The Brave New World of Donald Trump’s Republican Party

[imawhosure]

This is being dressed up in a variety of ways, but at its core this is the attempted usurpation of a major political party by an outside group.

This hybrid populist/nationalist movement doesn't want to start from scratch with an alternate party. They know they need the GOP's existing massive infrastructure, so they're trying to take over the party in a new form, and they seem to be confident they can convince more traditional Republicans to follow along.

I guess I can understand the approach, but expecting traditional Republicans to buy into people like Trump is a risky proposition.
.

Mac, I find you saying that surprising. Look at what has transpired with the Democrats. They went from JFK to now. They don't even resemble the same political institution. The last Democrat who even resembled JFK was Clinton, and he is morphed into a far left winger for political expediency. Look at the trouble HRC has had to dispatch an avowed Socialist in Bernie. I mean seriously, are Obama and Bill Clinton even in the same party when looking at their governance records?

The GOP pretends to be stringent on its political formula, but I see it as an excuse. If the GOP is to claim that Trump is not far right enough for them, then the claim could easily be made, that HRC is to far right for the Democrats; and yet, nobody even whispers that in mixed company.

I find this whole Trump thing to be kind of comical. If the GOP can't get out its people to stop Trump, then what makes them think they can get them out to stop a Democrat! While I agree that more people are voting than ever before in the GOP primary, the increase is not enough to push Trump in if the GOP could muster their mythical forces. It seems they can't, and maybe that explains why the GOP keeps losing in national elections; their own people refuse to listen to them, because they don't trust them.

I am not a Trump apologist, nor an avid supporter of him. I will say though, that the premature crowning of HRC as President if he is the nominee, is very premature. Do I believe that 90% of African American are going to vote HRC? Yes I do. Do I believe that 80% of the Hispanic vote will too? Yes, I think so. But 80 or 90% of 100, is far less than 80 or 90% of 1000.

It is said that for Romney to have won the Presidency, he would have to have gotten almost 80% of the Hispanic vote. Never, ever, NEVER-EVER happen! It is also said, that instead of that, if he would have gotten 3 and 1/2 to 4%% MORE of the white vote, he would have won with the same numbers against him. Now we know that Trump has more than a few people supporting him that usually vote Democrat, which means each of those votes is worth 2. (1 they lost, and 1 we gained for a total of 2) Maybe that is why you consider it a hostile take over of the GOP, proven by the fact that Trump does much better in open primaries, instead of closed.

And so, we must wait to see when the nominees are chosen, and if it is in fact Trump on the GOP side, his attack on HRC and what that does. I am positive he will nut be running ads to show how far left she is to galvinize the right, but instead, show how far right she is with her deals, to steal more Democrats and suppress that side of the vote while swinging more in his direction. He can do this, Cruz can NOT! We must always remember that almost 50% of the independents are former Democrats, and will listen to NOTHING the GOP establishment is telling them, or for that matter, the Democratic establishment either. Trump is closer to JFK than Obama ever was, and that appeals to centrists, if he can show Presidential character.

Unless something changes drastically, Trump will win Florida in the general. He will win Ohio. He will probably lose Utah and Iowa, but win Colorado. Forget the vote counts and look at the EV. The question is------------> can he steal Penn, or maybe get Gulliani to run with him, and is that enough to steal New York? Can he possibly steal Michigan, voting patterns say it is very possible. So the early demise of President Trump is over blown by what I see. I expect this to be sort of a blow out in popular vote, but very doable in the electoral college. This could very well be the 1st time that the population says one thing overwhelmingly, but the EVs say something else because of California.

I will get back with you after I get more data, but I am not even slightly concerned that this will not be a competitive race unless something extraordinary happens. I always laugh when someone tells me how polarizing a figure Trump is. Especially when I ask if Cruz is, and then HRC too. You see Mac, it is all about who shows, and who doesn't in November. When IC someone post that 20% of the GOP won't vote for Trump, I remind them that a bunch of Democrats won't vote for HRC either, and while the math is fuzzy, many Democrats that are voting will cast a ballot for Trump. Is that a hostile takeover if he wins? Some call it that, I like my word better, and that is COALITION-)

Well, the Democrats are another story, and indeed they have moved Left. My argument, though, is that they have been given room to do so by the behavior of the GOP, but THAT is yet ANOTHER story.

I also agree that Hillary is not a done deal. She's obviously a flawed candidate and there are a few things that could happen between now and November that could derail her campaign. So the group to which you refer could certainly end up voting for the GOP candidate and/or against her specifically.

My point is more about the wrestling match going on within the GOP. This new populist/nationalist movement within the GOP sprang up essentially overnight, seemingly when Trump made those comments about the border. There is a clear fight for control of the party right now, and my point is that the populist/nationalist element is the invader, not the invaded.

I appreciate your thoughtful, civil response, by the way. Not enough of that here.
.

Well then, let me respond in this manner instead------------> Democrats = monolithic. Republicans= individualistic. In other words---------> Democrats this cycle, have been told who to vote for, and just in case they don't, they have the super delegates to make it happen. GOPers have also been told what to do, and we aren't listening. We don't get our power from the party apparatus, but rather from our individual votes.

As far as the GOP being invaded, I disagree. The people who have constantly voted GOP are revolting, and they are the GOP, not the leaders. CONSIDER---------> are the evangelicals voting? Yes, so why isn't Cruz winning! Are the blue collar workers on the GOP side voting? Yes, so why is Santorum gone!

Let me say this; should Trump win the Presidency, what does that say about how our political party's do business? Forget all the policy, all the negatives, what does it really say! Were that to happen, the GOP couldn't defeat him in the primary, and the Democrats couldn't do it in the general. What that says to me is-------> neither party is putting up their best, just their most CONTROLLABLE, and the American people have had enough.

And so, let me set you a different parameter. This isn't a hostile takeover of the GOP; this is a hostile takeover of Washington DC, using the GOP as the vehicle to do it-) When you put it in that context, it becomes much more fascinating, doesn't it!

 

[Mac1958]

This isn't a hostile takeover of the GOP; this is a hostile takeover of Washington DC, using the GOP as the vehicle to do it-) When you put it in that context, it becomes much more fascinating, doesn't it!

Well it's definitely fascinating. Can we agree that the act of using a party in that way is changing the very nature of that party?
.

 

[imawhosure]

This isn't a hostile takeover of the GOP; this is a hostile takeover of Washington DC, using the GOP as the vehicle to do it-) When you put it in that context, it becomes much more fascinating, doesn't it!

Well it's definitely fascinating. Can we agree that the act of using a party in that way is changing the very nature of that party?
.

Agreed, but then it was use one or the other, and he chose the other.

 

[Correll]

This is being dressed up in a variety of ways, but at its core this is the attempted usurpation of a major political party by an outside group.

This hybrid populist/nationalist movement doesn't want to start from scratch with an alternate party. They know they need the GOP's existing massive infrastructure, so they're trying to take over the party in a new form, and they seem to be confident they can convince more traditional Republicans to follow along.

I guess I can understand the approach, but expecting traditional Republicans to buy into people like Trump is a risky proposition.
.

I'm a traditional Republican and I have "bought into" it.

And the primaries show that quite a lot of traditional republicans have.