Trump and Carson: Evangelicals' incredible two headed transplant

"As different as Carson and Trump are, each one represents one-half of the equation of what evangelical voters are looking for in the next president: a committed Christian and a strong leader, which is why outsider Ben Carson is tied with Trump in national polls for evangelical voters and has zoomed past him in Iowa where you find some of the most conservative evangelical voters in the nation"

6534 reads

There are 23 Comments

Wayne Wilson's picture

I have to be honest. Bob Jeffries always makes me cringe when he is representing Christ on TV. so, I go into the article a little biased. At the same time, while I have concerns about Dr. Carson's readiness, I cannot understand how believers can get behind Mr. trump. He is absent every major virtue I want to see in a man.

GregH's picture

Pretty sure I would vote Hillary over Trump. I don't know of a scenario where I would vote Trump. Maybe if he was running against Putin...

Darrell Post's picture

GregH, another option, if you cannot pull the lever for Trump is to vote third party or not vote at all on the presidental line of the ballot. I cannot imagine any scenario whatsoever where I would vote for Hillary Clinton as she is woefully inadequate to be our leader. She failed in her marriage, she accomplished nothing as senator from NY, and she failed miserably at Secretary of State.

I am also not a fan of Trump. However, I do not see Trump getting the nomination in the end. Only once in the history of the Republican Party did the party select a non-politician to be their nominee (Wendall Willkie). Trump has already started to drop in the polls, especially in the first caucus state, IA, where Ben Carson now leads.

The race is currently on a trajectory that seems to favor Marco Rubio winning the nomination.

Also, I would point out that Hillary Clinton doesn't at all seem to be a good fit for millennial generation voters who are open to considering either major party candidate. Millennials deconstruct, and start over. They hate hypocrisy, and disapprove of corruption. Hillary on the other hand is from the generation that celebrated corruption and embraced hypocrisy. She is an anachronism--ill-suited for the times.

The Republican Party would be wise to nominate someone who is everything Hillary is not, so there is a clear contrast. Time will tell what happens, but I am pretty sure it will not be Mr. Trump.

 

 

Joeb's picture

Trump will fade as Darrell has said, but the Republicans might as well hand the keys to the Whitehouse to the Clintons if Cruz or any Tea Party types get the nomination.  My pick would be Ben Carson.  He is not a nut like Trump and is very level headed.  I will vote for Hillary if Cruz or some other Tea Partier gets picked but I might consider Rubio over Hillary.  Folks lets be honest our Country is broke financially.  Sooner our later were going to hit a wall.  It is how hard to we want to hit that wall.  I'm federal retiree I expected in the next ten years I'll take a 20% pay cut in my pension if not more.  So this election and others effects me and every one else, because SSA will probably be cut by the same amounts.  Carson does not want to get involved in any wars so right there he is my man.  We spent trillions on the middle east and got nothing.  Between President Bush and Obama we collapassed two governments and left nothing but a big mess.  We took strong men out of power and at least one of those strong men was playing nice with us and the west. In the place of these strong men you have all sorts of terrorists, who abuse the people worse than the strong men did.  I believe Carson and Trump sing on the same note on this matter.   Pray for our nation in these trying times.

Darrell Post's picture

...as a footnote to my comment, I would point out that while Grant and Eisenhower did not hold prior elected office, both were successful retired war generals who regularly interacted with sitting US presidents, so they had some experience in the political realm.

But a retired brain surgeon or a real estate tycoon as nominee would be highly unusual. Some may suggest that we need the unusual in order to get a good leader. We do need a good leader, and just because there is distaste for Washington out there doesn't mean it is impossible to get a good leader who comes from the ranks of those with political experience. It seems to me to be a far greater gamble to pick a nominee whose lack of experience at running a campaign is exposed during the summer months leading up to the election next year--after it is too late to pick someone else.

Also, read Carson's bio information. He is a 7th day Adventist. He stopped being a Republican back in the 1990s, taking offense at the GOP's impeachment of Pres. Clinton. He only became a Republican again in 2014, so he could setup a run for the high office.

 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

GregH wrote:

Pretty sure I would vote Hillary over Trump. I don't know of a scenario where I would vote Trump. Maybe if he was running against Putin...

I'm not at all motivated about Trump.  He would be one of (if not 'the') last choice I would have for the nomination.  But compared to Hillary, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.  He certainly is no *less* trustworthy than she is, and along with what Jim said above about his business experience, I absolutely love that he doesn't kowtow to the press.  He says some things that are clearly outrageous, but he also says some things that many are thinking but won't put into words.  Either way, I like the fact he doesn't back down every time someone takes offense.

However, as others have pointed out, there are better candidates, and one of them will likely be the eventual choice.  At least I hope so!

Dave Barnhart

Greg Long's picture

There's no way Trump will be the nominee. 1) When it comes down to actually caucusing or voting for him in the primaries, many who say they supported him won't be able to actually go through with it. Sober minds will prevail. 2) Even if he does have enough votes to be a threat for the nomination, the Republican party establishment will do everything within their power to make sure he isn't the nominee, because they know if he is then say hello to President Hillary.

I align the most with Cruz but if he gets the nominee it will also be Pres. Hillary because Cruz is just not likeable to the average person. Of those with a chance to win both the Republican nomination and the general election, I hope it's Rubio.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Joeb's picture

I still like Carson because he is not a Politician, but RUBIO is an acceptable choice to me as I said above.  He is the only other person in the room besides Carson in my mind.  As far as Carson being a Democrat at one time so was Regan.  Greg your being very honest in that the best person should be the person that has the most chance to beat Hillary.  My brother-in-law, who is a retired CEO of a 162 billion dollar money market, fund was courted by all the Republican elite in his day for donations and invited to all the important Republican events. He is a believer and he thinks Rubio is a good prospect so Greg might have something here.  
..

Mark_Smith's picture

You used "tea party" in a very pejorative way. Can you please outline what is so bad about the "tea party" in your opinion? 

Larry Nelson's picture

 

"Ben Carson has seized the national lead from Donald Trump in a new poll, in a development sure to force the billionaire businessman to modify his well-polished campaign stump boast that he's "leading every poll." 

Released ahead of Wednesday's third Republican presidential primary debate, the CBS News/New York Times Poll showed Carson leading nationally with 26 percent, to Trump's 22 percent."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/27/carson-takes-lead-from-trump-...

Joeb's picture

Mark I probably take offense to the Tea Party's  leader and other members championing  GOTHARD and the Duggars and the stated position of the FRC that the first amendment only applies to Christians,  Cruz supported GOTHARD and so did Palin.  Representative Daniel Webster is a long time GOTHARDITE and HUCKABEE is up to his arm pits with GOTHARD.  Now I know not all the Tea Partiers are GOTHARDITES and I do have to correct myself I would vote for Paul Rand over Hillary and I would give CRUZ a fair shake, because his view on the government and handling things maybe the only one to save our country. Even HUCKABEE is ranting about his fellow Republicans wanting to cut SSA and Medicare.  Well the truth is no matter how much it hurts everything needs to be on the table with the last thing being the Defense budget,  As Greg pointed out CRUZ could not beat Hillary due to his positions. This Country is broke and now we have Obama now getting bold with the military because everyone critisized  him and Putin made him look like an idiot.  So now soldiers can be on the ground in Iraq and now Obama runs a ship by China's man made Islands.   Obama is going to get us in a shooting war with China we cannot afford to get involved in.  I am an Isolationist when it comes to our country and believe force should only be used in an all out way until the enemy says Uncle like world war two.  If that includes killing the terrorists and their wives and children so be it. 

Rob Fall's picture

Why are you using all caps?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Joeb's picture

Hit lock on and off by accident.   Sorry.  In Jims portrayal of the witch he is not far off.  I knew Secret Service Agents who guarded Hillary when Billy Boy was Prez and Hillary was known to throw books at Agents when she was unhappy about something.   I heard Hillary had a good right arm.  

Darrell Post's picture

When it comes to selecting a nominee to run for president, the history of both the Republican Party and Democrat Party is dominated by candidates who have had prior elected experience. By my count, Republicans have nominated 11 sitting presidents running for re-election; 3 sitting presidents who were elected vice-president, but ascended to president due to a vacancy; 2 sitting vice-presidents; 8 who were a governor, 6 senators; 2 who served in the US House; and 2 retired war generals.

Democrats have nominated 10 sitting presidents running for re-election; 1 former president; 2 sitting presidents who were elected vice-president, but ascended to president due to a vacancy; 6 vice-presidents; 12 governors; 8 senators; 2 who served in the US House; and 2 war generals.

In other words, there is a long history of political parties nominating experienced candidates who have gone through the rigors of campaigns and won elected office. The exception being retired war generals whose popularity came from leadership on the battlefield.

However, there are 4 examples, from 1904 through 1940 where a candidate emerged and was nominated who had no prior elected service. Democrats nominated Alton Parker, a NY judge who lost in a landslide to Teddy Roosevelt. In 1908 Taft was Roosevelt's hand-picked successor, and though he never had been elected, he had substantial political experience, all in appointed positions. Even so, his 4 year presidency has been deemed by many as a disappointment. Herbert Hoover was the Secretary of Commerce, but never had been elected to anything prior to his presidential run. He of course won, but had a miserable 4 years. Finally, in 1940, Democrat turned Republican Wendell Willkie, a corporate lawyer, ran against FDR on the no-third-term platform and was soundly defeated.

So before anyone makes the quick decision to excitedly get on board with either Carson or Trump, men who have had no prior elected experience, at least consider the history of how effective such a candidate has been in the past.

Joeb's picture

Darrell the problem in selecting a Republican candidate is can the person beat Hillary.   Unless something big comes out of the E mail investigation she is the person to beat.  If Hillary wins were talking 8 more years of political fighting and nothing getting done and the first first man in the whitehouse.  Right now Trump and Carson seem to both be the two candidates seen by republicans on the street as being the ones who have s chance to beat Hillary.  

Darrell Post's picture

Many are gravitating towards Mr. Trump because he helps them vent their anger. Trump is someone who is willing to overturn tables and throw chairs. But even though that feels good just under 100 days prior to the IA caucus, it doesn't mean Trump is a good choice to defeat Hillary. In fact, close inspection of the general election matchup polls, both nationally and in key swing states, reveals Trump doing much more poorly against Hillary than many of the GOP candidates with elected experience.

Carson is a nice man. On that point most agree. But again, he has no electoral experience. If his desire is to leave the medical profession and take up politics, then he should run for congress, and if successful there, then look onward and upward. But again, with no experience at running for office, the news media and the Hillary campaign machine would make a meal out of Dr. Carson.

If some Republicans on the street think these two are the best chances to beat Hillary, I would humbly submit that they are wrong and need to start paying more attention to things.

Joeb's picture

Who do you think with political experience running would have the best chance of beating Hillary.  When you go down this road the only two people who come to my mind are Jeb Bush or Chris Christi.  Both are moderate Republicans who would appeal to both sides of the street, which to me would be the most important factor in being able to beat Hillary.  Even those these people would be the best picks in my mind using your criteria the Tea Party contingent would reject them due mostly to their stance on immigration. The same reason Paul Ryan is going to have a hard time being the speaker of the house.   So where do you go from here to  Trump or Carson.  Ohio Gov. Kaisch maybe a consideration to but to the Tea Party he is to much of a compromiser.   

Darrell Post's picture

I haven't fully made up my mind, though I am a voter on March 1 - Super Tuesday. Of course by then the selection of candidates will be smaller than it is now. The Republicans started with 17 options. Perry and Walker have already dropped out.

Of the 15 who remain, Pataki, Gilmore, Graham, Santorum and Jindal receive 0 or 1% consistently in the polling. They are non-factors. Of this bunch I probably like Jindal the best, but none of these are going to come to life and most of these are probably just trying to raise their profile to get a cabinet position in the new administration.

So that leaves 10 that may be on the ballot when I vote:

As we said, Trump and Carson have no political experience. Neither does Fiorina, though she did run for senate and lost.

So looking at the remaining 7, and the amount of political experience:

BUSH: 8 years FL Governor; 1 year FL Secretary of Commerce.

RUBIO: 4 years U.S. Senator from FL; 2 years Speaker of the FL House of Representatives; 9 years member FL House of Representatives.

CRUZ: 3 years U.S. Senator from TX; 5.5 years Solicitor General of TX.

HUCKABEE: 10.5 years AR Governor; 2.5 years Lt. Gov. from AR

PAUL: 5 years U.S. Senator from KY

KASICH: 5 years OH Governor; 18 years U.S. House Representative; 3 years OH state senate

CHRISTIE: 6 years NJ Governor;  7 years U.S. Attorney for the district of NJ.

 

However, Huckabee, Paul, Kasich and Christie are all between 2 and 4% in the polling, so it remains to be seen if any of them will make a serious run, or if they will drop out prior to Super Tuesday.

Of course years of experience is not the only consideration, but given the fluid nature of the race, I will not make my final decision until just before March 1 when I vote.

Darrell Post's picture

I would also add, that Jeb Bush would be in a difficult place as nominee due to his last name and relation to the "Bush Dynasty." Mrs. Clinton would have her team write ads linking Jeb to George on all the things from George Bush's presidency perceived by independents as negative.

Christie would be a hard sell in the general election due to his consistently high unfavorable numbers. Maybe he can rebound, but yes, as a more moderate Republican he might struggle to keep the conservative portion of the Republican Party on board.

 

Darrell Post's picture

And finally getting around to your original question: "Who do you think with political experience running would have the best chance of beating Hillary?"

This can change with time as the candidates go through the process of the remaining debates and then the early caucuses and primaries. No candidate is not without drawbacks. At this point I would lean toward Rubio as being able to have the broadest map to compete against Hillary in the general election. He provides excellent contrast with Hillary, and may be in a position to unite the GOP better than any of the other options. I wish he was a little tighter on illegal immigration and I wish he had more executive experience. But he could probably compete in states like NV, CO, and FL better than most of the other candidates. But again, this is as of today. 95 days (until the IA caucus) is a long time in politics.

 

Joeb's picture

I don't know Rubio's connections to the Tea Party but he seems to be a well rounded candidate.  Consensus in the thread seems to be Rubio to.  When everything shakes out Rubio's youth and drive maybe the key to the Whitehouse if he can out run Hillary on her broom.  I hear that  baby has some real horse power.