The Republican field: and then there were—how many?
And then there were seven on tonight’s debate stage.
Seven is still way too many. What on earth is Kasich doing there, except as a foil to annoy us? If you look at national polls, the reason is not apparent; Fiorina still seems to be slightly besting him. Apparently, you can blame New Hampshire for his inclusion.
As far as I’m concerned, it could be just five people up there: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Christie. And a person could make a good argument to limit it to just the first three, although I think it’s premature for that. But I am eager to see the field get winnowed down, so we can finally see how it will shape up when the various wings of the party are not split.
There’s the angry disaffected “burn it down!” (with the “it” being the Republican Party) wing, most of which goes to Trump and some to Cruz. There is the more traditional conservative wing, owned pretty much by Cruz. There’s the somewhat-conservative and somewhat-moderate wing, split among Rubio, Bush, and Christie. The libertarian wing, which one would have imagined would have gone for Paul, seems not to be as interested in him as they were in his father, and I believe a great many of them have been siphoned off by Trump.
Which is the biggest wing, and what candidate can best consolidate that group under his wing? (I’m discounting Fiorina at this point, because I don’t think she can do it). It is my opinion, based on polls that ask which candidate is a person’s second choice and which candidate a person would never consider voting for, that Trump may be getting close to a ceiling on that. But I would never sell him short and say it’s not possible that he could be the nominee. It’s very possible that he could be, but I also see strong possibilities for Cruz or Rubio.
I think Carson will continue to fade, and I see a possible resurgence for Christie or Bush, but I don’t think either has a real chance of going the distance (except moneywise for Bush, which will keep him in the race no matter what his poll numbers are). Of the two, I’d absolutely be rooting for Christie over Bush. But in the end I think it will be Trump for the truculent, Cruz for the conservatives, and Rubio for the rest.
Might be the most interest debate.
With such a small field in the first debate I only hope Carly really rolls out some big ideas.
And I fully expect Ted to shine and slap Trump silly. Ted Cruz, my coffee server!
Interesting debate.
Kasich keeps Ohio out of the Trump or Cruz column. Kasich is a ‘water carrier’ for the GOPe.
Carson unwittingly pulls primary votes away from Cruz.
Christie is Rubio’s backup.
Trump and Cruz are anathema to the GOPe as they threaten its primacy.
cant tell you the agatha cristy book (And Then There Were None) that is based on the original song that later became ten little indians.
you can buy the original at amazon, but i cant tell you the title any more than i can tell you the title of H Rap browns book (before he killed a cop and converted to islam)
i converted it to a tinyurl so neo’ site doesnt have the world come down on it
http://tinyurl.com/yhpl3d3
Artful, I got an error message. Please put your comments on Neo. I always read your comments all the way through.
Hoping for Trump to be “slapped silly.” Inure yourself to disappointment. Ted’s running for Veep.
“There’s the angry disaffected “burn it down!” (with the “it” being the Republican Party) wing”
Oh I think the Trump appeal has now expanded beyond that segment.
Still knocking on doors for Cruz and will continue until caucus day.
Trump has already won the GOP nomination. It’s Trump vs. Hillary. Vile vs. Bile. Not the best choice. America!
Its difficult to slap trump “silly”. Criticism emboldens him, he does not discuss specifics, and he always has the retort “loser” which excites his adoring masses. I have not the slightest desire to see a reality tv presidency, but he is a new phenomena in presidential politics, and I grudgingly admire his ability to deflection..
Libertarians going for Trump? I don’t believe it. I’m a libertarian and Trump is the one Republican I would never vote for. Trump is probably the least libertarian Republican candidate.
I think it will be interesting to see whether the drop-outs endorse another candidate. Carson would probably be very important here.
MDL:
I don’t know what sort of math you learned in school, but the math I learned says Trump is polling around a third at best. If other candidates drop out (and they will), their votes will then coalesce around those people’s second choice. Trump is not a favored second choice, according to polls.
In addition, there have been no primaries yet.
Perhaps you are going on your psychic abilities?
The end time approaches, neoneocon has double posted!
neo,
I can’t recall if you’ve answered this;
If Trump does win the nomination, will you vote for him?
parker:
That’s not supposed to be possible! The comment filter is supposed to block it and send me a message like “I think you just said that.”
I will remove one of those double comments and reprimand the comment filter, and send it to bed without its dinner.
I talked to a very old friend early in the week who worked for many years for Senator Glenn. Of course, he did not work directly with Kasich who was in the house.
But, since Kasich was also from Ohio, and was a Leader, he was very aware of him. The point is that Kasich is still high on his favorite list.
This abomination of a debate series has served the
GOP very poorly. It rewards the loud voice; and
apparently the angriest. The media, which loves
controversy above all else, plays their part.
More thoughtful candidates, recognizing the
game, but not in tune, just come across as strident
when they try to compete with the high volume.
It was madness to fill the stage with people competing for
precious air time, and attention, so early. When “good moments” were the measure of success. The first debate probably should not have been scheduled until after South Carolina; and it should have been a
small field.
We have already lost good candidates. There
are still a few good ones remaining. I consider Kasich to be among them.
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, I’ve responded to that question several times.
I can’t find any of them at the moment, but the gist of it was this:
I refuse to accept the possibility and will cross that bridge when I come to it. It would be one of the most distasteful tasks of my life to contemplate voting for either Trump or Hillary—or to know that, whether I vote or not, ONE of them will be president if those are the two nominees.
I find that incredibly depressing, and I’ve already been depressed about the state of the country for many, many years. It is difficult for me to imagine voting for either without puking. And it is difficult for me to imagine not voting.
So, even if I suspect that I know what I would probably do, I refuse to seriously confront the possibility.
Oldflyer:
I disagree about Kasich, but I agree about the loss of Walker and Perry.
parker: thanks from a cruz fan.
Neoneocon, too late, too little, filter or no filter. The end days are upon us. 😉 And as far as a choice between hrc or djt is concerned, I have decided that a choice between a vampire and a vampire is no choice at all. I will vote (R) down ballot, and vote 3rd party for POTUS. The trumpsters seek to poison the well. Forgive them for they, for the most part, do not know what they do.
KLS,
You are welcome. Our goal is double digits above the donald. Then I will, because I am retired and with the blessing of Mrs. parker, knock on doors in NH. Cruz is the first presidential candidate since Reagan to garner my 100% support. End times.
neo,
You certainly have the right “to cross that bridge” if it should arise. However, your oft repeated rationale that, not voting for a RINO nominee is in effect a vote for the democrat nominee… logically applies to a Trump nomination as well. By your own reasoning, not voting is not an option, nor is voting for any other than the Republican nominee… because there is no alternative to denying the democrats a follow up Presidency to Obama’s.
If Trump is the nominee, you’re prior reasoning would result in being ‘hoisted upon your own petard’ ;-).
parker,
See above. How does neo’s rationale not also apply to your position? Do you actually equate Trump’s egotism and social liberalism with Hillary’s mendacious leftism?
Geoffrey Britain:
Yes, it would ordinarily apply, but only if I believe the Democratic nominee is worse than the Republican one. If I thought the Republican one was worse, then I shouldn’t vote for him/her. I can easily imagine a situation like that, although I’m not saying the present one will be that situation.
At the moment, however, since I detest both Clinton and Trump (for different reasons), I refuse to consider the situation.
“Yes, it would ordinarily apply, but only if I believe the Democratic nominee is worse than the Republican one.”
Given the left’s machinations and direction of the democrat party, given the left’s goals… by what calculus might you ever imagine that any Republican candidate could be worse that the democrat nominee?
A refusal to even consider a highly possible situation is avoidance. Avoidance is based in fear. Fear is natural and may be justified, but avoiding the facing of our fears, places them in control, which is the price of avoidance.
Geoffrey Britain:
If that Republican nominee was lying through his/her teeth. If that Republican nominee was going to become a tyrant. Etc. etc., and it would also depend on who the Democratic nominee was (I’m not sure that Hillary Clinton will be the one).
I’ve certainly considered a Trump/Clinton race in the past. I’ve even talked about it and written about it. I refuse, however, to consider it at the moment, particularly in the sense of answering questions about what I would do, because I don’t have to decide right now. I will think about it seriously if I am actually faced with it, and after hearing many many months more of talk from Trump.
That’s merely sensible. I don’t have to decide about something right now that makes me want to puke, so why should I? Just to answer a question on a blog?
neo,
You are of course, free to do as you wish. We KNOW that whomever the Democrat nominee, they will lie through their teeth, even Sanders, since the end justifies the means.
Fear of a Republican tyrant is misplaced, since the Democrats would vote to impeach in a heartbeat and, depending upon whether the tyrant were RINO or conservative, either RINOS or conservatives would join in that vote. Only if it’s a Democrat tyrant is that remedy absent.
I’m simply pointing out that, if you are to avoid hypocracy, your own rationale leaves you no other choice. I’m sorry if that’s distressing but there it is…
Neo:
“There’s the angry disaffected “burn it down!” (with the “it” being the Republican Party) wing … Trump for the truculent”
The game is the game.
Truculent = Nietzschean ressentiment. It’s just a manifestation of the Marxist method in a strategic application.
Keep in mind it’s not just GOPe being targeted by them for replacement. Mainstream conservatives, other’ed as “cuckservatives”, are also being targeted.
Neo:
“I find that incredibly depressing, and I’ve already been depressed about the state of the country for many, many years. It is difficult for me to imagine voting for either without puking. And it is difficult for me to imagine not voting.”
The game can be neither won nor lost with the vote, although any faction that limits its gameplay to electoral politics all but assures it will eventually lose the game to factions that play the game along the full spectrum of social culture and politics.
Geoffrey Britain:
You really have a low opinion of tyrants’ ability to override the constitutional process (that’s what tyrants do, however), and a high opinion, of Congress (and the right’s integrity), if you believe that a tyrant on the right couldn’t succeed in being a tyrant or would of course be impeached AND CONVICTED and removed from office. Remember that there’s a very high bar for conviction, and tyrants use coercion, money, threats, and blackmail on people to sway their votes.
In addition, I don’t think I’ve ever written anything resembling the thought that people must always vote for the Republican. I have asserted, in the elections that have occurred since I’ve been writing this blog, that the Republican candidates, though,\ flawed, have been so far above the Democratic ones that it is simply no contest, so anyone who voted third party or abstained because of little quibbles with McCain or Romney versus Obama (I had just started blogging in 2004, so the topic didn’t really come up re Kerry and Bush) was casting a vote for Obama, clearly a far worse choice.
If that’s not the case in 2016 (and I have not made up my mind on that at the moment, nor do I need to) then the situation is different.
Very late in coming back to this discussion, and no one is likely to read this comment, but no (!) GB, I will not cast my vote for trump if he is the nominee. Its like asking if I want to douse my grandchildren with gasoline and strike a match. The answer is NO. Hrc or djt? A choice of cancer or cancer.