Posted on 08/20/2015 7:54:38 AM PDT by LS
No offense. That’s why I’m moving to AZ as soon as I can.
There is no excuse for voting for Hillary, if the GOP nominates Satan, don’t vote for Hillary, write in Donald Duck.
the crosstabs show that only 15% of respondents have decided for someone. 19% are leaning and 66% are undecided. It’s soft, very soft. He’s the hot new thing and what he’s saying resonates with people, but not enough to capture their vote in a meaningful way.
Once the lowest candidates drop out his support will sink below that of the remaining candidates. I just hope that Walker and Cruz are still in it by then. Jeb and Rubio will have staying power just due to insider support.
You cannot win without your party’s elites. If Trump isn’t a Clinton stalking horse, then he’ll drop out and support the candidate. If not he’ll run third party and/or attack the nominee handing the election to Hillary! His record is at best one of a NY RINO.
I don’t complain about the polling methods of any poll. For a poll to matter it needs to be of Likely Voters identified by their voting history, not self-identified. Secondly, primary voters are a very small subset of general election Likely Voters.
The crosstabs indicate very soft support for any candidate which is expected at this early point. You need some more objective perspective. 538 is a libby site, but their analysis is good. Silver knows his stuff, despite being stupid enough to be liberal.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/
Nope, you don't need the party's "elites" to win. Reagan did it, TR did it before him, and Jackson did it before him. Not an everyday occurrence but not unusual, either. And once the elites see their boy won't win, which he won't, some, if not most, will grudgingly move to the person they hope to influence.
It should really start to dawn on some of you anti-Trumpsters that, in fact, he has thought this out. His strategy of focusing on the SEC could very well wrap up the nomination early. Obama could count on the "superdeletates" to save him from Hillary's actual primary wins, but the supers in the GOP are a much smaller percentage, and will come too late to matter.
All of that completely ignores the money: Trump has more than Rubio, Kasich, Bush, Walker, and Cruz put together---BEFORE he even starts spending his own money because he gets massive free coverage they can't hope to match.
Oh, and those "unfavorables." That is a holdover from the "Apprentice" and it's not what you think. Those are "negatives" the way the Undertaker in WWF had "unfavorables," but everybody wanted him there. He sold as many toys as anyone. It was hip to say they didn't like him, while "voting" for him.
So, feel free to quibble about this poll or that, but it smacks of silliness at this point when they all, no matter what methodology, point to the same thing: a Trump nomination.
I’m not anti-Trump, but anti-RINO. Reagan was already a proven conservative. Which TEA Party groups has he supported? Which pro-life initiatives has he funded with his $400 million annual income? How much did he give to the Minute Men?
I too like the fact that he’s moved the narrative, but he’s a big government guy. He likes Kelo. He’s not the conservative we’ve been waiting for. If he’s the nominee you’ll be supporting a candidate who is at best a Giuliani-like RINO and at worst a Democrat.
Every policy position he’s taken calls for more, not less government. That’s the problem, Larry, too much government. The warning signs are all there. We don’t get back to the republic by replacing their egomaniac dictator with one of our own, particularly when he’s not a conservative.
But we're way past Ted Cruz conservative play-by-the-rules/inside-the-beltway candidates. The situation is so drastic, we need someone who can grab control of this runaway stage and turn it.
At this point it's only, to me, a matter of who can actually change anything, not how conservative or not conservative he is. And we sure don't get back the Republic by handing it to the amnesty crowd---which either in Hillary, Marco, or Yeb will be the alternative. Cruz is not going to get the nomination and even by some stretch if he ever won the presidency, he would be so boxed in by the establishment, he wouldn't achieve anything.
So, if applying litmus tests at this point is your answer, go for it.
The litmus test retort is thin cloth. We have to have some standard for observation. We’ve recently had a ‘change’ candidate and we got more and worse government. What change exactly will your candidate create?
More than yours, that’s for sure, because the non-Trump candidates have no chance of changing anything.
Walker has made major changes that will continue to resonate long after he’s gone. He’s changed a lot of governor’s minds and even in Illinois Dems are moving closer to his approach. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422869/scott-walker-interview-unfiltered-solid-conservative
The above interview shows just how much he’d like to divest from the federal gov back to the states. We won’t get there in one fell swoop, nor will DT get us there. He’s for big government.
I agree Walker is a very good governor. I don’t think he has the ability to ramp up to a larger vision.
Fair enough and I hope that Trump is at least sincere. We’ll know soon enough. Pray for the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.