Is Trump BAD for the Republican Party?

[Media_Truth]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

 

[bearpoker]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

Obama's election provoked a conservative backlash that Republicans were well prepared to take advantage of. They've been working hard for years to build a strong grassroots infrastructure for their party, and it shows. Now, with Trumps election, there is a similar backlash, but the Democratic grassroots infrastructure is nowhere near prepared to take advantage of it imho.

 

[MaggieD]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

I think he's been good for the Republican Party and good for politics in general. And, frankly, I think Dems should rejoice. He has managed to expose the weak underbelly of the Republican Party. Whether they begin to react to that exposure of their wish-washy governing style will decide the 2018 elections. They'd better get busy.

 

[TheGoverness]

I think he's bad for the Republican Party. He has done a terrific job of creating division within the GOP. The Democrats need to get their **** together by 2018, so they can take advantage of that.

 

[haymarket]

Trump will be the impetus that either destroys the GOP or forces it to purge itself of the far right of the party - the tea party know nothings on the right who are Trumps hardcore base.If the party keeps loyal to Trump - it will the cancer that destroys it.

 

[radcen]

Obama's election provoked a conservative backlash that Republicans were well prepared to take advantage of. They've been working hard for years to build a strong grassroots infrastructure for their party, and it shows. Now, with Trumps election, there is a similar backlash, but the Democratic grassroots infrastructure is nowhere near prepared to take advantage of it imho.

I agree that the GOP has done well at building a base. I agree that it has paid dividends.

I do think, however, that Trump is... unintentionally, but nonetheless... chipping away at that foundation. It will harm them in the long run. How much remains to be seen, and probably depends on how long Trump is in office. It has the potential to be devastating, or minor and repairable. We shall see.

I also agree that the Dem Party has learned absolutely nothing from recent events. They are still convinced that their push for "identity politics", and the resulting exclusionism, is their recipe for success... and that has been soundly proven wrong. Right now, they have the best ever opportunity to come back, presented to them on a virtual silver platter, and they're blowing it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Trump will be the impetus that either destroys the GOP or forces it to purge itself of the far right of the party - the tea party know nothings on the right who are Trumps hardcore base.If the party keeps loyal to Trump - it will the cancer that destroys it.

How are they going to do that when their primary voting base are mostly hardcore conservatives?

 

[joG]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

Are you telling me that Obama and Ms Clinton were good for the Republicans?

 

[SocialD]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

That's a matter of perspective. "However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans" that's not really true actually. Go look at the forbes 400 which is probably the top .1% you have Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Ellison, Bloomberg, etc.. the only notable Republican donors are the Kochs and Adelson . and from this https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregor...ata-driven-look-at-their-agenda/#7a951cbd4869 article 82% of political donates of the forbes 400 went to democrats.
All that being said most very rich people donate to both parties but favor one or the other. Dems generally spend more money campaigning.

As to Trump well it all depends on your perspective of the republican party to start with. Personally I think that party needed a big shakeup.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I think he's been good for the Republican Party and good for politics in general. And, frankly, I think Dems should rejoice. He has managed to expose the weak underbelly of the Republican Party. Whether they begin to react to that exposure of their wish-washy governing style will decide the 2018 elections. They'd better get busy.

Maggie, how is a psycho good for politics in general?

 

[MaggieD]

Maggie, how is a psycho good for politics in general?

He is not a psycho.

Look what he's done to the Democratic Party. He won. He showed them they were not connecting to the American people and couldn't pass along the baton to an unworthy candidate because they owed her one. They'd better get crackin'. As for Republicans? They're scattered all over the damned place. Six or seven years they voted unimously for repeal-replace. They have now been shown they are frauds. And THEY'D better get Crackin'. As for the American people? I'd say he's brought a new interest in politics to us all.

THAT's how.

Damn that's a good answer.

 

[Perotista]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

I would say that in the long run, yes. Trump's election is bad for the GOP. But to be fair, honest, if Clinton had won her election was have been bad for the Democrats. You're talking about two most disliked candidates by America as a whole since Gallup and Pew Research started keeping track of these things back during FDR. Keep in mind the record low favorable or positive view of presidential candidates was held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. G.H.W. Bush was the second to the lowest at 46% in 1992. Not anymore. The lowest ever favorable/positive view is now held by one each Donald Trump at 36% with Hillary Clinton the second lowest at 38%. Whomever won, you would have approximately 60% of all Americans against them. Trump won, to the long term benefit of the Democrats, short term gain by the Republicans.

You do have a division in the GOP between lifelong Republicans vs. Trump Republicans. A lot of the lifelong Republicans view Trump as an interloper, a opportunist, not a real Republican. Remember Trump campaigned against the establishment Republicans, read life long Republicans during the GOP primaries. What I see happening is that division continues to spread. Trump attacking congressmen and senators of his own party, I use the term own party loosely. Is creating enemies among them as if Trump hadn't created enough during the primaries with all the feuds he created.

I see the Democrats most likely taking back the house next year. That in a year when the Democrats have 25 senators up for re-election vs. 9 for the Republicans. The Republicans fail to take advantage of that and after the midterms, the senate is still approximately 52-48 GOP. All because of the dislikes by the majority of Americans of one each Donald J. Trump. I would say come 2020 you will see the Democrats with massive control of the government.

My opinion as of today.

 

[faithful_servant]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

Emerge America is a sexist organization. It's all about focusing on training women for politics (that's called "identity politics"), instead of focusing on training up better leaders regardless of sex. If this was a Conservative group that was only focused on training men, it would get hammered on by the Left. But it's an official "protected class" and as such gets a bye on being sexist. It's this kind of stupid crap that is costing the Dems. so much. People see a org. like Emerge America and see it for the exclusive org. that it is. They see a new elitism forming that tells a huge swath of America to take a back seat. We went down that road once and are pretty much on the other side of it (since I'll be accused of saying that no racism exists, let me clarify that there is still some ground to cover) and now we have a whole new set of privileged people coming up. They're telling everyone that isn't one of them that they matter less than they do. This is message that a lot of people getting very tired of. Orgs. like Emerge America aren't doing anyone a favor and the attitude behind them is big part of the reason why Dems. have lost so much power recently.

 

[faithful_servant]

I think he's bad for the Republican Party. He has done a terrific job of creating division within the GOP. The Democrats need to get their **** together by 2018, so they can take advantage of that.

I'd say that he's bad for the Party, but good for conservatives. The Reps. need a good shaking up and the Tea Party was only the start. I see Trump as being kind of a one man 3rd party - conservative, but not very strongly committed to the Rep. party. He's challenging them on several issues that the Party wants a unified message on, but that the nation needs a new perspective, a new solution. So while he may be annoying the Party, I think that he's doing what a growing number of conservatives want him to do.

 

[Ikari]

The Democrats need to get their **** together by 2018, so they can take advantage of that.

Good luck with that, lol. The Dems can't seem to pull anything together.

 

[chuckiechan]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

Trump won because the rolls of the two parties have reversed. Now democrats are the party of the rich. That gave Trump the opportunity to wake the republicans from their dreamland and start paying attention to the democrat base that had been abandoned - the working man who pays his taxes and lives a normal quiet life. The Democrats are all "big data" and Amazon, and H2b visas. They are not interested in protecting American jobs.

If anything the Republicans and the Democrats are in danger of losing to a true third party 2024, or immediately if Trump is impeached and loses.

 

[trouble13]

This recent article talks about all the activism and new grassroots organizations springing up on the LEFT, because of the dissatisfaction with the Trump election and presidency. In addition, it discusses the money that is pouring in. However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans. Can this well of new dissent turn things around for the Democrats, despite the efforts of the 1%ers?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/10/...dfather-of-a-democratic-renaissance.html?_r=0

In 2009, according to the National Council of State Legislatures, there were 4,082 Democrats serving in state legislatures and 3,223 Republicans. By 2016, the numbers had reversed: 3,135 Democrats and 4,177 Republicans.

In 2009, Democrats controlled both the state senate and house in 27 states, the Republicans 14. After the 2016 elections, Republicans controlled both branches of the legislatures in 32 states to 14 for the Democrats.
....
Emerge America, an organization that recruits Democratic women to run for office, is stressing the need for candidates to file for state legislative seats. In the first six months of 2016, the group raised $500,219; during the first half of this year, it raised $2.03 million.

Where do you get the idea that most billionaires are Republicans?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Media_Truth]

That's a matter of perspective. "However most billionaires and 1%ers are Republicans" that's not really true actually. Go look at the forbes 400 which is probably the top .1% you have Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Buffet, Ellison, Bloomberg, etc.. the only notable Republican donors are the Kochs and Adelson . and from this https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregor...ata-driven-look-at-their-agenda/#7a951cbd4869 article 82% of political donates of the forbes 400 went to democrats.
All that being said most very rich people donate to both parties but favor one or the other. Dems generally spend more money campaigning.

As to Trump well it all depends on your perspective of the republican party to start with. Personally I think that party needed a big shakeup.

When I speak of the 1%ers control of the Republican Party, I'm not speaking of campaign donations. I'm talking about all the money behind the game. Judicial Watch, founded with the Conserative Mellon fortune, has an annual budget of $35 million, and they have over 50 full-time lawyers and investigators filing defamation lawsuits against Democrats. Most are dismissed, but the damage is done, as other 1%er organizations such as FOX News and Breitbart will pick up every story. Many responses on this forum were about hatred for Hillary Clinton. She was a favorite target of the JW lawsuits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html

And this is just one of many organizations, that is part of a very successful, orchestrated, highly-funded billionaire effort to divert public policy in their direction. Carl Icahn is a special advisor to Trump. All one big happy family. Without any doubt, the Republican wins nationwide will benefit these wealthy Oligarchs. $35 million is a small price to pay for the billions gained from favorable policies and legislation.

 

[trouble13]

How are they going to do that when their primary voting base are mostly hardcore conservatives?

How do you define a hardcore con, because I support Trump and I like many of the teaparty reps but I dont consider myself hardcore. Maybe by your criteria I am?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Chomsky]

He is not a psycho.

Look what he's done to the Democratic Party. He won. He showed them they were not connecting to the American people and couldn't pass along the baton to an unworthy candidate because they owed her one. They'd better get crackin'. As for Republicans? They're scattered all over the damned place. Six or seven years they voted unimously for repeal-replace. They have now been shown they are frauds. And THEY'D better get Crackin'. As for the American people? I'd say he's brought a new interest in politics to us all.

THAT's how.

Damn that's a good answer.

Yes, that is a good answer. And it describes Trump's function as a system interrupter well - something that was badly needed!

But Trump brings much more than that. He brings hate, divisiveness, xenophobia, blatant lies & denial of truth, authoritarianism, disregard for democratic institutions, a lowering of the political discourse, and a plethora of other negative attributes and actions.

So while you are right in the subject of your response, I feel it does not evaluate the whole picture and indeed ignores his many negative qualities & attributes.

 

[radcen]

Yes, that is a good answer. And it describes Trump's function as a system interrupter well - something that was badly needed!

But Trump brings much more than that. He brings hate, divisiveness, xenophobia, blatant lies & denial of truth, authoritarianism, disregard for democratic institutions, a lowering of the political discourse, and a plethora of other negative attributes and actions.

So while you are right in the subject of your response, I feel it does not evaluate the whole picture and indeed ignores his many negative qualities & attributes.

But if you pretend the downsides don't exist, then they don't.

 

[Linc]

Are you telling me that Obama and Ms Clinton were good for the Republicans?

It is rare that we can get past the first page of a trump/GOP thread without ... But Obama ... And ... But Clinton ...

 

[SocialD]

When I speak of the 1%ers control of the Republican Party, I'm not speaking of campaign donations. I'm talking about all the money behind the game. Judicial Watch, founded with the Conserative Mellon fortune, has an annual budget of $35 million, and they have over 50 full-time lawyers and investigators filing defamation lawsuits against Democrats. Most are dismissed, but the damage is done, as other 1%er organizations such as FOX News and Breitbart will pick up every story. Many responses on this forum were about hatred for Hillary Clinton. She was a favorite target of the JW lawsuits.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton.html

And this is just one of many organizations, that is part of a very successful, orchestrated, highly-funded billionaire effort to divert public policy in their direction. Carl Icahn is a special advisor to Trump. All one big happy family. Without any doubt, the Republican wins nationwide will benefit these wealthy Oligarchs. $35 million is a small price to pay for the billions gained from favorable policies and legislation.

"And this is just one of many organizations, that is part of a very successful, orchestrated, highly-funded billionaire effort to divert public policy in their direction."

Ok so to be fair lets look at highly funded billionaire efforts by people such as George Souros. Democrat leaning people with a lot of money are doing it too and have been doing it longer than judicial watch there is more money and more people and more organizations. if you look.

 

[ocean515]

I think he's been good for the Republican Party and good for politics in general. And, frankly, I think Dems should rejoice. He has managed to expose the weak underbelly of the Republican Party. Whether they begin to react to that exposure of their wish-washy governing style will decide the 2018 elections. They'd better get busy.

Agreed! The entrenched Republican elites have been exposed. McConnell, Ryan, etc., have been exposed. It's hard to imagine a weaker group of fools.

Voters gave the Republicans a majority in Congress, and gave them the White House, and they allow themselves to be on defense, and completely buried by the messaging coming from the minority and their MSM partners.

They had better get it together, or I would hope their constituents will do it for them.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

I think he's bad for the Republican Party. He has done a terrific job of creating division within the GOP. The Democrats need to get their **** together by 2018, so they can take advantage of that.

Ten bucks says they won't, even though they have nothing but opportunity being thrown at them.