2016 GOP Candidates for President

[Guest El Chalupacabra]

He will win, but not a sweep like the polls.

 

I think it will be Trump, Rubio, then Cruz, and Kasich 4th.

 

For dems, I think Sanders takes it.

[Ms. Spam]

Yeah, we're in Sanders territory.

 

I am tempted to start another thread just for NH!

[Carrie Mathison]

I think he is a misogynist

Why?

 

I'm not sure you know what the word means. The definition of "misogynist" is someone that hates women. As in categorically (i.e. women, not one singular woman).

 

Sure, Trump probably hates some women, but hey, so does everybody, including yourself. There is no evidence that he hates women in general. He has aggressively insulted a couple of women, but then again, he insults pretty much everyone he doesn't like, which is a long list (and is not limited to women, but includes lots of others: the disabled, McCain, Mexicans, Islam, oh- let's not forget the time he made fun of Ben Carson for like 15 min on stage, etc., we could go on and on) He's more of an equal opportunity offender. That may make him a dick, but not a misogynist.

 

He's awful at referring to women, as he's used words like dogs, disgusting animals and fat pigs. He said Hillary Clinton was disgusting for visiting the ladies' room.

He suggested Megan Kelly was having a period and this is why she asked the questions she did of him.

Well maybe, but he doesn't say that to all women. The ones that go after him, sure, but then again, he aggressively responds to anyone that goes after him. See my post above to spam.

 

I think you're just seeing what you want to see. No matter who the GOP nominated, sh-t even if they nominated Fiorina (maybe even especially if they nominated Fiorina), you would still be accusing the GOP candidate of being bad with women. It's just part of the Dems' playbook (and yours, for that matter), accuse the GOP candidate of fighting the 'war on women' no matter who the candidate is, no matter what they say. Just admit it.

 

Given that, seems a little unfair to be singling out Trump.

[Pong Messiah]

I totally agree, CM. As much as it pains me to come off like I'm defending Trump, objectively speaking, it doesn't seem to me like he singles out women for offensive attacks. He's just an insult comic with no filter running for president; race, gender, age, ability, whatever be damned.

 

Also, we get closer to the election, any non-Democrat who doesn't support unconditional abortion up to the second the baby is out of the womb and breathing with the umbilical cord cut will be portrayed as "anti-woman," so... yawn.

[Carrie Mathison]

Exactly. And on that note, the reason it annoys me so much is because the one word labels are just so.... lazy.

 

I went off in detail on this in a couple other threads so won't do so again, but progressives just don't get it. There's a reason why the more Trump is criticized like this, the more support he gets. I have to laugh every time I see one of those blog posts or articles smugly pointing to the GOP, saying "this is what you get! You created this monster, now deal with it!"

 

It's just like, wait a minute, there's two sides to that coin. Sure, there may be a kernel of truth to that, but in a world where the news isn't dominated by SJW crusades, does Trump even exist? I don't know. The problem with identity politics is when it reaches its natural and logical end point, when you start drawing lines in the sand and refusing to even talk to people who would otherwise be reasonable, you force people to take sides.

 

Take the Megyn Kelly episode. Bet you a majority of people at the time simply saw it as this- she strongly went after Trump (probably because at that time Trump was waffling with being an independent and thumbing his nose at Fox), and Trump strongly responded in kind. And then most people probably shrugged their shoulders and went on with their day. But then when it's reported as misogynist, and sexist, and evil, and of course, everyone's favorite- Trump is worse than Hitler (seriously.. the number of times I've seen Trump compared to Hitler...), well that guy who was previously apathetic, now he's probably annoyed. And now he hears it over, and over, and over, about basically every story that breaks, no matter how innocuous, and from everybody, at work, at home from his annoying sister that's getting a $50k/yr worthless degree at [insert liberal arts college where you do nothing], and on, and on and on, everything is racist, or sexist, or imperialist, or cis-bigoted, or ableist, or whatever the new in-vogue label will be. Eventually that annoyance turns to anger. You draw the lines in the sand, you force people to take sides.

 

Progressives like to point the finger at the GOP, I point the finger right back at them. You created this, you did. Now you deal with it.

[Ms. Spam]

I haven't gotten a single result from NH yet. I'm pretty sure Sander's got NH but I think Trump came in first, right?

 

As for misogynist - I know exactly what the word means. I probably watched too many celebrity apprentice shows which have caused me to form my opinions about Trump. Mostly though, I'm just being a jerk.

[Pong Messiah]

I have never seen The Apprentice. Is he unfair/meaner to female contestants or something?

[Ms. Spam]

I think so. Or just more blunt.

 

For you, Pong: Ted Cruz gets trolled by Vermin Supreme

 

http://theslot.jezebel.com/ted-cruz-gets-trolled-by-pro-pony-presidential-candidat-1758050869

 

"TED CRUZ! DO YOU THINK THAT WATERBOARDING WATER SHOULD BE FLOURIDATED?"

[Destiny Skywalker]

Huff Post lost their goddamn minds about Trump winning NH. LOLZ.

[Guest]

Might be worth it to have President Trump just for that.

[monkeygirl]

Well maybe, but he doesn't say that to all women. The ones that go after him, sure, but then again, he aggressively responds to anyone that goes after him. See my post above to spam.

 

I think you're just seeing what you want to see. No matter who the GOP nominated, sh-t even if they nominated Fiorina (maybe even especially if they nominated Fiorina), you would still be accusing the GOP candidate of being bad with women. It's just part of the Dems' playbook (and yours, for that matter), accuse the GOP candidate of fighting the 'war on women' no matter who the candidate is, no matter what they say. Just admit it.

 

Given that, seems a little unfair to be singling out Trump.

 

 

 

Well, YEAH, it's part of the Democratic party's deal, I get that. And you made a pretty good point that I can't deny. I don't feel like I singled Trump out, though. You're right-I bought the party line and think they ALL have a dim view of women because of their views on reproductive rights. But I generally single-out

Trump because of his comments about having the hots for his own daughter. I think he's far below the other candidates as far as human beings go. That, I'd gladly single him out for.

 

[Good God a Bear]

I just wish Condoleezza Rice was in the game.

 

The one thing I find entertaining about the Democratic race...

 

In 2008, McCain was criticized by Democrats for his age and whether at 71 he could run the country...Sanders is 74.

The Democratic Party is touted as the 'party of diversity' yet an old white man is winning the primaries.

[The Kurgan]

No matter who the GOP nominated, sh-t even if they nominated Fiorina (maybe even especially if they nominated Fiorina), you would still be accusing the GOP candidate of being bad with women. It's just part of the Dems' playbook (and yours, for that matter), accuse the GOP candidate of fighting the 'war on women' no matter who the candidate is, no matter what they say. Just admit it.

... everything is racist, or sexist, or imperialist, or cis-bigoted, or ableist, or whatever the new in-vogue label will be. Eventually that annoyance turns to anger. You draw the lines in the sand, you force people to take sides.

 

Progressives like to point the finger at the GOP, I point the finger right back at them. You created this, you did. Now you deal with it.

Can't help but wonder if this isn't a genie the right wing uncorked, in its own way. For how long was it that conservative modus operandi boiled down to demonizing their political opponents - cries of socialist, communist, liberal, degenerate, immoral, etc etc. They discovered, not so long ago, that soundbite politics that frame issues in very black and white, us-and-them terms, morally loaded so as to make opponents out to be terrible people, and repeated incessantly by and for the faithful, can make an irresistible political force, especially if credible media sources can be harnessed and the illusion of mass popular support can be projected.

 

Sure, it's bad politics and bad for the country. But nobody's innocent of it.

[Justus]

Christie and Fiorina out of the race.

[Pong Messiah]

I would say I'm gonna miss Fiorina, because there was like a three week period where just mentioning her name would send certain, more sensitive progressives into orgasmic hate-spasms, but she's been boring for a couple of months now. Christie has acquired too much baggage over the last few years, and Trump immediately usurped him as "Mr. Unfiltered," so really, he should have left a while ago as well.

[Darth Krawlie]

Christie has acquired too much baggage over the last few years

omg fat shamer

[Ms. Spam]

I would say I'm gonna miss Fiorina, because there was like a three week period where just mentioning her name would send certain, more sensitive progressives into orgasmic hate-spasms, but she's been boring for a couple of months now. Christie has acquired too much baggage over the last few years, and Trump immediately usurped him as "Mr. Unfiltered," so really, he should have left a while ago as well.

I dunno about baggage but man Christie was relentless in persuing Rubio in his attacks. That strategy - if one could call it that - was wrong and ended up just culling the lesser from the heard. At this point the Trump ball is rolling and the established GOP should take notice. They should have came at the Trump giant head on and started attacking but they didn't take him seriously and now Trump is honestly going to probably end up Candidate Number 1.

[Pong Messiah]

I dunno about baggage

Forgetting for a moment bridgegate and Christie's politically inopportune hug of Obama: team Romney wanted Christie as VP in 2012, and quickly changed their minds after vetting him. Consensus was "Damn, we would utterly destroy this guy with his past if he were running against us. Obama and the media will chew him up and spit him out."

 

iirc, there was no one thing that was an instant disqualifier, it was just like an 8 year drip-drip-drip of bad judgment, impulsive spending, nepotism, etc. that painted an ugly picture and ran counter to his "straight shooter" persona.

 

[Ms. Spam]

I'm pretty sure all these guys have stuff in their closets. Trumps worst is basically his Dad's history beyond that he's filed bankruptcy on multiple business ventures. Currently Cruz is getting in trouble for some pretty stupid stuff concerning campaign contributions and font - laugh out loud - for missrepresenting himself. I think Christie's issues are manageable. He's set the expectation and if he just screws up a few things I'd be okay with it. Kasich is interesting me again.

 

Oddly I was rereading what End said because that thread got topped and was thinking if Hillary crossed the aisle and ran GOP that would be funny.

[Pong Messiah]

I'm pretty sure all these guys have stuff in their closets.

True. My point is that Christie's past is worse -- or at least perceived as being worse -- than most, to the point of being disqualifying.

[Carrie Mathison]

I dunno about baggage but man Christie was relentless in persuing Rubio in his attacks. That strategy - if one could call it that - was wrong and ended up just culling the lesser from the heard. At this point the Trump ball is rolling and the established GOP should take notice. They should have came at the Trump giant head on and started attacking but they didn't take him seriously and now Trump is honestly going to probably end up Candidate Number 1.

 

No offense, but your analysis is off the mark. Christie's strategy was fine, it was just too little, too late. Before the debate, he was below 5% and Rubio was sitting up in the high teens, even getting up to 21% at one point. After the debate, when the actual NH results came in, Christie moved up to 7%, Rubio fell all the way down to 10%. Clearly his attack changed things up.

 

The problem wasn't the strategy, there just wasn't enough news cycles between the two for Christie to take advantage of the momentum and build his brand. The primary was only 2 days after he destroyed Rubio on national TV in the debate, and one of those days was the Super Bowl. Even stories that go viral need a little more time. The initial story was enough to sink Rubio, but Kasich and Bush were sorta tied for pole position if Rubio faltered. Christie needed more time to get people to give him a second look and he didn't have it.

 

Going after Trump would've been pretty stupid. First, Trump had such a commanding lead, that it wasn't going to make a difference. Second, if Christie scored against Trump, the one that was in position to benefit was Rubio or even Cruz, not Christie. Again, Rubio was sitting up in the high teens/low 20s at the time- he would've taken a chunk of the vote and Cruz would've taken the rest. Christie might've gotten a sliver, but not enough to pull him up from 3-4%. Third, along those lines, Christie was not in a position to win the NH primary, but he had a chance at become the most viable establishment candidate. At the time, the establishment was starting to rally around Rubio, so Christie's only hope was to go hard on Rubio and hope that, when his support fell and scattered among the other establishment candidates, he'd pick up enough to move past Bush and Kasich. Finally, Rubio's overly scripted and stiff mannerisms are a clear contrast to the more natural style of Christie- it's easy for him to go after Rubio. Trump is more cut from the same cloth as Christie and it's harder to draw a contrast with a guy that does what you do, but better.

 

It was a fine strategy, and may have even worked if Christie had another couple weeks and maybe one more debate. You describe him as if he was bumbling around with no clue, which is inaccurate and also sorta amateur political analysis. Christie knew going into the debate that he wasn't making enough progress in NH, so he went for the hail mary and knowing there wasn't enough time on the clock, figured if he was going down, he was gonna take down someone with him.

[Ms. Spam]

What I was saying is if they're repulsed by Trump they should have started attacking him and not the weaker of the herd. I think if Christie was going to fall on his sword and go out punching jabs at Rubio for the GOP he should have started a lot sooner on Trump and not Rubio. Even attacking Cruz would be great. I am at the point where I think the GOP genuinely want Trump. Jeb has also been poking at Rubio too. The whole class of potential candidates is uninspired because they have yet to produce a candidate that a white chick who is okay with gays getting married but wants to keep my 401K and live comfortably without much fuss would want to vote for.

 

FYI i = armchair political analyst. I don't give a fuck if I'm right or not. But the 15+ GOP Candidates that started this race are now looking at Trump and either need to GTFO or go big. They didn't take Trump serious in the beginning and now its really gotten away from them and if they want to get the nomination away from batshit crazy Ted Cruz somethings got to start happening.

[Guest]

The problem is, Trump has a superpower where when someone attacks him, it makes him stronger.

 

If the liberals had ignored Trump, he wouldn't be our next president.

[Pong Messiah]

Holy shit, this is the most entertaining debate ever!

[Ms. Spam]

HA! GO RUBIO GO!