Comments on: Election 2016: what might have been

By: Randy

Randy — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 18:34:39 +0000

Have you considered also the number of longtime conservative who would no longer vote for the likes of Romney or an amnesty pusher like Rubio? Forever, the GOP establishment kept conservatives in line with fear of the fear of the democrats. Since 1980 the GOP never delivered a single conservative accomplishment and conservatives were growing weary of voting out of fear. Sure, Trump is not a real conservative, and some of his evangelical outreaches were obviously fake, but his single position on immigration addressed what was currently their biggest issue. The Republican party offered no alternative because it was too in love with immigration (legal and illegal) and thought they could use the tried and true “you’re a racist” technique to shame conservatives back into the fold. They should have known better because every time the brought up amnesty the conservative base rose up. When Trump came out against illegal immigration and offshoring I knew that he would win the nomination unless the establishment adopted the position as well, but the only attempts were late and half-hearted because deep down they are open-borders.

Rubio may have been able to bring in votes from upper class democrats, but no Reagan democrats and also not from conservatives working class republicans. Rubio was always going to be a loser. I suspect that candidate who would be OK with the democrats you mention would have had Rubio’s problem.

By: Kyndyll G

Kyndyll G — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 21:21:52 +0000

And not to say that Artful is loud and obnoxious – that didn’t quite come out as I had intended. The point was, of the vigorous, outspoken Trumpers that were frequenting the forum while there was still a contested race, except a couple of longtime regulars like Artful, the rest have disappeared as magically as they had originally arrived.

Creepy.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:26:30 +0000

Kyndyll G:

Oh yes, I noticed it, all right. They disappeared within days of his clinching the nomination, their task complete.

By: Kyndyll G

Kyndyll G — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 19:20:01 +0000

It’s just a tragedy. Among my many lefty-left friends, none like Clinton. Most were Bernie-or-Bust-ers that are furious at what they perceive to be evil-establishment machinations of the Democrat party and are so let down by Bernie supporting Clinton that they are all but speechless (for the first time in the lives of most of these people). They absolutely don’t want to vote for Clinton and are in the right frame of mind to turn their back on the Democrat party.

And all we have to offer to them for an alternative is Trump, who as Neo said for months is among the least appealing of all of the candidates that once set out down the road on the GOP side. In the end, the disgruntled Bernie-backers and susceptible Dems who feel betrayed by Clinton’s outright awfulness and the party’s pushing of her nonetheless are going to hold their nose and vote for Clinton, in the same we we’re all going to hold our nose and for not-Clinton. It just didn’t have to be this way.

And that’s why some of us continue to suspect there’s something more sinister to Trump than just an offensive, self-centered, completely unqualified egotist who wants to be president. Notice, coincidentally, how all those loud, obnoxious Trump-backers (aside from regular contributor Artful) have disappeared from the forum?

By: Yancey Ward

Yancey Ward — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 15:12:59 +0000

Shelob would likely poll just as well against any of the other candidates that ran for the nomination at this point, and if she actually were running well behind, let’s say Rubio, she wouldn’t be the nominee.

I think the status quo gave the Democrats a possible permanent edge at the national level. The Republicans needed a candidate that is capable of upsetting that status quo, and like it or not, only Trump offered that.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 05:00:26 +0000

PARKER
Final post on this. I agree with your suspicions. What then is our best chance of preserving liberty at this point?

By: parker

parker — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:31:51 +0000

Jim,

I get it that you are holding onto a slippery straw that wishes and hopes djt that will not tilt SCOTUS. But based upon what evidence of his past and present ever changing, second by second writters, do you believe he will be different than hrc? Need I elaborate on the differences of mammals and reptiles? 😉

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:16:52 +0000

Parker,
i don’t know but it has been the pattern.
I used Romney as a default because he is the most recent example.
I think Cruz has a spine but also has knives pointed from left and right.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:00:23 +0000

Cruz isn’t the nominee. I also disqualified Trump because he has no concept of the Constitution. But we know for sure HRC gets a pass and will tilt the Supreme Court.

Someone, maybe George Will, said about Bill Clinton, he may not be the worst President but he was the worst man to ever be President.
Looks like we are on track one way or another to beat that.

By: parker

parker — Wed, 13 Jul 2016 03:59:26 +0000

Jim,

What makes you think Cruz, Fiorina, or Rubio as nominee would apologize? Same goes for Walker, Jindal, and perhaps Perry. Talk about backtracking and reversing course? The donald be thy name. BTW, none of the above mentioned candidates are named Romney.