CDZ Which is more important?

[320 Years of History]

This thread is targeted mainly to genuine independents, not "closeted" Democrats or "closeted" Republicans or "closeted" whatever else.

Last night, the GOP candidates attempted variously to debate which of them is most likely/most able to defeat the Democratic Presidential nominee. Really?

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?
• Why in the name of all that's good in the world would I prefer a candidate for their ability to defeat the Democratic nominee before I determine that I think they would be a good President in their own right?
• Wouldn't the fact that they are the best choice on the merit and efficacy of the policy stances inherently imply that they should be the candidate most able to defeat the Democratic nominee?
• If I'm a voter -- GOP, Dem, Indy, something else -- why would I a candidate whom I consider "a disaster" to become President simply because that person has named my party as his too? Isn't a good Democrat still better than a lousy Republican?

It seems to me that having that discussion is putting the horse before the cart. In another year, from a purely temporal perspective, it might not be, but in this cycle, the circus that has thus far been the GOP Primary race -- short on substance, long on insults -- it is. What is this? The era of policy insouciance and intellectual irrelevance? God, I hope not, yet I see the writing begin to appear on the wall suggesting it might be. Scary....

 

[Tehon]

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?

We have reached a part of the cycle where we will see a lot of closed primaries, independents lose relevance in the process at this point I believe. And from the GOP perspective, the thought (hope), is that the establishment candidates will fair better without independents in the mix.

Wasn't that also the point of Romney's speech. To impress on the constituency that the ultimate goal is to defeat the democrats, and that Trump was not a viable choice to achieving that goal. The timing of that speech makes a little more sense to me now.

 

[midcan5]

Important? Funny but I find Trump's self congratulatory election dialogue interesting when he gets outside himself and talks trade and other countries dumping their products on American soil. Look where things are made today, or survey his screaming audience on what car they drive? This is an area few mention in either party as both believe the nonsense of free market preachers. Wanna get down the debt, build here and tax here, but do you really think Apple, Nike, and all the corporations that offshore work are going to listen? America is based on constant growth and that is married to a stock market mentality that ain't changing soon. We are now a service and entertainment economy. Keeps the folks happy. And so it goes,,,,

 

[320 Years of History]

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?

We have reached a part of the cycle where we will see a lot of closed primaries, independents lose relevance in the process at this point I believe. And from the GOP perspective, the thought (hope), is that the establishment candidates will fair better without independents in the mix.

Wasn't that also the point of Romney's speech. To impress on the constituency that the ultimate goal is to defeat the democrats, and that Trump was not a viable choice to achieving that goal. The timing of that speech makes a little more sense to me now.

TY for your reply.

Red:
I'm hard pressed to think "the GOP perspective" thinks that, but maybe they do indeed hope that to be so.

I don't think the "the GOP perspective," assuming that phrase refers to the Party heads, because I'm sure they "know the numbers" just as I do: Democrats hold a 50% to 37% edge. That necessarily means that regardless of whether independents can vote in the upcoming primaries, they are nonetheless essential to any candidate Republicans put forth if they are to have any chance of winning.

That's why you see Democratic candidates focus on "getting out the vote." So long as Democrats don't "stay home," and don't vote Republican, based on the top level math, Presidential races basically are theirs to lose.


Blue:
Frankly, I think Mr. Romney's speech did more to solidify in the minds of Democrats the great importance of getting out and voting against Mr. Trump because he is absolutely not the person who will make a good President. In that regard, it may have been among the best motivators for getting out the Democratic vote, which, quite frankly, may be the best hope the so-called Republican establishment have for at least making sure Mr. Trump does not become President.

I think as a left-leaning Republican, Mr. Trump had a very decent shot of actually winning the election, and by a commanding margin to boot. As the "all over the map," inconsistent circus train wreck he's made of himself, there's no way. Truly, back when Mr. Trump's candidacy was rumored and then first announced, he had what could have amounted to the easiest path to the Presidency ever seen, the Presidency was effectively his to lose, and he blew it. All he had to do was the do the one thing his vast independent wealth allowed him to do -- articulate very clear, firm, and substantive, factually supported and innovative stances on every issue -- and he'd have easily won.

Instead the man has contradicted himself daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Instead, he's over and over just been factually wrong. Instead, like a child who is "frontin'" because he really didn't do his homework, he's repeatedly issued platitudes rather than substance. Worst of all, in the racially charged climate we have right now, he failed to unequivocally alienate white supremacists...I mean really, that's the one group to whom he didn't have to, for any reason, in any way shape or form kowtow, and yet rather than just outright "slamming the door shut" on them, left a little "crack of hope" -- the same "crack" of ambiguity that plagues most everything he says -- for them.

 

[Tehon]

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?

We have reached a part of the cycle where we will see a lot of closed primaries, independents lose relevance in the process at this point I believe. And from the GOP perspective, the thought (hope), is that the establishment candidates will fair better without independents in the mix.

Wasn't that also the point of Romney's speech. To impress on the constituency that the ultimate goal is to defeat the democrats, and that Trump was not a viable choice to achieving that goal. The timing of that speech makes a little more sense to me now.

TY for your reply.

Red:
I'm hard pressed to think "the GOP perspective" thinks that, but maybe they do indeed hope that to be so.

I don't think the "the GOP perspective," assuming that phrase refers to the Party heads, because I'm sure they "know the numbers" just as I do: Democrats hold a 50% to 37% edge. That necessarily means that regardless of whether independents can vote in the upcoming primaries, they are nonetheless essential to any candidate Republicans put forth if they are to have any chance of winning.

That's why you see Democratic candidates focus on "getting out the vote." So long as Democrats don't "stay home," and don't vote Republican, based on the top level math, Presidential races basically are theirs to lose.


Blue:
Frankly, I think Mr. Romney's speech did more to solidify in the minds of Democrats the great importance of getting out and voting against Mr. Trump because he is absolutely not the person who will make a good President. In that regard, it may have been among the best motivators for getting out the Democratic vote, which, quite frankly, may be the best hope the so-called Republican establishment have for at least making sure Mr. Trump does not become President.

I think as a left-leaning Republican, Mr. Trump had a very decent shot of actually winning the election, and by a commanding margin to boot. As the "all over the map," inconsistent circus train wreck he's made of himself, there's no way. Truly, back when Mr. Trump's candidacy was rumored and then first announced, he had what could have amounted to the easiest path to the Presidency ever seen, the Presidency was effectively his to lose, and he blew it. All he had to do was the do the one thing his vast independent wealth allowed him to do -- articulate very clear, firm, and substantive, factually supported and innovative stances on every issue -- and he'd have easily won.

Instead the man has contradicted himself daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Instead, he's over and over just been factually wrong. Instead, like a child who is "frontin'" because he really didn't do his homework, he's repeatedly issued platitudes rather than substance. Worst of all, in the racially charged climate we have right now, he failed to unequivocally alienate white supremacists...I mean really, that's the one group to whom he didn't have to, for any reason, in any way shape or form kowtow, and yet rather than just outright "slamming the door shut" on them, left a little "crack of hope" -- the same "crack" of ambiguity that plagues most everything he says -- for them.

I don't think the "the GOP perspective," assuming that phrase refers to the Party heads, because I'm sure they "know the numbers" just as I do: Democrats hold a 50% to 37% edge. That necessarily means that regardless of whether independents can vote in the upcoming primaries, they are nonetheless essential to any candidate Republicans put forth if they are to have any chance of winning.

But the GOP establishment either doesn't believe they can win the general with Trump or they don't think he represents their agenda. So with more closed primaries on the very near horizon the independent vote can be put aside for the moment while they focus on defeating Trump.

 

[320 Years of History]

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?

We have reached a part of the cycle where we will see a lot of closed primaries, independents lose relevance in the process at this point I believe. And from the GOP perspective, the thought (hope), is that the establishment candidates will fair better without independents in the mix.

Wasn't that also the point of Romney's speech. To impress on the constituency that the ultimate goal is to defeat the democrats, and that Trump was not a viable choice to achieving that goal. The timing of that speech makes a little more sense to me now.

TY for your reply.

Red:
I'm hard pressed to think "the GOP perspective" thinks that, but maybe they do indeed hope that to be so.

I don't think the "the GOP perspective," assuming that phrase refers to the Party heads, because I'm sure they "know the numbers" just as I do: Democrats hold a 50% to 37% edge. That necessarily means that regardless of whether independents can vote in the upcoming primaries, they are nonetheless essential to any candidate Republicans put forth if they are to have any chance of winning.

That's why you see Democratic candidates focus on "getting out the vote." So long as Democrats don't "stay home," and don't vote Republican, based on the top level math, Presidential races basically are theirs to lose.


Blue:
Frankly, I think Mr. Romney's speech did more to solidify in the minds of Democrats the great importance of getting out and voting against Mr. Trump because he is absolutely not the person who will make a good President. In that regard, it may have been among the best motivators for getting out the Democratic vote, which, quite frankly, may be the best hope the so-called Republican establishment have for at least making sure Mr. Trump does not become President.

I think as a left-leaning Republican, Mr. Trump had a very decent shot of actually winning the election, and by a commanding margin to boot. As the "all over the map," inconsistent circus train wreck he's made of himself, there's no way. Truly, back when Mr. Trump's candidacy was rumored and then first announced, he had what could have amounted to the easiest path to the Presidency ever seen, the Presidency was effectively his to lose, and he blew it. All he had to do was the do the one thing his vast independent wealth allowed him to do -- articulate very clear, firm, and substantive, factually supported and innovative stances on every issue -- and he'd have easily won.

Instead the man has contradicted himself daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Instead, he's over and over just been factually wrong. Instead, like a child who is "frontin'" because he really didn't do his homework, he's repeatedly issued platitudes rather than substance. Worst of all, in the racially charged climate we have right now, he failed to unequivocally alienate white supremacists...I mean really, that's the one group to whom he didn't have to, for any reason, in any way shape or form kowtow, and yet rather than just outright "slamming the door shut" on them, left a little "crack of hope" -- the same "crack" of ambiguity that plagues most everything he says -- for them.

I don't think the "the GOP perspective," assuming that phrase refers to the Party heads, because I'm sure they "know the numbers" just as I do: Democrats hold a 50% to 37% edge. That necessarily means that regardless of whether independents can vote in the upcoming primaries, they are nonetheless essential to any candidate Republicans put forth if they are to have any chance of winning.

But the GOP establishment either doesn't believe they can win the general with Trump or they don't think he represents their agenda. So with more closed primaries on the very near horizon the independent vote can be put aside for the moment while they focus on defeating Trump.

Red:
TY for the clarification. I understand what you mean now. Yes, that makes sense and is likely so.

 

[oldsoul]

But the GOP establishment either doesn't believe they can win the general with Trump or they don't think he represents their agenda. So with more closed primaries on the very near horizon the independent vote can be put aside for the moment while they focus on defeating Trump.

See the above in bold. That is the reason the "establishment" is going after Trump. The reason they are supporting Rubio over Cruz, is that they HATE Cruz even more. Not only has Cruz resisted becoming part of their "club", he has actively called them out, and attacked them. See the link below for an example.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/254743-here-we-go-again-cruz-vs-mcconnell-and-boehner

 

[oldsoul]

This thread is targeted mainly to genuine independents, not "closeted" Democrats or "closeted" Republicans or "closeted" whatever else.

Last night, the GOP candidates attempted variously to debate which of them is most likely/most able to defeat the Democratic Presidential nominee. Really?

• Is that really relevant at this point -- not even halfway through -- in the GOP primary cycle?
• Why in the name of all that's good in the world would I prefer a candidate for their ability to defeat the Democratic nominee before I determine that I think they would be a good President in their own right?
• Wouldn't the fact that they are the best choice on the merit and efficacy of the policy stances inherently imply that they should be the candidate most able to defeat the Democratic nominee?
• If I'm a voter -- GOP, Dem, Indy, something else -- why would I a candidate whom I consider "a disaster" to become President simply because that person has named my party as his too? Isn't a good Democrat still better than a lousy Republican?

It seems to me that having that discussion is putting the horse before the cart. In another year, from a purely temporal perspective, it might not be, but in this cycle, the circus that has thus far been the GOP Primary race -- short on substance, long on insults -- it is. What is this? The era of policy insouciance and intellectual irrelevance? God, I hope not, yet I see the writing begin to appear on the wall suggesting it might be. Scary....

So with more closed primaries on the very near horizon the independent vote can be put aside for the moment while they focus on defeating Trump

There is the answer.