What gaffe will cost Trump the nomination?
- Thread starter BlizzardX
- Start date
The #1 thing he needs is for Bush/Rubio/Kasich/Fiorina to still be competing for the college educated R vote. If the field thins among that group he will have a more formidable opponent.
I know my mother, "the original rebel without a cause" won't vote for Trump. If he makes the uphill climb and gets the nomination. I am voting for Trump for all the reasons that you've just stated.
Last edited:
Who will they fall in line FOR is the question? He and Carson are the only Pubs above 10%. As others fall by the wayside they're supporters either stay home or get behind another candidate and polls show the pubs are very enthusiastic about voting this year. The field can't stay this big much longer. Fiorina crapped in her nest with her rant about Planned Parenthood that was a lie that she bought into. She got the big bump until everybody figured out she was just plain wrong.
I was curious to see the stats of summer before polls and if the polls actually predict a nomination. I found that most candidates who were in first place the summer before an election year went on to be the nominee.
Among them: Ronald Reagan in August 1979, Walter Mondale in August 1983, Michael Dukakis (tied for first) in August 1987, Bob Dole in August 1995; George W. Bush in August 1999 and Mitt Romney in August 2011.
The candidates that didn't lead in the summer before polls were outliers.
Among them: Ronald Reagan in August 1979, Walter Mondale in August 1983, Michael Dukakis (tied for first) in August 1987, Bob Dole in August 1995; George W. Bush in August 1999 and Mitt Romney in August 2011.
The candidates that didn't lead in the summer before polls were outliers.
Last edited:
Plenty of people had pops - Cain, etc.
Also, all of the people you mentioned were the establishment candidates, which Trump is not.
If by some miracle Trump is the nominee the saddest people in America will be the RNC
I think the saddest people would be our grandparents looking down wondering how the **** the country has gone so far down the drain.
Some of them, sure, but in order to win the R primary you have to win a lot of votes from grandparents.
The most surprising thing to me about Trump is how much his favorables are up among likely primary voters.
I bet you Pete Roses bow tie that the establishment rule doesn't matter this year.
I can't argue that. What's bad for America is good for Democrats. Women that are married vote Republican more than women that are not married with kids. Minority groups who are not angry at America vote Republican. Minority groups that see things as racist vote Democrat. The more latinos assimilate into American society the more likely they are to vote Republican. The more latinos that are reminded of the country they fled, the more likely they will vote Democrat. The Democrats have cultivated "multiculturalism" that promotes ethnicity and anti-assimilation and they lablel Republicans as "nativist', "anti immigrant" and "xenophobic". Democrats cultivate the fact the less American the immigrant feels the more likely they are to vote Democrat. The Democratic society cultivate victimhood who are not white and male.
Democrats want people to be dependent on the government, and people that take care of themselves, depend on the community are more likely to vote Republican. In short, Democrats have placed themselves as benefiting from social and moral dysfunction and this is why I don't vote Democrat. I do acknowledge the bad of the Republican party, they have many failures. Ronald Reagan was not all that and bag of chips. GWB was an embarassment.
I come from a mixed family. My step dad is black latino and my step brothers are black.I taught 10 years in 90% black school. I've seen racism first-hand,and on a real personal level.. My spanish speaking wife taught ESL in California and KC during the Rodney King riots in a really difficult area of LA. She and I helped many a latino child learn to speak english,assimilate into American culture. protected their rights as immigrants.
However, I am sick and tired of the democratic platform and every Rep scared of being what I've described. This is why I support Trump. He is not a pussy. He is anti-established Democrat and Republican. He speaks of making America great again. As full of crap as he might be, I still hope he's the real deal.
Last edited:
I understand why you feel the way you do about some things. But do you really think Democrats want people to be uneducated or unemployed and living off the government?
I've never met any Democrat without a job who was happy about it. Dems are continually trying to get kids to go to college cheaply and repubs are against any government program that might make it so.
That just doesn't jibe with your characterization. Dem leaders want citizens to be successful.
I don't think we underfund education, period. I think the lefts educational system is more about tree hugging, teaching diversity, teaching a superfluous curriculum than actually teaching and learning what it takes to be successful. I've heard the common core educational goals ( they are actually recycled ideas of past failures) for years, and while they are great, I don't see any practical application for any of it. Step into my classroom and I'll tell you why getting out of the blocks of wood and stacking them in a group activity doesn't work. I (taught) teach my ass off. I don't need some eccentric liberal idea of what it means to teach Algebra, Geometry, Science, Health, Drivers Ed, Phys.Ed or Weight Training or any subject I haven't taught.
I really don't know if they are happy or not but I have met many Dem's perfectly content with collecting a check and living off the system, seemingly completely satisfied with being uneducated and unemployed and unwilling to work toward a better life. Dems and Rep are content with taking advantage of the system. The Dems you speak of are not those. I know there are good and bad ones.
However, the Dems capitalize off what is negative, and as a party their message is victimhood and the Repubs are anti education, anti immigrant and they simply are not. Obama and Clinton are complete race husltlers. Haven't we spent enough on education? Are there not enough opportunities to get free education? Is the opportunity not out there for a hardworking student and it has more to do with perseverence and work ethic than race.
The Dems have succeeded in their social programs, and many Rep have supported and helped make their social programs into law and practice. Me being one on them on the front lines. I think many Dems and Rep alike want citizens to be successful, however the Rep. party has been villified as the party that doesn't want what you speak of. The Dems simply seem to think that money grows on a money tree and we have an unlimited capacity to support free-loaders.
Last edited:
The real issue is the dem message to minorities is positive and the R message is negative. The Rs have to sell a positive vision at some point if you want a broad swath of America to vote for you.
It's not about more or less government. It's about the fact that a lot of America feels like one party is solely dedicated to white nativism and not to living in the 21st century. Until the message changes, they don't really care about the issues.
The reason they may seem like race hustlers is because the other party actively advocates for racist policies. You can't run on rolling back voting rights and calling immigrants racist things and expect to not have the other party stand up against you
You've obviously studied de-construction of Jim Crowe laws in the old south where Democratic Conservatives (segregationist Democrats) prevented black voters from voting with lynchings, shootings, literacy tests and poll taxes. As I remember the democrats were divided between south dem conservatives and progressive dems.
The voting act upset the status quo and progressives new base of dem party voters became black voters. Please enlighten me how rolling back voting rights today is harken to a civil rights issue has to do with 200 years of segregation rights, the 14th and 15th amendment? The southern strategy by Richard Nixon in 1972 re-validated the Voting Act. In 1957 he helped Dwight pass the civil rights act of 1957. The voting act was strengthened further by Bob Dole and signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1982 that still remains intact. I am familiar with the more recent voting firestorms over the period of 2000-13. I am interested to read a progressive dem opinion.
The voting act upset the status quo and progressives new base of dem party voters became black voters. Please enlighten me how rolling back voting rights today is harken to a civil rights issue has to do with 200 years of segregation rights, the 14th and 15th amendment? The southern strategy by Richard Nixon in 1972 re-validated the Voting Act. In 1957 he helped Dwight pass the civil rights act of 1957. The voting act was strengthened further by Bob Dole and signed into law by Ronald Reagan in 1982 that still remains intact. I am familiar with the more recent voting firestorms over the period of 2000-13. I am interested to read a progressive dem opinion.
Last edited:
Absolutely, the Rs used to support the Voting Rights Act. In general, the Rs were the Civil Rights party for a very long time, and the Ds were the obstructionists. Those roles have completely reversed over the last 50 years with LBJ's support of civil rights and Nixon's support of the Southern Strategy causing the region to completely realign.
Guess which party has decided to kill it now after voting overwhelmingly for it in 2006? Guess which party is going state by state to try to suppress poor, minority voters who are more likely to vote D?
As Rand Paul put it last year:
“So many times, Republicans are seen as this party of, ‘We don’t want black people to vote because they’re voting Democrat, we don’t want Hispanic people to vote because they’re voting Democrat,’” he said. “We wonder why the Republican Party is so small. Why don’t we be the party that’s for people voting, for voting rights?”
Guess which party has decided to kill it now after voting overwhelmingly for it in 2006? Guess which party is going state by state to try to suppress poor, minority voters who are more likely to vote D?
As Rand Paul put it last year:
“So many times, Republicans are seen as this party of, ‘We don’t want black people to vote because they’re voting Democrat, we don’t want Hispanic people to vote because they’re voting Democrat,’” he said. “We wonder why the Republican Party is so small. Why don’t we be the party that’s for people voting, for voting rights?”
Bob Dole is still scratching his head over why the Party of ole Abe is viewed in some of the ways you have described.
You picked a really bad example to make the point you want to make. You might want to google "Bob Dole" "Republican Party Comments" or something like that. He's quite open about the fact that he thinks the GOP has lost its way.
He was especially pissed after they voted down the Disabilities Treaty.
Also, there's this:
http://www.dolekemp96.org/agenda/issues/civil.htm
Last edited:
Thar's not really what I wanted for you to interpret. The party of Lincoln did not capitalize on it's opportunity to secure the black vote when the Jim Crowe Laws were being litigated in the old democratic south. Ole Bob is scratching his head on how they missed that opportunity. The Rep at that time had every opportunity to secure the black vote. Who can really understand why a black voter would ever stick the dirty Dems at that time?. Rep and Pro were ideologically the same as the progressive dems. They must have thought that anti-abortion, faith based issues and other issues were strong enough to flip those segregated to join the Rep party. Bottom line, we wouldn't have the laws that we've written without the Rep party. I blame the Supreme Court! Those aholes lol
You didn't really answer my question with any specific information that excludes blacks and poor folks from voting in 2016, or recent past arguments over voting act fight that supports your argument . I disagree with you, the mainstream media and Rand that it is the goal of the Rep to prevent hispanics and blacks from voting because they vote democrat. The constant smear campaign by the liberal media, the bipartisan fighting, has wiped away rational thinking for either side. Rep see voting scandals that aren't there, Dem see prejudice that isn't there. Dead people should not vote. Nor should felons. Nor illegal aliens.
You didn't really answer my question with any specific information that excludes blacks and poor folks from voting in 2016, or recent past arguments over voting act fight that supports your argument . I disagree with you, the mainstream media and Rand that it is the goal of the Rep to prevent hispanics and blacks from voting because they vote democrat. The constant smear campaign by the liberal media, the bipartisan fighting, has wiped away rational thinking for either side. Rep see voting scandals that aren't there, Dem see prejudice that isn't there. Dead people should not vote. Nor should felons. Nor illegal aliens.
Last edited:
With respect to Dole, if he had his way, the R party probably would still be a pro-civil rights party. The Midwestern and Eastern R party were always pretty pro civil rights. But, Johnson took power away from Southern Ds, and the Southern R party chose to capitalize on that by taking Thurmond and people like him in with a welcome embrace from Nixon.
If you really believe the current round of voter laws in the states are about cleaning up elections, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. There is ample evidence that the purpose of these laws is to disenfranchise marginal voters who vote heavily D. They even admit on accident. it http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...a-lawmaker-sparks-fire-over-voter-id-comment/
If you really believe the current round of voter laws in the states are about cleaning up elections, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. There is ample evidence that the purpose of these laws is to disenfranchise marginal voters who vote heavily D. They even admit on accident. it http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...a-lawmaker-sparks-fire-over-voter-id-comment/
There is no substantive voter fraud in the US. Eric Holder was 100% right that the purpose of these laws is to disenfranchise people.
It would be one thing for the Rs to put forth a package of "modernized voting" that included a mix of features designed to move voting into the 21st century. I support that idea. Our voting system is pretty archaic and it could be done better in a number of ways. That's not what they are doing - every single change is about making it harder to register to vote or to actually vote.
I think it's a great thing the establishment is being made obsolete in many ways. An outsider can reach across party divisions easier. Trump isn't beholden to any "party" positions, Carson can reach minorities easier, Cruz can't be hated more than he is by the RNC or loved more by his state. The Dems loyalty to party will be their downfall. The GOPs being exposed by having the votes but not pushing the agenda will remake the party.
Outsider candidates generally do awfully at reaching across party divisions because they are usually supported by a very narrow segment of a base.
The GOP outsider candidates are a very good example of this - their vision for the country is really unpopular with the nation as a whole and a recipe to get destroyed in a general election.
It's not so much about loyalty to your base as it is about the fact that the outsider GOP candidates don't have a positive, uniting image for the country that a broad swathe of America can rally behind.
The D party and its donors are praying one of Trump, Carson, or Cruz is the nominee. They are maybe the three worst candidates in the entire R primary in terms of electability.
