I think Trump will become our next president, unless the republican establishment stops him. I hope not, of course, but I feel like Hillary can't beat him for a variety of reasons...not the least of which being, the democrats think he's "easy prey". Whenever they get cocky, I get nervous. And I think they are sorely underestimating Trump right now (in fact, they're cheering for his victory on the GOP side, because he's "easy to beat"). Thoughts?
Trump in the White House is to me, a gimmick. It seems to satisfy an urge in some people to 'shake things up' and 'turn government on its ear' and I think those who think Trump is somehow going to waltz into Washington and make these big sweeping changes just by being some kind of tough guy caricature -- are delusional. I wrote this before, but can't help but draw parallels between Trump and Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was elected Governor of California. People thought that Ah-nold was going to really shake things up and it was going to be fun to have 'The GoverNator' in office, calling out all the 'girly men' in Sacramento to step up and get things done. It was fun for about 5 minutes and then it was just stupid. He didn't know what he was doing and the whole charade was a waste. Who's in office now? Career politician Jerry Brown. Trump is the same to me. I'm completely mystified that people want him as POTUS.
I don't discount the possibility that Trump could win. We need to fight this all the way to November. If the election were held today, he'd lose. His approval among Hispanics is lower than Romney's, that alone costs him Florida (which is more Hispanic and specifically more non-Cuban Hispanic than it was in 2012), and it's hard to see him winning without Florida. It probably also costs him Colorado, NM, Nevada, and even Virginia (not heavily Hispanic, but enough to cost him a close race). If Clinton wins all of those, it's pretty much over. Then there's women. 70% now view him unfavorably, with 50% viewing him "very unfavorably." It has been shown that a skillful candidate can move "unfavorable" to "favorable" in the course of a campaign, but moving someone off "very unfavorable" is extremely hard. It's completely anecdotal, but my Mom and one of my sisters are both staunch Republicans. My Mom is not far-right, but she's loyal and she's in her 80's and has never voted for a Democrat for president EVER. But she won't vote for Trump. She might not vote for Clinton, but she might stay home, or vote for every Republican on the ballot EXCEPT Trump. She will not vote for him, period. My sister is probably the same. But... the election won't be held today. He's got a lot of time to both "look Presidential" and to hammer Clinton. I don't think the former will work; it's just not who he is, but he might be able to make him self more broadly acceptable to Republicans who currently don't like him and right-leaning independents. Hammering Clinton is something he'll do non-stop. But... Clinton hasn't really started hammering him yet, either. And she could solidify his unfavorables. Lord knows there's plenty of material, and you just know they're stockpiling it, waiting to release it in waves.... some for July, some for August, some for September... She also has well-funded Superpacs who can kind of do the dirty work while she more quietly points out how manifestly unqualified he is and how his policies don't make sense (which won't make a lick of difference with his supporters, but does still matter to a certain slice of the electorate). So if I were betting, I'd still bet on Clinton. Indeed, the betting markets have her as a prohibitive favorite. But I don't discount the possibility of Trump winning, especially if some external event (like a terrorist attack) happens and frightens people. Fear makes otherwise sensible people do stupid things.
The only good thing about Trump running is that finally now more people will actually vote. I'm hoping and have faith that the voters have brains and don't vote for Trump. His followers scare me because they see his leadership as a shield for racism, plain and simple.
I have to agree Mr. X..........We cannot become complacent. I too have a very conservative/Republican friend. She told me that, though she does not want to vote for any Clinton; she will. (That in itself gives me hope.)
Not so sure about Colorado. The state is 20% Hispanic, though I am uncertain of how many are citizens. The State GOP decided to ignore the caucus participants and award all of the delegates to Cruz, which is odd as Holy Roller candidate types usually aren't that popular here. Unaffiliated voters are the largest group in Colorado, so it will depend a lot on who they swing for.
I'm basing it on what number-crunchers who get a lot more granular than I can say about Colorado. It's become a much bluer state than it once was - Obama carried it twice, they have a Dem. governor, and of course it became the first state to legalize pot (which isn't strictly a liberal position, but still). According to these number crunchers, Colorado is pretty purple as it is; if the Hispanic vote is anything close to what Romney got, that makes it awfully difficult for a Republican to win, and Trump will probably get clobbered even worse than Romney did there. I haven't seen the numbers, but I've heard new Hispanic registrations are through the roof in CA and FL. If that's the case in Colorado too, that means a lot of people who will probably vote (as same-year registrants typically do - otherwise, why bother to register?), which could mean a greater share of the vote will be Hispanic, as well as a lower percentage of that vote going to the Republican.
The Centennial State is an odd bird. On one hand it has a Dem Governor, but the state house leans to the GOP. It legalized pot but it's also one of the lowest taxed states (thanks to TABOR). When there are TABOR overrides on the ballot (to raise taxes) voters typically shoot them down, big time (as in 70% voting no). If anything, I would say that Coloradans lean towards Libertarian ideals, which probably explains why Dem and GOP candidates here tend to be a bit more centrist and why unaffiliated voters outnumber both Dem and GOP registered voters. That said, I think Trump has a chance of carrying Colorado in November. Not a sure thing, but it could happen.
Could. But not if Trump doesn't improve on Romney's numbers with Hispanics. I was born in Colorado, so it's one that I like to watch.
I love Colorado. I only spent the first two years of my life there, but spent extended time in Boulder every year of my childhood because that is where my Mom's parents lived. I always planned to move back to Boulder some day but life got in the way. I really regret that I never did. Never let life get in the way of your dreams.
People were saying that he couldn't win the nomination because of his lack of appeal to Hispanics and Holy Rollers. That's why Ted Cruz was supposed to be the guy who was going to stop him (even though his fellow GOP Senators despise him) as he is both Hispanic and a Fundy. There was quite a furor among GOP'ers here in Colorado when the state convention awarded all the delegates to Cruz when Trump actually won the vote. The state GOP actually came out and said said something along the lines of "we know better than the voters". Then again, the Dems do the same with their superdelegates; were it not for them Sanders would have had a chance of beating Hillary. As for me, I am one of the unaffiliated majority here in the Centennial state and will be voting for neither Trump or Hillary.
I think that a great deal will hinge on what the "Sanderistas" do this fall. If enough of them refuse to vote for Hillary and vote third party or not at all (I can't see too many, if any at all, voting for Trump) then Trump could win. It crosses my mind that had the GOP succeeded in getting Cruz nominated that many "Trumpistas" might have refused to vote for Cruz. I don't expect too many GOP'ers to vote for Hillary; despite the rhetoric early in the campaign by Trump opponents.
I don't remember anyone saying he couldn't win the NOMINATION because of lack of appeal to Hispanics. They're just not that important a constituency in the GOP, let alone the people who tend to turn out for primaries. Evangelicals, yeah, some people said that. But cannier people noted that the evangelical vote could be split early on between Cruz, Carson, Huckabee, and Santorum (plus others who fit somewhat into that camp). The latter two never got much traction this time, but Carson did for a while, the others took a few points in the early states, and that split meant it took quite a while for a single alternative to Trump to emerge, and when he did it was too late. [/QUOTE] Then again, the Dems do the same with their superdelegates; were it not for them Sanders would have had a chance of beating Hillary.[/QUOTE] Actually, she's leading handily in pledged delegates and will have well more than 50% of them in June. If the Democrats didn't have superdelegates, she'd have it locked up. Ironically (given the complaining Sanders has done about them), superdelegates are now his only hope; he's hoping he can do well enough in the last month to convince some who have favored Clinton to switch to him. Fivethirtyeight also ran a comparison, wondering how the Clinton/Sanders race would be if the Democrats allocated their delegates the way the GOP does (more winner-take-all or winner-take-all-by-CD-district states like the Republicans have). In that scenario she's actually beating him more badly than she is already. Sanders did better than most people expected. But under any scenario except superdelegate flipping, he just didn't get enough votes.
It is a huge difference between party nomination and the general election. The primaries are just one party for each. The rightest of right wing went out in droves to vote for Trump. The sane Republicans really had no options and not enough of the constituency bothered to even vote in the primaries. In the beginning no one thought that Trump had a chance, so why bother, what real choice did they have even though there were close to a gazillion people in the mix. Not a one was worth the gun powder to blow them to hell, so the loudest prevailed. The general election is another story. Although, as it looks now, we don't have a sterling group to vote for, so as it has been for a number of elections it's the lesser of the evils that we will choose. However, unless we really want Trump as president people must not just be disillusioned and not vote. Otherwise, we will have at least 4 years of loud mouth to deal with and if you think nothing got done before wait until you see what happens then. Well, the rich will get richer, but, the rest of us will be in deep do-do! It's alright to live in the world of knee jerk reaction when it is just leading up to the election, it's a whole other thing to actually deal with world reaction if Tangerine man wins. It will be scary .
