Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Kasich? every one of them would be a phenomenal disaster for the planet, let alone the US.
But tell me - which states that Obama carried in 2012 is Trump going to win in 2016? Maybe Virginia, which was a squeaker. Now just need to find another 113 electoral votes to flip.
This is the problem faced by whoever the Republicans nominate.
(President Paul Ryan. Now that would be a disaster.)
In any event, as I have said, his "popularity" is with a minority of a party that is in decline. I know of no Republicans who support him - and I know a lot of Republicans. Further, there is no way a man who has been successful in real estate in New York and New Jersey can't have some pretty delicious skeletons in his closet that are just waiting for the right amount of money to entice them to come out.
He won't be the nominee. And we should stop being scared of him. He's just a bully.
Callow, crass, creepy.
I'd rather have blowhard junior (Christie) than Trump. That said, I think if Trump is the nominee that he will lose.
can we just fucking stop this Clinton hate? she's not Bernie, but she's 10x better than the most "rational" republican. especially for women in this country. ask one.
He is a man wealthy enough to tell everyone else to fuck off, allowing him to continue saying or doing anything he wants, despite the "PC thought police."
His popularity should come as no surprise.
We are not far off from the start of the primaries here. This is going to be interesting.
I don't think we should cheer or not cheer, there's little we can do except wait.
The "presidency" is a bullshit job anyway, it is local elections that really count.
Ultimately, I think Catalina is right, Tonald Drump doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with being handled as the potus position requires.
That said, HELL NO we should not be "hoping" for a Trump nomination. Are you fucking high? Bad enough that he's polling as well as he is in the primaries. Every percentage point he gains in the polls emboldens his white supremacist followers. Anyone who thinks it would be "funny" or "usefully disruptive" to vote in Trump, is fine with bringing back "The Old Jim Crow" as long as we get to embarrass some Republicans in the process.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/?ref…
As well, as others have noted - Trump getting the nomination pushes the Overton Window into horribly extreme new territory.
Any “undecideds” who are wearier of Clinton’s issues with truth and candour than of Trump’s aren’t actually undecided and don’t actually care about truth and candour.
He has solid support from a significant number of paranoid racist reactionary wingers. But he has completely alienated virtually all minority groups. He might have been able to win a national election with racist code and fear mongering in the 1980s, but the demographics of this country have changed. Some mainstream republicans have (ineptly) been trying to court at least some minority voters. They're doing a terrible job at it, but they at least recognize that it is a requirement to win a national election in 2016. Trump has been grabbing headlines insulting latinos and blacks, and last night was throwing around jewish stereotypes as well. That might shore up his racist base, but it guarantees he'd lose in a general election.
So for my money, I kinda hope he wins the republican nomination. It would all but guarantee a President Hillary. Better, I hope he barely loses, and decides to run as an Independent. That would be an awesome fucking shit show.
Oh?
Has his support among non-white voters rocketed skyward since November, when Hillary Clinton was leading him by 13 points among white voters but by 45 points among non-white voters (1)?
And has he also successfully closed the gap with Hillary Clinton among Democratic and Democratic-leaning women voters, of whom only 32% rated him favorably as compared with 47% of men (2)?
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-…
(2) http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassi…
"What to do in case of a nuclear war? Kiss your children goodbye."
With either a Trump Presidential success or a nuclear war, our options would be the same.
Clinton is too compromised with Wall Street to generate high voter turnout among progressives and the disenfranchised, which is an absolute necessity to take congress and end the steady drift rightward (just consider 2000 which had the 2nd lowest turnout since ww2). Only a genuine populist like Sanders can generate enough enthusiasm to do it.
The damage has already been done. The rest of the GOP candidatebots have learned that outright white supremacy is the way to victory. They'll just know to couch it in prettier language so they have plausible deniability. The horserace-obsessed media will take that to be moderation and statesmanlike behaviour. The Democrats will think they have a victory, not noticing that now what's considered acceptable in society has undergone a violent, dangerous shift. Like openly bragging you assaulted someone of a different ethnicity, shift.
So what are Democrats hoping for? That Rockefeller Republican Hillary wins? This will be some huge victory because it's better than a white supremacist? She'll go after those precious, ;precious working-class while votes the same way she always has - by imitating the GOP. Remember when she didn't recant her Iraq war vote so she'd seem tough? Now imagine her trying to out-macho the current GOP. Didn't liberals used to have standards? Or what else? Jeb/Rubio/Cruz/whoever wins, having learned the way to the GOP's heart, is to act like Trump but in a way they can't be called on it? I really want to live in that America?
It doesn't matter who wins. White supremacy has already won.
Hahahahahahaha!
Highly motivated Democrat voters for Hillary! Biggest laugh of the night.
Honestly, much of those arguments that Trump would bring about either republican revolt or apathy could easily be said about a Hillary campaign. And guess what? At least Trump has people who WANT to vote for him based on his views while Hillary's claim to fame is her "electability".
You know, Republicans lost the last two elections because they pushed who they thought was most electable. But they lost because we ran a candidate that people actually believed in. Sort of like when the Democrats nominated Kerry and Gore and they had the villainous, yet believable, Bush.
So, there's one thing I would call Hillary: unelectable.
Just as long as nobody says Hillary is "yelling" about gun control.
A highly influential former Obama adviser tells people whose jobs don't pay the bills, whose retirement is gone, or never existed, that his great solution to wage stagnation is to pile yet another shitty job driving f…. This is the word from the so-called friends of labor in politics: let our corporate friends suck you dry until there's nothing left.
Hillary Clinton has spent so much time whoring herself out to Wall Street, there's no possible way she even knows how to do anything else.
And liberals care more about which bathroom Caitlin Jenner gets to use, or which parties Yale elitists get invited to than actually doing anything to help the working class.
Trump supporters aren't idiots, no matter what anyone says here. They know the rest of the GOP field is against them. They also know that the Democratic elites are against them too; they're just the velvet glove over the iron fist.
My theory is they just don't give a damn any more. They see Trump as someone who's not beholden to special interests because he has his own money. And deep down, they know he probably won't fix anything. And that a Trump Presidency might just burn the whole thing down. But it's not like the American Dream is exactly working for them any more.
Personally, knowing full well that Donald Trump represents everything that is worst about America, I'm extremely tempted to vote for him simply for the lulz.
After all, Hillary Clinton would just be more of the same, just with extra pointless militarism. And she's light years better than any other alternative in the GOP.
Bernie Sanders is too little, too late and doesn't stand a chance with the electorate. Even if he did somehow manage to win, he'd be incapable of accomplishing anything; there are still all of those Republicans gerrymandered into the Congress.
So I'm strongly leaning towards the Bill the Cat way of thinking: "This time, why not the worst?" It's not like any other candidate will do anything for me.
And while you're right that east and west coast white liberals really like Sanders, I'd like to see your sources for your claim that Clinton can't generate support from "the disenfranchised" despite Sanders trailing Clinton among both non-white voters and women.
Look, I like Bernie a lot too (except on guns) and I will absolutely work to get out the vote for him if he's our nominee. But I'm finding myself increasingly put off by his die-hard supporters. The kind of negative rhetoric you're using will not get liberal voters excited about your candidate. If you want to turn out the vote by slinging mud, you're in the wrong party (1).
(1) http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article…
Here are some links:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102277/gallup…
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102799/clinto…
Whether Bernie is Obama or Howard Dean remains to be seen. I'm hoping he at least gives Hillary some competition. This is the first time in my whole life a candidate for President was actually talking about economic inequality and the state having a responsibility to poor people.
Sanders trails Clinton among minority voters because they have never heard of him, which doesn't inform us on the level of enthusiasm generated by Clinton.
I am an independent and I probably wouldn't vote for Clinton because she is a pawn of Wall Street and a warmonger. Realize that your candidate's record has a lot more to do with bringing out the vote than you do with your choice of rhetoric.
Sanders, so far, lacks name recognition among minority voters, which doesn't tell us anything about the enthusiasm generated by Clinton. In the current climate of rock-bottom approval of institutions (congress, parties, press,etc.), establishment candidates don't generate much enthusiasm.
I am an independent so I am not in the wrong party. I probably wouldn't vote for Clinton. Realize at long last that your candidate's luggage has a lot more to do with voter turnout than comments on a blog post.
"Sources, please? I don't recall President Obama trailing Hillary Clinton by 40+ points among non-white voters less than two months before Iowa..."
In fact, your first source suggests that was not the case: "Among whites, Clinton leads Obama by double digits, but the two run nearly neck-and-neck among African Americans: Forty-six percent would vote for Obama and 40 percent for Clinton."
I'm not saying Sanders couldn't win. I think he might. But given how far he trails Clinton among non-white and women voters right now, I'm not sure how anon1256 can insist that Sanders is the only candidate people will turn out to vote for in November.
@ anon1256 - No, I didn't find any sources that said that Obama was trailing Clinton by more than 40 points among non-white voters at this point in the 2008 election cycle. In fact, here's what Nate Silver has to say about the topic:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/berni…
His first footnote speaks directly to polling data from late 2007: "Obama gained strength as the primary went on with black voters. Still, he was regularly approaching 50 percent with black voters in surveys at this point." It contains two links to these two polls:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol…
http://www.psrai.com/filesave/0711%20fto…
Even the Republican Party's strategists know they can't win if they don't pick up support from people who aren't white men. Right now, that is a big problem for Bernie Sanders. Maybe it won't be in months to come; we'll just have to wait and see.
Oh, and "[my] candidate" is whichever one of the Democratic candidates wins the primary.
Sanders is more the candidate of youth, rather than white men.
Oh sure. We certainly got a lot of "lulz" off of Bush, didn't we?
It would probably be best for everyone if you just stayed home and played with yourself election day. You don't seem to grasp the concept that sometimes the lesser of two evils really is better than the greater of two evils.