Trump vs GOP

[weixiaobao]

Trump had a lot of feuds since all of this began.  Which was his most effective attacks?  And which attacks on him was most effective?  And I think for each of the candidates he going against, their approach of trying to take him down was a bit different each time.  If you want, just give a grade.

vs Graham
vs Perry
vs Walker (more like one sided)
vs Bush
vs Paul
vs Fiorina
vs Kasich
vs Carson
vs Rubio
vs Cruz

[Ljube]

Low energy attack was the killer. The best attack ever.

[weixiaobao]

Low energy attack was the killer. The best attack ever.

I never really fathom how much damage that make (against Bush or Carson)?  I really thought it quite childish.  But then Bush just leaking and leaking and leaking and leaking.

[Mike Thick]

Low energy attack was the killer. The best attack ever.

I never really fathom how much damage that make (against Bush or Carson)?  I really thought it quite childish.  But then Bush just leaking and leaking and leaking and leaking.

"leaking and leaking and leaking and leaking"
-Weixaobao, 2016

It really shone a light on how boring many candidates were, though.

[weixiaobao]

Like his attacks on Walker, about how Walker did such a horrible job in Wisconsin.  I honestly don't know the conditions of Wisconsin.  But Trump repeated it over and over (and Walker wasn't quite the person who started the first shot but one of his aide I think said something about Trump in a letter).  Next thing I knew, Walker, the favorite anti Bush alternative coming into the cycle, is done for.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Trump destroyed Bush completely and any chance he had.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think that the idea of crediting Trump for somehow "destroying" Bush & Walker is ludicrous, much like the idea of Walker as some sort of Democrat devastating champion was ludicrous.

Walker had weak opponents.

Bush has not had to deal with a primary fight in over two decades, and hasn't run a campaign of any sort in over a decade.

[weixiaobao]

I think that the idea of crediting Trump for somehow "destroying" Bush & Walker is ludicrous, much like the idea of Walker as some sort of Democrat devastating champion was ludicrous.

Well this thread is discussing which Trump's attacks and opponent's attacks on Trump is the most effective.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I think that the idea of crediting Trump for somehow "destroying" Bush & Walker is ludicrous, much like the idea of Walker as some sort of Democrat devastating champion was ludicrous.

Well this thread is discussing which Trump's attacks and opponent's attacks on Trump is the most effective.

I don't believe that the vast majority of Trump's attacks are effective. I'm not even particularly convinced that most of his supporters are following what he says or does that closely. He's simply getting all the media attention, while a number of his opponents are extremely weak candidates.

We'll see how effective Trump is as a candidate once votes start being counted.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's no one attack; it's his attacking persona.  George Wallace once remarked that those sissy-britches bureaucrats in Washington, DC, didn't run and take a flying leap into their britches every morning; they put them on one leg at a time, just like anyone else.  That's how most people feel about government bureaucrats, and most people don't view most of their elected officials as anything more than bureaucrats.  Trump gets this.  The people who he's attacked don't back up 30 yards, take a starting position, then sprint and leap into their pants any more than George Wallace's mythical bureaucrats did.  

Winston Churchill was voted "Man of the Century", and he was more attacking than Trump.  He repeatedly referred to his Labour Party counterpart, Stafford Cripps as "Stifford Crapps".  Britons liked that.  Americans like that.  Americans hate the phoniness of their politics, and Trump has given them a rest from all of that.

[weixiaobao]

I don't believe that the vast majority of Trump's attacks are effective. I'm not even particularly convinced that most of his supporters are following what he says or does that closely. He's simply getting all the media attention, while a number of his opponents are extremely weak candidates.

We'll see how effective Trump is as a candidate once votes start being counted.

After the first debate, Kasich had more press than Carson.  So what happen?  Fiorina at one point had so much press too? 

[Ljube]

I don't believe that the vast majority of Trump's attacks are effective. I'm not even particularly convinced that most of his supporters are following what he says or does that closely. He's simply getting all the media attention, while a number of his opponents are extremely weak candidates.

We'll see how effective Trump is as a candidate once votes start being counted.

After the first debate, Kasich had more press than Carson.  So what happen?  Fiorina at one point had so much press too? 

Look at that face!