Is Trump BAD for the Republican Party?

[Perotista]

This just proves that the Democrats have proved in the past that they can win elections while losing independent voters, while the Republican's cannot not.

Nationally, very true. It's been that way ever since FDR. Pre Ronald Reagan the Democratic base average 15-20 points more than the Republican base or at least those who identified or affiliated themselves with the two parties. Post Reagan that advantage was cut to 5-10 points more than the Republicans. Although that gap was down to 3 points in 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

What's interesting is comparing the total electorate with those who vote. According to Gallup which includes all adults, not likely voters. November of last year showed 27% Republican, 30% Democratic and 40% independent. Now only 55% of all adults or eligible voters voted and the final tally of those who voted consisted of 33% Republicans, 36% Democrat and only 31% independents. The largest voting block of all eligible voters had the least total of those who actually voted. I'm not surprised by that as Gallup also showed that 54% of all independents disliked both candidates. Why bother to vote if you don't like what is offered? Besides Republicans and Democrats have more of an incentive to vote, they want to support their candidate. One could say independents don't have one, although a certain segment of independents leans toward Republicans, another towards the Democrats and some with no leans.

Now that's quite long just to say, you're absolutely right. But over the years, decades if you like, the margin a Republican candidate needed to win independents by to gain the presidency has shrunk.

 

[Puigb]

Nationally, very true. It's been that way ever since FDR. Pre Ronald Reagan the Democratic base average 15-20 points more than the Republican base or at least those who identified or affiliated themselves with the two parties. Post Reagan that advantage was cut to 5-10 points more than the Republicans. Although that gap was down to 3 points in 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

What's interesting is comparing the total electorate with those who vote. According to Gallup which includes all adults, not likely voters. November of last year showed 27% Republican, 30% Democratic and 40% independent. Now only 55% of all adults or eligible voters voted and the final tally of those who voted consisted of 33% Republicans, 36% Democrat and only 31% independents. The largest voting block of all eligible voters had the least total of those who actually voted. I'm not surprised by that as Gallup also showed that 54% of all independents disliked both candidates. Why bother to vote if you don't like what is offered? Besides Republicans and Democrats have more of an incentive to vote, they want to support their candidate. One could say independents don't have one, although a certain segment of independents leans toward Republicans, another towards the Democrats and some with no leans.

Now that's quite long just to say, you're absolutely right. But over the years, decades if you like, the margin a Republican candidate needed to win independents by to gain the presidency has shrunk.

I will say this, and I just realized this now after researching on google: GWB lost independents by 1 point to Kerry in 2004, and won the presidency. So while independents are important, Obama and even Bush proved you can win the presidency if your base comes out for you strong enough.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I will say this, and I just realized this now after researching on google: GWB lost independents by 1 point to Kerry in 2004, and won the presidency. So while independents are important, Obama and even Bush proved you can win the presidency if your base comes out for you strong enough.

I think it's actually a combination of one base showing up in force and the other having more of a 'meh' attitude. If both bases are energized, the independents can make the difference. Same thing if both bases are feeling 'meh' about voting.

 

[Puigb]

I think it's actually a combination of one base showing up in force and the other having more of a 'meh' attitude. If both bases are energized, the independents can make the difference. Same thing if both bases are feeling 'meh' about voting.

There was no "meh" attitude in 2012 for Romney. GOP voters came out pretty strong for Romney, while Obama actually lost support.

 

[Former GOP]

Trump has a good deal of support from most republicans, even the ones who wanted to distance themselves from him before he won the election. Trump's biggest problems are his mouth and his ego.

Let's face facts, most people vote with their wallets. When the economy is doing well like it is now, the president is going to get credit whether he has anything to do with it or not. The Wall Street rally has largely been credited to Trump's win, investors saw it as a positive sign that he is pro-business and in favor of rolling back restrictive regulations. If the good economy keeps up, expect republicans to hold on to Congress in 2018 and Trump to win a 2nd term regardless of how much of a jerk he is.

 

[Perotista]

I will say this, and I just realized this now after researching on google: GWB lost independents by 1 point to Kerry in 2004, and won the presidency. So while independents are important, Obama and even Bush proved you can win the presidency if your base comes out for you strong enough.

Turnout is has always been the key. Although the Republicans always have, since FDR had the smaller base, they have always been able to get a higher turnout percentage of their base. There may have been an exception or two nationally, but I should say usually as I am going on memory. Then there are always cross overs who vote for the other party's candidate. If the exit polls are correct, 8% of Democrats crossed over and voted for Trump last year, the same percentage of Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton.

Then again, history has shown the Republicans usually have less crossovers. I think one can state as a general rule, having the smaller party, nationally, the GOP needs to win independents or lose elections. 2004 was an unusual year, I just went back and checked. Voter turnout for both parties was 37%, the Democrats didn't have or take advantage of being the larger party. Crossovers, only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry, 11% of Democrats for Bush and there you have it, the election.

 

[radcen]

Turnout is has always been the key. Although the Republicans always have, since FDR had the smaller base, they have always been able to get a higher turnout percentage of their base. There may have been an exception or two nationally, but I should say usually as I am going on memory. Then there are always cross overs who vote for the other party's candidate. If the exit polls are correct, 8% of Democrats crossed over and voted for Trump last year, the same percentage of Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton.

Then again, history has shown the Republicans usually have less crossovers. I think one can state as a general rule, having the smaller party, nationally, the GOP needs to win independents or lose elections. 2004 was an unusual year, I just went back and checked. Voter turnout for both parties was 37%, the Democrats didn't have or take advantage of being the larger party. Crossovers, only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry, 11% of Democrats for Bush and there you have it, the election.

A good friend of mine is as liberal and 'progressive' as the day is long, and last year was the Chair of the county's Dem Party, and she admits that one place where the Reps do better than the Dems is getting the base out to vote. And she's not mad at the Reps for doing it, she's mad at other Dems for not doing it, for not responding to people and issues that they're supposedly passionate about.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

No not at all, becuase putin and the "nazis"(whatever that means) are so much more relvent to the president of the united states of america than the senete majority leader :roll: Oh new york times...

Yawn. Yes, compleltely.

Nazis. The people who marched with torches and chanted "Blut und Erde" in Virginia.

Super glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

There was no "meh" attitude in 2012 for Romney. GOP voters came out pretty strong for Romney, while Obama actually lost support.

That's true, but if you look at the electoral map Obama retained enough support to win. He got more EV's in 2012 than Trump did in 2016.

 

[The Resister]

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.

Isn't that a sad commentary on the state of affairs with Democrats? No matter how bad Trump has made the Republican Party look, the Dems are having to struggle for relevance.

 

[Conaeolos]

Yawn. Yes, compleltely.

Nazis. The people who marched with torches and chanted "Blut und Erde" in Virginia.

Super glad I could clear that up for you.

Oh so today it means protestors trying to get media attention for their cause in this case saving confederate statues. At least that is more real than the pewdiepie's of the world making satirical videos or frog memes signifying the growing desire of internet communities to enact a modern holocaust.

And doesn’t that make all the difference, I really want my president taking his time to discuss and condemning those evil attention seekers, who have so much impact on his agenda and the interests of the government of the united states. They might as well be the leader of country we barely deal with..*cough* Russia *cough*

That Trump, using his platform to try and sway Mitch McConnell and the dived senate…oh the nerve of that guy! :doh

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Oh so today it means protestors trying to get media attention for their cause in this case saving confederate statues. At least that is more real than the pewdiepie's of the world making satirical videos or frog memes signifying the growing desire of internet communities to enact a modern holocaust.

And doesn’t that make all the difference, I really want my president taking his time to discuss and condemning those evil attention seekers, who have so much impact on his agenda and the interests of the government of the united states. They might as well be the leader of country we barely deal with..*cough* Russia *cough*

That Trump, using his platform to try and sway Mitch McConnell and the dived senate…oh the nerve of that guy! :doh

Good to see you agreeing with me that they're Nazis. Carrying Nazi flags and changing Nazi slogans are pretty good indications.

 

[Glowpun]

Trump sucks, but nothing will change. The Republicans will continue on, as will the Democrats. I do see the Republicans possibly abandoning the far right Trump loving segment of the GOP, specifically if predicted demographic changes end up happening.

It probably will not even take a war for Republicans change. Allegedly, Trump switched to the Republicans because he considered them the dumbest political party around, people who will eat his every word without question.

 

[radcen]

Isn't that a sad commentary on the state of affairs with Democrats? No matter how bad Trump has made the Republican Party look, the Dems are having to struggle for relevance.

Absolutely, and that's all on the Dems.

 

[Conaeolos]

Good to see you agreeing with me that they're Nazis. Carrying Nazi flags and changing Nazi slogans are pretty good indications.

To speak frankly, as someone who does not trivialize the Nazis or lessons of world war 2 for the modern age, I find the New York Times(MSM) use of the term not only deeply deceptive, untrue and manipulative but down right passively evil.

To trivialize a western civil society being co-opted by authoritarian politics and used to commit atrocity, genocide and mass scale war is not something I take lightly. The banality of evil is ever present threat and I reserve the term nazi to you know actually threats or you know actual large scale and meaninful modren reincarnations of fascism / national socialism.

As for these protestors, I can’t know what their motive, beliefs or affiliations were, maybe they legitimently were fascist sympathizers maybe not but I can tell you having even a passive understanding of the lead up to Nazi Germany that an authentic reincarnation of a Nazi-esk movement would hardly be so irresponsible as to pick a trivial political issue such as “civil war” monuments to make their show about it. The most logical reason this group and others would have to use nazi slogans and imagery in the modern climate is to play the media narrative for publicity. Trolling attention is a valuable tool of modern day guerrilla marketing. Where as promoting old style nazi-ism is just dumb.

Nazi-ism today by its own ideology would utilize marketing terms like anti-fascist. Why? To exploit fear of global authoritarianism, in the 1930s that took the form of communism (thus they presented as anti-communist) due to Russia and a charismatic political figure affecting Germany at the time: Stalin. In todays lingo, nationalism would be contrasted to fascism which they define as corporate-state collution hence modren nazi-ism would be anti-fascist.

Treating these trival trolling guerrilla marketing tactics with serious attention does more to harm people and is horrible journalism. I am not supporting these protesters actions, I merely pointing out if you can’t see how they trying to play the situation your willful ignorant. the politcal relvence of their actions is near zero.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

To speak frankly, as someone who does not trivialize the Nazis or lessons of world war 2 for the modern age, I find the New York Times(MSM) use of the term not only deeply deceptive, untrue and manipulative but down right passively evil.

To trivialize a western civil society being co-opted by authoritarian politics and used to commit atrocity, genocide and mass scale war is not something I take lightly. The banality of evil is ever present threat and I reserve the term nazi to you know actually threats or you know actual large scale and meaninful modren reincarnations of fascism / national socialism.

As for these protestors, I can’t know what their motive, beliefs or affiliations were, maybe they legitimently were fascist sympathizers maybe not but I can tell you having even a passive understanding of the lead up to Nazi Germany that an authentic reincarnation of a Nazi-esk movement would hardly be so irresponsible as to pick a trivial political issue such as “civil war” monuments to make their show about it. The most logical reason this group and others would have to use nazi slogans and imagery in the modern climate is to play the media narrative for publicity. Trolling attention is a valuable tool of modern day guerrilla marketing. Where as promoting old style nazi-ism is just dumb.

Nazi-ism today by its own ideology would utilize marketing terms like anti-fascist. Why? To exploit fear of global authoritarianism, in the 1930s that took the form of communism (thus they presented as anti-communist) due to Russia and a charismatic political figure affecting Germany at the time: Stalin. In todays lingo, nationalism would be contrasted to fascism which they define as corporate-state collution hence modren nazi-ism would be anti-fascist.

Treating these trival trolling guerrilla marketing tactics with serious attention does more to harm people and is horrible journalism. I am not supporting these protesters actions, I merely pointing out if you can’t see how they trying to play the situation your willful ignorant. the politcal relvence of their actions is near zero.

They are Nazis, pure and simple.

I can't see why you can't understand that.

 

[Perotista]

A good friend of mine is as liberal and 'progressive' as the day is long, and last year was the Chair of the county's Dem Party, and she admits that one place where the Reps do better than the Dems is getting the base out to vote. And she's not mad at the Reps for doing it, she's mad at other Dems for not doing it, for not responding to people and issues that they're supposedly passionate about.

I read an article shortly after last years election where a Black Pennsylvania Democratic party official was chastising Blacks for not showing up to vote. It seems in Pennsylvania black turnout for Clinton was below the turnout shown for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She thought that caused Pennsylvania to go to Trump instead of Clinton. There certainly wasn't the enthusiasm for Hillary last year among blacks that was there for Obama. Now that should have been expected.

 

[Conaeolos]

They are Nazis, pure and simple.

Oh so there is a portal from the 1930’s to 2017 and Germany is now the USA? Or maybe the german national socialists moved to America in 1945? No…Oh so you mean then these are either self-identified Nazis with no connection to the original or labeled by the media that way due to their use of nazi slogans and imagery?

…Because to me (and the rest of the world) the Nazis are a 1930s german political movement based on the ideas of Hitler and modern parallels to them, be them self identified or labeled by a third party, need to actually resemble that ideology to be authentic and even if authentic are often irrelevant due to the vastly different political climate of today and numbers bordering in America at least on non-existent(that is less true elsewhere int he world). As I said, by the Nazi’s own ideology they would never label themselves in that manner in the 2017s American political climate let alone pick civil war statues as their crowning moment to come into the light. 1930s propaganda is based on 1930s political conditions. The big bad authoritarian was Stalin, reparations of world war I and the European intervention in Germanys domestic affairs. American neo-nazi-ism or white supremacy has few parallels when you replace it with modren day equivants but are it all still irrelevant enough not to bother arguing the conflation between old “southern pro-slavery democrats” which faded out like many other pro-slavery movements and American nazis.

So what we have here is an event utilizing nazi slogans and imagery to promote publicity to the issue of the removal of civil war statues and no doubt at least some elements of those protesting are white supremacists who are sympathetic to the ideas “southern pro-slavery democrats”, KKK and Hitler’s rhetoric on ethic purity. To what extent who knows, I don’t care enough to find out. And my response is as one would expect: so what? I could care less who or what some small number of peacful extremists think unless they become a threat by inciting violence or going around killing people or defaming buildings. Coming out, without a mask to protest is nothing eventful in the slightest. To use nazi slogans and imagery to garner attention is nothing eventful.

The relevance of these “nazis” is exactly none. I think however since there is an industry of people looking for the big bad cabal of racist evil that they jump on stunts like this and go “look look look its real”. They miss the fact it is not real. Unless we have thought crimes, protesters can be a dumb and loud as they want. And I am sorry but they are not nazis…they can call themselves that till they’re blue in the face, they can wear nazi imagery and shout slogans but until they actually try to enact fascism in some meaningful way: yawn. Let's talk about the masked rioters who are inciting violence. Let's talk about radical-islam encouraging terrorism. Hell let’s talk about police brutality, survilence and systemic racism…but for god sakes let's not give any attention to people who are clearly just trying to exploit the system to get their pet issues attention.

 

[Former GOP]

I read an article shortly after last years election where a Black Pennsylvania Democratic party official was chastising Blacks for not showing up to vote. It seems in Pennsylvania black turnout for Clinton was below the turnout shown for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She thought that caused Pennsylvania to go to Trump instead of Clinton. There certainly wasn't the enthusiasm for Hillary last year among blacks that was there for Obama. Now that should have been expected.

It was also because Trump's campaign focused heavier in the rust belt areas than Clinton's campaign did. Hillary assumed she was going to win PA, MI, WI. Also I think a lot of independent minded people and even some moderate-conservative democrats in those areas finally realized that years of blue rule didn't do anything positive for them. Jobs were still lost and many areas became increasingly impoverished. Now whether Trump can turn that area around remains to be seen.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Oh so there is a portal from the 1930’s to 2017 and Germany is now the USA? Or maybe the german national socialists moved to America in 1945? No…Oh so you mean then these are either self-identified Nazis with no connection to the original or labeled by the media that way due to their use of nazi slogans and imagery?

…Because to me (and the rest of the world) the Nazis are a 1930s german political movement based on the ideas of Hitler and modern parallels to them, be them self identified or labeled by a third party, need to actually resemble that ideology to be authentic and even if authentic are often irrelevant due to the vastly different political climate of today and numbers bordering in America at least on non-existent(that is less true elsewhere int he world). As I said, by the Nazi’s own ideology they would never label themselves in that manner in the 2017s American political climate let alone pick civil war statues as their crowning moment to come into the light. 1930s propaganda is based on 1930s political conditions. The big bad authoritarian was Stalin, reparations of world war I and the European intervention in Germanys domestic affairs. American neo-nazi-ism or white supremacy has few parallels when you replace it with modren day equivants but are it all still irrelevant enough not to bother arguing the conflation between old “southern pro-slavery democrats” which faded out like many other pro-slavery movements and American nazis.

So what we have here is an event utilizing nazi slogans and imagery to promote publicity to the issue of the removal of civil war statues and no doubt at least some elements of those protesting are white supremacists who are sympathetic to the ideas “southern pro-slavery democrats”, KKK and Hitler’s rhetoric on ethic purity. To what extent who knows, I don’t care enough to find out. And my response is as one would expect: so what? I could care less who or what some small number of peacful extremists think unless they become a threat by inciting violence or going around killing people or defaming buildings. Coming out, without a mask to protest is nothing eventful in the slightest. To use nazi slogans and imagery to garner attention is nothing eventful.

The relevance of these “nazis” is exactly none. I think however since there is an industry of people looking for the big bad cabal of racist evil that they jump on stunts like this and go “look look look its real”. They miss the fact it is not real. Unless we have thought crimes, protesters can be a dumb and loud as they want. And I am sorry but they are not nazis…they can call themselves that till they’re blue in the face, they can wear nazi imagery and shout slogans but until they actually try to enact fascism in some meaningful way: yawn. Let's talk about the masked rioters who are inciting violence. Let's talk about radical-islam encouraging terrorism. Hell let’s talk about police brutality, survilence and systemic racism…but for god sakes let's not give any attention to people who are clearly just trying to exploit the system to get their pet issues attention.

This is really ground level stuff.

They dressed like Nazis. They carried Nazi flags. They chanted Nazi slogans. They marched with torches at night, just like... wait for it.. Nazis.

That you can't accept reality really isn't my problem.

This isn't about radical islam. This is about Nazis in Virginia yesterday.

Please pay better attention.

 

[Perotista]

It was also because Trump's campaign focused heavier in the rust belt areas than Clinton's campaign did. Hillary assumed she was going to win PA, MI, WI. Also I think a lot of independent minded people and even some moderate-conservative democrats in those areas finally realized that years of blue rule didn't do anything positive for them. Jobs were still lost and many areas became increasingly impoverished. Now whether Trump can turn that area around remains to be seen.

Yes, exactly. Here's some numbers to back you up. Campaign trips/stops from 1 Sep through 8 November. Wisconsin, Trump 5, Clinton 0, Michigan Trump 6, Clinton 1 and Pennsylvania, Trump 8, Clinton 5. Trump certainly out worked Clinton in those three states. No doubt about it. Also Trump was addressing fears and worries of the working class in those states, Clinton went around telling them she would be an Obama third term. Quite a difference there also.

Yeah, whether or not Trump can deliver does remain to be seen. I also agree that Hillary pretty much took those three states for granted. History was on her side, but in such a unique election as last years was, conventional tradition and history went out the window. I think part of Hillary's problem, she was trying to run up the score by winning Georgia and Arizona. She should have been paying more attention to her own backyard.

 

[Conaeolos]

Okay clearly I am writing too much in my replies.

They dressed like Nazis. They carried Nazi flags. They chanted Nazi slogans. They marched with torches at night, just like…

Is an actor who plays Churchill - Churchill incarnate? Its a obviously a publicity stunt and showmanship irregardless of what they believe. They do these things to bring attention to their issues. It’s guerrilla marketing 101. It doesn’t matter if their ideology is 99% from the real nazis or 1%.

As such, what is the possible advantage of publicizing their intended message in this hyperbolic manner? In what way is this concerning or worth even an ounce of our attention?

That you can't accept reality really isn't my problem.

So now I don’t live in reality because I sneer when the MSM labels these protestors nazi’s and thus trivializing the horrors of the holocaust and real nazis? :roll: I'd be happy to use the term for these people if you insist it's just highly inaccurate. Reminds me of “violent language”…sure its a term we can speak about but harsh words not inciting violence are the very antithesis of violence so it's a ridiculous term.

 

[radcen]

I read an article shortly after last years election where a Black Pennsylvania Democratic party official was chastising Blacks for not showing up to vote. It seems in Pennsylvania black turnout for Clinton was below the turnout shown for Obama in 2008 and 2012. She thought that caused Pennsylvania to go to Trump instead of Clinton. There certainly wasn't the enthusiasm for Hillary last year among blacks that was there for Obama. Now that should have been expected.

Sure, but you can vote against a candidate, too. It's almost like they were ok with the alternative.

 

[Perotista]

Sure, but you can vote against a candidate, too. It's almost like they were ok with the alternative.

There was a lot of that going on. The anti candidate vote. If CNN exit polls are correct, half of Trump's 46% was an anti Clinton vote. Not necessarily for Trump, any Tom, Dick or Harry would have done. That is as long as it wasn't Hillary Clinton. 39% of Clinton's 48% was an anti Trump vote, again not necessarily for Clinton. This is why I call last years election the anti election. After all on election day Clinton had a favorable rating of 38% to Trump's 36%. Those that viewed them in a positive manner. Those favorables are the lowest ever record since Gallup started keeping track of those thing. The previous record low of favorables or those who view a candidate in a positive light was held by Barry Goldwater back in 1964 at 43%. Second lowest was G.H.W. Bush in 1992 at 46%. Trump and Clinton blew Goldwater and Bush the elder clear out of the water.

 

[Puigb]

Turnout is has always been the key. Although the Republicans always have, since FDR had the smaller base, they have always been able to get a higher turnout percentage of their base. There may have been an exception or two nationally, but I should say usually as I am going on memory. Then there are always cross overs who vote for the other party's candidate. If the exit polls are correct, 8% of Democrats crossed over and voted for Trump last year, the same percentage of Republicans crossed over and voted for Clinton.

Then again, history has shown the Republicans usually have less crossovers. I think one can state as a general rule, having the smaller party, nationally, the GOP needs to win independents or lose elections. 2004 was an unusual year, I just went back and checked. Voter turnout for both parties was 37%, the Democrats didn't have or take advantage of being the larger party. Crossovers, only 6% of Republicans voted for Kerry, 11% of Democrats for Bush and there you have it, the election.

Good post. I have always maintained that if the Dems were as good as the GOP at getting their base to turn out, especially in mid term elections, that Democrats would be damn near unstoppable. I've also always believed that your average GOP voter was generally more loyal to the GOP than the Democrats. Republican voters voting for someone like Trump, who was mostly a liberal for the majority of his life, speaks volumes. The R besides his name is what was most important to them, not his past.