imatfaal Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 Quick point of clarification: I'd be happy to piss on him if he weren't on fire. Just want to make that clear. could I rephrase perhaps to " Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people would happily piss on as long as he wasn't burning in which circumstance marshmallow toasting1 would be more the order of the day..." I presume you have seen this piece of prescient journalism from over 3 years ago... After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016 From, of course, the Onion 1. I might toast but I would not ingest - a bit too icky 1
CharonY Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 After months of pundits telling us that Trump couldn't win the nomination, of members here being categorical that it was a passing phase and that trump would be easily overhauled once the race sorted itself out, of being informed that the gop grandees would not tolerate trump, and that it was gonna be Bush, no Rubio, no Cruz... We are now at a situation were these same pundit and funnily enough same members of SFN are confidently saying (presuming his nomination is ratified etc) that he is already as good as beaten in the Presidential election. Wake up America. Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people wouldn't piss on if he were burning, an arrogant narcissist, a racist demagogue, a duplicitous bully - then you need to understand that a huge portion of your country feels (possibly wrongly - but more likely correctly) that they have been sidelined by the present political process. Trump has cleverly (and quite wrongly) convinced these political impoverished that he is their man. Trump has carried the game with those who can be bothered to get out and vote in the primaries - these are a self-selecting group who tend to be more politically active. Come the presidential election we will see the result of the decision making of a larger and different self-selecting group - those who can be bothered to vote in the Presidential election. The primary-voting group tends on average to be more politically involved than the general-voting group - this is not good news... Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually. To be fair, it was going to end horrible after the first couple of drops as the viable candidates (including Cruz) were pretty horrible choices to begin with. Not that this makes it any better, of course.
StringJunky Posted May 5, 2016 Posted May 5, 2016 The profit he'll make serving Trump steaks and Trump wine at White Trump House functions alone makes me cringe. Along with a rebranding of the presidential china service.
iNow Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 I presume you have seen this piece of prescient journalism from over 3 years ago... From, of course, the Onion Holy hell, that's brilliant!
Ten oz Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 After months of pundits telling us that Trump couldn't win the nomination, of members here being categorical that it was a passing phase and that trump would be easily overhauled once the race sorted itself out, of being informed that the gop grandees would not tolerate trump, and that it was gonna be Bush, no Rubio, no Cruz... We are now at a situation were these same pundit and funnily enough same members of SFN are confidently saying (presuming his nomination is ratified etc) that he is already as good as beaten in the Presidential election. Wake up America. Unless you want to be represented by a Head of State that most people wouldn't piss on if he were burning, an arrogant narcissist, a racist demagogue, a duplicitous bully - then you need to understand that a huge portion of your country feels (possibly wrongly - but more likely correctly) that they have been sidelined by the present political process. Trump has cleverly (and quite wrongly) convinced these political impoverished that he is their man. Trump has carried the game with those who can be bothered to get out and vote in the primaries - these are a self-selecting group who tend to be more politically active. Come the presidential election we will see the result of the decision making of a larger and different self-selecting group - those who can be bothered to vote in the Presidential election. The primary-voting group tends on average to be more politically involved than the general-voting group - this is not good news... Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually. The Media began treating Trump as the front runner to win back in Feb. It is not accurate to claim Trump was some huge underdog this whole time. March in particular was a huge month for Trump where the media repeated insisted he was unstoppable. It is an expectations game. Because Trump did better than initially expected (back when he announced) people are projecting that he has accomplished more than he has. Every primary is won by someone and that doesn't equal a general election win in itself. Ultimately How does Trumps win stack up to previous winners? Going all the way by to the 1960's every GOP primary winner that went on to win the White House won at least 42 or more states and at least 59% or more of the popular vote in the primary. Trump has done significantly worse than that. So while Trump may have beaten individual expectations for himself he has not met basic expectations of a competitive general election candidate. Media is consumed al la carte. We click on what we want to read and then software populates our searches with more of the same. Most media narratives are self reinforcing headlines. Aside from incredible amounts of media attention when you say Trump has carried the game in exactly which areas do you feel he has been successful as or more successful than other general election candidates that actually went on to win in the general: Both Democratic candidates comfortable beat Trump in head to head polling -http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president /us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html State by state polling has Clinton with a huge electoral vote advantage (more than needed to win) over Trump - http://www.270towin.com/maps/bMcf Trump has highest unfavorbilty ever recorded for a national candidate - http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188936/trump-negative-image.aspx The Republican party has grown less favorable - http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/28/gops-favorability-rating-edges-lower/ Quantify for me how Trump in leading the game or has any type of measurable advantage towards the general? I know Trump is leading the hype game and gets more press but his actually position in historically weak. Not only is he doing poorly in head to head polling, his party doing poorly in polling, but diversity within his base support is worse than Romney or McCain had (they lost) and the 2016 general will have the most diverse voting pool ever.
iNow Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Don't let the numbers fool you. People have been claiming he wouldn't / cant' win all along. He just did. People claimed Jesse Ventura couldn't win the governorship of Minnesota as a former wrestler. He did. Don't be complacent. Hate Hillary? Too bad... hold your nose and effing vote. The alternative is SOOOOO much worse and the difference is... dare I say... YUGE!
Ten oz Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Don't let the numbers fool you. People have been claiming he wouldn't / cant' win all along. He just did. People claimed Jesse Ventura couldn't win the governorship of Minnesota as a former wrestler. He did. Don't be complacent. Hate Hillary? Too bad... hold your nose and effing vote. The alternative is SOOOOO much worse and the difference is... dare I say... YUGE! People stopped saying he couldn't win the primary in Feb.. Winning a primary and winning the general are 2 different thing. Trump has only received 40% of the popular amongst partisan primary voters how does that expand into over 50% of the popular vote amongst nonpartisan general election voters? I quanitified how poorly Trump is doing. Supported with real numbers. Quantify for how good he is doing? Simply saying he beat expectations for himself in the primary isn't a definitative thing we can use to compare general election success against.
iNow Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 My core point is really that he shouldn't be underestimated, nor should people feel there's no need to turn out because of some understandable but misguided notion that it's obvious he will lose.
Ten oz Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 My core point is really that he shouldn't be underestimated, nor should people feel there's no need to turn out because of some understandable but misguided notion that it's obvious he will lose. Of course people should turn out. No place have I implied otherwise.
neutrinosalad Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Situation normal will not suffice - the usual discourse has been subverted and joe public needs to be convinced though greater engagement, education, and involvement that state and federal governments can be a source of good for the nation and for them individually. I will be voting for Trump and I am well educated on what is going on politically. Also, Trump is a rebuke to the neocons who hijacked the party starting in the sixties and the conservative movement that also has latched onto the party starting in the sixties. The people who are voting for Trump want someone who will not only recognize their cultural and economic needs, but will work to help them survive in the future be it through job programs or social care. The conservative movement fueled by the Koch brothers and the neo-cons are both self serving ideological movements that do not address the needs of working class people. Donald Trump (if he wins the nomination, which he technically has not yet) winning the Republican nomination is a literal punch to the face of both of these movements. The people of the Republican party have spoken. Also, Donald Trump may pick up Bernie supporters since he speaks to the kind of economic populism that Bernie has. The main difference between Trump and Bernie is that Trump has a nationalistic edge to him, similar to that of Berlusconi and Putin. Also, imaatfal, you may need to look in your own back yard before judging Trump's rise. Last I heard Nigel Farage's UKIP party is growing in strength and power in the United Kingdom and it speaks to some of the same impulses that Trump does. The same could be said of National Front in France or Alternative for Deutschland in Germany, both of which are growing quite rapidly. 2
Phi for All Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Also, imaatfal, you may need to look in your own back yard before judging Trump's rise. Last I heard Nigel Farage's UKIP party is growing in strength and power in the United Kingdom and it speaks to some of the same impulses that Trump does. The same could be said of National Front in France or Alternative for Deutschland in Germany, both of which are growing quite rapidly. This is a real and imminent fear, not one of the imagined ones conservatives like to trump up.
waitforufo Posted May 6, 2016 Posted May 6, 2016 Capayan, Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. Trump is not my preferred candidate but I will vote for him. If for no other reason than to stop Hillary. Yeah, Trump is a bombastic person which is annoying at times, but many find is bombast to be rather refreshing compared to the airbrushed, manicured, coached performances of your typical politician. His bombast has kept him in the spotlight keeping his campaign costs low. How this keeps working for him I'm not completely sure, but just check today's news websites and count how many of the headlines include the name Trump. I keep expecting this to turn against him but it hasn't yet, and November 8 is only 7 months away. He could ride it until election easy. It's the old "there is no such thing as bad publicity", and everyone seems to want to give Trump publicity. Republicans are in bewildered today because a candidate beholding to no one in politics, just won the nomination. Even Sanders can't say that. Hillary has been paying her dues since Monica and is beholding to everyone. Of course she would have to be since she is completely unlikable. The "you go girl" campaign just might win for her but it seems to be wearing rather thin. In fact, Trump seems to be cornering her into the woman candidate definition. Hillary is embracing this, which I'm not sure is a good play for Hillary. Letting your opponent define you is generally not a good idea. In a country were only about 50% of people normally vote, a candidate like Trump can pull a lot of first time voters out of the woodwork. People from the families of auto workers, coal miners, steel workers, and lumber workers. It will be amusing if all the recent easy voting access laws end up registering Trump voters on election day and that puts the Donald over the top. 1
iNow Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 I didn't realize bombastic was synonymous with misogynistic, xenophobic, and unqualified. Fascinating.
Ten oz Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 The people of the Republican party have spoken. Also, Donald Trump may pick up Bernie supporters since he speaks to the kind of economic populism that Bernie has. The main difference between Trump and Bernie is that Trump has a nationalistic edge to him, similar to that of Berlusconi and Putin. The people have spoken? Trump has received 40% of the votes in the GOP primary. That means 60% of GOP voters have voted for somone else. In the last cycle Romney got 52% of the primary vote and went on to lose. Amongst GOP candidates who won: In 00' Bush 43 got 62%, in 88' Bush 41 got 67%, and in 80' Reagan got 60% of the primary vote. Trump's support is clearly more energized than anyone elses. Trump's 40% want him more than the 60% who voted for someone else seem want anyone. It is still an overstatement, in my opnion, when people argue that "the people" have spoken or that if the 60% of Republicans who voted for someone else united behind someone else it would be a rigged system taking what belongs to Trump. 40% of the vote isn't strong. The numbers of candidates isn't the issue either. In 12' Santorum was in till April, Gingrich didn't drop out until May (same as Cruz) and Ron Paul stayed in till the convention. In 12' their were as many candidates on the ballot from Feb-Jun. Romney got 52%. Capayan, Excellent post. I couldn't agree more. Trump is not my preferred candidate but I will vote for him. If for no other reason than to stop Hillary. Yeah, Trump is a bombastic person which is annoying at times, but many find is bombast to be rather refreshing compared to the airbrushed, manicured, coached performances of your typical politician. His bombast has kept him in the spotlight keeping his campaign costs low. How this keeps working for him I'm not completely sure, but just check today's news websites and count how many of the headlines include the name Trump. I keep expecting this to turn against him but it hasn't yet, and November 8 is only 7 months away. He could ride it until election easy. It's the old "there is no such thing as bad publicity", and everyone seems to want to give Trump publicity. Republicans are in bewildered today because a candidate beholding to no one in politics, just won the nomination. Even Sanders can't say that. Hillary has been paying her dues since Monica and is beholding to everyone. Of course she would have to be since she is completely unlikable. The "you go girl" campaign just might win for her but it seems to be wearing rather thin. In fact, Trump seems to be cornering her into the woman candidate definition. Hillary is embracing this, which I'm not sure is a good play for Hillary. Letting your opponent define you is generally not a good idea. In a country were only about 50% of people normally vote, a candidate like Trump can pull a lot of first time voters out of the woodwork. People from the families of auto workers, coal miners, steel workers, and lumber workers. It will be amusing if all the recent easy voting access laws end up registering Trump voters on election day and that puts the Donald over the top. Careful speeches and airbushed slogans at least show thought and consideration for how people interpret what you do or say. It there were to be a party that truly represented everyone fully we would need a couple hundred parties. Instead we have two. So each needs to be accommodated to large groups of people. To accomplish that politicians need partnerships. They need the support of unions, industry, artists, action groups, and etc. Being beholden to numerous groups and organizations is a good thing. Forces compromise and bridge building. Be beholden to only oneself or a singular group/orginization is what's dangerous. This is why international we have so many treaties. Obviously what is best for any individual country in isolation is different but to safeguard against future conflict countrries come together and make various compromised agreements. Countries who refuse treaties and are beholden to nothing and no one are dangers to the free world.
waitforufo Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 I didn't realize bombastic was synonymous with misogynistic, xenophobic, and unqualified. Fascinating. Unqualified? Compared to a adjunct professor of no accomplishment/community organizer Trump's life accomplishments are rather stellar.
dimreepr Posted May 7, 2016 Author Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) Unqualified? Compared to a adjunct professor of no accomplishment/community organizer Trump's life accomplishments are rather stellar. LOL, unless by stellar you mean losing way more money than he made or raping, so called, loved ones, he's not even a qualified (decent) human being. Edited May 7, 2016 by dimreepr
Ten oz Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 Unqualified? Compared to a adjunct professor of no accomplishment/community organizer Trump's life accomplishments are rather stellar. Community organization and law is what the gov't does. Not sure why you would consider being a professor of Constitutional Law and a community organizer "no accomplishment"? Obama was elected to the IL Senate is 96' and held statewide office until being elected to the U.S. Senate in 04' where he served 4yrs before becoming POTUS in 08'. In total Obama held elected office for 12yrs prior to becoming POTUS. Trump has never held elected office.
John Cuthber Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 ...Trump's life accomplishments are rather stellar. 4 bankruptcies is not what I'd call stellar.
Phi for All Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 4 bankruptcies is not what I'd call stellar. Apparently, it's some kind of barometer for success in business, since so many tout him as a smart businessman who isn't fettered by any experience in elected office. He seems to run his businesses with the idea that he can bet big, and simply fold if he loses. So if he bankrupts the country, he can always just default on the national debt. No cause for worry there.
zapatos Posted May 7, 2016 Posted May 7, 2016 In the last cycle Romney got 52% of the primary vote and went on to lose. Amongst GOP candidates who won: In 00' Bush 43 got 62%, in 88' Bush 41 got 67%, and in 80' Reagan got 60% of the primary vote. While I agree it would have been better to receive more votes in the Primary, I wonder how much difference it will make in the general election. I suspect that those who voted for Cruz in the Primaries are not going to vote for Clinton or stay home in November.
Ten oz Posted May 8, 2016 Posted May 8, 2016 While I agree it would have been better to receive more votes in the Primary, I wonder how much difference it will make in the general election. I suspect that those who voted for Cruz in the Primaries are not going to vote for Clinton or stay home in November. Consider the fact the the GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections I think it makes a "yuge" difference. The GOP cannot afford to lose even 1% of support in the general. Graham, Romney, McCain, Bush, etc are not attending the convention and the Republican speaker of the house refuses to endorse Trump. If that impacts turn out by even a couple points it is "yuge".
iNow Posted May 10, 2016 Posted May 10, 2016 A bit more information about support among non-elites: http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/191429/divided-gop-trump.aspx The Washington Post headlined "Trump Takes the Reins of a Divided GOP," while The Wall Street Journal summarized their "Journal Editorial Report" broadcast as "A Divided GOP" and MSNBC asked: "Can a Party Divided Against Itself Still Stand?" But what of the rank-and-file Republicans -- those across the country who are not famous leaders of the GOP, but either identify with or lean to the Republican Party? Here we find a less divided GOP than the headlines and commentary might suggest. (snip) Republicans have a 64% favorable/31% unfavorable opinion of Trump, which is better than a 2-to-1 favorable-to-unfavorable ratio. By comparison, Clinton's image among Democrats is slightly better, at 70% favorable/26% unfavorable. In other words, both Trump and Clinton engender some divided feelings among their partisans, with 31% and 26% unfavorable opinions. (snip) This suggests that Trump is not in as unusual a position as some might think. We need to be somewhat cautious in assuming that Republicans across the nation are riven by a devastating rift because of divided emotions about Trump. The significant majority of Republicans, in fact, apparently like Trump and say they are likely to vote for him
zapatos Posted May 10, 2016 Posted May 10, 2016 Consider the fact the the GOP has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections I think it makes a "yuge" difference. The GOP cannot afford to lose even 1% of support in the general. Graham, Romney, McCain, Bush, etc are not attending the convention and the Republican speaker of the house refuses to endorse Trump. If that impacts turn out by even a couple points it is "yuge". I listened to a report on NPR yesterday where they interviewed a number of Evangelicals who were Cruz supporters. While many will be voting for Trump ('anyone but Clinton') there seemed to be a sizable number who were going to sit out this election. Their reasoning being that the Bible guides them when it comes to choosing their candidates, and Trump is not someone whom they consider 'Christian' enough to get their support. This could indeed be a bad year for Republicans.
Ten oz Posted May 13, 2016 Posted May 13, 2016 I listened to a report on NPR yesterday where they interviewed a number of Evangelicals who were Cruz supporters. While many will be voting for Trump ('anyone but Clinton') there seemed to be a sizable number who were going to sit out this election. Their reasoning being that the Bible guides them when it comes to choosing their candidates, and Trump is not someone whom they consider 'Christian' enough to get their support. This could indeed be a bad year for Republicans. Even if Trump managed 100% of the support Romney had, Romney lost. What the GOP needed in 2016 was to expand. They needed to attract new support into the party. While Trump's supporters are very energized and the energy has a palpable feeling of strength all his supporters have traditionally been voting GOP already. Whether it was while holding their nose for Romney or beating their chest for Trump their votes are counted equally. It isn't enough to be angry. The base needed to grow in size and instead it has grown is emotion.
Recommended Posts