Thursday, January 15, 2015

A Divided Establishment

Follow Me Men!                                

Here, citing  Leon Wolf's A Divided Establishment, For a Change
In every contested primary since 1980, the establishment has had the decided advantage of settling on a candidate early while numerous conservatives fought for the right to be the establishment’s principal opponent long past the time when the race was actually decided. This phenomenon reached its peak in 2012 when the conservative base plowed through a series of increasingly unserious challengers searching for an alternative to Mitt Romney. As a result, the establishment unsurprisingly tends to win Presidential primaries without too much serious heartburn – the sole exception to this dynamic being when Ronald Reagan spent the better part of four years herding the movement conservative cats into his camp to challenge the establishment favorite George H.W. Bush in 1980.

Most likely, it looks like conservatives are going to fall into the same inevitable trap. No one has really spent the time laying the groundwork to become a consensus conservative candidate which makes sense in light of the fact that the best possible conservative challengers are still sitting office holders. But at least in this case the playing field might potentially be leveled.

Jeb probably is the presumptive establishment favorite among the three, but Romney and Christie both have a significant pool of potential donors, political chits to cash, and enough ego to burn to make them unwilling to kiss Jeb’s ring early on in the contest, at least before he wins some actual primaries. They are, also, competing over basically the same pool of voters, as they have all [pisseed off Teapartiers] to the point that they will be unlikely to siphon votes from the crowd of conservative challengers. (full)

Now, the interlocking analysis from The Daily Caller; Why Conservatives should be ecstatic, which is right in my wheelhpose. 

Bush planned to raise $100 million in the first three months of the year– an ambitious mark to achieve, and a risky one to publicize. “The former Florida governor is looking to send a message to the rest of the potential field,” Bloomberg declared in the subtitle.

“Message: Received,” may as well have been Mr. Romney’s reply, as he worked to pump the brakes on the 30 or so conflicted donors he had gathered. “Loud and clear.”

Additionally, while these two “establishment” Republicans square off, a third, the moderate Mr. Christie, seems likely to join the fray.

Imagine that, conservatives? A three-way battle for the soul of the [establishment] GOP? For its money, consultants and votes?

Good news, we think.

Because at the same time the establishment wing of the GOP if flying into disarray, the right’s presidential candidates appear more serious, and more organized, than they have been in decades. ... And on the governor level of the right, it seems more than likely that Govs. Mike Pence and ***Scott Walker*** will join the fray with an advantage in executive experience, even if they’re behind in setting up their national campaigns.

The first battle of the campaign is about to begin, conservatives. Put down the sword and grab some popcorn.


A comment under Leon Wolf's article has a familiar ring:

“conservativeamerica docdave88 • 4 hours ago
I do not mean any disrespect but I'll never understand this mentality of staying home if your candidate doesn't win. Either you honestly believe that Hillary is better than Bush, Christie, or Romney.... or you think that by staying home you are proving a point to the "establishment". Either way it seems like a self-inflicted punishment. You are proving a point to nobody and accomplishing no greater or honorable cause. Help me understand this mentality... explain your reasoning.
If it wasn't such a hassle commenting on Red State,  this is how I'd reply, and have before. (video).  Interpolate.


Anonymous said...

The ERBs (Establishment Republican Bastards) seem to have ZILCH for a learning curve. Reagan won and won handily. Conservatives keep wandering off and ignoring these F*CKING moderates they keep trotting out, and they do it again and again. Why would anyone vote for Romney? Isn't that like checking the trash to see if the milk you through out got better?

Chris in NC said...

" Isn't that like checking the trash to see if the milk you through out got better?"

OMG that is the BEST analogy I've ever seen! Love it and stealing it. Thanks!

Rodger the Real King of France said...

make sure you use "threw"

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rog. I was thinking and typing fast. That's why the talent has editors.

Anonymous said...

We don't care how fast you were typing; not knowing "through" from "threw" means you're only just barely literate.

Ann Hedonia & Sam Paku

Rip Tide said...

" Write drunk, edit sober. " - Ernest Hemmingway -

Anonymous said...

Damn Ann and Sam. Barely literate from one mistake?

Murphy(AZ) said...

Please allow me to throe in my 3.8 cents worth.

Mitt Romney, to be sure is a great guy and a loving family man and ONE of the LAST people Conservatives need running for President. To bring him back again makes as much sense as running Bob Dole because "it was his turn."

And while I'm at it, speaking only for myself (though I believe there are a lot more people on both sides of the aisle who feel the same,) America does not need to continue any dynasty's, either. Not another Kennedy, not another Clinton, not another Bush, nor Roosevelt, Lincoln, Adams or even Washington, either!

There are so many clear thinking, Conservative-minded men AND women out there we could be presenting, people without dark histories, without political baggage, who could fire up the voters and bring fresh faces to the Party it we just push the old-school "go-along-to-get-along" tired-a*sed has-beens aside to make room for the new voices we need!

And one more thing: we ain't all college educated professors of literature or linguistics. Some of us, myself included, sometimes let our brain get ahead of our fingers, and sometimes the wrong word slips into the mental flow. Criticizing each other at any level for minor things tends to stifle our own people's voices and gives comfort to our political enemies.

A mis-spelled word doesn't cloak what was being offered.

Now, could someone help this old man down off his soapbox?

Leonard Jones said...

I was wrong. I used to think this was all about some
members of the base being upset by a so-called establish-
ment candidate. This does not explain the visceral
hatred of the Bush Derangement people.

This all started with the people who tossed their votes
away on a Democrat party shill, H. Ross Perot rather than
vote for Bush or Dole. That put the first new left
communist radical in the White House. Some of those
idiots are still clueless as to Perot's leftist leanings.
When you are on the boards of the leftist Christic Institute
and Planned Parenthood (With Hillary Clinton,) you are
NOT a right of center populist candidate!

What dawned on me is the fact that the kind of rabid, frothing
at the mouth hatred these people possess cannot be explain-
ed by simple dissatisfaction by the nomination of an
establishment Republican. No, it has to be the result of
a personal loss. My 2 percent Libertarian (Or other gadfly)
candidate got my wasted vote, but that evil bastard George
W. Bush won the elections!

In the next round, they continued to piss off their vote on an
unelectable primary challenger and simply sat out the
2008 2012 elections, thereby ensuring the election of yet
another new left communist radical.

When you establish the fiction of a perfect ideological
purity, you will never be satisfied by any candidate!
This is the only way you can explain the anger, the
emotion and the hatred these people possess. Even a
logic based appeal like informing them their actions are
same as voting for Clinton or Obama falls on deaf ears
because they are driven by emotion, not logic!

Anonymous said...

In response to Leonard Jones I will point out that this is a systemic problem that is the consequence of our voting methodology. In the book "Archimedes Revenge" the author points out various flaws in various election methods.

The problem of which you speak is easily addressed if candidates are simply numbered by preference instead of the all or nothing system we currently use.

In the case of the 1992 election, since no candidate got the outright win, it would have gone to the second tier candidate, which would have likely resulted in the Election of Ross Perot. I suspect that both Democrats and Republicans would have listed him as their second choice before selecting a member of the opposite party.

Could he have been worse than Clinton? Would he have lasted two terms?

Don't know, but I would have rather had him then Clinton, and I disliked Perot quite a lot.

It would have certainly shaken up the establishment.

Diogenes'Lamp of Free Republic here.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.