Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Does Marco Rubio have a path to victory?

Does Marco Rubio have a path to victory?

Can the non-establishment establishment candidate prevail?

Two recent discussions lay out a path to victory for Marcio Rubio in the 2016 Presidential election.  The New York Sun’s Conrad Black even writes that the presidential election is Marco Rubio’s to lose.

According to Black, the Republicans have an advantage in the general election, whoever wins the nomination:

a party has won three consecutive presidential elections only when the incumbent was very popular at the end of the second term or when there were unusual encumbrances to a change.

It is fair to say that Barack Obama is not very popular.  According to Gallup, his approval rating is below average for President entering their eighth year in office.  “Unusual encumbrances to a change” is an awkward formulation, but there is nothing obvious at present.  So Black gives the nod to the Republicans.

But why Rubio?  After all, Donald Trump still leads most polls, even if Rubio and even more so Ted Cruz have gained ground.  According to Black:

I think Cruz will win in Iowa, and Trump will win in New Hampshire. But then the race will narrow sharply and if Trump does not become more specific and more acceptable to the large group of moderates who find him offensive (but are about as irritated as I am by attempts to portray him as a Nazi), he will then start to slide, and I think that Mr. Rubio will win over Messrs. Trump, Bush, and Cruz in Florida and ease in ahead, even if the candidates who have won earlier contests before, such as Messrs. Bush and Cruz, have to deliver him blocs of delegates to put him across over Trump.

There are some problems here.  Trump has tapped into a genuine anti-establishment fervor, and Rubio’s projected reliance on Bush and Cruz’s donated delegates would not sit well.  The obvious rejoinder is that Rubio rose politically by being non-establishment.  According to David French:

Perhaps most momentous of all [in the 2010 Tea Party revolution], it was the year of Marco Rubio, who overcame long odds to beat Charlie Crist, a man who’s since proven himself to be exactly the kind of soulless politician the tea party exists to oppose. Since his election, Rubio has delivered, becoming one of the most consistent and eloquent conservatives in the Senate. My colleague, Jim Geraghty, has outlined his stratospheric ratings from the American Conservative Union, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life, and the Family Research Council.

Charlie Crist Shame on You

Republican-turned-Democrat Charlie Crist

French argues that the recent attack on Rubio for being “Establishment” is part electioneering ruse, part dissimulation and part (hopefully) simple misunderstanding:

It seems that he’s now the “establishment” candidate mainly because a number of establishment figures and donors have defected to him after their preferred candidate — perhaps Bush, Christie, or Kasich — failed to gain traction. But if the standard for establishment status is simply whether establishment figures have chosen to support you after their first-choice candidate fails, then every single GOP contender is either establishment or establishment-in-waiting. After all, if Rubio falters, mass numbers of establishment politicians and donors will rush to back Cruz over Trump. And if Cruz falters, those same people will presumably back Trump over Hillary.

Here’s the reality: In the battle — launched in 2010 — between the tea party and traditional GOP powers, the tea party largely won. The contest between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump is a fight between Tea Party 1.0, Tea Party 2.0, and classic American populism. And each one of these candidates would need traditional Republican or “establishment” support in the general election.

On immigration, French notes that Rubio has followed more or less the same path Trump did.

Complaints about his stint with the Gang of Eight are sure to persist, though, and it’s not at all clear that Rubio can move right on immigration (where primary voters want him) without losing credibility.  Still, in a Rubio/Trump match-up, Rubio should be able to convey that there is little difference between their respective paths on immigration and, looking at their records as a whole, Rubio’s conservative credentials far outstrip Trump’s.

So what about the threat of a contested or brokered convention, or Trump running a third-party spoiler campaign?  Again, according to Black, it’s not going to happen:

As most of Mr. Trump’s views, apart from a couple of areas of immigration and law enforcement, are quite moderate, there is plenty of room to adopt much of his platform on behalf of a largely united party. Mr. Trump would receive considerable deference, and the level of his support entitles him to it; he will not do anything that would assist Hillary back into the White House and the idea that he would spend a billion dollars of his own money to win the Ross Perot Prize as a useful idiot for the Clintons was a figment of the febrile and wishful imaginations of CNN and the New York Times.

Black’s dismissal of a Trump insurgency may also be a touch optimistic.  Trump has enough money, confidence and ego to endure a bruising convention, a kamikaze third-party run, or both.  Neither is it obvious that he loathes the Clintons.

Nevertheless, if there is a the path to the Rubio Administration, it might look like this:  Win the nomination as an original Tea Party champion with bona fides as good as or better than any Republican in the race and weathering a storm on immigration; capitalize on Obama’s lackluster approval and Clinton/Sanders’s numerous problems in the general.  Now all he needs to do is get the votes.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

JimMtnViewCaUSA | January 7, 2016 at 1:12 pm

“does Marco Rubio have a path”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha…

Good one.
Will they be touting Charlie Crist next? Arlen Specter? How about that pro-Obama ambassador guy…Huntsman?
OK, Rubio is not that bad. But his chances are within the range of error of any of those guys.

    pesanteur in reply to JimMtnViewCaUSA. | January 7, 2016 at 2:02 pm

    OK, Rubio is not that bad.

    I don’t know. He’s now co-sponsoring a Leftist bill to strip conservative students of due process rights on college campuses. His overweening need to cozy up to the Left is obvious at this point. He’s the classic Stockholm-Syndrome republican.

    http://www.redstate.com/2016/01/05/marco-rubio-co-sponsoring-left-wing-bill-strips-college-students-rights/

      Milhouse in reply to pesanteur. | January 7, 2016 at 3:37 pm

      Conservative students?! Was that a typo for “college”? Because there’s nothing political about that bill, nor any reason to suppose its victims would be more conservative than the typical student.

        pesanteur in reply to Milhouse. | January 7, 2016 at 4:26 pm

        There is “something political” about every bill. This one particularly. Did you read the Red State article…

        What the bill does is make campus rape an offense that is not investigated by police and adjudicated in court but rather an administrative offense that does not allow the accused to defend themselves, sets the standard of proof at “whatever”, and subjects the schools to fines if they do not convict enough of the accused.”

        What about the link to The Hill —

        “the act contains some alarming provisions…”

        “[The bill’s fines] could also violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as various court decisions that guarantee due process.”

        “Rape is a criminal act. Why is it being vetted by campus administrators who would never conduct a murder investigation? Both are the job of police.”

        Which type of student do you believe will be most likely to have his due process threatened — the one falsely accused of a politically incorrect “crime”, or the politically correct accuser? What do the trends show us?

        Why is Rubio co-sponsoring this?

          Milhouse in reply to pesanteur. | January 8, 2016 at 1:57 am

          Which type of student do you believe will be most likely to have his due process threatened — the one falsely accused of a politically incorrect “crime”, or the politically correct accuser? What do the trends show us?

          The trends show us that the victim’s politics matter not at all; all that matters is his sex. If he’s male he’s guilty, even if he’s black, “progressive”, what-have-you.

Marco Rubio’s path to the Presidency is through the Democrat Party where he, Christy, Kasich, Bush and so forth would find a comfortable home more to his liking.

For too long now, Democrats have chosen to run as Republicans in a rear guard action to protect progressive political gains.

Conservatives no longer have a home in America’s political scene.

Nothing will undo Rubio’s joining the Gang of Eight.

If Trump is an extremist on immigration, then Rubio is an extremist on the other side. So no. Whatever path lies in front of Rubio runs straight into a dead end.

And that’s how it should be. Actions have consequences.

Trump has lead with a double digit lead, often times doubling up on everyone else.

At times Rubio has done well, but he is stuck in the middle of the pack and no visible means of getting out.

Does he have a chance? Yes. But Kaisch has a chance.
Is he favored? No.

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2016/01/06/bettors-know-better-than-pundits-n2100582

I’m just reporting. I take no position on this.

(My h8er crew will now proceed to slime.)

    Townhall ? What you couldn’t find something from the New York Times !!

      Estragon in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm

      How you must have cried when they stopped publishing The Spotlight.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 2:51 pm

      See? You are Pavlov’s bitch to my stimuli!

      I LOVE it that you PRETEND to be a “conservative” while sliming REAL conservatives!

      But I bet you didn’t even read the Stossel piece. Maybe because STOSSEL…with Malkin…went after your little yellow god when he went all Kelo on the poor window in Atlantic City. Duh Donald slimed THEM, too!

      And, yah, moron, I will refer to the NYT occasionally. Just like Limbaugh and Levin. Information is where you find it, and CHECK it.

      Poor, sick bitch…

        Rags you remain an ignorant slut. Never seen someone who is more determined to show multiple times per day how childish and immature he can be. From your incessant name calling, cussing, and homophobic slurs all you do is demean yourself and the overall quality of the content of posts at LI.

        But you are in rare form today this whole Cruz needs to run for Prime Minister of Canada thing really has you wound up and stomping your feet and blowing your bile all over the place. Its not my fault your slick willy lawyer with the big IQ is getting his arse handed to him by my guy with the yellow hair. Must be some powerful shit in that yellow hair.

        LOL, you are nothing if not consistently ignorant, belligerent, and just an all around foul mouthed fool of the first order. I bet if I sent a sample of your posts to the Cruz campaign they would contact you and tell you to STFU and go support some other candidate because you are just an embarrassment.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 6:32 pm

          See, Baghdad Bob, this is ALLL pointless ad hominem and rank stupid.

          There isn’t a fact or argument in here, as is so typical of you.

          In my posts you (or someone who can read) will find facts, argument, and opinions. Not just your usual personal attacks without any real content.

          But what’s fun about this particular screed and the one below is that you belie yourself…as usual…WRT your PREVIOUS lies.

          You sometimes PRETEND to support Cruz. You went so far as to FEIGN concern for his prospects only today.

          “Trump may well want this cleared up NOW so he can pick Cruz to be his VP. Trump is just trying to take care of Cruz and the GOP.”

          You must have the memory of a goose, which is a fatal flaw in a pathological liar.

          Rags you are a moronic ignorant deluded slut who can’t tell the difference between facts, argument, and ad hominem attacks. Your posts are constantly filled with various ad hominems, name calling, insults, childish rants, insults, cussing, name calling, and homophobic slurs, and yet many times you have described these posts as nothing but facts. Unbelievable.

          And you do this magic act of non-self awareness while complaining that a post which describes in sober non offensive terms your childish boorish behavior and implores you, yet again to grow up and act like an adult, as an ad hominem attack.

          You are a sick person with the personality of affluenza boy when he was in 5th grade.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 10:44 pm

          “Rags you are a moronic ignorant deluded slut who can’t tell the difference between facts, argument, and ad hominem attacks.”

          Demonstrating the exact penchant I described so faithfully.

          “And you do this magic act of non-self awareness while complaining that a post which describes in sober non offensive terms your childish boorish behavior and implores you, yet again to grow up and act like an adult, as an ad hominem attack.”

          This would be comedic genius from a not moron. As it is, it’s just pathetic.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Ragspierre. | January 7, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    This is failry obvious. Assume trump cannot win because he canot get more than 35% of the delegates and nobody will throw his support to him. Assume taht the winner will be one of the candidates currently running. Rubio was coming in third or fourth.

      Good lord Sammy, try not to show stupid in every post.

      “Assume trump cannot win…” Why don’t we just assume little green martians are going to kidnap you tonight? Just as likely.

“The non-Establishment” candidate”? Surely you jest. Rubio is bought and paid for by the Establishment GOP. There is nothing non-Establishment about him.

He betrayed the grassroots – the people who sent him to DC. He couldn’t wait to jump into bed with the Democrats. The image of him yukking it up with Chuck Schumer, a man who scorns and despises traditional Americans, is a curse for eternity as far as some of us are concerned.

Rubio proved he could be rolled, that’s a character flaw.

David French’s piece is an embarrassment of bad analysis and fulsome fandom that has been widely and justly ridiculed among conservatives. As for Conrad Black, the convicted felon, his analysis is so out-of-date and bereft of understanding of the unforgiving mood of the electorate as to give off scents of mothballs. And his one-paragraph prediction of Trump’s collapse in the face of a sudden “moderate voter” demand for specificity (in fact, Trump has been the most specific of the candidates in his policy proposals) completely nonsensical as well as unsupported by any data. I should remind Black that after New Hampshire, matters turn to the South which, if anything, is more inclined toward Trump.

The chief question is why is so important that Rubio has a path to victory anyway? Is he either that indispensable to our chances in November or that surpassing a conservative to represent the correction required post-Obama?

Of course not in either case, yet the deluded RINO-Rubio drumbeat goes on and probably will right up to the last convention tally when the mendacious weasel is finally, officially sent packing.

    Ragspierre in reply to pesanteur. | January 7, 2016 at 2:57 pm

    “As for Conrad Black, the convicted felon, his analysis is so out-of-date and bereft of understanding of the unforgiving mood of the electorate as to give off scents of mothballs.”

    Ewwww… NICE ad hominem by character assassination! No substance, just bullshit. You might want to read Mark Steyn on Black’s legal issues.

    Note that I frequently disagree with Black, but you have to take him on his points, not crap like “mothballs”.

    What I LOVE most about T-rump’s “specific policy” is that he can’t speak intelligently to what “his” policy papers say.

    LOVE that…!!!

    Milhouse in reply to pesanteur. | January 7, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Conrad Black, the convicted felon

    Stop right there. That should be enough to discredit whatever you have to say, in any conservative forum. Shame on you. As the Supreme Court eventually found, he never did anything wrong, and the law under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague. Vague enough that anyone could be convicted under it.

      pesanteur in reply to Milhouse. | January 7, 2016 at 4:38 pm

      That’s not correct. Two of three counts of mail fraud were vacated, but one remained, as did a count of obstruction of justice. He was re-sentenced to 42 months. My statement stands. The Supreme Court UPHELD his obstruction of justice conviction.

        Milhouse in reply to pesanteur. | January 8, 2016 at 2:16 am

        The Supreme Court did not uphold the obstruction conviction; it never considered it. It was a bizarre conviction, but there weren’t direct grounds to appeal it under. The 7th circuit didn’t really explain why the one fraud charge remained valid; it basically just said “be happy to be down from three to one”.

        In any case, it’s reasonably clear that he did nothing wrong, and would never have been charged with anything in the first place if prosecutors had not been running wild with this vague concept they’d made up of “honest services fraud”. There would never have been a probe, and thus nothing to obstruct.

Let’s hope never. ..

REUTERS ROLLING: TRUMP 41.7%, CRUZ 13.7%, CARSON 10.6%, RUBIO 8.2%… MORE…

Yeah, Rubio is surging. LOL.

Here is proof about Trump pulling in Reagan democrat crossover votes. Even the SEIU is worried their members will vote Trump in general and are trying to conduct re-education camps for their members.

The head of the Service Employees International Union is worried about what Donald Trump is stirring up in her 2.1 million members, because she thinks he can win.

Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-seiu-mary-kay-henry-217445

    Who was it that stated Trump would go over 40% right after he made the halt muslim immigration proposal ??

    Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Oh, ABSOLUTELY…!!!

    The trade unions…who HATE market economics…are all moist over Duh Donald, just like you! BIG BUSINESS will LOVE Mr. Establishment and his fascist economics! Count on it!

      You are so wound up over Cruz for Canada PM that you are acting more dense and vapid than usual. The UNION is against Trump. It is union members that the UNION fears might vote for Trump despite the UNION telling them not to do that. Hence the UNION being against Trump wants to haul their members in for communist style re-education to keep them from voting for Trump against the UNION’s wishes.

      So except for the part that your entire post is completely wrong based on your failure to read my post or the link provided for comprehension, you are really being persuasive today with your shouting and name calling. I’m sure that you have easily persuaded anyone from the second grade who reads LI today.

      LOL, don’t you just feel completely stupid !! You should. But you aren’t that smart. I feel sorry for the people who upvoted your post without having bothered to ascertain that your entire post was based upon having the facts ass backwards as they say.

      LOL – Bitch

      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 7, 2016 at 6:18 pm

      Gawd, are YOU a gullible. A “T” gull.

      From POLITICO, the head of the SEIU wailing, “Please, Brar Bear, DOooooon’t throw me in dat briar patch, wha evah yo’ do!”

      And we all know what conservative voters the rank and file of the SEIU are…

      Whadda moron.

      HAHAHAHAHA

        Rags try and obfuscate all you want but the fact remains that my post said UNION is against Trump but worried that its members might vote for Trump anyway.

        Your reply was based upon you getting the principle fact WRONG, and you wrote that the UNION was all moist over Trump and that was bad because UNION’s are bad.

        Problem for you in displaying your ignorance with that reply was the UNION was AGAINST Trump. Not moist over Trump so that factual error on your part made your entire reply nothing but CHILDISH BULLSHIT.

        I really should send a sample of your posts here to Cruz. They would never believe posts like the one constructed above to which this post replies were actually created by someone claiming to be an adult with a college education.

        Rags you remain a sick ignorant bitch with the personality of a poorly behaved 5th grader, and I’m sure you will prove this statement true with a whole series of posts over then next 24 hours.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 10:50 pm

          What I LOVE is that you took that much time to say what you’d said before. I LOVE to see you slobbering over a keyboard, wasting your time.

          If you believe the head of the SEIU sang teh blues to POLITICO about their horror of a T-rump victory, you’re MORE of an idiot than I ever thought. But you DO improve in that way every day!

          Here’s a thought for those who think (you’re excused)…

          T-rump has built in NYC, home of some of THE most corrupt trade unions in the US.

          How? (If you answer, “The force of his character”, you go to the Britt bench on the short bus.)

          Just to be clear, it is NY, and trump built the same way all others build.

          Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 2:19 am

          Yes, and how is that? It’s with the unions’ blessing, not over their opposition. In other words he’s been in bed with the unions for years, and they get along fine. As Rags said, any token opposition the SEIU puts up to him is theater.

          Barry in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 8:32 pm

          That is the system put in place by the commie powers in NY. Are you going to say that everyone that plays the only game in town are corrupt?

          “As Rags said, any token opposition the SEIU puts up to him is theater.”

          I disagree. The SEIU knows it holds no power over Trump unless he is trying to build something. With his run for president he has signaled that era is over. The SEIU opposition is not theater. It really doesn’t matter anyway. Trumps support has nothing to do with having to get along with the SEIU, or not, during his business phase. It is just a silly argument either way.

    Immolate in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    As long as we’re cherry-picking polls, I’ll pick Quinnipiac, which shows Trump at 28 and Cruz at 24. As far as polling criteria go, Quinnipiac is a much stronger poll than Reuters.

    Or we can just use the RCP average and avoid the outlier effect so that we’ll have some credibility when discussing where our respective favorites are.

    In that case, Trump is at 35 and Cruz is at 20. What’s the matter, a fifteen point lead insufficient to overcome your insecurities? Grow up, Gary. Or should I call you GaryinAZ?

      You can post about any poll you want. I posted about the most recent poll to come out which is highlighted on Drudge. That isn’t cherry pickibg its called current events.

      Now I’m still growing up apparently but when I look at all the polls listed that make up the RCP average it us clear the ppp poll was a flier. It is also clear from looking at these and other polls that Trump’s poll took back off aroubd the 21st or 22nd.

      Fox News polls just out this afternoon.

      National:
      Trump 35%; Cruz 20%

      New Hampshire:
      Trump 33%; Rubio 15%; Cruz 12%;

      I guess the media companies all have a blackout on Iowa polls as I haven’t seen a new Iowa poll since around the 21st.

      Fox finally gives new Iowa poll. Cruz 27%; Trump 23%; still within 4% margin of error.

      Iowa is going to be interesting. If Trump comes in 2nd in Iowa then Cruz or some other not Trump candidate has a chance through super Tuesday. If Trump surprises in Iowa then its over.

      Also look for Megyn Kelly and Fox to try and knock Trump out in debate just days before Iowa vote.

      Question will be – Since Fox is skewed establishment Republican will they try and knock Cruz out in debate along with Trump or will they just go after Trump.

“Does Marco Rubio have a path to victory?” Sure, resign from congress and run for dog catcher. That would make the odds about 50/50, that is if he didn’t run on a platform of amnesty for stray dogs.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to userpen. | January 7, 2016 at 5:44 pm

    Maybe he could make a dramatic announcement to change the tide? Example: vow that Kasich, Lindsay Graham or ¡Yeb! are on his short list to be VP….

UK Transplant | January 7, 2016 at 2:59 pm

“He’s not the establisment candidate mainly because a number of establisment figures and donors have defected to him”

This couldn’t be further from the truth. As part of the initial Tea Party formed in 2009, I helped Rubio get elected to the Senate when he was polling at 4% against Christie based on his conservative positions. He turned against us almost as soon as he arrived in DC. His Gang of Eight was a complete reversal of what be promised to do. He was the first Tea Party candidate who betrayed us and sparked the fury we now feel for the Republican establisment. In my opinion, he is enemy #1 and nothing he could say or do would ever entice me to vote for him.

    mariner in reply to UK Transplant. | January 7, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    I don’t live in FL so I couldn’t vote or work for him, but I cheered from the sidelines as he was elected.

    I’ve cursed him from the sidelines ever since the Gang of Eight.

Yes, Rubio has a path to victory … but not as the Republican candidate.

The Dems are trapped between the Scylla of Bernie, who is a walking advertisement for that which must not be admitted—that the Democratic Party is now the Socialist Party—and the Charybdis of the repellent, medically shaky, and eminently indictable Hillary. The situation is so perilous that they’re still making noises about drafting creepy old Joe.

All Rubio has to do to rescue The Party is convert, crawl to the altar, genuflect, and confess that he’s One Of Them. Voilà, the Dems would have something other than a ridiculous candidate, and they’d be confident that with him in the Oval Office the most important parts of the agenda could proceed unhindered.

Henry Hawkins | January 7, 2016 at 4:20 pm

“Now all he needs to do is get the votes.”

Please tell me this was tongue in cheek, because that’s all any candidate needs to do to win.

Henry Hawkins | January 7, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Rubio’s path to victory in the general runs through the middle, the independents, primarily, while also requiring he pick up moderate Republicans and disgusted Democrats. But he obviously has to win the GOP nomination first and to do so as a Tea Party candidate is not going to happen. Period. I would love to hear an explanation on why Tea Party conservatives would favor Rubio over Cruz.

Hate to say it, but between Rabidpierre’s foul-mouthed hissy fits and the intelligence insulting Rubio propaganda, this place is starting to decay.

It’s fine if you are for Rubio, but spare us the emesis inducing hagiography that Rubio “one of the most consistent and eloquent conservatives in the Senate.” He beat Crist in part by pledging to oppose Amnesty, then, as soon as he got into office, led the charge in favor of Amnesty. Perhaps you can get away with that kind of aromatic flatus on Vox but most people here will not fall for it as many of the comments show. Rubio, while eloquent, is a liar and an Amnesty shill. If you love Amnesty and the GOPe, be proud and say it, don’t try and pretend Chuck Schumer’s minion is no different than Trump on the topic. Lying like Ruibio just stinks the place up.

https://youtu.be/aonSgD7Hj0g

Amnesty, thy name is T-rump.

    Obamatrade, thy name is Cruz, Rubio, McConnell and all the other usual morons. If Cruz is so conservative and so smart why does he support the sell out of american workers and american sovereignty by supporting a 5500 page trade deal that nobody has read and nobody understands.

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 11:13 pm

      See, this is ad hominem tu quoque, with a lie incorporated.

      And you know you’re lying, Baghdad Bob.

      DEAL with the T-rump treachery. Be something approximating a man. Don’t play that thing you think is a flute for this thug.

And THIS is why trade unions are LOVING some T-rump…

SMOOT-HAWLEY FOR POTUS 2016! Trump wants a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports.

As Tom Nichols tweets, “I bet this sounds awesome to people who have no idea how much stuff they buy from China.”

Relax — I’m sure that trade protectionism will work this time.

167
Posted at 4:32 pm by Ed Driscoll

Ed Driscoll is a Conservative, BTW.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | January 7, 2016 at 8:50 pm

    Can’t be. Trump is an avowed free markets guy. According to Trump, that is, so I’m not sure how reliable that information is.

      Trump is for fair free trade and smart trade deals instead of the pure free trade and stupid trade deals that Rags/Cruz/McConnell/Graham/Rubio all support and which have worked out so well for the middle class over the last 35 years.

      We’ve heard the siren songs of pure free trade/dumb trade deals you and Rags keep singing, despite how bad they have worked out for our country over the last 35 years. We are smart enough to learn from our mistakes and realize when something isn’t working its time to try something else. Others, like you, Rags, Cruz, McConnell, Rubio and Graham refuse to learn and think people are dumb for not wanting to keep hitting their heads against the wall.

      Trump doesn’t want a 45% tariff on Chinese goods, but he is smart enough to threaten one to get a fair trade deal and smart enough to use if forced to in order to bring China to its heals. China would collapse without being able to sell into the USA so they will have to agree to fair trade deal in order to avoid that 45% threatened tariff. Its called “the art of the deal”. But pencil neck geek lawyers who never ran a business, never built a business wouldn’t know the art of the deal from their lunch order in between legal briefs.

      P.S. to Ragsy, the UNIONS do NOT support Trump they don’t care about their members. But just like with Reagan in 1980 and 1984, many union members are smart enough not to listen to their UNION bosses about whom they should vote. Trump = Reagan, Reagan = Trump. Simple.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm

        STRAW MAN No. 1
        Trump is for fair free trade and smart trade deals instead of the pure free trade and stupid trade deals that Rags/Cruz/McConnell/Graham/Rubio all support and which have worked out so well for the middle class over the last 35 years.

        STRAW MAN No. 2
        We’ve heard the siren songs of pure free trade/dumb trade deals you and Rags keep singing, despite how bad they have worked out for our country over the last 35 years.

        STRAW MAN No. 3
        But pencil neck geek lawyers who never ran a business, never built a business wouldn’t know the art of the deal from their lunch order in between legal briefs.

        “Trump = Reagan, Reagan = Trump. Simple.”

        A simple lie. Reagan was a free trade advocate. You are simply an economics moron.

        The middle class has been hammered by the Collectivist war on the middle class. Mr. Establish/Mr. Ethanol subsidies is PART of that. The single WORST damage to the middle class has been caused BIG GOVERNMENT, which your “man” loves.

Eastwood Ravine | January 7, 2016 at 8:56 pm

Rubio has basically stuck his middle finger up to the Tea party activists that got him his seat in the Senate. Yea, he’s a conservative on 99% of the other issues, but Rubio is planting a flag on the “pathway-to-citizenship” solution to the illegal immigration crisis.

Rubio’s election to the Presidency is the end of the United States as we know it. It’s one thing for the Democrats to vote for fundamental change, but I’ll never vote for a Republican that proposes and would enact the same.

“Its not my fault your slick willy lawyer with the big IQ is getting his arse handed to him by my guy with the yellow hair. Must be some powerful shit in that yellow hair.”
Baghdad Bob Britt

I don’t see that happening. What I DO see is clear evidence that Duh Donald is some internal polling that’s got him scared spitless, so he’s risking alienating actual conservatives to ally with Obama, McAnus, and OTHER sleaze-balls to attack Cruz.

It ain’t working. Mark Levin tonight: “When candidates use establishment tactics and cleverly twisting of words in order to slam the brakes on when we’re making progress, to me that’s irresponsible.”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | January 7, 2016 at 9:35 pm

    Polling research indicates that Trump’s second choice numbers are close to zero – he has his 40% of supporters, but very few have him as their second choice should their first choice bow out. Meanwhile Cruz, who already leads in Iowa, enjoys a 66% second choice rating. This means that if/when candidates drop out, almost all will go to Cruz, very few to Trump, an indication his ceiling for the GOP nom is about 40-45%, not nearly enough.

      Yeah, we’ve been hearing about the Trump ceiling when it was at 10%, then 20%, then 25%, then 30% now 40% to 45%. Funny thing about that ceiling, Trump is builder that knows how to raise the roof.

      Cruz will have lost 5% or more in Iowa by Sunday. Cruz is in third place or worse in New Hampshire.

      Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 7, 2016 at 10:37 pm

      T=rump is messing his britches over something, and I’ll be it’s his internal polling.

      T-rump is a corrupt crony, who’s lied at every turn to feather his own foul nest.

        You don’t get more crony Ragsy than a guy like Cruz who has basically never worked anything but government jobs handed out as political favors to various political crony insiders. Cruz is the KING OF CRONY, beholden to the Bush’s for his entire career.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 11:16 pm

          Now you’ve just gone gonzo in your lie-fest, Bierhall.

          You KNOW you’re lying, and it just rolls out. You drunk…???

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 9:55 am

          I expect that T-rump is thrashing around like he is, disgusting the likes of Levin, because he’s seeing something like this in Iowa…

          “The betting markets, as aggregated by PredictWise, tell a much more consistent story: Cruz, the market’s pick for most of December, has risen to a 79 percent (and rising) favorite, with Trump falling from 27 to 17 percent over December and Marco Rubio seemingly out of the race at just 2 percent.”

        “T=rump is messing his britches over something, and I’ll be it’s his internal polling.”

        LOL: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

        Fox and CNN have trump at 39%. I doubt he is “messing his britches”.

        Somebody is “messing his britches”, but I rather doubt it is trump.

      The latest Iowa polling has cruz and trump tied. The latest Ipsos/reuters poll (jan 2 – 6) has trump now breaking the 40% barrier: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

      As I said about a month ago, it’s over.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsYJyVEUaC4

        Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2016 at 1:57 pm

        I dunno… Should we let people vote? Or is your weird opinion enough?

        I bet you’re WRONG. Let’s see.

          Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2016 at 8:37 pm

          “I dunno… Should we let people vote? Or is your weird opinion enough?
          I bet you’re WRONG. Let’s see.”

          If you think my prediction is weird, you are suffering from a failure to recognize reality.

          It’s certainly possible I’m wrong. But not weird. I’m all for voting. I’m also not blind. As some are. Don’t bet too much…

        It would appear that 74% of republicans agree with Barry. It is over and Trump is the man.

        http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_change

        Belief among Republicans that Donald Trump will be the next GOP presidential nominee now ties its highest level ever, and among all likely voters, more than ever agree.

        The first Rasmussen Reports Trump Change national telephone survey of the new year finds that 74% of Likely Republican Voters think the billionaire businessman is likely to be their nominee in 2016, with 31% who say it is Very Likely. Just 23% disagree, and that includes only 11% who say it is Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 2:30 pm

          Except as a cheap thrill for the likes of you, Baghdad Bob, I can’t imagine a more useless exercise.

          But whatever gets you off, I guess…

          Me thingst the Ragsy doth protest too much because somebody is messing his britches.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm

          Let’s just leave your things totally out of this, moron.

          https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/levin-to-conservatives-stop-acting-like-the-liberals

          “Let’s stop acting like liberals”: Mark Levin.

          T-rump was seeing something that prompted him to risk disgusting conservatives. It was NOT that nothingberger from Rasmussen.

          Was it, T-rump sucker?

          Barry in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 8:46 pm

          ““Let’s stop acting like liberals”: Mark Levin.”

          Bad advice when it comes to politics. The left wins because we try to play “nice”. There was a question regarding Cruz’s citizenship, one the left will exploit full tilt. The question is not completely without merit given the circumstances. It has now been answered. Why that took so long is beyond me. Will the left keep trying? Of course, but it will now go nowhere. Was trump wrong to bring it up (to his benefit)? I don’t particularly like it, but it is politics, plain and simple. To be expected. Play fucking hardball. It is what should be expected of the right. Trump is playing hardball, which is precisely why he is so far ahead in the polls. You should appreciate that even when it is your preferred candidates ox that is getting gored.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 9:07 pm

          Sorry. I don’t, won’t, and never have “appreciated” cowardly sleaze-balls who act solely for their own egos.

          I think Levin’s advice was great. I WON’T support a Collectivist.

          Call it a flaw…

          “Call it a flaw…”

          We agree on something, you are flawed.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 9, 2016 at 12:37 am

          Shit, Barry. I know that.

          Barry in reply to Gary Britt. | January 9, 2016 at 1:21 am

          🙂

“Can the non-establishment establishment candidate prevail?”

Gimme a break! Rubio is about “non establishment” as I am the man on the moon!

One thing for certain… He’ll be a “hold your nose” candidate if it comes to that….

“Can the non-establishment establishment candidate prevail?”

Have to say, I could only manage to skim the post after that whopper. “Non-establishment?” Give me a break.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend