Thinking Strategically, Who Should Liberals Want as the Republican Nominee?

Comments

1
Trump is too much of a crafty chameleon to win this anti-contest. Cruz is much more easily hated by one and all. Cruz would certainly lose to any Democrat. ..then Trump, then Rubio, and then Kasich being the biggest threat to splitting the "moderates". The real threat might be whoever, (Paul Ryan?), the party bosses/Kochs comes up with at a brokered convention.
2
Who should liberals want as the Republican nominee? A Democrat.
3
@2: Oh how cute, did one of your kitty cats say that?
4
Trump. Especially if having his name on the ballot suppresses down-ballot Republican candidates.

And frankly Democrats would be better off having Trump as President than having Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, who would work too well with a Republican House and Senate.
6
Trump is the most dangerous and every single time the establishment politicians and pundits have predicted his downfall they have been wrong. And Trump is appealing to a real issue of political alienation that many people feel towards both political parties. If he is the nominee he will get the GOP vote AND voters who haven't voted before because they have simply been too pissed off to give a fuck.

Besides, this gaming the GOP is too dangerous this time around. Focus on making sure the Democrat wins in November.
7
@3: I believe that was a veiled criticism of our current political climate, where Democrats are conservatives, and Republicans are simply insane; there are no progressives/liberals in America.

Personally, I think Trump would be most easily crushed by either Dem nominee, because he's a bloviating, self-serving bully with no political acumen, and any reasonable person would see that. Or at least I hope they would. The real fear is that there is legitimately a large portion of the population that would vote for him as a referendum on the corrupt nature of US politics (and not just their shared racism and xenophobia), despite the fact that President Trump would enact horrifying policies that would be disastrous for everyone for the foreseeable future, excepting of course his friends in the 1%.
8
I know several people who voted for Obama twice, have been disappointed in his presidency, and are now ardent Teump supporters. I don't know how they can make the jump, but there you have it. So my fear is Trump would be able to capture 65-70% of independent voters and take the election from Clinton. Ergo, my choice is for Cruz. Nobody likes him, even his daughter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gplpSfao…
9
@6 Well, its not like the preferences of a bunch of liberals will have any influence on the outcome. Wishing for this or that Republican is like wishing for a certain kind of weather. While it might reveal something about the wisher, its completely harmless.

I prefer Trump because I think he'd be the easiest to beat. And I also would rather have him as President than any of those regular GOP lizards. At least he's said some reasonable things about the Middle East and Social Security.

10
Liberal thought rays will emanate out and affect the outcome? Just like you use your supernatural influence to make the Seahawks win? Because that's fucking stupid, isn't it?
11
Trump would be unlikely to win, but crazy populists are always too much of a wildcard to be the top choice here. The top choice is Cruz, who is disliked by much of the republican base, yet is extreme enough in his views to also repel moderates and engage liberals. Also, head-to-head polls at this point in the election cycle are completely meaningless -- not because of the electoral college...if a candidate wins the popular vote by more than a rounding error, the electoral college doesn't, in practice, provide a different result [ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/popu… ]; head-to-head polls are meaningless now because they are inordinately affected by what little information general election voters have about each candidate. Generally, the more media scrutiny a candidate has endured, the worse they perform (this early on). For example, GW Bush had a huge lead over Gore early on, because no one knew much about his positions, but Gore had the baggage of the Clinton administration...Gore went on to win the popular vote (there's your "rounding-error" example regarding my point above, since Gore lost the electoral college!)
12
Trump is too much a wild-card. He'd radically change himself for a general election, and it's hard to know what he'd do day-to-day. Cruz, on the other hand, is entirely predictable. He'll stay in a very narrow lane, and it's much easier to plan a campaign around that.
13
Wow. Wow,wow, wow, and wow. Thinking that this kind of thinking has any relation to "thinking strategically" is the kind of thinking that put us here in the first place. Words - and time - fail me.

But for a clue or two, consider this comment from earlier today: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/03/…
... and this think-piece by Josh Marshall at TPM:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-…
14
Every Democrat should take some time to fairly, dispassionately examine Clinton’s track record as a campaigner" because, according to the author, a vote for Clinton in the primaries against Sanders is like a vote for in the general election.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02…
15
I'm feeling reasonably safe that we will have a rational leader with Sanders or Clinton.

With that in mind...

I've decided to vote in the R primary in WA rather than the D because I am very frightened of a Trump presidency.

He's a bully at heart - he cannot become the commander in chief of the greatest military power that has ever existed.

I'll vote against Trump in May; I hope I won't get to again in November.

16
@14 - Its like somebody synthesized a million Daily Kos threads into a single article. But in the end, its just a lot of speculative fiction.

My biggest problem with Sanders is that he's not a Democrat. This alone is not enough to disqualify him from the nomination, but I think its important.
17
Please fix View Results.
19
I don't have enough Dramamine for this exercise.
20
I don't see how Drumpf can win a general election if 50% of people polled would be embarrassed to have him as president. He doesn't even appeal to the majority of Republicans, let alone the general electorate.
21
@20: I tend to agree. Though it's way too close for comfort.
22
Your whole premise is wrong. Liberals, Democrats, and all Americans LOSE when Republicans nominate a boob like Trump or even asshole like Cruz. If the Republican Party falls apart, Democrats will HATE the result. Think of it this way: in our 2 party system, unless you have tons of money, or a platform for publicity, the Democratic Party only needs from you your vote--in other words, the only leverage that you have over the Democratic Party is the threat to take your vote and give it to the other party. Take away that leverage (I.e. you know, and they know that there is no way you could ever, ever vote for the candidate from the other party), and why would the Democratic Party need to care about you and your concerns? At the end of the day, This is not us against them--it's not a social psych experiment! This is about the future of our country, and it's citizens, and since we are the US also the world. We need to keep our heads in the game--root for your team all that you want, but don't root against the other team. it's counterproductive. It is the competition that makes the game and leads to the best outcome.