Printable View
While I agree that Trump has giant gap between his favorable voters and those that oppose him. BUT, I think you underestimate the "ideological faction". In general, the right is very motivated. They are somewhat fractured, divided, and angry. But I don't think that they will choose to sit home on election day. We'll see on election day but I think that turnout will be high. If anything, I think the dems have more to worry about as it pertains to enthusiasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
Maybe, maybe not. If Cruz wins TX, he will likely stay in the race. Rubio will probably wait until FL is over. Kasich (sp?) will probably wait until after OH. There may not be a shorter list come tomorrow morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by gssixgun
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
I really don't think that there is a shift to the right in the US by any means. We have a self described socialist running on the democratic side and his opponent can't specifically separate what the difference in her vision is from his. And while he may not be the ultimate winner, he's not exactly just a side note. If it were not for super delegates, where would that race be? Twenty years ago the idea of a socialist would not have sold well in this country. Today no one is outraged by that at all. If JFK were running in this election, he'd look like a right wing zealot. No, there's no shift to the right here at all. Quite the opposite.
Just finished watching John Oliver's show about Trump. He makes a lot of valid points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
I think you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by OCDshaver
Interesting fact:
Republican vs Democrat turnout numbers so far this cycle
Republicans are turning out in record numbers
Democrat numbers are down near 30%
You can speculate as to the why
Most amazing thing I have seen so far this cycle is the GOP in Colorado (my old homestate) really ??? hey guess what folks your votes REALLY don't matter
May be, but the National Review went for direct assault on Trump few weeks ago. I don't see why would a movement conservative want to vote for Trump over Clinton. Policy-wise he's probably closer to her than to them and will postpone the chances for a 'true conservative' president by at least 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDshaver
The only thing that I can imagine overriding this is the supreme court vacancy - if you think that Trump's nominee would be far better than Clinton's that is - but if you're looking into that you are concerned with the bigger picture and then the future vacancies are just as important if not more.
Those employed at the National Review might stay home but the man on the street will likely be enthused to vote. I'm not here to defend Trump or his record as a conservative. But I feel confident that, if given only one choice between Trump and a democrat, they will prefer Trump. And many of the "republicans" will be energized by Trump simply because he represents an execution of the Bush/Boehner/McConnnel republicans that have angered them so much over the past ten years. A final flushing of that toilet that has been stinking up the place for so long.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
That's all fine from the Republican side, but there are a lot of people who don't like Trump's views and policies, surely. Why would he energise Republican voter turnout and not also energise Democrat voter turnout for precisely the opposite reason? Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical? One thing I know about people with views like Trump's is that they polarise and energise both/all sides.
James.
This is my opinion, pure speculation. First, there is a human tendency to be fat dumb and happy after getting you way for the last 8 years. Complacency sets in. Second, Hillary has always had a problem energizing her base. Its why she lost to Obama the first go around and why Sanders has given her more of a headache than she ever thought possible. She simply doesn't do it for them the way others do. She has her supporters for sure but its debatable how well she will do with the really young voters (who are already siding with Sanders) and the middle. Its been said that Trump is already pulling in center-left voters. If Sanders energized the youth vote, they are likely to stay home. Energizing them is always harder than any other group and with their man out (assuming he ends up that way) they will be harder to get to the polls. Third, there are some that have a lack of enthusiasm for Hillary because they are old enough to remember all the Clinton scandals and know that she is potentially facing indictment herself. Her baggage turns some of the voters she will need off. If some of these people could vote from their couch they might vote for her. But I think that if they have to take an hour out of their day to vote for her, it might be too much for some. Finally, I'm not convinced that the black vote will come out for her in the numbers they did for Obama for the obvious reasons. Its my opinion that turnout could be a problem for the left but the right has multiple reasons to get out and vote. But there is also an eternity between now and election day. Anything could happen and anything could change the landscape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
One thing that we're seeing is that 'movement conservatism' is far smaller than it's proponents have been claiming (based on 2010 tea-party wave and 2014). But I still don't think it's confined just the employees of the National Review.Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDshaver
Sanders has been consistently underperforming on what he needs to win, so at this point Clinton is pretty much a given. She most likely won't be able to put together the Obama coalition, but she's highly experienced politician with the full support of the Democratic machine.
I just don't see after the republican primary that has been unfolding a well functioning republican machine to compete with it. Of course, it is possible that Trump will win narrowly but it seems just as likely that he'll lose by a lot.
And of course it's also possible that Rubio can manage to win the primaries, but to me a contested convention seems more likely at this point.
In any case talking is free, but the betting markets favor Clinton for the next president. I am certainly not a 'the free market is always right' type of person, more of 'the free market is usually, but not always, in the ballpark'.
At this point I'd rather vote "none of the above."
The American public doesn't give a rat's behind about the immigrant problem and never did. It's only because politicians are hammering on it and the media reinforces it. if a politician complained too many people were wearing red clothes and the media pushed that story there would be dialogue about people wearing the wrong color.Quote:
Originally Posted by WW243
The illegal wave started in the 1950s and hasn't stopped since and no one cared. Briefly in the 80s during Amnesty some folks cared but then it died down like everything else. So what's the reason it's a dialogue now?
As to the language it is what it is. This country is changing and Spanish Speakers will probably be in the majority. I know many fear that but that's what's happening. With respect to Spanish most Illegals live in small secretive communities and many travel back and forth to and from Mexico. They have no incentive to learn English. Legalize them and they will learn the language when it is in their interests to do it.
Remember even for Naturalization there are waivers from the English requirement.
Also, remember in the early days there was no such thing as illegals. You got on a boat and came here and unless you had a disease or had mental issues you were legal and that's that. Even earlier like the 1800s you just came here no different than illegals do today. The exception was the Chinese who were barred from entry for a time.
So when you talk about Immigration to the U.S and you talk about illegals and waives of immigrants many have no understanding of our history immigration speaking that is.. Had these folks not been able to fit into society I imagine many would never have learned English and in fact most of the older folks never did learn English.
“Why do you think the voter turnout will be asymmetrical?”
Why, because they are getting Hilary rammed down their throats. A large majority of the rabid, Sanders supporters are not voting for Bernie, they are voting against Hillary.
If Hillary is the nominee, the convention will be a replay of the 68 Democratic convention, except this time the police have learned their lesson from an anti-police administration and … let it burn…
The republicans will coalesce behind the nominee, and come out in groves on issues, 2nd amendment, Immigration, Anti-Terror Security, The Economy, Religious Conservatives and the Supreme Court.
Both parties have large groups of active, disenfranchised who will throw the bums out… not the year to be an incumbent.
The other good thing to come from this is, it will finally demonstrate the lack of viewership of network news and print media. Next election, I doubt candidates will waste money advertising with them and they will fold even faster than they are now.
I am not so sure. Sanders is representing the liberal left of the party, if it weren't him could be Elizabeth Warren. At the end of a normal political process, which the Democratic primaries seem to be the loosing factions get behind the winner. Just like in 2008 Clinton's supporters got behind Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Euclid440
The big reality show is on the Republican side, where Trump has been in many ways anti the established party orthodoxy itself. This doesn't look at all like Romney winning the nomination and the other factions getting behind it.
And I may be wrong, but I have the impression that these days the republicans are significantly more against compromise than the democrats.
In other words if we're witnessing a major political realignment it appears to be primarily on the republican side. May be this will finally break the two party system.
Always a great thrill to have the politicos back in action. It has been getting so much more exciting as I get older (get off my lawn!) but already it is enough to gag a maggot. Our primary here isn't important, since it isn't held until next week after it's all decided I guess. But the miserable pukes have filled my home answering machine up twice already, braying in very poor grammar about who be da man. It ain't over until November, sadly, but if the two fat rich New Yorkers that are the heirs apparent are the final result, it will be the most embarrassing choice since 1968, and we all know how that ended. Or perhaps we don't, since it wasn't shown last hour on Fox News ..
Enough
"It Takes a Twit to Raise a Tweet"
Went to poll today. When i registered back in 99 in Oklahoma, i registered as an independent because i was quite upset with the Republicans.
Fast forward to today: Went to voting center to vote for my choice republican. I was made to read a oklahoma state statute. Long story short, i could only poll on the democratic ticket.
How is that even legal?
I have no idea how that is legal....... :shrug::thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGoodman
What is the problem? It seems quite reasonable to me that the political parties should get to decide how to handle their internal matters and selecting the presidential nominee that the party will back is certainly such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGoodman
Last year the Democratic party in Oklahoma decided to allow independents have a say as well, the Republican party is restricting it to those who have registered as republicans only. You are still standing by your 1999 decision to not be part of the Republican party so they have no obligation to let you meddle in their business.
If you now identify as a republican you really should register as such.
:shrug:
Paperwork is done and submitted, back on the Republican train
WTG :nj :beer2:
Here's a short article about how the republican "elites" completely dismissed Trump as a candidate.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/republican...060449351.html
And it stands to reason that someone like Trump has captured such a large portion of the base considering how disassociated the party has been toward its voters. They should have considered themselves served notice the first time people started gathering at Tea Party rallies across the country. Instead of getting on board with the demands of their voters, they tried to squash it instead. For the last ten years they have been bringing in new representatives to address their concerns. And they have done nothing. Now the people are executing a nuclear option and its rubbing them the wrong way. I heard today that the mealy-mouthed Romney is going to give a speech tomorrow to address the state of the republican race. This might be a time to listen, not to talk.
Gov. Mitt Romney speaking on 2016 presidential race in Salt Lake City | fox13now.com
Panem et Circenses
So far in the primaries, Republican turnout is up 50-60 percent and Democratic turnout is down 30 percent…
Once they get rid of Bernie, numbers for the Democrats will drop even further…
It is up to the Establishment Republicans to lose… Again.
Indeed Mike.
So if Trump wins will he be reigned in? Surely even the staunchest Republican supporter must realise half the things that come out of his mouth (build a wall between Mexico and the US....????) are just utter nonsense. Please tell me you think that! :)
I'm actually quite concerned about it. Trump as President of the US. He'll have nukes. "You're fired".
James.
Trump vs Sanders, an interesting double wildcard thought...is it possible?
Voters are dissatisfied with the way things are going and feel neglected. Add to that an economy which has not been too kind to a lot of people for at least a decade. People are looking for a messiah to lead them out of the wilderness. Trump is saying what they want to hear even if the bulk of it is nonsense and it is working. Any people who get through security to protest at his rallies are manhandled out none too gently. The old guard thinks they can control him but I bet they are having some doubts about now. Almost a dejavu of Germany in the 1930s. Scary, yea probably to outsiders.
Bob
I amazed about this Trump thing. The guy was born with 3 silver spoons in his mouth and grew up as a playboy. He only inherited his dad's fortune because his brother who was slated to control the fortune died early. People really think he cares about the working class? Trump doesn't have a clue what it's like to be a working person. However he's smart and knows what he has to say to get the nomination. if he ever did become president he's just be another rich guy President and he would be 180 degrees out from what he says now.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
You're right about 1930s Germany. I knew folks who went through that and they would tell you just a funny little man in a brown shirt standing on street corners yelling about this and that surrounded by young toughs. People laughed about him and made jokes and dismissed him but he persisted and knew what to say and how to say it and the rest is history.
Nope - Sanders is on schedule to loose the nomination; yesterday he underperformed by about 15 percentage points.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGoodman
Are we really comparing trump to hitler, or am I misunderstanding what has been said? Trump is doing what every politician, ever, has done. Say what needs to be said to get elected, then do whatever. Trump is not a politician, he's a businessman. I'm no expert on his past, and upbringing, but I need to look into that because I don't think it lines up with what's been said here. Unlike most politicians, he doesn't care about special interest groups and lobbyists. He doesn't need money, and he most certainly isn't going to spend it on the BS our current poor excuse for a president spends it on. I don't think I agree with much of what he says, but I'm a realist. Trump vs hillary, I'll take trump every time. The perfect outcome in my mind is they both win the nomination, then hillary gets indicted by Congress and a) life in prison or b) death penalty. Either would suffice for her crimes against the US.
I think history has demonstrated when really rich business types get elected president they fill all the positions with guys like them and the administration is for like people. Anyone who thinks Trump is the "people's candidate" is probably walking around with a huge fish hook in their mouths.
Not just those in favor of trump, all of us are. None of the candidates deserve a vote in my mind, but we have to choose the lesser of two evils. It's a no brainer to me, when given the two options this go around. Clinton may not be a billionaire, but she hasn't been lacking in the financial department for a very long time. Then there's the fact that her lies happened under oath, and directly resulted in the loss of American lives. It actually makes me sick that people support her.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
No we are not comparing Trump directly with Hitler per se but rather the socioeconomic circumstances that allow a person like Trump to become idolized by a large group of people. He too is smart enough to say what people want to hear. If/when he does get elected the old guard may not be able to control him either. There definitely are similarities and I hope it would stop there. Not hard to understand the why of his success. No, Hilter was not a left wing Socialist but a right wing Facist or he might have got along better Russia than he did. I guess it depends on how far to the right you think Trump is or isn't. Yes, Trump is a politician and best case scenario if he wins is nothing really changes and a lot of people will have egg on their faces but what's new that happens every election when nothing really changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by prodigy
Worst case is that he really is like he talks and has easy access to the big red button. That maybe what makes some people nervous or not.
Bob
Ok i can see the sense in that. I think the large majority of his followers (I'm not one) are just content with a president that is not a lifelong politician. There's one thing no one can detest, he knows how to make money. Last time I checked were only 19 trillion in debt...
Well, I would go along with Spenders comments on how he made his fortune. I guess he knows how to make money and loose it too. How many times has he gone bankrupt? Might be worth a little research into his history and finances. No matter what happens the next bunch of months will being interesting and a bit unnerving until the fat lady sings and there is a final outcome. Buckle up and enjoy the ride or not. Me, I think I will be on a popcorn diet while this show is on.Quote:
Originally Posted by prodigy
Bob
For me i will probably vote for Trump. I do believe that for the most part the professional politicians are crooks. The political elite who are not held accountable for what they do. Clinton for instance. you choose which one or both. For me i believe Obama is the worse thing that ever happened to the US and in the long run the world. Each to his or her own opinion. This is mine.
And do you believe Obama didn't fill positions with his cronies, or that Hillary won't? Come on now that's what politicians do, and Hillary ,, never mind, she's a criminal and responsible for her actions, so if elected this country has taken a far jump off a cliff. At some point in time we need to hold these people accountable and make them live by the same rules that they shove down our throats,, trump is a whack job, but far more desirable than big government socialists like Hillary. And just for everyone's info trump has been bankrupt several times. And like any good business man he came out and satisfied his investors. Unlike politicians who never satisfy the debts they build,, as in 19 trillion , that's a debt that just keeps going, so we are all in trouble , a nut job and another politician that wants spend to get out of debt. Just remember for the government to give something to one person who hasn't earned it, they must forcibly take it from someone who has earned it,, lord help us all. Tc
Not to derail this conversation with a debate over Hitler, but the notion that he was right wing is a myth. He had far more in common with the communists than he did with any capitalist. His sense of nationalism is about all that separated the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobH
If that happens it'll probably be the ultimate reality show. If recent history is a guide I think we should expect at least some of the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
- repeal of Obamacare
- lowering the top tax brackets and repealing various credits and exemptions at the bottom
- some fights over protectionist tariffs, but perhaps not much taking effect
- perhaps another attempt at privatizing Social Security and/or Medicare or in some way decreasing the benefits
- government shutdown(s)
- frequent changes in leadership (yes, 'You are fired!!!!' is back and better than ever)
- a whole new level of trash talk, that would bring fond memories of the tender innocence of the 'small hands' era of the primaries
- a big shiny wall with the following extras:
-- a golden sign on top
-- an electric fence
-- alligators
-- a Godfather's pizza
-- a price tag of 9-9-9 (pesos)
- bunga-bunga parties (Silvio has terrific plans for them)
- a turnover or two in the position of the first lady?
- ......
Attachment 230246
........
I think like others here have said that nobody gets what is happening. We are in the beginning of a revolution. Trump is just the conduit. Average Joe feels like the gov't is out of control. On both sides people are angry with gov't. Trump could be anyone,that's why nothing sticks to him. The People want change on both sides. Think about it, a socialist running in the U.S. and getting votes. A lot has to change but lets start. Trump has to be who he is for this to happen. He is self funding. Nobody else could pull this off because the GOP would have shut him down. Now he is a runaway train. He may still be stopped but the people have spoken. As usual nobody hears us. Prodigy please excuse my grammar. I'm one of the uneducated that supports Trump. Or anyone but Clinton.:matrix:
