Republican Voters Against Trump

[_EAllusion]

When you combine polls that say Warren should be VP with a poll that says it is either very or "somewhat important" for Biden to pick a black person as VP, and the conclusion you're left with - aside from the fact that people answering these polls probably lack deep opinions on the matter - is some people who say it's "somewhat" or "very" important to pick a woman of color think it should be Elizabeth Warren anyway. It's likely an opportunity for them to express a virtue in a poll when people are cross-pressured by multiple considerations.

[_Jersey Girl]

Trump not biting the bullet on sound cornonavirus response, besides being monstrous, is going to bite him in the ass because it's going to extend the severe crisis far deeper into the election season than it had to. And all indications are he did that for election-related reasons. Trump, seemingly like all fascists, is just catastrophically incompetent even when he's malicious. He might not fail upwards forever.

Yeah and now he's trying to make up for lost time and do damage control with the new pandemic response office. Too little, too late.

[_EAllusion]

https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/kam ... wikipedia/

Here's a fun article on a current battle on wikipedia between someone trying to erase Harris's history as an abusive prosecutor and others trying to edit it back in. Lot of political jockeying going on there as she is on the short list to be VP.

Anyway, never-Trump ex-Republican types got their person in Biden and also seem to really like Harris as VP. Not that they should be leading what Democrats do, but it's interesting to see where their preferences come down.

[_MeDotOrg]

Not to puncture your optimism, but as of right now, Republicans are more behind Trump than they were in 2016 and this isn't simply explained by shifting partisan identification. About half (half!) of Republican Congressional Representatives from Trump's first day in office are already out and the group that replaced them, while smaller, is more radically Trumpist than the prior group.

There also were a ton of Republican leaders who were opposed to Trump in 2016 that later reconciled themselves to him. I'm sure some of that is cynical needs for political jobs, some of that is more comfort with Trump given his polices in office, and some of that is just a case of Fox-brain. For now, he has actually improved his position among Republicans, both leaders and rank and file. There's just a vocal group of disgruntled/ex-Republicans with powerful media connections who really know how to megaphone their voice.

Biden is stronger among Democrats than Clinton was and independents, at the moment, are way more in the Democratic column than they were in 2016. If the election were held today, Trump would be in deep, deep trouble. The longer that goes on, the more rats you'll see flee the ship. But you saw that after the Access Hollywood tape, and look how quickly tunes changed then when it didn't sink him like people thought it would.

I pretty much agree with your assessment. I think there are 2 important questions: How many moderates and independents will Trump hold onto? And if he loses, what happens to the Republican Party?

In 2016 Trump was an unknown, and Hillary Clinton had her own baggage as well as her husband's. Trump seems to be losing support among independents, women and college educated voters.

Donald Trump - Inaugural Address
At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America. Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

I have looked at that phrase several times since Trump uttered those words, trying to figure out what he (or whoever wrote those sentences) was trying to say. What exactly IS the United States to which we owe our total allegiance? What principles are involved? Since 2017 we've been witness to the man behind the words. Loyalty is not to a principle or an ideal, it is to the United States, which in Trump's mind, is the occupant of the White House. L'etat c'est moi.

The future of the GOP will be fascinating to watch if Trump loses, and especially if he loses badly. The party has been staffed with a lot of people who owe their loyalty to Donald Trump. What happens to "L'etat" when "c'est moi" is no longer DJT? There will be a big vacuum.

Lately I've been thinking Donald Trump is really Harold Hill. If anyone remembers The Music Man, Robert Preston plays a con man (Harold Hill) who comes to the little town of River City. He sees there is a pool hall, and sees his opening: TROUBLE IN RIVER CITY! He convinces the good religious people of the town that the only thing that will bring salvation from the unspeakable evils of the pool hall is a band. He, of course, gets everyone to give him money for musical instruments.

Donald Trump and the Music Man both know what con men know:

Carl Sagan
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

by the way, I have a sneaking suspicion I may have copied that Sagan quote from someone on the board. If so, I apologize. It's still a great quote.

We'll just have to see if the citizens of River City get bamboozled the second time the Music Man comes to town.

[_Chap]

I think there are 2 important questions: How many moderates and independents will Trump hold onto? And if he loses, what happens to the Republican Party?

In 2016 Trump was an unknown, and Hillary Clinton had her own baggage as well as her husband's. Trump seems to be losing support among independents, women and college educated voters.

Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 by 3 million, and he won the electoral college by not very large wins in exactly the right places. There are very particular historical reasons for that giving him a big win, set out clearly and succinctly in this New York Times article:

Why Trump Had an Edge in the Electoral College
By Nate Cohn
Dec. 19, 2016


Perhaps the most significant takeaway point as one looks forward to the coming election is this:

The regional anomaly was the Midwest, and it just so happens that in a winner-take-all system Mr. Trump’s strength in the Midwestern battleground states yielded a lot of Electoral College votes.

There’s a real demographic reason for it: Most of the traditional battleground states are much whiter, less educated and particularly less Hispanic than the rest of the country.

But the demographics alone don’t quite do justice to Mr. Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. In the end, he won the battleground states by just a one-point margin — but claimed three-fourths of their Electoral College votes.

He won four of the five closest states, winning 75 of 79 votes at stake.

There has never been a close election in the United States in which one candidate has claimed such a resounding electoral vote margin out of the closest states.

There are certainly plenty of 2016 Trump voters who are eager to repeat the experience in 2020. But he does not need to lose many of them in order for that 'one-point' margin that won him 75 electoral college votes to go the other way, and for greater 2016 Trump margins elsewhere to follow them.

Nothing is sure at this stage of things.

But there is a lot of reason to hope that Trump will end up as a humiliated one-term President, and thus plenty of reason to do all that can be done to work, argue, and donate (if you can, both legally and financially) to increase the already considerable chance of that becoming a reality.

[_Jersey Girl]

But there is a lot of reason to hope that Trump will end up as a humiliated one-term President, and thus plenty of reason to do all that can be done to work, argue, and donate (if you can, both legally and financially) to increase the already considerable chance of that becoming a reality.

Lord I hope he ends up a humiliated one-term President! I have no idea how we're going to survive 4 more years of that guy. I honestly, don't think we can.

[_moksha]

Trump is overwhelmingly popular among Mormons in Utah and Evangelicals across the country. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with willful blindness to Trump's true nature.

[_Chap]

Trump is overwhelmingly popular among Mormons in Utah and Evangelicals across the country. Not sure why, but I suspect it has something to do with willful blindness to Trump's true nature.

Fortunately, such people are not in undisturbed sole possession of the Land Of Promise. There are a heck of a lot of Lamanites too, and their numbers are growing daily. Worse, many of them are no longer distinguishable by the Lord's warning sign of a 'skin of blackness' ... what's a poor Nephite to do?

[_Some Schmo]

Trump's numbers may be strong with people who still identify with the GOP, but the GOP is slowly shrinking.

Regardless, I am trying to take a few days off from thinking about the Trump assholes and spend some time concentrating on the Republicans trying to fix their massive mistake. Of course Trump can still win; I'd rather not dwell on that at the moment.

[_EAllusion]

I have looked at that phrase several times since Trump uttered those words, trying to figure out what he (or whoever wrote those sentences) was trying to say. What exactly IS the United States to which we owe our total allegiance? What principles are involved? Since 2017 we've been witness to the man behind the words. Loyalty is not to a principle or an ideal, it is to the United States, which in Trump's mind, is the occupant of the White House. L'etat c'est moi.

That line was written by Stephen Miller, a white supremacist with close associations with neo-Nazis. It's classic fascist thinking and if you just substitute the word "volk" in at the correct spots, it becomes crystal clear what's meant. Loyalty to country here means something like loyalty to the people and the people means 'real Americans' in the way conservative circles tend to use the concept. And since Trump is the legitimate representative of "real Americans" you owe him your undying loyalty as a means to national greatness. And if you don't do that, then you're probably not a real American.

It's written so you can try to project the idea of America as a series of creeds onto the speech, but it's an awkward fit to lines that hit all-too-familiar beats. Miller loves to do this kind of thing. You get the sense he thinks it is clever in the same way subs probably thinks his posts are clever.