Republicans panicking now that Trump's nomination seems like a realistic possibility
- Thread starter johnsmith
- Start date
- Status
Turns out Trump was right once again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3auKMHkZJnQ&ab_channel=CitizenVideo
Shit. Same dude. Guess I've gotta eat the L on that one.
Right about what? That a reporter stated on camera that this happened without even showing any evidence?
lol
CrimsonCommie
Member
Lol he said 8 people. Read the comments wow how can people be so fucking stupid.
Holy shit I thought you were just posting this for a laugh but I just saw your post history and you're actually serious lol
GoodCoffeeJoey
Banned
Reap what you sow.
TRUMP 5000 LIBRUL MEDIA 0
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Turns out blind Trump supporters will believe anything he says. But don't call it racist or fascist or just plain stupid, that would be bullying.
timetokill
Banned
Jorok Goldblade
Member
He's the living embodiment of the collective id of a voting base they've trained to follow their ids.
As someone who plans on voting for Hillary, lol dude.
Republicans need to take a cold hard look at their party's standards, and why Donald trump is a front runner. Listen to what he is saying, and what the people in their party are supporting. Examine why someone who was expected to be a joke candidate is destroying everyone in every poll, and worse, the second option is none other than Ben fucking Carson.
I hope trump wins the Nom. The Republican Party needs to be reset, and if trumps ridiculousness can make that happen, so be it
I hope trump wins the Nom. The Republican Party needs to be reset, and if trumps ridiculousness can make that happen, so be it
Angelus Errare
Banned
ITT: People talk about specific politicians pandering as if politics itself wasn't about pandering.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I think Trump is the worst possible option for the Democrats to face. A Democratic Presidential victory in 2016 is close to guaranteed barring some absolutely shocking sequence of events; 2016 isn't about the President, it's about the Senate and the House. American politics is hugely partisan, and swing voters comprise a tiny minority of the electorate - the ANES finds that only 13% of voters are genuine swing votes; everyone else has made their mind up for the party they want regardless of essentially anything else. Since 1972, there has only been one election where swing voters were responsible for a presidential win (more precisely, where the majority among swing voters overturned the majority among non-swing voters), and that was Carter's '76 win over Ford. In every other election, you could remove all swing voter votes from the result and still get the same Presidential candidate (although admittedly with different margins). Why? Because what matters isn't swing voters - it's turnout rates amongst people who identify with your party.
Almost uniquely in Western democracies, in American politics, you win by firing up your base - that is, you don't try and get people who are going to vote but might not vote you, you try and get people who are going to vote you but might not vote. And hell, Trump is good at that. Trump's really good at that. Look at the demographic break-downs for whose support he gets - he's getting older, whiter men with little to no education and low-incomes from working class backgrounds and blue collar jobs, compared to e.g. Rubio who is sweeping the wealthy, educated Republicans. But Trump's demographic is normally a high apathy demographic. They don't normally have this kind of turn-out, and they don't normally exert this much influence on the Republican primaries (obviously, as we've never had a serious Trump-like before). This is normally a base that is ignored by frankly everyone, and has never really had any kind of serious political representation before.
That's a hell of a dangerous demographic to be going up against. It's like the Republican version of Obama's young and black coalition - a political reserve that had never quite been tapped in that way before. If Clinton or Sanders end up facing Rubio, the national result will be much better for Democrats than if they face Trump. If they face Trump, they get a few more swing voters. If they face Rubio, then they end up facing an apathetic Republican electorate that won't turn up at the polling booths in the same way they would for Trump. Trump will keep the Senate close and the House out of Democratic hands, whereas Rubio or (best possible plausible option) Jeb would give the Democrats a very real chance at the House.
Almost uniquely in Western democracies, in American politics, you win by firing up your base - that is, you don't try and get people who are going to vote but might not vote you, you try and get people who are going to vote you but might not vote. And hell, Trump is good at that. Trump's really good at that. Look at the demographic break-downs for whose support he gets - he's getting older, whiter men with little to no education and low-incomes from working class backgrounds and blue collar jobs, compared to e.g. Rubio who is sweeping the wealthy, educated Republicans. But Trump's demographic is normally a high apathy demographic. They don't normally have this kind of turn-out, and they don't normally exert this much influence on the Republican primaries (obviously, as we've never had a serious Trump-like before). This is normally a base that is ignored by frankly everyone, and has never really had any kind of serious political representation before.
That's a hell of a dangerous demographic to be going up against. It's like the Republican version of Obama's young and black coalition - a political reserve that had never quite been tapped in that way before. If Clinton or Sanders end up facing Rubio, the national result will be much better for Democrats than if they face Trump. If they face Trump, they get a few more swing voters. If they face Rubio, then they end up facing an apathetic Republican electorate that won't turn up at the polling booths in the same way they would for Trump. Trump will keep the Senate close and the House out of Democratic hands, whereas Rubio or (best possible plausible option) Jeb would give the Democrats a very real chance at the House.
old manatee
Banned
I hope Trump chooses a Chick-Fil-A© chicken sandwich as his running mate.
A democratic victory is by no means guaranteed. They have an edge due to demographics and state voting, but I think people are overestimating their chances. All it takes is a downturn in the economy and all bets are off, and there's a reasonable chance that happens give how long it's been since the last one.
Also, I think you are massively misreading Trumps appeal and I'm not sure where your idea that Ttump represents a new constituency. White, working class older men has been the core of the republican vote for a long time now. There's nothing that indicates a massive tide of new voters supporting Trump, and we do have evidence that Trump has significant favour ability issues with his own party. I've yet to find an analyst that doesn't agree with the original article - if Trump is the nominee, it's a landslide for the democrats.
Edit: also, you over estimate the republic voters. Regardless of who wins, the base will turn out. At the end of the day, they turn out because they loathe Democrats and see voting republican as a team sport. They turned out for Romney, the governor of a blue state who created Obamacare and once said he was better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. They turned out for McCain, the most unpopular republican congressman in Washington. They turned out for the new governor of Kentucky - witness the interview with the woman who is going to lose her Obamacare becusse of his campaign promises. When asked why she voted republican despite this, she shrugged and said she voted republican because she always voted republican,
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I disagree; I don't think a down-turn in the economy would be sufficient. The way the electoral college is currently set up, the Democrats can lose the national vote by ~2% and still win the presidency. To go from Obama-Romney 52-47 to theoretically Republican-Democrat 50-48 is a big swing in historical terms. A standard recession or stagnation would not do that.
That's his appeal - 13 percentage points more Republicans at the booths.
White, working-class older men have usually voted Republican in the same way that black voters have usually voted Democrat; that doesn't mean they can't represent a significant constituency if turn-out rates are low. Obama galvanized a group which was always pro-Democrat but had a terrible turn-out to the point that black American now have a higher turn-out than white Americans do. Trump does that for white, working-class men - and that's terrifying, because there's a lot of them.
Well in this case i can say you are right but that is why I think Trump isn't going to win. Think about how many people are getting fired up to vote against Trump for what he is doing/saying about them and it kind of evens out.
As an example here in Indiana shrugged off a lot of apathy following the Religious Freedom crap from Pence earlier this year and now we will have the a Dem and a majority Dems in our state for the first time in a decade or so.How about that
And Pence tried to be slick about that (even if it didn't work), the media can't get enough of Trump and will repeat everything he says til everyone who cares to know will. And as short as the political attention span of average jane and joe is it's not THAT short..Dems are perfectly capable of getting angry too and coming out to vote. I actually think the Dems have a far bigger problem with apathy overall than Repubs so yea.Obama may have disillusioned some but then Trump will say plenty to get under their skin enough to vote against him. A LOT of different types of people. Which minority group hasn't he slandered at least a few times already? And we have so many months to go. Plus Hillary is quite seasoned regarding scandals, debates, current issues and whatever else so her faltering to anything she has any control over is basically nil.
I very much dislike Trump and have never been a big fan of his antics this whole time but he is exactly what is needed right now to show just how shitty the GOP is. He is everywhere and has said so much and gone unchallenged that ignorance isn't excusable anymore, which is a good thing to me. Seriously, let them rot in mediocrity for as long as necessary.
Well in this case i can say you are right but that is why I think Trump isn't going to win. Think about how many people are getting fired up to vote against Trump for what he is doing/saying about them and it kind of evens out.
As an example here in Indiana shrugged off a lot of apathy following the Religious Freedom crap from Pence earlier this year and now we will have a Dem gov and a majority Dems in our state for the first time in a decade or so. How about that
And Pence tried to be slick about that (even if it didn't work), the media can't get enough of Trump and will repeat everything he says til everyone who cares to know will. And as short as the political attention span of average jane and joe is it's not THAT short..Dems are perfectly capable of getting angry too and coming out to vote. I actually think the Dems have a far bigger problem with apathy overall than Repubs so yea. Obama may have disillusioned some but then Trump will say plenty to get under their skin enough to vote against him. A LOT of different types of people. Which minority group hasn't he slandered at least a few times already? And we have so many months to go. Plus Hillary is quite seasoned regarding scandals, debates, current issues and whatever else so her massively faltering to anything she has any control over is basically nil.
I very much dislike Trump and have never been a big fan of his antics this whole time but he is exactly what is needed right now to show just how shitty the GOP is. He is everywhere and has said so much and gone unchallenged that ignorance isn't excusable anymore, which is a good thing to me. Seriously, let them rot in mediocrity for as long as necessary.
titiklabingapat
Member
No she doesn't. All she has to do is convince Democrats to come out and vote. Most independents are just temporarily embarrassed Republicans. Democrats outnumber Republicans in this country. There are very few true swing voters.
You don't think Latinos and women will have record turn out against Trump if he ended up with the nomination? Minorities tend to have a long memory compared to your regular voters and this toxicity is the main reason why some are saying that other traditional red states are in play (Texas, Georgia, Arizona). You also underestimate the historical significance of Hillary's candidacy with women (especially older ones who are more reliable voting patterns). It is admittedly being blinded by Trump's flash right now but make no mistake: it is there.
Your own chart shows a small but significant rise in Democratic excitement if Trump is the nominee.
Coriolanus
Banned
She does.
It isn't 1980 anymore. A guy like Trump would need a miracle.
Obvious trend line is obvious. GOP has pretty much lost the cultural war started 40+ years ago and it's only going to get worse for them as the voting electorate becomes more multiracial and younger. A third of the millennial generation, easily the most Dem majority dominated generation since the Greatest Generation, will finally be able to vote in their first election in 2016.
Obviously, the young vote isn't a sure thing to bet on, but when we're talking trends and long-term outlook, the GOP isn't in any enviable position.
Obvious trend line is obvious. GOP has pretty much lost the cultural war started 40+ years ago and it's only going to get worse for them as the voting electorate becomes more multiracial and younger. A third of the millennial generation, easily the most Dem majority dominated generation since the Greatest Generation, will finally be able to vote in their first election in 2016.
Obviously, the young vote isn't a sure thing to bet on, but when we're talking trends and long-term outlook, the GOP isn't in any enviable position.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It isn't 1980 anymore. A guy like Trump would need a miracle.
Obvious trend line is obvious. GOP has pretty much lost the cultural war started 40+ years ago and it's only going to get worse for them as the voting electorate becomes more multiracial and younger. A third of the millennial generation, easily the most Dem majority dominated generation since the Greatest Generation, will finally be able to vote in their first election in 2016.
Obviously, the young vote isn't a sure thing to bet on, but when we're talking trends and long-term outlook, the GOP isn't in any enviable position.
This is why it isn't the presidency that is important, it's everything else. The Republicans control 31 governorships, and Walker is a de facto Republican so really 32, from 50. They control 246 of the 435 seats in the Representatives, and 54 of 100 in the Senate. They have a majority control of the state legislature of 31 of 50 states and split control in a further 4. The more local you get, the better they do - and this is a real problem for highly devolved services like policing.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think the change in female voters will be significant. Looking at Clinton's polling break-downs against Republican candidates, while it's still very early, there's no sign that she does especially better with female voters than prior Democratic candidates. Obviously she does better with women than Republican candidates, but that's true of all Democrats and Clinton doesn't significantly raise the benchmark. My guess is that if you were a feminist, you probably already voted Democrat. I do think she'll see an up-swing in Hispanic turn-out, maybe a 2 or even 3 percentage point rise... but if you had a 1 percentage point rise in the white vote, you'd wipe out a 3 percentage point rise in the Hispanic vote, so the impact is low.
Yes - but while Trump would make Democrats turn up a bit more, he makes Republicans turn up a lot more. Compare that to Jeb Bush - that'd be a wipe-out election, maybe even something like 55-45, because even though there's a little less Democrats, there's a lot less Republicans.
Just to be clear, I do think that Trump (and pretty much any Republican) will lose the Presidency barring very strange circumstances, but I think Trump is the Republican candidate with the greatest chance of denying the Democrats a Senate victory to go with it.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The United States will never have a system that is not the two party system without constitutional changes. First past the post electoral systems mean only two parties are viable, and presidential systems also heavily encourage two parties only.
Futurematic
Member
Shockingly countries like Canada and the United Kingdom exist. A Southern based third party would do just fine, although the Presidential system would put a damper on their overall prospects sure.
Literally delaying the inevitable. Admittedly, Republicans gaining a foothold due to low midterm turnout will keep future Dem talent hidden and make it harder for them to gain a name, but Republicans can only rely on midterms to bail their ass out for so long. Meanwhile as the years pass, those young Millennials will grow up, gain careers, and become more solid Dem voters while the more conservative Silent generation and older Boomers will continue to die off. Add onto that immigration which should favor Dems.
I'm also betting on buyer's remorse to kick in sooner than later.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Canada and the United Kingdom have separatist regions with entirely different cleavages to the rest of the country. If you take out Scotland and Northern Ireland, the UK is effectively a two-party system (560 seats of 573 held by two parties), and if you take Quebec from Canada, Canada becomes close (231 seats of 260). Additionally, in parliamentary systems, you can have shared executives - like the recent coalition in the United Kingdom and similar set-ups in Canada. In presidential systems, the president defines the composition of the executive within veto constraints entirely - so no matter how many votes Romney got, he can't influence the make-up of the American cabinet, so there's even less reason to vote for e.g. a small centrist party like parliamentary FPTP systems occasionally sustain.
If the American left felt safe it would fracture in a heartbeat. Same as most political lefts.
The only reason Sanders and Clinton can sit in the same party is because they, and their supporters, can say "it's this or the Republicans." If that wasn't true anymore the infighting would tear them apart very quickly.
Which, y'know, might not be a bad thing, other than the right would have several years head start on that status quo.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yup. In general, parties split as much as their electoral systems allow, because even if you agree with someone about 9 out of 10 things, if you can campaign on the 10th without worrying about the other 9, you will. Hence why countries with highly proportional voting systems have lots of parties and ones without don't.
That won't be a problem; like the 100 endorsements from leading black figures, he'll just assert that minorities did vote for him and reality will bend so they did.
Here's one thing that's in the back of my mind. Usually in a primary the candidate panders to the base then moves more centrist for the general. I'm wondering what form a tactical centrist swing by Trump would take, because given the rhetoric that's being thrown around, I can't actually imagine one right now. I assume there will be one, because it's total electoral suicide not to, but I'm really struggling to envision one that feels, well, Trumpy.
airmangataosenai
Member
People need to stop saying this. If Trump wins the primaries the party isn't going to overturn the voter's will at the convention. The ramifications for that would mean permanent distrust in the process and giving it to Rubio after losing in the primaries would doom both him and downfalls Republicans just as bad as simply going with Trump.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Clinton and Obama are only leftists through the lense of modern American politics.
Mr. Poolman
Member
Republicans: whoever wins, we lose.
That's the sticky situation the Republicans find themselves in party wide currently. The swing to right required to win over the base has been huge this time round. In part due to Trump, when he went right and struck 'gold' the others had to follow. The swing back to centre, without losing the base, will be pretty much impossible.
FreedomFighter
Member
I'm not sure if you're joking here, but this is pretty much how I really feel.
Shake Appeal
Member
There is. It's called "The Democratic Party."
Yep. Also,
7 Things People Who Say They're 'Fiscally Conservative But Socially Liberal' Don't Understand
Can't believe that fiscal conservatism is still a buzzword used by people to not vote for Democrats.
It's not exactly drowning in EVs, but could Arkansas switch too, given the Clinton-ness? I know they voted for Bill back then, don't know if there's still good feeling towards the family.
Shuggananas
Banned
- Status