• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump, Rubio and the Republican Establishment’s Tragedy of the Commons

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."

The Republican Party has faced a collective-action problem: A consolidation of the Establishment candidates is in all of their interests, but it is in the interest of every individual candidate (and their supporters) to stay in the race. A famous essay called “The Tragedy of the Commons” once explored the nature of a collective-action problem, using the metaphor of a common meadow where farmers bring their cattle to graze, each one letting its cows eat more until all of the grass had disappeared. Republicans by their nature have difficulty grasping collective-action problems, which form the philosophical basis for much government action. If they fail, it will be because they placed too much faith in the invisible hand to sort it out.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/gop-establishments-tragedy-of-the-commons.html
Click to expand...

IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
 
Last edited:
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with "ideological purity" when it comes to politics.

Bush isn't going to secure the border. Bush isn't going to promote immigration reform. Bush is a zealot for war since he's a member of PNAC. Bush is not going to increase taxes on the wealthy.

He's literally going to do the opposite of what I want in some very important areas. **** that guy.

Cruz says he's a Christian first and an American second. To hell with him.

Chris Christie wants to expand the war on drugs and increase domestic survellance. Nope

Rubio is a bought and paid for corporate shill who will do whatever his corporate backers tell him. And his campaign slogan is New American Century. Haha no.

Kasich is alright and I wouldn't feel horrible voting for him despite his Lehman brother's connections.

So that just leaves Trump. I don't care about the "R" behind the name. I care about what that person is most likely to do. Considering that the other Republican candidates are vastly opposed to what I want done then I have no use for them.

The establishment candidates have a collective-action problem, not the Republican party.
 
reinoe said:
There's nothing wrong with "ideological purity" when it comes to politics.

Bush isn't going to secure the border. Bush isn't going to promote immigration reform. Bush is a zealot for war since he's a member of PNAC. Bush is not going to increase taxes on the wealthy.

He's literally going to do the opposite of what I want in some very important areas. **** that guy.

Cruz says he's a Christian first and an American second. To hell with him.

Chris Christie wants to expand the war on drugs and increase domestic survellance. Nope

Rubio is a bought and paid for corporate shill who will do whatever his corporate backers tell him. And his campaign slogan is New American Century. Haha no.

Kasich is alright and I wouldn't feel horrible voting for him despite his Lehman brother's connections.

So that just leaves Trump. I don't care about the "R" behind the name. I care about what that person is most likely to do. Considering that the other Republican candidates are vastly opposed to what I want done then I have no use for them.

The establishment candidates have a collective-action problem, not the Republican party.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the desire for purity or the fractious nature of the GOP race. It's great fun and probably a fight that needs to be had anyway. My point though is that it's not a winning strategy.

The D have their establishment candidate in the fold. As a side show, we have the Socialist, who in the end will simply demonstrate to everyone that Hillary is not so bad after all. Now that is a winning strategy.
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

The establishment is "toast" why exactly?
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

not sure i agree with your prediction
there are about the same number of republicans opposed to trump as those who support him
while there is a bevvy of republican prospects in the running, trump's support, consisting of more than one-third of the republicans, appears dominant
however, once the competition is winnowed down to two options, those who now spread their opposing ballots for other candidates will consolidate them behind the other non-trump republican candidate
hopefully, the sane republicans realize what a laughingstock their party will become if it nominates trump as its presidential candidate
 
justabubba said:
not sure i agree with your prediction
there are about the same number of republicans opposed to trump as those who support him
while there is a bevvy of republican prospects in the running, trump's support, consisting of more than one-third of the republicans, appears dominant
however, once the competition is winnowed down to two options, those who now spread their opposing ballots for other candidates will consolidate them behind the other non-trump republican candidate
hopefully, the sane republicans realize what a laughingstock their party will become if it nominates trump as its presidential candidate
Click to expand...

Yeah. That was supposed to be New Hampshire's function. Instead we still have 6-7 candidates running around South Carolina.
 
tres borrachos said:
The establishment is "toast" why exactly?
Click to expand...

Because the election wins in 2010 and 2014 were to fight Democratic policies, not co-opt them and enact them.

You can't keep betraying YOUR voters and get away with it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the election wins in 2010 and 2014 were to fight Democratic policies, not co-opt them and enact them.

You can't keep betraying YOUR voters and get away with it.
Click to expand...

That's true. The disenfranchised voters flock to someone like Trump who foolishly convinces them that he will deport 12 million people, decide to not allow people of a specific religion from entering the US, and demand that the President of another country pay for a wall. So when he gets elected, and the 500+ people in Washington DC put a stop to every one of his plans (not to mention what SCOTUS would do to them), nothing will have changed. And people will be begging for the "establishment" to bring back law and order.
 
justabubba said:
hopefully, the sane republicans realize what a laughingstock their party will become if it nominates trump as its presidential candidate
Click to expand...

Meaning it wouldn't be a laughing stock if it nominated Cruz ("I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people's homes soon"), Carson ("I got my tax plan from the Bible - tithing.") or Rubio ("My family fled Castro's Cuba in 1956")?
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

Well, from the quoted section alone I know this article's analysis is problematic, because Republicans grasp thoroughly the Tragedy of the Commons - which is why we want to limit government action closer to incidences where it occurs, rather than expand it far beyond them.

This section:

Rubio’s promise on the stump that he alone could “unite the conservative movement” seemed plausible (and also evidence of the deep-rooted pathology in the conservative psyche).​

Also indicates that the writer has little idea what he's talking about when he speaks to conservatism,


:lol: oh, it's Johnathan Chait. Well, that explains it :)
 
tres borrachos said:
That's true. The disenfranchised voters flock to someone like Trump who foolishly convinces them that he will deport 12 million people, decide to not allow people of a specific religion from entering the US, and demand that the President of another country pay for a wall. So when he gets elected, and the 500+ people in Washington DC put a stop to every one of his plans (not to mention what SCOTUS would do to them), nothing will have changed. And people will be begging for the "establishment" to bring back law and order.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right.
 
Andalublue said:
Meaning it wouldn't be a laughing stock if it nominated Cruz ("I expect them to start quartering soldiers in people's homes soon"), Carson ("I got my tax plan from the Bible - tithing.") or Rubio ("My family fled Castro's Cuba in 1956")?
Click to expand...

Carson has zero chance, if you actually paid attention to what happened yesterday. He never did. If all you know about Rubio is where his family came from, a little education will help you. Lots of people in this country support Cruz. That is no more comical than people supporting Sanders ("I'll give you lots of free stuff!") or Clinton ("Vote for me because I have a vagina!").
 
tres borrachos said:
The establishment is "toast" why exactly?
Click to expand...

Establishment candidates Rubio, Kasich, Bush are all splitting votes and none will be dropping out anytime soon. Who is the "Establishment" going to rally around?

Rubio? He's wounded and may not recover. Kasich? lol...I like him and all, but he has nothing: no money, no ground game and very weak name recognition outside of Ohio. That leaves Bush. OMG, do you really think Bush is the answer? (rhetorical question, I know you like Rubio)

The race is between Cruz and Trump now. And, neither of those two are establishment...in fact, they are kryptonite to it.
 
tres borrachos said:
That's true. The disenfranchised voters flock to someone like Trump who foolishly convinces them that he will deport 12 million people, decide to not allow people of a specific religion from entering the US, and demand that the President of another country pay for a wall. So when he gets elected, and the 500+ people in Washington DC put a stop to every one of his plans (not to mention what SCOTUS would do to them), nothing will have changed. And people will be begging for the "establishment" to bring back law and order.
Click to expand...

We aren't deporting ANY now--catch and release is policy again.

He asked for a temporary stop on immigration from Muslim majority countries where all the fighting is occurring.

It doesn't matter who pays for the wall, we have bigger concerns than JUST immigration to alleviate. Terror and drug and crime concerns being chief amongst them.

I'm not even sure who I'm voting for yet, but don't try to snow me with low information voter bull****, I have been following the election.
 
tres borrachos said:
That's true. The disenfranchised voters flock to someone like Trump who foolishly convinces them that he will deport 12 million people, decide to not allow people of a specific religion from entering the US, and demand that the President of another country pay for a wall. So when he gets elected, and the 500+ people in Washington DC put a stop to every one of his plans (not to mention what SCOTUS would do to them), nothing will have changed. And people will be begging for the "establishment" to bring back law and order.
Click to expand...

If Trump is the nominee, the only chance he would have of being elected would be if the Democrats were dumb enough to nominate Bernie. A GOP candidate cannot win the presidency unless they pick up about 40% of the Hispanic vote, Trump has zero chance of that happening. He is easily the most hated candidate among minorities since George Wallace.

I have said it for a while now, but Kasich looks to be the Republicans best shot. Whether the GOP base ever wakes up to that or not is another story.
 
calamity said:
Establishment candidates Rubio, Kasich, Bush are all splitting votes and none will be dropping out anytime soon. Who is the "Establishment" going to rally around?

Rubio? He's wounded and may not recover. Kasich? lol...I like him and all, but he has nothing: no money, no ground game and very weak name recognition outside of Ohio. That leave Bush. OMG, do you really think Bush is the answer? (rhetorical question, I know you like Rubio)

The race is between Cruz and Trump now. And, neither of those two are establishment...in fact, they are kryptonite to it.
Click to expand...

Why should they drop out soon? If they can raise money, and get votes. That's what they're there for. I live here but in no alternate universe do I think we're the only state worthy of deciding who stays and who goes.

Also, what people seem to be afraid to say, is that the Democratic side is in greater turmoil. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will fight Bernie winning the nomination with her last dying breath. It would be silly for any of those 3 to drop out now. This is an election cycle like none we've ever seen.
 
tres borrachos said:
Carson has zero chance, if you actually paid attention to what happened yesterday. He never did. If all you know about Rubio is where his family came from, a little education will help you. Lots of people in this country support Cruz. That is no more comical than people supporting Sanders ("I'll give you lots of free stuff!") or Clinton ("Vote for me because I have a vagina!").
Click to expand...

She's actually positioning herself well for November. She's going to be the sane candidate...as crazy as that sounds.

Cruz will never live down his "God first, America second" statement. 30 second ads of him uttering that nonsense will air all over the country this Fall.

Trump will try swinging Left to save his chances in November. That might work, but it's risky.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If Trump is the nominee, the only chance he would have of being elected would be if the Democrats were dumb enough to nominate Bernie. A GOP candidate cannot win the presidency unless they pick up about 40% of the Hispanic vote, Trump has zero chance of that happening. He is easily the most hated candidate among minorities since George Wallace.

I have said it for a while now, but Kasich looks to be the Republicans best shot. Whether the GOP base ever wakes up to that or not is another story.
Click to expand...

My husband voted for Kasich. I voted for Rubio but even said here yesterday that I just as easily could have voted for Kasich. I always liked him. I got a little caught up in Rubiomania but I will easily get behind Kasich. We actually donated to his campaign last night after coming home from the Rubio party.

As to your point about Trump, I couldn't agree more. I won't be voting for him, and I'm a pretty solid dependable GOP general election voter.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. That was supposed to be New Hampshire's function. Instead we still have 6-7 candidates running around South Carolina.
Click to expand...

I don't see how one little state(first actual vote) in New England does more than knock off the really low hanging fruit. It does represent the GOP demographic in a few ways but not the nation. I do see where several of the candidates are 'reconsidering' their campaigns, however I'd say the Dirty South will narrow the GOP field quickly... 2012 was like this... :peace
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

"Most certainly" are strong words, and probably erroneous. Keep in mind that as usual this election will noil down to the least worst candidate. Throw out the felon, the socialist, the theocrats, and the establishment, and you're left with Trump.
 
calamity said:
Here's a very interesting perspective of the GOP's "Trump problem."



IMO, it goes deeper than that...but not by much. What I see their problem to be is that too many GOP voters are more concerned with ideological purity than actually winning the election. Trump supporters are no exception. The only thing is that with them, the purity they seek from their candidate is a nationalistic hero who pisses on the PC narratives. Not that this is a bad thing...it's just not a winning thing.

The establishment is toast. And, that too is not a bad thing. But, it most certainly will not be a winning ticket in November.
Click to expand...

I spend a few words here from time to time suggesting that people ignore what politicians say pay attention to what they do. Let me add that pundits should be ignored as well.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Because the election wins in 2010 and 2014 were to fight Democratic policies, not co-opt them and enact them.

You can't keep betraying YOUR voters and get away with it.
Click to expand...

Yes you can - see congress with its re-election rate of over 90%.
 
tres borrachos said:
Why should they drop out soon? If they can raise money, and get votes. That's what they're there for. I live here but in no alternate universe do I think we're the only state worthy of deciding who stays and who goes.

Also, what people seem to be afraid to say, is that the Democratic side is in greater turmoil. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will fight Bernie winning the nomination with her last dying breath. It would be silly for any of those 3 to drop out now. This is an election cycle like none we've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Sanders has no chance. From here on out it will be Hillary then Sanders. Sanders was just a distraction, a shiny object for the Millennials to focus on. Hillary owns the "Southern" white working class vote (on the Democratic side) and the minority vote and the vote of almost anyone over the age 40. Bernie gets the fringe and the youth...which is not much.

As for the GOP. Trump and Cruz will finish 1-2 in SC. That race will be the God Squad versus the pissed off people. Rubio will either finish a distant third or fall to fourth or fifth again. He may actually fold his tent if he also has a poor showing in Nevada.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom