Support NeoGAF

[pigeon]

Trump showed his hand a little bit by mentioning "leverage" when talking about a third-party run. He's deliberately using the threat of running as an independent to try to force the Republican establishment to accept him as a candidate and give him political support. He has a coherent plan!

Of course, last night's Fox hunt made it pretty clear that the Republican establishment has no intention of accepting him (at least not yet), and still think they can use their party control to push him out of the race.

If Trump's polling collapses he probably won't run third-party, but if he can maintain a reasonable shot and the GOP still won't let him in, we end up in an old-fashioned negotiation strategy question. Does Trump follow through on his threat to prove he's willing to do so, or does he back down once it's clear that they're calling his bluff?

 

[RustyNails]

Gravis is reporting that polling showed Carson of all people was the "winner" of the debate last night.

As someone who kind of respects him, I have absolutely no idea how that conclusion was made. He answered absolutely nothing.

Low expectations. All he had to do was not look like a dumb bumblefuck he is (prison makes people gay, earth is 6000 years old stuff). He shone by being personable and having a sense of humor. I think the man himself is not a prideful snob or a fucktard like Walker, Christie or Huckabee despite his towering achievements in the field of surgery. He might even be likeable. Sadly thats an important factor in GOP primaries.

 

[Bowdz]

With the consensus among both Republicans and Democrats that Paul was the biggest loser of the A-Team debate and Fiorina was the standout of the B-Tier debate, what are the chances that Paul drops out of the top 10 and Fiorina starts to rise?

 

[pigeon]

Another great thing about Trump is that, as a pure post-policy candidate, he is not bound by the necessity to maintain an internally consistent worldview that both explains away existing data and justifies his policy postulates. This is why he can get on stage and say that single payer works in Canada, or attack the other candidates for sucking up to the Koch brothers -- he'll never have to go back and reconcile those statements with his plans, because he has no plans and no plans to have plans.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Trump showed his hand a little bit by mentioning "leverage" when talking about a third-party run. He's deliberately using the threat of running as an independent to try to force the Republican establishment to accept him as a candidate and give him political support. He has a coherent plan!

Of course, last night's Fox hunt made it pretty clear that the Republican establishment has no intention of accepting him (at least not yet), and still think they can use their party control to push him out of the race.

If Trump's polling collapses he probably won't run third-party, but if he can maintain a reasonable shot and the GOP still won't let him in, we end up in an old-fashioned negotiation strategy question. Does Trump follow through on his threat to prove he's willing to do so, or does he back down once it's clear that they're calling his bluff?

Do you think his dislike for Jeb is great enough that if he got the nomination Trump would run third party anyway?

 

[Fenderputty]

He actually is doing well across multiple ideologies within the Republican party.

So his numbers could spread if he falls. Hmm.

 

[Retromelon]

With the consensus among both Republicans and Democrats that Paul was the biggest loser of the A-Team debate and Fiorina was the standout of the B-Tier debate, what are the chances that Paul drops out of the top 10 and Fiorina starts to rise?

Sources pls

 

[pigeon]

Do you think his dislike for Jeb is great enough that if he got the nomination Trump would run third party anyway?

My point is that Trump isn't threatening to run third-party out of pique or megalomania or dislike of the other candidates. He's threatening to run third-party as part of a calculated attempt to bully Republican powerbrokers into recognizing him as a genuine candidate.

So I don't think that he would run just because he hates Jeb, no. The question is whether, deprived of that recognition, he would run just to follow through on his threat. It's a classic negotiation question, because you threaten all kinds of things in negotiation in order to get a better position, but most of the time the things you're threatening are bad for both parties (just worse for the other party). Trump gets nothing from running except proving to the world that if you call his bluff he'll follow through on his threats. How much does Trump need to be recognized as somebody who follows through on his threats? Depends on what he wants to do in 2020, probably.

 

[Y2Kev]

My point is that Trump isn't threatening to run third-party out of pique or megalomania or dislike of the other candidates. He's threatening to run third-party as part of a calculated attempt to bully Republican powerbrokers into recognizing him as a genuine candidate.

So I don't think that he would run just because he hates Jeb, no. The question is whether, deprived of that recognition, he would run just to follow through on his threat. It's a classic negotiation question, because you threaten all kinds of things in negotiation in order to get a better position, but most of the time the things you're threatening are bad for both parties (just worse for the other party). Trump gets nothing from running except proving to the world that if you call his bluff he'll follow through on his threats. How much does Trump need to be recognized as somebody who follows through on his threats? Depends on what he wants to do in 2020, probably.

To what end? Ok, so he's a candidate now. Then what?

 

[NeoXChaos]

My point is that Trump isn't threatening to run third-party out of pique or megalomania or dislike of the other candidates. He's threatening to run third-party as part of a calculated attempt to bully Republican powerbrokers into recognizing him as a genuine candidate.

So I don't think that he would run just because he hates Jeb, no. The question is whether, deprived of that recognition, he would run just to follow through on his threat. It's a classic negotiation question, because you threaten all kinds of things in negotiation in order to get a better position, but most of the time the things you're threatening are bad for both parties (just worse for the other party). Trump gets nothing from running except proving to the world that if you call his bluff he'll follow through on his threats. How much does Trump need to be recognized as somebody who follows through on his threats? Depends on what he wants to do in 2020, probably.

makes sense. Well since his poll numbers will fall he won't do it.

 

[pigeon]

To what end? Ok, so he's a candidate now. Then what?

I mean, then he wins the nomination?

The primary argument being mounted by everybody saying Trump won't be the nominee is that the party has a lot of tools to stop him from winning. The debate last night should have made that pretty clear!

Imagine if last night the GOP had told Megyn Kelly to treat Trump as the acknowledged front-runner and likely nominee. It would've been a very different night.

Trump wants to win the nomination. If the biggest obstacle is that the party wants to stop him, then he obviously wants to find leverage to make the party stop stopping him.

 

[Y2Kev]

I thought the primary argument being mounted by everyone saying Trump won't be the nominee is because he's a batshit crazy person who is leading because he said some racist crap? I mean, I get that the establishment is not taking him seriously, but do you really feel that's the chief impediment to the nomination? Unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't think he wants to be viewed as a traditional, serious candidate. He doesn't even have an issues page on his website. I don't even know what he wants, other than attention, which would seriously conflict with a desire to actually be president and have to do, like, work.

 

[RastaMentality]

Is Carson probably gonna enter the top 3 in the next polls?

 

[Bowdz]

Sources pls

As much as there can be a consensus in a debate where no one truly had a outstanding or terrible performance. Just a few of the many highlights from the various politicos:

RAND PAUL
Most memorable moments: Aside from his fight with Chris Christie, Paul was the first candidate to attack Trump. When he said he wouldn't rule out running as an independent, Paul said, "This is what's wrong. He buys and sells politicians of all stripes, he's already ... hedging his bet on the Clintons, okay? So if he doesn't run as a Republican, maybe he supports Clinton, or maybe he runs as an independent." Trump's response: "Well, I've given [Paul] plenty of money."

How he did:
"His campaign has been reeling and it won’t get any better on the basis of his debate performance. There were only a few glimpses of his libertarianism. More would have helped. He bragged about his 5-year budget without explaining how it gets to balanced. He was the night’s loser." —Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

"Rand Paul seemed on the defensive, and did not impress. Though the country is tired of war, people are alarmed about ISIS, Iran, China and Russia. Paul’s semi-isolationist stance was an easier sell when our engagements in the Middle East were still building. His dustup with Christie came across as nasty on both sides, with Paul accusing the New Jersey governor of 'blowing hot air.'" —Liz Peek, Fox News

"Paul ... was full of life, but his irritability and thin-skinnedness were on display in a testy exchange with Chris Christie over the NSA (which Christie clearly got the better of); his eye-rolling became an instant GIF sensations on the interwebs. And even when Paul wasn’t visibly annoyed, he seemed screechy and off-key." —John Heilemann, Bloomberg Politics

"The biggest surprise of the night came from Rand Paul, who showed up ready to fight. The usually laid-back libertarian came out fiery, getting into squabbles with Donald Trump and Christie (winning the latter exchange). If nothing else, Senator Paul reminded America that he's still in this thing in a meaningful way." —Buck Sexton, CNN

The Gravis poll also placed him as the top loser of the evening.

There are two camps for the Paul field: those who thought he needed to be on the offense to get airtime and buffet the polls (in which case he succeeded) and those who thought that his attacks sounded defensive and thin-skinned (which, regardless of the content of his arguments, they did). Based on the various reactions I've read, it seems like most republicans, beyond his immediate libertarian constituents, thought his dust up with Christie resulted in him losing the upperhand (I thought he soundly Trumped Christie ) while most Democratic pundits thought he offensive mood throughout the evening was to shrill and ineffective.

Just my two cents on the situation.

 

[Frank the Great]

I know a lot of people in the black community who really admire and respect Carson. I wonder if he could make any inroads with these voters.

 

[RustyNails]

To what end? Ok, so he's a candidate now. Then what?

The longer he goes on the longer he builds the Trump brand. Maybe he wants to be the nominee, or maybe he wants the primetime buzz and being known as an important chessplayer in American politics, which he calculates will help him make aggressive business deals for the trump brand. There are lot of very powerful Republicans that share teabagger views and hate the Mexicans like Sheldon Adelson. Trump is there for Trump. Make no mistake.

 

[pigeon]

I thought the primary argument being mounted by everyone saying Trump won't be the nominee is because he's a batshit crazy person who is leading because he said some racist crap?

That describes everybody running for the Republican nomination.

The reason reasonable-sounding relatively moderate Republicans tend to win the nomination is not because the Republican base who turns out to vote in primaries generally prefer reasonable moderates. Unsurprisingly, the people who bother to vote in primaries are if anything more extreme than the party as a whole. It's because party actors work very hard to marginalize candidates that threaten the reasonable moderates. See Gingrich, Santorum, etc. running against Romney, who both ran into money problems and got slammed in Fox News as soon as they started threatening Romney in the polls. That's the party acting.

I definitely believe that if the Republican party actors all got together and said "Trump's our guy, let's push him over the finish line," he would easily win the nomination. And, I mean, Trump is leading in the polls by a lot. If he were Bush, or Walker, or Rubio, or any other "serious" candidate we'd be calling the primary half over already. The only reason we're not is because the party does not view Trump as a serious candidate.

edit: Anyway, even if you think I am totally crazy (possible), it's not really a question of what's really going on so much as Trump's strategic understanding. Trump, presumably, does not view himself as an obviously doomed candidate. It's totally strategically sensible for him to fight to get party support in order to pursue what he views as a winning campaign.

 

[Frank the Great]

I love how Trump admitted to the quid quo pro nature of political donations. I wonder how Justice Roberts feels about that. It would take a lot to burst that bubble though tbf.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

So Schumer is officially against the Iran deal.

You HAVE to think he cleared this with leadership and the President before coming out, right?

 

[Y2Kev]

I am not 100% sure he views himself as a serious candidate, but I don't think I understand him at all. He's got basically zero interest in policy (it shows) and he didn't study or prep at all for the debate. His answer about Iran was word salad and contained complaints about Bo Bergdahl. I buy that he wants attention, and he's getting it. But to actually be the nominee?

I mean, I would ascribe that same kind of delusion to Huckabee and he seems far more serious.

I don't think you're crazy

 

[RustyNails]

I love how Trump admitted to the quid quo pro nature of political donations. I wonder how Justice Roberts feels about that. It would take a lot to burst that bubble though tbf.

Big missed opportunity for Trumpmeister; When the moderator asked him about political donations, he could have easily deflected with "I'm a businessman I make deals. Some times the deals go through and some times they dont. I do whats best for my business, even if it means donating to people I dont like. I am sure my friend Scott Walker can talk about receiving lots of money from the Koch brothers. *Audience woos*

Look, I am friends with the Kochs. I like them I was at their wedding. But Koch brothers are losers. I eat them for breakfast every day. Loser brothers. Scott Walker is a loser. They are all bunch of losers in a loser party wearing loser hats singing loser songs."
(Edit: You all read that with the Trump voice, didn't you)

 

[Plinko]

Is Carson probably gonna enter the top 3 in the next polls?

Yes.

Carson apparently polled really well last night. That said, THIS is the type of thing I would say is a Cain/Perry/Gingrich comparison from 2012. When Carson starts being pushed on actual issues people will start to see it won't work.

I hope.

I told everyone on here he could be a darkhorse for the nomination or at least VP. He's likeable. He's an accomplished neurosurgeon. He's simple-minded when it comes to complex issues, which scares the living daylights out of me but that appeals to the GOP voter. I thought he looked WAY out of place last night. Apparently that was appealing to GOP voters.

 

[FiggyCal]

Sources pls

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=174576852&postcount=8342

Edit:

Scott Walker didn't need to say very much at all. I am genuinely flabbergasted at how little they poked him. His very first question:

"You're pro life -- really pro-life. How are you so pro-life?"
"I'm that pro-life."
Audience cheers.

At this point in the debate: Trump deflected two bombs and Jeb! was explaining how being the brother of an extremely unpopular president doesn't hurt him and how he earned his nickname (which is just his initials) by cutting taxes (or something). Scott Walker did well.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Huh, definitely interesting to read everyone's opinions of the debates here and in the other thread. I actually thought Walker came off well in terms of actually staying on point, answering questions without too much evading, and finishing up without sounding like he was rushed. Trump was his usual bluster, Rand Paul at least seemed animated about personal liberties, and Cruz was doing a pretty heavy Shatner impersonation at times. Kasich I think did a solid job of defending his less orthodox Republican positions; obviously not going to do him much in the overall race but his home crowd certainly loved him. Bush and the rest didn't really register at all.

While it's obvious no one at Fox likes Trump, I thought they actually did a fair job of sticking all the candidates based on previous statements; you could argue they should have been more dogged when the candidates evaded answering, but I dunno, I think it's better to let those non-answers speak for themselves. Was kind of bizarre they decided that Megyn Kelly must ask all the women's issues questions.

As an unlikely Republican I was probably not looking at it the same was as a interested voter though so the post-debate polling isn't that surprising I guess.

Yes.

Carson apparently polled really well last night. That said, THIS is the type of thing I would say is a Cain/Perry/Gingrich comparison from 2012. When Carson starts being pushed on actual issues people will start to see it won't work.

I hope.

More I read about the guy the more I just wish he'd go back to medicine where he's actually done some good. He clearly doesn't have any aptitude for politics and while he is clearly accomplished in his field of medicine, I would hesitate to call him smart.

 

[RDreamer]

It's totally not going to happen, but fucking wow if we end up with a black nominee who practically denies racism vs an old white lady trying to sympathize/defend the Black Lives Matter folks as much as she can.


I think Walker and Bush might have done alright, depending on their strategy. They have some money behind them, so the theory might be to let everyone else attack each other and drop out one by one. Play the long game and absolutely don't make any shitty soundbites this early. Survive until the later debates when you can actually talk.

 

[Snake]

So Schumer is officially against the Iran deal.

You HAVE to think he cleared this with leadership and the President before coming out, right?

No doubt whatsoever.

Though it's still annoying that someone in his position would take the cowardly way out and contribute to stupid narratives against the deal.

 

[sc0la]

It's totally not going to happen, but fucking wow if we end up with a black nominee who practically denies racism vs an old white lady trying to sympathize/defend the Black Lives Matter folks as much as we can.

What will be the narrative when black voters still en mass support the democratic candidate in this scenario? Last time it was voting solely based on skin color, this time it will be "it's just the government handouts they want!"

 

[Crisco]

So Schumer is officially against the Iran deal.

You HAVE to think he cleared this with leadership and the President before coming out, right?

Gots to keep that sweet sweet AIPAC money.

 

[Armoured Priest]

Was having a conversation last night about LePage with a friend, and how he wanted get rid of Maine's income tax. We went into the other states that don't have income tax. Anyone have any idea how those 9 states bridge the gap to pay for services.

I know Nevada does it with gambling taxes (to the tune of 1 billion or so dollars). Florida "does it" with sales and property taxes (and the fact that Florida doesn't really have services). Alaska has oil taxes and gets a lot of subsidies from the federal government. What about the others?

 

[Ecotic]

I have no idea why people think Kasich has any shot. He's polling like Christieville. He has no money. He has no name recognition and won't get it amongst primary voters. His only chance is to displace Bush as the "moderate" candidate which isn't going to happen and I think he'd have to displace Rubio as well.

Well New Hampshire is a cheap state and a candidate can come from behind to win so fast that polls can't even register the change, like in 2008 when Obama surprisingly lost despite a lead. Kasich's moderate values and earnestness play well in that state.

Jeb has money and support, but is very vulnerable to the dynamic nature of the early states. Iowa is not his state, and New Hampshire is unpredictable. If Jeb goes 0 for 2 then South Carolina becomes a longshot. If Jeb goes 0 for 3 he's finished. So he's basically counting on the unreliable New Hampshire.

 

[Plinko]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=174576852&postcount=8342

Edit:

Scott Walker didn't need to say very much at all. I am genuinely flabbergasted at how little they poked him. His very first question:

"You're pro life -- really pro-life. How are you so pro-life?"
"I'm that pro-life."
Audience cheers.

At this point in the debate: Trump deflected two bombs and Jeb! was explaining how being the brother of an extremely unpopular president doesn't hurt him and how he earned his nickname (which is just his initials) by cutting taxes (or something). Scott Walker did well.

It was pretty clear Fox was backing him because of the Kochs. They lobbed him softballs.

 

[gcubed]

It was pretty clear Fox was backing him because of the Kochs. They lobbed him softballs.

Walker can't form a coherent thought in his brain on demand. The goal of that debate last night was to prop up the guys the RNC wanted to come through and try to marginalize everyone else. In order to prop up Walker, you don't speak to him, RNC did a good job getting that part right.

 

[RDreamer]

It was pretty clear Fox was backing him because of the Kochs. They lobbed him softballs.

They did open up with "your jobs record sucks.," though.

 

[Plinko]

They did open up with "your jobs record sucks.," though.

And didn't press him at all about how bad his state is doing now.

 

[FiggyCal]

I'm worried that this is the beginning of the end for Trump. I knew the establishment was going to try to nuke his campaign, but I hoped he would have dragged it out. I think he seriously hurt himself.

 

[RustyNails]

I'm worried that this is the beginning of the end for Trump. I knew the establishment was going to try to nuke his campaign, but I hoped he would have dragged it out. I think he seriously hurt himself.

Almost all the polls and opinion pieces are saying Trump won. I guess we'll have to wait for the more traditional polls to really measure what happened but I dont think Trump got injured.

 

[Konka]

I'm worried that this is the beginning of the end for Trump. I knew the establishment was going to try to nuke his campaign, but I hoped he would have dragged it out. I think he seriously hurt himself.

All Trump did last night was the same things that got him to the place he is at. He didn't do anything that will alienate a crowd that hasn't been alienated by anything he's said up to this point.

 

[titiklabingapat]

I'm worried that this is the beginning of the end for Trump. I knew the establishment was going to try to nuke his campaign, but I hoped he would have dragged it out. I think he seriously hurt himself.

Even the Gravis poll is showing he didn't really inflict any fatal wounds. Yeah, he is divisive in the party, but that's not really any different from before and his support seems intact. (19% says he won, 32% says he lost).

 

[Y2Kev]

Well New Hampshire is a cheap state and a candidate can come from behind to win so fast that polls can't even register the change, like in 2008 when Obama surprisingly lost despite a lead. Kasich's moderate values and earnestness play well in that state.

Jeb has money and support, but is very vulnerable to the dynamic nature of the early states. Iowa is not his state, and New Hampshire is unpredictable. If Jeb goes 0 for 2 then South Carolina becomes a longshot. If Jeb goes 0 for 3 he's finished. So he's basically counting on the unreliable New Hampshire.

I don't know that I agree that 0 for 3 means finished but I really don't think he's going to lose NH anyway. Obama was close in NH, so a few % points could make a big difference. Kasich isn't really close. It's early, but still.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Almost all the polls and opinion pieces are saying Trump won. I guess we'll have to wait for the more traditional polls to really measure what happened but I dont think Trump got injured.

source? We won't know the full impact of the debate till polls come out.

 

[gcubed]

source? We won't know the full impact of the debate till polls come out.

It'll be 3 days before you see anything meaningful from last night. At least a week until the numbers calm down

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't see you coming to defense of my hair.

 

[Retromelon]

Rand lost huh
God forbid someone show a little personality instead of channeling reagan and acting presidential and stiff.
All of you can go hug obama.

 

[BertramCooper]

Honestly, Trump did pretty fucking great.

He even had a solid rebuttal for why he's been so cozy with the Clintons and other Democrats.

He's as repulsive as ever, but he's much better at this than I thought he'd be.

 

[Plinko]

Honestly, Trump did pretty fucking great.

He even had a solid rebuttal for why he's been so cozy with the Clintons and other Democrats.

He's as repulsive as ever, but he's much better at this than I thought he'd be.

Each poll and article he posts on Twitter shows that he actually did impress a lot of people.

I think he really upset the establishment, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't be shocked if his numbers went up.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Honestly, Trump did pretty fucking great.

He even had a solid rebuttal for why he's been so cozy with the Clintons and other Democrats.

He's as repulsive as ever, but he's much better at this than I thought he'd be.

For all his faults, he does seem like a straight shooter; insofar as being an ambassador to the world and for compromising in the office he'd be a disaster but as a candidate I see why that's appealing. I mean others would try and dodge the whole political money game and he owned up happily.

 

[Averon]

Honestly, Trump did pretty fucking great.

He even had a solid rebuttal for why he's been so cozy with the Clintons and other Democrats.

He's as repulsive as ever, but he's much better at this than I thought he'd be.

Why Fox thought it was a good idea to attack him so directly and blatantly I have no idea.
Trump thrives in such an environment. It allows him to be the showman he is. Hitting him with boring policy questions would have been far more effective.

 

[Plinko]

That debate is the highest-rated non-sports cable program of all time, by the way.

I think you know who to thank for that.

 

[FiggyCal]

Apparently Paul said he would not support the Iran deal. How did I miss that? He's definitely not a principled libertarian.

I also don't like how Rand used the "I'm a different kind of republican" line and then criticizes Trump for being a different kind of republican.

 

[Konka]

Apparently Paul said he would not support the Iran deal. How did I miss that? He's definitely not a principled libertarian.

I also don't like how Rand used the "I'm a different kind of republican" line and then criticizes Trump for being a different kind of republican.

He said he wouldn't support this Iran deal, but he stopped short of saying he'd tear it up on day one.