2016 Roundup

[nacho]

We're doomed.

[monkey!]

Donald Trump for president, right?

[nacho]

Donald Trump for president, right?

Last I heard, Carson pulled ahead.

[Reginald McGraw]

I've seen zero polling with Carson ahead of Trump.

I did see one poll yesterday with Carson topping Hillary head-to-head.

[monkey!]

Trump 2016!

[RottingCorpse]

You know what I'm fucking sick of? Trump. I'm sick of the people who love him. I'm sick of the people who think he's Hitler.

Here's the truth about Trump. You ready? It's not that exciting.

He can't win.

He'll be lucky to get a majority of delegate votes at the GOP convention, much less actually compete in a general election. Even if he wins every primary in every state, I think it's doubtful the GOP allows him to be the candidate. He's a third party candidate. The GOP will go with Marco Rubio to appeal to Latinos, maybe Ted Cruz to appeal to mediocrity. Trump will run as a third party candidate and split the GOP vote handing the election to Hillary.

There you have it. He's not Hitler. He's not Jesus. He's Ross Perot.

[nacho]

I'm sick of people who underestimate Trump!

Right now, it's all for show. The real impact comes once we hit the primaries. If Trump does start winning primaries, then the GOP blocking his nomination is not possible. That's not how the electoral college works. There's not some cabal that says, okay, the college wants to vote for you, but you're exiled.

If Trump manages (and real big if here) to develop a precinct-based machine that wins him states, the only option is for any dissenters in those ranks to split the state vote.

But you have to wonder...will there be dissenters?

Right now, yes, Trump is very much parallel to Ross Perot. He's mastered the showmanship aspect. Where Perot failed is that he didn't know how to create the precinct-level machine that he could bring to the convention. I think we'll all be quite surprised by Trump's ability to understand and manipulate that machine. 

[RottingCorpse]

I think the GOP machine regards Trump with the same distaste as they do the Tea Party at this point. They've sullied the brand, by going too far in one direction. If they had their choice of maniac, they'd take Carson over Trump.

As a student of politics, do you really think Trump can win the long game? In order to do so, he has to moderate his message and I absolutely can't see him doing that. His ego is too huge. Ultimately, we don't want our president to be a loose cannon. We want somebody measured who is calm in a shit storm. Even Teddy Roosevelt's bluster was mostly for show.

Also, 2015 America is not 1933 Germany no matter what the insane memes say. Are people stupid enough to vote for Trump? Without a doubt. But I don't see it happening. I find the Nazi parallel ridiculous even with his stupid Muslim registration plan. (Besides, we're already a fascist police state.)

Trump can't win for the same reason Bernie can't win: the general public finds them too "extreme." Both really play to a small base. (Though Bernie isn't actually extreme at all. He's just fighting a system of corruption that's entrenched.) The media loves him because he gets eyes tuning in. He's a reality star.

I'm just sick of Trump invading every aspect of my internet experience.  It's not even 2016 yet.

[nacho]

Oh my, god... And you're overestimating America!

"the general public finds them too "extreme.""

Oh? And you're basing that on...? Your liberal DC friends and followers? When you head to WVA, ask the people in the gas station, at the bar... Hell, Sirharles? You reading this? As our resident Republican, if it's Trump v. Hillary, what are you going to do?

I certainly don't agree with the Nazi parallel (again, it's made by people who don't understand how we're governed -- a president Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much of anything, because the GOP will ultimately block him at that stage).

But I do think Trump has the gumption and wherewithal to manipulate (and fucking buy) the precinct-level machine. I think he will carry states. I think he will bring the states to the convention. I think he's more a George Wallace than a Ross Perot. and I think we should be more concerned this time around because he does not have viable competition, as Wallace did (as Perot did).   

I also think we should be concerned because, outside of the cities, we have the people who decide our elections and they're an uneducated rabble easily amused by Trump. Unless the GOP actively steps in now to sideline him -- and they haven't, they won't, they can't -- he's going to get the ball. It'll be his race to lose, and hell only lose it if he fails to negotiate the machine. But remember that that machine is not comprised of the GOPers you know and love and drink with at the Fox & Hounds.

You dismiss him as a reality star. In 2015 America, do you honestly believe that the mass of middle America wouldn't cheerfully vote for a reality star?

[RottingCorpse]

I think my pinko lib-lab buddies all up in Bernie's junk don't get it either. I like Bernie. Politically, I agree with Bernie. However Bernie is running *against* the machine. Not just the Clinton machine, but the Dems corporate political machine. Bernie isn't going to sway too many folks in the middle. (Though I could make a argument he's less polarizing than Hillary. The irony is that Hillary's camp are the ones making Bernie look like a socialist so she looks like a moderate.)

Now you could argue that Trump, a businessman at his core, has the GOP corporate political machine on his side. But that machine still wants to consolidate it's power. While a populist voice like Trump is what they need, Trump the candidate has disenfranchised too many constituents to be viable. The political machine sees this, which is why the entire moderate GOP base is panicking over Trump. They're looking at the long game. I assume (naively perhaps) that the GOPs understand they are going to need minority constituencies in order to win elections in 21st century America. They know the can't just count on the old white guy vote even with all the district gerrymandering in the world.

You talk about precincts. You think majority Latino precincts are going to vote for Trump? He'll have to back off his hardline immigration reform. He'll have to moderate, and I don't think the people who like Trump will like him if he softens. I think the Muslim registration thing will hurt him outside of middle redneck America. Though maybe he just needs to win VA, Ohio, and Florida and none of it matters.

I do agree that the GOP has no other candidate out there who seems viable so the GOP supporters will vote Trump before they vote Hillary. If it's Trump vs. Hillary, I think a lot of people will simply stay home. I think it'll be the lowest voter turnout for a presidential election in recent history. My belief (again, perhaps naive) is that ultimately, we all swing in the middle somewhere.

And ultimately, I think the GOP machine that wants to consolidate power would like to stop him. They just don't know how.

[nacho]

Though maybe he just needs to win VA, Ohio, and Florida and none of it matters.

Um...yes.

I don't put much stock in the Latino thing. The Latino vote, supposedly, puts so many states into play (of which FLA is the only one that really matters). So when we go back to the precinct-level thing (i.e., the electoral college), FLA is the only player. Maybe GA this time around. But the real face of the electoral college is Ohio, PA, IL, TX... These are places where Trump plays well because they're fucking rubes, or they think it's funny.

The electoral machine is a strange beast. Trump wouldn't have them in his pocket because he's a corporate wonk. All he has to do is convince them that it's time for a change, and that he's that change.

See, since 1968, elections have been about two little cookie cutters running against each other. Cookie Cutter #1 always says this, Cookie Cutter #2 always says that, and everyone toes the line and the small percentage of people who actually vote do what their daddies did.

Despite the over-saturation, we're actually living in interesting times. One party has shattered, the other party is too crippled from their near-permanent defensive crouch that they can't take advantage of the vacuum. This is a protest election. It's a statement election. It's a big, noisy, New Era for The Empire election.

And who better to play that up? The old guard party machine gal, or the enormously amusing orangutan?

I always compare America to the dying days of the Roman Republic, right? Our slow shift into empire. So if that history is accurate, this is Trump's election.

And, you know this. "They know they can't just count on the old white guy vote" -- while I take it out of context to do so, that phase applies to Hillary, and it's what we're all thinking. It's what I'm thinking!

So our only saving grace is -- who will she be up against? And, if Trump actually manages to get that far, could she stand her ground? No.

All conjecture here. We can argue all day. The proof will be in the pudding. If trump starts winning actual primaries and can establish a real base in addition to his reality king status, then the ballgame is over, man. No matter what you wish for. But I bet the chances are pretty even that he'll get there and implode (which is what happened to Perot -- he talked the talked but failed to walk the walk).




   

[RottingCorpse]

We'll see here in a couple months.

I think somebody emerges. Maybe Carson clarifies his message. Despite the fact that he says crazier shit than Trump half the time, Carson seems to me the GOPs best bet. He walks the party line, but step off it much. (Except when he plays to the deep tea party base and sounds like Dave Chappelle's black Klan member.) Sure the white supremacists stay home, but they're not going to carry the election anyway. He'll dip into the back vote.

Rubio is young and charismatic, but gets no traction. Cruz is as crazy as Trump, and 75% less interesting. Fiorina would get absolutely whacked by Hilary. Jeb Bush? Nobody is talking about him anymore.

Also, can't the delegates change their vote at the convention? I know they don't typically, but in the old days wasn't there actual backroom deals that decided the candidate or have I seen Citizen Kane too many times?

[nacho]

Also, can't the delegates change their vote at the convention? I know they don't typically, but in the old days wasn't there actual backroom deals that decided the candidate or have I seen Citizen Kane too many times?

"Faithless electors." They are allowed to vote for someone other than the candidate they pledged to vote for. It's never had an impact on an election and it usually spells the end of the elector's career.

[RottingCorpse]

I certainly don't agree with the Nazi parallel (again, it's made by people who don't understand how we're governed -- a president Trump wouldn't have the authority to do much of anything, because the GOP will ultimately block him at that stage).

Oh really?!

[nacho]

That convinces me!