• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are democrats voting for Trump in the primaries?

Why are democrats voting for Trump in the primaries?


  • Total voters
    44
When you say anti-immigrant you mean anti-illegal immigrant? Because as far as I know Trump has not said that he wants to stop all legal immigration.
.

Not ALL, perhaps, as his latest wife can testify, but "Mark Zuckerburg's personal senator, Marco Rubio has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities" - that's his words.

It is really almost never the case when someone is fiercely opposed to illegal immigration but perfectly fine with the same Mexican nannies, gardeners and construction workers if they have a magic piece of paper/plastic in their pockets. (Of course, Trump himself probably doesn't care at all, and had no problem with undocumented Poles building his tacky towers, but he knows what bones to throw to what kind of dogs).
 
Sanders is the only one Trump would beat. Hillary will run at least the most effective negative ad campaign against Trump since LBJ did with Goldwater. I have explained this in other threads, but here is how it will go:

All this violence at Trump rallies will amount to the most effective negative ads in the general since LBJ's against Goldwater. Either the Hillary campaign or some PACs will show Trump more or less egging them on as he has in in past rallies, then follow up with clips of minorities being pushed, shoved, and punched by the crowd in his rallies. Mark my words, that is exactly what they will do. They will mix those ads up with others where he says some of the most outrageous things he has said and then others showing where hate groups like the Klan endorsed him. Not only that, but they will tar every Republican running for reelection with the same Trump hatemongering.

Not only will it further destroy him with the minority vote, but it will also curb his ability to bring in working class white Democrats as it will shame them into not voting for him (just like with Goldwater).

They will take it even further though, as they will run all the bigoted statements he has made in regards to immigrants, particularly Hispanic immigrants, and even further destroy him with the Hispanic vote. A Republican needs at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to win in November. The last Republican to do that was Bush in 2004. Trump does not stand a chance in hell of getting even half that. Hispanics look at him like Blacks did George Wallace. The only Hispanics he will win are the few that are in the Republican Party.

Hillary is a flawed candidate and Bernie is unelectable in the general. With a candidate like Kasich, the Republicans would probably win in November, but they are going to absolutely get their ass kicked with a candidate like Trump or Cruz.

The only reason why the Republicans Trump is running against have not done this is they are trying to appeal to the same bigots that are in Trump's base, a Democrat will care less about that, but rather will want to make sure that those bigots are all that he has voting for him come November. The Republican establishment knows this and that is why they are scared to death of him being their candidate.

While some of your points appear valid, IMO your entire thesis is presented through the same rose-colored glasses used by both the GOP Machine and the Democratic "faithful" when assessing both Trump and Sanders all along the current campaign. Views that have failed miserably to reconcile with the actual situation.

Most people of all political persuasions, be they Republicans, Democrats, or all other Independents, are fed up with business as usual politicking. That is the appeal of the "extremes" exemplified by Trump and Sanders.

It is one of the primary reasons Obama did so well during his first campaign. People were looking to him for change. They honestly thought the first Black President would be able to make sweeping changes in the system, a "political outsider" coming in to clean house. I know this because I was actively caught up in that idea myself. We didn't expect "business as usual" (ex. still sitting with troops in the Middle East 8 years later; Guantanamo Prison still open; a Health Care program poorly cobbled together by the AMA, Big Insurance, and Big Pharma) from the man who promised us "Change we can believe in," and "Yes we can!"

I think Trump's demagoguery is appealing across the political spectrum. His appeal is partly based on his willingness to say whatever he is thinking, calling a spade whatever he needs to in order to appeal to his voter base. This rather than the standard tactic of spouting vetted and overly-watered down packaged platitudes meant to reach all people by saying nothing substantive. Sander's, on the other hand, is holding true to his past political history. He has been making substantive statements in keeping with his ideology.

Now I don't agree with a lot of what either man has been saying, but IMO they have presented atypical options to the status quo with much more appeal to the common voter than either political hacks like Hillary, Kasich, and Rubio, or right-wing religious extremist liars like Cruz. I think many of my voting peers think the same way, which may translate into another upset for "business as usual" politics in the upcoming election.
 
Last edited:
Maybe because they were lied to by Obama?
 
Why are democrats voting for Trump in open primary states or switching parties in closed primary states to vote for Trump?

Because they support his positions and intend to vote for in the general election.
Because they are trying to stack the deck in favor of democrats in the general election.
other


Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump « CBS Pittsburgh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/

They're trying to stack the deck. And they are acting like fools for doing so, even if both Bernie and Hillary currently trouncing Trump in a potential November election.

Why? Because you don't play with fire. You don't play with fascism.
 
How terrifying. As a Republican I would do everything in my power to see to it that Clinton defeats Cruz.

You must be one of those RINOS for socialized medicine, anti-2nd amendment laws and all sorts of other **** Clinton wants.
 
As I have said before, I think much of Trump's support comes from white Democrats that are afraid they will be told to "check their white privilege" when they apply for government benefits.
 
They're trying to stack the deck. And they are acting like fools for doing so, even if both Bernie and Hillary currently trouncing Trump in a potential November election.

Why? Because you don't play with fire. You don't play with fascism.

You are right that they are playing with fire.Because between now and November **** could change and Trump could win the general(and unicorns will come out of Obama's ass and hell will freeze over)according this wikipedia link Rush Limbaugh and other republicans tried the same thing by trying to help Obama win the primary because they thought he would give the republicans a better chance at winning the general election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States#Manipulation_and_dilution
Opponents of the open primary believe that the open primary leaves the party nominations vulnerable to manipulation and dilution. First, one party could organize its voters to vote in the other party's primary and choose the candidate that they most agree with or that they think their party could most easily defeat. Secondly, in the open primary moderates and independent voters can vote in either party. This occurrence may dilute the vote of a particular party and lead to a nominee who does not represent the views of his or her particular party.

For example, in the 2008 presidential primaries, exit polls say John McCain failed to win a single race among Republican voters, up to Super Tuesday, yet during that same period he went from also-ran to front runner, because most non-Republicans who crossed over voted for him. In New Hampshire, Mitt Romney won among registered Republicans, but John McCain won overall [1]. Likewise, in South Carolina, Mike Huckabee won among self-identified Republicans, but John McCain won the state [2].

Similarly, some Republican advocates called for Republicans to cross over and vote in the Democratic race, to help Barack Obama win, on the premise that Clinton had a better chance of beating their candidate. The Rush Limbaugh Show's "Operation Chaos" is the best known of these movements.
 
How terrifying. As a Republican I would do everything in my power to see to it that Clinton defeats Cruz.

That means you will give your stamp of approval to Hillary Clinton. I will probably vote AGAINST Trump if he's the nominee. But I will vote for a third party that represents my principles.
 
You must be one of those RINOS for socialized medicine, anti-2nd amendment laws and all sorts of other **** Clinton wants.

I think the country has so obviously moved to the point where we 'require' some form of universal healthcare I'm just not sure what the best way to do that is. I'm 'for' the 2nd Amendment and own guns including assault rifles but I'm perfectly willing to entertain restrictions that might benefit society and I think 'gun culture' can be very toxic. As for the 'other stuff' I'm generally for trade treaties that reduce tariffs, subsidies, and other barriers to the open market, a simplification of the tax code, I'm very open to the arguments put forward in favor of stimulus spending, I'd significantly increase the defense budget, and I support a robust and aggressive foreign policy. And like most members of our newest adult generation (and the ones which will follow after us) I'm socially quite liberal.

But I'm a Republican and frankly you don't get to decide otherwise. I voted for McCain and Romney, who incidentally were among the only candidates of that crop which I really liked (though Gingrich had a few fascinating ideas about Space). The bulk of the time I prize reasoned decision making over fanatical principle.

If you want to kick everyone like me out of the party thats fine but enjoy being a rump organization in the Bible Belt.
 
That means you will give your stamp of approval to Hillary Clinton. I will probably vote AGAINST Trump if he's the nominee. But I will vote for a third party that represents my principles.

Some people have Bush Derangement Syndrome others have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I would prefer Rubio or Kasich to Clinton, but I'm not likely to get that. I think at her core Clinton is relatively centrist with significant rightward tendencies on foreign policy. I think she could make a competent executive who might be able to work well with someone like Paul Ryan.
 
Some people have Bush Derangement Syndrome others have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I would prefer Rubio or Kasich to Clinton, but I'm not likely to get that. I think at her core Clinton is relatively centrist with significant rightward tendencies on foreign policy. I think she could make a competent executive who might be able to work well with someone like Paul Ryan.

Clinton would "work well" with anyone she can find dirt on or intimidate through government agencies. Nothing fosters cooperation like a visit from a SWAT team as a reminder who's in charge.
 
Sanders is the only one Trump would beat. Hillary will run at least the most effective negative ad campaign against Trump since LBJ did with Goldwater. I have explained this in other threads, but here is how it will go:

Again, according to what? No evidence supports this view, and virtually all of it that thus far exists affirms that Sanders would do better vs every Republican frontrunner than Hillary in the general, _especially_ vs Trump, surpassing Hillary's lead on Trump by nearly a 2 to 1 margin:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton


Hardcore Hillary supporters like you keep mudslinging charges of 'unelectability' at Bernie without any proof whatsoever, desperately hoping that it'll somehow stick and percolate into unassailable common wisdom.
 
Not all democrats are liberal and since Trump is a former democrat and has populist democrat views I think some of the more conservative blue collar democrats like his anti trade agreement rhetoric and probably his anti immigration and Islam rhetoric. I personally know a few democrats myself who are supporting trump precisely because of his anti immigrant views.

Trump has legitimate cross over appeal that is being severely underestimated by both parties. I could even see it feasible that he captures a larger percentage of the black vote than usual.

That's exactly it.

I live in a county in Washington state that's overwhelmingly filled with democratic voters, who are white, own guns, oppose same sex marriage, and work union blue collar jobs.
 
Clinton would "work well" with anyone she can find dirt on or intimidate through government agencies. Nothing fosters cooperation like a visit from a SWAT team as a reminder who's in charge.

Like I said some people have Bush Derangement Syndrome others have Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I think you have one of them.
 
Working class Dems are voting for Trump because the liberals have abandoned them.
 
Again, according to what? No evidence supports this view, and virtually all of it that thus far exists affirms that Sanders would do better vs every Republican frontrunner than Hillary in the general, _especially_ vs Trump, surpassing Hillary's lead on Trump by nearly a 2 to 1 margin:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton


Hardcore Hillary supporters like you keep mudslinging charges of 'unelectability' at Bernie without any proof whatsoever, desperately hoping that it'll somehow stick and percolate into unassailable common wisdom.

Because polls this far out mean very little. The shocking turn of events in the Republican Primaries when compared to last fall should be evidence enough of that. They are basing their assertions on the basis that at the end of the day he's a 75 year old self-professed democratic socialist from Vermont with a lot of fiercely held left wing views which, they allege, aren't in step with the electorate.

I tend to agree with them.
 
Polls this far out are meaningless for the general. For example, Dukakis was up by 20 points over Bush in the Spring of 1988.

The polls seem to be doing a bad job of predicting the primaries, never mind the general. I am surprised that Pols, Media and Public take them so seriously.
 
Which campaign Hillary or Trump has more energy/anger behind it? Trump... and that combination is what gets people to the polls.
 
Because polls this far out mean very little. The shocking turn of events in the Republican Primaries when compared to last fall should be evidence enough of that. They are basing their assertions on the basis that at the end of the day he's a 75 year old self-professed democratic socialist from Vermont with a lot of fiercely held left wing views which, they allege, aren't in step with the electorate.

I tend to agree with them.

So we instead go with the completely baseless assertion that Bernie will lose because socialism and treat it like gospel? That way lies madness.

I mean, Bernie's views are actually popular per all the polling that thus far exists; something which is far less nebulous and uncertain vs theoretical general match ups based upon recent polling:

Do Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders? (INFOGRAPHIC)

More and More Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders, and Not Just Those Who Identify With the Left | Alternet
 
So we instead go with the completely baseless assertion that Bernie will lose because socialism and treat it like gospel? That way lies madness.

I mean, Bernie's views are actually popular per all the polling that thus far exists; something which is far less nebulous and uncertain vs theoretical general match ups based upon recent polling:

Do Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders? (INFOGRAPHIC)

More and More Americans Agree With Bernie Sanders, and Not Just Those Who Identify With the Left | Alternet

Wait until the hammer-and-sickle attack ads start running.
 
Wait until the hammer-and-sickle attack ads start running.

Something that melodramatic and disingenuously cartoonish would probably end up being more laughable than successful.
 
Why are democrats voting for Trump in open primary states or switching parties in closed primary states to vote for Trump?

Because they support his positions and intend to vote for in the general election.
Because they are trying to stack the deck in favor of democrats in the general election.
other


Report: 46,000 Pa. Democrats Become Republicans Due To Trump « CBS Pittsburgh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rting-to-change-toward-more-closed-primaries/

That's easy: it's the smart move to push for Trump now, so he gets the nomination and then gets hammered in the general election.
 
He did go to the USSR for his honey moon:lol:

Something that melodramatic and disingenuously cartoonish would probably end up being more laughable than successful.

The honeymoon will come up. As for melodramatic, an ad with a little girl picking daisies followed by a mushroom cloud was pretty effective.
 
Back
Top Bottom