• 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!

Trump as Leader of the Republican Party

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I thought this was an interesting write up. Some samples:

For nearly a century, American presidents have played an important, if informal, role in our politics as the leader of their parties. But nearly 100 days into his term, President Trump not only has failed to provide Republicans with skilled leadership, but also seems unaware that he’s even supposed to do so. This failure could doom his presidency before it even really begins.

<snip>

Trump has provided neither clear direction nor a firm legislative agenda for his party. Congressional Republicans and neutral observers alike ask: “What does the president really want?” No one should expect modern presidents to meet Roosevelt’s level of achievement, but Trump isn’t even close. We don’t know what form health-care reform will take; we have only a hastily prepared outline of tax reform; and his pronouncements on other policy issues seem to change as often as the Washington weather.

<snip>

Absence of political leadership is particularly damaging to the modern Republican Party because of the intense and deep fissures running through it. The GOP was bitterly divided into at least four factions prior to Trump’s emergence, and their civil war had waged since at least the 2010 primaries. None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. The president’s failure to step into this fray simply makes the divisions harder to heal.

This state of affairs is compounded by the way Trump won the White House. He mobilized millions of non-Republicans, mainly whites without college degrees, and brought them behind him in historically high numbers. These voters tend to be more economically liberal than any faction of GOP conservatives and less interested in historic Republican unifying themes such as traditional morality or activism overseas. Their priorities — jobs and rising wages, immigration restriction and focusing our military on fighting terrorism — are all out of step with at least one powerful GOP faction. Unless they are integrated into a new Republican majority, the votes that elected Trump and gave the GOP control of the Senate, House and many big state governorships will vanish as quickly as they arrived.
Fortunately for the administration, the 100-day mark is wholly artificial, so Trump has time to step up. In doing so, he need look no farther than the example of President Ronald Reagan. Reagan also led a party wracked by years of infighting, in his case between moderates, business conservatives and movement conservatives. He also saw many traditional Republicans desert him for a third-party candidate, Rep. John Anderson, in his general election campaign. And like Trump, he prevailed because he attracted millions of traditional Democrats and independents who thought the former movie actor cared more about them than traditional Republicans or Democratic leaders did.

Thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.02c728391135
 
I'm a lifelong Republican and this is the first "Republican" President I can't support. He may be the leader of my party, but he's a nightmare leader to anyone who is a real Republican.
 
I'm a lifelong Republican and this is the first "Republican" President I can't support. He may be the leader of my party, but he's a nightmare leader to anyone who is a real Republican.

He is a nightmare to anyone who is a real American.
 
actually trump is not a politician but a businessman, as compared to former presidents.

part of the reason he chose pence, was that he knows washington and the in and outs because trump does not.

in the house it is Ryan who is supposed to gather the republican troops and see that legislation is on track, and the votes are there when legislation hits the floor, and Ryan has been a failure so far.
 
I thought this was an interesting write up. Some samples:

For nearly a century, American presidents have played an important, if informal, role in our politics as the leader of their parties. But nearly 100 days into his term, President Trump not only has failed to provide Republicans with skilled leadership, but also seems unaware that he’s even supposed to do so. This failure could doom his presidency before it even really begins.

<snip>

Trump has provided neither clear direction nor a firm legislative agenda for his party. Congressional Republicans and neutral observers alike ask: “What does the president really want?” No one should expect modern presidents to meet Roosevelt’s level of achievement, but Trump isn’t even close. We don’t know what form health-care reform will take; we have only a hastily prepared outline of tax reform; and his pronouncements on other policy issues seem to change as often as the Washington weather.

<snip>

Absence of political leadership is particularly damaging to the modern Republican Party because of the intense and deep fissures running through it. The GOP was bitterly divided into at least four factions prior to Trump’s emergence, and their civil war had waged since at least the 2010 primaries. None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. The president’s failure to step into this fray simply makes the divisions harder to heal.

This state of affairs is compounded by the way Trump won the White House. He mobilized millions of non-Republicans, mainly whites without college degrees, and brought them behind him in historically high numbers. These voters tend to be more economically liberal than any faction of GOP conservatives and less interested in historic Republican unifying themes such as traditional morality or activism overseas. Their priorities — jobs and rising wages, immigration restriction and focusing our military on fighting terrorism — are all out of step with at least one powerful GOP faction. Unless they are integrated into a new Republican majority, the votes that elected Trump and gave the GOP control of the Senate, House and many big state governorships will vanish as quickly as they arrived.
Fortunately for the administration, the 100-day mark is wholly artificial, so Trump has time to step up. In doing so, he need look no farther than the example of President Ronald Reagan. Reagan also led a party wracked by years of infighting, in his case between moderates, business conservatives and movement conservatives. He also saw many traditional Republicans desert him for a third-party candidate, Rep. John Anderson, in his general election campaign. And like Trump, he prevailed because he attracted millions of traditional Democrats and independents who thought the former movie actor cared more about them than traditional Republicans or Democratic leaders did.

Thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.02c728391135

Who ever in God's name thought Trump would be a leader for Republicans formal or otherwise. Only a biased source would do that write-up. It's only a repetition of things that we must have all known would happen, if Trump was elected.
 
I'm a lifelong Republican and this is the first "Republican" President I can't support. He may be the leader of my party, but he's a nightmare leader to anyone who is a real Republican.

Lots of folks bemoan his Presidency. But only under 25 percent wanted him. Had we wanted to stop him it would have been quite easily possible. But we didn't, so he is our President and yours.
 
I thought this was an interesting write up. Some samples:

For nearly a century, American presidents have played an important, if informal, role in our politics as the leader of their parties. But nearly 100 days into his term, President Trump not only has failed to provide Republicans with skilled leadership, but also seems unaware that he’s even supposed to do so. This failure could doom his presidency before it even really begins.

<snip>

Trump has provided neither clear direction nor a firm legislative agenda for his party. Congressional Republicans and neutral observers alike ask: “What does the president really want?” No one should expect modern presidents to meet Roosevelt’s level of achievement, but Trump isn’t even close. We don’t know what form health-care reform will take; we have only a hastily prepared outline of tax reform; and his pronouncements on other policy issues seem to change as often as the Washington weather.

<snip>

Absence of political leadership is particularly damaging to the modern Republican Party because of the intense and deep fissures running through it. The GOP was bitterly divided into at least four factions prior to Trump’s emergence, and their civil war had waged since at least the 2010 primaries. None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. The president’s failure to step into this fray simply makes the divisions harder to heal.

This state of affairs is compounded by the way Trump won the White House. He mobilized millions of non-Republicans, mainly whites without college degrees, and brought them behind him in historically high numbers. These voters tend to be more economically liberal than any faction of GOP conservatives and less interested in historic Republican unifying themes such as traditional morality or activism overseas. Their priorities — jobs and rising wages, immigration restriction and focusing our military on fighting terrorism — are all out of step with at least one powerful GOP faction. Unless they are integrated into a new Republican majority, the votes that elected Trump and gave the GOP control of the Senate, House and many big state governorships will vanish as quickly as they arrived.
Fortunately for the administration, the 100-day mark is wholly artificial, so Trump has time to step up. In doing so, he need look no farther than the example of President Ronald Reagan. Reagan also led a party wracked by years of infighting, in his case between moderates, business conservatives and movement conservatives. He also saw many traditional Republicans desert him for a third-party candidate, Rep. John Anderson, in his general election campaign. And like Trump, he prevailed because he attracted millions of traditional Democrats and independents who thought the former movie actor cared more about them than traditional Republicans or Democratic leaders did.

Thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.02c728391135

I don't think he's really "leader" of the GOP. Ryan is far more a Party Leader than Trump. I don't think Trump commands the confidence and respect of enough of the Party Players to be the "leader" per say. They likely view him as some anomaly, that they are trying to deal with and contain, and just waiting to pass like bad gas.
 
I thought this was an interesting write up. Some samples:

For nearly a century, American presidents have played an important, if informal, role in our politics as the leader of their parties. But nearly 100 days into his term, President Trump not only has failed to provide Republicans with skilled leadership, but also seems unaware that he’s even supposed to do so. This failure could doom his presidency before it even really begins.

<snip>

Trump has provided neither clear direction nor a firm legislative agenda for his party. Congressional Republicans and neutral observers alike ask: “What does the president really want?” No one should expect modern presidents to meet Roosevelt’s level of achievement, but Trump isn’t even close. We don’t know what form health-care reform will take; we have only a hastily prepared outline of tax reform; and his pronouncements on other policy issues seem to change as often as the Washington weather.

<snip>

Absence of political leadership is particularly damaging to the modern Republican Party because of the intense and deep fissures running through it. The GOP was bitterly divided into at least four factions prior to Trump’s emergence, and their civil war had waged since at least the 2010 primaries. None of the existing party leaders has the stature, power or credibility to unite this group into a cohesive majority. The president’s failure to step into this fray simply makes the divisions harder to heal.

This state of affairs is compounded by the way Trump won the White House. He mobilized millions of non-Republicans, mainly whites without college degrees, and brought them behind him in historically high numbers. These voters tend to be more economically liberal than any faction of GOP conservatives and less interested in historic Republican unifying themes such as traditional morality or activism overseas. Their priorities — jobs and rising wages, immigration restriction and focusing our military on fighting terrorism — are all out of step with at least one powerful GOP faction. Unless they are integrated into a new Republican majority, the votes that elected Trump and gave the GOP control of the Senate, House and many big state governorships will vanish as quickly as they arrived.
Fortunately for the administration, the 100-day mark is wholly artificial, so Trump has time to step up. In doing so, he need look no farther than the example of President Ronald Reagan. Reagan also led a party wracked by years of infighting, in his case between moderates, business conservatives and movement conservatives. He also saw many traditional Republicans desert him for a third-party candidate, Rep. John Anderson, in his general election campaign. And like Trump, he prevailed because he attracted millions of traditional Democrats and independents who thought the former movie actor cared more about them than traditional Republicans or Democratic leaders did.

Thoughts?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3413c691853_story.html?utm_term=.02c728391135

If one looks at the numbers across the board, comparing Trump's percentages to Romney's and Clinton's to Obama's, I would say Clinton lost more traditional Democratic voters than Trump Republican. Trump was within or over by a point or two of Romney's 2012 percentages in almost every voting group. Clinton was 3-4 points constantly below Obama's percentages. Some examples:
Total vote, Romney 47%, Trump 46% -1, Obama 51%, Clinton 48% -3
Whites Romney 59%, Trump 57% -2, Obama 39%, Clinton 37% -2
Blacks Romney 6%, Trump 8% +2, Obama 93%, Clinton 88% -5
Hispanics Romney 27%, Trump 28% +1, Obama 71%, Clinton 66% -5
Age 18-29 Romney 37%, Trump 36% -1, Obama 60%, Clinton 55% -5
Union households Romney 40%, Trump 42% +2, Obama 58%, Clinton 51% -7
Income, below 50,000, Romney 38%, Trump 41% +3, Obama 60%, Clinton 53% -7

I could go on, but more Obama voters deserted Clinton than Romney voters deserted Trump. Clinton lost because she wasn't as popular, I hate that word. Perhaps wanted is better, by the normal Democratic voting groups as a whole as Obama was. Or one can say, Obama energized these groups more than Clinton which was more or less ho hum. Trump on the other hand, pretty much matched Romney group for group.
 
Last edited:
If one looks at the numbers across the board, comparing Trump's percentages to Romney's and Clinton's to Obama's, I would say Clinton lost more traditional Democratic voters than Trump Republican. Trump was within or over by a point or two of Romney's 2012 percentages in almost every voting group. Clinton was 3-4 points constantly below Obama's percentages. Some examples:
Total vote, Romney 47%, Trump 46% -1, Obama 51%, Clinton 48% -3
Whites Romney 59%, Trump 57% -2, Obama 39%, Clinton 37% -2
Blacks Romney 6%, Trump 8% +2, Obama 93%, Clinton 88% -5
Hispanics Romney 27%, Trump 28% +1, Obama 71%, Clinton 66% -5
Age 18-29 Romney 37%, Trump 36% -1, Obama 60%, Clinton 55% -5
Union households Romney 40%, Trump 42% +2, Obama 58%, Clinton 51% -7
Income, below 50,000, Romney 38%, Trump 41% +3, Obama 60%, Clinton 53% -7

I could go on, but more Obama voters deserted Clinton than Romney voters deserted Trump. Clinton lost because she wasn't as popular, I hate that word. Perhaps wanted is better, by the normal Democratic voting groups as a whole as Obama was. Or one can say, Obama energized these groups more than Clinton which was more or less ho hum. Trump on the other hand, pretty much matched Romney group for group.

Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

Very interesting statistics you provided! :thumbs: I realize it's early, but do you have any gut reaction to what Trump might be shooting for on reforming the tax code to make it simpler across the board, or are the changes really going to just benefit the wealthy - as many are already claiming?
 
Who ever in God's name thought Trump would be a leader for Republicans formal or otherwise. Only a biased source would do that write-up. It's only a repetition of things that we must have all known would happen, if Trump was elected.

Trump ran to be the Republican party candidate for POTUS, and was duly nominated. He was subsequently elected president via our electoral system. I would say he's the de facto leader of the Republican party. You are free to disagree.

Someone needs to herd the cats. Ryan, McConnell, Trump? Who is it?
 
Trump ran to be the Republican party candidate for POTUS, and was duly nominated. He was subsequently elected president via our electoral system. I would say he's the de facto leader of the Republican party. You are free to disagree.

Someone needs to herd the cats. Ryan, McConnell, Trump? Who is it?

In the sense of getting the Republicans to do things, his success is hardly very good. De facto he is not their leader.

De facto he is the President of all American citizens.
 
I don't think he's really "leader" of the GOP. Ryan is far more a Party Leader than Trump. I don't think Trump commands the confidence and respect of enough of the Party Players to be the "leader" per say. They likely view him as some anomaly, that they are trying to deal with and contain, and just waiting to pass like bad gas.

I agree. I think the minute Trump stops rubber stamping what the GOP puts on his desk to sign, he's gone. Problem is, they aren't putting anything on his desk. There are warring factions in the house and senate that can't come together. I actually think that's good, because the ideas those factions are putting forward in their attempts would make things worse for many people if legislated.
 
In the sense of getting the Republicans to do things, his success is hardly very good. De facto he is not their leader.

De facto he is the President of all American citizens.

The Repubs are leaderless. Ryan can't bring the house together any better than Boehner.
 
Good morning, Pero. :2wave:

Very interesting statistics you provided! :thumbs: I realize it's early, but do you have any gut reaction to what Trump might be shooting for on reforming the tax code to make it simpler across the board, or are the changes really going to just benefit the wealthy - as many are already claiming?

Morning Pol, I haven't got into Trump's tax proposal. It is just an outline anyway. No need to dig into it. What it means is Trump gave Ryan and McConnell his outline and told them to have at it. Lots and lots of it can and will change. It will take time, months probably to get anything workable into writing or to write the bill. Whether or not that bill is in line with Trump's outline or not, who knows?

Getting upset or making much ado about an outline which may or may not be adhered to, seems like jumping the gun. But politics and polarization being what it is, I'm not surprised that everyone is making a big deal of it, good or bad. I'll wait until something more concrete is available.

Did Reagan's tax cuts spur growth and bring in more revenue that the higher tax rates, it sure did. But spending doubled and tripled wiping out the increased revenue. Maybe Trump's plan will do the same, maybe not. I'm not a financial guru or expert. I always been a fan of one being able to do their taxes on a post card. It should be that easy. No deductions.

Just make the first 50,000 or so what a person makes tax free or the only deduction if one wants to call it that and tie that 50,000 to inflation. Then between 50,000 to 100,000 tax that 50K at 10%. 100,000 to 200,000 tax that 100K at 15% and so on. Let the experts figure out the numbers or amounts as that is just an example. One could do that on a post card. The goal should be revenue and not to punish anyone.

I suppose the same thing or equation could be implemented for the corporate tax rates. But someone more knowledgeable than me will have to figure all that out.
 
Trump ran to be the Republican party candidate for POTUS, and was duly nominated. He was subsequently elected president via our electoral system. I would say he's the de facto leader of the Republican party. You are free to disagree.

Someone needs to herd the cats. Ryan, McConnell, Trump? Who is it?

I agree, Trump is the defacto leader of the GOP. How much energy or control he exerts remains to be seen if he does anything at all. Maybe defacto at this point is the wrong word, the figurehead leader? Some presidents take being the leader of their party seriously and run it, others pass that authority down to others and let others run and control the party.
 
I agree, Trump is the defacto leader of the GOP. How much energy or control he exerts remains to be seen if he does anything at all. Maybe defacto at this point is the wrong word, the figurehead leader? Some presidents take being the leader of their party seriously and run it, others pass that authority down to others and let others run and control the party.

I seem to have drawn a lot of ire by calling the guy the Republicans ran for president and subsequently won that job the leader of the Republican party. Given that he was never a "real" Republican (whatever that ever-rightward moving target is - maybe Mark Levin keeps a definition), I suppose calling him the leader was a mistake. He's the POTUS, and he's a Republican, but maybe "figurehead" is more fitting.

Both parties seem a little lacking in leadership and direction now if you ask me.
 
Lots of folks bemoan his Presidency. But only under 25 percent wanted him. Had we wanted to stop him it would have been quite easily possible. But we didn't, so he is our President and yours.

Trump is President! Get the hell out of town. I wouldn't have known that if you hadn't pointed it out.
 
I seem to have drawn a lot of ire by calling the guy the Republicans ran for president and subsequently won that job the leader of the Republican party. Given that he was never a "real" Republican (whatever that ever-rightward moving target is - maybe Mark Levin keeps a definition), I suppose calling him the leader was a mistake. He's the POTUS, and he's a Republican, but maybe "figurehead" is more fitting.

Both parties seem a little lacking in leadership and direction now if you ask me.

He is president and a Republican. Although I know some Republicans, who have been lifelong Republicans who think Trump was an interloper, an opportunist. He didn't become a Republican until 2012, this time, the third time he became a Republican in Trump's many switching party past.

So there are still are a bunch of Republican never Trumpers out there. How many, I don't know. But I think the never Trumpers has shrank quite a bit. Whether or not Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, he is definitely the face of that party. How Trump goes will probably be how the midterms go.
 
Back
Top Bottom