Was Trump's Republican nomination a "protest vote" by Republicans?

IMO, there wasn't another GOP candidate for president other than Trump who wasn't influenced in some way by the, IMO, radical, alt-right base of the GOP. Trump isn't GOP-lite. He's dem-lite...a traditional dem...not a progressive dem. Just like Hillary. Hillary was dem-lite but more a traditional dem than Trump and ventured more into the radical, alt-left, progressive base of the dems. That and Trump was fresh and planned to drain the swamp of ineptitude in Washington.

chuckiechan said:

Learn to read. "ADMINISTRATIONS"

Click to expand...

Learn to write. The inclusion of "the"... as in "...with a sense that the prior administrations have been..."... says the prior administration only and that you inarticulately omitted the apostrophe. "Administration's" is how it is read, given your wording.

If you intended to be all-inclusive, that's fine, but slow down and take the time to write better. Punctuation is important, and here poor punctuation clearly turns the meaning on its head.

radcen said:

Learn to write. The inclusion of "the"... as in "...with a sense that the prior administrations have been..."... says the prior administration only and that you inarticulately omitted the apostrophe. "Administration's" is how it is read, given your wording.

If you intended to be all-inclusive, that's fine, but slow down and take the time to write better. Punctuation is important, and here poor punctuation clearly turns the meaning on its head.

Click to expand...

Nope. Administrations in my context was plural. In yours it’s possessive. I am right you are wrong. Let’s group the grammar Nazi charade right here. PM me, don’t crap the thread.

No one gives a **** but you.

radcen said:

Was Trump's Republican nomination a "protest vote" by Republicans?

Or, did enough of them honestly feel he was the best candidate?

Click to expand...

I always have a tough time answering your poll questions because, in my opinion, they don't get at the real heart of the issue. In this case, the heart of the issue is that the world as a whole, the country as a whole, Democrats as a whole, and Republicans as a whole, were and are tired of the establishment and dynasties and wanted none of the above, IE a populist candidate. That's why Trump not only beat 16 other candidates in the primary but won the general election as well. In other words, they were real votes, not "protest votes". He was neither a protest vote nor a vote for the best candidate of the Republican party. In fact, the voters aren't the "party" anymore. That's what most people don't understand. Republican voters aren't true Republicans anymore and Democratic voters aren't true Democrats anymore. The candidates haven't changed, the so-called base has changed in both parties and that's what Trump tapped into. And, here we are in 2018 and people mistakenly think that Democrats are Democrats and Republicans are Republicans, completely forgetting the lessons that should have been learned from the populist/nationalist movement.

WCH said:

Because most of the other had become GOP lite.

BTW: We've had a for years and it is now starting to resonate.

Click to expand...

The GOP had a so-called message, many in fact, but they were predominately PR & sales pitches to their rank & file. In office, they often didn't perform at all, and kowtowed to their corporate masters, much as they still do as evidenced by the recent tax cut. Proof positive of their sales job, is their allowing illegal & H1B migration year after year. Don't confuse "message", with "actions".

As to Trump (and the GOP leadership): Trump is a populist, the GOP are plutocratic oligarchists, and neither are conservatives. This is evidenced by their desire to balloon the deficit among other things, and only one year in they're still trying to find ways to add to the deficit. Even worse, Trump wants a trade war. These are not conservative principles, at all.

Moderate Right said:

I always have a tough time answering your poll questions because, in my opinion, they don't get at the real heart of the issue. In this case, the heart of the issue is that the world as a whole, the country as a whole, Democrats as a whole, and Republicans as a whole, were and are tired of the establishment and dynasties and wanted none of the above, IE a populist candidate. That's why Trump not only beat 16 other candidates in the primary but won the general election as well. In other words, they were real votes, not "protest votes". He was neither a protest vote nor a vote for the best candidate of the Republican party. In fact, the voters aren't the "party" anymore. That's what most people don't understand. Republican voters aren't true Republicans anymore and Democratic voters aren't true Democrats anymore. The candidates haven't changed, the so-called base has changed in both parties and that's what Trump tapped into. And, here we are in 2018 and people mistakenly think that Democrats are Democrats and Republicans are Republicans, completely forgetting the lessons that should have been learned from the populist/nationalist movement.

Click to expand...

Exactly!

But one thing I'd add, is that populism is NOT conservatism. As evidenced by Trump & the GOP's willingness to balloon the deficit, and Trump's eagerness to start a trade war!

Even though they're not the happiest there, liberals can still cling to the Dems, particularly the Bernie branch. But I have no idea where conservatives call home, these days. They seem to be a bit adrift.

Chomsky said:

I'm in with "other". Because I believe it was both choices. A protest & rebellion vote, thinking Trump was the right guy to upset the status quo.

The reason Trump was able to take over the party, was in part because the party was hollow and empty, devoid of a solid unifying ethically idealogical core besides, "Obama! Hillary! Bad Dems!".

Many Republican rank & file weren't crazy about the GOP establishment, but they absolutely hated the Dems. So they were stuck. Then along came a non-Dem non-GOP alternative, beholden to no one, that wanted to take-over the GOP while singing a relatively conservative populist nationalist message.

And the rank & file said, "Where have you been for all these years"?

Click to expand...

Actually there were predecessors - I think Pat Buchanan was the most recent. I think the "base" didn't get the message until Trump came along to dumb it down and added a heaping amount of vulgarity to the mix. :lol:

Helix said:

i agree with this analysis.

Click to expand...

And I agree with this analysis! :mrgreen:

year2late said:

I agree. Heck look on these boards....when things crop up with Trump and crew....we are still going back to - but Hillary. Do they realize Hillary was never POTUS?

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems there's some propensity with this crowd to revert to an aversion of HRC, Bill, & Obama, when facing failure or adversity. Perhaps it's a coping mechanism? And Trump may be the archetype of this phenomenon, so that commonality may be part of the attraction? It's weird joojoobee, that's for sure.

Mycroft said:

And it really turned out to be a good thing...a bonus, if you will...that Trump understands economics better than almost any other President and is willing to take the political heat necessary to actually do something effective to make things better for the American people.

Click to expand...

I'll disagree with Trump's understanding of economics, particularly in light of his trade war Tweets.

But I will admit the GOP populists have got what they desired, having Trump as their vehicle. However I believe history will show the economic errors here, as the deficit blows-up, the personal tax cuts expire, and government services get cut. In essence, when the citizens will be paying more for less.

Chomsky said:

Exactly!

But one thing I'd add, is that populism is NOT conservatism. As evidenced by Trump & the GOP's willingness to balloon the deficit, and Trump's eagerness to start a trade war!

Even though they're not the happiest there, liberals can still cling to the Dems, particularly the Bernie branch. But I have no idea where conservatives call home, these days. They seem to be a bit adrift.

Click to expand...

I'd also add that the Democrats are adrift as well. It just wasn't that noticeable because of the superdelegates and the fact that Hillary and the DNC had the primaries rigged so that the establishment/dynasty candidate won. The same populist sentiment is still out there in the Democratic party as well and the next primaries could get very interesting.

Moderate Right said:

I'd also add that the Democrats are adrift as well. It just wasn't that noticeable because of the superdelegates and the fact that Hillary and the DNC had the primaries rigged so that the establishment/dynasty candidate won. The same populist sentiment is still out there in the Democratic party as well and the next primaries could get very interesting.

Click to expand...

Well the Dems have tons of young new candidates. often women, streaming in running for offices - so you may indeed be right.

SouthernDemocrat said:

More Republicans came out and voted for Donald Trump in the primaries than any other Republican candidate in history, and this is despite having a very crowded field. Donald Trump won the Republican nomination because the base liked his message - which is saying something considering he was the most racist candidate since George Wallace.

Click to expand...

Go ahead and play the non-existent race card here. It's what your part does best.

Chomsky said:

The GOP had a so-called message, many in fact, but they were predominately PR & sales pitches to their rank & file. In office, they often didn't perform at all, and kowtowed to their corporate masters, much as they still do as evidenced by the recent tax cut. Proof positive of their sales job, is their allowing illegal & H1B migration year after year. Don't confuse "message", with "actions".

As to Trump (and the GOP leadership): Trump is a populist, the GOP are plutocratic oligarchists, and neither are conservatives. This is evidenced by their desire to balloon the deficit among other things, and only one year in they're still trying to find ways to add to the deficit. Even worse, Trump wants a trade war. These are not conservative principles, at all.

Click to expand...

Forget the labels for starts. Trump is doing what most of my fellow Texans want. [They're all I wish to measure]

The Latest: China promises to be bolder on economic reforms | Fox News

WCH said:

Forget the labels for starts. Trump is doing what most of my fellow Texans want. [They're all I wish to measure]

The Latest: China promises to be bolder on economic reforms | Fox News

Click to expand...

What you claim "Texans want", may be fine for placating what some Texans erroneously believe is a good thing. But the President has a duty to do what's best for the country.

And labels as I usecd in my earlier post are indeed how we enable ourselves to be able to speak intelligently and with insight, about political & social phenomenon.

The Republican leadership has eschewed conservatism, particularly economic conservatism. Lucky for the GOP leadership, economic conservatives don't have a place to turn. But that could affect Trump in 2020 and the party itself, if a conservative challenges him in the primary.

Chomsky said:

What you claim "Texans want", may be fine for placating what some Texans erroneously believe is a good thing. But the President has a duty to do what's best for the country.

And labels as I usecd in my earlier post are indeed how we enable ourselves to be able to speak intelligently and with insight, about political & social phenomenon.

The Republican leadership has eschewed conservatism, particularly economic conservatism. Lucky for the GOP leadership, economic conservatives don't have a place to turn. But that could affect Trump in 2020 and the party itself, if a conservative challenges him in the primary.

Click to expand...

Did you read the link?

Trump's edge was the 'Trumpet Call' to Nationalism & to curb Globalism. Nationalism is not resurgent as it never died.
Look at Britain, the Visegard states & yesterdays elections in Italy. Combined with the dissolution of the USSR into nation states,
Yugoslavia & Czechoslakia a decade or two earlier. The beat goes on.

When John Kerry stated a year or two ago at a Commencement at an eastern university that those graduates would be the first
to enter a 'Borderless World' he spoke a little too soon!

WCH said:

Did you read the link?

Click to expand...

I opened it, and glanced through it, but didn't see the relevance.

Chomsky said:

I opened it, and glanced through it, but didn't see the relevance.

Click to expand...

China opening it's markets and promoting more foreign investment is a direct result of Trump's policies/threats of tariffs. IMO, it's relevant.

Those were some of the issues voters wanted addressed.

radcen said:

Was Trump's Republican nomination a "protest vote" by Republicans?

Or, did enough of them honestly feel he was the best candidate?

Click to expand...

The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is the Democrats are not afraid to lie and cheat. They belief in relative morality and the ends justified the means. Hillary rigged the election against Bernie and even took over the DNC finances, before she was nominated. The Republican establishment, by its connections to the Constitution and Religion, plays more by the rules of old fashion right and wrong and ended up with Trump nominated, to everyone's surprise. If the Democrats had not cheated, Trump may have faced Bernie. This would have been the Democrat surprise.

The Republican leadership never expected Trump to win the nomination. However, since Trump was a billionaire and a TV celebrity, all the candidates thought he would fail, but still be a healthy donor and cheer leader for the Republican nominee. The images of large future donations from Trump froze the other candidates in the early going, This allowed Trump's momentum to build. The prospect of donations by Trump is why the candidates did not insult Trump, so vigorously. It was very controlled. They needed to walk the line. This played to Trump's advantage. The main weakness of all politicians is they need to kiss up for money. Trump self financed to avoid the kiss up. He could go after anyone and not fear parallel donors.

The leftist media also helped Trump, during the Republican primary. This helped their own failing audience numbers. It turned out that anything Trump sold media time. Trump pulled CNN and the NY times from the dump. However, the real goal of the main street media was undermining the Republican party using Trump as the hammer. They wanted Trump to damage the other mainline candidates and then the Republican nominee lose to the Hillary machine. This plan would backfire on them. Thank CNN and the NY times for Trump's rise and early momentum that made him unstoppable. Trump called them fake news. The goal was to make the swamp come out of the shadows and be seen via their all out attack.

The reason Trump did well in the general election is he took on the Obama and Clinton swamp. This helped to unify the Republicans and draw in Independents. Everyone saw the corruption under Obama and Hillary and how this was swept under the rug. The IRS scandal, for example, was seen as corruption in government, even though Obama was all to sweep it under the rug. Hillary erasing e-mails was not good. Nobody was fooled. People wanted change and Trump showed that he was capable of taking on corrupt the status quo.

Trump has survived one year of an all out propaganda assault and media hazing. He has gained in popularity. This future was seen by his supporters, early. Trump's stamina has also caused Republicans, who once hated Trump, to be part of his team. Trump is unorthodox but effective. He is not the TV ready President, the left likes. He is someone who gets things done while creating PC cringe. This is funny to watch, if you have a sense of humor.

radcen said:

Was Trump's Republican nomination a "protest vote" by Republicans?

Or, did enough of them honestly feel he was the best candidate?

Click to expand...

Most honestly believe in him. The rest were desperate to avoid letting Democrats choose Scalia's replacement.

radcen said:

Was Trump's Republican nomination a "protest vote" by Republicans?

Or, did enough of them honestly feel he was the best candidate?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's all one or another.

I think there absolutely were a solid portion of people who actually agreed with him and felt like he was the best.

I also think there was definitely a segment who voted for him out of "protest", i.e. disgust and anger at the GOP for promising so much in 2012 and 2014 and yet delivering little to nothing.

Finally I think there was a segment who voted for him simply because he wasn't a politician, not so much as a "protest" as rather a "why the **** not"...but I guess that could go in the "protest" boat.

Chomsky said:

I'm in with "other". Because I believe it was both choices. A protest & rebellion vote, thinking Trump was the right guy to upset the status quo.

The reason Trump was able to take over the party, was in part because the party was hollow and empty, devoid of a solid unifying ethically idealogical core besides, "Obama! Hillary! Bad Dems!".

Many Republican rank & file weren't crazy about the GOP establishment, but they absolutely hated the Dems. So they were stuck. Then along came a non-Dem non-GOP alternative, beholden to no one, that wanted to take-over the GOP while singing a relatively conservative populist nationalist message.

And the rank & file said, "Where have you been for all these years"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think they bought into his rhetoric and were trying to "stick it to the establishment". Which is ironic given that Trump is part of the establishment. He was just the other side of the Corporate-State coin.

Mycroft said:

And it really turned out to be a good thing...a bonus, if you will...that Trump understands economics better than almost any other President and is willing to take the political heat necessary to actually do something effective to make things better for the American people.

Click to expand...

He's also a reformer, which is guaranteed to piss off the "establishment" (which is BOTH parties, but more heavily the DNC). We need more reformers in our gov't. I'd love to see some liberal reformers show up, but so far we haven't seen any on the nat'l stage. The two biggest reform efforts from conservatives (Pres. Trump and the TEA Party) have been so vilified by the left, that I truly believe that American liberals have lost any motivation to seek any kind of reform. Even Sarah Palin was a reformer and look at what happened to her.

I voted 'other' ...... why? It was just sheer stupidity

Nothing else could explain why anyone would vote for a candidate with the terrible business background, complete lack of moral character, and lack of political experience that Trump possessed

it is analogous to putting a plumber into a surgery suite to perform brain surgery on a patient that is already near death ........