PDA

View Full Version : Trump is going to assure Hillary's victory.



PeterSibley
12-21-2015, 06:43 PM
Just a proposition.

Trump is going to attract Mr and Mrs Resentment but royally alienate anyone in the middle moderate or left and the middle is where elections are won.... that's if he gets the GOP nomination.

If he doesn't and the nomination goes to ....Cruz or Rubio ??? the Rep vote will be split and Mrs Clinton walks away as POTUS.

It sounds pretty good either way even though I'd vote for Sanders in a blink.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-21-2015, 06:44 PM
The world would want to hope so. If Trump wins the presidency, some bad things are going to happen, and probably fast.

PeterSibley
12-21-2015, 06:49 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation.

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 06:49 PM
The world would want to hope so. If Trump wins the presidency, some bad things are going to happen, and probably fast.Based on the pundants who have put together his schedule for the 1st 100 days, yup! Much for those who actually listen to his ideas put them all together and came up with a few scenerios. Some differences between authors as to exact timing, sure, basically, the same..

Keith Wilson
12-21-2015, 07:02 PM
If he's the candidate, the odds are very good the Democrat will win (probably Hillary). If he runs as a third-party candidate, the odds improve to a near-certainty.

John Smith
12-21-2015, 07:04 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation.

We're not sure we voted for Bush the first time, but we sure as hell re-elected him.

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 07:05 PM
If he's the candidate, the odds are very good the Democrat will win (probably Hillary). If he runs as a third-party candidate, the odds improve to a near-certainty.That IS the opinion many think. I just hope it's correct. This entire pres. campaign cycle breaks every tradition I can think of.

ron ll
12-21-2015, 07:05 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation.

Can't say as I blame you.

PeterSibley
12-21-2015, 07:07 PM
If he's the candidate, the odds are very good the Democrat will win (probably Hillary). If he runs as a third-party candidate, the odds improve to a near-certainty.

That's the way I see it.

Who was the businessman who divided the Rep vote a decade or so ago?

John Smith
12-21-2015, 07:09 PM
There are a couple of unknowns. How many women will vote for Hillary just to break that ceiling? If Trump beats up on her, will the women tolerate it. I don't know.

He is going to have to tell us what his investigators found in Hawaii. He is refusing to answer that.

Trump, according to polls, (no one has voted yet) has a solid block of support among Republicans. I think these are people who've never read any of our constitution. Don't think Trump has either. As long as the other candidates stay in the race, the rest of the vote is spread out among 14 other candidates, so a solid 30 plus percent can get him the nomination.

IN the general he'll need more. I don't know where he gets it from.

There is a possibility Sanders will manage to get the nomination. He would not be running against Trump, IMO, but against Reagan and endless clips of Reagan defining Socialism and telling us it is evil.

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 07:09 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation.One thing we still possess is some optimism this crap won't last

ron ll
12-21-2015, 07:10 PM
That's the way I see it.

Who was the businessman who divided the Rep vote a decade or so ago?

You mean Ross Perot?

I have this nightmare vision of Trump and Putin getting into a chest thumping contest until one of them pushes the Button.

Rich Jones
12-21-2015, 07:12 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation. The gullibility and stupidity of the American electorate appalls me. When I see these crowds of miss-guided fools cheering at Trump rallies, I just shake my head in dis-belief. I have Republican friends who are level headed and reasonable. I applaud them. Hopefully, they can turn the tide of idiocy, but I doubt it.

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 07:13 PM
Well, Perot took it away from a sitting president; 10% was enough. Of course it wasn't the only reason Bush1 lost but,....

lupussonic
12-21-2015, 07:31 PM
We outside US borders have no confidence in the American population after voting in GWBush twice so we watch in horrified trepidation.

We outside the US should have a vote.

Seriously, out of the US's entire population, these are the only candidates?

Gerarddm
12-21-2015, 07:36 PM
^ Actually, I think there are numerous other cellar dwellers, something like over a hundred, I think. Along the lines of DeezNuts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deez_Nuts_(politician)

SMARTINSEN
12-21-2015, 07:36 PM
Do not underestimate the stupidity of the American people. Near half the voters will automatically choose the Republican candidate, regardless.

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 07:39 PM
We have lots of parties, the Green Party, the Communist party,the birchers, every group every cause but, few are recognized and mostly unheard of.

ron ll
12-21-2015, 07:40 PM
We outside the US should have a vote.


Nah. Haven't you heard? We are the only Stupidpower left. If we want Trump's finger on the button, the rest of the world has to live with it (Or not).

PeterSibley
12-21-2015, 09:20 PM
Well, Perot took it away from a sitting president; 10% was enough. Of course it wasn't the only reason Bush1 lost but,....


Perot is the name I was thinking of, Trump seems like Perot on speed. :rolleyes:

SMARTINSEN
12-21-2015, 10:17 PM
Perot is the name I was thinking of, Trump seems like Perot on speed. :rolleyes:
Bath salts, perhaps.

mdh
12-21-2015, 10:48 PM
Just a proposition.

Trump is going to attract Mr and Mrs Resentment but royally alienate anyone in the middle moderate or left and the middle is where elections are won.... that's if he gets the GOP nomination.

If he doesn't and the nomination goes to ....Cruz or Rubio ??? the Rep vote will be split and Mrs Clinton walks away as POTUS.

It sounds pretty good either way even though I'd vote for Sanders in a blink.

This is so wrong. Did you do any research or just dream it up?

Romney got more of the independents than Barry did, and still lost. He didn't get many conservatives.
Trump is getting very high numbers from conservatives, women, and blacks, and yes, latino's.
The people of this country wanted a change in direction so they put democrats in power. They didn't like what they got so they put republicans in power. They didn't like what they got. This time they're going to put a non-establishment conservative in charge. Like it or not. What was it Thomas Sowell said, " For the last 30 years this country went from what worked to what sounded good". We want to go back to what works best

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 10:49 PM
I don't care if he got Christ's vote!Trump won't get the black, Hispanic, gay, woman's vote. Who cares what Romney got.

PeterSibley
12-21-2015, 10:52 PM
This is so wrong. Did you do any research or just dream it up?

Romney got more of the independents than Barry did, and still lost. He didn't get many conservatives.
Trump is getting very high numbers from conservatives, women, and blacks, and yes, latino's.
The people of this country wanted a change in direction so they put democrats in power. They didn't like what they got so they put republicans in power. They didn't like what they got. This time they're going to put a non-establishment conservative in charge. Like it or not. What was it Thomas Sowell said, " For the last 30 years this country went from what worked to what sounded good". We want to go back to what works best

I guess we'll see but I'm sure you remember Ross Perot.

Glen Longino
12-21-2015, 10:57 PM
This is so wrong. Did you do any research or just dream it up?

Romney got more of the independents than Barry did, and still lost. He didn't get many conservatives.
Trump is getting very high numbers from conservatives, women, and blacks, and yes, latino's.
The people of this country wanted a change in direction so they put democrats in power. They didn't like what they got so they put republicans in power. They didn't like what they got. This time they're going to put a non-establishment conservative in charge. Like it or not. What was it Thomas Sowell said, " For the last 30 years this country went from what worked to what sounded good". We want to go back to what works best

Keep that thought for the next 10 months and then admit to us all that you are delusional!
You are in for a great disappointment, neighbor!:)

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 10:58 PM
I know TX is a big state but, this guy lives in Oklahoma!:)

mdh
12-21-2015, 11:19 PM
I've spent a lot of time in Texas, I like it there. It's like a whole 'nother place, but Glen's wrong on this. Barry beat her in '08, she's gonna go down in flames next year. Nobody likes her. Nobody trusts her. The only vision she has is of her being rich. She already is. We just gotta get rid of Paul ryan at the same time.

Glen Longino
12-21-2015, 11:24 PM
I know TX is a big state but, this guy lives in Oklahoma!:)

:)I think of Oklahoma as Far North Texas.
Mexico is Far South Texas!:)

S.V. Airlie
12-21-2015, 11:25 PM
It's like a whole 'nother place.

Yup, it's becoming a republican cesspool. Glen is staying to work against the impending flood. A challenge that I commend but, I fear that the flood waters are just too strong for any man to fight..

oznabrag
12-22-2015, 12:19 AM
It's like a whole 'nother place.

Yup, it's becoming a republican cesspool. Glen is staying to work against the impending flood. A challenge that I commend but, I fear that the flood waters are just too strong for any man to fight..

The tide is running the other way, IMO.

Glen Longino
12-22-2015, 12:28 AM
The tide is running the other way, IMO.

I agree!
No way I'll quit this place while the forces of evil remain here unopposed. Never!

bobbys
12-22-2015, 12:39 AM
I agree!
No way I'll quit this place while the forces of evil remain here unopposed. Never!.

Yer ant sisters said they would stay at the Alamo as well but then ran off like scared wabbits!

Glen Longino
12-22-2015, 12:50 AM
.

Yer ant sisters said they would stay at the Alamo as well but then ran off like scared wabbits!

Your knowledge of history is as lame as your politics.
Google Alamo and see how many ran off and how many stayed and died.
Have you ever seen an Alamo movie?
Did you see anybody run?
Then Google San Jacinto and learn all about who ran!
You city slicker Joisey Boys are not fit to lick the boots of any Texan.
You get No Tamales and No Tequila!

Vince Brennan
12-22-2015, 07:48 AM
OK, bbbzzz, you who are always clamoring (in broken Englsh - are you SURE you're not a third-world import?) for quotes will surely take no umbrage when asked for YOUR citations on the cowardice of the Alamo defenders.

Cough it up, Sunshine.

Keith Wilson
12-22-2015, 08:08 AM
Trump is getting very high numbers from conservatives, women, and blacks, and yes, Latinos. To be very polite, this is not what the available evidence shows; quite the opposite, in fact. The last time Gallup asked Latinos, Trump was slightly less popular than bubonic plague and a little more popular than pedophiles. Fairly old numbers, but I doubt anything has changed. Hispanic citizens historically vote at fairly low rates. Mr. Trump may have changed that already.


http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6-swa7y0k02i1yrwiq0iaa.png

SMARTINSEN
12-22-2015, 08:57 AM
To be very polite, this is not what the available evidence shows; quite the opposite, in fact. The last time Gallup asked Latinos, Trump was slightly less popular than bubonic plague and a little more popular than pedophiles. Fairly old numbers, but I doubt anything has changed. Hispanic citizens historically vote at fairly low rates. Mr. Trump may have changed that already.


Shorter Keith Wilson: Gobbledygook!

The last poll that I saw was from October; Latino support for Trump was at 11%. There is a certain Latino contingent that is supportive of stricter immigration controls. I agree that Trump will likely energize, at least somewhat, the Latino vote, but it will not be in any sort of good way for the Donald.

If the Dems were smart they would be working very hard at GOTV in the Latino community.

Reynard38
12-22-2015, 09:14 AM
Seriously, out of the US's entire population, these are the only candidates?

Kinda scary huh?

Reynard38
12-22-2015, 09:16 AM
Did you see anybody run?
!

Weren't they surrounded?

Glen Longino
12-22-2015, 09:42 AM
Weren't they surrounded?

Eventually they were surrounded. They knew the Mexicans were coming and had plenty of time to run, but chose to stay there and fight, contrary to BobBS's account!
If BobBS could stand still and tell the truth, he would prefer to run five miles and tell a lie!

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2015, 09:44 AM
Actually, Didn't one leave to get help at from another fort (trouble calling the Alamo a fort) which also was destroyed/abandoned later. Biblical name on the tip of the tongue. Otherwise, no one left the fort. A few women survived. Even some men but, they were killed by the Mexicans after the battle. Umm Galahad???
Actually, one thought is both Bowie and Crockett survived the battle but, were killed after.

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2015, 09:59 AM
The people of this country wanted a change in direction so they put democrats in power. They didn't like what they got so they put republicans in power. They didn't like what they got. This time they're going to put a non-establishment conservative in charge. Like it or not. What was it Thomas Sowell said, " For the last 30 years this country went from what worked to what sounded good". We want to go back to what works best

What works best?

Can you tell us exactly WHAT policies and agenda items Trump has proposed that you figure 'works best'?

No need to try... he hasn't espoused any. If you figure that his statement about building an impenetrable wall with Mexico, and getting Mexico to pay for it, is a presidential-level policy that can be expected to 'work best', then there isn't much I can say.

I had dinner last evening with a friend and former business partner, who is a Trump fan... he even gave me a Trump sticker (unsure exactly where I'd put it...). In the course of our conversation, he fully admitted that Trump has no policies, no specific ideology, no agenda items, in short, NOTHING to describe what he's advocating he'd do, as President, that could be judged and considered by the electorate....

....my friend supports him, nonetheless. The fact that Trump has told a series of WHOPPING lies, far in excess of the lies of any other candidate? My friend doesn't care.

Quite honestly, I think Trump DOES have a chance at the GOP nomination.... but I doubt he could win the general election. Still, it's pretty disturbing that a huge number of Americans could vote for a egotistical, nasty, bombastic narcissist who cares less about the country, than he does about boasting about how smart and rich he is.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2015, 10:02 AM
unsure exactly where I'd put it...). Oh, Oh, Oh, I know, I do, I do, I do, I really do!:)

Keith Wilson
12-22-2015, 10:17 AM
Umm Galehad???Goliad. The Mexican army executed most of the prisoners; General Santa Anna's orders. In fact, there was a law passed by the Mexican legislature requiring the army to treat all foreigners fighting in Texas against the Mexican government as pirates.

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2015, 10:21 AM
Sorry, I was on the right track. Should have googled it I know. It did come after the Alamo and I think a messenger from the Alamo reached Goliad.

Sky Blue
12-22-2015, 10:52 AM
Trump has no policies or specific agenda items

I read a piece a couple of days ago that detailed several significant policies as part of a larger discussion about how deranged the left has become in their dumb Hitler comparisons and silly fascist claims about Mr. Trump.

It is here. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//full-comment/conrad-black-in-defence-of-donald-trump

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2015, 11:00 AM
As the author said, Trump helped him out of some difficulties in 2007. Hence, the article is biased accordingly.

Sky Blue
12-22-2015, 11:07 AM
Take it easy, Jamie. With 31 posts already today, I think you can afford to take a little a little more time in thinking things through if you want to have a discussion (as you so often claim).

S.V. Airlie
12-22-2015, 11:10 AM
I wrote my opinion and why I wrote it, what is there to discuss, he doesn't show bias?

TomF
12-22-2015, 11:13 AM
One way or the other it looks like this time an actual right-winger (seen as such by the TP faithful) will get the GOP nod. We'll all find out that it wasn't true that McCain and Romney simply weren't RW enough. The demographics aren't there for that, and they're heading the other direction.

But GOP strategists hire demographers too. Increasingly I wonder if key GOP circles have determined that when you can't expect to win the White House for a while ... maybe try not to. Use Presidential campaigns to achieve other ends, while working to avoid taking the Presidency. After all, a President with clear congressional support is elected to make change ... to set a new course. But what if the status quo is what's keeping you rich?

Then what you work for is Federal gridlock. Try to ensure that no filibuster-proof Senate majority emerges, for either party. Preserve the gerrymandered House's "permanent" GOP majority, while splintering the GOP to punish attempts to develop substantial bipartisan agendas. Combined with substantial enough retention of State legislatures and Governorships, this is probably enough to preserve the present regulatory and tax structure.

It won't solve the demographic problem, and will only preserve the status quo for a couple of decades at best. But by then you'll be a whole lot richer ... and it will be someone else's problem.

Sky Blue
12-22-2015, 11:16 AM
If you would take time to consider that the piece is posted in response to Norman's claims about policy, you would see, one hopes, that specific proposals made by Mr. Trump are objective and verifiable matters of fact, Jamie, that are necessarily unaffected by bias considerations.

Or, stated differently, Google is your (and Norman's) friend.

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2015, 11:21 AM
One way or the other it looks like this time an actual right-winger (seen as such by the TP faithful) will get the GOP nod. We'll all find out that it wasn't true that McCain and Romney simply weren't RW enough. The demographics aren't there for that, and they're heading the other direction.

But GOP strategists hire demographers too. Increasingly I wonder if key GOP circles have determined that when you can't expect to win the White House for a while ... maybe try not to. Use Presidential campaigns to achieve other ends, while working to avoid taking the Presidency. After all, a President with clear congressional support is elected to make change ... to set a new course. But what if the status quo is what's keeping you rich?

Then what you work for is Federal gridlock. Try to ensure that no filibuster-proof Senate majority emerges, for either party. Preserve the gerrymandered House's "permanent" GOP majority, while splintering the GOP to punish attempts to develop substantial bipartisan agendas. Combined with substantial enough retention of State legislatures and Governorships, this is probably enough to preserve the present regulatory and tax structure.

It won't solve the demographic problem, and will only preserve the status quo for a couple of decades at best. But by then you'll be a whole lot richer ... and it will be someone else's problem.

Gee... and I thought *I* was the bilge's foremost cynic! :)

What you say DOES indeed make sense, however.... in some ways.

I'm sure that the GOP would rather win the Presidency... but a loss isn't necessarily catastrophic for conservative interests, for all the reasons you mention. Unlike the mouth-breathers here who engage in incredible delusion about some sort of enormous conservative political wave (mythical, at best), the country is really centrist, with a definite small shift rightward, which is the basis of Hillary's success so far.

There is absolutely no question that the mainstream GOP sees the slate of candidates in this cycle as a serious problem, if not an outright disaster. Trump is certainly not a certified conservative; Cruz is hated by just about everyone in his own party, and is too extreme to be elected, and the most promising candidate, Rubio, is getting a tremendous amount of backwash from Cruz and Trump, which hurts his ability to obtain any momentum. If the party couldn't get a moderate with broad appeal, like Romney, elected, then how are they going to get one of the crazies into the White House?

I continue to believe that Rubio would be the biggest threat to the Democratic party in this election cycle... and I believe that the RNC believes it, too... but Trump and Cruz may conspire to prevent him from rising to the top. I'm moderately encouraged by all of this.

TomF
12-22-2015, 11:43 AM
Here in Canada, we've had truly encouraging developments since last Fall's federal election - not least within the Conservative caucus.

While Harper was in power, his office enforced iron discipline on "the message." The voice of his Government was firmly univocal, and as firmly ideological. The voice of the present Official Opposition, though, even with many of the same people playing senior roles, is quite, quite different. Some are sounding much like the Conservatives of previous decades - Conservatives under Joe Clark, or Bob Stanfield. Who provided thoughtful, clear and evidence-grounded alternatives to their Liberal counterparts, but did so within the context of a shared set of values.

The great irony is that had these people been permitted to speak during the campaign the way they are now ... the Conservatives might easily still be in power. It is becoming clear just how closely held control was, under Harper, and how much many of his caucus members chafed under it.

We are also seeing an enormous surge in highly talented MPs within the Liberal caucus; people who were recruited by Trudeau to run in his campaign, and who are already making quite incandescent impacts in Cabinet. For a couple of decades, politics-watchers have moaned about the lack of talent in most parties ... what was clear is that many incredible people have simply waited 'till they felt it was worth their time. But when there's a genuine opportunity to serve, they'll step up. I fully expect that depending on the Conservative leadership processes, a similar bumper crop of thoughtful and talented Conservatives will also show up to contest the next Federal election.

I think that after perhaps 3 decades of dreck, Canadian federal politics is about to enter a new high period. I am very excited for my kids that they'll be young adults just as this starts to hit its stride. It was made possible by Canadians' rejection of the politics of ideological purity, and their embrace of a "positive" model of campaigning ... and governing.

The same is possible in America, but I think you similarly will need a colossal rejection of ideological purity first. I hope that the coming Republican presidential implosion might provide that, but I'm not holding my breath. I figure that your political life was sicker with the illness than Canada's became, and the bounce-back may take longer.

Hugh MacD
12-22-2015, 11:53 AM
Keep that thought for the next 10 months and then admit to us all that you are delusional!
You are in for a great disappointment, neighbor!:)
I'm afraid we're in for a great disappointment no matter WHICH candidate wins. When you have a list of candidates who seem to believe in driving wedges into the population to polarize them you're screwed. After nearly fifty years of voting I may abstain. If this is the best this country can offer us it's embarrassing.

Norman Bernstein
12-22-2015, 11:56 AM
I'm afraid we're in for a great disappointment no matter WHICH candidate wins.

Who was the last President who you were NOT disappointed with, at the end of his term?

TomF
12-22-2015, 11:56 AM
Hugh, what made the difference in Canada was enough people choosing strategic voting. Sending a clear message that wedge and polarization strategies were unacceptable, even if one's own political sympathies lay with other things that group historically supported.

Keith Wilson
12-22-2015, 12:23 PM
the country is really centrist, with a definite small shift rightward, which is the basis of Hillary's success so far. A little rightward on foreign policy, a little left on economic issues.

oznabrag
12-22-2015, 12:32 PM
One way or the other it looks like this time an actual right-winger (seen as such by the TP faithful) will get the GOP nod. We'll all find out that it wasn't true that McCain and Romney simply weren't RW enough. The demographics aren't there for that, and they're heading the other direction.

But GOP strategists hire demographers too. Increasingly I wonder if key GOP circles have determined that when you can't expect to win the White House for a while ... maybe try not to. Use Presidential campaigns to achieve other ends, while working to avoid taking the Presidency. After all, a President with clear congressional support is elected to make change ... to set a new course. But what if the status quo is what's keeping you rich?

Then what you work for is Federal gridlock. Try to ensure that no filibuster-proof Senate majority emerges, for either party. Preserve the gerrymandered House's "permanent" GOP majority, while splintering the GOP to punish attempts to develop substantial bipartisan agendas. Combined with substantial enough retention of State legislatures and Governorships, this is probably enough to preserve the present regulatory and tax structure.

It won't solve the demographic problem, and will only preserve the status quo for a couple of decades at best. But by then you'll be a whole lot richer ... and it will be someone else's problem.

http://extraordinaryintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/cheney_foaming-copy.jpg


Well THERE'S yer PROBLEM! :p

Osborne Russell
12-22-2015, 12:40 PM
But what if the status quo is what's keeping you rich?

Then the fog lifts and things appear in their true light.

TomF
12-22-2015, 01:01 PM
David Frum (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-1.3375622)seems to agree with my earlier cynical post.
The third option, and one that Frum views as a likely possibility moving forward, is to change the rules of the game. Here he argues that if the Republicans control the Senate, the House of Representatives and most of the State Houses, they may decide to hold on to the power that way."If winning the presidency takes uncomfortable change, then maybe the presidency is something that is good to have but not a must have for the majority party in the legislature."

oznabrag
12-22-2015, 01:04 PM
David Frum (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/donald-trump-republican-party-1.3375622)seems to agree with my earlier cynical post.
The third option, and one that Frum views as a likely possibility moving forward, is to change the rules of the game. Here he argues that if the Republicans control the Senate, the House of Representatives and most of the State Houses, they may decide to hold on to the power that way."If winning the presidency takes uncomfortable change, then maybe the presidency is something that is good to have but not a must have for the majority party in the legislature."

Not holding the Oval Office also gives them someone to blame.

This is gonna get ugly, folks.

Keith Wilson
12-22-2015, 01:37 PM
There's a very interesting article in The Atlantic by David Frum on the current state of the US right wing. I recommend it, although I'm not sure I agree with it all. You can read it here. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/)

A sample (emphasis added):


. . . The Great Recession ended in the summer of 2009. Since then, the U.S. economy has been growing, but most incomes have not grown comparably. In 2014, real median household income remained almost $4,000 below the pre-recession level, and well below the level in 1999. The country has recovered from the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. Most of its people have not. Many Republicans haven’t shared in the recovery and continued upward flight of their more affluent fellow partisans.

It was these pessimistic Republicans who powered the Tea Party movement of 2009 and 2010. They were not, as a rule, libertarians looking for an ultraminimal government. The closest study we have of the beliefs of Tea Party supporters, led by Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist, found that “Tea Partiers judge entitlement programs not in terms of abstract free-market orthodoxy, but according to the perceived deservingness of recipients. The distinction between ‘workers’ and ‘people who don’t work’ is fundamental to Tea Party ideology.”

It’s uncertain whether any Tea Partier ever really carried a placard that read keep your government hands off my medicare. But if so, that person wasn’t spouting gibberish. The Obama administration had laid hands on Medicare. It hoped to squeeze $500 billion out of the program from 2010 to 2020 to finance health insurance for the uninsured. You didn’t have to look up the figures to have a sense that many of the uninsured were noncitizens (20 percent), or that even more were foreign-born (27 percent). In the Tea Party’s angry town-hall meetings, this issue resonated perhaps more loudly than any other—the ultimate example of redistribution from a deserving “us” to an undeserving “them.”

Yet even as the Republican Main Street protested Obamacare, it rejected the hardening ideological orthodoxy of Republican donors and elected officials. A substantial minority of Republicans—almost 30 percent—said they would welcome “heavy” taxes on the wealthy, according to Gallup. Within the party that made Paul Ryan’s entitlement-slashing budget plan a centerpiece of policy, only 21 percent favored cuts in Medicare and only 17 percent wanted to see spending on Social Security reduced, according to Pew. Less than a third of ordinary Republicans supported a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants (again according to Pew); a majority, by contrast, favored stepped-up deportation.

As a class, big Republican donors could not see any of this, or would not. So neither did the politicians who depend upon them. Against all evidence, both groups interpreted the Tea Party as a mass movement in favor of the agenda of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. One of the more dangerous pleasures of great wealth is that you never have to hear anyone tell you that you are completely wrong.
. . .

Osborne Russell
12-22-2015, 02:28 PM
Not holding the Oval Office also gives them someone to blame.

This is gonna get ugly, folks.

Someone's picture to draw the hammer and sickle on and place right above the "Fight Back! Contribute Now!" button on the web site.

If it wasn't paying, they'd quit doing it.

Been ugly for some time now.

Osborne Russell
12-22-2015, 02:42 PM
[QUOTE]It was these pessimistic Republicans who powered the Tea Party movement of 2009 and 2010. They were not, as a rule, libertarians looking for an ultraminimal government. The closest study we have of the beliefs of Tea Party supporters, led by Theda Skocpol, a Harvard political scientist, found that “Tea Partiers judge entitlement programs not in terms of abstract free-market orthodoxy, but according to the perceived deservingness of recipients. The distinction between ‘workers’ and ‘people who don’t work’ is fundamental to Tea Party ideology.”


Excellent point. I agree with it, to a degree. A guy works all his life and gets X benefits. A lifelong welfare sucker gets the same, his whole life. An illegal alien gets them on his second day here. Meanwhile, the government is reducing X. The guy who works knows some part of the reduction came out of his share. A careful person might want the facts to be laid out plainly before adopting a simple explanation. For ordinary people, there's just enough truth in the deserving/undeserving meme to feed the victim schtick.



It’s uncertain whether any Tea Partier ever really carried a placard that read keep your government hands off my medicare.

No, it isn't.


But if so, that person wasn’t spouting gibberish.

Yes they were. Using words incorrectly has consequences. "Liberals are taking away my liberal programs!"

These people have no idea what liberal means. They think it means, all government as to which their side lost the vote.

skuthorp
12-22-2015, 02:50 PM
"These people have no idea what liberal means."

I think theres a line from Lewis Carroll.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’People hear what they wish to hear.