I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BOTTOM IS • US presidential elections part VIII

hillary

DJP otm

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/766249028606652417

Trump has no attention span. He cannot absorb information or think. He can't strategize, he has a few moves and that's it. Stop overthinking

Analogies are never precise, but I still find '64 instructive: Nixon the party loyalist was rewarded (which admittedly had as much to do with his off-year campaigning in '66), Rockefeller wasn't.

But, like Trump, they'll need to do some self-reflection and consider who's really to blame for the current state of affairs.

So who will get the blame then? Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

I'm not saying Cruz is going to get the bulk of the blame or anything, just that he'll be lumped in with a thousand other excuses the party will make.

They'll blame the lame stream media, like they always do.

I guess, yeah, in general the GOP is becoming the party of whiny blamers. Wah wah wah, this person wronged me and that person wronged me and we don't get what we want because of those people. No real fucking agency or ownership. There are plenty of people for them to jab their impotent little fingers at.

the Beltway press is already wondering if a definitive Trump loss will represent a "break" in the "fever" lol

So will supporting Trump become the GOP equivalent of voting to invade Iraq? One prob of course is the huge voter block of dumbass Trump supporters, so will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

Since they're already attacking Cruz and Ryan, who the heck is going to be their hero after Trump loses? Can really a radio host as nominee next time around.

On November 9th, the party will engage in some sober reflection, realize whose votes they lost and how, pledge to move more towards the center and engage with minorities for real this time. Can't wait to hear Manson's convention speech after he wins the nomination.

i think marilyn manson is a democrat tho?

Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

― clemenza, Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:26 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Wasn't it the establishment that said that? Fox News and their viewers continued head first down into the dark depths of alternate reality dystopia white blue collar victimization fantasyland without the slightest change in direction.

there will be no reevaluation/realignment. It isn't going to happen. It might after the core old white party regular die off and some other demo weasels it's way into the hollowed out husk of a party apparatus.

Even if Trump is crushed, 40-45 million dead-enders is still a pretty large customer base

will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

The GOP insiders wish they knew the answer to that. There is no way for them to make a clean break from this mess. They're going to lose some slice of voters out of their coalition. All they can do is try to minimize the damage.

I will repeat my previous assertion/prediction/guarantee: whatever else happens, Trump will not run for prez in 2020.

Every day I open this thread reminds me of Game of Thrones, like what big plot twist will Trump give me today??

― Pull your head on out your hippy haze (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, August 17, 2016 1:21 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and instead you see some dreary shots of starvation in a dying empire and eunuchs getting beaten.

will rejecting Trump in 2020 be a net win or lose for the GOP?

depends on the Dems' improving their state legislature game

As much as I enjoy guessing and trying to figure this out, I think it's pretty much impossible to say where this year will take the party in four years time (assuming a sizeable loss, and not even taking into consideration how Clinton's term goes). Trump has been that disruptive and discombobulating.

Agree that Trump will no way run again. Even comparatively mild second acts like Perot in 1996 and Forbes in 2000 got much less attention second time around.

I think the problem is the GOP is not conservative enough.

good news everybody! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html?_r=0

and per previous discussions of Trump's polling w Latinos: The latest poll of Latinos, conducted within the last week by Fox News, had Mr. Trump with just 20 percent support, below the 27 percent that Mr. Romney received in 2012.

@DennisThePerrin
If you have any doubt that Hillary has the election in the bag, CNN is giving the Green Party an hour of prime time. #GreenTownHall

did anyone watch, btw?

All this talk about the effective death of the Republican party is some bullshit. If literally any of the other (still very weak) candidates-except maybe Carson-had been nominated, there's a very good chance Clinton would be being thrashed right now. And unless she discovers some previously untapped reservoir of electorally-attractive statesmanship, it's easy to see almost anyone even marginally less crazy than Trump beating her in four years.

it's easy to see almost anyone even marginally less crazy than Trump beating her in four years

like who, Paul Ryan? one of the governors?

given his 'murderers, rapists and drug dealers' comments, I's say 20% is a surprisingly strong showing. suspect even.

So who will get the blame then? Republicans were supposed to do some sober self-reflection after 2008 and 2012, too. In 2016, they nominated Donald Trump.

The heads of the Republican party didn't nominate Donald Trump for anything; in fact, they did the best they could to NOT nominate him, only to have the distrustful constituency they represent override them.

Yeah sure Paul Ryan, why not? Even a can of Spam wouldn't gaffe on the daily

I used "Republicans" to mean people who vote in Republican primaries, too.

incumbents have an inherent advantage though, much harder to unseat someone after they've had the position four years.

also there is no way Ted Cruz would have beaten Hillary. it wouldn't be a blowout at this point, but I think only a Jeb or a Marco could have beaten Hillary and look just how EXCITED the GOP was about both of those candidates! plus Marco proved to be terrible on his feet in debate which coulda easily sapped his momentum.

This election is (or we better hope it is) a unique and special gift, the kind that won't ever be repeated.

The heads of the Republican party didn't nominate Donald Trump for anything; in fact, they did the best they could to NOT nominate him, only to have the distrustful constituency they represent override them.

― Don't boo, vote (DJP), Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:08 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

They effectively nominated him by taking their hands off the wheel during the primaries and then realizing they weren't the awesome stunt drivers they thought they were once it became clear that they were in a tailspin heading for a cliff.

the republican party's death is going to be due to its inability to produce not-crazy candidates who still get support from the base and not due to some impossible political environment, sure. but they're going to have to placate their own crazier-than-ever voters 4 years from now too.

I used "Republicans" to mean people who vote in Republican primaries, too.

― clemenza, Thursday, August 18, 2016 1:11 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think just some of the Republican leaders claimed they'd self reflect. Everyone else appears to have doubled down

They effectively nominated him by taking their hands off the wheel during the primaries

Jeb! spent cash on media buys like money was going out of style and still couldn't crack the top three in any primary (iirc). Where do you think all that his came from if not the Republican establishment and what was its intended effect if not to steer the process?

i don't know what they could have done differently in the past year, short of completely changing the nomination process in a transparent emergency disenfranchisement. as djp says, the people they trained (over eight years, or possibly forty-eight) wanted a guy like this and the party didn't have any other guys like this to offer them.

yeah the official gop plan following the 2012 loss was to increase outreach to minorities, pass immigration reform etc.

voters decided to nominate the guy who retweets white supremacists

I get where Dan I. is coming from, and I also agree totally with those who reliably point out on these threads that a party controlling most of the statehouses and with a reasonable shot of holding on to both houses of Congress is hardly a dead duck. BUT... I do think the focus on what might have happened had the other candidates won the nomination sort of misses the point. They didn't win the nomination, and while I've argued before that this has a LOT to do with the particular dynamics of that overcrowded race, etc., it's also true that Trump won precisely because of certain forces or structural tendencies within the party that are not going to go away. They've spent a couple decades building a house divided against itself and it's just that this year they heard a loud crack, looked up, and noticed the roof beam sagging and the walls starting to lean inwards. A party that can produce Trump in one year, whatever the circumstances, is not one that can just stiffen up and get its act together for the next go-round IMO. There are some real cleavages in this coalition.

Just sayin', we're seeing their nu-Goldwater now, but they're going to find someone to be their (hideous but electable) nu-Nixon

also they might hold both houses of congress and most statehouses and still be in irrevocable decline - they're trending towards the oblivion, not already there

(hideous but electable) nu-Nixon

sure sounds like Cruz!

it def sounds like cruz to cruz

Much will depend on the Trump News Network's choice of candidate in 4 years.

i stand by my comments from a week or two back about the republicans, i do think as they're currently constructed they are in yes irrevocable decline. i think it's masked by clinton being the less-than-ideal candidate at this time. i think if you had an obama out there against trump, this would be like obama vs keyes in 2004.

thing is the dems are adapting well with the times and the republicans have had no answer for it except dog whistles and wikileaks and benghazi.

this isn't to say the republicans won't adapt as well and get back what they've lost, but they've ceded so much ground within their own party to the lunatics that they've lost control. but obviously they can come back, can't assume they're dead.

given his 'murderers, rapists and drug dealers' comments, I's say 20% is a surprisingly strong showing. suspect even.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, August 18, 2016 12:08 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think so. If you figure in class systems (Americanized Hispanics who view new immigrants & illegals with great disdain), gun nuts, and religious types, that feels like 20%.

We've talked this through before I think, but I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a more-electable Trump. You sand off the rough edges and turn him into more of a conventionally charismatic public speaker, and you lose all that carnivalesque rally appeal, the sense for his fans that their outsider man is up there just saying the stuff that comes into his head, and they happen to agree with all of it. You wouldn't lose all those people but the "phenomenon" wouldn't be there and I don't think you can count on them turning out to vote.

Plus, Trump's very odiousness raises so many hackles outside his base, and that's part of the appeal. He trolls on the people's behalf, and every negative story out there confirms the fans' sense that he's really getting under the skin of the MSM, the liberals, the coddled college kids, whatever.

But, it may also be that without a network superstar to bring in the gawkers, there's a crumbling of support as aging republicans die and younger voters don't give as much of a fuck about the social aspects.

(xp basically what nomar and Doctor Casino said)

Re: Cruz In Texas & His Re-Electablity

I guess a lot of this will be up to how bad Trump fails in November, but I still maintain he has a shot--He's up in '18, which is a midterm election (smaller turnout) and is paired with our gubernatorial race. Cruz has worked in a somewhat united front with Abbott & Patrick; if that's maintained, I don't see how PERRY* of all people could break it up. A bigger problem would be Julian Castro, who has been suggested as a Dem opponent against Cruz '18.

*I mean, seriously, enough with this fucking clown.

Trump won the nomination and got as far as he did because pre-existing fame. Only someone like, I dunno, Hulk Hogan could follow that recipe and get similar results

Which is not to suggest that outrageous psychos won't make strides of their own and possibly win some downticket races. Just that you're unlikely to see a phenomenon play out like this on the national stage again in the near future.