Gaffes that would ruin Trump

Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination has been one long ‘drunk uncle’ rant. No matter how insulting, stupid, or offensive his antics, his supporters remain delighted.

Given his resilience so far, the willingness of commentators to assume that he’s rhetorically bullet-proof can be forgiven. Nevertheless, he remains vulnerable. Here’s a list of statements that could destroy Trump’s support and cost him the nomination:

“The Confederate Flag is a symbol of racist oppression.”

“Police violence against young black men is a national disgrace.”

“I’m worried that America no longer attracts immigrants from Mexico.”

“Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

“I’ll have a Venti half-caff soy-milk latte with caramel drizzle, three shots.”

“NASCAR isn’t a real sport.”

“Kanye West is a real mensch.”

“I love my Prius.”

“The number of veterans joining white supremacist militias is a legitimate concern.”

“This isn’t a purse, it’s a man-bag.”

“You know who was a great President? Jimmy Carter.”

“The most dangerous threat facing America is climate change.”

“This calf injury gives me trouble in down-dog.”

“I promise that my running-mate will be Jewish.”

“Nashville is for sell-outs.”

“What’s with all these gun nuts?”

“Everybody knows that Obama is a Christian born in Hawaii.”

“Guys who drive pickup trucks are losers, really sad.”

“It’s ‘their,’ not ‘they’re,’ you illiterate troll.”

“You can’t call it a taco if it’s not in a corn tortilla.”

“Never trust people who Tweet in ALLCAPS.”

“I apologize.”

 

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Posted in Uncategorized
99 comments on “Gaffes that would ruin Trump
  1. tuttabellamia says:

    The one gaffe that would surely ruin Trump:

    “I’M MORE POPULAR THAN JESUS NOW.”

  2. Rob Ambrose says:

    So hypothetically, what’s the procedure for a Trump presidency w/r to his money?

    Has there even been such an independently wealthy citizen become president? What did Bloomberg have to do when he was gov?

    Its not like Trump can justbquit his job. He IS his job.

    • johngalt says:

      Like all politicians, Trump would have to put a substantial portion of his investment assets in a blind trust. One wonders if he knows this yet. Trump is certainly rich, but there are a dozen or more congressmen worth more than $100 million. The first president (Washington, in case you were in doubt) was worth in excess of $500 million in today’s dollars.

  3. Rob Ambrose says:

    The split in the GOP seems pretty solidified at this point.

    You know things are bad down South when evangelicals are for once refusing to make their “Christian values” their main priority. That really was the only hold the GOP establishment had over the base.

    The deal was simple: in exchange for your votes and support on our priorities (union busting, massive tax cuts forbthe rich, cutting social spending) we promise to hold the line on all the things YOU prioritize (abortion, gay rights, social issues, stopping liberalism etc). The problem is, they’ve been making impossible promises and now the base is furious.

    There is no way in this environment that anybody can take Trump. Its almost inevitable. If Cruz couldn’t even sniff Trump in SC hes done for. Rubio is likely mentally adding Kasich and Bush’s numbers to his in his head but that’s wrong. There’s everybreason to think that Trump gets enough of those votes to make a Rubio win impossible.

    Crazy times ahead.

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      I should add, this is undoubtedly a good thing.

      The wealthy elites whose only concern is tax cuts and spending cuts simply don’t have the votes to push their agenda alone. As Jeb just showed us, unlimited money can only go so far.

      There was no other bloc other then southern evangelicals so willing to vote against themselves for their other causes, so the wealthy elites are going to have to start being reasonable if they want to find enough votes to fill their tent.

      • 1mime says:

        I’m going to be the contrarian here: unlimited money can only go so far with “a flawed candidate”. With a candidate with more appeal (think Rubio, despite his lack of substance, he “sounds good and looks good” and he sucks up to the establishment, big.time.), significant money at this point in the campaign Does matter. Think about it: all these candidates have been burning through cash – whether their own or others, and when the serious money – Adelson, Koch and others – commit their enormous capital, it will matter on a practical level. It takes a lot of money to run a national campaign – quality and large numbers of staff, media cost, equipment, offices, GOTV costs, etc etc. If a billion dollars is dumped into the campaign of an “anointed” establishment candidate, “that” will be significant, especially at this point in the process.

        Then, consider this fact: the large numbers of low information voters who form their opinions based upon FOX news are not going to make astute decisions. Their interests are very narrow and personal. They don’t really see or care about the bigger picture. Will the rest of America show up on election day to counter this tide of shallowness?

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Mime, no doubt that money still matters.

        I’m ofbthe feeling thkughbthat there’s a minimum that you NEED to run a national campaign or you won’t be competitive. But when you have that (and Hillary def has that minimum ) I don’t think that additional money will be nearly so effective as it used to be.

        I could be wrong of course, but I think when all is said and done, this cycle will represent several major turning points where the conventional wisdom that dictated politics of the last half century are no longer as relevent, and I think money is one of those.

        Another theme that ibthink represents a new paradigm is the decentralisation of power away from the parties and towards the lone charismatic individual.

        Time will tell

      • 1mime says:

        “Staying power” is important. We’ll have a good chance to assess the importance of big money in this election, that’s for sure. Assuming quality candidates, one wonders how much difference a big bankroll can mean. Your observation about the dynamic of the “individual” is interesting. I see more independent thinkers on the Dem side rather than the GOP side, or , maybe that’s my own bias intruding there. Millennials are definitely moving in this direction but I wonder about other age groups? I’d like to think we will finally, someday, get to an election process where there are open elections that allow one to vote for the candidate they like best, regardless of party. I know, dream on. There are several GOP judicial candidates that I would like to vote for but can’t because I have to vote in the Democratic primary because of the Sanders/Clinton competition. I feel disenfranchised because of the process.

    • Creigh says:

      Maybe “Christian values” aren’t what you thought they were.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I don’t think so. Its all pretty standard stuff: gay rights, abortion, prayer in schools, not teaching evolution etc etc.

        None of the evangelicals who voted for Trump think he’s “one of them”. That’s why the entire convocation erupted into laughter with the ” Two Corinthians” thing; they were all in on the joke.

        They just don’t care anymore. Or at least, they’ve decided that making culture wars their #1 priority is not working for them.

        I grew up in a very strict Evangelical household. I’m extremely confident that the vast majority of evangelicals who voted for Trump have no illusions about his religious beliefs. As opposed to Cruz, who is clearly speaking their language. If I close my eyes when he speaks, I swear I’m back at Church.

        Obviously some are still going to vote the most “Godly” man, but there’s a very significant amount of evangelicals who just have given up on voting that way, and that’s something that’s different from the past few decades.

      • n1cholas says:

        Once you realize that a lot of Christians don’t actually care for what Christ actually taught, and instead default to the Old Testament’s “stone those f-ing kids for being disrespectful to their dad” policies, you’ll understand better what “Christian Values” actually are.

      • 1mime says:

        You’re right about that, Creigh. I long ago became jaded in my view of those who profess Christian principles but act differently.

      • Creigh says:

        “Obviously, some are still going to vote for the most “Godly” man, but there’s a very significant amount who have given up voting that way.”

        I’d like to hope so. The theologian C. S. Lewis wrote this:

        “It is often asserted that the world must return to Christian ethics in order to preserve civilization. Though I myself am a Christian, and even a dogmatic Christian untinged with modernist reservations and committed to supernationalism in its full rigour, I find myself quite unable to take my place beside the upholders of this view.
        I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to the rulers and the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments.”

  4. Creigh says:

    Lifer, you came so close to looking like a genius for predicting Cruz as the nominee. If only Trump hadn’t come out of nowhere to screw things up!

    The downside of this is that Cruz will probably not go away, as he might if he was picked and then thumped in the general election. So maybe your prediction will be right, just four years early.

    • 1mime says:

      I wouldn’t count Cruz out that quickly, Creigh. But one thing might be achieved. It’s entirely possible that TX might field an opponent to Cruz that the GOP establishment will get behind. I’d love to see someone of the caliber of Joe Strauss take his place, but that will never happen. There have to be other, capable, rational Republicans in TX that could be put up against a Cruz…..assuming he fails in his presidential bid.

      • Creigh says:

        Ok, Mime, maybe a little wishful thinking about Cruz there. But you bring up a point about capable, rational Republicans in Texas: when one party dominates (D or R, doesnt matter), the problem isn’t that there needs to be “balance,” the problem is that lack of healthy competition allows extremists and hacks to flourish.

      • 1mime says:

        For the foreseeable future, TX is going to be dominated by the Republican Party. As a realist Democrat whose primary interest is good government, it make sense to hope that the GOP will field a conservative candidate to compete against Cruz to nip his aspirations in the bud. If you look at how little constructive work Cruz performed in behalf of TX in his Senatorial position, it stands to reason that Republicans would want more. Just possibly, this election will provide the justification and the prod for the GOP to do a little soul searching and take control of their destiny – one state at a time. They haven’t been willing to confront the Tea Parties in TX but maybe that will change. As Lifer has stated, it “has” to change of the party will destruct. That could happen anyway and I can’t think of a state with more to lose than TX and for the GOP, that is a big problem.

  5. flypusher says:

    “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

    Which is the absolute truth that needs to be said, but would be the equivalent of Mondale’s 1984 honesty about taxes. Trump’s supporters are mad about those changes that have taken away those jobs, and the lack of any real action by either party. But Trump can’t keep that promise either. I wonder how many of his supporters realize that, and if so, how many will vote for Trump anyway just to flip the bird to the GOP establishment.

    • Creigh says:

      None of Trump’s supporters will realize that jobs aren’t coming back unless he’s elected and it doesn’t happen. If that occurs, no doubt Trump’s excuses will be wonderful to behold. Unfortunately he will probably claim it was because we were “stabbed in the back by homosexuals” or something like that.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I’m personally looking forward to the “guess there won’t be a wall” excuse.

        Not that we’ll get there, but it would be interesting.

        The silver lining of a Trump presidency is the utter confusion his supporters feel when literally nothing he said comes to pass.

      • antimule says:

        I am not sure that even Trump supporters believe the stuff about the wall and so on. I suspect that they are just angry and willing to lash out at the establishment. Hell I hate Trump and I sincerely hope he gets nomination, coz it would wreck the party. No one gains anything by pretending that Republicans as they exist now are sane or beneficial for anyone.

      • duncancairncross says:

        “Those jobs aren’t coming back”
        The reason “those jobs” went to China was that China paid less and management didn’t care

        “Gone are the jobs where you can make $50/hr pressing a button down at the Ford plant.”
        You never could make $50/hr pressing a button – people who made $50/hr at Ford worked hard and had skills

        Nowadays if you want a skilled worker in Shanghai you have to pay MORE than in the USA,

        All it would take would be a small number of changes to your tax laws and one hell of a lot of “those jobs” WOULD come back

        Just look at Germany – those jobs never left

        Even the jobs that did go were only a small percentage of the decent jobs – the biggest problem was NOT “jobs going to China” but the Unions being killed

        I don’t think the Donald will do much to try and fix that
        BUT I am SURE that the other GOP clowns will do less

    • Rob Ambrose says:

      Nobodies ever happy about being made obsolete. Survivors adapt though. That’s why cheap, high quality education is imperative. If education is freely accessible and someone just chooses not to pursue that, then they’ve kind of made their own bed.

      I think globalization overall is a net positive, even if it does have devastating effects on specific industries locally. To that end, NAFTA and the TPP are good things. But that said, I think the gov should be compensating those displaced.

      Subsidize higher education seems like a fair compensation. The GI bill was crucial to fueling Americas post war boom. The same would happen with a highly educated population today.

      Gone are the jobs where you can make $50/hr pressing a button down at the Ford plant. But there are plenty of other high quality jobs that have come in to replace them. We just need a robust education system to train ppl for those jobs.

      • 1mime says:

        Quality, affordable, accessible, relevant education and jobs training is key to it all, Rob. Educate people, though, and they make better political decisions. Is it any wonder that there has been so much effort expended to keep people poor and ignorant?

      • antimule says:

        ” Gone are the jobs where you can make $50/hr pressing a button down at the Ford plant. But there are plenty of other high quality jobs that have come in to replace them. We just need a robust education system to train ppl for those jobs.”

        You are assuming that we can generate sufficient number of white collar jobs. I am not confident at all. Maybe we’ll have to implement the whole Basic Income thing soon.

      • 1mime says:

        Antimule, there are many good jobs in the service industry and skilled trades. We will still need medical staff in many supporting positions, and AC and car mechanics, and plumbers, and even other more menial positions – lawn care, remodeling, home building, child care. This is the fallacy of today’s education thrust, that everyone should aspire for a white collar job. That couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a valid place for other job skills but we have not either dignified these choices or made them accessible for people. Further, we’ve done a pitiful job of re-training people whose jobs have become obsolete. Let’s be an America that embraces a wide range of jobs that recognizes change is occurring and builds our workplace around what’s relevant to the market. People will find their place if one is available for them.

        I have a son who is a CPA selling software programs, and another who is an industrial design engineer, who is running pubs….Both earn very good living in fields for which they were not directly trained. Our daughter is the only one of our children who works in the field of her degree and she enjoys her field and it is still and always will be – law. One out of three is probably about average but the point is that higher education is costly and time consuming. It’s not for everyone although all should have an opportunity if this is their desire and meets their intellectual capacity. Far too many adults who are in dead-end vocations are being offered (or know how to seek) new jobs training that will enable them to make a decent living. That’s got to change.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Not to mention Mime, I believe that the switch to renewable energy which WILL happen over the next few decades is going to be a massive job creation project. The kind of good, solid skilled trades that can’t be outsourced.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a boom tonthe extent of another mini industrial revolution.

        We’re talking trillions of dollars to build out the infrastructure. And of course, once the infrastructure is built, maintenance needs to be done all the time.

        There is reason to be optimistic. We just have to hope that lies like “promoting renewable energy is a job killer!!” don’t take root

    • 1mime says:

      A CNN commentator this morning spoke about how much “free” time the media has given to Trump – at the expense of all the other candidates. Trump is reported to have spent $17 M of his own money thus far. If the media wasn’t providing all this free coverage, he would be forced to spend more of his own money to attain the same level of exposure he mostly gets for free in order to compete. Another downside of the one-dimensional “free” airtime is that it allows Trump to get his message out without rebuttal or being pressed for detail. While that fact is obvious to us, it’s a disservice to the American public. Every pundit who is privately appalled at Trump (and Cruz) yet has failed to probe and report on their wildly unsupported rhetoric, is complicit in the nightmare we are watching. Conversely, the media reports in great detail every misstep HRC has taken for the last 30+ years and demands answers. There has to be a higher threshold of fairness in reporting. Top runners will get more coverage, but the lack of substance is deeply concerning and is flat out wrong.

      The GOP establishment is going to have to get serious about calling Trump out on substance, Cruz out on radical, narrow fundamentalist views, and Rubio on his lack of substance. That the GOP hasn’t, is hardly a surprise as their “laissez-faire” attitude about holding the fringe element accountable has led them to this cliff. It’s hard to feel sorry for them except for the potential damage that can befall our country when the political process fails to police itself and our next President could be someone who is far, far worse than the man they follow.

    • 1mime says:

      You mean the candidate that exalts his “directness and truth” about all things – won’t tell the truth about jobs coming back? Tsk, tsk. Or the truth about Mexicoo paying for the wall? Or getting anything through Congress? Or how he “really” feels about morality given his very public personal record in life?

      Do ya think that where Trump has been shrewd is in understanding “what” message his base will accept and what they will ignore? He totally understands his base will not dig deep, does not care about detailed plans, only want are promises and that their gut needs are being articulated? Fly is correct – there is a huge mass in America that is ready to flip the bird to the GOP establishment, and, by the way, if they can screw over all those Black, Hispanic and Asians while doing so? More the better. One.fell.swoop.

  6. Stephen says:

    It looks like Trump will run to the convention. Boy were we all wrong. If at the convention someone is selected by a broker convention and are not one of the two top candidates in votes the GOP base is going to get really angry and radical. It will be absolutely clear they have been con for years. The party will have to build a new coalition to be competitive in the future. The southern strategy is now killing the party in national elections. And as demographics change , more and more local elections too.

    • n1cholas says:

      What do you mean we, kemosabe?

      I predicted Trump’s campaign lasting until the day after the election.

      Trump PERFECTLY represents the Republican party base. It has been designed, nurtured, and raised to vote for candidates like Trump, and this is just the first election where the establishment totally lost control of their groomed shit demon, aka their base.

      This is one of those times where you can look back to LBJ getting the CRA passed in 1964 while lamenting that the Democratic party would lose the south for a generation, as a blessing in disguise.

      And you can also look upon the success of the Southern Strategy as nothing but an extremely extenuated series of Pyrrhic Victories for the nearly non-existent Republican party.

      The best part is watching all of the Republican Establishment propaganda chiefs, from David Brooks, David Frum, and Karl Rove, crying about how this is all someone else’s fault, and, why won’t someone from the establishment make it all better again? F-ing scumbags cheered the base on when it did what it was told, and now they have the gall to upset that the base is out there voting for one of their own.

      • 1mime says:

        The thing that I find so reprehensible about the GOP pundits and really, the media generally, is their absence of spine. Call these candidates out. Ask the hard questions, and listen to their answers, and ask it again if they are evasive. Details matter.

      • n1cholas says:

        The media is absolutely happy to play the BothSidesDoIt™ game.

        As stenographers, the media assures itself cash and status, without upsetting the people who matter – fellow corporations who give them money to sell their wares over the television waves.

        Back when the television waves were considered “public property”, and news programs weren’t designed to sell crap, but to inform the public, you could count on the media giving a shit.

        Today. No. The media exists for itself, and for its fellow corporations.

        You and I are no longer considered citizens, but consumers.

        That the dirty hippies were right all along is hilarious, when you think about it.

      • Griffin says:

        The GOP has browbeated the media into submission to the point of hilarity. “You say 2 plus 2 is four, not five? LIBERAL LIES”. The fear of the media being called non-neutral is laughable because who are they trying to convince? The Republican base already think they’re part of the “liberal media” and unless you literally endorse the GOP every election cycle it doesn’t matter what you do, they will keep believing that even when you give them the benefit of the doubt or use kid gloves on them.

      • 1mime says:

        As much as I disagree with everything about FOX News, at least they let you know exactly what side they’re on. As does MSNBC. That’s really not what I am talking about. I want the people who are reporting politics to dig. To ask the tough questions again and again until they get an answer that they know is honest. I assume most interviewers follow the old maxim: don’t ask any questions that you don’t know the answer to or you won’t be able to tell when someone is lying….which, they do……

      • n1cholas says:

        It’s their war on reality.

        Reality is objective. You can describe what is going on around you, or you can just make shit up, and get other people to agree with what you made up.

        The Republican base has bought into what the Republican party has sold it for the past 30+ years. The Republican base believes that there is a war on Christianity, that white people are the biggest victims on the planet, and that someone, somewhere, is getting one over on them.

        They believe the media is liberal, because the media used to describe observable, objective reality, and it never completely lined up with their own delusional beliefs.

        And now, the Republican establishment, who never bought the bullshit that they sold, using it to keep the rubes angry and pissed off, have lost control of their base. Full stop.

        I think almost everyone can point out that the establishment has lost its base…especially the establishment, and base, if you were to ask.

        And one of the main reasons is because you can only pound people in the head with lies and delusions for so long, before they look around and realize they’ve been suckered. And the base has awakened.

        The base is pissed off enough to realize that if they continue voting for the establishment, they will continue to get screwed on all sides, but the brainwashing they’ve been subjected to means they’ll still view liberals as “others”. But they sure as shit aren’t going with another Bush, or Santorum, or even a Walker.

        They want blood, and Trump is the loudest candidate who uses their language and appears to think the same thoughts.

      • Stephen says:

        Then you were right and the rest of us wrong. Do you really think Trump can win the general if he gets the nomination?

      • n1cholas says:

        Well, I think others predicted the same thing here, and definitely elsewhere.

        I think Trump can win the nomination if he finishes strong and doesn’t require a brokered convention, which might nominate someone else like Rubio/Kasich.

        If Trump is the nominee, it’s possible that he could win, but at this point I’m just not as pessimistic about my fellow Americans to believe it. But my personal beliefs have little to nothing to do with how my fellow Americans will choose to exercise their freedom to vote for the best candidate.

        Can he win? Sure. If HRC is the Dem nominee as she likely will be, and that email finally gets released showing her working with Vincent Foster and Saul Alinksy to coordinate the Benghazi attack, then I can see her losing. Or a health issue. Any number of reasons. Hell, Sanders voters getting pissed and not coming out could be enough, everything else being equal.

      • 1mime says:

        IOW, there’s no sure thing.

        Frankly, if we lose the Presidency to the GOP, kiss the Senate goodbye, too. I don’t see the two going in two separate directions. That’s how much is at risk for both sides and the serious politicians know it.

      • n1cholas says:

        There is absolutely no sure thing when it comes to politics. Everything we can speculate about today instantly becomes null and void if countless events occur that we’re not able to predict, good or bad.

        Serious, pragmatic people realize that while every election matters, it isn’t always about getting 100% of what you want. Sometimes it is about preventing as much as possible that you know will be bad.

        That is what makes me a Sanders supporter, and a yellow dog Democrat. I’m not a lunatic, and until the Republican party explodes or implodes and becomes rooted in observable, objective reality, any and all Republicans are always unfit for any office.

  7. rulezero says:

    I’m just going to state for the record, again, that if Rubio is the GOP nominee, HRC will destroy him in the debates they’re going to have. The only thing Republicans can try to bank on is Hillary Hate. They could nominate a cucumber and it will still pull in a great many votes out of sheer Hillary Hate. I don’t think that’s going to be enough to get the job done, though.

    The thing that will sink HRC is if Bernie’s supporters end up dejected and refuse to vote at all.

    • 1mime says:

      That pesky email problem is not helping and the investigation has not concluded. Given the fact that republican turnout will be great if HRC is the Dem nominee, it really won’t matter WHO the Repub nominee is….GOTV is going to be huge in this election. Don’t count Rubio out on the debate stage. Whereas he’s not nearly as substantive or experienced as H, he is facile with his remarks. I wouldn’t take anyone or anything for granted in this election – that’s not to be negative, just realistic. It is breaking norms all over the place.

      • n1cholas says:

        Rubio is a bag of feathers and everyone knows it. The only way he gets close to the WH is as a VP candidate.

      • 1mime says:

        That’s a bold statement, n1cholas. It’ll be interesting to see how it all concludes, that’s for sure.

      • n1cholas says:

        Rubio has pretty much zero chance of winning 51% of the delegates.

        If the establishment rigs the convention and installs Rubiobot 3.1.4 as the Presidential nominee, expect a total drubbing by the Republican party.

        I predicted that Trump would be the nominee/that his campaign wouldn’t “collapse” until the day after the election. I stand by that, barring a brokered convention that results in the GOP essentially fracturing, possibly permanently (in ways), with some other non-Trump candidate.

        I mean…maybe Kasich can hang in there, take OH and MI and take the momentum, but looking at Trump’s numbers right now at least…it seems that the Republican base is going Trump or Bust…which I think results in the same thing, ultimately.

        Perhaps I’ll be wrong. I’m no psychic, but if you look at the Republican party since the early 1960s, it’s been heading this direction the entire time, with Pyrrhic Victories disguising reality along the way.

      • 1mime says:

        Kasich knows he can’t win. He’s hanging in there purely for VP offers. And, I think he’ll get them. If you’ve noticed, he hasn’t really taken any pot shots at any of the front runners. He’s positioned himself very well and not burned his bridges.

      • n1cholas says:

        Well, I think everyone but Trump knows they can’t win…perhaps except Cruz, because he’s the annointed one.

        Kasish can stick in there long enough to cause a brokered convention if he can take enough delegates in the big midwestern states. If he doesn’t win those, then it’s literally down to Trump, Cruz, and Rubio.

        Kasich would of course love to be the VP, because if he can win, he gets free campaigning by 2024 for President.

        Perhaps Trump makes a deal with the GOP to pick someone like Kasich, or Rubio, in order to avoid a brokered convention, which would almost assuredly result in Trump/X losing.

        Interesting times.

      • 1mime says:

        And, pick up OH, with all its delegates. Kasich brings the “moderate” balance to the ticket and OH delegates…what’s not to like?

      • n1cholas says:

        Kasich has to win those delegates, Trump has to get less than 51% of the delegates, and then Trump has to accept a Kasich rather than picking his own VP.

        If all of those things happen, then perhaps Trump can win. A brokered convention that goes around Trump, I would predict, gets a Democratic tomato can elected.

  8. 1mime says:

    America has a real deficit of individual responsibility where elections are concerned. That’s been working for the Republicans so they have no incentive to do anything different except to continue to suppress votes from the “others”; but Democrats really need to light a fire. Their turn out so far has been less than it was in ’08 with a whole lot more at stake.

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      I don’t disagree, but let’s keep things in perspective. ’08 was a record year for Democrats that we’ll be perpetually disappointed with if we expect to live up to that every time we’re electing a new president. Turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire has been strong. Frankly, I don’t know what the hell to make of what happened in Nevada. Some say the caucus was an absolute mess that either kept people out or had let them leaving out of sheer frustration. Who knows?

      Yes, Republicans have been breaking records in their primaries, but how does that translate into a general election with a Trump or a Cruz at the top of the ticket? You know the answer to that as well as I do.

      What’s important right now is that our candidates’ keep their ground games growing and reaching out to voters, honing their messages and getting ready for November. If things keep a pace as they are, motivation to turn out will come in a thousand different ways, you can be sure of that much.

      • rulezero says:

        I was appalled at the Nevada results. Nevada has 2.3 million people. Bernie and HRC, together, received just over 15,000 votes. That’s just pathetic. Bernie’s “political revolution” doesn’t seem to be manifesting.

  9. WX Wall says:

    “I’m going to tweet everyone to boycott Apple. From my IPhone.”

    “I know you all support me, but we need to ask what can we do to attract African Americans and Hispanics to our movement”

    “Red country? I’d rather stick a fork in my eye than live anywhere outside deep blue Manhattan.”

    “All my business acumen led to less money than if I just put my father’s inheritance in an S&P index fund when he died.”

    “Nascar? I watch Formula 1. At least those drivers know how to turn right.”

    Any more?

    • goplifer says:

      Love the Formula One crack. “You have made me spill my macchiato…”

    • Griffin says:

      “I’m actually OK with some political correctness here or there.”

      “All of my closest advisors will be professors. Preferably from Berkeley.”

    • Oooh, this looks like fun. May I play?

      “I’ve been thinking about it and you know what? We need stricter gun controls in this country.”

      “The only Confederate flag that mattered was this one:”

      “We need at least a third of the Supreme Court to be people of colour, and with that in mind I’m going to appoint Barack Obama to it.”

      “Who cares whose country the oil is under? We still pay the Saudi rate for it.”

      “Ten Commandments monuments next to courthouses don’t go far enough. We need monuments to Sharia along with them.”

      “Having a gun doesn’t make you more virile and manly. A real man is empathic and sensitive.”

      “My preferred pronouns are they/their.”

      “The only thing to be proud of in Southern culture is the SPLC.”

  10. Rob Ambrose says:

    Rubio with the most triumphant 2nd place finish speech ever?

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      Now where have we seen this before…

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Lol new counts have Rubio’s lead cut to 0.3%.

        That would be quite the 3rd place speech he gave.

        And frankly, I think his excitement is misplaced. For him to win he obviously has to bear both Trump AND Cruz and I think either one gets more of the others votes then Rubio does.

      • Ryan Ashfyre says:

        Exactly. Trump still would’ve clinched SC even if every single one of Jeb!’s voters had gone for Rubio, and that’s not even the worst of it. Check out the most recent Florida polling. Even if you take Bush and Kasich’s voters combined and give them all to Rubio, Trump is still kicking the crap out of him. In. His. Own. Home. State.

        How exactly does Rubio make the argument that he’s the Republican standard bearer after losing Florida to Trump by ten or fifteen points? He doesn’t. Does he really want to go through all that?

      • goplifer says:

        Again, unless Trump can rack up 51% of the delegates prior to the convention then none of this matters. Most of the remaining states are more or less proportional. Some big exceptions, Texas and Ohio. Cruz will take Texas. Kasich is likely to be competitive enough in Ohio to win if there are still 4 or 5 candidates. Lots of delegates to go, but we are still likely to be solidly split by March 15.

      • 1mime says:

        I still maintain Kasich will hang in there for a VP slot…..Larry Sabato, U of VA Center for Politics, says it would be a smart move for Rubio to offer Kasich the VP position in order to pull his establishment votes into his corner and pick up the OH delegate count…..It’s interesting to ponder if Carson is staying in the race to be a spoiler for Cruz in retaliation for the Iowa tricks he pulled….If so, it may be the smartest thing he’s done this entire campaign.

    • WX Wall says:

      So the 3-2-1 strategy becomes a triumphant 3-5-3.

      As they say, if at first you don’t succeed, redefine success.

      • Glandu says:

        “we live a wonderful era that solved all its problems by naming a cat, a dog”. Pierre Desproges, France, in the 1970s, but applies to all eras, all countries, I think.

  11. texan5142 says:

    Strange days indeed, Bush out and Trump? Well that vine is climbing the wall of politics in a way that defies logic.

    • Griffin says:

      People keep saying that Trump is representing some new ideology (or non-ideology), but isn’t he just a modern incarnation of paleoconservatives? All of the “major” figures of the paleoconservative movement, from Patrick Buchanon to Lou Dobbs to Phyllis Shafly, have endorsed him. This combined with support from the Ann Coulter audience (far-right who are just fanatically anti-liberal beyond all else) actually makes his success not all that shocking in hindsight, especially since the Iraq War discredited the neocon faction among the base and the GOP shoved out as many members of the moderate wing as quickly as they could. The paleoconservatives were right there to fill in the power vaccuum that occured.

      The combined support of the revitalized paleoconservative movement and some of the more “generic” far-right means he should probably maintain a plurality until the convention.

      What I do find interesting is the paleoconservative movement shifting away from it’s anti-welfare stance and back towards it’s more usual support for limited welfare for native populations, basically like the Dixiecrats or a new spin on producerism.

  12. Rob Ambrose says:

    “We’re gonna bring those jobs back from China folks”

    Trump just summed up his entire platform here. Everything, even the racist stuff, all comes back to this.

    But those jobs are never coming back.

    • 1mime says:

      OTOH, Rob, all those jobs that are being shipped over to China? It’s called: “outsourcing”. I have a sneaky feeling that the Trumpster knows lots of business associates and he is personally going to break their legs if they don’t bring those jobs back…when he tells them to.

      A great point was made on CNN in the analysis of the SC results about the dearth of detail that Trump has been getting away with. They think this will change as the race narrows. It’s time that he fleshes out all these “fixes” he is promising. Unlike being a CEO, Presidents don’t always get their way “just cause” they want to.

      • I think Trump’s base like the lack of detail. Policy-wonkishness is how the elites play politics, after all.

        This may be an illustration of Chris’s point: the methods by which Trump won his 30% have alienated the other 70%, and to capture them he’ll have to do things that the 30% may recoil in horror at.

        Democracy is a tremendously good thing, and one of its side effects is that it makes it very difficult to be a rabble-rouser without eventually becoming controlled by that rabble. Being a demagogue isn’t a long-term solution.

  13. Rob Ambrose says:

    With regards to the original article, how about :

    “…and Melania is going to say a few words”

  14. rulezero says:

    And that’s all she wrote for Jeb. He just suspended his campaign.

  15. Rob Ambrose says:

    Bush is out.

    • rulezero says:

      Is it me, or does he look visibly relieved and joyful to tell his audience he’s done?

      • flypusher says:

        I’m listening on the radio. There’s a lot of sadness and regret that I’m hearing in his voice. It’s cracked a few times.

        Not feeling bad for him, though.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        I never got the feeling that he really wanted to run.

        He probably felt a certain obligation to the family name maybe

    • Ryan Ashfyre says:

      It’s an interesting turn in the legacy of the so-called “Bush Dynasty” for Jeb!’s campaign to have basically flailed the way it did right from the start. This was a guy who spent more money than anyone else and just kept getting kicked in the teeth in Iowa, New Hampshire and now South Carolina.

      Some pundits are going around saying that this wasn’t his time, to which I ask: “Well, when WOULD have been his time?”

      There wasn’t one. Perhaps someday another Bush will try to take a crack at the national spotlight (looking at you, George P. Bush…), but for now the flame of one of America’s seemingly dominant political families has flickered out, at least for the time being…

      • 1mime says:

        I think the loss mattered deeply to Jeb. I also think he was more qualified than Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. He’s a lot like Hillary – just a terrible campaigner. I expect he will find a respected place to use his talents. Too bad W ran when Jeb should have. I am very tired of hearing all of the candidates state how bad the last 7 years have been and how much statue the U.S. has lost in world affairs. Guess I just look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion.

        Kasich is positioning himself for a VP slot. He brings OH delegates and a voice of GOP moderation, if one can believe him. Carson says, he’s not going anywhere…..The voters just told him that….but guess he he heard them differently..

  16. Rob Ambrose says:

    One overarching takeaway from this whole election i think is the slipping influence of money in politics and everything that entails.

    The internet could change politics as much as it did business, which would be a fascinating development. I think it’s a very good thing if politicians value money less.

    As in, what good is that special bundle of cash from the industry lobbyist if that cash is much less useful in reelecting myself?

    • antimule says:

      Unfortunately, it changes it mostly towards the crazy. May or may not be a net win.

    • goplifer says:

      But what about THE PLUTOCRATS AND BILLIONAIRESSSS!!!

      • Griffin says:

        They shift the conversation even if they don’t win. Candidates pander to them even if the money isn’t as useful as they think it it, they just have to THINK it’s useful to do what they want. If candidates had perfect knowledge and could take a step back and realize they don’t need so many major donors then yes, much of the influence of money in politics would go away pretty quickly. But like their outdated attitude towards the economy politicians play politics by the old rules because they don’t understand the society we are shifting towards, if not already in.

      • 1mime says:

        Lifer, you’re CAPITALIZING!!!!!

    • 1mime says:

      Oh, no. Two of the biggest Republican donors, Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Bros have yet to weigh in with their hundreds of millions of dollars. They’ve been waiting for the process to cull out the pack. Now, we’ll probably see them pick their candidate and the money will flow, and it will make a difference.

  17. antimule says:

    I am actually looking forward for Trump to win the nomination. Republican party is corrupt to the core and Trump is the wrecking ball. No point in keeping the pretense that sane folks are in charge.

  18. Rob Ambrose says:

    Bush and Kasich are gonna get a lot of pressure internally to drop out.

    • rulezero says:

      Kasich is banking on making it to Ohio. I don’t think he’ll get past Super Tuesday. Jeb needs to face the facts and admit that he’s completely wasted his donors’ money.

      • Rob Ambrose says:

        Yeah Jeb needs to get out now while ppl still think fondly of him.

        The electorate is just too angry for a guy like Bush this cycle.

  19. Rob Ambrose says:

    Trump with a solid win in SC. No GOP candidate has ever won NH and SC and not been the nominee.

    Some crazy times. Trump really looks like he’s gonna be the nominee.

    If Cruz can’t manage higher then 3rd in Evangelical SC, hes toast. That the only base that he has. Everyone else thinks he’s repulsive.

  20. rulezero says:

    With 3% in, networks are calling it for Trump. MSNBC shows Trump winning in counties in all three regions of South Carolina.

    Not sure if I’d be calling it with that percentage reporting, but maybe they’ve got some exit polls to go on.

  21. Griffin says:

    What’s with the obsession so many Republicans have with Jimmy Carters presidency? You don’t see the Democrats still bashing the GOP over the head with Fords presidency, and Ford was the Republican Jimmy Carter (arkward, uncharismatic, slightly underrated president doomed by economic crisises largely out of his control).

  22. rulezero says:

    Good grief… Per the Google, Nevada has a population of 2.8 million people. With 82% of precincts reporting, the number of votes for BOTH candidates is 10,025. That’s absolutely pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: