You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Ted Cruz in front of a bunch of Trump supporters.
Lying Ted: "The question everyone should ask..."
Trump Guy to Cruz: "Are you Canadian?!"
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
The Republican Party's unification around Donald Trump has begun
As everyone knows, the GOP is a party at war with itself, riven by resentments and anger, destined to be divided all the way to November. Right? Well maybe not so much. The resentments and anger are still there, and it surely is an unhappy band of allies.
But the unification of the Republican Party around Donald Trump has begun.
If Trump wins Indiana as expected today, pretty much everyone will declare the primary campaign over, and the question of whether to unite around Trump or take a noble stand against him will become less abstract and more immediate for Republicans than it has been up until now. Neither path is an easy one, but for most people, whether elected officials, party insiders, or conservative commentators, it makes more sense to get behind Trump, even if you've been opposed to him until now.
That's why, for instance, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, one of the key voices of the elite Republican "establishment" and a consistent critic of Trump until now, today urges its readers to swallow their pride, not be tempted by a third-party bid, and get on the Trump train even if he's destined to lose:
"The GOP would have a hard enough time recovering from a third-straight presidential loss. The last thing the party needs is an excuse for Mr. Trump and his allies to blame a defeat on a "stab in the back" by other Republicans. That's a recipe for more civil war and another fiasco in 2020. If Mr. Trump does lose, his voters need to understand that he was the architect of his own demise. Republican voters also need to see that alienating non-whites, women and young people was a losing strategy ..."
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. In fact, it represents the least a Republican can do: not necessarily work hard for Trump, but at least not oppose him actively. Meanwhile, Republican voters are coming around, too. His support in primary polls has continued to rise, and it has now crossed 50 percent in the Huffington Post/Pollster average. Gallup shows his favorability among Republicans trending up while Ted Cruz's is falling.
Not that Republicans are confident they'll be united. In a new CNN poll, for instance, 49 percent of Republicans say their part will be divided in November. But that's essentially an assessment of what people think other people are going to do—- which is naturally influenced by all the talk in the media about the split within the party.
In any case, as much as so many Republicans might sincerely dislike Trump and think he's bad for their party, getting behind him is, for most of them, the rational thing to do.
Let's say you're a Republican member of Congress. You read the polls and see that a majority of your constituents are supporting Trump. And once the primaries are over and Trump is the nominee, the number of Republicans supporting him won't be 50 percent, it'll be 80 percent or higher. Not only would going against their wishes threaten your job, you'll have a tough time explaining why it would be better if Hillary Clinton were president.
That's the choice Republicans will now be faced with: not Trump versus another one of the GOP presidential candidates, not Trump versus an unnamed perfect Republican, but Trump versus Hillary Clinton. That eventuality is why so many elected Republicans have criticized Trump but then said sheepishly that they'll support the nominee of their party, whoever it turns out to be. They knew where this was headed.
You can argue that for many of them it might actually be better if Clinton wins. Being the opposition during the Obama years has been pretty good for not just congressional Republicans but for those at the state level too. They can spend the next four years shaking their fists at the White House and wait for a true conservative to lead them to the promised land in 2020 (I can think of a certain Texas senator who's already planning his next campaign). But even if they believe that, they can't say out loud that they're hoping for Trump to lose. Instead, they'll say that although he wasn't their first choice, what's most important is that the party unite to stop Clinton.
So in the coming days, we'll see a range of responses from Republicans to Trump's nomination. At one end, from those like the Wall Street Journal editorial board — who don't have to risk losing their jobs if Trump goes down to a landslide defeat — there will be a grudging acceptance. Elected Republicans will more clearly urge their constituents to vote for Trump, and many will even convince themselves that a Trump presidency could be terrific for the advancement of conservative goals. After all, isn't President Trump going to sign the bills they send him? And who's going to fill those thousands of executive branch positions, if not the same Republicans with policy expertise who would have under a President Cruz or a President Rubio?
By the time we get to November, the divisions of the primary campaign won't be forgotten, but they'll be set aside so that the more urgent goal of stopping Clinton can be served. That, more than anything having to do with Donald Trump, is what will finally unite the GOP. At least until election day, after which they can start fighting with each other again.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Republicans have a massive electoral map problem that has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
Politico reported Monday on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.
Why is that important? Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It's that simple.
Here's what that map would look like:
Here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.
The Republican map - whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer - is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Ted Cruz has officially dropped out of the presidential race.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Ted Cruz has officially dropped out of the presidential race.
Do I get my money back for the Cruz/Fiorina t-shirt I bought the other day? 
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
My question now is whether or not Bernie staying in heavily fucks with the democrats and if so, for how long.
One expects worse case scenario is that he fights all the way before endorsing at the convention. That is worse case right?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
My question now is whether or not Bernie staying in heavily fucks with the democrats and if so, for how long.
One expects worse case scenario is that he fights all the way before endorsing at the convention. That is worse case right?
Yes. Trump is using Bernie in his own campaign. Hillary had to face Bertnie and Trump through November. Sanders needs to drop out.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I agree. Sanders needs to drop out in order to get behind Hillary as soon as possible.
He has previously claimed that he would do anything to keep Republicans out of the White House and now is the time to prove it.
Playtime is over, so to speak.
