Be true to yourself! Freegards.
Posted on 04/30/2016 3:33:09 PM PDT by MaxistheBest
How the #NeverTrump crowd can cripple his presidency
Donald Trump has a shot at reconfiguring the electoral map — putting traditionally blue states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin into play, with his working-class, industrial appeal. He’s going to need the support of the #NeverTrump crowd in the nation’s suburbs.
According to the Atlantic, Mr. Trump could win the Rust belt states — without improving on any other demographic — by holding his opponent to less of the working-class white vote than any Democrat has won since 1988. Yes, that’s a narrow path, but given Mr. Trump’s potential appeal to new and crossover voters — and a general lack of enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy among Democrats — it’s plausible.
“In Iowa, if all else remained constant, [Trump] could win if he held the Democratic nominee to 47 percent or less of the vote among working-class whites, not much different from the party’s recent low point of 48 percent in 2004,” The Atlantic reported. “In Ohio, Trump could win by pushing the Democrat even slightly below the recent low point of 40 percent that [President Barack] Obama notched in 2012.”
Overall, if Mr. Trump were to capture 65 percent or more of the white vote, he would win the nomination, pollsters say. In 2012 Mitt Romney won 59 percent.
====================================
The first step in turning Mr. Trump’s numbers around is for Party elites to finally coalesce around Mr. Trump, Mr. Olsen said. For example, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s endorsement could move the needle in Wisconsin, and John Kasich’s support could solidify Mr. Trump’s numbers in Pennsylvania and Ohio. So far both men have been solidly anti-Trump.
The #NeverTrump movement may not be strong enough to deny Mr. Trump the nomination, but it is strong enough to deny him the presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The neocons are the progressives. Think about what they have done .
That TR. He was such an awful President! /s
Oh, I quite agree.
It's just that it's dangerous to liberty to allow the degradation of the separation of powers our federal government was designed with. I would argue that a lot of the trouble we face is due to such desegregation. (Though I think most is due to ignoring the Constitution in whole. ["High-crimes" includes misfeasance and malfeasance.])
My point is that in order to make the Constitution relevant, we need to treat it as if it were. As such, the separation of governmental powers [on the federal level] ought not be ignored. — If we were to simply say "Ha! We got our guy in office, now we can abuse the office in ways that benefit us" then we also testify, by our actions, that the Constitution is not relevant. (Much like the people who were Obama-birthers who supported Cruz last year: when confronted about it they were all too quick/happy to say things like "Obama did it, it's our turn now"… it was baffling to actually see/hear.)
That President Trump can’t get them done?
Not legitimately under the powers of the office of president. (This isn't to say he can't advocate those things, just that he cannot legitimately do them [by himself].)
He can because the American people want them, and he’ll entice, or beat, the people who can do it into submission.
So, you are advocating a mob-rule?
#NeverTrump is a Twitter hashtag. Why are supposedly intelligent individuals even talking and writing about a twitter hashtag? How could anyone take faddism seriously?
Granted, I am an just an old curmudgeon, but common sense should alert people that those that tweet that they do not intend to vote for Trump, also do not intend to vote at all.
Rubio is hated here in conservative NW FL, as evidenced by his BIG loss on primary day.
Picking him as VP would bring NOTHING from FL.
and, Rubio knows virtually nothing about Congress because he never showed up. His work ethic is the opposite of Trump.
I don’t believe DJT would select Lil Marco the sweater for VP.
No. "Progressive" is, and always has been, a synonym for "communist." To my knowledge, the Republican party has never promoted any communist agenda.
Actually, that's not quite it. A progressive can be in any party - (D), (R) or None of the Above. A hallmark of progressivism is the belief that big (and ever-expanding) government is preferable to small, limited government - and that it does a better job of managing people's lives than the actual people do. Now, the extent to which they believe that varies greatly, from somewhat benign policies to flat-out oppression.
Teddy Roosevelt (R, then Bull Moose) actually started the Progressive movement. Woodrow Wilson picked up the baton and wreaked havoc with it, to the point of resegregating much of the federal government and greatly abusing the Sedition Act of 1918, which he signed into law.
Communism have many intersections with Progressivism, but they are not identical. When Progressivism went out of favor, they renamed themselves Liberals. Hellary reanimated Progressivism when she ran in '08, specifically as an "early 20th-century American Progressive>"
The Left/Right spectrum is actually more accurately redefined as toward or away liberty or tyranny.
After WW2 all communists in the US went by the label progressive. It hasn't really changed since then.
Largely, yes, But that doesn’t go in reverse - not all Progressives are Communists.
I would argue the reverse, progressives are what Communists morphed into after the fall of the Soviet Union.
What we dont know yet is whether there will be any third party candidate with some modest appeal. GHWB lost in 1992 because of Perot, and it is probable that Gore lost in 2000 because of Nader. Granted it could break either way or even both ways depending on who runs and which parties (do greens and libertarians still have access to make the ballots?), but it seems to me a bit early to carve paths to victory. While Trump seems to have momentum and may edge out blue collar whites, and even bring newly interested voters (and millenials?) to the polls there is still a threat from country club Republicans switching sides too. All before even knowing if there are any third parties capable of claiming 1%-2% of the vote.
What, again? Seriously, the eGOP has called this since at least last August.
Kind of really sorry and disgusting that a lot of the “neverTrump” folks call themselves conservatives and they can’t see the irony of not being “neverHillary/Bernie” as they exercise their “principles” (they fight wars like our government has done ever since WWII - every time we make some progress, they have to throw it away and move us back a giant step.....)...
At this point only The Donald can “save” us and this nation from the doom of President Hillary. She will complete what Obama started.
Ivana’s kids not eligible.
Marla’s daughter is.
Melania’s son, I don’t think so.
If NBC is 2 citizen parents.
I state this based on postings and comments seen here on FR
If that's how you view the way our system works, yes.
You nay sayers have got to begin working at a higher intellectual level.
That's certainly not how the system is supposed to work — and you seem to forget: the point of a republican form of government is to protect the rights of the minority. (IOW, prevent mob-rule.)
You nay sayers have got to begin working at a higher intellectual level.
Er, I am.
You "they did it, so we can do it too!"-sayers need to quit working at the emotional/immediate-gratification level.
You’re reading my replies at a middle school level, as judged by your responses.
Did I say our system works as mob rule?
I did not, I said that that may be how you are looking at it.
Nevertheless you lecture me about it, instead of lecturing yourself.
I should spend more time cluing you in, but frankly, I don’t care enough to do that.
Be true to yourself! Freegards.
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.