News Article: Interesting take on Trump from the NYT...
- Thread starter TIDE-HSV
- Start date
Interesting read although the pot shot at Reagan (as if your first wife leaving you and having a successful second marriage is even in the same universe with Trump's running from old babe to young babe to his current Yugoslav wife who is younger than I am) was uncalled for. And I'm neither Reagan worshipper nor detractor, but it was almost a "let me work in an insult to Reagan so the right goes nuts" comment.
Of course, one of the more amusing things to me in this race has been the simple fact that Trump as GOP nominee would LITERALLY be what Democrats have said Republicans needed to run for the last 35 years - only now, they're whining about the very thing they've said the GOP oughta do. He's rather liberal on a lot of things (as the article notes) and certainly not a right-wing ideologue.
However - what Mr Peters says here is why I think Trump is in for some rough sledding once we get down to the nitty-gritty. He's leading in a field where the vote is dispersed among 16 candidates. He's in a SOMEWHAT similar position to Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama - a) he MUST win early or he's done; and b) his lead owes much to the dispersal of support (this was not so much an issue for Obama - since everyone but Hillary dropped out before Super Tuesday - as it was for Carter, who had 11 opponents and was the sole respectable moderate-conservative in a race featuring eight liberals and George Wallace). Furthermore, go check out every single one of these candidacies - there is ample precedent for a guy coming onto the scene, soaring high in the polls, and then flaming out. People forget that Hillary won six of the last nine head-to-head contests with Obama and Carter lost 8 of the last 11 and - as the GOP crew running Ford's campaign noted - Carter NEVER got more than 50% in any non-Southern primary and NEVER won a single head-to-head race.
What is bizarre now that we cannot see - Trump COULD - he could - clear the path for someone generally conservative to become the alternative and to get through the primary season without a lot of major scrutiny. His calling attention to himself right now is a disaster in the making since you never let yourself become the issue, but his ego won't see that obvious political truth, either.
One note on the religious right - aside from the flawed assumption that the RR is a monolithic Republican group (that has never been true despite what you hear on TV) - when Jesse Ventura ran for Minnesota governor in 1998, I was on a staff in a Mississippi church. Without exception, every single person there that spoke about him LIKED Ventura, even though most said his issue positions were anathema to them. Even a year later when he ripped 'organized religion' in Playboy (I only read it for the article, heh heh), most basically LIKED the fact he wasn't taking a poll before determining what to do. Granted, Ventura has become a crackpot who took a few too many drops on his head, but the plain-spokenness appealed to that crowd because they didn't have to wonder where he'd come from.
Quite a number of them even intoned that if Bill Clinton would have just - from day one - admitted the extracurriculars (if not while running then certainly when the Lewinsky scandal broke).....it would have ended right then and there and as forgiving as our society is, he would have been beloved.
Note: I'm NOT arguing whether this is a good or bad thing...it's politics for Pete's sake. I'm just telling you what I've seen, and it never matches what I'm told by the entertainment community.
Of course, one of the more amusing things to me in this race has been the simple fact that Trump as GOP nominee would LITERALLY be what Democrats have said Republicans needed to run for the last 35 years - only now, they're whining about the very thing they've said the GOP oughta do. He's rather liberal on a lot of things (as the article notes) and certainly not a right-wing ideologue.
However - what Mr Peters says here is why I think Trump is in for some rough sledding once we get down to the nitty-gritty. He's leading in a field where the vote is dispersed among 16 candidates. He's in a SOMEWHAT similar position to Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama - a) he MUST win early or he's done; and b) his lead owes much to the dispersal of support (this was not so much an issue for Obama - since everyone but Hillary dropped out before Super Tuesday - as it was for Carter, who had 11 opponents and was the sole respectable moderate-conservative in a race featuring eight liberals and George Wallace). Furthermore, go check out every single one of these candidacies - there is ample precedent for a guy coming onto the scene, soaring high in the polls, and then flaming out. People forget that Hillary won six of the last nine head-to-head contests with Obama and Carter lost 8 of the last 11 and - as the GOP crew running Ford's campaign noted - Carter NEVER got more than 50% in any non-Southern primary and NEVER won a single head-to-head race.
What is bizarre now that we cannot see - Trump COULD - he could - clear the path for someone generally conservative to become the alternative and to get through the primary season without a lot of major scrutiny. His calling attention to himself right now is a disaster in the making since you never let yourself become the issue, but his ego won't see that obvious political truth, either.
One note on the religious right - aside from the flawed assumption that the RR is a monolithic Republican group (that has never been true despite what you hear on TV) - when Jesse Ventura ran for Minnesota governor in 1998, I was on a staff in a Mississippi church. Without exception, every single person there that spoke about him LIKED Ventura, even though most said his issue positions were anathema to them. Even a year later when he ripped 'organized religion' in Playboy (I only read it for the article, heh heh), most basically LIKED the fact he wasn't taking a poll before determining what to do. Granted, Ventura has become a crackpot who took a few too many drops on his head, but the plain-spokenness appealed to that crowd because they didn't have to wonder where he'd come from.
Quite a number of them even intoned that if Bill Clinton would have just - from day one - admitted the extracurriculars (if not while running then certainly when the Lewinsky scandal broke).....it would have ended right then and there and as forgiving as our society is, he would have been beloved.
Note: I'm NOT arguing whether this is a good or bad thing...it's politics for Pete's sake. I'm just telling you what I've seen, and it never matches what I'm told by the entertainment community.
Interesting read. If it does indeed come down to Trump vs. any democrat, I'm gonna have to pull the trigger for Trump. I see it as one of those "you never know until you try it" things. He can be a hot mess, but with the right cabinet, maybe he can be effective. Scary, but Hilliary scares me MUCH more.
Actually, I think this is more than just a remote possibility, and I've been considering it all along. Just like with Wallace (BTW, there's more than just a passing resemblance to the constituency), Trump is engendering an "anyone but" counter wave. He may turn out to be just a blocking back...
I actually agree with Newt on his assessment of Trump's success factors: he's appealing to Americans that he is a winner and he can bring back the American greatness after two decades of absolute beating.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/06/newt-gingrich-on-donald-trumps-appeal-hes-running-on-winning/
It's hard to say at this point who that tailback may be who catches fire. Personally, I think the one most likely is Rubio, rather than Cruz. Rubio has a broader, less jingoist appeal than Cruz. Cruz has not even attempted to leverage his possible Latin appeal, as Rubio has. Oh well, I guess with Cruz we get 4-8 more years of "birtherism," since he was definitely born in Canada, his father became a Canadian citizen and never even applied for US citizenship until 2005...
Rubio speaks Spanish...Cruz does not.It's hard to say at this point who that tailback may be who catches fire. Personally, I think the one most likely is Rubio, rather than Cruz. Rubio has a broader, less jingoist appeal than Cruz. Cruz has not even attempted to leverage his possible Latin appeal, as Rubio has. Oh well, I guess with Cruz we get 4-8 more years of "birtherism," since he was definitely born in Canada, his father became a Canadian citizen and never even applied for US citizenship until 2005...
I think you're right, in part because he brings that 'young guy appeal' to the table. Let's face it - the more 'visual' we have gotten with TV and the Net, the more 'good looks on TV' matters, which is why Sarah Palin 'qualifies' to get picked to run and someone else with a better record but uglier doesn't.It's hard to say at this point who that tailback may be who catches fire. Personally, I think the one most likely is Rubio, rather than Cruz. Rubio has a broader, less jingoist appeal than Cruz. Cruz has not even attempted to leverage his possible Latin appeal, as Rubio has. Oh well, I guess with Cruz we get 4-8 more years of "birtherism," since he was definitely born in Canada, his father became a Canadian citizen and never even applied for US citizenship until 2005...
Just look - starting with Nixon-Kennedy in 1960 - and has the 'uglier' guy ever won? Barack Obama could be saying the exact same words, but if he looked like Al Sharpton, he wouldn't even get out of the starting gate. To me, this is why Rubio is a possibility but Rand Paul isn't. Cruz looks like a wuss.
And Jeb? Geez.
One Democratic consultant back in 1976 said the way to judge a candidate's effectiveness is to watch them with your TV muted. I think that's still good advice - more so in the day of HD.
I think the only one benefiting from the bulldozer that is Trump is Carson. I really think Trump and Carson could quiet honestly have some sorta unspoken agreement. I kinda find it extremely odd that those are the two that hadn't scraped yet. As for Rubio, I think unless he can seem less conservative then he is cooked. The problem is Trump's appeal is that he is neither liberal or conservative and he is down the line. Had the democratic party not just have Hilliary,Bernie, and Biden on a milk carton as their only legit canidates I think Trump would've been on that ticket to take on Hillary. The GOP set up a perfect scenario for Trump by having so many canidates that could've realistically won the nomination. I think unless Trump just somehow falls off like everyone has said for the past 3 months, I think either Carson or Trump are your nominees because the Bush dynasty is over and I honestly think its not in the Republicans best interests to feed the Democrats another Mitt Rommney in the form of Rubio.It's hard to say at this point who that tailback may be who catches fire. Personally, I think the one most likely is Rubio, rather than Cruz. Rubio has a broader, less jingoist appeal than Cruz. Cruz has not even attempted to leverage his possible Latin appeal, as Rubio has. Oh well, I guess with Cruz we get 4-8 more years of "birtherism," since he was definitely born in Canada, his father became a Canadian citizen and never even applied for US citizenship until 2005...
I'm confused.
Are you saying Romney lost because he was TOO conservative and that Rubio is doing likewise? Or am I mis-reading you?
If Carson get's the nomination the Republican loss will be on the scale of Mondale '84 and it will be fun to watch
Romney lost because he was the democratic equivalent to Kerry in all that he did was disagree with his opponent and didn't have a strong platform. I fear Rubio is more in line with this in terms of the comparison.
As far as the too conservative point, i was more saying that Rubio's comments on planned parenthood at the debate are haunting him and making him look ultra conservative. I think if he doesn't change that image he could be out by June.
As far as Carson potentially winning the nomination... It all depends on who runs against him on the democratic side. Jon you point out 84, but I point out Woodrow Wilson as a counter. Wilson was a college professor and beat teddy Roosevelt and Taft.
I personally think that anyone the democrats are considering would beat Carson, the only difference is how badly they beat him. Guy is a straight up religious fundamentalist that is far too fundy for anyone but the extreme far right of the republican party
I think it's a fair point, but the problem is will the democrats exploit it with enough credibility, and will will the possibility of trump running third party actually favor the republicans instead? The south and Midwest will undoubtably go away from trump in that scenario and get behind any republican, but where it gets intresting is places like New York, New Hampshire, Illinois, and Nevada in which trump has big influence. I say Hillary and Biden would probably withstand it but sanders is way too far left to be sure, and it realistically sets up for Carson to steal states he shouldn't because trump's influence.
Sanders is probably is the one republicans want to face because the republicans can counter with a moderate
Also I don't know how much religious beliefs actually play into presidential elections. Because w was a huge fundamentalist and Barack's crazy reverend didn't derail his campaign. I understand why it is a huge issue for you, but I don't think it hinders anyone really. Heck the republicans nominated a Mormon last time
Last edited:
Its a fair point. though honestly I think Romneys Mormonism cost him in the last election and the US is a far different place since Bush was last elected. Not sure that someone that fundy will ever get the call again
Your scenario btw is plausible though, far too plausible for my tastes and frankly quite scary. Carson worries me as I can't possibly understan how someone with the Scientific acumen he has an be so blind to reality.
To each their own. I'm more in the middle but lean more conservative yet don't mind voting for a good democrat. The problem I have is that I've never trusted Hillary, Biden is just a lesser Obama, and sanders is just too dang left for my taste in a time we should probably be more center. So if I was voting dem I would probably take Biden by default if he ran.
As for the republicans... Eh where to begin? I think we probably should limit down to trump, Carson, walker, Rubio, and bush for arguement sake. Trump is trump and I don't think much can be said that hasn't already been said. Carson is hard to follow in what his endgame is, but I think it's more that he isn't a politician that makes him a trendy pick. The other three stooges are just you're typical run of the mill republicans that will get swamped by any decent democrat. So between Carson and trump I would probably favor Carson because trump has the greater potential of being worse for the country than Carson.
Latest threads
-
Political Meme - Cartoon/Joke Thread...Part XX- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 9
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0