The general consensus is that many Republicans will stay at home and that the democrats will unite under Clinton once Sanders is eliminated. Minorities and women supposedly will vote strongly in favor of Clinton. As of right now, that's probably the way it stands. So what can Trump do to offset the large number of Republicans who hate Trump and will stay at home? Just a thought here. One of the most popular democrats in Congress is Hawaiian Representative and Iraq war veteran Tulsi Gabbard. Gabbard is a big backer of Sanders primarily because she rejects Clinton's foreign policy. She is well spoken and great looking, which are always positive traits in politics. If Trump were to get an endorsement from her, I believe many of the Sanders supporters who would otherwise either vote democrat or stay at home would actually vote for Trump. Don't know if getting an endorsement is a possibility or not, but the Trump camp would be smart to test the waters once Sanders is eliminated. From what I gather, Gabbard detests Clinton.
the feathery elements on the fringe of the dem party are going to do a lot of things to break Hillary to halter and they are going to irritate a lot of people. For example, BLMatter is a going concern and attention must be paid in their eyes. The LGBT "community" is likewise going to demand a pound of flesh. All this is going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. Trump is probably as liberal on these items as the Hill but is not out front on them and will benefit with the Quiet Vote. THe QV is what I call the people who keep their mouths shut and vote their anger. For example, every time there is a race riot the white voters in California move to places like Colorado or Utah or Texas with their taxable income. Less money for California. QVs don't have riots in the conventional style---they just put their kids in private schools and start voting against bond issues. The Trump vote comes, in my opinion, almost entirely from the QVs. I would never vote for him or others of his ilk but I think people are blind to where his support comes from. And I don't think any of the Bernie supporters I know would even consider voting for Trump. For the record, I haven't voted for a presidential candidate from the two parties for a good while and anticipate throwing away my vote to the Libertarians again. Not that I share their economic juvenilia.
huisache, Join the club, buddy. The last time I did NOT vote Libertarian in the POTUS race was 1988. I like your analysis.
Like I said in another thread, I think the identity politics trumps all of this - foreign policy, trade policy, entitlement reform, etc. It is the great diversion for the Democratic Party, as social issues are the great diversion for the GOP (and to a lesser extent, the Democrats as well). A few Sanders backers might grudgingly admit that Trump is somewhat right on foreign and trade policy (in their minds and your mind, not mine), but they'll say it's overwhelmingly outweighed by his racism and misogyny. That'll be enough to keep them from embracing Trump, and under no circumstances would Tulsi Gabbard endorse Trump. Might she vote for him? Maybe, but she'd never do anything that showed any kind of public support. It would probably end her career if she did. As things currently stand, the most Trump could hope for is that Sanders supporters wouldn't be motivated to turn out for Hillary.
This is going to be an election where MANY are not voting FOR a candidate but rather cast their vote AGAINST the other party or parties. This could change if a viable third-party candidate tosses a hat into the ring, in which case, I could easily envision 35% being all it took to win the election. I also believe that part of the GOP strategy of going ahead and conceding Trump as a presumptive nominee gives the Republicans left with primaries to vote in an opportunity to flip and vote in the Democratic primaries and to give those States to Sanders, making it easier to point at how #Shillary could not even win States after being labeled by the media as the presumptive D nominee, thus how can she be a viable POTUS. Meanwhile, the 'surge' allows Bernie to believe he is a viable third-party candidate, splitting the Democratic vote. Trump then gets his 35-40% of the overall electorate and allows him to narrowly take the election. Strategery I tell tell you...strategery. I'm honestly not sure what I will do come November with respect to that position on the ballot. Not a Trump fan but also know that this Country CANNOT afford another four or eight years of a continuation of the policies of the current POTUS.
I believe the Cruz/Kasich/Other people, like me, would vote for Trump long before the Bernie people will vote for Hillary. This is a generalization, of course, there will be exceptions.
This is a long shot, but suppose the FBI released so much damaging evidence that the Justice Department was forced to indict and somehow Sanders wins the nomination. I'm not sure who wins between Trump and Sanders but the voter turnout would be high and the circus level atmosphere we see now goes even higher.
I don't see this at all. I believe the Sanders people will be much bigger soreheads than the Cruz/Kasich/Other people.
If Hillary is indicted before the convention, I would guess that someone other than Clinton or Sanders will be the nominee. The convention would be interesting. If Hillary is indicted after the convention but before ballots are finalized, I think the Veep nominee would step to the top of the ticket. I'm not sure how the new Veep nominee would be selected. If Hillary is indicted after ballots are finalized, the Dems may well be stuck with Hillary as their candidate. There would be litigation, to be sure. If SCOTUS remains deadlocked at 4-4, the presidency could be decided by whichever circuit court acts the fastest. Perhaps there would be different ballots in every state if the circuits split and the SCOTUS can't resolve the split. That would be a royal clusterfuck.
Quite honestly, I believe that if #Shillary were somehow to be indicted, we would quickly see Obama step up with a pardon proclamation that is probably already typed and only needs a signature.
What the actual f**k...? That should be enough for any American citizen when they're considering who they want to elect as the leader of the free world. I'll be voting for Hillary and not an ounce of my being likes her. This is definitely the lesser of two evils vote, and unfortunately I think this race is too close to call for me to waste my vote on a green party candidate or write in.
There is no lesser of two (political) evils for me, there is only evil. I'll be voting, but not for either one of the "presumptive nominees."
I think a responsible citizen should vote according to what the candidate is reasonably likely to do in office based on his or her policy agenda is as well as his or her character and temperament. I don't particularly care that liberals call him a racist or a misogynist. They toss those labels around so haphazardly that they're meaningless at this point. Furthermore, I've been around politicians enough over the last 20 years to know that there's nothing unique about Trump's rhetoric. What's unique is that he says what he says in public. In private, I've heard many liberal politicians say much worse - racist jokes, n-bombs, etc. Personally, I won't vote for Trump because he has a bad policy agenda and because he's a bad person. Nevertheless, even if Trump is a racist and a misogynist, Hillary (like her husband did before her) lies whenever it's convenient to do so and is a flagrant lawbreaker. Is being a racist worse than that? Rather than needlessly deal with that conundrum, I'll let people like Phil vote for the possible racist with a bad agenda and let people like you vote for the dishonest crook with a bad agenda, and I'll just vote for Gary Johnson who's neither and has a generally good agenda.
It comes down to the Electoral College. Hillary is not going to compete in any Conservative States. On the other hand, I think Trump is going to be competitive in a number of liberal states.....especially in the Rust Belt.....Pennsylvania, Michigan and I think Ohio could be in the cards for Trump if he pulls the Kasich for VP card...... Another note the African American vote will not turn out for Hillary like it did for Barry. While before Barry it had been rising it metorically(sp) shot up with Barry. I think it will drop down to about 60% of Registered African American voters or lower and the margins will go down from what 95-96% to 88-89%.....significant percentages in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio. Take all the issue you want....it comes down to playing the Electoral Chess game......
Thus my lesser of two evils statement. I'll change that statement to "preferable of two evils" and add that I am not religious and don't believe in good or evil. To be honest I forgot for a second that I live in Texas and that my vote won't count anyways. So, I guess I'll be writing in Bernie's name.
Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe in good or evil (which isn't synonymous with not being religious) then why would you care if Trump's a racist or that Hillary lies? Why not just vote for that candidate that best serves your personal interests? I wouldn't assume this. Trump will likely motivate record turnout and Democratic preference with Hispanics. However, he's also dividing the conservative vote. This is the Democrats' best opportunity to make Texas competitive in decades. It's a long shot, but it's not out of the question.
That's precisely what I'd be doing with a vote for Hillary. Did you really think my "lesser of two evils" comment was my only parameter for voting?
For many people, the lesser of two evils is their sole parameter for voting. Nevertheless, if you don't mind my asking, how would a Hillary Clinton election benefit you more than a Sanders election or even a Trump election?
To be honest I don't think anyone's election would have a huge impact on my life positively or negatively. But even that is subjective because changes that I may see as not a huge difference might be perceived differently to another individual just based on the dynamics of their life compared to mine. My decisions are made based on whom I share the most beliefs with about our country on many different aspects. I mean I think that's what we all do, right?
That's what we all should do, but it's definitely not what we all do in practice. Most prior vote in their own best interests. Nevertheless, what I think is noteworthy here isn't the basis for your decision. It's that you keep that basis while claiming not to believe in right and wrong. You acknowledge that your life won't change much no matter who wins, but you're choosing to guide your decision based on how the election will affect others and the country in general. Essentially, your decision is driven by concern for others and the country as a whole. Those aren't the priorities of someone who doesn't believe in right and wrong. By the way, that's a good thing. Frankly, it would be kinda scary and dangerous to know someone who truly didn't believe in right and wrong.
I've decided I'm going to jump all in for Trump. When Bobby Knight and Lou Holtz endorsed him I felt pretty good. These are alpha males. Winners. Who's endorsing Hillary? Sid Blumenthal? Lindsay Graham? Their limp wristed *******. So to help out, I'm going to come up with slogans, bumper stickers, yard signs, and T-shirts. Maybe some of you can contribute. Here's what I've got so far: America First. Vote Trump. Don't be gay. Vote Trump. Keep the crooked ***** out of the White House. Vote Trump. Win. Win. Win. Win. Win. Vote Trump. Most of these should resonate well enough with enough people to win this thing. What do you think?
You can have morals without being religious, this we can agree on. "Right and wrong" does not equate to good and evil. And it's not a universal term. But that's another thread.
Somehow I don't think not believing in "good and evil" is the same as not believing is right and wrong, but as usual on this board I'm probably off base here too. And Mus I'm taking your post as sarcastic right? I got a big shock this weekend when my son sent me a pic of him with a Make America great again hat on. So, granted I don't consider him Mensa caliber but I now take issue with Deez that only idiots support Trump. Still my basic feeling is I will do anything, vote for whomever I feel has even a remote chance to prevent HRC from becoming my POTUS. I try very hard to think of someone that could be less deserving and honestly believe I would vote for Bernie over her. He could be controlled, or tempered, she on the other hand will be unlimited, just watch.
I have read that both Clinton and Trump have close ties to Putin. Clinton is receivin g lobbying dollars from Sberbank which is a quasi-private bank operated by the Kremlin essentially and some of Trump's campaign people have nebulous ties to Putin. Anyo..ne who isn't seriously considering what is going on with these two candidates is deceived on a large scale. It is what McCarthy warned us all about.
Of course I'm half kidding. But strategically there is much to be gained from practicing identity politics. Trump wants to come across as a strong, independent leader in contrast to Clinton as someone who is bought and paid for. John Wayne isn't alive to endorse Trump, but Bobby Knight is the next best thing. I will most likely vote for Trump. I see Clinton as a treasonous, lying, sociopath that is also dangerous. Trump may belong in a similar classification, but he also may legitimately want to make some changes and could be willing to listen to new voices.
I don't say that only idiots support Trump. I think Trump relies on idiots and wouldn't be about to win the nomination without the support of idiots. However, plenty of smart people also support him. I have a good friend who was one of the lead plaintiffs in the Hopwood case and is now a fairly well-known local attorney in Austin. He's a sharp guy, and he has been a big Trump supporter since Day 1.
