February 22, 2016

"Who do you think Hillary Clinton would most want to run against — Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or Kasich?"

That's an extremely difficult question. It should be easy, because you only need to pick one and you've got 4 choices, but each is tough for Clinton in his own way and each presents some opportunities for attack. I feel I need to start at the opposite end: Who would she least like to run against? Even that way, it's difficult.

The link goes to my son John's Facebook page, where some people (not John) are saying Hillary would prefer to go against Trump. I don't see how that can possibly be right. I think Hillary is terrified of having Trump attacking her in his strange, unpredictable way. How can she prepare? How can she respond? These won't be polite attacks to be fended off with her trademark chuckles and guffaws and claims that she was already previously vetted. It will be wild, and tremendous energy, strength, and adaptability will be needed for the fight. And part of the attack will be that she lacks the energy, strength, and adaptability to be President, so her difficulty fighting him will fuel more attacks.

I'm going to guess Hillary would prefer that nice Mr. Kasich.

138 comments:

Curtiss said...

She would most want to run against the man who would rather lose honorably than win ruthlessly.

whitney said...

Curtiss- good answer

Trump will call her on all her lies, all the time. I'd watch that

Jim Gust said...

Hillary most wanted to run against Bush, the only candidate she would have easily beaten. Now that he's gone, she'll be joining him in the dustbin of history.

Kasich would give her the least trouble, Trump the most.

Brando said...

Kasich would be hard for Hillary to beat simply because the only reason anyone will vote for Hillary is fear, and Kasich just isn't scary. Oh, she'd try all right--but the shopworn "war on women" theme has very diminishing returns these days, and an "aw shucks" guy who plays "compassionate conservative" better than George Bush did will do well with moderates (and drop that crap about conservatives "staying home"--they will not stay home with Hillary on the ballot). Kasich isn't an attack dog, but in these days of outside money he doesn't have to be. Others will do it.

Rubio would also be hard for her, because of the obvious contrast in generations and his ethnic background will complicate her race baiting strategy. The only question is whether Rubio can appeal to moderates.

Cruz I think she would prefer to face--he makes no attempt to appeal to moderates, and while he is young and ethnic he doesn't play to those strengths. He also comes across as sneaky and turns people off easily. She has the same problem, but could count on her own side uniting (and scaring the Left into voting against Cruz).

Trump right now has greater negatives than Hillary, and there's a large number of Republicans who simply won't vote for him. If he does not find a way to unite the party, he simply cannot beat Hillary. His "unpredictable" style works on some people, but we're talking about a much different electorate for the general election. The only thing for sure about a Trump/Clinton race is that it would be nastier than anything we've seen.

damikesc said...

Hillary would prefer Kasich as Republicans don't seem overly fond of him.

Kasich would be hard for Hillary to beat simply because the only reason anyone will vote for Hillary is fear, and Kasich just isn't scary.

Nobody rational would label Romney or McCain "right wingers"...yet that was the narrative for both. Rest assured, they'd label Kasich as scary. And it'd stick.

Trump right now has greater negatives than Hillary, and there's a large number of Republicans who simply won't vote for him.

Given a choice of him or Hillary --- they will fall in line behind him.

JSD said...

Trump, because he will be the final death blow to the Republican Party. So far, Trump has only faced puny inept opposition from the impaired Republican establishment. The Democratic war machine is keeping their powder dry. If Trump emerges, the Democrats and MSM will reveal him as a fraud and huckster in all the shameless technicolor glory that he is.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

Its kind of an easy question since hate is a more powerful motivator than love when it comes to elections.
The number of people of people not in HRC's base who would bother to vote for her is her is small so she is going to need to gun up some fear in order to get people voting against the other guy.

The easiest person to do that with is Trump. His act has already worn thin (see South Carolina acceptance speech) but can you imagine how exhausted the voters will be in another 6 months?

She would loose to Cruz or Rubio.
Kasich she would beat in an election with turn out in the low 20's. I assume Carson would beat her if it ever became head to head because he would have a lot of room to improve as a candidate whereas she is maxxed out.

Static Ping said...

I suspect she wants to run against the candidate least likely to prosecute her for her obvious crimes after she loses.

tim maguire said...

Curtiss said...
She would most want to run against the man who would rather lose honorably than win ruthlessly.


+1

So she would most like to run against Mitt Romney. Unfortunately for her, Obama already played that freebie.

EDH said...

I want to see Ivanka and Chelsea debate, in the nude.

Not them, me, on my couch, nude, watching that debate.

But that's just me.

traditionalguy said...

Without political correctness rules , Hillary becomes a zero. The Firstest Woman crap is all that she hasto offer.

Trump represents a unique approach to American politics. He is not corrupt.

Politics in America has always been corrupt bargains. Each region had its shot at it. But today a World Environmental Socialism controlled corruption has nearly finished taking it over. That come out of the same folks who once ruled the RINO wing of the GOP and still pulls its strings. Now they have Hillary bought as their candidate too.

Fighting this corrupt bargain, Trump will now need more than a bullet proof vest. He will need one of those bomb proof up Armored Humvees. Assasination by a crazed loner is this enemy's preferred method when it looks like they have lost control in spite of massive negative TV ads psyops and coordinated slander narratives run bby the TV Networks they own.

Trump has ridden this tiger well so far, but the coming 6 weeks will be a Rodeo from hell.

JSD said...

Trump’s not corrupt? Try to find out the names of all those Veteran’s groups he was raising money for and how much they got.

dbp said...

The media attention that Trump enjoys, helps him now that he has to stand out in a large field. The eventual nominee will get plenty of media and it will naturally be all negative.

Hillary, being not too bright and slow on her feet, is probably terrified of facing the unpredictable Trump. His all-over-the-place proposals will make her myriad of failures look statesmanlike in comparison. So he is scary, but beatable.

Rubio is the guy most likely to beat her. His youth will make Hillary look even more stodgy than ever.

BDNYC said...

@damikesc

I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary. I do not know how many people have the same perspective, but I have a hard time believing all the Republicans who already loathe Trump are going to just fall in line and vote for him. The man is a fraud; maybe even worse than the contemptible Clintons.

traditionalguy said...

Where have JSD and dbp suddenly come from to do cheap psyops? I don't recall them at all. The Rodeo is on.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The easiest guy to demonize is Cruz, plus he's not eligible. Trump is the wild card to be sure. But beating a weak and fractured GOP field is one thing and winning a general election is another.

jacksonjay said...

Trump isn't corrupt? Hasn't Trump admitted to making campaign donations in order to have influence? Correction, Trump bragged about his access through donations. Have we ever had a presidential candidate who donated to the corrupt "charity" (Clinton Foundation) of another presidential candidate. Trump bragged about the Clintons attending his wedding! Is the buyer any less corrupt that the seller in a dirty deal?

Donating to candidates in order to have access makes Trump the ultimate insider. I, for one, don't understand this outsider routine that he's sold to the faithful. PT Barnum was right.

Brando said...

"Nobody rational would label Romney or McCain "right wingers"...yet that was the narrative for both. Rest assured, they'd label Kasich as scary. And it'd stick."

I think the tired old attacks are losing their shine. Plus, part of why such attacks worked on Romney and McCain was that both spent the entire primary period and beyond bending over backwards to try and appear right wing (e.g., calling oneself "severely conservative"--which phrasing should have revealed he wasn't conservative at all), giving Obama plenty of ammunition. Kasich so far hasn't done that (though of course by not doing that, he polls low).

"Given a choice of him or Hillary --- they will fall in line behind him."

Many will, but this year things are a lot nastier than the old "I preferred Santorum to Romney" or "I wanted McCain instead of George W Bush" choices--I can see larger numbers than usual refusing to ever pull the lever for Trump.

The only reason I don't have 100% certainty that Hillary would beat Trump is that she is an abysmally awful candidate, and it's always possible for some fundamental game changer (recession, terror attack) to alter the landscape.

Brando said...

"Trump isn't corrupt? Hasn't Trump admitted to making campaign donations in order to have influence? Correction, Trump bragged about his access through donations. Have we ever had a presidential candidate who donated to the corrupt "charity" (Clinton Foundation) of another presidential candidate. Trump bragged about the Clintons attending his wedding! Is the buyer any less corrupt that the seller in a dirty deal?"

His supporters think this just shows he knows how the sausage is made, or otherwise that it shows he knows how to game the system and not be owned by it. Though, considering all he claims to have gotten from his many Clinton donations was having them show up at his wedding (I guess a juggler wasn't available), does this make him the player or the toy?

Drago said...

JSD: "If Trump emerges, the Democrats and MSM will reveal him as a fraud and huckster in all the shameless technicolor glory that he is."

What Republican wouldn't be portrayed precisely that way by the press?

Romney killed a woman with cancer as a CEO!
Romney caused a guy to commit suicide as a result of a high-school incident!
The Bush family funded Hitler!
GWB let some white guys drag a black guy to death in Texas!
Every time you vote republican, a black church burns!

So, yeah. Sure. This time the dems & the press (but I repeat myself) will not dare do that to non-Trump republicans.

Pull the other one.

Sebastian said...

Least scary: Kasich. Most scary: Rubio, who can actually beat her. Scary but OK: Trump. Trump will scare her in debates, attacking her and Bill, calling our the traditional Dem race-, gender-, ethnic-baiting, and so on. It would be entertaining, but she'd endure and win.

Henry said...

I think Hillary is terrified of having Trump attacking her in his strange, unpredictable way.

Is she ready to take that 13am phone call?

Drago said...

Brando: "His supporters think this just shows he knows how the sausage is made, or otherwise that it shows he knows how to game the system and not be owned by it. Though, considering all he claims to have gotten from his many Clinton donations was having them show up at his wedding (I guess a juggler wasn't available), does this make him the player or the toy?"

BDNYC: "I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary."

The side of the Republican base that claims they would vote for Hillary before Trump wants to lecture everyone else on why you shouldn't support someone who is corrupt.

Well, thank you very much.

Paul said...

I think these NRO types vastly overestimate their numbers and influence. For every one of them there are at least two and probably more crossover voters Trump will pick up. The notion that the media attacks will finally become effective take Trump down once he's the nominee and running in the general is laughable and just shows these people haven't got a clue what's happening here.

Althouse is right. Trump is inside everyone's OODA loop and Hillary won't stand a chance up against him.

Brando said...

"The side of the Republican base that claims they would vote for Hillary before Trump wants to lecture everyone else on why you shouldn't support someone who is corrupt."

I never said who I would vote for in a Trump/Hillary race, but don't let that get in the way of your argument. Though frankly both are such venal, corrupt figures that any time a supporter of either of them tries to get all high horse it sounds a lot like arguing that having your left toe crushed is a lot worse than having your right toe crushed. Some of us would prefer having neither toe crushed.

Drago said...

jacksonjay: ""Trump isn't corrupt? Hasn't Trump admitted to making campaign donations in order to have influence?"

This just in: large donors to political parties and political groups seek to influence events in their own favor.

Shocking.

I would recommend purchasing ads to run against Trump and giving donations to politicians opposed to Trump. But, you know, in a totally non-corrupt way of course as t won't be like you are seeking to influence policies or the actions of others like that creep Trump! I'll bet your dollars look and smell much sweeter and certainly more pure.

Yes, supposed republicans/conservatives are now reduced to making a Oh-noes-Trump-has-given-donations-for-the-purposes-of-influence!!! argument And now, alas, I must vote for Hillary to show how unacceptable that is!

Simply unbelievable.

Drago said...

Brando: "I never said who I would vote for in a Trump/Hillary race, but don't let that get in the way of your argument."

I was riffing off another commenters offering in this thread. That's why I didn't say "you".

Daniel Richwine said...

This was extremely well put, Ann. I like that description of Trump's style very much.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"The side of the Republican base that claims they would vote for Hillary before Trump.... "

It takes a positive act for someone to schedule their day and go out to the voting booth. The most likely result of a Trump nomination is that a lot of people will not bother to vote at all, rather than to make the diametric switch to the other candidate.

You lose a lot of base, reliable voters with Trump and gain some mushy independents who like a reality tv guy saying outrageous things but may not actually show up to vote 9 months from now.

Drago said...

Brando: "Though frankly both are such venal, corrupt figures that any time a supporter of either of them tries to get all high horse it sounds a lot like arguing that having your left toe crushed is a lot worse than having your right toe crushed. Some of us would prefer having neither toe crushed."

Well, gee. That would be nice.

And perhaps it might have been possible...until the republican establishment leaders decided to go all in on tacit and open support of core dem policies and then telling conservatives to shut up about it.

And don't for a moment tell me that is overstated.

In the real world you go to the election war with the army you have. As a Cruz supporter who is not unaware of the difficulties Cruz would have in the general, I am fully prepared to vote for Trump or ANY Republican against any dem, without exception.

What would Trump give us?

On immigration I believe he would follow through at least nominally on his policies. I know that Kasich will give in immediately, joyfully, rapturously to comprehensive "let the 3rd world in and give them power over our nation thru voting dem by the 10's of millions", as would most of the non-Cruz/Trump candidates.

What would Trump give me in addition to the above?

I don't have the slightest idea. And no one else does either.

But there really aren't any issues beyond immigration. If the dems get their way, this entire republican experiment in freedom and self-government will essentially be over with all that's left being the mop-up operations.

Virgil Hilts said...

Trump (the White Don King, as Sharpton has called him). He might lose a lot of conservatives, but as many have predicted, an interesting number of black people like him and the policies of the Democrats (open immigration) have been horrible for black America. Trump will not take off the gloves. Had blacks and whites voted in normal percentages last election, Romney would have won. I don't see blacks being enthusiastic or getting out the vote for Hillary. Also, the black vote is crucial (I think) in almost all of the swing states. I think Trump has a lot of appeal to black voters despite the MSM full court press to make them hate him. At worst, a lot of them stay home. Watch as more and more blacks come out for Trump in next few months.

Big Mike said...

I agree with your analysis, Professor. Before New Hampshire I would have ranked Rubio just behind Trump as the candidate Hillary would least like to face, but Christie has demonstrated how to attack Rubio successfully, so ...

Drago said...

Quinn: "You lose a lot of base, reliable voters with Trump and gain some mushy independents who like a reality tv guy saying outrageous things but may not actually show up to vote 9 months from now. "

It's true. We will not be able to draw on the legion of reliable voters who turned out in droves to elect Romney...McCain...Dole...HWBush (after the violated tax pledge)...Ford, etc.

All solid good men from the "Lose Quietly and Politely" School of Go-Along Get-Along Republicania.

Bob Boyd said...

Hillary, I think, would love to run against Kasich.

At a time when everybody's clamoring for a garbage can pizza, Kasich is a big bowl of Cream of Wheat.

Drago said...

We are in the Obama-era folks. All that talk of nicenes and politeness went out the window with Obama and his "lipstick on a pig", "clever" middle finger positioning during his answers, punching his enemies twice as hard, etc.

I don't care for the terrain on which I now find myself and our nation. But here we are and what are you going to do about?

Nominate Kasich?

Within 15 minutes of a Kasich nomination he will be blamed for back-alley abortion deaths, massive environmental destruction across the nation, being the funded-boy-toy of the Kochs, personally responsible for supporting the rise of Hitler, etc.

And he will stand there, "aw shucks" it and claim that certainly no "reasonable" person could believe such a thing. Then he will go on to speak about how much he respects the job Hillary has done raising Chelsea with Bill and how heartwarming it is see Hillary the Grandmother working so hard for the future of her grandchildren.

Of course, Kasich will gently, ever so gently, ever so ever so gently, suggest, mildly, temperately, that perhaps there are some slight, ever so slight, differences in some policies that he espouses from those that Hillary espouses. Kasich will then be at tremendous pains to suggest that these differences in no way should be taken as a direct criticism of Hillary since that would be ugly and misogynistic and ugly, really ugly. Terribly ugly by the way.

Plus, Kasich will describe how much he enjoyed working with Hillary some time back and that he, Kasich, can work with Dems on bipartisan solutions to all of our problems. Like letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill, 'cuz "compassion".

Hillary and the left and media (again I repeat myself) will simply call Kasich a murderer.

And that will be that.

Again.

AprilApple said...

I submit that Hillary's old pal, Trump, will go easy on her. ...and that he won't mind losing to her. Follow the money.

jr565 said...

If there were a Rubio/Cruz ticket or a Rubio/Halley ticket it might be tough to beat. cruz/Rubio less so.
I don't see trump getting incredible numbers in the general election. Too many people are polarized by him.

traditionalguy said...

Let me get this straight: Even if he turns down being bought by mega donors' money, Trump is still corrupt because he accepts Mega donor money from himself.

That's really sophisticated argument . The answer to that approach is that if it turns out the Evil Clown Trump is not the donor, but the Good Leader who can be trusted Trump is the donor, then all will be OK with you.

Do not take counsel of your fears.

Amexpat said...

I agree with Brando's initial comment. Cruz would be the easiest for any Democrat to face for two reasons. The first is that he's locked into an ideological position that will put off independents/moderates. The second is that most people just don't like him nor trust him, so that negates HRC's biggest weakness.

Trump would be a wild card in a general election and for that reason she would want to avoid him. Rubio and Kasich would be acceptable to moderates and some democrats who just don't like HRC, so I see them both as having the edge over HRC in the general election.

Brando said...

"On immigration I believe he would follow through at least nominally on his policies. I know that Kasich will give in immediately, joyfully, rapturously to comprehensive "let the 3rd world in and give them power over our nation thru voting dem by the 10's of millions", as would most of the non-Cruz/Trump candidates."

You don't actually know that, you assume it--and I don't see any of the GOP candidates taking an "open borders" position. I doubt after this campaign any of them would try amnesty (except, ironically, Trump because he seems completely unaccountable to his supporters--if he granted amnesty and claimed it was really a "fabulous penalty" what supporters of him would disagree? It's not like they've held anything else he flip flopped on against him) and "control the border" seems to be a universal goal. Whether any of them will achieve anything through the gridlock is another matter, but that'll be the case no matter who you nominate.

"What would Trump give me in addition to the above? I don't have the slightest idea. And no one else does either."

Well, to me that's the problem because immigration is not the only issue the president is going to face. We are very likely to have another recession, entitlement spending is swamping the budget, health care is a mess and a foreign crisis is always likely. Maybe you think Trump will be peaches in dealing with all that, but some of us don't trust him, just as you don't trust Kasich et al.

glenn said...

Kasich. He wouldn't fight back. And if he did we'd all know it was an act.

Fabi said...

It's growing tiresome to see the rote comments around the web from self-proclaimed "real conservative" commenters who proclaim some variation of a) never vote for Trump or b) vote for Hillary / Bernie instead.

I have several several friends and business associates who fit all of the hardcore "true Republican" or "rock-solid conservative" and not one of them -- not one -- would ever consider a) or b) above. I strongly suspect that the majority of people making those claims are full of shit.

tim maguire said...

BDNYC said...I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary.

Much as I dislike both Democrats in this race, I strongly support divided government. Gridlock is good. One party holding all the cards is dangerous, regardless of which party that is. Since the Republicans own congress and are unlikely to lose either house any time soon, if I don't like either candidate, the obvious correct choice is to hold my nose and pick the Democrat.

Saint Croix said...

I strongly suspect that the majority of people making those claims are full of shit.

I'm not voting for Trump.

cubanbob said...

BDNYC said...
@damikesc

I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary. I do not know how many people have the same perspective, but I have a hard time believing all the Republicans who already loathe Trump are going to just fall in line and vote for him. The man is a fraud; maybe even worse than the contemptible Clintons.

2/22/16, 7:04 AM

Are you serious? You would vote for a grifter, criminal, traitor and half-out of the closet communist over Trump?

rcocean said...

Of course, She would love to run against either Kasich! He's such a nice man. And he agrees with Hillary on 1/2 the issues. Trade, immigration, obamacare, foreign policy would be off the table.

After the vote, You can just imagine Kasich congratulating Hillary on her victory, smugly boasting that he listened to Jesus and ran such a gentlemanly campaign, and expressing the hope that Republicans would reach across the aisle to pass Amnesty and expanded Obamacare.

JSD said...

Yeah, he raised money for “Veterans for a Strong America” which is actually a super pac. Joel Arends of Sioux Falls is the chairman and sole staffer of the group. The group’s tax exemption has been revoked. So far, nobody has been able to find any actual veteran group charities that received a share of the money raised during his campaign.

rcocean said...

"I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary."

No, you're not a conservative - you're a liberal. A real conservative would crawl over broken glass to stop Hillary from appointing maybe 3 left-wing SCOTUS judges and giving us in effect 4 more years of Obama.

Rick said...

I'm going to guess Hillary would prefer that nice Mr. Kasich.

What nice Mr. Kasich? The knock on him is that he's personally abrasive.

_____________________________

What others are saying about Kasich: He "threw a haymaker at Donald Trump," writes Politico's Kyle Cheney, noting their exchange on undocumented immigrants.

Kasich's "positions on immigration and on Wall Street banks won't win him any support from the GOP base," observes the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, noting the Cruz encounter. "Kasich seemed peevish, short-tempered and anything but presidential."

Kasich and Jeb Bush, "who have been fading in polls, presented themselves as experienced chief executives who had practical solutions to deal with national challenges like immigration," the New York Times' Jonathan Martin and Patrick Healy write.

Kasich is "done," writes the National Review's Jonah Goldberg. "He came across angry, condescending and unprincipled. By the end of the debate he came across as the drunk, obnoxious, uncle everyone wishes hadn't accepted the invitation to Thanksgiving dinner."

The governor "interrupted his way in – more politely than in last month's CNBC event – and finished with the second-longest airtime of the eight candidates in the main debate," the Cincinnati Enquirer's Chrissie Thompson writes.

rcocean said...

Hillary wouldn't mind Rubio as her opponent either. Again, like Kascich, immigration and foreign policy and our one-sided trade deals would be off the table.

Rubio would be super nice to dear old Hillary while the Democrats brought up all the dirt on Rubio that has been kept in the background. His out of control spending, his poor record in the Senate, his sketchy relationship with his sugar daddy in Miami, and his inexperience.

Plus, he would be painted as an extreme conservative, just like McCain and Romney were, during their campaigns.

rcocean said...

"What nice Mr. Kasich? The knock on him is that he's personally abrasive."

Like most RINO's Kasich (cf: McCain and Romney) he's only abrasive toward those on his right.

jacksonjay said...

Brando:

So you think that Trump's claim that all he got out of his donations was an appearance at the wedding is the end of the story? Remember when Trump dropped Lindsey's phone number? Well, I wouldn't be surprised if the Clintons and other recipients of Trump donations have stories that will surface if Trump gets the nomination. You think the MSM has even started on their opposition research? They have just accepted the fact that he isn't going away.



Drago:

No one is shocked that large donations buy influence. The shocking thing is the faithful seem to believe that Trump is an outsider, playing the system and above it all. Geez.

holdfast said...

This will be my first Presidential election since becoming a citizen. I think Trump is a giant orange clown, but I would vote for him in a second over Hillary! Either Trump will turn out to be a surprisingly good President or he'll burn the entire corrupt edifice to the ground. I am ok either way.

Michael K said...

" If Trump emerges, the Democrats and MSM will reveal him as a fraud and huckster in all the shameless technicolor glory that he is."

These are the Republicans I referred to in another thread.

They threaten to stay home or vote for Hillary but many will pull the lever and many others will come from voting history that is unknown.

Trump could still blow up but, right now and with what I know, he might be the leading edge of a wave election resembling Andrew Jackson.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

" Cruz would be the easiest for any Democrat to face for two reasons."

I disagree.

Trump will do poorly when he is a 1-1 debate. Right now its just topic switching, obnoxious moderators who are easy foils and 5 guys interrupting claiming they have been invoked.

When that goes away, and it is only Trump direct with an opponent he is in trouble. It will be like a club fighter verses a skilled technical boxer- he will get picked apart. His only tool is the big lazy right hook and is you keep slipping that the guy will get gassed and fall apart. Hillary would pick him apart in a direct debate steering the debate to all the areas she knows he is blind on. Hell just asking him to name the three branch of government would probably do it.

On the other hand, Cruz is smart and disciplined. Assuming that he is going to use the same tactics that vaulted him from a state attorney general to a contender or POTUS in a couple of years is not a safe assumption. She would lose all the debates to him and would be stuck with a demonizing media blitz.

From what we have seen from Cruz's media team they play hard and fast. It would be no cake walk for her.

Bay Area Guy said...

It's a great question, because it focuses the Commentariat on the big picture, and what is truly at stake.

The Dems will spend $1 Billion smearing the nominee (just as they did to Romney), so it must be someone who can take a pummeling and not be caricatured (as Romney was).

Kasich is a good man - but he can't endure the tidal wave of negative advertising. I surmise that Hillary thinks he's the easiest to beat.

Addendum: anyone who claims to be Conservative, but would stay home or vote Hillary in the General against Trump, is hopelessly lost.

Writ Small said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If it comes down to Trump/Hillary, I think a lot of conservative will be sitting this one out. As a conservative, there really is no reason to jump into the fray. With either Trump or Hillary we end up with a liberal shift to the supreme court for generations, more socialized medicine, increased government spending, etc. and I can't even begin to imagine the yyyuuugggeee, luxurious deals he'll make with the Democrats. No thanks.

I could never vote for Hillary but I see little if any upside voting for Trump.

damikesc said...

I am a fairly conservative guy and I would just stay home if Trump is the nominee. If you put a gun to my head, I would vote for Hillary.

Then never --- and I do mean never --- expect a soul to vote for anybody who isn't their number one choice. Fuck the concept of "party unity" because, clearly, you don't buy it.

Yeah, vote for Hillary. She's a much better option.

Just checking, how can anybody claim to be "fairly conservative" and still opt to vote for Hillary over anybody?

Hasn't Trump admitted to making campaign donations in order to have influence??

Who's the more corrupt one? The one who makes the offer or the one who accepts it?

The only reason I don't have 100% certainty that Hillary would beat Trump is that she is an abysmally awful candidate, and it's always possible for some fundamental game changer (recession, terror attack) to alter the landscape.

I see a better than 50% chance of a Trump landslide.

Mind you, I voted for Cruz on Saturday, and a lot of "fairly conservative" guys wouldn't vote for him, either. So Trump isn't my first choice.


Many will, but this year things are a lot nastier than the old "I preferred Santorum to Romney" or "I wanted McCain instead of George W Bush" choices--I can see larger numbers than usual refusing to ever pull the lever for Trump.

Mind you, those same people ALWAYS beat the drum for "get behind our loser candidate" when their guy wins the nomination.

Them refusing to vote for Trump kills the GOP stone cold. Because you can't have one small group ALWAYS get their way on nominations and refuse to vote if somebody else does. It will make people like me say "Why should I vote for YOUR shit candidate if you won't vote for anybody you don't like for 'unity'?"

You lose a lot of base, reliable voters with Trump and gain some mushy independents who like a reality tv guy saying outrageous things but may not actually show up to vote 9 months from now.

You get that Rubio.

Why should I vote for a total squish on immigration? What is in it for me?

Michael K said...

"I could never vote for Hillary but I see little if any upside voting for Trump."

If Trump wins in a landslide, which I think it not impossible, this sentiment if expressed loudly enough and often enough, will be enough to cost conservatives a lot.

Feel free to vote as you please but loud talk is probably counterproductive.

But virtue signaling is very popular these days on both sides.

jacksonjay said...


The bottom line is that there is no way to know what you're gonna get with Trump. Like Jimmy Carter said, he's malleable.

Drago said...

Brando: "You don't actually know that, you assume it--and I don't see any of the GOP candidates taking an "open borders" position."

Do not be so hopelessly naïve. You're correct. None of the GOP candidates are taking "an "open borders" position" in public. But we all know from experience that is precisely where the establishment candidates are going. And we know this from experience.

So try selling that one elsewhere.

And again, immigration trumps (all puns intended) all other issues. By orders of magnitude.

So I'm not really interested hearing about the other issues since they will all be rendered utterly moot as political issues once the left completes it's work in importing have the 3rd world to the US as new voters.

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "The bottom line is that there is no way to know what you're gonna get with Trump. Like Jimmy Carter said, he's malleable."

Well, as a conservative the one person I always turn to for political insight is Jimmy Carter.

jacksonjay, to what other areas of policy/political assessment do you turn for Jimmy Carters sage advice and guidance?

Drago said...

damikesc: "Just checking, how can anybody claim to be "fairly conservative" and still opt to vote for Hillary over anybody?"

Precisely.

I've had quite enough lecturing to about Trump from "conservatives" willing to pull a lever for Hillary.

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "Drago:

No one is shocked that large donations buy influence. The shocking thing is the faithful seem to believe that Trump is an outsider, playing the system and above it all. Geez."

If you insist on being purposely obtuse then you will always, but only always, fail to grasp what is going on.

Trumps supporters do not believe for a second that Trump is an "unconnected outsider" in terms of business/politics. But they believe, and they are correct, that on immigration policy and political correctness Trump is every bit the "outsider".

If this type of not really hard to discern nuance flummoxes you, perhaps you ought to actually take some posting timeouts.

But do go ahead and continue to completely mischaracterize Trumps supporters and their beliefs. That should really help you in devising arguments to persuade them they are wrong and should change their minds.

"Geez".

Paul said...

"But virtue signaling is very popular these days on both sides."

Exactly! Why I've come to beleive ideological conservatives and liberals are two sides of the same coin and both emotionally arrested. Chuck = Ritmo.

AF said...

In order of Clinton preference: Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Kasich. You could argue for flipping Kasich and Rubio.

Drago said...

Paul: "Exactly! Why I've come to beleive ideological conservatives and liberals are two sides of the same coin and both emotionally arrested."

Yes, of course. That must be it! It's a good thing you are too clever and insightful to fall for anything like those "two sides of the same coin" beliefs.

And you are certainly not emotionally arrested.

You're really quite a guy. Even if you do say so yourself.

Congrats.

Birkel said...

If the Republicans cave and give Obama a Supreme Court pick, it won't matter anyway. What purpose will this election serve when The Court is packed sufficiently?

You lot who claim Hillary is a boogeyman capable of scaring conservatives to vote for Trump are simply wrong. Principles matter. The Washington D.C. machine tosses everybody Leftward. Without principles there can be no resistance.

The bureaucracy will win. It is ineluctable. Leviathan must be destroyed.

Brando said...

"But we all know from experience that is precisely where the establishment candidates are going. And we know this from experience."

You don't trust the "establishment" guys (whatever that really means) when they say they aren't for open borders, but you trust Trump (with his long history of consistency on this issue) and I'm the one who's naïve? Wonderful.

Face it, you and other Trump fans are banking on faith. Sometimes faith is all you have, but don't act like you have anything more than that here.

As for immigration being the only issue, I'll respectfully disagree. Someone who is "great" on immigration can still screw up this country pretty bad. Some of us are looking at more than one issue this year.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"In order of Clinton preference: Cruz, Trump, Rubio, Kasich. You could argue for flipping Kasich and Rubio."

So why is Carson left out? He has the same poll numbers as Kasish and is actually competing in the SEC primary. I think Kasich is just doing MA.

Paul said...

"Yes, of course. That must be it! It's a good thing you are too clever and insightful to fall for anything like those "two sides of the same coin" beliefs."

I merely am observing that the foaming at the mouth NRO conservative hatred for Trump and the foaming at the mouth liberal hatred for GWB fit the same psychological profile so calm down dude.

Chuck said...

Trump supporters seem to admire ruthlessness. Maybe I've been going about it all wrong; simply pointing out all of the stupidities, the hypocrisies, and the deeply unreliable things that Trump has said and done over the past few years and more recently on a regular basis. Maybe the attacks on Trump need to get a lot filthier.

Any suggestions?

Bruce Hayden said...

Rationally, I would think that Kasich would be hard to run against, with his background in Congress followed by being a successful governor. But, I think that he is just too nice. Or, maybe just not willing yet to go for blood. And, thus, probably the one who Hillary would most want to run against.

The one whom I think Hillary would least want to run against is Trump. First, and foremost, he would attack her mercilessly, and get away with it. He bypasses the MSM filter that would let her get away with playing the martyr whenever she is attacked. And, with him the nominee, we would hear, morning, noon, and night, about how she is incompetent (notably as Sec. of State) and, most importantly, is an inveterate liar. And, secondly, he would recruit voters from her camp - most importantly white w/o college (which means that her non-govt. union support (that won her Nevada) would likely crash). But, he is also likely to recruit from the Black and Hispanic communities. And, these voters are more important than the conservatives who sit home, because otherwise they would be Hillary voters, and so essentially count double.

I am up in the air between Cruz and Rubio. Cruz is the better speaker, and can really fire up audiences of the faithful. But, I have talked to enough Dems to know that he is the one whom they just hate and despise. And, even some Republicans. Which means that he isn't going to get very many crossover votes. Maybe even lose them. I see him potentially causing more Dems to crawl across glass to vote for Hillary than would do so to vote for him. On the flip side, Rubio has a bit of a slimy/slippery side. One thing to keep eyes on is the potentially emerging scandal of whether or not he said something different in Spanish on Univision about immigration than he normally says to gringo audiences in English. If it is true that he was promising amnesty in Spanish (while opposing it in English), he would likely scare more Republicans away than he would attract Democrats. He claims that his participation in the Gang of 8 was a mistake. Was he being truthful there? Which is why I can't which of these two Hillary would rather run against.

Sebastian said...

@BH: "I am up in the air between Cruz and Rubio" Many non-Trumpkins are. Solution: Rubio/Cruz. It's time for a deal.

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden:

Rubio definitely did say different things on Univision.

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybe the attacks on Trump need to get a lot filthier.

The problem with Republicans is that anyone who gets too dirty is going to lose a lot of Republican voters. They have lost too many elections by nasty infighting, and that is not acceptable to a lot of them any more.

If he does get the nomination, it is going to be filthy with Hillary. Maybe less so with Bernie, but the fact that she has barely won two of the three contests so far, and everyone on the left is now suggesting that he should drop out, is evidence that her stable of protectors and surrogates is long and deep. It is probably going to be interesting, if Trump and Hillary are the two nominees. Both are nasty, but she needs her surrogates to really go negative. Yes, she is, by far, the nastier of the two, but can't personally cannot make nasty attacks stick (hence the need for surrogates). Making things worse for her, she doesn't have his energy level (and esp. not that of her younger opponents). She would get called out by Trump when she would use her surrogates to respond to him. And, with his ability to go around the MSM, they couldn't do as much to protect her as they usually would and could. I can just see him responding to her surrogates by calling them sycophants, and asking why she didn't say those things herself. Etc. As I said, it would be viciously nasty. But, that is why everyone is stocking up on popcorn.

jacksonjay said...

Drago:

So you don't agree with Jimmy Carter? Trump has been rock solid on his positions?!! Geez again! You might be the only one in America that doesn't agree with Jimmy!

Do you really think Trump can get elected on building a wall (Mexico will happily pay), deporting all of illegals (then reclaiming the good ones)and shutting out all Muslims? Geez again! You call ME naive?

You are probably right about immigration, that is all they (you)really care about. What was it that Ann Coulter said on abortions in the White House? YOU are naive if you think that the genie will go back in the bottle. He can't win on that issue alone! He can't win on being the anti-PC Crusader! He says he'll change as President. Again, malleable. Here's another bottom line. Most Trump supports don't really care about his positions. They are pissed at Republicans, Obama and Hillary! I get that! Not enough! Embarrassed Republicans will stay home.

Last bottom line. I would probably hold my nose and vote for the Donald (it will be hard) because I too believe that Hillary is the greater evil. I will understand that he is malleable and will be unpredictable. He will be pragmatic and make deals, you know he likes to brag about being the deal maker.

Bruce Hayden said...

If the Univision thing with Rubio is true, then I expect that it won't die. One of the things that Cruz is using to try to distinguish himself from the others, and, esp. Rubio, is his claim that he is a man of convictions. He sticks to his positions, through thick and thin. You know what you are getting. And, that attracts a lot of Republicans. This looks like another example of Rubio bobbing and weaving, talking out of both sides of his mouth. And, is custom made for Cruz to use against him, esp. given how much of a hot button item immigration is. And, how hard the two of them are competing for second place.

Birkel said...

What makes any of you think the Bureaucracy will be tamed?

Tank said...

@Bruce

You don't have to go to Univision. Rubio told Sean Hannity in English (after Sean pushed him) that he is for amnesty.

Of course, he did not use that word.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If Trump wins in a landslide, which I think it not impossible, this sentiment if expressed loudly enough and often enough, will be enough to cost conservatives a lot.

Feel free to vote as you please but loud talk is probably counterproductive.


Maybe Trump will put us all in re-education camps? LOL

Gusty Winds said...

Blogger Curtiss said...
She would most want to run against the man who would rather lose honorably than win ruthlessly.

That statement is perfect. And it also explains the current "Trump can't win the general" just like the previous "Trump has capped" BS.

Hillary does not want to run against Trump. He will make a big deal of all her untrustworthy issues, and he doesn't capitulate to the media which is what the Clinton machine and Dems are used to.

He's going to spend 6 months accusing the Obama Justice Department of corruption for not indicting her. He's going to hammer her on being bought and paid for.

She is not likable. He is.

Trump beats Hillary.

Gusty Winds said...

Trump to African-Americans:

1) Hillary will continue to support trade agreements that ship jobs you could have over seas.
2) Illegal immigrants are soaking up social services that are needed in your community.

jacksonjay said...


Trump: "Who knows what was in my head?"

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "So you don't agree with Jimmy Carter? "

No.

Never.

Under any circumstances.

Period.

Glad to hear you trust his judgement. Hang in there "Mr. Conservative".

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "Do you really think Trump can get elected on building a wall (Mexico will happily pay), deporting all of illegals (then reclaiming the good ones)and shutting out all Muslims? Geez again! You call ME naive?"

After Obama anyone can get elected.

QED

And thanks again for your latest mischaracterization of an opponents position.

You are nothing if not consistent.

I wonder if Jimmy Carter would approve of that? I only ask since I know you place such tremendous value on his opinions.

Drago said...

Birkel: "What makes any of you think the Bureaucracy will be tamed?"

If Trump is elected, probably no one save a few targeted areas. Again, who knows what Trump will do?

We know exactly what Kasich and the others will do.

Of course I'm still voting for the Republican regardless of who it is. In fact, regardless of who it is I will send money and work for their election. All in the hope that the Republican will always be better than the alternative.

Drago said...

jacksonjay: "YOU are naive if you think that the genie will go back in the bottle. He can't win on that issue alone! He can't win on being the anti-PC Crusader! He says he'll change as President."

You must be right. Trump could never win running a campaign differently than McCain and Romney.

I mean, what is Trump thinking deviating from that model of success?

Bay Area Guy said...

@Chuck

In my view, you have been a fairly effective critic of Trump among this peanut gallery. Well done!

But, we must differentiate between the primary and General.

The Primary is still undecided -- Trump, Cruz or Rubio. This is a fair fight -- have at it! Each represent a substantial segment of the GOP electorate.

The problem is if certain "emotional" people fail to see that any of these 3 would be better than Hillary. For example, the dude who says, if Trump wins, I'm staying home! Or, unless Trump wins, I'm staying home!

These dudes need to think clearer about what's at stake.

You ask:

Any suggestions?

Here's mine: Fight hard as nails in the primary, with the commitment to vote for any of the 3 in the General. It makes things very easy, much less volatile.

Example: I'm voting for Rubio in the primaries, despite some of his flaws, particularly on illegal immigration. However, if Trump defeats him, well, I'm gonna vote for the Donald in the General and temper any criticisms I have of him.

It is that important to defeat Hillary.

Just my 2 cents.

Big Mike said...

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for levels of open corruption not seen since the Grant administration. But whereas historians concur that Grant was himself honest (though easily duped), there is no question that Hillary would be the first and biggest hog at the trough.

AprilApple said...

Rubio takes it to Hillary - Makes astute observation that the media refuse to ask Hillary about her EXTREME stance on abortion.

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy: "In my view, you have been a fairly effective critic of Trump among this peanut gallery. Well done!

But, we must differentiate between the primary and General.

The Primary is still undecided -- Trump, Cruz or Rubio. This is a fair fight -- have at it! Each represent a substantial segment of the GOP electorate.

The problem is if certain "emotional" people fail to see that any of these 3 would be better than Hillary. For example, the dude who says, if Trump wins, I'm staying home! Or, unless Trump wins, I'm staying home!

These dudes need to think clearer about what's at stake."

Precisely.

Drago said...

Bay Area Guy: "Example: I'm voting for Rubio in the primaries, despite some of his flaws, particularly on illegal immigration. However, if Trump defeats him, well, I'm gonna vote for the Donald in the General and temper any criticisms I have of him."

In my case, I'm voting for Cruz, but if Rubio or Trump or Kasich or anyone else wins the Repub primary I am all in for that candidate. Immediately. Overnight. Vociferously.

For all the obvious reasons....which apparently elude many.

AprilApple said...

Would Trump go after Hillary like this? No way.

Unknown said...

Kasic/Rubio pretty much tied. I expect she feels she can rattle Rubio and she probably can. Kasich not so much but he is a pipe dream and really shouldn't be in the discussion.

Then Cruz. She thinks correctly that she can paint him as an idealogue, which he is.

Then Trump. I think I would buy tickets for this one.

darrenoia said...

All of the people incredulous that some conservatives would consider staying home or voting for Hillary over Trump: don't be incredulous. See that this is exactly the problem with Trump. He is no different than Cruz in that he energizes greatly a plurality of the base that will never get him over the hump in an election.

Personally, in a Trump vs. Clinton race I very likely wouldn't bother to vote. I live in California, so my Republican vote is worthless anyway, but I went out on principle the first time I was eligible to vote for Romney. Hell, I even donated money for the first time in my life because Obama was that bad and in need of stopping.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump, well... on the one hand, you would have a serial liar incapable of honestly answering questions for your president. You'd have someone incompetent to lead. You'd have someone guaranteed to appoint ultra-liberal justices to SCOTUS. You'd have someone who would do nothing to defend religious freedom or save the lives lost in abortion.

And on the other hand you'd have — you can't even tell who the first hand was, can you? And that's the problem for conservatives.

Trump appeals to anti-immigration conservatives and people who hate political correctness. I certainly fall into the latter camp, but that's not enough to motivate me to become complicit in putting Trump into the White House. I wouldn't do it myself, but I could see some conservatives pulling the lever for Hillary simply on the principle that at least if she's the one doing all the horrible things to ruin our country, there's a chance the Republican Party might rebound and offer some vestige of hope in 2020.

Fabi said...

As noted above, the battle for the Supreme Court is extremely important when considering Trump versus either Democrat. Their candidates have clearly expressed their opinions on Heller and Citizens United, and it's not a stretch to assume how their court appointees would lean. CU may not drive voters, but any conservative or Republican who doesn't give a damn about the 2nd is neither conservative nor Republican.

Will Trump appoint justices interested in preserving those two decisions? I think so. Will Hillary or Bernie? No fucking way. Any questions?

tim in vermont said...

Hillary will motivate Republicans to vote even if the prospect of a Kasich presidency would not ordinarily move them from their chair.

tim in vermont said...

In my case, I'm voting for Cruz, but if Rubio or Trump or Kasich or anyone else wins the Repub primary I am all in for that candidate. Immediately. Overnight. Vociferously.

Maybe you should tell some of your fellow Cruz supporters to tone down the mud slinging and name calling ans start talking up Cruz's positive qualities, whatever they may be. As far as I can tell, I should vote for Cruz because he is not a "LIAR" or a "golden weasel."

When a monkey throws poo, sure, some of it hits, but mostly the monkey's hands end up covered in poo.

darrenoia said...

@Bay Area Guy: these dudes need to think clearer about what's at stake.

This is entirely the problem. I see nothing at stake in Trump vs. Clinton. Absolutely nothing. Trump won't be able to do anything on his vaunted immigration, and other than that, they're the same candidate. Incompetent, rich, entitled, corrupt, crony capitalists who care more about themselves and their power than about the country. Trump is not a conservative on any issue of substance (excepting perhaps immigration if you believe he believes what he says rather than just being amused by the attention he gets). If Trump wins, we have a (D) in the White House in every meaningful sense except the party endorsement.

Bay Area Guy said...

This is entirely the problem. I see nothing at stake in Trump vs. Clinton. Absolutely nothing

Really? Denying Leftwing control of the Supreme Court is nothing?

Please tell me you're not a conservative.

Drago said...

darrenoia: "This is entirely the problem. I see nothing at stake in Trump vs. Clinton. Absolutely nothing"

Well, then you are too far gone to bother with.

Birkel said...

tim in vermont:

My persistent question is: who, among the Republican candidates, will attack the power center of Democrat control?

That power lies in the Leviathan Bureaucracy.

I believe Cruz to be that man.

damikesc said...

Face it, you and other Trump fans are banking on faith. Sometimes faith is all you have, but don't act like you have anything more than that here.

My willingness to vote Trump (again, Cruz guy here) is because he hasn't lied about immigration yet.

Rubio did. Amazingly badly. Carson is unelectable. Ditto Kasich. Cruz is really solid on it as well. I have 3 valid choices. 2 are great on the biggest issue. My preference is great on all issues and is incredibly consistent.

Mind you --- "conservatives" oppose HIM, also.

As for immigration being the only issue, I'll respectfully disagree. Someone who is "great" on immigration can still screw up this country pretty bad. Some of us are looking at more than one issue this year.

You can try and fix elevated blood pressure and a separated shoulder --- but until that gaping chest wound is fixed, the rest is irrelevant, no?

Rationally, I would think that Kasich would be hard to run against, with his background in Congress followed by being a successful governor. But, I think that he is just too nice. Or, maybe just not willing yet to go for blood. And, thus, probably the one who Hillary would most want to run against.

People discuss how "unlikeable" Cruz is...while Kasich is sitting there as the most sanctimonious douchebag in the race with the most readily punchable face. His Medicare expansion is an economic boondoggle and kills his cred as a deficit hawk. His defense for his actions are just painfully clunky.

All of the people incredulous that some conservatives would consider staying home or voting for Hillary over Trump: don't be incredulous.

If you're considering it, you're not a conservative. Plain and simple. There is no middle ground on it.

Maybe you should tell some of your fellow Cruz supporters to tone down the mud slinging and name calling ans start talking up Cruz's positive qualities, whatever they may be. As far as I can tell, I should vote for Cruz because he is not a "LIAR" or a "golden weasel."

Cruz has taken great heat fighting for conservative values in Congress. He's the smartest guy in the campaign by a good margin and isn't likely to flop on issues.

Jonathan Graehl said...

jacksonjay, i don't see it that way at all: Is the buyer any less corrupt that the seller in a dirty deal?

the buyer represents some interest. we may wish the buyer's interest were more closely aligned to ours, and complain if it's not.

the seller sold the public on the idea that she was representing their interests. the moral pressure+punishment more properly goes here.

i'll partially agree: we should punish both ends (and we do, when it comes to folks stupid enough to explicitly bribe)

Donating to candidates in order to have access makes Trump the ultimate insider.

that the best you got?

Jonathan Graehl said...

public servants swear oaths. if that means anything. a common defense is "i took their money and gave them nothing", which i assume HRC will stick to.

Birkel said...

Some people who are considering staying home are not in competitive states.
If you stay home in Connecticut, I understand. If you stay home in Ohio, I question your sanity.

Jonathan Graehl said...

trump chose to build in cities. i can't imagine a more punishing environment for investment - the zoning permissions alone are a huge headache, to say nothing of union labor and subcontractor skimming. of course he bought politicians. how else does that stuff get built? this somewhat uniquely prepares him to address corruption w/ credibility (not that i can imagine him making any lasting dent in the perennial problem).

Just Mike said...

Anyone taking on the Dowager Queen had better be ready to get bloody, no one is going to "nice guy" their way into the Presidency against her. IMO that disqualifies Kasich and Rubio.

rcocean said...

Anyone who refuses to support the Republican nominee is handing over Control of the SCOTUS to the extreme left wing.

No conservative would do that.

AprilApple said...

"The economy does better under the Democrats." "I like universal healthcare." "Hillary Clinton is a terrific woman. She's a really good person."

"You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that."


--Donald Trump.

2012 =/-

Bob Boyd said...

This kind of funny.

'Winter is Trumping'

https://youtu.be/I0tE6T-ecmg

Bay Area Guy said...

Primary:

Fight hard. Argue for Trump. Argue against that dastardly GOP establishment. Argue against those amnesty-granting wussies, like Rubio. Argue for Cruz, against that loud-mouth, toupee wearing Reality TV star. Argue for Rubio, a moderate sane voice who can win the General. Have at it. Throw combos, stick and move.

General:

Make nice-nice. Calm down. Breath deep. Exhale. Group hug. Focus on the objective - to defeat Hillary. Support whoever wins the above-brawl.

I say -- vote Rubio in the primary. He's sufficiently conservative, he's not gonna go amnesty on us after taking his lumps for the Gang of 8, he wins Florida a must-win state, and, he has the more modest tone of the 3 to win some of the mushy middle, which is necessary to win the whole enchilada (270 Electoral Votes.)

Ahh, I feel much better now:)

Brando said...

"You can try and fix elevated blood pressure and a separated shoulder --- but until that gaping chest wound is fixed, the rest is irrelevant, no?"

Yes, but where we differ is which problem is the gaping wound and which is the separated shoulder (though I think we have several gaping wounds). I actually trust Rubio more on immigration because he got so burned on the issue (and likely would lose the nomination because of it), while Trump's supporters have demonstrated that nothing he could ever do would make them hold him accountable. If Trump or Rubio decided it was in their interest to backtrack on that issue, which one do you think is more likely to get away with it? You may think Rubio because he'd have establishment backing, but I think that's less than it used to be and Trump's fans care more about the man himself than what he stands for (judging by how much he sways with no bad effect).

You could probably sum up the arguments in this thread as a matter of trust. Some trust Trump no matter what, some never will trust Trump no matter what, and yet again others could be persuaded to trust him.

"Maybe you should tell some of your fellow Cruz supporters to tone down the mud slinging and name calling ans start talking up Cruz's positive qualities, whatever they may be. As far as I can tell, I should vote for Cruz because he is not a "LIAR" or a "golden weasel.""

What kind of Republicans would they be if they didn't tear down everyone else, leaving a hobbled candidate and divided party just in time for the general election? Christie is the perfect example. Goes in there, takes a cheap shot at Rubio (because you'd be dense if you didn't realize that anyone who speaks to different groups several times a day will have packaged sound bites), and leaves the race two days later. Class act.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

"This is entirely the problem. I see nothing at stake in Trump vs. Clinton. Absolutely nothing "

Really? Denying Leftwing control of the Supreme Court is nothing?

I'd be willing to bet that there is substantial overlap between the people would Obama would be willing to nominate and those Trump would. Trump doesnt really know anything bout law other than how to get zoning variances and tie people up in lawsuits. So he would consult his moderate liberal sister.


There is no over lap with Cruz and Obama on who they would nominate.

Michael K said...

"Maybe Trump will put us all in re-education camps? LOL"

No, you will just reduce any incentive he would have to pay attention to your issues.

Personally, I think we are heading into the most dangerous period since 1938.

The solid conservatives in England dismissed Churchill was "unsound." He was considered a cad and something of s traitor to his class.

Is Trump Churchill ? No, but the comparison is interesting. I have studied Churchill since college.

I don't know what Trump would do as president but I do know what Hillary would do and the people I supported as conventional GOP candidates are gone.

Michael K said...

Quite a few Trump experts here this morning. I have no idea how you got to know so much about his mind.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Brando

Christie is the perfect example. Goes in there, takes a cheap shot at Rubio (because you'd be dense if you didn't realize that anyone who speaks to different groups several times a day will have packaged sound bites), and leaves the race two days later. Class act.

That's exactly right. He hammers Rubio on style, not policy. He weakens Rubio in NH, but comes in 6th himself and then quits afterwards. What a maroon.

A Democratic operative could not have done a better job of hitting two birds with one stone.

I fear that Trump, on occasion, engages in similar tactics. But, at the end of the day, if Trump somehow upsets the establishment to get the nomination, he would be far, far more preferable than than witch, Hillary. There is no doubt about that (in my view.)

The Cracker Emcee said...

"But there really aren't any issues beyond immigration. If the dems get their way, this entire republican experiment in freedom and self-government will essentially be over with all that's left being the mop-up operations."

This.

"Either Trump will turn out to be a surprisingly good President or he'll burn the entire corrupt edifice to the ground. I am ok either way."

And this.

If you don't understand how many people feel this way then you haven't been outside your bubble in some time. Trump saw the opportunity and took it. That's what he does. Cruz, Rubio, and Bush played the old Rovian game and were rewarded for their lack of audacity accordingly.

Leora said...

I'm pretty sure she wants to run against Rubio since the mainstream media is promoting him relentlessly. He's a very similar persona to the boyish Rick Lazio who she beat for Senate in NY by convincing him not to be mean to the girl. Trump,Cruz or Kasich would give her a harder time.

Leora said...

Also she can get to his right on immigration because of his poor judgement in joining up with the Gang of Eight,

Drago said...

Brando: "You could probably sum up the arguments in this thread as a matter of trust. Some trust Trump no matter what, some never will trust Trump no matter what, and yet again others could be persuaded to trust him."

Again, mischaracterizing the position of your primary opponents is no recipe for gaining insight or identifying potential points of leverage.

But after all this and at this point, whatever.

Drago said...

Most of Trump supporters don't necessarily trust Trump, but they do know, and have been proven correct many times over, that they cannot begin to trust the establishment types.

And this is the fault of the establishment types.

Completely.

Because they lied to the base over and over and over again.

jr565 said...

cubanbob wrote:

Are you serious? You would vote for a grifter, criminal, traitor and half-out of the closet communist over Trump?

If my choice was sanders vs. Trump I'd vote Trump. But recognizing that he is far and away the worst candidate the Repubs have foisted on us in a while. ANd I live in a blue state, where its a foregone conclusion that the dem will win. So if I didn't actually vote it wouldn't really matter. And so, I probably would't physically vote. I'd have my stated preference though.
Would YOU vote for the nominee if it was Rubio? I'd rather the nominee be Rubio than Trump, that's for sure.

Christy said...

Will Trump go all out against Hillary? She who can carry a grudge like no one else? She who is vindictive as hell? He's a successful business man who works all the angles. Is he willing to live with the consequences of, perhaps, losing a nasty battle with her? A gentlemanly loss leaves his brand and empire intact, don't you think?

jr565 said...

Bay Area Guy wrote:
I say -- vote Rubio in the primary. He's sufficiently conservative, he's not gonna go amnesty on us after taking his lumps for the Gang of 8, he wins Florida a must-win state, and, he has the more modest tone of the 3 to win some of the mushy middle, which is necessary to win the whole enchilada (270 Electoral Votes.)

Plus, he's young and he's a latino. If he chose Nicki Hallee it woudl be the first latino woman ticket against the OLD etablishment democrat. As far as identity politics go, that would negate one of the primary cards that dems would play. namely that the repubs are the party of racists. In terms of his moderate views, that would actually play well in the general. Unlike many in Washington he TRIED to work with the other side on immigration reform.All the hard core repubs are saying he's a squish so he's not quite as extreme as say Ted cruz.
But repubs, so long as they keep congress can basically keep him honest.

Michael K said...

I have been thinking about Trump in comparison to Churchill. Not that I think he is Churchill but few recall, or ever knew, how hated Churchill was by the Conservatives. He was "unsound" by conservative standards and was considered a cad and a traitor to his class.

His social circle was what used to be called "Cafe Society" and not at all the British upper class "weekend party" circles. His mother was a raffish coquette with multiple lovers. His father died of syphilis.

He switched parties from Conservative to Liberal over India, then switched back to Conservative where he was unwelcome.

He was given to rather rude opinions of his rivals, calling Attlee "A modest man with much to be modest about."

When Chamberlain returned from Munich to triumphant welcome, Churchill said,

“I will begin by saying what everybody would like to ignore or forget but which must nevertheless be stated, namely, that we have sustained a total and unmitigated defeat, and that France has suffered even more than we have.”

“We in this country, as in other Liberal and democratic countries, have a perfect right to exalt the principle of self-determination, but it comes ill out of the mouths of those in totalitarian states who deny even the smallest element of toleration to every section and creed within their bounds."

“It is the most grievous consequence of what we have done and of what we have left undone in the last five years - five years of futile good intentions, five years of eager search for the line of least resistance, five years of uninterrupted retreat of British power, five years of neglect of our air defences.”


When, after the war began, Chamberlain asked him to become First Lord of the Admiralty, that was a distinct lack of warmth in Parliament. When, after Germany invaded France, he was asked to become Prime Minister, there was real risk that the Conservatives who hated him, would rebel.

Read John Lukacs' book, Five Days in London, May 1940 to see how close it was. Had there been no Second World War, Churchill might well have remained a washed up politician who time had passed by.

Had we not gotten so far from our principles and betrayed by the GOP, I doubt Trump would ever be considered.

damikesc said...

Yes, but where we differ is which problem is the gaping wound and which is the separated shoulder (though I think we have several gaping wounds). I actually trust Rubio more on immigration because he got so burned on the issue (and likely would lose the nomination because of it), while Trump's supporters have demonstrated that nothing he could ever do would make them hold him accountable.

Rubio STILL won't back off amnesty. I trust him as well. I trust he'll do an amnesty program, assuming that THIS time...it will work.

You could probably sum up the arguments in this thread as a matter of trust. Some trust Trump no matter what, some never will trust Trump no matter what, and yet again others could be persuaded to trust him

I'll repeat myself: Trump hasn't lied about it yet. Might he lie? Sure.

But he hasn't as of now.

Rubio did. He ran on an anti-amnesty platform and then "changed". He also still has that abhorrent collegiate date rape law he co-sponsored.

If there's a chance both might lie, I will be more wary of the one who has before. Not the one who has not.

Presidents can't end abortion. SCOTUS has seen to that.

Do I care if the rich get taxed? Most of them vote Democratic so let them suffer for poor decisions.

A lot of people don't recognize how badly burned a lot of us were with the elections of 2014. We watched Boehner move Heaven and earth to get bills passed supported by Dems while --- gosh darnit --- he couldn't do much with conservative bills. We saw McConnell fuck over the conservatives hard.

They ran on a platform and completely abandoned it before 5 months were up. That killed trust completely. They have none. And anybody they like becomes suspect. Honestly, if the GOP wanted to kill Trump, they should've had Boehner and McConnell cut an ad supporting him.

Brando said...

"Again, mischaracterizing the position of your primary opponents is no recipe for gaining insight or identifying potential points of leverage."

I'm mischaracterizing Trump fans by suggesting they trust him? I think that's a pretty uncontroversial statement.

"Plus, he's young and he's a latino. If he chose Nicki Hallee it woudl be the first latino woman ticket against the OLD etablishment democrat. As far as identity politics go, that would negate one of the primary cards that dems would play. namely that the repubs are the party of racists. In terms of his moderate views, that would actually play well in the general."

I think the youth/Latino thing helps, not that the Clintonites wouldn't try to demonize him. (And while they demonized Romney, keep in mind Romney didn't make it too hard with his persistent gaffes, e.g., "I like to fire people"--even in context, don't put those words together in that order!) The thing is their scare tactics have a lot of wear on them, and will scare fewer voters. More important about Rubio is he's a solid speaker, and very disciplined--if he's on message the scare tactics won't work as well. (Someone like Christie, who comes across as a blowhard, would be easier to turn voters against)

Rubio really isn't a moderate--if he were nominated, he'd be the most conservative nominee since Reagan at least, so his appeal to the center will depend on tone and how well he sells the conservative case to the middle. The fact that the pundits all seem to accept this idea he's the "moderate" in the race just shows how much tone can matter.

The hardest part for any Republican will be holding the coalition together. The Dems are very good at making uncomfortable bedfellows for the sake of defeating the greater enemy. Republicans seem to think their greatest enemy is in their own party.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

So Atlantic City was Trump's Dardanelles, eh?

The only thing Trump and Churchill have in common is that they are males and they got sent to military school by their fathers.

Michael K said...

"The only thing Trump and Churchill have in common is that they are males and they got sent to military school by their fathers."

And the fact that they are hated by "conservatives."

OGWiseman said...

I'd say Clinton would most like to run against Cruz. He's the farthest right and the least willing to soften. He's got some truly, truly outlier positions and is proudly on the record about them. I'd say she'd least like to run against Trump, for basically the reasons outlined in the post. He's completely unpredictable.

Quinn Satterwaite said...

" He's completely unpredictable. "

Yeah he is like a crazed Russian MMA guy who's big move is to immediately charge across the ring and attempt a head kick right off the bat. As long as he doesnt connect, the wild undisciplined style is eventually his undoing.


" And the fact that they are hated by "conservatives."

Then who were these voters who kept electing him as an MP for 20 years?


Original Mike said...

"I'll repeat myself: Trump hasn't lied about [amnesty] yet. Might he lie? Sure."

You better hope he lied, because his stated plan is to send illegals home then let the vast majority of the good ones back in.

Michael K said...

"Then who were these voters who kept electing him as an MP for 20 years? "

Churchill ? The Conservatives tried to oust him at one point from his seat in Parliament. Much of his good reputation was post-war.

Asquith’s decision in 1924 to support a minority Labour government moved Churchill farther to the right. He stood as an “Independent Anti-Socialist” in a by-election in the Abbey division of Westminster. Although opposed by an official Conservative candidate—who defeated him by a hairbreadth of 43 votes—Churchill managed to avoid alienating the Conservative leadership and indeed won conspicuous support from many prominent figures in the party. In the general election in November 1924 he won an easy victory at Epping under the thinly disguised Conservative label of “Constitutionalist.”

He turned to his writing in the early 1930s.

He was thought to lack judgment and stability and was regarded as a guerrilla fighter impatient of discipline. He was considered a clever man who associated too much with clever men—Birkenhead, Beaverbrook, Lloyd George—and who despised the necessary humdrum associations and compromises of practical politics.

That was in 1931. It was in the mid 30s when the Conservatives ran an opposition candidate that required Churchill to hold an open meeting in the district. Most seats in Parliament were "safe" but his was not until 1940.

readering said...

Clinton's weaknesses: age, wealth, character. She wants to go up against the Republican compares unfavorably against her on these measures. The Donald.

Dana Richards said...

Hillary is hiring hate groups to try and ruin trump. She wants to start a new world order and this is what america will look like http://foxnews.com/crisis2100