Sassenach wrote:I think we're all agreed that Trump can't possibly win the nomination. The issue for the Republicans is that he's come to dominate the headlines to such an extent that when he does inevitably drop out the other candidates won't have been properly tested because the media currently doesn't give a damn about them. There has to be a big risk in this that somebody who turns out to be a completely unsuitable candidate ends up sneaking through without facing proper scrutiny.

Oh, there's still plenty of time. And, I don't think there's a shortage of debates or ad money. Furthermore, while I'm sure the liberals here are very concerned the GOP nominate the very best person possible, I think there is only one person running who would be any kind of disaster for the country: Trump. And, as bad as I think he would be, I'd vote for him 100 times before I voted for Hillary.

If the Republicans nominate someone who doesn't get proper scrutiny and can't stand the examination, then I suppose the Democrat will dance into office. However, out of all the candidates on the GOP side, I'm not really very worried.

And, I think Cruz has positioned himself to pick up the pieces should Trump exit.

Furthermore, Trump is so arrogant that once he starts looking like an also-ran, he'll attack everyone and leave the stage.

rickyp wrote:sass

There has to be a big risk in this that somebody who turns out to be a completely unsuitable candidate ends up sneaking through without facing proper scrutiny

.

Maybe that's exactly whats happening. With Trump. And Carson.
Its not like the media are managing to get specifics from Trump or doing any critical analysis. . And Carson has provided next to nothing specific.

Oh bother.

We're many months away from Iowa. There are 17 candidates. Some have put forth specific proposals, some have not. However, it is a dubious notion that anyone will get the nomination without anything specific.

I mean, come on, Hillary has made one proposal to raise taxes and another to . . . raise taxes. So, other than that, she's not being specific either.

I agree with Ricky --I just can't see that the Republican debate would be any better without Trump. Like him or not , at least he has some ideas.

He also has a skill-set that would be useful as president. He has a certain amount of charisma, useful in getting the public on his side to support policies. One would think that he is very familiar with negotiating tactics and that is certainly a skill that a president needs to have in dealing with other countries. And he seems to have a knack for finding an opponent's weak point and squeezing (JebBush--low-energy; Carly Fiorina--looks; Dr Carson--too nice). He has experience in running an organization, managing subordinates, making decisions,leading, etc. I suspect that he has a good deal of social intelligence, knows people and how to manipulate people

The problem is his level of seriousness. It is one thing to be provocative and attack an opponent to gain an edge in negotiations, but what if it provokes a war? And his (thus far) simple proposed solutions donot bode well for dealing with very complex problems that won't be solved that way.
There is a lack of depth there.

But at least Trump has some attributes that could be useful in a president..what have the other candidates got? Dr. Ben Carlson--ok he's smart, and black, and he is a conservative Republican. Is that all it takes to be president? Sure, becoming a successful surgeon took a lot of intelligence, skill and dedication...but how does that prepare one to be president? Being a doctor is akin to being a scientist--you have a problem and you solve it. But you don't really have to deal with other people, persuade them, manage them,use them. It is also a hierarchical profession--not necessarily good preparation for dealing with Congress. Does Dr Carlson have a background knowledge in history, economics, diplomacy,philosophy that would help him as president? We know he has no experience but does he have long experience in something analogous that would help him ala Trump?

Senator Cruz is scarier,though. An ideologue with crazy ideas who is convinced he is smarter than everyone else and will not compromise. I saw him interviewed by Hannity--he could easily get us into a war.

The rest of them have nothing. That is why the base is looking for an alternative , even if the alternative is deeply flawed like Trump or Dr. Carson.

freeman3 wrote:Senator Cruz is scarier,though. An ideologue with crazy ideas who is convinced he is smarter than everyone else and will not compromise.

This is funny. Substitute "Obama" for "Cruz" and what changes?

And, Cruz is "scary" because he actually believes in the Constitution. What could be more frightening than that?

I saw him interviewed by Hannity--he could easily get us into a war.

Oh brother. As opposed to letting Russia, China, Iran, and ISIS do as they please? Our current foreign policy is this: "We are the world's doormat. Please wipe your shoes on us."

The rest of them have nothing. That is why the base is looking for an alternative , even if the alternative is deeply flawed like Trump or Dr. Carson.

You could not be more wrong.

Let me explain it via analogy. What is Sanders great attraction? Flowing rhetoric? Electability? Personal charm? Good looks?

He's an old white guy. He's been in the Senate forever. However, he is not part of the Democratic aristocracy. Democrats are angry. They are expressing that via Bernie Sanders. He is saying what the base wants to hear, even if it's not realistic.

Similarly, Republicans are angry. We want Boehner out. We want McConnell to act like he cares or get out. We're sick of milquetoast losers.

So, some have taken leave of their senses and jumped on the Trump bandwagon (which, actually, involves a lot of non-base voters). Others are expressing their contempt for the party hierarchy by supporting Carson, Fiorina, or Cruz.

Carson is not flawed. He's nice. Nice and smart in politics is not a regular blend. I could see him winning Iowa. So what? The last two GOP caucuses were won by Huckabee and Santorum.

At this point in the last electoral cycle it was almost inconceivable that Mitt Romney would end up with the nomination, but somehow he won it anyway. I'd be very surprised if any of the oddball candidates were to win this time either.

But what do I know....?

Sassenach wrote:At this point in the last electoral cycle it was almost inconceivable that Mitt Romney would end up with the nomination, but somehow he won it anyway. I'd be very surprised if any of the oddball candidates were to win this time either.

But what do I know....?

Well, you know this: it won't be Rick Perry. He just dropped out.

fate

So, some have taken leave of their senses and jumped on the Trump bandwagon (which, actually, involves a lot of non-base voters)

According to the CNN "some" is half. Half are putting Trump first or second...
Polls that look at second choices are rare, but important in large field particularly to show who has room to grow. This is a big deal. If he maintains his support for another month, he's real.
Cruz is at 7% first and 7% second. He's as big a demagogue as Trump without the charm component.
I could see Cruz folding and his supporters lining up to the Trump train. Cruz is just echoing Trump now anyway. And insulting his fellow senators.

I wonder who will benefit from the 1 % who preferred Perry? The problem with expecting a change as the weak sisters drop out, is that they aren't leaving a lot of disappointed admirers behind who will be looking. Nothing changes.

Ricky:

According to the CNN "some" is half. Half are putting Trump first or second...

Yeah, that is absolutely astounding.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky

There's little to choose between any of them really.

Trump has been the only one among 17 to offer a different point of view on any of those issues. The others just the same positions .... usually offering little in the way of rationale or reasoning either.

sort of like when conservatives cannot tell the difference between communists, anarchists, socialists, social democrats, and liberals.

Other than when used as terms of abuse, this does not really reflect the more narrow breadth of the Democrats - let alone those running. Sanders is a social democrat, or a very moderate kind of socialist at a pinch.

What I see in the dozen or so Republican runners is a few more moderates, like Bush, but a plethora of right wingers, some more social and others more economic are all competing for the "traditionalist" vote. What are the fundamental policy differences between Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, Perry (passim), Huckabee or Rubio?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky

There's little to choose between any of them really.

Trump has been the only one among 17 to offer a different point of view on any of those issues. The others just the same positions .... usually offering little in the way of rationale or reasoning either.

sort of like when conservatives cannot tell the difference between communists, anarchists, socialists, social democrats, and liberals.

Other than when used as terms of abuse, this does not really reflect the more narrow breadth of the Democrats - let alone those running. Sanders is a social democrat, or a very moderate kind of socialist at a pinch.

What I see in the dozen or so Republican runners is a few more moderates, like Bush, but a plethora of right wingers, some more social and others more economic are all competing for the "traditionalist" vote. What are the fundamental policy differences between Cruz, Carson, Fiorina, Perry (passim), Huckabee or Rubio?

Google still not working over there?

Just on immigration here are some differences:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm

Carson: •Moral low road to use cheap labor if no path to citizenship. (Feb 2015)
•Use Canadian model for guest worker program. (Jan 2015)
•Common-sense solutions: guest workers plus harsher penalties. (Jan 2015)

Cruz:
•Support Kate's Law: oppose our leaders who won't enforce. (Aug 2015)
•End Obama's illegal amnesty via Congress' checks & balances. (Nov 2014)
•Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)

Fiorina:

•Pass immigration reform in a series of bills. (Nov 2014)


Huckabee

•Give DREAMers legal status & let them apply for citizenship. (May 2015)
•Let illegal immigrant kids in college despite parents' crime.

Perry:

•Aviation assets 24/7 all the way from Tijuana to Texas. (Aug 2015)
•Supports state-based DREAM Act; opposes federal DREAM Act. (Feb 2015)
•All-of-the-above approach to resources to defend our border. (Feb 2015)
•No comprehensive immigration reform until border is secure. (Aug 2014)

Rubio:

•Joined "Gang of Eight" to push comprehensive reform. (Apr 2015)
•Deal with border & future immigrants BEFORE any amnesty. (Feb 2015)
•2010: Earned path to citizenship is code for amnesty. (Feb 2015)
•Modernize immigration to win global competition for talent. (Sep 2014)
•Human trafficking law & deferred action caused border crisis. (Aug 2014)
•FactCheck: No MarcoPhones, and no executive DREAMers either. (Apr 2014)
•Give kids of illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates. (Jan 2014)

Those are all just the same to you?

I'm not sure if these immigration policy differences matter much. Are they willing to spend the political capital to prevail over a good portion of the base that wants nothing more than a secure border? Show me a Republican that will not cut taxes without equally cutting spending, who will at least not raise military spending, who will be conservative about military involvement overseas, who has some economic ideas that are not trickle-down and is going to do something about economic stratification (through tax policy,access to education,trade policy, corporate power, Wall Street, worker's power vis-a vis large corporate employers, etc . ) and energy policy that does not cater to oil and coal producers and I might be interested... Otherwise on major issues there won't be much difference. Not that Hillary will be that much better on many of these issues , but she will be better.

rayjay

Just on immigration here are some differences:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Immigration.htm

An interesting site. Though I don't know why anyone should be SOOO interested in what Roseanne Barr has to say....
However, these are public statements. and politicians have been known to "evolve" their position on issues. Do these public statements line up with their current policy proposals? (I guess I could look at candidates web sites and I will. But maybe someone has another site which has done that work for the reader?)

Carson's Guest worker notion works for seasonal workers. But its highly controversial in Canada outside of the use of seasonal agricultural workers. In industries like the oil sands extraction and service industries its claimed that the seasonal worker program is exacerbating unemployment levels and simply a way for companies to exploit migrants at the expense of local employment and pay levels.
If used in the US for places like meat packing .... it would just legalize the exploitation that has gone on for years. And which lowered both legal American employment and cut wages in half over the last 20 years.

freeman3 wrote:I'm not sure if these immigration policy differences matter much. Are they willing to spend the political capital to prevail over a good portion of the base that wants nothing more than a secure border? .

Bush, Rubio?

Show me a Republican that will not cut taxes without equally cutting spending,

Paul?

who will at least not raise military spending, who will be conservative about military involvement overseas,

Paul?

who has some economic ideas that are not trickle-down

Huckabee

...worker's power vis-a vis large corporate employers, etc . )

that one is so lefty how does that even make any sense? None of them are calling for massive redistribution either.

...and energy policy that does not cater to oil and coal producers and I might be interested...

Kasich, Pataki,

Otherwise on major issues there won't be much difference.

Could it be that's a function of the media you turn on and the lens you use?

How do you react when people on the right say that Clinton, Sanders, Obama, Biden, etc., are all the same?

You've convinced me, RJ--the Republican candidates are all bad, but they are bad in different ways...

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

According to the CNN "some" is half. Half are putting Trump first or second...

Yeah, that is absolutely astounding.

Here's the thing: people, as I've said, are sick of politicians who won't/can't get anything done. Trump's persona (to re-appropriate a term he used wrongly) is that he gets things done. He knows what he's doing and can do just about anything.

The problem is that he's not likeable enough. That persona and the brash, dismissive manner have to survive six months without getting old. I can't see it happening.

Furthermore, the Super-Pacs are going to get busy airing out his dirty laundry.

Once he starts losing steam, I think the crash will be more spectacular than the rise.