View Full Version : I'm sorry what were you saying about Mr. Trump? "Can't Win"?
Team Sergeant
08-17-2015, 09:08
I'm sorry what were you saying about Mr. Trump? "Can't Win"? Could you say that a little louder, I can't hear you over the millions that want Mr. Trump as President.
And it will take a Mr. Trump to undo Zero's years of destruction. Will Mr. trump make mistakes, maybe but let's remember "Solyndra" and how a kenyan gave them $500,000 million of the "taxpayers" money.
I'm tired of morons running this country into the ground. This country needs a Donald Trump.
Yes, Donald Trump can win, but here’s what it will take
By Edward J. Rollins
August 17, 2015
Since Donald Trump’s June 16 announcement that he is running for president, the billionaire developer has dominated the national media and the political conversation on a daily basis. Against one of the strongest Republican fields since 1980, Trump leads virtually all state and national polls — and seems oblivious to accepted rules of presidential politics.
What happens now?
No modern campaign has started as quickly or with as much drama as Trump’s. With 15 months to go before the 2016 vote, no one can tell you what’s going to happen. But with the largest audience in U.S. primary history watching the first Republican presidential debate, there is obviously interest in this election. And one thing is for sure: Trump is not going away, and millions of his supporters may stay with him to the bitter end. Many believe this is not a protest campaign but a winning campaign — and they like their man!
I am a veteran of five decades of U.S. politics, and I feel something different going into this election cycle. Polls show deep unhappiness with our elected officials, whether Democrat or Republican.
I ran President Ronald Reagan’s 1984 re-election campaign and served as his White House political director. I also managed the first phase of the Ross Perot campaign in 1992. Perot, like Trump, jumped in front of a political movement when voters — like today — were unhappy with the status quo and wanted change.
Perot ran as an independent, and in June 1992 was leading both President George H.W. Bush and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, with 39 percent of all voters. After that poll, Perot was treated by the media as a serious candidate and scrutinized like any other serious candidate running for president. Perot didn’t like the criticism, his poll numbers dropped dramatically and he quit the race in mid-July.
The day before he quit, he fired all the professionals in the campaign, including me.
We had been trying to make him run a professional campaign — he was taking on not only an incumbent president but also both political parties. A daunting task. But I had recruited a team of top-notch Democrat and Republican talent, who all wanted to participate in a change election. We had laid out a campaign strategy that would have made Perot a contender. Every day I gave him a decision package of things he needed to decide and do. He just couldn’t do it!
The day he fired us, Perot announced that he wanted to make it an all-volunteer campaign again. He was ridiculed from one end of the country to the other. Those most unhappy about the firings were actually the volunteers, who wanted to run a winning campaign. There was dissent in the ranks and no one in charge. Perot decided to end the campaign the next day. He quit!
He returned several months later. But he was never a viable candidate again.
The difference between Perot and Trump is that the Texas billionaire couldn’t deal with bad press or the continuing rough and tumble of presidential politics. When it got tough — Perot quit. Trump, however, thrives on it! And quitter has never been a term associated with Donald Trump.
Part of his advantage is that voters are fed up with the status quo. Many think the other candidates, mostly former or current elected officials, are part of the problem. Just more of the same.
cont:
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/08/16/yes-donald-trump-can-win-but-heres-what-it-will-take/
Roguish Lawyer
08-17-2015, 09:14
Sounds like Ed is looking for a job.
I don't think Trump will do what it takes, as Ed has put it.
Emphasis added:
With 15 months to go before the 2016 vote, no one can tell you what’s going to happen. But with the largest audience in U.S. primary history watching the first Republican presidential debate, there is obviously interest in this election. And one thing is for sure: Trump is not going away, and millions of his supporters may stay with him to the bitter end. Many believe this is not a protest campaign but a winning campaign — and they like their man!
I am a veteran of five decades of U.S. politics, and I feel something different going into this election cycle. Polls show deep unhappiness with our elected officials, whether Democrat or Republican.
Ed has always been perspicacious, but he has been out of the trenches for several cycles. I fear he does not have a true grasp of the almost primary importance nor the extreme level of detail that data has become in campaigns since 2007. State GOPs grasped the concept in 2010, implemented it in 2012-2014, and now the RNC has swooped in just in time to fumble in 2016. Business (Trump) clearly understands it. The masters - Dems have moved on to another new secret weapon to spring upon us. Checkers vs. Chess vs. Go. Damn our feet of clay.
Each and every contender, on both sides, should never be discounted.
rubberneck
08-17-2015, 11:12
Donald Trump is Michael Bloomberg without the intelligence. I can't support a life long democrat as the Republican nominee. I personally hopes his candidacy ends like the Hindenberg.
Pericles
08-17-2015, 11:45
As I have posted elsewhere, I was on the Perot 1992 campaign, and was fired with the rest of the staff. I stayed on as a volunteer and was back on staff for the thunder run.
Ed is part of the political class and the volunteers hated his ass.
When Perot passes from the scene, I will speak more freely about the events of 1992.
Trump will appeal to people who otherwise would not vote, as did Perot. I'd suggest to the candid observer, that if the Republican party wants to win national elections, it needs to appeal to people who don't ordinarily, vote, rather than try to peel votes off of Democrats.
rubberneck
08-17-2015, 12:09
I have great respect for Perot, the man, but all his misguided candidacy managed to do was to ensure the American public has had to deal with those low life, scum sucking Clintons fro the past 23 years. Without Perot sucking support away from Bush there's no way slick Willie wins that race. That's Iwhat I fear most about Trump. He's an outspoken egomaniac who only cares about his bottom line and being the center of attention. His candidacy will ensure then next President is a Dem and that means the court likely turns liberal. Thanks but no thanks.
Team Sergeant
08-17-2015, 12:45
Donald Trump is Michael Bloomberg without the intelligence. I can't support a life long democrat as the Republican nominee. I personally hopes his candidacy ends like the Hindenberg.
That's ok, everyone has an opinion. More than half this nation thought placing a drug smoking, liar, loser and spineless coward in the White House was also a good idea.
Even I once thought "live and let live" Not any more. Those days are gone.
rubberneck
08-17-2015, 13:22
That's ok, everyone has an opinion. More than half this nation thought placing a drug smoking, liar, loser and spineless coward in the White House was also a good idea.
Even I once thought "live and let live" Not any more. Those days are gone.
Trump is the Manchurian candidate. A lifelong liberal who's pro late term abortion, was for universal health care, and was pro gun control, etc. He's also the same guy that said in an interview on MSNBC two years ago that Bill Clinton was his favorite President and that he would support Hillary if she ran. if I wanted to vote for a Democrat I'd vote for Jim Webb before I'd vote for Trump.
Donald Trump is Michael Bloomberg without the intelligence. I can't support a life long democrat as the Republican nominee.
Funny you should say that, seeing as who you have as your avatar. :munchin
Moving to Hollywood in 1937, he became an actor, starring in a few major productions. Reagan was twice elected as President of the Screen Actors Guild, the labor union for actors, where he worked to root out Communist influence. In the 1950s he moved into television and was a motivational speaker at General Electric factories. Having been a lifelong liberal Democrat, his views changed. He became a conservative and in 1962 switched to the Republican Party.
It's still early in this election cycle. We've got a long ways to go.
Trump is saying what people want to hear, that they're fed up with the status quo of how things are being done in DC, especially with the GOP.
We gave them the House to control Barry's purse strings, but they put a crying, whining, sniveling, no back boned SOB in as Speaker of the House.
We then gave them the Senate and strengthened their position in the House, but still, have seen NOTHING from them.
What Trump brings to the table is what We The People have been screaming about for the past six years ... we need a change !!!!
Yes, Trump is an egomaniac and might just be in it for himself, but IF he is nominated as the GOP's candidate and runs against who the Dems choose, it'll send a message to the GOP establishment that we're sick and tired of how they're doing things, and if they don't change their ways and start listening to us, they might as well start drafting out their resumes to the talk shows on FOX, CNN and MSNBC.
But as I mentioned above .... We've got a ways to go yet.
The silent majority are reaching out....;)
Team Sergeant
08-17-2015, 15:57
The silent majority are reaching out....;)
Trust me Brother, I'm ready to go Loud if necessary..... :munchin
Go Devil
08-17-2015, 16:40
Voting will not affect any change in the status quo.
Voting for Trump is a passive aggressive way of saying "Let it all Burn."
Voting for president is currently political entertainment akin to participating in a fantasy football league.
This is a rigged system.
spherojon
08-17-2015, 17:13
Honestly, I think the change starts with well educated votes. This community brings that to the table. All we have to do as a group is to encourage others to make well educated decisions. Impress upon those that each election is like an exam...like a once in every 4 year exam that has a direct impact.
Voting will not affect any change in the status quo.
Voting for Trump is a passive aggressive way of saying "Let it all Burn."
Voting for president is currently political entertainment akin to participating in a fantasy football league.
This is a rigged system.
I must disagree with your sentiment! Passive aggressive is not to vote, IMHO.
My normally political views are kept quiet here on PS, but I 100% agree with The TS on this about Trump! Good on Him for saying it loud and proud, and not bowing to Megan what's her face from the debate, fwiw.:munchin
JMHO. :)
Holly
miclo18d
08-17-2015, 18:02
Funny you should say that, seeing as who you have as your avatar. :munchin.
Beat me to it! I couldn't believe what I was reading in Rubberneck's post staring at The Gipper as I read it.
Honestly, I think the change starts with well educated votes. This community brings that to the table. All we have to do as a group is to encourage others to make well educated decisions. Impress upon those that each election is like an exam...like a once in every 4 year exam that has a direct impact.
You can't be serious. To think that a few intelligent, tax paying and property owning people on this site are going to somehow produce an educated electorate is absurd.
I'm with Team Sergeant on this one. Trump may not be all he is espousing; but I love seeing the GOP "consultants", as well as the RINOs, get their panties in a twist over Trump.
spherojon
08-17-2015, 19:15
You can't be serious. To think that a few intelligent, tax paying and property owning people on this site are going to somehow produce an educated electorate is absurd.
Change has to start somewhere. Remember, it only took 116 people to participate in the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
craigepo
08-17-2015, 20:15
4 years ago at this time, we were talking about Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. Presidential campaigns, like any other good campaign, are marathons, not sprints.
Right now, the candidates are trying to build ground games in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, while trying to stock their treasure chests with donations. The opposition is busy digging up dirt on anyone who sticks his/her head up.
I heard a guy compare the present status of the campaign to going into a clothing store and trying on clothes. That shirt might look great on the rack, but doesn't look so good on you in front of a mirror. Kind of similar to some of the candidates at present---we have heard some neat sound bites, but we have to see how they do over an 18-month period.
Change has to start somewhere. Remember, it only took 116 people to participate in the Boston Tea Party in 1773.
Remember that they didn't have a national media alligned against them and a big federal government handing out bread and holding circuses to overcome.
besides those people were racists. dressing up like "native americans" and all..
rubberneck
08-18-2015, 07:04
Beat me to it! I couldn't believe what I was reading in Rubberneck's post staring at The Gipper as I read it.
The Gipper began his political conversion when he was hired by GE to give a bunch of pro growth speeches in 1954. He renounced his liberal views in 1962, became a conservative two term governor of California before being elected in 1980. At the time he was elected he wasn't a life long democrat but more importantly he governed a the state of California as a conservative. When elected in 1980 everyone knew exactly who he was and how he would govern. Trump on the other hand was giving gobs of cash to uber liberal candidate two years ago when he was signing the praises of both Clinton's.
Maybe I'm a cynic but I'm not buying his bs. If he wants to earn my vote he should run for governor of NY and prove that he's a really Republican not just a crass opportunist like Bloomberg. IMHO he's a limousine liberal.
craigepo
08-18-2015, 07:56
An interesting take on Trump's candidacy:
"Many would probably question why, of all people, a decadent, rude, and pompous billionaire should be trusted to meddle with American culture? I think it comes down to a perception that America has already drowned in a post-modernist nightmare of moral relativism, from which extreme political correctness and protest culture stem. Trump, on the other hand, is all absolutes. Everything he says, accurate or not, is stated in absolute, definitive terms. His personal morality is clear: He respects people who work hard, are loyal, innovate, and “win,” and he shuns those who don’t meet the criteria. Cruel as it may sound, I think America needs to reenergize these fundamental cultural values before we can ever hope to create a better society."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt08182015&utm_term=Jolt#Trump%20Is%20a%20Corrective%20to%20A merican%20Culturecreate
The author seems to paint Trump in Ayn Rand colors. I can see where he is coming from.
Donald Trump is calling for the deportation of millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and for the end of automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners on U.S. soil, adding specifics to the hard-line immigration stance that first helped his Republican presidential campaign take flight.
Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967)
I guess why Trump made this statement. Yes he will increase his support base, but IMO as a candidate you are trying to increase your base too. How many more Americans will just onto this idea? How many will he drive way?
The Gipper began his political conversion when he was hired by GE to give a bunch of pro growth speeches in 1954. He renounced his liberal views in 1962, became a conservative two term governor of California before being elected in 1980. At the time he was elected he wasn't a life long democrat but more importantly he governed a the state of California as a conservative. When elected in 1980 everyone knew exactly who he was and how he would govern. Trump on the other hand was giving gobs of cash to uber liberal candidate two years ago when he was signing the praises of both Clinton's.
Maybe I'm a cynic but I'm not buying his bs. If he wants to earn my vote he should run for governor of NY and prove that he's a really Republican not just a crass opportunist like Bloomberg. IMHO he's a limousine liberal.
;)
Donald Trump is calling for the deportation of millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and for the end of automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners on U.S. soil, adding specifics to the hard-line immigration stance that first helped his Republican presidential campaign take flight.
How may elected officials have made promises and pronouncements in order to get elected and do exactly the opposite when they get the job?
How do we mere mortal voters discern what a person is going to do in office? Why by first looking at their voting record, by looking at their life history, by looking at written statements published by them and surveys they have answered.
Hence my reservations of Trump, Carson, Forieno.
I will vote third party if a non-conservative is nominated.
GratefulCitizen
08-19-2015, 18:58
Donald Trump is calling for the deportation of millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and for the end of automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners on U.S. soil, adding specifics to the hard-line immigration stance that first helped his Republican presidential campaign take flight.
Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967)
I guess why Trump made this statement. Yes he will increase his support base, but IMO as a candidate you are trying to increase your base too. How many more Americans will just onto this idea? How many will he drive way?
He may have a case:
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/08/19/draft-n2041224/page/full
He may have a case:
http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/08/19/draft-n2041224/page/full
That was an enjoyable read.
So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.
Trapper John
08-20-2015, 08:59
The silent majority are reaching out....;)
I think you just hit the nail on the head! If Donald can keep putting some meat on the bones as he appears to be doing and he can put together a good ground game - he might be able to pull this off. :munchin
Team Sergeant
08-20-2015, 09:03
That was an enjoyable read.
So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.
The same way American's have always hunted criminals, you place a bounty on them and let free enterprise take over.
How would you find them all? Don't have to. Establish e-verify as a standard and Draconian fines to employers who employee illegals
How would you get them from where they are to the border? Bus.
How would you get Mexico to accept them? Mexico doesn't take them, you turn off all entrance visas of all kinds with Mexico and you hit them with draconian tariffs
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens? See above
.
This all takes a lot of willpower, so not likely to happen. But, saying it can't be done is a red herring. Just because it is daunting doesn't mean you throw your arms open and welcome them in. They can "live in the shadows" forever, as far as I am concerned, until they leave or are caught and deported.
Trapper John
08-20-2015, 09:08
Donald Trump is calling for the deportation of millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and for the end of automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners on U.S. soil, adding specifics to the hard-line immigration stance that first helped his Republican presidential campaign take flight.
Wall Street Journal (http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-saying-illegal-immigrants-have-to-go-targets-obama-orders-1439738967)
I guess why Trump made this statement. Yes he will increase his support base, but IMO as a candidate you are trying to increase your base too. How many more Americans will just onto this idea? How many will he drive way?
There is that pesky 14th Amendment issue. But hey, pragmatism is always a buzz kill. :D
But his statements do make for entertaining theater. May not be a bad strategy either....appeal to the emotions of the electorate.
Recent elections would seem to support that view. Does anyone really think that the majority of the electorate responds to thoughtful positions anyway??
There is that pesky 14th Amendment issue. But hey, pragmatism is always a buzz kill. :D
It's been purposely misinterpreted: Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz65EruVCKI) (14 minutes.)
Video from Hannity: Mark Levin on the 14th Amendment. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwlOVr-w4eU) (9 minutes)
Pat
That was an enjoyable read.
So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.
Go and knock on every other door in NM and you have 50% of them here...
That was an enjoyable read.
So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.
How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Start with simple things that help make coming here illegal not as good a deal anymore. And staying not so good either. Start by going after employers of illegals. Start by not giving free education to those who are not citizens. etc
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an excellent analysis of Trump's persuasive techniques here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
If you’re keeping score, in the past month Trump has bitch-slapped the entire Republican Party, redefined our expectations of politics, focused the national discussion on immigration, proposed the only new idea for handling ISIS, and taken functional control of FOX News. And I don’t think he put much effort into it. Imagine what he could do if he gave up golf.
As far as I can tell, Trump’s “crazy talk” is always in the correct direction for a skilled persuader. When Trump sets an “anchor” in your mind, it is never random. And it seems to work every time.
Now that Trump owns FOX, and I see how well his anchor trick works with the public, I’m going to predict he will be our next president.
Read more: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius#ixzz3jNPF5hPb
I personally think Trump would be a terrible president, but there's no doubt that he's a fantastic candidate.
That was an enjoyable read.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"?
You don't have to find them all and 'throw them out.' You create an environment where it is in their best interests for illegal immigrants to self-deport. President Eisenhower is credited with one of the most successful operations, Operation Wetback, to stem the flow of illegal immigration.
The majority, fearing arrest and permanent disbarment from legal immigration, self-deported.
How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico
...Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.
President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents – less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol...
Link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html)
GratefulCitizen
08-20-2015, 12:33
That was an enjoyable read.
So say that Trump does get elected, and somehow manages to get 30 million +/- immigrants "thrown" out.
How would you find them all?
How would you get them from where they are to the border?
How would you get Mexico to accept them?
In regards to the third point, the "anchor babies" are (I think) foreign nationals? What would motivate Mexico to allow them across the border and then to accept them as foreign born citizens?
While this issue is important, is it even possible to "throw them out"? If not then all this is just more bullshit fodder for citizens to debate and politicians are powerless to execute.
Here's a creative start:
Pass legislation which sets the minimum wage for "undocumented immigrants" at $100/hr.
Pass more legislation which allows them to sue their employers for unpaid back wages, with additional damage awards.
The market for undocumented workers will disappear overnight.
That solves a big part of the problem.
Pericles
08-20-2015, 13:17
I have great respect for Perot, the man, but all his misguided candidacy managed to do was to ensure the American public has had to deal with those low life, scum sucking Clintons fro the past 23 years. Without Perot sucking support away from Bush there's no way slick Willie wins that race. That's Iwhat I fear most about Trump. He's an outspoken egomaniac who only cares about his bottom line and being the center of attention. His candidacy will ensure then next President is a Dem and that means the court likely turns liberal. Thanks but no thanks.
I took on that lat time the subject cam up so here it is again - I suggest the lesson learned is that both Trump and Perot appeal to people who would not otherwise vote, and that is the path to victory for the Republicans (assuming they want to win and not represent the donor base even if it means losing, as they have done repeatedly in the last 30 years).
May I suggest to you that is not an accurate analysis of the effect of Perot running in 1992. Here is why I am making the suggestion: In 1988, there were 91,594,809 votes cast in the election. In 1992, there were 104,426,659 votes cast, and in 1996, there were 96,277,223 votes cast. The impact of Perot running, was to have some 10 million more people vote, that would otherwise have been reasonably expected to vote. The other rational conclusion to make is that the remaining 9.5 million votes were therefore "pulled" from another candidate.
But is is the electoral college that matters, and Clinton got 370 electoral votes, so Perot not running, would have had to move 102 of them away from Clinton. Is that a reasonable assumption to make?
Let us look at Ohio with 21 electoral votes.
1988 election total was 2,416,549 (R) and 1,939,629 (D)
1992 election total was 1,894,310 (R) and 1,984,982 (D) and 1,036,426 (Perot)
1996 election total was 1,859,883 (R) and 2,148,222 (D) and 483,207 (Perot)
2000 election total was 2,350,363 (R) and 2,183,628 (D) and 111,799 (Nader)
Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.
This is the most favorable state for Bush that went to Clinton, one can go down the chart to AR, where Clinton got over 50% of the vote anyway.
A reasonable statistical analysis is that Perot took votes from Clinton in the Northeast and other liberal strongholds, and took votes from Bush in the South and middle of the country Clinton still would have won as he did in 1996, and the Dear Reader did in 2008 and 2012.
Full disclosure - I was part of Perot's 1992 Campaign staff, and we took a close look at at the results to try to assess how much "skew" occurred as a result of Perot's candidacy.
Team Sergeant
08-20-2015, 13:40
Reasonable conclusion is that Perot did cost Bush Ohio in 1992, but Clinton was also a weak candidate in OH losing some vote to 3rd party candidates, and (R)s vote in OH is trending down anyway.
Let's call it what it actually was, a loss for Bush. And in the end who failed? The GOP and Bush.
If it happens again so be it, it will just be another GOP failure, and I'm pretty used to them by now.
Those of you saying Mr. Trump will be a terrible president, anything will be better than a left-wing socialist.
The Reaper
08-20-2015, 13:59
With the states' demographics and political orientation as it is, I do not see a route to victory for any Republican candidate who does not appeal to non-traditional voters in several key swing states.
I suppose that turning out a huge percentage of the base might be a potential alternative, but given the lack of success by the "conservative lite" establishment candidates after big Republican victories in 2010 and 2014, I am not sure that the eventual Republican candidate is going to be able to motivate the conservative base again.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an excellent analysis of Trump's persuasive techniques here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
I personally think Trump would be a terrible president, but there's no doubt that he's a fantastic candidate.
;)
Interesting interview in Time
http://time.com/4003734/donald-trump-interview-transcript/
What’s the most significant learning experience in your life?
Look, I do say this. Just in watching – I give speeches on success for friends and for charities. I put the money into charity. And they pay me a lot. I will say this, over my lifetime I’ve seen a lot of very smart people who were quitters. They never made it. And I’ve seen people that weren’t as smart who never ever, ever gave up. And those were the people that made it. And I’ve seen it to this day. I’ve seen people that graduated … in school who were super geniuses. And they never made it. And I’ve seen people that were not as smart as them and they’re the biggest people out there. And the ones that are the biggest people are the people that never gave up. It’s something I’ve just observed over the years.
So I take it you’re not giving up.
No, I don’t give up.
Roguish Lawyer
08-20-2015, 15:58
With the states' demographics and political orientation as it is, I do not see a route to victory for any Republican candidate who does not appeal to non-traditional voters in several key swing states.
I suppose that turning out a huge percentage of the base might be a potential alternative, but given the lack of success by the "conservative lite" establishment candidates after big Republican victories in 2010 and 2014, I am not sure that the eventual Republican candidate is going to be able to motivate the conservative base again.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
What is a "non-traditional voter"?
Badger52
08-20-2015, 16:00
President Eisenhower is credited with one of the most successful operations, Operation Wetback, to stem the flow of illegal immigration.
The majority, fearing arrest and permanent disbarment from legal immigration, self-deported.Thanks for the read.
I'd like to see someone with the stones to actually call such a thing Operation Wetback II, or even mention the first one in historical context without spending 10 minutes apologizing first.
Stop all MSBs (Money Service Businesses) from sending cash back to the Mexican families back home.
Stop the bulk cash flowing across the border in vehicles (trucks) using front or back scatter systems.
---
US $s going south is Mexico's #1 business, cut it out and they will cooperate.
It's been purposely misinterpreted: Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz65EruVCKI) (14 minutes.)
Video from Hannity: Mark Levin on the 14th Amendment. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwlOVr-w4eU) (9 minutes)
Two part interview on the 14th Amendment with Professor Edward Erler: Fourteenth Amendment and birthright citizenship (http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-interviews-a-professor-who-is-one-of-the-foremost-experts-on-birthright-citizenship/)
Pat
You don't have to find them all and 'throw them out.' You create an environment where it is in their best interests for illegal immigrants to self-deport. President Eisenhower is credited with one of the most successful operations, Operation Wetback, to stem the flow of illegal immigration.
The majority, fearing arrest and permanent disbarment from legal immigration, self-deported.
This was the case in 2006 here in Iowa following the big raids of the meat packing plants. The illegals made themselves very scarce and it was 4-5 months before some of the plants got back up to full production. They literally left the state. If you raid them they will leave.
Roguish Lawyer
08-20-2015, 17:04
Bush 41 was not re-elected because we read his lips. I voted libertarian that year.
Trapper John
08-21-2015, 08:43
An interesting take on Trump's candidacy:
"Many would probably question why, of all people, a decadent, rude, and pompous billionaire should be trusted to meddle with American culture? I think it comes down to a perception that America has already drowned in a post-modernist nightmare of moral relativism, from which extreme political correctness and protest culture stem. Trump, on the other hand, is all absolutes. Everything he says, accurate or not, is stated in absolute, definitive terms. His personal morality is clear: He respects people who work hard, are loyal, innovate, and “win,” and he shuns those who don’t meet the criteria. Cruel as it may sound, I think America needs to reenergize these fundamental cultural values before we can ever hope to create a better society."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt08182015&utm_term=Jolt#Trump%20Is%20a%20Corrective%20to%20A merican%20Culturecreate
The author seems to paint Trump in Ayn Rand colors. I can see where he is coming from.
Interesting, I never thought of the Donald in a Randian context....interesting....you have a good point there.
From the article, this comment (I think it was #16) is probably accurate ...“He will sucker in talent, tell them that their work is terrible, push them to achieve beyond what they think is possible, and then take credit for their successes as he tells America, and the world, that their projects are the best thing that has ever happened. This works. It’s not pretty, but it works.”
Frankly, I can get behind that style. Not my style, but under the circumstances this style of management/governance is exactly what we need. JMHO
Trapper John
08-21-2015, 08:58
It's been purposely misinterpreted: Mark Levin: Congress Can End Birthright Citizenship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz65EruVCKI) (14 minutes.)
Video from Hannity: Mark Levin on the 14th Amendment. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwlOVr-w4eU) (9 minutes)
Pat
Very good points by Levin. My point is that Trumps policy, with which I agree, will need to be legislated by Congress and will most certainly be challenged in Fed Court under the 14th A and probably will be reviewed by SCOTUS.
No reason to not proceed though! By the time the SCOTUS got around to reviewing this the plan could be implemented anyway and the whole issue is mute. Unless of course some progressive group like the ACLU got a Fed judge to issue an injunction. Anyway you cut it that pesky 14th A will be an issue that needs to be handled.
Trapper John
08-21-2015, 09:17
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has an excellent analysis of Trump's persuasive techniques here: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
I think that is a very insightful and accurate analysis of the Donald's style.
I was very dismayed by his failure to promise not to run a 3rd party campaign during the debate, and his failure to answer direct questions except to say the same things we have heard before only loader. Kinda turned my initial enthusiasm off.
However, watching and listening since, I think (1) he is putting some well thought out substance to his proposals and (2) his messaging and communications style is nearly perfect.
I could not work for him and his management style is too Steve Jobs like for my taste.. But, I also think that is exactly the kind of governance style we need! So if he were to get elected, I think he would make an excellent POTUS for the times. ;)
Roguish Lawyer
08-26-2015, 17:20
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251864-gop-pollsters-legs-shaking-after-trump-focus-group
Badger52
08-26-2015, 19:07
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251864-gop-pollsters-legs-shaking-after-trump-focus-groupIf Luntz' legs are shaking (easy Mathews...) then just maybe it's because he's just as out of touch as the Mesozoic folks he polls for. The sentiments expressed by the people he interviewed are only news to someone that's been sitting under a rock (or atop a pedestal) for too long.
“You guys understand how significant this is?” Luntz asked reporters, according to Time. “This is real. I’m having trouble processing it. Like, my legs are shaking.”
“I want to put the Republican leadership behind this mirror and let them see. They need to wake up. They don’t realize how the grassroots have abandoned them,” Luntz continued. “Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”
Roguish Lawyer
08-26-2015, 19:19
If Luntz' legs are shaking (easy Mathews...) then just maybe it's because he's just as out of touch as the Mesozoic folks he polls for. The sentiments expressed by the people he interviewed are only news to someone that's been sitting under a rock (or atop a pedestal) for too long.
Agreed, and this was a DC-area focus group. Imagine going far from the Beltway.
Badger52
08-26-2015, 19:28
Forgot to say thanks for posting RL. Have seen Luntz' work before but that was downright... amusing.
Team Sergeant
08-27-2015, 07:04
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/251864-gop-pollsters-legs-shaking-after-trump-focus-group
“Donald Trump is punishment to a Republican elite that wasn’t listening to their grassroots.”
Punishment?
Donald Trump is the cure for a GOP that's become nothing more than a virus......
I'd sure like to chat with the GOP pollsters..... Yeah I'm just another "low information" voter.....
mark46th
08-27-2015, 07:54
I hope Trump doesn't run third party. That would guarantee a democratic win.
I hope Trump doesn't run third party. That would guarantee a democratic win.
I hopte that the GOP doesn't force him to because it will guarantee a dem win.
Let Trump have fair shot at the nomination during the primary. If he wins, back him. If he doesn't, then do the politically smart thing and spiff him however you need to to keep him on the team. Stop screwing around with talk of "pledges" which are specifically targeted at Trump.
Screw the South Carolina GOP. If I were Trump I wouldn't sign a pledge under duress when I am the front runner. I would run as a write in candidate.
I agree with Trump's overall stance... if not treated fairly, I would definately run as a third party candidate. Who would decide "fair"? Me. That's the way it works when you have power....in this case supporters who vote. Because, in the end I (if Trump) could alwasy just go back to my life of being rich and successful.