GOP preparing for contested convention

[CanadaJohn]

Agreed.

And this very well may have the powers-that-be considering the possibility of Sen Cruz, if he will stay-off the NYC billionaire.

I disagree. The powers that be won't make the decision - the primary voters will make the decision. Cruz, in my view, will be no different from Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. Each of those type cast themselves into the small wedge of the Republican party that Iowa supports - Christian conservatism. That wedge of the party, while relevant, isn't demonstrative of where the party will go in choosing its nominee. Cruz has also put his chips into the Libertarian wedge of the party by voting against the NSA's ability to track telephone traffic without a warrant, thus making it exponentially more difficult to track the plans of people like the San Bernardino terrorists. Terrorism and the safety of Americans at home has grown greatly among voters' issues of significance and Cruz has voted on the wrong side of that issue.

When Cruz wins Iowa, and he will, the guns of the other remaining candidates will be squarely aimed at him and he'll wither away in a manner similar to Carson. The one benefit a Cruz win provides the party is that it shows that Trump is easily beatable and will shake up the polling going forward. Cruz is a very unlikable personality - very polarizing, like Trump. I see few primary voters choosing Cruz as their second choice. As many of the bottom feeders leave the race, watch for Bush, Rubio and Christie to gain some momentum moving into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and more importantly the big, multi-State primaries coming up.

The circus leaves town after Iowa and into New Hampshire and things start to get more serious after that. Before Iowa, lots of candidates stick around to see if they can hit a home run or triple that gets them some name recognition going forward. The field always drops drastically after that. I expect it to be much more bunched as far as polling goes into New Hampshire and coming out of New Hampshire, where serious money and serious organization will be needed on the ground going forward and that will help to focus the Republican discussion and choice.

One of Bush, Rubio or Christie will be the Republican nominee and each will be a superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I believe it will be Bush because he's the most qualified, most serious, and with the best temperament for the job, but either of the other two would also be excellent choices in the general election. Each could and will bring significant help to contested Senate races and help the Republicans keep control of the Senate and each will be far superior in bringing some cooperation in government to get some of the serious problems solved and issues dealt with going forward. Clinton, Cruz and/or Trump would all be disasters for America moving forward because the plot line would be all about them and their personalities and not about the serious business of getting **** done.

 

[CanadaJohn]

If it makes you guys feel any better...the left is going through that same thing right now. There are people who are saying that either Bernie Sanders gets the nomination...or they will stay home rather than vote for Hillary Clinton, whom they see (as they do with Barack Obama) as way too far right for their taste.

Amazing...the fringe element.

It doesn't make me feel better, but you're absolutely right.

 

[Chomsky]

I disagree. The powers that be won't make the decision - the primary voters will make the decision. Cruz, in my view, will be no different from Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. Each of those type cast themselves into the small wedge of the Republican party that Iowa supports - Christian conservatism. That wedge of the party, while relevant, isn't demonstrative of where the party will go in choosing its nominee. Cruz has also put his chips into the Libertarian wedge of the party by voting against the NSA's ability to track telephone traffic without a warrant, thus making it exponentially more difficult to track the plans of people like the San Bernardino terrorists. Terrorism and the safety of Americans at home has grown greatly among voters' issues of significance and Cruz has voted on the wrong side of that issue.

When Cruz wins Iowa, and he will, the guns of the other remaining candidates will be squarely aimed at him and he'll wither away in a manner similar to Carson. The one benefit a Cruz win provides the party is that it shows that Trump is easily beatable and will shake up the polling going forward. Cruz is a very unlikable personality - very polarizing, like Trump. I see few primary voters choosing Cruz as their second choice. As many of the bottom feeders leave the race, watch for Bush, Rubio and Christie to gain some momentum moving into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and more importantly the big, multi-State primaries coming up.

The circus leaves town after Iowa and into New Hampshire and things start to get more serious after that. Before Iowa, lots of candidates stick around to see if they can hit a home run or triple that gets them some name recognition going forward. The field always drops drastically after that. I expect it to be much more bunched as far as polling goes into New Hampshire and coming out of New Hampshire, where serious money and serious organization will be needed on the ground going forward and that will help to focus the Republican discussion and choice.

One of Bush, Rubio or Christie will be the Republican nominee and each will be a superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I believe it will be Bush because he's the most qualified, most serious, and with the best temperament for the job, but either of the other two would also be excellent choices in the general election. Each could and will bring significant help to contested Senate races and help the Republicans keep control of the Senate and each will be far superior in bringing some cooperation in government to get some of the serious problems solved and issues dealt with going forward. Clinton, Cruz and/or Trump would all be disasters for America moving forward because the plot line would be all about them and their personalities and not about the serious business of getting **** done.

Thanks for the well-written reply, John.

I may not agree perfectly point-for-point (though there's much I do agree), but there really is nothing in your post I can critically fault.

This is why I'm happy the Gov from NJ seems to be getting a bounce, because I think he's an important voice to be heard. Way back before BridgeGate he was the GOP wunderkind candidate, and the guy I feared most in the general (from my non-GOP perspective).

And to clarify: I realize the GOP leadership cannot technically pick the nominee, but I was alluding to their attempting to push their chosen guy.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Thanks for the well-written reply, John.

I may not agree perfectly point-for-point (though there's much I do agree), but there really is nothing in your post I can critically fault.

This is why I'm happy the Gov from NJ seems to be getting a bounce, because I think he's an important voice to be heard. Way back before BridgeGate he was the GOP wunderkind candidate, and the guy I feared most in the general (from my non-GOP perspective).

And to clarify: I realize the GOP leadership cannot technically pick the nominee, but I was alluding to their attempting to push their chosen guy.

I agree, the leadership doesn't want Trump or Cruz and will push, in the Spring, for whomever of the three I noted who seems to have the organization and the support to make it to the convention with enough support to get pushed over the top. In a way, that's what their role should be as leaders of the party.

Christie is getting another look, deservedly so, and I think it is because of the discontent of many with the front runners so far. It's why I'm glad to see that Bush has received a small uptick, both nationally and more importantly in the New Hampshire polls where he's most recently at 8% and just a couple of points out of second. Back in July, before Trump got in the race, Bush was leading in NH with about 15% in polling, so its not inconceivable that he will regain some of that love or at least tepid like as the vote there gets closer and more serious primary voters get engaged.

Almost every Presidential primary year we hear about the base wanting an outsider and someone new and yada yada yada. That's just the bleatings from the cheap seats from people who aren't invested or even marginally interested in politics and government and haven't a clue what it takes to actually lead a country as dynamic and complex as America. And pretty much always, once the serious voting starts to take place, the outsiders start to fall by the wayside and the more establishment candidates move to the front. Not sure when or why "establishment" became a curse word, but if we're going to have representative government I'd rather have someone who gives a damn and knows what he/she is doing than some loud mouth asshole whose ego is driving them for validation.

Should be an interesting 6 to 8 months. I'm betting once we hit summer next year we won't even recognize what was happening way back in December 2015.

 

[Frank Apisa]

I agree, the leadership doesn't want Trump or Cruz and will push, in the Spring, for whomever of the three I noted who seems to have the organization and the support to make it to the convention with enough support to get pushed over the top. In a way, that's what their role should be as leaders of the party.

Christie is getting another look, deservedly so, and I think it is because of the discontent of many with the front runners so far. It's why I'm glad to see that Bush has received a small uptick, both nationally and more importantly in the New Hampshire polls where he's most recently at 8% and just a couple of points out of second. Back in July, before Trump got in the race, Bush was leading in NH with about 15% in polling, so its not inconceivable that he will regain some of that love or at least tepid like as the vote there gets closer and more serious primary voters get engaged.

Almost every Presidential primary year we hear about the base wanting an outsider and someone new and yada yada yada. That's just the bleatings from the cheap seats from people who aren't invested or even marginally interested in politics and government and haven't a clue what it takes to actually lead a country as dynamic and complex as America. And pretty much always, once the serious voting starts to take place, the outsiders start to fall by the wayside and the more establishment candidates move to the front. Not sure when or why "establishment" became a curse word, but if we're going to have representative government I'd rather have someone who gives a damn and knows what he/she is doing than some loud mouth asshole whose ego is driving them for validation.

Should be an interesting 6 to 8 months. I'm betting once we hit summer next year we won't even recognize what was happening way back in December 2015.

Christie is so unpopular here in New Jersey...he almost certainly would not carry the state if he were the nominee. 55% unfavorable...and only 35% (almost entirely Republican) favorable.

Our state is in worse shape now than it has been in decades.

If a Republican has to win next November...I certainly hope it is not him.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Christie is so unpopular here in New Jersey...he almost certainly would not carry the state if he were the nominee. 55% unfavorable...and only 35% (almost entirely Republican) favorable.

Our state is in worse shape now than it has been in decades.

If a Republican has to win next November...I certainly hope it is not him.

I don't disagree and although I think Christie would be a fine President, I don't think he brings with him the necessary State Electoral College votes that most nominees need to bring with them in order to win the Presidency. It's why I didn't support Romney last time around choosing Ryan as his running mate because Ryan brought nothing to the race.

I think Bush brings Florida for sure and with Kasich as his running mate he'd ensure Ohio and perhaps dig into Michigan and Pennsylvania. Bush would also open up Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and some other western States that have no love for Clinton.

Christie does, however, have the benefit of winning two State wide elections in liberal New Jersey and that's not without some merit. I just don't think New Jersey will be in play for Republicans in 2016.

 

[tres borrachos]

I disagree. The powers that be won't make the decision - the primary voters will make the decision. Cruz, in my view, will be no different from Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. Each of those type cast themselves into the small wedge of the Republican party that Iowa supports - Christian conservatism. That wedge of the party, while relevant, isn't demonstrative of where the party will go in choosing its nominee. Cruz has also put his chips into the Libertarian wedge of the party by voting against the NSA's ability to track telephone traffic without a warrant, thus making it exponentially more difficult to track the plans of people like the San Bernardino terrorists. Terrorism and the safety of Americans at home has grown greatly among voters' issues of significance and Cruz has voted on the wrong side of that issue.

When Cruz wins Iowa, and he will, the guns of the other remaining candidates will be squarely aimed at him and he'll wither away in a manner similar to Carson. The one benefit a Cruz win provides the party is that it shows that Trump is easily beatable and will shake up the polling going forward. Cruz is a very unlikable personality - very polarizing, like Trump. I see few primary voters choosing Cruz as their second choice. As many of the bottom feeders leave the race, watch for Bush, Rubio and Christie to gain some momentum moving into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and more importantly the big, multi-State primaries coming up.

The circus leaves town after Iowa and into New Hampshire and things start to get more serious after that. Before Iowa, lots of candidates stick around to see if they can hit a home run or triple that gets them some name recognition going forward. The field always drops drastically after that. I expect it to be much more bunched as far as polling goes into New Hampshire and coming out of New Hampshire, where serious money and serious organization will be needed on the ground going forward and that will help to focus the Republican discussion and choice.

One of Bush, Rubio or Christie will be the Republican nominee and each will be a superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I believe it will be Bush because he's the most qualified, most serious, and with the best temperament for the job, but either of the other two would also be excellent choices in the general election. Each could and will bring significant help to contested Senate races and help the Republicans keep control of the Senate and each will be far superior in bringing some cooperation in government to get some of the serious problems solved and issues dealt with going forward. Clinton, Cruz and/or Trump would all be disasters for America moving forward because the plot line would be all about them and their personalities and not about the serious business of getting **** done.

Bush's new ads in NH are very good. They paint him as a strong leader. If people can forget who his father and brother are, I think they may give him a good look. I still won't be voting for him in the primary but I think his showing will be much better than people think it will be.

Christie's ads are also very good. That and his endorsement by the Union Leader (which every candidate wanted, even Hillary) will be sure to help him.

 

[Absentglare]

Bush isn't going to win. How can anyone seriously argue that ?

Why do republicans hope for their nominee with the least public exposure to win ? Seriously, Trump, Fiorina, and Carson are all completely unexperienced, Bush has fallen so far down no one is following him, and after months of the circus acts that are the republican primaries, you hope for Bush ?

Never mind that Hillary would mop the floor with any candidate with double digits at the polls, this very thread indicates the republican party is rattling itself apart with its own rhetoric.

 

[Iamjesus]

I disagree. The powers that be won't make the decision - the primary voters will make the decision. Cruz, in my view, will be no different from Santorum in 2012 and Huckabee in 2008. Each of those type cast themselves into the small wedge of the Republican party that Iowa supports - Christian conservatism. That wedge of the party, while relevant, isn't demonstrative of where the party will go in choosing its nominee. Cruz has also put his chips into the Libertarian wedge of the party by voting against the NSA's ability to track telephone traffic without a warrant, thus making it exponentially more difficult to track the plans of people like the San Bernardino terrorists. Terrorism and the safety of Americans at home has grown greatly among voters' issues of significance and Cruz has voted on the wrong side of that issue.

When Cruz wins Iowa, and he will, the guns of the other remaining candidates will be squarely aimed at him and he'll wither away in a manner similar to Carson. The one benefit a Cruz win provides the party is that it shows that Trump is easily beatable and will shake up the polling going forward. Cruz is a very unlikable personality - very polarizing, like Trump. I see few primary voters choosing Cruz as their second choice. As many of the bottom feeders leave the race, watch for Bush, Rubio and Christie to gain some momentum moving into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and more importantly the big, multi-State primaries coming up.

The circus leaves town after Iowa and into New Hampshire and things start to get more serious after that. Before Iowa, lots of candidates stick around to see if they can hit a home run or triple that gets them some name recognition going forward. The field always drops drastically after that. I expect it to be much more bunched as far as polling goes into New Hampshire and coming out of New Hampshire, where serious money and serious organization will be needed on the ground going forward and that will help to focus the Republican discussion and choice.

One of Bush, Rubio or Christie will be the Republican nominee and each will be a superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I believe it will be Bush because he's the most qualified, most serious, and with the best temperament for the job, but either of the other two would also be excellent choices in the general election. Each could and will bring significant help to contested Senate races and help the Republicans keep control of the Senate and each will be far superior in bringing some cooperation in government to get some of the serious problems solved and issues dealt with going forward. Clinton, Cruz and/or Trump would all be disasters for America moving forward because the plot line would be all about them and their personalities and not about the serious business of getting **** done.

Not really. Cruz's victory is a big plus for Trump. It puts another buffer between Rubio and the nomination

The race, media, etc. is Trump vs Cruz. Not Trump vs Rubio. Rubio can't get traction and is floundering around trying to get attention. Trump can beat Cruz. Not an issue.

I doubt if Rubio now wants the nomination if it means being the candidate of the establishment. He'd lose badly without Trumps support. He is young and would prefer it in 2020.

 

[Iamjesus]

Christie is so unpopular here in New Jersey...he almost certainly would not carry the state if he were the nominee. 55% unfavorable...and only 35% (almost entirely Republican) favorable.

Our state is in worse shape now than it has been in decades.

If a Republican has to win next November...I certainly hope it is not him.

Christie is dead. Bush is dead. The nominee will be Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Rubio is almost dead. There are no figures hiding in the shadows pulling the strings. Fox, CNN, Twitter, etc. have more influence than any imaginary party Establishment...Clinton learned this in 2008.

 

[Absentglare]

Christie is dead. Bush is dead. The nominee will be Trump, Cruz or Rubio. Rubio is almost dead. There are no figures hiding in the shadows pulling the strings. Fox, CNN, Twitter, etc. have more influence than any imaginary party Establishment...Clinton learned this in 2008.

Ironically, Lindsey Graham is their best candidate. Guy's below baby Bush's 5th/6th place in the polls.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, has been the only one to openly say he would never support Trump for president."

Ben Carson joins Donald Trump in threatening to leave GOP - CNNPolitics.com

I guess he didn't lie his ass off to create enough fake outrage.

 

[clownboy]

Lindsey Graham has thrown his hat in the ring forever now, and not once has anyone other than his immediate family considered him a serious candidate. I think he just wants to photobomb the republican primaries.

 

[gdgyva]

I don't disagree and although I think Christie would be a fine President, I don't think he brings with him the necessary State Electoral College votes that most nominees need to bring with them in order to win the Presidency. It's why I didn't support Romney last time around choosing Ryan as his running mate because Ryan brought nothing to the race.

I think Bush brings Florida for sure and with Kasich as his running mate he'd ensure Ohio and perhaps dig into Michigan and Pennsylvania. Bush would also open up Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and some other western States that have no love for Clinton.

Christie does, however, have the benefit of winning two State wide elections in liberal New Jersey and that's not without some merit. I just don't think New Jersey will be in play for Republicans in 2016.

CJ

Bush is, and has been done for awhile....he just doesnt realize it yet

His super pacs spent 50 million, and his numbers went DOWN

Christie was never going anywhere....

That leaves your third choice...Rubio

Who i see as the ending pub nominee....

he is mainstream enough for the RINO's

he is new enough for the people who want "new blood" in their politicans

he will carry Florida, and if he has Fiorina or Kasich as hi running mate, it really helps with the electoral college

Carson is sliding now....he was never going to be president....never had the "it" factor

Trump will go all the way to the convention, but i think Rubio gets the nod

 

[Iamjesus]

E

Ironically, Lindsey Graham is their best candidate. Guy's below baby Bush's 5th/6th place in the polls.

"Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, has been the only one to openly say he would never support Trump for president."

Ben Carson joins Donald Trump in threatening to leave GOP - CNNPolitics.com

I guess he didn't lie his ass off to create enough fake outrage.

Graham? Zero chance. I like the guy...one of the more thoughtful and ethical politicians out there (at least on the surface). Graham's issue is that he is caught in a dilemma...not support Trump but also not alienate Trump's supporters. He also has the kiss of death...would have support from the old guard, McCain, Bush, Romney, etc. Exactly what Trump supporters will be turned off by.

 

[ARealConservative]

so which state is Trump going to win?

I see he does well in national polling, but neither Iowa, nor New Hampshire will be sending delegates trumps way.

at some point, he needs actual delegates, right? Where are they coming from?

 

[clownboy]

so which state is Trump going to win?

I see he does well in national polling, but neither Iowa, nor New Hampshire will be sending delegates trumps way.

at some point, he needs actual delegates, right? Where are they coming from?

He'll take Iowa, NH - where he's currently up 15, Georgia where he's up 27, SC where he's up 8. He'll sweep the early primary states.

 

[ARealConservative]

He'll take Iowa, NH - where he's currently up 15, Georgia where he's up 27, SC where he's up 8. He'll sweep the early primary states.

so what happens when Trump finishes second or third in Iowa and New Hampshire?

 

[clownboy]

so what happens when Trump finishes second or third in Iowa and New Hampshire?

Same thing that happens to any candidate that finishes second in the primaries. However, that's not what the polling indicates. He'll be the republican nominee.

 

[ARealConservative]

Same thing that happens to any candidate that finishes second in the primaries. However, that's not what the polling indicates. He'll be the republican nominee.

polling indicates he will not win Iowa. Anyone but Trump is leading. First it was Carson, now it is Cruz.

not sure what is in the water in New Hampshire

 

[Iamjesus]

He'll take Iowa, NH - where he's currently up 15, Georgia where he's up 27, SC where he's up 8. He'll sweep the early primary states.

True...he comes out of Super Tuesday with a big lead. AND... Look at the words he and Cruz are using when describing each other. ' I am a better decision maker'...'I read people better'. Some version of 'he's a good guy, but I'm better'. Cruz may win NH but as important for Trump, it is not a victory for Rubio. Trump and Cruz...first and second vs Rubio. This is Rubio's nightmare scenario.

 

[Hatuey]

You don't know how to read a poll.

Smaller portions think those others are the greatest.

Reagan has the highest numbers. He wins.

You just hate losing an argument.

So Reagan is the best US president because 1 in 5 people think and the 4 other people who don't think he is, don't matter? I think the words you're looking for is that a plurality of Americans think of Reagan as the best president. However, it's clear from your own poll that the majority of Americans, do not think he was.

 

[Chomsky]

I agree, the leadership doesn't want Trump or Cruz and will push, in the Spring, for whomever of the three I noted who seems to have the organization and the support to make it to the convention with enough support to get pushed over the top. In a way, that's what their role should be as leaders of the party.

Christie is getting another look, deservedly so, and I think it is because of the discontent of many with the front runners so far. It's why I'm glad to see that Bush has received a small uptick, both nationally and more importantly in the New Hampshire polls where he's most recently at 8% and just a couple of points out of second. Back in July, before Trump got in the race, Bush was leading in NH with about 15% in polling, so its not inconceivable that he will regain some of that love or at least tepid like as the vote there gets closer and more serious primary voters get engaged.

Almost every Presidential primary year we hear about the base wanting an outsider and someone new and yada yada yada. That's just the bleatings from the cheap seats from people who aren't invested or even marginally interested in politics and government and haven't a clue what it takes to actually lead a country as dynamic and complex as America. And pretty much always, once the serious voting starts to take place, the outsiders start to fall by the wayside and the more establishment candidates move to the front. Not sure when or why "establishment" became a curse word, but if we're going to have representative government I'd rather have someone who gives a damn and knows what he/she is doing than some loud mouth asshole whose ego is driving them for validation.

Should be an interesting 6 to 8 months. I'm betting once we hit summer next year we won't even recognize what was happening way back in December 2015.

Well, even though Bush is super-establishment, I think Sen Rubio has an advantage for the GOP picking an 'establishment' candidate - unlike Bush, Rubio doesn't have a high dislike amongst the various disparate GOP factions. In a way Rubio's like Paul Ryan: He's not a deal breaker for anyone. He's acceptable to everyone.

I don't see the far right & T-party going along with Bush, as they might with Rubio.

As to: "When did 'establishment' become a dirty word"?

It's been a mood brewing in the country for several election cycles, and now on both sides of the aisle. Many citizens have grown disenchanted with the money beholding politics in D.C. Trump is the prime example of this - he's beholden to no one; and that holds strong appeal to many today.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Bush's new ads in NH are very good. They paint him as a strong leader. If people can forget who his father and brother are, I think they may give him a good look. I still won't be voting for him in the primary but I think his showing will be much better than people think it will be.

Christie's ads are also very good. That and his endorsement by the Union Leader (which every candidate wanted, even Hillary) will be sure to help him.

Good afternoon TB,

I'm glad to see that Bush is playing in NH and still thinks he has a shot. You don't hear much about what's happening on the ground in NH yet, but what you say is probably why he's had a bit of an uptick in the polls there. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush, Rubio and Christie all made it into the top four in NH by the time the votes are counted. At least I'm hoping.

 

[tres borrachos]

Good afternoon TB,

I'm glad to see that Bush is playing in NH and still thinks he has a shot. You don't hear much about what's happening on the ground in NH yet, but what you say is probably why he's had a bit of an uptick in the polls there. It wouldn't surprise me if Bush, Rubio and Christie all made it into the top four in NH by the time the votes are counted. At least I'm hoping.

You and me both, CJ!

 

[CanadaJohn]

Not really. Cruz's victory is a big plus for Trump. It puts another buffer between Rubio and the nomination

The race, media, etc. is Trump vs Cruz. Not Trump vs Rubio. Rubio can't get traction and is floundering around trying to get attention. Trump can beat Cruz. Not an issue.

I doubt if Rubio now wants the nomination if it means being the candidate of the establishment. He'd lose badly without Trumps support. He is young and would prefer it in 2020.

Don't kid yourself. If Trump doesn't get his way he'll go back to financially and politically supporting the Clinton's as he's always done and he'll laugh off people like you who seriously considered him a conservative.