Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Joey McGee]

Do people always vote for who they perceive as being best for the country as a whole? Surely they may also consider voting for who they perceive as being best for them, personally, or for particular groups.

I can see your point but I'm assuming the person is basically moral. In a federal election the job of the politician is to make laws that apply to everyone in the country. The President has to be everybody's President, and hopefully they take that aspect of the job seriously. The idea of voting for anyone that doesn't see the job and the point of democracy and America in this way is simply unthinkable to me.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Do people always vote for who they perceive as being best for the country as a whole? Surely they may also consider voting for who they perceive as being best for them, personally, or for particular groups.

I like where your head is. This is exactly what I've pondered the last few weeks. Based on my circle of friends, and the people that are willing to speak frankly, the majority vote on what they view is best for them.

They don't always make this connection with logic. Take for example a long-time friend of mine who makes around $100,000 per year. He refuses to vote for Hilary because he's afraid his taxes will be increased. Yet if you look at Hilary's income tax plan she is advertising that she doesn't want to increase anybody's taxes unless you are making more than (From memory) $500,000 per year.

Also, I know quite a few Christians that want Ted Cruz for no reason other than his strong evangelical view-points.

This, I believe, is the reason that American politics is so polarized. How soon we forget the intent and purpose of the 10th amendment.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

It could. Our government is changing. Been changing anyway but now its not looking so good. And I think thats what is so wacky about these elections.

Yeah, I could see him doing that—which is why I don't trust him.

No, not at all. Like earlier in this thread we agreed freedom of speech means freedom of others to openly disagree. All part of the process. Only point I was trying to make is that political correctness has gotten out of hand to where it makes Trump appealing probably more than we think.

The real frontier of censorship and retaliation is private, not government. The FA unfortunately does not extend into what are considered "private spaces", which virtually all internet sites and boards are, so they are free to ban and censor and dictate terms of discussion all they want.

The FA also will not protect you from retaliatory actions at work (firings, etc). Even if you won some sort of discrimination case (virtually impossible), the judge will simply cite "at will" employment and you're still up crap creek. And with a big splashy court case to your name ensuring that no onther employer will hire you.

The PTB are very cleaver to find all the loopholes so they don't have to give us our rights to speak and be heard.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Clinton who was already on left end of the Democratic party

Trump will move towards the center after him nomination. Republicans will rally behind him because they always do, and they will vote. The protesters disrupting Trump events now and in the future will push independents towards Trump. Donald Trump is the next President of the United States.

If we really are so far gone that a candidate who calls for public beatings for protesters, is paying the legal fees of a support who assualted a protestor unprovoked and later threatened to killhim, whos supporters are shouting at protestors "Go to Auschwitz!" and giving Nazi salutes (never mind that his policies are the same 1%er BS Romney spouted) wins the election, we are no longer worthy of being called a decent nation, let alone a free one.

No different than guaranteeing a Clinton victory. They are equally unfavorable in my estimation.

I son't see Hillary calling for dissenters to be beaten. I don't see her calling for even MORE disasterous tax cuts for the 1%. I don't see he calling for gutting social safety programs even worse than they've been gutted. TEAOP and Trump want all that.

Hillary's bad. Trump is a Social Darwinianist nightmare.

Someone back on p2 talked about the possibility of another big Meltdown guaranteeing a Trump win...which may be true, despite the fact that it's policies like those espoused by Trump and TEAOP that cause those things to begin with. But anger always gets taken out on the victim at hand, not on who really deserves it.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I'd vote Trump just to see that happens if he wins.

Sure, it will be terrible when he causes a Nuclear holocaust and we drown in the boiling oceans, but image how entertained we will be up until that point!

Seen the film Idiocracy? The president? I'd totally vote for that guy. Pure gold.

Anyway. Despite Trump's many great characteristics, such as being able to claim things that totally contradict each other, or simply insulting candidates, or just claiming stuff that is impossible, I think he will lose.

There are still too many wimpy people in the US who care about the survival of the human race and other gay stuff, to take the plunge.

But, I'm confident that with another generation of selective breeding, we can make President Kanye West happen. And that might be pretty funny also.

ETA:

BTW: it's fun to see my parents watching the news, all wide-eyed and in disbelief. They're from the generation that thought Nixon was really, really unbelievably crazy and bad.

 

[dudalb]

I'd vote Trump just to see that happens if he wins.

Sure, it will be terrible when he causes a Nuclear holocaust and we drown in the boiling oceans, but image how entertained we will be up until that point!

Seen the film Idiocracy? The president? I'd totally vote for that guy. Pure gold.

Anyway. Despite Trump's many great characteristics, such as being able to claim things that totally contradict each other, or simply insulting candidates, or just claiming stuff that is impossible, I think he will lose.

There are still too many wimpy people in the US who care about the survival of the human race and other gay stuff, to take the plunge.

But, I'm confident that with another generation of selective breeding, we can make President Kanye West happen. And that might be pretty funny also.

ETA:

BTW: it's fun to see my parents watching the news, all wide-eyed and in disbelief. They're from the generation that thought Nixon was really, really unbelievably crazy and bad.

Richard Nixon On Steroids is the BEST we can hope for from a Trump presidency.

 

[dudalb]

It is not just a case about people being wrong about him winning the nomination. Experts have been wrong about the reaction of the general population to everything about his campaign.

Clinton and Sanders are going to continue to battle it out, severely weakening the eventual nominee. That nominee will be Clinton. Clinton who was already on left end of the Democratic party has been pushed further to the left in an attempt to placate people on the far left who will never vote for her anyways. That move to the left will damage her in the race this fall. Regardless, a good chunk of Sanders supporters are not going to vote for her. Some will vote for Trump, more will stay home. (If Sanders wins the nomination he will win one or two states).

Trump will move towards the center after him nomination. Republicans will rally behind him because they always do, and they will vote. The protesters disrupting Trump events now and in the future will push independents towards Trump. Donald Trump is the next President of the United States.

I think it would be very hard for Donald to move back to the center, even if he wanted to.

 

[applecorped]

Richard Nixon On Steroids is the BEST we can hope for from a Trump presidency.

China will like that.

 

[fishbob]

The guy has already claimed to be on both sides of several issues. I think you are underestimating his ability to change his position overnight. If he wins the nomination he will either claim that he said all those offensive things just to get the nomination or claim that he never said those things at all.

I am not claiming that he will succeed with either of those strategies; I am just asserting that all the stuff he has said up until this point does not preclude him from winning the presidency.

He is not changing his positions - he has no positions, so he can say anything.

 

[fishbob]

Every day I see rational Republicans criticize certain things they don't much care for about their candidate of choice, I see rational Democrats criticize certain things about HRC or Bernie that they wish were different....you know healthy stuff that rational people do.

There are the exceptions, of course, but one thing I've noticed about Trump supporters is that ANY criticism of Donald Trump is strictly forbidden. Getting a Trump supporter to admit any negative thing about him is like pulling teeth.

I could be wrong, but I just don't see it as much with Republicans who support other candidates. I also don't see it as much with Bernie or Hillary. IMHO

God help somebody who brings up a single fault of The Donald to a group of his supporters.

Trump has true believers. Probably why way more of his support comes from evangelical Christians than makes any kind of logical sense.

 

[seayakin]

I'm not sure about the middle but:

• Hispanics are registering just so they can vote against trump
• Trump will strongly motivate the Democratic base to vote for Hillary (much more than Hillary can do herself)
• Despite the differences, it is my opinion that Sanders supporters would line up to support Hillary
• It is my opinion that Trump will actually de-motivate the Republican base, I think there are some republicans who might rather not vote than vote for Trump (and certainly won't cross the aisle to vote for Hillary so they stay home)

The wild card as always is does Trump win the middle white vote or turn them away.

 

[Eddie Dane]

What the hell happened to the Republicans anyway?

Trump is Trump
Cruz looks like they'll find at least fifteen dead children if they'd dig up his yard.
Rubio I wouldn't follow across the street
Carson seemed great, but then they let him talk.
I liked Jeb, but apparently I'm out of touch. He looked weak and confused though. Some media training might have been in order.

Are we stuck with this crap until we figure out how to clone Eisenhower?

 

[dudalb]

And ,frankly, I don't see how Trump can move to the middle now. He has said and done too many crazy things. Americans might have short memories,but not that short.
And I don't think people ,after all the rhetoric in the GOP Primary,the like of which we have not seen in a long time in a primary election,are going to buy all the GOPers making nice with Donald at the convention.
In fact, I still think there will be some kind of a break away candidate. Won't stand a chance of winning, but will take enough votes away from Trump in November to give Hilary the win.

 

[dudalb]

What the hell happened to the Republicans anyway?

Trump is Trump
Cruz looks like they'll find at least fifteen dead children if they'd dig up his yard.
Rubio I wouldn't follow across the street
Carson seemed great, but then they let him talk.
I liked Jeb, but apparently I'm out of touch. He looked weak and confused though. Some media training might have been in order.

Are we stuck with this crap until we figure out how to clone Eisenhower?

I would settle for Bush Snr.at this point.....

Kasich is the only GOP candidate I could see myself voting for.

 

[Ladewig]

And ,frankly, I don't see how Trump can move to the middle now. He has said and done too many crazy things. Americans might have short memories,but not that short.

I think he could easily move to the middle. If he can espouse two opposing viewpoints in the same day, then adopting a viewpoint closer to the middle is child's play. The question is how many of those people in the middle will board Trump's crazy train.

I think he could be very successful just by saying "you don't have to like me to vote for me. You just have to believe that I can make America great again. Look, you might think I am a complete a-hole, but sometimes things get so FUBARed that you need a complete a-hole to step up and make things right. I will make America great again." (That is a perfect Trump speech: the only three-syllable word is America.) Personally, I would even bring up "the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with" stuff from one of those GW Bush campaigns and spin it in the opposite direction. He's not the kind of guy you want to have a beer with - he's a tough-as-nails leader who is ready to lead this country.

And I don't think people ,after all the rhetoric in the GOP Primary,the like of which we have not seen in a long time in a primary election,are going to buy all the GOPers making nice with Donald at the convention.
In fact, I still think there will be some kind of a break away candidate. Won't stand a chance of winning, but will take enough votes away from Trump in November to give Hilary the win.

Quite possible.

Time will tell.

ETA
so, why is this thread not in the 2016 election sub-forum?

 

[Mike!]

I think he could easily move to the middle. If he can espouse two opposing viewpoints in the same day sentence, then adopting a viewpoint closer to the middle is child's play. The question is how many of those people in the middle will board Trump's crazy train.

I think he could be very successful just by saying "you don't have to like me to vote for me. You just have to believe that I can make America great again. Look, you might think I am a complete a-hole, but sometimes things get so FUBARed that you need a complete a-hole to step up and make things right. I will make America great again." (That is a perfect Trump speech: the only three-syllable word is America.) Personally, I would even bring up "the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with" stuff from one of those GW Bush campaigns and spin it in the opposite direction. He's not the kind of guy you want to have a beer with - he's a tough-as-nails leader who is ready to lead this country.




Quite possible.

Time will tell.

ETA
so, why is this thread not in the 2016 election sub-forum?

FTFY

 

[Darth Rotor]

The wild card in this election is "all them people who usually dont' vote."

That's a bit over 30% of the electorate (eligible).

If they show up, Trump wins, as a rejection of the status quo.
If they stay home as usual, I think Hillary takes it.

 

[Meadmaker]

[*]Trump will strongly motivate the Democratic base to vote for Hillary (much more than Hillary can do herself)

It's true. I don't look forward to a Hillary presidency, but I will gladly vote against Trump, regardless of opponent.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Richard Nixon On Steroids is the BEST we can hope for from a Trump presidency.

The ineffably sad thing is that "Nixon on steroids" wouldn't be that bad compared to either Clinton or Trump. As this article points out:

Nixon posted an objective record that we can use for purposes of comparison. Consider (and forgive me for repeating some of what I wrote three years ago here):

He got us out of Vietnam.

He was a keen foreign policy type whose diplomatic efforts strengthened our relationships with both established and emerging world powers.

He implemented the first significant federal affirmative action program.

He dramatically increased spending on federal employee salaries.

He oversaw the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South (something the crackers where I grew up were none too happy about).

He proposed a guaranteed annual wage (aka a “negative income tax”).

He advocated comprehensive national health insurance (single payer) for all Americans.

He imposed wage and price controls in times of economic crisis. This wasn’t a terribly good idea, but it was the furthest thing from a conservative idea. Truth is, it was positively socialist.

He indexed Social Security for inflation and created Supplemental Security Income.

He created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Office of Minority Business Enterprise.

He promoted the Legacy of Parks program.

He appointed four Supreme Court Justices. Three of them voted with the majority in Roe v. Wade.

Nixon was more progressive than Obama has been or Hilly ever dreamed of being.

 

[Mike!]

The ineffably sad thing is that "Nixon on steroids" wouldn't be that bad compared to either Clinton or Trump. As this article points out:



Nixon was more progressive than Obama has been or Hilly ever dreamed of being.

And now here we are, without Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.