Discussion in 'Hillary Clinton' started by vasuderatorrent, Sep 5, 2016.
It wouldnt surprise me if it went red. There are lots of racists out here.
The GOP hate that Trump is the candidate unless of course he wins. They cant control him and have no idea what he will do next.
You do know that makes absolutely no sense.
If he is elected as President then he is the GOP. All they have to do is fall in step. They only hated him because he didn't deserve the position. The GOP may be playing a little reverse psychology at the moment. The anti-"establishment" movement salivates when they find out Trump is disliked by his own party. Ted Cruz's speech was strategic not vindictive as some suggest. If the GOP can ambiguously pretend that they might like Trump or they might not like Trump then people can draw their own conclusions and energetically vote for Trump regardless.
It is reverse psychology as a strategy. It has never been the job of the GOP to control a seated president. That's not how partisan politics work. The GOP might need to control Senators or Congressmen but not the President. If the elected President is a Republican the he is the GOP.
P.S. The term establishment is a non-concept because it means something different depending on who you ask. It's akin to the term racist. It really doesn't mean anything. It's a buzz word that people use when they are frustrated and can't make a point.
Hillary can't lose. Another loss after her loss to Obama will surely kill her.
Iowa will be Red in my view.
That's not an outrageous prediction. How do you feel about Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Makes plenty of sense but your theory is also interesting regarding the gamesmanship.
If you dont know what establishment or racist means to most people you arent working with a full deck. Granted there are subtle differences due to perception but no one is confused when you use those terms.
PA belongs to Ms. Clinton. No Republican since Bush I has carried it.
OH is a different kettle of fish. the Democrats are the ones suffering from shrinking constituencies. Still, I think she will prevail because of the Kasich factor, the Christian Conservatives that delivered the state for Bush in 2004 are not going to show up for the thrice married and crude Mr. Trump.
In the end, it matters more who can get their people out than Demographics in Ohio.
Pennsylvania has (forgive me Buckeyes) a smarter electorate than Ohio on average. There are no intellectuals (or very few anyway) who look at the Trump campaign and do more than chuckle at the silliness of the stances. Just for one example… He’s the first President in the atomic age to be FOR nuclear proliferation (including Saudi Arabia having the bomb!!!—how you feel about that Israel?).
Donald Trump thinks more countries should have nuclear weapons. Here’s what the research says.
Not only do they have a graduation rate up near 90%, the state is a magnet for college educated professionals in the large cities that dominate the State.
I would view the establishment as being the party apparatus. There are people operating the Republican Party that have been deeply entrenched for decades. If I listed their names nobody would know who they were. Being a delegate at the national convention is no small feat. You have to be financed or self financed to attend the convention. You have to be well known at the state level of the party. That takes decades of being well known at your local party level. These are the people that write the official party platform. They mandate what republican politicians pretend to care about. Breaking that establishment apart is entirely possible but would make the party apparatus dysfunctional. The party would be ran by new people that have no idea what to do and will receive no help from the 20+ year veterans of the party that they just kicked to the curb. It would be like a lottery winner purchasing Facebook, firing the entire staff and hiring his buddies to run Facebook. It would be an absolute disaster. These establishment members have seen many political fads come and go. They have seen many popular politicians come and go. Their motivation is to help get Republicans elected. They will bend to the whims of the general population.
Some people start naming politician's names when they refer to the establishment. They start referring to politicians that have been in office for a long time. They start referring to politicians that have risen to key leadership positions. They call that the establishment. That's silly because that isn't established. Those politicians come and go. How is that considered an establishment? An establishment is something that is established and difficult to topple.
Since I lack common sense. Treat me like a child and tell me what looney tunes mean when they say, "establishment".
^^^^^ I am a loyal Republican but I have trouble voting for Trump for this very reason you mentioned. However, Mitt Romney was a squeaky clean guy. He lost. Ronald Reagan was a divorcee` that won two presidential elections and is still worshiped today. Even though I am an atheist, I have a Christian background that makes it hard for me to be led by a man that ruleth not his own house well. Hillary was loyal to her spouse even when she didn't have to be. Voting for Trump feels immoral to me and evangelical Christians will feel the exact same way.
Leading a nation is a lot more important than leading a church.
Separate names with a comma.