Trump: Who Needs the Party?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Tell me again how Little Donny here is actually a political mastermind.

How? He knocked out 16 other candidates without ever running seriously for anything. And he will also knock out the Hill.

I just can't wait to see all the media hacks reacting on the night of November 8, when it is announces that the 45th President's name will be Donald John Trump.

When Donald Trump started this race, I remember the Trump Deniers talking about how he wasn't serious, about how his "little Trumpkins" would be running around, babbling away, until New Hampshire (if he lasted that long).  He blew away 16 other candidates, and not slouches, either.  Jeb!, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Walker, Rand, Fiorina, Santorum, Perry, Pataki, Graham, Jindal, Gilmore, Christie . . . who am I leaving out?  And he did it while advocating positions that were, while not Democratic positions, stances that were marked departures from what the GOP has stood for, but stances held by a goodly chunk of the GOP electorate that had not been recognized until Trump's candidacy.

I voted for Trump in the GOP primary (I'm a registered Republican, but something of a RINO.) and I'm leaning Trump in the General Election.  I do have some qualms about Trump's persona, but he's the candidate I agree with the most, issue by issue.  And I'm an ordinary enough person, so maybe that's why he's where he is today; the presumptive GOP nominee.

Let me ask this from a strictly political science point of view:  What would happen if Trump were brought to heel by the Establishment?  They're definitely trying to control him.  I suspect that a good deal of the frustration they have with him is that Trump, having won the GOP primaries on protectionism, restrictive immigration, and an anti-interventionist "America First" foreign policy, isn't revising his stances to more reflect the Neocon Globalism the GOP has had on its buffet since at least 2004.  Would it NOT be disastrous from Trump, having won as he won, to be seen as cozying up to the Establishment and reversing or modifying some of the positions that rocket fueled his primary candidacy?  Would he not then look like the con man and carnival barker others say he is?  Does Trump, just perhaps, have enough sense to recognize this, and just enough sense to avoid this particular snare?

The GOP has encouraged the kind of sentiments Trump is accused of encouraging for years.  If Trump were a free-trading neocon, the GOP would be backing him up if he had my shoe in his mouth along with his own.  They are attacking him in the damaging way they are because Trump has attacked their sacred cows (free trade, nation-building profiteering, and cheap labor through loose immigration policies).  That's DOUGH-re-mi for the donor class.  Trump knows why he's where he is, and he's not going to be in a position of being a subservient "do-boy" for the folks he's ROUTED to date.  That's a course of action that would reflect both weakness and stupidity, the antithesis of Trump's desired image.

It's not a good thing for Trump that elected Republicans are saying they won't support his candidacy.  But it won't be a good thing for the elected officials doing so when they try to run for President as a Republican later on and have their apostasy of 2016 thrown in their face.  Trump DOES need the party.  But the party needs him as well, whether they realize it or not.

[Virginiá]

If you add up the votes of all outsiders (Rafael and Ben), it's easily over 50%. What do you think against which candidate TRUMP would have lost a two-way race? Mr. Low Energy? Keep also in mind that Big Don got more votes than anyone else in the GOP primary race. That's stunning for someone who never ran for office, didn't have a strong ground operation and spent almost nothing while others wasted millions of dollars and still got crushed.

I don't understand why you guys keep bringing up Trump's primary performance. Winning a GOP primary is not the same as winning a general election. No matter how many times you guys bring this up, it's never going to be a valid argument for his GE prospects.

So I have to ask, why are you so confident in Trump winning when he has almost always been losing to Clinton in the polls? He only has a few small leads here and there, with quite a bit of his losing polls being large margin losses to Clinton. This is not what a winner's campaign looks like. Do you honestly think Trump's behavior in 2016 is going to help him? It's clearly damaging him badly.

It is possible to support Trump and still be skeptical of his chances in November. There is really no data right now, and never has been enough data to justify such confidence.

[Ljube]

Again with saying beating 16 candidates is a strength--this wasn't an elimination tournament where you go one on one--you had 16 candidates saying the same thing, gathering a total of 60% of the vote, where Trump running essentially on the outsider platform got 40%. Had this been a two way race it's unlikely he would've been nominated, similarly to how Sanders would've very likely been nominated if he had 16 Dem opponents.

If you add up the votes of all outsiders (Rafael and Ben), it's easily over 50%. What do you think against which candidate TRUMP would have lost a two-way race? Mr. Low Energy? Keep also in mind that Big Don got more votes than anyone else in the GOP primary race. That's stunning for someone who never ran for office, didn't have a strong ground operation and spent almost nothing while others wasted millions of dollars and still got crushed.

I don't understand why you guys keep bringing up Trump's primary performance. Winning a GOP primary is not the same as winning a general election. No matter how many times you guys bring this up, it's never going to be a valid argument for his GE prospects.

So I have to ask, why are you so confident in Trump winning when he has almost always been losing to Clinton in the polls? He only has a few small leads here and there, with quite a bit of his losing polls being large margin losses to Clinton. This is not what a winner's campaign looks like. Do you honestly think Trump's behavior in 2016 is going to help him? It's clearly damaging him badly.

It is possible to support Trump and still be skeptical of his chances in November. There is really no data right now, and never has been enough data to justify such confidence.

Right now I give him even chances in November, for want of any reliable data.

As I said before, my opinion about the election may change if by October Trump is still behind.

I won't stop supporting him, though.

[President Johnson]

I don't understand why you guys keep bringing up Trump's primary performance. Winning a GOP primary is not the same as winning a general election. No matter how many times you guys bring this up, it's never going to be a valid argument for his GE prospects.

So I have to ask, why are you so confident in Trump winning when he has almost always been losing to Clinton in the polls? He only has a few small leads here and there, with quite a bit of his losing polls being large margin losses to Clinton. This is not what a winner's campaign looks like. Do you honestly think Trump's behavior in 2016 is going to help him? It's clearly damaging him badly.

It is possible to support Trump and still be skeptical of his chances in November. There is really no data right now, and never has been enough data to justify such confidence.

It's June right now and a lot more has to come. In most polls, the Hill barely beats TRUMP and she's even in trouble in some states like Florida, Pennsylvania (!), Oregon and Ohio.

TRUMP isn't a traditional Republican candidate. He has appeal to independents and former non-voters and I'm sure we will pick up lots of votes from Bernard's supporters. And he's setting the topics. All Hillary is doing now, is reacting. She's flawed by all the scandals and her poor image and actually a weak candidate. Some good points are made in this video. (Not a pro-Trump-video).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Again with saying beating 16 candidates is a strength--this wasn't an elimination tournament where you go one on one--you had 16 candidates saying the same thing, gathering a total of 60% of the vote, where Trump running essentially on the outsider platform got 40%. Had this been a two way race it's unlikely he would've been nominated, similarly to how Sanders would've very likely been nominated if he had 16 Dem opponents.

If you add up the votes of all outsiders (Rafael and Ben), it's easily over 50%. What do you think against which candidate TRUMP would have lost a two-way race? Mr. Low Energy? Keep also in mind that Big Don got more votes than anyone else in the GOP primary race. That's stunning for someone who never ran for office, didn't have a strong ground operation and spent almost nothing while others wasted millions of dollars and still got crushed.

I don't understand why you guys keep bringing up Trump's primary performance. Winning a GOP primary is not the same as winning a general election. No matter how many times you guys bring this up, it's never going to be a valid argument for his GE prospects.

So I have to ask, why are you so confident in Trump winning when he has almost always been losing to Clinton in the polls? He only has a few small leads here and there, with quite a bit of his losing polls being large margin losses to Clinton. This is not what a winner's campaign looks like. Do you honestly think Trump's behavior in 2016 is going to help him? It's clearly damaging him badly.

It is possible to support Trump and still be skeptical of his chances in November. There is really no data right now, and never has been enough data to justify such confidence.

Trump's particular primary victory was more like a General Election victory than any primary victory in my lifetime:

***The entire party was out to stop him; different folks had different motivations.

***Trump deviated significantly from party orthodoxy on trade, foreign policy, and immigration.

***Trump had never run for office, and was not a politician.

In the process of winning, Trump resorted to attacking the legacy of the party's most recent incumbent President.  This was supposed to be a suicide mission, but Trump's campaign revealed that the dislike of the Bushes amongst REPUBLICANS went well beyond Bush Fatigue.  Trump had to win the primary season not by conforming to orthodoxy, but by convincing voters he was right, and others were wrong, on major issues.  The man's attacks may be misdirected at times, but his moxie can't be questioned.  If Trump causes me to scratch my head at some of the seemingly silly things he says at times, he inspires (and should inspire) some respect for doing the rare thing of actually taking a stance and trying to convince people he's right.  

[Virginiá]

It's June right now and a lot more has to come. In most polls, the Hill barely beats TRUMP and she's even in trouble in some states like Florida, Pennsylvania (!), Oregon and Ohio.

A huge number of national polls show her winning by large margins. She has been doing better in the polls than Obama was in 2012, and possibly 2008. Looking at the national polls, you can't say this has been close. If you judged the race completely on the national polls, then this hasn't been a competitive race. And yes, I know it comes down to the electoral college, but individual state polls are still in short supply and the ones we have show her doing well in states she needs. It's not even competitive in Wisconsin, for instance. Michigan is probably going to be a 2012 redux, as well.

TRUMP isn't a traditional Republican candidate. He has appeal to independents and former non-voters and I'm sure we will pick up lots of votes from Bernard's supporters. And he's setting the topics. All Hillary is doing now, is reacting. She's flawed by all the scandals and her poor image and actually a weak candidate. Some good points are made in this video. (Not a pro-Trump-video).

Sure, he's non-traditional, but have you been watching the news lately? He's been carpet bombing his own campaign with inflammatory tirades, not to mention the issues with Trump University. This is clearly having an effect on his viability.

So yes, he is setting the topic, and the topic he is setting it to is his own scandals and bigoted comments, and Hillary is reacting to that by pouring gasoline on his self-inflicted fire.

As for Bernie supporters - Young people hate Trump, and I have a hard time believing Hillary will get less than 60% of the 18 - 29 vote. Polls before March showed even larger margins, and it seems reasonable to think it will bounce back after the convention, when Sanders begins campaigning for her.

[Hermit For Peace]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

And then it will be, "Good morning Madame President."

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

I will say that the Establishment abandoning Trump is different than the Southern conservatives and such abandoning McGovern.  It's not unlike the Eastern Establishment abandoning Goldwater, however, as McGovern was a far more mainstream Democrat in 1972 than Goldwater was a mainstream Republican in 1964.

[Green Line]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  We need a fresh start and a new name.  I like the sound of the National Party.

[ag]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican lable.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Tell me again how Little Donny here is actually a political mastermind.

How? He knocked out 16 other candidates without ever running seriously for anything. And he will also knock out the Hill.

I just can't wait to see all the media hacks reacting on the night of November 8, when it is announces that the 45th President's name will be Donald John Trump.

Donald Trump did two things well: first, he took advantage of a Republican Party with a deep disconnect between the campaign donors and the voters.  Of those candidates, they were either mainstream Republicans that donors wanted to dump money into, but the voters despised (Jeb!, Rubio, Christie), candidates who energized only a narrow segment of the voter base (Cruz, Carson), or anti-establishment types who either lacked personal charisma, or didn't have the media and fiscal resources to compete.

Second, and more important: he made the media do all his work for him.  He was a spectacle.  He kept himself in the news, constantly.  His message not only resonated with exactly the right people, but it was so outlandish that all you heard on the news was "Trump, Trump, Trump... Trump Trump Trump." So, while you had candidates that voters like but donors don't, and candidates that donors like but voters don't, destroying one another, Trump remained the one guy with an intense following and the 24-hour news media as his own personal bullhorn.

The thing about all this is, the message that he cultivated to appeal to plurality of Republicans is alarming and disgusting to a huge part of the American public at large.  And it's been amplified by the media.  AND Trump now goes up against a candidate with huge amounts of money, powerful supporters in high places, and whom her traditional voting base (save the far-left) loves.  (Republicans hate her, the far-left hate her, moderates are irritated by her, but the forgotten fact is that the Clintons are still royalty to core of the Democrats.)

So all of the things that made Trump the perfect GOP primary candidate are neutralized or become negatives in a general election contest against a candidate like HRC.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's not a good thing for the GOP if Trump is elected President, at all, for anyone in the party.  Could you build a new party around Donald Trump and his ideas, when he has no organization, no political allies, no funding base, and is basically a one-man show?  Perhaps, but it would no longer be the GOP.  Can the old GOP just ignore its Trump problem and do business as usual?  I can't see that working out either.

If I were a Republican I would pray for Trump to lose.  Then take a good, long look at how to heal the divisions between GOP voters (white, rural, lower socioeconomic standing) and the GOP establishment (Wall Street, Big Energy, Big Ag, Big Pharma, etc.)  And when you figure out how to do that, I have this perpetual motion machine I need help with.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

[RINO Tom]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

George Wallace was a Democrat his entire life who represented his region's typical Dem and fought hard against other regions' influence on his party; Trump openly identified as a Democrat not too long ago.

While both ran/are running hideous campaigns that appeal to intolerant and scared people's racial and cultural anxieties, that aspect is not similar.

[RINO Tom]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  If Trump's views become mainstream in the party, it's not the Republican Party anymore anyway.

[Green Line]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  If Trump's views become mainstream in the party, it's not the Republican Party anymore anyway.

Hasn't that already happened?

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

And herein lies the problem at the heart of the Republican Party.  The party values, formulated from on high, shaped by lobbyists and big money, these are not the values of the voters.  Things like limiting tax for the wealthy, placing restraints on the federal government, free trade, and pro-business policies.  For decades, the Republican establishment tried to coax voters who had no vested interest in their policies to buy into them, using nationalism, using social wedge issues, using fear, using racism.  Meanwhile, the wealthy, northeastern, liberal Republicans all became Democrats, and soon, for a lot of voters, being Republican was about nativism, abortion, resisting social change, and using the military to keep us safe from terror.

The problem with that is, that's not the basis for a cohesive party platform.  That's the basis for a slogan on a baseball cap.  Also, you do have plenty of neo-liberal Republicans in the Midwest and West who want nothing to do with Trumpism, and aren't going to stand for a Trumpist party.

I suppose Trump's nomination is the symptom of something that was bound to have happened sooner or later.  President Trump still would spell complete doom for this shaky coalition.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

This is disastrous. To win in November, Trump needs all the help he can get from the political wunderkinds and proven winners behind the Dole, McCain and Romney campaigns.

[TomC]

This is disastrous. To win in November, Trump needs all the help he can get from the political wunderkinds and proven winners behind the Dole, McCain and Romney campaigns.

You forgot Ford. Oh, wait...

[IceSpear]

What I don't want is to provide a haven for WV Democrats who are afraid their party isn't intolerant enough, and that's what Trump is hell bent on doing.

Too late.

[ag]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

A Party is of course, its voters. But it is, also, an institution. Trump has zero interest in buidling up institutions of the Republican party. Normally, both major US parties are broad coalitions of disparate factions, but all factions benefit from mutual cooperation in achieving their needs. That cooperation is sustained by long-term relationships. Trump is not interested in those relationships. He represents just one element of the broad Republican coalition, but he creates no incentives for the other members of the coalition to stick with him. They will not get their policies implemented (since they disagree with him on policy), they will not get positive electoral coattails from his performance, they will not get resources to run campaigns. Trump, as long as he remains the face of the party, makes participation in the Republican electoral coalition unattractive to anybody, other than those who directly agree with him on issues or like him personally. Furthermore, he has no interest in sustaining the party institutions long term: as far as he is concerned, after him is the deluge. He is not the party leader: he is its undertaker.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Republicans are going to have to realize there is simply no way Trump is going to win the Presidency.

In addition, Republicans have to realize that even if he were to win the Presidency, it would still be a loss for the Republican party. To put it simply: the party has, pretty much, decided not to field a candidate in this election. Trump is not a Republican, and no Republican should feel any obligation to vote for him, even if he is, technically, running under the Republican label.

But Trump IS a Republican.  REPUBLICANS voted for him in free elections; it's not like he stuffed the ballot boxes or bribed the vote counters.  

Trump represents millions of folks who have probably voted Republican since 2000, and maybe forever, but whose viewpoints leave them poorly represented by their party.  He's more of a Republican than, say, George Wallace was a Democrat (or, at least, a NATIONAL Democrat).  

A Party is of course, its voters. But it is, also, an institution. Trump has zero interest in buidling up institutions of the Republican party. Normally, both major US parties are broad coalitions of disparate factions, but all factions benefit from mutual cooperation in achieving their needs. That cooperation is sustained by long-term relationships. Trump is not interested in those relationships. He represents just one element of the broad Republican coalition, but he creates no incentives for the other members of the coalition to stick with him. They will not get their policies implemented (since they disagree with him on policy), they will not get positive electoral coattails from his performance, they will not get resources to run campaigns. Trump, as long as he remains the face of the party, makes participation in the Republican electoral coalition unattractive to anybody, other than those who directly agree with him on issues or like him personally. Furthermore, he has no interest in sustaining the party institutions long term: as far as he is concerned, after him is the deluge. He is not the party leader: he is its undertaker.

This.

[Wells]

Trump's right. He has billions of dollars. What does he need with the Republican Party? With his billions of dollars, he will smash the crooked fraud!

[ag]

Trump's right. He has billions of dollars.

Does he? It would be interesting to see some evidence of that. So far, at least as far as this campaign is concerned, there has been none.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's a sign that Trump REALLY doesn't get political logistics, organisation etc.

[RINO Tom]

If the establishment abandons Trump, it will effectively be the end of the Republican Party

Good.  If Trump's views become mainstream in the party, it's not the Republican Party anymore anyway.

Hasn't that already happened?

No.