Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 05, 2015, 12:23:01 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
88767 Posts in 2286 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  GOPe, Chamber of Commerce & Primary Manipulation
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: GOPe, Chamber of Commerce & Primary Manipulation  (Read 94 times)
Power User
Posts: 433

« on: October 01, 2015, 12:04:32 PM »

Let's see if CD keeps this as a new topic.

I have been stating that the GOPe has been engaged in a deliberate action to get their desired candidate (originally Jeb) as nominee to run for the presidency. Some question that even a GOPe exists. Here, I want to present the evidence of the GOPe manipulations and how it effects the Primary process. First, it is "Follow the Money".

One assertion I have made is that the Chamber of Commerce and Tom Donahue have been behind a large part of the GOPe actions. We begin here.

The Fight for the GOPs Soul Rages On

The goal of the chamber and other like-minded industry organizations is clear: Elect business-friendly Republicans in contested primaries to strengthen their hand during policy debates on the Hill. Some of business’ top targets in 2016 will be right-wing, tea party candidates, the types that have bucked the corporate agenda in Congress by supporting government shutdowns, opposing an immigration overhaul and attempting to close the Export-Import Bank. 

The chamber’s early ad buys, so far, include support for incumbent Republican Sens. Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania, John McCain of Arizona and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, who is spearheading the effort to renew Ex-Im. The group also funded spots in support of Republican Rep. Joe Heck’s effort in the Nevada contest to replace Reid.

The excerpts from the above article  shows how far the COC is willing to go to garner their desired candidates in place, but what are really their goals?

Tom Donahue is the COC President. He cited in 2014 the goals for his organization over the next few election cycles.  What are the goals?

1. Does not envision repeal of Obamacare. Seek to eliminate taxes on health care paid by employers and the business mandate. Otherwise, it can all remain.

2.  Supported the Obama Immigration Plan to include Amnesty and increased immigration.][url}

3. Common Core -  [url]

Why is the COC supporting these programs? It all comes down to money. 

Amnesty and increased Immigration leads to lower employee costs. The greater the labor pool, the less that businesses have to pay for labor.

Eliminate the taxes on health care and the business mandate. With those businesses that offer health insurance, they can lower costs through lack of taxes. Eliminate the business mandate and they can transfer the costs of health care to the government, since the individual mandate would still apply.

Common Core is the same thing. The claim is that it would benefit businesses by having a better educated work force, etc.

So how does the COC work to achieve their goals? They develop Super Pacs that will assist in the promoting of their preferred candidates. They fund programs and advertising to increase support for their candidates. They work with the GOPe to put into power their preferred candidates. They buy candidates. They attack candidates that are against their positions so as to weaken them in such a manner that their preferred candidate wins.

The COC is not the only group doing this. So is the Club for Growth and many other groups.

Does it matter whether Bush or Hillary would win the Presidency? Not for them. Whoever wins, the goals are all the same, and the COC can expect that they will achieve most of those goals.

Next:  The GOPe participation.....

Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2015, 02:43:10 PM »

The roll of the GOPe comes now. What are their priorities, their goals?

The GOPe is made up of the Party faithful. This includes people like Karl Rove who has been instrumental in past election successes and failures. The goal is to retain their own personnel power, and to work to achieve the goals of those who provide financial support to the party.

The Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power broker for the GOPe. What the COC wants, lobbyists on K-Street will insure the COC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party.

To  understand why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty, we must look at why the COC wants this stuff.

Wall Street and ObamaCare:

Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car.

Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold.

Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly.   In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods.

Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations.
Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency.

The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom.

Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare.

That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud.  The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare.

Wall Street and Common Core Education: Wall Street and Immigration

Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker.

Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.

Common Core

Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS.

Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding.

Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy.

Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core.

Citizen United

The key to the GOPe support for COC lies with political contributions. It again comes down to the money.

Traditionally, campaigns have been funded through contributions by supporters of the candidate. The contributions were heavily regulated as to amounts given, and businesses were restricted in what they could also contribute. Citizens United changed all of that.

Citizens United held that corporations, etc could make separate expenditures in campaigns as long as the funds did not go to the campaigns nor were coordinated with the campaigns. No longer were such Pacs held to a maximum $5000 donation. This led to an extreme increase in Pac's and the development of Super Pac's and it allowed for the GOPe to evade regulatory supervision.

The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the COC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities.
Conversely, can fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory.

So for the GOPe, it is best to align with the COC.


Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2015, 08:24:47 PM »

Here is the Roadmap for Jeb. Next up will be the problem of Trump.

The GOP Roadmap for Bush to win:

After the loss of Romney in 2012, the GOPe began to reconsider options around the 2016 election coming up. Potential options for candidates led the RNC to back another Bush presidency, since brother and dad had previously won elections.

The GOPe also did not consider a true conservative candidate as a viable alternative. They felt that the electorate would not be responsive to one, and the media would be even worse. So once again, they felt the need for the moderate, the Rockefeller Republican, just like Romney and McCain before them, and the former presidents 41 and 43.
In early 2014, the GOPe did polling on Jeb. They found he had support from 15 to 20% of the population. Then, they compared his level of support to Romney about the same period of time before the election and found a 25 to 30% level of support. Based upon this, Jeb could never get the nomination. So something had to be done.  (BTW, Karl Rove’s handprints are all over this.)

At this point, the manipulation of the Primary elections became the plan.

The candidates running would be Bush and the Non-Bush. Since Bush could only count on support no greater than 25% in the primaries, something had to be done to ensure that he could win the first few primaries with such low support.

Iowa and New Hampshire are traditionally the first two primaries. It is here where candidates get an initial boost. Good success can lead to the winners leapfrogging the field and getting an initial commanding media position when for the other candidates must be overcome at a later date.

#1 – Iowa Caucus/Convention, Monday February 1st 2016: 30 Delegates / Closed Primary Caucus (Republican Only)

#2 – New Hampshire Primary, Tuesday February 9th 2016: 23 Delegates (proportional assigned) / Modified Primary (Independents and Republicans)

Though the delegate count for these primaries are low, it is all about the public exposure. A commanding win sets the stage for a better performance in the next two primaries.

#3 – South Carolina Primary, Saturday February 20th 2016: 50 Delegates (Winner Take All) / Open Primary (Anyone Can Vote)

#4 – Nevada Caucus/Convention, Tuesday February 23rd 2016: 30 Delegates / Closed Primary Caucus (Republican Only)

For a candidate like Jeb who could not count on support above 25%, something needed to be done to reduce the effectiveness of the opposition. The simple solution, get more candidates involved to spread out the anti-Jeb vote and to reduce the likelihood of another candidate offering a strong challenge to Jeb. Hence, we see the recruitment of large numbers of candidates who had no hope of winning, but could dilute the vote. And if successful, no one would come out of any of these states with momentum. Without momentum, campaign funding would dissolve and they would not be a threat to the Jeb money machine. (Think Scott Walker.)

After the initial primaries, a series of primaries quickly occur with the first known as Super Tuesday.

#5 – SUPER TUESDAY: Tuesday March 1st  – 601 Total Delegates

   Texas: 155 Delegates (proportional assigned) / Open Primary

   Alabama: 50 Delegates (proportional assigned) / Open Primary

   Tennessee: 58 Delegates (Winner Take All *If 50% of vote achieved, if not Proportional) / Open Primary

   Vermont: 16 Delegates (Winner Take All *If 50% of vote achieved, if not Proportional) / Open Primary

   Arkansas: 40 Delegates (proportional assigned) / Open Primary

   Georgia: 76 Delegates (Proportional assigned) / Modified Primary (Independents and Republicans)

   Massachusetts: 42 Delegates (Proportional Assigned) / Modified Primary (Independents and Republicans)

   North Carolina: 72 Delegates (Proportional Assigned) / Modified Primary (Independents and Republicans)

   Oklahoma: 43 Delegates (Winner Take All) / Closed Primary (Republicans Only)

   Virginia: 49 Delegates (Proportional Assigned) / Open Primary

Super Tuesday provides the first real test of a candidate’s viability. After the original four primaries, 601 delegates are up for grabs. For a weak candidate like Jeb, a poor performance could put him out of the race. So the need for Vote Dilution must continue.

It is important to note that something else is occurring at this time. For many candidates, they are becoming financially stressed and will not be able to challenge effectively in all primaries, so after the first few, their effectiveness is greatly reduced. This benefits Jeb in later primaries.

As well, due to proportional assignment, Jeb will not lose significant ground to the others.

Next comes a smaller tier of primaries. Again proportional assignments reign supreme.

#6 – Louisiana Primary, Saturday March 5th 2016 : 46 Delegates (Proportional Assigned) / Closed Primary  (Republican Only)

#7 – Mini Tuesday: Tuesday March 8th – 130 Delegates

   Michigan Primary: 59 Delegates (Proportional) / Closed Primary (Republicans Only)

   Idaho: 32 Delegates (Caucus/Convention) / Closed

   Mississippi: 39 Delegates (WTA, if Less than 50% Proportional) / Open Primary

#8 – Puerto Rico, Sunday March 13th 2016: 23 Delegates (WTA, if less than 50% Proportional) / Open Primary

With these primaries, candidates low on money will not be able to continue long afterwards, so Jeb again benefits with his money raising power.

Now comes the “finish”.

#9 – GAME DAY: Tuesday March 15th – 234 Total Delegates

   Florida: 99 Delegates (Winner Take All) / Closed Primary

   Ohio: 66 Delegates (WTA, or if less than 50% Proportional) / Modified Primary (Independents and Republicans)

   Illinois: 69 Delegates (Proportional w/ Beauty Contest) / Open Primary

Florida and Ohio are the biggies with March 15. Florida is winner take all, and Jeb was expected to win handily. Ohio should prove a good haven for Jeb as well, but if he does not win, it is still proportional so not a huge loss.

What is important is what is happening with the other candidates. Has anyone been able to gain momentum and enough fundraising to continue running? Can they compete in the remaining primaries and be in a position to blunt Jeb?
Actions by the RNC

The RNC has engaged in actions that solely benefit Jeb. They have:

-   Had Florida change the Primary Date to Mar 15, so that it would be winner take all. This gives Jeb a credible advantage.

-   Change the Nomination Process so that only those who have won at least 8 primaries can have their name placed into nomination. (It was formerly 5 primaries.)

This has tremendous positive implications for Jeb. It is unlikely that anyone other than Jeb will have won 8 primaries, so he would be the automatic nominee.

If another candidate had won 8 primaries, it would be delegate fight at that point. What would happen is that those candidates who did not qualify would have their delegates “released” to support which potential nominee they wanted. Likely, this would again benefit Jeb.

So the presumption is that Jeb would be the Presidential Nominee at this point.

Now comes the unforeseen problem.

CD, This info comes from many different sources and involves putting together everything for a clear picture. Don't expect a series of cites. lol

Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2015, 10:53:32 AM »

By Feb 2015, the problems with Jeb’s support were well known. Walker was leading in the polls and then Jeb. Other polls had Carson in 2nd and Jeb in third.

The NBC polling showed Huckabee in the lead in Iowa with 17% and Jeb at 16%. New Hampshire had Bush at 18% and Walker at 15%, Paul at 14% and Christie at 13%.
South Carolina was with Graham at 17% and Bush at 15% with Walker at 12%.

Fox with a National Poll had Walker at 18%, Carson at 15%, Huckabee at 12% and Bussh at 11%. Quinnipiac had Walker at 18%, Bush at 16%.

A Texas poll had Cruz at 20% and Carson and Bush each at about 9%.

The February 2105 results showed the true weakness of Jeb.  He could not garner enough support to win in the early primary states. But, the good news was that there was no single “break out” candidate either. There was no candidate who could garner enough support to gain momentum that would put him in a commanding position. So based upon the reading of the polls, Phase 2 would be where the nominee would be picked.

Phase 2 would be the “long term run”, where the “turtle” wins. The key factor would be who could run a sustained campaign, entering and aggressively running in each primary after March 15. Phase 2 would go to the candidates with all the money. Those who were short on funds would not be able to compete.

Phase 1, the beginning of the primaries, would accomplish the following:

-   By having a variety and significant number of candidates, no single candidate could obtain more than 1 or 2 victories in the primaries. Therefore, they could not achieve a break out from the pack.

-   With no breakout, candidates would run short on funds very quickly. They would not be able to continue into Phase 2.

-   Proportional assignment of delegates would keep any chance of a breakout in delegates to a minimum. Even if a candidate did win 2 primaries, the amount of proportional delegates would keep him in the pack.

-   Even if a candidate won 2 primaries, he still had to win 6 more, a difficult problem without funds.

The end result would be that the Phase 1 strategy would benefit Jeb most of all. He could be the turtle, staying with the pack, until Phase 2 when his money would allow him to compete where others could not. This would allow Jeb to pick up the necessary 8 states to be nominated, likely with no opposition from any other candidate.

The Trump Challenge

What was not anticipated was the Trump challenge. Trump began to make sounds of running for office in Mar 2015. At the time, Trump was easily dismissed as just making “sounds” of running like in 2012.

The problem for the GOP was that the more Trump spoke, the more it resounded with the disgruntled GOP voters. Trump began to catch on with the public, garnering support and urging to run. By Jun 15, the demand was so great that Trump did the unthinkable. He announced that he was running.

Immediately, the Trump level of support began to increase even further. People began to desert the other candidates and turn to Trump. Within two months, Trump was the front runner in most states. The pre-election strategy of the GOP was now in ruins.

Trump could do what no other candidate could do. He could win in a multiple of the early states, which would put more pressure on other candidates. He could draw support from other candidates like Walker, drying up their funds and putting them out of the election. And most important, he could self-fund his campaign. He could go into the after Mar 15 primaries and challenge in all remaining states, something that Jeb only had the money to do.

Now, after March 15, it turns into a Jeb-Trump race. Jeb might have won the Florida Primary, and maybe one other. Likely, Trump would have several wins at that point. The other candidates would be dropping out of the race, maybe with the exception of Rubio, Carson and perhaps Fiorina. But unless they had the funds to continue, then their runs would be ineffective.

So next, we take a look at how to defeat Trump.

Power User
Posts: 6780

« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2015, 11:45:20 AM »

I'm not pro-GOPe and don't fully believe there is one, but if there is, the center of there universe must be the House of Representatives led by John Boehner that golf with Obama (once) and seem to fund everything Obama, Pelosi and Reid wanted.

That said, Federal Spending under the Republican House dropped from 24% of GDP to 20% of GDP in 5 years.
(Hypocrisy alert, I also plan to rip Republicans over spending in a different thread.  Still they are spending less than Dems would.)

I don't support establishment Republicans or moderate Republicans, and when they screwup they give our side a bad name...  I don't believe they are the same as having Democrats in those positions.

For my elected federal officials I have US Senators Amy Klobuchar ( a Hillary Clinton clone) and Al Franken (needs no explanation.  In the executive branch I have the same as everyone, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the corrupt cabinet (IRS scandal, Eric Holder style Justice Dept etc.) that comes with them.  In the House I have moderate, Boehner-appeasing Republican Erik Paulsen out of Eden Prairie, MN.  Of the bunch of them, all of my angry letters have been aimed at Paulsen, for funding Obamacare etc.  But don't tell me they are all the same.  There are somewhere in between.  This wishy washy Republican would lean to the power base of the conservatives to keep his Ways and Means assignment if the conservatives ever took power.  Obama, Klobuchar and Franken never will.

We need to win more primaries and win more elections.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 11:48:33 AM by DougMacG » Logged
Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2015, 11:49:29 AM »

Here is the big one. How the GOP should plan to defeat Trump if he does not bow out. The GOP "MUST" get one candidate to oppose him in the Convention. That means the candidate must win at least 8 primaries. Then they can get Trump out. No other scenario works. Watch for Rubio to be this man, if Jeb continues to fail.

Defeating Trump

The GOP strategy for getting Jeb as the nominee is now clearly in ruins. His approval and support numbers have fallen into single digits.  Sources of funds are beginning to panic and demanding positive results, or they are pulling out. Rubio is garnering much of the former Bush support and increasing his position. Candidates like Carson and Fiorina have increased in support levels.

At this point in time, the GOP has to now marginalize Trump so that he loses support and cannot win, or else drops out of the race. They also have to either revive Jeb, or switch support to a winning candidate, likely Rubio. How to accomplish this is the problem.

The first attempts to marginalize Trump were weak kneed attempts. Trump was not a conservative. He supported higher taxes. It was only a shameless PR campaign. He could not win, etc. The problem was that Trump was sucking the oxygen out of the election and the more publicity he received, the greater the support.

The next attempt to take out Trump was the 1st Debate. The media, likely in conjunction with the GOP, chose to challenge Trump on whether or not he would run as a 3rd Party if he lost, and then the Kelly comments and question trying to imply that Trump was anti woman in his views.

The debate backfired on the GOP and Fox. Trump support increased considerably. People realized that the debate was designed to run Trump out of the election. The only real issue that survived was that Trump was unwilling to rule out a run as a 3rd Party candidate, and that issue would be the next attempt to derail Trump.

The 3rd Party issue did gain some traction. It helped that in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, each state required that the candidate sign a pledge not to run as a 3rd Party before being placed on the ballot. This issue was quickly resolved by Trump when he signed a Pledge not to run as a 3rd Party. Of course, it helped that he remained in 1st position across the country.

Since marginalization could not take out Trump, the next plan of attack was to get other candidates to go on the attack. Jindal, Huckabee, Fiorina, Christie and Paul would begin to challenge Trump prior to the 2nd Debate. But with each attack, general support for the candidate would decrease. There was no harm to Trump so something new had to occur.

The 2nd debate provided a new way to attack Trump. CNN would use the first 90 minutes to prep the field and allow each of the contenders to attack Trump on the air. It was 10 versus 1 and the media.

The 2nd debate did appear to reduce support for Trump a bit. Some polls reflected a loss of support but other polls would reflect little loss and in the case of a couple of polls, an increase in support. What did happen is that Fiorina and Rubio did gain more support at the expense of Jeb and Carson.

The media now begins the real challenge of taking down Trump. Fox and other media outlets began relentless attack on Trump, bringing in candidates and guests that would attack Trump at every point. Positive articles on Rubio and Fiorina would be written, and the political pundit would write articles against Trump in even greater numbers.

Calls would be made for Trump to release details of his various proposals so that the details could be attacked. The Trump Tax Plan was one such proposal. It was met with ridicule, but that quickly fizzled out when it was realized that people did support the Plan.

So at this point, how does one take out Trump?

Currently, it now becomes incumbent upon the Super Pacs to attack Trump. They will have to spend the money in their accounts to discredit the Trump Tax Plan and to marginalize Trump. This will have to involve flooding the airways with negative advertising, hoping to sway voters against Trump.

There will also have to be a campaign of support for Rubio and Fiorina. They must be pumped up in the hope that one or the other can pull support away from Trump. So far, it appears that Fiorina has peaked at the moment, until another debate which might boost her.

With Rubio, the shift of non-Trump supporters is beginning to go in his direction. But it remains to be known whether the shift will be that great so as to offset Trump.
The media will have to quit sucking up to Trump, providing him with free advertising. But this causes problems with ratings. Trump increases rating when he appears, or when the media shows his rallies. So the media has a huge problem. (Think Fox.)

The next debate with NBC will be telling. The moderators will have to carefully balance their options with regard to Trump. Twice, media traps have failed or proven ineffective to taking down Trump. NBC must determine how far it will go in anti-Trump attacks and the offering of a real debate on issues. They must also decide how much time to give the individual candidates, and how to present issues to improve Fiorina and Rubio positions.

Longer term strategies must include ways that Trump support can be shifted to Cruz, Carson and Fiorina. This is the only way to negate Trump at this point. If enough support can be shifted, Trump may move to bow out of the process. However, this is a strategy unlikely to work.

The real key will be the primaries after March 15. There must be at least one candidate who has won 8 or more primaries to challenge Trump as nominee. If that can be achieved, the following occurs that will give the challenger the nomination.

Under Convention rules, if a candidate is not able to qualify for being placed into nomination, then the delegates have no more obligation to the candidate. Therefore, they are free to cast their votes for any nominated candidate. This is where the anti-Trump candidate secures the nomination.

All of the “loser” candidates delegates shift to the non-Trump candidate. (Let’s just say Rubio.) Rubio then benefits from the shift and he obtains all non-Trump delegate support. With this plus his own, he wins the nomination and goes on to run against the Dem winner, either Biden or Hillary.

Now, here is the problem for the GOP in the general election. What happens to the Trump supporters? If Trump has had 25% or more support levels at the Convention, will this voters or a portion of voters go for Rubio? In 2012, 4-5% of the normal GOP voters sat out with Romney. If they do this with Rubio, then the election goes to the Dems.

Does the GOPe care? Is their true goal to keep control of the House and Senate? Or is it to win everything and therefore, “have to lead”?

IMO, it is insane for the GOP to want to lead with what the future brings over the next couple of years. It is better to allow the Dems to have the Presidency and then shift the blame for the future to Dem policies and deny that they had any influence.

Is the GOP this smart? Who the hell knows?

Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2015, 11:53:00 AM »


I will be interested in seeing what you think of my last post where I show how Rubio or Jeb will win the nomination. It is pre-ordained.

Jeb has been saying that he is unconcerned about the primaries and his support levels. He goes on to say that he will be the nominee. The strategy I outline will win him the nomination.........if he can win 8 primaries.

Power User
Posts: 6780

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2015, 01:08:31 PM »

I will be interested in seeing what you think of my last post where I show how Rubio or Jeb will win the nomination. It is pre-ordained.

Jeb has been saying that he is unconcerned about the primaries and his support levels. He goes on to say that he will be the nominee. The strategy I outline will win him the nomination.........if he can win 8 primaries.

I can't follow you on the details of the primaries and vote allotments except to note that you have studied far more than anyone I know.

Jeb's problem is that people already know him and he is drawing single digits with a declining trend.  I want Rubio to win, yet I have a couple of the same concerns that you do about him.  I don't think there was any coordinated effort to get so many candidates in.  It didn't help any of the organized candidates, especially Bush.  Bush tried to pre-empt Rubio (and Romney and others) by jumping in earlier than everyone thought he would.  Had he performed well, he would be about where Trump is now.  Trump is the only one who benefited from the over-supply of similar candidates and he didn't coordinate this.  He has a talent that everyone else underestimated.

Rubio won't win because it is pre-ordained.  IF he wins, it will be because  people gradually came to see him as the best communicator, telling the best story, presenting the best face and reaches the most people with conservatism, and is seen as the most electable.  He has his own blind spots to overcome.

Less than 24 hours before Walker dropped out I heard him interviewed on Sean Hannity (sp?) radio.  He sounded like a fireball, energetic and motivated like he was about to do whatever it takes to win - then dropped out that night or the next morning.  Jeb sounds like that now.  He doesn't like this.  He doesn't need this, and there are more shoes to drop on him.

To the extent there is GOPe force, it is failing.   Jeb sees that failing in his own numbers and fund raising, and sees it failing as Cantor is gone, Boehner is resigning, and people who never governed anything lead him by multiples.

The voters are the force.  At this point it is the poll takers.  (Maybe I should quit hanging up on them!)

The main (only?) motivation of the wishy washy Republicans that you call GOPe is to gain and hold power.  The way I see it, they will jump on board with conservative leadership as long as it is winning.  Rubio will lead them- if he wins.  It won't be them controlling him.  The same goes for at least some of the others, Trump, Carson, Cruz, etc.
Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2015, 02:43:48 PM »

Let me try to be a bit clearer.

For a low support candidate trying to run (think Huckabee, Walker, Graham, etc.) the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries are key to any success.  They are usually low on campaign funds and the success would allow for more donations and funding to occur. The winners would now have some momentum to move on the North Carolina and Nevada primaries. The losers are “losers” unless they are well known and have significant support elsewhere.

The delegate count in these two states mean little in the scheme of things. It is all about momentum generated when the winners come out ahead.

The South Carolina and Nevada primaries are also significant in the scheme of things. Candidates who win in Iowa or New Hampshire and that win in South Carolina or Nevada can now claim that they have greater appeal across the country and not just regional appeal.

What can blunt the momentum of the winners is when their support levels are held down by numerous candidates taking away support in the primaries. It lays waste to a claim of victory if the voter support is close between candidates. It also reduces fund raising ability which is key for the “startup” candidate. The money men are not as likely to invest money without momentum.

The large number of candidates therefore benefits the GOPe candidates like Rubio and Jeb in that it prevents the “up-starts” from grabbing a foot hold.

Super Tuesday is a key event. 601 delegates are up for grabs. The candidates who come out on top are in an advantageous position for the next run to Mar 15. However, to counter the upstarts again, proportional assignments of delegates require that the delegates are split among all candidates. So unless there is a clear cut strong winner, each candidate will have about an equal number of delegates per state. This prevents an under 50% support winner from running away with all the delegates.

(Numbers of delegates won provides its own level of momentum. Proportional assignment prevents this from occurring.)

The problem for Jeb is the low support levels that he currently has. He has the money but cannot win the primaries with the low support. So he must be kept in the race and without too much of a down position in delegates that he is not considered a lost cause. Proportional assignment serves this purpose.

Here again, it is all about keeping the upstart candidate from achieving critical mass momentum. They prevent this, and the fund raising remains a problem. This allows the establishment candidate to still prevail.

Mini Tuesday with 130 delegates is not a big deal. It is all about just keeping any momentum going until March 15, when all changes.
There are 234 delegates at stake on Mar 15. Florida is winner take all, Ohio is winner take all, unless the winner does not receive more than 50%, then it is proportional. So this is the final “momentum” primary day. The ones with momentum can continue and also get increased donations to enable them to continue. The rest fall out if funding is a problem.
Florida is a key state for Bush. He must win, or he is toast. Of course, this is expected for him to win. So curiously, Florida moved back its primary so that it could be winner take all. Wonder how that happened.

After March 15, it is all about endurance and money. The primaries are winner take all. The delegate counts begin to matter, as well as winning enough primaries to qualify for nomination.

Winning enough states to qualify for nomination is the key. Each candidate will likely have to win 6 or 7 states that are left to qualify.  But there are only 31 states left, including DC and Puerto Rico.

Unless momentum has been built up prior to this, most of the candidates will not have the money to run strong in the number of states needed to ensure 8 winning states and having their name placed in nomination. So this allows the GOPe candidate to gain maximum advantage due to having money available to run. Hence, Rubio/Jeb should likely place along with one, maybe two others.

At this point, delegate count matters. The candidates must really charge forward in the big states, and the little states that cost too much to cover and wastes too much time like Alaska are simply ignored.

At the nomination point, the key becomes the left over delegates that are now “unattached” due to their candidate not making the nomination. However can persuade them wins.
The whole key is survivability in the primaries until March 15. Those that survive and have money can continue. Those that don’t drop out.
You can see the benefit to the Establishment Candidate in this process, especially when that candidate is “weak” and has limited support. The multiple candidates in the early stages and the apportioned votes prevents any momentum candidate from occurring. They cannot get traction and therefore will drop out generally no later than Mar 15.

Trump and Carson have upset this plan. Trump because he has the money and support to continue as long as he desires. Carson because he grabs another level of support, and so far is generating enough money to remain in the race. Fiorina has money issues, but is the candidate of “du jour”.

Both Carson and Fiorina can pull support from Trump. As a result, they must be kept in the race at the initial stages to blunt Trump momentum. If Trump can be weakened considerably so that his support is in doubt, he could drop out or his supporters might desert him. If he has especially low numbers in the first 4 primaries, this further benefits the others so that he can be forced out.

The problem is keeping Carson and Fiorina in the race. That explains why the Cruz Super Pac gave her the $500k donation. It keeps her moving forward and in the public eye so she can pull from Trump.

Carson is much more difficult. He hurt himself in the last few appearances that he has made. His support appears to be softening a bit. He will need substantial money to continue, or else Super Pacs to support him.

Watch for the Super Pac money with both Fiorina and Carson. If substantial sums from “Wall Street entities” are going in for them, it may very well be to disable Trump. And if Trump is forced out, watch for the attacks on Carson and Fiorina. If they occur, it is a huge sign that everything was done to counter Trump.

In the end, I expect that if either Rubio or Jeb can get the 8 wins in the primary, the nomination would go to them, solely because of the “unattached” candidates going to them. It will not because they have won in primaries the most number of delegates. Trump, if he remains, will have the largest number actually won. But it will all be the GOP backroom deals with the unattached delegates.

Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2015, 02:56:54 PM »

Ouch, not good for Jeb. Latest Pew Poll. Rubio and Fiorina remain mired at 8%.

What is important is that the immigration question remains probably the key factor in the support levels of all candidates, followed by taxes.

This does nothing to change the Primary Strategy outlined above. In fact, it reinforces the strategy to get someone funds and media who can pull support from Trump, while keeping the establishment candidate in the race (Rubio) so he can win at least 8 races and then win the nomination from the unattached votes.

Power User
Posts: 433

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2015, 04:50:36 PM »

Might as well add this to the mix. Last quarter, Paul raised $2.5m. Not good.

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!