Trump could win presidency: Yes or No?

[Roger Ramjets]

we are left with the insurmountable absurdity of the original claim: the media is unfair to Trump. The media worships Trump, when he speaks they drop everything to cover him.

The media is being unfair to Trump. If they were fair they wouldn't republish his tweets with gleeful derision. If they were fair they would broadcast his speeches in entirety without comment (and do the same for Hillary and Bernie). If they were fair they would give us just the facts, and let us make our own minds up.

The truth is - nobody can expect to get fair coverage from a media whose main aim is to entertain, not inform. And why do we have such a media? Because that's what we want! How do I know this? Because if we didn't want it then nobody would watch or read the news and the media would have to change their formula to get viewers.

 

[NoahFence]

The length and size of the Great Wall shows what man can do. The US spends big money every year to keep illegals out. Does Mexico do their part?

The Israeli walls have never been breached as far as I know.

Try a ladder 8-10m high. Then what do you do on the other side? Jump?

BTW. There are many Trump proposals that I think are attention seeking, and deliberately so. It is the tone of the attack against him that indicates extreme bias.

Aw, does he need his big boy pants?

Any and all attacks on that piece of vile scum are OK in my book.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I read it that multiple vaccines are given in one lifetime dose.

Perhaps he is suggesting that spreading them out would be a better idea so as not to overwhelm the child's immune system. Does that make him a stupid anti-vaxxer!

Yes. Try to keep up.

Wait . . . She "started it" . . . What, are we in grade school?

Yes. Try to keep up.

 

[newyorkguy]

Anyone remember Ross Perot back in the 1992 race? Perot was an 'adult' version of Donald Trump, a wealthy businessman who had never held political office but -- based on his successful business career -- thought he could govern rings around professional politicians. His supporters believed Perot when he said if elected President he would grow the economy while cutting taxes. As late as June he was leading Bush and Clinton in the polls. This is from a New York Times news story published June 11, 1992:

In a three-way general election matchup, Ross Perot has moved to a clear lead over both President Bush and Gov. Bill Clinton in the latest Gallup Poll. In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent. Link to article

By November many of Perot's supporters had apparently decided he didn't know what he was talking about and he received just 19% of the popular vote.

 

[Joey McGee]

Try a ladder 8-10m high. Then what do you do on the other side? Jump?

Good point, they don't understand what ropes are in Mexico. That's almost as insane as suggesting they would have bolt cutters. Good thing they are only sending rapists and drug dealers as they tend to be stupid.

 

[Joey McGee]

Trump is an alpha male. A strong leader who causes strong emotions for and against.

I think if you examine the literature on human nature you'll find that this statement is extremely stupid. Humans have alpha males? They are divisive? What a crock. A strong leader is someone who is able to help people work together in order to solve serious problems and thrive against adversity. A lunatic who is unable to figure out that the President was born in the United States, gains the scorn of every intelligent scientist and intellectual in the world and routinely almost ***** up the business that his father left him with and taught him everything he knows about isn't a strong leader.

 

[NoahFence]

I think the idea that Drumpf is an alpha male might make the top 5 most absurd statements of the last 100 years.

 

[PartSkeptic]

Just a quick look before I leave this morning. Are there any Trump supporters in this forum? There must be according to the poll results.

Politics, sex and religion are always topics for heated and emotional debate. I give an unbiased rolleyes opinion from an outsider point of view, and wow -

I voted with my feet and emigrated from the USA after 15 years there. Not that other countries are so great. There is much that is very good in the US, but there are underlying problems that do not bode well for the future. You have got Hillary, Trump and Cruz. Will Hillary solve the problems? Bernie is a socialist revolutionary, but maybe he might have a chance.

 

[Puppycow]

The media loves Trump, he gets them eyeballs whether in printed media, internet or TV, so the idea that he is "unpopular" in the media is contrary to the acres and acres and hours and hours of coverage they have chosen to give his campaign. The reason he is so popular with the media is that they are making a fortune from him. He only become unpopular with the media when he stops making them money i.e. people stop being interested in what he has to say and what he does.

A little bit about why Trump has gotten so much coverage from someone inside the media:

The real reason the media covers Donald Trump so much

Why does the media cover Donald Trump so much? It's a question I've been asked a lot over the course of the primary season. The answer is, in part, that it's increasingly likely he'll be the Republican Party nominee for president and so he surely deserves a lot of coverage. But many people feel like the media's Trump obsession is the cause of his rise, making this illegitimate as an explanation.

So here's another view: The media covers Trump a lot because Trump's campaign is fascinating and people are interested in it.

Here at Vox, for example, 13 percent of the stories we published in February mentioned Trump, which is a lot. But that 13 percent generated 26 percent of our total readership.

Any subject that performs like that when it's already at a high volume is going to attract more coverage. And to state the obvious, this wasn't a big, deliberate strategy of ours from the beginning or anything. When we were doling out assignments last summer for which writers were going to sum up which candidates' positions on the issues, the Trump write-up went to one of our interns, Tez Clark.

Tez was a stellar intern, but that's also a clear reminder that we were not initially thinking Trump would be the frontrunner or the subject of a ton of coverage.

And all that's to say nothing of a Trump video we made that got 32 million views.

In short, the media respond to their readers (or viewers or consumers) and the media consumers seem to want to consume news about Trump more than other news. It's kind of like blaming the food companies for making too much junk food, or unhealthy food, when really they are just responding to what the consumers are buying. If one company decides to ignore the consumer's demands and produce what they think the consumer should consume rather than what the consumer actually does consume, that company will simply lose market share and another company will supply the consumers with what they are demanding.

 

[Puppycow]

The latest polls fwiw:

Trump vs. Clinton
Trump vs. Sanders

Either one beats him handily. Of course we won't have a really clear picture until after the primary season is over because it could be influencing the results somehow. But I'm pretty sure those leads will hold up, and I'm going to guess a margin of victory of at least 10% (conservatively) for whoever is the Dem nominee.

 

[The Don]

The latest polls fwiw:

Trump vs. Clinton
Trump vs. Sanders

Either one beats him handily. Of course we won't have a really clear picture until after the primary season is over because it could be influencing the results somehow. But I'm pretty sure those leads will hold up, and I'm going to guess a margin of victory of at least 10% (conservatively) for whoever is the Dem nominee.

I wish I shared your optimism but I think that if Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination he has a significant chance of becoming President even among people who don't support him directly because of a combination of party loyalty, a desire for change and antipathy towards the Democratic Party in general and the chosen candidate in particular.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I wish I shared your optimism but I think that if Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination he has a significant chance of becoming President even among people who don't support him directly because of a combination of party loyalty, a desire for change and antipathy towards the Democratic Party in general and the chosen candidate in particular.

Do people forget those things when they answer polls and remember them when they vote?

 

[The Don]

Do people forget those things when they answer polls and remember them when they vote?

Yes, or more specifically that's the played out in the 2015 UK elections. People were apparently reluctant to say that they were voting for the "nasty" Conservatives. As a consequence Conservative support was significantly underestimated nationally.

At the moment the GOP machine hasn't fully swung into action behind Trump (as it surely will if he gets the nomination). The electorate will be reminded how bad Obama/Hillary/Bill/Bernie are and were and for the sake of America they jolly well ought to vote GOP. I believe that many GOP supporters who are "don't knows" or saying that they would vote for the Democratic Party candidates may, when push comes to shove, hold their noses and vote for Trump out of party loyalty.

 

[angrysoba]

I agree that Trump has a significant chance of being elected. He must be, at the least, second favourite to win.

 

[Puppycow]

(snip)

At the moment the GOP machine hasn't fully swung into action behind Trump (as it surely will if he gets the nomination). The electorate will be reminded how bad Obama/Hillary/Bill/Bernie are and were and for the sake of America they jolly well ought to vote GOP. I believe that many GOP supporters who are "don't knows" or saying that they would vote for the Democratic Party candidates may, when push comes to shove, hold their noses and vote for Trump out of party loyalty.

Well, we're going to see I guess. So your working assumption is that Trump will not destroy the GOP if he gets the nomination, and Lying Ted, Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb, Romney and the people who support them and the others will rally around Trump for the sake of party unity. My theory, which could be wrong of course, is that he has burned too many bridges and scorched too much earth for that to happen. Of course some Republicans will hold their nose and vote for him, but not, I think enough of them to allow him to have a chance of winning.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Only 29% of voters are registered Republicans so party unity can only go so far.

 

[The Don]

Only 29% of voters are registered Republicans so party unity can only go so far.

Correct, but there are people who are lifelong GOP supporters who have chosen for whatever reasons not to register as such.

Among those who really are "undecideds" I think that there are a proportion who will simply vote for "the other lot" after 8 years of one party holding the post of President.

Then there the Democratic Party candidates. IMO if Bernie Sanders is selected, there are a lot of people who may support many of his individual policies (and who may state that they would choose him over Trump or Cruz) who would still end up voting for the GOP candidate. Partly this will be to them chickening out when it actually comes to placing their vote but mostly because the full force of the GOP propaganda machine has not yet been brought to bear on Sanders yet. Once his stances on abortion, religion, healthcare and education have been carefully spun he will appear much less like the social democrat he actually is and more like a ravening Communist who is intent on destroying the American way of life.

OTOH Hillary will have fewer surprises (after all she's been under the GOP microscope for decades) but the drip-drip-drip of the unfounded allegations about Benghazi, emails, business deals, speaking engagements, her relationship with banks and so on will have an effect on her support. There are also some people who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman for the highest public office.

I'm still hopeful of a Democratic Party president but my fear is that the election will not be the slam-dunk some people are expecting (and the polls are currently suggesting).

 

[The Don]

Well, we're going to see I guess. So your working assumption is that Trump will not destroy the GOP if he gets the nomination, and Lying Ted, Little Marco, Low-Energy Jeb, Romney and the people who support them and the others will rally around Trump for the sake of party unity. My theory, which could be wrong of course, is that he has burned too many bridges and scorched too much earth for that to happen. Of course some Republicans will hold their nose and vote for him, but not, I think enough of them to allow him to have a chance of winning.

Yes, I am assuming that their thirst for power will cause them to rally round, if not Trump himself, then the GOP.

They could say something along the lines of "Registered Republicans have spoken and we have listened. We will put aside personal differences of opinion to help to defeat this [communist]/[crooked harpy] (delete as applicable) for the sake of the American People, God Bless America !!!!!11!!!11!111!!"

 

[Foolmewunz]

Yes, I am assuming that their thirst for power will cause them to rally round, if not Trump himself, then the GOP.

They could say something along the lines of "Registered Republicans have spoken and we have listened. We will put aside personal differences of opinion to help to defeat this [communist]/[crooked harpy] (delete as applicable) for the sake of the American People, God Bless America !!!!!11!!!11!111!!"

I think you're over-estimating the GOP if you think they have anywhere near that amount of cohesion. There are three factions involved and two of them will not bend to the consensus that readily.

 

[bruto]

I think you're over-estimating the GOP if you think they have anywhere near that amount of cohesion. There are three factions involved and two of them will not bend to the consensus that readily.

One can hope so, but I fear you may be over-estimating the integrity of the GOP leaders here. I have a feeling for many, Trump is saying aloud what they wish they could, but find impolitic except in hint and code, and that they will happily pretend greater reluctance than they feel.