Why Donald Trump is Bad for the Republican Party

[slowG]

Thats far fetched.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This may have already been stated, I'm not reading all 12 pages of posts,

I'm convinced that Trump is a "spoiler" planted by the Clinton camp. If he win's the Repub primary, that's fine. The Clintons are sure he would not get enough votes in the general election to win.
But it's more likely that his rhetoric will turn off enough Repub voters that he ends up losing some support and Walker/Bush/Rubio wins the nomination. Trump then runs as a 3rd party and pulls away some Repub votes.
A Clinton wins again with less than a majority of the vote. It's the Ross Perot effect all over again.

I had thought about Perot and his primary accomplishment of putting Billy Jeff in office, but I do see some critical differences. Perot's appeal to those to whom he appealed was absolutely that of message. A relatively small percentage believed that his ideas have merit. One of the principal problems we now face is that too few people who vote make their decisions based on the merit of someone's ideas, so we already have our first and best device of separation largely nullified. The next consideration with Perot is that he was neither appealing nor necessarily likable. He was a shrill little almost-Mickey Mouse doppelganger who tended to be rather obnoxious to watch or listen to. While Trump does not necessarily appeal to or conform with the thoughts of many traditional Republican voters, once again, he has a lot of traction with a lot of people that have either been pissed off into not voting at all or have never felt motivated to vote seeing the standard election boiling down to choosing between sh*t sandwiches with different condiments.

What is Trump really doing?

1. He could be a Clinton shill causing chaos now and a split later.

2. He could trying to force important subjects which never get an honest discussion to receive that honest discussion.

3. Trump is bright enough to realize that the notion that primary voters actually choose what they consider the best candidate is a bunch of crap. He could actually want to be president and realizes that he can hold a third-party run as a nuclear option to extort the RNC into manipulating him onto the ballot in preference to handing the election to Hillary.

Thinking back to the thread title, I would say that Trump is bad for the Republican Party in much the same way that police are bad for criminals.

 

[rhino]

If Donald Trump is shilling for anyone, it's solely for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's interests.

 

[jamil]

If Donald Trump is shilling for anyone, it's solely for Donald Trump and Donald Trump's interests.

This^^^

I don't know if the Clintons made any deals with Trump. But regardless I am confident thet Trump is doing this for Trump.

 

[mrjarrell]

Polls are showing a Hillary victory against Trump and Bush. She beats either them in a head to head matchup. If Trump decides to run as an independent and Bush is the nominee then it's a Hillary blowout. And it would likely split the republican party in the future, (not that there isn't already a fracture there anyway). Trump is a wild card this go around.

Poll: Hillary Clinton wins 3-way race over Jeb and Trump in blowout - Daily News Bin

 

[silverspoon]

A Republican split may be a good thing in the long run. It could certainly pave the way for a viable 3rd party which this country desperately needs. The current two party system is an absolute failure.

 

[jerrob]

A Republican split may be a good thing in the long run. It could certainly pave the way for a viable 3rd party which this country desperately needs. The current two party system is an absolute failure.

I agree with you 100%.
I just wonder if this economy can take another term with a Dem at the helm. I sure don't think our 2A rights could do it without taking a major hit.

 

[rhino]

Political parties are inherently evil because they aid in the accumulation and concentration of illicit power.

What we have isn't working. Unfortunately, a split in the GOP could just as easily lead us to a one-party system. Let's not forget that divide and conquer is one of the socialist-statists most used (and effective) techniques. If we think it's bad now . . .

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You?re A Fool If You?re Supporting Donald Trump (And You?re Being Exploited.)

 

[HoughMade]

A Republican split may be a good thing in the long run. It could certainly pave the way for a viable 3rd party which this country desperately needs. The current two party system is an absolute failure.

BS. Splitting the non-liberal vote has never brought a third party into contention and will not now.

I heard plenty of this talk in 1992 and we got 2 terms of Clinton. I heard plenty of it in the '90s and 2000s as to senate and house races and third parties, save a Socialist, were never elected, but Democrats got gains. What losses the Dems have had of late are due to the President shooting himself in the foot and people NOT streaming to a third party.

 

[bmoan]

The Donald is playing the game masterfully, As was said earlier Trump is out for trump, he is in a win win, he either gets the nomination and has a legit shot at president or he splits to a third party and holds over the head of Dems that he put them in the Whitehouse by stealing votes from the GOP. If Trump is nothing else he's the ultimate politician, by being one while everyone thinks he's not. That is the art of persuasion and sales just because a negotiator does not work for the government does not make them in a sense not a politician ( saying what your sales target needs to hear to close the deal) Trump understands that and has a sense that people are fed up with Gov spending, illegals, and political correctness!!!! He also sees Conservatives tired of the Socialist and Socialist light parties that run everything. I for one am tired of reading both candidate's plan and wondering who plagiarized who! minus a few issues it seems it always about the same. And once elected always the same Gov Grows and we pay!!

 

[bmoan]

oh sorry about the rant, but to answer the question, he is setting himself up as an, either pick me and I'll do what I want or get another Dem. He is bad for the party because ultimately he is forcing the GOP into a corner

 

[Thor]

A candidate should have to prove a bit more than filling out a couple of forms before being allowed to run for president. They should have to prove they are eligible and then the parties should be able to decide if they really have a potential to be their candidate. If you can't show support for the parties platform you shouldn't be allowed to run for the parties candidacy.

Of course, if they had to prove eligibility ahead of time we might not have had a president or so that we have had.

 

[IndyDave1776]

oh sorry about the rant, but to answer the question, he is setting himself up as an, either pick me and I'll do what I want or get another Dem. He is bad for the party because ultimately he is forcing the GOP into a corner

You still have to address the fact that he is able to force the GOP into a corner because they have been a pack of stupid sh*ts who have ignored their constituents long enough that the only real loyalty they have is the negative loyalty of those willing to vote 'Anyone but [insert Democrat].

 

[Libertarian01]

The first average of all polls is out at Realclearpolitics.com (EDIT: This is the first results POST DEBATE. My bad...)

Trump: 22.8%
Bush: 12.0%
Walker: 9.4%
Rubio & Carson: 6.2%
Huckabee: 6.0%
Cruz: 5.8%
Paul: 4.4%

This is an average of ALL polls. In NO poll does Bush do better than seven (7) points behind Trump.

It is scary that this many people are backing a guy who really said nothing about governing the country.

The appeal of Ross Perot in 1992 was that he came out with a simple, clear, understandable message that resonated with voters. He had is charts that were easy to understand. He focused on the economy and the debt and people loved that. I believe he could have won if he hadn't torpedoed himself dropping out and getting back in.

Trump has none of that. No charts, no clear message, just "I'm going to out negotiate them." It's sad really.

The only thing sadder is Gov Bush being the #2 guy. I was really hoping we would get away from dynasties and it looks like I will be disappointed again. I am guessing a Bush/Clinton choice.

Doug

 

[jamil]

You still have to address the fact that he is able to force the GOP into a corner because they have been a pack of stupid sh*ts who have ignored their constituents long enough that the only real loyalty they have is the negative loyalty of those willing to vote 'Anyone but [insert Democrat].

Here's the rub with that though. You're overestimating the real political power angry conservatives have. "Republican" isn't monolithic. You're not the only constituent. It's not like 100% of Republican voters are pissed off at Republican leaders for not talking like Trump. Apparently, that pissed off constituency is ~22.8%.

Many INGOers accurately pointed out that Romney lost because conservatives couldn't vote for him. That's true. He'd have won if he'd have drawn even as many votes as McCain got. But the same people mistakenly assume this means the people who wanted Romney to win would vote for your guy. That's just not going to happen. There is no magical moral majority that will swoop in and vote fire and brimstone back into the White House.

Think of all the Republican factions being represented by a Venn Diagram. The only way a Republican will win the White House is if the intersection of all Republican factions is larger than the Democrats'. Donald trump has the highest favorable rating among republicans, and that's only because the other 75% of republicans split their vote among the other candidates representing the other factions. If Trump wins the nomination, some conservatives will stay home. And Moderate Republicans and independents will settle for the Democrat. All the polls suggest Clinton would trounce Trump head to head.

I hate that it's this way. And if we had a more representative electoral system, it wouldn't have to be this way. But it's what we have. And it requires voting for people you don't like; the lesser of two evils. The people who can't accept that reality in our ****ed up system, you may as well start planing how you'll morn the swearing in of the HBIC.

 

[BugI02]

You?re A Fool If You?re Supporting Donald Trump (And You?re Being Exploited.)

This gentleman gets it. +1


ETA: Pay particular attention to the 'no plan to actually run the country' part

 

[BugI02]

A candidate should have to prove a bit more than filling out a couple of forms before being allowed to run for president. They should have to prove they are eligible and then the parties should be able to decide if they really have a potential to be their candidate. If you can't show support for the parties platform you shouldn't be allowed to run for the parties candidacy.

Of course, if they had to prove eligibility ahead of time we might not have had a president or so that we have had.

I've said it before. Taking a page from the Roman playbook might be beneficial. Make military service (in harm's way) a necessary condition for any national candidacy. We could do worse.

 

[kmoffett71]

I wondered from the start if he was a "decoy" for someone else...I didn't anyone specific in mind, but wondered if he is doing what was planned. Although, I think he is an arrogant @$$ and he probably does believe he could win. I do not believe it will open doors for Hillary though. i think the investigation is the nail in her coffin.

 

[Dead Duck]

Here again, Trump is doing a great job at pissing off all the right people.
Just look at all the grumps in this thread. It's working.