The Trump/Republican Primary/General Election Megathread

[PaulF]

We're winning when we're pissing the enemy off.

What do you call it when you **** off your own constituency enough that they withdraw their support from you?

I call it losing.

Meanwhile, all your "winning" is pushing "your enemy" directly into the oval office...with a tailwind.

I look over this thread and I am honesty befuddled over all the cheerleading for a guy who, possibly, (but, literally, only maybe) might not be as bad for American Liberty as Hillary Clinton.

 

[IndyDave1776]

But at this point, after all of the things that Trump himself has said, anyone who still feels that he is fit to be president is either not thinking things through carefully, or they are letting their fear and prejudice cloud their judgement, or they are extremely low-information (which is a euphemism for stupid and/or ignorant; it's not intended to be an insult, just a factual observation with the hope that they will try to do better). And it doesn't matter if those people are doctors, lawyers, clergy, or what-have-you. I don't like saying it, but it's almost as if a large portion of the electorate has had a collective brain fart.

And yes, I'm old enough to remember 1994 and a lot further back beyond that.

The bottom line is that we got sick and tired of having the same old s**t shoved down our throats and/or up our asses and Trump offered the only viable alternative to more of the same, unless, of course, you would prefer Bernie.

 

[bwframe]

What do you call it when you **** off your own constituency enough that they withdraw their support from you?

I'll let you know when I see it.
So far it seems as though real 2A proponents are right where they need to be.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Not to be outdone by a Terrorist's Dad sitting behind Clinton.... Trump gets ex-Rep Mark Foley... who sent sexually explicit text messages to teenage boys.... sitting behind him.

Awful PR team.

 

[PaulF]

I'll let you know when I see it.
So far it seems as though real 2A proponents are right where they need to be.

*yawn*

He's still going to lose.

 

[bwframe]

*yawn*

He's still going to lose.

All righty then.

 

[T.Lex]

What do you call it when you **** off your own constituency enough that they withdraw their support from you?

I call it losing.

Hey, let's leave GHWB out of this.

 

[mrjarrell]

[h=1]GOP rep.: Our party has made a huge mistake[/h]
GOP rep.: Our party has made a huge mistake | MSNBC

Ya' think?

 

[ghitch75]

GOP rep.: Our party has made a huge mistake


GOP rep.: Our party has made a huge mistake | MSNBC

Ya' think?

no mistake!!!!......they are just fearing loosing there happy home!!!!.......that is what all the lifers are fearing!!!!

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

The mistake was having so many candidates running against Trump in the primaries and ALL of them losing to him with the people. The party made a mistake alright, they can't come up with a true conservative that can convince the people that they are honest, trustworthy and will actually work as a representative of the people.

 

[SwikLS]

The mistake was having so many candidates running against Trump in the primaries and ALL of them losing to him with the people. The party made a mistake alright, they can't come up with a true conservative that can convince the people that they are honest, trustworthy and will actually work as a representative of the people.

the media would never let that happen no matter who the candidate is

 

[T.Lex]

Well, if Republicans are going to be about freedom, it is difficult to justify limiting the number of candidates at the beginning of primary season. Plus, I don't think there's anything the party could have overtly done to prevent Trump.

Maybe that's just pessimism, but if the party had done something explicit to try to stop Trump, I think it just would've fed his campaign more. I believe what Trump supporters say: that Trump reflects what they believe.

Make of that what you will.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The mistake was having so many candidates running against Trump in the primaries and ALL of them losing to him with the people. The party made a mistake alright, they can't come up with a true conservative that can convince the people that they are honest, trustworthy and will actually work as a representative of the people.

The mistake was him running, period. The media saw it as an opportunity to easily beat the GOP... and they selected him to be the candidate.

People aren't going to vote for someone that gets 5 minutes of media coverage. They're going to vote for the guy with hours of free coverage and a BS message about "middle fingers" and "sticking it to the establishment"

The media picked the clown to be the candidate because he can, and will, lose to Clinton. They did their job.

 

[T.Lex]

The mistake was him running, period. The media saw it as an opportunity to easily beat the GOP... and they selected him to be the candidate.

People aren't going to vote for someone that gets 5 minutes of media coverage. They're going to vote for the guy with hours of free coverage and a BS message about "middle fingers" and "sticking it to the establishment"

The media picked the clown to be the candidate because he can, and will, lose to Clinton. They did their job.

IMHO that's overly simplistic. The media coverage was as much mocking him, or allowing him to be the caricature that he projects, without actually believing people would go for it.

But they did. Here's something undeniable: Trump's rhetoric resonates with people. People who vote in primaries.

Yes, he's gotten a free pass on many things, but not from the media - from the people. It defies explanation, other than he simply connected with people who voted in the primary, so he won.

I don't think it is really any more complicated than that.

(Kinda like Obama in 2008.)

 

[KLB]

The mistake was having so many candidates running against Trump in the primaries and ALL of them losing to him with the people. The party made a mistake alright, they can't come up with a true conservative that can convince the people that they are honest, trustworthy and will actually work as a representative of the people.

What is your definition of a "true conservative"?

Fiscal? Social?
Would this person have to be anti-abortion? Anti gay marriage?
Should they want to increase our military spending?
Should they want to balance the budget and move towards paying off the debt?

 

[jamil]

We're winning when we're pissing the enemy off.

Winning has more to do with where you are in relation to your goal. If the goal is pissing people off, well, ya. By all means, celibate that win. If your goal is winning the presidency, pissing people off isn't a great measure of progress towards that goal.

 

[T.Lex]

... If the goal is pissing people off, well, ya. By all means, celibate that win....

Somewhat coincidentally, if Trump had been more celibate, he may not have pissed off as many people.

 

[foszoe]

Since we're all pontificating, the mistake was pride and ego.

If the other 16 had pared themselves down for the sake of the party, they could have stopped Trump in the primaries instead of splitting the vote.

 

[jamil]

The mistake was having so many candidates running against Trump in the primaries and ALL of them losing to him with the people. The party made a mistake alright, they can't come up with a true conservative that can convince the people that they are honest, trustworthy and will actually work as a representative of the people.

Why is it a mistake to have so many candidates running against Trump? That's not how primary elections go. Candidates organize their campaigns, and file the paperwork to run. It's not like there's a party board that selects candidates and only allows the chosen ones to run. Trump threw his hat in like everyone else. It's not like he was the chosen candidate and the rest were just for show. If they did have such a board, they'd never had allowed Trump to run.

The problem I find with coming up with a "true conservative", not a majority of people are "true conservative". Maybe a majority would say they are, but the criteria would be all over the place. Trump, for example, is no "true conservative" in my definition of what that means. He is to the left of me on several issues.

Conservatives make up a large and loud chunk of the Republican Party. There isn't a "moral majority". The nation, especially younger Americans, have moved on from that. I do think that many conservative principles still resonate with a majority of general election voters, and certainly among Republicans. But the conservative candidates also carry some views that most people find extreme.

I see little evidence that Social Conservatism is alive in the minds of the general electorate. But I do think that people like other conservative principles. Speaking in Venn Diagram terms, the Republican Party platform should probably ditch the efforts to make the party platform a union of the diversity, and instead make it an intersection of the most common principles.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Since we're all pontificating, the mistake was pride and ego.

If the other 16 had pared themselves down for the sake of the party, they could have stopped Trump in the primaries instead of splitting the vote.

Also probably a big part of it. Without the 10 others... Cruz and Rubio would have had a much better chance to beat Trump... and I believe Clinton, as well.