What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
Problem now is there's too much big money backing too many people despite the party's best efforts. When that happens the base chooses the nominee.
Click to expand...

This is a great testable hypothesis. It certainly didn't happen last time, so I am assuming you mean that 2016 is the first trial for the Deranged Billionaire model.

If it's true, then one of the base candidates will get the nom. I count the base as Trump, Carson, Cruz, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, Jindal, Santorum. Non-base are Bush, Rubio, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Pataki, Graham, Gilmore, Fiorina.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
Base voters don't chart party strategy. The party has one job: get its candidates elected. Once a policy endangers that goal it has to go, regardless of how much the base supports it. Ideologues are only useful when they push winning policies.

Now, it used to be the money that actually controls the GOP had the self-discipline to jettison losing policies. I am having a hard time believing that's changed, because it's never changed in the history of the Republic and as I may have said before I don't believe anything important ever changes. I guess it is possible that the billionaires are a new element in American politics, and that nutbar ideologues are now actually pulling the train rather than riding it. But to be convinced I'd have to see the GOP deliberately follow through on long-term loser policies out of, ahem, "principle."

The people who run the numbers are under no illusions about demographics: a National Front government of the type that the GOP has been drifting towards is a loser in the United States. We're just too ethnically and culturally diverse. The best they could do is control chunks of the prairies and the south, and even the latter is dicey without apartheid laws that infringe black and Latino voting rights. Only a fool would push the Republicans even farther in that direction, and the people who control the GOP purse strings are not fools.

To put it another way, there are hard core conservatives on this board and I don't think any of them, regardless of whether they support these GOP policies, think they are election winners. At best they would probably say "there are some things you have to back regardless of how they poll," which is terrific if you're a private citizen or a politician who doesn't mind quickly becoming a private citizen, but is not the guidance you want when you're actually making the electoral sausage.

I can't believe I have to make this point about the GOP. They taught us this through the long march of 1978-91. How could they forget it?
Click to expand...

Have you been in a cave the past 15 years? The GOP does not care if they alienate the Latinos (like they didnt the Blacks or Women) because the people signing the checks are rich old white men. Seriously look at who is running, look at who is leading and look at who has even a decent shot of winning the nomination. The is not a party looking to unify and bring in people of other races and creeds. (unless they can bring Florida with them or are batbleep crazy like Carson)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kepler said:
This is a great testable hypothesis. It certainly didn't happen last time, so I am assuming you mean that 2016 is the first trial for the Deranged Billionaire model.

If it's true, then one of the base candidates will get the nom. I count the base as Trump, Carson, Cruz, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, Jindal, Santorum. Non-base are Bush, Rubio, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Pataki, Graham, Gilmore, Fiorina.
Click to expand...

Last time around Mitt could outspend everyone which is why everyone knew he would win the nomination. If Santorum had had unlimited resources he gets the nomination.

You kinda sound like those professors at college who have spent so much time in Academia studying the fundamentals of something they havent seen how the real world actually dealt with said thing. Sure the party should have the power to decide but the GOP has no leadership. Their true leader is cash and this year lots of candidates have way too much of it. Add on top you have Trump who is loyal to no one and has a billion or so to blow and you have something the history books never thought possible...
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Handyman said:
Last time around Mitt could outspend everyone which is why everyone knew he would win the nomination. If Santorum had had unlimited resources he gets the nomination.

You kinda sound like those professors at college who have spent so much time in Academia studying the fundamentals of something they havent seen how the real world actually dealt with said thing. Sure the party should have the power to decide but the GOP has no leadership. Their true leader is cash and this year lots of candidates have way too much of it. Add on top you have Trump who is loyal to no one and has a billion or so to blow and you have something the history books never thought possible...
Click to expand...

Stewart has to have at least some regret that he will miss this election season.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

burd said:
Stewart has to have at least some regret that he will miss this election season.
Click to expand...

He isnt gonna be needed, half the candidates do it themselves everytime they open their yap ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

My take is if moderation was the key to winning the GOP nomination someone would have played that schtick by now. Also, coming out against the death penalty for parking violations or saying you wouldn't try to impeach John Roberts over the ACA ruling doesn't qualify you as a moderate. :rolleyes: A lot of lazy pundits want to assume Jebbers! is crazy like a fox, biding his time while everybody flames out. The alternate explanation is the guy is clueless and thinks he can go back in time 25 years to when his father was President and completely forget about his brother's disasterous reign. As has been pointed out, the nutjob caucus (Trump-Cruz-Carson-Huckleberry) is pulling 50% in the polls. The so called mainstreamers (Bush-Walker-Kasich-Rubio) are maybe at 25%. That's a lot of ground to make up.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Kasich seems to be laying low. Waiting for the field to self destruct?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rover said:
My take is if moderation was the key to winning the GOP nomination someone would have played that schtick by now. Also, coming out against the death penalty for parking violations or saying you wouldn't try to impeach John Roberts over the ACA ruling doesn't qualify you as a moderate. :rolleyes: A lot of lazy pundits want to assume Jebbers! is crazy like a fox, biding his time while everybody flames out. The alternate explanation is the guy is clueless and thinks he can go back in time 25 years to when his father was President and completely forget about his brother's disasterous reign. As has been pointed out, the nutjob caucus (Trump-Cruz-Carson-Huckleberry) is pulling 50% in the polls. The so called mainstreamers (Bush-Walker-Kasich-Rubio) are maybe at 25%. That's a lot of ground to make up.
Click to expand...
The last GOP candidate that ran on moderation and won both the ticket and the Presidency was George W Bush. Does anybody else remember "Compassionate Conservatism?"
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

St. Clown said:
The last GOP candidate that ran on moderation and won both the ticket and the Presidency was George W Bush. Does anybody else remember "Compassionate Conservatism?"
Click to expand...


His 2004 win is the blueprint for the GOP IMHO. Run on your evangelical bona fides but also state that you're not here to impose your views on others. Get a decent amount of Hispanic votes so you're not facing insurmountable odds in Nevada or New Mexico (both states he carried). Put away Florida long before election day so you can expend resources elsewhere. Easier said then done, but you can't have a situation like Mittens where you have to run the table in every swing state to win the election.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Handyman said:
Last time around Mitt could outspend everyone which is why everyone knew he would win the nomination. If Santorum had had unlimited resources he gets the nomination.

You kinda sound like those professors at college who have spent so much time in Academia studying the fundamentals of something they havent seen how the real world actually dealt with said thing. Sure the party should have the power to decide but the GOP has no leadership. Their true leader is cash and this year lots of candidates have way too much of it. Add on top you have Trump who is loyal to no one and has a billion or so to blow and you have something the history books never thought possible...
Click to expand...

Maybe. My instinct is that the party will protect its core mission at all costs: say whatever you need to get into office, then transfer resources from the poor to the rich. If they can do it vamping some anti-establishment act, fine. If they can do it by betraying the crazies, fine. Nothing the GOP says means anything, we'll have to see what they do.

It's fascinating to watch, anyway.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

St. Clown said:
The last GOP candidate that ran on moderation and won both the ticket and the Presidency was George W Bush. Does anybody else remember "Compassionate Conservatism?"
Click to expand...

It seems to me a Texas oil man with swagger and son of GHWB was going to win the base regardless. As I remember, compassionate conservatism came during the run off against Gore.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

5mn_Major said:
It seems to me a Texas oil man with swagger and son of GHWB was going to win the base regardless. As I remember, compassionate conservatism came during the run off against Gore.
Click to expand...

It did. It was a classic feint to the center during the general. Once he lost, er, was appointed by the GOP members of the Court, it was back to the far right again.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

I don't recall Bush saying anything in the primary that he went back on in the general. He was pretty upfront about 1) passing tax cuts for the rich although he cloaked it in "its the people's money" BS while not mentioning it was also the people's debt that we should be been paying down, and 2) he was going to jack up military spending. He also kept hitting the "I'm a uniter not a divider" theme. While his awful Presidency overshadows it, he was quite a good campaigner. No, he didn't mention invading Iraq in the contest vs Gore but I also don't recall him saying he'd do that in the primaries vs McCain. All he did there was accuse McCain of having an Asian love child.... :eek:
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

The "compassionate conservative" label is deceitful in itself, because the "compassion" turns out to be their ideological hobbyhorse that the hand that you hold is the hand that holds you down. Hence, when they defund social programs it's "compassionate." :rolleyes:
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

On MTP when asked about his "birther" misadventure (whatever happened to the crack investigative team Trump dispatched to Hawaii?), The Donald declined to talk about it.

I'd imagine that if the self-proclaimed "great dealmaker who went to Wharton" was asked about how his ego killed a professional sports league (the USFL), he'd have turned nasty and accused Chuck Todd of "not being nice." http://www.salon.com/2011/04/21/trump_tollin_usfl/
 
Re: Campaign 2016 - A Trump l'oeil? Kepler's Laws of Election Motions? Ship of Fools

Rogie21 said:
On MTP when asked about his "birther" misadventure (whatever happened to the crack investigative team Trump dispatched to Hawaii?), The Donald declined to talk about it.

I'd imagine that if the self-proclaimed "great dealmaker who went to Wharton" was asked about how his ego killed a professional sports league (the USFL), he'd have turned nasty and accused Chuck Todd of "not being nice." http://www.salon.com/2011/04/21/trump_tollin_usfl/
Click to expand...
Watching the interviewer hand Trump the $3.14 cent judgment satisfaction check in that USFL 30 For 30 movie, and Trump's reaction, was one of my all time favorite movie highlights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top