting with the people who convinced him to join the Gang of Eight -- starting with Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake.

Anglelyne said...

Bay Area Guy: If you are angry at the "establishment" and have some strange belief that Trump will cast out the money-changers, and stop all these damn illegals, and slice down the bureaucracy, and save us from Isis and radical Islam -- YOU ARE DREAMING. He is not a savior.

Thanks, BAG. I have yet to come across anybody who believes that Trump will bring about the Millenium, but if I do, I'll be sure to straighten them out. Not sure what to do about the many anti-Trump types I have come across who have been working themselves into a state of hallucinatory hysteria about Trump voters, though. Keep my distance, I guess.

Like ALL politicians, he will make compromises in office to sustain his power, and will let you down, if it's in his political interest.

Really? Gosh, grandpa, next you're going to go all realtalk about Santa Claus on us, aren't you?

walter said...

"trump is clearly the only one who can be trusted"
Oh yeah...solid.

Brando said...

"TV show gone. Deal with, I think, Macy's to carry his ties is also gone."

If his candidacy fails, I don't think he'll have any trouble getting additional shows and endorsement deals. But I agree there is a risk there.

"Could Gingrich have done better? Possibly."

I don't know about that--Gingrich has trouble getting support in his own party. Granted, Romney's weakness was that he didn't have great campaign skills (but would have been, I think, a good chief executive), but I have a hard time picturing Gingrich doing better.

"One difference, though, is that Rubio ran on a quite specifically anti-amnesty platform. There wasn't wiggle room in what he was saying. He then won and did the opposite. Cruz basically killed that terrible idea off."

It's still the biggest knock the right has against him, and very likely will be what keeps him from getting nominated. He could still renege--anyone could--but someone burned once on the issue is less likely to renege than someone who never gets burned no matter how much he flip flops (like saying he'd let all the illegals back in the door of his wall).

mccullough said...

The presidency has been moving toward celebrity over substance since JFK. Then Nixon went on Laugh-In, Clinton on Aresnio Hall, etc.

What we care about is celebrity and people who entertain us on television.

Presidents in their post presidency have been cashing in on their celebrity since at least Reagan, who was a celebrity befor he got into politics. Truman wouldn't join any company board after he was president, even though he needed the money, because he believed it would be disrespectful to the office of president.

We've had 30 years of debt heaped on future generations by presidents and congresses of both parties. Scores of states and cities in this country are bankrupt.

We are the ones who keep electing people who say we don't have to sacrifice, that we can have high spending and low taxes and stick it on the future generations because everything we do will be so great for them they will be able to pay off that debt easily.

We will elect anyone who comes across well on TV and gives a good speech and is likeable and funny, even if that person was a draft dodgers or trust fund drunk who didn't hold a steady job until he was 48 years old or a smooth talking part time lawyer with about 10 years of legislative experience as long as they plan on sticking it to future generations and not us.

None of the people running on either side is any good because the process we support is all about celebrity bullshit. Who can inspire us to say what a great country we are for sticking it to future generations and sending the very few of us who actually have a sense of duty and sacrifice to get killed in pointless wars.

Our elections and political squabbles are entertaining distractions. Obama is no worse than W. Different for sure, but arrogant and incompetent. It's not like Gore or Kerry would have been any better than W. They would have run up the debt for some cause or other and the housing crash would have happened. Vote would not have been stupid enough to get us involved in Iraq but he probably would have sent in more soldiers to liberate and nation build Afghanistan, just as Obama escalated that debacle.

Romney would have done a better job with the Obamacare website but he would probably have committed combat troops to Syria and would keep heaping debt on future generations by more tax cuts that don't pay for themselves. He would also probably come up with some pretty report that would wow the analysts at Bain about how we can balance the budget by 2134 if we only slow the growth of spending on food stamps and outsource 30 executive departments to some subsidiaries of Staples.

Trump is perfect for the US.





Mike Sylwester said...

Excuse me, but this is the link to the Obama's long speech about his church problem.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88478467

Here is the central passage:

[quote]

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television sets and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way. ...

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I describe the experience of my first service at Trinity:

"People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters. And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else: At the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival and freedom and hope — became our stories, my story. The blood that spilled was our blood, the tears our tears, until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black. In chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a meaning to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about — memories that all people might study and cherish, and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety .... The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and biases that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. ...

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing to do would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated bias. ....

[unquote]

Obama gave a speech that dealt with people's concerns head-on.

Brando said...

"Folks like Kristol have openly discussed third party options."

Kristol has such a great track record of wrongness I think it's safe to rule out the possibility of any conservative third party run.

I think if Trump gets the nomination, things will mostly settle into the Red/Blue divide--while a lot of Republicans and Independents will sit out (and the more moderate ones may swing to the Dems) for the most part there will be party loyalty. But this is an odd year so who knows.

Stan Smith said...

Trump's negatives are higher than Hillary's. Just sayin'. If you think he's electable, vote for him. I see him as the mirror image of Obama. Thin-skinned, petulant, narcissitic, arrogant, clueless about foreign policy. Doesn't know what the nuclear triad is.

If you want 4 more years of a clueless blowhard, by all means elect him.

walter said...

“You know what? There’s a point at which: Let’s get to be a little establishment,” Trump told the crowd at the South Point resort and casino. “We’ve got to get things done folks, OK? Believe me, don’t worry. We’re going to make such great deals.”

oleh said...

Even if he were winning Ohio he should still get out. Assuming the good of the party should be a priority, and that this good does but include Trump, then why would winning Ohio when you have no way whatsoever to the nomination be a justifiable goal.

Anglelyne said...

Brando: If that disqualifies him, then Trump's previous (and weirdly, continuing at times) support for amnesty should disqualify him as well.

That in situ amnesties are always disasters has been discussed here. Why "make 'em leave first" can give better results, politically and practically, has been discussed here. (That is, if your goal is to control and limit inflow, which is not the GOPe's goal.)

If you are interested in semantics, rather than the empirically-demonstrated consequences of different amnesty policies in the real world, then, yes, support for either would be equally disqualifying.

You seem appropriately cynical about many politicians on the amnesty issue, but either I missed some previous skepticism you displayed toward Trump...

Yes.

jr565 said...

walter wrote:
“You know what? There’s a point at which: Let’s get to be a little establishment,” Trump told the crowd at the South Point resort and casino. “We’ve got to get things done folks, OK? Believe me, don’t worry. We’re going to make such great deals.”

And at that point those thinking that Trump is giving an f you to the establishment realize the finger is really directed at them. And if anything it was inserted into their rectum. Maybe that's why they didn't notice it earlier. My question is, which establishment? Democratic establishment, or republican establishment.

jr565 said...

Gusty winds wrote:
This is all just our habitual in the moment righteous indignation syndrome we love in America,
Righteous indignation going towards Trump suggests that your anger is not so righteous as just angry. I'm angry too. Doesn't mean we have to turn our brains off.

jr565 said...

"Trump has a lifetime of experience navigating politics and Banks that NYC developer does. He excels at judging winners to work for him."
Who Told Trump that Trump U was a good idea? I hope he fired that guy.

BJK said...

There's something inherently funny about suggesting Kasich should get out before the first winner-take-all primary in his home state (where he's the popular, sitting Governor).

If the theory is that getting out early helps Trump...nothing hurts Trump more than Kasich winning all of the Ohio delegates. The goal for anti-Trump Republicans should be to deny him a majority of the delegates at the nominating convention; whether those delegates go to Kasich, Rubio, or Cruz (or even Carson) is less important than the delegates not going to Trump.

Ironically, the best chance to deny Trump the nomination is for Kasich to win the Ohio primary.

I'm ambivalent about Trump as the presumptive front-runner, but asking Kasich to bow out before Ohio is cutting off one's nose to spite their face, IMO.

damikesc said...

But there's no reason to expect Kasich to WIN there at this point. He has years as governor and is STILL losing.

Bay Area Guy said...

@ BJK

Ironically, the best chance to deny Trump the nomination is for Kasich to win the Ohio primary.

That is a good point, and could be right. But isn't it worse for Rubio or Cruz, if Kasich stays in, but still loses Ohio to Trump?

The thought would be for Kasich to drop out, throw his support to Rubio or Cruz, and give them a shot at winning Ohio.

It's all a bunch of guesswork, I reckon.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"stop Trump...stop Trump...stop Trump...stop Trump..." Boy, you people never stop. The guy will probably win 15 more primaries, half the delegates, and you'll still be scratching your asses asking about what sort of a strategy should be devised at that point to "stop Trump."

This sure is a Republican process, isn't it? Denial denial denial.

Michael K said...

I didn't read all the comments but I agree 100% with this :

The time to stop Trump was during the last four years. We handed the GOP the House and the Senate in 2014 and they have done nothing but capitulate to the Dems agenda like the Vichy.

Brando said...

"You seem appropriately cynical about many politicians on the amnesty issue, but either I missed some previous skepticism you displayed toward Trump...

Yes."

Then why are you so sure Trump is more trustworthy than Rubio on immigration? An appropriately skeptical person would assume neither could be trusted. Unless you do think they're both equally full of it, which is not what I gathered from your initial response.

As for the "let them out and then they can come back in legally" this is a form of amnesty no different than letting them stay if they pay a fine, or give up any chance for future citizenship, or any other conditions we wish to impose. Trump in that sense is no different from any of the "establishment" Republicans who want to do anything short of unconditional deportation.

And accept the fact--this country will never do unconditional deportation, not on a large scale. Rubio won't do it, Trump won't do it, and Clinton absolutely won't do it. If anything, the status quo will continue.

damikesc said...

And accept the fact--this country will never do unconditional deportation, not on a large scale. Rubio won't do it, Trump won't do it, and Clinton absolutely won't do it. If anything, the status quo will continue.

What the elite don't want to face is:

The deportations can be done legally...or by a mob.

The option is theirs.

Enough people are angry enough where the illegals can be removed, by the authorities or by people less "constrained" than the authorities.

Brando said...

"The deportations can be done legally...or by a mob."

At most there will be assaults on people who are assumed to be illegal immigrants, but tracking and rooting out 10 million people, most of whom have people hiding them or looking the other way? About as likely to happen as ridding this country of illegal guns or drugs.

I could see some high profile showy deportations to seem like we're "doing something" but I wouldn't bet on this problem getting fixed. If Hillary wins we'll probably see some "stand down" orders to DHS at the very least. If Trump wins, he'll deport about a hundred people and say that he cut the number of illegals in half. After all, he has said you need to inflate your numbers sometimes.

Sammy Finkelman said...

All of the choices in the poll are wrong.

Kasich is in second place in Ohio.

Rubio should announce that people for him in Ohio should vote for Kasich and Kasich should announce that people for him in Florida should vote for Rubio. Not that there are so many people for Kasich in Florida. But this gives the appearance of equality and in general is advice to undecided voters.

And this agreement can be made, unlike some other proposed ideas.

Sammy Finkelman said...

If Trump wins, he'll enforce the law, or take stabs at it, until Congress changes it, and it will because they won't like what's happening. He'll make sure they don't like it.

Sammy Finkelman said...

BJK said....

Ironically, the best chance to deny Trump the nomination is for Kasich to win the Ohio primary.

Rubio shold endorse Kasich in Ohio and Kasich shold endorse Rubio in Florida.

Is that too complex an idea for the Republican presidential candidates?