Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Sanders voters...And TRUMP?  You sure?

Yeah. There's a detectable current of "I'm angry with politics" in some of Sanders' supporters, and if that matters to them more than basic sanity then Trump's probably second-best. Not to mention the folks who are rabidly anti-Clinton.

[smjjames]

Arpaio has been a Trump supporter for months now (probably right after Trump said he'd build a wall), though an 'official' endorsement may have been more recent.

I'm very confident Trump would lose to Hillary. Even if the Republicans don't run an independent against him, he doesn't have enough broad appeal. He would probably pick up some former Sanders supporters, but that'll most likely be balanced by moderate Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary (who is, really, an old-style moderate centrist/conservative). He's got roughly a third of the Republican base, and he's having a helluva lot of trouble increasing that. Short of the aforementioned 9/11 2: Jet-Fuel Boogaloo, I can't really think of a scenario in which Trump actually wins the Presidency.

While I agree, theres a good deal of uncertanity to go around. I think Bloomberg said that he'd jump in if Trump was a nominee, or maybe that was if it was Sanders. But yeah, barring some sort of boogaloo, the republicans are doomed to lose this election. It's like ANYTHING could happen.

I don't even know why they thought getting an independent bid would be a good idea because of the spoiler effect, desperation I suppose.

Sanders voters...And TRUMP?  You sure?

There are people who have Sanders as their first choice and Trump as their second, this lists two: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/if-you-want-to-understand-whats-roiling-the-2016-election-go-to-oklahoma/

[mainiac]

Sanders voters...And TRUMP?  You sure?

You pick any two politicians and there is some crossover appeal.  There's always some iconoclasts.  Most Sanders supporters wouldn't be down with the whole giant asshole stance but some men just want to watch the world burn.

[nenjin]

But yeah, barring some sort of boogaloo, the republicans are doomed to lose this election. It's like ANYTHING could happen.

I would not underestimate the legitimizing effects the party nomination can have for candidates like Trump. It's still technically fun and games right now where Trump being Trump is both effective at garnering support and attention, and mortifying at the same time. If he gets the nomination I'd expect a change in tone from him to some small degree. And even if he stayed the exact same, I'd expect some of the "discerning independents" would start to see him as a legitimate choice, regardless of how destructive he clearly is, for the presidency.

TLDR: Never underestimate America's capacity to shoot itself in the foot or to mistake entertainment for substance.

However if it comes down to Cruz or Rubio, yeah, I expect they'll lose soundly.

[smjjames]

But yeah, barring some sort of boogaloo, the republicans are doomed to lose this election. It's like ANYTHING could happen.

I would not underestimate the legitimizing effects the party nomination can have for candidates like Trump. It's still technically fun and games right now where Trump being Trump is both effective at garnering support and attention, and mortifying at the same time. If he gets the nomination I'd expect a change in tone from him to some small degree. And even if he stayed the exact same, I'd expect some of the "discerning independents" would start to see him as a legitimate choice, regardless of how destructive he clearly is, for the presidency.

TLDR: Never underestimate America's capacity to shoot itself in the foot or to mistake entertainment for substance.

However if it comes down to Cruz or Rubio, yeah, I expect they'll lose soundly.

In polls that have Rubio vs Clinton, Rubio actually does well, competitively even. Theres a reason why the democrats are scared of a Rubio nomination, so, I wouldn't rule him out yet, or a brokered/contested convention even.

[smirk]

But yeah, barring some sort of boogaloo, the republicans are doomed to lose this election. It's like ANYTHING could happen.

I would not underestimate the legitimizing effects the party nomination can have for candidates like Trump. It's still technically fun and games right now where Trump being Trump is both effective at garnering support and attention, and mortifying at the same time. If he gets the nomination I'd expect a change in tone from him to some small degree. And even if he stayed the exact same, I'd expect some of the "discerning independents" would start to see him as a legitimate choice, regardless of how destructive he clearly is, for the presidency.

TLDR: Never underestimate America's capacity to shoot itself in the foot or to mistake entertainment for substance.

However if it comes down to Cruz or Rubio, yeah, I expect they'll lose soundly.

In polls that have Rubio vs Clinton, Rubio actually does well, competitively even. Theres a reason why the democrats are scared of a Rubio nomination, so, I wouldn't rule him out yet, or a brokered/contested convention even.

I could almost see Rubio doing well against Clinton, in a low-voter-turnout Battle of the Blands sort of way. I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and predict that any situation where Trump doesn't end up the official Republican nominee, he goes independent and takes his supporters with him. He's been doing too well for too long now for his ego to allow him to back down; I don't think he'd care at all about fracturing the party.

[nenjin]

I dunno, Rubio doesn't seem to do well under pressure. He's also going for youth vs. experience, which worked for Obama. But Obama was a lot stronger throughout the primaries (at least anecdotally to me.) Rubio has had to fight to be heard above Trump like everyone else and taken some bruises along the way. To me it seems like the only thing he'd have going for him with swing voters is that Hilary is Hilary, not that he brings some substantial charm, experience, grace or great ideas to the table.

I don't think he'd care at all about fracturing the party.

Yeah but consider what proportion of his backers are willing to vote outside their party label. It's one thing to back the Dark Horse of your party. It's another to follow them out to completely uncharted territory (which a viable independent candidate is in the US, unless you count Perot's 19% as mattering in whether or not an independent was viable.)

It would be hilariously ironic if Trump was the one to bring to the US political system what so many have been begging for.

[mainiac]

The default assumption should be any vaguely normal election will be competitive.  There is decades of evidence to bear that out and it makes a priori sense from the median voter theory.  Marco Rubio vs. Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio vs. Bernie Sanders would be a vaguely normal election.

[smjjames]

Well, on paper, Rubio is competitive with Clinton. It's also not his fault that he had to fight to be heard, largely because Trump is Trump. Heck, having a tough primary and taking some bruises would probably make him stronger than if he didn't have to go through a tough primary.

I don't think he'd care at all about fracturing the party.

Yeah but consider what proportion of his backers are willing to vote outside their party label. It's one thing to back the Dark Horse of your party. It's another to follow them out to completely uncharted territory (which a viable independent candidate is in the US, unless you count Perot's 19% as mattering in whether or not an independent was viable.)

It would be hilariously ironic if Trump was the one to bring to the US political system what so many have been begging for.

It's also ironic that the republican party is turning to (or looking into anyway) the very thing that they and the democrats have routinely blocked from rising for decades now, even if it's out of desperation.

Anybody know if Bloomberg put his requirement for doing an independent bid as Trump being the nominee or what was it exactly? The democrat establishment has to be mildly worried about that because even a small spoiler effect would tip things in a close election.

[smirk]

I don't think he'd care at all about fracturing the party.

Yeah but consider what proportion of his backers are willing to vote outside their party label. It's one thing to back the Dark Horse of your party. It's another to follow them out to completely uncharted territory (which a viable independent candidate is in the US, unless you count Perot's 19% as mattering in whether or not an independent was viable.)

True, but quite a bit of the support he gets is from people who are "fed up with politics as usual". I doubt all or even most of his support would follow him, but it's reasonable that he would take enough with him to do some damage to the Republican side.

It would be hilariously ironic if Trump was the one to bring to the US political system what so many have been begging for.

History will remember this as the rise of the Trumpist Party, its gold-plated Bald Eagle grinding both Elephant and Donkey into dust O_O

The default assumption should be any vaguely normal election will be competitive.  There is decades of evidence to bear that out and it makes a priori sense from the median voter theory.  Marco Rubio vs. Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio vs. Bernie Sanders would be a vaguely normal election.

Hush with the reasonableness, you. We've got a monogrammed Party to build!

[nenjin]

History will remember this as the rise of the Trumpist Party, it's gold-plated Bald Eagle grinding both Elephant and Donkey into dust O_O

You're not thinking 80s enough. The Trumpocratic animal would be a tiger or a wolf (perhaps a shark) and the party emblem would probably be it eating both the Donkey and the Elephant.

But you're right in that it would be gold-plated.

[smjjames]

No, the animal will be his toupee. /jokeisms

[mainiac]

Hush with the reasonableness, you. We've got a monogrammed Party to build!

When the unwashed masses storm the barricades I will be there, looking down on them and saying "this is quite unproductive!"

Well, on paper, Rubio is competitive with Clinton. It's also not his fault that he had to fight to be heard, largely because Trump is Trump. Heck, having a tough primary and taking some bruises would probably make him stronger than if he didn't have to go through a tough primary.

Anybody know if Bloomberg put his requirement for doing an independent bid as Trump being the nominee or what was it exactly? The democrat establishment has to be mildly worried about that because even a small spoiler effect would tip things in a close election.

He said he would do it if Trump and Sanders won.  I imagine he would probably do it if Trump and Clinton won and he thought he could win.  Whether he can win may not have any bearing on what he thinks.

[nenjin]

misquote there, btw.

[sluissa]

He's likely just pandering, but anyone who can spout off an identical line 3 or 4 times in the same debate, where he says he honestly believes that Obama is intentionally doing harm to the country just seems too much on the extreme side to me... Only thing that makes him seem even half way reasonable in those circumstances is the fact that he's standing next to Ted "Coloring Book" Cruz and Donald "I'd date my daughter" Trump when he's saying it.

But at the same time I KNOW he can be more reasonable, and he is simply pandering to the extreme end of the base. I think that's a mistake, but apparently someone's decided he needs to out Trump Trump rather than play the moderate reasonable voice. But I guess that's Kasich's and formerly Bush's position and it's not exactly working for them.