Posted on 04/22/2016 12:18:37 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
No one outside the Trump core supporters are in the Trump camp any more. The Trump version of the Don Rickles show has run its time. It has peaked and is now collapsing. Trump is turning into the very politicians that he railed against.
That is the danger of politics of personal destruction, when that is all you have got. It eventually destroys the people who employ the tactic. Hatred is just plain ugly.
Hoodat wrote: “I wouldn’t characterize this as disagreeing. I stated my preference, and at the same time acknowledged what turns out to be yours. I like BK Whoppers because I like tomatoes on my burger. You like McD’s Big Macs because you hate tomatoes on your burger. It is a matter of preference.”
Perhaps on some level, but the essence of my disagreement is this: while I might prefer candidate A more than B, if A is not electable, then there is no reason to vote for him.
It’s like this, I’m trying to maximize A time B where A is probability of being elected and B is my preference for a candidates policies. Each candidate has an A and a B.
An hypothetical: suppose there are three candidates. You agree with A on 90% of the issues. You only agree with B on 75% of the issues. You find C unacceptable on all the issues. Now if it’s either A or B to oppose C, and if the polls indicate that A will surely lose to C but B may win against C, would you switch to B?
And this suggestion that the one candidate who puts America and Americans first, is driven by "hate," is an insult to all our patriotic countrymen. Trump is not the candidate who is trying to change American culture--quite the opposite.
Depends on the issues and how much weight you put on each issue. For example candidate A is anti abortion and candidate B is pro choice then who does one pick if that person opposes abortion on moral grounds? Just whom do they choose?
You are sadly right about the visceral dislike of Trump that he and his supporters have generated by their bullying, nastiness, and uncivil discourse, especially here of FR. If you go back and review just the postings in this thread you will see that virtually all the vile, foul mouthed postings come from Trumpets, while Cruzers argue substance, facts, and with civil language. Like an earlier poster, I was once willing to vote for Trump if he beat Cruz. But now I am wondering if I can hold my nose long enough to cast a vote for Trump, especially after his latest over the past couple of days.
If Trump is going to unite the Party behind him he’d better tell his frothing at the mouth supporters to tone it down and be more civil!!
Yeah, your concern is duly noted. If Republicans can’t bring themselves to vote for Trump over Hillary, they aren’t actually Republicans.
LOL! Trump followers have imitated his the Don Rickles’ style of campaigning and in doing so have succeeded in pointing out the differences between their candidate and Ted Cruz.
There is absolutely no substance to any of their arguments, nothing but ad hominem attacks and unfounded accusations against both Ted Cruz and his supporters. In doing this, they have assured that the rift will not heal before November, especially now that Trump has promised to become more Establishment.
The attack style of campaigning is typical Libertarian. They started the attacks on Cruz when he was running for the Senate in Texas. That is where the unlikable meme came from. The reason that he was unlikable was because he is an Evangelical Christian with unbending Conservative values. The Libertarians call all social Conservatives, judgmental knuckle draggers.
The Libertarians attacked me about the same time because I exposed the fact that there candidate who was running for the Senate was really a Pauler, running on the Republican ticket. I mentioned that he had done a radio show with Ron Paul and that his foreign policy was a disaster waiting to happen. They called me a liar and denied that the candidate was a Pauler and claimed that the radio show was a figment of my imagination.
In your scenario, A is Trump and B is Cruz. The flaw for me is that the poll predictions of what will happen in November do not necessarily reflect what will happen. The track record of previous predictions of this nature prove them unreliable.
The disapproval rating is a more reliable indicator of future performance. Overcoming high disapproval is far more difficult than overcoming low approval. The former indicates that voters are familiar with that candidate and have already formed an opinion while the latter indicates an unfamiliarity with that candidate. Historically, candidates with such high disapproval lose general elections.
2016 is a golden opportunity for the GOP because Hillary Clinton carries such a high disapproval rating into the election. Yet the Stupid Party is poised to match her up with someone even higher.
Correctamundo.
central_va wrote: “Depends on the issues and how much weight you put on each issue. For example candidate A is anti abortion and candidate B is pro choice then who does one pick if that person opposes abortion on moral grounds? Just whom do they choose?”
Life is full of choices. The one alternative that is not available is to insist that you shouldn’t have to choose. Either you choose, or life will choose for you.
So your “formula” is BS.
Hoodat wrote: “2016 is a golden opportunity for the GOP because Hillary Clinton carries such a high disapproval rating into the election. Yet the Stupid Party is poised to match her up with someone even higher.”
I disagree. The GOP isn’t poised to match someone with high disapproval ratings against Hillary. The GOP voters are.
The exit polls are so revealing. I’ve seen where only 12% of those polled considered ability to win as important in their choice. “Telling it like it is” rated much higher. Why?
Very much like in the Clinton years. I would ask liberals why they would support a person with Clinton’s penchant for telling lies? They would respond that “they liked what he said”. Really, you support someone who because of what he says even when you know he doesn’t mean it?
central_va wrote: “So your “formula” is BS.”
Not BS. You have to personalize the formula using the weights and values you feel appropriate. Regardless of what you think, you’re probably doing a version of that formula. I’m saying that your preferences for certain positions are nice, but you also have to choose a candidate with a probability of actually implementing those policies.
Here’s an example: We both know you like protecting jobs. I’m not trying to revive that discussion, but to use that to make a point. Suppose there are two candidates running in the primary who profess to have plans that will save jobs.
Your personal assessment is that A’s plan is better and will save 100,000 jobs. B’s plan will also save jobs, in your opinion, but will only save 20,000 jobs. In your opinion, A only has a 10% chance of winning the general election while B has a 70% chance of winning. Who do you vote for in the primary?
They already have. Your opinion is interesting but is not reflected on the ground
Compare how Trump did in NY to how well Romney and McCain did!
Trump got about 5X the vote they did!
And millions of Independents didn't vote in that primary as well.
And in Texas, Trump held Cruz below 50%, which means Cruz should drop out, that was the criteria for Trump in NY.
It seems that Cruz never has to follow the criteria that he sets for others.
You've nailed it ALL and hopefully enlightened the dummies here, who've never had to deal with local and state governments or else they couldn't do business and so get on their high horses and look down their noses at those who do!
Yes, Trump learned what he had to do to, in order to build buildings and master it all at a young age. The man is a LOT more intelligent than he is given credit for and he's also someone who does want to change it all, as he hates the corruption in all government areas.
And politics is THE dirtiest business of them ALL! The people who imagine that there is even one "clean", "pure" pol, are just childishly naive!
And just WHERE in N.Y. do YOU live and how long have you been an "expert" in N.Y. politics?
Just a cursory glance at the daily letters to the editors of N.Y. State newspapers would educate you and disabuse you of your completely and utterly STUPID remarks!
And psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst......even WITH voter fraud, BRIBES, and ACORN's help, Hillary barely won her Senate seat; you bloody moronic git!
Trump, unlike EVERYONE ELSE, puts N.Y. ( and many other BLUE STATES ! )in play; forcing Hillary or whoever, to spend a vast amount of money and time in states that otherwise they could ignore! And THAT, alone, is a very BIG DEAL!
You neither know nor understand ANYTHING at all about American politics! LOL
I'll answer the rest of your post's questions and a bit more, in FRmail. :-)
The second part could well true.
The first remains to be seen.
Democrats and #NeverRepublicans tend to be more loyal nowadays than Republicans, so even a lousy candidate like Hillary can count on people who hate her still voting for her.
Republicans nowadays are like Democrats used to be and are more picky about whether they'll support the party's nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.