Tuesday Night Debate Could Prove Crucial
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
Too late, we've been "doomed" since Obama took office. Month after month, year after year. Doomed.
Dear God, the humanity and the horror of it all, and I do mean all.
If Trump wins the nomination, the VP decision will be interesting. He no doubt will be under tremendous pressure from the party hacks to pick someone they are comfortable with, eg Bush, Rubio or Kasich. His own supporters will want Cruz or Carson.
A VP candidate has two jobs. One, attack the other side. Two, carry your own state. Paul Ryan failed miserably at both in 2012, helping to doom the ticket. How he could nevertheless put that failure behind him and become Speaker, in some ways a better job than VP, is a testament to how dysfunctional the republican party is.
The problem with Cruz or Rubio is that any republican candidate better be able to carry Texas and Florida on their own. So all things equal, you would prefer to pick someone who could put a blue or purple state into the red column.
Christie would be great at the attack role. But could he carry NJ? Doubtful but not totally out of the question. Kasich might just get Trump over the hump in Ohio, a crucial state for any republican presidential candidate, but he makes Romney look aggressive. Picking him also has the advantage of not opening up a republican Senate seat.
Fiorina would be the ideal attack vehicle against Hillary. She has yet to win any election however and surely would do nothing to win her home state of California.
Carson is worrisome because he is such a neophyte. He has a very thin background on most of the issues. Paul Ryan had much more experience than Carson yet still came off as a lightweight on foreign affairs against Biden. I don't see Carson bringing his home state of Maryland, but he could potentially cut into the crucial black vote. He appeals to a very different black demographic than Obama but it is a sizeable one.
A VP candidate has two jobs. One, attack the other side. Two, carry your own state. Paul Ryan failed miserably at both in 2012, helping to doom the ticket. How he could nevertheless put that failure behind him and become Speaker, in some ways a better job than VP, is a testament to how dysfunctional the republican party is.
The problem with Cruz or Rubio is that any republican candidate better be able to carry Texas and Florida on their own. So all things equal, you would prefer to pick someone who could put a blue or purple state into the red column.
Christie would be great at the attack role. But could he carry NJ? Doubtful but not totally out of the question. Kasich might just get Trump over the hump in Ohio, a crucial state for any republican presidential candidate, but he makes Romney look aggressive. Picking him also has the advantage of not opening up a republican Senate seat.
Fiorina would be the ideal attack vehicle against Hillary. She has yet to win any election however and surely would do nothing to win her home state of California.
Carson is worrisome because he is such a neophyte. He has a very thin background on most of the issues. Paul Ryan had much more experience than Carson yet still came off as a lightweight on foreign affairs against Biden. I don't see Carson bringing his home state of Maryland, but he could potentially cut into the crucial black vote. He appeals to a very different black demographic than Obama but it is a sizeable one.
yes, of all my black friends, two of them are for Carson, and the other one doesn't vote
Trump doesn't give a shit about pressure from the party. That's pretty much his whole strategy, actually.
But the question becomes how will a big lead affect his decisions going forward? His bombastic style is what has propelled him into the lead, but he might start to make a few more cautious decisions down the stretch if he knows that the competition (within his own party) has been eliminated.
Why would he do that? If doing something allowed you to gain a huge lead, you'd stop once you got the lead? I don't follow the reasoning. Trump will be Trump, and that's it. He's shown no inclination to temper himself in any regard.
It's similar to a trader betting big with a small account and then reducing leverage once he has a large account...It's human nature...Why would he take on the same risks once he has a massive lead?
Running a presidential campaign is a different game than running in primaries. You need the party apparatus behind you for things like phone banks, get out the vote, combatting the inevitable democrat fraud on election day and in any recounts. You also can use money, large amounts of it. I'm sure if given a choice, Trump would rather spend other people's money than his own. Then there are things like endorsements, etc.
Reagan was his own man too, and not beholden to party elites any more than Trump will be. They despised him and tried their best to deny him the nomination. He still ended up making the disastrous pick of George H. W. Bush as his VP, at their insistence. If he had picked a competent conservative, there might not have been a Gulf war and the 25 year and counting aftermath, no read my lips Bs and no tax hikes, no Clinton horror show, no George W. Bush and no Obama.