Trump, issues & ratings

[aaronleland]

I don't think it will be as much the issues as the rhetoric. You can oppose illegal immigration without calling them rapists and drug dealers. You can criticize your opponent's policies without name calling.

Sure, but do you think it's possible he's causing damage to the Republicans' stand on those issues with his behaviors?
.

Of course. That's why so many Republicans are either refusing to support him, or holding their noses while doing so. Should he lose they'd prefer to still have a party left come 2020. Should he lose they can say, "He wasn't my guy."

 

[Kristian]

If he is pummeled in November, so are his lead issues -- illegal immigration, the border, trade, anti-establishment, etc. The two go together, whether they should or not.

Is this a concern to Trump supporters?
.

Smaller immigrants to the land United States under 1 million in.
And the border and Anti Islamists we will with Donald Trump.

 

[Mac1958]

I don't think it will be as much the issues as the rhetoric. You can oppose illegal immigration without calling them rapists and drug dealers. You can criticize your opponent's policies without name calling.

Sure, but do you think it's possible he's causing damage to the Republicans' stand on those issues with his behaviors?
.

Of course. That's why so many Republicans are either refusing to support him, or holding their noses while doing so. Should he lose they'd prefer to still have a party left come 2020. Should he lose they can say, "He wasn't my guy."

Yeah. I guess a related question will be "how tied to the hip will the party be with Trump after this?".

 

[aaronleland]

I don't think it will be as much the issues as the rhetoric. You can oppose illegal immigration without calling them rapists and drug dealers. You can criticize your opponent's policies without name calling.

Sure, but do you think it's possible he's causing damage to the Republicans' stand on those issues with his behaviors?
.

Of course. That's why so many Republicans are either refusing to support him, or holding their noses while doing so. Should he lose they'd prefer to still have a party left come 2020. Should he lose they can say, "He wasn't my guy."

Yeah. I guess a related question will be "how tied to the hip will the party be with Trump after this?".

About as tied to the hip as they were to Palin. They'll trot him out to speak every once in a while, but I doubt he'll have much impact on national politics. Then he'll slowly fade away.

 

[candycorn]

I'll try to drag this away from the standard partisan insults and back to the actual point.

Trump is, to say the least, "fluid" on several issues. But I think it's fair to say that illegal immigration and jobs/trade are two pretty important issues for both parties.

Hopefully some Trump supporters will chime in to discuss their concerns about the question posed in the OP. And I'd also wonder what a knee-jerk reaction to those issues would actually look like.
.

Have you ever seen a large segment of a party say anything along the lines of “We will not vote for our nominee” or “We are leaning away from voting for our candidate” or “We will not be supporting our candidate this fall”?

I haven’t and I’m pretty plugged in on elections.

Remove Robert Dole from the equation. The GOP has had 5 pretty different men run for it’s nomination.

Ronald Reagan: Former Governor, Movie Star. Light on details and policy specifics. Great communicator. Father figure. Lightly Partisan
George Herbert Walker Bush: VP. Party stalwart. Heavy on details and specifics. Terrible Communicator. Father figure. Partisan
George W. Bush. Former Governor. Unremarkable. Light on policy details and specifics. Terrible Communicator. Likable. Partisan
John McCain. War hero. Instinctive politician. Had bad luck of running into a buzzsaw/Bush fatigue. Likable. Moderate
Willard Mitt Romney. Trust fund baby. Former Governor. Terrible Communicator. Bad Campaigner. Unlikable. Moderate

The GOP has gotten behind each of these men despite their differing approaches, backgrounds, temperaments, etc… The GOP would have gotten behind Donald Trump if he hadn’t acted like a horse’s ass for so long.

I doubt his policy pronouncements are that unpopular with many in the GOP. If Kasich had the same policy profile and the votes, there would be no “I will not support that man” to speak of.

 

[Toro]

If Trump is pummeled in November, it won’t necessarily be because of his lead issues, but that he’s wrong on those issues, and was rejected by the voters accordingly and appropriately.

I don't think it will be as much the issues as the rhetoric. You can oppose illegal immigration without calling them rapists and drug dealers. You can criticize your opponent's policies without name calling.

Right.

Had Trump came out against illegal immigration and said he'd build a wall, next said he'd renegotiate trade deals, lambasted the GOP leadership, then acted as a statesman, he'd win this thing hands down.

But he's an awful candidate and he's damaging the Republican party.

 

[Mac1958]

Had Trump came out against illegal immigration and said he'd build a wall, next said he'd renegotiate trade deals, lambasted the GOP leadership, then acted as a statesman, he'd win this thing hands down. But he's an awful candidate and he's damaging the Republican party.

I don't know he would have won hands down, but he's pretty much in the process of making a joke out of those issues, a punchline.

This is all inexplicable, although I do think conservative media has created this mess in general.
.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'll try to drag this away from the standard partisan insults and back to the actual point.

Trump is, to say the least, "fluid" on several issues. But I think it's fair to say that illegal immigration and jobs/trade are two pretty important issues for both parties.

Hopefully some Trump supporters will chime in to discuss their concerns about the question posed in the OP. And I'd also wonder what a knee-jerk reaction to those issues would actually look like.
.

Have you ever seen a large segment of a party say anything along the lines of “We will not vote for our nominee” or “We are leaning away from voting for our candidate” or “We will not be supporting our candidate this fall”?

I haven’t and I’m pretty plugged in on elections.

Remove Robert Dole from the equation. The GOP has had 5 pretty different men run for it’s nomination.

Ronald Reagan: Former Governor, Movie Star. Light on details and policy specifics. Great communicator. Father figure. Lightly Partisan
George Herbert Walker Bush: VP. Party stalwart. Heavy on details and specifics. Terrible Communicator. Father figure. Partisan
George W. Bush. Former Governor. Unremarkable. Light on policy details and specifics. Terrible Communicator. Likable. Partisan
John McCain. War hero. Instinctive politician. Had bad luck of running into a buzzsaw/Bush fatigue. Likable. Moderate
Willard Mitt Romney. Trust fund baby. Former Governor. Terrible Communicator. Bad Campaigner. Unlikable. Moderate

The GOP has gotten behind each of these men despite their differing approaches, backgrounds, temperaments, etc… The GOP would have gotten behind Donald Trump if he hadn’t acted like a horse’s ass for so long.

I doubt his policy pronouncements are that unpopular with many in the GOP. If Kasich had the same policy profile and the votes, there would be no “I will not support that man” to speak of.

One of the major parties hasn’t been so at odds and in conflict with itself since 1972.

John Connally’s ‘Democrats for Nixon’ represented the abandonment of a party’s nominee.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump this and Trump that blah blah, fine then who fucking 2% Jeb Bush? Illegal collaborator Kasich? That idiot Rubio? Twice choker loser Romney?

 

[Mac1958]

Trump this and Trump that blah blah, fine then who fucking 2% Jeb Bush? Illegal collaborator Kasich? That idiot Rubio? Twice choker loser Romney?

Trump is the party's guy, it is what it is.

 

[Ozone]

trump doesn't know how to lose an election, which isn't saying much because he's never won election before. he'll get the republican nomination, but until the convention he's learning the hard way it's not all about him. it's also the house and senate, and if the old party can't hold the majorities then trump will have almost zero chance of doing anything he promised to the voters. he's got a one term vibe about him, and how many years will it take to complete the border wall? if he's serious about winning, he'll start talking numbers, basic facts to appease conservatives, otherwise the shillary will exploit the disconnect and take the whole government.

 

[Toro]

Had Trump came out against illegal immigration and said he'd build a wall, next said he'd renegotiate trade deals, lambasted the GOP leadership, then acted as a statesman, he'd win this thing hands down. But he's an awful candidate and he's damaging the Republican party.

I don't know he would have won hands down, but he's pretty much in the process of making a joke out of those issues, a punchline.

This is all inexplicable, although I do think conservative media has created this mess in general.
.

Most people don't want Hillary. That's why she has such awful negatives.

Hillary supporters can best be described as 1.) Democrat partisans, and/or 2.) Women over 50. That's pretty much it.

The Republican Party could have won this thing going away, but the base decided to have a temper tantrum and teach their leaders a lesson at the expense of winning.

I was reading an interesting piece by Frank Lunz a few weeks back. I wish I could post the link. He said that in his focus groups, people aren't interested in a statesman. What they are interested in is a candidate who not only shares their anger but expresses it forcefully against the other side. They don't care. They want their pound of flesh. In fairness, that also applies to Democrats to some extent, but it describes the GOP base to a tee.