2016 Republican Thread

[cabiness42]

It's just one person, but I have a very good friend who has never, ever voted for a Republican in an election. He can't stand Hillary. He's said he'll vote for Kasich if he is the Republican nominee, but will either begrudgingly vote for Hillary or maybe a 3rd party if Cruz or Trump is the nominee.

[StrangeSox]

National polls are so meaningless right now. I've said it over and over in this thread. Reagan never won a national poll til May yet won 44 states, Romney and McCain were winning in Mayish yet both got destroyed etc. But really these national polls are even more meaningless when they involve Kasich. People can be loud on hating on Trump all they want, that's fine. What they can't deny is the reality of him bringing out new voters in droves. Turnout is being absolutely shattered for the Republican party across the board in large thanks to Trump and in no part thanks to Kasich. So why does that matter for these national polls? They're done among likely voters in the election. The problem is they're being done at the same time as Trump vs Clinton, Sanders vs Cruz, Sanders vs Trump etc. Theres a massive fault in thinking that the general turnout will look even remotely the same across depending on who the nominee is.

 

I think the only national polls that could be worthwhile right now would be Trump v Clinton since they're both so well-known nationally and have been for decades. There aren't a lot of people undecided about those two or unfamiliar with them.

 

As far as turnout goes, historically primary turnout isn't an indicator of GE turnout/success, and a lot of people are turning out to vote against Trump.

[StrangeSox]

It's just one person, but I have a very good friend who has never, ever voted for a Republican in an election. He can't stand Hillary. He's said he'll vote for Kasich if he is the Republican nominee, but will either begrudgingly vote for Hillary or maybe a 3rd party if Cruz or Trump is the nominee.

 

I'm struggling to imagine what your political beliefs would have to be to vote straight ticket Democratic your entire life but be willing to vote for a guy who embraces the establishment GOP positions of the last 20 years.

[cabiness42]

I'm struggling to imagine what your political beliefs would have to be to vote straight ticket Democratic your entire life but be willing to vote for a guy who embraces the establishment GOP positions of the last 20 years.

 

Well, a big part of it is just that he has a very low level of trust in Hillary. Another big part of it is that the far right Republicans are singling out a couple of Kasich's positions (accepted Medicaid expansion in Ohio, said he accepts the SC gay marriage ruling as the law) and are trying to paint him as a liberal. They're inadvertently turning some liberals on to Kasich.

[southsider2k5]

National polls are so meaningless right now. I've said it over and over in this thread. Reagan never won a national poll til May yet won 44 states, Romney and McCain were winning in Mayish yet both got destroyed etc. But really these national polls are even more meaningless when they involve Kasich. People can be loud on hating on Trump all they want, that's fine. What they can't deny is the reality of him bringing out new voters in droves. Turnout is being absolutely shattered for the Republican party across the board in large thanks to Trump and in no part thanks to Kasich. So why does that matter for these national polls? They're done among likely voters in the election. The problem is they're being done at the same time as Trump vs Clinton, Sanders vs Cruz, Sanders vs Trump etc. Theres a massive fault in thinking that the general turnout will look even remotely the same across depending on who the nominee is.

 

He will also bring out droves of new voters against him. All you have to do is look at the droves of angry people that follow in his wake.

 

At this point I would vote for Gary Johnson in a Hillary/Trump battle, unless the State of Indiana was close enough to matter. In that case, I might actually vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Chisoxfn]

Well, a big part of it is just that he has a very low level of trust in Hillary. Another big part of it is that the far right Republicans are singling out a couple of Kasich's positions (accepted Medicaid expansion in Ohio, said he accepts the SC gay marriage ruling as the law) and are trying to paint him as a liberal. They're inadvertently turning some liberals on to Kasich.

I believe Hillary's polls all show that the american people have a high degree of distrust in her. Very few exceptions thus far in the primaries. Now that is when put against Bernie who comes off as a relatively trustworthy individual so it isn't out of the norm for people to feel that way about Hillary.

[greg775]

Chisoxfn can you explain the country's dis-interest in Kasich. The Republicans IMO should be rallying around this guy. Why can't a guy as impressive as Kasich get any steam???

[Chisoxfn]

Chisoxfn can you explain the country's dis-interest in Kasich. The Republicans IMO should be rallying around this guy. Why can't a guy as impressive as Kasich get any steam???

Its a primary. You are only comparing yourself to other republics and only other members of the party (largely) are voting and given Cruz' religious background, he's going to appeal to certain groups no matter what (just like Santorum and Huckabee of recent years) and ultimately you end up nominating a person who is far more to the right vs. someone who more of the general public gets. There are a lot of people who clearly agree with the far right principals and hence have gotten behind Cruz and than the Trump movement is just something else. There doesn't seem to be a ton of moderate republicans, especially in this new era where so many people are pissed off so they are either going ultra extreme in the form of Cruz (who is an extreme moderate) or total wildcard in Trump.

 

I will say, Kasich isn't super charismatic either, which from a perception doesn't help. I personally like his "aw schucks" approach and appreciate his track record, more moderate positions, etc. I think to make America great we need to work with the various parties. I think the whole concept of freezing out a vote is absurd and this entire political inactivity is disgusting and awful for our country.

[StrangeSox]

Iirc the "aw shucks" is just an act and the guy has a reputation for being a monumental ahole

[greg775]

Iirc the "aw shucks" is just an act and the guy has a reputation for being a monumental ahole

How come when a Republican is called a monumental ahole (without proof) it's entirely acceptable and I call Hillary something like that and am attacked and told to offer proof or else.

Edited April 7, 2016 by greg775

[cabiness42]

Iirc the "aw shucks" is just an act and the guy has a reputation for being a monumental ahole

 

He's pretty much admitted this and said that he has staff assigned to let him know if he slips back into that mode.

[Kyyle23]

How come when a Republican is called a monumental ahole (without proof) it's entirely acceptable and I call Hillary something like that and am attacked and told to offer proof or else.

 

you say the same thing every time you talk about Hillary, which is frequently. If you said it once and that was the end of it then it would be a different story, but you are obsessed.

[cabiness42]

My congressman is giving up his seat to run for Senate. Some super-wealthy businessman from Tennessee wants to replace him:

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politic...-dist/81332140/

 

Trey Hollingsworth, the former Tennessee businessman self-funding his 9th Congressional District campaign, would be one of the richest members of Congress if he wins his race in south central Indiana.

 

If an asset is worth more than $50 million, as one of Hollingsworth's is, the upper limit on that asset doesn’t have to be disclosed. So we can only say that Hollingsworth’s assets are worth at least $58.5 million. That’s enough to put him in the top tier of wealthy House members.

 

Hollingsworth lived in Tennessee until last year, when he decided to run for Congress from Indiana.

 

This is why the system sucks. Instead of someone who has lived in the district working their way up through the ranks, like as a state representative or senator, we're going to get a super-rich guy who just parachutes in from another state. He's run boatloads of TV ads and his primary opponents haven't run any, so I'm thinking he's a good bet to win the nomination, and this is an R+8 district so that makes him a safe bet for November.

Edited April 7, 2016 by HickoryHuskers

[cabiness42]

This is why people in the middle of the country think people on the East coast are clueless when it comes to geography:

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/08/kasich-insi...r-nice-guy.html

 

Following his disappointing third-place finish in Wisconsin this week, where the Ohio governor failed to take even a single delegate from a neighboring state that has traditionally been kind to establishment candidates, the chorus of "Goodbye Mr. Nice Guy" is beginning to pick up.

 

[EvilMonkey]

My congressman is giving up his seat to run for Senate. Some super-wealthy businessman from Tennessee wants to replace him:

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politic...-dist/81332140/

 

 

 

This is why the system sucks. Instead of someone who has lived in the district working their way up through the ranks, like as a state representative or senator, we're going to get a super-rich guy who just parachutes in from another state. He's run boatloads of TV ads and his primary opponents haven't run any, so I'm thinking he's a good bet to win the nomination, and this is an R+8 district so that makes him a safe bet for November.

Kinda like Hillary did in New York.

[NorthSideSox72]

Kinda like Hillary did in New York.

Yup.

 

I'd be all in favor of my state (or any other) passing laws about people at least residing permanently and full-time (or nearly so) in the state before being allowed to run for the legislature or Governor. Maybe a 5 year minimum or something. I don't care as much about the districts, because those tend to change and sometimes people are redistricted into somewhere different, so I can see the argument against requiring it at that level. But you should be a real resident of the state at least.

 

[southsider2k5]

This kind of voter repression can not happen in our country. Oh wait. Repress away.

 

Los Angeles Times Verified account ‏@latimes 1h1 hour ago

 

Donald Trump's own children won't get to vote for him in New York's primary http://lat.ms/1SJvbaU

[StrangeSox]

Same-day voter registration or even automatic registration should be the national norm.

[cabiness42]

Same-day voter registration or even automatic registration should be the national norm.

 

In theory, yes, but when most areas still use paper printouts of registrations, how do you prevent somebody from registering and voting at multiple locations on Election Day? The technology needs to catch up to allow this to be feasible.

[StrangeSox]

In theory, yes, but when most areas still use paper printouts of registrations, how do you prevent somebody from registering and voting at multiple locations on Election Day? The technology needs to catch up to allow this to be feasible.

 

15 states already have same-day registration. I knew Illinois was one, but I wasn't sure how many others did. You generally need some form of ID that has both your current name and address. You wouldn't be able to register in the wrong precinct.

 

Oregon and California instituted automatic/opt-out voter registration laws last year. Anyone who gets a drivers license or state ID is automatically registered unless they decline. Illinois "motor voter" is somewhat similar except the default is not registered and they just ask you if you want to register at the DMV.

Edited April 11, 2016 by StrangeSox

[Reddy]

Same-day voter registration or even automatic registration should be the national norm.

I guess... but isn't this a really great weeding-out process? If you can't be bothered to figure out when you need to register by, do you really have any business having a say in who the leader of the free world is going to be?

[StrangeSox]

I guess... but isn't this a really great weeding-out process? If you can't be bothered to figure out when you need to register by, do you really have any business having a say in who the leader of the free world is going to be?

Every citizen of voting age should be able to have their say in our democracy with as few byzantine rules as possible. There is no need to have the registration deadline be weeks ahead of the election, especially when you're in a state with a closed primary.

 

What other arbitrary "weeding-out" barriers to voting should we throw up?

[Reddy]

Every citizen of voting age should be able to have their say in our democracy with as few byzantine rules as possible. There is no need to have the registration deadline be weeks ahead of the election, especially when you're in a state with a closed primary.

 

What other arbitrary "weeding-out" barriers to voting should we throw up?

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. Pure popular vote is the reason Trump is doing so well. There need to be checks and balances on the idiocy of the American public

[StrangeSox]

Eh, I don't necessarily agree. Pure popular vote is the reason Trump is doing so well. There need to be checks and balances on the idiocy of the American public

 

There are a lot of reasons Trump is leading the GOP race. Blocking people from voting is a terrible way to "solve" that problem.

[Reddy]

There are a lot of reasons Trump is leading the GOP race. Blocking people from voting is a terrible way to "solve" that problem.

 

Maybe. I understand I'm arguing against my self interest here when it comes to the general, since higher turnout = better chances for democrats, but I truly do feel some level of checks and balances need to exist. That said we're having this argument in two separate places so maybe let's just focus on the other thread