Politics of the Free - It’s because Democrats, stupid. - The Bear and Badger

IanHamlett

Funkstain wrote:

Clinton will destroy Trump, until there is nothing left but a slightly singed blond wig, loose strands blowing in the wind Some Americans who make great copy/clips, many of them extremely loud and proud, do not represent the majority - and the majority, when faced with the choice between more of the same bullshit or total anarchy will (maybe unfortunately?) back the former.

poprock wrote:

Trump is in danger of becoming the Republican nomination for President. He’s not in danger of actually being President. But sweet limping christ, I would rather have him out of the news sooner rather than later. I’m getting fed up of seeing his weird red face so often.

I wish I were this confident, but if there's a terrorist attack in the run up to the election, or some of the Clinton scandals stick, or both, and there's every chance President Trump will be in charge of the most powerful military in the history of the world.

g.man

God help us, but I can genuinely see it happening.

mistercrayon

There seems to be a class of Americans who vote demo normally but like trump.

equinox_code

Trump cannot possibly win over a large enough portion of the mentally stable people. He literally needs a miracle.

acemuzzy

How does he compare to Arnold winning California? Wasn't he republican, in a democratic state, for that? Or does it not work like that really, for governor?

IanHamlett

Nothing like it. Honestly, you should feel bad for bringing it up.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/01/arnold-schwarzenegger-donald-trump-celebrities-in-politics

Stopharage

I still don't buy it that he can win the presidency. He's only polling 34% of the Republican vote and if Clinton's got skeletons in her closet, Trump's got a walk-in wardrobe full of them. Cruz needs to fall on his sword now; the future states favour Rubio and he is seen as more likeable than the former - in addition he has 3 times the endorsements (Congress-wise) of Cruz.

poprock

Here’s a thought: Trump’s candidacy plays into Clinton’s hands. It distracts the media from Bernie Sanders. Reduces his coverage. Gives Clinton an easier ride towards her nomination.

I_R

Maybe, although I don't know that more coverage would have helped Sanders. I doubt it would have been as amused and neutral as the coverage Trump is getting.

She's getting an incredibly easy ride as it is, as with her Senate run, everyone gets out of the way for the party candidate. I could see the sense in that eight years ago when you're putting Bill Clinton back on the campaign trail, but he looks very frail now and unfortunately I don't see him adding much.

davyK

To win does one not need a sizable proportion of ethnic group support? That's going to be tricky for him to obtain.

If the Obama presidency shows us anything it's that even if Trump does get in he also needs working majorities in the two houses to push anything through.

acemuzzy

What happens if a candidate pulls out, having already one delegates / states? Are they reassigned??

Funkstain

Democrats: they are reassigned to remaining candidates. Since it's a two horse race it's not relevant this time round.

Republicans: as usual it's complicated, and apparently varies by state. Some states' delegates must stay assigned to their original choice until after the first round of voting at the Republican National Congress (final stages of nomination process). Other states' can be re-assigned to candidate of choice. Finally some states' delegates will follow Democrat model of reassigning to remaining candidates. You'd have to look at this on a state by state basis.

I_R

davyK wrote:

To win does one not need a sizable proportion of ethnic group support? That's going to be tricky for him to obtain. If the Obama presidency shows us anything it's that even if Trump does get in he also needs working majorities in the two houses to push anything through.

The possible danger is minorities not coming out to vote for Clinton, while Trump somehow energises the Republican vote to an incredible degree. The logic seems to be that the Republicans simply can't win the White House ever again without getting a big chunk of the Hispanic vote.

Yossarian

I don't see Trump energising the Republican vote without also energising the "anyone but Trump" vote.

I_R

The "anyone but Trump" crowd were supposed to have knocked him out of the Republican race by now. The numbers do seem to point to it being impossible for a Republican to win the White house without winning over a big chunk of the Hispanic vote, but it seems a little dangerously complacent.

Yossarian

Only Republicans are voting in the Republican primaries. The a anyone but Trump movement is barely going to be represented in that. I doubt that there are many Republicans that would rather see a Democrat in the White House than Trump.

I_R

There was an early consensus that Trump's numbers would fall away amongst Republicans, it was a joke campaign. When that didn't happen, his favorability ratings amongst Republicans would doom him, some Republican voters were on board, but too many hated him. The last chance was that establishment Republican's would rally around "anyone but Trump", which hasn't happened.

Carrying that logic into the presidential election seems dangerous.

Yossarian

The difference is that Trump was leading all of the early polling for the Republican nod, but most people believed that once the other candidates were better known, his support would fall away. He has never led in any polling against either Sanders or Clinton, and there's little reason to suspect that will change.

Funkstain

Yep, I agree with Yoss - I'm not carrying any logic into anything. I did doubt he'd secure the nomination, but have always been 100% sure he will not win the presidency - for entirely different reasons, that I've outlined previously.

Blue Swirl

He says he wants America to be great again. She says she wants America to be whole again. What I want is for America to be not insane again."

Source.

mistercrayon

davyK wrote:

To win does one not need a sizable proportion of ethnic group support? That's going to be tricky for him to obtain.

If the Obama presidency shows us anything it's that even if Trump does get in he also needs working majorities in the two houses to push anything through.

There was a woman on TV yesterday who said trump got a lot of votes from Hispanic people because some of them don't want others to come in!

tin_robot

Trump seemingly gets votes across all ages and racial/ethnic groups. The question really, is how many Americans are so sick of the existing establishment that they'll vote for an anti-establishment figure instead, even when he's an obvious fraud?

The second question is how many of Trumps current backers will notice when he changes his policies and political stance once he is no longer running for the Republican nomination, and is instead running for Presidency? (My guess is not that many.)

Finally, I think looking for some sort of scandal that will stop Trump is to miss the point entirely. There are plenty of scandals already - he shouldn't, on paper, be someone that anyone, anywhere would trust to do anything. But it's irrelevant, because Trump isn't running claiming to be honest, or fair, or decent, or even terribly clever - just very, very rich. His entire campaign is based on the notion of voting for Brand Trump rather than the establishment. Given that Brand Trump is synonymous with appearing successful despite being obviously crooked, no-one gives a shit. He was right when he said he could shoot someone and not lose votes.

I suspect the only really powerful way to weaken Trump would be for the "establishment" to clutch him closely to his bosom and claim him as their own.

djchump

I'm not gonna overestimate a country that elected Reagan, GWB twice and Governer Schwarzeneger.
I'm pretty much gearing up for President Trump cos if you expect te worst you can't be disappointed.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to start digging out the back garden for my fallout shelter.

monkey

In their defence, they only properly elected Dubya once.

JonB

I must admit there is this small part of me that wants to see what would actually happen in a Trump presidency, out of morbid curiosity, and perhaps slightly more so if Clinton is the alternative.

It might be of course that all the mad shit he tried to do just wouldn't get anywhere, and things would carry on as normal (i.e. still shit), just with an especially large twat at the helm.

Diluted Dante

JonB wrote:

I must admit there is this small part of me that wants to see what would actually happen in a Trump presidency, out of morbid curiosity, and perhaps slightly more so if Clinton is the alternative. It might be of course that all the mad shit he tried to do just wouldn't get anywhere, and things would carry on as normal (i.e. still shit), just with an especially large twat at the helm.

[Deleted User]

It is worth remembering how hard a time Obama had getting Obama-care, in any form, through the senate. In America terms it was a left policy, Trumps wall would be a far right policy.

I think Trump knows it as well, mental policies like a wall and badges for Muslims are part of the act.

Yossarian

The issue for Obama was that the Republicans controlled both legislative houses and were against him. Trump would have people from his party controlling both houses for at least two years (I believe it is for the election cycle, I could be wrong).

He could do a lot of damage in that time.

[Deleted User]

Didnt realize thta. Yeah 2 years for someone like Trump is an age.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories