Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (3 Viewers)

[squistion]

Also Trump is doing surprisingly well with liberals, per the Suffolk poll.

Yeah, and another poll shows Bernie Sanders drawing 40% of Latinos versus Hillary (which is amazing in that I am not certain that Sanders even has name recognition of 40% with that group, but I digress).

One off polls months before the elections are a curiosity and fun to talk about but don't mean much (as evidenced by Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, who each were leading in the 2012 GOP race at some point in time according to polls).

 

[saintfool]

Also Trump is doing surprisingly well with liberals, per the Suffolk poll.

liberals loving Trump? he *should* be their preferred candidate.

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

 

[The Commish]

Also Trump is doing surprisingly well with liberals, per the Suffolk poll.

Yeah, and another poll shows Bernie Sanders drawing 40% of Latinos versus Hillary (which is amazing in that I am not certain that Sanders even has name recognition of 40% with that group, but I digress).

One off polls months before the elections are a curiosity and fun to talk about but don't mean much (as evidenced by Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, who each were leading in the 2012 GOP race at some point in time according to polls).

Unless, of course, the polls are in favor of my horse. Amiright?!

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

Which Silver attributes to being the major reason for his current polling numbers (from the article at the link):

But the polling points to another, less sexy story: First, Republican voters dont rate Trump as all that conservative, and second, hes actually polling about equally well among all sections of the GOP. In Trump speak, this means he is loved universally; in reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trumps support suggests its due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors.

 

[timschochet]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Which polling? Which aspect of immigration - the wall, the need to manage it, the need to limit it, deportation of criminals, what?

 

[timschochet]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

Which Silver attributes to being the major reason for his current polling numbers (from the article at the link):

But the polling points to another, less sexy story: First, Republican voters dont rate Trump as all that conservative, and second, hes actually polling about equally well among all sections of the GOP. In Trump speak, this means he is loved universally; in reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trumps support suggests its due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors.

And I think Silver is wrong. It's not name recognition, but illegal immigration. That's what's driving these polls IMO.

 

[timschochet]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Which polling? Which aspect of immigration - the wall, the need to manage it, the need to limit it, deportation of criminals, what?

I would say all three. The people who support Trump want a wall, they don't want amnesty, and they want politicians willing to discuss the issue, rather than either support amnesty or pretend the issue doesn't exist.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Not necessarily. Polls are funny things. How a question is phrased matters. The ordering of the questions matters.

I'm curious if the personal ideology question came before or after the presidential question occurred. If someone identifies as "liberal" before the presidential question is asked does it become a case of non being able to risk the troll answer of Trump?

Is the source random digit dialing? Is the source actual lists of registered republicans? What methods are being used in terms of oversampling to balance out the sample to be more like the likely electorate?

Is some of it just a "me too" effect of him being so much in the news lately that people are saying they support him because he's currently the "popular" answer (a ridiculous but true thing that happens in polling)?

Even if it is trolling is it possible that it turns into real momentum anyway?

-QG

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

Which Silver attributes to being the major reason for his current polling numbers (from the article at the link):

But the polling points to another, less sexy story: First, Republican voters dont rate Trump as all that conservative, and second, hes actually polling about equally well among all sections of the GOP. In Trump speak, this means he is loved universally; in reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trumps support suggests its due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors.

And I think Silver is wrong. It's not name recognition, but illegal immigration. That's what's driving these polls IMO.

I think the support with moderates and liberals is key here. I could see and believe that some moderates and liberals think something needs to be done about controlling the border.... but it's also possible they are just saying, yep, they know Trump, they don't know the others and they like him. Not sure.

Trump has also copped this tough talking bragging 'hard working regular guy talking sense at the end of the bar' routine. He's not at all, but I think people like the persona. People love 'truth to power' (even though it's Power talking).

 

[squistion]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

Which Silver attributes to being the major reason for his current polling numbers (from the article at the link):

But the polling points to another, less sexy story: First, Republican voters dont rate Trump as all that conservative, and second, hes actually polling about equally well among all sections of the GOP. In Trump speak, this means he is loved universally; in reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trumps support suggests its due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors.

And I think Silver is wrong. It's not name recognition, but illegal immigration. That's what's driving these polls IMO.

If that were the case, then Ted Cruz would have done better in the polls pre Trump's immigration comments, as his position is similar to Trump's but without the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric.

 

[saintfool]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Which polling? Which aspect of immigration - the wall, the need to manage it, the need to limit it, deportation of criminals, what?

I would say all three. The people who support Trump want a wall, they don't want amnesty, and they want politicians willing to discuss the issue, rather than either support amnesty or pretend the issue doesn't exist.

You mean among republicans and "independents" probably.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Which polling? Which aspect of immigration - the wall, the need to manage it, the need to limit it, deportation of criminals, what?

I would say all three. The people who support Trump want a wall, they don't want amnesty, and they want politicians willing to discuss the issue, rather than either support amnesty or pretend the issue doesn't exist.

Has the question come up in any of the polls explicitly. I suspect your right in the overall sense of Trump support (that it's based on anti-immigration sentiment) but this sort of breakdown would flesh it out. If split my ideology it also could possibly show that there is a trolling liberal block of respondents who don't care about that issue.

While I think he is ridiculously unrealistic and exploitative on the issue of immigration (and a hypocrite) the idea that someone could move up in the pack as a one-note-Johnny demagoguing an issue has been shown to be effective time and again in politics by candidates in both parties. And in a sprawling field that seems to lack coherence that approach can be even more effective.

It would be funny if the trolling-effect was true and that Trump, say, polls at 20% on election eve and then ends up polling like 3% of the vote

-QG

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

Which polling? Which aspect of immigration - the wall, the need to manage it, the need to limit it, deportation of criminals, what?

I would say all three. The people who support Trump want a wall, they don't want amnesty, and they want politicians willing to discuss the issue, rather than either support amnesty or pretend the issue doesn't exist.

It's not that crazy. Is there a candidate on the left who claims the border should not be regulated and controlled in some way? People are getting aggravated by the lack of results. What is the point of all this debate if the flow of population north is almost entirely unrelated to anything anyone discusses on the point?

 

[timschochet]

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 ·

I wonder how much of the Trump Bump is just voters trolling pollsters. http://53eig.ht/1OgRaWp

I guess I referenced the wrong poll:

We have just two polls for some of these subgroups, but the state polls show the same thing. Public Policy Polling surveys in Kentucky, Michigan and North Carolina show Trump earns about the same support with moderates and liberals (16 percent) and very conservative voters (15 percent) as he does overall in these three states (14 percent). Quinnipiac University actually found Trump doing best in Iowa with moderates and liberals (15 percent) and worst with very conservative voters (7 percent).

I'm all ears on this one, maybe you can explain it to me. But this kind of populism does reach across parties and ideologies. And he's got huge name recognition.

Which Silver attributes to being the major reason for his current polling numbers (from the article at the link):

But the polling points to another, less sexy story: First, Republican voters dont rate Trump as all that conservative, and second, hes actually polling about equally well among all sections of the GOP. In Trump speak, this means he is loved universally; in reality, the broad, shallow nature of Trumps support suggests its due mostly to near-universal name recognition, thanks in part to being in the news more often than the news anchors.

And I think Silver is wrong. It's not name recognition, but illegal immigration. That's what's driving these polls IMO.

If that were the case, then Ted Cruz would have done better in the polls pre Trump's immigration comments, as his position is similar to Trump's but without the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The inflammatory rhetoric is what gets people's attention. Sad but true fact.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Trump has also copped this tough talking bragging 'hard working regular guy talking sense at the end of the bar' routine. He's not at all, but I think people like the persona. People love 'truth to power' (even though it's Power talking).

Ugh - me and the quote boxes aren't agreeing with each other. I tried to clip the 97 pieces of conversation to just this part. Oh well, anyway. The drunk guy at the end of the bar that people usually try to avoid ranting about what he'd do as president is exactly the persona the Trump has. He's the first guy in my memory that directly emulates this to a T.

-QG

 

[timschochet]

And now we get to the real danger that Trump represents to the GOP. And to do that, we have to look at some history: prior to 1964, African-Americans voted Democrat around 60-40. Since then, its been 80-20 or even higher. The change came when Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP candidate for President, came out against the Civil Right Act. It didn't matter that his opposition was based on a principled libertarianism rather than racism. It didn't matter that Republicans in Congress by and large supported the Civil Rights Act and were instrumental in its passage. What mattered was that Goldwater was the face of the Republican party, and blacks watched Republicans turn to him and reject the centrist Rockefeller, and they perceived that Republicans were not on their side. That perception has never changed.

I think Latinos are watching the debacle going on right now as closely as African-Americans watched politics in 1964. I think they are watching Trump's numbers rise and thinking "Wow, the GOP really doesn't like us; they're not on our side." It doesn't matter that many if not most of those conservatives who are anti-illegal immigrant are not anti-Latino; the majority of Latinos link the two together, according to poll after poll. (And of course they're spurred on by the Democratic party.) Even as Trump declines as he eventually will, the Republican candidate will become much tougher on this issue as a result- even if it's Jeb Bush. And I believe the increase in Latinos turning permanently to Democrats will be nearly as intense and significant as it was in 1964- perhaps more so, because if Republicans eventually lose Texas (the state with the largest growing Latino demographic) they will have NO path to the White House. None.

 

[saintfool]

at some point, a GOP candidate will have to shout down Trump so that another topic can be discussed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And now we get to the real danger that Trump represents to the GOP. And to do that, we have to look at some history: prior to 1964, African-Americans voted Democrat around 60-40. Since then, its been 80-20 or even higher. The change came when Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP candidate for President, came out against the Civil Right Act. It didn't matter that his opposition was based on a principled libertarianism rather than racism. It didn't matter that Republicans in Congress by and large supported the Civil Rights Act and were instrumental in its passage. What mattered was that Goldwater was the face of the Republican party, and blacks watched Republicans turn to him and reject the centrist Rockefeller, and they perceived that Republicans were not on their side. That perception has never changed.

I think Latinos are watching the debacle going on right now as closely as African-Americans watched politics in 1964. I think they are watching Trump's numbers rise and thinking "Wow, the GOP really doesn't like us; they're not on our side." It doesn't matter that many if not most of those conservatives who are anti-illegal immigrant are not anti-Latino; the majority of Latinos link the two together, according to poll after poll. (And of course they're spurred on by the Democratic party.) Even as Trump declines as he eventually will, the Republican candidate will become much tougher on this issue as a result- even if it's Jeb Bush. And I believe the increase in Latinos turning permanently to Democrats will be nearly as intense and significant as it was in 1964- perhaps more so, because if Republicans eventually lose Texas (the state with the largest growing Latino demographic) they will have NO path to the White House. None.

I don't agree with the Goldwater comparisons (the GOP has a deep bench of national hispanic leaders, just for starters) but it's pretty obvious that Trump poses a problem for one of the paths to the GOP to the WH this next election.

Probably between Bush and Rubio they have (had?) a decent shot at bumping their Hispanic numbers by 10%.

As for TX and hispanics, Ted Cruz hauled in like 40+% of the hispanic vote when he ran for Senate.

 

[Fennis]

Also Trump is doing surprisingly well with liberals, per the Suffolk poll.

Yeah, and another poll shows Bernie Sanders drawing 40% of Latinos versus Hillary (which is amazing in that I am not certain that Sanders even has name recognition of 40% with that group, but I digress).

One off polls months before the elections are a curiosity and fun to talk about but don't mean much (as evidenced by Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, who each were leading in the 2012 GOP race at some point in time according to polls).

better evidence is Trump who lead the 2012 GOP race for a couple of weeks,

 

[RCon]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

I don't even think it demonstrates that. I'd wager that the thought process of a significant chunk of those polled goes no further than "Trump? Isn't he the You're Fired guy from that TV show. I like him!"

 

[Fennis]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

I don't even think it demonstrates that. I'd wager that the thought process of a significant chunk of those polled goes no further than "Trump? Isn't he the You're Fired guy from that TV show. I like him!"

I think its the idea that a subset of people want a successful CEO as President.

 

[Kal El]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

I don't even think it demonstrates that. I'd wager that the thought process of a significant chunk of those polled goes no further than "Trump? Isn't he the You're Fired guy from that TV show. I like him!"

I think its the idea that a subset of people want a successful CEO as President.

The guy's been bankrupt multiple times and what fortune he has is the direct result of taking other people's money via his casino.

 

[squistion]

I don't agree with the Goldwater comparisons (the GOP has a deep bench of national hispanic leaders, just for starters) but it's pretty obvious that Trump poses a problem for one of the paths to the GOP to the WH this next election.

Probably between Bush and Rubio they have (had?) a decent shot at bumping their Hispanic numbers by 10%.

As for TX and hispanics, Ted Cruz hauled in like 40+% of the hispanic vote when he ran for Senate.

More like 35% although the exact number is unknown as no exit polling was done. However, things are not as rosy for Cruz as the 2012 numbers indicate (and I am not certain to what extent Latinos were familiar with his position on immigration). In any event, I think it naïve to think that just because someone has an Hispanic surname, Latinos will automatically vote for the candidate.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/13/1178721/poll-latino-republican-sen-elect-ted-cruz-received-no-boost-from-latinos/

Poll: Latino Republican Sen-Elect Ted Cruz Received No Boost From Latinos

by Ian Millhiser Nov 13, 2012 3:20pm

After President Obama cleaned house among Latino voters last week, Republicans are already considering how they can reach out to this growing demographic that showed little interest in what the GOP was selling this election cycle. Polling data from the state of Texas, where Latino Republican Sen-elect Ted Cruz was on the ballot, suggests that Republicans will not be able to close this gap simply by running Hispanic candidates. Although there is no exit polling from Texas in the 2012 election, polling data from Latino Decisions indicates that Texas Latinos overwhelmingly favored Cruz' opponent:

(Graph at link)

Although Cruz did outperform GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney among Latinos, Cruz actually performed slightly worse among Latinos than white Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) did in 2008 when Cornyn received 36 percent of the Latino vote.

The likely lesson of these results is that candidates such as Cruz or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) do not possess a magic wand that can vanish away the Republican Partys electability problem. If Republicans want to attract Latino voters, they will need to do so by embracing policies that Latinos actually want to see enacted.

 

[Fennis]

Forget Trump for a moment- since all he's basically done is focus on one issue, what the polling really demonstrates is that a good chunk of the public agree with him on that one issue.

I don't even think it demonstrates that. I'd wager that the thought process of a significant chunk of those polled goes no further than "Trump? Isn't he the You're Fired guy from that TV show. I like him!"

I think its the idea that a subset of people want a successful CEO as President.

The guy's been bankrupt multiple times and what fortune he has is the direct result of taking other people's money via his casino.

pretty much irrelevant to his people who like the idea of a CEO president

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't agree with the Goldwater comparisons (the GOP has a deep bench of national hispanic leaders, just for starters) but it's pretty obvious that Trump poses a problem for one of the paths to the GOP to the WH this next election.

Probably between Bush and Rubio they have (had?) a decent shot at bumping their Hispanic numbers by 10%.

As for TX and hispanics, Ted Cruz hauled in like 40+% of the hispanic vote when he ran for Senate.

More like 35% although the exact number is unknown as no exit polling was done. However, things are not as rosy for Cruz as the 2012 numbers indicate (and I am not certain to what extent Latinos were familiar with his position on immigration). In any event, I think it naïve to think that just because someone has an Hispanic surname, Latinos will automatically vote for the candidate.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/13/1178721/poll-latino-republican-sen-elect-ted-cruz-received-no-boost-from-latinos/

Poll: Latino Republican Sen-Elect Ted Cruz Received No Boost From Latinos

by Ian Millhiser Nov 13, 2012 3:20pm

After President Obama cleaned house among Latino voters last week, Republicans are already considering how they can reach out to this growing demographic that showed little interest in what the GOP was selling this election cycle. Polling data from the state of Texas, where Latino Republican Sen-elect Ted Cruz was on the ballot, suggests that Republicans will not be able to close this gap simply by running Hispanic candidates. Although there is no exit polling from Texas in the 2012 election, polling data from Latino Decisions indicates that Texas Latinos overwhelmingly favored Cruz' opponent:

(Graph at link)

Although Cruz did outperform GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney among Latinos, Cruz actually performed slightly worse among Latinos than white Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) did in 2008 when Cornyn received 36 percent of the Latino vote.

The likely lesson of these results is that candidates such as Cruz or Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) do not possess a magic wand that can vanish away the Republican Partys electability problem. If Republicans want to attract Latino voters, they will need to do so by embracing policies that Latinos actually want to see enacted.

You know I'm a geek for this stuff. - I think I got that number from the CNN 2012 election tracker... which all of a sudden is no longer available so I'm sorry I can't link to it.

The Examiner (which TP links to) also has this:

Cruz defeated Democrat Paul Sadler last November by nearly 16 percentage points on his way to garnering 56.5 percent of the vote. Romney bested Obama by nearly 17 percentage points while garnering 57.2 percent of the vote. But a survey taken about six weeks after the election and made available by the Republican senator's political team, shows Hispanics favored Sadler over Cruz 60 percent to 40 percent and Obama over Romney 59 percent to 33 percent.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-poll-dems-have-edge-over-gop-among-hispanics-in-texas/article/2533470

The WE poll was done by Cruz's pollster with a 4% MOE and the Latino poll had a 4.9% MOE so maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Thanks for the info.

 

[timschochet]

Latest poll and Trump is still leading with 18%. Walker has moved into second place.

 

[QuizGuy66]

So apparently Fox has said it is not going to reveal which polls it's going to use to determine who makes the debate.



-QG

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So apparently Fox has said it is not going to reveal which polls it's going to use to determine who makes the debate.



-QG

It's been said but this will be like the BCS. A TCU or Boise State will be left out.

 

[cubd8]

Question:

A friend of mine is disputing that Republicans are pandering or lying, and points to all these situations where Hillary is.

In this primary season, please provide specific examples of Republican candidates not telling the truth and/or pandering to their base.

 

[CBusAlex]

So apparently Fox has said it is not going to reveal which polls it's going to use to determine who makes the debate.



-QG

It's been said but this will be like the BCS. A TCU or Boise State will be left out.

Although in this case it will probably be more like a Florida Atlantic or a Louisiana Lafayette.

 

[sho nuff]

Question:

A friend of mine is disputing that Republicans are pandering or lying, and points to all these situations where Hillary is.

In this primary season, please provide specific examples of Republican candidates not telling the truth and/or pandering to their base.

Politicians lie.

When they open their mouths...they pander and promise things they likely can't actually do.

 

[RCon]

Question:

A friend of mine is disputing that Republicans are pandering or lying, and points to all these situations where Hillary is.

In this primary season, please provide specific examples of Republican candidates not telling the truth and/or pandering to their base.

Every time their lips move?

Edit: Damn you!!!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

 

[Fennis]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

welcome to 2003

 

[timschochet]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

Sanity.

 

[timschochet]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

Sanity.

Well then, according to Oogie Pringle (and a few others around here), I'm not getting your vote.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

Sanity.

Well then, according to Oogie Pringle (and a few others around here), I'm not getting your vote.

Your claim that anyone that agrees with Rush believes all Muslims are terrorists isn't a sane thing to think.

 

[sho nuff]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

Foreign policy that isn't just. Bomb muslims...and don't ever negotiate with Muslims.

The don't ***k with us mantra that comes out of many...needs to go.

That and smart fiscal responsibility. This means doing anything necessary to continue to fix the budget...work toward balancing it as much as possible. Curtail some awful spending...cut back on even defense spending...and if taxes need to be raised to continue to fix things...don't be afraid of being a one term guy to get things done that the country needs (things the smart Bush did even though it cost him).

The problem with both parties...is too much emphasis on the next election instead of getting actual things done.

 

[Colts Win]

This GOP is very very close to losing me as a voter.

What issues would you like to see them emphasize?

Foreign policy that isn't just. Bomb muslims...and don't ever negotiate with Muslims.

The don't ***k with us mantra that comes out of many...needs to go.

That and smart fiscal responsibility. This means doing anything necessary to continue to fix the budget...work toward balancing it as much as possible. Curtail some awful spending...cut back on even defense spending...and if taxes need to be raised to continue to fix things...don't be afraid of being a one term guy to get things done that the country needs (things the smart Bush did even though it cost him).

The problem with both parties...is too much emphasis on the next election instead of getting actual things done.

This is why all political offices need to go one 8 year term.

 

[Chadstroma]

My ranking of who I like (I reserve the right to change at any moment for any reason):

1. Scott Walker

2. Marco Rubio

3. Chris Christie

4. Mike Huckabee

5. Ben Carson

6. Bobby Jindal

7. John Kasich

8. Lindsey Graham

9. Jim Gilmore

10. Jeb Bush

11. Carly Fiorina

12. Rick Santorum

13. George Pataki

14. Rick Perry

15. Ted Cruz

16. Rand Paul

17. Donald Trump

 

[sho nuff]

My ranking of who I like (I reserve the right to change at any moment for any reason):

1. Scott Walker

2. Marco Rubio

3. Chris Christie

4. Mike Huckabee

5. Ben Carson

6. Bobby Jindal

7. John Kasich

8. Lindsey Graham

9. Jim Gilmore

10. Jeb Bush

11. Carly Fiorina

12. Rick Santorum

13. George Pataki

14. Rick Perry

15. Ted Cruz

16. Rand Paul

17. Donald Trump

What about Walker is appealing? I still don't get that.

Id like to find someone on either side...and out of what the GOP has now...Kasich or Paul maybe the only two I would ever consider casting a vote for right now.

 

[Kal El]

If I were to vote Republican (as it stands, I'm independent and neither party is worth the effort of voting), I'd likely vote for Rubio. The guy has done reasonably well here in Florida, he keeps his head down and doesn't spout off stupid things very often, and he actually seems willing to work with people who have different ideas.

In fact, I might seriously consider voting for any politician with a track record of working together with everyone else despite political differences, and has actually accomplished something positive that benefits the American people. So in essence, I'd vote for a unicorn, because these people don't exist.

 

[MaxThreshold]

My ranking of who I like (I reserve the right to change at any moment for any reason):

1. Scott Walker

2. Marco Rubio

3. Chris Christie

4. Mike Huckabee

5. Ben Carson

6. Bobby Jindal

7. John Kasich

8. Lindsey Graham

9. Jim Gilmore

10. Jeb Bush

11. Carly Fiorina

12. Rick Santorum

13. George Pataki

14. Rick Perry

15. Ted Cruz

16. Rand Paul

17. Donald Trump

What about Walker is appealing? I still don't get that.

Id like to find someone on either side...and out of what the GOP has now...Kasich or Paul maybe the only two I would ever consider casting a vote for right now.

He's a proven winner and he's got that down to earth vibe that I like. I think Rubio is the same but I think he's a much better speaker than Walker is.

 

[timschochet]

Actually Walker has really improved his speaking skills IMO.

 

[sho nuff]

My ranking of who I like (I reserve the right to change at any moment for any reason):

1. Scott Walker

2. Marco Rubio

3. Chris Christie

4. Mike Huckabee

5. Ben Carson

6. Bobby Jindal

7. John Kasich

8. Lindsey Graham

9. Jim Gilmore

10. Jeb Bush

11. Carly Fiorina

12. Rick Santorum

13. George Pataki

14. Rick Perry

15. Ted Cruz

16. Rand Paul

17. Donald Trump

What about Walker is appealing? I still don't get that.

Id like to find someone on either side...and out of what the GOP has now...Kasich or Paul maybe the only two I would ever consider casting a vote for right now.

He's a proven winner and he's got that down to earth vibe that I like. I think Rubio is the same but I think he's a much better speaker than Walker is.

Proven winner? Because of a few elections and recalls against really bad candidates? That is all it takes to want someone to be President these days?

Down to earth vibe...Ive heard that line before and the guy behind it sucked bad.

 

[SoBeDad]

Actually Walker has really improved his speaking skills IMO.

Maybe, but I expect him to stumble in the debates or at some point, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Meanwhile, it seems like Marco Rubio has been practicing and refining his domestic message for the past 3 years on his book tours - the American Dream, equal work, the failed war on poverty, affordable college, retirement, social security, etc. And few candidates have spoken as much about foreign policy in the last few months as Rubio. The debates should be interesting.