Who is your favorite Candidate for the Republican Nomination?

[Gaoics79]

While the idea of Trump as a Hillary plant has some appeal, I really really really doubt it. If it were true I suspect Trump would be guilty of some manner of fraud and may face legal (possibly criminal sanction) and if Hillary had anything to do with it she'd be a co-conspirator not mention persona non grata (to say nothing of Trump)

[Fenring]

If Trump was really a Clinton plant then the idea would have been to sabotage those most likely to threaten the Clinton campaign (Bush and whoever else). This is exactly what he did, but now that he's the frontrunner even if he WAS a plant I'm sure that all bets are off and he'll go for the win. I don't believe he'll bow down and 'hand' Hillary the election if it comes down to the two of them even if the original plan was for him to drop out after tarnishing Bush. I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. Against Bernie I think he'd go after the socialist angle, but against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.

[AI Wessex]

Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam, so why not Trump fulfilling Hillary's fantasy?

[Pete at Home]

When you say "him" do you mean trump the person, or the persona that was created for this election?

[AI Wessex]

That question implicitly assumes that either of them might be real.  We know the non-candidate version has exhibited a lot of behaviors that we don't typically associate with real people, too.  They may both be avatars.

[Pete at Home]

Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam

Those your opinions, or you pretending I believe any of that?

Trump has donated millions to the Clinton's. And how is wrecking the GOP not useful to Hillary?

[Pete at Home]

While the idea of Trump as a Hillary plant has some appeal, I really really really doubt it. If it were true I suspect Trump would be guilty of some manner of fraud and may face legal (possibly criminal sanction) and if Hillary had anything to do with it she'd be a co-conspirator not mention persona non grata (to say nothing of Trump)

Impossible to prove in court and no clear applicable law.  Election straw man date back to Roman times, and AFAIK there has never been a prosecution.

Well, Bill killed Foster, W was behind the WTC and Obama is a UN mole to deliver the US to Islam

Those your opinions, or you pretending I believe any of that?

Trump has donated millions to the Clinton's. And how is wrecking the GOP not useful to Hillary?

[NobleHunter]

It'd be a neat trick if true. If Trump's campaign implodes in October, the chattering class will congratulate themselves on being essentially right, just missing the timing. If it becomes an open secret, the people who would be most upset are the powerless and disenfranchised; the monied and influential classes will see it forestalling a populist rebellion in the GOP. They've not forgotten that the Tea Party formed in response to the bailouts of late 2008. A Trump collapse might finally neuter the Tea Party and restore control of the GOP to the establishment types.

The only way to prove collusion would be if either party admits it or if there's documentary evidence. I doubt either party is stupid enough to have put it in writing.

[JoshCrow]

I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. [...] against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

[Fenring]

I also think he could beat Hillary, since her public image would probably not survive his kind of character attack. [...] against her he'd go after her on a personal level, and I think it might work.

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

That's true. Then again it seems like personal attacks tend to sour opinion against the attacker, unless your name is Trump. He seems to know how to do it right, which may be the difference. For instance when the GOP wants to smear Hillary they'll levy an accusation on a particular topic and hope it sticks, and when it doesn't they'll try something else. Trump might just dispense with making 'official complaints' against her and just say sans context "we all know SHE'S A LIAR" and leave it at that. Without context or specifics it can't be refuted and yet some people will come out saying "yeah, he's right, she does seem like a liar" without having in mind exactly what she may have lied about. This is exactly what he did to Bush, where Trump utterly annihilated his campaign by impugning him offhand without even bothering to address anything Bush actually ever said or did. It's media wars and shows how stupid campaigning is. Hillary's normal tactic of evading particular accusations won't help if Trump never accuses her of anything! He can play directly off of her general unlikeability and attack her person without attacking her campaign. You're right that we can't know if this will work, but she hasn't had to face this kind of direct assault yet since in normal politics this kind of thing isn't really done to this extent.

[Gaoics79]

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart. Now the young women of the party are throwing their support behind an old white geezer.

On top of everything, I'm not convinced her legal issues are just going to evaporate as she would like.

People keep saying how incredibly strong Hillary is going to be in a general election. We'll see (assuming Sanders doesn't vanquish her).

[AI Wessex]

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.

It learns.

[Pete at Home]

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.

It learns.

So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.

[JoshCrow]

Hillary has outlasted more personal attacks than you may realize... she's almost exhibit A for how to survive that. If he's an unstoppable force, she's an immovable object. It's like when the Juggernaut runs into the Blob. There's no clear answer.

I keep having to remind people that the "immovable object" lost in 2008 to a total upstart.

To be clear, I was speaking strictly about how she weathers personal attacks, which wasn't the tack Obama used.

[Fenring]

So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.

I have to admit that, despite myself, I laughed at this.

[Pete at Home]

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/56afcc13e4b0b8d7c2303e12

To this date, Bernie is the only candidate to cross Sabres with Trump and leave Trump sputtering, backpedalling, and revising his statementa

[Pete at Home]

I'm in shock.  Only a year ago I actually considered registering Republican in order to support Fiorina; now she has nothing.  Same with the next most IMO palatable candidate, Kasich.

Frightening that Cruz and Trump are the front-runners.  And surprised that Cruz beat Trump in IOWA of all places, despite his opposition to the ethanol boondoggle.

On the Democratic front, my prapers for Mr. Sanders' continued health ...!

[AI Wessex]

Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH, it's a bad sign for Republicans if Cruz is their candidate, since he based his Iowa effort almost entirely on the evangelical vote there, which isn't nearly as strong in most other states.

[D.W.]

I'm curious if this says something about Iowa or if it's more of a, "Trump is super fun to listen to and watch on TV but I'm not really going to vote for the guy!  That's crazy talk!", thing.

[NobleHunter]

Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH, it's a bad sign for Republicans if Cruz is their candidate, since he based his Iowa effort almost entirely on the evangelical vote there, which isn't nearly as strong in most other states.

Low turnout? Reports I'm seeing are that Republicans had a much higher turnout that usual.

[AI Wessex]

Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.

[D.W.]

Wow!  60% for a primary?

[AI Wessex]

Got anything better to do?  Can't harvest rocks 24/7....

[Pete at Home]

Not so surprising, given Iowa demographics and the low voter turnout.  Also not quite so surprising that Trump didn't do better, given that he is at least as much a personality as a candidate.  I cited someone the other day who predicted Cruz would win for those very reasons.

As for Bernie's success, I looked at some demographic charts and he killed her in the 18-27 year old range, but with each higher age range Hillary did increasingly better. It's a bad sign for the Democrats if Bernie is their candidate since older people will be more likely to tolerate a seemingly moderate Republican if they can't vote for Hillary. OTOH,

LMAO.  Which leading Republican are you accusing of seeming "Moderate"?  Cruz?  Trump?  Rubio?

Surely there's been a Trump vs Sanders or a Cruz vs Sanders poll done among the elderly.  What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them? 

[AI Wessex]

I don't think anyone who rides around in a clown car can be called moderate, so choose whoever you think is best suited to sit in the Oval ("hey, isn't this supposed to be a circle?") office.  Iowa is not a trend state for nominations (Santorum or Huckabee, anyone?), but the high-wattage, low-power Trump machine may be ready to fade.  If that happens, he could still affect the convention, either by driving some sort of bargain with Rubio (the eventual nominee ) or by forcing a second ballot in hopes of sneaking in through the back door.  Maybe he'll just spend his gazillions to get Palin as the next Secretary of Energy, which she covets, but where on the first day on the job she'll discover that she has no control over natural resources like oil.

[AI Wessex]

Surely there's been a Trump vs Sanders or a Cruz vs Sanders poll done among the elderly.  What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them? 

He's not low-risk.  Rubio could charm them with promises to keep illegals out and guard their portfolios, but Sanders would ask them to pick up a weapon and fight for the revolution.

[Fenring]

Rubio could charm them with promises to keep illegals out and guard their portfolios, but Sanders would ask them to pick up a weapon and fight for the revolution.

Are you suggesting an actual reason the elderly might not vote for him, or a misguided reason that an ignorant person could be persuaded to believe? In reality Sanders does more for the elderly and for vets than any other candidate, and if the elders could possibly name one candidate who is totally on their side it's him. That being said I agree with you that the whole revolution thing wouldn't appeal to the elderly since old people tend to dislike the idea of change, especially when they're being asked to do something. While this may sound like a wash I think it needs to be remembered that while Sanders is calling for the people to demand change, he most likely doesn't mean that the elderly should go marching on Washington. I think it's more or less expected that a lot of the people who would take political action would be younger people, which leaves the elderly not having to worry so much about some call to arms. All they ought to be concerned about is having their social security and benefits protected, and Bernie is definitely that guy.

[Seriati]

What aspect of Sanders do you see terrifying them?

Many older voters have enough experience to understand the consequences of socialism.  The pretty ideas that it espouses appeal strongly to the young and uneducated.  Hence he's going to lose appeal with experienced voters and voters that are actually educated (to be differentiated from those who've received a modern education).

On the other hand, it's hard not to respect Bernie, he seems brutally honest.

[scifibum]

I think people who think Sanders is a "socialist" full stop are stretching the definition of educated.

[AI Wessex]

I think you and Fenring are both wrong.  I don't mean he will literally line up 80-year old's with pitchforks to march on Congress, of course.  But he will try to mobilize them, which perturbs their already uneasy equilibrium with the system.  I'm technically a Sr now, and I am worried that Bernie will be an utter failure, not that he will win the revolution.  The effort would tie Congress up in knots (and nots) his entire term in office.  As for seniors being afraid of "socialism", none of them -- and none of us -- really know what that is, but it will never happen here.

The one thing I would hope he *could* accomplish if he miraculously survives to take office would be single payer health care.  It's absolutely appalling to listen to any politician claim that it would be a disaster. What we have now is a catastrophe.  I truly don't understand why you think it is overall better than the systems that virtually all other "civilized" countries provide to their citizens.  Go ahead and find an outlier in some country and pretend that it makes socialized health care an unmitigated disaster.  I'll skip that post...

[Wayward Son]

I was just looking at the raw numbers from Iowa.

Can anyone explain why Jim Gilmore is still in the race? 

[AI Wessex]

Does he know that?

[AI Wessex]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, whether this is true or not.

OP presidential candidate Ted Cruz decided to run for president based on divine calling, his father told a religious television station.

Pastor Rafael Cruz told the Dove TV that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’ decision resulted from 6 months of prayer, which culminated in a 2-hour session in which Cruz felt divine inspiration which directed him to enter the race, according to Right Wing Watch.

During the intense prayer session, Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, said “seek God’s face, not God’s hand,” the elder Cruz said. He believes this was divinely inspired as well.

“It was as if there was a presence of the Holy Spirit in the room and we all were at awe,” Cruz stated, “and Ted, all that came out of his mouth, he said, ‘Here am I Lord, use me. Here am I Lord, I surrender to whatever Your will for my life is.’ And it was at that time that he felt a peace about running for president of the United States.”

[AI Wessex]

A not unreasonable assessment of how Republican voters were leaning in Iowa and in general.

[Gaoics79]

Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.

Apples and oranges. Caucuses are special.

[AI Wessex]

Still low, around 10%.  NH usually gets around 60% for their primary.

Apples and oranges. Caucuses are special.

Operationally, yes, but in terms of participation they both represent the same thing.

[Wayward Son]

So it's possible she may again be defeated by upstart Sanders. Assuming he doesn't shoot himself with his off hand or have his plane go down, or have some unprecedented and sudden heart attack while in confinement.

While you may be worried about Sanders, perhaps we should be worried about Donald Trump.   

[Pete at Home]

I think people who think Sanders is a "socialist" full stop are stretching the definition of educated.

I think you and Fenring are both wrong.  I don't mean he will literally line up 80-year old's with pitchforks to march on Congress, of course.  But he will try to mobilize them, which perturbs their already uneasy equilibrium with the system.  I'm technically a Sr now, and I am worried that Bernie will be an utter failure, not that he will win the revolution.  The effort would tie Congress up in knots (and nots) his entire term in office.  As for seniors being afraid of "socialism", none of them -- and none of us -- really know what that is, but it will never happen here.

Well socialism *did* happen here in 1946 when Truman broke the steel strike, but when it did, it wasn't called "socialism."

I for one would rather have a nonsocialist that calls himself a socialist, than an actual practicing socialist that calls himself the leader of the free world.

[AI Wessex]

Regarding the title of this thread, my new favorites are Santorum and Rand, as they both dropped out today.  And a fond goodbye to McNalley, if that was his name, we hardly knew ye.

[Pete at Home]

So your faves are those that page the way for Ted Cruz?

[AI Wessex]

I'm still holding out for a brokered convention that will pick Alan Simpson.  Remember that FDR won the nomination in a brokered convention and that Dewey was also a brokered nominee.  If it can't be Simpson, I'll stick with either Clinton or Sanders, if it is him I'll still stick with either of the others, but he would be more fun.

[Pyrtolin]

Kasich and Graham were probably the least objectionable of the lot to me; and I think either one of them would actually have had the best chance of challenging the Democrats by actually being able to appeal to the middle rather than only pulling at the establishment and fringe.

I do have a morbid curiosity to see if Trump will try to pull off the biggest Heel-Face Turn in history if he takes the nomination. I would not be surprised at all if he tired to retcon his entire campaign and perhaps even run a little left of the Democratic nominee in the general, as that would actually match his strategy so far.

[Pete at Home]

Kasich was OK.  Damn shame, this election.  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324, BBC asks "Why are Americans so angry?"

[Fenring]

Kasich was OK.  Damn shame, this election.  http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35406324, BBC asks "Why are Americans so angry?"

Kasich was ok in some of what he said, but went off the rails when he promised to "punch Russia right in the nose." In this area he put himself squarely in the World War III party, although I'm actually willing to believe in his case that he said this out of profound ignorance rather than bloodlust.

[Pyrtolin]

Kasich was ok in some of what he said, but went off the rails when he promised to "punch Russia right in the nose." In this area he put himself squarely in the World War III party, although I'm actually willing to believe in his case that he said this out of profound ignorance rather than bloodlust.

Hence "least objectionable". There's not one that I'd prefer to a piece of burnt toast, but I can still honestly evaluate which one I least dislike.

[Pete at Home]

Short of Putin's timely sudden convenient death, I am not sure war with Russia is avoidable.  Is there anywhere you would draw the line, Fenring? Putin takes Baltics?  Putin takes Poland?  Putin retakes Warsaw pact satellite countries? 

Please don't toss away my respect for you by acting like I posed a rhetorical question.  I honestly would like to know if you would draw a red line anywhere, and if so, where.

[Fenring]

Short of Putin's timely sudden convenient death, I am not sure war with Russia is avoidable.  Is there anywhere you would draw the line, Fenring? Putin takes Baltics?  Putin takes Poland?  Putin retakes Warsaw pact satellite countries? 

Please don't toss away my respect for you by acting like I posed a rhetorical question.  I honestly would like to know if you would draw a red line anywhere, and if so, where.

Red line? Are you referring to the fraudulent 'red line' Obama drew in Syria? They had it in for the Assad regime prior to the use of that term and were going to claim the line was crossed no matter what Assad did, so I'd like to point out that your use of the term is, in my opinion, ironic, since it actually means crossing arbitrary non-existent lines that are drawn to support a pre-chosen course of action. The concept that the Soviet Union is back and is on the move trying to annex the world is one of the most dangerous pieces of propaganda among the quite healthy flow of it that has been sent our way in the last few years. The one single event justifying any concern about Russia was Crimea, and I'm not at all convinced Russia was entirely in the wrong there (I think multiple parties may actually have simultaneously been in the wrong and Russia decided not to get screwed as a result). Other than that you seem to be buying into Neocon fear-mongering where Russia is the big bad guy. Like all major powers Russia must be negotiated with and met in the middle, and some warhawks hate the idea that another nation has a mind of its own and won't be dictated to. In the last 20 years far more aggressive moves have been made against Russia than by Russia, by a massive margin.

Does that answer your question?

[Pete at Home]

No, it doesn't answer my question.  You are not a head of state to my knowledge, so AFAIK no one would be harmed if you disclosed a position.

For Chamberlain, the Red Line was Poland.

My question is, is there ANYTHING Putin could do that would make you reevaluate your belief of what he is about? Or do you give him unlimited Carte Blanche?

I don't assume Putin is Hitler.  Nor do I assume he is not. That bit of radioactive poisoning in London proves he passes Stalin and Saddam Hussein on the bat*censored* index. (Which is not, in itself, a reason to go to war or even blab about punching folks in the face, but neither is it reason to act as if nothing could possibly drive us to war. I would do anything for Peace but I won't do that.

[D.W.]

My prescience sees not Russia but China as our opponent and not for awhile yet.  It will be over rare earth metals not oil, land, coastal control or security posturing.   Putin does have carte blanche for the most part.  Even if all sides got hyper aggressive, the scope of conflict would be highly constrained.

The next (current?) front of super powers butting heads is going to be cyber-warfare and then smashing each other's satellites into clouds of debris that makes a mess out of everyone's low orbit fun.

[Pete at Home]

Russia's not our opponent so long as we give him carte blanche in Europe and the middle east.  China's not our opponent so long as we give it carte blanche in Asia and the Pacific.  Our only inherent opponent, AFAIK, is the drug cartels, which are about a lot more than drugs at this point.