Another Trump question

40 comments

• Bigtallbonerboy

  •

  8 years ago

  Republicans don't believe in killing babies or giving their cash away so no.
• Bigtallbonerboy

  •

  8 years ago

  Only democrats are stupid enough to vote both sides
• twentyfive

  •

  8 years ago

  This is pretty new stuff, no one I know can say for sure, but every person that has written Trump off has been wrong so far, we will see. I personally cant see how Trump will win in the general election, but every day it looks more like he will take the Republican nomination. If he wins the Republican nomination then he has a better than even chance at the general election, god help us all.
• shailynn

  •

  8 years ago

  Generally it works like this: States hold their primaries and vote for who they want to run for president. People registered as democrats can only vote for the democrat candidates and people registered as republicans can only vote for republicans. This all will be sorted out and finalized by the republican national convention which is in mid-July. The democratic convention is held one week later. Then the 2 finalists (1 democrat, 1 republican) along with a few independents will hit the trail for votes until the election which is in the beginning of November. Independents have to go through a seperate process to get on each state ballot. In some cases some independents don't get on every state ballot, which essentially fucks them from the get go. Where an independent can really do damage is say it's Hillary and Trump and Bloomberg runs as an independent. some democrats that normally would vote for Hillary decide to vote for Bloomberg. Even though he may not have a chance he just stole 8% of Hillary's votes giving Trump an edge to win. It's hard to say would a republican away from Trunps vote. It all depends on the nominee for the Democratic Party. One thing I find interesting, it appears that the UK hates Trump with a passion, but they just demanded all Muslims must learn English, I see some UK policies aligning with what Trump, give me an UK insight londonguy!!!
• flagooner

  •

  8 years ago

  Funny. The same can be said about Clinton.
• knight_errant

  •

  8 years ago

  Trump's numbers are pumped up by polling of first time voters, whose ultimate voting behavior (if they actually vote at all) is hard to predict. However, there is a record level of antiestablishment sentiment out there (on both sides of the aisle). If Trump does win the nomination, there may well be a third party run, either by Michael Bloomberg (who said he will if Trump or Cruz gets the GOP nomination, and Sanders gets the Dems...if indicated by March....which Bloomberg will fund with a billion of his own $$). Also, the GOP establishment (or rather shadow establishment- the money and movers outside of the RNC) could choose to back a 3rd party candidate, but they would probably rather try to work with Trump than risk splitting the GOP any further which would hand the Dem nominee the election.
• shailynn

  •

  8 years ago

  ^^^ interesting when you say "first time voters" made me think, I have not heard of one single person under the age of 22 say they support trump. Almost all of them are sanders fans. Assuming most 1st time voters that are older are probably immigrants wonder how they would vote?
• seaboardrr

  •

  8 years ago

  Personally, I think Trump will withdraw at some point. He would have to hand over control of ALL his business dealings for the next 4 years and no amount of hair dye would keep his hair from going full on visible gray. The gray would eat right through the hair dye after having to deal with the nightmare bureaucracy and money grubbing idiots in washington. He likes to wheel and deal so he'd fit in a little bit but washington is all about help us with mine and i'll help you with yours. If Trump doesn't like something or thinks it's a terrible business idea I've always got the feeling he simply says NO whereas washington is all about yes, it's a bad idea but i'll agree to it anyway since you're agreeing to my bad idea. I think Trump would spend most of his time stymied and not being able to get much done which would drive him insane. I can say that all the guys I work with all like Trump. It basically boils down to everyone of them saying yes, he's had bankruptcies and bad deals but his number one goal is to make great business deals and make money which is what the country needs. Balanced budget and positive cash flow. They all say he can't be any worse than the jackass in there now or any before him. Plus, he's not part of the good ole boy network in washington. Trump is the monkey wrench in this whole election.
• JohnSmith69

  •

  8 years ago

  Trump being the nominee will not cause a lot of republicans to vote for a democrat. But it might cause some republicans to not vote which could be just as bad. It's hard to know when in the primary process the final candidate will be known. I'd guess late spring or summer but nothing is typical about this election.
• knight_errant

  •

  8 years ago

  Shay- most first time voters are NOT young. Barely 50% of the electorate (the eligible voters) vote in presidential elections (and turnout is much worse in non-presidential election years). Voter participation is deplorable in the US and it is questionable if even the Donald can activate a significant percentage. [view link] is a great source for election data and analysis. Check out this article: [view link]
• shailynn

  •

  8 years ago

  ^^^^ cool thanks for the link. I wasn't knocking your statement at all, just noting that it got me thinking... Who is it that's being considered a first time voter other than the obvious 18 year old/someone who he turned 18 since the last election.
• shailynn

  •

  8 years ago

  Lol - I know who does vote. Old people and people that pay property taxes!!!
• londonguy

  •

  8 years ago

  Shailynn "One thing I find interesting, it appears that the UK hates Trump with a passion, but they just demanded all Muslims must learn English, I see some UK policies aligning with what Trump, give me an UK insight londonguy!!!" This is absolutely not true, it's the usual fucktards making a noise about things or people they don't agree with. The vast majority of people don't hate him and respect his right to have an opinion. There was a petition started to try to get hi banned from entering U.K. - what a bunch of morons. Our waste of space PM David Cameron suggested Muslim women learn English to help integrate better.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  "Supposing Trump does win the nomination will that harden the Republican vote or would a lot of them vote Democrat that wouldn't otherwise do so and so sway the result.? When is this going to be over, by that I mean when will we know who the respective candidates be, it seems as though it's been going on forever?" The states hold primaries, and most of the states are still winner take all. So usually the nominees are decided before the party conventions in the Summer. So most of the time the conventions are just infomercials now. The primary voters are more extreme than the general election voters, but Trump still is not going to win. And places that have caucus straw votes, like Iowa, are more extreme than places like New Hampshire which have a real primary. [view link] As far as Trump himself, its the same as it is with any fringe candidate or potential third party candidate. 1. Very unlikely, impossible, he could get any nomination. The party leaders and most of their voters know he is a clown. 2. Yes, lots of people in both parties would come out just to vote against him, in either the primary or the general election. 3. If he decided to continue on after failing to get his party's nomination, then he would be splitting the Republican vote and handing the Democrats a victory. So his real threat is to the Republican nominee. A big time this could have happened was in 1972 when far right Democratic Party Governor of Alabama George Wallace was going to continue on after losing the nomination and possibly cost Richard Nixon his second term. 4. The real effect of Trump is just to give permission to racist and extreme views, and at least to some extent, to shift the entire discourse to the right. SJG
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  It just takes a simple majority of the electoral vote to secure the party nomination. Even though their are usually more than two candidates, by the convention date one of the candidates will almost always have secured the nomination. In those rare rare cases where this is not true, then they can go into deliberations and the delegates are released to vote for who they want, and they will continue voting until a nominee is selected. Most candidates drop out when it is clear they can't win, because their money dries up. Some few alternative candidates, like possibly Trump, run very cheap or on their own money. They will continue, just so that they might get a chance to give a speech at the convention, usually on Tuesday night. But don't worry, Trump is not going to get nominated, not even if he might win the Iowa Caucus. SJG
• twentyfive

  •

  8 years ago

  SJG electoral votes are for the general election you meant to say popular vote right. if that's not what you meant you are not correct. Shailynn in some states any one can vote in either parties nominating process just not in both I [view link] new Hampshire for example there is concern that right leaning independent voters will vote for Sanders feeling that he is a weaker candidate in the general election and vice versa left leaning independents can vote for Trump with the same agenda.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  The way the system is now, it clearly gives more power to rural voters. The two main reforms people have suggested, besides letting states split their electoral votes, are: 1. Nationwide Primary Day, forcing candidates to focus on media campaigns and major population centers. 2. Eliminating Electoral Votes and Just Using Popular Votes, eliminating the built in extra 2 votes for Senate count and guaranteed min 1 vote for Representative count. So places like Wyoming and Vermont get three votes, even though they have very few people. So candidates would again have to focus on large population centers as this is where there would be more votes up for grabs. Prior to Richard Nixon and his "Southern Strategy" in 1968, of going after the Democratic South because of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and a bunch of cultural wedge issues, all 50 states were competitive. When Nixon ran against JFK in 1960, all 50 states were up for grabs. But since this Southern Strategy, and then with how the Republican Party has been able to politicize the Religious Right, there are huge blocks of states in which the Democrats have zero chance. So there are now these battle ground states which the Democrats must win most all of. Changing to popular vote only would really shift things in favor of the Democrats. It was not that far back, say 1960, that Texas had two Democratic Party Senators, Ralph Yarborough and Lyndon Johnson. Same for most of the Southern States, and these had been an essential part of Franklin Roosevelt's governing coalition. SJG
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  @twentyfive, In the primary the ballot lists candidates. But really what people are voting for is a convention delegate. Usually these are local activists or office holders. And the number of delegates for a state is still the same as for the electoral college, number of Representatives + 2 Senators. On the first ballot the delegates are bound to vote for the candidate they represent. So on that first role call the results are locked in. But if that does not give one candidate a simple majority, then on the future role calls the delegates are released to vote for who ever they want. And also, when a candidate drops out they can release their delegates. They can endorse another candidate, but I do not think they can compel their delegates to vote for that person. This going beyond the first role call rarely happens though. Before sometime during the 60's, delegates were not bound by primary votes, so the nominees were being selected by party bosses and their could need to be many role call votes. But most people don't pay that close of attention to the primaries. The contentiousness of our Electoral College system surfaces in the General Election, as with tracking polls and all being used, it is usually quite close. And yes, in an early primary place like New Hampshire, many will vote for Sanders, or for other non-centrist candidates, in order to send a message. As the primary continues though and as money starts to play a larger role, it gets more centrist. Usually my own primary vote will be to send a message, instead of to pick a likely General Election winner. Often by the time a state has it's primary, one or both party's nominations are already locked in. And this can have a big effect on the fortunes of State Propositions and other local races. "Didn't Vote" still wins all elections hands down. So the real contest is often just in who can get their people to the polls. Remember in 1992, as the Iowa Caucus was done and they were campaigning in New Hampshire, and the marital infidelity allegations against Bill Clinton surfaced, everyone was scared that he was to be another Democratic front runner going down just like Gary Hart. And then the votes actually did go to Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts. So Clinton came out and announced before Tsongas, "I proved one thing, that I can take a punch." This was brilliant because even though he lost, he made it sound like he had won. SJG
• twentyfive

  •

  8 years ago

  not in the primary election they aren't delegates are not selected until the primary has been tabulated
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Some people register in the party they don't agree with just because in that state that is the only party which has a chance. Some people register in the other party just so they can vote for joke candidates. As far as joining the other party to vote for a more extreme candidate just because they might be easier to beat, I think that is very dangerous. Most of the time though extreme candidates do not win the primary. But one example was Dan Lundgren running to be California Governor. People say that Gray Davis was some how able to manipulate the Republican Primary to get the candidate he knew he could beat. For me though, that is too dangerous to try. But Davis was right when two years later he said at the Republican National Convention that in California a candidate like George W. Bush could not win statewide. SJG
• SmithWV

  •

  8 years ago

  "The party leaders and most of their voters know he is a clown." I agree with this statement for a couple of reasons, A: The Republican leadership doesn't totally approve of Trump based on the rebuttal of the State of the Union by Gov Haley: "Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we can do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference. Of course that doesn't mean we won't have strong disagreements. We will. And as we usher in this new era, Republicans will stand up for our beliefs." B: BBC did an article on the standings of the Rep candidates less than a month ago and describe how they could win (if they have a chance) and how they could lose. For Trump it would be that the majority of his supporters will not go out to the polls on election day. [view link] (I recommend reading how Trump would lose for shits and giggles)
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  CORRECTION: "But Davis was right when two years later he said at the Democratic National Convention that in California a candidate like George W. Bush could not win statewide." SJG
• rockstar666

  •

  8 years ago

  Republicans will NOT vote Democrat!!!! That's crazy talk. They'll just stay home no matter who gets the nomination. 50% of America will hate whoever becomes president, but 66% of Republicans will hate whoever their nominee is.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Loudest Voice In the Room? Trump is just trying to make a name for himself. As I remember, Trump did before try for Ross Perot's Reform Party, and I believe that everyone, including Perot, wanted him instead of Pat Buchannan. So when Trump wants to, he can be well behaved. Today he is just want Dougster called him, an "Ass Clown". SJG
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  I agree with Rockstar666's analysis! General elections are decided by who votes, and even more by voter eligibility rules and registrations. Most of the South, especially Georgia and South Carolina, have enough eligible but unregistered Blacks to overturn any statewide Republican victory by at least an 8 to 1 margin. Register Blacks in the Southeast and Latinos in the Southwest! Republicans do not like Trump! They would like to still have a party next year. twentyfive wrote, " not in the primary election they aren't delegates are not selected until the primary has been tabulated" I think you mean that the delegates are not already decided on polling day. Okay. But when they are selected, they are to be locked in on the first ballot. But yes, it is not state by state winner take all like it is for most states in the General Election. But it is also true that in a primary a state like Wyoming gets 3 delegates, as it does in the Electoral College, where as if you just go by population it would get only one, if even that. SJG
• twentyfive

  •

  8 years ago

  Delegates are selected by the local and state party after the primaries and allocated according to the rules of each state. Some delegates are bound to a candidate they are called super delegates others can be released in an open convention if there is no clear majority, that's where it becomes a little confusing. But make no mistake the primary process selects a winner then the delegates are mostly irrelevant, the only become important where there is no clear majority than it becomes a brokered convention. Electors are part of the general election process they are not necessarily selected by the party they usually are selected by the board of electors a non partisan body at least in theory. I hope I cleared that up a little for you.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  Thank You! SJG
• JamesSD

  •

  8 years ago

  After NH primary in February the field will narrow a lot. After Super Tuesday we may know both nominees
• shailynn

  •

  8 years ago

  "This is absolutely not true, it's the usual fucktards making a noise about things or people they don't agree with. The vast majority of people don't hate him and respect his right to have an opinion. There was a petition started to try to get hi banned from entering U.K. - what a bunch of morons. Our waste of space PM David Cameron suggested Muslim women learn English to help integrate better." Thanks for clearing that up - media at it's best!!!!!
• MrDeuce

  •

  8 years ago

  SJG: You wrote, incorrectly, that "And the number of delegates for a state is still the same as for the electoral college, number of Representatives + 2 Senators." and "But it is also true that in a primary a state like Wyoming gets 3 delegates, as it does in the Electoral College, where as if you just go by population it would get only one, if even that." If you mean by this that a state gets as many delegates to the Democratic (or Republican) National Convention as the size of its Congressional delegation, you're quite mistaken. For example, Illinois and Indiana have 18 and 9 U.S. Representatives, respectively, and therefore 20 and 11 electoral votes. However, Illinois will send 69 delegates to the Republican convention and Indiana will send 57. Notice that these numbers are not proportional to population because each party awards "bonus" delegates to states that voted for that party in the last Presidential election, among other factors. The total number of delegates to the Republican convention is 2472, whereas the *total* number of U.S. Representatives ("Congressmen") is only 438.
• MrDeuce

  •

  8 years ago

  Anyone who has read *any* of my political opinion pieces on this board will know that I'm absolutely not a fan of Trump, not because he's too "right-wing" or "racist" but because he is temperamentally unsuited for the Presidency. In fact, from a conservative point of view, Trump isn't "right-wing" at all! Until approximately a week and a half ago, he was in favor of abortion rights, gun control, open borders, a wealth tax, Obama's "stimulus" plan, etc. etc. He has given massive donations to the Clintons, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, among other very unconservative politicians. Just because he's a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of immigration control and wants to "make America strong again" does NOT make him a conservative!
• sharkhunter

  •

  8 years ago

  You can vote in either primary in South Carolina regardless of the party you registered with. However you can only vote in one primary, not both. I think Trump is a lot better choice than either Hillary or Sanders but far from my top choice. I can hope that he has been full of it just to separate himself from all the other Republican candidates.
• sharkhunter

  •

  8 years ago

  A number of people don't even concern themselves with the primaries because by the time they get to vote, the top candidates already were chosen and most have dropped out. My one vote never changes anything but I go through the process acting like it does.
• grand1511

  •

  8 years ago

  Trump has extraordinarily high unfavorable ratings....70 percent....among independents. That's why he'll never become president of the United States of America
• former_stripper

  •

  8 years ago

  I don't like Trump but he's saying things people agree with, like illegal immigration and terrorism. Only he knows if he actually agrees or just saying it but it's setting off people. Especially since Obama is really going against what the American people really want. The fact is people are mad and tired of liars like Obama who promised one thing but did another. I was an Obama fan, I donated to his first campaign and wanted him to win, but ironic I was working for an opponent during his senate campaign primary. What helped him win that was that he ended up running against a nutjob no one wanted as a senator (Alan Keyes)and many high profile Republicans stated they were voting for him. That led to him running for senate and people thinking he was independent. He wasn't though. He proceeded to do many things that many didn't like, like sign TPP, Obamacare, pushing for amnesty, etc. I think we may seen candidates emerge we never thought would get the nomination. I don't think the Democrats are dumb enough to run Clinton because she has too many issues. Likewise with the Republicans and Trump.
• MrDeuce

  •

  8 years ago

  To my astonishment, Trump might win the Republican nomination. If so, he could defeat either the very ethically (and charismatically) challenged Hillary Clinton or the very left-wing Bernie Sanders. In fact, I think Trump would beat Sanders in a popular and electoral vote landslide. For a fascinating contrast between very conservative and socialist consider, consider Cruz vs Sanders. There aren't enough dogmatically left-wing college students and aging former hippies to elect someone as extreme as Bernie Sanders. (Yet -- wait a few years as the demographic transformation of American continues.)
• Clubber

  •

  8 years ago

  london, If either cliton or sanders "win", it will likely just be a continuation of the US downfall at the hands of obama and his republican enablers in Congress. I am glad that I am not under 40. Sad to see the transformation.
• JamesSD

  •

  8 years ago

  Trump polls poorly against Clinton and VERY poorly against Sanders. Part of me wants him to be the Republican nominee just to help pave the path to 8 more years of a Democrat in the White House and a likely real shift in the Supreme Court. If you're a Republican you probably want Rubio to win, or maybe Cruz, depending how you feel about him. Bush polls poorly vs. Clinton relative to those two. Trump is just not well suited for the general election, although I still don't think the party will let him win.
• vincemichaels

  •

  8 years ago

  Heil Hitler !! IMO, he has eerie parallels. I don't say he wouldn't be a bad change. The country needs change. Change isn't always good. I know that better than most here, healthwise. I'm willing to give him a shot. A shot through his penis ! 50 caliber at close range.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  8 years ago

  MrDeuce, clearly the complexity of the primary and convention process is beyond my understanding. And when counting delegates I don't know how many of them vote versus how many are alternates. But your point is well taken. Thanks for the info. Anyway, and keeping to what Londoner asked about, what is important is that usually one candidate will have the nomination locked in before their party convention, and this is via primary votes, not party bosses. In those rare cases where that does not happen, the delegates get unlocked and their will be multiple role calls until a nominee is selected. [view link] So as usual, it almost certainly will be all locked in before the California Primary. This can lower voter turnout for local races. [view link] SJG Tupac Shakur [view link]