Is Trump BAD for the Republican Party?

[Puigb]

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.

Oh, I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama's victory in 2012. He won the popular vote by about 5 million votes, and spanked Romney in the Electoral college. I'm just saying that the notion that GOP voters didn't vote for Romney in large numbers is a bogus right wing talking point said to minimize Obama's victory. Republican voters did come out strong for Romney, and he even won independents. It's just that the Democrat base is larger, and came out strong for Obama. The support that Obama lost in 2012 was likely mostly some independents who abandoned him, but it didn't matter, because he still won...thanks to his base. Hillary Clinton on the other hand...failed to get the support from the base Obama did, hence why Trump was able to squeak by a victory.

 

[Puigb]

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.

Trump's an opportunist. He would have ran as a Democrat if he thought he had an opportunity to win the presidency. He took advantage of the right wing's hatred of Obama with the birther issue, and rode that all the way to the presidency.

 

[Perotista]

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.

Trump, a nine time party switcher I don't think could have never won the GOP nomination even 5 years ago. The circumstances had to be just so or perfect for Trump to do so. I agree that Republicans are more loyal to their party or have been in the past. It seems to me that about a quarter if not more Republicans have give up party loyalty for loyalty to Trump and only Trump.

For quite a lot of voters, party doesn't matter, the R and/or the D is the only deciding factor. Candidates don't matter. I always had a hard time understanding that, still do. But I was never a political party animal. I think that if political party is all that matters in choosing whom one votes for, the odds are you will be voting for the best candidate half the time and the worst candidate the other half. I always like to pick and choose, same with issues. I never let a political party tell me what to think or what side to come down on on any issue or policy.

 

[Perotista]

Oh, I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama's victory in 2012. He won the popular vote by about 5 million votes, and spanked Romney in the Electoral college. I'm just saying that the notion that GOP voters didn't vote for Romney in large numbers is a bogus right wing talking point said to minimize Obama's victory. Republican voters did come out strong for Romney, and he even won independents. It's just that the Democrat base is larger, and came out strong for Obama. The support that Obama lost in 2012 was likely mostly some independents who abandoned him, but it didn't matter, because he still won...thanks to his base. Hillary Clinton on the other hand...failed to get the support from the base Obama did, hence why Trump was able to squeak by a victory.

Looking at the exit polls, Romney received 93% of the Republican base vote compared to Trump's 88%. 6% of Republicans voted for Obama vs. 8% who voted for Hillary Clinton. On the Democrat's side, Obama received 92% of the Democratic base vote, Hillary Clinton 89%. Also 8% of Democrats voted for Trump.

One huge difference was the third party vote. 1.5% in 2012 vs. 6% in 2016. People who voted against both candidates so to speak. It's hard to say which candidate those who voted third party hurt the most. There has been to my knowledge any polls taken to find out. But in one CNN exit poll they did as third party voters whom they would have voted for if no third party candidate was on the ballot. The choice strictly between Trump and Clinton, no one else. 19% of third party voters replied Trump, 16% replied Clinton and 65% replied they wouldn't not have voted. Really, no help there for either of the two major party candidates.

 

[Puigb]

Trump, a nine time party switcher I don't think could have never won the GOP nomination even 5 years ago. The circumstances had to be just so or perfect for Trump to do so. I agree that Republicans are more loyal to their party or have been in the past. It seems to me that about a quarter if not more Republicans have give up party loyalty for loyalty to Trump and only Trump.

For quite a lot of voters, party doesn't matter, the R and/or the D is the only deciding factor. Candidates don't matter. I always had a hard time understanding that, still do. But I was never a political party animal. I think that if political party is all that matters in choosing whom one votes for, the odds are you will be voting for the best candidate half the time and the worst candidate the other half. I always like to pick and choose, same with issues. I never let a political party tell me what to think or what side to come down on on any issue or policy.

I'm with you on that. Myself for instance, I'll fully admit to being left leaning on most issues, but I could have easily have voted for John Kasich had he won the Republican nomination, and this is despite that I don't agree with all of his political positions. But Trump? Screw that idiot. Even if he stuck with his original political views and ran as a Democrat I would have never voted for him. I can't stand him, and this was well before he ever got involved with politics.

 

[Puigb]

Looking at the exit polls, Romney received 93% of the Republican base vote compared to Trump's 88%. 6% of Republicans voted for Obama vs. 8% who voted for Hillary Clinton. On the Democrat's side, Obama received 92% of the Democratic base vote, Hillary Clinton 89%. Also 8% of Democrats voted for Trump.

One huge difference was the third party vote. 1.5% in 2012 vs. 6% in 2016. People who voted against both candidates so to speak. It's hard to say which candidate those who voted third party hurt the most. There has been to my knowledge any polls taken to find out. But in one CNN exit poll they did as third party voters whom they would have voted for if no third party candidate was on the ballot. The choice strictly between Trump and Clinton, no one else. 19% of third party voters replied Trump, 16% replied Clinton and 65% replied they wouldn't not have voted. Really, no help there for either of the two major party candidates.

There's no doubt that Hillary Clinton lost the election more than Trump won it. Had the Dems nominated a better candidate, or basically any other candidate, we wouldn't have a President Trump. In many ways, this disaster of a president is the fault of the Democrats shoving a highly disliked candidate down the voters throats.

 

[JamesBY]

Trump's victory aided the GOP.

Since then he has been a millstone dragging the Party down.

 

[Perotista]

I'm with you on that. Myself for instance, I'll fully admit to being left leaning on most issues, but I could have easily have voted for John Kasich had he won the Republican nomination, and this is despite that I don't agree with all of his political positions. But Trump? Screw that idiot. Even if he stuck with his original political views and ran as a Democrat I would have never voted for him. I can't stand him, and this was well before he ever got involved with politics.

I never watched Trump's show. Then again, I never liked reality TV shows. I more of a history channel guy along with some scifi. I'm right on fiscal issues, I believe in fiscal responsibility. Basically not spending more than one takes in. Any fiscal responsibility went out the window with Reagan and every president since. Social issue, more of a liberal or perhaps even a classic liberal which is different from today's progressives. Keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. Government should not be able to tello one whom he can or can't marry, let love decide. Same for abortion, let the woman decide. I don't have a problem with polygamy either.

I'm still trying to decide with those who disliked or were against both candidates, approximately 25% of the electorate if Gallup is to be believed. If they voted for the least horrible candidate among the two major party candidates to limit the damage done or is they just voted against the candidate they hated the least. Then there is the possibility, they just wanted to vote for the winner even if they detested both candidates.

 

[Perotista]

There's no doubt that Hillary Clinton lost the election more than Trump won it. Had the Dems nominated a better candidate, or basically any other candidate, we wouldn't have a President Trump. In many ways, this disaster of a president is the fault of the Democrats shoving a highly disliked candidate down the voters throats.

Exactly. I like using the example that the Republicans tried handing the White House on a silver platter to the Democrats when they nominated Trump.. But the Democrats decided they didn't want it and threw that silver platter back at the the Republicans by nominating Clinton. Two disgusting candidates and both very much disliked by America as a whole.

I blame both parties for the Trump presidency. It was their decisions and choices they made last year that led directly to Trump becoming president. Although neither party or supporters of either candidate will ever admit how much disliked each was by the nation as a whole. I also think any other Republican would have beaten Clinton easily and any other Democrat beaten Trump easily.

 

[haymarket]

Fair point.

But to make headway in those rural communities today, they need more than cultural identity. They need a more universal message. They used to own the "working-man's economic freedom" message, but now they ceded it to Trump! I'm not sure how to easily reverse that.

You begin by both emphasizing the workingman's economic freedom platform as your message and showing where Trump used it but did not deliver on it. And then you repeat both as often and as necessary as humanly possible.

 

[Perotista]

Trump would have beaten all of them. The only reason why you dislike Trump is because he's obviously not that good at hiding his true colors as the other liked people are. You disliking him cannot be justified by a rational agument.

History has shown people tend not to vote for a candidate they dislike. Last year was unique in that you had 60% of Americans dislikeing Trump, 60% disliking Clinton. Basically one had to choose between two dislikes and most folks chose the one they disliked the least. Only 38% of the total electorate viewed Clinton positively, 36% viewed Trump in a positive light. Record lows. Goldwater held the record low back in 1964 at 43%, but he was up against someone who was viewed positive by 60% of the public. Not up against someone viewed positive by only 38%.

Trump won the nomination averaging 30-35% of the GOP vote until he clinched the nomination at the end and Trump finished with just 40% of the total Republican vote. 60% of the GOP wanted someone else, but in a multi candidate field, plurality works. Now why do most Americans disliked Trump, you hit the nail on the head. It is his character, his persona, his obnoxious, egotistical personality. 65% of all those who dislike Trump dislike him based on his character. Not necessarily his policies. But a dislike is still a dislike for whatever reason.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/214091/t...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

It should be noted on election day 60% of all Americans viewed Trump in a negative light, 60% still view him negatively today. That hasn't changed. To be fair, had Clinton won, it would have been the same. I said last year that nothing good would ever come out of that election, so far that has been proven correct. Either way his nation was the loser regardless of who won. I also said that either won would have a very hard time governing. It's hard to govern with 60% of all Americans against you, this is true be it Trump or Clinton.

 

[Chomsky]

You begin by both emphasizing the workingman's economic freedom platform as your message and showing where Trump used it but did not deliver on it. And then you repeat both as often and as necessary as humanly possible.

I dunno.

Except for Bernie and Warren, whom the party believes are at the fringes, I haven't seen much of this.

 

[haymarket]

I dunno.

Except for Bernie and Warren, whom the party believes are at the fringes, I haven't seen much of this.

And that must change. Picture a 60 second commercial which says "Donald Trump talked a pretty good line when it came to making the government function for working people but what actually has Trump and his Republican controlled Congress actually delivered ?" And then show that nothing has changed with shots of Akron, Ohio and Beaver Falls, PA and Detroit, MI and other places. And then ask how their town looks after two years of Trump and a GOP Congress at the helm?

It could be very dramatic and effective.

 

[JackA]

Trump's victory aided the GOP.

Since then he has been a millstone dragging the Party down.

As a normally reticent person I know said about him yesterday, "bottom scum".

 

[Surrealistik]

Fair point.

But to make headway in those rural communities today, they need more than cultural identity. They need a more universal message. They used to own the "working-man's economic freedom" message, but now they ceded it to Trump! I'm not sure how to easily reverse that.

Now I'm legitimately curious.

What on earth do you specifically mean by economic freedom in this case? Advocacy of economic policy that benefits the working class? The idea of retaining/recouping manufacturing and other exported sectors/industries and expanding employment? If so that seems like a bit of a misnomer.