haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,943
|
Post by haapai on Oct 12, 2016 13:22:43 GMT -5
They will lose a crucial component of their coalition. I don't know how big it is, but it's gotta be large enough to lose them quite a few elections.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 13:24:10 GMT -5
Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced. I have to declare a party in our primaries. In order to have any say in our local disputed offices, I have to declare for GOP. I voted for Kasich in the primary cause I just couldn't see any other viable candidate in that GOP group. And Kasich has done a lot of things that I totally disagree with (in his state). Gerrymandering needs to go away...one way or another....from both sides! Forgot to add, I can't stomach Rubio under any conditions. Remember he didn't like his job in the Senate, until it might have been taken from him. I am a believer in belonging to a party..u then get a chance out of proportion to have some voice to have a influence....
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 13:34:02 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff, I think (s)he would draw from your second GOP group above, as well as pull over a chunk of the Trumpettes plus a bunch of moderate Dems. After 12 years of Dems at the helm, I think a fiscally conservative message would play well. If the GOP could find a Hispanic/black/female candidate to put forward, so much the better.
The Trumpette part of the GOP will feel like they aren't being represented, but they won't vote for the dems. They'll vote for their own Trumpette candidate, or they'll not vote at all.
That's how the GOP reverts to it's grand old roots. the Trumpettes.
After twelve years of any party I agree party in power would be in a bit of trouble but am believer the Hillery is pretty sharp and depending how the world and country is doing , very good chance for another four years under her reign if still healthy...time will tell won't it. GOP screws up again like this year , it will be a no brainer...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 23:25:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 13:59:04 GMT -5
No, I don't think the GOP has come apart at the seams. That won't happen unless they lose control over the Senate for long enough. If they lose control over the Senate in 2016 and don't recover it in 2018, they may be in really big trouble. It's all about SCOTUS and who gets to choose the nominees and who can block them. If the possibility of overturning Roe disappears, so do a lot of pro-life voters. Man, have they been treating those voters like dirt by asking them to vote for Trump! It was the pro life folks I know, who picked Trump. People like my MIL, who is a christian conservative, but who is opposed to everything on the fiscal side of the party. Her issues are illegal immigration, anti-trade, abortion, and not touching SS.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Oct 12, 2016 14:10:27 GMT -5
Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced. Kasich was the only one I think could have given Hillary a tough run. I could not vote for him because of his position on womens' rights. But, in the debates, he came across as the only adult on the stage. If Kasich had been the nominee I think the GOP would have won. I wouldn't have voted for Kasich because of his stance on reproductive choice and he basically embodies the opposite of the policies I support. But, with that said, he sounds reasonable. He is likable. And he actually had a good track record in Ohio of economic growth. I think he would have won moderates and independents without a problem. But, the GOP have a real issue now. I don't think that conservative candidates but who can appeal to the mainstream can win their primary now. Just looking at this last primary season. The two candidate's won more than one state and that was Trump and Cruz neither of whom I think could win the general election.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,501
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Oct 12, 2016 14:15:29 GMT -5
My head has nearly exploded trying to reconcile the whole "family values" conservative platform with Trump. I get people saying that what Bill Clinton did was unacceptable and they can't get behind Hillary. BUT then that means that Trump being a serial cheater and sexual harasser should also be unacceptable. If it's fine to look the other ways when it comes to Trump's indiscretions and say "it's in the past" then the same should apply to the Clinton marriage.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 14:17:49 GMT -5
From what I've observed the difficult part is getting someone who can win the primary and the general election. To win the primary - they need to be extremely conservative on social issues - but that will not go over well in the general election. And it seems that the primary has gotten more dogmatic about these issues the past few cycles. Could Jeb! have won against Hillary? i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,820
|
Post by kadee79 on Oct 12, 2016 14:22:40 GMT -5
I have to declare a party in our primaries. In order to have any say in our local disputed offices, I have to declare for GOP. I voted for Kasich in the primary cause I just couldn't see any other viable candidate in that GOP group. And Kasich has done a lot of things that I totally disagree with (in his state). Gerrymandering needs to go away...one way or another....from both sides! Forgot to add, I can't stomach Rubio under any conditions. Remember he didn't like his job in the Senate, until it might have been taken from him. I am a believer in belonging to a party..u then get a chance out of proportion to have some voice to have a influence.... When they are running unopposed or there are only choices in one party, to have any say in local government...county & state for me, I have to declare GOP right now. Wasn't always this way and it will change again...I'm hoping sooner rather than later.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 14:26:45 GMT -5
No, I don't think the GOP has come apart at the seams. That won't happen unless they lose control over the Senate for long enough. If they lose control over the Senate in 2016 and don't recover it in 2018, they may be in really big trouble. It's all about SCOTUS and who gets to choose the nominees and who can block them. If the possibility of overturning Roe disappears, so do a lot of pro-life voters. Man, have they been treating those voters like dirt by asking them to vote for Trump! Trump was talking about how he is very strong with women voters yesterday, and he listed several reasons why - more cops, safer communities, etc. He did NOT list the fact that he is anti-abortion - in fact I can't remember many times that he talked about that. I don't think the issue matters much to him. In fact I know it doesn't, because he was pro-choice until he decided to run as a Republican. Yet because he's got that plank on his platform, the anti-abortion voters will back him but IMHO, get nothing for it.
I think the GOP has been taking the anti-abortion voters for granted for a long time. Toss out the fact that you're strongly anti-abortion during the election season, then do nothing at all to reverse the issue during our term. The problem for them is there isn't another party that is anti-abortion, so if they're one issue voters, they're stuck with Trump, or stuck with not voting at all.
You're correct, they have been treated like dirt, and not just by Trump.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 14:32:42 GMT -5
Kasich was the only one in the primary bunch that I could have honestly considered voting for. Wonder if 2020 brings us a Kasich/Rubio ticket? I still see Rubio as being too young and inexperienced. I have to declare a party in our primaries. In order to have any say in our local disputed offices, I have to declare for GOP. I voted for Kasich in the primary cause I just couldn't see any other viable candidate in that GOP group. And Kasich has done a lot of things that I totally disagree with (in his state). Gerrymandering needs to go away...one way or another....from both sides! Forgot to add, I can't stomach Rubio under any conditions. Remember he didn't like his job in the Senate, until it might have been taken from him. i also voted for Kasich.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 14:36:14 GMT -5
i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
you don't have to just "think" that: the matchup polls SHOWED IT. the WORST of the candidates was Trump. the forensic proof is all over the web, if anyone wants to check it. it is a FACT. hell, even lowly FIORINA did better than her in Matchups- and it looked like Kasich was going to murder her.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Oct 12, 2016 14:48:54 GMT -5
i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majority of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 15:05:07 GMT -5
Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majorities y of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily. And isn't this the problem for the anti choicers? If a candidate meets their standards, he will lose a general election because the country doesn't want that.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,072
|
Post by happyhoix on Oct 12, 2016 15:09:18 GMT -5
Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majority of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily. I would agree with that. The religious conservatives you mentioned would have had to take a hard swing to the moderate end of the scale to pick up enough voters to win.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 15:18:57 GMT -5
Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majority of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily. Cruz was the SECOND least likely to win. i think it is kinda funny that the battle ended up being between the two WORST candidates that the GOP fielded.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 23:25:24 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 15:32:32 GMT -5
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majority of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily. Cruz was the SECOND least likely to win. i think it is kinda funny that the battle ended up being between the two WORST candidates that the GOP fielded. I blame Reince Priebus. He needed to dwindle the field faster. Someone needed to convince some of those egos to get out for the good of the party. The all or nothing primary states also really hurt.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 15:49:18 GMT -5
Cruz was the SECOND least likely to win. i think it is kinda funny that the battle ended up being between the two WORST candidates that the GOP fielded. I blame Reince Priebus. He needed to dwindle the field faster. Someone needed to convince some of those egos to get out for the good of the party. The all or nothing primary states also really hurt. the primaries were geared to put the most conservative, red meat states first, in the hopes that a candidate would quickly emerge and dominate, and that didn't really happen, but what DID happen is that their WORST candidates did better in the early going than their BEST candidates. if they had run the states in the opposite order, there is a good chance that Rubio would have emerged as the front runner. this was a conscious choice, and a really bad one.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 16:05:38 GMT -5
i don't think so. i think Jeb! underestimated how badly another BUSH would fare against another CLINTON. but i think that Rubio or Kasich could have beat her. Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
As far as I am concerned it seems the Democrats did a great job in picking their candidate...A person with much experience both as a organizer, successful in promoting and helping health coverage for children..over 8 million covered when they didn't have coverage..for me a biggie...As First Lady..did a good job here..experienced that part of the job plus instrumental in helping her husband be a success as POTUS..[sorry if u disagree but even with his infidelities..American public look very, very favorable on his eight years in office and she was a major part of his administration]..Very successful eight years as Senator from New York and the four years as Sec of State...yup they picked a winner and now we are going to enjoy having a winner as POTUS.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Oct 12, 2016 16:15:52 GMT -5
Hillary has a LOT of negative baggage and reams of voters who hate her. I'm not sure she would win with any other GOP nominee except Trump.
I hope the GOP remembers that, going forward, and makes a better effort to control their circus monkeys next time. And the Dems should be paying good attention, too - BOTH parties need to do a better job at picking candidates that make the average voter feel they have his back.
As far as I am concerned it seems the Democrats did a great job in picking their candidate...A person with much experience both as a organizer, successful in promoting and helping health coverage for children..over 8 million covered when they didn't have coverage..for me a biggie...As First Lady..did a good job here..experienced that part of the job plus instrumental in helping her husband be a success as POTUS..[sorry if u disagree but even with his infidelities..American public look very, very favorable on his eight years in office and she was a major part of his administration]..Very successful eight years as Senator from New York and the four years as Sec of State...yup they picked a winner and now we are going to enjoy having a winner as POTUS. Agree with this, but leading up to the primaries, I was really really worried about Bernie. There is a lot I liked about him, but I did not think he'd be able to win a general. And I got a firsthand sense of the intensity of his supporters who hated Hillary (one of my sons). That could have gone much worse: it appears (to me at least) that his supporters will vote for her rather than tnrow their vote away with a third party vote
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 16:16:54 GMT -5
I don't know about that. Ted Cruz was pretty damn extreme and his unfavorable ratings are on par with Hillary's. As of July his unfavorable rating was 54.8 (down from 56.8 in May of this year). Hillary has an unfavorable rating of 53%. Granted Cruz's unfavorable rating is better than Trumps (and at 62% that wouldn't be difficult), but his are still pretty poor. So I think Cruz would have struggled to beat Hillary. However, I don't think any of the social conservative candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, etc.) can win an a general election, because they are too socially conservative for the majority of the country. But, a lot of the other candidates could have won reasonably easily. Cruz was the SECOND least likely to win. i think it is kinda funny that the battle ended up being between the two WORST candidates that the GOP fielded. I believe there are some very sharp conservative , financially moderate Republican members of the party who are in elected office now but because they have to pander to the extremes of the GOP party.., Pro Life, Tea Party types, ultra religous and u add a few more adjectives...they will never get the chance to head up the GOP ticket or if they did they would have to campaign in such a way as to not p off the afore mentioned groups that main stream America would not accept them as POTUS.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Oct 12, 2016 16:18:57 GMT -5
No, I don't think the GOP has come apart at the seams. That won't happen unless they lose control over the Senate for long enough. If they lose control over the Senate in 2016 and don't recover it in 2018, they may be in really big trouble. It's all about SCOTUS and who gets to choose the nominees and who can block them. If the possibility of overturning Roe disappears, so do a lot of pro-life voters. Man, have they been treating those voters like dirt by asking them to vote for Trump! That's an interesting point. Assume HRC wins the WH and the Dems take the Senate in 2016 (as current polls suggest. The current empty slot on the SC gets filled right away, thus guaranteed at least one more moderate. Then Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires and is replaced by someone with similar views. All before 2018..... What do the anti choice folks do then? And what effect will that have on the GOP? Honestly, it's not been overturned in the 43 years since it was decided. And there has been at least one additional case that confirmed Roe V Wade, I believe in the early 90's, and probably many more at the lower levels. At this point it is highly unlikely that the decision will ever be overturned. I don't understand that being a voting point anymore. Maybe I am very wrong and there are current justices just waiting for the chance to rule again. Or maybe we will get a super conservative in office that can place 5 super conservative judges AND get them approved AND get a case back before the court AND get them to rule differently.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Oct 12, 2016 17:29:47 GMT -5
Cruz was the SECOND least likely to win. i think it is kinda funny that the battle ended up being between the two WORST candidates that the GOP fielded. I believe there are some very sharp conservative , financially moderate Republican members of the party who are in elected office now but because they have to pander to the extremes of the GOP party.., Pro Life, Tea Party types, ultra religous and u add a few more adjectives...they will never get the chance to head up the GOP ticket or if they did they would have to campaign in such a way as to not p off the afore mentioned groups that main stream America would not accept them as POTUS. The problem the the GOP has at the moment is that they need a candidate who will vow to cut taxes but increase spending through military and infrastructure spending. Along with reducing the national debt, being anti-immigrant, being against trade, wanting to be pals with Russia, being against abortion and for religious freedom laws (a.k.a discriminatory laws that allow people to discriminate on "religious" purposes). And they managed to find that candidate in Trump. People like Kaisch and Ryan don't really stand a chance. They are realists in a party with a base of people who seem desperate to go back to the 950's. But, I believe many of the GOP base have lived with such privilege in their lives that they now see equality as oppression.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Oct 12, 2016 17:47:25 GMT -5
I don't think this will take down the GOP. There is simply too strong a voice to be spoken for the old values of the party. However I think it is clear that there is a major fault line in the party supporters that now threatens to follow the leader, so to speak, and blow wide open. There is a dissonance between the party elite and many of the blue collar supporters of the party, to pare it down under too neat lines. Maybe a better way to slice it is old line GOP and talk radio GOP. Bush/ Romney/ Ryan supporters and Trump/ Christie/ LePage supporters. Trump seems now to be making a case right now to blow that wide open and topple the elites. Most of the RW media culture (with the notable exception of Beck) seem to be right there with Trump. Where this may lead I have no idea, but if the party loses this subgroup's support, even in the short term, it would be disaster for the party. I 've never seen anything like this before. There is no precedent for it that I know of in our countries history, so it is new. (I am vaguely reminded of the Dems losing the south after the Civil Rights campaign, but that was different) I am both fascinated and horrified at the same time.
I think we are at a point where this could be a tempest in a (very big) teapot, a full blown schism, or something in between, and I don't think there are really any predictors. Fasten your seatbelts, gentle readers! This is how we got the Republican party in the first place actually. Just google the Whig party if you want to be reminded. Who knows maybe it is like a rebirth that comes after a big forest fire.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 12, 2016 19:52:10 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. I don't really fit neatly into the demography necessarily either, at least not in the binary demography we have now. I'm a white male, which means I should support Trump, but not rural, and college educated which means I should vote for Hillary. All in all, I'll vote for Trump out of a protest against Hillary. It's just a way to give a middle finger to the media and the liberal elite, even though he won't win. The demography was right back in the republican primaries, when I voted for Rubio. Rubio was the preferred candidate among educated conservatives.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Oct 12, 2016 19:56:18 GMT -5
If the GOP can run a charismatic, very qualified, very down to earth, practical, fiscally conservative candidate in 4 years and stick to the message of getting our financial house in order, shoring up SSI, improving the infrastructure, and encouraging business and staying miles away from any of the socially conservative stuff, I think (s)he would draw from your second GOP group above, as well as pull over a chunk of the Trumpettes plus a bunch of moderate Dems. After 12 years of Dems at the helm, I think a fiscally conservative message would play well. If the GOP could find a Hispanic/black/female candidate to put forward, so much the better.
The Trumpette part of the GOP will feel like they aren't being represented, but they won't vote for the dems. They'll vote for their own Trumpette candidate, or they'll not vote at all.
That's how the GOP reverts to it's grand old roots. the Trumpettes.
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error. Just wanted to let you know, I got a chuckle out of comparing Trump to a yard blower.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Oct 12, 2016 19:58:18 GMT -5
I don't know if the party is coming apart at the seams, but Mr. Trump sure appears to be. Those seams weren't strong to begin with, but they are ripping like crazy. What his actions and reactions show to me is that he does not have the temperment to hold such a office. It's true that he is worth a lot of money and if he is the reason for that...success and all..kudos to him on that but I also wonder , because of his wealth and also feel much power..he does not run into many who vocally criticize him..say "no" to his demands. In the job he is campaigning for he would be running into world leaders who because of their position in their own country and areas who would be saying no and unless he is constantly threatening these with our nations military[ which would get old very quickly]..he will not be able to cope.. Underlying all of that the man is basically a "sleeze" and I don't want a "sleeze" representing me as my world leader... I agree with everything you said but.....we are going to have a "sleeze" representing us either way this election goes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 12, 2016 20:01:35 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. I don't really fit neatly into the demography necessarily either, at least not in the binary demography we have now. I'm a white male, which means I should support Trump, but not rural, and college educated which means I should vote for Hillary. All in all, I'll vote for Trump out of a protest against Hillary. It's just a way to give a middle finger to the media and the liberal elite, even though he won't win. The demography was right back in the republican primaries, when I voted for Rubio. Rubio was the preferred candidate among educated conservatives. it would sure be great to vote NOT out of spite, wouldn't it? i would have preferred Rubio or Kasich to run against Clinton. had that happened, this would be a VERY different ballgame right now. those men know how to comport themselves, have relevant experience, and are informed. it makes me both sad and angry that nobody cared enough to make that happen.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 20:17:57 GMT -5
What his actions and reactions show to me is that he does not have the temperment to hold such a office. It's true that he is worth a lot of money and if he is the reason for that...success and all..kudos to him on that but I also wonder , because of his wealth and also feel much power..he does not run into many who vocally criticize him..say "no" to his demands. In the job he is campaigning for he would be running into world leaders who because of their position in their own country and areas who would be saying no and unless he is constantly threatening these with our nations military[ which would get old very quickly]..he will not be able to cope.. Underlying all of that the man is basically a "sleeze" and I don't want a "sleeze" representing me as my world leader... I agree with everything you said but.....we are going to have a "sleeze" representing us either way this election goes. Naturally I don't agree with u there..though appreciate the other as far as agreeing with me...I never could understand the dislike..I guess I could say actual hatred that some have toward Hillery. Don't misunderstand me..not suggesting u feel that way.. I am going to suggest thst if Hillery gets the office, before joining in the criticism of her that friends or neighbors might be spouting..suggest give her a chance , it's a hell of a tough job..and for those who say they gey paid a lot...even with the perks of Camp David, White House and all those other perks, she and Bill are very well off and aren't doing this for the $. Understand there are things she is going to want to do legistating that may not be your thing..but that is the same for all who hold that office. She is a liberal..she is going to recommend a justice who feels as she does, though if GOP is smart they will quickly have hearings and approve the one Obama has recommended..the guy is supposed to be a moderate in his views.. With all that said, without knowing what problems the country will face in the next four years..I feel very confident she and the team she will put together will do a fine job and take good care in looking out for it's citizens...a hell of a lot better then if the Donald was in that position, to the ppoint you will look back down the road and marvel that you felt you had her # in calling her out as a sleeze. The lady is anything but...[as the Donald would say....."Trust Me"]
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 20:23:27 GMT -5
But who are, and how strong a force are, the Trumpettes? We know they are drawn from several demographics, many of them hard to quantify, or gauge real unity. - Rural white working class people, especially male, with high school educations or less. This is a hard to define and quantify group, but it is certainly out there. - Blue collar type small business people* and trades people, typically anti-regulation and tax, reflexively small government. - Many conservative groups and people, who would describe themselves as very conservative and politically active. - Some wealthy people, "one percenters", who are giving financial and other support to Trump. - Some religious groups and organizations, for whom Roe v Wade is presumably a big motivator. - Racists, bigots, misogynists and ultra-nationalists- the true "deplorables", who are probably partially drawn from most of the above groups. - Others? And who are the Republicans who are disillusioned, and tend NOT to support Trump, and in fact despise him? - Rural artisans and professionals, especially female. - People with college education and above. - Moderate Republicans and fiscal conservatives. - Some wealthy people, one percenters, who vigorously oppose Trump. - Others? Will these two groups of demographics (and whom am I forgetting from each?) remain opposed after the election? Is there enough of a kernel of difference between them to really fracture the party, or will it come back together? I guess one thing that I look for is a unifying force- such as talk radio- to pull the disparate groups together. *I am a blue collar type business person, btw, in the interest of disclosure, as are many of my acquaintances. I don't really fit neatly into the demography necessarily either, at least not in the binary demography we have now. I'm a white male, which means I should support Trump, but not rural, and college educated which means I should vote for Hillary. All in all, I'll vote for Trump out of a protest against Hillary. It's just a way to give a middle finger to the media and the liberal elite, even though he won't win. The demography was right back in the republican primaries, when I voted for Rubio. Rubio was the preferred candidate among educated conservatives. but phoenix...he is such a sleeze...
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Oct 12, 2016 20:36:57 GMT -5
here is the thing, happy. that IF is extremely doubtful. in four years, the deplorables are still going to be around. and there is a 100% chance that Trump will be acting like a yard blower for that dumpster fire. i don't know how, after courting these idiots since Nixon, the GOP can suddenly get rid of them. but if you have some idea of how that happens, you let me know. the ONLY way it happens, imo, would be for the GOP to jettison primaries. that is entirely within their purview, but i would again, rate the chances of that at 0%. therefore, with the deplorables out there, someone like Trump is going to win the primary, and the GOP is going to get clobbered again in (4) years. this is a good time for GOP voters to reflect on the wisdom of how they run primaries. having (17) candidates, half of whom have basically no qualifications, running for the highest office on Earth, is no way to run a primary. edit: part of the responsibility for this lies with those running against him. the failure to take him seriously, and bring out what we know now IN THE PRIMARY, belongs to the GOP. but as oc pointed out, there is this tendency to put people out there that "can win" (even though the polling says they can't), rather than people that are actually qualified and sensible, and that is a fatal error. Just wanted to let you know, I got a chuckle out of comparing Trump to a yard blower. Possible..if the scenario of primaries is correct for the GOP way of picking candidates..they should go back to the time when the candidate was picked in a back room where cigar smoke was coming out of any cracks.. Did the GOP have super delegates as did the Democrats..? There is a reason for that and the train wreck that is the GOP ticket and the crash and burn that is happening with this Party shows there has to be some type of political controls and safety vales to insure that this does not happen. As a known middle to the left type of guy u might think I am reveling in this BS..believe me I am not..In a way I feel for loyal members of that party that I would never vote for..reason, it is not healthy for the country..not good for me or mine..we need diversity, I do not trust ANY one only party including mine....other ideas are needed...even off the wall ones that I feel come from that other party.Hopefully afyer this disaster the leaders of the GOP will not go back to the party of " NO" and join in in governing this great country of ours...
|
|