Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://s22.postimg.org/s2w3a02y9/2012_GOPPrimary.png


http://s14.postimg.org/saru97elt/2016_GOPPrimary.png




The last primary was known for having the lead change a lot more than normal, though as you can see, it was mostly Romney up top, and then the other competitors tried one by one to see who matched up better.


This primary, on the other hand... ! It's not as far in, but it's a lot more chaotic and has no clear 'Romney'. Also the graph is slightly out of date, Trump's been gaining steam since then.


Draw what conclusions from it that you will, I've never seen a primary season like it.

This upcoming election is going to be fascinating. There's no clear leader in either party, and it once again becomes a "lesser of two evils" situation.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This upcoming election is going to be fascinating. There's no clear leader in either party, and it once again becomes a "lesser of two evils" situation.


The Democrats have a pretty clear leader- It's a two-way race, with Hillary in a definite lead, Bernie Sanders rising to challenge. The third name in the polls is Joe Biden, who hasn't announced and I don't think plans to.


(And considering Republican policies on economics , civil rights , and stuff like the Iran deal, whichever Democrat wins I'll take with much more gusto than just a lesser of two evils. ... though I don't want to digress this thread onto the Democrats too much).


The Democratic primary is going to be, in comparison, boring. I mean, it may be a bit interesting in the 'see two experienced politicians go head to head' sense, but the situation is a fairly normal one. Even if Sanders manages to pull a win, it'll be more or less a repeat of Obama.


The Republican Primary, though? The last one was unusually chaotic, and it's got nothing on this one.

You've got three major establishment candidates- Bush, Rubio, and Walker. Out-there loud candidates- Trump and Christie and Carson. Religious candidates like Huckabee, Tea partiers like Cruz. Libertarians like Rand Paul. Jindal and Lindsey Graham. All names with some history and backing in the party.


Every quarter of the Republican party is throwing their best candidates in.

Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'? Also, the Iran deal is all Democrats.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'?

Ok, it's a digression, but if you insisted. The Democrats lead a steady recovery from the biggest financial crash since the great depression, cutting the unemployment rate in half. Obama is going to finish his term with an unemployment rate below Reagan's, and the early 80s crash was a wet fart in comparison to the worldwide financial meltdown of '08.


The Republicans wanted to crash the economy worse than the financial crisis over the debt limit, an arbitrary limit that was never messed with before.

Also they support austerity, which is what caused double-dip recessions- sometimes triple-dip- in multiple other countries during the same time we were having our steady recovery. The UK started better off but managed to fall behind due to austerity. Ireland went to 14% unemployment due to austerity.

And in all these countries, it raised their debt too, so it's not like it's a tradeoff between growth and debt, no, it purely sucks, and the financial crisis has convinced most economists on Earth that it's a bad idea, yet the Republicans still embrace it.





Yes, the deal-which-prevents-Iran-from-getting-nukes is a good thing, and like you say, all Democrats. If successful, it both moves them further from getting nukes (more than doubling time-to-nuke from the start of the process, and giving us inspectors to make sure they don't start for *15 years*), and gives us a position for future negotiations and makes Iran less likely to jump the gun on other matters. Quite possibly giving us help against Isis.

The Republicans don't actually have an alternative beyond 'do nothing and hopefully they'll give us everything in exchange for nothing, maybe?'. If they have an actual alternate proposal outlined, I'd believe them, but they don't, and that's the strategy that has let Iran grow their capacity reducing the lead time from 2 years-from-start-to-bomb to under-six-months-to-bomb. I'd have more confidence in them if their strategy hadn't already given the Iranians so much for so little.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Explain to me the Democrats' economics that are somehow better than the Republicans'? Also, the Iran deal is all Democrats.

Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

With that being said I'm not a fan of large corporations, I think they are evil. Especially companies like Coke, Monsanto, Dow and others.

It shows how crazy and overstuffed the Republican race is that the supposedly more electable Rand Paul is polling around the same that his "fringe candidate" father was last time around.

I honestly don't know why Bobby Jindal tries. Each time he attempts to capture the national spotlight he fails. The Republicans tried to sell him as the Right Wing Obama years ago and he failed by giving one of the most awkward speeches in American political history.

Also, I'll point out that 4 of the top 5 candidates are Florida based.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

With that being said I'm not a fan of large corporations, I think they are evil. Especially companies like Coke, Monsanto, Dow and others.

You have absolutely no understanding of the government or economy, do you?

So many people want to here about Dem vs Rep policy rather than the Republican's frankly fascinating primary.



Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Usually people have the understanding that the government creates jobs and helps unemployment.

This government is socialist

Our economy is Captialist

However much damage the government can try and do the free economy will always recover. Has nothing to do with Obama who hasn't done anything to help people get jobs. The free market, entrepreneurs and small business has.

Except that the economic stimulus Obama specifically did is credited with saving in the realm of 3-4 million jobs, according to multiple non-partisan third party economic groups. You see, the government is not some special circumstance other thing, when it spends money to hire people, people have jobs, more money enters the economy. They spent hundreds of billions of dollars on jobs and creating economic movement that makes jobs. We thus got jobs.

In terms of unemployment numbers, rather than being at 5.5%, we'd be around 7-7.5% without it.

We also have contrast with what happens when the government does nothing or cuts spending in the same circumstances. Our way, with the big stimulus spending, worked better. The countries that did austerity- again, the policy the Republicans still push- often gained unemployment. Ireland, which was widely recognized as one of the countries that most went with the economic policies the Republicans like, went up to 14%, and only recently dropped down below 10% after hovering at 13 for years.


Also? Our tax rate and relatively government action and such is smaller than it was during the 50s-60s when the country was at it's most prosperous and the gov spent much more on infrastructure and the like.


The United States Government is not socialist- which, btw, is not opposed to capitalist, a lot of European governments are both- but it is part of the economy.


You're arguing based on ideology and labels- what you view as capitalist or socialist or such. I'm arguing number. You put X money into this, jobs happen. Don't, jobs don't happen.






Oh, so you're pro-government regulation is favor of keeping big corporations from gaining that kind of power.

Very not-Republican of you.

See Jindal's blue line way at the bottom there?


Remember how he was a big name a few years back, did a State of the Union response speech and everything? Got some ribbing for drinking water mid-speech but was definitely considered one of the party's rising stars?


FiveThirtyEight article on why he missed his chance. In 2012, he'd have shook up the race (I don't think he quite had the experience to win, but he would've been a top contender). In 2016, he's outflanked in pretty much every category, and he's less popular now than he was then, even in his home state.

So Bobby Jindal's a candidate who's dropped from contender to also-ran, and at *this* point it doesn't look like he's even going to contribute much to this chaotic mix. Though as some drop out that could conceivably change, odds are looking quite low.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, it's a digression, but if you insisted. The Democrats lead a steady recovery from the biggest financial crash since the great depression, cutting the unemployment rate in half. Obama is going to finish his term with an unemployment rate below Reagan's, and the early 80s crash was a wet fart in comparison to the worldwide financial meltdown of '08.


The Republicans wanted to crash the economy worse than the financial crisis over the debt limit, an arbitrary limit that was never messed with before.

Also they support austerity, which is what caused double-dip recessions- sometimes triple-dip- in multiple other countries during the same time we were having our steady recovery. The UK started better off but managed to fall behind due to austerity. Ireland went to 14% unemployment due to austerity.

And in all these countries, it raised their debt too, so it's not like it's a tradeoff between growth and debt, no, it purely sucks, and the financial crisis has convinced most economists on Earth that it's a bad idea, yet the Republicans still embrace it.





Yes, the deal-which-prevents-Iran-from-getting-nukes is a good thing, and like you say, all Democrats. If successful, it both moves them further from getting nukes (more than doubling time-to-nuke from the start of the process, and giving us inspectors to make sure they don't start for *15 years*), and gives us a position for future negotiations and makes Iran less likely to jump the gun on other matters. Quite possibly giving us help against Isis.

The Republicans don't actually have an alternative beyond 'do nothing and hopefully they'll give us everything in exchange for nothing, maybe?'. If they have an actual alternate proposal outlined, I'd believe them, but they don't, and that's the strategy that has let Iran grow their capacity reducing the lead time from 2 years-from-start-to-bomb to under-six-months-to-bomb. I'd have more confidence in them if their strategy hadn't already given the Iranians so much for so little.

I haven't forgotten this, I'll address this today with charts and shit.

Here's one for you:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2015/07/Spacev4.jpg&w=1484

The money!

One thing that's interesting is that while, of course Jeb and Hillary are in top two for total money, Jeb, and other Republican candidates, have theirs much more in SuperPACs/'nonprofits', while even Bernie Sanders has more directly donated to his campaign than any of the Republican candidates.

Perry has more in his SuperPAC than Hillary does hers, even though he has very little in his actual campaign fund.

Only Ben Carson and Rand Paul of the Republican candidates have focused their money directly into their campaigns- IMO a more sensible way of doing things, as it allows more direct control.

It's interesting how the money breaks.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I haven't forgotten this, I'll address this today with charts and shit.

Preferably in a thread about those subjects.

i can't wait for the debates

and i had honestly written off watching political debates in general... but this election is too good to miss

donald trump is going to talk circles around all those losers imo

Originally posted by red g jacks
i can't wait for the debates

and i had honestly written off watching political debates in general... but this election is too good to miss

donald trump is going to talk circles around all those losers imo


While I kinda have different expectations of Donald, I think a number of the other Republican candidates are much more prepared speakers, I do agree that they are gonna be too good to miss

i dunno man every interview i see of donald the guy is quick as hell.. can you show me one of these other charismatic speakers? because from where i'm standing trump knows how to talk to the unwashed masses. i mean you have to take into account different environments and all. i'm around people who say the kind of "controversial" shit he says on a daily basis. it's not some fringe constituency... it's probably a majority of the white populace in backwater states like the south and the prairie states and shit. so when the media blares his shit from a loudspeaker in an attempt to shame him, they're actually shoring up his base for him.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dunno man every interview i see of donald the guy is quick as hell.. can you show me one of these other charismatic speakers? because from where i'm standing trump knows how to talk to the unwashed masses. i mean you have to take into account different environments and all. i'm around people who say the kind of "controversial" shit he says on a daily basis. it's not some fringe constituency... it's probably a majority of the white populace in backwater states like the south and the prairie states and shit. so when the media blares his shit from a loudspeaker in an attempt to shame him, they're actually shoring up his base for him.


I'm not talking charisma so much as preparation, being caught out.

Remember how Obama slammed him last time? Donald'll go out on a limb on some topic, and his opponents can shut him down.

You can be as flamboyant as you want, but if your opponents know the policies and facts better- Which Jeb, Rubio, Walker, etc. do- they'll come out looking better.

And everyone has experience with debates here, it's not like he's the only public speaker.

yea but in the case of what trump's saying... correcting him on what he said about immigrants or something like that isn't really going to win them much conservative love.. sort of like ron paul was much more capable of frankly stating the imperialist nature of our foreign policy... didn't win him any love from republicans just cause he was right though.

True, but I expect it to come up with other issues too. Presidential debates run a wide range of topics, and the candidates has to be informed on many of them.

Current Status:

http://s28.postimg.org/tbkc9tect/GOPJune_July.png


And, of note, who's looking to even make it to the debate:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/enten-datalab-christie.png

The top 10 get in.

Normally the only people who have to worry about missing the debate are the tiny candidates, so this is unusual! And 9 and 10, Christie and Santorum, have such a small gap that they could possibly be bumped off if there's a few bad polls for them.


Christie could have a shot if he gets to the debate, his strategy is based a lot on image and I could see his presence there gaining some points, but if he doesn't get on he may as well drop now.

It's also interesting that Santorum, Romney's biggest competitor, is in such a vulnerable spot.

If the Republicans nominate Trump I'll be convinced they don't want to win the White House.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If the Republicans nominate Trump I'll be convinced they don't want to win the White House.

FiveThirtyEight has an article about how Walker has a chance, but unless things go quite unpredictably, I don't see Trump getting it.

I mean, it's such a chaotic mess that unpredictable *could* happen, but yea, it'd kinda be handing things over.

Chart with lines!

http://s10.postimg.org/snty92f2x/GOP2012_Current_Primary.png


First line is the equivalent of where we are now. Second line is first actual primary.

Lol, Trump is Bachman. Makes sense.

I just want to see Trump debate. No matter what he says it is guaranteed to be gold and yet horrible at the same time. What the world needs now is entertainment.

Oh man, I had forgotten about Gingrich.


Even though he reviewed the Apple Watch a couple weeks ago.

Anyone think the ratings for the debates this year will be a lot higher?

great

Originally posted by Surtur
Anyone think the ratings for the debates this year will be a lot higher?

Ooh yes.

I mean, last one was pretty fun, but this one? It looks like we're going to have Trump, Christie, Carson, and Cruz all in the same room together.




Compare to the Democratic one, where I suspect most of the people there are campaigning to be VP... and there's not that many people to begin with.

Q99, this is a great thread. Just like your stats lists, keep updating this thread.



But about the topic...


If Donald Trump wins the GOP primary, I will be quite sure that the GOP is done. I'll be looking for another party to take over as the major hitter in the coming years.

Let me better expand on that.


I know a gal who represents a very common GOP voter. She's Christian and conservative. Comes from an expensive college educated background and cares about economic, social, and foreign policy issues the most. She despises Donald Trump. She views him as a "scumbag and a womanizer." Let's see the GOP try to rally voters like her...I don't think it will happen.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If the Republicans nominate Trump I'll be convinced they don't want to win the White House.


Unfortunately i don't think it matters who the, Republicans nominate. I'd pick him just because he has the potential for inspiring the best quality memes.

Trump would decimate Hilary and Bernie Sanders. So not really OV.

You honestly think people are going to elect Hilary who is in one scandal after another and her failure with Benghazzi lead to the death of a US Ambassador. Not to mention every other failure in her political career.

The Republican candidates are funny because the Democrats don't really pse a threat outside Hilary.

Originally posted by psmith81992
The Republican candidates are funny because the Democrats don't really pse a threat outside Hilary.

The dems will throw her out as soon as they see she cannot win. I doubt she makes it to the primaries.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You honestly think people are going to elect Hilary who is in one scandal after another and her failure with Benghazzi lead to the death of a US Ambassador. Not to mention every other failure in her political career. Yes.

The only people who care about Benghazi and the e-mail scandal are people who would have never voted for her anyway.

I don't see the logic in voting for a abysmal failure such as Hilary, sheesh, people complained and Bush, he pails in comparison to her past, current and future failures.

Whoa Bill was awesome.

Sarcasm?

I'm talking about Hilary though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Q99, this is a great thread. Just like your stats lists, keep updating this thread.



But about the topic...


If Donald Trump wins the GOP primary, I will be quite sure that the GOP is done. I'll be looking for another party to take over as the major hitter in the coming years.

Let me better expand on that.


I know a gal who represents a very common GOP voter. She's Christian and conservative. Comes from an expensive college educated background and cares about economic, social, and foreign policy issues the most. She despises Donald Trump. She views him as a "scumbag and a womanizer." Let's see the GOP try to rally voters like her...I don't think it will happen.


Frankly, yea. Parties falling is rare, but it does happen, and I think of Trump runs, and fails hard, the GOP fragmenting is not unlikely, because every faction of the GOP can fairly rightly claim that the rest of the party not falling behind their candidate held lead to that- because most of the party isn't interested in supporting candidates of other party factions unless there's no other choice.

There used to be a saying, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line," but... the last two primaries have been the Republicans bickering over a variety of candidates, clearly wanting to fall in love, and certainly not doing a good job at falling in line until the last moment. The rifts within the party have increased, to the point where you can have so many candidates that someone like Trump can hold a solid lead.


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Trump would decimate Hilary and Bernie Sanders. So not really OV.

You honestly think people are going to elect Hilary who is in one scandal after another and her failure with Benghazzi lead to the death of a US Ambassador. Not to mention every other failure in her political career.


No, her failure had nothing to do with the death of the US Ambassador. That happened due to a combination of standing long-term US policy not having sufficient guards in locations like that, the Ambassador being in too exposed a position, and nothing being nearby enough to get there in time even if Hillary had gotten on the phone personally and called every US base in range.


The 'Benghazi scandal' was the mess-up in reporting the situation to the US people after... and even then, it was people under her, not her, it did get sorted out, and investigations showed she wasn't involved with the problem. Investigations lead by Republicans said she did nothing wrong, directly and plainly.


And, frankly, the fact that so many Republicans are still relying on Benghazi and similar things which examination will show Hillary was not actually a cause of or responsible for, is their problem. They view her as a paper tiger with an achilles heel, but the achilles heel they keep on yelling at to attack isn't there, causing the attacks to bounce off again, and again, and again.

On the topic of more graphs, here's one that roughly shows the five major factions of the Republican party, and where the candidates fall on them:

http://thebullelephant.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GOP-Graphic.jpg

Not all factions being made equal, of course- the moderates are pretty weak at the moment having been bleeding members for years, and the libertarians aren't as strong as the other three either.

Traditionally the way it goes, is the moderates and establishment fall in line behind the party's annoited candidate, and even if the other factions disagree, they can't agree on a single alternative. See Romney.

What makes things trickier is there's a buncha establishment candidates, with their own overlap advantages/disadvantages, splitting the vote.

Check this:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-07-24/ktrump6-3.png

Rubio's pretty low when it comes to first picks for candidates... but he is a whole lot of people's second pick. So while he's low in the running now, if a couple minor candidates in his circle drop out, he's likely to improve substantially in the rankings, more-so than his competitors.

On the flip side, if that doesn't happens, then he's got two other major establishment candidates- Bush and Walker- using their edges in other circles to block his way.

Even though he's one of the most electable Republicans out there in the big game, he may thus have trouble getting traction in the primary.

The amount of people loving Trump is pretty telling of the Republican party. He's basically just opened his mouth and spit out armchair general racist grandpa and they ate it right up.

It's amazing how much Chris Christie has imploded

There was a time when I had some respect for Chris Christie (in like a "... for a Republican" type way).

He's really shown his ass in the last couple of years though.

Originally posted by Q99
Rubio's pretty low when it comes to first picks for candidates... but he is a whole lot of people's second pick. So while he's low in the running now, if a couple minor candidates in his circle drop out, he's likely to improve substantially in the rankings, more-so than his competitors.

On the flip side, if that doesn't happens, then he's got two other major establishment candidates- Bush and Walker- using their edges in other circles to block his way.

Even though he's one of the most electable Republicans out there in the big game, he may thus have trouble getting traction in the primary.

This post was gold. The chart on where the candidates fell was great.

And, yes, I agree with what you said earlier about the GOP breaking up into a bunch of littler parties if they nominate Trump (and lost the presidential race by a significant margin).


This sums up the GOP (replace children with "voters":

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/am-i-out-of-touch-no-its-the-children-who-are-wrong.jpg



I really wish there was a liberal Republican. A republican that was for things like legalizing drugs, birth control (free), true universal healthcare, but having conservative fiscal views (better medical care and much better spending are not mutually exclusive ideas, contrary to popular belief), and more Christian foreign policies (ha...turning the other cheek instead drone strikes). I'd like to see that Candidate come from the GOP. That candidate would revive the GOP and make them relevant.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's amazing how much Chris Christie has imploded


Heck, Jindal too. He was considered a rising star for awhile there, people were going, "Will he run...?" last time, thought he might have a real chance.... and now people barely remember he's in the race.

And, unlike Christie, he didn't have any big scandals. He just kinda became unpopular and had his support collapse on it's own.

Assuming Trump is invited to the first debate, I'm guessing his numbers will drop dramatically afterwards. He's going to look like a little brat, while other candidates will surely look more impressive afterwards, simply by not being quite as stupid. Rubio and Walker will probably both rise after the first debate. Probably Jeb Bush, too.

Jeb Bush

Funny joke

Well, he's "the smart Bush", they say.

Out of all the candidates. Who is the most sucessful you think?

Originally posted by BackFire
Well, he's "the smart Bush", they say.
Jeb Bush is still well-thought of, even among many Democrats in Florida because he did a decent job, especially compared to Rick Scott. Jeb Bush has the best chance of all the Republicans to carry Florida in a general election, and that's an important asset.

GWB has a fighter pilot, he can't be that stupid as people think. IIRC Obama had trouble working a umbrella.

George W was a bright guy, he just shouldn't have been president.

dubya flew in the texas air national guard and got 'honorably' kicked out for being useless.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Yes.

The only people who care about Benghazi and the e-mail scandal are people who would have never voted for her anyway.
Pretty much this.

Democrats who don't like Hilary don't like her because she's old news and because she doesn't really have any new ideas, not for all the minor scandals that conservatives have blown up such that you'd think she was the second coming of Nixon.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
dubya flew in the texas air national guard and got 'honorably' kicked out for being useless.

He has a more impressive resume then you squabbling about how bad he is.

Quit being jealous.

Jeb Bush has had the most political success of the candidates to be sure.

8 years as governor.

Privately, he's also been on the boards of directors of some companies, including a healthcare company which, ironically, benefited greatly from Obama's Affordable Care Act- and reportedly, he argued against it at board meetings *but* didn't let his political opposition override what was in the company's best interest, i.e. working with it, which speaks well of his judgement in corporate matters.


Not someone I'd vote for, but he's got more going for him than family connections.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He has a more impressive resume then you squabbling about how bad he is.

Quit being jealous.



he's a clown who's daddy got him a job guarding the skies of houston (LOL) to avoid going to vietnam. he's just another big bad chickenhawk.

best part: he couldnt even be relied on to do that and got shitcanned.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Out of all the candidates. Who is the most sucessful you think?

Jeb Bush is the most competent (by a fair margin?), sadly people have bias against him because of his last name.

Funny how that works.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
he's a clown who's daddy got him a job guarding the skies of houston (LOL) to avoid going to vietnam. he's just another big bad chickenhawk.

best part: he couldnt even be relied on to do that and got shitcanned.

Who is more competent, Trump or GWB?

depends on what we're talking about.

running a business: trump
running a business into the ground: bush
landing an F-102: bush
crashing an F-102: trump
choosing a non-offensive hair style: bush
creating scary new versions of the combover: trump

There is a theory that Bush was drunk many times in his speeches and said stupid things. Looking back, Bush was not that bad of a president, look at his policies, not much different then Obama.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Who is more competent, Trump or GWB?


GWB.

There's a lot that he did wrong, but I view a big factor in the decisions as ideological choices and listening to his advisors rather than simply incompetence.

He does know how to run a good political campaign, and when a big enough crisis came, he put all the crap aside and worked with his political opponents on the Bailout, which was an incredibly critical thing to do.

Originally posted by Q99
GWB.

There's a lot that he did wrong, but I view a big factor in the decisions as ideological choices and listening to his advisors rather than simply incompetence.

He does know how to run a good political campaign, and when a big enough crisis came, he put all the crap aside and worked with his political opponents on the Bailout, which was an incredibly critical thing to do.

Do you think McCain would have been a better president then Bush?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you think McCain would have been a better president then Bush?


Hm... if it was at the same time as GWB ran...? Part of his 'maverick' thing is he'd do some genuinely impulsive at times, which can lead to mistakes, but otherwise I think he's better...

His military background means I think he's less likely to make the same mistakes with Iraq. I'm not sure if he'd go at all, but if he did, it'd be with more preparation.

I'd say he'd likely do better but it's not a sure thing.

FivethirtyEight has updated their 'five ring circus' of Republican factions, including Trump now:

Image


Note Trump's placement within the Tea Party ring doesn't mean that he is a Tea Partier (I don't know if he's made a statement on it), but that he draws heavy support from them, he's quite popular with that crowd, who tends to be pretty angry with the Establishment Republicans.

And his position as the only one deep within that ring helps explain why his support is so heavy. Where the Establishments split their support multiple ways, as do the Moderates and even the Religious, the tea party faction otherwise only has people at the borders like Walker. Thus, a strong anti-establishment candidate is able to get a good hold on them, and until some of the other factions stop splitting support, is likely to hold his advantage.