The new literary genre "Estabilshment Trump Denialism" is providing me endless amusement and unfortunate distraction.

jerseyhoya wrote:; if Rubio endorsers (Cruz+Kasich+Carson perhaps) have enough delegates that theirs added to Rubio's is a majority (somewhat likely); .

I find it hard to imagine Cruz throwing his support to Rubio, the establishment choice. Doesn't Cruz hate the establishment? I feel like he aligns more closely with Trump, not so much in terms of the issues, but at least in terms of being against the party leaders. I can't see Cruz voters backing a Cuban who is being backed by establishment

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:; if Rubio endorsers (Cruz+Kasich+Carson perhaps) have enough delegates that theirs added to Rubio's is a majority (somewhat likely); .

I find it hard to imagine Cruz throwing his support to Rubio, the establishment choice. Doesn't Cruz hate the establishment? I feel like he aligns more closely with Trump, not so much in terms of the issues, but at least in terms of being against the party leaders. I can't see Cruz voters backing a Cuban who is being backed by establishment

I haven't seen any since Trump became the most likely R Pres nominee, but there were a flurry of articles that claimed Trump was more palatable to the establishment than Cruz a few weeks ago.

What are they going to do? They're not voting for Hillary. They may as well get behind him and try to work with him even if they can't control him.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:; if Rubio endorsers (Cruz+Kasich+Carson perhaps) have enough delegates that theirs added to Rubio's is a majority (somewhat likely); .

I find it hard to imagine Cruz throwing his support to Rubio, the establishment choice. Doesn't Cruz hate the establishment? I feel like he aligns more closely with Trump, not so much in terms of the issues, but at least in terms of being against the party leaders. I can't see Cruz voters backing a Cuban who is being backed by establishment

I haven't seen any since Trump became the most likely R Pres nominee, but there were a flurry of articles that claimed Trump was more palatable to the establishment than Cruz a few weeks ago.

Oh yeh, that's what I mean. Cruz and the GOP establishment do not like each other much. I can't see his supporters switching to Rubio when Rubio is the establishment choice. I would think Cruz's supporters would go for Trump.

Maybe I'm wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rep ... ald-trump/

This is pretty good and everyone here needs to calm the hell down. I generally like politics talk but this thread been getting a little rough.

TenuredVulture wrote:I do think this is the beginning of the end for the Republican party though. There's going to be Trump/Palin led party, and a Rump establishment party. I don't know where the true believer Cruz types will end up, but I'm not sure there's enough of them to make a difference either.

Sorry TV, but I think this is overstated. And not just because Trump would not be interested in either the hard work or the expenditure of money that would be required to found and run his own party. An independent run for the presidency - maybe. His own party? Nope. Maybe he hooks up with the "Reform" party (it still exists!) since I assume the Libertarian, Green, and Constitutional parties wouldn't have him. Maybe the Libertarians would, for the exposure - they I think may be sensing a moment opening up for them, despite Rand Paul's failure as a candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016.

In the US, in a two-party system, you are only ever one election cycle away from a volte-face, particularly if the "out" party is the conservative party. The center-left crowd largely stays home in non-presidential cycles even if things are great, and even more so if they are not. For whoever is in power, if the economy is tanking, or not doing whatever it is doing fast enough or good enough, the out party is there to sing the "change" song, and all of a sudden you're back in power.

I think part of the 2016 problem for Republicans right now is that, structurally, this isn't a great time - at least not as it stands right now - for the out-party. Economy is doing reasonably well. Oil prices are down, consumer confidence is up. Unemployment is down (I know, I know, someone will chime in about "real" unemployment, but the fact is that whatever the current state of unemployment actually is in an absolute sense, it is demonstrably better than it was the last time the Republicans were in office, and it is better than when Obama re-elected), and everywhere I go these days I see "help wanted" signs. There is anger, but much of it is limited to certain segments of the population, not enough to win anybody anything. Broader anger has to be manufactured. Never good for the out party. Things could change between now and November, for sure, but as of this moment - if you were forgetting "Republican" and "Democratic" and thinking only about "in" and "out," you'd have to bet on the "in" party, I think, if you are being honest.

I've had a pet theory for awhile that there is a line of thought within the Republican party with powerful backers that goes something like this: rather than attempt to win each election by putting up a center-right candidate for the presidency, let's take advantage of the inevitabilities of the two-party system and start nominating ideologically "pure" presidential candidates. It may take a few cycles, but EVENTUALLY you'll hit on one where the economy is bad in the year leading up to the vote, and people will hit the moment where they want change, and the only nominated alternative will be the Republican guy, so no matter what he claims to believe or says he'll do, he'll be the winner, because he'll be the "change" candidate in a "change year." If this argument held sway, or if Ted Cruz were less of an irredeemable dickhead, or if perhaps some of both were true, I imagine Cruz would be the nominee this year. Nominating Trump, if indeed it happens, is sort of the distorted funhouse mirror version of this strategy. I've thought this idea might take hold in the Republican party for some time, and was even thinking about making this post earlier today, but before I did, lo, I found this link to a National Review article which suggests that what I have long expected may indeed be what is happening, in a populist sense anyway: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -2016-2012

FWIW, a friend of mine has a theory that the Republican establishment isn't all that worried about winning the presidency, because the brand they have meticulously built - and which, lest we forget, takes advantage of the districting and apportionment systems of both the U.S. Congress and the 50 state legislatures to give them outsized influence over the legislative apparatuses of this country - functions best as an "out" party narrative. They turn people out reliably based on anger at the system - but if you occupy the figurative "head" of the system (i.e., the presidency), it makes it much more difficult to run against it, which has been a remarkably effective strategy for them these last 3 cycles. Indeed, If they held the White House, and became identical with the "system" - as they were, from 2000-2006 for certain, and even to a degree in 2008 - they'd actually be responsible for whatever was going on, and the last time that happened it did;t work out so great for the GOP.

JUburton wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-last-ditch-hope-to-stop-donald-trump/

This is pretty good and everyone here needs to calm the hell down. I generally like politics talk but this thread been getting a little rough.

In what sense?

mozartpc27 wrote:

JUburton wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-last-ditch-hope-to-stop-donald-trump/

This is pretty good and everyone here needs to calm the hell down. I generally like politics talk but this thread been getting a little rough.

In what sense?

team doc (which i think is just doc maybe) vs team pac.

ok maybe its just mostly doc's continued insistence that trump has no chance when he certainly has a path and is the favorite. maybe it just one of those things where you wish so hard and hope that makes it true.

i'm almost willing to roll the dice with a candidate trump that will give the democrats the presidency and the senate because that would be so awesome. but even a 1% chance of that racist becoming president is too much.

JUburton wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

JUburton wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-last-ditch-hope-to-stop-donald-trump/

This is pretty good and everyone here needs to calm the hell down. I generally like politics talk but this thread been getting a little rough.

In what sense?

team doc (which i think is just doc maybe) vs team pac.

ok maybe its just mostly doc's continued insistence that trump has no chance when he certainly has a path and is the favorite. maybe it just one of those things where you wish so hard and hope that makes it true.

i'm almost willing to roll the dice with a candidate trump that will give the democrats the presidency and the senate because that would be so awesome. but even a 1% chance of that racist becoming president is too much.

If I read doc right, I am in his camp. Everything logical says Rubio will eventually emerge the victor. I am also repeating that in part because I don't want to jinx a possibility that a scant 8 weeks ago I would have thought impossible - namely, that the Republican party would commit electoral suicide by nominating Donald Trump or having a brokered convention. Could it really be happening? If I say it out loud I'll ruin it.

mozartpc27 wrote:FWIW, a friend of mine has a theory that the Republican establishment isn't all that worried about winning the presidency, because the brand they have meticulously built - and which, lest we forget, takes advantage of the districting and apportionment systems of both the U.S. Congress and the 50 state legislatures to give them outsized influence over the legislative apparatuses of this country - functions best as an "out" party narrative. They turn people out reliably based on anger at the system - but if you occupy the figurative "head" of the system (i.e., the presidency), it makes it much more difficult to run against it, which has been a remarkably effective strategy for them these last 3 cycles. Indeed, If they held the White House, and became identical with the "system" - as they were, from 2000-2006 for certain, and even to a degree in 2008 - they'd actually be responsible for whatever was going on, and the last time that happened it did;t work out so great for the GOP.

I believe this is true. They've spent a lot of time and money getting entrenched in state legislatures.

Monkeyboy wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:FWIW, a friend of mine has a theory that the Republican establishment isn't all that worried about winning the presidency, because the brand they have meticulously built - and which, lest we forget, takes advantage of the districting and apportionment systems of both the U.S. Congress and the 50 state legislatures to give them outsized influence over the legislative apparatuses of this country - functions best as an "out" party narrative. They turn people out reliably based on anger at the system - but if you occupy the figurative "head" of the system (i.e., the presidency), it makes it much more difficult to run against it, which has been a remarkably effective strategy for them these last 3 cycles. Indeed, If they held the White House, and became identical with the "system" - as they were, from 2000-2006 for certain, and even to a degree in 2008 - they'd actually be responsible for whatever was going on, and the last time that happened it did;t work out so great for the GOP.

I believe this is true. They've spent a lot of time and money getting entrenched in state legislatures.

Yeah, this is one conspiracy theory that I could see being legit. Between their ability to control many states' politics from the inside and the favorable house districting, they're not doing so bad.

If Obama nominates Sandoval and the Senate doesn't confirm him, the Republicans might be finished even if Rubio comes back to take the nomination.

JUburton wrote:ok maybe its just mostly doc's continued insistence that trump has no chance

I haven't said he has no chance. I've said I don't believe he'll capture the nomination.There's a difference. I certainly believe he's much less inevitable than everyone calling the final score in the 1st quarter.

I understand Romney - you remember Mitt Romney? - has voiced concern that there may be ... peculiarities... with the frontrunner's tax returns. Peculiarities that may enable the Rs to play the equivalent of their morals clause card when/if the time is right.

If I recall right,Turnip gave Romney a tepid endorsement, which was tepidly accepted

jerseyhoya wrote:The deals to fuck Trump will be so beautiful and so amazing they will make your head spin.

I, for one, have seen what you did there (and enjoyed it)

The floodtide of 'institutional' enthusiasts for the frontrunner continues unabated. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) also threw down for D-man today. There may have been one little hitch:

"I don't think Trump wants my endorsement," Hunter said

Back in October 2014, Hunter asserted DHS picked up a dozen or so ISIS fighters coming a cross the Mexican border. Turns out the only federal authority knowledgeable of this feat of national security was...Duncan Hunter.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:The deals to fuck Trump will be so beautiful and so amazing they will make your head spin.

I, for one, have seen what you did there (and enjoyed it)

The Mexicans will pay for it in the end.

drsmooth wrote:

JUburton wrote:ok maybe its just mostly doc's continued insistence that trump has no chance

I haven't said he has no chance. I've said I don't believe he'll capture the nomination.There's a difference. I certainly believe he's much less inevitable than everyone calling the final score in the 1st quarter.

I understand Romney - you remember Mitt Romney? - has voiced concern that there may be ... peculiarities... with the frontrunner's tax returns. Peculiarities that may enable the Rs to play the equivalent of their morals clause card when/if the time is right.

If I recall right,Turnip gave Romney a tepid endorsement, which was tepidly accepted

Trump then proceeded to bash Romney when he lost, calling Romney a loser.

A loser who lost because he was too harsh in alienating Hispanic voters because nothing matters

following with falatistic bemusement a FB thread on one of the vintage philadelphia pages talking about rizzo. Lots and lots of folks still revere him.

I'm guessing that those folks also make up the Rump base.